Forums » Off-Topic
I think the best one is Primer.
If you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and watch it.
After that 12 Monkeys comes to mind, but pretty much everything is the same plot.
discuss.
If you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and watch it.
After that 12 Monkeys comes to mind, but pretty much everything is the same plot.
discuss.
Back to the Future. Sure, there are paradoxes, etc., and it's not "hard" sci-fi, but of all the movies I've seen that involve time travel that one is the best movie.
Well, if you like turning your brain off I suppose it's entertaining enough...
no one said terminator? :P
Yes, Peytros, Terminator 2 is also a great time travel movie. Again, not without its flaws, but the thing Terminator 2 and Back to the Future have in common is that they are character driven (especially Back to the Future), and the storylines are so good that all plausibility issues with the time travel can be forgiven. Such as why not send the T-1000 back to the same time as the first Terminator, to give some assistance? Doesn't matter, because Terminator 2 had such a great story. You always have to take time travel with a grain of salt, and if the story's good enough, you can keep it to just a grain and not have to down an entire salt mine.
The Butterfly Effect wasn't all bad.
the langoliers lmao
Groundhog Day
True only over one day repeating, but still a great story of time travel.
True only over one day repeating, but still a great story of time travel.
T2 closely followed by back to the future 3
Turtles 3: Turtles in Time!!!!
No, but seriously, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Come on.
No, but seriously, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Come on.
The Time Machine (2002)!!
The CGI sequences of time passing were awesome.
edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JDJs-Aa9ho
The CGI sequences of time passing were awesome.
edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JDJs-Aa9ho
Very true, Gulain, how could I have missed it?
And personally, I liked the first BTTF better than any of the sequels.
And personally, I liked the first BTTF better than any of the sequels.
You guys didn't mention Star Trek IV where they used the much-lampooned "slingshot around the sun" effect to go BACK in time to rescue whales only in order to bring them BACK to the future to talk to the alien cylinder device which apparently had a thing for humpbacks. Chekov asking "Where are your nukleer wessles?"
EDIT: Oh wait Denji mentioned it
But in all seriousness, The Terminator/T2 is probably the best time-travel series. I didn;t see the recent one with Christian Bale, was it any good?
EDIT: Oh wait Denji mentioned it
But in all seriousness, The Terminator/T2 is probably the best time-travel series. I didn;t see the recent one with Christian Bale, was it any good?
I guess I usually lump Back to the Future along with Star Trek IV: entertaining, but not the height of sci-fi(Star Trek really became more Space Opera after TOS, and even in TOS it was more often a vehicle for social commentary than classic sci-fi).
Terminator and T2 were both good, but they have serious issues like Prof. Chaos pointed out. I liked the first one better, actually, as it was able to rely on the love story pretty well and not the flashy special effects that T2 used more of.
Don't bother with T3 and T4. Bleah!
Terminator and T2 were both good, but they have serious issues like Prof. Chaos pointed out. I liked the first one better, actually, as it was able to rely on the love story pretty well and not the flashy special effects that T2 used more of.
Don't bother with T3 and T4. Bleah!
the new Star Trek.
I don't think the new Star Trek was about time travel so much as an excuse to restart the franchise. Basically, they all shrugged and said, "guess I don't care about the old future."
If that's the case, Division, then you need to define time-travel movie. The new Star Trek had time travel, and was therefore a time travel movie, and a good one at that. Yes, I think they decided to break completely away from the old timeline in order to restart the franchise, but you can tell from the quality of the writing, directing and acting that beyond that they actually cared about the end product as well.
Also, Division, what to you is the height of sci-fi? To me, the difference between sci-fi and fantasy is that one has crossbows and magic, and the other has laser guns and space ships (sometimes you can have space ships and magic, but whatever). You can come up with the most interesting ideas for future technology that is plausible, but if you can't fit it into a compelling, character-driven story, then it is not good sci-fi however good the fictional science is. The only thing Back to the Future and Star Trek IV have in common is that they both involve traveling to the past to change the present, and neither is "hard" sci-fi. It is true that Star Trek IV is mostly for entertainment (the "save the whales" plotline is ridiculous), but what makes it one of the most watchable Star Trek films is the characters, and their motivations and personal interactions. Sci-fi is merely a setting, as is fantasy; story is driven by characters.
