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?"
Cheers
, Ian
Yes, i disagree. I think "Precision" is not that important. (Read: Bugs in matrix does not make it a bad movie. It's rated #3 though.)
BTW, Sci-fi does not mean a "Vision" of future. Take Star Wars. It says "a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away".
Excellent! At last someone recognises that Terminator is superior to Terminator 2. I have to wonder, though, how could anyone rate Jurassic Park higher than Star Wars?
What a shame the write-ups are so cursory. A few sentences more and maybe a few images wouldn't have hurt.
It would be interesting to see the top20 when setting both Vision and Presition to 4, and Adrenaline to 2...
1. Solaris
2. Metropolis
3. Until The End of Time
4. Demon Seed
5. The Lawnmower Man
6. Slaughterhouse 5
7. Fahrenheit 451
8. 1984
9. Final Fantasy
10. They Live
The biggest problem with a list of the "best movies of all time", in whatever category is that things change. The quality/realism of effects has obviously changed over time, but also taste (people like different sorts of movies now than they did twenty years ago), plausability (things that seemed highly probable twenty years ago look very dated now), and what's allowed to be shown (the censors have gotten more lenient over time), so that at the end of the day the best movies of all time - especially in the Sci-fi category - are going to be a highly subjective, and likely to change over time as well as from person to person.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
Obviously, the absence of Forbidden Planet destines the Wired list for the dustbin of history.
An ominous sense of Kafkaesque suspense actually can evoke more adrenaline than ten speeder chases. Vision and sociopolitical relevence should be weighted much more heavily than "adrenaline", anyways. The movie version of Orwell's "1984 " is a case in point, on the strength of the story and its continuing social relevence, it deserves a place on the list. Also, on my list, the 1973 cult classic Zardoz blows Robocop away.
While I agree that in general, IMDB ratings give a good impression of the "quality" of a film, they are somewhat biased towards new films, as shown by the positions of Episode II and Spider-Man, probably The Matrix and also Donnie Darko (haven't seen the last). The rating tends to be signifcantly higher shortly after release than a few years later. Audience overwhelmed by the cinema experience versus video watchers?
Of course these lists are only done as a piece of trollery, which is fine, but what annoys me is when they claim some psudo-scientific system behind it all - such as this ratings "system". Adrenaline, fine, that's excitement, but the other two? "Vision" - how well it presents a scenario for the future, and "Precision", whether the science behind the fiction holds up. Well, most of the movies on this list fail those two.
I mean, take The Matrix: great film (IMHO). But vision - yeah, I can just see a near-future where man and machines fight a war, the machines win and enslave us all as power generators while building a convincing virtual world. Oh yeah, and the science holds up on that as well. Pfffft.
Yeah, Alien as a precise and visionary view of the future: we are going to be chased around space ships by huge monsters. That works on so many levels (Homer Simpson). Terminator - yes, I can see the day (soon perhaps) when metal killing machines are sent back through time. In fact it's probably happening now, and the cyborgs are all working at Wired writing crappy ersatz movie ratings. Based on these ratings, Soylent Green shouldn't be on this list at all because none of the things it predicted for right now have come true: it's Malthusian "vision" made in the 70s turned out to be way off beam for the 21st century - unless you count playing Asteroids.
On the other hand, under vision and precision, Robocop should probably come tops.
Don't get me wrong, I like all the movies on the list, but all this "precision" and "vision" crap is mere justification for someone's sci-fi movie tastes.
I appreciate that they made Gattaca, Blade Runner and Brazil rate highly for the simple reason these movies do some justice to one of the real strongpoints of science fiction - The ability to use an abstracted situation to point out conflicting situations of the present. Whether they do it well or not is another question but they do ask to you to think.
This is not a put down of technical effects films such as the Matrix, which also has that element of abstraction (where are we going with our preoccupation with things digital?) or terminator or the star wars series. There is a need for pure entertainment as well and everybody loves a simple action filled story full of effects and fairy tales. But disliking films because they ask you to think says more about you than it does about the movie.
Some films that didn't make it
A film that was never popular but also had a good mix of action and the think factor (if higly simplified) was Enemy Mine.
And my own favourite fantasy film with brilliant acting and huge laughs was Time Bandits, also by Terry Gillam who made Brazil.
Barbarella is in the list, but Forbidden Planet is not? Blasphemy!
I didn't care for Gattaca, but as I'm a molecular biologist, it seemed to me about as plausible as "The Net" or "Hackers". Nobody in the field seriously believes that there exist individual genes for different talents, so the whole central idea of the film -- that hard work can overcome lack of a custom genetic background is just fighting against a straw-man argument that nobody holds.
One of the problems I have with judging SF in general, but SF cinema in particular is the extent to which the cinematic realisation is based on a preexisting work, in particular literature. Can one really judge the merits of the cinematic realisation of the future apart from the original author's vision? (and more based on than say, Blade Runner).
:-).
I think that by any standard, there will be an inherent bias against older SF cinema, particularly if the original (as in innovative) idea presented in the film has become passe (Planet of the Apes for example) or SF is merely the setting for an old story (The Forbidden Planet as The Tempest for example) or the vehicle for allegory (The Day the Earth Stood Still for example).
The prevalence of Dystopic future visions, suggest SF as vehicle for allegory and pure SF story telling is actually pretty rare.
Some glaring omissions (IMHO). 1984, 'nuff said. Have there really been no good implementations of a work by HG Wells? What of Verne? A cinematic execution of an illusory world, what about Dark City, if not as good then certainly better than The Matrix. What about Cube? Anyway the list of omissions is, as ever always extensive. But most of all, why isn't Star Wars number 1. Surely by any criteria (except maybe acting
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
As the staircase separates the upper and lower floors of the house, the DNA molecule divides society into valid and invalid classes.
Yup. With the irony being that Jerome is "down the ladder." =)
Thing is, if drive is something afected by DNA (and it probably has as much to do with brain chemistry as with nurture, so why not?) Vincent is "up the ladder." I mean, look, Jerome had all these other abilities that were unaffected by his accident, and yet he basically curls up, waiting to die. Surely adaptibility is a "survival trait" and therefore something genetically linked; it's the foundation of Darwinian Evolution Theory, after all.
All fears about genetic manipulation aside, I wish it was possible to just analyze DNA, to hear "you really need a special diet to avoid heart attacks" or "this indicates you might be subject to depression, if this fits, we can offer you classes and/or medication." Ever seen "Lorenzo's Oil?" Imagine if Lorenzo had been put on that diet at birth.
To the extent that testing would offer opportunities, it's a good thing. To the extent that it limits them, it's not. A world where grade school kids could be tested and treated for schizophrenia would be a good thing. But a world where your mom says to your girlfriend, "honey, stay away from my son. He's rated as highly intospective and also easily distracted, and I don't want you messing up his life. Go find a nice jock" would not be such a good thing.
Would critics still praise Hemingway if he never got drunk? On the other hand, if you were Hemingway as a child, wouldn't you easily choose long life over misery?
Get off my launchpad!
Star Wars is Sci Fi. I've got that bit. But how can it present "a vision for the future" when the opening words of every movie in the series are "A Long Time Ago..."? How can there be "science behind the fiction" when we're feeling a great disturbance in the force?
And how did "Robocop"* and "Jurassic Park" both make the list when Dune (1984) and Dune (2001) are mysteriously absent? Meanwhile, let's kick "Akira" for "Serial Experiments: Lain" and then kick "The Terminator" for "Akira"...
This list was written by somebody who has seen 25 sci fi movies and is proud of the fact, rather like proud child at one of those 'kids reading programs' put on by libraries...
* -- Paul Verhoeven, Sci Fi illuminary? Ehw.
I agree. This can't be true. How can a simple Action/Sci-Fi movie beat these two classics. The story is just so simple in Matrix with no real suprising moments. But I still think Clockwork Orange is no Sci-Fi film. It's a critic of the society. The futuristic elements are only to not accuse people directly. So this list is really wrong in my opinion.
Here are some movies in the list I think don't belong and why:
5. Brazil
Brazil uses some sci-fi imagery but doesn't really pose any "What If?" type of questions necessary for true sci-fi. It is mainly an exercise in psychology.
8. The Boys From Brazil
This movie uses the concept of cloning as a what if, but is mainly a suspense thriller. Where are the killer androids? (just kidding)
9. Jurassic Park
Action film, again uses cloning as a plot device. Totally forgettable.
10. Star Wars
Certainly not worthy of the top 20. A great bit of entertainment, but it doesn't advance sci-fi at all. Mainly an exercise of Lucas's ego.
11. The Road Warrior
Entertaining, to be sure, but is this really sci-fi or an action film?
12. Tron
This is sci-fi but the acting is weak, the story is weaker. If you are going to have this one on the list you might as well knock off 2001 and replace it with "The Black Hole". Otherwise an entertaining film.
16. RoboCop
Duh. If this is here why not Predator? This is simply an action film with sci-fi as a backdrop.
18. The Day The Earth Stood Still
18. Eighteen? Are they nuts? This belongs in the top 10. One of the only two movies from the entire 1950's to belong on the list at all.
20. Barbarella
This makes the list? Jeez, why not put Zardoz here or the pr0n version of "Blackula"? This movie sucks worse than "Flash Gordon" (70's version with Queen music).
Where is Highlander? Where is The Beach? Where is War of the Worlds? Where is "The Lathe of Heaven"???? Where is "The Man Who Fell to Earth"??? Barbarella makes it and these classics don't? Are they out of their collective minds? Bah! I am so glad I cancled my subscription years ago. I would have written a nasty letter to the editor and gotten all worked up had I paid for this insipid opinion!
Anyway, rant over. Back to work...
I think a LOT more time needs to pass before we can judge films like The Matrix and Gattaca. Part of the greatness of a film is how well it stands up to the test of time. They need to do this again in another 20 years.
Never confuse feeling with thinking.