NationStates Jolt Archive

Slim pickings, true, but a list of your favorite-of-all-time-movie would be too long to poll for :D

Which SciFi movie did you like the most (or, in reverse, hated the least?)

* Æon Flux
* Doom
* King Kong
* Robots
* Serenity
* Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
* Steamboy
* The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
* The Island
* War of the Worlds

Where is the "all of the above sucked" option?

It's right there under the "don't vote" option :D

Where is the "all of the above sucked" option?

Have you seen Serenity? Joss Whedon is a master of the Sci-fi genre - that film is bloody brilliant. The acting is first-rate, the cast are obvioudly warm to each other and thus work even better, the camera work is great, especially the shaky-hand camera during the space battle at the end, the special effects are just gorgeous and the plot is quite original.

Wow, Sci-Fi really had an off year.

It's right there under the "don't vote" option :D

Which makes your poll really not say anything, as only people with poor taste will be able to vote.

Serenity owns all. Though I heard good things about Steamboy

Where is the "all of the above sucked" option?

What is your favorite Sci-Fi movie?

Have you seen Serenity? Joss Whedon is a master of the Sci-fi genre - that film is bloody brilliant. The acting is first-rate, the cast are obvioudly warm to each other and thus work even better, the camera work is great, especially the shaky-hand camera during the space battle at the end, the special effects are just gorgeous and the plot is quite original.

It was boring and unless you were some fanboy of the series quite nonsensical.

It was boring and unless you were some fanboy of the series quite nonsensical.
I never saw Firefly but I understood the movie quite well

Which makes your poll really not say anything, as only people with poor taste will be able to vote.
Not really, those who don't vote or post their opinions like you speak enough as is

What is your favorite Sci-Fi movie?

Shin seiki Evangelion Gekijô-ban: Air/Magokoro wo, kimi ni.

Shin seiki Evangelion Gekijô-ban: Air/Magokoro wo, kimi ni.

Was that made in 2005?

Was that made in 2005?

It was made in 1997, I believe, but the question did not ask for my favourite 2005 sci-fi film, only my favourite sci-fi film.

I never saw Firefly but I understood the movie quite well

Same here. Never saw Firefly in my life, but my friends didn't have to explain a thing. The Reavers were the best, as were the comic quips throughout the film.

Shin seiki Evangelion Gekijô-ban: Air/Magokoro wo, kimi ni.
Wait, is that End of Evangelion or Death and Rebirth? Sorry but my Japanese is a bit lacking...

Wait, is that End of Evangelion or Death and Rebirth? Sorry but my Japanese is a bit lacking...

End of Evangelion: Air/Sincerely Yours. I think the US title was "Neon Genesis Evangelion: The End of Evangelion."

Godzilla, GMK. Godzilla, Mothra, and King Ghidorah all out attack.

Godzilla, GMK. Godzilla, Mothra, and King Ghidorah all out attack.

That movie was awesome. Good take on an evil Godzilla.

Which makes your poll really not say anything, as only people with poor taste will be able to vote.

Fass, honest to God, shut the fuck up. If you don't like the topic of a thread, don't post in it. It's really quite simple.

Fass, honest to God, shut the fuck up.

Glad as I am to see you blaspheme, I don't think I will.

If you don't like the topic of a thread, don't post in it. It's really quite simple.

Or, you know, I can voice my opinion. How about that? Yeah, I like that more.

Glad as I am to see you blaspheme, I don't think I will.



Or, you know, I can voice my opinion. How about that? Yeah, I like that more.

You voiced your opinion in post 2. You started trolling the thread in post 6. "They all sucked" is an opinion. "Anyone who liked these movies has no taste" is trolling. As often as you report people in Moderation, surely you see that.

Shin seiki Evangelion Gekijô-ban: Air/Magokoro wo, kimi ni.
Fass, your taste is impeccable, and don’t stop posting in threads where you aren’t wanted. It’s very entertaining.

King Kong is sci fi?
How so?
It's about a giant monkey and set in the 1930s. Where's the scifi angle? Science didn't create Kong, he just grew to be a big bugger, that's all.

Still the best movie of those listed.
Not that's hard.

You voiced your opinion in post 2. You started trolling the thread in post 6. "They all sucked" is an opinion. "Anyone who liked these movies has no taste" is trolling.

It is the logical conclusion of post 2 - they all suck, and those who like them like things that suck, thus having poor taste.

As often as you report people in Moderation, surely you see that.

You are of course free to report me if you think this is trolling. Why you would choose to think it trolling when I do sincerely think that liking any of those films is indicative of poor taste, I'll remain not so morosely ignorant of.

Now, if you've nothing more on topic to add, I suggest you get to it.

It was boring and unless you were some fanboy of the series quite nonsensical.
Awww, poor Fass, did it offend your avant garde sensibilities? It's leagues better than 99% of most of the other crap Hollywood puts out, although it was more constrained then the series itself because control was not left to Joss.

As a side note, why the hell are King Kong, Robots, and Steamboy considered Sci Fi?


Note - I don't actually know if Fass' movie taste could be considered avant garde, but I really wanted to use that phrase in a sentence lately.

Awww, poor Fass, did it offend your avant garde sensibilities?

Poor Ravenshrike, did my opinion yours?

It's leagues better than 99% of most of the other crap Hollywood puts out, although it was more canstrained then the series itself because control was not left to Joss.

I guess that answers my question.

As a side note, why the hell are King Kong, Robots, and Steamboy considered Sci Fi?

Now, this is a good question, even if I do willingy grant "Robots" and Steamboy.

Note - I don't actually know if Fass' movie taste could be considered avant garde

Let's pretend.

It is the logical conclusion of post 2 - they all suck, and those who like them like things that suck, thus having poor taste.


No, you think they suck. Your opinion is hardly subjective and is in no way a valid way to measure actual taste.


You are of course free to report me if you think this is trolling. Why you would choose to think it trolling when I do sincerely think that liking any of those films is indicative of poor taste, I'll remain not so morosely ignorant of.

Now, if you've nothing more on topic to add, I suggest you get to it.

Because your intention wasn't to simply express your opinion, and we all know that. Don't you be like Corneliu and act all innocent when confronted with the actual nature of your posts. I'm not going to report you because it's relatively benign and we know that nothing is going to come of it.

And I'll add something more to the thread. Serenity was a great movie, regardless of your opinion, and if someone disagrees with that I would argue that they were unable to fully comprehend the movie.

It was made in 1997, I believe, but the question did not ask for my favourite 2005 sci-fi film, only my favourite sci-fi film.
Indeed it was a brilliant film.

The genre overall is in decline. It is flooded with sub-par films, a la The Chronicles of Riddick. Certainly, there are still some excellent films (some of which are on that list), yet they are far outnumbered by Hollywood trash. On the other hand, the fantasy genre is finally picking up.

AeonFlux seems interesting, despite its nonsensical name. I have yet to see it though.

No, you think they suck. Your opinion is hardly subjective

Actually, it is subjective. That's kind of the whole point. :confused:

and is in no way a valid way to measure actual taste.

Thank you for that clarification - really, when expressing my opinion I thought I was expressing someone else's, but I stand corrected - but how do you reconcile the fact that it is "only I" that think they suck with your claims that someone will be offended that I think they suck? Or are you just annoyed that I have the opinion?

Because your intention wasn't to simply express your opinion, and we all know that. Don't you be like Corneliu and act all innocent when confronted with the actual nature of your posts. I'm not going to report you because it's relatively benign and we know that nothing is going to come of it.

So, basically, you're not going to report me because you indeed know that your interpretation, or should I say indignation (hate to be presumtuous with you, but it is coming across as that) won't stand.

And I'll add something more to the thread. Serenity was a great movie, regardless of your opinion, and if someone disagrees with that I would argue that they were unable to fully comprehend the movie.

Aww, but see, it's just your opinion that it was a great movie. *ponders questioning your ability to say which films are good and bad, but then remembers he can accept other people liking things he doesn't, while at the same time thinking their tastes suck and doesn't need to point out the obviousness of other people's opinions being just that - their opinions*

Thank you for that clarification - really, when expressing my opinion I thought I was expressing someone else's, but I stand corrected - but how do you reconcile the fact that it is "only I" that think they suck with your claims that someone will be offended that I think they suck? Or are you just annoyed that I have the opinion?


Let's try this again, as you're obviously having a hard time wrapping your doctor brain around it. You thinking that they all suck is an opinion. Nothing wrong with that. You saying that anyone who disagrees with you has no taste; that's an insult. I personally think anyone who didn't like Serenity must have been too stupid to appreciate it, but you don't see me going around calling you an idiot. Wait....

It is the logical conclusion of post 2 - they all suck, and those who like them like things that suck, thus having poor taste.



You are of course free to report me if you think this is trolling. Why you would choose to think it trolling when I do sincerely think that liking any of those films is indicative of poor taste, I'll remain not so morosely ignorant of.

Now, if you've nothing more on topic to add, I suggest you get to it.

I'd like to point out that people like Kravania, whom you reported, sincerely think it's okay to hate people for being a homosexual and express it in a flaming and trolling way. What you said wasn't really that different - just a different subject and a slightly less flamy way of saying it, Fass. Doesn't make it right.

Just an observation.

I'd like to point out that people like Kravania, whom you reported, sincerely think it's okay to hate people for being a homosexual and express it in a flaming and trolling way. What you said wasn't really that different - just a different subject and a slightly less flamy way of saying it Fass.

Just an observation.

Not that this is on topic, but I did not report that person for trolling. I reported that person on a suspicion that it was a DoS poster under a new guise, something you would have seen, had you read the report. He was cleared, and that's that.

Now, let's get this thread back on course to be about sucky films.

Not that this is on topic, but I did not report that person for trolling. I reported that person on a suspicion that it was a DoS poster under a new guise, something you would have seen, had you read the report. He was cleared, and that's that.

Now, let's get this thread back on course to be about sucky films.

Sucky films in your opinion. Sorry, but it has to be said. They're sucky in your opinion. That's rather irritating, you know.

Let's try this again, as you're obviously having a hard time wrapping your doctor brain around it. You thinking that they all suck is an opinion. Nothing wrong with that. You saying that anyone who disagrees with you has no taste; that's an insult.

You think it's an insult that I think your taste sucks? Grow some skin. Really. Grow some skin. Something I never thought I'd have to tell you.

I personally think anyone who didn't like Serenity must have been too stupid to appreciate it, but you don't see me going around calling you an idiot. Wait....

And you'll see me acting like an adult and not really caring that you don't like my tastes.

So, how's about this thread jack of yours ends, and we return to discussing tastes in film, and allowing people to think tastes suck? Dandy.

Sucky films in your opinion. Sorry, but it has to be said. They're sucky in your opinion. That's rather irritating, you know.

And it's very superfluous of you to point out the obvious. I assure you, everyone knows it's my opinion. It's not just you.

So, how's about this thread jack of yours ends, and we return to discussing tastes in film, and allowing people to think tastes suck? Dandy.

Sounds great. Looks like the topic is "Favorite SciFi Movie of 2005." We've established that your favorite is none, and that the reason you don't like them is because they suck....Did you have anything more to add about sci-fi movies of 2005? Perhaps a reason why you didn't like any of those movies, besides your usual pretentious bullshit reasons?

Serenity and King Kong were the best of the movies on that list, although Kong is properly speaking more of a creature-feature than a sci-fi film.

I searched the IMDb for sci-fi movies of 2005, listing the 100 best, and the bottom had 4.1! Now that is a bad year for sci-fi.

Well, this year we have Ultraviolet and A Scanner Darkly!

Sounds great. Looks like the topic is "Favorite SciFi Movie of 2005." We've established that your favorite is none, and that the reason you don't like them is because they suck....Did you have anything more to add about sci-fi movies of 2005? Perhaps a reason why you didn't like any of those movies, besides your usual pretentious bullshit reasons?

You mean like you did in your oh, so, exhausting rendition of why Serenty didn't suck? I guess "Serenity is a good movie no matter what you think becuase I think so" is so much more filled with "valid" motivation as to the claim than my "usual pretentious bullshit reasons" as to why it sucked.

I searched the IMDb for sci-fi movies of 2005, listing the 100 best, and the bottom had 4.1! Now that is a bad year for sci-fi.

Well, this year we have Ultraviolet and A Scanner Darkly!

When was the last "good" year sci-fi had?

King Kong is sci fi?
How so?
It's about a giant monkey and set in the 1930s. Where's the scifi angle? Science didn't create Kong, he just grew to be a big bugger, that's all.

Still the best movie of those listed.
Not that's hard.
im thinking that the original qualified as scifi since it was made in the early 30s. giant apes mixing with dinosaurs and all.

i dont know what genre it is today. adventure i guess.... was indiana jones scifi?

it was still the best movie on the list so i voted for it.

You mean like you did in your oh, so, exhausting rendition of why Serenty didn't suck? I guess "Serenity is a good movie no matter what you think becuase I think so" is so much more filled with "valid" motivation as to the claim than my "usual pretentious bullshit reasons" as to why it sucked.
He offered a reason, you offered ad hominen and arrogance, your usual position in any argument as I remember.
And before you, in your ever so clever and predictable manner, say: "You would know"; yes, I do know. And I, too, argue from the same angle, but just because I am in the muck doesn't mean I don't recognize it from others.

He offered a reason, you offered ad hominen and arrogance, your usual position in any argument as I remember.

Yeah, right:

"Serenity was a great movie, regardless of your opinion, and if someone disagrees with that I would argue that they were unable to fully comprehend the movie."

I guess "offered a reason" = "Serenity was a great movie, and if you think otherwise, you didn't get it." So much different from what is claimed I did, I see it so clearly.

And before you, in your ever so clever and predictable manner, say: "You would know"; yes, I do know. And I, too, argue from the same angle, but just because I am in the muck doesn't mean I don't recognize it from others.

Now, predictability - there is something you would indeed know.

I liked Serenity the best of the list.

Suprisingly I liked Doom a little bit too even though it strayed from the video game a bit. I would have liked to seen the characters go to a 'hell' dimension and also see the floating screaming demon heads. They were the scariest part of the game and they left them out. :sniper:

Now, predictability - there is something you would indeed know.
Yeah, after all the time I've spent watching you, I have indeed started to adopt your traits. Someday soon, I will fully steal your image and move to Sweden that I may replace you. The day of your obsolesence is nigh.

You mean like you did in your oh, so, exhausting rendition of why Serenty didn't suck? I guess "Serenity is a good movie no matter what you think becuase I think so" is so much more filled with "valid" motivation as to the claim than my "usual pretentious bullshit reasons" as to why it sucked.

I apologize.

I think that the acting was exceptional, especially Nathan Fillion, Adam Baldwin, and most of all Chiwetel Ejiofor. I enjoyed the plot, and the dialogue was great, just like the series. I think the cinematography was done well, except perhaps for the chase scene towards the beginning. Mostly, though, the acting was what I enjoyed the most. Ejiofor was amazing.

That, and Jewel Staite is adorable.

It was boring and unless you were some fanboy of the series quite nonsensical.

Did you see the same language-version I did?

Honestly, my wife and I took her mother (who is well into her 50's) to go see Serenity, and she had no trouble following it, and was, in fact, so impressed that she went out the next week and bought the Firefly boxset - so she could learn the backstory.

Serenity's my favorite, hands (of blue) down.

Reasons? Let's see, The Prince was the type of villain you could really hate, for starters

See, villains fall into about three categories in my opinion: Really cool (Most of the villains in Buffy) not really extreme in either direction (Voldemort) and the type you want to disembowel with a blunt instrument (The Prince, Gul Dukat)

Firefly was better though.

Serenity's my favorite, hands (of blue) down.

Reasons? Let's see, The Prince was the type of villain you could really hate, for starters

See, villains fall into about three categories in my opinion: Really cool (Most of the villains in Buffy) not really extreme in either direction (Voldemort) and the type you want to disembowel with a blunt instrument (The Prince, Gul Dukat)

Firefly was better though.

The Prince?

Yeah, after all the time I've spent watching you, I have indeed started to adopt your traits. Someday soon, I will fully steal your image and move to Sweden that I may replace you. The day of your obsolesence is nigh.

Empty promises. :(

The Prince?

For some reason I got the idea that the assassin was called The Prince. Was I wrong?

For some reason I got the idea that the assassin was called The Prince. Was I wrong?

Everything I've seen has him billed as The Operative.

I apologize.

I think that the acting was exceptional, especially Nathan Fillion, Adam Baldwin, and most of all Chiwetel Ejiofor. I enjoyed the plot, and the dialogue was great, just like the series. I think the cinematography was done well, except perhaps for the chase scene towards the beginning. Mostly, though, the acting was what I enjoyed the most. Ejiofor was amazing.

That, and Jewel Staite is adorable.

And I found the acting drab and contrived, like it so tends to become when you put TV actors on the big screen, kind of like George Clooney or that chick in Alias that did that cute 80s film that ripped off "Big."

Everything I've seen has him billed as The Operative.

Hmm. I wonder where I got The Prince from then. Anyways, he's still hateable.

Wow! 2005 really sucked in the sci-fi department!

I enjoyed Sith and H2G2, but they weren't that good.

Wow! 2005 really sucked in the sci-fi department!

Thank you.

Well, this year we have Ultraviolet and A Scanner Darkly!
Don't bother with Ultraviolet. I saw it last night and it completely sucks. I've rarely seen worse movies. The acting is bad, the plot is non-existant and full of gaps, completely predictable, and the action is just the same old, tired stuff. It's not even unintentionally funny so you can't say it's not even good in its suckiness.

Truly abysmal. Save your money.

And I found the acting drab and contrived, like it so tends to become when you put TV actors on the big screen, kind of like George Clooney or that chick in Alias that did that cute 80s film that ripped off "Big."

You are welcome to your opinion, and I would defend your right to express it. I do wonder, however, why you are wasting your time in a thread about 'favourite SciFi movie'... when you have already expressed your distaste for all the offerings. It would seem that you must not be here, logically, to discuss your 'favourite SciFi movie of 2005' at all, but to stir up some kind of reaction about how bad you perceived the whole crop to be. Which... wasn't really what the thread was about...

Personally, I found the acting excellent, especially Nathan Fillion... who I originally saw as a movie actor (Blast from the Past, Dracula 2001 - the UK release of Dracula 2000, and Saving Private Ryan) long before I saw him in Firefly. Also... I believe Adam Baldwin was originally a 'big screen' actor... I know I saw him as a much younger man.... more than 20 years ago, as a contemporary of matt Dillon and Joan Cusack (My Bodyguard).

You are welcome to your opinion, and I would defend your right to express it. I do wonder, however, why you are wasting your time in a thread about 'favourite SciFi movie'...

I wouldn't be on the Internet if I didn't want to waste my time.

when you have already expressed your distaste for all the offerings. It would seem that you must not be here, logically, to discuss your 'favourite SciFi movie of 2005' at all, but to stir up some kind of reaction about how bad you perceived the whole crop to be. Which... wasn't really what the thread was about...

If you mean that I expressed my opinion and did so knowing others might not agree, yes, I did. I also stayed to defend it when it was attacked. So? Isn't that the whole point of a discussion forum?

Personally, I found the acting excellent, especially Nathan Fillion... who I originally saw as a movie actor (Blast from the Past, Dracula 2001 - the UK release of Dracula 2000, and Saving Private Ryan) long before I saw him in Firefly. Also... I believe Adam Baldwin was originally a 'big screen' actor... I know I saw him as a much younger man.... more than 20 years ago, as a contemporary of matt Dillon and Joan Cusack (My Bodyguard).

If they'd been good film actors, they would not have become TV rejects.

I wouldn't be on the Internet if I didn't want to waste my time.


Whatever floats your boat, I guess. We apparently have very different agendas for our debating.


If you mean that I expressed my opinion and did so knowing others might not agree, yes, I did. I also stayed to defend it when it was attacked. So?


So... nothing. The subject was 'favourite SciFi movies of 2005'. You have none (it seems), so that was the 'response' the topic asked for. But instead, you choose to troll the thread. I don't understand WHY... maybe your postcount was dissapointing you?

I hardly think you can effectively carry-off 'kicked puppy eyes' about how you had to "defend it when it was attacked"... when the first 'attack' was made by none other than yourself.


If they'd been good film actors, they would not have become TV rejects.

Who became rejects? Ron Glass has been making movies and TV for something like 3 decades; Nathan Fillion has been in one of the biggest movies of recent years, and several very popular TV shows; Adam Baldwin has been in a number of relatively successful movies (I seem to recall he was in Wyatt Earp, also), and has a none-too-shabby television career.

It seems like you equate being on television with being a poor actor... which, I guess, must mean you consider someone like Johnny Depp as inferior, since that was his 'break'...

Too many to choose from that I enjoyed, I'm calling it a three-way tie for Robots, Serenity and Hitchhiker. Robots was fantastically animated, Serenity was engaging and Hitchhiker was a hoot.

Evangelion is overrated. I like it, don't get me wrong, but too many people think it's far more intelligent than it actually is. The animation was par, and there's nothing especially new about using Judeo-Christian symbolism, though combining it with giant robots was keen.

My favourite sci-fi film to date is The Fifth Element. I expect that to change in July of 2007, though.

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.


I didn't really see most of the other ones besides Star Wars and War of the Worlds (which, was terrible). But I still think even if i did see those others films i'd still pick Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, because it was just that good.

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.


I didn't really see most of the other ones besides Star Wars and War of the Worlds (which, was terrible). But I still think even if i did see those others films i'd still pick Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, because it was just that good.

A pale shadow of the original TV series, unfortunately...

A pale shadow of the original TV series, unfortunately...

Eh, I don't want to ignite a whole "old vs. new" subdebate, but I like both incarnations of it almost equally, with a slight edge to the film, probably for production value. It was nice that they had the original Marvin show up in it, too. Slartibartfast was funnier in the miniseries, though.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess. We apparently have very different agendas for our debating.

You may take the Internet seriously. I don't. It's the Internet.

So... nothing. The subject was 'favourite SciFi movies of 2005'. You have none (it seems), so that was the 'response' the topic asked for.

And I chose to point out that the poll was filled with crappy films and that that was why I would not be voting for any of the choices given.

But instead, you choose to troll the thread. I don't understand WHY... maybe your postcount was dissapointing you?

Ah, yes, having a differing opinion and standing for it is trolling, and we apparently aren't allowed to, or shouldn't at least, be disagreeing with poll options. Gotcha!

I hardly think you can effectively carry-off 'kicked puppy eyes' about how you had to "defend it when it was attacked"... when the first 'attack' was made by none other than yourself.

Again, so? They stuck around to defend their choices, too, just like me. That's the whole point of a discussion forum - differing opinions and people supporting theirs, instead of being a place for threads where people just list some movie they liked in a spammish way and expected no one to disagree, and then whine when someone dares question their choice.

Who became rejects? Ron Glass has been making movies and TV for something like 3 decades; Nathan Fillion has been in one of the biggest movies of recent years, and several very popular TV shows; Adam Baldwin has been in a number of relatively successful movies (I seem to recall he was in Wyatt Earp, also), and has a none-too-shabby television career.

They ended up in a show by Joss Whedon. Joss Whedon - the creator of such brilliance as "Buffy - The Vampire Slayer" and "Angel." A show that was cancelled because not enough people thought it was good enough to watch. So, yes, I do think they are rejects, and that there is a reason they couldn't get a better gig, and that both Firefly and Serenity flopped.

It seems like you equate being on television with being a poor actor... which, I guess, must mean you consider someone like Johnny Depp as inferior, since that was his 'break'...

I don't much care for Johnny Depp. The only thing he has going for himself are his looks, that are not even the type I'm attracted to. Oh, wait, did I just dare not like something you liked? My bad.

A pale shadow of the original TV series, unfortunately...


Of course, but a movie long overdue nonetheless.....

Eh, I don't want to ignite a whole "old vs. new" subdebate, but I like both incarnations of it almost equally, with a slight edge to the film, probably for production value. It was nice that they had the original Marvin show up in it, too. Slartibartfast was funnier in the miniseries, though.

I loved the scene with 'old' Marvin in it... although I was clearly the only person in the theatre that 'got it'. I guess the original series just didn't do that well in rural Georgia.

I liked parts of the movie... I liked 'new' Marvin, I enjoyed the deeper examination of Vogons, and I liked the new look at infinite improbability as a drive source. But, although I am quite the Malkovich fan... I'm not sure quite why he was there... and I was pretty unhappy at the way they recast Ford Prefect.

The only thing about the film I really disliked, was what they did to Zaphod. After all, half the reason the original Zaphod was funny, was the fact that one of his heads was quite so 'wooden'... and that his heads interacted with each other.

You may take the Internet seriously. I don't. It's the Internet.


I don't actually understand what you are trying to say. This medium, like any other, rewards you according to what you do with it. If you use the Internet as an educational tool, it will educate you. If you trawl the newsgroups for Tijuana Donkey Shows, it will again (one assumes) reward you according to your efforts.

As I said, your agenda seems different to mine. You can move on, now.


And I chose to point out that the poll was filled with crappy films and that that was why I would not be voting for any of the choices given.


Personally, I thought some of the films on the list were pretty shoddy. But, that wasn't what the OP asked. Also, I like to think that, if pushed, I would have come up with a better justification than 'you are all teh suck, lolz'.


Ah, yes, having a differing opinion and standing for it is trolling, and we apparently aren't allowed to, or shouldn't at least, be disagreeing with poll options. Gotcha!


What a curious thing to say. It almost resembles some of my comments, except for the words, and the meaning.


Again, so? They stuck around to defend their choices, too, just like me. That's the whole point of a discussion forum - differing opinions and people supporting theirs, instead of being a place for threads where people just list some movie they liked in a spammish way and expected no one to disagree, and then whine when someone dares question their choice.


Disagreement would have been fine by me. You didn't disagree. You just threw a 'it all sucks' type comment into the mix. Flippant, and hardly constructive.


They ended up in a show by Joss Whedon. Joss Whedon - the creator of such brilliance as "Buffy - The Vampire Slayer" and "Angel." A show that was cancelled because not enough people thought it was good enough to watch. So, yes, I do think they are rejects, and that there is a reason they couldn't get a better gig, and that both Firefly and Serenity flopped.


I assume you didn't like Buffy? I was no fan of the movie, but I'd say the series was one of the best constructed pieces of television work in several years. Also - do you mean Firefly was cancelled "because not enough people thought it was good enough to watch"? Just wondering if that is the series you were referring to. Firefly must have had some sort of marketshare, one assumes, if a major studio was impressed enough by it's sales, to purchase the product AFTER it had been cancelled, for major motion-picture options.

I don't recall 'being unpopular' as the reason why the show was cancelled, either...

As to whether the series and movie 'flopped'... If you want to see it that way. A series that got cancelled first season (just like Earth 2 had) despite critical acclaim, that STILL got picked up for a mivie deal, might not be considered a flop. A movie that made back it's investment (which is more than can be said for quite a lot of films from 2005) might be considered relatively successful. And, ringing in at a production cost of about 39 million dollars, it was certainly one of the best 'value-for-money' successes of the year.


I don't much care for Johnny Depp. The only thing he has going for himself are his looks, that are not even the type I'm attracted to. Oh, wait, did I just dare not like something you liked? My bad.

I'd disagree about 'the only thing', although I would agree that he is good looking. But... what is with the trollish parting-shot?

I don't actually understand what you are trying to say. This medium, like any other, rewards you according to what you do with it. If you use the Internet as an educational tool, it will educate you. If you trawl the newsgroups for Tijuana Donkey Shows, it will again (one assumes) reward you according to your efforts.

It's the Internet. Dwell on it.

As I said, your agenda seems different to mine. You can move on, now.

You may, too.

Personally, I thought some of the films on the list were pretty shoddy. But, that wasn't what the OP asked.

I am not aware of any need to circlejerk the OP. You are allowed to disagree with him and the poll options.

Also, I like to think that, if pushed, I would have come up with a better justification than 'you are all teh suck, lolz'.

How fortunate that I did. I make no statements as to what you may accomplish, seeing as you're bitching about me disagreeing with the OP, and accusing me of trolling, despite the fact that I am defending my views.

What a curious thing to say. It almost resembles some of my comments, except for the words, and the meaning.

And that curious comment had no meaning.

Disagreement would have been fine by me. You didn't disagree. You just threw a 'it all sucks' type comment into the mix.

They do suck. This is an opinion thread. I voiced my opinion. I also when confronted with actual reasons for the films being good gave reasons for them being bad, in between this bitching not about the films themselves, but about how I dare think they suck.

Flippant, and hardly constructive.

You mean a bit like this off-topic bitching of yours?

I assume you didn't like Buffy? I was no fan of the movie, but I'd say the series was one of the best constructed pieces of television work in several years.

The film and the series were poor, hackneyed and constantly depended on deus ex machinas to wrap things up. While the series got marginally better towards the end - what with them finally after half a decade realising that, oh, we might just need characters! - it was far too little, far too late to erase its suckitude of yore.

Also - do you mean Firefly was cancelled "because not enough people thought it was good enough to watch"? Just wondering if that is the series you were referring to. Firefly must have had some sort of marketshare, one assumes, if a major studio was impressed enough by it's sales, to purchase the product AFTER it had been cancelled, for major motion-picture options.

The studio was stupid enough to think they may just squeeze something more out of a fanboy base. While they did, they did worse than expected and the film ended up flopping. You do know that Serenity is seen as a flop?

I don't recall 'being unpopular' as the reason why the show was cancelled, either...

Popular shows don't get cancelled.

As to whether the series and movie 'flopped'... If you want to see it that way. A series that got cancelled first season (just like Earth 2 had) despite critical acclaim, that STILL got picked up for a mivie deal, might not be considered a flop.

Yes it may. 1 season. And a box office flop. That's pretty much it.

A movie that made back it's investment (which is more than can be said for quite a lot of films from 2005) might be considered relatively successful. And, ringing in at a production cost of about 39 million dollars, it was certainly one of the best 'value-for-money' successes of the year.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=serenity.htm

Serenity made $25,514,517 domestically, and $13,332,972 overseas. That ends up being $38,847,489. 38,8 < 39. So, no, it did not make back its investments at the box office, which makes it quite poor in the "value-for-money" department.

I'd disagree about 'the only thing', although I would agree that he is good looking. But... what is with the trollish parting-shot?

I'd ask you the same thing.

They do suck. This is an opinion thread. I voiced my opinion. I also when confronted with actual reasons for the films being good gave reasons for them being bad,


Which, largely, seemed to boil down to pretty much 'the actors are teh suck, 2, lolz'.


The film and the series were poor, hackneyed and constantly depended on deus ex machinas to wrap things up.


Which series are we talking about here? Still Buffy, right?

I'm finding myself wondering what 'deus ex machina' means where you come from...


Popular shows don't get cancelled.


The original Star Trek series. Dr. Who. Family Guy. Futurama. Northern Exposure. Dark Angel. Space: Above and Beyond. Earth 2. Angel. Farscape.

Just a couple, off the top of my head...


Serenity made $25,514,517 domestically, and $13,332,972 overseas. That ends up being $38,847,489. 38,8 < 39. So, no, it did not make back its investments at the box office, which makes it quite poor in the "value-for-money" department.


I said nothing about 'box office'. That dead horse you are still beating? Turns out, it's full of straw.

Which, largely, seemed to boil down to pretty much 'the actors are teh suck, 2, lolz'.

As opposed to yours "nuhuh, the actors were good."

Which series are we talking about here? Still Buffy, right?

I'm finding myself wondering what 'deus ex machina' means where you come from...

I'm finding myself wondering if you know what a deus ex machina is at all, if you could not see every single episode or story arc spanning episodes be resolved quickly through some unexpected plot device, like say some magic amulet, or the main characters all of a sudden merging bodies giving the main character super powers, something which is done in what, the last ten minutes of a season.

The original Star Trek series. Dr. Who. Family Guy. Futurama. Northern Exposure. Dark Angel. Space: Above and Beyond. Earth 2. Angel. Farscape.

Not so popular during or towards the end of their runs. That's especially true for Star Trek, Family Guy, Dark Angel and Farscape.

Just a couple, off the top of my head...

Poor show, methinks.

I said nothing about 'box office'. That dead horse you are still beating? Turns out, it's full of straw.

You claim them not be flops. They are. They flopped. I even gave figures for their flops, and 1 season is pathetic. It's that simple. Or, do you all of a sudden when you're proved wrong go "oh, well, I get to define what a flop is now that I can't claim it made back the money any more, waah"?

As opposed to yours "nuhuh, the actors were good."

Fine. The actors are good, the jokes were good, "Gee, it'd sure be nice if we had some grenades don't you think?" the storyline was engaging, the villain hateable, and I still like the whole concept of a space western.

[edit/] Also, I find it interesting that despite your claim that they all suck, you''ve yet only to provide problems in one.

I'm finding myself wondering if you know what a deus ex machina is at all, if you could not see every single episode or story arc spanning episodes be resolved quickly through some unexpected plot device, like say some magic amulet, or the main characters all of a sudden merging bodies giving the main character super powers, something which is done in what, the last ten minutes of a season.


I saw several amulet type devices... in several different epsiodes. I'm not sure that, for example in the episode "Tabula Rasa", where the whole story hinges AROUND an 'amulet', that you can refer to the central dramatic device as 'deus ex machina'.

I'd not argue that the penultimate episode of Season 4 has a certain amount of 'Deus Ex Machina' about it... but it was hardly the epitome of an 'average episode'. If one compares it to the last episodes of season 1, for example, or season 5, one sees no such contrivance. You are claiming an exception as a rule.


Not so popular during or towards the end of their runs. That's especially true for Star Trek, Family Guy, Dark Angel and Farscape.


Yes. Start Trek was so unpopular that it spawned 4 follow-up series concepts, and a dozen (I believe?) movies.

And, of course, Family Guy was so unpopular, that it got un-cancelled again due to what protests?

I just thought of another couple, too: Dark Skies, Harsh Realms and American Gothic...


Poor show, methinks.


How so? Because I pointed out that your last comment was patently untrue?


You claim them not be flops. They are. They flopped. I even gave figures for their flops, and 1 season is pathetic. It's that simple. Or, do you all of a sudden when you're proved wrong go "oh, well, I get to define what a flop is now that I can't claim it made back the money any more, waah"?

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not refer to Box Office figures... that was you. I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that Serenity has also been optioned by television channels, and has had a modest return on DVD sales, thus far.

Have you seen Serenity? Joss Whedon is a master of the Sci-fi genre - that film is bloody brilliant. The acting is first-rate, the cast are obvioudly warm to each other and thus work even better, the camera work is great, especially the shaky-hand camera during the space battle at the end, the special effects are just gorgeous and the plot is quite original.

You're kidding, right? The acting is so wooden I had trouble believing the actors, especially the way they kept stumbling over that crappy dialogue. The cast was warm to each other? Right. That's why there was absolutely no body language providing a subtext for their relationships. And shaking the camera is probably the oldest and most overused effect since movie making began. The plot was original? A group of plucky rebels led by a gruff captain (with a golden heart) must fight their way through fleets of warships to save the universe, but they will not succeed until the chosen one accepts his, sorry, her destiny. Yep, never heard that before.

Fine. The actors are good, the jokes were good, "Gee, it'd sure be nice if we had some grenades don't you think?" the storyline was engaging, the villain hateable, and I still like the whole concept of a space western.


I agree. There are not that many space-westerns out there... and few that are as well written and deep as Serenity/Firefly.

For me, just like you it seems, the humour is important. The last episode ("Objects in Space") was a black-comedy gem.

You're kidding, right? The acting is so wooden I had trouble believing the actors, especially the way they kept stumbling over that crappy dialogue. The cast was warm to each other? Right. That's why there was absolutely no body language providing a subtext for their relationships. And shaking the camera is probably the oldest and most overused effect since movie making began. The plot was original? A group of plucky rebels led by a gruff captain (with a golden heart) must fight their way through fleets of warships to save the universe, but they will not succeed until the chosen one accepts his, sorry, her destiny. Yep, never heard that before.

Actually, considering the 'camera shake' is a computer generated effect, it is fairly innovative. Most CGI for this genre, has had a crystal clarity, which - while lovely - does not necessarily give the best impression of 'realism'.

Similar 'realism' touches are, perhaps, more subtle... like the introductory scene following the crew around the ship (mainly Mal), which seems to be one long take (but, is actually two cleverly edited takes)... giving a sense of the 'structure' of the Firefly.

Serenity's my favorite, hands (of blue) down.

Reasons? Let's see, The Prince was the type of villain you could really hate, for starters

See, villains fall into about three categories in my opinion: Really cool (Most of the villains in Buffy) not really extreme in either direction (Voldemort) and the type you want to disembowel with a blunt instrument (The Prince, Gul Dukat)

Firefly was better though.

I really thought the actor's decision to play him exactly like Morpheus from the Matrix was very original. The funny part is that he was actually the best actor in that film.

I saw several amulet type devices... in several different epsiodes. I'm not sure that, for example in the episode "Tabula Rasa", where the whole story hinges AROUND an 'amulet', that you can refer to the central dramatic device as 'deus ex machina'.

I'd not argue that the penultimate episode of Season 4 has a certain amount of 'Deus Ex Machina' about it... but it was hardly the epitome of an 'average episode'. If one compares it to the last episodes of season 1, for example, or season 5, one sees no such contrivance. You are claiming an exception as a rule.

Oh, please, and Spike wearing that amulet in the last season saving their asses was not a deus ex machina in what sense? Oh, and that whole "she jumps into the vortex and saves the world without it ever being explained"?

Yes. Start Trek was so unpopular that it spawned 4 follow-up series concepts, and a dozen (I believe?) movies.

Star Trek had horrible ratings during its run. It was only through syndication that it got a wider audience. So, yes, indeed, it was cancelled for being unpopular.

And, of course, Family Guy was so unpopular, that it got un-cancelled again due to what protests?

Same here. Awful ratings that lead to its cancellation.

I just thought of another couple, too: Dark Skies, Harsh Realms and American Gothic...

Same here. Awful ratings during original run.

How so? Because I pointed out that your last comment was patently untrue?

What, you're going to claim Star Trek and Family Guy had good ratings prior to their cancellations? Bwahaha...

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not refer to Box Office figures... that was you. I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that Serenity has also been optioned by television channels, and has had a modest return on DVD sales, thus far.

They didn't make the film to lose money on it on the box office. And, as you say, the DVD returns have been "modest." Another word is "disappointing."

Well considerering that the only sci-fi films of 2005 I watched that are on the poll were; Doom; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; The Island and War of the Worlds, I think I'll have to say Nightwatch.

Funny, that list reads more like, "biggest Hollywood sci-fi turkeys to date". And why is the poll public? Afraid of puppet votes on a popularity poll?

Too funny by half.

And why is the poll public? Afraid of puppet votes on a popularity poll?
Afraid of puppet votes? Please, I don't value this poll that much. Just curious.

I'd have to say Star Wreck (http://www-fi3.starwreck.com/).

W00t! Serenity leads!

Oh, please, and Spike wearing that amulet in the last season saving their asses was not a deus ex machina in what sense? Oh, and that whole "she jumps into the vortex and saves the world without it ever being explained"?



I was going to start here, and discuss how the climax to season 5 was discussed progressively throughout the season, and explained rationally in the last few episodes... but, you know what... as a wise philosopher once said, "Bored, now"...

I was going to start here, and discuss how the climax to season 5 was discussed progressively throughout the season, and explained rationally in the last few episodes... but, you know what... as a wise philosopher once said, "Bored, now"...

Yeah, if "discussed progressively" = "stupid nonsensical hints about 'death is your only gift', never mind how or why, and never mind that the vortex should just have gobbled you up and continued to open, so much had you feared it for an entire season" then sure.

Yeah, if "discussed progressively" = "stupid nonsensical hints about 'death is your only gift', never mind how or why, and never mind that the vortex should just have gobbled you up and continued to open, so much had you feared it for an entire season" then sure.

I guess you missed most of the episodes in season 5? I'm not wasting any more time on you, my friend. You've got a damnfine looking decision there, and I'd hate to waste debate on it.

Actually, considering the 'camera shake' is a computer generated effect, it is fairly innovative. Most CGI for this genre, has had a crystal clarity, which - while lovely - does not necessarily give the best impression of 'realism'.

Similar 'realism' touches are, perhaps, more subtle... like the introductory scene following the crew around the ship (mainly Mal), which seems to be one long take (but, is actually two cleverly edited takes)... giving a sense of the 'structure' of the Firefly.

So, they used CGI to do the camera shaking thing? Wouldn't have been easier to just shake the camera? So not only was it an overused and unoriginal effect, but they did it the hard way? As to the tracking shots used to give a sense of the interior of the Serenity, I don't see that as being good cinematography. After all, they used the same trick in Evil Dead II when Ash was being chased by the demon through the cabin. Except there, it was funny because the cabin was so tiny that it showed how pretentious shots like that are.

