Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Potentially Great Sci-fi Films Still Due In 2011

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the gremlins-on-the-wings dept.

Movies 342

brumgrunt writes "With Source Code already attracting strong reviews, the signs are good that 2011 will be a solid year for sci-fi. Den Of Geek has tracked down 10 upcoming sci-fi movies worth keeping an eye on" The nice thing about this write up is that it's not about the summer blockbuster brand of sci-fi, but mostly about the (somewhat) more traditional stuff. Here's hoping there's a few gems worth getting a babysitter for.

cancel ×

342 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Movie ? The biggest sci-fi is unfolding as of now (-1, Offtopic)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516610)

In japan and around the world.

http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php [hisz.rsoe.hu]

Lets face it (4, Interesting)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516684)

most of these will be unbelievably terrible, just like the Transformers movies or the recent Battle of LA movie. Or that Number 4 movie.

Sci-fi is very, very difficult to translate to the screen. Hollywood has shown no interest in doing it right except in spite of itself when an unusually talented director with loyal producers and deep pockets reigns control of the project (Alien, Bladerunner, etc). A typical Hollywood sci-fi production simply takes the place of a summer action blockbuster. There's very little interest and profitability in making good or even passable sci-fi.

I'm pretty happy with sci-fi literature and comics. These forms work well both economically (small production not indebted too deeply to publishers) and artistically (no CGI, no egotistical actors). Dunno, but everytime I see "upcoming scifi movie" I cringe at how terrible its going to be and I'm almost always right.

Re:Lets face it (1)

Zedrick (764028) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516942)

> There's very little interest and profitability in making good or even passable sci-fi.

I wish there was some scifi-loving billionare who would take a risk and buy the rights to everything by Alastair Reynolds and/or John Birmingham and cough up the money for the best scriptwriters, the best director, good actors, massive marketing etc. Without Warning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_Warning_(novel) [wikipedia.org] ) the movie, or Pushing Ice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pushing_Ice [wikipedia.org] ) the movie could not possibly fail if it was done right.

Re:Lets face it (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517132)

Like a movie adaptation of Consider Phlebas I wonder if the story for Pushing Ice would be just too damn long for the popcorn masses to sit through, This isn't the days of Gone With the Wind anymore and I wonder if most people would sit through it.
That said LoTR did okay with it's epic story length, but then that was a popular classic, practically synonymous with Shakespeare in some circles...

Re:Lets face it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517256)

LotR isn't the best example... maybe the first movie... but the last two did become mindless action flicks.

Re:Lets face it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517138)

I remember reading Pushing Ice back in the day... amazing novel. I wonder if the average user will ever understand the tragedy that is time dilation at relativistic velocities without adequate background in science.

The small-band-of-brothers-far-adrift could make for gripping viewing though...

Re:Lets face it (3, Insightful)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517192)

The best directors and actors do not guarantee anything, and massive marketing is why (how?) utter crap becomes popular.

Re:Lets face it (2)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517218)

I have to respectfully disagree on Pushing Ice. So much of my enjoyment of that story was his depiction of the tech that the colony develops and the environment that they are stranded in. Unless they're willing to commit to special effects budget on the scale of Avater they would have a difficult time of doing the story justice.

But I do think that a lot of Alastair Reynolds' short stories would make for great feature length films. Nightengale and Glacial spring to mind.

I would also love to see a film from the Foundation series, or a Riverworld film that doesn't suck.

Re:Lets face it (1)

eddy the lip (20794) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517450)

would also love to see a film from the Foundation series, or a Riverworld film that doesn't suck.

I have good news and I have bad news. There's a Foundation movie in the works. Roland Emmerich is directing

http://www.scifimoviepage.com/upcoming/previews/foundation-movie.html [scifimoviepage.com]

Re:Lets face it (3, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516976)

>>>most of these will be unbelievably terrible
>>>Sci-fi is very, very difficult to translate to the screen.

Precisely. A magazine (Analog?) recently published their top 20 movies based on solid science.

