The Worst SF Films of All Time

Not to be negative- but some films are just *awful*!

So-- Here's some schlock:

Battlefield Earth - a movie so bad that even though I saw it for *free* (my roommate had two free passes), I stil consider it an economic loss as my time could have been better spent staring at the sun. Ugh- for a while I referred to it as 'the movie which must not be named'.

The Core - actually we had a fun time going to see this astoundingly bad movie. We had a few drinks before, then smuggled in alcohol into the theater and drank everytime there was something astoundingly dumb onscreen. While we did run out of booze, we did make it mostly through the film. Lot's of good heckling opportunities.

I'll leave room for others...

cheers all!

As much as I love the books, games, and characters, and as much as I respect the technological advances that were directly a result from their creation, Star Wars movies suck much ass.

i agree star wars are all hype and little more.....
i think that speical notice has to go to Ed Woods (famous for being the best at bad movies) masterpiece "plan 9 from outer space" one of his last movies before he stumbled into the limbo of porno
its actually supposed to be quite entertaining

Curse you all, blasphemers! You shall find no sanctuary from my wrath. Mwuhahahahahahahahaha!!!!11!!!!1

Actually, I really don't care because everyone has their own opinion, and everyone isn't enlightened as me :p . Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within is the only scifi suck movie that comes to mind at the moment. I could never follow the plot. It was really wierd and the ending sucked a whole lot. I've never been a fan of tragic endings.

The original Star Wars movies combined are smaller than the average SW novel, the average SW novel is part of a trilogy of such novels, and those that arn't, like Traitor, cause an amount of intellectual stimulation that puts the mythic themes of Lucas in the dunce capacity.

As for the backstory, well, Lucas went senile shortly before he wrote them. Or a long time before he wrote them.

Beware, Ryv. You're making me midly upset. You won't like me when I'm mildly upset.

I understand that people dislike them, but with twenty years of wishing in one hand spitting in the other, people have built up this fantasy triology which will never be met by what GL makes.

I don't like some elements, but I love all the movies on different levels. The prequels' look into galactic politics is interesting to me. And seeing Jedi in their prime fight (4,5, and 6 just show crippled old men and a niave boy) kicks. And Yoda in the plane of existance that he was always supposed to be in? How can you pass that up? Show me thirty minutes of Yoda cleaning house, and I'll accept anything for a plot.

That is where we differ. Violently so. I see that disregard for plot as a pathetic decision made by a sub-standard director and writers that between them all don't have enough nerve cells to form a synapse.

Basically, everyone responsible for 1 and 2 should be shot. Several times. Each.

Sounds like you have an eternal wedgie or something, Ryv. :)

I liked them plain and simple. I also don't think Jar-Jar wasn't all that bad. I think he's gotten too much flak from stuck-up old geeks with the before-mentioned "fanatsy prequels" built up in their heads.

The flak is not based off a preconcieved version of events, it's based off the fact that the Star Wars movies followed a Hero's Journey mythic theme. That's a very simple basis to build a story on, and almost always makes a hit.
Now Lucas, henceforth known as Idiot, is trying to put one Hero's Journey before the other. At the same time, Idiot is dictating terms to the novelists while disregarding the continuity he approved. This is dispite the fact that Zahn, Stackpole, Allston, and the rest are far better writers than Idiot could dream of being.

If anyone seen your share of Giant Japanese Monster movies, then I'd say the worse ive seen is Motha all the series!

Whew! We're getting some strong emotions about the Jedi- and remember, that way leads to the dark something or other. :) On one hand, I think that the original Star Wars, was great. Of course- I was what, 12? (I think- '77, '78 maybe) when it came out, and while I have seen it since, I feel no great desire to have my own copy of it (though I am strangely moved to see the sequels, no matter how much they suck).

My big issue with Star Wars is the introduction of cuteness. It started with Yoda- a *muppet* for pete's sake! Still, the big Y has stood the test of time, and is a major bad-ass. Then in Return of the Jedi, we had the abominations known as Ewok <shudder>. That was bad, but then in episode I, we add a little kid (way too young), and Jar Jar. The horror! Episode II seems to be a love story of some kind, but Lucas just isn't a good enough writer to pull it off.

Of course- I am probably going to see Episode III right as it comes out. And then get online to complain immediately after! :)

OK- some other movies-- I haven't heard from the Star *TREK* contingent yet...

Oooooo! But we have got some B-movies from the 50's (Yay!) and The Latex Suits that Destroyed Tokyo! Both wonderfully horriffic! (Speaking of which, downstairs I have a copy of the film, "The Angry Red Planet" waiting to be watched... Dare I?)

ex animo
Lutra

jedi knight now you say your "enlightened?"

anyways yeah final fantasy spirits within did suck (what did it have to do with the game? did it even look like FF?) and as for star trek... well im not a big fan of star trek either but apperently all the odd numbered ones suck

Not many know this, but Lucas made Star Wars after failing to get the rights to make a Flash Gordon movie. This gives you an idea about the amount of plot he put into it.

Not many know this, but Lucas made Star Wars after failing to get the rights to make a Flash Gordon movie.
I didn't know that! And yet, somehow a terrible version of Flash Gordon was made around that time in any case (hmmm- which probably explains why Lucas couldn't get the rights to it)... I say 'terrible', but while there are some stupidities, it actually has a pretty good feel for the old thirty's comic 'Flash Gordon', and doesn't (I think) take itself too seriously. And is an enjoyment to watch and make fun of!

ex animo
Lutra

star wars was made after reading the book "hero of a thousand faces" which explains the elements that appear in every storyline, francis ford coppla, steven spielberg and lucas saw this book as the future of film making so lucas made a movie from it hence star wars

jedi knight now you say your "enlightened?"

