Potentially Great Sci-fi Films Still Due In 2011

brumgrunt writes "With Source Code already attracting strong reviews, the signs are good that 2011 will be a solid year for sci-fi. Den Of Geek has tracked down 10 upcoming sci-fi movies worth keeping an eye on" The nice thing about this write up is that it's not about the summer blockbuster brand of sci-fi, but mostly about the (somewhat) more traditional stuff. Here's hoping there's a few gems worth getting a babysitter for.

Comments

Lets face it

[gad_zuki!]

most of these will be unbelievably terrible, just like the Transformers movies or the recent Battle of LA movie. Or that Number 4 movie.

Sci-fi is very, very difficult to translate to the screen. Hollywood has shown no interest in doing it right except in spite of itself when an unusually talented director with loyal producers and deep pockets reigns control of the project (Alien, Bladerunner, etc). A typical Hollywood sci-fi production simply takes the place of a summer action blockbuster. There's very little interest and profitability in making good or even passable sci-fi.

I'm pretty happy with sci-fi literature and comics. These forms work well both economically (small production not indebted too deeply to publishers) and artistically (no CGI, no egotistical actors). Dunno, but everytime I see "upcoming scifi movie" I cringe at how terrible its going to be and I'm almost always right.

Re:Lets face it

[Zedrick]

> There's very little interest and profitability in making good or even passable sci-fi.

I wish there was some scifi-loving billionare who would take a risk and buy the rights to everything by Alastair Reynolds and/or John Birmingham and cough up the money for the best scriptwriters, the best director, good actors, massive marketing etc. Without Warning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_Warning_(novel)) the movie, or Pushing Ice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pushing_Ice) the movie could not possibly fail if it was done right.

Re:Lets face it

[commodore64_love]

>>>most of these will be unbelievably terrible
>>>Sci-fi is very, very difficult to translate to the screen.

Precisely. A magazine (Analog?) recently published their top 20 movies based on solid science.

They only came-up with 11:
Destination Moon (1950). This movie was made with the involvement of the space community of the day and Robert Heinlein who wrote the story it was based on.
Predator (1987)
The Abyss (1989)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Credit Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrik
2010 (1984)
Contact (1997). Credit Carl Sagan
Deep Impact (1998)
Gattaca (1998)
Red Planet (2000)
Minority Report (2002)
Primer (2004)

As for the movies of Summer 2011, only "now" and "rise of the apes" looks like "true" science fiction. Although it's hard to say until I actually see it.

Re:Lets face it

[eugene ts wong]

The stories have to be able to fit the mold as well. Typical Transformers and GI Joe episodes were not good for that kind of stuff. A lot of the characters were cool for the kids, but those characters were remarkably shallow.

Re:Lets face it

[jimmerz28]

The only redeeming quality of Transformers and Number 4 was that they had cute guys in them. Transformers had Megan Fox for my brothers of that preference (though there's really not more than meets the eye with her).

Re:Lets face it

[MozeeToby]

The thing I don't get is that it should be easy for Hollywood to put pulp sci-fi on the big screen. There's a whole subgenre that used to be one of the most popular parts of science fiction which is essentially exactly the big budget, over the top action that they crave for a summer blockbuster. Instead of using that source material, they insist on taking the mostly highly cherished, highest quality, most in-depth and artistic sci-fi they can find and massacre it to fit the summer blockbuster formula.

Re:Lets face it

[Kozz]

There's very little interest and profitability in making good or even passable sci-fi.

I'm pretty happy with sci-fi literature and comics. These forms work well both economically (small production not indebted too deeply to publishers) and artistically (no CGI, no egotistical actors). Dunno, but everytime I see "upcoming scifi movie" I cringe at how terrible its going to be and I'm almost always right.

So then, I'm curious... what did you think of District 9? I really enjoyed the film, despite it seeming to be misrepresented in the trailers (in my opinion), there was a sci-fi facade over a deeper ethical discussion. Granted, this was Peter Jackson with a $30million USD budget, too. Is this one a diamond in the rough?

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

Their inclusion of Red Planet and their omission of Moon just about destroys any credibility they have on the matter.

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

Transformers had Megan Fox for my brothers of that preference (though there's really not more than meets the eye with her).

What meets the eye is already quite good!

Re:Lets face it

[rufty_tufty]

Like a movie adaptation of Consider Phlebas I wonder if the story for Pushing Ice would be just too damn long for the popcorn masses to sit through, This isn't the days of Gone With the Wind anymore and I wonder if most people would sit through it.
That said LoTR did okay with it's epic story length, but then that was a popular classic, practically synonymous with Shakespeare in some circles...

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading Pushing Ice back in the day... amazing novel. I wonder if the average user will ever understand the tragedy that is time dilation at relativistic velocities without adequate background in science.

The small-band-of-brothers-far-adrift could make for gripping viewing though...

Re:Lets face it

[Kenneth Stephen]

Aw...come on. Seriously - the "Minority Report"? The ability of people to see the future is based on solid science? This must be some new definition of the word "science" that I wasn't aware of.

There are other science glitches in the other movies too. For example, in "The Abyss", the underwater creatures miraculously rewire human physiology to not require decompression chambers when the entire diving platform is lifted up to the surface. But I'll let those slide in the name of dramatic license. But the ability of those three "precogs" to see the future is central to the plot of the story and its hard to ignore that gaping scientific hole in the plot of the Minority Report.

Re:Lets face it

[Nadaka]

I take it that this list was before Moon?

Re:Lets face it

[thedonger]

The best directors and actors do not guarantee anything, and massive marketing is why (how?) utter crap becomes popular.

Re:Lets face it

[tophermeyer]

I have to respectfully disagree on Pushing Ice. So much of my enjoyment of that story was his depiction of the tech that the colony develops and the environment that they are stranded in. Unless they're willing to commit to special effects budget on the scale of Avater they would have a difficult time of doing the story justice.

But I do think that a lot of Alastair Reynolds' short stories would make for great feature length films. Nightengale and Glacial spring to mind.

I would also love to see a film from the Foundation series, or a Riverworld film that doesn't suck.

Re:Lets face it

[LWATCDR]

What is the problem with people. Transformers was a movie based on a kids cartoon about giant robots that can turn into cars and planes.
Just what did you expect?
I actually thought it was going to be much worse than it was. I found it as enjoyable for what it was. When are are talking about movies in general most books just do not make great movies. How can you possibly fit a huge book into a movie. As far as the science fiction fan boys go. Get over it. Just like any other book made into a movie you will hate them. Even Bladerunner was only sort of based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. I suggest you just wait and see and try to enjoy them for what they are which is movies.
I will admit that the movie I, Robot does make me want to commit murder. I have never seen it but the trailers where enough to make me say "WHAT!"
As a reader of Science fiction I long ago came to the conclusion that I will never see a move based on.
The Uplift books, Known Space, Asmiov's Robots or Federation universe that do not make want cringe.

And of course just to tick everybody off I must ask one question. Why do people get all worked up over Firefly? I enjoyed it and wish it had keep running but it wasn't really hard science fiction. Frankly it was "The Outlaw Jose Wales" in space. That isn't a bad thing but people get so worked up over it.

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

LotR isn't the best example... maybe the first movie... but the last two did become mindless action flicks.

Re:Lets face it

[cpu6502]

>>>the ability of those three "precogs" to see the future is central to the plot of the story

Isaac Asimov had "seeing the future" as a central plot device for one of the most famous Science Fiction Trilogies ever produced (Foundation, F & Empire, Second F). It's not hard to imagine a being capable of moving, not just along three axes, but also the fourth time axis (even if it's just a brief glimpse).

Re:Lets face it

[GodfatherofSoul]

I'm not a Hollywood insider, but I think the problem with Sci-Fi movies is the conflict between directors and producers. Sci-Fi movies are so expensive to produce you invariably end up with the accountants breathing down your neck to meet deadlines and keep things safe and accessible to the public. Hollywood knows how to make slick looking movies, but it always seems like the movies that fail do so because the storyline was altered for mass appeal.

Gotta have a cheesy love interest, tried and true plot elements, etc. And, it always seems like the sci-fi movies that I like never get much advertising; probably because they've already had such a big hit on the bank account. Hell, I never even heard of Pandorum until I saw it sitting on a shelf at Blockbuster!

Re:Lets face it

[eddy the lip]

would also love to see a film from the Foundation series, or a Riverworld film that doesn't suck.

I have good news and I have bad news. There's a Foundation movie in the works. Roland Emmerich is directing

http://www.scifimoviepage.com/upcoming/previews/foundation-movie.html

Re:Lets face it

[maxume]

What deeper ethical question? The movie was a blatant fable about apartheid being wrong, with the monstrous human (he makes a joke out of the extermination of the nest early in the movie) learning his lesson as he was transformed into one of the creatures he believed to be a subhuman monster.

I mean I liked the movie quite a bit, but it wasn't particularly subtle or deep.

Re:Lets face it

[Seumas]

I still detest Contact being listed as one of the greatest science fiction movies of all time (as well as Predator - but that's obvious). I had a discussion with a friend of mine who feels it absolutely belongs there, because it so accurately depicts the way discoveries would work in the scientific community. My argument against it is that it's an awesome science fiction movie right up until the last third where it all turns to shit with a bunch of paranormal bullshit.

Re:Lets face it

[Seumas]

No, the list came out like . . . a month or two ago. It was pretty widely distributed.

Re:Lets face it

[Seumas]

Transformers falls into the massive category where people say "it's not real, so it's therefore science fiction!". It's like calling Inspector Gadget a science fiction cartoon, because he has a mechanical hand that pops out of his hat.

Re:Lets face it

[Kenneth Stephen]

Did you read the Foundation series? His "seeing-the-future" was based on large groups of people having a predictable history - never the individual. In fact, when the "Mule" appears, that event completely throws off the predictions of psychohistory. The "seeing-the-future" in the Minority Report is specifically about the future history of individuals. Azimov gave a plausible explanation of how psychohistory might work. The Minority Report gives an explanation, but believing in it requires the suspension of a scientific mind. And thats my point - the film may be entertaining, but based on solid science isn't something one can say about it.

Re:Lets face it

[Seumas]

I don't get people when it comes to that shit, either. GI JOE and TRANSFORMERS were 22 minute commercials (they even used to be slotted into the station programming in the PD's grid as advertising) for vapid creatively lacking toys in the early 80s. The only thing more baffling than people expecting them to somehow be more meaningful thirty years later is that people actually place some sort of inherent value and nostalgia for them. Commercials. Advertising. For toys. It's like being thirty five years old and really yearning for a classic Honey Combs commercial and some jackass greenlighting a hundred million to produce it.

Re:Lets face it

[NoSleepDemon]

I always thought that Chasm City would have a suitably sci-fi / action feel to it, and I think any CG / effects studio would love to go wild on depicting the effects of the melding plague. But there might be an issue of pacing, especially if they only spend a short time on the story before miguel (I think, man it's been a while) reaches chasm city itself. His many and varied flashbacks might also be difficult to get a grip on, perhaps a mini series would be more appropriate.

Re:Lets face it

[Captain Hook]

CGI will become commoditised, rather than modelling every back drop by hand you will have preexisting models which just need tweaking for individual films.

Eventually we will get to the point where all those really expensive CGI back drops are going to be cheaper than filming in real life locations because, for example, you don't have to block off traffic from behind a historic house while filming a period drama. You don't need to have people stage sets and wait for the right light etc.

When that happens, those Sci-Fi stories are going to be no more expensive to produce than any other film.

Re:Lets face it

[Nadaka]

Then it is a retarded list, Moon is the best hard sci fi movie in the last decade, arguably one of the only hard sci fi movies in the last decade.

Re:Lets face it

[dpilot]

Supposedly "The Forever War" is going to have some focus on this, through Mandella's alienation when he comes home after missions, finding that home is in the past.

That is, assuming it doesn't keep slipping year-for-year, like fusion power.

Re:Lets face it

[Nevynxxx]

Errrm, so why would Alien be missing from that list?

Re:Lets face it

[hondo77]

...the movie could not possibly fail if it was done right.

I used to think that about Aliens vs. Predators...

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, some "SciFi" movies actually are better than the book. Children of Men comes to mind (I say this is Sci Fi, just because that's where the movie is located at my local independent video store). Granted, this movie is like the Bourne movies - good movies, but not really that close to the books they're based on.

Children of Men, the book, well, I haven't really enjoyed that book... Kind of a bad mix of "1984" and "Heart of Darkness".

 

Re:Lets face it

[Attila Dimedici]

You make an excellent point. My favorite example is "Postman" with Kevn Costner. The book by David Brin had everything that could make a good movie, action, well-developed, easily understood characters, a clear good vs. evil plot-line with a flawed hero. The screenwriters instead of basing the screenplay on the central theme of the book (the importance of "myth" in building a society) decided to base the movie on a theme derived from a plot device in the book (I won't try to sum that up since I was only able to watch 15 minutes of the movie before I became completely frustrated with how badly it translated the book). My problem was not that it did not do the book justice (although that in and of itself bothered me). It was that it removed the cetnral theme of the book and replaced it with one that appeared to be designed to promote a partisan political agenda.

Re:Lets face it

[just_another_sean]

Frankly it was "The Outlaw Jose Wales" in space.

You just answered your own question.

Re:Lets face it

[twidarkling]

Hey, transformers toys were hugely creative. I'd like to see you come up with a robot that turns in to a ghetto blaster that ejects cassettes that turn in to a rhino, puma, or smaller robot.

Re:Lets face it

[Kozz]

Maybe I don't give the general populous enough credit, but I think some would never get past the observation of "monsters and explosions", and apartheid would never occur to them. Consider the tripe that passes as "entertainment" in theaters today. I don't recall the film trailers even hinting at the "alien apartheid" concept.

More to the point, then... does that mean you think this film qualifies as "sci-fi"? More importantly, is it "good sci-fi"? There's frequently vast disagreements about what qualifies as sci-fi, and what does not (Doctor Who, some say).

Re:Lets face it

[wickedskaman]

the movie could not possibly fail if it was done right.

Isn't that true of *any* movie?

Re:Lets face it

[need4mospd]

People forget that most movies are for entertainment, not enlightenment. That said, I go to the movies to see explosions, ridiculous plot twists, and half naked skanks. There's no need to make a movie as realistic as possible when I have such an amazing world to live in already.

Re:Lets face it

[Paspanique]

Oh boy!

  Just reading this link gives me the chills! Please no, don't let anyone ruin another Asimov classic. It will be a sad day. I was glad to read about the forever war being directed by R.Scott(There's definably worse choices), but this is just.... I'm afraid, very afraid!

Re:Lets face it

[Baron_Yam]

There were THREE groups - the real world scientists, the mathematicians pulling their puppet strings, and the planet of psychics pulling THEIR strings. Oh, and a near-immortal psychic robot overseeing all three.

If he'd stopped at the first two, I'd only have to forgive the hyperspace hand-waving.

Re:Lets face it

[c6gunner]

My thought exactly - any movie which depends on the existence of psychics has no place on a list of great sci-fi films.

Also, the end of "Contact" should easily disqualify it from that list. Poor Carl must have been spinning in his grave when that came out.

Re:Lets face it

[teh kurisu]

The problem with trying to find examples of science fiction "based on solid science", is that a vanishingly small percentage of what we consider to be science fiction actually involves scientific principles. I haven't seen all the films in the list so I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that none of them involve the testing of hypotheses through scientific method.

A better term would be 'technological fiction', if we're going to be pedantic about it.

If 2001 involved any science, it must have been during the part that was erased when the screensaver came on during the mastering process.

Splice came close to fitting the definition, but maybe I'm just saying that because I really liked that film.

Re:Lets face it

[Pumpkin Tuna]

I found the movie to be much dumber than the cartoons. For crying out loud, Bumblebee pees on a secret government agent stripped to his humorous boxer shorts.

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

You must hate "2001: A Space Odyssey" as well, then. There's nothing in Contact that's any farther fetched than the ending of 2001, which is still regarded as a classic SF film.

Re:Lets face it

[eddy the lip]

Doesn't give me the warm fuzzies either!

I just read about The Forever War movie - stumbled across it because I am only now finally reading it. Great story, and I'm excited that R. Scott's directing, and that David Webb Peoples (Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys) wrote the script. There is still hope for another great SF movie.

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

Battle LA was awesome, you are just putting it in the wrong genre. It is a war/action film that happens to use aliens as the invasion force. I did not go there expecting a SciFi movie but an action film. The movie was more about the Marines and their surviving the ordeal then about the aliens, unlike Independence Day which was more SciFi, I would say.

Re:Lets face it

[Wyatt Earp]

You mean like James Cameron? He does some pretty good sci-fi and has a ton of money.

Terminator 1 & 2, Aliens, Abyss, End of Days, and Avatar

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm ever gratuitously wealthy I'm going to be making a point of buying up the rights to every sci-fi franchise I want to see on screen, and finding talented (but not necessarily big-name) people to make them.

Re:Lets face it

[Wyatt Earp]

I think Against a Dark Background, Matter or Player of Games would translate to the screen better.

Re:Lets face it

[oldmac31310]

Use of Weapons is my current Banks favourite and would work as a film, I think.

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

End of Days was not Cameron, it was directed by Peter Hyams.

Re:Lets face it

[maxume]

It depends a little bit on what you want to call deep, but the only way they could have made the apartheid theme more prominent would have been to state it directly in narration. But sure, people could watch the movie and miss it.

As far as the categorization stuff, I don't really get into it, I just read or watch what I enjoy. I certainly enjoy stuff less when the treatment is arbitrary, but the arguments used to separate hard and soft science fiction are usually pretty thin (many of them amount to the commenter simply preferring one fantastical element to another).

Re:Lets face it

[retchdog]

i think they meant something like "applies some level of analysis," as opposed to pure macguffin/special effects. Minority Report, at least charitably, achieved this; the plot revolves around a plausible hack of the precogs' abilities. imho MR is pretty damn good for hollywood science fiction; maybe that's why people hate it so much, a kind of uncanny valley effect.

when i think about it, the MR movie is sort of like a very lite version of _The Demolished Man_. (i've never read the original Minority Report story)

Re:Lets face it

[ackthpt]

most of these will be unbelievably terrible, just like the Transformers movies or the recent Battle of LA movie. Or that Number 4 movie.

Sci-fi is very, very difficult to translate to the screen. Hollywood has shown no interest in doing it right except in spite of itself when an unusually talented director with loyal producers and deep pockets reigns control of the project (Alien, Bladerunner, etc). A typical Hollywood sci-fi production simply takes the place of a summer action blockbuster. There's very little interest and profitability in making good or even passable sci-fi.

I'm pretty happy with sci-fi literature and comics. These forms work well both economically (small production not indebted too deeply to publishers) and artistically (no CGI, no egotistical actors). Dunno, but everytime I see "upcoming scifi movie" I cringe at how terrible its going to be and I'm almost always right.

George Lucas did something right in the first of the Star Wars films - his cast were largely unknown, Sir Alec Guinness aside. Harrison Ford had resorted to his other trade - carpenter, which is why there are kitchens in the Los Angeles area with cabinets made and installed by him.

It is a truly big distraction to see Big Star XYZ in a film - unfamiliar actors keep your attention on the story.

Weak story? Use big stars - it's how things are done.

Re:Lets face it

[HeckRuler]

Yeah, I too call bullshit on this one. Also, I'm getting a kick out of this because I'm reading it for the first time, right now, over lunch in a few minutes. I'm up to the part with space traders.

Psychohistory is essentially advanced sociology. The biggest "fiction" part here is that sociology will advance to the point it becomes a hard science with real predictive capabilities. But it only works over societies, not individuals. You can say that after a decade of increased taxes to pay for war remittances given W amount of national shame-of-loss and X amount of remaining national pride, the conquered nation will have Y amount of political shift towards crazy moonbat left-wingers who will elect a Z number of Hitlers. Probably.

Re:Lets face it

[oldmac31310]

Not a ghetto blaster. I think you are thinking of Soundwave who was a walkman. Blaster was the ghettoblaster and a much less intricate toy.

Re:Lets face it

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Pushing Ice was AR worse book. Talk about a highschool girl bitch fight. It was just silly how far he took that bitch fight. I was surprised i finished that book. Yet I really like almost everything else he has written (haven't bothered with century rain). I think out of AR books, Chasm City or The Prefect would be good picks. However Consider Phlebas would be my first pick from IB in his culture series otherwise the Algebraist was great.

But you know what. Since sci-fi "fans" are such a bunch of toss pots that would say exactly as the first poster said no matter how they did the movie.... They are not going to care about fans.

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

Battle LA and I Am Number Four were both fine. They were perfectly entertaining movies. I'm sick of people nitpicking every last movie to death, or simply saying "it sucks" just because of maybe one or two minor things they didn't like about it.

Re:Lets face it

[Wyatt Earp]

I agree, that would work too.

Re:Lets face it

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I liked Firefly but would never put it in the hard sci-fi category ever. Its about as hard as star trek. However I love I, Robot the movie. Its a great movie... as you just said "As far as the science fiction fan boys go. Get over it." Sticking to the books would have made a movie just as boring as AI.

However I don't think movies work well from books. Short stories yes, but not books. I think its best to just team up with a good sci-fi writer and a screen play writer and see what falls out. But you know, folks don't put up 30+ million dollars because they like you, they want to make some money.

Re:Lets face it

[witherstaff]

I Robot wasn't that bad if you consider it a story in the Robot series and forget the book. I actually liked it once I got past the disappointment of not seeing anything from the book on the screen. It's worth watching. It shouldn't make you regret your 2 hours, like I do from seeing the "sci fi" called Knowing.

Firefly was great fun. Then again I'm a fan of Whedon's style of the witty characters and back and forth. I think people get worked up because it wasn't given a chance and was still developing. His Dollhouse show got good once it was established and they were able to go from fantasy island style hooker of the week to real sci fi.

I've seen various things about Morgan Freeman making a Rama movie. That could fit in the confines of a movie if written well enough. The old man war's trilogy - while not on par with the great series of sci fi - is still good and simple enough to fit in a movie structure too and in talks to be on the screen. You mentioned Known Space and I I know I'd love to see the ringworld brought to life in full CGI splendor.

The problem with a lot of the great sci fi series is the sheer scope and then cramming into 2 hours. Sci-fi, when it was sci fi, did enjoyable to watch miniseries of Dune and Children of Dune. Honestly better than anything his kid has managed to write set in the Dune Universe! As HBO is doing the Game of Thrones, maybe the networks like HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc will decide to do more book series. After all the Walking Dead is great tv series when it would have been just another 2 hour zombie movie.

Re:Lets face it

[martyros]

It's hard to say. It's definitely not the kind of "pulp" sci-fi GP is complaining about (e.g., the recent "Star Trek: Reboot" movie). It was certainly attempting to be serious sci-fi. It had a lot of really good qualities about it, and while in the theater, I definitely felt moved by it; it had the "spell" that a good movie has.

However, the "spell" didn't last more than half an hour of reflection after the movie was over. Just too many things didn't add up. If the aliens were ferried from the ship to the ground by humans, where did they get the weapons they were selling to the gangs? Did the rescue workers see the guns lying around and say, "Hey, looks like you might need these -- let's bring some"? And what's with the super-concentrated space-ship fuel that takes weeks to make a drop, modifying the guy's genetics? That just doesn't make sense -- if humans had sprayed an alien with some gasoline, would they have turned human? Not to mention that the one "smart" alien was carefully waiting, counting every drop that was necessary to make it back home; but how many years was he set back when the main character sprayed it on himself? And in the end scene, when the "smart" alien's kid controls the mech -- he's obviously really good at it, and can do things like catch bullets in midair. Why didn't he just keep using it, instead of letting the (then) half-human, who obviously doesn't know anything about its technology, use it?

This kind of thing -- ignoring internal logic to make cheap "epic" scenes -- is right in line with what I saw in the only other movies I've seen directed by Peter Jackson, the LoTR series. There's enough good there to make it worth watching, but it's just got too much lacking to be classified under "great SciFi".

Re:Lets face it

[icebraining]

I think the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was a nice SF movie too.

Re:Lets face it

[TheTurtlesMoves]

CGI will become commoditised, rather than modelling every back drop by hand you will have preexisting models which just need tweaking for individual films.

This has already happened to quite an extent. It will keep going to. Already contracting out CGI elements is getting much cheaper and easier for better quality than just a few years ago.

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fiction based around advanced alien science. Seems to have the criteria to be Sci-Fi to me. Even if it was ruined by too much reliance on special effects.

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

Which just proves rubber science is better the hard science when it comes to movies.

Re:Lets face it

[ackthpt]

The best directors and actors do not guarantee anything, and massive marketing is why (how?) utter crap becomes popular.

The craptacular approach is rewarded by audiences who are undemanding in their entertainment. If we stop watching cack they'll have to stop making it.

Re:Lets face it

[NEW22]

At least in the case of G.I. Joe, it was quite a respected comic book. Seriously, the cartoon is a different thing. Larry Hama, the guy who actually created the G.I. Joe characters and wrote the little biographies on the toy cards actually wrote the comic. He later went on to write "The 'Nam" which was also pretty respected in its day. This is not to claim that its on par with great literature or anything, but I think it is a little harsh to judge G.I. Joe by the cartoon and not by the comics created by the person who actually invented the characters.

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen that one, but it sounds like a good example. (Actually, I think I did see it and just filed it with, oops, Costner and flushed it from my brain.) But my favorite example lately is I Am Legend. Completely ignored the point of the story, even reversed it, and that's after an earlier version of the movie got that right (at least on paper - I haven't seen the Heston one.)

Along with I, Robot. Just, completely ignored the real point, when there could be just as much dumb action either way. Plain dumbed down, "but is it going to get them off their tractors" execubot condescension.

I love Will Smith, too. I guess he's just making business decisions, but it seems like he could make nearly as much money without doing these non-stop sell-out scripts. He's obviously a smart guy and can't realistically hide behind some kind of ignorance defense. I suppose we don't all care about science fiction or physical realism, though.

Re:Lets face it

[Un pobre guey]

Battle LA was a very shallow run-of-the-mill action movie with no new ideas, no interesting effects, no gags, no satire, no black humor, no interesting commentary, ruthlessly standard commercial acting, and in general lacking any depth or artistic value whatsoever. If you like mediocre FPS games, you'll like this movie, otherwise skip it.

Re:Lets face it

[TheRaven64]

The movie was a blatant fable about apartheid being wrong

I thought the moral of that movie was that racism against aliens is bad, but racism directed at black people is fine. It tried to beat you to death with the RACISM IS BAD message (something that most of us knew already) when it came to the aliens, but used the terms 'Nigerian' and 'criminal' interchangeably throughout the film. Apparently that was an acceptable form of racism.

It seemed like a poor remake of Alien Nation. The original, at least, managed to get the message across in a more subtle way. My favourite part was a black American woman reciting the same 'separate but equal' rhetoric against the aliens that would have been directed against her or her parents a few decades earlier. District 9 didn't do anything even close to this level of subtlety. Oh, and they were so busy telling you that racism was bad that they forgot to have a plot that actually made sense. Although there were a lot of explosions.

At about the same time, Moon was released. It had a much smaller budget, almost no explosions, and a really gripping plot.

Re:Lets face it

[TheRaven64]

I wouldn't say the movie of Children of Men was better than the book. Less bad would be a more accurate way of putting it...

Re:Lets face it

[jgtg32a]

True, it wasn't exactly subtle but the one thing that they did that I really appreciated is they made the Prawns easy to dislike. I know I wouldn't want those things anywhere near me, but at the same time I know they are getting screwed over.

Re:Lets face it

[bhcompy]

Why Predator? First, what's wrong with it as a "solid science" movie? Second, Predator is as good as Aliens. Very similar movies, very similar premises, very different creatures and cast, and very awesome. You get suspense, action, etc without the tongue in cheek Arnold of earlier films(particularly Commando) and the "I'm trying to be funny" Arnold of later films(starting with Red Heat and Twins, but Twins was great). No horrible CGI, awesome creature effects, memorable characters, etc.

Re:Lets face it

[kalirion]

Along with I, Robot. Just, completely ignored the real point

Actually while the I, Robot movie ignored the plot, it got the point pretty well - the entire short story collection was about the unforseen consequences of the Three Laws. And robots developing on their own the "Zeroth Law of Robotics - Protect Humanity", which supersedes the First Law, was taken from the last Robots novel - Robots And Empire.

Re:Lets face it

[CohibaVancouver]

There's very little interest and profitability in making good or even passable sci-fi.

Part of the problem is the kind of people who are interested in 'good' Sci-Fi won't pay for it - And making good Science Fiction costs a lot of money. Look at the "Serenity" Firefly movie, which won all kinds of Sci-Fi awards and garnered many positive reviews, but didn't even make back its budget as a theatrical release.

By contrast, the people who are interested in "Transformers 3" *will* pay to see it, in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Guess where the Hollywood suits direct their energies?

Re:Lets face it

[maxume]

Does the black woman doing a separate but equal speech really qualify as subtle?

There were plenty of scenes in the movie with black South Africans saying stuff about the aliens, and at one point the black security guard in the group with Wikus was going to shoot the smart alien kid for playing in front of a door.

Re:Lets face it

[LWATCDR]

No I Robot didn't just very from the book it had nothing to do with the book! It is like they made a move of Dune but everyone was mermaids and they had pet worms that where this size of beagles.
Just change the name and keep Asimov's name off it.

