Ten Sci-Fi Flicks for the Thinking Man

arendr on 01-7-2009 06:50 PM

Nice work here, Jeff. I'm glad you mentioned Solaris.

And I hope to one day have the pull in Hollywood to make a movie like 2001.

Detrs on 01-7-2009 06:51 PM

"Thinking man's sci-fi" is a contradiction in terms.

Not a bad list though.

philth on 01-7-2009 11:20 PM

Is this a joke? Sci-fi when done well can produce some of the most cerebral fiction imaginable.

Detrs on 01-8-2009 02:16 AM

Uh, no...try looking up the difference between science-fiction and sci-fi; maybe do a bit of research before you say something. Most people even many casual fans, don't know that the terms refer to different things.

There is a world of difference between something like Malzberg's "Galaxies" and crap like "Galaxy 666."

Is there anybody in the world who knows anything about literary history any more? You're talking to someone who eats, breaths, and sleeps sf out of all proportion to reason. Like said, maybe next time it would help if you actually knew something about the genre before posting.

Science-fiction, certainly, is never less than thought provoking even when it fails to engage on all levels. Sci-fi on the other hand is the pap that most people (almost usually rightly so) dismiss out of hand for being crap with aliens, laser guns, time travel, space-ships. You know the, silly stuff. That's not to say it can't be fun and moving in it's way. I refuse to call that a "guilty pleasure" because there's nothing guilty about it. Some of my favorite books are "mere" sci-fi ("The Man Who Never Missed," "Skinner," "War Games," etc), but they pale in comparison to things like "Kirinyaga," or "Dying Inside."

Do you see what I'm getting at yet?

If you want to know about SF, start with the name Hugo Gernsback and read the following, "Breakfast in the Ruins," "The Dreams our Stuff is Made Of," and "Critical Theory and Science-Fiction."

Let me know when you want to get serious about this discussion.

TombstoneLawDog on 01-8-2009 07:27 AM

Detrs:
Your points would be much better taken--even thought-provoking, perhaps-- if you a) didn't attempt to force them with a sanctimonious windbag attitude and
b) bothered to check your spelling or grammar.

I normally give folks a pass on this site and god knows I make mistakes, too, but when you drop the 'My sh#t is bigger than yours' crap, especially when claiming a superior grasp of LITERATURE, it helps if you pretend like you've ever accurately written and punctuated a couple of sentences, yourself.

As for this list, since RT did not offer their definition of 'Sci-Fi,' it leaves a fair amount of latitude on what belongs here. I generally like it, though. I agree with many of the submissions by others about what else should be here: 'Terminator (1 and/or 2)', 'Matrix,' and '12 Monkeys,' for example. I will say that I started off loving 'Sunshine' but thought the ending was such a pathetic, cop-out betrayal of all it started off with that I'm quite certain it was never considered for this list. '28 Days' is a much stronger representation of Danny Boyle's work.

sliknik27 on 01-8-2009 06:44 PM

@Detrs: You should consider carrying around a stool just in case you decide to step off of your high horse one day. Jeez.

philth on 01-8-2009 09:46 PM

Wow. Okay, relax for a minute.
First of all, I apologize for misconstruing your initial comment, as I thought you were maligning the entire genre of "science fiction", which was not an unfounded assumption given that you yourself stated that for many people 'science fiction' and 'sci-fi' are interchangable, and that many people tend to casually dismiss the genre based on their experiences with only limited and not-exactly-shining examples of it (most of which you would lump under the latter term).

That said, although I am aware that there is a certain elite SF cabal which regards itself as "the fandom" (in exclusivity, doubtlessly) and which insists on the unabbreviated genre name as a sort of identifying secret handshake (although oddly, they seem to have little problem with shortening it to 'SF', which strikes me as even more dumbed-down), I have never felt the need to engage in this particular losing semantic battle, which seems to me as pointless as Trekkers attempting to distinguish themselves from Trekkies in the eyes of a general public that couldn't possibly care less.

Frankly, I don't see the point, other than as some back-patting exercise in fanboyism. Every genre has more than its share of dreck; horror fiction has an even worse reputation than science fiction, yet you don't see serious horror aficionados insisting that they refer to 'good horror' with a specific moniker, it's just 'good horror' (or maybe they do, but that would just be more elitist goofiness). I'm less inclined to agree with Ellison's somewhat overdramatic appraisal of the state of science fiction as I am to just go along with Sturgeon and acknowledge that a lot of things are crap and come with their own associated stigmas (real or imagined), not just sci-fi. You understandably dislike the stigma, but it doesn't help matters to snort with derision when somebody is unfamiliar with esoteric genre distinctions (nor does assuming that indifference is unfamiliarity, either).

