papasmurf
-
Posts
669 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by papasmurf
-
-
The Japanese film BATTLE IN OUTER SPACE featured Earth space fighters that looked very similar to the then-new North American X-15. Aurora issued a reasonably accurate kit of this ship, complete with raised paint lines for the movie color design. So, we have a so-so action movie with a so-so model of the primary defense fighter. Now, to compound the accumulation of horrors, Aurora put this movie space fighter into a box that had a very good X-15 painting on it and had the nerve to call it an X-15. I rate this as the worst kit I ever bought (because of its misrepresentation), even worse than the Lunar Models kits I bought (which are mostly dreadful for other reasons).
I have posted two Lunar Models builds here on the Sci-Fi Forum. Page down to find the Forbidden Planet C57-D saucer (which I completed) and the 2001 Discovery Space Pod (a work in progress about to receive a major progress update). Extensive scratchbuilding to fix kit parts and details were required on both kits.
Ed
I remember the film, so many gadgets and laser battles! Yep, a Stinker
, but I wasn't aware of a model kit being produced? I saw some of the updates on your LM Space Pod, the forward arms assembly and scratch building, excellent work! Extensive everything is required on LM kits! Randy never seem to update the molds for his kits. At the very least, re-working the molds is required after 50, to a maximum of 100 impressions. If not done, you get worse and worse castings, hence, Lunar Model quality. It's an expensive process to re-do molds, but if you don't, the product starts to really go south very quickly.
I have built the 24 inch diameter Jupiter 2, the 24 inch Seaview, and the Spindrift, from Lunar Models. All kits had fairly serious flaws. The J2 had a huge misform, running though the entire top and bottom, saucer section. Fusion Core parts and Landing Legs were blobs of resin, nasty. The Spindrift, along with missing parts, did not fit together correctly, until I had rebuilt most of the Hull sections. The Seaview, actually the best of the 3, also required extensive "styrene surgery", and replacement of major hull sections to achieve a good fit. Even after all this, they did not meet expectations, and I chose not to sell them.
They hang from the rafters of my studio, dusty, but still there. Not good enough for my collection, or for sale, they are in perpetual "model limbo".
Good post Ed!
-
Here's something worth mentioning, before I get back to the "Dungeon of Modeling", also known as the "Smurf Cave of Doom".
Not from the Movie, although they did make one, and yes, it's a stinker.
The "Lost in Space" Chariot kit, by the now defunct, "Lunar Models".
About 3.5 inches long, badly cast, horrendous parts that are all flashed together.
The top section, is almost as thin as the cellophane on a cigarette pack, almost impossible to work with. I was sent this thing as a client submission for a project, it was returned.
If you ever had the bad luck of trying to build this thing from Hell, you know of the agony of a truly "Awful kit".
And as a warning to future modeling generations, all Lunar Model kits are stinkers. You might as well scratch build something, and not waste your time.
That business went up for sale a few years ago, log, stock and barrel, no one bought it. Good thing.....
-
Here's a classic stinker... "What Waits Below". From the early 80's.
Nice one Mike! A really stinky Stinker!! Submarines, Albino Cave dwellers who hate noise and wear bad wigs. Tim Bottoms is in this thing, along with "Wolfie Wolfstein Rob Powell".
So dumb, it may cause permanent brain damage. Bad props, lousy effects, and horrendous and vile acting, true "Stinkorama".
This one earns the coveted three piggies, and a star award, for "Ultimate Stinky"!
:smiley30: -
I have to get into this with some nominations.
Let's start with SLIPSTREAM. It featured Mark Hamill (post-Star Wars trilogy in 1989), Bill Paxton, and Ben Kingsley.
Here are some you may never have heard of: FROZEN ALIVE (1964), THE DAY TIME ENDED (1980), A JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF TIME (1967), UNKNOWN WORLD (1951), and IN THE YEAR 2889 (1966). All are awful and barely watchable.
These six bombs are packaged with three others on DVD that we all know: THINGS TO COME (1936), METROPOLIS (1927), and THE LOST WORLD (1925). These three were first-rate in their time.
Ed
Yep, they packaged 3 classics, with a bunch of Stinkers!! No doubt because they have zillions of copies of the stinkers, on shelves in the warehouse.
I give the stinkers 2 piggies each, at the very least...
:smiley30: "Slipstream" shows why Mark Hamill never got past his "Star Wars" fame, he never did anything worthwhile afterwards. Shame...
it's dumb, very very dumb. I'd give that particular one two piggies and a tad of vomit....
