# Which classic SF films have you still not seen?



## Harpo (Jan 18, 2008)

I still haven't seen Blade Runner or Solaris.  How about you?


----------



## Brigitte (Jan 18, 2008)

Haven't seen those.  Worse yet, I haven't even seen the Alien movies (except for that very last one, AVP, which was kind of weird)


----------



## that old guy (Jan 18, 2008)

Brigitte said:


> Haven't seen those. Worse yet, I haven't even seen the Alien movies (except *for that very last one*, AVP, which was kind of weird)


 
Actually, there's one even more recent than that one...Aliens vs. Predator - Requiem. But by all accounts it is one to miss.


----------



## Reading_fanatic (Jan 19, 2008)

Haven't seen any of the above except alien 1 and Alien v predator


----------



## MG1962 (Jan 19, 2008)

I have not seen the remake of Solaris - and only got halfway through the orginal. Also the new I am legend, two previous versions and reading the book dont leave to many suprises for me


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 19, 2008)

I'm not sure that recent remakes would quite qualify as "classics", however good (or bad) they may be....

Hmmm.... I'm not really sure what would be qualified as a classic that I haven't seen; I've seen an enormous number of films in the genre, both on my own and as the result of being married to a film student. But I'm sure there are plenty I haven't seen... I'm just not clicking on titles at the moment....


----------



## tangaloomababe (Jan 19, 2008)

Ok I have seen all of the above except for Solaris. I loved Blade Runner, watch it over and over.  I am also a bit of an Alien Fan but moreso the second one Aliens!!! 
Harpo you have to see Blade Runner!!!
I also love Gattica, probably one of the few movies I like Jude Law in.

I have seen I am Legend and its predecesor Omega Man.  However Charlton Hestons other sci fi's are better including the likes of Soylent Green and Planet of the Apes. (just the first one)
I am even a fan of Pitch Black and Riddick (I think thats a girl thing though and watching Vin Diesel)


----------



## Connavar (Jan 19, 2008)

Is Soylent Green classic SF ?


----------



## iansales (Jan 19, 2008)

These days, I think anything that had a theatrical release before 1990 counts as a "classic".

Classics I've yet to see include: Aelita, Queen of Mars (1924); Alphaville (1965); The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953); Children of the Damned (1963); Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959); Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964)...


----------



## Culhwch (Jan 19, 2008)

_The Day the Earth Stood Still_, perhaps... Yeah, as far as classics pre-_Star Wars _I'd probably say all of them. I did see _Blade Runner_ and, quite frankly, was unimpressed.


----------



## Pyan (Jan 19, 2008)

IS said:
			
		

> Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959)



Just make sure you're insured for death by hilarity, Ian.....


----------



## Connavar (Jan 19, 2008)

iansales said:


> These days, I think anything that had a theatrical release before 1990 counts as a "classic".
> 
> Classics I've yet to see include: Aelita, Queen of Mars (1924); Alphaville (1965); The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953); Children of the Damned (1963); Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959); Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964)...




Nah i think i will watch classic SF there is a reason for them being classic other than being old.


Since i like Heston's old SF like the apes first movie i wondered if Soylent was seen as good classic SF.


----------



## MG1962 (Jan 19, 2008)

iansales said:


> These days, I think anything that had a theatrical release before 1990 counts as a "classic".
> 
> Classics I've yet to see include: Aelita, Queen of Mars (1924); Alphaville (1965); The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953); Children of the Damned (1963); Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959); Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964)...


 
Honest dont waste your time with Alphaville - it is full of so many French in jokes, it is almost unwatchable. 

Children Of The Damned is an excellent sequel to Village Of The Damned.

Robinson Crusoe is very journeyman

20,000 Fathoms - a personal fave - Very dated, but a load of fun

Plan 9 - see in a group - mood enhancing chemicals a must

Aelita - Also on my hit list - saw about 20 mins of it as part of a series on Soviet film history, I liked what I saw


----------



## iansales (Jan 19, 2008)

pyan said:


> Just make sure you're insured for death by hilarity, Ian.....



Ha. I've seen a lot of really sf bad films, and I actually liked *Queen of Blood* (see here).


----------



## iansales (Jan 19, 2008)

Connavar of Rigante said:


> there is a reason for them being classic other than being old.



Some people seem to think *Star Wars 4: A New Hope* is "classic"...


----------



## Overread (Jan 19, 2008)

hmm don't think I have seen any of the ones that Ian has yet to see; but I will add Blade Runner as the film I have not seen and really should - I willl get round to it one day!


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 20, 2008)

Never been able to sit through the original *Solaris*, can't get past the drive around Tokyo. *Alphaville *is about as enjoyable as polishing my scalp with a cheese grater. It's intentions are great, but the execution is painful. My partner, who is a socialist francophile academic, loved it.

I want to see Truffaut's *Fahrenheit 451*. Curious about *Terminal Man*. Not sure if I have seen *Altered States* all the way through and definitely have not seen *Scanners*.


----------



## Tillane (Jan 20, 2008)

You can count me in as another who has never been able to sit through the original *Solaris *(and haven't seen the Clooney version either).  Nor have I seen *Fahrenheit 451*, though I will do at some point.  Oh, and it looks like I'm in the minority who did like *Alphaville*.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 20, 2008)

Haven't seen *Alphaville*, I must admit. I do quite like the original *Solaris*, but that drive was damn' near the breaking point for me. Everything else really contributes to the final impact of the film, but that just seems far too long....

*Fahrenheit 451* is a rather good adaptation of Bradbury's novel, though with a blending of the feeling of Bradbury and Truffaut. A beautifully made film, and exquisite to watch. Can't say the same for *The Terminal Man*. Some nice moments, but overall rather forgettable. Stick with reading the novel here would be my advice. *Scanners* is... odd. Can't say I really dislike the film, but can't say I was all that impressed, either. Yet there is _something_ about that film that doesn't quite let go... so I suppose that's a vote for seeing it. *Altered States* is a rather good film (surprisingly mainstream for Russell), but this one really should be seen on a BIG screen of the type it's difficult to find these days. Very impressive in such a format. Smaller screens simply don't allow you to appreciate all the detail that went into this film....


----------



## Culhwch (Jan 20, 2008)

Actually, I never saw _2001_ and quite frankly have no desire to...


----------



## clovis-man (Jan 20, 2008)

MG1962 said:


> Robinson Crusoe is very journeyman


 
I'm actually old enough to remember reading a review of this movie in either Time or Newsweek which praised it highly. I could not make myself go to see it because of the title alone. When I finally watched it on a tv re-run, I couldn't believe a national rag could say anything positive about it.

OTOH, I can also remember New Republic reviewer, Stanley Kaufman panning the 1962 excellent dramatization of Melville's *Billy Budd* featuring Robert Ryan, Peter Ustinov, Melvyn Douglas, David McCallum and Terence Stamp as Billy Budd. Not content there, he also gave a big thumbs down to *Lawrence of Arabia*. 

So just go see what you want to. Sorry. I think I strayed a little off topic.

Jim


----------



## MG1962 (Jan 20, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> *Scanners* is... odd. Can't say I really dislike the film, but can't say I was all that impressed, either. Yet there is _something_ about that film that doesn't quite let go... so I suppose that's a vote for seeing it. *Altered States* is a rather good film (surprisingly mainstream for Russell), but this one really should be seen on a BIG screen of the type it's difficult to find these days. Very impressive in such a format. Smaller screens simply don't allow you to appreciate all the detail that went into this film....


 
Yeah Scanners is definately one of those films - I have never met anyone passionate either way about it - I saw it once, during the cinema release, and thats it - no desire to see it again, but I would not say a bad word about it either.

I would like to re-visit Altered States - It came out at the height of all those mind deprevation experiments, and those tanks you could hire, full of warm salt water, no sensory imput and go on a natural trip for a while lol. So after these years, its relevancy could be under pressure


----------



## MG1962 (Jan 20, 2008)

clovis-man said:


> I'm actually old enough to remember reading a review of this movie in either Time or Newsweek which praised it highly. I could not make myself go to see it because of the title alone. When I finally watched it on a tv re-run, I couldn't believe a national rag could say anything positive about it.
> 
> OTOH, I can also remember New Republic reviewer, Stanley Kaufman panning the 1962 excellent dramatization of Melville's *Billy Budd* featuring Robert Ryan, Peter Ustinov, Melvyn Douglas, David McCallum and Terence Stamp as Billy Budd. Not content there, he also gave a big thumbs down to *Lawrence of Arabia*.
> 
> ...


 
A while ago I went through reviewers, found a couple with very similar tastes to mine in films, and made my choices about seeing a movie based on their opinions. Unfortunately cinema is so subjective, and really all opinions are valid, so it is a matter of finding someone with your opinion - they like it chance are - so will you


----------



## iansales (Jan 20, 2008)

Culhwch, why no desire to sit through *2001*? It's a very good film.

Gully, I like *Solaris* a great deal. Tarkovsky's *Stalker* is also very good. *Scanners* I saw many, many years ago, and all I remember of it is the exploding heads. *Altered States* I also saw a long time ago - and my only memory of that is a very hirsute William Hurt running around a building. BBC1 incidentally are broadcasting a programme on sensory deprivation this week. *Fahrenheit 451*... well, I watched that for the first time last year and was very impressed.

Oh, and Overread - now you have the definitive edition of *Blade Runner*, you have no excuse for not seeing it


----------



## Pyan (Jan 20, 2008)

iansales said:


> Some people seem to think *Star Wars 4: A New Hope* is "classic"...



30 years old, Ian, and still watched by millions.....

I know this is no definition of a classic, but there again, did anyone ever lay down a set of rules for that definition? Surely popular longevity has to count for something.


----------



## iansales (Jan 20, 2008)

True enough. I don't think a cineaste would ever claim *Star Wars* as a classic, but there are few enough "good" films in the sf canon that I suppose we have to look at box office take as one indicator.


----------



## Pyan (Jan 20, 2008)

Not so much a classic, as a pivotal event, I'd say. Whatever your views on the film itself, you can't deny it permanently altered the image of SF films. For this reason alone it deserves respect.


----------



## iansales (Jan 20, 2008)

For the worse, yes. We'd just had an intelligent sf film, *2001*, and Lucas took the genre back to the mindless action of the Saturday morning serials. I remember loving *Star Wars *when it was released (I was eleven at the time), but I rue the day it was taken as the _only_ model for sf cinema...


----------



## Pyan (Jan 20, 2008)

Yes, I'd agree that most of 2001 was intelligent, apart from the slightly indulgent last 20 minutes or so....but_ Star Wars_ didn't actually *stop* people making intelligent films....._Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Brazil, The Matrix....

_Unfortunately, bums-on-seats will always by the overriding concern for those that supply the funding...and mindless action has been proved to be more popular with the average punter.


----------



## iansales (Jan 20, 2008)

Post-*Star Wars*, perhaps. But not before. Highest-grossing film of 1965: *The Sound of Music* - and it remained the highest-grossing film of all time until 1971.


----------



## MG1962 (Jan 20, 2008)

iansales said:


> True enough. I don't think a cineaste would ever claim *Star Wars* as a classic, but there are few enough "good" films in the sf canon that I suppose we have to look at box office take as one indicator.


 
Please tell me you are kidding - the film was revolutionary in many ways. All of a sudden science fiction became cool - And a block buster, which meant, with rare exceptions - they were finally making these movies on real budgets. Have a look at the list of science fiction films from 67' to when Star Wars came out - crap is a word that falls on the tongue.

I mean people were walking out of the cinema, going straight to the back of the queue to try and get in for the next session on the opening weekend. Where I live (Sydney) You queued for over an hour to get tickets three sessions in adavnce, in a cinema showing the thing on 5 screens.

Whether the passage of time has dulled the films impact I dont know- but the influence it had on the whole genre is close to immeasurable


----------



## Connavar (Jan 20, 2008)

*2001,Solaris,Altered States *and many more i havent seen.
I dont think i have seen a SF older Planet of The apes.


----------



## iansales (Jan 20, 2008)

MG1962 said:


> Please tell me you are kidding - the film was revolutionary in many ways. All of a sudden science fiction became cool - And a block buster, which meant, with rare exceptions - they were finally making these movies on real budgets. Have a look at the list of science fiction films from 67' to when Star Wars came out - crap is a word that falls on the tongue.



Nope. Not kidding. Science fiction was already "cool" - *Forbidden Planet* (the first big studio-backed colour sf film), *The Day the Earth Stood Still *(positive critical reaciton and excellent box office), *2001* (Kubrick!)... 

And from 1967 to 1977 - *2001* again, *Planet of the Apes* (many), *The Andromeda Strain*, *A Clockwork Orange*, *Silent Running*, *Slaughterhouse Five*, *Solaris*, *Soylent Green*, *Westworld*, *Zardoz*, *Rollerball*, *Brainwave*, *Logan's Run*, *The Man Who Fell to Earth*... 

*Star Wars*' popularity resulted in a deluge of rip-offs, everything from *Starcrash* to *Battle Beyond the Stars*, and few of them were any good. *Star Wars* led to the sfx-heavy summer blockbuster and proved that merchandising could reap huge financial rewards.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 20, 2008)

I have to side to with Ian on this one. Much as I enjoy the film (and much as I think *The Empire Strikes Back* might have to be considered in the "classic" category -- it so very well uses all the elements of the classic space opera, including where character motivation and such are concerned), *Star Wars* did more to put sf back into the old Republic serials mode (with a little high-tech glitz'n'glamor) than anything else I can think of. It's a popcorn movie. Entertaining, fun, eye candy... and little more.

On the other hand, there were a number of big-budget sf films that came out of the later 1950s through the early 1970s that had some substance, were at least fairly popular with audiences (often quite popular) and garnered critical acclaim as well. *Fahrenheit 451*, for instance, fell within that period, as did (and this will make Ian shake his head at me, I'm sure) such off-the-usual-track films as *Last Year at Marienbad*, which certainly fits well within the "New Wave" sf penumbra. We also had *The Incredible Shrinking Man*, which was much, much more than a film about a big insect chasing a man around: it tackled the entire subject of the alienation of modern man and his seeming disjuncture with the past. A thoughtful film, did well with audiences, and with a fair amount of studio touting to boot.

To be honest, especially given the time, sf was already "cool", in that it tackled the issues that the mainstream was only becoming aware of, and usually led the way in this. It was very much in with the college-age audience, because it didn't sugar-coat the grim prospects for the future. SF had become "respectable" in many respects; a modern mythmaking, if you will... and film was often reflecting that. These films get shown somewhat less nowadays because of *Star Wars*' meretricious impact of once more reducing the idea of sf in cinema as mindless, bubblegum entertainment -- adventure tales with nothing more than (at best) a little pop philosophy to prop them up beyond that. But they were popular films, and they still retain a considerable amount of substance and worth, even when the effects may have long been surpassed.

I mean, let's face it -- intellectually speaking, *Star Wars* takes us back even beyond such an early film as Metropolis... not taking us forward, but back....


----------



## MG1962 (Jan 20, 2008)

iansales said:


> Nope. Not kidding. Science fiction was already "cool" - *Forbidden Planet* (the first big studio-backed colour sf film), *The Day the Earth Stood Still *(positive critical reaciton and excellent box office), *2001* (Kubrick!)...
> 
> And from 1967 to 1977 - *2001* again, *Planet of the Apes* (many), *The Andromeda Strain*, *A Clockwork Orange*, *Silent Running*, *Slaughterhouse Five*, *Solaris*, *Soylent Green*, *Westworld*, *Zardoz*, *Rollerball*, *Brainwave*, *Logan's Run*, *The Man Who Fell to Earth*...
> 
> *Star Wars*' popularity resulted in a deluge of rip-offs, everything from *Starcrash* to *Battle Beyond the Stars*, and few of them were any good. *Star Wars* led to the sfx-heavy summer blockbuster and proved that merchandising could reap huge financial rewards.


 
Then compare that to what happened over the next 6 years

Alien
ET
Blade Runner
Star Trek
Terminator
Close Encounter
Tron
Black Hole
Mad Max


That is some serious money going into a genre that in the previous thirty years was lucky to have ove a million dollars spent on the making of a film 3 maybe 4 times. To rubbish a film because it spawned some poor immitations is a frivolous arguement.

Right back in the begining with Destination Moon, this arguement about thinking mans science fiction films has raged. It is fine to say we should have this or that - the point is no bums on seats means films not being made.

The thing is Star Wars got people into cinemas, that normally would never have given science fiction a chance, some of those people came back and  back.

