SF Movies in 2013.....Back to the Future {in prequels}?

A new trailer is out for the Trek movie "Into Darkness", it looks like some more exciting fight scenes like in the Star Wars prequels,

Speaking of Star Wars, news came out just recently that" We had already signed Mark and Carrie and Harrison – or were pretty much in the final stages of negotiation" According to Lucas while being interviewed about the franchise sale to Disney.


This is of course referring to the Star Wars VII, VIII, and IX . I did not know there are two other "spinoff" movies planned according to the "official Star Wars site" - with this quote:
One of the standalone films will be written by Lawrence Kasdan, screenwriter of The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and co-writer of Return of the Jedi while the other will be penned by Simon Kinberg, writer of Sherlock Holmes and Mr. and Mrs. Smith. The movies will be separate from the upcoming Episodes VII, VIII, and IX, on which Kasdan and Kinberg are also consulting, and are expected to be released sometime after Episode VII. Each standalone film will focus on a specific character, and two spinoff films are currently confirmed.


{explanatory note that makes this a non sexist image }The Slave Leia costume refers to the bikini-style outfit worn by Princess Leia Organa when she was captured by Jabba the Hutt in Return of the Jedi. The costume was worn by actress Carrie Fisherand stuntwoman Tracy Eddon and was created by costumer designers Aggie Guerard Rodgers and Nilo Rodis-Jamero, inspired by the works of fantasy artist Frank Frazetta’s Egyptian Queen. Star Wars creator George Lucas requested the costume in part based on Fisher’s complaints about the lack of interesting costumes in A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back.

{explanatory note that makes this a non sexist image }

Excuse failed.

Really wish this group could avoid this sort of stuff. Ruined the whole thread for me.

^2 Good, I'm not the only one. I looked through the whole post, looking for a place where some "explanation" of the slave costume was necessary to clarify.

Sigh.....

Didn't bother me at all :)

I just hope ep. VII is a trip back to the old days and not another train wreck like I-III.

yeah, questionable image maybe - but still, I thought that the fact that it was something Carrie had requested was interesting. Great photo however {and one I am sure Carrie is proud of}, I had never seen any images that weren't just "grabs" from the movie itself.

There are some great "making of" photos here: http://www.malgusto.com/cine-television-famosos/curiosas-y-raras-fotografias-del...

Carrie Fisher might have wanted more interesting, ala Padme Amidala's amazing get-ups. I doubt the slave bikini was what Leia had in mind.

Ah well, one good thing came out of it -- the Kaley Cuoco mock-PSA telling people they needed to vary their costumes at comic-cons a little bit!

Great link msty1n !!

As for the SF iconic , documentary, essential photo to any Star Wars dissertation I guess I will have to pull rank and level of expertise to settle this issue and I apologize beforehand for the sternness which must be meted out in my authoritative statement.

My childhood friend, the comic book king who became a {small} theater manager and bravely kept his job even when financial instability forced the owners to show only "X" rated movies and the bonds of friendship {which he scrupulously observed} strengthened his mettle and allowed him, with a clear conscience, to allow myself, his underage friend and acolyte in matters of the mass media, to observe the aforementioned films. He pointed out that: At the end of each movie an academic maven, PHD, spoke from his small office with wooden desk , frequently while cleaning his spectacles {necessary from years of fine detailed work to reach the pinnacle of his profession} and explained that academic documentation of the presented behaviors was a clerical mission to educate and preserve for posterity- which made such photo graphical compilations quite legal and exempt from spurious laymen who would misinterpret them in a licentious manner.

^ If only I had the slightest idea what you're talking about..... I suppose I could follow that link, but do not feel confident I would end up anywhere I wanted to be.....

The link's safe, honest! Well, there are one or two photos of Carrie Fisher in the slave outfit, but there's one of Harrison Ford with his shirt off if that helps in any way... Basically loads of nice on-set photos, and some publicity shots. I'm not really a Star Wars fan, but I thought it was cool!

Aha!! Something wished for but never expected is a "Riddick III" in Sept. 2013 perhaps; which looks to be a continuation of Pitch Black - a great unheralded movie {IMOHO}

The plot as described in the link appears to take Vin back to the original desert planet of "Pitch Black" . It will be tough to replicate the tension and mystery created by the uniqueness/novelty of the original but I am looking forward to the flick.

Link to movie trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFCTPY536l8

"Oblivion" is due in the theatres soon. From the trailers it looks pretty good and Tom Cruise rarely fails to deliver. A bit of a departure for him but I think he is up for it.

I'm sure he will just 'channel his Theatan' - whatever - and give one of his 'sterling' impressions of a constipated Scientologist.

leaving his religion aside, Tom Cruise is a competent actor in many noteworthy films.

Really? I'll grant that he showed up in many noteworthy films, but I think he acted in only one of them :) (Interview with the Vampire)

I submit: Rain Man, Jerry Maguire, The Last Samurai ....as actor and producer the Mission Impossible series has been quite successful as well as others. He is a successful actor/producer...Rock of Ages aside :)

He has won or been nominated for a Saturn Award (Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films) as best actor for the following films: Interview with the Vampire (as you mention), Vanilla Sky, The Last Samurai, Collateral, War of the Worlds, Valkyrie, not to mention the Mission Impossible series

I would say he has a rather solid successful career...you may not like him much, but I do....'nuff said

A Saturn award for The Last Samurai and Valkyrie? Those seem odd choices.

Tom Cruise was far from the worst thing in the War of the Worlds remake. Though IMHO, Dakota Fanning outshone him almost constantly...

>18 RobertDay:

You know, I was routing for the aliens by the end of the film. And I am a Tom Cruise fan - but Fanning was gritting on my nerves sooo badly.

At 2 and 3 above - I am flabbergasted by modern culture. Porn like fifty shades is accepted by the masses, freedom of expression is extolled, but a picture of an actress in an oufit in an sf movie is potentially ruining and sexist? Should Carrie be ashamed of her body and hide it? That seems way more demeaning and close minded to me. Should then no one post an image of someone in a bathing suit when they bring up jaws?

^I never said it was ruining. It's just gratuitous. And I probably wouldn't even have remarked upon that except for the fact that the original poster took such pains to explain that it was completely necessary to post that picture when in actuality it had nothing to do with anything.

I definitely believe in freedom of expression. At the same time, however, context is appreciated. For instance, I wouldn't want to go to the grocery store to buy milk and have a giant stand-up figure of a woman in a string bikini standing next to the refrigerated cases I'm getting the milk from. In that circumstance, it's gratuitous and (in my opinion) inappropriate. But I also would not argue that it be forbidden, because the store has the right to put anything that's legal anywhere they want.

Re: "Jaws" -- they can post what they want. But I would still feel it's childish and painfully transparent if what they're writing about the suspense of the movie, the ground-breaking special effects, etc. and then the ONLY picture they post of someone in a bathing suit is a gorgeous young woman in a string bikini instead of, say, Roy Scheider in his actual role.

As the "Perp" in this case, I admit my photo tag line was more provocative than the photo itself. I think I wanted to write a witty, deliciously twisted response to the comments I was begging for but somehow that response was lost and I had to improvise. ;-)

Anyone else ever subscribe to The National Lampoon - where they published a graph of counter sales of the magazine and noted the spikes on issues that featured a lady in a bikini or less on the cover?

The TV ads for Oblivion {link to fan site} look pretty neat. The special effects look great even on TV so the theater version might be phenomenal {the tv ads for Avatar were ho - hum cartoonish but the theater version was spectacular}. I think it will be an entertaining movie. From what I have read there are no reviews out yet for the April 19th release. I have not read the graphic mag version it is based on but I am thinking the plot will be predictable.

A link to movie trailers

> 22: And of course, there's the UK mainstream sf media (mainly) magazine SFX, who usually manage to arrange their cover photos and graphics to obscure the bottom third of the middle letter of their title, making it look at a distance as if it's really called 'SEX'...

#24 I don't understand .....makes the cover look like what? ;-) {I had never seen the magazine before}

OK, even I think that's funny. Could they be more transparent??!! ;-)

They're certainly interested in selling to the "creepy nerd guy" demographic.

#27 I think they are trying to cover all the bases, see below, and the outfield {considering the current Spock's predilections.}

Oblivion starring Tom Cruise ... 2 thumbs up and a 5 star rating

I saw this movie in IMAX today and it was worth EVERY penny. No spoilers here but you will have almost 2 hours of action PLUS a story line that is both puzzling, gripping and totally logical throughout. This is without a doubt the best hard Sci Fi movie I have seen since James Cameron's Avatar.

