"Total Recall" bombs at the box office.

[zerocool84]

Bladerunner sucked ass. I'm still stunned at everybody's love for it.

Lifetime Ban

 

[purbeast0]

It's just a bunch of CGI chase scenes. The changes they made were really stupid, and it's inferior to the original.

and? why can't they both be good?

and they weren't "changes" because it wasn't a remake of the arnold one or trying to be the same movie.

 

[Ns1]

I thought the reboot was enjoyable.

 

[Cerb]

Best part is Hollywood will use this as an excuse to pass up sci-fi movie ideas.

Maybe a rich star will latch on to a good one?

Hollywood didn't even want the first attempt at making a movie of We can Remember it for You Wholesale--or at least, nobody finished it. Arnold wanted it. It was not a good movie because it was the first try at it. It was a good movie because the starter script was partly written by Dan O'Bannen, Schwarzenegger and Verhooven had a good vibe going, and wanted to make it a good movie.

If the original hadn't been floating around in the gutter for years, and if Arnold Schwarzenegger hadn't gotten more or less total creative control, including eschewing fancy CGI of the time, it would likely have sucked, like most Dick adaptations have.

 

[zerocool84]

Maybe a rich star will latch on to a good one?

Hollywood didn't even want the first attempt at making a movie of We can Remember it for You Wholesale--or at least, nobody finished it. Arnold wanted it. It was not a good movie because it was the first try at it. It was a good movie because the starter script was partly written by Dan O'Bannen, Schwarzenegger and Verhooven had a good vibe going, and wanted to make it a good movie.

If the original hadn't been floating around in the gutter for years, and if Arnold Schwarzenegger hadn't gotten more or less total creative control, including eschewing fancy CGI of the time, it would likely have sucked, like most Dick adaptations have.

Most movies based on his works have not sucked. Only two have but the rest have at least been good. If Paycheck hadn't been so horribly written, it would have been a good movie as it was a great concept and Next had Nicolas Cage in it and he's just terrible altogether.

 

[Cerb]

I'll just have to disagree. IMO, Total Recall, Bladerunner, and A Scanner Darkly are the only good ones, and The Adjustment Bureau at least didn't suck. The rest pretty much have.

Total Recall and Paycheck, however, were the only two I saw without having read their source stories, first, so I do have some significant bias.

 

[BladeVenom]

and? why can't they both be good?

Even ignoring the first one, the second one wasn't good. Maybe mediocre, if you love CGI and lots of chases. I'd give it a 5 out of 10 if I was feeling generous.

and they weren't "changes" because it wasn't a remake of the arnold one or trying to be the same movie.

Of course it was a remake of the previous Total Recall movie. It certainly wasn't based on the book, We Can Remember It for You Wholesale.

 

[Doppel]

This movie really was not that bad, I mean it was watchable though certainly not as good as original.

 

[Doppel]

Bladerunner sucked ass. I'm still stunned at everybody's love for it.

This is actually true, I tried to watch it once/twice and started cutting myself. It's just fucking boring as HELL. All I remember from the movie is dark rain and stupid crap, nothing else, and I love sci-fi movies.

 

[zinfamous]

This is actually true, I tried to watch it once/twice and started cutting myself. It's just fucking boring as HELL. All I remember from the movie is dark rain and stupid crap, nothing else, and I love sci-fi movies.

I now find this statement questionable.


I think what you like are action movies with robots and space and ships and stuff.

I don't think you actually like sci fi.

 

[purbeast0]

I now find this statement questionable.


I think what you like are action movies with robots and space and ships and stuff.

I don't think you actually like sci fi.

if you don't like blade runner then you can't like sci fi?

 

[KidNiki1]

if you don't like blade runner then you can't like sci fi?

Yes.

 

[Aikouka]

I think what you like are action movies with robots and space and ships and stuff.

I don't think you actually like sci fi.

Pretty certain what you mentioned constitutes science fiction.

I saw Blade Runner, and I got kind of bored during it too. I didn't think it was terrible, but if you expect it to be a Sci-Fi Action movie, then you'll be sorely disappointed as it's more of a cerebral film.

 

[bigrash]

Watched it in the theater. It started off good, but sucked really bad starting halfway through and kept getting worse.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Pretty certain what you mentioned constitutes science fiction.

I saw Blade Runner, and I got kind of bored during it too. I didn't think it was terrible, but if you expect it to be a Sci-Fi Action movie, then you'll be sorely disappointed as it's more of a cerebral film.

With Blade Runner and movies like it, I can never tell if I'm an idiot for not "getting" it, or if the people who love it only do so because it makes them feel smart, or because they feel obligated to. I mean, I watched it and hated it. Most of it didn't make any sense at all. It's an impossibly cool, stylish movie that still looks good today, but the story itself is really weak.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

if you don't like blade runner then you can't like sci fi?

this

Yes.

