Good Science Fiction movies/series

Post Reply New Topic

This whole argument about 2001 strikes me as absurd. Yes, there is very little story. It could be told in 20 minutes or less. But the film would not have the same effect. It would be a very different experience if cut down to twenty minutes. Some people would like it better that way. Others would not.

A friend and I have an ongoing argument about "The Tree of Life". I like the film (I'm partial to long, slow moving films) she hates it intensely. She insisted that I had to see "Tropic Thunder". I couldn't get through the first five minutes because the style of comedy was so unappealing to me. She has her tastes and I have mine.

When I watch a film, I'm looking for things that go beyond simply story. I like films which present philosophical questions. "Last Year at Marienbad" for example or "Solaris" or "Stalker". These films contain extended scenes that no one in their right mind would claim develop the plot and yet they can have a profound effect on the experience of the film.

The first 50 minutes of "The Tree of Life" are a beautifully poetic way of expressing the overwhelming importance and complete insignificance of the death of a child. In this film, what you might call "the story" doesn't really start until after this 50 minute introduction. And yet to remove that element would radically change how the audience would respond to seeing the film.

It might be helpful to think of films like "2001" as a kind of meditation. The experience of the film involves not simply watching the story elements unfold but also losing yourself in a visual and aural experience. Obviously this isn't for everyone. Heck, I watched "The Turin Horse" recently and the only way I could get through it was by writing notes about what was going on. I was really excited when some gypsies show up to get water. I almost thought something was going to happen.

Anyway, on the point of a film having to be experienced in a specific format to be understood...

The only time I saw "Lawrence of Arabia" was on a small, black and white tv. I thought the film was boring. A friend insists that it is a film you have to watch in a big movie theatre to fully appreciate. I will grant you that Omar Sharif's entrance looks a little absurd on a small screen, but my feeling is that a well made film will work in any format you view it. I think where "Lawrence.." fails for me is that the subject matter is just completely uninteresting to me. I might be somewhat less bored if I saw it on a big screen, but I don't see where the presentation is going to change the subject matter. To someone who likes this subject, I suspect it would still work on a small screen.

Yes, some films work better on a big screen. I prefer the Blu-ray of "2001" over a cropped 4x3 version in black and white. I imagine in a movie theatre it can work well. The first time I saw "Gone with the Wind" was in a packed movie theatre. It was a great way to see the film. But it is a solid, well told story that works well on a small screen too. I watched the 3 "lord of the Rings" films at the Cinerama dome in Hollywood and it was a fun way to see them. But they hold up well on a smaller screen as well.

But just to be absurd, the first movie I watched on my iPhone was "The Battleship Potemkin". A bigger screen would have provided more comfortable viewing, but the story held up and I enjoyed it as much as I have enjoyed it in HD or on VHS.

I find "2001" to still be effective in compromised viewing conditions. (actually the first time i saw it was from a 16mm anamorphic print shown with a flat lens. I didn't know why the stewardess squeezed shorter as she walked up the side of the spaceship. ) I prefer the "bigger" experience of the film, but I can still get something from viewing it in a limited form. I guess it's part of your frame of mind when watching the film. It's kind of like being in the mood for one sort of film or another sort. If you are not in the mood for "2001" the ideal presentation isn't likely to win you over.

I recently made a film that is supposed to appear to be a home movie. An ideal way to show it would have been to strike an 8mm print and project it. Seeing it projected with a noisy machine and the blurred frame on a portable projection screen would have been part of the experience. But frankly, the joke wasn't worth the money that would have cost.

As I stated above, my point is that a good film will survive the depredations of bad presentation. Yes, the experience may be more enjoyable if the presentation is better, but a good film will survive. The corollary is that if a film cannot be enjoyed when the presentation is not optimal, suggests that the film wasn't very good to begin with.

In the end it's all up to the different tastes of the viewers. If everybody had the same tastes, there would only be a very narrow range of films that would need to be made. Luckily there are both many tastes and many kinds of films to appeal to those tastes. If you don't like one film, go watch another. It is fine to muse on how a film might have been modified to fit your tastes better than it does, but it's a bit absurd to claim a film should have been made differently simply because your tastes go in a different direction.