Go and see it....it is well worth the price of admission and in IMAX...well it is awesome.

Finally a movie that lives up to hype

We saw 'Oblivion' last week. Looks gorgeous, has an engaging plot, and inhabitants from Planet Ikea to judge by the tower base that Tom C. uses.

OTOH, there are some fairly obvious plot holes, but we had fun afterwards discussing them for a good hour.

I liked it (Oblivion) quite a bit but as mentioned, plot holes.

what plot holes??? I found none....if it was the ending...that was the clone that was captured earlier....I thought that was a hole until I reviewed the movie in my head...everything was pretty logical as it played out.

Ok, careful folks!! I have not seen the movie yet!! Use spoiler warnings !! ;-)

This weekend methinks to rectify that.

no spoilers...you will like the movie, I am sure....maybe we should open a discussion thread titled " SCI-FI Movie: Oblivion discussion - SPOILER ALERT

I liked Oblivion a lot, although the some of the characters were a bit 2D, and Tom Cruise overacted at times. But...it was a gorgeous movie, with a amazing sountrack and an interesting premise. I admit that I didn't see the "twist" coming, although Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) may have warped my senses a bit. ;) More of her please! Speaking of the soundtrack (by M83), when the closing credits rolled, everybody got up and started to leave. Then the singer started singing, and everyone stopped and watched the rest of the credits.

Oh, and nice seeing Jaime Lannister with a gun - you could say he was Morgan Freeman's "right hand man" hahahahaha!!

SPOILER ALERT - The most Obvious Plot Hole:

Towards the climax when you see the superimposed past approach to the "tet" with the real-time, you hear the events from the flight recorder. The flight recorder was pulled from the quarters section where the rest of the crew were in suspended sleep - since the last part of the approach was done by the command module, how could those events have been recorded in the section left behind? I guess it could be rationalized that some broadcast kept the recorder up to date, but that's not how those things really work (they start to record independently of each other I would imagine, once the modules are separated). This immediately came to my mind while watching the movie. There are others but I'll leave it up to you who have seen the movie to find them...

SPOILER ALERT - Yep, I saw the movie Oblivion over the weekend and liked it. VERY entertaining summer day out type flick. I "supersized" and went with the IMax where you could see every pore of Tom Cruise's unblemished nose {darn, wish my skin could look like that!} but if you are on a budget I think seeing the movie for half that price would be fine. Here in the USA waiting on the "Redbox" blu ray rental to view while drinking a beer would be excellent. IMOHO

The recorder thing crossed my mind when it happened but maybe, since redundant systems are the rule in space stuff, as you say there was perhaps a wireless connection.

I guess "some of the characters were a bit 2D" was intentional for the maintenance station personnel considering their nature of origin, right? {if they are who you were referring to not much time for characterization for any of the characters because of action}. The twist in the apparent story line was great, even though I knew some sort of complication was coming. And talking about perfect skin - Jack's partner at the station, Andrea Riseborough, looked like a fresh scoop of ice cream on a hot day to me. ;-)

>37 DugsBooks: Oblivion - Spoiler Alert

the recorder message to me was not an issue...it was a bit garbled to my ears and lasted a few seconds so I really did not catch what was said. If that is to be considered a hole in the plot, it was a very shallow hole to me. I thought the plot overall was well put together. The emergence of Cruise at the end of the movie after he supposedly died taking out that mother ship with Morgan Freeman, jarred me at first until I realized that they did nothing with the captured clone earlier...then it made total sense to me.

I agree that the movie would have been equally as good in a smaller theatre but I did like it in IMAX supersized version......One thing I did like is that they did not cheapen the movie by making it 3D....I am getting tired of 3D which adds nothing to most movies. The only 3D movie I ever liked was Avatar

Oblivion - Plot Hole - Spoilers

I caught the movie last night, and overall I enjoyed it, it's very well done with great visuals. The plot hole that snagged me was you have the tet - a machine capable of interstellar travel and able to harvest planets, yet it couldn't make it's own repair drones? it needed to clone humans and provide them with an illusory life in order to fulfill the function of repair?

#39 Good point, I guess you have to concede to the apparent anthropomorphic sense of "curiosity" that the Tet has for human behavior in order for the film to work. Did the movie say Tet "evolved" from something else - biological being{s} maybe?



OK, You will need your decoder rings for this one. I have a $12 ticket for Iron Man 3 and four pizzas - all for $12. Red Baron Pizza is running a special for frozen pizza, if you buy four then you can get a $12 ticket online. The local "Food Lion" grocery stores are running a "2 for the price of one" special on the pizzas by chance so, as I do eat that brand every now and then, I now have a freezer full of pizza. This does not bode well for my transition to a Mediterranean diet. I also do not recommend eating an entire pizza while sipping red wine and streaming "Borgia" on Netflix - the wine runs out and you feel funny afterwards.

And this one for the ladies! George Clooney in the film Gravity {trailer at link}. Sandra Bullock also stars in the flick and is always a pleasant addition to any scenery. I had no sooner read a plug for the movie when, hours later, there was the ammonia leak on the ISS space station. I hope all goes well for that repair. I have enjoyed several of the movies that the writer/director, Alfonso Cuarón, has been involved with. After watching the trailer I wonder if they will attempt a landing by surfing debris to the surface like in the flick Dark Star.



I never knew a movie of Ender's Game was in the works and I read that some of the people involved quit because of Orson Scott Card's gay bashing?

Ender's Game has been in the works for years upon years now. It's only now actually finally happening.

My plan for it, if it gets good reviews? Buy a ticket for another movie at the same time in the same theater, preferably by the same studio. They only check the stubs at the ticket counter, not the individual theater. It's the only way I can find it even slightly conscionable to see it.

Gravity looks interesting - I'd consider seeing that in IMAX 3D. Not Enders' Game, though. Or the new Trek film. The latter I might see on rental.

"Next Star Wars Film to Be Made in Britain" reads the article title from CNBC. Are union required tea breaks enforced in Britain? ;-) Does that mean most of the movie is to be made on sets, a lot of starship interiors? I have not read any of the novels that extend the story beyond the movies.

#43 Yep, Clooney is a good actor {IMOHO} in addition to or causing him to also be a heart throb for many; and the director certainly has the reputation. I will be interested in your take on how well they observe/emulate the existing protocols for NASA controlled situations.

Ok, I just had to scroll through all those spoiler warnings as I'm holding out for DVD on Oblivion.

So, addressing the earlier part of the thread, they do seem to be milking both Star Trek and Star Wars for all they can. The sad thing is that I'll have to see all of them, although a lousy cinema and a big screen TV have convinced me that DVD is the way to go.

I didn't know Ender's Game was going to film. I probably won't bother as child/teenage main characters don't do it for me but I find it interesting that it's happening.

"...they do seem to be milking both Star Trek and Star Wars for all they can"

>dhtabor: They also milk Top Gun, although you have to watch closely to get all the references. Probably Mr. Cruise's request.

Just saw Iron Man 3....pretty good movie...Robert Downey Jr was his usual sarcastic self and the Ben Kingsley role....priceless

I was surprised to see Kingsley cast as Mazer Rackham in the upcoming Ender's Game movie. Especially with the Maori tattoos (though I realize the character was half-Maori, he was never described as tattooed).

Tattoos can be covered with make-up.

#49 by @dhtabor> As can boils and black eyes.

Not really sure I see the relevance, though. :D

I used my free pass to see Iron Man 3 over the weekend {still have pizzas in the freezer} and enjoyed the flick. I saw it in 3D and noticed, by peeking around my 3d glasses, that only parts of the flick were judiciously and appropriately 3D.

I read the comic from nearly the first as I remember {my childhood friend's dad sold comics out of a retail store} but I was surprised that the events of the last summer released Avenger's movie were incorporated in IM3. Pretty exciting movie with not overwrought action scenes {explosions }.

I am surprised no one has posted about Star Trek yet. It had the IMAX theater all to itself.

51> I saw the Star Trek movie and did not really like it. Too much in the explosion department and not enough in a compelling storyline for me. If there was a 5-10 min quiet time you just knew that any second something was going to blow up. The occasional cute one liner twists by crew which sort of reminded you of classic Star trek was fine once....maybe twice but after that it got boring...I was waiting to see them work "nuclear wessels" into Checkov's character.

