"Avatar - the movie - will it be classic sci-fi?" Topic

I heard some story that the original name was in the equivalent of Bushman language and very hard to pronounce so people started to call it Unobtanium.

As I said earlier. Enjoyed the movie, but I think it suffers a little from being mostly eye candy and not enough plot and character development.

Same reason I like the first three (in order of production not numbering) Star Wars movies. The special effects got better with the more recent releases, but not the acting or the plot. If anything these pictures tend to leave me thinking that the directors feel "with all the cool special effects we really do not have that much time to focus on that other stuff."

I like a good special effects extravaganza as much as the next guy, but while I and many other geeks out there can quote line after line from our favorite SciFi Classics. I still say quote me a memorable line from Avatar? I cannot think of a single one?

I enjoyed the movie, but we will have to wait and see if it really becomes more than another toy franchise.

Oh, and the Avatar thing; the Bruce Willis movie "Surrogates" actually did it already – but I am not really sure which was written first, "Surrogates" was released first?

Also,

I hear in Avatar II they are mining "Reallyhardtofindium"

It would certainly be in my top 10. Probably my top 5. Maybe even my top 3….

BTW I like District 9 better than AVATAR. i do like AVATAR. Prepare for the sequel, which Cameron has been talking about, with Charlie Rose.

Yeah, I think District 9 was a better movie, probably because of the pig launcher.

Yeah, despite the film's weaknesses which I talked about before, calling it out on using "unobtanium" is really silly.

Huh? Did you actually read my post? I wasn't saying the movie was bad for using "unobtainium" as a term; I just said the term was silly. (And it was.) I also said it was bad science (it was). So is Star Wars. So what? I also stated that bad science doesn't mean it was a bad film, just that it was bad science.

And it really doesn't matter what "unobtainium" is, what makes the science bad is that there's no such thing as a "unique deposit" of anything outside of maybe specific forms of life. If some compound exists on one planet, it exists on billions of others. Maybe not all, maybe in differing amounts, but it will exist. I don't care if it's a monopole or a room-temperature semi-conductor (like that's likely), or whatever, if it's in this galaxy, it's going to be all over it, not in just one place. Bad science.

But again, that doesn't mean it's a bad film. It just means it's science fantasy.

Once again we see the word "fantasy" used as a pejorative. It's a sci-fi movie. It's harder SF than Trek.

Tron is a classic because it was the first to really reflect our computer culture of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Same as Blade Runner with the cyberpunk look before cyberpunk was written. Same for Star Wars special effects, which were the culmination of 2001's effects and a fun story in the midst of Watergate and Vietnam aftermath.

Avatar just looks like a video game to me that we have seen over and over. Yawn. My son says the same. Avatar takes itself wayyyy to seriously and Camaron needs to remove the stick from his arse.

BTW Tron: Legacy has the potential to be amazing for all the right reasons.

Saw Avatar the first time in regular (by accident – don't ask), then in IMAX 3D.

Yeah, yeah, the plot is dumb, the script weak, but it's like opera – no one goes to opera for the libretto. It's all about the music and the spectacle.

In Avatar, the plot was an excuse for the amazing visual effects. Just a way to put on a beautiful movie.

Will it be a classic? Dunno, it could. Citizen Kane is also not that interesting a story or script, but is an amazing visual and artistic tour de force. Cameron has lurched the state of the art seriously forward.

Metropolis was the first film to make it to the UNESCO register. It gets rave reviews from almost everybody despite having a stupid scenario and some very bad acting.

It is however a stunning visual spectacle and pushed technology to the limits in its day.

The story is simplistic in the extreme. A city-wide revolt by the workers being treated like slaves is fixed by a simple handshake and the promise of a better future. Some of it still doesn't make sense, even with the fully restored version.

If Metropolis is a masterpiece, it is a very flawed masterpiece. Fritz Lang was drunk on power after the huge success of the Niebelungen.

So Avatar has all chances in the world to become a classic …

And it really doesn't matter what "unobtainium" is, what makes the science bad is that there's no such thing as a "unique deposit" of anything outside of maybe specific forms of life. If some compound exists on one planet, it exists on billions of others. Maybe not all, maybe in differing amounts, but it will exist. I don't care if it's a monopole or a room-temperature semi-conductor (like that's likely), or whatever, if it's in this galaxy, it's going to be all over it, not in just one place. Bad science.

