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
    https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/04/t...t-and-most-beautiful-sci-fi-movies-ever-made/

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alisonwillmore/sunshine-vs-interstellar?utm_term=.ob22loQla#.mqQ6XbyX0

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...stellar-gets-wrong-about-interstellar-travel/

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a1946/4219685/

    https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/227-movies-at-the-theater/70526984

    https://www.neogaf.com/threads/sunshine-was-a-better-interstellar.951952/

    "I’ll risk one more spoiler: As the movie goes on, the crew of the Icarus II becomes increasingly convinced that they’re going to die out there, millions of miles from home. More than in any science fiction movie I’ve seen — maybe any movie — Sunshine‘s characters face this knowledge with a kind of fatalistic grace. They don’t pretend to be anything other than doomed, but they carry on anyway."

    Interstellar,
    for me, struggled mightily with its balance between being a movie about the survival of mankind and being one about a rugged individual's relationship with his daughter — hence Cooper acting like he has to leave soon to pick his kids up from school while working on the most important mission humanity might ever embark on. He treats the prospect that he'll get home as a done deal, as if it's just the timing that's the issue.

    But the Sunshine crew members aren't just aware that they're embarking on a journey that's perilous with an end goal but that it's still entirely theoretical. The numbers say they can make it to the Sun and back, but as unexpected encounters and accidents take their toll, the math becomes brutal."

    And exploring the realities of that mindset may be Sunshine's greatest achievement, and one that makes even the final twist, with its touches of mysticism, work better in retrospect .Its characters are on what they know could be a prolonged suicide mission, and have embarked on it anyway, surrendering themselves to the greater good — though not without anguish and terror and bouts of panicked cowardice, because they're only human.

    Sunshine is a movie about the actual difficulty of thinking of yourself as part of a larger whole, of mankind. Its emotional impact, a few years out, feels more resonant and real than any talk of love as having the power to span space and time."

    unlike fake ass movies with fake ass surface bs that's actually patronizing it's audience such as the likes of interstellar which made boatloads of money and widely circulated to a fake ass audience. quality is not measured in quantity.



    yeah, were they influenced??! looks like it because sunshine came before some of these films. so who borrowed what again???!!

    when i looked up all the films on this thread, they ALL had bad science, especially interstellar is laughable with it's wormhole travel and other space fantasy nonsense. as if people watch these films and come away learning science.

    GIVE ME A FUKING BREAK! sunshine is no less worthy and for a science forum, do your fuking research before you actually embarrass yourself as if most science fiction films are about actual science. most are not or mostly not. they take artistic license to entertain or to promote a message.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    2,994
    Serious hissy fit.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,855
    Apologies, I thought this was a thread about which works we considered important in science-fiction, not simply which sci-fi films we like.
    With that in mind, you still haven't answered my question: why do you think Sunshine is an important work in science-fiction? What is its legacy, or expected legacy? If it has no legacy then I can not see how it can be considered important.
    I'm not saying Sunshine doesn't have any legacy, I'm simply asking you what you think it might be.
    If you're not interested in what legacy the work you offer up has, then you're not interested in the subject of this thread, are you?

    However, if this thread is simply just an excuse for people to state what their favourite sci-fi films are, then I'll leave you to your fanboying over Sunshine.
    So surprise me: tell me what you think the legacy of Sunshine is within the field of science fiction? Tell me why it should be considered an important work? Can you do that? Please?
    Do you know the difference between being important to the genre and simply being liked?

    And finally, get over yourself. The tone of your responses is utterly uncalled for.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    2,994
    And another one.
     
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,855
    Another serious hissy fit? Hardly.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Would just like to understand why birch considers Sunshine important. But I think I'll be waiting a while for anything sensible from him.
     
  9. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,994
    Noticed that, but expect to be able to understand him. :facepalm:
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,528
    Yep. There are few things more pointless than angry screeds about how much a movie TOTALLY SUCKED! GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK!
    I am reminded of the dialogue from a 2001 Kevin Smith movie:

    Holden: If the buzz is any indicator, that movie’s gonna make some huge bank.
    Jay: What buzz?
    Holden: The Internet buzz.
    Jay: What the fuck is the Internet?
    Holden: The Internet is a communication tool used the world over where people can come together to bitch about movies and share pornography with one another.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  11. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,994
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,762
    Some works are seminal in their genres - benchmarks.

