Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Blade Runner Is The Best Sci-Fi Film

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the like-tears-in-rain dept.

Sci-Fi 972

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.

cancel ×

972 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

2001 sucked. (0, Flamebait)

ekhben (628371) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083640)

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

Re:2001 sucked. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083671)

Maybe you're too stupid to understand it.

Re:2001 sucked. (4, Insightful)

Door-opening Fascist (534466) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083691)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083752)

I'm not sure I understand.

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

Non sequitur (3, Insightful)

glpierce (731733) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083757)

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 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083776)

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 (4, Informative)

Yaztromo (655250) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083817)

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 (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083824)

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

Re:2001 sucked. (4, Interesting)

Rew190 (138940) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083815)

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.

It was supposed to be boring. (4, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083725)

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:2001 sucked. (4, Insightful)

Tassach (137772) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083759)

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. (5, Funny)

scotch (102596) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083799)

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

That's exactly what it means.

Frustrated MS developer looking to jump ship (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083642)

I've been a Microsoft developer for 10 years and I am ready to jump ship. I dont mind starting over with Linux-based development for the simple reason that I just can't take MS anymore.

What has me so frustrated? Microsoft never stops developing new technologies and pushing them on the masses. I have had to completely re-invent myself as a developer no less than 3 times in my career... First it was straight C/C++, then it was all about COM, COM was everything and everywhere... ActiveX.. and then it was .NET. Forget everything you ever knew; its all obsolete and .NET is the way to do everything. If you are still writing classic ASP... well you are just a wimp and a loser.

I can't even get through the monthly issue of MSDN magazine. It is so loaded with "didn't you know this was coming out soon?" and "you should have done your project with WSE extensions 2.0 Beta 2... oh, you didn't know they existed? Well, you are out of date, son". Everything is latest and greatest. What we were using last year is dogcrap and obsolete, not even worth mentioning anymore.

And it isn't going to stop. VS 2005 is coming out soon and it so loaded with head-spinning new features in the .NET CLR that it would take years to learn it all. SQL Server 2005 is in Beta 2 and it is chock full of redundant features it makes your head spin. Need a messaging platform? Sure, MSMQ and Biztalk work fine, but now SQL Server has an entire platform built in! Yay, something more to learn. Still writing stored procs in T-SQL? Wow, you are so last year. Didn't you know you can write stored procs in C# now? Geez man, get a clue!

Anyway, seems like Linux guys are having fun using LAMP platform stuff that is just stable and plain works. How do I get a job doing this stuff? Is it possible to make the switch? Any advice welcome... Thanks

-Frustrated soon-to-be-EX MS developer

Re:Frustrated MS developer looking to jump ship (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083705)

Completely offtopic but interesting none the less. If you think linux is not full of changing and new technologies you've got another thing coming. The life of a developer these days is trying to stay ontop of the new technologies and knowing when and where to use which one. This problem isn't only isolated to the I.T. arena. Recording studios have been struggling to keep ontop of the "ever changing" technology, art, and science of recording. Professional recording studios have to reinvest millions of dollars every few years just to keep ontop of things or their studio will be obsoleted.

Tried VB:GNE ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083719)

Have you tried "Visual Basic, Gay Nigger edition?", it's expensive but has a good GUI. Also shipping right now with a double "cash-back" rebate offer, one for being (none-jolly) gay, the other for being a (none-white) nigger.

Poor Title (-1, Flamebait)

dan_sdot (721837) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083643)

including British biologist Richard Dawkins and Canadian psychologist Steven Pinker
oh... I thought that real scientists voted for these at first...

Re:Poor Title (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083774)

Fuck you. Pinker is a real scientist [harvard.edu] .

Hey I hate to break it to you (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083645)

NO ONE GIVES A FUCK!

Re:Hey I hate to break it to you (2, Funny)

celeritas_2 (750289) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083674)

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

Re:Hey I hate to break it to you (0, Troll)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083685)

This may be a troll, but he's right.
who cares? We all have our favorites, I fail to see how this is news.

I liked "the 6th day" with arnie personally.
Very realistic version of the near-future.

CMDR TACO IS THE RUPERT MURDOCH OF THE NERD WORLD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083647)

Blockbuster hit of the summer: OUTSlashdotted

omg (0, Troll)

OddRob (711254) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083648)

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

Re:omg (1, Troll)

jackb_guppy (204733) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083682)

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

Re:omg (4, Insightful)

Yaztromo (655250) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083754)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083859)

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 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083787)

Anyone who didn't understand 2001, is suspect of low IQ....

I'd have to agree. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083652)

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. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083732)

I'd love to live in Sean Young.

Re:I'd have to agree. (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083736)


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.

A film without heros or villans (5, Interesting)

GuyMannDude (574364) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083860)

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

WTF? (5, Funny)

dougrun (633662) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083656)

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

Logan's Run (5, Informative)

James Turpin (789479) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083698)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083803)

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

Top Scientists (5, Funny)

ParticleMan911 (688473) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083658)

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

Re:Top Scientists (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083703)

Are you a Chipotle Fan [chipotlefan.com]?

Anyone who thinks that Chipotle is good is culturally deprived. It's like thinking that McDonalds has good hamburgers, or Disney is a highlight of American civilization.

Go eat a real burrito. Chipotle is about as tasty as cardboard.

Re:Top Scientists (1)

ParticleMan911 (688473) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083743)

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.

In related news.... (4, Funny)

ender81b (520454) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083709)

Still no cure for cancer!

