|
What's an example of a scientific science fiction film?
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:What's an example of a scientific science fiction film? Anything with FTL is okay because
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:What's an example of a scientific science fiction film? Primer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
NmareBfly posted:Primer. Its just more serious, naturalistic, and grounded in mundane every-day life. Not actually more scientific. Time machines are stilly wholly fictional no matter the tone they're shown in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Its just more serious, naturalistic, and grounded in mundane every-day life. Not actually more scientific. Time machines are stilly wholly fictional no matter the tone they're shown in. I think you're missing the point. The idea isn't scientific realism. It's scientific accuracy. Things like cold fusion bombs freezing volcanoes are just hilariously stupid. Unless you don't know what cold fusion is, of course. (Hint: it's not actually "cold".)
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
It's not a cold fusion bomb. It's a cold fusion bomb. They have those in the future, because it's the future. Everything in Into Darkness is scientifically accurate, shut up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
1st AD posted:And if you had any taste you wouldn't be watching it And yet it's not all I watch, or likely all you watch, but there are many directors who exclusively direct lovely derivative sci-fi movies and comic book adaptations and remakes of classic franchises. Nice comeback, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:- This kind of defense of lovely adaptations is what's entirely fallacious. In the era of modern CGI, what the gently caress is unfilmable? What does "dated" mean in the context of comic books? Your statement carries absolutely no water. They managed to film the craziness that was LOTR and Avengers. So, what the gently caress are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:What's an example of a scientific science fiction film? This is not the basis for my issues with Into Darkness, but... Europa Report and Moon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Dystram posted:And yet it's not all I watch, or likely all you watch, but there are many directors who exclusively direct lovely derivative sci-fi movies and comic book adaptations and remakes of classic franchises. Why do you think Hollywood continues to pump out remakes and reboots? It's because of viewers like you (and me) that support this. Actually I'm okay with the Star Trek movies so this is not a problem for me, but for example I won't watch any comic book films. Dystram posted:This kind of defense of lovely adaptations is what's entirely fallacious. In the era of modern CGI, what the gently caress is unfilmable? What does "dated" mean in the context of comic books? Your statement carries absolutely no water. They managed to film the craziness that was LOTR and Avengers. So, what the gently caress are you talking about? I think he uses dated when he should be saying bad, like the stories are so bad you wouldn't adapt them to screen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Dystram posted:This kind of defense of lovely adaptations is what's entirely fallacious. In the era of modern CGI, what the gently caress is unfilmable? What does "dated" mean in the context of comic books? Your statement carries absolutely no water. They managed to film the craziness that was LOTR and Avengers. So, what the gently caress are you talking about? I think he meant unfilmable as in 'should never BE committed to film, because it's garbage'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Why do you think Hollywood continues to pump out remakes and reboots? It's because of viewers like you (and me) that support this. Actually I'm okay with the Star Trek movies so this is not a problem for me, but for example I won't watch any comic book films. I enjoy adaptations and remakes if they're good. My point is that if some talent-less hack takes an actual good story - not just good for fanboys but really good - and loving ruins it because for some loving reason he or she thinks they actually have talent, then fanboys should be able to bitch about it without paste-eaters coming in and saying "Durr but I thought it was good!" - of course you loving did; you walked in with absolutely 0 expectation and you left after getting at least a little entertainment - of loving course you are happy. I guess I'm just tired of people who have a passing interest in something telling the fans of that something to stop criticizing a particular work because it didn't live up to expectations. It's extremely grating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
I assure you, I have more than a mere passing interest in Star Trek and as an "old" fan I promise you that your opinions on Star Trek are far from universally held by Star Trek fans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I think he meant unfilmable as in 'should never BE committed to film, because it's garbage'. Or would just be dumb if they were taken out of their original medium (like how Watchmen was a bore when adapted to film even though that was a pretty faithful and high quality adaptation).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I assure you, I have more than a mere passing interest in Star Trek and as an "old" fan I promise you that your opinions on Star Trek are far from universally held by Star Trek fans. Sorry, I didn't mean to be personally targeting you, I was referring people in a general sense. I know a lot of Trek fans and they definitely have the slavish dedication to cannon that was described earlier in the thread. However, I think it's all really just wrapped up in seeing something you love torn apart and remade to appeal to a larger audience and being really pissed because that thing you love really isn't yours anymore. I think a lot of the resulting anger is misguides - especially regarding people who felt like Man of Steel should've been like the Richard Donner movies despite Superman being a comic book character and not a cinematic invention. As a Trek fan the worst things, for me, bout the new movies is McCoy taking a back-seat to Uhura in the holy trinity - not because I dislike Uhurua but because I would like to see more McCoy. However, that decision might've revolved around Urban having availability problems due to having to film other projects like Dredd or something. I also couldn't deal with the black hole in the first movie not utterly devastating the Romulan mining vessel - it's a loving black hole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Or would just be dumb if they were taken out of their original medium (like how Watchmen was a bore when adapted to film even though that was a pretty faithful and high quality adaptation). I loved Watchmen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Yeah, the Watchmen movie was pretty much the best superhero movie ever made. Dunno why so many nerds hate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Nephthys posted:Yeah, the Watchmen movie was pretty much the best superhero movie ever made. Dunno why so many nerds hate it. I guess because they expected something action-y since it was a superhero movie. Like I said, paste-eaters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
My bigger beefs with Into Darkness come from the diametric opposite of the 'normal' problems a nerd fanboy would have with an adaptation. I'm annoyed that they didn't make the film original enough, and felt the need to shoehorn in entire plots that feel like references to the more popular parts of original canon when they didn't need to. I'd have preferred Into Darkness if it was a completely unique (well, nothing can be completely unique, but you understand my intent) story that felt like its own thing, I don't need pandering to with the return of my favourite characters or things from other Star Trek stuff. I was under the impression the entire point of most of the plot of the reboot was to say 'this is the new star trek, the old stuff is gone so don't worry about it', essentially clearing the board for all kinds of new space adventures. But then the sequel is Khan Again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:My bigger beefs with Into Darkness come from the diametric opposite of the 'normal' problems a nerd fanboy would have with an adaptation. I'm annoyed that they didn't make the film original enough, and felt the need to shoehorn in entire plots that feel like references to the more popular parts of original canon when they didn't need to. I'd have preferred Into Darkness if it was a completely unique (well, nothing can be completely unique, but you understand my intent) story that felt like its own thing, I don't need pandering to with the return of my favourite characters or things from other Star Trek stuff. Yes. Though I enjoyed the movie I felt like they missed an opportunity to tell an entirely different Khan story. The changes and twists they did include were pretty cool but I could've done without the reactor core redux. However, you could say that the new franchise is trying to communicate - I'm sure unintentionally - that anything involving these characters will always proceed in a similar manner given their personal attributes are fairly constant. However, I think they went back to the Khan well since the new movies, like most remake, reboots, and adaptations, are pretty much just cash-ins with a very small amount of pretense at legitimate art. That's probably what pisses off fans the most, as just like with manufactured bands, there's a general ire at art produced solely for profit, the production of which is based on demographic targeting and other forms of market research. The Call-of-Duty-ization of everything is generally the fear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Dystram posted:I enjoy adaptations and remakes if they're good. My point is that if some talent-less hack takes an actual good story - not just good for fanboys but really good - and loving ruins it because for some loving reason he or she thinks they actually have talent, then fanboys should be able to bitch about it without paste-eaters coming in and saying "Durr but I thought it was good!" - of course you loving did; you walked in with absolutely 0 expectation and you left after getting at least a little entertainment - of loving course you are happy. So, in other words, "If I think the end product is bad nobody else should be able to come in and say it was good." What, objectively, constitutes a "talent hack who for some reason thinks they actually have talent"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:So, in other words, "If I think the end product is bad nobody else should be able to come in and say it was good." No, they can think it was loving excellent all they want. I'd just ask that they not poo poo on those long-time fans who are massively disappointed. Discussions and differing opinions are great. For me, it gets really annoying when some paste-eating 13-year-old pops his head in on some online forum and says "Well, I liked it. If you didn't then you're just an autistic fanboy and you should shut up" and then proceeds to rattle off every retarded defense of lovely adaptations like "movies exist to make money" and "they don't owe you anything" and "well it was unfilmable otherwise."
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Except no one in here is doing that. It's irrelevant to point out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Discussions and differing opinions are great. For me, it gets really annoying when some paste-eating 13-year-old pops his head in on some online forum and says "Well, I liked it. If you didn't then you're just an autistic fanboy and you should shut up" and then proceeds to rattle off every retarded defense of lovely adaptations like "movies exist to make money" and "they don't owe you anything" and "well it was unfilmable otherwise."
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Yeah, what's wrong with eating paste anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
We've had three Star Trek films in a row that were remakes of/had villains inspired by Khan. Can we go adventuring through space again, please?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
To be honest, if they made an entire movie out of that 10 minute intro to Into Darkness that would've ruled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
Or if the intro was the same, but the rest of the movie was a meditation on the Prime Directive and the Federation's thoughts on interventionism. It could have ended with Kirk proving he was a wild card who nevertheless was a boon for the Federation, entirely because he didn't always follow the rules when they made no sense to his own wit and cunning, and thus choosing him to go on the five-year-mission. Kirk's slightly swashbuckly heroism is what humanity needs out there in uncharted space, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Dunno if that's a troll post but it sounds kind of like the film we got. But really, I liked the alien designs in that first bit and the sets looked a whole lot more colorful and creative than the drab monochromatic Starfleet interiors of the rest of the film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
No, I meant it. The Prime Directive stuff felt like it just sort of got dropped when I'd really like to have seen a movie that dealt with it more directly. I suppose that's the TNG love in me talking, but still. Kirk still proves himself in the movie we got, but I don't think it's a particularly heroic thing to save your crew, from a mission you undertook knowing it might start a massive interstellar war and was kind of illegal. Also it's even less heroic when you survive your own sacrifice. Yes, he didn't know at the time but it's still a copout. I've said this like fifty times now but I would have REALLY liked if Kirk had died and stayed dead. That would have been a really neat story surprise. Also a pretty unique twist on the 'rehashing previous plots' front, where you recycle Khan only to throw everyone for a loop and kill Star Trek Man himself. Some people will tell me that Star Trek can't survive without a Kirk, but who cares? This is a new continuity, let's get really weird with it
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:A lot of these are only problems if you expect Star Trek to be totally serious, consistent, and realistic. Star Trek has never been totally serious, consistent, or realistic. I don't care about Star Trek being realistic or even consistent, I'd just like a Star Trek movie that is actually a Science Fiction movie rather than a really dumb and poorly scripted action movie / theme park ride. quote:Starfleet scientists didn't have as much experience making weapons because the Federation was ostensibly a peaceful organization. That is a pretty dumb explanation though. We're talking about a 200 year gap. I don't care how brilliant a commander Napoleon was, if he suddenly popped into the modern day he wouldn't have much to say about how we design aircraft carriers or missiles. I also don't see how Khan's "aggressiveness" or whatever would have allowed him to create a ship that can attack people in Warp or that only requires a single person to command it. I think the real explanation for this is that they simultaneously wanted to awkwardly cram as many Star Trek references into the plot as possible (hence Khan's inclusion in the first place) while also deploying the boring and over played trope of the "giant spikey black ship of death that is way more technologically advanced than the hero's ship". And because the script writers were lazy they decided to save time by just making the ship something Khan had 'invented' for some reason, even though it makes absolutely no sense. quote:Kirk had to admit he had no idea what the right course of action was, and then do it anyway. That's a big deal for the guy who wouldn't even except the academy's test on no-win situations as a no-win situation. Great, but like I said the emotional beats of this script were pretty much the same ones as the other Star Trek reboot, which were already very similar to the one's in the last Next Gen Film. Its almost as though the script writers have no courage or originality... quote:The Klingon attitudes toward war, death, and honor are totally different than humans. Those Klingons' families could avenge them, sending an entire army would be dishonorable. What an incredibly lame cop out. And as somebody else has pointed out the whole first part of the movie revolved around the idea that the Enterprise needs to shoot missiles at the Klingon homeworld without being detected, because otherwise a war could break out. Then the very second that this idea becomes inconvenient for the script it is simply dropped and never addressed