 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
From Cinescape (Jan/Feb 1997):1- 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
2- Star Wars (1977)
3- Blade Runner (1982)
4- Metropolis (1986)
5- The Terminator (1984)
6- Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
7- Alien (1979)
8- The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951)
9- Le Voyage dans la Lune (1903)
10- Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
11- Things To Come (1936)
12- A Clockwork Orange (1971)
13- Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
14- The Thing (1951)
15- Mad Max 2 (1981)
16- Planet of the Apes (1968)
17- Aliens (1986)
18- The Andromeda Strain (1970)
19- Forbidden Planet (1956)
20- War of the Worlds (1953)
Follow Ups:
» moderate Mart £ « Planar Asylum
I tried to get a bunch of them this week and they were rather pricey. Don't know if they're expensive everywhere, or if they're produced primarily for collectors at premium prices. Anybody got a (relatively) cheap source?
relatively inexpensive (I don't like to use the word cheap)? Have
you tried www.amazon.com? - AH
/
I can see how it was influenced...anyone think it will stand the test of time?mp
I think the fears Gattaca expresses about the potential abuses of genetic information are bound to materialize (call me a pessimist), so it will remain a relatively important movie. Still, I don't think there's anything so outstanding about it that other filmmakers will imitate. Guess it depends on what you mean by influential.
People don't care. They will keep trudging along as usual. They want it. They want total "security". Think about it. People are using credit cards to buy gum at Walley world. They want a cashless society. What's next? THE MARK OF THE BEAST! Even if you're not a conspiracy theorist, good grief, the bible spells it out exactly as it's happening.On a heavier note, If you can find it, please read "En route to global occupation" by Gary Kah. Gattica is interesting, this book is the real world version of what's going on.
...has Simone been released yet ?
cheerio
Good moments in it, although I felt like the films was lampooned by its ending.
n
Many people call the genre kiddy-crap, and only discuss these movies in terms of their special effects.I thought about it quite a bit, and I do think the top 3 in the list are quite possibly valid as to their influence on later movies. I do not particularly like 2001, but it is/was very influential for people of my generation. Especially if one puts it in context of the manned space exploration heyday, before the first manned moon landing. At that time, the way things were going with technology and space exploration, 2001 truly seemed very potentially imminently possible. So this made people, at the time, take it much more seriously than JUST a sci-fi movie.
Unfortunately, many of the older movies in the list I haven't seen (I even have 10 of them on DVD), so I can only guess that some of them may have deserved a higher placing. I suspect the ordering would depend a lot on the age of the person(s) who compiled the list, so that the movies could be judged more contextually with the time they came out. I would guess the people who made the list are around my age, and people in their 20's would have a different list with many of the same newer movies, but definitely with The Matrix on it.
...and a sweeping assumption it was too, that the original post referenced sci-fi movies that were influential on other films, not pop culture generally.I've seen 'em all, and I stand by my assertion of Metropolis at #1.
I heartily agree about 2001, I can certainly remember the impact it had on me when I first saw it as a young teen.
.
"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can not bomb the world to peace"
All significant films but not, I would say, influential. Them! and On the Beach are very much products of their time (Cold War). Many film buffs, scholars and directors admire Solaris, but no one has really tried to duplicate its pacing and psychological/metaphysical probings...including, I bet, the remake.I have bad feelings about Soderberg's Solaris, I would love to be wrong.
If we're talking about *influential* sci-fi films, influential in the historical sense, the original Metropolis has to be #1. It's one of the wellsprings of speculative visual design.It's been thematically significant, sure. But visually Metropolis has had an incredible influence on the look of scifi and fantasy films for over 75 years. People have been influenced by Metropolis' art direction at second and third hand, heck - I bet some pups didn't even realize it was Metroplis they were referencing.
Look at a picture of Maria the robot. Now look at a picture of C-3PO.
IMO Metropolis has passed from "influential" to iconographic.
While the original version has long been lost and the cuts that remain make for a fairly disjointed (maybe even silly) story, every science fiction film made since 1926 owes something to Fritz Langs Metropolis, it would have to the #1 most singularly influential Science Fiction film ever and would've been a real eye opener for 1920's audiences too don'tcha think?
