| Author |
Message |
|
| chillywilly |
 Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:52 pm |
 |
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8251
Location: Salt Lake City
|
| Anyone that wants to see We Bought A Zoo before it's wide release on 12/23/2011, you have another chance this weekend. Specials screenings at 7pm. Check your local theater listings. |
_________________
Chilly
"If you should die before me / Ask if you could bring a friend" |
|
| Back to top |
    
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:33 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
bartist wrote: Gary, nothing is worse IMO than bad sci-fi. For me, it's because it is derived from science fiction, which is characterized as a literature of ideas, so the expectation is high for something that really engages the brain as well as the heart and glands. So, what happens when you strip away interesting ideas about man's relation to technology, the future, what it means to be human or non-human? You get a film in which the elements of science fiction are reduced to gimmicks....devices that set up gee-whiz CGI and lots of action -- often, it's really just a western or a cop film shot into orbit or into another time. The originating idea has been gutted and turned into stylish nonsense or just nonsense. And that's disappointing.
My film partner and I had a laugh when the title of ELAIC popped on the screen during the trailers, because we have a longstanding debate on where to sit in a theater. Her choice of seat is, to me, extremely loud and incredibly close.
I've never quite got on board with the "sci-fi" vs. "science fiction (or SF)" argument. To me sci-fi and science fiction are first and foremost about wonder not ideas, though obviously the great writers and moviemakers do indeed deal with ideas. But if a movie fills me with wonder, even if its cheesy, I enjoy it and am grateful for it. I think there's plenty of room for both Flash Gordon and The Day the Earth Stood Still. Or, to put it in book terms, Armageddon 2419 AD and Ubik. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| bartist |
| Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:37 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6961
Location: Black Hills
|
Quote: It was The Angry Red Planet, a movie I had heard of but never seen. It must have been on Science Fiction Theater 2000. It is a must see. Absolutely everything about it is laughable....
Heard of it, never saw it. It's "Mystery Science Theater 3000" btw. Those can be fun when one is seeking a time killer. (actually, "Time Killer" sounds to have bad sci-fi potential - ?) My introduction to that kind of film was one I saw when I was about 11, on a UHF station in Boston, "The Brain from the Planet Arous" (IIRC) -- a brain without a body, leaping around on its spinal cord, slithering around, wreaking havoc. Hysterical. |
_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| bartist |
| Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:39 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6961
Location: Black Hills
|
| Joe, agree, and wouldn't want to snootily exclude the wonder, shock and awe, and what have you. 2001 kind of managed both ideas and wonderment, as many of the great ones do. |
_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:41 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| I agree. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
If sci-fi isn't the short form of science fiction, I've been misinformed these many years, and would like to know what sci-fi stands for.
Quote: a brain without a body, leaping around on its spinal cord, slithering around, wreaking havoc. Hysterical.
I saw it bart. Those movies were 50's drive in movie fodder. I saw it on TV though.
TARP was in colour and had sets that were of Mars. It had great opportunities to be visually, literally. perfomance and story-wise ridiculous which it used with relish. It may be the king of sci-fi trash. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 5:44 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
marantzo wrote: If sci-fi isn't the short form of science fiction, I've been misinformed these many years, and would like to know what sci-fi stands for.
Quote: a brain without a body, leaping around on its spinal cord, slithering around, wreaking havoc. Hysterical.
I saw it bart. Those movies were 50's drive in movie fodder. I saw it on TV though.
TARP was in colour and had sets that were of Mars. It had great opportunities to be visually, literally. perfomance and story-wise ridiculous which it used with relish. It may be the king of sci-fi trash.
Got it at the top of my Netflix streaming queue. But this belongs in Couch. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bartist |
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:40 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6961
Location: Black Hills
|
Looks like the NYT has their annual movie issue, this Sunday's zine. Haven't dipped in yet, except to spot a rather silly article about "Drive."
"The Skin I'm Inside Of" or whatever it's called is at the arthouse here -- son went to see it; he and his friends hated it and strongly disrecommended it. The arthouse website had lured him in with the promise of offbeat horror/sci-fi and "graphic nudity." Anyone see this?
BTW, re Gary's earlier question, "sci-fi" usually just means science fiction, though some purists make a distinction, using "sci-fi" to mean gawdy space opera stuff and "science fiction" to refer to more thoughtful pieces, true ruminations on how science and technology affect society and the individual life. |
_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| carrobin |
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:32 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 7795
Location: NYC
|
| I was once told by someone who should know (okay, she was Alfred Bester's long-time lover) that "sci-fi" wasn't an acceptable term; it's either "science fiction" or "SF." But I haven't noticed that distinction being followed very often. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I'm afraid the purists are full of shit, because all it is, is a short form of science fiction. It's like saying that rom-com is a shallow low class look at a romantic story and romantic comedy is an in depth look at romance and it many facets.
Thanks for your info about what a bunch of ego inflated snoods think. 
Quote: Looks like the NYT has their annual movie issue, this Sunday's zine. Haven't dipped in yet, except to spot a rather silly article about "Drive."
I made a comment on that site. I referred to another poster who had the same opinion of a particular movie as I did. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
carrobin wrote: I was once told by someone who should know (okay, she was Alfred Bester's long-time lover) that "sci-fi" wasn't an acceptable term; it's either "science fiction" or "SF." But I haven't noticed that distinction being followed very often.
Oh I see, so she doesn't accept it. Aaah, isn't that too bad.
I'm sure hi-fi isn't an acceptable term for high fidelity, it should be HF. 
Someone should tell her that SF is San Francisco. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bartist |
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:31 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6961
Location: Black Hills
|
HF -- haha! Well that's why I go with sci-fi. I lived on the west coast for seven years and SF was definitely the city...anything else was just confusing. Also some writers and fans take "SF" to mean "speculative fiction" which is a broader term than just science fiction, including urban fantasy, slipstream, fabulism, magical realism, and, well, just about anything speculative.
And once again, we're off-topic in the Current movie thread. Going off the rails on a crazy train. (is that Steely Dan?) |
_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:38 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Except that "speculative fiction" is often considered the better, preferred term. The big issue with "sci-fi" as a designation was that it originated in a film magazine (Forrest J. Ackerman's great Famous Monsters of Filmland) and so was first associated with cheapie B-movies that didn't give a damn about the science and rarely cared about intellectual ideas. The term doesn't bother me. I happen to love the designation "sci-fi."
But as a fan of musicals who detests the belittling "show tunes" designation, I can understand the pique, if not agree with it. And, yeah, I wouldn't like hearing My Man Godfrey or Pat and Mike defined as "rom-com." |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| knox |
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:05 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1246
Location: St. Louis
|
| The preferred term is whichever fits, I'd say. If you are talking about Greg Bear or Art Clarke or Ben Bova, then it's "hard" science fiction. If you are talking about Harlan Ellison or Italo Calvino, then speculative fiction would fit. And, to strive nobly to return this to thread relevancy, if you see a film like Cold Souls, it probably escapes the genre stockade of science fiction and fits more with speculative fiction. Haven't seen The Skin I'm In, but it sounds more speculative as well, with the science in a subordinate role. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
