The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

[zedz]

I wasn’t a huge fan of the film, but wasn’t The American Astronaut a musical? It’s probably weird enough to be of interest to some here.

[The Pachyderminator]

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog and Earth Girls are Easy

[therewillbeblus]

Finally cracked open my copy of Kino's Outer Limits season 2 and skipped right to Demon with a Glass Hand, which seems to be universally considered the show's crowning achievement- for good reason. This episode is pure, condensed noir action. The fatalism, existential stakes, and disillusionment all contribute to an expressionistic mood, as do the exciting setpieces and narrative twists that reveal information to us just as they do to our amnesiac protagonist. I look forward to going through the entire season at some point, but this episode is likely the one to make my list. I don't know if it's really trying to 'say' anything (with the finale not exactly landing the sharp solemnity it may be intending) but it's a blast all the way, and one of those cases where I imagine popular opinion on the ranks is correct.

[colinr0380]

And of course the fantastic anime Macross: Do You Remember Love?, in which a love song literally wins a battle at the climax!

Also Macross Plus for the first onscreen virtual pop idol figure.

[Dr Amicus]

Actually, I'd say Shock Treatment, the follow up to Rocky Horror, probably does class as SF - it certainly feels like near future satire following the classic if-this-goes-on trope. Anyway, some recent viewings:

Lockout (Stephen Saint Leger & James Mather, 2012): It’s Luc Besson rewriting Escape From New York in space – so obviously in fact that Carpenter sued and won. Guy Pearce does a decent Kurt Russell having to find Maggie Grace (the president’s daughter) who’s trapped on a space prison in the middle of a mass escape / riot. There’s a token if-this-goes-on subplot about future prisons, but basically this is solid B-movie shooty bangy punchy fun. Oh, and special mention to Jo Gilgun as the main villain’s psychotic brother / sidekick who, realising properly the tone of the film, goes very entertainingly over the top.

The Vast of Night (Andrew Patterson, 2019): I liked this quite a bit. Apart from the name of the radio station where one of the major characters works (WOTW) the knowingness in approach to genre tropes and history is thematic rather than in-jokey. Looking at how race and gender have generally been treated in the past but not in too emphatic a manner it largely avoids Star Trek style preachiness. Equally, the constantly roving camera (except primarily for a 10 minute telephone exchange sequence) belies a more typical low budget SF / horror approach of a sharply contained location whilst stressing the desertedness of the town. Ultimately it does feel somewhat like a calling card film but is definitely worth watching.

Storage 24 (Johannes Roberts, 2012): And this takes the opposite approach – a confined space as our heroes find themselves trapped in a storage facility with an alien as it picks them off one by one. To be honest, the SF trappings of this are minimal – it would work pretty much as well with a vampire or a serial killer – but there are occasional radio / TV clippings to suggest a bigger picture. Nice and short, under 90 mins, and the monster is pretty impressive on the small budget but basically another solid B movie. If the film isn’t in the same league as the similarly low-budget, old-school Attack The Block it’s decent enough. As a side note, the co-writer, producer and star is Noel Clarke, a key figure in Black British cinema (and with his own SF history from Doctor Who).

Last and First Men (Jóhann Jóhannsson, 2020). What Zedz said. Olaf Stapledon, the author of the original novel, is a big gap in my SF reading being a key figure in the development of British SF / Scientific Romance. He was a major influence on Clarke amongst others, and there appear to be a couple of nods to 2001 in the film (the opening shot appears to be an upside down monolith, the shots of the dying sun reminded me of HAL’s camera eye). Hypnotic, at times even moving, this will definitely make my final list.

[L.A.]

Yesterday I watched Humanoids from the Deep (1980). I was really expecting it to be utter trash but actually I liked it. Enough gore. Those half man, half fish creatures (or coelacanths to be precise) were impressive which were designed by Rob Bottin. Also James Horner did the score and I think this was one of his first jobs as a composer in a feature-length film. Next Roger Corman film I really want to see is Galaxy of Terror (1981), the Shout Factory steelbook edition should be a new restoration, am I correct?