As for the controversial skin scene, it was done purely for a bit of eye-candy but hardly exciting, certainly did nothing for the plot.

I am now looking forward to the new Will Smith and Son movie (I forget the title) ... while I often object to Mr. smith stealing famous book titles (I am Legend and I. Robot) he does generally deliver a decent movie and his son is really developing well as an actor. Also the new Brad Pitt zombie movie (think it is "World War Z") looks good in trailers.

I expect the Superman movie to be a dud....they never seem to do that character justice :)

Star Trek was a fun diversion, but quickly forgettable (most of it gone by the theater exit). The references/homages to the original series were generally amusing, and Benedict Cumberbatch makes a solid villain. But science fiction? Not so much. Same general plot as a host of other post 9/11 thrillers, just in space.

Couldn't they take out another city than San Francisco? Tokyo? Or better yet, Dallas?

And finally, what is with a star ship with a mothballed kraft paper plant masquerading as a power plant in its middle?

I hope the next one is not 3D so the writers can focus on a science fiction story and not on special effects.

I like the engineering section in the new ST movies much more than any of the old shows. It actually looks a lot more like SOME sort of engineering is being done there (even if it is a paper plant).

Looks like After Earth {annoyingly long load for official website} is getting some really Ho Humm... to not so good reviews. All the film clip previews look great but a lot of energy always goes into those.

I still haven't seen the new Star Trek, I thought there was going to be a screening at an SF convention in town this weekend but I could not find out the details so I kept my $20 - $40. 1500 people at an SF convention small, medium or getting to large?

I'm ready for Will Smith to stop ruining sf movies. I could only hope this was the last nail in the coffin to join Hancock, I Am Legend, I, Robot, MIB2 and even Wild Wild West (depending on your opinion of the genre it was in). Unfortunately I think he'll cruise a lot longer on the success of Independence Day and MIB.

> 56....I actually liked MIB2 but I am with you totally on

I, Robot

A blatant theft the title of Eando Binder 's short story "I, Robot" and the title of a collection of robotic short stories by Issac Asimov by the same name (over the objections of Issac...at least he showed class and acknowledged Binder as being influential in the development of his robotic series) not even a close likeness to either author's books.

I am Legend

Sort of the same in theme of a man surviving in an environment where he is the only I am legend human surrounded by vampires. However the similarity ends there...the story takes a 90deg turn and you are left wondering what the title was supposed to mean??

I hoped this new movie "AfterEarth" would be decent as I like the acting of Will's son Jaden. I think he has the star role in the movie...the scheduling of the movie was partly to blame for the bad reviews...the magician movie seems to have overshadowed it. The is a whole suite of movies competing against this movie right now... it might of done better in an opening in less than prime time....I will still give it a look....movie junkie that I am

Well, they threw in a half-assed explanation at the end of I Am Legend - that his character was a legend for finding the cure for vampirezombieism. But we all know what bullshit that is.

Wild Wild West still stings because it was one of my favorite childhood shows (in reruns) and I think it holds up pretty well today (in some respects better than Star Trek TOS). What they did to it will pretty much ensure the franchise is dead as a doornail. If it was a bigger property like Superman or Star Trek, it could have weathered the storm. But WWW didn't have that kind of broad base and so will probably never be able to rebuild.

I was a fan of the original series Wild Wild West and I also liked Will Smith & company's tribute to the show. I really had no expectations for the movie and waited on the dvd which I enjoyed. I like Will Smith's upbeat attitude which seems to color all his characters - I can understand how others can resent that sort of type casting however. Independence Day did kick ass as mentioned above.

I'm glad someone could get some enjoyment out of that steaming turd of a movie, but I'm in the same camp as the 71% of critics that panned it.

I don't dislike Smith's performance style. I loved MIB and ID even with its flaws. But since then he is somehow always a sign that an sf movie will be mediocre to terrible. I think they spend all the money on him and have none left over for decent writing. And/or they figure they can get away with it because he's such a draw.

I do have a favourite Will Smith movie and that is "Enemy of the State"

For reference: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/will_smith/

well they didn't like "Enemy of the State"....but I did :)

I find it rare that there's a movie where there isn't someone that will like it. Heck, I enjoyed Tron: Legacy. (Though on rewatching I found that without a good sound system, it's not nearly as good to me. The score played a big part in my enjoyment.)

ETA: And at 71%, I wouldn't say they didn't like EotS. The people who liked it are definitely in the vast majority.

yesterday was "cheap Tuesday" where first run movies are at 40% discount....so I went to see "After Earth"...I thought the movie was ok...just ok. On the positive was the scenery and sets...very well done. The story line was a bit weak though...a father/son bonding movie with the son rising to rescue his old man. Lots of running and running into the occasional challenge for the young Smith. I have seen this plot in its various forms before and it was a bit boring at times...I would give it a 6/10....mostly for scenery/sets

I'm awfully sorry if this post seems a tad off-topic, but I just wanted to air my desires for a new, up-to-date Dr Who movie. If memory serves me correctly, the last outing for the Doctor was a made-for-TV film back in the mid 90s.

With the unfortunate (and in my opinion untimely) exit of Matt Smith as the current Doctor, perhaps now is the perfect time to bring out a feature length movie for the silver screen.

I would really like the movie to take us back in time and focus on the Time Wars which we've all heard so much about, yet seen so little of. What really happened? How were the Time Lords destroyed?

One can only hope.

#66... Yeah, as if there is a fan base for that sort of thing or something. ;-)

I saw Star Trek Into Darkness over the weekend and I enjoyed the flick. I saw a "regular" version in a theater with a "DLP" screen which is not the best way to see the flick probably. The opening of the show had some obviously slanted to 3D effects action scenes but they were still effective. I like the way the alternative time line twists are introduced and played out in the script. I know that some fans consider this an abomination but as it is a new time line {that happens to include an older Spock from the original chronological linearity} I don't have a problem with it. Any didactic overtones are also much less stylized and not so obvious - maybe this is a problem for some as the original Star Trek was almost like watching religious parables at times.

Caution some Spoilers ahead!

Is it ok to discuss what went on between Spock and the "super villain" in the flick? I have some hunches about what might come in following Treks.

#68 by @DugsBooks> Maybe best to start a new thread the states spoilers in all caps up front. Otherwise, people will invariably catch a glance as they scroll down this thread.

An interesting discussion of the "Hobbit 2 " movie and trailer in the Green Dragon. Folks with a better memory than mine and/or who have more recently read LOTR are making some entertaining comments!

http://www.librarything.com/topic/155261

This is an entertaining 5 minute youtube clip of JJ Abrams being interviewed on Jimmy Kimmel Live. He keeps being peppered with inane suggestions from the audience {made up of past actors in the movies} on how to make the upcoming new Star Wars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sDkC_EkEUCg

Just watched a mildly futuristic (think it was set in 2026) movie called "The Purge".

Basically, America has degenerated to having an annual event once per year where all crime is legal...including murder. You watch the event through the eyes of a security salesman and his family as they settle inside what they feel is their safe home as the violence happens around them. The event is staged so that the population in the USA can purge themselves of their violent tendencies/frustrations for the year and apparently resulted in only 1% unemployment and a dramatic decrease in crime (except of course for that one event).

As a comment on the security salesman's knowledge....he had a lot to learn about protecting his home :) Sort of a horror flick but I found it interesting criticizing his idea of a secure home and what I would do if I faced a similar ridiculous scenario.

#72 bright , pretty funny link - it looks like that Princess Leia, Chewbacca tryst rumor really has legs!

#73 I had run across an ad or two for that movie and thought it would be interesting. Haven't there been some short stories with similar plots, like The Lottery. ? Always fun to fantasize about how many zombies/bad guys you can take out.

I hope to see World War Z at some time, I am not sure I will spend the big bucks to see it at a movie.

Z trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcwTxRuq-uk

And the same for Elysium, it looks like a good "shoot the bad guys" flick. Jodie Foster usually picks some pretty good scripts to participate in.

Elysium Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RSDaRttpzk

The discussion is about all "block-buster" movies, but since SF (and fantasy) movies tend to be more reliant on SFX which is expensive to produce, what do we all think of the $50 Mega Ticket idea?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/06/14/would-you-pay-50-to-see-wo...

