Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Bad movies? (was: Good review of "I, Robot" film

Expand Messages
  • Wildfire
    ... seriously, ... you ... - I got to see I Robot yesterday..well worth the wait imo the film was very good, not quite Asimov but i think the Doc would have
    Message 1 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
      --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Ignacio Viglizzo
      <viglizzo@g...> wrote:
      > The whole thing about bad /good movies is very subjective... I liked
      > Armaggedon more than Deep impact, it didn't take itself so
      seriously,
      > and was nowhere as corny! I was deeply impressed by the black hole
      > (but, OC, I was 8 or 9 years old)...
      > If you are looking for scientific accuracy in a sf movie, Id say
      you
      > are looking in the wrong place. I don't mean that I don't appreciate
      > it when it's present!
      > Best,
      >
      > --
      >
      -
      I got to see I Robot yesterday..well worth the wait imo
      the film was very good, not quite Asimov but i think
      the Doc would have liked it....Will Smith did`nt go over
      the top and the SFXs great though the film is basicaly an
      action film i thought the SF elements were well done .....
      overall it s not Asimov but it is good SF
      Wildfire
    • raybell_scot
      ... But you d be amazed how many films have their origins in books (even outshining them sometimes). ... produce ... Well to paraphrase the Six Million Dollar
      Message 2 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
        --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Ignacio Viglizzo
        <viglizzo@g...> wrote:
        > Arthur C. Clarke writes **books**.

        But you'd be amazed how many films have their origins in books (even
        outshining them sometimes).

        > Big budget movies try to appeal to a different set of tastes, and
        > good science is not at the top of their priorities. They still
        produce
        > some stuff that's really fun to watch, and sometimes go a bit beyond
        > that. Like some really good hamburgers in the food analogy ;)

        Well to paraphrase the Six Million Dollar Man "We have the
        technology". There's little excuse for dodgy science in movies. In
        fact SF has done an excellent propaganda job for science, and against
        its abuse, beyond the weapons industry. Many astronauts (cosmonauts
        too perhaps) and space scientists grew up with SF and it spurred them
        on to greater things. The one good thing about films such
        as "Armageddon", "Deep Impact" and "Meteor" (Sean Connery film) is
        that while they are popular, they also point out the need to monitor
        our skies, and spend less money on blowing each other up, and more on
        preventing comets and asteroids from killing us all off.

        It may just be that SF is the one way to advance the human race by
        telling people about what can be, and what shouldn't be.
      • raybell_scot
        ... It was bad everything. I hate it when other genres (gangster/action in this case) masquerade as skyfy. It wasn t even a good action film either, and it was
        Message 3 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
          --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "Wildfire"
          <wildfire160@h...> wrote:
          > Hey i liked Pluto Nash bad SF it might have been
          > but it was actually fun to watch
          > Wildfire

          It was bad everything. I hate it when other genres (gangster/action
          in this case) masquerade as skyfy. It wasn't even a good action film
          either, and it was riddled with cliches. Remove the Moon and what do
          you have? The same film basically.
        • raybell_scot
          ... I m laying into you tonight, but don t take it personally Wildfire! I have to admit, I hate it when people talk about effects... why? Because in a few
          Message 4 of 30 , Aug 8, 2004
            --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, "Wildfire"
            <wildfire160@h...> wrote:
            > I got to see I Robot yesterday..well worth the wait imo
            > the film was very good, not quite Asimov but i think
            > the Doc would have liked it....Will Smith did`nt go over
            > the top and the SFXs great though the film is basicaly an
            > action film i thought the SF elements were well done .....
            > overall it s not Asimov but it is good SF
            > Wildfire

            I'm laying into you tonight, but don't take it personally Wildfire!

            I have to admit, I hate it when people talk about effects... why?
            Because in a few years, 9/10, they look crap and dated. And what's
            more, Hollywood has sacrificed plot and character development for
            explosions that aren't even the real thing anymore.
          • Brandon
            ... But there s no reason why a big budget picture CAN T be scientifically accurate. They just choose not to take the trouble -- presumably because their
            Message 5 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004
              Ignacio Viglizzo wrote:

              > Arthur C. Clarke writes **books**. He had some hand in 2001, the
              > movie, which is one of the few exceptions in that it gets the science
              > right. I'm not against that. But It's like going to McDonalds and
              > complaining that they don't serve sushi, or pizza, or you cannot get
              > champagne there. Sure, those are good things, but not to be found
              > there...
              > Big budget movies try to appeal to a different set of tastes, and
              > good science is not at the top of their priorities. They still produce
              > some stuff that's really fun to watch, and sometimes go a bit beyond
              > that. Like some really good hamburgers in the food analogy ;)

              But there's no reason why a big budget picture CAN'T be
              scientifically accurate. They just choose not to take the
              trouble -- presumably because their audience demonstrably
              does not care.