To the point: I use sci-fi and science fiction interchangably, the former as an abbreviation of the latter and nothing more or less. If that earns me the contempt "the fandom", then so be it. With that in mind, however, and ignoring a certain amount of mutual condescension, I would say we are essentially on the same page here, as you are clearly not the science fiction-denigrating person I mistook you for.

onebadgungan on 01-9-2009 09:35 AM

"Uh, no...try looking up the difference between science-fiction and sci-fi; maybe do a bit of research before you say something. Most people even many casual fans, don't know that the terms refer to different things."

Uh, no. You are making an unnecessary and pointless distinction.

Forest Ackerman created the term "SciFi" as his license plate and it became shorthand. You are splitting hairs.

Alxego on 01-10-2009 09:55 AM

Putting aside all of the anti-intellectual whines aimed at Detr's postings, I think he's got an excellent point in pondering the difference between skiffy and science fiction. Yes, "Blade Runner" is a good movie, but it achieves its narration by jettisoning nearly all that is unique in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Re-imagining the story as a noir detective story was an interesting approach, but it damn near erased the point of the book. The theme "what is human?" barely survives the jump.

Comes to that, virtually all film adaptations of Dick's work turn his very human and vulnerable characters into boring supermen. The only exception that comes to mind is "A Scanner Darkly."

pittipat on 01-10-2009 09:35 PM

ROFLMAO "Literary history"? Oh give me a break. Your "history" doesn't go back terribly far, Detrs. With due respect to Verne, Wells, et al., the genre as most of us recognize it was a mid-20th century development, and the "difference" between science fiction and sci-fi originated when SF writers got their panties in a wad because they felt the shortened term was disrespectful and suggested that maybe they weren't serious, Pulitzer-worthy, authorly types.

Just like other genres, there's good science fiction and not-so-good science fiction. Those with literary pretensions like to suggest that the latter is "sci fi" while *they* read/write/critique/discuss "science fiction" or even better "speculative fiction." Apparently, more syllables = more literary.

The difference between science fiction and sci-fi is the difference between romance novels and bodice rippers, or movies and cinema. Call it what you will, it's the basically the same stuff. It's just that some of it's better than other of it.

"Literary history" indeed....

dodgerblue on 01-11-2009 12:43 AM

First off could you possibly come off as any more of a condescending, arrogant, prick?

Secondly sci-fi is most often defined as simply an abbreviation for science fiction so spare us your contrived definition.

Tom H. on 01-14-2009 11:06 PM

Detrs writes:

"Uh, no...try looking up the difference between science-fiction and sci-fi; maybe do a bit of research before you say something. Most people even many casual fans, don't know that the terms refer to different things... Science-fiction, certainly, is never less than thought provoking even when it fails to engage on all levels. Sci-fi on the other hand is the pap... Let me know when you want to get serious about this discussion..."

What? I thought Sci-Fi was simply Science Fiction shortened. Is Detrs now redefining Sci-Fi? Perhaps I'd better do some research before I post!

Ok, below is my 5 minutes of research on Google on what Science Fiction means and what Sci-Fi means. I was disappointed that I could not find any distinction between the terms. Perhaps Detrs could provide some reference where the terms are distinguished?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Fiction

"Sci Fi" redirects here. For various television networks around the
globe, see Sci Fi Channel.
Science-fiction books, magazines, film, TV, gaming and fannish
material.

Science fiction (abbreviated SF or sci-fi with varying punctuation
and capitalization) is a broad genre of fiction that often involves
speculations based on current or future science or technology.

http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2008/01/mind-meld-todays-sf-authors-define-science-fiction-part-1/

...John Scalzi...
I answered this for my non-fiction book The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies. There, I said something is science fiction if at least one of the following three conditions are met:

1. It takes place in the future (or what was the future at the time of writing);
2. It uses technology that does not exist (or didn't exist at the time of writing);
3. The speculative elements of the story largely have a rational rather than magical basis.

This is a fairly inclusive definition.

