PDA

View Full Version : ESB denied!



Rocketboy
03-09-2008, 06:37 PM
The American Film Institute has picked their 50 best sci-fi films of all time and there are many notable exceptions on the list, with the most heinously neglected of all being The Empire Strikes Back.

Looking at the list, there are some questionable choices (AI, Contact, Eternal Sunshine & Minority Report?), and it appears that they only chose one from each franchise, which is pretty lame, IMO

Other neglected movies: Aliens, Serenity, Terminator, Gattaca, The Fifth Element, The Road Warrior, Metropolis, Stargate and Armageddon.

The AFI Top 50 Sci-Fi Movies:
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Alien
Altered States
The Andromeda Strain
Back to the Future
The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms
Blade Runner
Children of Men
A Clockwork Orange
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Cocoon
Contact
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Destination Moon
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
Escape From New York
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Fantastic Voyage
The Fly (1986)
Forbidden Planet
Frankenstein
The Incredible Shrinking Man
Independence Day
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
The Invisible Man (1933)
It Came From Outer Space
Jurassic Park
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome
The Matrix
Men in Black
Minority Report
Planet of the Apes (1968)
Repo Man
RoboCop
Rollerball (1975)
Silent Running
Soylent Green
Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
Star Wars: Episode IV--A New Hope
Starman
The Stepford Wives
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Them!
The Thing From Another World
The Time Machine (1960)
Total Recall
Tron
2001: A Space Odyssey
The War of the Worlds (1953)
Westworld

Jedi_Kal-El
03-09-2008, 06:40 PM
A.I is the top rated movie?

I DON'T THINK SO!!!

2-1B
03-09-2008, 06:51 PM
Alphabetical. :thumbsup:

Jedi_Kal-El
03-09-2008, 07:09 PM
Ah. I'm dumb for not catching that. :nerv:

2-1B
03-09-2008, 07:13 PM
Not as dumb as AFI for having that POS Artificial Intelligence on the list in the first place. :thumbsup:

Kidhuman
03-09-2008, 07:23 PM
Can someone pass me the paper that list was printed on, I have amess in my shower that needs to be cleaned.

Jedi_Kal-El
03-09-2008, 07:29 PM
*Passes the list to KH*

Clean away dude! :thumbsup:

El Chuxter
03-09-2008, 07:49 PM
It looks like Aliens, ESB, Road Warrior, and Terminator got denied because they apparently had a maximum of one film per series. (Didn't stop them with Godfather 1 & 2 on their other lists.)

Where are, uh, any superhero movies at all? Superman is definitely a sci-fi character.

2-1B
03-09-2008, 07:56 PM
Howard the Duck is noticeably absent as well. :thumbsup:

Rocketboy
03-09-2008, 08:12 PM
So is Mac and Me

JediTricks
03-09-2008, 08:24 PM
I can understand only 1 per series, and I can understand ANH over ESB because of the impact factor, but Alien over Aliens? They wisely included Wrath of Khan over The Motion Picture, and T2 over Terminator, but Alien over Aliens, really?!? Alien is a better horror film, Aliens is a better sci-fi film.

And Beast From 20,000 Fathoms yet not 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? I mean, I love Ray Harryhausen, and he did beat Godzilla to the punch, but it's not a particularly good movie. 20,000 Leagues is an amazing film.


It is kinda awesome that punker sci-fi Repo Man made the list though, that flick is underappreciated.

2-1B
03-09-2008, 08:55 PM
Donnie Darko should be on this list.

TeeEye7
03-09-2008, 09:25 PM
AFI = A Flock of Idiots. :yes:

Slicker
03-09-2008, 09:51 PM
Am I the only one that noticed the Stepford Wives was on the list? Yes, it has Christopher Walken which makes it a good movie right there but how is that going to be on the list over great movies like Transformers?!

2-1B
03-09-2008, 09:53 PM
Stepford Children was pretty cool, scared the hell outta my sister and I when we were kids...we didn't even know there was a Stepford Wives at the time. :thumbsup:

Deoxyribonucleic
03-09-2008, 10:04 PM
The only thing good I can say about the idiots that put this list together is that at least they got Westworld on there, yet they forgot FutureWorld?? A 2 great Sci-Fi flick indeed. They did forget "We Live" though, a CLASSIC.

The ones listed below (that were on the list??) either SUCK (s) or have no business (NB) being on the list as they are not Sci-Fi in my opinion. Especially when there are movies like ESB, Terminator, Aliens, Predator (HELLO, WHERE THE HELL IS PREDATOR??) and a million more that are better. Film critics, film list makers and film award deciders ought to be shot for having one, no imagination and two, being STUPID!!


A.I. Artificial Intelligence (s)
The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (s)
Children of Men (s)
A Clockwork Orange (nb)
Contact (s)
Escape From New York (s)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (nb)
The Incredible Shrinking Man (s)
Jurassic Park (nb)
The Matrix (s)

General_Grievous
03-09-2008, 10:09 PM
The AFI is comprised of a bunch of idiots. Before they revise this bastardization of a list, they need to realize that "Citizen Kane" isn't the best film of all time.

Rocketboy
03-09-2008, 10:23 PM
Am I the only one that noticed the Stepford Wives was on the list? Yes, it has Christopher Walken which makes it a good movie right there but how is that going to be on the list over great movies like Transformers?!I'm pretty sure its the original 1975 version on the list.

bigbarada
03-10-2008, 01:27 AM
I liked Contact and AI. I thought they were both good movies.

I don't understand how Independence Day made it on there at all. That's a terrible movie.

Slicker
03-10-2008, 02:34 AM
I'm pretty sure its the original 1975 version on the list.Which means it has less of a right to be on there since it doesn't have Christopher Walken.

El Chuxter
03-10-2008, 08:36 AM
The Magnificent Seven should be on there. It's a better Yul Brenner movie than Westworld. Who cares if it's not sci-fi? Britt would pop a cap in their arses if they made that argument.

jjreason
03-10-2008, 08:41 AM
I don't care about conventions regarding franchises & sagas; any list of any number of "best" movies in any category created by anyone and failing to include ESB has no credibility.

Unless we're talking adult films. In that one instance, it's omission can be justified. But only barely.

General_Grievous
03-10-2008, 04:21 PM
I liked Contact and AI. I thought they were both good movies.

I don't understand how Independence Day made it on there at all. That's a terrible movie.

I thought "Independence Day" was better than both "Contact" and "A.I." combined. Regarding "A.I.", I just can't stand Haley Joel Osment. He was such a creepy child actor with that "Children of the Corn" vibe (see also Dakota Fanning; man, Spielberg loves to cast creepy kids). Thank God his fifteen minutes of fame were up just after that movie came out. As for "Contact", I just thought that was a huge boring mess with an awful twist. At least "Independence Day" was fun.

Jedi_Kal-El
03-10-2008, 04:30 PM
Where are, uh, any superhero movies at all? Superman is definitely a sci-fi character.

My thoughts exactly. No love for the Supes? What do they know about movies anyway,(in keeping with the no cussing theme)those bleeping, bleepers?

Engineernerd
03-10-2008, 06:21 PM
Children of Men? Eternal Sunshine?

Did they just read the back covers of the DVDs to make these choices? It's just like the Academy Awards, with more emphisis on the art of film, rather than what most people find entertaining. It's like Ghandi winning best picture over ET. ET is watched over and over by all sort of people to this day. "Ghandi" is shown in high school history classes. Oh, but it's a serious film, so it must be better.

As a side note, I can't believe they picked the originals for most of the remade films, yet picked the 1986 version of "The Fly". Oooh....David Cronenberg, he's arty so it must be a better film.

Alright, I'm stepping off the soapbox before I fall off...

General_Grievous
03-11-2008, 03:05 PM
As a side note, I can't believe they picked the originals for most of the remade films, yet picked the 1986 version of "The Fly". Oooh....David Cronenberg, he's arty so it must be a better film.
Well, the 1986 "Fly" is generally accepted as a remake that's better than the original, so that didn't surprise me at all. Good movie, though.

Engineernerd
03-11-2008, 04:30 PM
Well, the 1986 "Fly" is generally accepted as a remake that's better than the original, so that didn't surprise me at all. Good movie, though.

I'm too big a Vincent Price fan to admit that the '86 is better. Besides, who hasn't threw their hands up and in a tiny voice went "Help me! Help me!"? Really, with "Incredible Shrinking Man" on there, I don't think you need either of them. It pretty much covers the Post WWII mutated human fears from the era. And it has a giant spider instead of a fly...well a regualr size spider, but giant to him.

Deoxyribonucleic
03-11-2008, 06:09 PM
Besides, who hasn't threw their hands up and in a tiny voice went "Help me! Help me!"?

My Mom and my Aunt used to do that all the time. That was one of my Mom's favorite movies from childhood and they'd say it to each other and laugh and laugh. Good times! :thumbsup:

Mr. JabbaJohnL
03-11-2008, 06:27 PM
I remember seeing just the "Help me!" part when I was about six and it scared the absolute crap out of me. That Vincent Price is a weird mofo.

Jargo
03-11-2008, 06:28 PM
god damn them where is Barbarella on the list?

These list things are dumb. it's like a mandate of the movies they demand we watch and worship. I can honestly say i've never watched a movie because someone said it was good. I'm perfectly capable of making up my own mind what is worthy of accolade or not. I don't need some fat jewish dudes giving props to best buds with ego stroke fawning.
Minority report is one of the worst movies ever commited to film. it's utter tosh. splendid in it's craptacular nosedive into the ridiculous realms of the worst sort of B-movie. There's nothing remotely redeeming about it.

I wonder if these dudes have even watched any movies at all with some of the complete s**** on that list. :hurt:

Engineernerd
03-11-2008, 08:13 PM
I remember seeing just the "Help me!" part when I was about six and it scared the absolute crap out of me. That Vincent Price is a weird mofo.


The queen to hag transformation scene from Snow White freaked me out when I was just a wee lad...(First Movie I ever remember seeing in a theater!)

If you want to see V.P. at his weirdest check out "The Abominable Dr. Phibes". (I know off topic horror film, but JJ started it.)

