The Most Important Works In Science Fiction

[Baldeee]

Not quite. Unless you think Sunshine was one of the best, most influential movies in science fiction, you aren't very smart or perceptive. Just liking it is insufficient to demonstrate that you have any taste when it comes to sci-fi.

You're probably one of those literal, unimaginative people who liked Star Wars.

Thanks for the clarification.
I am indeed one of those literal, unimaginative people who liked Star Wars.
Although maybe I should get a second opinion on Episodes 1 to 3 as I didn't like those either.
Certainly while watching them I kept getting this feeling I couldn't explain, but then my friend told me it was probably just my gag-reflex kicking in.
Still, if I didn't like Sunshine and it is to be considered one of the best, most influential movies in science fiction, then maybe I am missing something in the prequel trilogy?

Anyhoo - has anything been put forward to support Sunshine being important?

 

[birch]

i think sunshine is great because it captured the human spirit and will to survive and overcome so movingly in a way i've never seen in other sci-fi films. you identified with all the characters with their frailties (fear, cowardice, sadness, loneliness, guilt, hope, faith etc) rooted for them and their mission.

the last half of the film (which is mistakenly disliked by some imo) illustrates it so well and it's absolutely heartwrenching and your heart goes out to them. that white-knuckle, harrowing, adrenaline rush to the end that's not pretty but must be done. you identify with them as all of humanity's fight for survival and how vulnerable and frail we are in comparison to the power and vastness of the universe. but inside is that seed of light/stardust that is just as powerful and you become one with the universe.

it's a deeply human, touching, powerful and inspiring film. it makes you proud of that beautiful aspect of humanity's will and fight to move forward and survive.

 

[Baldeee]

But why should it be considered important?

 

[birch]

But why should it be considered important?

my choice doesn't have to be under scrutiny anymore than other choices that have been listed. until, all of them are answered as to why they are important to the genre or weren't repeats of prior films or have an important legacy, i don't have to answer to you or anyone else as to my choice.

so, get to it. just to let everyone know, that's going to be difficult for some of them and it's going to be debatable also. the classics are not under debate by me. that is not the point

in other words, don't fuking question my choice unless you are going to question them all.

besides, if anyone has a clue, it's obvious that subsequent films that have that lone and sympathetic struggle for survival has been a type of theme after this release. even if sunshine wasn't the first, it was a revival of that type of theme with a bleaker and visceral tone where it became a modern trend in the last decade. films are there to inspire subsequent ones, not to be exactly alike.

you can't prove it doesn't have importance or a legacy or not because, literally, it can't always be proven.

 

[DaveC426913]

in other words, don't fuking question my choice unless you are going to question them all.

So, this is the let's talk about Sunshine to the exclusion of everything else wait did I say 'us' no I meant only I get to talk about it or I'll cuss you out thread.

 

[birch]

So, this is the let's talk about Sunshine to the exclusion of everything else wait did I say 'us' no I meant only I get to talk about it or I'll cuss you out thread.

the statement you quoted stands for itself. you are twisting it into something else. no one has a right to question only my choice or demand only my choice be answered to their qualifications or opinions.

honestly, who the hell do they think they are as if it's only my choice should be questioned? lol. they are free to post whatever they deem is important or has a legacy or influence.

remember logic? i can do that too.

 

[DaveC426913]

no one has a right to question only my choice or demand only my choice be answered to their qualifications or opinions.

Yes, they do.

You're already completely dominating the thread with your opinion on a single film. You're practically imploring people to engage you.
Which wouldn't be so bad, except that now you're trying to quash the responses of others.

Rule of of the interwebz:
If you don't want your views challenged, don't go on and on and on about them on a public discussion forum.

Perhaps it's time we move on.

 

[billvon]

my choice doesn't have to be under scrutiny anymore than other choices that have been listed.

Exactly right. When you post something like your opinion on movies, expect it to be under the same sort of scrutiny as any other post could be.

in other words, don't fuking question my choice unless you are going to question them all.

To use your language, if you don't want your choices questioned, don't fuking post your choices. On the other hand, if you DO want to talk about your choices, then by all means, post about them and discuss them.

besides, if anyone has a clue, it's obvious that subsequent films that have that lone and sympathetic struggle for survival has been a type of theme after this release.

And before that film as well. The theme in sci fi movies of a survivor struggling valiantly to the end, knowing he is going to his death for the good of others, has been done a lot, in movies ranging from the bad (Armageddon) to the middling (Star Trek/TWOK.) (Also in conventional movies like Enigma and that terrible Poseidon Adventure remake.)

even if sunshine wasn't the first, it was a revival of that type of theme with a bleaker and visceral tone where it became a modern trend in the last decade.

Well, except those sort of movies have been pretty much a constant in science fiction. The Matrix had "bleak" down to a science, for example.

you can't prove it doesn't have importance or a legacy or not because, literally, it can't always be proven.

Agreed there! Everyone has their own opinions.

honestly, who the hell do they think they are as if it's only my choice should be questioned?

Anyone's choice can be questioned. You've done so yourself, so ask yourself who you think you are - and you will have your answer.

 

[birch]

https://www.theatlantic.com/enterta...lp-you-better-appreciate-interstellar/382687/

" It’s tempting to use this space simply to compare the scores for both Sunshine and Interstellar: Hans Zimmer’s much-debated music for Nolan's film is testing the limits of how loud and insistent a piece of music can get before you can no longer describe it as “twinkly.”

"John Murphy and Underworld collaborated on the Sunshine score and subsequently changed the way audiences think of movie-trailer music forever. The non-musical aspects of Interstellar that recall Sunshine lie in the ideas of sacrifice, of missions to space without concrete plans for return."

my point is it's not always clear what films influenced what or in what way and therefore have a part of the legacy. much is up for debate so it's useless because much of it is speculation and guesswork unless it's technically traceable such as ai, or a specific idea. just as solaris and 2001 space odyssey influenced sunshine, though turned it around and made it completely their own with the concept of dropping a bomb into the sun.

so, just drop it.

When you post something like your opinion on movies, expect it to be under the same sort of scrutiny as any other post could be.

pure hypocrisy. only mine was challenged.

Anyone's choice can be questioned. You've done so yourself, so ask yourself who you think you are - and you will have your answer.

incorrect. don't play the injured when you haven't been. only my choice was questioned and challenged.

exactly. who do all of you think you are? so if you didn't like my critique of any of your films that you believed didn't deserved to be challenged, then you should have respected my choice as well.

 

[birch]

You're already completely dominating the thread with your opinion on a single film.

excuse me? people are free to post their choices and i revived this thread and no one since has posted much of any except mainly questioning my choice. i did not revive this thread demanding others answer to me regarding their choices. they are free to post. i can post my opinion on a single film. there is no set critieria of what film or how many one can post.

Which wouldn't be so bad, except that now you're trying to quash the responses of others.

contextually inaccurate because i was not challenging their choices, though they expected me to jump through hoops to convince them of my choice. pure assholism.

Rule of of the interwebz:
If you don't want your views challenged, don't go on and on and on about them on a public discussion forum.

ridiculous.

 

[billvon]

pure hypocrisy. only mine was challenged.

"i think this film is a few notches above the likes of interstellar."
"i don't think interstellar or contact or mission to mars etc was a better film."
"frivolous surface layer tone such as interstellar"
'fake ass movies with fake ass surface bs that's actually patronizing it's audience such as the likes of interstellar"
"interstellar is laughable"
" you are the type who prefers the likes of interstellar."

People who live in glass houses and all that.

incorrect. don't play the injured when you haven't been. only my choice was questioned and challenged.

See above.

exactly. who do all of you think you are? so if you didn't like my critique of any of your films that you believed didn't deserved to be challenged, then you should have respected my choice as well.

Ah. So you can critique, and that's OK, but it's wrong for other people to critique your choices.