    Lord of the Rings (as a book example) virtually defined the entire fantasy genre.

    All fantasy stories ever written after LotR fall into one of exactly two categories: Like LoTR or Different From LoTR.
    You can write a fantasy in a similar vein as LoTR.
    You can write a fanstasy that is deliberately unlike LoTR.
    But you cannot write fantasy that will not be compared to LoTR as either "the same" or "different".
    That's what makes it a benchmark.

    Same with The Matrix. All subsequent Virtual Reality stories either tip their hat to The Matrix, or they try to be different. Regardless, they will still be compared to The Matrix.
    You won't be able to have much of a discussion about VR films if you have not seen The Matrix.
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,762
    Yep. Another example.
    Liked it or hated it, it is a benchmark in Space Fantasy.

    One way it is a benchmark is in the SFX of space battles. It set the bar for all to follow.
     
  14. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    it's you who should be getting over yourself. you haven't demanded anyone else's choices on this thread be qualified as important and still not everyone would agree anyways.

    i'm wondering why you are so curious about my choice unless you obnoxiously believe all the choices that have been listed are somehow important to science fiction, as if it would not have been able to move forward without that particular work or film or that it was based on good science or intelligent.

    as for sunshine, i think it's possible legacy is it infused a humanistic and psychological approach.

    but legacy usually means popularity and that often depends on the tastes of a majority.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
  15. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    yes, i know and the classics and forebears have their place enshrined for this reason. but i'm having a separate discussion because not everything that people consider important or every film listed is not going to be agreed upon as important to science fiction. and 'important' could have different meanings such as popularity, good or bad science, box office results, influencing other films, original ideas etc.
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,762
    These should not be criteria for 'important'. I think most serious film watchers have a more specific definition, more like these:
     
  17. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    as for legacy, i've re-watched sunshine several times and that grittiness of trying to survive, doom in such situation was not whitewashed and that portrayal is more compelling. you can relate on a natural empathetic/sympathetic/existential deep human visceral level each time you watch it. i don't get bored with it. and there are others out there who agree with me as well.

    well, let's take an example, for instance of a more recently hyped science fiction film that was three times the budget and grossed huge box office and is widely known/popular. i've seen both interstellar and sunshine which are often most compared to eachother probably due to reflective tone they were trying to cast to the film but the fact remains that i watched interstellar when it was released and it was rather forgettable. i was just not moved but rather neutral. it is not a film that stayed with me. just 'another' one.

    sunshine has got that jenesaiquoi and a funky edge combined along with some sound science and an original concept. but it also admits what's theoretical which makes it all the more fascinating which creates more existential crisis because you don't know what will happen. sunshine is just cool, all around. this with only a third of the budget and an indie.

    as for the likes of other hugely popular mainstream films like interstellar, good concept but none of the scenes were that moving or actually that impressive, imo. also, the delivery was rather surface layer portrayal. it didn't make me care or identify with the characters except on the most superficial level.

    but it grossed huge at the box office and is touted by some to be one of the best films. but i don't care to re-watch it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,762
    I'm starting to get the impression that birch likes the movie Sunshine.
     
    Beer w/Straw likes this.
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,762
    Not that it matters in discussion, but birch has self-identified as female.
     
  20. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077

    i already answered the query in post 61, if you had bothered with any of the links. this film influenced the style of current modern science fiction.

    https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/227-movies-at-the-theater/70526984

     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,855
    So you think because I have asked you about Sunshine and not asked the others about their choice that this gives you an excuse to be an arse? Or is being an arse simply your default?
    Being based on good science, or being intelligent, does not make a film important. As to why I have asked you, it is because I am genuinely curious as to why you think it is important rather than simply a film you seem to like rather a lot.
    Some of my favourite sci-if films are hardly important, yet I could fan-boy over them just as much, without ever giving any indication as to why they should be considered important. (Films such as Dune, Black Hole, etc). I think 2010 is a far more enjoyable film that 2001, yet its importance, if indeed it has any, is dwarfed by it.
    You mean films such as Silent Running didn't? And that 1984 or Brave New World weren't addressing issues of humanism and psychology?
    No, legacy does not usually mean popularity. It is the measure of influence on what comes after. While there are undoubtedly short-lived fads resulting from popularity, legacy is what survives those, and in many cases the legacy of a film is in the cinematography, the lighting, the editing, the sound etc, the way the film is put together, rather than simply the story. The original Tron, for example, along with The Last Starfighter, put significant investment into CGI, and put CGI on the map. But both films bombed at the box office.

    And the legacy is...? All you're doing is offering up reasons for you enjoying the film. Legacy is not in your enjoyment but the influence it has had on subsequent works in the genre. What did it do that hasn't been done before, and where is the evidence that it has influenced anything since? Again, I'm not saying it hasn't, I'm just trying to move the discussion above just your obvious love of the film, to explore why it should be considered important, as the thread title suggests.

    And this speaks to importance of the film... how?
    I get why you like it... But why should it be considered important?

    I get that you enjoyed Sunshine, more than Interstellar, but what of importance to the genre of science-fiction? As asked in the OP, how has it developed the genre rather than say, just being a good example of its kind but not developing anything?


    Maybe you have confused this thread with one that merely asks to state what our favourite works of sci-fi are? Or maybe I have confused the meaning of this thread, and "important" just means "favourite"? So please try and refrain from simply explaining why you like the film and explain why you think it is important to the genre.
     
  22. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    it is rather suspicious that you don't question any of the other posters or their choices. actually, it is you being an ass. actually, to the point, it is as if you are very jealous of someone pointing out the beauty in a film that you are incapable of noticing or didn't notice before or in the same way. you are not the artistic type.

    it was already explained but you refuse to accept it. there are others who also share a similar evaluation and you refuse to acknowledge that also. that's your choice, opinion and what you choose to have cognitive dissonance of.

    not in the same existentialist context where you question if humanity does or doesn't deserve extinction. it combined a new-age, philosophy, religion and science perspective.

    No shit. i already answered that but again, you refuse to see it or acknowledge it. i can't change your mind or what you see/don't see.

    i've already explained this for the various aspects of this film but you refuse to acknowledge it.

    you don't see how this film has influenced the art style and psychological and existential probing of some science fiction films after this.

    even if most of the public does not take notice; i guarantee directors, writers and producers took/take note and know when something is unique or in what way or what they can siphon from it.

    in other words, they are not as unaware as you are. they know what is good or risky and what is going to bank. they also are aware of what the general public would be okay with and tweak it to their palate, even if it may disagree with their own vision. sometimes, people just do what they want to do such as indie films.

    Nope. it's just that you are a typical mainstreamist, even when it comes what is considered 'important'. it's either the classics or the more well-known/popular science fiction.

    it was already noted on several aspects of this film, but again, you refuse to acknowledge it. you keep this shit up and it's gonna get much uglier than you expect. either i will get infracted or i will have to report you for intellectual dishonesty. it is actually not me that is being illogical, it is actually you, who refuses or just not able to notice how this film is unique or influenced subsequent films after, in various ways.

    but you do not accept that because it's an 'artistic' medium but you are feigning for a tangible answer when it is abstract.

    i can read into your motivation and that is you believe it's not important and there is nothing to change that, no matter what. you obviously have your mind made up and it will not matter what anyone else's evaluation or opinion is. you are feigning at this point because what is offered is something you either will ignore or not acknowledge as important or true.

    you are also being quite the asshole singling me out and my choice in a thread full of choices that could be construed as inconsequential but you are using a pretense that it's just logic you are trying to understand but it's actually a weird type of nosiness.

    you are actually more interested in how i think and why i can evaluate art and film in the way i do more than the film itself. this is because artists have that uncanny ability to take notice or take note of some aspects that are unique that most others may miss or overlook just as i can bet a dollar to a donut, unlike yourself, that other directors, producers and concept artists (actual professionals) did take note of sunshine and what makes it original and mimic them in their own way. that's the legacy.

    you are not able to see this because you are too black/white in your evaluation. it was obvious when you critiqued this film. you critique it from an audience 'only' perspective, not as a design or concept or artist perspective.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2018
  23. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,994
    It's religion to some folks now. I remember the first time I saw Tantive IV on a TV commercial. I thought "That's a good size spaceship." I had completely dismissed NCC-1701.
     

Share This Page