Discussion at work today, mentioned Dune being missing from the list. (I'm an engineer, and have nerdy co-workers.) While not a great film, I think it's scope and content are at least the equal of some of the other films on the list.

I'd probably put "The Black Hole" on before "Stepford Wives". I rewatched this recently, and actually probably enjoyed it more now, and I hate to say this, watching it in the theater for the first time.

Rocketboy
03-11-2008, 09:32 PM
I'd probably put "The Black Hole" on before "Stepford Wives". I rewatched this recently, and actually probably enjoyed it more now, and I hate to say this, watching it in the theater for the first time.You can't mean seriously the Disney movie - the one that George Lucas really should have sued them over.

Engineernerd
03-12-2008, 05:46 AM
You can't mean seriously the Disney movie - the one that George Lucas really should have sued them over.

I don't think he could have successfully sued them, it's more of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in space. I'd bet that's how it was originally pitched.

Speaking of 20KLUTS, where is it on the list? If the time machine is there shouldn't it be there?

Rocketboy
03-12-2008, 10:25 AM
I don't think he could have successfully sued them, it's more of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in space. I'd bet that's how it was originally pitched. Two guys (one with blond hair and one brown) and an old man, along with two robots, save the girl held captive on the space station from the bad guys (one of them is armored).

Wow, just like 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
:D

Engineernerd
03-12-2008, 11:56 AM
There were two old men. I was think more from the Rhienhart side. The Cygnus was triumph of technology that doomed him in the end. I view SW as more dominated by story. Black Hole was more dominated by technology/sci fi.

I concede your point though, I just never saw it that way.

Don't they say imitation is a form of flatery? And since Star Wars is an updated version of "The Hidden Fortress", it would probably to make a good court case. But, I'm only an arm chair lawyer.

If it makes a difference, I don't know if it would make my personal all time scifi list. I just meant it was better than some of the other entries on the list.

JediTricks
03-12-2008, 03:46 PM
Discussion at work today, mentioned Dune being missing from the list. (I'm an engineer, and have nerdy co-workers.) While not a great film, I think it's scope and content are at least the equal of some of the other films on the list. David Lynch's Dune was a mess though, I'd put Stargate & The Fifth Element on there way before Dune. I'm just grateful Tron is recognized.


I'd probably put "The Black Hole" on before "Stepford Wives". I rewatched this recently, and actually probably enjoyed it more now, and I hate to say this, watching it in the theater for the first time.
Black Hole is too kiddified and disjointed for me, Stepford Wives for all its lack of sci-fi qualities got people talking when it first came out, nobody said much about The Black Hole. I wouldn't have included it on the list, and I probaly would have put TBH on it over Stepford, but I wouldn't have enjoyed putting either of them there. :p Hell, even Demolition Man I'd consider putting on this list before TBH.



I don't think he could have successfully sued them, it's more of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in space. I'd bet that's how it was originally pitched. Yeah, it's a blatant homage to 20,000 Leagues, and Lucas would have no legal claim because Disney had been working on TBH since before Lucas was working on SW.


Speaking of 20KLUTS, where is it on the list? If the time machine is there shouldn't it be there?That's what I said!



Two guys (one with blond hair and one brown) and an old man, along with two robots, save the girl held captive on the space station from the bad guys (one of them is armored).

Wow, just like 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
:DThey were all held captive, there was originally only 1 robot until they found Old Bob, there was really 3 "old guys" IMO :p, the Cygnus was a ship not a space station, Dr McCrae wasn't being held captive so much as being lobotomized to be turned into one of the ship's "robots", and they were trying to escape the folly of the Reinhardt's obsession which was dragging them all into oblivion at the heart of a black hole. And as I pointed out above, pre-production began on TBH years before SW, and production began the year before SW production began.

Deoxyribonucleic
03-12-2008, 04:15 PM
They should have put Event Horizon on the list as well. That was a great movie with elements from Hellraiser and Alien all wrapped up in a pretty scary movie, especially if you go frame by frame in the scene where they find out what happened to the original crew!

Engineernerd
03-12-2008, 04:20 PM
That's what I said!




Sorry, JT. I had missed that! I have to agree. I love Ray H's stuff, but I would think most of that would be considered fantasy, at least in the the class of films of alltime (the skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts were enough for me to buy the DVD)

Would "Highlander" be considered Sci-Fi?

JediTricks
03-12-2008, 11:33 PM
Sorry, JT. I had missed that! I have to agree. I love Ray H's stuff, but I would think most of that would be considered fantasy, at least in the the class of films of alltime (the skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts were enough for me to buy the DVD)

Would "Highlander" be considered Sci-Fi?
By itself, absolutely not. But since Highlander 2 changed all that, maybe. Still, by itself is kinda key, there's not a single sci-fi element about the picture, the quickening is fantasy.


I've never seen Event Horizon, just never got around to it. Horror and sci-fi don't mix well in my book.

bigbarada
03-13-2008, 01:19 AM
I thought "Independence Day" was better than both "Contact" and "A.I." combined. Regarding "A.I.", I just can't stand Haley Joel Osment. He was such a creepy child actor with that "Children of the Corn" vibe (see also Dakota Fanning; man, Spielberg loves to cast creepy kids). Thank God his fifteen minutes of fame were up just after that movie came out. As for "Contact", I just thought that was a huge boring mess with an awful twist. At least "Independence Day" was fun.

Well, I can still watch Contact to this day and enjoy it. I've never understood all the hatred for that film. A.I. has worn a little thin, but it's still enjoyable to me. Haley Joel Osment is a very talented actor and I'm pretty sure his career is far from over. Besides, who better than a creepy child actor to play a creepy child robot?:p Not everything needs to be cute and marketable.

Meanwhile, Independence Day was garbage in 1996 and is still garbage now. It didn't even try to hide all the movies it was stealing ideas from.

LTBasker
03-13-2008, 10:05 PM
Question: What's so sci-fi about A Clockwork Orange and the Mad Max films? Granted, the latter are in a post-apocalyptic world, but compared to other deserving sci-fi movies, it's hardly a reason to keep it on the list.

JediTricks
03-13-2008, 10:49 PM
ACO takes place in a future where the Russians have more influence on society, and mind control is prevalent. It's "sci-fi" aspect is that future world, but it's more subtle than the future of 2001: ASO.

ACO and Mad Max discuss the human condition's evolution in the perception of the "future", that and they have plenty of violence. What do you want? They put Rollerball on that list, that movie sucked! James Caan on skates, really?

Jargo
03-14-2008, 12:04 PM
most sci-fi movies are barely science based at all. it's more a case of future fantasy. Armageddon is more science fiction than a lot of movies despite blowing chunks.
SW is pure fantasy. none of the tech makes any sense. 2001 based itself on science fact and proposition and extrapolated that but then it went all LSD trip and lost the plot. I class ET as pure fantasy and don't ever consider it sci-fi. same with close encounters.
there should be a distinction between sci-fi and future fantasy instead of lumping it all in the same basket because it has some scenes in space or an alien or whatever. sci-fi is a much over-used term and simply doesn't accurately reflect the content of many movies.

Engineernerd
03-14-2008, 06:54 PM
The watercool talk today at work came up with a couple of new ones.

Last Starfighter. Mainly due to the fact of it's early use of CG.

Logan's Run.

Neither were my choices, but I like 'em better than a number of AFI's choices.

You know, while not films in the strictest sense, wouldn't you have to put either the Buck Rodgers or Flash Gordon serials on this list?

Deoxyribonucleic
03-14-2008, 07:37 PM
The watercool talk today at work came up with a couple of new ones.

Last Starfighter. Mainly due to the fact of it's early use of CG.

Logan's Run.

Neither were my choices, but I like 'em better than a number of AFI's choices.

You know, while not films in the strictest sense, wouldn't you have to put either the Buck Rodgers or Flash Gordon serials on this list?

Logan's Run is a great movie me thinks! And definitely deserves to be on the list.

Saturn 3 is another oldie but goodie left off of this craptacular list! Farrah Fawcet (sp?), Kirk Douglas and Harvey Kietel (sp?)

Jargo
03-14-2008, 09:38 PM
Woody Allen's The Sleeper is a great sci-fi movie. As is The Bedsitting Room. A Boy And His Dog. Phase IV......

And yeah, where is Metropolis on that list? The movie that inspired so many other sci-fi movies. A milestone in cinematic history. With cityscapes and settings still being aped to this day. It should be one of the first on the list.

Jedi_Kal-El
03-14-2008, 09:40 PM
Logan's Run is a great movie me thinks! And definitely deserves to be on the list.

Super great movie!!!! Think I'll go watch it.:thumbsup:

JediTricks
03-18-2008, 03:13 AM
most sci-fi movies are barely science based at all. it's more a case of future fantasy.That's why it's "Science-fiction", it's fiction themed in science without being based on it.


SW is pure fantasy. none of the tech makes any sense. See, you are focusing too much on the specifics and not enough on the concepts driving the fiction. Yes, it's classic fantasy wrapped up in modern sci-fi trappings, but that's the key, in terms of its use science, it uses the concepts broadly and has those ideals of what COULD be even if it's all over the map on what WILL be.


The watercool talk today at work came up with a couple of new ones.

Last Starfighter. Mainly due to the fact of it's early use of CG.

Logan's Run.

Neither were my choices, but I like 'em better than a number of AFI's choices.

You know, while not films in the strictest sense, wouldn't you have to put either the Buck Rodgers or Flash Gordon serials on this list?Last Starfighter is pure cliches and slightly kiddified cheese, I think it's most powerful sci-fi aspect is one folks don't really think about, the fact that a military recruited from video game playing (today in the military we have training and remote weapons systems that actually ARE like playing video games).

Logan's Run is very sci-fi but very badly dated too, and never had great impact when it was released. The serials didn't really reach far either on their own, it was how they resonated with a few key people which keeps us thinking about them because they laid the foundation for greater films.


