BobO'Link

The Directors/Producers/Writers list is the one I've had the most trouble/issue with as it's mostly "new" folks (aka post 1970ish) who are primarily known for one or two films/series. Some have only 3 or 4 qualifying films (possibly more if TV is taken into account but I rarely use TV for challenges, mostly as "filler" stuff).

How about some more "classic" folks in the Director/Producer/Writer list: Irving Pichel (7), James Whale (4), Curt Siodmak (24), Bert I. Gordon (12), Gordon Douglas (7), Byron Haskin (21), Robert Wise (3), Val Guest (16), George Pal (17), Jack Arnold (37), Joseph M. Newman (8), Mario Bava (20), Roy Ward Baker (29 - mostly TV but 3 or 4 films), Richard Matheson (8), and others - though many have only 2 or 3 qualifying entries.

My biggest issue with directors/producers/actors on SF/Fantasy lists is that quite often they're known for 1 or 2 films so you see those names and pretty much think "Oh... watch Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Back to the Future, Metropolis, Transformers, something Star Trek, etc." which is likely not fair as some of them have other works in the SF/Fantasy genres. But that's also because I pay little attention to directors/producers/writers when it comes to SF/Fantasy as so many of the better films are "one off" type things for many of the participants or I consider their non-SF/Fantasy work to be their better work (Spielberg for example - when I see his name I watch "Minority Report" as I don't care for any of his other SF output). Even the ones I listed I had to look up to get many of those names.

I *do* like the idea of rotating directors/producers/writers.

Philip K. Dick is an excellent choice to add to the "Thank the Maker" list. Robert A. Heinlein would be another good choice. Others are possibly Bram Stoker (though pretty much means watch a "Dracula" film), Michael Crichton (which almost implies "Jurassic Park" but he has other influential works that were made into movies).

IMHO, Brent Spiner doesn't have enough non-Star Trek appearances. Catherine O'Hara and Carol Kane are also a bit on the light side of appearances. William Morgan Sheppard and Donald Glover kind of squeak by. Seth Green and Sebastian Stan look to have more options than most of the others listed. Consider adding Alan Napier (aka Alfred, Batman's butler) with 12 movie appearances (in addition to many Batman appearances).

brainee

Me rewatching the extended editions of the original trilogy that is I was planning on just watching the first half of Return of the King yesterday, since that sucker's almost 4 and a half hours long. But I couldn't help myself and stayed up until past 1 am to watch the whole thing.

Really wish they found a way to keep the scene with Saruman in the theatrical release (or kill Saruman on screen at the end of Two Towers). But 100% agree that cutting out "The Scouring of the Shire" chapter was the right move.

I'm iffy on revisiting The Hobbit though, especially the extended editions. While I didn't hate them when seeing in the theater, there was far too much bloat. And I remember those movies making the mistakes with CGI that the first trilogy largely avoided (over-reliance on it making things feel "fake").

BobO'Link

Don't watch the credits of The Two Towers and you'll knock off a good half hour of running time... I've not watched the Theatrical cut of any of the trilogy since seeing them in the theater and had totally forgotten about that "Scouring of the Shire" segment. Kind of makes me want to watch them again just to see what differences I notice - and I do own BR copies of them (The Hobbit as well). I've only watched The Hobbit twice - once with theatrical and the second with the extended edition, and both of those viewings on DVD.

My take on The Hobbit and it feeling "fake" is more that it's caused by Jackson using 48fps rather than 24fps. That much higher frame rate gives it a kind of "soap opera" look, almost like aggressive application of DNR - basically looks more like video than film and that's what throws me off.

brainee

"Scouring of the Shire" was a late chapter in the books that was never filmed. Saruman wasn't heard from since the fall of Isengard. But when the hobbits got back home, they found that Saruman had taken over the Shire and turned in into some kind of fascist police state. And there's a whole story of Frodo and friends starting a rebellion and stopping Saruman for good.

Maybe it worked in the book (especially in the context of Tolkein writing this in the aftermath of WWII). But considering people already felt Return on the King had too many false endings, I think it would've been a disaster to include it in the movie. Although Peter Jackson had that scene early in the extended edition where Saruman gets killed (which is completely new from the book).

brainee

I know what you mean by the high frame rate. Some high def tvs have that as a default setting, and it drives me nuts when I see it.

