In defense of the sci-fi misfire

ano Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 01:03 AM EST

I can't believe there's any question about Blade Runner's greatness, at all. I have nothing against Jurassic Park, and am even amused/pleased with the fact its being judged up against such epic classics as Blade Runner, but, really? We're at a point in which its legitimate to be nonchalant about Blade Runner? It was always good. Depends which version you pick I suppose, but enough of this "visually good, potentially better" business. Really? That's such an empty argument. Any film could arguably be narratively stronger, or even vaguer, 'better'. I can't believe I was offended/moved enough by the original boring and shallow remarks to write this.

mister weazle Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 02:52 PM EST

Well, most of these did have at least an argument for why they ended up on the misfire list... the exception being Event Horizon. You watch an sf/horror film, and then declare it a failure because, "Oh, I dunno, the whole 'Passing through an alternate dimension and bringing back something that is inimical to mankind' just seemed kinda horror-movie inspired." That is perhaps the single stupidest thing I have ever read by a professional writer. I mean, back in third grade, didn't they teach you that when you're assessing something, "Oh, I dunno, um, it sucks" is not, in fact, criticism or assessment. It is immature nonsense. "Oh, sure, Citizen Kane was interesting, but that whole 'detective hunting down clues' thing felt kinda weak." There. Can I have your job now? Or do I have to put a screenshot next to my "review?"

Trekkie Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 07:46 PM EST

I can't believe you have a job at EW. I am surprised that you didn't put Star Wars on the list. I can just imagine you saying that it was a low budget mess, the concept of the Force was never explained thoroughly, Han Solo was a schmuck, and there was no point of including a walking 7ft tall dog.

Ehdee Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:26 PM EST

Yeah, going to have to join the voices saying 'what the hell?' to your list. Your ecuses for including Jurassic Park and Blade Runner in a list of 'misfires' is inane and as close as one can get to being objectively wrong about a subjective matter.

Hilly Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:20 PM EST

I'm sorry, but you clearly know nothing about science fiction, Marc. I searched for articles you wrote on EW.com and saw that you write coverage on Battlestar Galactica, but you clearly have a poor and limited knowledge of the genre. What I want to ask is- if "Jurassic Park," "Blade Runner," and the always under-appreciated "Event Horizon" are "sci-fi missfires," then what, pray tell are sci-fi gems? I mean, are you telling me that you didn't find Rutger Hauer and his android accomplices' plight heart-wrenchingly tragic? You didn't quake with fear when the T-rex escaped or when Sam Neil and Laurence Fishburne discovered the recording of Horizon's crew massacring each other? Those were all misfires? Your denouncement of these films as classics is just another great example of EW.com panning cult favorites and then going on to champion drivel like "American Idol" and Paul Haggis' racist overture, "Crash." Take a crash course in cinema studies or something or get a new job.

Stephanie T. Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 08:39 AM EST

Marc's not an idiot! People have different opinions about movies and actors. For example, my parents and I thought that John Travolta was miscast in Hairspray. I thought that Scott Thompson would have done a better job, but famous critic thought that Travolta was awesome. Calling people names just shows that you are immature.

wb Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 08:26 AM EST

Well, I have one phrase to sum up this article. Marc = Ghey. Better leave the critiquing to the critics. Congratulations. You have just reached douchebag status.

Daryl Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 07:20 AM EST

Well, I agree 100% with you, Marc. JP and Blade Runner are beautiful movies, but not necessarily good.

ckhutch Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 01:14 AM EST

Marc, I've never commented on an article online before, but your list and writing was so off, I will be sure to scan any article by you in the future, and not read it. I'm sorry buy you are completely wrong. Way to sink EW with your dumb list just to see how many comments you could get. stick with articles about Lohan cause you obviously know nothing about movies.

ben Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:23 AM EST

*your list (duh, sorry)... Maybe you should have explained all this at the same time that you made/published the list. The part of the list "WHY IT DOESN'T WORK:" means that you are implying that the WHOLE movie did not work. You should word things on your lists or columns more carefully next time.

ben Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:20 AM EST

wow marc, you're list is a misfire

Flash Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 09:00 PM EST

Why does everyone have their panties in such a wad over this? It's just a freakin list by a writer.

vdantev Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 08:39 PM EST

You're still an idiot, Marc. Congrats on getting another article's worth of mileage out of your mouth-breathing idiocy and general inability to grasp the true grandeur of a film like Blade Runner. It's not a typical, loud gunfight, big explosions, kiss the girl, ride off into the sunset, Hollywood sci-fi movie that you and your target audience is obviously used to. It's an examination of what qualifies and quantifies humanity. Is there a soul behind this flesh, or are we just organic machines running our little programs until the day we shutdown and die?

Does everything have to be spoonfed to you?

t3hdow Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 08:27 PM EST

Well now that the confusion cleared up Marc, I can appreciate your opinion more. Although I can't side with your thoughts on Jurassic Park, I do admit that Blade Runner (the 'director's cut' edition, anyway) was window dressing to a great premise. Some of the BR fans claim the inert atmosphere of the movie to magnify the apathy of the humans and the humanity of the Replicants (sound familiar to BSG?), but I thought it just made the film flat instead. Maybe I didn't 'get' BR like other fans did, though Ep Sato makes a good point that various opinions of the film largely depend on the version we see. Still, it's impossible to overlook the visual influence Blade Runner had to sci-fi, even if the movie lacked emotional resonance. At least you recognized its core themes and appreciated them at face value, so I won't pick on you any further.

Mike Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 07:46 PM EST

Well as long as you can make up your own definition of "misfire" after the fact, well ...it still doesn't make sense.

Jurassic Park was a romp, a thrill ride, pure spectacle and it works brilliantly on that level. If you're trying to read more into it than that, you're just not paying attention. Could it have been a better film for me? Sure. For a mass audience? It's the oldest film in the worldwide box office top ten grossing films. Not much room for improvement there.

Buckaroo Banzai

Agreed, it's a misfire. But it doesn't jive with your new definition. Nothing about this movie was inspired. "Because he's one of the greatest characters in pop-cult history..." Beg to differ, never heard of him before or since. BB is a poor Doc Savage clone without the kitsch appeal.

Blade Runner ...did you even see this movie? Do you honestly think it's a "detective" story? Good call on not explaining yourself, you'd never pull it off after that.

Nick Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 07:35 PM EST

Again, for the third time--I fully "get" the term "misfire". It is you who do not get that, in 1980, a film with Stanley ("Singing in the Rain"/"Seven Brides for Seven Brothers"/"Charade" etc) Donen as director, Kirk ("Spartacus") Douglas as its star, and rising star Harvey ("Mean Streets") Keitel, with state of the art special effects, and the then-most popular female actress in the world, and nobody--NOBODY--suspected that the ending result would be such a stink-a-roo. That "Saturn 3" is now easily regarded as among the worst of its genre today ignores the fact that it arrived in theaters with such a high pedigree.

Utterly sad, this thread.

Sacha Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 07:06 PM EST

My only responce to listing Blade Runner as a misfire is the ratting on rottentomatoes.com.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blade_runner/

Dennis Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 06:54 PM EST

Blade Runner should never even be though of on a list like this. It could have been an 8 hour movie...but never a misfire...

And you have too much time on your hands...

D. B. Pooper Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 06:28 PM EST

How About Non-misfires then? These are not in any particular order. Feel free to comment.

1. The Thing
2. Aliens
3. Videodrome (except for the main character)
4. Brazil
5. Children of Men
6. 2001: A Space Odessey
7. Terminator 2
8. The Abyss
9. 12 Monkeys (original French version also interesting)
10. Contact (don't care what anyone says)
11. Star Trek 6
12. Minority Report (debatable)
13. RoboCop (you know it's true)
14. Starship Troopers (again, don't care what anyone says, suck it)
15. Total Recall (eh, what the hell)
16. not E.T. that movie is lame
17. Fire in the Sky (freakydeeky)

Oh yeah, and Jurassic Park rules.

Al Fredo Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 05:59 PM EST

Ok, this post has probably run its course, but let me reiterate that the confusion stems from Gretchen Hanson's post about Marc's list. SHE referred to it as "worst Sci" movies, which got everyone all roiled up. And Marc's response today is a bit of a cop-out; you can refer to any movie as a "misfire" since nothing will hold up to any possible perfect ideal you can conceive.

"But these sci-fi stinkers, along with fourteen others, made our list of the worst in science-fiction cinema..."

K. Patrick Glover Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 05:34 PM EST

Okay, the problem here seems to be that nobody understands the word "misfire". The article doesn't imply the JP or Blade Runner suck, just that they don't live up to their full potential. This can be said about almost any movie, very few films are perfect. A list of sci-fi's greatest misfires should be a list of films that could have been perfect, but somehow fell short.

As much as I love Blade Runner, everyone involved in the film would agree that it's not what it could have been. There were budget and time constraints, there was studio interference, there was hostility on the set between the American crew and the British director Scott. That it is as amazing a film as it is shows the talent of everyone involved, but it could have been so much more.

Eric Friedmann Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 03:30 PM EST

I seriously question the credibility of many of the writers of EW.

Can someone please explain to me how it was possible for ME, someone who does NOT work in the entertainment industry, to find out about and announce on this blog, the death of special effects man STAN WINSTON at least two hours before any of the EW staff??? I mean, they work for Entertainment 'f*ck*n' Weekly and they just announced it NOW!

Jonathan Hill Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 03:27 PM EST

You shouldn't have a job giving your opinions about movies.

Zach In Stereo Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 03:19 PM EST

Let's not forget, this man writes for Entertainment Weekly, the "Shasta" of entertainment mags. Also, he is entitled to an opinion, even if that opinion is utterly wrong...

Nick Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 03:08 PM EST

And to Jim, whose post was funny and truthful, you forgot probably the best part of JP which is the scene where they rescue Ian Malcolm and then get chased by the Trex. That scene has one of the greatest moments in cinema as far as im concerned. "Objects in rearview mirror may appear closer than they really are". Come on that is fricken gold.

Nick Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 03:04 PM EST

So im a bit confused. You think Jurassic Park is a misfire because they didnt all get massacred by velociraptors in the end of the movie? Im a bit stunned by that notion. Its like your saying that a sci fi movie must have a certain level of violence and graphic quality to be good. I strongly disagree. unfortunately your entitled to your opinion.

Dane of War Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:59 PM EST

"Now, I'm not going to explain myself."

Then you can't really call yourself a blogger, can you?

Come on. You wrote this post to get attention to your column. Congrats. It worked.

I suggest that you actually see the films that you write about next time.

Eric Friedmann Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:55 PM EST

You people are crazy - you gotta love this person!

You people are crazy Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:52 PM EST

Wow... it's an opinion people. Though this might be a good thing that you are getting so riled up about someones OPINION about a movie. Chances are if that angers you, then lots of other stuff does too, and you'll die of a coronary in the near future, so I don't have to listen to why your opinion on why this guy's opinion is flawed. You probably like all kinds of things I don't like, and since I don't like them, whatever they are you are all losers and need to stuff down a few more McDeath Burgers so I don't have to listen to you whine anymore. Just my opinion though.

pirate Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:26 PM EST

What an awful defense Marc, but I guess anything you say will not change the fact that you pissed off alot of readers. Plus the comment "But too much of that movie was about people gazing longingly at dinosaurs and not about actually doing anything with those dinosaurs. " doesn't help your defense. Love your response Jim(put saddles on them and ride around), still laughing my ass off....

Chris Richards Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:21 PM EST

Yeah, I disagree about Blade Runner, but can see his point. But Jurassic Park is just fantastic. And I cannot beleive it's being described as slow! It's a build-up of anticipation, of awe, of wonder...and then what you fell in love with becomes terrifying. It's such a great tonal shift that is done seamlessly...I could go on and on about how awesome that movie is. seriously, I just don't get it.

Janine Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:16 PM EST

To Dan Jones:
Thanks for bringing up Howard the Duck. The thought of that movie made me laugh and brightened my day!

Janine Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:16 PM EST

To Dan Jones:
Thanks for bringing up Howard the Duck. The thought of that movie made me laugh and brightened my day!

ChrisChicago Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:15 PM EST

While I applaud your decision to stand by your list, you should have just left well enough alone. JP was awesome when it came out, and is awesome now. One of the only movies I will watch everytime it is on, which is saying a lot. Yes, it is true for a good deal of the movie the characters spent time "gazing longingly at dinosaurs", but I was gazing right there with them!

Oh, and to Tim Lade's comment about Citizen Kane: Are you kidding???

Eric Friedmann Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:06 PM EST

Sad news JURASSIC PARK lovers (and this is not a joke!):

STAN WINSTON PASSED AWAY YESTERDAY OF CANCER. HE WAS ONLY 62 YEARS OLD.

Shame on you, Marc!

Ron Mwangaguhunga Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 01:52 PM EST

When they were filming the loving dino-gazing, you can imagine they were saying, "Let's do it for the children." George Lucas prolly thought the same thing when filming Jar-Jar binks.

Eric Friedmann Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 01:50 PM EST

Marc, you should know that at this time, every Steven Spielberg fan on this planet is out to get you...and I'm leading them with tar and feathers in hand!