:smiley30: -
The other topic is very open ended, but what about a bad movie that actually had some mainstream injection molded plastic kits made for? I'm not talking garage resin, but old school MPC, AMT, Entex, Airfix, Aurora, etc.
For example, Entex's Galaxy Runner from Message from Space or MPC's Cygnus from The Black Hole.
Good idea, didn't think of that. It relates to model making very well! One thing though, "The Black Hole" wasn't a great film, but it wasn't a "Stinker" either. As it was primarily geared for a younger audience, it was Disney production after all, it wasn't terrible. I saw that when it when it came out, and some of the scenes were quite striking. The characters were very "Kid stuff", but Maximillian was rather sinister. Acting was "so-so", but a "bad movie", not sure about that.
The model was also very "so-so", but I have seen builders do some scratch building augments on it, a bit of lighting, and it's quite nice then!
Another good idea for a topic of this genre would be "Rate a mainstream Sci-Fi kit, hated it, loved it?" But you have a great concept here.
The Entex kit, Japanese issue, has no instructions, metal and resin/styrene, and pretty much Stinks!!
Only about 7 inches long, this is not a good kit, if you want something pretty.
Boriiiing...........
-
I think the worst movie I've ever paid to see was Lifeforce. Even Mathilda May couldn't save this one.
Don
Yep, she was a hottie! This film is a Stinker! Steve Railsback should stick to "Psychotic" characters, not Astronauts.
Even Patrick "Picard" Stewart, is in this thing! His head explodes or something...yuck...
Vampires from Space, mayhem in the streets, it's a mess!
Two piggies for this waste of video....
:smiley30: By the way Smurflings, it's an open discussion. You too have the power to assign "Piggies"!!!
Yes, you, you there, use them piggies, they are waiting there for you!! Just on the right of the page, see them?
I'm bustin' my Smurf butt building this HUGE Enterprise E model, can't rate every movie you guys come up with, help me out!!
This thread is coming along nicely, so go nuts!!!
(Within acceptable IPMS guidelines, keep it clean people) -
Here are a few more for your consideration...
Zardoz (why, Sean? why?!?)
Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter (worth it for Caroline Munro, however)
Starcrash (ditto again for Miss Munro, though)
Steel (this was one of Shaquille O'Neal's first starring forays as an "actor")
The recent remake of the Time Machine (Samantha Mumba was no Weena)
Simon - good point on Yvette Mimieux - here's an idea for a new thread - actors/acrtresses that appeared in among the worst sci-fi films of all time as well as an all time classic...
Zardoz!! Stinky, and....oh yes, Stinky!!
Indeed, Sean regretted doing that, he said it years later, after the success of the 007 films. Terrible acting, and a plot that that was a bit too subtle to make sense. Yep, Miss Munro is yummy, but those films are definite "Oinkers"!
"Steel", Shaq, stay on the court, and off our screens, beyond stinky!!
:smiley30: Remake of the "Time Machine", not great I admit, but some of it was interesting, as it updated some of that "Victorian Technology". I thought Jeremy Iron's performance was interesting as well, as the head "Morlock", he gave it a very sinister touch. However, the rest of the film is "so-so" by any standards. I'd give it one piggy.
On worst films with known actress's in them, first thought, "Barbarella". Jane Fonda became a mega star, but in her careers infancy, Gore Vidal made her do this idiotic film. Although she was pure "eye candy", no question there, the film was extremely stinky!! Dumb, dumb, dumb. As kitsch as the shag carpet in her space ship. Two piggies for that Stinker!
:smiley30: Nearing, or met, my smiley quota by now. jeeez that's dumb. Sorry, just my opinion. I know about bandwith limitations, resource demands of images and GIF files. Just upgrade you server or IPS limits. And no, I don't pay your internet bills, but it does limit the "Fun Quota" on the site. Just a thought....
Another, Dorothy Stratten, in "Galaxina", jeeeeez, so DUMB! Not a great actress, and died under very tragic circumstances, but as a Playboy Playmate, she did not belong on the screen. Superbly Stinky!
:smiley30: -
Excluding the junk made specifially for SyFy, a couple of real movie movies that I saw in the theaters as a teenager that stunk are:
Battle Beyond the Stars, starring John-boy Walton (I had to look these titles up) and a young Molly Ringwald in Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone.
