It's been a good year for sci-fi franchises. Both Mad Max and Star Wars matched and/or exceeded the hype and my expectations.

 

A new hope indeed.

 

Perhaps for sci-fi franchises, but not for sci-fi movies in general. There was only one notable film that wasn't part of a franchise, Martian, and it was thoroughly average (or poor, considering who was making it).  Remakes of decades old films and superhero drivel is what sci-fi has been reduced to in the last, how many (?) years.

 

Even more disturbing than that, the other highly regarded sci-fi film of 2015 is "Ex Machina" (7.7 IMDB rating??!) , a film that would have been considered passe twenty years ago. I say its more disturbing because you can expect a franchise film to get a high rating even when its mediocre because of all the fans, but a no-name effort getting so high up tells me that either the audience has lost its compass as to what makes a good sci fi film, or they artificially inflated the rating. 

 

I have yet to watch The Lobster, its supposedly good.

 

 

FYI, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 also has sci-fi elements.  A lot of sci-fi elements.  Particularly this last one is way more sci-fi than the last one because it involves futuristic battle scenes.

 

Ant-man also has heavy sci-fi elements even though it was based on a superhero comic books.

 

Jurassic World is also sci-fi.  The whole "recreate and splice dinosaurs with DNA" is very sci-fi.

Edited December 19, 201510 yr by ktchong

 

 

It's been a good year for sci-fi franchises. Both Mad Max and Star Wars matched and/or exceeded the hype and my expectations.

 

A new hope indeed.

 

Perhaps for sci-fi franchises, but not for sci-fi movies in general. There was only one notable film that wasn't part of a franchise, Martian, and it was thoroughly average (or poor, considering who was making it).  Remakes of decades old films and superhero drivel is what sci-fi has been reduced to in the last, how many (?) years.

 

Even more disturbing than that, the other highly regarded sci-fi film of 2015 is "Ex Machina" (7.7 IMDB rating??!) , a film that would have been considered passe twenty years ago. I say its more disturbing because you can expect a franchise film to get a high rating even when its mediocre because of all the fans, but a no-name effort getting so high up tells me that either the audience has lost its compass as to what makes a good sci fi film, or they artificially inflated the rating. 

 

I have yet to watch The Lobster, its supposedly good.

 

 

FYI, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 also has sci-fi elements.  A lot of sci-fi elements.  Particularly this last one is way more sci-fi than the last one because it involves futuristic battle scenes.

 

Ant-man also has heavy sci-fi elements even though it was based on a superhero comic books.

 

Jurassic World is also sci-fi.  The whole "recreate and splice dinosaurs with DNA" is very sci-fi.

 

 

While all three are indisputably sci-fi, are we seriously considering the hunger games, ant-man and jurassic world in a best of anything discussion?

Edited December 19, 201510 yr by Drowsy Emperor

Ant Man was without a doubt the best micro movie since Honey I Shrunk the Kids and Jurassic World was the best money-making machine this year.

 

Are those even arguments?

 

 

Best micro movie award. Best money making machine award.

 

I'd like to thank the academy...

Edited December 19, 201510 yr by Drowsy Emperor

Boo doesn't like anything.  

 

I haven't seen any of those three movies, but they clearly have an audience.  I'd imagine they are all plenty enjoyable.  I still remember when our comic book movies were terrible, Jurassic Park sequels went straight to video, and young teen movies were dominated by Twilight.  It's a great time to be alive!

Boo doesn't like anything.  

 

I haven't seen any of those three movies, but they clearly have an audience.  I'd imagine they are all plenty enjoyable.  I still remember when our comic book movies were terrible, Jurassic Park sequels went straight to video, and young teen movies were dominated by Twilight.  It's a great time to be alive!

 

Actually I have an IMDB rating list with about 1500 titles and there's the top 5% of it that I love, the next 5%-10% that are also good and then there's the rest. 

 

As you can imagine, its not hard to be in the rest.

Short review with theater fresh opinions.

 

Better than prequels

Effects weren't spectacular, but they felt like Star Wars

Story was thin even Star Wars standards

Character progression was forceful and it didn't seem to fit in story that was told

I liked some of the characters and some of the characters were just dull

Overall feeling during and after movie was and is that movie was dull. It was watchable and I don't regret that I put money to watch it, but it is not movie that I will watch again.

Boo doesn't like anything.  