There are lots of folks who will include puffery about how SF is a true literature of ideas, etc., but it's fairly obvious there's a goodly amount of brainless science fiction about....

http://www.answers.com/topic/science-fiction

Science fiction is a form of literary fantasy or romance that often
draws upon earlier kinds of utopian and apocalyptic writing. The term
itself was first given general currency by Hugo Gernsback, editor of
the American magazine Amazing Stories from 1926 onwards, and it is
usually abbreviated to SF (the alternative form %u2018sci%u2010fi%u2019 is frowned
upon by devotees);

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science fiction

science fiction

1929 (first attested in "Science Wonder Stories" magazine), though
there is an isolated use from 1851; abbreviated form sci-fi is from
1955.

Link for Web Ad on Dictionary.Reference.com

Science Fiction Forum
Join other insane Sci Fi fans Talk about your fav topics
www.ScienceFictionFans.com

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sci-fi

sci-fi (sf)
n. pl. sci-fis Informal
Science fiction.
adj. Of, relating to, being, or similar to science fiction: a sci-fi
movie; a sci-fi weapons system.
The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition copyright �2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in
2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

sci-fi
Noun - short for science fiction
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 �
HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

Phillip H. on 12-26-2009 02:55 AM

your pomposity and arrogance is almost amusing given there is no difference between science-fiction and sci-fi (one merely being an abbreviation of the other). This is semantics nd nit-picking. What you are referring to is more accurately deemed "space opera" or "space fantasy".

CJElven on 01-9-2009 07:26 AM

I'm sad that you think science fiction and "thinking" are contradictions in terms. While it is true that there is much "pulp" science fiction out there, there is also still much that is not. If you see only the legions of books based on Star Trek, Star Wars, and/or various gaming properties (Mechwarrior, Shadowrun, etc), then I could, perhaps, see your point.

The problem, perhaps, is Hollywood. After all, they're visualizing the future. Many "cool" things will be around in the future, and they want to show them all right now. That's a problem, however, because I believe that in the future, most of these "fantastic" items will be as commonplace and boring to use as anything in your own kitchen, and with as many flashes and bangs (to wit: none). Not flashy. Not exciting. But Hollywood takes the opportunity to turn everything into something new.

Take "I, Robot". This could have been an excellent thinking man's movie. The book(s) certainly present interesting ideas and stories about man's relationship with machines. However, Hollywood takes the idea and runs with a single story, and a bastardization of the story at that! While it was indeed a fun movie, it wasn't particularly "good". The idea, good. The execution of the movie, good. The execution of the idea...meh.

It's often the movies that take the future and its technology for granted that end up being the "smartest" movies, because they realize that the future will be a lot like now...just with different toys. The books that do this are often the best as well, (as well as a smattering or slathering of real science) because the authors realize that tomorrow won't be all that different from yesterday, which wasn't all that different from the day before.

Kodama on 01-9-2009 09:44 AM

Not if you read books and are slightly picky about what you watch. How is Sci Fi braindead material when much of it consistently predicts the future as far as a hundred years out?
Oh wait. Sci Fi isn't short for Science Fiction. (????) Thanks for arbitrarily making that up and into canon law.

Annalisa B. on 01-10-2009 12:44 AM

The statement that "'Thinking man's sci-fi' is a contradiction in terms" shows quite a bit of ignorance regarding the science-fiction genre. While there certainly are some "ridiculous" works that have contributed to the stereotype on which you most likely base your statement, much of science fiction is both intellectual and imaginative. This list is decent, but it should have at least made you recognize that sci-fi extends far beyond cliched alien/time travel/etc movies. The setting of an alternate/fictional reality (future, re-imagined present, etc) can provide us with the context for important philosophical and ethical discussions, such as the potential consequences of genetic manipulation (e.g. Gattaca) or how we define our humanity. The "thinking man" would recognize that "sci-fi" encompasses a wide range of topics and not make assertions based solely on cliches or popular stereotypes.

C B. on 01-13-2009 06:55 AM

"'Thinking man's sci-fi' is a contradiction in terms."
%u2014 Detrs

Not really, but sci fi movies make so much money doing their worst that they cannot afford to do their best (with apologies to Fred W. Friendly).

There is a plethora of good science fiction out there, but a real dearth of studios and directors who have the vision to take it and transform it into successful cinema. The list above shows a few notable exceptions. One must ask oneself why the viewing public must settle for the likes of "Short Circuit" and "Wall-E" when Andre Norton's "Teddy" (a short story with a similar theme, but a far better story) could just as easily have been adapted for the screen.