Logan's Run is a great movie me thinks! And definitely deserves to be on the list.Logan's Run is so dated-looking that it makes the Star Trek:The Motion Picture costumes look good. :p The concept is also a little too strained IMO for modern times, it fits well with the '70s but has less resonance today than Soylent Green, I'd say.

decadentdave
03-18-2008, 03:29 AM
I think Logan's Run has more resonance today than ever. To say that it's dated is to prejudice it for being nothing more than a product of its time. Films of the 70's and 80's all look very dated now and I remember when they were all brand new. The story and themes are what endure today, specifically issues of youth culture, age and cloning. In a Logan's Run society, most of us would already be dead. The idea of cloning multiple generations (i.e. Logan 5 and Francis 6) from the same genotype and the issues of individuality versus society and a totalitarian establishment. Logan's Run was well ahead of its time. All science fiction is going to date itself. Stanley Kubrick's 2001 is a masterpiece but betrays its age with the 60's-looking costumes and art design. Not only that but 2001 is now past-tense and we all know that future never happened, nor did Space 1999 with all its gaudy 70's polyester. I just don't understand biasing something because it's out-of-date with contemporary standards. Metropolis was made in 1928 and it is one of the greatest science fiction films of all time. Without it there would be no Star Wars or Blade Runner.


They put Rollerball on that list, that movie sucked! James Caan on skates, really?

Norman Jewison's Rollerball is a science fiction masterpiece. It deals with corporate control of society and the rights of individuals versus the establishment and decadent brutalistic sports for entertainment. Everything that was omitted from the abominable John McTiernan remake.

And where the hell is Dark City?!?!?!?!?!?!?


You can't mean seriously the Disney movie - the one that George Lucas really should have sued them over.

The Black Hole is the ballsiest movie Disney ever made and it scared the living crap out of me as a kid. There is no way Disney or ANY studio today would have made that film with its dark ending. I mean we are talking about showing hell incarnate in the inferno and the minions of Lucifer (Reinhardt). The film was so dark and gothic and was the creepiest film I had ever seen. I was 6 when I saw it (I was 4 when I saw Rosemary's Baby). And this was the SAME year as Alien and Star Trek the Motion Picture. All of those films scared the hell out of me. 1979 was an unforgettable year for science fiction.


They should have put Event Horizon on the list as well. That was a great movie with elements from Hellraiser and Alien all wrapped up in a pretty scary movie, especially if you go frame by frame in the scene where they find out what happened to the original crew!

Event Horizon basically ripped off Lifeforce and Hellraiser.

And what about THX-1138? George Lucas' best film ever only not as much fun as Star Wars. Truly a masterpiece of science fiction. First to use the idea of the Cyber-Christ.

JediTricks
03-18-2008, 04:23 PM
First off, dDave, I merged your 6 separate posts that came in the course of 45 minutes.


Dark City is indeed missed on this list, but unfortunately it's missed pretty much everywhere, people simply didn't flock to it the way they should have. Dark City delivers very well, but it's a "smart" movie which audiences are generally afraid of, and it wasn't well-marketed.


I think Logan's Run has more resonance today than ever. To say that it's dated is to prejudice it for being nothing more than a product of its time. Films of the 70's and 80's all look very dated now and I remember when they were all brand new. The story and themes are what endure today, specifically issues of youth culture, age and cloning. In a Logan's Run society, most of us would already be dead. The idea of cloning multiple generations (i.e. Logan 5 and Francis 6) from the same genotype and the issues of individuality versus society and a totalitarian establishment. Logan's Run was well ahead of its time. All science fiction is going to date itself. Stanley Kubrick's 2001 is a masterpiece but betrays its age with the 60's-looking costumes and art design. Not only that but 2001 is now past-tense and we all know that future never happened, nor did Space 1999 with all its gaudy 70's polyester. I just don't understand biasing something because it's out-of-date with contemporary standards. Metropolis was made in 1928 and it is one of the greatest science fiction films of all time. Without it there would be no Star Wars or Blade Runner.Metropolis wasn't THAT influential, it was a German silent film, it didn't exactly get a ton of exposure beyond film schools after its original, moderately successful release, and even then in the US it caught some criticism, including from HG Wells, and eventually even from Fritz Lang himself. That's not meant to diminish its impact historically at all, just suggest that its influence is spread mostly secondarily through the works of others rather than primarily, and that without it those other ideas probably would still be around.

Logans Run looks incredibly, laughably dated since about 10 minutes after it hit theaters, and by doing it that way it fails to deliver its message to the audience because it makes its future a distraction rather than authentic. It reeks visually of '70s cheese. 2001 may not be the future we have today, but it's a very complete and authentic way of looking at how the future could have been.


Norman Jewison's Rollerball is a science fiction masterpiece. It deals with corporate control of society and the rights of individuals versus the establishment and decadent brutalistic sports for entertainment. Everything that was omitted from the abominable John McTiernan remake.Like Logan's Run, the original Rollerball looks very dated, but also like Logan's Run, the INTENT of the story is lost among a rather lackluster application. Neither movie is particularly well-done, they have pacing issues, uninspired design, and some noteworthy bad acting in spots. And its this cinematic poverty which holds their messages back, I think, keeping them in the realm of "good intentions" rather than "good movies".


The Black Hole is the ballsiest movie Disney ever made and it scared the living crap out of me as a kid. There is no way Disney or ANY studio today would have made that film with its dark ending. I mean we are talking about showing hell incarnate in the inferno and the minions of Lucifer (Reinhardt). The film was so dark and gothic and was the creepiest film I had ever seen. I was 6 when I saw it (I was 4 when I saw Rosemary's Baby). And this was the SAME year as Alien and Star Trek the Motion Picture. All of those films scared the hell out of me. 1979 was an unforgettable year for science fiction.Never saw Disney's "Something Wicked This Way Comes" or "Return to Oz"? Those I feel have more guts from Disney, they didn't try to kiddify, they didn't get overwhelmed in the genre trappings the way TBH did, and their endings weren't lost philosophically - take them through hell and then ascend them to heaven, that's what lies beyond the black hole? What's the message here? That the only thing beyond the black hole is death, or are they passages to the afterlife? Did anybody really care? It's not like the ending of 2001 where the audience really is asked to fill in the blanks, it's just an out-of-nowhere statement to me that feels incredibly tacked on.


BTW, I don't know what to really say, but I felt Minority Report was a decent piece of sci-fi, I expected little but it delivered a lot. It wasn't so much groundbreaking sci-fi as it was a rich way of expressing it, but there's nothing wrong with that when it's done right.

Droid
03-18-2008, 04:37 PM
I like Contact. I thought the ending was dumb. The machine didn't break or anything after Jodie Foster went through. The aliens didn't tell Foster it would only work once. If the public/government didn't believe her claims why not put someone else through the machine and see what happens to them?

Good for Star Trek II.

Is Frankenstein really a scifi movie?

I think if they had ranked these they would have said 2001 was the best SCIENCE FICTION movie, though I believe of those listed Star Wars is the best film overall.

I agree the one per franchise rule is dumb.

El Chuxter
03-18-2008, 04:44 PM
Everyone loved Dark City when they remade it and called it The Matrix. :)

decadentdave
03-18-2008, 05:46 PM
Dark City is indeed missed on this list, but unfortunately it's missed pretty much everywhere, people simply didn't flock to it the way they should have. Dark City delivers very well, but it's a "smart" movie which audiences are generally afraid of, and it wasn't well-marketed.

Marketing has absolutely NOTHING to do with how well made a film is. Several of my favorite films were all considered theatrical and critical flops. Roger Ebert, in his superbly insightful commentary, gave Dark City best film of 1998 and deservedly so.



Metropolis wasn't THAT influential, it was a German silent film, it didn't exactly get a ton of exposure beyond film schools after its original, moderately successful release, and even then in the US it caught some criticism, including from HG Wells, and eventually even from Fritz Lang himself. That's not meant to diminish its impact historically at all, just suggest that its influence is spread mostly secondarily through the works of others rather than primarily, and that without it those other ideas probably would still be around.Excuse me? Metropolis is probably THE most influential science fiction film. It inspired Lucas when designing C-3P0 and it inspired Ridley Scott with Blade Runner. The special effects for its day were groundbreaking the way that Star Wars revolutionized visual effects. It was decades ahead of its time. Again, box office success is meaningless in the overall significance of a film. Blade Runner was a commercial and critical failure and 25 years later it is regarded not only as a classic but one of the greatest and influential science fiction films of all-time.




Logans Run looks incredibly, laughably dated since about 10 minutes after it hit theaters, and by doing it that way it fails to deliver its message to the audience because it makes its future a distraction rather than authentic. It reeks visually of '70s cheese. 2001 may not be the future we have today, but it's a very complete and authentic way of looking at how the future could have been.That is your opinion. It is not shared by everyone. Even Star Wars looks incredibly dated now with Luke's coiffed hair and bluescreened FX. Look at shows like Dr. Who which are the epitiome of cheese and tacky effects yet they have some of the best written science fiction stories. The period of which a film or TV show is a product from and its limitations of FX and budget have little bearing on the STORY. If the story is good, that's all that matters. I can watch cheesy old Dr. Who anytime because the stories are sophisticated and thought provoking even if the monsters all look like hokey rubber masks.



Like Logan's Run, the original Rollerball looks very dated, but also like Logan's Run, the INTENT of the story is lost among a rather lackluster application. Neither movie is particularly well-done, they have pacing issues, uninspired design, and some noteworthy bad acting in spots. And its this cinematic poverty which holds their messages back, I think, keeping them in the realm of "good intentions" rather than "good movies".The themes and intent of Rollerball are what give the film its enduring longevity and the reason why the "remake" failed because it ignored the intent of the original film. Just because they try to "update" it with a contemporary remake does not make it better and Rollerball is a case-in-point textbook example of how NOT to do a remake.



