Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - SF movies of the 21st century
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedSF movies of the 21st century
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
Poll Question: Your favourite, and why?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
1 [4.76%]
4 [19.05%]
1 [4.76%]
1 [4.76%]
0 [0.00%]
4 [19.05%]
0 [0.00%]
1 [4.76%]
5 [23.81%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
3 [14.29%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
1 [4.76%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2012 at 13:16
Originally posted by jampa17 jampa17 wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by jampa17 jampa17 wrote:

There's no plot wholes,
Ermm "Hey let's invade a planet whose surface is 75% water, whose creatures are 60-80% water, whose atmosphere is high in humidity and where it precipitates a lot because there is a kid having a birthday party in one of the wettest countries down there I really want to spook - and let's go without protective clothing or hand weapons and make sure we don't know how to kick down flimsy doors because bombarding these critters from space just isn't sporting and since we have claws for hands making and using such weaponry is a tad more difficult than constructing and flying inter-stellar craft. And since we can navigate the vast distances of space to an isolated water filled planet we had best hope that  the planet is populated by a semi-advanced life-form that has evolved sufficiently to allow arable farming so our plan of marking their fields with navigation aids works because if these monkeys are still living in trees then we might as well just go to Mars or something"
 
"Now, now, Barry, don't be so negative, we can get Mel Gibson's autograph..."
 
"...or flip him the bird."
 
"I don't think that is advisable."
 
No plot holes at all.

Thanks Dean, this post probes why I avoid any career related with science and physics as well as why I stopped been sarcastic in threads. 

Still, that's not a hole, I still believe everything matches really great (maybe for those of us that really enjoy miracles -breaking physics laws and everything Wink-) so I think it's still good. 

And I do remember that most 60s and 70s movies doesn't have a good explanation to everything that happened in SF movies and still are taken like Masterpieces of cinema... what about that?
I answer sarcasm with sarcasm, sorry about that, but I think that's a valid response.
 
Miracles in fiction are fine, nothing wrong with that - in The Sixth Sense Night Shyamalan created a perfectly fine fiction based upon the paranormal - all I need to do to accept the film's concept is to believe that some people believe in ghosts, which I do. Signs was not paranormal - it was supposed to be feasible and believable in the natural world, the aliens were not demons or ghosts, they were physical creatures, invading lifeforms from space and their "science" and "physics" is the same as ours. Vampires cannot cross running water and can be killed by "holy" water - ordinary water and still water cannot harm them - and there is nothing wrong with that because "vampire science" is a fiction, but it is a consistant fiction that does not break its own rules - Signs does not do that - it creates a rule without a limiting condition, then violates that rule.
 
You can disregard that violation of its own rules and that's okay, I cannot, and that's okay too.
 
I think most SF regardless of era tended to treat science knowledgeable people with a degree of respect - from the very beginnings of SF as a literary genre the science has always been a plausible and therefore believable extrapolation of what we do know to what might be. For example In War Of The Worlds HG Wells created a hopeless situation for mankind where all our technology was useless against a more advanced foe to have them wiped out by the simplest most primitive organism on the Earth, and in its time that was a plausible synopsis that even today we regard with caution. Signs does not contain that "honesty" in its disregard for plausibility.
 
I'm not sure what films of the 60s and 70s you are thinking of, most that come to mind for me (Solaris, 2001, Dr Strangelove, Omega Man, Soylent Green, Westworld, Logan's Run, Star Wars, Close Encounters etc) contained pretty reasonable science. 
 
What?
Back to Top
clarke2001 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 14 2006
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 4160 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2012 at 13:18
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by jampa17 jampa17 wrote:

There's no plot wholes,
Ermm "Hey let's invade a planet whose surface is 75% water, whose creatures are 60-80% water, whose atmosphere is high in humidity and where it precipitates a lot because there is a kid having a birthday party in one of the wettest countries down there I really want to spook - and let's go without protective clothing or hand weapons and make sure we don't know how to kick down flimsy doors because bombarding these critters from space just isn't sporting and since we have claws for hands making and using such weaponry is a tad more difficult than constructing and flying inter-stellar craft. And since we can navigate the vast distances of space to an isolated water filled planet we had best hope that  the planet is populated by a semi-advanced life-form that has evolved sufficiently to allow arable farming so our plan of marking their fields with navigation aids works because if these monkeys are still living in trees then we might as well just go to Mars or something"
 
"Now, now, Barry, don't be so negative, we can get Mel Gibson's autograph..."
 
"...or flip him the bird."
 
"I don't think that is advisable."
 
No plot holes at all.



Now I'm curious, I admit.


