Sci-fi

Da Shins Kelly

I just watched E.T for the first time in years, and it's such a wonderful movie. I have to say though, that it's probably the only sci-fi movie I've seen that I actually enjoyed and felt emotionally involved in. I find sci-fi quite cold most of the time, and don't really get the genre for the most part.

Just wondering how people feel about sci-fi and what are people's favourite movies from the genre.

chin_grin

Dark City. Brilliant sci-fi flick.

Galvasean

Two recent sci-fi films that really draw you in and make you feel for the characters were Moon and Sunshine.
Not an alien between them I will have you know.

RichT

Alien and The Terminator are my favorite two of the genre.

Da Shins Kelly

Galvasean wrote: »

Two recent sci-fi films that really draw you in and make you feel for the characters were Moon and Sunshine.
Not an alien between them I will have you know.

Wasn't that crazy about Sunshine, but I've yet to see Moon. I intend on watching it soon.

krudler

Is The Fountain sci-fi? then that.

Mickeroo

krudler wrote: »

Is The Fountain sci-fi? then that.

I would consider it to be yeah

although in my interpretation of it none of the bits with the conquistadore or in the future where hes bald literally happened

Turtyturd

District 9 is one of my favourite recent Sci-fi movies, no concepts that are gonna blow you away but it is enjoyable and easy to connect with.

Goldstein

Are you curious about the future? I mean really intrigued by and how all aspects of humanity will develop? Do you or did you at one time have a vivid imagination? Do you look up on clear nights and realise the wondrous hopelessness of trying to comprehend what you're perceiving? Do you read? Some of the above are some core traits often found in lovers of speculative fiction.

Alternatively watch: Children of Men, Gattaca, District 9, Solyaris, Forbidden Planet and Primer. You will have your answer.

Fysh

A lot of higher-budget sci-fi films fail to marry together a traditional narrative in terms of character development and structure with the speculative/fantastic aspects, because the genre as a whole is better suited to longer-form narratives than are usually possible in film.

Which is another way of saying that, the higher the budget, the greater the chances the studio financing a film will decide to test-audience the film and change it to try and guarantee high returns. Which is why you get something like Avatar which is very high budget with a script that's best described as "simple" (though it still made wagonloads of cash) while smaller, lower-budget films can get away with not having to test for audience appeal quite so much.

It's not like sci-fi has to require robots, spaceships, aliens or explosions, either. The Tarkovsky Solaris, The Stalker and Gattaca are three of my favourite sci-fi films because what makes them work is the very human narrative about how people react to changes to their world.

There are loads of good science-fiction films to choose from, though. I've tried to list a bunch of good ones below, listed by the broad theme that best describes it (though some films span multiple themes).

Encounters with alien life:
John Carpenter's The Thing
the 1978 Invasion Of The Body Snatchers
Alien
Tarkovsky's Solaris

Scientific developments with unforeseen consequences:
The Fly
The Iron Giant
Code 46
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind
Gattaca
Demon Seed
The Boys From Brazil

Visions of the future (usually dystopian or technocratic in nature):
Moon
THX-1138
The Matrix
The Divide
Fritz Lang's Metropolis
Equilibrium
Soylent Green
Videodrome
Brazil
Miracle Mile

Trasnhumanism/the boundary between humans & machines:
RoboCop
Ghost In The Shell
Tetsuo: The Iron Man
Pi
Blade Runner

Time Travel:
Primer
Timecrimes
The Jacket
12 Monkeys

I would say all of these films are worth checking out if you're interested in learning more about good science fiction.

johnny_ultimate

I've never quite understood how people can write off an entire, diverse genre of films (tangent: although I also think 'genre' is far from the ideal classification for film, but that's a different argument altogether). Even the rom-com - perhaps the most common example of formulaic and 'generic' cinema - has plenty of shining lights amongst the turds. I'd barely even consider ET sci-fi in the traditional sense: more of a family adventure / serial with fantastical elements, really.

Hard to say anymore than Fysh's post above. Sure you can view sci-fi in its traditional space operatic sense (although Serenity is and perhaps forever shall be the finest example of that particular style) but there's so much more out there. From the grim, post-apocalyptic Stalker, to a very different take on similar ideas in Wall-E, so many films contain sci-fi elements that the label becomes something much more than a mere genre.

don ramo

idependance day is on tomorrow on RTE 2 at 9, nice popcorn flick,

TBH some people over analyse sci-fi, its purely hit and miss with each person, and your either a sci-fi head or not, no shame either way,

RichieC

my favourite genre...

Independence day is complete drek, though. it is everything that is wrong with modern cinema in one film.

Cant wait for Hyperion. incredible books. relly hope it does them justice.

Skerries

I'm also looking forward to Enders Game

Mickeroo

RichieC wrote: »

my favourite genre...

Independence day is complete drek, though. it is everything that is wrong with modern cinema in one film.

Cant wait for Hyperion. incredible books. relly hope it does them justice.

They're making a Hyperion film?? No Way!! To do it justice they'd need to make a movie of each traveller's backstories imo, which would be fine by me


Watching Wall-E on RTE1 at the mo, great film and one of the few true sci-fi films that manages to appeal to a wider audience!

Da Shins Kelly

Mickeroo wrote: »

Watching Wall-E on RTE1 at the mo, great film and one of the few true sci-fi films that manages to appeal to a wider audience!

I only just remembered Wall-E when I saw it was on today. It's great. Definitely Pixar's best, in my opinion.

Da Shins Kelly

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I've never quite understood how people can write off an entire, diverse genre of films (tangent: although I also think 'genre' is far from the ideal classification for film, but that's a different argument altogether). Even the rom-com - perhaps the most common example of formulaic and 'generic' cinema - has plenty of shining lights amongst the turds. I'd barely even consider ET sci-fi in the traditional sense: more of a family adventure / serial with fantastical elements, really.

Hard to say anymore than Fysh's post above. Sure you can view sci-fi in its traditional space operatic sense (although Serenity is and perhaps forever shall be the finest example of that particular style) but there's so much more out there. From the grim, post-apocalyptic Stalker, to a very different take on similar ideas in Wall-E, so many films contain sci-fi elements that the label becomes something much more than a mere genre.

I'm not writing it off. I haven't seen every single thing that sci-fi has to offer, so how could I write it off? I'm just saying that what I have seen of it for the most part leaves me a bit cold. I intend on watching a few more to try and get into it a bit more, that's why I'm asking people what ones they like. I'm using the term 'genre' just to cover what I'm talking about here (and I know it's not just aliens and space) because I don't know what other term to use that will capture what I'm talking about.

I also think ET is pretty sci-fi. Maybe sci-fi for the family, but sci-fi nonetheless.

johnny_ultimate

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I'm not writing it off. I haven't seen every single thing that sci-fi has to offer, so how could I write it off? I'm just saying that what I have seen of it for the most part leaves me a bit cold. I intend on watching a few more to try and get into it a bit more, that's why I'm asking people what ones they like. I'm using the term 'genre' just to cover what I'm talking about here (and I know it's not just aliens and space) because I don't know what other term to use that will capture what I'm talking about.

I also think ET is pretty sci-fi. Maybe sci-fi for the family, but sci-fi nonetheless.

Well I was just going off what you said in the OP about ET being "the only sci-fi movie I've seen that I actually enjoyed"

But yes, check out some of the diverse films Fysh mentioned and hopefully that statement will soon be rendered redundant

Mickeroo

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I'm not writing it off. I haven't seen every single thing that sci-fi has to offer, so how could I write it off? I'm just saying that what I have seen of it for the most part leaves me a bit cold. I intend on watching a few more to try and get into it a bit more, that's why I'm asking people what ones they like. I'm using the term 'genre' just to cover what I'm talking about here (and I know it's not just aliens and space) because I don't know what other term to use that will capture what I'm talking about.

I also think ET is pretty sci-fi. Maybe sci-fi for the family, but sci-fi nonetheless.

