BEST Science Fiction film of all time!

[eugimon]

Yes. A classic that is a collection of short stories. Which that span nearly 500 years. And have very little action, but lots of working out of thorny logic problems. And have no fleshed-out characters, just a lot of talking heads who debate endlessly. And after hundreds of pages (or a thousand or two, depending on if you include the '80s/'90s sequelss and prequels), STILL come to no definitive "conclusion."

Yeah, that's a promising base on which to build a big-budget summer blockbuster.

oh ye of little faith. If they can take a series of short stories detailing the interaction of human and robot psychology and turn it into a will smith action vehicle where he crashes motorcycles and has fist fights with robots on hover cars, just imagine how awesome the Foundation movie(s) will be?

[Gubaba]

oh ye of little faith. If they can take a series of short stories detailing the interaction of human and robot psychology and turn it into a will smith action vehicle where he crashes motorcycles and has fist fights with robots on hover cars, just imagine how awesome the Foundation movie(s) will be?

[Gui]

We all know the deal: in such cases, the best way to follow is to expect the worst...

[Marzan]

LOL

[taksraven]

Yes. A classic that is a collection of short stories. Which that span nearly 500 years. And have very little action, but lots of working out of thorny logic problems. And have no fleshed-out characters, just a lot of talking heads who debate endlessly. And after hundreds of pages (or a thousand or two, depending on if you include the '80s/'90s sequelss and prequels), STILL come to no definitive "conclusion."

Yeah, that's a promising base on which to build a big-budget summer blockbuster.

Jesus Christ, Gubaba, I didn't read the name of the director of this project, (Roland Emmerich). You now truly have my sympathies.

Taksraven

[Vepariga]

Well...the Foundation books DO have the largest city imaginable...but it's already been stolen by George Lucas and its name was changed from "Trantor" to "Coruscant."

yeah thats was my definition of classic concerning the foundation books,not the stories as such but the ideas and the inspirations that others took from the novels.

[Agent ONE]

Star Wars Episode 3 ROTS

[Dynaman]

The original Star Wars, no other scifi movie has had anywhere near the same level of influence on science fiction and fantasy.

I had a personal preference for the movie Aliens though.

[taksraven]

The original Star Wars, no other scifi movie has had anywhere near the same level of influence on science fiction and fantasy.

If you mean "no film has been ripped off more in the history of SF", maybe. As for influence, etc, I think that 2001 had a massive influence, some of which can be seen in Star Wars: A New Hope.

Taksraven

[eugimon]

Considering what a hugely derivative work Star Wars is, I have a hard time giving it that sort of accolade. It may be the series that most people have come to associate with what SW gets credit for but the only it really innovated was merchandising tie ins.

[Gubaba]

Considering what a hugely derivative work Star Wars is, I have a hard time giving it that sort of accolade. It may be the series that most people have come to associate with what SW gets credit for but the only it really innovated was merchandising tie ins.

No, I think Dynaman is right. After Star Wars, sci-fi films globally became more juvenile, clichéd, action-oriented, and dumbed-down.

[VFTF1]

Re: talk of making the foundation series into a movie/series of movies...

Truth be told - there's not a whole lot that goes on in those books. I do enjoy reading them for the purely scientific stuff - but the characters are boring, stale and the plots are way to rationlistic. Robots and Empire reminded me of a bad Star Trek episode - Robots of Dawn was a decent enough detective story...although the sequence of events is so utterly contrived because the only real mystery is that we don't know what kind of special powers Asimov thought up for his robots - so all of the clues that get dropped sort of build suspence - but really don't since at some point we realize that the answer is dependent on the fantasy of the writer. Asimov's style wouldn't translate well to film. It's very specific, and while I sometimes enjoy it...I can't see it done as a movie. Bicentennial Man was a very good movie - but unless I'm radically mistaken - they just used a concept that Asimov came up with - I mean...the whole story...even the names were Asimov's.... but Robin Williams was't...if that makes sense...

I dunno... then again - maybe it could work...

Pete

[Dynaman]

No, I think Dynaman is right. After Star Wars, sci-fi films globally became more juvenile, clichéd, action-oriented, and dumbed-down.

