Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
dudes, stay on topic! Logans Run should be in there somewhere.
Wow, i'm glad our top scientists have taken so much time to come to this important conclusion!
--
Are you a Chipotle Fan?
No Battllefield Earth?
What does Star Wars have to do with science fiction?
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
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.
The Matrix is up there but Wrath of Khan isn't?
"Derp de derp."
I'm a bit suprised taht "Contact" did not make the list....
------- Code to try when you're bored: qsort( 0, UINT_MAX, sizeof( int* ), IntCompare );
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.
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.
Mathematics is not a crime.
Still no cure for cancer!
Despite the awkward ending due to the death of Natalie Wood, Brainstorm (1983) is a pretty good sci fi film.
Very underappreciated.
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
Gattaca is a great one about DNA manipulation that is a little too close to reality for comfort. A great movie!
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.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
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.
On slashdot, anybody can hear you scream.
Seriously, though, my all time favorite. Better than Bladerunner by far.
Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
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.
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.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
The article says "Blade Runner was the runaway favourite in our poll." followed by 2001 which was "A very close second". Which is it?
Trolling is a art,
To paraphrase Ebert: It's not what the movie is about, it is how it is about it. Example - Almost every Tarantino movie.
That's exactly what it means.
XML causes global warming.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
of what is science fiction... How can Raiders of the Lost Ark not be in the top 10?! And, what about Tremors??
-- "A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg."
Buckaroo Bonzai
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
watch this
Here are a couple missing sci-fi films that should be considered. They were not exactly blockbusters, but they made for good sci-fi.
I know I am forgetting a whole host of other options, but at least this is a start.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
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.
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. :-)
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
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.
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.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
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.
English is easier said than done.
- Baskin-Robbins makes 31 flavors of ice cream.
Shouldn't that be "31 Colors" of ice cream?What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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.
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...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Consider these points:
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
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).
>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.
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.
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?
This site does a very good job.
Link
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
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.
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.
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?
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 :) ).
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.
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).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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:
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.
Mathematics is not a crime.
Maybe not, but it can get you 5 -10
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
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.
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.
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.
Need Mercedes parts ?
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.
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:
(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...)
(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.)
(Perhaps Wargames is also worth a mention in this general category.)
(You may also like Vanilla Sky and Paycheck in the same category.)
(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.)
And, ok, they're funny, but they are also still sci-fi and outstanding:
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer