Let us compare AOTC with OTHER science-fiction movies!!!!!!

That's a bit harsh,Stormchaser.

 

Here is my list:

I know it's not sci-fi, but still... The entire SW saga, with the exception of Episode 3, of course., which si not out until 2005.

Blade Runner: Noir meets sci-fi and truly visionary in all aspects. It's not for everyone, but I admire it and love it.

2001: Ok, the film I will admit is a bit pretencious and it borders on shallow because the characters are just filler and it says something when the only real character in the film is Hal, a computer. But it is a sight to behold. The music, the visuals and the grand theme of the film.. it is a delight. The film does not have a story per se, it has a theme. And it works. And the effects still hold up today.

Back To The Future Trilogy: What else can I say that it's just pure fun. Nothing more, nothing less. And they are clever.

The Thing: John Carpenter's classic. This film is tense and captures paranoia perfectly. And it has great creature effects which still hold up in my opinion. On that note, PadmeBra, The Thing is based on the story 'Who Goes There?", written before Body Snatchers.

The Terminator: Better than the second one. T2 was a very cool movie, but this is where the original tops it: the original had the concept of man vs. machine, while the second one was machine vs. machine. Sure, you can say that T2 had man vs/ machine too, but it was not at the core like the original. Not that that's a bad thing. I just find man vs. machine more intriguing. And plus, the original was much darker and grittier.

Alien: The first is the best. Loved Aliens, but Scott is a great visual director and the original is all about suspense, tension and the horror of what you don't see. The second one was great, but it was more of an action movie.

The Blob (1958): Steve McQueen versus a pile of Jello? Come on! You have to dig that!

The Day The Earth Stood Still: A classic and a good token of the cold war era. Strong moral message and memorable scenes.

Dark City: Again, film noir meets sci-fi. Not only is this film beautifully shot, it looks and feels like a 40's film noir. The use of color and lighting is outstounding and the concept of the film is great. And I will add, this is a great DVD as it not only spots a terrific transfer but the Ebert commentary is one of the best.

A.I.: Underrated. I swear this film gets to me every time. Not ashamed to say it. It always chokes me up. It wasn't perfect, but it hit all the right notes. It needed more on Gigolo Joe, but I forgive Steven. Kubrick, Steven... I salute thee.

The Abyss: Another underrated film. I love it. But mind you, I speak of the director's cut which makes the theatrical release seem like weak coffee.

Metropolis: Revolutionary. One of, no, the best silent film in my opinion.

Akira: Anime is not for everyone, I will say that. And yes, it is overrated. Way overrated. But, that said, it is still a visual force and an important piece in animation.

Metropolis (anime): Another anime that I enjoy a good deal.

Open Your Eyes: The film is from Spain and it was the film in which Vanilla Sky was based on. The original is superior in every way. Not a deep film, but very interesting.

Brazil: Noir meets sci-fi meets satire. Terry Gilliams best film. It is a very clever jab at consumerism and inefficient government services. The music, visuals and the story makes this a classic.

12 Monkeys: Again, Terry Gilliam hits the spot with another wild ride and a twisted sense of humor.

The War Of The Worlds: Another classic.

A Clockwork Orange: Drama meets blak comedy meets sci-fi. Witty, disturbing, sad. Kubrick hits another high note with this one. Great moral message in the film which makes us re-think our values.

Invasion Of The Body Snatchers: both the original and the Donald Sutherland remake. I do think the remake is superior because the story is better developed and Donald Sutherland makes any movie woth watching. Still creppy after all these years.

E.T.: Ok, yes, the film is sugary and manipulative in typical Spielbergian fashion. But that said, it's clean cut

 

atoc is one of my favs of all time too.
makes me happy to see im not alone ..whew
i like blade runner and a few other movies listed.
in t2 i dont get how skylink was made from
a terminator from the future ... how did that guy get an idea in the past from a robot arm from the future?

 

Star Wars is still the best sci-fi ever...



and it isn't even real sci-fi, go figure!

 

Alright

Dawn of the Dead Part V: Better than AOTC. Oh wait, sci-fi you said. Still better than AOTC.

AOTC is NOT sci-fi, it's myth like say Lord of the Rings, except not nearly on the same level. Just because spaceships and futuristic scenes and aliens are used doesn't make it sci-fi, why do so many people have a hard time understanding the bloomin difference!

2001 is a science fiction movie.
Star Wars is mythic fantasy.

The Arrival is a science fiction movie
Independence day is an action flick.

Shamalyan's Signs has alien invasions, crop circle phenomena and such. Signs is not sci-fi.

Yes bloomin! Science fiction tends to EXPLAIN in depth or detail and be about a particular topic in a particular field of science, like astronauts discovering a planets moon. And Sci Fi tends to be slow moving, long winded, and a bit boring (see above movies). Any Star Wars movie has little to do with POTENTIAL real science concepts, else we'd have a pretty dull and boring movie with explainations about depth charges and laser blasts go off in space, and please explain how simple body organisms telekentically effect the outside world. You'd have a better job explaining how Waybread morsels can fill a grown man's stomach...

Grr....Glockenspiel, who has beef with the Special Extended Edition.

 

HellSith, if responding to the question posed by the topic means I'm turning this into a basher/gusher thread, your definitions of such are way off. Try posting on topic instead of trying to fan your flames for a change? Or is that a little too much for you to handle?

According to Lucas himself, the Star Wars saga is more of a mythological fantasy-type of story instead of sci-fi. This has been common knowledge among the SW community for many years. So we are comparing apples to oranges here, unless people are just finding lame excuses to bash Star Wars again. How sad.

 

Son of the Tear,

It's interesting that you should mention Minory Report. From what I have heard, the voice over in the ending should have mentioned that the there had been 80 murders since the PreCrime unit got closed down. I think it was filmed, but then removed. Also, I think the book ends with Tom Cruise character killing the guy in the apartment. The idea was that if he didn't kill the guy, the precogs were flawed, and the PreCrime unit would be shut down. If he did kill the guy, they would be proven right, but for the wrong reason. Basically, the whole discussion between Cruise and von Sydow should have been during that murder not later.

 

No, _Yoda_ it wasn't.

Yes, yes, I absolutely love Star Wars, and do agree that it is by far the greatest sci-fi/fantasy conecpt ever. Otherwise, I wouldn't be wasting my time on these boards. But that doesn't mean that everything about it is invincible, especially GL's lack of directorial talent, which is fairly obvious after seeing TPM and AOTC. For all I care, people can say that AOTC was awesome (and it was), but it was by no means one of the best sci-fi movies. It is clearly surpassed by the likes of Blade Runner, 2001, Metropolis, and the War of the Worlds.

 

Well, the short story Minority report is vastly different.

In the story, he is set up. And in the story, the Collin Ferral character is the bad guy. There is no subplot with the kid and who murdered the kid and him killing the guy in the apartment. The Max Von Sydow character was not related to Pre-Crime at all and it is that character whom he supposedly murders.

In fact, in the end of the short story, he succeeds, the system is proven to be flawed with the pre-cogs but he doesn't kill anyone.

I liked Minority Report, I just felt that it would have had balls of steel and been great if it diverted even more from the book and ended it on a bleak note, where he gets locked up.

But that's fine. I just really hated that whole narration bit. It should have ended right where Max Von Sydow's character kills himself. Pan up and do a high angle shoot of the balcony. Bam.

 

SW:AOTC wouldnt make it in my top 10 sci-fi.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, anyone who would have the audacity to cite that SW is the greatest SF (Sci-fi is actually a derrogatory dimuitive) concept ever, has clearly not seen nearly enough movies, or read nearly enough books.

Be ashamed!

 

Interesting that those comments were made about Minority Report. I still give it an A for being a SF film that was actually about something, but it does wimp out with the ending. I think that American films have a problem with the mere idea that socialism, or facism be portrayed ever as a correct solution. If you ever read the Judge Dread comic, the entire thing is a satire on a truly socialistic society. The movie didn't get the point, and so what could have been a very biting satire is now just another Sly Stallone 99cent rental.

The only movie that I think really gets this theme right is the first Robocop movie. Also a very underrated movie. As for the directors other underrated film Starship Troopers, I think he should have gone a bit further with the books themes. Of course most of the ppl who cut the movie down never read the book. He still did a good job though I do miss the battle armor!

 

George Lucas borrowed ELEMENTS from sci-fi as well as other elements and threw it all together in this giant mixing pot.

 

Quote:
"The Thing is based on the story 'Who Goes There?", written before Body Snatchers."

I stand corrected. Still, there were many body snatcher type movies released before it, making it seem like somewhat of a copy.