Eric
Tokyo
I think "Journey to the Center of the Earth" was very influential, as was "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea". And how about "The Time Machine"? It's hard to imagine a list of influential Sci-Fi without Jules Verne (not counting "Voyage to the Moon", which made the list only because it was so early).Which came first, "Back to the Future" or "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"? I think one should be on the list.
Sci-Fi isn't all space opera, you know.
Ted
I'm not sure which movie to list in this genre, but certainly one of the Superman/Batman or other flicks should be on the list.Ted
hehehe... I wonder if they will ever come out with that one?
shape of an icecube!
My sis and I did that all the time,
what a goofy pair we were:o)mp
.jpg)
vv
"The Incredible Shrinking Man"Regards
BF
Not SF, but certainly very influencial in SF.
KP
I would take out Aliens and Invasion Of The Body snatchers.
I would add in Slaughter House Five and THX1138.
Cheers
John K
it's a good list of good films.those films i think would be a study of the eras they came from. i don't know much about the pre-fifties at this point, but maybe in the fifties, there was a feeling of paranoia which resulted in some great sci-fi films of that era.
was it 'the day the earth stood still' a study of paranoia of one's neighbors? a bit like the more current non sci-fi 'arlington road'.
sci-fi captures the imagination of the society in some way at that time. what makes 'invasion of the body snatchers' a 50's film, and matrix a more current film?
would matrix really have been as useful in the 50's?
there's alot to study here.
and 1984mp
It's brilliant...and there's that Metropolis influence again ;-)But I'm wondering, how "influential" Brazil really is??? Which movies are descended from it? (Excepting Gilliam's own, of course!) Dark City? What? I'm drawing a blank.
There's a difference between influential and significant.
The list of really GOOD sci-fi is depressingly short.
in subtle ways, it has influenced many films, not all science fiction.
I see elements of Brazil in the Matrix. Goverment being more omnipotent and omnicsient than a particular god. No escaping your destiny or the feeling thereof, perception. The gloominess, and prevelent idea that the core of the individual must be destroyed for the benefit of the group. It also seems to have influenced creators of the Fifth Element, and Hudson Hawk. I Could be totally wrong though, it's been known to happen on occasion :o)mp
I myself am sometimes also wrong, so I can recognize it in others ;-)> > The gloominess, and prevelent idea that the core of the individual must be destroyed for the benefit of the group < <
Capitalism in a nutshell, if you ask me. Don't have to watch Brazil or read George Orwell to see where we're headed (or already are).
or communism or totalitarianism?Capitalism reveres the individual?
mp
Capitalism splits the individual in two, consumer and producer, in order to appropriate the individual for its own self-propagating purposes.
Take some individual responsibility in your life! Capitalism "splits the individual in two"???? What a load of horseshit! Said like someone who wants to whine about their lack of self-worth. Try producing something, and maybe you'll resolve your schizophrenia issues.
I gave at the office!
Speaks volumes about your view point of view.Self-worth derived through producing something of quality to fill a real need and making an honest profit while you're at it: that's valuable.
Self-worth derived from mindlessly stamping out millions of low-quality, over-priced objects destined for users to which the producer has no or little real connection, to fill "needs" created largely by marketing and advertising: that's mind-numbing, spirit-crushing.
The first scenario is capitalism -The second is sheep like masses (who have no one to blame but themselves) not using good judgement and opportunist businessmen taking advantage.
The difference between capitalism and totalitarianism is that in capitalism, you can choose to "follow the herd" or not. In Totalitarianism, the opportunists have guns.
( I can't baelieve you made me type totalitarianism twice this early in the morning - Doh! that's three times!)
I gave at the office!
> > The second is sheep like masses (who have no one to blame but themselves) < <Not when the mindset that allows this to happen is inculcated in the very young, as in our current public school system. Perhaps you'd be surprised to find how many Americans believe the school system is actually designed to educate and that it produces healthy, critically-minded citizens. Rather, it produces carefully "engineered" citizens who are ignorant of the contradictions in their own situations and easy to manipulate. This is close to what Orwell describes as the ability to hold two contradictory notions at the same time.