Never saw Disney's "Something Wicked This Way Comes" or "Return to Oz"? Those I feel have more guts from Disney, they didn't try to kiddify, they didn't get overwhelmed in the genre trappings the way TBH did, and their endings weren't lost philosophically - take them through hell and then ascend them to heaven, that's what lies beyond the black hole? What's the message here? That the only thing beyond the black hole is death, or are they passages to the afterlife? Did anybody really care? It's not like the ending of 2001 where the audience really is asked to fill in the blanks, it's just an out-of-nowhere statement to me that feels incredibly tacked on.Like 2001, The Black Hole's denoument is meant for philosophiical interpretation just as I did not interpret the ending the way that you do. Reinhardt went to a hell of his own making but the Palomino crew survived and came out into another universe. Any spiritual interpretations of the ending are just that; interpretations. I'd rather have an open-ended interpretative ending then one that beats you over the head telling you exactly what it is.


Everyone loved Dark City when they remade it and called it The Matrix. :)

And I love when they remade the Matrix into a much better film called Equilibrium.

JediTricks
03-18-2008, 10:46 PM
Is Frankenstein really a scifi movie?Sure, Dr. Frankenstein is using science to create a man from dead flesh, only what he creates is a soulless monster... or is it?


Everyone loved Dark City when they remade it and called it The Matrix. :)Neophyte. :p

The Matrix used some of Dark City's sets.


Marketing has absolutely NOTHING to do with how well made a film is. Several of my favorite films were all considered theatrical and critical flops. Roger Ebert, in his superbly insightful commentary, gave Dark City best film of 1998 and deservedly so.Marketing has nothing to do with how good a film it is, but it has a lot to do with how many people are aware of it.

Ebert went on to do a commentary track on the DVD despite not being connected with its making or production in any way.


Excuse me? Metropolis is probably THE most influential science fiction film. It inspired Lucas when designing C-3P0 and it inspired Ridley Scott with Blade Runner. The special effects for its day were groundbreaking the way that Star Wars revolutionized visual effects. It was decades ahead of its time. Again, box office success is meaningless in the overall significance of a film. Blade Runner was a commercial and critical failure and 25 years later it is regarded not only as a classic but one of the greatest and influential science fiction films of all-time.Don't get all reactionary on me, I didn't say box office made it a good film, I said it wasn't the shining godlike influence you made it out to be because not many people saw it after its moderate initial success. If Lucas hadn't gone to film school, he wouldn't have been influenced by it because it's just not out there. Blade Runner is an amazing film, but it's major influence on visual effects is from raising the bar among filmmakers rather than the public, Metropolis didn't really have that for about 2 generations.


That is your opinion. It is not shared by everyone. Even Star Wars looks incredibly dated now with Luke's coiffed hair and bluescreened FX. Look at shows like Dr. Who which are the epitiome of cheese and tacky effects yet they have some of the best written science fiction stories. The period of which a film or TV show is a product from and its limitations of FX and budget have little bearing on the STORY. If the story is good, that's all that matters. I can watch cheesy old Dr. Who anytime because the stories are sophisticated and thought provoking even if the monsters all look like hokey rubber masks.Are you suggesting Logan's Run, the movie, is a well-told story? I don't know many people who would say that of the people I know who have seen it. I don't think it holds up from a storytelling perspective, I think it gets lost and is slow and a little silly the way the moviemaker put it together, not just from the visual style but by the acting and pacing and screenplay. Some of the ideas behind it are intriguing, but on the whole it doesn't deliver well.


The themes and intent of Rollerball are what give the film its enduring longevitySee, when I hear this sort of thing, this and your Logan's Run comments, all that I can grasp is "cult film fan" because there's just so much that has to be looked past to get to what you're saying. These 2 films have no "enduring longevity" past a handful of diehard fans, they're not thought of at all, there's no television station willing to drop coin on either for a Saturday afternoon anymore.


and the reason why the "remake" failed because it ignored the intent of the original film. Just because they try to "update" it with a contemporary remake does not make it better and Rollerball is a case-in-point textbook example of how NOT to do a remake.I can't speak to the remake because I looked at the trailers and concluded that they'd were garbage and it wasn't worth my time.



Like 2001, The Black Hole's denoument is meant for philosophiical interpretation just as I did not interpret the ending the way that you do. Reinhardt went to a hell of his own making but the Palomino crew survived and came out into another universe. Any spiritual interpretations of the ending are just that; interpretations. I'd rather have an open-ended interpretative ending then one that beats you over the head telling you exactly what it is.That's really generous, TBH's ending relies on a very specific European Christian statement, there's a friggin' angels and devils before they get to the "other universe", the only audience interpretation is "why did we just sit through that?" - I suppose the intention was for the audience to ask whether they really survived or were now in heaven or something. But not many people asked that, they just got up and scoffed; nobody really cared all that much by that point what happened to the remaining crew of the Palomino.

decadentdave
03-18-2008, 11:34 PM
Ebert went on to do a commentary track on the DVD despite not being connected with its making or production in any way.

And that says it all. Ebert's commentary was one of the best and most informative commentaries ever. Ebert takes you to film school.


Don't get all reactionary on me, I didn't say box office made it a good film, I said it wasn't the shining godlike influence you made it out to be because not many people saw it after its moderate initial success. If Lucas hadn't gone to film school, he wouldn't have been influenced by it because it's just not out there. Blade Runner is an amazing film, but it's major influence on visual effects is from raising the bar among filmmakers rather than the public, Metropolis didn't really have that for about 2 generations.And neither did Blade Runner. I will never forget Ebert and Siskel hypocritically bashing the film on Sneak Previews, then ten years later when the Director's Cut was released Ebert recanted his negative opinion of the film and regarded it as a classic. Regardless of who saw Metropolis at the time, it UNDENIABLY left a tremendous influence and impression upon generations of other filmakers. Critics say Citizen Kane is the greatest film of all-time and I vehemently disagree. It may have been for its time and I will not argue how influential it was on film editing and narrative but it's hardly the greatest film ever made.


Are you suggesting Logan's Run, the movie, is a well-told story? I don't know many people who would say that of the people I know who have seen it. I don't think it holds up from a storytelling perspective, I think it gets lost and is slow and a little silly the way the moviemaker put it together, not just from the visual style but by the acting and pacing and screenplay. Some of the ideas behind it are intriguing, but on the whole it doesn't deliver well.Remember, Logan's Run came out the year before Star Wars. I consider it to be at the end of a unique period of artistic and experimental studio films between 1968 and 1976 which included Zardoz and THX-1138 before Star Wars changed the standards forever, for better and for worse. Logan's Run has one of Jerry Goldsmith's most avant garde experimental electronic film scores which was visionary for its day. The costumes may have been hokey, but no worse than Star Trek or Space 1999. I find the film's narrative to be one of its most redeeming aspects in spite of its weaknesses in production design and budget. I think the performances by Michael York, Richard Jordan and Jenny Agutter are quite good. Compare Michael York's performance to that of Mark Hamil's. It's not an Academy Award winning performance but it is quite satisfactory.



See, when I hear this sort of thing, this and your Logan's Run comments, all that I can grasp is "cult film fan" because there's just so much that has to be looked past to get to what you're saying. These 2 films have no "enduring longevity" past a handful of diehard fans, they're not thought of at all, there's no television station willing to drop coin on either for a Saturday afternoon anymore. Look past what? The overt running themes and commentary of the film's narrative are simple to understand and follow. I got it when I was 4 years old. If you can't follow the story and rely solely upon visual stimulus then perhaps you need to take a course in film literature. Most TV stations aren't going to run them in syndication anymore because they have been doing that repeatedly for the last quarter century. With the advent of DVD and digital media, people can watch these films at their leisure, not when a broadcaster decides they should.



I can't speak to the remake because I looked at the trailers and concluded that they'd were garbage and it wasn't worth my time.On that we are in total agreement.




That's really generous, TBH's ending relies on a very specific European Christian statement, there's a friggin' angels and devils before they get to the "other universe", the only audience interpretation is "why did we just sit through that?" - I suppose the intention was for the audience to ask whether they really survived or were now in heaven or something. But not many people asked that, they just got up and scoffed; nobody really cared all that much by that point what happened to the remaining crew of the Palomino.I beg to differ. I wanted to know what happened to the crew of the Palomino in this unexplored "other" universe and the only sequel was a comic series from Whitman entitled "Beyond the Black Hole" following the movie adaptation. The ambiguity of the ending is what stimulates great discussion, rhetoric and examination of its meaning. Just because you and the majority of the audience didn't get it or give a damn does not make it so but I mostly chalk that up to your usual sense of arrogance thinking you know everything about everything.

JediTricks
03-19-2008, 01:30 AM
And that says it all. Ebert's commentary was one of the best and most informative commentaries ever. Ebert takes you to film school. I'm one of those that owns the DVD, I think it's an incredible film... hard to believe it's 10 years old this year.


And neither did Blade Runner. I will never forget Ebert and Siskel hypocritically bashing the film on Sneak Previews, then ten years later when the Director's Cut was released Ebert recanted his negative opinion of the film and regarded it as a classic. Regardless of who saw Metropolis at the time, it UNDENIABLY left a tremendous influence and impression upon generations of other filmakers. Critics say Citizen Kane is the greatest film of all-time and I vehemently disagree. It may have been for its time and I will not argue how influential it was on film editing and narrative but it's hardly the greatest film ever made.I think you and I differ on what makes something greatly influential. While I will admit that some of the few that have carried Metropolis forward have been hugely successful in movies themselves, I still think influence is more about direct influence on the society that views it.

BTW, I cannot believe I'm having this internet'y a discussion. :p This is the epitome of web-geek. I thought I was out, but they pulled me back in!


Remember, Logan's Run came out the year before Star Wars. I consider it to be at the end of a unique period of artistic and experimental studio films between 1968 and 1976 which included Zardoz and THX-1138 before Star Wars changed the standards forever, for better and for worse.I see that as an attempt at an excuse for lower quality, not a genuine proviso. Zardoz is an utter mess and totally laughable. One cannot excuse a movie for being bad merely because the period it was made was a thin era for cinema and society in general. "Well, that wasn't very good, but at least everything else about the era sucked and filmmakers were branching out with self-indulgent experimentation that resulted in nothing more than 15-minutes-of-fame pop-art, so it's good."


