What a mess. This had such potential. It could have and should have been great. I understand the desire to copy the B movie feel but they could have written a coherent story/script and still kept the feel. This was abysmal.
I do give Jolie credit in this though. I am not a fan of her at all but she was very good in this. Maybe the only thing other than the overall look that I liked.
I like the story overall, yeah, its a more old school, but what didn't you like about the story?
Just too plodding along to the next thing or something?
I consider it SCI-FI so that is a license to do anything really
By any legitimate definition, this movie is not science fiction. This is the fantasy genre, maybe SYFY.
sharehere we go. hahhahahahhaahha!
Science: that is fictional
Space rockets
Flying robots
advanced AI
advanced android robotics
gene manipulation
Ray Guns
Flying aircraft carriers
how are those elements "Fantasy"?
It's fictional science, based on possible real sciences (flying, robots, lasers) ... just fictional versions
There is no arguing with the "It's not sci-fi" crowd. Same as the "Die Hard isn't an Xmas movie" mob.
sharehahahaha true true. In the end who cares, but I'm not a fan of "science fiction" getting widdled down to a very tiny specific niche.
" It is important to note that science fiction has a relationship with
the principles of science—these stories involve partially true partially fictitious laws or theories of science. It should not be completely unbelievable, because it then ventures into the genre fantasy."
That works for me.
Advance science, flying robots, rocket ships that use fuel - not some magical purpulsion
You proved you don't know what science fiction is and that you don't want to know. I won't waste my time trying to educate someone who is proud of their ignorance.
shareI think the opposite, here. Science Fiction is a vast realm of possibilities. At its core, it is about people and their reactions to technology. And even that is a limiting definition.
Science Fiction includes:
Hard Science Fiction
Soft Science Fiction
Science Fantasy
Space Opera
Alternative History/Universe
Cyberpunk
Apocalyptic SF
and many more.
Exactly.
shareexactly. kwestmo be trolling. unsuccessfully :D
shareIt's not *hard* science fiction like something from Asimov or Clarke.
That does not meant that it does not fit into the broad science fiction umbrella at all.
kwestmo, I am currently working on a screen play that I consider to be full on science fiction.
It would actually help me to know what the legitimate definition of science fiction is?
Also, that last few movies that are REAL science fiction please. Thanks!
My story briefly is: four scientist astronauts in space ship finding the origin location of the big bang and the issues they confront in their own beliefs about what life is. There is shenanigans with asteroids, various unknown waves, bizaar outerspace happenings, struggles with the onboard technology, alien entities, and more stuff. The science is based and current and soon coming technologies as well as "unknown to science" factors outside definability.
These are more articulate answers than I can provide. Sounds like your story in on the right track. Good luck.
Someone (maybe Clark or Asimov) said: "Sci/Fi is based on world would that could happen but you hope would not. Fantasy is world that could not happen but you wished would." More paraphrase than quote
STAR WARS is fantasy, not science fiction. In the annotated screenplays, Lucas states: "I knew from the beginning that I was not doing science fiction. I was doing a space opera, a fantasy film, a mythological piece, a fairy tale. I really thought I needed to establish from the start that this was a completely made up world so that I could do anything I wanted."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction
https://pediaa.com/difference-between-science-fiction-and-fantasy/
And I wasn't trolling as you posted.
shareNo problem, I get that now. Just always puzzled by these specific, tight guidelines. :)
MY story deals very specifically with the faults of science drawing a blank when coming across things it can't possibly explain within the limits of known sciences. IE before ANY humans observed lightening, it existed, we just didn't know about it to quantify it.
So reaching out to BEYOND known sciences, into the very void of the UNKNOWN, would that make it no longer be science fiction? Does a bit of "fantasy" taint the whole works even though the primary plot is ABOUT science, and sometimes its unknown shortcomings?
Either way, whatever star wars is, it was very entertaining for me. It was great in ships and space and lasers and tech... had it been wizards flying around on dragons with "magic" staffs or something else, there would have been zero attraction for me. Just another fakey, escapist farey tale. I felt star wars with KNOWN sciences was relateable as science but fiction.
I'd have to rewatch it to give specific examples but I recall the narrative was virtually free of sense and I was infuriated by the lack of coherent transitions. I recall being unhappy with the acting as well which surprised me since I like Law (not surprised by Paltrow)
shareyeah, I felt the blue screen neutered the actors.
To me, the story made perfect sense, albeit out there a ways:
scientists escapes with the last key to stop the genecide, AI robots try to track it down while completing the works they were programmed to do, find bad guy passed away at the end, board the ship, short circuit everything, happy ending. Pretty basic, but it all tied together - other than being over the top, like most actions movies of late (coughAVENGERScough)
I can be fine with over the top and I can be fine with simple as well. Even silly can be fine. I need it to be logical and I felt that was lacking. I was super hyped for this movie too. I watched a lot of old Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon reruns as a kid (usually on Tom Hutton's Saturday movie show) so I was ready for a quality homage. I think that they thought the originals were stupid and made a conscious effort to be stupid at points in some ill-conceived homage.
shareexcellent perspective. Always wondered what didn't work for people. I have Buck on disc somewhere, but wasn't able to see the differences. It looked like a decent homage to me, but didn't view it the same as you, and that is totally fair. :)
I thought they did love those old serials and were trying to do it up properly, and THAT'S WHY people didn't enjoy it, because it was such a dated story technique. Like Radio waves coming off a big antenna.... would never "work" in modern action movies :)
I love it *because* it was a mess.
shareI can't even recall the story and I didn't like the CGI purposely designed to make it look unrealistic.
It seemed like someone's extremely cloudy set of ideas.
It should have been awesome though. The problem is that with so many fantasy/SF films, they just don't take it seriously. No true fan of the genre wants their stories to be like a dream. People get into them and they become real.
Marvel is the best at understanding all of this. They took whole bunch of character, technology, etc and just made stories with them and didn't make them silly or apologize for them. That worked very well.
wasn't the look designed around the fuzzy quality of old old films of that era? I didn't think they did it to look dream-like, or cover inferior CGI, but solely for the old glowy film look
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14BBsBa2Sfo
Well, black and white movies are known for being sharp, it's called chiaroscuro, so I don't know.
I see what you're saying about Buck Rogers there. That's free on Amazon if you're ever interested in watching the whole thing.
Anyway, I almost want to watch this movie again just to see what I think. At the time I was totally disappointed as I thought it was going to be a cool steampunk kinda movie, but it wasn't
As someone whose love for this movie knows no end, I would like to encourage you to PLEASE REWATCH THIS MOVIE!
SCATWOT is not hip, not cool, not popular, very dreamlike, and truly an homage to the old serials of the 1930s/1940s. If you're able to find the DVD, be sure to watch the special features that enlarge upon the many influences upon this movie.
I was going to watch it last night but got tired. So, in the next few days I'm going to check it out. It's fairly cheap on Amazon.
shareMy biggest problem with this movie is that it was all special-effects, a bad plot, and characters who were not only not believable, but not very likeable, and didn't show many emotions beyond looking bland, spaced out, or dreamy.
I mean, when you're dodging giant robots like Polly was, you do not have a bored, blank look on your face. You're gonna be scared, creeped out, and shocked. And what kind of a jerk sees a beautiful woman in a fancy, interesting-looking Tibetan coat, and tells her she looks like a mammoth? Or doesn't even help her out of the plane when they landed on that giant, flying aircraft carrier? Was the Sky Captain gay or something?
blank acting... that's the part where I say the full on blue screen hurt their performances. Yup. BUT, they were first with this, breaking ground, trying to figure it all out, all while making an hour and a half long movie. Shame it suffered but still set the pace for everything in the future.
They were friends and lovers before, and he was trying to keep his distance from her. those actions and dialogs worked perfect for me. Especially when he drops her hand to go say hi to Frankie! such a guy move, and flimed on purpose. he had two hot hetro women... does "gay" mean something else these days?
I remember being unimpressed by the the lack of dynamic acting.
It was a huge issues with CGI movies back then. Star Wars was really bad with acts not exactly looking at where the CGI character was supposed to be and bland acting.
Also, this was the beginning of not having males be dynamic lead characters. There are no current exciting male characters in a series and this certainly didn't have one for being called Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, lol.
Yeah, it's kinda sad how the Sky Captain is supposed to be the main character, and yet the story follows Polly instead.
shareI'm still going to rewatch it tomorrow just to see.
As I've said, there's some kind of weirdness going on where you can't have an honorable dynamic male character who isn't an already established superhero. I don't like it and really don't want to watch these bland movies.
For fun, I was watching Buck Rogers and in the first season he's a really great guy who is brave, restrains himself around women, and still is witty, etc. There are actual men like this but they don't exist much in the media. For me, it's a bad time for entertainment.
I just watched it again.
Had it been realistic looking with more time on the plot, it could have been Indiana Jones level good with science fiction. Also, if you're going to have ray guns and stuff, then go all out, don't just use it once.
Once again, Marvel knows how to make a movie. Once they invent ray guns, they use them. If someone has wings, they use them, and they just take it seriously as if the stuff is real.
The worst part of this was that it looked like an advanced Roger Rabbit. It looked like a serious action film taking place in a cartoon world. What action fans want to see is "holy shit" sets in an interesting world that makes them believe it's real. That's how you "get into" a film and start thinking about it after. It was clear these people were not in this world.
If it wasn't for that I think it would have been a hit.
I enjoyed the movie and even saw it 3 times when it was in theaters. I also disliked Gwyneth Paltrow's performance as I think she's a coddled brat who got lucky from the start, but every movie she's been in could have been cast with a more compelling actress with more range and natural talent. Gywneth has certain archetype looks thanks to her mother, but her acting in everything I have seen her in is abysmally uniform but her acting is easily made up for by a strong story, good direction, and better actors.
The B Movie feel and the story were well enough for me to understand as well. I use to watch old Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon movies on television as kid in the 70s so seeing a movie inspired by that old time SciFi (or "fantasy" as some posters here feel compelled to call it) of the 30s and 40s, so my nostalgia for things I use to watch religiously on television was enhanced because now it was a new Hollywood movie.