They only came-up with 11:
Destination Moon (1950). This movie was made with the involvement of the space community of the day and Robert Heinlein who wrote the story it was based on.
Predator (1987)
The Abyss (1989)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Credit Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrik
2010 (1984)
Contact (1997). Credit Carl Sagan
Deep Impact (1998)
Gattaca (1998)
Red Planet (2000)
Minority Report (2002)
Primer (2004)

As for the movies of Summer 2011, only "now" and "rise of the apes" looks like "true" science fiction. Although it's hard to say until I actually see it.

Re:Lets face it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517126)

Their inclusion of Red Planet and their omission of Moon just about destroys any credibility they have on the matter.

Re:Lets face it (1)

Kenneth Stephen (1950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517142)

Aw...come on. Seriously - the "Minority Report"? The ability of people to see the future is based on solid science? This must be some new definition of the word "science" that I wasn't aware of.

There are other science glitches in the other movies too. For example, in "The Abyss", the underwater creatures miraculously rewire human physiology to not require decompression chambers when the entire diving platform is lifted up to the surface. But I'll let those slide in the name of dramatic license. But the ability of those three "precogs" to see the future is central to the plot of the story and its hard to ignore that gaping scientific hole in the plot of the Minority Report.

Re:Lets face it (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517282)

>>>the ability of those three "precogs" to see the future is central to the plot of the story

Isaac Asimov had "seeing the future" as a central plot device for one of the most famous Science Fiction Trilogies ever produced (Foundation, F & Empire, Second F). It's not hard to imagine a being capable of moving, not just along three axes, but also the fourth time axis (even if it's just a brief glimpse).

Re:Lets face it (1)

Kenneth Stephen (1950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517572)

Did you read the Foundation series? His "seeing-the-future" was based on large groups of people having a predictable history - never the individual. In fact, when the "Mule" appears, that event completely throws off the predictions of psychohistory. The "seeing-the-future" in the Minority Report is specifically about the future history of individuals. Azimov gave a plausible explanation of how psychohistory might work. The Minority Report gives an explanation, but believing in it requires the suspension of a scientific mind. And thats my point - the film may be entertaining, but based on solid science isn't something one can say about it.

Re:Lets face it (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517180)

I take it that this list was before Moon?

Re:Lets face it (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517540)

No, the list came out like . . . a month or two ago. It was pretty widely distributed.

Re:Lets face it (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517516)

I still detest Contact being listed as one of the greatest science fiction movies of all time (as well as Predator - but that's obvious). I had a discussion with a friend of mine who feels it absolutely belongs there, because it so accurately depicts the way discoveries would work in the scientific community. My argument against it is that it's an awesome science fiction movie right up until the last third where it all turns to shit with a bunch of paranormal bullshit.

Re:Lets face it (1)

eugene ts wong (231154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517020)

The stories have to be able to fit the mold as well. Typical Transformers and GI Joe episodes were not good for that kind of stuff. A lot of the characters were cool for the kids, but those characters were remarkably shallow.

Re:Lets face it (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517028)

The only redeeming quality of Transformers and Number 4 was that they had cute guys in them. Transformers had Megan Fox for my brothers of that preference (though there's really not more than meets the eye with her).

Re:Lets face it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517128)

Transformers had Megan Fox for my brothers of that preference (though there's really not more than meets the eye with her).

What meets the eye is already quite good!

Re:Lets face it (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517562)

Transformers falls into the massive category where people say "it's not real, so it's therefore science fiction!". It's like calling Inspector Gadget a science fiction cartoon, because he has a mechanical hand that pops out of his hat.

Re:Lets face it (5, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517040)

The thing I don't get is that it should be easy for Hollywood to put pulp sci-fi on the big screen. There's a whole subgenre that used to be one of the most popular parts of science fiction which is essentially exactly the big budget, over the top action that they crave for a summer blockbuster. Instead of using that source material, they insist on taking the mostly highly cherished, highest quality, most in-depth and artistic sci-fi they can find and massacre it to fit the summer blockbuster formula.

