By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - IGN: Top 25 Sci-Fi Movies

Reasonable on 15 September 2010
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.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Around the Network
freebs2 on 15 September 2010

I don't understand why they consider The Clockwork Orange a sci-fi movie....It is set in the future but I wouldn't consider it sci-fi, if it is, also The Truman Show can be considered sci-fi, also in the list there are some omissions like Gattaca, DarkCity, The 12 monkeys while Avatar and Moon are not really this good, also Brazil should be in the top 10 at least imo. I agree the first 2 places, (also 2 of my all time favourites OSTs) but I don't know which deserves to be at first place, I personally like more Blade Runner but 2001 had a more important impact on moviemaking at its times.



darthdevidem01 on 15 September 2010
Rath said:
darthdevidem01 said:
 

Episode 1 is my first Star Wars movie

The move had a similar effect on me that Episode 4 had on people when it released. (and on many of my friends)

If you understand what I mean by that you'll know why I want it on the list.

And yeah Episode 2 was bad

Episode I was my first Star Wars as well. I never understood the hype about the series until I saw the original trilogy  some years later and realised that it was just fucking awesome.

The original Star Wars was just a masterpiece of story telling, especially Empire. I wouldn't call all of the acting great but that didn't matter in the end, it was an enduring classic because of the story it told and how it told it.

 

The prequel trilogy on the other hand had, to me at least and I know to others, a fairly bland story. All the bitching about Jar Jar Binks and the actors who played Anakin aren't getting at the fundamental flaw of the prequel trilogy.

 

So yeah, my opinion they had the right two movies on the list. I would have had them the other way around personally though.

The Episode 4 story wasn't as good as 1 and 3 personally

After Episode 1 I was hooked on to Jedi's.....there wasn't enough of that in it at all. 

On the contrary I think Episode 4 offers a bland story. 5 and 6 have a better one.



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

mai on 15 September 2010

It seems they've just copy-pasted from IMDb, I'd consider watching some of these for a good balance. From those in the list I've seen I'd recommend Stalker, Alphaville, Eraserhead, Naked Lunch, Brazil, Videodrome, Solaris, King Lear, Donnie Darko, Scanners, The Sacrifice and Kin-dza-dza (not in the list for some reason), though sci-fi genre some of those is arguable.



sapphi_snake on 15 September 2010
Reasonable said:

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.

Check this site in the Other types of science fiction section : http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Science_fiction

Also Wikipedia places Star Wars in the space opera sub-genre of science fiction

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

Your view of science fiction is very narrow.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
wick on 15 September 2010

Empire not 1?

WTF!!!!!

Fail of the highest degree.



 

 

        Wii FC: 6440 8298 7583 0720   XBOX GT: WICK1978               PSN: its_the_wick   3DS: 1676-3747-7846                                          Nintendo Network: its-the-wick

Systems I've owned: Atari 2600, NES, SNES, GBColor, N64, Gamecube, PS2, Xbox, GBAdvance, DSlite, PSP, Wii, Xbox360, PS3, 3DS, PSVita, PS4, 3DS XL, Wii U

The best quote I've seen this year:

Angelus said: I'm a moron
mai on 15 September 2010
sapphi_snake said:

Also Wikipedia places Star Wars in the space opera sub-genre of science fiction

Ahem! Here's what Wilson Tucker, the man who coined the term "space opera", has to say about it: "In these hectic days of phrase-coining, we offer one. Westerns are called "horse operas," the morning housewife tear-jerkers are called "soap operas," For the hacky, grinding, stinking, outworn space-ship yarn, or world-saving for that matter, we offer "space opera.", - it's basically a fantasy in disguise, Reasonable is right as I see it. At the same time I consider the whole issue of defining of genre is irrelevant, hence the term "genre cinema" in some languages which literally means "B-movies" in English-speaking world. And sci-fi cinema is indeed a "genre cinema", or was it until 60s.



sapphi_snake on 15 September 2010
mai said:
sapphi_snake said:

Also Wikipedia places Star Wars in the space opera sub-genre of science fiction

Ahem! Here's what Wilson Tucker, the man who coined the term "space opera", has to say about it: "In these hectic days of phrase-coining, we offer one. Westerns are called "horse operas," the morning housewife tear-jerkers are called "soap operas," For the hacky, grinding, stinking, outworn space-ship yarn, or world-saving for that matter, we offer "space opera."

So? That doesn't change a thing you big commie (sorry, couldn't help myself ). Anyways, "space opera" is no longer a pejorative term.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

mai on 15 September 2010
sapphi_snake said:
mai said:
sapphi_snake said:

Also Wikipedia places Star Wars in the space opera sub-genre of science fiction

Ahem! Here's what Wilson Tucker, the man who coined the term "space opera", has to say about it: "In these hectic days of phrase-coining, we offer one. Westerns are called "horse operas," the morning housewife tear-jerkers are called "soap operas," For the hacky, grinding, stinking, outworn space-ship yarn, or world-saving for that matter, we offer "space opera."

So? That doesn't change a thing you big commie (sorry, couldn't help myself ).

Reread my post, I've edited it.



mai on 15 September 2010

sapphi_snake said:

So? That doesn't change a thing you big commie (sorry, couldn't help myself ). Anyways, "space opera" is no longer a pejorative term.

I kindly disagree =) Sci-fi on other hand is indeed no longer a pejorative term (see my post above).

Why can't you see obvious similarities (plot construction, heroes archetypes, hero's motivation and rhetoric) between seemingly different genres of fantasy and space opera, which differ only in setting?