• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Two films science fiction fans should enjoy


Mogwa

Skilled Investigator
Good films these days are about as rare as honest politicians. As an old school fan of sci-fi, most movies released in the genre for the past few years have left me feeling especially disappointed. ( "I'll kill you with my little key.") That's why I was surprised when a spur of the moment DVD purchase paid off and I discovered two gems I'd missed in theatrical release.
Dark City isn't perfect, but it's a beautiful film with a plot those interested in ufo's will find fascinating. The snaggle toothed alien child made my skin crawl.
A Scanner Darkly has won a place in my top ten list, in the company of Forbidden Planet and Twelve Monkeys. This is genuine Phillip K. Dick mind bending at it's best. Although Keanu Reeves gives his usual deadpan performance, it works well for his character in this instance. Rory Cochrane is hilarious as the brain fried druggie. Some may not care for the cel shaded animation effect, but I loved it. The next time you have a bit of free time, give these two a view.
 
Sci-Fi has always been my favourite genre in both books and film - I have "Dark City" on DVD - ordered "A Scanner Darkly" last week (read the book last year), should be here any day now...

I have 5 volumes of PKD short stories - I'm halfway through the 3rd volume - more people should read him..."Valis" was a truly bizarre book, but absolutely fascinating.

As you might have guessed, "Blade Runner" is my favourite film of all time - also based on the PKD novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep".
 
I agree, Rick. Blade Runner is a wonderful film and could arguably be reckoned to hold the top spot in ratrings. It's also one of the rare instances where I find the theatrical release version to be superior to the expanded dvd director's cut. Aliens (Alien 2) greatly benefited from the inclusion of additional footage because it clarified and expanded the story, while BR's director's cut seemed to do just the opposite.
I suppose most sci-fi fans would be outraged by my top film picks since the Star Wars franchise is nowhere to be found. I consider Lucas's work to be fantasy rather than true sf, properly belonging in the same genre with Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. There's nothing wrong with fantasy, it just shouldn't be confused with genuine sci-fi.
 
Mogwa said:
I suppose most sci-fi fans would be outraged by my top film picks since the Star Wars franchise is nowhere to be found. I consider Lucas's work to be fantasy rather than true sf, properly belonging in the same genre with Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. There's nothing wrong with fantasy, it just shouldn't be confused with genuine sci-fi.


Have we met on another forum? Ever been to BladeZone? I used to run the site and forums there and a few years ago I was arguing the very same thing - I love Star Wars (saw it in 77 when I was 6 years old) but I've come to realise that it IS NOT science-fiction.

Here's my opening argument on Bladezone (posted June 2002) -

...in my opinion, Star Wars is fantasy and is not science fiction.

It's a little tricky to justify - if you type "define science fiction" into your favourite web search engine you'll get all sorts of articles defining what Sci-Fi is and is not. Unfortunately, a lot of the definitions contradict each other, so I guess there is no absolute definition of Sci-Fi.

If you read how Philip K Dick defined science fiction you will find that he preferred to see it as a story based around today's society that is somehow distorted by a distinct new idea. This distinct new idea is usually formed by taking an existing social mechanism or technology and predicting a future path for it's development that falls away from the expected trend. What you end up with is an alternative universe that seems very familiar but at the same time quite different from the real universe. The differences, although significant, ought to be within the realms of what is currently accepted as possible and plausible.

PKD also says that Sci-Fi doesn't necessarily have to be set in the future - it can be set in the present day or even the past, describing an alternative historical path for todays society. He also says that Sci-Fi doesn't necessarily have to involve space, space-ships and wars in space. These sort of stories are just "space adventures" that lack any distinct new idea which would define them as Sci-Fi. My own opinion is that they're just 'cowboy' films set in space - the emphasis is purely on the characters and actions of the characters. There's no exploration of a new concept. No explanation of how todays society evolved into the future one.