Re:Lets face it (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517108)

There's very little interest and profitability in making good or even passable sci-fi.

I'm pretty happy with sci-fi literature and comics. These forms work well both economically (small production not indebted too deeply to publishers) and artistically (no CGI, no egotistical actors). Dunno, but everytime I see "upcoming scifi movie" I cringe at how terrible its going to be and I'm almost always right.

So then, I'm curious... what did you think of District 9? I really enjoyed the film, despite it seeming to be misrepresented in the trailers (in my opinion), there was a sci-fi facade over a deeper ethical discussion. Granted, this was Peter Jackson with a $30million USD budget, too. Is this one a diamond in the rough?

Re:Lets face it (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517458)

What deeper ethical question? The movie was a blatant fable about apartheid being wrong, with the monstrous human (he makes a joke out of the extermination of the nest early in the movie) learning his lesson as he was transformed into one of the creatures he believed to be a subhuman monster.

I mean I liked the movie quite a bit, but it wasn't particularly subtle or deep.

Re:Lets face it (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517234)

What is the problem with people. Transformers was a movie based on a kids cartoon about giant robots that can turn into cars and planes.
Just what did you expect?
I actually thought it was going to be much worse than it was. I found it as enjoyable for what it was. When are are talking about movies in general most books just do not make great movies. How can you possibly fit a huge book into a movie. As far as the science fiction fan boys go. Get over it. Just like any other book made into a movie you will hate them. Even Bladerunner was only sort of based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. I suggest you just wait and see and try to enjoy them for what they are which is movies.
I will admit that the movie I, Robot does make me want to commit murder. I have never seen it but the trailers where enough to make me say "WHAT!"
As a reader of Science fiction I long ago came to the conclusion that I will never see a move based on.
The Uplift books, Known Space, Asmiov's Robots or Federation universe that do not make want cringe.

And of course just to tick everybody off I must ask one question. Why do people get all worked up over Firefly? I enjoyed it and wish it had keep running but it wasn't really hard science fiction. Frankly it was "The Outlaw Jose Wales" in space. That isn't a bad thing but people get so worked up over it.

Re:Lets face it (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517606)

I don't get people when it comes to that shit, either. GI JOE and TRANSFORMERS were 22 minute commercials (they even used to be slotted into the station programming in the PD's grid as advertising) for vapid creatively lacking toys in the early 80s. The only thing more baffling than people expecting them to somehow be more meaningful thirty years later is that people actually place some sort of inherent value and nostalgia for them. Commercials. Advertising. For toys. It's like being thirty five years old and really yearning for a classic Honey Combs commercial and some jackass greenlighting a hundred million to produce it.

Re:Lets face it (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517392)

I'm not a Hollywood insider, but I think the problem with Sci-Fi movies is the conflict between directors and producers. Sci-Fi movies are so expensive to produce you invariably end up with the accountants breathing down your neck to meet deadlines and keep things safe and accessible to the public. Hollywood knows how to make slick looking movies, but it always seems like the movies that fail do so because the storyline was altered for mass appeal.

Gotta have a cheesy love interest, tried and true plot elements, etc. And, it always seems like the sci-fi movies that I like never get much advertising; probably because they've already had such a big hit on the bank account. Hell, I never even heard of Pandorum until I saw it sitting on a shelf at Blockbuster!

What about the one about CmdrTaco's micropeen (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516688)

How about the sci-fi film where they find a way to make CmdrTaco's 2mm micropeen the size of Gojira!!!

ALL MOMMYS GET YOUR BUTTS TO TRIPOLI JAPAN... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516702)

real life makes sci-fi look obsolete now.

Its hard to find good sci-fi movies (-1, Troll)

tuxrocks3 (2018916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516750)

I have found a month ago good blog [wordpress.com] about sci-fi movies that are worth to be seen. A piece of advice, don't watch District 9!

Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516846)

goatse? nice.

Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516926)

Why? District 9 was one of the most original and freshest scifi movies of the last 10 years....

Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517164)

Agreed, while I admit that it is a polarizing movie I just don't understand the other side of the isle. I found it funny, interesting, and exciting. I think the mockumentary opening puts a lot of people off the movie before it really gets rolling. Some people miss the point of it, even though the point is being driven home with a freakin sledge hammer.

Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies (1)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517228)

District 9 was an interesting idea (hey, aliens! Wait, the dregs of alien society?), but I found the execution was, well, "earthly." In the end is wasn't much more than a tale of mistreated refugees. I can watch that on CNN.

Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies (4, Insightful)

NitroWolf (72977) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517612)

District 9 was an interesting idea (hey, aliens! Wait, the dregs of alien society?), but I found the execution was, well, "earthly." In the end is wasn't much more than a tale of mistreated refugees. I can watch that on CNN.

That was kind of the point of the movie...

Re:Its hard to find good sci-fi movies (1)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517238)

It'll get your hopes up.

Stoked (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516784)

I am camping out to be first in line to see Paul. Now THAT is good syfy

Re:Stoked (2)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517158)

I am camping out to be first in line to see Paul. Now THAT is good syfy

Hahah. To my shame I have seen this movie : my advice would be (EVEN if you liked Hot Fuzz and are a big fan of Spaced)

DO NOT SEE

Although fairly ok for 10 year olds, it really is a bit rubbish. Especially, oddly enough, the militant atheism.

So let me get this straight. (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516796)

This is a review of 10 movies that the reviewer hasn't seen, because they haven't come out yet?

Re:So let me get this straight. (2)

andrea.sartori (1603543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516854)

Maybe it's proof that this [slashdot.org] is more real than we think.

Re:So let me get this straight. (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517168)

What do you expect? It's a shitty "geek" website looking for hits.

Though, I'm not sure what's geek related about a film called "Bridesmaids" and "Chalet Girl", which are both featured at the top of the page in the rolling marquee.

Movies haven't come out yet? (1)

doperative (1958782) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517398)

> This is a review of 10 movies that the reviewer hasn't seen, because they haven't come out yet?

That's because he used the Large Hadron Collider to send back reviews from the future ..

Ringworld... (3, Insightful)

Grog6 (85859) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516824)

When the hell is someone worth a fuck going to make a Ringworld movie?

There's so much great SF that no one will touch; Heinlein got raped with Starship Troopers, but The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a much better story.

Or maybe Lazarus Long...

James P. Hogan's Giant's series would make a great set of movies; it seems like all hollywood wants to do is regurgitate crap.

Re:Ringworld... (3, Insightful)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516956)

"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is a great story, but I'm struggling with how well it would translate into anything resembling an interesting movie that people would actually pay to watch, and still be the slightest bit true to a story about a computer becoming self-aware while outcasts are trying to split from their oppressive overlords. There are scenes that would translate well (bombing the Earth with rocks), but Hollywood would latch on to those scenes and you'd end up with something akin to "The Two Towers" becoming "The Battle for Helms Deep: A Love Story".

Ringworld, on the other hand, is a special-effects masterpiece waiting to happen. The storyline is simple, the beauty of the story is visualizing the engineering involved, and that would translate with really good (but horribly expensive) visual effects. I don't know if you'd ever get enough viewership to justify effects at that scope, though.

Re:Ringworld... (3, Interesting)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517212)

Ringworld, on the other hand, is a special-effects masterpiece waiting to happen. The storyline is simple, the beauty of the story is visualizing the engineering involved

Yet the dialog, as with a lot of Sci-Fi, is absolutely awful. Truly terrible.

The ring itself would make for good imagery, although I expect that any director that has played Halo would bring certain visual clues along with them...

Re:Ringworld... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517254)

On the other hand, the sociopolitical basis of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is quite relevant today: a large oppressed segment of a society uses subversion via technological means to gain their freedom. Later, the mindset that was needed to arrange the revolution translates badly to a stable government.

Re:Ringworld... (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516968)

It's a good thing nobody in Hollywood will touch some of the great SF stories. I certainly don't want to see Hollywood crank out an abomination like, say, Michael Bay's Rendezvous with Rama. Let's leave the good stuff well alone.