Re:Lets face it

[LWATCDR]

Well maybe people should watch the "Outlaw Jose Wales", The orignal "True Grit", and some of the other westerns. I do need to see the new True Grit. As much as it pains me I heard that it was actually good.

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course just to tick everybody off I must ask one question. Why do people get all worked up over Firefly? I enjoyed it and wish it had keep running but it wasn't really hard science fiction. Frankly it was "The Outlaw Jose Wales" in space. That isn't a bad thing but people get so worked up over it.

This.

Fuck you for pissing down my back and telling me it's raining.

Seriously, how fucking dare you tarnish Josey Wales by comparing it with fucking Firefly!?

Re:Lets face it

[LWATCDR]

If you like Firefly you really should see the orignal True Grit and The Outlaw Jose Wales.
True Grit really did have that same style of dialog. Firefly was a good show. I just watched all the episodes and I really liked it. But it wasn't all that fresh or ground breaking. But that may be just a side effect of age.

Re:Lets face it

[Miseph]

"I do think that a lot of Alastair Reynolds' short stories would make for great feature length films"

In my experience, short stories generally do.

Novels actually tend to be too long, even relatively short YA fare like "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" require substantial cutting just to keep from going over length. I suspect that one of the reasons "Neuromancer" still hasn't been made is that writing a short enough script for it is going to savage the book to where actual fans would riot in the streets.

Re:Lets face it

[Miseph]

It was also dreck.

Re:Lets face it

[mosb1000]

People won't always agree on everything. You didn't complain about Predator being on the list, and it's basically a mindless action flick. A few omissions or improper inclusions do not ruin the whole list. When you quote it just go like this:

Destination Moon (1950). This movie was made with the involvement of the space community of the day and Robert Heinlein who wrote the story it was based on.
  . . .
The Abyss (1989)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Credit Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrik
2010 (1984)
Contact (1997). Credit Carl Sagan
Deep Impact (1998)
Gattaca (1998)
  . . .
Minority Report (2002)
Primer (2004)
[Moon]

Re:Lets face it

[Miseph]

"many of them amount to the commenter simply preferring one fantastical element to another"

I too weary of people arguing over what types or degrees of fiction qualify a text as "science fiction" rather than "fantasy" or "science". I see no objective reason for the assumption that including one scientific concept, say, FTL travel, is more acceptable than another, say, telepathy. Neither do I see why people obsess over just how much speculative explanation is given for these things as part of the explanation. It's all bullshit.

Re:Lets face it

[rainmouse]

LotR isn't the best example... maybe the first movie... but the last two did become mindless action flicks.

It's become too cool to dislike films for X Y or Z 'fancy-pants' reasons but I'll be happy to admit I loved the LotR films, the much derided Battle of LA and even the transformers films. I am looking forwards to many of the films in this list.
People these days seem too keen to watch the latest flick with the novel or comic book in one hand booing the choices in casting or plot decisions and I cannot help but think of when people visit big league sports matches and shout abuse or 'expert' advise to some of the greatest athletes on the planet.
The guys making the films are some of the best in the world and just because you don't like their immediate choices does not make them inherently wrong. The sad truth is that many of us here in /. are just not in the mainstream audience demographic.

Re:Lets face it

[Miseph]

30 million is actually fairly low budget by Hollywood standards. A director of Jackson's stature can often receive almost that much in up front pay for a film.

For reference, The Rocky Horror Picture had a $1.2m in 1975, which adjusted for inflation comes out to between $28m and $47m in 2009 (the year District 9 came out) depending on whether you use purchasing power or straight valuation, respectively. I think a solid case can be made for calling RHPS "low-budget".

At least those are the numbers I got from http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Re:Lets face it

[twidarkling]

And he still had cassettes. I know, I had him (and yes, he was very simple). He was Soundwave's counterpart was all. After all, you can't have kids supporting one side not have a gimmick toy that the other side has.

Re:Lets face it

[cbhacking]

Actually, the I, Robot film was pretty good if you didn't expect it to be based on the novel, but instead to be exploring the concepts (and failings) of the Three Laws, which is of course what the novel was all about. I don't want to spoil it for anybody who hasn't seen it yet, but it was an interesting take on the risks of sentient AI programmed with a need to aid humanity. Consider the police; their job is to keep us safe, but often that involves arresting or even occasionally killing some of "us."

I wouldn't say it's worth going out to buy a Blu-Ray special edition director's cut with limited figurine or anything, but it's worth renting and watching just for a competently done examination of what was really the central idea of the book. The SFX is also pretty good, even if the product placement is a little too obvious.

Re:Lets face it

[operagost]

I thought the moral of that movie was that racism against aliens is bad, but racism directed at black people is fine. It tried to beat you to death with the RACISM IS BAD message (something that most of us knew already) when it came to the aliens, but used the terms 'Nigerian' and 'criminal' interchangeably throughout the film. Apparently that was an acceptable form of racism.

If they had used Egyptians instead, would it still have been racist? How about Serbians?

Re:Lets face it

[RightSaidFred99]

but used the terms 'Nigerian' and 'criminal' interchangeably throughout the film.

I'm not sure I see the racism. You do know Nigerian is a nationality, right?

Re:Lets face it

[roc97007]

Agreed. I've seen Moon multiple times and am looking forward to Duncan Jones' Source Code. Besides being a well-executed hard SF film, Moon was interesting and engaging, which isn't always true for hard SF films.

Re:Lets face it

[roc97007]

Deep Impact? Seriously? That was an action/disaster film with some weak sci-fi elements.

Red Planet had some problems, (the killer robot dog was completely unnecessary) but at least it was more watchable than Mission to Mars. Man, what a snorefest that was.

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

"Transformers was a movie based on a kids cartoon about giant robots that can turn into cars and planes.
Just what did you expect?"

I expected it to be at least as good as the cartoon.

Re:Lets face it

[Culture20]

And what's with the super-concentrated space-ship fuel that takes weeks to make a drop, modifying the guy's genetics?

It's not fuel. It's more like lubricant; it makes the machines work well. Notice how all of their tech is designed to work only when used by a Prawn? The juice is probably condensed Prawn RNA or something. It starts rewriting the human's DNA. Heck, all of the worker-Prawn in the camp might be from a third alien species subjugated by the smart-Prawn who are turned into Prawn. In fact, the smart Prawn might be a fourth alien species that become Prawn to use the tech. Maybe being a Prawn is a purely engineered state, and never exists naturally...

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. I have been too hard on that movie.

Re:Lets face it

[Culture20]

The rhino was Blaster's. Although Blaster's feline was a lion. Soundwave's was a puma.

Re:Lets face it

[Troll-Under-D'Bridge]

Sci-fi is very, very difficult to translate to the screen.

You could probably say the same thing of every novel or short story. The story must be pruned to what can fit within the two hours or less attention-span of the typical movie-goer. Conversely, short stories must be expanded. Most of the characters' thoughts can't be revealed, except as occasional voice-over narration.

There is, however, nothing special (or specially difficult) about sci-fi novels or stories, especially now that we have CGI. (Before the '70s, showing a rocket in flight or a herd of dinosaurs would have been a big problem.) The question is knowing when to use CGI, and when not. Too much, and you eliminate all suspense or expectation on the viewers' part. Do you show the alien predator in all its horrific glory or do you show only its shadow until the climax?

Re:Lets face it

[line-bundle]

I think you saw a different I Robot than the one I saw.

Re:Lets face it

[geekoid]

Why the fuck does it pain you? it's another movie adaption of a book. And frankly the John Wayne True Grit is crap. Just the music score is enough to make people cringe.

Re:Lets face it

[westlake]

Then it is a retarded list, Moon is the best hard sci fi movie in the last decade, arguably one of the only hard sci fi movies in the last decade

The problem is that "Moon" had a $5 million dollar budget and a $5 million dollar gross. Moon It was neither profitable or popular.

Re:Lets face it

[Lunzo]

The I, Robot movie stank. No plot, the special effects were cheesy. As for exploring the three laws, never in the books did they remove the first law so the robots would be killers bent on destroying humanity. That's a pretty shallow look at the laws and how they interact.

I agree that it would have been hard to follow the book faithfully and make a compelling movie. Tossing out the book and putting Asimov's name on a turd is something I like less.

Re:Lets face it

[ColdWetDog]

And of course just to tick everybody off I must ask one question. Why do people get all worked up over Firefly? I enjoyed it and wish it had keep running but it wasn't really hard science fiction. Frankly it was "The Outlaw Jose Wales" in space. That isn't a bad thing but people get so worked up over it.

Jewell Staite
Summer Glua
Gina Torres
Morena Baccarin

Oh, and it's a Western.

Re:Lets face it

[SirJorgelOfBorgel]

While I won't necessarily agree, Moon is a movie any sci-fi fan who hasn't seen it yet should go rent/download ASAP. Just mentioning it because I personally never even heard about this movie until a friend recommended it to me, and I found it quite odd I never heard about it before seeing how good a movie it is.

Re:Lets face it

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I have the read the I, Robot stories. The basic idea was preserved IMO, without the boring, and at any rate this has no bearing on how good the movie is as a movie (rather than a book adaptation). And yes I find a lot of Asimov stuff boring.

This is not really a new way of "adapting" a book to the screen, if you call it adapting. Even quite a few of Stephen Kings movie adaptations are only similar in title and character names despite the fact that these books would translate to the screen 1 to 1 much better than sci-fi.

Of course you are still free to hate the I, Robot movie as a movie anyway. Fans are never a reason to make these things into movies, for one there is probably not enough of them to make financial sense, and secondly they will hate it anyway no mater what you do.

Re:Lets face it

[Anonymous Coward]

You're quite correct. If I had the time I'd have revamped the list top to bottom. I mentioned Red Planet because, of all the movies on that list, it was the only one that was particularly unwatchable. Really, it was awful, and even more absurd than Predator.

Re:Lets face it

[LWATCDR]

Crap? I disagree as to most people. It was a classic. Why does it pain me. Well because most remakes are useless and or terrible. Take Planet of the Apes and The Day the Earth Stood Still as examples. I was already to hate True Grit but from what I hear it was actually good. I hate to be wrong :)

Re:Lets face it

[AP31R0N]

Because some people are insecure, so they build up themselves by putting others down (via the things they like)

Because some people are egocentric enough that they can't distinguish between their own thoughts and what others are thinking. If you aren't thinking the same thing, something is wrong with you.

It doesn't help that much of what we call Sci-fi is not. For instance, Star Wars is fantasy in space with robots and lasers. Turn the spaceships into boats, the wookies into Minotaurs and the light sabers into... sabers and viola, fantasy.

Re:Lets face it

[YggdrasilOS]

I've been reading through Surface Detail recently, and it seems tailor-made for a screen adaptation: murder, corruption, intrigue, and a fight for the souls of the departed. They'd have to tone down the hell scenes a bit from what the book depicts, but overall I think it would work rather well.

Re:Lets face it

[rimugu]

The near-immortal psychic robot is not part of the original trilogy. Is part of the despicable books that came before to link it to the robots series. (which are less awful that the gaia bullshit that came to illustrate the future after the original trilogy)

Stoked

[ArhcAngel]

I am camping out to be first in line to see Paul. Now THAT is good syfy

Re:Stoked

[gilleain]

I am camping out to be first in line to see Paul. Now THAT is good syfy

Hahah. To my shame I have seen this movie : my advice would be (EVEN if you liked Hot Fuzz and are a big fan of Spaced)

DO NOT SEE

Although fairly ok for 10 year olds, it really is a bit rubbish. Especially, oddly enough, the militant atheism.

Re:Stoked

[Captain Hook]

I actually enjoyed Paul far more than I expected, I liked watching for the references to other sci-fi's

Re:Stoked

[c6gunner]

Although fairly ok for 10 year olds, it really is a bit rubbish. Especially, oddly enough, the militant atheism.

Really? The movie has Atheists chopping peoples heads off??? AWESOME!!!!

Re:Stoked

[geekoid]

"..the militant atheism."

ah, it challenged your belief so you don't like it.

Ignore this persons review.

Re:Stoked

[AP31R0N]

Usually when people say militant atheism they mean non-closeted atheism. What did you mean here?

So let me get this straight.

[M. Baranczak]

This is a review of 10 movies that the reviewer hasn't seen, because they haven't come out yet?

Re:So let me get this straight.

[andrea.sartori]

Maybe it's proof that this is more real than we think.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[Seumas]

What do you expect? It's a shitty "geek" website looking for hits.

Though, I'm not sure what's geek related about a film called "Bridesmaids" and "Chalet Girl", which are both featured at the top of the page in the rolling marquee.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[NitroWolf]

And there is the fact that the author thinks John Carpenter was original when he made the 1982 REMAKE of the 1951 "The Thing."

Any geek with any cred in the SciFi horror genre would know Carpenters movie was a total ripoff of Nyby's original with better special effects. It's like saying the Tom Cruise version of War of the World was original.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they look like reviews? Does the word review appear anywhere in TFA? There's this new thing they do before things come it. It's like a review, but since it's before the thing came out, they call it a preview. It attempts to give information about things that are coming soon for those who are interested, but generally tries not to pass judgement since not all information is available.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[Jiro]

Any geek with actual cred would know that the movie was an adaptation of the John Campbell Jr. story "Who Goes There" and that Carpenter's version was much more faithful an adaptation than the original, actually using the original premise of a shapeshifting monster and even keeping the blood test. If it was a ripoff of the 1951 version, why did it put back all the things that weren't in the 1951 version?

Re:So let me get this straight.

[SydShamino]

I've seen The Divide and Attack the Block.

Some spoilers may follow.

The Divide

Set almost entirely in the basement of a New York apartment building, the design, lighting, and mood of the locale was perfect for an apocalypse psychological survival film. (In the Q&A, the directed noted that he used the same set designer as Moon.) The cast, too, was very dedicated; the film was shot in sequence, and stars Milo Ventimiglia and Michael Eklund lose 20 lbs over the course of the filming to simulate the effects of radiation sickness. (Though note that Lauren German and Michael Biehn seem to be less effected by the radiation and barely show any effects until later in the film.)

The problems with the film are the gaps in the plot. Somewhat early on, the survivors are found by radiation-suit wearing "soldiers" with automatic rifles. They kidnap a girl, then attempt to wipe out the other survivors. A fight ensues, the survivors win, and they have a working radiation suit to explore with. What they find is puzzling and completely unexplained; after a single scene the entire sub-plot is never visited again.

Meanwhile, the characters are supposed to be shown falling to the "Lord of the Flies"-style mental effects of isolation along with the physical effects of radiation sickness. As I mentioned, they handle the physical imagery intermittently well. The mental seems to come in jumps and stutters, with some characters (Marilyn) degenerating from one scene to the next, while others (Sam) seem to bounce in and back.

Finally, I just don't get the choices made by the lead character (Eva) at the end. I think the "divide" is supposed to mean many things - the divide between those who made it into the basement (and survived) versus those just outside who died; the divide between those who suffer from radiation and those who don't; the divide between those who can keep it together under crisis and those who fall apart; and finally, the divide between those who can shed their humanity to survive and those who can't. I think Eva is supposed to be shown crossing the divide, but it really doesn't feel right for her character given her other options.

Attack the Block

While waiting in line to see this film, I spotted a young lady clearly in distress on the major party/club street near the theater. Being who I am, I ran over to help. I really don't know what had happened, but she was in tears, was stumbling, and just needed assistance. Eventually another girl agrees to walk her to a friend's place and I get back in line.

Then I get into Attack the Block, and almost right away one of the main characters (Moses) mugs another (Sam) at knife point. The whole rest of the film revolves around Sam being forced to rely on Moses for safety against the alien threat, until eventually she can learn to trust and care for him. Maybe it was just the particular circumstances of my evening, but I just couldn't get over the initial assault in the limited 70-minutes I was expected to do so. Unlike in real life, I tend to want bad guys to get their faces ripped off in film, so having him become the bad good guy was too much.

Other than that hang-up, there's not really all that much bad about the film. I think it has gotten really good reviews from most other people who have seen it, so if you can keep real life separate from the screen you might like it as well.

I can say that I appreciated the fact that Nick Frost came to the screening. He really only has a minor part in the film, and I know he was here for the Paul North American premiere the next day, but I feel more strongly for actors who bother to support their films at real fan screenings.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[NitroWolf]

Because it was 1951 and they couldn't handle/afford it.

It was a remake of The Thing which was based off the story. If Carpenter wanted it to be an envisioning of the story, he would have named it something else... perhaps "Who goes there," no?

Re:So let me get this straight.

[geekoid]

John Carpenter's thing was a sequel of the 1951 movie.

Re:So let me get this straight.

[Hognoxious]

It's like saying the Tom Cruise version of War of the World was original.

It was original. Was any other version of it so totally shit?

Ringworld...

[Grog6]

When the hell is someone worth a fuck going to make a Ringworld movie?

There's so much great SF that no one will touch; Heinlein got raped with Starship Troopers, but The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a much better story.

Or maybe Lazarus Long...

James P. Hogan's Giant's series would make a great set of movies; it seems like all hollywood wants to do is regurgitate crap.

Re:Ringworld...

[natehoy]

"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is a great story, but I'm struggling with how well it would translate into anything resembling an interesting movie that people would actually pay to watch, and still be the slightest bit true to a story about a computer becoming self-aware while outcasts are trying to split from their oppressive overlords. There are scenes that would translate well (bombing the Earth with rocks), but Hollywood would latch on to those scenes and you'd end up with something akin to "The Two Towers" becoming "The Battle for Helms Deep: A Love Story".

Ringworld, on the other hand, is a special-effects masterpiece waiting to happen. The storyline is simple, the beauty of the story is visualizing the engineering involved, and that would translate with really good (but horribly expensive) visual effects. I don't know if you'd ever get enough viewership to justify effects at that scope, though.

Re:Ringworld...

[Sonny Yatsen]

It's a good thing nobody in Hollywood will touch some of the great SF stories. I certainly don't want to see Hollywood crank out an abomination like, say, Michael Bay's Rendezvous with Rama. Let's leave the good stuff well alone.

Re:Ringworld...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rendezvous with Rama or Neuromancer or I'm not going to the theatre.

Re:Ringworld...

[gilleain]

Ringworld, on the other hand, is a special-effects masterpiece waiting to happen. The storyline is simple, the beauty of the story is visualizing the engineering involved

Yet the dialog, as with a lot of Sci-Fi, is absolutely awful. Truly terrible.

The ring itself would make for good imagery, although I expect that any director that has played Halo would bring certain visual clues along with them...

Re:Ringworld...

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, the sociopolitical basis of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is quite relevant today: a large oppressed segment of a society uses subversion via technological means to gain their freedom. Later, the mindset that was needed to arrange the revolution translates badly to a stable government.

Re:Ringworld...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the hell is someone worth a fuck going to make a Ringworld movie?

No thanks, I think there are enough vampire movies out there right now.

Because you know which parts of the story Hollywood is going to focus on, and it isn't the science.

Re:Ringworld...

[rufty_tufty]

Honest question: what is the big deal with Ringworld? I finally read it a couple of years ago expecting some story masterpiece, but it ended up being a run of the mill 'people discover big dumb object and barely escape with their lives' story. Have I missed something here, because I feel I must have.
Maybe it's the Asimov effect, that that when I finally got hold of a copy of the books a decade or so ago (had to wait until i had a job after uni to be able to have spare cash) then I was bitterly disappointed. "Hang on!" I said, "It's just a load of Star Trek TNG episodes but not done as thoroughly". Then I realised the concept of derivative works. Then I felt very embarrassed and realised how awesome he actually was.
One way of the other what is that great about the story or the characters of Ringworld that make it worth transitioning to the big screen? Maybe Ringworld Engineers would work because you get more into the cultures there, i just don't know.

Now Consider Phlebas, that I would like to see on the big screen...

Re:Ringworld...

[damnbunni]

Ringworld is, to me, more 'about' the nature of luck than the actual adventure the characters have. I know lots of people who have read it and liked it, but the ones that consider it Great are usually talking more about the concept of Teela Brown than the ringworld itself.

(And it's worth noting that I didn't really like the sequels much.)

Re:Ringworld...

[NitroWolf]

When the hell is someone worth a fuck going to make a Ringworld movie?

There's so much great SF that no one will touch; Heinlein got raped with Starship Troopers, but The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a much better story.

Or maybe Lazarus Long...

James P. Hogan's Giant's series would make a great set of movies; it seems like all hollywood wants to do is regurgitate crap.

How could you translate the Ringworld stuff to the screen? You'd need like 5 hours of setup just to get into the main plot line. That is really the crux of the problem with Scifi and movies. There's so much supporting material that needs to be in place to make good Scifi that you just can't do it on the screen in any reasonable amount of movie time. I would love to see those you listed translated to the screen, but even The Moon is a Harsh Mistress would need to be 4 to 5 hours long to be done properly. The others... much longer. Think LotR at best.

The same goes for Enders Game ... I just can't see how you can translate that to the screen in under 10 hours and still have a coherent, interesting story that is true to the original. I fear the movie is going to suck something fierce.

Re:Ringworld...

[elrous0]

See, this is why I hate what passes for science fiction with most of my fellow geeks. Ask any of these supposed science fiction "fans" what they want to see adapted and they immediately cite a bunch of 40-50 year old pulp crap like Heinlein, Ringworld, etc. There is a lot of great serious, modern science fiction out there and yet all you people want is a bunch of pop shit from the 60's. Poor Phillip Dick (who at least wasn't brain-dead, unlike Heinlein) has been adapted into the ground. And the one movie that came out of a Heinlein work (Starship Troopers), that was actually pretty good, was good mainly because the director recognized it for the piece of fascist garbage that it was and cleverly decided to produce a parody.

There is science fiction written after 1970, people. GREAT science fiction, no less. Stop idolizing a bunch of simplistic, Cold War-era pulp.

Re:Ringworld...

[Anonymous Coward]

Heinlein can kiss my ass. Holy shit. I wish I could go back in a time machine and punch that motherfucker in the face for writing so terribly.

Re:Ringworld...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, there have been a few attempts, including the SyFy channel when it was still Sci-Fi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringworld#Movie

Re:Ringworld...

[The Grim Reefer2]

When the hell is someone worth a fuck going to make a Ringworld movie?

Agreed. That would be awesome if done right, However I suspect it has a better chance of being tragically bad.

There's so much great SF that no one will touch; Heinlein got raped with Starship Troopers,

I guess you never saw the 1994 version of The Puppet Masters.

Re:Ringworld...

[Quiet_Desperation]

And the one movie that came out of a Heinlein work (Starship Troopers), that was actually pretty good, was good mainly because the director recognized it for the piece of fascist garbage that it was and cleverly decided to produce a parody.

Bah ha ha ha! Oh, man, that was excellent satire there, dude. You almost had me going up until that point.

Re:Ringworld...

[Unkyjar]

Such as? You got my attention, but you blue ball me by recommending nothing. So help me out with some modern suggestions.

Re:Ringworld...

[LanMan04]

And the one movie that came out of a Heinlein work (Starship Troopers), that was actually pretty good, was good mainly because the director recognized it for the piece of fascist garbage that it was and cleverly decided to produce a parody.

Yes, yes, A MILLION TIMES YES. The exact reason I hold that movie in such high esteem.

It's camp! I put it in the same category as RoboCop, if that movie had been based on a "serious" book about the humanity of cyborgs.

Re:Ringworld...

[Hatta]

I just can't see how you can translate that to the screen in under 10 hours and still have a coherent, interesting story that is true to the original. I fear the movie is going to suck something fierce.

Isn't that what they said about LotR?

Re:Ringworld...

[An ominous Cow art]

Honest question: what is the big deal with Ringworld? I finally read it a couple of years ago expecting some story masterpiece, but it ended up being a run of the mill 'people discover big dumb object and barely escape with their lives' story.

You may have read it a couple of years ago, but it was published in 1970, over 40 years ago. It wasn't run-of-the-mill then, and wasn't when I first read it in 1979 or so.

Now Consider Phlebas, that I would like to see on the big screen...

Same here!

Re:Ringworld...

[Lil'wombat]

Especially for the brain tumor era books. I Will Fear No Evil and The Number of the Beast come to mind.

Re:Ringworld...

[TheTurtlesMoves]

You are permitted to *not* watch something if it is eventually made.

Re:Ringworld...

[thomst]

How could you translate the Ringworld stuff to the screen? You'd need like 5 hours of setup just to get into the main plot line. That is really the crux of the problem with Scifi and movies. There's so much supporting material that needs to be in place to make good Scifi that you just can't do it on the screen in any reasonable amount of movie time. I would love to see those you listed translated to the screen, but even The Moon is a Harsh Mistress would need to be 4 to 5 hours long to be done properly. The others... much longer. Think LotR at best.

That's exactly why the ideal audio-visual presentation mode for stories like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress - and Ringworld and so many, many other SF classics - is the TV miniseries, rather than a theatrical motion picture. For all their faults, the SciFi Channel's miniseries versions of Dune and Children of Dune are cases in point. Both could have benefited tremendously from larger budgets and better casts, but the miniseries format gave them time and space to present their stories' complexities and do some serious worldbuilding, as well. And with HDTV resolution, sound and aspect ratio, TV is no longer a second-rate esthetic experience, either.

Of course, the crap factory that is SyFy is certainly not going to do justice to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, regardless. But HBO, Showtime, or even Starz is looking at a potential shelf-full of Emmys and Ace Awards, should they take up the challenge. Rome, Spartacus, Deadwood; even Boardwalk Empire show what they can accomplish with historical material, and there's at least as big an audience out there for classic science-fiction aimed at adults as there is for sword-and-sandals epics or foulmouthed cowboys. What's needed is a producer with the guts and vision to pitch a big-budget miniseries version of something like Ringworld or TMiaHM, and a talented director with a love for SF to translate it to the small screen. ONE such hit miniseries and the HBOs and Showtimes will be fighting one another to line up the rights to a whole panoply of classic SF.

The problem is that the MBAs who control the Hollywood production money (and the music industry, as well) have NO vision of their own. So, someone who has a solid track record of producing award-winning hit miniseries has to convince them that there's a market. You and I have no chance of doing so - we're rubes in their book, and what we think would be successful is of no interest to them. They're looking for book (or comic book) franchises with BIG established sales to translate to the screen (thus the tsunami of Stephen King crapola that's gotten movieized or minseriesed over the years). And that means a heavyweight the caliber of Spielberg or Christopher Nolan or Ridley Scott has to go to bat for such a pitch.

And they already HAVE successful film careers. TV would be a step down in income and prestige for them.

So, the solution to translating classic SF to the screen is obvious. How to get TO that solution is the new problem.

Re:Ringworld...

[sorak]

If the plot is that involved, then I'd say the best hope to do it right would be if HBO or Showtime got it and turned it into a one-off series. I don't know if it would be that profitable to start a series that you know is going to last for only one season, but it would be the best way to be faithful to the book (and garner a year of loyalty from a niche market).

Re:Ringworld...

[IICV]

Maybe it's the Asimov effect, that that when I finally got hold of a copy of the books a decade or so ago (had to wait until i had a job after uni to be able to have spare cash) then I was bitterly disappointed. "Hang on!" I said, "It's just a load of Star Trek TNG episodes but not done as thoroughly". Then I realised the concept of derivative works.

Yep, basically. Niven's Ringworld series essentially roughed out the shape of the now-classical Sci-Fi "find an archaeotech artifact, explore it, escape" storyline. As far as I know, Larry Niven was one of the first authors to really develop the "Hey, what would happen if there were significantly more advanced aliens who existed before us, and left their toys laying around for some reason?" idea; until then, I think humanity was almost always either one of the more advanced races in fiction, or contemporaneous with the more advanced races (e.g, getting invaded in War of the Worlds).

Re:Ringworld...

[Anonymous Coward]

I fear the movie is going to suck something fierce.

Isn't that what they said about LotR?

A cynic would suggest that they were right...

Re:Ringworld...

[Anonymous Coward]

Larry Niven doesn't really do character-driven writing. It's more about setups for concept. He's not a bad writer overall, I think

Re:Ringworld...

[Grog6]

There's some really interesting happenings...

Hitting an object (the ringworld) at high speeds with a spacecraft and living thru it, reasonably plausibly. (stasis fields)
Looping a piece of string thru a GP hull, and destroying a city. (sinclair thread)
An alien with two heads, that will be hard to do. (Puppeteers)
Tiger-sized, Cat based humanoids. Who like to eat people, among others. (Kzin)
Cranky old people that are Bad-Ass! (Pak)

There are a few books in the series; the orig was in the 60s I think.

   

Re:Ringworld...

[Grog6]

Good point.

The part from Canyon to the ring would be a two hour movie. :)

Re:Ringworld...

[Chelloveck]

Ringworld, on the other hand, is a special-effects masterpiece waiting to happen.

Bah, it's just a cheap derivative of the Halo franchise. Without Master Chief you've got nothing.

Re:Ringworld...

[Anonymous Coward]

Heinlein got raped with Starship Troopers

"I got raped by a dickwolf, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"

Re:Ringworld...

[NitroWolf]

I just can't see how you can translate that to the screen in under 10 hours and still have a coherent, interesting story that is true to the original. I fear the movie is going to suck something fierce.

Isn't that what they said about LotR?

It's also, what, 9 hours long? Longer? Hell I don't even remember how long it is, but it's at least 9 hours but probably closer to 12... AND they still cut stuff out. Bombadil anyone?

Re:Ringworld...

[NitroWolf]

Man, you know, that is so true. I hadn't really considered that as a viable option, but it would be a perfect medium.