Which brings me to another of your statements (I'm not trying to be confrontational, just illustrating that you and I have either starkly contrasting views or a miscommunication): "[Star Trek] was more often a vehicle for social commentary than classic sci-fi" Nearly all sci-fi is social commentary. One of the appealing opportunities with science fiction is that by setting your story far into the future, you can make whatever rules you want for your society. Star Trek tends to take the common approach of society having learned from its past mistakes and becoming peaceful and "enlightened". Others show a more dystopian future society. Both are popular approaches, and both constitute social commentary. One is "this is where our current behaviors are leading us", the other is "this is what we can have if we change".
As far as Terminator is concerned, I thought the storyline of Terminator 1 was flat, and it didn't do anything for me. All I got out of that movie was a laugh at Schwarzenegger's damaged robot head effects. It's a good thing I saw T2 first, or I probably would never have bothered with another Terminator movie. T2 dealt with heavy and interesting moral dilemmas related to time travel, such as of course the idea that we make our own fate, and more interestingly with the question of whether it is right to kill a man who is innocent, but whose actions you are certain will indirectly lead to billions of deaths. I think they dealt with this beautifully as Sarah realizes how close she came to being nothing but a Terminator herself, and seeing that there are other options to try before resorting to killing. I am especially impressed that T2 successfully shows that only the good guys are willing to make that right moral decision, and that you still have to deal with bad guys who will kill and not think twice about it, and that negotiation only works if you have something they actually want. When what they want is you dead and nothing else, there's no negotiation, you have to kill; but you can do your best to not kill innocents. It is always amazing to me that Hollywood can treat an issue like this with such insight and profound understanding of human nature in a film, then turn around and say at the Oscars that violence is not the answer, we must negotiate with terrorists! It boggles my mind.
Leber, after all the trouble T2 went to tell the message that we make our own fate, all T3 accomplished was to say "Just kidding, we want to show nukular explosions after all, so yeah, there's fate after all and you can't do shit about it." And in T4... nothing happens. They set up some mysterious characters that then go on to do nothing. The good news is that if you do see it and are appalled at how retarded the ending is, you have some comfort knowing that they changed it at the last minute because the original ending, which is far, far worse, got leaked.
SPOILERS: You know a Terminator movie sucks when it appears that John Connor is about to die, and your only reaction is to look at your watch and wonder how much longer this is going to last. That was my reaction, anyway. And the original ending was that rather than be John Connor's robot organ donor, Connor was going to die and they were going to "bring him back" by putting his skin on a Terminator skeleton and uploading his memories to it. Super, extra lame.
Also, Division, what to you is the height of sci-fi? To me, the difference between sci-fi and fantasy is that one has crossbows and magic, and the other has laser guns and space ships (sometimes you can have space ships and magic, but whatever). You can come up with the most interesting ideas for future technology that is plausible, but if you can't fit it into a compelling, character-driven story, then it is not good sci-fi however good the fictional science is. The only thing Back to the Future and Star Trek IV have in common is that they both involve traveling to the past to change the present, and neither is "hard" sci-fi. It is true that Star Trek IV is mostly for entertainment (the "save the whales" plotline is ridiculous), but what makes it one of the most watchable Star Trek films is the characters, and their motivations and personal interactions. Sci-fi is merely a setting, as is fantasy; story is driven by characters.
Which brings me to another of your statements (I'm not trying to be confrontational, just illustrating that you and I have either starkly contrasting views or a miscommunication): "[Star Trek] was more often a vehicle for social commentary than classic sci-fi" Nearly all sci-fi is social commentary. One of the appealing opportunities with science fiction is that by setting your story far into the future, you can make whatever rules you want for your society. Star Trek tends to take the common approach of society having learned from its past mistakes and becoming peaceful and "enlightened". Others show a more dystopian future society. Both are popular approaches, and both constitute social commentary. One is "this is where our current behaviors are leading us", the other is "this is what we can have if we change".
As far as Terminator is concerned, I thought the storyline of Terminator 1 was flat, and it didn't do anything for me. All I got out of that movie was a laugh at Schwarzenegger's damaged robot head effects. It's a good thing I saw T2 first, or I probably would never have bothered with another Terminator movie. T2 dealt with heavy and interesting moral dilemmas related to time travel, such as of course the idea that we make our own fate, and more interestingly with the question of whether it is right to kill a man who is innocent, but whose actions you are certain will indirectly lead to billions of deaths. I think they dealt with this beautifully as Sarah realizes how close she came to being nothing but a Terminator herself, and seeing that there are other options to try before resorting to killing. I am especially impressed that T2 successfully shows that only the good guys are willing to make that right moral decision, and that you still have to deal with bad guys who will kill and not think twice about it, and that negotiation only works if you have something they actually want. When what they want is you dead and nothing else, there's no negotiation, you have to kill; but you can do your best to not kill innocents. It is always amazing to me that Hollywood can treat an issue like this with such insight and profound understanding of human nature in a film, then turn around and say at the Oscars that violence is not the answer, we must negotiate with terrorists! It boggles my mind.
Leber, after all the trouble T2 went to tell the message that we make our own fate, all T3 accomplished was to say "Just kidding, we want to show nukular explosions after all, so yeah, there's fate after all and you can't do shit about it." And in T4... nothing happens. They set up some mysterious characters that then go on to do nothing. The good news is that if you do see it and are appalled at how retarded the ending is, you have some comfort knowing that they changed it at the last minute because the original ending, which is far, far worse, got leaked.
SPOILERS: You know a Terminator movie sucks when it appears that John Connor is about to die, and your only reaction is to look at your watch and wonder how much longer this is going to last. That was my reaction, anyway. And the original ending was that rather than be John Connor's robot organ donor, Connor was going to die and they were going to "bring him back" by putting his skin on a Terminator skeleton and uploading his memories to it. Super, extra lame.
By the way, Primer sounds interesting, if I see it at the video store one of these days I'll probably pick it up. Also, does Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind count as a time travel movie? Because if it does, I nominate it for best ever ever. There's no real time travel in it, but the memory wipe accomplishes the same thing: it's as if he'd gone back and prevented himself from ever meeting his girlfriend, except that he doesn't get to re-live those years. It is definitely one of the best movies ever made, ever. Did I mention I really like that movie? Because I really do.
I very much agree with your assessment of T2, Chaos. Although I think that it is very much dependent on the director whether there are such messages implemented as those in T2, by Cameron. It makes me look forward to Avatar and the Battle Angel Alita movies, although I am cautiously skeptic w/r/t the latter, and the Spielberg adaptation of GitS can only go horribly awry... but I digress.
For me, a science fiction movie is any movie that a) uses an environment that is set in the future compared to the point in time at which the movie was made and b) employs technology that was either not yet ready at that time, or 'completely unheard of'. I suppose you mean the same thing when you mention 'laser guns and spaceships', Chaos.
As for the distinction between sci-fi and fantasy; for me it is not as clear. The Golden Compass, though not a very good movie, incorporated both sci-fi and fantasy elements, as did Star Wars, in my opinion. But ultimately, I think that it is not always possible to label specific movies, because that would do injustice to their multi-faceted nature.
For me, a science fiction movie is any movie that a) uses an environment that is set in the future compared to the point in time at which the movie was made and b) employs technology that was either not yet ready at that time, or 'completely unheard of'. I suppose you mean the same thing when you mention 'laser guns and spaceships', Chaos.
As for the distinction between sci-fi and fantasy; for me it is not as clear. The Golden Compass, though not a very good movie, incorporated both sci-fi and fantasy elements, as did Star Wars, in my opinion. But ultimately, I think that it is not always possible to label specific movies, because that would do injustice to their multi-faceted nature.
Yes, toshiro, we are indeed arguing the same thing: sci-fi is a setting, not a story. I allowed for space ships and magic to coexist in some case, and had Star Wars in mind specifically. To be honest, I like the blending of genres, even if Lucas forgot between the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy that setting is not a story, and that you need characters, too. There were none in the prequels. That being said, it depends on the context whether I call Star Wars sci-fi or fantasy. If I'm comparing it to Star Trek, it's sci-fi; if I'm comparing it to Lord of the Rings, it's fantasy. By itself, I like to call it a space fantasy.
One more point: toshiro, I disagree with your stipulation that sci-fi has to happen in the future. Your technology point is right on, and I think that's all you need. Science fiction needs fictional science, that's all (it's still sci-fi even if it has no plot and no characters, it's just bad storytelling in that case). To make my point: Every Michael Crichton book. They're all present-time, but with interesting fictional technology. Which reminds me, Sphere should have made the best time travel movie ever, except they botched it severely. It is certainly the best time travel book out there.
One more point: toshiro, I disagree with your stipulation that sci-fi has to happen in the future. Your technology point is right on, and I think that's all you need. Science fiction needs fictional science, that's all (it's still sci-fi even if it has no plot and no characters, it's just bad storytelling in that case). To make my point: Every Michael Crichton book. They're all present-time, but with interesting fictional technology. Which reminds me, Sphere should have made the best time travel movie ever, except they botched it severely. It is certainly the best time travel book out there.