Both movies were awful and tried to capitalize on the Star Wars craze.
Oh you got that right! Right after Star Wars, all sorts of "copykat" films came out from every film studio on the planet. Bad, Japanese, Swedish, German, Chinese, and it goes on and on......
Dull story line, fake effects, baaaad acting! Wasn't Man From U.N.C.L.E, Mr. Vaughn in "Battle Beyond the Stars"? It's a stinker, 2 piggies for that bit of nonsense
:smiley30: "Spacehunter", yep, superior Stinkyness there, Molly, go away.....
:smiley30: Both earn 2 Piggies!!
C'mon, this is getting interesting, unload man, be cleansed of those ol' bad film blues....
-
The most offensive one that I have seen was GALAXY OF TERROR!!!! Stupid and no plot that made sense.
I saw that one, truly magnificent, in it's true awfulness....
:smiley30: A real Roger Corman stinker...Edward Albert, Erin Moran, lots of people in a bad film.
Good one Dude!
-
The Relic from 1997 had to have been one of the absolute WORST book adaptations ever made. The book was phenomenal, and it's one I re-read from time to time. How the authors let his piece of garbage past them I'll never know, but they should be ashamed. The movie left out the the major character, and the only relationship to the book was a few names. Truly, truly horrible.
The 2005 remake of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would be on my list, too, as would Battlefield Earth.
Oh gooood ones!!! I totally hear you on the Relic, captivating book, Super-Stinky!
:smiley30: ...oink....oink.....sueeeeee........The Hitchikers Guide was pitiful as well, the original show, a Brit production was campy, low budget, but I actually enjoyed it. The animations were frequent, and it was a very fun ride.
I'll give that one a definite "Stinky" vote!
...oink...OMG! A rival to "Plan 9...".... "Battlefield Earth"...jeezus, even Travolta admitted it was "Junk".
:smiley30: Supremely Stinky!!I'm truly ashamed that I didn't think of it myself!
But I do have one, since you dragged me to these depths of cinematic disgrace. Yuck, what's that on the floor....?
"The Green Slime" , a 60's flick, Japanese production, American lead actors. OK, at the Drive in when I was a kid, it's was pretty funny. But if you dare watch it now, the giggles will explode your lips right off. I kid you not.
Yvette Mimieux was in that, she was popular in the 60's as an Actress. French actresses were the vogue then, think "Catherine Deneuve", she had a lot of hit flicks by that time.
Anyways, this flick, done about the time "Star Trek" first came out, was so Stinky, it was almost good,......for laughs!!
Trek had some serious production quality for it's time. CBS, the first to be approached to air the series, said it was "Too good for TV".
So a good film, using the available technology of that time, could have been done.
Not in this case.....the whole thing is on "Pee Wees Playhouse" level. You can even see the strings moving Rockets, and Monsters, badly.
I can't think of a solitary good effect, actor, or image in that entire film. Supremely Stinky!!
:smiley30: However, I would have loved to see what MST3K, would have done with it!
-
And here's an obvious one, well actually, several hundred.
All the films that Sy Fy channel puts out, with their own production companies. Short of a few, pure pap! Written in a total "Dumbed-Down for Dummies" style, insipid plots, terrible CG animation, ridiculous scripts and actor's lines, STINKY!
Yes this li'l piggy will be the official seal of a "pure stinky productions"! An insult to pigs everywhere, but it's apt for this li'l adventure in bad film. :smiley30: will mean, super-stinky! :smiley30: will mean, beyond Stinky! That's as high as we can get, or you'll hit the "Too many Smileys" quota thingie.I watched several over the years, Heaven help us, a 5 year old could make a more interesting film.
That doesn't include some very good production stuff like "Battle Star Galactica", the film versions, but there's a lot of pure "stupid", in their weekly offerings.
You can disagree, no problem, but I stand behind their mountain of garbage films.
-
You ought to limit this to big budget, mainstream films. There are some stinkers.
Hey, you guys develop the thread as you wish, I'm only the instigator of this puppy.
If it stinks, think!!
-
Without a doubt, 2001: A Space Odyssey is my favorite. As for stinky....so many candidates, so little time.
I hear you Dick, but you gotta have one "Pure 100% Stinky" candidate for the new thread. I just want to keep this one "on-topic" as much as possible.
Think of the possibilites, it could be MST3K, IPMS style!!
Sorry I write so big, going blind as time goes on, gotta be able to read the nonsense I put up here!! Hehehehe......