We'd still have the problem of a script though... how many writers can write for a long(ish) miniseries and maintain quality writing, even with the book(s) as guide(s)? Few... look what happened to Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica/Craprica, Farscape, etc... Writers seem to go off on a tangent or think they can improve on the story in the book and then it all goes off the rails and crashes in a firery heap. Firefly is so great because it didn't have a chance to go off the rails... look what Weedon did subsequently... nothing nearly as good - or was it? If his later stuff ended after 13 episodes, would it be considered as good? I dunno... I was never a Buffy fan to begin with, so I can't really comment on that part of his career.

The script would be tough, but if someone could work out solid writers that are willing to be faithful to the script throughout the whole run, it could work.

Re:Ringworld...

[CaptSlaq]

A short list: http://www.amazon.com/Time-Ships-Stephen-Baxter/dp/0061056480 (New take on Wells' Time Machine)

http://www.amazon.com/Ring-Stephen-Baxter/dp/0061056944/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/worldwarz/

http://www.starrigger.net/Downloads.htm#Chaos

Just to name a few that I've enjoyed. My tastes may differ blah blah blah.

Re:Ringworld...

[elrous0]

My standard answer.

Re:Ringworld...

[Unkyjar]

Already own World War Z, good recommendation. For Baxter I've only read Manifold: Time and Manifold: Space, with mixed reactions, but I'll give him another shot with the ones you've recommended. Thanks!

Re:Ringworld...

[Unkyjar]

I enjoy both hard and soft science fiction, though I tend not to like short stories which is why I avoid anthologies. The style of writing is less important to me than what type of overarching plot there is to the book, if the concept seems neat to me I'll plow through it. I like many crappy authors, probably from buying books from newsstands for so long.

Space Opera and Crew stories tend to strike my fancy the most in the genre. I don't really enjoy books that skip era's every few chapters, it was interesting with the Foundation books, but it just forced me to lose interest in Accelerando.

I should probably renew my old SFBC membership if they are still around.

Re:Ringworld...

[Anonymous Coward]

Recursion, Capacity, and Divergence by Tony Ballantyne, for one.

Re:Ringworld...

[AshtangiMan]

And LotR is just over 10 hours (theatrical versions), so, perhaps GP is right.

Re:Ringworld...

[geekoid]

There is nothing in ring world that would be interesting on the screen. At best you could make a movie about something else that happens on the ring world.

Now, you could do a series. I recommend Abrahms.
Becasue there would need to be a contnuing mystery to keep people comeing back.

Re:Ringworld...

[geekoid]

" I think humanity was almost always either one of the more advanced races in fiction"

not true.

Re:Ringworld...

[Skywolfblue]

Ringworld would make an extremely boring movie. The visuals of the environment would be truly impressive, but when it comes down to story it's rather dry, and when it comes to conflict (AKA "Action") it doesn't have that much. Niven is a great "world creator", but when it comes to plot he isn't that good.

Re:Ringworld...

[thomst]

We'd still have the problem of a script though... how many writers can write for a long(ish) miniseries and maintain quality writing, even with the book(s) as guide(s)? Few... look what happened to Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica/Craprica, Farscape, etc... Writers seem to go off on a tangent or think they can improve on the story in the book and then it all goes off the rails and crashes in a firery heap. Firefly is so great because it didn't have a chance to go off the rails...

Well, B5, Farscape, and Gacrapitica are all TV series - not miniseries. (B5 had an overall 5-year plot arc that set it apart from other series, but that wound up becoming problematic when PTEN started coming unraveled and Warner Bros. began wavering on its commitment to fund the full five years. Strazinski then was faced with the choice of either letting the series simply stop at the end of the fourth season, with a large number of balls still left in the air, or hacking the fifth season down to a size where he could, if WB dropped the series, simply fold its events into season four, and end it with most of the loose ends tied up. When WB finally committed to funding season five, late in the production of season four, he then had to stretch what remained of the overall plot arc to cover the many additional episodes between where the story stood when funding came through and his vision for the series end. It was kinda like Congress and the NASA budget, in a way.)

So, a miniseries, per se, with its predefined episode structure, would not suffer from those same problems - it woudn't be open-ended, like Gacrapitca and Farscape, nor would it suffer from the studio screwing around with the episode structure in mid-production, as happened with B5.

Re:Ringworld...

[grep -v '.*' *]

I fear the movie is going to suck something fierce.

Sorry, but that's a entirely different genre. ;-)

Really, the absolute best movie screen can only be viewed with your eye --- your mind's eye, that is.

Re:Ringworld...

[IrquiM]

What about the newer Niven stuff then? Fleet of Worlds, Juggler of Worlds, Destroyer of Worlds and Betrayer of Worlds?

However, what I'd really like to see is Alastair Reynolds' stories. His short stories should be more than enough for a film, and if they want to go "bigger" with a Trilogy or something, they could start looking at "Revelation Space".

The thing is though, that old Sci-Fi doesn't mean it's not relevant. Ringworld is a great series, same with the last couple of Rama books. There are good, old Sci-Fi, and most of that is what sets the stage for what the current writers comes up with. You might think "old pulp" is shit, but I enjoy a lot of it more than what most of the "new" writers manages to put down on paper.

Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[sandytaru]

What most sci-fi directors fail to take into account is that good sci-fi isn't about the robots, the aliens, or the gagdets. It's about the people. At the heart of the best classic science fiction is solid character development and rich human interaction. Its really a psychological drama. That's why "I, Robot" failed so hard - the original book wasn't about the robots at all, but the humans who worked with them. Yeah, there is oohing and ahhing over the nifty toys, and nitpicking over the accuracy of the science, but ultimately what we remember are the characters.

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[immakiku]

Great point. For me, imagining what the setting is like is fun, but it is much more rewarding to see a whole world constructed. The world doesn't come from cool gadgets and flashy science or magic, but about how people behave differently or similarly in the presence of such things. It takes more work on the part of the movie/book writers and more imagination in the parts of the actors.

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[Seumas]

The problem is that when they do take that into account, you get shit like "Warehouse 13", which is a SyFy series that has nothing even remotely to do with science and is all about hunting down magical objects as a plot tool to get an attractive red head and an attractive dark haired guy together into romantic psueodo-Moonlighting situations to attract female viewers.

And then films like MOON are regarded as "so fucking boring - turned it off" by mouth breathers.

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[Colonel Korn]

What most sci-fi directors fail to take into account is that good sci-fi isn't about the robots, the aliens, or the gagdets. It's about the people. At the heart of the best classic science fiction is solid character development and rich human interaction. Its really a psychological drama. That's why "I, Robot" failed so hard - the original book wasn't about the robots at all, but the humans who worked with them. Yeah, there is oohing and ahhing over the nifty toys, and nitpicking over the accuracy of the science, but ultimately what we remember are the characters.

When we scientists want to understand a complex system over which we have control, we change an input variable and observe the effects. Good science fiction makes a change to the fundamental rules of society that are usually beyond our control, often but not always through a game-changing technology (advanced space flight, terraforming, genetic engineering, AI, etc.), and explores the effects of this change on characters and sometimes their societies.

I agree with you. Most movie sci-fi is focused on the flashiness of the technology and the generic, tacked on, unrelated stories of the stock characters who interact with it. The genre should instead follow sci-fi literature and use the sci-fi elements to examine the human experience.

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... i think it needs is a balance between the two, character development and technology. Psychological drama is not needed thank you very much. Otherwise Stargate Universe would'v been the biggest sci-fi show after the recent Battlestar Gallactica.

Plain cheesy drama just for the sake of human crybaby relations, NOT interested tyvm!

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[Anonymous Coward]

...good sci-fi isn't about the robots, the aliens, or the gagdets. It's about the people. At the heart of the best classic science fiction is solid character development and rich human interaction...

Unfortunately this is exactly what got SGU canned. It was a great show and people essentially said 'It's not campy enough, I'm not watching this..."

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[WarpedMind]

I agree. That is the reason that something like Gateway would make a really good film. It is has a very complex, flawed character that is interesting. You have plenty of imagery stuff with the Heechee station and exploring things ala Indiana Jones. You have people signing up for missions with outcomes that would make even a diehard Saw fan cringe. You have sex. Sex in space even. And sequel material.

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[kale77in]

It is about the people, but the people sci-fi reader (well, I) resonate with aren't the people mainstream audiences resonate with. There's no way Susan Calvin was going to survive the transition to the big screen, for example. But that's not a problem with her.

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Well MOON was about 30-40 min longer than it needed to be. A lot of movies feel like they need 2 hours worth because that is the new standard, but really quite a few of these movies would be better at 90min.

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[Whispers_in_the_dark]

I've never watched "Warehouse-13" but am I correct in assuming it's "Friday the 13th: The Series: The Next Generation"?

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

At the heart of the best classic science fiction is solid character development and rich human interaction. Its really a psychological drama.

Check out Never Let Me Go (2010) for a great example of doing it right.

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[Whispers_in_the_dark]

According to imdb, moon was 97 minutes.

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[Mitreya]

. It's about the people. At the heart of the best classic science fiction is solid character development and rich human interaction. Its really a psychological drama. That's why "I, Robot" failed so hard - the original book wasn't about the robots at all, but the humans who worked with them

You just prevented me from moderating.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that SciFi is about people and drama, while technology is just the background. But "I, Robot" specifically did not fail because the movie makers forgot to focus on human emotions.
"I, Robot" failed because it was a bullshit action story that had essentially nothing to do with Asimov's work. Unless you count the fact that there was a young girl that was named Susan Calvert who had worked with robots, there was not many other similarities that I saw...
I always wonder about this -- the story is *already* written and it is already *good*. What is it that forces the movie-makers to take work by Asimov and completely rewrite it preserving nothing but a few names?

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[Anonymous Coward]

that is exactly what soderberg said in the "solaris" commentary.
i love the book by stanislav lem, i think soderbergs take on it is interesting and a nice movie to watch
(even if it lacks almost any kind of tension).

i like it better than the tarkovsky version

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[brentrad]

Just had to reply to agree: Moon was an awesome sci-fi movie, most underrated movie of 2009 IMO. Sam Rockwell is a genius actor. I've watched Moon four times, and enjoyed it every time.

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[brentrad]

Completely agree. I'd like to see some Theodore Sturgeon short stories filmed. Before reading Sturgeon, I wasn't a big fan of short stories, but he made me change my mind. His stories were ALWAYS about the characters, their emotions, and their interactions - the sci-fi was just the setting and set-up to allow the action to proceed and a device to further the plot.

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[TBBle]

Funnily enough, "Cowboys & Aliens" seems to me to be the closest to this description on the list. Then there's the other slashdot commenters who feel that "mixing two arbitrary protagonists and seeing what falls out" is the antithesis of sci-fi... I dunno. I like my sci-fi less thriller-like than most of the ones on the given list.

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[alder]

... series that has nothing even remotely to do with science and is all about hunting down magical objects ...

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Crap, it really was boring ;)

Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies

[Anonymous Coward]

goatse? nice.

By way of titling a move "Source Code"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already driven away at least one potential customer.

Re:By way of titling a move "Source Code"

[ErroneousBee]

But on the other hand, the title tempts me to check it out.

Re:By way of titling a move "Source Code"

[Anonymous Coward]

.. and yet it has no fucking thing to do with source code.

Looks like a royally shit script somehow getting 'strong reviews' becomes the sole basis for the description beyond "this guy wrote a list".

Re:By way of titling a move "Source Code"

[Richard_at_work]

I saw the trailer for "Source Code" when I went to the cinema on Saturday - I actually laughed out loud, so loud infact that my wife poked he hard in the ribs and people six rows away turned to see what was going on. I then laughed all the way through the feature itself, for much the same reasons.

Really, if you want a no-brains action film, "Battle: Los Angeles" will steal two hours of your life from you, but don't expect anything more.

I was pleasantly surprised, however, by the depiction of the alien invasion troops - they acted like actual troops, using hand signals to communicate and pulling back wounded comrades - in no other film have I seen this done, and it did add some aspect of realism to them thats missing in most alien invasion films.

Re:By way of titling a move "Source Code"

[tophermeyer]

I was pleasantly surprised, however, by the depiction of the alien invasion troops - they acted like actual troops, using hand signals to communicate and pulling back wounded comrades - in no other film have I seen this done, and it did add some aspect of realism to them thats missing in most alien invasion films.

Parts of the film felt really hokey (like the redemption of Aaron Eckhart's disgraced character). But you're right, the aliens were really really well modeled. They really did look like like realistic alien soldiers.

I expected to the film to be a gritty modern Independence Day. Instead it felt more like Blackhawk Down with aliens. It was a good flick.

Re:By way of titling a move "Source Code"

[Martin Blank]

I'm glad at least a couple of other people liked it. I wasn't sure what to make of it when I saw the 30-second commercial on it, but I saw the ambush scene on The Daily Show and thought it might be good. I was impressed by what I saw, and while there were some weak spots to it, it held up well in my eyes. One of my colleagues called it "Independence Day on the ground" when in reality it followed proper military strategy, which I'll not mention here to save the spoiler.

Your characterization of Nantz is off, though. He wasn't disgraced; that he was awarded a Silver Star said quite the opposite. He was, however, mistrusted by his fellow Marines because of what they had heard about his decision under fire.

Anyone know the name of...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and release of a film that was described as a world left destroyed AFTER an alien attack?
I remember hearing a bunch about it somewhere, but not sure of the name or when it was supposed to be out.
It could well be out now for all i know.

I was reminded by it from that The Divide film at the end of it, which sounds equally interesting.

Re:Anyone know the name of...

[Anonymous Coward]

Year 12
http://thefilmstage.com/2010/11/12/fredrik-bond-to-helm-post-alien-invasion-flick-%E2%80%98year-12%E2%80%99/

You don't need to watch Apollo 18

[abigsmurf]

The trailer seems to give away every major twist that is likely to feature in the film.

I haven't seen a trailer spoil a film so much since Swimfan (the trailer is literally the film's plot condenced into 2 minutes)

Re:You don't need to watch Apollo 18

[snookerhog]

This is why I don't watch trailers.

Re:You don't need to watch Apollo 18

[Daniel_Staal]

This is why I watch trailers.

They are cheaper than the movie, and waste less of my time.

Re:You don't need to watch Apollo 18

[Anonymous Coward]

They have "Source Code - Official First 5 Minutes [HD]" up on youtube.

Best comment:

THE END. Best 4.5 minute movie ever.

Re:You don't need to watch Apollo 18

[snookerhog]

touche

Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? District 9 was one of the most original and freshest scifi movies of the last 10 years....

One missing!

[Mr Europe]

The one I'm most waiting is not in the list. Iron Sky.
http://www.ironsky.net/

Re:One missing!

[severn2j]

Possibly because its release date isnt until 2012.. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/

Think you forgot one...

[MoldySpore]

...I didn't see Mega Python vs. Gatoroid on that list! SyFy is still Sci-Fi right? Oh wait...