You should also give Serenity a watch, brilliant mash-up of westerns and the space opera. Although I would recommend watching the 14 episodes of Firefly first (not essential though, i saw the film first).

adox

If you liked the feel good factor of E.T. Then I'd highly recommend an often overlooked John Carpenter film -Starman.

Great lead performance fron Jeff Bridges and it's a beautiful story.

nyarlothothep

When done well no other genre holds a candle to it. The best films of all time are exclusively sci fi.

Technocentral

I love sci fi but since the 80's the best examples of it have probably been on TV rather than in the cinema, Moon probably been the exception.

My favorites are

1. Blade Runner
2. 2001
3. Alien
4. Solaris (1972)
5. Aliens
6. Empire Strikes Back
7. The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951)
8. Terminator 2
9. 2010 (1984)
10. Moon

johnny_ultimate

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The best films of all time are exclusively sci fi.

Can always rely on your posts for a good chuckle What absolute nonsense.

Technocentral

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I'm not writing it off. I haven't seen every single thing that sci-fi has to offer, so how could I write it off? I'm just saying that what I have seen of it for the most part leaves me a bit cold. I intend on watching a few more to try and get into it a bit more, that's why I'm asking people what ones they like. I'm using the term 'genre' just to cover what I'm talking about here (and I know it's not just aliens and space) because I don't know what other term to use that will capture what I'm talking about.

I also think ET is pretty sci-fi. Maybe sci-fi for the family, but sci-fi nonetheless.

Its a good film but I've never thought of ET as sci fi to be honest, more a kids film where ET could easily have been a dog or a fairy they found at the bottom of the garden.

Galvasean

Technocentral wrote: »

Its a good film but I've never thought of ET as sci fi to be honest, more a kids film where ET could easily have been a dog or a fairy they found at the bottom of the garden.

In it's purest definition it is not really sci-fi, but the meaning of the term has changed much over the decades. In the colloquial sense sci-fi stretches to pretty much anything that has aliens, spaceships, advanced robots or time travel. That's probably the use of the term most people would be familiar with.

Oranage2

Excellent Genre - Look how many of the top grossing movies are sci-fi. Actually only Passion of the Christ* isnt some sort of fantasty/sci-fi




1. Avatar (2009) $760,505,847
2. Titanic (1997) $600,779,824
3. The Dark Knight (2008) $533,316,061
4. Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) $460,935,665
5. Shrek 2 (2004) $436,471,036
6. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) $434,949,459
7. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $431,065,444
8. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) $423,032,628
9. Toy Story 3 (2010) $414,984,497
10. Spider-Man (2002) $403,706,375
11. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) $402,076,689
12. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011) $380,955,619
13. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) $380,262,555
14. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $377,019,252
15. Spider-Man 2 (2004) $373,377,893
16. The Passion of the Christ (2004) $370,270,943
17. Jurassic Park (1993) $356,784,000


http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross



* I joke.

Galvasean

^^ Some of those high grossers are absolute cack though (not you my beloved*).
Transformers 2 and Star Wars Ep 1 are not exactly what I would call top notch sci-fi.


*beloved = Jurassic Park

karma_

Close encounters deserves a mention. A fantastic sci-fi flick that holds up amazingly well today. If you haven't watched it in a while then I would definitely urge anyone to revisit it.

Fysh

karma_ wrote: »

Close encounters deserves a mention. A fantastic sci-fi flick that holds up amazingly well today. If you haven't watched it in a while then I would definitely urge anyone to revisit it.

That's a good point actually, can't believe I forgot it - I was only watching it there on TV a few weeks ago! An excellent alien contact film that has aged really well.

nyarlothothep

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Can always rely on your posts for a good chuckle What absolute nonsense.

