Why Do Some Sci-Fi Reboots Fail to Impress?

[new6ton]

Some sci-fi movie reboots got so bad such as these. How come?

1. Ghostbusters 2016
2. Hellboy 2018
3. Men in Black International 2019
4. Highlander Source
5. Please input what else you remember

Reboots are supposed to as good or better than the original. What caused their demise?

What reboots are better than the original?

I watch one science fiction flick every night and it pissed me when it's so bad and I feel waste of my 2 hours entertainment time.

 

[phinds]

Some sci-fi movie reboots got so bad such as these. How come?

Because movie studios care more about making money than about quality. It's inexpensive to leverage off of a good movie with a low quality sequel.

Not all sequels are bad but a lot are.

 

[new6ton]

Because movie studios care more about making money than about quality. It's inexpensive to leverage off of a good movie with a low quality sequel.

Not all sequels are bad but a lot are.

How about Macgyver tv series. I liked the original Macgyver.. but no longer watched the reboot. The latter is making it sound like comedy, which the original didn't. The budget of the reboot is more expensive. Why can't they make it more serious like Bourne? Many ideas in Macgyver could have been educational.

Who think though the Macgyver reboot is as good as better than the original?

 

[Rive]

Reboots are supposed to as good or better than the original.

That's a quite idealistic view. Actually reboots are expected to be just profitable: if they are good too, that's only an extra.

Also, many times reboots are the testing grounds for the new blood. And sometimes that new blood is just ...

 

[new6ton]

Some sci-fi movie reboots got so bad such as these. How come?

1. Ghostbusters 2016
2. Hellboy 2018
3. Men in Black International 2019
4. Highlander Source
5. Please input what else you remember

Reboots are supposed to as good or better than the original. What caused their demise?

What reboots are better than the original?

I watch one science fiction flick every night and it pissed me when it's so bad and I feel waste of my 2 hours entertainment time.

I remembered The Thing. The latest 2011 version has this description in Rotten Tomatoes "It serves the bare serviceable minimum for a horror flick, but The Thing is all boo-scares and a slave to the far superior John Carpenter version.".
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_thing_2011/
What other lemons do you remember? I want to see listings of the bag of lemons.

 

[phinds]

What other lemons do you remember? I want to see listings of the bag of lemons.

Google is your friend.

 

[phinds]

How about Macgyver tv series. I liked the original Macgyver

I thought it was utterly ridiculous.

 

[Vanadium 50]

but The Thing is all boo-scares and a slave to the far superior John Carpenter version.".

Which was superior to the 1951 version.

 

[new6ton]

Google is your friend.

I tried. Got sort of like these. I want to watch flicks with reboots because reboots mean the original is very good. Half of the week I watched mostly bad sci-fi movies.

 

[Rive]

reboots mean the original is very good.

?
I could not get through even the first episode of the old BSG though

I thought it was utterly ridiculous.

Yet, it's kind of refreshing within its own class

 

[phinds]

Half of the week I watched mostly bad sci-fi movies.

Then clearly you have too much spare time on your hands. Study physics instead.

 

[new6ton]

Then clearly you have too much spare time on your hands. Study physics instead.

I mean for every 2 hours at night I watched sci-fi before sleeping. Half of them are not good.

But last weekend. I found this 16-part tv series at Netflix called "Better Than Us" about robots that can think. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8285216/

It's so good that I finished it the whole sunday. I couldn't believe russian production can be as good as the west. (or wait since it was produced by Netflix, then Netflix directed and shot it?)

 

[phinds]

But last weekend. I found this 16-part tv series at Netflix called "Better Than Us" about robots that can think. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8285216/

Subtitles ?

 

[Buzz Bloom]

What reboots are better than the original?

Hi new6ton:

The Hercule Perot series with David Suchet (8 January 1989 to 13 November 2013) was much much better than any previous TV or movie versions. Suchet really understood the Agatha Christie character better than any previous actors.

Also the Miss Marple series with Joan Hickson (26 December 1984 to 27 December 1992) was better than any previous TV or movie versions.

