 March 24, 2008 - 1:23pm | I just posted something that brought back some great memories of one of my favoritehard sci-fi movies of all time: Runaway, with Tom Selleck as a bomb squad cop and Gene Simmons (of KISS) as one of the best terrorist villains in cinema hisory. I must have watched that movie a few hundred times when I was a kid. I wish I owned it on DVD. We're just barely one step removed from that today. Other favorites of mine include the obvious: Blade Runner, Alien, Aliens, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Serenity, and I'm sure there's plenty others that aren't coming to mind at the moment. |
 April 20, 2008 - 10:18am | Will: DS9 was excellent for its goals... a space opera set in the trek universe. Me, I wish Mercy Point had continued. (somewhere I've 4 eps on VHS...) I've never seen any of the Gundam series; the novels, however, are excellent. And yes, the labels are slippery... it's a continuum, that's why HardSciFi - SoftSciFi - SciFan - RealisticFantasy - Fantasy Last point first...what doesn't help oftentimes is that one man's hard SF is another's pure Fantasy. But, hey, what the hell, it's all good in the end. DS9: Leaving the plagarism issue(in re:Strazcinsky selling his B5 story idea to Paramount first)aside, my main problem with DS9 was that, to me, it lacked direction(it also produced the worst episode of any ST series[IMO], "Rapture")for most of its run, drifting from one potential story arc to another, finally ending in a remake of the Kirk/Gary Mitchell duel from "Where No Man Has Gone Before," save Sisko gets assumed up into Heaven. If the series had simply concentrated on both Bajoran politics and exploring the Gamma Quadrant(and how the two interacted)instead of jumping around, it might have worked. Mercy Point: I worked nights during this series' short run, so I wouldn't know...UPN does have an annoying habit of axing SF series that weren't ST related, such as Freedom(which could've worked if given half a chance), and, maybe even Seven Days(which was hit or miss throughout its run). The TokyoPop manga are excellent renditions of the originial and of Gundam Seed...haven't seen any of the others in novel form yet.... "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
 April 20, 2008 - 10:02pm | Oh, and FullBleed - let's see if the re-make can pass this cheddar test: Would what's-her-name be in that role is she was NOT smoking hot?Just another 7 of 9... QED I'm not sure what you have against attractive people or why you equate "cheese" with beauty. I'm going to just assume that a pretty person wronged you at some point in your life. 95% of leading-ladies in any sci-fi show or movie are likely to be fairly attractive. Goes with the territory. But to answer a rather rediculous question: When casting the role of a Cylon who's specialty is infiltration through seduction and betrayal... yeah, I think you'd lose your job if you picked an ugly chick over a hot chick that can act. There are other important female characters in the story that aren't smoking hot: The President, Starbuck, and Kylie just to name a few. All reasonably attractive women, but not drop-dead gorgeous. Certainly not "soap opera" hot. And, consistent with the quality of the show's casting (and fortunately for them), their roles did not call for that particular characteristic. Besides, you're just trolling badly now. This thread is about "favorite" sci-fi shows. I could visciously attack the original BSG cast (pointing out how poorly developed and one-dimensional it's female characters were.) I could observe that all of the girls always looked like they just stepped out of a "Revlon" photo-shoot. I could highlight gems like "Muffit" that took the campiness to levels only a child could love. And I could stack critical awards like the Emmy, Peabody, Hugo, and Saturn awards acquired by the NBSG against the original serie's accolades (of lack thereof.) I'm finished with this discussion, as it has no where to go but down. |
April 20, 2008 - 10:05pm | Oh, and FullBleed - let's see if the re-make can pass this cheddar test: Would what's-her-name be in that role is she was NOT smoking hot?Just another 7 of 9... QED I'm not sure what you have against attractive people or why you equate "cheese" with beauty. I'm going to just assume that a pretty person wronged you at some point in your life. 95% of leading-ladies in any sci-fi show or movie are likely to be fairly attractive. Goes with the territory. But to answer a rather rediculous question: When casting the role of a Cylon who's specialty is infiltration through seduction and betrayal... yeah, I think you'd lose your job if you picked an ugly chick over a hot chick that can act. There are other important female characters in the story that aren't smoking hot: The President, Starbuck, and Kylie just to name a few. All reasonably attractive women, but not drop-dead gorgeous. Certainly not "soap opera" hot. And, consistent with the quality of the show's casting (and fortunately for them), their roles did not call for that particular characteristic. Besides, you're just trolling badly now. This thread is about "favorite" sci-fi. I could visciously attack the original BSG cast (pointing out how poorly developed and one-dimensional it's female characters were.) I could observe that all of the girls always looked like they just stepped out of a "Revlon" photo-shoot. I could highlight gems like "Muffit" that took the campiness to levels only a child could love. And I could stack critical awards like the Emmy, Peabody, Hugo, and Saturn awards acquired by the NBSG against the original serie's accolades (of lack thereof.) I'm finished with this discussion, as it has no where to go but down. |