What are you talking about? Tell me 2001, Blade Runner, Alien, Aliens, Robocop, Freejack, Total Recall, The Matrix and 12 Monkeys etc aren't the greatest films ever made. Seriously what would you recommend? Some adult drama about relationships which was somewhat philosophical (but not as much as sci fi film, the perfect vehicle for exploring the limitations of human understanding, and there are few pursuits on an equal level which give existence profound meaning) and preferably in a different language. What would you have me say, some politically correct nonsense that all genres are equal and its down to the individual film? ppffft yeah right.

johnny_ultimate

nyarlothothep wrote: »

What are you talking about? Tell me 2001, Blade Runner, Alien, Aliens, Robocop, Freejack, Total Recall, The Matrix and 12 Monkeys etc aren't the greatest films ever made. Seriously what would you recommend? Some adult drama about relationships which was somewhat philosophical (but not as much as sci fi film, the perfect vehicle for exploring the limitations of human understanding, and there are few pursuits on an equal level which give existence profound meaning) and preferably in a different language. What would you have me say, some politically correct nonsense that all genres are equal and its down to the individual film? ppffft yeah right.

I love these little arguments when I don't even have to waste my time replying.

Fysh

Oh yay, another thread where nyarlathotep comes out with some preposterous assertion.

Personally I have problems putting Total Recall on any "greatest films ever made" list, for starters - I adore the short story on which it's based, and the film is grand but tbh it's in the same mental category as They Live for me, a fun but totally daft movie.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't hold a candle against A Clockwork Orange, 16 Years Of Alcohol, Blazing Saddles, Dogtooth or 12 Angry Men. You could maybe argue that A Clockwork Orange is sci-fi, but the rest of them are other genres and manage to be no less exceptional despite not addressing the genre concerns associated with science fiction in anyway.

Is it too late to head this entire ridiculous argument off by pointing out that taste and opinions are personal things and thus subject to personal mileage? (Or, failing that, to appeal to ego and suggest that if you know your own taste in films, you don't need the validation of having other people agree with you?) I hope not, as this thread has thus far been quite a positive and enjoyable discussion of different sci-fi films that people would recommend as an introduction to the genre.

Da Shins Kelly

Technocentral wrote: »

Its a good film but I've never thought of ET as sci fi to be honest, more a kids film where ET could easily have been a dog or a fairy they found at the bottom of the garden.

I don't think so. It's a 'coming of age by encountering "the other"' sort of a film, but I don't think that E.T could have been a dog or some such given the message of the movie seems to be mainly about tolerance and accepting those who are different. Dogs are not exactly 'different'.

The movie does have sci-fi elements though given everything that happens in it, from an actual alien encounter, to government sponsored scientists taking E.T away to do experiments on him. That's all pretty sci-fi. Of course it's made to appeal to children, and so it's as much about adventure and all that too, but there are definitely sc-fi elements in it.

nyarlothothep

Fysh wrote: »

Oh yay, another thread where nyarlathotep comes out with some preposterous assertion.

Personally I have problems putting Total Recall on any "greatest films ever made" list, for starters - I adore the short story on which it's based, and the film is grand but tbh it's in the same mental category as They Live for me, a fun but totally daft movie.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't hold a candle against A Clockwork Orange, 16 Years Of Alcohol, Blazing Saddles, Dogtooth or 12 Angry Men. You could maybe argue that A Clockwork Orange is sci-fi, but the rest of them are other genres and manage to be no less exceptional despite not addressing the genre concerns associated with science fiction in anyway.

Is it too late to head this entire ridiculous argument off by pointing out that taste and opinions are personal things and thus subject to personal mileage? (Or, failing that, to appeal to ego and suggest that if you know your own taste in films, you don't need the validation of having other people agree with you?) I hope not, as this thread has thus far been quite a positive and enjoyable discussion of different sci-fi films that people would recommend as an introduction to the genre.

Dude, come on, admit it, so you like Total Recall more than you like Lars Von Tier fare, everyone likes TR, why? Because its a great film, philosophical depth or "darkness" doesn't have to be the criteria for great films, TR does what it does so well that it is great. And what is easily missed with these films is that Paul Verhoven films are quite deep beneath the surface absurdity. Robocop is a Jesus Christ metaphor story and also about a man trying to reclaim his soul against its appropriation by OCP, at epistemological and ontological levels I will say that its pretty deep and poignant. The film ends so perfectly, there's no artifice or pretension to it, yet it is quite philosophically moving when viewed within the context of the whole film, Robocop is asked "what's your name son" and he regains himself by saying "Murphy." The film cuts to The End, the riling score accompanies it, its a powerful and perfect end to a great film. Yeah so you could watch Three Colours Red and say ooh thats deep but meh, I think in terms of what the cinematic medium is, a fusion of the novel and spectacle, sci fi kicks ass and is simply the most enjoyable genre to see up there on the silver screen. Its the perfect medium to explore what if questions which I think are relevant to existential experience.