These are the only remakes of a movie/TV version of anything I can think of to be better than any previous version.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[new6ton]

Subtitles ?

It has English and Russian audio. And has more than a dozen subtitles including English. It is very good! Much like Smith I, Robot but in 16 parts.

In the movie. I noticed Russians look like Americans. If you mix them. Can you tell them apart? Does Putin look like American?

 

[BillTre]

Since detectives were mentioned, I will mention the Sherlock Holmes series on PBS from 1984-1994.
The current PBS series is entertaining and different, but I really liked the 1984-1994 series.
It was pretty accurate to the books and ended up covering most of the Conan Doyle stories before Jeremy Brett died. I think he also did a radion series of Sherlock stories which was good.
Earlier or later films and TV shows are not nearly as good (IMHO).

 

[RPinPA]

Some sci-fi movie reboots got so bad such as these. How come?

1. Ghostbusters 2016
2. Hellboy 2018
3. Men in Black International 2019
4. Highlander Source
5. Please input what else you remember

Reboots are supposed to as good or better than the original. What caused their demise?

What reboots are better than the original?

I watch one science fiction flick every night and it pissed me when it's so bad and I feel waste of my 2 hours entertainment time.

Uh, I really liked two of the movies on your list (#1 and #3). I know they got a lot of hate simply because they had female leads when the originals were all male.

I would take issue with the idea that a remake is expected to be better.

Sort of related, I get really annoyed when Hollywood feels it necessary to remake a perfectly good foreign film in English with American actors. Those are almost always worst. And they don't just do that with foreign-language films. "The Wicker Man" (English original) was great. The American remake was awful.

One exception I can think of: I liked the American version of "The Ring" a lot better than the Japanese original, "Ringu".

 

[Klystron]

It has English and Russian audio. And has more than a dozen subtitles including English. It is very good! ...
In the movie I noticed Russians look like Americans. <snip...>

Yes, Russians from different areas resemble Americans from different places, result of the 'melting pot' historical narrative; also some Americans are of Russian origin. Russia and America cover enormous regions of the globe. Both present models of beauty, male and female sexuality in Arts and Entertainment including Sports. Russian literature significantly influenced film and playwrights and Russian culture: Science, mathematics, music, dance, Mystery and Romance.

Have just finished reading "The Blizzard" by Vladimir Sorokin in English translation perhaps for the third time. I cannot be certain as to number of times as time spent inside the dreams inside the thoughts in the mind of the visiting Doctor fail to manifest as combinatorial objects. How many times last night did you dream?

Translation preserves scale. Horses can be small, tall enough to move large buildings and small enough to 'fit fifty horses under the hood'. Little people live among normals who hire giants for manual labor tasks too delicate or intense for heavy machinery. Continuum of human diversity demonstrated by the tall well fed, well educated and well dressed Doctor commandeering the village bread sleigh along with its short red-haired recalcitrant drover -- owner and provider for those 50 small horses -- to deliver vaccine against plague in a raging unpredictable blizzard.

All is not as it appears...

 

[new6ton]

Yes, Russians from different areas resemble Americans from different places, result of the 'melting pot' historical narrative; also some Americans are of Russian origin. Russia and America cover enormous regions of the globe. Both present models of beauty, male and female sexuality in Arts and Entertainment including Sports. Russian literature significantly influenced film and playwrights and Russian culture: Science, mathematics, music, dance, Mystery and Romance.

Is it correct Russian women are darker than American women who are mainly blondes? do you consider Russian women as Blondes?

After watching "Better Than Us". I saw how Russians behave like Americans too. Some of us were conditioned russians were mostly KGBs with tomboy women armed to teeth and ready to kill at slightest provocation. So watching Russian films would make us realize they are people too and it would be less acceptable to make them the recipients of millions of tons of nuclear tipped war machines in the silos.

Have just finished reading "The Blizzard" by Vladimir Sorokin in English translation perhaps for the third time. I cannot be certain as to number of times as time spent inside the dreams inside the thoughts in the mind of the visiting Doctor fail to manifest as combinatorial objects. How many times last night did you dream?