again. I guess when somebody is this forgiving of the movie you can justify any of the dumb plot points like Scotty somehow sneaking his shuttle into the shuttle bay of the Federation's super starship (and then somehow taking control of said ship) or how Khan's blood is so super magical that it can revive a tribble or why McCoy even bothered to inject Khan's blood into a dead Tribble in the first place. I'm not a particularly big Star Trek fan to begin with and I thought that the original reboot did a pretty good job of restarting the franchise but I would have liked to see a movie this time around that didn't seem to have absolutely no regard for the intelligence of the audience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I don't care about Star Trek being realistic or even consistent, I'd just like a Star Trek movie that is actually a Science Fiction movie rather than a really dumb and poorly scripted action movie / theme park ride. The beginning of your post says that but then the rest of your post says otherwise. What makes the film "dumb and poorly scripted" besides a failure to be serious (tonally and stylistically), realistic, and consistent? You mention lack of originality, sure, but still most of your complaints are about exactly those things. You don't like my explanations because you want something from them that they cannot provide. My explanations there are my interpretations of what the film is telling us or implying about how this fictional world works. Whether the real world works that way (it doesn't) is beside the point. I don't care how you think real Klingons would act, because there are no real Klingons. So no, in real life a dude from 200 years ago would probably not be particularly useful for designing modern weapons, and the same goes for your other complaints there. Your intelligence is not being insulted by the inclusion of stuff like that, but rather you're being trusted to understand the difference between fiction and reality. An intelligent viewer should be able to understand that not every plot point or aspect in a fictional world is trying to tell us, the audience, that's how the real world actually works- that would be dumb. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:The beginning of your post says that but then the rest of your post says otherwise. What makes the film "dumb and poorly scripted" besides a failure to be serious (tonally and stylistically), realistic, and consistent? You mention lack of originality, sure, but still most of your complaints are about exactly those things. There are no real Klingons. But there are Klingons in this fictional universe, and their culture, habits, and characteristics have been thoroughly explained in both film and literature. The question is not "would Klingons act like this in real life?" It is "would Klingons act like this in the fictional universe in which this film takes place?" And the answer is a definite no. If the writers gave us a lovely explanation (like the one you wrote earlier) that would be one thing. But they simply drop the entire plot point, which is just poor writing. I mean, when you have to bend time and space to come up with your own interpretations as to why major threads in the story just disappear mid-film, you know it's a bad movie. What makes this especially terrible was how easy it was to address. As I said earlier, one way to do so would be to chalk it up to Khan having manipulated a group of Khans to come capture him, and have them run into Kirk's group instead. That way, to Klingon HQ it would have looked like the scout squadron went to the uninhabited zone to capture a lone fugitive but failed. Another way to handle it would be to have a hundred Klingon warships warp into real space above Earth just as our heroes are celebrating their victory over Khan, and announce "you think you can just come to our planet and slaughter our people? Get ready for war!" That would have made the audience gasp and left us with a cliffhanger for the next movie. And we're well aware of the difference between fiction and reality. What you seem to be unaware of however is the difference between fantasy and science fiction. In the former, things may happen that are completely outside the realm of possibility, such as a person conjuring a fireball out of thin air. In a fantasy setting that is acceptable because we can chalk it up to "magic." Science fiction however is completely different. While some suspension of disbelief is still necessary (e.g. warp drives, teleportation), most imaginary elements are still largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated physical laws (e.g. laser weapons, stun guns, cryogenics, stealth torpedoes). In other words, in order for it to count as science-fiction, it has to take place in the gray area between the edge of futuristic realism and complete impossibility. If it creeps too much towards the latter, it becomes fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 11:48
|
|
|
Of course, there's no indication that Klingons warping into Earth orbit and declaring war won't happen later on. The whole idea behind the Admiral's plan is that war is coming like it or not, and so he thinks the only way to win is become a ruthless military organization. Kirk foils that plan, but the Klingons may still attack. I think that's not a continuity flaw, I think that's a plot hook left in there for later. The third movie is sort of up in the air at the moment, it could be anything, but the Klingons are still out there...