I agree with a lot of what PKD has said. I love Sci-fi that examines an existing scientific theory and takes it to the next logical step and then explores the consequences of doing so. It makes you think about the future possibilites. Blade Runner is classic Sci-fi because it fits that model as defined by PKD. Essentially the story and movie look at the current progress being made in the creation of artificial intelligence and life and ask "At what point does an AI entity become a living, sentient being and what rights does this afford it and, ultimately, what does it mean to be alive anyway?".

Star Wars does not fit the model. George Lucas has said that he's not interested in explaining the technology in Star Wars - he doesn't care about the practicalities of light sabres, he just likes the idea. The whole story takes place in another galaxy, so it's not based on our society and doesn't represent an alternative reality for our society. The whole universe is just there - none of it is tied in with what we recognise as Earth history. Yes, there are robots, space-ships, aliens and such, but they're just part of the Star Wars furniture. They're insignificant. The whole technological aspect of Star Wars is undefined and unimportant. Of course, retrospectively, clever authors have written books explaining how some of these technologies could be made to work - but that is missing the point.

In my opinion, the whole Star Wars series could be shot as a 15th Century pirate adventure set on the high seas. Or even a pseudo-historical Roman epic.

After saying all of that it doesn't take away the fact that Star Wars is a wonderful fantasy adventure. I was six years old when I saw the film in 1977 - it's one of the strongest memories that I have from my childhood and probably has been more influential to me than any other movie (I was a late-comer to Blade Runner). Even today I continue to watch it and enjoy but I don't think too deeply about it. And I don't consider it to be true Sci-Fi.

I can post the link to the original thread, but you need to register an account (which is free) on BladeZone to see it...
 
Star Wars is a movie property designed by Lucas and his people, to sell toys, products and marketing tie-ins.

That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

I know I'll get flack for this, but I worked for the man, so I might have a slight insider's bias here.

Those of you who truly think and feel that these movies are anything more than the above, you're entitled to believe whatever you want, but just know that George is laughing all the way to the bank. He doesn't care about what you believe, as long as you shell out the cash for the latest rendition of these movies. What, you don't have your original trilogy, without all the great digital additions? Well, step right up, we've got some more crap for you to buy.

Oy.

You want to see a good sci-fi film, with great effects, gorgeous music, an actual story and some depth?

Watch "The Fountain". A genius film seen by hundreds last year. Lucas couldn't make something this meaningful if his life depended on it.

dB
 
I agree with you 100% - I have an emotional attachment to the original Star Wars trilogy because it relates to the happiest days of my life so far - i.e. my childhood. Lucas knows this and exploits it.

I don't rate the new trilogy but I have bought all three on DVD. The reason? Well, firstly to "complete the set" (what a wonderful marketing ploy), secondly because I enjoy the "eye candy" (I find myself fascinated with the CGI environments and creatures) and thirdly I enjoy the "making of" documentaries.

Lucas has made a serious Sci-Fi film - THX1138 - I bought the "enhanced" version on DVD last year and I have to say that it has improved the original enormously.

I'll add "The Fountain" to my "must see" list (why haven't I heard of film this before?) - I have "PI" on DVD from the same director and enjoyed it.
 
Great art can still come through large egos if the spiritual conception is strong enough. I view Star Wars as a modern day bible. Meaning it speaks about universal truths in a parable form. I also see Lucas milking it too. Just as preachers and evangelist do. It's not either/or to me but both/and. Lucas is such a small part of Star Wars. The more recent ones I liken to listening to a great band, but with an awful singer.

Not really sci fi (then again, depends on who you ask), but I learned there is a sequel to "What the Bleep do we know", called "Down the Rabbit Hole". Many people here will probably enjoy it.

David, you might get a kick out of a cartoon of Lucas I can send you. You ever check your PMs? I've sent 2 before, never heard back from you. Anyway, guess I could post it here next time I come across it.
 
