Everyone remembers the exact moment when they realized that their Phanom Menace sandwich was filled with shit. For me, it was the scene on Tatooine where Qui-Gon is talking and Jar Jar is snatching fruit from the bowl with his tongue, eating like an insect. Annoyed, Qui-Gon reaches out and snatches his tongue out of the air and holds it in his fist while he talks. That was when I realized I was watching a cartoon.


wonkabar wrote:Everyone remembers the exact moment when they realized that their Phanom Menace sandwich was filled with shit. For me, it was the scene on Tatooine where Qui-Gon is talking and Jar Jar is snatching fruit from the bowl with his tongue, eating like an insect. Annoyed, Qui-Gon reaches out and snatches his tongue out of the air and holds it in his fist while he talks. That was when I realized I was watching a cartoon.
Fuck, are you kidding? WAY before that. The collective "oh my god, this movie actually kinda sucks"-feeling started creeping into my theater on "how wude" People began cringing on that stupid Boss-Nass spit-shake, then full-on hand over the mouth panic after the ill-timed "ye gods, whata mesa sayn'?!?" By the time "there's always a bigger fish" rolled around the grim reality had set in. All we could do was hope it didn't get any worse.


Yeah, the "Exqueeze me" did it for me. It needed Wayne or Garth's head to pop into a corner of the screen briefly and say "Baking powder?" ala the "Toasty!" guy from Mortal Kombat.


Why haven't there been more films like Gattaca released?
Carolian wrote:I don't know why the public hasn't taken to science fiction, as a movie genre; or, rather, only in small doses, i.e. THE MATRIX. The STAR WARS films don't really count; to the average Joe Moviegoer, they're not sci-fi films, they're STAR WARS films. Far be it from me to cast aspersions on the intelligence of the entire populace, but are the heady themes of a great sci-fi film just too much for the average moviegoer?
I mean, 2001's obviously become recognized as a classic, as has A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but would they do good business today, if they were released? I doubt it. And I wish I could figure out why.



DennisMM wrote:There a good book from a few years back titled The Greatest Sci-Fi Movies Never Made (roughly). H@rry Knowles even wrote the afterword. Check it out for really interesting failed projects.


Carolian wrote:CHILDHOOD'S END, both by Arthur C. Clarke.
wonkabar wrote:The collective "oh my god, this movie actually kinda sucks"-feeling started creeping into my theater on "how wude" People began cringing on that stupid Boss-Nass spit-shake, then full-on hand over the mouth panic after the ill-timed "ye gods, whata mesa sayn'?!?"
By the time "there's always a bigger fish" rolled around the grim reality had set in. All we could do was hope it didn't get any worse.
seppukudkurosawa wrote:Peven wrote: imo, Star Trek= science fiction
Even Star Trek IV? I guess whales are pretty deep when you think about it...

Carolian wrote:Why haven't there been more films like Gattaca released?
TOO FUCKING RIGHT. To me, GATTACA is criminally overlooked.
I don't know why the public hasn't taken to science fiction, as a movie genre; or, rather, only in small doses, i.e. THE MATRIX. The STAR WARS films don't really count; to the average Joe Moviegoer, they're not sci-fi films, they're STAR WARS films. Far be it from me to cast aspersions on the intelligence of the entire populace, but are the heady themes of a great sci-fi film just too much for the average moviegoer?
I mean, 2001's obviously become recognized as a classic, as has A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but would they do good business today, if they were released? I doubt it. And I wish I could figure out why.



seppukudkurosawa wrote:Naw I was just joking anyway, and as a hardcore science fictionite I agree with you completely. I guess sci-fi is another way of describing fantasy, which is escapism from this world, whereas science fiction is the world squared. Movies aren't really made like that nowadays though, I guess there was that befuddling philosophical time machine flick that came out last year (anyone remember the title?), and in a way Pi was science fiction...or maybe not, depends on your angle on it. I'm not sure what H.G. Wells and Jules Verne would say about films like Serenity being branded as science fiction, I mean it's probably closer to the spirit of a Western than 20, 000 Leagues Under the Sea. S'all semantics though, eh?

Just a theory...but I think dystopian sci-fi films...usually are initially received lukewarm at best...but are normally the ones that endure the most.
My own, homegrown pop psychology theory is we go to the movies normally to escape in some sense..not have the fact we are hellbent on ruining ourselves highlighted. Today is miserable enough...for a lot of people...lets at least pretend tomorrow is going to be fun.
But then...when we actually think about it beyond the popcorn, these are the ones that ring truest and actually help us shape our future away from what it could be.
Blade Runner, Silent Running, Phase IV, Gattaca, Equilibrium even.... and so on and so forth...what do you think?

Carolian wrote:OT: Can anyone help me on a minor PZ matter? I can't figure out how to name the person when I quote them in replies. Thanks in advance.


seppukudkurosawa wrote:Carolian wrote:OT: Can anyone help me on a minor PZ matter? I can't figure out how to name the person when I quote them in replies. Thanks in advance.
Had the same problem when I first started, you have to click on the QUOTE box on the right of their post.

First off, I think you da man now, dog, for naming a few films I hadn't heard that much about, and giving me Netflix fodder. Beautiful, beautiful!

Doc Holliday wrote:No worries about being long-winded - far from it..its good to get to the meat of some matters and sometimes a 10 word sentence just won't cut it
Carolian wrote:OT: Can anyone help me on a minor PZ matter? I can't figure out how to name the person when I quote them in replies. Thanks in advance.
[quote="the user you are quoting"]I think Cpt Kirks 2pay is a wanker![/quote]the user you are quoting wrote:I think Cpt Kirks 2pay is a wanker!

Peven wrote:it just came to me, damn my brain is just not hitting on all cylinders lately. "cautionary tale" was the term i was groping for earlier and couldn't find. thats what a lot of true, quality science fiction is. carry on.
Carolian wrote:Peven wrote:it just came to me, damn my brain is just not hitting on all cylinders lately. "cautionary tale" was the term i was groping for earlier and couldn't find. thats what a lot of true, quality science fiction is. carry on.
Yes! That's the perfect way to describe it. A whole hell of a lot of Ray Bradbury's short stories, I'd say, could be described as "cautionary tales", often toward the encroachment of technology. Hell, it'd go all the way back to H.G. Wells, and THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU... if that's not a cautionary tale, I don't know what is.

Peven wrote:anyway, he was going off on "sci-fi". he had no use for it. you may be thinking at this point, "wtf?" well, to Bradbury there was science fiction and then there was sci-fi.
seppukudkurosawa wrote:Someone should bring an Alfred Bester book to life. Can you imagine just how kick-ass an adaptation of Tiger, Tiger (also known as The Stars My Destination) would be? I must have read hundreds of sci-fi books ripe for movie adaptations. The Cold War brought out the best in science fiction novelists; there's nothing like a good old injection of paranoia to get those fingers-a-writing.






ThisIsTheGirl wrote:Carolian wrote:CHILDHOOD'S END, both by Arthur C. Clarke.
Pardon me, I was just admiring the cut of your jib. I came on this thread to say exactly the same thing! A well-made movie of Childhood's End would be probably my favourite Sci-Fi ever!


Fried Gold wrote:
- adaptations of Arthur C Clarke's "2061: Odyssey Three" and "3001: The Final Odyssey". (Tom Hanks was interested in making the some years back)
- Red Dwarf (but it'll never happen)
- The Stars My Destination

Adam Balm wrote:Fried Gold wrote:
- adaptations of Arthur C Clarke's "2061: Odyssey Three" and "3001: The Final Odyssey". (Tom Hanks was interested in making the some years back)
- Red Dwarf (but it'll never happen)
- The Stars My Destination
I guess the biggest problem with these two is that they revolve around the whole Jupiter-turning-into-the-new-sun Lucifer thing, which wouldn't make sense to the 99.99999% of movie goers who haven't seen 2010. They're too continuity heavy to make now.
Although 3001 would be worth it just to see the artificial sky-ring thing around earth.
Adam Balm wrote:Fried Gold wrote:
- adaptations of Arthur C Clarke's "2061: Odyssey Three" and "3001: The Final Odyssey". (Tom Hanks was interested in making the some years back)
- Red Dwarf (but it'll never happen)
- The Stars My Destination
I guess the biggest problem with these two is that they revolve around the whole Jupiter-turning-into-the-new-sun Lucifer thing, which wouldn't make sense to the 99.99999% of movie goers who haven't seen 2010. They're too continuity heavy to make now.
Although 3001 would be worth it just to see the artificial sky-ring thing around earth.

tapehead wrote:Adam Balm wrote:Although 3001 would be worth it just to see the artificial sky-ring thing around earth.
Haven't read it - is it the same as the one in The Fountains of Paradise?

Adam Balm wrote:tapehead wrote:Adam Balm wrote:Although 3001 would be worth it just to see the artificial sky-ring thing around earth.
Haven't read it - is it the same as the one in The Fountains of Paradise?
I haven't read Fountains. I thought that was just about skyhooks in that one. Is there a ring-like structure surrounding earth too?


Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest