So is hard science fiction in cinema now pretty much dead?

So is hard science fiction in cinema now pretty much dead?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

been dead for more than 30 years now desu

It's more alive today than I ever remember it.

Exactly what time period do you think it was alive?

Interstellar came out recently, so there's that

Hard Scifi seems more common than ever desu. Good scifi doesn't seem as common, but I wasn't there then so I dunno.

Interstellar was barely passable as a decent movie, much less science fiction

Last good one I can name was Moon, maybe Gravity as the most recent

...

I like his suit but the helmet is retarded

I'm pretty sure Sup Forums would hate on 2001 if it came out today.

>15 minutes of monkeys running around because DUDE EVOLUTION LMAO
>space shit with cheesy classical music
>some windows media player visualization for no reason
>giant floating space baby
>I just want a realistic hard sci-fi movie!

Yes. It's too "deep" for normies.

I enjoyed this.

The Martian (you can dislike it, but it IS hard scifi), Interstellar, Gravity, I'm sure there are others out there.

Is this stuff really based in real science though? Or just extensions of what we theorize about AIs atm? It's great, but I dunno if it can be considered hard scifi.

false equivalency

Helmets are always dumb for actors, they had to change the awesome martian helmets in the expanse because you couldn't see the actors faces

>the martian

except for the fucking storm that sets up everything yeah

and then they used it again halfway through when the hab broke

Prometheus had similar suits.

Yeah it's a dramatic plot device, works for the film.

>butthurt about muh storm

I'm sure you have lots of experience of weather of mars or are you just using it as an excuse because you've been told that it's unrealistic

don't be an idiot user

You nignogs forgot prometheus and alirn covenant

>Interstellar was barely passable as a decent movie
Fuck off pseud

You make it sound like because a few trolls exist Sup Forums is a bunch of bible thumping mouth breathers.

There's hardly any science in those; the technology is just visually realistic.

>Interstellar was barely passable as a decent movie, much less science fiction

Kill yourself, nobody cares whether you liked it or not. The fact is it is considered a recent example of hard sci-fi

2001 is one of a kind.

Can I join?

Still waiting...

Does this show have a bunch of boring humanoid threat of the week, lame interpersonal relationships and romances, NOTHING scary and filler episodes? People like it a lot, but I have historically disliked Scifi Channel stuff and considered almost all of it low quality.

They would hate on it the same way they hate Arrival.

no. Go watch Expanse

>Does this show have a bunch of boring humanoid threat of the week, lame interpersonal relationships and romances, NOTHING scary and filler episodes?
You're clear

Watch it, its really good

i think so too
>He was an old man in bed the whole time??!

>Interstellar was barely passable as a decent movie, much less science fiction

interstellar is barely a good scifi movie? wtf?
and what is hard scifi in your opinion? transformers 5?
get the fuck out of here.

Literally everybody has the exact same opinion as you about syfy including expanse fans

Not really, no. Given that it past your oddly specific test, maybe you should give it a watch. Don't get your hopes up in case there is something else that might grind your gears, but give it a chance.

Watch it from the beginning of course.

>Interstellar was barely passable as a decent movie
seeing these people trashtalk everything has only illuminated the fact that there can only be 1-2 examples in every genre that they would consider "good" in all of history.

Not him and I really liked Interstellar, but I'm not quite sure if it is hard science fiction. The "only gravity can travel back in time" was a complete phony false physics fabrication.

It sounds like though a lot of people only really judge human technology when determining whether science fiction is hard or not, in which case sure. Interstellar does a good job. I especially enjoy silence in space.

>gravity
>hard

>google gravity and you get a laundry list of all the stuff they got wrong about space
it's harder than star wars but come on dude

I feel you, OP
Duncan Jones' Mute cant come soon enough

Interstellar is shit m8

Stop following NDT's twitter, ya mook.

It's hard science fiction. The only problem with the movie is they shrank the scale of LEO for dramatic purposes.

>oddly specific
hardly

go to bed neil, you aren't contributing to the discussion

>Helmets are always dumb for actors
only when they are made by dumb costume designers

>features a character called bogdanov

you mean a glasshouse wouldn't work on the mars?

that post didn't say anything in it.

>Is this stuff really based in real science though?
Artificial Intelligence? The android's intelligence is built through machine learning which is a technology in the works currently the field of AI. They went into depth about the Turing Test. This is all stuff based in computer science I believe.

I really can't foresee how anyone could screw the series up since the draw was more the setting than the plot or the characters.

>The only problem with the movie is they shrank the scale of LEO for dramatic purposes.

This.

Pretty much everything else was pretty damn on point. Other than Bullock piloting a Soyuz like she was in Tokyo Drift, and using a fire extinguisher in a ridiculous fashion.

>The only problem with the movie is they shrank the scale of LEO for dramatic purposes.
and the distance between the ISS and Hubble
and the distance between the ISS and Tiangong-1
they also got how low gravity and quasi weightlessness affect transfers of force for their stupid action scenes

>It's hard science fiction
If you don't know what that means I could understand your confusion.

>and the distance between the ISS and Hubble
>and the distance between the ISS and Tiangong-1

In other words, the scale of LEO.

>they also got how low gravity and quasi weightlessness affect transfers of force for their stupid action scenes

>micro analyzing the physicals of motion on a dramatic scene to further the plot of a movie is evidence that the movie is a failure in hard scifi

Neck yourself you fucking idiot.

>I really can't foresee how anyone could screw the series up

On the one hand, the "Mars" quadrilogy would be perfect for a multi-season high quality TV series and I really wish it would happen.

On the other hand...

>Is this stuff really based in real science though?
youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44

you fucking guess?

While passengers is essentially a romance movie set in a sci-fi setting it does feature real science, realistic ideas of space exploration and the moral dilemma which is crucial for all hard sci fi movies.

Passengers
Interstellar
Martian
arrival
Moon
Gravity
also nontraditonal sci fi movies that aren't just about space like
Children of men
The lobster
limitless
looper

Clooney's death was beyond retarded. Nothing was pulling him away; the rope would simply arrest his momentum and he'd drift back towards her, like they already estavliahes earlier in the film.

You are being absurd.

Star Trek, not hard science fiction.
Gravity, hard science fiction.

You should be worshipping the ground it orbits simply for being one of the few science fictions ever to not pretend air for sound exists in space.

What? "I guess"?

Europa Report was decent aswell

>The lobster
Seriously? I like this film a lot but how is it hard sci fi in anyway

It'll come back in the 2020s and 2030s, when actually effective smart drugs become available and the first generation of CRISPR-enhanced children come of age

when said drama requires to break most of the effort you've put in set, costume design and special effects to make it feel authentic it kinda takes me out of it though

>Neck yourself you fucking idiot.
You first

>Sphere on the moon of Saturn
I don't agree with you.

Obviously it was bait. It is scifi, but it is not fiction about hard science concepts.

Well, they technically have a dystopic government and the technology to turn people into animals using advanced surgery. That's where the cimilarities to cyfy end.

>it kinda takes me out of it though
sounds like a problem for you. gravity is definitely hard scifi.

it is about the social science of mate pairing. so social biology and zoology.

wtf? didn't know we are this far??? shit is going down

The parachute cord wasn't secure and he was carrying mass away.

Also notice most modern scifi movies have man going into space because he was forced to avoid a catastrophe, interstellar because of MUH CROP FAILURE, Armageddon because MUH ASSROID, Avatar because MUH OVERPOPULATIONS

That is why movies like Moon and 2001 I like better, because the premise of the current situation shows mankind having peacefully moved into space exploration because we chose to

>Passengers
Though I appreciate anything that doesn't feature FTL, what "real science" explains the magical force field?