This, here, is you agreeing with the entire point I'm trying to make.
Yes, showing a Youtube clip of a scene that only works on a huge screen is a disservice, because it doesn't belong on a small screen. This perfectly demonstrates my point, that 2001 has scenes that don't work on a small screen, and might as well be edited down to fit the medium.
"Admitted"? I didn't admit - I flat out stated that in its full running time, it only works on the big screen, and in order to flow well on a small screen, it would require the long, drawn out scenes of little happening (such as the one I showed a Youtube clip of), to be edited down to something that flows better on the small screen. It wouldn't be the same experience as seeing the full version on the big screen, but it would be better than watching the full version on a small screen. Sometimes adjustments are necessary when moving a work from one medium to another, and in my opinion, moving 2001 from a big screen to a small screen requires some editing of the moments that only work on the big screen.
The youtube clip was intended to be an example of a scene that doesn't work on the small screen, so where's the flaw in my reasoning behind showing it?


I haven't spent a moment of this discussion unrelaxed. I'm not long-winded because I'm worked up, I'm long-winded because I'm trying to explain something that's apparently very hard to understand. If I wrote single-sentence responses, just imagine how much misunderstanding there'd be.

ETA:

And this is why I'm not entirely content with calling 2001 a movie. Large chunks of it are more of a ride than a movie, albeit a very sophisticated one, and those are the parts of it I think would have to be cut down in order for it to work as more of a "movie".

Vince, Vince, I'm doing this for your own good.

I flat out told you I was joking.

I was using your own argument about "2001" being meant for the big screen as well as your dissertation on blasphemy, putting them together as a facetious joke, not meant to be mean, just humorous.

Personally, I feel 2001 works on the small screen. I was trying to point out a subtle irony that the guy saying 2001 only works on the big screen is the one who posts a youtube video of it. I totally understand the point you were trying to make about it being a screen saver, I just see underlying irony of sorts and pointed it out.

And don't tell me you didn't understand, as I flat out told you I was kidding, emoticons and all.

It was a joke man.

One clue to such humor is the brevity of the statement, it is something of a juxtapositioning of a rational view with an irrational view, with the intended effect of being...funny.

Better?

I never said I don't understand. You're the one who doesn't understand, as you seem to think there's "a subtle irony" where there isn't one. I understand you're kidding, but your joke is based on a false premise, and four winky faces don't validate a strawman fallacy. You point out a perceived irony because you fundamentally misunderstand my point. There is nothing ironic in using a youtube clip to demonstrate that a scene doesn't work on a small screen. If I used a youtube clip to demonstrate that a scene doesn't work on the big screen, that would be ironic, and your kidding would hold weight, but I never said that scene doesn't work on the big screen. I said it doesn't work on the small screen, and I used a small screen to demonstrate my point. Where is the "irony" in that? If you're going to make fun of me, at least try to do so on an accurate basis, of which I'm sure there are many to choose from.

But by that logic, a better argument can be applied against your calling it a ride. Generally a ride is a physical device that takes you from one place to another. Sometimes it is locked on a track such as a roller coaster and sometimes it is a vehicle designed for transportation. By this logic, it makes more sense to call "2001" a "movie" than it does to call it a "ride"

Well sure…. If our main concern is efficiency and clarity that entire sequence could be replaced with a slide reading: Dave Bowman becomes the emissary of the “gods.”

It would be short, sweet, and many more people would understand…

But you and I both know that’s not the point of art.

The first time I saw that sequence was in 1980. I was 10 years old lying on the floor of my darkened living room watching a cropped version on a truly massive 27” RCA console TV.

That sequence made me feel confused, fascinated, awestruck, and anxious all at the same time. I watched the entire thing, enthralled, and did not once think to myself, “Wow, this is too long for home viewing.” However, I did experience a profound sense of relief when it was over.

