On Wednesday, September 01, 2010 16:17:42 so wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:05:53 +0300, Walter Bright
> 
> <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> > Russel Winder wrote:
> >> Extremely serious low budget though -- everyone needs to remember that when watching (1974, so pre Star Wars, and a very, very low budget).
> > 
> > Dark Star and the Star Wars prequels prove that big budgets aren't what make a movie, a plot and good writing is.
> 
> If you ignore the Harrison Ford factor, SW is nothing but a soap opera to
> me...
> Then you watch Bladerunner, Alien... now they are truly awesome!

Actually, he specifically mentioned the prequels, not the original trilogy, so unless Dark Star has Harrison Ford in it (I haven't seen it, but I'm pretty sure that he's not in it), there is no Harrison Ford factor with the movies that he mentioned.

I think his point was that while the Star Wars prequels had large budgets, they weren't all that good, while Dark Star was good in spite of having a small budget. So, the budget doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the quality of the movie.

- Jonathan M Davis

"so" <so@so.do> wrote in message news:op.vidmzstl7dtt59@so-pc...
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:05:53 +0300, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> Russel Winder wrote:
>>> Extremely serious low budget though -- everyone needs to remember that when watching (1974, so pre Star Wars, and a very, very low budget).
>>
>> Dark Star and the Star Wars prequels prove that big budgets aren't what make a movie, a plot and good writing is.
>
> If you ignore the Harrison Ford factor, SW is nothing but a soap opera to me...

I don't really see that. To me, the original trilogy at least, seemed like action flicks in sci-fi clothing (Nothing wrong with that!) Now the Battlestar Galactica remake, the V remake, and Stargate Universe, *those* are soap operas pretending to be sci-fi. And that goes triple for Craprica.

I really miss the sci-fi from around 1990-2005 (approx). I know a lot of people would probably consider this heresy, but to me, that's the golden age of science fiction. All of the Berman-era Star Treks (none of this JJ Abrams nonsense), the Stargate movie, Stargate SG-1 (even Atlantis was at least ok), Babylon 5 (no spoilers! I still haven't gotten around to the last season and a half), The Fifth Element, Farscape, Firefly (although that was really more space western than sci-fi). Lots of great stuff.

But now sci-fi is mostly just soap operas with shitty camera work, and a few well-intended-but-ultimately-mediocre attempts like Warehouse 13, the revived Doctor Who, and Sanctuary (really more of an off-brand X-Men than sci-fi though - and I'm not much one for western comics). Eureka's about the only really good one on (although it still has just a touch more soap-drama than I would like, and sometimes it feels like Carter is the only one really carrying the show). So aside from that one, I usually just watch anime instead.

> Then you watch Bladerunner, Alien... now they are truly awesome!

Still haven't gotten around to seeing Alien (yea, I know - unthinkable ;) ), but I tried watching Bladerunner once and got bored quick and turned it off. I've been meaning to give it another try though, it certainly has a lot of recommendations behind it. Maybe it was just because I was watching the "director's edition"? Bladerunner fans: Which edition would be best to go with: original, "director's", or "final"?

> I think his point was that while the Star Wars prequels had large budgets, they
> weren't all that good, while Dark Star was good in spite of having a small
> budget. So, the budget doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the quality
> of the movie.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

err?

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

> Actually, he specifically mentioned the prequels, not the original trilogy, so
> unless Dark Star has Harrison Ford in it (I haven't seen it, but I'm pretty sure
> that he's not in it), there is no Harrison Ford factor with the movies that he
> mentioned.

SW = Star Wars
SW != Dark Star
I thought it was pretty obvious.
SW has Ford in it, and it sure hell has Ford factor in it. SW is not a low budget film.

> I think his point was that while the Star Wars prequels had large budgets, they
> weren't all that good, while Dark Star was good in spite of having a small
> budget. So, the budget doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the quality
> of the movie.