 

I haven't seen any of those three movies, but they clearly have an audience.  I'd imagine they are all plenty enjoyable.  I still remember when our comic book movies were terrible, Jurassic Park sequels went straight to video, and young teen movies were dominated by Twilight.  It's a great time to be alive!

What are you talking about? I saw all four Jurassic Park movies in cinemas and even the abysmal third installment was succesful financially.

Really?  Huh, I guess I just assumed it did since it looked really bad.  I never saw it, honestly.

I feel like I should add that if you did not go see this in a theater, you are doing yourself a disservice.  Much like Mad Max, the experience warrants an impressive venue.  

 

Doesn't even hold a candle to Mad Max.

Doesn't even hold a candle to Mad Max.

Nothing holds a candle to Mad Max. I went to see Avengers 2 right after seeing Mad Max and the entire time I thought "That's so bad. That's just so bad."

I didn't like Mad Max at all. Everyone goes crazy for it but I couldn't take any of the villains seriously as a threat and as such it had zero tension. I was checking my watch and yawning throughout the entire thing.

I don't think you're supposed to take anything in the new Mad Max seriously.

It is weird to compare them, really. I was just pointing out they benefit from a big screen and a rockin' sound system.

Never gonna see Mad Max, I can't stand the actor.

Saw that Prohibition era movie with him in a lead role, he was insufferable.

Never gonna see Mad Max, I can't stand the actor.

 

Saw that Prohibition era movie with him in a lead role, he was insufferable.

 

Well, to be fair, he's more of a supporting character in the Mad Max remake.

Never gonna see Mad Max, I can't stand the actor.

 

Saw that Prohibition era movie with him in a lead role, he was insufferable.

 

He is one of my favorite new actors, especially in Warrior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's been a good year for sci-fi franchises. Both Mad Max and Star Wars matched and/or exceeded the hype and my expectations.

 

A new hope indeed.

Perhaps for sci-fi franchises, but not for sci-fi movies in general. There was only one notable film that wasn't part of a franchise, Martian, and it was thoroughly average (or poor, considering who was making it). Remakes of decades old films and superhero drivel is what sci-fi has been reduced to in the last, how many (?) years.

 

Even more disturbing than that, the other highly regarded sci-fi film of 2015 is "Ex Machina" (7.7 IMDB rating??!) , a film that would have been considered passe twenty years ago. I say its more disturbing because you can expect a franchise film to get a high rating even when its mediocre because of all the fans, but a no-name effort getting so high up tells me that either the audience has lost its compass as to what makes a good sci fi film, or they artificially inflated the rating.

 

I have yet to watch The Lobster, its supposedly good.

FYI, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 also has sci-fi elements. A lot of sci-fi elements. Particularly this last one is way more sci-fi than the last one because it involves futuristic battle scenes.

 

Ant-man also has heavy sci-fi elements even though it was based on a superhero comic books.

 

Jurassic World is also sci-fi. The whole "recreate and splice dinosaurs with DNA" is very sci-fi.

While all three are indisputably sci-fi, are we seriously considering the hunger games, ant-man and jurassic world in a best of anything discussion?

Ant Man was fantastic.

 

 

 

It's been a good year for sci-fi franchises. Both Mad Max and Star Wars matched and/or exceeded the hype and my expectations.

 

A new hope indeed.

 

Perhaps for sci-fi franchises, but not for sci-fi movies in general. There was only one notable film that wasn't part of a franchise, Martian, and it was thoroughly average (or poor, considering who was making it).  Remakes of decades old films and superhero drivel is what sci-fi has been reduced to in the last, how many (?) years.

 

Even more disturbing than that, the other highly regarded sci-fi film of 2015 is "Ex Machina" (7.7 IMDB rating??!) , a film that would have been considered passe twenty years ago. I say its more disturbing because you can expect a franchise film to get a high rating even when its mediocre because of all the fans, but a no-name effort getting so high up tells me that either the audience has lost its compass as to what makes a good sci fi film, or they artificially inflated the rating. 

 

I have yet to watch The Lobster, its supposedly good.

 

 

FYI, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 also has sci-fi elements.  A lot of sci-fi elements.  Particularly this last one is way more sci-fi than the last one because it involves futuristic battle scenes.

 

Ant-man also has heavy sci-fi elements even though it was based on a superhero comic books.