There is a simple reason why there are so few films based on the sf writing of Asimov, Niven, Le Guin, Gibson, and yes, even Clarke: the movie industry is afraid to take chances. It would rather pass off special effects schlock as sci fi than challenge its audience to think. Wait a minute %u2014 if audiences actually started thinking, they might stop going to movies. But that is another sci fi story...

Detrs on 01-13-2009 01:28 PM

C B,

Not to be rude, but did you read my explanations?

Yout wouldn't be the first person here who has leapt to conclusions about what I said.

Believe me, I've long lamented the appalling lack of risks taken by studios. They don't require large budgets for every film. I could name a dozen books right now that could be made for "only" between 30 and 50 million. Some for far less than that.

I think the best course of action would be a close adaptation of a moderately popular work with enough of a budget to get decent effects, a cast and crew who care, and a decent ad campaign.

I think it all comes down to what is chosen and how it's promoted.

razzendahcuben on 01-13-2009 03:40 PM

This comment says more about the commenter than the sci-fi genre. What genre is he comparing sci-fi too? Documentaries?

Detrs on 01-13-2009 06:32 PM

Good god, do you people not read on past the first page? There have probably a dozen back and forth posts between me and others.

You would do well to read them before making a comment. I clarified my position not even 20 posts later (scroll to the bottom of the first page to see where the fun begins). I'm getting real sick of everyone jumping to conclusions about what I did and did not mean.

One would think that I'd be used to it by now.

ttboy80 on 01-7-2009 06:54 PM

This list gives a visual representation as to why Sci-Fi is my favorite genre, yet I like so few sci-fi movies.

Brilliant group of films.

Detrs on 01-7-2009 06:56 PM

That's because most sci-fi is terrible. There are far more "Supernova"s than there are "Blade Runner"s.

dodgerblue on 01-11-2009 12:32 AM

You can say that about any genre Detrs.

hoeech on 01-12-2009 10:53 AM

The same can be said of any genre of film. There are more "Glitters" than there are "Citizen Kanes". There are more "Dungeons and Dragons" than there are "Return of the Kings". The trick is to recognize the brilliant and discard the wastes of time.

jokerboy1991 on 01-7-2009 06:58 PM

Cool list, I actually have never watched Battle Star. Why isn't Alien or Aliens on this list?!? Especially Aliens?!? The final cut of Blade Runner is definitely my favorite Sci-Fi film, then 2001, then Solaris, then Empire Strikes Back, then Aliens, and finally Back to The Future. The Dark City Director's Cut is great and I like it more then the original cut which I already thought was great. Also of-course the T1 and T2, but those are more along the lines of action but offers a lot I think intellectually. I would say there hasn't been a great Sci Fi film since Children of Men, and I also really liked Minority Report which had a great concept. I cant wait til next year considering all the Sci Fi films coming out- Avatar, Star Trek, T4, and Transformers 2. Yes all of those wont be great films I think except maybe Avatar, I think Star Trek and T4 will turn out pretty good, and I am still unsure of Transformers 2- I just hope it has a better story this time and they could easily make a better sequel. I actually have not see Gattaca yet, I just never got around to it but I will check it out soon.

d a. on 01-11-2009 12:01 AM

"I would say there hasn't been a great Sci Fi film since Children of Men" Have you seen Sunshine? Also, Gattaca's on Hulu.

Detrs on 01-7-2009 07:04 PM

The problem, as I see it Jokerboy, is that, much like literature, most sci-fi is a pastiche moved into the future: "Firefly" was a western with space-ships. "Blade Runner" is more film noir than anything else.

You get the idea. In SF writing circles, this is sometimes known as "used furniture."

jokerboy1991 on 01-7-2009 08:08 PM

Yeah I love it when Sci Fi combines with other genres like the awesome Firefly and Blade Runner, I don't get why filmmakers don't ever try that approach now when doing a Sci Fi film.

pinkincide on 01-7-2009 07:33 PM

Glad to see Dark City featured so prominently. Of all the movies that did that artificial reality thing, Dark City did it best. At least it came up with something better than using humans for generating electricity.

Glyoung on 01-7-2009 07:46 PM

The Battlestar Galactica series will be the first television series in which I will buy. A must own in my opinion. It will be my pleasure to introduce this series to all of those whom I meet that have slept on it. I just hope that Caprica is as good as Battlestar.

