Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Potentially Great Sci-fi Films Still Due In 2011

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the gremlins-on-the-wings dept.

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.

50 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Lets face it by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Lets face it by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Lets face it by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      I take it that this list was before Moon?

    3. Re:Lets face it by thedonger · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    4. Re:Lets face it by tophermeyer · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:Lets face it by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:Lets face it by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Lets face it by dpilot · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    8. Re:Lets face it by just_another_sean · · Score: 2

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

      You just answered your own question.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    9. Re:Lets face it by need4mospd · · Score: 2

      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.

    10. Re:Lets face it by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      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

    11. Re:Lets face it by witherstaff · · Score: 2

      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.

    12. Re:Lets face it by NEW22 · · Score: 2

      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.

    13. Re:Lets face it by Miseph · · Score: 2

      "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.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    14. Re:Lets face it by rainmouse · · Score: 2

      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.

    15. Re:Lets face it by geekoid · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  2. Ringworld... by Grog6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:Ringworld... by natehoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:Ringworld... by gilleain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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...

    3. Re:Ringworld... by rufty_tufty · · Score: 2

      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...

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    4. Re:Ringworld... by NitroWolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Ringworld... by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:Ringworld... by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 2

      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!

    7. Re:Ringworld... by thomst · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Check out my novel.
    8. Re:Ringworld... by IICV · · Score: 2

      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).

  3. Sci-fi isn't about the technology by sandytaru · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology by Seumas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  4. Re:So let me get this straight. by andrea.sartori · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Mostly harmless.
  5. Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  6. One missing! by Mr+Europe · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    1. Re:One missing! by severn2j · · Score: 2

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

  7. cowboys and aliens by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:cowboys and aliens by Abstrackt · · Score: 2

      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!

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    2. Re:cowboys and aliens by molo · · Score: 2

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

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

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
  8. No. by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  9. Re:Stoked by gilleain · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. Wow by ledow · · Score: 4, Informative

    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".

    1. Re:Wow by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    2. Re:Wow by More+Trouble · · Score: 2

      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 :)

    3. Re:Wow by Chelloveck · · Score: 2

      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...

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  11. Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies by NitroWolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  12. You are not a target market. by owlnation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:You are not a target market. by X86Daddy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  13. Re:So let me get this straight. by Jiro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  14. Would aliens even *need* to invade? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

    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.

  15. Moviemakers Just Don't Seem to Get Sci Fi by sarbonn · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Sarbonn's blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/blog
  16. Inception disproved this by peter303 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:"hard" scifi by geekoid · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. Neuromancer by colonel+spalding · · Score: 2

    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.