"Seize the Day" Dude, now out with it, and post in the new thread!
-
Noel, your brilliant! You just gave me an idea for a new topic, with as much potential as this one, maybe more!!
"What's the absolute worst SF film ever"! Think of it, all those 100% pure, just plain stinky films, just waiting to be razzed!
The fun, the mayhem, it boggles the mind!!
Your a freakin' genius Dude, my sincere thanks!
-
As I just responded to Noel's post on "What film really dissapointed", I got this idea. It's really his, I just "went with it"! It was posted in the "What's your favorite SF film of all time?" thread, but this deserves it's own! There are as many truly "bad SF films" as good ones, probably more.
"Plan 9 from Outer Space" was voted the "All time worst SF film ever" some time ago, but I can think of a heck of a lot of "stinkers"!
This should be fun, as we have a multitude of 100%, truly God-awful choices, to ponder!
Let's start this off right....Mmmm...let's see...truly awful...stinky...just plain horrid....
So many choices, first ones that come to mind are the endless sequels to "Planet of the Apes", all 433 of them!
First one was good, second one, not bad, after that, it's just awfuuuuulll...
"Solar Babies"....OH MY God!! Roller skating kids, in an oppressive future society!!! Please, the barf bag to your right....quickly.....
C'mon, you got a few, this has mega-potential to run endlessly!
Participate, or I'll send an elite commando squad of Smurfs to your house. They will do just "awful" things to your PC! :lol:
-
Just a few more memorable sci fi movies for the melting pot.
The Core, The Abyss and Deep Impact.
Deep Impact had a fairly believeable script and was far superior in my opinion to Armageddon.
Both were released at about the same time. Deep Impact tried to convey convincingly what mankind's approach
to ultimate survival might well be all over the world. if the full asteroid had impacted.
The spacecraft named The Messiah actually looked feasable.
Armageddon's theme was sort of similar in that an attempt had to be made to destroy a comet
on collision course for Earth.
But space shuttles flying through the debris from the comet's tail like Spitfires and Me109's in a dogfight really was a bit laughable.
Mention was made in an earlier post about what would 2001 be like if Ridley Scott or James Cameron had directed it.
I watched 2001 back when it was released, and the widescreen effect at the time was breathtaking. One can only speculate.
Incidentally, someone mentioned how good Helen Mirren's Russian accent was. Not surprising as she is actually of Russian descent!
I would have liked to see what Jurassic Park could have been like had one of these two directors or Peter Jackson had made it instead of Spielberg.
Having read Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park novel a couple of years before the first film was released, I was really looking forward to it,
However,Jurassic Park I feel was seriously compromised as were all three JP movies.
There were bits from both the Jurassic Park and The Lost World novels scattered throughout all three films.
Effects were brilliant, but the stories were too disjointed for me. An example of this was when the ship carrying the T Rex ploughed into the dock.
All the crew had already been ripped to pieces. But by what? Did Velociraptors eat them and get ashore? Where did they go? Only the T Rex was shown
causing mayhem ashore.
That's the trouble I suppose. When you read the books there is an expectancy when they are made into a movie. Unfortunately I was disappointed.
I guess if the JP films had actually kept graphically to the book story lines they might have been too horrifying for juniors to watch.
e.g In the first book Compys had already got onto and were discovered on the mainland eating a baby alive, and there is a graphical description of Nedry watching himself being eaten.
Has anyone else watched a SF movie that has not come up to their expectations?
Well I can think of several, where the books exceeded them, as you so aptly stated. One sticks in my mind. I was living on the West Coast, Washington state, just outside Seattle. Some great movie theaters there, and I walked by and saw the poster for "Naked Lunch" with Peter Weller. One of my favorite actors, and Burroughs wrote some extremely surreal stuff in his days. Some great actors in that, and I had read the book, weird stuff, but I had the expectation that the movie would make sense of it.
Wrong! A very disturbing flick, a bit too "surreal" for anyones taste. There is no observabe linearity in it, it's a hodge podge of bits and pieces from the book. Some interesting moments, like the horrid talking typewriter, very gross. But the story leaves you wondering what the heck you just saw, what did it pan out to mean, not a clue.
I actually watched it a couple of times, thinking I had somehow missed the main point, but alas, no point to be found.
Truly a waste of time in my book, just plain dumb.
It gets my "100% stinky" rating, with honors for being so totally dumb.