I saw the bit about the $50 movie on a couple of sites while browsing. I am game for that if the leading lady sits on my lap during the movie and whispers amusing anecdotes about the making of the flick into my ear while I sip my drink with glacier ice that snaps and pops while the compressed air is released by melting....

Although there are plenty of people who make that kind of money - look at what concert tickets go for these days. I am not sure if your article mentions it { I just browsed the forbes} but this headline has gotten some play also:

Lucas and Spielberg warn Hollywood may 'implode'
Like the housing bubble perhaps. Yep, made for "TV"/online/Netflix is garnering a lot more attention IMOHO.

http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2013/06/13/lucas-and-spielberg-warn-h...

BTW Is this the place to touch on that hot and extremely controversial topic; can there be fast and slow zombies? I am more of a traditionalist myself and side with the slow zombie movement, I wonder how Z explains this?

Zombies M.U.S.T be slowww, else the Humans could just outrun them and NOT be caught in supermarkets...Wait a sec?

ETA. I can get 10 'old' DVD's/even Blu-rays for $50. To watch anything 'hot' today, I'll just wait a bit :-)
I got the Hobbit very soon after the theatre release on Blu-ray for about $20.

If I'm ever paying $50 for a movie ticket (let's face it, it's not going to happen - well, at least not until about a decade from now when that'll probably be the standard price...), it better come back with a money back guarantee.

The comparison of an opening night of a movie to an opening night of a Broadway show is just asinine. Stage presentations are, by their very nature, a fairly limited commodity. Movies, on the other hand, only have extremely artificial limitations on their availability.

And stage presentations have the attribute of being at least slightly different each time. A movie will always be the exact same movie during its entire theatrical run. The only slightly limited thing is when the 3d one will stop showing or when it will be reduced to playing on just a smaller screen or two. But even that takes a long time.

And even if you could get past all that, movies are much closer to what you get at home, especially these days with big screen TVs. Sure, there's some extra "wow" factor of the big screen and the big sound system and the really dark room and the crowd (if you're into that). But that is more than offset by the texters and the talkers (and let's face it - the smelly people). All of that combines to produce an experience that isn't hands-down "better" than watching a movie on the big screen at home for cheap.

On the other hand, a stage presentation is simply something you can't get at home until we get some very elaborate VR. So the higher price seems more reasonable because it's not directly comparable with any other activity.

So I just don't see that taking off. There's a reason it hasn't already.

I quit buying football tickets at my alma mater (that's American football, the one with the oblong ball) when they passed $50 (They're currently about $80.)

I'm can't think of any movie I've ever seen that I'd pay $50 for to watch in a theater and that includes Star Wars on the original run.

As brightcopy notes, I do pay more than $50 for live theater about once a year though.

Most of the ticket money in theatre productions goes to pay rent.

Which people can intuitively feel, since it's not a mass-produced product. It's why people's gut instinct is "really? $50 for a movie that's playing multiple times a day in thousands and thousands of theaters?"

Yes but at the same time it makes it inaccessible. It the UK theatre goers outnumber sport goers (strange as this may seem). I think part of the reason for this is that there is a mix of public and private money which holds down ticket prices. $200+ for a Broadway ticket limits the audience to older middle class people and does theatre a disservice.

the trailers to movies would have to be a lot more honest AND less revealing (some trailers spoil the whole movie) before I laid out $50 for a flick...at $12.99 here it is a bummer when you get sucked into a bad movie...at $50 I would be furious.

Right, but Broadway != theater (in the US). I have been to the theater plenty of times, but I have never been to a Broadway production. It's like complaining about the cost of seeing live music but using the price of tickets for U2, Elton John and Paul McCartney as your examples. Broadway and those artists represent a small slice, a premium slice for which you will pay a premium price. You're seeing a play in one of the most expensive cities in the world often with actors and playwrights that command some of the highest salaries in the world for their profession. That's a luxury product. If there wasn't some place in the world where this existed, it would be quite remarkable.

I don't think it would matter how much "public" money (Tax dollars? Well then it's still costing you money, you just never see the receipt.) you pump into it. Unless you went to some insane lengths to prevent ticket reselling (which would be unfortunate when you had to miss a show), those tickets are going to wind up being resold at prices the market dictates. As I said, it's premium product and the demand will drive the effective price.

I disagree. Theatres in the UK act as a anchor to complexes that include restaurants, bars and shops. Tax subsidies are clawed back in income, sales and corporate taxes. Revenues general exceed expenditures by quite a large factor.
Ticket prices are high even for Off-Broadway and Brooklyn. An off-off Broadway production can spend 2-3 thousand dollars a week in rental fees as result production values are crap and rarely worth seeing. The use of stars, most of whom are movie actors and haven't a clue what to do on stage, exists to justify the high ticket prices but poor acting makes them not worth seeing. If you're going to see theatre in New York you're best off seeing a musical (although even these are using canned orchestras these days) . If you want to see straight theatre go to Chicago where I believe there is a much higher amount of subsidies available as well as cheaper rents.

Also Sports in America gets far more subsidies ( free stadia anyone?) than the Arts.

#85 by @justifiedsinner> Tax subsidies are clawed back in income, sales and corporate taxes. Revenues general exceed expenditures by quite a large factor.

But in these places we're talking about, this is already happening. Without tax subsidies so there's nothing to claw back. It's pure gravy.

The use of stars, most of whom are movie actors and haven't a clue what to do on stage, exists to justify the high ticket prices but poor acting makes them not worth seeing.

But in those cases, what do you care that ticket prices are expensive?

An off-off Broadway production can spend 2-3 thousand dollars a week in rental fees as result production values are crap and rarely worth seeing.

Again, if it's a bad production, don't bother to go see them.

New York is simply a city that's too expensive for everything. It's expensive to live there, to eat there and to visit there. Why add even more demand via tax subsidies? Say the government doles out money to productions so they can pay their rent. You really think they won't raise the rent in some place like NYC? They'll raise it to the maximum amount possible taking into account the extra money the renters have from their grants. Because in a place like NYC, there will always been someone who can afford it (they are now, after all). So will the government need to buy up the property as well?

(It reminds me of people who build on the coast and get federal subsidies towards their flood insurance. I think it's one of the dumbest ways to use money.)

And even once all that happens, do you really think the productions will charge less than the maximum amount they can get for the tickets (they're doing it now!) If you lower their production costs by $100 a ticket and they're currently doing sold out shows at $200/ticket, do you think the price is going to magically drop to $100/ticket? No, they'll keep selling at $200/ticket until that price point doesn't put butts in the seats.

So now you'll have to have government price fixing of theater tickets, too. Maybe this works great for the UK, but our whole system of government here is entirely different and what works there doesn't always make sense here. And that's without even going into the differences between London and NYC that might mean you're comparing Big Apples to orangemen (ugh, apologies).

Also Sports in America gets far more subsidies ( free stadia anyone?) than the Arts.

And I vote against them every chance I get.

Let me just reiterate that there's two entirely different situations here: a) theater in New York (particularly Broadway), where things are insanely expensive and b) theater just about everywhere else in the US.

They're totally different animals. And I'm pretty sure (b) already gets public money in a lot of places, especially depending on the type of production. I don't think we have any sort of disagreement on this. For example, in my state of Minnesota we even voted in an amendment to the state's constitution to set aside a public fund for arts and nature. Here are some of the theater projects it backs: http://legacy.leg.mn/projects/project/all/all/116?keys=theater

So I'm all with you on (b) (and in fact was happy to vote for that amendment). But I just disagree with the effectiveness and realities of implementing it in some place like NYC, due to the facts of the situation.

ETA: On a related note, I have to wonder what kind of levels for sport you'd get if you included going down to the pub to watch the match. That seems to be a favorite way of "attending" sports in the UK. If you watch sports multiple times a week on TV and go to a play once every month or two, does the claim "theater goers outnumber sports goers" really mean as much as it seems to on a shallow reading?

Most LORT A theaters (such as the Guthrie) seem to be in the $50 - $70 range which I think is a bit steep particularly for Minnesota and they only give a $5 discount for students.

NYC is increasingly dependent on plays and musicals developed elsewhere (such as subsidised UK). It used to be a theatre town and still is from the point of actor employment but not from development of new work.

Outside of Steppenwolf the US is short of world class theatre companies to compare with the RSC or Complicite. Actors are usually jobbed in for productions and resident companies are rare suppressing development. US plays are usually less daring and edgy for fear of offending the subscriber base, something that is alleviated by subsidies. Wasserstein and Vogel are wimps compared to Caryl Churchill. If Churchill was an American she would never have been produced professionally.

