Comments on: The MM/TF Top 10 (and Then Some): Sci-Fi Movies

By: steve8714

steve8714 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:35:03 +0000

Why does no one mention “Battle beyond the stars”?, the rip-off of “The Magnificent Seven” which is a rip-off of “Seven Samurai? Just seeing John-Boy in space gets this on the list, as well as Robert Vaughn’s hilarious self-parody.
And while we’re at it, where’s “Dark City”?

By: Staatz

Staatz — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:04:53 +0000

I’d be neat to have a woman on the triple feature, though when you guys have had guests on in the past one or more of the guys go usually silent, though that happens sometimes anyway and there are lots of times when there are only two of you…

By: Trisha Lynn

Trisha Lynn — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:40:55 +0000

@Jacob: Could you stand calling the “special” eps “Triple Feature, guest-starring Trisha Lynn”?

*runs, ducks, hides*

By: Jacob

Jacob — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:58:52 +0000

One list every 1-2 months? That’s more than I would have even guessed. If you churn them out that frequently, I (and, I imagine, many others) would be more than satisfied.

And I would definitely tune in to a “Quadruple Feature” special, despite the fact that that’s a terrible, terrible name.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:55:02 +0000

More lists are definitely in the pipeline, but getting it all together is like wrangling cats. Maybe one every month or two?

And for the record, I had Alien and Aliens tied (at #4, I think) on my list, because I cheat. :) But alas, no one else listed it. I guess Tom and Joe go for the action-adventure angle of Aliens more than the horror angle of Alien? Dunno.

As for 2001, I have some issues with it, as a science nerd. I absolutely LOVE the Hal/Dave bits, and were the movie just that, it would probably be on my list. But I loathe the caveman stuff, which was horrible science even for the 1960’s, and the star baby stuff is pretty but utter nonsense without an external explanation. I prefer to think of it as him hallucinating as he slowly dies, which is really happy, I know. I think if I’d ever had the chance to see it in a 70mm screening, I might have enjoyed it more, though. It’s a beautifully shot movie.

Trisha Lynn can call into the Triple Feature podcast anytime she wants! If she can catch Moon in the next week or so, we’d love to have her join us for Monday’s show.

By: Trisha Lynn

Trisha Lynn — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:45:35 +0000

@Jacob: We’re working on figuring that out right now, and it’s definitely something I’m interested in doing for mah man, Gordon.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:13:48 +0000

Although I’ve got my own list (who doesn’t?), you guys have put together a pretty good one. Personally, I cared less about the actual ranking and more about what each of you thought of the individual films. If the four of you making another Top 10 list meant we’d get to see more genuinely interesting commentary like this, then I’ll be first in line to see it (figuratively speaking).

And I loved the way you all played off of each other as a group; always felt the Triple Feature gang meshed really well, and Trisha fit right in. Any chance she’ll be showing up on the podcast any time soon?

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:43:10 +0000

Am I the only one that didn’t like “The Matrix?” Like, at all? Also, I didn’t understand “Blade Runner.” I mean, I got the themes and understood what it was trying to say, I just literally didn’t understand what was going on from scene to scene. “Why are they doing that” “How did that happen” etc. etc…

By: Amelia

Amelia — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:20:05 +0000

@Staatz- There is something that is absolutely overwhelming about 2001 on a big screen (or at least the biggest screen you can find, I myself watched it on my friends tv while she wasn’t home…Heh). However, there is something to be said about the unfamiliarity of the slower paced movies before the 80’s. Sometimes it’s a little jaunting about fast paced action in recent movies (Terminator Salvation for instance, my eyes couldn’t focus! Or the 2nd or 3rd Bourne movies which made me nauseated.) Certainly worth the watch if you can do it!

Also despite the fact that there is nothing science or technology particularly relating to Star Wars… I would definitely consider it scifi.

By: indigo

indigo — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:21:44 +0000

Clearly you’re working with a pretty broad definition of ‘Sci-Fi’ to be including movies like the Star Wars movies or Brazil, the former of which is better described as a ’space adventure’, and the latter is more just a speculative fiction piece, with very little science or technology pertaining to the story.

My own personal list would have to include Gattaca, The Abyss, Explorers, and The Philadelphia Experiment, among others. And I would also count Batteries Not Included as sci-fi, myself!

By: Staatz

Staatz — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:41:42 +0000

Hay that’s a good list. I agree with Amelia, I’m surprised that 2001 wasn’t one the list- just because most people seem to hold it in high regard. Honestly though it’s the only movie that has ever put me to sleep, so maybe it hasn’t held up well? Maybe I should try watching it again.

My list wouldn’t be a whole lot different… ‘Mad Max’ and ‘Batteries Not Included’ might be on there… or do those even count as science fiction?

By: Myrr Disparo

Myrr Disparo — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:12:34 +0000

Well, to tell you the truth, Aliens making the list, while Alien didn’t? That’s hard to understand. Although it could be because the original scared me for life at age 8, so nostalgia can certainly be a factor. And I didn’t think much of Aliens. I guess I like my sci-fi more quiet. Less shooty, more talky.
On the other hand, 2001, a Space Oddisey doesn’t deserve a place on the list? Blasphemy! Grab the pitchforks! I kid, I kid, but still, it surprises me. Specially with Matrix up there. Being a philosophy major, I always found that movie… too ambitious. Of course, it didn’t help any the amount of people telling me: “But you should like it! It’s so philosophical! You like Blade Runner, don’t you?” Against that movie, well, it doesn’t hold up, I’m sorry.

By: Amelia

Amelia — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:35:07 +0000

No one even mentioned 2001? And while I completely agree about Tarkovsky’s Solaris, I also think that Metropolis would be on that list. Or now that I think about all the classics I love… Strange Encounters of the Third Kind? Oh! And ET?

By: Gordon McAlpin

Gordon McAlpin — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:12:53 +0000

Totz: I agree with you about Matrix, Brazil and Empire, although since Children of Men didn’t make my top ten (barely!), I suppose I don’t agree with you about that. Perhaps if I saw it again, it would jump up a few places, but I’ve only seen it the once, when it was still in theaters. (It was in the top three of my Best of 2006 list on the Triple Feature.)

Zachary: I much prefer Tarkovsky’s Solaris (which made my list, and would have been my second honorable mention pick) to Stalker. I enjoyed Stalker when I first saw it a month or so ago, but I don’t see it having the rewatchability of Solaris for me.

I think you’re far too harsh on Wall•E, though. I don’t think of it as a “message movie” at all, let alone a heavy-handed one. Watch it again; the heart of the story is the characters.

Trisha Lynn: For me, it’s because the dystopian “future” (is it ever stated that they’re in the future?) they live in is so utterly improbable and unrealistic — so far removed from the world as we know it — that it pushes Brazil into the fantasy genre.

By: Trisha Lynn

Trisha Lynn — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:38:48 +0000

@Totz: Of course, I respectfully disagree because what about it isn’t science fiction? It’s set in a dystopian future where machines have become indispensable and asks questions about how and why becoming dependent upon these machines may be stripping ourselves of our humanity and compassion. What’s not “science-fictiony” enough about that?