The costumes may have been hokey, but no worse than Star Trek or Space 1999. Taking this out of the conversation for a moment, I will say - yeah, they ARE worse, especially for a theatrical release when those examples were television. And that may be the first and last time I ever defend Space: 1999.


I find the film's narrative to be one of its most redeeming aspects in spite of its weaknesses in production design and budget. I think the performances by Michael York, Richard Jordan and Jenny Agutter are quite good. Compare Michael York's performance to that of Mark Hamil's. It's not an Academy Award winning performance but it is quite satisfactory.Hmm, I can't agree here, Mark Hamill generally plays it restrained, fairly tight within his farmboy character starting a life's adventure where I felt York is hit-or-miss throughout and a little stagy. And Hamill's face speaks only just enough instead of York's overacting face (Michael York has some entertaining work, but the guy's facial expression work is like a caricature IMO).

Plus, he's step-father to Rick McCallum, if it wasn't for Michael York's connections...


Look past what? The overt running themes and commentary of the film's narrative are simple to understand and follow. I got it when I was 4 years old. If you can't follow the story and rely solely upon visual stimulus then perhaps you need to take a course in film literature. Most TV stations aren't going to run them in syndication anymore because they have been doing that repeatedly for the last quarter century. With the advent of DVD and digital media, people can watch these films at their leisure, not when a broadcaster decides they should.Look past the weak acting, pacing, scripts, production values, even overall execution. It's not ONLY about getting the message, hell, Logan's Run kinda slowly hits the viewer over the head with it (though I'm sure at the time it felt more authentic, even in the early '80s I felt it was trite) and Rollerball isn't far behind, it's supposed to be about the entire moviegoing experience, the execution, not just intentions. I can stand on a streetcorner and listen to some guy rant for 2 hours about youth culture and resources and corporate mastery, that doesn't make for a good movie either. But thanks for suggesting I'm all about flash over substance, way to miss my point entirely while simultaneously insulting me.

TV stations still run syndicated movies at odd times, even here in LA they air all sorts of weird stuff late on weekends. And with the hundreds of cable channels, there's plenty of outlets that this stuff could be found if there was ANY demand. But they're cult films, niche, they don't speak to the majority of movie fans, even genre fans, because they're generally perceived as not that good.


I beg to differ. I wanted to know what happened to the crew of the Palomino in this unexplored "other" universe and the only sequel was a comic series from Whitman entitled "Beyond the Black Hole" following the movie adaptation. The ambiguity of the ending is what stimulates great discussion, rhetoric and examination of its meaning. Just because you and the majority of the audience didn't get it or give a damn does not make it so but I mostly chalk that up to your usual sense of arrogance thinking you know everything about everything.That doesn't make it at all like 2001:ASO's ending where the audience has to call upon themselves to figure out what they saw. That's merely you wanting to see more, you wanting to know what comes next. It's only ambiguous in a "to be continued?" way, not a "does what I think I just saw reflect who I am as a person?" manner that you seem to be suggesting. They went through hell and then heaven to emerge in the light "somewhere else".

And I find it highly laughable that you are suggesting I'm the arrogant one in here that's the know-it-all'ing, look at your whole post espousing the universal brilliance that are Logan's Run and Rollerball. Or just look at your whole commentary in this thread, there's plenty to go around. Sorry, everybody else is a mere peon, an ignorant worm who shall learn at your infinitely wise and clearly well-grounded feet. :rolleyes:

I'd be more impressed if you trotted out Time Bandits or The Adventures of Baron Munchausen than your extreme claims on Rollerball & Logan's Run. (Wondering if that's opening the door to "Brazil" or at least "12 Monkeys".)

bigbarada
03-19-2008, 01:50 AM
I remember watching Logan's Run as a kid and the movie made absolutely no impression on me whatsoever. I still don't remember anything about it.

And what about Death Race 2000? Why isn't that movie on the list? (Okay, I'll duck out now before someone starts throwing tomatoes.;) )

decadentdave
03-19-2008, 02:22 AM
I see that as an attempt at an excuse for lower quality, not a genuine proviso. Zardoz is an utter mess and totally laughable. One cannot excuse a movie for being bad merely because the period it was made was a thin era for cinema and society in general. "Well, that wasn't very good, but at least everything else about the era sucked and filmmakers were branching out with self-indulgent experimentation that resulted in nothing more than 15-minutes-of-fame pop-art, so it's good."

You completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't making any excuses, merely pointing out that films of that period were experimental and defied conventional norms. Zardoz is oft-misunderstood. Hell, I hated the film too the first time I saw it. I watched it again and was struck by the revelation of its brilliance. It's a bizarre, abstract film on the surface but narratively it is brilliant. I got it the second time around. It's unfortunate that most people don't appreciate it and think it's just absurd rubbish. I am ashamed I ever thought as much of that film. I repent.



Taking this out of the conversation for a moment, I will say - yeah, they ARE worse, especially for a theatrical release when those examples were television. And that may be the first and last time I ever defend Space: 1999.When I was 5 I had a black long-sleeve shirt with gray across the chest, just like the one Logan and the Sandmen wear. It was sheer coincidence that my mother bought it for me and was just like the ones they wear in the film. It was not officially licensed memorabillia or anything, it just happened to be the style and fashion of the time. I used to run around the house with a toy gun pretending to be a Sandman.


Hmm, I can't agree here, Mark Hamill generally plays it restrained, fairly tight within his farmboy character starting a life's adventure where I felt York is hit-or-miss throughout and a little stagy. And Hamill's face speaks only just enough instead of York's overacting face (Michael York has some entertaining work, but the guy's facial expression work is like a caricature IMO).York plays it bewildered and naive because he is experiencing things beyond the scope of his normal encounters and can't understand them. Hamill is just as naive, I mean, Luke kicks the rock? Come on! It just isn't fair! lol




Look past the weak acting, pacing, scripts, production values, even overall execution. It's not ONLY about getting the message, hell, Logan's Run kinda slowly hits the viewer over the head with it (though I'm sure at the time it felt more authentic, even in the early '80s I felt it was trite) and Rollerball isn't far behind, it's supposed to be about the entire moviegoing experience, the execution, not just intentions. I can stand on a streetcorner and listen to some guy rant for 2 hours about youth culture and resources and corporate mastery, that doesn't make for a good movie either. But thanks for suggesting I'm all about flash over substance, way to miss my point entirely while simultaneously insulting me. And way to miss my point entirely as well while simultaneously insulting me.



TV stations still run syndicated movies at odd times, even here in LA they air all sorts of weird stuff late on weekends. And with the hundreds of cable channels, there's plenty of outlets that this stuff could be found if there was ANY demand. But they're cult films, niche, they don't speak to the majority of movie fans, even genre fans, because they're generally perceived as not that good.And what makes them "cult" films is because they are embraced by those that can appreciate them and celebrate them in spite of being dejected from the cultural masses. Blade Runner is considered to be a "cult classic." It was shunned by audiences and critics but the fans sustained its longevity and were inspired by it.



That doesn't make it at all like 2001:ASO's ending where the audience has to call upon themselves to figure out what they saw. That's merely you wanting to see more, you wanting to know what comes next. It's only ambiguous in a "to be continued?" way, not a "does what I think I just saw reflect who I am as a person?" manner that you seem to be suggesting. They went through hell and then heaven to emerge in the light "somewhere else". Yes I wanted to see more and no that's not what the ending is implying and it is up to the audience to interpret what they were experiencing.



And I find it highly laughable that you are suggesting I'm the arrogant one in here that's the know-it-all'ing, look at your whole post espousing the universal brilliance that are Logan's Run and Rollerball. Or just look at your whole commentary in this thread, there's plenty to go around. Sorry, everybody else is a mere peon, an ignorant worm who shall learn at your infinitely wise and clearly well-grounded feet. :rolleyes:On the contrary. You are mistaking arrogance with passion. I am very passionate about these films and will defend them against overzealous critics who think they are too shallow or have no substance. You are entitled to your opinion but fact is you are always arguing against the opinions of others and acting like you know more than anybody else because you seem to get off on it.



I'd be more impressed if you trotted out Time Bandits or The Adventures of Baron Munchausen than your extreme claims on Rollerball & Logan's Run. (Wondering if that's opening the door to "Brazil" or at least "12 Monkeys".)For the record, I couldn't stand 12 Monkeys. I thought it was very pretentious. It wanted to be sophisticated but comes off very self-indulgent. I enjoyed Time Bandits very much though. At least that was clever and fun.

Deoxyribonucleic
03-19-2008, 12:23 PM
How about Space Hunter with a little Molly Ringwald. That was actually a pretty decent movie and I could see it taking the place of many on "the list"

JediTricks
03-19-2008, 08:06 PM
And what about Death Race 2000? Why isn't that movie on the list? (Okay, I'll duck out now before someone starts throwing tomatoes.;) )Dude, President Frankenstein rocked! It's Kwai Chang Caine and he's running people OVER!!! It's so cheesy and silly, but it kinda works too. Naturally Paul W.S. Anderson is remaking it for release this September. :rolleyes:


How about Space Hunter with a little Molly Ringwald. That was actually a pretty decent movie and I could see it taking the place of many on "the list"Wow, you've stumped me there, big D! Never heard of it.


You completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't making any excuses, merely pointing out that films of that period were experimental and defied conventional norms.I just looked over that conversation path again, and I still reach the same conclusion because my choices are either that you're following that same path, or if not I don't understand why it'd be worth mentioning there except as a non-sequitur.


Zardoz is oft-misunderstood. Hell, I hated the film too the first time I saw it. I watched it again and was struck by the revelation of its brilliance. It's a bizarre, abstract film on the surface but narratively it is brilliant. I got it the second time around. It's unfortunate that most people don't appreciate it and think it's just absurd rubbish. I am ashamed I ever thought as much of that film. I repent.I think the reason Zardoz is misunderstood is because it's a poorly made film, it needs a ferryman to get its point across the sea of cheese.


