Good Bad Flicks: Exploring Moon

Exploring Moon

Exploring the making of Moon.

Watch Video

Okay, should I feel real bad that I spoiled Moon for myself or that I now want a Flowbee?.... Because it reminds me of Wayne's World....

I love Moon. Rockwell manages to carry almost the whole film himself.

its a great film indeed. really well acted and generally well made. its certainly an interesting concept and the execution makes this movie a damn good watch.

thanks for reminding me to watch it again. has been a wile since i have seen it.

This movie is absolutely fantastic, but I'm confused by the fact it's on 'Good Bad Flicks'. How is this in any way a "bad flick"?

Moon is my favorite movie ever.
I basically came in here just to say that, was the first time a film's score really gripped me, and my introduction to Kevin Spacey, which I find kinda funny; intro to Spacey, just his voice.

Anyway.

Wonder where that sequel went though. I've accepted that we're probably not gonna get it but first it was in talks then it became a comic book or something now-

NEVERMIND

Googled, seems he's thinkin' about doin' it after Warcraft, depending on how much money it makes.
I have never wanted a video game movie to succeed so hard in my life.

Moon was a remarkable movie, and all the more so given the budget it had to work with. The use of practical effects is all but flawless, and the performances are terrific.

I do have to take a bit of issue with repeatedly describing "Blade Runner" as "hard sci-fi", though. It doesn't really have androids, flying cars and implanted memories because of any sort of examination of the science that would have brought us there. Its use of "replicants" has far more to do with wanting to contemplate the [im]morality of sentient slaves and the way our memories shape who we are or who we think we are... Which makes it closer to "soft" sci-fi; science fiction that's less about engineering and physics and more about contemplation of themes, philosophy, and society.

Which is absolutely no bad thing. Blade Runner is still a terrific movie.

Callate:
Moon was a remarkable movie, and all the more so given the budget it had to work with. The use of practical effects is all but flawless, and the performances are terrific.

I do have to take a bit of issue with repeatedly describing "Blade Runner" as "hard sci-fi", though. It doesn't really have androids, flying cars and implanted memories because of any sort of examination of the science that would have brought us there. It's use of "replicants" has far more to do with wanting to contemplate the [im]morality of sentient slaves and the way our memories shape who we are or who we think we are... Which makes it closer to "soft" sci-fi; science fiction that's less about engineering and physics and more about contemplation of themes, philosophy, and society.

Which is absolutely no bad thing. Blade Runner is still a terrific movie.

Yeah, I don't think Philip K. Dick ever wrote a hard sci-fi story in his life, I haven't read all of his work but I've read a lot and everything he writes is far more philosophical than scientific. Which like you said is by no means an insult, he wrote some of the best sci-fi ever. Thought provoking with incredible narrative and interesting characters. I mean as a total layman hard sci-fi flies over my head anyway. Good rule of thumb, ask me if I understood it. If I do it's soft sci-fi.

emeril322:
This movie is absolutely fantastic, but I'm confused by the fact it's on 'Good Bad Flicks'. How is this in any way a "bad flick"?

I was wondering much the same thing. It's good in its own right, but it's also my go-to for proving that "sci-fi" doesn't necessarily mean "big-budget explodefest".

Recusant:

emeril322:
This movie is absolutely fantastic, but I'm confused by the fact it's on 'Good Bad Flicks'. How is this in any way a "bad flick"?

I was wondering much the same thing. It's good in its own right, but it's also my go-to for proving that "sci-fi" doesn't necessarily mean "big-budget explodefest".

I think somewhere along the way, "Good Bad Flicks" became shorthand for "Good & Bad Flicks." This isn't the first time Cecil's covered a film that's widely regarded as being good.

Hawki:

Recusant:

emeril322:
This movie is absolutely fantastic, but I'm confused by the fact it's on 'Good Bad Flicks'. How is this in any way a "bad flick"?

I was wondering much the same thing. It's good in its own right, but it's also my go-to for proving that "sci-fi" doesn't necessarily mean "big-budget explodefest".

I think somewhere along the way, "Good Bad Flicks" became shorthand for "Good & Bad Flicks." This isn't the first time Cecil's covered a film that's widely regarded as being good.

Oh, well that would explain it. Thanks for clarifying.

Jacked Assassin:
Okay, should I feel real bad that I spoiled Moon for myself or that I now want a Flowbee?.... Because it reminds me of Wayne's World....

It's sucking my will to LIVE!

Extra-Ordinary:
Googled, seems he's thinkin' about doin' it after Warcraft, depending on how much money it makes.
I have never wanted a video game movie to succeed so hard in my life.

His next planned movie is "Mute" which takes place in the "Moon" universe. Apparently Source Code did as well. He wanted to put a segment in as an Easter Egg (like a radio broadcast or something) talking about Sam Bell but it never happened. Possibly a rights issue or something.

Callate:

I do have to take a bit of issue with repeatedly describing "Blade Runner" as "hard sci-fi", though. It doesn't really have androids, flying cars and implanted memories because of any sort of examination of the science that would have brought us there. Its use of "replicants" has far more to do with wanting to contemplate the [im]morality of sentient slaves and the way our memories shape who we are or who we think we are... Which makes it closer to "soft" sci-fi; science fiction that's less about engineering and physics and more about contemplation of themes, philosophy, and society.

Which is absolutely no bad thing. Blade Runner is still a terrific movie.

Numerous places refer to Blade Runner as Hard Scifi. While it may not be quite as technical as some, I still feel the tag is apt. Good points though, I think a lot of the notion of it being hard scifi is directly related to the concept of AI vs Humanity.

Regardless though, its still an amazing movie no matter what branch of sci fi it falls under. :)

Hawki:

Recusant:

emeril322:
This movie is absolutely fantastic, but I'm confused by the fact it's on 'Good Bad Flicks'. How is this in any way a "bad flick"?

I was wondering much the same thing. It's good in its own right, but it's also my go-to for proving that "sci-fi" doesn't necessarily mean "big-budget explodefest".

I think somewhere along the way, "Good Bad Flicks" became shorthand for "Good & Bad Flicks." This isn't the first time Cecil's covered a film that's widely regarded as being good.

Hawki is correct. A long time ago the show outgrew the name. The way I cover it is if its a "Good Bad Flick" it will often be a B-Z grade movie that is fun but flawed. If it is an "Exploring" episode it could be any grade (although usually A-B) and is a movie that I feel deserves more attention than it gets. (or has a really interesting backstory behind how it came to be)

Moon is a brilliant film and is one of my all time favorites.

I'm happy other people liked this film. I found myself scratching my head at the time on why I didn't know the movie had come out since it was so good. Now I know.

Callate:
Moon was a remarkable movie, and all the more so given the budget it had to work with. The use of practical effects is all but flawless, and the performances are terrific.

I do have to take a bit of issue with repeatedly describing "Blade Runner" as "hard sci-fi", though. It doesn't really have androids, flying cars and implanted memories because of any sort of examination of the science that would have brought us there. Its use of "replicants" has far more to do with wanting to contemplate the [im]morality of sentient slaves and the way our memories shape who we are or who we think we are... Which makes it closer to "soft" sci-fi; science fiction that's less about engineering and physics and more about contemplation of themes, philosophy, and society.

Which is absolutely no bad thing. Blade Runner is still a terrific movie.

I think sometimes the "hard" definition of scifi, is that it "shows its work". Not necessarily that the science actually holds up to scientific scrutiny, but that at least within the universe of the film, the science is explained, and is internally consistent. That the world presented isn't so far fetched from our current world, that it would be impossible to see us getting there.

To me, Blade Runner, fits that bill. We can see ourselves having flying cars eventually, and are actively working on that technology. We can see ourselves having synthetic people/androids eventually, plenty of work in that field currently as well. So it's not "fantasy" scifi, it's "real" scifi, which I think is often swapped out with the "hard" scifi term in many discussions.

OT: Great film, loved the thing from start to finish. I loved how they tricked the audience with the AI, making you think he was going to betray Sam. But nope! "I am programmed to assist you in any way Sam." So of course he's going to help him, that's his job. xD Which I thought was such a simple, yet beautifully subtle way to do it.

Plus it's Sam Rockwell, and I love everything he does. Even in bad movies, he's at least a great part of the bad movie.

This movie needs more recognition. Thanks for spotlighting it Cecil!

09philj:
I love Moon. Rockwell manages to carry almost the whole film himself.

I don't know, the voice of the robot makes the whole thing more space-like.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here