Could it be worse than Silent Running ?
Percussion, sir!
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2012 at 13:30
Originally posted by clarke2001 clarke2001 wrote:


Could it be worse than Silent Running ?
Silent Running had a weak storyline and script, but it was not an implausible concept, and the engineering was okay... and it had cute droids.
What?
Back to Top
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13233 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2012 at 13:55
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by clarke2001 clarke2001 wrote:


Could it be worse than Silent Running ?
Silent Running had a weak storyline and script, but it was not an implausible concept, and the engineering was okay... and it had cute droids.

I thought Silent Running had a superb storyline & scriptUnhappy

As to the poll question, I am ashamed to admit that the only 21st century sci-fi movie I have seen is Star Trek. I don't get out much these daysLOL
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15783 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2012 at 14:19
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I answer sarcasm with sarcasm, sorry about that, but I think that's a valid response.
 
Miracles in fiction are fine, nothing wrong with that - in The Sixth Sense Night Shyamalan created a perfectly fine fiction based upon the paranormal - all I need to do to accept the film's concept is to believe that some people believe in ghosts, which I do. Signs was not paranormal - it was supposed to be feasible and believable in the natural world, the aliens were not demons or ghosts, they were physical creatures, invading lifeforms from space and their "science" and "physics" is the same as ours. Vampires cannot cross running water and can be killed by "holy" water - ordinary water and still water cannot harm them - and there is nothing wrong with that because "vampire science" is a fiction, but it is a consistant fiction that does not break its own rules - Signs does not do that - it creates a rule without a limiting condition, then violates that rule.
 
You can disregard that violation of its own rules and that's okay, I cannot, and that's okay too.
 
I think most SF regardless of era tended to treat science knowledgeable people with a degree of respect - from the very beginnings of SF as a literary genre the science has always been a plausible and therefore believable extrapolation of what we do know to what might be. For example In War Of The Worlds HG Wells created a hopeless situation for mankind where all our technology was useless against a more advanced foe to have them wiped out by the simplest most primitive organism on the Earth, and in its time that was a plausible synopsis that even today we regard with caution. Signs does not contain that "honesty" in its disregard for plausibility.
 
I'm not sure what films of the 60s and 70s you are thinking of, most that come to mind for me (Solaris, 2001, Dr Strangelove, Omega Man, Soylent Green, Westworld, Logan's Run, Star Wars, Close Encounters etc) contained pretty reasonable science. 
 


So much of this.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
AlexDOM View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 02 2011
Location: Indianapolis
Status: Offline
Points: 775 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2012 at 17:54
The MOVIE represented on my Avatar will become the greatest sci fi movie of the 21st century!
Back to Top
RoyFairbank View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2012 at 18:27
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by clarke2001 clarke2001 wrote:


Could it be worse than Silent Running ?
Silent Running had a weak storyline and script, but it was not an implausible concept, and the engineering was okay... and it had cute droids.

 
Did the cute droids take off their robo-tops? Tongue

For a second I thought the film might have Silent Running by Mike + The Mechanics in the Soundtrack but I see its earlier. I love that song, even though it is overly religious.


Back to Top
RoyFairbank View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2012 at 18:28
By the way what about Species III? I mean, come on. ErmmLOL
Back to Top
jampa17 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2012 at 18:59
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by jampa17 jampa17 wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by jampa17 jampa17 wrote:

There's no plot wholes,
Ermm "Hey let's invade a planet whose surface is 75% water, whose creatures are 60-80% water, whose atmosphere is high in humidity and where it precipitates a lot because there is a kid having a birthday party in one of the wettest countries down there I really want to spook - and let's go without protective clothing or hand weapons and make sure we don't know how to kick down flimsy doors because bombarding these critters from space just isn't sporting and since we have claws for hands making and using such weaponry is a tad more difficult than constructing and flying inter-stellar craft. And since we can navigate the vast distances of space to an isolated water filled planet we had best hope that  the planet is populated by a semi-advanced life-form that has evolved sufficiently to allow arable farming so our plan of marking their fields with navigation aids works because if these monkeys are still living in trees then we might as well just go to Mars or something"
 
"Now, now, Barry, don't be so negative, we can get Mel Gibson's autograph..."
 
"...or flip him the bird."
 
"I don't think that is advisable."
 
No plot holes at all.

Thanks Dean, this post probes why I avoid any career related with science and physics as well as why I stopped been sarcastic in threads. 

Still, that's not a hole, I still believe everything matches really great (maybe for those of us that really enjoy miracles -breaking physics laws and everything Wink-) so I think it's still good. 

And I do remember that most 60s and 70s movies doesn't have a good explanation to everything that happened in SF movies and still are taken like Masterpieces of cinema... what about that?
I answer sarcasm with sarcasm, sorry about that, but I think that's a valid response.
 