April 20, 2008 - 10:08pm | Looks like I had two windows open on that post and both got submitted. It was probably all worth reading twice anyway. ;) |
 April 21, 2008 - 12:21pm | Full Bleed - The problem with attacking the original BSG series is that you are using today's standards (of special effects, story-lines, and character development) and applying them to a show made 30 years ago. The fact is that, for its time, the original BSG and Star Trek, and Space 1999, etc ..., had a lot of elements that its fans loved and enjoyed, which have stood the test of time as fans still flock to their banners to defend their shows. That should be celebrated, not attacked. Further, it was those fans' passion for these shows which brought them back to life -- whether the liked the new incarnation or not. If not for the success of the original BSG, the new BSG would not exist. If the New BSG has the same nostalgic draw in 30 years then it, too, can be considered a success of the same caliber. I feel, if you look objectively at the overall feeling of the shows, it can be seen that the original BSG and Star Trek were inspirational and looked to a positive future. Star Trek NG had a lot of politics in it, but remained overwhelming positive in its outlook of the future. The N BSG does not share that feeling about the future, highlights human suffering, and literally questions whether humanity is fit to survive. Such questions, while important philosophically, are not ones that will draw me back to this show in the years to come. I highly doubt in 30 years fans will be screaming for the networks to remake the New BSG ... . Using awards won as a metric of whether a show is good or not isn't really accurate - as you mentioned, the original BSG did not have the awards the new series has. But it did have a very large, loyal following of fans. The true metric of the power of a show isn't its staying power or ratings, but whether it will be remembered and sought after and championed long after it comes to close. Perhaps a BSG Discussion Thread should be openned. |
April 21, 2008 - 2:43pm | One already has. Go to http://starfrontiers.us/node/3009 "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
 April 21, 2008 - 3:03pm | Since we are trying to find some love around here, I thought I would share that not only is Wrath of Khan my hands-down fave of all the Star Trek movies, but is one of my favorite movies of all time. I mean, who can resist Ricardo Montelban in a plastic chest? Nasty critters inserted into ears (OW, my braaaaiiiiiinnn!) Scottie and Ohura before their weight problems got too bad. And, best of all, capping Spock at the end. Ballsy. Very ballsy. |
April 21, 2008 - 3:05pm | Although it was, of course, undone in the Search For Spock in Part III. I guess they thought the franchise just could not live without Spock. |
 April 21, 2008 - 3:07pm | The N BSG does not share that feeling about the future, highlights human suffering, and literally questions whether humanity is fit to survive. Such questions, while important philosophically, are not ones that will draw me back to this show in the years to come. I highly doubt in 30 years fans will be screaming for the networks to remake the New BSG ... The new BSG is simply about life. The good and the bad. About when we are beautiful and when we are ulgy. About our failures but most importantly about triumph over our faults. The new BSG is a beautifully crafted expression of that. Why you would prefer a sanitized vision of the future where people walk around in colored jump suits is beyond me? Don't you realize that the death of the Star Trek franchise came about when B5 gave viewers more realistic characters: The endearing Garibaldi and his alcoholism, Ivanovah's latent lesbianism, Lando's genocidal nostalgia, etc. The me NBSG is the same. NG, Voyager, DS9 (to a lesser degree) and Entreprise have the taste of baby food. Sorry, I'm well passed that age... «Language is a virus from outer space» William S. Burroughs |
April 21, 2008 - 5:47pm | I wholeheartedly disagree. I prefer my sci-fi showing the positives of the human condition and giving me a goal to reach for. As I said above, if people are yearning for the revisioned BSG in 30 years then I'll agree that it was a wonderful show about the human condition. But I'd put money on it being forgotten. |
 April 21, 2008 - 6:10pm | The Lost in Space remake was a favorite of mine I didn't see mensioned. Their treatment on hypergates and Genetech Raiders was well done.
|
April 21, 2008 - 7:35pm | I missed the genetech raiders. Were they the opposing faction at the beginning of that movie? |
April 21, 2008 - 11:20pm | Full Bleed - The problem with attacking the original BSG series is that you are using today's standards (of special effects, story-lines, and character development) and applying them to a show made 30 years ago. The fact is that, for its time, the original BSG and Star Trek, and
Space 1999, etc ..., had a lot of elements that its fans loved and
enjoyed, which have stood the test of time as fans still flock to their
banners to defend their shows. That should be celebrated, not attacked First off, I never attacked the original show. I called it "campy" which is neither a negative or a positive. I like the original show, I just didn't think it was "uber fantastic", and it certainly isn't better than the new one if you prefer gritty scifi over campy scifi. "Campy" is simply a stylistic adjective that accurately describes the original show. "Knight Rider" was also campy and was a show I liked from the 80's. "Buck Roger's" was campy. I liked that too. The Original Star Trek had some campiness to it, and I loved it (more than any of the new series, in fact.) I even like the "campy" Planet of the Apes TV show (they were "campy" compared to the best of the movies.) So, this whole discussion doesn't warrant derision of the NEW BSG just because the old one isn't as highly regarded and was "more campy" by any reasonable measure of the word. It's just sour grapes. The fact is that I liked just about every 70's Sci-Fi show that came out... and a good bit of those from the 50's and 60's. After all, I wasn't a very critical thinker when I was a child and I held things to a much lower standard. ;) The N BSG does not share that feeling about the future, highlights
human suffering, and literally questions whether humanity is fit to
survive. And it answers that question, over and over, with a "Yes"... provided we are willing to lift ourselves out of the gutter, be better than we've been in the past, and rise above our human frailties and weaknesses. It doesn't just assume people are good due to power or position, it challenges them to "be good" in the face of truely difficult and evil circumstances. Using awards won as a metric of whether a show is good or not isn't
really accurate - as you mentioned, the original BSG did not have the
awards the new series has. But it did have a very large, loyal
following of fans. Awards are a metric of critical recognition. The original wasn't very well recognized, and despite your revisionism about it having a "large loyal following of fans"... that's simply not true. Its ratings declined throughout its run despite having one of the biggest budgets of its time. It did, however, have a following worth catering too and the franchise was cheap, accessible, and routinely dipped into over the years keeping things alive. In fact, a very close friend of mine franchised the original BSG and put out an internationally distributed comic book based on it (this was a few years before the NBSG came out.) It was the series done by with Realm Press starting in 1998: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica_(comic_book) At the time there was also significant push to get the original series started up again with some of the original cast. It failed and Realm let their franchise license expire. And if 30 years from now BSG is still a known entity (how could it not be?), you'll be hard-pressed to give the credit solely to the original single season "failure" over the critically acclaimed version that will last 5-10 years. The fact that you are resistent to giving the new version any credit, even if it is remembered, shows your bias more than mine. The real question is how many theatrical movies the New BSG will spawn... not whether it will be "remembered" 30 years from now. |
April 24, 2008 - 3:47am | No one talks about these : • Farscape. Personnaly I couldn't stand the muppet-style aliens but that just me. • Lexx. Never managed to see the whole series... very strange setting • Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (if you though OBSG was campy LOL). • Doctor Who (new series) : Loved the first year Worst SF movie of all time : Flash Gordon (1980) «Language is a virus from outer space» William S. Burroughs |