Translation preserves scale. Horses can be small, tall enough to move large buildings and small enough to 'fit fifty horses under the hood'. Little people live among normals who hire giants for manual labor tasks too delicate or intense for heavy machinery. Continuum of human diversity demonstrated by the tall well fed, well educated and well dressed Doctor commandeering the village bread sleigh along with its short red-haired recalcitrant drover -- owner and provider for those 50 small horses -- to deliver vaccine against plague in a raging unpredictable blizzard.

All is not as it appears...

 

[profbuxton]

My take on sequels is that they just use left over footage from the original with some new scenes added. Remakes of older movies is cos they can't be bothered to find new story lines. Majority of movies from Hollywood are "formula" type of movies with predictable plots even if the have different basic ideas. How many variations can you make on crime or action tales. Gets a bit "sameo-sameo". Good scifi movies are even harder to find. I find myself watching scifi shorts on youtube and some are really good but even there the subject matter becomes much the same.
I find it more amusing to watch the old scifi movies to see how the effects were done . Some movies are so bad that they become "classics" and provide a laugh.

 

[member 656954]

Reboots are supposed to as good or better than the original.

Probably the intent, but I'm not sure it's ever been a driving force for a studio movie. Bums on seats or streaming eyeballs is the metric they're after, quality of script, acting, sets, science, etc. has always seemed secondary in most instances.

Anyway, here are some reboots I found cringe worthy:

1. That RoboCop reboot from a few years ago. So lame it was (almost) funny.
2. Just after Y2K we got a new The Time Machine movie that H.G. Wells' descendant worked on. Didn't help, it was terrible.
3. The most recent Godzilla flick...but actually, most Godzilla flicks...was so terrible I reckon they might have shown it down in Guantanamo Bay as an "inducement to talk". And by terrible, I really mean the human cast. The monster was pretty cool.
4. Keanu Reeves proved in The Day the Earth Stood Still that despite his acclaimed Matrix role, he really isn't much of an actor. (I love him as John Wick, BTW, terrific character, terrific action movies, so he definitely redeemed himself from having mangled Klaatu.)
5. And my all time most disappointing, though technically it wasn't a reboot more of a WTFquel, is Prometheus. The opening sequence was the most intelligent few minutes of the movie, the rest was just silly pap that any decent sci-fi author would have put back their bottom drawer. The characters were driven by the plot, there was no pretense of logic, and having one the cast reach out to touch a phallic alien growth deep in a nonsensical pit, "just because", was stupidity of the most "You've got to be kidding me" kind!
   

 

[Klystron]

Some sci-fi movie reboots got so bad such as these. How come?

I notice two problems inherent in making science fiction sequels:

1) Mixed genres. Fantasy and to a smaller extent, horror, mix seamlessly with SF. Weak writers and directors of sequels tend to drop 'hard science', and the seemingly endless verbal explanations, for simpler magical paradigms that do not require effort from the audience to understand.

2) Consider the source material. Writers (and computer programmers) tend to copy and reuse source. A strong 'kernel' with vivid characters provides strong sequels such as "Star Trek" and "Star Wars". Good action film actors such as Tommy Lee Jones, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger often elevate mundane scripts; replacing them in sequels loses that spark.

Weak material thwarts the followers trying to cash in. "Robocop" comes to mind. The original flick from the earliest teaser advertisements and trailers in theaters emphasized violence. Some genius marketeer came up with "Ultra-Violence". Everything else in Robo is humdrum copy. Once the audience gets used to 50 machine guns fired simultaneously the thrill is diminished.

Despite the name, Robocop adds nothing to the 'cop' genre. Arguably Murphy is not a robot but a reanimated human cyborg. Since the movie is mainly ultra-violence not science, the sequels drop any pretense of cybernetic organisms except for lame plot devices. For a mature audience the best scenes are down time between explosions when Murphy tries to understand his strange existence.

The director's attempts at contrasting inner city Old Detroit with suburban housing is thwarted by the high-tech nature of the story. Experimental cyborgs and large armories require large capital investment. Robocop feature corporate, not class or civil, warfare as excuse for endless ultra-violent entertainment. Weak source engenders weak sequels.

 

[WWGD]

Ultimately, I think part of the reason is most people don't want to be challenged and are willing to pay to see just a rehash. Same goes for supposedly 'ethnic' restaurants which give you something familiar thinly disguised as exotic with small changes, but ultimately nothing similar to the food as it is prepared in the countries where it originates.

 

[Mark44]

Is it correct Russian women are darker than American women who are mainly blondes?

No, neither is correct. Some Russian women are lighter (in hair color) than American women, and some are darker. American women are not mainly blondes.

 

[new6ton]

No, neither is correct. Some Russian women are lighter (in hair color) than American women, and some are darker. American women are not mainly blondes.

Many russian men have natural white hair, like Putin. What is the explanation for that? Do many americans have natural white hair too?

 

[Mark44]

Many russian men have natural white hair, like Putin. What is the explanation for that? Do many americans have natural white hair too?

Many people, Russian or otherwise, have white hair when they get older...

Putin's hair wasn't always white.

 

[DennisN]

What reboots are better than the original?

I have two reboots that I like, but I don't know if I think they are better than the originals. I think the Dune TV mini-series was good. And I think Star Trek (2009) was pretty good.

"The Wicker Man" (English original) was great. The American remake was awful.

I am one of those unlucky souls that have seen the remake. My god, it was bad. So bad it made my head hurt. I think I lost a couple of IQ points from the watching.

And my all time most disappointing, though technically it wasn't a reboot more of a WTFquel, is Prometheus. The opening sequence was the most intelligent few minutes of the movie, the rest was just silly pap that any decent sci-fi author would have put back their bottom drawer. The characters were driven by the plot, there was no pretense of logic, and having one the cast reach out to touch a phallic alien growth deep in a nonsensical pit, "just because", was stupidity of the most "You've got to be kidding me" kind!

I agree wholeheartedly, I didn't like the movie. But the general reception of the movie seems to be mixed, and a couple of my friends thought it was ok. I saw it in the cinema. In the movie, when they discovered that star map in a cave or wherever it was, my heart sank as I started thinking about Ancient Aliens which is a tv show I think is utterly ridiculous. And the ancient alien concept is so tiresome; I had a hard time accepting that Ridley Scott could sink so low with the basic story. But he did .

 

[Klystron]

I can think of SF reboots that improved on the original story. The movie "Rocketeer" definitely improved on the original B&W serials (I have not read Rocketeer comic books). Special effects (FX) improved of course, but also the plot, characters, acting and directing enhanced the children's matinee material while retaining the simple moral strength of a pilot risking his life to strap an experimental rocket/jet pack to his back to fly and fight against evil.

Film actors such as Jennifer Connelly, Timothy Dalton, Paul Sorvino, and Alan Arkin elevate the movie well above the old serials. Dalton's evil nemesis character appears to be loosely based on WWII-era rumors that NZ actor Errol Flynn was a secret NAZI sympathizer and spy for the Reich. While historically discredited, this Hero / Villain dynamic is more sophisticated than any 'Commander Cody' serial story line. Howard Hughes -- the inspiration for Marvel comics character Tony Stark -- adds verisimilitude and engineering basis for the fictional technology.

So, pulp science fiction magazines --> 'Saturday matinee' SF/adventure movie serials --> broadcast TV reruns --> revived comic books --> full-length feature film. Quite a run for a successful SF reboot.

 

[new6ton]

I remembered The Thing. The latest 2011 version has this description in Rotten Tomatoes "It serves the bare serviceable minimum for a horror flick, but The Thing is all boo-scares and a slave to the far superior John Carpenter version.".
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_thing_2011/
What other lemons do you remember? I want to see listings of the bag of lemons.

7. mummy returns
8. tomb rider
9. jurassic park
10. ghost in the shell
11. star ship trooper
12. flatliners
13. robocops
14.terminator
15. x-men: dark phoenix (you can consider this as reboot. This is because in the original series. Wolverine killed Jean Grey and Mystique power were stripped by a dart. But in the new reboot. They went back in time and started in the new timeline in the youth of these heroes.

16. Twilight Zone. I used to watch every series of this ages ago. But in the new reboot. It's so bad I watching watching them the first few episodes.

with more reboots coming... such as https://whatculture.com/film/12-sci-fi-movie-remakes-coming-in-2020-and-beyond?page=3

Shouldn't we make it a crime to make bad reboots? Reboots are supposed to be good. Why not just rewatch the old flick instead of the new if the latter would turn out lemon.

Also just because they are writers, directors, producers don't mean they movies they made would be good. So sometimes the public have to intervene.

If someone wants to hold a protest or rally around Universal Studios or the Actor's Guild (What are the appropriate places?). I'll join you. I have a camper's tent.

 

[new6ton]

I just watched the first tv premiere of Batwoman. I don't like it much. It's like Arrow (but Arrow more fun). The story is pretty dull. However if you find it good. Let me know why you like it.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8712204/
I don't know if there was previous Batwoman (even comics) and it's just a reboot of some kind.

I think it would be much cooler if they can spend their resources and energy to make tv series of Blade or Underworld instead.

 

[DaveC426913]

I just watched the first tv premiere of Batwoman. I don't like it much. It's like Arrow (but Arrow more fun). The story is pretty dull. However if you find it good. Let me know why you like it.

Yeah. Watched the first half hour. Bored. Turned it off. Watched The Rookie instead.

 

[DaveC426913]

9. jurassic park
11. star ship trooper
14.terminator

Sorry... reboots?

As far as I know these films have sequels, but no reboots.

 

[new6ton]

Sorry... reboots?

As far as I know these films have sequels, but no reboots.

I thought reboots included sequels. So there are many lemon sequels as well?

So why are many sequels lemons (except Marvel)?

 

[DaveC426913]

So why are many sequels lemons...?

Reasons are legion.

• An adage from the music industry: "You have your whole life to produce your first big hit. And one year to produce the next."
• There is pressure to produce sequels in a short time frame because the actors age out or move on to other projects.
• Same with writers. Often, it's the writing that causes a flop. First films may go through years of polishing, including complete rewrites and complete changeover of writers. For sequels, you've already got a formula, why squander it? And you don't need A-list writers (with A-list salaries) to modify a formula.
• You want to ride on the popularity of the first while it's still popular, causing further pressure.
• Sequels often require less outlay of cash, since so much of the resources are already there. You can make a tidy profit if it only costs a fraction as much.

 

[DennisN]

I thought reboots included sequels. So there are many lemon sequels as well?

Oh yes. I'd say it's quite unusual for a sequel to be as good or better than the original.
Here are a few sequels that I think are very good:

• The Empire Strikes Back (Star Wars)
• Aliens
• Terminator 2
• The Godfather 2 (not SF as far as I know )
• Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (not SF, it's a postapocalyptic movie)
• Shrek 2, Toy Story 2 (animated comedies)
• The Dark Knight (Batman, sequel to Batman Begins, not SF)

And the ancient alien concept is so tiresome

...though I have to add that I enjoyed Stargate. Particularly the first 20 or 30 minutes which I think are awesome.

 

[new6ton]

Why do you guys like science fiction?

I like science fiction to give me ideas of realities better.

On earth. Bangladesh doesn't represent what a normal country should be. So in this galaxy, our Earth now doesn't represent what is supposed to be the normal, correct?

I was watching a rerun of Aquaman 2018 last night (halfway). In the movie, the interviewee announced on TV said the Atlanteans were responsible for the destruction. The anchorman said nonsense, the interviewee said we have already an Atlantean among us, Aquaman.

I get pissed off whenever I watch a science ficiton in which I didn't learn a new insight. Then I consider it waste of time. How about you?

In Aquaman. The insight is that there could be some cybernetic slaves of Atlantis trying to abduct and experiment on humans as some claimed.

Also remember our science now is just science based on emergence. I guess there will be new laws of physics when we get into the fundamental physics (such as Neo-Ether dynamics?) right?

