# The 25 Best Sci-Fi Movies of the Last 15 Years



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 22, 2022)

Den of Geek has an interesting and thought-provoking list of the best science fiction movies of the past twenty-five years.

Check it out!








						Best Sci-Fi Movies of the Last 15 Years
					

Our staff and readers have voted on the best science fiction films to hit theaters (or streamers) in the last 15 years!




					www.denofgeek.com
				




For purposes of discussion, I think it would be helpful to do the following for comments:

A. How many of these 25 films have you seen?
_-Include which ones you have not seen._

B. What film, or films, would you put on the list that are not on the list?
-_If you're going to propose a film that should be on the list, you ALSO have to explain which film goes OFF the list_.

C. Finally, what is the most egregious ranking(s) within the list?
_-This is where you get to say that something was ranked too low or too high_.

*I really recommend clicking through to check it out*, but if you don't, here's the list of the TOP 25 SCI-FI FILMS OF THE LAST 15 YEARS!

25. A Quiet Place (2018)
24. Moon (2009)
23. Snowpiercer (2013)
22. Colossal (2016)
21. The Endless (2017)
20. Attack the Block (2011)
19. Under the Skin (2013)
18. Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
17. Gravity (2013)
16. Pacific Rim (2013)
15. Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
14. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
13. Annihilation (2018)
12. Looper (2012)
11. The Martian (2015)
10. WALL-E (2008)
9. Her (2013)
8. District 9 (2009)
7. Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
6. Dune (2021)
5. Ex Machina (2015)
4. Interstellar (2014)
3. Inception (2010)
2. Arrival (2016)
1. Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

I'm going to post a response that corresponds with my requirements, above, but my general opinion is ...

This is about right. It focuses on the intelligent and important sci-fi over the popcorn movies, while still having some incredible examples of the best popcorn movies. I can, and will, quibble with specific examples but this is a much better overall list than many I have seen.

I'd give it a solid B+, maybe an A-.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 22, 2022)

Let’s see!



A. 24/25.

The one film I haven’t seen is _Colossal_. And it’s funny, because I remember when it came out, and I was all like, “Ima gonna see that.” And then I remember it was streaming, and I was all like, “Ima gonna see that.” And I didn’t see that. Totally forget about it. Now I have something to see! Yay me!



B. This one is interesting … let’s see, 15 years is …. 2007. That just excludes _Children of Men_ (2006) (which would probably be my choice), which was my first thoughts. And _Eternal Sunshine _(2004). Maybe …. _Sunshine_ (2007)? _Upstream Color_ (2013)? _The Lobster_ (2015)?

I’d do a two-fer. I’d add _Sunshine _and _The Lobster_ and remove _Rogue One_ (which was good, but mostly benefits from being better than the other new Star Wars movies) and _District 9_ (which seemed so good and important at the time, but really didn’t work for me as a movie when I re-watched it a couple of years ago).



C. I think that _Under the Skin_ is criminally underrated. It’s a slow and pensive movie, but it’s the type that will linger with you for years (like _Annihilation_, or_ Ex Machina_, or _Her_, or_ Arrival). _On the other hand, _Interstellar_ is a good movie that isn’t nearly as profound as it wants to believe. It’s _2001 _for people that never understood _2001._


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 22, 2022)

Think I've seen 9 maybe 10 of them.

 Liked all of them to some extent.


----------



## Helldritch (Feb 22, 2022)

Seen all, own a few of these. A few I liked, other I would not even recommend at all.
Buuuuuuut...

Any lists that does not include
2001 a Space Odyssey is just flatly wrong.


----------



## MarkB (Feb 22, 2022)

I've seen maybe half the films on the list. Of those I've seen, there aren't really any that I'd quibble being on there, except that I wasn't particularly taken with the Bladerunner sequel when I saw it at the cinema. I need to give it another chance at some point.


----------



## MarkB (Feb 22, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> Seen all, own a few of these. A few I liked, other I would not even recommend at all.
> Buuuuuuut...
> 
> Any lists that does not include
> 2001 a Space Odyssey is just flatly wrong.



You realise it's "of the last 15 years", right?


----------



## MGibster (Feb 22, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 25. A Quiet Place (2018)
> 24. Moon (2009)
> 23. Snowpiercer (2013)
> 22. Colossal (2016)
> ...




I've only seen the six movies I didn't highlight but I rarely ever go see movies and if I miss it in the theater it can take years and years before I see it at home.  Of the movies I saw, Mad Max was the best one but I don't think of it as science fiction though that's not a hill I'm going to die on.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 22, 2022)

20/25.

Not a bad list. It's missing Summer Wars. And the final Rebuild of Evangelion movie.

(and The Last Jedi)


----------



## Cadence (Feb 22, 2022)

Saw 18, 15, 14, and 10.

I need help.  What makes a super-hero movie count as sci-fi or not (like Guardians of the Galaxy, as opposed to the Ant-Man ones, the final two Avengers ones, or Thor Ragnorak?).  What about others that have it in their descriptors, like Big Hero 6 or Monsters vs. Aliens count? I am legend?

Is it how high up on the list of descriptors that sci-fi shows up?


----------



## Jackdaw McGraw (Feb 22, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Den of Geek has an interesting and thought-provoking list of the best science fiction movies of the past twenty-five years.
> 
> Check it out!
> 
> ...




A. Seen 23 out of 25. Haven't seen A Quiet Place or The Endless.

B. I'd add Melancholia and Coherence.

C. Interstellar and Dune are rated too high. Under the Skin is rated too low. Rogue One shouldn't be on this list.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 22, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> 2001 a Space Odyssey is just flatly wrong.



It's a list of films from the last 15 years.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 22, 2022)

I've seen 20/25. Maybe more but, if so, the others didn't stick. I waited quite a while before seeing "Under the Skin", figuring that it wasn't my sort of movie. I was quite wrong on that. Very good.

i would put "Dredd" on the list.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 22, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> Seen all, own a few of these. A few I liked, other I would not even recommend at all.
> Buuuuuuut...
> 
> Any lists that does not include
> 2001 a Space Odyssey is just flatly wrong.




Note the time frame for the list.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 22, 2022)

I've seen about 15 of them, and the only immediate response I'd have is "A Quiet Place" is seriously underrated.  I'd consider it better than at least five of the ones i have seen.


----------



## ART! (Feb 22, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Den of Geek has an interesting and thought-provoking list of the best science fiction movies of the past twenty-five years.
> 
> Check it out!
> 
> ...



Seen? 18 out of 25, and another 2 that I've seen more than half of but kind of lost interest in or got distracted from, namely _Snowpiercer_ and _Colossal._

Let me precede the following by saying that _for me_ a science fiction movie is one whose story focuses on a speculative, what-if approach to some aspect(s) of science/technology as it relates to people and culture. Emphasis on how the people and culture react to the science/technology aspect. High tech whiz-bangery isn't enough. YMMV.

Add:
_*Rise of the Planet of the Ape*_*s* (2011). I'm a POTA fan, having really latched onto the original movies as a kid. I could put the other two most recent _Apes_ movies on this list, but they don't have the conceptual punch that the first one does. Anyway, these movies always have a lot to say about humanity, and do it through science fiction
_*I Am Legend*_ (2007). Terrifying and topical.

I'd _like_ to add:
_*Super 8*_ (2011). Hey, if _Close Encounters_ is science fiction, then this is, too. I find it really engaging, and it uses the science fiction premise to explore people reactions and just growing up in general. The touchstone of kids with a super-8 camera doesn't hurt.
I think _*Bird Box*_ (2018) needs to be in there somewhere, maybe?
_*The Prestige*_ (2006) doesn't quite make it into the 15-year rule, but is worth mentioning. It's probably only marginally science fiction, though. 
_*Children of Men* _(2006) also doesn't make the 15-year rule, but is so close!

Subtract:
_Rogue One: A Star Wars Story._ Not science fiction, AFAIC
_Guardians of the Galaxy. _Same.
Tempted to remove _Pacific Rim_, for the same reasons, based on what i know from others who have seen it, but I haven't seen it myself, so...



Snarf Zagyg said:


> _Interstellar_ is a good movie that isn’t nearly as profound as it wants to believe. It’s _2001 _for people that never understood _2001._



I agree. It definitely doesn't belong so close to the #1 spot.

I'd put _Arrival_ at #1, hands down.

_Colossal_ was interesting, but unless things really turn around in the third act, I wouldn't put it on a best of list.


----------



## payn (Feb 22, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> For purposes of discussion, I think it would be helpful to do the following for comments:
> 
> A. How many of these 25 films have you seen?
> _-Include which ones you have not seen._



Seen 21.
Not seen list:
_Wall-E
Under the Skin
The Endless
Colossal_


Snarf Zagyg said:


> B. What film, or films, would you put on the list that are not on the list?
> -_If you're going to propose a film that should be on the list, you ALSO have to explain which film goes OFF the list_.



_Hunter Prey_
_Transcendence
Oblivion
Tron 2
Tomorrow Land
Valarian and City of 10K...
Mortal Engines
Planet of the Apes
Dredd
Sunshine
Children of Men_


Snarf Zagyg said:


> C. Finally, what is the most egregious ranking(s) within the list?
> _-This is where you get to say that something was ranked too low or too high_.



Things like _Pacific Rim, Inception, Looper. _and especially_ Edge of Tomorrow _ranked too high_. _


Snarf Zagyg said:


> This is about right. It focuses on the intelligent and important sci-fi over the popcorn movies, while still having some incredible examples of the best popcorn movies. I can, and will, quibble with specific examples but this is a much better overall list than many I have seen.
> 
> I'd give it a solid B+, maybe an A-.



I think the top end suffers from a lot of overrating myself. Not bad movies, but not great and probably not deserving. Also, I don't consider _Fury Road_ a sci-fi film, but its certainly a great one.

*TLDR:* First half the list underrated; second half is overrated.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 22, 2022)

I knew I would forget a few good films: Dredd, Sunshine, Melancholia. 

And Could Atlas... no, it doesn't all work. Not by a long shot. I'm not sure what you make of it if you haven't read the book. But man the ambition, and the pure-heartedness of it all at the end.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 22, 2022)

I've seen about 18 of the list.  I might have slept through one or two.

*Missing from the list:*

Europa Report - The best sci-fi movie you probably haven't heard of from the last 15 years.  I'm surprised it didn't make the list, given some of the other small films that are represented.

Prometheus - Yes, I'm going there.  I stand by it.  Go with Alien: Covenant if you can't handle it.

Star Trek - Pick one.  If you're going to throw a Star Wars movie on the list, you're nerdractually obligated to included a Trek film as well.

Honorable mention: Pandorum.  Not amazing, but better than some of the lower tier stuff that made the list.

*Doesn't belong on the list:*

Colossal 
Arrival
Looper - All three of these are movies that I liked, but I don't think rise to the level of "best".  I really can't see watching any of them a second time.

Wall-E - This one pains me to call it out.  I love this movie.  It's my favorite Pixar movie of all time, and one of my favorite animated movies of all time.  But that's the problem: it's animated.  If you want to open this list up to animated movies instead of just live action, you have to consider many more amazing movies that are being left out, including anime.  And the list is already being liberal with the definition of "sci-fi" with movies like Fury Road.  If this stays on, there's a bunch more movies that need to join it.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 22, 2022)

payn said:


> _Hunter Prey_
> _Transcendence
> Oblivion
> Tron 2_
> ...




I think you are the first person I have ever seen give a positive review of the bolded movies.

I can see a strong argument for at least of of the PotA movies to be on the list.


----------



## nyvinter (Feb 22, 2022)

All the Nolan movies are way to high up, but I'd remove Interstellar ("Inte Stellar" where 'inte' is the swedish word for 'not') and Guardians of the Galaxy and replace with The Mitchells vs the Machines and Dredd. 

Well, you know what? Remove Inception as well and replace with Another Earth.


----------



## payn (Feb 22, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> I think you are the first person I have ever seen give a positive review of the bolded movies.
> 
> I can see a strong argument for at least of of the PotA movies to be on the list.



I thought _Mortal Engines _was great. _Tomorrow Land_ was a decent adventure but could have used some better writing. _Valerian_ was fresh and fun, but also could have used a much better third act. 

Ultimately, I think the list suffers from having two types of sci-fi movies on it. Action adventure types like the supers flicks and monster pics should be on one list, and philosophical thought provoking dives on another.


----------



## payn (Feb 22, 2022)

nyvinter said:


> All the Nolan movies are way to high up, but I'd remove Interstellar ("Inte Stellar" where 'inte' is the swedish word for 'not') and Guardians of the Galaxy and replace with The Mitchells vs the Machines and Dredd.
> 
> Well, you know what? Remove Inception as well and replace with Another Earth.



Nobody consulted the Swedes when the word was developed. Not going to start now.


----------



## nyvinter (Feb 22, 2022)

payn said:


> Nobody consulted the Swedes when the word was developed. Not going to start now.



It fits though. the movie was not that good.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 22, 2022)

Cadence said:


> I need help. What makes a super-hero movie count as sci-fi or not (like Guardians of the Galaxy, as opposed to the Ant-Man ones, the final two Avengers ones, or Thor Ragnorak?). What about others that have it in their descriptors, like Big Hero 6 or Monsters vs. Aliens count? I am legend?



Marketing.  At its heart, genres classifications exist to market fiction.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 22, 2022)

payn said:


> Ultimately, I think the list suffers from having two types of sci-fi movies on it. Action adventure types like the supers flicks and monster pics should be on one list, and philosophical thought provoking dives on another.




I agree, but I don't think it's the list's fault.  Movies in general suffer from a stratification problem today.  There aren't many mid-budget movies.  We live in a world of blockbusters and indie stuff, with very little in the middle.  Video games suffer from this problem as well.


----------



## payn (Feb 22, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> I agree, but I don't think it's the list's fault.  Movies in general suffer from a stratification problem today.  There aren't many mid-budget movies.  We live in a world of blockbusters and indie stuff, with very little in the middle.  Video games suffer from this problem as well.



I hear ya. I'll call it out again, but low-mid budget _Hunter Prey_ is a great sci-fi flick.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 22, 2022)

What about Don't Look Up? Would it be considered science fiction?


----------



## ART! (Feb 22, 2022)

Greg K said:


> What about Don't Look Up? Would it be considered science fiction?



I would say "yes". It explores the reactions of characters and culture to a science- and technology-based what-if.

(That said, I didn't care for it, mostly just because of what struck me as a frequently shifting tone, which i don't deal well with.)


----------



## Helldritch (Feb 22, 2022)

MarkB said:


> You realise it's "of the last 15 years", right?



Yep, but I simply do not care. 2001 is a master piece that transcends the decades. It is always of actuality. Always new


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 22, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> Yep, but I simply do not care. 2001 is a master piece that transcends the decades. It is always of actuality. Always new




Top 25 Rom Coms of the 90s ...


#1 _2001: A Space Odyssey _ .... The "will they, won't they" relationship between Hal 9000 and Dave will have you laughing, crying, and tugging at your flannel.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 22, 2022)

ART! said:


> (That said, I didn't care for it, mostly just because of what struck me as a frequently shifting tone, which i don't deal well with.)




For me if has a bit of a "too soon" problem. 



Helldritch said:


> Yep, but I simply do not care. 2001 is a master piece that transcends the decades. It is always of actuality. Always new




I can see to an argument to include the sequel.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Feb 22, 2022)

From the list, I've seen:

25. A Quiet Place (2018)
23. Snowpiercer (2013)
22. Colossal (2016)
20. Attack the Block (2011)
18. Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
17. Gravity (2013)
16. Pacific Rim (2013)
15. Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
14. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
13. Annihilation (2018)
11. The Martian (2015)
10. WALL-E (2008)
8. District 9 (2009)
7. Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
6. Dune (2021)
5. Ex Machina (2015)
3. Inception (2010)
1. Max Max: Fury Road (2015)

I mostly agree with the list, though I'd downvote Edge of Tomorrow and upvote Blade Runner 2049. If it wasn't specifically calling for movies, I'd replace Snowpiercer with the TV show. I didn't have high expectations for it, but I think the show surpasses the movie, telling a more nuanced, complicated, but no less thrilling tale.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 22, 2022)

Greg K said:


> What about Don't Look Up? Would it be considered science fiction?



Absolutely. Whatever you think of its quality, Don't Look Up is classic 'channeling contemporary anxieties about the future' science fiction.


Helldritch said:


> Yep, but I simply do not care. 2001 is a master piece that transcends the decades. It is always of actuality. Always new



Well since we're breaking the rules: Sense8, The OA.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 22, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> I've seen about 18 of the list.  I might have slept through one or two.
> 
> *Missing from the list:*
> 
> ...



I'm not a "found footage" kind of guy, but I enjoyed "Europa Report" very much.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 22, 2022)

Greg K said:


> What about Don't Look Up? Would it be considered science fiction?



I'd say that it leans far more on the side of political satire, than it does science fiction.


----------



## Helldritch (Feb 22, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> For me if has a bit of a "too soon" problem.
> 
> 
> 
> I can see to an argument to include the sequel.



I would, but it was not ad well rendered as 2001. What I would love to see is 2061.

And I heard that they wanted to make an adaptation of "Rendez-vous" with Ramah!


----------



## Mallus (Feb 22, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I'd say that it leans far more on the side of political satire, than it does science fiction.



I would not buy that for a dollar.


----------



## Ace (Feb 22, 2022)

I've only seen four of those and so will pass on egregious.  I don't have enough samples for comparison.

The ones I saw were Pacific Rim , Blade Runner Inception and Interstellar

Reviews in brief

PR. An international/China market folk and meh

BR. Overrated but pretty.

IN. Didn't care for it

INT. OK but nothing special

The ones I did like from that period that were not on the list were Dredd and Oblivion with Tom Cruise. Both were pretty basic in many ways  but quite entertaining. I can recommend   "off the list " movies though  since as noted I haven't seen enough  of them and didn't really like any of them very much.


----------



## GreyLord (Feb 24, 2022)

They didn't include Avatar?

One of the biggest movies ever, also made 3d a thing for a while.

Yep...I'd say they don't know what they are talking about.

Personal Preferences...

Tron Legacy
Men in Black International


and more recent

Dune (2021)

Including Looper or Her and excluding these..."yeah, well, that just, like, your opinion man"

PS:  I've seen most of those on the List.  It seems a little slanted.  There are other Sci-Fi movies they left off while putting less than stellar ones on.  Of course it's a staff poll rather than based on anything more substantial...so...basically their opinions of it.

PPS:  I was mistaken apparently as Dune is on the list.

Still, wouldn't consider it valid without Avatar.  Of most of the movies it has had the biggest impact in over a decade on Movies in general (the entire 3e thing) and even Science Fiction Movies (one could contest whether it revitalized Sci-Fi movies in general, but it is one that at least led the current revolution of Science Fiction popularity in the theater for the past decade).

Most of the other movies they list have NOTHING on that, or even come close to the cultural impact of it.  It doesn't matter what one thinks of the movie itself, to ignore something with a bigger impact on cinema and science fiction than 90% of their lists sort of invalidates it IMO...of course.


----------



## nyvinter (Feb 24, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> They didn't include Avatar?
> 
> One of the biggest movies ever, also made 3d a thing for a while.
> 
> Yep...I'd say they don't know what they are talking about.



They're using a version of best that don't really care about box office revenue, and it's one I 100% agree with. Avatar does not belong to a list of best movies.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 24, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> They didn't include Avatar?
> 
> One of the biggest movies ever, also made 3d a thing for a while.
> 
> Yep...I'd say they don't know what they are talking about.




I .... agree with that omission.

Has there ever been a less consequential "big" movie than Avatar? How many Avatar fans have you met? How many people _care_ about Avatar? When was the last time you were like, "Hey, I need another movie about people trying to mine ... _unobtainium_." 

I'm sure the sequels that are going to be released are going to do fine, because no one has ever made money betting against James Cameron. But it's not like there were people clamoring for them. 

Heck, I've seen Avatar twice (once, in the theater when it came out, and once a few years ago) and I still would be hard-pressed to recall the plot, other than "Something something blue people something something yay environment."


----------



## MGibster (Feb 24, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> They didn't include Avatar?



For a movie that was so huge it seems to have left a very, very shallow cultural footprint.  I've never heard Avatar mentioned in the same breath as great science fiction stories by anybody.  It might be a visual spectacle but it's not really all that good.


----------



## payn (Feb 24, 2022)

It is staff_ and _reader votes, so its going to be all over the place. I think they could have used a better criteria than simply best sci-fi in last 15 years myself.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 24, 2022)

payn said:


> It is staff_ and _reader votes, so its going to be all over the place. I think they could have used a better criteria than simply best sci-fi in last 15 years myself.




They could have hired me. I will make rules.

THERE WILL BE ORDER.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 24, 2022)

I think it's fair to compare Avatar with Logan's Run.

Both did better than expected at the box office.  Both won awards (including Oscars) for special effects.   Both were split in critical reviews.  Both take place in a very interesting world that was not flushed out to it's full potential.  Both were really big deals when they were released, but were quickly forgotten when better movies came out soon afterwards.    Both are more historically significant than they are artistically significant.

IMNSHO, both are fun movies to watch but aren't overly amazing.  I could see Avatar in the top 25 of the last 15 years, but not the top 10.


----------



## GreyLord (Feb 24, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I .... agree with that omission.
> 
> Has there ever been a less consequential "big" movie than Avatar? How many Avatar fans have you met? How many people _care_ about Avatar? When was the last time you were like, "Hey, I need another movie about people trying to mine ... _unobtainium_."
> 
> ...




Added a PPS to my post.

Culturally, almost none of the movies on the list had the impact Avatar did, either in popularizing the Sci-Fi genre, or in the making of films in general (and Sci-fi films in particular have taken a LOT of cues from it, most of those on the list would not exist in the state they were released in without the influence of Avatar's cinematographic influence).

People like to say...hey...this is real sci-fi, or this is not...putting down the popular for the unpopular.  What they don't see is the broader picture of the ACTUAL IMPACT the movie had.  For example, the movie HER has had almost NO impact on movie making, culture, or even science fiction (at least as of present).  It may have a somewhat interesting storyline, but it's actual impact and influence is almost NIL.  Compared to other movies, including it on a list of the 25 best...is questionable at best...

Avatar had impact on how movies were made in general, which influence the cinematagraphy and HOW Science Fiction movies were shot.  You wouldn't have Gravity as it is, or Guardians of the Galaxy (that's on the list for sci-fi films...really?) with the same shots or editing if there was no Avatar previously.  The impact it had on the movie world was actually HUGE (it was almost the entire reason the movie industry went head over heels for 3d for almost a decade...which finally is dying...thank goodness as I hated the trend...which also influenced how movies were shot in regards to that 3d which also influenced other movies that were NOT shot in the same way).


----------



## MGibster (Feb 24, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> Both did better than expected at the box office. Both won awards (including Oscars) for special effects. Both were split in critical reviews. Both take place in a very interesting world that was not flushed out to it's full potential. Both were really big deals when they were released, but were quickly forgotten when better movies came out soon afterwards. Both are more historically significant than they are artistically significant.



I'm sorry, I was distracted by thoughts of Jenny Agutter and couldn't comprehend what you wrote.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 24, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> People like to say...hey...this is real sci-fi, or this is not...putting down the popular for the unpopular.  What they don't see is the broader picture of the ACTUAL IMPACT the movie had.  For example, the movie HER has had almost NO impact on movie making, culture, or even science fiction (at least as of present).  It may have a somewhat interesting storyline, but it's actual impact and influence is almost NIL.  Compared to other movies, including it on a list of the 25 best...is questionable at best...




Let's see. Her .... is incredibly well-known because:
1. Directed by Spike Jonze.
2. Starred Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson, Amy Adams, Rooney Mara, and Olivia Wilde (you might be familiar with some of those actors).
3. Won numerous film awards, including an Oscar for best Original Screenplay (it was a nominee for picture of the year) and an AFI for film of the year. It pretty much swept all the various awards given for writing that year. 
4. Won numerous science fiction awards, including Saturns for Best Fantasy Film.

It's regularly on the list of greatest MOVIES (not just "science fiction movies") of the 2000s. 

I mean ... whatever your point was, I think you made a really bad choice for your flex. That's one of the few movies on the list that will probably be on similar lists 40 years from now.


----------



## FriendlyFiend (Feb 24, 2022)

That's a surprisingly good list! I've seen 20/25. 

As for films that should have been on the list; GotG 1 but not 2? I love GotG, but volume 2 is just perfect. And, yeah, Dredd really ought to be there.

Ranking-wise? I'd have Wall-E, Under the Skin and Her higher and Interstellar significantly lower.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 24, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 1. *Max Max:* Fury Road (2015)



Why have you summoned me to this place in the middle of my beauty sleep?!


Snarf Zagyg said:


> A. How many of these 25 films have you seen?
> _-Include which ones you have not seen._



It will be faster to just include the ones that I have seen.
A Quiet Place
Guardians of the Galaxy
Rogue 1
WALL-E

Dune is on my list, but my wife says she wants to see it with me and she's dragging her feet.  



Snarf Zagyg said:


> B. What film, or films, would you put on the list that are not on the list?
> -_If you're going to propose a film that should be on the list, you ALSO have to explain which film goes OFF the list_.



I really liked the first J.J. Abrams Star Trek


Snarf Zagyg said:


> C. Finally, what is the most egregious ranking(s) within the list?
> _-This is where you get to say that something was ranked too low or too high_.



I found the premise of a quiet place to be too unbelievable to suspend disbelief, so it would not make a top 25 list of mine.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 24, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> They didn't include Avatar?
> 
> One of the biggest movies ever, also made 3d a thing for a while.
> 
> ...