When I was 5 I had a black long-sleeve shirt with gray across the chest, just like the one Logan and the Sandmen wear. It was sheer coincidence that my mother bought it for me and was just like the ones they wear in the film. It was not officially licensed memorabillia or anything, it just happened to be the style and fashion of the time. I used to run around the house with a toy gun pretending to be a Sandman.Yeah, I remember that shirt, a lot of kids had that sort of thing back in the day, it had a weird cut to it too - a lot of '70s clothes fit oddly though.


York plays it bewildered and naive because he is experiencing things beyond the scope of his normal encounters and can't understand them. Hamill is just as naive, I mean, Luke kicks the rock? Come on! It just isn't fair! lolHamill is playing from a specific area that is simple and basic while fitting the serials-styling a bit. That little whine and ground-kick is emotive, anybody can "get" what he's feeling without needing an interpreter, and he doesn't oversell it, he keeps it fairly close. York comes off as stagy to me, like something from BBC where they're going overboard with emoting in little ways to make sure the back row gets it. I have enjoyed Michael York's work at times, but it never really sells it for me, he's too often "Michael York the Actorrrr!" when he's doing his thing.


And way to miss my point entirely as well while simultaneously insulting me.I didn't miss your point, I responded to it. And in that passage, how did I insult you?


And what makes them "cult" films is because they are embraced by those that can appreciate them and celebrate them in spite of being dejected from the cultural masses.Seems pretty elitist and self-aggrandizing - "I like this, it must be great, everybody else is just too stupid to get it". Not everything is that way though, such as The Black Hole.


Blade Runner is considered to be a "cult classic." It was shunned by audiences and critics but the fans sustained its longevity and were inspired by it.I would be very surprised to find another human being that could suggest Logan's Run or The Black Hole are anywhere near the level of Blade Runner.


Yes I wanted to see more and no that's not what the ending is implying and it is up to the audience to interpret what they were experiencing.How so?


On the contrary. You are mistaking arrogance with passion. I am very passionate about these films and will defend them against overzealous critics who think they are too shallow or have no substance. You are entitled to your opinion but fact is you are always arguing against the opinions of others and acting like you know more than anybody else because you seem to get off on it. I'll give you passion, but it's not being mistaken for arrogance. And for you to say I'm the one arguing against others' opinions is ironic, let's take a look at our posting history in this thread:
Me: I can understand only 1 per series, and I can understand ANH over ESB because of the impact factor, but Alien over Aliens? They wisely included Wrath of Khan over The Motion Picture, and T2 over Terminator, but Alien over Aliens, really?!? Alien is a better horror film, Aliens is a better sci-fi film.

And Beast From 20,000 Fathoms yet not 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? I mean, I love Ray Harryhausen, and he did beat Godzilla to the punch, but it's not a particularly good movie. 20,000 Leagues is an amazing film.

It is kinda awesome that punker sci-fi Repo Man made the list though, that flick is underappreciated.
-- Hmm, let's see, I stated my opinions, and dogged a movie that nobody gave a frick about in this thread. Next.
Engineernerd: Discussion at work today, mentioned Dune being missing from the list. (I'm an engineer, and have nerdy co-workers.) While not a great film, I think it's scope and content are at least the equal of some of the other films on the list.
Me: David Lynch's Dune was a mess though, I'd put Stargate & The Fifth Element on there way before Dune. I'm just grateful Tron is recognized.
-- yeah, what a jerk I am, I listened to what he said and responded with an opinion on what he was saying. Oh noes, I had a different opinion! Next.
Engineernerd: I'd probably put "The Black Hole" on before "Stepford Wives". I rewatched this recently, and actually probably enjoyed it more now, and I hate to say this, watching it in the theater for the first time.
Me: Black Hole is too kiddified and disjointed for me, Stepford Wives for all its lack of sci-fi qualities got people talking when it first came out, nobody said much about The Black Hole. I wouldn't have included it on the list, and I probaly would have put TBH on it over Stepford, but I wouldn't have enjoyed putting either of them there. :p Hell, even Demolition Man I'd consider putting on this list before TBH.-- What, I again listened and responded with my personal opinion? Someone convene a grand jury! Oh, but make sure not to mention that I also agreed with his overall point. Next.
Engineernerd: I don't think he could have successfully sued them, it's more of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in space. I'd bet that's how it was originally pitched
Me: Yeah, it's a blatant homage to 20,000 Leagues, and Lucas would have no legal claim because Disney had been working on TBH since before Lucas was working on SW.
-- NOOOO! The ultimate arrogant insult, agreeing with a guy and backing up his claim with more information! Call the Hague! Next.
Engineernerd: Speaking of 20KLUTS, where is it on the list? If the time machine is there shouldn't it be there?
Me: That's what I said (http://forums.sirstevesguide.com/showthread.php?p=606996#post606996)!
-- Geez, you're going to have to build a time machine and send me back to the Nuremberg Trials at this point. I'm a monster and must be stopped! Next.
Rocketboy: Two guys (one with blond hair and one brown) and an old man, along with two robots, save the girl held captive on the space station from the bad guys (one of them is armored).
Wow, just like 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. :D
Me: They were all held captive, there was originally only 1 robot until they found Old Bob, there was really 3 "old guys" IMO :p, the Cygnus was a ship not a space station, Dr McCrae wasn't being held captive so much as being lobotomized to be turned into one of the ship's "robots", and they were trying to escape the folly of the Reinhardt's obsession which was dragging them all into oblivion at the heart of a black hole. And as I pointed out above, pre-production began on TBH years before SW, and production began the year before SW production began.-- Yeah, I countered his argument with a different interpretation, all of which is fairly objective (except perhaps for the 3 old guys comment), that's soooo arrogant. It's a wonder I haven't been drawn & quartered at this point. Oh, and while we're at it someone should really make a law against stating facts to back up an opposing interpretation in response to someone else's interpretation. Next.
Engineernerd: Would "Highlander" be considered Sci-Fi?
Me: By itself, absolutely not. But since Highlander 2 changed all that, maybe. Still, by itself is kinda key, there's not a single sci-fi element about the picture, the quickening is fantasy.
-- Wow, how douchey can one person get?!? I responded to a question with what seems to be a well-founded, entirely objective point. Perhaps I'm the devil himself! Next.
Deoxyribonucleic: They should have put Event Horizon on the list as well. That was a great movie with elements from Hellraiser and Alien all wrapped up in a pretty scary movie, especially if you go frame by frame in the scene where they find out what happened to the original crew!
Me: I've never seen Event Horizon, just never got around to it. Horror and sci-fi don't mix well in my book.
-- Wait, wait, this is obviously the worst one yet, Deoxy makes a comment about a movie she feels should be on the list and I respond by saying I'm not familiar with it because the mixing of these 2 genres isn't my cup of tea. Not only is that incredibly know-it-all, admitting I don't know it, but how incredibly arrogant of me, admitting to my ignorance of the film and then explaining my reason why it didn't appeal to me. Frickin' A dude, St. Peter's gonna throw the book at me for that one when I'm at the pearly gates. Next.
LTBasker: Question: What's so sci-fi about A Clockwork Orange and the Mad Max films? Granted, the latter are in a post-apocalyptic world, but compared to other deserving sci-fi movies, it's hardly a reason to keep it on the list.
Me: ACO takes place in a future where the Russians have more influence on society, and mind control is prevalent. It's "sci-fi" aspect is that future world, but it's more subtle than the future of 2001: ASO.
ACO and Mad Max discuss the human condition's evolution in the perception of the "future", that and they have plenty of violence. What do you want? They put Rollerball on that list, that movie sucked! James Caan on skates, really?
-- I give him my interpretation to the answer of the first part of his question, but can only be snarky about the second because I don't really know either, and use Rollerball as an example as to the odd choices on this list. Had you or anybody at that time stated how brilliant it was? No. I said it sucked and I pulled it out of a vacuum since I was the FIRST person to comment on it in the thread (we'll get to that in a second though), wow, nobody's ever expressed an opinion in such a blunt and thoughtless manner on the internet before, that's certainly worthy of your repeated personal attacks. And I stand by my opinion that Rollerball sucks, we'll have to continue to disagree there, or just go our separate ways on the matter since we've each made our points. Moving on.
Mr. Daddypants: most sci-fi movies are barely science based at all. it's more a case of future fantasy.
Me: That's why it's "Science-fiction", it's fiction themed in science without being based on it.
-- He made a claim, I disagreed and made an alternate claim. Geez, you wonder how he didn't fly across the Atlantic and stave my skull in over that one.
Mr. Daddypants: SW is pure fantasy. none of the tech makes any sense.
Me: See, you are focusing too much on the specifics and not enough on the concepts driving the fiction. Yes, it's classic fantasy wrapped up in modern sci-fi trappings, but that's the key, in terms of its use science, it uses the concepts broadly and has those ideals of what COULD be even if it's all over the map on what WILL be.
-- Here's a claim of me arguing against someone's opinion, sure, and I stand by my interpretation. He made a claim arguing against others opinion, and I countered it. It's part of the back and forth called "discussion". It's not always properly formatted, but I think Mr. Dpants knows what I'm getting at, even if he doesn't agree with me, and the same goes for me with him.
Engineernerd: The watercool talk today at work came up with a couple of new ones.
Last Starfighter. Mainly due to the fact of it's early use of CG.
Logan's Run.
Neither were my choices, but I like 'em better than a number of AFI's choices.
You know, while not films in the strictest sense, wouldn't you have to put either the Buck Rodgers or Flash Gordon serials on this list?
Me: Last Starfighter is pure cliches and slightly kiddified cheese, I think it's most powerful sci-fi aspect is one folks don't really think about, the fact that a military recruited from video game playing (today in the military we have training and remote weapons systems that actually ARE like playing video games).
Logan's Run is very sci-fi but very badly dated too, and never had great impact when it was released. The serials didn't really reach far either on their own, it was how they resonated with a few key people which keeps us thinking about them because they laid the foundation for greater films. -- Oh snap, you really nailed me there Dave! I totally did that, I responded to what he said ABOUT HIS COWORKERS OPINIONS without prefacing that those were my opinions, clearly I bombed on the guy because he must have assumed that my statements were facts handed to humanity by God himself! And damn, my interpretation of the facts was totally wrong, everybody loved Logan's Run's when it came out, and the serials on their own are still commonly thought of in today's society, wow, bam! Totally got me on that one.
Deoxyribonucleic: Logan's Run is a great movie me thinks! And definitely deserves to be on the list.
Me: Logan's Run is so dated-looking that it makes the Star Trek:The Motion Picture costumes look good. :p The concept is also a little too strained IMO for modern times, it fits well with the '70s but has less resonance today than Soylent Green, I'd say.
-- This one is jerky, but you totally can tell I'm doing it to hurt her feelings and insult her and suggest her choices are incredibly beneath me, that's what the smilie is there carry. And then I state my personal opinion while only using a shorthand expression to categorize it as such, I'm truly beyond redemption there, Deoxy's gonna have to stop having me over to her house over that one.

