The best Sci-fi movie ever?

[Halloran 0]

I like all of them, but.. i pick Blade Runner.

[A24 5,156]

Blade Runner, of course.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Mr. Breathmask 624]

They're all good, although technically, the Star Wars saga is fantasy and not science-fiction (as it isn't based on technology and science, but is much more mythical).

Gattaca is definitely one of my favorites of all time, The Matrix is one of the best action/sci-fi films ever made, and Blade Runner and Alien are downright classics. 2001 deserves its place among the contenders of course, but personally, I found that film just boring. I had expected something else though, so I feel I need to watch it again with a different eye, but I'm in no particular hurry to do that.

In the end, with this poll, instead of objectively looking at each film and trying to decide what's the best, I'll just vote for my favorite, which is the great Gattaca.

- Marc

[John McClane 1]

Blade Runner had my vote here, althought I didn't see every movie in the list.

[fommes 165]

There isn't a "best" science fiction film. Nominees are, in my opinion, but that's quite subjective, Metropolis, Forbidden Planet, 2001, THX-1138, Close Encounters, Blade Runner, and Minority Report. Peter Verstraten mentions that the latter is in fact a marriage between the New Hollywood and postmodernism - I very much tend to concur. (in Celluloid echo's.)

They're all good, although technically, the Star Wars saga is fantasy and not science-fiction (as it isn't based on technology and science, but is much more mythical).

That's an outdated view. Planetary romance dates back to the pulp era - indeed it's an adventure story with a science-fictional setting, but it's very much science fiction. Star Wars for instance is very much a nostalgic and intertextual text - but see Adam Roberts's book for a thorough analysis.

From the 1980s on, authors have dealt more seriously with space opera - see Vinge for instance. Gene Wolfe's novels comment on the genre as well. In our time, it's the blockbuster films that provide the general public with a rather pulpy view on sf.

A nice excerpt from Edward James (Science Fiction in the Twentieth Century) reconciles space opera with sf very nicely:

John Clute has objected that sf is rarely concerned with estrangement: indeed, that it ?seeks to create the exact opposite of estrangement? [making] the incredible seem plausible and familiar?. Nicholls and Stableford comment that this disagreement is in essence a reflection of two very different approaches to sf, which they characterize as satire and romance. The satirical approach (which Suvin favours) sees sf as intended primarily to comment on our own world, ?through metaphor and extrapolation?; estrangement is an important device for concentrating the reader?s mind on differences between the fictional and real worlds. But much sf is romance ? that is, in this context, a game ? whose object is to create alternative realities, and often to domesticate them and render them plausible by making them familiar. [?] I do not see these two approaches as incompatible; rather, they are different ways of achieving the same result. ?Making the incredible seem plausible and familiar? is in fact a method of estrangement: the incredible becomes familiar, and in the process the ways and customs of our own world begin to seem strange.

By the way, 'sci-fi' is quite derogatory, used for the kind of blockbuster 'Independence Days' etc., sf is the right abbreviation - but that's probably nitpicking on my part.

2001 deserves its place among the contenders of course, but personally, I found that film just boring. I had expected something else though, so I feel I need to watch it again with a different eye, but I'm in no particular hurry to do that.

Please do, it's a great film, and redefines everything there was to redefine in that time!

[Luke Skywalker 2,383]

No Star Trek?

At least it deserves a nomination...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386]

No, it definatly does not.

[A24 5,156]

Trust me, somewhere, someone on this planet goes, "What! No Battlefield Earth?!"

Believe it or not, but on the other side of the planet someone else will be utterly baffled with the omission of Contact.

And yet another (lost) soul climbed on his roof and shouted, "How dare they not include Highlander II on their list! May they rot in hell!"

Yes, it's all true. What a world! What a world!

----------------

Alex Cremers

[TheRuleOfThirds 0]

What's up with only naming SF movies from the past 25 years? There are tons of movies older than that. I know you listed 2001 and Metropolis, but what about Forbidden Planet, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Robinson Crusoe on Mars, The Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, The Fantastic Voyage, The Time Machine, and Flash Gordon?

Kids...

[JoeinAR 1,957]

my first thought when I saw the title was

The Day the Earth Stood Still,

then I though it won't even make the list.

[Romão 2,473]

I could you forget close encounters?

[Jeshopk 8]

Star Wars hands down. Blade Runner's a nice distracttion once in a while, but Star Wars is the most all encompassing, emotionally satisfying and fantastic science fiction film. And yes, I do consider it to be sci-fi.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

though I don't like BR, I think of it more as a cop movie than a sci-fi movie.

[A24 5,156]

though I don't like BR, I think of it more as a cop movie than a sci-fi movie.

Then maybe you don't understand the term "Science Fiction". Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

and

http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/to...efinitions.html

Marc is right. Star Wars is fantasy.

[John McClane 1]

I think you put 2 times the same link

[A24 5,156]

I think you put 2 times the same link

It was a ... test to see if someone would notice, Tommy. Congratulations!

[John McClane 1]

"Yes, yes, like everybody's gonna believe that!"

[JoeinAR 1,957]

though I don't like BR, I think of it more as a cop movie than a sci-fi movie.

Then maybe you don't understand the term "Science Fiction". Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

and

http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/to...efinitions.html

Marc is right. Star Wars is fantasy.

please alex no more of your links, I don't look at them.

BR is still a cop movie, with SciFi overtones, its still an overrated movie in my book.

[A24 5,156]

You can't make an argument, Joe. You don't open yourself either. You don't wanna learn. That's why you will always be in the same place you are now. With your posts you're once again proving that you don't understand this film (a cop film, right!) and maybe that's why you can't stand the fact that Blade Runner is seen as perhaps the greatest Sci-Fi film ever (altough you genuinely believe that it's not being seen that way, don't you?).

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Jill Sandwich 11,165]

What!? How can you leave out 2010?!

[JoeinAR 1,957]

Hey Alex, I really don't care what people think about Blade Runner, its a slow, boring, unimportant film for me, if you worship it fine, but I can safely pass. It was a safe bet that BR would be one of the top choices, but its not a fine film at all.

and furthermore how idiotic are you to even say anything about me, yet you are narrow minded about Star Wars, limiting it to just fantasy.

None of these films actually fit nice and neatly into one genre, in fact most movies today are multi genre films.

Joe, who thinks a movie about a cop, despite it being in the future, is still a cop movie.

[stewdog1 50]

Blade Runner for me. Science Fiction to me is just more than action, fantasy, etc., etc. When it makes you think, that is when it is good thing. The Matrix was very very close in this regard, same with Gattaca.

Although there is one movie that is always overlooked and that is The Thirteenth Floor. It came out the same time as The Matrix, with a plot that resembles. In a lot of ways it succeeded I think with a better story and better Sci-fi elements.

[Jill Sandwich 11,165]

I agree. The Thirteenth Floor is under-rated.

[diskobolus 3]

La la la... I have seen them all except Brazil and Other. For me, 2001 is #2, Blade Runner is #3.

[Morlock 12]

A.I., 2001, Metropolis and Alien are the main contendors. Out of them, Alien I don't think is true Sci-Fi, and 2001 is at the same time painfully simple and painfully complicated (though beautifully so).

The Matrix is a couple of stoned brothers cramming all kinds of Sci-Fi stuff into one package, pulling off great entertainment, but rather unengaging and totaly unoriginal Sci-Fi.

And IMO Dark City is notable in it's absence. Better movie than a bunch of those there, and much better Sci-Fi.

[Jill Sandwich 11,165]

2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most boring films I've ever seen. To me, it's overrated rubbish that goes on for far too long. I mean... nothing happens!

I'm not a fan of Blade Runner either. We had to watch that in Year 12 English class and I was very bored by it. However, I really love Alien, but I just wish Jerry Goldsmith's score wasn't so heavily tampered with.

Metropolis was visually impressive.

Even the beauty of Uma Thurman can't save Gattaca from sheer boringness.

The Matrix is visually exciting, but the script is very corny.

Minority Report is spectacular.

The Terminator is great. And Total Recall... well with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Goldsmith, how can you go wrong?

[HPFAN_2 0]

Minority Report.

[Lurker 5]

2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most boring films I've ever seen.  To me, it's overrated rubbish that goes on for far too long.  I mean... nothing happens!

Read the book.

Neil

[JoeinAR 1,957]

2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most boring films I've ever seen.  To me, it's overrated rubbish that goes on for far too long.  I mean... nothing happens!

I'm not a fan of Blade Runner either.  

obviously you didn't understand either film, they are probably beyond your ability to grasp, or you simply may not have been ready to understand them. On the other hand you may simply be an idiot who can't see the greatness of each of these great, great films.

[diskobolus 3]

2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most boring films I've ever seen.  To me, it's overrated rubbish that goes on for far too long.  I mean... nothing happens!

I'm not a fan of Blade Runner either.  

obviously you didn't understand either film, they are probably beyond your ability to grasp, or you simply may not have been ready to understand them. On the other hand you may simply be an idiot who can't see the greatness of each of these great, great films.

Sarcasm makes the statement no less true. You took the words right out of my mouth, Joe.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

I have no doubt that Drax is a very perceptive individual, who I find has good taste in this matter, and believe me I think what I said sarcastically is elitist bullcrap, told to me by psuedo intellectuals with superiority complexes.

Joe, who understands that getting something, and liking something are not mutually inclusive.

[MrScratch 296]

Planet of the Apes should really be in that list, Minority Report really should not be.

[Morlock 12]

Minority Report should not be on that list, Alien should not be on that list, and Star Wars should not be on that list. Great movies, not really sci-fi.

[RenOldman 0]

Alexcremers how can you trust wikipedia??

I can delete everything their and simply write SF is for geeks!! and it will be accepted!!

Try it yourself......

NEVER quote wikipedia as it can be hacked to death and deleted by anyone.

Next time I wite an essay for class I will make up the facts and post them there.......I mean who would write something not true online

[diskobolus 3]

I have no doubt that Drax is a very perceptive individual, who I find has good taste in this matter, and believe me I think what I said sarcastically is elitist bullcrap, told to me by psuedo intellectuals with superiority complexes.

Joe, who understands that getting something, and liking something are not mutually inclusive.

And Drax does neither in his post. He said "nothing happens" in 2001.

[A24 5,156]

Alexcremers how can you trust wikipedia??

I can delete everything their and simply write SF is for geeks!! and it will be accepted!!

Try it yourself......

NEVER quote wikipedia as it can be hacked to death and deleted by anyone.

Next time I wite an essay for class I will make up the facts and post them there.......I mean who would write something not true online

It's a well-known and common definition of the term Science Fiction. Wikipedia didn't make it up.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[fommes 165]

Minority Report should not be on that list, Alien should not be on that list, and Star Wars should not be on that list. Great movies, not really sci-fi.

You're quite wrong. And by the way, this isn't a matter of opinion, you're plainly quite wrong. Superficially, Alien is horror in outer space, but assumes a perspective which very much science-fictional in its depiction of the 'other', and the male woman Ripley, who yet stays woman if you can get past the obvious male representation. Star Wars may have fantastical elements, but its emphasis on technology and other-worldly cultures (the Cantina bar), to mention one thing, establish its status as science fiction. Again, your argument that planetary romance is not science fiction, is outdated. I don't even see why you would say that Minority Report isn't sf, that's a remark not well funded, to say the least.

It's a well-known and common definition of the term Science Fiction.

There isn't such a thing as a one-line definition - although Darko Suvin's cognitive estrangement and Robert Scholes's structural fabulation are excellent starting points to discuss what sf is, but their theories stem from the seventies; much has been written since.

I guess Joe's sarcastical remark stems from the fact that he finds it boring, and doesn't get it at all? I understand that some may not like 2001, but it's not because you find it boring, probably because you can't bring it up to interpret it properly, that the film should be dismissed as boring generally. It's like saying a book isn't worth reading after reading the first page only.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

I have no doubt that Drax is a very perceptive individual, who I find has good taste in this matter, and believe me I think what I said sarcastically is elitist bullcrap, told to me by psuedo intellectuals with superiority complexes.

Joe, who understands that getting something, and liking something are not mutually inclusive.

And Drax does neither in his post. He said "nothing happens" in 2001.

And he's right, nothing happens, nothing of interest anyways.

Dave, I'm very bored, nothing is happening.

Hal, I'm going to sleep now,

Dave I cannot let you do that or I will be bored all by myself.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Elmo Lewis 7]

It's like saying a book isn't worth reading after reading the first page only.

According to Amazon, that is the case.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

I guess Joe's sarcastical remark stems from the fact that he finds it boring, and doesn't get it at all? I understand that some may not like 2001, but it's not because you find it boring, probably because you can't bring it up to interpret it properly, that the film should be dismissed as boring generally. It's like saying a book isn't worth reading after reading the first page only.

I spent 6 weeks in college studying this film, back in 78 before many of you were even born, it was boring then and boring now. Got an A in the class, and my opinion hasn't changed in 26 years, despite it differing from the professor. We had to read the book and watch the film over, and over.

Joe, who thinks Lotmans remark about not getting it goes back to being psuedo intellectual again. How snobby. How superior it is of you to think you might have gotten it, but you know its like interpreting the bible, there are many ways to do it, and not everyone gets the same meaning. 2001, its cure for insomnia.

[John Crichton 4]

Spaceballs.

My vote is for Star Wars.

[fommes 165]

Joe, who thinks Lotmans remark about not getting it goes back to being psuedo intellectual again. How snobby. How superior it is of you to think you might have gotten it, but you know its like interpreting the bible, there are many ways to do it, and not everyone gets the same meaning. 2001, its cure for insomnia.