Or do I need to go see a psychiatrist? :)

 

[WWGD]

Why do you guys like science fiction?

I like science fiction to give me ideas of realities better.

On earth. Bangladesh doesn't represent what a normal country should be. So in this galaxy, our Earth now doesn't represent what is supposed to be the normal, correct?

I was watching a rerun of Aquaman 2018 last night (halfway). In the movie, the interviewee announced on TV said the Atlanteans were responsible for the destruction. The anchorman said nonsense, the interviewee said we have already an Atlantean among us, Aquaman.

I get pissed off whenever I watch a science ficiton in which I didn't learn a new insight. Then I consider it waste of time. How about you?

In Aquaman. The insight is that there could be some cybernetic slaves of Atlantis trying to abduct and experiment on humans as some claimed.

Also remember our science now is just science based on emergence. I guess there will be new laws of physics when we get into the fundamental physics (such as Neo-Ether dynamics?) right?

Or do I need to go see a psychiatrist? :)

I can see the consideration of alternative realities as being what is attractive in SF. But times have changed.
Nowadays, it seems the reality of many incredible things going on that takes away a lot of the attraction from SF. Tons of interesting stuff a few keyboard strokes away. Not sure I understood your point about Bangladesh though.

 

[DennisN]

Why do you guys like science fiction?

For me, there are multiple reasons. I've been interested in both space and science since I was young.

And I like good stories. For me, the story is the most essential thing when it comes to movies.
You can put great actors and stunning effects in a movie, but if the story is bad, the movie will suffer. One recent example of this is, in my opinion, The Last Jedi. A movie with extraordinary effects but with a script that is seriously leaking and problematic.

On the contrary, if you've got a good story but maybe not the very best actors nor the best effects, you can still make a good movie. Examples: Total Recall (which has a good story in my opinion).

Another reason I like science fiction is because the stories often are visionary. Here, I mainly think of the SF books I've read.

 

[new6ton]

I can see the consideration of alternative realities as being what is attractive in SF. But times have changed.
Nowadays, it seems the reality of many incredible things going on that takes away a lot of the attraction from SF. Tons of interesting stuff a few keyboard strokes away. Not sure I understood your point about Bangladesh though.

Maybe I'm escaping from reality?

But then I'm looking forward for some incredible things like Michio Kaku presenting himself at the UN assembly similar to this famous opening speech by Jean Grey:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are now seeing the beginnings of another stage of human evolution. These mutations manifest at puberty and are often triggered by periods of heightened emotional stress."

 

[WWGD]

Maybe I'm escaping from reality?

But then I'm looking forward for some incredible things like Michio Kaku presenting himself at the UN assembly similar to this famous opening speech by Jean Grey:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are now seeing the beginnings of another stage of human evolution. These mutations manifest at puberty and are often triggered by periods of heightened emotional stress."

I am excited but concerned too, that these changes are implemented with caution.

 

[member 656954]

The director's attempts at contrasting inner city Old Detroit with suburban housing is thwarted by the high-tech nature of the story. Experimental cyborgs and large armories require large capital investment.

So agree, @Klystron. "What about the economics?" is often my thought in sci-fi, and esp. where the story has vast fleets of spaceships fighting each other with huge crews of skilled Navy types. Nonsensical...

Just like Ad Astra's monkey's-in-space sequence, which happens on a space station (the design of which reminded me of Thunderbird 5) but it is sitting out in space somewhere between Earth and Mars. Getting anything out there is going to be expensive, people need bonus $$ to work out there, and resupply is going to be problematic. The payoff for such R&D has to be insanely profitable. But it's cheaper still to put it in LEO, so why out there? Vanity project? Secret lair for a villainous master criminal? Stupid plot device for a sad sack story? Who knows, when it makes no sense...it really makes no sense!

 

[new6ton]

So agree, @Klystron. "What about the economics?" is often my thought in sci-fi, and esp. where the story has vast fleets of spaceships fighting each other with huge crews of skilled Navy types. Nonsensical...

Just like Ad Astra's monkey's-in-space sequence, which happens on a space station (the design of which reminded me of Thunderbird 5) but it is sitting out in space somewhere between Earth and Mars. Getting anything out there is going to be expensive, people need bonus $$ to work out there, and resupply is going to be problematic. The payoff for such R&D has to be insanely profitable. But it's cheaper still to put it in LEO, so why out there? Vanity project? Secret lair for a villainous master criminal? Stupid plot device for a sad sack story? Who knows, when it makes no sense...it really makes no sense!

What I don't like about Ad Astra is how can the source emit such powerful signal enough to affect the entire solar system. That's the downer. Unless someone can justify or give reasonable explanations. Perhaps when you manipulate the vacuum, it can do just that? If they mention about "vacuum". It would become more reasonable.

 

[member 656954]

Unless someone can justify or give reasonable explanations.

There is no reasonable explanation, that's the issue. They invoke antimatter as if it's grey goo, so I found I needed to take the movie as one man's inner journey to understand and forgive himself, ignoring the nonsensical plot elements that trashed science on a regular basis.

 

[new6ton]

There is no reasonable explanation, that's the issue. They invoke antimatter as if it's grey goo, so I found I needed to take the movie as one man's inner journey to understand and forgive himself, ignoring the nonsensical plot elements that trashed science on a regular basis.

You didn't enclose "antimatter" in spoiler. We have done experiments on antimatter and it can't produce that kind of power. They should have used "vacuum metastability" something and it would sound more serious or intriguing. I guess movie writers have such poor imaginations.

 

[member 656954]

The anitmatter in the film is well and truly in the public domain, but I agree, vacuum instability would have made a lot more sense!

 

[DaveC426913]

On the contrary, if you've got a good story but maybe not the very best actors nor the best effects, you can still make a good movie. Examples: Total Recall (which has a good story in my opinion).

It shall go without saying that you are referring to the original (as evidenced by your link to the '90s v. w/ Arnie).

Yes, it is one of my top 20 films.

 

[DennisN]

It shall go without saying that you are referring to the original (as evidenced by your link to the '90s v. w/ Arnie).

Yes. I've seen the remake, but I don't recall it (pun intended). And since I can hardly remember what I thought of the remake, it is fair to say it did not make an impression on me .

 

[RPinPA]

It shall go without saying that you are referring to the original (as evidenced by your link to the '90s v. w/ Arnie).

Yes, it is one of my top 20 films.

I've never seen the film, but the original story "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" by Philip Dick is a very enjoyable read. To me a lot of sci-fi is exploring human nature and human society: what would be the effect on us if [some premise]? Eternal life for instance.

But a lot of sci-fi, especially the short fiction, is just entertainment, a fun idea. And I enjoy those fun stories that aren't asking any deep questions as well. That's how Dick's story reads to me, as kind of a joke.

I have no idea how faithful the film is to the short story, but based on the casting of Schwarzenegger I would guess "not very".

And some sci-fi, such as a lot of the "hard" sci-fi by authors like Larry Niven, are exploring some "what if" scientific premise. What would it be like on a Dyson Sphere (a sphere completely surrounding a sun to capture its energy) for instance? When people pointed out that the Dyson Sphere was not gravitationally stable, Niven changed it to a ring and wrote an entire series of novels (the Ringworld series) exploring the implications of that.

It turns out the ring isn't stable either, so Niven eventually had to add a propulsion system.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes. I've seen the remake, but I don't recall it (pun intended). And since I can hardly remember what I thought of the remake, it is fair to say it did not make an impression on me .

How can you forget a fight on the outer hull of a hypersonic shuttle going 35 times the speed of sound, as it passes the glowing red molten core of the Earth?

 

[new6ton]

The anitmatter in the film is well and truly in the public domain, but I agree, vacuum instability would have made a lot more sense!

That is why before the producers spend several millions in the production. They should ask advices from us in this forum. Lol. The non-physicist public have intuition. If the movie is in essence bad, they can smell it, so they better get some feedback from PF sci-fi fans first.