this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
49 points (91.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
629 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Big fan of long-form science fiction. Bladerunner 2049 is fantastic, as is Stalker by Tarkovsky.
Tarkovsky in particular has brilliant works.
Sci Fi top 6 β focusing a bit on the soft sci-fi
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) dir: Stanley Kubrick
Arrival (2016) dir: Denis Villeneuve
Her (2013) dir: Spike Jonze
BladeRunner (1982) dir: Ridley Scott
Children of Men (2006) dir: Alfonso CuarΓ³n
GATTACA (1997) dir: Andrew Niccol
Little known fact: all mattes are shot on first generation film. Kubrick would shoot the matte, put the film in storage, put it back in camera, then shoot the inside of the matte. It looks pristine to this day because there was no generation loss since there was only one generation even in the most effects heavy shots.
If you haven't seen it, Ex Machina (2014) fits the vibe of your list. It's one of my favorites.
I've seen it. I enjoyed it very much.
I picked Her for my A.I. entry because it was so much simpler, more understated, and close to our everyday experiences.
I also skipped Primer (2004) because I steered clear of time travel.
I can recognize 2001 as being incredible and inspiring for its time, but it doesn't hold up very well. By modern standards, it is painfully boring and tedious.
Disagree, I think 2001 is perfect. Yes it's slow, but that's intentional, it's part of the feeling of the film.
Modern standards don't really apply, because I don't think anyone nowadays is trying to do what Kubrick was, nor (obviously) was he trying to live up to any standards of future movie making.
Each to their own of course, but wanted to put a friendly counterpoint :-)
2001 is timeless.
Political intrigue, technological advancement, piercing the unknown, all drawn on the backdrop of an innocuous, normal exploration mission.
Until things go awry.
As directly inspired by 2001, I'd count a bunch of modern classics: Children of Men (2006), Sunshine (2007), Passengers (2016), the Expanse (TV series), and more.
What Kubrick did write the story with Arthur C. Clarke, slow the pace to reflect the long-haul nature of the mission β let alone the slow pace of human development β and focus on the sheer scale of progress needed to achieve such exploration. He also ensured that the conflict was truly tangible and high-stakes. Simple and human in its genesis, but devastating in its execution. Then, confronting ET intelligence as truly "other."
Perfect.
Actually, I'm wondering now what you thought of the 2002 Solaris remake. I've not seen the Tarkovsky version, and I'm assuming you have. Of his other films, I've heard of Stalker. Recommend any others specifically?
Haven't seen either of Solaris, but the big deal here is that the US version loses a lot of Tarkovsky's specific, drawn out and contemplative styling in favor of a more active and dynamic version for the US.
Andrei Rublev and Mirror are standouts, to my knowledge, and are generally seen as better than Solaris but not quite as great as Stalker.