Including TV in a comparison of Live event audiences is comparing oranges to apples. If you do so you would have to include watching TV dramas, movies, Masterpiece Theatre performances of plays and musicals etc.

#89 by @justifiedsinner> I'd say $50 is what I see as the standard pricing at the Guthrie. When I went to see A Christmas Carol last Christmas (one of their most popular shows), it was $39. You'd have to go for some primo seats to run into $70 very often.

I'm not sure what the "particularly for Minnesota" really means, as the standard of living is quite high here in the Twin Cities. But the pricing is what it is because that's the market price. And as I pointed out, there IS state funding for this. But you're simply not going to bring down theater prices to the price of a movie ticket without massive government subsidies. Which is basically just shifting the cost from one group of people to another, in the long run.

You're also making the same mistake over again, only on a smaller scale. The Guthrie is not the only theater in the area - not by a long shot. It's the nicest theater. The one money from the higher ticket prices has went into making it much more swank. I just don't understand how always picking the nicest, most expensive places is supposed to communicate about how expensive it is to go to the theater. It's like saying it costs a lot to go out to eat but only based on all the Michelin star rated restaurants.

Including TV in a comparison of Live event audiences is comparing oranges to apples. If you do so you would have to include watching TV dramas, movies, Masterpiece Theatre performances of plays and musicals etc.

It's a fair point, but I don't think it's nearly as clear-cut as you make it. How often do you go out to a bar (or other venue) to watch dramas, movies, plays or musicals on TV? Watching sports on TV in a public places is uniquely sports-ish. The equivalent to watching TV dramas, etc. would be watching TV sports at home.

Sports are also more complicated both in that there are many distinct "performances" by the same team every year. Going to one or two games for a sports fan isn't really getting to see a very large chunk of the season. Plus there's away games. So watching sports on TV at public venues is a different "outing" that plenty of people partake in. As such, I think it's a lot more complicated than a simple comparison between "theater goers" and "sport goers" would make it seem.

What movie moguls, who are promoting $50 - $100/show tickets and compare their product to broadway stage or musical concerts, miss is that people see such events MAYBE once or twice/year. Also I would venture that 5/10 people have not gone to more than 2 such events in the last 10 years...

Myself I have been to local stage productions 4 times in the last 3 years and they were operas...I have not been to any concerts in the last 10....However, I have been a movie goer, averaging 1-2 movies per week...an addiction maybe but I like the relative cheap night out and I don't think I am in the minority there.

REALLY GOOD MOVIES get an excellent return...mediocre movies don't. Sadly there is a scarcity of really good ones and I have not seen more than one movie worth paying $50-$100 for and if this was forced on me I would ONLY see really good ones.

So they lose my movie PLUS exorbitant popcorn and soda money In Addition to the fact that I would look to second run theaters or alternative theaters and stay away from the flash/bang junk with no plot garbage to fill that need.

I think there would be a niche where a theater who would be losing money in lost clientele could revive their business by specializing in showing the really good movies from the last 100 years and forget the new stuff.

Movie makers would be shooting themselves in both feet IMHO

#90
Except that in the US the same would apply and I think sports goers far outnumber theatre goers in the US that being the comparison I was trying to make.

The Guthrie is a LORT A theatre. There is a hierarchy of theatres based on Equity contracts. Broadway, LORT A & B, LORT C & B, Off-Broadway and SPT. Scale for a Broadway actor is $1,754 per week, for LORT A $882 pw and declining to $208 for SPT 1.

Outside of Broadway virtually all theatres (including the Guthrie) only make 50% or less of their revenues from ticket sales the rest is from charitable donations. The normal flow of hit plays or musicals is from Broadway to LORT A & B for a season to LORT C & B for a season etc.
New plays are usually dependent on charitable funding or the playwright's own pocketbook.

Outside of Broadway there is no free market for theatre in the United States and the only new works done on Broadway are musical versions of plays or comic books.

If there was a free market for theatre as you espouse I doubt there would be many theatres left and ticket prices would be much higher. The vagaries of charitable donations enact a cost on theatre of course not only with it's fluctuations but also with it's potential for censorship as the staging of My Name is Rachel Corrie highlighted. Public subsidies suffer from the same problems but I am espousing more public-private partnerships common to sports venues as way of increasing the vibrancy of American Theatre which is far from being in a healthy state.

(Glad to hear MN is doing so well - are you giving up the hotdish and lutefisk?)

From my experiences of being in England, there was far more "watch footie at the pub" than I've ever seen in the US. But maybe that was just London. Then again, the population of London is a decent chunk of the entirety of the UK. I wouldn't be surprised to see it replicated in pubs in other major cities in the UK, though. But I admit this is totally subjective. Would like to see a real study done.

Charitable donations are part of the free market. I'm not libertarian but I don't think there's really much debate on that. Free/non-free market deals with government control/funding. And, of course, we don't have a 100% free market anyway. But I think the free market comes into play enough.

But again, you're making the argument based on a small subset of the theater community and a very specific structure. I'm just not convinced that's a stand-in for theater as a whole.

But I think we'll have to agree to disagree, as this is so far off the topic and enough electrons have been spilled. I appreciate the respectful argument, though!

(I'm going to go have some lutefisk hotdish now.)

London is about 12% of the population of the UK, with roughly the same population as New York. Most pubs throughout the UK have televisions and will have special nights dedicated to football matches, most commonly during the World Cup. It's not so common for ordinary English or Scottish football.

#94 by @iansales> Thanks for the personal perspective. What's your opinion on the categorization of people there as not being "sports goers" if they don't attend a match in person?

I actually live near a football ground but I can't stand the game· I don't watch it on television, and I don't frequent pubs that have matches on their tellys. I don't think there's any kind of snobbery involved in actually attending matches rather than just watching them on TV, though. But it's funny how many cars suddenly sprout English flags during the World Cup...

#96 by @iansales> Heh, not exactly the aspect I was looking for. :D Your opinion on the sports itself is about the same as my opinion. In the US I'm mostly aware of sports playing on TVs because I actively avoid it.

I was looking more for opinion on the watching of sports in pubs as an alternative to paying for and attending matches. Not really a snobbery thing as much as a practicality.

Ah. Football matches in pub are popular for matches than people can't go see at the ground - away matches, or World Cup matches, for example. I don't think pubs tend to show home matches for local teams - except perhaps for the really big teams.

Roughly 26% of the population of the US visits the theatre at least once a year. Of these 14% go to professional theatre and 12% to amateur theatre. So, no I'm not talking about a small subset of theatre. I'm not including amateur (community) theatre in the discussion because I don't see the next Arthur Miller coming out of those venues.

#99 by @justifiedsinner> You just still seem to be cherrypicking. Do you also narrow down sports goers by weeding out any that go to high school games, minor league games, games by teams with crappy records?

I also have to say I'm afraid I've lost track of the point you are trying to make. X)

The point I was trying to make is that theatre in the UK is much more vibrant than in the US and that this is due in part to public subsidies. You seem to think this has something to do with people watching sports in bars which I find rather irrelevant. Given that worldwide sports are far more popular than theatre the fact that more people in the UK physically go to the theatre in the UK than go to sports events is against this trend. What people watch on TV is not the point. What may be more relevant is that people don't go to sports events for other reasons such as the level of violence at football matches but the report that included these statistics didn't go into the reasons for the discrepancy.

Yeah, I think we're just going to have to disagree then. You have decided that going out to watch sports at a pub doesn't count at all and then predicated your argument on that assertion and allow no possibility that it may be important. I can't really agree with that.

Back to post #75 justjim "The discussion is about all "block-buster" movies, but since SF (and fantasy) movies tend to be more reliant on SFX which is expensive to produce, what do we all think of the $50 Mega Ticket idea?" ....that spurious post that caused all this side track discussion.

I was listening to PBR radio broadcast interview of Lynda Obst the author of Sleepless in Hollywood as she was talking about the macroeconomics of blockbuster movies and it provoked me to mention that great and intriguing SF movies can be made without huge booms {which I nothing against}. For example I have the flick The Man from Earth on my Netflix list and I have seen it before but will watch it again. "The last work from screenwriter Jerome Bixby before his death" as mentioned in the trivia list at IMDb {he also wrote several Star Trek episodes}. It is a great flick that takes you places, just through conversations. Link to flick info http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/?ref_=tttr_tr_tt

{disclaimer:::: The Man from Earth, has been mentioned before here on LT somewhere in this same context.... Aha, here in
Literary Snobs beginning at post 172 and ,true to form, the flick is given a yawn and several more eminently obscure and arcane flicks are touted. ;-) }

While stuck in front of the radio I just learned that Iron Man 3 and The Dome were/are being filmed here in North Carolina at the coast in Wilmington. All this during a discussion on film's economic impact. Dang I could use a beach vacation! I got nuttin outta the deal so far.

