or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Prometheus (Ridley Scott's Alien "Prequel" )
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Prometheus (Ridley Scott's Alien "Prequel" ) - Page 8

post #106 of 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post

This.
Alien was just a straight up amazing movie.

?

I'm not sure how people are laying claim to whatever "generation" they assume to occupy, how and where other members of the forum belong, and what these generations even are, but what about Children of Men? It's a contemporary, highly ambitious, and incredibly well done film. I'd say it belongs up there with Blade Runner, Solaris, 2001, and Alien, easy. Or, to toss one off, how about Moon?
post #107 of 689
^ There is no use discussing this any further. It's pretty clear you, lefty, and I are the only ones on this forum with firm grasps on what sci-fi truly is.
post #108 of 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogaboogabooga View Post

?
I'm not sure how people are laying claim to whatever "generation" they assume to occupy, how and where other members of the forum belong, and what these generations even are, but what about Children of Men? It's a contemporary, highly ambitious, and incredibly well done film. I'd say it belongs up there with Blade Runner, Solaris, 2001, and Alien, easy. Or, to toss one off, how about Moon?

Moon and Children of Men were absolutely in-fucking-credible. And I'm a child of the late 70s. I'm not saying AvP was crap because it wasn't of my generation, but because it was just crappy, IMHO.

Hell, I'm the biggest Star Trek nerd I know, and I LOVED the reboot. Speaking of which, I'm rather depressed I can't afford tickets to see Shatner when he comes to Houston. Covering Bohemian Rhapsody with King Crimson....wow!!!
post #109 of 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by javyn View Post

Moon and Children of Men were absolutely in-fucking-credible. And I'm a child of the late 70s. I'm not saying AvP was crap because it wasn't of my generation, but because it was just crappy, IMHO.
Hell, I'm the biggest Star Trek nerd I know, and I LOVED the reboot. Speaking of which, I'm rather depressed I can't afford tickets to see Shatner when he comes to Houston. Covering Bohemian Rhapsody with King Crimson....wow!!!

Fucking awesome.
post #110 of 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogaboogabooga View Post

?
I'm not sure how people are laying claim to whatever "generation" they assume to occupy, how and where other members of the forum belong, and what these generations even are, but what about Children of Men? It's a contemporary, highly ambitious, and incredibly well done film. I'd say it belongs up there with Blade Runner, Solaris, 2001, and Alien, easy. Or, to toss one off, how about Moon?

I'm not dismissive of modern movies, just Neo.

Loved Children of Men, it was a perfect example of why a good script is better than all the effects LucasFilm can offer up. For some odd reason I have not yet seen Moon. Thanks for reminding me to, will watch tonight.
post #111 of 689

Moon is a pretty good movie. I would also suggest Silent Running for any bay area hippies. 

 

One of the things I loved about Alien was the grimy texture of the Nostromo. Also reflected in the crew. This wasn't 2001 with all its gleaming white, but exactly what a mining/towing ship should look like. 

 

My 8-year-old nephew is bugging me to see it, but I think it would screw him up a little.

 

Here is the AFI's top ten scifi list:

AFI defines "science fiction" as a genre that marries a scientific or technological premise with imaginative speculation.

# Film Year
1 2001: A Space Odyssey 1968
2 Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope 1977
3 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial 1982
4 A Clockwork Orange 1971
5 The Day the Earth Stood Still 1951
6 Blade Runner 1982
7 Alien 1979
8 Terminator 2: Judgment Day 1991
9 Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1956
10 Back to the Future 1985

lefty

post #112 of 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post

It's presented as non-supernatural. The movie deals with sci-fi concepts like artificial intelligence, robotics, virtual reality, etc. It's sci-fi. You're being obtuse.
edit: do you consider Alien to be sci-fi? Because it deals with FTL travel which is totally implausible. Hell, that throws out a majority of sci-fi right there.

It's not presented as non-supernatural. Rewatch the movie. He comes back from the dead through the power of love at the end of the film because he is the chosen one for fuck's sake.

At the time of Alien they didn't necessarily know that faster than light travel was implausible. Also faster than light travel was a minor part of the movie. I can forgive that, just as I can forgive the mistakes they made in the original star trek series. They just didn't know any better. Currently you'd have to be willfully ignorant to consider the blockbuster action movies with incredibly stupid premises to have any element of actual science in them. Transformers is not science fiction. AvP is not science fiction. Just because there's an alien or a robot in the movie doesn't mean it has a scientific or technological premise. It's just window dressing for a piece of shit movie that they can't sell to any other demographic except children and the perpetually stupid.
post #113 of 689
Heh, Star Trek TOS still irritates me on how they randomly threw out Quadrant X and Quadrant Y as locations....whereas TNG was cool enough to actually map out the Milky Way into four quadrants and kept it consistent from that point forward.
post #114 of 689
I just watched Children of Men and wish I hadn't. Just another Hollywood turd. Nothing made sense, things happened for no reason, and the Hollywood liberal political tropes were nauseating. Plus I hate the blood-spurt-herky-jerky cinematography since its only real purpose seems to further sensationalize violence under some guise of 'realism'.
post #115 of 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

It's not presented as non-supernatural. Rewatch the movie. He comes back from the dead through the power of love at the end of the film because he is the chosen one for fuck's sake.
At the time of Alien they didn't necessarily know that faster than light travel was implausible. Also faster than light travel was a minor part of the movie. I can forgive that, just as I can forgive the mistakes they made in the original star trek series. They just didn't know any better. Currently you'd have to be willfully ignorant to consider the blockbuster action movies with incredibly stupid premises to have any element of actual science in them. Transformers is not science fiction. AvP is not science fiction. Just because there's an alien or a robot in the movie doesn't mean it has a scientific or technological premise. It's just window dressing for a piece of shit movie that they can't sell to any other demographic except children and the perpetually stupid.