My vote goes to 'Serenity', it was a very entertaining movie - especially for someone who liked the Firefly-series. War of the Worlds is the closest contender in my opinion, while King Kong takes the third place. I haven't seen Æon Flux or Steamboy. Doom sucked (not surprisingly, but why the Hell did they remove, well, Hell from the story? It was the occult overtones that made it interesting in the first place), and Star Wars was the biggest disappointment (though that wasn't surprising either)

I just saw Serenity the other night, and I have never seen the show, but enjoed this movie, especially when they strap the dead bodies to the ship. Good times.

I guess you missed most of the episodes in season 5?

I wish I had.

I'm not wasting any more time on you, my friend.

I wish you hadn't any.

So, they used CGI to do the camera shaking thing? Wouldn't have been easier to just shake the camera? So not only was it an overused and unoriginal effect, but they did it the hard way?


Okay, I have no idea what you are talking about.

In the two vessel chase, for example, where the 'mule' is being chased by the Reaver ship, the mule is a rig, but the Reaver ship is entirely created from Computer Generated effects. In those shots where the camera targets the Reaver ship, and you have screaming engines, plumes of smoke, and the Reaver ship in (or near) camera centre, you are looking at a Comp. Gen. composite shot... there is no 'real ship' on camera. Thus, any of the 'documentary' effects you see (there are lens flares, loss of focus, motion blurs, 'over-zoom', and the basic camera-shake, at least) must be comp. gen. effects, ALSO.

Yes, they did it 'the hard way', but when your image ONLY exists as a computer generated image... there is no 'easy' way.

I'm not sure if it is 'unoriginal'. I have seen other films where 'documentary' feel was a deliberate directorial ploy (like 84 Charlie MoPic), but I'm hard pressed to think of a film that has utilised the same effects in the 'virtual' arena.


As to the tracking shots used to give a sense of the interior of the Serenity, I don't see that as being good cinematography. After all, they used the same trick in Evil Dead II when Ash was being chased by the demon through the cabin. Except there, it was funny because the cabin was so tiny that it showed how pretentious shots like that are.

You didn't like the tracking shot? I wonder... did you spot the transition? (There is just one in that scene).

Just because it has been used in another film, doesn't invalidate the scene. But then, I am a particular fan of tracking shots, especially when they are extended scenes like the one in Serenity, or very clever, like David Fincher's tracking shots in Fight Club or Panic Room.

War of the Worlds was good.
Episode III was over hyped, but a marvel of visual/computer special effects (although a lot of the CGI still feels soul-less).

But I found Serentiy to be quite enjoyable. Wild West in space. Almost reminds me of Trigun. Only better. (And I've seen one episode of Firefly, which I enjoyed not at all.)

I just saw that Hayden Christensen won the razzie for worst supposrting actor for Star Wars. Well deserved too.

and war of the worlds sucked.

They ended up in a show by Joss Whedon. Joss Whedon - the creator of such brilliance as "Buffy - The Vampire Slayer" and "Angel." A show that was cancelled because not enough people thought it was good enough to watch. So, yes, I do think they are rejects, and that there is a reason they couldn't get a better gig, and that both Firefly and Serenity flopped.

Ah yes, a flop. Bull-fucking-shit. It was a flop on TV because of two factors.

#1 The complete and utter stupidity of Fox execs. Seriously, these people couldn't find their ass with both hands even if you gave them GPS, ground approach radar, and a tracking device. They didn't air the episode introducing the characters until right before they cancelled it, they kept moving the timeslot around, switching days and times without warning. They constantly put it after a sports event so that it never showed on time or was completely cancelled for that night, etc.. etc..

#2 They used Neilsen ratings, which were pretty bad indicators in the 90's and have by now become almost completely obsolete.

And yet this supposedly "flop" series has remained in Amazon's top ten DvD list for the longest of any DvD sold. The serenity DvD is still selling relatively well, and if it stays as strong as it has, a second movie will probably be in the offing.

Steamboy I heard was pretty good. I'd rather watch a dog turd decay than the rest of those.

Ah yes, a flop. Bull-fucking-shit. It was a flop on TV because of two factors.

#1 The complete and utter stupidity of Fox execs. Seriously, these people couldn't find their ass with both hands even if you gave them GPS, ground approach radar, and a tracking device. They didn't air the episode introducing the characters until right before they cancelled it, they kept moving the timeslot around, switching days and times without warning. They constantly put it after a sports event so that it never showed on time or was completely cancelled for that night, etc.. etc..

#2 They used Neilsen ratings, which were pretty bad indicators in the 90's and have by now become almost completely obsolete.

And yet this supposedly "flop" series has remained in Amazon's top ten DvD list for the longest of any DvD sold. The serenity DvD is still selling relatively well, and if it stays as strong as it has, a second movie will probably be in the offing.

Indeed. I don't claim to UNDERSTAND the network decision, but they decided to 'kill' Firefly.

As you say, they screwed with the scheduling (which is a nightmare for ANY show, but even more so for a new show), and they showed the episodes out of order from the get-go.

I can only imagine WHY they might do it.

Did they, after investing, decide that Firefly was 'aimed to high'? I mean, Whedon doesn't 'talk down' to his audinece... he kind of expects you to keep up.

Maybe it was the whole 'Civil War' angle? Perhaps the network hadn't realised, from their casual overview, that Reynolds et al, would effectively be a sympathetic reading of the Confederate side of the 'Civil War/War of Northern Aggression'.

Or... maybe it was the fact that it showed a peace between the US and China, achieved NOT by the US overpowering the Orient with superior technology and democracy... but by a mutual agreement between equal powers. I can understand HOW execs might see such ideas as maybe TOO controversial.

And it's very superfluous of you to point out the obvious. I assure you, everyone knows it's my opinion. It's not just you.

You've stated your opinion. Now stop cloging the thread with the debate about its nature as your opinion.

Serinity was (IMHO) a great movie. However as a lifelong HHGG fan I had to go with HHGG. That said however, the movie doesnt hold candle to the book

"As ships hung hevey in the sky in much the same way that bricks dont"