Worst Science Fiction Movie

[Bobby_Jim]

Martrix (2 and 3) Still scratch my head wondering what they were thinking. Just stop at the first one still one of the best scifi movies ever made in my Humble opinion.

Reminds me, I just finished reading this book “Hyperion” (I had another thread on this…) parts of it made me think “Huh. This reminds me of The Matrix.” Then other parts made me think “Huh. This reminds me of The Terminator.”

Then it got me thinking, “The Matrix reminds me of The Terminator.” So I googled “Matrix and Terminator” and it turns out I’m not the only person to have wondered that…

I do agree however, the Matrix 2 & 3 were not as good. I saw part of the first one again on TV a few weeks back, and I remembered how amazing the first one was.

 

[Luvz2travel]

Aliens vs. Predator Requiem

Agree on that one…just boring.

 

[meteoric]

I think the re-remake of The Thing, from a couple years ago, was pretty bad. I didn’t even finish it. The gore was so disgusting I gave up. It’s a shame because the prequel idea was cool.

I saw the John Carpenter version of The Thing. IIRC they remade it last year, and Carpenter’s is a remake of an earlier version that is infamous for having an alien that looked like a carrot. Haven’t seen any version but Carpenters, but I don’t think I want to. I doubt they can convey the same feeling I get from reading the original story, who goes there: soma.sbcc.edu/users/davega/FILMST_118/FILMS/ThingFromAnotherPlanet/WhoGoesThere_Analysis.pdf

Tom A.

 

[StudentMI]

I saw the John Carpenter version of The Thing. IIRC they remade it last year, and Carpenter’s is a remake of an earlier version that is infamous for having an alien that looked like a carrot. Haven’t seen any version but Carpenters, but I don’t think I want to. I doubt they can convey the same feeling I get from reading the original story, who goes there: soma.sbcc.edu/users/davega/FILMST_118/FILMS/ThingFromAnotherPlanet/WhoGoesThere_Analysis.pdf

Tom A.

I like the Carpenter version for the mood. However the gore is too much, and I would prefer those parts had been excised. The original was disappointing, considering I had seen the Carpenter version first, though I love Howard Hawks’ films. I’d like to read the story. Thanks for the link.

 

[Morwenna]

I’m interested in why so many people think Avatar is bad. Would you share your reasons with me?

It is my favourite sci-fi, and I could wax lyrical about it for pages, but this is the Worst thread.

I think many of us didn’t like the “preachiness” and the over-the-top stereotyping that was mentioned in earlier posts.

I actually enjoyed the movie on the whole, from an artistic point of view; the world was certainly beautiful and visually interesting. There was another element of the story that I won’t go into which was personally meaningful to me, so I enjoyed it from that perspective, as well. I tried to focus more on the positive aspects, even though the “preachy” stuff and silly stereotypes were annoying.

 

[Baelor]

District 9.

I was so disgusted (in every sense of the word) that I actually walked out, long before the end.

The really sad thing is: the filmmakers had a good premise which they could’ve easily used to actually tell a story and explore ideas, questions, and issues.

Instead, they went the “easy route” of gratuitous gory grossness.

Two thumbs down is just not enough. :nunchuk:

BLASPHEMY!!! District 9 did tell a story and explore ideas, questions, and issues. It is not as if having any gore (=“body horror”) detracts from that; the two are not mutually exclusive.

Hard to say what my least favorite is…I tend to stick to good movies. Star Wars Ep. 2 was weak because of Hayden (sp?) Christensen’s performance. He was awful.

But the prequels did do a lot for the EU, so props for that.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

The worst will always be the BEST: “Plan 9 From Outer Space”. It is a must see for any science fiction/Bela Lugosi/ Ed Wood/ Vampira/pie plate as flying saucer film buff. It’s heavy on aluminum foil and brilliant quips:“You earth people are stupid…stupid, stupid.”

