• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

When will our generation start making good scifi movies?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TacticalFox88 said:
So, OP....with all these films we're pulling.....how in the FUCK could you have missed some of these?
I haven't missed most of those because everything people are posting is stuff I watched 10 years ago. Which kinda proves my point.

The rest are clever and overly wordy movies set in a semi-contemporary scenario or action flicks in space.
 
where is cloverfield love

cloverfield.jpg
 
I just watched the Man from Earth. Not really sci-fi, but it took a turn I could never have expected, and I really enjoyed it.

EDIT: It was directed by a porn guy! Amazing.
 
_dementia said:
The last third of the film blows ass
The twist was terrible. But we were still gifted with amazing sequences like the ending or Capa's Jump. It still is one of the best Sci Fi films you can watch even with it.

If they by chance didn't put that twist in and some how manage to work it out in a more sensible manner. I would have put it up next to Alien, 2001, or Children of Men as the top tier of SciFi films.
 
ianp622 said:
Dark City was pretty meh in my opinion. Would have been better without the scifi part.

Wait, I missed this one.

Without the sci fi parts it's just a noir movie with creepy guys kidnapping people. Maybe throw in the amazingly revolutionary twist of "it's all in his head"?
 
elrechazao said:
If you mean most contrived after the fact to explain horrendous shit like floating mountains, then yes.

That's the place where strong magnetic field of the planet was most fucking with their instruments, and the mountains all have the planet's abundant magic metal veined throughout. What part of that was thought of after the fact? Did you never notice the geological formations arced in the shape of magnetic fields either?
 
Very surprised to not see this on GAF:

2081.jpg


This was a short film from 2009 based on the Vonnegut short story, "Harrison Bergeron", about a world where the strong are in chains, the intelligent forced to wear earpieces to prevent them from thinking, and the beautiful forced to wear masks. A world where there are no extraordinary people.

It's really, *really* well done. Of course, anything by Vonnegut is just flat-out fantastic so I'm not surprised.
 
Whenever HBO makes a TV series, it will trounce over both other sci fi TV shows and movies.

What made Star Trek TNG good during it's time wasn't that it was sci fi. It was because it had characters, suspense, and story telling and happened to be sci fi. It's really hard to care about the sci fi world and characters in 2 hours of film, so it's not about what matters - it's about explosions and CG. And that's why sci fi movies of late suck.
 
Qwomo said:
W... what?

Star Trek is extremely serious.

Do you think I'm talking about the 2009 movie?

I'm thinking everything in the Star Trek video universe - TV shows and the movies. As a child I loved the shows (especially TNG), but I find it too campy as an adult. The films on the other and are spectacular (especially with the original cast). So I guess overall - with the shows and films they don't seem quite serious enough. But Star Trek is great don't get me wrong. By "serious" I guess I mean 2001 or Gattaca...
 
Watched Gattaca for the first time yesterday. Amazing film. Wow. How did I miss that???

Next up on my queue:

Cargo
Monsters
Triangle
 
Avatar was great, it's cheesy to mention this but it really was a trip to another world. I didn't mind the fact that you could work out the simple plot from watching the trailer. It's about how it's done and it was done with class.

Inception was an essential cinema experience, yet you've all seen the commercial when the city lifts up. The film's specialty is mind blowing moments.

District 9 was a sympathetic film yet had plenty of crowd-pleasing action moments.

Wall-E, well you can run out of superlatives for describing the quality of that production.

Star Trek is a quality re-imagining of the franchise's roots.
 
nitewulf said:
its a cheesy love story and very predictable. i mean nothing surprising happens in that movie, pretty by the numbers...its breathtaking and all that, and fine if you enjoy it, but its not....good.
Maybe it's because I didn't see it in 3D or whatever, but I didn't think there was anything "breathtaking" about it. It's a dull earth-esque environment where things will glow if you step on them, and it cost several millions to make. Give Terrence Mallick or Werner Herzog a handheld camera and they'll produce more breathtaking "alien" imagery than anything Cameron generated for Avatar. It's not Blade Runner, it's not Alien, it's not 2001, it's dull and uninspired, just like the plot, the music, the themes and the characters in that movie.
 
Danne-Danger said:
Maybe it's because I didn't see it in 3D or whatever, but I didn't think there was anything "breathtaking" about it. It's a dull earth-esque environment where things will glow if you step on them, and it cost several millions to make. Give Terrence Mallick or Werner Herzog a handheld camera and they'll produce more breathtaking "alien" imagery than anything Cameron generated for Avatar. It's not Blade Runner, it's not Alien, it's not 2001, it's dull and uninspired, just like the plot, the music, the themes and the characters in that movie.

I have to agree entirely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom