 
|
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 |
I know lots of Hollywood product is more than a bit lame these days but whats happening to sci fi is a real disappointment. I'm a sci fi nut going back to Day the Earth Stood Still & Forbidden Planet but the past year has seen a succession of dregs.Star Wars the Phantom Menace? - 7 year old demographic targeting, product placement rich, brainless drivel, lead actor(?, munchkin?, mannequin?) who couldnt act his was out of a thin paper bag with a machete.
Supernova? - Derivative, plotless, aimless and insipid. And those are its strong points.
Pitch Black? - overrated, lifeless characters, actors and audience as morons plot devices to advance the story.
Mission to Mars? - the scientific credibility of a three Stooges short, plot holes you could drive a semi through, the silliest ending in recent memory.
And whats next? At this point even another Star Trek movie would be a welcome relief...
joe
.
Well, Screamers didnt knock me out. Its a movie we've seen lot of times before with the typical cast, typical sets, typical kell 'em on by one plot. I like sci fi so I caould watch it, but no great shakes for me.Gattaca was an interesting diversion. All in all a bit cool, detached and impersonal in a Fahrenheit 451 sort of way, but without the originality or the bigger concepts. Still, I must admit I was a bit surprised by it (I expected it to be completely worthless based on the previews) and have now watched it a few times on satellite.
joe
hi,
Screamers? I don't think so. Gattaca is a case of hollywood throwing the plot overboard to get a ending. But at least it was interesting.
I suggest "Dark City". Not perfect, but I enjoyed it. Has a nice premise.
...I have seen it on TV and it is decent. I missed it in the theater becasue I erroneously associated it with The Crow. In the previews it had the same Gen X, black, dreary, life is pointless feel of a city not worth living in and a life not worth living for that seemed endemic to more than a few films there for a while. I actually walked out of the theater during The Crow...joe
Lucas shot the arm in the 70s which started Star Trek movies & TV spin-offs.Lately, we had "Matrix" "Lost in Space"
And, in between we had T2 & Total Recall
Heh, heh.I remeber how disappointed I was by the Abyss - Cameron simply got lost in the second act and the movie ground completely to a halt. I did like the ending of the directors cut more than the theatrical release and felt that improved the movie quite a bit. But still, a flawed film...
joe
...you'd gone "Lucas" on me and gotten lazy. I should'a known better ;-)joe
... "thinking again. It really isn't your strong suite now is it?"- Lost In Space
I must admit I did like the first two Alien flicks. The original was a bit more brooding certainly and at the time the stalk 'em till their gone genre hadnt really taken off in sci fi - in fact this movie kicked that whole cycle off. Aliens was a differnt but still interesting kettle of fish - I remeber never being so overwhelmingly on edge at the prospect of what would happen next in a sci fi film before or since.Of the four films you mentioned I have to rate the Matrix highest and confess I liked it. I suspect that response is as much of one of context as much as anything - it hasnt had much competition lately and seemed pretty good in comparison...
joe
hi,
Contact put science in ze science fiction; it is perhaps the closest to real scifi of any movie ever made. As someone who has
an interst in such, the last few years, with Contact/Matrix/ST:First Contact have been a real treat. 2001 came out, several years later Star Wars was released. Not much in between, now is better.
***Contact is perhaps the closest to real scifi of any movie ever made***As much as I enjoyed Contact, my vote would be for Andromeda Strain as #1 for true science.
but...
space is what fires my imagination.
If you have an LD player, check out the Cosmos series (sadly long OOP).
Some of the sections speculating on what life might conceivably be like on Mars or planets outside our solar system are fascinating. Highest recommendation.
hi,
i vaguely remember that; he wrote Contact as well.
nt
what a hoot!
funniest scifi i ever saw.
Jodie Foster made it into another "Black Hole" where there was more fiction than science. Are we talking about the same film?
BTW, am I the only one who went nuts when the ½ human alien was the 1st Vulcan to visit the Earth? I guess his mom was an astronaut from a doomed mission Sarak rescued.