But are you putting "Avatar" on your list because it was an exceptional story, or because it had exceptional tech used to make it? I don't see it as making this sort of list.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 24, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Let's see. Her .... is incredibly well-known because:
> ...
> It's regularly on the list of greatest MOVIES (not just "science fiction movies") of the 2000s.




Is it?  I would classify Her as a movie for movie people; I don't think it's particularly well known.  Maybe common in certain circles, but not to the general public.  You have to go down to #76 to find it on IMDBs top movies of the 2010s.

And it's sci-fi by technicality, but in a world where people debate if superhero movies belong in the genre, it's barely there.  Definitely a romance and drama first.  If I asked asked someone "What's your favorites sci-fi movie" and they said "Her", I would respond "You don't really like sci-fi, do you?"


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 24, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> Is it?  I would classify Her as a movie for movie people; I don't think it's particularly well known.  Maybe common in certain circles, but not to the general public.  You have to go down to #76 to find it on IMDBs top movies of the 2010s.
> 
> And it's sci-fi by technicality, but in a world where people debate if superhero movies belong in the genre, it's barely there.  Definitely a romance and drama first.  If I asked asked someone "What's your favorites sci-fi movie" and they said "Her", I would respond "You don't really like sci-fi, do you?"




What are you talking about?

First, a "movie for movie people" is the type of movie that tends to linger, because ... movie people (critics, people that like old movies) are the ones that keep movies alive, especially old ones. 

Second, _not a science fiction film? _Serious question- did you watch it? It's the best thing Philip K. Dick never wrote. 

For those who did not watch it ...



Spoiler



Her is a movie that takes place in an undefined future. It is entirely about humanity's relationship to technology. Almost like the fiction is using the FUTURE to tell us things about the PRESENT. Hmm.... 

Importantly, and this is hardly a deep dive into the thematic elements, it's an exploration on what it means to use and rely on technology, and how that inevitably colors our relationships both with people and the technology itself. 

I don't want to go into more detail, but, arguably, the movie has more to say about the human condition in an interconnected world, both presently and moving forward, than any other film made to date.



TLDR; WUT???????


----------



## Mallus (Feb 24, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> If I asked asked someone "What's your favorites sci-fi movie" and they said "Her", I would respond "You don't really like sci-fi, do you?"



What if they replied "Star Wars"? Would you tell them it doesn't count because it's fantasy? 

(you know, you can be a sci-fi person _and_ a movie person at the same time)


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 24, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> Is it?  I would classify Her as a movie for movie people; I don't think it's particularly well known.  Maybe common in certain circles, but not to the general public.  You have to go down to #76 to find it on IMDBs top movies of the 2010s.
> 
> And it's sci-fi by technicality, but in a world where people debate if superhero movies belong in the genre, it's barely there.  Definitely a romance and drama first.  If I asked asked someone "What's your favorites sci-fi movie" and they said "Her", I would respond "You don't really like sci-fi, do you?"




I'm aware of the rough plot and cast because I'm an SF film nerd to some degree, but it came and went without much generally visible footprint far as I can tell.


----------



## Rabulias (Feb 24, 2022)

Helldritch said:


> And I heard that they wanted to make an adaptation of "Rendez-vous" with Ramah!



They are working on such: Dune Director Denis Villeneuve to adapt Rendezvous with Rama!


----------



## payn (Feb 24, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> First, a "movie for movie people" is the type of movie that tends to linger, because ... movie people (critics, people that like old movies) are the ones that keep movies alive, especially old ones.
> 
> ...



Speaking for myself, I see _Her_ in that philosophical bucket. It hits with folks who like artsy movies, intellectual movies, culturally introspective movies, etc... It has more in common with _Eternal Sunshine_ than_ Jurassic Park_. The kind of movie nobody says is "bad", but plenty of people say "meh not interested." Some of your comments seem to indicate it's more important to the zeitgeist than most folks would agree with.


----------



## Helldritch (Feb 24, 2022)

Rabulias said:


> They are working on such: Dune Director Denis Villeneuve to adapt Rendezvous with Rama!



I have dreamt of that adaptation for decades! I really liked that book. I knew something was on the burner but to see Denis Villeneuve going for it? Priceless!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 24, 2022)

payn said:


> Speaking for myself, I see _Her_ in that philosophical bucket. It hits with folks who like artsy movies, intellectual movies, culturally introspective movies, etc... It has more in common with _Eternal Sunshine_ than_ Jurassic Park_. The kind of movie nobody says is "bad", but plenty of people say "meh not interested." Some of your comments seem to indicate it's more important to the zeitgeist than most folks would agree with.




It depends on how a person would define, "Important to the zeitgeist," I guess.

Obviously, it's not a Marvel superhero movie. But it was a science fiction movie that was important enough to be nominated for an Academy Award, and it won the most prestigious writing award (best original screenplay)- in fact, it racked those awards up. I can't think of a single person (aka, critic) who didn't have it as one of the top movies that year. 

I would agree that it is very similar to _Eternal Sunshine_; then again, I also think that's another film that, because of the writing, acting, and plot, continue to be relevant.

Who knows? I'm a film person, and I talk to other film people. I thought the particular choice to use _Her _was a particularly poor one. Look at the list- Colossal? A Quiet Place? The Endless?* Moon?** Rogue One.***

If someone chooses to take out that movie, out of the ones mentioned, that's definitely a choice. 

And it's interesting how one ranks popcorn movies, as well. I mean, I think that Pacific Rim, for a lot of reasons, had continuing cultural relevance that, say, Avatar never did. 


*I loved that movie- but more important than Her? 
**Again, a good movie, but beyond Rockwell (always good) and the twist, not a lot there, there. IMO. 
***Lovely movie. Enjoyed it in the theater. If not the best, one of best SW movies since the original trilogy. Doubt people will care about it in 10 years, but we will see.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 24, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Second, _not a science fiction film? _Serious question- did you watch it? It's the best thing Philip K. Dick never wrote.





Mallus said:


> What if they replied "Star Wars"? Would you tell them it doesn't count because it's fantasy?
> 
> (you know, you can be a sci-fi person _and_ a movie person at the same time)




I didn't say Her wasn't sci-fi.  I'm perfectly okay with things being in more than one category.

But I'm also okay with saying one thing in more sci-fi than another.  A Quiet Place and Alien are both horror movies that happen to take place in the sci-fi genre.  But Alien is definitely more sci-fi than A Quiet Place.  Star Wars and Monster's Inc are both technically sci-fi and fantasy, but Star Wars is a lot more sci-fi and Monster's Inc is a lot more fantasy.

And when I make a list of "Best Sci-fi Movies", I consider how much sci-fi something is when it goes on the list.  I think there's a reason the original article included Guardians of the Galaxy instead of Thor: Ragnarok.  And to the specific context I made that post in, I will say that I consider Avatar to be more sci-fi than Her.  YMMV.


----------



## payn (Feb 24, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> It depends on how a person would define, "Important to the zeitgeist," I guess.
> 
> Obviously, it's not a Marvel superhero movie. But it was a science fiction movie that was important enough to be nominated for an Academy Award, and it won the most prestigious writing award (best original screenplay)- in fact, it racked those awards up. I can't think of a single person (aka, critic) who didn't have it as one of the top movies that year.



Right, nobody says its a bad movie. 


Snarf Zagyg said:


> I would agree that it is very similar to _Eternal Sunshine_; then again, I also think that's another film that, because of the writing, acting, and plot, continue to be relevant.



Not a lot of people talk about either of these movies much. Unlike, Jurassic Park or Star Wars. 


Snarf Zagyg said:


> Who knows? I'm a film person, and I talk to other film people. I thought the particular choice to use _Her _was a particularly poor one. Look at the list- Colossal? A Quiet Place? The Endless?* Moon?** Rogue One.***
> 
> If someone chooses to take out that movie, out of the ones mentioned, that's definitely a choice.



Yeah im not saying _Her_ shouldn't be on the list, just that you might be overvaluing the recognition and impact of the film in general. Which half the films on this list do hit that mass recognition level, albeit more on the popcorn level.  


Snarf Zagyg said:


> And it's interesting how one ranks popcorn movies, as well. I mean, I think that Pacific Rim, for a lot of reasons, had continuing cultural relevance that, say, Avatar never did.



Agreed. I dont think these movies should be compared to things like _Her, _but thats just my humble opinion.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 24, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Moon?**
> **Again, a good movie, but beyond Rockwell (always good) and the twist, not a lot there, there. IMO.




Adding to my earlier post, one of the reasons I think Moon belongs on the list is that it is really, really sci-fi.  Not just in the setting.  It's done in the style of classic sci-fi from the early (pre Star Wars) days, with all the tropes and tribulations of an episode of X Minus One or a 50s pulp movie.  It's sci-fi for old school sci-fi people, and it does it well.

The same could be said about District 9, to a somewhat lesser extent.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 24, 2022)

payn said:


> Right, nobody says its a bad movie.
> 
> Not a lot of people talk about either of these movies much. Unlike, Jurassic Park or Star Wars.
> 
> Yeah im not saying _Her_ shouldn't be on the list, just that you might be overvaluing the recognition and impact of the film in general. Which half the films on this list do hit that mass recognition level, albeit more on the popcorn level.




Two things here-

First, I don't think that any list of "greatest movies" (of a particular time, of a particular genre) tends to have an overrepresentation of "popcorn movies." 

I think that most people are pretty comfortable understanding that a movies can be popular, and they can be good, and that while these qualities _can_ overlap, they often don't. When Citizen Kane is regularly at the top (or close to the top) of most greatest movies list, I don't think people say, "Well, okay, but it was a flop at the box office." 

The whole box office/commercialism fetish is kind of new. I would add that while the boundaries between "popular" and "good," have thankfully blurred, it is still the case that it is unusual for popcorn movies to be "high concept." Christopher Nolan being one of the notable exceptions.

Second, using Jurassic Park (assumedly the first one) and Star Wars as your examples is kind of ... not correct. It would be like me using Inception as the example of something that isn't a popcorn movie. 

Both those movies are very important in cinema history for reasons other than just, "I got to sit in some AC, eat popcorn, and turn my brain off."


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 24, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> Adding to my earlier post, one of the reasons I think Moon belongs on the list is that it is really, really sci-fi.  Not just in the setting.  It's done in the style of classic sci-fi from the early (pre Star Wars) days, with all the tropes and tribulations of an episode of X Minus One or a 50s pulp movie.  It's sci-fi for old school sci-fi people, and it does it well.
> 
> The same could be said about District 9, to a somewhat lesser extent.




Yeah, no.

I cannot disagree more with this attempt to cabin off what is, and what isn't, science fiction.

Let's see-

Her takes place in the future (check).
With technology that we don't have today (check).
The primary theme is using the future to tell us about today (check).
Oh, and one of the characters and a major issue in the plot involved artificial intelligence (check).

I could keep going on, but if that's not science fiction, then I can't agree with you on anything.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 24, 2022)

payn said:


> Speaking for myself, I see _Her_ in that philosophical bucket. It hits with folks who like artsy movies, intellectual movies, culturally introspective movies, etc... It has more in common with _Eternal Sunshine_ than_ Jurassic Park_. The kind of movie nobody says is "bad", but plenty of people say "meh not interested." Some of your comments seem to indicate it's more important to the zeitgeist than most folks would agree with.



"The Best" tend to have real staying power, as opposed to being box office hits. How many science fiction movies to you remember form the 1950s, for example? My mind immediately jumps to 2, then another 2 sort of sneak in the back door when I'm not looking:

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" - Arguably the first anti-nuke movie made in the US. Sure, it has a beautiful girl and a big shiny robot, along with a little action, but it's more about taking a good, long, dispassionate look at ourselves.

"Forbidden Planet" - Another one with action and a big robot, but it's based on Shakespeare's "The Tempest." It covers the nature of man, good and evil, etc..

The others...

"Invasion of the Body Snatchers" - A movie with multiple remakes. Thinly veiled allusions to communism and the Cold War, the nature of being, etc.. 

"The Thing From Another World" - aka "Invasion of the Carrot Man from Outer Space." A good enough shoot-'em-up SF that it has been remade, twice. More thinly veiled allusion to communism and McCarthyism.

These films are watchedd again and again, debated over, or just plain enjoyed. I don't know that many movies that rely too heavily on special effects, rather than story and character development, will be able to say the same.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 24, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Yeah, no.
> 
> I cannot disagree more with this attempt to cabin off what is, and what isn't, science fiction.
> 
> ...



I think that people have difficulty seeing something as SF when the tech is close enough that they can imagine it happening now. There's an expression that was used in the TORG RPG that I've always liked, as a partial explanation of their setting; "The Near Now." It's still SF.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 24, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I think that people have difficulty seeing something as SF when the tech is close enough that they can imagine it happening now. There's an expression that was used in the TORG RPG that I've always liked, as a partial explanation of their setting; "The Near Now." It's still SF.




I think a lot of people confuse or conflate two concepts in science fiction.

The true roots of science fiction, AFAIC, have always been about using stories set in the future to tell us about the present. This was one of the main concerns of golden-age science fiction. If you're not familiar with it (_Martian Chronicles_ is a great example), think of any TOS episode of Star Trek.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 24, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I cannot disagree more with this attempt to cabin off what is, and what isn't, science fiction.
> ..
> I could keep going on, but if that's not science fiction, then I can't agree with you on anything.




What is going on?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 24, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> What is going on?




See emphasis-


Deset Gled said:


> Is it?  I would classify Her as a movie for movie people; I don't think it's particularly well known.  Maybe common in certain circles, but not to the general public.  You have to go down to #76 to find it on IMDBs top movies of the 2010s.
> 
> *And it's sci-fi by technicality*, but in a world where people debate if superhero movies belong in the genre, *it's barely there*.  Definitely a romance and drama first.  If I asked asked someone "What's your favorites sci-fi movie" and they said "Her",* I would respond "You don't really like sci-fi, do you?*"






Deset Gled said:


> I didn't say Her wasn't sci-fi.  I'm perfectly okay with things being in more than one category.
> 
> *But I'm also okay with saying one thing in more sci-fi than another*.  A Quiet Place and Alien are both horror movies that happen to take place in the sci-fi genre.  But Alien is definitely more sci-fi than A Quiet Place.  Star Wars and Monster's Inc are both technically sci-fi and fantasy, but Star Wars is a lot more sci-fi and Monster's Inc is a lot more fantasy.
> 
> And when I make a list of "Best Sci-fi Movies", I consider how much sci-fi something is when it goes on the list.  I think there's a reason the original article included Guardians of the Galaxy instead of Thor: Ragnarok.  And to the specific context I made that post in, I will say that I consider Avatar to be more sci-fi than Her.  YMMV.






Deset Gled said:


> Adding to my earlier post, one of the reasons I think Moon belongs on the list *is that it is really, really sci-fi*.  Not just in the setting.  It's done in the style of classic sci-fi from the early (pre Star Wars) days, with all the tropes and tribulations of an episode of X Minus One or a 50s pulp movie. * It's sci-fi for old school sci-fi people*, and it does it well.
> 
> The same could be said about District 9, to a somewhat lesser extent.




I am not comfortable telling other people that their science fiction isn't "really, really" science fiction, and I would never tell someone, after they told me their favorite sci-fi movie (which is most assuredly a sci-fi movie and one of the best ones of this millenium), "You don't really like sic-fi, do you?"


That would be weird, to me. I don't have the need to police those boundaries, because in my experience policing those boundaries always means that people are using artificial boundaries to assert that their preferences are the correct ones.


Finally, I find it more useful to _provide more information_ than to say something isn't science fiction. For example, _The Lobster _is a great and wonderful science fiction film that uses surrealism and black humor to explore a dystopian near-future. But it's not, at all, interested in technology or pew pew pew, and it's closer to "magical realism" than to "hard science fiction."


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 24, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think a lot of people confuse or conflate two concepts in science fiction.
> 
> The true roots of science fiction, AFAIC, have always been about using stories set in the future to tell us about the present. This was one of the main concerns of golden-age science fiction. If you're not familiar with it (_Martian Chronicles_ is a great example), think of any TOS episode of Star Trek.



Though when you say "future", it doesn't have to be a thousand years in the future.

_EDIT_ - And you're discounting a Golden Age movie like "the Day the Earth Stood Still" which is clearly SF, but effectively takes place in the (to them) modern world.


----------



## payn (Feb 24, 2022)

To make my position clear, I do think you can/should separate sub-genres of sci-fi. I dont consider some more than others, although I do have preferences.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 24, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Though when you say "future", it doesn't have to be a thousand years in the future.
> 
> _EDIT_ - And you're discounting a Golden Age movie like "the Day the Earth Stood Still" which is clearly SF, but effectively takes place in the (to them) modern world.




Not to mention so very many episodes of the original _Twilight Zone! _


----------



## payn (Feb 24, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Not to mention so very many episodes of the original _Twilight Zone! _



Or its decent cousin _The Outer Limits_!


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 24, 2022)

payn said:


> Or its decent cousin _The Outer Limits_!



Please stand by...


----------



## Cadence (Feb 24, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> "The Best" tend to have real staying power, as opposed to being box office hits. How many science fiction movies to you remember form the 1950s, for example? My mind immediately jumps to 2, then another 2 sort of sneak in the back door when I'm not looking:
> 
> "The Day the Earth Stood Still" - Arguably the first anti-nuke movie made in the US. Sure, it has a beautiful girl and a big shiny robot, along with a little action, but it's more about taking a good, long, dispassionate look at ourselves.
> 
> ...



Seeing "The Day the Earth Stood Still" mentioned had me go look up a few things.  The AFI list for sci-fi (put out in 2008, so not much time for things to make this list)  had:

1 -  2001: A Space Odyssey -1968
2 - Star Wars - 1977
3 -  E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial - 1982
4 - A Clockwork Orange - 1971
5 - The Day the Earth Stood Still - 1951
6 - Blade Runner - 1982
7 - Alien - 1979
8 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day - 1991
9 - Invasion of the Body Snatchers - 1956
10 - Back to the Future - 1985

AFI defines "science fiction" as a genre that marries a scientific or technological premise with imaginative speculation.  The other categories were Animation, Courtroom drama, Epic, Fantasy, Gangster, Mystery, Romantic comedy, Sports, and Western.

National Film Registry - IMDb  has a slightly out of date list that lets you search the Library of Congress National Film registry by the genres IMDB uses (Original LoC list at  Complete National Film Registry Listing  | Film Registry  | National Film Preservation Board  | Programs  | Library of Congress ) .  As for the LoC itself, starting at the bottom of page 1 this document defines how they see fantasy and science fiction: https://www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/scific.pdf , but I haven't found a list of how they classified the movies. Wall-E was put on the list in 2021, and is one of only four movies from 2008 or later so far.


----------



## Mannahnin (Feb 24, 2022)

It's a good list.  As far as great sci-fi films of the last 15 years go, I would probably put Her at the top of it.  I absolutely loved Fury Road as well, but the writing is inferior.

If it was the last 20 years Children of Men would bump Her back.


----------



## Mannahnin (Feb 24, 2022)

I’ve seen 18/25.

I have not yet watched Snowpiercer, Colossal (although I meant to and now again plan to), Attack the Block (same), Under the Skin, Gravity, Edge of Tomorrow, or Interstellar. Both Gravity and Interstellar, specifically, I missed the chance to see in 35mm or another proper prestige format theater and still hope to. Under the Skin was not on my radar at all, but Snarf’s comments in the OP definitely spark my interest.

Since neither Children of Men or Primer fall within the 15 years, I don’t see any egregious missed inclusions. Sunshine, Monsters (2010), and 10 Cloverfield Lane are probably more worthy than (of the ones I’ve seen) Pacific Rim, Rogue One, and Guardians of the Galaxy, much as I enjoyed the latter two. Dredd, the 2011 prequel to The Thing, and at least one of the Planet of the Apes movies are reasonable contenders too. I liked Pandorum as well.

My top five from this list evaluated as sci-fi films are probably Her, Ex Machina, The Martian, Annihilation, and Fury Road. Just as movies the order probably more like Her, Fury Road, Inception, Wall-E, Ex Machina.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 24, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I’ve seen 18/25.
> 
> I have not yet watched Snowpiercer, Colossal (although I meant to and now again plan to), Attack the Block (same), Under the Skin, Gravity, Edge of Tomorrow, or Interstellar. Both Gravity and Interstellar, specifically, I missed the chance to see in 35mm or another proper prestige format theater and still hope to. Under the Skin was not on my radar at all, but Snarf’s comments in the OP definitely spark my interest.
> 
> ...




Notes-
When I saw Primer, it was so amazingly good. Still hard to believe how good it was. Upstream Color was ... quite good, but never captured the magic of Primer.*

I thought about including Monsters. A great undiscovered gem. I didn't hear about it when it was released, stumbled across it on streaming, and was transfixed.

Haven't seen, or, I think, heard of Pandorum. I'll check it out!

As an aside, I quite liked Attack the Block_, _but I never loved it like other people did. I always viewed it more as a "fun" movie than an important one, if that makes sense? Not that there's anything wrong with fun!

*Speaking of time travel, I am putting something in spoilers. It's on Youtube, but please be aware that
*IT IS NSFW IN TERMS OF LANGUAGE/CONCEPT - VISUALS ARE G. Incredibly funny, but don't play with volume at work.*


Spoiler: One Minute Time Machine (Five Minute Film)


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 24, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> "The Best" tend to have real staying power, as opposed to being box office hits. How many science fiction movies to you remember form the 1950s, for example? My mind immediately jumps to 2, then another 2 sort of sneak in the back door when I'm not looking:
> 
> "The Day the Earth Stood Still" - Arguably the first anti-nuke movie made in the US. Sure, it has a beautiful girl and a big shiny robot, along with a little action, but it's more about taking a good, long, dispassionate look at ourselves.
> 
> ...




Unless you're doing the "They're monster movies, not SF movies" I can think of at least 2-4 others without pause.  "Them!" for example casts a long shadow.  I also think ignoring "They Came from Outer Space" would be, kind of a take.


----------



## GreyLord (Feb 24, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> But are you putting "Avatar" on your list because it was an exceptional story, or because it had exceptional tech used to make it? I don't see it as making this sort of list.




Part of it is the Tech (though it is Traceable directly back to the tech used), but most of it is IMPACT.

What impact did the movie have on movies in general and on science fiction movies.

Half the movies on the list wouldn't exist in the state they are without Avatar and the influence it had on the movie industry.  They LITERALLY WOULD NOT EXIST in the state they were made.

In that aspect, it's like the original Star Wars of the 21st century.  Most of the REASONS came from the tech that was used to make it, and the ensuing use of that tech afterwards, which is the same reason Star Wars has been considered rather important on the scheme of movies as well in many ways.  

I a similar vein, going further back would be Wizard of Oz or Gone with the Wind and their promotion of certain film making techniques, camera work, set design, and usage of color.  

Including any list of the "best" movies or the ones that are the greatest movies of all time without any of those calls any list that excludes them...into question.

Of course, it may be a different parameter of what people are using to define best (and what IS best defined as?), but Many of the movies we have today would basically not exist in the form they exist in (if they existed at all) without the aforementioned movies.  

Ceasing to exist at all, kind of shows just how much the movies on that list depend on the ones that influenced them previously, even if that movie was in the past 15 years.

But, as I mentioned in my first post, it really comes down to opinion...what is the definition of "best?" 

Is it the story?  Is it the idea?  Is it the set design?  Is it the camera work?  Is it the influence?  Is it the impact?  What exactly defines...BEST.


----------



## GreyLord (Feb 24, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Yeah, no.
> 
> I cannot disagree more with this attempt to cabin off what is, and what isn't, science fiction.
> 
> ...




The problem with Her isn't that it is not Sci-Fi, but it just doesn't have that much of an impact.  What movies has it influenced in their creation?  Has it fundamentally changed movie making?  Has it even fundamentally affected Science Fiction movie making?

It came and went.  That doesn't mean it is bad, it just isn't what meets my definition of "best." especially when we are excluding other movies that actually DID have major influences. 

I was pointing out that it makes no sense that a movie like HER made it, but Avatar did not. 

There are movies there that I haven't seen (A quiet place, Colossal, Endless, and Annihilation) which may have very well also been better things to point out, but I didn't know them as well as HER.  I chose HER because I know the film better than others. 

It's not a bad film, and certainly could go on a Best list, but not when they exclude others which I see having a greater appeal, also were critically acclaimed to a degree (Avatar actually won 3 academy awards...and the awards in many ways were similar to ones Star Wars won if that indicates the impact it would have in the future), greater impact, and basically had more that it did with the exception of maybe story and writing...something seems off to me.

But, as I Pointed out, though through snark and sarcasm via a quote...when we really look at the list, there is no basis for what is "Best" or not on that list except basic opinion.  There isn't really any other factor except people who voted felt it was "best" in their qualifications and opinion.

PS:  Opinion - A prime example for me...science fiction in movies is MORE than just a literary medium.  It also has to be a visual and auditory medium, something that includes more senses than just your mind.  I have books to engage my mind, and they tend to do a better job (not always, but normally).  The way it is shot, the way the music interacts is a LARGE part of what helps me determine what is "best" in my opinions (rather than based on objective measures like impact).  This is why Tron Legacy would probably go on my best lists...because it has great visuals and sound accompanying it...even if the story isn't as deep as some other movies.  HER may have decent writing, but the visuals and music really just were not meshing perfectly for me.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 24, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> The problem with Her isn't that it is not Sci-Fi, but it just doesn't have that much of an impact.  What movies has it influenced in their creation?  Has it fundamentally changed movie making?  Has it even fundamentally affected Science Fiction movie making?
> 
> It came and went.  That doesn't mean it is bad, it just isn't what meets my definition of "best." especially when we are excluding other movies that actually DID have major influences.




