Good Science Fiction movies/series

Post Reply New Topic

I love V. The original is much better than the remake but the remake special effects are better.

Humor is a concept too.

Yep. And unambiguously conveying tone in text with just one word is virtually impossible.

Not at all, I thought it was quite obvious that shrox was being facetious.

That said, he's also quite right. It is pure blasphemy to knock 2001, which really was a masterpiece, or to criticize Kubrick in any way, shape, or form.

W O R D !

1. "The X-Files."

Not strictly "sci-fi," but close enough.

2. "Farscape."

My second favorite show EVAH!! !

3. "Ego Proxy"

Hooray for pretentious anime.

How exactly is saying that 2001 was not intended for home viewing "knocking" it? It's an amazing piece of work, and viewed in its right context I don't doubt that it's quite a journey, but it's clearly not supposed to be viewed as a regular movie, and it's certainly not meant to be viewed on a small screen, since that basically reduces it to a screensaver with sound. 2001 isn't supposed to be in front of you, you're supposed to feel like you're inside it.
And even if I did want to criticize Kubrick, it would be well within my right to do so. He's not infallible. He's a visual genius, and brilliant at creating moods, but to call him a great storyteller is nonsensical, because that's not what he does. He doesn't tell stories. He creates experiences, and 2001 isn't one that works outside of its intended medium, just like the Eiffel Tower would be pointless if it could fit in your pocket. That's not knocking Gustave Eiffel, because he never intended for the tower to fit in your pocket. He intended for it to be huge. He wasn't hired to construct a toothpick, just like Kubrick didn't go into 2001 to tell a story.

Dude, relax. I too was being facetious to show my love of 2001 and Kubrick in general.

I understand this is a spectrum and we're all different, but I think you possess enough intellect to read through a thread and discern humor and facetiousness. If you're taking this stuff literally, then you're just not trying hard enough. (This is NOT a joke, I'm seriously amazed you're taking it THAT literally.)

Now, just as it's all a matter of opinion, I'll disagree with you about 2001. Though it might be great on the big screen, it's just as satisfactory on a small screen, especially on restored DVD that doesn't have the graininess of VHS. Oh, if you're looking for a straightforward film, then it's probably not for you. But it's a masterpiece on the small screen nontheless, and I wouldn't want to wait for some theater to have a special screening in order to enjoy it. And if someone has never seen it, they should do so on the small screen AT LEAST once in their lives. And I'm dead serious, and stand by this.

By the way, are you saying Kubrick films like Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut didn't have a story to tell??

Now, remember, opinions are subjective. Of course you're entitled to yours, as I am entitled to mine. Relax and learn about facetious humor.

Warehouse 13

Those are two films I haven't seen, but while there were certainly stories in for example 2001: A Space Oddyssey, The Shining and A Clockwork Orange (all of which were based on the writing of others), their strongest points are certainly not in efficiently adapting the stories, but in imagery and mood. The total amount of time in 2001 that's spent on actually moving the story forward, or conveying any kind of information that hasn't already been established, is very little compared to the full running time. This, in film theory, is called wasting everybody's time. There's a pretty obvious reason for this. Kubrick wants to convey the slow experience of traveling through space and perhaps going mad, but when you're sitting in front of your television or computer screen, you're not experiencing that, because in the comfort of your own home, you're surrounded by potential distractions, you have the choice to fast forward, and you're not in the film. As such, the slow scenes of objects moving don't have the same impact that they would otherwise. Because you're home, you're safe, and you know that you could just as well be doing something else. You're separated from the space travel experience. You're not traveling, you're watching a thing move across the screen. And when you're staring into the monolith, as the flying colors are screaming at you, there is literally nothing happening except for a screensaver and "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA", for what seems like an eternity. That, in a movie, would be considered self-indulgent and unnecessary. That's why I'm saying that a home version of 2001 could be much shorter without it removing anything important from the experience of watching the full version of 2001 at home, because much of the experience of watching the full version of 2001 at home is a waste of time.


Like I said, facetiousness is very hard to convey unambiguously through text. There was nothing in your statement that made it obviously facetious in a flat reading. That's why this little guy was invented:

Again, matter of opinion. It's only a time waster if one is looking for a direct, plot-driven story. In understanding what 2001 is, this isn't a time waster but an essential part of the film. Also keep in mind, we're spoiled by modern "screen savers" and the like. This came out in 1968, and really was cutting-edge for its time. We take it for granted now, but in 1968, nothing else could compare to "2001." And I don't think people should pass it up on the small screen either.


I flat out disagree in regards to the "flow" of this thread.

When someone says "Blasphemy!" -- exclamation point and all -- as a one-word reply to a subjective thread about films, it's quite clear the message is "OK, you don't like 2001, fine. But I love it, and this is my way of jokingly showing I disagree with you because I think the film is fantastic."

And yes, I think you can learn to figure this out.

I've said nothing to contradict this. In fact, this is a large part of exactly the point I'm trying to make. In 1968, nothing else could compare, and in 1968, you couldn't simply bring a movie home and watch it in your livingroom. 2001 was not designed for it, in part because watching movies at home wasn't even a thing yet. It was very specifically designed to be huge and envelop the viewer. So when you're watching 2001 on a tiny screen, you're not getting anything resembling the full experience. Instead of being in space, you're in your room, watching a thing move from one end of a screen to the other. It was cutting-edge for its time, but that's not even the point. It was huge. It was "come, take a seat, you're going to space". You simply can't replicate that kind of immersive experience on a small screen, not even with 3-D glasses. On a small screen, you're not in it, you're just looking at it, and it's very pretty to look at, but a lot of the long, slow shots of nothing happening lose their function in that context, and could just as well be cut down to brief establishing shots. You can't make a home version of 2001 do the same thing that the theatrical version did; it just doesn't translate. Watching 2001 at home is a bit like trying to fit a Statue of Liberty in your house. If you make a smaller version, it'll fit, and you'll still get the jist of what it's about, but the full-sized one is just a bit much for that context.


People use "blasphemy!" and similar exclamations sincerely all the time, as a way of saying "you're an idiot for saying that, and should shut up". I can't be expected to assume that you don't mean what you say, when it's common on the Internet for people to say exactly that sort of thing with little to no sense of irony. I am aware that the phrase is often used jokingly, but it's just as often used between half-jokingly and seriously. I could easily have made the assumption that you were not only kidding but saying the exact opposite of what you mean. I could have assumed that you agreed with me, and was making fun of the kind of person who would be angry that I don't share their opinion. Would this have been better? I find that the most honest thing I can do in this sort of situation is continue the conversation as if you at least partially mean what you say, and then leave it to you to clarify if you meant something else. And for the record, I didn't think you were dead serious (as in saying I should be stoned for my thought crime), but I didn't see any reason to assume you saw my point of view either, so I felt the least I could do was explain it.

Vince:

First, regarding "2001," even if the experience isn't the same on the small screen, so what? If someone's never seen it in any form, the small screen is better than nothing. And even if you personally feel it's unsatisfactory, it's your opinion, not indisputable fact.

Second, I'm not the one who said "Blasphemy!" if you recall. It was a user named shrox. And as an outside observer, it was clear he was being facetious.

You see, we're both making assumptions about what could be meant by "Blasphemy!" This is why it's essential to understand context and work out possible meaning. How the term may be used elsewhere is somewhat irrelevant. In regards to this thread, it was clear that it was meant to be facetious. If he really felt upset about you're opinion on 2001, he most likely would have elaborated.

And considering the nature of this post, it's not religious by any means, the joking nature of the reply should have been self-evident. Or at least you shouldn't have automatically jumped to the conclusion that he was literally calling you a blasphemer over something like your feelings regarding a movie.

I never said it was indisputable fact. I stated my opinion, and elaborated on it. At no point did I say it's indisputable fact. See, this is what I mean by making assumptions.

My bad. It's late here, and in my tired state I missed a couple of quotation marks, misreading "this is my way of jokingly showing I disagree with you" as stating that it was you who shouted blasphemy. Sorry.


It wasn't clear to what extent. One can be facetious about the choice of words and still stand by the basic point of view, and one can, inversely, be entirely facetious to the point of meaning the complete opposite, and one can also be facetious with regards to even having an opinion on the issue. There was nothing in the statement itself, or in its context, to point to any specific one of these, or to any specific other variation.


Like I said, I never assumed Shrox was being completely serious, but one can jokingly use words like "blasphemy" to mask genuine disapproval, and it's not at all uncommon in this sort of context.


Again, I just explained to you in my previous reply that I didn't take it literally. There are nuances to this sort of thing. If somebody shouts "blasphemy" about a movie, of course I don't assume they mean it literally, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that they might be judging my character, and, without having to assume that that's the case, it makes sense for me to elaborate on my point of view to make sure there are no misunderstandings about where I'm coming from. I wasn't acting based on an assumption, I was acting based on trying to avoid misunderstandings. And yet, here you are, making the assumption that I was assuming things that I was merely taking into account as possibilities.

So here’s my opinion regarding 2001…

Watching it on a computer screen is unacceptable, but if you have a blu-ray copy of the movie and a decent home theater set-up you can watch the movie as intended.

From the dawn of man to the sublimation and return to earth of Dave Bowman, there is a deep story in 2001. It’s the same story that’s retold in DS9, the same story that’s retold in BSG, the same story Prometheus tried to tell. It’s the story of God and man, their essential nature and relationship.

The thing is, the story in 2001 is presented in a very subtle, very adroit manner. Kubrick refuses to spoon feed his audience. Because of this, most people won’t get this movie in a single viewing. This movie must be watched, contemplated, and re-watched multiple times over a span of months to even begin to understand it.

I’d say to fully appreciate 2001 , you need to watch the movie at home many, many times.

That's my take. Your mileage may vary.

Yes, there is a story, but there's also a lot of what essentially becomes padding in a home viewing.
This sequence, just for one example, is much longer than it needed to be to make its point:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou6JNQwPWE0[/youtube]
Which is why I'm saying the movie could be cut down to a shorter running time without losing any of the story.