Perhaps most importantly it made science fiction fun again. Something it sorely needed after the self pleasuring exercises of 2001, Zadoz, Silent Running, THX etc etc


----------



## iansales (Jan 20, 2008)

If you're discussing *Star Wars*' impact on cinema, than to point out it resulted in a host of crap imitations is hardly frivolous.

And to say that *Star Wars* led to big-budget sfx-heavy blockbusters is no reason for classic status either. Few big-budget sfx-heavy could ever be considered "good". *Godzilla*, anyone?

And those films which followed - *Close Encounters* premiered the same year as *Star Wars*, so it couldn't have been influenced by it; the Star Trek films were following on from the television series; *Mad Max* was a low-budget Australian film; and *Black Hole* was one of the aforementioned crap imitations (from Disney, in fact)...

If there are true successors to *Star Wars*, they're not sf films but summer blockbusters, the sort of mindless eye-candy that relies on effects and not story, and merchandises everything - especially to kids not even old enough to actually watch the film! 

Sf never stopped being fun, but some of it did require thought. Why "fun" has to mean "brainless" is beyond me... but it seems pretty clear Hollywood think that's the case...


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 20, 2008)

MG1962 said:


> Then compare that to what happened over the next 6 years
> 
> Alien
> ET
> ...


 
I've always argued against the last portion of *2001* being either "self-indulgent" or "self pleasuring". It manages to say one heck of a lot that I'm not sure could be said in any other way; at least, not without taking a lot more screen time, and through dialogue that would be abstruse at best. In other words, it makes very good use of the visual medium to get across some very complex ideas in small compass, and shows considerable control in doing so.

If, on the other hand, we're talking self-indulgence, *Star Trek* (if by this you mean the first motion picture) certainly fits the bill. Those long dollies with the space dock, the painfully long approach through the strange "cloud" to V-ger (lord, I got so tired of seeing George Takei looking "impressed" -- not Takei's fault there, but after about the sixth reaction shot....); the stress of special effects over storytelling or even expanding on an idea.... No, that was a glorified episode of the original television series, bloated beyond all proportion. Cut it down to a little over an hour, and you'd have a much better film. And this from someone who has a liking for both S.T. _and_ Herbert Wise....


As for your list of films -- if you're meaning films that have had good box-office returns monetarily, then you may have a point on that level, but if you're indicating those that had a lot spent on making them, then even some of these don't fit: *Terminator* was made for a relatively modest budget for its time, while *Mad Max* was quite simply a very low-budget film. If we're talking genuine quality, or something that broke new ground, or showed what sf was capable of in visual media... then we're skating on even thinner ice here. Mind you, I happen to like several of these films, but even those aren't (generally speaking) truly innovative or "classic" in the true sense. *Blade Runner*, I would say, does fit that bill, and *Mad Max* does to some degree, but it's still in many ways a cult film rather than a genuine classic, or a truly notable film. While *Alien*, *Terminator*, *Close Encounters of the Third Kind* (another film that is enormously self-indulgent, not to mention more than a little obscurantist, by the way), *Tron*, and *The Black Hole* certainly don't break new ground, and at least the latter two are of questionable quality on nearly every level. *ET* does present us with a positive presentation of an alien juxtaposed to our xenophobia, but that, too, had been done before, and more than once (probably the best known of these being *It Came From Outer Space*, where the only reason they use the methods they did is to avoid precisely what nearly happens at the end... while all they wish to do is to return home... sound familiar?).

Flashy special effects do not a good film make. For one thing, special effects techniques quite often date badly. For another, so much concentration on special effects rather than substance in script, acting, or plotting consistency has done more to retard the growth of science fiction than perhaps anything else out there. Fun they may be (though I'd argue this with a few on your list -- *The Black Hole*, for instance, is a film I find completely unwatchable, despite having enormous regard for several of the people connected to it or in it. It is just a bad film. Tron really isn't much better, though at least I was able to sit through that one and enjoy some portions of it.

Yes, there's always going to be the impact of attempting to fill those seats, and there's certainly nothing wrong with adventure films per se, in whatever genre. But audiences flocked to *2001*, often for repeated viewings. *Silent Running* did fairly well, and has long since achieved classic status outside the sff fan base. *Zardoz* is a difficult and very flawed film, and I'm not sure I'd quite put it in with classics... though I do think it's worth seeing more than once. *THX1138* -- at least when I saw it the one time -- I found not so much self-indulgent as simply boring as hell, and a rather poor mishmash of several sf motifs (especially from *1984 *and *Brave New World*). But the higher intellectual end of the scale has always been the exception with movie-making; albeit few genres other than slasher horror and farce have turned out quite so many examples of simplistic, moronic, and frankly "puddingheaded" "artistry" as sf has done. And yes, I do see *Star Wars* as a big part of that problem. There's room for the adventure film and the fairy-tale style sf film, certainly; but there's no reason why intelligent sf can't also be entertaining, intriguing, fascinating, and popular... something which has been proven time and again, but which seems to be all-too-easily forgotten in light of our current penchant for blockbuster special-effects extravaganzas....

EDIT: Oi, Ian! Seeing your post (which apparently went in while I was working on mine), I have to wonder... which of us was replaced by a pod person?


----------



## iansales (Jan 20, 2008)

At the risk of sounding different for difference's sake, JD, I have to take issue with some of your comments 

I actually like the first Star Trek film. I think it's the most science-fictional of them all, and not at all like a bloated tv episode (which is what I think *The Wrath of Khan* is). *Tron* I think has dated horribly, but *The Black Hole* has so many things wrong with it that it actually hangs together in some weird sort of way. I think it might be the bizarre robots  *THX1138* is, I agree, dull and self-indulgent. *Zardoz* is horribly dated, but the thought of it hanging round Sean Connery's neck like an albatross never ceases to amuse me.