Now let's see where you come in...
decadentdave: To say that it's dated is to prejudice it for being nothing more than a product of its time. Films of the 70's and 80's all look very dated now and I remember when they were all brand new. The story and themes are what endure today, specifically issues of youth culture, age and cloning. In a Logan's Run society, most of us would already be dead. The idea of cloning multiple generations (i.e. Logan 5 and Francis 6) from the same genotype and the issues of individuality versus society and a totalitarian establishment. Logan's Run was well ahead of its time.-- So let me get this straight, you're NOT "arguing against the opinions of others and acting like you know more than anybody else" with this comment, how? You state your interpretation as sole fact using it as an argument of my opinion on this one, as you believe you know better and therefore that trumps my comment. Gee whiz, it's hard to believe I was able to just accept it as your discussion style and continue talking with you rather than dropping to my knees and bowing at your feet.
You: Metropolis was made in 1928 and it is one of the greatest science fiction films of all time. Without it there would be no Star Wars or Blade Runner.
-- Nope, nothing subjective about that statement of "fact". Next.
Me: They put Rollerball on that list, that movie sucked! James Caan on skates, really?
You: Norman Jewison's Rollerball is a science fiction masterpiece. It deals with corporate control of society and the rights of individuals versus the establishment and decadent brutalistic sports for entertainment.
-- So let's get this timeline straight, the first person to state ANY opinion about this one is me, that's the baseline, then you counter it with your argument. So again, how is this anything but you "arguing against the opinions of others and acting like you know more than anybody else"? Oh, right, because it's a "science fiction masterpiece", sorry, I forgot, your interpretation trumps mine because it's YOURS and therefore fact. No? It's subjective? How could that be possible? I thought yours was passion while mine was arrogant opinion-whompin'. Is it possible it's mostly a discussion where everything's subjective? No? I'm a monster and you're a saint? Oh, gotcha.

Rocketboy: You can't mean seriously the Disney movie - the one that George Lucas really should have sued them over.
You: The Black Hole is the ballsiest movie Disney ever made and it scared the living crap out of me as a kid. There is no way Disney or ANY studio today would have made that film with its dark ending. I mean we are talking about showing hell incarnate in the inferno and the minions of Lucifer (Reinhardt). The film was so dark and gothic and was the creepiest film I had ever seen. I was 6 when I saw it (I was 4 when I saw Rosemary's Baby). And this was the SAME year as Alien and Star Trek the Motion Picture. All of those films scared the hell out of me. 1979 was an unforgettable year for science fiction.
-- Why look, it's the 3rd time in the course of those 6 merged back-to-back posts you made over the course of an hour which someone is "arguing against the opinions of others and acting like you know more than anybody else", and since you're quoting Rocketboy there, I don't see how it could be him, so who else could that leave, hmm?

And finally, from your first posting session, you end on this nugget:
Deoxy: They should have put Event Horizon on the list as well. That was a great movie with elements from Hellraiser and Alien all wrapped up in a pretty scary movie, especially if you go frame by frame in the scene where they find out what happened to the original crew!
You: Event Horizon basically ripped off Lifeforce and Hellraiser.
-- Nope, you're not "arguing against the opinions of others and acting like you know more than anybody else" with that one, heavens to Pepsi, nosiree! :rolleyes: But thanks for playing, sport.


For the record, I couldn't stand 12 Monkeys. I thought it was very pretentious. It wanted to be sophisticated but comes off very self-indulgent. I enjoyed Time Bandits very much though. At least that was clever and fun.I don't see how 12 Monkeys is pretentious, how do you mean? From my perspective, it basically says it doesn't know what it's doing, I thought that the ending was kinda clever really, it makes a swift left turn, if they had solved the problem and tied it up in a neat bow it wouldn't have worked but instead they went a different way and returned time to its cyclical and quizzical manner. The movie's a little bit of a mess, but isn't that the nature of Terry Gilliam's films in general?

decadentdave
03-19-2008, 08:17 PM
No JT, my point was about your arrogance in general regarding your usual postings trying to make everone elses' opinions seem wrong because you are always being an elitist prick as you have just examplified by your usual 5000 word dissertation.

2-1B
03-19-2008, 08:48 PM
I counted 4,882 words. :thumbsup:

JT's not a prick. He's a ball breaker ;) but he ain't a prick. :21B:

JediTricks
03-19-2008, 08:53 PM
No JT, my point was about your arrogance in general regarding your usual postings trying to make everone elses' opinions seem wrong because you are always being an elitist prick as you have just examplified by your usual 5000 word dissertation.
3,665 words, though only 1,596 of them are original to that post.


And we're done with this. Dave, you've already been warned before, and even suspended once for personal attacks, it's unfair to others who don't get as much leniency because they aren't taking their shots at me. Personal attacks are a violation of forums rules. You're suspended a week.

jjreason
03-19-2008, 09:04 PM
JT's not a prick. He's a ball breaker ;) but he ain't a prick. :21B:

And that right there is the sound of one pair getting broken. For the record, that did NOT sound good. lol

plasticfetish
03-19-2008, 10:07 PM
Phhht! I have no idea what the drama is about in this thread. I got to post #10 and started laughing so hard that I couldn't read any more.

CaptainSolo1138
03-19-2008, 10:08 PM
For the record, that did NOT sound good. lol
But it did sound like a QotD nominee!

General_Grievous
03-19-2008, 10:20 PM
pwn3d!!!!!

2-1B
03-19-2008, 10:35 PM
3,665 words, though only 1,596 of them are original to that post.

Oops, I overcounted ! :nerv:

Still, I knew it wasn't a full 5 Large. ;)

:thumbsup:


Phhht! I have no idea what the drama is about in this thread. I got to post #10 and started laughing so hard that I couldn't read any more.

What brought you out to these parts? Was it my Report Bad Post activity?
I'm so glad I could contribute to a Banning. :pleased:

Droid
03-20-2008, 10:32 AM
Someone else may have said this, but I don't believe Metropolis was eligible for the AFI list as it isn't an American Film. Kind of like how the Seventh Seal, Seven Samurai, and other foreign classics didn't make the AFI Top 100 list of all films, because they aren't American films. I believe they would have put Metropolis on the list if it had been eligible.

plasticfetish
03-20-2008, 03:26 PM
I'm so glad I could contribute to a Banning.Man... what a p***k! ;)

No, anytime someone mentions Mac and Me, I get an e-mail notification.

El Chuxter
03-20-2008, 04:04 PM
Yeah, I think Rocky needs to be banned for that one.

Or at least always referred to as "Rocky" from now on.

Happy birthday, Paulie! You can have your party at McDonald's, where they serve Coke--the same liquid that aliens drink! :thumbsup:

jjreason
03-20-2008, 06:31 PM
No, anytime someone mentions Mac and Me, I get an e-mail notification.

Jesus, that struck me as really, really funny for some reason. lol:thumbsup::D

JediTricks
03-20-2008, 10:56 PM
Someone else may have said this, but I don't believe Metropolis was eligible for the AFI list as it isn't an American Film. Kind of like how the Seventh Seal, Seven Samurai, and other foreign classics didn't make the AFI Top 100 list of all films, because they aren't American films. I believe they would have put Metropolis on the list if it had been eligible.Good point, but aren't ACO, Children of Men, and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome also not American films?

I was really impressed with V for Vendetta, but I'm not entirely surprised it didn't make this list - despite its many stinkers. Fantastic Voyage, man... it's hard to defend sci-fi to outsiders who point to that turkey.

Deoxyribonucleic
03-20-2008, 11:19 PM
Good point, but aren't ACO, Children of Men, and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome also not American films?

I was really impressed with V for Vendetta, but I'm not entirely surprised it didn't make this list - despite its many stinkers. Fantastic Voyage, man... it's hard to defend sci-fi to outsiders who point to that turkey.

Point, Point, POINT...Gobble, gobble, GOBBLE

I point to that turkey but only cuz I love it for its cheese factor :thumbsup:

Droid, GREAT POINT! Seriously, I think everyone missed that, which is hilarious. Myself included lol

Droid
03-21-2008, 09:42 AM
Good point, but aren't ACO, Children of Men, and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome also not American films?

I was really impressed with V for Vendetta, but I'm not entirely surprised it didn't make this list - despite its many stinkers. Fantastic Voyage, man... it's hard to defend sci-fi to outsiders who point to that turkey.

It is confusing as to how they decide what counts. From the wikipedia article on the AFI's original movie list:

Criteria
Films were judged according to the following criteria.

Feature-length: Narrative format, at least 40 minutes in length.
American film: English language, with significant creative and/or financial production elements from the United States.
Critical Recognition: Formal commendation in print.
Major Award Winner: Recognition from competitive events including awards from organizations in the film community and major film festivals.
Popularity Over Time: Including figures for box office adjusted for inflation, television broadcasts and syndication, and home video sales and rentals.
Historical Significance: A film's mark on the history of the moving image through technical innovation, visionary narrative devices or other groundbreaking achievements.
Cultural Impact: A film's mark on American society in matters of style and substance.

[edit] Criticisms
As with other major awards, such as the Academy Awards, the list of those who voted and the final vote tally has not been released to the public.