Playboy Slim on 01-7-2009 08:22 PM

Okay my homeboys, I was like "This list is pimp!" until, the end. "Blade Crawler" and "2001: A Space Odyssey"... Okay, "2001" is very good, especially HAL 9000, but it's a little overated. I never sensed an alleged controversy about human battle such stuff AAAAAAAA!!!! The ending makes no sense, no frekin' sense. But like I said, ya otta love HAL. 7/10.

As for "Blade Crawler", I only saw the theatrical version, and it was so dissapointing. I liked the Harrison Ford parts ( I liked Fords narration by the way) and the film looked great. But the replicants were so boring. What makes them different? I don't know. And there was too much emphasis on scenary instead action or plot. Massive letdown. 4/10.

I agree with jokerboy, some stuff is definatley missing. Although, jokerboy I wouldn't worry about Transformers 2, I'm worried about Star Trek. I think the new trailer was shock full of cliches.

vashfanatic on 01-7-2009 08:27 PM

Go watch the final cut before you render any opinion on "Blade Runner" - one of my favorite movies of all time.

As for why "Aliens" isn't on this list... it's a great movie, but it doesn't make you think, as in, contemplate any of life's various mysteries, which is what this list is supposed to be about.

cubitfox on 01-9-2009 07:12 PM

You like the voice overs probably because you can't understand a plot unless someone spells it out for you. Those VO's we're put in due to the studio altering Dick's/Ford's/Scott's vision. Maybe you don't like it because you saw the theatrical cut, the worse of the three. you should probably see the REAL movie before making a judgement.

And of course 2001's ending doesn't make sense, that's the point. That's like saying "hey, is it me, or was Tyler Durden imaginary all along?"

jestifer on 01-9-2009 09:28 PM

There's something seriously wrong with you.

Kevin M. on 01-11-2009 10:54 AM

Yeah, you really can't judge Blade Runner until you watch the Director's Cut and let it percolate awhile. I'm surprised this article didn't make more out of the fact that the Director's Cut wasn't released, originally, because it was judged to be too subtle for the "average viewer." The theatrical release WAS dull, not to mention frustrating, in light of what the Director's Cut accomplished. Frankly, the movie doesn't hand its conclusions to you the way most people want a movie to, which is what makes it such an enduring classic. Once you get a sense of the human/replicant story, the sets and effects are window dressing, as mindblowing as they are. I think the movie was tighter than the book.

filmdudejeff on 01-13-2009 12:56 AM

man, bladerunner was so deliberate and atmospheric. its a real masterpiece of film, especially sci-fi.

goldmonkee on 01-7-2009 09:14 PM

Gattaca is my favorite movie, period. I also haven't seen Battlestar, will have to check it out.

filmdudejeff on 01-13-2009 12:54 AM

Yeah, Gattaca is pretty amazing.

ambientcafe on 01-7-2009 09:27 PM

Director Robert Zemeckis's adaptation of Carl Sagan's novel, 'Contact' should be on the short list as well....hopefully, Warner'll show some Bluray love for this title in 09'.

Balls McHammer on 01-12-2009 10:30 AM

Contact!? OMFG That was a horrible, horrible movie, ending with one of the most horrendous let down cliche's in science fiction history:

The alien takes the form of her DAD! LA-LA-LA-LAAAAAME

Talk about some scifi cinematic blue balls. I had to sit through THAT for THAT!?

Geordi L. on 01-13-2009 08:57 AM

I agree, Contact should have made the list. It absolutely fills the definition of "thinking man's sci-fi" or woman in this case, since the thinker in the movie is Jodie Foster.

Nick C. on 01-7-2009 10:10 PM

You know, I'm not sure how people don't understand 2001... It's not meant to be fully understood because it deals with subjects that we can only wonder about.
Very good list though, I haven't seen all of them, but I will definitely check the rest of them out.

Iamremote01 on 01-7-2009 10:22 PM

Where is "Sunshine"?!?
Even "28 Days Later" has amazing social/human commentary. Danny Boyle deserves a little love on this list.

will s. on 01-8-2009 11:54 PM

amen

mouse_clicker on 01-7-2009 10:30 PM

Great list! I'd also include the original sci-fi classic, though, Metropolis. I can't wait for the new DVD with so much of the old footage recovered!

rushmore223 on 01-7-2009 10:31 PM

Good list, but where is 12 Monkeys and Brazil.
Those are two staples of great, intelligent sci-fi.

gigaherc on 01-8-2009 12:18 AM

Alien (space creature genre), Terminator and 12 Monkeys (time travel genre) should also make the list.
Anyways, great list, could be my favourite movies list.

colinsbob on 01-10-2009 04:25 AM

This is a really good list, and you guys stop putting this: "oh, where are Aliens/12 Monkeys or something like that. Does films are not existential. They don't made you think: "oh my God, what's my purpose in life."... maybe 12 Monkeys... but, we know that time travel's not yet possible, so it remains to pure SF.

