ysbreker

Movie/TV recommendations

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Patrick R said:

My conception of "hard sci-fi" may be mine alone. 

I think so. Usually "hard sci-fi" means there's an attempt to be (more or less) scientifically plausible, whereas non-hard sci-fi doesn't make the attempt. So for instance something like Star Trek or Star Wars wouldn't be hard sci-fi, because it's basically just space magic that does whatever it needs to for the story, whereas Gravity and Inception would be hard sci-fi because they don't continually break the laws of physics or rewrite the rules of technology in each scene. Thus typically Under the Skin would go in the non-hard sci-fi category because the little technology that's in there is basically magic, whereas Snowpiercer would be hard sci-fi because it's pretty much just a big train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'd still maybe disagree with you a little about what is and isn't plausible (I think Snowpiercer and Inception are highly implausible, while Under the Skin's technology is merely inscrutable) but I think I resist using your definition of "hard sci-fi" (while acknowledging that, if it's indeed what most people mean when using the phrase, it doesn't make any sense for me to stubbornly cling to my own definition) because I'm just not the kind of dude who can pick out what is and isn't against the laws of science, especially when it comes to films that deal with other worlds, alien species or civilizations centuries in the future. And saying Iron Man is hard sci-fi because there's a lot of scenes of Tony building and testing his suit while Star Trek: The Motion Picture isn't because the warp drive isn't supposed to work like that (or whatever inconsistencies pop up in the Star Trek series) feels strange to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Patrick R said:

So I'd still maybe disagree with you a little about what is and isn't plausible (I think Snowpiercer and Inception are highly implausible, while Under the Skin's technology is merely inscrutable) but I think I resist using your definition of "hard sci-fi" (while acknowledging that, if it's indeed what most people mean when using the phrase, it doesn't make any sense for me to stubbornly cling to my own definition) because I'm just not the kind of dude who can pick out what is and isn't against the laws of science, especially when it comes to films that deal with other worlds, alien species or civilizations centuries in the future. And saying Iron Man is hard sci-fi because there's a lot of scenes of Tony building and testing his suit while Star Trek: The Motion Picture isn't because the warp drive isn't supposed to work like that (or whatever inconsistencies pop up in the Star Trek series) feels strange to me.

 

I mean, "hard sci-fi" has a genealogy extending back to the 1970s, when the subgenre of sci-fi was codified as one of scientific rigor and rejection of anything thought to be impossible by the current scientific consensus. For instance, Iron Man is not hard sci-fi because its miniature arc reactor is both nonexistent and implausible. Star Trek is not hard sci-fi because it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. Snowpiercer is not hard sci-fi because perpetual motion is a physical impossibility. Under the Skin and Inception are, in my mind, sci-fi influenced fantasy, lacking any logical or scientific justification for their fantastical elements to an extent that might as well make them magic. Only Gravity, as I see it, is hard sci-fi, and that's to be expected because hard sci-fi, as a subgenre, tends to privilege rigor and plausibility over spectacle and execution of themes.

 

It's been weird, in my lifetime, to see "hard sci-fi" versus "soft sci-fi" go the same way as "high fantasy" versus "low fantasy," from technical distinctions of premise and rigor to value judgments on execution. "High culture" and "low culture" will assimilate all other distinctions in the end, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I wasn't using "hard" and "soft" sci-fi as value judgments, just as (ultimately meaningless, due to my misuse) distinctions in approach and intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I haven’t even noticed anyone applying the term hard sci-fi to movies. I’m not sure I personally care for any distinction between hard and non-hard sci-fi. As I’ve understood the term is more useful to people who don’t like fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it would be useful, especially in the realm of movies, to move hard sci-fi from 'plausible future technology' to 'an emphasis on technology', and its ramifications. To be fair, in literature that is the basic definition of science fiction in the first place, but what we see in movies so often is that space is just a backdrop for a story to take place. In that sense, the soft/hard discussion could become more relevant if we make the above distinction. Does a movie rely heavily on technology, no matter how improbable, as the motor of the story? Then it's hard or 'true' scifi. (Anything from Gravity and Ex Machina to Inception and Interstellar would fall under it. Star Trek too, since it consistently explores themes of technology and how it impacts and changes the way people live). Are the stars just a backdrop to tell a cool story, especially one that doesn't seem very concerned with the future of the human race? Then it's soft sci-fi. (This would incorporate any 'fantasy' sci-fi like Star Wars, and most Marvel movies).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the entire distinction is pointless no matter what it means, but I was just curious what @Patrick R meant because it sounded different from the usual definition (which I agree is typically applied to books, not to movies, probably because the distinction is more noticeable in a book, where any technology has to be explained with words, whereas a movie can just show a science thing on screen for five seconds). I also forgot that Snowpiercer had a perpetual motion machine - if I had remembered that, I wouldn't have labeled it hard sci-fi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's a pointless distinction (leaving aside how "hard scifi" and "soft scifi" may be incorrect terms). I know for me there's a hard distinction between scifi movies about ideas/high-concepts and scifi movies that are more about storytelling/low-concepts**. If I'm in the mood for one, I generally do not want the other (technical plausibility basically never factors into it).

 

**does anyone actually use the term "low concept"? I suspect not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dium said:

I know for me there's a hard distinction between scifi movies about ideas/high-concepts and scifi movies that are more about storytelling/low-concepts**.

 

Don’t you mean soft distinction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Queer Eye, the reboot on the Netflix is :tup::tup: You'll like it because makeovers and home improvements are the #content everyone enjoys, but the show really goes above and beyond to create an emotional human connection with the makeover subjects. Except the episode with the cop, fuck you netflix now, i gotta see a maga hat every time i open u up, wtf dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Spenny said:

Queer Eye, the reboot on the Netflix is :tup::tup: You'll like it because makeovers and home improvements are the #content everyone enjoys, but the show really goes above and beyond to create an emotional human connection with the makeover subjects. Except the episode with the cop, fuck you netflix now, i gotta see a maga hat every time i open u up, wtf dude

I have watched a few episodes, I have gotten a little annoyed with the narrative of the show that a makeover and remodeling will create giant changes in these peoples lives, I really wonder how many are actually able to maintain the new habits they are shown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a Turkish Firewatch movie called Watchtower on Mubi. The story is not that similar to the game Firewatch, and is quite depressing, but it’s interesting how the beginning has some similarities like a man arriving in a watchtower and communicating over radio with his colleagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(The best video game movie is Phoenix Wright, anyway. My friends and I did some research on this. It's toppable - it's not a great film - but it actually works, it has a coherent plot and recreates top moments from the game*, and that's a hard square for your Tomb Raider reboots and such to circle.)

 

*Yes, they cross-examine a parrot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2016 at 5:39 PM, Mawd said:
On 10/13/2016 at 5:53 AM, BusbyBerkeley said:

Also caught that Evil Dead remake which I was avoiding on principle but it turns out it's really good! Lots of gnarly gore and a completely rad ending. A bunch of nods to the original but with fun/smart twists (Demonic possession as a metaphor for heroin withdrawal is a small touch that went a long way).

 

Just mentioning that Ash vs Evil dead is pretty fun. But it's pretty dumb and the way it handles all the leads is even dumber. Ash is condescending and gross in a Chevy Chase/Pierce Hawthorne way, the mexican sidekick is dim and dependant for most of the time, of course the girl needs saving. But if you have a need for more evil dead stupidity then the show has you covered. I never finished the whole season but i think there is an undercurrent of tongue in cheek self awareness. It just might not be enough to satisfy many people.

 

On 10/13/2016 at 7:24 PM, BigJKO said:

 

It's loads of fun! I agree about all the characters, except I feel like the show has loads of self-awareness of it and makes sure Ash feels as stupid and old-guy as possible whenever his gross and insensitive jokes come up.

 

Season 2 just started and it's great!

 

I'm about halfway through season 1 of Ash Vs Evil Dead and I'm pretty disappointed so far. In making changes to become a tv show rather than Evil Dead 4, it's really lost a lot of the ED feel and turned into a cheap Supernatural knock-off. It still has moments of charm and fun, but I'm really hoping it finds a strong identity soon, even if it's not a carbon copy of the movies.