The inclusion of some films on these criteria has been controversial, and the "American" content sometimes minimal. Lawrence of Arabia was directed by David Lean, a Briton - as indeed was Bridge on the River Kwai - and first premiered in London, but qualified as an American film because it was produced by an American citizen. The Third Man was included because its executive producer and two stars were American. Both films were also chosen by the British Film Institute for its top 100 list. The African Queen was a production of Horizon Pictures, a British studio, but qualified as an American film because the two stars were American and the director was American. A Clockwork Orange, another British film, was based off the American version of the novel, and was banned in the United Kingdom in 1972, less than a year after its release. Some of the later lists appear to have ignored the criteria altogether.


Maybe you could make an argument for the movies you list falling into these vague catagories as American, but you couldn't argue that with Metropolis.
It definitely is not English language, with significant creative and/or financial production elements from the United States.

They may have had different criteria for what made the scifi movies an American film.

bigbarada
03-21-2008, 12:36 PM
It is confusing as to how they decide what counts. From the wikipedia article on the AFI's original movie list:

[I]Criteria
Films were judged according to the following criteria.

Feature-length: Narrative format, at least 40 minutes in length.
American film: English language, with significant creative and/or financial production elements from the United States.
Critical Recognition: Formal commendation in print.
Major Award Winner: Recognition from competitive events including awards from organizations in the film community and major film festivals.
Popularity Over Time: Including figures for box office adjusted for inflation, television broadcasts and syndication, and home video sales and rentals.
Historical Significance: A film's mark on the history of the moving image through technical innovation, visionary narrative devices or other groundbreaking achievements.
Cultural Impact: A film's mark on American society in matters of style and substance.

[edit] Criticisms
As with other major awards, such as the Academy Awards, the list of those who voted and the final vote tally has not been released to the public.

Maybe you could make an argument for the movies you list falling into these vague catagories as American, but you couldn't argue that with Metropolis.
It definitely is not English language, with significant creative and/or financial production elements from the United States.

They may have had different criteria for what made the scifi movies an American film.

That might be part of the reason that ESB wasn't included. It was only after ROTJ was released that people seemed to start appreciating ESB for what it was. IIRC, it was seen as kind of a stinker and a disappointment when it first came out. Even as a kid, I remember being a little let down by the movie.

Also, ESB is not a complete movie without ANH and ROTJ. It never takes any time to introduce the main characters, since that was taken care of in ANH, and it has no resolution since that is taken care of in ROTJ. So, as a STAND ALONE film and purely in a technical sense, it's the weakest of the three. ROTJ might not be considered up to par with ANH and ESB these days, but it has a resolution to the story, something that ESB lacks.

ANH is the only truly stand alone film of the entire saga. Ep1 would be the next best in terms of stand alone films, but it doesn't take the time to properly establish the Force or the Jedi. Episodes 2, 3, 5 and 6 are all dependent on story elements from previous films.

I actually kind of wish that EP1 had made this list, because it might not be better than ESB or ROTJ, but it's definitely better than garbage like Independence Day. It would have also firmly established the PT as a separate entity from the OT.

Darth Duranium
03-21-2008, 04:14 PM
Whew! This is one feisty thread!

Gotta say that I love most of the somewhat cheesey films mentioned here in posts... The Black Hole (Max rocks!), Logan's Run (Runner!), THX 1138 (redo is better), Zardoz (great pants), Highlander (great skirts), Event Horizon (Boo!), 5th Element (Multipass!), A.I. (I see dead child-actors), Metropolis (C-3PO's grandma), Mad Max (nice dingo), Predator (nice jowls), V For Vendetta (Portman does the worse British accent ever, after Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins), Children of Men (stoned 007), Minority Report (Slave II), Contact (despite that smirking dork McConna-hoozit), Sky Captain (despite that smirking dork Gwyneth Paltrow), Demolition Man (prophesied President Schwarzeneggar), Repo Man (let's order sushi and not pay)... I think they all brought something new and/or fun to the scifi/fantasy realm.

Surprising lack of superhero and fantasy flicks on the AFI list. Supes is definitely sci-fi, imho. I consider James Bond to be sci-fi, too. Dune and ESB get my vote... both are epics in their own rights.

How about Time After Time? How about Akira (Japanese, though), Silent Running (worst music ever), BSG (frack a daggit today), Outland (in outer schhhpace), Riddick 2 (skittish), I Robot, Brazil (visionary!), 1984, Aeon Flux, Stargate, HHGTTG, Blade, Underworld, Heavy Metal, or The Island?

How about Mary Poppins? That's sci-fi, ain't it? Could have left ID4, Altered States, Coccoon, Stepford Wives, Tron, and the Andromeda Strain off, imho.

Did anyone catch CODE 46, a Tim Robbins flick set in a near-future Blade Runner/Gattaca/Island-ish kind of dystopian Shanghai? I think it's a British film, though... so I'm not sure if it's eligible. Tim's Ah-murrican, though.

It's kind of a sci-fi cult art film... a la Ridley Scott (Skidley Rott)- it's quite hypnotic and intimate... I don't think it saw theatrical release but was made for (good) TV in the UK. It's kind of a sleeper... most folks ain't never heard of it.

There's no real car chases, zombies, l'il green men, Trek cliff-hangers, or laser battles in the film but I really dug the future world it creates... the planet's quite messed-up in subtle and interesting ways.

Not just your average doomed genetically-catastrophic love story...

plasticfetish
03-21-2008, 06:18 PM
Overall, I think it's a good list. There's nothing on that list that I would balk at, and though there are many others that people will bring up as personal favorites, I can see why they might have picked each one that they did.

Mostly there are these ideas of “Popularity Over Time, Historical Significance, and Cultural Impact” that put films like Forbidden Planet on the list. The rest all fall into those categories pretty smartly as well I think.

(But I’m the guy here that loved A.I., so I’m sure I’ll be alone in thinking that.)

Oh, and...


Alien is a better horror film, Aliens is a better sci-fi film.

I think Alien is a great sci-fi film that mixed elements of horror and suspense in a way that was revolutionary at the time it was released. The only thing that was amazing about Aliens, is that someone actually managed to make a sequel to Alien that didn’t suck. A sequel (that I saw in a Manhattan theater on opening day), that was very fun to watch. Not revolutionary... but for sure fun to watch.

JimJamBonds
03-22-2008, 10:43 AM
How could The Stepford Wives and Allen Iverson be on the list?

Droid
03-24-2008, 02:56 PM
I thought Alien Nation the film was a good movie. I don't know if it was one fo the 50 best, but I thought that it was one of the more original ideas. I thought it was a decent TV show.

Darth Duranium
03-24-2008, 11:01 PM
Yeah, overall it is a pretty good list. It is hard to see Stepford and ID4 there instead of ESB or Aliens, but I get the rationale.

Plasticfetish, I like A.I. too... a sci-fi (blue) fairy tale, really. I know that the ending wasn't tacked on by Spielberg and was in Kubrick's original script, but it is a little unsatisfying... a common flaw in sci-fi flicks. Altogether a intelligent and interesting movie, though.

The omission of The Cat From Outer Space is a grave injustice to all mankind. Weep, weep for the children.

JetsAndHeels
03-25-2008, 08:43 AM
My thoughts exactly. No love for the Supes? What do they know about movies anyway,(in keeping with the no cussing theme)those bleeping, bleepers?

You are preaching to the choir on that one, bro!!

Superman II should be on there, 'nuff said.

Zod, Ursa, the fortress, and a cellophane "S"..what more does the AFI want? :)

Darth Duranium
03-25-2008, 03:47 PM
I assume you mean the Donner cut of Supes II? Or the Lester cut? Or the combined fan cut (my fave)? Hard to choose...

Should be more cellophane in movies...

Zod has got my vote... now he's a real decider, Mistah Bush. Now kneel...

JetsAndHeels
03-25-2008, 03:59 PM
I assume you mean the Donner cut of Supes II? Or the Lester cut? Or the combined fan cut (my fave)? Hard to choose...

I was referring to the original cut...the Donner cut is good too though.

jeddah
03-27-2008, 11:01 AM
I don't think he could have successfully sued them, it's more of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in space. I'd bet that's how it was originally pitched.

Speaking of 20KLUTS, where is it on the list? If the time machine is there shouldn't it be there?

Hey all, just a small point here because I'm kinda in the same boat as E-nerd about The Black Hole and therefore feel obligated to pitch my knee-jerk response, but.... I thought/seem to remember that 'they' began on it well before Star Wars and although it was released in 1979, work had begun some 4 years prior. I see the logic or temptation to label something a rip off etc because, say, it has 'droids' for example, but then, what about Huey Dewey & Louis in Silent Running from 1972?

Anyway, I have a lot of time for The Black Hole, I think the robot designs are iconic and appealing (esp Maximilian) and I kinda like the Tempest/20K Leagues parallels in it. I also like the fact that it heralded a metaphorical darker focus and a subject matter (pun unintentional :D ) for Disney.

so, yeah... that's what I think...

jeddah
p.s have you guys got The Mighty Boosh over there, yet?

Darth Duranium
04-01-2008, 11:14 PM
No Jeddah, sadly the Mighty Boosh hasn't really made it to North America yet... except on some obscure satellite channel that noone gets.

Obviously, you are a fan... I'm so glad you brought it up.

Gotta say I LOVE it... just got into it last month. Can't stop spreading it like a virus to everyone I know. It's totally worth a download through the method of your choice if you're deprived... I've got about half of the 20 episodes so far.

It's totally brilliant and utterly absurd, in a very English way... though I think it'd find an audience here in Canada, too. It's the antidote to puerile crap like Everybody Loves Raymond and Frazier. It's completely mad and really funny!

If you love stuff like Monty Python, Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy, and The Young Ones then The Mighty Boosh is for you... squares won't get it at all.

It's almost impossible to describe... check it out for yourself.

El Chuxter
04-02-2008, 01:19 AM
Dark Place did air on Adult Swim. And you can find Boosh on YouTube fairly often.

OC47150
04-13-2008, 08:43 PM
The AFI is comprised of a bunch of idiots.

Must be comprised of the same people who creates Entertainment Weekly's top list. Those lists are a joke, too.