I really should see this some time - I am familiar with the premise from the movie “Ed Wood”. Isn’t this the one where Bela Lugosi died during filming, so they replaced him with someone who looked like him but only from the nose up, so in the scenes with the replacement he’s always got his face half covered?

My original intent was not to name movies that are just examples of inept and poor filmmaking (my example of this was “CHUD”) But maybe there is an exception for Plan 9, because Ed Wood maybe thought he was actually making high art? I don’t think the producers of “CHUD” had any pretense about being great filmmakers, whereas maybe Ed Wood did.

 

[Morwenna]

BLASPHEMY!!! District 9 did tell a story and explore ideas, questions, and issues. It is not as if having any gore (=“body horror”) detracts from that; the two are not mutually exclusive.

Whether they are or aren’t mutually exclusive depends on the perspective of the viewer.

As an analogy, take a moment to recall the best speech, sermon, or soliloquy you’ve ever heard. Now, imagine you’re seated in a theater, with the orator onstage just in front of you. He begins speaking; after just a few lines, you’re already drawn in. A few more lines, and you’re on the edge of your seat with enjoyment.

Suddenly, a man steps forward from the rear of the stage, bearing two large cymbals. He moves to stand next to the orator, and begins loudly clashing the cymbals together in a random, arrhythmic manner.

Undaunted, the orator continues with the speech (or sermon, or soliloquy), although the clashing cymbals make it exceedingly difficult for many people to hear, or even to properly focus on his words.

Now, what effect do you suppose the cymbals had on the speech, in the minds (and the ears) of a large portion of the audience? Did the cymbals add to the speech, or distract and detract from it?

As strange as it may seem to you, gratuitous and excessive gore and violence can and do distract many viewers, and detract from those viewers’ cinematic experience, in much the same manner that the clashing cymbals distracted and detracted from the orator’s talents.

Let me also assure you that I’m far from alone in this perspective. My husband-to-be (a strong and very masculine man) watched the film independently, several months after I saw it. He’s not the type to agree with my opinions for the sake of harmony; he tells it like it is. His opinion of this film is just as low as mine, and in fact he says I was smart to have walked out when I did, since it only went downhill from that point onward.

A good storyteller (this includes filmmakers) can tell a story with a minimum of gore, or with none at all. Unfortunately, as technology advances and special effects become more realistic and less expensive, many filmmakers will take the easy route and allow the effects to overpower the story (or, to “cover up” a weak script with lots of “sparklies” or “ickies”).

My :twocents:, adjusted for inflation.

 

[Baelor]

Morwenna, thank you for your thoughtful and respectful response! I hope that we can understand each other better.

Whether they are or aren’t mutually exclusive depends on the perspective of the viewer.

Either something is present in a work or it is not. Whether there is a particular story or theme does not depend on perspective, and thus my problem with your original statement as it was worded: you said that the movie did not tell a story. Even if every other scene was full of t****** and a** and characters were torn apart, beheaded, dismembered, and the dialog had a swear word in every sentence, there would still either be or not be a story.

Even if the gore was a distraction for you, that does not mean that the underlying story was not there. You have the right to your preferences in content, but do not have the authority over reality to say that the inclusion/exclusion of said content someone made other aspects of the movie appear/disappear. District 9 contained gore. It also told a story that was based on real social issues. That is not up for debate.

Undaunted, the orator continues with the speech (or sermon, or soliloquy), although the clashing cymbals make it exceedingly difficult for many people to hear, or even to properly focus on his words.

And yet he is still saying them and they are still discernible.

Now, what effect do you suppose the cymbals had on the speech, in the minds (and the ears) of a large portion of the audience? Did the cymbals add to the speech, or distract and detract from it?

They may distract; they do not detract. I am using the word to mean “take something away from.” The story is still there intact.

As strange as it may seem to you, gratuitous and excessive gore and violence can and do distract many viewers, and detract from those viewers’ cinematic experience, in much the same manner that the clashing cymbals distracted and detracted from the orator’s talents.