Miracles in fiction are fine, nothing wrong with that - in The Sixth Sense Night Shyamalan created a perfectly fine fiction based upon the paranormal - all I need to do to accept the film's concept is to believe that some people believe in ghosts, which I do. Signs was not paranormal - it was supposed to be feasible and believable in the natural world, the aliens were not demons or ghosts, they were physical creatures, invading lifeforms from space and their "science" and "physics" is the same as ours. Vampires cannot cross running water and can be killed by "holy" water - ordinary water and still water cannot harm them - and there is nothing wrong with that because "vampire science" is a fiction, but it is a consistant fiction that does not break its own rules - Signs does not do that - it creates a rule without a limiting condition, then violates that rule.
 
You can disregard that violation of its own rules and that's okay, I cannot, and that's okay too.
 
I think most SF regardless of era tended to treat science knowledgeable people with a degree of respect - from the very beginnings of SF as a literary genre the science has always been a plausible and therefore believable extrapolation of what we do know to what might be. For example In War Of The Worlds HG Wells created a hopeless situation for mankind where all our technology was useless against a more advanced foe to have them wiped out by the simplest most primitive organism on the Earth, and in its time that was a plausible synopsis that even today we regard with caution. Signs does not contain that "honesty" in its disregard for plausibility.
 
I'm not sure what films of the 60s and 70s you are thinking of, most that come to mind for me (Solaris, 2001, Dr Strangelove, Omega Man, Soylent Green, Westworld, Logan's Run, Star Wars, Close Encounters etc) contained pretty reasonable science. 
 
Whatever Dean, I can't think in an answer without thinking in the half hour iI need to translate it to you, nor the fact that I do enjoy movies without pretending knowing too much, which is exactly why I sit and enjoy and even like that there are some movies that I can't stand.

But, as your description is so accurate, I have to tell you, our bodies are 90% liquid not water, which is not the same. And we can't bring a condition to an alien that we don't understand for not even the "rules" they can have. Sorry, it's the same to vampires or Stallone movies for me... 

Some much for me in this particular subject. 

Cheers. 
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2012 at 20:16
^ I have no idea where you got your figure from or what this "liquid" would be if not water, (most bodily fluids are hydrous solutions, even gastric acid is mainly water with 0.5% hydrochloric acid). The human body is 60-80% water by weight depending on age and health, and it is the water content I was referring to as that was the relevant bit for that "argument".
 
Anyway, other than that I'm not sure what your point is, I've already said it is okay if a fiction creates its own rules, but for me once those rules have been established then they should be adhered to that is all. If you don't think that is necessary then good for you - you will enjoy far more films and books than I will.
 
What?
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15783 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2012 at 21:18
^Obese people can dip below 60%, but a living human is always going to be more than 40% as far as I understand.

It's not even just humans. It's all life on planet. The story also goes that they're coming here for our natural resources. What natural resources? Take away the life, which is poison to them, and the water, which is also poisonous, and our resources are hardly that unique. Did they come here for fossil fuels? If that's the case then it would be the most absurd point of the movie.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - May 10 2012 at 21:19
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32473 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2012 at 21:34
I liked Signs.

Nobody said the extraterrestrials who came to Earth were smart.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15783 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2012 at 21:52
Unless they were dogs on their original planet thrown into space ships made by an intelligent race and sent here for amusement, I think they would have to be smart. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32473 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2012 at 22:12
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Unless they were dogs on their original planet thrown into space ships made by an intelligent race and sent here for amusement, I think they would have to be smart. 


Who's to say they weren't inept soldiers sent by a corrupt politician to a planet for that planet's resources, but they were sent with no support during a series of unpopular wars during an election year?

The film focuses on the earthlings, not the aliens.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15783 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 10 2012 at 22:20
It just goes back to the rulers being complete morons then. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Jim Garten View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin & Razor Guru

Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 11 2012 at 02:28
Originally posted by clarke2001 clarke2001 wrote:

Could it be worse than Silent Running ?


Nooooo - please don't have a go at one of my favorite films...

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
Back to Top
AlexDOM View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 02 2011
Location: Indianapolis
Status: Offline
Points: 775 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 11 2012 at 16:05
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I liked Signs.

Nobody said the extraterrestrials who came to Earth were smart.

Ha ha ha I love that. 
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 11 2012 at 16:56
Extraterrestrials in films will only ever be as smart as a Hollywood scriptwriter.
What?
Back to Top
Jim Garten View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin & Razor Guru

Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2012 at 06:07
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Extraterrestrials in films will only ever be as smart as a Hollywood scriptwriter.


Well that's their plans for global domination buggered, then!

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.