₦airaland Forum

newjosboy:
The ban not necessary. Me I just scroll past all their 'analysis'. Abeg make una free am. How his ban wan epp una?

You've poor sense of humor.

[quote author=KoiceReloaded post=72189792][/quote]Mad man. You're still posting instead of pleading, abi?

Ishilove:
All in favour say 'Aye!'

armadeo:
i like the depth to which ,movies are analysed here.

honestly i watch movies purely for the entertainment and relaxation irrespective of how believable it is....


lets enjoy the movies for what they are

Me too. Na since I come this thread, na em the stubborn lad called Koice spoiled me with all these genre matter. Before, I didn't know up to 4 subgenres, nowadays, I'm here arguing about genres. Koice is a negative influence on us. He deserves a lengthy ban despite the information I've gleaned from his educative posts.

KoiceReloaded:
Wow, you hit it right on the head.

Used to be a homophobe in my younger years, but when I lost my christian faith, I started to broaden my mind, and the more I explore, the more I realized that religion is nothing more than mental slavery that binds us and effectively restrict us from thinking freely, it keeps us from exploring unlimited possibilities.

This experience forced me to also realize that homophobia is an ignorance/mental-refusal to realize/acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that;

- people have no choice about being gay.
- gay people were born that way.
- there is nothing wrong with being gay, just like there is nothing wrong with being straight.
- sexuality is a spectrum
- gay people are no different from others.

Gays just prefer their own gender as sexual partners, that's all. If only homophobes can broaden their mind and wake up like I did, the world will be so much better for it.

I'm a Christian and will be one till the day I die, but I'll never allow religion/Christianity erode my humanity/tolerance. I'm too enlightened to support the discrimination against my fellow human because of different sexual orientation, while I condemn the discrimination against my race which still exist till today.

Anyone that supports the draconian law jailing gays in Naija should never speak against racism, Boko Haram's killing of non-Muslims, apartheid or slavery. All of them are siblings/partners in crime. Live and let live as long as your beliefs doesn't harm another human.

KoiceReloaded:
Once upon a time (even the present), some white people see the black race as sub-humans, just because of the color of their skins. MLK fought and died so that African-americans can be treated as equal by the white man. Nelson Mandela spent more than 2 decades in prison just because he wanted the natives to have equal rights as the white man.

Now, let's substitute black man with gay people in this context. This is what they are fighting for right now. They are fighting for their rights to be treated as humans and given equal rights to live their life as they please. Liberal countries have given them these rights, while some super conservative sh*tholes like Nigeria still think they live in 500 BC.

You need to get out more, your mentality is very archaic and gross. Elephants, Dolphins, Bonobo Chimp are some of the animal species that engage in frequent gay sex. It's a fact of life, so get used to it.

Stop wasting your time on that ignorant man. He's the type that condemns slavery by the white and support death to a fellow because of his different sexual orientation. If you ask them why homosexuals should be jailed, they will quote the scriptures as if everybody is religious. As if some people aren't atheists. The same scriptures condemned stealing, lying etc., but they're okay with every other sin except the ones they can't stand. Our leaders pillage our natural resources, doesn't provide basic amenities, destroy our destinies, but the dumb backward Nigerians are busy attacking innocent people because they're gays.

They condemn discrimination from the whites or when it affects them, but are busy discriminating others. Hypocrites.

KoiceReloaded:
It's a huge subgenre and overlaps with several other genres. It says silent most often than not, because there are louder genres and themes at play, like mysteries, drama, adventure and action.

At the highlighted, you mean The Social Network cuz I'm can't find any movie called Social Media anywhere on the internet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Social_science_fiction_films

In the link above, visit the "Films about technological impact" subcategory, The Social Network is right there.


As for Enemy of The State, the movie is based on a sci-fi novel of the same name.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/315239.An_Enemy_of_the_State
I

Like one reviewer said, "It's a science fiction book written from a libertarian viewpoint..."



Anyhoo, let's just end this here. I've already said everything that had to be said on the subject.

Yes, I meant The Social Network. Well then, with above link, suffice to say 99% of modern movies has to be sci-fi then.


Let's move on from the topic.

KoiceReloaded:
You don yan the whole movie finish naa, nothing remain again.

LMAO.

KoiceReloaded:
You know, this blunder you just made is exactly one of the reasons tv shows and movies are grouped separately. They have differing dynamics working for them. For instance, tv shows is long running, and thus can accommodate several factors like multiple themes, multiple plots and subplots, arc overlap and many more. It can even switch genres depending on plot development. And episodes can be completely standalone or connected, serialized or procedural. In short, tv series is a complex work of art. That's why I said it's a mixed bag, a grey area basically, and it's a common novice mistake to directly compare them with movies. They're not compatible. Anyhoo, I don't expect you to understand or agree sha. I'm perfectly content with leaving this tiny piece of trivia out here.

I also gave movie examples like Enemy of the State and Social Media. In short, any basic technology movie out there that involves technologies like phone, laptop, computer, use of CCTVs or cameras in relation with human activities basically falls into your social science fiction subgenre, and thus, can be classified as sci-fi movies, which basically involves so many modern day movies. Safe you say almost all movies these days are sci-fi.

oyetpel:
APOSTLE. (thriller)

Still can't keep up with you guys here, but i had to drop the movie. Netflix finally came through.

You will stay glued to your screen till the end.

I'm still skeptical about watching this movie. My mind tells me it'll be average despite the praises about it on here.

KoiceReloaded:
How are you not getting this?? I've already explained that contemporary science fiction or social science fiction like it's more popularly known is a subgenre that covers wide range of social commentary like anthropological sci-fi to, dystopian sci-fi to post-apocalyptic, etc... I don't know how else to stress this. Social science doesn't always have to involve futuristic technologies, but the impact of technology in our corrective lives and society, like in the present. Did you even go through the wiki link I pasted underneath the PS?

I remember now something you said about contemporary science only being present in novels. Most Movie ideas are based on novels, and the genre they come from, are they not?. Any genre you see in novels, you will most likely see in motion pictures adaptation. It's a matter of simple logic, really.

As for 24, it's episodic, thus a grey area. It's more of a mixed bag because every episode don't have the same theme. Some episodes are centred on gadgets and hacking, and others on some other things that don't directly involve technology, but more on survival. Same logic can be apply to Strike Back and the rest of similar tv shows, alright? So, categorically, they are not sci-fi.


Can't believe I'm still arguing about this...

Sorry, bro, the highlighted excuse does not hold water. Whether each episode has technology in it or not, as long as technologies are used at many episodes of the show, with your analogy, it becomes a sci-fi TV show which is preposterous, no offense. Same goes for movies like the Social Media and Enemy of the State where technology/computer were used.

troubleseller:
Ah. U don forget the moniker?

I no forget am.

troubleseller:
Ah. U don forget the moniker?

I no forget am.

KoiceReloaded, from one of the links you provided

The story of a missing teenager and the hunt to find her is suspenseful, believable and difficult to predict. Innovatively telling its story through IM, texts, YouTube, Facebook and the tech gadgetry we use to communicate with on a daily basis, Searching is Indian-American director Aneesh Chaganty’s debut, and highlights a consummate knowledge of filmmaking that makes him a name to watch out for.

https://m.scmp.com/culture/film-tv/article/2168124/searching-film-review-john-cho-hi-tech-mystery-thriller?edition=international

Note the use of the phrase, DAILY BASIS.

JeromeBlack:
How market?

Troublemaker. You just wan ruin Koice's argument winning streak.

KoiceReloaded:
For those that are still doubting Searching has something to do with tech, or that tech didn't play any major role:


https://variety.com/2018/film/asia/sony-searching-rise-convention-john-cho-1202871254/

https://m.scmp.com/culture/film-tv/article/2168124/searching-film-review-john-cho-hi-tech-mystery-thriller?edition=international

https://m.gulfnews.com/leisure/movies/reviews/searching-film-review-a-riveting-and-enigmatic-tech-thriller-1.2282753

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/searching-is-a-technological-marvel-heres-how-they-made-it/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/movies/searching-movie-technology.html

https://nowtoronto.com/movies/reviews/searching-john-cho/


Don't argue with your grandfather

Nobody is arguing that technology didn't play a part in the movie, all we are saying is, if we're to judge by the role of basic technology, then every film out there that uses basic technology in the plot automatically becomes a sci-fi movies, e.g 24 series.