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:And we're well aware of the difference between fiction and reality. What you seem to be unaware of however is the difference between fantasy and science fiction. In the former, things may happen that are completely outside the realm of possibility, such as a person conjuring a fireball out of thin air. In a fantasy setting that is acceptable because we can chalk it up to "magic." Science fiction however is completely different. While some suspension of disbelief is still necessary (e.g. warp drives, teleportation), most imaginary elements are still largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated physical laws (e.g. laser weapons, stun guns, cryogenics, stealth torpedoes). In other words, in order for it to count as science-fiction, it has to take place in the gray area between the edge of futuristic realism and complete impossibility. If it creeps too much towards the latter, it becomes fantasy. Well even if I accept this distinction, what makes fantasy "dumb" or insulting to the audience's intelligence? Except that in this case you seem to assume the fantasy was being passed off as (your idea of) science fiction. But why assume that? Especially since IIRC this film had a minimum of technobabble to make the fantasy elements seem scientific or smart. Ignoring warp drive, transporters, universal translation, Q, the holodeck, humanoid aliens with forehead ridges, gangster planets, magic sensors, etc. is like saying Star Trek television follows your rules except when it doesn't. Which is true of this film as well, of course. Yet the former is still sci-fi? Doesn't most of the franchise fall outside that distinction for sci-fi? What's an example that doesn't? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
The ability to 'do magic' has in storytelling often been an arcane and mysterious thing (at least to an outsider), usually a product of a wizard doing some deep thinking and arriving at a conclusion that looks, to the outside observer, like magic. The point is that it's improbable, but gainable with some supreme effort of intellect or will et cetera. The point of magic is its mystery and improbability. The ability to fly through in a spaceship is literally the same thing, only 'more plausible' because for some reason modern humans are more capable of imagining someone inventing, designing, funding and building a gigantic functioning ship with pseudo-magical components that allow it to support life, create food and energy, navigate untold vastnesses of space and survive asteroids and comets and other horrifyingly-dangerous space junk to the point where it can have dogfights with alien life, who also managed to build all this implausible crap, than they are of imagining one guy having the ability to *gasp* make fire. What I'm saying is Fantasy and Science Fiction have a whole lot more in common than people want to believe. I hate to break it to you, but you just like spaceships more than fireballs. If you think you're smarter because sci-fi is more plausible, get over yourself and invent a cure for being loving stupid before you postulate a spacefaring humanity. Maybe if you go gently caress yourself enough, the sheer event horizon of your onanism can be used to power a rocket into the sun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:
The best part which no one every notes is always the gravity. As far as we know there's no way to make artificial gravity on a ship like the Enterprise (i.e., a ship that's not a ring which generates gravity via centripetal force) and yet it's an accepted standard because it's hand waved away like FTL tech.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Well you see, we can invent implausible thing X, because I say so. This is completely different from stories where people invented magic. If you read fantasy, I am smarter than you. This is also a key problem with Science Fiction (read: Fantasy) book Atlas Shrugged, in which one of the key components required for the central philosophy the book is upholding to work is essentially the invention of magic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The ability to 'do magic' has in storytelling often been an arcane and mysterious thing (at least to an outsider), usually a product of a wizard doing some deep thinking and arriving at a conclusion that looks, to the outside observer, like magic. The point is that it's improbable, but gainable with some supreme effort of intellect or will et cetera. The point of magic is its mystery and improbability. I'm not going to argue that FTL travel is more plausible than the spontaneous creation of fire through pure will, but you miss a lot of interesting differences if you dismiss them as "literally the same thing." The difference isn't that FTL is more plausible, it's that the justification for its existence is predicated upon science and engineering, not the corruption of nature, a connection to the divine, etc. (various standard associations with magic). Professor X using his telepathy because of evolution and The Shadow clouding men's minds through mystical "eastern" techniques are equally implausible, but the differing explanation for them gives them different meaning. The Shadow came back from his travels a different man; Professor X was "born that way." Tony Stark inventing the Iron Man power armor instead of wishing it into existence tells us something about how his trials should be interpreted in relation to the real world. I'm not saying you necessarily disagree with this. I'm not arguing the same thing as enraged_camel so your post may not be inclusive of it, but I thought your language was universal enough that it deserved addressing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
1st AD posted:Why do you think Hollywood continues to pump out remakes and reboots? It's because of viewers like you (and me) that support this. Actually I'm okay with the Star Trek movies so this is not a problem for me, but for example I won't watch any comic book films. Hbomberguy posted:I think he meant unfilmable as in 'should never BE committed to film, because it's garbage'. I meant to say it should be hauled away as garbage. For example, the Dark Phoenix saga. Or pretty much any mainstream comics from the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 19:39
|
|