Having said that, I'm in complete agreement that a good sf film must be both entertaining and interesting, and too few post-*Star Wars* films fall into the latter category. Over the last few months, I've been working my way through a 25-movie DVD set of sf B-movies from the 1950s and 1960s. Most of them are dreadful, but some are actually quite interesting: *First Spaceship on Venus*, *Journey to the Prehistoric Planet*, *Queen of Blood*, *They Came From Beyond Space*... Which I suppose proves that big budgets have nothing to do with "good" or "interesting".


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jan 20, 2008)

Well, darn ... I thought I was the only SFF fan in existence who hadn't seen _2001_, and it turns out that I'm not unique after all.

(Now that I've been denied a place in the _Guinness Book of World Records_, I suppose I could break down and actually go see the film, but I probably won't.)


----------



## Pyan (Jan 21, 2008)

I actually saw it at the cinema on first release....gods, that dates me....


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 21, 2008)

pyan said:


> I actually saw it at the cinema on first release....gods, that dates me....


 
Well, mine wasn't on first release, but that's becaues of... circumstances, not age. And 2001 is a film that really should be seen in such a format -- an incredible experience when seen that way, whereas on a small screen, one loses that feeling of actually "being out there"....


----------



## Connavar (Jan 21, 2008)

Well said J.d and Iansales !  I agree fully on that you cant say SF movies are classic just cause they were a hit in the box office.  Many movies that were huge BO dont become classics.

The guy talked about Bladerunner and everyone knows it was a flop when it was new and got a better rep many years later enough to become a classic.


I dont see Mad Max,Terminator,Star Wars etc as SF classics.  Terminator was mostly action feast.  Mad Max cult yes but not much more.  T2 is prolly the coolest action movie from hollywood and an action classic but as SF it was nothing special.

Star Wars i also think did more damage and good and see more as a soap than a SF......

Thanks to it many people seem to think SF movies are only about special effects.

Tron even as a kid i thought it was lame and nothing special.  Still dont understand why it was famous.


----------



## Pyan (Jan 21, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> Well, mine wasn't on first release, but that's becaues of... circumstances, not age. And 2001 is a film that really should be seen in such a format -- an incredible experience when seen that way, whereas on a small screen, one loses that feeling of actually "being out there"....


Absolutely....but that applies to most films, I find. No matter how big your TV, it's never the same.
But 2001 was something else. Kubrick's use of silence, for a start...I think it was the first film I saw where spaceships didn't go "_whooosh"_...


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 21, 2008)

Connavar of Rigante said:


> Well said J.d and Iansales ! I agree fully on that you cant say SF movies are classic just cause they were a hit in the box office. Many movies that were huge BO dont become classics.
> 
> The guy talked about Bladerunner and everyone knows it was a flop when it was new and got a better rep many years later enough to become a classic.
> 
> ...


 
*Tron*? Chiefly, iirc, because it was the first lengthy use of CGI in a mainstream film; at that time, still an early technique, and massively expensive to produce. It was touted (here, at any rate) as 3D without the glasses sort of thing....

Ian: No problem. While I obviously disagree with you on some points (the first Star Trek film, for example, about which more in a moment), in general, I think we're much more in agreement here than is usual... which is why the "pod people" comment....

As for the first Star Trek film (and, for that matter, Khan)... I'd say they both belong in that category... save that Khan might have made a nice 2-parter with jazzier special effects than the original series. But the first film, while having all the right things, was seriously malproportioned, and they let the concern with special effects interfere with pacing and storytelling. Hence the comment about it being a glorified television episode. Understand: I have a liking for the film, and there are some _very_ good things about it. But I still consider it something of a failure because I feel its flaws outweigh its strengths _as a film_. As a _story_, _per se_, it's a retelling of "The Changeling", in many ways, and so very much in the spirit of the original series. It's certainly sf, and not an unintelligent film. It just needed to be tightened up by quite a bit; but Roddenberry & Co. got carried away by having the big budget for special effects; so....


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 21, 2008)

pyan said:


> Absolutely....but that applies to most films, I find. No matter how big your TV, it's never the same.
> But 2001 was something else. Kubrick's use of silence, for a start...I think it was the first film I saw where spaceships didn't go "_whooosh"_...


 
That... or that weird synthesizer effect the Barrons used for the saucer in *Forbidden Planet*.... And yes, Kubrick's use of silence was a very important part of that film, as was its format. I agree that most films do suffer from transferring to a small screen, but with some it's especially notable. They made full use of the medium they were intended to be shown in, and therefore you lose more with those than you do with many other films (especially the older films, which were shot in something more approaching a squarish format). As Kubrick tended to use every bit of his canvas, as it were, *2001* -- just as with *A Clockwork Orange*, or even *The Shining* -- belongs in this category....


----------



## Pyan (Jan 21, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> But the first film, while having all the right things, was seriously malproportioned, and they let the concern with special effects interfere with pacing and storytelling.



I've heard it referred to as *Star Trek: The Motionless Picture*.....


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 21, 2008)

pyan said:


> I've heard it referred to as *Star Trek: The Motionless Picture*.....


 
Ummm, yes... I believe it was Ellison who coined that one, in his review....


----------



## clovis-man (Jan 21, 2008)

pyan said:


> Absolutely....but that applies to most films, I find. No matter how big your TV, it's never the same.
> But 2001 was something else. Kubrick's use of silence, for a start...I think it was the first film I saw where spaceships didn't go "_whooosh"_...


 
.......And maybe the last as well. The Star Wars series, especially the latter three made the spacecraft sound like a hot rod rally. Kubrick tried for realism and, considering when it was filmed, succeeded quite well. The space toilet with the long set of instructions was a deliberate joke. The only thing that didn't follow the laws of physics was the meal on the moon shuttle. The liquid kept going back down the straw once the actor quit sucking on it: which wouldn't happen in zero gee.