That is what i thought, and supported him as i think it is also pretty clear.
My English is not the best but i can't help but think the source of confusion is not my writing skills on this one :P

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> I don't really see that. To me, the original trilogy at least, seemed like action flicks in sci-fi clothing (Nothing wrong with that!) Now the Battlestar Galactica remake, the V remake, and Stargate Universe, *those* are soap operas pretending to be sci-fi. And that goes triple for Craprica.

So many people like BG that I keep giving it a try, and keep turning it off.

> I really miss the sci-fi from around 1990-2005 (approx). I know a lot of people would probably consider this heresy, but to me, that's the golden age of science fiction. All of the Berman-era Star Treks (none of this JJ Abrams nonsense), the Stargate movie, Stargate SG-1 (even Atlantis was at least ok), Babylon 5 (no spoilers! I still haven't gotten around to the last season and a half), The Fifth Element, Farscape, Firefly (although that was really more space western than sci-fi). Lots of great stuff.

Please don't overlook 2001 or Colossus.


> But now sci-fi is mostly just soap operas with shitty camera work, and a few well-intended-but-ultimately-mediocre attempts like Warehouse 13, the revived Doctor Who, and Sanctuary (really more of an off-brand X-Men than sci-fi though - and I'm not much one for western comics). Eureka's about the only really good one on (although it still has just a touch more soap-drama than I would like, and sometimes it feels like Carter is the only one really carrying the show). So aside from that one, I usually just watch anime instead.

Real sci-fi is based on a "what if X" and then a story is built around it. 2001 is what if we find an artifact on the moon? Colossus is what if a defense computer becomes sentient? Soap operas, horse operas, etc., aren't really sci-fi even if they are in spaceships. Monster movies are sci-fi, but the genre is so tired (something is killing the crew one by one!) that I really don't want to see another one.

Is Star Wars sci-fi? I'd say not, because spaceships are the setting, but have nothing to do with the plot which you could transfer wholesale to a western or an eastern. The fact that entire sequences seem to be lifted directly from "633 Squadron" also argues that it is not sci-fi.

BTW, watch "Primer". That's some really good sci-fi. No special effects, no budget, just exploring the amazing consequences of a simple idea.

> Still haven't gotten around to seeing Alien (yea, I know - unthinkable ;) ),
> but I tried watching Bladerunner once and got bored quick and turned it off.
> I've been meaning to give it another try though, it certainly has a lot of
> recommendations behind it. Maybe it was just because I was watching the
> "director's edition"? Bladerunner fans: Which edition would be best to go
> with: original, "director's", or "final"?
>

If you missed Alien, you missed it all, nothing else to say on that one!
For these two, i should actually stop talking, for i am so biased on both.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

"Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:i5ndnb$1e09$1@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> I don't really see that. To me, the original trilogy at least, seemed like action flicks in sci-fi clothing (Nothing wrong with that!) Now the Battlestar Galactica remake, the V remake, and Stargate Universe, *those* are soap operas pretending to be sci-fi. And that goes triple for Craprica.
>
> So many people like BG that I keep giving it a try, and keep turning it off.
>

I would see a minute or two of BG on TV now and then and turn away because of the soap-like tone and the questionable camera-work. But I started to get so starved for new science fiction (using the, umm, "spaceship" definition, not the technically correct one) that I ended up getting ahold of the miniseries and forced myself through the entire thing. The sets were *impressive*, and I kinda liked the new Starbuck (except for all her soapy-drama), and there was one really cool well-made scene where Starbuck saved some other pilot by locking the ships together - which lasted all of about a couple minutes. But I hated everything else about it, and I was really *forcing* myself though most of it (I was determined to give it a fair try).

Then Caprica came around, I started to watch the premiere, and I couldn't bring myself to watch any more than the first 10-15 minutes of it. It felt like I was watching one of those "The CW" shows like Seventh Heaven or One Tree Hill, but with blatantly bad "futurish" props (A pair of black plastic sunglasses with LEDs glued to it? That might have passed for cool and high-tech thirty years ago - but not in 2010.) I turned it on again an hour later, took one minute to see it hadn't gotten any better, and decided the show's correct spelling has an extra "r" as the second letter.