Detrs on 01-8-2009 02:53 AM

Furthermore, I should point out that the article you're commenting on is titled, "Thinking Man's Sci-Fi." Not, "Good Sci-Fi" in the sense that there are good and bad action movies, but that by implication that the bulk of visual sci-fi isn't very good.

SF has long had a very intense stigma (like Philip Klass who had to publish pseudonymously to protect his academic career from being destroyed) whereas fantasy (and in case you didn't know, the two were originally bundled together as they both encompass ideas and ideals of the fantastic) in it's modern discreet genre, has, by dint of popularity thanks to things like The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, has some parity with the general public.

Most people write it off due to the wrong-headed perception of what SF is and is not. In this case, sci-fi is usually seen as interchangeable with speculative fiction. Granted they are the reverse and obverse of a single coin, but they are about the same as Silhouette books are to something like "Ali and Nino."

Ok, I'm done for now.

HyperionChild on 01-8-2009 04:00 AM

Wow sounds like Detrs is channeling Harlan Ellison!!!
He is correct of course on the difference between Speculative Fiction or SF and what Hollywood calls "Sci Fi".
Nevertheless, a great list from Mr. Giles and RT.
I was surprised to see so much of my personal favorites in this list.
Glad to see "Primer" and "Dark City" get some love, and "Gattaca" as well.
I remember one interesting thing the director of "Gattaca" said when the movie was released....he said that the look of the film was dictated by the small budget....they didn't have the money to make the film look "futuristic' so they gave it a "film noir" look instead. This means the film was actually improved (in my opinion) by having a smaller budget.

Nihonniirugaijin on 01-8-2009 04:24 AM

Thinking man's sci fi? More like sleeping man's sci fi. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I am going to be the dissenting voice here. I think almost all of these movies are over-rated snooze fests. In my opinion, the greatest sci fi flicks keep the action rolling, films like Alien, Aliens, The Terminator, Terminator 2, and The Empire Strikes Back. And the Tomatometer backs me up. The films I list have Tomatometer ratings of 97%, 100%, 100%, 100%, and 97%, respectively. None of the movies listed in this article have ratings this high.

Robert P. on 01-10-2009 07:14 AM

Your list of films kind of punctuates the point of this list. Although I love all of the films you mentioned, I wouldn't put any of them in this class. The greatest emphasis in all of them is action and entertainment, not thought. Nothing wrong with those things, but they just don't qualify for this category.

Pierre Clouutier on 01-17-2009 05:47 PM

I have noticed a distressing tendency to assume that films that are not mindless action and actually require thought are boring. The fact that the films you listed are high on the Tomatometer merely indicates that people like to park their brains at times and have a good time. AS for films that provoke thought lets get serious. Alien and Aliens are space gothic horror, fun but mindless. Terminator and Terminator 2 are action flicks and if anything even more mindless. As for the Empire Strikes Back, yup great fun, but Star Wars is not by any stretch of the imagination thoughtful Sci -Fi it is a mindless, fun fantasy, Cowboys and Indians that happens to take place in space. The fact that mindless escapism is rated so high is a interesting phenomena and indicates just how difficult it is to do thoughtful stuff has against mindless escapism.

jviehe on 01-8-2009 05:34 AM

Actually, season 1 of BSG was about all those things mentioned in the OP, but now its about religious toasters, drama, weed induced hallucinations, and who knows what else. There was even some anti-iraq war plot in there for a while. It stopped being a thinking mans sci fi in season 2, and turned into Lost (ABC show) in Space (not that tv show). I want to see more fighting, space battles, lasers, man vs machine, and less Desperate Housewives.

Opening this week

Movies

New on DVD

DVD

Who's In Theaters This Weekend?

Celebrities

What's Hot on Rotten Tomatoes

News

Spotlight

Critics

...or woman.

Blade Runner

2001: A Space Odyssey

Comments

Related Links

Children of Men

Movie News

Featured on RT

Top Headlines

Related Articles

Latest Features

What's Hot On RT