I have never said I get it - that's like you say not possible for 2001 and so many other cases - that's why I talked about interpreting by the way. Snobby and superior have nothing to do with this; that's just an easy remark to shade off any attack on your assumption (which almost becomes a general truth) that the film is boring. Congratulations for your A; and I'll end by merely saying that 2001 wasn't boring then, and isn't boring now.

[A24 5,156]

and I'll end by merely saying that 2001 wasn't boring then, and isn't boring now.

Heck no! For instance, take the photography! It's one of the best shot movies ever! Geoffrey Unsworth also was director of photography for Superman The Movie. What an underused and underrated talent he was.

Boring is a term I never use. It means so little and is mainly used by people who were brought up with MTV. When something is slow they go "boring"! I don't know but doesn't that seem a little ... boring?

----------------

Alex Cremers

[diskobolus 3]

obviously you didn't understand either film, they are probably beyond your ability to grasp, or you simply may not have been ready to understand them. On the other hand you may simply be an idiot who can't see the greatness of each of these great, great films.

I spent 6 weeks in college studying this film, back in 78 before many of you were even born, it was boring then and boring now.  

Shall we put two and two together then?

[JoeinAR 1,957]

by all means, I almost dropped the class when I saw the agenda.

btw unlike most here I saw 2001 way back in the movie theatre and was facinated a bit by the visuals, but the story is (sorry Alex) boring as hell, and its just another overrated film that Kubrick fans and film critics drool over.

Personally I'd rather watch Day the Earth Stood Still a thousand times before ever watching 2001 again.

[A24 5,156]

by all means, I almost dropped the class when I saw the agenda.

btw unlike most here I saw 2001 way back in the movie theatre and was facinated a bit by the visuals, but the story is (sorry Alex) boring as hell, and its just another overrated film that Kubrick fans and film critics drool over.

It is slow, difficult, demanding and challenging. Nothing you can really handle, Joe. That's okay, there are many like you who can't either. That's why they make those other films for. Maybe one day they'll do a remake of 2001, but this time with an "exciting event " in every scene, so people wouldn't call it boring, you know, just like in that latest Potter film.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[A24 5,156]

This is a list from Sci-Fi lists. The data (results from popular and critical polls) is being constantly updated. I only quote the first 20 (out of 100). Look how many Kubrick fans there are in the world.

1 2001: A Space Odyssey Stanley Kubrick 1968

2 Blade Runner Ridley Scott 1982

3 Star Wars Trilogy (1977-83) George Lucas, et al 1977

4 The Day the Earth Stood Still Robert Wise 1951

5 Alien Ridley Scott 1979

6 Planet of the Apes Franklin J Schaffner 1968

7 The Terminator James Cameron 1984

8 Forbidden Planet Fred M Wilcox 1956

9 The Matrix L & A Wachowski 1999

10 Aliens James Cameron 1986 137

11 A Clockwork Orange Stanley Kubrick 1971

12 Close Encounters of the Third Kind Steven Spielberg 1977

13 Metropolis Fritz Lang 1926

14 Invasion of the Body Snatchers Don Siegel 1956

15 Terminator 2 - Judgement Day James Cameron 1991

16 The War of the Worlds Byron Haskin 1953

17 Brazil Terry Gilliam 1985

18 E.T. - The Extra-Terrestrial Steven Spielberg 1982

19 Jurassic Park Steven Spielberg 1993

20 Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan Nicholas Meyer 1982

----------------

Alex Cremers

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386]

It is interesting that the 2 of you are at each other throat so much, considering how alike you really are.

[stewdog1 50]

Didn't realize Brazil was on that list. That movie comes a very close second to Blade Runner

Dave - who still needs to get the Criterion version of Brazil

[Jill Sandwich 11,165]

obviously you didn't understand either film, they are probably beyond your ability to grasp, or you simply may not have been ready to understand them.  On the other hand you may simply be an idiot who can't see the greatness of each of these great, great films.    

That sarcasm fits it all perfectly, you'd be surprised how often I get that among even very young folks in their early 20's who think they know all, see all and understand everything that comes out of Kubrick's arse.

Heck no! For instance, take the photography! It's one of the best shot movies ever! Geoffrey Unsworth also was director of photography for Superman The Movie. What an underused and underrated talent he was.

I probably would have liked 2001 a little bit had I seen it in Cinerama, since that would have made it more of the visual spectacle that it was meant to be. Even my Dad reckons the widescreen DVD has little to offer in comparison to how he saw it in Cinerama.

Boring is a term I never use. It means so little and is mainly used by people who were brought up with MTV. When something is slow they go "boring"! I don't know but doesn't that seem a little ... boring?

I never watch MTV.