MovieChat Forums > Ad Astra (2019) Discussion > Was it ever promoted as Sci Fi?

Was it ever promoted as Sci Fi?

posted 5 years ago by Satan2016 (23334)
17 replies | jump to latest

It's listed as "Adventure, Drama, Mystery" now. Nothing resembling science in this movie.

Pretentious Art Film. The majority of featured IMDb reviews are under 4*. Hope it wins a Razzie.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Trailer:
astronaut, austronaut dad, Earth in space, space craft door, orbital tower, Nasa lab, wall of astronauts, ship in space, Saturn, big moon city, moon buggies on lunar surface, low gravity accident, uncontrolled anti matter reaction threatens entire solar system, ship to mars, red planet shots, clear video iPads, rings around planet, sleeping in space craft, endless void is enemy, world awaits mysterious discovery...

yup. pretty much a SCI-FI. But, failed as a Sci-Fi.
Gah, that trailer is a misleading joke.

[–] HAL9000 (935) 5 years ago

NASA and space stations isnt exactly scifi in 2019. lol

[–] Jehosaphet (1055) 4 years ago

I think it helps make up the "science" part of science fiction...is the thing. Yeah, good point Hal, but ya kind of had to do some extreme cherry picking there to make it. lol

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

I can't think of many modern science fiction films.

The definition of SF is an exploration of imagined technology and how humans will adapt to it.

So, a long time ago before airplanes people wrote stories about how it would affect people if humans had air power and the ability to go anywhere. I recall seeing a French film about a guy locked in his house. He made money off of the internet, talked to people via the net, used sex devices via the net, and so on. It was about how all of this would affect a person. That's very close to being a real life and is good SF.

Anything with fantasy, too much philosophy, near magic technology, isn't SF. As soon as I saw Pitt in it, I knew it would suck. He gets cast in a lot of weak philosophy movies, and I don't understand why. He's not even a very good actor, he is wooden, and doesn't sell deep ideas.

[–] maximmm (3041) 5 years ago

if you ever watch his interviews, it's easy to see why he has a difficult time selling philosophical lingo.

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

He doesn't seem very smart but is likable.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I respect, but don't agree with that definition of SF. I feel "Science FICTION" can encompass ANYTHING Sciencey AND fictional versions there of. IE People on another space planet flying hover cars with robots and fighting with laser swords (fictional science used) IS science fiction, even if the story is "fantasy"-ish. Star Wars "fantasy" appealed to me as science fiction, as equally as 2001, and THX-1138, where as Lord of the Rings "Fantasy" does not appeal to me at all with it's magic stones, and hand waving powers etc.

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

My definition is the classic definition of what science fiction is. It is about how humans will respond and adapt to scientifically possible developments. So, SF is largely about human psychology.

The original Star Trek was about that a lot. That tended to focus on how humans are great.

An old show, The Six Million Dollar Man, which came from a book, was SF. That was about a cyborg, part machine, part human, and how he adapted to that. Due to it being a 70s TV show it wasn't super deep, but from what I can recall there was enough ideas that at times he suffered and at times he exceeded humanity and it was good.

Any story where something really can't happen, according to science, is fantasy. Fantasy is whimsical imagination meant to just be creative and entertaining. I love Star Wars, but in the end, it was like a religious parable meant to illustrate a point. Star Wars have nothing to do with science and is about love and family dynamics. The prodigal son is in the jewish section of the Bible. It's about a son who does all bad things and his dad still loves him. This confuses his good son. The dad explains that because he's his son no amount of bad things will stop his love. That's Star Wars in reverse.

It's my theory that since jews are the head of most entertainment in the US, they can't make science fiction, because they belong to a cult. So, they always make fantasies that are disguised religious parables.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

yup, I've heard of the classic definition, I just don't agree with it. :) I feel Ad Astra is pushed as a SCI-FI even then the classic definition... people working within real sciences... but it's mostly badly written, unconnected, and in the end, we dont care about the people - due to bad writing.

It sure isn't served up as romantic comedy, or even DRAMA for the female attraction - I guess that is what Pitt is for?

[–] GotWood84 (384) 5 years ago

Pompous drivel

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

If you can't beat my argument, your post is pompous drivel.

[–] HAL9000 (935) 5 years ago

he was a blast in 12 monkeys

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

He was awesome is 12 Monkeys and Fight Club.

It's weird but he's good at acting when playing crazy people, if not he's wooden.

That's always puzzled me.

[–] HAL9000 (935) 5 years ago

you might be right. he has some lowkey attitude to him,probably always hiding his crazy side

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

He needs better parts to bring that out.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Plus he's getting old. We liked him young. I know, it's ageist, but it's just the way things are.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Speak for yourself. I like young Pitt and old Pitt equally.