I like debating, so I'm going to entertain your trolling/delusions even though a) you'll steam roll any points I make, b) you'll use red herrings, and get hung up on trivial technicalities (which I'll attempt to refute, because I'm a nerd, audacious, bored, and can!), c) our arguing will probably annoy followers of this thread, d) there is no way I'll change your mind because you're a troll/delusional, e) my arguments are as bat shit insane as your arguments are (only way more logical and possibly philosophically interesting) and f) you're obviously and horrendously fucking wrong. Like, a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

It's not presented as non-supernatural. Rewatch the movie. He comes back from the dead through the power of love at the end of the film because he is the chosen one for fuck's sake.

In the first Matrix, Neo's "rebirth" IS arguably presented as non-supernatural or, at the very least, ambiguous. Just because Morpheus believes a "prophecy" (a prophecy which is based on the film series internal history/mythos, to make things more nebulous) DOESN'T mean Neo validates the prophecy by performing the prophecy's predictions. You also don't KNOW that Trinity telling Neo she loves him is the reason Neo discovers his "oneness" within the Matrix during the climax. It may be because Neo is the "anomaly" and his awareness of his "powers" just happens to occur while he's shot by agent Smith. To attribute Morpheus' prophecy or Trinity's love to Neo's reversal of death in the first film is to possibly commit either the fallacies of post hoc ergo propter hoc, non causa pro causa, or both. Because you can't observe or demonstrate in absolute (or even test in experiment) the causal mechanisms for Neo's transformation as "the one", you also can't infer causality (a tricky subject amongst scientists and philosophers) or even suggest a set of correlations. Look it up:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/posthocf.html

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/noncause.html

and for further understanding on the nature of causation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#Causation

Granted, you could argue that the scoring, direction, and plot of the film serve as a deductive template or at least inductively imply a probable relationship between the films plot and causality. One could also argue that the scoring, direction, and plot only exist to enhance the drama of the film and not validate, make sound, or imply the probability of Morpheus’ prophecy or Trinity's love causing Neo to change. Yes, for dramatic purposes assuming a causal link would make sense but (!) scientifically and philosophically, the verdict is out. We can't KNOW one way or the other. Interestingly, it could be argued that proving the existence or non-existence of the supernatural in a narrative like The Matrix (even with the heavy religious allusions and cgi-enhanced symbolism in the later films) is just as difficult as proving the existence or non-existance of the supernatural in reality, e.g., GOD, which seems to be a highly contentious subject to this day.

For a technical stickler when it comes to science fiction, you need to get yer science and philosophy on, brah! Am I blowin’ yer mind? Probably not.

Also, all my previous rational is ACTUALLY IRRELEVANT (I did it to be ridiculous! ((sort of)) whobwhobwhobwhobwhob!) unless you, myself, and others believe Wikipedia's PARTIALY CITED DEFINITION to be the absolute authority on science fiction. For a refresher here is the previously used PARTIAL CITATION:

Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginary but more or less plausible (or at least non-supernatural) content such as future settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, aliens, and paranormal abilities. Exploring the consequences of scientific innovations is one purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas",

There's more content on Wikipedia after the INCOMPLETELY CITED WIKIPEDIA PARAGRAPH, in which the definition of science fiction is expanded with a set of exceptions from the paragraph we’ve previously operated on, so if we are using the Wikipedia article as authoritative criteria, YOU’RE arguably wrong again. Another thing worth noting is the “definitions” sub-article, which interestingly pertains to our debate, although, in a rather unresolving way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction#Definitions

However, to do a thought experiment with ONLY the criteria you and I have previously used, begs (at least to me) a set of questions, a) "does the mere possibility of the existence of supernatural content, within a work that would otherwise be considered science fiction, negate all the scientific content and make that work something other than science fiction?" which prompts b) “Is something being purely science fiction or fantasy a false dilemma?” and also c) “could science fiction and the supernatural coexist?”

Here are the answers, in corresponding form.

a) No, this is a compositional fallacy, in particular, a part-to-whole fallacy. It’s like saying that if the air conditioning in a car doesn’t work, that the entire car doesn’t work even if the car functions optimally in all other ways.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/composit.html

b) Yes. In fact, I would argue that most stories are, to some degree, of mixed genres.

c) I would argue that science fiction and the super natural can, AND HAVE, coexisted. In fact, if I use the criterion you’ve inflexibly used along with your faulty compositional logic that would mean that the AFI’s top 2 films (thanks lefty!), being 2001 and Star Wars AREN’T science fiction because they both possibly have supernatural elements in them, being the Louis XVI styled white room in 2001 (arguably something akin to heaven) and the force in Star Wars being a non-scientifically validated cosmic entity postulated and believed to be utilized by the characters within the film.