I have to say, even watching it on YouTube just now, I’m struck by the beauty of the sequence…. I do realize that my impression of it is colored by my initial experience.

I still maintain that this movie has plenty of impact on a good home theater system and requires many viewings to full appreciate.

However, I’ll concede that the movie, and that sequence in particular is dated, and is most certainly a product of its time. In 1968 (or even 1980), those visuals were not just “pretty” they were revolutionary. Nobody had ever seen anything like that before! Also, psychedelic art was very popular at the time. When you consider the novelty and tastes of the time, you’ll begin to understand why that section is so long…

But even considering the novelty and contemporary tastes, the sequence is too long. Kubrick did this to defy the viewer’s expectations and enhance the sense of anxiety caused by the scene. For me this tactic worked. The scene is too long without being too long.

If the movie was being remade today (God forbid) that sequence would not be included. I think the scene probably is too long for contemporary audiences on big screen or small. People simply do not have the attention span these days.

I also think that today’s audiences, spoiled as they are by CGI, would demand a much more literal, relatable rendering of Bowman’s trip beyond the infinite. Personally, I think that’s a shame because a more concrete rendering of that experience could never compare to the one that Kubrick’s abstract patterns of light and color inspired in my imagination.

On a big screen, those scenes function as a sort of "virtual ride", by making the audience feel like they're there and moving through space. Something that doesn't really work on, say, Youtube.


That's a bit of a leap, isn't it? Let's not pretend like the only two options are flying colors screaming "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" for nine minutes and a slide that reads "Dave Bowman becomes the emissary of the gods". There are plenty of steps inbetween those two ways. For one thing, the "AAAAAAAAAA" could have gone on for three minutes, with a couple of dissolves, and still conveyed to the viewer that Dave is experiencing this for a very long time. Again, in the big screen version, the full sequence works, since the audience is literally seeing what Dave is seeing, and nine minutes of staring straight into the monolith feels like an eternity, but when the monolith is the size of an average TV, it's not really the same experience, so nine minutes of tiny monolith just feels like "okay, time to go make a cup of tea". Note how the monolith is the aspect ratio of a cinema screen. This is very deliberate, as seen when it tumbles through space and ends up filling the entire screen as the flying color scene begins. This is literally forcing the audience to connect with Dave's experience, making the staring-into-the-monolith sequence feel very real, because the thing Dave is looking at is exactly the thing the audience is looking at. On a smaller screen, the audience isn't seeing what Dave is seeing. They're only seeing a miniature of what Dave is seeing, and in my opinion, there's very little justification for that scene being so long when that direct connection is taken out of the scene by the miniaturization.


I could possibly see it working on a good home theater system, given a large screen, little distance, and a lack of other light sources and distractions. I haven't tried watching it that way.


I already know why that section is so long, and I haven't said a word against it being that long in the theatrical release, which is all that was accounted for at the time of its creation. I'm merely saying I don't think it's paced well for viewing out of its intended medium, since the "ride" aspect of a lot of scenes just doesn't have the same impact.


And this is where our opinions differ. Where you see "too long without being too long", I see "could have been much shorter while still effectively conveying the idea of too long". It's a fine line, perhaps, but it's the line between suspense and boredom, and while I agree with you in the context of a big enough screen, I disagree about the effect of its length in less immersive media. It's not impossible to convey a passage of a lot of time without having to actually take up a lot of time. One classic tacky trick is dissolving on a clock, or showing the sun wander across the sky (or shadows moving on the ground), and the space equivalent of that would be the movement of stars and planets, which perhaps would have been in the risk zone for hacky cheese (as the clock and sun often are), but that's just one example of easily conveying the idea of time without wasting time (and again, I'm not saying Kubrick was wasting the audience's time; I'm only talking about the limitations of a small screen in trying to adapt an immersive big screen experience). For comparison, imagine a graphic novel version of 2001. How many panels/pages would you give the flying colors sequence?


