Posts by Matthew Young35

Paul Sanders5 said:Does anyone know where I can drop off an empty gas canister? Not looking to swap it for a new one, just want to get rid of it properly.

You might have had some luck over on Broadway.

What even is a Portapak? Is it some kind of heavy-duty version of a Tetra Pak?

brightpilot6 said:You can always fall back on a marathon of Rambo. It’s that reliable, old-school kind of entertainment where, despite being surrounded by endless threats and constant setbacks, he somehow manages to pull off a last-minute rescue for the good guys.

The Taliban...

I really think "Before Departure" is one of our best domestic productions.

But if we're talking international shows, nothing beats "The Winners of the Past."
"Craters of Titan" is solid too, though it’s definitely niche for hardcore sci-fi buffs. Plus, they seemed to lose their grip on character development in season three. The first two seasons were absolute masterpieces, but this latest installment just isn't hitting the mark for me. I won't go into spoilers for those who haven't seen it yet—though I doubt there are many left—but the show is being undermined by that constant, repetitive focus on whatever is happening outside the colony.

Take some time to rest; you've certainly earned it.

Amanda Evans2 said:All you guys are just bitter because you can't stand seeing a successful young entrepreneur actually making moves...

Guilty as charged.
☕
I wouldn't mind being in his shoes, either.

Just checking in—does anyone here still remember the whole mesomorph and ectomorph thing?

In London.

loneseal said:How the hell did this shepherd Baćo even make it into Congress? Seriously, f*** me.😲😵🤣

And you'd prefer some communist instead?

Peter Thompson4 said:Look, nobody’s actually at fault here. And let’s get one thing straight—Ava Ava Ava isn’t just some mindless bystander. That’s exactly why (just so we don't get into a massive shouting match) they basically vacuumed up 800 million dollars from everyone's pensions to bail out Agrokor. No big deal, right?

Give me a break...
Let’s actually address this nonsense regarding the various groups first... We can tackle Agrokor later.
Agrokor will eventually manipulate the legal institutions of the state regardless; let's focus on the real issues here.
Thanks.

Paul Martinez73 said:It honestly baffles me when people act shocked that money was embezzled, stolen, or handed out as bribes. Look, that’s literally why the government exists... I seriously doubt there isn't a single layer of society in the US where someone isn't paying off an inspector, a cop, a judge, or just calling in a favor from a buddy, a cousin, or even their old man.
And then you have people acting all outraged, like, "Oh my god, they stole a billion dollars!" We all know how the game is played. Whether it's Todoric, Mamic, Nadan, or whatever other name you want to throw in there, it's been happening forever and it isn't stopping anytime soon.

I actually have a friend who dropped $200 on a cop just to avoid losing his license while driving through Austria. He ended up getting months of jail time instantly instead.

There is simply zero chance—not even a 1% shot—that you can be 100% straight with the rules here. In other countries, you might get by with maybe 20% of the time without screwing anyone over, giving you at least a fighting chance at being a decent human. But here? If you aren't ripping off your boss twice a day, you won't be able to afford rent. And if you don't rip off the government, your waiter isn't going to be able to pay their bills or give you anything extra under the table. It's just one big endless cycle.

America reminds me of something...
Oh, right. I remember now.
It’s like a club or a band. Desperate, violent bouncers, and entrance fees that are outrageously expensive. Even the drinks cost more than the ticket.
Then three guys start a brawl at the bar.
The sound system cuts out for ten minutes.
To make matters worse, the music kicks back in and the miserable band just keeps playing.

Slowly, people start trickling out, while the crowd at the bar gets hammered from pure frustration and the bouncers get even more agitated.

Then the power goes out entirely, a stampede breaks out toward the exit, and the bouncers just start swinging at anyone in their path.

That is exactly what America feels like to me.
We are currently in the penultimate stage.

Paul Martinez73 said:Nah...

Come tell me that at the high school after five o'clock, right behind the gym, and then we'll see how things go.

Kenneth Wood9 said:What’s always the deal with religious ed? As far as I know, it’s an elective, yet I still had to sign my kids up for it at school 🤔
and I was stuck learning Marxism—had to learn about the types, the theory, all that... plus I had to serve in the military, which was a total nightmare 🕺

Are you really comparing religion classes to Marxism, civics, and state doctrine?

OK, actually, the comparison holds water.
In every single instance, we are talking about ideological subjects designed to shape a child's worldview.
That is precisely where the problem lies with religious education. It functions just like Marxism or civic indoctrination; whether it's labeled "mandatory" or "elective" doesn't change the core reality. In the end, it's all the same thing because, let's be honest, children aren't the ones making the choice anyway.