True enough, though I don't know if that was entirely the fault of Star Wars. Personally, I remember that before I saw Star Wars I didn't give a rip about Science Fiction, after it I didn't care about anything else (I didn't even see the movie till late in the summer since I was so unimpressed by a commercial I had seen for it earlier in the year). The amount of science fiction being created now, and the acceptance of it, is a direct relation back to the popularity Star Wars. No other movie or TV show, not even Star Trek had the same impact. I'm not saying there would be no scifi, but it would still be the somewhat obscure field it had been before the movie came out.

[dreamweaver13]

Re: talk of making the foundation series into a movie/series of movies...

Truth be told - there's not a whole lot that goes on in those books. I do enjoy reading them for the purely scientific stuff - but the characters are boring, stale and the plots are way to rationlistic. Robots and Empire reminded me of a bad Star Trek episode - Robots of Dawn was a decent enough detective story...although the sequence of events is so utterly contrived because the only real mystery is that we don't know what kind of special powers Asimov thought up for his robots - so all of the clues that get dropped sort of build suspence - but really don't since at some point we realize that the answer is dependent on the fantasy of the writer. Asimov's style wouldn't translate well to film. It's very specific, and while I sometimes enjoy it...I can't see it done as a movie. Bicentennial Man was a very good movie - but unless I'm radically mistaken - they just used a concept that Asimov came up with - I mean...the whole story...even the names were Asimov's.... but Robin Williams was't...if that makes sense...

I dunno... then again - maybe it could work...

Pete

Well, I always thought they already made Foundation into an anime... for some reason, they titled it Gundam 00 though.

[VFTF1]

Gundam OO is like the Foundation series? You know - it probbably doesn't help that I've only read Robots of Dawn and Robots and Empire. I didn't ever read the first one.. I also only saw 5 episodes of Gundam OO...

Hmm... ok - yes - you're right.

Neither series was interesting enough for me to read/watch it in full -therefore they must be the same thing

Pete

[Penguin]

No, I think Dynaman is right. After Star Wars, sci-fi films globally became more juvenile, clichéd, action-oriented, and dumbed-down.

That's right. It's not like Hollywood unleashed Earth vs. the Flying Saucers, Plan 9 From Outer Space, and Santa Claus Conquers the Martians before 1977.

Sci-fi in film has always filled the spectrum from thought-provoking to mindless escapism.

[Gubaba]

That's right. It's not like Hollywood unleashed Earth vs. the Flying Saucers, Plan 9 From Outer Space, and Santa Claus Conquers the Martians before 1977.

Sci-fi in film has always filled the spectrum from thought-provoking to mindless escapism.

True, true...and yet, the thought-provoking ones did kinda pick up in the late '60s/early '70s (see? LSD is GOOD for sci-fi!), and dropped off after 1978 or thereabouts.

[Dynaman]

True, true...and yet, the thought-provoking ones did kinda pick up in the late '60s/early '70s (see? LSD is GOOD for sci-fi!), and dropped off after 1978 or thereabouts.

That is ignoring a LOT of good thought provoking scifi after 1977. Blade Runner alone being proof. In addtion there are most of the Star Trek films, Alien, Aliens, V (original Miniseries), Alien Nation, Brazil, Martian Chronicles (I think that was post 77), Leviathon (it tried to be meaningful), Mad Max, Terminator, , and Flash Gordon (OK, that one is a joke, but I like it).

That list was keeping it to within a few years of 77 as well, there was certainly a boat load of drivel and garbage as well - but the same is true before 77 as well.

[Penguin]

True, true...and yet, the thought-provoking ones did kinda pick up in the late '60s/early '70s (see? LSD is GOOD for sci-fi!), and dropped off after 1978 or thereabouts.

Absolutely... that period spawned some of the best "think pieces" of the genre. Some were satisfyingly provocative, some merely pretentious, and others just pale copies. That strange gap at the end of the studio system but before the corporate mentality dug its claws in, independent film-makers ran amok and generated some truly original work, in many genres. Star Wars had the unfortunate side-effect of showing that science fiction could be vastly profitable and more mass market than the kids/niche fare that it had been perceived as previously. Now, producers routinely turn to science fiction for vacuous summer box office fodder. One the win side, we got even more high-quality sci-fi, on the fail side we've gotten a lot of trash too.