Mart, I don't think we disagree so much as mis-communicate with one another.***Jodie Foster made it into another "Black Hole" where there was more fiction than science. Are we talking about the same film?***
Erm.... what other SF film was Jodie Foster in besides Contact? The female lead in Black Hole was Yvette Mimeux.
***Am I the only one who went nuts when the * human alien was the 1st Vulcan to visit the Earth? I guess his mom was an astronaut from a doomed mission Sarak rescued?***What the h-e-double-toothpicks are you talking about? What "doomed mission that Sarek rescued?" And what is a "* human alien"?
Your in total confusion,
Scott
I was referring to Jodie's performance which made "Contact" as believable as Disney's attempt at Sci-Fi.
The other subject was "ST:1st Contact". The end has a young Spok coming out to make 1st contact with Earth. Spok who's half human. Where did he get the half when nobody else had met with a human. I was merely trying to explain the contradiction.
I don't think that was a young Spock - just some unknown Vulcan on his way back from carpal tunnel surgery (very painful doing that "V" hand thing).Anyway it's just a silly movie so no penalty on that one.
Now back to your homework young man!
Jodie Foster thinking even for the briefest of moments than her deceased father can be resurrected by traveling through enough worm holes? Some scientist. Remminds me of Spok's brother trying to find heaven by penetrating a spacial barrier. Is theology this dead that nobody is capable of reasonable thought along these lines? Granted, Hollywood is the last place that one would expect an accurate depiction. They still think that the miraculous sign of Christ's birn was that a young woman was going to give birth, or the slaughter of the scripture in "End of Days". However, I'm not even talking accepted religions. I'm referring to applying any thought at all to the subject. The story lines have become laughable.
you see,
ST has always been sort of open ended. They even poked fun,
in DS9, about the radical change of appearance of Klingons; from the original series to TNG. Worf himself has had a couple of... well... makeovers?
It does not pay to sweat the details in ST. Some poor fool
actually wrote a book with a title like 'Nitpickers guide to Star trek' I glanced at it, and noticed he got dozens of routine errors;
but missed a roughly equal number of scientific screw ups. No matter,
it is space opera, the miracle is that Rodenberry was able to breathe life into TNG.
couple of my favorites
the Klingon (sp?) Bird of Prey going warp speed in the atmosphere & expecting to return to a populated Earth back in the futureSpok telling the bridge that his ancestor stipulated that when one eliminates the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable must be the truth. He's a descendent of the fictional Sherlock Holmes character?
my friend's
during the original series Kirk asked for a magnification of the main viewer of 1 1,000,000 . I'm sure that the script probably called for 1:1,000,000 but never the less it was humorous.my brother's
Spok's unpowered torpedo tube soft landed on the Genesis planet w/o so much as to kill the microbes on it.BTW, I love that tribble "DS9" episode & I want a hard copy of it!!! I've been looking. I bought the Daulphin & Lull from "TNG".
In the Next Gen series a character is being chased by an alien through the Enterprise. They have been shifted into a slighly different dimension where they occupy the same space as the ship but can pass through physical objects as if ghosts since they have no actual physical contact with the vessel. The alien is about to catch the crewman when the crewman dives to the floor and the alien overshoots and runs through the outer wall of the ship to die in the vacuum of space.So how the hell could they run in a ship they cant have physical contact with? What were their feet pushing against? And how could the creman dive onto the floor itself and stop his momentum when he passed through walls like a hot knife through butter?
Rules for viewers of sci fi on TV: Switch off brain. Suspend critical thought. Go with the flow. Otherwise - change channels. ;-)
joe
the movie not the identity. When the meteror crashes through the hull of the ship like it were crystal & decides to roll down the passageway instead of continuing through with its enormous momentum.
One thing I've never been able to find out is why they killed off Lt. Yar in the first season.I had the same thoughts regarding that episode where they change phase. They were magically monitoring "unusual radiation" patterns on the ship and figured out they had to flood 10-forward with the radiation to bring back their crewmates.