I also remember a lot of unconvincing action scenes. Using CGI for character movement that makes it look so unrealistic that it pulls me out of the movie. In Return of the King, there's a scene where Legolas just bounces up an oliphaunt that looked pretty bad to me, though most of the action scenes in the trilogy look great (thanks to real actors in real costumes actually doing things, instead of being CGI creations). But I remember the Hobbit movies just doubling down on that kind of stuff.

davidh777

There's a vintage movie theater in town that used to host all the big events. Decades ago, I saw the Lawrence of Arabia rerelease there, and it's the kind of place that would show the three-screen version of How the West Was Won on the wraparound screen. Most recently I saw the last two Avengers movies there. Sadly it shut down, but then it was bought out by Seattle International Film Festival, and earlier this year they had a marathon of the three extended LOTRs on a Saturday. I was super tempted but didn't end up going. They also had evenings of like one or two LOTR/Hobbit movies.

Anyway, I've seen all the Hobbit movies probably more than once, but I never really cared about the extended versions, and the whole thing just seemed bloated. One movie for each of the LOTR books, then three movies for the Hobbit (plus some other material, I know)?

BobO'Link

OK... that makes me feel better that I *don't* remember such a sequence in the film! I *do* remember it from the book and it feels like a overly long tacked on anti-climactic ending.

BobO'Link

It's 2-fer bad film night at my house...

Infinite (2021) and Replicas (2019). Decent enough ideas done poorly with Replicas being almost laughable. Infinite is almost 100% ludicrous over-the-top action film with a veneer of SF/Fantasy added for good measure. IMHO it's also the better of the two films, though not by much.

Guess that's what I get for watching 2 favorites last night: Jabberwocky (1977) and Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959) (in spite of wondering just *where* they kept that year's supply of food for 4 they would have needed for the journey when they seemingly had only a smallish backpack each).

LJG765

The director list has been a bit difficult for me to figure out who should stay/go/be added for many of the reasons you mentioned. Some directors are really well known for doing just one, excellent, award winning film and people want to see their name, but if there's only one film (or maybe one film series), does that make a good check list item? I really do try not to put people on the list with only a few credits or their credits are from one show (ex: a series lead in a tv show).

I do look to see if the director is still working (any upcoming projects?) You'll see I had the number of qualified films for Nolan's suggestion (and that's all that those are--suggestions.) I also really appreciate the list you supplied! I'll write those down and take a look. I'm pretty sure Richard Matheson has been on the list before, so that makes me think I should go back through the years and see who has been added and removed. There might be more of those older directors that have been removed over the years that we could bring back.

Brent Spiner...he has 41 acting credits for sci-fi and fantasy. My rough count is 13 or 14 were from Star Trek. He did a lot of voice acting it looks like (Batman animation, Star Wars, Robot Chicken...) Many are just one offs, or even uncredited but there's a fair amount of credits that are substantial. That being said, if there are other objections, I can certainly take him off the list.

I've added your suggestions to the opening post. Please let me know if I missed anyone!

I'm leaning towards rotating the names like I do the actors list myself, so I'm glad to hear at least one vote for it! Any others out there that want to say yea or nay?


edited to say: I'm also adding Sean Bean to the maybe list for next year. I may or may not get ideas from the movies I'm watching for people to add...

LJG765

I have to join the ranks and say I don't remember the "Scouring of the Shire" either and all this talk keeps making me want to pop in the trilogy to watch again. Maybe this weekend.

I am, however, watching The Martian again. I just re-read the book for the 2nd time and decided to follow it up with the movie. It actually isn't too bad of a adaptation. Some of the lines are word for word from the book and while there is some changes b/c it's impossible to do 100% recreation, it does a really good job of it.

BobO'Link

In all fairness to Brent Spiner I only looked at "movies" and not TV at all which is why I came up with a "doesn't have enough non-Star Trek appearances." Since I don't look to TV for general viewings I tend to exclude those options when doing advance IMDB searches. For folks like Spiner you get huge lists of the/a series they've been in making it a chore to find the exceptions. It's absolutely a "me" thing...

LJG765

No worries! I actually wondered if something like that was the case because I remembered being surprised myself at how many unique titles he had under his belt.

brainee

I watched IF yesterday. I liked it well enough. It was sweet and well-meaning. Although it was clearly trying to be a tear-jerker at parts, but just wasn't connecting with me well enough to succeed (and I'm usually pretty vulnerable to movies with those kinds of intentions).