              "Armageddon" is an obvious example, but you see it all the
              time in big budget films, in more subtle ways: for example,
              in "Twister", when the supposedly highly-trained
              tornado-chasers try to outrun a tornado in their car. When
              that fails, they jump out of the car and run into a frame
              building to hide! You don't even have to be a scientist to
              know THAT was wrong -- you just have to have lived in the
              midwest for a year or two.
            • Brandon
              ... Except, of course, that along with the watch the skies message comes the we can slap together a deep space mission out of existing technology in a
              Message 6 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004
                raybell_scot wrote:

                > --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Ignacio Viglizzo
                > <viglizzo@g...> wrote:
                >
                >>Arthur C. Clarke writes **books**.
                >
                >
                > But you'd be amazed how many films have their origins in books (even
                > outshining them sometimes).
                >
                >
                >> Big budget movies try to appeal to a different set of tastes, and
                >>good science is not at the top of their priorities. They still
                >
                > produce
                >
                >>some stuff that's really fun to watch, and sometimes go a bit beyond
                >>that. Like some really good hamburgers in the food analogy ;)
                >
                >
                > Well to paraphrase the Six Million Dollar Man "We have the
                > technology". There's little excuse for dodgy science in movies. In
                > fact SF has done an excellent propaganda job for science, and against
                > its abuse, beyond the weapons industry. Many astronauts (cosmonauts
                > too perhaps) and space scientists grew up with SF and it spurred them
                > on to greater things. The one good thing about films such
                > as "Armageddon", "Deep Impact" and "Meteor" (Sean Connery film) is
                > that while they are popular, they also point out the need to monitor
                > our skies, and spend less money on blowing each other up, and more on
                > preventing comets and asteroids from killing us all off.
                >
                > It may just be that SF is the one way to advance the human race by
                > telling people about what can be, and what shouldn't be.
                >


                Except, of course, that along with the "watch the skies"
                message comes the "we can slap together a deep space mission
                out of existing technology in a matter of days to ake out a
                dinosaur killer" -- so we don't have to worry about actually
                making any preparations, right?
              • raybell_scot
                ... Gattaca was a mainstreamish film and didn t do horrendously badly. Minor slip ups are one thing - hiding in a frame house is another!
                Message 7 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004
                  --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Brandon <jchance@a...>
                  wrote:
                  > But there's no reason why a big budget picture CAN'T be
                  > scientifically accurate. They just choose not to take the
                  > trouble -- presumably because their audience demonstrably
                  > does not care.
                  >
                  > "Armageddon" is an obvious example, but you see it all the
                  > time in big budget films, in more subtle ways: for example,
                  > in "Twister", when the supposedly highly-trained
                  > tornado-chasers try to outrun a tornado in their car. When
                  > that fails, they jump out of the car and run into a frame
                  > building to hide! You don't even have to be a scientist to
                  > know THAT was wrong -- you just have to have lived in the
                  > midwest for a year or two.

                  Gattaca was a mainstreamish film and didn't do horrendously badly.
                  Minor slip ups are one thing - hiding in a frame house is another!
                • raybell_scot
                  ... You have a point, but films such as these at least alert people to the danger, and it becomes an electoral issue. I believe that with present technology we
                  Message 8 of 30 , Aug 9, 2004
                    --- In sciencefictionclassics@yahoogroups.com, Brandon <jchance@a...>
                    wrote:
                    > Except, of course, that along with the "watch the skies"
                    > message comes the "we can slap together a deep space mission
                    > out of existing technology in a matter of days to ake out a
                    > dinosaur killer" -- so we don't have to worry about actually
                    > making any preparations, right?

                    You have a point, but films such as these at least alert people to
                    the danger, and it becomes an electoral issue.

                    I believe that with present technology we are capable of deflecting
                    dinosaur killers if we tried, but not in a matter of days
                    unfortunately.

                    "Meteor" had an anti-Cold War message in it which had some
                    validity... that if the US and USSR spent less time on posturing and
                    more on natural defence, then the problem could have been dealt with
                    more quickly.

                    Armageddon was a crap film, but I hope it started alarm bells
                    ringing. Warning people about the incredible risk, every day in
                    documentaries, articles, popular culture etc, and getting few results
                    is like banging your head against the wall. It does at least prove
                    that astronomy has a function beyond observing remote phenomena.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.