Re: Silent Running

FWIW, I always found Silent Running a bit mawkish. I do like the fact that the robots were so small they to use amputees to operate them, though.

Re: Silent Running

Fully agree. Silent Running is true sci-fi, reflecting upon the beginnings of environmental consciousness in the contemporary world through the medium of a futuristic story.

Plus of course provided the template(s) from which R2-D2 was drawn in Huey, Dewey and Louie.

Re: Why are the flowers dying, Bruce?

I thought that was making a serious thematic point about how separated from nature humanity had become, not just suggesting that he was dumb.

Re: Why are the flowers dying, Bruce?

Hmm, I used to think he missed the obvious answer because he'd gone bonkers.

Re: Silent Running

"You put Zardoz in there but missed Silent Running?"

What's a bobsleigh team got to do with Sci-Fi? am I missing something??

Re: Silent Running

Er..Aren't you thinking of The Night Porter with Dirk Bogarde? She never did a nude scene after that one.

Re: Zardoz is terrible.

Maybe.... but there's boobs in it.

Re: Silent Running

+1 on addition of silent running.

Also, no Soylent Green?

Re: Silent Running

I read the list, I too immediately thought what about Silent Running? It always seems to be missed out on lists of this nature.

It's the only sci-fi film I've known that can make people cry.

Re: Silent Running

Huey, Dewey, and Louie now available in paper http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~sf-papercraft/sf/Silent.html

Re: Wot, no Avatar?

I watched it last week. Again. Awesome.

In addition, I have every film here, including the missing Silent running. And all the other Ape and Trek films. And Dark Star. And Ghost in the.

All are watchable, but above all, Zardoz should be avoided at all costs.

A thought occurs...I have too many Sci-fi movies.

Re: Wot, no Avatar?

"A thought occurs...I have too many Sci-fi movies."

I don't have nearly enough. I have far to many horror films, though.

Actually, I have far too many films.

Re: Wot, no Avatar?

And there's the issue: Avatar is *not* a science fiction film.

That is: it's undoubtedly a film (even if you ignore the ridiculous and overhyped 3-D) and there is *some* science - but if you take the science away it's no more than a 'let's build an oil well/mine/factory/whatever over the objections of the locals'.

A science fiction book|film can only be one in which the film fails if the science is removed - for example, Gattaca, The Day The Earth Stood Still, or Blade Runner... there's a lot more science fiction in print than we're ever likely to see in film, particularly when instead of science fiction we get extruded comic book product...

And Avatar had such potential... consider: every animal shown in the film had six limbs, with the sole exception of the smurfs, who had only four. And yet the smurfs had the same tentacle thingies to do the mind control of the animals... Mr Average Science Fiction Fan thinks to himself... okay, given that there's no obvious evolutionary route, the smurfs are obviously an introduced species. The ability to communicate is obviously engineered... so who engineered it, and why? And then the film turns into a humans bad, aliens good spiel with not even a glimpse of this fascinating stuff... meh

Re: Wot, no Avatar?

There's a pretty strong sic-fi element in the Avatars themselves. The ability to put your consciousness in to another body, cloned or otherwise, could be incredibly relevant in the near future. Would full-body replacements be available to the public if they could afford them? Would it be possible to transfer minds completely from body to body? Is immortality the next step for the super-rich?

As for the difference between the Na'vi and the other creatures in the area, just look at the huge difference between humans and other various animal and insect species on Earth. It's unlikely that the Na'vi are related to the animals of Pandora for the reasons you list. However, it's not impossible.

Re: Wot, no Avatar?

Avatar = Pocahontas = Not SciFi.

In 1607 (2194), a ship carrying John Smith (Jake Sully) arrives in the lush new land of North America (Pandora). The Settlers are mining for gold (uranianium) under the supervision of Govenor Ratcliffe (col john quarty). John Smith (jake sully) begins exploring new territory, and encounters Pocahontas (Neytari). Initially she is distrustful of him, but a message from

Grandmother Willow (the Tree of Souls) helps her overcome her trepidation.

The two begin spending time together. Pocahontas (Neytari) helps John (Jake) understand that all life is valuable and how all nature is connected at a circle of life

Furthermore she teaches him how to grow crops (tame dragons) and of her culture. We find that her father is Chier Powhatan (eytucan) and that she is set to be married to a Kocoum (Tsu Tey), a powerful warrior, but whom Pocahontas (Neytari) does not desire.

Over time John (Jake) and Pocohontas (Neytari) find that they have a love for one another. Back at the settlement, the men who believe that the natives are savages plan to attack them for thier gold (uranium). Kocoum (Tsu Tey) tries to kill John (Jake) out of jealousy but he is later killed by the settlers. As the settlers prepare thier attack, Jake is blamed by the Indians (Navi)

and is sentenced to death. Just before they kill him, the settlers arrive.

