I've seen a lot of bad stuff. First of all, there's the horror category, which is sort of related but I've never seen anything good there. Then there's the movies made out of good books that did not make good movies category. I include the recent Harry Potter movies in this category, as popular as they were, and I *loved* the books. Then there's the movie for the sake of special effects category. I have never had any respect for a movie that's only claim to fame was, "Yeah, but the special effects were awesome!" Last, and possibly least, (at least on this list) are the B movies with bad acting and bad to mediocre plots.

Good SF movies in recent years: Spiderman, the first Matrix, The 5th Element, Lilo & Stitch, Monsters Inc., Tarzan, and, um, hmm. Starting to draw blanks. I suspect it seems like there haven't been many good SF movies because so many of the most hyped movies in recent years have been duds. But, lets say that one SF movie in ten is a good one, and maybe 1 out of 100 is a great one. Is that really any different than the ratio in written fiction?

Movies I would avoid are John Carpenter's Vampires which I own but doesn't compare to the above and one of the worst movies I have ever seen called Reign of Fire. Which I saw opening day to support fantasy genere movies and just wasted my $6.00 on.

[This message has been edited by Bone (edited June 14, 2003).]

The Mummy (1932) - not the recent remake, although that is a fun movie. This version starred Boris Karloff as the mummy and Zita Johann as his reincarnated love. One of my favorite movies of all time, of any kind. Still stands up after all these years. Directed by Karl Freund.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) -as far as I'm concerned, this is the perfect science fiction movie. Stars Michael Rennie and Patricia Neal; directed by Robert Wise.

Invaders From Mars (1953) - Don't confuse this with the remake. Director William Cameron Menzies managed to make this into a really frightening film. Jimmy Hunt, as the boy whose parents are taken by the aliens, is really good.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) - The other first encounter film, almost as good as The Day the Earth Stood Still, probably only second best because Robert Wise got there before Steven Spielberg did. Stars Richard Dreyfuss and Teri Garr.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - Stanley Kubrick's tour de force. An experience not to be missed.

2010 (1984) - Sequel to 2001; not the trippy movie that the original was, but a very good film anyway.

Field of Dreams (1989) - Yeah, I know, it's a Kevin Costner movie sold as a baseball film. Still, it is a great fantasy film.

The Abyss (1989) - Another one of my favorite films, and not just because it stars Ed Harris, who is one of my favorite actors. Yeah, it's long, but go with it. A cool, cool movie.

Five Million Years to Earth (also known as Quartermass and the Pit) (1967) - This a wonderful British science fiction film; one of my favorites - I still watch it every time it comes on TV. This one is worth the effort to seek out.

Planet of the Apes (1968) - This is the original; it works on several different levels. The 2001 "remake" (it is really more of a reworking) is all right, but if you haven't seen the 1968 film, see it.

Edit: to fix UBB Code. And then again, to fix typo.

[This message has been edited by littlemissattitude (edited June 14, 2003).]

I must be confused about my definition of a scifi/fantasy movie because I didn't think Tarzan, Ever After, or Robin Hood qualified. How do they fit in the (I'll asume Fantasy) genre?

Reason number one: Edgar Rice Burroughs, the creator, if he were writing today, would unquestionably be marketed as a SF or Fantasy writer. Burroughs wrote, I dunno, three million novels or something, and all of them are set in exotic SF locations like Mars, Venus, the center of the Earth, remote islands where dinosaurs still roam, etc. His standard formula for a novel: Imagine some incredibly remote and alien location, then imagine how it could be improved by the presense of a square-jawed, steely-nerved white man of good breeding.

Reason two: In this light, at the time he was writing, the jungle was an alien location to most people. You would probably classify as SF a novel set on the bottom of the ocean, like the Abyss or 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. When Burroughs was writing, the jungle was as mysterious and unknown to most people as the bottom of the ocean. Burrough's jungle is like Burrough's Barsoom (Mars). He takes the scant knowledge and speculations of scientists then builds a world around them. Admittedly, his jungle is closer to reality than his Mars is, but it is still a created world extrapolated from the science of his time, and thus is SF.

Reason three: Tarzan also fits well into fantasy because Tarzan has a magical power--he can talk to animals. Part of this is based on the scientific extrapolation I mentioned above. In the mindset of the day, Africans were thought of as one step below Europeans on the evolutionary chain, and gorillas were seen as one step below them. The logic was that Africans had language, albiet more primative than the European languages (NOTE: NOT MY OPINION! NO HATE MAIL PLEASE!), therefore the gorillas would have a language one step more primative than the Africans. Thus, Tarzan learns the gorilla language. However, over the years, Tarzan's jungle has gotten very chatty and now every freakin' thing in the jungle talks to Tarzan. He probably can communicate with slime-molds in a pinch. This seems more like magic to me than SF extrapolation.

