Best Low-budget Sci-fi movie of 2008?

AVEITWITHJAMON

Badass Cloud
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Messages
41,898
Reaction score
7,192
Points
103
So, the thread title is pretty self-explanatory, but I am posting this thread in response to the 'is the sci-fi genre dead' thread, as I liked all of the low-budget sci-fi movies last year and feel they are just keeping the genre afloat.

There have been some other great low-budget Sci-fi movies in the last few years also, Serenity immediatly springs to mind, but I wanted to concentrate on 2008, so vote away, sorry in advance if I miss any!
 
My friends and I get a kick out of Doomsday. The movie has like four genres wrapped into one.
 
Last edited:
^I loved it, probably Marshall's worst film so far, but I loved it.
 
I voted for Death Race. It was a stupid, ridiculous action film, but I enjoyed every second of it. And the navigator chick was uber-hot.
 
I don't understand weren't all those movies big budget.

I liked Sunshine the most but that might have been 07.

EDIT: Can't wait for Mutant Chronicles to come out in the US and same with Franklyn.
 
i enjoyed deathrace and doomsday equally...

mutant chronicles looks crappy..
 
What about Cloverfield? It's budget was like $25 million (less than Death Race, fyi).
 
^Cloverfield was set in contemporary times, so not really Sci-fi was it.
 
Franklyn

Although the publicity makes it out to be a bend of V for Vendetta and Dark City, it's not. It's a surreal blend of three stories set in London (two contemporary, one set some bizarre place called Midtown or something). a bit different from most movies but suffers too much from cliches to make it the avante garde film it wants to or should be. Still worth checking out.
 
But whats Sci-fi about a monstor movie? King Kong isnt Sci-fi is it?



:huh: it was set in the future!

King Kong is considered in the fantasy genre I believe. But The Godzilla movies I always see considered as Sci-Fi (Jurassic Park as well) so I don't see why Cloverfield shouldn't be considered. I don't see being set in the future to be a good enough reason for Death Race to be considered Sci-Fi. Consider that more of a straight up old school bloody action romp.
 
^Dont see how Godzilla is Sci-fi either, seeing as the creature came from Cold war test bombings. Also, I believe the cloverfield monstor was something ancient that was awoken, nothing Sci-fi about that.

Death Race also had some Sci-fi elements to it, the whole gameshow thing being one.
 
wanted is considered scifi... it had a pretty small budget compared to other films.

that was probably my favorite.

plus i enjoyed speedracer more than anything on the poll.. and i think thats considered scifi too
 
^Wasnt low-budget though was it? Wasnt its budget like $150 million?
 
Just to clear things up..... From Wiki

Science fiction (abbreviated SF or sci-fi with varying punctuation and capitalization) is a broad genre of fiction that often involves speculations based on current or future science or technology. Science fiction is found in books, art, television, films, games, theatre, and other media. In organizational or marketing contexts, science fiction can be synonymous with the broader definition of speculative fiction, encompassing creative works incorporating imaginative elements not found in contemporary reality; this includes fantasy, horror, and related genres.[1]

Science fiction differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation). Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".[2] Science fiction is largely based on writing entertainingly and rationally about alternate possibilities[3] in settings that are contrary to known reality.

These may include:

* A setting in the future, in alternative time lines, or in a historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archeological record
* A setting in outer space, on other worlds, or involving aliens[4]
* Stories that involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature[5]
* Stories that involve discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots, or of new and different political or social systems (e.g. a dystopia) [6]
 
I voted for Death Race. It was a stupid, ridiculous action film, but I enjoyed every second of it. And the navigator chick was uber-hot.

as did I....and yes she was all kinds of hawt:wow:
 
Franklyn

Although the publicity makes it out to be a bend of V for Vendetta and Dark City, it's not. It's a surreal blend of three stories set in London (two contemporary, one set some bizarre place called Midtown or something). a bit different from most movies but suffers too much from cliches to make it the avante garde film it wants to or should be. Still worth checking out.
I thought it was extremely intriguing, shame it sorta missed the mark though. Best low-budget Sci-Fi of '08 has to be Cloverfield.
 
unfortunately Death Race is not sci-fi.
 
Cloverfield. JJ did his thing for such a modest price.

Not that I'm saying I would vote for it but shouldn't (gag) Twilight be up there too? It only cost 37 mill.
 
wanted is considered scifi... it had a pretty small budget compared to other films.

that was probably my favorite.

plus i enjoyed speedracer more than anything on the poll.. and i think thats considered scifi too

Too bad that was a doodoo movie that showed pretty much no respect for the book.
 
who cares... it was a good movie on its own
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"