It isn't blatantly obvious?

What are you?

What are you?
Hmmm- A question with many depths. What am I?

Scholar, Soldier, Traveller, Cook, Scientist, Sentient Being (usually :) )...

Hmmm- I'm still working on my avatar (as amongst the things I am *not* - or am not *yet* is an artist), but my name gives a clue (in Latin).

Does that help?

ex animo-
Lutra

What are you?
Ooops- my bad, were you asking Desire?

ex animo-

Lutra

Jedi, actually. But your answer is amusing in how it fits into my philosiphy *points at sig*

*Attention: Newbie/lurker reporting for flaming*

Sorry, but I just *couldn't* resist responding to this debate. I guess you could call me a Star Wars fan (or, judging from my carppily-selected username, a Magic fan) therefore I do disagree on some of the things said... However, everyone has the right to an opinion... yadda, yadda... are in the eyes of the beholder... yadda, yadda... we should all live together in harmony... etc etc

Firstly, while the Star Wars phenomenon is hoplessly warped by mixed feelings of hype, love disgust, nostalgia and so forth, I honestly, truly cannot understand how ANYONE could consider ANY of the five movies screened so far as being amongst the worst SF films ever. This would mean that they would be at the same level as (the already mentioned) Battlefield Earth, or Plan 9 (which has gone past being bad and out the other end and is actually pretty good). If you were asking which were the most overrated SF movies, then you may have had a point (however, I would select other offerings for that list, also).

(I am not even going to touch the "but-Star-Wars-isn't-really-SF" question with a ten-foot lightsaber pole)

Now, Ryvaken appears to believe that the Star Wars novels are vastly superior to the original movies (let alone the "prequels"). That's all good and fine. I've read the first Zahn trilogy four times or something and I honestly can never remember the plot. Same with any of the other Star Wars novel. Also, the so-called Expanded Universe contains so many Very Bad ideas that I just don't give a rat's *ss about that I can't follow it ( a minor quip: I don't belive that anyone anywhere should read SW novels or see SW movies to get intellectual stimulation).

As for the so-called "back story" there really is no problem. No Star Wars products apart from the original trilogy and the new/prequel trilogy are canonical. All the books, games, comics and so forth take place in an alternate reality of sorts (the aforementioned Expanded Universe) which does not effect the movies. Therefore, when Zahn descibed that Vader visited the Noghri homeworld 40 years prior to Dark Force Rising (I think), he was simply in error. There's a retcon that corrects this error in The Essential Guide to Alien Species, but there are probably many more like it out there. Things like all the children of Jedi knights that pop up all the time in the EU are very unlikely also, given the information given in Episode II, but there may be some sort of backdoor explanation for it...

What this boils down to is this: Every single person who enjoys the Star Wars saga believes it is theirs. In a way, it is. In another way, it belongs ONLY to George Lucas (and to a smaller degree the other people who make the movies ;) ). What you mentioned about Joseph Campbells works is of course true, but in another sense the SW-saga is Lucas's efforts to understand and deal with his tangled relationship with his own father. Thus, while his father must have seemed a much more frightening and evil figure to him when he wrote the original flicks, time and age has likely mellowed those feelings. Thus, Anakin is given a much more understanding and human portrayal in the prequels. The Oedipus-like elements in the prequels (and the original trilogy) would likely reveal a lot about the man who wrote them to someone trained in psychology.

Okay, my ranting is over. To each his own... yadda,yadda... I'm going back to lurking now.

:jester:

I don't belive that anyone anywhere should read SW novels or see SW movies to get intellectual stimulation
One word: Traitor.

Sorry, it's just that I know there are so many better books out there, by better authors (again, IMHO) than SW novels as far as the intellectually-thingy goes... Didn't say they weren't entertaining tho...

who cares its just star wars..... does chopper chicks in zombie town count??? naaa that was a horror flick

who cares its just star wars.....
And next voluntier to go to the cannibal tribes in stereotypical Africa is...

hehehehee "cannibal big brother: ten go in, one very fat one comes out"

Sorry, it's just that I know there are so many better books out there, by better authors (again, IMHO) than SW novels as far as the intellectually-thingy goes... Didn't say they weren't entertaining tho...
Well- there are some wonderful authors working on the SW *books*, but the writing for the movies <shakes head sadly>... I've only read a couple of the SW novels, and while they didn't really do a lot for me, I wouldn't describe them as *bad* either... Just... <searches for words> ... mediocre.

As far as intellectual reading goes- there is a *lot* of Sci-Fi out there that is *much* better than SW. Likewise for literary merit (which is not the same thing).

But- this should really move to the 'best books' thread...

ex animo-
Lutra

who cares its just star wars..... does chopper chicks in zombie town count??? naaa that was a horror flick
An on-topic post, yay!!!

You know- I'll count that just for the visual! It sounds atrocious enough to be bad, and while zombies are more horror/fantasy, what the hell? Fantasy and SF go well together, and horror is sometimes a sub-genre of either.

ex animo-

Eric

Star Trek 1: is it done yet. booooring. Too long, too slow, too lacking in action.

2001: even worse. I absolutely hated this. Unless you read the book its gibberish, I mean - hello, tell the frigging story, tell people what the hell is going on, and so slow, yes the fricking spaceship is landing, but not in bloody realtime please!!!!

Sorry, but I loathe that film with great dark side hatred. It was diabolical. The slowness was OK in some of the later scenes but then the film got crap again when it went vague.

So:

vague (monkeys with bones not explained due to bad directing)
momentarily interesting (monkeys and the large monolith waking up on the moon)
boring (Tooooooo slow)
still boring
good (HAL goes bonkers, Dave goes to kill him)
boring and meaningless (the rest after that as nothing is explained)

As for the Star Wars books they are one of the few good continuous storylines around, so they add up in terms of quality that way.

Yay! The Klatchian bunny is returned unto us?

uh yeah, anyway, comments on this thread:

Loads of supposably "sci-fi" movies suck so much backside. Unfortunately I can't think of many specific examples right now, so I'll have a go at everyone else's opinions.

What is so wrong with Star Wars? It's certainly nothing that should be regarded as worshipful, or intellectual. It's all good fun though, the original trilogy and episode 2 (1 was just a bad movie, nothing TOO terrible. And I think 2 justified Jar Jar's existance).

Oh yeah, and I hold here a barge pole. STAR WARS (and for that matter, Star Trek half the time) IS NOT TRUE SCIENCE FICTION!!!

2001 however is. Ahmed, it's cool to see you posting again, but I'd like to string you up for that post. Your opinions are your own, and mine are right :p

Oh and Final Fantasy was fun as well, who needs a plot when graphics are that spectacular? And that's not science fiction either.

2001 Heresy! The Klatchian jihad will have you for this.

(I'm back at uni and so can afford large scale internet browsing as my home internet connection is seriously unreliable. Plus I have a proper Klatchian style pic for myself once I resize it, wahey!)

Sci fi tends to be split into serious (Asimov, Fahrenheit 451, etc) and Star Wars/Trek. The latter is much more common as the first rarely has the audience to make profitable movies (or so I assume). So I'll be amazed if anyone can come up with a bad "serious" sci fi film (since few exist at all).

Another bad film for the list: Dogma. But I'm not sure its sci-fi.

Trying to amend for my off-topic rant: How about Johnny Mnemonic? Definently one of the lousiest adaptions I've seen (it did have some fun parts though).

What's so wrong with Dogma BTW?

:: jedi walks in and reads Tahn's post ::

Grrrrrrr......

You can intellectual stimulation from anything you read. It really depends on the reader. Traitor, as Ryv mentioned, is the perfect example of this. That whole novel is exposition of philosophy. All I read reciprocates makes me thing about my idea of myself. I'm heavily anchored in the idea of chivalry and good. That's the theme of Star Wars and Jedi, but not just Star Wars, all the books I read from Louis L'amor to John D. MacDonald.

I've always liked the EU more than the movies. Does GL have to follow the EU when he makes movies? Why should he? It's his show. And because it's his show, he has invalidated the EU in some ways. But you're wrong in the fact that the EU isn't canonical. Until GL made the prequels, the EU was set out to be canonical, and any new novels are meant to be canonical with the prequels too.

Oh and the idea of post-Classic triology jedi kids is that Luke wasn't as up-tight as the Jedi council which was a necessity at the time. If the Jedi don't have kids and use the fastest method to repopulate the Jedi Order, they'd have to wait years and years for the Jedi to naturally occur. Okay, my rant is through

To be back on topic, the movie Space Truckers comes to mind.

:: jedi walks in and reads Tahn's post ::

Grrrrrrr......

You can intellectual stimulation from anything you read. It really depends on the reader. Traitor, as Ryv mentioned, is the perfect example of this. That whole novel is exposition of philosophy. All I read reciprocates makes me thing about my idea of myself. I'm heavily anchored in the idea of chivalry and good. That's the theme of Star Wars and Jedi, but not just Star Wars, all the books I read from Louis L'amor to John D. MacDonald.

I've always liked the EU more than the movies. Does GL have to follow the EU when he makes movies? Why should he? It's his show. And because it's his show, he has invalidated the EU in some ways. But you're wrong in the fact that the EU isn't canonical. Until GL made the prequels, the EU was set out to be canonical, and any new novels are meant to be canonical with the prequels too.

Oh and the idea of post-Classic triology jedi kids is that Luke wasn't as up-tight as the Jedi council which was a necessity at the time. If the Jedi don't have kids and use the fastest method to repopulate the Jedi Order, they'd have to wait years and years for the Jedi to naturally occur. Okay, my rant is through

To be back on topic, the movie Space Truckers comes to mind.

Another vote for Star Wars: Traitor as quite possibly the best media tie-in book of all time.

Another strong contender for that position is DS9: A Stich In Time.

Trying to amend for my off-topic rant: How about Johnny Mnemonic? Definently one of the lousiest adaptions I've seen (it did have some fun parts though).
Mmmm- yes... That *was* a sad version of the story- Molly wasn't nearly so sympathetic a character, and Neo, er... Johnny seemed to be trying to channel Al Pacino during his rant about silk shirts and prostitutes. But, as you say- some fun parts in it too (flaming car of death from above!)

What's so wrong with Dogma BTW?
Good Question! While I wouldn't call Dogma 'deep', it's a funny movie that entertains for a couple of hours.


ex animo-

Lutra

Another vote for Star Wars: Traitor as quite possibly the best media tie-in book of all time.

I didn't mean to vote for that. I liked the book, but it numbed my brain for a couple of hours afterwards. I'd vote for X-wing: Starfighters of Adumar. Wedge, Tycho, Hobbie, and Janson alone against half of an entire world. Can't beat it. Anyways, Wedge is my favorite scifi character.

Too bad the Pagemaster wasn't a scifi flick or it'd take the cake.

Adumar wasn't bad but was a ripoff of a classic whose name escapes me. And Traitor has been one of the few books I read again right after finishing it. Brain-numbing? It stimulated mine, forced me to seriously question who I was. A salute to Matthew Stover!

*thinks "we need a sci fi book topic here" *

As regards Dogma - jay and silent bob aren't funny enough to deserve existence. But its not as bad as that, I think I hate it because it could have been quite good - i.e. I like the bit where they kill the guy who is cheating on his wife on the bus. Disapointment not badness then, apologies for the snap judgement last night.

Starfighters of Adumar I found amusing, I think the author who wrote that book and the three X Wing books before it is pretty good at that. Traitor is interesting, with a rather dodgy mindset on the part of Vergere being the main thing (just keep the bird thing away from me, I don't need to learn that sort of lesson).

Vergere was a genious.

Dogma was definently not as good as it could have been, but just the fact that I kept comparing it with Garth Ennis' Preacher kept me entertained... Hey, we need a "Best comic books thread"!

From the sound of you guys I suppose I should read Traitor? I pretty much stopped reading any SW tie-ins when all those Jedi kids started running around (again, no offence meant to anyone who enjoys those books.

Hmmm... I keep trying to think of any big-league stinker movies, yet I (like many others in this thread) can mostly think of Fantasy flicks... Dungeons & Dragons the movie :shudders:

Ugh... D&D the movie was horrible.

Manos, Hands of Fate

Tahn, back away from Vegere the twisted bird jedi. Ya don't want to mess with that book. Vegere might have been a genius...from a certain point of view. Wedge's philosophy of why he fights did the same for me that Vegere did for you.

Wedge's philosiphy was too narrow and military for me. My life goal is to be a teacher; rationalizing about honor in combat is hardly going to be a philosiphy I need.

Vergere, however, was quite clear on the role of teacher and student.

heh "ex animo" = 'Out of my Mind'

Here we go...
Star Wars: First 3 movies are as is, classic. The new 2 are good, but only to an extent. The first 3 had a more powerful description of the happenings durring the first 3, so I get the feeling that the new ones are very wattered down. The fights are on par, but the heroics are too wildly and erratic.

Star Trek: Pop culture nowadays. Less and less concentration on keeping the continum of the storyline, and more focus on keeping and getting new watchers. Though I can't deny that the original series was kinda the same. Over all still good.

The True Sci-Fi comes from Asimov and Doglus Adams (Hey, they are making a Hitchers Guide movie folks, theres a golden one). Blade Runner is frigging amazing Sci-Fi, same with Alien, Screamers, and even some of the recient ones (Minority Report for one)

But this is straying from the topic.

Honestly, if Battle Field Earth was tweaked up a bit, and maybe not written by an insane cult leader it would have been good.Still, it's one of the worse ones out there as is.

But nothing can compare to some of the GODAWFUL B movies I catch the Sci-Fi channel replaying every now and then. Some of these were made in '96-7, and looked to be out of the 60's and 70's, with cardboard cutouts floating at eachother on an off-black background, with wvil enemies in tight leather and all S&M like. WTF.

I have to find some of the movie names. Actually, something awful has probally done an 'awful movie review' or 2 on some of these. hah.

Wedge's philosiphy was too narrow and military for me. My life goal is to be a teacher; rationalizing about honor in combat is hardly going to be a philosiphy I need.

Vergere, however, was quite clear on the role of teacher and student.

I can understant that, Ryv. I, on the otherhand, grew up in a military family, so I've got the mind. I'm also majoring in aerospace engineering, and my dream shot is to work on some of the government stuff like the Joint Strike Fighter. So a simple, militaristic philosophy fits me to a T.

Though I pity the people who have you as a teacher. Even more if your teaching method is the same as your idol.

Well, no lesson is truly learned unless purchased by pain.

Talking about honourable combat is good and all, but when it comes down to your life, or your honour, what do you think you'd choose?

The book we're talking about includes that point.


The weird people's honor system:
Killing an opponent is honorable. (honor coupons)
Being killed in combat is honorable.
Being killed by a guy with a lot of honor coupons is REALLY honorable.
Killing a guy with a lot of honor coupons is beyond honorable.

Sci fi tends to be split into serious (Asimov, Fahrenheit 451, etc) and Star Wars/Trek.

How do you define what separates them? Technical accuracy? Lack of humor? World changing scope?

Is Asimov's "Foundation" series serious? How about "The Fifth Element"? Or "Pitch Black"?

Sci fi tends to be split into serious (Asimov, Fahrenheit 451, etc) and Star Wars/Trek.

How do you define what separates them? Technical accuracy? Lack of humor? World changing scope?

Is Asimov's "Foundation" series serious? How about "The Fifth Element"? Or "Pitch Black"?


I tend to divide then in my mind by a couple of criteria. Its not balck and white by any means though.

Serious sci-fi tends to be something that trys to say something. Philip K Dick is an example. It might question existence, suggest an idea, that sort of thing. It also tends to contain a coherent world of its own with large differences in the societies and ours. asimov may not have been the best example actually, as I don't really view the foundation books as serious (Some of his others are though). Doh. substitute Iain M Banks for him methinks. Other serious as I see it include Dune, Ursula something le Guin, and many more.

Star wars/trek/aliens is less coherent in the world that it portrays, more aimed at telling a "normal " story and more tech-y often. It uses the sci fi world as an environment for the tale but its not necessary - it could be in Australia in a soap as well, or the White House and Kremlin. The techy stuff is added on by the spoonful to give it a sci-fi element but its soft sci-fi, all hyperspacial actuators and hydrospanners and nanobots layered other the sponge base of a normal story.

"Soft" sci fi is palatable always as its more commercial, "harder" sci fi may say something we feel is wrong, but it asks it anyway.

Per the examples: 5th Element is "soft" (woman in distress, has mission, needs help from old soldier, bad evil mercenary and approaching evil), Pitch Black is, welllllll, in the grey area, theres no message, but the story isn't a transplanted soap, Foundation is soft.

Not that I think hard is better than soft - often its not. You tend to have more fun when you aren't ramming a message down peoples mouths.

wheew. Quite a speech.

PS: Dune. If I hadn't read the book, I wouldn't have understood a second of it. So its nearly as bad as 2001.

could we not have this convo turn into a friggin philsophy/trekkie vs jedist rant? theres too many ofthem about

another crappy movie that isnt really sci fi..... "The Specials" it was like mystery men but worse, a superhero film with no action (or anything of interest) with many bland pokes at toliet humour which make the most infantile of teenagers bored and somehow it was an 18!!! im pretty sure that the director edited in a sex scene to make it an 18 so people would see it as more interesting, boy was he wrong!


apperently after manos hands of fate one (or more) members of the cast commited suicide cuz it was so bad

could we not have this convo turn into a friggin philsophy/trekkie vs jedist rant?
Indeed- as amusing as they can be...

The Specials- I seem to have missed hearing about that one...

But as far as bad goes-- has anyone here seen 'Abraxis', starring Jesse Ventura? (The starring role should tell you a lot about the quality of the film...)

ex animo-
Lutra

I've never seen "Abraxis" or "the specials" so i count myself lucky.

However, I have seen some of the films made based on computer games though, and they are invariably god-awful. "Street Fighter" and "Mortal Kombat" are worst, although there are many others just as bad.

okay im saying lots of movies that arent sci fi but hey! whatever

Bulletproof monk: now this movie counts as an entire reason to hate hollywood! i mean first the title, is just so... wrong and then theres the chinese characters, all of them seem highly spiritual, even crummy cinema owners! theres the girl who is made out to be tough and independant but really is just a sex object for the lead. and why oh why would a German Nazi have an english daughter who leads a world peace organisation (english bashing in the movies happens alot, see mel gibsons carrer). then theres cheesy plot devices (you cant learn martial arts from watching old movies) cliches and the token happy yet unbeliveable ending...

why do hotdogs come in packs of eight and hotdog rolls come in packs and ten? because they are made by SEPERATE companies okay? dont pretend theres so metaphor in there

So you're idea of hard sci-fi is basically. "if technology continues to improve in this way then catastrophy #5123 may be a direct result and that would suck big time" right?

What Did I Say About Ix Nay Philsophy Ryvita Man

Actually, it's "ixnay" as in "nix" not "ix nay". And you said nothing, and that wasn't philosiphy. Everything I tell you is a lie.

yeah well you.... smell of cheese

No, I smell like naked people.

u do so!behind your back at school all the kids chant "cheese boy cheese boy cheese boy" an your only friends have no noses, and one day you ran home and cried and cried and cried and then asked for cookies and you sat there eating cookies and crying getting bigger an bigger an bigger

but i digress

Except for the cheese thing, you have quite litterally and seriously described my entire life.

and why oh why would a German Nazi have an english daughter who leads a world peace organisation (english bashing in the movies happens alot, see mel gibsons carrer).


Sorry, Desire, but she was his granddaughter. More than enough time to live and be educated in England. Kids pick up accents a lot quicker in schools, boarding schools most likely.

And what Mel Gibson movies are you talking about? Braveheart and the Patriot come to mind. What am I missing? Both of those make perfect sense. They're both about the basically same character fighting against the English in a war. Wouldn't SW count as English bashing too? All the Imperials have English accents.

okay here i go.... firstly braveheart was ALL LIES mel gibsons "small time hero makes it big" was actually a well educated nobleman who lived in england for a while, the characters of the english were also warped to make them all evil. as for the patriot the character that he plays was in real life a man who raped prisoners and married his cousin, once again the english are in there made out bad when the director takes things from nazi germany and places the blame on us.

then take any american WW2 movie... where are the allies? i mean they have been fighting for like 3-5 years in that flick and the americans in WW2 were known for a being a bit below par (an old war story i hear is of the americans and english who go on a mission and while the english cook food the americans go out and shoot wildly at shadows wasting all there ammo and aborting the mission)

then theres titanic! which lies alot and puts a whole class struggle in the movie (known fact that many upper class citzens gave there life jackets to lower class familes and didnt lock them away like in the movie)

and like in all the crappy action movies there allways seems to be an english villian! but the same happens in england where the female lead is an american whos come over to england that happens in SOOOOO many low budget english flicks

(slows down and breathes)

Rinkworks (www.rinkworks.com)

Really Bad Movies page is recommended.

I can't see how the plot of Final Fantasy : The Spirits Within could be hard to follow, but on the other hand I'm a console-RPG freak and have completed things such as Xenogears, which ties your brains in a knot and pulls them out by your ears.

Oh yeah, and I hold here a barge pole. STAR WARS (and for that matter, Star Trek half the time) IS NOT TRUE SCIENCE FICTION!!!

Snob.

That's like saying the Chronicles of Narnia aren't Fantasy because they are primarily Christian books...

I still enjoy the original Star Wars film for the same reason I love the Indiana Jones movies: They're a hoot and not meant to be anything too in depth! (And, no, I don't own a copy of _any_ of the Star Wars films...)

However, to say that it isn't Science Fiction isn't true. What is Science Fiction? A story which isn't true, but utilizing science which could possibly exist in the future. John Carter, Warlord of Mars was science fiction. Tarzan was not.

Something doesn't have to be Babylon 5 (i.e., based off of a logical extrapolation of current technologies and scientific theories) the be "science fiction". Remember Clarke's law: Any technology sufficiently advanced will be indistinguishable from magic. My favorite bit about that was when Professor Stephen Hawking was taken on a tour of the Star Trek - The Next Generation set (when he did a cameo). They were in the Engine Room set when he signaled them to pause. He pointed towards the big "warp drive" and said through his vocoder "I'm working on it."

Hawking had proven that Einstein wasn't necessarily right, but wasn't necessarily wrong either.

Science fiction is about the possibilities. Just because something is character driven, or even filled with technospeak doesn't mean that it isn't science fiction.

Now... As to my pick for the worst SciFi film of all time?

Highlander II. Any film that can take a terrific fantasy film and turn it into a Z-grade Science Fiction film deserves to be on a list like this.

Or, as a friend of mine put it, There should be only one...

Meow!

Whew- I step out of the forum for a couple of days and armageddon breaks loose!

:boxing:

Speaking of Bad Sci-Fi movies!

I have to agree with Desire's 'English Bashing' notice-- although I think that half of it is the movies are made in America, by big American companies- so if England shows up, it must be as buffoon or antagonist. (No- never the Irish, though they can be amusing, you cannot make too much fun of them or one of the 40,000,000 people of Irish descent will come and lay some smack down, and none of them will go see the movie).

<Sigh>

I'm getting kind-of tired of movie-bashing though, how about another forum topic? "What is Science Fiction?' seems to be a recurring theme here...

ex animo-

Lutra

ima happy

Honestly, if Battle Field Earth was tweaked up a bit, and maybe not written by an insane cult leader it would have been good.Still, it's one of the worse ones out there as is.

Actually, I've heard the book was awesome. Hubbard was a sci fi author first, then a cult leader - and scientology is what happens when a sci fi author starts a religion. *rolls eyes*

And then the movie was made by John Travolta - showing what happens when a book is adapted by an insane cult *follower*.

Event Horizon. Worst. Movie. Ever.

Much too preoccupied with gore to bother with a plot.

event horizon was ok!

not a bad movie but i think i should mention it... has anyone seen the 1903 film "the fatal sneeze" it was just sooooo strangely camp, with like a teenage 1900's version of julian clairy, where they make some sneeze with pepper and he goes around sneezing and destroying things ( in true slapstick fashion) add a benny hill like chase with saliors and a transvestite and well, its the dawn of gay cinema

event horizon was ok!

not a bad movie but i think i should mention it... has anyone seen the 1903 film "the fatal sneeze" it was just sooooo strangely camp, with like a teenage 1900's version of julian clairy, where they make some sneeze with pepper and he goes around sneezing and destroying things ( in true slapstick fashion) add a benny hill like chase with saliors and a transvestite and well, its the dawn of gay cinema


No- I'm afraid I haven't even *heard* of it-- sounds amusing though!

I'm surprised to see anything new on this thread- I thought it was dead and gone...

ex animo-
Lutra

another silent movie ive seen is "the gay shoe clerk" which means something TOTALLY different these days and is all about a shoe clerk who tries out some shoes and a pretty lady, who then procceeds to show him her leg (ooooo risque) they kiss and then the shoe clerk gets beaten by the ladies mother.... that was like the shower scene of the 1900s

Hmm, really should returned to this thread sooner.

Thom Katt: yes, I am a snob, sorry :p Star Wars is all in good fun, but I'd call it fantasy over science fiction myself. Or possibly "science-fantasy". And yes, I do regard Narnia as fantasy, why not just because of underlying christian themes?

On Desire's rants: I'd like to add my criticisms of "British" accents. A message to all Americans: NO ONE SPEAKS LIKE THAT! Ok, the Queen is almost there, and BBC news presenters are expected to adopt "perfect" (ie, fairly odd sounding) English. Hollywood English is non-existant!

On Desire's rants: I'd like to add my criticisms of "British" accents. A message to all Americans: NO ONE SPEAKS LIKE THAT! Ok, the Queen is almost there, and BBC news presenters are expected to adopt "perfect" (ie, fairly odd sounding) English. Hollywood English is non-existant!


Well- as my last roommate pointed out- the 'british' accent seems to be shorthand for 'foreign'. Think of how many movies the German (or other European) character has either an exagerrated accent or a British one. Why they can't get actors with the appropriate accent (or spend the money on a speech coach to teach the appropriate accent)...

ex animo

Well- as my last roommate pointed out- the 'british' accent seems to be shorthand for 'foreign'. Think of how many movies the German (or other European) character has either an exagerrated accent or a British one. Why they can't get actors with the appropriate accent (or spend the money on a speech coach to teach the appropriate accent)...

ex animo

Because nobody in North America would recognize them as English if they did, not that half of them know the difference between a Cockney and something more derived from the Midlands.

Mind you, you're talking to someone whose accent varies depending on who he needs to be... :P

also notice how many british actors accents go though the roof when they go to hollywood... but my canadian teacher pointed out how we can tell whos from were by accent while everyone across his country speaks the same language

with the same accent i mean

On Desire's rants: I'd like to add my criticisms of "British" accents. A message to all Americans: NO ONE SPEAKS LIKE THAT! Ok, the Queen is almost there, and BBC news presenters are expected to adopt "perfect" (ie, fairly odd sounding) English. Hollywood English is non-existant!

Ok, then British people need to stop doing American accents. I ADORE Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson - but their American accents are barely passable... And oh god... When Emma tries to do a southern accent... *shudder*

Some Brits can get a neutral Middle-America accent halfway decent, but you can usually tell they're faking. And they just shouldn't even try southern (and probably not other regional ones like NY, Boston, etc).

Curse you all, blasphemers! You shall find no sanctuary from my wrath. Mwuhahahahahahahahaha!!!!11!!!!1

Actually, I really don't care because everyone has their own opinion, and everyone isn't enlightened as me :p . Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within is the only scifi suck movie that comes to mind at the moment. I could never follow the plot. It was really wierd and the ending sucked a whole lot. I've never been a fan of tragic endings.

FF:TSW is a poor man's Blue Gender.

Actually, it's an impovershed man's Blue Gender, even considering the mild butchering of BG's TV-edit version.

other crappy movies... this topic is fun!

on note of The spirits within
I believe the reason why it turned out so bad is because what they were, in all probability, attempting to do was create a smooth continues FMV of an entire FF game that was never created.
so many people who watched it were trying to watch it like a normal movie, and were thusly disappointed
if you watch it with this in mind it suddenly seems to create a new feel to it.
the movie is meant to be watched as if you were watching someone play a game from beginning to end, and that game had the smoothest graphics created thus far
that's my theory anyway

Hmmm- A question with many depths. What am I?

Scholar, Soldier, Traveller, Cook, Scientist, Sentient Being (usually :) )...

Hmmm- I'm still working on my avatar (as amongst the things I am *not* - or am not *yet* is an artist), but my name gives a clue (in Latin).

Does that help?

ex animo-
Lutra

I know that Lutra is latin for Otter, and if it isint then latin is gay.

Worst scifi film? Hmm, universal solider was boring, and some star trek films. Personally I like the star wars films as there different to other crap that get's screened. Would you get a pod race in pride and prejudice? Would you get a lightsabre battle in the matrix?

Oh and the Matrix... Most hyped film ever. Reminds me of splinter cell, both got rave reviews but are as interesting as dried paint.

Hmm, really should returned to this thread sooner.

Thom Katt: yes, I am a snob, sorry :p Star Wars is all in good fun, but I'd call it fantasy over science fiction myself. Or possibly "science-fantasy". And yes, I do regard Narnia as fantasy, why not just because of underlying christian themes?

On Desire's rants: I'd like to add my criticisms of "British" accents. A message to all Americans: NO ONE SPEAKS LIKE THAT! Ok, the Queen is almost there, and BBC news presenters are expected to adopt "perfect" (ie, fairly odd sounding) English. Hollywood English is non-existant!

Zionwood.. I mean Hollywood English is supposed to be based off of RP, but RP isint like that at all.

Personally, I wish they would teach RP in schools along with english. I like some accents, but it's a pain in the arse to listen to some people who can't grasp how to speak proper like.

*pulls out a knife and holds CRS2117 hostage* THATS IT NO ONE TALKS ABOUT STAR WARS ANYMORE!!! BY GOD IM CRAZY ENOUGH TO DO IT!!

That's not cool Desire. You can't stab CRS becuse of his opinion. Just not cool.

sure its cool hehehehe violence is COOL hhheheheheheh

that's it guys, I think Desire has lost it.

(starts dancing with CRS around the room)
heaven!
im in heaven,
cuz when we dancing here CHEEK TO CHEEK..

*slaps Desire*
snap out of it. This is not healthy

Plus this totally off topic. :Pissed:

[Edit: Sorry. I was just worryed about the RPing]

so is endlesss starwars debates

Not if people regard them as "the worst sci-fi films of all time". They're entitled to their opinions, even if they're wrong :p

blegh to you too....

My most hated films.

Waterworld - Mad Max on the water with all the entertainment drained out of it.

Battlefield Earth - A mildly entertaining but brainless and long book turned into a brainless and boring movie.

Starship Troopers - Space ships armed with sonic disrupters, nuclear hand grenades, brain sucking brain bugs, bug farts killing ships, troops less orderly than a viking beserker, no tanks, no artilery, no air suport, guns that can't go though a bug, and ect. This is all without adding that this is suposed to be baised on a book that was the first to used power armor and exteramly well trained troops in science fiction in a way that would make since. Hell Halo, WH40k, and every other thing with powerarmored super troops can thank having them to the book.

Event Horizen - Cool ship (the model for it is more than six feet from tip to stern and exteramly detailed) but the plot sucked.

Manos, Hands of Fate
let me guess, MST3K?

didnt some of the actors from manos kill themselves?

didnt some of the actors from manos kill themselves?

Died for one reason or another, though I think the one who played Torg commited suicide...

Died for one reason or another, though I think the one who played Torg commited suicide...
i thought they killed themselves in the movie too didn't they?

i thought they killed themselves in the movie too didn't they?

No, Torgo dies, but Robert gets turned into the new Torgo, his wife and six or seven year old daughter end up tied or whatever on the stake where the wives are kept, and a young honeymooning couple pulls up to look at the house as Robert greets them in a Torgo-like voice.

It's OUTSIDe the movie where they die.

The IMDB Trivia Link (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060666/trivia)

Three stars of the film committed suicide shortly after shooting was completed: John Reynolds (Torgo), Joyce Molleur (teenager in car), and Diane Mahree (Margaret).

from IMDb.

Sounds like the winner!

Three stars of the film committed suicide shortly after shooting was completed: John Reynolds (Torgo), Joyce Molleur (teenager in car), and Diane Mahree (Margaret).

from IMDb.

Sounds like the winner!
Man- that's gotta be bad to have a chunk of your cast *commit suicide* after finishing your project! What about the production staff? Any of them?

how crap was that movie? or where these actors just over sensitive?

how crap was that movie? or where these actors just over sensitive?
the movie was bad, it was quite a bit better when you have Crow, Tom Servo, and which ever guy it was that was with the show at that time, check this link for more info

http://www.cultcuts.net/reviewsmovies/m/mst3kmanoshandsoffate.htm

Man- that's gotta be bad to have a chunk of your cast *commit suicide* after finishing your project! What about the production staff? Any of them?

Let's just say it was horrible enough to want to claw my eyes out even WITH the MST3K, though I saved myself by concentrating on the MSTers and not what was on the 'screen'.

It just goes to show you how bad a movie can get... and I wouldn't be at ALL surprised, Lutra, if anyone involved in production died. The producer was the cameraman though, IIRC.

wow...

Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000 (2000) - utter disappointment and I feel guilty I recommended it to someone who really trusted me before I'd seen it.

Planet of the Apes (2001) - Put my dad to sleep and he'll watch anything.
Wild Wild West (1999) - just ridiculous, horrible adaptation.
Vanilla Sky (2001)- another utter dissappointment
Super Mario Bros. (1993) - ditto
Men in Black II (2002) - etc
Lost in Space (1998) - just too weird for words

Scooby-Doo (2002) - see above reasons
Dreamcatcher (2003) - stupid ending
Congo (1995) - uttely unentertaining
Sphere (1998) - horrid
Gozilla (1998) - squandered effort
The Time Machine (2002) - ditto

I mostly just get dissappointed with movies more than hate them. For comparision here's my top sci-fi list if you don't mind.

Matrix Revolutions - the most fun I've had in a movie theater, didn't give me all the answers but then I didn't expect it to but it was so involving and intense.
Back to the Future - One of those rare, really fun sci-fi movies without being silly.
Reloaded - unforgettable music, enough themes to pack a philosophy book, beautiful movie that really grows on you with time.
Matrix - the first one is always fun to pop in.
Star Wars - I haven't seen it in a while but I have nothing but good memories.
Alien - One of the best in space films made.

I think Sphere was just made on too low a budget. Michael Critchon's novel, that it stuck to relatively faithfully, was a brilliant piece.

matrix 2 sucked... i mean a bunch of pointless philsophy followed by some dumb action scenes which were too long with special effects that didnt cut the cheese, nobody could act (except the dude who was neos personal fan boy, i liked him) and the only good bits was the architect and the keymaker running down a corridor (something so enjoyable about a little asian guy running down a corridor)

i prefered animatrix... has anyone heard about larry wachoski allegedly having a sex change? i think its quite amusing that the director of the biggest action movie franchise in hollywood at the mo is TS

matrix 2 sucked... i mean a bunch of pointless philsophy followed by some dumb action scenes which were too long with special effects that didnt cut the cheese, nobody could act (except the dude who was neos personal fan boy, i liked him) and the only good bits was the architect and the keymaker running down a corridor (something so enjoyable about a little asian guy running down a corridor)

Disturbingly, you have described my opinions of that film in almost 100% detail... :O_o: The only thing you failed to mention was the stupid french eejit who really needed a big smack in the mouth. :ermm:

Did anyone understand the new ending they stuck onto planet of the apes when they remade it? It seemed kind of....meaningless.

My vote for worst Sci Fi movie of all time is Total Recall, the only movie I have ever seen that made my head hurt afterwords


and my 2 cents is, not all sci-fi ineeds to involve spaceships blowing things up, but there is room enoigh in sci-fi for both heavy philosophy and mindless eye candy (sometimes you can be in the mood for either)



JessicaRaven

yeah the new planet of the apes ending was weird
i was like "wow" at first but then i thought "thats not right"

somehow the monkeys mangaged to replicate our civilisation in everydetail, even having there own version of lincon (i cant spell his goddamn name), they were just trying to top the original planet of the apes

yeah the new planet of the apes ending was weird
i was like "wow" at first but then i thought "thats not right"

somehow the monkeys mangaged to replicate our civilisation in everydetail, even having there own version of lincon (i cant spell his goddamn name), they were just trying to top the original planet of the apes
'Lincoln', dear friend... And actually, that ending (according to my last roommate who read the book) was the book's original ending. Yes- the movie was originally based on a book- the Apes were actually far in advance of us, (alternate universe story + time travel), and when he got back to the correct time, he was still in the wrong universe. Evidently a fairly decent read too- though I didn't care enough to bother myself.

There were plenty of other things I didn't like about the movie though- so, what the hell- put it on the list too! :)

i know it was a book first so nya!

bad non sci fi movies now (since i am a man of all genres) recently i just watched "all the queens men" about a group of english soliders who dress as women behind enemy lines, a mix of both war movie cliches and the stupid idea that a man in a dress is hilariously funny,

and yes the english are led by matt le blanc.. an american (and a terrible crossdresser)