Reason four: I know I said three reasons, but math is hard. Tarzan is also fantasy because he fits into the classical myth of men being raised by animals and gaining some of their abilities. This is a myth that dates all the way back to Gilgamesh.

Reason five: Okay, I don't have a fifth reason.

There are more good sicience fiction movies, but just barely:

2001: a Space Odyssey is fantastic. Nothing else has ever come close. The television shows Space: 1999 and Babylon 5 both suckered me into believing they would be 2001: the TV Show but both were miserable dreck that viloated laws of physics and economics in even their best episodes.

Contact is good, except that Zemekis killed the ending by taking out the part about scientific proof of the existence of God, which was the most brilliant scene of Sagan's book.

Bicentennial Man is also good. I can't believe no one else has mentioned this one. It's one of the few attempts Hollywood has ever made to tell an actual science fiction story that asked big questions about the meaning of our lives, or relationships to each other, and what it means to be human.

A Clockwork Orange is perhaps the best movie on my list. So few movies question the nature of human free will and personal responsibility. If it's not on your list of top SF movies, then you should watch it again and pay closer attention.

Back to the Future, sadly, does not belong on the list of greatest Sci-Fi movies. As much as I appreciate the fact that Stephen Spielberg increased the value of my car by several thousand dollars, (hence my pseudonym in this forum) the science isn't that good. However, the original BTTF ought to get points for its superior logical consistency. It's not bullet proof, but it's more bullet proof than any other time travel movie I can name.

This might be more the topic for a separate posting thread, but do the rest of you feel that the fantasy category, a category which should theoretically be limitless in scope and potential, has become overly limited to the Tolkienesque clone "high" fantasy type of storyline?

And I have to say that I disagree (obviously, since I put it on my list) with the idea that 2001 is a boring film in which nothing happens. An amazing amount happens in the film; it is just not arranged in a conventionally narrative way, and so it requires a little bit of work from the viewer.

Edit for clarity and to correct tortured grammar.

Meanwhile, back on this thread...

I liked Back to the Future. It was funny. Sometimes you have to rate shows on the basis of what they were instead of whaty ou'd want them to be, and BTTF was meant to be funny.

LOTR disappointed me, as I knew they would I rated them as ok. The scenery and special effects were incredible. The movies followed the same premise and basic course as the book, but they fall under that category of movies that were based on good books and were not as good as the book. Actually, the first movie had long segments that bored me.

Contact was good, I forgot about it. I didn't read the book though. I should.

2001 A space Odyssey was the WORST movie I EVER saw in my ENTIRE life. Yikes it was boring. Maybe I could appreciate all the little brilliant things they did if I could have stayed awake.

Willow? Did anyone mention that one? I liked it.

Star Wars Trilogy was good, of course. (The original episodes 4-6 not the prequels...they were pretty bad.)

quote:

---

fantasy....could be so much more! I primarily write fantasy, but I have never written about an elf, dwarf, dragon, or troll....Fantasy...is a genre that means "anything could happen" and it's always amazed me how little "antyhing" really seems to encompass.

---

I'm still struggling to define space opera, which by the process of elimination is what I think I'm writing (LOL). I'm wondering if this "anything can happen" label puts space opera in the realm of fantasy, insofar as it isn't hard SF.

So I guess I'd have to ask if Star Wars is fantasy or SF, since I know it's labeled as space opera.

2001: A Space Odyssey was an odd viewing experience. At first viewing, confusing; at second viewing intriguing; at third viewing amazing. A classic, I think.

2001 - You need to watch it from the right perspective. Don't be tricked into thinking of Frank & Dave as the main characters: it is Hal you have to get into the skin of.

Babylon 5 - Maybe not hard SF (although I personally can see little wrong with it other than some of the bizarre things that they do with telepaths), but a really good series with an excellent plot. Do watch it (from beginning to end) if you haven't. There are a number of episodes in series 1 which are a little on the tedious side but after that it settles down into the plot and you will be captivated.

I really liked Excaliber, Time Bandits and Ice Pirates. (not that Ice Pirates was great, but I liked how well they spoofed the sci-fi shows of the time)

quote:

---

Most of them would classify star wars as SF, whereas it is definitely (in my mind at least) fantasy.