Re:Think you forgot one...

[JosKarith]

Flicking past I thought that said Monty Python vs Gatorade. Oh well, disappointed again...

cowboys and aliens

[circletimessquare]

seems like such a drunk frat boy's idea of an "awesome movie"

i mean what next? cowboys and ninjas?

oh...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1032751/

uh, vikings and indians?

good lord

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446013/

so all i have to do is take two stereotypical protagonists, smash them together, and hollywood will give me millions to make a crappy movie?

ok, zombies and sharks!

oh good lord, someone shoot me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g8fCxyAVHs

freddy v jason, alien v predator (there's a third one coming), etc... ok so if creativity is completely dead, if hollywood has to rape your love for science fiction by mashing up all genres, allow me to make you want to rip your eyes out:

terminator V back to the future

mad max V jurassic park

the matrix V inception

and, the ultimate betrayal that will make you want to murder me right now, just for uttering the words and potentially planting the idea in some hollywood suit's mind:

star wars V star trek

the science fiction fan's ultimate cause for suicide and/ or homicide

Re:cowboys and aliens

[Dails]

When Ninja Assassin came out and did well, I realized that movie maker can now just take a couple of concepts that people think are awesome and smash them together. I'm currently gathering funds to make my first movie which I'm sure will be a huge blockbusting moneymaker: Ninja Cheese Lumberjack Motorcycle Boobs Bacon Party.

Re:cowboys and aliens

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello Kitty v Predator

Make your bets now.

Re:cowboys and aliens

[MozeeToby]

Cowboys and Aliens is pulp, as long as it's aware that it's pulp and sticks to over the top action while at the same time not taking itself seriously you can still have a very enjoyable movie.

Re:cowboys and aliens

[Abstrackt]

Ninja Cheese Lumberjack Motorcycle Boobs Bacon Party.

If it doesn't work out as a movie you could probably release that as a Wii game!

Re:cowboys and aliens

[ShogunTux]

Dunno, seems like a tough call. Hello Kitty was able to do quite a bit to Cthulu.

Re:cowboys and aliens

[molo]

In the grim future of hello kitty there is only war.

http://www.gamerdna.com/uimage/uL71klJr/full/hello-kitty-40000.jpg

-molo

Re:cowboys and aliens

[edawstwin]

I'm still trying to get "Donuts, Beer, and Hookers" made.

Re:cowboys and aliens

[rufty_tufty]

"star wars V star trek
the science fiction fan's ultimate cause for suicide and/ or homicide"

Actually if you look hard there are some good, relatively unbiased fan-fics in this genre.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Fanfic/Conquest/index.html

Honestly, would a completely random person you've never spoken to before mislead you?

Re:cowboys and aliens

[xavierpayne]

> terminator V back to the future

This one has been done (kinda) and it looks like it'd actually be a pretty damn good flick if done in the spirit of the trailer. :)

http://bcove.me/lp3zan4z

Re:cowboys and aliens

[metalgamer84]

Or turn it into a sandwich. hmmm....bacon....

Re:cowboys and aliens

[Syberz]

the matrix V inception

Actually, I would have loved it if Matrix 2 and 3 were not real and only a dream...

Re:cowboys and aliens

[Anonymous Coward]

terminator V back to the future

mad max V jurassic park

the matrix V inception

and, the ultimate betrayal that will make you want to murder me right now, just for uttering the words and potentially planting the idea in some hollywood suit's mind:

star wars V star trek

the science fiction fan's ultimate cause for suicide and/ or homicide

Man, you're really good at this. I represent a group of oil tycoons who make foolish purchases, and we want to invest in your movie ideas.

Re:cowboys and aliens

[Jumperalex]

While I appreciate the joke, Cowboys vs Aliens really is a decent idea that is different than so many of the other [fictional genre X] v. [fictional genre Y] ideas out there. Every movie I can think of that that deals with alien invasion takes place in the time frame the movie is made (ie the present) or some non-specific future. This is a different take, call it a Sci-Fi Period Piece even. What would it look like if aliens invaded during the wild west? I think, if done right, this could be really good. That is as opposed to some of your ideas, and ones that were actually made, that couldn't be made into a quality movie even with unlimited funds and no profit motive.

Now, as to your ideas, I think Matrix v. Inception would be brilliant if for no other reason than the real life Troll Wars that would follow ;-) Now THAT is a movie I would pay full price and buy the popcorn to see.

Re:cowboys and aliens

[MarkRose]

and, the ultimate betrayal that will make you want to murder me right now, just for uttering the words and potentially planting the idea in some hollywood suit's mind:

star wars V star trek

the science fiction fan's ultimate cause for suicide and/ or homicide

Have you not seen Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning?

Re:cowboys and aliens

[Unkyjar]

The matrix v inception? That's been out for 12 years, it's called eXistenZ.

Re:cowboys and aliens

[c6gunner]

tl;dr

Re:cowboys and aliens

[Martin Blank]

I read Harry Turtledove's Colonization series (aliens invade in the midst of World War II but weren't expecting to face much more than knights on horseback), and thought the premise was pretty good. It got rather tired toward the end and had a predictable finale, but the first three books and the culture clashes were good enough that they'd make a decent movie series.

Re:cowboys and aliens

[mikael_j]

If that fanfic is as "unbiased" as that site's "Technology comparison" I'm assuming that it involves Luke Skywalker farting which results in the entire trek universe collapsing in on itself...

Re:cowboys and aliens

[Andreas Mayer]

I'm still trying to get "Donuts, Beer, and Hookers" made.

On second thought, forget about the Donuts and the Beer.

(Sorry, I had too. ;))

Re:cowboys and aliens

[Culture20]

uh, vikings and indians?
good lord
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446013/

Yes, but to be fair, it's Vikings and Skraelings.

Re:cowboys and aliens

[Anonymous Coward]

They "did" star wars V star trek in Fan Boys. Sorta... =P

Wow what a list

[McNihil]

what's even more wow is that I will not be seeing any of the movies... they all seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel. Is there really nothing new under the sun?

Re:Wow what a list

[eddy the lip]

"Now" looks like it might have potential, if only because it's done by the same guy who wrote/directed "Lord of War" and "Gattacca" and wrote "The Truman Show." Each of those actually got the point of SF.

Paul

[Maddog Batty]

I went to see "Paul" last night - the latest Simon Pegg movie. I loved it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBPAGo-Qn8

Re:Paul

[dstyle5]

It has a great cast, but the initial trailers looked so-so. Glad to hear it turned out to be better than what the marketing people thought was a "good trailer".

A list of good sci-fi movies

[tuxrocks3]

I have found a month ago good about sci-fi movies that are worth to be seen.
Although Back to Future really tops everything, haven't seen a better movie ever.

Re:A list of good sci-fi movies

[Desler]

Apparently so good that you had to post about it twice!

Re:A list of good sci-fi movies

[tuxrocks3]

85 victims (and since I use no shorteners, there is no chance of false positives) Not bad, whatdayothink?

Re:A list of good sci-fi movies

[Thud457]

where's the goatse?! I was promised goatse! Dude, looks like wordpress shut you down. I am disappoint. Troll harder.

Re:A list of good sci-fi movies

[tuxrocks3]

So what? I'll just create another blog there. And if you want to see goatse, click here

AC Clark

[Grizzley9]

Some good director really needs to make the Rama series. I can easily see it being a low budget flick but of course could do very well with a good director. Evidently some students made a film in 2003 according to IMDB but nothing big budget.

Re:AC Clark

[davFr]

Wake-up call! David Fincher is planning an adaptation of 'Rendez-vous with Rama', with Morgan Freeman.

"Source Code"???

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I am gonna pony up $9 to escape for 90 minutes from my daily grind in that puppy.... not.

Hell why not just sit in a meeting with the hot chick from HR? Be about the same, and that is free.

No.

[Seumas]

APOLLO 18: Based on a real-world 70s NASA mission that was abandoned due to budget cuts, Apollo 18 reads like a mixture of Duncan Jones' Moon and Paranormal Activity -- BZZZZT!! NO!

ATTACK THE BLOCK: It's Independence Day meets -- BZZZZT!! NO!

COWBOYS & ALIENS: We're really stretching science fiction, now, with this. Good director, though, so . . . .

SUPER 8: Okay, the trailer for this actually looks good. I don't know that it has anything more to do with Science Fiction than Cloverfield does, though (which was just a movie about a bunch of hipsters running away from a shaky camera all night).

REAL STEEL: Wow, that really has NOTHING to do with the Twilight Zone episode it's supposed based on. Also, shouldn't this be a heart warming riot starring Will Smith? This is also really stretching the name "science fiction" in much the same way Warehouse 13 stretches the term "science fiction".

CONTAGION: Let me guess -- it'll have something to do with bird flu or biological warfare and will be as scientifically inaccurate as "Right At Your Door", which was a shitty two hour "science fiction" movie I recently saw where nobody seemed to comprehend the difference between bacteria, a virus, radiation, and nuclear weapons. Seriously, a fucking DIRTY BOMB (a nuclear weapon) went off downtown, so the government instructs everyone in the city to go home and seal up their houses with plastic and duct tape. Then the guy's wife comes home, but it's too late and they leave her outside until they "see what the effects are". She gets worse and people are dying and medical professionals are scouting the neighborhoods putting people out of their misery and/or checking their medical status as they try to develop a cure for the virus (THERE WAS NO VIRUS, IT WAS A NUKE!). Eventually, the man who locks everyone out and stays inside dies, because it turns out that just enough of the stuff from the nuke seeped into his home and his efforts to seal his house shut provided the perfect climate for the bacteria to mutate and become too deadly to overcome (AGAIN, THERE WAS NO VIRUS/BACTERIA -- IT WAS A NUKE). This will be another one of those movies Good Morning America and other shitty television shows use to ask the question "COULD IT HAPPEN HERE?!". *yawn*

THE THING: Won't this be the third time? No thanks. NO. It would have to be the most fucking amazing film ever to justify itself. Also, we already know about "THE THING". The surprise is already gone. Also, The Thing is a horror movie; not science fiction.

RISE OF THE APES: Couldn't care less about more Planet of the Apes. And certainly not from a cast I've never heard of (except for Serkis, which sadly isn't enough to entice me). Seriously. That was 40 years ago. New stuff, please?

THE DIVIDE: The Divide sees New York obliterated by an unspecified apocalyptic event. Huddled in a dank basement, eight survivors battle both a group of armed men in decontamination suits and their own disintegrating psyches in a thriller described as a combination of Assault On Precinct 13 and Lord Of The Flies. -- I'm sure I'll see it, because I'm a sucker for this sort of film, even though it sounds completely unrelated to the science fiction genre. Unfortunately, we've also seen this movie 800 times. Do something new?

Re:No.

[Lumpy]

RUBBER: a sentient tire causes peoples heads to explode... THIS IS A MUST SEE!

Honestly wierd enough to really make you want to see it.

Re:No.

[Quiet_Desperation]

Okay, the trailer for this actually looks good.

Meh. The teaser was cool, but when the real trailer showed up with dumbass kids, I lost all interest. Gosh, I hope there's a plucky, impossibly intelligent dog along for the ride!

This is also really stretching the name "science fiction" in much the same way Warehouse 13 stretches the term "science fiction".

Oh, I dunno. The sport of boxing taken over by robots is a decent speculative idea involving technology.

I'm sure I'll see it, because I'm a sucker for this sort of film, even though it sounds completely unrelated to the science fiction genre. Unfortunately, we've also seen this movie 800 times. Do something new?

I've highlighted your problem with italics, and the cause of it in bold. I hope this helps. ;-)

But seriously, I'd see that all the time on Ain't It Cool News. Guys would say "Wow, that looks horrible! Can't wait to see it!" and in the next paragraph say. "Why can't they make better films?"

Re:No.

[migla]

Meh. That's just flubber and videodrome mashed together. ;)

Re:No.

[geekoid]

Why is the concept of Cowboys and Aliens a stretch? Aliens visit the Earth, but 100 years ago?

Why do the need to arrive now?

retelling the same story with different story tellers is fine.

It's like saying I won't go see Macbeth because I saw it in the 70s.

Bunch of whiny bitches.

Since when horror and supidity pass for Sci-Fi?

[pesho]

Cheapo horror flicks comprise most of the list. The rest of the movies also follow the basic 'Us vs. them shootout' scenario. 'Cowboys vs Aliens'? Really? Whats next, Snakes on a plane? The only movie that is probably worth watching is 'Now'.

Sony?

[countertrolling]

Are we supposed to boycott the Sony pix? Or are we going to wait until they put out something that sucks first? What about the other families? Do we give them our money? I'm jus' sayin.. y'know.. with all the chatter going on about teh evil..

brilliant

[circletimessquare]

only because everything really is better with bacon

Re:brilliant

[fostware]

Kevin Bacon?

Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies

[MozeeToby]

Agreed, while I admit that it is a polarizing movie I just don't understand the other side of the isle. I found it funny, interesting, and exciting. I think the mockumentary opening puts a lot of people off the movie before it really gets rolling. Some people miss the point of it, even though the point is being driven home with a freakin sledge hammer.

Seen the Source Code trailer, already turned off

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much hollywood magic, not enough reality. NEXT.

Still no Spaceballs 2 - The Search for More Money

[tomhudson]

Would it be asking too much?

i forgot

[circletimessquare]

planet of the apes V alice in wonderland. if only because tim burton could cook it up by just splicing together some old footage

and finally, lest we forget the classics:

bambi v godzilla

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi_Meets_Godzilla

Re:i forgot

[Seumas]

Remember when Tim Burton's movies used to not suck ass? Granted, that was like twenty years ago, but . . .

Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies

[thedonger]

District 9 was an interesting idea (hey, aliens! Wait, the dregs of alien society?), but I found the execution was, well, "earthly." In the end is wasn't much more than a tale of mistreated refugees. I can watch that on CNN.

Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies

[tophermeyer]

It'll get your hopes up.

Wow

[ledow]

I always considered myself a geek, so like the sci-fi genre. But that list... wow. That's enough to turn me off going to the movies forever. It's like "Remakes meet Bad Plotlines", to paraphrase the article.

Apollo 18 - some made up crap about something that never flew (see U-571).

Attack The Block - gangsters take on aliens with baseball bats in London (Left4Dead in a movie, badly).

Cowboys & Aliens - "When aliens invade the 19th century West," - 'nuff said.

Super 8 - kids see alien walk away from train crash.

Real Steel - regurgitated Twilight Zone crap with fighting robots.

Contagion - disease-killing-everyone movie.

The Thing (a prequel) - dear God, no!

Now - vaguely interesting "live forever" soap opera.

Rise Of The Apes - dear God, no!

The Divide - apocalyptic survival movie.

Serious, the sci-fi genre has become this pile of trash? God. Yeah, once in a while maybe, as a light relief, but that's not "sci-fi".

Re:Wow

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Apollo 18 - some made up crap about something that never flew (see U-571).

Except U-571 was a real U-boat and the movie wasn't meant to be any kind of fiction, it was completely inaccurate "historical" movie. "Some made up crap" is the definition of of fiction. That's the "fi" part of "sci-fi", in case you weren't aware.

[Moaning about everything else]

"Wahh! Movies aren't books! Sci-fi is for books because books are filled with words for intelligent people like me. By making movies about sci-fi they're implying that sci-fi isn't inherently for smart people and therefore they're treading on the one thing I have to hold on to when I look at my wasted life and my faded dreams. I've never created anything so I'll reflexively dismiss anything in media forms that might by consumed by those idiot masses, that dares to contradict my belief that my chosen genre as the retreat of misunderstood supergeniuses like myself. Wah!!"

Is that about right?

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

In no particular order

Attack The Block
-Some of the cast of "Shawn of the Dead". Quit your whining (please :) )
-It's OK to have a little fun

Cowboys & Aliens - "When aliens invade the 19th century West," - 'nuff said.
-based on a decent comic. It looks like they are trying to stay true to the source material. What's wrong with that?

Real Steel - regurgitated Twilight Zone crap with fighting robots.
-looks OK. This will not be "Kangaroo Jack". Are you calling Twilight Zone crap?

Apollo 18 - some made up crap about something that never flew (see U-571).
-Last I checked, there is a lot of Sci-Fi (SPECULATIVE FICTION) that is essentially "made up crap".

I don't have time to comment on all of these, but, man, you sound kinda grumpy.

Re:Wow

[Quiet_Desperation]

Did you notice almost every one was described as "$PREVIOUS_WORK_1 meets $PREVIOUS_WORK_2"?

The only one of remote interest is Real Steel because, heck, big fightin' robots will at least be some eye candy.

Re:Wow

[DerekLyons]

Serious, the sci-fi genre has become this pile of trash?

Since roughly .023 microseconds after the genre was created. Seriously, it's always been this way - a very few gems floating in a sea of utter drek.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

If you seriously consider yourself a geek, a real geek, and you're still looking to film for anything resembling even mediocre sci-fi? You're just fooling yourself into thinking that the mainstream wants real sci-fi or you've fooled yourself into thinking you're a geek.

If you're a serious geek who doesn't mind a little of the old sci-fi you already know that 98% of what hits the bookshelf is shit. How do you expect one of a dozen mainstream films that come out in a year that proudly fly the sci-fi flag to do any better?

You should have given up on mainstream film about 20 seconds after the closing credits of Dune and you'd be good.

Re:Wow

[More Trouble]

Contagion is by Soderburgh, so there's some chance it could be good to very good. There's also a reasonable chance that it will be completely unintelligible crap. Guess I'll wait for the reviews :)

Re:Wow

[Chelloveck]

Apollo 18 - some made up crap about something that never flew (see U-571).

Oh, come on. Isn't nearly every movie some "made up crap"? And practically every science-fiction movie revolves around some completely fictional device.

Cowboys & Aliens - "When aliens invade the 19th century West," - 'nuff said.

That one actually looks like it has potential, as long as they don't fall into the trap of assuming that the humans have 21st century moral and cultural values.

Super 8 - kids see alien walk away from train crash.

Yeah, and Sixth Sense was "kid sees dead people". What's your point?

Hell, you can burn practically every story ever made down to a trite one-sentence description, especially if you limit yourself to the story's setup.

Star Wars - Orphaned kid learns he has special powers and plays hero in space.
Harry Potter - Orphaned kid learns he has special powers and plays hero in a shadow culture of magicians.
Superman - Orphaned kid learns he has special powers and plays hero on an alien world.
TRON Legacy - Orphaned kid learns he has special powers and plays hero in a computer simulation.
Lord of the Rings - Orphaned (probably, we never see Frodo's parents) kid-size being has a magic ring which gives him special powers and plays hero on a volcano.
The Bible - Orphaned (or at least fatherless) kid learns he has special powers and plays hero in the desert. Unlike the others, this one has something of a downer ending, similar to the movie Brazil.

Ho-hum, all the same, nothing original any more, going to hell in a handbasket, not like when I was a kid, yadda yadda...

Re:Wow

[Rinikusu]

Speaking as a 37 year old, the same criticisms could be made for all the shitty sci-fi films I loved as a kid. Ever try to go back and watch that shit now, 30 years later? Megaforce, Solar Babies, Road Warrior, Deathrace 2000, Logan's Run, The Last Starfighter, millions of others. Most of those were pure fluff, exactly as now, and I'll still watch it. What you're seeing is the latest versions of this stuff and in 30 years, some other 30-40 somethings will be bitching about the state of "sci fi" today and go back to watching their "classics" that you deride today.

I'll be seeing at least 3 of the above. :)

Re:Wow

[Culture20]

The Bible - Orphaned (or at least fatherless) kid learns he has special powers and plays hero in the desert. Unlike the others, this one has something of a downer ending, similar to the movie Brazil.

You never read the sequel? He's dead for three days, then comes back to life, talks to His friends, does a few more miracles, then ascends bodily to heaven, promising to come back. Mighty upbeat, unless you consider all the guys that expected Him to come back while they were still alive. I'm sure they're surprised it's been a couple millennia now.

Re:Wow

[geekoid]

Apollo 18 - some made up crap about something that never flew (see U-571). unlike the USS-1701?

Attack The Block - gangsters take on aliens with baseball bats in London - What, there isn't anything interesting about city warfare against an invading species?

"Cowboys & Aliens - "When aliens invade the 19th century West," - 'nuff said."
no, not enuogh said. Why is the idea that aliens would arrive during a different time automatically bad?

"Super 8 - kids see alien walk away from train crash."
yea, it certainly isn't about any of the event that happen.

Real Steel - regurgitated Twilight Zone crap with fighting robots.
It's based on a 1956 short story; a story twilight zone happened to do as well. And why peopel ahve a problem with fighting robots is beyond me.

"The Thing (a prequel) - dear God, no!"

why not? Something happened prior to the thing.

Now - Now is classic sci-fi subject matter.

Rise of the Apes - My only beef with it is that it changes the PotA canon. Ceaser specifically exist because of the time travel.

The Divide - Classic sci-fi subject matter.

There is not one damn thing wrong about ANY of those premises.

You have set the term 'Sci-fi' to some artificially high level that one exist for movie that 'meet' you wish washy expectations.

You are a whiny bitch and a poser.

Will those movies be good tales of those premises? I know know. IN some cases I have my doubts. But as concepts they are fine.

Re:Wow

[geekoid]

Stand back man, he builds web site; that means he ia a veritable Genius!

Re:Wow

[geekoid]

That has to do with the poor description. The Author clearly can't describe things for himself so he jsut does comparisons.

I can take ANY move and compare it to two other concepts.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. What an intelligent rebuttal. Are you just pissed because someone else shows you up for the moron you are? Fuck off cunt.

Re:Wow

[Lunzo]

What about the prequel? It's an epic story starting at the creation of the universe and describing the history of God's people from then until 400 years before the birth of the boy.

You'd probably have enough material to make several movies out of it.

Super 8

[OffaMyLawn]

Probably the only one I will watch, and that is only because it was filmed primarily in my hometown here of Weirton, WV.

Re:Super 8

[BinarySolo]

If you watch the trailer, it does give off a very strong E.T. vibe. Basically E.T. if E.T. was a scary badass alien instead of harmless and innocent.

no

[circletimessquare]

but a better choice than canadian bacon

canadian bacon is an abhorrence before god, a betrayal of all that is good in bacon land

Movies haven't come out yet?

[doperative]

> This is a review of 10 movies that the reviewer hasn't seen, because they haven't come out yet?

That's because he used the Large Hadron Collider to send back reviews from the future ..

MovieGen!

[edawstwin]

so all i have to do is take two stereotypical protagonists, smash them together, and hollywood will give me millions to make a crappy movie?

I actually made a website in the mid-90s based on this idea and dubbed it MovieGen - didn't expect to make money, just great fun. You could press a button, and it would reveal two random movies, like "Alien" meets "Liar Liar". I also added an option for a third, so you could have "Die Hard" meets "Gattaca" with a bit of "Tootsie". Great time-waster, and sadly some of the combinations have certainly been made into actual movies by now.

Not out yet, but

[4d3fect]

What about Radio Free Albemuth? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1129396/

I think I've seen this before. maybe.

[Thud457]

Didn't Denzel Washington already do this in movie 2006? What was that movie's name?

Re:I think I've seen this before. maybe.

[ErroneousBee]

Don't you mean ...

not only that the inside of train cars is off

[Anonymous Coward]

not only that the inside of train cars is off they are NOT metra cars but THE OUT SIDE LOOK like them.

Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies

[NitroWolf]

District 9 was an interesting idea (hey, aliens! Wait, the dregs of alien society?), but I found the execution was, well, "earthly." In the end is wasn't much more than a tale of mistreated refugees. I can watch that on CNN.

That was kind of the point of the movie...

Sunshine?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised no one ever mentions Sunshine when mentioning good, recent, SciFi movies. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/

Re:Still no Spaceballs 2 - The Search for More Mon

[CelticWhisper]

What about Spaceballs 3 - The Search for Spaceballs 2?

you're scaring me

[circletimessquare]

i don't want to see a terminator with the power of 1.2 jigawatts of plutonium from libyan terrorists, driving a delorean

Re:you're scaring me

[Quiet_Desperation]

Actually, a film about a war between parallel Earths that involves characters from previous films could be a lot of fun if done right.

You are not a target market.

[owlnation]

What most of you seem not to understand about sci-fi movies in particular, and most movies in general, is that in order for them to be successful, they need to target the movie to the cinema-going audience.

And folks, that's 12-25 year olds. Specifically for most action movies they are targeting 14 year old boys. (Romcoms are 14 year old girls). And that's the average 14 year old, not just the smartest ones.

Most modern sci-fi movies don't fail as far as Hollywood is concerned -- they make an enormous amount of money and kids love them. Sure, adults, critics and sci-fi fans really hate them, but there's not enough of us going to the cinema to make the slightest bit of difference to Hollywood profits.

Henceforth, you will not see an adult story with realistic dialogue, great acting, great photography and an original plotline. What you will see is 2d good vs bad characters, loads of VFX, melodramatic heroism, and dialogue that no person (nor alien) would ever say in their lives. Because their lowest common denominator teenage audience requires big, flashy, shallow stuff, and nothing else.

The days of adult movies are finished -- in every genre of movies, not just sci-fi. Adults do not go to the cinema. Not enough of them to count anyway. (yes, adult indie arthouse movies will still get made, but they are niche market with niche profits, if any profits. Few of those are ever sci-fi.)

Just wait to see how much you are going to hate "Foundation". There is absolutely no way they can make that movie to satisfy the same target demo as the books. It's going to be a VFX-fest. 14 year old jocks will love it -- none of us will.

The golden age of sci-fi movies is OVER. It is unlikely ever to return with current distribution and marketing methods.

Re:You are not a target market.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe more people out of that age group would go to movies if they didn't suck? Certainly they might have the money to do so...

Re:You are not a target market.

[HeckRuler]

Well, the solution to this is to get 14 year olds excited about science, technology, and the future. That way we'll finally get some quality sci-fi movies again. Plus, you know, maybe another golden age of progress and innovation, but we're mainly interested in the movies.

Re:You are not a target market.

[X86Daddy]

The golden age of sci-fi movies is OVER. It is unlikely ever to return with current distribution and marketing methods.

Actually, the current distribution and marketing methods are beginning to see competition... which means a golden age might just be ahead of us. Iron Sky may or may not represent the dawn of that age (not released yet), but the mechanisms are falling into place.

I look forward to the day that the current distribution and marketing methods are the ones who are OVER. We'll get much better quality on everything, all the way around, thereafter.

Re:You are not a target market.

[geekoid]

The 'golden' age' of Sci-fi is a myth. There is no 'golden age' just a period of time that goes buy that buries all the bad movies/books.

Huh

[Quiet_Desperation]

Is it worth reading past Apollo 18?

Kind'a

[arivanov]

Hollywood has shown no interest in marketing it when it is done right for both Sci Fi and Fantasy. So while sometimes someone gets something right, it does not get even a fraction of the credit it deserves.

Two examples:

1. StarDust. An excellent movie that did not get even a fraction of the marketing and any of the awards Hollywood hands out to all kinds of cr*p.
2. GATTACA. Same, with the difference that it at least got some nominations. No Hollywood award though and once again a laughable marketing budget.

The list of course can be continued...

Re:Kind'a

[kalirion]

1. StarDust. An excellent movie that did not get even a fraction of the marketing and any of the awards Hollywood hands out to all kinds of cr*p.

Actually I saw plenty of TV trailers for Stardust. The problem is that they were not representative of the actual movie at all. I saw the movie on a whim, expecting some generic fantasy attempting to hitch a ride LotR's coattails. Instead I was blown away by the humor and energy of the film.

Re:Kind'a

[mikael_j]

1. StarDust. An excellent movie that did not get even a fraction of the marketing and any of the awards Hollywood hands out to all kinds of cr*p.

I'm amazed how so few people have even heard of Stardust. OTOH, I only noticed it because I read the novel before I heard of the movie and wanted to see how it translated into a movie. I found it quite nice although as seems to be the case, if you've read the book before seeing the movie you are almost always a little disappointed with a things that are lost in the adaption...

Source Code = 12-Monkeys + The Matrix

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't it just that?
Backwards time travel over and over again but with digital instead of analog devices???

*yes, I realize 12 Monkeys is just La Jetée, but I like Gilliam's films

"Now" and "Apollo 18"...

[blind biker]

those two sound interesting, and hard sci-fi-ish.

The rest is all rinse-and-repeat stuff. Still, 2 good sci-fi movies in one year would be terrific achievement.

By the way, the article greatly underrates the number of "pandemic" subgenre movies. There have been dozens in the last few years alone. Maybe several tens in this century.

Where's

[bugs2squash]

A brave new world. I thought that was coming in 2011

You guys have been drinking too much coffee -

[wm_brant]

Because you sound grumpy! Yes, 'great' SF movies are hard to come by - as is great written SF - as is anything else - all of which is otherwise known as Sturgeon's Law. I'd love to see my SF favorites made into movies, but I also know doing so would loose much of what I like about a story. For example, while I loved the imagery in the LOTR movies, I cringed at what had happened to the story and the characters. Still, the movies have a place on my shelf. So be it. Enjoy what is worthwhile, ignore what is not, and don't get your panties in a twist because not every SF movie is great. And lay off the caffeine for a while...

Super 8

[chispito]

According to TFA, Super 8 "looks like a combination of The Goonies and Close Encounters Of The Third Kind." I'm pretty sure the movie that fits that description is E.T.

I for one...