Chief Powhatan (eytucan) is killed and John (Jake) sustains injuries from Govenor Radcliffe ( col quaritas) who is then brought to justice (shot with arrows) Pocohontas (Neytari) risks her life to save John (Jake).

John (Jake) and Pocahontas (Neytari) finally have each other and the two cultures resolve thier differences. The End! (stolen from the web)

@Silverburn (Re: Wot, no Avatar?)

Ah yes, Dark Star. I've never looked at beach balls quite the same way since.

Let there be light.

Re: @Silverburn (Wot, no Avatar?)

We were discussing Avatar the other day, and the technology behind it, most specifically how the "synch" is happening between the host and the controller.

Ultimately we determined that it must be akin to SMS, but with some serious bandwidth.

Or alternatively, tripe.

Re: Wot, no Avatar?

I couldn't believe it was him when I saw Forbidden Planet. first film I saw with Leslie Nielson in was Airplane, then all the comedy offerings he was in over time, Police Squad, Naked Gun etc. I thought comic roles was all he'd done, shame, Forbidden Planet is cool.

And what's wrong with Zardoz? Granted it really doesn't fit in with the others on the list, you wouldn't sit down for a 'marathon' sci-fi film session and watch 2001, Close Encounters and then Zardoz. It would be like setting your musicplayer to play several classical music albums and then an album by Space Cat or Eat Static.

Fantastic Planet is a good film too, a Surrealist story based on the Soviet Occupation of Czechoslovakia. It, I think, like Zardoz doesn't so much ask questions so much as answer them in a language we've yet to learn... (either that or pass me the bong!)

Moon is another recent 'thoughtful' Sci-Fi movie, andd I too think Silent Running should have been on the list.

Frankly, several lists would have been better, Dystopian Visions: 1984, Gattaca, Blade Runner, Soylent Green

First Contact: Contact, 2001, Close Encounters

IT gone mad: Colossus the Forbin Project, Android

Mind Expanding: Fantastic Planet, Zardoz,

Re: Zardoz should be avoided at all costs.

I concur. It wasn't even bad enough to make the list for our college SF club's Top 10 Bad SF movies.

Although I have since seen one that was even worse. Some soulless twit had transferred a video copy to commercially released DVD. And unfortunately for him, the previous soulless twit who transferred the film to video had the reels out of order. We knew it was transferred from video because at one point you could see the video tape scroll line roll up the screen. Yes, these were the memorable things about the plot. That, and that it somehow revolved around using guns that looked like 1970s hair dryers.

Re: Have to agree with most of these, though Zardoz does look very daft.

I loved Moon, it had the faint touch of Solyaris about it...

Re: Moon

Whilst Moon was interesting to begin with and had excellent visuals (apart from people moving like they were in 1g when they were on the moon in 1/6th of a g!), IMO it explained itself too quickly and then ended in a fairly commonplace manner after a potentially good start.

[Possible spoilers in the next couple of paragraphs...]

I felt there could have been a lot more done with the "paranoia" aspect of "is this real or not" scenario and GERTY being helpful by giving Bell the password struck me as a convenient plot device which, given that it wouldn't answer his questions previously, didn't seem credible.

Also one thing that I didn't follow was that (presumably) the girl he hallucinates at the start is supposed to be the one who is now 15, but how did he know what she looked like as he wouldn't have had memories of her?

A nice idea, but flawed execution.

Re: Have to agree about Star Trek, it's my favourite Trek film

Are you and the author DAFT?!?!?!?

There's a reason Trekkies call it "The Motion Sickness." It was 110 long, boring minutes. The original show did better with less money and less time. Vger was an obvious Nomad ripoff even when the movie was released. Some damn fool making another "what would Ed Wood have done if only he'd had a budget' movie. Yes after 20 years we all went to see it because we were starved for something new and birthed the series again. But if you're picking an original crew Trek movie it's obviously Wrath of Khan.

Sunshine...?

Sunshine was an excellent spectacle, and a great attempt to revive the "endeavour sci-fi" genre, but two problems:

A) it was fairly light on the "human nature" side of things -- the baddie in Sunshine wasn't much of a clear analogy of anything. To be fair, a lot of endeavour sci-fi is lacking in this respect, and often they do descended into chase movies in a metal box.

B) the only reason we left the cinema impressed with it was the sheer scale and spectacle of it. I loved it. I said to a friend how much I loved it. He criticised the ending. I realised he was right. The film was really well crafted, and it perfectly generated willful suspension of disbelief, which excuses a really nonsensical ending only as far as "good entertainment", but not to the point where it can be considered "excellent sci-fi"....