Contact and A.I. should be there, they're both fantastic.

2001 Space Odyssey is overrated like usual. Yawn.

The Thing is too low on that list.

Agree.

T1 > T2

I thought everyone knows this by now that both movies have dated special effects.

Oh I see it the same way.  I meant to imply that while I felt it wasn't nearly as ideas driven as the first, the crazy action made it quite a guilty pleasure.   I think Cameron actually did a not bad job trying to juggle too many competing factors, from the fact Arnie's image had changed and he had to be the good guy to wanting to try and change the base rules of his own Universe - Terminator 1 clearly being a world if predestination where the future war and events is a lock - to one where he unwrote his own backstory.

Yet unlike those movies it recieved wider critical acclaim compared to it's predecessor.

The first movie wasn't a monstrous blockbuster like the second was and it flew under the radar somewhat... and, unfortunately, even "critics" can get wrapped up in visual whiz-bangery, which they did with T2 (I distinctly remember almost every article about the movie being nearly orgasmic over ILM's "liquid metal" effects).

@mai:

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!

You are aware that Cleopatra wasn't Egyptian right? She was greek.

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".

I don't think Cleopatra can be considered a genre movie. It's a hystorical epic about Cleopatra. It's terribly stupid to compare it to 300 which is a Action movie set in a hystorical setting.

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.

No you didn't. I could give you a similar comment made in the past about movies in general. Sci fi and space opera are no longer viewed so negativelly. Actually some of the most acclaimed sci fi films in the past couple of decades have been space operas (Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica etc.).

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.

Star Wars (space opera) is both more highly regarded by both public opinion and the critics than say 2001: A Space Odyssey (which you probably consider better 'cause it's hard sci fi).

The Romanian film 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days wasn't a monstrous blockbuster either, yet it recieved monstrous critical acclaim. The fact that The Terminator wasn't as big of a blockbuster as T2 doesn't exccuse the fact that critics liked it less.

Your opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that what you don't deem sci fi is widely considered to be a subgenre of sci fi. Heeck I for one was shocked to find out that The Road by Cormack McCarthy is widely considered to be a dystopian novel, yet that's the case I guess.

So you're bringing up a foreign film made three years ago to prove a point about The Terminator? I don't know how old you are but in the days before the Interwebz, movie criticism was vastly different. Most people received their information from few sources, such as Siskel & Ebert or their local newspaper. Middling action films without a media blitz behind them (such as The Terminator) often received no consideration for anything at all while T2 was a monster largely due to its breakthrough special effects and budget, not the actual quality of the film.

How wouldn't The Road be considered a dystopian novel? Hell, things don't get much bleaker than that situation short of just having the entire world blow up and everyone die at the end.