Sergio Martino directed Island of the Fishmen (1979), a year before Humanoids. I’m intriqued of this as well.

[YnEoS]

There is a really bizarre early sci-fi musical called Just Imagine (David Butler, 1930) before the genre really got consolidated and they were throwing music numbers into whatever that is all out sci-fi and not just borderline sci-fi elements. Its not an especially good film, but I'd say its weird enough to be worth seeing at least once.

[bamwc2]

I wasn’t a huge fan of the film, but wasn’t The American Astronaut a musical? It’s probably weird enough to be of interest to some here.

Yes. I found the musical numbers to be the best part of it.

[Feego]

I've never seen either of these, but it appears that both The Apple and Repo! The Genetic Opera count as sci-fi musicals.

[bamwc2]

I've never seen either of these, but it appears that both The Apple and Repo! The Genetic Opera count as sci-fi musicals.

Repo! The Genetic Opera was so bad that it's one of the few times I've ever quit a movie halfway through. I've probably done that less than ten times in my life.

[knives]

While watching Source Code, more thoughts on that later, it got me thinking how great Tony Scott's Deja Vu is for this. It excellently does the one thing change idea of sci-fi having that one change, basically a universal CCTV, with that one change being the one that makes the most sense for his late era style. It's fragmented and curious about the nature of time by flattening it in on itself so that it no longer fits the Indo-European past, present, future tenses, but becomes more like the Semitic incomplete and complete tenses.

[therewillbeblus]

Coincidentally I also just revisited Source Code and felt similarly, especially pertaining to the ending’s implications on

SpoilerShow

alternate realities as consequences of this abstract-time process

which sells the idea of a person growing and developing a life within that repeat scenario in a manner that feels organic and satisfying. In choosing to embrace an alternative, enigmatic perspective rather than drawing fear from it, the film allows them to continue on without a western (or probably more apt to say "Indo-European") limited blockade to stunt that growth.

[knives]

That talk wasn't about Source Code so much as the Scott. I don't think Source Code works in the manner I was talking about.

[therewillbeblus]

Yeah I guess I was reaching to connect the two, but I do think there's something to a reading of Source Code's ability to formulate a catharsis out of step with the traditional 'breaking' of this 'trapped' situation, and instead finding a newfound freedom in those circumstances by reframing time as a liberating rather than constricting construct.

[knives]

Absolutely, if I understand you correctly, but I don't think that's in Scott's film. Just look at the difference in perspectives of the characters played by Washington and Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal has a desire to change time, but Washington has long accepted the reality of the tech and there's no lost quality. Gyllenhaal has more in common with Moon's protagonist to my eyes as a journey of defining self.

[Mr Sausage]

Sergio Martino directed Island of the Fishmen (1979), a year before Humanoids. I’m intriqued of this as well.

It’s not bad. Here’s my write up from the Horror list thread:

Island of the Fishmen (Sergio Martino, 1979): Better than a movie titled Island of the Fishmen has any right to be. An Island of Dr. Moreau clone essentially, with some voodoo, an unstable volcano, and Joseph Cotton thrown in for good measure. Some castaways wash up on a mysterious island under the iron rule of Richard Johnson, and everything that you would expect to happen happens. It's predictable, and yet somehow manages to be entertaining. There are some surprisingly effective under water special effects, including a giant submerged city wriggling with fishmen. Equally surprising is how the movie refuses its ample opportunities to be exploitative (there is next to no gore for instance). I appreciated the odd little touches that you commonly find in Italian genre films. Here, not content merely to have fishmen, the movie makes them drug addicts as well. I don't know why, presumably so there could be a scene of a Barbara Bach pouring white liquid from a chalice into the waiting gullets of fishmen as they stroke her face. The voodoo priestess is named Shakira, and I laughed every single time someone called her that. The movie was redubbed, reedited, and outfitted with newly shot scenes (nearly all of them explicit gore) for both of its American releases, so you'll also find it under the titles Something Waits in the Dark and Screamers. I haven't seen these shorter, gorier versions.

[therewillbeblus]

Absolutely, if I understand you correctly, but I don't think that's in Scott's film. Just look at the difference in perspectives of the characters played by Washington and Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal has a desire to change time, but Washington has long accepted the reality of the tech and there's no lost quality. Gyllenhaal has more in common with Moon's protagonist to my eyes as a journey of defining self.

Definitely (pertaining to the Jones' works)- I really need to see the Washington movie again. I grew up watching everything he was in because he's my dad's favorite actor and I like most of the critically-mauled works (i.e Out of Time) but Deja Vu is a bit hazier in my memory.

Regarding Duncan Jones.. Friendly advice: Nobody should watch Mute, which is still one of the most disappointing failures I’ve experienced after looking forward to it for the better part of a decade.

[therewillbeblus]

For the straight comedies, it's tough to beat Galaxy Quest. The cast superbly handles very witty material, but it’s their idiosyncratic noises, looks, and half-artificial/half-startled deliveries between character and "character" that sell this whole parody; involving us in earned characters development that's still wholly in swing with the self-reflexive sitcoms being stretched for new possibilities in adventure. I'm glad to see how well it holds up as a childhood favorite of my sister's and mine (though what a pleasure to recognize that it's Enrico Colantoni as the main alien- who is so good here it's practically unbelievable Veronica's dad has such range).

Idiocracy is even better though, a film many are repelled by but I think is not only tenaciously creative but immensely satisfying at taking a very real truth about population trends at the start and getting shamelessly carried away with it. Judge may be callous but he recognizes a splitting in humanity at the vertex of the 21st century and exposes the fears associated with fair disappointments in a lighthearted, fun way. I'm not embarrassed for how hard I laughed on a revisit (my first in probably ten years) and love it even more now as a cathartic validation in Trump's America. I forgot how radically un-PC this film is though (including one of the film's biggest laughs coming in a very unexpected slur-drop early on), so in light of the Fox 'situation' and no real care given to the film by any market, it's too bad to think of it falling into further obscurity, as it in all likelihood will.

[Mr Sausage]

What's crazy to me about Idiocracy is that I don't think I've ever seen someone bring up the fact that, well...it takes eugenics seriously. On the contrary, I tend to see people elsewhere on the net praising its premise as being essentially true.

[domino harvey]

Mike Judge on that:

Fast Company: We live in polarized times, which means that for every ‘Idiocracy is a documentary!’ take that goes around, there’s also a critique that argues that Idiocracy is a celebration of eugenics. Have you thought about that interpretation of it?

Mike Judge: Well, yeah. I mean I’ve actually read that a couple of times. But to me, I thought the opening made it very clear that whatever side you take, nature and nurture are both covered in that. That guy is clearly not a good father. I mean, there’s a kid with a motorcycle in the front yard, and no one’s paying attention to this. He’s just irresponsibly knocking up different woman, and proud of it. It’s not like he’s a good, upstanding role model for the kid. So I think it’s pretty clear here that, whichever one it is, [nature or nurture], there’s some combination of both. I obviously don’t believe in eugenics. I think you could look at it both ways–you have this couple that’s trying to be so responsible that they end up never having kids. Then there’s another couple who just irresponsibly keeps having them and not raising them right. So, you know, if the other couple adopted the other kids. I’m sure they would probably be better off.

[therewillbeblus]

Colossal

I already talked a little about this film before, including analyzing the wild decision to dilute Sudeikis’ humanity as the narrative sheds his dimensions, piercing the Nice Guy’s falsehoods by thinning rather than embellishing a character (or, suggesting that removing any complications on his skin to the parts that count may be the point). This is so much more than that, though such a reading is the beginning of the thesis for Vigalondo’s masterpiece, and one of the best films of the millennium thus far. It’s a movie that forces reflection on our actions and the people we harm, muses on whether intent or awareness matters, and dares to challenge humanism in favor of behaviorism, not as a declarative stance but as a serious question. The science fiction elements, as they reveal themselves in allegory, become so dark and unsettling that anyone who dares examine their past with a sober eye should be prepared for some discomfort.

