Let's talk about Sci-Fi movies

Some more facts regarding The Thing.

The Thing (also known as John Carpenter's The Thing) is a 1982 American science fiction horror film directed by John Carpenter, written by Bill Lancaster, and starring Kurt Russell. The film's title refers to its primary antagonist: a parasitic extraterrestrial lifeform that assimilates other organisms and in turn imitates them. The Thing infiltrates an Antarctic research station, taking the appearance of the researchers that it absorbs, and paranoia develops within the group.

The film is based on John W. Campbell, Jr.'s novella Who Goes There?, which was more loosely adapted by Howard Hawks and Christian Nyby as the 1951 film The Thing from Another World.[2] Carpenter considers The Thing to be the first part of his Apocalypse Trilogy,[3] followed by Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness. Although the films are narratively unrelated, each features a potentially apocalyptic scenario; should "The Thing" ever reach civilization, it would be only a matter of time before it consumes humanity.

On June 25, 1982, The Thing opened #8 in 840 theaters and remained in the top ten box office for three weeks.[4] The lower-than-expected performance has been attributed to many factors, including Steven Spielberg's E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, which was also released by Universal Studios around the same time and featured a more optimistic view of alien visitation,[5][6] as well as another popular science fiction film, Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, being released on the same day.[1] However, The Thing has gone on to gain a cult following with the release on home video. The film subsequently spawned a novelization in 1982; a comic book miniseries adaptation, entitled The Thing From Another World and published by Dark Horse Comics, in 1991; a video game sequel, also titled The Thing, in 2002; and a prequel film with the same title on October 14, 2011.

Wiki

I have yet to watch The Thing from Another World (1951). Goes off the look for it ...
 
Nerfherder said:
Robots from the future use drugged human slaves to power the planet ?

Yip.
Click to expand...

You see in the matrix the technology is the central theme. In hunger games it's a means to an end. That's the difference. if you replace the tech in the matrix with magic it changes everything. Replace the tech in hunger games with magic and the experience is the same.
 
Chevron said:
You see in the matrix the technology is the central theme. In hunger games it's a means to an end. That's the difference. if you replace the tech in the matrix with technology it changes everything. Replace the tech in hunger games with magic and the experience is the same.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmm....
We're gonna have to agree to disagree on sci-fi vs fantasy
 
Chevron said:
You see in the matrix the technology is the central theme. In hunger games it's a means to an end. That's the difference. if you replace the tech in the matrix with technology it changes everything. Replace the tech in hunger games with magic and the experience is the same.
Click to expand...

Remember the criterion:

Set in the real world (So its possible)
Science that could happen
Resulting moral dilemma

If there was magic then it would be something else... but it does not, so its sci-fi
 
Lorde won best "Rock Music video" at the 2014 MVA's.

Does criteria actually still apply in the world? :p
 
Pooky said:
Hmmmmmm....
We're gonna have to agree to disagree on sci-fi vs fantasy
Click to expand...

It's easier to see the difference by thinking of them as plot devices.

Why did the author/writer choose to use tech to make something happen instead of magic?

What would happen if you replaced one with the other?

Could you achieve the same effect story wise by replacing one with the other?

Do they explain how the tech works?

Quite a few movies use tech to explain something just as excuse to make their story seem more legitimate because magic is starting to seem old fashioned now. Or as excuse to make their story seem different when they stole the plot from a fantasy universe. It's quite obvious when you start looking out for it.

Another way to think of it is, if the average teenage girl likes it, then it's not sci-fi. it's fantasy.

Hence HG is fantasy.
 
Chevron said:
It's easier to see the difference by thinking of them as plot devices.

Why did the author/writer choose to use tech to make something happen instead of magic?

What would happen if you replaced one with the other?

Could you achieve the same effect story wise by replacing one with the other?

Do they explain how the tech works?

Quite a few movies use tech to explain something just as excuse to make their story seem more legitimate because magic is starting to seem old fashioned now. Or as excuse to make their story seem different when they stole the plot from a fantasy universe. It's quite obvious when you start looking out for it.
Click to expand...

But where is this criteria that the tech has to be irreplaceable and/or explainable?

Wikipedia and imdb both list it is Science Fiction. Sure you may have a different definition but I don't think that those two criteria distinguish the genre.
 
Ok obviously there are difference sub-genres of scifi

How would one classilfy these 90s and early 2000s sci-fi movies

Screamers
Waterworld
Species
The Fifth Element
Mimic
The Postman
Sphere
Virus
eXistenZ
Bicentinnial Man
A.I.
 
Ok seriously? You should all hang your heads in shame, NO ONE has said 5th Element yet???? WTF :wtf:

*edit* Damn you Razed, spoiled a good rant, while I typed!
 
Pooky said:
But where is this criteria that the tech has to be irreplaceable and/or explainable?

Wikipedia and imdb both list it is Science Fiction. Sure you may have a different definition but I don't think that those two criteria distinguish the genre.
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way. Hunger Games might be considered sci-fi but its just so damn cheesy!

For me personally I wouldn't put Hunger Games in my Sci-Fi folder but rather in my When Theres Nothing Else To Watch folder.
 
RazedInBlack said:
Let me put it this way. Hunger Games might be considered sci-fi but its just so damn cheesy!

For me personally I wouldn't put Hunger Games in my Sci-Fi folder but rather in my When Theres Nothing Else To Watch folder.
Click to expand...

Haha but not all Sci-Fi's have to be great!

I feel like Sci-Fi has a 'cult'-ish following of purists who want to outcast any movies that don't fall within their rigid framework... :p

EDIT: That said, I love Hunger Games! I wish I read the books before the movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X