Home
| Search
| Now Playing
| News
| My Movies
| Games
| Boards
| Help
| US Movie Showtimes
| Top 250
| Register
| Recommendations
| Widgets
Box Office
| Index
| Trailers
| Jobs
|
IMDbPro.com - Free Trial
| IMDb Resume
Copyright © 1990-2008
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videoscast e troupe completicuriositàofficial sitesfrasi memorabiliOverview
Info principalidettagli combinaticast e troupe completiProduzione/Distribuzioneepisode listepisodes castepisode ratings... by rating... by votestv schedulePremi & e recensioni
Recensioni utenticommento/recensioneRecensioni dai NewsgroupawardsVotialtri film raccomandatimessage boardTrama & Frasi
riassunto della tramaparole chiaveRecensione Amazon.comfrasi memorabiliInfo divertenti
curiositàerroricolonna sonoratitoli pazziversioni alternativeCollegamenti ad altri filmFAQIncassi & e altre info
acquisto di prodottibox office/businessdate di uscitaluoghi delle ripresespecifiche tecnicheversione laserdiscversione DVDinformazioni bibliograficheArticoli newsMateriale promozionale
slogantrailers and videosposter e linkGalleria fotograficaLink esterni
link di cinemaofficial sitesvariefotografiesound clipsvideo clipsIMDb user comments for
"Masters of Science Fiction" (2007)
44 out of 55 people found the following comment useful :-
Finally! Some real sci-fi., 19 agosto 2007
Author: anchorite@geocities.com da Albuquerque, USA
It's so refreshing to get back to a show with some real, pure science fiction. This isn't your "aliens, robots, and spaceships" sci-fi of Star Wars (more properly called space opera), it's not filled with meaningless techno-babble that grabs randomly at today's scientific buzzwords like Star Trek, or your partly supernatural plots of The Outer Limits, but short stories from proved science fiction writers of the past several decades put to film, and so far it's well done.
It doesn't concentrate on special effects, but more the human questions, both spiritual and political, that advances in science or future fortunes force us to answer. That is the type of thinking man's (and woman's) science fiction that made the genre a success in America in the 1950's and when most of the greatest writers, and even the movie plots of today, got their start. It says, "What would YOU do in this situation?" "People can create androids that think. Do you treat them like humans?" Or "Aliens demand we decide whether we trust other nations or risk certain nuclear annihilation. What would you do?" So far the acting has been really good, using first rate movie actors, with the first episode starring Judy Davis, the second Terry O'Quinn, and the third Anne Heche and Malcolm MacDowell.
Unfortunately for the show I've seen a lot of negative comments about it from the self-appointed judges of all that is quality TV since it doesn't fit in the cookie cutter mold made for it by all the previous "science fiction" shows that showcase a lot of large breasted female cyborgs, space dogfights, laser gunfights, and alien forehead prosthetics. Seeking only escapist entertainment, they claim it has politics and real issues, so it must be worthless. I say, if it doesn't have those, what worth is it? But it is the only true science fiction show in recent years, and one that I intend to continue watching closely for as long as it is on.
11 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
From the first episode, a show that may suffer from Adaptation., 7 agosto 2007
Author: William Ronke da North Carolina
Masters of Science Fiction, now showing on ABC, takes short stories from award-winning Sci-Fi authors and adapts them into hour-long television episodes. It advertises itself as a successor to The Twilight Zone.
Twilight Zone and Outer Limits, in their day, had a similar format, but I'm not sure how devoted they were to using pre-existing material. It seems to me that many of the episodes for TZ or OL were written _for_ the show rather than _before_ the show. Herein lies what may be the problem for this series: Adaptation. Think of the problems people have when their favorite novels get turned into horrid screenplays, and make those problems TV-sized.
I happen to actually know the author of the first episode's short story (John Kessel, one of my professors), and I have not had a chance to hear his take on it. But from someone who is familiar with his writing style (although I had not read this particular story), I can say honestly that I saw traces of Kessel's style here. I imagine that the story he wrote was quite good; after all, the _story_ of the first episode was quite good.
But the lens of adaptation botched it for me. Acting was heavy-handed. Background music was over-dramatic and annoying. The teleplay made the "BIG SECRET" try and shock the audience, rather than letting the truths of the setting become a course of discovery.