Also, the comparison to sheep doesn't really work. Sheep don't "blame."
the proof is in the pudding, and capitalism works. Name a single country that has a greater standard of living, few equal even? And the taxes the people pay in European communitites would alarm you, give you real nightmares. Inculcate, yes, I'm a teacher and that is a starting point to develop a group culture. That happens in any system. The same exact thing happens in families.. you guide your children to suit the needs of the family. We are governed to suit the needs of the governed. No our goverment/system is not perfect, none is, but like I said, name a better one...I suppose you would like a dictator?mp
Cool. I dig teachers. I'm engaged to one. My best friends are teachers. I am a teacher. And teachers are the best-intentioned people I know. Unfortunately, few of them have any idea of the historical or theoretical foundations of the institutions in which they work. Have you read Paulo Freire? How about John Gatto? I'd be happy to tell you about them off-board, but this thread has gone astray from the intended purpose of this forum.BTW, unappareled access to materials goods is NOT a measure of quality of life. Nor is heavy taxation necessarily an indication of a poor quality of life.
among others. So is being able to own a computer and share the ideas we are sharing, do you understand that some don't share in that freedom?mp
Certainly, but that doesn't make this "the best of all possible worlds."
the best world, referring to western and in particular capitalistic economic systems,....it's the best out there so far though. The whole thread started because you compared capitalism to the oppression in brazil and 1984?mp
First you're a closet lassez-faire-ist (just made that word up!), and now you are for privatizing schools! Right on, man! Power to the individual!
I gave at the office!
It sounds like he may still be in college...
ah, to be young again.
I remember taking things for granted when I was his age.
When I moved to Miami, and heard the hardships of people living in Cuba, Columbia, and Mexico...I had a wake up call.My friend in Columbia told me when she was young, the police would frequently raid her home for items her parents brought back from the states. They would even take clothes and perfume. She said she would overhear them discussing how to divide the goods.
My husband and his family where forced to leave Cuba in 1970, with only the clothes they were wearing and their passports. They could not take any of their possessions, not even pictures. And you know what, they were lucky.
mp
A professor.
something ridiculous like "capitalism splits the indvidual in two" and then not be able to back up this nonsensical statement.And then say Brazil and 1984 illustrate the pitfalls of capitalism.
That is laughable!I have asked you to supply some ideas and you can't you just talk about prefering regimes and systems that clearly oppress individuals rather than that nasty covert capitalistic oppression.
If, IF, you are a professor.....oh lord!
mpare you joking with us?:o)
> > you can't you just talk about prefering regimes and systems that clearly oppress individuals rather than that nasty covert capitalistic oppression. < <I think that what we are HEADING FOR may end up being worse than the overt oppression you're talking about. I don't PREFER either, but despise both.
schools are jailkeepers?
What about parents, are they jailkeepers too?
Don't children go to school in this perfect economic/political system you have created for yourself, and only you, because you won't share it with us.mp
To begin with, I deleted that comment. Take a look.Second, I did not claim that Brazil and 1984 illustrate my point in the way you are construing me to have claimed. 'Twas your description of the world presented there that I responded to. > > The gloominess, and prevelent idea that the core of the individual must be destroyed for the benefit of the group < < I see the same thing happening in our post-capitalist society. But you want to see Brazil and 1984 as being about totalitarianism and totalitarianism only. Disregarding that mistake, I'm arguing simply that some of the mind-control techniques shown in those films are present today in America (take corporate implanting on young consumers, for example, like the kind practiced by Mountain Dew and Nike). I'm happy to explain, or at least to TRY to articulate what I see. It's not any easy thing to do, despite the help of some of the authors I mentioned (to which I'd add Noam Chomsky as a good starting point for further reading).
Third, about my teaching credentials: I'm not on this forum to represent myself professionally (obviously!). It's a play-space. Why else would I be talking to a person masquerading as a pig?! If you want a dissertation or a rigidly rhetorical argument, look elsewhere.
to help children. Schools were designed to help societies! That is a plain fact. Referring to that strange link you provided.mp
In capitalism, the individual can be both a consumer and producer. The individual is NOT split. I don't know that philosophy you are referring to but it doesn't really make sense from what you have posted.At any rate the films I was describing earlier are cautionary tales about communism and totalitarianism and absolutely not capitalism.
mp
Totalitarianism, capitalism, consumerism... It's all about mind-control and individuals (Winston Smith, Sam Lowry) who resist the establishment or stray from the bewildered herd.
