I was wondering much the same thing. It's good in its own right, but it's also my go-to for proving that "sci-fi" doesn't necessarily mean "big-budget explodefest".emeril322 said:This movie is absolutely fantastic, but I'm confused by the fact it's on 'Good Bad Flicks'. How is this in any way a "bad flick"?
I think somewhere along the way, "Good Bad Flicks" became shorthand for "Good & Bad Flicks." This isn't the first time Cecil's covered a film that's widely regarded as being good.Recusant said:I was wondering much the same thing. It's good in its own right, but it's also my go-to for proving that "sci-fi" doesn't necessarily mean "big-budget explodefest".emeril322 said:This movie is absolutely fantastic, but I'm confused by the fact it's on 'Good Bad Flicks'. How is this in any way a "bad flick"?
Oh, well that would explain it. Thanks for clarifying.Hawki said:I think somewhere along the way, "Good Bad Flicks" became shorthand for "Good & Bad Flicks." This isn't the first time Cecil's covered a film that's widely regarded as being good.Recusant said:I was wondering much the same thing. It's good in its own right, but it's also my go-to for proving that "sci-fi" doesn't necessarily mean "big-budget explodefest".emeril322 said:This movie is absolutely fantastic, but I'm confused by the fact it's on 'Good Bad Flicks'. How is this in any way a "bad flick"?
It's sucking my will to LIVE!Jacked Assassin said:Okay, should I feel real bad that I spoiled Moon for myself or that I now want a Flowbee?.... Because it reminds me of Wayne's World....
His next planned movie is "Mute" which takes place in the "Moon" universe. Apparently Source Code did as well. He wanted to put a segment in as an Easter Egg (like a radio broadcast or something) talking about Sam Bell but it never happened. Possibly a rights issue or something.Extra-Ordinary said:Googled, seems he's thinkin' about doin' it after Warcraft, depending on how much money it makes.
I have never wanted a video game movie to succeed so hard in my life.
Numerous places refer to Blade Runner as Hard Scifi. While it may not be quite as technical as some, I still feel the tag is apt. Good points though, I think a lot of the notion of it being hard scifi is directly related to the concept of AI vs Humanity.Callate said:I do have to take a bit of issue with repeatedly describing "Blade Runner" as "hard sci-fi", though. It doesn't really have androids, flying cars and implanted memories because of any sort of examination of the science that would have brought us there. Its use of "replicants" has far more to do with wanting to contemplate the [im]morality of sentient slaves and the way our memories shape who we are or who we think we are... Which makes it closer to "soft" sci-fi; science fiction that's less about engineering and physics and more about contemplation of themes, philosophy, and society.
Which is absolutely no bad thing. Blade Runner is still a terrific movie.
Hawki is correct. A long time ago the show outgrew the name. The way I cover it is if its a "Good Bad Flick" it will often be a B-Z grade movie that is fun but flawed. If it is an "Exploring" episode it could be any grade (although usually A-B) and is a movie that I feel deserves more attention than it gets. (or has a really interesting backstory behind how it came to be)Hawki said:I think somewhere along the way, "Good Bad Flicks" became shorthand for "Good & Bad Flicks." This isn't the first time Cecil's covered a film that's widely regarded as being good.Recusant said:I was wondering much the same thing. It's good in its own right, but it's also my go-to for proving that "sci-fi" doesn't necessarily mean "big-budget explodefest".emeril322 said:This movie is absolutely fantastic, but I'm confused by the fact it's on 'Good Bad Flicks'. How is this in any way a "bad flick"?
I think sometimes the "hard" definition of scifi, is that it "shows its work". Not necessarily that the science actually holds up to scientific scrutiny, but that at least within the universe of the film, the science is explained, and is internally consistent. That the world presented isn't so far fetched from our current world, that it would be impossible to see us getting there.Callate said:Moon was a remarkable movie, and all the more so given the budget it had to work with. The use of practical effects is all but flawless, and the performances are terrific.
I do have to take a bit of issue with repeatedly describing "Blade Runner" as "hard sci-fi", though. It doesn't really have androids, flying cars and implanted memories because of any sort of examination of the science that would have brought us there. Its use of "replicants" has far more to do with wanting to contemplate the [im]morality of sentient slaves and the way our memories shape who we are or who we think we are... Which makes it closer to "soft" sci-fi; science fiction that's less about engineering and physics and more about contemplation of themes, philosophy, and society.
Which is absolutely no bad thing. Blade Runner is still a terrific movie.
I don't know, the voice of the robot makes the whole thing more space-like.09philj said:I love Moon. Rockwell manages to carry almost the whole film himself.