 

[surfsatwerk]

if you don't like blade runner then you can't like sci fi?

This is a statement of fact.

 

[zinfamous]

if you don't like blade runner then you can't like sci fi?

most likely, yes.

more than that, though, it probably means one easily confuses movies with robots/spaceships/etc with what they think is sci fi.

 

[gorobei]

blade runner is bona fide SF. i like both versions(ridley cut and original theatrical with decker voice over)

look up cinema noir to understand the history and traditions that the movie basically reinvented for the modern generation.

the dialogue is very dense with a ton of subtext and relies on a fairly informed and focused audience, but the story substance is definitely there.

 

[PingSpike]

With Blade Runner and movies like it, I can never tell if I'm an idiot for not "getting" it, or if the people who love it only do so because it makes them feel smart, or because they feel obligated to. I mean, I watched it and hated it. Most of it didn't make any sense at all. It's an impossibly cool, stylish movie that still looks good today, but the story itself is really weak.

I like Blade Runner but I can totally understand why some one wouldn't. On the cover it really seems like its going to be an action oriented film. The actual product it more of a what is it to be human? mindfuck with little explanation about how the replicants work. It is left really open and the viewer is expected to answer the questions for themselves. You kind of have to be in the mood for it. I will say the style and world it created combined with the performances of the accessory characters are great.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I saw it on the plane and was entertained.

 

[zinfamous]

Pretty certain what you mentioned constitutes science fiction.

I saw Blade Runner, and I got kind of bored during it too. I didn't think it was terrible, but if you expect it to be a Sci-Fi Action movie, then you'll be sorely disappointed as it's more of a cerebral film.

no, robots and spaceships does not make sci fi.

sci fi needs none of that to be sci fi. Sci Fi is a genre that challenges one's notion of humanity and/or reality through realistic, fundamental problems that arise when we consider very specific questions generated through current scientific or "futuristic" discoveries, research, problems.

Sci Fi is Sci Fi if it is "possible," meaning--we recognize this world in the sense that, OK, are there humans? Yes, but if no, do these critters represent a social order or set of circumstances that are highly relatable to how we perceive the world? Yes! If not--meaning, if there is no humanity--then it is not Sci Fi--it is fantasy.

2nd, is the science absurd and impossible? If so, not completely outside sci fi, but it makes the labeling difficult. As such, something like Star Trek teeters on that edge--I'd call it Sci Fi, but there are plenty of valid arguments that push it more towards the realm of fantasy. Star Trek focuses on current social topics and common, repeatable dilemmas and issues that we face in the real world, so to me, that is what makes it pretty good sci fi--even though the tech and "distance from reality" are absurd. (another issue. great sci fi is great because it takes place in a recognizable time period. say....within 30-40 years is a good sweet spot, so that technology makes sense to what we know, as do geopolitical events that make perfect sense to us).

So, some of the best Sci Fi: 2001, 1984, Children of Men, Moon, Blade Runner, Total Recall*

Action movies that have robots and monsters and stuff: Alien movies, Terminator movies, Star Wars (this is pure fantasy), etc.

Total Recall, of course, because it is Philip K Dick. This is how you know blade Runner is true Sci Fi. I advise the doubters to actually go to the source and read the originals. Hollywood tends to pervert his work to some extent--BR is very different from DADoES?, but the film adaptation retains the spirit and central theme while creating a perfect atmosphere for that world, if not directly addressing the larger questions--what are the things we use to define ourselves as human (not simply: what is human?)

 

[purbeast0]

no, robots and spaceships does not make sci fi.

sci fi needs none of that to be sci fi. Sci Fi is a genre that challenges one's notion of humanity and/or reality through realistic, fundamental problems that arise when we consider very specific questions generated through current scientific or "futuristic" discoveries, research, problems.

Sci Fi is Sci Fi if it is "possible," meaning--we recognize this world in the sense that, OK, are there humans? Yes, but if no, do these critters represent a social order or set of circumstances that are highly relatable to how we perceive the world? Yes! If not--meaning, if there is no humanity--then it is not Sci Fi--it is fantasy.

2nd, is the science absurd and impossible? If so, not completely outside sci fi, but it makes the labeling difficult. As such, something like Star Trek teeters on that edge--I'd call it Sci Fi, but there are plenty of valid arguments that push it more towards the realm of fantasy. Star Trek focuses on current social topics and common, repeatable dilemmas and issues that we face in the real world, so to me, that is what makes it pretty good sci fi--even though the tech and "distance from reality" are absurd. (another issue. great sci fi is great because it takes place in a recognizable time period. say....within 30-40 years is a good sweet spot, so that technology makes sense to what we know, as do geopolitical events that make perfect sense to us).