By your reasoning, then, we can find neutronium* if we sift through enough soil? ;) Seriously, mate, it's a movie. Suspension of disbelief is kind of required. Let's not get into the Avatar transfer, the gas giant…

*Yes I know what this is.

For me, a tentative "no".

I remember seeing movies like, Heavy Metal, Terminator I and II. I thought those would be classic SF films when I saw them. Looking back now Im not sure they hold up over time.

I do think Avatar will change the level of expectation we have from SF films in the immediate future.

I my opinion there is a distinct diference between "classic" and "landmark" and "best".

At least in my own head, I define something as "classic" if it representative of a genre and stands the test of time. A "landmark" is a work that, regardless of its age stands as a turning point or reference. Finally the "best" is, well, the best example within a body of work.

"Avatar", cannot be a classic (yet) because it's too early to tell. However, some movies are classics like "Earth va. the Flying Saucers", "The Invisible Man", "Star Wars", and others that people still enjoy regardless of their age.

"Avatar", is a landmark film, I think. In terms of popular appeal it seems to be setting the standard like "2001: A Space Odessey" did years ago. It is also, I think a landmark in the respect that it has gotten a lot of people to see a 3D movie who wouldn't have otherwise. It's a landmark in the same respect that "The Last Starfighter" was a landmark.

"Avatar", isn't the best film in some respects and in others it is. It all depends on what's being measured. Script, effects, production, soundtrack, casting, plot, box office, are jsut a few things that one could measure. To me, the "best" is just so broad a topic and so subjective that it becomes pretty meaningless. I don't won't worry about "best"; if is more good than not, I will find something to enjoy in it.

So, I think that "Avatar" is a reasonably good movie. It is a landmark for making modern 3D mainstream. However, it's too soon to call it a classic. It has to stand the test of time before that determination can be made.

TheDreadnought wrote:

What it [unobtanium] was is completely irrelevant to the story.

Exactly. It's what Hitchcock called the MacGuffin: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

One of the things that made MI:3 the best film of the series . . .

Okay, consider me gob-smacked. I have to say, that's the first time I've *ever* heard MI:3 called the best of *anything*. Good show!

I my opinion there is a distinct diference between "classic" and "landmark" and "best".

I like these definitions- I agree that classic or no Avatar is definitely a landmark!

-Will

Hmmm I saw Avatar fro a 6th time yesterday, day off, and yes I still will watch it again…when I was signing on to check what was what on the internet I found this…now keep in mind that as much as I really really like this movie, what I am about to share is a bridge too far…

(home/work safe vid)

YouTube link

Terminator I is certainly a great classic SF movie.

Google "unobtainium" the term was actually use or may have even started back in the 60's by NASA scientists. Because when they started the space race they needed materials that could do things impossible things. The SR-71 was literally made from "unobtainium". So it's not a Cameron invented word.

My issue with the movie is a little more political, as I am very tired of all these Hollywood pinhead acting as if they know what's better for us and telling us what car is better for us to drive while they drive their big monster SUV.

Needless to say I've grown very tired of Hollywood's preachy social commentary films, and they can take it and shove it up their back ends. And I can only see Avatar as such a movie.

To answer the question posed in the subject line, I think you have to ask yourself, "Twenty or thirty years from now, would I pick up this movie and watch it?"

The topic doesn't have anything to do with whether I like the movie or not. It simply poses the question whether "Avatar" has the potential to become a classic. In other words, does it have the potential to stand the test of time and be a definative example of the genre?

XRaysVision got the question right. I've given a fair amount of thought to it (My thought was "will people still be watching this in 50 years,") and I honestly think the answer is No.

It's made a big noise but it doesn't sound to me (I haven't watched it, and don't plan to,) like it has anything of lasting value beyond the visuals. And visuals will advance ridiculously in the next 10 years. From what I hear, the storytelling (which, IMO, should be the central effort of any film) is poor at best.

I imagine that it'll come up in filmography classes and be dissected for its effects, and be acknowledged as a landmark in technological development, but nothing more.

I was listening to the commentary in Aliens a while back (before Avatar hit the theaters), and toward the end Cameron made a comment bemoaning the film's visual effects and how shoddy he thought they looked in comparison to modern works. My immediate thought was "Yeah, but Aliens has secured a place in history as a great film for a variety of reasons, whereas the vast majority of the big-budget snazzy-looking crap we get these days won't even be remembered in 30 years."

And I'm 100% with you, Sargonarhes, about the heavy-handed social commentaries (that's the main reason I don't watch the special edition of The Abyss: WAY too preachy.)

I'm sick of the "effects at the expense of good storytelling" that Hollywood's been pumping out. I have the same problem with vid games, too.

Sounds pretty simple then…you have convinced yourself that a movie you have not seen is going to be one you will not like for whatever reason…so do not watch it.

But if it is your goal to miss any movie that comes with a front line political/social agenda then I suspect your movie going days have come to a close.

Best of luck with your campaign.

:(

"XRaysVision got the question right. I've given a fair amount of thought to it (My thought was "will people still be watching this in 50 years,) and I honestly think the answer is No."

That is the question right? Will it be watched in the future?

The funny thing is this, how many of the movies noted above have been watched by anyone not 40+yrs old, beyond our niche market of gamers?

It seems like I am the great crusader for Avatar, but I am not. I liked it, if you didn't then that is cool. If you are in that group that won't watch it for whatever reason, then that is cool too.

But will it be a classic, to be watched 10, 20, 30, 40 yrs from now? Well time will tell. Hopefully I am around in 40yrs, I would like to see where movies end up in another 40yrs.

No, I haven't convinced myself of anything. Based on ALL the feedback I've been hearing, from a wide variety of sources, I have decided that I would rather spend my money and time on something else. It's called risk assessment.

And what do you mean "my campaign?" Seems you're the one doing the campaigning here.

Avatar sounds like a movie that I will find largely annoying. I don't like flashy movies with poor quality writing, acting, and story. From everything I've heard, it seems very likely that I will do a lot of eye-rolling at bad dialogue, corny plots, predictable outcomes, and wooden acting.

Remember the Star Wars prequels? They were TERRIBLE! The ONLY thing they had going for them was cool visuals and fight sequences, and everything else, the sorts of things that helped make the originals enjoyable, was utter crap. Opinions fell into two camps: the first that thought they were awesome because of the visuals, and the second that thought they were horrible for the reasons I just mentioned. The fact that opinions about Avatar seem to fall into the same two camps speaks volumes to me. I've got little enough time and money as it is to spend either on a movie just in case I might actually kinda like it.

As for "Unobtanium," I thought it was dumb too, but then I also found out that it's an actual term, sort of like our "Handwavium" =]

No offense intended by "your campaign", it was actually a general sort of "the direction you have chosen"…that is why I didn't mention a TMP name…but either way no argument here, spend your money and time as you see fit and let no one, especially me change your mind.

Unobtanium…yes it is a dumb name, I rolled my eyes each time I heard it…yet what would have been preferred? Honestly, would a name like Astatine or Francium as these are some of the rarest natural element on the Earth…Technetium or Promethium are more rare and should be found on Earth but are not. By calling it by a known name would that have made it easier to shallow?

There are floating rocks…islands in the sky…tethered by vast root systems. Looks great and is awe inspiring to see. Maybe they went with Unobtanium because of the whole floating island thing?

Really weak name, but it is a name.

There are plenty of elements in Avatar that are weak, that is true.

There have been several people here that said the same thing in different words, and I agree:

Avatar has made strides in effects and production values that will influence movies from this point on.

Again if you don't want to watch it then don't.

Consider it a color explosion of effects and action all set in a fantastic alien world that resembles a cross between the deep jungle and a barrier coral reef.

If that is not enough then it is not.

I hold no animosity towards anyone who does not want to see it or did not like it, really.

I have tried to express why I liked it, and if that is not enough then no problems here.

Have a great day all. :)

=] No offense taken.

I prefer good stories, acting, and writing. Visuals to me are a backdrop, and rarely make up for any failings in the first three. In fact, good effects usually throw any shortcomings in other departments into sharper relief. Admittedly, it sometimes takes a little while, like it did with the LOTR trilogy…

Movie first, I don't know if it will be a classic or not that jury is still out and have to wait and see if it withstands the test of time as all others did, ground breaking maybe because of the filming technology that others film makers are already lining up to use.

Movie plot is classical, is the same old adage of a weak vs the strong, what the weak ones have the stronger one wants and will just take it regardless of the right and wrongs, and that our history is full of these stories. The story line itself was weak as far as to tell the story it could have more to it, but I think the focus was on the filming and let it tell the story somewhat.

As for the sledgehammer politics sometimes a sledgehammer is needed when a tack hammer just won't do. Film is art and many art pieces have politics behind them or some sort of political view to open one's eye to the view point of the artist, when you go to a jewelry store you did think of that diamond ring you just bought for a love one may have someone's blood on it, or the blood ties your cell phone may have on it, yes that one you have in your pocket or where ever you keep it. Why because we are a grab and take society, and I think the film represents US very well, we don't care about how we get things just so long as WE have it, and We don't want to know the stories behind it. Your cell phone just as one example link and when the truth hurts we try too poo poo on it, or to find other means to dismiss it so that we don't have to feel the guilt for our pleasures.

Let's just say the last movie I've seen at the theaters was the last Star Wars movie, last actually rented one was Beowulf and Grendel with Gerard Butler.
Anything since then I've pretty much been watching bootleg movies downloaded or online.

I'm not sure many of the films mentioned here are really SF anyway. As enjoyable as they are, Alien and Terminator are just slasher films with SF trimmings, for example.

Here are my favourite SF films, in no particular order:

1. The Road
2. Moon
3. Gattaca
4. eXistenZ
5. Vanilla Sky
6. Soylent Green
7. 5th Element
8. Godzilla (not the remake!)
9. Er… that's it!

I think Avatar will be remembered as a landmark film for pushing the special effects envelope, but not as a SF classic. For all its bling, it lacks any iconic visuals, like the remains of the Statue of Liberty rising out of a beach or the epic crawl of the star destroyer entering the picture above our heads.

I don't watch every movie, read every book, or listen to every song. Most of the time, I listen to what other people say and how they say it and make a judgement whether to give it a try or not. Most of the time it's not. There's just too many new things to try, to try them all.

So, before deriding someone for making the judgement not to see the movie, take a look in the mirror. I know that the person you see makes lots of those sorts of decisions all the time. We all do. We have to.

Quite so, Xray. While I'm happy to try something new, I know what I like. I don't need to sit through Michael Bay's next film to know I'll hate it…

It was long, preachy, and pretty tired as far as plot and themes go. The characters were largely devoid of any gray area, anything interesting.

The world – gorgeous, and the effects etc were all cool, even the too-long battle scene at the end.

Acting/writing – ranged from okay (main character, liked him in Terminator Salvation too) to downright laughable (the evil colonel. Seriously? That dude was hilarious, best part of the movie. He couldn't be any more over the top.)

Classic? Not a chance. Entertaining/enjoyable? Unless you're a total scrooge, then yes. However, I'd rather see District 9. That movie was made on a budget 1/5 the size of Avatar's ADVERTISING buget alone.

Whether it's any good or not, it's still a must see. Otherwise you'll miss half the jokes in the Simpsons for the next two years.

You really can't judge it without seeing it. And, you have to see it in 3D.

It's the closest thing to being on an alien world. That's the best reason to see it, frankly. It's an OK movie, but I really will get this one for 3D telly when I get my hands on one.

Once again we see the word "fantasy" used as a pejorative. It's a sci-fi movie. It's harder SF than Trek.

Again, did you read my post?

Where and how did I use "fantasy" as a pejorative? I write fantasy. I don't think the term is pejorative at all. But it has a meaning— it means something that is fanciful, that does not and cannot exist. To many people, "Science Fiction" refers to fiction involving technology or science discoveries that are feasible on some level. It doesn't mean that there aren't a few handwaves or errors, but it does mean that grossly illogical or obviously impossible elements aren't present. "Science Fantasy" means a story told with the technological tropes of Science Fiction, but which does not attempt to be scientifically logical or even possible.

In the above sense, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is "Science Fiction." All of the elements in it are based on real science— everything Jules Verne wrote about was possible, based on science as he understood it, and indeed many things did come about— not least of which, an atomic-powered submarine.

The Time Machine is "Science Fantasy." Nothing H.G. Wells described was possible, even based on the science of his day.

Both are classics of literature, and later, film. Neither is superior to the other; they're just different.

Now, as to Star Trek: In the original series, much of the scientific underpinnings of the series were indeed possible according to science as it was then understood— yes, even the warp drive and the transporters. Some things were wonky— aliens who spoke English, space amoebas, god-like beings in outerspace, etc.— but by and large the general premise of the show was scientifically valid, and remains so. (If you could create a "warp bubble" in space-time, that bubble and its contents could travel FTL.) Of course, when you start looking at individual episodes and movies (especially the later ones), the science fantasy elements come to the fore. The most recent Abrams offering was scientifically silly. (And used its own brand of "unobtainium"— "red matter".) Enjoyable movie, but scientific nonsense.

As to Avatar, a number of the details are "Science Fiction" in the film. But a major premise of the plot— unobtainium— is not. It's "Science Fantasy." That's okay if it is— my top "general SF" movie is Star Wars, which is pure fantasy through and through. And a great film.

I was merely asking whether we were trying to operate under the terms "Science Fiction" or "Science Fantasy," or merely lumping them together under an umbrella term of "general SF."

We seem to be lumping. And that's okay.

And it really doesn't matter what "unobtainium" is, what makes the science bad is that there's no such thing as a "unique deposit" of anything outside of maybe specific forms of life. If some compound exists on one planet, it exists on billions of others. Maybe not all, maybe in differing amounts, but it will exist. I don't care if it's a monopole or a room-temperature semi-conductor (like that's likely), or whatever, if it's in this galaxy, it's going to be all over it, not in just one place. Bad science.

By your reasoning, then, we can find neutronium* if we sift through enough soil? ;) Seriously, mate, it's a movie. Suspension of disbelief is kind of required. Let's not get into the Avatar transfer, the gas giant…

*Yes I know what this is.

No, by my reasoning, I didn't say that at all. I said we can find any substance that exists naturally "all over the place," not "just in one spot." I did not say "on Earth" or "everywhere." In Avatar, human society purports to have interstellar travel at speeds capable of being used for transport and trade. That implies a very wide range of exploration and exploitation possibilities. Yet "unobtainium" supposedly is unavailable anywhere else. Period. Sorry, but I can't buy that premise as scientifically sound. Again, doesn't make the movie bad, just the science.

By the way, there is no such thing as "neutronium." It's a generic term with different meanings in different discussions. So I'm not sure what you think it is. If you mean a substance made only of neutrons, it's never been scientifically established that such a substance does naturally exist. It's a theoretical construct only, rather like saying, "You know, you could build a house out of cheese." Doesn't mean one exists.
If you mean the substance at the core of a neutron star, well, we're not sure what that substance might actually be composed of (it may not actually be neutrons, but other, smaller subatomic particles), but we do know where to find it— in the core of a neutron star, of which there are many more than one. So, not on Earth, no, but not "in only one place" either.

I wouldn't have said that Avatar will be considered a Sci-fi classic because it has had to be the first of its kind.

In much the same way as Jurassic Park will never be a monster movie classic, Avatar has come along with all the whistles and bells but when all is said and done, the story is not a patch on the visuals.

That said, I don't think it will need to be a classic because it will always be heralded as a bit of an effects benchmark (much like Jurassic Park) so it will be remembered for that rather than being a hugely classic sci-fi flick.

Avatar is still brilliant though…but not a classic.

But isn't Jurassic Park considered a classic? Not sure what category it fits in, clearly sci-fi but not a monster/horror film. Then Jurassic Park benefits as it was a book before it became a film, and Michael Chriton is known for doing some research before he writes the book.

I don't consider Jurassic Park a classic. It's not:

1. definitive of the genre

2. Been around long enough

I don't even think that it was particularly ground breaking. Now, don't misunderstand, I love Jurassic Park. I think it's a fun movie and it has re-watch value. It just doesn't fit my personal definiton of what constitutes a classic.

BTW, it isn't even a milestone really. Although the combination of CGI and live action was very good and it was recognized fo that quality, the real ground breaker was Who Framed Roger Rabbit. If you remember the press back then, people were simply astounded at the interaction between the CGI characters and real actors.

That may be but (in my humble opinion) Jurassic Park was the first 'monster' movie to have completely believable creatures in. I would go as far to say that the monsters in JP were the most realistic attempts I've ever seen in any film upto that point and the CGI was a HUGE leap from what went before. For that reason I wouldn't class it as a classic (because there wasn't that little something in the film) but it was a milestone because (for me) it was the first time I truly saw dinosaurs walk the earth.

Roger Rabbit was ground breaking but in a different direction…it certainly didn't excel in skin texture, water effects, surface mapping etc. etc. and that is where the 'ground breaking' ness of JP comes in (a bit like Tully's fur in Monsters Inc).

It always amazes me when people will complain about Avatar's plot and acting in one breath and then hold up a movie like 2001 as an example of a great SF film. Excuse me? Plot? Acting? In 2001? 2001 has no acting! It doesn't even have any characters (except for the computer). It's just a big flashy space travelogue. There's no plot or acting and yet it's a classic. Go figure :)

Ha ha! At least that's one sin I'll never commit. I grew up thinking 2001 was a classic, then I saw it as an adult after many years. NOT a classic, in my book. Certainly of historical and cultural significance, but I have no plans to watch it ever again.

I still trot 2010 out every once in a while, though.

No, by my reasoning, I didn't say that at all. I said we can find any substance that exists naturally "all over the place," not "just in one spot." I did not say "on Earth" or "everywhere." In Avatar, human society purports to have interstellar travel at speeds capable of being used for transport and trade. That implies a very wide range of exploration and exploitation possibilities. Yet "unobtainium" supposedly is unavailable anywhere else. Period. Sorry, but I can't buy that premise as scientifically sound. Again, doesn't make the movie bad, just the science.

Somehow "cheaper for us to get it here than somewhere else" doesn't sound quite as compelling to Joe Popcorn.

As for neutronium, that's a pretty good example of unobtanium. Something that is predictable by theory generally turns out to exist in nature, but which we can't get our hands on (the results would be rather catastrophic). Theory has already predicted other materials such as BECs. Anyway, I'm not going to belabour this point. Compared to most other screen SF, you must agree, Avatar has much better science.

It reminded me of old cowboy movies. White man gets seperated from his mates, taken in by the Indians, learns to appreciate their ways, marries chiefs daughter. Now put that in space and you have Avatar.

So poor film in almost any respect except the graphics. I cringed that Sigourney Weaver stooped to being in Avatar. She is better than that.

I wonder if you beat a dead horse in the forest if it makes a sound?

Avatar started as a classic.
I love it!

Joe

Agreed, it has potential to be a classic…currently it is a great movie, IMO :)

I wonder if you beat a dead horse in the forest if it makes a sound?

Dunno, I quit listening about 3 months ago.

A friend of mine puts Avatar on his list of "movies you need to see for the spectacle," but agrees that there's not really a *story* there. It's a stereotype story, not an archetype story (like the original Star Wars trilogy).

I can agree to that in a general way.

I would like to have all the spectacle and a "real" story…but I suspect that is a tall order :)

Note on "unobtainium".

Of course Cameron, and everyone in the movie business knows what Unobtainium is. It is also called Phlebotinum, fleborinum, pheboltinium, etc.

Unobtainium is one of MANY tropes used in the entertainment business, and ALL scripts are just a collection of the same old memes and tropes stitched together ia fashion that will probably mirror any number of other films. The trick is to dress things up with the right costumes, locations/settings and special effects so as to distract from this fact.

Have a look at the site TVTropes.com google it, as that is not exactly the URL of the site. And I can guarantee you that there exists a trope for EVERY character and setting in the movie AVATAR and that every scene in the movie is a straight trope written into a plot that is just a string of plot tropes hung on a sci-fi trope. Every prop in the movie has some form of trope to it (the most notable is the huge gunship's vulnerable engines), right up to the magnetic anomaly where the final fight took place that allowed the two forces to fight on almost equal footing. The taming of the great beast by the hero of the movie to prove himself to the natives is a HUGE trope (look it up, I don't recall the name of that trope, but it is something like the "Apache torture test" or something like that. I beleive that it was named after a scene in the movie "A man called Dog")

Anyway, all movies are just collections of tropes. What makes a movie REALLY GREAT, is when it invents a new trope (like The Godfather and the horse's head)

Oh…

1. Bladerunner
2. Ghost in the Shell
3. The Martix Trilogy
4. Akira
5. Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex: Solid State Society
6. Star Wars
7. A.I.
8. Silent Running
9. Logan's Run
10. Escape from NY