Re:Ringworld... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517018)

Rendezvous with Rama or Neuromancer or I'm not going to the theatre.

Re:Ringworld... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517264)

When the hell is someone worth a fuck going to make a Ringworld movie?

No thanks, I think there are enough vampire movies out there right now.

Because you know which parts of the story Hollywood is going to focus on, and it isn't the science.

Re:Ringworld... (2)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517294)

Honest question: what is the big deal with Ringworld? I finally read it a couple of years ago expecting some story masterpiece, but it ended up being a run of the mill 'people discover big dumb object and barely escape with their lives' story. Have I missed something here, because I feel I must have.
Maybe it's the Asimov effect, that that when I finally got hold of a copy of the books a decade or so ago (had to wait until i had a job after uni to be able to have spare cash) then I was bitterly disappointed. "Hang on!" I said, "It's just a load of Star Trek TNG episodes but not done as thoroughly". Then I realised the concept of derivative works. Then I felt very embarrassed and realised how awesome he actually was.
One way of the other what is that great about the story or the characters of Ringworld that make it worth transitioning to the big screen? Maybe Ringworld Engineers would work because you get more into the cultures there, i just don't know.

Now Consider Phlebas, that I would like to see on the big screen...

Re:Ringworld... (1)

damnbunni (1215350) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517428)

Ringworld is, to me, more 'about' the nature of luck than the actual adventure the characters have. I know lots of people who have read it and liked it, but the ones that consider it Great are usually talking more about the concept of Teela Brown than the ringworld itself.

(And it's worth noting that I didn't really like the sequels much.)

Sci-fi isn't about the technology (5, Insightful)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516840)

What most sci-fi directors fail to take into account is that good sci-fi isn't about the robots, the aliens, or the gagdets. It's about the people. At the heart of the best classic science fiction is solid character development and rich human interaction. Its really a psychological drama. That's why "I, Robot" failed so hard - the original book wasn't about the robots at all, but the humans who worked with them. Yeah, there is oohing and ahhing over the nifty toys, and nitpicking over the accuracy of the science, but ultimately what we remember are the characters.

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology (1)

immakiku (777365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517010)

Great point. For me, imagining what the setting is like is fun, but it is much more rewarding to see a whole world constructed. The world doesn't come from cool gadgets and flashy science or magic, but about how people behave differently or similarly in the presence of such things. It takes more work on the part of the movie/book writers and more imagination in the parts of the actors.

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology (3, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517206)

The problem is that when they do take that into account, you get shit like "Warehouse 13", which is a SyFy series that has nothing even remotely to do with science and is all about hunting down magical objects as a plot tool to get an attractive red head and an attractive dark haired guy together into romantic psueodo-Moonlighting situations to attract female viewers.

And then films like MOON are regarded as "so fucking boring - turned it off" by mouth breathers.

Re:Sci-fi isn't about the technology (3, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517232)

What most sci-fi directors fail to take into account is that good sci-fi isn't about the robots, the aliens, or the gagdets. It's about the people. At the heart of the best classic science fiction is solid character development and rich human interaction. Its really a psychological drama. That's why "I, Robot" failed so hard - the original book wasn't about the robots at all, but the humans who worked with them. Yeah, there is oohing and ahhing over the nifty toys, and nitpicking over the accuracy of the science, but ultimately what we remember are the characters.

When we scientists want to understand a complex system over which we have control, we change an input variable and observe the effects. Good science fiction makes a change to the fundamental rules of society that are usually beyond our control, often but not always through a game-changing technology (advanced space flight, terraforming, genetic engineering, AI, etc.), and explores the effects of this change on characters and sometimes their societies.

I agree with you. Most movie sci-fi is focused on the flashiness of the technology and the generic, tacked on, unrelated stories of the stock characters who interact with it. The genre should instead follow sci-fi literature and use the sci-fi elements to examine the human experience.

By way of titling a move "Source Code" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516860)

It's already driven away at least one potential customer.

Re:By way of titling a move "Source Code" (1)

ErroneousBee (611028) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517216)

But on the other hand, the title tempts me to check it out.

I think I've seen this before. maybe. (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517536)

Didn't Denzel Washington already do this in movie 2006? What was that movie's name [imdb.com] ?

Re:By way of titling a move "Source Code" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517446)

.. and yet it has no fucking thing to do with source code.

Looks like a royally shit script somehow getting 'strong reviews' becomes the sole basis for the description beyond "this guy wrote a list".

Anyone know the name of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35516868)

... and release of a film that was described as a world left destroyed AFTER an alien attack?
I remember hearing a bunch about it somewhere, but not sure of the name or when it was supposed to be out.
It could well be out now for all i know.

I was reminded by it from that The Divide film at the end of it, which sounds equally interesting.

You don't need to watch Apollo 18 (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516880)

The trailer seems to give away every major twist that is likely to feature in the film.

I haven't seen a trailer spoil a film so much since Swimfan (the trailer is literally the film's plot condenced into 2 minutes)

Re:You don't need to watch Apollo 18 (1)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516934)

This is why I don't watch trailers.

Re:You don't need to watch Apollo 18 (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517288)

This is why I watch trailers.

They are cheaper than the movie, and waste less of my time.

Re:You don't need to watch Apollo 18 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517470)

They have "Source Code - Official First 5 Minutes [HD]" up on youtube.

Best comment:

THE END. Best 4.5 minute movie ever.

One missing! (3, Interesting)

Mr Europe (657225) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516938)

The one I'm most waiting is not in the list. Iron Sky.
http://www.ironsky.net/ [ironsky.net]

Think you forgot one... (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516952)

...I didn't see Mega Python vs. Gatoroid [syfy.com] on that list! SyFy is still Sci-Fi right? Oh wait... [syfy.com]

Re:Think you forgot one... (1)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517496)

Flicking past I thought that said Monty Python vs Gatorade. Oh well, disappointed again...

cowboys and aliens (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516958)

seems like such a drunk frat boy's idea of an "awesome movie"

i mean what next? cowboys and ninjas?

oh...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1032751/ [imdb.com]

uh, vikings and indians?

good lord

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446013/ [imdb.com]

so all i have to do is take two stereotypical protagonists, smash them together, and hollywood will give me millions to make a crappy movie?

ok, zombies and sharks!

oh good lord, someone shoot me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g8fCxyAVHs [youtube.com]

freddy v jason, alien v predator (there's a third one coming), etc... ok so if creativity is completely dead, if hollywood has to rape your love for science fiction by mashing up all genres, allow me to make you want to rip your eyes out:

terminator V back to the future

mad max V jurassic park

the matrix V inception

and, the ultimate betrayal that will make you want to murder me right now, just for uttering the words and potentially planting the idea in some hollywood suit's mind:

star wars V star trek

the science fiction fan's ultimate cause for suicide and/ or homicide

Re:cowboys and aliens (1)

Dails (1798748) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517070)

When Ninja Assassin came out and did well, I realized that movie maker can now just take a couple of concepts that people think are awesome and smash them together. I'm currently gathering funds to make my first movie which I'm sure will be a huge blockbusting moneymaker: Ninja Cheese Lumberjack Motorcycle Boobs Bacon Party.

brilliant (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517140)

only because everything really is better with bacon

Re:brilliant (1)

fostware (551290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517330)

Kevin Bacon?

no (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517386)

but a better choice than canadian bacon

canadian bacon is an abhorrence before god, a betrayal of all that is good in bacon land

Re:cowboys and aliens (2)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517222)

Ninja Cheese Lumberjack Motorcycle Boobs Bacon Party.

If it doesn't work out as a movie you could probably release that as a Wii game!

Re:cowboys and aliens (1)

edawstwin (242027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517498)

I'm still trying to get "Donuts, Beer, and Hookers" made.

