What's the actual best space movie?

what's the actual best space movie?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=a3lcGnMhvsA
youtu.be/v36hwY0xK64
youtu.be/9CUyNANhPNI
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Are you talking any movie that takes place in space? In that case, the Empire Strikes back

2001

2001 a space odyssey probably, if you're not a pleb.

Moon

Moon.

Obectively Interstellar.

>le 2001 redditors who think caveman monkeys being educated by alien monoliths and star babies flying in space is somehow so le grounded le amazing than Interstellar which had more realistic science applied.

This.

MUH LOVE TARS

> le space movies should be scientific
2001 is about the feeling of unknown and exploration of driving forces brhind humanity's progress.

>Obectively Interstellar.

LITERALLY OBJECTIVELY THIS

NO OTHER MOVIE TAKES ON AND RESOLVES A TOPIC SO GRAND AS THE MEANING OF THE UNIVERSE

2001 AND TREE OF LIFE ARE BOTH TOO VAGUE AND LACK THE BALLS TO PUT FORTH A COHERENT VISION

INTERSTELLAR IS TRULY THE GRANDEST FILM OF ALL TIME

AND THE GREATEST PRACTICALLY SHOT SPACE FILM SINCE 2001

THIS. I absolutely cannot fucking stand the pretentiousness of Kubrickfags for this film - even though Kubrick directed far better films.

solaris

SODERBERGH'S REMAKE?

WINS FOR MOODIEST SPACE FILM OF ALL TIME BUT ITS MUCH SMALLER IN SCOPE THAN INTERSTELLAR

interstellar hands down, everything was on point, the acting, the theory, the filming, the shots used fucking 9.5/10.

the 0.5 is from the last part which nolan made hollywood, obviously matthew doesn't make it out the wormhole alive and the rest is all Murphy's wishful thinking right before she dies

can properly motivate this if people are curious

>interstellar
>realistic science

Realistic depiction of black holes, spherical wormholes, time dilation, centripetal gravity in a spacecraft, plus a nice twist at the end given the lack of knowledge we have about the singularity. Interstellar is more grounded than 2001

I hate Nolan and his faggoty fanboys so much. He's only made ONE good movie in his career, which is Insomnia. Fuck Nolan and your precious overblown, bloated mess that Instershitter.

Whatever it is, it's not hard scifi, because hard scifi is garbage for autists.

Probably Interstellar, because it is a story about love spanning the space and time, working both as a narrative in the film and meta narrative outside the film.

That was the genius of the film, the scientific mumbo jumbo is literally pleb filter and anyone focusing on it is a fucking pleb/simpleton

>Interstellar is more grounded than 2001
Take your precious realism and stick it up your ass. Then go fuck your sister's cunt.

Interstellar b/c of visuals. Only ABNolans hate the film and try to pick too much into it, expecially the Hathaway scenes. Rather than interpret Brand's love speech as the incoherent last gasp effort of Brand to somehow convince the crew to abandon the planet that gave better signs of life for her bf's planet, ABNs took it too literally and decided to meme about it.

Sunshine and Solaris.

Interstellar was a derailed sf film and a shitty love story. Pick one you fucking hack fraud. You ruined two movies here.

2001 is fedora tipping: the there is nothing to really understand because its actually very shallow: the movie

Watch that edge, ABN. Im sure there are some redditplebs around here who share your awe of psychedellic hyperspace light visuals as much as you do.

Interstellar, even with all the love fuckery.

>Intershitlar

Avatar.

>the 0.5 is from the last part which nolan made hollywood, obviously matthew doesn't make it out the wormhole alive and the rest is all Murphy's wishful thinking right before she dies

What's wrong wit that?. I think i'm a pretty seasoned moviegoer and don't fall for the cheesy emotion angle but it is so well done in Interstellar that i can't help but feel for matthew and want to see it all work out for him. The movie created an itch and scratched it good.

People that don't get or understand Interstellar are vacuous plebs who have and will never have a real relationship with another human being in their life.

any movies deal with large time dilation? few works in any medium seem to.

exactly what I meant with hollywood, if he would kill off matthew it would leave you 'heartbroken' and normies can't handle that

Gattaca

Fucking this

Gattaca before Apollo 13? Space Cowboys?

>Apollo 13
>Best space movie
It's barely a fucking movie, Tom Hanks is a giant hack

I came here to second this.

Do people unironically think interstellar is the best space movie, or is it just some kind of meme? Or is this just one shitposter?

Solaris

probably all of those things user.

even this image blows my mind. interstellar was truly a great movie.

Assume he is; you're discounting the rest of the cast, the realism of the film, and the undeniable fact that it actually has something remotely to do with space.

For gattaca, space is just a macguffin; it's not much of a space film, though it is a nice film.

2001 and Solaris.

/thread

you know you're not supposed to /thread yourself, right?

also, shit taste/10

Tark's Solaris is borderline shit after the first 40 minutes.

well it sure isn't fucking Interstellar.

I really liked interstellar but it kind of lost me at parts, I'm not sure if that was my fault for not paying attention or the directors fault. Either way it was a solid 8/10 imo.

The Martian was pretty boring for me, most of the movie was pretty much about a dude planting some potatoes. Like WTF haha

of course not.

I haven't seen Moon, 2001, or Solaris btw.

no pandorum yet?
pandorum is the goat of horror/space genre.

>horror/space

Event Horizon 4 me.

4 you.

Titan A.E.

The Martian >>> Interstellar
fite me

Martian had a terrible soundtrack and the whole space team were obnoxious characters. First half of the film with him on Mars had some reddit tier dialogue and le funny meme acting, but was great. When the focus changed it became terrible.

It's at least the greatest since the silent era.

2001

Yeah, the ending was pretty shit, I'll give you that.

Moon or Sunshine

...

Solaris or 2001.

Moon was average and Interstellar was embarrassing.

I liked all movies mentioned so far, some more some less but none i read is realy bad or something. Just came to name a fav of mine wich wasnt mentioned yet..

P A N D O R U M

Srsly i love that movie

The martian is a meme popcorn movie. Every single line is a meme, it's like it was written by aaron sorkin's autistic 14 year old brother

I wish painful death on you. Empire Strikes Back is the ultimate meme opinion. I tend to view Star Wars as one big movie but breaking it down part by part I think Empire doesn't hold up as strong as the rest. Of them all it easily feels the most like a part of something greater, and by that I mean I think it's the weakest as a standalone movie. Everything setup in Empire pays off in Return of the Jedi. People always talk about the Cloud City fight but the confrontation at the end of Return of the Jedi is where Luke's arc comes to a head.

>and the meta-narrative outside the film
If you had an elaboration prepared for this that you didn't get to use I'd be curious to hear it. Interstellar posters are running out of creativity so something new would be nice.

Wings of Honneamise > Gunbuster

>believe in yourself and you can achieve anything!
There, now anybody ITT who hasn't seen the movie doesn't have to.

The joke is that when dealing with science-fiction 'science = quality.' So the movie with the most science is objectively the best. This is why every Interstellar thread's discourse revolves around whether or not the black-hole ending was plausible, rather than Nolan's autistic robot dialogue, or the plot that is confusing and goes nowhere or any of the countless other real problems that ruin everything he's ever made.


I'm just going to throw out Prometheus because I love that movie and hating it is a meme.

Star Wars > Empire

Star Wars works both as a self contained story and a space fantasy, which its very concept lends itself to.
Empire is too much sci-fi for me. And it's a chapter, not its own movie.
Jedi flat out sucks. With the exception of Luke's final duel and maybe the sand vagina diversion.

Prequels are the greatest Star Wars movies, though. They're the ultimate meme material and so shitty I can't even be mad at them. I just don't watch them and enjoy all the pottery.

TFA is just cuck shit.

Too hard to find specifics, but it's somewhere between this:
>Interstellar
>Empire Strikes Back
>Moon
>2001: A Space Odyssey
>Prometheus
>Guardians of the Galaxy
>Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Personally I'd say Interstellar beats them all
>Genius soundtrack
>One of the most touching moments
>OK twist
>Very good acting
>Pretty good cinematography
>A grandeur feeling

It's not mind blowing if you're not a pleb, but it captures the essentials for a quality sci-fi movie
People can complain all they want about the science and the "MUH LOVE XD", but in the end it's still sci-fi, not supposed to be 100% realistic

Wow, this is probably the most thoughtless, memecore opinion I've ever seen on Star Wars.

>Star Wars works both as a self contained story and a space fantasy, which its very concept lends itself to.
Explain
>which its very concept lends itself to.
Isn't the concept Space fantasy?

>Empire is too much sci-fi for me
How?
>And it's a chapter, not its own movie
This I at least understand

>Jedi flat out sucks. With the exception of Luke's final duel and maybe the sand vagina diversion.
>Prequels [are] the ultimate meme material and so shitty I can't even be mad at them
>TFA is just cuck shit.
If you aren't going to give any substance to your opinions why post them at all?

>science-fiction 'science = quality.'
There are two types of science fiction. The science type. Primer, Andromeda Strain, Contact, 2001. The story and feels type. Sunshine, AI, Pandorum.

Interstellar has too shit science fiction for the first type and is too sterile and methodical for atmospheric love stuff. What a load of bullshit that film is. At least you tried Bravo Nolan. I can respect that.

Interstellar had better music and cinematography but this is an opinion

m.youtube.com/watch?v=a3lcGnMhvsA

First 2/3rds and last 10 minutes of Sunshine

>Genius soundtrack
youtu.be/v36hwY0xK64
youtu.be/9CUyNANhPNI
What Interstellar's soundtrack was going for was done better in the 80s by Phillip Glass and Ryuchi Sakamoto.
>One of the most touching moments
Admit it, you've cried watching at least three Spielberg movies
>OK twist
The movie is such a clusterfuck that I don't even know what the 'twist' is supposed to be. Was it that Alfred and NASA were memeing their own people? Was it that Mann turned out to be evil?
>Very good acting
I personally like Tommy Wiseau's The Room because of its Very good acting. Do you see what I did there?
>Pretty good cinematography
Nolan is an autistic robot channeling Kubrick with technical fussiness near powerful enough to match him but no soul or creative spark in sight.
>A grandeur feeling
You must be as autistic as Nolan if you believe this. This is my biggest problem with the movie. Nolan was aiming to be grand and that's what the marketing sold the movie as but I found it to be painfully insipid. There's nothing grand about Interstellar. Nolan copies technical details right out of other acclaimed movies without understanding the overall artistry that made them work. Grandeur isn't a formula that can be distilled from existing works. It needs genuine inspiration to work. Beyond some decent but not impressive effects work Interstellar has nothing exciting to offer fans of film or science-fiction.

>captures the essentials for a quality sci-fi movie
I doubt you'd know quality science-fiction or even a good movie for that matter if either jumped out and bit you on the end of your fucking dick.

>in the end it's still sci-fi, not supposed to be 100% realistic
Something I make a point of avoiding whenever I criticise the movie. Nolan's work has enough problems, if you have to resort to the logistics of moving the spaceships around irl you're doing it wrong.

>What Interstellar's soundtrack was going for was done better in the 80s by Phillip Glass and Ryuchi Sakamoto
finally someone dispels the "muh good soundtrack" meme

Hans Zimmer is a fucking hack

>There are two types of science fiction
>The science type
>The story and feels type
What the fuck are you doing user?
>The science type
>2001
Was 2001 a visual textbook? Did it not have a story? Was Kubrick's intention to make his audience experience science?
>Contact
Was Contact scientifically accurate? Was it about science? Was it not aiming for story or feels? Was the protagonist meeting the alien space ghost of her deceased father science?

>Story and feels type
>Pandorum
Why is this movie not science? What doesn't it do that Contact does?

>Interstellar has too shit science fiction for the first type
Define 'too shit.' I'd be very interested in applying this test that Interstellar failed to Contact, which supposedly passed. (I hate both movies so not biased)

>too sterile and methodical for atmospheric love stuff
>too sterile and methodical
ha
Really though, would you substantiate this? What the fuck are you saying?

...

Based Armond

A Trip to the Moon

>I desperately need to find NASA!
>Oh, looks like I found it.

Memestellar the best space movie? Good one, user.

>I wish painful death on you.
not sure if autistic or stupid

>I'm just going to throw out Prometheus because I love that movie and hating it is a meme.
ok, you're both autistic and stupid. add a tripcode so i can filter your posts

>77 replies
>no mention of Alien
i need to stop visiting Sup Forums

Hating Prometheus is a meme. Prove me wrong by pointing out valid flaws.

Please don't bring up the snake. Your first thought was the snake wasn't it?

>79 replies
>no mention of Planet of the Vampires
I need to stop visiting Sup Forums

user, the science in science fiction is always, by design, wrong. the entire point is to lie about science and use that lie as a springboard for a thought experiment about people. when you judge sf by how "real" or prominent or accurate the science is, you are missing the point completely. don't buy into the sf "hardness" myth, it will make you an idiot.

>What the fuck are you doing user?
I'm telling you there are movies that are good just because they're accurate and those that are good because of muh atmosphere and characters.

Nobody would have cared about 2001 if it wasn't for all the scientific detail. Nobody cares about the space baby.

Contact would be pointless if it wasn't
scientifically accurate in depicting our world coping with real tech and political reactions.

Pandorum is about the spooks and twists. Do you really believe those creatures would happen? Shit science fiction.

>Define 'too shit.' sci-fi
He flies into a fucking black hole m8. There's a million other problems but I forgot them with time. It's been a while I watched it. Also NASA secretly existing and having a secret rocket nobody knew about without any test flights is baffling.

>too sterile and methodical
Nolan is a robot. He can't do good drama. It feels like the camera and shots are making a documentary about human misery instead of making you care.
He also can't write sappy stuff for shit. Also no themes. It felt like he was memeing. Guys love conquers all [insert stereotypical Zimmer song] - oh shit here's some action - look at this wacky sci-fi shot - back to sobbing on earth. Rinse are repeat.
For fuck's sake, explore the themes of love, don't just say love is xyz every half an hour. That's not deep.
Or just give us our space exploration movie, don't speed it up so you can share your half baked love ravings.

the snake? no, i'm not from reddit

the entire movie was bad. it was like a remake of Alien (robot has an ulterior mission which hurts the crew), but with a much worse story and cast of characters

nothing was explained well, and most people felt that way too. except for the retards who come up with speculative theories

prometheus is excellent. it only has a bad reputation because of autismal "plothole" hunters that can't follow a movie without constant verbal exposition.

SF hardness isn't a stupid idea as long as you only use it for classification. It gets stupid when you try and use it as a measure of quality. Before today I'd have told you nobody is stupid enough to do that but wew, here we go. Wish me luck.

>I'm telling you there are movies that are good just because they're accurate
This offends me on multiple levels. Let's start with
>good just because they're accurate
>just
Do you mean to say that 2001 is good because of accurate science? The people seeing that movie weren't scientists, they don't know the difference. Seeing people float around weightlessly in space and deal with a relatively grounded threat is very interesting but I can't imagine a thought process that goes 'accurate science ---> good movie.'

>Contact
>scientifically accurate in depicting our world coping with real tech and political reactions
Again, how exactly does this make the movie for you. Let's say for the sake of your point that everything that the people do in the movie is a 100% true to life simulation. Now what? Is that what science-fiction is for? Realistically simulated reactions to unreal situations? You'd have to be blind and deaf not to realise that the point of Contact was to make a poorly thought out and ham-fisted statement about the nature of faith. Otherwise what the hell would the point of Matthew McCaughnahay's character be?

>Pandorum
>Do you really believe those creatures would happen?
It strikes me as about as plausible as the Voyager satellite returning to Earth self-aware and demanding to know the meaning of existence. Since you're probably 14 I'll understand if you don't get that reference.

>Interstellar
>He flies into a fucking black hole m8
and? Aside from baffling your great intellect what's wrong with this?

>Nolan is a robot
debatable, I'm inclined to agree to a fair extent

>no themes
If you aren't fucking with me this is all saddening

I'll get you next

the robots in alien and prometheus are vastly different characters. the whole point of ash is that he is a sexless neuter enamored with the power of the hyperrapist alien. meanwhile david is the pov character of prometheus, stuck having to follow the orders of moronic humans, getting his revenge by following his orders too much, like an asshole djinn.

your other points are just meaningless. it was bad because the story was bad! what was bad about the story?

>nothing was explained well

what did you not understand?

>It strikes me as about as plausible as the Voyager satellite returning to Earth self-aware and demanding to know the meaning of existence
First ST movie is shit.

Okay, onto Prometheus. Every other thread I usually end up taking 20 000 characters to say what summed up quite nicely. Too many people have fallen into the Red Letter Media trap of declaring arbitrarily selected rules of writing pointed out by Jay and Mike and 'broken' by Ridley Scott as proof that the movie is irredeemably shit. For example

>no clear protagonist therefore the movie is bad
>unclear motivations for certain characters therefore the movie is bad

This stuff is seemingly endless so I appreciate that you don't appear to have done that. But I was hoping for some substance to pick through. I'll take what we've got though.

>it was like a remake of Alien (robot has an ulterior mission which hurts the crew)
And Alien was like a remake of Planet of the Vampires with visual inspiration lifted from Dark Star.

This seems very petty to me. Did the movie really feel like Alien all over again to you or did you just think that would sound like a sharp point to make? The dynamics between David and the crew of the Prometheus are completely different to the events of Alien.

>with a much worse story and cast of characters
This I just can't do anything with unless you go further.

>nothing was explained well
I think that 95% of what happens in the movie can be inferred without much trouble. I'm not a smart person and Prometheus doesn't confuse me. Define 'nothing.'

Them's fighting words user.

>I WANT THIS CAPTAIN! I WANT IT LIKE YOU WANT THE ENTERPRISE!

>as long as you only use it for classification. It gets stupid when you try and use it as a measure of quality.

i would argue that a value judgment is always inherent in this this type of classification. "hard sf" always carries an implication of imagined intellectual superiority.

Interstellar is a horrible piece of shit.

Only 20 year old hipsterfags love it.

now kys

I think it often does but not always. I'd call 'Heart of A Dog' relatively 'soft' science-fiction but I'd also call anybody who criticises it a giant fucking pleb.

On the other hand 'The Martian' might have been full of more real facts than most of my high school textbooks but I think that anybody who considers it good science-fiction or even passable as any kind of literature is a complete waste of air.

best how?

>Martian: most realistic conditions
>Intersteller: most interesting ideas
>Moon: best story told

I think you should have read the thread before posting. We're well beyond this point by now.

>puncturing your suit and then flying around like iron man
>most realistic

Gravity was pretty retarded but it handled this sort of thing better with the fire extinguisher

>What Interstellar's soundtrack was going for was done better in the 80s by Phillip Glass and Ryuchi Sakamoto.
I'm liking "Prophecies" alot, your statement is fair, but the other isn't as good

You can't deny the moment he realizes his children is as old as him isn't one of the most touching moments in movie history.
You're probably one of those edgelords who thinks nihilistic content is automatically better

>The movie is such a clusterfuck that I don't even know what the 'twist' is supposed to be
I dare say this is a blatant overexaggeration. It isn't hard to follow at all.
Although the more I attempt to defend the plot, the more alienating I find it

>Do you see what I did there?
Point taken and approved, I fully agree

>Pretty good cinematography
Undeniably so
"Inspired" or not, it features some stunning views, and captures the dark feeling of space through its cinematography better than its ancestors
I think 2001 does this alot better through its storytelling, though, not the cinematography. There's a difference.

>There's nothing grand about Interstellar.
But it IS grand.
I personally think 2001 does this way better, although this one is very close to it.

My last statement about realism is something I stand for. People complain so much about how nothing makes sense in Interstellar, and witch hunts it because of that. The minor details about the science is what makes the capturing environment

>Hans Zimmer is a popular jew therefore he's automatically a hack
Your life is a mere shell, rise, user

Where are the stars?

Too bad they ruined that moment with a twist instead of leaving off with the notion that they had been in stasis so long they somehow passed the heat death of the Universe.

Critically: 2001, Moon, Contact

Audience: Interstellar, Sunshine, Apollo 13

Objectively this.

>You can't deny the moment he realizes his children is as old as him isn't one of the most touching moments in movie history
I'll admit it's probably the closest Nolan has ever come to actually moving me but something in the execution didn't quite sit right with me. I know that sounds like a lame dismissal but I didn't particularly like it. Time Dilation has been done before and I think that some of the impact was robbed by the action packed escape from the water planet. I think the movie would have been better off if they scrapped Peter Petrelli and just had the water planet be a bust with no fatalities. Upping the urgency with a death and then deciding it's postcard time felt wrong to me.

>You're probably one of those edgelords who thinks nihilistic content is automatically better
Yesterday I watched Pocahontas for the first time and almost cried during 'Colours of the Wind.'

>The movie is such a clusterfuck
>a blatant overexaggeration
I'd call it hyperbole. I got colourful with my words but I stand by the sentiment. I really don't know what you meant by 'twist.'

>Point taken and approved
How civil.

>captures the dark feeling of space through its cinematography better than its ancestors
I disagree. I think that too many directors feel the need to clog up space with colourful swirly shit so that we don't get bored which robs the setting of the sense of scale it should have. I'd post pics for comparison but my internet is dying so badly that I can't even load up google images to remind myself of what Interstellar looked like. The memes about Australian internet are all real.

The most impressed I've ever been by a representation of space on screen is Gunbuster. Not for everyone, certainly but everything that's meant to be awe-inducingly huge actually does feel fucking huge. Also their space looks very spacious. All black with dots of stars around.

>But it IS grand
I disagree

I'd like to put a picture on this post but I can't anymore

Wait a minute, what meta narrative are you talking about? I think love story in Insterstellar is just a subplot, not specifically meta