-
One reason to hook up with an ISP is the ability to host your own photos and then link them in here or anywhere. It is pretty cheap these days.
Awww Jeez, bandwith restrictions........
So it's "Links Only Encouraged" now, ok dokey..........
So much for the website's visual impact.
Oh well.............
-
One little "off topic" remark. What the heck is this limit of uploads thingie, on my lower left panel here? I've used 482.24 k, I have 17.76 kb left, nary enough for an itty bitty picture.
And I've used it to the point, where my 500 KB limit, The "Global Upload Quota", is used up. Like, forever.....sounds kind of ominous.
Your kiddin'....right....c'mon now....really?
No more pictures, nuthin'...............how cruel.............
I do love to contibute here, and as I've been called the "Sci-Fi Guru of IPMS" on more than one occasion, I protest.
What, you don't like my li'l pics??? Noooo, Booo Big Brother, naughty webmaster. C'mon, that's a teeny limit.
Jeez.......
-
Now Don, if your getting ticked off at this don't. I'm horribly opinionated, and never back down. Not happy you don't like "my beloved", but you have been an interesting addition to this thread. If you take this in any way, but as a little fun, your entirely too serious.
Smurf, no offense taken; I'm an opinionated SOB myself...
I was a little curious, so I did some web surfing to read reviews of 2001. They take either your position or mine (about 2/3s agree with you - its clearly a love-it-or-hate-it type of film). I also researched Kubrick a bit; he is known for taking a book and telling a very different story in a film, while keeping the same characters and events as the book. Writers who have worked with him generally aren't completely happy (e.g. Stephen King and Anthony Burgess); even Clarke seems to have somewhat mixed feelings about this collaboration. I found a claim that many SF writers at the time thought Clarke had been "used" by Kubrick.
Kubrick's 2001 clearly broke a lot of new ground and helped legitimize SF movies. Without it we may never have seen Blade Runner or Star Wars or Alien. On the other hand, if Kubrick had made a slightly more conventional and accessible film, we may have gotten even more quality SF sooner, rather than the niche films that only true-SF-geeks can enjoy. Note that I don't hate 2001, I just don't enjoy watching it (even though the images are technically awesome and I still enjoy re-reading the book) so I can't really call it a favorite. Nor is Marooned one of my favorites; I just used it as an example of a more conventional SF film made at roughly the same time as 2001, that tried to be a quality film (I don't think its fair to call it made-for-TV-quality), and that I can still watch without nodding off halfway through. Keeping me awake for 2 hours after a long day at work correlates well with my enjoying a film.
The reason I questioned 2001 showing up on so many favorites lists is that I suspected a lot of the people putting it in their top-5 hadn't seen the film since a late-night showing at a college theater several decades ago (2001 doesn't show up on cable very often and even finding it on DVD is not easy). Before I got the DVD a few years ago I hadn't seen for it a long time, and I had a rose-tinted memory of it that lasted to just after the apeman tossing the bone into the air...
Don
" I wonder what 2001 would be like if Ridley Scott or James Cameron had made it..."
Now that is an interesting thought, both would have done something...."wonderful"... no doubt!
I have read that Clarke wasn't entirely pleased with the outcome either, so that's a fact.
I actually tried to watch it the other day, you also have a point there, it's hard to get through. Probably because in it's day, it was absolutely mind-blowing, and unique. Not so today, as I can think of many films that were "right up there".
I think it's more of a "reverance" of the film, as it was so groundbreaking. For pure enjoyement, "2010", the follow up, was a fun ride, and Lithgow, Smirnoff, and Scheider, were very good in that. Special mention of Helen Mirren, who did a very believable Russian accent.
That film had more interaction with the Monoliths, and somehow delivered a more enjoyable movie experience.
I guess it's that "memory" of the film, which you mention, that keeps it up there for me. I was a kid, I saw it on that Cinerama thingie, and it stuck. Kind of "over the top" for an 8 year old. But it solidified my love of SF, and film making. So it's "revered" on many levels, and in a personal way.
Hence, it's "My Beloved".
If you take away it's huge initial impact on the genre, "Blade Runner" is equal. On the same "Mind Blowing level"as "2001', but an entirely different film. Pohl wrote that with the title "Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep?"
It addressed the concept of "When is fabricated life sentient, (Self Aware), and when does it start to possess a soul?" Heady stuff....
Azimov did the same, in "I Robot", the Will Smith film really didn't do it justice, although that theme was pretty well illustrated.
