All-time top twenty science fiction movies

[djross]

x

[Suture Self]

20 or more movies + shorts + a couple tv shows, in no particular order, subject to change depending on my capricious moods:
Note: Some are trashy but I am only human, for goodness sake.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Brazil (1985)
The Fly (1986)
Her (2013)
Being John Malkovich (1999)
The Meaning of Life (2005)
Frankenstein (1931)
Island of Lost Souls (1933)
Melancholia (2011)
Seconds (1966)
Under the Skin (2014)
Kaboom (2010)
War of the Worlds (2005)
Alien (1979)
World on a Wire (1973)
Metropolis (1927)
The Thing (1982)
Children of Men (2006)
The Congress (2014)
Sleeper (1973)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Dark Star (1974)
District 9 (2009)
Sexmission (1984)
The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976)
It's Such A Beautiful Day (2012)
Threads (1984)
The Iron Giant (1999)
Upstream Color (2013)
Neon Genesis Evangelion (1995)
FLCL (2000)
World of Tomorrow (2015)

--

A friend of mine made this point to me a few days ago: It would be wonderful if the ratio of science fiction movies to superhero movies would tip in the direction of science fiction movies, because like you (djross) spelled out, they seem to have so much more value, both as confrontational art that holds a mirror up to ourselves and as spectacle (I'd like to contend that spectacle is okay: I like being entertained by aesthetics). Perhaps the recent successes of movies like Gravity, Interstellar, and even this month's movie The Martian might be a new trend? I hope so.

[djross]

x

[ShogunRua]

I'm not a fan of pure list topics (there is no discussion or thought in them, and anyone can look at my highly rated sci-fi movies), so I will answer the thoughts above instead.

As someone who has become a huge fan of science fiction books recently (amusingly, while I have studied science very diligently since I was a child, I didn't get into science fiction until my mid 20s), I think science fiction movies, as a whole, fucking suck.

I mean, the quality among science fiction movies is fucking laughable when compared to the quality of science fiction books, as a genre.

The vast majority of great science fiction books have never been adopted into movies and likely never will be. Meanwhile, of the very small portion of books that are adopted, most are adopted very poorly.

And of the even tinier percentage that are adopted well, they're still usually inferior, even when they're among the greatest science fiction movies ever. (I'm looking at you, Blade Runner, and since it was mentioned, Frankenstein (1931), both films I love, but which are inferior to the novels spawning them)

[JacoIII]

As someone who has become a huge fan of science fiction books recently (amusingly, while I have studied science very diligently since I was a child, I didn't get into science fiction until my mid 20s), I think science fiction movies, as a whole, fucking suck.

I think there's a tendency to push big-budget CGI and explosions into every sci-fi film. Execs (particularly at Marvel) are like "if this is set in the future, we might as well blow some shit up and have a distracting computer-y thing in every scene". Now audiences expect it.

For example, District 9 was one of the most original sci-fi films in recent memory up until the last 20 or so minutes. It starts out being about the mistreatment of refugees and inverts the traditional "alien invasion" plot but then it ends with some dude getting his head ripped off? Boring, and kinda undercuts the original message.

And of the even tinier percentage that are adopted well, they're still usually inferior, even when they're among the greatest science fiction movies ever. (I'm looking at you, Blade Runner, and since it was mentioned, Frankenstein (1931), both films I love, but which are inferior to the novels spawning them)

You can't really compare Blade Runner to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The movie is doing something very different. I mean, if you want to restrict it to plot points, Deckard doesn't even have a wife in the film.

ShogunRua, have you seen the film Coherence? That's one of my new favourite sci-fi films. You might like it.

[ShogunRua]

I think there's a tendency to push big-budget CGI and explosions into every sci-fi film. Execs (particularly at Marvel) are like "if this is set in the future, we might as well blow some shit up and have a distracting computer-y thing in every scene". Now audiences expect it.

For example, District 9 was one of the most original sci-fi films in recent memory up until the last 20 or so minutes. It starts out being about the mistreatment of refugees and inverts the traditional "alien invasion" plot but then it ends with some dude getting his head ripped off? Boring, and kinda undercuts the original message.

This is a symptom of the larger problem. Namely, that science fiction is simply too challenging and intelligent for a wider movie audience. And by no means do I think sci-fi is necessarily complex and thoughtful or beyond the mental acumen of most.

However, it's apparently too smart for movies and most audiences.

You can't really compare Blade Runner to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The movie is doing something very different.

Yes and no. Among other things, Dick's book is just a richer, more interesting, and expansive world than the one Blade Runner envisioned...and Blade Runner was fantastic, one of the very, very best sci-fi films.