I honestly don't know how to respond to this? Again, don't get me wrong, I enjoy me a good Cameron flick. The guy knows how to shoot an action sequence. He likes water. He enjoys spending money. And he loves tech- not in a "Kubrick, I'm going to know everything there is to know about film" way,* but still.

...yet we are still talking about a guy who used "unobtainium" as the name of the mineral in Avatar. Who has trouble with single entendres, let alone any kind of visual metaphor.

Her, on the other hand, has a good story- heck, a great story (it won awards and stuff). But, as you might expect from Spike Jonez, it's also incredibly visually inventive; I assume you know that the color palette used in the movie were matching the emotional resonance of the scenes (kind of like a Confederacy Dunce, that). Or even the masterful use of framing of the characters to reinforce their own internal struggles. And don't get me started on the use of light!

Heck, people can (and still do) write papers analyzing a lot of these issues with Her. Just because _you didn't pay much attention to it_, doesn't mean that other people didn't. And in the end, the people that did are the people that make and talk films a lot.

It's kind of like saying, "I've never seen an Anderson** film. So who cares, really?"


*Or, if you prefer, Nolan.
**Wes or P.T. Not 'Mr. Anderson,' Matrix fans.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 24, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> Part of it is the Tech (though it is Traceable directly back to the tech used), but most of it is IMPACT.
> 
> What impact did the movie have on movies in general and on science fiction movies.
> 
> ...



You see, I would argue that those movies would still likely exist, but the presentation would be different. A great movie is great because of the story it tells and the way that it's told, far more than the visual trickery that might be used. you can be quite subtle with the use of what you have, as in "The Wizard of Oz." Colour film existed and, while novel, wasn't really new. Starting a film in black and white and then switching to colour was using the existing tech in a different way, but it wasn't transformative of the medium. It was a method of storytelling that slipped past many viewers' conscious minds.

The effects in "Star Wars." "Bullet Time" in "The Matrix." These were visual tricks that may have added to the experience, but didn't do much for the story. Star Wars could still have been done using Harryhausen's stop motion. The reflection effects in "The Matrix", while not new, had much more impact on the storytelling than "Bullet Time" did.

You can make a movie subjectively look better but if you don't have a story capable of drawing in your audience, all of the frippery in the world won't help much. In the past I've mentioned "Jupiter Ascending." The Euro-style effects in that movie were as different from our normal fare, as Lucas is from Harryhausen. That didn't make it a good movie. Nothing did.

And I guess that I'm an outlier here, but "Avatar" makes me yawn.


----------



## LongTimeLurker (Feb 24, 2022)

No Armageddon? WTH??! Oh, last TEN years. OK, carry on then...


----------



## MGibster (Feb 24, 2022)

GreyLord said:


> Is it the story? Is it the idea? Is it the set design? Is it the camera work? Is it the influence? Is it the impact? What exactly defines...BEST.



It's all subjective.  While I don't think _Avatar_ belongs on a list of great science fiction movies, it's not a hill I'm going to die on and I'll respect anyone who puts it on their list.


----------



## Rabulias (Feb 24, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Star Wars could still have been done using Harryhausen's stop motion.




It wasn't?


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 25, 2022)

Rabulias said:


> It wasn't?



I said Harryhausen, but was more thinking Corman.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 25, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I said Harryhausen, but was more thinking Corman.



First Jenny Agutter and now Sybil Danning.  I'm starting to feel faint.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 25, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Starting a film in black and white and then switching to colour was using the existing tech in a different way, but it wasn't transformative of the medium. It was a method of storytelling that slipped past many viewers' conscious minds.



Effects that the viewer doesn't notice are the most powerful. Colour palate shifting is still used a lot in modern film making. There is a lot of it in The Lord of the Rings trilogy for example.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 25, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I said Harryhausen, but was more thinking Corman.



You think low quality special effects don't matter? They don't hurt the audience's suspension of disbelief?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 25, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> "Forbidden Planet" - Another one with action and a big robot, but it's based on Shakespeare's "The Tempest." It covers the nature of man, good and evil, etc..



It's also proto-Star Trek.


Ryujin said:


> "The Thing From Another World" - aka "Invasion of the Carrot Man from Outer Space." A good enough shoot-'em-up SF that it has been remade, twice.



Three times, at least. The Seeds of Doom - Wikipedia


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 25, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> The true roots of science fiction, AFAIC, have always been about using stories set in the future to tell us about the present.



Frankenstein is often cited as the first science fiction novel, and that was set in the present (at the time of writing). So where Jules Verne's novels, and several of H. G. Wells's. They certainly addressed present-day concerns, but they didn't need to be set in the future in order to do so.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 25, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> It's also proto-Star Trek.
> 
> Three times, at least. The Seeds of Doom - Wikipedia



I was thinking movie remakes, however, I had admittedly forgotten that series of Who.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 25, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> You think low quality special effects don't matter? They don't hurt the audience's suspension of disbelief?



It certainly can, but we got along just fine with what we had at the time. For example "Battlestar Galactica" really wasn't far above this level of SFX, in the '70s, despite its something like million dollar per episode budget, that eventually killed it.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 25, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Frankenstein is often cited as the first science fiction novel, and that was set in the present (at the time of writing). So where Jules Verne's novels, and several of H. G. Wells's. They certainly addressed present-day concerns, but they didn't need to be set in the future in order to do so.




Good point. It would have been better if I had been using something more like, "Placing the story in the future is a sufficient, but not necessary, indicia that it is science fiction."  After all, not only do you have novels like Frankenstein, you also have a number of alternate histories that take place in an imagined past that are usually considered science fiction (and, weirdly, often involve Nazis and/or dirigibles, but that's another issue). 

Of course, the problems with defining the term itself have long been noted, and it is usually better to be over-inclusive with the umbrella term than under-inclusive.


----------



## MarkB (Feb 25, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Good point. It would have been better if I had been using something more like, "Placing the story in the future is a sufficient, but not necessary, indicia that it is science fiction."  After all, not only do you have novels like Frankenstein, you also have a number of alternate histories that take place in an imagined past that are usually considered science fiction (and, weirdly, often involve Nazis and/or dirigibles, but that's another issue).
> 
> Of course, the problems with defining the term itself have long been noted, and it is usually better to be over-inclusive with the umbrella term than under-inclusive.



Basically the classic sci-fi paradigm, especially in short-story form, was to introduce a single novel element and then imagine how that one change would affect the world, as a lens for examining our society.

The goal, then, was to minimise any other differences from the real world as far as possible, in order to focus on that one new element, so it was common for stories to be set in the present day or the very near future.

Of course, that didn't make for realistic worldbuilding or interconnected works, so many authors quickly expanded beyond that "one new thing" concept once they started building into larger settings and longer-form works. But even then, the emphasis in any particular story will often be on a specific change or innovation.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 25, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Good point. It would have been better if I had been using something more like, "Placing the story in the future is a sufficient, but not necessary, indicia that it is science fiction."  After all, not only do you have novels like Frankenstein, you also have a number of alternate histories that take place in an imagined past that are usually considered science fiction (and, weirdly, often involve Nazis and/or dirigibles, but that's another issue).
> 
> Of course, the problems with defining the term itself have long been noted, and it is usually better to be over-inclusive with the umbrella term than under-inclusive.



These days a lot of people seem to use the term "speculative fiction" as a more all encompassing label.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 25, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Of course, that didn't make for realistic worldbuilding or interconnected works, so many authors quickly expanded beyond that "one new thing" concept once they started building into larger settings and longer-form works. But even then, the emphasis in any particular story will often be on a specific change or innovation.




A classic example here would be Bester's "The Stars My Destination"; while its set in the future he assumed time marches on, the core element of the novel is about the teleportation and its effects on the world and society (and, of course, the protagonist).


----------



## MarkB (Feb 25, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> These days a lot of people seem to use the term "speculative fiction" as a more all encompassing label.



These days? I recall seeing that term 20+ years ago. I thought it had largely gone out of fashion.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Feb 25, 2022)

I really liked _Moon._
I thought _Moon_ was fantastic.

Did I mention I really liked _Moon_?


----------



## Cadence (Feb 25, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Good point. It would have been better if I had been using something more like, "Placing the story in the future is a sufficient, but not necessary, indicia that it is science fiction."  After all, not only do you have novels like Frankenstein, you also have a number of alternate histories that take place in an imagined past that are usually considered science fiction (and, weirdly, often involve Nazis and/or dirigibles, but that's another issue).
> 
> Of course, the problems with defining the term itself have long been noted, and it is usually better to be over-inclusive with the umbrella term than under-inclusive.




The US Library of Congress had the following back in 2008.  The last paragraph seems to be the important part for defining Science Fiction, but I included the two above it for extra context into their view:

"Throughout this statement particular attention is given to science fiction (although it is, in fact, a sub-genre of fantasy) because it dominates the genre of fantasy in terms of the total number of titles published. It will be the general rule, therefore, throughout this statement to speak of "fantasy and science fiction" together and on equal terms. Unless otherwise specified, however, the fantasy provisions below apply equally to all of the other sub-genres of fantasy.

1. Fantasy
Fantasy includes the sub-genres of science fiction, horror and adaptations of traditional myths. The distinguished writer, Arthur C. Clarke, has stated that "any sufficiently advanced technology is undistinguishable from magic." (Omni, April 1980, p. 87.). This view is borne out by the fact that the distinctions between science fiction and the various other sub-genres of fantasy are indeed blurred at times and usually artificial. In fact, many authors in the genre frequently cross these artificial barriers in mid-work or in mid-career. Publishers, furthermore, often confuse these sub-genre identifications even further by failing to differentiate among them. Publishers do, however, frequently identify books in these various sub-genres with tags which usually appear on the spine or cover of the individual books stating that they are specifically fantasy, horror, science fiction, etc. These tags may be very useful in identifying materials whose precise classification is doubtful or subject to various interpretations. Although difficult to define with precision, fantasy usually requires a willing suspension of disbelief.  Works in its various sub-genres often 1) adapt, rework, or provide an alternate telling of a myth or folktale; 2) involve an alternate reality or alternate universe; 3) rely on a displacement of time or space; or 4) make use of elements of the horrific, supernatural, paranormal, or the occult.

2. Science fiction
In addition to sharing any or all of the general characteristics listed above for fantasy, science fiction usually 1) is speculative in nature; 2) assumes change as a given; 3) projects a story-line into the future or into an alternative reality or history; 4) explores a problem in technology, culture, philosophy, etc. beyond its current state; and 5) presents an atmosphere of scientific credibility regardless of the reality. Not all science fiction 1) takes place in the future; 2) involves space travel; 3) describes technology beyond current reality; or 4) deals with alien cultures. However, these elements are common in this sub-genre and uncommon outside it."


The full document is at: https://www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/scific.pdf


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 25, 2022)

MarkB said:


> These days? I recall seeing that term 20+ years ago. I thought it had largely gone out of fashion.



I'm pushing hard at age 60. "These days" is a relative term


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 25, 2022)

I'll start by striking off those I haven't seen:

25. A Quiet Place (2018)
24. Moon (2009)
23. Snowpiercer (2013)
22. Colossal (2016)
21. The Endless (2017)
20. Attack the Block (2011)
19. Under the Skin (2013)
18. Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
17. Gravity (2013)
16. Pacific Rim (2013)
15. Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
14. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
13. Annihilation (2018)
12. Looper (2012)
11. The Martian (2015)
10. WALL-E (2008)
9. Her (2013)
8. District 9 (2009)
7. Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
6. Dune (2021)
5. Ex Machina (2015)
4. Interstellar (2014)
3. Inception (2010)
2. Arrival (2016)
1. Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Next let's see what's left, add my quick feelings and a reference grade on a scale 1-10 (6 is "passable"):

24. Moon (2009) -> much more than I expected, I really enjoyed this one (7)
23. Snowpiercer (2013) -> absolute garbage, and quite sadistic too (3)
18. Blade Runner 2049 (2017) -> extremely well done, but probably the original story should not have been continued (7)
17. Gravity (2013) -> too much hype around it, at the end it was ok but nothing special (6)
15. Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) -> dumb but not bad (6)
14. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) -> thoroughly enjoyable despite being a spin-off (7)
12. Looper (2012) -> interesting story but not as entertaining as could have been (6)
11. The Martian (2015) -> fell asleep while watching, nuff said (but can't honestly vote)
10. WALL-E (2008) -> I probably wouldn't count it together with others, but this was a masterpiece of animation (9)
8. District 9 (2009) -> sometimes felt a bit goofy but overall quite original and well made (7)
7. Edge of Tomorrow (2014) -> fantastic story and execution (9)
4. Interstellar (2014) -> epic in so many things (9)
3. Inception (2010) -> difficult to the point I had to watch it three times in two different languages, but that only made me like it even more (9)
2. Arrival (2016) -> definitely different from the usual, awesome story and artwork (9)
1. Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) -> great action and execution but mediocre story (7)


See if IMDB helps me remember what sci-fi I watched since 2007 (might have forgotten some):

I am Legend (2007) -> felt like an old remake, and badly done (5)
Sunshine (2007) -> a lot more boring than I expected (5)
The Happening (2008) -> more horror than sci-fi, interesting premise but very predictable (5)
Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel (2009) -> campy but entertaining (7)
Splice (2009) -> vomit (3)
Prometheus (2012) -> beautiful, but felt a bit too vague, and definitely not at all needed in the Aliens story (6)
Cloud Atlas (2012) -> lots of good actors for an otherwise confused and floppy story (6)
The Hunger Games (2012) -> not bad, but overmarketed and unfortunately the story is ripped off from older Battle Royale (6)
Safety not Guaranteed (2012) -> actually pretty good plot for a seemingly minor movie (7)
Coherence (2013) -> not bad but neither memorable (6)
Elysium (2013) -> another very well produced movie that ultimately didn't feel as good as it looked (6)
About Time (2013) -> plenty of goofs that purists would hate, but overall it's a nice idea with a good plot and excellent actors (8)
These Final Hours (2013) -> just boring, made me wish those hours could have been minutes (5)
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) -> ok it's star trek... good actors, obvious cameo, story not bad but... it's star trek, once again (6)
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) -> perfectly done, but frankly I am tired of the franchise (7)
Terminator Genisys (2015) -> oh no, not again... (5)
The Age of Adaline (2015) -> very nice story (7)
The Lobster (2015) -> this was extremely original, I wonder why I ended up bored anyway (6)
Ghostbusters (2016) -> remake or reboot or whatever, it was certainly not needed, but I enjoyed this much more than supposedly "new" big titles (6)
Guardian of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) -> still dumb, now also repetitive (5)
Life (2017) -> crap, completely unoriginal and predictable (4)
Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) -> see episode VII (7)
Time Trap (2017) -> this had pretty good twists (8)
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017) -> cartoonish but not bad at all (7)
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) -> another good spin-off (7)
The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) -> blah, stupid to the extreme (4)
Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) -> how many times do I have to say it? (7)
Stowaway (2021) -> seemed predictive but fooled me, which is good, but eventually still disappointed me (5)

Cut down to 25 and apply my final ranking:

25.The Hunger Games (2012)
24.Elysium (2013)
23. Looper (2012)
22.Ghostbusters (2016)
21.Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
20.Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)
19.Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
18.Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
17.Safety not Guaranteed (2012)
16. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
15.Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel (2009)
14.Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)
13. District 9 (2009)
12. Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
11. Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
10. Moon (2009)
9.The Age of Adaline (2015)
8.Time Trap (2017)
7. Tenet (2020)
6.About Time (2013)
5. WALL-E (2008)
4. Arrival (2016)
3. Interstellar (2014)
2. Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
1. Inception (2010)

Edit: so the good old [sblock] tag doesn't work anymore

Edit 2: gnolldung... I knew I was going to forget something important, and it's in the top 10


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 25, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> A classic example here would be Bester's "The Stars My Destination"; while its set in the future he assumed time marches on, the core element of the novel is about the teleportation and its effects on the world and society (and, of course, the protagonist).



Why did no one ever make a movie of that?! That was my mother's favourite SF novel!


----------



## MGibster (Feb 25, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> You think low quality special effects don't matter? They don't hurt the audience's suspension of disbelief?



Not quite.  But then I don't think high quality special effects makes for a particularly good movie either with _Avatar _being a prime example.  _Ghostbusters _was considered to be big budget effects movie back in 1984, but most of us don't really remember it for the great special effects.  John Carpenter's _The Thing _(1982), is still a great movie despite the effects looking rather dated (even if they're better than the CGI from the 2011 "prequel" of the same name).  Though, oddly enough, _The Thing _was widely panned in 1982 and it really wasn't until the 90s that critics started reassessing the movie.  While the special effects in _The Thing_ were great, it was nominated for an Academy Award after all, special effects aren't why we remember it.  Okay, that last part is a lie.  Part of why we remember the special effects is because they were so gruesome.  But I maintain the reason the movie is well remembered is because it was well acted, well plotted, and it was tense as hell.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 25, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Why did no one ever make a movie of that?! That was my mother's favourite SF novel!




Supposedly someone started to at one point in the late 50's (!!) but it never got anywhere.  Getting genuine SF novels made in their own time was not a thing that happened for a long time (even now it doesn't happen that often).  Its also harder to compress SF novels into films than some other types of novels, I think, because they require more set-up.

Its probably not a coincidence that in most cases of visual presentation of old SF and fantasy, more often than not they're at least mini-series,


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 25, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Not quite.  But then I don't think high quality special effects makes for a particularly good movie either with _Avatar _being a prime example.  _Ghostbusters _was considered to be big budget effects movie back in 1984, but most of us don't really remember it for the great special effects.  John Carpenter's _The Thing _(1982), is still a great movie despite the effects looking rather dated (even if they're better than the CGI from the 2011 "prequel" of the same name).  Though, oddly enough, _The Thing _was widely panned in 1982 and it really wasn't until the 90s that critics started reassessing the movie.  While the special effects in _The Thing_ were great, it was nominated for an Academy Award after all, special effects aren't why we remember it.  Okay, that last part is a lie.  Part of why we remember the special effects is because they were so gruesome.  But I maintain the reason the movie is well remembered is because it was well acted, well plotted, and it was tense as hell.




"The Thing" was perceived (correctly) as as much horror movie as SF, and critics relationship with horror is always complicated.  There are plenty of them who consider horror crap on the face of it (which is why some people will try to market less gory/supernaturally focused ones as "suspense" which often gets something of a pass); combine other critics who respond the same way to SF, it was simply going to have a hard row to hoe.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 25, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> "The Thing" was perceived (correctly) as as much horror movie as SF, and critics relationship with horror is always complicated. There are plenty of them who consider horror crap on the face of it (which is why some people will try to market less gory/supernaturally focused ones as "suspense" which often gets something of a pass); combine other critics who respond the same way to SF, it was simply going to have a hard row to hoe.



We must find these critics and put an end to their nefarious practices before they can do more harm.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 26, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Supposedly someone started to at one point in the late 50's (!!) but it never got anywhere.  Getting genuine SF novels made in their own time was not a thing that happened for a long time (even now it doesn't happen that often).  Its also harder to compress SF novels into films than some other types of novels, I think, because they require more set-up.
> 
> Its probably not a coincidence that in most cases of visual presentation of old SF and fantasy, more often than not they're at least mini-series,



I'm still waiting for a modern take on "Lensmen" and no, I don't mean the anime. I mean the book series that started in the late '40s. It would likely make a better series though.

Come to think of it, "Babylon 5" borrowed more than a few elements from that series.


----------



## Hex08 (Feb 26, 2022)

I have seen 21 of the 25 movies. Those I haven't seen are:
Colossal
The Endless
Wall-E
Her

There are six movies that I would add:
Sunshine
Rise of the Planet of the Apes - I love all things Planet of the Apes and would love to place this whole trilogy on the list but there isn't enough I want to pull from the list to do it
Upgrade
10 Cloverfield Lane
Melancholia
Dredd

I would remove:
Pacific Rim - I love Del Toro's work and thought this was a fun movie but not good enough to be on a top 25 list
Her - This might be a cheat since I haven't seen it but when I saw the trailers I thought it looked uninteresting and have had no desire to watch it
Guardians of the Galaxy - Like Pacific Rim it was a lot of fun but there are better movies
Under the Skin - Maybe I need to rewatch this but I remember struggling to get though it
The Endless - Another possible cheat since I haven't seen it but something needed to go to add all of my choices
A Quiet Place - Another movie I really like but it's pretty low on the list and, in my view, it's one of the least sci-fi movies on the list

The most egregious rankings are:
I would place Arrival above Fury Road but it's only a difference of 1 spot so I guess I should let that one go....
Moon should be much higher on the list
Interstellar is too high, the ending really hurt what was an otherwise great movie


----------



## payn (Feb 26, 2022)

Not many folks talking about _Ex Machina _which I had high expectations for. It's one of those movies that's so predictable you know exactly where it is going. The tension in act 1 and 2 is so good though it keeps you on board. Then, the third act just kind of lets you down hard.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 26, 2022)

payn said:


> Not many folks talking about _Ex Machina _which I had high expectations for. It's one of those movies that's so predictable you know exactly where it is going. The tension in act 1 and 2 is so good though it keeps you on board. Then, the third act just kind of lets you down hard.



Was to familiar to anyone who reads SF.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 26, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I'm still waiting for a modern take on "Lensmen" and no, I don't mean the anime. I mean the book series that started in the late '40s. It would likely make a better series though.
> 
> Come to think of it, "Babylon 5" borrowed more than a few elements from that series.




Yeah, you'd need to do some updating here and there, but it'd probably work.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 26, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Yeah, you'd need to do some updating here and there, but it'd probably work.



For example no one today would buy the old spherical and teardrop shaped ships, despite them making some sense. They would need to have greeblies all over them, to be believable.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 26, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> For example no one today would buy the old spherical and teardrop shaped ships, despite them making some sense. They would need to have greeblies all over them, to be believable.



Have Denis Villeneuve adapt Lensmen!


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 26, 2022)

Mallus said:


> Have Denis Villeneuve adapt Lensmen!



I would love to see that happen. Or perhaps Luc Besson. The esthetic from "The Fifth Element" would work very well for "Lensmen." Played straight, though. Not action comedy.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 26, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> A Quiet Place - Another movie I really like but it's pretty low on the list and, in my view, it's one of the least sci-fi movies on the list




I'm going to argue its more of one than it appears.

Yes, its a monster movie, but the whole movie turns around how the monsters work and the weapon found to use against them.  That's a very SF thing in its way.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 26, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I would love to see that happen. Or perhaps Luc Besson. The esthetic from "The Fifth Element" would work very well for "Lensmen." Played straight, though. Not action comedy.



Hear me out: the Lensmen directed by a Wachowski or two. Script by J. Michael Straczynski.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 26, 2022)

Mallus said:


> Hear me out: the Lensmen directed by a Wachowski or two. Script by J. Michael Straczynski.



Much different take, but would definitely work. A Lensmen movie would have to be fairly action oriented.


----------



## payn (Feb 26, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Was to familiar to anyone who reads SF.



I dont mind familiarity. You can take a well told story and tell it again in a fresh and interesting way. It was a great film until the third act despite being derivative and predictable.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 26, 2022)

payn said:


> I dont mind familiarity. You can take a well told story and tell it again in a fresh and interesting way. It was a great film until the third act despite being derivative and predictable.



Are we taking about Ex Machina or Avatar?


----------



## Thunderfoot (Feb 26, 2022)

I'm surprised by the number of these that I've seen and the number of these on this list I would have included as absolute trash.

_Mad Max_ at number 1 is a travesty.  Mad Max on this list is a slap in the face to the original franchise.  _Pacific Rim_ was almost as good as the movie _Battleship_, which is to say.  Blech.

And while _The Quiet Place_ is well written, beautifully shot amd superbly acted, I would drop it more along the lines of psychological thriller than sci-fi. (just because aliens are in it doesn't make it sci-fi)

I would put _Wall-E_ higher on the list because it probably holds to the older standards of sci-fi better than any other movie with the exception of _Looper_, and *the In-*movies.

I think my problem with most modern Sci-Fi is a focus in visuals over story and context.  Sci-fi has always been fantastical but the best always has some sort of subtle (or in some cases not so subtle) contextual exposition, whether political, social or environmental.  So while I agree that _Avatar_ shouldn't be on this list because it wasn't very good, at least it qualifies unlike some if these effects fests.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 26, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> Are we taking about Ex Machina or Avatar?



Yes.


----------



## Ryujin (Feb 26, 2022)

Thunderfoot said:


> I'm surprised by the number of these that I've seen and the number of these on this list I would have included as absolute trash.
> 
> _Mad Max_ at number 1 is travesty.  Mad Max on this list is slap in the face to the original franchise.  _Pacific Rim_ was almost as good as the movie _Battleship_, which is to say.  Blech.
> 
> ...



Completely agree on "Pacific Rim." I've been a Kaiju fan since a Japanese friend introduced me to Godzilla and Ultraman in the late '60s, and mechanics in PR put me right off.

The only thing mildly amusing about "Battleship" was that the aliens' primary weapon looked like a peg.


----------



## payn (Feb 26, 2022)

Thunderfoot said:


> _Mad Max_ at number 1 is travesty.  Mad Max on this list is slap in the face to the original franchise.



Wut?


----------



## Thunderfoot (Feb 26, 2022)

payn said:


> Wut?



The new Mad Max film was utter garbage.  Drivel, poop on a stick.  I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.


