"Replacing a political leader with a robot..." (Sarcasm alert!) We had that here in America when Reagan was killed by the assassin in 1983. No one could tell the difference when the Disney Animatronics robot Reagan 'acted' as President.
@@terrytalksmovies - well, they CALL it "Alzheimer's"! What really happened is that the gears they used to program Reagan's behavior got worn out and slipping their cogs.... Oh, I got a Million of 'em! 😂 I could keep QAnon running around in circles for centuries.
It's 30 degree (celsius) there, it's 30 degrees (fahrrenheit) here. What's important to the plot and science is story consistency. If the writer says that the transporters can't be used while the shields are up, then that is something that must be true. If faster than light communication is not allowed and information is conveyed by couriers, then the writer can't have people 2 light minutes away from each other have an interactive conversation without delays. If these rules are broken or overcome, it should be startling to the characters in the story and it shouldn't be the get of jail card for a character to save the themselves or the day. Otherwise, there is no tension or suspense to the story. I agree with you on all your points.
World building is why I love movies like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow or Valerian. Every scene just adds another layer that just keeps you (well me anyway) wrapped up in it. Those movies have problems, sure, but I love them for their fantastic world building.
Some excellent thoughts and ideas. It's a common problem with SF movies that the makers think that they can make an audience happy with flash and glitz and pew-pew zoom-zoom alone, so all the other rules of story telling can be tossed out. And unfortunately they're often right.
The attention horizon for pure spectacle science fiction movies is usually brief. The Avatar movies are evidence of this. They made all the money... briefly, then people forgot them.
I'm on board for Terry's Laws of Good Science Fiction. Almost every otherwise well done science fiction film that didn't hit with me failed one or more of those standards particularly in confusing science and magic
A certain space opera trilogy went in for a lot of that, until the creator of said trilogy tried to create a pseudo-scientific base for the "magic" in the follow-up trilogy. "Midichlorians", anyone?
Hi, Terry. Another good video, with some thought-provoking ideas. I agree with all of them, although there was one that gave me pause and is perhaps a 99.9% agreement. That is the one about having a satisfying ending. I think that very occasionally a movie ends with what you might call an ambiguous or unsettling ending or a question mark that is intended to get people thinking. It then becomes arguable whether the ending meets the criterion of being satisfying. But I had to scratch around to find these two possible examples. One of them is the ending of ANDROMEDA STRAIN (1971), which I definitely include in my list of all-time great SF movies. But of course, it ends with Dr Stone replying to the question from the Commission of Inquiry about what should be done in future. The unsettling answer is simply to bounce the question back - "Exactly, what should we do?". on the other hand, that question underscores the theme of the movie, about deliberately dabbling in risky scientific margins. And afterwards audiences enjoyed further discussion. The other example is perhaps the ending [SPOILER ALERT] of TIME BANDITS (the 1981 original). This unsettled a few parents, although it seems that a large proportion of the children viewing it really loved the ending, where the young protagonist warns his parents "Don't touch it - It's evil!", whereupon the parents get exploded. Typical trailblazing stuff by Terry Gilliam, and I guess you either love him or hate him. But Time Bandits is definitely on my list of all-time greats. Some will argue that it is less SF and more Science Fantasy, but leaving that aside I think it ticks all of the other boxes that you have listed including the one about Science - the authors knew when they were breaking scientific rules: That was often how they raised a laugh!
The Andromeda Strain has that deus ex machina ending which diminishes it somewhat. Comedy films have their own parallel set of rules which Time Bandits had to juggle as well.
Hey Terry from Ned in Spain. A fantastic video as always and am with you 100 %. I was waiting for you to talk about how much you hate the use of " Deus Ex Machina " in order to resolve a science fiction story when it should follow it's logical trajectory but hasn't the balls to do it. I remember you had a particular dislike of Andromeda Strain because of that. All the best to you, MAGG and the cat crew.
@@terrytalksmovies Thank you Terry. Our town on Mallorca came close but made it through, other towns not so lucky. I was also in Valencia 3 days before the disaster which was basically a tsunami with a pitiful response by the govt. Have a lovely holiday season and stay well.
Great stuff! Loved this video! For me, I have always distilled it down to; Does the story ask how science and technology's use, affect the human condition? But that doesn't really capture all science fiction, does it? I feel I will be revisiting this video multiple times.
Great points Terry. World building is a must for me, as is getting the science right. I'm a huge fan of historical movies too and in the same way, those movies have to give us a sense of time and place and get the history right. Character is a difficult one. For years I've tried to explain to my friends why I don't like Indiana Jones, Lara Croft or James Bond (in all of his incarnations) "Wooden and one dimensional." - and they look at me uncomprehendingly. Achieving satisfaction is good in any endeavor but those movies that leave you wanting more are a rare bunch. Have a great weekend.
Thanks for these things to keep in mind while watching sci-fi. I have recently watched some good movies (mostly) for the first time - The Quatermass Experiment and Quatermass II, as well as an old favorite of mine, Zotz. As for bad movies -The Earth Dies Screaming, Horrors of the Red Planet, The Day the Sky Exploded, The First Spaceship to Venus, and Manhunt in Space, among others. And I love them all.