---

quote:

---

Yes, it is fictional characters, but set in a real time.

---

quote:

---

Back to the Future, sadly, does not belong on the list of greatest Sci-Fi movies.

---

I need to watch those films again...

Not all science fiction has to be SCIENCE. I have heard, and will never change the mind of, those who believe only hard science fiction is good stuff. I believe that there is more than one way to write science fiction, or perhaps I should call it speculative fiction. There is also more than one point that can be made.

Some science fiction is about advances in science. In my opinion, they are generally a YAWN! But it's legitimate too. Some is about people's reactions and adjustments to advances in science. These I tend to like. Still others take a settled science fiction universe and tell interesting stories in them. These vary greatly, as space operas fall in this category and I'm not fond ot them, generally speaking.

I think it's safe to say Star Wars was written more with the movie in mind rather than as a book -- Lucas's vision and all that. If you've read it, you know it feels distant, third person omniscient with a strong authorial voice and no deep thought penetration.

Still, though you said you generally don't care for books in that third category, obviously Star Wars got your attention. Why? Was it strictly because of the film advantage of visuals? Had it been only a book, would you have like it as well? Had it been a book more well-written, would you have liked it as well? (That's no slam to Lucas, but I think you know what I mean.)

I did not read the Star Wars books, knowing that they were based off the movies I wasn't really interested. I liked the movies, but the main reason I've watched them so many times is that they're a popular party theeme (at least among nerds like myself).

What the movies had that sets them apart from space opera IS the fantasy element I mentioned. I think that's why I liked them. I liked the force, I liked Yoda (everyone likes Yoda ), I liked the drama. I had no particular preference one way or the other for the special effects. I've never liked a movie for its special effects, it has to have more.

In my mind, Space Operas aren't dramatic. Let's take Star Trek, for instance. You know perfectly well that no harm is going to come to anyone who isn't wearing a red uniform. I watched them when I was young, but as I see it, I gre wout of them. Space Operas are full of cliches, superficial characters, done a million time plots, and laser fights that somehow manage to make loud booms in a vacuum.

quote:

---

Space Operas are full of cliches, superficial characters, done a million time plots, and laser fights that somehow manage to make loud booms in a vacuum.

---

<sigh> Now I've come full circle. The above is what I originally thought space opera was -- textual comic books. I admit it was based on my abhorrence of soap operas since the name sounded uncomfortably similar. But further attempts to see where my story fit in the SF marketplace made me think maybe space opera was a broader category than I had imagined.

Now I'm thinking maybe I simply fit in your defined third category, although the soft SF aspect still throws me. <sigh>

Maybe I need a title of something in that third category.

Star Wars is "the" example that comes to mind.

Star Trek…. That one just doesn’t feel like a space opera, even if it probably does fit the definition. (Enterprise exploring universe = Cook exploring our worlds oceans). It’s just not flamboyant enough in the right way. Maybe I just dislike it too much to be reasonable about putting it in the same category as Star Wars (the originals anyway). :P

ATOMX13's Space Opera Page says "Many S.F. fans object to this label, because they think it emphasizes what they think is the worst of sci-fi...Space Opera is the earliest, and arguably the least sophisticated form of Science Fiction."

Then there's space.com's info on Catherine Asaro, a physicist, whose contribution to space opera mixes physics with romance. An interesting aside here, for you hard SFers -- Asaro's FTL space drive is based on imaginary numbers and supposedly works on paper. Check out http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/books/asaro_000204.html

Scifan.com has space opera, space epics, and space romance lumped together in a themed list of books, conveniently arranged by year. See http://www.scifan.com/themes/themes.asp?THthemeid=30.

Found a great treatise on the subject of space opera at http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/space_opera.html.

And of course, just because something *can* be set in a different time and place doesn't mean that there isn't something added to the story by putting it in the sci fi universe. Part of the point of sci fi, in my opinion, is that it creates new societies from the ground up, where the reader doesn't have the biases of the present day or even the past to interfere with their impressions.

quote:

---

Part of the point of sci fi, in my opinion, is that it creates new societies from the ground up, where the reader doesn't have the biases of the present day or even the past to interfere with their impressions.

---

Well, the reader, being traped in the present day by default, is still going to have those biases. But such a science fiction setting that lacks or plays with those biases gives the reader a chance to examine those biases from a differnt perspective. But then so does any story set outside the readers experience of time or place, at least to some extent. SF just has more opportunity to push farther.

edit: Farscape and Firefly are the best science fiction shows out there any more, even if they've both been cancelled.::glares at network execs::

Ni!

SciFi--Soilent Green.

Science fiction movies? The original Terminator holds a fond place in my heart, along with oldies but goodies like the first Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Oh, and Alien, although I guess that's a hybrid horror/SF.

Television: I was a big fan of The X Files until Chris Carter utterly destroyed his own creation. (Yes, I am bitter, thank you very much). Also, Babylon 5 and Buffy the Vampire Slayer in their heydays.

The plot was, I think, the best that I have ever seen on TV... but as it was split up over about 80 hours of action it takes a while to start to notice it!

Firefly I've just got into, and have to agree that something's really wrong when that gets cancelled. Although I hear Whedon's planning on making a film based on it, which could be interesting. And might also revive interest in the show if its done right.

For example: time-travel movies. "Back to the Future" was executed very well, but the SF elements were flawed. (And I don't mean making a time machine out of a DeLorean. I mean things like people gradually being erased from a photograph as the possibility of their being born changes. And what happened to the Marty McFly who grew up with a non-wimpy dad?)

On the other hand, there's "The Final Countdown." If you grant the premise that a freak storm could transport a nuclear aircraft carrier to December 1941, there are no loose ends. But the quality of the movie itself is about average.

So with that in mind, here are my SF movie recommendations:

Gattaca: Perhaps a little slow, but well-made with thought-provoking SF premise.

Contact: Missing my favorite parts of the novel, but still an all-around great movie.

Terminator & Terminator 2: Second one's better movie even though the time travel aspect is better in the first one.

The Abyss: The ending's a little disappointing (and that was before the director's extended version) but a great movie nonetheless.

Robocop: I'm serious. Good SF premise, good action, and the satirical future newscasts and commercials are a hoot.

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure: OK, it's really more of a comedy, but it handles the intricacies of time travel better than most SF movies about time travel.

Jurassic Park: The science was pretty good, and it was well-made.

Sword & Sorcery Fantasy Movies:

Lord of the Rings: Need I say more?

Willow: Has some problems here and there, but overall a lot of fun.

Comic Book Movies (sort of a separate genre):

Unbreakable: Great examination of the idea of comic-book archetypes.

The Omega Man: Charlton Heston survives a biological disaster only to be harassed by a terminally ill, vampire-like religious cult. This is a remake of The Last Man on Earth with Vincent Price. (“You’re freaks! You’re all FREAKS!!”) It’s much better than the original.

Logan’s Run: Mankind has an unspecified oops and society is reborn in a shopping mall-like paradise. To make it more fun, you have to kill yourself on your 30th birthday!

The Resurrected: Hard-boiled detective story based on The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. This is the best movie based on an H.P. Lovecraft story I’ve seen.

Night of the Living Dead: Great character piece about a group of people that can’t seem to work together, while zombies beat down the door. I think this one may be sci-fi. I remember hearing a radio news report in it talking about a satellite crashing before the dead got so peppy.

The only thing it lacked was an audience, and a studio courageous enough to give it time to find one.

1. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) Directed by Stanley Kubrick. An insane general starts a process to nuclear holocaust that a war room of politicians and generals frantically try to stop.

2. Cite’ des Enfants Perdus, La(1995) (The Lost children) A beautiful movie about a scientist in a surrealist society who kidnaps children to steal their dreams, hoping that they slow his aging process.

3. Metropolis (1927) Directed by Fritz Lang, There can be no understanding between the hands and the brain unless the heart acts as mediator. The Workers, led by the beautiful Maria, plan a revolt against the aloof Thinkers that dominate them in this future dystopia. Astonishing for 1927 (emphasis BG)

4. Dark City 1998, A man struggles with memories of his past, including a wife he cannot remember, in a nightmarish world with no sun and run by beings with telekinetic powers who seek the souls of humans.

5. The Life of Brian (1979) Brian is born on the original Christmas, in the stable next door. He spends his life being mistaken for a messiah.

6. Lost Horizon 1937, A plane crash delivers a group of people to the secluded land of Shangri-La -- but is it the miraculous utopia it appears to be?

Point is, I watch so much sci-fi/fantasy and it seems to me thats most of what I watch...yet I cant name any specifics that havent yet been mentioned.

I would say the Aliens movies then, the first two. Terminator 2 is my personal favorite movie in any category, its just the best.

I have heard good things about both Solaris films, and hope to watch either of them soon....but dont take my word for it because I havent seen them.