KoiceReloaded:
Lolz. It's not merely by looking, you gotta know what to look for and where to look. You ain't looking at the right places.

On 007, go through this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy-Fi_(subgenre)



On Searching, it's a contemporary sci-fi, buddy. You don't have to believe it. It is what it is. Maybe in about 5 to 10 years period, when you google it again, you will see it the IMBd sci-fi category lists. A lot of experts don't know much about it right now, as it's a relatively new movie.



My brother whom is into scriptwriting taught me all I know about genres. I wish there's a way I can get him to come school y'all on this topic. Anyhoo, I'm done trying to explain. What you don't know, you don't know.



PS: FYI, contemporary science is better known as social science fiction. Like I said, it's not merely by looking, you gotta know what you're looking for.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Social_science_fiction_films

On 007, it's listed under a subgenre of SPY-FY because it contains elements of Sci-fi which I agree with (like Bond's watches with laser beams that can cut through metal objects, or magnets that can deflect bullets), but it's listed as spy-fi not Sci-fi. Clearly, you can see the distinction here. But the argument on whether Bond movies can be sci-fi is credible enough because of the use of technology yet to be produced in reality (exactly what JeromeBlack was trying to explain on why technology in Searching was just a basic technology used by all), so I can give you that.


But for Searching, nah, I disagree. Some of The technology used in Bond movies are not regular technologies, while EVERY technology or science in Searching are basic technologies even kids can operate. It's just use of cam recorders and social media and phone calls. Nothing irregular about it.

In conclusion, if you insist that Searching is a sci-fi movie, then you must agree that TV shows like 24 and Strike Back where more advanced technologies like hacking of computers/phones and satellite images are used in real time to solve crimes, are both sci-fi movies. Which shows the level of the ridiculousness you'll be stooping to with such assertions.

Kaycee7:
Sony

Sony partnered with MCU to produce Venom. Google it.

KoiceReloaded, having throughly read through a number of sites, I finally agree that JeromeBlack is right on this one. Searching is no sci-fi neither are James Bond movies and a lot of other movies that the involves the use of computers, science or technology. If that were to be case, that means TV series like Strike Back which also uses computers/technology will be classified as Sci-fi because there's nothing special used in Searching technology-wise that hasn't been used in Strike Back and a lot of other movies.

I also read on contemporary Sci-fi and from what I read, it wasn't under the subgenres of Sci-fi in movies category but rather in novels. None of the sites I read listed contemporary sci-fi as subgenre, but HARD Sci-fi was listed with Interstellar given as an example.

I even went further to Google 2018 sci-fi movies and none mentioned Searching in any way. Even one site listed sci-fi movies that are yet to drop this year and Searching was nowhere to be found.


Based on my thorough investigation, I agree with JeromeBlack and a host of every other sites that doesn't place Searching as a sci-fi.

newjosboy:
What do you guys mean by "anti-hero"? In my own lay man's mind, I am thinking it is a "villain". Hope I am right.

Yes. Gangster Squad are bunch of villains carrying out a good cause.

KoiceReloaded:
Contemporary, under HARD Sci-fi. The science applied is factual (can be proven).

All right. Will research more on it (Sci-fi subgenres are way too many, I just found out), but so far, the categorization checks out.

KoiceReloaded:
Oh, it's super easy to poke holes in his assertions using his number 3 definition as my foothold, but I sensed that he just wanted to argue for argument sake, and I wasn't in the mood.

I have a busy day tomorrow, so I'll try to make this as brief as possible

First, what is science fiction? It's not something you can give a straightforward definition to - it has several layers to it like multiple major (and minor) subgenres and themes. There is hard science fiction, there is science fiction fantasy, and speculative fiction. You can google all these, I'm not making it up.