::edit:: Changed "imminently" to "eminently" Where are those proof readers at!!! drinking beer behind the rear stoop??

Er, yeah. Sorry about that, Chief!

Just saw "World War Z" it was in annoying 3D (bought that ticket by mistake but went anyway). The movie itself was fine though not earth shaking in its premise. It definitely did not need 3D...the most annoying 3D shots in any 3D movie are the simple "conversation shots" between 2 people...looks stupid.

Liked the use of "urban armour" by Brad Pitt (duct taping magazines around forearms) reminded me of the 1960's/1970's riot gear out of Abbie Hoffman's Steal This Book .... Lots of interesting stuff in that book...I remember buying that book in the USA and bringing it back to Canada in my luggage hoping it would not be found when I crossed the border back to Canada. I still have the book which is something of a collector's item now. A cheaply made book and I believe most of the book owner's took the title to heart :)

#104 I hope you know I was joking a bit with you justjim? :-)

New film out today which caught me by surprise, Europa Report. The reviews seem positive and emphasize some effort for technical realism in a flick about finding life on Europa.

Europa report official website

Link to Space.com article on the movie

Link to io9.com article on Europa Report

74% positive reviews at rotten tomatoes. Looks like it has potential. I'd never heard a word about it, either. I think that's probably a good sign. You have a terrible film, you better advertise the hell out of it.

From the trailers, it looks like a cross between Apollo 18 and Space Odyssey: A Journey to the Planets. If it's on the 3D IMAX here, I'll go and see it.

If it's not on the 3d, I'll go and see it. ;)

Umm. Just saw an SF 'flick' advertised on the side of a bus. Opens here in Aussie mid August.
Stars Matt Damion (spl?) and Jodie Foster (who I do admire)

Sorry can't remember the name, but any thoughts?

Name is Elysium. Thought it looked a bit dumb from the trailer. Can't really see how there's going to be a good explanation for why you need an exoskeleton screwed onto your body to "have the power to override their whole system." I suspect it's because they started with the exoskeleton and worked their way backwards to the plot. It's from the people who made District 9, so maybe they can make it ok.

Must admit Elysium struck me as worth watching more than the string of dumb sf flicks we've had recently like Pacific Rim, Oblivion, and After Earth...

Yeah, I just can't get how anyone over 30 could go for Pacific Rim. Oblivion looked like it could be cool, but then I saw Tom Cruise starred and figured out the math. Same with Smith in AE. Though I'm still surprised how much the latter stunk up the place.

Of course, I say this having not seen any of them and going only on the consensus of the reviews. I have friends who have liked everything but AE. And I'm sure there are people who liked it. There were people who like MiB2, after all...

Thanks @brightcopy, I am still looking for SF movies I can add to my canon.

I am still ambivalent about District 9.

So far only the dated Forbiden Planet and Blade Runner (directors cut) stand out. Of course "Flowers for Algenon". Which I also own is in there.

Strange. There are so few SF's in my collection of movies.
Yes, many Fantasies (I still love my Buffy) But 'good' SF is so hard to find :-(

Guido.

ETA. Spelling.

#114 by @guido47> Yeah, in terms of being on the level of Bladerunner, I'd be hard pressed. So many sf movies in the last few decades are made to just "entertain" rather than to tell a story. Which is fine, I can really enjoy a movie like that if it's well made. I'm thinking like many movies with Schwarzenegger. But it's not on the same level.

The Thing (1982) would be pretty high up there. I rewatched it again recently and it still gets me. And despite what I just said about the Arnold, Terminator 2 is high on my list. I just find it incredibly rewatchable. Close Encounters is on the borderline.

#115, having just read your observations, I must confess I did/do like Arnies "Predator I", not sure about 2. But Predator 1 is surely pure SF. And I do own it!

I always thought "The Thing" was a bit ponderous and a bit err. 'pretentious'.

Close Encounters is 'Pure Wank' nothing more.

G.

#116 by @guido47> Ah well, that's what I get for thinking we had common definitions for "good"/canon-worthy sf based on Blade Runner. :D

I'm not saying the other movies aren't sf or aren't entertaining. I'm just saying there's few movies that I feel "stand the test of time" like Blade Runner.

Of course brightcopy, 'Blade Runner' is the acme, in an unfortuately limited set.
I only mentioned "Predator" because:

A) It does use a well known trope. Aliens using Earth as a hunting ground.
B) Within its limits it is consistant. And no laws of Physics are overturned,
C) Arnie, almost, doestn't overplay it. The alien does though. Sheesch. An A-Bomb to kill Arnie?

I saw Oblivion and Pacific Rim. Pacific Rim was actually very entertaining. Good special effects, lots of action and very well-directed. It was nice to see New York not be the center of an "all our major cities are being destroyed" flick. Oblivion was ok, but really kind of boring.

Elysium looks like it could be good, although it could be exceptionally preachy with the haves/haves not storyline.

Guido, check out Cargo, a German Swiss film. Definitely worth seeing. Also sf, though not of the spaceships and explosions variety, are Brit Marling's Another Earth and Sound of My Voice. Both good, though the latter is much better than the former.

@guido47, if you haven't seen Dark City then I would suggest that's worth a look.

So far as future releases go I think I'm more inclined towards the positive for Gravity and considering it stars George Clooney and Sandra Bullock then the promotional items released so far have done the trick.

I don't know - I liked Dark City so guido may not. :D

I'll third Dark City, one of my favourite films.

Try Brazil by Terry Gilliam.

I have a hard time calling Brazil science fiction. Kind of like calling much of Vonnegut's with sf. Also, it could pretty easily be set in the present or even the past, this removing even the future society element.

All that said, YES, definitely watch it if you haven't.

I watch Brazil at least once a year. Yes, it's hard to classify. Almost a 'Steam something' feel to it.

Hmmm, Where are the Anglophiles spamming orgasmic entreaties about the new choice for Dr. Who??? Guess they are all celebrating and can't use the keyboard at this time. I will post a photo later maybe ;-) This incarnation should bring better special effects also I would hope!

As a Brit, I can confirm that most of us on this side of the Atlantic don't actually give much of a shit.

Considering this thread is about sf MOVIES, hopefully they're over on the TV one. ;)

129 - Well, Ian, there are plenty of us in U.S. who feel the same way, so I don't think it's a national thing.

As for movies, nothing has peaked my interest in SF movies in a long while. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I want something thoughtful that doesn't rely on frenetic action and big special effects.

117 - test of time? Totally agree Bladerunner does. I tend to think Gattica and Andromeda Strain survive remarkably well too, but that might reflect my recent aversion to movies with more movement and/or effects that ideas.

Well we had rain practically all weekend and I decided to fritter away more time and saw Elysium. I liked the film and the special effects were immersive but I would have to agree that with several reviewers that once the "big explosions" start in the second half the flick loses a lot of its intrigue, complexity and becomes a plot line that is easily predictable. The action scenes are fine entertainment however and not incongruous. I gave the flick 3 stars at http://screenrant.com/elysium-reviews-2013-movie/ but deserves 3.5 - 4 out of 5 I believe

I paid for the IMAX ticket but my advice is to pay half the price and have the "regular" blend if you decide to see the flick at the movies. The IMAX sub woofers made the chair a pleasant vibrating "magic fingers" moment though most of the second half of the movie but waiting for the dvd edition would not diminish the effect of the film substantially, especially with even a moderate sound system IMOHO.

!!Warning!!!! Comments with possible spoilers after the image below

I did a search and I am not alone in a lot of my "technical" wincing moments during the movie {see link at bottom}. Apparently the big wheel rotating space habitat had the atmosphere held in by centripetal acceleration..hhmmmm. Just guessing I would think that a lot of atmosphere would escape that way {maybe a force field?}, also wouldn't an atmosphere without bulkheads in the wheel create earth like jetstreams of air current at hurricane velocities?






