Blade Runner tops scientist poll (1 Viewer)

[TheLongshot]

Well, Hollywood kinda did already. It was called "Meet Joe Black".

At least, that's how I'd envision a Hollywood adaptation of "Stranger In A Strange Land" would turn out.

Rex, you also forgot to mention that AI was also developed for many years by Stanley Kubrick. I personally think AI is a flawed gem myself. It is a pretty risky film by a big time director.

Minority Report, while perhaps a better film, is more standard Hollywood fare with the Sci-Fi element being somewhat secondary to the action. I actually have more respect for Spielberg for making AI than I do with Minority Report.

Jason

 

[JonZ]

At the recent showing of 2001 in Suffern NY with Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood, they were asked what was their favorite Sci Fi film after 2001.

Both said Blade Runner as well.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Jason Birzer wrote (post #181):

 

[Zen Butler]

Minority Report is science fiction. So, I'm not sure what you mean by "the Sci-Fi element." The "science" is too integrated within the story to be secondary.


There isn't that much action in this film. The number one complaint from reviews from friends and family, "it was boring."

 

[Dan Rudolph]

For Steve Chistou:

Asimov fans also get the following:

Bicentennial Man, which hits the plot points but misses the themes of the orignal.

Nightfall (2 versions). I've only seen the 2001 version, but it was terrible, probably about the 3rd worst movie I've ever seen and worst I've seen outside MST3K. The 80s version is generally said to be just as bad.

Apparently there were TV versions of the Caves of Steel and The Ugly Little Boy. I've never seen either, but I'd like to.

Many sci-fi books aren't very movieable, but there are plenty that are. I'd like to see Benford's Kiln people myself.

I think speculation on science, even it's it's completely pretend + fiction=science fiction. Magic or mythical creatures=fantasy. This is pretty much what IMDB says.

 

[Steve Christou]

Thanks Dan, forgot about Bicentennial Man, a blind buy four years ago, haven't dared watch it since. Even worse than A.I. in it's cloying sentimentality.

I much prefer Alex Proyas I,Robot, my idea of a robot film, no pretensions, cut to the chase..."I didn't kill my creator!" pleads the accused Robot. "I don't care!" Will Smith replies and starts shooting at him, or something along those lines.



oooh careful there Zen, you don't want to make such sweeping statements in this thread. Joseph may be watching. First check up on mutant pre-cogs as a biological possibility in human evolution, until then MR is a 'futuristic thriller' do not place next to 2001 or Solaris on shelf, I repeat do not place[STOP IT STEVE!]

 

[Walter Kittel]

I find the scope of A.I. to be much more ambitious ( when compared to Minority Report ) and tend to prefer it for that reason, but I do enjoy both films. I certainly would categorize both films as Science Fiction, with no reservations or hesitation.

Minority Report is not a perfect film. It does suffer from some sentimentality, it has several action sequences that feel grafted on to the film, and several of the characters are so stereotypical as to take one out of the film. Having said that; its consideration of free will vs. pre-destination and how knowledge affects that equation, the production design which attempts to accurately depict a near future, Samantha Morton's performance, some fairly dynamic camera work ( esp. the overhead sequence at the hotel ) and a deceptive ending ( which some say can work either way - but I have my own thoughts on that. ) are just some of the factors that make it a fine film - and an SF film at that.

- Walter.

 

[Zen Butler]

Walter, well put as always.

Although, loosely based on Dick's short story, it's one of the few Dick interpretations that I feel retains the spirit of Dick's "paranoia." Which was once the best word to describe Dick's writing is now being replaced with "prophetic visionary." Deservedly so.

Jack, worded it better, but I've warmed up to A.I. a bit more with each viewing. It is a marvel to look at. I'll probably feel different tomorrow.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Thanks Zen. And yes, I agree that it does a fine job of retaining the paranoia that informs Dick's work.

( Speaking of P.K. Dick - I need to revisit some of his works; perhaps I'll start with The Man In The High Castle or Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said - two of my favorites by Dick. )

- Walter.

 

[Zen Butler]

Well, The Man In The High Castle sure is good place to start. It's all downhill from there.

 

[Angelo.M]

Walter, I like Flow my Tears... as well.