On a side note, as much as Stephen Hawking is a genius, he would be a much more comprehensible narrator if his narration were subtitled. He is an appropriate choice, but his mechatronic voice is terribly difficult to understand.
If my fellow commenters happen to view this episode again, I would encourage them to not see it in a political lens. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but what is shown in "A Clean Escape" is not a Liberal/Conservative issue, but a Moral one. Don't assume that this is some ABC Liberal propaganda or nonsense of that kind.
I reserve some hope for the rest of this series. The first episode disappointed me, but ABC can make excellent shows. They can also make terrible shows.
6/10
2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Really un-American show, 4 febbraio 2008
Author: Sly Golovanov da Moscow, Russia
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
From the first sight this show is very different from the others sci-fi shows. The difference in a nutshell - no running, no shooting, no fighting. Instead of it - thinking. No wonder many of the US watchers have found this show "boring" and switched to more usual time killers.
It seems that creators of the show tried to make people think. And subjects happened to be uncomfortable and hard. Why do we fight each other? Why don't we see that all is connected, that all people are the same, that we all are the same humans. And what is the human, anyway? How one human can think that he is better than other, that he knows what others should do?
Great SF masters brought up these questions.
In the series American presidents shown as a representatives of the Americans attitude - they are stronger, they are better, so they could dictate other people and tell them what to do. And of course, the consequences of such delusions are also shown - as the results of the nuclear world war (Clean Escape), or the world just on the brink of war (The Awakening).
Those and other important questions are described in the books these series are based upon. But unfortunately, they are too heavy. And the watchers need something lighter. Don't think, just watch - nowadays motto.
While it is so, the happy days of humanity are still far away.
7 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
so far predictable, 12 agosto 2007
Author: Scott_E_Mantooth da United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
Mixing political agendas and science fiction is risky. Especially when you underestimate the intelligence of your target audience. The first two episodes (both anti-war...both indicating Americas guilt in both) of this series are not good indications that we can expect things to improve very much if at all. The shows attempt at blurring the lines of current events, political agendas (reguardless of political affiliations),fictional plausibility, and product potential advertising is disappointing. Has it been done before? Sure. Has it ever worked? Yes and no. When it works it can be both funny and creepy at the same time. When it fails, it goes down in flames. The sequence of the episodes may be at fault (there are others to be sure, but lets be fair) back to back episodes dealing with war is a just a little bit obvious. The episodes are longer than they need to be, considering the material given, a bit more character depth would be nice, and less dependence on the special effects when the story slows down. Not everyone has the attention span of a gnat guys, tell a good story and we'll watch, otherwise we'll look elsewhere.
31 out of 70 people found the following comment useful :-
How is this different from the recent Outer Limits? (episodes 1, 2, 3 & 4), 6 agosto 2007
Author: rixrex da United States
It's not different by much, except it's not nearly as good. The pre-show hype from ABC was that it was the best series since the TWILIGHT ZONE. They must have been writing that hyperbole with their heads in the Twilight Zone.
The narrator is Stephen Hawking, using his quasi-mechanical voice, but otherwise just like an Outer Limits episode. That isn't terrible in itself, but certainly not original.
The opening and titles sequences are modernized with fancy graphics, etc, otherwise they are similar. Narration ends with a warning or social observation, similar to Outer Limits, yet more heavy-handed.
The first episode shown was obviously the program's producers and writers attempt at topical political statement, and as such it was ham-fisted and preachy, and ludicrous as well, and about as topical as the Berlin wall. The recent Outer Limits series also had a political bent, yet was often more subtle and earnest in presentation.
This initial episode quickly became predictable, and ultimately boring, and showed a surprisingly limited range for actor Sam Waterston, who easily can be much better. Judy Davis was good here yet not nearly as good as she can be.
Don't believe the ABC promo baloney, and remind yourself that this is the same network that trashed Kolchak:The Night Stalker with that loser remake of a fine series.
Episode 2: Viewing of the second episode ultimately left the same impression as the first. While initially promising, and a much better use of actors and a wider, a more involved setting, this episode succumbed to the same preachy, heavy-handed political dogma that marred the first one. In fact, this episode was less subtle, more absurd and more strident in it's denouncement of US policy, as well as naive and unrealistic about other nations' motives. (My more detailed commentary is available under the specific episode title, and those who wish to vote negatively for political reasons should do so there)
Episode 3: A social statement of intrinsic value, yet not truly interesting nor captivating. Did not dislike it, but did not find that it really captured effectively the modern pop-culture mentality it mocked. The same material has been handled better in other series, but of episodes 1, 2 and 3, this one had more worthiness. Unfortunately, a great Twilight Zone was being shown on another channel about a man who is becoming "nobody" to all around him, and that amplified the weaknesses of this series.
Episode 4: The best of the four episodes takes the series to 'where it has not been before', meaning a decent and above average effort. Maintains the emphasis on commentary, this time it is more social than political, and is much less strident and dogmatic, and hence plays well. This rather thoughtful and well-acted episode causes me to raise my overall vote by two points. The only problem is that the ending is rather vague, and could have been more distinct, but it's a satisfactory episode regardless. The best was saved for last.
13 out of 36 people found the following comment useful :-
Brilliant, 14 agosto 2007
Author: Solange da United States
They truly are Masters Of Science Fiction! Let me first of all say that i love the tittle...and i don't like commercials so i had to download the episodes and watched them commercial free. The 1st episode was so great and words cant describe how good it was.This is so far the best show on ABC(for me of course). But i didn't get how the 1st episode ended,but i loved it(i already said that.lol). My fav one was the second one:It was about, in my theory,understanding each other and help each other.I like it at the end when everyone understands each others languages(i guess what ) "The Thing" was trying to tell the was that they should just be friends. Can you imagine where everybody knows every language in the world?
Cant wait for the next episode!!!
Greatest Sci-fi show ever(yeah Right)
MASTERS OF SCIENCE FICTION ROCKS
8 out of 33 people found the following comment useful :-
Doomed from the start!, 5 agosto 2007
Author: machineit da United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
Greetings,
The show should have been titled "Masters of Doom and Gloom," or better yet "Master of Liberal Fiction!" It was slow, boring and your typical end of the world at the hands of mankind crap.
I can't understand why they insist on making political statements rather than good science fiction. There are thousands of plots out there that they could use, why use a tired worn out one.
Bringing in big named talent and using Stephen Hawking does not give credibility to poor writing and tired plots. Please don't waste your time with this one.
How about we all grow-up. Or, maybe just the Hollywood liberals!
Mike
23 out of 67 people found the following comment useful :-
A poor poor effort with far too much propaganda and politics., 12 agosto 2007
Author: bkilroy da United States
The first episode was OK for awhile but it dragged on and on and on. The point, once made, was weak and completely unoriginal. About the only really creative part of the first episode was the way in which they tried to hide the point (and the plot) until near the end. By that time I had stopped caring.
The second episode was nothing short of a cheap politically motivated lopsided propagandistic take-off of the 1960's short story (The General Zapped an......) which was set in the Vietnam war. OK, so I left the rest of the title of the short story out (it would spoil what there is of the plot - I present it here exactly as it was presented in the opening credits. The special effects were uninspired. The short story was better.
This series, so far has been a huge disappointment. Beginning with the too too short "Intro" by the much celebrated Stephen Hawking and ending with the plots and stories that are more likely to put a person to sleep than they are to provoke any thought.
The remaining two episodes includes one by the well known Sci-Fi writer Harlan Ellison - who is equally celebrated for his rather vocal negative opinion of the TV medium. So what happened Mr. Ellison? I still have not forgotten the short TV series (1970's) called "The Legend of the Starlost". Or has Cordwainer Bird decided to give it a go one more time. In any case, for those of you who have never read Mr. Ellison's works you definitely need to - preferably before watching his Masters of Science Fiction episode. Just don't read Ellison too close to bedtime, you'll never get to sleep. He's that good.
The Masters of Science Fiction is a poor effort and a financial boondoggle. The producers should be ashamed of themselves for putting it on.
15 out of 89 people found the following comment useful :-
Does Al Gore have anything to do with the production?, 20 agosto 2007
Author: DWBeers da United States
I read in one comment that it seemed more "masters of liberal fiction" than science fiction AND I would agree. After painfully sitting through three episodes I would not be surprised to see a cameo of Al Gore in some global warming themed episode. LOL What is next? Maybe a "science fiction" episode on the humanitarian benefits of abortion or maybe even some homosexual alien invaders that show mankind the errors of heterosexuality...
I will continue watching as I am an avid sci-fi fanatic. I hope the series improves; however, from what I have seen thus far I will most likely have a continuing painful experience watching this series...
Add another comment
Related Links