[ks9208661]

am waiting for 2013. I heard it's got more eruptions, destructions, and explosions than 2012!

Source Code

[mrman18766]

Am I the only one that has issues with a program called Source Code?

Would aliens even *need* to invade?

[Quiet_Desperation]

I actually have to give credit to Hubbard's "Battlefield Earth" book (never saw the movie) for a its alien invasion idea. The aliens just sat up in space, safe and sound, and sent giant, automated probes buzzing around Earth that spewed poison gas.

You had me going there..

[Anonymous Coward]

I was almost excited until I looked at the "Sci-fi" movies. I guess that applies to paranormal now. Sci-fi to me means space battles.. or at least some space ships. Apollo 18 wasn't a fictional ship. Scifi had a great run on TV series which is honestly what I prefer, but that is dead/dying and it's really sad. Thanks to the brits there will be at least Doctor Who.

Moviemakers Just Don't Seem to Get Sci Fi

[sarbonn]

Practically none of those titles, aside from Cowboys & Aliens, really seems all that exciting. There are so many great science fiction IPs out there that could develop into such great movies, yet we keep seeing the same old, tired crap. And don't even get me started on remakes, or sequels that are excuses to essentially do a remake decades after the original. Every now and then a director comes along who just gets it, but then a decade or so will go by while we have to wait for someone else to get it again. It's not about the technology that makes science fiction the attractive factor. It's the story, the impact of the drama and the process of seeing our own selves through the lenses of futuristic settings. Roddenberry got it right a long time ago, and every now and then someone figured it out with his idea. Lucas got it right and then immediately forgot what he was doing. It would be so much nicer if great ideas were followed with great writing by people who understand the genre and really appreciate it. But I suspect because it's all about money we end up with people who know very little bit about it who are trying to reproduce what did great once without ever understanding why the crowds flocked to the successes in the first place.

Sci-Fi's best quality

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife professes to hate "sci-fi" but has loved things like...say Cowboy Bebop. I reminded her that it technically IS sci-fi. But, to her, it's the characters and plot that make it great. Sci-fi shouldn't require killer death rays and villainous aliens.

That's why I like it. Once you leave the confines of Earth you can bring in very unique situations, scenarios, and plots without being tied down to Earthly constraints. Take one my personal favorites Solaris (I actually prefer the Clooney version) - the story is a meditation on grief and human relationships...for the most part. The sci-fi background just allows a kind of "rules free" platform to do it. And, per the critics, it was given a lukewarm reception and certainly didn't play well in theaters.

I think its a shame...

Not just too long...

[denzacar]

Consider Phlebas like The State of the Art has a problem of being about nothing. It lacks the theme that would make it interesting for the viewer.
Even its MacGuffin is irrelevant for the most of the story and pointless in the end. It would have to endure SEVERE changes to be filmable, most of them dealing with characters and their fates.

Now, a Culture book that MIGHT be filmable is The Player of Games. But only should a director like Christopher Nolan be found to do it - but not Nolan himself. Someone of his caliber (he got people to watch a metaphor on movie-making for 2 and a half hours - and love it) but with different "background".
He does great when the theme behind the story can be translated into philosophy and metaphors. The Player of Games needs someone with a background in sociology.

Pushing Ice on the other hand can be easily filmed as a trilogy. With small changes in chronology.
Sadly, the easiest way I see for it to be made is to make it into a Twilight clone.
It's half way there already... Main character being a female named Bella... who gets to be rejuvenated/stay (nearly) forever young...
All it needs is for the aliens to be tall, pale and handsome vampires.

Balanced on a knife edge

[ThatsNotPudding]

One moment hoping someone will take on Larry Niven's Known Space universe; another moment hoping that someone awful won't.

Another with great potential

[ThatsNotPudding]

Rendezvous With Rama. Hell; the seqel and post-sequel are built right in!

Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Read his blog for a compelling argument.

Paranormal bullshit?

[denzacar]

In Contact?

I remember some religious bullshit about "believing" (into something they had physical evidence for) but not paranormal.

Firefly

[chispito]

And of course just to tick everybody off I must ask one question. Why do people get all worked up over Firefly? I enjoyed it and wish it had keep running but it wasn't really hard science fiction. Frankly it was "The Outlaw Jose Wales" in space. That isn't a bad thing but people get so worked up over it.

The western/Chinese twang/slang always seemed kind of jarring to me. Otherwise, it was a fun show. As for hard scifi, one of my favorites is an anime series called Planetes. It's about astronauts whose job is to de-orbit space junk.

Movie based on a cartoon...

[denzacar]

...that was basically created in order to market a toy. You know... a series of 20-minute commercials.

Kinda like with Masters of the Universe. Or G.I. JOE.

Rama?

[denzacar]

Well... that project has been kicked around already. Only not with Michael Bay.

Cockneys vs Zombies!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cockneys vs Zombies? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1362058/

attack the block is aka Chavs vs Aliens

Enders Game? Easy...

[denzacar]

Simply film just the original story, not the whole book.

In fact, you could probably film all that in half an hour or 40 minutes.

Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies

[TheRaven64]

What? The basic premise was 100% stolen from Alien Nation. Well, they moved it from LA to South Africa, but that's about it. They then didn't bother much with a plot and just spent the entire movie alternating between saying RACISM IS BAD (duh) and blowing stuff up. Oh, except that, according to the film, racism is only bad when it's directed at aliens. When you're assuming that all Nigerians are criminals, then it's absolutely fine and dandy.

Transformers, Battle:LA and... Number 4?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face it, most of these will be unbelievably terrible, just like the Transformers movies or the recent Battle of LA movie. Or that Number 4 movie.

Possibly - but perhaps you're going to these movies with the wrong mindset to begin with?

I'll confine this, for the most part, to the basic problem you might have: these are not sci-fi movies at all.

Transformers is entirely fiction with a basis in a cartoon in which giant robots that transform into other objects land on Earth and have a bit of a kerfuffle there instead of some random deserted planet where the pesky humans wouldn't be in the way. I don't know what level of science fiction you were expecting there.

Battle:LA -might- be labeled sci-fi, but then that would make Independence Day sci-fi. They're not sci-fi, they're just alien invasion movies. More often than not, these are VFX show-off projects. Skyline took that to an extreme (a VFX house, HydraulX, actually produced it, after all - also did the VFX for Battle:LA, by the way), but it's true for just about all of these movies.

Then there's "I am Number Four". Where there is -some- possibility of mislabeling Transformers and Battle:LA as sci-fi (and you might find them in the sci-fi section in a store), "I am Number Four" falls squarely into the fantasy genre along with e.g. Twilight, Harry Potter and to an extent the X-Men series. The only even remotely scientific bit in the movie was the home security system.. and that's stretching the definition of scientific to a breaking point.

So if you were to watch them for what they are, rather than, did they 'do it right'? Yes. Absolutely. If nothing else, the box office results say they did. But even ignoring the monetary aspect, each of those movies delivered almost exactly what one would expect from them.
For example, I thought I am Number Four was juvenile, full of plot holes, and the random pretty girl was random. But let's face it, that movie was made for the 14-19 year old audience who don't care much about plot holes as long as there's a cute guy/girl to ogle and some budding love interest story, an underdog story, etc. no matter how shallow - and given the reactions from the younger people in the theater, I'd say they'd agree.
So perhaps I didn't enjoy it as much as I would have if they'd made it more mature - but clearly they 'did it right' for their target audience.

The second problem you're facing is that you read books. Nothing wrong with that - I read books, too. But I don't read very many books - I spend my time on other things which you may or may not find less important than reading books, but it's my time to spend. I do know, however, that as a result of this my entire mind is far more accepting of movies with all of their flaws and others' interpretations of things. I.e. "A dark creature, glistening in the light of the torch, crept slowly along the wall, each step crumbling the plaster as its claws strike." is going to conjure a different visual representation for everybody which is almost entirely certain to be a visual representation that works more effectively for that person, than another person's representation as is required for movies.
This holds especially true with books that are turned into movies - it is very rare to hear that somebody liked the movie better than the book, but this is far more often true if the person has read the book first and then seen the movie, than when it's the other way around.

Anyway, I'm glad that you find there are still productions where you're wrong in your assumption and I hope you enjoy those to the fullest.

Inception disproved this

[peter303]

It was an 'adult" film requiring more attention than your average high school boy has. It turned out to be 2010 2nd largest grossing film and got some respectable film awards. I didnt particularly like it. but shows you can make an adult scfi film.

Source Code

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you guys really looked into this movie at all? The name "source code" attracted me at first, I'll admit, but if you go watch the trailer, you'll see its a terribly cheesy hollywood sci-fi churn-out with a ridiculous premise and NOTHING to do with source code or computer software WHATSOEVER. Its about some new military technology that lets you relive the last moments of someone's life in a virtual reality. Okay, so Jake Gyllenhaal wants to be the next Keanu Reeves. This movie looks like it'll be annoying to watch if you're technically proficient, another of those where the tech comes down to just nonsense techno-babble. "I dropped a logic bomb through the trap door." You sure did, Jackman.

The "Science" is the fiction.

[mosb1000]

Science fiction is not about solid science. Science fiction is when an author asks "what if we could do this?" and then uses a hypothetical technology to make that possible. By definition no technology that would make a work science fiction is possible with today's understanding of the world. If it were, we'd just call it "fiction" because that's all it would be.

Think of it this way, the science in "science fiction" is what is fictional. These works require the audience to suspend their disbelief of what is or is not possible in order to digest the greater point the author is trying to make, or in order to be entertained by the work if that is the author's intent. If you are unable or unwilling to suspend your disbelief, that is your loss. But you need to understand that there is no real difference between a hypothetical technology you can accept and one you can't, because neither is really possible. Neither is based on "solid science". It's just your opinion that one may be possible and the other may not be.

In making the distinction between what you think may be possible and what you think may not be possible, you are missing the point of the genera.

2011 Videodrome re-make?

[Anonymous Coward]

It got the green light in 2009, was pending a 2011 release date. Anyone heard anything?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videodrome#Remake

Re:Still no Spaceballs 2 - The Search for More Mon

[stdarg]

I must have missed the original "Spaceballs 3 - The Search for Spaceballs"

Based on a Graphic Novel

[Anonymous Coward]

Cowboys vs. Aliens is based on a graphic novel that I read sometime back and wasn't bad at all. Had a decent (if predictable) story and good characters. I'm really looking forward to seeing a movie adaptation of this. I think there's better chance of a good movie adaptation of a graphic novel than of a raw SF story.

Captcha: pervert Really?

"hard" scifi

[roc97007]

I'm conflicted. "Hard scifi", the way many geeks mean it, means I will sit through long periods of nothing much until we get to the inevitable downer ending. So I get to say "ok, as a reasonably knowledgeable geek I couldn't find any technical issues with the plot beyond the single mcguffin that makes the story possible, but geeze, that was no fun at all." Solaris, (the American remake) Mission to Mars, and a large number of sci-fi flicks from the sixties and seventies fall into this category. And, to a certain extent, the last several years of the Star Trek franchise, before the reboot.

On the other hand, there's Transformers 2. I think I just threw up in the back of my mouth. It wasn't just that it was an action flick. It was a *bad*, incoherent, and at times openly offensive action flick. I couldn't even enjoy it from a mindless eye-candy perspective.

What I'm looking for in a sci-fi film is something that gets most details right, shows good imagination, and is at the same time fun or at least interesting to watch. Duncan Jones' "Moon" falls into that category. Except for the stupid robot attack dog, Red Planet would have fallen into that category. Although others may disagree, I submit that "Aliens" fits into that category. ("Alien" was ok but I'm not a fan of gothic horror/slasher flicks, and setting it in space does not make it less so.)

Maybe it's just my perception, but there seems to be some unwritten rule that "hard" SF films must also be slow and/or depressing. (Usually both.) That's not the case with written SF, and it doesn't have to be the case with SF films. (Think "Have Space Suit, Will Travel" with Duncan Jones directing.) But if things get too energetic, or the story is brought to a too-successful conclusion, geeks will flutter their soft little hands and say "it's only an action flick".

I would like to think that there's more choices than that.

Re:"hard" scifi

[geekoid]

Hard sci-fi doesn't exist. What exists is movie that make people feel like they are intellectual because they are slow and have a different ending.

Sci fi is a sub-genera of fiction. That is all. Hell I could argue it's a specific sub genre of fantasy.

Problem with the "people" part...

[denzacar]

At least when done by Hollywood is that it simply boils down to drama.
And when I say drama, I mean what passes for drama on TV. From Housewives to REAL Housewives. That's what they think of when they say drama.
Characters yelling at each other.

As for "I robot" - it failed cause it sucked. All it took from the book was some names and a very distorted understanding of three laws.
At the same time it was utterly formulaic "renegade cop" movie - only with robots. Robots equipped with a handy "I Evil" LED indicator inside their chests that turns red when they decide to start killing people.
Also, pointless product placements.

Star Maker

[Anonymous Coward]

Rumor has it that Micheal Bay's next transformers movie is going to be an adaptation of Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker... I CAN'T WAIT!

We don't want sci-fi films

[Anonymous Coward]

We want them in series form over multiple seasons. Sci-fi stories are just too large for the big screen.

Couldn't agree more.

[SirJorgelOfBorgel]

Mod parent up, good points given, couldn't agree more.

I'm a big fan of both sci-fi and fantasy books, and have a great many shelves filled with them. But honestly, the "purists" should sod off the same way all extremists should and you know... get a life or something and stop being a hating basementdweller.

Re:Couldn't agree more.

[Anonymous Coward]

As the GGP who never even finished the third novel (and didn't think the trilogy was all that special anyway) it's hard for me to be a purist. The sequels simply catered to the action demographic, and that's an undeniable fact. I never said I hated the two films. I only said they weren't the best examples of preserved classics.

But please keep assuming things about me; it's fun to read.

Re:Couldn't agree more.

[rainmouse]

But please keep assuming things about me; it's fun to read.

Actually the second person 'you' was actually directed at the vibe of general dissatisfaction and assumption all these films would be crap by many here and elsewhere and not actually you but I see how it is a mistake to use the word when also quoting someone at the start of the post. My apologies if you assumed it was a rant at you (this time the you is actually directed at you).

Neuromancer

[colonel spalding]

When will Ridley Scott or James Cameron make a film out of that great trilogy. It would be enough for me to watch those 3 movies every day.

I've seen this already...

[helios17]

eight survivors battle both a group of armed men in decontamination suits and their own disintegrating psyches
It was the Frictional Games Penumbra and Amnesia

"I Robot" wasn't I Robot

[Mozai]

Most people don't know that the movie version of "I Robot" didn't start that way. It was an entirely different screenplay, the studio got the rights to some of Asimov's short stories, and retrofitted pieces of the Susan Calvin stories onto a screenplay they already had.

That's why "I Robot" didn't seem like the story -- it was another story entirely, decorated with Asimovian merchandise.