# Pre-1960's science fiction movies that don't suck **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 9, 2010, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752 "2010-08-09T21:02:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![NinjaChick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/1 "2010-08-09T21:02:58Z")
Lately I’ve been delving into the depths of science fiction movies from the “golden age” of the genre, mostly from the 50’s. This was inspired mostly by a Christmas gift I got for my father - a collection of said movies, and a collection of similar vintage TV episodes. It turned out that many of the movies are, to put it bluntly, painfully bad (dad loves them, but that’s not the issue here). So, I started exploring via Netflix, watching various classics, to see what wasn’t awful from the era. …Jesus, these are all _at best_ mediocre, if not flat-out terrible. All the “classics” - The Day the Earth Stood Still, Them!, The Blob, It Came From Outer Space, etc - are frankly bad movies. They look like they were filmed by a couple kids in the backyard, the acting is wooden, the dialogue is by and large painfully stilted, and apparently, if you wanted to make a speculative fiction movie in the past, you were somehow required to insert some heavy-handed allegory about the evil soviets. And that’s all generously ignoring the fact that depictions of technology generally don’t age well. Finally (thank god) Kubrick came around and made 2001, and then we got Tarkovsky’s Solaris, and eventually that Lucas dude showed up and popularized the genre, but as far as I’ve seen so far, everything prior to 2001 (the movie, not the year) was pretty much worthless. I can’t be right, can I? Is there any movie with speculative fiction themes made prior to 1968, that is a good movie _on it’s own merits_, not due to cult popularity or whatever weird nostalgia? I mean, something with a good, well-written script, actors who can actually act, and a story a bit stronger than “Oh no, the aliens/commies!” _panic_? I’m not even concerned about visuals, but just something with a good story? (Lest anyone think I’m crapping on the genre - I’m not. I’m a huge fan, and part of it is I can name easily a couple dozen truly great speculative/science fiction books - whether they’re great writing or just incredibly creative in terms of story - that came out prior to the late 60’s, which is part of why I’m confused as to where the good _films_ are. The ideas and talent were obviously around, so surely some of it must have leaked into Hollywood, right?) ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/2 "2010-08-09T21:05:38Z")
The original _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_ is pretty good. As is _This Island Earth_. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/3 "2010-08-09T21:07:06Z")
RIP Patricia Neal, who’s now rolling in her grave at the thought that someone could actually think that _Day the Earth Stood Still_ is “flat out terrible”. :shudder: Still, I’m obliged to throw in _The Incredible Shrinking Man_ and _Forbidden Planet_, both brilliant, both from the 50s, and both easily in my top 5 SF films ever. A shoutout is also required for the seminal _Metropolis_, which just about every SF film owes a debt to. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/4 "2010-08-09T21:07:52Z")
_[Forbidden Planet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_Planet)_? Although to be honest I expect any movie (or book for that matter) that old to feel at least a bit off thanks to all the cultural and stylistic changes since then. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/5 "2010-08-09T21:12:17Z")
I am sorry, but your question does not seem to make sense. The Day the Earth Stood Still, Them!, The Blob, It Came From Outer Space, bad movies? How do you feel about Forbidden Planet, or The Invisible Man, or King Kong, or Destination Moon, or The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, or The Incredible Shrinking Man, or The Fly, or The Angry Red Planet, or any number of other films I can’t think of off the top of my head? ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/6 "2010-08-09T21:12:39Z")
_[Forbidden Planet](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049223/)_. Oh sure, the dialog may get a little heavy-handed at times, but the story comes from Shakespeare, not the Soviets. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/7 "2010-08-09T21:18:42Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > _Forbidden Planet_, > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > _[Forbidden Planet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_Planet)_? > [@DrFidelius](#): > > How do you feel about Forbidden Planet, > [@kunilou](#): > > _[Forbidden Planet](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049223/)_. Oh sure, the dialog may get a little heavy-handed at times, but the story comes from Shakespeare, not the Soviets. Methinks there’s a pattern here… ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/8 "2010-08-09T21:26:24Z")
Dunno about Forbidden Planet. Been a while since I watched it, but when I did I definitely needed my “this is Classic Science Fiction” filters in place; the Mad Scientist & his Beautiful Daughter, and particularly the romantic subplot, really seemed dated. (And for reasons entirely unrelated to his performance on screen in FP, Leslie Nielsen was difficult to take seriously as a dramatic lead). ---