 

[birch]

"i think this film is a few notches above the likes of interstellar."

correct and valid statement considering 1) sunshine was released prior and 2) it's my opinion it influenced the film (i'm not the only one with that opinion either). saying you prefer a film over another or think it's better is not challenging it's importance to the genre itself, is it? challenging importance vs valuing it above another film is not the same, is it? otherwise, everyone would have picked the exact same films, wouldn't they?

People who live in glass houses and all that.

exactly. see above. the rest is moot since it was after my choice was challenged as to it's importance to the genre and deemed completely irrevelant/unimportant or having no legacy/influence - repeatedly. there is more than one way to throw stones, isn't there?

Ah. So you can critique, and that's OK, but it's wrong for other people to critique your choices.

yes, they can and as you saw, so can i. you don't get it?

 

[birch]

https://channels.theinnovationenter...ficial-intelligence-perspectives-and-benefits

it's like ai: artificial intelligence, then i, robot. one film probably inspired the next. we can't say these films do not have an important legacy even if the concept of robots and ai have existed prior. you can't say these films are not important to the genre because of terminator prior or because of the robot in lost in space series etc.

each new film will have a predecessor but equally each new film will have a new element or fashion that element or concept into a new one and have additionally unique elements, which will influence the next and so on.

 

[Sarkus]

my choice doesn't have to be under scrutiny anymore than other choices that have been listed. until, all of them are answered as to why they are important to the genre or weren't repeats of prior films or have an important legacy, i don't have to answer to you or anyone else as to my choice.

Are you really that childish, birch? If you aren't able or are unwilling to defend your position, don't post it in the first place. Quite simple, really. The fact that I asked you why you thought Sunshine important to the genre is because, as already explained, I am genuinely interested in what it is about Sunshine that you think has influenced subsequent films. All you have don't, though, is repeatedly stated what you like about the film, as if you liking something means that it is important to the genre.

so, get to it. just to let everyone know, that's going to be difficult for some of them and it's going to be debatable also. the classics are not under debate by me. that is not the point

If you want to ask them about those films, do so. You have the freedom to do so, just as they have the right to question what you post. Anything else, such as you are trying to do, is to troll.

in other words, don't fuking question my choice unless you are going to question them all.

Other than the unnecessary language, this is a childish and pathetic attempt at evasion. And no, you don't get to tell other people which suggestions they get to question and challenge. You also don't get to hide behind their lack of questioning of other suggestions. You posted a suggestion so you have to defend it when challenged. It's really that simple.

besides, if anyone has a clue, it's obvious that subsequent films that have that lone and sympathetic struggle for survival has been a type of theme after this release. even if sunshine wasn't the first, it was a revival of that type of theme with a bleaker and visceral tone where it became a modern trend in the last decade. films are there to inspire subsequent ones, not to be exactly alike.

So which films in particular did Sunshine's relatively bleak tone inspire?
And on what basis are you claiming it to be a revival? You don't think films like Solaris, Dark City, AI, Children of Men etc are sufficiently bleak? The tradition of bleak sci-if has been going on for decades. Furthermore, the British have a history of rather bleak and non-Hollywood endings in all genres. Danny Boyle is merely continuing this fine tradition.

you can't prove it doesn't have importance or a legacy or not because, literally, it can't always be proven.

Yet more evasion, now with the "well, you can't provide it doesn't" approach. You made the claim (that Sunshine is an important film to the sci-if genre) so the onus is on you to support it when challenged.

 

[Sarkus]

correct and valid statement considering 1) sunshine was released prior and 2) it's my opinion it influenced the film (i'm not the only one with that opinion either).