Tom §.
the Romulan caught up with her, and Geordi came running thru the wall
and sideblocked him, the Romulan then sailed into space. In the same episode, time fractures into a bunch of itty bitty pieces, a mommy lays her eggs in a singularity (black hole); and Geordi with a basic repair kit whips up a little shoulder mounted device that can alter space/time. Oh sure.
Reality, what a concept. PLEASE don't ask me why i love that show; but it would be hard to deny, when you consider i can *also* quote ypu some of the dialogue! "If it will teach Ro Laren humility, who knows what it can do" Sigh, my name is Late, and i am a trekkie, and it has been one day since i saw a show....
yup,
it's one of my favorite films. Real scifi is about how we might react to a change in the future. Usually it's about technology. But!
One of the least understood aspects about it is just how transformative this can be. I have read entire nonfiction books about
SETI.
So for me, i can't believe Hollwood made a real scifi movie; but i am grateful.
Speaking of sci-fi movies, Nicholas Roeg's Man Who Fell to Earth is one of my favorites. I'm wondering if anyone in this forum has seen and would care to comment on the quality of the DVD transfer.I'd also love to see a good DVD issue of Slaughterhouse Five (sci-fi int the loosest sense possible?).
Yup, plot holes big enough for the Titantic, but with an all start cast, some decent acting and dripping satire, it's a great laugh.
Yes, mildly amusing & rather cynical - definetly good for a few chuckles. The guilty pleasure from recent years in the sci fi category for me was The Arrival. A decidely small movie with the easy to underestimate Charlie Sheen in the lead. Not profound or insightful but a more honest attempt at the genre than most other bigger budget releases of recent years...joe
That was a good one, the twists and turns actually held together and Charlie was surprisingly good.Didn't they ruin that with a lame Arrival 2?
I saw Arrival 2 on cable (thank god I didnt pay to see it in a theater!) and it was indeed pathetic.joe
Always been "tough times" unfortunately. Maybe the Hollywood perception of what will sell is the cause or maybe it is not but whatever... Have given up and just concentrate of trying to make the best of the good parts leaving the plot holes out of my mind.Sniff sniff. :(((
...and longer. Its like they are becoming the filler and the good stuff is measured in minutes and seconds. The closet thing to sci fi I liked at a moview theater in the past year was The X Files. Not really sci fi, and the conspiracy/paranoia thing does wear thin if you focus on it too much but I was at least able to enjoy the movie. The other stuff starts making me so mad I want to throw something at the screen. Like watching Jodie Foster chew up the scenery in the pod in Contact as she is exposed to the "wonders" of her otherworldy journey. Gads, I wanted to puke!Sigh. I'd love to see Lucas go back to the original premise of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back in the next installment of the prequel. But its two strikes for the preteen demographic / merchandising opportunity with his last two outings so I'm not holding my breath...
joe
I cannot agree more. I refrain from going mad over particular pet peeves for fear that too many people may take offense but that Jodie Foster bit. Eeeeeks. All that oh, it is wondrous - it is beautiful bit. I would give a lot to be in her place but I would be too busy seeing everything and cannot see myself going around saying that it is .. And of course I hated the character played by Matthew Mc. (no opinion about him +ve or -ve)Pure science pleeeese!!! Sad sigh. Actually, I can sometimes enjoy a flick like Independence day since I see it as a joke or a comedy of sorts - Frankly I even see Capn Kirk as a comic character sometimes. X-Files is good sometimes but....
I think good advice given to me a while back here was that I should stick to reading sci-fi. Good idea I guess if I want to read more than I do now.
One thing though... I am averse to any grand message of good evil blah blah (Star Wars original stuff) but that I recognise as a personal belief and preference when it comes to sci fi. I prefer movies to focus on the science and / or the art but not in good evil etc. So, I did not miss too much of that. The other movies I see are usually classified as art movies in the US.
Also, be careful about labeling demographics and merchandising -- I have never bought any doo dad ever but frankly if others do like em, let them have it. More money in the economy I guess. Every generation seems to think that it is the latest generations fault for all kinds of new things. I am not so sure about that but then I am an optimist and like a lot of changes while continuing to like the old too. Maybe that is why I love sci fi.