I would say that Star Wars is a hybrid between sci fi and fantasy. Typically, sci fi uses advanced technology or other worlds to comment on our own world. Star Wars does this in a way. It also has elements of fantasy, with the mystical force and the hero's journey. So I think either interpretation is valid.


son_of_the_tear, you work in film? Can you get me a job? I'll make you a VIP.

 

It has spaceships for a start, but its more in the vain of comic strip sci-fi, like Superman. Really, though Star Wars is basically a swindle, as it seems to rip off other writers and ultimately be about nothing. I can see why a lot of Sci-Fi writers get very annoyed with Lucas.

EDIT: Hmm, not explaining myself very well here. I mean that you can see where Lucas has taken an idea from Sci-Fi and thought "hmm, if I take this, and add it with that, then it will make more money". i think his main aim of the first SW was to make ALOT of money for himself, so he took all different elements from all sorts of place like Kurosawa, Sci-fi, mythology etc, but he took all the elements he KNEW people wanted to see.

 

[Khan] Why are you here? [/Khan]

Of course SW is derivative of other work. There's nothing in literature, film or any other media that isn't. What's the point? There are also several aspects of the SW story that have never been done before in modern film.

And what's with the constant money issue? Yes, Lucas makes a lot of money. He's also adopted children, given tons of money to charity, and dumps a huge amount of cash into his FX and sound companies. He could have made a lot more money if he made a SW film every 3 years from 1986 to now but he didn't. He probably could have also saved a lot more money if he outsourced the FX in his films, as ILM doesn't make a profit. So what's all the obsession about his finances? No one gets his chops busted about how much money they make than Lucas and it's ridiculous. Morons throw a ball around and make $100 million a year and Lucas gets his chops busted for making money and creating hundreds of jobs? Meh, end of rant.

 

Personally my favorite sci-fi flicks are the first two Alien movies,i personally think there flawless and not rated PG.The Terminator series kicks butt also the first two anyway,the third one should live up to the frst 2

 

Goldeneye, trust me, I watch a lot of films. From all genres. My favorite film, believe it or not, is not SW. It's Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece, "Vertigo".

And I watch a lot of sci fi. My favorite genres are sci-fi, fantasy and film noir. And I also love the sub genres when noir gets mixed in with fantasy or sci-fi or sci-fi and fantasy and so on.

But I love sci-fi/fantasy and I will say that to me, at least to me, the SW series are the best films in the sci-fi/fantasy genre. My opinion.

Look at my list of some of my favorites. I love sci-fi.

Anyway, I do agree with you that it would have been cool if Paul developed some of the other ideas in the book. I enjoyed that book very much. But I will say this, correct me if I'm wrong, but I read many articles stating that Robert Heimlen(sp?) didn't mean for Starship Troopers to be a satire. In fact, I heard he was quite serious and felt attached to many of the ideas in his book.

PB, I'm still trying to make it in the field, as you see, I'm just a lowly production assistant at this point and I also work a second job as a teacher's aid at my former film school. The most I've done is self finance an indie film for a little more than 10 thousand dollars which has still to see the light of day. But I'm still young and in my 20's, so I still have my hopes and determination. Luckily, I get editing gigs or various jobs from time to time.

But hey, if you want a job, we can always use more interns to project our misery to

There is not a more miserable breed than a production assistant.

But I better get that VIP!

 

I thought Terminator 2 was a letdown. In fact I would say it is an inferior sequel to a much better original. I would say the same about Aliens, altohugh it was a better movie than Terminator 2.

Alien and The Terminator are both movies that deserve to be called good. They have the advantage of being originals as well. They might (or might not) even be considered higher art that the original Star Wars. Both cashed in on its appeal.

Apart from the lack of standalone power, I would say the new star wars is a ready match for most science fiction (though star wars is not really science fiction for two major reasons). I think that 2001 has a headier goal than star wars, and chieves it pretty well. However I think Star Wars has a greater power to influence lives and to inspire people in the long term. I think that is a better thing, although it would be best to have high art that also took a personal hold and was inspiring.

Why is SW not sci fi?

!. It is not set in OUR future.
2. It is not primarily about the way technology changes society or about the way technology can be used to solve specific problems.

Number one is more important. A viewer is not expected--is not even justified--in extrapolating back to see how things came from the way they are now. Philosophy, like the force, is not necessarily supposed to be real. There is no need to explain or understand what happened to our current institutions because they are not relevant. Any specific commentary on politics or whatever is out the window. This is an escape and any "message" is in the most elemental and most general human form.

