Star Trek II: Wrath of KHAAAANNNNNN Earth Girls Are Easy Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure Weird Science Wild Wild West Howard the Duck Masters of the Universe
those are exactly the things Roddenberry was about when he first came up with Star Trek as a concept. What it means to be human and how we as a race interact with other races. He tried to keep the technological aspects of it within the realm of possibility(or what he saw as future possibilties) someone mentioned the documentary relating technology to Star Wars....I dont ever recall seeing that, but I did see the one comparing Star Trek technology with real life physics and tech. anyway... I like just about any scifi/fantasy movies/books....even the bad ones.(MST3K FTW) It is a little disturbing that The Day The Earth Stood Still (the original one) didnt get mentioned till halfway thru the thread...come on people..that movie was awesome. SS, HHGttG came out like 3 years ago IIRC. arent they referring to in the last year?
No, Trkind of amazing for its time, and was the first movie I remember as being touted for being made with real actors mixed in with all these newfangled 'computer graphics'. But high art it was not, it was a pretty silly story.
I can't believe more people said Alien than Aliens in this thread. Clearly, one is a good horror flick.. with some genuine scary moments.. but the other is.. simply a masterpiece.
You guys are filling up my Top Ten Hated Movies list LOL But no, that's still not the all-time worst...
You think Aliens is better than Alien? I don't think another poll is warranted, but I think both are masterpieces. Aliens is arguably the greatest action movie ever made, and is probably more rewatchable, but I think Alien is superior as a film. Cameron borrows almost all of Aliens' intellectual heft from Scott's original, or reacts to the implications of it. The Marxist criticism of the "Company," the put-upon crew bickering about the food and their shares, the design fo the Alien Queen as giant human sex organ, the alienation of interplanetary travel are all cribbed from Scott's Alien. Cameron implemented Asimov's rules to make the ambivalently amoral android life-affirming, and substituted the fear of cavernous spaces for the claustrophobia of the first one, but he (or the studio) left most of the character development (e.g. what happened to Ripley's family while she was gone) on the cutting room floor. Aliens was great, but it answered the first one mainly with the roar of "MOAR!": guns, aliens, explosions. I don't think that makes it the superior film. Also, Sigourney Weaver's character in Alien did as much as any other fictional character to inform my childhood notions of feminism/womanhood. She also walked around nonchalantly in this: which also forever altered my pre-adolescence.
In that picture it looks like Ripley has hair on her arm pits. I don't know what was wrong with me, but for some reason I never got around to seeing Blade Runner. After reading this thread it motivated me to go out and buy it and boy was I blown away. I've watched it twice today already, and I'm still trying to figure out if Deckard Spoiler is a replicant or not. I thought the acting was outstanding, especially from the replicant Roy, and Scott really did an amazing job directing this considering it was in 1982. Right now I would say it's my favorite Sci-Fi flick of all time.
There is good that can come from these threads? Huh. Cool. Also, it depends on which version you see whether you're supposed to believe Deckard is a Spoiler replicant or not. If you bought the Blu-Ray discs (and you should, cause they are awesome), there are I think four different versions available. If memory serves, the studio forced Ridley Scott to throw in narration and rework the ending for the one that came out in theaters. However, if you watched Ridley Scott's intended version (usually the only one shown on cable now), the one where Spoiler the origami unicorn is left outside Deckard's doorstep as he flees with the female android , then it's pretty clear that he Spoiler indeed is an android, and only has months to "live," because the cop buddy who made/left the unicorn knows that Deckard had been programmed by his creator to have recurring dreams about unicorns. After all, who better to hunt down replicants than another replicant? But yeah, incredible film. Also, don't be talking bad 'bout Ripley's armpits. She was alone, in deepspace, fightin' off an alien, without any weapons (including, presumably, a razor). She was facing 57 years in hypersleep. Also, no one can hear you Nair in space. (I'm pretty sure it's a shadow.)
It was the same for me never getting around to seeing it. Part of the reason why was I knew in advance I was going to like it, I just wanted a good viewing setting to get "immersed" in it. More than 20 years later I finally allowed myself that oppurtunity... Yes the movie delivered superbly. Thats just my backward movie watching habits I guess...When you watch Star Wars, Rocky or Blade Runner, you should NOT say anything to the tune of "Lando, yeah isnt that the guy from Nighthawks?" I already liked Rutger Hauer and Daryl Hannah, loved Harrison Ford and Sean Young and apart from Blade Runner. Best thing was I didnt watch the movie thinking "There's Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young, Daryl Hannah..." They all put effectively played their roles and didnt dominate with their presense.
If you watch The Thing from Another World, it really highlights some of its shortcomings with respect to dialogue and pacing with John Carpenter's remake. There is a whole bunch of "slack" in the storytelling that wasn't there in the original.
The version I watched was indeed the Final Cut which Spoiler did imply that he was a replicant. My only questions would be is how come he didn't have the super-human strength/agility that the other replicants had? I guess this could be explained because Rachel didn't either and they both had implanted memories... Only why would you create a replicant to hunt other replicants that didn't have the same physical abilities? Thanks for the description on the differences between the movies. It peaked my interest and I watched the original ending on youtube.... it sucked btw.
To answer your question, I can only offer speculation: Spoiler From merely an efficiency/utility standpoint, you're right. But I think the point that Scott was getting at with the metaphor of the scientist as Creator: Why would God create man as he is, when his body is also so alarmingly fragile, and his life is also so ridiculously short? (Either that, or Deckard did have some level of increased strength/agility and just wasn't aware that it was different from real humans', that he just didn't know his own strength.) And yeah, the studio's interference on the theatrical release was lame.
Some good choices but no Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the 1970's version with Donald Sutherland? Very creepy. Alien and Aliens are two of my favorites and I'm going to throw in Alien 3. Not as great as the first two but still a very good movie and three very different takes on the same character and idea. Its too bad the Alien Resurection was such a mess.