BTW, you, V and L were very civil in the discussion below about POW treatment, etc. and showed some good knowledge too. Thanks. I hang out or rather "lurk" in a couple of german car forums to get info for my car and people are so nuts there and seem to get so offended so easily.
...to talk about something other than audio for a change - Wait, hey (moment of personal realization) you mean there is something to life other thatn audio?!? Wow! Whoda thunk?Regarding the promotional tie ins - I really dont mind that they occur so much, I agree its a nice spiff to the economy. I guess what I didnt expresss well is my frustration with Lucas apparently coming to view the SW franchise primarily as a vehicle for advertising them first and offering entertainment as a movie second.
I found the first two movies were a delight in that they had the unique ability to cross big demographic boundaries and appeal to children and adults alike. I'll never forget the opening of Star Wars. I lived in Houston at the time & after reading about it in Time I went the local premier. The house was packed and the audience had to be 40 - 45% under age 12. It was a riot. The movie was so fresh and the audience so engaged it was an absolute blast (kids cheering when the good guys won, booing when Darth Vader came on screen) and the most pure fun I've ever had watching a movie. The second was even better I thought for being a bit darker - but from there its been the descent into kiddy land and the proliferation of pointless fuzzy little characters and robots with no real role in the plot apparently there just to result in more tie-ins hanging off the racks in the toy department of every store you walk into.
It seems he's abandoned the adult audience completely - at least I know I cant connect with it the way I could the first two. And somehow after the impact of the first two it feels as thogh he's totally sold out and abandoned the adult audience altogether...
joe
I agree with much that you write - in fact all but from a different angle of perspective. While I dont like the fuzzies (actually I detest them), I am not sure that you should conclude that it is today's audience that he is catering to. I think the percentage of people who like the fuzzy crap is probably unchanged (or at least let us presume that it is for a moment) The problem is with him and his perception of what he thinks the younger generation wants. After all, he is more far removed in age from today's gen x than he was removed in age difference from his previous audiences , right? In other words, he is closer in age to you even when you were younger than he is to today's young people. Really, so often people think they understand the kids. I dont have any and I dont understand them fully. My attorney who grew up in the 60s kept telling me how her nieces and nephews had no causes etc. etc. all complaints about GEn X. She could say that to me (33 now), because I grew up elsewhere I guess. However, i kept showing her actual facts about saving rates, etc. etc. that refuted most of what she said. Of course only in America do we need to categorise everyone.Another point...
things I liked at a younger age are sometimes as appealing today but ONLY because i somehow "recall" the pleasure I got from my first viewing of it. Having grown up in a country with very little good entertainment, i took delight in some absolute crap. But I wont even be able to watch it today. On the other hand, some other things which I sort of liked, I may like as much today though I WOULD NOT HAVE LIKED IT as much if i saw it today for the FIRST TIME. When you describe how you liked SW original episodes, I suspect that at least some of the liking may be because of how you saw the movie at the age you were then. If you saw it for the first time today.... I cannot say for sure that you would not have liked it so so much but I am not sure . You would certainly have liked it.Frankly, this is just a pet idea of mine about how people enjoy things. Am interested in your feedback. I have found movies to be the best way to bring this sense of perception out.
Cheers. No offense intended.
Absolutely no offense taken :-)I agree, I dont really belive it is todays audience he is catering to. I think its more a shift in focus to kids and it deos seem he hits that mark quite well. My friends with children who went to Phantom Menace have told me of their offspring's rapt attention and post movie interest. Its just that his original pictures had the same effect on adults - but judging by my response and many of my friends that doesnt seem to be true any longer.
But I know what you mean about seperating things from their original context. Things we saw earlier in life often do become entwined with our long term tastes in interesting ways. There are movies I recall from my childhood that hit me at a level far beyond their value and content that make them special to this day (the original Bond flicks with Sean Connery for example). And while I'm sure I'd still like them if I was seeing them for the first time now, I'm equally sure they wouldnt resonate in quite the way they do when I see them again in the context of my past experience...
