h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well... I meant it's more about people doing stuff than having anything much to do with what I'd think of as sci-fi...

Hmm. Am I making sense here? Probably not

Basically, the plot would've worked pretty much the same anywhere... the whole space setting was good because it provided an interesting environment, and the opportunity for an unusual bad guy... but other than that, it didn't matter too much...

So... more of a horror story moved into sci-fi, than the other way 'round?

I'm making this up as I go along, you can tell, can't you?

But I think my idea of a sci-movie is more one that starts off with an idea about what effect technology could have on civilization, and moves from there...

A rather narrow interpretation of SF, if you don't mind me saying so.

Of course

I have nothing against good movies set in space... I just happen to be a fan of intelligent sci-fi too

Well I must say I've always thought of Star Wars as Swords And Sorcery Fantasy set in space so I think we have some common ground here.

Light Sabre = Swords
The Force = magic etc.

There was a fairly y conversation about this a long time ago on an article about Hard and Soft Sci-fi in Peer Review. I think the general upshot was that there are mulitudinous layers of gray between hard/soft/fantasy etc. so it's ultimately rather pointless to debate it.

But then most debates are pointless so

So am I!That's why Hollywood has such trouble producing good intelligent SF films.And yes Dogstar I do think that the Andromeda Strain was an intelligent SF film.The plot was tight,the SFX didn't intrude and the dialogue was at least halfway reasonable and it stands up to much of todays modern SF films.Most of todays SF is set for laughs,is usually a vehicle for a big name hollywood star and as for an intelligent plot don't bother looking.It's also why SF films will never get an Oscar for best picture(well that and the fact that no one in Hollywood appears to have any imagination either).

Incog.

Ah, that reminds me - I thought Andromeda Strain was a Michael Crichton effort, not Kubrick.

Which again reminds me, Westworld is a cracking Sci-fi film

Andromeda Strain *is* Michael Crichton, not Stanley Kubrick.

I have to admit that Full Metal Jacket was pretty decent, despite the fact that I was not used to sex and violence at the age I was when I saw it. Put it down to protectionism. Still, that was hardly inspirational either. Maybe my standards are too high. I feel pretty sure that I've never seen a film which would fall into the category of GENIUS. I have seen about half of the Channel 4 top 10 films ever, and none of them seemed more than very good and very entertaining.

Hmm.
If you've never seen a film that qualifies as GENIUS, what *would* qualify as genius?
Full Metal Jacket is flawed but very good-I prefer Paths of Glory, which essentially makes the same point but in a subtler way, I think.

i maintain that kubrik only made 3 good films. clockwork orange is bad...in comparisson to the book.

um. good sci fi. aliens is far superior to alien. and the fifth element is brilliant at recapturing kitsch. and flash gordon, of course

really there arent any genius sci films...star wars came close - the genre has to be swashbuckling and witty and tongue in cheek - but it wasnt quite there

Now, there are too many posts to get back to, but here's my tuppence on 2001. Apologies in advance if I repeat anyone...

2001 is meant to be about evolution; based on the Sentinel by Arthur C Clarke. Kubrick and Clarke first wrote 2001 in novel form; making it easier to adapt to screen (Clarke took credit for the book, Kubrick for the screenplay). Now, the film shows the 3 stages of Man, symbolised by, funnily enough, the monolith markers. The actors, I would like to stress, are deliberately 'wooden' as they are only furniture to the plot, HAL included. These monoliths were put in the spots they were as markers by an intelligent species (unknown, hence the mission to Jupiter) - the first one when the apemen figured out tools, the second when Man reached the moon and the third..well you get the picture!

The whole film is made to look like a visual ballet, hence the whole gracefulness of the prominent scene - the shuttle docking with the space station. The emphasis here is on the visuals all the way through, with the actors there providing the minimum amount of lines to basically provide a form of narration; carrying the story on when necessary. The Stargate scene is part of Bowman's transformation into the baby - the Starchild - and this sequence of going through the monolith into the chamber was most probably to depict the death of Bowman, conception, development and eventual birth of the Starchild.

People who say they hate 2001 normally don't understand what it's all about, and I can understand that - it's a difficult film to pick up on, but once you understand what's going on, then come back to me and tell me what you think.

i didnt really think that through did i?

ok, there have been no perfect swashbuckling sci-fi films. which are the only ones i like so

>the genre has to be swashbuckling and witty and tongue in cheek<

So then-Metropolis, The Shape of Things to Come, Solaris, Stalker-none of them count then as they don't have a 'space opera' feel.
Again, a very narrow definition of SF.

isnt that ever so slightly patronising? 2001 was like ELP - 70s prog rubbisj full of colours and quasi-depth which didnt actually have any real meaning

'the three stages of man' eh? isnt that deep...

i fully understand it thanks. the book was just about bareable. the film wasnt.

talk baout talking at crossed purposes

for the record: my definition of sf was flawed. i real;ised that microseconds after i pressed the button

No worries. I saw that a microsecond after you posted.
And where does Sailor Moon fit into all this?

it has a special place all of its own

Orcus, re:'This ship did the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs'

The only good explaination for that line I've heard is that the Falcon's jump drive "folds space", thus making the distance between you and your destination shorter... Thus the line makes sense.

2001 is often seen as the 'definitive' because it was waaaay ahead of its time in storyline and special effects; where would Lucas be today if he didn't 'borrow' some of the techniques?

Oh, and notice how quick Kubrick was to embrace new trends; the movie came out about 4 years after BBC2 was launched, and featured Bowman meeting the press (an artificially aged Kenneth Kendal as I recall) on BBC13...

Any guesses as to how long until BBC has 13 TV channels... It can't be much longer now.