 

Oh and, incidentally, the sidekick isn't Mexican. I probably wouldn't have realised if he hadn't said it in ep 3, though, and I definitely wouldn't have known he was Honduran if I hadn't Googled it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched Annihilation. There weren't any picture issues on Netflix that I could tell. The movie looks very strange, but purposefully so, I think. Indeed the movie looked gorgeous throughout. Lovely cinematography, tangibly creepy and very impressive production design and really solid effects. The score was great, too.

 

The only issue I had really was story-based:

mainly the climax/denouement. The film successfully builds up a load of tension and atmosphere, moving between tense and terrifying, but once it gets to the lighthouse it just kind of gives up and shows you a load of weird stuff plus some twists that don't really mean anything; the Benedict Wong framing device ends up being pointless and the other scientists never get past lightly-sketched fodder. To be fair, though, the 'weird stuff' at the lighthouse is a pretty amazing sequence.

 

I'm glad I watched it, but I don't think I'll ever go back to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ben X said:

I just watched Annihilation. There weren't any picture issues on Netflix that I could tell.

 

I just checked, it seems they've fixed it. I'm now getting 1080p in MS Edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/3/2018 at 2:05 PM, Ben X said:

 

 

I'm about halfway through season 1 of Ash Vs Evil Dead and I'm pretty disappointed so far. In making changes to become a tv show rather than Evil Dead 4, it's really lost a lot of the ED feel and turned into a cheap Supernatural knock-off. It still has moments of charm and fun, but I'm really hoping it finds a strong identity soon, even if it's not a carbon copy of the movies.

 

Oh and, incidentally, the sidekick isn't Mexican. I probably wouldn't have realised if he hadn't said it in ep 3, though, and I definitely wouldn't have known he was Honduran if I hadn't Googled it.

 

I don't think it improves much. I really liked the first season. I don't particularly feel like it looks cheap.. I guess I just *really* love seeing practical effects work/makeup stuff at a time when TV ususally goes for cheap-looking CGI. The second season was fun but sort of lost its way half-way through. Third season just started and it's fun, but I feel like I'm basically just watching it for the fun, creative practical effects by now and the occasional well-timed gag. I do like the half-hour format, meaning it doesn't have to pad out the plot too much to get from A to gross, fun, practical fight scene to B and rarely feels slow-paced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember being disappointed in the first episode, but now that I watched the next two at least a year later I was surprised by how much I liked it. I think it's rather well shot and occasionally imaginative. To me it looks like they spent quite a lot of effort on sets and atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean cheap in a budgetary way, more 'shallow', I guess. Poor choice of word!

 

I'm surprised you've been enjoying the lack of CG though because I've been annoyed by how much it's favoured over practical effects and how crappy it looks! (It was pointed out to me that having crappy CG echoes the movies having a lot of crappy compositing etc, though.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, I might have to rewatch it, because I *felt* like the balance was heavily in favour of practical deadites/creatures and gore-effects, impacts. I just remember being happy when they summon a big demon from the underworld and it's actually a nicely-made costume creature. They do dip into CGI creatures later on, which mostly look rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the greatest film of all time, Vertigo the other day. It was fine! Pretty good I suppose. 

 

I really love how those old films just end. Bang there's your ending now fuck off. No credits either cos they're at the start. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's definitely a lot of practical effects in Ash vs Evil Dead. Or... they did a really good job to mimic the look of practical effects in CG.

Season 3 is much more fun so far than 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you know what, I watched another episode and there are a lot more practical gore effects than I'd thought. I think either the occasional obvious CG effect overshadowed them in my mind, or it was more CG heavy in the early episodes. I'd still like to see a good practical headsplosion though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...I don't remember if there's a head explosion or not but in S2 there is

 

a head getting slowly peeled apart by a spinning car tire.

 

My thoughts on the show mostly mirror BigJKO's. I love the effects & absurd gore and the 30 minute format keeps things moving. The supporting characters are all good too. It's a fun show!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now