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

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?

[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?

[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"

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.

Gattaca

[Joel Aemmer]

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

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.

"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: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: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.

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

[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

[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.

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: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: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

[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: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.

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: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.

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: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: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: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: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: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: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.

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.

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: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)