Interestingly it's not one that Nolan has ever expressed as being an influence on Interstellar, as far as I understand.
Comparing plots does also not equate to influence. B and C might both be influenced by A and thus appear similar in some ways, without one ever actually being an influence on the other.
QUOTE="birch, post: 3499918, member: 52980"]it's like ai: artificial intelligence, then i, robot. one film probably inspired the next. we can't say these films do not have an important legacy even if the concept of robots and ai have existed prior. you can't say these films are not important to the genre because of terminator prior or because of the robot in lost in space series etc. [/QUOTE]You do know that "I, Robot" is based on a collection of short stories from the 40s and 50s, right? And that AI was based on a short story from 1969 (Supertoys Last All Summer long"?
But again, after criticising others for apparently only looking at the "literal", here you are trying to assert one film influencing another simply by similarity of plot, or plot devices.
Did AI influence the film I, Robot? Possibly, but I see nothing in the visuals to suggest any particular influence. Maybe in the filming techniques, but feel free to point them out?

 

[Baldeee]

you can't prove it doesn't have importance or a legacy or not because, literally, it can't always be proven.

Shift of burden of proof aside, who said anything about needing to prove it one way or the other?
This is simply an issue of you supporting your opinions when challenged.

If I claimed that the Teletubbies were an influence on Sunshine, and said that you can't prove that it isn't, why should I be allowed to evade the challenges to that claim?
That way leads to the troll.

Whether your claim is the only one challenged or not is also irrelevant.
Peolple are entitled to challenge what they like.
The onus is on the claimant to support their claim.

 

[Tiassa]

pure hypocrisy. only mine was challenged.

It would appear that you are somehow failing to meet unenumerated and seemingly inconsistent criteria.

To wit, if I dismiss categorically any film with artificial gravity so characters can walk around inside spaceships at comfortable 9.8 m/s/s acceleration perpendicular, anyone can tell me I'm missing the point, and I probably am, because aside from a general notion of defining movies and genres, there isn't much for defining the question of definition.

And I could try rough-sketching a capsule summary of what I'm getting from your posts about Sunshine, I can't promise that a summary↑ like, "Elements of narrative, stylistics, and cinematography imbue a communicative pathos significant enough to influence and affect selection, presentation, and contextual interpretation of later films", actually means anything according to these mysterious criteria. I mean, y'know, even if it was remotely accurate or applicable to what you're actually telling us.

That is, for as many ways as that summary can be wrong, or reasonably accurate but beside the point, or even somehow close enough for function, it almost doesn't matter insofar as I have no idea whether it would actually meet the mysterious criteria.

More directly: It might be impossible to meet these criteria.

 

[billvon]

yes, they can and as you saw, so can i. you don't get it?

Cool. If you are OK with others critiquing your choices as much as you critique theirs, then no worries.

it's like ai: artificial intelligence, then i, robot. one film probably inspired the next.

To some degree, yes. But every trope has a prototype; an initial (or repeated after a long time) example that is quoted, copied and referenced in movies far more than examples in following movies. In artificial intelligence, for example, the strongest protoype was HAL 9000, from 2001:A Space Odyssey. That movie is still referenced today as an example of out-of-control AI, and movie reviews make comparisons to HAL far more than any other AI in movies.

So if you claim that the movie AI influenced later movies about artificial intelligence that's defensible; it's popularity means that moviemakers (and reviewers, and moviegoers) will make comparisons to it on occasion. But it wasn't very influential to that trope overall, especially compared to 2001.

 

[birch]

In artificial intelligence, for example, the strongest protoype was HAL 9000, from 2001:A Space Odyssey. That movie is still referenced today as an example of out-of-control AI, and movie reviews make comparisons to HAL far more than any other AI in movies.

Yes and the concept of ai can be traced back further than hal. one expounds on the other subtly or explicitly.

 

[birch]

But it wasn't very influential to that trope overall, especially compared to 2001.

Yes, 2001 was definitely one of the originals that were important and set the bar so to speak, just as star wars, star trek etc.

I disagree that they are the only ones though because each new film adds its own fresh elements which inspire the next. Hal was a computer, ai was about robots who operate similar to humans which is a running theme with spin-offs.

But that influence doesnt just stem from films as robotics and ai to replace us and be more human is a huge research endeavor. The tide was obvious in this respect.

You cant just hark back to only first partially or not original films and deem subsequent ones not influential or important because even later films will incorporate original elements that will influence other or later works that were not present in previous ones.