You probably posted that in the new comics/media bargain thread, didn't you? *Runs to that thread*

So, I finally watched Cloverfield and was amazed! The found footage aspect may be a bit belabored and gimmicky, but it is genuinely scary.

Afterward, I got in a couple rewatches: Mars Attacks! and Star Trek (2009).

When I first saw Mars Attacks!, I freakin’ loved it! I was thirteen or fourteen and lapped up the quirky characters and laser guns like a thirsty puppy. At the time, I didn’t know anything about the ‘50s sci-fi flicks the film was lambasting. Oddly enough, the more I watch and learn about classic (and not-so-classic) sci-fi, the more Burton’s homage pales.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s still great fun, but it feels less and less polished. For such a short movie, it’s stuffed with characters and situations that are a mixed bag. Some (like Brosnan’s optimist scientist and Steiger’s war-crazed general) are clearly based on overused invasion tropes. Other characters (such as the reporters and Lukas Haas) are more like sendups of 90s culture. Some things just don’t make any kind of sense (why is there a school tour going on at that time). Still, it’s a lot of fun if you don’t think too hard!

Unlike my experience with Mars Attacks!, I find that I like J.J. Abram’s reimaged Star Trek more and more every time I see the sexy cast in their posh iStore. While trying to puzzle this out, I realized it has to do with modulating my expectations. The first time I saw it, I wanted something else. I saw Star Trek: The Motion Picture as a young teen and immediately loved it. While some find more flaws than goodness, I was entranced, impatiently cursing the frequent commercial breaks. Yes, the questions are fairly typical of sci-fi, but to a kid going through puberty and questioning his religion for the first time, it was heady stuffy, and I contemplated the film for weeks after seeing it.

Abram’s Star Trek does not reconstruct the sense of wonder created by The Motion Picture or the series at its best, and for that reason, I was really disappointed when I first saw it. However, I’ve realized that it film had different intentions than the series. It’s a rollicking, streamlined epic that has more to do with Nemesis than the original series.

Sorry for the length of this post! Apparently, I had lots to say.

Quick, slightly off-topic question: I noticed that shellebelle read Percy Jackson for her checklist and wondered if anyone else is reading any sci-fi/fantasy during the challenge?

I've been slowly working my way through Cloud Atlas which is fantastic fun! I would definitely recommend it to fans of the film and/or experimental fiction - even though it is a bit... difficult to read at times.

Yep, Tarfrimmer was reading it also. We both finished the second book in the series also. And I highly recommend the books. Yes, they are for young adults, but they hold up for ancient grown-ups like myself! I'm looking forward to finishing this series and moving on to Riordan's other series.

I'm using traditional counting to measure my progress against previous years (and am already ahead of last year! ). The hourlong episodes of Firefly and GOT were making counting clean, but then that episode of Pufnstuf threw me off. So what did I just watch? An 11-minute episode of Adventure Time.

To each his own... I watched Cloverfield last year (?) and found it somewhat overblown and boring. I *hated* the "found footage" aspect but then I'm not much a fan of such films. So far the only "found footage" film I'd watch again (and recommend highly) is Trollhunter.
I wanted to like ST:TMP more than I actually did. When I saw it in the theater I felt a bit ripped off as it's a reworking of 3(!) episodes of TOS. I still enjoy the film but would rather watch the episodes on which it is based. I'm still debating about Abrams Trek. On one hand it's not bad (and better than Nemesis *and* The Final Frontier) but on the other it feels like just another summer popcorn flick. In all fairness I've only watched it twice.
Robert Heinlein's "Time Enough for Love", but not for the checklist as I doubt I'll get it finised before the month's over.

Sorry! I feel somewhat responsible.

As it turned out, I found a 10-minute preview of Mass Effect: Paragon Lost so my numbers are back on track.

The other day, when I wasn't looking for it, I found my copy of Armored Fleet Dairugger XV, and I'm in the mood for it tonight, so looks like I know what I'm watching before bed.

No, it's a Conixology sale so it's in that thread.

On topic, I re-watched Ponyo with my daughter the other night. What a strange story, I can't decide if I really like it or not.

I'm not big on Japanimation or anthropomorphism as story ideas, but I really liked Ponyo. I found it charming and sweet.

Last Saturday, I got to see Dr. No on the big screen. I've added it to my list as a Wild Card for right now but are there any objections to me counting it outright as one of my selections? For those unfamiliar, Dr. No's plot is to topple (i.e., tamper with and misdirect) American rockets fired from Cape Canaveral...from his hidden lair inside caves in an island off Jamaica. This was, of course, set during the space race before we were able to reach the moon so this represented more than just nastiness. It was a serious threat to science, technology and international relations. Thoughts?

Boooooo!

I agree. I was just glad Aelita turned up very early on - before disappearing for almost the entire rest of the film - otherwise I would have doubted I was watching the right thing! But I really didn't notice that it was set nominally in the future. It seemed very 'present', for the reasons you describe.

Our library system in Mississippi has more gaps than books in the GN section (some odd oversights/lack of money, some theft), and ILL doesn't seem to be any more helpful. Moreover, I can not request DVDs or CDs, which pleases me not. Not even for a (sliding-scale) fee, which is as baffling as it is annoying.



Fortunately, the local library has a fair selection of DVDs. For instance, the 'Invasion Sci-Fi' fourpack, which I've been trying to get through. And the incidental/background music in Cosmos: War of the Planets is decidedly odd. Distracting, bizarre, occasionally hilarious... at times it almost compensated for the lack of acting ability..!

At the risk of inviting criticism for double-standards, and without the weight of years or experience, I would not consider Dr. No Sci-Fi or fantasy - but can get behind it as a Wild Card option for the space race angle.

On the other hand, I don't really mind what logic other people use, since I'm sure my own would be considered faulty by some/many..! But speaking for myself, I would feel a little bad even counting Moonraker (partially set in space) and Die Another Day (ugh, invisible car) as counting outright. They are just Action/Adventure/Spy to me.

That said, I may simply be jealous of you getting to see it on the big screen, so...! (Plus I'm still mildly annoyed that I found a Jeff Goldblum-starring episode of The Ray Bradbury Theater and couldn't see it being anything other than mild psychological thriller. No real SF or fantasy overtones at all. )

I assume it's for the 'redemption character arc,' but I'd forgotten that Tom Cruise's character in Spielberg's War of the Worlds started off as such an utterly unlikeable person.

I'm struggling to think of when else he might not have played a true hero. Not that I can really remember having seen that many of his films, but still. Interesting choice.

It really gets to the point of distinction between "science-fiction" and "sci-fi", I think. I'm not passionate enough about the subject to really debate it, but I think that's where something like Dr. No fits under the umbrella.

I counted Die Another Day as a Wild Card in 2011. For me, a true "spy" story would be something like le Carre's The Spy Who Came In from the Cold or Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Bond movies are much more fantastic in scope and use of technology.

Dr. No is my friend's favorite Bond movie. A few years ago when he went to Emerald City Comic Con in Seattle, he got to see On Her Majesty's Secret Service. We've agreed we wish we could trade our experiences. (We've seen From Russia with Love and Goldfinger together; the latter in a once-in-a-lifetime screening at Fort Knox in 2007!)

He's a working class, everyweekend dad. To be honest, he seemed to make a stronger effort than a lot of such guys I know. It never occurred to me that Ray is unlikeable.

You'll have to wait and watch it during the next Oscar Challenge but Cruise is certainly not the hero in Collateral though if you're aiming for sci-fi/fantasy, Cruise plays Lestat is a total ass in Interview with a Vampire (as he should since that's how the character was written).

The Captains was quite interesting. I kinda wish they had spent more time with the actors but what can you do. I think Avery Brooks was totally playing Shatner as Brooks has always seemed far more grounded the few times I've seen him at cons than he comes off in the film. Bakula was far too kind during the discussion of why Enterprise didn't work: we all know it was the bad writing. It makes me want to finally watch Quantum Leap since I've only seen one or two episodes. Shatner's discussion of hormones as Mulgrew was trying to point out the fact that the industry is not conducive to primary caregivers (who are usually female) was a little odd. I mean the previous scenes were of Stewart and Bakula talking about the toll this line of work took on their families so why were Mulgrew's statements reduced to being about a hormones? Stewart and Bakula has spouses and ex-spouses to help care for their children and Mulgrew didn't, is it any great leap to suggest that the industry itself should evolve so that folks can achieve some semblance of a work/life balance and that hormones really don't have anything to do with?

Topper Returns just didn't do it for me. I saw the original [b]Topper years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it but this sequel just left me cold. Roland Young was still amazingly funny as the title character but this time around I found the ghost to be obnoxious. That's probably the difference between Cary Grant playing a role and pretty much anyone else but Joan Blondell drove me batty - it didn't help that her character was mildly racist at the beginning of the film.

Fair point. And perhaps that's why they got habitual-voice-of-God Morgan Freeman to do the end voiceover in the 2005 film..!

Same here. Sad part is I'm sure I've missed out on some really good stories because I can't get past the artwork.
And that's where I don't understand why all the Bond films don't have a SF genre tag. Even though Dr. No is one of the least SFish films in the series it *still* has enough of that hint/flavor to qualify. People forget that many of the fantastical devices Bond (and the bad guys) uses/used in the films were frequently "out of this world" fantasy devices during the years of original theatrical runs. Even though Dr. No is perhaps the least "fantastical" Bond film I feel it still has enough SF overtones to qualify with the "atomic-powered radio beam" intended to disrupt the Mercury rocket launch. I vote "count it" and wouldn't be opposed to any of the Bond films counting even though my personal preferrence would be to use them in the Action/Adventure/... challenge.
Dr. No is my favorite Bond followed closely by On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I was too young to see Dr. No in the theater, On Her Majesty's Secret Service didn't play in my town and I was too young to drive myself. My dad was staunchly against the Bond films as he felt they were "filthy" simply due to the names given to some of the female characters. In his eyes watching a Bond film wasn't too far removed from "reading" a copy of Playboy.

The first Bond film I saw was Live and Let Die which, while good, just wasn't a good one with which to start. It always felt just a little too "urban" and I didn't care for the "blaxploitation" cliches employed (although that plagued *lots* of films in that era). Then they added the "comic relief" of Sheriff J.W. Pepper who felt like he'd just stepped off the Smokey and the Bandit set. It's sad to say but I went primarily because of the theme song which was all over the radio that year. That film somewhat negatively colored my view of "Bond Films" for several years until I saw a few of the Connery Bond films and found out what I'd missed. I like it better now than back then but it's still not high on my list of Bond films.

George Pal's The War of the Worlds was produced and in the theaters during the early years of the "Cold War." At this time America was strongly religious and many films used the theme of "America/God vs. Godless Commies" to hammer home those ideologies. Such traits in main-stream entertainment were seen by most as being Pro-America as well as Pro-God. This was also during the height of the "Hollywood Blacklist" years and you absolutely didn't want any hint that you were in support of the Communist Agenda.

Probably didn't help that several of the Bond novels were serialized in Playboy, that they did pictorials with numerous Bond Girls or that Bond himself thumbs through an issue in On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Just watched Highlander: Endgame on Encore Action. Spoilers follow.

A friend mentioned to me that Escape from LA takes place in 2013 so it can be a checklist item next year. Not that he was recommending the movie, though.

Oh. Wait. Another reminder how old I am.

Would a Van Damme movie (Timecop) count as a martial arts film?

I think so.

On another note, just a funny observation. I'm watching Stealth right now, and when one of the Naval Officers saw the computer that flew the plane, he said it looked like science fiction. A science fiction movie where someone mentioned something looked like science fiction just kind of caught me as funny.