Writer/director/co-star John Krasinski really assembled great talent on both sides of the camera for this one. Cinematography by Janusz Kaminski. A great score by Micheal Giacchino. Ryan Reynolds is the "star", but it's a crazy who's who of voices for all the IFs (Imaginary Friends): Steve Carrell, Emily Blunt (no surprise Krasinski could get her though ), Louis Gossett Jr., Matt Damon, George Clooney, Bradley Cooper, Jon Stewart, Maya Rudolph, Sam Rockwell, and many more. Including a credit "Introducing Brad Pitt" as "Keith" ... an invisible IF who doesn't talk. Call me cynical, but I'm not sure I believe Brad Pitt had anything to do with this movie

numbercrunch

I remember in 1982 when Tron first came out and was universally made fun of and panned by critics. Of course, they also panned The Thing remake, but in Tron's case I think they got it right. Its a mess and time hasn't been any kinder.

coyoteblue

Watched Sotto il ristorante cinese (Bruno Bozzetto, 1987), tonight. A fair bit of 80's Italian fantasy fluff masquerading as sci-fi fluff. It's a bit cartoonish (go figure), and being a romantic comedy, is the odd film out, compared to any other 80's Italian fantasy/sci-fi you may be familiar with. Definitely in the same vein as Splash (1984), Date with an Angel (1987) or Mannequin (1987), just a little more violence and skin.

LJG765

Did anyone else catch the George Melies Easter egg during the Olympic opening ceremonies?

brainee

I need to rewatch Tron. Maybe it's an age thing of when you first saw it. For me, I was a 12 year old nerd who loved computers, arcade games, and science fiction ... and I loved it. Though I can certainly understand how people who were older when watching it, or watching it for the first time now when the cutting-edge graphics are now seen as primitive, might think differently.

"Universally made fun of and panned by critics" just isn't a true statement though. Clearly lots of people liked it since it was a success, and despite a sequel not coming until 2010 maintained a cult following. And it got generally good critic reviews, including raves from Siskel and Ebert:


I miss Siskel and Ebert

brainee

Speaking of critic reviews, I rewatched Cronenberg's The Brood last night. I first found out about this movie through Leonard Maltin's huge movie review books, which my parents had a copy of in the living room. This is early 80s so pre-internet, but movie video rentals are becoming a thing (which opened up a whole new world of opportunities to see movies).

I would go through Maltin's guide, looking for cool-sounding movies I never heard of (but I would try to track down). Here's what he said about The Brood:
And he gave it a rare rock bottom BOMB rating. Needless to say, this was a movie I had to track down.

Ebert absolutely hated it too. He said: "Are there really people who want to see reprehensible trash like this?" Yes Roger ... there are

BobO'Link

I've never cared for TRON and would absolutely say it's an age thing as to whether or not you like it. Its target audience was primarily video gamers who were mostly the 8-16 year old group. Even with its "ground breaking" vfx I found them lacking with tons of bleeding mattes (something that troubles lots of Disney films), obvious transitions from "live" to CGI work, and mismatched perspective. The necessity of having to use locked down cameras (truly locked down - cameras were nailed to the stage to prevent them moving) to blend the early CGI background work with live action gives it a static look. The script is full of trite and cliche material, often using "tech talk" in an attempt to sound convincing. For me it makes it sound practically laughable. While it was Disney's highest grossing live action film in 5 years it was generally considered a failure, coming in 6th its opening week, with Disney eventually writing off just over $10 million of its ~$17 million production cost. Most critics seemed to like it but tended to focus on its vfx rather than the story. Roger Ebert has always been one of my "go to" reviewers whose likes/dislikes mostly align with mine. He liked the film and his review of TRON is positive, marking one of those rare times I disagree with him.

I've purchased TRON on both DVD and BR solely to see if my opinion of the film has changed since its release (I watched that BR earlier this month, making it the 5th or 6th time I've seen the movie). It has not.

IMHO it's more notable in that it, along with a few other Disney live action "failures," is what prompted Disney to create Touchstone Studios for distribution of more adult fare.

brainee

I couldn't see who it was, because it was going on in the background. But to whoever chose the theme of The Terminator for their gymnastics floor routine music.

