10 Dumb Moments in Sci-Fi Cinema

Once people overhear some pale guy with wizard hair explaining how a light saber simply isn’t possible, as the exposed plasma from the device would irradiate every living organism with a 5-kilometer radius, what are people supposed to think? “Sexy?”

Yet, part of being a sci-fi fan is being its harshest critic, and so we can’t help ourselves. —Adam Berliant10 Dumb Moments in Sci-Fi Cinema (MSN)

I remember when I originally saw The Black Hole in the theatre, there was a little boy of about three years a few rows behind me. In the climactic sequence in which the Cygnus is swallowed by the titular black hole, and swirls down a firey red whirlpool, the boy shouted, “They’re going down the toilet bowl!”

And he was right — that’s exactly what it looked like.

Thanks for the suggestion, Rosemary.

View Comments

  • Okay, I remember SIII now, but I must have missed SIV totally. Maybe I'll check it out in the videostore sometime.

  • Dennis, Comic book writers sort of have control over the product. They lay out how they want a story to go, some dialogue and possible images per panel. The artists and colorists then artistically express what the script calls for while sometimes working with the writer(s) and then the writer comes back through and touches up dialogue. Great story + Bad artwork = Bad issue. Average story + Great artwork = Good book.

    Superman III was about Richard Pryor helping to build a supercomputer and giving Superman a chunk of synthetic kryptonite, which turns Superman bad and triggers the awesome Clark Kent vs. Superman battle at the end.

    Superman IV was about Lex Luthor creating Nuclear Man from a strand of Superman's hair, a nuclear warhead, and the sun. The time travel incident from the first movie is not mentioned again and is kept as a secret between Superman and the audience.

  • Ah yes, now I remember that line about Kent's death. Still, note that once they established all those powers, in the 2nd Superman movie there was nothing left to do but make him lose those powers in order to be with Lois. From what I can see, comic writers tend to think in terms of series, and correct me if I'm wrong, but they have more control over their product (fewer people involved). Even if the screenwriter had thought of a much better solution, there would be half a dozen bigwigs who could look at a storyboard and demand a change -- something that looks better on screen, is more exciting for a one-shot, self-contained movie, but which (in this case, in my opinion) set a precedent that caused problems for the future.

    I don't remember Superman III or IV very well at all, but was the time-travel thing mentioned?

  • Dennis, I can accept fantastic solutions and problems, but where I get really bent out of shape are inaccuracies between movies and comics.

    However, I believe the screenwriters foreshadowed Superman's solution to Lois's death when Jonathan Kent died at the beginning of the movie and Clark says, "All those powers...all those things I can do and I couldn't even save him." The other opportunity to foreshadow was Jor-El's voiceover explaining Krypton's fate and Clark's powers.

    Because Clark's powers are not fully developed yet, fantastic solutions are not possible, but as Superman--anything is possible (especially in the comics). But I agree that sci-fi and fantasy require a "willing suspension of disbelief."

  • Bobby, if you give Spider-Man the ability to use his web that way, then you have to recognize that power is open to him to use again in the future. Fine.

    If you give Superman the ability to turn back time, regardless of the stupid physics involved, then you have to leave open the option of time travel in the future. And if you do that, that kills suspense.

    I have a difficult time accepting the philosophy of the Matrix, wherein both the good guys and the bad guys are limited to interacting within a certain restrictive world, but once you accept that, you can run with the story.

    Superman didn't involve time travel until it became necessary for him to go back and save Lois -- the device was inserted at the dramatic climax, and apart from a voice-over (which could have been added in post-production) from Jor-El telling Superman he is forbidden to interfere with human history (or words to that effect), that solution came out of nowhere.

    If the screenwriter can't think of a good way to bring Lois back from the dead, then having Superman pull her limp form out from the car and KISS her, then have her wake up. Maybe she was dead and he was trying to revive her... maybe he can tell she's not dead and he's just stealing a kiss while he has the chance... I dunno.

    Star Trek ran into the time travel problem, but their "Alternate Universe" plot gimmick (which they milked in Deep Space 9) was a better story device, since they showed that alternate world being affected by actions that our characters performed there.

    If I recall correctly, they even sent alternate world characters from their universe into ours (though where on her uniform Kira kept the big chunky "turn the transporter into an alternate world portal" gadget I don't know).

    So... we love Sci-Fi because we love seeing fantastic solutions to fantastic problems. But when the solution comes out of the blue, and then promptly dropped, the experience is cheapened.

  • Being a lifelong Superman fan, I believe the record needs to be set straight on the whole "Superman turns back time" scene because it seems like most people forget two key concepts about Superman: The Movie. One is that it is FUN (keeping Lois dead would have been a huge downer). Two is that it stays true to the comic books right down to its solutions to problems. Turning back time by temporarily reversing Earth's spin is an acceptable solution from a comic book perspective. It is no different than Spider-Man stopping a train from going into the harbor by webbing himself to multiple buildings and holding it together with his arms sprawled out (as in Spider-Man 2). Some part of us needs to stay six forever.