If it were made today, there would probably be an equivalent scene, but it would probably use a bit more specific symbolic imagery (dreamlike, perhaps nightmarish, probably transitioning more gradually into the bed scene) instead of just moving color bars and inverted helicopter footage. And the whole movie would be in 3-D, in hopes of making it even more immersive (and there would be many disagreements about whether the 3-D was worth it). But even more likely, it would get stuck in development hell, drowning in script notes about needing action scenes and a prominent love story.

By referencing the strawman fallacy, are trying to imply this is some great debate and I'm trying to discredit you? Also, it's not just one point, but the discussion as a whole upon which the joke is based.



The subtle irony wasn't in relation to that point alone. In this case, you were showing the clip to demonstrate the long, drawn-out screen saver aspect of that scene. While you're correct that you can use a clip to show how it doesn't work on the big screen, the specific use of that scene in this case, as you used it, was to show the 10 minutes of "screen saver" and how the movie is long-winded.

So I made a joke of sorts, "ah Vince, the man who says 2001 only works on the big screen is the one providing us with a youtube clip, who would have though?" Yes, you can use a youtube clip to prove your point. All things tying together, and with the joke of blasphemy, I was tying in your disapproval with 2001 outside the big screen with the fact that you were the one providing us with 2001 outside the big screen. I fully understand you intention, but it's still ironic when you look at the thread as a whole.



I'm not "making fun of you" if you mean that in the mean-spirited sense. I hope you don't get that impression.

No. The strawman fallacy isn't limited to great debates. It is relevant where applicable.


No. It was to show that it's too long to work outside of its intended medium. The fact that it was a youtube video was an essential part of exactly what I was demonstrating.


I should address this separately. Is this a typo? I never said that one can use a clip to show that something doesn't work on the big screen. That's not to say that one necessarily can't, but it's important to note that I never said that the scene doesn't work on the big screen. This is either a typo, or you've completely misunderstood what I was trying to demonstrate, and judging by the rest of your post, it seems to be the latter.


This shows that you're still not understanding why I showed a youtube clip. If I had shown the youtube clip to demonstrate that it works on the big screen, that would have been ironic. If I had shown the youtube clip to demonstrate that it doesn't work on the big screen, that would have been ironic. I did neither of those things. I showed the scene on a small screen to demonstrate that it's too long to work on a small screen (because of the juxtaposition between the big monolith and the big screen - it's intended to be a near-life-sized POV shot, and on a small screen it's a waste of time for it to be so long). This is equivalent to saying "This soup doesn't taste good without salt. Here, have a taste of this unsalted soup to see what I mean". There is not the slightest bit of irony in that. Your attempt to point out irony makes no sense. It being a joke is irrelevant, unless the joke was intended to be on you (in which case you've picked the wrong medium to do subtle anti-humor). Jokes have certain mechanics that make them jokes, and in the case of making a joke based on pointing out the irony of a situation, it helps if the situation is in some way ironic to begin with. It's kind of like that obvious dumb joke hundreds of stand up comedians have thought of: "The black box is supposed to be indestructible. Why don't they make the whole plane out of that stuff?". The answer, of course, is that the plane wouldn't fly if it was constructed like a black box, and the joke thus only works if the point is that the comedian's stage persona is supposed to be dumb (or if the audience themselves are too dumb to see the flaw in the question).

But I digress. Summary:
I never said that the scene doesn't work on the big screen. I did not try to demonstrate that the scene isn't paced well for the big screen. All I am saying is that "2001: A Space Odyssey" has several long and slow shots in it that, on a big screen, are spectacular and immersive, but that on a small screen might as well be shortened, as the pace of 2001 is directly tied to the size of it, and with the space compressed, the time might as well be compressed too, to fit a less immersive medium, such as a TV or computer screen.
So yes, I do think pointing out your strawman fallacy is relevant to the discussion, because I'd rather not be misrepresented.

Relax. Yes, that was a typo, it should have said small screen.



