Favourite Sci Fi movie
- Thread starter Glongpre
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just watched it.Zontar said:
I liked it better than 2001. The formation of a mini sun was interesting, and then the life beginning on Europa (similar to the monkey scene in 2001).
However, thinking back on 2001, it seemed to build up to an evolution of the human race (monkey -> man -> cosmic baby -> evolved man?) rather than just starting new life on another planet (or large moon). I think it would have been more interesting to go the evolution route.
I just remembered another great movie, The Fountain. That is in my top 5 sci fi, that was a great movie. I loved the ideas on life and death, and what that means.
Well, I'm a sucker for things set on one spaceship, so:
- Pandorum
- Cargo
- The various Alien films
Sunshine was okay, but it's so long since I watched it I couldn't actually give a plot synopsis.
Oh, and does 2012 count on the basis that it's so bad it's good? The Neutrinos are mutating!
- Pandorum
- Cargo
- The various Alien films
Sunshine was okay, but it's so long since I watched it I couldn't actually give a plot synopsis.
Oh, and does 2012 count on the basis that it's so bad it's good? The Neutrinos are mutating!
My current Sci-fi favorites would have to be:
-The Martian
-Ex Machina
-Ghost in the Shell, especially the Stand Alone Complex TV show
The one thing that has always bugged me about Inception is...
-The Martian
-Ex Machina
-Ghost in the Shell, especially the Stand Alone Complex TV show
The Prestige is perhaps my favorite movie of all time and I don't even care for magic that much. I always sell the movie to friends that it's Batman vs Wolverine in MAGIC!!!Glongpre said:
The one thing that has always bugged me about Inception is...
Cobb's totem of the spinning top. The whole point of the totems is that the dreamer would dream each totem as an ordinary object like a die not being weighted. But normal top wouldn't spin forever. I think the top might be the key to the movie being a dream or not a dream because it's the one thing that doesn't make sense. Everyone online seems to be obsessed with Cobb's wedding ring. On each viewing though, I haven't had that eureka moment where I've sorta put it all together. It really seems odd that Nolan would overlook something as important as the main character's totem. Also, it's cool if the movie is all a dream because that would make Michael Caine's character right just like he was in The Prestige all along.
Oh man it is so good. How the movie itself is structured like a magic trick is genius. I always loved Caine's line about the sailor who told him about drowning. At first he tells the guy, "drowning was like going home". Then you are hit with the hammer at the end, "I lied. He said it was agony.". I don't know why I like it, the delivery is just great. Maybe it is because Jackman had unwittingly been putting himself in one of the worst ways to die, just to stick it to Bale.Phoenixmgs said:
I think it has more to do with his character arc. It is part of his guilt over Mal(it was Mal's totem), and it reminds him of that guilt. He can't take a leap of faith, and obsesses over being in reality. By the end, he is free of his guilt and he can allow himself to just live happily with his kids. It is ambiguous at the end if the top falls, because it doesn't matter to Cobb anymore, he has moved on.
I don't think it was overlooked at all.
You might be interested in the novel. I overall prefer the 2010 film to the novel, but the novel does establish early on that the Tsin (a Chinese spacecraft that beat the Leanov to Jupiter) discovered life on Europa, albeit primitive life. Floyd laments that it won't ever have the chance to reach sapience, as there's no way to exist outside Europa's oceans (points out that the ocean is a far more stable habitat than land, hence natural selection/evolution receives less of a 'push'), and that by remaining in the sea, any civilization could never develop fire. Course when Jupiter is kindled into Lucifer, that changes, and we get an epilogue in the year 20,001, which, among other things, depicts Europans looking at a monolith on Europa's surface, mirroring the apes of Earth doing the same.Glongpre said:
I can understand why it was left out of the film though. 2001's overall theme is "evolution/journey of mankind" (that's just me, 2001 is certainly open to interpretation), 2010 (the film's) theme is "all these worlds are ours." As in, national barriers don't matter in the eyes of the universe, that we're all but people on a planet in a universe where life, both younger and older, exists." A theme that's delivered less subtlely, but still effectively. 2010 the novel is closer to 2001 in terms of theme, but doesn't have the same 'bite' of the film in some areas (e.g. the Cold War sub-plot is absent from the novel).
Definitely Aliens. Not only my favorite Sci-Fi movie, but my favorite movie in general.
Second choice would probably be a toss-up between The Thing (1982) or Terminator 2: Judgment Day depending on the mood I'm in.
I admittedly also have a pretty big soft spot for all of the old 50's classics too though, like Invaders From Mars, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, War of the Worlds, and The Day The Earth Stood Still. I grew up watching a lot of those with my dad on weekends, when we weren't marathoning James Bond or old war movies.
Second choice would probably be a toss-up between The Thing (1982) or Terminator 2: Judgment Day depending on the mood I'm in.
I admittedly also have a pretty big soft spot for all of the old 50's classics too though, like Invaders From Mars, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, War of the Worlds, and The Day The Earth Stood Still. I grew up watching a lot of those with my dad on weekends, when we weren't marathoning James Bond or old war movies.