I think if anything deserves an expanded universe, it's the 2001 alternate history. They can already claim "Moon" was set in the same universe since it all visually looks the same and the story doesn't conflict with 2001

Such a broad question too generalized to respond with an accurate answer.

Can long extended scenes happen in movies such as 2001: A Space Odyssey?

No. Because of today's editing tools, and because time is money films are edited so tightly that there is no room for long extended footage. Today's youth literally does not have to attention span to sit through long extended footage.

Can science fiction films of today be as complex as 2001: A Space Odyssey?

Yes, but since much of today's films are based on concepts in 2001: A Space Odyssey the attempt is done more in gesture without truly questioning deeper in mainstream movies which usually supply easy answers quickly, and easily understandable.

Have there been attempts to duplicate the kind of complex questioning as in 2001: A Space Odyssey?

Yes, but over saturated by other overused themes, and plot devices.

I don't know how well your supposed trend holds up, however it might have something to do with the fact that the scope of manned space exploration both planned and actual has largely decreased in scope since Apollo. It's becoming increasingly apparent that manned space exploration was just a gimmick and that humanity doesn't actually give a damn about the species.

I blame you for not convincing your family, friends, and peers of the importance of exploring, exploiting, and colonizing space.

which production company is the most likely candidate to greenlight a hard science film? I need to pitch an idea.

Photon manipulation? using electric currents you can supposedly trick photons into behaving like solids

Wait, half of that space station was still under construction, how the hell were they gonna finish that if the damn thing is spinning already?

Probably Netflix, I hear they are very easy to greenlight projects compared to anyone else who can finance on a budget that is not shit

Interstellar was pretty good, although the whole "power of love" thing was pretty weird

Mhmm mhmm, checks out with me.

I hear here Gravity all the time, but common guys. The science might be somewhat solid, but the luck factor that cunt has is completely unrealistic and probably even more unrealistic than any James Bond movie.

remove all the sci-fi films that are set on earth
remove all the sci-fi films that are set in our solar system

what do you have left? Star Wars and couple exceptions to the rule

It's pretty fucking pathetic.

I heard there's a 400 year waiting period to speak to netflix unless you have heavyweights vouching for you

when you talk about movies, what the fuck is the point in ""critiquing"" the parts of the plot that exist souley for the benefit of the film being a film. Kill yourself you idiot pedant.

wat

I was really disappointed with Moon.

Interstellar was such garbage:

>Whole movie had random tech from different time periods, didn't feel consistent

>How the hell was the main space vehicle able to zip zop zoopada bop in and out of planets like a fucking hummingbird yet needed a damn Apollo style launch?

>Where the hell did NASA get its funding from?

>The whole time paradox

>The disappointment of it not being an ancient alien race but humans from the future

say that to my face in real life and see what happens bitch

In what way?

What scifi channel special is this?

posts like this stick out so bad, it makes it pretty clear that not every Sup Forums poster is up to the task of actually posting on this board.

>No electromagnetic sphere
>Has an atmosphere

It's FRENCH - it's gonna look cool af.

>French
>French people in the future are still white

So Le Pen wins?

No, it's cinema that's dead.

>Where the hell did NASA get its funding from?
They already had the space ships, as stated, and the main character maid a point about how he paid taxes and saw little out of them.

>paradox
Paradoxes are not impossible. There is nothing inherently impossible about a close time like loop.

>The disappointment of it not being an ancient alien race but humans from the future
That was the best part of the movie. Debate me.

So what you mean is, you don't know anything at all about planetary science?

Am I the only one that likes this movie?

Look a movie can have some plot holes and some extremely lucky situations and be completely fine. But Gravity was extremely over the top ridiculous without having a device like the Infinite Improbability Drive.

I only liked the soundtrack

>Infinite Improbability Drive.

I think my parents still keep one of those in the attic

>implying Mars lost its atmosphere in an afternoon