Have you lived under a totalitarianistic regieme? You may want to reconsider your stance after spending some time living under one. You will then understand the difference. If you have, my apologies.mp
No, I haven't lived under a totalitarian regime, and I do not wish to play down the tragedy of those who have. But at least in a totalitarian regime the means of oppression are evident. In the situation in which are increasingly finding ourselves as Westerners, the oppressed will grab their oppression with open arms and glazed eyes.
What state do you live in? Find a people with a BETTER quality of life plus a global perspective than westerners.And evident or not, people living in ACTUAL tyrrany have zero choice.
I can take my glazed eyes anywhere I choose. I can spend my resources however I like.There are always going to be limits placed on the individual for the sake of the group, wouldn't want it any other way.
mp
Randy
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly. What is essential is invisible to the eye. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery
and just about as faithful as it could be to Orwell's original nightmare vision...
nt
.
nt
:o)
nt
Stephen Hayes is Jabberwock. Sorry for the error.
.
nt
(nt)
I'm not so sure about 1984, though. It's an excellent thought-provoking book anchored by an ageless cautionary tale, but I don't recall any film version to write home about. Of course, it's been a long time since I've seen a version of Orwell's book on film and distant memories rarely coincide with contemporary appreciation. BTW, there's another little 50's vintage SF film, The Incredible Shrinking Man, based on a Richard Matheson story, that I would certainly consider worthy of being added to most every SF fan's short list.LOL! I just re-read that last sentence ...sheeeesh! No puns were intended, ...honest! :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
influential in the future of sci fi.mp
if I have to watch another slo-mo walks-on-walls and dodges-bullets scene, I'll die.Matrix, like '2001' and 'Star Wars' did more to destroy SF than any other films going. Hey Victor, I agree with you on the 2001 thing.
Once upon a time I read SF relentlessly, and it was the ideas in the stories that carried them (unfortunately seldom the characters). This has been refined, like white sugar, down into FX.
FX FX FX.
Cool for about the first 10 seconds, then its, been there, done that.
For me it's the ideas, not the images.
Randy
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly. What is essential is invisible to the eye. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery
> > FX FX FX. < <Similar to the influence Alien has had, with all those monsters popping out of peoples’ chests. How often since Alien have we seen that one? (See the new Mike’s Hard Lemonade commercial, for instance.) I wonder how “influential” H.R. Geiger’s art would be wihtout Alien’s help?
reminds me of aliens too.mp
nt
Special effects should serve the story and the characterisation. It's the "idea" behind the effect that's interesting to me, withoutone, it's just so much visual wanking...a sad sign of the times that style and image is all.Geez - people see and collect movies for the effects. ARGH.
No ideas + no development = no movie, no matter how good the CGI.
(Thank God for Peter Jackson.)
However, much as Columbus is regarded above the Vikings, Polynesians or any other ancient mariners as the discoverer of the Americas, the Matrix will be sited as breaking ground with the '3D scene freeze' thing.There was a space western out about a year before the Matrix that starred Freddie Prinze Jr. that utilized this effect in a few scenes.
Rob
i agree. room has to be made for matrix.i think the betrayal in the film was kind of ridiculous. 'i should have taken the blue pill'. it didn't make sense that the guy wanted to go back and be duped by the matrix.
and sure, the explanation of how machines took over the world was ridiculous too, except the idea of the energy in people being like batteries which another species could harness.
but i don't think a film gets much better than matrix in a realistic metaphorical impact. the special effects are fantastic too. to see the man plucked out of his cage/chamber, and to see a whole world of similar trapped beings, and to see those bug/robotic things hunt the craft, was amazing.
the real world, the destroyed world looked pretty fantastic too.
the opening scene of 'swordfish' (the next film by this director) was pretty fantastic too. but the film could not deliver like the matrix could.
'matrix' is a sci-fi film of true philosophical import. in between action scenes was a film of philosophical importance.
the description and explanation of 'matrix' is what makes this film really above all sci-fi's.
sorry 'terminator'......
I suspect you are unfortunately right... long sigh...
and a couple of the characters where cheesy enough, kind of like terminator, but the plot was excellent. And I enjoyed the filming and the scene staging. The special effects were unique and the director did try to create a mood. The mystical approach was somewhat novel and different, and I can respect that creatively.Although for Canoe Reeves, in the acting arena, it was his finest hour :o)
mp
... not that Keanu is capable of great acting. I am saying that great acting could kill a movie like "Matrix". Actors have to play 2nd fiddle to the "Lost in Space" plot, "Xena : Warrior Princess" action & the "Avengers" style. It's far from revolutionary. It's more evolutionary. It was meant to have a surreal "Laura Croft" video-game edge to it (which was obviously missing it the cheesy film of the same name). Anyway, a high caliber actor with impelling stage presence would upstage the film IME. In direct contradiction, I site "Planet of the Apes(1969)". There Chuck Heston carried the film as can be witnessed by the apalling sequels.
» moderate Mart £ « Planar Asylum
.
Powerful, multi-layered performance as Don John in Much Ado About Nothing.Johnny Utah meets the Bard.....'verily and for sooth, Dude'
Rob
When I think of Keanu uttering lines like "she's like the air to me" I just cringe. I do like that film, though- the beautiful cinematography and excellent supporting performances (particularly Anthony Quinn and the actor who played the father) make it worth watching.
.
I mean, come on! A dozen different actors could have played his part in the Matrix--he wasn't the star, the effects were the real star.
"Canoe" is just about the worst actor to have ever made it big in Hollywood, hands down.
Character acting,
and Failed!He is a male bimbo (mimbo)
mp
pretty funny if I do say so myself!mp
:o)
mpYa wanna take it to the mat!
OK, just kidding!It's an excellent list! Very comprehensive.
I don't care for some of them, such as Star Wars, but they have had an impact on the genre.
I agree with 2001 being on the top of the list!mp
I would put Star Wars pretty high up. A number of other listed films are good abut they were DOA when they came out and only came into passion much later. Forbidden Planet is one, did not do that well at the BO but really took off later outside the BO. Same with Stood Still. Both are great commentary's on the times and well done for the era.But SW is key because you really have to put it into context. It came out at a time when the movie industry was dead. About 50% of the theaters had closed and Hollywood was really trying to get people back in the theaters. Space movies were not just dead, but dead and buried. SW opened and the cirtics panned it. I missed the first four weeks because of that. Then all of a sudden there were lines and we were driving to SF every Friday AND Saturday nights to party in line in front of the Coronet. I even paid the premium price of $4.75 to get in, when I had it. Suddenly movies were back and SW was leading the way.
Planet of the Apes was another good one that drew people to see it. Good commentary on racism and the nuclear threat we all lived through.
There are a lot of films that introduced something or had something to say that was important. But very few that really had an immediate impact on the culture.
Of the list above, I think the only truly influential moves were:
Star Wars
2001
Planet of the Apes.
nt
science fiction.Mad Max is based on a post apocolyptic world.
Clockwork orange is the type of science fiction I see in 12 monkies
or brazil. The world the characters inhabit is not quite the world we know.mp
If you redefine the SF that way, then pretty soon you will allow some truly good films in that list.Things like certain Bunuel, Bergman and Fellini, and not to forget Tarkovski - many good films show not the world we know.
I don't care beans for SF, but if done that way - I'm game!
.
... and I would place it at number ONE since, arguably, it influenced all serious SF which came after it.BTW, I wouldn't consider any of the Mad Max movies for a Top Twenty spot on a critical SF film list; even though I like both and they are technically post-apocalyptic science fiction, they seem a bit more deeply rooted in the heroic adventure film genre than SF. Also, I would place the first Flash Gordon serial, as terribly campy as it must look to our more discriminating 21st cetury tastes, somewhere on that Top 20 list and well ahead of Star Wars! My rationale is that Star Wars, while quite entertaining, is still very derivative. Not only does Star Wars and it's sequels borrow heavily from other genres (i.e., the western, the slapstick comedy, the teen angst film, the patriotic war film, Oriental philosophy, etc.), but it's painfully obvious at times just how much of George Lucus' "vision" owes to Flash Gordon and other serials. So, if we're talking about "influential movies" ...! :o)
Those minor caveats aside, you posted an excellent list, IMHO. There are several films I would in all liklihood substitute if I wanted to get nit-picky (i.e., dropping the 2nd Terminator film and Aliens only because they're sequels albeit arguably better than the originals preceeding them), but everyone has personal favorites. That being the case, my suggestions would perhaps include films such as A Clockwork Orange and AI-Artificial intelligence. And if the list were extended I would probably add the Abyss and possibly one or two others you may have overlooked.
