The Most Important Works In Science Fiction

Discussion in 'SciFi & Fantasy' started by Plazma Inferno!, Dec 3, 2015.

  1. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077


    when i like something, i really, really like it, don't i? i like the sound of this distress beacon. it has that touch of the haunting melody, even soulful. i could sleep like a baby to this.

    i agree with all these comments. this film was truly genius, a masterpiece and should have won an oscar for something at least. the score was amazing, the cinematography is beautiful and they even consulted physicists for the film even though it is still fiction. there are some amazing shots in this film. i think this film is a few notches above the likes of interstellar.

    they also made the cast live together for a couple of weeks to get them as a real crew and familiar and it renders on the film well. this film is a bit more cerebral and requires an attention span than the usual maintream stuff. things are not jumping out at you or blasting noise every few seconds.

    some of the best films go unnoticed or unpopular. it has a sense of some concept of quality.

    quote from the film:

    At the end of time, a moment will come when just one man remains. Then the moment will pass. Man will be gone. There will be nothing to show that we were ever here … but stardust.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,752
    You misunderstand. It's that you're not having the same conversation as the rest of us.
    We were looking to define its genre, not rate it. The two are independent.

    It's like you declaring that The Godfather is a drama, and me responding with "No, it's tripe."
    Your logical response would be something like "Well, 'tripe' is not a genre. And no one said dramas can't be tripe."

    It would be silly to pan The Godfather for, say, its lack of humour, since it is not a comedy. Excessive levity would damage the story.
    Just as it would be silly to pan Star Wars for its science, since it is not science fiction. Excessive science would damage the story.

    You're welcome to dislike the movie, but disliking it for not being scientifically accurate would be a misunderstanding and an error.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,993
    Sorry, but did you just try to scold me? LOL
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,752
    No. But I don't know why you'd object if I had. Several of your recent responses have been somewhat derisive, as if you're looking for an argument. I don't want an argument; I'm really just trying to define movies and their genres.
     
  8. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,205
    Star Wars does have intentionally comical moments. But comedy doesn't make something a comic book. Star Wars was based in part on the early cinematic equivalent of comic books, Flash Gordon serials. And Flash Gordon is a comic book. Can comic books also be science-fiction? Yes! Can space opera fantasy or space western be science-fiction? Yes! It's got space, artificial planets that can destroy other planets, lasers, cyborgs, etc. All the required stuff. And not all science fiction is required to be absolutely realistic with regard to actual hard science.
     
  9. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    i'm surprised no one has mentioned inception yet. that is my son's favorite film and i refuse to see it for some reason, yet. probably because the concept hits too close to a nerve to me. he tried explaining it to me once but i told him that i already thought of that years before this film was made. lol.

    i also didn't watch the matrix trilogy for the same reason.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2018
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,849
    The notion of dreams within dreams hits a nerve with you? How so? Or is it the idea of accessing people's subconcious dream-state to influence them? Or the notion of shared dreams? Which of these hits a nerve? And, again, how so? I'm intrigued.
    I'm not sure any ideas in the film are new. Did you expect them to be? If so, why?
    The idea of lucid dreaming is certainly not new. The idea of accessing other people's dreams is also certainly not new (one of my favourite films from the 80's was Dreamscape). And the idea of having dreams within dreams, of false awakenings and such - none is a new idea.
    It's not even a new premise for a film - the Japanese anime "Paprika" has much the same premise and came out a few years before.
    ??? You didn't watch them because they are not new ideas? I find that quite strange. I can't actually recall ever watching a film that has expressed novel ideas... but they do express those ideas differently, and in interesting and often exciting ways. Do you actually watch any films, then, if you limit yourself to only those that you think express novel ideas? Which was the last such film?

    As for why noone has mentioned "Inception", probably because it's not that important a work of sci-fi in the grand scheme of things. Yes, it's a good film, it's garnered mostly favourable, and often glowing, reviews, but I don't actually think that it is ground-breaking a work of sci-fi.

    And for you to wonder why it hasn't been mentioned simply because it is your son's favourite film, when you yourself have not even seen it...??? Is your son the arbiter of what is among the most important works in sci-fi?