I'm mixed on AI. I actually like two of its three acts, the first and the third, and the ending (problemmatic for so many folks) works for me. The first third felt truncated and the second third (confused yet?!?)--despite a great performance by Jude Law--seemed inexpertly executed.

I did enjoy MR, moreso than AI.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Might want to read UBIK, as well.

 

[Claire Panke]

I can't believe I read the whole thread.

I don't care much whether a film is sci-fi-/fantasy, hard sci-fi, soft sci-fi, or sci-fi "fairy tale" (a la Dark City).

What does concern me is whether a film is *smart*. I want to see "science fiction" that's interesting, smart, and (in contemporary movies) visually compelling.

The goofy physics in SW IV & V doesn't bother me nearly as much as Han Solo's line about the Millenium Falcon making a run in under "50 parsecs". Lucas' mistaking a unit of distance for a unit of time still grates on my ears. I also never bought Han and Leia experiencing normal gravity, a atmosphere & comfy tempertature inside the worm's belly within the asteroid (TESB). But I live with it, just as I do the rest of the bad science in SW. The fun far outweighs the inaccuracies - after all, Lucas wasn't trying to make a scientifically *accurate* movie. (Much to my disappointment then and now, he wasn't trying to make a film for people over age 12 either.)

Speaking of which, it'd be nice to have a few more intelligent sci-fi movies aimed at adults. Given the economics of the movie business, it's more likely we're going to get a lot more sci-fi "action" films. "Thoughtful" sci-fi probably doesn't generate enough $65 million opening weekends to get greenlit in today's Hollywood. Every once in a while an indy slips through or an A list dierector gets one made.

Oh...and BTW...Han shot first.

Anybody else here like Pi?

 

[Jack Briggs]

Walter: I really like your assessment of Minority Report. You're the first one I've read who said something I've long thought: that the action scenes look "grafted on." Good way of putting it.

May I ask, though: Which scenes do you feel are sentimental? My take on it — as well as the same director's Catch Me if You Can — is that the film is free of his trademark manipulative sentimentality. Which is probably why I've warmed to the film as SF in a way that was more difficult for me when dealing with A.I.

Claire: valid comments. Good to see that the "parsec" dialogue in that movie grates at you as well.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Jack: (thanks) It has been some time since I viewed Minority Report but I felt that the sequences dealing with Cruise and his memories of his son were slightly overdone, for my taste anyway. It was an important plot point and tied into the themes of parentage that were present in the film, but I would've liked to have seen a little more subtlety. ( It is a small criticism of a film that I do hold in some regard, though. )

Claire: Pi is an interesting film. I have some questions about the feasibility of the film's theme, but it is intriguing and does a good job of capturing the feeling of an ineffable concept that forever will elude us.

Any yeah, the 'parsec' line always takes me (slightly) out of Star Wars. Of all the stuff they "fixed" in the SE, I wonder if that was corrected? Probably not. Of course it is sort of fun to read some of the justifications of that line on the Web.

- Walter.

 

[Tarkin The Ewok]

Here's what I have to offer on the "parsec" line in Star Wars:

The "official" explanation in the Star Wars books is that setting your course to skirt the edges of the Maw cluster of black holes could alter not just your travel time but also your distance. A reality-based reason is that Lucas probably did not want to come up with a specific travel time between two star systems.

As far as what movies are categorized as science fiction, I prefer to characterize it as anything with futuristic technology, time travel, aliens, or interplanetary travel. I like genres to be as broad as possible, and it is okay if a movie can be classified in five different ways. Limiting the science fiction label to "hard" science fiction stories will result in a genre with very few films. The reason for this is that those stories tend to require long exposition, move slowly, or lack a strong visual appeal when they are adapted for the screen.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

BrandonHar wrote (post #196):


Well, here we go again. The "strong visual appeal" will depend on (1) the topic at hand---"superstrings" don't usually make for theatrical "wow"-ers---and (2) the skill and imaginativeness of the writers, producers, and effects-specialists of any given filmed entertainment. Skill at presenting the tedious and representing the abstract is part of a reasonable demand on those who want to turn such material into profitable "product".

I can't think of anything remotely inherent about "hard science-fiction stories", or their subject matter, that would preclude them from being strongly visually represented on screen in the right hands. Of course, that might turn on one's definition of "hard science fiction".