Your thoughts about Sci-Fi movies and/or their franchises

[terminator101]

Originally Posted by toxic34

An interesting addition to the conversation: ...

Movie Viewer: "Ha! Your sequel has a plot hole big enough to drive a Mack truck through it! I disapprove!"

Director: "The actual truth is that all art is subjective. That’s the point of it. You can’t measure feelings. You can’t empirically test emotional resonance. And what affects one person will have no effect on another. Which is probably why one man’s Film-Breaking Plot Hole is another’s “eh, it didn’t bother me.” "

Movie Viewer: Yes, "Art is subjective". But there are things such as box office returns and film critic reviews that offer a general idea of the overall emotional resonance from the majority [Not all] of the viewers. Everything you said after not being able to empirically test emotional resonance sounds like you crying "Sour grapes" to me because you failed to get the my viewership and the viewership of others like me for your next sequel (Think of the old saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me").

[Bandit Keith]

Originally Posted by terminator101

Movie Viewer: "Ha! Your sequel has a plot hole big enough to drive a Mack truck through it! I disapprove!"

Director: "The actual truth is that all art is subjective. That’s the point of it. You can’t measure feelings. You can’t empirically test emotional resonance. And what affects one person will have no effect on another. Which is probably why one man’s Film-Breaking Plot Hole is another’s “eh, it didn’t bother me.” "

Movie Viewer: Yes, "Art is subjective". But there are things such as box office returns and film critic reviews that offer a general idea of the overall emotional resonance from the majority [Not all] of the viewers. Everything you said after not being able to empirically test emotional resonance sounds like you crying "Sour grapes" to me because you failed to get the my viewership and the viewership of others like me for your next sequel (Think of the old saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me").

Even if that was meant as a joke you put terminator that's similar on how movie makers tend to think at this point and how viewers at this point tend to think . After all their is a lot of movies that barely (in terms of big companys) make a profit and the companys aswell as movie makers keep going with the film series even though its barely making jack in money but still enough for them to warrant another . Heck some movies only have lived still in this age do to fans of this or that are diehard enough to go see the movies even if they are a piece of shit in a lot of ways,while other people just wants to see'' how far the rabbit hole goes'' in the movies sucking aswell as the ones to follow ,which brings in each time enough of a profit to say'' lets do another movie'' even when it and the others are barely making enough to warrant another.

Anyway on Sci-fi movies to get more on topic I would you count the 'Back to the future ''movies as Sci-Fi? I do and I must say I have always been a fan of the ripple affect in the timeline where it takes time to show the affects even if in some logical ways it should happen instantly I can also see in another way of logic it could make sense that it takes time for the timeline to adjust to the changes in the past to get the years after all fixed up to match the changes done to it. Still I also like when changes are done if you was the cause or outside of the point in time the timeline needed to alter and its happening yet from that time you still recall the old timeline and still have the mermorys from the old timeline its just something I like

[toxic34]

I think that BTTF can be considered sci-fi in a lot of ways. Chief among them is the fact the best sci-fi often ends up predicting things in society in the future. Half of the inventions in Part 2's version of 2015 have come to pass in some form or another, and it truly is fascinating to know that. Why, it even essentially predicted the rise of the hipster movement, as evidenced in the Cafe '80s scene.

---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------

Originally Posted by terminator101

Movie Viewer: "Ha! Your sequel has a plot hole big enough to drive a Mack truck through it! I disapprove!"

Director: "The actual truth is that all art is subjective. That’s the point of it. You can’t measure feelings. You can’t empirically test emotional resonance. And what affects one person will have no effect on another. Which is probably why one man’s Film-Breaking Plot Hole is another’s “eh, it didn’t bother me.” "

Movie Viewer: Yes, "Art is subjective". But there are things such as box office returns and film critic reviews that offer a general idea of the overall emotional resonance from the majority [Not all] of the viewers. Everything you said after not being able to empirically test emotional resonance sounds like you crying "Sour grapes" to me because you failed to get the my viewership and the viewership of others like me for your next sequel (Think of the old saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me").