    Personally I would look at only a few movies as being among the most important works of sci-fi, the rest being books (LeGuin, Philip K Dick, Heinlein, Banks, Verne, HG Wells etc). While I think many sci-fi films are indeed good/great films (Sunshine, Inception etc) I think they fall short of being particularly important to the sci-fi genre.
     
  11. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,993
    Yeah, you tried. :chortle: Your judgment is valued. By somebody.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,752
    Cool. That's all I expect.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  13. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    well, that's your opinion. some of the films mentioned so far were not so good imo or that important to sci-fi. *cough* mission to mars *cough* (lmao)


    you misunderstand. i've watched a lot of films and from every genre. why i avoided those particular ones, i'm not so sure except i was not that interested in seeing it.

    the inception concept didn't intrigue me enough, i'm not really sure but maybe because i've dreamt so much, watching a movie about it is overkill to me (concept is great though) and maybe i didn't go out of my way to watch matrix because of keanu reeves.

    who knows all the overt or subtle reasons why we gravitate toward some films and don't care to see some others?
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2018
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,752
    Agree. He was at his finest here, and I was sorry to see him leave it behind:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,297
    I'm gonna' say, Jules Verne, but when did zombies became a science fiction thingy and not just some undead guys?
     
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,849
    Probably when "zombieness" became an infection rather than voodoo magic. Not sure when this notion began, though. There have been many "deadly outbreak" films but they were mostly just of the lethal variety (Andromeda Strain etc). Combining that with zombies... not sure. Romero‘s Living Dead films use radiation from an exploded space probe as the cause (although not sure this was ever confirmed), and its not an infection... you die you get reanimated, just as in the recent "Walking Dead".
     
  17. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,993
    Nobody mention Jules Verne yet? Popularized "tech fiction" that spawned thousands of works of scifi.
     
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,849
    Posts #47 and #52, to list two mentions in the past 8 posts.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,993
    Okay then, all executions postponed.
     
  20. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077


    did i mention that i think sunshine is a under-rated masterpiece and how much i put it on a pedestal?

    Cassie: Are you scared?
    Capa: When a Stellar Bomb is triggered, very little will happen at first -and then a spark, will pop into existence, and it will hang for an instant, hovering in space and then, it will split into two, and those will split again, and again, and again... detonation beyond all imagining - a big bang on a small scale. A new star born out of a dying one... I think it will be beautiful... No, i'm not scared
    Cassie: ...I am.

    "We've mined all of Earth's fissile materials for this bomb. There's not going to be another Payload. The one we carry is our last chance... our last, best hope."

    "It's different. Being afraid that you won't make it back home. And then knowing that you won't."

    Only dream i ever have is the surface of the sun?! every time i shut my eyes, it's always the same...
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2018
  21. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    comments can be so true such as:

    and then, also, lmao:
    because it was:
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2018
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,849
    Not explicitly, but given your obsession with it in this thread, I think we worked that much out.
    Okay, so you think Sunshine is a good/great film, we get that. But why do you think it is an important work of science fiction, rather than just a good film? What does it do that other good films don't do? You enjoy it, we get that, but enjoying a film doesn't mean it is important to the genre, only to you.
    So why do you think Sunshine is an important work of sci-if? The visuals are great, no doubt, but are they any better than other films? The music is good, but so is the music to many films.
    My own view on the film is that the first two thirds are great, but then Sunshine deteriorates into a slasher/horror film, moving from pseudo-possibility to pure fantasy. It tries to be cerebral but then says "nah, &£!? this, let's go all psycho on your ass!" Any possibility of the message of the film being important is lost. It could have been so much more, with elements of Alien (crew dynamics), Silent Running (ecology) etc, wrapped in a more modern container. But ultimately it just borrows, aspires, then fails to be anything other than, at best, an enjoyable film with a semblance of intelligence.

    Personally I would rank both Alien and Silent Running as more important works of sci-if cinema.
    Star Wars, Blade Runner, and 2001 would probably rank as the top 3, for different reasons. And that's just in the world of cinema. Sunshine, for me, isnt a film I'd ever consider as being particularly important.
    What has come out of it? What has been the legacy of the film?
     