Eric Friedmann Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 01:48 PM EST

Tim Lade - "I hate Citizen Kane with every fiber of my being."

Okay, Eric, take a deep breath and just keep telling yourself, "He's entitled to his opinion. He's entitled to his opinion. He's...entitled...to his...opinion!"

No! I can't do it! It's impossible! He dissed CITIZEN KANE!!! Let me at him! Let me at him! I'll tear him limb-from-limb!"

(LOL!)

Andy Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 01:44 PM EST

I don't think I can respect your opinion anymore. Which means I can't read the BSG recaps anymore. Oh well.

lance Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 01:15 PM EST

Blade Runner is the finest movie ever made. You belong in a mental hospital.

Stephanie T. Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 01:04 PM EST

Saturn 3 was a turkey, Village of the Damned (1994) was a turkey, Empire of the Ants was a turkey! Blade Runner was not a turkey. I can see why you would think that Jurassic Park was, but you have to understand that Michael Crichton wrote J.P. as if he was writing a Genetics Doctorate paper. He focused one whole chapter on DNA! If the screenwriter wrote the script exactly like the book, it would have been a snoozefest. Jurassic Park 2 was a whole lot worse, and laughable.

Dominique L. Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:53 PM EST

Good for you for sticking to your guns. But you're still nuts.

Ep Sato Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:39 PM EST

I still can't agree about Blade Runner. While the movie is a little slow moving, and I only dig on the original "noir" version, it's the movie I recommend the most to fans of the "cyberpunk" genre.

Blade Runner was the first vision that came anywhere near what William Gibson's Neuromancer had painted, and the genre those two helped create reshaped science fiction as we know it. I still can't wrap how that's a disappointment, except to assume Bernadin's only seen the narration deleted "director's cut".

Bubblegum Crisis, Akira, the Matrix, the cities in "Phantom Menace", the urban landscapes in "Andromeda", Appleseed, and The Fifth Element are just a few series or movies that have taken elements of this movie wholesale. Clearly, folks love the vision and the overwhelming human themes of this movie enough to view it as something other than a disappointment.

BTW, EW's hooker list is totally missing "Angel", who created her own exploitation genre.

dan jones Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:33 PM EST

Nice try Marc but you're an antagonist plain and simple. There's NO WAY that someone who actually trying to compile a list of sci-fi misfires could include movie like Jurassic Park and Blade Runner but exclude crap like Howard the Duck. You wrote an article you knew would get people writing back by writing something that's obviously unsupportable and ridiculous.

You're a hack. A better writer could get people to respond without having to sink to transparent baiting.

Nick Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:19 PM EST

Yet again, I remind the author that REAL sci-fi disappointments, from multi-talented actors and directors, with then-cutting-edge effects houses and art directors were left off your list, forever forgotten, forever assumed to have been a turkey from day one.

Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 Saturn 3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To Marc Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:17 PM EST

You're still wrong. Sincerely, "Epic Fail"

StaleCake Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:11 PM EST

In no way, shape, or form was BladeRunner a misfire. As stated below, it was not ABOUT its world, but actually had a plot... and theme. I also liked Jurassic Park. In my book, I vote to replace them with MINORITY REPORT or WAR of the WORLDS... in both cases Spielberg lost his OWN THEME. In War of the Worlds, particularly, the whole irony is that the aliens are unstoppable by humans. So why have Tom cruise kicking some a** in th middle? It actually undermined his own movie's central premise. As to HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE, I will put my finger on it for you -- what was wrong was it was Americanized. Purely cultural difference in acting, directing, and humor... that film had to, had to, had to be British.

Jim Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:52 AM EST

May first job was an usher at a new Regal Cinema theater that had its grand opening the same weekend Jurassic Park came out. That Friday night, people were pumped for this movie. One of the projectors had a technical problem, causing one of the screenings to be a couple minutes late, and people were beyond pissed. I worked there for several years, and I never saw anything like it again.

mark in nyc Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:49 AM EST

weak.....very weak

Tim Lade Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:46 AM EST

I remember it was the last day of school in grade 6 and it had become a tradition where my Dad would take my Sister and I to the movies after school to celebrate the end of school. We picked Jurassic Park that year and I remember that when the t-rex attacked I dived into my Dad's arms cause I had the crap scared out of me! It was a terrifying movie and it remains one of my favourites. Reality of moviemaking though means a couple things and one of those things is that there is a huge difference between liking a movie and that movie being good. I hate Citizen Kane with every fiber of my being. I think it is long, pointless, and really just a waste of time and really boring. Does that mean it is not the triumphant and important piece of filmmaking that it is? No. It just means that it isn't not my cup of ambrosia. A favourite professor of mine once said that there is a difference between liking a movie and a moving being good and I think that Marc really hit the nail on the head!