It's very cool that you took this the right way, I do so love to have a bit of fun in the midst of all this serious "Movie Love Talk". Kudos to you Don.
-
In my humble opinion, it's probably the finest and most elegant SF film ever. I agree that some elements were left out, from Clarke's book. But you can't always include every little detail in a film. Which is why, you should read the book first! In a film of this mind blowing proportions, it's a must to do so.
I don't think that "marooned" was somehow equivalent in any way, in entertainement impact. it's a good film, but not in 2001's league whatsoever.
...
It was an "Art" film, but oh boy, what a film!!
I never saw 2001 in Cinerama - all the movies I saw until roughly 1980 were on the (single) big screen of a small town movie theater that (judging by the layers of coke dried on the floor) was built sometime in the 40s. First time I saw it on a big screen was probably early 80s, at a just-off-campus theater that specialized in showing "cult" films to broke and slightly inebriated college students. For me, it was a real let-down. The special effects were awesome and way ahead of their time, but the characters were flat, the dialog almost non-existent and unbelievable, the lack of any sort of narrative/scene-setting seemed completely unnecessary. As a movie it was like a Warhol painting of a soup can: no matter how good the technique it was still just a soup can...
Knowing that Clarke and Kubrick had worked together on the book and film, I really expected more of the ideas in the book to make it into the film. Maybe Clarke's ideas were too subtle (the relationship between intelligence and machines - in the book the monoliths are clearly machines) or too controversial for the times (questioning the existence of God), but I'm suspicious that Kubrick was just using Clarke for "cover" to do over the top, psychedelic visuals (it was the 60s) using "its science fiction" as a way to rationalize whatever he did.
I didn't mean to compare the effects in Marooned to 2001; but for me it worked much better as a story, with believable characters and a clear plot.
Don
OUCH!!! Well...rather than start a major argument, I'll say, we can agree to totally disagreeing. Nuff' said...............
I can't keep it suppressed, it's gotta come out, or I'll go mad!!!
I add this little ditty! Mmmm...well maybe not......I looked over this thread, and it seems you've stated your dislike of "2001", several times on it. Blasphemy!
Now I respect your opinion, and the fact that you backed up your point after a little "nudge" from me, shows you have spunk. You must have really disliked this film, because you said at least two or three times so far. I do notice these things, details are my bread and butter.
SUMMON THE PALACE GUARDS, THERE'S SHENANIGANS ABOUT!
Now your first choices, in your first post were right up there, good stuff.
But then, you say "bad things" about my favorite film......
"UNLEASH THE DOGS OF WAR!"
The topic here is, "What's your favorite SF film of all time?", not "Bash the most iconic film in this genre".
So when you attacked my beloved, yet again, I was forced to "Smurf" you. Yes, It's atrocious, the violence, the mayhem that ensued! "God help us all"!
I understand that you preferred the simplicity of "marooned", a "real space" genre film, about 3 Astronauts trapped in orbit, with dying reserves of air. If I recall correctly, Gene Hackman was quite good in that.
"MOMMA, GET MY GUN!"
But, when you compare this film, which I consider about the quality of most "Made for TV" films of that time, to my beloved.........
WRONG,WRONG,WRONG, AND....MMMMM, OH YES! WRONG! I SAY AGAIN,....BLASPHEMY!!
KUBRICK IS ROLLING IN HIS GRAVE AT THE SITE OF YOUR "HAL 9000" AVATAR!!!
"Kubrick was just using Clarke for "cover" to do over the top, psychedelic visuals (it was the 60s) using "its science fiction" as a way to rationalize whatever he did."
"FORGIVE THEM FATHER, FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO!" Really, one of the greatest directors of our age, you don't say.............
" As a movie it was like a Warhol painting of a soup can: no matter how good the technique it was still just a soup can..."
EVEN THE SOUP CANS ARE ENRAGED, THEIR IN YOUR CUPBOARD RIGHT NOW, PLANNING NASTY THINGS!!
Now Don, if your getting ticked off at this don't. I'm horribly opinionated, and never back down. Not happy you don't like "my beloved", but you have been an interesting addition to this thread. If you take this in any way, but as a little fun, your entirely too serious.
And to give you a single point that I agree with, Keir Dullea was flat!! Yes, I said it! No wonders his name contains "Dull"....God help me.....
I'm almost certain my "warn status" will be flashing red soon, and I'm pretty sure the IPMS Thought Police, is coming up the drive....oooh jeez.....
There's quite a few of them, sarcasm ain't gonna work this time, I'm Doomed!!!
-
OH! And one I have never mentioned, just saw it recently, and it reminded me that it belongs in my "Top 10".
"V for Vendetta", set in the future, so it qualifies as an SF film. If you haven't seen it, do. It's awesomely entertaining, John Hurt plays a really nasty dictator, right up there with Hitler.
The "V" character, played by Hugo Weaving, is sensational. It's weird, stunning action scenes, thought provoking, and a seriously good time.
It's one of those great films that most people missed. It was done by the Wachowski brothers, same guys who did the "Matrix" films, but very different.
Check it out!
-
Cool thread, good thinking!
I had many loves, but I'll try and keep the list brief. Mmmm...let's see. Not in any order of release either, just brainstorming here...
Star Trek, Original series
X files, Mulder episodes
Babylon 5, first few seasons. The "Shadow" wars episodes were extremely good!
The Invaders
The Prisoner
Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea
Lost in Space, but only until I was about 9 years old.
U.F.O, The Gerry Anderson ones, excellent and way ahead of it's time.
Batman, until I was about 8 years old.
Doctor Who, the early ones, cheesy but great fun!
V, the new one, not bad at all. The old ones were stinky, just my opinion.
Battlestar Galactica, the old one was pretty cool for it's time, but the special effects were the star. The writing was for kids. Although the episodes with the "Count", and all the religion overtones, were very good.
Battlestar Galactica, recent series, extremely well written, adult oriented, sorry to see it go.
Space 1999, off on the timing, but some very good episodes.
I'm sure I've missed a few, but those came to mind easily.
Hope this thread is very popular, it was time to get into all the great shows!
-
Thought I posted on this a long time ago but don't see me so let's try again.
Star Wars - before it became A New Hope - This is probably the one movie that I have seen more than any other film, especially in theaters. Also loved The Empire Strikes back and Return of the Jedi. Don't hate the prequels but not in my top 10.
Star Trek 2 and 4 - The Wrath of Khan was a great action show and A Voyage Home brought back the humor elements which made up most of my favorite TOS episodes. Was very disappointed in the first Trek movie, story and uniforms especially and they changed the Klingons (which doesn't bother me as much as it does a lot of Trekkers). Although the scene where the Klingons are under attack was great with the music and tension. Also loved the scene where we first see the Enterprise in space dock.
Moon was a good flick for recent times and loved seeing actual miniatures used again in a movie. Still prefer models over full CGI.
Serenity - mainly because I love Firefly
Lots of the others previously mentioned also are high on my list:
Forbidden Planet
Silent Running
Blade Runner
Aliens (also liked Alien and never seen the 3rd or 4th flick)
Galaxy Quest
and a bunch of others.
Still never seen Avatar but may break down and Red Box it someday.
Lots of great choices there!! Saw "Moon" a little while ago, very cool film, a little bizarre, but really well done. I do love real models and props, over CGI, probably always will. Something about CGI, no matter how good, just doesn't feel "right" to my eyes.
The first Trek hit me the same way, not that good, a few great scenes as you mentioned though. "Wrath of Khan" was very good! Best in the pack, in my humble opinion! "The Undiscovered Country" wasn't bad either.
"Serenity" is way cool, the series "Firefly", should have kept going,. lots of fans really got into that. The Movie was pretty decent too. The "Wraith" are is SG's "Atlantis" show now, how the heck did they tie them in there? Are the shows connected somehow, never grasped the connection. Must have missed an episode or something.
"Galaxy Quest" was actually very enjoyable. The humor, as well as some very decent special effects. Not a "Monumental" brain frazzler like "2001", but a very good time.
"Avatar" is worth seeing, it's up there, and one of the best SF films, in the last few years.
I see you started a TV show thread, hopping over there to check that out! B)
-
Interesting. I've never seen "The Prisoner" and I barely remember "Marooned"; I don't even remember what it was about. Man, I have to get caught up!
Really??? Noooo...some of the best "weirdness" of the 60's, from the Brits, was on "The Prisoner"...Dude....
You can buy DVD's, or find services, or cable channels, that still have episodes.
Your missing out, do watch at least one, and you'll love it!
2001 Space Pod
in Space, Sci-Fi & Fantasy
Posted
That's some awesome work!! Sweeeet!