Re:cowboys and aliens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517078)

Hello Kitty v Predator

Make your bets now.

i forgot (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517196)

planet of the apes V alice in wonderland. if only because tim burton could cook it up by just splicing together some old footage

and finally, lest we forget the classics:

bambi v godzilla

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi_Meets_Godzilla [wikipedia.org]

Re:cowboys and aliens (1)

ShogunTux (1236014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517308)

Dunno, seems like a tough call. Hello Kitty was able to do quite a bit to Cthulu [hello-cthulhu.com] .

Re:cowboys and aliens (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517214)

Cowboys and Aliens is pulp, as long as it's aware that it's pulp and sticks to over the top action while at the same time not taking itself seriously you can still have a very enjoyable movie.

MovieGen! (1)

edawstwin (242027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517448)

so all i have to do is take two stereotypical protagonists, smash them together, and hollywood will give me millions to make a crappy movie?

I actually made a website in the mid-90s based on this idea and dubbed it MovieGen - didn't expect to make money, just great fun. You could press a button, and it would reveal two random movies, like "Alien" meets "Liar Liar". I also added an option for a third, so you could have "Die Hard" meets "Gattaca" with a bit of "Tootsie". Great time-waster, and sadly some of the combinations have certainly been made into actual movies by now.

Re:cowboys and aliens (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517534)

"star wars V star trek
the science fiction fan's ultimate cause for suicide and/ or homicide"

Actually if you look hard there are some good, relatively unbiased fan-fics in this genre.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Fanfic/Conquest/index.html [stardestroyer.net]

Honestly, would a completely random person you've never spoken to before mislead you?

Re:cowboys and aliens (1)

xavierpayne (697081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517560)

> terminator V back to the future

This one has been done (kinda) and it looks like it'd actually be a pretty damn good flick if done in the spirit of the trailer. :)

http://bcove.me/lp3zan4z [bcove.me]

Wow what a list (1)

McNihil (612243) | more than 3 years ago | (#35516960)

what's even more wow is that I will not be seeing any of the movies... they all seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel. Is there really nothing new under the sun?

A list of good sci-fi movies (1)

tuxrocks3 (2018916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517036)

I have found a month ago good about sci-fi movies that are worth to be seen. [wordpress.com]
Although Back to Future really tops everything, haven't seen a better movie ever.

Re:A list of good sci-fi movies (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517152)

Apparently so good that you had to post about it twice!

Re:A list of good sci-fi movies (1)

tuxrocks3 (2018916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517314)

85 victims (and since I use no shorteners, there is no chance of false positives) Not bad, whatdayothink?

AC Clark (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517058)

Some good director really needs to make the Rama series. I can easily see it being a low budget flick but of course could do very well with a good director. Evidently some students made a film in 2003 according to IMDB but nothing big budget.

"Source Code"??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517098)

Yeah, I am gonna pony up $9 to escape for 90 minutes from my daily grind in that puppy.... not.

Hell why not just sit in a meeting with the hot chick from HR? Be about the same, and that is free.

No. (3, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517116)

APOLLO 18: Based on a real-world 70s NASA mission that was abandoned due to budget cuts, Apollo 18 reads like a mixture of Duncan Jones' Moon and Paranormal Activity -- BZZZZT!! NO!

ATTACK THE BLOCK: It's Independence Day meets -- BZZZZT!! NO!

COWBOYS & ALIENS: We're really stretching science fiction, now, with this. Good director, though, so . . . .

SUPER 8: Okay, the trailer for this actually looks good. I don't know that it has anything more to do with Science Fiction than Cloverfield does, though (which was just a movie about a bunch of hipsters running away from a shaky camera all night).

REAL STEEL: Wow, that really has NOTHING to do with the Twilight Zone episode it's supposed based on. Also, shouldn't this be a heart warming riot starring Will Smith? This is also really stretching the name "science fiction" in much the same way Warehouse 13 stretches the term "science fiction".

