And the winners are...
-
It doesn't specify which Dawn of the Dead. And I rather liked the newer Planet of the Apes movies.
jschell wrote:
It doesn't specify which Dawn of the Dead.
2004. Bloody excellent film.
jschell wrote:
And I rather liked the newer Planet of the Apes movies.
The very latest versions are pretty good but looking at the original film - it was brilliant and shocking and very well done with an excellent twist. Based on a pretty good book - Monkey Planet by Pierre Boulle who also wrote Bridge over the River Kwai. Pierre Boulle[^]
Keep your friends close. Keep Kill your enemies closer. The End
-
Lopatir wrote:
Dawn of the Dead isn't even sci fi? Clockwork Orange, and many more
My book store does not have a fantasy and science fiction section. So differentiating is going to be a bit of a problem unless you provide an exact definition. Not to mention that I suspect the vast majority of "science fiction" movies are in fact fantasy in that they are seldom realistic even a little bit as to the science and make vast leaps to tell the story.
Lopatir wrote:
NOT [all] "sci fi," and WAY NOT the best.
But it is in fact a list. Of which without your list, one can certainly not compare to validate your claim.
The subgenre many "science fiction" movies fall into is Space Opera. quote from the wiki article: >...colorful, dramatic, large-scale science fiction adventure, competently and sometimes beautifully written, usually focused on a sympathetic, heroic central character and plot action, and usually set in the relatively distant future, and in space or on other worlds, characteristically optimistic in tone. It often deals with war, piracy, military virtues, and very large-scale action, large stakes.
-
Lopatir wrote:
Dawn of the Dead isn't even sci fi? Clockwork Orange, and many more
My book store does not have a fantasy and science fiction section. So differentiating is going to be a bit of a problem unless you provide an exact definition. Not to mention that I suspect the vast majority of "science fiction" movies are in fact fantasy in that they are seldom realistic even a little bit as to the science and make vast leaps to tell the story.
Lopatir wrote:
NOT [all] "sci fi," and WAY NOT the best.
But it is in fact a list. Of which without your list, one can certainly not compare to validate your claim.
jschell wrote:
My book store does not have a fantasy and science fiction section.
Do you mean they don't have a "sci-fi & fantasy" section, and the books are just lumped together under "fiction"? Or that they don't have separate sections for "sci-fi" and "fantasy"? I know at least one large chain of stores that merged the two into one section. The biggest problem was, they gave the merged section a space smaller than either one of the individual sections used to occupy. And then they dedicated at least a third of that smaller space to graphic novels. :sigh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
TNCaver wrote:
Have your judges watch Gravity
A good movie but rather dull science fiction movie.
TNCaver wrote:
and Edge of Tomorrow,
Can't say that this is really great. I liked it but I liked the first Transformers as well. Doesn't mean I really want to watch it again though. I needed to look it up just to remember what it was.
-
jschell wrote:
My book store does not have a fantasy and science fiction section.
Do you mean they don't have a "sci-fi & fantasy" section, and the books are just lumped together under "fiction"? Or that they don't have separate sections for "sci-fi" and "fantasy"? I know at least one large chain of stores that merged the two into one section. The biggest problem was, they gave the merged section a space smaller than either one of the individual sections used to occupy. And then they dedicated at least a third of that smaller space to graphic novels. :sigh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
Do you mean they don't have a "sci-fi & fantasy" section, and the books are just lumped together under "fiction"?
Sorry my response was poorly worded. They have a section that is labeled either just "Science Fiction" or "Science Fiction and Fantasy". So they do not try to differentiate between the two.
Richard Deeming wrote:
I know at least one large chain of stores that merged the two into one section. The biggest problem was, they gave the merged section a space smaller than either one of the individual sections used to occupy. And then they dedicated at least a third of that smaller space to graphic novels
Not sure if I agree with the assertion that it is "smaller'. Certainly a lot bigger than when I first started buying books. That is supported by some numbers that Gardner Dozois presented in the forward to the The Years Best Science Fiction series a number of years ago which did a comparison between total books of all types in the 70s (72?) with the number just is Science Fiction and Fantasy for the year he did the comparison.
-
jschell wrote:
It doesn't specify which Dawn of the Dead.
2004. Bloody excellent film.
jschell wrote:
And I rather liked the newer Planet of the Apes movies.
The very latest versions are pretty good but looking at the original film - it was brilliant and shocking and very well done with an excellent twist. Based on a pretty good book - Monkey Planet by Pierre Boulle who also wrote Bridge over the River Kwai. Pierre Boulle[^]
Keep your friends close. Keep Kill your enemies closer. The End
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote:
2004. Bloody excellent film.
Yes, probably my favorite film.
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote:
- it was brilliant and shocking and very well done with an excellent twist
Having seen the original when it was released (at a drive in I believe) I certainly enjoyed it but now I can recognize that although the idea was good the execution wasn't as good as it could have been. I am rather certain that they were not really striving for that either. However, the newer ones strive for the second part of that better.