While I know there are better science fiction movies, I keep coming back to Serenity. It kind of wrapped up one of the best TV shows of all time. That also helps in my appreciation of the movie. I had 13 hours to be introduced to these characters and the storyline.
Does it seem like that Sci-Fi fans are way too critical of new science fiction IP's and way too forgiving of remakes and sequels of established Sci-Fi IP's?
Does it seem like that Sci-Fi fans are way too critical of new science fiction IP's and way too forgiving of remakes and sequels of established Sci-Fi IP's?
I don't find that. Look at the new Star Trek movies, and Star Wars. I find that a lot of people are overly critical of them, where as new ideas like Ex Machina, Primer, Pandorum, etc, are rather enjoyed for their fresh ideas.KissingSunlight said:
Plus remakes have been given kind of a tarnish to their name nowadays, since there seem to be so many.
That's what I thought too. I was kind of disappointed that Dave didn't become a more evolved human. It doesn't make sense to me that Dave was consumed by the aliens and not just killed. If the goal of the monoliths was to just create intelligent life, then what was the point of the humans, you know?Hawki said:
Unless achieving peace and harmony with each other and the galaxy is the next evolutionary step?
Um...what?Glongpre said:
Okay, one thing that's generally a given is that Dave does become a more evolved human as the Star Child. Confining this to the film, the monoliths appear in each act. First act, they give apes intelligence. Second act, we see how far mankind has come technologically, but TMA-01 is on the moon, the astronauts mill around it (mimicking the apes in act 1), and a message is sent to Jupiter/TMA-02. Act 3, we see humans as far away from Earth as you can get, in an even more sterile, lifeless environment, where the 'old intelligence' (humans) overcomes the 'new intelligence' (HAL). Act 4, Dave is reborn, signifying the next step in human evolution. This is just my interpretation of course - there is the idea in the film that Dave's rebirth does signal a needed change in humanity, that a contrast exists between act 2/3 and 1, in that it shows humanity being separated from nature, and lacking in emotion. I'm wary of this myself though, as you're not going to get many plants in space, and Kubrick has a reputation for 'cold' camerawork, with impersonable characters regardless of the subject matter.
So yes, confining the monoliths just to film 2001, their goals are left ambiguous, and if anything, I'd say the film hammers it in, as Dave reaches out to the monolith in his last moments as an old man, but can't reach it physically, likely symbolizing being unable to comprehend it mentally. But, to answer your question in the most basic of terms:
a) Dave isn't consumed by TMA-02 per se, but rather transformed. The Star Child is meant to be a progression of mankind, not a regression.
b) 2001 (movie version) leaves the monoliths' motivations unclear. The novel does explain them in detail, but it's pretty much established that in the film, it was intended to raise more questions than answers.
Pretty much the opposite I've found. Glongpre explains it well, that Star Trek and Star Wars have got a hammering, whereas newer films, while they don't escape critique completely, it hasn't reached the levels of franchise films. That said, I suppose I'd attribute that more to fandom than genre. For instance, there's far more buzz around Rogue One/Guardians of the Galaxy II/Star Trek XIV, than upcoming sci-fi films like Passengers, The Space Between Us, or Arrival.KissingSunlight said:
I mean, Jaws guy from 2010 is talking to "Dave", who says he isn't Dave although the memories and experiences of Dave are still there. So I took that to mean that Dave is no longer an individual, but has been added to a collective, or is being used by the aliens as a familiar medium for communication. The first could be the evolution; a progression from the selfish single-mindedness of humans, to a more altruistic cooperative existence.Hawki said:
To expand further on my previous post as well, I meant that the aliens didn't require Dave or any humans to create more life(which seemed to be their objective), so why were they almost guided there? Just for the viewer, to make a story possible?
Concerning Dave, the best way I can describe him is that it's basically the persona of Dave transferred into a new being. Not quite 100%, but enough to show that he has enough attachment to humanity to visit his family/friends on Earth, and to warn the Leonov. In the context of the first film/book, it's at least implied, if not outright stated that Dave's transformation is more or less an experiment/study on the aliens' part. Maybe to see what the human species can become?Glongpre said:
Were humans actually guided in 2010? The Leonov is a joint Soviet-US venture to recover the Discovery before it falls into Jupiter due to its decaying orbit. Them going out there is on their own volition. Dave does help them and uses HAL to send a message to Earth, but that's about it. If the Leonov didn't leave Earth, everything that occurred concerning Jupiter/Europa would occur regardless.Glongpre said:
I guess to summarize, Dave in 2001 is part of the monoliths'/Firstborn's plan for humanity, to elevate them (though that's only made clear in the novel, the film leaves it up to your interpretation). Dave in film!2010 is used as a medium to give a message to humanity, at least by Floyd's interpretation. In book!2010, Dave is acting more on his own volition, in order to save the crew of the Leonov, despite the Firstborn/monoliths making it clear that the transformation of Jupiter isn't going to be interrupted.