ShogunRua, have you seen the film Coherence? That's one of my new favourite sci-fi films. You might like it.

I have not, and thank you for the heads-up! Added it to my Remembered Films list, and will check it out at some point.

[Velvet Crowe]

I think there's a tendency to push big-budget CGI and explosions into every sci-fi film. Execs (particularly at Marvel) are like "if this is set in the future, we might as well blow some shit up and have a distracting computer-y thing in every scene". Now audiences expect it.

For example, District 9 was one of the most original sci-fi films in recent memory up until the last 20 or so minutes. It starts out being about the mistreatment of refugees and inverts the traditional "alien invasion" plot but then it ends with some dude getting his head ripped off? Boring, and kinda undercuts the original message.

I feel like that is often times the problem with Hollywood or at least movies who are seeking a large audience. District 9 had an interesting{yet honestly rather pretentious} premise that had a pretty interesting style of filming, but they had to shoehorn in some lame action scenes and the metaphors of racism were rather idiotic.

In essence, people find these elements a lot more easier to connect with. Everyone understands racism and pure action is always entertaining on the basic level of understanding. If the film were to go into the political, religious or even logistical aspects of its premise people would find it much harder to be engaged with it.

When it comes to sci-fi, I tend to not really wrap my mind too much into what makes sense or what is logical. I'm not a scientist so such aspects don't bother me, I tend to look at it in terms of entertainment value rather than its value as a source of information as that is, in essence, what entertainment should be about. For example, I think Demolition Man was an absolutely idiotic movie but I still found it entertaining nonetheless.

Admittedly I do get a bit miffed when historical films completely butcher the original story, such as in the film Mongol{Ghenghis Khan's story alone is interesting, yet they STILL felt the need to make up total bullshit for dramatization}, I still feel a film can be entertaining on virtue of their entertainment value rather than their factual accuracy. Gladiator is a pretty good example of this.

I haven't read a whole lot of novelized fiction, as I mostly read non-fiction. A lot of what I like may be considered very "entry level" to some such as Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or Romance of the Three Kingdoms, but I also have read enough trashy novels to know that they are just as applicable to Sturgeon's Law as anything else, arguably on a larger scale. After all, it's not hard for a lot of people to get their book published as for many it's far less costly than developing any other form of art. I mean how often do you hear of a book being published by some idiotic far-right or far-left political thinker? Some of these books even become successful!

[paulofilmo]

The only new sci-fi I think I've seen in the last 3 years is Black Mirror, which scratches this itch (to rash, and the taste of blood in my mouth). I rewatched 2001 recently, and to me it's a horror movie.

Seconds
Hard to Be a God
Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning

These weren't on my radar. Thanks!

[Stewball]

20 or more movies + shorts + a couple tv shows, in no particular order, subject to change depending on my capricious moods:
Note: Some are trashy but I am only human, for goodness sake.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Brazil (1985)
The Fly (1986)
Her (2013)
Being John Malkovich (1999)
The Meaning of Life (2005)
Frankenstein (1931)
Island of Lost Souls (1933)
Melancholia (2011)
Seconds (1966)
Under the Skin (2014)
Kaboom (2010)
War of the Worlds (2005)
Alien (1979)
World on a Wire (1973)
Metropolis (1927)
The Thing (1982)
Children of Men (2006)
The Congress (2014)
Sleeper (1973)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Dark Star (1974)
District 9 (2009)
Sexmission (1984)
The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976)
It's Such A Beautiful Day (2012)
Threads (1984)
The Iron Giant (1999)
Upstream Color (2013)
Neon Genesis Evangelion (1995)
FLCL (2000)
World of Tomorrow (2015)

--

A friend of mine made this point to me a few days ago: It would be wonderful if the ratio of science fiction movies to superhero movies would tip in the direction of science fiction movies, because like you (djross) spelled out, they seem to have so much more value, both as confrontational art that holds a mirror up to ourselves and as spectacle (I'd like to contend that spectacle is okay: I like being entertained by aesthetics). Perhaps the recent successes of movies like Gravity, Interstellar, and even this month's movie The Martian might be a new trend? I hope so.

Will wonders never cease. I was certain nobody would put Her in the category of science-fiction. Yet it is my #1 now, moving 2001 down to #2 (overall) (IMNTBHO), after almost 50 years. Yes Her deals openly with very little hard science, but that's part of its beauty. In amongst the computer speculation, is a plethora of cutting edge theoretical physics implications. I think many purists resent romance being intermixed so wholeheartedly in with physics, when just the opposite should be the case.

So now, sci-fi owns the number one and two spots in my twenty 100 ratings, and I can only presume to put AI (95) in at #3.

It's a new day.