Re:Top Scientists (-1, Troll)

jmccay (70985) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083771)

The list stinks. 2001 #2???? That is very stupid. It was a snooze fest. Blade runner is good? Wow. These people need to leave there lab!

SOMEONE FUCKING SHOVE A DICK IN MY ASS PLZ (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083663)

jsadaslks fuck you

I suppose... (1, Interesting)

Justin205 (662116) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083667)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083848)

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

What? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Writer (746272) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083672)

No Battllefield Earth [imdb.com] ?

Re:What? (4, Funny)

maeka (518272) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083783)

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

Re:What? (2, Funny)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083818)

I *LOVE* Battlefield earth. I keep my copy of BE right next to my copy of Leonard Part 6 [imdb.com] . 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

Star Wars? (5, Interesting)

Rolo Tomasi (538414) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083678)

What does Star Wars have to do with science fiction?

Re:Star Wars? (3, Interesting)

McDrewbie (530348) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083729)

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? (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083737)

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

Mod parent up!!!

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

Re:Star Wars? (3, Interesting)

Pyromage (19360) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083831)

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.

Ugh (5, Funny)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083692)

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

Re:Ugh (1)

Rew190 (138940) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083847)

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?

Contact (5, Insightful)

MauMan (252382) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083694)

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

No Star Trek...Wow (5, Interesting)

Groovus (537954) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083696)

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 (2, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083826)

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.

Brainstorm (4, Insightful)

thedogcow (694111) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083710)

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

60 of the most influential? (2, Insightful)

Trespass (225077) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083713)

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.

Only true 'cause... (1)

javelinco (652113) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083714)

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

Gattaca (5, Interesting)

Joel Aemmer (682131) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083722)

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

Re:Gattaca (1)

javelinco (652113) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083744)

I'm with ya!

Clarke's Three Laws (1)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083733)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083779)

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

Re:Clarke's Three Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083810)

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

WHAT! No Johnny? (3, Funny)

HonkyLips (654494) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083734)

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.

Re:WHAT! No Johnny? (1)

z3021017 (806883) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083782)

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

That's just inviting something...

Re:WHAT! No Johnny? (2, Funny)

Professor North (606910) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083821)

Overlooked Mnemonic? No.

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

paintball guns, keke (1)

mnemonic_ (164550) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083868)

All of the guns in that movie were unmodified CO2-powered paintball guns...

Farscape: Peacekeeper Wars mini-series (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083735)

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

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

Brazil (5, Informative)

wigle (676212) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083739)

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 (1)

glpierce (731733) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083805)

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.

AAGGLL Re:Brazil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083840)

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

Silent Running (2, Interesting)

SlideGuitar (445691) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083740)

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.

Minority Report (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083745)

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

ALIENS! (4, Funny)

MaineCoon (12585) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083747)

On slashdot, anybody can hear you scream.

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

Re:ALIENS! (1)

MaineCoon (12585) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083766)

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

War Games (2, Interesting)

whfsdude (592601) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083749)

What about war games? :P

Simpsons Comic guy (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083755)

Blade Runner - Best movie ever.

damn you Iain banks...damn you to hell (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083760)

Ok the culture books. they are about an advanced utopian ....well....culture that changes the course of history of "primitve" worlds so that they are more civilized, moral, ethical...what ever you want to call it...now the US is at war...two wars to change the sociaties of afganistan and iraq...so what does Mr. banks do???? no he doesn't right a parable about the folly or success about such an endevore...no instead he writes about 9/11...ie terrorists are bad. god damn it. What really sucks is that i will probably buy the fucking book anyway and like most of the sci-fi he has written i will like it...the fucking bastard.

stendec@gmail.com

No surprises (2, Interesting)

scotay (195240) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083762)

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.

Get your stories straight, lads. (5, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083764)


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

Most of these... (1)

javelinco (652113) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083765)

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

Totally agree (2, Interesting)

DaveCBio (659840) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083769)

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! (2, Funny)

Manip (656104) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083770)

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.

Reading the book right now (1)

falkryn (715775) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083786)

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.

OK... (1)

amalcon (472105) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083791)

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 (3, Interesting)

StarWynd (751816) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083793)

What?! No Dark Star [wikipedia.org] ? 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.

voice-over is a no-no (2, Insightful)

Meniconi,Nando (666243) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083801)

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...

Runaway favourite and close second? (0, Redundant)

Owndapan (789196) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083806)

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'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083807)

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 [harvard.edu]

Why Blade Runner... (4, Insightful)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083808)

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?" (4, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083811)

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.

Let's analyze this. (1)

James Turpin (789479) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083812)

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...

Solaris? (1)

altstadt (125250) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083816)

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.

Not so sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083822)

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.

Following up on myself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10083836)

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

What about "Death Race 2000" (1)

i7dude (473077) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083823)

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

dude.

They missed Aliens 2 (1, Informative)

wdavies (163941) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083827)

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 [garnersclassics.com]

I've heard of all of them before. (1)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083833)

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 [imdb.com] in particular.

While we're being incredulous (1)

AceCaseOR (594637) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083834)

What, no Destination Moon [imdb.com] ?!

If you go by the Sci-Fi channels standards... (5, Funny)

tao_of_biology (666898) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083837)

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

Two words... (5, Funny)

darnok (650458) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083855)

Buckaroo Bonzai

Hurray! (1)

amateur bore (682284) | more than 10 years ago | (#10083863)

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!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?