Cheers!
joe
The thing that absolutely floored me at the time was the openning scene in Star Wars. The perspective was so tremendous as the Empire ship just kept growing ... WOW!!! But, to see it now I only get a residual twang from remembering the original WOW.As far as a kiggy show is concerned, di we forget this is a Sci-Fi fairy tail with evil kings & wizards & an underdog hero?
My problem isn't with the doo-tads & other gimmicks or whatever that prejudicial BS was about, but where was the drama? Even during the pod racing scene (a computer generated Ben Hur chariot recreation), there was no anticipation, no fear, no concern, nada. I kept saying "yeah, they spent a great deal of money here ... next". I guess it would've helped if I gave a damn about the characters. Nobody bothered to develope them into anything beyond the thickness of the celluloid.
What was he thinking? Doesn't he have a set of people who're gifted enough not to be brown-nosers? Somebody should've screamed something!!!
I think all of that comes from catering to a less critical audience of children. Yes indeed no drama, and the acting of the lead was so wooden and unconvincing as to be offensive - but those are things young kids apparently arent too critical of.Yes the original SW flicks required a suspension of disbelief and were hardly profound - but they did have drama, action, beleivable characters and acceptable acting. Of course a big element was the pace which kept things moving along in a convincing manner so that you didnt think to hard as it all flew by.
But the latest movie was such a directorial cop out. You're right about the lack of caharcters, but even more irritaing at times was the script which simply failed to make its points in any credible way. A character says he senses menace in the young acting challenged munchkin and yet nothing in the kids behavior or in the flow of the movie itself illustrates it? Thats just lazy directing and insulting to the audience.
The problem is that the fuzzies and toys are the drivers. He's realized he can make crap movies which target kids with underdevloped characters and lame scripts and make his money in the toy store rather than simply at the box office. Hence, instead of focusing on crafting the best movie he can he makes the best child targeted toy commercial instead.
And unfortunately he's making a killing at it with all the promo ties ins, so I really doubt we'll ever see a legimate movie from Lucas again...
This is the crux of my objection to the fuzzies and figures.
joe
hi,
Lucas, is rich, no, i mean really rich. His accountants need training in relativistic physics just to describe roughly how rich he is. He is also a control freak, with a real problem of delegating.
Can you say Peter Principle?
...In space, no one can tell you you're wrong.joe
"nothing so vacuous as deep space"...or, again, in his case, he's so dense ...
"even enlightenment can't leave"
You said --
"even enlightenment can't leave"Well said Sort of like a
Black Hole huh?
"Blade"
... but the movie had nothing to do with the book it was supposedly based upon.
Hey Mart,If you have a moment and if it takes only a sentence or two, would you mind telling me how you post those pictures with your textual postings. Thanks and no probs if you dont feel like.
Cheers
1) go to http://www.cdnow.com2) look up film
3) move mouse over picture
4) right click to reveal menu
5) select "Save Picture As ..."
6) a window will appear will its name which is a set of numbers at this page
7) hit [CRTL]+[C] simultaneously to copy this number into the buffer
8) move mouse over board to the empty background
9) right click to reveal menu
10) select "View Source"
11) a window will appear which is the HTML code responsible for the page
12) select "Search" -> "Find" from its tool bar
13) hit [CRTL]+[V] simultaneously to paste this number from buffer
14) copy the line starting with "img src=http://" & ends with "jpg"
15) add " <" before the string & "> " after both without any spaces
16) hit preview
if it doesn't work post anyway & tell me your problems & I'll see if I can diagnose your problem
. . . I've become afan.
In comparison, the stories are fresh with twists that are both sexually & intellectually provocative. Some of the inuendos are juvenille but all together better than the alternatives.
...I would have to agree that its got the best SF content of any movie or TV show in this genre of anything out there today. I gave up on the Star trek TV franchise years ago with the launch of "Voyager" (ugh! what an insipid and unintesting program!). And there was only so much of Deep Space 9 I could take. And Baylon 5? Entirely too static to really engage with consistently. At least Far Scape has charcters and a bit of dramatic tension. Nothing profound, but entertaining nonetheless...joe
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 ]