 April 24, 2008 - 4:38am | I really liked Farscape. I enjoyed the story Lexx... yeah... cant say much there. I saw less than a dozen episodes, definately strange. The acting, and the story, got worse when the main female charcter changed her hair to blond. Buck Rogers. heheh. Yeah I had to go buy the series when it was released. First time I saw a laser pistol that could dial-up the damage. I hae no complaints with the new Doctor Who. The new Flash Gordon is alot of fun. I liked the original, as well. Not to mention the old saturday morning cartoon. Hear is a movie to stay away from: Cloverfield. I could care less about the money I spent, I just want a refund on the time I spent watching it. Should be retitled " A Crappy Godzilla Rip-Off with a Sad Attempt at Blair Witch First-Person Filming" Time flies when your having rum. Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time. |
April 24, 2008 - 10:17am | Does Highlander II - The Quickening count as Sci-Fi. That trumps Flash Gordon for worst Sci-Fi hands down. At least FG had a comic ammusement value. Highlander II was just insulting in so many, many, many ways. Buck Rogers was poor, but I must admit watching it when it was on, more like something to pass the time that had at least some sci-fi value to it. But it even slumped farther when that Searcher thing happened (when they went on that big space ship and got that Hawk guy with the black suit. Gads. What the heck were they smoking). |
April 24, 2008 - 10:49am | Hey, Sam. I have to agree with you on BR. The show definatley dropped with the second season and the Searcher. Seems like once the writers attempted a long term story arc, the quality went down hill. Time flies when your having rum. Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time. |
April 24, 2008 - 11:33am | I do have to say that I enjoyed Flash Gordan. It was fun, not good Hard Sci-Fi. Baron (Timothy Dalton) and Boltan (leader of the hawk people) made the movie. And, of course, Von Sidow. Heck, my friends and I quote some of that movie ... |
 April 24, 2008 - 12:03pm | Heh, nobody said "Space Balls". Ludicris Speed! <insert witty comment here> |
April 24, 2008 - 12:22pm | Gosh I forgot that one. Dark Helmet ... "No, its past this part. In fact, never play this again." |
 April 24, 2008 - 2:40pm | I agree with the earlier comment about the new lost in space. The whole hypergate technology had some credibility to it, however I like the folding space concept bettler for realistic FTL travel. Don't for get wing commander: OMG they actually simulated gravity leaving the flight deck of the carrier in space....I could suspend disbelief enough to buy the idea of artificial gravity inside the ship but when the fighters left the hanger deck they actually dropped as if falling off a ledge. Now I could believe the mass of the starship could create some type of gravity but I doubt it would be downward away from the ship...lol. I have to admit though that I did like the eye candy of the movie, the cgi which I am into, wasn't bad for the time. And I did like the broadside scene where the tigerclaw let loose with all batteries on the enemy vessel. Shockwaves were a nice touch in the movie. But the whole idea of the effect of gravity on the fighters was a little too insulting to my intelligence. Space above and beyond was a fav. nothing I can think of specifically to pick a part except that they did not explain the basis of the their space travel technology. Had potential but got canned too soon for it to have ever gone anywhere. |