Furthermore Star Wars is a fcking classic film, its fcking awesome, and anyone who says its a sub par film is simply wrong. Yeah the plot is simple and cliched, so fckgin what, film is a medium of the spectacle, of the visual, Star Wars basically is instrumental in distinguishing the BC from the AD, the Juarrasic from the age of Mammals, it is the filmic equivalent of the age of fire or the age of the nuclear, its the reason for CGI, it brought visual effects to an entirely new level and revolutionized cinema through this. If you disregard this you disregard a fundamental aspect of what cinema is, for this reason alone Star War is a classic film, its got an unmoveable place in the history of film for having completely revolutionized vfx and special effects and for having rejuvenated the sci fi genre, everything from the Matrix to TNG to anything since owes its existence to it. To disregard it, to write it off is to not acknowledge fact, and I say this as not much of a fan of Star Wars anymore.

Sad Professor

You’re giving Star Wars way too much credit. It did not revolutionise cinema. From a technical perspective and in terms of the sci-fi genre, 2001 was far more significant. The main thing Star Wars revolutionised was the Hollywood blockbuster and studio system. Where as Kubrick took a film genre that was an embarrassment to itself and made it respectable, and he created special effects that were truly ground breaking. There wouldn’t have been a Star Wars if not for 2001, even Lucas says so.

And I don’t see how TNG owes its existence to Star Wars either. Star Trek predates Star Wars. There mightn’t have been a Star Trek film if not for the success of Star Wars, but TNG could easily have happened without it.

Technocentral

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I don't think so. It's a 'coming of age by encountering "the other"' sort of a film, but I don't think that E.T could have been a dog or some such given the message of the movie seems to be mainly about tolerance and accepting those who are different. Dogs are not exactly 'different'.

The movie does have sci-fi elements though given everything that happens in it, from an actual alien encounter, to government sponsored scientists taking E.T away to do experiments on him. That's all pretty sci-fi. Of course it's made to appeal to children, and so it's as much about adventure and all that too, but there are definitely sc-fi elements in it.

What if I had said magic dog?

Da Shins Kelly

Technocentral wrote: »

What if I had said magic dog?

Well. That would just change everything!

adox

adox wrote: »

If you liked the feel good factor of E.T. Then I'd highly recommend an often overlooked John Carpenter film -Starman.

Great lead performance fron Jeff Bridges and it's a beautiful story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrFj5ZoTRXs

p to the e

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Robocop is a Jesus Christ metaphor story and also about a man trying to reclaim his soul against its appropriation by OCP, at epistemological and ontological levels I will say that its pretty deep and poignant. The film ends so perfectly, there's no artifice or pretension to it, yet it is quite philosophically moving when viewed within the context of the whole film, Robocop is asked "what's your name son" and he regains himself by saying "Murphy." The film cuts to The End, the riling score accompanies it, its a powerful and perfect end to a great film.

Oh dear oh dear!

Moving on it's hard to pin down some films as pure Sci-Fi without mentioning it in relation to horror, action or even a love story e.g. Alien(s), Terminator (2), The Thing etc. It's almost like Sci-Fi films are an add on to a film genre (expects ear bashing).

The best Sci Fi related film I've seen in a long while has to be Sunshine by Danny Boyle. I did enjoy Moon but this was far better IMO.

On another note I posted elsewhere about how there's a film version of Neuromancer on the way apparently.

johnny_ultimate

Sad Professor wrote: »

You’re giving Star Wars way too much credit. It did not revolutionise cinema. From a technical perspective and in terms of the sci-fi genre, 2001 was far more significant. The main thing Star Wars revolutionised was the Hollywood blockbuster and studio system. Where as Kubrick took a film genre that was an embarrassment to itself and made it respectable, and he created special effects that were truly ground breaking. There wouldn’t have been a Star Wars if not for 2001, even Lucas says so.