Star Wars was my universe up until my teens when I began to actually do research on why exactly Jedi stank so bad compared to New hope And Empire. Two names floated to the surface in the form of explanation: Larry Kurtz and Leigh Brackett. This instilled in me niggling doubts about the then upcoming prequels. My fears were justified, the truth laid bare: George Lucas couldn't direct traffic in a one-way street.

Nowadays I look at Star Wars the same way I fondly remember an old pet. I have mentally divorced the prequels from the originals, they are to my mind unrelated.

Dark City is a fan fav of mine... Mmmm... Jennifer Connoley.. wait, what were we talking about?
 
CapnG said:
Star Wars was my universe up until my teens when I began to actually do research on why exactly Jedi stank so bad compared to New hope And Empire. Two names floated to the surface in the form of explanation: Larry Kurtz and Leigh Brackett. This instilled in me niggling doubts about the then upcoming prequels. My fears were justified, the truth laid bare: George Lucas couldn't direct traffic in a one-way street.

Nowadays I look at Star Wars the same way I fondly remember an old pet. I have mentally divorced the prequels from the originals, they are to my mind unrelated.

Dark City is a fan fav of mine... Mmmm... Jennifer Connoley.. wait, what were we talking about?

I remember enjoying the first two original Star Wars films (not the prequels), but the Ewoks annoyed me tremendously.

I had a chance to watch one of those "enhanced" Star Wars DVDs a year or two back and found it far less satisfactory. Dialog and acting weren't so good, and I remembered the original Flash Gordon serial, from the 1930s, far more fondly.
 
CapnG said:
Dark City is a fan fav of mine... Mmmm... Jennifer Connoley.. wait, what were we talking about?

Don't get me started... I worked on "The Rocketeer", where she's wearing a white dress to the nightclub to meet Neville Sinclair... OMG, she is one of the most alluring women on this planet. A true knockout.

dB
 
I consider Lucas's work to be fantasy rather than true sf, properly belonging in the same genre with Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. There's nothing wrong with fantasy, it just shouldn't be confused with genuine sci-fi.
The folks to whom the term "sci-fi" is an abomination on a par with "Trekkie" call Star Wars and similar films "space opera", an equivalent to the "horse opera" in the era of westerns. The SF aspects are secondary to the romance and derring-do of the stalwart hero(es) who wear white space helmets and save galaxies, if not the universe, from the ne'er-do-wells.

I find them enjoyable as escapist entertainment, much as I like "hard" SF for thought provocation. The films that bug me are those that have no reason to exist other than as showpieces for SFX/CGI.

"Starship Troopers" is one such. How many ways can we depict human bodies being dismembered with maximum gore?

As for the "science", egad. The critters, without any sign of even the most basic technology, are somehow flinging meteors toward Earth, an unspecified number of light years away. And we are to believe that they arrive in a time frame less than several million years, with a targeting accuracy that allows a really big-assed rock to whack Buenos Aires when they'd be lucky to get it out of their own solar system, let alone into ours.

And the good guys managed to drag the "brain bug" out of its cave. Yeah, SURE they did. The thing weighed at least several hundred tons, and none of the troopers looked even remotely like Clark Kent.

There are good SF films. There are good space opera films. And there are junk-science POS films that take a classic SF book, e.g., Heinlein's "Starship Troopers", and destroy it in the name of "Gee whiz!" and boob/butt shots.

Re "Dark City", that's a gem. "He can TUNE!"

MrSleep.jpg
 
Starship Troopers is the probably the first movie I saw that made me want to read the book it was based on, simply because people wouldn't shut up about how different/superior it was. I was glad I did.

I didn't actually mind the film though, as I was more interested in the cgi of the time and the overall look and feel of the film than the (ahem) plot. I have a soft spot for some movies that are simply over-the-top. Captain of the high school football team... "would you like to know more?"... Dougie Howser as the psychic gestapo officer... pure hilarity!
 
