What is the most crappy scifi ever?

[Krys]

For my worst Sci-Fi seen to date...."Tank Girl" its so bad, its almost good in places....but not for the reasons they meant!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114614/

 

[craigh]

I liked Tank Girl, still do! One entertaining mindless flick.

Anything from the 1950's that involves oversized ants with human faces sucks, as do many of the films portraying the effects on nuclear tests creating assorted giant mutant bugs. Most of the made for TV flicks are awful, be it bad effects, low budget scripts, etc.

Thinking back to childhood: 2001 it realy looked like NASA could get us there, we were in the middle of the moon race and landings after all. Logan's run was cool, campy now. Soilent Green was good! Silent Running, bad soundtrack, great models, fun robots! The original BSG sucked as did the original "V". Space 1999 was cool, up to a point...they ran out of fresh story ideas pretty quickly. People went nuts on the first Planet of the Apes flicks.
Star Wars...hate them now but for the first three nobody had EVER seen the likes before.

I guess I'm getting old. There's an awful lot of movies posted that I'd completely forgot about. That's probably a good thing.
CraigH

 

[Blacklight]

2001 it realy looked like NASA could get us there, we were in the middle of the moon race and landings after all.

Are you saying that 2001 is on your BAD MOVIE list ? Blasphemey !!!

2001 is my absolute FAVORITE movie ever. It's a great and symbolic story told almost entirely with visuals and almost no dialog about man and his ingenuity, his tools, and his evolution. It's a masterpiece. You never see art flicks like that any more (and I don't think the kids nowadays would even "Get" it anyway since there's no boobs or explosions or for the girls, romance and comedy).
I wish more movies were like 2001. With that movie, as far as spaceflight is concerned, they only got a tiny handful of things wrong (like astronauts wearing velcro shoes to help them walk. Astronauts would find it easier to just float around doing their work). I still think that someday, we will see The World of 2001 become a reality, though probably not in our lifetimes. If we're lucky, we may even be seeing the very beginnings of it just starting to creep in now. We already have a space station and with the discovery of water on the moon, we MAY within a few decades actually have a small, permanent research facility up there (If there's actually enough water to sustain one.)

 

[Andy44]

Silent Running, bad soundtrack, great models, fun robots!

Note about Silent Running: I read somewhere they used special effects for the planet Saturn which were rejected by Kubrick for 2001 because he didn't think they were good enough.

"Bad" for Kubrick means "pretty good" for normal people.

Anyway, that's why the story of 2001 is different between the book and the film: the book had Discovery slinging past Jupiter and heading for Saturn, but Kubrick changed the script to a stop at Jupiter.

 

[allonan2361]

I watched a movie a few weeks back called Robot Apocalypse, made in the 80s I only made it through about fifteen minutes before I had to turn it off.

 

[jedidia]

the book had Discovery slinging past Jupiter and heading for Saturn, but Kubrick changed the script to a stop at Jupiter.

allthough Kubrik decided to do that majorly because he felt a slingshot manouver would a) make the film too long and b) noone would know what a slingshot actually is, and he wanted to avoid silliy explanating dialogue that would seem unlikely among a crew that was portraied as very professional and matter-of-factley. Effects had nothing to do with it.

I remember finaly seeing silent running about a year ago (yes, I never got my hands on it earlier), and I so loved every minute of it. I found the movie to be more tense than most thrillers I watched, because I just didn't know what to expect of it. I really thought one of those drones would go bonkers any minute... :lol:

Anyway, we're talking about CRAPPY Sci-Fi. I remember some pretty crappy ones, the aforementioned Starcrash and Sador... both I LOVED as a kid, because Sci-Fi on TV was rare enough, (Star Trek wasn't aired for a long time over here) and mom wouldn't let me watch star wars, so I had to go with what was around. And as a kid you're very forgiving about silliness in movies. In retrospective, however, I have to admitt that especially Starcrash is probably one of the weirdest contraptions of a movie I ever saw, next to Flash Gordon...

(the best thing is, the guys flying in their torpedoes through the windows and starting firing don't even wear space-suits!)

 

[Hartmann]

I think that 2001 is very good until the second part , when bowman enter in the monolith, after this is a psychedelic travel with no sense in the plot. also is a mess because books and movies have different scenarios .

2001 is a mith because it is the most realistic movie for the time and it´s photography and music but released today could be a normal movie.

to sum up, 2001 is good until the last 20 minutes , the only good point of the last part is the recreation of the big bang , but not more

Armageddon is not too bad, there are a lot worse movies than this . for example mission to mars , event horitzont

Remember that scifi means a fiction, so the movies don´t need to be accurate , so only a few of the are realistic. ( apolo XIII)

 

[eveningsky339]

Looking through this thread brought up some memories for me... it was when I was first firing up Orbiter.

I've seen a lot of Star-Wars bashing, so let me just step in-- my parents loved that movie. It was a classic. Being a small tot, I didn't know better, but for most of my childhood I loved the Star Wars Universe. I bought the legos, the video games, and I watched the movies. Not because of the solid science or ingenious plot, but because it was freakin' Star Wars!

Ahem... at any rate, I have to say that as far as the worst, my list is fuzzy and confused.

For example, I wouldn't say that 2001 is the worst. However, I did not like it. In fact, I spent months doing nothing but running the 2001 scenarios on Orbiter before I actually broke down and bought the movie. The beginning phases were alright because they reminded me of my Orbiter missions, the middle was interesting because of the man vs. robot and suspense, but the end... what the hell? I even watched some of the special features which discussed how the film was initially unpopular until, in the words of one of the interviewees, "kids were starting to smoke a little pot." Gravy on a stick, that's the only way I could conceivably enjoy that psychedelic and nonsensical mess.

As a result, I'm afraid 2001 didn't quite make it for me.

Pitch Black and Chronicles of Riddick are two of my favorites. Not sure why, but the dark cynicism and interesting plots keep me fascinated... I've seen them both multiple times.

I'm not sure that this falls in the category of "Sci-Fi" since select few claim it to be absolute truth, but does anyone remember the movie called "Fire in the Sky"? It was about a man who was seen "hit" by a glowing "fireball" in the sky and subsequently disappeared for three days. He reappeared naked, next to a dumpster, able only to remember the "alien abduction" experience in a state of hypnosis.

I was a little interested in the UFO phenomenon, so I said alright, I'll give it a go. The first part was interesting, the middle was getting creepy, but I didn't foresee it actually scaring me. Then I saw the final fifteen minutes, and I can say that I have never been more afraid when watching a movie. I had nightmares for weeks.

It was supposedly based on a true story, the abductee is still walking around in Arizona, and he and his buddies all passed lie detector tests... hmm. Still don't believe it, but interesting.

 

[jedidia]

I think that 2001 is very good until the second part , when bowman enter in the monolith, after this is a psychedelic travel with no sense in the plot. also is a mess because books and movies have different scenarios .

Well, it's Kubrick allright. I have a friend who is graphic designer, general visual artist and currently studying interactive design, and he actually doesn't like the movie UNTIL it gets to the monolith scene .

Now for it being nonsensical, that's not quite true. You just don't get what's going on by watching the movie, you have to read the book. Then it makes all perfect sense, it's just overstilised by artsy-partsy Kubrick. I like it, though I agree the hyperspace scene could be 5 minutes shorter...

2001 is a mith because it is the most realistic movie for the time and it´s photography and music but released today could be a normal movie.

It's still the most realistic sci-fi movie. I have never seen another one who got it all right in terms of science (that's majorly thanks to Clarke, of course, but 2010 was also after Clarke, and they still managed to get some stuff wrong).

Plus, 2001 was THE inspirational movie design-wise. Star Wars would never have looked as it did without 2001 comming beforehand. The discovery and the lunar wheel were the major guidlines used by Lucas as far as aesthetics were concerned. So yes, today it would be a normal movie (allthough still refreshing in its realism), but maybe it wouldn't, because normal acifi movies today would look somewhat different if it hadn't been made.

 

[Ghostrider]

If you think those are "crappy" movies, you oughta see "Mutiny in Space": filmed in a factory that was supposed to be the interior of a spaceship (made with BRICKS!) and the external and SFX shot were recycled from Battlestar Galactica (the 1978 original series).

 

[Jarvitä]

and the external and SFX shot were recycled from Battlestar Galactica (the 1978 original series).

Speaking of which, the new series is quite high on my bad scifi list as well. The effects look like the guy who wrote the script generally knew how physics works, but got overruled by the effects people who demanded space explosions and fighters whooshing past the camera, and was too constricted by the original plot to cut out FTL. Also, they just had to wreck the ending with a ridiculous deus ex machina - literally. I mean, come on, I get it, both humans and the cylons are guided by their religion, but parables on religious wars usually don't work out well when one of the religions turns out to be right in the end.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Starflight - The Plane that couldn't land (Starflight One)

This film has a (really cool looking) hypersonic passenger plane that was hit by satellite debris (which was caused by an explosion of an Saturn-V satellite carrier rocket lanuched from Australia- well they used stock footage from an actual Apollo launch). It caused the plane's rocket thruster to lift the the plane into an unstable orbit around earth.

The shuttle Columbia is launched three times in 72 hours to safe the passengers. Upon reentry, the plane is protected by a plough-wave caused by fictional shuttle "XU-5". (In the film it becomes apparent, that NASA forgot that they had another shuttle in space).

Although I used to enjoy this film as a kid it is pretty crappy though. It stares "Six Million Dollar Fall Guy" Lee Majors.

 

[Andy44]

Alright, let me step in here and say that 2001 was without a doubt one the greatest sci fi movies, and IMHO one the greatest movies ever, period.

It was Kubrick which means it wasn't just another movie. It was one of his obsessive art works. I can watch it over and over and just be locked onto the screen. For years I never read the book and I didn't quite understand what it was about, but I pieced it together and when I read the book I was right.

But the whole point of art is that it isn't all spelled out for you. You're supposed to get whatever you get out of it personally. What is the meaning of Mona Lisa's smile? Depends on what the viewer gets from looking at it. Kubrick was often the same way. Most of his movies at least, require more than one viewing to decode the meaning, but he films them in such a masterful way that it's a pleasure to re-watch them.

But like any art, some people won't like it. No shame in that. I do wish more directors would at least learn from Kubrick's obsession with getting spaceflight details correct, though.

Even Ron Howard couldn't resist cheapening Apollo 13 with crappy exterior sound effects and a stupid course correction rocket ignition scene that made the vehicle looks like a bottle rocket.

 

[Scarecrow]

I just saw Armageddon for the first time, because of all you guy's glowing reviews :thumbup:

"We're going to accelerate at 9.5 gees for eleven minutes"

What? WHAT?

I literally rewound 10 seconds to make sure I heard that right. I did. I grabbed my calculator. Did you guys know that:

9.5 g * 9.8 m/s/s/g * 11 min * 60 sec/min = 61 km/s

Huh? That took me 10 seconds on my calculator. Up until that line, I thought the people making the movie were just out there having a good time, making a funny movie. However, that equation convinced me that they just didn't care. No, on second thought perhaps none of them ever graduated from high school. I can't decide.

Oh, and another thing. Why does every countdown to something bad get stopped within the last 4 seconds? Why does it come down to the wire EVERY TIME?

And if the asteroid is "the size of Texas", and a nuclear detonation at the surface will have no appreciable effect on it, why would a nuclear detonation at 800 feet below the surface split it in half? Texas is approximately 800 miles across (order of magnitude). 800 feet / 800 miles = 1 / 5280, meaning they're planting the bomb .04% of the way to the core. I see no practical difference between that and a surface detonation.

And there's so much other stuff, but I need sleep.

Anyway, may the probe save us from another such abomination! Hail !

 

[T.Neo]

The Core. (It at least ranks within the top 10)

But man, the "unobtainium" had a cool factor.

 

[cljohnston]

One of the best sci fi shows ever has to be Stargate SG1. Well done. It did not insult your intelligence, and it was realistic. The writing was really good too, the way they can go from funny to serious is was well done.

I just spent the last few months since Stargate•Universe premiered getting caught up on SG-1 via Hulu, since I'd only seen the first season and a half in its first run on Showtime. Watched the first 9 seasons online, then borrowed the Season 10 DVD from the LASFS library. 214 episodes, 4-8 episodes a day!
It's just a "ripping good yarn"! After I take a rest, I'm thinking of starting over again from the beginning!
Best chemistry between main characters I've ever seen anywhere! The casting was perfect, especially Richard Dean Anderson and Michael Shanks.

As for the topic at hand, I've seen some unspeakably bad Sci-Fi, so I won't speak of them.
But I've sworn to go to my grave never having seen Armageddon in its entirety. Just the trailer gave me hives.

 

[Vanguard]

I've learned two things reading this thread...

1) I have nothing in common with about 99% of you.

2) Most peeps here prefer sci without the fi... I couldn't possibly count the number of posts/people arguing the "realistic" merit of a sci-fi movie. Oxymoron much? Anyone aware of what the fi means!?

Oh, and just to add to the flame bait, Armageddon is a great movie

It's tough when you have so much knowledge in your head to turn a blind eye to the ignorance (my personal favorite being when a computer hacker turns the monitor on and blurts out the famous "we're in!"), but ya gotta learn to just enjoy it for what it is. A sci-fi movie is not something you break down and analyze for an English essay folks, let alone use as a tool to understand physics.

 

[jedidia]

Most peeps here prefer sci without the fi...

I don't think that's the case. But definitaley most here (including me) insist on a reasonable degree of sci in their fi. Otherwise we could just call science fiction "fantasy in what looks like space", which a movie like e.g. star wars essentially is.

To take it back to Clarke: there's a lot of fiction in 2001, and Clarke (as well as most other SF-authors) frequently explore the absolute fantastic at some point of their story, usually at the ending. But that does not mean you can throw reality out of the window altogether, it's just not science fiction anymore then. But I agree, good science fiction has the best of both worlds: it sticks to actual reality in terms of natural laws and takes it's liberty where it has for the sake of the story, but even then watches out for consistency within itself - Windge and Niven are great examples for this kind of writing.

 

[n122vu]

Without a doubt, the one of the WORST sci-fi movie I have ever seen was Mission Mars. Not Mission to Mars, but just Mission Mars (1968)

When they land on "Mars" in their little piece of junk, during the interior shots you can clearly and very plainly see that the ship is made of PLYWOOD! Not to mention the fact that the helmets on their "space" suits are merely painted motorcycle helmets.

One of the worst. I'm surprised MST3k never did this one, honestly.

 

[4throck]

Don't forget Red Planet and Mission to Mars. LOL, Red Planet has a complete nonsense computer interface featuring a bear on a Russian unmanned sample return mission!
Mission to Mars has nice effects and EVA scenes, but the alien stuff is just dumb.

Good stuff from my point of view, not mentioning the examples indicated by others, is The Astronaut Farmer (the rockets and capsule are realistic), Total Recall (OK, the decompression is probably over the top and there is an alien machine). The latest Moon movie is also nice.

Solaris is an interesting case, the book is excelent, the soviet movie is very good, the Hollywood remake is just boring.

Of course, a special mention should go to Space: 1999, the best and worse scifi of all time from my perspective. Brilliant in atmosphere and effects (for the time) but complete nonsense history wise. The moonbase features sliding windows that can be opened and there are also ghosts and monsters!

Finally, the Dune movie... It really can't be compared to anything!