Now, let's take them one after the other:
- Hard Science fiction: This is a science that is sound and well researched, with emphasis on scientific law accuracy. It can be futuristic like Interstellar, or contemporary like Children of Men.
- Science Fiction Fantasy: A very popular genre that blends science fiction with fantasy. It contains elements which violates the scientific laws of the real word. Notable examples of science fiction fantasy movies are the Star Wars franchise, and The Matrix trilogy.
- Speculative fiction: It's pretty much like science fantasy, but on crack. It encompasses several genres like dystopia, superhero, horror, apocalyptic, supernatural fiction, etc. Notable movies are Deadpool and The Exorcist

From the above analysis, it's obvious that science fiction is a very broad genre, and most certainly cannot be quantified by mere three completely-devoid-of-context definitions picked from the internet (no offense, Jeromeblack). To define sci-fi, you have to first understand the cogs and torques and pistons that drive the engine.

Okay. So, which of major subgenres of Sci-fi can Searching be categorized under?

SAMBHOSS:
yeah, the anticipation was really high....isn't this the first movie that's about an anti-hero alone....
I think....

I don't think so.
Deadpool and Suicide Squad are anti-hero movies.

KoiceReloaded:
Oh glorious nostalgia. Patrick Jane, Agent Lisbon, Rigsby, Van Pelt, and the ever deadpan Agent Cho, and of course, Red John. I really loved that show.

Anyhoo,

Castle, White Collar, Elementary, The Blacklist, Hannibal, Lie to Me (Pretty similar, cancelled after 3 seasons but worth the watch), True Detective (Season 1), Psych, Numbers, Life, Monk, Life on Mars, Perception, Sherlock, Luther, Forever (cancelled after season 1 but pretty ace).

Till today, I'm still gutted at the way such a fantastic show was cancelled.

SAMBHOSS:
aside the bad ratings......which I think Venom doesn't deserve...it's grossing

it's grossed $377m worldwide.....

You shouldn't be surprised, superhero movies with a touch from MCU hardly ever flops at the box office. Add to the fact that Venom was highly anticipated, you'll understand why it was never going to flop despite the low ratings.

KoiceReloaded:
Smh

But with the standard definition of Sci-fi, he made good points. I was hoping to see you prove his points wrong or not entirely true.

KoiceReloaded:
Sci-fi doesn't always have to be futuristic, you know? Sometimes, it's occurring in the present, and the science and tech used are the ones we use today. We call these kind of movies and tv shows, contemporary science fictions.

Searching certainly qualifies as a contemporary sci-fi because lots of 21st century electronic gadgets were used, and collectively played the most important part in plot advancements, no?

Sometimes, there are silent genres attached to movies, and it's up to you to figure them out. For instance, the tv show, Mr. Robot, contains some element of cyberpunk, but is categorized as drama/thriller. However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's also a sci-fi, because of the cyberpunk aspect.

Bottom line, there are things you've to figure out for yourself, but only when you know what you're looking for.

Alright then.

KoiceReloaded, Searching wasn't categorized under Sci-fi.

JeromeBlack:

A good reason why I stopped posting links. The bans and the aftermath.

I once posted a link to a film on another thread for one clown like this. I got banned for posting the link. When I came back from the ban, I asked the clown if he enjoyed the movie because it came at a cost. The clown first ignored me. Four weeks later, the clown came begging for another link.

OMG!! I haff died.

Friedyokes:
"The darkest minds"


3/10 for showing up



....steaming pile of garbage ....good idea ....sheety story and even sheetier acting ...oh God ....my mb ooo

Despite the warnings, you were still scammed. LMAO.

AdorableJosh:
Blindspot has finally gone to the dogs, it's a pity, loved the show. Might just give it up if this silly narrative doesn't change by mid season.

The series tanked after season 1 and kept getting worse in subsequent seasons. I'll just try my extreme best to follow it up this season and if I don't see any improvement, I'll pull the plug on it, same way I'm going to discontinue watching The Walking Dead if I see no tangible improvement this coming season.