The healing machines seemed to have not very high energy demands so it appeared incongruous to have accessibility available only to very few people to me. Admittedly there was great overpopulation and extremely extended life spans would have exacerbated this but some China like child policies enforced would have made a lot of "happy shiny people". I agree with most of the 10 points in the link below - feel free to add or elaborate if motivated. ;-)

http://thetangential.com/2013/08/09/10-easy-ways-elysium-could-have-sucked-less/

.

I forgot to mention that now they are showing trailers for Orson Scott Card's new Ender's Game movie at the theatre where I saw Elysium. Don't mean to knock it from just an ad but the special effects looked adequate, however not state of the art. My guess is there might also be a problem like was experienced with Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) {the one with horned Darth Maul in it}, where the kid playing the young Darth Vader had problems carrying the weight of the role - according to a lot of fans.

The other adult actors in the EG preview seemed to fit their roles so well that when "Ender" was front & center he was not as convincing by comparison, which made his portrayal stand out a bit to me.

Oh my! Perhaps we should be more civil and urbane when reviewing Sf movies. Here is a photo of Will Smith and family after they viewed LT movie reviews at a theater.



{actually their reaction to a Miley Cyrus performance} ;-)

> 132 I just saw Elysium yesterday and was curious as to how the atmosphere stayed within the wheel...also they seemed to land their shuttles anywhere...centrifugal (centripetal) force should not hold it there....seemed rather wasteful to me...also it should have been cold as heck there....they did not even pretend to deal with those details. Overall I would give the movie a 6/10...the plot was nothing special.

Lynx, did you see any previews for Ender's Game when you watched Elysium ? & if so did it make a good, indifferent or whatever impression? Wondering if I was in an ill mood when I saw it. Oh yeah and I realize that Elysium was a statement on the current dichotomy for health care between the rich and poor which I agree with but I am just commentating on the entertainment value of the flick. Preventative health care in the USA can be joke and if you weren't poor before you can quickly become that way with any sort of health problem.

Also thought of maybe showing the rank of SF movies people have seen this year, list from like the most to liked the least perhaps? - is there a pole function on LT? Or just folks post & repost their lists whenever they catch a new flick.

Me for example, I think so far I liked Star Trek , Oblivion, Iron Man 3 and then Elysium. I believe those are the films I have seen that were released this year so far and I consider all watchable with the Trek film a must see at a theater the rest dvd will work.

edited to add Iron Man 3 thanks Lynx.

Yeah, I suppose Elysium was a statement on healthcare...that has less impact in Canada as we have universal healthcare here for the most part. We, in Canada cannot understand the debate in the USA. We view universal healthcare as a "right" not a "privilege". Those in need of healthcare are not "slackers" for using it as seems to be the sentiment in the USA. This is true for for 90% of possible diseases...15 years ago i would have been a poster boy for Universal healthcare as I had Cancer of the Appendix...requiring surgery and 5 days in hospital, followed by 5 years of numerous Cat-scans, blood/urine tests, oncologist appointments every 6 months, isotopic body scan when it was thought the cancer had returned (false thankfully but scary), I had in the same year of the Cancer discovery a kidney stone that had to be surgically removed...5 days in hospital Plus appropriate tests...then in the same year in the winter I broke my ankle on ice requiring a plate and six screws to put it back together ... another 5 days in hospital and x-ray exams....

I cannot guess the cost in the USA but all this cost me ZERO...not a cent...it was all covered under our universal healthcare plan paid through our taxes which for a family of 3 back then was about $1000/year....no we don't understand the debate in the USA it would be political suicide in Canada to campaign against the program here.

As far as SciFi films I have seen I will list them in order of my enjoyment...I have not seen any trailers on Enders Game yet

1. Oblivion - Liked the action and it had a storyline that was not obvious while viewing
2. Iron Man 3 - Loved it...Robert Downey Jr is great to watch and the character played by Sir Ben Kingsley - The Mandarin was a surprise and amazingly well done...the plot was decent too.
3. Elysium - the problems we noted in the "wheel" put me off a bit, story line was ok...I like Matt Damon movies though.
4. World War Z - nice idea, did not need the 3D, a little fast as far as solving the problem goes (would have liked a slower pace...but the scenario was interesting)
5. Star Trek Into Darkness - did not like it as much as the previous movie with the same actors...no real engaging plot, too much flash bang explosions every 5 minutes and the "eye candy" scene served no purpose in the movie...every character had a chance to say their signature lines...did nothing for me.
6. Man of Steel - they still have not done Superman proud as far as movies go.
7. After Earth - 10 for visual effects....2 for story line......run, run, run....meet a problem...solve it .... run run run

Gravity - gets decent reviews and Sandra Bullock in space will be interesting to see what she will do. (I either really like her movies or or not).

Pacific Rim - did not see, don't want to...simply a remake of Transformers to me.

there is my list :)

I'm a major fan of universal healthcare too and just can't understand the way some Americans talk about it. If it wasn't for the NHS I'd be dead, probably several times over.

Back to films - I haven't seen anything in the cinema this year (have a 2 year old) but we get lovefilm and I'm always trawling through that for something recent or classics I haven't seen yet. My all time favourite seen this year is frequently asked questions about time travel but it's hardly new.

>137 Lynxear: I would really, really reconsider your decision to pass on Pacific Rim. Transformers cannot hold a candle to this movie. It is what Transformers SHOULD have been. A hell of a lot of fun, decent effects, memorable characters. The production values were off the charts...no "shaky cam."

>139 drmamm: well on your recommendation I will look for it in second run cinemas here where it will show up in the next couple of weeks :)

I see where Oblivion is out on "Redbox" dvd's now - worth a watch if you have the time available. Overall it reminds me of a P.K. Dick style short story with unexpected tweaks of the plot line and the implied obligatory "philosophical questions" to ponder.

Link to story about how Pacific Rim {which I have not seen yet} financially almost bombed in the USA but killed overseas http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/09/02/pacific-rim-and-more-domes...

this is a horror movie but a really good one IMHO..."The Conjuring"... It is supposed to be based on a true story...you see pictures of the real family in the credits.

Best horror film since "The Exorcist" I will have nightmares tonight...I don't normally go to this genre but I was riveted to this movie.

So is it an sf-based horror movie or just plain horror?

basically horror I guess but it is based on a true story showing how these ghost hunters work....pretty well done IMHO

Okay, can't let you keep saying "true" without quotations marks. ;)

not sure what you are saying there but as I said...in the rolling credits they show the "real" (just for you) :) people (family and ghost hunters) so I assume they are real....anyway...for a guy who hates scary movies...this was pretty good

Well, there's true and "true"...

"The Conjuring 'horror house' fans harass homeowners"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-23877816

The Bible is based on a "true" story.

I came across this article, A rough road back to 'Riddick' for Diesel, by the AP on the new Riddick movie. It provides interesting biographical info on Vin Diesel {he was a street performer!?} and the Riddick series. A quote:

"This character struck a chord," said Diesel, who points to his 46 million Facebook fans as the reason for taking several risks —including almost leveraging his own house when bills couldn't be paid — to recover Riddick. "He's tangible for them. I think the idea of a character that has been misread, overlooked and given up on is very fascinating to people."

Katee Sackoff reprises her character role from BSG of a delicate princess in distress ;-) in the Riddick 3 flick {trailers at link} which is being released today in the UK and USA at least.

Sackhoff played a similar role in "The Last Sentinel". It's a Don 'The Dragon' Wilson vehicle and pretty crap.

Diesel was a New York actor, and quite highly regarded by his contemporaries. He did some short films early in his career - wrote, directed and starred.

#150 Ian.....I had to look up "Don 'The Dragon' Wilson", interesting person. I know I have seen his acting work here and there but I didn't know his fighting chops were so legit. One of my college roommates grew up in the very area and at the same time Wilson did. I bet they ran into each other while surfing at Melbourne/Cocoa beach! Heck he might of have walked right past me while I was passed out on the beach at a spring break - talk about a brush with fame! ;-)

I like the Riddick series and of course love Ms. Sackhoff , guilty pleasures both perhaps.

And don't forget: Vin Diesel

#152 Dungeons and Demons? never would have guessed !

Well I have to alter the sequence of my favorite SF movies of the year to Riddick 3 tie with Star Trek , Oblivion, Iron Man 3 and then Elysium. I just watched Riddick 3 and really enjoyed it. I would give it an 8 of 10 stars I guess. I saw the regular version which was great, the IMAX would have had better space ship and hovercycles audio scenes probably but I did not miss that.