OK. While you're correct there's no irony is saying, "this chicken soup is terrible without salt, taste it and see what I mean," imagine a different scenario where someone says, "the chicken soup is terrible without salt. I wouldn't ever waste time eating it without salt, and neither should you! Oh, by the way, try some without salt to see what I mean," there is a subtle irony in the contradiction.

No, you did not literally say this, or actually imply it directly. And I wasn't literally saying you were. But it ties in with the greater concept of this thread (or what it's become), which is not about irony, blasphemy, or 2001: Space Odyssey, but rather your failure to recognize blatant humor.

You're explanations about what you think I don't understand highlight what you don't seem to understand.



Quite right. And this is where the trouble started. Shrox facetiously called your opinion on 2001 blasphemy. You either took it literally or weren't certain of the implications, so you went on to list every possible meaning of the term without trying to deduce its specific meaning here. When shrox clarified it was humor, you replied:



And perhaps it is for you, but as a 3rd party observer, I can tell you it was not at all difficult to work out shrox's intended meaning, despite it being one word in text. If you struggle with these things, then use this thread and input as a source for learning. While it's entirely true that things can be misconstrued in text, and words can have different meaning and implications, it's totally unfounded for you to claim it's "virtually impossible" to understand such things, as it was evident to me and I was an outside observe to your conversation with shrox.

I thought this to be quite clear.

Okay, leaving aside 2001: A Space Odyssey, I thought I'd drop in and offer my opinions on favourite sci-fi movies and series.

Plenty of people have already suggested Doctor Who, and I can't add anything further to that. However, I will add others that haven't been mentioned, possibly because of their (relative) obscurity in the US, but also because of this little fracas.

The Quatermass serials:

I have this username for a reason. The trilogy of Quatermass serials from the 1950s codified the three main forms of alien invasion: we go to them, they come to us, or they were always here. A fourth serial was made in the 1970s, but wasn't groundbreaking.

The second and third Quatermass serials are both available on DVD, in a set that includes the two surviving episodes of the first serial, The Quatermass Experiment. The Quatermass Experiment was also remade as a feature length TV play in 2005, and all three serials have versions done by Hammer Horror, although the TV shows are of better quality.


Blake's 7:

Done on a budget that makes Doctor Who look lavish and overproduced, Blake's 7 is nonetheless important, as it is the show that looked at the themes of Farscape, Babylon 5 (and its spinoff, Crusade), and Firefly long before these shows were made. About former rebel leader Roj Blake and a motley gang of criminals, freedom fighters, and terrorists, fighting against a tyrannical Federation.

Despite the crappy special effects and sometimes camp approach, there were some very adult stories. In the first story alone, Blake, when he starts recovering his memories of being a rebel, is framed for child molestation by the Federation. Now, this is BBC TV in the 1970s, so that was pretty strong stuff, especially for the time. And it was morally ambiguous far more than most contemporaries. One of the best characters is the acerbic hacker Kerr Avon, played wonderfully by Paul Darrow.

Here's a few trailers. The first is done by a fan with new model effects done in CGI, but shows enough of the first series...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRuqTQYSJMI[/youtube]

This one is a trailer done for the first series DVD, and advertises the second series. It's a good one, but photosensitive Aspies be warned: at about 1:58, there's a strobing light that is on for a couple of seconds. But the last lines in the trailer sum up the series wonderfully.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIHPCAGMCts[/youtube]

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

It is impossible to sum up that move in 30min if you had to do it in 1968 when it was released. Today one could relate to a lot of the unknown technologies back then. E.g the IBM tablet the guy used to watch news, no sound in space, video conference call, what some people might know as Skype. A picture is worth a thousand words, and this movie had so much to give and still can. That movie shouldn't be Sci-Fi it should be science non-fiction.

I liked these movies too

Mission to Mars http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183523/
Pitch Black http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0134847/
The Chronicles of Riddick http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0296572/
Moon http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/
Pandorum http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1188729/
Imposter http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0160399/

Having just recently watched through it for the first time, I have to recommend the new Canadian science fiction series Continuum in addition to those I recommended earlier.