Indeed. The only reason Star Wars enjoys the general consensus that it does is because it was the first of its kind, and is to this day rewatched with nostalgic glasses of a rose tint. As a film, it is often shoddily written, directed and acted, but gets by on its healthy amount of iconic setpieces and characters. I can't fully hate on it - I, like many, was bewitched by it as a young lad - but watching the original cut of a New Hope recently shone a harsh spotlight on its flaws.

If anything, Star Wars' effect and influence on cinema has been a wholly negative one: shifting the mainstream focus to expensive, shallow event movies. Before Star Wars, popular cinema was a far richer medium than it is today.

nyarlothothep

Sad Professor wrote: »

You’re giving Star Wars way too much credit. It did not revolutionise cinema. From a technical perspective and in terms of the sci-fi genre, 2001 was far more significant. The main thing Star Wars revolutionised was the Hollywood blockbuster and studio system. Where as Kubrick took a film genre that was an embarrassment to itself and made it respectable, and he created special effects that were truly ground breaking. There wouldn’t have been a Star Wars if not for 2001, even Lucas says so.

And I don’t see how TNG owes its existence to Star Wars either. Star Trek predates Star Wars. There mightn’t have been a Star Trek film if not for the success of Star Wars, but TNG could easily have happened without it.

The visual effects in 2001 were good but not a patch on those of Star Wars. Star Wars got the mixture just right, it was made when the technology and skills came together just at the right time in the right place. Star Wars revitalized the sci fi genre. Without it there would be no Star Trek spin off series, without it TNG would never have been made and if it were it wouldn't have quality space scenes.

Galvasean

nyarlothothep, would you not agree that films from other genres are right up there with the best sci-fi movies?
The Godfather, Shawshank Redemption, Gladiator, Pulp Fiction, Schindler's List, Dr. Strangelove, Seven Samurai - take your pick.
Surely they rival top sci-fis?

FWIW, sci-fi is my favourite genre.

Fysh

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Dude, come on, admit it, so you like Total Recall more than you like Lars Von Tier fare, everyone likes TR, why? Because its a great film, philosophical depth or "darkness" doesn't have to be the criteria for great films, TR does what it does so well that it is great. And what is easily missed with these films is that Paul Verhoven films are quite deep beneath the surface absurdity. Robocop is a Jesus Christ metaphor story and also about a man trying to reclaim his soul against its appropriation by OCP, at epistemological and ontological levels I will say that its pretty deep and poignant. The film ends so perfectly, there's no artifice or pretension to it, yet it is quite philosophically moving when viewed within the context of the whole film, Robocop is asked "what's your name son" and he regains himself by saying "Murphy." The film cuts to The End, the riling score accompanies it, its a powerful and perfect end to a great film. Yeah so you could watch Three Colours Red and say ooh thats deep but meh, I think in terms of what the cinematic medium is, a fusion of the novel and spectacle, sci fi kicks ass and is simply the most enjoyable genre to see up there on the silver screen. Its the perfect medium to explore what if questions which I think are relevant to existential experience.

I'm not getting dragged into another thoroughly pointless conversation with you when by now we both now we've got divergent opinions on film.

Personally TR did nothing much for me - it's just one of many bombastic and somewhat pointless action films, that happens along the way to be a crap adaptation of an excellent short story. Given the choice I'd not bother rewatching it ever again, and there are many films I'd prefer to watch in its stead, several of von Trier's included.

Of course, me having a low opinion of it should have no impact on you enjoying it, which makes me wonder why you'd feel compelled to post something as demonstrably wrong as "everyone loves total recall".