The flick is rated R, which is I think one reason Vin Diesel had to put up some of his own money to do the project. The R rating keeps from having to play cute with the camera in a lot of scenes which helped raise the bar on suspense of disbelief. A softer R than anything like "Game of Thrones" however. The special effects are fluid and great with no continuity errors that I could see as Riddick is once more stranded on a planet with a lot of hostile inhabitants.

::edit:: Anyone who sees the flick and wants to discuss it with spoilers just start the topic I guess. Come to think of it I did think of one possible flaw in a hovercycle/motorcycle scene

I see that Star Trek Into Darkness is out now on dvd for rent at Redbox, here in the USA at least. Several stores are running specials on box collections which include stuff like a model of the "evil" federation spaceship at Walmart.

> 153

I just saw Riddick last night....it was a great movie....until the rains came in the last 15-20 mins....then it degenerated into mediocrity. Great start...not bad middle...ho-hum ending....for me anyway

153 & 155> Saw Riddick yesterday and thought it was a great B movie, I especially liked the beginning, a nice, no dialogue, back to basics sequence. Though i think it would have been interesting to explore Riddick as head of a space faring empire as left at the end of the second film, i thought this was done well (even if starbuck was was underwritten).

155 & 156.... Good to hear people got their money's worth from Riddick III. I noticed some blowback on Netflix where the "original Riddick", Pitch Black, is a "long wait" to order on the dvd rentals.

If anyone is worried about giving spoilers about movie comments I started a generic thread for 2013 movies with spoilers thread {link below}

http://www.librarything.com/topic/158776

I saw After Earth {Link is kind of "busy" with pop up crap} over the weekend on blu ray dvd. I thought it was a great family/teen-preteen flick. I was also glad I waited for the dvd however. A fairly predictable plot with some funny twists, from what I read the story was by Will Smith - not an award winner maybe but good job!

It has everything; coming of age story, Heinlein-like genuinely evil aliens, Tom Sawyer, Cthulhu, and a little Mount Doom from the trilogy. I was a slightly confused by the journey distances to be covered in the plot, there seemed to be some continuity errors. The possibly inadvertent sexual imagery of the ending caused me to snicker out loud. ;-)

I just watched Europa Report on Netflix and it was great. I think it just became available there today.
Europa report official website

Link to Space.com article on the movie

Link to io9.com article on Europa Report

Recovered news feeds from the mission are used to tell the story. The technique reminds me of Alien I to some degree. Without giving away to much the only technical problems I saw were that when they touched down on Europa there was no off gassing shown as I would have thought would happen. Even a person in a space suit would still warm the suit enough to give off clouds of gas wherever their boots touched the frozen methane or whatever, right?. One other possible slip is wouldn't the controls of the ship be usable by someone in a space suit?? Just thinkin.

A real mystery tension filled thriller until the end and well worth a watch.

A more articulate review with a risk of spoilers. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/europa-report-2013

Thanks, DugsBooks. Where have I been? This is the first I've heard of the Europa Report. That will teach me for only being a spotty reader of i09. Guess I can trash that partly written novel that's languishing in a box in the closet about a trip to Europa and what's discovered there (for real). No matter, I now want to watch this one.

Hi Gwen, don't trash the novel!!! There has been more than one story written about traveling to Mars I think. ;-) There is plenty of room to write about Europa without being called "derivative" of Europa Report - they themselves built on a lot of films/novels that came before. Your scrutiny of the film will be much more attuned than mine I am sure with the background work you have done.

>161 DugsBooks: Thanks for the pep talk. You are correct. And lol about more than one book about Mars. I hope my research does just add to enjoyment of Europa Report. It sounds like they've tried to do it as right as you can within the constraints of the medium.

Dear @DugsBooks, I was very interested in your link to 'europa-report-2013'.
Unfortunately when I tried to look at it, my computer frooze.

Do you gave an alternate link?

Guido.

#163 Guido, yep it is cold there on Europa! ;-) That link is a review, maybe you could try the backdoor and go to rogerebert.com and then work your way to Europa.

Thanks @DugsBooks, I didn't realize I had made a funny :-)

In case anyone else had troubles with that link Try here

The film looks interesting. Now have to find it.

I saw World War Z on DVD some weeks ago and enjoyed it. The scenes of masses of "fast zombies" were well done special effects that increased the tension of the chase. I liked the plot which made the virus premise fairly plausible. Aha, I see there is a new "unrated" version out.

I liked WWZ as well. Personally, I would have liked it more if the plot was drawn out into 3 movies instead of one. A beginning, middle and then solution/recovery. The movie had all those elements but everything created/solved in 2.5 hours is too fast.

There is not time really to develop a plot...that is a problem with interesting movie plots...interesting unsolvable problems solved in such a short time. And movie goers would wait for such movie series...Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are the best examples in that regard

Yep, Z was a mad dash start to finish but 3 movies? Maybe a made for TV mini series would have held up but I don't think 3 Z movies would be profitable.

we will never know...will we?

Watched After Earth on the weekend. Dear me, what a terrible film.

yes, not much of a plot...the CGI was decent but it was just run...run...encounter a small problem....run...run...encounter another small problem ... run ... run ...run....boring after a while.

I did like "Ender's Game" the ending was interesting.

Not so much that, but real stupidities like all the different types of plant life he passed through in 100 km, or the earth freezing every night, or the aliens that can only "see" people if they're emitting fear pheromones (are there such pheromones?) but manage not to bump into trees, the giant eagle that somehow put the boy in a cave so he wouldn't freeze to death...

yeah...it is a weird climate that has tropical plants at night and falls to freezing in the night. I am not sure but did not the boy do something nice for the eagle??? sort of like Daniel taking a thorn out of the lion's paw...something like that, I forget. It was a forgettable movie overall.

I do think there is the smell of fear, really. Dogs smell far more scents than we can and as we sweat due to fear it must have compounds in that sweat. Also there are animals that have poor eyesight, I think a rhino is an example and it depends on movement to identify a threat so that bit about depending on scent to find prey was not too bad in the scheme of things. It is well known that blind people have enhanced sense of smell and hearing...you make best use of the senses you have, I guess.

Have you seen Ender's Game?

#169 - they're finalising a deal to do a sequel for WWZ right now aren't they?

#174 by @Lynxear> It's more likely that dogs SEE fear:
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4113/can-dogs-smell-fear

perhaps but their smelling ability is far greater than ours so it would not put it past me to imagine that we emit some volatile compounds when we are scared...even if it is just an elevation of normal scent. {shrug}

#174 So why didn't the aliens bump into trees? or rocks? Do trees emit fear pheromones?

they memorized their landscape and no one moved the rocks/trees :)

#177 by @Lynxear> I just approach things a bit more rigorously scientific. The old "dogs can smell fear" chestnut goes way, way back. I don't think it's really based on science (see above link). Occam's razor seems to apply, saying with their fairly good motion vision they are more likely relying on movements (something that isn't in doubt is that stressed animals make different movements). Until there's some actual research showing they can smell these things (easy way would be to use dogs isolated from smells), I'm going with that.

Which is all just a tangent and not something I'm adamant about. Just seemed like an interesting topic. I couldn't care less what they make up for a movie. If it works, it works. Just as long as it's not too egregious. I would have been fine if they'd said the aliens had psychic powers and could sense fear.

Also trees and rocks.

Just ordered Europa from Amazon. Reasonable price and shipping to Aussie wasn't too bad.

I hope they have a lot of extras on the dvd for you Guido47.

As far as the discussion about After Earth, it was easy to cut apart but if you keep in mind who the flick targeted {teens in my opinion} then you have to let a lot slide. I can understand some resentment if you paid for an imax type ticket however . That's why I waited on the dvd, I had a feeling about the movie. ;-)

What did you folks think of near the end there where the hero had evolved from childhood to an adult and was stabbing that monster repeatedly? Seemed a bit risque to me! :::slight snicker:::.

Why should you accept a film is stupid if it's marketed at teens? Are they not allowed to have intelligent films? After Earth was a bad film - I don't think there's any way to spin it as a good one.

#183 I come up with flawed but entertaining for After Earth.

Some clarification perhaps for Ian's question in 178 : "So why didn't the aliens bump into trees? or rocks? Do trees emit fear pheromones?" ;-)

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/173253-worlds-first-wireless-molecular-networ...