Slashdot Mirror
The Wired Top Twenty Sci-Fi Movies
blamanj writes "The June issue of Wired includes a list of the top 20 Sci-Fi movies, based on ranking a combination of Adrenaline, Vision, and Precision. Somehow, they came up with (yawn) Gattaca as the #2 SF movie of all time!?! Their rating system was based on one by Josh Calder, who also uses a three-point (Futurism, Entertainment, Plausibility) system, and has the same movie at #2, BTW. Clearly, I think using such a scale gives odd results, but what if it were weighted differently, e.g., Vision is worth 2x Adrenaline, would it be a better list? And, more importantly, what are the real top 20 films? And wouldn't that list have to include Forbidden Planet?"
If I was asked what are the top 20 sci-fi movies, I wouldn't care about visio, accuracy or anything like that. First, I'd decide if the movie was sci-fi. If it is, then I think how good it is. It doesn't matter how sci-fi the movie is. Ok, Space Odyssey is a classic. It's got computers and spaceships and everything. But, it's boring as hell. I'll never watch it again! Now why would I list this movie on any top 20 movie list, if I don't like it? In the end, it's a matter of taste. That top20-list included some movies I've never seen, or even heard of, so I really don't think those could be good movies. Propably I'd fall asleep or something watching..
IMDB have a much better weighted ranking system based on user votes. Their top Sci-Fi movies are:
1 Star Wars (1977) 8.7/10 (77559 votes)
2 Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) 8.7/10 (31705 votes)
3 Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) 8.6/10 (58919 votes)
4 Matrix, The (1999) 8.3/10 (69300 votes)
5 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) 8.3/10 (36486 votes)
6 Metropolis (1927) 8.2/10 (5187 votes)
7 Donnie Darko (2001) 8.2/10 (3590 votes)
8 Alien (1979) 8.2/10 (32155 votes)
9 Clockwork Orange, A (1971) 8.2/10 (32662 votes)
10 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) 8.2/10 (11199 votes)
11 Blade Runner (1982) 8.1/10 (42768 votes)
12 Spider-Man (2002) 8.1/10 (10504 votes)
13 Aliens (1986) 8.1/10 (35399 votes)
14 Iron Giant, The (1999) 8.0/10 (6877 votes)
15 Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) 8.0/10 (44823 votes)
16 Abre los ojos (1997) 7.9/10 (2873 votes)
17 Brazil (1985) 7.9/10 (17398 votes)
18 Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) 7.9/10 (39419 votes)
19 Day the Earth Stood Still, The (1951) 7.9/10 (5131 votes)
20 Back to the Future (1985) 7.8/10 (34951 votes)
1. Blade Runner
2. Gattaca
3. The Matrix
4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
5. Brazil
6. A Clockwork Orange
7. Alien
8. The Boys From Brazil
9. Jurassic Park
10. Star Wars
11. The Road Warrior
12. Tron
13. The Terminator
14. Sleeper
15. Soylent Green
16. RoboCop
17. Planet Of The Apes
18. The Day The Earth Stood Still
19. Akira
20. Barbarella
Copyright © 1993-2002 The Condé Nast Publications Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 1994-2002 Wired Digital, Inc. All rights reserved.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
The list has to be a joke.
What about the following movies:
Destination Moon
Invaders from Mars
Fantastic Voyage
It came from Outer Space
Fahrenheit 451
When Worlds Collide
The Blob
1984
Dr. Strangelove (well, maybe not)
War of the Worlds (!)
The Thing
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The andromeda strain
Fantastic Planet
Westworld
Having the matrix beat out any of the above shows exactly how silly it is. And what's this Barbarella shit? There are teems of drug-influenced sci fi movies with naked women that are better.
Not if you're looking for action and explosions, no. But 2001 is clearly a brilliant SF movie, and it's got no action at all. If action is what you want, then choose the best action movie of all time -- but for pure SF, Gattaca is definitely up there.
:-)
And the fact that Ethan Hawke and Jude Law are total hotties is neither here nor there, obviously
Given today's headlines, Brazil seems to be the truest version of the future. From terrorism to coporate abuse of the population to environmental damage , Terry Gilliam has hit the nail on the head. Even the smaller details like abuse of the phone system , rouge technicians bucking the establishment , and lousy technical support ring true.
(Leans back in chair and softly hums Brazil theme song.)
SD
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
Seems like every time a new list of top n movies (as the AFI top 100 films) or television shows (as the TV Guide top comedies) or whatever shows up, there's invariably a hue and a cry from folks who don't appreciate the rankings, or the content, or a series of egregious omissions.
It's a whole lot easier to stomach these things if you take them as a signpost and not a destination. In fact, the debate here about what does and doesn't get included and why (the why is the particularly important part, IMO) pretty much validates the creation of the list, even if I don't agree with its contents or its order. Fortunately, there's even a means of redress:
"Disagree? Send your own picks to movielist@wiredmag.com."
The most unfortunate part of the article as presented is that it explains the three ranking criteria, but does not provide any evaluation as to how the movie satisfies them (for example, I imagine that it's nigh-universally agreed that The Matrix is an "adrenaline" movie, but probably much less so that it's a "precision" movie, owing to some spotty scientific principles).
(I also have my reservations about the breadth of knowledge of films that the panel has, but the article did say "fans" and not "experts")
I'll also echo the sentiments of some of the other Gattaca sympathizers that it's probably the most "science-y" science-fiction that I've seen in recent memory, but that's the age-old argument between the "hard" and "soft" views of whether the science or the fiction part of science fiction is what gets the emphasis.
Now you're just being silly. First of all, Hawkings was already a famous scientist long before the symptoms of ALS began to appear, Second, he isn't "happy the way he is" -- if you read about him, you'll find that he considered suicide when he first realized he had ALS, and in fact many people with ALS do kill themselves. Thirdly, there is no evidence that people with ALS are more intelligent than normal in general.
While I agree that he's being silly, perhaps flippant :-), with his remark about Hawking and burgers, there is this article to consider.
Hawking was not really a "famous scientist" when his ALS was discovered at 21. He had just started down the path and here he clearly states that his disease gave him the perspective to focus his life to the cause of Science. Curious that in this account he doesn't mention the suicide that you say he contemplated.
Also, you'll find from his own quotes that he tries to live without regrets.
I'm concerned that Science will one day cure all of our challenges. Eliminating the schizophrenia of Michaelangelo, the autism (?) of Einstein and the deafness of Beethoven. Apparently, from your disparagement of bioethicism, you aren't concerned with this or any consequence of technological advance.
Most science fiction work says more about the times that create it than about the times they claim to be writing about - and in turn, can actually create the future as much as report it. Check out The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of by SF writer Thomas Disch for a funny and insightful take on the relationship between SF and society.