Furthermore Star Wars is a fcking classic film, its fcking awesome, and anyone who says its a sub par film is simply wrong. Yeah the plot is simple and cliched, so fckgin what, film is a medium of the spectacle, of the visual, Star Wars basically is instrumental in distinguishing the BC from the AD, the Juarrasic from the age of Mammals, it is the filmic equivalent of the age of fire or the age of the nuclear, its the reason for CGI, it brought visual effects to an entirely new level and revolutionized cinema through this. If you disregard this you disregard a fundamental aspect of what cinema is, for this reason alone Star War is a classic film, its got an unmoveable place in the history of film for having completely revolutionized vfx and special effects and for having rejuvenated the sci fi genre, everything from the Matrix to TNG to anything since owes its existence to it. To disregard it, to write it off is to not acknowledge fact, and I say this as not much of a fan of Star Wars anymore.

Meh, personally Star Wars isn't all that. Technically it was impressive, sure, but in terms of narrative, character and thematic development it was and is a fairly bland piece of film. Which is a bit of a shame, as THX-1138 showed promise in that regard.

It did definitely have a touch of being the right film at the right time, both in terms of the hollywood film-making business and in terms of being attuned to what a mass audience wanted. It's still a juvenile film for all that.

I should hope it's taken as a given that I strongly refute your suggestion that by necessity all great films are sci-fi. I also think you'll miss out on a lot of excellent films if you dismiss everything outside the genre, but given that our taste in film differs substantially perhaps you disagree.

johnny_ultimate

Please folks, I have seen many a thread ruined by trying to engage in logical, sensible debate with the profoundly illogical nyarlothothep. No-one wins in these situations.

Let's just get back to re-emphasizing how amazing Serenity is, and how it's the film George Lucas wanted to make but never had the skill to.

Cardinal Richelieu

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Please folks, I have seen many a thread ruined by trying to engage in logical, sensible debate with the profoundly illogical nyarlothothep. No-one wins in these situations.

Let's just get back to re-emphasizing how amazing Serenity is, and how it's the film George Lucas wanted to make but never had the skill to.

How come its so amazing but no sequel or spin-off?

johnny_ultimate

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

How come its so amazing but no sequel or spin-off?

Money: the only thing that can stop the signal.

Love, for all its virtues, is not good enough.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Please folks, I have seen many a thread ruined by trying to engage in logical, sensible debate with the profoundly illogical nyarlothothep. No-one wins in these situations.

Let's just get back to re-emphasizing how amazing Serenity is, and how it's the film George Lucas wanted to make but never had the skill to.

I'm sure his ego is massaged a little when he's able to sit back and reflect on how superior he is considering what an intellectual he is.

I think that there's far too much emphasis put on trying to categorize sci-fi using very narrow parameters. For most people, sci-fi is nothing more than aliens invading. I know one guy who wrote off Attack the Block as nothing more than Adulthood with aliens. It's a nice little line for a reviewer to summaries the film in the easiest manner possible but in doing so you ignore the many different areas the film delves into.

Mickeroo

I'm surprised nobody has pointed to that big fat elephant in the room yet. You know the one that says Star Wars is not a sci-fi movie?










sorry guys :pac:

Galvasean

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm surprised nobody has pointed to that big fat elephant in the room yet. You know the one that says Star Wars is not a sci-fi movie?

sorry guys :pac:

I touched on the point earlier that nowadays the term sc-fi in the colloquial sense generally refers to anything involving aliens, spaceships, robots, time travel or mutants.
The original Star Wars is like an awesome space western. That's right I said awesome. I don't care if the Firefly Fan Fare don't think it is.

Mickeroo

Galvasean wrote: »

I touched on the point earlier that nowadays the term sc-fi in the colloquial sense generally refers to anything involving aliens, spaceships, robots, time travel or mutants.
The original Star Wars is like an awesome space western. That's right I said awesome. I don't care if the Firefly Fan Fare don't think it is.

I agree that it was awesome.

WatchWolf

Galvasean wrote: »

I touched on the point earlier that nowadays the term sc-fi in the colloquial sense generally refers to anything involving aliens, spaceships, robots, time travel or mutants.
The original Star Wars is like an awesome space western. That's right I said awesome. I don't care if the Firefly Fan Fare don't think it is.

In what way do you think it is like a western?