Paul Martinez73 said:First off, I'm siding with Ryan Hall4, who showed up acting totally unhinged, so there you have it...
Modern movies are just tailored for today's mindless crowds and the aggressive marketing machine that keeps sucking people in because they get all their news from Facebook and Instagram, where paid ads are hitting them from every single angle.

You see the exact same thing happening with soccer—the actual quality of play is worse than it used to be, and the obsession with viewership numbers is killing the sport. It’s perfectly normal that someone who hasn't seen *12 Angry Men* wouldn't know what a real movie is, or someone thinks *Casablanca* is stupid just because it's in black and white and lacks the sci-fi special effects of something like *The Avengers*... much like how people are suddenly obsessed with modern soccer and massive transfer fees when they didn't give a damn about the game before.

The *Avengers* kind of reminds me of that one movie—maybe it was *New Year's Eve*—where they just threw twenty A-list stars into a blender and called it a movie, and everyone rushed to the theaters to see it.

Nowadays, they churn out films that don't make any sense at all. People are losing their minds over *Dunkirk*, yet there isn't really a plot to speak of; there are five better movies about Normandy out there, but somehow this is considered a masterpiece. It's the same deal with the *Avengers* smashing box office records.

But hey, to each their own...

Fair point. There are certainly superior films set during the Normandy landings—think *The Bridge on the River Kwai*, *Battle of the Bulge*, or even *Das Boot*.
But does that mean *Dunkirk* isn't an exceptional piece of filmmaking, despite its lack of traditional scope?
Granted, it lacks a driving narrative. There’s no sweeping romance, and you won't find any legendary American fighter pilots diving to take down a squadron of enemy planes. It’s almost underwhelming in that sense: just soldiers running for their lives, and then it's over. No grand, gripping arc to hold onto.

graniteheron132 said:Honestly, they’re just trying to sell us snake oil with Odyssey. If that movie came out today, people would absolutely tear it to shreds online. They'd be calling it "not even real sci-fi," just some cheap, pseudo-intellectual garbage. It feels like we don't get decent sci-fi anymore. I mean, give me classics like Solaris or Stalker any day. That's where the real stuff is at.

I feel like I’m being targeted here, likely because I’m probably the biggest *Odyssey* nerd on this entire forum. So, fine. Let’s address it.

Age is an irrelevant metric when judging cinema. I’m old enough to claim I was at the premiere back in 2010 for *2001: A Space Odyssey* at the AMC Lincoln Square. That film holds up just as well today as it did when it first hit the screen decades ago. I remember catching Lynch’s *Dune* when it was brand new—the kind of film he famously didn't even want his name attached to because he thought it was a disaster. That one is harder to pin down. At times, it feels like pure genius; at others, it’s a total facepalm. Personally, I lean toward the former. Perhaps it's just the influence of all those classic novels I've read. Who knows?
On the other hand, you’ve got Star Wars. To me, that's pure trash, regardless of its legacy status. It’s more of a space western than actual science fiction, isn't it?

Now, tell me this: where on earth are you getting the idea that good movies aren't being made today? I specifically said that great sci-fi isn't being made—not that good cinema, in general, is dead. If you look at other genres, there is far more substance and quality being produced than what we see in science fiction. And honestly, this isn't just a modern grievance; it’s always been this way. Throughout the entire history of American filmmaking, truly intelligent, high-quality sci-fi has always been a remarkably rare breed.
It’s actually quite bizarre when you step back and look at the state of things, both in literature and in the world of graphic novels.

Ryan Hall4 said:It comes down to memory. Take *Ex Machina*, for example. I remember thinking it was solid, but if you asked me to recap the plot right now, I’d have no clue who did what to whom. That's the problem with cinema. Most modern films just evaporate. You might walk out of a theater feeling absolutely thrilled, but give it a month and it’s gone—it never truly stuck.

Regarding sci-fi or fantasy series: I’m a fan of *Farscape*. Has anyone here seen it? Most people bail after the first few episodes, but that show is absolute perfection once the seasons start progressing. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187636/

*Stargate* was decent, though it dragged on far too long. *Battlestar Galactica* was excellent, even if certain storylines started grating on my nerves toward the end. *The X-Files* is damn good, though calling it pure sci-fi is a stretch since it jumps genres constantly. Finally, *Babylon 5* is somewhat overlooked, but it's top-tier.

*Farscape* is an absolute gem.
It feels like it was produced on a shoestring budget, maybe just enough for some coffee and a couple of burgers.
The early episodes leave you wondering, "What on earth am I watching?" But once you settle in, it evolves into something genuinely exceptional.

*Stargate* was solid, though arguably far too drawn out. *Battlestar Galactica* was excellent, even if certain storylines eventually started to grate on my nerves. Then there’s *The X-Files*, which is undeniably great, though I wouldn't label it strictly sci-fi given how much it leans into other genres. *Babylon 5* is somewhat forgotten these days, yet it remains a very strong contender.