David Biedny said:
Star Wars is a movie property designed by Lucas and his people, to sell toys, products and marketing tie-ins.

That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
...
Oy.

You want to see a good sci-fi film, with great effects, gorgeous music, an actual story and some depth?

Watch "The Fountain". A genius film seen by hundreds last year. Lucas couldn't make something this meaningful if his life depended on it.

dB


Dave,

Agreed. The flood of endorphins my 8th grade brain experienced watching the first release seared a warm spot in my heart - and Lucas been taking it to the bank ever since. The 'friendly pet' notion had it right, it's such a social mythos now that no grand family gathering of mine is complete until some wannabee lounge lizard starts belting out Bill Murray, "Star Wars, nothing but, STAR WARS..."

Alas, his priorities make for slipshod stories anymore. It was all-too clear with the release of yon Ewokian hordes upon us that this declining arc of stories would drag down a promising framework to view life in our universe. I know all great engineers are Scotsman, but what's with that asiaticized mercantile race except some archetype left over from the previous decade? Yeah verily, we should have taken this warning for the discordant Jar-Jar clouds that approached.

This brings me to my deepest criticism of Lucas, his hindbrain notions of genetic determinism that make for elite leadership and anti-democratic expectations. What was annoying in the 1990's is cavalier and dangerous in the harsh light of the reactionary XXIst. The "Force" was a handy conceit most people used as a mirror to project their own rationale to uphold {like old-time radio shows}, but his need to explain it as biological inner power with his simplistic authoritarian social structures turned it into a cudgel. Do we really need to give the Brave Neo-Eugenics crowd an excuse to share a Red Bull chaser with skin-heads before the cleansing bonfire? David Brin summed it up comparing <a href="Stories about Movies" target="blank">Star Trek to Star Wars </a> mental frameworks at Salon a few years ago and he has <a href="http://davidbrin.com/starwarsarticle1.html">followed up </a>with the storm of letters that deluged him.

I missed The Fountain and will make a point of getting to it sooner than later. At the other end of the spectrum, I recommend a Sundance winner called "Primer - what if it worked" about some startup tinkerers who make an interesting device that turns their lives into a Rubik's Cube.

- JG -

BTW - My wife still refuses to accept the story, but I can't watch a scene from Hook w/o thinking of you frame-by-frame doctoring Tinkerbell's eyes.
 
Lucas has stated that the first three (in our time) were the ones he felt would make the best movies, or the best part of the story, and that's why he did EP. 4 first. I wonder if that has a lot to do with people's dissapointment. Hard to top the best part of a story.

I also wonder if anyone would be pleased with anything in the wake of the original Star Wars. I watched the new movies not expecting them to be better than the original ones. I didn't have high hopes, so I wasn't shattered. Lightsaber battles were better in many ways, but Jar Jar, bleh. A "bad" Star Wars movie is better than none in my view.

I always wanted to see a sequel though. I read the book that took the story on after Return of the Jedi. Not sure of the author. Think it was Timothy Zhion. Seeing that in a movie would be pretty cool I think. More so than most the stuff that comes out at least. It lacked a nemesis though. No Vader, or Maul really. Just some military normal Joe Smoes.
 
David,

Yes, THE FOUNTAIN was quite brilliant. For a while I thought I was the only person in America who liked that film. I've read so many negative reviews and everyone I've spoken to about it has hated it.

Odd.
 
Well as David can attest I was a Star Wars FREAK. Sorry to say alot of my stuff has gone to auction, just because I feel the whole ball of wax was getting shoved in my face to buy more and more...and at one time I was willing to do it. Stupid. Yet, Empire is still one of my absolute favs.

My fav real sci-fi of all time? Blade Runner, closely followed by one people really forgot, The Abyss.
 
jritzmann said:
Empire is still one of my absolute favs.

Mine too, probably the same for all discerning SW fans. Coincidentally it's the one Lucas had the least to do with... yes.. COINCIDENCE...
 
Back
Top