Number two just points out that real sci fi generally makes guesses as to where tech couold go or where it is going. Sometimes the inventions are fanciful as in HG Wells' The Time Machine (read the book, please) but even that is a real attempt to say something about the present by making a guess about the future. If Sci Fi does not attempt to predict technology, it investigates the future of society, as in 1984, the time machine, atlas shrugged, or whatever. In thse technology is a device to explain or illustrate societal changes.

THere are a few movies that have followed in the wake of star wars. The reawakening of science fiction in the 1960s and 1970s was crammed with messages about society. SW reintroduced fun space movies. Many "Sci Fi" films since then have really been space operas like star wars, some of them even primarily focused on comedy.

Frankly I have never seen a wil smith movie I would rate higher than any star wars movie, even TPM. And it's not all because of him, that's just the quickst way to say it.

Star Wars is really in a class of its own, and Attack of the Clones lives up to the standards of the first two.

NOw----compare AOTC the the fifth movie of any series of your choice.

 

Well, then let me tell you that you have go see "Six Degrees of Seperation", with Will Smith and Donald Sutherland. It is an amazing film. You might like it.

 

I was watching AoTC earlier on today, I had it on in the background, while I was doing other things. I found I enjoyed it alot more, because I wasn't taking it seriously or listening to the dialogue. I found that if I just enjoyed the visuals its a lot more fun. You just have to ignore the dialogue and acting, and pretend you are watching a cheap, campy "B" movie!

Then, I turned on the t.v and JUDGE DREDD was on. The whole opening sequence of the film is exactly like the "Corruscant Chase". Do you think Lucas was trying to emulate this film? Or was he paying homage to Sly Stallones "Judge Dredd"? Even the vehicles were the same!

 

No, because even when I saw Judge Dredd back in 1995 I knew that there would be a similar scene in the prequels. Both films have large futuristic cities, of course the PT was going to have a chase through it eventually. That's way too broad a generalization. And the vehicles are nothing alike.

 

The Fifth Element is a fun and exicting movie. Loved all the cool special effects.

Anybody know who did the FX for the movie???

 

Back to the Future I ranks up there with the original Star Wars for me. It is one of the most original, funny, and downright awesome films I ever had the pleasure to watch. I can't explain it well, but the whole film is just right up my alley. It was probably films like Star Wars that made it possible to get Back to the Future off the ground and I'm glad it happened. I didn't really care for either of the the other two sequels, but it doesn't matter much because having one great film is good enough for me.

Star Wars overall can't be beat, but Back to the Future is great stuff!

 

Maybe I missed something with Event Horizon because I thought: "How can they make a movie about nothing?"

For some reason, Hollywood has to put horror into sci-fi (I wrote "Hollywood", not "film writers") and that just takes out of what science fiction is supposed to be about: the characters (you can debate me on this). Also, since sci-fi is divided into two main catagories, hard/technological and soft/sociological, SW: AOTC would mainly fall into the latter--soft/sociological--with technology supporting it.

My point being: compared to a number of Hollywood sci-fi movies, fueled with the future of man and the "big guns" that can destroy anything if you aim it right, AOTC is, from what I've heard, a sci-fi/fantasy film. Unless there are other sci-fi/fantasy films besides the others from the SW saga to compare it to, then debate is limited to so few areas (again, you can debate me on this).

I see AOTC as a great film that just happens to be SW; I love the characters and feel bad for them because all SW fans know what's going to happen, I love the story that's being told, I love the cool gadgets and how people use them, I love the fantasy-esque planets (all ice planets cannot exist, but it works), basically, I love it all. However, if you take Alien and compare that to AOTC, then you have a no brainer: Alien was simply cool because it scared us, wowed us, and made us go, "***t!"

Compared to any SW film, people will split on it because 1) it's not that person's cup of coffee (or tea) and 2) they don't want to get caught up in the rage of the times--like HP. Now, I'm not saying that people didn't split on Alien, but there hasn't been a person I have talked to who hasn't said that they like some aspect of it, although it scared them ***tless. Since SW is something new, bold, and not the standard of sci-fi films, people will look for any reason for it to suck. ("If you don't follow the status quo, you are weird. And even being weird is only good for so long." --A. N. Gunter)

Maybe I lost my point, but at least I wrote something and took up some space. Again, if you can debate with me on these things, I'm always open to listening--as long as you don't shove it in my face.

P.S.: Oh, and about those "big guns": why do guns always need to keep getting bigger? It's the future. Can't they just blink it away?