*Stargate Universe* starts with immense promise, but it eventually loses its way, becoming repetitive and frankly tedious.
The final iteration of *Galactica* follows a similar trajectory. It boasts a spectacular opening run, only to fall into a cycle of repetition later on.

There are plenty of other quality shows out there... *Firefly*, for instance.

I recently stumbled upon *Blake's 7* on YouTube. I remember watching it when I was just a six-year-old kid.
Watching it now as an adult, the experience is entirely different. And you know what? The series is actually quite superb. It's intelligent and doesn't rely on cheap gimmicks. I expected it to be total garbage thirty years later, but I was pleasantly surprised.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Honestly, I think "The Martian" is actually a top-tier movie when you look at the big picture, especially considering the kind of sci-fi competition out there lately. In my opinion, the only two modern sci-fi films that are even remotely tolerable are "The Martian" and "Passengers." Everything else feels like mindless action junk that isn't really worth mentioning.

It seems like modern sci-fi just doesn't draw from quality sources or templates anymore. For instance, I personally find Asimov's "Foundation" series to be the gold standard for the genre. Arthur C. Clarke's "Odyssey" series is also great, though people mostly know them through the movies (even if the books are arguably better since the first book and film were developed alongside each other). But "Foundation"? That’s the GOAT—it's basically the LeBron James of sci-fi. Maybe others have different favorites, but I guess it's important for younger audiences to broaden their horizons; you can't feed your stomach with nothing but junk, and you shouldn't feed your brain with junk either. When I went to see "Iron Man 3," it felt like someone had forced five pounds of pig feed down my throat. I truly felt bad about the money I spent, and no one can give me that time back. Even though reviews claimed it was "pure candy," I remember wondering what planet I was living on. I suppose the first "Iron Man" was okay, maybe even good for a few moments.

As a standalone piece of cinema, *Mars* isn't a bad movie. But when you judge it by the standards of science fiction? It’s absolutely absurd.
It isn't actually an idiotic concept to have a man stranded on Mars fighting for survival. That part holds water. What’s truly idiotic, however, is the specific way he goes about doing it.
Sator... Are you serious? On Mars?

The last piece of science fiction worth mentioning that doesn't rely on tired tropes? *Event Horizon*. Though, if I’m being honest, it leans more toward psychological horror than pure sci-fi.

Lately, it feels like science fiction has been struggling to find its footing when it comes to selecting truly high-quality sources and templates for inspiration. It’s become a bit of a repetitive cycle, hasn't it? For me, if you want to see how the genre should actually be done, you look at Isaac Asimov's *Foundation* series. That remains the gold standard.

I believe I mentioned earlier that a series is in the works.

Is Apple TV+ actually making moves to secure more prestige content? Recent reports suggest they might be eyeing a deal for *Foundation*, a move that would signal a significant shift in their streaming strategy. For a long time, the platform has leaned heavily on big-budget sci-fi and high-concept dramas. But is doubling down on established IP the right play? It’s a calculated risk, certainly. They have the capital, and they clearly have the appetite for sweeping, cinematic storytelling. Yet, one has to wonder if this marks a pivot toward a more traditional Hollywood model, or if they are simply trying to shore up their subscriber base by grabbing what everyone else is fighting over. It remains to be seen whether this acquisition will solidify their reputation as the home of premium genre fiction or if it will just be another expensive line item on a balance sheet. Only time will tell.

The entire *Odyssey* series by Arthur C. Clarke is exceptional. Of course, most people recognize them more for their cinematic adaptations. While the first book and its film counterpart were actually developed in tandem, I’ve always felt the novels hold a level of depth that the movies just can't quite capture. The books are simply better.

Since we’re already on the subject of cinematic epics, I have to say: *2010: Odyssey Two* is a massively underrated film. Is it just me, or did everyone overlook its brilliance?
What’s even more compelling is that the film isn't even attempting to be *2001: A Space Odyssey*. It isn't some derivative imitation. Instead, it exists as its own distinct entity—a standalone piece that happens to pick up exactly where *2001* left off.
This film is criminally underrated. Truly. Why does it constantly fly under the radar?
When it comes to comparing the novel and its film adaptation... it’s a tough call to make. Which one reigns supreme? Honestly, it’s hard to say. Both the book and the movie are absolute masterpieces in their own right.

Asimov's *Foundation* is in a league of its own—it’s the GOAT of science fiction. Sure, some people might argue for their own personal favorites, but isn't the point of reading to expand your horizons? You can't live on junk food alone, and you certainly shouldn't feed your mind nothing but garbage.

It’s a classic. Pure old-school sci-fi.
It certainly has its share of flaws—countless, really—but there is an underlying sense of romance woven into it. It’s a certain kind of soulfulness that seems almost impossible for supposedly "literary" authors to capture. Is that even a word? Regardless, it's there.
A space opera on an epic scale—and I mean that in the most positive sense possible.