Ceballos Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:43 AM EST

First off all, kudos Marc for manning up and addressing this issue. You could've just as easily moved on and tried to ignore the previous posting with the often hateful things to say about you.

I also understood this was meant to be a list of sci-fi "misfires" as opposed to "the worst sci-fi movies of all time".

All that being said, I still completely disagree with your simplistic assessment of JP (people stare longingly at dinosours for an hour and a half until things FINALLY start happening at the end).

I'm totally with April...they're SUPPOSED to look at dinosaurs with wonder! What do you expect? Your take also completely ignores the kicka$$ and iconic first T-rex attack (with the still water being shaken by the dino steps).

Either way, that's just my opinion, just like it's your opinion that this movie is a misfire. Either way, thanks for clearing this up, and this is just a perfect case of "agree to disagree."

Court Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:40 AM EST

Again, no. Jurassic Park was the first movie I can recall deeming an "event" movie--and it delivered. It's funny, it's got lots of action, and I don't know how you can say nothing happens until the last 20 minutes. It's an intelligent adventure film. Of course not everyone is going to like it, but I just don't understand how you can declare it a "misfire". That just doesn't make any sense.

Jim Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:31 AM EST

"But too much of that movie was about people gazing longingly at dinosaurs and not about actually doing anything with those dinosaurs"

Were they supposed to put saddles on them and ride around? Laura Dern helped a sick Triceratops, the gang witnessed a raptor birth, we saw raptors eat a cow, they tangled with the T-Rex, Wayne Knight got spit on and attacked, the little girl got sneezed on by a brontosaurus, Sam Neill and the two kids survived a stampede, all before the last 20 minutes.

Laura Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:28 AM EST

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But while you see Jurassic Park in the very negative term of "misfire", pretty much everyone else who's seen it (including me) still sees it as one of the greatest action-thriller-popcorn movies of all time. So clearly, your opinion - which somehow made it to an official list on EW that supposedly speaks for most people - is in the very, VERY small minority. That's all we're saying.

April Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:17 AM EST

"But too much of that movie was about people gazing longingly at dinosaurs and not about actually doing anything with those dinosaurs"

C'mon Marc, dinosaurs have been extinct for how many millions of years? Did did you expect the characters to look at them like squirrels or pigeons?

Janine Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:10 AM EST

What I loved about Jurassic Park is that you didn't have to be a movie critic to enjoy it. I was 14 when it came out and I still love it as much as I did then. And unlike a lot of recent action movies, you didn't need to take notes to keep up with who is a good guy and who is a bad guy. I was actually one of the few who loved Jurassic Park 3. Who really expected great plot points and character development? All I cared about was how cool the dinosaurs were and how cute that Billy guy looked in his black t-shirt.
And as far as criticizing people's critiques, let it go. Whether I agree or not, it gives me something to read when I'm bored.

Snarf Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:09 AM EST

So what your saying is great idea, bad execution? Still think JP holds up 15 years later (an I thought the movie was far superior than the book)

Dan Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:01 AM EST

Eh, you're wrong.

Eric Friedmann Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:34 AM EST

I'd sooner have more confidence in a movie list from one of Roger Ebert's books before that of EW.

FM Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:08 AM EST

Well, the thing about Blade Runner is that, really, it's the understated delivery that makes the piece rise above other sci-fi in a lot of ways.

The world feels real and tangible because the story exists IN it, not ABOUT it.

Scott didnt feel the need to explain those giant billboards, or describe the inner workings of a replicant, becasue the people of THAT world wouldn't have blinked twice about such things.

We were meant to view the movie as PART of that world. And it works, and THAT is why Blade Runner is great.

Arden Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 09:57 AM EST

Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but a list coming from Entertainment Weekly does tend to carry more weight than a list from some Joe Blow blog. I think people were just trying to make sure this list didn't speak for the masses.

Tom Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 09:51 AM EST

I agree about JP. It's such a bore. i didn't care about any of the characters. Even 15 years later, I have the same reaction - just indifference. However, despite its flaws, I still think Blade Runner is an interesting film. But compared to the other '82 sci-fi films, particularly John Carpenter's The Thing and E.T., it loses points for not being as engaging or emotionally involving.