[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Groundbreaking to be sure, but fundamentally flawed as a movie. It has two completely unconnected plots – the exploration of the ET obelisk and the behavioral malfunction of HAL – stitched together into a flopping, shambling chimera.
[/QUOTE]
Actually not. A lot of 2001 involves the interaction of man and his tools. Moonwatcher became human when he learned to use a tool, Dave Bowman was able to become more than human when he defeated the most advanced of man’s tools.
2001 is my favorite science fiction film. Star Wars is my favorite sci-fi film. if you exclude **Star Wars **from the sf canon, you exclude several decades and magazines worth of stories.
I’m quite partial to Forbidden Planet, since it did quite well with what was available at the time.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Groundbreaking to be sure, but fundamentally flawed as a movie. It has two completely unconnected plots – the exploration of the ET obelisk and the behavioral malfunction of HAL – stitched together into a flopping, shambling chimera.
[/QUOTE]
Their thematically linked. HAL is fighting back against his creators while at the same time Bowman is attempting to make contact with his.
I love them all. The first War of the Worlds should have won an academy award. They Came From Outer Space with the tunneling underneath and people being sucked underground was great. Invasion of the Body Snatchers,The original The Thing. The Creature from The Black Lagoon . All a good watch.
[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
The first science fiction movie ever–Le Voyage dans la lune is silly & enjoyable.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Muffin]
Completely unconnected plots? The winner for that would be Méliès’ Le Voyage dans la Lune.
[/QUOTE]
They may not have plausibly shown how a moon landing could be accomplished, but you can’t deny they accurately predicted steampunk!
How about Science Fiction for people who don’t especially like Science Fiction? That is to say, applying Theodore Sturgeon’s maxim that “Ninety percent of everything is crap” to my own prejudice against the genere (that when the SciFi element detracts from the goal of giving meaning of existance it goes in the 90%; when it adds intsight into this it goes in the 10%): Slaughterhouse Five
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train] Star Wars is space opera, not science fiction in the strictest sense of the term.
[/QUOTE]
Well, the title/OP did specify “sci-fi,” not “science fiction”!
[QUOTE=CalMeacham] 2001 is the artsiest and most “cerebral” science fiction film.
[/QUOTE]
Nitpick: It’s the artsiest and most cerebral well-known SF film. Ever seen Phase IV?
I’ve seen both versions several times. It literally puts me to sleep. I really don’t understand the appeal of this one – somnambula isn’t much of a recommendation. It takes a ponderously long time for things to not happen in this film. There are some good ideas buried in it, but it doesn’t really DO anything with them. Both versions depart quite a bit from the book (in fact, the second version is really a new version of the first film, not a version of the book) – if they’d followed the book, it wouldn’t have been as infernally dulll (although still pretty dull – I’m not a fan of Stanislas Lem).
[QUOTE=Slithy Tove]
They may not have plausibly shown how a moon landing could be accomplished, but you can’t deny they accurately predicted steampunk!
How about Science Fiction for people who don’t especially like Science Fiction? That is to say, applying Theodore Sturgeon’s maxim that “Ninety percent of everything is crap” to my own prejudice against the genere (that when the SciFi element detracts from the goal of giving meaning of existance it goes in the 90%; when it adds intsight into this it goes in the 10%): Slaughterhouse Five
[/QUOTE]
If it’s Steampunk you want–hope that you get the chance to see The Fabulous World of Jules Verne. I saw this B&W Czech film in a theater just after it was released over here. Apparently it’s hard to find–but the Rotten Tomatoes summary is pretty accurate:
[QUOTE=RealityChuck]
I prefer this to the weak plot and ending of 2001 (It could be argued that 2001 is responsible for everything that is bad about current SF).
[/QUOTE]
Really? That sounds a little hyperbolic. I would be interested to hear you flesh out this argument.
[QUOTE=Tyrrell McAllister]
I would agree if he had only faked his record and identity. However, he also cheated on physical exams (using recordings of someone else’s heart rate, for example). He falsely portrayed himself as being in much better physical condition than he really was. Unlike skin color, his flaw was not irrelevant to his job. The mission was designed for someone who really had the stamina that he pretended to have. He was therefore putting the entire mission at risk.
[/QUOTE]
But he did have the stamina he claimed to have, which was proven by him doing well in all the physical exams, and when he outswam his brother at the end.
[QUOTE=CalMeacham]
I’ve seen both versions several times. It literally puts me to sleep. I really don’t understand the appeal of this one – somnambula isn’t much of a recommendation. It takes a ponderously long time for things to not happen in this film. There are some good ideas buried in it, but it doesn’t really DO anything with them. Both versions depart quite a bit from the book (in fact, the second version is really a new version of the first film, not a version of the book) – if they’d followed the book, it wouldn’t have been as infernally dulll (although still pretty dull – I’m not a fan of Stanislas Lem).
[/QUOTE]
Well, in all fairness, he did say “artiest and most cerebral”, not “most entertaining”.
As far as quality films go, I’d have to agree with 2001, though it’s not my favorite. It set the standard for “Art” with a capital “A” in science fiction.
I liked both versions of Solaris but Cal is right. They should have followed the book. Both tacked on relatively happy endings that pretty much contradicted the entire point of Lem’s novel.
My absolute favorite sci-fi film is John Carpenter’s The Thing, which as far as I’m concerned is the only movie ever made that perfectly blended science fiction and horror. I’ve watched it dozens of times, and I can’t pick out anything I don’t like about it. The pacing, the setting, the music, the casting. Everything was perfect!
My honorable mention would have to be Planet of the Vampires, even though it’s cheesy as all hell, just because of the scene with the dead alien skeletons. (And thanks again to the Dopers who helped me track that one down last summer, btw. )
[QUOTE=Barbarian]
I strongly disagree with you there. Brazil is great science fiction story that does not need technology. The heart of good science fiction is a willingness to explore ideas, and you cannot doubt that Brazil has taken the idea of “just follow orders” and run with it as long and as far as 1984.
[/QUOTE] Brazil is a dystopian film, but nothing about it is particularly science fiction. it’s set roughly in the present day (“Somewhere in the 20th Century”) although clearly in a world that is a farcical representation of a dystopia. It is fantasy, certainly, and a fantastic film, but nothing about it is really “science fiction” in the strict sense of the world. Science fiction needs to have some element of, well, science (either speculative or extant) which it develops or forms an essential basis for the story.
I had forgotten Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind until someone else brought it up, because the sci-fi elements are so low key and prosaic, but it is a far better take on memory and perception than Total Recall. It’s a great one as well.
Sunshine was well on it’s way to being the best sci-fi movie I’ve ever seen…till the skinless thing showed up and popped me right out of the mood. Shame…I would have sung it’s praises to anyone who would listen, up till then.
[QUOTE=Barbarian]
But he did have the stamina he claimed to have, which was proven by him doing well in all the physical exams, and when he outswam his brother at the end.
[/QUOTE]
Then why did he need to use recordings of someone else’s heart beat? Recall the scene where he is forced to run on the treadmill longer than he had anticipated. He is on the verge of collapse, and it is only because of the strength of his will, not his heart, that he is able to run for as long as he does. When his recording stops, we hear the wild disparity between the actual condition of his heart and the one he pretends to have.