 

Jurassic World is also sci-fi.  The whole "recreate and splice dinosaurs with DNA" is very sci-fi.

 

 

While all three are indisputably sci-fi, are we seriously considering the hunger games, ant-man and jurassic world in a best of anything discussion?

 

 

 

The original discussion was "It's been a good year for sci-fi franchises," not if The Hunger games, Ant-man or Jurassic World is the best of anything.  FYI, based on the aggregate review scores on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB and the consensus of YouTube reviewers, all three were good movies. So, given that this year we have a large number of good sci-fi movies that are based on franchises, Leferd was correct in his original assertion, (i.e., that it has been a good year for sci-fi franchises.)  I would say it is a good year for sci-fi movies in general.

 

BTW, actually this year has had a lot of sci-fi movies, franchises or not.  It is just that the franchise ones are just much better than the ones that were not based on a franchise.  Like it or not, the quality of big-budget studio franchise movies have improved greatly during the past decade - and have surpassed independent film-making whose quality has stagnant for the past decade or so.   I know you want to be one of the "cool kids" who whine about "oh, studio movies suck and indie flicks are the best," but in actuality that is rarely the case any more.  The quality of indie films has stagnant and even declined in the past decade, while big studios like Marvel have perfected the formulas for making franchise movies over the years.  That the quality of big franchise movies have become fairly consistent and, quite good.  They may not be always "creative" but they are almost always entertaining, enjoyable and fun.  

 

And, frankly, when pay $16 to $25 to see a movie, that is what we want: we want to be entertained and have fun.  I am honestly not interesting in paying some $20 and spending three hours to see some  self-absorbed  artist whine about his pathetic life  in his pathetic "art".  If I wanted to see art, I would go to a f-cking art gallery.  When I spend the $20 and three hours, I want to enjoy some good time.  I want to have fun.  I want to be entertained. 

 

And this forum's way of handling quotes SUCKS.  It keeps nesting more and more quotes and has no way of letting us getting rid of the unnecessary ones without messing up the formatting.

Edited December 20, 201510 yr by ktchong

I have not seen any of those movies, so I have no stakes here, but:

 

You're right. Nobody wants to see some crappy not-entertaining 'art' and everybody would rather see entertaining, enjoyable and fun movies. 

 

When people prefer 'artsy' movies and criticise the latest Michael Bay movie, maybe it occurred to you that for them, the 'artsy' movies - not all of which have random blobules of French underwear flying about for 3 hours, by the way - is entertaining and enjoyable, and they don't find the latest action blockbuster fun.

 

It's always interesting how people implicitly believe that whatever they find fun, or whatever some Youtube reviewers find fun, or whatever the majority finds fun, must be objectively fun for everybody, and therefore anybody who hates those movies must hate fun. 

 

I have yet to encounter people who insist on not watching stuff they find fun, and watching stuff they don't enjoy, for years and years. Why would anyone be so crazy? But that's the crazy, crazy world that such arguments always assume. Without any reason, except a "everyone must think like me" assumption. 

I feel like I should add that if you did not go see this in a theater, you are doing yourself a disservice.  Much like Mad Max, the experience warrants an impressive venue.

So, it's incredibly loud ?

I have yet to encounter people who insist on not watching stuff they find fun, and watching stuff they don't enjoy, for years and years. Why would anyone be so crazy? But that's the crazy, crazy world that such arguments always assume. Without any reason, except a "everyone must think like me" assumption. 

 

Did you ever meet any of those swaggetarian hipster guys that seem to pop up everywhere? I'm perfectly certain such equivalents exist for entertainment too. Like a bunch of people I know who pretend to like jazz because it makes them feel superior to the grunts enjoying a bunch of Taylor Swift. Heh.

 

 

 

 

It's been a good year for sci-fi franchises. Both Mad Max and Star Wars matched and/or exceeded the hype and my expectations.

 

A new hope indeed.

 

Perhaps for sci-fi franchises, but not for sci-fi movies in general. There was only one notable film that wasn't part of a franchise, Martian, and it was thoroughly average (or poor, considering who was making it).  Remakes of decades old films and superhero drivel is what sci-fi has been reduced to in the last, how many (?) years.

 

Even more disturbing than that, the other highly regarded sci-fi film of 2015 is "Ex Machina" (7.7 IMDB rating??!) , a film that would have been considered passe twenty years ago. I say its more disturbing because you can expect a franchise film to get a high rating even when its mediocre because of all the fans, but a no-name effort getting so high up tells me that either the audience has lost its compass as to what makes a good sci fi film, or they artificially inflated the rating. 

 

I have yet to watch The Lobster, its supposedly good.

 

 

FYI, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 also has sci-fi elements.  A lot of sci-fi elements.  Particularly this last one is way more sci-fi than the last one because it involves futuristic battle scenes.

 

Ant-man also has heavy sci-fi elements even though it was based on a superhero comic books.

 

Jurassic World is also sci-fi.  The whole "recreate and splice dinosaurs with DNA" is very sci-fi.

 

 

While all three are indisputably sci-fi, are we seriously considering the hunger games, ant-man and jurassic world in a best of anything discussion?

 

 

 

The original discussion was "It's been a good year for sci-fi franchises," not if The Hunger games, Ant-man or Jurassic World is the best of anything.  FYI, based on the aggregate review scores on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB and the consensus of YouTube reviewers, all three were good movies. So, given that this year we have a large number of good sci-fi movies that are based on franchises, Leferd was correct in his original assertion, (i.e., that it has been a good year for sci-fi franchises.)  I would say it is a good year for sci-fi movies in general.

 

BTW, actually this year has had a lot of sci-fi movies, franchises or not.  It is just that the franchise ones are just much better than the ones that were not based on a franchise.  Like it or not, the quality of big-budget studio franchise movies have improved greatly during the past decade - and have not surpassed independent film-making whose quality has stagnant for the past decade or so.   I know you want to be one of the "cool kids" who whine about "oh, studio movies suck and indie flicks are the best," but in actuality that is rarely the case any more.  The quality of indie films has stagnant and even declined for  the past decade, while big studios like Marvel have perfected the formulas for making franchise movies over the years.  That the quality of big franchise movies have become fairly consistent and, good.  They may not be always "creative" but they are almost always entertaining, enjoyable and fun.  

 

And, frankly, when pay $16 to $25 to see a movie, that is what we want: we want to be entertained and have fun.  I am honestly not interesting in paying some $20 and spending three hours to see some  self-absorbed  artist whine about his pathetic life  in his pathetic "art".  If I wanted to see art, I would go to a f-cking art gallery.  When I spend the $20 and three hours, I want to enjoy some good time.  I want to have fun.  I want to be entertained. 

 

 

 

The special effects capabilities of big budget franchise movies has improved to no end. So have their marketing departments. The actual movies are still ass. Often its because the source material itself is ass. Ant man indeed.

 

Once upon a time the likes of Stanley Kubrick, Andrey Tarkovsky, the old Ridley Scott, Gilliam, Oshii, Lucas, Cameron etc. made films varying from high art to great entertainment in the genre. Nothing Marvel and the like has ever made, or will make, will rival even the poorer efforts from the era when the best of these film directors had more or less free reign to do what they liked. 

 

This is because all these films are just a product made by accountants, rehashes of old ideas or licenses, crafted to appeal to everyone on a superficial level from Washington to Bangalore.  They can't be great films because originality is equated with risk and risk is a no-no in a 200 million dollar project. They can't even fulfill the basic demands of quality scripts and decent characters because the scripts are usually written by ten people, half of which serve only to make lines, characters and scenes desirable to a market segment to satisfy the accounting department. 

Frankly, I don't actually care about who makes the films. Big studios or indie productions is irrelevant - I only care about the final product. More or less all of the best sci-fi films were made under big studios anyway. I'm only pointing this out to show why films are generally so bad now. 

 

I also don't care what you want when you go to the cinema, since I'm also paying for my film experience...mmkay?. I'm not an ADHD hamster that has to be entertained - some of the best films I've watched were, by conventional standards, very boring.* What I want is the a new Solaris, a new 2001: A Space Odyssey and failing that, even if the product is purely entertainment, a new Alien, Terminator etc. equivalent. Not the seventeenth embarrassing iteration with grandpa Ford, Schwarzenegger or Hamil  - but something as original and well made as these were at the time.

 

*When Soviet critics asked Tarkovsky why the film Stalker was so slow he replied: “The film [stalker] needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theater have time to leave before the main action starts.” 

Edited December 19, 201510 yr by Drowsy Emperor

 I'm only pointing this out to show why films are generally so bad now. 

 

 

Since we're diverting from Star Wars slightly...