• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Film 2000-2010 best decade of science fiction ever?

T

TheDeceased

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 21, 2000
Messages
1,720
It's only very recently that we have developed the technology to bring certain things to life. Although I wasn't a fan, Avatar is a good example. James Cameron came up with the idea decades ago, but it wasn't until the turn of the century that he was able to actually start tackling it.

Low budget science fiction used to be laughable. I like some of the classics, even things like Day of the Triffids, but they are absurd in comparison to today's cinema standards.

A lot of people seem to be pretty disappointed with the state of cinema, and admittedly there has been a bit of a slump for the past six months - but I struggle to think of another decade that had more compelling sci-fi flicks than the last one.

Just to name a few:

District 9, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Moon, A Scanner Darkly, Idiocracy, Children of Men, WALL-E, The Man From Earth, Solaris, The Fountain, Donnie Darko, The Time Traveler's Wife...
 
The more advanced we get, the better our science fiction gets. I mean, look at the sci-fi movies of the 50s and 60s compared to the 70s and 80s. They're pretty comical in comparison. More good recent sci-fi:

Timecrimes
Primer
Sunshine
Moon
The Man From Earth (it was simple, but I thought it was great)
Hell, even the new Star Trek was great.

*Hey I see we agree on the same movie. Rare, but awesome!
 
Last edited:
I agree with this thread; I feel like sci-fi movies (and comic book movies, for that matter) finally reached the right balance between legitimacy and humor.
 
I can buy what you're selling here

that is, because I assume that you mean the best decade for sci-fi, concerning film

because the era that produced such awe-inspiring works like Day of the Triffids, Earth Abides, Martian Chronicles, and essentially any Phillip K. Dick work, was in that era around the 50s and 60s. however, this obviously was in prose and not film

those aforementioned eras were a gold-mine of great sci-fi (perhaps my most beloved genre). the only show/movie that stands in your way is the phenomenally well-done the Twilight Zone (where many of the authors I mentioned, like Ray Bradbury, lent a helping hand in the production)
 
Personally I believe that the best science fiction is being written now, not in the 60s. I love Philip K Dick and Heinlein, but a lot of the science fiction written back then was kind of shit.

The Day of the Triffids is not a great novel. It certainly isn't better than House of Suns by Alasdair Reynolds, for example.

By the way, Dick wrote into the late 70s/ early 80s.
 
Yeah not even close. Few things can compare to the 1970's, or even 80's for that matter, much less the tacky, half written, CGI popcorn BS that has been released in the last decade.
 
^ I agree somewhat with this guy. While computerised special effects do keep getting better, it's meant that a lot of modern films mostly rely on them. Films used to use more physical special effects (real explosions, models, etc).

Now, looking at the sci-fi films by decade. I put it that the 80s was a better decade than the 00s. You've got:

Empire Strikes Back
Ghostbusters
Aliens
Predator
Back to the Future II

But the 90s, for me, takes the motherfickling cake:

Total Recall
The Fith Element
Terminator 2
Jurassic Park
12 Monkeys
Independence Day
Mars Attacks
Men in Black
Jurassic Park: The Lost World
Starship Troopers
Armageddon
The Truman Show
Galaxy Quest
The Matrix

Holy shit! For me, these films have a lot of character and personality. I don't care how good special effects get, most of these films have something that can't be generated by a computer.
 
Well, for Sci-Fi, I think the "CGI popcorn BS" makes many films better just because it is so cool to look at.

Another good 2000s Sci-Fi movie was Pandorum in my opinion.
 
psychopath said:
Well, for Sci-Fi, I think the "CGI popcorn BS" makes many films better just because it is so cool to look at.

Another good 2000s Sci-Fi movie was Pandorum in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Really? See, I like when films actually have decent writing.
 
In sheer number I agree that the 00s probably contain the most good "serious" contributions to the genre (stuff like District 9, Moon, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Children of Men, etc.).

Rated E's list of 90s sci-fi has lots of movies I really enjoyed -- so I think the 90s are defensible in one way I think of "best"-- but out of all of those I'd only put The Truman Show, The Matrix, and 12 Monkeys in the "serious" category (but also add Pi and Ghost in the Shell). Plus the central concept of time in 12 Monkeys was credited to the 1960s Chris Marker film La Jetee. I'd also, for example, take the 00's Solaris remake out of this category due to the 1970s Tarkovsky original (almost any remake of a film wouldn't qualify). From the 80s, I'd say Empire Strikes Back, Blade Runner, and Brazil (if that's sci-fi and not surrealism) qualify. No doubt I'm missing some, but if I spent more time reflecting I still think I'd conclude the 00s have the most.
 
In terms of aesthetics the '00-'10 movies are the best for obvious reasons

In terms of good storytelling (back when people needed talent for a movie to be good rather than bunch of 3D animations) it has to be 80s-90s, I mean for christ sake it gave us star wars

Plus almost every single movie that comes out nowadays is either a remake, based off of a book, or just sucks
 
Over the next 2 years, Steven Spielberg is producing seven different high budget science fiction projects.

Cowboys & Aliens
Real Steel
Transformers 4
Falling Skies
Men in Black III
When Worlds Collide

and

Robopocalypse (which he's also directing)

In terms of good storytelling (back when people needed talent for a movie to be good rather than bunch of 3D animations) it has to be 80s-90s, I mean for christ sake it gave us star wars
Click to expand...

Yeah but Star Wars wasn't an indication of the quality of science fiction for the time. It was the exception to the rule. Overall, the 80s had a shitload of incredibly bad science fiction - because the technology wasn't available to do certain things on screen. If they made Star Wars in the 1940s it would have been a piece of shit.

I disagree with the idea that technology is making science fiction worse. In fact, I would say the complete opposite. Also, there isn't a lack of great sci-fi scripts floating about. It's not as if all the science fiction movies being produced these days are completely mindless. Moon and Eternal Sunshine are great examples of how the genre has developed over time and moved away from it's well worn cliches. Of course there are popcorn films (like the Spielberg ones listed above) but there have always been popcorn films. In the 70s, the 80s, 90s, etc.

If anything, I'd say that there are more intelligent science fiction films being made now than there ever has been.
 
The recent surge of shitty, high budget, high attendance, sci-fi flicks (which, to me look like nearly all the ones Speilberg is producing) just annoys me. I understand the mass appeal of these films but, seriously, how many Transformers films are they going to make? Maybe if they didn't push so much dough into these cookie-cutter films people would push more money into more original, inspired films? I mean, outside real movie fans how many people actually knew about Moon? I don't know, I guess if there wasn't such a serge Moon might have never been made. All the same, it just makes me sad. :\
 
Maybe if they didn't push so much dough into these cookie-cutter films people would push more money into more original, inspired films
Click to expand...

That is actually the complete opposite of how the industry works.

The high-budget "franchise" films that profit $100 million dollars (eg Transformers) make it possible for the more risky (in terms of investment) low-budget science fiction films to exist.

That is, the more high-grossing "Transformers" movies, the more money studios have to re-direct into projects that are less likely to make money. Without films like "Transformers", there wouldn't be films like "Eternal Sunshine".

I mean, outside real movie fans how many people actually knew about Moon?
Click to expand...

Maybe what makes you sad is that most people don't have the patience for films like Moon and they would rather watch a mindless CGI-fest? Studios produce what sells. They know what sells. They know what (the majority of) people want to see... and it's not Moon.
 
Last edited:
I just said what you said after the first quote immediately after it.

And yeah, that's probably what actually makes me sad. :(
 
Don't be sad.

We get our Moon films and they get their Transformer films.

Everybody wins.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top