What is the most crappy scifi ever?

[Belisarius]

Without any doubt whatsoever Star Wars...

Poor script
Awful acting
Wooden characters
Absurd storyline
Gets worse and worse as it goes on, making it the cinematic equivalent of Microsoft.
Finally just mind-numbingly boring boring BOOO-RING!

 

[simonpro]

I never understand why people don't like Starship Troopers and Independance Day. The former is a great movie to watch with lots of beers and a few mates, the latter is superb for a rainy sunday afternoon.
Neither is trying to be some kind of super real amazing coolthing, they're just trying to be typical movies. They succeed very well at that.
I even quite like Armageddon, it's just plain good fun.

Ones I can't stand: Anything to do with star trek (don't like star trek), Contact (long and boring), deep impact (the kid pisses me off), whatever that Arnie movie on mars is.

 

[Ghostrider]

Without any doubt whatsoever Star Wars...

I find your lack of faith disturbing...

 

[James.Denholm]

Nice one Ghostrider!

Pesonaly, I haven't seen to many sci-fi's that I later regretted. Then again, I prefer to watch movies, not analise them

Worst sci-fi book ever read: Contact. Just hated it. Finished it, though.

Note: Yet to see and read 2001, haven't been able to find the buggers at my local libary!

EDIT: Sorry, if Equlibrium can be concidered sci-fi (it's set in the future!), hated it, stupid shooting scenes. And if Next can be considered sci-fi, I loved it, exept for the end! What a weak ending!

 

[jedidia]

Oh well, I allways feel a bit torn apart bcause the crappy ones from a scientific point of view most of the time are the more amusing to watch. Movies and Books seem to go opposite ways here. Whereas realism in a book makes for great imersiveness, in a movie it mostly makes for long, boring scenes.

E.g. I love to watch Independance Day. Plot, Writing, realism and general feeling would make a book I wouldn't even read if I got money for it, but I love to watch that movie...

It's also a big difference if a movie takes itself seriously or not. IMO the major difference between independance day and Armageddon: While independance day is pretty tongue-in-cheek most of the time, Armageddon tries hard to give give the movie a solemn, foreboding feel and failes utterly because all the inconsistencies are so stupid even a parody would have had to be carefull to use them.

Then there are two kinds of S.F. that have to be differed: There is Scifi that askes "what will be", and there is SciFi that askes "what would be if", with Heinlein being one of the most prominent of the first kind and Dick being the uncrowned king of the second. Dick frequently invents stuff that is scientifically not so sound just to get a scenario for another "what if it WOULD be possible"- story. Maybe not everything in there is scientifically sound, but everything is consistent, becuase the exploration of the causes such an invention would have is actually what the story is all about.

When they get turned into movies however this aspects easily come out of focus, so happened with "Minority Report" and "Paycheck" (both based on Dick Novels). While Paycheck managed to be intersting enough because the plot worked very well for a movie, Minority Report failed utterly, because the elements that make up the suspension of the movie are not really plot-related most of the time.

All in all, I think it is a big problem that movies mess up original books because they have to add dramaturgy and therefore sacrifice consistency, while consistency would actually be the one factor Science-Fiction is ALL about.

Anyways, worst "SF"-movie ever: Teenagers from outer space! :rofl:

 

[Kyle]

Without any doubt whatsoever Star Wars...

Poor script
Awful acting
Wooden characters
Absurd storyline
Gets worse and worse as it goes on, making it the cinematic equivalent of Microsoft.
Finally just mind-numbingly boring boring BOOO-RING!

You obviously havent seen the Old Ones, they rocket.

 

[GregBurch]

... shouldn't be posting ... but this topic is one of my hot buttons ...

I never understand why people don't like Starship Troopers and Independance Day. The former is a great movie to watch with lots of beers and a few mates, the latter is superb for a rainy sunday afternoon.
Neither is trying to be some kind of super real amazing coolthing, they're just trying to be typical movies. They succeed very well at that.
I even quite like Armageddon, it's just plain good fun.

If I try real hard (and it does take an effort for me), I can understand this attitude. The problem for me is that I can't see these movies in isolation, but rather perceive them as part of an over-all cultural phenomenon of "dumbing down." Yes, each individual instance of this kind of thing is "just good fun," but the problem is that these don't happen in isolation -- they keep coming and coming and coming. And they reflect a willful ignorance on the part of the people who have a huge influence on our culture that is also caught up with the anti-science agenda of the Hollywood crowd.

It's not just that they get the specific science and technology wrong, but there's a pervasive portrayal of science and technology as evil. Count the number of times a scientist is the bad guy versus how often the scientist is the good guy. How often is THINKING through a problem the plot path to a solution to the dramatic conflict, rather than "following your feelings?"

And don't even get me started on the standard plot devices of "the evil, greedy corporate capitalist" or "the power-hungry, hateful military leader."

Ones I can't stand: Anything to do with star trek (don't like star trek), Contact (long and boring), deep impact (the kid pisses me off), whatever that Arnie movie on mars is.

I happen to agree about Star Trek, and have a long, detailed canned rant against it. But again, Contact is something we can't agree about. For once, Hollywood tries to actually treat ideas and the people who have them with respect, and it's "long and boring." Of course, Sagan died during the filming, Jody Foster admitted she didn't really understand the movie herself, and the director had to stress the "feel-good" ending ... but in my book it was way, way, way above 99.9999999% of what passes for either "sci-fi" or movies about ideas in Hollywood ...

 

[ar81]

Just watched Armageddon again OH MY GOD is it stupid, especially in german.
They seperate SRBs and ET at the same time, Mir rotates like hell, the asteroid has an atmosphere..................................

You forgot to mention docking while station rotates.
Also, it docks with side door...

Independence Day was by far the worst for many reasons.

Plan 9 from Outer Space was pretty bad, too - but possibly campy enough to make it worth watching.

The fascist revision of Brazil must be nodded at as well. A happy ending? No wonder Terry's knickers got in a twist.

That's fun. There was a magazine here, called "Plan9" where I published a comic of mine. It is way out of print and the project is long gone.

This is the ad that I created back then to send via email to my friends during St. Valentine and Christmas. This was the first comic with 3D in my country.

 

[dutchpirate]

Battle Beyond the Stars!! John-boy in space! Also Message From Space. I like sailing ships and walnuts are tasty, but a tall ship in space and a glowing walnut for a spiritual messenger???

 

[Urwumpe]

My theory on Verhoevens Starship Troopers (and the remake of War of the Worlds) is: It gets bad in the moment you do one or more of two wrong things:
- Disable your brain and stop thinking. You need to keep your eyes open and aware of the subtle effects inside it.
- Expect it to be exactly like the book. The book was written for an audience with a completely different habits how they perceive things. If you would write it true to the book, nobody on this planet would understand it or maybe even believe it just another "We against the aliens" movie.

Heinleins militarism might look very conservative in our current context, but in the 1950s, when the book was written, his understanding was pretty revolutionary. The US militarism of the time was still painted by WW2, Korea and cold war propaganda. Vietnam had not happened and the people had a deep trust in the army and the government. And the starship troopers novel showed how stupid this kind of thinking actually is.

The movie just tried to translate it, and sort of failed by just one thing - it did not understand itself. But still, I don't feel it is a bad movie. It is just not deserving the trademark Heinlein. Heinlein is maybe best described as "luring deep you into trouble, if you use your own brain." Even the stuff he wrote as teenager already has this kind of expectation, that you only achieve things, when you work hard yourself for them.

Simonpro: You mean "Total Recall" with the martian Arnie movie? Which brings us again to Verhoeven.

Based on a great short story (By Philipp K Dick, a name you should have on your reading list), implemented the Verhoeven style, which is perfect for the culture of the 80s... and still fails by the story being smarter as the director.

I just watched Deep Impact lately. It was realistic in science, and bad as movie. Even the Augsburger Puppenkiste would have made it better.

There are many sci-fi goodies, which never got any good attention... does somebody remember Outland or Brazil?

 

[Andy44]

My theory on Verhoevens Starship Troopers (and the remake of War of the Worlds) is: It gets bad in the moment you do one or more of two wrong things:
- Disable your brain and stop thinking. You need to keep your eyes open and aware of the subtle effects inside it.
- Expect it to be exactly like the book. The book was written for an audience with a completely different habits how they perceive things. If you would write it true to the book, nobody on this planet would understand it or maybe even believe it just another "We against the aliens" movie.

Heinleins militarism might look very conservative in our current context, but in the 1950s, when the book was written, his understanding was pretty revolutionary. The US militarism of the time was still painted by WW2, Korea and cold war propaganda. Vietnam had not happened and the people had a deep trust in the army and the government. And the starship troopers novel showed how stupid this kind of thinking actually is.

The movie just tried to translate it, and sort of failed by just one thing - it did not understand itself. But still, I don't feel it is a bad movie. It is just not deserving the trademark Heinlein. Heinlein is maybe best described as "luring deep you into trouble, if you use your own brain." Even the stuff he wrote as teenager already has this kind of expectation, that you only achieve things, when you work hard yourself for them.

My impression was that Verhoeven was purposely mocking Heinlein, it's so offensive. Honestly, he should have just avoided taking the job.

And I agree with Greg on the continuous barrage of stupidity and the avoidance of reason and logic in favor of statist jock hero BS.

 

[JamesG]

I blame the writers or possibly the producers. I suspect that when they got the rights to the "Starship Troopers" name, all they did was pull a script off the shelf that kinda-sorta fit the novel. And the rest was infamy.

The only silver lining to any of Verhoeven's work is the co-ed shower scenes he puts in most of his movies.

 

[jedidia]

does somebody remember Outland or Brazil?

I remember Outland everytime someone mentiones it, but strangely don't have it present most of the time. But I agree, that movie had a very special feel to it.

 

[agentgonzo]

I never understand why people don't like Starship Troopers and Independance Day. The former is a great movie to watch with lots of beers and a few mates, the latter is superb for a rainy sunday afternoon.
Neither is trying to be some kind of super real amazing coolthing, they're just trying to be typical movies. They succeed very well at that.
I even quite like Armageddon, it's just plain good fun.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject. I don't watch movies for their realism and accuracy. I watch them for enjoyment. Yes, I know that it's massively unrealistic, but I chuckle about it and then carry on watching the movie. I honestly don't care that much that it's massively unrealistic.

Computers are always portrayed in films badly. They bleep at any event, internet pages fade and zoom around when you move to a different site, emails get folded into an envelope and fly away and "unix" is portrayed as a 3d fly-by of a load of buildings (yes, Jurassic park, I'm looking at you here!). But this massive unrealism doesn't in any way spoil the film for me. This is pretty much how I feel about the portrayal of space in films.

 

[eveningsky339]

YouTube - Worst Fight Scene Ever

See that, that's bullet time!

What the hell did I just watch?

 

[MajorTom]

Very interesting topic. By and large I share the opinions of the group.

People are mentioning Outland. Liked it, but was weirded out by the heads exploding when exposed to the vacuum (of the airless moon they were on).

2001: whenever it's on, I am sure to tell anyone in earshot it's the best SF so far, because it tries so hard (and succeeds so well) at imagining real hardware, possibly attainable in the near future. No laser guns with visible beams, noise in space, artificial gravity, etc. And Bowman's head DID NOT burst when he was briefly exposed to a vacuum. (Although the blood vessels in his eyes probably should have.)

I've got a soft spot for Star Trek TOS. For years, it was the only steady source of SF for me. (Star Wars was great, but the movies came out in 77, 80 and 83...with long waits in between.)

Story: The other day, on a family holiday, I was staying at a rented house and was surprised to see that the home was equipped with a full set of Star Trek: TOS videotapes. Popped in the rather pleasant episode where the Enterprise somehow finds itself in the upper atmosphere of Earth, back in the 1960's, above Omaha, NB. Air Force interceptor nears, is caught in tractor beam, Captain so-and-so is beamed aboard just before his jet breaks up. Adventure ensues. I enjoyed it, but my 14 year-old niece was put off by the campiness of the sets, makeup and really goofy fight scenes. Those things are part of what made Star Trek great, but oh well...

 

[gawinnard]

"Max-Q" and "The Core", honestly I think that was a job more for the navy than NASA.....
"space-camp" and "moonraker", just don't get me started

 

[Linguofreak]

Careful, them's fightin' words! Perhaps you're young. I used to argue alot with people who grew up thinking Captain Picard's Next Generation was better than TOS, and their usual asinine reason was that the effects were better. Primitive or low-budget effects don't take away from a solid story, and I certainly like TOS's characters alot more than whiners like Picard, Riker, and Troi.

I am fairly young, but it's not just bad effects that I'm talking about. It's plots that stretch believability. I'm not talking scientific believability, almost all TV/Movie SF throws that out the window, but just that alot of plotlines in TOS are absolutely absurd, and the show doesn't even try to pass them off as comedy.

TNG and later may be bad, but at least they aren't quite so absurd.

 

[Belisarius]

You obviously havent seen the Old Ones [Star Wars], they rocket.

Young fella, back in 1977 I could have recited the whole crappy script verbatim to you, I watched it (the first one) around ten times, and that was when you actually had to go the cinema to see a film. I liked the second one too but I was ready to vomit by the end of the third.

Then around five years ago I watched them again, showing them to my son. I was shocked at how poor they are, not just the effects which haven't aged well, but just the terrible, inconsistent, wooden characters with their nonsensical actions - why can't these superclone warrrior soldiers shoot straight? Why doesn't Darth Vader go looking for the rebels in the Falcon himself, using his ESP, rather than sending in the obviously incompetent troopers, whose idea of searching a craft is to march through it in formation? etc etc. If I get started on the deficiencies in the picture I'll never stop.

But finally it's the dialogue which makes it suck. Compare the sharp and realistic dialogue of Serenity - a scifi movie with class - or the Chronicles of Riddick, which though supermacho is much more fun.

Scifi cinema generally is poor, but it doesn't have to be that way - 2001, 2010, Serenity, Riddick and maybe a few others can make it work.

 

[Ghostrider]

Computers are always portrayed in films badly. They bleep at any event, internet pages fade and zoom around when you move to a different site, emails get folded into an envelope and fly away and "unix" is portrayed as a 3d fly-by of a load of buildings

You forgot that when someone is typing text in, you almost never see a cursor...