I wasn't able to get to sleep and popped in the DVD set for Irwin Allen's Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Sadly one of many DVDs that I bought during my "collector" phase that I never even bothered to watch. My brain was fuzzy because I was thinking star David Hedison must be related to Al Hedison (who I just watched in The Fly), since they look alike. Of course, it's the same guy

I was too young for this when it first aired, but saw some episodes in the 70s (though Allen's Lost in Space was much more my thing at that time). 4 episodes in and I'm thinking this might have been one of those shows that changed its approach as it went on. Because what I remember were monsters and aliens (and "sci fi" is the first genre listed on IMDb), but so far it's a pretty grounded cold war thriller (with James Bond gadgets and villains). Production values seem pretty high too, with lots of sets, a big cast, a lot of action, and location filming. Like Kirk, Hedison's Captain insists on leading every mission. Unlike Kirk, he doesn't hook up with any women on these missions. But in his defense, he has a lot less opportunity than Kirk ... women are in pretty short supply overall. In 4 episodes, 2 of them had only a single actress with lines (and the other 2 didn't have any women on camera at all). And it's weird that he's never the highest ranking officer on his own ship, since the Admiral is always going along for the ride.

davidh777

I’m old enough to have seen the original Tron in theaters. I was into video games but I thought the movie was kinda lame.

BobO'Link

Season 1 of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea is quite different than what was produced in S2-S4. As you've found, it's more cold war thriller stories than it would become in those later seasons. Season 2 is in color and introduced The Flying Sub (I was quite excited to see that as a kid). It also began its descent into "monster of the week" format stories. It's still good but absolutely not the same as S1. It's much like Lost in Space which has a fairly serious S1, also in BW, but quickly degenerates into High Camp beginning with S2. At least Voyage didn't go the camp route but it's still less serious in those later seasons.

If you've not seen it you should watch the 1961 film Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea which introduces the Seaview and crew (although a different cast). Irwin Allen spent so much on that film he convinced ABC to mount the TV series which utilized the miniatures and sets from the film as well as many stock scenes as a cost saving measure.

shadokitty

I was channel surfing this afternoon, not even thinking about the challenge at the time. I saw Deep Impact on The Movie Channel however and decided, why not? I've always enjoyed the movie. At the same time, while I enjoyed Armageddon, a similar movie, as well, I always thought that the former has a much more emotional impact. The latter movie is mainly about trying to destroy the asteroid before it hits earth. However, Deep Impact ​​​​​​, while still trying to destroy the comet, goes beyond that to show how the average person would face the potential end of the world.

brainee

Episode 5 of Season 1 brought us our first monster ... the result of science gone wrong experimenting on plankton. I caught the credit that it was written by Cordwainer Bird, which was the name legendary sci-fi writer Harlan Ellison used when he wasn't happy with his work

BobO'Link

I watched Barbie (2023) last night. It was "OK" but nothing all that special. Based on the IMDB score I was expecting lots more. Some of the satire was decent and there *were* a few laughs but overall it came off as a "message" type film, and a rather heavy handed one towards the end (much like The Lego Movie - totally takes you out of the experience). It was also at least a half hour too long and took far too long with the initial set up of "Barbie Land" and how things work there. The design is spot on with the sets/costumes/etc. being practically perfect - Margo Robbie looks the part and Ryan Gosling makes a fairly convincing Ken (though not as good as Robbie's Barbie). Then... Will Farrel shows up as the President of Mattel doing his moron schtick (he practically kills a movie for me when he appears, especially when doing that bit). Ken discovering "Real World" is a male dominated society and takes that to "Barbie Land" to transform it. That's kind of fun but also rather insulting (to both Kens and Barbies - the Ken's turn into raging jerk types) and the subsequent song/dance routines are cringe worthy. I was a bit startled they used Matchbox 20's "Push" for Ken to sing to Barbie on the beach as it absolutely describes their "relationship" up to the point Ken "took over" (if you've not done so, look up the lyrics - it's the guy singing about how the *girl* is telling him she'll "push him around" and control him - many people think it's the guy being the abusive/controlling partner). Unfortunately the "message" thrown in the last ~15 minutes kills the fun (it's kind of there earlier but not so "in your face"). I've seen it and, like with The Lego Movie, likely won't ever watch it again because of the last 15 minutes or so. At least it was inexpensive.