  23. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    And most of those you list, have already been listed. first of all, i never said that other films weren't important to the genre, did i? others posted their favorites or what they considered important or good for the genre, didn't they?

    my question to you is: why do you question why i think this film is important to the genre considering people's opinions differ and it's mostly based on popularity or what one likes when it comes to this discussion, you do realize that, don't you? for instance, i don't think interstellar or contact or mission to mars etc was a better film.

    besides, the slasher part is a common critique of this film by some but most films can be critiqued to be better done in a myriad of ways. i personally don't think it detracts from the film really at all but was used as a philosophical counterpoint to the idea of saving humanity. it can be interpreted in different ways. if that's all you saw was it turned into a 'slasher flick' then that's on you. he was not the main part of the story, just another obstacle.

    i don't base it on popularity. anymore than i value the kardashians because they have a legacy in mainstream culture. dig?

    absolute nonsense . on the contrary, to you and those who share your opinions. the message was pretty clear and that was saving humanity from extinction. pinbacker was an additional counter-ploy to that argument.

    excuse me? sunshine borrowed?? sunshine is an original concept. it didn't borrow anymore than other films. i could say it even borrowed less. right, because the science fiction films listed so far are all geared to the highly intelligent and that's why they gained so much popularity and viewing by the masses.
    you are just being an ass at this point and it's obvious.

    the reason why it wasn't popular was it had a visceral serious tone and a mature and deeper gravitas and character to the cast and mission and the general population doesn't identify with that as much. the frivolous surface layer tone such as interstellar is what they will ooh and aah over.


    consider what you wrote and your motivations behind it. what makes you so sure that all other films listed by others are somehow inherently more important to the genre, other than it's popularity?

    furthermore, when did i say that the visuals or music in other films can't be or necessarily not good, depending on the film?

    by this particular line of questioning, you are insinuating that this film is not worthy to be considered important to science fiction because in your estimation it is not 'better' than other films listed (which i stress is an opinion).

    it seems you have an issue because i'm 'loving' on it so much and you are somehow personally offended as if that is lessening the importance of other films. you seem to be under the impression because i value this science fiction film over some others, that i don't like any others. that's your idiocy.

    i believe this deserves to be on the list and one of the reasons why i'm praising it is because it has been largely unknown or under the radar when it is just as good or better than some other science fiction films which have garnered more public attention, fame and money. some even on this list.

    too bad, i'm such a fan, for you that is. lmfao.

    in other words, get over it. it's more than worthy to be listed whether you agree or not.

    eat your words, weirdly jealous freak?

    www.sunshinedna.com/film/

    Boyle was drawn to both the Icarus II’s literal voyage to the Sun as well as its crew’s psychological journey as they head out across the cosmos. “Traveling to the Sun is great visually, but also very interesting psychologically,” he explains. “We wanted to make the film as psychological a journey as possible. There is the question about what happens to your mind when you meet the creator of all things in the universe, which for some people is a spiritual, religious idea, but for other people it is a purely scientific idea. We are all made up of particles of exploded star, so what would it be like to get close to the Sun, the star from which all the life in our solar system comes from? I thought it would be a huge mental challenge to try and capture that.”

    in their desire to present, on screen, a believable space mission rather than a piece of science fantasy, the filmmakers looked first to NASA in their research, watching numerous space documentaries as well as classic science fiction films, and meeting with as many scientists and astronauts as possible. Macdonald had seen the young British physicist Dr. Brian Cox on a BBC TV program and contacted him with a view to discussing the project. Thereafter Cox, who works at CERN [the Centre for European Nuclear Research], the world’s largest particle physics laboratory in Geneva, joined the production as scientific consultant, and his input was to prove invaluable. On hand to give the cast and crew a better understanding of the Solar system, he also worked intensively with Cillian Murphy, who plays Capa, the ship’s Physicist.

    “The science is extremely sound in the film,” explains Cox. “You can tell Alex is a fan of science as well as a science fiction fan. There were a few edges we ironed out but basically it was the back story rather than the plot that my expertise was needed for.” Adds Boyle, “You become obsessed with the accuracy of the science and you do try to obey the rules of physics and make it as real as possible, but in the end you have to abandon certain elements and just go for what is dramatically effective.”
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2018

Share This Page