That is ignoring a LOT of good thought provoking scifi after 1977. Blade Runner alone being proof. In addtion there are most of the Star Trek films, Alien, Aliens, V (original Miniseries), Alien Nation, Brazil, Martian Chronicles (I think that was post 77), Leviathon (it tried to be meaningful), Mad Max, Terminator, , and Flash Gordon (OK, that one is a joke, but I like it).

I don't think anyone would argue that there hasn't been some astounding work since that period, although what counts as thought-provoking will naturally depend on the person. I think the period Gubaba's referring to was somewhat unique in that a lot of the more experimental and outre work being done got major releases. A lot of really good sci-fi in the post-Star Wars period got limited or art-house releases, or had to be "rediscovered" later to receive its due recognition, partly because of the expectations production houses now have on the profit sci-fi can make. Blade Runner tanked at the box office. Brazil had to be dragged kicking and screaming to release and also tanked. Children of Men and Moon ended up limited releases in most places.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Penguin

[Gubaba]

That is ignoring a LOT of good thought provoking scifi after 1977. Blade Runner alone being proof. In addtion there are most of the Star Trek films, Alien, Aliens, V (original Miniseries), Alien Nation, Brazil, Martian Chronicles (I think that was post 77), Leviathon (it tried to be meaningful), Mad Max, Terminator, , and Flash Gordon (OK, that one is a joke, but I like it).

That list was keeping it to within a few years of 77 as well, there was certainly a boat load of drivel and garbage as well - but the same is true before 77 as well.

I said they dropped off, I didn't say they ceased to exist entirely.

John Clute and Orson Scott Card have gone into this subject with far more depth, wit, and insight than I could, so I'll just suggest that you read Clute's entry for Star Wars in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Card's introduction to Future on Ice.

[Dynaman]

I said they dropped off, I didn't say they ceased to exist entirely.

I don't think it dropped off though, drowned out maybe, but not dropped off. The decade before 1977 gave us 2001, Silent Running, Planet of the Apes (the original, the rest were really garbage IMHO), THX 1138, and a handful of others - certainly not more then was done in the decade after 77.

I don't know if I read the particular articles you cited so this may not apply but in general there is a LOT of sour grapes about Star Wars from "true believers" in scifi, they hate it since was really science fantasy rather then scifi. The fact that it did so well vs anything else seems to upset a lot of people as well. SW was a good, fun escapist entertainment at a time when the US (in particular, world in general) was in desperate want of it.

[Gubaba]

I don't know if I read the particular articles you cited so this may not apply but in general there is a LOT of sour grapes about Star Wars from "true believers" in scifi, they hate it since was really science fantasy rather then scifi. The fact that it did so well vs anything else seems to upset a lot of people as well. SW was a good, fun escapist entertainment at a time when the US (in particular, world in general) was in desperate want of it.

Orson Scott Card definitely falls into the camp you describe (although he hates Star Wars not because it's science fantasy, but because it's all too simplistic), but John Clute is one of the sharpest people ever to write about science fiction, and he has no problem with escapist stories, but he does write persuasively about the negative effect Star Wars had on science fiction in general. I wish I could remember some of his examples, but the book's packed away and I can't seem to find any related articles by him online.

So yeah. I can't really get into the argument in-depth without an "appeal to authority," and I can't even cite the authority.

I suck. Sorry.

[taksraven]

Its true that Star Wars did do a lot to help redefine SF from 1977 onwards, some of it good and some of it bad, as with all things.

I think its fair to say that it did open the door for a lot of stuff that would not have been made otherwise. I think for that reason alone we should be happy that it happened.

Taksraven

[Gubaba]

I think its fair to say that it did open the door for a lot of stuff that would not have been made otherwise.

Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=497fAZ9HIGo

[taksraven]

Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=497fAZ9HIGo

No, I mean stuff with bigger budgets. Don't forget, the original Apes film was very successful but for about each sequel after it they halved the budget on the previous film. I think SW did a lot to get rid of that mentality.

Taksraven

[Gubaba]

No, I mean stuff with bigger budgets. Don't forget, the original Apes film was very successful but for about each sequel after it they halved the budget on the previous film. I think SW did a lot to get rid of that mentality.

Taksraven

No, I know what you mean. And yeah, stuff like Alien and Blade Runner wouldn't have made it if it hadn't been for Star Wars. It really opened the floodgates. Unfortunately, a lot of junk came out as well...which isn't really surprising, since keeping in the junk is what floodgates are for, right?