April 24, 2008 - 3:45pm | No one talks about these : • Farscape. Personnaly I couldn't stand the muppet-style aliens but that just me. • Lexx. Never managed to see the whole series... very strange setting • Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (if you though OBSG was campy LOL). • Doctor Who (new series) : Loved the first year Worst SF movie of all time : Flash Gordon (1980) Farscape: Awesome, 'cept for the last season, and I'm still pissed at what they did to John and Aeryn in the series finale. Lexx: Canadian space porn. Ew. Buck Rogers: Sorry, but after so many disco-dancing robots, nymphomaniac princesses and lines like "Well, I never met a 500-year old man before." "Well, I never met a genetically-perfect woman, before," I find I can no longer view this series with a straight face. And, the less said about random computer-generated noise being "good old-fashioned rock n' roll" the better. I won't mention the second season. Doctor Who: Way better than the Fox movie and the last two originial series Doctors(C. Baker and McCoy). Still prefer Pertwee and Tom Baker as the Doctor, 'tho.... Worst SF movie of all time: Star Trek: First Contact(1996). "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
April 24, 2008 - 3:49pm | I do have to say that I enjoyed Flash Gordan. It was fun, not good Hard Sci-Fi. Baron (Timothy Dalton) and Boltan (leader of the hawk people) made the movie. And, of course, Von Sidow. Heck, my friends and I quote some of that movie ... Timothy Dalton is an excellent actor who just couldn't get any love, especially from brainless Bond fans who disliked him simply cos he wasn't Pierce Brosnan. But yeah, Flash Gordon was outrageously funny, like Spaceballs. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
April 24, 2008 - 7:20pm | Wasn't Flash Gordon a former NY Jets player? I seem to remember that being the case. If that is the case, then I got to give him props! GO JETS! |
 April 24, 2008 - 8:02pm | Yes--Flash Gordon was a NY Jet.....End Of Line!!! Sergeant |
April 24, 2008 - 8:32pm | Yeah one measly Superbowl ring and Flash Gordon... Well, I guess it could be worse. We still could have Sperm Edwards as our head coach. But I digress... Back to the, uh, movies... |
April 25, 2008 - 3:36am | Flash Gordon was uber campy... but the awesome soundtrack and "comic book come to life" feel of the whole thing was great. Reminded me of something you'd hear on radio Sci-Fi serials (which is what they were going for.) Space Balls and Ice Pirates are probably the best sci-fi comedies that I can think of... not that many of those get made though (on purpose any way.) Oh, and Hardware Wars was pretty funny. Highlander II. Argh. I think I just puked a little. Worst sequel ever (and there are a LOT of very bad sequels out there!) I think I blacked out in the theatre when I went to see it. Like a traumatic experience, everything past the first 10 minutes has been deeply repressed. It would take years of therapy to recover the memories... and I'm fairly certain I've blocked them for a reason. I lost a lot of respect for Sean Connery because of that turd. |
April 25, 2008 - 7:16am | Flash Gordon - yes, very campy. Borderline cheese-fest. But somehow they did it so ridiculously that it was enjoyable. I guess shameless would be the best way to put it. Plus, the chicks were smokin'. And that gold-masked prime minister dude was cool. And, of course, as I said before, Flash was an ex-Jet. So that basically adds a star in my book. I think the most important thing about that movie is to go in with the right expectations of it. If you're expecting scientific theoretical finesse with large doses of the Human Condition, you are going to be very upset watching that movie. |
April 25, 2008 - 8:02am | Highlander II -- I think I started laughing hysterically the first Lambert line when he said something like: "I remember long ago on Planet Zeist...". Gadzukes, I'm laughing right now that movie was so rediculous. Remember the last special effect of the movie ... the exploding styrofoam building with what looked like a Bic lighter behind it -- the inside was on fire, apparently. How they could go from Highlander to Highlander II is just beyond understanding. |
April 25, 2008 - 3:45pm | Flash Gordon was uber campy... Okay guys I'm intrigued. I have to with Flash Gordon again. Saw it when I was 15. Seems I didn't get all the sub-text ...LOL.... «Language is a virus from outer space» William S. Burroughs |
