Posts by casualotter21

Do I really need to say more? This movie is an absolute classic. You’ve got that iconic Kurt Russell and Sylvester Stallone duo leading the charge. Then there's Teri Hatchett, who you might remember as Loos from Lois & Clark. Plus, Jack Palance shows up, playing the kind of villain who probably needs more bronh than even Darth Vader. What else is there to say?

Richard Hernandez13 said:Personally, I think Michael Bay makes the best movies because they’re more dynamic, packed with action, and don't bother with dialogue at all.

Which is actually quite brilliant, really, since it essentially turns his films into something akin to Waiting for Godot by Beckett—just nothing but explosions! Add in some PG-13 violence and sex scenes, and you have the perfect product for the teenagers who make up his primary demographic.

jadegardener22 said:In my opinion, Troy is better than LOTR; it’s more dynamic and packed with more action. Just think about those endless conversations in LOTR, not to mention that irritatingly long and tedious ending.

I have to agree. For instance, just consider the stay in Rivendell which—brother to brother—lasts longer than the entire Trojan War as depicted in the film.

Which is actually quite ironic, considering the only thing I truly remember from the Iliad is the infinite amount of monologues delivered by the characters.

Richard Hernandez13 said:We have already "philosophized" extensively regarding this matter within various Matrix topics.

BUT! We have yet to analyze the connection between Andy Kaufman, The Matrix, and Jim Carrey! I suspect this is hardly a coincidence. The Matrix Has you, Richard Hernandez13! Admit there is a link and free your mind! There is no spoon! Follow the white rabbit! Don't just think you're the moderator! BE the moderator!

amberfalcon172 said:Repo Man... what on earth is actually going on in that movie? 🙂

Zardoz isn't stupid. He’s ridiculous, sure, and definitely eccentric, but he’s far from dim-witted.

I couldn't agree more. He's certainly absurd, but don't mistake eccentricity for stupidity!

William Doyle2 said:I finally sat down to watch The Matrix... and I am completely lost. Neo is basically just a statistical anomaly, Zion exists solely because the machines want it to (yet they still kill them—why though?), how does Neo actually take out machines using his mind in the real world? And what was the point of the truce!?

I believe you provided an excellent answer to this exact question when you posted it in the thread featuring that Jim Carrey film.

And yes, as far as I know—though I'm no expert—Andy Kaufman actually did pass away from cancer.

I actually think he’s great in Tim Burton films. However, when it comes to Pirates, I found his performance to be completely lacking. Aside from my impression that the movie shamelessly lifts elements from those LucasArts adventures like "Monkey Island"—and honestly, Johnny Depp doesn't even come close to being as charming as Guybrush Threepwood—it feels like Johnny Depp is just playing the comic relief as if... well, I don't know. It’s almost as if an American production crew hired some random actor and told him, "Eeee, you're going to be the funny one, so just be haaaaapppy and sillyyyy!" and then the guy starts acting like a bunch of rowdy tourists at a roadside diner while the director shouts, "ho ho ho! This is going to be soooooo funny!" Or maybe not.

Even so, I always appreciate seeing a handsome Hollywood actor who isn't afraid to take on roles that are unconventional or entirely unglamorous. In my opinion, it took real guts to play the *comic relief* instead of the lead in Pirates. If he had the chance to nail it, he could have.

Vulcan Raven said:Balrog is really the only one who pulls off an impressive look.🙄
As for the rest of the movie, I spent more time yelling at the screen out of pure frustration than actually enjoying myself.🙄 👎

That’s just because you’re such a total Tolkien fanatic.🙂

Richard Hernandez13 said:I don't demand that a book or movie acts as a technical manual providing an exact scientific breakdown of everything on screen. Like any art form, including Sci-Fi, I am looking for... emotion.

We are in agreement there.

..Speculative fiction sounds more like a euphemism you use when talking to girls—just so you don't come across as a total geek.

Fair point. Though usually, I just walk up to those girls and go, "HAHAHA! I'm a huge nerd! Do you want to see my Pokemon card collection?!" And then they run away screaming. Sure, I end up alone, but at least I feel better afterward.

We don't really have an adequate American term for Fantasy.
A few posts back, I incorrectly referred to it as "magical fantasy" or a "sword and sorcery film"—since those are subgenres, not the genre itself.

The problem is that there isn't a perfect term for it in America either. And yeah, we're definitely talking about subgenres rather than the primary genre. From what I can see, one extreme of the spectrum is "hard" Sci-Fi with heavy scientific explanations, like the novels by Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov, while the other extreme is Fantasy, which could range from Borges to J.R.R. Tolkien.