Finally, I think that John Carpenter's version of the Thing is somewhat truer to the original story on which both films are based; I find the 50's version less shocking as SF (i.e., in retrospect the original movie is more of an allegorical tale reflecting McCarthyism and the Red scare paranoia of the times).
Cheers,
AuPh
for the first time in years, and I must say that it still holds up well after all this time. Just goes to show you don't need a computer, just a lot of imagination---something lacking in most recent films.It deserves to be right up there with "2001" and "Star Wars"---a 3 way tie in my book...
I believe the 1986 Metropolis (with the color-tints and the disco-
rock Moroder soundtrack) reflects the preference
of the predominately youthful Cinescape readership. Also, believe you've already read my
comparative evaluation of the two "The Things" here at this site's
archives, year 2000 I believe; also with my other reviews at
www.imdb.com. -AH
I'll try the other site you mentioned; I probably read those reviews awhile back, but before discussing the specifics I need to refresh my memory regarding your opinions upon comparing both versions.Cheers,
AuPh
you can get to it through the archives manually, the post is entitled,
"The Thing": 1951 Original vs 1982 Remake, posted on October 04,
1999 at 12:36:02; IP 204.196.180.90 - AH
I tend to agree with your perspective. I will shortly be co-writing a column on sci-fi films at another site and was not even going to mention the Mad Max stuff. My definition of sci-fi for this purpose is limited to films that are based around advances in science and technology beyond what was available at the time the film was made. Thus, while the Mad Max films take place in the future, they're not fundamentally dependent on technology that was scientifically impossible when they were made. Rather, the bizarre goings-on are just a consequence of a post-apocalyptic event.One can also frequently run into an overlap with the horror genre when discussing science fiction films. Frankenstein has science fiction elements but was predominantly intended as a horror film. There are many other examples of films in which the sci-fi is not paramount but is instead secondary to the primary purpose of frightening the viewer. I would tend to classify most or all of these as horror films. Alien is suspenseful, scary, and occasionally gruesome, but seeing as though it heavily involves space exploration in the future, I think it can be classified as a sci-fi film if one so chooses. One could also easily describe it as "sci-fi/horror."
I'm not sure I would rank the Flash Gordon serials ahead of Star Wars, but apart from Metropolis, IMO these serials were the best science fiction put to film in the first half of the 20th century. However, they aren't "movies" per se but rather, movie serials, so technically, they should perhaps not be included on this particular list.
Todd
Speculative Fiction (Spec-Fi) and detests Forrest Ackerman for
coining the Sci-Fi phrase. (And now probably me too, for using it to
preface his name!) - AH
"films that are based around advances in science and technology beyond what was available at the time the film was made"In the mad max series..it is a futuristic world we have never experienced, based on events we have never experienced. The technologies they used are based on that which is available to them in the future, and they create a whole new style of world, different from our own.
Planet of the apes is sci-fi and they don't use any technologies that are beyond what was available at the time the film was made....futuristically primative. Also based on a freak event or occurance.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective, but I would consider any film that illustrates an alternate universe (so to speak) sci-fi. Horror comes into play when you add mystical or mental elements and horror/gore to the alternate universe theme.
Ever read the book doomsday...very good sci-fi, set in the dark ages, very interesting.
mp
It's probably an academic argument, but Planet of the Apes actually involved two things that were not and still are not scientifically possible--time travel and apes evolving within a few thousand years to have essentially human intelligence. Personally, I would not consider every story of alternate universe or reality to be SF (Fatherland, for example), but I do find such tales extremely interesting.Todd
based on individual ideas. I find Mad max to be sci fi, because they do use all the technologies they have available to them in this futuristic fictitious world. Some could call it action and adventure, some may even call it fantasy.In the Time After Time, for example, The machine to propell them through time, was created in the past, with material from the past,
but the film primarily centers on the past and present, no futuristic technologies, aside from the fictitious time machine itself.So I agree, there is a high level of subjectivity in the categorizing of sci-fi films.
mp
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