Also, there is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_(film)

Which deals directly with the themes of science, philosophy, and religion (which is ipso facto supernatural), is considered a science fiction drama, and is “the winner of the Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation and received multiple awards and nominations at the Saturn Awards.” Personally, not my favorite movie, but still!

Also, other recognized and critically acclaimed multi-genre scifi works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard-Boiled_Wonderland_and_the_End_of_the_World

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_Atlas_(novel)
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

At the time of Alien they didn't necessarily know that faster than light travel was implausible. Also faster than light travel was a minor part of the movie. I can forgive that, just as I can forgive the mistakes they made in the original star trek series. They just didn't know any better.

So you part-to-whole except for movies you like, in which case you gain the capacity to understand things are made of components and almost think reasonably. Once again, if we apply the criteria you've used to dismiss, say, Transformers, then Alien is not science fiction because no component of it is actually scientifically viable or has existential import. There also may be some strange exceptionalism implied here as well, not just based on your bias but your reasoning. If forgiven implies you think Alien is passable as scifi, even with its aforementioned technical transgression, doesn't that seem unreasonable? Wouldn't the more reasonable thing to do is consider it a good effort, but no longer scifi due to current knowledge (this assumes of course that things are KNOWN and not JUST THEORIZED about the potential of faster than light travel. Traveling faster than sound used to be believed to impossible too according to Chuck Yeager) about FTLT? To make an analogy, if I disproved what was a long held as scientific truth with new information, should people still accept the antiquated belief as science because of what was believed to be known when it was conceived? No. Hell no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Transformers is not science fiction. AvP is not science fiction. Just because there's an alien or a robot in the movie doesn't mean it has a scientific or technological premise. It's just window dressing for a piece of shit movie that they can't sell to any other demographic except children and the perpetually stupid.

Transformers is scifi! It's not highly ambitious or even, in my opinion, anything other than an awful, stupid, and cynical film, but it meets these criteria from wikipedia, which you seem to regard (at least one paragraph of) as infallible.

Wikipedia Criteria:

The settings for science fiction are often contrary to known reality, but most science fiction relies on a considerable degree of suspension of disbelief, which is facilitated in the reader's mind by potential scientific explanations or solutions to various fictional elements. Science fiction elements include:

A spatial setting or scenes in outer space (e.g., spaceflight), on other worlds, or on subterranean earth.
Characters that include aliens, mutants, androids, or humanoid robots.
Technology that is futuristic (e.g., ray guns, teleportation machines, humanoid computers).
Scientific principles that are new or that contradict known laws of nature, for example time travel, wormholes, or faster-than-light travel.


AvP is also scifi, but I'm not going to spell it out for you because at this point, I really, really, really, really, really, really... really, really shouldn't have to.

To reiterate what was highlighted in bold earlier, scifi doesn't have to be more than a superficial genre. Think about Westerns. They don't have to be historically accurate or based on true stories, they just have to revel in the iconography and tropes of the Western genre to a degree in which they can be identified as such.

p.s. Don't think for a minute I actually care what people think. For some reason I just found writing this thing absurdly FUN. Fuck me. Also, if this writing is a mess it's because it's tossed off... also, I'm editing the shit out of this for the intent of clarifying or at least being more apt.
Edited by boogaboogabooga - 3/12/12 at 11:34am
post #116 of 689
Don't you dare edit that I'm drunk right now but will respond tomorrow.
post #117 of 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Don't you dare edit that I'm drunk right now but will respond tomorrow.

All right unfortunately I'm drunk again now so I'll have to post on this tomorrow.

Actually I expect to be drunk early tomorrow too so maybe Tuesday. Wednesday at the latest.
post #118 of 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogaboogabooga View Post

?
I'm not sure how people are laying claim to whatever "generation" they assume to occupy, how and where other members of the forum belong, and what these generations even are, but what about Children of Men? It's a contemporary, highly ambitious, and incredibly well done film. I'd say it belongs up there with Blade Runner, Solaris, 2001, and Alien, easy. Or, to toss one off, how about Moon?

I had the misfortune of reading the book first before I saw the movie and so I got hung up on all the changes Cuarón made from the book that made the story much more existential than what P.D. James had intended it to be. The film was well done but they hacked the story up pretty good. Love the book much more than the film.

I also wouldn't classify it as science fiction and I don't think James would either. It probably falls more in the realm of dystopian fiction than anything else.
post #119 of 689
To put one foot on this thread: anyone here a fan of 12 Monkeys? One of my favorite sci-fis; but definitely not hard sci-fi.

Also, I loved Brad Bird's Iron Giant.
post #120 of 689
The Iron Giant isn't sci-fi. Iron giants from outer space do not exist.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Prometheus (Ridley Scott's Alien "Prequel" )