**Author:** ![Balance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@Balance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balance)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/9 "2010-08-09T21:32:23Z")
**NinjaChick** , how do you feel about non-SF movies from that era? Some of the things you’re complaining about seem to be common traits of films from that period. The state-of-the-art for film was limited, sets were generally less realistic, and many actors even took a very different approach to their work. Method acting only really got its start in the 1930s and began to actually be taught in the 1940s. Many actors in the 1950s would have gotten their start in pre-Method days. Michael Rennie (Klaatu), for example, was 42 when _The Day the Earth Stood Still_ hit the theaters, and got his start in a British repertory company in the 30s. (Of course, it’s probably true that SF suffered more from these limitations than most genres.) ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/10 "2010-08-09T21:58:03Z")
The Day The Earth Stood Still is heavy handed, not terribly well written, and of course it has stupid effects by today’s standards\*, but the story and much of the atmosphere is great. Much, much better than most “modern” Sci-Fi movies. And I like Sci-Fi. - Keep in mind that aside from the decor and cold-war setting, Kubrick’s 2001 is 40 years old and _still_ looks better than many current SF movies. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/11 "2010-08-09T22:14:49Z")
Fritz Lang’s [Metropolis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(film)). ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/12 "2010-08-09T22:22:08Z")
_Frankenstein_ is Science Fiction, by definition. And brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/13 "2010-08-09T22:39:19Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > _Frankenstein_ is Science Fiction, by definition. > > And brilliant. And _Bride_ two years later is even better. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/14 "2010-08-09T23:26:00Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Dunno about Forbidden Planet. Been a while since I watched it, but when I did I definitely needed my “this is Classic Science Fiction” filters in place; the Mad Scientist & his Beautiful Daughter, and particularly the romantic subplot, really seemed dated. (And for reasons entirely unrelated to his performance on screen in FP, Leslie Nielsen was difficult to take seriously as a dramatic lead). Is **The Tempest** similarly dated to you? Our mad scientist here is not trying to take over the world or is even evil - he is the victim of being human. And I’ve heard of typecasting, but this is typecasting backwards in time! ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/15 "2010-08-09T23:27:16Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > The Day The Earth Stood Still is heavy handed, not terribly well written, and of course it has stupid effects by today’s standards\*, but the story and much of the atmosphere is great. Much, much better than most “modern” Sci-Fi movies. And I like Sci-Fi. The message no longer resonates, I’m afraid. But it was far better than the remake. My main objection to it is removing the best part of Bates’ original story. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/16 "2010-08-09T23:38:41Z")
Quoth **DrFidelius** : > [@](#): > > How do you feel about … Destination Moon, Great science, and the effects were as good as they possibly could have been for the time, but it was a much better lecture than it was a movie. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/17 "2010-08-09T23:41:52Z")
Borderline for a Sixties cutoff, but a good bit before 1968: [_Village of the Damned_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_the_Damned_(1960_film)), based on the John Wyndham novel and wonderfully done. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/18 "2010-08-09T23:57:59Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Dunno about Forbidden Planet. Been a while since I watched it, but when I did I definitely needed my “this is Classic Science Fiction” filters in place; the Mad Scientist & his Beautiful Daughter, and particularly the romantic subplot, really seemed dated. [shrug] Dated now, fresh in 1956. I mean, did Dr. Frankenstein have a daughter? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/19 "2010-08-10T00:00:54Z")
> [@bonzer](#): > > Borderline for a Sixties cutoff, but a good bit before 1968: [_Village of the Damned_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_the_Damned_(1960_film)), based on the John Wyndham novel and wonderfully done. The acting, however . . . Well, I wouldn’t call it “wooden.” It just left me with the impression that real-life Brits, at least those of that period, were emotionless automatons. (Were they?) ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752/20 "2010-08-10T00:32:38Z")
**Them!, Tarantula** , and **It Came from Outer Space** hold up very well. The ending for **It Came From Outer Space** is even more a surprise that it was originally; I can’t think of any “aliens taking over humans for their own purposes” film that has ever tried to do it again. It’s also one of the few films where 3D was wisely used. **Creature from the Black Lagoon** was nearly as good. **Forbidden Planet** would have been better if Walter Pidgeon hadn’t been phoning in his performance. It slows everything down. George Pal’s **The Time Machine** is also a good film, and the special effects still look good. There’s also **[The Fabulous World of Jules Verne](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa6JMMItTcs)**, which predated steampunk by several decades and is still visually fascinating. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pre-1960s-science-fiction-movies-that-dont-suck/549752.md?page=2)