So, some of the best Sci Fi: 2001, 1984, Children of Men, Moon, Blade Runner, Total Recall*

Action movies that have robots and monsters and stuff: Alien movies, Terminator movies, Star Wars (this is pure fantasy), etc.

Total Recall, of course, because it is Philip K Dick. This is how you know blade Runner is true Sci Fi. I advise the doubters to actually go to the source and read the originals. Hollywood tends to pervert his work to some extent--BR is very different from DADoES?, but the film adaptation retains the spirit and central theme while creating a perfect atmosphere for that world, if not directly addressing the larger questions--what are the things we use to define ourselves as human (not simply: what is human?)

not sure why you are trying to make the definition of sci fi be something it isn't. it's simply "science fiction" and doesn't have to meet these special rules that you have in mind to be sci fi.

 

[blankslate]

I saw Blade Runner, and I got kind of bored during it too. I didn't think it was terrible, but if you expect it to be a Sci-Fi Action movie, then you'll be sorely disappointed as it's more of a cerebral film.

That's the thing.

In my opinion, probably shaped by something I have read before about how music videos influenced the editing of movies, if you look hard enough you can find a period in time that marks a clear distinction between movies that will appeal to a younger generation more because of a quicker pacing.

If you can't stand the pace of Blade Runner which isn't that slow for what it is... a detective story in a sci-fi setting that questions the nature of what it is to be "human."
Then it's likely you are young enough early 20's at most that just about every entertainment show has been current when you grew up has been on the faster paced side.

 

[Aikouka]

no, robots and spaceships does not make sci fi.

sci fi needs none of that to be sci fi. Sci Fi is a genre that challenges one's notion of humanity and/or reality through realistic, fundamental problems that arise when we consider very specific questions generated through current scientific or "futuristic" discoveries, research, problems.

I think you are sort of correct with this. Since robots and space ships are things that exist in this world currently, simply having a Roomba and a space shuttle in your movie does not make it Sci-Fi. However...

Sci Fi is Sci Fi if it is "possible," meaning--we recognize this world in the sense that, OK, are there humans? Yes, but if no, do these critters represent a social order or set of circumstances that are highly relatable to how we perceive the world? Yes! If not--meaning, if there is no humanity--then it is not Sci Fi--it is fantasy.

Here is where your definition falters. Science Fiction is meant to encompass ideas and objects that don't exist, but we don't question the fact that they could eventually exist. In other words, they aren't outside the realm of possibility, and that's what makes Sci-Fi so wonderful (...depending on the application ). Do you remember those Popular Science magazines where they would talk about the flying cars of the future and such? That's pretty much the kind of wonder that Sci-Fi can invoke.

2nd, is the science absurd and impossible? If so, not completely outside sci fi, but it makes the labeling difficult. As such, something like Star Trek teeters on that edge--I'd call it Sci Fi, but there are plenty of valid arguments that push it more towards the realm of fantasy.

I'm pretty certain that Star Trek is considered Sci-Fi by just about anyone. While some aspects of the show may be far less believable than others, it still exists in the Sci-Fi "Realm of Possibility!" (You have to say that in a booming voice for effect. )

Action movies that have robots and monsters and stuff: Alien movies, Terminator movies, Star Wars (this is pure fantasy), etc.

I'm... pretty certain that every movie in your list is a science fiction movie. Now, I can understand why someone would be slightly hesitant to call Star Wars Sci-Fi, and I would assume that's because of the inclusion of The Force. Quite simply, The Force = magic, and magic is generally not accepted as staple of Sci-Fi. As much as people hate it, Lucas's Midochlorian crap from Episode 1 actually fixed that problem and made it closer to Sci-Fi.

If you can't stand the pace of Blade Runner which isn't that slow for what it is... a detective story in a sci-fi setting that questions the nature of what it is to be "human."
Then it's likely you are young enough early 20's at most that just about every entertainment show has been current when you grew up has been on the faster paced side.

If you knew me personally, then you would know that the topic of the movie is actually something that I find very intriguing. As a software engineer, one of my personal interests (in the field) is human artificial intelligence. Sometimes I find it fascinating just to think about how we think. Why do we do certain things? What makes us draw certain conclusions? Arguably, to ever create a passable human A.I., we need to be able to answer those sort of questions.

Also, it helps that I'll watch just about any movie with a robot or a person that invents robots.

I think the part that made the movie harder for me to watch was simply that it's an 80s movie. Not that I mind older movies, but sometimes they just seem to include scenes that seem to provide little to no benefit. Probably the worst part of the movie for me was closer toward the end. I can still picture the weird female, gymnastic replicant flipping around that poorly-lit apartment. That scene was so damned weird. :|

Dark City is another Sci-Fi movie that I found to be a little too boring to really watch. I watched it because it was recommended as a movie that was overshadowed by The Matrix.