I've learned to be wary of popular shows. Lost seemed popular, so I gave the pilot a try. And well...let's say I guess I'm just not a JJ Abrams kind of guy. (But OTOH, avoiding popular shows left me missing out on a lot of Friends, so who can ever tell?)

>> I really miss the sci-fi from around 1990-2005 (approx). I know a lot of people would probably consider this heresy, but to me, that's the golden age of science fiction. All of the Berman-era Star Treks (none of this JJ Abrams nonsense), the Stargate movie, Stargate SG-1 (even Atlantis was at least ok), Babylon 5 (no spoilers! I still haven't gotten around to the last season and a half), The Fifth Element, Farscape, Firefly (although that was really more space western than sci-fi). Lots of great stuff.
>
> Please don't overlook 2001 or Colossus.
>

I have absolutely no good excuse for having never seen 2001 (especially since I liked some of Kubrick's other works: Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove). I keep meaning to pick up 2001 and never do. Never heared of Colossus, I'll have to look it up.

>
> Real sci-fi is based on a "what if X" and then a story is built around it.

Yea, I often use the "spaceship" definition out of habit and convenience. I do like both types of "science fiction" though.

> Monster movies are sci-fi, but the genre is so tired (something is killing the crew one by one!) that I really don't want to see another one.
>

I agree those "cast getting picked off one-by-one" plots are very tired and cliche'd. But once in awhile I come across one that has so much style and "fun" that I don't mind. The Tremors series, Ghosts of Mars, Pitch Black.

Same thing with the "unlikely teacher turning around a group of misfit students" movies. So many out there, and it's soooo tired and corny. But then I saw "Only The Strong" (lots of Capoeira) and didn't mind the generic plot.

The one plot I am really tired of though is "humans are put in danger by a human creation". Matrix, Terminator, 2001, and probably about five billion others. Great as some of those were (like the first two Terminators) I am really tired of that plot. I do plan to make an exception for 2001 though.

> Is Star Wars sci-fi? I'd say not, because spaceships are the setting, but have nothing to do with the plot which you could transfer wholesale to a western or an eastern. The fact that entire sequences seem to be lifted directly from "633 Squadron" also argues that it is not sci-fi.
>

Yea, it seems more like "action movie in sci-fi clothing" to me. Still liked it, though :)

> BTW, watch "Primer". That's some really good sci-fi. No special effects, no budget, just exploring the amazing consequences of a simple idea.

Sounds good. I'll look it up. One "real sci-fi" movie (with special effects, though) I remember liking was Dark City, although it's been so long I don't remember if it might have been more because of the style than anything else (Actually, I don't remember anything about it other than there being a city, a lot of blue and black, and a lake or something at the end).

What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for being "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of sheer curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to actually give it a try.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for being "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of sheer curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to actually give it a try.

I watched the original russian one. It's sci-fi, but it's rather long and boring. Like there's a long sequence of just the character driving on the freeway. Driving, driving, driving, ...

On 09/02/2010 04:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for
>> being "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of
>> sheer curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to
>> actually give it a try.
>
> I watched the original russian one. It's sci-fi, but it's rather long
> and boring. Like there's a long sequence of just the character driving
> on the freeway. Driving, driving, driving, ...

That was a key scene.

Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 09/02/2010 04:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> What do you think about Solaris? I've heard reviewers praising it for
>>> being "real" science fiction, so I've been tempted to try it out of
>>> sheer curiosity, but I've never felt confident enough about it to
>>> actually give it a try.
>>
>> I watched the original russian one. It's sci-fi, but it's rather long
>> and boring. Like there's a long sequence of just the character driving
>> on the freeway. Driving, driving, driving, ...
> 
> That was a key scene.

Whoosh. That's either your joke going way over my head, or the scene!