MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Sci-fi Films

Sci-fi Films

posted 4 years ago by Ace_Spade (9336)
54 replies | jump to latest

Science-fiction is such a broad category of storytelling, and there are lots of plum candidates for the top spot. 2001: A Space Odyssey gets listed a lot, but how can you compare that to Star Wars?

Some people want cerebral head-games or thought experiments, others want metaphors for the human condition told through scientific advancement. Or maybe what you look for in sci-fi is different? The exploration of a strange, new world. Or is it just laser gunning that you crave?

Here are my questions:

What kind of science-fiction is your favourite? (ie, what do you look for in a great sci-fi?)

and

What is your favourite sci-fi flick?

For me, I'd have to say that I love it when theoretical, scientific concepts (usually supposed or anticipated technological advancement, but could be more outlandish like aliens or "psychics") are used to explore humanity.

2001 might be the best example of this, but I was also really enthralled recently by Arrival and its exploration of both language and time (and aliens!) as a catalyst to thinking about fate, family, connection, and harmony/balance in our personal lives.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12253) 4 years ago

There are also sub-genres to consider, as well as two main categories science fiction stories fall into.

It's similar to having High and Low Fantasy. For sci-fi, we have "Hard Science Fiction," and "Soft Science Fiction."

Hard Science-Fiction: is heavy on the technical details, uses real-world science, very cerebral on explanations, etc.

Soft Science-Fiction: is more fantastical, doesn't explain the tech involved as much, even has fantasy aspects.

Sub-genres of sci-fi include things like:

-social commentary
-robots
-thought experiments (like you said)
-dystopian future
-time-travel
-alien invasion
-alien encounters of some kind (can be good or bad)
-space colonization
-future stories
-traveling to other dimensions
-space travel in general
-space exploration (sometimes to new planets, sometimes not)
-human condition (like what you said)
-space opera
-war in space
-psychic stuff
-ancient alien influence
-mutations making humans super
-fantastical family stories (usually involving aliens)
-advancement in technology and the consequences
-artificial intelligence
-genetic engineering

There are more, those are just the ones I can think off the top of my head

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

Point well-taken: there are endless permutations, it seems, to most genres, and sci-fi is certainly no exception.

So do you have a preference? Maybe even like a top 5 or top 3 favourite sub-genres? And, if so, do you have a favourite film or two that exemplify those sub-genres? Or maybe an overall sci-fi film that you've got a soft spot for?

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 4 years ago

Aliens (1986)
- Can't beat it for an action shoot 'em up. The plot reminds me of an old Western.
Blade Runner (1982)
- Atmosphere and melancholy in spades.
The Fifth Element (1997)
- In your face all over the place wacky comedy plus quite a good story.
Forbidden Planet (1956)
- The best as far as story goes but let down a little by some unnecessary buffoonery.
Pitch Black (2000)
- Some awful visual effects but a good story and Radha Mitchell is so appealing as Carolyn.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)
- I really like this film so sue me. Good action, great visuals and an appealing young cast.
The X-Files Movie (1998)
- Solid stand alone film that focuses on the Alien conspiracy.

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

Aliens is a top-grade action flick.

Blade Runner is a top-tier contender for the crown for me, too.

Luc Besson's whole catalogue is wacky and wonderful. I think he's underrated and misunderstood as a director.

I haven't seen Pitch Black or Forbidden Planet, yet...

You dig what you dig. I understand the "fun factor" with TFA.

Haven't seen X-Files films either. Loved the TV show, though. Well...up until David Duchovny left. Then I stopped watching.

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

I reluctantly saw Pitch Black in the theater when it was new. Reluctantly because I'm not generally into sci-fi horror hokum.
But it was, to me, a fairly taut and spare bit of suspenseful entertainment. Because it didn't have a big budget, they seemed to do the best they could with tension and payoff.
Might not play as well now on the small screen and with today's sensibilities, but I liked it at the time.

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

Forbidden Planet's buffoonery is thankfully a very very small part. Tremendous film.

X Files is a very good film. I don't understand the hate. I think it is better than the series.

Not a fan of Blade Runner. I've tried the various version. Some nice visuals.

Aliens is one of the very best, right up there with Alien, 2001, Forbidden Planet, Star Wars, Close Encounters.

I am hoping to watch the original War of the Worlds and Starman this week.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

the thing
alien
the day the earth stood still
forbidden planet
the village of the damned
invasion of the body snatchers

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

Village of the Damned is sci-fi? I haven't seen it, I assumed it was horror...

I forget about The Thing a lot, more fool me.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

horror/sci-fi

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

Alien's one of my favourites, too; that's definitely horror/sci-fi.

[–] jriley555 (7048) 4 years ago

I enjoy most SF which (and this a distinct minority) doesn't make ridiculous assumptions or engage in out-and-out fantasy to drive the narrative - some of my favorites :

the martian
moon
district 9

i wish someone would someday do 'rendezvous with rama'

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

Yeah, I know a lot of people who don't classify Star Wars as sci-fi at all, but rather as "space opera", or sometimes even just calling it "fantasy". Which, I think that's fair. It follows the tropes of samurai movies and westerns more closely than sci-fi films, and the mysticism isn't coming from most sci-fi (although, Akira has psychics in spades).

I've personally always felt like the Harry Potter series is more like James Bond than Lord of the Rings. They're not really fantasy, they're thrillers/mysteries for kids/teens. Magic in Potter-world functions more like Q Branch than something Gandalf or the witches of Macbeth would get into.

Moon is FANTASIC! I love that. It's so brilliant and brilliantly done.

[–] jriley555 (7048) 4 years ago

yes, i see what you mean.

moon is certainly a classic, in my top 20 films for sure.

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

David Bowie's kid directed it, too. Obviously something of the "Ziggy Stardust" gene got passed along...

[–] moviechatterer (13226) 4 years ago

but rather as "space opera",
I dont like it when they do that , i get it , its not Hard scifi sure, and theres the force thingy , i agree . But its got laser guns and spaceships ffs!
Its definitely sci fi - because sci fi is a pretty wide ranging genre , as previous posts point out.
Nearly all sci fi movies have plots that can be done without the scifi , scifi is pretty much usually just the setting , the actual story is the other genre blended in - action horror adventure whatever.

Its just occured to me that I'm not sure what whoever coined the opera term meant.
Soap Opera or Fat Lady Sings Opera?
I dont think the people who use it have thought much about it either , they just use to dismiss star wars as "not proper scifi"

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

I'm guessing soap opera in that it is an ongoing serial story. But I could be wrong about that.

I agree: it's not "hard" sci-fi, but it is sci-fi.

[–] Keelai (31793) 4 years ago

I like intelligent, ground-breaking and time-bending sci-fi the best. But I like all sci-fi including old B-movies. I'm drawn to the ideas, visuals and creativity. There's something exciting about creating an entire universe with its own rules.

My favorites are the original Planet of the Apes films and TV series. Also, Star Trek, Star Wars, Alien and the first sequel, Terminator, Gattaca and I just rewatched Age of Adaline. The original Roswell, Los in Space (both series), Twilight Zone. But, I really enjoy practically everything.

I started getting into Marc Levy books which tend to be fantasy and science-fantasy. Some of them have become movies.

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

I haven't even heard of Age of Adaline. Is that a movie or a TV show?

What's a good Marc Levy book to start on?

[–] Keelai (31793) 4 years ago

It's a movie. The woman doesn't age. It's a fantasy/romance. I consider it a science-fantasy.

Levy is like a French Steven King (or Rod Serling), but his books are more fantasy and science-fantasy with plenty of romance and comedy. A few have been made into movies. I liked the movie "Just Like Heaven".

I'm really enjoying "The Shadow Thief" book.

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

I'll have to check some of his stuff out! Thanks for the recommendations!

[–] Keelai (31793) 4 years ago

You're welcome. I find the plots of the books to be interesting.

[–] Keelai (31793) 4 years ago

I just remembered a few darker TV series I watched, "Man in the High Castle", "The Handmaid Tales", "The Plot Against America", 11.22.63", and movies like "Intersteller" and "Inception".

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

Man in the High Castle is on my list; it's been recommended a lot. I haven't seen the others, though.

I liked Inception a lot, but I wasn't that into Interstellar.

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

Steven King and Rod Serling have something in common?

[–] Keelai (31793) 4 years ago

Both created plenty of interesting and memorable stories from a wide range of genres like fantasy/science-fiction/horror. Both incredibly talented and creative.

[–] aliensalmon (5078) 4 years ago

Favorite types of sci-fi: ones with good stories and relatable themes, I guess. Ones that give lessons about the real world. Kinda hard to explain.

Favorite sci-fi movie: I'd say District 9 (2009). I liked how relatable the alien characters were and how they taught the main human character to be more...well, human.

[–] Keelai (31793) 4 years ago

The best sci-fi gives lessons about the world.

Star Trek was social commentary about the U.S. in the 60s, racism, war, computer taking jobs, etc.

V was about Nazi Germany. Star Wars prequels were about how a democracy becomes a tyranny.

[–] aliensalmon (5078) 4 years ago

I agree!

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

I used to joke with people that sci-fi at it's best wasn't about the science or the fiction, it was about the real world and who we are or can become.

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

District 9 was great. The racism/apartheid allegory was a bit heavy-handed, but the movie was almost better for how heavy-handed it was. It wasn't trying to "outthink" you necessarily, just tell a great story.

Modern filmmakers could take note, too. District 9 is how you send a progressive message with film without pandering or going overboard with it.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

For me, what I mostly look for in a scifi is NEW ideas. Scifi is about imaginations, to imagine new things, new techs, what ifs. It's about giving the audience a challenge to think, to ponder.

I don't like mundane lazy old tropes used again and again in scifis. Blade Runner, for example, gave us new and exciting cyberpunk universe and new perspectives on artificiality, etc. Blade Runner 2049, on the other hand, offers nothing new. All the tropes are old. They have all been done. The virtual girlfriend is exactly the same as in the movie Her. If it was a Chinese movie it would have been called a ripoff.

Even when it's beautifully shot and well-produced, I just yawned the entire movie. Ad Astra, a very flawed movie, I enjoyed more because at least it tackles new concept that I think has never been done before. That's what I look for in any scifi.

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

I'm hearing a lot of great stuff about Ad Astra. I should check it out.

That's a really great take on the genre, the concept of exploration being integral to sci-fi, not just for the characters within the story, but for the viewers outside of the story.

Here's maybe a little meta-sci-fi in the "time travel" vein: if you watched Blade Runner 2049 before either its predecessor or the film Her, would BR2049 be the "original" since it was the one (in this scenario) that introduced those ideas to you, the viewer, even though it was made later?

After all, Blade Runner itself is just treading over very similar territory (what makes a man? man vs. his own creation/ man as creator of man) to Frankenstein, which Mary Shelley cranked out a hundred years or so before Dick did.

Or, perhaps the film is nothing more than an ersatz version of the book's ideas at the very least...?

You've given me some thinking to do, actionkamen...some deep thinking. Thank you.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

Ad Astra is such an underrated movie in my opinion, yet it's obviously not a masterpiece. The most criticism it gets are because it's super unrealistic. Yes, scifis by it's nature is always unrealistic, but Ad Astra is super unrealistic. It's true, and it honestly distracted me a bit.

However, in hindsight, I think Ad Astra was actually trying a new genre. A "fantasy futuristic" movie. It's not typically what we call scifi but also not Star Wars space opera-ish. An inbetween. A failed one, I guess.

It's like Lord of the Rings (which is not an apt comparison because LoTR is a great movie, unlike Ad Astra, but it's just an example) is a "medieval fantasy" and not an attempt to depict a historical medieval period.

Depicting a fantasy future is of course harder. In a medieval fantasy, we know that in the real historical medieval we don't have orcs or dragons and whatnot. So it's clear from the get go that it's a fantasy. But there is no such thing as a historical future. So we can't possibly know how the future will look like.

Therefore, any futuristic scifi would be judged by our present understanding of REAL WORLD science. As if we would judge LoTR using the same real world knowledge of hostorical medieval. It would make LoTR a terribly bad movie. I mean, what is this? Orcs, elves, wizards? Lol. What an unrealistic silly movie! The lack of understanding of medieval times by the director is laughable! 1/10.

But that's I think what happened with Ad Astra. A fantasy movie that is set in the future. Just not an obvious one.

I guess the maker of Star Wars probably thought about this as well, thus Lucas made it set not in the future of Earth but a long time ago in a galaxy far far away so that it would not be judged using real world science.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

About the Her and BR2049...

I think my problem was not threading on a similar teritory, but no new ideas in BR2049. Everything has been done before. At least put one or two concepts that has never been done before, a new take of a familiar trope. BR2049 has NONE. I guess they were banking on the fact that our protag is not the world savior is the new take, but that can be made in any story, no need for a scifi.

The O.G. BR, if one says it was based on Frankenstein, can absolutely be said as a NEW take on it.

Also... the movie Her itself was a new take on a "virtual girlfriend" trope that might have been used in anime or manga. But the way BR2049 depicted it is exactly the same, not a new take AT ALL.

So if I have never seen Her before I might think that oh that's neat. But then someday when I eventually watch Her and realize that it was made before, it would surely discount my opinion on BR2049. So that movie was just a copycat? What a terrible film.

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

I actually liked Blade Runner 2049. I thought it was a good expansion of a universe without doing a complete retread (like MIBII). Not saying I'm "right", but I did like it.

My musing was just because you'd said that you wanted the movie or book to introduce you to something new, and I was thinking "aloud" that technically that means that any given property might be the first to introduce a concept, even if it wasn't original.

It's interesting to me, because there are properties I enjoy as much for nostalgia as for anything, so if I had watched a film that introduced a certain thing to me, personally, I might not 100% care that it wasn't the first film to do so because it was the first for me.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

That's true too. I just don't like copycats in general, scifis or otherwise. It's just like those icky counterfeit products, like Lepin or something.

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

It's a fine line, though, between theft of ideas and building on what came before. Star Wars gave us an extremely original universe, but it pinched Jedi knights (and plot points from The Hidden Fortress) from Akira Kurosawa's samurai movies, it took the space opera serial saga thing from Flash Gordon, and it helped itself liberally from Westerns.

Firefly is, likewise, extremely original, but it's very much the (entertainment world's depictions of the) old west and certainly owes a bunch of its moves to Star Wars, too.

"There is nothing new under the sun," after all. And that was written a good deal prior to Star Wars or 2001.

All that said... I do know what you mean. Some stuff is a ripoff. It brings nothing original to the way it's meshed everything together, maybe, or something, but... Whatever. I hear you insofar as I do think of some things as being ripped off as opposed to "homage" or even "original".

I don't know where the line is...

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

That's true. Technically speaking, there is nothing new under the sun. But that's just semantics.

Obviously there are new things, new concepts, new takes, new versions, etc. Just because it can't be defined easily doesn't mean that it does not exist. It depends on the meaning of the word 'new' is. It is more "catchy" to say there is nothing new under the sun and makes people nod in wow so insightful. It is, but only to a certain amount.

I don't say BR2049 is a bad movie. Just that I particularly respect / appreciate new-ness in scifis so the fact that there was nothing new makes me don't like it.

That's why I contrasted it with Ad Astra, that while most people (including me) considered it a mediocre or at least a flawed movie, I applaud them for trying new things. While BR2049 doesn't seem to even try.

It's on everything but in scifis it's more pronounced, I guess. Perhaps it's because the nature of scifis is more on the speculation of things. The imagining of things. And what is the value of imagining things when it's only the same old same old?

It's also the problem with the Terminator franchise. The first Terminator brought a muscular robot from the future with chrome endoskeleton and red glowing one eye. Ok, it's new. Terminator 2 gave us a never before seen melting metal shapeshifting robot. That's also new. Terminator 3 and every other sequels after that were just ok we combine both things. Over and over and over again. There is no fundamentally new robot anymore. It's all the same. That's not new.

[–] krankins (1) 4 years ago

Haven't seen X-Files films either. Loved the TV show, though. Well...up until David Duchovny left. Then I stopped watching. https://get-mobdro.com
https://get-tubemate.in