CONTAGION: Let me guess -- it'll have something to do with bird flu or biological warfare and will be as scientifically inaccurate as "Right At Your Door", which was a shitty two hour "science fiction" movie I recently saw where nobody seemed to comprehend the difference between bacteria, a virus, radiation, and nuclear weapons. Seriously, a fucking DIRTY BOMB (a nuclear weapon) went off downtown, so the government instructs everyone in the city to go home and seal up their houses with plastic and duct tape. Then the guy's wife comes home, but it's too late and they leave her outside until they "see what the effects are". She gets worse and people are dying and medical professionals are scouting the neighborhoods putting people out of their misery and/or checking their medical status as they try to develop a cure for the virus (THERE WAS NO VIRUS, IT WAS A NUKE!). Eventually, the man who locks everyone out and stays inside dies, because it turns out that just enough of the stuff from the nuke seeped into his home and his efforts to seal his house shut provided the perfect climate for the bacteria to mutate and become too deadly to overcome (AGAIN, THERE WAS NO VIRUS/BACTERIA -- IT WAS A NUKE). This will be another one of those movies Good Morning America and other shitty television shows use to ask the question "COULD IT HAPPEN HERE?!". *yawn*

THE THING: Won't this be the third time? No thanks. NO. It would have to be the most fucking amazing film ever to justify itself. Also, we already know about "THE THING". The surprise is already gone. Also, The Thing is a horror movie; not science fiction.

RISE OF THE APES: Couldn't care less about more Planet of the Apes. And certainly not from a cast I've never heard of (except for Serkis, which sadly isn't enough to entice me). Seriously. That was 40 years ago. New stuff, please?

THE DIVIDE: The Divide sees New York obliterated by an unspecified apocalyptic event. Huddled in a dank basement, eight survivors battle both a group of armed men in decontamination suits and their own disintegrating psyches in a thriller described as a combination of Assault On Precinct 13 and Lord Of The Flies. -- I'm sure I'll see it, because I'm a sucker for this sort of film, even though it sounds completely unrelated to the science fiction genre. Unfortunately, we've also seen this movie 800 times. Do something new?

Since when horror and supidity pass for Sci-Fi? (1)

pesho (843750) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517118)

Cheapo horror flicks comprise most of the list. The rest of the movies also follow the basic 'Us vs. them shootout' scenario. 'Cowboys vs Aliens'? Really? Whats next, Snakes on a plane? The only movie that is probably worth watching is 'Now'.

Sony? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517134)

Are we supposed to boycott the Sony pix? Or are we going to wait until they put out something that sucks first? What about the other families? Do we give them our money? I'm jus' sayin.. y'know.. with all the chatter going on about teh evil..

Seen the Source Code trailer, already turned off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517166)

Too much hollywood magic, not enough reality. NEXT.

not only that the inside of train cars is off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35517576)

not only that the inside of train cars is off they are NOT metra cars but THE OUT SIDE LOOK like them.

Still no Spaceballs 2 - The Search for More Money (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517184)

Would it be asking too much?

Wow (4, Informative)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517268)

I always considered myself a geek, so like the sci-fi genre. But that list... wow. That's enough to turn me off going to the movies forever. It's like "Remakes meet Bad Plotlines", to paraphrase the article.

Apollo 18 - some made up crap about something that never flew (see U-571).

Attack The Block - gangsters take on aliens with baseball bats in London (Left4Dead in a movie, badly).

Cowboys & Aliens - "When aliens invade the 19th century West," - 'nuff said.

Super 8 - kids see alien walk away from train crash.

Real Steel - regurgitated Twilight Zone crap with fighting robots.

Contagion - disease-killing-everyone movie.

The Thing (a prequel) - dear God, no!

Now - vaguely interesting "live forever" soap opera.

Rise Of The Apes - dear God, no!

The Divide - apocalyptic survival movie.

Serious, the sci-fi genre has become this pile of trash? God. Yeah, once in a while maybe, as a light relief, but that's not "sci-fi".

Super 8 (1)

OffaMyLawn (1885682) | more than 3 years ago | (#35517326)

Probably the only one I will watch, and that is only because it was filmed primarily in my hometown here of Weirton, WV.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>