So, I’ve been hearing whispers that *Hyperion* might actually be developed into a series. Is it possible? Could we truly see this epic scale brought to life on screen? It’s an intriguing thought, though one wonders if anyone could ever capture its true essence.

Beyond everything else we've discussed, there is one thing I would truly love to see adapted into a prestige series: the works of Ursula K. Le Guin—specifically her Hainish Cycle and *Earthsea*. Is there anything more ripe for a high-budget television adaptation?
Anything at all would be a massive win.

When we talk about screen adaptations of sci-fi or fantasy series, things actually look a bit brighter. There’s a decent pool of interesting, high-quality shows out there. Beyond the usual heavy hitters like Game of Thrones, you have solid options like The Expanse, American Gods, Childhood's End, or Dune. There’s plenty more where that came from.
But let's be honest: even those are all based on literary works.

Ryan Hall4 said:None of those listed qualify as "smart" sci-fi; they pale in comparison to the classics Matthew Young35 mentioned. Furthermore, claiming there is no good sci-fi left just because you think Spielberg's last decent outing was Minority Report is laughable. To then suggest pseudo-scientific flicks like Inception, Interstellar, or Donnie Darko as alternatives? Now you're adding Edge of Tomorrow to the list too. 🤣

Matthew Young35, what is your take on Soviet sci-fi?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091341/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091759/

And one forgotten gem: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089869/

Hand me those two before any of the titles you listed, you pretentious snob.

That is precisely the issue: all the titles mentioned above are populist sci-fi designed for weekend casuals. It is like reading a trashy pulp novelist while dragging Clarke, Asimov, and Heinlein through the mud. There is zero cinematic culture here, much like the state of modern literature. Everything has been inverted. Today, we listen to the moral lectures of celebrity reality stars. Modern sci-fi follows that exact same pattern. It isn't an issue if a film is populist—even the Odyssey was quite successful for its time, yet it possessed genuine substance. These modern productions lack that fundamental integrity.

I’ve never been able to connect with Russian literature. Not even on paper, if I’m being honest. I haven't spent much time wading through their classics, but the disconnect is definitely there.
I think I’ve only really watched *Stalker*.

Noah Roberts46 said:Blade Runner 2049, Arrival, Interstellar, Inception, Ex Machina, Annihilation, District 9, Gravity, Children of Men, Edge of Tomorrow, The Martian, Moon, Donnie Darko, Her, Minority Report (the last Spielberg one was decent enough for me)...

Just off the top of my head—and look, I wouldn't call all of these masterpieces, but most are at least solid. You seriously cannot tell me there hasn't been good sci-fi coming out of America over the last 15 years. If anything, I'd argue there's quite a lot of it, despite this massive superhero wave everyone loves to hate on. Case in point: Villeneuve will probably turn Dune into a multi-film epic.

I'll concede that overall movie quality in the States has dipped compared to the 90s and previous eras, but people really go overboard claiming there isn't any good cinema left.

Man, honestly? None of those listed come close to being on the same level as the ones I mentioned, maybe with the exception of District 9.
Blade Runner 2049 is visually stunning, sure, but it’s an empty shell of a movie that just exploits the original.
Arrival starts with a relatively strong concept, but halfway through, they seemingly lose the plot on how to actually develop that idea or deliver a meaningful resolution.
Interstellar is decent for the first half, but after that... Honestly, it would have been better if they just stopped midway and left the ending to our imagination.
Ex Machina is fine, I guess, but it’s kind of forgettable. You watch it thinking it’s some profound piece of work, then a month later, you can barely remember what it was about beyond some robots.
Gravity is another visual triumph, yet it’s packed with stupidity and lacks any real substance.
Edge of Tomorrow is just a standard action flick.
The Martian is tolerable, but painfully naive. I don't even need to explain why the idea of a guy living in a tent on Mars without any real logistics, growing peas (!) is ridiculous.
Moon feels more like metaphysical rambling than actual sci-fi.
As for Minority Report, it’s about as much "sci-fi" as Star Wars or Mission Impossible.

I haven't seen the others.

Most of those films are simplistic and lack true science fiction depth.
On top of that, the concepts are often terrible.
Take Interstellar, for example. The core premise is idiotic.

To be blunt, truly great sci-fi is non-existent outside of the five or six I already named—and even those were based on books or written in collaboration with actual sci-fi authors.
We're talking real sci-fi, not just action movies. Terminator isn't even really a sci-fi film.

Hollywood cares more about throwing $30 million at a CGI circle than giving someone like Neil Gaiman $50,000 to write a script.

Oh, I just remembered a rumor I heard. Apparently, there's talk of a series adaptation of Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber.