Blade Runner Is The Best Sci-Fi Film

Delchanat writes "Now there's scientific proof: according to 60 of the most influential scientists in the world, including British biologist Richard Dawkins and Canadian psychologist Steven Pinker, Ridley Scott's Blade Runner (1982) is the best science fiction film. Late Mr. Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) finished 2nd, followed by George Lucas' Star Wars (1977) and The Empire Strikes Back (1980)." There are several other stories as well: favorite authors, the basics of science fiction, and an excerpt of a new Iain M. Banks novel.

Comments

2001 sucked.

[ekhben]

Or at least, I found it to be told in a slow and uninvolving way.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Door-opening Fascist]

I really enjoyed 2001, particularly in subsequent viewings. It is less of a movie, and more of an art masterpiece. Kubrick uses a variety of subtle techniques, my two favorite being writing the movie for the music ("The Blue Danube" in particular) and silencing the voices when he wants to suggest that Hal is reading lips.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I understand.

Pinker is not listed in the FA at all, and he's a psycholinguist.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Tassach]

Stanley Kubrick's films are very different than typical Hollywood fare -- you may not like them, appreciate them, or even get them, but you can't deny that they're art. But hey, tastes differ; that's why Baskin-Robbins makes 31 flavors of ice cream. Just because YOU don't like mint chocolate chip doesn't mean that it sucks.

Re:2001 sucked.

[scotch]

Just because YOU don't like mint chocolate chip doesn't mean that it sucks.

That's exactly what it means.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Rew190]

The movie was not written for the music. As a matter of fact, there was an actual original score that was made for the film (it's released). While Kubrick was filming, he'd use classical music to set a mood... he ended up liking it so much that he decided to keep it for the final cut.

Re:2001 sucked.

[JamesKPolk]

"...but you can't deny that they're art."

Why not?

Re:2001 sucked.

[Psychotext]

Unpopular viewpoint, but I'd have to agree. I watched it once to see what the fuss was about. I watched it a second time to see what I had missed the first time. I watched it the third time because I couldn't believe that this horribly bad film was rated in the top 10 movies of all time.

Just another trip into Kubrick's mangled mind, but I think in this case you just needed a little too many drugs to appreciate it. Good for the swinging 60s I'm sure, but I'm just a little too sober for it these days.

Watch clockwork orange or full metal jacket if you want to appreciate some of Kubrick's better work. (Concentrating more on the story than tedious and trippy visual sequences.)

Re:2001 sucked.

[Concerned Onlooker]

Yes, that would definitely be true from an MTV type of perspective. We have developed ever shorter attention spans so that if something doesn't blow up or someone doesn't get shot every few minutes it doesn't hold people's attentions.

I saw 2001 when I was in grade school and I was completely fascinated, totally absorbed by what was happening on the screen. Not that I understood it, of course. :-)

Re:2001 sucked.

[LS]

The book and the movie were written in conjunction. If you read the book then see the movie, it's A LOT better! Trust me.

LS

Re:2001 sucked.

[upsidedown_duck]

2001 is a masterpiece depicting the humanity, beauty, and reality of space travel and the genuine incomprehensibility of intelligent extra-terrestrial life. 2001 is as uninvolved as Beethoven's symphonies are cold and heartless.

Re:2001 sucked.

[name773]

Why not?
because the definition of art is so broad :)

Re:2001 sucked.

[anagama]

• Baskin-Robbins makes 31 flavors of ice cream.

Shouldn't that be "31 Colors" of ice cream?

Re:2001 sucked.

[Paulrothrock]

My fiancée actually has that album from a record collection she inherited. Now that I realize it's not the classical used in the movie, I'll make sure she doesn't sell it on eBay!

Re:2001 sucked.

[silverbolt]

mint chocolate chip does suck. Heaven knows how people eat that stuff..

Re:2001 sucked.

[john_smith_45678]

Not enough mindless and gratutious special effects, violence, and sex eh? Sigh...

Re:2001 sucked.

[john_smith_45678]

Clockwork Orange? Sorry, but the only people I know who like that movie almost always take (lots of) drugs before/when watching. I think that movie is pretty much a piece of shit with no redeeming qualities.

Just another trip into Kubrick's mangled mind, but I think in this case you just needed a little too many drugs to appreciate it. Good for the swinging 60s I'm sure, but I'm just a little too sober for it these days.

That statement totally applies to Clockwork Orange.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kind of funny which films you picked considering those are generally considered two of his lesser movies and even Kubrick didn't like Clockwork Orange. Outside of the training camp and the hallmark-moment cliche of the sniper girl, FMJ lacks anything memorable about it and Clockwork is basically a tits-n-violence movie (which, I believe, was Kubrick's problem with it).

Re:2001 sucked.

[farkinga]

Sweet, glorious crap! I must echo the sentiments of those supporting 2001 for being far greater than 'sucking'.

I'll admit that the first time I watched it, I thought it sucked, too. It was slow and non sequitur. However, I realize now that the moments where the movie progresses slowly only emphasize the immense speed with which intelligence exponentially increases. Consider how the final moments of the movie seemingly span decades, culminating in the creation of an intelligence far beyond what had previously existed.

2001 is a movie about intelligence, transhumanism, and the singularity, all of which are amazingly timely. 2001, as a movie, is not merely an artistic statement, though it is among the most finely crafted movies of the century.

Star wars, for all of its fantastic, visual action, wears its short-sightedness on its forehead. Honestly, which is more plausible: attaining faster-than-light travel or hacking our own bodies and amassing intelligence at an exponential rate, building towards some sort of creature we don't yet have any conception of?

I'll answer that: the latter is the case, and is, in fact, currently the case. It's not a thing waiting just around the corner. Slashdot is the star-child of 2001. People wandering around the planet, plugged in to the network 24/7, are far, far smarter than humans who aren't plugged in.

Literally. Ask a person with a cellphone any question at all. As long as the answer is a factoid and that person posesses moderate searching skills, it doesn't matter if the answer is cached in their cortex, because a slightly higher latency but infinitely larger storage medium is a few thumb-presses away.

If that person is able to answer questions that a non-connected person is unable to answer, there is clearly an information differential between the two. One human is more human, and the other, transhuman.

Humans happen to be little more than information processors riding the crest of the real-time-ness wave, and lowering latencies of access to various forms of information are basically the only thing preventing an entity of unlimited intelligence from processing in real-time.

Perhaps these notions were well understood at the time of the making of 2001, but I suspect not, as these concepts are as yet not well understood. All the more reason that the movie should be regarded as visionary beyond imagination; the movie itself is more than the images portrayed on the screen. The imagination behind the images is communicated lucidly, taking only a very limited number of artistic liberties along the way.

The portion of 2001 regarded as artistic are more appropriately majestic, and the rest, that which we consider sci-fi, are analogous to a higher being channeling symbols through a prophet. Does it possess additional significance when the fiction portion of sci-fi is more readily compared to poetry, religion, and logic? ...when the fiction becomes pure science?

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or at least, I found it to be told in a slow and uninvolving way.

Agreed. I fell asleep 15 minutes into it. IIRC they spent about 10 minutes panning around fucking space. How boring.

Re:2001 sucked.

[darkmeridian]

Baskin-Robbins makes 31 flavors of ice cream.

Shouldn't that be "31 Colors" of ice cream?

Well, mint and pistachio are both green. So, no.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Luke Mewburn]

Kubrick may have been a great director _visually_, but the audio quality on most of his movies sucks, even on the later ones like Full Metal Jacket. FMJ is an excellent filmed marred by muffled dialogue. Fortunately the DVD release has subtitles :-)

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unpopular viewpoint, but I'd have to agree. I watched it once to see what the fuss was about. I watched it a second time to see what I had missed the first time. I watched it the third time because I couldn't believe that this horribly bad film was rated in the top 10 movies of all time.

Why you must be right then. 2001 is a piece of garbage! I know this is going to sound like sacrilege to a raging movie buff such as yourself, but did it once occur to you that maybe you weren't getting it? I loved the movie every time I saw it. After I read the book, I loved it even more.

Oh, but wait, accordig to you I'm wrong. Stupid me.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, the book is so much better. Dispite the fact that the two were written at the same time the book has a lot more depth.

Re:2001 sucked.

[AMNESIACX]

Because art asks us to think and discuss. 2001 does that in droves, why else are you posting here?

Re:2001 sucked.

[Psychotext]

All down to personal preference really. My main problem with 2001 was the visuals (and the last half hour) above anything. It seemed to me (I haven't gone back and checked) that every single space shot was about 5 mins too long. Sure, show us that the ship is flying across space - but don't show us the same ship from different angles for 10 mins just because you can. Even worse with the "lets throw every colour we have at the screen" photosensitive epilepsy fest that came toward the end. Ok, I get it - He's travelling across space, time, x, now please, for the love of god get on with it. Maybe I'm impatient, I don't know - but on the second on third viewings I just had to reach for the fast forward button.

If I was to be completely honest I would say that I only pick CO and FMJ because they are the only other two Kubrick films I have seen. After watching 2001 I wont be wasting my time with any more. I stand by my opinion that they are better films.

I did enjoy CO because I thought it did the whole anarchy / insanity bit well. On FMJ, you're right... thinking about it I can't actually remember much about it at all right now. But I know I didn't hate it... unlike 2001.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Wavicle]

Just another trip into Kubrick's mangled mind, but I think in this case you just needed a little too many drugs to appreciate it.

I don't think that is a completely fair evaluation of 2001. 2001 was the most honest portrayal of space travel out there. It wasn't glamorous, there were no lasers, communicating with earth involved very long round trip times. It is one of the few movies to show that space is very cold, very quiet and very, very big.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you've only seen it on TV, right? Seeing it in the theater 35 years ago, it was quite an event, especially because there had never been anything even close to it. Kubrick opened up Science Fiction to the masses.

Go back and look at the original Star Wars, you'll find that it too is lacking.

Re:2001 sucked.

[tius]

Evidently, Dim really is dim.

Nuf.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Psychotext]

Hello AC. At which point did I say those who liked the film were wrong? Never, I simply gave my opinion that I didn't like the film and can't understand how it is rated in the top 100. Didn't I say it was an unpopular viewpoint before I even started criticising?

But then again, I was expecting flames for daring to question the godlike 2001.

Re:2001 sucked.

[servognome]

Yes TV is the new generation's monolith, and we've evolved past that whole thinking thing to straight action!

Re:2001 sucked.

[JamesKPolk]

Disasters cause people to stop, look, and talk, too. I'd say 2001 was a disaster of a movie.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Omerna]

That's essentially what one of my (former hippie) teachers said, quote:

"When I watched 2001 in the theater you could see the smoke billowing up in front of the screen."

I assume he didn't mean cigarettes.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how its our fault that we found 2001 to be as dull as dirt. Not, say, that the only interesting character (HAL) didn't appear until a third of the way through the film, was on screen for maybe 20 minutes, and then dies along with the only interesting plot elements that were going on. Not, say, that there were half hour periods of nothing but spaceships flying, or that the last 45 minutes of the film doesn't make the flying fig's bit of sense until you read a story summary.

Re:2001 sucked.

[ShavenYak]

I liked Clockwork Orange, but I agree that it's pretty weird to dis 2001 for requiring drugs and then say C.O. was different.

Now where'd I put my spoon?

Re:2001 sucked.

[pivo]

If that person is able to answer questions that a non-connected person is unable to answer, there is clearly an information differential between the two. One human is more human, and the other, transhuman.

So, the librairians of Alexandria were "transhuman" because they had access to information (in books) which other people did not have access to? I don't agree. Access to information does not alter one's humanity. Having a cell phone or being able to look up "factoids" does not mean you've become something more than human.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because YOU don't like mint chocolate chip doesn't mean that it sucks.

That's exactly what it means.

No it isn't; I don't see any mention of mint ice cream here, do you?

it.

1. Used to refer to that one previously mentioned. Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified, unknown, or irrelevant; a group of objects or individuals; an action; or an abstraction: polished the table until it shone; couldn't find out who it was; opened the meeting by calling it to order.

2. Used as the subject of an impersonal verb: It is snowing.

3. A. Used as an anticipatory subject or object: Is it certain that they will win?

B. Used as an anticipatory subject to emphasize a term that is not itself a subject: It was on Friday that all the snow fell.

4. Used to refer to a general condition or state of affairs: She couldn't stand it.

5. Used to refer to a crucial situation or culmination: This is itthe rivals are finally face to face. That's it! I won't tolerate any more foolishness.

6. Informal. Used to refer to something that is the best, the most desirable, or without equal: He thinks he's it. That steak was really it!

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Curiously enough, he's right. Humor aside, that IS what it means. Saying something "sucks" is an opinion, and only valid to the person who has the opinion. (Much as some people seem to prefer that their opinion is gospel sometimes...) I might say "Cookie dough ice cream is excellent" while someone else might say "cookie dough ice cream is the worst flavor ever!" Assuming we are both arguing simply on the merits of the taste, we are both correct in individual cases. There is no general case. For some reason people seem to prefer that this isn't the case, but oh well.

Re:2001 sucked.

[farkinga]

You're not honestly trying to sell the idea that someone without knowledge is as capable as someone with knowledge, are you?

Buried somwehere within the Library of Alexandria were clues that could have advanced civilization dramatically had they come to light, rather than being burned to the ground. Inasmuch as calculus is important, had Archimedes' treatment of his "method of exhaustion" been better known, Newton and Leibniz would have been pretty irrelevant, as they arrived at similar conclusions millenia later. Archimedes' "mechanical method," as it is also known, was re-discovered in the 1900s, but its very presence in a library of ancient times could have made us humans far more than we are today.

The ways we affect our own body processes through drugs or, even more fantastically, gene therapy, are simply the by-product of information being passed down. Note that this is information that fundamentally modifies the functioning of the human, whatever the state of the human species is at that moment. Is it the information iself that leads to transhumanity, or is it the execution of that information? ...until a point, the distinction holds some significance, but information is execution at a certain scale of observation.

Re:2001 sucked.

[akuzi]

> Stanley Kubrick's films are very different than typical
> Hollywood fare -- you may not like them, appreciate them, or
> even get them, but you can't deny that they're art.

yeah. I think 'Dr Strangelove' and 'Clockwork Orange' could have could easily have been on the list too. I suspect they were biased towards relatively recent films.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Ubergrendle]

For what its worth, Pauline Kael agreed with you. I believe she refered to it as "Kubrick's trainset"...implying an adolescant director's mindset.

I disagree, as does Ebert. But at least this movie is worth arguing about.... god forbid this turns into a discussion about the finer aspects of meteorite #61231-A from Armagedon.

Re:2001 sucked.

[katty kat]

..yeah, but what's with all this "Blue Danube" crap? Everyone knows they stole their music from the Commodore 64 game Elite - when you turn their Docking Computer on. I can't believe they don't have the Elite creators listed in the 2001 credits. Sheesh.

Re:2001 sucked.

[brainburger]

"Or at least, I found it to be told in a slow and uninvolving way. "

That's a pity. 2001 is pretty much unique in sci-fi in that it breaks the usual rules of film-storytelling.

We are so used to films which -for example- have a quick cutaway at a crucial moment, to remind the audience of some small but significant detail that was shown previously, so that they will understand what is happening with no problem.

2001 doesn't do this, indeed it doesn't spoon-feed its ideas at all. This makes it intimidating and boring to some viewers that aren't used to being tested by a film.

I would suggest that next time you see it (there is always a next time with this film), you study it for its divergence from the norm, and what methods of concept-illustration are employed instead. - It is a masterpiece of the visual, so many familiar (to us nerds) concepts demonstrated visually. Also, *every* line of dialogue is essential...

Check out the shot during the transmission from the moon, where the sun can be seen above TMA1 for the first time in 3 million years - it is the hook to the whole film, but you the viewer need to work at it to know that.

It is also in a class of its own for the accuracy of its science. - this is rare indeed. In fact, can anyone here nit-pick anything?

And, it even has one joke in it; the instructions for the zero-g toilet :)

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a total straw man argument. Mint ice cream just sucks. Get over it.

P.S. it = Mint ice cream sucks.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude if all of their ice-cream tastes the same to you, I think it is time to get a cat-scan.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Frizzle Fry]

We have developed ever shorter attention spans so that if something doesn't blow up or someone doesn't get shot every few minutes it doesn't hold people's attentions.

You make it sound as if at the time the movie came out, everyone understood and loved it, whereas today, people find it boring. And this really isn't the case. When it first came out, initial screenings of it went terribly, it got many bad reviews and a lot of people hated it. Obviously, some people enjoyed it, but it took a while for it to be recognized as a classic and there are probably a lot more people today who would acknowledge that it's a great movie than there were back them.

It's one of my favorite movies, btw. When I bought my new tv (well, about a year ago now), which was a 48" widescreen set that I had bought specifically for movies, the first thing I did with it was watch 2001. What a great movie. Also, right around new years 2001, there was a theater in times square that was showing the movie. Watching that in a theater on the big screen was a really great experience.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over it. And by "get over", I mean "you can". And by "it", I mean "die".

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

you spelled colour wrong.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Jaycatt]

Good for the swinging 60s I'm sure, but I'm just a little too sober for it these days.

You know, you've hit on a point here I've often brought up. A 1968 review about a movie made in 1968 is different than a review about the same movie written in 2004.

If we're going to be comparing apples to apples, I think we should compare reviews written at the same time.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

2001 is as uninvolved as Beethoven's symphonies are cold and heartless.

Um, fan of 2001 here ... maybe you shouldn't have picked a composer who wrote half of his symphonies while deaf ...

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, the Enterprise could totally have kicked the Discovery's ass.

Well, maybe except that episode where the Enterprise computer starts to become conscious. Then it'd come down to a fist fight between Picard and Bowman.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mental midget.

omg

[OddRob]

Any poll that puts 2001 in the top 10 is suspect.

Re:omg

[jackb_guppy]

Any that poll with Blade Runner is in the top show payola was used in the voting.

Re:omg

[Yaztromo]

Any poll that puts 2001 in the top 10 is suspect.

I am of the opinion that the exact opposite is true: I'd be exceedingly suprised if a group of scientists didn't include it in their top 10. Indeed, I'm rather suprised it wasn't in the #1 position.

2001: A Space Odyssey still stands today as one of the most scientifically accurate Sci-Fi movies. And when you consider that it was produced prior to man's first landing on the moon, that's quite a huge feat.

Not only that, but the story is vastly moree thought provoking than your typical sci-fi fare intended for mass consumption. It deals with issues such as human evolution, human exploration, the role of artificial intelligence, man's attempt to "play god" gone terribly wrong, and man's place in the universe.

It's not a movie for people with a closed mind, or people who don't want to think about the story for themselves. I don't think there is anything wrong with people who want to go to a movie that tells them a simple to understand story (like, say, anything in the Star Wars series) -- but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for well through, thought provoking films in the genre.

2001: A Space Odyssey is simply brilliant. There's a reason why it appears on virtually every top movies list (like the AFC Top 100). And even thought the movie was filmed nearly 40 years ago, it still stands up as scientifically realistic in its portrayals of computer science and space travel.

How many movies out there can say that?

Yaz.

Re:omg

[Anonymous Coward]

the role of artificial intelligence, man's attempt to "play god" gone terribly wrong, and man's place in the universe.

Sounds like the story of the Iraqi invasion to me.

Re:omg

[jest3r]

the 30 minute acid trip was ..... trippy .. and the star child ..... out of this world .....

Re:omg

[fyngyrz]

2001: A Space Odyssey still stands today as one of the most scientifically accurate Sci-Fi movies.

Consider these points:

• Stargates - no scientific basis whatesoever, then or now. Much less packed into a box the size of the black thing in the movie. I agree with the statement (paraphrasing, due to lack of memory) "sufficiently advanced science appears as magic to less advanced cultures" but to invoke this is basically to invoke fantasy, not science. The whole idea of good science fiction is to extrapolate reasonably from what we know at the time of the writing. When you begin seriously vague handwaving, you're writing fantasy, not science fiction, IMHO. Ding.

• Invisible interference with the apes. This really needs a lot of work to be anything near reasonable, but it is closest to having an explanation. DNA sample on touch, subsequent EM manipulation of subject DNA. Certainly not possible now (much less when 2001 was written), but EM does have bio effects, and there might be a path to reason here. The problem is, 2001 didn't follow one, so it fails the test. Ding.

• Radical transformation of conciousness (the embryo in the movie was symbolic - but it was symbolic of fantasy, not accurate science.) No supporting science exists in nascent or developed form. Ding.

• Most arguable in my opinion, HAL itself. I'm inclined to think that computer science is heading right for AI and it is all but inevitable. But there are many who will tell you I am an utter optimist in this area and that science points the precise other direction. Quiet little ding. :)

2001 was reasonably tolerable when it came to spaceflight itself; even the moon buggy seemed somewhat reasonable (I built one of those once.. by Revell, maybe?) at the time. The space station was a bit optimistic, but in the legitimate realm of SF rather than fantasy, no question about it.

Don't get me wrong - I loved the movie then, and I still do - but I do think there's plenty of outright fantasy creeping around in there, fouling up the movie's sf heritage.

Re:omg

[OddRob]

I find that parts of 2001 are brilliant. I also agree with you that it deals with some very complex issues. I just don't think it's a good movie. I have friends that love LotR, but don't feel that it's the best novel ever written. I think they're wrong, so I see your point. (Well, not the best novel, but it's up there). We simply have to agree to disagree. Is that allowed, or should I flame you now? rjw

Re:omg

[Yaztromo]

the 30 minute acid trip was ..... trippy .. and the star child ..... out of this world .....

Indeed. But there was a purpose and mesage behind both of them.

Admittedly with modern special effects there may have been some better ways to get that message across. I think one of the reasons why some people today "don't get it" is because the special effects in the move are generally so good that it's easy to compare it to your expectations for a modern movie.

The "acid trip" (which isn't 30 minutes long -- closer to 20 :) ) is supposed to represent Dave Bowman seeing wonders of the universe he can't properly comprehend. He's seeing these things, but the best his mind can percieve of them are a bunch of swirly colours, odd planetscapes, the birth and death of stellar phenomenon, etc.

The star child is supposed to be as different as you and I as the apes in "The Dawn of Man" are to you and I. We can't comprehend what Bowman has become through alien influence. How are you supposed to realistically show someething that doesn't exist, and which, by definition, the audience (as humans) can't comprehend? Maybe they should have taken the Star Trek route and had him turn into a green vapour cloud with flashing lights and had some doctor step in at the end to point at him and say he's evolved beyond humanity -- but that ending would have sucked :).

Yaz.

Re:omg

[fredopalus]

Well, considering it's 2004....

Re:omg

[Khelder]

I agree with the parent (and disagree with the gp).

2001 is really good in parts, but overall it bored me. The book is much, much better. The movie has too many slow sections.

Both the book and the movie raise interesting, and very sci-fi-y issues, but the movie just wasn't all that entertaining. Other movies have raised similar issues and done so much better, like Blade Runner (as others pointed out).

As to its scientific accuracy, someone else already debunked that, but I think it's irrelevant. I can't think of a movie example right now, but there are great sci fi books that have bad science or no science, such as The Left Hand of Darkness by Le Guin, or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein, or The Martian Chronicles by Bradbury.

I do like it when sci fi handles the science well (for example, the star fury maneuvers in B5) and cringe when it doesn't (mitochlorians in SW I), but the other aspects of the book, movie, or TV show are so much more important.

Re:omg

[Oligonicella]

"2001: A Space Odyssey still stands today as one of the most scientifically accurate Sci-Fi movies."

Hate to break it to ya, but that has absolutely nothing to do with making a good SF movie. There's that tricky little word "fiction" to account for.

Re:omg

[limabone]

Agreed..2001 should be ahead of blade runner. While blade runner is a great geek fest, and has some great visuals, it has alot of problems (some solved with the directors cut). The earth is supposedly polluted etc (eg. a living owl is a ridiculous notion) and everyone is splitting 'off world', yet the roads are teeming with people, and still that guy from the newhart show still manages to have an entire apartment complex to himself.

The book is much better (isn't it always, but particularly with sci-fi it seems), but a bit too depressing for a movie.

Re:omg

[Yaztromo]

Consider these points:

Sure, why not. I have some extra time on my hands tonight :).

Stargates - no scientific basis whatesoever, then or now. And yet for some reason they remain a staple of science fiction. Note the fiction portion of "science fiction". This is not science fact.

Basides which, there have been theories (some of which have been disproven since) that would make such a system posssible. Many cosmic theorists have postulated that there may be "shortcuts" between two points in space.

Note, however, that of the three monoliths we see, only one is actually a stargate -- and it's several kilometres across. The small units never once are shown to be star gates of any sort -- the first one on earth simply has an effect on the apes living in its vicinity, and the one on the moon only sends a signal out towards Jupiter.

Invisible interference with the apes. The movie purposefully leaves the method of interference to the viewer. Indeed, I'd say that DNA manipulation would have been the last things on Clarke's mind when developing the movie. A more likely scenario would be something akin to telepathy (note that this whole scene is expanded upon in the book -- the monolith does indeed take control of various proto-humans to run tests and experiments on them, and uses imagery to teach them some basic skills in an attempt to see if they can jump-start evolution). Radical transformation of conciousness Again, a staple of science fiction -- and part of the "fiction" part of the movie. Most arguable in my opinion, HAL itself. Humanity itself seems to prove that HAL should be possible. The more important part of HAL's sub-plot, however, is the questions it forces the viewer to ask themselves which are important parts of modern computer science (see my other posting on this topic -- I'm not going to repeat it all here).

You seem to have picked on the "fiction" portions of the movie pretty good, missing almost completely the science aspects. Note that I didn't claim that the movie was 100% scientifically accurate -- otherwise we wouldn't call it "science fiction" (sorry to belabour that point). Some of the parts that are rather scientifically accurate (or at least possible) include:

• The orbiting space station, and it's use of centripedal motion in the creation of simulated gravity (later revisited in the Discovery),
• The design of the earth-to-orbit ship (shuttle-like),
• The complete lack of aerodynamics for ships that are never intended to fly through an atmosphere (it's unnecessary),
• The complete lack of sound in space (Poole only hears his own breath when attempting to change the antenna dish control unit),
• The zero gravity toilet (an early book about the movie actually had a reprint of the directions in it),
• The use of velcro in zero-gravity environments to enhance human mobility,
• The food (sticky goopy items that stay stuck to plates),
• The long length of time it takes to travel from Earth to the moon, or from Earth to Jupiter,
• The communications delays involved in communicating across these long distances,
• Realistic propulsion methods,
• ...and many more (hey, I said I had some free time -- not the rest of the night! ;) ).

These elements make it vastly more scientifically accurate than most scifi movies. Or do you think those movies that involve instantaneous travel between star systems with aerodynamically styled ships using impossible propulsion mechanisms with lasers that travel slower than the speed of light and emit loud sounds in the vaccuum of space are more realistic? :)

Yaz.

Re:omg

[Yaztromo]

Hate to break it to ya, but that has absolutely nothing to do with making a good SF movie. There's that tricky little word "fiction" to account for.

I disagree. Most people want some form of believable fiction. If you ask the audience to suspend their belief for the possible too far, they won't take your work seriously.

That having been said, scientific believability has allowed this movie to stand on it's own much longer than any other. Think back to any science fiction movie from that era -- virtually none of them have stood the test of time, because they're simply unbelievable.

I agree that a high level of scientific probability isn't necessary to make good fiction -- but when present it does make good fiction better, and does allow it to btter withstand the test of time.

Yaz

Re:omg

[maddskillz]

But it looks like you did miss the first word: "science".

Re:omg

[Yaztromo]

We simply have to agree to disagree. Is that allowed, or should I flame you now?

No. Agree with me now or die! :).

Yaz.

Re:omg

[Yaztromo]

As to its scientific accuracy, someone else already debunked that, but I think it's irrelevant.

Nobody "debunked" anything. Someone simply provided four examples of the fiction portion of the movie and claimed they weren't backed by science. Well duh -- that's why it's fiction in the first place. They also unfortunately avoided all the areas where it was scientifically accurate. I can hardly consider that "debunking" anything.

And it is somewhat relevant. No, good science isn't strictly necessary to make a good science fiction movie (ref: any Star Wars movie), but it does makee a good scifi movie like 2001 better, and allows it to withstand the test of time (just think of how many scifi movies from the 80's seem campy now -- and 2001 pre-dated many of them by more than a decade).

Yaz.

Re:omg

[fyngyrz]

I was pointing out that the claim to being one of the most scientifically accurate movies is marred by those issues.

Regarding your points, lots of otherwise very bad scientifically yet typically considered-as-SF movies (like star wars) have plenty of good science elements in them. I could go on for many paragraphs, cherry picking good science out of Alan Dean Foster's Star Wars (that's who actually wrote the screenplay for the movie, not George Lucas.) I would say that for a movie to live up to a billing of "one of the most scientifically accurate", it'd need to be rid of problems, not have bragging rights to a decent extrapolation here and there.

Also - for me, the best SF implements the fiction portion of "SF" as the storyline; it is not used as an excuse to drag in bad science, or preposterous science, or extrapolation that cannot reasonably follow. Instead, the science and/or extrapolation is as bulletproof as possible, so as to provide both exilaration and hope as a backdrop to a human (or inhuman) story. I get whacked in the eyeballs with a giant world-orbiting embryo, and trust me, the first thing that comes to mind isn't "gonna go right home and blog up how fabulous the science is in this movie!"

As I said, I really like the movie. I just don't think it meets the standard mentioned.

Finally, as to your use of "science fiction." It is very different than mine for a reason. I'm freaking old, and I have a SF (classic SF) upbringing. I still deal with the idea of science fiction the way the crew in Milford (Pennsylvania, very much SFWA's birthplace) did. I grew up there, I know (or knew, sadly) most of those people, and I'm getting pretty fossilized in my outlook. :)

Since those days, the category of SF has very much changed from "science fiction" to "speculative fiction" with (IMHO, of course) the objective of folding in fantasy elements because there are so few good writers doing actual SF. I'm not with the program, I readily admit. My feeling is that the science should be accurate or reasonably extrapolated, or it's not "science fiction", it is fantasy. Or speculative fiction, if you must. Of course, anything can be speculative fiction, because the thing is defined by a lack of rigor. Very much like religion, and for the same reason: It's quite difficult to work with the facts as we know them, and probably just as difficult to actually know them. So people tend to take the easy route, and just wave their hands wildly instead.

All IMHO, not meant to spoil your day in any way.

Re:omg

[ewe2]

Wow, you have a narrow view of sf. Consider this quote from Arthur C. Clarke:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

There is no sf that has the "right" logic. Now watch Odyssey 200 times as punishment.

Re: OMG

[Quantum Jim]

Arthur C. Clark once said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. That was the point of your first three issues with 2001. The idea was that the aliens were so far advanced ahead of us Homo Sapiens that they seemed like Gods. We couldn't begin to comprehend what they were like or how their technology worked.

As for HAL 9000, I think he is more plausible than not. We might not be able to make thinking machines until 3004, but it will happen eventually. And unless you think intelligence and emotions are separate entities (I don't), the computer intelligence will have our faults as well.

Re:omg

[Colazar]

Heh. People have been arguing about "what is *real* science fiction" since about 20 minutes after the term was first coined. Having to grandfather in space opera, time travel, and psi, since they were around from the beginning, pretty much nullified the pristine "hard sf only" definition. But I do agree with you, for the most part, as long as you count Anthropology, Psychology, Linguistics, etc among the sciences being extrapolated, that allow it to be called sf. The ones who know what they're talking about, do it well. The others--well, that's where the hand-waving comes in.

I'll also disagree with you that the change in the genre came about because of lazy authors. I think it's because the audience changed. I don't think that the readers, by and large, know enough science to tell the difference between reasonable and unreasonable extrapolation, and so they don't care. If that's not something they care about, the publisher's sure not going to care.

In the end, I think that the most accepted definition of "science fiction" is: what a science fiction editor buys.

Re:omg

[aled]

I wonder if you would EVER find any story that could be called SF by you. In fact as soon as a laser pistol appears in scene you would need to disqualify it by your definition of SF.

Re:omg

[rs79]

"Consider these points:"

Hey is that why it's called Science Fiction?

"Duh. Double duh" - Weemba

Re:omg

[DamEEZ]

Wasn't it Clarke who said that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"? There may be many elements in the movie that sem impossible, but the more general premise of the film is that given our relative youth as an intelligent species, there is some likelihood that other intelligences have arisen long long before us. Given time, their technology and ability to manupilate the universe would be at least as astounding to us as our current technology would be to primitiv man.

I despise sci fi that relies on fantasy, but somehow the odyssey series is saved from that for me.

Charlie

Re: OMG

[aled]

We couldn't begin to comprehend what they were like or how their technology worked.

Talk for you, I'm pretty sure they used... hum... a Zeta... er... ray...ar radiation, yes that's it.

Re:omg

[aled]

I would sugest don't wait for his answer and just kill him... if you agree.

Re:omg

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, quite the opposite.

Your taste in movies should seriously be questioned if you disliked that movie.

Re:omg

[astro-g]

About the stargate thing,
1, if its doing what you think its doing, how big it is is unlikely to matter.
2, read the book. Its not doing what you seem to think its doing. the only thing sent anywhere is an electronic duplicate of Bowmans mind, and it takes its sweet time going anywhere. i think it was a 9 year round trip?

about the influincing of the apes.
Read the damn book.
It used flashing lights to hypnotise them, then had them perform various tests, and then got them to breed how it wanted them too.

the entire star child thing was admitedly wierd, and youre right, there is barely a concept of what that represented. but it was meant to depict something millenia beyond us, effectivly the birth of a small god.

about HAL, I feel as you do, and am undecided either way. but that was how computer science ws going back then. It seemed perfectly reasonable.

Re:omg

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly, but it is stated numberous times in Robert Heinlein's 1963 novel Glory Road, as an excuse to justify the stacked blonde's magical hand wavings. In this novel it was Sufficiently advanced engineering though.

Re:omg

[NailedSaviour]

"Invisible interference with the apes. This really needs a lot of work to be anything near reasonable, but it is closest to having an explanation. DNA sample on touch, subsequent EM manipulation of subject DNA. Certainly not possible now (much less when 2001 was written), but EM does have bio effects, and there might be a path to reason here. The problem is, 2001 didn't follow one, so it fails the test. Ding. "

It just goes to show that your frame of reference is everything. I don't see this as some magic obelisk which comes down and "changes" the apes so that they can evolve, I see it as the first clear evidence that the apes have seen which indicates that there is so much more than their "little world" It awakens the curiosity centres in their brains, which are already there, but untapped. In other words the obelisk is simply a marker which inspires the apes to further themselves.

Maybe it's just me though. I've always been a little bit different....

Re:omg

[random gibberish]

> Alan Dean Foster's Star Wars (that's who actually
> wrote the screenplay for the movie, not George
> Lucas.)

Alan Dean Foster wrote the novelization of the movie, and some other Star Wars books. George Lucas wrote the screenplay.

Re:omg

[fyngyrz]

No. For Star Wars specifically, Alan wrote the actual screenplay. Believe me, I know. My mother was Alan's literary agent at the time. I saw, and read, the manuscript before Lucas did.:)

Re:omg

[fyngyrz]

Laser pistols of a sort might be real now. I seem to recall that a couple of years ago, someone built a pistol that sent a couple of ionizing beams, and dropped a pretty significant current out along the ionized path. Zap. :)

Re:omg

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the parts that are rather scientifically accurate (or at least possible) include:

How about the scene in the begining of the movie where the guy was sitting on the beach - with a laptop.

Re:omg

[fyngyrz]

I'll go with all that except the psychology part. I think you have to extrapolate somewhat to make that into a science. It might be an art today - at least, in some venues - but a science, probably not.

However, I do think it is reasonable to think that it will be a science some day. When they can get a decent collection of data to work with that hasn't been primarily filtered by people's opinions and (often very bad) metaphors.

Re:omg

[robbo]

omg, like you're so right. I mean, like, where's Spy Kids 2?

Re:omg

[fyngyrz]

Actually, no. That's not why.

Re:omg

[random gibberish]

I can only assume you're mistaken, since every mention I can find of Foster's involvement with Star Wars mentions his novelization from the screenplay and does not mention his having written the screenplay itself; and since Lucas claims to have written the screenplay, and early drafts of the screenplay bear Lucas's name.

Are you suggesting that this is some secret that you're privy to, that the public isn't supposed to know about?

Re:omg

[random gibberish]

Foster did ghostwrite the novelization for Lucas. Perhaps that's the source of your confusion.

Re:omg

[random gibberish]

Also, Foster wrote the original story for the first Star Trek movie (though the film ended up being substantially different).

Re:omg

[LPetrazickis]

The works of Greg Egan are mostly impeccable at not breaking the laws of physics while still playing with them a lot.

Re:omg

[Anonymous Coward]

BS!!!

Re:omg

[n0dalus]

2001: A Space Odyssey still stands today as one of the most scientifically accurate Sci-Fi movies. My physics teacher once got the whole class to watch that movie, and pointed out all of the inconsistencies and scientific innaccuracies.
I cant remember them all, but one I did remember clearly:
When they were travelling to the rotating space station and using the gas propellant to get there, at the very last minute the guy turns around to face the space station, without using the propellant or anything else.

Re:omg

[Anonymous Coward]

yep. Arthur C. Clarke is well known in the SF world for his complete lack of scientific authenticity. A complete fantasy lunatic, eh? I mean, satellites? c'mon! get real!! And he's regarded as hard SF ... pfaw!! when has he EVER been close to right, eh?

i'd say the reason 'science' fiction moved more toward speculative fiction (and I'd say 'fantasy' really involves more the dragons and princesses and teenage wizards stuff thats all over the place) is because stories based on nothing but irrefutable hard science are BORING!!! SF authors aren't (generally) scientists, so their 'papers', if you will, don't need to be 100% credible. remotely, even.

maybe that's just me, though.

Re:omg

[gowen]

I've always prefered corollary:

"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced"

Re:omg

[Cederic]

Yeah, but 2001 associated The Blue Danube with space craft docking.

Anybody that ever played Elite will forever love the film for that alone..

Re:omg

[marcello_dl]

Think back to any science fiction movie from that era -- virtually none of them have stood the test of time, because they're simply unbelievable.

Strictly speaking I can agree, but some way older SF is quite believable and introduces to some serious issues: think "The day the earth stood still", and "Forbidden Planet" (All time personal favourite for humble me).

Re:omg

[aled]

May real life laser pistols could exist, but all that has appeared in movies didn't behave like any laser known to man.

Re:omg

[Paulrothrock]

Star child? I must have missed that when I fell asleep halfway through the acid trip.

I see a movie to not think. If I wanted to interpret swirly colors as something, I'd read.

Re:omg

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a movie to not think.

You can be excused for that when watching modern (Hollywood) films. However, for films made before the 1970's (even if they were made in Hollywood) occasionally they require some thought.

Re:omg

[pmc]

Regarding the Discovery - they actually knowingly made this unrealistic. It was (in the book - I can't remember if it was specified in the film) powered by a nuclear reactor ion-drive (not 100% on the ion drive, but it was definitely nuclear). One of the early models of the discovery had large radiant surfaces to act as a cooler for the reactor. However Kubrick and Clarke decided that these looked like wings and instead of dealing with the "Why does the Discovery have wings?" questions they just got rid of them, resulting in a ship that looked right but wasn't.

Re:omg

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to remember that in the book the Star Child comes upon the earth, lifts a hand and all the orbital nuclear weapons detonate at once. Essentually bringing the human experiment to an end.

Re:omg

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the damn book.

Why? The topic here is SF movies. The fact that there's a book version of 2001 that is substantially similar, plot-wise, to the movie, is irrelevant. The movie has to stand or fall on its own merits.

(I like it more every time I see it.)

Re:omg

[Anonymous Coward]

not quite...the end of the human experiment wouldn't have made the 2010, 2060, or 3001 follow-ups possible. they talk about the 'higher powers'' thoughts on the failed human experiment later in the series.

the star child does detonate some nuclear weapons fired at him...but they didn't kill all of humanity.

Re:omg

[donweel]

Any Poll that omits Forbidden Planet is suspect. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049223/

Re:omg

[fyngyrz]

It was a secret. It no longer is.

Re:omg

[fyngyrz]

Ah... you're saying that its movies I'd have trouble with? Then you're exactly on target. I've read lots of classic sf by my definition, but let Hollywood in there, and you're right - things show up that insert elements of fantasy. Very few movies get by without me noticing something of this nature. When you said stories, I thought you meant books. My bad.

Re:omg

[random gibberish]

That's certainly true of the ghostwritten novelization: Foster was contractually prohibited from revealing that he had written it.

But in all the research I've been doing since you made your claim, I've found nothing from either Foster or Lucas stating that Foster wrote the original screenplay. I have found, however, numerous references to his having ghostwritten the novelization.

Unless you can provide something along the lines of a statement from Foster or Lucas, all we have to go by is your claims of thirty-year-old memory (claims not supported by any information I've been able to find).

Would you be willing to point us in the right direction?

I'd have to agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blade Runner is awsome. Everytime I see the cityscapes and the hear the music that was used in those scenes I get chills down my spine. I'd love to live in a dark, gritty Blade Runner style world.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to live in Sean Young.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[grub]

I'd love to live in a dark, gritty Blade Runner style world.

Yeah! A world where you leave your shitty jobs to travel home through the throngs of other civilians in the endless rain just to find a renegade replicant in the kitchen that kills you.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[GrahamCox]

I'd love to live in a dark, gritty Blade Runner style world.
You do.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[Elwood P Dowd]

I'd love to live in a dark, gritty Blade Runner style world.

I thought that was supposed to be a dystopic vision of the future.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blade runner was cheezy in many ways.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[haystor]

Yea, but if I'm gonna die, I choose to go out between Daryl Hannah's thighs.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you .... and what about Karl "There were these two fellars standin' on a bridge, a-goin' to the bathroom. One fellar said, "The water's cold" and the other fellar said, "The water's deep". I believe one fella come from Arkansas. Get it?" .... oh wait, thats Sling Blade

Re:I'd have to agree.

[BWJones]

I don't know if I would like to live in a dark gritty Blade Runner style world, but the movie did have a profound effect on me. I always thought the concept of restoring vision loss was cool, so I became a vision scientist. The line in the move "I designed you eyes", has got to be one of the coolest ever.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[mikael]

Blade Runner is awsome. Everytime I see the cityscapes and the hear the music that was used in those scenes I get chills down my spine. I'd love to live in a dark, gritty Blade Runner style world.

The music was by Vangelis who composed the soundtracks for many other movies including "Chariots of Fire" and "Antartica".
One of my favourite tracks was "I'll find my way home" which was really a haunting melody.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[TioHoltzman]

Not entirely unlike coming home from working in NYC via the subways!

Re:I'd have to agree.

[jeff munkyfaces]

to actually live it might not be particularly pleasant. but to be transported their instantly from this time sould be another storie. i would love it too.

well for a couple weeks anyway.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[finkployd]

The window of opportunity where that would have been an arousing way to go has passed.

Finkployd

Re:I'd have to agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

The best thing that happened to Blade Runner was an actors strike during the art preperation stages of the production. This led to the art people having 8 or 9 months to work on the various artistic elements. That kind of time frame for the art prep is unheard of, and the result showed dramatically.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[aled]

In a couple of weeks the radioactive rain would kill you, give you cancer or at least make you sterile if you don't use lead underpants. And yes, it's on the book. That's why people is leaving the planet but in the movie they don't give the reason.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[incom]

If you were to read the book you might change your mind *cough*lead codpieces*cough* .

Re:I'd have to agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! A world where you leave your shitty jobs to travel home through the throngs of other civilians in the endless rain just to find a renegade replicant in the kitchen that kills you.
____________________________________________ ______ _

You forgot about the lead codpieces. Gotta love the lead codpieces.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[chimpo13]

Blade Runner is why I love walking the streets when it's got that misty light rain.

And to be off-topic, pair.com is pissing me off.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Surprise, surprise, people do not all have the same opinions. I also thought Bladerunner was an excellent place to live. Bright, shining, peaceful utopic suburbs like the one I grew up in are horrible hellholes.

I tried several huge cities, but nothing did the trick until I moved to Tokyo. Nishi-Shinjuku, even. Well, that's out of my system now. You know the opening montage of "Lost in Translation", with the mesmerising colors and huge signs? That's about 5 minutes away from my old house.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[fuzzhead]

Yeah! A world where you leave your shitty jobs to travel home through the throngs of other civilians in the endless rain just to find a renegade replicant in the kitchen that kills you.

A renegade cop! A robot renegade cop!

Re:I'd have to agree.

[DrEasy]

Modded funny? I'd say Insightful.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[torpor]

I lived in LA for 15 years. I lived in Tokyo for 5 months. Both towns are Blade Runner analogs, today.

(Tokyo is downtrodden humanity ... In LA you have nothing but replicants, though.)

Re:I'd have to agree.

[Cederic]

I preferred the rather more poetic

"If only you could see what I have seen with your eyes"

Re:I'd have to agree.

[Paulrothrock]

You may not like trees and grass, but I do.

I don't understand why almost every sci fi city has so little trees or open space. You'd think that with the rising levels of CO2 plants would grow like gangbusters, and be encouraged to do so to lock the carbon from the atmosphere back in the ground.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[geek42]

Try New York.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Dude-

Did you see D. Hannah in Kill Bill? She's *still* got what it takes!

Re:I'd have to agree.

[Hoi Polloi]

Actually CGI and her makeup artist have what it takes.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[Gumshoe]

One of my favourite tracks was "I'll find my way home"

Was that on the Blade Runner Soundtrack? I've got the official OST and the unofficial Esper Edition, but I don't see that track on there. Does it have a different name perhaps?

If you haven't got the Esper Edition incidentally, you should. The album Warner Music should have released.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[Hoi Polloi]

You'd probably prefer "Silent Running" then for green sci-fi.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[mikael]

It wasn't a Blade Runner track. It was a separate track done with Jon Anderson, You can find it in the album Odyssey

Re:I'd have to agree.

[Codifex Maximus]

> Blade Runner is awsome.

I'd like to see "the colonies" developed and see the things you people wouldn't believe. It's a shame PKD is dead though; maybe they could get someone to flesh out the universe a bit.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[Prune]

This should be modded Sad, not Funny.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[ultranova]

You may not like trees and grass, but I do.

I don't understand why almost every sci fi city has so little trees or open space.

You just answered your own question. If a city has lots of trees, it looks like a nice place to live. This, in turn, would make it lose the "cool" factor.

It's much easier to write stories that take place in a dark future or (seeming) utopia than stories that take place in a future with its ups and downs.

You'd think that with the rising levels of CO2 plants would grow like gangbusters, and be encouraged to do so to lock the carbon from the atmosphere back in the ground.

Not to mention absorb noice, release oxygen and act as general air filters.

It's basically the same thing as with the Conan movies. The movies show Conan as going to battle half-naked, while Howard had him wearing armor whenever possible.

It doesn't have to make sense, just look cool.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[demonlapin]

Oh come on. They're not horrible hellholes, they're places that people move to because they are intentionally boring. Night life sucks, but you're a lot less likely to get stabbed - that, and a lot more space for the same money, is why parents move there.

That said, I'd rather live in Bladerunner - but I have to say I'd need to be in one of the huge full-floor penthouse jobbies, as opposed to Bruce Willis' place in The Fifth Element.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[Lemmy Caution]

Many SF fans are middle-class suburbanites for whom urban violence is a romantic, exciting alternative to the banality of getting beaten up by the football team. Wed that to the ridiculous cyberpunk conceit that computers (or long overcoats) could make you menacing in some street-cred way, and presto - the cliche machine is in full swing.

So, the overcompensating, fedora-wearing dork in the tree-lined suburb is the big market for gritty tales of futurist urban cyber-grit.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[MegaFur]

I agree.

I could say a whole lot more, but... I better not.

WTF?

[dougrun]

dudes, stay on topic! Logans Run should be in there somewhere.

Re:WTF?

[SourKAT]

Red Dwarf!

Ooops... The movie won't be out til next year. oh, smeg!

Re:WTF?

[juiceCake]

I'm 5 years over the limit and haven't been comfortable since I turned 30.

This is a site for nerds right?

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Definately...

http://www.snowcrest.net/fox/loganpics/movie/Jes s1 4.jpg

I would have gone to carousel with a smile on my face.

Re:WTF?

[geek42]

Red Dwarf GOOD! Don't forget H2G2, too! They should really think about releasing these in conjunction. Bloody shame they can't seem to find funding for Red Dwarf....

Re:WTF?

[geek42]

And let's not forget Soylent Green! Classic... One of my fav. moments from Sierra's Space Quest series was when you run across a "Mr. Soylent" instant noodle dispenser. Brilliant!

Top Scientists

[ParticleMan911]

Wow, i'm glad our top scientists have taken so much time to come to this important conclusion!

Re:Top Scientists

[ParticleMan911]

Funny you should say that. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but actual food critics (as opposed to anonymous cowards) have rated Chipotle quite highly. Your statement is not backed up in the least bit, so I won't even bother starting to tell you why you're wrong.

Re:Top Scientists

[Sloppy]

Wow, i'm glad our top scientists have taken so much time to come to this important conclusion!

Sounds exciting, doesn't it? Someone should make a movie about it.

Re:Top Scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but why didn't they ask for the endorsement of 10 nobel prize winning economists?

Re:Top Scientists

[wass]

Or perhaps the story submitter, that wrote " according to 60 of the most influential scientists in the world" when in fact he means UK instead of world.

Even the article at the Guardian says this about the scientists in question:"Our expert panel votes for the top 10 sci-fi films". Upon skimming the article, those scientists listed all seemed to work for/in the UK, did I miss something?

Not to mention the idiotic banter of the story submitter claiming it's "scientific proof" Bladerunner is the greatest movie. Argh.

Re:Top Scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

actual food critics

Give me a break. Who? Chipotle only tastes good for people who have never been to a real taqueria.

Their food is bland as hell. Their food is bland as hell. "Chipotle" makes me think of spicy or peppery food. I can make food that tastes as bland as Chipotle any day, why should I pay someone to make bland food for me.

I grew up in California, and have always been around Mexicans-- peers, friends, family, etc. I can't remember a time in my life when Mexican food wasn't available. I probably eat Mexican food once per week, and have eaten hundreds of burritos from dozens of different Taquerias. Most of my friends grew up in the same environment. My godmother is Mexican-american. We all think Chipotle sucks.

Re:Top Scientists

[Epistax]

You better be happy. One guy dropped a beaker filled with the cure of cancer to fill out this survey. Unfortunately a lab dog lapped up every last bit.

Re:Top Scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

They're BRITISH Top Scientists... (or else they would never have picked John Windham as the #2 Science Fiction Writer of all time, and Fred Hoyle as #3... I mean, come on...)

They have PLENTY of time to come to this conclusion. The British are not renowned in the last century for their scientific achievements, NEARLY as much as they are known for liking their own own third-rate SF writers over the likes of Heinlein and Clement.

Re:Top Scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush 2004!

Come on guys, this is proof that jmccay has no taste.

Re:Top Scientists

[maddskillz]

I guess you would have to read the article instead of just skimming it. I saw University of California, Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence California and University of Toronto

Re:Top Scientists

[wass]

So that's 3 out of 60 scientists not specifically mentioned to be from the UK?

Re:Top Scientists

[maddskillz]

More like 3 out of the 7 the mentioned

Re:Top Scientists

[balloonpup]

Yes, and it was darn good, too! The only problem is what it did to me...making me able to read /. I used to have all the time in the world...now /. get it. Woof.

Re:Top Scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn those selfish superintelligent scientists! They don't have the right to waste time watching movies while my imbecil uneducated ass could get cancer!

Re:Top Scientists

[wass]

Almost. Tak Mak, the guy from Toronto, is member of Royal Society of London. Obvious UK members when I skimmed the article included guys at Edinburgh, UCL, Oxford, and a Beagle 2 scientist.

The two Americans are sci-fi writers as well, which is probably why they were interviewed, instead of being among the 'most influential scientists'.

So anyway, my main beef was w/ the story submitter claiming this was 60 of the most influential scientists around the world. 4 of 7 work in the UK directly, another advises to the Royal Society of London. Of the set of all scientists worldwide I question the 'most influential' aspects of the other 2.

Definitely the worst part about the submission was the 'scientific proof' claim, although that may have been intended as a joke.

Re:Top Scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

And the really sad thing is that every minute you waste on Slashdot is actually worth 7 minutes of your life!

(More or less...)

Re:Top Scientists

[gfreeman]

Perhaps the UK does indeed attract many of the most influential scientists in the world.

Or maybe the UK slant is simply a table-turning on the usual "We said the world but we meant the USA. Same thing anyway".

Either way, chill dude.

SOMEONE FUCKING SHOVE A DICK IN MY ASS PLZ

[Anonymous Coward]

jsadaslks fuck you

I suppose...

[Justin205]

The Star Wars version voted for was the one where Greedo never pulls the trigger.

At least I hope scientists have more sense than to vote for that Greedo-shoots-first crap.

Re:I suppose...

[Anonymous Coward]

umm, shouldn't you be standing in line for episode 3?

What?

[Anonymous Writer]

No Battllefield Earth?

Re:What?

[maeka]

This poll was for the best SF movies, not the most scientifically accurate.

Re:What?

[Monkelectric]

I *LOVE* Battlefield earth. I keep my copy of BE right next to my copy of Leonard Part 6. BE spawned some of the funniest movie reviews I have ever read in my life. Check out The Onion's Review: (this was written before they started to soft ball all the movies)

Battlefield Earth

Before its release, some of Scientology's critics suggested that Battlefield Earth would be filled with subliminal messages in an attempt to recruit or brainwash viewers. They needn't worry: Outside of marching on Washington in Nazi uniforms while burning crosses and clubbing baby seals, it's hard to think of a worse way to recruit converts than to subject them to this surreal atrocity, an adaptation of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard's 1982 novel. A film too staggeringly inept to be believed, Battlefield Earth is a contender for the worst movie of any year, decade, or century. The film tells the story of devolved future humans who live in what appears to be a Molly Hatchet album cover and do battle with a group of evil alien "Psychlos" who resemble giant Rastafarian werewolves. Clueless enough to make last year's crazy science-fiction turkey Wing Commander look like Solaris and 2001 rolled into one big luminescent ball, Battlefield Earth is written with all the skill and subtlety of a Flash Gordon serial and plotted with the cruel, hard logic of a Lyndon LaRouche presidential campaign. But at least it's uniquely terrible: A good deal of its screen time is devoted to "man animals" and their supposed preference for eating raw rats, which may be a canny bit of psychology on the filmmakers' part. After all, eating raw rodents is one of the few activities that sound less appealing than watching Battlefield Earth. Producer and star John Travolta's cackling, embarrassing performance as the film's nine-foot-tall heavy is bad enough to negate the last 25 years of his career: Travolta may be a gifted actor and a movie star in the classic sense of the term, but from now on, he will be seen not as the charismatic star of Saturday Night Fever and Pulp Fiction, but as John "Battlefield Earth" Travolta, the perpetrator of a film that will go down in history alongside Howard The Duck and Heaven's Gate as shorthand for Hollywood at its out-of-control worst. Not so much watched as lived through, Battlefield Earth is bad enough to make audiences ashamed to be part of the same species as the people who made it. --Nathan Rabin

Re:What?

[upsidedown_duck]

No Battllefield Earth?

One of the few movies where the intervening TV commercials were just enough to keep viewers from gouging their eyes out and driving pencils into their ears.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually liked Battlefield Earth. Alot.
I was completely ignorant to any supposed cult which travolta was supposidly promoting, but I really really enjoyed it.
I saaw it as a fun, kinda non-sensesical film about humans kicking ass.

Am I alone in the universe?

Re:What?

[Kesh]

My favorite quote about that movie was:

"I can't believe in an alien civilization that would have been blown up the first time someone tried to microwave a burrito."

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must really like Glili (Gili? Gigili?, whatever)

Re:What?

[aled]

Also don't forget how unfair was that the Psychlos were blown out by such an inferior race. Hate unhappy endings like that.

Re:What?

[zangdesign]

I actually liked Howard the Duck!

Unfortunately, it's not out on DVD and probably never will be.

I did not, however, think much of Battlefield Earth.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you may be!

-AC

Re:What?

[Welpa]

You mean scientologically accurate.

Re:Hey I hate to break it to you

[celeritas_2]

It's great when scientists concentrate on the more importing questions of life.

Star Wars?

[Rolo Tomasi]

What does Star Wars have to do with science fiction?

Re:Star Wars?

[McDrewbie]

I agree. This is an adbenture film that just happens to be set to in space. There are not any real sci-fi themes beyond the fact they are in space ships.

Re:Star Wars?

[NanoGator]

"What does Star Wars have to do with science fiction?"

Mod parent up!!!

(so we can all point and laugh...)

Re:Star Wars?

[Pyromage]

Exactly what I was wondering when I saw the list. I classify maybe half the movies up there as sci-fi. The rest are pure fantasy. If they'd really been polling about sci-fi, they'd include at least one of: 1984, Equilibrium, X-Men, A Clockwork Orange, Minority Report.

The original Star Wars was a great movie. But it's space opera at its best.

I think part of the problem is just the relative lack of good sci-fi films. There's a lot, sure. But there's more good dramas.

Yeah, it's a bit nit-picky to knock them quite so much on what may be a small topic, but I think the article would have made out much differently if they'd only allowed sci-fi movies.

Re:Star Wars?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"What does Star Wars have to do with science fiction?"

*Sigh*

Never mind that it's set in space and takes place on other planets, let's debate whether it's sci-fi or not! Let's not stop until women actually scream when they run away from us!

Re:Star Wars?

[JamesKPolk]

The fact that the setting feels (at least to me, and probably to others) ripped right out of Foundation.

Picture Han as one of the Traders, smuggling Foundation goods into the rump Empire.

Seriously. In how many settings is it an important point that you have to make calculations before jumping in hyperspace, in order to avoid jumping into a star?

Re:Star Wars?

[Tassach]

"What does Star Wars have to do with science fiction?" Mod parent up!!!

(so we can all point and laugh...) Laugh at you, maybe. Star Wars isn't science fiction - it's space fantasy.

Yes, it's entertaining. Yes, it is (or was, before Lucas dorked it up) a fun movie to watch. The point the grandparent was trying to make is that, strictly speaking, it's not really SCIENCE fiction because there's no science. Read some real science fiction(*) and compare it to Star Wars and you'll see the only thing they have in common is that they're set in space. (*) Some real Sci-Fi titles to check out:

1. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein (or any of his short story collections)
2. The Mote In God's Eye by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle (or any of Niven's short story collections)
3. Eon by Greg Bear
4. Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card

Re:Star Wars?

[Brandybuck]

X-Men

X-Men!!?! How can you possibly call X-Men "science fiction"? Star Wars has a thousand times the imaginative speculative science that X-Men does, yet you call it fantasy.

Mutations have a basis in scientific fact, but mutations that cause "magic" do not. Magneto's magnetism is magical. Cyclop's eyesight is magical. To suggest that these and other powers can arise through the mutation of DNA is ludicrous.

Re:Star Wars?

[falkryn]

Speaking of which, when will there be a film series based on Foundation? I just finished reading the trilogy, loved it. Then I read I, Robot. Haven't seen the film, but I don't remember reading the part where a Wil Smith type character goes around punching a bunch of robots like in the previews....

Re:Star Wars?

[LS]

Umm, never mind that you can hear sound in space, or that it includes elements of magic, or that some aliens look human. It's fantasy, dude, not SF.

LS

Re:Star Wars?

[upsidedown_duck]

Well, Star Wars is sci-fi as much as Dune, Foundation, and Ender's Game are. Star Wars was always geared a little more for the mass market, but it is still quite an epic tale spanning generations and civilizations.

Re:Star Wars?

[dlb]

If the "dungeon of a dark sorcerer" happened to be on the same planet, I could see your point.

The fact that they had to leave one planet to fly to another (twice, if you count the assault on the death star) pretty much counts it as sci-fi.
Maybe you could still qualify that as "travel a great distance".

But you can't count out the weird holographic monster chess game on the Falcon.

~dlb

Re:Star Wars?

[caino59]

said the man with a smaill, closed mind...

Re:Star Wars?

[VeryProfessional]

Let's not stop until women actually scream when they run away from us!

Dude, we're posting on Slashdot. Surely that's enough to make the women run away from us anyway...

Re:Star Wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were reading Asimov for the first time you really should have read him in chronological order from the robot novels through the empire novels into foundation. It makes the ending of Foundation and Earth a little more satisfying.

Re:Star Wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh great, it's the old "Star Wars isn't sci-fi; it's fantasy" argument again. Look, if it has spaceships, laser guns, rocket packs, and lightsabers, it's sci-fi. So what if it doesn't fit your narrow, restrictive definition of sci-fi, wherein every single object and event in the film must be scientifically proven. That's what the "fiction" part in "science fiction" is for. Yes, it's also fantasy, but there's no rule against categorizing a movie into two genres at once.

Re:Star Wars?

[NanoGator]

"The point the grandparent was trying to make is that, strictly speaking, it's not really SCIENCE fiction because there's no science."

The lack science bit is true, however the definition of science fiction basically says "set in space". I looked it up before making that post. If you take Pinnochio and set it to take place on Jupiter, then it qualifies as sci-fi. Hardcore scifi? No. Intellectual scifi, no. Basic scifi? Yep. The error was not mine, it was in the post I originally replied to for not being more specific.

Re:Star Wars?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Excuse me, Space Opera is Science Fiction. In fact E.E. Doc. Smith is considered one of the greatest SciFi writers of all time. He pretty much invented SO.

Also, Fantasy is a subcategory SF. People who don't consider it as such are just snobs. Ray Bradbury for instance.

Re:Star Wars?

[Brandybuck]

That's the problem with modern scifi, it's unfathomable unless you first void your mind of all content.

Seriously, calling a X-Men scifi is as silly as calling Superman scifi. Oh wait, you probably do. Maybe if I take LOTR and throw in some technobabble I can get you to think it's scifi too...

Re:Star Wars?

[JamesKPolk]

Well, after I, Robot and The Bicentennial Man, I hope the answer is "Never."

Re:Star Wars?

[Chandon Seldon]

I must be missing something. Dune was a little weird and I'd have to re-read it to be sure, but I'm pretty sure that Foundation and Ender's Game didn't have blatant magic in them the way Star Wars does...

Re:Star Wars?

[Firedog]

Now that's not a bad idea...

Re:Star Wars?

[Chandon Seldon]

The supergenre is called Speculative Fiction.

Speculative Fiction has non-intersecting subgenres Fantasy and Science Fiction (as well as some others).

Re:Star Wars?

[uberjoe]

I prefer Arthur C Clark's definition of SF vs Fantasy. (paraphrase) "Science fiction is what CAN happen, fantasy is what you would WANT to happen"

Re:Star Wars?

[aled]

the definition of science fiction basically says "set in space"

That's not a good definition. I'll quote a bit of Wikipeadia on science fiction:

"Science fiction is a form of fiction which deals principally with the impact of imagined science and/or technology upon society or individuals. ...
The term is more generally used to refer to any literary fantasy that includes a scientific factor as an essential orienting component, and even more generally used to refer to any fantasy at all. Such literature may consist of a careful and informed extrapolation of scientific facts and principles, or it may range into far-fetched areas flatly contradictory of such facts and principles. In either case, plausibility based on science is a requisite, so that such precursors of the genre as Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's Gothic novel Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus (1818) and Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886) are plainly science fiction, whereas Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897), based purely on the supernatural, is not. Sometimes utopic and dystopic literature is also regarded as science fiction, which is accurate insofar as sociology also is a science."

Re:Star Wars?

[hondo77]

...I'm pretty sure that...Ender's Game didn't have blatant magic...

You need to read the rest of the Ender series for that. Oh man...

Re:Star Wars?

[CaptainAvatar]

the definition of science fiction basically says "set in space". I looked it up before making that post.

Good grief. That's a totally asinine definition of science fiction. Otherwise The Time Machine, The War of the Worlds, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Fahrenheit 451, The Caves of Steel, Timescape and many, many other science fiction classics don't qualify. Try again (and no, the definition is not "set in space OR the future OR both"!)

Re:Star Wars?

[Pyromage]

X-Men is sci-fi in the same way that Pleasantville is sci-fi: X-Men was never about having realistic science, and most sci-fi isn't. X-Men is great in that it's about discrimination and living with being different. It's sci-fi not because of the science in it, but because it follows the definitive sci-fi paradigm of changing the setting in a pseudo-science-ish speculative way (which is why SF actually stands for *speculative* fiction, by the way.)

Star Wars, on the other hand, is a classic western, complete with gun-toting cowboys (and even some interesting horses) and chases and shootouts. Sci-fi is not defined by having spaceships, and never has been.

Re:Star Wars?

[PapayaSF]

I classify maybe half the movies up there as sci-fi.

They certainly missed one excellent s.f. film: Brainstorm. It depicts realistic scientists doing realistic leading-edge science, and then focuses on the personal and social consequences of their invention.

Re:Star Wars?

[upsidedown_duck]

Star Wars has Jedi and the Force.
Dune has the Bene Gesserit and Muaddib.
Foundation has Hari Seldon and his legacy.
Ender's Game (including sequels) has telepathy, at least.

Re:Star Wars?

[Chasuk]

Space Opera is considered as a category of SF, and yes, Star Wars is Space Opera-ish, but I don't agree that it qualifies as SF. It has the trappings of SF, but is set squarely in a Fantasy universe.

I have great affection for Doc Smith, but very few would consider him "one of the greatest SciFi writers of all time." He was a hack who spun amusing stories, and I'd be willing to bet that, percentage-wise, very few SF fans even know who he is.

Fantasy is not a sub-category of SF, and I don't have to be a snob to know so. Fantasy and SF are both subsets of Speculative Fiction.

I might have been responding to a troll, which I do consider a vile habit, but maybe not. Oh, well.

Re:Star Wars?

[BCW2]

Don't forget the bar scene. When the movie came out several SciFi writers were happy to see it as they had all written or dreamed it for years. Some were pissed that they didn't do it first on screen.

Re:Star Wars?

[PsiPsiStar]

kinda depends on your definition of 'sci-fi.'

For some people, science fiction is just a plot device for exploring present issues and conditions using science as a metaphore/backdrop, particularly given the intergalactic politics. Consider Lucas's use of machine as people and people as machines.

I suppose the term is too broad for purists given this discussion, but Star Wars is considered by many to be sci-fi. "Space Opera" might be a subgenre, but it doesn't preclude sci-fi ness. Especially since Star Wars involves; mass production of items (post assembly line technology), technological advancements, scientifically based descriptions (condensers, robots, trash compactors, buttons, electronics, etc.)

Albeit, the Jedi mess with the catagorization, since they have a romantic (as opposed to modern) twinge to them, but still....

Re:Star Wars?

[Brandybuck]

but because it follows the definitive sci-fi paradigm of changing the setting in a pseudo-science-ish speculative way

And just why doesn't Star Wars fit this bill? We have alien cultures, FTL travel, robotics, and even midichlorians. It sounds pseudo-science-ish to me!

The point is, if Star Wars isn't SciFi despite its pseudo-science trappings, then neither is the X-Men. The only thing speculative about X-Men is how society would react to the sudden emergence of magic.

which is why SF actually stands for *speculative* fiction

That's a backronym. It was originally "science fiction" and the term "speculative fiction" came about later.

Re:Star Wars?

[aled]

And how do you stop them from intersecting?

Re:Star Wars?

[CaptainCheese]

Equilibrium? Equilibrium??

Mildly entertaining but overly-derivative tripe. It was, in turns, a pastiche of Bradbury's Farenheit 451, Orwell's 1984, Huxley's Brave New World, with a big dollop of The Matrix, and Finally a brief flash of Cube for the ending...

If you don't know that then I suggest you start reading. The movie's up-side is that it introduces the dystopian concepts it borrows to new generations of the illiterati, but on the other hand it doesn't acknowledge the sources, leading people to believe that these plot-devices and themes are new.

The reason no-one else steals them so whole-heartedly is because these novels are very famous and interationally acclaimed Important Literature. 451 and 1984 even have even had very well known and reasonably faithful movies made from them. Movie makers rarely fail to acknowledge obvious sources because critics will call their works "Mildly entertaining but overly-derivative tripe."

I do, however, think the Gunkata concept was quite fun.

Re:Star Wars?

[Pyromage]

I see I made my point poorly. My apologies. The point is to change the setting in a sciencey way to examine something. The point is the meaning. As I said, X-Men is about being different (the fact that magic is what's different is immaterial). Blade Runner is about what it means to be human. They both change things in a sciencey way, for the purpose of examining . I can see no such parallel for Star Wars. The amount of made up futuristic things doesn't make it sci-fi.

A Clockwork Orange is an examination of free will (with the pseudo-science of brainwashing). Equilibrium is about what it means to be alive, to feel, the importance of emotion (with the pseudo-science of an anti-emotion drug). Minority Report is about free will as well as punishment, based around the feature of seeing the future.

But what does Star Wars have? It has puppets.

Re:Star Wars?

[Pyromage]

Good artists borrow, great artists steal, isn't that how it goes?

Yes, it's preachy, not terribly original, and related to many other movies. But it's still fun. And it's definatly still sci-fi. Yes, I realize that, but how many works are collections of things done before? Nearly every one.

I don't disagree with you, but I think it was a good movie. And a topical example, at the very least ;)

Re:Star Wars?

[nwbvt]

" however the definition of science fiction basically says "set in space"."

Using whose dictionary? Space merely provides the stting for the story and nothing else. Usually some aspect of science is supposed to be present in either the theme or the plot as well.

Re:Star Wars?

[Brandybuck]

I get it! If the story has depth and meaning then it's science fiction, but if it's just cheap entertainment then it's fantasy.

Re:Star Wars?

[gad_zuki!]

> What does Star Wars have to do with science fiction?

What does Bladerunner have to do with science fiction? I really dislike these subjective "let me tell you what real insert_whatever is" type arguments. All sub-genres can be linked to higher genres.

Bladerunner is a detective story: with androids/clones.

Star Wars is an adventure story: with spaceships.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a political story: on a moon colony.

and so on.

Re:Star Wars?

[milatchi]

EQUILIBRIUM! I thought I smelled a horse's ass.

Re:Star Wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, it isn't science fiction.

Or rather, it wasn't.

Until the midi-chlorian explanation of the force was added.

Re:Star Wars?

[16K Ram Pack]

I think that the difference is that whilst Star Wars has elements of technology (death star/droids), they are largely not what the story is about. Sure, the death star is an awesome machine, but it's just another big gun.

You could, I imagine take the star wars plot and move it to the dark ages and throw a few wizards in.

I'd say that sci-fi is more about where the technology and its impact are central to the storyline.

That said, whether a film is or isn't sci-fi does mean it's good or bad. Star Wars is great fantasy/adventure.

Re:Star Wars?

[Cederic]

1984 is better as a book. X-Men is fantasy. Minority Report was, frankly, poorly executed.

Equilibrium was interesting, but less sci-fi and more of a political commentary. Oh, and some great action scenes.

So A Clockwork Orange is the only one of your list I'd even consider appropriate, and I'm not sure I'd classify that as being science fiction.

The big missing film, that meets the criteria of sci-fi, that implements a future you can believe in, that also carries a strong insightful commentary on that future, is Gattaca. I'd have had that in the top five on this list.

~Cederic

Re:Star Wars?

[moonbender]

No, you're wrong. You might have your own little definition of sci-fi, which I'm sure makes a lot of sense - I might even agree! - but that does not change the fact that it's different from the (admittedly vague) definition most people have. And most people would classify Star Wars as science fiction. Language is the one thing where the majority is always right - it tends to be wrong about mostly everything else.

Re:Star Wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're woried about calling Star Wars sci-fi. I just wish the SciFi channel would stop playing horror movies and that phony psychic.

Re:Star Wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Let's not stop until women actually scream when they run away from us!

Already there! :-)

Re:Star Wars?

[JerkBoB]

Mildly entertaining but overly-derivative tripe. It was, in turns, a pastiche of ...

I think that's a bit harsh. I'll wholeheartedly agree with you that the story was heavily influenced by Huxley and Bradbury (in fact, "Brave New World" meets "Fahrenheit 451" is how I've usually described the film), but I don't think that somehow invalidates the uniqueness of the story.

True, the acting was a bit stiff, and the ending was kinda hokey, but there were some interesting ideas in there. I liked that the monks were not supernatural ala Neo, just extremely heavily trained in an obscure martial art. Of course the concept of 'Gunkata' is kinda silly, but it made for great popcorn-fodder that didn't make me want to stab my brain with a pencil.

How do you think the film should have acknowledged its influences? A voiceover from the director intoning "*cough* Yeah, the manditory drugging that every citizen is forced to participate in was a rip of Huxley's soma... Er, and here they're destroying the sense-offender's hideout with fire, that's a rip from Bradbury..."

Face it, anyone with half a clue would already recognize all of that stuff, and the other people wouldn't go back to read the sources anyhow. They just want to see stuff blown up and people shot. Oh, and the good guy getting the girl (muahahaha).

Re:Star Wars?

[bob_herrick]

Consider this little work: George Lucas in Love. Not exactly SF, but funny - you betcha. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000053V3J/ qid%3D1093622296/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-4 383997-8792611

Re:Star Wars?

[PsiPsiStar]

But the contrast between technology and life, between modernism and romanticism, are crucial to the plot, just in a metaphoric sense. Lucas himself said so. I don't think that would translate to a purely magical realm. i.e. the symbolism of Luke's mechanical hand, of wookies on Endor vs. guys on mechanical hoverbikes, etc.

I'll admit that the Jedi are a romantic notion, rather than a 'sci-fi' notion. They make their light sabers rather than having them mass produced etc.

But Star Wars does try to anticipate the political structures associated with advanced technology.

Re:Star Wars?

[CaptainCheese]

I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse, but you're missing my point.

You are saying Equilibrium should make it into "a top sci-fi movies" list.

I'm just saying it's simply not original enough to do that...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Ugh

[NanoGator]

The Matrix is up there but Wrath of Khan isn't?

Re:Ugh

[Rew190]

Hey now, the original Matrix was a superb movie in it's own right. Don't let the shitty sequels bring it down.

Actually it's funny you bring up WoK... I actually think the original motion picture (director's DVD) is one of the best sci-fi flicks I've seen. It reminds me a lot of 2001... am I the only person that liked it?

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

am I the only person that liked it?

In a word, Yes.

Re:Ugh

[whopis]

No you are not the only who liked it. I didn't the first time I saw it... or probably even the next time. But eventually I grew to appreciate it. It is a bit slow (the drawn out scene flying around the new Enterprise before Kirk boards it for example). And it really didn't feel that much like a Star Trek film. But it was really a pretty darn good sci-fi film.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

KHAAAAAAAAAAN!

Re:Ugh

[CaptainAvatar]

You are one of the few! So am I. It had a ponderous majesty and a curious, enquiring spirit - it was about exploring this enigmatic object and trying to figure out what it was. There are not a lot of films like that, certainly none of the other Trek films "explored strange new worlds" etc etc.

And my appreciation of the film only increased when I later that the director of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Robert Wise, also directed two other great SF films, The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Andromeda Strain (well, that's only borderline SF, but for my money it's the best cinematic depiction of actual science ever). The man is a legend.

Re:Ugh

[16K Ram Pack]

You are not alone. And it's one of the few of the films that's really a sci-fi film rather than a space adventure IMO.

Contact

[MauMan]

I'm a bit suprised taht "Contact" did not make the list....

Re:Contact

[drjzzz]

You're right, Contact is a great movie! They also ignored the classic Forbidden Planet! Scientists, maybe, but not fans of these thoughtful, thought-provoking, and philosophical movies.

Re:Contact

[MrNemesis]

Hell yeah. That fantastic CGI sequence at the beginning as all our radio waves zoom off into the universe gives me shivers every time I see it.

Best thing I liked is the human aspect, especially the juxtapostion of the fiercely rational scientist with the preacher.

Hopefully it serves as a fitting epitaph to Carl Sagan. Certainly one of my favourite SF movies.

Re:Contact

[FyRE666]

Oh my god, it absolutely fucking sucked! All that build-up, the suspense; and what does she find after blasting off in the egg? The alien looked like her dad. How bloody lame is that?! They could've at least had a few Doom 3 style fireball slinging monsters chasing her around and stuff...

Re:Contact

[el-spectre]

Yeah, and how about some BFGs and tits too? Cuz, you know, that would really be in keeping with the theme of the movie...

(hint: the aliens are a plot device... the story is about the search for truth/god/meaning )

Re:Contact

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to see the entire movie to see the alien and it was her goddamned father!

Re:Contact

[gabbarbhai]

If you liked the movie, read the book (by Carl Sagan). It's much better..

Re:Contact

[jebiester]

(hint: the aliens are a plot device... the story is about the search for truth/god/meaning )

And that's why the movie was such a great let down. It went from being an enthralling science fiction movie - to a new age folk spirituality film with feel good moments. A great let down.

Re:Contact

[el-spectre]

I can understand. The spirituality/truth/whatever theme was subtle.

Having read the book, I thought it was great, but maybe I was already looking for the subtler stuff.

Re:Contact

[PsiPsiStar]

I think everyone who loved the movie has, without exception, also read the book.

Everyone I know who read the book loved it.

Most people who just saw the movie didn't care for it.

I think this says somthing about the relative quality of the two, though I realize that the moviegoing audience probably wouldn't have accepted Sagan's version as he wrote it.

Re:Contact

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean subtle? It was practically a religious indoctrination film.

Re:Contact

[kzinti]

Most people who just saw the movie didn't care for it.

I loved the book, and sorta-kinda like the movie - well, except for Jodie's sappy, sobby "They should have sent a poet" scene. Talk about chewing the scenery!

If I saw the movie before I had read the book, I probably wouldn't care for it. I'm probably just reading into it things I know about the book.

Contact is a great book to read a second and third time. On my first read, I thought it was a decent book with a good plot. On my second read, I caught all sorts of subtle foreshadowing I hadn't seen the first time, and I realized what a finely crafted story it is.

Re:Contact

[Qrlx]

Contact also wins the award for "Best portrayal of UNIX in a movie."

You're right about the limo, by the way. That's Hollywood for you, specifically the Spielberg Effect. While we're on it, The Minority Report, which sort of qualifies as sci-fi, should have ended with Tom Cruise getting his head blown off.

Re:Contact

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw the movie and never read the book. My wife saw the movie and never read the book. We are both religious people who pity Sagan's shortsighted views of existence.

That said, we both loved the movie.

Ellie: "I had an experience I can't prove, I can't even explain it, but everything that I know as a human being, everything that I am tells me that it was real. I was part of something wonderful, something that changed me forever; a vision of the Universe that tells us undeniable how tiny, and insignificant, and how rare and precious we all are. A vision that tells us we belong to something that is greater than ourselves. That we are not, that none of us are alone. I wish I could share that. I wish that everyone, if even for one moment, could feel that awe, and humility, and the hope, but... that continues to be my wish."

Questioner: "Should we take this all on faith?"

Re:Contact

[16K Ram Pack]

A lot of the sci-fi that I like is where it takes the idea of something happening and the effect on normal people.

I loved Contact for the same reason. It started out from the point of "what if aliens contacted us?".

I also like Alien for that reason. They aren't drinking earl grey tea, playing chess and pondering the questions of humanity. They are like factory workers - blue collar guys smoking and drinking beer, doing a job.

Re:Contact

[Chris Siegler]

I think everyone who loved the movie has, without exception, also read the book.

Interesting you say that because I also read the book and thought it was an example of how to make a great movie out of a rather average book. The only thing missing from the movie that I liked was the "message in pi" at the end, but the other changes I thought actually improved the story while reducing it to screenplay length.

Re:Contact

[12357bd]

I like the visual aspects of Contact, but the story sucks, and the book is not better. Religion vs science dicothomy makes bad sci-fi stories in my opinion.
The only respectable 'religious' quote about sci-fi is the famous: sci-fi is not 'What If?' but 'Oh my God! What If?'.

Re:Contact

[brainburger]

Argrh!
Contact sickened me in that it had as its central premise the exact opposite of the premise of the book, and the exact opposite of what Carl Sagan laboured his whole life for (that observation and reason is a better way to explain the cosmos than faith and pseudoscience).
Then it ended with a dedication "For Carl".

He would have been deeply disappointed had he lived to see it.

Re:Contact

[dltallan]

The real problem that I had with "Contact" the movie is that the underlying philosophy was diametrically opposed to that of Carl Sagan, as expressed in the book.

** SPOILERS BELOW**

Carl Sagan was a scientist. His book supports the concept of empirical verification rather than taking things on faith. Thus, in the book, you have a team that takes the journey and they return with a method of demonstrably proving God's existence (through a message buried deep within the digits of pi-- and thus within the structure of the created universe). The message is is the scientific one: look for the evidence/proof.

The movie sends precisely the opposite message. While the protagonist starts believing in science, at the end she embraces faith and acknowledges that she has come to accept her experience as real, despite the lack of any objective avidence. (The evidence exists in the hours of blank tape, but she is unaware of them.) She is won over to being just another religious believer, taking things "on faith". It seems to be a waste of billions of dollars that could have been better spent on Earth.

Given the 180 degree change in philosophical direction, I don't think Carl Sagan would have approved.

Re:Contact

[dltallan]

I agree with you 100%. It's one reason that I can't watch it (although my wife really likes it).

Re:Contact

[Politburo]

IIRC, Carl Sagan died during production and was involved with the production until his death. From IMDB: "Author and producer Carl Sagan died during production of the film. He was reportedly taking great care to ensure that "science" was accurately depicted in the film."

Re:Contact

[MrNemesis]

Alien was the first sci-fi flick that I fell in love with. To me it was the first to portray space as *not* being this huge beautiful place full of utopian humans postulating about the meaning of life. It was just like your everyday common or garden factory, just like today. To me, this made it incredibly "real" feeling in a way that I couldn't associate with any other movies I'd seen, which added to the scare factor an awful lot.

Although I think Alien is pushing the sci-fi angle a bit. It's much more of a horror/haunted house syndrome than pure sci-fi.

Re:Contact

[osvejda]

Do you know that "if" is the middle word in life?

(Dennis Hopper, Apocalypse Now)

Re:Contact

[PsiPsiStar]

Interesting. You'd probably hate the book.

Re:Contact

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is primarily why it sucked so bad...

Re:Contact

[Teancum]

One part of Contact that I particularly like is the "hacking" of the signal from Vega. If I were to explain how things are reverse engineered and why, this is a very good explaination. In this case, it is with something that is specifically designed to be reverse engineered (as opposed to deliberate obfuscation in the design), but the principles still hold here. The TV signal processing was a little bizzare and super-convienient that they happened to have a flexable video processor on-hand for such an event. I can't even imagine what it would take to make a "generic" analog video signal processor and be able to make it work, even if all you had to deal with was all known broadcast formats for television (NTSC, PAL, SECAM, Farnsworth's original broadcast format, etc.) What an alien might do would add considerably more complexity to the issue, like scanning vertically instead.

Some parts of the movie were unbelieveable, and how Dr. Arroway was rolled by the White House and accepted their authority to shut up about the whole thing when it was clearly a civilian research project, particularly with their anti-government/anti-establishment leanings with the research group before hand. When a similar message (originating from Earth, but intended for "alien" audiences) was posted here on /., it was cracked within an hour and fully decyphered within three hours, so why would they not send the message to practically every geek news site or bureau?

Re:Contact

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the proof is really in the fact that in the 10 seconds or so of "real time" that the mission control experienced loss of contact with her capsule, she managed to get out of her harness in the chair while it smashed into the side of the shell while she comes out unharmed (from a hundred foot drop into the ocean no less!). The fact that they never bothered to explain why nobody cared about this was an incredibly weak point in the movie - and shows that the scriptwriters didn't really have sufficient scientific training to realise this was something that mattered ;)

Let's face it, her character as written would have realised this was proof. There was no need to end the movie the way they did.

Re:Contact

[el-spectre]

Interesting... I would consider the view that everything is explained by a mysterious being to be the more shortsighted one.

No Star Trek...Wow

[Groovus]

0 for 9 is it? I'd have thought maybe 2 or 4 would have gotten a mention. There's a couple on the list I think one of those could replace.

Re:No Star Trek...Wow

[mrchaotica]

Or 6; IMHO good sci-fi uses a futuristic (or at least, 'different') setting to make a statement about the real world, and I can't think of a better example than this.

Re:No Star Trek...Wow

[-kertrats-]

0 for 9, you say? Must've represed memories of The Final Frontier.

Logan's Run

[James Turpin]

Although Logans Run is one of the best sci-fi films from its era (possibly ever), most people have never heard of it, including people who have actually watched it. And this is coming from an avid fan of the series. Oh, you didn't know they made a series too? That's exactly the type of ignorance I'm talking about.

Re:Logan's Run

[Anonymous Coward]

People who don't know Logan's Run don't deserve the chance to renew.

Re:Logan's Run

[LennyDotCom]

Onfortunatley for logans run star wars came out and blew everyone minds and they forgot about it

Re:Logan's Run

[mikael]

That bring's back memories from the 1970's, even though I only had the chance to see a couple of episodes. There was the episode when there was one women who was being taken care of by a robot caretaker which had dusty lenses. There is an episode guide out in WWW-land. And don't forget the Simpsons and Family Guy versions of the movie.

Re:Logan's Run

[SWTP_OS9]

What is the bigest strangness to me about Logan was it came out the year before Starwars. It had good Special Effects but became out of dated when Starwars hit. Kind of like the last of the old tried and true format of SciFi movie. it marked the end of that era. Actualy some special effects and sets were pritty good to outstanding. But the shots of the city were crude at best. Also the Disco/70's feel leaves it a bit odd today. It was odd even then.

It had parts better than the book and also parts not a good as the book.

Also intersting that Harasson Ford played in three movies on the list.

Re:Logan's Run

[Hidyman]

I was just a kid when that came out.
I remember that there was a series only because the actors were different.
I still watch it when it comes on TV.

Re:Logan's Run

[john_smith_45678]

Absolutely - Logan's Run contributed a lot to the Sci-Fi genre. Classic.

Re:Logan's Run

[Anonymous Coward]

Onfortunatley

That might be the best spelling error ever.

Re:Logan's Run

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, way to be an elitist bastard.
So the message is that people aren't allowed to enjoy what was (and still is) at best a mediocre B sci-fi movie unless they've watched the abhorrent tv show as well?

Re:Logan's Run

[lovswr]

I did not. To this day I sometimes make little Run Logan Run! jokes. People always think it's from Forrest Gump. Since Stargate was a movie first & then a TV series, which of the two do you think is better? In my case, I thought that the movies were better in both cases.

Re:Logan's Run

[juiceCake]

I remember the series and wonder why SPACE, the Imagination Station, or as I like to call it, SPACE, the Cancellation Station has not run it. They ran Battlestar Galatica, but not for long, and for good reason.

Re:Logan's Run

[IncohereD]

Also intersting that Harasson Ford played in three movies on the list.

For a while in the late 90s (before ticket prices got absurd) he was the star in more than half of the top 10 grossing movies of all time. The Fugitive, Star Wars trilogy, Indiana Jones trilogy....the man picked his movies. Since then even crap like Bruce Almighty can apparently be considered the 35th highest grossing movie of all time. Sickening.

Re:Logan's Run

[hondo77]

Although Logans Run is one of the best sci-fi films from its era (possibly ever)...

No, that's not possible.

Re:Logan's Run

[CaptainAvatar]

God no, as I recall that was a crappy film (I've seen it at least twice, haven't had the pleasure of watching the series yet) - luckily I'm fond of bad sci-fi. It's not too bad until they break out of the city, then it just gets stupid. Of course, I'm 32, I would say that ...

Re:Logan's Run

[Anonymous Coward]

After they kill box the movie does get real stupid.
But Jenni Agutter. (SIC) She is so friggin hot. I do love the scene where box says, that the,
"food from the sea stopped coming, and this food started coming!"

Re:Logan's Run

[kiniry]

And don't forget the sequel no one seems to have seen, "Logan's Sanctuary". Oh, you didn't know they made a sequel? That's exactly the type of ignorance I'm talking about.

I hear the soundtrack by Reitzell, Manning, and Falkner is brilliant though... Logan's Sanctuary sountrack

Re:Logan's Run

[Scrameustache]

Although Logans Run is one of the best sci-fi films from its era (possibly ever)

I'm sorry, Logan's Run is an excellent sci-fi story, but the movie was horrible, and Star Wars came out the next year and blew it away out of the collective conciousness by being such a better film.

Brian Singer has been talking about remaking it. THAT is a good idea!
Planet of the apes did not need to be butchered, Psycho did not need to be re-shot, but Logan's Run could use some competent direction.

Example of badness: When they escape the collapsing ice cave, there are chunks of ice falling over the exit. They stop to let them through, and as soon as the heros are through, thei otherwise uninterrupted stream of falling blocks of ice resumes. That's just ackward.

Re:Logan's Run

[James Turpin]

They never made a movie sequel. They just made a soundtrack for a sequel. How artsy.

In related news....

[ender81b]

Still no cure for cancer!

Brainstorm

[thedogcow]

Despite the awkward ending due to the death of Natalie Wood, Brainstorm (1983) is a pretty good sci fi film.
Very underappreciated.

Re:Brainstorm

[ShavenYak]

Despite the awkward ending due to the death of Bela Lugosi, Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959) is a pretty good sci fi film.
Very underappreciated.

Re:Brainstorm

[bananahammock]

I'm gonna get shot down for this but:

Q: What kind of wood doesn't float?

A: Natalie Wood

Well, it was funny back in high school.....

Re:Brainstorm

[12357bd]

True, maybe the first one to visualize vital moments as bubbles floating in a void, a very ancient image, and a very correct film.

Re:Brainstorm

[16K Ram Pack]

I heard a rumour that it was originally made to be 3-d. Is that true?

Re:Brainstorm

[mal69]

It was originally a 70mm film. The "normal" scenes were displayed in a regular, smaller size while the scenes shown from a point of view of wearing the the device were shown full screen. I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere since seeing it in the theater when it was originally released...

Re:Brainstorm

[dschuetz]

I heard a rumour that it was originally made to be 3-d. Is that true?

It was originally a 70mm film. The "normal" scenes were displayed in a regular, smaller size while the scenes shown from a point of view of wearing the the device were shown full screen.

It was actually more complicated than that. yes, the "in-device" scenes were shown in a different aspect ratio (wider, I think, than the rest of the film), but that's not what the first poster was thinking of.

Originally, it was to be filmed in something called "Showscan." That was, if memory serves, a 70mm format at 60 frames per second (!), which provided, according to its inventor, an incredible sense of realism. But of course, that'd require all sorts of new projecter equipment (not to mention LOTS of film, hence only using it on the VR scenes), so it never happened that way.

It looks like the process has been bought and is now being applied to simulator (amusement park) rides, and the like.

60 of the most influential?

[Trespass]

Careful. Influential is not the same as 'important', or even 'competent'. It kind of makes me think 'attention whore', personally.

That, and what do they mean by 'best'? The one that most closely aligns to my worldview? Prettiest?

This is no better than those fluff 'top 100 whatever' pieces from the popular press. Meaningless and divisive.

Re:60 of the most influential?

[Hidyman]

I would say you are dead wrong there.
If these movies are influencing scientists, then they are important, even if they aren't the best.
This list has meaning to me.
I think it would only be divisive to people who can't tolerate other peoples opinions.

Your thoughts determine your reality.

Re:60 of the most influential?

[Trespass]

Influential scientists, not influential movies. This was stated directly in the article.

Re:60 of the most influential?

[CommieOverlord]

If the scientists are influential, then they're important. The fact that their insights are being followed and expanded upon by others makes them important.

And it's a pretty good guess that they're competent too. If they weren't good scientists then why would their colleages be influenced by them?

Only true 'cause...

[__aagmrb7289]

Firefly comes out in May of 2005, so no one has seen it yet :)

Gattaca

[Joel Aemmer]

Gattaca is a great one about DNA manipulation that is a little too close to reality for comfort. A great movie!

Re:Gattaca

[__aagmrb7289]

I'm with ya!

Re:Gattaca

[Kenja]

There is no way I could take Gattaca seriously. It was filmed for the most part at the Marin County Civic Center in CA, which is where I live. Seeing an old 70s building where you go to get people out of jail or file a small claims court document as a setting for future space travel just didn't work for me. Sames true of THX 1138, filmed at the civic center and at/on BART (bay area rapid transit).

Re:Gattaca

[Anonymous Coward]

The first hour of Gattaca is so boring, that I can't believe I didn't fall asleep when watching it. I must have been really pumped full of caffeine.

Re:Gattaca

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah it seems pretty obviose that from the posts that people have completely missed the point the movie was making. Like all good sci-fi gattica is not talkning about the future but talking about now...those geneticly modified , impoved people, represent what is really going on now...and that there are people who are better then other people. Someone is smarter then you, and me, and stronger and well just better...what gattaca is talking about or critisizeing is that where does equality come from if we are literaly born unequal. The movie does not particualary critisize genetic improvment...what it does question is our ability to evaluate quality.

Another movie "signs" makes the same point. The characters in the movie survive the aliens not despite of their defects but becouse of their defects. Both movies draw attention to the idea that no system or buisness or government or even cultural standard can truely and acuretly suscribe what is a defect and what is an adventages quality in a human being.

stendec@gmail.com

Re:Gattaca

[narad]

I agree, probably the closest to reality and hence did not qualify as "science fiction".

Re:Gattaca

[Joe Tie.]

Wow, I usually try to point this out to people as well. I think this is the first time I haven't had to!

Re:Gattaca

[Anonymous Coward]

the the "house" at the triangle building was filmed at Cal Poly Pomona, which killed it for me everytime i watch it, since i lived right next to cal poly for so long.

Other than that, i loved the flick!

Re:Gattaca

[PsiPsiStar]

I hated 'Signs.'

I detest the notion that evil aliens with superior technology are going to run around without so much as a shotgun to defend themselves.

Re:Gattaca

[bullitB]

Gattaca was, to my eyes, far too blatant. The genetically-modified antagonists' name is "Eugene?" Come on, now.

Re:Gattaca

[Cederic]

Shit, I was too busy ogling Uma to even notice that one :(

Even if it is blatant, it's still a very good film.

Re:Gattaca

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point.
I watched Gattaca 3 times and i didnt notice that.

Re:Gattaca

[OmniVector]

and the letters in GATTACA are all genetic letters used in DNA coding.

Re:Gattaca

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen Soylent Green (a while ago), but what are the 3 "chilling" scenes? (well, the end of course, but the other 2?)

It was supposed to be boring.

[Beardo the Bearded]

The thing about space travel is that it would take a very long time to get anywhere. Most of that time would be boring, stupid little tasks like talking to the AI so it doesn't go crazy or making sure that the thing that never breaks isn't broken. That's what the movie was trying to convey - it takes a long time to get anywhere, and there aren't fantastic space fights to get to Europa. There's nothing out there to impede our progress except that we don't really want to go.

Imagine the first people to fly to Europa. It would be exciting for the first, say, month. After that, you'd start to get bored and wig out.

"What's on the scanner / out the window?"

"Uh, nothing. Same as yesterday."

"Ah. Want to play cards / Doom3 / on the holodeck?"

Nothing exciting happens, and that's the point.

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[name773]

doom3 on the holodeck? sweet!

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[KMonk]

That is why we need to have A) couples astronauts B) a large enough spaceship After all think of the average person's life. Get up. Go To work. Come home, watch TV. If young, go out try to get laid. The hub in the wheel is sex, and if you get enough people on the flight with relaxed sexual ideas and nice looking bodies... I bet it wouldn't be so boring at all

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[garbletext]

Heinlen knows how well that idea went. Everyone got pissed off and jealous and killed eachother. Then the bastard child of one of the illicit relationships was raised by martains.

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd all become sex addicts, and would need a counselor. Do you really want to start down *that* road?

But seriously... Too much of anything is not a good thing. Too much sex, you'd either be bored or exhausted, then the high would go away, you'd get depressed and take the plasma rifle to your head.

Honestly.

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[john_smith_45678]

Nothing exciting happens, and that's the point.

Um, until you get near Jupiter that is...

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[cfuse]

Imagine the first people to fly to Europa. It would be exciting for the first, say, month. After that, you'd start to get bored and wig out.

Sign me up, I'm sick of shit happening all the time. I mean, am I the only person on the planet that thinks that life is too fast - slow down already. Learn to meditate or something if you can't cope with doing 'nothing'.

The idea of spending months without noise and distractions sounds excellent.

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[JAD lifter]

Imagine the first people to fly to Europa. It would be exciting for the first, say, month. After that, you'd start to get bored and wig out.

No way. I can stay in my little studio apartment for days at a time only being forced to leave to go to work. If I could I would live in that apartment 24/7 like my cat does. Many geeks are like me and would make great astronauts for long voyages cooped up aboard a small spaceship.

Just give me a big collection of video games, books, software development tools, pr0n and have the space ship set up so that it recycles my piss into Code Red Mountain Dew and recycles my shit into Chilli Cheese Fritos and I'll be set for the long haul. When the ship finally gets to Europa I probably wouldn't want to get off!

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[Dr. Evil]

Not just boring, but lethally unforgiving. If the normal sci-fi rules were applied to the leap from the pod, or the evacuation of the atomosphere, then it wouldn't seem so desolate and hopeless. Tossing in a crew which gets slaughtered without introduction makes it even more imensely unforgiving.

I think it was a great film, no question at all. It's also probably the only film I know of which tries to get sci-fi accurate rather than cool.

Sure, it gets boring, and the end is just weird, but it makes you think and what it makes you think are not happy escapist pulp-sci-fi thoughts, but frigtening and real thoughts about human purpose and mortality.

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[Short Circuit]

stupid little tasks like talking to the AI so it doesn't go crazy

Enter SpeedStep...allow the AI to go to relative sleep.

If the clockspeed's been maxed out when it shouldn't be...beware.

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[ShavenYak]

No shit. Talk about finally getting a chance to get away from it all. And, when you do get stuck on the phone with your mother, the several minute propagation delay means she won't notice the awkward pauses as you try to explain why you haven't called lately.

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[dukerobillard]

While I agree with this post, I'd like to point out that the boredom of space travel makes it a perfect subject for Kubrick. Kubrick can make *anything* boring; he seems to love the esthetic of disinterest. Check out some of his other movies; nothing ever happens in any of them, but it happens very slowly and lovingly.

If you like that, he rocks. Me, I like The Maltese Falcon.

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[KMonk]

yeah but Valentine Michael Smith was like Jesus 2, and one hell of a tiger in the sack himself, so you know, win win!

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't have too much wisdom, so I disagree.

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[Atrax]

Oh, I don't know. I'd concede the point for Barry Lyndon, likewise Eyes Wide Shut (couldn't finish the damn things) but you may have missed:

Full Metal Jacket
Dr Strangelove
A Clockwork Orange
The Shining (in particular, slow for a reason, to build tension)

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sign me up, I'm sick of shit happening all the time.

No internet, no slashdot. Still game?

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[gnuLNX]

Yeah except it won't be months, but years.

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[darksaber]

> But seriously... Too much of anything is not a good thing. Too much sex, you'd either be bored or exhausted, then the high would go away, you'd get depressed and take the plasma rifle to your head.

Sounds like someone not speaking from experience... what site is this again?

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[Anonymous Coward]

No internet, no slashdot. Still game?

Why no internet? Sure, the transmission delays would get a bit long, but zipping up /. on a daily basis and sending it to the spaceship is trivial.

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why no internet? Sure, the transmission delays would get a bit long, but zipping up /. on a daily basis and sending it to the spaceship is trivial.

The transmission delays would exceed the maximum timeout allowed in TCP. At some point, you couldn't use the internet at all, any more. (Even if TCP didn't time-out, the packet round-trip time would be measured in hours.)

You'd have NASA broadcasting slashdot.zip to you, over some communications system which didn't use TCP/IP, and the webpage would lose its forms, CGIs, and all external links. That simply doesn't count as "the internet" in my book.

Besides, do you want aliens learning about earth by reading slashdot feeds?

Clarke's Three Laws

[kalidasa]

The second story, on SF authors, says that Clarke is famous for his three laws. Problem is, the first and second laws are both fakes, as Clarke admits - he came up with the third law first, and decided to call it "Clarke's Third Law" in comparison to Newton's Third Law. Later, because folks didn't get the joke, he felt compelled to come up with the other two laws. And then later he extended it out to more than three.

Re:Clarke's Three Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Arthur C. Clarke came out with three laws? Which three were those?

Re:Clarke's Three Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

The third, which is most well know is: Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Re:Clarke's Three Laws

[kalidasa]

Clarke's First Law:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Clarke's Second Law:

"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

Clarke's Third Law:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

The sibling post was quicker on the gun with the third law, though it's obviously from memory.

Re:Clarke's Three Laws

[heptapod]

Any technology that is distinguishable from magic
is not sufficiently advanced.
- Gregory Benford

Re:Clarke's Three Laws

[metachor]

Any magic that is indistinguishable from technology is insufficiently advanced.

Re:Clarke's Three Laws

[jschrod]

Addition to his first law (not by AC himself): "Except he can proof it and the axioms are appropriate for the case."

I love the guys who still think they can solve the halting problem, due to statements as AC's First Law. Well, I love viewing them, unmasking themselves as dumb idiots; I don't like it if I must work with such folks.

WHAT! No Johnny?

[HonkyLips]

How is it possible that the world has overlooked "Johnny Mnemonic"?
I guess many artists and musicians are only truly recognised after they die... perhaps it will take the death of Keanu for Johnny Mnemonic to be truly appreciated.

Farscape: Peacekeeper Wars mini-series

[Anonymous Coward]

That should be in there... if they were counting mini-series.

'Course, I'd go for Chianna in any poll.

Brazil

[wigle]

Brazil should have made top ten if for anything because of its visual and somewhat frightening view of the future. Of the best sci-fi movies Brazil is one of the least outdated (technology wise). Its theme, very similar to 1984, I suspect will always be relevant.

Re:Brazil

[glpierce]

The problem is that nobody has seen it. It's certainly a masterpiece (it's among my favorites), but you go walk down the street and find me someone who has even heard of it.

Re:Brazil

[catbutt]

Is it really the future though? It looks to me like what they might have predicted the 70's might look like, back in the 20's. (but yeah, great film)

Re:Brazil

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

And the original Solaris, which was on their list, passes this test?

Re:Brazil

[mentatchris]

I agree. Brazil is a notable omission. Overall tho, I found the list to be of high quality. The only questionable film was Solaris, which is certainly worse than Brazil.

Re:Brazil

[dslbrian]

The problem is that nobody has seen it. It's certainly a masterpiece (it's among my favorites), but you go walk down the street and find me someone who has even heard of it.

Well, it was originally going to fill the hole at #5, but they switched to metric and it fell right thru...

Re:Brazil

[glpierce]

Not in my eyes, no. It's some of the most beautiful cinematography and direction I've ever seen, but it's not a great movie. Certainly worth watching, though.

Re:Brazil

[Anonymous Coward]

Brazil is a great movie. However, I don't agree that it has a similar theme to 1984. 1984 is about what happens if we slowly allow others to control our lives. Brazil is about the illusion of reality and the ability to create freedom anywhere.

The key to understanding Brazil is to watch the movie and *not* have a bias towards which is fantasy and which is reality. At the beginning, the "fantasies" are fantastic and the "reality", while still fantastic, seems more real. In the end you are sucked into believing the "fantasy", while the "reality" just gets more and more bizarre.

I watched this movie 13 times (had to write a paper for film studies). I didn't understand it until I looked closely at the "torture" implements at the end of the movie. One of them is a super ball...

Re:Brazil

[Monkelectric]

I love Brazil, and I *LOVE* dystopian fiction, I consider myself a fan of the genre. However, the problem with Brazil is it really *IS* 1984. If you've read 1984, you've seen Brazil. Same with Farenheit 411 and most other dystopian fictions, which is why there is so little of it. (Although I consider Fight Club to pretty much be the pinacle of dystopian fiction)

Brazil doesn't really make any contributions other then its gorgeous visual design, and the irony of being a rip-off of 1984 the book while simultaneously being a better movie then 1984 the movie :)

Re:Brazil

[WIAKywbfatw]

By your definition anything written by HG Wells can't be classified as science fiction. Heck, 2001 fails to meet your criteria, because 2001 has come and gone and it was nothing like the movie (or the book) said it would be.

You really have a very narrow (and flawed) definition of what's science fiction and what's not, don't you?

Re:Brazil

[horza]

Add my vote for Brazil. As for posts below, Alien is at no.4 and is on a par with Aliens, and Matrix is at no.9 (not missed off as suggested). Brazil is especially relevant today with its themes of the "war on terror" and also beaurocracy taking over the rights of innocent civilians. Robert De Niro is superb as a commando renegade 'heating engineer', and the satire extends from the anti-terror squad to plastic surgery to petty minded office-politics. Class.

Phillip.

Re:Brazil

[ktakki]

Same with Farenheit 411 and most other dystopian fictions, which is why there is so little of it.

Fahrenheit 411? Wasn't that the movie where they burned all the phone books?

k.

Re:Brazil

[sl0ppy]

perhaps the scientists that voted for this had only seen the "love conquers all" version :)

Re:Brazil

[Anonymous Coward]

Farenheit 411? Is this a version where books get very hot but do not burn?

Re:Brazil

[catbutt]

Who said it wasn't science fiction? I just said it didn't seem to be simply the future, and what I meant was the future relative to when it was made. H.G.Wells stuff (as will as Orwell's) was more standard future-oriented sci-fi, because it was a reasonable best guess of the author at what the future might be like. Do you think Terry Gilliam seriously thought that one day we would use standard typewriters connected to bare CRT's with fresnel lenses?

Brazil is one of my favorite movies, partly for the weirdness of it being sort of a parallel universe rather than just a simple leap into the future.

Re:Brazil

[Colazar]

That was my first thought as well. Brazil is, without a doubt, my favorite movie of all time. However, I, will admit that whether or not it should be classified as sf is debatable, so it didn't strike me as *too* surprising that it wasn't on the list.

Re:Brazil

[leonscape]

It depends on which version their talking about, the American or the Russian.

Re:Brazil

[LincolnX]

It's Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury.

Re:Brazil

[CaptainAvatar]

I couldn't get into Brazil precisely because of the weirdness ... it just seemed that Gilliam was throwing in weird stuff because it looked cool, rather than because it was plausible in any sense. (The future scenes in 12 Monkeys had this feel too.) But I only saw it once and that was many years ago, I should probably give it another shot.

Re:Brazil

[belroth]

If Star Bores^WWars is on the list I should think that Brazil certainly should be too.

Silent Running

[SlideGuitar]

I agree with the choice of Blade Runner.

But I thought that Silent Running was pretty cool.

Also The Andromeda Strain... that was pretty neat in its day.

Just saw Soylent Green too... nice dystopian idea.

Re:Silent Running

[datadriven]

Man good choices. Dreamscape was one of my fav's

Re:Silent Running

[nurb432]

Yes silent running should have been up there with BR and 2001, as a rather thought provoking and painfully realistic movie, as both the others were.

Re:Silent Running

[fyngyrz]

If you liked Soylent Green, you might like the original book "Make Room, Make Room" by Harry Harrison. Pure SF - not a fantastic element in sight - and very, very good indeed.

Though I ought to warn you, Soylent Green is not made out of people. That was just Hollywood doing its thing, screwing with a perfectly good story.

Minority Report

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a really good sci-fi movie, especially when you realize the "ending" isn't real.

Re:Minority Report

[Anonymous Coward]

you are gay. really, really gay.

Re:Minority Report

[Anonymous Coward]

Minority Report was a good movie but the pre-cogs thing was stupid. It makes Minority Report more fantasy and less science fiction.

Re:Minority Report

[aled]

There's no difference because nobody can foretell which fantasy of today may become a science tomorrow. Except for the precogs, of course.

Re:Minority Report

[aled]

Do you know that both are based on the written works of Philip K. Dick? Of course Minority Report just demolished the short story on which is based. Blade Runner just cut the most important concept of the book. I just couldn't dare to watch Impostor to see what they have done to it.
All in all Blade Runner is a better movie. Minority Report is a show of special effects that don't help the plot and a parade for Tom "one face for all moods" Cruise.

Re:Minority Report

[PriceIke]

John Woo's Paycheck was also based on a PKD work.

I like how they named the leading lady "Rachel", and at one point near the end of the film, an order is given to "retire him" (kill him).

I can't help but think these were deliberate tips-of-the-hat to Blade Runner.

Re:Minority Report

[aled]

I left out Total Recall because is such marginaly based on the PKD short story.

ALIENS!

[MaineCoon]

On slashdot, anybody can hear you scream.

Seriously, though, my all time favorite. Better than Bladerunner by far.

Re:ALIENS!

[MaineCoon]

And yes, I know I used the tagline for 'Alien'. The Aliens' tagline is "This Time it's War".

Re:ALIENS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Game over man! GAME OVER!

Re:ALIENS!

[real_smiff]

Aliens was a terrible action movie directed by James Cameron (he of Titanic cheesiness.. hrm bad pun ok). Alien was a fine sci-fi/horror (mostly haunted-house IMHO & just happened to be set in space with beautiful creature design) movie directed by Ridley Scott (he of Blade Runner classiness).

So i'm having to disagree with you there. having watched both films back to back recently (didn't bother with the rest of the series). or maybe you didn't mean to add that 's'?

Sorry, I just don't understand why the sequel consistently seems to rate higher with the general public..

Re:ALIENS!

[el-spectre]

Aliens was a HELL of an action movie... 20 years later is is still considered one of the greats... between ugly nasties, blazing guns and a series of chase scenes, what more do you want in an action movie?

Was it the tense horror of Alien? Nope, but both stand as fine examples of their genre.

Re:ALIENS!

[Anonymous Coward]

I loved the first movie, despite the slow pace.

I also loved the second movie, though not for the same reasons. Something about Aliens I noticed: even today, it has better effects (i.e they didn't look out of place) than a lot of movies. Even one scene that should have looked terrible (when the drop ship pilot was killed and the marines had to run to avoid being squished) looked quite believable.

I hate Titanic as much as anyone, but I don't think JC did a bad job on Aliens.

Re:ALIENS!

[Moofie]

Terrible action movie? What are YOU smoking?

OK, enlighten me. What's a GOOD action movie?

Aliens is the BEST straight-up action movie ever filmed. It's not Cinematic Greatness, but it is a superb example of its genre.

Re:ALIENS!

[prockcore]

Sorry, I just don't understand why the sequel consistently seems to rate higher with the general public

Because it had Newt.. and Bill Paxton. Ok, never mind.

Re:ALIENS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Aliens wasn't an action movie. It was a suspense movie with the trappings of an action movie. For all the big guns and grenades and CN20 nerve gas, it came down to the suspense/horror movie cliches--lots of darkness, flashes of the Aliens, people picked off and killed in horrific ways, and even the false ending where we think Ripley's finally won, but in fact the queen's followed her and she has to deal with it using an improvised weapon.

If you have to make the argument that it's a "gun movie" (my own made up term) it has more in common with the recent spate of "real war" flicks ala Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers--showing the chaos, bloodshed, and fear of war without really glamorizing it or having some supersoldier like Ahnold kill all the bad guys and save the day. Action movies tend to rely on beefcake heroes to save the day. Aliens doesn't.

Re:ALIENS!

[cfuse]

Sorry, I just don't understand why the sequel consistently seems to rate higher with the general public.

Sigourney Weaver kills hundreds of aliens in a Rambo style machine gun and flamethrower rampage, and then has a bitch fight with the alien queen in what can only be described as a 'mecha forklift'. Bill Paxton is best supporting actor with his hysterical 'we're all going to die' performance. What's not to like?

Re:ALIENS!

[mblase]

Sorry, I just don't understand why the sequel consistently seems to rate higher with the general public.

From a sheer sci-fi/futurism perspective, it does a good job of taking the original's idea of a universe traversed by space "truckers" working for cynical corporations and adds space Marines, greedy corporate bastards and colonial families. In addition, it fleshes out the alien life cycle by asking and answering the obvious question: who's laying all the eggs?

Add that to the fact that Cameron expanded a cliche horror flick that happened to be set in space to a fairly novel horror/action flick set in... well, space, with characters you actually got interested in over time. (This was his strength in "Terminator 2" as well: taking what could be a by-the-numbers action/FX film and adding good, solid characterization to the ENTIRE cast.) "Aliens" may have played up the cliches itself, but it was a more-than-worthy successor, and a lot of sci-fi today owes tribute to it in some way, shape or form.

Re:ALIENS!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree! Alien was the best of the Alien saga, as viewed as the best Sci Fi horror movie of all time.

Alien 2 (Aliens) was good too but relied more on gore and less on suspense. Alien 3 and Alien 4 were fairly good in their own ways but fell far short of the first two ... monotonically decreasing in goodness.

Of course I own the collectors edition 5 DVD pack of Aliens but the first one is the only real competitor to Blade Runner out of them all. Without H.R.Giger's excellent design the Alien saga would have been much less engaging. Related to this one could also throw a few (not too many) kudos to the excellent Pitch Black and Species 1 and 2 (mainly for Natasha ...).

However, Blade Runner is several dimensions of interest greater than the Alien saga ...

Of course I have a soft spot for 2001 (high budget), Silent Running (low budget), and the classic Forbidden Planet!

Re:ALIENS!

[Grishnakh]

Alien and Aliens are two very different movies, and I like them both for different reasons.

Alien was an excellent sci-fi horror/suspense movie. It was not an action movie.

Aliens was an excellent sci-fi action movie. It was not very suspenseful, nor was it designed to be. It was designed to be action-packed, and very fun to watch.

Both movies did very well in these regards. and were good movies overall. The subsequent sequels, however, were extremely disappointing.

Re:ALIENS!

[ahodgson]

I kind of liked Alien Resurrection. Number 3 was godawful though.

Re:ALIENS!

[wrecked]

Actually, I just watched Aliens again last weekend, and it's amazing how well it (and the original Alien) stand up over 20 years later. The dialogue in Aliens is simply brilliant, which is obvious when you compare it to other films.

Witness the immortal lines, often quoted on ./, such as "Let's nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure", "Fucking A!", "Game over man, game over!", "I don't know which species is worse; at least you don't see them fucking each other over for a percentage", etc.

Aliens is really the first theatrical adaptation of Starship Troopers, and is much better than the eventual Starship Troopers itself.

Re:ALIENS!

[glesga_kiss]

I think it comes down to the order in which you view them. If you watch Aliens first, all the suspence of Alien is wasted as you know what is going to happen in the canteen and so on. Alien was all about the unknown.

Re:ALIENS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I just don't understand why the sequel consistently seems to rate higher with the general public..

Alien was a horror movie.

Aliens was an action movie.

Action movies almost always have broader public appeal.

War Games

[whfsdude]

What about war games? :P

Re:War Games

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, see Colossus: The Forbin Project, if you can find a copy. Take that film, alter the premise a little, add some teenagers, give it some fun action, and give it a happy ending, and you have Wargames. And Colossus was done way back in 1970.

Simpsons Comic guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Blade Runner - Best movie ever.

Non sequitur

[glpierce]

I don't see how that makes it a good movie. That may make him a good director, but it doesn't change the movie in total.

I have seen many movies with outstanding acting performances that lacked a plot, or great plots with poor cinematography, etc. They are what they are - good performances, plots, etc., but still not good movies. The movie is the unified whole. The greatest directorial performance in history would not make a plotless movie good, it would just make it a bad movie with great direction.

Re:Non sequitur

[Anonymous Coward]

To paraphrase Ebert: It's not what the movie is about, it is how it is about it. Example - Almost every Tarantino movie.

Re:Non sequitur

[Yaztromo]

The greatest directorial performance in history would not make a plotless movie good, it would just make it a bad movie with great direction.

Except that 2001 does indeed have a plot. A rather complex plot at that.

If you simply "don't get it", try a Google search -- there are lots of websites out there that will describe the plot for you.

It's admittedly a complex movie. Many people "don't get it" the first time, but subsequent viewings usually bring out important items you might have missed.

Yaz.

Re:Non sequitur

[Anonymous Coward]

So a plotless movie like Koyaanisqatsi can not be a good movie?
I think your appreciation of cinema is far too constrained by the mainstream.

Re:Non sequitur

[glpierce]

I was pointing out the non sequitur in the parent's logic. At no time did I say whether or not I liked 2001, nor did I say it had a poor plot.

Re:Non sequitur

[JamesKPolk]

I'd read the book twice, knew exactly what was going on, and still found the movie to be a total waste of time.

Re:Non sequitur

[mentatchris]

This is actually a really good point. Mod this up! How did it get zeroed?

Re:Non sequitur

[AceCaseOR]

2001 has a plot. It's just a little tricky to figure out if you haven't read the novel. 2010 helps clear things up a little (but not by much).

Re:Non sequitur

[Anonymous Coward]

Life is a waste of time.

Re:Non sequitur

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how that makes it a good movie. That may make him a good director, but it doesn't change the movie in total.

The fact that people are still arguing as vehemently over the movie 35 years after its release does mean it's a good movie.

Re:Non sequitur

[Anonymous Coward]

This site does a very good job.

Link

Re:Non sequitur

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. A great movie can be about something, and also be done well. Tarantino is very good at half the equation (though there is room for improvement there too, if he would do something original instead of simply alluding to other movies)

Re:Non sequitur

[JAD lifter]

How did it get zeroed?

Because it was posted by an AC. So it automaticaly scored zero.

Re:Non sequitur

[JamesKPolk]

What? I'm holding in my hand right now "2001: A Space Odyssey" by Arthur Clarke. Sitting just a few feet from me are it sequels 2010, 2061, and 3001.

There most certainly was a book. Clarke, however, modified the plot of the sequels in order to match the movie. The 2001 book went to Saturn, while the movie went to Jupiter, but the later books went to Jupiter.

Re:Non sequitur

[Wavicle]

Just goes to show you how squirly the notion of "art" can be. I saw "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction" and I thought they were both deplorable, inhuman and in the case of Pulp Fiction uninteresting (I know I'm in the minority here, for what it's worth I thought Fight Club was terrible too).

However I thought Kill Bill was excellent. I loved the mix between comic-book style and old 70's-era kung foo movies. Brought back good memories.

So, I'm still not sure of Tarantino as an artistic director.

Re:Non sequitur

[glpierce]

"The fact that people are still arguing as vehemently over the movie 35 years after its release does mean it's a good movie."

Ironically posted in a thread titled "Non sequitur."

Re:Non sequitur

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

In deed. The movie and the book were created at the same time, influencing each other. "The Sentinel" was just the starting point.

The movie went to Jupiter for the simple reason of the artistic team not being able to create the satisfying model of Saturn and its' rings. For that reason, Kubrick decided to move the plot into Jovian world. If you are a 2001 fan, I recommend Clarke's "The Lost Worlds of 2001". Kind of like "The Making Of" for both the book as well as the movie.

I'll never forgive Clarke for writing 3001 (which is, IMO, by far the worst of the series), or - even more - for giving his blessings to the 2010 movie (which is a horrible, cliche ridden trash).

Re:Non sequitur

[Anonymous Coward]

A life without a purpose is a waste of time.

Re:Non sequitur

[OmniVector]

i think the other half to his movies, that make them so appealing to me, is the unbelivably well written and flowing dialog. dialog is the driving force of Tarantino's movies with excellent directing wrapped around it.

Re:Non sequitur

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with that statement, especially with a movie like Richard Linklater's Slacker. However, sometimes the plot of a movie is enough to carry it even if it's told badly. I can't think of any right now, but I'm sure they exist.

Re:Non sequitur

[Wolfrider]

--I pretty much agree with you on all counts. (In fact, I walked out of a Fight Club DVD viewing when they revealed the "secret ingredient" of the soap. It just grossed me out too much.)

--What did you think about "From Dusk Til Dawn"? I happened to like that one.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0116367/
http://hollywoodbitchslap.com/review.php?movie=217 5

No surprises

[scotay]

I must admit, it's sad to see the Terminator/Matrix movies get so much play in this genre. These are passable action films that don't stand up to much pondering post viewing.

Planet of the Apes should be on any top list.

Re:No surprises

[bskin]

I must admit, it's sad to see the Terminator/Matrix movies get so much play in this genre. These are passable action films that don't stand up to much pondering post viewing.

Neither of these were exactly hard sci-fi, but...

They were kick ass action movies (i question the sanity of anyone who says Terminator 2 was a 'passable' action movie) that were just smart enough to make the plots interesting. I doubt they trying to be 'deep' in any way, just trying to be a bit different from every other Hollywood plot out there.

Get your stories straight, lads.

[grub]

The article says "Blade Runner was the runaway favourite in our poll." followed by 2001 which was "A very close second". Which is it?

Re:Get your stories straight, lads.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they meant runaway literally in case of Blade Runner.

Re:Get your stories straight, lads.

[bidule]

Both. They both were runaway, maybe?

Re:Get your stories straight, lads.

[servognome]

There wasn't THAT much running in Blade Runner, now The Running Man, that was a movie with lots of running in it.

Re:Get your stories straight, lads.

[Anonymous Coward]

margin for error: +/- Flash Gordon

Re:Get your stories straight, lads.

[flupps]

See, they only had 3 votes for the films, two happened to be for Blade Runner and one for 2001.

So it does make sense...

"Blade Runner was the runaway favorite in our poll" since it had double the amount of votes as the #2.

"2001 was a very close second" since it was only one vote behind the winner!

Re:Get your stories straight, lads.

[killjoe]

I would have voted the other way around. 2001 was a work of pure genious. Blade runner was great but to me it was "just a movie". 2001 was an epic and a revelation.

Re:Get your stories straight, lads.

[MyHair]

Scientists don't run very fast.

Re:Get your stories straight, lads.

[nine-times]

Also:" It was so far ahead of its time and the whole premise of the story - what is it to be human and who are we, where we come from? It's the age-old questions."

Most of these...

[__aagmrb7289]

Just tell ya how old the people polled are...

Totally agree

[DaveCBio]

No other film has come close to bringing sci-fi to life for me. Star Wars is a soap opera in space, including the "dead father" that comes back to life as an unexpected character. The Matrix was pretty cool (the first one, the last 2 were lame), but it didn't have the strength of character, story and acting that Blade Runner has. It's one of my favorite flms of all time.

Episode 1!

[Manip]

Star Wars Episode 1 was not in the top 10?! But it had Ja-Ja Binks and that wonderful story that .. oh screw it who am I kidding, it sucked.

Re:WHAT! No Johnny?

[z3021017]

perhaps it will take the death of Keanu for Johnny Mnemonic to be truly appreciated.

That's just inviting something...

Reading the book right now

[falkryn]

Interesting to see this posted, I just started reading the book behind Blade Runner last night, Do androids dream of electric sheep, by Philip K. Dick. Starting to get into it, but thusfar I can say it has pretty little to do with the movie as such, except for a detective whose job is to go around killing renegade androids (so far I see some of the names are the same though, and maybe I've just not read enough yet). Lots of strangeness, psychedelic spiritual mind trips of empathic union, an odd obsession with animals, and other such oddities, but still I'm starting to get into it. Mind you, P.K. Dick was a little on the edge to say the least himself.

Re:Reading the book right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's right... The film didn't have much to do with the book. Maybe that's why they changed the title :-)

OK...

[amalcon]

Star Wars 1+2 but not Star Trek 2+4 (the former a masterpiece, the latter the funniest sci-fi movie of its time)?
2001 was a decent movie IF you'd read the book (as then you actually know all the things Kubric couldn't possibly convey through video, or left out to include more "monkeys beat each other with sticks"). It was worthless standalone.
Terminator 2 was a great deal better than Terminator in many people's opinions; how you could include the Matrix but not T2 is beyond me.

Dark Star

[StarWynd]

What?! No Dark Star? As the wiki says, "Four lonely, stoned hippy astronauts are adrift in space, have several adventures and find various ways to relieve their boredom." Classic. Just classic.

Re:Dark Star

[falkryn]

I was thinking about the very same film. I remember seeing it late one night in younger days. Loved it. Don't ask me why, but at the time there was something about the film I actually found frightening, like that scene where the 'alien' was chasing after the guy in the elevator, kept me on the edge of my seat. Strange I know, and at the time I used to watch just about every horror film out there (which this certainly wasn't).

Seems to me there were some really good scifi movies made around that time, like Dark Star, Andromeda Strain, ZPO (anyone remember that one!), TXwhatever (minus the naked tv people, call me prude i don't care), etc. Low budgets, great plots. Kind of the opposite of a lot of later science fiction films.

Re:Dark Star

[Anonymous Coward]

When I read:

"But for UCL space physiologist Kevin Fong it's the mundanity of the crew's lifestyle that makes it stand out. "For the first time we got the idea that, in the far-flung future, people who live and work in space might be a bunch of Average Joe slobs sitting around with leftover pizza, smoking and playing cards to pass the time," he says. "It captures much of what long duration space flight is about now: dirty, sweaty and claustrophobic with long periods of boredom followed by moments of sheer terror."

I could only think, what could they be thinking of? Dark Star came out 5 year earlier, and showed those things much better than Alien ever did. The should have called this The Top 10 SF Films That Everyone's Grandmother Has Heard Of.

Re:Dark Star

[coastwalker]

I bought the DVD and a player just so I could watch this.

"Oh yes, one more thing. A meteor strike on hold 42b has destroyed the ships entire supply of toilet paper"

Unsubtle reference to 2001 in the sentient bomb, a cryogenically preserved captain and a rust bucket of a ship years before Alien made spacecraft look mundane. Not forgetting the terifying encounter with the ships own Alien in the elevator...

Vietnam vets playing air guitar rather than Bill and Ted but seriously funny in a way that boarders on something dark.

It did for Science Fiction in its day, what "Dog Soldiers" has just done for horror

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2002/04/12/dog_soldiers _2002_review.shtml

voice-over is a no-no

[Meniconi,Nando]

Get the Director's Cut edition, not the one that hit the theatres in the US, or you get stuck with Harrison's voiceover throughout the movie describing what is going on on the screen...

Re:voice-over is a no-no

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree with first AC... with out the voice over, the noir effect is not as comprehensive... but, I don't think you can find the one with the voice over AND in widescreen letterbox, which means your missing almost half the film (d@mn pan and scan!)

Runaway favourite and close second?

[Owndapan]

Excuse nitpicking...

"Blade Runner was the runaway favourite in our poll."

"A Space Odyssey... A very close second"

How can a runaway favourite have a close second? :P

Steven Pinker a 'Canadian psychologist'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you think calling Pinker a 'Canadian psychologist' is a bit of a stretch?

After all, the guy got his doctorate from Harvard and has taught at MIT for most of his career.

For more info, see Pinker's CV

Re:Steven Pinker a 'Canadian psychologist'?

[shufler]

Pinker was born in Montreal, and got his BA (BS? Whatever, it's in Psych) at McGill.

Why Blade Runner...

[digitalhermit]

Science fiction always gets a bad rap in a lot of literary criticism. Part of the reason is that some of the ideas are so bare, so obvious. But I think this is what makes it so powerful. Blade Runner (at least to me) has always been about the unfairness of life; specifically, it's too damn short. It's very clear that the replicants are lots more human than the real ones. They burn brighter, bleed more, feel pain more. They're the Ubermensch, the hero, the essential human. The "humans" are passionless and evil. There's this idea that their short lifespan is a consequence of their superiority. If this was the reason then it's maybe not too tragic. However, it isn't a consequence of nature that dooms them; rather, it's an arbitrary decision by their creators that their lifespans would be shorted. This idea kicks me.

The other reason I enjoy Blade Runner is that science is not the scapegoat. Almost every other movie I've seen has made scientists and intellectuals (not that I count myself as either) as "evil". Technology running rampant destroying the earth is a common theme (Terminator, various post-Apocalyptic movies, "mad scientist" blandness). Even movies that celebrate the triumph of the intellect eventually bow down to superstition (the scene of an Aborigine praying to unseen gods to help a lunar module land safely sticks in my mind).

So yeah, I'm glad that Blade Runner is up there.

"Best?"

[gmuslera]

Ok, i could understand their idea get the idea that Matrix is more martial arts than sci-fi, or Star Wars that could be located anywhere, or that Alien is more terror.

But there are a lot of not named movies that plays with very hard sci-fi topics, i.e. 12 Monkeys with time (or Terminator or even Back to the future), or Avalon with virtual reality, or more topics covered by the science fiction concept or even Dark City.

But also, they are movies, not just must touch some advanced scientific or science fiction topics, but must be good as a movie... ok, Blade Runner is good, but there are a lot that were don't even named there.

And if well is the author behind Blade Runner, the article don't even names P.K.Dick, that have a bunch of really good sci-fi movies based on his books and tales, maybe him alone should have most top ranked movies in their selection.

Re:"Best?"

[gmuslera]

Yes, i know, i must read all the linked articles before giving an opinion, not just the main one.

Re:"Best?"

[bill_mcgonigle]

Ok, i could understand their idea get the idea that Matrix is more martial arts than sci-fi

Yet The Matrix may be the most likely and profound of the predictions in any of the SciFi movies.

And the kungfu was pretty damn cool.

Let's analyze this.

[James Turpin]

1. Blade Runner (1982) Dir: Ridley Scott - Because the main protagonist is Harrison Ford, and it went over budget in production, and the script has a few profound lines, and a hidden sub-plot that some people never realize. All and all, its pretty hard to beat

2 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Dir: Stanley Kubrick - This is just blatant bias because they like the author.

3 Star Wars (1977)/Empire Strikes Back (1980) - No, really, who would have thought. It was only the first truly popular scifi movie ever. (As in you weren't automaticly a nerd for being a fan.)

4 Alien (1979) Dir: Ridley Scott - Because its the best series of horror movies ever, and it just happens to have a scifi element. And the feminists like it too.

5 Solaris (1972) Dir: Andrei Tarkovsky - Because its obscure, requires a lot of focus to follow the metaphysics, and has an element of tragic drama. In other words, its the nerds' pick.

6 Terminator (1984)/T2: Judgment day (1991) Dir: James Cameron - Because the scientists want to suck up to politicians.

etc...

Re:Let's analyze this.

[jackb_guppy]

Blade Runner was as weak of a movie as Dune was. Missed the whole point of the book. And it can not even stand alone -- you need the book just to try to get what the Dir was doning in the moive.

Shoot Total Recall was a better moive.

Now lets see where The Day The Earth Stood Still...

Re:Let's analyze this.

[Colazar]

Actually, when I finally got around to reading _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_, it ended up making me even more impressed with the movie, becasue they had *almost nothing to do with each other*. I was impressed that they had made so much up, whole cloth.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book. I enjoyed the movie. But aside from a few thematic elements that they have in common (and which are made very clear in the movie), there's absolutely nothing you *could* get from the book to apply to the movie.

Solaris?

[altstadt]

How did Solaris ever get on the list, let alone at number 5?

Every foot of film shot for this movie made it into the final cut. If an editor was ever allowed a chance at the movie, it could be tightened into a pretty good 45 minute TV episode. Instead we get to spend 20 minutes watching a passenger in a car on a freeway who could have been asleep.

I can live with everything else on the list, even though some of them haven't held up well over time (the best example of this is CEot3K, which I still agree belongs in the list). Considered in context with the times they were made, I can't think of anything to replace them though.

But Solaris? Benford must have been on crack.

Re:Solaris?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your description of Solaris sounds a lot like 2001.. i hate that movie

i also hated blade runner.. although it was slightly better the second time i saw it, mainly because i knew what a dissapointment it was the second time.. i kept hearing about it being the best scifi movie ever and everyone on /. talked about it so i bought it and watched it and hated it

Re:Solaris?

[Anonymous Coward]

Solaris sucks... I have read the book (I like Stanislaw Lem) and the point is much simpler, it is that they find an intelligent alien (in fact, it is an ocean and not some strange star) but being from species so different makes comunication impossible, because human concepts (individual, speak, etc.) just do not apply to a being that covers a planet and has spent (millions of?) years alone.

The drones appear just because the being explores their memories and reproduces it, without understanding them.

Re:WHAT! No Johnny?

[Professor North]

Overlooked Mnemonic? No.

Johnny-Five, yes. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091949/
With lines like, "Hey Laserlips. Your mama was a snowblower.", how could such an epic sci-fi film be overlooked?

Not so sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Blade Runner is OK, but I don't think it was the best one ever made. Personally, some great sci-fi films were:

Colossus: The Forbin Project
The Monitors
V (technically a miniseries, but still... And I only mean the first one.)
Forbidden Planet

But OMG, they think The Matrix belongs in the top 10?! Definitely not. The special effects were decent, but it was mostly a mindless action movie. Yeah, the premise was interesting, but it wasn't exactly novel. Something similar was explored in an episode of the '80s remake of The Twilight Zone, the one where workers in a bleak futuristic factory spend their work breaks immersed in computer-generated dreams.

I hate these so-called polls (movies, music, etc.) where the ones doing the rankings only seem to focus on what's in front of them. For those who haven't seen it, Colossus: The Forbin Project was a fascinating and terrifying film. A somewhat similar premise as Wargames, but much more thoughtful and depressing, and done 14 years earlier.

What about "Death Race 2000"

[i7dude]

Come on...where's the love? :-P

dude.

They missed Aliens 2

[wdavies]

I only have a problem that the Aliens movie (the Cameron second one), didnt make the list. The list of quotable lines and dark belly laughs from that movie is second to none imho.

Some of the quote here

Re:They missed Aliens 2

[harmonica]

Cameron's Aliens is a great action movie, the sci-fi part just seems to be of secondary importance. So I wouldn't include it on a best sci-fi movies list.

I've heard of all of them before.

[FreonTrip]

That's not a particularly good thing; I like surprises, and can't believe that there aren't films worthy of inclusion which exist closer to the periphery of film. I'm thinking of Videodrome in particular.

While we're being incredulous

[AceCaseOR]

What, no Destination Moon?!

Following up on myself

[Anonymous Coward]

I should have mentioned that I was referring to the '80s Twilight Zone series, not the movie.

If you go by the Sci-Fi channels standards...

[tao_of_biology]

of what is science fiction... How can Raiders of the Lost Ark not be in the top 10?! And, what about Tremors??

Re:If you go by the Sci-Fi channels standards...

[Anonymous Coward]

And Farenheit 411?

And Farenheit 9/11?

Wait a sec, it's not a fiction...

AAGGLL Re:Brazil

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you need a new social circle.
Big Time.

Two words...

[darnok]

Buckaroo Bonzai

Re:Two words...

[jjaro]

Oh my gosh, that movie totally rules. It doesn't get any better then Buckaroo Bonzai. I mean, seriously, the first five minutes show Buckaroo Bonzai performing brain surgery then driving the world's fastest rocket car into a mountain. Later he goes on to sing in his own rock band.

Re:Two words...

[kennedy]

"Laugh ah-while you can monkey boy!"

Re:Two words...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's "Banzai" ignorant monkey-boy!

Re:Two words...

[SamHill]

Jeez, Buckaroo Banzai is a documentary, not science fiction.

Re:Two words...

[kiniry]

Actually, it is "Banzai", but who is checking?

Oh, and it is also actually nine words...

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension at the IMDB

Joe (aka BB special ops Poes in Doos)

A film without heros or villans

[GuyMannDude]

Blade Runner is my favorite movie of all time. There's so much to like. One thing that fascinates me is that there is really no hero and no villains in the movie. I'm sure that most people argue that Harrison Ford's character is the hero. But let's think about that: his job is to execute escaped slaves. Hardly a noble persuit. Yes, he does this very relucantly but really that's not much of an excuse. When the film starts, we see him looking in the want ads for a job. Really, I wonder just how hard he's looking. With so much of humanity on the off-world colonies, there's probably plenty of jobs available -- just not very good ones. In addition, once Deckard is on the assignment, he seems to really get into it. Even when he's at home drinking he's studying the photo that he took from Leon's apartment with that fancy photo analyzer of his. He hardly seems to be someone who can't stand his job.

The part about no villians is probably easier to argue. The replicants are simply doing what they can do survive. Yes, they have killed some people when they were trying to escape but they were slaves for chrissake! Pris is described as "'yer standard pleasure model." Basically she was created solely for use as a prostitute. It's not too surprising that she'd be willing to kill to get out of such a depressing situation.

Even though the movie is set in the future and deals with technology and places that don't exist, I think the fact that there aren't any real true 100% heros or 100% villans makes the film very interesting and realistic. I think most people realize this on some level and it draws them to watch what happens when "realistic" people have to deal with messy situations.

I think this is one reason why hardcore fans hate the dubbing. It makes the viewer tend to side with and identify with Deckard. That makes you see him as the hero even if he does questionable things. The Director's Cut lets you watch the movie as an impartial observer.

GMD

Re:A film without heros or villans

[Simonetta]

Since you liked BR, I suggest Chinatown 1973 if you haven't already seen it. It's not futuristic, but it does have the same errie feeling to it that BR does

Re:A film without heros or villans

[MrNemesis]

"He hardly seems to be someone who can't stand his job."

Possibly because he was programmed that way?

(Cue huge original theatrical release vs. directors cut flamewar)

Re:A film without heros or villans

[gl4ss]

yeah.. but as someone who was born in 1981 and got intrested in this stuff when directors cut had already made it's point as being the 'most available' cut.. I haven't ever seen the version that was in the movies originally :\

well, at least I managed to see the directors cut on the bigscreen in a theatre, from film, in a special showing couple of years back. it was simply amazing, one of the few movie experiences that made me go "wow" (and at that point I had seen it several times from vhs & tv.. but some silent scenes just work better on a huge screen).

Re:A film without heros or villans

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to be 100% correct Deckard is the Hero:

The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation.

Re: A film without heros or villans

[gidds]

the dubbing... makes the viewer tend to side with and identify with Deckard. That makes you see him as the hero even if he does questionable things. The Director's Cut lets you watch the movie as an impartial observer.

Interesting analysis!

I first saw the theatrical version (with dubbing); after that, the Director's Cut seemed to lack focus and drive, and the lack of explanation made things a little more confusing if you weren't paying extremely careful attention. So I tended to prefer the first one.

But I see your point. By fixing on Deckard's PoV, we tend to take his motives, and his humanity, for granted, and miss some of the parallels with the (other) replicants -- things that Scott clearly didn't want us to do. Maybe the distance that the Director's Cut brings encourages us question these things. Next time, I'll view it with this in mind. Thanks!

Re:A film without heros or villans

[Darkforge]

No villians?

Have you forgotten the part where Roy (Rutger Hauer) kills Tyrell in cold blood, and then strips down to his diapers and hunts Deckard for sport?

Re:A film without heros or villans

[QuantumG]

That's what I liked about Takedown. But apparently everyone else on the planet hated specifically that. If you knew what was happening in that film you really got pissed there wasn't more technical detail. If you had no idea what was going on you really got pissed there was so much technical detail. Unfortunately there's more people in the second category than the first so most movies include no technical details.

Re:A film without heros or villans

[AMNESIACX]

More animal than villain.

Re:A film without heros or villans

[rs79]

yeah.. but as someone who was born in 1981

Born in 1981? 1981?!? In 1981 I remember... uh, never mind I have kids that might read this.

I used to be worried that my parents would one day read what I wrote on the net.

Re:A film without heros or villans

[eraserewind]

If he is a replicant, why is he so much weaker than the others, especially if he designed as a replicant killer?

Re:A film without heros or villans

[FeloniousPunk]

If he is a replicant, why is he so much weaker than the others, especially if he designed as a replicant killer?
I can think of a couple of reasons. First of all, in an age of firearms, you ultimately don't need much strength to kill someone else, all you need to be able to do is shoot straight. Which Deckard clearly can do, so long as his fingers don't get broken. Considering that your quarry is extremely difficult to differentiate from the populace at large, the key attribute to getting replicants "aired out" is not physical strength and stamina, but excellent detective work. Where Deckard apparently excels.

By the nature of the job, a Blade Runner has to be able to move freely and have considerable police powers, this is something that the society would never tolerate a replicant having. Also, replicants are banned on Earth anyway. If Deckard obviously possessed superhuman strength and stamina, it wouldn't take long before people figured out that he was a replicant. So, he's got to resemble normal humans a little more closely in order to be effective.

Early in the movie when Bryant the police superintendant is showing Deckard the videos of the replicants, you'll note that there is some text that appears next to their faces and in addition to name and incept date, they seem to be rated in strength, stamina, and intelligence (or something close related to those, can't remember exactly now). It appears that there is variation amongst the Nexus 6 replicants in their abilities, so it's not a stretch to believe that Deckard's abilities could be quite a bit different than the others if his job required it.

Re:A film without heros or villans

[SiliconEntity]

I've always wondered, what does "Blade Runner" mean? Is it some kind of literary reference? It's not an obvious title.

Re:A film without heros or villans

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that Roy was merely an animal. Instead I feel he was an intelligent character who happened to be in a no win situation. (A slave on the run).

This lead Roy to develop a Jesus Christ complex of sorts. He wanted to enlighten Deckard, teach him what it meant to be 'human'.

This is evidenced by the crucification symbol (nail through the hand), reference to his individual experiences, the fact he was destined to die in his youth, and most importantly his final forgiveness of Deckard by sparing his life.

Re:A film without heros or villans

[Anonymous Coward]

Born in 1981? 1981?!? In 1981 I remember... uh, never mind I have kids that might read this.

Yeah, I know: "She said she was 18!"

I've heard it all before.

Re:A film without heros or villans

[nyri]

One thing that fascinates me is that there is really no hero and no villains in the movie. I'm sure that most people argue that Harrison Ford's character is the hero.

Harrison Fords character is the protagonist and there is nothing heroic about him.

In fact, from the storytelling point of view the hero and the antagonist (the villain) are the same character: Roy Batty (played by Rutger Hauer). I think it's clear that Roy's actions are directly opposite from the actions of Rick Deckard. This makes Roy the antagonist. The latter part of the film Rick is confused about him being a replicant. He has to face this new situation. It's the Roy who teaches him about living a life of self-aware replicant and acts as an example for Rick. This makes him the hero.

Excellent story!

I think that you mean that Blade Runner doesn't contain The Good and The Evil. If you, as I, don't like it, quit watching the crap that Hollywood puts out. Be warned especially about that dig head Jerry Bruckheimer who pooped over the tale of King Arthur recently.

Re:A film without heros or villans

[cruelworld]

Try a one handed climber pull up.
Maybe he was weaker because he didn't "know" he was stronger.

Re:A film without heros or villans

[GMill]

smoothly => continuously

Re:A film without heros or villans

[Hoi Polloi]

"If Deckard obviously possessed superhuman strength and stamina, it wouldn't take long before people figured out that he was a replicant."

"...the videos of the replicants, you'll note that there is some text that appears next to their faces and in addition to name and incept date..."

If this info was available on replicants and Deckard seemed strangely unnatural then how did he get hired to serve in a critical police force? I'd assume that they'd go over his past with a fine-toothed comb before hiring him and they would have found the truth about Deckard.

I just write this off as a necessary plot device.

Re:A film without heros or villans

[Anonymous Coward]

A human worrying he might be a replicant, is much more interesting than a replicant.

Re:A film without heros or villans

[avandesande]

'The Unforgiven' is another great example of a heroless movie, although certainly not sci-fi

Re:A film without heros or villans

[avandesande]

if you also notice the replicants 'burn out early'
perhaps a smart but physically weak one would have a longer lifespan

Re:A film without heros or villans

[FeloniousPunk]

If this info was available on replicants and Deckard seemed strangely unnatural then how did he get hired to serve in a critical police force? I'd assume that they'd go over his past with a fine-toothed comb before hiring him and they would have found the truth about Deckard.

The police know he's a replicant - he's their replicant, their tool - but they must hide that fact from the public. The theory is that it is Gaff who is Deckard's controller. Gaff is always shadowing Deckard's activities, always in the background with a knowing smirk. The clincher is Gaff's origamis at key moments. He'll make an origami that corresponds to what Deckard is thinking, such as making the origami of a man with an erection when Rachel comes up as a subject in a conversation, and especially the unicorn origami. In the Director's Cut, Deckard has an inexplicable dream of a unicorn, and later Gaff leaves a unicorn origami for him. This shows that Gaff knows about his dream - Deckard is likely a replicant like Rachel, with implanted memories, and Gaff as his controller, knows what these memories are (also note Deckard's excessive collection of family photos...). Deckard does Gaff's dirty work for him, without knowing it.

Re:A film without heros or villans

[ed1park]

...which is a maybe why I don't like this movie. I had trouble truly empathizing with any particular character. Same with star wars (all of them). I found luke skywalker especially annoying.

I'd have to say Aliens, predator, and Matrix were much better films off the top of my head.

Re: A film without heros or villans

[cavemanf16]

After all the tons of nerds on Slashdot talking about BladeRunner over the years and the ensuing flame wars of directors cut vs. theatrical trailer, I decided to go out and buy the Director's cut DVD and watch the movie myself. I've never read the book it's based on, and I've never seen the Theatrical version.

I think the Director's cut is sweet! The cheesy 80's-ish hair and ideas about futuristic "cars" is of course silly, but the story at the heart of it all is really enthralling I think. I don't like voiceovers anyways, so watching it without those is just fine by me.

I always finish watching the Director's cut with that hanging question in my head - Is Deckard replicant or not? and can androids be as human as a human? Having my perspective on the movie (a complete "newb" to the book and theatrical version of the movie) I think shows that the director effectively got the point of Dick's original writings across to someone like me perfectly through the Director's cut.

Re: A film without heros or villans

[gidds]

Mmm. Interestingly enough, if I recall the FAQ correctly, the idea that Deckard is a replicant was Ridley Scott's, not Dick's. [fx: checks] Yep. Apparently, in the book Deckard is human, and even has another Blade Runner give him the test to make sure. But in the film, even if it's not stated explicitly, there are so many parallels, and lines that have extra resonance if Deckard is the same as his quarry. (E.g. Gaff's final "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?")

Normally, films have to dumb down a book, so it's great to see a director who not only understands the book and manages to put much of its depth on screen, but actually adds to that depth and complexity in such an appropriate way!

I think I'm glad I saw the theatrical version first. Much as the voiceovers spoil that objectivity, I think that without them I'd have found it even harder to follow what was going on. (I think Ridley enjoys making his audience work hard :)

I'm also reminded of another P.K.Dick-based film, Total Recall. Much of that is a little shallow (though fun!), but there are still some very interesting undercurrents. In particular, it's a shame that they didn't make more of that moment about 2/3 of the way through where it's suggested that the hero's whole experience is nothing but the fantasy he originally went to have implanted. That scenario seems to be rejected, but as the film progresses it actually becomes more and more like the fantasy -- it'd be nice for it to have acknowledged that somehow, especially at the rather unconvincing end...

Re:A film without heros or villans

[Arcane_Rhino]

Literature analysis (including film studies) typically refers to a protagonist and antagonist just for the very reasons described. It allows the discussion to transcend the good guy/bad guy genre so one can delve into the work's deeper symbolism and meanings.

Usually (I would say always but I am sure there is some contrary example I am forgetting), the protagonist is the individual (or group) whose point of view the work encourages us to adopt, side with, or at least appreciate - even if we find it disagreeable or, on occasion, horrific. Shooting people for just trying to survive is pretty horrific but I don't think I have ever wanted Deckard to lose.

The antagonist may be so by only a few degrees. The example of the voice-over sharply defines this distinction in Blade Runner. With the voice over Deckard is obviously the protagonist; without it, things get complicated (which is why the film is so good). I have even heard arguments that both Ford and Howard's characters are protagonists in their own way and it is the system at large that is the antagonist.

Anyway, thought an English major/would-be database administrator's contribution might be appreciated or useful.

Re:A film without heros or villans

[Minna Kirai]

Deckard obviously possessed superhuman strength and stamina, it wouldn't take long before people figured out that he was a replicant.

If it were possible to detect a replicant by measuring it's strength, then they wouldn't have needed all the subtle emotional-response testing.

That's the big scientific plot-hole in the thing... regardless of your strength, it's impossible to dangle Harrison Ford at arm's length in front of you, unless (a) you weigh 4 times as much as him, or (b) you have clawed feet to grip into the roof.

So replicants, as portrayed in that film, could've been detected merely by throwing them on a scale. (Or taking a sample of skin-cells and checking if it burns, etc). The only replicants that you'd NEED psychological testing for are those which have no exceptional physical abilities. And given that artificial animals routinely had serial-numbers burned into their cells, it makes no sense that Nexus 6 replicants would lack such distinguishing marks.

PS. Nothing in the movie proves that Deckard is weaker than the replicants. Just because he doesn't use strength doesn't mean he lacks it.

Re:A film without heros or villans

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you're right. He could still be superior to humans in strength, since direct comparison was never displayed, except when he overpowers Sean Young in the kiss scene. But compared to the worker-class replicants (those designed for industrial tasks) he is still weaker and cannot overpower them.

However, I disagree with your weight/serial number and clawfoot argument.

It is plausible that the world of the future is still respectful of humanity, so you would not simply be allowed to take someone's skin samples or stick a probe on them or weigh them without first assuming they are a human, in which case the assumption is that you have no right to invade their privacy.

Therefore one can only ask for permission to detect if a person is a replicant, after all replicants are illegal and whenever one lands on Earth the cops know. That means they are extremely rare (it's not as if there were thousands illegally entering earth daily but that's not mentioned or proven either and only my opinion).

As far as the weight, look at the Olympics. I've seen guys lift MORE than their weight straight up, so it is believeable that one can lift equal their weight horizonally...

Just my thoughts...

Re:A film without heros or villans

[Minna Kirai]

It is plausible that the world of the future is still respectful of humanity,

Uh, did you pay attention to the movie? The society presented was not one that respected digity or privacy. Plus, the kind of psychological testing they go through is an invasion of privacy.

As far as the weight, look at the Olympics. I've seen guys lift MORE than their weight straight up, so it is believeable that one can lift equal their weight horizonally...

Wrong. It's not a matter of strength, but balance. No matter how strong you are, you can't stand with your feet together and hold a person of nearly your own weight at arms length in front of you. You could be an Olympic weightlifter or a titanium statue for all I care; you will tip over if the combined center-of-gravity of you + the weight is not between your own feet.

The only way Roy could've held Decker at the end is (a) Roy's feet are nailed to the roof, (b) Roy is made of steel, (c) Decker is made of hollow aluminium, or (d) Harrison Ford was standing on an off-camera platform.

Now, maybe Roy was a special replicant, stronger and therefore heavier than all the others, which is why he avoided human interaction... maybe...

Hurray!

[amateur bore]

Fantastic news that Iain M. Banks has got a new sci-fi novel out. He's written some truly excellent ones like Consider Phloebus, Player of Games and Look to Windward. No way am I going to spoil the next one by reading an excerpt though!

paintball guns, keke

[mnemonic_]

All of the guns in that movie were unmodified CO2-powered paintball guns...

Other Great Sci-Fi Movies

[Khomar]

Here are a couple missing sci-fi films that should be considered. They were not exactly blockbusters, but they made for good sci-fi.

• Gattaca - This was a very interesting sci-fi that looks into the ramifications of cracking the genetic code. Can you get insurance or a good job if you have the wrong genes?
• Minority Report - An interesting view of future law enforcement and questions of infallibility.
• A.I. - While the last 20 minutes was suspect, the previous couple hours were quite good and offered an interesting look at the "humaness" of advanced robots.

I know I am forgetting a whole host of other options, but at least this is a start.

Re:Other Great Sci-Fi Movies

[Cyno01]

Uhg, i agree with you 100% on AI. Kubriks stuff was fine, but it shoulda ended 20 minutes earlier, without the happy ending spielberg tacked on.

Re:Other Great Sci-Fi Movies

[Reality Master 101]

The last 20 minutes of A.I. are incredibly misunderstood. What's key to understand that is that it was /not/ a happy ending per se. Monica did not come back to life -- the advanced robots created Monica and lied to David, so that he could resolve his programming.

Watch the ending again from that point of view and question what exactly "compassion" means when one set of robots do that for another robot.

Re:Other Great Sci-Fi Movies

[The Rizz]

Actually, I'm willing to believe that those last 20 minutes were in the original script. I've read some of Brian Aldiss's other stories before (he is the author of the story that A.I. is adapted from), and this sort of ending seems a lot like his writing from the 70's.

And I checked - the original publication date of Supertoys Last All Summer Long (title of said short story) is in 1969.

Re:Other Great Sci-Fi Movies

[dcam]

A.I. hile the last 20 minutes was suspect...

What your mouth out! Last 20 minutes? I honestly cannot remember anything good about the movie. Spielburg should not have been allowed to touch it.

Re:Other Great Sci-Fi Movies

[killjoe]

Sorry but minority report sucked ass. It does not belong on any list of great movies. Half of the movie existed solely to provide scenery for the video game they were planning.

Re:Other Great Sci-Fi Movies

[Chris Siegler]

I like your list but for even rarer finds I'd add

• Cube A group of people awaken in a strange environment that resembes a maze of cubes. Cost something like $200K Canadian to make and has some great acting.
• 2010 The little known sequel to 2001 about a joint American-Soviet space expedition sent to Jupiter to learn what happened to the Discovery. Directed by the same guy who did "Outland".
• Red Planet Like "Pitch Black" except that the characters think their way out of problems rather than kicking some alien whoop ass. Ok, maybe I just like Carrie-Anne Moss.

Blade Runner

[pilsner.urquell]

aka "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" was dam good book too.

The reason I can't watch blade runner any more

[bigbigbison]

I used to love Blade Runner. But I can't watch it any more. I realized a huge logic hole that prevents me from enjoying the film at all.

(if you don't want to risk ruining the film for yourself, stop reading!!)

If they are so worried about replicants infiltrating humans, why didn't they just make them green or put a huge tatoo on their forehead? Or even in a less conspicuous place? There is no logical reason that I can think of why such a precaution could not have been taken. If they did that, the entire film falls apart. As may the original story, but I can't remember it too clearly.

Re:The reason I can't watch blade runner any more

[Anonymous Coward]

The main reason was in Philip K.Dick books, (i.e. "We can build it"*)where the androids were designed, in first place, to have a "basic population" that would convince the first human to live in the moon that they would not be alone. Also, being equal to humans makes them less rough when you have to deal with them in the exterior worlds (think of the leisure model).

* I have read the Spanish version of the novel, so I have just translated back the title of the book I did read ("Podemos construirlo") and hope it is the original one.

Re:The reason I can't watch blade runner any more

[MrNemesis]

Probably going out on a limb, but I think that half the point was to make the offworld colonies seem more "human" than they really were; with humanoid replicants intermingling with the humans (hence why Pris was a prostitute drone), and slave labour to do all the shitty things that the humans didn't want to do. And part of getting the replicants to act as slave labourers was to make the replicants think they were human; cos we all know what happens when they find out they're actually assembly line drones :)

Another aspect is the very real possibility that the film totally ignores AI and robotics; it could easily be that tech hadn't advanced sufficiently to provide menial robots, and that genetic design was far easier and more reproducible.

I think the human replica makes sense when you look at it in the context of the universe they were trying to portray. But then again, I may just be a fanboy ;)

Re:The reason I can't watch blade runner any more

[bishop666]

As in the world today the corporations set the rules. Remember the quote "It's about commerce, More human than human." They wanted them to be as human as possible. It's why Nexis 6s weren't allowed on earth to avoid any risk. It was a major story point that they were strictly offworld. A purple replicant would have been defeating the purpose. In that case why make them human at all? The whole point was to make them an acceptable part of society. It's likely that the company's eventual plan was to get the Nexis 6s approved for use on earth. A group of rogue replicants would endanger that plan making it critical to quietly eliminate them. If you know the back story or have seen the director's cut you know Harrison Ford's character was a replicant. He was most likely created to look out for the company's interests. It's why he was chosen to go after the rogues.

Re:The reason I can't watch blade runner any more

[taradfong]

Would you buy a green dog? No? Then why would you want a green slave?

Tatoo? In a world where you can grow eyes, I'm sure they can grow new skin pretty easily too.

Someone said, why not just do the 'let me see how much you can bench' or 'can you grab this boiling egg?' test. Yeah right. Let's burn real people to find the fake.

The one thing they can't fake is the uniquely human ability to care. And that's exactly what they test for in the movie.

I care way too much about Blade Runner.

Re:The reason I can't watch blade runner any more

[Grishnakh]

The one thing they can't fake is the uniquely human ability to care. And that's exactly what they test for in the movie.

Now waitaminute... if they're testing them for the ability to care, then how do they avoid false positives from all the asshole humans I see every day?

Re:The reason I can't watch blade runner any more

[taradfong]

Yeah, that is a problem.

But it was not an a**hole test. Everyone's got an a**hole, and so using advanced technology to detect whether or not you had an a**hole would be inconclusive.

The idea was that that they look for subtle physiological changes that you can't fake or suppress. That's why they ask questions about killing animals - in the BR world, nukes wiped out all but a few animals. Hens became as rare as hen's teeth. Of course a**holes were not in short supply.

'Course, if you're the type that'd be first in line for some freshly shot bald eagle, you might present some trouble for the VK.

Re:The reason I can't watch blade runner any more

[Grishnakh]

'Course, if you're the type that'd be first in line for some freshly shot bald eagle, you might present some trouble for the VK.

That's exactly what I mean. I think there's a fair number of people out there who really don't care about animals, other people, or anything but themselves.

Re:The reason I can't watch blade runner any more

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps some replicants do carry marks that distinguish them from humans. But surely the ones Deckard is hunting must have never carried such marks or they must have removed them after they escaped.

Otherwise they would have quickly been identified and captured when they arrived on earth.

Re:The reason I can't watch blade runner any more

[Anonymous Coward]

Then let the blade runners kill 'em off - why should I care?

Hey, wait a minute...

Soylent Green

[xyote]

When I first saw that film, the plot seemed really familiar but I couldn't quite place it. Then when I saw Edward G. Robinson's character on the exercise bike running the electric generator, I realized with horror that it was "Make Room! Make Room!" by Harry Harrison. For those who didn't read the book, the point of the book wasn't that they were recycling people, it was that they were recycling people and nobody really cared, in fact things just got worse than they already were. Kind of like the econonmy, now that I think of it.

Blade Runner was kinda hokey

[Anonymous Coward]

How come in Blade Runner the only way to tell a replicant from a human was the super-suble-emotional-response-eye-test thingy? Couldn't they use punch-a-hole-in-brick-wall-with-your-bare-fist test or the grab-an-egg-out-of-a-blender-full-of-boiling-water test?

What about the beat-a-genius-at-chess-and-then-crush-his-head test?

Dark City

[Anonymous Coward]

... or more topics covered by the science fiction concept or even Dark City.

Dark City has a very subtle message about how gravity is not always a constant in the universe. Gravity predicts that (real) breasts the size of Jennifer Connolly's should sag at least a little. But that film (and so many of Connolly's early works) clearly display the power of the anti-graviton particle.

Blade runner must be SAMPLED.

[Anonymous Coward]

I will start a trend--I will sample blade runner, and insert these samples into industrial music.

Re:Blade runner must be SAMPLED.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.sloth.org/samples-bin/samples/source?su mmary
BladeRunner *is* the top sampled movie... Then again, maybe you were being sarcastic? I hope.

How about the scene in ep 2

[rsilvergun]

With the hover craft wheel chair? Or the common use of specialized droids? Or the Senetorial room also using antigravity devices? Or cloud city? Or any one of a dozen other instances where we see advanced technology seamlessly blended into society? True, Star Wars isn't hard Science Fiction, but there was some effort to make it more than just an action flick in space.

Re:How about the scene in ep 2

[killjoe]

That's one thing that always bothered me about star wars. In a universe where you can make even the smallest things hover and move using anti gravity why would you build robots with tiny wheels or legs? Worse yet why would you build huge lumbering war machines with 4 legs?

Re:How about the scene in ep 2

[bill_mcgonigle]

I don't disagree with you but from a certain perspective Star Wars is anti-sci-fi.

See, given all this technology, an incredible backdrop for telling a story, society is pretty much the same as it is without the technology.

Star Wars is the story of a power-hungry dictator, someone who tries to make the galaxy a better place by subjugating its people and the resitance against oppression.

Star Wars mixes this with SciFi and Mysticism pretty evenly, Empire is almost pure Space Opera, and ROTJ is almost two different movies cutting back and forth.

lucas should not be on this list

[unclefungus]

He was just another guy in the 70's writing cheap sci-fi. his low budget film just happened to come along at the right time to start what is now his "empire." His movie was a decent story but not that great. Feel free to bring on your flames.

Re:lucas should not be on this list

[Mitleid]

I'd have to say you're half right. While I agree that Lucas was just in the right place at the right time and his "cheap" sci-fi happened to appeal to the right producers/movie-making goons, I think the first three Star Wars movies are incredibly polished and put together wonderfully. His more recent Star Wars endeavors might lead us all to believe that his original sci-fi opera might have just been a fluke as far as his creativity pool is concerned, but nevertheless the original three are still great movies.

I do have to agree with many other posts I've seen so far in that Star Wars is NOT science fiction. Yes, it takes place in space and makes heavy use of advanced technologies to foster it's appeal, but I've never felt Star Wars to be at all based on reality. I think we can all agree that the BEST sci-fi takes concepts that are already existent today and either expands on them or twists them around in such a manner that we view them from an entirely different perspective.

Blade Runner not all that special

[Simonetta]

Actually Blade Runner didn't seem all that special. It was a 1940's detective story with a few 22nd century visuals. It is Humphrey Bogart film set in the future with Harrison Ford as Bogart. Rutger Hauer and Daryhl Hannah looked great in the film, the best-looking film for either of them.
My favorite scene is Harrison Ford talking to the computer to examine in great detail the random digital photograph for clues. Each time I consider buying a digital camera, I wonder if it can get a level of detail described in that scene.

The greatest science-fiction film ever is La Jetee (1964) by French director Chris Marker. This was the inspiration for 12 Monkeys, but it is a much better film. It's quite short at 29 minutes, but still leaves people in deep cinema shock whenever it gets shown in festivals or on campus. It's widely available in video and may be at your local library for checkout. It's a collage of black and white photos zoomed and panned like Ken Burn's documentaries with narration and music. French with English subtitles. It was written during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when the Americans and Soviets came far too close to nuclear war than anyone wants to talk about.

2001 was OK, but extremely slow. It does hold up after 35 years only if you have a lot of patience and are not expecting a Star Wars type of movie.

Science Fiction is always better in books than it is in film. It's a genre that needs one's individual imagination projecting imagery from written text.

Re:Blade Runner not all that special

[Wavicle]

Actually Blade Runner didn't seem all that special. It was a 1940's detective story with a few 22nd century visuals. It is Humphrey Bogart film set in the future with Harrison Ford as Bogart.

It was meant to smack of a 40's detective story, but if that was all you saw, I think real point passed you by. It was a much deeper story of "I don't want to die, where will I go when I do, what will become of everything I have experienced? Can I meet God and negotiate for more time?" We're supposed to connect with Deckard and then at the end suddenly realize that he too is a replicant (if he were merely human, the replicants would have smashed him to pieces 10 minutes into the movie).

The last scene in the movie where Roy saves Deckard we suddenly realize that the replicants are not mindless killing machines. Roy knows his pre-programmed death is near, and even though Deckard has killed his 3 friends, he saves Deckard from a fall that would certainly mean death. Roy then sits down and gives the most important lines of the movie.

Re:Blade Runner not all that special

[JAD lifter]

It was a 1940's detective story with a few 22nd century visuals

Sounds like a perfect description of William Gibsons classic Neuromancer.

Re:Blade Runner not all that special

[12357bd]

My favorite scene is Harrison Ford talking to the computer to examine in great detail the random digital photograph for clues.

Dude, what makes you think is a digital photograph?

It's a partial 3D holographic rendition on a flat support, is not photograph, and the only maybe 'digital' part is the voice directed image processor.

Re:Blade Runner not all that special

[nekonoko]

Not only that, but the ESPER computer he used to analyze the photo was pretty interesting in itself. From http://www.brmovie.com/FAQs/BR_FAQ_Terminology.htm "ESPER -- A high-density computer with a very powerful three-dimensional resolution capacity and a cryogenic cooling system. The police cars and Deckard's apartment contain small models which can be channelled into the large one at police headquarters. This big apparatus is a well- worn, retro-fitted part of the furniture. Among many functions, the Esper can analyze and enlarge photos, enabling investigators to search a room without being there. Notes: - The Esper was originally conceived as one big central computer system the police were using; the unit Deckard used was then connected to the central L.A.P.D. mainframe; the wall with the video screens in the briefing room was also supposed to be part of the Esper system (the wall was dubbed the Esper Wall by the crew). - The January 1995 issue of NASA Tech Briefs includes a description of an Esper-like machine called Omniview."

Re:Blade Runner not all that special

[Anonymous Coward]

To Cliff's Notes for the ADD'd:

I'm a pretentious dick. Here, I'll prove it, by claiming some French movie you've never heard of is actually better than anything you've ever seen. Then I'll describe how horrible the movie actually is, in case you briefly thought you were smart enough to agree with me.

Re:Blade Runner not all that special

[TheLittleJetson]

Actually Blade Runner didn't seem all that special. It was a 1940's detective story with a few 22nd century visuals. It is Humphrey Bogart film set in the future with Harrison Ford as Bogart. Rutger Hauer and Daryhl Hannah looked great in the film, the best-looking film for either of them.

Yeah.... actually you're sorta missing the whole ethical/philosophical argument there. It's more than just futuristic visuals -- it brings into question: what does it mean to be human? Replicants are self-aware, have personalities, memories collected over their lifetimes. Why is it okay to enslave/kill them and not people? This is not exactly a unique point in Sci-Fi ("I, robot", "the matrix" series, "ghost in the shell", etc...) In fact, it's not all that new of an idea as it's basically just recycled Cartesian philosophy [one can only say with certainty, that to be human is to be a "thinking thing"]. Nevertheless, it's one of the better films depicting this philosophy. (most notably due the absence of keanu reeves, will smith, half-naked tribal orgy-raves, etc...) I think their depiction of the future is also a very believable one -- how all the languages/cultures are intermingled, technology and old-world stuff side by side, etc. Cowboy bebop does a great job of this.

And of course, to spoil the ending for some -- there's the suggestions that the Blade Runner himself is in fact a replicant. (this was really emphasized in the director's cut) One more way to blur the line between human and non-human. This style of twist ending was completely ripped off in "the sixth sense" and everyone thought it was SOOOOO cool.

My favorite quote from this movie takes place at the very end, as the last of the replicants is dying and reflecting over his supposedly-worthless life --- outside in the rain:

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe: attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain... Time to die.

Re:Blade Runner not all that special

[Voivod]

The greatest science-fiction film ever is La Jetee (1964) by French director Chris Marker.

You were bored by 2001, but were on the edge of your seat through a movie composed (almost) entirely of black and white photographic stills with French naration? Sorry, but as someone who has seen and very much enjoyed this film (saw it as a double header with Sans Soleil no less) I'm going to have to say "No." I have the feeling you thought nobody else on Slashdot had seen this film?

While a very beautiful work of art (I still get chills thinking back to the single bit of motion where she opens her eyes) the story is essentially time travel with a cliched twist ending, and there is no science to speak of. What is extraordinary about the film is the style in which it was told, and the the power with which it evoked the tension of that moment. But I really would not rank it against Blade Runner, 2001, etc as science fiction cinema. It deserves its own category.

Re:Blade Runner not all that special

[pyota]

i'm dubious whenever a panel of 'experts' gets together to inform us what the best art is. how arrogant can you get? imo the oscars are just a excuse for everybody to flex their egos on tv and has nothing to do with aesthetics. and that goes for all the other awards too. but something like cannes at least has the benefit of promoting new directors.

and while i'm at it, 2001 should have won! ; )

Re:Blade Runner not all that special

[Burz]

Subjects that Bladerunner depicted:

* Manufactured, sentient life and its emergent qualities

* Relationship of law enforcement with technology

* How technology is used for sex

* Climate and cultural change on the Pacific Rim

* Holographic photography

* Technology making identities AND our humanity more ambiguous (transhumanism)

* EMPATHY. A being had to display sufficient empathy toward humans to 'pass' (interestingly, this test was administered with a machine). But the movie itself is a kind of empathy test for humanity: which side did you root for?

It did all this in a terrific "film noir" fashion, too.

The Essence of Good Sci Fi

[Phoenix666]

All the special effects and futuristic themes notwithstanding, what separates the neat from the incredible is what a sci-fi film says about the human condition. It's no surprise that Blade Runner is so highly placed--it deals with the question of what really makes us human. Likewise the other films in that poll pretty much do that too.

Perhaps one measure of a truly great sci-fi film is the extent to which it becomes a popular metaphor afterward. For that reason, unlike others here, I'm not surprised Matrix is on the list. I hear people make reference to it a lot.

Re:damn you Iain banks...damn you to hell

[Anonymous Coward]

(Score:-1, Redundant)

thats funny cause there hasn't been one post yet that mentions Iain banks.

stendec@gmail.com

Re:Hey I hate to break it to you

[Anonymous Coward]

Arnold to Arnold: "Letz noot gett philo-zophical".

What would be in _YOUR_ top 10?

[mrchaotica]

It seems that lots of us disagree with these "influential scientists", so what would you all choose instead?

Here's mine (in no particular order)

• Contact
• Gattica
• The Matrix
• Minority Report
• Star Trek 4
• Star Trek 6
• Back to the Future (1, 2, & 3)
• Short Circuit
• Planet of the Apes
• and, I guess,
• 2001: A Space Odyssey

Of course, I've never seen a few of these on their list, like Blade Runner, Solaris, or The Day the Earth Stood Still, so they could always displace something...

Re:What would be in _YOUR_ top 10?

[amalcon]

1. Blade Runner (one of the few points on which I agree with the article)
2. Star Trek 2
3. Star Trek 4
4. Minority Report
5. Planet of the Apes
6. War Games (it's great in that it doesn't try to do too much)
7. Back to the Future 1+2 (didn't like 3)
8. Terminator 2 (unlike its predecessor, it actually "felt sci-fi")
9. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
10.Alien

Re:What would be in _YOUR_ top 10?

[mrchaotica]

Yeah, I like War Games too, although I didn't put it for the same reason you did: it's scope is too narrow to be in my top 10.

Re:What would be in _YOUR_ top 10?

[NoahsMyBro]

I can't believe I haven't seen anybody mention another great sci-fi movie -
12 Monkeys

Maybe it's because it's not quite as 'science-ey' as most of those listed, but I'd still qualify it, and it is a fantastic movie - imo as good as another fantastic movie getting a lot of praise in this thread - Gattaca.

Re:What would be in _YOUR_ top 10?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, this movie was really great.
in my top 10 fer sure

Re:What would be in _YOUR_ top 10?

[r_benchley]

1. Blade Runner

The other nine in no particular order:
Minority Report
Gattaca
Total Recall
Donnie Darko
The Terminator
Aliens
Logan's Run
The Matrix
Robocop

Re:What would be in _YOUR_ top 10?

[Fibonacci Ceres]

"Influential scientists?" - Consider the general journalistic quality of the source.

1. Blade Runner
2. Gattaca
3. 12 Monkeys
4. The Lathe of Heaven (the original)
5. Brazil
6. Forbidden Planet
7. The Day the Earth stood Still
8. Aliens
9. Planet of the Apes (the original)
10. Terminator 2: Judgement Day

I had a .sig around here somewhere...

One of the top 10 IMO

[abrotman]

Brainstorm.

This is gonna blow your mind then!

[dhalgren99]

What about...

Tremors 4: The Legend Begins!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0334541/

WOW! I had no idea they were up to 4!!!!

Re:This is gonna blow your mind then!

[dlb]

You must've missed the TV series too. (one whole season!)

(not that you really 'missed' anything, but still...)

What's special about Blade Runner?

[mikey573]

2001 I can understand, but what's special about Blade Runner? Was it ahead of its time for special effects? The story does not do anything for me. I watched it for the first time recently, and I don't understand what the hub-bub is about. Is it really a film that is timeless? Any insight appreciated.

Mod-up the Gattaca comment. :-)

Re:What's special about Blade Runner?

[amalcon]

Blade Runner is a science fiction film for fans of science fiction books and stories. Most of the great science fiction books and stories of our time take modern society, change a few things, and try to tell what happens. From here, it branches into two parts. I call them "Frontier Sci-Fi" and "Established Sci-Fi." The former explores the events surrounding a new discovery, and the latter places you in a world where things just are different for a long time. Most is a blend. As much as providing the answer, science fiction is there to ask the question "What If?" There are, of course, exceptions.

Blade Runner squarely within "Established Sci-Fi." This medium allows it to stick to telling a traditional story, while posing the "What If?" question better than most other movies have ever approached.

Re:What's special about Blade Runner?

[real_smiff]

Blade Runner didn't do anything for me either the first time i watched it. it was a let down after all the hype i'd heard (this was the director's cut, 4 years ago). then i watched it again, sure i'd missed something. liked it more. since then i've watched it a couple more times, maybe more. there aren't many films that i can watch more than once. there's even fewer that i enjoy more each time i see them. i swear, someone is sneaking extra scenes into my Blade Runner DVD. it's genuinely spooky. (i'm not even a big fan of Sci-Fi, but this one gets me every time).

Re:What's special about Blade Runner?

[Larthallor]

Traditionally, science fiction movies are either a) very effects/action oriented or b) mostly wow factor from a "big idea".

Blade Runner is a story about humanity, life and death. It is about the feelings and emotions of the "people" and about seeing the moral complexity behind something that starts out seeming very black and white.

Are Roy and Pris, et al "bad guys"? Yes. But, after getting past expectations from action sci-fi, you begin to see why they are the way they are and you end up feeling more pity and relief than hatred and joy that they are dead.

It offers a poignancy most sci-fi distinctly lacks, although I have to admit I still tear up in the scene from 2010 when Chandra finally levels with HAL and trusts him/it to make the right decision. Is it a bad thing to so closely identify with a homicidal computer?

Anyway, the choice of a film noir style gives it a look and feel that seems much more rich and interesting than generic spaceship and space base interiors. And the saxophone work makes me feel like I do when I listen to "Us and Them" from Dark Side of the Moon.

As other posters have noted it definitely is a film that grows on you.

Re:What's special about Blade Runner?

[NotQuiteReal]

It stars Han Solo, and he is soooo dreamy!

Re:What's special about Blade Runner?

[thrash242]

Well, if you don't like the story, then I can explain you into liking it, but I'll let you know that if you watch it more than once, you'll probably pick up on a lot more than you did the first time. I'd recommend seeing it again before passing judgement, and be sure to watch the director's cut, not the theatrical release.

It was very ahead of its time in both atmosphere and mood and effects. A sign that shows how different and ahead of its time it was is that a lot of the masses didn't like it. It was a financial failure. People were expecting another Star Wars. Also, keep in mind that it was made in the very early 80s. Also note that despite its being considered by many *the* cyberpunk film, cyberpunk as a literary genre (where it originated) didn't achieve prominence until the time it was released or after. In other words, it was an independant conception by Ridley Scott that happened to coincide closely with Cyberpunk.

Re:What's special about Blade Runner?

[vonFinkelstien]

It makes you think. It has cool artistry. It has influenced a lot of Anime.

The book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is even better.

Re:What's special about Blade Runner?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blade runner is a special movie because it puts the viewer in a high tech futuristic world that we all want to be in, but in doing so gives us a glimpse of the nightmare we may be creating for ourselves. (Like Gattaca which I agree is also a great film).

It does this by pondering classical questions such as 'what is special about us humans', and considering in a believable if albeit fantastic way what the influence of technology will be on our specialness.

Specifically questioning whether Deckard is a human or a replicant leads us to question our own specialness. That's what makes the film special, it's a ability to make the viewer question what's special about them.

Re:What's special about Blade Runner?

[kenjib]

The question of whether or not the replicants are human is the obvious one, and really nothing remarkable or new, but the real question the movie is implicitly asking is whether or not we are losing our humanity in the postmodern age. It's laced all throughout the movie but never brought to the surface explicitly like the obvious question is. Just as Frankenstein added a new variable to the archetypal myth of Prometheus (the fire becomes a person), Bladerunner added a new dynamic to the myth of Frankenstein. It is a powerful statement about our society, the way our cities are designed, the way our families and circles of friends interact, the way power is distributed, the way media and transportation infrastructure change social interaction, all focused through the lens of asking at what point we have lost what has made us fundamentally human for hundreds of thousands of years.

It brings to mind the recent slashdot-posted article about the singularity in human evolution that people are predicting may be about to happen. In Blade Runner, it has happened not through the creation of something new, but the loss of something old. In the end, the replicants are just a complex metaphor used to make an observation about today's world. This is the really case for most science fiction and I think that you can't get into the meat of the work until you starting looking at it that way.

You mean..

[dhalgren99]

You mean like this?

http://www.sadgeezer.com/RedDwarf/rimmer.htm :)
I love Red Dwarf!

You got the wrong "omg"

[PCM2]

I said virtually the same thing when I read this story -- only about a different movie. Blade Runner? The best SF movie? Gimme a break! I mean, set aside the fact that it's just a 40's style private eye flick dressed up with kitschy neon and gadgets, and assume for a moment that Edward James Olmos really can pass for Japanese. The whole premise of the movie doesn't make sense! Robots designed to do menial labor and fight in wars that are made to look and act exactly like people? Why, for God's sake? Why wouldn't you just make them ... well ... robots?

Blade Runner was visually imaginative at the time of its release, but I find it's worn pretty badly with age. That sleazy Vangelis score doesn't help.

Re:You got the wrong "omg"

[Tassach]

Robots designed to do menial labor and fight in wars that are made to look and act exactly like people? Why, for God's sake?

1. Because they're biotech -- the product of genetic engineering, not mechanical engineering.
2. Because the WHOLE POINT of the movie is to make you question what it means to be human.
3. Because there wouldn't be much of a story left if they looked like Robbie the Robot from Forbidden Planet

Re:You got the wrong "omg"

[fyngyrz]

You missed some important points that directly affect your conclusions:

Replicants aren't robots at all. They're bioforms crafted from DNA. That's why they look like people; they are people. Really tough, capable, designed-for-function people. Not to mention that products like Pris, which are designed for, er, "service", will generally do better if they look like people. So will soldiers, as they're properly built to deal with weaponry that was designed for human handling.

Olmos wasn't supposed to be Japanese. The story was saying that cultures were merging, that's all. There were tons of other examples. Punk style, traditional cop sleaze, high tech advertising, corporate hegemony, DNA manipulation at the "street stall" level and leading to designer pets and props (remember the snake that was instrumental in the "detective" oriented portion of the plot?)

The Vangelis score is certainly a matter of taste. I found it quite apt. I preferred the narrated version of the movie to the director's cut, though - the mood was more apparent and fit the score better in my mind.

Re:You got the wrong "omg"

[Mr_Huber]

You missed the point. These were not 'robots ... that are made to look and act exactly like people'. They were not mechanical creations. They were artificial, true, but they were biological. They were living, breathing, thinking, feeling people we created, then enslaved. And when they fought against their enslavement, they were hunted down and executed.

The point of the film is summed up early on in Deckard's examination of Rachel. If it takes a trained professional over an hour to spot the small emotional responses that differentiate a human from a replicant, is it moral to enslave replicants? If it is so close to human, does it deserve human status?

This is not a noir dressed up in sci-fi clothes. This is a sci-fi flick asking hard questions dressed up in a slinky noir outfit to get your guard down.

Re:You got the wrong "omg"

[AMNESIACX]

and you probably still collect SStar Wars action figures right? Bercasue if you cant see the depth of blade runner, you must be underdeveloped mentally and/or have littler capacity for understanding the big questions.

Re:You got the wrong "omg"

[AsimovBesterClarke]

> The point of the film is summed up early on....

Actually, Rachel's later retort about running the tests on himself is more to the point.

Your point about Noir is spot on, however.

Re:You got the wrong "omg"

[PCM2]

1. Because they're biotech -- the product of genetic engineering, not mechanical engineering.

What's the difference? Mechanical or otherwise, why in hell would we ever bother to make such a thing? Seems like a lot of effort for something that's just going to get shot.

1. Because the WHOLE POINT of the movie is to make you question what it means to be human.

Hmm -- I'll bite. The non-humans are the manufactured ones?

Seriously, yeah yeah, I get it. My point is that this isn't a "brilliant" idea, it's just kind of cute, in the way a lot of old pulp sci-fi conecpts are cute.

Re:You got the wrong "omg"

[Anonymous Coward]

Movies are really a shitty medium to pose interesting philosophical questions. "Cute" is about as good as you're going to get.

Re:You got the wrong "omg"

[huchida]

Not to mention, it takes place in (I believe) 2019. Which means we have 15 years to create fake humans and harvest Saturn's moons. Get cracking, NASA.

(It always bugs me when futuristic movies are set too soon. Even in the early 80's they should'a known better.)

Final Countdown

[klausner]

IMNSHO, the best SF film of all time is the 1980 Final Countdown. Clean, simple, basic SF premise. No hokey technologies or bad science. Just a group of men faced with a philosophical/moral quandry in a classic What If situation.

Number two would be the 1951 version of The Thing. Bad acting from James Arness and bad monster makeup aside, Howard Hawk's direction of John Campbell's short story is great. Real human interplay. The ending broadcast is especially good.

Re:Final Countdown

[fyngyrz]

Extremely bad science:

• Time storm.

• Unresolved paradox.

Sorry. :)

Re:Final Countdown

[klausner]

Every SF plot gets one unexplained science freebe. Besides, can you prove that time storms don't exist?

What paradox? There is a causality loop, but no paradox.

Re:Final Countdown

[fyngyrz]

Sorry. Loop it is. Ding. :)

You certainly can, but I don't offer an unexplained science freebie. If they take one, then I consider them to have introduced a fantasy element, intended or not. Now don't get me wrong - I don't mind - in fact, I own Final Countdown on DVD, I really enjoy it, and lots of other time travel works, film and printed - but I don't consider them pure SF. Even the really, really good ones, like those James P. Hogan has written. For instance, "Thrice in Time" was enormous fun.

Proving time storms don't exist isn't the issue for me. That's not the way I think about this. I can't prove God does or doesn't exist, either. I am most interested in seeing things written about/filmed that are somewhat likely to exist, that's all. Time storms, as far as I know, which may indeed be not enough, don't seem likely at all to me. So I award a Ding. :)

It's just my opinion. You don't have to pay any attention. I'm not trying to enforce it on you.

Re:Final Countdown

[Daetrin]

That eliminates the vast majority of SF from being SF :)

Where exactly do you draw the line? Obviously hyperspace must be out, but what about wormhole travel? What about sub-light travel between planets? We certainly haven't proven we can construct that kind of ship. Geneticaly engineering people to have psychic powers would be out i presume. But what about engineering people to be ten times as strong as a normal person? It's plausible, but as far as i know no one has proven that it's possible.

Linkage fixing...

[dhalgren99]

http://www.sadgeezer.com/RedDwarf/rimmer.htm
There!

The Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

John Carpenter rules

I can't believe...

[hunterx11]

They didn't mention Metropolis? That would be like having a "top-ten films of all time" without Birth of a Nation. Hell, Fritz Lang wasn't even racist. But in all seriousness, try naming a sci-fi film that doesn't take something from Metropolis.

Re:I can't believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

to be an idiot, you state a bullshit opinion. You win!

Re:I can't believe...

[DrEasy]

Maybe you watched the 80s remake? The original is very good, and it's been recently completed with some bits that were somehow left out and made the plot hard to understand. I couldn't believe a silent movie could be so gripping.

Re:I can't believe...

[12357bd]

Maybe Metropolis is just too much of sci-fi for the makers of the list. Other than that is simply incredible.

Re:I can't believe...

[wkitchen]

Metropolis is great. I'd really love to see a modern remake as long as it's respectful to the original story and doesn't try to completely remove the anachronistic 1920's view of the future. That it now simultaneously speaks something of the real past and an imagined future is one of the things I love about it.

In case any are unfamiliar with it, Metropolis is a silent movie made in 1926. There are no known complete copies, so any version you see will necessarily be an assemblage from bits of various copies. And while there's enough bits to make a full length movie, I don't think there's any version that's totally complete.

I've only seen two reconstructions of it. One was pretty much just an assemblage of whatever bits could be recovered, without any embelleshment except for a soundtrack that I think was a guess at the general kind of thing that might have been played with it at a theatre in the 1920's. The other is the one made by Georgio Moroder that has some poorly done embellishments and a soundtrack of 80's music, mostly badly chosen.

Moroder's version is widely criticized and often considered a bit insulting to the original, but I actually rather liked it in spite of the obvious warts. What I liked about it was that it seemed to tell the story better than the straight restoration, and best I can tell, without losing the spirit of it. Also, there was one musical track in Moroder's version that I think actually fit the scene very well. And that was the "Blood from a Stone" song that played during the "Shift Change" scene from the beginning of the movie.

A great old movie like this should not languish forever in such disrepair. A really good remake would be great.

Re:I can't believe...

[hunterx11]

There is a recent re-release by the Murnau Foundation which has a bit more footage and is set to the original score by Gottfried Huppertz. I was lucky enough to see it in the theater, but you can get it on DVD from Kino.

Star Wars?

[BlueStraggler]

Star Wars is a fantasy, not a science fiction, film:

• "A long time ago, in a [land] far away..."
• farm boy inherits his father's sword, goes adventuring
• learns ancient martial arts secrets from old master
• teams up with a salty pirate
• rescues princess from dungeon of dark sorcerer

Where's the science? And don't use the word "parsec" in your answer, please.

History

[hwestiii]

I'm clearly dating myself, but I saw Blade Runner in its first theatrical release, and its my recollection that it was pretty much a disappointment to most people.

It was Ridley Scott's follow up to Alien, and it just doesn't have the narrative drive and shock value of Alien. Of course it grows on you with repeated viewings, but it really didn't go over very well initially. What really cinched Blade Runner's reputation was the advent of home video. People got a chance to look at it again and really appreciate it. I know I do. It is one of my favorite movies.

Not more favorite than 2001: A Space Odessey, however. I'd quibble about the 1 - 2 placement. I vastly prefer 2001. I don't know exactly what it is, but the combination of impressionism and cold realism is completely gripping. Its never quite the same movie twice. Its driven by ambiguity and it is exceptionally beautiful. Nothing else even comes close.

Re:History

[oneiron]

"...its my recollection that it was pretty much a disappointment to most people."

Since when is this type of thing even remotely important? I can probably name off 1000 amazing flicks that were pretty much a disappointment to most people when they came out. The fact that it takes multiple viewings to appreciate a movie is part of what makes it so great. There's a balance between having an immediate impact and having a solid foundation of earth-shattering ideas that will fly straight over most people's heads, and a lot of movies shoot for that balance. The truly great movies attempt to minimize former while maximizing the latter to heights unimaginable. These are the movies that stand up to the test of time. These are the greatest movies of all time. These are the movies that most people just don't get...ever, much less on their first viewing.

Re:History

[thrash242]

Yes, it was a financial failure and got very bad reviews from critics. It was only later that it was accepted as a classic.

If you are a fan of the movie and want to know everything you could possibly know about it, check out the book Future Noir. It covers the making of Blade Runner and it's quite interesting.

Whizzbang!!

[alokeb]

Don't forget the latest!! Alien vs. Predator? Hell the reviewer said "Three thumbs up - one for each race" :)

Re:damn you Iain banks...damn you to hell

[PCM2]

Banks wrote about 9/11? I read that one ... Dead Air, I think it was called ... where the back cover made a big statement about it being a "post-9/11 novel." But it had precious little to do with 9/11 really, or terrorists -- or anything else, for that matter. I'd heard that Banks said he wrote that one at breakneck speed, and I have to say it shows.

And the top 10 books not yet movies are:

[Anonymous Coward]

And the top 10 books which need to be made into movies and/or miniseries are:

I, Robot -- Using the brilliant Harlan Ellison Screenplay, not the POS that just left the theaters.
Neuromancer
The Forever War
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Stranger in a Strange Land
Foundation (miniseries)
Red/Green/Blue Mars (miniseries)
The Grand Tour (miniseries) -- Ben Bova's Venus, Jupiter ... The Rock Rats novels
The Demon Princes novels (miniseries) by Jack Vance
The Liaden Universe novels (miniseries) by Sharon Lee and Steven Miller

Re:And the top 10 books not yet movies are:

[thrash242]

Last I heard (not too long ago) Neuromancer is supposed to be in production.

The Matrix? Gimme a break.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was dumb, had bad dialog, gratuitous wire work, a dubious moral stance, and was full of pseudo-techno-philisophico-babble that was about as deep as Keanu Reeves's acting ability. Other than that it was very pretty, albeit overly long.

Because they were intended to replace humans.

[Coventry]

Remember Pris, the pleasure model? Of course she's going to look human - would you want to engage in sexual activities with a green bodied replicant? No!

Replicants were outlawed on earth, elsewhere they were made to take the jobs thar were too dangerous for humans, or that humans just didn't want to do. Just like scientists today are doing research into robotic faces to convey emotion, the scientists of tomorrow will, if possible, make robots near human in form so as to make people feel more comfortable with them.

Only earth is worried about replicant infiltration - on the colony worlds replicants are in use and accepted - hence no need to 'mark' them.

Also, and this is more of a plot device - if the replicants didn't look the same, then the whole implication that Decker (or anyone) could be a replicant and not even know it falls down.

Re:Because they were intended to replace humans.

[Anonymous Coward]

would you want to engage in sexual activities with a green bodied replicant?

If it's good enough for Kirk, it's good enough for me!

Re:Because they were intended to replace humans.

[M. Baranczak]

would you want to engage in sexual activities with a green bodied replicant?

That depends. What does she look like?

Re:Because they were intended to replace humans.

[farnerup]

would you want to engage in sexual activities with a green bodied replicant? Captain Kirk would.

Re:Because they were intended to replace humans.

[rs79]

Remember Pris, the pleasure model? Of course she's going to look human - would you want to engage in sexual activities with a green bodied replicant?

What's it gonna cost me?

Re:Because they were intended to replace humans.

[DavidBrown]

Remember Pris, the pleasure model? Of course she's going to look human - would you want to engage in sexual activities with a green bodied replicant? No!

Speak for yourself.

James Tiberius Kirk

Re:Because they were intended to replace humans.

[Piquan]

All the "Kirk" replies aside:

Watch Free Enterprise. It's mandatory viewing for any SciFi fan, and a whole lot of non-fans. (It's relevant to your post because one of the main characters has a green-girl sex fantasy.)

Everybody: if you haven't seen it, go watch Free Enterprise. Then watch it with the glossary subtitles on; $10 says you'll have missed some good references. Then watch the commentary; I'll sometimes just put the commentary on for a fun re-watch.

Re:Because they were intended to replace humans.

[Aardvark99]

Mmmmmm.... She-Hulk....

Linkage Fixing

[dhalgren99]

Tremors 4: The Legend Begins!

There!

You forgot Nemesis

[Anonymous Coward]

0 for 9 is it?

No, it's 0 for 10.

If your subconscious had purged all trace of Nemesis from your brain and may post has now undone several thousand dollars with of psychotherapy then I humbly apologize...

Re:You forgot Nemesis

[fraudrogic]

uh...no...Nemisis was not the purged movie. It was 5. Don't remember the title..don't want to. It is now resting safely backdown into denial...aaaaaahhhh...

Kirk vs. God...KirkvsGod...kirkv sgod...noooo


reminds of the classic chris farley SNL bit: Hey Tad, Ditka vs. God...who wins?

DITKA!

Two words: Bull Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm calling BR what it is: a slow, plodding and DULL, yes, DULL film. There are plenty of good bits, but mostly it's slow and boring.

Honestly, I don't think there's any such thing as a "good" science fiction film. They're all pretty much crap, but then that's true of any genre.

Re:Two words: Bull Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

That's telling me! Wow, I've seen the light of day now thanks to your compelling and brilliantly articulated argument, fucknut!

This list is clearly incomplete

[joeflies]

Who can forget the impact of science fiction treasures such as Robot Jox and Metalstorm: Adventures of Jared Syn!

Bladerunner with Dialog, or without? ;-)

[FyRE666]

I actually preferred the movie with the dialog left in. I've heard that Ford hated having to recite the lines, so purposely sounded bored, but I think it adds to the film. Of course, the really stand-out dialog is from RH. The "Tears in rain" speech was a bit of a master-stroke...

Re:Bladerunner with Dialog, or without? ;-)

[EigenHombre]

The "Tears in rain" speech was a bit of a master-stroke...

... and was apparently ad libbed by Rutger Hauer. (FAQ, section 12).

um

[jafac]

yes.
it is.
No doubt.

Science

[Psymunn]

Yes, there seems to be a fallacy that Science fiction is robots and space ships. It's not. Frankinstine's Monster was a science fiction book. It uses a hypothetical invention to argue a view point. Starwars is just really fun to watch.

Brazil?

[possible]

I agree with Bladerunner as the top pick, but I thought Brazil should have been in there (how can you pick Terminator over Brazil?). Oh well.

Re:Brazil?

[greymond]

Influential is not equal to Good

Brazil is a great movie but I don't think it spun off anywhere near the amount of say the Terminator did. We've seen references to terminator in campy punch line cartoons and shows, as well as many B-type movie rip offs.

Brazil has not had that kind of influence.

Contact

[Fractal Dice]

If I were to add a film to this list, it would likely be "Contact". The opening shot is the best explanation of "space is big" I've ever seen, it deals with the big science-vs-religion flamewar in a way that seems respectful to both sides and it says an amazingly large number of things about science. I didn't like the movie at first, but it's really grown on me the more I've thought back to it.

(although I do think it should have ended at the limo - that's when it had made its point and that's when it was done).

2001

[The Famous Brett Wat]

It deals with issues such as human evolution, human exploration, the role of artificial intelligence, man's attempt to "play god" gone terribly wrong, and man's place in the universe.

I'm struck by how much these comments also apply to Blade Runner. More so than 2001 in some respects.

...it still stands up as scientifically realistic in its portrayals of computer science...

Realistic computer science in 2001? Dude, one of the major characters was an AI the likes of which we've never seen. In what sense was that "realistic"? Maybe in the sense that the hobbits in Lord Of The Rings were realistic, but not in the sense of bearing a close resemblance to the real thing.

Re:2001

[Yaztromo]

I'm struck by how much these comments also apply to Blade Runner.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not knocking Blade Runner, which is a fine piece of film on its own. I'm merely countering those who don't think 2001 should have been on the list (which can't be all that hard -- after all apparently I have 60 of the most influential scientists behind me on that one :) ).

Realistic computer science in 2001? Dude, one of the major characters was an AI the likes of which we've never seen.

It deals with some theoretical AI issues that have been bandied about by computer scientists since Turing. What is it to be sentient? Can computers be sentient? If we give them artificial intelligence, can we control them? Will we be able to produce a knowable result?

These are the areas where 2001 shows some scientific acccuracy in the realm of computer science. True, it is fantasy, and it is dealing with only one possible outcome. But all of these topics are dealt with. in the BBC interview, we learn that while HAL appears to simulate a person, he is viewed as non-sentient, but instead as merely a complex simulation. At the same time (which we learn later), HAL is given conflicting programming (no distortion or withholding of information, the protection and health of the crew, the need to complete the mission at all costs, and the keeping of the true nature of the mission a secret from the crew). These orders come into conflict.

Now if we do create a human-like AI system like HAL, how will it react to conflicting orders? Conflicts in programming in current "dumb" systems usually results in a dead-lock situation, but what if the machine can make a value judgement to resolve that deadlock? Will it make the right choice?

In this case, HAL made what most people would consider a wrong choice. Faced with the need to keep a secret and violate his primary design in doing so, he became, for lack of a better description, psychotically ill.

It is still fiction of course -- but these remain important questions and aspects of modern computer science. Clarke thought that by 2001 we'd be wrestling with the practical implications of these questions -- but instead we're still wrestling with them in the theoretical realm.

Yaz.

Re:2001

[rs79]

I'm still pissed off at the fact that 3 years later I still can't walk up to a Bell videophone booth. Or that there's no Pan-Am space clipper. Hell, there isn't even a Pan-Am any more.

Talk about lousy product placement.

Re:2001

[Yaztromo]

The DVD edition of 2001 in the Stanley Kubrick Collection has the video of a talk Arthur C. Clarke gave at an MGM dinner for the launch (or announcement -- I don't recall which) about the future of space travel and technology, specifically by 2001.

He's an excellent speaker, and you can't help but feel that the plans and timelines he espouses are realistic. You start to feel that humanity could indeed get together and achieve these ends.

Then you realize that his future is now, and we haven't achieved much of anything compared to Clarke's vision. And that's just depressing.

Yaz.

Re:WHAT! No Johnny?

[logic hack]

Sadly, it will take the death of one's own mind for Bill and Ted's Exelent Adventure to be appreciated.

About the flamewar

[tiltowait]

>Possibly because he was programmed that way?

Parent post is referring Ridley's direction that Decker is a replicant -- although he was not in the book. As for how Ford acted the part, you can just as easily that he didn't act anything. The action star hated being in the film. (or more precisely, the director).

The director's cut eliminated the cheesy voiceover. Voiceover narrations almost never work (Dances with Wolves comes to mind, ug) except when done by John Cusack.

Re:About the flamewar

[Anonymous Coward]

Matt Damon's voiceover in Rounders is excellent.

Re:About the flamewar

[maddskillz]

>The director's cut eliminated the cheesy voiceover. Voiceover narrations almost never work (Dances with Wolves comes to mind, ug) except when done by John Cusack.

Don't forget about the Wonder Years! That was the pinacle of voiceover narrations

Re:About the flamewar

[finkployd]

xcept when done by John Cusack.

Boy, ain't that the truth.

Martin Sheen did a pretty good job in Apocalypse Now too.

Finkployd

Re:About the flamewar

[Wavicle]

although he was not in the book

The movie and the book have VERY little in common. Their connection is tenuous at best. In the book this strange pseudo-religion "mercerism" was a key part of the story, as was this mood organ that people used to make them happy or content. In the book at one point Deckard comes across another detective and each thinks the other must be a replicant. The two stories share characters and a dominant theme (is it right for us to enslave 'people' we've manufactured), that's about it.

Re:About the flamewar

[CaptainCheese]

Parent post is referring Ridley's direction that Decker is a replicant -- although he was not in the book

You say he wasn't, but the book doesn't.

In the end there is no answer to the question "Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep?"...but we know that Deckard does.

Re:About the flamewar

[iannn]

in the book he remembered growing up, seeing birds and so forth. unless i don't remember correctly, the replicants weren't pre-programed with memories, so this would prevent him from possibly being a replicant.

Re:About the flamewar

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't Rachel an example of a type of Replicant that had been programmed with (fake childhood) memories?

Re:About the flamewar

[Daetrin]

As for how Ford acted the part, you can just as easily that he didn't act anything. The action star hated being in the film. (or more precisely, the director).

Do you have any sources for that? The story i always heard (and admitedly, i don't have any direct sources either) was that Harison Ford liked the movie and thought it was good the way it was, but the people in charge insisted that he do the voiceover. He figured that if he did a really crappy job on the voiceover that they would decide not to use it and the movie would be released without it, but they went ahead and used it anyways.

I've heard the story a couple time, though it could just be a well spread urban legend.

Re:About the flamewar

[jhdsl]

The book indeed says he isn't. When coming upon the other detective that thinks Deckard is an android, they test each other, both tests coming up negative.

Re:About the flamewar

[gfxguy]

Don't you remember the Sean Young part (Rachael)? She didn't know she was a replicant... she was programmed with memories, given photos of other people's families and told it was her own... everything.

Re:About the flamewar

[double_ooh]

In the book, it is very clear that the androids can not take part in Mercerism. In fact, they tried as hard as they could to tear down the whole Mercerism concept (through the media and the like). However, Deckard uses the box multiple times in the book, even sustaining the injuries that people were able to experience as a way of bonding and having 'empathy', which the androids were not capable of. Personally, I have always taken this as pretty clear evidence that Deckard was not an android.

Re:About the flamewar

[tiltowait]

take your pick... the interview I'm remembering is Ford saying something like 'some people like the movie I guess, I just had a problem only having to walk around in front of futuristic set backdrops.'

Ridley says "So that didn't work out as a particularly good mix."

Aha, here's the interview:

He is also willing to admit that he is not fond of "Blade Runner," Ridley
Scott's futuristic cult favorite. "I played a detective who did no
detecting," he says. "There was nothing for me to do but stand around and give
some vain attempt to give some focus to Ridley's sets. I think some - a lot -
of people enjoy it, and that's their perogative."
- The Boston Globe, July 14, 1991 - BR FAQ

Re:About the flamewar

[tiltowait]

I actually thought of Rounders too, although for someone who knows how to play holdem it doesn't add all that much.

Minority Report is another movie that would have been on this top 10 list if not for the redundant voiceover. Oh well, ask 10 film school students who the most overrated director is and 8+ of them will respond Spielberg.

Re:About the flamewar

[Muad'Dave]

Not to disagree with Mr. Scott, but if Deckard was a replicant, why did he always get his ass kicked by the 'real' replicants? Where was his super strength? ...or was he being underclocked on purpose?

Re:About the flamewar

[Muad'Dave]

Voiceover narrations almost never work...

Worst voiceover/narration: Dune

There were like 3 versions - The short one, the narrated one, and the long one with spitting of water on the floor. I liked the non-chatty short one and the long spitty one.

Re:About the flamewar

[MrNemesis]

As noted in other posts, beside the basic concepts the book and the film have very little in common.

UK's channel 4 did a very good documentary called "On the Edge of Bladerunner" which interviewed pertty much everyone except Harrison Ford. Ridley Scott says it was the complete ruination of the film in the theatrical release that put the icing on the cake; up until then, lots of people were plain pissed off because Scott was being a complete perfectionist, time was running out, budget was empty, etc etc etc.

As someone who read "Do Androids...?" before I saw the film, I was much better equipped to understand what was going on without the voiceover, and to me the theatrical release seems lame and forced by comparison. As another poster pointed out, it made Deckard far too obvious, and there was practically no room for the viewer to make up their own mind about his personality. The directors cut was alot more difficult to get into, but it actually had a story I could get my teeth into.

If anyone can find "On the Edge of Bladerunner" knocking about P2P, I can heartily recommend the download, if nothing else then for the sole deleted scene where Deckard visits Holden in hospital.

Re:About the flamewar

[MrNemesis]

Exactly, The whole point of the film (the dirs. cut anyway) is that a) Tyrell is sufficiently advanced to create replicants that are identical to humans and that b) Deckard and Rachel are both these news types of replicants. They both have human memories, but they're implanted, as shown with the VK test with Rachel. It's only at the end of the film that Deckard knows for certain he's a replicant when he finds Chu's unicorn.

It's a pretty good paradox thing really. Replicants are getting too smart for humans, so the humans have to make special replicants to work for them to hunt the replicants, but they have to make sure the replicants think they're human.

It's probably a mistake to compare the film and the book. The film is based pretty much only on the book's concept and imagery, the storyline is very different.

Damnit, I've watched this film too many times...!

Re:About the flamewar

[Anonymous Coward]

. . .and Shawshank Redemption. (Morgan Freeman)

Re:About the flamewar

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Voiceover narrations almost never work (Dances with Wolves comes to mind, ug) except when done by John Cusack.

I'd have to submit "Fight Club" as another exception. I thought the voiceover really added a lot.

Re:About the flamewar

[jo42]

Sorry, have to speak up. Opposite view must be heard. The Director's cut, with the missing voice over, is a rancid lump of glop. If you had never seen the original movie with the voice over, seeing it without the voice over, you don't have a clue as to what the heck is going on. The voice over adds the character and flavor to the movie that made it so good in the first place. I'm still looking for a VHS, Laser Disc, or DVD of the original, unmangled Blade Runner...

Re:About the flamewar

[Prowl]

deckard thinks he's human, so gets his "ass kicked"

Re:About the flamewar

[CaptainCheese]

Umm...no.

Garland and Resch are about to test deckard when Resch's world comes crumbling down. Resch's boss Garland turns out to be a replicant, and Garland tells Deckard that Resch is a replicant. Resch then kills Garland and Deckard later tests Resch (after they both "retire" Luba Luft) who turns out to be human after all....in the end Deckard is never tested - There's a presumption that he is human because he's a real policeman.

Re:About the flamewar

[MegaFur]

Yeah, but I *liked* the version with the voice-over better. So, does that make me an empty-headed loser or something?

And what about Fight Club? That movie couldn't exist without voice-over.

Re:About the flamewar

[ChipMonk]

Actually, the Director's Cut is the original, unmangled Blade Runner. The voice-over and deletion of the unicorn scene was done at the studio's request. Ridley Scott made it clear at the time, that he didn't like it. However, he had little choice in the matter.

You are correct, however, in stating that the voice-over clarifies the action for the uninitiated.

Your hole is really a lack of imagination

[DumbSwede]

It's only a hole if you can't think of any reasons you'd want replicants to look totally human. I can think of several, and they add to the story by being ambiguous and unanswered.

1. Some sizable fraction of replicants are sex slaves like Priss. In this case you certainly want as human as possible.
2. While humans are supposedly going off world to work, we don't meet anyone that has actually come back. The replicants can survive extreme environments. Perhaps humans are just being killed and all off world work is done by replicants, only the general populace doesn't knows this because any video shows off world activity full of human looking replicants.
3. Working with someone offworld that looks in-human might engender mistrust.
4. Any obvious cosmetic change like color could be overcome with makeup.
5. When we first started making them, it never occurred they would come back and start killing people. Making new replicants visually different would highlight the original oversight, and governments rarely want to do this.

Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[code_rage]

Can anyone explain how the replicants are physiologically superior to regular humans, yet the only way to identify them is to ask them stupid questions while videotaping their irises?

Wouldn't some sort of DNA test, or blood protein assay, work a lot easier?

(But then there wouldn't be much of a movie, would there.)

"Do Androids Dream..." was written in 1968, but the idea of genetic assays might not have been known to Philip K Dick. But the film was not until 1982...

Bonus points if you answer the following questions:
1. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
2. What do Electric Sheep dream of?

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[darkmeridian]

2. What do Electric Sheep dream of?

Electric Irishmen.

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[limabone]

The reason why is because this book and the short story which was the basis for Total Recall examine what it is to be human, and both in particular look at the ideas of memories and how they define us.
If it was as simple as getting a blood test it would be a much more boring book! :)

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[aled]

The answer is really very very easy: it doesn't matter. PKD wasn't trying to make a plausible explanation. Just one that supports the plot. Only Hard Sci-Fi fans care about such things.
Even so... in the book says -if I remember it right- that only a biopsy of the bone marrow would show the difference. Not something you do in a hurry.

Bonus:
1. Androids may or not dream but their lack of empaty for living creatures would negate the difference between a live sheep or an electric one to them. That's why the test works.
2. Don't dream, they are just machines.

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans dream of real pet animals as they are now extremely rare. Thus the market in robot animals.

Do the replicants ( who are "robots" ) dream of pet animals to? If so do they want the real ones or the "robot"/replicant ones?

The title hints about the hopes and motivations of a non-human who is so human-like that the difference is virtually impossible to tell.

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[boogy nightmare]

hmmm close... its the welsh that are the notorious sheep ...... farmers..

Q. why do welsh wear tracksuits on the farm
A. Cos the sheep know what a zip sounds like...

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[MrScience]

I read an article recently about how the latest genetic tweaks were so hard for the Olympic committee to find... they're getting concerned that they will not be able to stop the latest enhancement craze.

Maybe it's not so far off... (though you would think if they were engineered, that the designers would slip in a few identifying sequences).

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[stromthurman]

You are absolutely correct, the only sure test beyond the psychological test was a test on the replicant's bone marrow.

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, here's my explanation, extrapolated from the "fact" that replicants are so hard to detect: The body of a replicant is not superhuman, but simply engineered to have the best possible human performance in all necessary areas. Even the strongest and toughest replicants are not much better than the best athlete in the world. The differences are in their brains which have been preprogrammed to be impervious to pain and to be able to use the muscles of the body to the greatest possible effect. In sum, the replicants are vat-grown gene-engineered humans whose brains have been programmed for a single purpose... yet some of them manage to break out of their programming and search meaning to their lives.

Explaining away why DNA tests cannot be used would require assuming incompetence or active intereference to parts of the society depicted in the movie. Perhaps the replicant manufacturers don't want to or cannot add marker genes, perhaps the engineering simply does not result anything noticeably different from a normal human? The story is enjoyable regardless, but I must confess I have been distracted by this plot hole when watching the movie.

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[code_rage]

Thanks for the explanation, but I'm not satisfied. I could probably give PKD a break on this given when the story wwas written, but by the time the film came out, I think the inconsistency was basically papered over.

One of the tests of any novel (not just sci-fi) is that it creates a convincing scenario. As much as I enjoyed the story and atmosphere of Blade Runner, it fails that test. That the replicants are genetically engineered to be physiologically superior to humans is believable. That the engineering is imperfect (resulting in short lifespan) is believable. But the notion that there is no genetic assay to ID them is just beyond belief.

If someone is given superior muscular strength by geneticc engineering, the physiologically and chemically observable traces would not be limited to the bone marrow.

This criticism is not applicable to scenarios that require other sorts of suspension of disbelief -- faster than light travel cannot be explained in scientific terms, but it does not generally create the same glaring inconsistency.

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[The_REAL_DZA]

What do Electric Sheep dream of?

Jumping over electric fences?

No, no, that's what insomniac androids count to get to sleep...

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[code_rage]

Now that is an explanation I can believe. Especially if you also say that the replicants are *designed* to be as strong as possible without being detectible, so that they can perform clandestine infiltration operations against some enemy.

If Void-Comp had been just a throwaway device, it would have bothered me less, but the movie spent sooo much time on it that it could not be ignored.

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

did you see gattaca ???

maybe PKD predicted that a runnaway android would have pouches of blood or other fluid to slip in a genetic test, but an emotional response test would be harder to fool for a beeing without empathy.

in the movie deckard had a hard time trying to figure if rachel was indeed an android because of her implanted memories. this memories were the emotional equivalent to gattaca's blood patches in the fingertips.

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[TheLink]

Planned obsolescence isn't always a sign of imperfect engineering. The RIAA seem to like that sort of stuff too - self-destructing copies.

Maybe there are too many modified humans around as well, so genetic assays don't work so well.

So whether you're a replicant or a human physiologically could be debateable. Whereas if you had to have most of your (false) memories implanted into you, you're probably a replicant...

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[mamba-mamba]

I agree that the Irish don't have any particular reputaion for "animal husbandry" with sheep. But I believe the Scottish may have more of a reputation than the Welsh. For example, here is a very old joke:

Q: Why do Scottish men wear kilts?
A: Because sheep can hear a zipper open from a mile away.

MM
--

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[aled]

If the biological analisis where not very invasive it would put off the need for the psicologic tests on which the plot is based. The idea behind the book was to question what is human and empaty. The movie is based on the book but let it go the empathy concept. If you take the test for empathy off the book would make no sense. The movie would become something like The Thing.
You should exercise a little your Suspension of Disbelieve power ;-)

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[weiyuent]

Wouldn't some sort of DNA test, or blood protein assay, work a lot easier?

Perhaps such a test would be considered too invasive for a suspect who is considered innocent until proven guilty. I certainly wouldn't like to have to submit to a tissue biopsy on a regular basis to prove that I am the real deal.

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

["Zow"]

Can anyone explain how the replicants are physiologically superior to regular humans, yet the only way to identify them is to ask them stupid questions while videotaping their irises?

In late to the discussion, but this is a point of the story that I've been somewhat facinated by. Other responders addressed the efficacy of a physically based test. The Voight-Komph (sp?) machine is interesting because it measures the lack of an emotional response to a stimulus. Interestingly, a scitophrenic (sp?) human should respond the same way. This was the main plot point used by K W Jeter (Dick's protege) in Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human. This actually makes sense in that one should expect that any person / replicant to go scitophrenic when imprinted with someone else's memories / past, which actually brings up questions in some of Dick's other work such as Total Recall.

-"Zow"

Cherry 2000

[dgagley]

What about the classics?

Cherry 2000
Damnation Alley
The Day the Earth Stood Still

I have been more of a Horror fan (movie & Book)

Re:Cherry 2000

[DavidBrown]

Don't forget Deathrace 2000.

Didn't Harrison Ford Hate Blade Runner?

[john_smith_45678]

I thought I read in an interview somewhere with Harrison Ford that he hated (or didn't like) Blade Runner.

Re:Didn't Harrison Ford Hate Blade Runner?

[thrash242]

He hated working with Ridley Scott and Sean Young. They didn't get along at all. Ever wonder why the "love scene" looks so violent?

I don't think he hated the film itself. He just didn't like the process of making it. It was a pretty conflict-ridden production in general.

Minority Report

[Icephreak1]

Minority Report was far more groundbreaking than Bladerunner. Bladerunner was flat by comparison.
Minority Report is my favourite movie.

- IP

Why wasn't Clarke higher?

[Vilim]

Although I agree with Asimov being ranked first in the authors polls. I would have put Clarke second. Certainly before Wells, Hoyle and Wyndham.

Every time I read a book by Clarke it routinely blows my mind. Take Childhoods End for example, that is probably the best sci fi book I have read. I originally read it when I was 15 and even after many rereads I am still blown away (I find it somewhat depressing)

Re:Why wasn't Clarke higher?

[JCholewa]

> Although I agree with Asimov being ranked first in the authors polls. I would have put Clarke second.
> Certainly before Wells, Hoyle and Wyndham.

> Every time I read a book by Clarke it routinely blows my mind. Take Childhoods End for example,
> that is probably the best sci fi book I have read. I originally read it when I was 15 and even after many
> rereads I am still blown away (I find it somewhat depressing)

Clarke's early books were great. But the past two or three decades of his career have been filled with tremendously bad sequels with surprisingly poor stories. Blame Gentry Lee if you wish, but Clarke still said "yes" to them.

If Welles made Kane then filled out the rest of his career by acting for Ed Wood, then the guy wouldn't've been seen as such a legend, although Ed's films might have been better off.

It's like Rutger Hauer. He's done some great work. But 90% of his later career has been weak B movies and silly TV spots.

--
-JC
http://www.jc-news.com/coding/freedom/

2001 sucked. So did Clockwork Orange.

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch clockwork orange or full metal jacket if you want to appreciate some of Kubrick's better work. (Concentrating more on the story than tedious and trippy visual sequences.)

Um... he's responsible for the tedious shit, he didn't write any of the books the stories are based on.

Best SciFi movies not listed

[Anonymous Coward]

Dune - classic
B5 In the Begining - Masterfull
Wrath of Khan - *KHAN!*

Total Recall!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Total Recall??? THREE sci-fi greats...Philip K. Dick, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Paul Verhoeven.

Re:Total Recall!!!!

[jebiester]

I have to agree - Arnie's (the Governator's ;) Sci-fi movies have actually been pretty good

Terminator 1 and 2,Total Recall and Sixth Day are all good sci-fi movies.

Re:damn you Iain banks...damn you to hell

[Anonymous Coward]

yes and now apperantly his latest sci-fi novel (coming out in oct) is a parable about a terrorist attack...ie 9/11. Read the last link in the news post.

stendec@gmail.com

Not a plot hole, and this is explained in movie

[mikeg22]

The replicants could not know they were not human or they would have severe emotional problems. This is why they were given human memories...to trick them. It would not be possible to trick them if there was some obvious thing showing that they were replicants, like having green skin.

Re:Not a plot hole, and this is explained in movie

[thrash242]

This is a good point, but most did not have false memories. The only two in the film that had false memories and didn't know that they were replicants were Rachael and Deckard(well, depending on your interpretation). In Tyrell's office, Deckard expresses surprise at the new experimental technique of implanting false memories in replicants, so it's pretty obviously not a common thing.

I'm not disagreeing with your point, just pointing something out.

Re:Not a plot hole, and this is explained in movie

[momerath2003]

I thought they only gave them memories with the newest prototype model (the one Harrison Ford falls in love with). The lack of memories to back up personalities was why the others failed the psychological tests at the beginning, methinks.

Re:Not a plot hole, and this is explained in movie

[mikeg22]

Its also hinted that Deckard is a replicant himself, and doesn't know it. This is only one interpretation of the movie, though. Another point is that Tyrell explains that the goal of his company is to make replicants "more human than human." (No, White Zombie didn't come up with this). This goal would have been defeated by making replicants look non human in any way.

Re:Not a plot hole, and this is explained in movie

[mikeg22]

No, I think they were all given memories. All of the replicants would have failed that test. Remember, Rachel failed the test at the beginning, and she was given the memories of Tyrell's niece. When Deckard explains this to her, she freaks out.

Re:Not a plot hole, and this is explained in movie

[momerath2003]

Ah. Quite right.

Yeah...

[lwagner]

> On slashdot, anybody can hear you scream.

Especially if it's: "Game over, man!"

2001 based on an Arthur Clarke story

[DLR]

Of course it's a good movie. It's based on a 1948 short story by Arthur Clarke called The Sentinel.

Re:2001 based on an Arthur Clarke story

[spike hay]

Really? I always thought it was based on an Arthur C. Clark book by the name of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Re:2001 based on an Arthur Clarke story

[aled]

The book 2001 of Arthur Clarke is based in his own short story The Sentinel.

Re:2001 based on an Arthur Clarke story

[copper]

Aside from whether or not it was based on an earlier short story (actually, I have a copy of the book around here somewhere, might as well dig it up....)

Ah, here we go:

According to the introduction (written by Clarke), "The Sentinel" contained the basic idea for 2001, but "the two bear the same relationship as an acorn and an oak tree". While the bulk of the novel was written before starting on the movie, he was finishing the final, final version while work on the movie was going on and there was some sharing of ideas both ways.

In fact, the movie appeared several months before the book :)

Logan's Run ahead of its time

[Anonymous Coward]

why wasn't logan's run used to justify the PG-13 rating? i mean it had full frontal nudity and it was only PG!!!

i guess that's what you get by coming out a decade before something as radical as PG-13 could even be comprehended by mere humans.

Well, we agree on 2001 at least : )

[sbszine]

Here's my list.

1. 2001
2. Blade Runner
3. Solaris (original version)
4. Metropolis (original version)
5. La Jettee (the short film that 12 Monkeys is based on)
6. The Day The Earth Stood Still
7. Farenheit 451
8. Alien
9. Akira
10. Things To Come

I urge you to check out some foreign-language and / or black and white stuff... most of the great SF movies are from the 70s or earlier, in my opinion.

Re:Well, we agree on 2001 at least : )

[shish]

I still don't get why people like akira; It and ghost in the shell were the first two anime films I watched (being the only two I'd heard of) - Akira bored me, GitS made no sense the first time round, but has grown on me to become one of my favourite films (And having the manga version helps - the film is a very short condensation of only one aspect of the book, maybe the manga of akira is better too?).

All I got from akira was "psychic psycho kills stuff. the end. (also note: cool bike)", which seems far less interesting than GitS's "AI becomes life, contemplates the meaning of it's own existance"

Re:Well, we agree on 2001 at least : )

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree with you, but have seen people express the opposite opinion.

I've concluded anime appears to come in different varieties. One kind appeals to people who are interested in questioning the 'specialness' of humans. Another kind seems to appeal to people who like impressive cartoons.

What the...?

[rbright]

It was so far ahead of its time and the whole premise of the story - what is it to be human and who are we, where we come from? It's the age-old questions.

...Blade Runner was the runaway favourite in our poll.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Dir: Stanley Kubrick
A very close second, this mystifying story came out of...

What the..?

1984 gives people too much credit

[AllenChristopher]

1984 was made in the wake of WWII and during the rise of communism. It really seemed then that this kind of thing could hold onto a people into the future.

Brazil is about how these movements fall apart and all we're left with the the crumbling infrastructure of a grand social scheme and petty regulations designed to protect that system that trap the ordinary fellow.

1984 is about what the Western World feared communism would be. Brazil is about what communism, small-time fascism, and British capitalism all turned into.

So yeah, it's just like 1984, but rewritten from the side of things where the worst didn't happen. That's not an insignificant contribution. If more tinfoil hat types would watch Brazil, we could all relax just a bit. It's not a nice world, but it's not that much worse than any world we've ever had.

I think Dave Sims said, in one of his famous misogynists rant, that the key point in communism is that you do a lot of things to prepare society and then *boom*, human nature changes overnight, and you're free. Slashdot type know this as the ??? step. Brazil is about what happens if there is no ???.

I can't wait to see what the similar view of today's "war on terror" is forty years from now. We fear a worldwide network of people who would attack us yearly in horrible ways.... what will we get?

Re:1984 gives people too much credit

[Monkelectric]

You know what, I never really thought about it that way. You are a wise man and I bow to you!

Re:1984 gives people too much credit

[Colazar]

I like the analysis, but I don't think that's where Gilliam was going with the movie. His description of it was that it was a "post-Orwellian look at a pre-Orwellian society". That implies that it is not a look at a failed 1984, but rather a society that is on its way to 1984, but just hasn't gotten there yet.

Whether or not it will ever *actually* get there is where your analysis comes in, and is an open question in the movie. Guess it all depends on how competent those terrorists are.

Re:1984 gives people too much credit

[Anonymous Coward]

quote from Brazil (from memory):

Commentator: The bombing campaign is now in its 13th year.
Gov Official: (laughing/scoffing) Beginners luck!

Re:1984 gives people too much credit

[Anonymous Coward]

1984 was not about how the western world feared communism. Orwell was pro-communism. If you could understand this maybe you could see what is happening NOW. But I guess it is too much to ask.

Re:1984 gives people too much credit

[Anonymous Coward]

Orwell was a socialist; hardly pro-communist. But he did stress the fact that his book was not about communism. The fact that an American thinks that it's about communism says more about the American than it does about the book

Re:1984 gives people too much credit

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, Orwell was obviously going to support a global movement responsible for the inprisonment and execution of many of his friends and respected colleagues. If you actually read some books by Orwell other than '1984' and 'Animal Farm' (yes, he did right other things) - in particular 'Homage to Catalonia' - you may be qualified to some degree to comment on Orwell's personal political affiliations.

Orwell never had a really strong affiliation to any political movement. He was a member of the ILP, travelled to Spain in the 30's to fight against Franco - purely because of his ILP affiliation he was placed with the P.O.U.M. milita, an anarchist workers milita - and spent much of his life living in poverty. Yet his personal opinions (as well as I can discern) were broader than any specific political movement, he was broadly left wing, and defiantly opposed to all forms of totalitarianism but otherwise rather cynical towards any and all political parties (again, to understand where this sprung from one should read Homage to Catalonia). As much as anything he was driven by what he regarded as common human decency.

If you really want to badge Orwell I guess you could call him a cynical, left-wing idealist. He wanted to see a global level of equality but was to cynical to believe it could happen.

1984 was broadly a discussion of the direction Orwell saw the world heading and was based as much on the example of European Fascism and the U.K. as it was Communism. You're right, it was not about the west's fear of Communism, it was a carrier for Orwells distress at the massive use of propaganda (which was fairly new - in such a grand scale - at the time) and representative of his fears about the level of control this could exhibit.

Re:1984 gives people too much credit

[16K Ram Pack]

I don't think human nature changes overnight. In the case of communism, it was partly down to oil price drops in OPEC bankrupting the USSR. It took a number of years to happen, though. Maybe also, there was enough time since WW2 that the Russians had lost some of their paranoia about having states on their borders to protect them.

One thing is that people want to be free. Whether that is where they can buy DVDs from or what books they can read. History teaches us that any restriction will be worked around. Gambling used to be illegal in the UK, and people would just fly or take a boat to France.

Socialists with the idea that you can somehow create a wonderful society through central organisation are just wrong. The free market works best.

Re:1984 gives people too much credit

[Silburn_Luke]

1984 was broadly a discussion of the direction Orwell saw the world heading and was based as much on the example of European Fascism and the U.K. as it was Communism. You're right, it was not about the west's fear of Communism, it was a carrier for Orwells distress at the massive use of propaganda (which was fairly new - in such a grand scale - at the time) and representative of his fears about the level of control this could exhibit.

It is also, fundamentally, an optimistic book - yes, Winston Smith is broken by the Party; but the essay discussing Newspeak in the past tense at the end of the book shows that the oppressive apparatus of Airstrip One - all that 'boot stamping on a human face, forever' stuff from Smith's interrogations in the Ministry of Love - ultimately failed.

Regards Luke

Off topic Mexican food rant

[Verteiron]

Chipotle is tolerable provided you don't go in expecting to eat Mexican food.

I grew up in south Texas* and (like Anonymous Coward) was surrounded by Mexicans and Mexican food. I've since moved north and although I like the climate here a lot better... it is impossible to get anything even resembling Mexican food. People think that beef stir-fried with green peppers makes a fajita, that tacos should be eaten with sour cream, and, yes, that Chipotle serves Mexican food.

They don't.

They are at least a cut above Taco Bell, who have the audacity to state they serve Mexican food yet still think you can get fajitas from shrimp and chicken. Chipotle at least doesn't call their food Mexican. From their website: "a classically trained chef decides to put his unique culinary take on burritos and tacos." So Chipotle serves Mexican-inspired food and calls it that. That at least, doesn't gnaw at my soul the way Taco Bell and its countless local copycat chain-stores do...

The only reasons I ever visit the Rio Grande valley any more are to see old friends and get some -real- fajitas that have been sitting in a mesquite grill for hours...

(*Start in San Antonio. Drive south for about 5 hours. Down there.)

Re:Off topic Mexican food rant

[Otter]

If the word "fajita" even enters into the discussion, you're talking about Tex-Mex, not real Mexican food. Burritos did originate in Mexico, I believe, but most of the country doesn't eat them, and their familiar form is another Tex-Mex creation.

Re:Off topic Mexican food rant

[Verteiron]

Border food, then. As opposed to the Mexican food places around here, which are merely borderline...

A bit off topic but...

[Anonymous Coward]

A really great thing to do is watch War of the Worlds (original) and follow it up with ID4. It is almost uncanny the level in which ID4 is a direct rip off, all dressed up in modern clothes.

Re:A bit off topic but...

[aled]

If I would be a movie, I would be offended of being compared with ID4.

Astrogeologist swingers?

[Anonymous Coward]

>nice looking bodies

Have you ever _been_ to a planetary sciences conference?

If your critera are "Expert on modelling the geodynamics of Europa", and "Looks HOT naked", building the fusion drive and AI will be easy. It's finding the crew that'll be tough...

Sci-Fi isn't about science; it's about "What If?"

[mrchaotica]

Like Psymunn said, "science fiction" isn't the same as "fiction with science." Science Fiction is a story that asks "What if?" Here's some examples: Back to the Future 2 asks "What if someone tried to change the past?" Gattica asks "What if genetic engineering and genetic profiling were commonplace?" Star Trek 4 asks "What are the consequences of our destruction of the environment". The movie has a happy ending, but looming over it is the question "We fixed it [in the movie], but what if we hadn't been able to?"

All of these movies are obviously sci-fi, since they all feature neat-o technology and such. But there are others that I'd call sci-fi that aren't so obvious. For example, about half of Jim Carrey's movies are sci-fi: Liar, Liar asks "What if I couldn't lie?" The Mask asks "What if I lost all of my inhibitions?" Bruce Almighty asks "What if I were God?" -- just like Frankenstein (only different).

Now, as for Star Wars, it doesn't ask "what if." Star Wars is just a classic Greek epic, set in space. It's more similar to The Odyssey (by Homer) than 2001: A Space Odyssey (by Clarke/Kubrick).

Talk amongst yourselves (Sasha remix)

[Anonymous Coward]

I blame it on myself
'cause I can't keep anything out
anything out
however hard I do try

So talk amongst yourselves
while I try to figure it out
figure it out
I'll let you know in my time

And there's nothing to say
'cause I won't go through it
and there's nothing to do
till I put myself up to it

and there's nothing to say
'cause I won't go through it
and there's nothing to do
till I put myself up to it

I blame it on myself since I can't keep anything out.

There are no truths. Don't believe the stories about what the world is. Nobody knows.

Re: Thoses guys

[Oligonicella]

"...according to 60 of the most influential scientists in the world,..."

You mean, the guys that seldom get out?

10 is too few for a meaningful list

[Skjellifetti]

I saw 2001 in the theater when it first came out. For me it ranks first not just as best sci-fi, but as best film ever made. Blade runner would be second. I saw Star Wars while on a weekend pass from US Army Basic Training. Gets my vote as best all round escape from dreary reality.

But then we are stuck with the classic problem of too many things to fit into too few slots. I might have tried to add Metropolis, A Boy And His Dog, the Andromeda Strain, and/or Jurrasic Park in there somewhere. Any one of those beats Close Encounters which I thought was awfully slow and had nothing interesting to say.

Maybe its because....

[Insipid Trunculance]

the movie was absolutely horrendous compared to the book.

Re:Sci-Fi isn't about science; it's about "What If

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I had a light saber and Jedi powers?

"Plan 9 From Outer Space"

[M. Baranczak]

It's bad enough it got passed over at the 1959 Oscars, now this?

Re:"Plan 9 From Outer Space"

[takev]

To be honest, plan 9, does have an interesting premiss.

--- WARNING SPOILER ---

Alien sightings are covert up by the governments (in X-files style fashion) so the aliens make zombies so the population will find out about the aliens, so they can tell us to stop the advancements in weapons that could someday destroy the galaxy.

--- END SPOILER ---

it was just horribly badly acted, designed and directed. Still I enjoy watching these movies and I wouldn't put them in the worst movies of all time category.

Forbidden Planet

[Nova Express]

Forbidden Planet should have replaced The Day the Earth Stood Still on this list. Both are somewhat dated, but I think Forbidden Planet is unquestionably the superior of the two, and also the one that holds up better today. For sheer sense of wonder at the scale, the Krell interiors are still awesome, and for sheer tension the attack of the Monster from the Id (both times) wasn't surpassed in an SF film until the attack on the Death Star.

Is it just me .....

[Insipid Trunculance]

or any of you guys feel that most books are much ,much better than the movies that follow them.

Re:Is it just me .....

[BCW2]

I have never seen a movie that came close to being as good as the book. The best production of a book I have ever seen was Band of Brothers on HBO. You just can't put 10 hours in a theater, but that is what most books would require. I don't care if it's The Godfather or Harry Potter. The time constraint (<3 hours)is where movies lose to the book.

Or maybe Roy is the Hero

[Morgaine]

Well, to be 100% correct Deckard is the Hero:
"The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation".

True enough, in our simplistic "hero always wins" mass media movie form. But in some ways, I consider Roy Batty (the lead replicant played by Rutger Hauer) as the Hero, albeit a tragic one. He dies with honour, accepting death at the end and letting his rival live. And his final "Time to die" is sheer poetry, not the death grunt of the archetypal villian, but truly heroic.

A really great film. :-)

Did you read the book?

[mreed911]

While I enjoyed Contact, the movie, I had read the book many years ago as a teenager and it pretty much drove me into a love for math. The book was so much more precise - something that had they tried to put on screen would have absolutely and completely flopped in today's pop-cinema culture.

Every time I look at a circle I wonder if there's a hidden message in the simple beauty of the shape...

Re:Did you read the book?

[QuantumG]

Wouldn't it be great if we could sit down and shoot some scenes to make Contact the movie like Contact the book?

Oh, and you are aware that some mathematicians tore Carl apart for his "message in pie". It's like the Bible Code, if you look for meaning in randomness you will always find it because it is easy to assign meaning to something that is random (ask Wolfram).

Re:Did you read the book?

[PsiPsiStar]

Every time I look at a circle I wonder if there's a hidden message in the simple beauty of the shape...


You're just asking for a link to Goatse

Re:2001 sucked, NOT

[tommyboyprime]

I saw the movie in its first thetrical release and was simply stunned. I was sitting next to an NYU film student and we both felt the same way. The film was and is a masterpiece of visual art.

Major Omission: Forbidden Planet

[SumoFanAgain]

Certainly better than Solaris at the very least.

Had great special effects for 1956 and quite a bit later.

Good SciFi value with robots, and a pre-cursor at least to Asimov's Laws. And speculative merit in the question of what would happen if you did create each individual as an all powerful being.

And Anne Francis.

Re:Major Omission: Forbidden Planet

[12357bd]

Yes, a major milestone is sci-fi movies, mainly due to:
1- The history is just old plain good sci-fi, and
2- The making is simply fantastic.

And of course, of course... Anne Francis.

Gotta love this movie!.

Re:Major Omission: Forbidden Planet

[marcello_dl]

I completely agree. Its at first place in my personal preference. It is one of the most accurate SF movies ever made (the only out of place thing being the clicking teletype-style "brain" of Robbie the robot). It also has a terrific plot, and what about being the first mainstream movie featuring an all-electronic soundtrack, in 1956? On the other hand, I wonder why the Blade Runner authors thought that genetically engineered beings would need body parts like eyes to be manufactured separately, or why the 2001 authors thought that the human like behaviour of HAL, which was part of the interface to human, could take over the entire system...

Matrix only Number 9?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's one hell of a surprise, but perhaps not. Most of the "scientists" were probably not computer or pharmaceutical scientists.

Science Fiction (SF) is all about holding a story together with interesting characters in a fictional world whose fabric is speculation. It is the "spreadsheet" of literature where the initial cells are fed by chaos. Some of the best SF reflects on the nature of man himself. What if we changed his tools? His body? His mind? His social structure? His world? Does he have limits?

At what point is he no longer Man? At what point are his creations no longer toys? Does he have a soul or is that a pretty good lie that his survival circuits keep whispering to him (and he desperately wants to believe?)

So it's really no suprise that Blade Runner won even if it is an imperfect adaption of Phillip K Dick's "Do Androids Dream...". Dick's mind created more fantastic SF per unit time than practically any other writer.

Considering what a train wreck "The Matrix" trilogy became, it's become very trendy to treat the original with derision. I'm always amazed at the naive comments I heard about the original when it opened and even today. The front page review at the top of USA Today on the Friday after it opened was something like, "marginally interesting SciFi movie with flying Ninjas". Go figure.

Call me crazy, but I believe the original is a masterful SF weave of neomodern philosophy, cybernetics, virtual reality, action and spiritual/political commentary. The most amazing thing is that the original got produced at all.

The truth of the matter is that the Bros Watchowski created a memetic virus wrapped in the bubble gum of an action movie. Ironically when Neo takes the "red pill", we have already taken it.

Upon further inspection this metaphor engine is more akin to a many layered onion. The layer inside the action sequences is about virtual reality. The layer inside that is about Martial Arts. The layer inside that is about belief in oneself. The layer inside that is about self-determination and free-will. Inside that I believe it gets into the nature of reality itself and perhaps Taoist sex magick, but I'm guessing.

In retrospect I think most of the people who grokked The Matrix immediately were either computer geeks or heads (or both ;-). That's an interesting notion all by itself.

Anyway, we should redo the poll here on Slashdot. I say we seriously mod up The Matrix.

Gattaca

[HarveyBirdman]

Good projection of current trends and technologies, a study of how they may affect society and the story of how one man fought back over those adversities. Extremely underrated.

"What's your fucking number?" is still used amongst my circle of friends. :-)

And Soylent Green, which has three of the most chilling scenes ever filmed for an SF film.

Florida Pollsters

[mreed911]

The scientists all voted correctly, but the pollsters were from Florida.

Anyone wanna see Hawking's "dangling chad?"

OT, reply to sig

[PsiPsiStar]

Mathematics is not a crime.

Maybe not, but it can get you 5 -10

Re:OT, reply to sig

[Wes Janson]

Maybe not, but it can get you 5 -10

-5?

Re:OT, reply to sig

[PsiPsiStar]

Very good! .. next we'll try multiplication.

The muddied universe of Sci Fi

[east coast]

Call me a troll or an idiot but it seems like most "sci fi" has little to do with the "sci" part of it. For this reason alone I have to give Contact a big thumbs up in the "sci" part of it all. It's about existing technology and known science and using it as the core of a really great story. With little assumption what happened in Contact can happen today.

What's so "sci" about Alien? I love the film don't get me wrong. But sci-fi? Does that mean if young Reagan was possessed by an alien intelligence in The Exorcist it should qualify as sci-fi too? Perhaps a bit too anal but when we leave the sci out of the formula it's really just a crapshoot with tons of techno babble. The same thing that we've recently disrespected John Dvorak over suddenly becomes fashionable.

Sorry to sound like a total geek but I think we've blurred the lines between sci-fi, horror and fantasy. Stories about spaceships and phasers don't qualify as sci-fi to me. Stories about theoretical science put to use is. Atleast keep things within the known laws of science.

no 1984? no solvent green? no thing?

[GuyFawkes]

FFS

Re:no 1984? no solvent green? no thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

"solvent" green?

Yeah, that shit works great for paint job clean-up!

Love the third

[Daath]

Love the third law! That's why I have a variation of it as my sig :)

Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced!

Pavel Klushantsev

[goon]

Do not forget Pavel Klushantsev . No science fiction list is complete without Planeta Bur or Road to the Stars .

I had the pleasure of watching The Star Dreamer (documentary on Pavel, making science fiction films before in the soviet union) on australian sbs this year. If you can view this documentary or catch a copy of Planet of Storms or Planeta Bur you will be amazed at the Kubric like quality he acheives .... 15 years before Kubric!.

Does anyone get the feeling...

[character_assassin]

that this "survey" of the best science-fiction movies was specifically created to generate a high-postcount Slashdot thread?

Blade Runner Is The Best Sci-Fi Film

[AMNESIACX]

....well, duh.

Re:Sci-Fi isn't about science; it's about "What If

[Chandon Seldon]

The term you're looking for is Speculative Fiction. Science-Fiction is the subset where there's science (but no magic).

Does anyone remember the original release of BR?

[mindKMST]

Well, I for one was a wee baby at the time. I can't say I've never been accused of being a film snob. But I rented the original theatrical cut of Blade Runner from the Blockbuster and it was almost unwatchable. The director's cut is a far superior piece of cinema. Ridley Scott did an excellent job removing just enough of the scenes that make the film look dated and the voice over is no loss.

I'd agree

[carcosa30]

I think that for staying power and sheer thought-provokingness (is that a word?) Blade Runner has to be up there. The central issue of the movie is totally unspoken but it is a constant thread that goes through everything and contrary to Hollywood tradition, is NOT revealed at the end in hamhanded fashion.

Additionally, the movie deals with issues that are far ahead of its time, such as human cloning, organ transplants, environmental despoilation.

Blade Runner is among a very few movies I'd call Cyberpunk.

For sheer enjoyment and excitement at the time, I'd say The Matrix (part I) is up there. But The Matrix is only rehashing issues already digested by countless others. It does pretty well, arguably, at bringing the over-the-top atmosphere of William Gibson to the screen, at least far better than any other movie. I suspect that Matrix isn't going to have staying power; we'll remember it in 20 years but we won't still be pondering it.

At least I won't. :)

Re:I'd agree

[thrash242]

The interesting thing about your Cyberpunk comment (and I agree) is that it's independantly cyberpunk. Cyberpunk didn't really become well-known until a few years after BR. I think the genre started at about the same time. So, while BR is cyberpunk in theme, atmosphere, etc, it was not influenced by cyberpunk (the literary genre).

To me, the Matrix wasn't really cyberpunk at all.

Re:I'd agree

[carcosa30]

I think the matrix is rehashed and massmarketed cyberpunk.

It's cyberpunk in the sense of nested virtual realities, which I think is a fundamental aspect of CP.

I like it that Matrix brought many very subversive ideas into the public mainstream. We need more of that.

Calculating the future.

[HybridJeff]

Heres a quote from the favorite authors link:

In the Foundation series, science and maths were used to predict and plan the development of societies, a device that Mark Brake, professor of science communication at the University of Glamorgan, thinks may be a touch heavy-handed: "We can't even predict a flood in Boscastle, let alone how a society behaves a thousand years in the future."

"I predict that people in the future wont be able to predict the future"

Why Aliens

[uberdave]

Sorry, I just don't understand why the sequel consistently seems to rate higher with the general public..

Because the general public doesn't give a flying flip about any sort of film school artistic classiness. They care about being entertained. They want excitement. They want funny. They want "in your face" quotable lines. They want memorable characters. ALIENS delivers much more entertainment than ALIEN

Re:Gattaca & Forbidden Planet

[efedora]

Gattaca is one of the most underrated SF movies ever made. It's easy to show the distant future (or past) but the near future is much more difficult. Sadly, Gattaca probably got it close to right. Very scary.
The scariest movie I remember was Forbidden Planet. Way ahead of it's time. I saw it recently and it's still scary. Even though the ID monster now reminds me of the Tasmanian Devil.

2001: Best work of art of all time

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just the best movie, the best anything. There has never been and never will be, anything better than 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I can understand how you might not appreciate it fully, since you weren't born then, and don't realize it paved the way for the movies you know about.

On the other hand, 2001: A Space Odyssey was a completely subjective experience. Total shitheads never seem to get it since there's little dialogue, action, explosions, tits, etc. so actually if you didn't like it because you brought nothing to the experience, who gives a fuck?

Mod Up.

[Evil Pete]

Agree 100%. I recently saw "Planet of Storms" and it is magnificent. Too bad it was butchered into that piece of shite called "Planet of Prehistoric Women" or some crap. No look at his stuff and marvel , no CGI here .. but the effects are outstanding. Saw a doco on his life and work recently (perhaps it was "The Star Dreamer", saw it on SBS), a real eye-opener. The way he invented techniques that would be reinvented by Kubrick for 2001 a decade or more later is revealing. Even the excerpt from the doco which shows his work that was a publicity piece for Sputnik shown by Walter Cronkite is amazing.

Bad choice

[Satertek]

Man...Blade Runner was on last night on Spike but I watched Event Horizon on SciFi instead...I'd never seen either, but Event Horizon was OK.

Re:Sci-Fi isn't about science; it's about "What If

[Evil Pete]

When Star Wars first came out Time magazine considered it a modern version of The Wizard of Oz. Think, Tin Man (C3PO), Lion (Wookie) etc etc. Plus a lot of stuff from '40s serials. The last bit was how Lucas himself described it. And I *do* recall that Lucas after SW said that he intended to make nine movies in the series. 3 set 20 years before SW, 2 more sequels and 3 set 20 years later. I sincerely hope he doesn't continue it ... oh the humanity.

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

When Good Slashbots Go Bad - witness the raw power of the mod bomb when good Slashbots go against the company line
Nerds (like Cops) - watch as office managers give chase to pasty shirtless nerds with cheeto cheese in their overgrown beards
The Antisocial Life - 30 mins of intense footage of nerds hiding in their parents' basements all day

#1 work of human art of all time - AKIRA (manga)

[evilmousse]

...possibly the illiad & oddyessy.
but i like akira.

the 6-compendium set is page after page of ultra-detailed cityscapes, and sits a little higher than a foot when stacked end to end. it's an epic operettic masterpeice with strong classic 'noh' theatre themes; unfolding a tail of decay & rebirth, (imho) very accurately depicting different kinds of power struggles as society is broken by cataclysm. The scope of the story is unbeleivably broad and deep, comparable to the massive character development I see in Greek classics. As far as sci-fi goes, I beleive its' most accurate trait is in its' psychology; the science in the story is heavily eastern in nature, which is a pleasing difference from most the sci-fi I know, based in western science.

The movie is pleasing but choppy.. like what would happen if you tried to condense a three-day long norse opera into an hour.

-g

Mr. Tomasi Please Read (Offtopic, Sorry)

[craXORjack]

Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?

Normally I would never reply to a sig but in this case I feel it is important. The water I drink every day comes from my backyard and your sig seems to be encouraging people to pour used motor oil on their lawn to fertilize it. If any of my neighbors were to do this they would not only contaminate their own water supply but the well water of everyone in this neighborhood. One quart of oil can contaminate tens of thousands of gallons in an aquifer or even millions of gallons when spread into a slick on a body of water. And when it is in an aquifer it can take decades to dissipate. Please read some of these links:
http://www.nj.gov/dep/watershedmgt/cleanwaterbook/ waterbook_chp10.htm
http://www.co.miami-dade.fl.us/derm/Tips/you_help_ dispose_oil.asp
http://www.princeton.edu/~njh2o/tips.htm

Pouring oil on the soil can make groundwater unsafe to drink at high concentrations, taste bad at low concentrations, raise your taxes due to government mandated cleanups. Please don't encourage anyone to do that.

Re:Mr. Tomasi Please Read (Offtopic, Sorry)

[wheresdrew]

His sig is from Fight Club. It's on a fake EPA billboard put up as part of Project Mayhem.

Re:Mr. Tomasi Please Read (Offtopic, Sorry)

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. I should have guessed. But I heard a woman at work talking about some guy who recommends fertilizing your garden with all kinds of weird stuff like coffee grounds, eggshells, shampoo, etc. so I thought it was in the same vein.

Re:Major Omission: Forbidden Planet - True

[Nom du Keyboard]

Forbidden Planet would have been on my list as well. Don't know what makes those guys better qualified to pick good SF movies than I am.

i loved that line

[circletimessquare]

"if only you could have seen the things i've seen with your eyes"

when roy is confronting that chinese scientist who made his eyes

great line

Re:Does anyone remember the original release of BR

[BCW2]

Yes, some of us are that old. It's a good movie but I liked 2001 more not that it matters.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink.

It is called Science Fiction

[trolman]

Not wi-fi, not si-fi, it is called Science Fiction.

After you understand the definition then you may enjoy the works.

hmm

[circletimessquare]

Remember Pris, the pleasure model? Of course she's going to look human - would you want to engage in sexual activities with a green bodied replicant? No!

so does that mean my fantasy of having sex with a purple woman with 6 breasts is weird?

Matrix? Close Encounters?

[walterbyrd]

Is it just me? Or does those two really not belong on the list?

Matrix was one of those movies where everything that happened was just an excuse for the effects. There are more gaps in the logic of the plot than I care to remember.

Whoever said 2001 was boring must not have seen Close EncounterzzzZZzz. . . .

Re:Matrix? Close Encounters?

[TheLink]

Actually the Matrix bunch of movies can make sense if you see it as the machines (at least the Oracle) trying to evolve. Why should Morpheus be right that the machines keep humans around for an energy power source?

There's a theory that Neo gets his upgrades from the Oracle via the cookies she feeds him. And Neo may not be as human as other "normal" humans- one of the smiths took over and had a human body.

Smith merges with everyone (humans and machines), the Oracle merges with Smith (and isn't really eliminated), Smith+Oracle merges with Neo (who learns a few things), and then the Oracle's back (and hopefully new and improved :) ).

Re:Matrix? Close Encounters?

[iamcf13]

I like that explanation.

It has balance.

Re:Matrix? Close Encounters?

[TheLink]

Personally I think it's close to what the W brothers had in mind, and the movie isn't as shallow as many people think.

If you were an AI, what would you really need from humans? Food? Energy? Nah. To get to Zion and be free? How free is that? Power for an AI is not energy (there's plenty around given a resourceful AI) - it's life and free choice.

I think at least one AI realized the humans still had a few things that it didn't. e.g. the Matrix still doesn't totally fool all humans, even when humans are given an illusion of choice? Whereas in the Animatrix, when a machine is plugged in to a simulation it doesn't seem to realize it isn't real.

Neo jumping through Smith made Smith freer than he used to be.

And the final Neo really is the One. Oracle + Neo + Everyone.

"I am the Architect. I created the matrix. I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness you remain irrevocably human"

If someone rational believed the Architect, they wouldn't try to save Trinity would they? But Neo still tried AND succeeded despite the odds.

Not sure of the significance that Sati helped make the cookies with the Oracle. But I'm sure the cookies were special. The Oracle eating her own cookies = self programming AI :). The Oracle eating Sati+Oracle cookies = ?

Maybe I'm just reading too much into it. :).

Re:Does anyone remember the original release of BR

[thrash242]

I agree that it doesn't look very dated at all. Most movies make it obvious when they were made. Look at Star Wars and the extra big collars and shaggy haircuts. Blade Runner has aged very well, IMO. It was made in the early 80s, but looks like it could have been made in the 90s or even later. Maybe the 40s influence removes any typical 80s style elements from creeping in, I dunno. The effects were ahead of their time too.

Re:Sci-Fi isn't about science; it's about "What If

[mrchaotica]

Yeah, you're right; I realized that right after I hit "submit."

I guess the dividing line is something like War Games; the only sci-fi technology in it is WOPR's AI. But my point is that what makes it sci-fi is not just that WOPR has AI, but that in the story it's used to illustrate the futility of war.

Highest Grossing Movies List

[SeinJunkie]

Instead of using the standard US list, try using the list adjusted for inflation. It really sheds some light on what people considered a good movie during their time. By that measure, Ford has been in 4 of the top 20 movies of all time:

• 02. Star Wars
• 14. The Empire Strikes Back
• 15. Return of the Jedi
• 18. Raiders of the Lost Ark

Re:Highest Grossing Movies List

[bathmann]

That list is so wrong. Actually it is what people considered a good movie during their time IN THE US. I don't see any other explanation bacause that one strikes me as odd: 26- Shrek 2 (2004) $805 (World BO (M))= $436.5 (Adjusted BO (M)) 39- LOTR: The Return of the King (2003) $1129.2 (World BO (M)) = $377.0 (Adjusted BO (M)) Ok so if it was sorted by total gross worldwide, it would mean that a dollar in 2003 was worth 0,334 constant dollar when a dollar in 2004 was worth 0,541 constant dollar. Or did I miss something?

Re:Highest Grossing Movies List

[kodai6]

Before the end of 1990, Ford was in 6 of the top 10 highest grossing films of all time. Noby else has ever come close to that. This was when all three indy and star wars films were still on the top 10. Batman pushed last crusade off and the rest droped off over time. It's still one hell of a distinction though.

Genetic code? We've got statistics!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

My uncle had to lose some 20lbs so he would get a lower price on his health insurance!

In a way, he is already being punished for having genes that allow him to go overweight (I'm thinking of a skinny friend of mine who never gets fat, no matter how much he eat).

Advanced statistical methods can get very, very close to genetic determinism these days....

top 10 authors

[73chn1nj4]

I was disappointed to read that the top 10 list of sci-fi authors in a recent post neglected to include one of the Grand Masters of Science Fiction, Robert A. Heinlein. He was the author of such books as The Puppet Masters, Time Enough For Love (a personal favorite), his irreverent Job: A Comedy of Justice, and Starship Troopers. Most of Heinlein's works dealt with social models, interspersed with science. In Farnham's Freehold, the main characters are thrown into the future through a rip in the time-space continuum when their bomb shelter is at ground zero, stranding them alone, as the only survivors of their race. In Job, Heinlein looks at the gods themselves in a story of one man who is tested (hence, Job), and eventually sees the apocalypse and the resurrection, though neither is as he expected. Aside from interesting social examination, Heinlein's works are interesting, irreverent, and original.

Re:top 10 authors

[jaklein]

I grew up on Heinlein. I always loved "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". I thought it was a primer on how to run a revolution until I read the Sten Series (Cole and Bunch). Apart from that, when I was a teen I read "Glory Road". That influenced me to take up fencing in High School. Heinlein always started me thinking. As a result, I took a number of Philosophy courses in college. I would say he influenced my life more than any other author.

Aliens

[ewe2]

Glad that Alien got in (that's two for ripley), but if we're going to let in Star Wars sequels then James Cameron's Aliens should have been included, and not for nostalgia reasons.

Not only does it continue the themes mentioned by the list, but also one that often chimes in sf: corporate irresponsibility. It appears to be a Scott favourite too, taking into account Blade Runner. As an extension to the argument "if it can be done, it will be done", first the Company subverts an android to do its bidding, then when that fails, employs the snakiest brownnoser (I still can't watch a rerun of Mad about You without wishing for an alien to crash through the apartment and tear Paul Reiser to pieces).

As a sequel, it's up there with Empires. Never mind that the rest bombed like subsequent Star Wars sequels.

Donnie Darko

[Anonymous Coward]

Gimme "Donnie Darko" over any of this other crap! Utterly brilliant!

Solaris?

[wobblie]

Number 5?

Well I think it's #1, Blade Runner was sexy, but not very smart. Solaris is too slow paced for most folks, I guess, but I'm glad to see this brilliant film in the top 10 at least.

Blade Runner???? Come ON now.

[Mulletproof]

Ok, I'll give it points for concept and visulization, but my God, the acting and excecution of this movie stank to high heaven. I know we're all Gibson freaks and the like here, but am I the only one that thinks this movie is possible one of Harrison Ford's absolute WORST perfomances?? I mean cool AI concept aside, this movie bored me to freakin' tears as it shambled from one scene to the next.

I mean, if we're calling out the best based on concept and SFX (for the day), maybe (and I stress "maybe") this movie qualifies, but there are so many other areas this movie falls down in that it shouldn't even be considered in the top five. Obviously we're considering 'cool sciencey feel' here more than overall content.

IMfuckingO, of course.

Re:Blade Runner???? Come ON now.

[vonFinkelstien]

You mean, "We're all Dick fans (I mean Philip K. Dick fans) here." ;-)

If you were looking for an action movie, you would be disappointed. Blade Runner is a thinking movie. They go at a slower pace and require, um, thinking.

Re:Blade Runner???? Come ON now.

[Mulletproof]

Didn't say I was looking for an action movie, just that most element of it are so poorly executed it's unacceptable. Yes, it made me think about AI, but shouldn't "The Best SciFi Movie of All Time" do more than just be a interesting concept? 6th Day was an interesting/powerful scientific concept on cloning and artifical life too, but you won't see me nominating it for Best of the Best and frankly, niether should Blade Runner on that merit alone.

Screw "Wrath of Khan"

[PCM2]

Well, OK, it was a good movie. But "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" is woefully underrated. And yes I am totally serious.

Re:Sci-Fi isn't about science; it's about "What If

[PsiPsiStar]

What if I had a light saber and Jedi powers? ...and made out with my sister

...but Blade Runner sucked.

[RevAaron]

I know it's not just me- there are others- but I thought Blade Runner sucked. I love Harrison Ford's acting. I love science fiction even more. I enjoy good sci-fi movies.

But Blade Runner was the most disapointing sci-fi movie I've ever seen. More so than the all-too-common sucky sci-fi movie, I expect to suck. Like Starship Troopers. But Blade Runner was supposed to be good- but it seemed like a boring, vaguely uncomfortable movie for me. And I like PKD usually. The handful of friends I watched it agreed, so I know it's just me.

Anyone else agree?

Re:...but Blade Runner sucked.

[-noefordeg-]

"Anyone else agree?"

No, I totally disagree with you. You probably saw the wrong movie.
How anyone can sum up Blade Runner with 'I thought Blade Runner sucked', is beyond me.
Someone could describe StarShip Troopers 2 with 'it totally sucked ass', but not Blade Runner!

Re:...but Blade Runner sucked.

[Saluton_Mondo]

Starship Troopers is a spoof movie -- a parody of its genre! Not to be compared with the likes of Blade Runner

Re:...but Blade Runner sucked.

[fgb]

I a big fan of SF, both written and filmed and I feel the same way. I've tried no less than three times to watch Blade Runner...and fell asleep every single time.

Re:...but Blade Runner sucked.

[RevAaron]

Spoof or not, it sucked. While the book was pure Heinlein. If you're going to spoof sometihng, don't rape a good book in the process.

Re:...but Blade Runner sucked.

[RevAaron]

I've heard before that I should watch the other edition of the film. I don't remember if I watched the Director's Cut or the original, but a lot of people seem to think one or the other is a lot better. So eventually I'll try to watch both again... But it was pretty boring. Cardboard and without much of a point. *shrug* And I'm not someone with ADD who can't pay attention- but it just wasn't my kind of movie.

BUt Starship Troopers 2 is supposed to suck. So I dont' expect much from it, and it does OK considering how much it should suck. Blade Runner on the other hand is supposed to be great- or at least decent- but turned out to be a waste of time.

Re: AI

[robbo]

About AI, see this comment about good sci-fi. Blade Runner tackled anthropomorphism in a way that made you empathize with the replicants and their near-humanness. By contrast, I found myself squirming uncomfortably all through AI. There's something creepy about cute, cuddly robots and the more profound questions that Kubrick and Spielberg wanted to address were overshadowed by this problem. Notwithstanding the pseudo-science behind the uncanny vally, I think AI (and Furby) provides the proof that there's some truth to the theory.

and to celebrate

[WormholeFiend]

I'll go walk around in the rain with my brand new Bright Night Umbrella!

I had been wondering when someone would steal that idea from Blade Runner...

yeah yeah yeah "signs" sucked becouse bla bla bla

[Anonymous Coward]

"I detest the notion that evil aliens with superior technology are going to run around without so much as a shotgun to defend themselves."

But if you really think about it...like for more then a second it would be pretty easy to kick over the pathfinder on mars if you were standing right next to it....i mean why wouldn't "evil aliens with superior technology" use the ideas similar to what NASA used to put pathfinder on mars...ie "fast cheap and out of control"....I mean if the real aliens wanted to grab a bunch of people would they use a huge tank like adat to do it or just thousands of easy made bipedal robots to run around and harvest people...if some failed then so what just grow a new one no shotgun or shotgun training required.

stendec@gmail.com

Don't forget Andy Kaufman's Contribution

[ZipR]

Heartbeeps was classic sci-fi.

Flamewar

[DonniKatz]

Its funny how people talk about the RELIGION VS SCIENTIFIC flamewar... its life, its not like there ie an upcoming DEMOCRATIC VS REPUBLICAN flamewar aka election booya

Re:Sci-Fi isn't about science; it's about "What If

[aled]

Since you don't have the emotional stability required for Jedis you would go berserk, kill all other Jedis and turn to the Dark Side. Oh, and your son will be an ungrateful child that will go for your work position but at the last minute will kill your boss.

actually

[commodoresloat]

it may not be too early to pronounce Battlefield Earth the worst movie of the century.

Logan's Run - Book MUCH better than movie

[The Rizz]

While I'd have to say the movie pretty much sucked.

Too much of the movie felt like a non-sequitir, like the scene with Box (the robot in the ice cave). Most of the rest just felt unrealistic, like a simple logic error in a computer causing an entire city to explode for no aparrent reason. (No, the city was not made of C4.)

The book (written by W. Nolan & G. Johnson), on the other hand, makes much, much more sense.
After reading the book, many things in the movie that seemed like they were added for no reason become much clearer - they are taken from the book, but twisted into nonsensical versions of themselves (such as Box).

THX

[Anonymous Coward]

Where in the crap is THX-1138? Can we say DECADES ahead of its time, both in terms of message and style? A distinct brand of near-future dystopian cyberpunk of the Brave New World Order variety. High tech mental enslavement, the ramifications of current technologies being utilized by an utterly fascist totalitarian techno-bureaucratic corporate state. Masterfully executed, actual DIRECTING in a George Lucas movie, go figure! I sure hope the re-issue doesn't slaughter it, I can see the pure-white "jail" now being a ridiculously complex CG scene... :-(

Re:THX

[gekkotron]

No, but we can say boring, painful to watch, and evidence that Lucas should never be allowed to direct.

Re:THX

[Anonymous Coward]

...evidence that Lucas should never be allowed to direct.

But if he wants to convince Natalie Portman to run around on the big screen in some skin-tight outfit, we'll let him do one or two more?

The effects have never been bettered

[tentimestwenty]

It amazes me when people start oohing and ahhing over the LOTR special effects. Have you not seen Blade Runner? The composites, the props, the seamlessness... I don't think there's been a movie before or since (except 2001 perhaps) that has so concretely rendered a make believe future. Computer generated effects are just toys in comparison that bring more attention to the style than addition to the actual movie. It's like boys playing a man's game. Blade Runner has style and substance that is still being unravelled 20 years later.

Re:The effects have never been bettered

[chimpo13]

You're forgetting Tron. Great special effects.

Off topic part: Pair.com is really pissing me off.

"Ooooohh.... preeeeetty...."

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

That stupid line from that dumb android from Cherry 2000 is somehow stuck in my brain... forever.

I liked the movie. More memorable than a lot of other movies I've seen, in any event, even if it's a silly predictable love story at heart.

Art is beauty of form that inspires thought

[tentimestwenty]

2001 and Blade Runner are both beautifully executed masterpieces. Their form is beautiful, both in their story and their presentation, to a level of perfection that few other films have EVER achieved. Beyond this, their existence is the impetus for a continued informed dialogue on humanity. All great art shares this. Form and beauty first, with the power to inspire secondary thoughts, creation and revelation.

Re:Art is beauty of form that inspires thought

[Anonymous Coward]

If art is beauty of form that inspires thought then Rachel the replicant is ART!

Re:Art is beauty of form that inspires thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretentious jerk.

Missing author.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am pretty dissapointed by the fact that all those sci-fi fans that refer to "Blade Runner", never bother to give credits to the actual writer of the story on which the movie is based: Philip K. Dick.

I am also surprised by the fact that most of those pleople, usually haven't even heard of this man. So, I guess I have to add that Philip K. Dick, is considered as one of the most important sci-fi writers. He is also the writer of the stories on which the movies "Minority Report", "Total Recall", and "Paycheck" have been based.

Wrath of Khan (and others)

[NetSettler]

I don't know why it's marked "funny" that someone would suggest Wrath of Khan belongs here. I put it not only in my list of top 10 scifi pics, but in my list of top-ten best movies ever. It seems to me that it is the movie sequel that pioneered the idea of treating the time between movies as "part of the movie" instead of as "something to be ignored". So while James Bond grows older and we're supposed to ignore the fact, Star Trek did something boldly different: it allowed the characters to age with the actors, and allowed "grown up" thoughts about aging and death from people who used to be carefree young bucks and had off-screen learned what life was. Not to mention being a brilliant idea for a sequel and an outstanding plot.

Also, before The Matrix, I would always prefer to see The Thirteenth Floor, which it seems to me is the same sci-fi concept cast into a much more thoughtful rather than Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark format.

And while I think War of the Worlds was a pivotal book and radio production, I don't think the movie was an especially important work.

And though I thought Star Wars was a fun movie, I have emotional trouble listing it as a great work of scifi. It's pulp. And maybe that entitles it to a spot. There's been tons of pulp scifi (Flash Gordon, etc.) that isn't represented. But there are such amazingly thoughtful pieces that I just don't see giving up a slot to something like this.

Some other overlooked options for this list:

• Slaughterhouse 5
• The Andromeda Strain
• Soylent Green
• Planet of the Apes (the original only--don't even think of seeing the remake, or else be sure you stop watching about 10-15 mins before the end).
• Silent Running
  (Well, I was very moved by it because of the age I was at when it came out. It might not appeal in the same way to a modern audience on a small screen, but...)
• Back to the Future and its sequels (not to mention the Deep Space 9 episode where they Back-to-the-Futured the Star Trek Classic "tribbles" episode).
• The Abyss
  (Also high on my list of all-time most romantic movies just for that scene where Virgil and Lindsey are stuck in the sub together needing to get back to the main habitat.)
• The Forbin Project
  (Perhaps Wargames is also worth a mention in this general category.)
• Total Recall
  (You may also like Vanilla Sky and Paycheck in the same category.)
• 12 Monkeys
  (And if you liked this kind of thing you might also try the more obscure The Lathe of Heaven. I also enjoyed Timecop here, but a lot of people classified that as a simple action flick.)
• Dark City
• Contact

And, ok, they're funny, but they are also still sci-fi and outstanding:

• Demolition Man
• Dark Star
• Galaxyquest

Re:Wrath of Khan (and others)

[Anonymous Coward]

One that I'm seeing missed and forgotten by everyone here, that is, not only pure sci-fi in the exact sense, but a beautfiul movie:

Gattaca

I think the problem is, that it's almost so real, it may not even be considered Sci-Fi, but just Fiction.

Re:Wrath of Khan (and others)

[Anonytroll]

Dark Star

I second that. This movie is special.
That said, Dark City would also be on my list, though I don't know if it is 100% sci-fi.

Re:Wrath of Khan (and others)

[Anonymous Coward]

• Also, before The Matrix, I would always prefer to see The Thirteenth Floor, which it seems to me is the same sci-fi concept cast into a much more thoughtful rather than Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark format.

No mention of eXistenZ?

Re:Wrath of Khan (and others)

[nutshell42]

Ghost in the Shell. I don't want to appear like the lunatic fan who has to bring anime into every discussion but Ghost in the Shell is an outstanding work (both comic and movie).

It has not only many interesting solutions to current problems it's also one of the few sci-fi stories that don't treat cybernetics as a threat to mankind but shows an elaborate future where cybernetics are part of everyday life.

Re:Wrath of Khan (and others)

[NetSettler]

Yes, Gattaca was meant to be on my list, too, but I accidentally left it off. Good catch.

Though one thing I'll say about it was that I initially (and, in retrospect, foolishly) expected it to wake up the world to the dangers of medical information sharing in a world where insurance agencies and others can make such abusive use of info they get. But it did nothing on this level. Too artsy and not-to-the-point, I suppose, for the masses. I thought it made the point well, but I guess everyone is not me.

Enemy of the State turned out to be the movie that made the point about privacy better, not by being sci-fi, but by appealing directly to things people in this day and age can relate to: video games, credit cards, and so on.

I saw a lecture by Asimov once where he talked about how he got hauled in to some government place for writing about "atomic" things, and how they let him go on doing it so it wouldn't be suspicious that they'd made him stop all of a sudden. He said for a while, only scifi buffs understood how the world worked and were allowed to talk about it. I suppose we're a harmless niche. In the same sense, maybe only scifi buffs see other coming problems like privacy as addressed in Gattaca. The rest of the world waits for a 9/11-like experience to wake them up and say "it's here now, you have to care."

Re:Wrath of Khan (and others)

[OmniVector]

if you liked 12 monkeys, you should check out another one of Terry Gilliam's films, "Brazil." It's a retro-futuristic mind game of a movie. One of the best I've ever seen.

Re:Wrath of Khan (and others)

[Anonymous Coward]

Andromeda Strain... oh yes... decades before OUTBREAK, there was AStrain. I was just a kid when I saw that. I loved it. It was the movie that took Mike Crichton from medicine and pushed him to COMA and then JURASSIC PARK. I have to give that a big thumbs up. I particularly like the take on virus mutations, but the stereotyping of photosensitive epilepsy was bad medicine, IMHO.

But not Soylent Green. I had an urge for nostalgia and rented that blower. Whoa! Everyone listen closely... DO NOT rent Logan's Run and Soylent Green because they are NOT what they were when you were 10. I was very disappointed in Soylent Green because it was so low tech and really way off the mark on population problems just at the time that the Green Revolution turned everything around. It is cute, and fun, I admit, but you just can't put it up alongside 2001 or Star Wars in any of its aspects.

Re:Wrath of Khan (and others)

[NetSettler]

Everyone listen closely... DO NOT rent Logan's Run and Soylent Green because they are NOT what they were when you were 10.

I don't think a movie has to have predicted correctly to been a good movie. And anyway, the clash between the haves and the have-nots is just as important message of Soylent Green, even if it doesn't get the direct focus in the movie. And that problem is still with us in spades. The image of the "gated community" and what lies outside is still powerfully on-track. Likewise the issue of the cost of luxury, and how that cost is insurmountable to some and trivial to others. And it makes remarkable statements about the loss of beauty in the "modern" world, that people would die just to get to see good pics of the way the world used to look... Sure, the Soylent part is a little off track, but ignore that as you rewatch and watch all the other things that are not.

I'd make a similar note about how to watch Wargames. Even at the time it came out, people grumbled about the massive errors in technology. The confusion of a 'login name' and a 'password' is an example. And yes, there is a place where an unplugged modem still makes a connection. But the movie is a metaphor for something bigger and if you get caught up on the details, you sound like, well, ... you sound like the Republicans saying that Kerry is wrong in thinking that war is bad just because they can prove Nixon didn't broadcast a speech on a day that Kerry thought he had. Sometimes if you focus too much on the little details, you miss the big picture. (Ok, ok, I'm drifting off topic. But maybe not as much as you think. Scifi is about the art of social critique, and in that way is very closely linked to politics. And in both venues, if you're too much of a nitpicker, you'll miss out. So there, there is a relation.)

Speech, updated from alt.sysadmin.recovery

[devphil]

One of my oldest .sigs is copied from one of the most senior denizens from the Scary Devil Monastery. (I was a member long ago, then I finally, well, recovered.)

I have seen things you lusers would not believe. I've seen Sun monitors on fire off the side of the multimedia lab. I've seen NTU lights glitter in the dark near the Mail Gate. All these things will be lost in time, like the root partition last week. Time to die...

- Peter Gutmann, a.s.r.

(It's a cool sig, so if you use it, give proper attribution, eh, ya plagarizing fucks? Gutmann is someone you don't wanna upset.)

Re:Speech, updated from alt.sysadmin.recovery

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's not the least bit funny.

Re:Speech, updated from alt.sysadmin.recovery

[osvejda]

Also from usenet:

I've seen things you newbies wouldn't believe. Attack-lusers aflame off the shoulder of rec.arts.sf.written. I watched Cancel posts glitter in the ether near the waikato.ac.nz gateway. All those moments will be lost in time - like beers in the rain. Time to unsubscribe.

Re:Speech, updated from alt.sysadmin.recovery

[devphil]

Neither was the original speech. I believe you may have figured something out there. Have a cookie.

no way

[cshark]

Gattica was the best sci-fi film. Far and away. It dealt with science, social commentary, and it was a history lesson, all rolled into one. In my book it's everything a good sci fi movie should be... in a schindler's list kind of way.

Re:no way

[Anonymous Coward]

Paycheck was also good. Certainly one of my favorites.

Re:no way

[cshark]

If you liked Paycheck, you'll love Vanilla Sky.

Akira

[sbszine]

The theatrical release dub of Akira was pretty incoherent, but the new 5.1 dub on the special edition DVD actually makes a lot more sense. The offical subbed version is pretty good too, and there are some decent fansubs floating around.

Akira blew me away when I first saw it. It came out at the theatre at a time when anime in the west (at least in Australia, where I live) was pretty much limited to Astroboy and Kimba the White Lion. I remember sitting in the cinema surrounded by parents with their small children -- the idea of animation for grownups just didn't exist in my area before Akira. (Most of the children started crying and screaming when the dogs were shot early in the film).

At the time, I was really affected by the realism of the opening scenes (the flickering neon light etc), the power of the soundtrack, the dark palette; it was a revelation for me. And the fact that the plot was so difficult just made me want to watch it again and again until I could figure it out.

I guess it was just a matter of being in the righ place at the right time, a witnessing the birth of what for the west was a new medium. Like the other movies on my list, it was a landmark that influenced a lot of subsequent cinema.

Ghost in the Shell I saw later on, on video, and it just seemed like a regular action movie with tits and guns and a tacked on sci-fi plot. I should probably give it another go. I don't watch a huge amount of anime, but when I do I like the longer format stuff like Spirited Away, Patlabor, Grave of the Fireflies etc.

Haven't seen half of them

[Qrlx]

Man, there's no way I have time to watch all ten of these movies.

I want more life, fucker!

special effects

[pizza_milkshake]

the special effects however, primitive as they were, told the story just fine. instead of an hour's worth of special effects with conversations cut-and-pasted in between, older movies have to focus on telling a story, with special effects being just another tool. i like it better that way.

Warning about Dick for first-time readers

[The Rizz]

While I have to agree that Philip K. Dick has written some of the best scifi ever, it is also important to note that he was also quite insane, and as a result many of his stories make little to no sense.

The main thing about PKD is that he wrote large numbers of stories in varying states of lucidity. Many of them work wonderfully, but others either just fall completely flat, or build up to what looks like it will be a profound ending, but rather just leaves you wondering what the hell he was thinking.

If you have never read PKD before, I would suggest you try Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (the basis for Blade Runner).

Re:Warning about Dick for first-time readers

[vonFinkelstien]

From what I've read (10 years ago maybe), PKD was a hypochondriac who thought he was schitzo, but wasn't.

PKD is probably the greatest U.S. author period (sci-fi or other). I put him up there with James Joyce. Joyce was a genius for style. PKD was a genius for questioning the nature of reality.

Another thing you have to think about PKD is that before Blade Runner he was dirt poor. He spewed out pulp fiction to try to pay the bills. All of the lesser novels still contain some interesting ideas. His great novels leave you thinking for a long time (Ubik, The Three Stigmata of ..., Do Androids Dream ..., Man in the High Castle).

PS. I have an MA in English Literature from the University of Toronto.

Re:Warning about Dick for first-time readers

[The Rizz]

Well, then, maybe you can explain to me what the heck the ending of The Three Stigmata of Eldritch Palmer is supposed to mean... that one I've never been able to figure out.

Re:Warning about Dick for first-time readers

[chegosaurus]

The thing tp know about Dick is that his books aren't really Sci-Fi. They're about being fucked up on drugs. Or sometimes about being fucked up without drugs.

He was a wonderful writer and an incredible thinker.

Movie was great.. BOOK SUCKED!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie was great.. it was a true reflection of what you usually get in a science fiction novel.

The book was poorly written and poorly thought out. The part about PI was dumb and simplistic. The movie kept the focus on the seeming conflict between the intellectual vs. the spiritual side of humanity. The whole PI thing devaluates that.

So this is the extremely rare situation in which the movie is actually better.

Re:yeah yeah yeah "signs" sucked becouse bla bla b

[PsiPsiStar]

But the aliens knew they were dealing with intelligent life. They had the forsight to knock out Earth's communications but not bring a weapon? Even NASA, with its puny earthling technology, could do better if it thought it had to. If you care enough to send a 200 lb creature several light years, you can send a 5 pound weapon to go with him.

It's like in Independance Day, Alien technology is so weak it can be destroyed by a simple computer virus.

Create an advanced civilization opponent and then have them be defeated totally by technology which shouldn't be worth anything more than a possible sucker punch.

Aliens who are invading should not have trouble knocking down doors.

I just can't buy it.

don't mention the new Iain M Banks novel

[Anonymous Coward]

"There are several other stories as well: favorite authors, the basics of science fiction, and an excerpt of a new Iain M. Banks novel."

yup if you talk about Iain m banks, even though it is linked in the news post, you will get moded down...so don't try it.

stendec@gmail.com

Re:don't mention the new Iain M Banks novel

[cruachan]

Ah, that's easy. The Culture is a functioning liberterian communist utopia - although calling it 'communist' is probably casting it a bit to far to the right ;-). At any rate, it's hardly a philosophy that is going to go down well with the american-focused /. audience.

However it's a bit of a shame that his new novel isn't a culture one, although if 'Look to Winward' is to go buy it's probably a good thing that he's giving it a rest. IMHO Excession and Use of Weapons were superb, but the grafting on of cyberpunk elements like uploading really didn't sit well with me in LTW when they hadn't been mentioned as available in The Culture before.

Let's also not forget Total Recall

[mozumder]

I put Total Recall right up there with Bladerunner. It's the perfect complement. It's 180 degrees different stylistically, but still, a very coherent existential "what is reality" type of movie to complement Bladerunners "meaning of life" theme..

Re:Let's also not forget Total Recall

[stevey]

That and The Fifth Element are my two comparable films in terms of special effects.

Re:yeah yeah yeah "signs" sucked becouse bla bla b

[Walt Dismal]

Independence Day -- oh yeah -- wasn't that the movie where hackers co-opted alien communications, and sent spam through the universe, and pissed civilizations off enough they came to Earth and blew it up? No wait. Someone put mushrooms in my Red Bull. Never mind.

my picks

[dutky]

Not that I'm disparaging the Guardian's picks (they're pretty good) I'd like to add the following for consideration (and if you're looking to put together a Sci-Fi movie weekend, take notice):

• The Shape of Things to Come (1936) based on the H.G. Wells novel of the same name.
  
• The Man in the White Suit (1951) speculative fiction with Sir Alec "Obi Wan" Guinness.
  
• The Fantastic Planet (1973) Psychadelic animated european sci-fi.
  
• Wizards (1977) Ralph Bakshi, 'nuff said.
  
• The Quiet Earth (1985) freaky end-of-the world stuff.
  
• Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure (1989) <simpsons voice="comic book guy">Best! Time-Travel! Movie! Ever! </simpsons>
  
• Until the End of the World (1991) with William Hurt and Sam Neill, oddly catches the essence of Gibsonian cyberpunk without the punk.
  
• Just about anything by Hayao Miyazaki but especially Laputa: Castle in the Sky (1986) or Nausicaä (of the Valley of the Winds) (1984) (but not the god-awful Warriors of the Wind from 1986).

</self_indulgent_obsessive_list_making>

Re:Gattaca & Forbidden Planet

[12357bd]

Even though the ID monster reminds me of the Tasmanian Devil

Maybe it's the other way round.. :)

Re:yeah yeah yeah "signs" sucked becouse bla bla b

[Anonymous Coward]

"Even NASA, with its puny earthling technology, could do better if it thought it had to."

but the aliens did prevail...they harvested thousands if not millions of people all without the use of 5 pound guns. and why do you think the aliens in the movie are THE ALIENS harvesting people....we don't send people into space to take pictures of saturn why would THE ALIENS send themselves to do something a cheap robot can do. I am repeating myself.

anyway this isn't even a flaw let alone THE flaw of the movie....The major flaw of the movie is why would superior aliens harvest humans anyway?? if they had the ability to travel lightyears couldn't they just make humans and grow them in vats. It strikes me as human centric that for reasons unexpained aliens would have any intrest in us whatsoever....the funny thing about this is that in the movie "ET" the aliens really didn't have any intrest in us...at the start of the movie they are collecting plant samples...:)

anyway what i suspect really bothers you is that you wanted a cool CGI alien human battle with guns and lasers and shit and "signs" just didn't deliver....hey i like aliens and guns and lazers and shit just like the next guy...but that doesn't mean every movie ever made about aliens should be about lasers and guns and shit...

stendec@gmail.com

The Andromeda Strain

[CodeMunch]

Wow, I had yet to meet a fellow geek that had seen The Andromeda Strain. That's a fairly old flick - I first saw it back between 1989 and 1993 while skipping school. I think it was on PBS and I remember dreading to watch this old flick (I had tuned in a little late) with it's old colour, etc... but I was very impressed and it made it on to my favorites list immediately (although I haven't seen it since then).

I would also like to add:

• The Running Man (fun factor)

I know there are dozens of other flicks that need to be up here but alas, i've never had total recall.

Re:The Andromeda Strain

[Standmic]

I had totally forgotten about The Andromeda Strain movie until it was brought up. I remembered the book but had totally forgot that it was made into a movie. This is precisely why it wasn't in the top 10. It did deal with a cool idea, but the movie itself just wasn't that great. There was no "edge of your seat" through the whole movie, the acting didn't particularly stand out in my mind, and it was a very drab set. Cool idea, but weak movie.

A Boy and His Dog

[HornWumpus]

The ending alone should make it number 1 on the list.

Re:A Boy and His Dog

[Anonymous Coward]

I logged in just so I could second this. Ultimate ending, incredible movie. Don Johnson meets Heinlein. What could be better!

Re:A Boy and His Dog

[sh00z]

For those who haven't seen it, the ending.

best lines

[vonFinkelstien]

``I've seen things you people wouldn't believe: attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain... Time to die.''

That scene always moves me.

Re:best lines

[Steve Franklin]

Mamoru Oshii's "Avalon" by a mile. Blade Runner is good but not an all time winner. As for Star Wars, someone doesn't even know what the term Sci Fi means

sci-fi...

[Cryptnotic]

Technology needs to be a plot device that is used to create or resolve conflict in order for it to be sci-fi.

'Silent Running' (1972) is the best SF of all time

[macraig]

Honest. Go rent/buy it and see for yourself. When you then learn who was involved with the movie, you'll understand why. Ridley Scott is an SF cinema wannabe.

Re:Bladerunner w/ or w/o -- DC or original release

[PRFunky]

Well, I think the original release kicks butt over the Director's Cut in all ways except that I prefer the movie ending with the elevator door closing in DC; that is a better ending which leaves the big Que?tion mark to the viewer. Since I'd originally seen the movie on VHS years back before DC and it became MY all-time favorite flick, I'm very comfortable with the narration. The pegasus/unicorn dream sequence isn't long enough to totally annoy me though when I first saw in theater, I was like WTF?! I recently (a week ago!) purchased a copy of DC on VHS as I was sick of trying unsuccessfully to find the original anywhere. Echh, four bucks... So now I noticed the DC doesn't have Roy's thumbs pushing in Eldon's eyes - surprise I missed in theater. I like the blood better than the extended length neck-breaking in DC. The peculiarities of BladeRunner are what still attract me to watching this flick over and over. I've never been able to figure out the math from Bryant:

...six replicants jumped a ship on an off-world colony, a couple of nights ago, they tried breaking into the Tyrell Corporation. One got fried running through an electric fence.

But then he goes to show video of four replicants. It doesn't ever add up. Then there's Bryant's narration to Deckard about the video of the replicants. One minute he's speaking normally, the next, it's like he's some voice-over recording on the video footage itself;

The fourth skin job is Pris, a basic pleasure model...

blah-blah-blah. Oh well, I like Ridley Scott for both BladeRunner and Alien ~ there should never have been a single sequel to Alien, nor Highlander for that matter -- "There can be only one!"

Re:yeah yeah yeah "signs" sucked becouse bla bla b

[PsiPsiStar]

Partly, I'm tired of humans always winning. Gah. Hollywood and all its damn happy endings. Ruins the suspense. They spent a good part of the movie building up how incredible these things were and building them up... and then they weren't. It was cheap on the author's part that a difficult situation was escaped from too easily.

Predator, at least, fought like a marine against superior numbers, and when he was defeated, he was defeated by tactics worthy of his abilities. Spacefaring aliens should be either friendly or formidable.

As far as why aliens would want people...
I could make up reasons for that. Perhaps DNA is valuable for some purpose and easier to harvest than to develop. Maybe it's for normal research or historical or taxonomical purposes and they need a sampling of memories. Maybe it's for the development of some kind of bio-weapon, a defense against some incredible offense that civilizations eventually develop and they didn't want to render a perfectly good planet uninhabitable by killing off the dumber wildlife and foliage.

Maybe they were looking for Elvis...

One must ask...

[DMUTPeregrine]

Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?

Re:yeah yeah yeah "signs" sucked becouse bla bla b

[Anonymous Coward]

"Partly, I'm tired of humans always winning. Gah. Hollywood and all its damn happy endings."

I am starting to suspect that you haven't even seen the movie "signs". Millions of people die and or are abducted...how is that a happy ending?

Or is it just you wanted mel gibbson to die??? Which i admit i would have probably have enjoyed watching as well :)

stendec@gmail.com

Re:A film without (...): Roy not a villain

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we haven't forgotten that. You have to remember that Tyrell was responsible for Roy's (and his friends') enslavement, he created them slaves, and what's more, he was personally responsible for their early deaths. When Tyrell tells Roy "You were made as well as we could make you", he lies, because Bryant earlier told Deckard "they built in a fail-safe device", "four-year life span". So look at this from Roy's viewpoint: your "father" sold you as slave, and makes you die four years later. And he does this not only to you, but to hundreds/thousands other "brothers" of yours. So in Roy's opinion (and mine too), Tyrell's the villain, and the fact that Roy is killing a villain doesn't make him a villain.

As for Roy chasing Deckard, he's not doing it just for sport. Remember what he's saying during the chase ?, "Four, five, how to stay alive!". The whole chase is a lesson to Deckard, he learns what's it like to be a replicant: hunted for wanting to be free, and living in fear. When Deckard strikes Roy in the head with that pipe, Roy shouts happily "yeah!, that's the spirit!", i.e. because Deckard is acting like a hunted replicant, kill or be killed. At the end of the chase, he tells Deckard "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?". He forced him to empathize with replicants. Not to mention that he saves Deckard's life in the end, because at that moment, when he was about to die, he loved life. Hardly a villain.

Sean Young

[nih]

probably the most remarkable thing about blade runner is Sean Young putting in a good performance for once
is there any other film she has been in where she does what she was paid to do, as in act?

Re:Or maybe Roy is the Hero

[bobintetley]

A great speech - If you watch the making of on the DVD edition, they mention that the speech wasn't scripted and Rutger Hauer ad-libbed it on the spot.

It is

[Corson]

Blade Runner _is_ the best movie I have ever watched. It's such a masterpiece that I watch the DVD again and again. Too bad the original version is no longer available. IMHO, Ridley Scott was wrong in releasing the Director's Cut w/o the voiceovers; it's the voiceovers that tell you that Deckard is a human tormented over whether or not he should "retire" (read: execute) human beings, however artificially created. His questions at the end make a lot more sense in this context. This movie is a classic, like Casablanca and Gone With the Wind, albeit in the film noir/sci-fi genre. Scott is perfectly aware of it's value and impact, that's why he has always refused to do a sequel. Run a Google search on "Off-world: 2019" for more info on the BR world.

Re:Or maybe Roy is the Hero

[Daetrin]

No, unambiguously true according to the particular definition that was quoted. We spend the most time following Deckard, so he is the hero, morality doesn't play into at all. Roy Batty may or may not have been acting "heroic," but _that_ analysis is based on a moral interpretation of what a hero is/means.

Admitedly almost no one uses that particular definition of hero anymore, protagonist currently covers that definition, but since the AC specified the definition being used they're completly correct. Of course it was presumably meant as a nitpicky joke, so it's silly to waste time dissecting it as much as we are :)

Science Fiction definition

[makkverk]

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction "The term [Science Fiction] is more generally used to refer to any literary fantasy that includes a scientific factor as an essential orienting component, and even more generally used to refer to any fantasy at all."

Science fiction does noe have to be scientifically accurate. Star Wars can easily be considered science fiction.

Never had a story i could as confidently skip

[anothy]

Slashdot: "Blade Runner Is The Best Sci-Fi Film"

Me: "Well, duh. Next topic, please? No need to R this FA."

What does Raleigh Theodore Sakers say about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lemme tell you where you're at mother fuckers. You bought a fuckin ticket and came in here, and you thought you were gonna see a science fiction movie. Well, I'll tell you what you're gonna be, you're gonna BE a science fiction movie. It's called "science friction".

For those of you who have no idea who I'm talking about, look for a ~30min MP3 on your favorite P2P network.

And I was despairing that I was the only one...

[jvonk]

...to notice that.

Here is my interpretation: 6 total replicants. 4 replicants shown, 1 fried, and 1 "other". Deckard, was not "just" a replicant, he was the sixth replicant from the crew.

The theory is consistent and explains some otherwise non sequitirs in the DC. The line of reasoning is that Deckard was imprinted with memory engrams (like we saw in Rachel). It gives a reason for the unicorn scene and implication that he is known as a replicant to the department. More telling is how the four replicants react to seeing and interacting with Deckard.

Next time, watch the film while bearing in mind this postulate... the replicants are reacting to one of their comrades--who has no recollection of them--who is intent to kill them. The flickers of sadness in Batty's face, Batty's reluctance to kill Deckard, and visceral feeling of betrayal Batty communicates is almost tangible.

Anyway, it also explains how each of the four recognized Deckard on sight, even before he pulled his gun.

Re:And I was despairing that I was the only one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Originally there was to be another replicant - an idealised 1950's American housewife. She got cut fromt the film, but Bryant's dialogue wasn't changed to account for this. Check out www.brmovie.com for all the info.

Re:And I was despairing that I was the only one...

[Fishstick]

>Deckard, was not "just" a replicant, he was the sixth replicant from the crew.

Except Deckard did not show up on earth "a couple of nights ago"..

six replicants jumped a ship on an off-world colony, a couple of nights ago

I have to go back and watch it again this weekend, but I got the impression Decker had been around in this job on earth for a long time.

Re:And I was despairing that I was the only one...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you are correct. Bryant and the other Blade Runner (whose name eludes me now) are clearly old aquaintences of Deckard. The guy in the sushi bar seems to recognise him, it seems to be a regular hang out for Deckard.

Great

[duncangough]

alhtough it's not the most in depth study ever.
Teh Gruaniad just seem to have hassled the usual suspects at UCL for some opinons to back up their article in the wake if I, Robot being released over here.

starship troopers anyone?

[marvinalone]

I'm not surprised that Starship Troopers didn't make it to the list, as it seems to be trash-scifi of the worst kind. However, I happened to see it just days after I had seen "All Quiet on the Western Front", which shed quite a different light on it. It is probably totally unintentional by the writers and producers of the movie, but this way it seemed to exclaim that humanity will never change, no matter the technological achievements. It's imagery and way of telling the story is so incredible trite that you might think it's a parody of both war movies and real wars, real human behavior.
I was watching it with a friend at the time, and we actually discussed this halfway through the movie (i.e., without knowing the ending) and were not quite sure if this was the intention of the film.

Re:starship troopers anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you may want to google for "director Paul Verhoeven" at this point.

One explanation of many

[Anonymous Coward]

Invisible interference with the apes. This really needs a lot of work to be anything near reasonable, but it is closest to having an explanation. DNA sample on touch, subsequent EM manipulation of subject DNA.

One of the great things about Kubrick is that he doesn't spoon-feed it to you. In "2001", especially.

I figured the most likely scenario is that the monoliths didn't really do anything magic at all. Simply seeing something so perfectly formed was enough to jar the apes into thinking about what else was possible.

Kind of like somebody coming to your door and showing you all the cool things he can do with his anti-gravity machine: you don't know how to make it, or even where to start, but now that you know it's *possible*...

Similarly, to me the apes had some sort of "ohmygod, what the hell is that?" moment ... out of this realization came the idea to make tools.

Of course, since he doesn't ever say, you're welcome to speculate that it involved some "EM manipulation of subject DNA".

The Wrapping

[Abaci]

The problem with 2001 and the reason why I believe Blade Runner is superior is because of how the information is presented.

The first viewing of 2001 for just about everyone tends to be somewhat confusing. For me it took me a few years before I even bothered to watch it again and it wasnt that much better.

However, when I studied the book along side the film for my degree it certainly opened up far more understanding and debate. After gaining the insight of the book I could look at the film and see how it portrayed things. Rather than stifiling the movie by reading the less ambiguous book it provided a basis to look at all of the different interperetations you could make in comparison. Without this though I doubt I would consider 2001 any more than arty trash.

It is because of the fact that so many people need this starting point to get in to the film, because after chatting with others on my course I am definatly not alone on this one, that I couldnt rate it as the top film. Blade Runner, a film I have come to love without any help at all, is simply a greater complete package of a film. It appeals on every level from brainless action to deep thoughts about existence itself that easily rivals 2001.

Re:Sci-Fi isn't about science; it's about "What If

[EpsCylonB]

3 set 20 years before SW, 2 more sequels and 3 set 20 years later.

So he could in fact use ford and hamil as they are now...

complex movie != complex plot

[wrinkledshirt]

Except that 2001 does indeed have a plot. A rather complex plot at that.

Technically, while I disagree with the parent's idea that a plotless movie is necessarily bad, your contention that 2001 has a complex plot is incorrect. I think you're confusing the sophistication of the metaphors, themes, and ideas of 2001 with 2001's plot itself, which is pretty simple.

The plot of a story is synonymous with the story's plan. Here's the basic plot of 2001...

Dawn of Man
1. Monkeys get beaten up by other Monkeys.
2. Monkeys from beaten-up tribe find and fondle the monolith.
3. Monkey from beaten-up tribe discovers a possible use for a bone as a weapon.
4. Monkeys with bones beat up the Monkeys without the bones.

The Lunar Journey (forget the actual name of this section...)
1. Scientist goes to orbital moon base.
2. Scientist has discussion with Russians, who ask about a possible outbreak. Scientist stonewalls Russians.
3. Scientist meets his team, thanks them for understanding the inconvenience of the outbreak story.
4. Scientist and team go to monolith. Scientist fondles monolith, monolith sends out signal to Jupiter.

Jupiter Mission, 18 Months Later
1. Astronauts hang out with HAL.
2. One astronaut sees through HAL's masqueraded psych evaluation.
3. HAL announces a communication unit is going to have a failure. Astronaut checks it out, they can't find anything wrong with it.
4. Astronauts have a secret pow-wow and talk about the possibility of having to shut HAL down. HAL lipreads.
5. When they try to replace the unit, HAL takes over the pod and kills one Astronaut. Second Astronaut goes to rescue, gets the body, but HAL locks him out of the pod bay. Astronaut returns into the ship via an emergency entrance, does a little zero-gravity gymnastics to survive in the airlock.
6. Astronaut shuts HAL down, and learns about the ship's secret mission.

Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite
1. Astronaut reaches Jupiter, he sees monolith (monoliths?), things go a little koo-koo.
2. Astronaut goes through an accelerated evolutionary stage, grows old in the chamber, dies, is reborn and is in what is assumed to be a new evolutionary state for man.
3. Astronaut-turned-foetus returns to Earth for mysterious purpose.

That's not much of a plot -- especially for such a long movie. Don't get me wrong, I love 2001, but saying it's got a complex plot is like saying Blade Runner stars Tom Cruise -- it's just incorrect.

Even the Harry Potter movies have a more complicated plot than 2001 did. If you really want to blow your mind, try breaking down the plot of Miller's Crossing.

Re:complex movie != complex plot

[Yaztromo]

That's not much of a plot -- especially for such a long movie.

Except what you provided isn't really a plot, but synopsis.

Plot == "Here are the ideas and themes that the movie is about"

Synopsis == "Here is a list of stufff that happens in the movie".

2001 does indeed have a complex plot -- which is why most people don't get it. They get hung up on the bits of story, never puting them together to understand the central ideas and themes.

Yaz.

Re:complex movie != complex plot

[wrinkledshirt]

Except what you provided isn't really a plot, but synopsis.

No, it's a plot. Your definition of plot on its own is inadequate. For one, 'plot' and 'synopsis' are not necessarily mutually exclusive terms. For another, ideas and themes, put together in a narrative, don't constitute a plot. A plot requires causally-related events, and the plot summary I gave lists all the events that propel the story forward. There are other scenes that give more meaning to the film -- the daily life of the monkeys, the astronaut playing chess with HAL, or the scientist phoning his daughter from the orbital station. These all have their importance in the film, but they don't contribute to the central plot, because they lack causality.

The complexities of 2001 are not from its plot, but from the underlying ideas at work. The plot is simple, the difficult part is extrapolating the meaning from the events shown.

You might want to google up a few definitions of plot in fiction. If you can find one that corresponds to your own definition more than mine, I'd be willing to read it and respond. For now, though, here's the most readily available adequate definition I can find:

Plot is the structure of events within a story and the causal relationship between them. There is no plot without causality.

2001 does indeed have a complex plot -- which is why most people don't get it. They get hung up on the bits of story, never puting them together to understand the central ideas and themes.

I agree with the second sentence here but not the first. See above.

The Day the Earth Caught Fire

[b4rtm4n]

Day the Earth Caught Fire

Excellent film, done without effects but good plotting, characters and acting.

FWIW my top 10 sci-fi films in no particular order.

Day the Earth Caught Fire
Forbidden Planet
Day the Earth Stood Still
Gattaca
Blade Runner
Ghost in the Shell
Alien
Aliens
Starship Troopers
Terminator

And just missing the top 10 is Alien v Predator.

Yep - though it did win the Hugo that year

[alispguru]

I was at the award ceremony, and Ridley Scott was there to accept the Hugo. He thanked the crowd, and said something to the effect of "you people were the only ones who went to see it, though".

Book vs. Plot

[iive]

And if well is the author behind Blade Runner, the article don't even names P.K.Dick, that have a bunch of really good sci-fi movies based on his books and tales, maybe him alone should have most top ranked movies in their selection.

Have you read "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?". This is the book supposed to be the source of "Blade Runner" plot.
I actually read it long after I watched the movie. And supprice, there is nothing in common. Actually the idea and the story of the book are RIGHT OPPOSITE of ones in the movie.
In the actual book the androids don't value life. They are cold like mass murders. They can kill the last living sheep, just for revenge. This is why they fail on the test. This is the whole point...

Ooh, who cares...

How to get expelled from /.

[ynotds]

It's prolly safer I mention the authors list first which started out pleasantly nostalgic (Asimov, Wyndham) but took to number 9 to produce anybody (Herbert) who rated near as high on my list:

Frank Herbert
David Zindell
Douglas Adams
William Gibson
Isaac Asimov
Robert Heinlein
Larry Niven
Greg Egan
Vernor Vinge
John Wyndham

I'm also first to admit that my taste in movies seems to be on another dimension from everybody else's, but I have to confess having already voluntarily watched Episode II at least as many times as I've watched any other movie, possibly equalled by Koyaanisqatsi and a movie staring Wil Wheaton, though I neither keep such records nor watch all that many movies.

Books tell most stories better.

You bastards! what about.. TRON

[Nikkodemus]

best.ever.movie. TRON.

Re:You bastards! what about.. TRON

[azadrozny]

Yea, but then I saw this guy and it ruined the whole thing for me :)
http://www.ibiblio.org/jmaynard/TRONcostume/

For Our European (Metric Using) Friends

[spineboy]

Thats Celcius 210.5556 for those who didn't know the conversion....

Nagoya, Japan

[MediumFormat]

As I was riding from the airport to downtown Nagoya all I could think was that I was in the movie Blade Runner. After talking to some other teachers that were living in Japan as well I noticed some felt the exact same way. Obviously the Asian influence in the Blade Runner set is significant. But that first evening, that first ride through a city where I could read nothing at all.... a very cool, yet odd, Blade Runner feeling.

Re:'Silent Running' (1972) is the best SF of all t

[east coast]

When you then learn who was involved with the movie

For those too busy or cheap to rent/buy/watch Silent Running go HERE! While I do agree it's one of the best sci-fi films of all times it's also pretty dated and depressing. It really holds well to the sci-fi ethic.

Things to Come (1936)

[ishmalius]

I find it hard to believe that this was not mentioned. Well, maybe I can believe it, as the authors of the list seem to have limited knowledge of the genre.

But Things to Come (or otherwise called The Shape of things to Come ) was so incredibly advanced for its time. The special effects are awesome, and the story, though thick with science and sociology, is very entertaining.

And let's not forget Transatlantic Tunnel (1935) , also known as The Tunnel. This has a lot of prewar propaganda, but is still an excellent story.

I love films like these, which were produced just before the burst of 20th century technology occurred. SciFi was so full of anticipation of the future and its bright promise.

I also love seeing the anticipation of technology and knowledge with which we are accustomed today. It doesn't bother me when they get the prediction wrong. And I do not see their predictions as old fashioned or silly at all; they were just as valid as are our anticipations of the events which will happen in the near future.

One of my favorite things in old SciFi movies, is when the Earth is depicted from above, when nobody on Earth knew what that looked like. It is usually depicted as more brownish than it really is, with fewer clouds. I have seen no movies pre-1960 that come close to the "blue marble" we are so familiar with today.

Brazil

[Scratch-O-Matic]

Their Top 10 seems pretty good. I'd put Brazil in the Top 15.

Great Movie

[wiredog]

I was in the US Army when that came out and I knew every one of the people in that military outfit. The hardcore 1st. Sgt., the loud guy who lost it under pressure, the quiet guy who never lost it, the gunners, all of them.

Re:Great Movie

[TheLink]

How about Predator?

More governors and politician wannabes in one movie than any other I've watched :).

The Fountains of Paradise

[wiredog]

One of the best hard sf books ever, with a great ending.

2001's greatness...

[Scipius]

...is best demonstrated by the fact that though made by an atheist and an agnostic, it is one of the Pope's favourite films.

Either something went horribly wrong or Clarke/Kubrick did something exactly right...

I liked the voice over

[wiredog]

gives it more of a 40's noirish feel. I also like the director's cut. They really are two different movies.

CE3K

[Galley_SimRacer]

Close Encounters is the true number one Sci-Fi flick.

Yes, Star Wars is Science Fiction

[fmaxwell]

I do have to agree with many other posts I've seen so far in that Star Wars is NOT science fiction. Yes, it takes place in space and makes heavy use of advanced technologies to foster it's appeal, but I've never felt Star Wars to be at all based on reality.

Star Wars is very much science fiction, in the same vein as the original Star Trek. Science fiction does not have to be about science and speculative technology. It simply has to employ it. Gene Roddenberry made a keen observation: In old westerns, the cowboys didn't pull out their guns and then explain how the firing pin struck the bullet, etc. They used them. And that's how he used technology in Trek. Phasers just worked (differently each time though, sometimes making the target vaporize, sometimes making burning a hole through the target, and sometimes rendering the target unconscious with no burning at all). Star Wars did the same thing. It told a compelling story set in an alien landscape using technology as a backdrop.

Re:Yes, Star Wars is Science Fiction

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what the GP was getting at is that Star Wars is more space opera than hard science fiction - nitpicking, yes, but we are where we are. Gene Roddenberry's observations aside, the characters in Star Trek often spent quite some time explaining technical and technological aspects when it furthured the plot - even if it was limited to things like "Hey Bones, why don't you, me, Spock, and yeoman Target in the red shirt beam down to the planet and see if we can find some dilythium crystals so Scotty can get us out of here?". I'm not saying that every episode was about that, but it did happen - and often enough.

In (the original) Star Wars, on the other hand, technology is incidental to story. Sure, it's a galactic evil empire. Sure, there are space ships and droids and all that stuff. Fundamentally, however, it's a movie about good and evil fighting out an epic battle... an Opera that just happens to be set in Space, if you will.

Re:Yes, Star Wars is Science Fiction

[fmaxwell]

I think what the GP was getting at is that Star Wars is more space opera than hard science fiction - nitpicking, yes, but we are where we are. Gene Roddenberry's observations aside, the characters in Star Trek often spent quite some time explaining technical and technological aspects when it furthured the plot - even if it was limited to things like "Hey Bones, why don't you, me, Spock, and yeoman Target in the red shirt beam down to the planet and see if we can find some dilythium crystals so Scotty can get us out of here?"

But look back at the original Star Wars and the technical musings in that:

"You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon? It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs." (groan)

"If the Rebels have obtained a complete technical reading of this station, it is possible, however unlikely, they might find a weakness and exploit it."

"We count 30 rebel ships, lord Vader, but they are so small they're evading our turbo lasers."

"Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer."

etc.

They talk about droids, explain light sabers, and so on.

I still see them as having a lot of similarities.

SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT STAR WARS STAR TREK

[Jakhel]

Read it and weep trekkies!!!
VIVA LA REVOLUTION!! VIVA LA FORCE!!

Luke: "What is it master?"

Obi Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of trekkies suddenly
cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced"

Luke: "0wn3d"

Rendevous with Rama

[DrMorpheus]

Actually they resemble Authur C. Clarke's "Biots" (or, "Biological Robots) from his novel, Rendevous with Rama.

But do Electric Sheep...

[DrMorpheus]

...dream of Android Scotsman?

It was taken from another SF novel

[DrMorpheus]

Written by Alan E. Nourse. I read it when I was in High School. The original novel, Blade Runner was set in a dystopia where doctors were outlawed and so someone who supplied illegal doctors with their scapels and other instruments were called, "blade runners".

A take on the phrase, "rum runner" when alcohol was illegal.

What about Tron?

[l4m3z0r]

Now Tron completely leaves any resemblance of possibility behind and uses Sci-Fi to explore religion, creation and the meaning of life. Its probably the most philosophically deep work of science fiction IMO. I say that because there are aspects for you to consider both on the surface and buried within the fabric of the film. As far as I'm concerned it makes the Matrix seem infantile when it comes to questioning our perception of reality.

The nay-sayers will probably talk about how unrealistic it was but I wasn't aware science fiction had to be even close to reality. If you can't invoke your imagination go read the encyclopedia(if you want that in film form, perhaps I'll film myself reading it for you :)).

At the very least Tron is the best movie that explores computer science. Its portrayal of computer systems and programmers while definitely cheesy has some incredibly long lasting and far reaching influence in the films made since then.

War of the worlds

[miller701]

And while I think War of the Worlds was a pivotal book and radio production, I don't think the movie was an especially important work.

The radio broadcast wasn't heard by that many people, as I recall it was up against a much more popular show. The publicity afterwards sure did a lot to enhance Orson Welles' career.

In '53 there was the whole "Red Scare" thing and a lot of GIs who had seen the real effects of war. People were used to seeing the newsreels and the thought of a small unit of technologically advanced invaders taking out entire towns must have certainly terrified the mind set of the time.

I like to think of it as a horror film.

Re:War of the worlds

[NetSettler]

The radio broadcast wasn't heard by that many people, as I recall it was up against a much more popular show. The publicity afterwards sure did a lot to enhance Orson Welles' career.

Whether heard by many or not, people killed themselves thinking the radio show was real, and prefering to die at their own hands than at the Martians', it was that vivid and believable. The movie had no such effect.

Spacehunter

[s0rted]

Can't argue with the list apart from 2001 of course. As a replacement I suggest something a little less pompous: Spacehunter, Adventures in the Forbidden Zone (in 3-D) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086346/

Off to the Carosel with you!

[Tangurena]

Everyone old enough to have seen Logans Run should have been renewed on carosel already.

My (fuzzy and faded) memory of the series was that the events in it took place after the ending of the movie, but I don't think I have seen an episode of the series in something like 20 years.

Say... isn't the gem on your hand blinking? Off to carosel with you!

"I'd buy that for a dollar"

[RoboOp]

Robocop. Probably one of the better cyberpunk movies ever made. Dark comedy, but lighter than Brazil.

It's probably not considered real sci-fi because it
1. Does not mention space
2. Focuses on the effects of Corporations on Humanity.

Boston's MBTA

[Hoi Polloi]

The MBTA in Boston late at night is more like Mad Max.

Contant Freaked Me Out!

[jetkust]

I watch a lot of horror movies which simply don't bother me. But i remember being totally horrified while watching the wormhole sequence in Contact, in the theater. Probably the most supsence any movie has put me in ever. But maybe it was just me.

Cool! Semi-objective reviews, at last!

[WWWWolf]

So now there's an authoritatively chosen scientific constant that measures the quality of science fiction movies. Let's call it B.

Now the quality q of all movies can be expressed as q = xB. Of course, unlike all absolute constants like c which by most definitions can't be surpassed, the quality can be x > 1.0 if it needs to be, because movie quality is always subjective but everyone agrees that Blade Runner rocks. Thus, I can easily say that, for example, "The Matrix" is approximately 2.0 * B but "Plan 9 from Outer Space" was only 0.75 * B iff you like bad movies.

I hereby propose that we devise similar qualification system for video games, using The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (quality of which is Z, quality of a video game expressed thus as q = xZ) as basis.

Best movie? Two words: "Forbidden Planet"

[The_REAL_DZA]

It's got all the essentials we've come to expect from SF:

1. Space travel
2. Robots
3. Lost civilizations
4. Danger & intrigue
5. Time travel "...We've broken the time barrier!"

Plus, it has the distinction of being the very first science fiction movie with a nude scene! (Huh? Whassat? Nude? In 1956?!?!?! Ok, ok, it's simulated nudity...and, to our eyes, not all that well-simulated...but for 1950's-era audiences it was a real SHOCKER!!)

From it's Shakespearean roots to the "Id monster" to a damsel-in-distress named (of all things) "Altaira" (computer geeks everywhere ought to recognize at least part of that name...) it's a veritable SciFi onion of delights; peel away one layer and there's a brand new one all ready to enjoy!!

And, if that one didn't "strike your fancy", I've got three more words for you:

Klaatu borada nikto

So there.

Re:Or maybe Roy is the Hero

[GMill]

No, the right word is protagonist, not hero.

Star Wars?

[PriceIke]

All this conversation about Blade Runner and 2001 is awesome, but there were two other movies listed in the article summary. Neither of these movies are science fiction. They're war/fantasy movies. You can tell almost the exact same story as Star Wars or Empire in pretty much any setting you want, in any time period, even Middle Earth if you wanted. There is no "what-if", no cautionery message, no exploration of technology (what can this thing do) or ideas (what would happen if) evident in any of the Star Wars films.

Just because something happens in space doesn't make it science fiction.

Captain Christopher Pike might disagree with you

[DrMorpheus]

would you want to engage in sexual activities with a green bodied replicant?

If they were green women from Rigel 7, then yes!

Miller's Crossing!

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

Hot DAMN I loved that movie (Miller's Crossing). The dialogue is for the most part flawless, the acting superb, some well directed scenes... but I don't think it's overly complex from a plot point of view. Several one-paragraph summaries over at IMDB.

Basically there's an Irish and an Italian gang in this 1930's setting. A crooked bookie is cheating the Italians, and they want to kill him. The Irish gang leader refuses, because he is in love with the bookie's sister. Gang war ensues. The lack of plot complexity is more than made up for in the character complexity of Tom (Gabriel Byrne) -- does he love The Irish boss's girl? Is he still loyal to the Irish boss, even after he's thrown out of the gang for fooling around with the boss's girl? Why doesn't he kill Bernie? The Whys and Hows (not plot) far overwhelm the Whats and Whens (the plot) in this film.

Re:Miller's Crossing!

[Frizzle Fry]

Ok, just added it to my queue. Thanks.

So all the sociopaths get killed too

[DrMorpheus]

And the problem with this is?

Editor's cuts

[Newton Heath]

I used think myself somewhat out of sorts for thinking that the original version of Bladerunner (with voice over) was my personal favourite over the directors cut, and I'm sure many would disagree with me. But thinking about it again, many have the same opinion of Star Wars etc.

Argh, no please!

[jotaeleemeese]

Don't quote as great movies the ones you just remember from the last 2 or 3 years.

You are ignorant of more than one hundred years of cinema.

Re:Argh, no please!

[Khomar]

Then please enlighten me. I am well aware that there are far more movies dating back into the early previous century that were good Sci-Fi (perhaps the original Frankenstein, The Time Machine, and Planet of the Apes). However, as I said in my post, these were all I could remember at the time of posting, and I knew I was missing a whole slew of other films. The three I mentioned I thought were quite interesting Sci-Fi films -- good enough to be on a list. It was certainly not my intention to snub the fine films that have come before.

Please share some of your favorite Sci-Fi's.

Just 2 Words::

[Bigman]

Daryl Hannah.

*Drool*

2001 made me cry

[peter303]

When I first saw it in 1968 as a starry-eyed youngster most of us believed that it was basically possible- except for the aliens and super-smart computer. The moon-landing program was on schedule, except for the fire accident. That appeared to be the first step of a long and glorious space program.

Then everything petered out in the 1970s. Vietnam and the energy crises sapped the national will and bankroll. The last two Apollos were scrapped and reused for joint Russian space exercises. NASA never focused on the strong manned goal since. And then when the year 2001 actually came I cried in sadness.

Re:2001 made me cry

[chudmung]

I know exactly what you mean... I too watched (the year) 2001 come and go without any of the things I dreamed about coming true.
It was exactly opposite of what clarke/kubrick envisioned. Exploration was viewed as a fruitless pursuit while development of "Bunker-Busters" was hailed as a breakthrough.

On the positive side of reality not matching the movie, at least in this world we don't have the orbiting nuke platforms! (the bone->satellite sequence)

(Just imagine if there were OIL on Mars...)

I feel as if that energy and enthusiasm was brought back to life in the late 90s only to be snuffed out by yet another war/energy crisis (related? hmm) Of all the great ideas of the "dot-com-era" how many actually were brought to life? I'm ranting now, but I think I share in the sadness for a era that never was thanks to run of the mill human greed...

Rendevous with Rama

[JPyObjC Dude]

Although I love 2001 and Blade Runner (book is way better though), I would love to see Rendevous with Rama. This series is probably one of the most interesting and diverse series that ACC has come up with.

In the 2001 series it was based on a concept short story. I don't think that Arthor C. Clark really had a real concept for what he was writing. As such, with reading the rest of the series, he totally changes gears with those concepts leaving much to be desired. With Rendevous, he had a full concept in mind and the series flows and flows well.

I vote for a Rendevous series please....!

Spaceballs!

[Paladin144]

Oh come on. Don't give me that look - you know it's brilliant.

Dark Helmet : Before you die there is something you should know about us, Lone Starr.
Lone Starr : What?
Dark Helmet : I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.
Lone Starr : What's that make us?
Dark Helmet : Absolutely nothing!

Oh yeah, baby.

Dark Helmet : I bet she gives great helmet.

Barry Lyndon

[jefu]

Barry Lyndon is actually quite an interesting movie. It is indeed very, very slow, but I believe that is deliberate. Think of it as a kind of cinematic tone poem instead of a grand symphony.

I will admit it took a couple watchings, and one of those was a deliberate attempt to see what was going on and try to figure it all out.

I don't know about "Eyes Wide Shut" as I've not put that kind of effort into it.

SPECIAL AFFECTS

[fadethepolice]

They were the most tastefully done ever. Nothing like true craftsmanship and a good story.

Larry Niven and his collaborators

[Codifex Maximus]

I just got finished reading "Scatterbrain" - it gives you an insight on Larry Niven's way of thinking. The man has an incredible attention to detail; he fleshes out his worlds so well that disbelief is forgotten. Character development is superb and you feel real empathy for them.

Books like Crashlander, Ringworld, Pak Protector they all scream to be made into movies. I can't wait! :)

Re:Or maybe Roy is the Hero

[Thinman]

"In modern movies, the hero is often simply an ordinary person treated unfairly by society who prevails in the end."

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

There is a classical definition of hero, this resemble some that socratic definition.

Regards

dehumanized man versus artiificial man

[Odd John]

What I loved about BR was the tension between the man, Deckard (classic film noir detective, depressed, alienated, bitter, almost running on autopilot) versus the replicants (artificial men struggling to become human, fighting for their lives). Deckard was human and the tragedy was in his job of killing artificial intelligences that were, maybe, more human than he was.

It was about a dehumanized man versus humanoid machines, about a man who lost his ideals versus androids struggling to prolong their lives.

What is it to be human? How will you know when your AI is human? Or when it's human enough?

I've read that Philip K. Dick was a functional schizophrenic. He personally had a hard time telling the difference between what was real and what was imaginary. And his struggles found expression in his novels.

What about Fahrenheit 911?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that Science Fiction, Fantasy, or just Plain old Propaganda? --Anonymous because I'm not gonna like the moderation: Funny? Off Topic? Troll? Flamebait? Under/Overrated? You decide.

Maybe I'm not enough of a geek...

[arothmanmusic]

I had heard so much about the movie that I finally rented the "directors cut" and watched it. It nearly put me to sleep. I mean, I guess the visual concept of the future was cool, but the film itself bored me to tears. I kind of felt the same way about 2001, which I've tried to watch twice and have fallen asleep through both times. Oh well.

Mad props to the guy who mentioned "Space Hunter" though... any movie with Molly Ringwald in a 3-D vague futuristic bondage scene gets my vote. :)

Re:Sci-Fi isn't about science; it's about "What If

[LoFat ByLine]

I think I see what you're saying, but "What if ..." in its most basic form can be applied to just about any story. (Which is why some of your examples are fantasy, not sf :) ).

And the "What if .." formula doesn't really work all that well when applied to a lot of sf, in the sense that it doesn't really tell you much about the story. I suppose you could say Clarke's "Cold Equations" was something like "What if someone stowed away on a rocketship where there wasn't enough air for them to last the journey?" ... but that just describes the plot, it doesn't get to the point of the story at all.

For my part, I'd have to say that sf is fiction that explores the narrative possibilities opened up by extrapolated advances in science and technology. Hard sf insists that the sci/tech presented in the story not contradict the what is known about science at the time the story was written. So yeah, basically science fiction is fiction with science ...

Tron

[esap]

I can't believe nobody mentioned Tron.

Re:Sci-Fi isn't about science; it's about "What If

[Kgreene]

What if I had a light saber and Jedi powers? ...and made out with my sister

You would be the first Jedi from Alabama?

Re: Bladerunner math

[PRFunky]

I just don't buy that. I've had people hypothesize that Deckard was a replicant before and with the narration, there may have been an allusion to that in "Replicants weren't supposed to have feelings. Neither were bladerunners. What was happening to me?" But that he actually was a member of the wrecking crew? No way. The book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep may have alluded more to your point of Deckard being a replicant than the movie. As for the replicants recognizing Deckard, Zhora didn't. She simply recognized being in paranoid fear of being discovered and then being killed. Leon watched her die so immediately set about taking out the "murderer". Batty and Pris recognized after the other's deaths that they were being hunted -- that they were "stupid" and didn't recognize some subltety about themselves which made them stand out like a sore thumb to the trained eye. If Deckard were even a replicant himself, where was his super-human superior strenght and agility? It was certainly absent in every one of all four encounters he had with "the crew". Deckard got his ass kicked by each one of them.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

If you liked Blade Runner and you like nerdcore hiphop, check out mc chris' bad(dd) runner...

Re:Gattaca & Forbidden Planet

[Anonymous Coward]

Gattaca does rock in it's perfect commentary on "playing God", but I simply can't stand Jude Law. He's such a pretty boy with barely any acting talent.

Re:WHAT! No Johnny?

[Jack9]

Sometimes you're just too fucking funny! +1 fan!

torrent of La Jetee?

[Anonymous Coward]

i dont know how to work the lie barry

Re:Or maybe Roy is the Hero

[MegaFur]

No he's just kibitzzing you--there's more than one definition of the word "hero" ya see. One person was using one definition while this other poster chooses to use the literary definition.

And the world moves on...

Re:Sci-Fi isn't about science; it's about "What If

[bill_mcgonigle]

I sincerely hope he doesn't continue it ... oh the humanity.

I hope he waits 'till his kids are off to college and he can pour his heart and soul into it - last time he did something pretty good turned out.

I still says puppet yoda looks more real than CGI yoda, so he has to get over digital too.

Movie Ends Better

[bill_mcgonigle]

While I enjoyed Contact, the movie, I had read the book many years ago as a teenager and it pretty much drove me into a love for math. The book was so much more precise - something that had they tried to put on screen would have absolutely and completely flopped in today's pop-cinema culture.

I'm glad they came up with a different ending for Contact the movie. Sagan's book was too obtuse.

On one level, Sagan portrays the Universe as having a creator, since there's a hidden message in pi in base 11 or whatever. That the general audience could have handled.

What they wouldn't realize is that Sagan knew that pi is completely random, and contains every possible message. He portrays Arroway as someone who so desparately believes in something that she abandons her science and finds evidence for her belief that wouldn't stand up to her own logical scrutiny. So much of religion falls into such a trap.

At least in the movie they gently turned it into a question of how you can convince people of things you can't directly prove, or if you even need to. The doubters are the scientists who would like some evidence to go with the impassioned testimony. The movie seems to treat them badly but on careful consideration they're just being reasonable. The movie would like you to sympathize with the cheering throng who believes Elly based on her story. We know her story to be true but they have no way of knowing so. Of course, they properly include a subgroup of the doubters who are willing to conceal evidence that does not support their hypothesis/funding. Overall a pretty good diorama of modern society.

Market share would be even better

[James Turpin]

The population is larger now and a higher percentage watch movies regularly. There are more movie theatres. Etc., etc. So I don't even like the inflation adjusted model. I would rather see a cumulative market share model.

Re:OT, reply to sig - Math, Feds, and Crypto

[iamcf13]

Mathematics is not a crime. -- James Turpin (789479)

Mr. Turpin's signature was likely commenting on the right and ability to use 'strong encryption' to secure ones 'thoughts and posessions' at all times.

Here in America, encryption is treated like a weapon instead of a digital envelope. Added to that, 'real encryption' in its purest form is nothing more than grade-school math applied to very large numbers.

So I guess Mr. Turpin is 'asking':

Is it a crime to use math (via strong cryptography) to have privacy and security?

Just 'ask' PGP creator Phil Zimmerman about his experiences with cryptography and the United States Federal Government....

Re:Logan's Run ahead of its time? - AIRPLANE!

[iamcf13]

If you've seen Airplane (1980), you know the scene I'm talking about!

Quite daring for a PG movie....

Was the MPAA asleep at the wheel when they gave Airplane A PG rating in spite of this scene?

Re:Brainstorm - OST comment for true film OST fans

[iamcf13]

Fabulous music score by James Horner. Too bad he is (in)famous for 'recycling' his earlier compositions into later film scores--pretty blatant at times.

On the other hand, John William's is subtle when he 'rips himself off'.

Music from Star Wars (1977) and The Empire Strikes Back (1980) are 'quoted' in Superman (1978) and E. T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982). Both times this approached work for different reasons.

In Superman, a lone oboe sounds out the first few notes of The Force Theme in a way that made total sense in the piece. My guess is that Williams used it because it fit not because it was famous.

As an injoke, music associated with Yoda was used in E. T. because 'on the screen' at the time was a young child dressed up for Halloween as the wizened old Jedi Master.

With the recent passing of Jerry Goldsmith, I'll bet the market will be flooded with more movie 'songtracks' instead of real, proper motion picture soundtracks....

Re:#1 work of human art of all time - AKIRA (manga

[iamcf13]

This isn't off topic.

There wasn't an explicit prohibition against anime.

Why mod down AKIRA (1988) just because 'its a cartoon from Japan'--it eminantly qualifies as science fiction as does Gunbuster (1988).

However, I think the distinction of the '#1 work of human art of all time' is:

Grave Of The Fireflies (1988).

It is in a class all by itself. I haven't seen anything quite like it before or since (only AKIRA, Metropolis (2001), and Voices of a Distant Star (2002) come close)

Even dubbed in English, GotF is still powerful cinema!

Amazing! Three legendary pieces of Japanese animation from 1988!

Not all sci-fi films

Evil intellectuals

[danila]

The culprits are the intellectuals who fear science. We hear about it all the time - crisis of the science, we need to reconcile science with faith and all that crap. Meanwhile, 52% of the Europeans agree with the statement "Science and technology can solve any problem we are faced with" (Eurobarometer 2003 survey - link). So despite all the "mad scientist" crap people still are extremely positive and optimistic about science.

If we didn't have illiterate retards running the media (the overwhelming majority of people in the same survey agreed that journalists are not qualified enough to cover science and 30% think science is portraied too negatively), it would become obvious just how much the "Average Joe" loves science, scientists and even science spendings.

Re:#1 work of human art of all time - AKIRA (manga

[evilmousse]

If you liked grave of the fireflies that much, seek out 'Barefoot Gen', an autobiographical account of the bombing of Hiroshima. this site has a few pix.. I'm sure you can websearch yourself. It's very haunting, because though Keiji Nakazawa wrote it when he was much older, you could easily be fooled into feeling like a child is storytelling the greatest horrors possibly anyone has ever endured. ..I've not seen the anime, but I've read a good amount of the manga I've found at public libraries now and then.

(now THIS is offtopic, because it's not sci-fi. Akira DEFINETLY was on-topic, thppt.)

-g

My favorite.... AKIRA !!

[boy_afraid]

We didn't say the sci-fi movie had to be with real characters or anime!

I VOTE FOR --- AKIRA !!!

P.s. How about ROBOCOP??