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?

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!

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

[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: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.

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?