Richard Howard2 said:But we care about that 10% because it's actually unclear to us—I basically agree that there aren't many touchpoints with a classic time travel plot, but I certainly wouldn't create an entirely new category for it. It should just be a subcategory, because in this instance, the timeline itself has been altered—that is a sufficient explanation for it being a form of time travel.

"These two genres aren't essentially the same, but I wouldn't say they aren't the same; they are identical in some indefinable way that I cannot explain."

I'll say it again: it's not about time travel being a central plot point in the movie, but rather that the plot itself was derived through a sort of temporal journey.

"This is time travel even though there is no actual time travel, because they've achieved something that is both a time travel story and not a time travel story."

Time travel is actually exactly that—moving from one reality into another.

No, it isn't. Because if that were true, every single story would be considered time travel.

The plot of this movie unfolds within an alternate reality. In my view, it isn't strictly necessary for the characters to be aware of this fact, nor does the narrative need to explicitly address the concept.

Fine, you're certainly proficient at using Semantic Dodge, but it would be quite refreshing if you attempted to write something substantive instead of relying on them.

Richard Hernandez13 said:For Sci-Fi, the core requirement is a scientific explanation for the current state of the world—something Fatherland completely lacks, or at least I can't find it. It just relies on the premise that the German spring offensive against the USSR had the opposite outcome.

The world depicted in the movie stays at the same technological level as 1963, which is when the story actually takes place.

Richard Howard2 said:Hardly any Sci-Fi offers a complete scientific explanation, so I personally assume that Sci-Fi covers anything spanning from a tiny sliver of scientific reference to pure maximum fantasy, or vice versa.

I agree with Richard Howard2. That’s precisely why I prefer the term "speculative fiction" over "Science Fiction." While it's easy to split books into Sci-Fi and Fantasy, where do things like "Fatherland," "Year of Riz and salt," or "The Man in the High Castle" fit? How much science is there versus how much fantasy? There are other examples too: Gene Wolfe's "Book of New Sun" takes place on Earth in the Land in the far future. But that future is so distant that the line between science and magic disappears, so you could view the events in that novel as heavy Fantasy or as Sci-Fi.

The fundamental premise of alternative history might be convincing if you grasp quantum physics (which, admittedly, I don't). But that isn't even the point. In my experience reading all the alternative history novels I've picked up (about seven or eight), authors almost never attempt to explain the mechanism that makes their alternate timeline possible. Sure, they might explain what historical phenomenon triggered the shift, but the existence of that phenomenon itself is never justified by quantum physics or anything else. The only exception I know of is Harry Turtledove's "The Guns of the South," where people from the 21st century travel back to 1864 to alter the course of the American Civil War.

It seems to me that the true goal of alternative history isn't to convince the reader that such a reality is possible, but rather to show them which direction humanity might have headed under different circumstances.

Richard Howard2 :
Whether we're talking about someone traveling from the future to the present, the present to the past, or vice versa—or even dealing with an altered version of our history—it all boils down to a temporal shift.

How's about this: time travel movies are strictly those films that actually include—watch this one!—TIME TRAVEL in their plot. In "Fatherland," nobody actually travels through time, so by definition, it isn't a time travel movie.

It's not really about the protagonist traveling here; it's more about the audience experiencing the shift... but the underlying theme remains the same.

Since I can't recall how my presence as a *viewer sitting in front of a TV* contributed anything to the plot of "Fatherland," I think we can safely disregard this kind of "time travel."

David Sanchez6 said:Can someone please explain what genre "Fatherland" actually falls under?

Alternate history.

It seems pretty much any movie touched by Jim Abrahams is a lost cause. ("Top Secret!", "Airplane!", "Golden Gun", "What a Guy"). These films are absolutely moronic, but damn it, whenever they show up on TV, I just can't help myself. The jokes are so incredibly stupid that they become genuinely hilarious.

One has to distinguish these from movies that actually attempted to be good but ended up being total disasters (like "Zardoz" or "The Swarm").
Unlike true trash cinema, John Abraham's movies actually intend to be funny; it's just that the humor is so fundamentally dumb that they aren't funny in a traditional sense—they're only funny because the jokes are so poorly conceived that they loop back around to being hysterical...

Actually, just disregard this entire post.

What’s actually so great about it? Honestly, when I heard they were making another animated film featuring those Warner Bros. characters, I was pretty skeptical. I watched Space Jam, and it was... just okay. There were a few decent jokes here and there, but nothing particularly special.

