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

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

sapphi_snake on 15 September 2010
mai said:

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?

I do see it. But it's the setting that makes the difference. Isn't the setting what makes the difference between a period drama and a contemporary drama?

BTW, aren't all movies part of a genre? Or are some genres typically considered "lesser" than others.



"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
mai on 15 September 2010

sapphi_snake said:

I do see it. But it's the setting that makes the difference. Isn't the setting what makes the difference between a period drama and a contemporary drama?

Setting only makes the difference when it makes difference to, say, motivation of heroes, how they behave etc. For example, whom do you see in Hollywood "Cleopatra" film starring Taylor and Burton? Or for that matter in any Aniquity-inspired Hollywod movie of 50-60s? Ancient time Egyptians? Romans? Greeks? For god's sake, no! Those're Americans in disguise and bunch of modern day stereotypes about Antiquity. That's ok, because the purpose of the film wasn't accuarate representation of ancient time morale or characters, but merely make a "genre movie". Or take for example "300 Spartans" (the old one), where Xerxes was depicated as typical villian and tyrant, while Spartans were some god-blessed, rightful and noble people, each of them! Those are good movies, good "genre movies", but you can easily remake "300 Spartans" putting modern day figures instead of Xerxes and King Leonidas as "bad" and "good" guys (e.g. Bin Laden as a leader of terrorists and Obama as a leader of allies) and this won't harm the whole idea of the movie. Why? Because it's "genre movie"!

sapphi_snake said:

BTW, aren't all movies part of a genre? Or are some genres typically considered "lesser" than others.

Well, I'm not sure if there're any solid basis to consider some movies "lesser" that other besides personal opinions. But I think I gave you a good representation of what public opinion on "space opera" and "sci-fi" could have been if we polled a good amount of people, regardless of each person's understanding of what's "space opera" and "sci-fi" are suppose to mean. The things in public opinion are just the way they are, people will value cultural impact of Pavarotti more than Lady Gaga's just because of his fame, even though they never listened the singing of Pavarotti and they personally like Lady Gaga's songs. If you're interested in my very much personal opinion, there're two kinds of films for me: "genre movies"(see above) and "just movies" - I watch all of them.



Berstuck on 15 September 2010

Its an ok list i suppose but why the hell is Avatar in there. That movie sucked balls. I'd also have Moon a lot higher.



Reasonable on 15 September 2010
sapphi_snake said:
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 know.  But big names like Asimov, etc. saw it this way and I do think that it's the right (if rarely used) definition.  I tend to dislike genres in general, but if we're gonna have them I want nice clean lines where possible.

For me, if the film isn't directly examining us in a technology or real science manner with regard to ourselves or society then it's not SF.  It's borrowing trappings from SF, it's using SF as a nice setting or selling point, but it's not SF.

Rather oddly (for me) it's one rare place I do find myself taking the elitist stance that only around 10% of what's called SF really is SF.



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

Rath on 15 September 2010
Reasonable said:
 


I know.  But big names like Asimov, etc. saw it this way and I do think that it's the right (if rarely used) definition.  I tend to dislike genres in general, but if we're gonna have them I want nice clean lines where possible.

For me, if the film isn't directly examining us in a technology or real science manner with regard to ourselves or society then it's not SF.  It's borrowing trappings from SF, it's using SF as a nice setting or selling point, but it's not SF.

Rather oddly (for me) it's one rare place I do find myself taking the elitist stance that only around 10% of what's called SF really is SF.


So would you then consider Dune a science fiction novell?



Around the Network
Carl on 15 September 2010

11. Aliens

5. The Empire Strikes Back

4. Alien

 

My opinion... Those 3 films should be the top 3, in that exact order.



                            

cityhunter on 15 September 2010

Yeah my first post! From what I watched, here are the BEST :

3. Alien

2. 2001

1. Blade Runner

And here are my FAVORITES :

4. Starship Troopers

3. Blade Runner

2. Aliens

1. T2

Ridley Scott should make SF movies again, or even close the Alien franchise.



rocketpig on 15 September 2010

They put Alien much higher than Aliens. That makes me very happy. Alien scared the fuck out of me as a child and overall, it's just a better film than Aliens. That's not a slight on Aliens, just a statement as to how amazing Alien is.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Reasonable on 15 September 2010
Rath said:
Reasonable said:
 


I know.  But big names like Asimov, etc. saw it this way and I do think that it's the right (if rarely used) definition.  I tend to dislike genres in general, but if we're gonna have them I want nice clean lines where possible.

For me, if the film isn't directly examining us in a technology or real science manner with regard to ourselves or society then it's not SF.  It's borrowing trappings from SF, it's using SF as a nice setting or selling point, but it's not SF.

Rather oddly (for me) it's one rare place I do find myself taking the elitist stance that only around 10% of what's called SF really is SF.


So would you then consider Dune a science fiction novell?

Absolutely.  It deals with the potential evolution of humans and our relationship with technology, particularly in how it pictures a society split between high dependance on technology while avoiding certain elements of technology.

I wouldn't say I agreed with all of Herbert's thoughts, but for sure the combination of ecology, science, politics, religion and human evolution makes for a heady SF brew of possibilities.

It's interesting how Quantum elements of how Paul's abilities are and the notion of a human being able to more directly sense the world in terms of probabilities and myraid eventualities depending based on current parameters.



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

Funtime on 15 September 2010

District 9 should be higher and Event Horizon should be on the list! One of the most underrated movies ever!

 

Starship Troopers should also be way up on the list. Great movie.

 

And I'm typically not a Spielberg fan, but I did think A.I. and Minority Report were both pretty cool and could be somehwere near the bottom of this list in the 20-25 range.