That is not strange at all. I do not like gratuitous and excessive gore and violence.

My husband-to-be (a strong and very masculine man) watched the film independently, several months after I saw it.

While I appreciate the mention of his perspective, the fact that he is strong and masculine does not affect the validity of his perspective.

A good storyteller (this includes filmmakers) can tell a story with a minimum of gore, or with none at all.

They can, but it is simply not the same story as one with gore. I could condense the Great Gatsby or Absalom, Absalom! or Paradise Lost or the Iliad or the Satyricon or the Romance of the Three Kingdoms into a series of factoids or bullet-points. Part of the work comes in its style and tone. That tone can be conveyed in many ways, one of which is “gore.” To say that District 9 would have been the same without the gore is simply incorrect. It may have been better or worse, but it would not have been the same.

Furthermore, the fact that something is possible does not make it obligatory.

Unfortunately, as technology advances and special effects become more realistic and less expensive, many filmmakers will take the easy route and allow the effects to overpower the story (or, to “cover up” a weak script with lots of “sparklies” or “ickies”).

Only bad filmmakers. Others will take advantage of technology to make stories that would not have been possible without it.

 

[Morwenna]

To quickly respond in a way that (I hope!) will clarify my previous posts:

And yet he is still saying them and they are still discernible.

Are they? To everyone in the entire audience? Are you sure? Mightn’t there be some who were hard of hearing, or who struggle with tinnitus, or who have PTSD and find loud noise unbearably jarring to the point of not being able to perceive the meaning at all? That was the point of my whole analogy. What is discernible to one isn’t necessarily discernible to all. Someone with “nerves of steel” and very keen ears could discern the orator’s words and the meaning therein … but that leaves out an awful lot of people.

They may distract; they do not detract. I am using the word to mean “take something away from.” The story is still there intact.

But they do detract! They may not detract from the story for you, but they can and do for others! A story is more than just sound waves or photons or words on a page; it is (and has) meaning. Without meaning, you have no story. If the meaning isn’t able to reach your audience (whether due to “noise pollution” as in my analogy, or “visual pollution” as in this film), the net effect is the same: the story has indeed been “detracted from”, for some viewers … and for others, it may have been lost entirely. Now, if you want to argue that the story is still “there” in an “existential” sense, like the proverbial tree falling in the forest, then I won’t argue that … however, that wasn’t the point that I was attempting to make in either of my two prior posts.

While I appreciate the mention of his perspective, the fact that he is strong and masculine does not affect the validity of his perspective.

Some folks (not saying “you, Baelor”, but some ) might write off my perspective as being merely that of a wimpy, weak female who requires smelling salts during intense films, thus I introduced another, un-wimpy, un-weak, non-female, perspective.

They can, but it is simply not the same story as one with gore. I could condense the Great Gatsby or Absalom, Absalom! or Paradise Lost or the Iliad or the Satyricon or the Romance of the Three Kingdoms into a series of factoids or bullet-points.

I don’t think that a story without explicit gore is analogous in any way to reducing a novel to bullet points. I guess we’ll have to “agree to disagree” there.

Only bad filmmakers. Others will take advantage of technology to make stories that would not have been possible without it.

Yes indeed! Special effects are wonderful and have been used in very clever and creative ways by some filmmakers, however I’m afraid that in my view, this particular film deserves neither of those adjectives. I realize that you see it differently, and that’s fine.

 

[Baelor]

Are they? To everyone in the entire audience? Are you sure? Mightn’t there be some who were hard of hearing, or who struggle with tinnitus, or who have PTSD and find loud noise unbearably jarring to the point of not being able to perceive the meaning at all? That was the point of my whole analogy. What is discernible to one isn’t necessarily discernible to all. Someone with “nerves of steel” and very keen ears could discern the orator’s words and the meaning therein … but that leaves out an awful lot of people.

And yet it is discernible to some, which is more than enough – it still exists.

But they do detract! They may not detract from the story for you, but they can and do for others!

No. The story is still there. No part is inherently missing as a result of the gore.

A story is more than just sound waves or photons or words on a page; it is (and has) meaning. Without meaning, you have no story. If the meaning isn’t able to reach your audience (whether due to “noise pollution” as in my analogy, or “visual pollution” as in this film), the net effect is the same: the story has indeed been “detracted from”, for some viewers … and for others, it may have been lost entirely.

I simply disagree. The story cannot change based on viewers because it is entirely dependent on the words on a page. It does not exist beyond the text. If you meant something other than this, great, but I would label what you are describing as “experience,” not “story.”

Now, if you want to argue that the story is still “there” in an “existential” sense, like the proverbial tree falling in the forest, then I won’t argue that … however, that wasn’t the point that I was attempting to make in either of my two prior posts.

Yes; I am glad we clarified. That is indeed my definition of story.

Some folks (not saying “you, Baelor”, but some ) might write off my perspective as being merely that of a wimpy, weak female who requires smelling salts during intense films, thus I introduced another, un-wimpy, un-weak, non-female, perspective.

Such persons are deplorable!

I don’t think that a story without explicit gore is analogous in any way to reducing a novel to bullet points. I guess we’ll have to “agree to disagree” there.

Do you accept that the gore may be for any purpose other than pure shock value? If so, then it is part of style and adds a dimension to the story.

 

[Morwenna]

And yet it is discernible to some, which is more than enough – it still exists.

No. The story is still there. No part is inherently missing as a result of the gore.

OK, let me try one more imperfect analogy which may better illustrate what I meant. Sorry in advance for the length.

Let’s say that my birthday is approaching, and you, my friend, know that my very-most-favorite birthday cake in the world is vanilla cake with lemon-cream frosting.

Because you are a kind and generous person, you want to make this the most memorable cake ever! For the frosting, you buy six different varieties of lemon, the finest imported sugar, and cream from an organic-fed, free-range cow that lives in California (since we all know that “happy cows come from California” ). It’s going to be nothing short of amazing!

The big day arrives, and you’re putting the finishing touches on the frosting, just a few minutes before I’m due to arrive, when you realize … with all the preparations for this once-in-a-lifetime, unforgettable frosting … you’ve forgotten the cake! :doh2:

Frantically, you look around the kitchen and notice that you’ve got one lonely little snack cake (meant as a snack for one person) sitting in the cupboard. With a sigh, you proceed to frost the snack cake.

It looks so small there on the plate, so you add just a bit more frosting … and a bit more … and just another dollop … and then you hear the doorbell. Time’s up!

You open the door and lead me to the table … where I see a very large mound of frosting on a plate. I look at you quizzically, and you explain, “It’s your birthday cake! I know, it looks a little strange, but just give it a chance! You’re going to love it!”

So, I scoop the first bite of frosting. It’s certainly very good frosting, and I listen with interest as you describe all the effort expended in searching out the special ingredients, and finding just the right recipe, etc. As you come to the end of your story, I’m still scooping up spoonfuls of frosting, which is unfortunately tasting less and less wonderful by the minute. (If you’re one of those people who eat frosting out of the can, this last sentence won’t make sense, but play along, ok? )

By the time I reach the bottom of the pile of frosting, I find that the tiny cake has dissolved due to the sheer amount of frosting that was piled on top of it; all that’s left is a gooey, doughy blob at the bottom.

Now, you could certainly argue, in an entirely truthful way, that my plate did contain cake. There’s no question about it, the cake was there. But the little bit of cake was so overwhelmed by the amount of sugary goop on top of it, that there was absolutely no chance for the birthday girl to really even taste it … it was completely overpowered by the frosting.

Such was my opinion of District 9. Instead of making “a cake with frosting”, they made “frosting with a bit of cake at the bottom”. A chemist could confirm that the elements or ingredients of the cake were present in that mess at the bottom, just as you or I could confirm that a story was present in District 9 by reading the script. But the execution of the story (like the creation of the cake) caused the story to be “lost in the goop”.

I realize you don’t see it this way, because you were able to look past the sugary mess to get to the cake; I wasn’t. I suppose you could argue that’s a weakness in me rather than a weakness in the filmmaker, if you wanted. I’ve just never had a high tolerance for frosting (in movies or in cakes )

Do you accept that the gore may be for any purpose other than pure shock value? If so, then it is part of style and adds a dimension to the story.

Yes, if (and that’s a big ‘if’) done judiciously, and in such a way that it doesn’t overwhelm the story. It’s a delicate balance, and not many filmmakers can achieve it, in my view.

 

[Morwenna]

PS: Baelor, I know you would never do anything remotely as silly as the above; I can tell that you’re a very conscientious person. It was all meant in good fun, and I hope I didn’t offend you in any way.

 

[Baelor]

Morwenna,

Thank you for your response. I enjoy your allegories. You are correct – I do not think that we disagree on anything in particular.

I would simply hope that you can understand that there may be artistic motivations for including what you have labeled “frosting.” If we say cake is the bare-bones plot, then every piece of work has frosting. We must simply decide whether the frosting is to our liking.

 

[Havard]

Sorry for the tangent, but my favorite bakery really does do amazing lemon frosting.

icingonthecakebakery.com/index.php

If you live anywhere nearby (Los Gatos, CA), you should check it out!

 

[Auntie_A]

I really should see this some time - I am familiar with the premise from the movie “Ed Wood”. Isn’t this the one where Bela Lugosi died during filming, so they replaced him with someone who looked like him but only from the nose up, so in the scenes with the replacement he’s always got his face half covered?

My original intent was not to name movies that are just examples of inept and poor filmmaking (my example of this was “CHUD”) But maybe there is an exception for Plan 9, because Ed Wood maybe thought he was actually making high art? I don’t think the producers of “CHUD” had any pretense about being great filmmakers, whereas maybe Ed Wood did.

I quite agree. And I need to add that Plan 9 From Outer Space is a good reason why we invented videos and DVD’s: It just calls for a rewind–“Did you see THAT?” “What did he say?” “Wasn’t that scene just–?” It is a great movie to watch with others.

 

[DaughterOfGod82]

Starship Troopers without a doubt! The first two movies of the *Star Wars *prequel trilogy were a bit weak, but not so bad!

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Another movie that deserves a mention here is “Battlefield Earth”. I’m pretty sure they were going for high concept, big budget, and so forth; they didn’t set out to make garbage. And yet they did. Or so I’ve heard; I never actually saw it. And not many other people paid to see it either…

 

[Morwenna]

Morwenna,

Thank you for your response. I enjoy your allegories. You are correct – I do not think that we disagree on anything in particular.

I would simply hope that you can understand that there may be artistic motivations for including what you have labeled “frosting.” If we say cake is the bare-bones plot, then every piece of work has frosting. We must simply decide whether the frosting is to our liking.

Baelor, you are truly a gentleman and a scholar, and I think that we do indeed agree, based on what you’ve written above. Thank you for a fine and cordial discussion … I enjoyed it immensely! :tiphat:

Sorry for the tangent, but my favorite bakery really does do amazing lemon frosting.

icingonthecakebakery.com/index.php

If you live anywhere nearby (Los Gatos, CA), you should check it out!

Thanks, Havard. The funny thing is, despite my long-winded “Tale of Cakely Woe”, I’m not really a “cake person” at all … and after writing about that giant glob of frosting yesterday, I think it may be a long, long time before I want any again. A vivid imagination can be its own worst enemy at times!

 

[Becca3]

I will tell you another movie that is really the worst! That is Total Recall. I did watched the whole thing so I can find out what happened at the end but the plot was terrible. I don’t think this movie made box office at all.