Jump to content

WHAT'S YOUR FAVORITE SCI-FI FILM OF ALL TIME?


Recommended Posts

One or two posts placed after mine reminded me that I had forgotten about and not mentioned 'Blade Runner'.

I agree that this was also one of the most brilliant SF movies in its own right.

Someone also mentioned the Prisoner. If any Prisoner fans come to the UK they must go to Portmerion in North Wales

and visit the 'Village'. It is open to the public for day visits, there is a hotel on the site and also some of the houses in the village can be holiday rented.

The Village was the inspiration of a man named Clough Ellis who started work on it before WW2 and finally finished it in the 70's.

He wanted to build an Italian styled village that blended harmoniously into the surrounding landscape by a river estuary.

There is probably a website to look at. I think that the tennis courts seen in the old Prisoner series from the sixties have since been replaced by ponds with fountains.

 

 

I'm a huge Prisoner fan, I believe I mentioned it in an earlier post. I never heard about "The Village" being an attraction, how cool is THAT!!

 

One of the most interesting tidbits of trivia I have heard this year, thanks very kindly for sharing that! :smiley32:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I too am a great fan of Clarke and his books. 2001 was an art movie more than anything. Keep in mind that it was originally released in Cinerama. For those who don't know, it was a huge curved screen. The film was shot with three separate cameras and projected by three projectors. It was an immersion type film and the special effects and cinematography were the major focus. It was more about the experience than the story line. This is much like the movie Gran Prix, also a Cinerama film. Cheesy story line to support the immersion effects. I still like HAL. IBM -1 Next letter up from H is I, A is B and L is M. Nice bit of trivia.

 

QUOTE (kptucker @ Jan 15 2009, 05:31 PM) Don,

 

No disagreement on your take but many well written books don't make it through the Hollywood process.

 

...

 

I find 2001 a little difficult to take but I also take it for what it is in the time in which it was made.

 

The interesting thing about 2001 is that Clarke wrote the book and the screenplay at (roughly) the same time. The book had to go to the publisher before the movie finished shooting so they diverged - mostly where Kubrick decided the changes made the movie better. The big one I remember is that Kubrick added the scene where HAL traps Bowman outside in the pod with no space suit - the one place I thought the movie was actually better. Tying this back to modeling - in the book the Discovery goes to Saturn; in the move its Jupiter - because they couldn't get the rings of the Saturn model to look right on film...

 

What bothered me the most about the movie is that it failed to convey any of the main themes of the book: what the monoliths were, the whole "sufficient technology is equivalent to being God" and your standard anti-war, anti-nuke messages (it was the 60s). It wasn't that Kubrick left them out - bits and pieces are scattered through the movie - but there is no attempt to explain any of it - its just lost amongst all the cool imagery. I thought "Marooned" - made at the same time with a much smaller budget and a straightforward storyline actually worked much better as entertainment.

 

Don

 

 

Mmmm...I saw 2001 in that awesome "Cinerama" setting, the huge curved screen. I was around 8, so it would have been around 1968. It played at the HUGE Odeon Theater in Montreal. The 60's version of "I Max", not as technological, but for that time, quite an impact on the audience of that day.

 

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. An entirely different film, about the Space program of that era. The 2 are very different themes. No offense intended, just my 2 cents.

Marooned had some fine moments though, the noble sacrifice of the crew, it was quite moving.

 

I do agree that a lot more data should have been included about the monoliths, somehow, they really were the most interesting characters in that film, and not as fully explored as they should have been. But their nature was to work like "God" in the background, unseen, unknown. So this was probably deliberate.

 

The imagery was a bit much for me back then, now, it makes sense, after reading the book at the age I could fully grasp the concepts. The "Colorized Freakout" scenes gave me nightmares for months. And the "Apes" scenes at the beginning, scared the crap out of me, to this day I don't like primates.

So you can imagine how freaky "Planet of the Apes" was, oddly, I don't think anyone has mentioned that one?? The theater was wrapped in rows three deep the day that opened up, I have never seen that many people waiting on a film. Even the premiere of Star Wars, didn't have that "cast of thousands".

 

And another fine piece of trivia! The letter designation of the Hal Supercomputers is soooo cool! Think I heard that a while back, but you spell it out clearly, nicely done!

 

It was an "Art" film, but oh boy, what a film!!:smiley27:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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....:smiley19:

 

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! :smiley27:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :smiley7:

 

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! :smiley27:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!:smiley27:

 

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

Edited by Schmitz
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!:smiley27:

 

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...............:blink:

 

 

I can't keep it suppressed, it's gotta come out, or I'll go mad!!! :smiley26: 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! :unsure:

 

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".:huh:

 

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!" :smiley28:

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."

 

:smiley19:"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!! :unsure:

 

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. :smiley8:

 

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!!!

 

 

Edited by papasmurf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to my last post mentioning the 'Prisoner' and the 'Village' at Portmerion in North Wales here in the UK.