I thought you'd have something to say about the specific alleged plot holes in the Star Wars prequels. That was the point of inserting that in, and to see what people had to say about those specific parts. Then, to encourage talk about the other articles in the general series, which is the second link.

[Bandit Keith]

I think that BTTF can be considered sci-fi in a lot of ways. Chief among them is the fact the best sci-fi often ends up predicting things in society in the future. Half of the inventions in Part 2's version of 2015 have come to pass in some form or another, and it truly is fascinating to know that. Why, it even essentially predicted the rise of the hipster movement, as evidenced in the Cafe '80s scene.

Um hipster movement predications has been shown in a lot of movies before even the first BTTF came along its just that the second movie had the year right for one of the hipster movements being the 80's

[pyro]

Okay just for the record, the Sci-fi standards are time travel, parrell deminsions, (not to be confuse with ...) multiple universes, life on other planets, space travel, and body swapping. so anything that falls under one of those is sci-fi.

[terminator101]

Originally Posted by Bandit Keith

Even if that was meant as a joke you put terminator that's similar on how movie makers tend to think at this point and how viewers at this point tend to think . After all their is a lot of movies that barely (in terms of big companys) make a profit and the companys aswell as movie makers keep going with the film series even though its barely making jack in money but still enough for them to warrant another ...

Of course. I was just having some "Tongue in cheek" fun with the article to which toxic34 linked. I agree with many of the things that were said in that article. I strongly believe that "Art is subjective." And of course, you can’t measure feelings and you can’t empirically test emotional resonance. Human emotions can't be boiled down to cold numbers! Nowadays, even if a movie doesn't "Clean up" at the box office, there are always other venues for the producers to recoup their losses, break even and maybe even earn a little something -> Video sales (4K Ultra HD Blu-Ray, Blu-Ray, DVD and Streaming video).

Originally Posted by toxic34

I think that BTTF can be considered sci-fi in a lot of ways. ...

Just the fact that anything (Technological, astronomical [e.g. "An alien planet"], biological [e.g. Alien life forms], temporal [e.g. time traveling] or etc.) seen in a given "Sci-Fi" movie that does not currently exist IRL or is not yet known to exist by science qualifies the given movie as belonging to the Science Fiction genre.

Originally Posted by toxic34

... I thought you'd have something to say about the specific alleged plot holes in the Star Wars prequels. That was the point of inserting that in, and to see what people had to say about those specific parts. Then, to encourage talk about the other articles in the general series, which is the second link.

Actually, after I saw the third Star Wars movie, "Return of the Jedi", I felt jaded about the prequels when they finally came along years later. IMHO, "Return of the Jedi" had too many muppets and I felt that the franchise was shifting its focus away from catering to the viewers who wanted a more serious sci-fi saga as was seen in the first two movies and instead pandering more to the children's or family movie market. At the time before there was any notion of George Lucas even thinking about making a prequel trilogy, I thought that the shift didn't really matter since the trilogy had been released and that was the end of the Star Wars franchise (I thought that the franchise was already a "Done deal" and that Lucas would move on to other things).

I did view the prequel trilogy but I didn't pay as much attention to any plot holes that may have arisen in any of the prequel movies and just viewed the prequel movies as light entertainment. IMHO, the writers did a fine job explaining how the Republic Clone Troopers eventually became the Imperial Storm Troopers (Via gradual changes in their "programmed" psychological behavior and their battle armor, vehicles and ships [Especially the gradual evolution of the Republic Battlecruisers into the imperial Star Destroyers -> http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Venat...tar_Destroyer] and of course, how Annakin Skywalker eventually became Darth Vader. If you want to discuss any alleged plot holes in any of the Star Wars prequel movies, I don't think that anyone in this thread would object.

Originally Posted by pyro

... so anything that falls under one of those is sci-fi.

I agree with what you wrote.