Spoilers What are your unpopular Sci-Fi & Fantasy Opinions?

Get no argument from me on that one.

I think I can agree with this to an extent too, though I think it's more down to the character of Kirk having been written a long time ago - especially for TOS and the first few movies, after TSFS, and apart from bits of TUC he was just 'Shatner' to me. Picard was so different, but brilliant, and I like that Sisko had a few shades of grey to him in later DS9 episodes. I do still love Kirk, but I don't think he was as interesting as the other two if that makes sense.

I can't agree with this. I see ANH as one of the greatest films ever made and is in my personal top 3. Lucas isn't a great director, granted, and I concede there's probably some nostalgia/childhood memories that help drive my opinion but I've never thought of the film as overrated. It was an absolute game changer.

Yep. I just can't get on with it either, or it's sequel. Both just left me cold and bored me to tears.

I would agree with Temple of Doom, which is a ridiculous, preposterous, borderline racist movie. Again I love it still but this time I would say it's driven almost entirely by nostalgia. It's entertaining still but I have become much more aware of it's flaws as I've got older.

Raiders, though I can't agree with. I think it's a much grittier, realistic, better made movie than all the rest of the Indy films, and has a timeless quality to it that I think the other two simply don't have. Masterpiece level for me.

One of my unpopular opinions was just this, in fact, I view both films in pretty much the same regard as the original.

 

Another unpopular opinion to add. I like Highlander II the Quickening. I think it's not such a bad movie.
(i refer to the UK cut of the movie which is different to the original cut because it follows the plot points of the original but adds extra footage which would later be seen in the Directors cut)
It's actually the first highlander movie I watched so that might be why I like it. Of course it's not as good as the first but I give it credit for how wacky it gets. It doesn't play it safe.

 

Not at all. There's a reason innumerable TOS fans who waited for a decade for the live-action return of their heroes were so disappointed by TMP: it lacked the mix of TOS' well-known serious sci-fi drama and the heart / believable character relationships that fueled interest in their experiences / perspective of the situations they had to deal with, which had much to do with TOS becoming a cultural phenomenon. The TOS movie series is one of those rare examples of the second entry actually setting the series on the right course.

Yes, that is an unpopular opinion, and for good reason. Picard and Sisko? Heh.

2 and 4 can be flushed down the toilet.

Well observed. Only the dull did not understand why the name resonated with / changed Batman's view of Superman.

 

I have tired to reconcile my view on the two sequels. This is partially supported by the fact that I played the video game "The Path of Neo" which supports good understanding of a lot of the different characters and concepts in the films (like corruption in the Matrix resulting in vampires, werewolves, and ghosts). But, they cannot compare to the original simply because many concepts in 1 are left aside for the continued conflict between Neo and Smith.

 

I think the point of this thread is not to criticize the unpopular opinions of others.

 

I loved how they expanded on things in the sequels. I thought it was clever and creative, and despite not being a religious person in any way, I really enjoyed the ambiguity of this side of the films and how it let you make your interpretations of it, which left me both satisfied and wanting more. For me, the Matrix trilogy is one of the great science fiction movie experiences.

Like the thread says though, 'unpopular opinion'

 

What I'd say for TMP is that yes, it is a very good movie. But no, it is definitely not the "most Star Trek" of them all. If you define "Star Trek" specifically as TNG...then ok. But since Star Trek is most decidedly NOT TNG, I strongly disagree on that basis.

 

On this point, I totally agree.

 

And it's nice to see this opinion and learn new things. The idea of the equation balancing itself is interesting, and more interesting is that Smith became a cancer (replicating without question) given his speech in the first film.

 

What I like about the first four Trek films is that together they embrace many of the elements that made Star Trek great. The exploration of the unknown and our own sense of humanity, Kirk matching wits against a devious enemy, the bond that McCoy, Kirk, and Spock shared including insights into Vulcan culture, and a time travel comedy with an unknown entity that the crew makes peace with.

 

Speaking of unpopular opinions- I think the fifth film does this just as well.

 

I will respect that opinion. I have my issues with the movie but it is still Star Trek.

 

I think the 5th film has some of the best character scenes from any ST movie. Seeing Spock's pain about his dad feeling disappointed about him being so human. McCoy ending the life of his dad to spare him pain and Kirk refusing to let go of his pain.

Sadly it also has Spock having a half brother, going to the centre of the galaxy in hours and GOD storyline.

 

The sequel trilogy are the best Star Wars movies. By far.

 

Exactly. Reloaded could have gone down the route of 'just more of the original film but more OTT' and it did occasionally with the burly brawl etc but it has some absolutely fantastic ideas and concepts that made it all the richer. And some of the action sequences were just outstanding. One that never seems to get its due is the big fight on the two staircases, which is brilliantly choreographed.

I can see what you are saying about revolutions, some of the quasi religious stuff was maybe a little more muddled but the visuals in it were amazing for the time and still hold up very well now. The sentinel attack on the Dock was brilliant at the cinema and I like the final Smith fight better than the one in reloaded, which looks embarrassing now.

I thought the matrix sequels were bold, interesting efforts that tried to push the envelope in the genre for me, especially reloaded. I've never understood why people dislike them.

 

And that's what I loved also. They took the original concept of the original which could have just ended up being 'good humans flight bad machines' and added so much more stuff in it that at the very least, made you think. I think that's to be applauded.

 

It's part of their regular teasing of each other, nothing more.

But I might add that Spock has said as many, perhaps more, "bigoted" things as McCoy. So Spock is just as guilty.

Consider this: McCoy has never acted that way to any Vulcans other than Spock...

 

I actually felt similarly about the Pirates of the Carribean sequels. Obviously they were no where near as philosophical as the Matrix sequels, but I really liked the way that they expanded on the characters and the world.