Great set of rules I know some who can't take a sci-fi film that gets science wrong but I'm OK with that if as you say it makes sense within that world or can forgive older films that didn't know what we do now. Now I like space opera and hard science films and novels. Characters in sci-fi can often be thin as they are just there to advance the plot. I noticed a greater emphasis on character in modern sci-fi say in the 90s and after especially on TV. Loved the genre since I was a kid and am happy it finally went mainstream. I'd like to meet all those kids who picked on me when I was young over liking sci-fi.
The Expanse is space opera that gets the science as right as you can get and it enhanced the drama and sense of reality. It's the gold standard at this stage for that.
Won't blame a science fiction movie of its time for getting details wrong based on any scientific knowledge of the period, but I cringe when it's wildly not even close. Looking at you, Armageddon. The same theme movie, like Deep Impact, at least tries to be accurate on the science part. We already have enough flat earthers, and we don't need to add to the pile.
Tenet is proof positive for me of that phenomenon of group think surrounding perception of films, especially in the social media age. One person or opinion gets out there and gets viral engagement and is parroted ad nauseum. Very few of us braved Covid to go see Tenet at the time but the 'consensus' was already negative. The same thing happens in a positive way for certain popular films that in no way deserve the praise. I'm way off topic here but suffice to say I did like Tenet quite a bit
What I take away from this is that the rules for good science fiction are the same as the rules for all good fiction, but with added science. I think the form of fiction that may be the closest analogue to science fiction is historical fiction, because of the need for worldbuilding - when aspects of the world that we normally take for granted have to be created from the ground up we notice things we would otherwise miss. For me the most important thing about any science fiction movie is that I should feel immersed in a world that is recognisable but also recognisably different - it should always be a form of escapism, whether it is being shamelessly entertaining or intellectually rigorous...
@@terrytalksmovies Yes, I did appreciate the opening sequence, which I think says something quite engaging about the passing of time; the rest of the movie certainly fulfils the escapism rule (at the expense of everything else 🙂)...
While I understand the appeal of the Star Wars movies, I don't think they did the science fiction genre any favors treating science and magic as interchangeable elements of the story. The science in some of the space operas of the 50s and 60s may have been wonky but it was still science and not pseudo religious hocus pocus.
My big dislike of the SW movies is that they infantilised cinematic science fiction for decades. Everyone wanted zoom zoom pew pew SF movies after 1977.
Science fiction was going in a different direction before SW came along. Peter Biskind also had a point in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, when he wrote that SW brought the effects-heavy blockbuster to primacy after the days of the "New Hollywood."
I consider the 'A Quiet Place' movies as bad. Apart from the many obvious or not so obvious flaws, there is an esoteric secondary reason I think they are bad - they break a primary rule of good story telling in movies, in that basics of your world should be depicted in the movie(s). Apparently, external sources claim that the alien creatures lived on a planet that exploded, and they were so tough that they survived, and they somehow ended up inside meteors (resulting from the planet exploding) that travelled through space, and landed on Earth. There are a whole lot of implausibilities with this external "canon", but it also means that the movies are evaluated differently by people based on whether they know or accept this extra material.
sometimes i think its as much what were not told as what we're told (or shown) that establishes good world building. but inconsistency of science is hard one to for writers who know less about how much hard work goes into science (or whats currently existing) than the outcome/catalysts for their characters and plots. but its as true in real life as it is in fiction where we could say, "How i is it we have this already , but we dont also have this?..it just makes sense if we've got one superior piece of medicine and tech that all others would follow and be the dominant paradigm" .except thats not how capitalism works so there are some wildly different time-scales to progress going on at the same time. why for instance would robots have to talk out loud to ech other for instance. And i'm looking at you G. Lucas, lol! cos that way we can hear lame jokes? i suppose you've got to engage the audience somehow and anthropomorphizing robots is essential to getting exposition across. having a sense of credulity and suspension of belief is essential for getting through a lot of this stuff...and actors who actually sound like they know what they're talking about helps. but characters spewing out loads of "convincing "tech talk does nothing for me ultimately, and i kinda wish some would just say "i have no idea how it works, i just use it, i didn't make " in the way i have no idea how any of my gadgets work including the one i'm using to write this. could a film/show work where none of the characters were doctors/ cops/detectives/scientists etc to lead us through the story and explain everything. are the only characters left after those just extras in the background, or victims of whatever the world is throwing at them? it would be fun to see some film makers deliberately throw out the rule book of even basic science..ie folks walking around on the moon without helmets/suits or problems with gravity. Sure, that happened in early days of cinema right through to the 50's-60s' but often to compensate for the lack of budget. Now audiences have a certain amount of knowledge and seem to enjoy seeing film makers screw up, so they can scream "Thats not right, even I know more than that!". you've reminded me again how much i need to get a copy of "Privilege"!
Terry: So, am I assuming that cinema or TV shows with twist endings (aka Twilight Zone or others analogy programs) are unsatisfying? Or am I not understanding your viewpoint?
