Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Once upon a time in a galaxy far far away what happened?
RosieG

Once upon a time in a galaxy far far away what happened?

What's the best scifi movie you ever sawy?
The best scifi story you ever read?
Which one would you have liked to have written?
Why?

Posted - December 21, 2019
Tags : None

Responses


  • 16934
    Movie - Star Wars (the original trilogy - the prequels were disappointing, and the Disney sequels were travesties because JJ Abrams can't read.)

    Read - the Dune series (LOTR was fantasy, not quite the same genre). Heinlein's Future Histories close behind.

    I'd like to adapt Margaret Weis's Star of the Guardians for the screen.

    Why is a matter of taste. I enjoyed them.
      December 21, 2019 2:44 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    Thank you for your thoughtful and very informative reply R. I appreciate it. I am a scifi fan bigly. But my very favorite scifi story is very small. And very sad. It touched my heart. "Flowers for Algernon". The movie CHARLY was based on it for which the actor Cliff Robertson won an Academy award I believe. If you aren't familiar with it here's the storyline. A less-than-average guy in terms of intellect is a sweetheart man and everyone takes advantage of him and makes fun of him and laughs at him. He never gets upset with them. A sweet-tempered and kind man. He gets involved in an experimental test and it results in his becoming beyond a genius! He develops a photographic memory and teaches himself many languages and thinks at lightning speed. He also becomes a very sexy guy and all the things a woman would ever want is embodied in him. He falls in love with a woman and then ....well and then the brilliance begins to fade and in the end he is back to being the sweet-tempered guy he always was. So sad to see a potential realized and celebrated that is then taken away. He doesn't recall whom he was. But we do.

    Separate subject R. The Australian Open begins January 20 and ends February 2, 2020 which of course you already know. Now Adelaide is 406 miles from Melbourne. Ever attend in person? Geez ya got some pretty terrific players there. Anyway I can hardly wait. You? This post was edited by RosieG at December 21, 2019 3:47 AM MST
      December 21, 2019 3:03 AM MST
    0

  • 16934
    I haven't. The distance doesn't faze me, the price of a ticket does.

    Tennis isn't my game - I'm interested, certainly, but not sufficiently to spend wads of cash on it. I tried to play it and was hideously inept - it was more nine-and-a-halfnis. Boxing, cricket, rugby and Australian football are more my thing.  I'm looking forward to seeing Alex de Minotaur developing his game and Ash Barty continuing to show that you don't have to be a bad-tempered brat to play brilliantly. But on TV, I won't be there.
      December 22, 2019 1:36 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    Oh? Huh. Okey dokey. Well as you know tennis and golf are Jim's games. He plays both and likes to watch both. Before we got together my game was professional basketball because of my son's interest in it. I was very knowledgeable back in the day when the Celtics and Lakers were at the top of their rivalry. I'd root for the Celtics and my son and his friends for the Lakers. Now my son was born in West Concord, MASSACHUSETTS at Emerson Hospital so you'd think he'd be pro his home state teams but NO. Go figger. So because of a male (my son) I developed a huge interest in professional basketball once upon a time. Because of a male (my Jim) I now enjoy bigly professional tennis and golf tournaments. I even watch when he isn't home! Boxing I don't get. You beat the crap out of someone. Where's the joy in THAT? Cricket, rugby and football not my cuppa tea because I've not been exposed to it. My son played little league baseball and even until he was 16 he played in a league. But I never got interested in professional baseball and football? Fuggeedddabout it. Thank you for your thought reply and Happy Sunday/Monday R! :)
      December 22, 2019 2:43 AM MST
    0

  • 16934
    I boxed flyweight. At that division it's more like a game of tag, neither combatant has sufficient weight to put behind a really hard punch (there are exceptions, but those go pro early - I boxed amateur only). It's about speed and skill rather than power.
      December 22, 2019 5:56 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    Oh. Okey dokey m'dear. I read up on it once after one of our conversations in the long ago R and there are a bazillion classifications. So it's more about speed and skill at the flyweight level rather than going in for the kill as seems to be the case with the heavyweights. You don't have to knock people out to get high points then?

    Was the workout physically taxing on you? Ever tried kickboxing? Of course I am quite likely the least athletic homo sap on the planet so what do I know? Years ago I was a runner but I had to stop when I turned 50. Knee problems. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it bigly! :) This post was edited by RosieG at December 22, 2019 6:01 AM MST
      December 22, 2019 6:00 AM MST
    0

  • 16934
    Taxing it was. I only scored one win by KO and suffered one loss that way - the win was luck, the loss carelessness. Point are scored by landing punches, all three judges have to see it and hit the button at the same time. How hard it is doesn't matter. Amateurs also wear a lot more padding than pros.
      December 22, 2019 6:14 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    Is it kinda choreographed R? Like certain moves or steps you learn or is it all ad lib within whatever the rules are? I have actually seen brief pieces of film showing some boxers who were very graceful in their movements and almost beautiful to watch until they landed punches and the opponent went down. But like taking dancing competitions. There are certain steps or moves that should be done in a particular specific way to get the most points. Anyway thanks for hanging in this long with me on this. I appreciate it! :) Oh I'm gonna a question that occurred to me based on the poetry you shared. The person I refer to was an Answermugger whose name I forget. FYI.
      December 22, 2019 6:23 AM MST
    0

  • 16934
    Pro wrestling is choreographed. Boxing is not. What you do with your feet is incidental, it's what your hands do that scores.
      December 22, 2019 6:41 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    What? I thought foot movement was critical. Well you're the knowledgeable one in this not me. Thank you for your reply! :)
      December 22, 2019 6:44 AM MST
    0

  • 16934
    It is, but it's not scored. Foot movement (and whole body movement) puts you in a position to hit cleanly - and more critically, to not GET hit where it scores. Take them on the gloves, or the arms, or avoid them altogether. Ali was a master at that.
      December 22, 2019 4:58 PM MST
    0

  • 1152
    I found this a difficult question to answer, because I think the time constraints and presentation requirements of a movie make it almost impossible by definition to make a "good" sci-fi movie.

    I am NOT saying that there has never been a good "science fiction" movie. What I am saying is most movies we call "science fiction" do not actually do science fiction well. They may be good movies anyway, but not because of the science fiction aspects.

    For example, my favorite movie of all time is the original Star Wars: Episode IV (from 1977). But even though it has space ships and robots and laser swords, it isn't really science fiction. It is a classic Hero's Journey mythic tale, where the humble farm boy discovers the princess is in distress, and decides to save her. Along the way he meets a wizard who teaches him what he needs to know to succeed, and they recruit the Criminal with the Heart of Gold (along with other people) to aid them in their quest. Their main adversaries are The Tyrannical King and his armies.

    That story works equally well if it takes place in medieval historical times with horses, monks, and steel swords instead of star ships, Jedi Knights, and light sabers.  So where does the "science fiction" enter into the equation?

    If we define science fiction as a story where the characters are dealing with the implications of how science and technology (either in whole or in part) are reshaping their lives and their society, then it is very difficult to tell such stories within a 1.5 - 3 hour time constraint in visually interesting ways. Generally, dealing with implications of science and technology requires long periods of exposition, which means either a narrator explains stuff, or the characters in the story discuss stuff. That works OK in print, or even in a television series where the exposition can be stretched out across episodes. But it generally kills the story flow of a movie.

    For example, in Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace, a key plot point is how the bad guys are using their robotic army to impose a trade blockade. Yay, that's science fiction! But the presentation of that plot point and the necessary time spent showing politicians engaging in negotiations (or discussing the dispute) just kills audience interest, and was a major complaint of critics of the movie.

    So, if we define "science fiction" as I did above, I would argue the best "science fiction" movie I've ever seen was Dr. Strangelove. It took a piece of science/technology (the nuclear bomb) and explored the terrifying implications of what the existence of The Bomb meant for humanity. Moreover, it did so in a timeless way. The same questions about the dangers of nuclear weapons and the morality of nuclear deterrence are as valid today as they were in 1964.

    As for science fiction stories, I can't pick out a "best" from the dozens of good to excellent Sci-fi stories I've read (and I've read only a tiny portion of the total corpus). My personal favorite is a novella by Algys Budrys called "Rouge Moon" where scientists discover a piece of alien technology on the Moon with very peculiar properties. Exploring the properties of the alien artifact requires recruiting very special people who are capable of withstanding the physical and mental rigors the alien technology imparts upon the explorers. Once these unusual individuals are brought together, they have inevitable interpersonal conflicts which are the heart of the story.

    Once again, it would probably make a lousy movie because you'd have long scenes of the protagonist and his main foil quoting Shakespeare at each other as they strap into the technology which allows them to explore the alien artifact.
      December 22, 2019 7:57 AM MST
    0

  • 46117
    God took his first bowel movement.  It was a long time ago.  Far far away.  God has to take a cosmic Dump once every 10,000,000 years or so and it floats around the cosmos.  It landed on Earth and we just did not know what to do with God's fecal matter so we put a suit on it.



    This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at December 22, 2019 8:29 AM MST
      December 22, 2019 8:27 AM MST
    0