IGN: Top 25 Sci-Fi Movies

[rocketpig]

Reasonable said:

sapphi_snake said:

Reasonable said:

Being a pedant I would question - if SF is about probable impact of science and technology on our society and us ourselves - whether all those films are really SF.  Star Wars sure isn't SF (sorry Darth) but some of those fall more into the 'kinda' that really.

TBH Terminator 2 is probably way too high, Star Wars shouldn't even be in a list like this and Wrath of Khan (much as I love it - KHAAAAAAN etc - ) probably shouldn't be either.

Top 2 are spot on although arguably 2001 should be top but I love them both so much who cares around 1/2.  But Moon, etc. are all far better, more specific SF films than say Terminator 2, which is more of a fan favourite (a favourite of mine, too, but not that high against real, hard SF films).

Lists, eh, you can never agree with them!

EDIT: speaking of which, as others have said films like Gattaca should be on that list instead of Terminator, etc.

It's also a critical favorite. And so are Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. All those three movies were among the highest ranked films on Rottentomatoes.com's list of great sci-fi films (based on reviews from professional film critics) and on AFI's top 10 best sci-fi films.

Yah - but is it SF?  A lot of fantasy stuff get's bundled into SF in my view and it shouldn't.  Star Wars is an out and out fantasy with the trapping of SF in sets but is completely improbable.  I really like the OT (particularly Empire which I think is fantastic) but I've never actually seen them as true SF.

SF, looking to the more literary distiniction, would be films like 2001, Mad Max, Moon, Gattaca, etc. but it would exclude those titles as they are strictly speaking fantasy rather that truly exploring social/personal implications of aspects of technology on our lives (which is what literary SF is all about).

But then literary SF is overrun in general bookshops by fantasy so I guess why not films?

Because it's not SF!  Sorry, but I really like SF and I take its definition pretty seriously.  Most film critics don't know or bother either, hence why you always get anything with any technology in it bundled into SF.

From a pure SF perspective, Mad Max 2 is a far, far better SF film - and relevant to us in its exploration of the impact of society crumbling due to failure of power sources - than say Star Wars.  Star Wars is Lord of the Rings played out against a fantasy, Gernsbackian inspired background.

Excellent points, Reasonable. Star Wars, IMO, is 100% fantasy. Even George Lucas believes it to be fantasy and not science fiction. I've argued that point many a time...

I consider sci-fi to be movies that, as you said, directly involve "science" somewhere in them and not focus another story around technology, with the tech being only a backdrop for another story. Under this classification, Blade Runner is definitely sci-fi while Alien is borderline science fiction. Gattaca is sci-fi , as is Moon.

Stuff like Transformers is fantasy, just like Star Wars (though obviously not on the same level). People arguing that Jurassic Park isn't science fiction when it's one of the BEST examples of sci-fi on that list. The issues dealt with in the novel/film are based in reality and explore humanity's role in technology and the dangers of abusing it without a second thought. On the other hand, Back to the Future isn't science fiction. The time machine is nothing more than a plot device and it's a popcorn film (though a very good one). The characters may as well be teleporting from spot to spot with how little thought is given to the actual "science" portion of the film.