Even Sudeikis’ characterization proposes an insightful perspective simply by remembering Hathaway, validating her existence in their first scene together, while she cannot even remember attending his mother’s funeral. Does that make him “good?” Are his memories those of consideration or selfish obsession? Is Hathaway a “bad” person because she doesn’t remember, or can't demonstrate that she cares about those around her the manner we expect? Or is all of this a swarm of truths that simply exist as we try to divorce aims from their effects on others, and fail without an easy 'out' granted?

Hathaway fully immerses herself into this role, her best ever, especially as she struggles to regain traction and moral ground while unable to escape her own traumas experienced and caused, or stop the train of coercion she now finds herself in. As an aside, the way addicts treat their 'friends' as only worthy based on their collaborative habits, feed off controlling others and lashing out to keep others down (or 'take hostages' to use a program term), is definitively on point to the "hurt people hurt people" postulation. In general, the depictions of addiction and the complex predicaments that populate one’s ‘bottom’ don’t get any more invasive and perceptive than this. Alcohol fuels the lives of these people, causes their demons to emerge, and also saves them (or offers momentary reprieve) from the problems that are rooted their own personalities, the gate only unlocked by the drink.

Timecrimes is the filmmaker’s most traditional science-fiction movie, and one that deserves to be seen by anyone interested in the time-travel concept. It’s not amazing, but it’s entertaining and twisty in design- a more comprehensible Primer with a mystery-adventure narrative. However, Colossal is using the genre to formulate a visual manifestation of our shameful vulnerabilities, normally hidden away as skeletons in the closet even in the most aggressively existential films. In 12-step programs people talk about keeping one’s problems and ego “right-sized” and the effort to not allow our defects, humiliations, resentments, damage, and problems flood our existence and trample on those around us. Hathaway’s intrigue into the events she’s watching on TV are wonderful to watch in hindsight, a metaphor for the level of disconnect one can have from the consequences of their actions, not even seeing an opportunity for responsibility in the repressed state of precontemplation of their problems.. a cave of ignorance. She’s drawn to them though, able to feel a relationship to the events. But what about the other side of this? The film's greatest strength is that it actually functions as a double allegory: One for how we minimize our effects on others, but also our egotistical need for the world to revolve around us, occasionally projecting a greater importance than may actually exist. It’s both devastating and satisfying for Hathaway that her actions can have such an impact.

This is a movie about the challenge in navigating the space in sobering up without a blueprint for how to cope. The sensation that the world is about to be annihilated under the weight of what we've said or done, and how this both feeds our inflated sense of self and crushes our self-esteem simultaneously. The disease of solipsism, self-hatred, the fear of being trapped by these infections and their ramifications for eternity, and the ultimate fantasy of curing this all with a final grand gesture to take back control (complete with characters watching and smiling, egging us on- only in the movies!) makes the ending in particular one of the most powerful I've ever seen; because it's also about going to "any lengths" to make living amends and take control of your life where you can, in a positive affirmation of growth and humility. We can rid ourselves of our demons, at least the ones too big and scary to get a handle on, but the job isn't finished which is why the final line and reaction carry so much weight: The story isn't done with, it never is- but that will be okay in time and a deflating mood shift is so appropriate a response that I want to laugh with, cry for, and comfort her at the same time. I could write a book on this one, so I’ll just stop- but if you haven’t seen it, please do yourself a favor and change that.

[Mr Sausage]

Mike Judge on that:

Fast Company: We live in polarized times, which means that for every ‘Idiocracy is a documentary!’ take that goes around, there’s also a critique that argues that Idiocracy is a celebration of eugenics. Have you thought about that interpretation of it?

Mike Judge: Well, yeah. I mean I’ve actually read that a couple of times. But to me, I thought the opening made it very clear that whatever side you take, nature and nurture are both covered in that. That guy is clearly not a good father. I mean, there’s a kid with a motorcycle in the front yard, and no one’s paying attention to this. He’s just irresponsibly knocking up different woman, and proud of it. It’s not like he’s a good, upstanding role model for the kid. So I think it’s pretty clear here that, whichever one it is, [nature or nurture], there’s some combination of both. I obviously don’t believe in eugenics. I think you could look at it both ways–you have this couple that’s trying to be so responsible that they end up never having kids. Then there’s another couple who just irresponsibly keeps having them and not raising them right. So, you know, if the other couple adopted the other kids. I’m sure they would probably be better off.

Eh, poor, neglectful, or abusive households don't produce people with low IQs tho', nor do the opposite necessarily produce ones with high IQs (and in general, people are resilient; they can and do recover from situations far more horrific than Judge describes). He can spin it how he wants, but the situation is the eugenicist's nightmare: that a unvalued class of people will dilute the human race with inferior children by outbreeding the better orders.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not outraged by this, nor do I wish to call the movie bad because of it. I'm more struck by how rarely I hear people remark on it vs. how often I see people consider the situation literally the case.

[The Pachyderminator]

Child poverty and abuse
are associated with lower IQ scores and academic achievement generally, though. Obviously not to the extent depicted in the film, but that's why there's a difference between science fiction and actual science.

[therewillbeblus]

A.I. Artificial Intelligence is a film I’ve warmed to over the years (I hated it in theatres), and after many revisits of gradually increasing favorable returns, has emerged as one of the most empathetic, philosophical, and intellectually dense science-fiction films I've seen, under the guise of a straightforward Spielberg vehicle. The at-times excruciating first act raises enough ethical dilemmas alone to destroy an audience, and Spielberg is wise not to cut away from the difficult rhetorical emotional questions that have no answers. The narrative’s momentum is perfect for Spielberg’s wheelhouse though, and as he explores the hesitations and risks taken in forging connections (of all kinds, take that subtly placed nervousness between the human woman and Gigolo Joe in his first scene) the spectacle fuses the state of loneliness and its limited solutions with abysmal darkness and luminous wonder. A grey worldview is projected in color.

The range of ideas and tones is uncomfortably vast, but Spielberg commands the scattered amalgamation with confidence to project the messy soup of life's varied experiences in an uncompromised vision; a mixture of entertaining and despiriting stimuli, so pleasurable and so very painful. The power of belief though, faith and friendship, can make meaning- which authenticate a life. For all the gloom obstructing sustained optimism, the religious tragedy in the literal icon-obsession with the Blue Fairy, and the slippage of time that destroys opportunities and perpetuates loneliness, the story prevails as all shades of humanity shine bright with unconditional empathy from the film’s makers- making the life in question unquestionably “real.”

The magic that aliens, robots, and mystical presences all just want any ‘living’ creature to be happy, is as beautiful an outlook as it is depressing that this is an impossible meaning to give another. The finale’s reading of catharsis as a fleeting moment that can last forever in our hearts through memory.. well, what can be said about a feeling like this?

[Mr Sausage]

Child poverty and abuse
are associated with lower IQ scores and academic achievement generally, though. Obviously not to the extent depicted in the film, but that's why there's a difference between science fiction and actual science.

Yes. IQ standards were developed (by eugenicists incidentally) from testing mainly white people from high socioeconomic classes. It’s no surprise that people outside of that narrow range are going to get different results. Is that because they’re dumber, or because of the nature of the standards and what is labled normal?

Don’t confuse how well people perform on tests with intelligence. There are plenty of situational factors that can affect performance, but it turns out if you change those situations people generally prove to have ‘normal’ intelligence levels. The poor are not driving down intelligence levels in the population, tho’ they may not be in life situations that allow them to perform well on tests not developed with them in mind.

Real lack of intelligence is more a result of rigid thinking, narrow views, and a lack of curiosity—and you can find those things widely across all socio-economic statuses.