To avoid any confusion I was referring to the 'Village' as shown in the 1960's series with Patrick McGoohan in the lead role,

It is very photogenic and well worth original 'Prisoner' fans visiting it when they come to the UK.

During the summer it is quite busy, Spring and Autumn (Fall) may be better times to visit.

I should have remembered that there was a recent modern remake of the Prisoner series for TV.

The village in the newer series was probably a film set that may heve been dismantled afterwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :smiley8:

 

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. I wonder what 2001 would be like if Ridley Scott or James Cameron had made it...

 

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

Edited by Schmitz
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :smiley8:

 

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". :smiley27:

 

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....:unsure:

 

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. :smiley32:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :blush:

 

Your kiddin'....right....c'mon now....really? :ph34r:

 

No more pictures, nuthin'...............how cruel.............:smiley19:

 

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. :smiley28:

 

What, you don't like my li'l pics??? Noooo, Booo Big Brother, naughty webmaster. C'mon, that's a teeny limit.

 

Jeez.......:smiley26:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.:smiley11:

 

Oh well.............

Link to post
Share on other sites

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, but it escaped AFTER the ship collided with the dock.

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?

Edited by noelsmith
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :smiley21:

 

It gets my "100% stinky" rating, with honors for being so totally dumb. :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Noel, your brilliant! You just gave me an idea for a new topic, with as much potential as this one, maybe more!!:smiley31:

 

"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!! :smiley29:

 

Your a freakin' genius Dude, my sincere thanks! :smiley32:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a doubt, 2001: A Space Odyssey is my favorite. As for stinky....so many candidates, so little time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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......:smiley17:

 

"Seize the Day" Dude, now out with it, and post in the new thread!

Edited by papasmurf
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I guess I missed putting this on a previous post.

Remember the Flash Gordon movie with Max Von Sydow acting as Ming the Merciless.

The film was very different from the usual Sci Fi that we are all familiar with. A pounding soundtrack by Queen was unforgettable.

The backgrounds were reminiscent of the Beatles Sgt Pepper era with all the bright contrasting colours etc.

It's a film that you either love or hate I would imagine.

Personally, I enjoyed it because it was very different and the humour was very tongue in cheek.

It got rave reviews in the British press at the time of release. How about the US? was it as popular Stateside?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason, I'm always draw to the original "The Time Machine". Saw it as a kid and just liked it.

 

How 'bout" "The Shape of Things to Come" with Ramond Massey in his pajamas preaching progress?

 

Of course, there's always "Metropolis".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...

I realize this is an old thread but I am a recent visitor to these forums and loved this thread. This is a topic near and dear to my heart. I watch these things while modelling. I can't narrow it down to three films so I have to cheat.

 

My top 3:

 

A - Alien - I classify this as a Horror film that happens to be set in space. Hard to think of a more shocking scene in film than the alien "birth". Linda Blair with a crucifix? The Crying Game "revalation"?

 

B - John Carpenter's The Thing - I don't feel this is a remake of the original Thing at all. Carpenter's Thing more closely follows the original novella written by John W. Campbell, Jr. in 1938 and recognized by The Science Fiction Writer's of America as one of the finest science fiction novellas ever written.

 

C - Blade Runner - What a vision of LA! Rutger Hauer was great. Sean Young was beautiful and the soundtrack by Vangelis was extraordinary.

 

My 3 Runner-ups:

 

A - Aliens - When I first saw this on the big screen in THX I thought it was the most exhilarating movie I had ever seen. Flight Lt. E. Ripley - toughest character ever?

 

B - Terminator 2 - I really agonized over this choice. Terminator or T2. In the end, I think I was swayed by a tougher Sarah Conner and a very unique and well-played villain.

 

C - Star Trek II - Ricardo Montalban...nuff said.

 

Honorable mention:

 

A - Terminator - Best SF line ever. "You're terminated ..."

 

B - Predator - No, I don't really like Arnold this much. These picks just worked out this way.

 

C - Matrix 2 - Best freeway scene ever. Best latex ever.

 

Golden Oldies:

 

A - Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Original) - but I did think the Donald Sutherland version was just as good. And with a cameo by the original dude, Kevin McCarthy.

 

B - Forbidden Planet - The Id has bailed me out of many a Scrabble game. Best Toga ever. I'm glad I saw this years before the Airplane or Naked gun movies so I could take Leslie Nielson seriously.

 

C - It! The Terror from Beyond Space - OK, maybe this should have been on my guilty pleasures but I like it and it was really the forerunner of Alien.

 

Guilty Pleasures:

 

A - The Blob - Scared me witless as a kid and I still don't eat Jell-o.

 

B - Reptilicus - Back when there were only three channels on TV there was this thing called the Million Dollar Movie. They played the same movie every day for a week. You guessed it. I may be the world's only Reptilicus expert.

 

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...