A twist ending has to come logically from the story and make sense within its parameters. That's why THE SIXTH SENSE was so justly praised for its twist-but then, all Shyamalan got known for his "twists" and when you're expecting them, there's a law of diminishing returns. I went into THE VILLAGE positive that it wasn't set in any particular historical period, so I was looking for where the "twist" would come. I thought it would be like TEENAGE CAVEMAN where we'd find out it wasn't the prehistoric past but the far future, long after a nuclear war-it wasn't, but the fact that I KNEW a "twist" was coming blunted the "OMG!" moment when it happened. THE TWILIGHT ZONE avoided this by having strong writing and characterizations, so that while we knew there was a twist ending it wasn't the only thing we watched it for.
have you found many films where at the last moment the writers/etc have thrown in a totally unexpected final twist that up-ends everything, or leaves you thinking WTF ? too many stories pad their final act (however many acts they have) and you often get just what you're expecting. could a film still be successful if it left us on a weird cliff hanger (of sorts) even if it's got no intention of actually continuing (ie its not the first part of an ongoing trilogy, franchise et al). I'd like to have a film end on a surprise but are racking my brain to think of how many I've seen.
Signs is a good example. Aliens that are destroyed by water? On a planet where 70% of the surface is covered in water and water is in the very air? Shyamalan really b0rked that one!
@@terrytalksmovies - I was DP on a movie with a super low-budget director who wanted to have a race of aliens who were invulnerable to everything but water, so that made the big "twist" in SIGNS especially ridiculous for me.
@@terrytalksmovies "borked"? ! what a great expression!!...and yeah, you're right...totally borked! maybe he thought like the Martians in War of the Worlds being brought down by the common cold it was a fair cop. i can see humans everywhere grabbing buckets of water and tossing them over aliens a la the Wicked Witch of the West- "What a world, what a world!". but then, while watching "The Happening" i was tempted to sing out "It's Raining Men!" at a particularly gruesome mass suicide off the top of a building when construction workers were dropping like flies! and i prefer that film over "Signs"!!
Have to agree with you largely, Terry. I might add in the idea of a Novum, which comes from the book world. (Please, if you don’t know, look it up). These days it’s very difficult to have a Novum because of our World being filled with ideas most of which, inevitably, aren’t new. Technology and knowledge has improved to such an extent that most older films have been surpassed by reality, but I can deal with that. When I went to see Sunshine I left the cinema in deep disappointment. It’s ending (to me and I’ve not watched it since) was tacked on, a true ‘deus ex machina’, a religious event which doesn’t work with SF. Those having a religious bent may feel differently, I guess. I’m fairly sure that I’ll have seen other (SF) films with a similar end, but I can’t recall any at the moment. I also don’t have sympathy for films that just talk, like the one (title evades me) where a group of people sit around a living room chatting and finally arrive at the idea that someone is in fact Christ returned. Utter tosh that made me feel totally betrayed by the blurb on the box. I’ve researched films much better since that one.
So can we expect from you in the future a "scorecard" of your five criteria at the end of each review? I don't not necessarily need binary critiques, each criteria can be given a different weight. You've said on multiple occasional that you don't like 2001 and THX1138. Both of these are in my top five but I do realize that there are different aspects of these than can please or displease a viewer. Thanks.
Some science like there's no up and down in space would look to wonky. When two fleets meet they could be oriented any direction in 3D space. The sound of engines running provides back ground noise in movies. But space ships don't need continuous power there's no friction to slow them.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan addressed that during the battle between the two ships in the nebula, when Spock pointed out that Khan's thinking was "two dimensional."
If it has robots and they look like a stack of cardboard boxes, it.probably will be pretty bad. Add 2 clothes dryer vent hoses for arms and the odds improve.
It comes down to story and worldbuilding. Good science fiction movies have been made with two characters in a diner... ua-cam.com/video/T6JFTmQCFHg/v-deo.htmlsi=aFOfyygFCFJlD8UC
Angst and pragmatism -- the burden of history leading into the future -- is a common theme in thoughtful science fiction (sometimes even in the bang-bang/pew-pew productions) -- but also a valuable bit of conscience in other areas. Like the ending of "FailSafe" (1964) -- where the president makes a terrible, yet moral choice (for which, I have heard, modern US citizens of a certain leaning call the character a wimp). Or the song "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda" (great version by The Pogues) -- a 'first person' lament (yet appeal) to the conscience. And yet, with not uncommon reminders like these, modern man seems bent on the destruction of his fellow men (whether outright or through society), and self-destruction.... Thanks! Now I'm even more depressed than normal! Where's the Child Catcher when you need him (to be working overtime on Capitol Hill in the US!!!!)?????
I think the issue at the moment is people with mental illnesses that incline them to ruthlessness have weaponised communication technologies. That needs to be handled.
You mentioned that some sci-fi movies do not have enough “science” so you can’t enjoy them as much. Do you have examples? Personally, I would not characterize “Dr. Strangelove” (1964) as sci-fi. It’s a dark comedy about nuclear war. Sometimes there’s too much emphasis on one of the words in “Science Fiction” and you definitely need both to Tango. Definitions are not etched in stone and trying to pigeonhole a movie into or out of the sci-fi genre is somewhat subjective and at times a fool’s errand. Sci-fi movies have sub-genres like horror, fantasy, animated, dystopian, body-horror, etc. In 1983 there were 4 sci-fi movies and for various reasons some do not consider any of them to be sci-fi. I consider all to be sci-fi or a sub-genre thereof: - Brainstorm - The Dead Zone - Krull - Return of the Jedi
Kinda agree with the broad strokes but disagree w some of your examples. I also often wonder if the movie lacks any sort of "idea" about the future that speaks to us - if it lacks that, is it even a proper science fiction movie? You mention it a little, but if the sci-fi is merely set dressing and the movie is basicly an action movie - is it then really science fiction? Like Lockout w Guy Pearce that has to break out of space jail. It does not have any realy ideas or themes that tells us anything, so it is just crash bang in space. The argument about wether Star Wars is science fiction goes on. In books there are lots of thinky science fiction stuff, but it tends to get lost when it makes its way to the screen. I Robot for example that is based mostly on Caves of Steel by Asimov completely lacks any of the thoughts on humanity and society. Instead it has smashy crashy robots.
Lockout is basically Escape From New York in orbit. It is fun but derivative. I,Robot was another Asimov story. If you want parallels, compare I, Robot with Virtuosity.
@@terrytalksmovies - I, ROBOT isn't even based on I, ROBOT, or any story written by Asimov! It's an original screenplay by Jeff Vintar originally called HARDWIRED, which Twentieth-Century Fox renamed I, ROBOT because they wanted SF fans to think it was based on Asimov's work. Vintar added in The Three Laws of Robotics and renamed the female lead to "Dr. Susan Calvin" so audiences would think it was based on Asimov's stories even though the robots in the movie are nothing like Asimov's Robots. At all.
Well, what the hell did you expect? Poole and Bowman are typical of the “Friendship Seven” astronauts the Americans were presenting as ideals to us back in the ‘60s, and the way they go through their depressing exercise rituals and munch their paste-like meals are all too realistic. If you wanted actual human emotion, Leonard Rossiter’s lively performance as the curious Russian scientist will have to do. Or there is Dr Floyd’s daughter (played by Stanley Kubrick’s real daughter, who has apparently grown up to be a real-life conspiracy nut) who incorrectly imagines her father has gone somewhere from whence he will be able to bring her a bush-baby! Her expectations were about as misguided as those of the film reviewers of the time, who claimed Dr Floyd was going to a “Planet Clavius” when they were clearly _shown_ he was going to the effing moon! The tendency of some reviewers to talk down 2001 and overlook its glorious pre-cgi visuals, its wicked satirical touches, and its optimism about the future has been pissing me off royally since 1968.
How to tell if a science fiction movie is any good. Sut down and watch it by yourself. Fine judge it by some dude on the Internet making up arbitrary rules. If you like it, that's all that matters.
I would argue that plot armor, or abilities beyond the norm, are an essential part of Science Fiction because much of the genre started out as "Wish Fulfillment Fantasies of the Underprivileged", which is why you have so many Eastern European, Jewish, and Female SF writers obscuring their gender in SF. Yes, it's gone beyond that in the same way that those other Wish Fulfillment Fantasies, Comic Books, have in recent years, but there's always that element of *Ubermensch!* to SF heroes. I went back and forth between using the original German term and the more popular English one, "Superman!"-but Superman is such a specific type of *Ubermensch* that it obscures the argument.
There are a lot of people who believe a story isn’t valid unless the protagonist has a character arc. Or that a story should only be told through the eyes of the protagonist.
Eco book I found out my school library. What’s a book and hound science-fiction tins to mirror the aches and pains of the time. Nuclear proliferation.... The red scare.... minorities migrated into all white area Somewhat being a metaphor for these things. Also if the zeitgeist of the time as well.
"Replacing a political leader with a robot..." (Sarcasm alert!) We had that here in America when Reagan was killed by the assassin in 1983. No one could tell the difference when the Disney Animatronics robot Reagan 'acted' as President.
So the robot got Alzheimer's?
@@terrytalksmovies - well, they CALL it "Alzheimer's"! What really happened is that the gears they used to program Reagan's behavior got worn out and slipping their cogs....
Oh, I got a Million of 'em! 😂 I could keep QAnon running around in circles for centuries.
It's 30 degree (celsius) there, it's 30 degrees (fahrrenheit) here.
What's important to the plot and science is story consistency. If the writer says that the transporters can't be used while the shields are up, then that is something that must be true. If faster than light communication is not allowed and information is conveyed by couriers, then the writer can't have people 2 light minutes away from each other have an interactive conversation without delays. If these rules are broken or overcome, it should be startling to the characters in the story and it shouldn't be the get of jail card for a character to save the themselves or the day. Otherwise, there is no tension or suspense to the story.
I agree with you on all your points.
I like lightspeed lag in science fiction. It creates endless opportunities for dramatic escalation.
World building is why I love movies like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow or Valerian. Every scene just adds another layer that just keeps you (well me anyway) wrapped up in it. Those movies have problems, sure, but I love them for their fantastic world building.
Valerian has god-tier worldbuilding
Some excellent thoughts and ideas.
It's a common problem with SF movies that the makers think that they can make an audience happy with flash and glitz and pew-pew zoom-zoom alone, so all the other rules of story telling can be tossed out. And unfortunately they're often right.
The attention horizon for pure spectacle science fiction movies is usually brief. The Avatar movies are evidence of this. They made all the money... briefly, then people forgot them.
I'm on board for Terry's Laws of Good Science Fiction. Almost every otherwise well done science fiction film that didn't hit with me failed one or more of those standards particularly in confusing science and magic
There's a lot of science/ magic blurring.
A certain space opera trilogy went in for a lot of that, until the creator of said trilogy tried to create a pseudo-scientific base for the "magic" in the follow-up trilogy. "Midichlorians", anyone?
Hi, Terry. Another good video, with some thought-provoking ideas. I agree with all of them, although there was one that gave me pause and is perhaps a 99.9% agreement. That is the one about having a satisfying ending. I think that very occasionally a movie ends with what you might call an ambiguous or unsettling ending or a question mark that is intended to get people thinking. It then becomes arguable whether the ending meets the criterion of being satisfying. But I had to scratch around to find these two possible examples.
One of them is the ending of ANDROMEDA STRAIN (1971), which I definitely include in my list of all-time great SF movies. But of course, it ends with Dr Stone replying to the question from the Commission of Inquiry about what should be done in future. The unsettling answer is simply to bounce the question back - "Exactly, what should we do?". on the other hand, that question underscores the theme of the movie, about deliberately dabbling in risky scientific margins. And afterwards audiences enjoyed further discussion.
The other example is perhaps the ending [SPOILER ALERT] of TIME BANDITS (the 1981 original). This unsettled a few parents, although it seems that a large proportion of the children viewing it really loved the ending, where the young protagonist warns his parents "Don't touch it - It's evil!", whereupon the parents get exploded. Typical trailblazing stuff by Terry Gilliam, and I guess you either love him or hate him. But Time Bandits is definitely on my list of all-time greats. Some will argue that it is less SF and more Science Fantasy, but leaving that aside I think it ticks all of the other boxes that you have listed including the one about Science - the authors knew when they were breaking scientific rules: That was often how they raised a laugh!
The Andromeda Strain has that deus ex machina ending which diminishes it somewhat. Comedy films have their own parallel set of rules which Time Bandits had to juggle as well.
Hey Terry from Ned in Spain. A fantastic video as always and am with you 100 %. I was waiting for you to talk about how much you hate the use of " Deus Ex Machina " in order to resolve a science fiction story when it should follow it's logical trajectory but hasn't the balls to do it. I remember you had a particular dislike of Andromeda Strain because of that. All the best to you, MAGG and the cat crew.
Thanks, Ned. Good to know you guys are okay after the floods.
@@terrytalksmovies Thank you Terry. Our town on Mallorca came close but made it through, other towns not so lucky. I was also in Valencia 3 days before the disaster which was basically a tsunami with a pitiful response by the govt. Have a lovely holiday season and stay well.
Great stuff! Loved this video! For me, I have always distilled it down to; Does the story ask how science and technology's use, affect the human condition? But that doesn't really capture all science fiction, does it? I feel I will be revisiting this video multiple times.
Thanks, Adam. 🙂
Great points Terry. World building is a must for me, as is getting the science right. I'm a huge fan of historical movies too and in the same way, those movies have to give us a sense of time and place and get the history right. Character is a difficult one. For years I've tried to explain to my friends why I don't like Indiana Jones, Lara Croft or James Bond (in all of his incarnations) "Wooden and one dimensional." - and they look at me uncomprehendingly. Achieving satisfaction is good in any endeavor but those movies that leave you wanting more are a rare bunch. Have a great weekend.
Daniel Craig gave us a 3D Bond but the Bond fans in large numbers hated his version of it. I liked it.
@terrytalksmovies To each his/her own, my friend.
Thanks for these things to keep in mind while watching sci-fi. I have recently watched some good movies (mostly) for the first time - The Quatermass Experiment and Quatermass II, as well as an old favorite of mine, Zotz. As for bad movies -The Earth Dies Screaming, Horrors of the Red Planet, The Day the Sky Exploded, The First Spaceship to Venus, and Manhunt in Space, among others. And I love them all.
You're on a fun journey there, Jeff. Enjoy!
"Horrors of the Red Planet" is aka "The Wizard of Mars" (1965) and "Manhunt in Space" is one of those "Rocky Jones: Space Ranger" feature edits.
Nice, solid approach and overview. And then for some reason Gentlemen Broncos crashed into my head and I had a chuckle.
LOL
Great set of rules I know some who can't take a sci-fi film that gets science wrong but I'm OK with that if as you say it makes sense within that world or can forgive older films that didn't know what we do now. Now I like space opera and hard science films and novels. Characters in sci-fi can often be thin as they are just there to advance the plot. I noticed a greater emphasis on character in modern sci-fi say in the 90s and after especially on TV. Loved the genre since I was a kid and am happy it finally went mainstream. I'd like to meet all those kids who picked on me when I was young over liking sci-fi.
The Expanse is space opera that gets the science as right as you can get and it enhanced the drama and sense of reality. It's the gold standard at this stage for that.
Won't blame a science fiction movie of its time for getting details wrong based on any scientific knowledge of the period, but I cringe when it's wildly not even close. Looking at you, Armageddon. The same theme movie, like Deep Impact, at least tries to be accurate on the science part. We already have enough flat earthers, and we don't need to add to the pile.
The spiky asteroid in Armageddon is risible. Deep Impact also has relatable characters, not macho bros.
Tenet is proof positive for me of that phenomenon of group think surrounding perception of films, especially in the social media age. One person or opinion gets out there and gets viral engagement and is parroted ad nauseum. Very few of us braved Covid to go see Tenet at the time but the 'consensus' was already negative. The same thing happens in a positive way for certain popular films that in no way deserve the praise. I'm way off topic here but suffice to say I did like Tenet quite a bit
I got the 4K of Tenet cheaply. Looks great and I can watch it multiple times and enjoy it.
What I take away from this is that the rules for good science fiction are the same as the rules for all good fiction, but with added science. I think the form of fiction that may be the closest analogue to science fiction is historical fiction, because of the need for worldbuilding - when aspects of the world that we normally take for granted have to be created from the ground up we notice things we would otherwise miss.
For me the most important thing about any science fiction movie is that I should feel immersed in a world that is recognisable but also recognisably different - it should always be a form of escapism, whether it is being shamelessly entertaining or intellectually rigorous...
Luc Besson's Valerian is among the best at worldbuilding. The characters didn't work but that worldbuilding is mindblowingly great.
@@terrytalksmovies Yes, I did appreciate the opening sequence, which I think says something quite engaging about the passing of time; the rest of the movie certainly fulfils the escapism rule (at the expense of everything else 🙂)...
While I understand the appeal of the Star Wars movies, I don't think they did the science fiction genre any favors treating science and magic as interchangeable elements of the story. The science in some of the space operas of the 50s and 60s may have been wonky but it was still science and not pseudo religious hocus pocus.
My big dislike of the SW movies is that they infantilised cinematic science fiction for decades. Everyone wanted zoom zoom pew pew SF movies after 1977.
Science fiction was going in a different direction before SW came along. Peter Biskind also had a point in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, when he wrote that SW brought the effects-heavy blockbuster to primacy after the days of the "New Hollywood."
Ty. I agree that people will come together and help each other immediately after Armageddon. That bugs me about such movies.
Yep, it's wish fulfilment for sociopaths.
I consider the 'A Quiet Place' movies as bad. Apart from the many obvious or not so obvious flaws, there is an esoteric secondary reason I think they are bad - they break a primary rule of good story telling in movies, in that basics of your world should be depicted in the movie(s).
Apparently, external sources claim that the alien creatures lived on a planet that exploded, and they were so tough that they survived, and they somehow ended up inside meteors (resulting from the planet exploding) that travelled through space, and landed on Earth.
There are a whole lot of implausibilities with this external "canon", but it also means that the movies are evaluated differently by people based on whether they know or accept this extra material.
I avoided the A Quiet Place movies. They didn't seem to be my kind of SF.
sometimes i think its as much what were not told as what we're told (or shown) that establishes good world building. but inconsistency of science is hard one to for writers who know less about how much hard work goes into science (or whats currently existing) than the outcome/catalysts for their characters and plots. but its as true in real life as it is in fiction where we could say, "How i is it we have this already , but we dont also have this?..it just makes sense if we've got one superior piece of medicine and tech that all others would follow and be the dominant paradigm" .except thats not how capitalism works so there are some wildly different time-scales to progress going on at the same time. why for instance would robots have to talk out loud to ech other for instance. And i'm looking at you G. Lucas, lol! cos that way we can hear lame jokes? i suppose you've got to engage the audience somehow and anthropomorphizing robots is essential to getting exposition across. having a sense of credulity and suspension of belief is essential for getting through a lot of this stuff...and actors who actually sound like they know what they're talking about helps. but characters spewing out loads of "convincing "tech talk does nothing for me ultimately, and i kinda wish some would just say "i have no idea how it works, i just use it, i didn't make " in the way i have no idea how any of my gadgets work including the one i'm using to write this. could a film/show work where none of the characters were doctors/ cops/detectives/scientists etc to lead us through the story and explain everything. are the only characters left after those just extras in the background, or victims of whatever the world is throwing at them? it would be fun to see some film makers deliberately throw out the rule book of even basic science..ie folks walking around on the moon without helmets/suits or problems with gravity. Sure, that happened in early days of cinema right through to the 50's-60s' but often to compensate for the lack of budget. Now audiences have a certain amount of knowledge and seem to enjoy seeing film makers screw up, so they can scream "Thats not right, even I know more than that!". you've reminded me again how much i need to get a copy of "Privilege"!
Privilege is so underrated. I believe it is available from Amazon.
Many thanks Terry!
Always a pleasure. Have a great weekend.
Terry: So, am I assuming that cinema or TV shows with twist endings (aka Twilight Zone or others analogy programs) are unsatisfying? Or am I not understanding your viewpoint?
Twist endings are fine but they have to be true to the narrative. They can be unexpected and startling but they have to make sense.
A twist ending has to come logically from the story and make sense within its parameters. That's why THE SIXTH SENSE was so justly praised for its twist-but then, all Shyamalan got known for his "twists" and when you're expecting them, there's a law of diminishing returns. I went into THE VILLAGE positive that it wasn't set in any particular historical period, so I was looking for where the "twist" would come. I thought it would be like TEENAGE CAVEMAN where we'd find out it wasn't the prehistoric past but the far future, long after a nuclear war-it wasn't, but the fact that I KNEW a "twist" was coming blunted the "OMG!" moment when it happened.
THE TWILIGHT ZONE avoided this by having strong writing and characterizations, so that while we knew there was a twist ending it wasn't the only thing we watched it for.
have you found many films where at the last moment the writers/etc have thrown in a totally unexpected final twist that up-ends everything, or leaves you thinking WTF ? too many stories pad their final act (however many acts they have) and you often get just what you're expecting. could a film still be successful if it left us on a weird cliff hanger (of sorts) even if it's got no intention of actually continuing (ie its not the first part of an ongoing trilogy, franchise et al). I'd like to have a film end on a surprise but are racking my brain to think of how many I've seen.
Signs is a good example. Aliens that are destroyed by water? On a planet where 70% of the surface is covered in water and water is in the very air? Shyamalan really b0rked that one!
@@terrytalksmovies - I was DP on a movie with a super low-budget director who wanted to have a race of aliens who were invulnerable to everything but water, so that made the big "twist" in SIGNS especially ridiculous for me.
@@terrytalksmovies "borked"? ! what a great expression!!...and yeah, you're right...totally borked! maybe he thought like the Martians in War of the Worlds being brought down by the common cold it was a fair cop. i can see humans everywhere grabbing buckets of water and tossing them over aliens a la the Wicked Witch of the West- "What a world, what a world!". but then, while watching "The Happening" i was tempted to sing out "It's Raining Men!" at a particularly gruesome mass suicide off the top of a building when construction workers were dropping like flies! and i prefer that film over "Signs"!!
Have to agree with you largely, Terry. I might add in the idea of a Novum, which comes from the book world. (Please, if you don’t know, look it up). These days it’s very difficult to have a Novum because of our World being filled with ideas most of which, inevitably, aren’t new. Technology and knowledge has improved to such an extent that most older films have been surpassed by reality, but I can deal with that. When I went to see Sunshine I left the cinema in deep disappointment. It’s ending (to me and I’ve not watched it since) was tacked on, a true ‘deus ex machina’, a religious event which doesn’t work with SF. Those having a religious bent may feel differently, I guess. I’m fairly sure that I’ll have seen other (SF) films with a similar end, but I can’t recall any at the moment. I also don’t have sympathy for films that just talk, like the one (title evades me) where a group of people sit around a living room chatting and finally arrive at the idea that someone is in fact Christ returned. Utter tosh that made me feel totally betrayed by the blurb on the box. I’ve researched films much better since that one.
I enjoyed The Man From Earth. It worked for me. 😀
So can we expect from you in the future a "scorecard" of your five criteria at the end of each review?
I don't not necessarily need binary critiques, each criteria can be given a different weight.
You've said on multiple occasional that you don't like 2001 and THX1138. Both of these are in my top five but I do realize that there are different aspects of these than can please or displease a viewer. Thanks.
I'm not big on scorecards but I'll keep the criteria in mind while reviewing. 😀📽
Some science like there's no up and down in space would look to wonky. When two fleets meet they could be oriented any direction in 3D space. The sound of engines running provides back ground noise in movies. But space ships don't need continuous power there's no friction to slow them.
The Expanse dealt with that. 3D space battles were done in The Expanse and they worked really well. Didn't look at all wonky.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan addressed that during the battle between the two ships in the nebula, when Spock pointed out that Khan's thinking was "two dimensional."
"How To Tell If A Science Fiction Movie Is Any Good"
Um, it doesn't have Peter Graves in it?
That's a reasonable criterion. 😀
If it has robots and they look like a stack of cardboard boxes, it.probably will be pretty bad. Add 2 clothes dryer vent hoses for arms and the odds improve.
It comes down to story and worldbuilding. Good science fiction movies have been made with two characters in a diner... ua-cam.com/video/T6JFTmQCFHg/v-deo.htmlsi=aFOfyygFCFJlD8UC
@@terrytalksmovies My favorite of all of the "They’re Made Out of Meat" videos! 🙂
Devil Girl From Mars's "Gort" looks like a large box of soap powder.
Angst and pragmatism -- the burden of history leading into the future -- is a common theme in thoughtful science fiction (sometimes even in the bang-bang/pew-pew productions) -- but also a valuable bit of conscience in other areas. Like the ending of "FailSafe" (1964) -- where the president makes a terrible, yet moral choice (for which, I have heard, modern US citizens of a certain leaning call the character a wimp). Or the song "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda" (great version by The Pogues) -- a 'first person' lament (yet appeal) to the conscience. And yet, with not uncommon reminders like these, modern man seems bent on the destruction of his fellow men (whether outright or through society), and self-destruction.... Thanks! Now I'm even more depressed than normal! Where's the Child Catcher when you need him (to be working overtime on Capitol Hill in the US!!!!)?????
I think the issue at the moment is people with mental illnesses that incline them to ruthlessness have weaponised communication technologies. That needs to be handled.
Thank You!
Always a pleasure.😀
You mentioned that some sci-fi movies do not have enough “science” so you can’t enjoy them as much. Do you have examples?
Personally, I would not characterize “Dr. Strangelove” (1964) as sci-fi. It’s a dark comedy about nuclear war.
Sometimes there’s too much emphasis on one of the words in “Science Fiction” and you definitely need both to Tango.
Definitions are not etched in stone and trying to pigeonhole a movie into or out of the sci-fi genre is somewhat subjective and at times a fool’s errand.
Sci-fi movies have sub-genres like horror, fantasy, animated, dystopian, body-horror, etc.
In 1983 there were 4 sci-fi movies and for various reasons some do not consider any of them to be sci-fi. I consider all to be sci-fi or a sub-genre thereof:
- Brainstorm
- The Dead Zone
- Krull
- Return of the Jedi
I meant the films that are war films or westerns cosplaying as SF. Nothing apart from the sets, costumes and character names are SF in those movies.
Kinda agree with the broad strokes but disagree w some of your examples.
I also often wonder if the movie lacks any sort of "idea" about the future that speaks to us - if it lacks that, is it even a proper science fiction movie? You mention it a little, but if the sci-fi is merely set dressing and the movie is basicly an action movie - is it then really science fiction?
Like Lockout w Guy Pearce that has to break out of space jail. It does not have any realy ideas or themes that tells us anything, so it is just crash bang in space.
The argument about wether Star Wars is science fiction goes on.
In books there are lots of thinky science fiction stuff, but it tends to get lost when it makes its way to the screen. I Robot for example that is based mostly on Caves of Steel by Asimov completely lacks any of the thoughts on humanity and society. Instead it has smashy crashy robots.
Lockout is basically Escape From New York in orbit. It is fun but derivative. I,Robot was another Asimov story. If you want parallels, compare I, Robot with Virtuosity.
@@terrytalksmovies - I, ROBOT isn't even based on I, ROBOT, or any story written by Asimov! It's an original screenplay by Jeff Vintar originally called HARDWIRED, which Twentieth-Century Fox renamed I, ROBOT because they wanted SF fans to think it was based on Asimov's work. Vintar added in The Three Laws of Robotics and renamed the female lead to "Dr. Susan Calvin" so audiences would think it was based on Asimov's stories even though the robots in the movie are nothing like Asimov's Robots. At all.
Tan Terry Talks Movies 😎
LOL
Hi Terry, here's a link to a "Jules Verne" movie I saw as a child in 1963: ua-cam.com/video/Gcr_h8m38gs/v-deo.htmlsi=7B_TtO5o1nqN3hT0
Thanks!
2001 the only problem Or issue I had is the lack of acting or wooden performance of the cast
The lack of relatable ot hateable characters is a big negative for 2001.
Well, what the hell did you expect? Poole and Bowman are typical of the “Friendship Seven” astronauts the Americans were presenting as ideals to us back in the ‘60s, and the way they go through their depressing exercise rituals and munch their paste-like meals are all too realistic.
If you wanted actual human emotion, Leonard Rossiter’s lively performance as the curious Russian scientist will have to do. Or there is Dr Floyd’s daughter (played by Stanley Kubrick’s real daughter, who has apparently grown up to be a real-life conspiracy nut) who incorrectly imagines her father has gone somewhere from whence he will be able to bring her a bush-baby! Her expectations were about as misguided as those of the film reviewers of the time, who claimed Dr Floyd was going to a “Planet Clavius” when they were clearly _shown_ he was going to the effing moon!
The tendency of some reviewers to talk down 2001 and overlook its glorious pre-cgi visuals, its wicked satirical touches, and its optimism about the future has been pissing me off royally since 1968.
@@terrytalksmovies The lack of such characters is the whole point of 2001, surely (but let's not go there 🙂)
@@terrytalksmovies glad you dont see the movie as a scared cow unlike the directors followers
To me that was deliberate; depicting their world as dystopic in some ways, as people have become emotionally dead.
Yeah I can watch that Classic Blade Runner movie anytime But I still can't rewatch that Super Dull Blade Runner part Two movie again Man!😴
There are aspects to the second one that I appreciate. It's not perfect but it has good qualities.
Not my favorite types of videos.
Can't please everyone but thanks for watching.
@@terrytalksmoviesI didn't watch really.
You're not my favorite type of commenter. (Just thought you'd like to know.)
How to tell if a science fiction movie is any good. Sut down and watch it by yourself. Fine judge it by some dude on the Internet making up arbitrary rules. If you like it, that's all that matters.
At least I got you to engage with the video. Thanks!
I would argue that plot armor, or abilities beyond the norm, are an essential part of Science Fiction because much of the genre started out as "Wish Fulfillment Fantasies of the Underprivileged", which is why you have so many Eastern European, Jewish, and Female SF writers obscuring their gender in SF. Yes, it's gone beyond that in the same way that those other Wish Fulfillment Fantasies, Comic Books, have in recent years, but there's always that element of *Ubermensch!* to SF heroes.
I went back and forth between using the original German term and the more popular English one, "Superman!"-but Superman is such a specific type of *Ubermensch* that it obscures the argument.
Hopefully science fiction has moved past plot-armoured wish-fulfilment.
There are a lot of people who believe a story isn’t valid unless the protagonist has a character arc. Or that a story should only be told through the eyes of the protagonist.
There are many ways to tell stories, fortunately.
Eco book I found out my school library. What’s a book and hound science-fiction tins to mirror the aches and pains of the time. Nuclear proliferation.... The red scare.... minorities migrated into all white area Somewhat being a metaphor for these things. Also if the zeitgeist of the time as well.
Cool
Sorry about the typos my old phone is fighting me tooth a nail