For all his quirky obsessions, Kubrick managed to make a fantastic story premise seem believable by insisting on clinical realism. I, for one, appreciated that.


----------



## MG1962 (Jan 21, 2008)

iansales said:


> If you're discussing *Star Wars*' impact on cinema, than to point out it resulted in a host of crap imitations is hardly frivolous.
> ...


 
That reminds me of the music critic that bagged Led Zeppelin, because they spawned so many imitation bands - Held about as much water too


----------



## MG1962 (Jan 21, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> While *Alien*, *Terminator*, *Close Encounters of the Third Kind* (another film that is enormously self-indulgent, not to mention more than a little obscurantist, by the way)


 
Unfortunately Close Encounters is a good example of why we should keep producers and directors away from finished product. The original release of this film was a lot tighter and far better story telling than the mangled re-edits.

The same can be said for Bladerunner, the voice over and rain scenes were added by a studio running out of money - For me the orginal version was always the best because of it's accidental film noir feeling and thoughtful science fiction.


----------



## tangaloomababe (Jan 21, 2008)

Originally posted by Connavar of Rigante:



> Is Soylent Green classic SF ?


 
Just to clarify Con: I didn't actually say Soylent Grren was a classic, a good movie for sure but not what you would call a classic. What I said though was :



> I have seen I am Legend and its predecesor Omega Man. However Charlton Hestons other sci fi's are better including the likes of Soylent Green and Planet of the Apes. (just the first one


 
I prefer it over Omega Man, but Planet of the Apes is actually better than  both of them. Chuck has had an amazing career with a whole aray of movies, there have been the odd bad choice in there but otherewise I could watch most of his movies.

I agree with most that the original Star Wars is a classic. I recall seeing it at the movies when it first came out, we had seen nothing even like this before, just brilliant and it launched a young and handsome Harrison Ford into the spotlight.


----------



## steve12553 (Jan 21, 2008)

tangaloomababe said:


> I agree with most that the original Star Wars is a classic. I recall seeing it at the movies when it first came out, we had seen nothing even like this before, just brilliant and it launched a young and handsome Harrison Ford into the spotlight.


 
I remember sitting in the theater with not idea of what was coming and seeing the small space ship being chased by the larger ship that just kept filling the screen and coming overhead. I have only seen such an impressive jump in special effect capability one other time in my lifetime. That was, of course *2001*. I've not walked out of a theater that impressed since. There have obviously been better special effects since then but not better by leaps and bounds. I guess that really only makes movies like *Star Wars *a classic to people who lived their life in the order I did or similarly so. The effects of the later parts (1, 2, 3, 5, & 6) were better and more impressive but I was much less impressed.


----------



## Connavar (Jan 21, 2008)

tangaloomababe said:


> Originally posted by Connavar of Rigante:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didnt wonder if its was a SF classic or not but if its seen as good old SF movie.  The classic thing was just that many people talk about it and Heston did have other classics like Planet of The Apes. 


I agree about Star Wars too.  It was a great series(the old movies ) and HF is a big reason cause of that IMO, sure its a classic but i dont see it as SF classic.


----------



## Pyan (Jan 21, 2008)

Regardless....I saw Star Wars in the second week of its first release (at the Odeon, Leicester Square (!)) and it remains the only film I've ever seen where the cinema audience _stood up and clapped_ at the final credits....



			
				steve12553 said:
			
		

> I have only seen such an impressive jump in special effect capability one other time in my lifetime. That was, of course *2001*. I've not walked out of a theater that impressed since. There have obviously been better special effects since then but not better by leaps and bounds


Absolutely....a giant leap in SFX, the magnitude of which hasn't been beaten since. For this alone, I think "classic" is deserved.


----------



## Connavar (Jan 21, 2008)

Its epicness made it classic for sure.   The story itself was more fantasy than SF which is why i dont see it SF classic.  


Having read a certain famous other Science Fantasy recently, i was shocked how much of SW was inspired from it...

Not saying SW is worse cause of that but without certain themes and ideas from Dune i wonder how big SW would be today.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 21, 2008)

pyan said:


> Regardless....I saw Star Wars in the second week of its first release (at the Odeon, Leicester Square (!)) and it remains the only film I've ever seen where the cinema audience _stood up and clapped_ at the final credits....


 
Actually, I did see the same thing happen with *Empire* -- there was also such a reaction when the film began....

I'll agree that *Star Wars* and *The Empire Strikes Back* deserve their status, as they captured a certain type of sf very well; they're enjoyable films, and visually captivating. My only complaint against them is that -- technical aspects aside -- there's nothing really new there; we're seeing (again) a glorified sci-fi serial from the 1940s done with more glitz-'n'-glamour. This is not to knock the films per se, but to keep them in perspective as to what their impact (both positive and negative) has been for sf in film....


----------



## iansales (Jan 21, 2008)

I saw the same reaction during *Rambo*, but I suspect that might have been ironic...


----------



## Pyan (Jan 21, 2008)

Connavar of Rigante said:


> The story itself was more fantasy than SF which is why i don't see it SF classic.


Ah, there we have to agree to disagree, because your classification into SF and Fantasy categories obviously differ wildly from mine.



			
				Conn said:
			
		

> Having read a certain famous other Science Fantasy recently, i was shocked how much of SW was inspired from it...
> Not saying SW is worse cause of that but without certain themes and ideas from Dune i wonder how big SW would be today.



I don't think that _Dune_ was that original, either...the uniqueness of _Dune_, IMHO, is in its setting and scope.....the _plot_ is really just another telling of the _"young dispossessed heir overcoming great problems to regain his throne"_ story.


----------



## clovis-man (Jan 22, 2008)

Connavar of Rigante said:


> Its epicness made it classic for sure. The story itself was more fantasy than SF which is why i dont see it SF classic.
> 
> 
> Having read a certain famous other Science Fantasy recently, i was shocked how much of SW was inspired from it...


 
I'm at the point of having trouble parsing out what we mean here by "Classic SF Films". If we don't consider *Star Wars/Dune* (Yes there are parallels: Storm troopers/Sardaukar, Sand People/Fremen) as science fiction, then what is the proper appellation to use? I don't see them as fantasy. After all, there is technology and science woven into the fabric of either story. But I would agree that neither is hard SF.

How about this: perhaps we can call them Social Science Fiction. But then frankly, Scarlett..............

In any case, I would absolutely place the original *Star Wars* into the classic category. Either the original or the SciFi Channel version of *Dune* I would not.

Jim


----------



## Quokka (Jan 22, 2008)

_Metropolis_ is probably one of the biggest ones I'm still to see, I have managed to tick a few off that I had been meaning to watch for a long time like _The Day the Earth Stood Still_, _Blade Runner,_ _2001_ and _Them!_ is_ Them!_ a classic, maybe not but although the giant ants look silly now much of the rest of the film still works very well and i like Bug movies .

_2001_ isn't one of my favourite films.... I'm sorry I just like dialogue too much (in my films and books) and this movie doesn't have any but I certainly enjoyed it and the special effects are amazing for their ingenuity, in some of the scenes I kept getting distracted thinking about how the stage and cameras were set up to give different effects.

It's also one of the most realistic explorations as to what the near future might look like, I love the scene where one of the characters is talking to his daughter via a video phone that looks like a computer set up with a webcam.


----------



## iansales (Jan 22, 2008)

I'd call both *Star Wars* and *Dune* science fiction. *Dune* I think is greatly under-rated, but hardly a classic. Lucas ripped off Saturday morning serials, westerns and Joseph Campbell more than he did *Dune* - in fact, I suspect the parallels are coincidental.


----------



## Connavar (Jan 23, 2008)

iansales said:


> I'd call both *Star Wars* and *Dune* science fiction. *Dune* I think is greatly under-rated, but hardly a classic. Lucas ripped off Saturday morning serials, westerns and Joseph Campbell more than he did *Dune* - in fact, I suspect the parallels are coincidental.



Its not coincidental when he said he was inspired by Dune among other works.

The fact Dune came out only a decade before and it main theme of the main hero and his powers are also the main thing in Star Wars. I wasnt talking about the empire thing or whatver.  Thats generic for stories like that.

That theme might not have been original for Dune either but there are too much similarities to say coincidence.


Also i dont see how you can Dune is strictly SF.  The story at first you thought was fantasy.  It was generic epic fantasy in the first 100 or so pages. The main characters family life was the medevil Noble family life you see in many fantasy.  For example in GRRM SOIAF.

You are saying Dune the novel isnt a classic ?  Or you talking about the movie ?


----------



## clovis-man (Jan 23, 2008)

Connavar of Rigante said:


> You are saying Dune the novel isnt a classic ? Or you talking about the movie ?


 
I'll only speak for myself here. I consider Herbert's novel a classic. Both of its film incarnations? Not really. I thought we were just talking about films here.

Jim


----------



## iansales (Jan 23, 2008)

Novel, yes. Film, no.


----------



## Pyan (Jan 23, 2008)

iansales said:


> Novel, yes. Film, no.


Applicable to at least 95% of adaptations, I'm afraid.


----------



## iansales (Jan 24, 2008)

If you're not considering genre films... then both *Marnie* and *The Commitments* are better films than they were books.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Jan 25, 2008)

Nice to see there are no SF "classics" here that I have not seen or heard of... with one notable exception: *Slaughterhouse Five*.  It's the one movie that I've never seen on TV, nor managed to find at the video stores.

I will add my voice in stating that being an old SF movie doesn't necessarily qualify it as a "classic."  And there are a number of old gems (many of which have been lampooned on _MST3K_, for instance) that should never be considered classics by any means.

However, one of the oldest SF movies I know, *Transatlantic Tunnel*, made when movies had barely learned to talk, is arguably a "classic" by most standards, though it was not that popular when it was released, nor enjoyed much notoriety since.  (It was more a film about the people building the tunnel, and their trials, than about the tunnel-building itself... and just like today, audiences back then responded to the excitement and special effects of most SF movies, rather than character development.)


----------



## MG1962 (Jan 25, 2008)

Steve Jordan said:


> Nice to see there are no SF "classics" here that I have not seen or heard of... with one notable exception: *Slaughterhouse Five*. It's the one movie that I've never seen on TV, nor managed to find at the video stores.
> 
> I will add my voice in stating that being an old SF movie doesn't necessarily qualify it as a "classic." And there are a number of old gems (many of which have been lampooned on _MST3K_, for instance) that should never be considered classics by any means.


 
I think the definition of classic has a lot to do with what you are getting out of the film. Invaders From Mars (1953) is a good example - On the surface it is a fairly pedestrian tale of Martians comming to Earth. When you watch the film closely, you see how many scenes are shot from the perspective of the little boy. Some of the sets, such as the police station, is almost German expressionist in idesign. All put together to show the growing fear of the boy and his dis-enfranchising from the people he loves and trusts.


----------



## clovis-man (Jan 25, 2008)

iansales said:


> If you're not considering genre films... then both *Marnie* and *The Commitments* are better films than they were books.


 
As is *Sphinx*. The novel by Robin Cook was okay. The movie was better, more suspenseful.

Jim


----------



## Connavar (Jan 27, 2008)

iansales said:


> Novel, yes. Film, no.



I thought so since i saw in your blog that you rate Dune so highly.


I will never watch the movies,tv series or whatever, dont want to ruin my images of the great first book that i have read so far.


----------



## DeepThought (Feb 4, 2008)

I'm finally going to work through the list,  but not before re-watching the original Dune movie by David Lynch .

*Bladerunner*, Riddly Scott - yes, its true, I'm ashamed to say I've not watched this sci-fi cult classic. Its loosely based on the Philip k Dick novel; Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (which I've read).

*A Clockwork Orange*, Stanley Kubrick - another chilling dystopian future, supposed to be very violent/graphic.
*
2001: A Space Odyssey*, Stanley Kubrick - based on the famous novels of the same name by none other than Authur C. Clarke himself, who also has said to have written the script for the movie on insistence of the director...
*
Logan's Run*, Michael Anderson - A dystopian future in which the government takes a very...unique approach to population control.
*
Colossus: The Forbin Project* - American defence computer hits singularity hence becomes infinteley more intelligent than human beings (it becomes sentient) and trys to take over the world  hehe this reminds me of the cartoon _Pinky and the Brain_...

*Wargames*,  John Badham - I've read about this, watched trailers, read articles yet not seen it on TV...its about a hacker who cracks into Pentagon supercomputers (this is all from memory and very vague), which quickly get horribly out of hand...I know this is no SF movie though a classic for sure, but since I dabble in programming myself, I have always had a soft spot for cyberpunk movies .

*The Takedown*, Joe Chappelle - Yet another cyberpunk movie...My motives for watching this is the same as above...this was the time that I had a fascination about dark hat hacker Kevin Mitnick (a shady character, I'm afraid) who was rumored to have remained off the FBI radar solely based on his technical prowess with programming and mobile phone technology. The film supposedly shows how some Japanese dude of considerable fame in the computer/internet world who is credited to have tracked down Kevin eventually.

Well, there are lots more, but got these off the top of my head.

Cheer's, DeepThought


----------



## booksforlunch (Feb 4, 2008)

SF classics I haven´t seen yet, put *want *to see some day :

Metropolis
Fahrenheit 451
Soylent Green ( I hope it doesn´t hurt too much that I already *know *what SG *is  *)
Brazil


----------



## iansales (Feb 5, 2008)

DeepThought - *2001* is not based on Clarke's novel. It's based on his short story, 'The Sentinel'. Kubrick and Clarke co-wrote the script, and then Clarke wrote the novel of the film. The sequel *2010*, however, is adapted from Clarke's novel.


----------



## jenna (Feb 5, 2008)

Lol, I'm so glad I didn't know what Soylent Green was before I watched the movie! I'm trying to think of some classics I haven't seen, but I've spent a lot of time tracking down and watching a lot of these movies.. Loved 2001 (saw it at a midnight cinema screening, awesome!), Clockwork Orange, Metropolis, Star Wars.. Although I saw Blade Runner and didn't think too much of it, perhaps I wasn't in the right mood, or I think I was expecting something completely different.

One that I haven't seen is Solaris (the original, seen the remake... George Clooney... mmmmmm), but not sure I'd be thinking of making such a longgggg commitment at this stage of my life, lol!


----------



## DeepThought (Feb 5, 2008)

iansales said:


> DeepThought - *2001* is not based on Clarke's novel. It's based on his short story, 'The Sentinel'. Kubrick and Clarke co-wrote the script, and then Clarke wrote the novel of the film. The sequel *2010*, however, is adapted from Clarke's novel.



Ahh, my bad, thanks for pointing this out _iansales_, so _Clarke's_ famous book is actually based on the film, not the other way around. Now that's something you don't see everyday, especially nowadays, it's sad that _Kubrick's_ not with us; he could have gone on to make so many great film's.

Cheers, DeepThought


----------



## Connavar (May 6, 2010)

I can cross *Forbidden Planet *from this list.  I just saw it in TCM i was surprised they showed a classic film let alone SF one that i couldnt help but make time for seeing it.

Shakespeare or not it was a real Golden Age SF story which was surprising to see in hollywood film.  I enjoyed the story,characters and even the twist in the end.  A real classic that has stood the test of time. The dated science,techs,looks didnt bother me at all.  

So nice,refereshing to see a real SF film and not another  dumb action film in sf setting.....


----------



## J Riff (May 13, 2010)

Well, do see 2001. It's very relaxing, and uncontaminated by 'modern' pacing. Long sections of classical music, no dialogue, they don't make em' like that anymore.
 Reckon I've obsessively seen almost everything SciFi - including hunnerts of B-C-D rated flix.
Try The Beast of Yucca Flats for the ultimate in inanity. This puts it on a par with StarTrek and StarWars and other soap-opera style series IMHO. 
 Don't get me wrong - I don't hate trek or wars.. they simply aren't classics of anything other than modern dumbed-down sciFi. Effects count for nothing anymore.
I am Legend, recent version, made me queesy. AVP was awful. Starship Troopers was fun, but all wrong. Things like Sunshine, The Core, Armeggedon, are embarrasingly inaccurate, scientifically speaking. 
 Time to stop the dumb-down ! Stop the space-opera-ish series where the cast is more important than the story. 
 Another thing - a lot of people watch the old movies via mystery science theatre, which ran it's course long ago. Watch the 50s stuff and give it a chance rather than turning it into a juvenile farce.


----------



## tygersmovie (Jul 22, 2010)

The Day of the Triffids


----------