EDIT: And really, all I wanted to do was advertise Escape from Galaxy 3, one of the finest space operas ever to come out of Italy in 1981.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Gubaba

[VFTF1]

Almost forgot this movie - but nobody seems to have mentioned 12 Monkeys.

Was it really that bad? That unmemorable?

I remember I totally loved it when I first watched it, and generally I have enjoyed it with each viewing. The ending is totally sad though... very sad.... maybe people want to whipe out memories of sad endings?

In any case - it was a wonderful mixture of surrealism, suspence, psychological drama... the love story was kind of not spicey enough for my taste - but still... it was good. Good sci fi movie IMO.

Pete

[lechuck]

I must be the only one these boards that doesn't really like Blade Runner.

I find the pacing of this movie to be horribly slooooooooooooooowwwwww.

Anyway a personal favourite of mine is Event Horizon.

The dimension screwing with your mind was an interesting and scary premise.

Oh, and Laurence Fishburne was badass in this film.

[Gui]

You should give a try to the original short movie which inspired 12 Monkeys then: it's called La Jetée and it is very experimental...

Edit: I was replying to Pete's praise for 12 Monkeys

Edited February 16, 2010 by Gui

[electric indigo]

La Jetée is awesome.

We need a sub-category to nominate films that weren't maybe the best, but deserve special mention.

For me, that would be Aronovski's "Pi" and "The Fountain", Tarkovski's "Solaris" and "Stalker", Richard Kelly's "Donnie Darko", and this little gem: Phase IV from Saul Bass, and no, it's not a Mutant Ants schlockfest, but really clever and brilliantly filmed SF.

That is ignoring a LOT of good thought provoking scifi after 1977. Blade Runner alone being proof. In addtion there are most of the Star Trek films, Alien, Aliens, V (original Miniseries), Alien Nation, Brazil, Martian Chronicles (I think that was post 77), Leviathon (it tried to be meaningful), Mad Max, Terminator, , and Flash Gordon (OK, that one is a joke, but I like it).

Sorry, but the only thought that the pre-2009 Trek movies provoke is "Why the heck do they keep hiring 10 year old fanboys for scriptwriting".

[lechuck]

Sorry, but the only thought that the pre-2009 Trek movies provoke is "Why the heck do they keep hiring 10 year old fanboys for scriptwriting".

That might be true, but unlike Trek '09 they weren't made for 10 year olds and below...

[VFTF1]

Re: Le Jette - yeah - it says in 12 Monkeys that it's based off of that film - I do wanna see it, if I can ever find it...

And here's a thrilling question for sci-fi buffs...:

Do YOU consider Rocky Horror Picture Show sci-fi?

I certainly do. It has all the elements - space aliens (from transilvania), and the use of genetic engineering to create the perfect man. It also has Meatloaf, canibalism and lasers.

It's one of my ALL TIME FAVORITE movies.

Pete

[Dynaman]

And here's a thrilling question for sci-fi buffs...:

Do YOU consider Rocky Horror Picture Show sci-fi?

Pete

No - because Rocky Horror is in a class all by itself! There is SciFi, there is romance, there is westerns, and then there is Rocky Horror, and the world is a different place for it...

[taksraven]

Re: Le Jette - yeah - it says in 12 Monkeys that it's based off of that film - I do wanna see it, if I can ever find it...

And here's a thrilling question for sci-fi buffs...:

Do YOU consider Rocky Horror Picture Show sci-fi?

I certainly do. It has all the elements - space aliens (from transilvania), and the use of genetic engineering to create the perfect man. It also has Meatloaf, canibalism and lasers.

It's one of my ALL TIME FAVORITE movies.

Pete

Its absolutely SF. Why not. Its really meant as an SF/B-Film tribute of course, but it is definitely SF. Not many SF musicals, unfortunately.

I would have thought that somebody would have mentioned Spaceballs by now.

Taksraven

[Marzan]

Its absolutely SF. Why not. Its really meant as an SF/B-Film tribute of course, but it is definitely SF. Not many SF musicals, unfortunately.

I would have thought that somebody would have mentioned Spaceballs by now.

Taksraven

Don't know if qualifies as SF but its definitely one of the funniest movies of all time.

The bit about the combination number for one's luggage makes me laugh every time.