Christian Campbell95 said:Being an American history major while watching such cheap American movies is quite the struggle.🙄 🙂

That's exactly my point. Now, just imagine if LoTR had been produced with this kind of budget. The Film doesn't hold up to actual history or the epic scale it claims, but at least LoTR looks impressive, even if nothing else.

Jeffrey Edwards18 said:So now we have this other term—"futurism." I’m honestly not sure if that's an officially recognized genre, or even what "official existence of a genre" would actually entail.
For a long time, I’ve just used the phrase "futuristic films" to describe movies that present an author's vision of the future—since nobody can say for certain what the future will actually look like—but where ultra-advanced technology (which seems fantastical to us today) isn't the primary focus, or is barely even present at all.

There, was that a total fail? 🙂

I see your point now: you’re calling movies Sci-Fi when the plot hinges on technology, whereas in "futuristic" films, the future is merely a backdrop for a different kind of story.

That distinction makes sense, though I suspect Sci-Fi should ideally be both: it ought to explore how a specific new technology or social phenomenon shapes the behavior of society and the individuals within it. Nothing comes to mind immediately... it's late, though, so perhaps I'll think of something by tomorrow...

AHA! I've got it! "Gattaca"! That’s a perfect example. The entire film revolves around genetic engineering and its potential societal fallout. Without introducing that technology, there practically wouldn't be a plot. But the story isn't about the mechanics of how to clone someone; instead, it focuses on the practical consequences of gene manipulation on society (like the emergence of a new form of discrimination).

--------
Postscript: No, I didn't catch the distinction the first time. If I were picking examples of Sci-Fi, I’d go for something more extreme that leans heavily into the tech. In those cases, I always think of novels by Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke, who seem much more interested in describing scientifically grounded future tech than bothering with deep character development. The so-called "hard Sci-Fi."

On the other end of the spectrum—your version of "futurism"—would be Ray Bradbury. "Fahrenheit 451" could take place anytime, anywhere. There is virtually no technology featured; the core idea is simply the burning of books and censorship driven by political correctness and mass culture.

Jeffrey Edwards18 said:This distinction isn't "brilliant"; it's actually quite standard and logical.
I believe my choice of examples sufficiently illustrated the nuance between those two concepts, at least for anyone possessing even a modicum of "film education."

Or perhaps not. If I find it necessary to ask about the difference between futurism and Sci-Fi, one might assume I am unfamiliar with said distinction. And if I don't grasp the logic behind a classification, simply listing films under that label doesn't offer much substance.

Furthermore, given the sheer volume of text you've produced thus far, you could have easily provided a brief explanation of that division.

If someone genuinely wants to debate film theory and terminology, they should just start a dedicated thread for it. We can then have a civilized—or perhaps not, depending on your mood—discussion if we feel like participating.

Fine. Consider the floor open.

Nick is an idiot, but I suspect you aren't actually dim, and that you understand exactly what I meant.

No, I am not, which is evidenced by the fact that I requested an explanation of the distinction—an explanation you seem increasingly reluctant to provide.

Why you feel the need to get defensive is beyond me; that’s your business.

I asked a question that you are refusing to answer despite clearly knowing the answer. On a forum, this behavior is generally considered rude, as it implies a refusal to engage in actual dialogue with other members. Dropping vague Annotations about your hidden expertise won't get you anywhere here. People tend to prefer interlocutors who are slightly more concrete and willing to put in a minimal amount of effort to demonstrate their understanding.

Jeffrey Edwards18 said:I believe my examples sufficiently clarified the distinction between those two concepts, at least for anyone with even a modicum of "film education." If someone wishes to debate film terminology and theory, they should start a dedicated thread for that. We can then engage in a polite (or perhaps not so polite—that's your call) discussion there, should we feel inclined.

Essentially, the sole reason I initiated this thread was that Jeffrey Edwards18 refused to immediately explain his distinction between Sci-Fi and futuristic films. I am hopeful he might finally do so within this discussion. That is all.

Jeffrey Edwards18 said:I really don't have the energy to explain this... you either get it or you don't. There isn't much middle ground. If you consider yourself a true cinephile, it should be common knowledge...

"I maintain a very strict distinction between Sci-Fi and futurism. But since this is just a public forum for movie discussions, I can't be bothered to exhaust myself by explaining that distinction after I've already mentioned it once."

(Of course, you don't have to agree... it's all a matter of personal perception...)

It is difficult for me to adopt any particular stance on a concept that hasn't actually been explained to me.

Jeffrey Edwards18 said:You don't have to agree with me. I don't even agree with myself, because I personally don't consider Metropolis to be Sci-Fi at all, but rather a futurist film. I see a massive distinction there, even if most people don't.

What exactly is the difference between Sci-Fi and futurism?