----------



## payn (Feb 26, 2022)

Thunderfoot said:


> The new Mad Max film was utter garbage.  Drivel, poop on a stick.  I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.



Wow, I guess there is a first for everything.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Feb 27, 2022)

Thunderfoot said:


> And while _The Quiet Place_ is well written, beautifully shot amd superbly acted, I would drop it more along the lines of psychological thriller than sci-fi. (just because aliens are in it doesn't make it sci-fi)




As I said, if it wasn't quite focused on how the aliens work and how that leads to finding a solution to them, I'd find that more compelling.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 27, 2022)

payn said:


> Wow, I guess there is a first for everything.



I never liked any of the Max Max films. Not the original and not Fury Road. They are all style over substance.


----------



## Mannahnin (Feb 28, 2022)

Fury Road was fantastic art.  I was disappointed by the plot, but otherwise it's a masterpiece of film making.  IMO it's very much a worthy successor to the first three movies, albeit let down a bit by the writing.  One has to accept that it's not realistic.



payn said:


> I dont mind familiarity. You can take a well told story and tell it again in a fresh and interesting way. It was a great film until the third act despite being derivative and predictable.






Deset Gled said:


> Are we taking about Ex Machina or Avatar?



With Ex Machina we (ie: audiences familiar with the tropes) absolutely should know where it's going, but it's gorgeous, tense, beautifully acted and written.  

Avatar is a big shiny triumph of visual effects blinding people to just terrible writing the entire way through.  



Li Shenron said:


> 17.Safety not Guaranteed (2012)



This is such a great little film.  I'm hesitant to classify it as actually being science fiction, but it probably counts.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 28, 2022)

Does this look lame to anyone?  Fury Road was a fantastic movie.  One of the best action oriented movies of the 21st century.  Witness me!


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 28, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Does this look lame to anyone?  Fury Road was a fantastic movie.  One of the best action oriented movies of the 21st century.  Witness me!
> 
> View attachment 152569



It looks like an album cover. Movies are supposed to have a story.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 28, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> It looks like an album cover. Movies are supposed to have a story



And it had a story.  It was a very, very simple story but it was incredibly well told.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 28, 2022)

MGibster said:


> And it had a story.  It was a very, very simple story but it was incredibly well told.



Some people chase some other people across some sand. And people complain about Avatar's plot!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 28, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Some people chase some other people across some sand. And people complain about Avatar's plot!




It's better to have a simple plot than a dumb one. 

"Help people escape from baddies that are chasing you," is simple and timeless.

"Put your brain into a giant blue thing so you can fall in love with another giant blue thing and then realize that hurting the environment is bad, m'kay," barely qualifies as the most stupid Captain Planet and the Planeteers pitch ever.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 28, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> "Help people escape from baddies that are chasing you," is simple and Boring.



Corrected. It wasn't like I cared about any of those people. And if I want to look at sand I will walk down to the beach.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 28, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Corrected.




I'm guessing you've never been chased.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 28, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I'm guessing you've never been chased.



Yeah, I've been chased. It not fun.


----------



## payn (Feb 28, 2022)

Its so exciting being chased.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 28, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Yeah, I've been chased. It not fun.




No, it's not! That's the point. But ... it wasn't boring, was it?

Terminator? That's just a chase movie.
Minority Report? Chase movie.
Fugitive? Chase movie.

Heck, even classics like North by Northwest are really just chase movies.

Fury Road just distills it to the essence.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 28, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> No, it's not! That's the point. But ... it wasn't boring, was it?



It wasn't very enjoyable.


Snarf Zagyg said:


> Terminator? That's just a chase movie.



With characters I care about.


Snarf Zagyg said:


> Minority Report? Chase movie.



With social-political commentary.


Snarf Zagyg said:


> Fugitive? Chase movie.



Again, with developed characters, both pursued and pursuer, that I cared about. And more varied scenery.


Snarf Zagyg said:


> Heck, even classics like North by Northwest are really just chase movies.



Has Cary Grant. We can't not care about him.


Snarf Zagyg said:


> Fury Road just distills it to the essence.



By removing characterisation and any scenery that isn't sand.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 28, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> It wasn't very enjoyable.
> 
> With characters I care about.
> 
> ...




I think you are missing the point.

Your objection regarding chase movies, or the "simplistic" nature of the plot ... is not accurate. 

You can like what you like, and that's fine. I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise. But you are in the distinct minority of people that enjoy good movies when it comes to your opinion on this movie, and it's not because it's a "chase movie."

If you want to interrogate yourself further as to why this might be, that's cool. If not, that's cool too. But you might want to think further as to why you have the reaction you did. _shrug_ If not, I don't think you're going to get very far by peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 1, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I never liked any of the *Max Max* films.



Again I have been summoned!!  Can't a entity get some sleep!?


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 1, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I don't think you're going to get very far by peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.



But was it boring? Or enjoyable?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 1, 2022)

It was …. _Warm. _


----------



## Thomas Shey (Mar 1, 2022)

Frankly, I didn't find either movie boring.  I find dismissing either one a little eye-rolly, but this just demonstrates taste is not a hard metric.


----------



## Hex08 (Mar 1, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I'm going to argue its more of one than it appears.
> 
> Yes, its a monster movie, but the whole movie turns around how the monsters work and the weapon found to use against them.  That's a very SF thing in its way.



I don't necessarily disagree with you, A Quiet Place got dumped from my list because something had to so I could add the movies I wanted to put on there. Some movies (Alien, Event Horizon, The Thing) straddle the line so closely that arguments can be made either way about whether a movie is primarily sci-fi or horror.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Mar 1, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with you, A Quiet Place got dumped from my list because something had to so I could add the movies I wanted to put on there. Some movies (Alien, Event Horizon, The Thing) straddle the line so closely that arguments can be made either way about whether a movie is primarily sci-fi or horror.




Yeah.  "The Thing" is particularly sticky here.

And of course, genres aren't exclusive.  They just tend to lean in on one edge or the other, and some combinations are rarer than others.  SF/horror is relatively common; Western/horror rarer, and Western/SF rarer yet.


----------



## Rabulias (Mar 1, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Terminator? That's just a chase movie.
> Minority Report? Chase movie.
> Fugitive? Chase movie.
> 
> Heck, even classics like North by Northwest are really just chase movies.



_The Paper Chase_? *Not *a chase movie.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 1, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think you are missing the point.
> 
> Your objection regarding chase movies, or the "simplistic" nature of the plot ... is not accurate.
> 
> ...



And I don't think you are going to get very far by implying there is something wrong with _me_ for not liking a movie you happened to like.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 1, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with you, A Quiet Place got dumped from my list because something had to so I could add the movies I wanted to put on there. Some movies (Alien, Event Horizon, The Thing) straddle the line so closely that arguments can be made either way about whether a movie is primarily sci-fi or horror.



I think "both" is the correct answer here.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Mar 1, 2022)

Okay, when I did audio for a living the crew used to have a name for an act that was uninspired and poorly executed... Self-propelled scenery.

This sums up Fury Road.  Wooden acting, poor writing, boring plot...  Self-propelled scenery, with a good pyro budget.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Mar 1, 2022)

I just came here to see if anyone mentioned Coherence. Someone did. I'm happy now.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 1, 2022)

Thunderfoot said:


> Okay, when I did audio for a living the crew used to have a name for an act that was uninspired and poorly executed... Self-propelled scenery.
> 
> This sums up Fury Road.  Wooden acting, poor writing, boring plot...  Self-propelled scenery, with a good pyro budget.



Nah.

It didn't have any scenery, just a pile of sand.


----------



## wicked cool (Mar 1, 2022)

If i had to rank -these i will stop and rewatch 
 A Quiet Place (2018)-i would argue the sequel is better
 Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
 Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) (2013)
 Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

these i might watch but hoping theres something better
  Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
 Gravity (2013)
  The Martian (2015)
 WALL-E (2008)
  District 9 (2009)
 Dune (2021)
 Ex Machina (2015)
 Interstellar (2014)
 Inception (2010)
  Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)-
 Ex Machina (2015)
  Looper (2012)
 Arrival (2016)
 Pacific Rim (2013)
 Annihilation (2018)
 Colossal (2016)
 Under the Skin (2013)

didnt  see
 Moon (2009)
her-didnt see 
The Endless (2017)
attack the Block (2011)


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 1, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> And I don't think you are going to get very far by implying there is something wrong with _me_ for not liking a movie you happened to like.




Woah. I think you're missing the point, but I apologize if I was putting you on the defensive.

Look, I am a firm believer in the concept that people like what they like. However, I also think it can be helpful to try and understand why you don't like something- especially when it's generally considered "good," or even "great."

Take, for example, how you blithely contrast_ Fury Road_ (boring, no characters, only dirt) with _The Terminator_ (characters you care about). I mean ... sure.

But is that really why? If someone said, "I don't like Lawrence of Arabia because there was too much dirt," that would be weird, right?

And the idea that a chase movie (a chase movie!) is boring is almost orthogonal to the whole concept of a chase movie- there are many things people might say about _Fury Road_, but boring is almost never one of them.

The point is- your preferences are fine! You will like (and dislike) anything you want- for a good reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason. No worries there! I will not try and convince you otherwise. What I would say is that, when you have the distinct minority opinion on a film, you might want to interrogate your own reasons a little more _if you are trying to convince others that your reasons have validity, as opposed to being idiosyncratic and personal_. In essence, _Fury Road_ is a film that, unusually, was incredibly well-received by critics, by popular audiences, and by various year-end awards boards in multiple categories (winning the usual Oscars for an amazing visual film, and even getting nominations for picture, director, and cinematographer).

Again, that doesn't mean you have to like it. Tarantino makes amazing films, and some people just don't like them (they don't like violence). Kubrick makes amazing films, but some people find them cold and impersonal. _Primer _was one of the great indie films of the millennium, yet most people find the acting lacking and the plot difficult-to-follow. And so on.

No one will convince you to like something you don't like; but you might want to consider why you really didn't like it. Or not!


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 1, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Woah. I think you're missing the point, but I apologize if I was putting you on the defensive.
> 
> Look, I am a firm believer in the concept that people like what they like. However, I also think it can be helpful to try and understand why you don't like something- especially when it's generally considered "good," or even "great."
> 
> ...



It seems like @Paul Farquhar might be conflating boring scenery with boring movie.  There have been some movies that I've seen where I was like, "Man! I really didn't like that movie.  A, B, C and D were bad, and the scenery dragged on.  I wish they would have varied the scenery more."  Then I've seen movies where I've been like, "That movie was fantastic!  I just wish the same scenery hadn't droned on and on.  That was the one part I didn't like."  And yet more movies where the scenery was so integral to why it was good that I didn't care that it was repetitive.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> It seems like @Paul Farquhar might be conflating boring scenery with boring movie.  There have been some movies that I've seen where I was like, "Man! I really didn't like that movie.  A, B, C and D were bad, and the scenery dragged on.  I wish they would have varied the scenery more."  Then I've seen movies where I've been like, "That movie was fantastic!  I just wish the same scenery hadn't droned on and on.  That was the one part I didn't like."  And yet more movies where the scenery was so integral to why it was good that I didn't care that it was repetitive.




Maybe! But he also said he didn't like any of the Mad Max movies- so it's not just that. The thing is, a lot of times people have trouble identifying why it is that they don't like something. For example, horror movies and jump scares only work if they are done "correctly," and if they aren't ... they don't work. There's a film grammar to them that people instinctively grok, but most people don't break it down into the component steps- they just say, "That wasn't scary."

Or take this video essay-

It explores the idea of why Napoleon Dynamite is so polarizing (and why algorithms have trouble predicting if you'll like it or not). It makes the assertion, which I think is pretty well-founded, that it's a movie that combine unusual aesthetics with a traditional narrative, and for that reason is difficult to categorize and people react to it in unusual ways.

I truly believe Paul Farquhar doesn't like this movie, but ... I'd understand why, more, if he generally found chase movies boring (he doesn't). I'm guessing that there's some fundamental issue in the movie that he doesn't like that he hasn't fully identified- which is fine. Maybe it's as simple as a preference for more dialogue-driven films? I don't know, I'm not him.

(It makes me wonder, though, how he felt about the recent Dune film ....)


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> It seems like @Paul Farquhar might be conflating boring scenery with boring movie.



If the plot and/or characters are poor, at least its nice to have some eye candy to look at. But it's certainly less important than story and characterisation. And Fury Road doesn't even have that minor consolation.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 1, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> (It makes me wonder, though, how he felt about the recent Dune film ....)



It was okay, but flawed. Some of those flaws:

Jessica was a wimp when she should have been badass.
Duncan was woefully miscast (Spoiler: doesn't bode well for future films).
Gurney Halleck was barely present.
Mentats where not explained.
The director expected the audience to be bowled over the climactic giant sandworm. News: it's 2022, we have seen it before.
Sand. I don't like sand. It's course and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere.

On the other hand, Timothée Chalamet was great as Paul, and the Ornithopters where great.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 1, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> It was okay, but flawed. Some of those flaws:
> 
> Jessica was a wimp when she should have been badass.
> Duncan was woefully miscast (Spoiler: doesn't bode well for future films).
> ...



One thing that I can say: At least in this one Jessica didn't have a complete meltdown.


----------



## MGibster (Mar 1, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Corrected. It wasn't like I cared about any of those people. And if I want to look at sand I will walk down to the beach.



Beach sand isn’t the same as post apocalyptic sand.  It is known.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 2, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Beach sand isn’t the same as post apocalyptic sand.  It is known.



You have clearly never been to Blackpool.


----------



## Mad_Jack (Mar 7, 2022)

Eh... Honestly, I think I've only seen about seven of them, and never even heard of about half the others.
My only comment about the list is that _Guardians of the Galaxy_ is about as much of a sci-fi movie as _Star Wars_ - you can call them sci-fi because the characters spend a lot of time flying around in spaceships and shooting laser pistols, but those aren't exactly the main purpose or focus of the film.


----------



## dytrrnikl (Mar 8, 2022)

Seen 19 of 25.

Most egregious thing with this ranking: Max Max:Fury Road being considered better than Interstellar or Arrival.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 8, 2022)

dytrrnikl said:


> Seen 19 of 25.
> 
> Most egregious thing with this ranking: Max Max:Fury Road being considered better than Interstellar or Arrival.



"Arrival" was a thoughtful movie, with an interesting twist. "Interstellar" was "2001", with a smaller writing budget


----------



## Hex08 (Mar 8, 2022)

Mad_Jack said:


> Eh... Honestly, I think I've only seen about seven of them, and never even heard of about half the others.
> My only comment about the list is that _Guardians of the Galaxy_ is about as much of a sci-fi movie as _Star Wars_ - you can call them sci-fi because the characters spend a lot of time flying around in spaceships and shooting laser pistols, but those aren't exactly the main purpose or focus of the film.



I'm curious as to what your definition of sci-fi is because both _Guardians of the Galaxy _and _Star Wars _are both generally considered sci-fi. The Britannica entry is fairly long, but it specifically mentions Star Wars.

science fiction - SF cinema and TV


----------



## Thomas Shey (Mar 8, 2022)

Some people have pretty exclusive uses of science fiction; some want to separate it off from space opera and a lot of other related subgenres.  While its useful to know how someone is using it, its less useful to argue about which take is legitimate.


----------



## Hex08 (Mar 8, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Some people have pretty exclusive uses of science fiction; some want to separate it off from space opera and a lot of other related subgenres.  While its useful to know how someone is using it, its less useful to argue about which take is legitimate.



I assume you were addressing me even though you didn't quote my post since your post came right after mine. If that's the case, I certainly wasn't trying to argue what makes a definition legitimate, I was asking for clarification because I was curious.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Mar 8, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I assume you were addressing me even though you didn't quote my post since your post came right after mine. If that's the case, I certainly wasn't trying to argue what makes a definition legitimate, I was asking for clarification because I was curious.




That's why I didn't quote yours; it was a general comment, not intended to be a critique of you or your statement.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Mar 9, 2022)

Sci-Fi is anything that is fiction outside the 'terrestrial realm??'   (Personally I think that means fiction that doesn't have Fabio ripping a shirt off a buxom young woman, or a historical re-write.)  Anything in the 'fantastic'...

Now whether it's 'hard' sci-fi (follows the laws of Physics to the letter) or 'soft' sci-fi lasers and 'ancient religions', that's a lot of lee-way.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> While its useful to know how someone is using it, its less useful to argue about which take is legitimate.




IMNSHO, is also fair to consider how well a movie exemplifies a genre when making a "best of the genre" list. 

For a non sci-fi example, Citizen Kane is among the best films ever made. And Citizen Kane has elements of romance in it. But I wouldn't put Citizen Kane on a "best romance movies" list. YMMV.


----------



## Mannahnin (Mar 9, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> IMNSHO, is also fair to consider how well a movie exemplifies a genre when making a "best of the genre" list.
> 
> For a non sci-fi example, Citizen Kane is among the best films ever made. And Citizen Kane has elements of romance in it. But I wouldn't put Citizen Kane on a "best romance movies" list. YMMV.



True.  But the sci-fi genre, such as it is, has historically contained both "hard sci-fi", as in speculative fiction trying to be realistic, often exploring the ramifications of one new scientific discovery or alternate history path in a "what if?" manner, and "Space Opera", as in unrealistic movies set in outer space or in the future with science-as-magic-style technology.  This is how we wind up with Guardians of the Galaxy and Fury Road on this list, which are both very good movies, though not realistic in any sense.


----------



## payn (Mar 9, 2022)

All this is pretty much the point. These no criteria anybody can vote on whatever polls just create debate. Then, it plays out on twitter and gets clicks. Which is why I vastly prefer Snarf's excellent self created lists with defined criteria that promotes specific discussion on topics that is interesting.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 9, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> True.  But the sci-fi genre, such as it is, has historically contained both "hard sci-fi", as in speculative fiction trying to be realistic, often exploring the ramifications of one new scientific discovery or alternate history path in a "what if?" manner, and "Space Opera", as in unrealistic movies set in outer space or in the future with science-as-magic-style technology.  This is how we wind up with Guardians of the Galaxy and Fury Road on this list, which are both very good movies, though not realistic in any sense.



I think that this divide can best be described as Science Fiction vs. Science Fantasy, in most cases.


----------



## Mad_Jack (Mar 9, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I'm curious as to what your definition of sci-fi is because both _Guardians of the Galaxy _and _Star Wars _are both generally considered sci-fi. The Britannica entry is fairly long, but it specifically mentions Star Wars.
> 
> science fiction - SF cinema and TV




They're action/adventure movies that happen to have sci-fi elements in them - you could strip out all those sci-fi elements from the story and replace them with swords and wizardry and they'd still be essentially the same movies.
I tend to delineate between movies/fiction whose stories simply happen in a sci-fi-type setting (_The Seven Samurai_, _The Magnificent Seven_ and _Battle Beyond the Stars_ are quite literally all the same movie with different props...) and those for whom the sci-fi elements are an essential part of the story. The differences between _Star Wars_ and _Star Trek_ are a good example...
 While the original _Star Trek_ series may have started out as "_Wagon Train_ in space", it quickly becomes apparent that a great many of the stories told in that setting simply don't work without the use of "science" and the physics of the universe. They're essential story elements - either as obstacles/challenges, as solutions to those obstacles/challenges, or sometimes even as actual characters in the stories. In every episode and movie, as soon as a new sci-fi element arises that the audience hasn't encountered before there's always a character who steps into the role of the Greek chorus, providing exposition which explains to the audience why that element is important to the story. As early as the first season of the original show we start getting in-setting explanations for a lot of the technology and that information later becomes something that the characters interact with in other stories. The warp core isn't just some "spaceship engine" - _how_ it works is regularly used as a story element. You go from learning that it requires dilithium crystals to run, to the fact that it can overload for various reasons, to having to eject said warp core to save the ship, all the way to ejecting the warp core being used as a tactic to win a battle. And those dilithium crystals themselves become story elements on their own outside of the warp core - they're more than just "spaceship gas". There's a progression (across multiple movies and tv series) that goes far beyond just "Because... warp core".
In Star Wars, the Force is a major element of the setting and yet the franchise existed for about thirty years before it was defined/explained (at least officially) as anything other than "space magic" (there was a What, but no How or Why), at which point we got a three-minute scene about "midichlorians"... The majority of the in-setting technical information about things like lightsabers, blasters and how spaceships fly was bolted on as aftermarket parts that rarely, if ever, have any real interaction with (and more importantly, lasting impact on) the main plot of the story. In rpg terms it's mostly just fluff rather than crunch. As an example, the important thing to the story is that Count Dooku is supposed to be a legendary lightsaber fencing master, in order for him to be seen as a threat capable of fending off two Jedi masters at once. However, although it's been a while since I watched the movie, I'm pretty sure it's only mentioned once or twice how he became one beyond simply having once been a Jedi. And you don't really need to know that in order to understand his place in the film. Although in the expanded universe beyond the films you know that his fighting style has a name, that it's one of the seven lightsaber fighting disciplines, and that it's the reason his lightsaber has a cool shape to its handle, none of that information has any actual impact on the main story or his place in it.



Ryujin said:


> I think that this divide can best be described as Science Fiction vs. Science Fantasy, in most cases.




 Pretty much - I personally see a difference between Lord of the Rings/Western/Buddy Cop Movie/Heist Movie...in Spaaaace! and actual science fiction where specific science/technology/in-setting conceits are integral to (or at least noticeably influential on) the main plot of the story rather than just being used as simple pretexts or set dressings.


----------



## Mannahnin (Mar 9, 2022)

Mad_Jack said:


> They're action/adventure movies that happen to have sci-fi elements in them - you could strip out all those sci-fi elements from the story and replace them with swords and wizardry and they'd still be essentially the same movies.
> I tend to delineate between movies/fiction whose stories simply happen in a sci-fi-type setting (_The Seven Samurai_, _The Magnificent Seven_ and _Battle Beyond the Stars_ are quite literally all the same movie with different props...) and those for whom the sci-fi elements are an essential part of the story. The differences between _Star Wars_ and _Star Trek_ are a good example...



Which is a sci-fi fan argument we've been having for decades, but the Space Operas are still widely included within the Sci-Fi umbrella for categorization of movies, books, and roleplaying games.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Mar 9, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Which is a sci-fi fan argument we've been having for decades, but the Space Operas are still widely included within the Sci-Fi umbrella for categorization of movies, books, and roleplaying games.




Yup.  Basically, when you want to put Lensman in another bucket, the amount of traction you're ever gonna get is going to be limited.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Yup.  Basically, when you want to put Lensman in another bucket, the amount of traction you're ever gonna get is going to be limited.



If Star Wars is SciFi, then so is Lensmen. Except for the other books. We do not speak of them.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Mar 9, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> If Star Wars is SciFi, then so is Lensmen. Except for the other books. We do not speak of them.




That's what I meant.  Attempting to bucket-off space opera removes Lensmen, and I think that flies pretty badly with people steeped in the history of the genre.


----------



## payn (Mar 9, 2022)

I think everything talked about here is sci-fi, but which sub-genre seems to be the debate. I'm especially puzzled by _Fury Road _as there really is no technology or fantasy element to it. It's the post apocalypse and people are using primitive means to fight for precious resources. 

Is that enough to be sci-fi? Are stories like _The Road _or_ Book of Eli _also Sci-Fi because they are post apocalypse? I can see zombie apocalypse being sci-fi because, well zombies are science based and/or fantasy. What are the base requirements for sci-fi?


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Mar 9, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> For a non sci-fi example, Citizen Kane is among the best films ever made. And Citizen Kane has elements of romance in it. But I wouldn't put Citizen Kane on a "best romance movies" list. YMMV.




No, but I do put it on the list of 'top 25 movies to cure insomnia". I have never once been able to sit through the whole thing.  Same with a lot of other "Classics". Or back to the subject, 2001 was interesting enough  when I first saw it maybe 50 years ago, but now I can't sit through it because it is so boring and pretentious.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 9, 2022)

payn said:


> I think everything talked about here is sci-fi, but which sub-genre seems to be the debate. I'm especially puzzled by _Fury Road _as there really is no technology or fantasy element to it. It's the post apocalypse and people are using primitive means to fight for precious resources.
> 
> Is that enough to be sci-fi? Are stories like _The Road _or_ Book of Eli _also Sci-Fi because they are post apocalypse? I can see zombie apocalypse being sci-fi because, well zombies are science based and/or fantasy. What are the base requirements for sci-fi?




Setting it in the future is a sufficient, but not necessary, component of science fiction. The post-apocalyptic tale is a staple of science fiction, and a popular sub-genre.

While I am not a huge fan of Orson Scott Card, I do think that his overall scheme is fairly good for science fiction in delineating the five types of tales that people generally consider science fiction:

_1. All stories set in the future, because the future can't be known. This includes all stories speculating about future technologies, which is, for some people, the only thing that science fiction is good for. Ironically, many stories written in the 1940s and 1950s that were set in what was then the future—the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s—are no longer "futuristic." Yet they aren't "false," either, because few science fiction writers pretend to be writing what will happen. Rather, they write what might happen. So those out-of-date futures, like that depicted in the novel 1984, simply shift from the "future" category to number 2 ... 

2. All stories set in the historical past that contradict known facts of history. Within the field of science fiction, these are called "alternate world" stories. For instance, what if the Cuban Missile Crisis had led to nuclear war? What if Hitler had died in 1939? In the real world, of course, these events did not happen—so stories that take place in such false pasts are the purview of science fiction and fantasy.

3. All stories set in other worlds, because we've never gone there. Whether "future humans" take part in the story or not, if it isn't Earth, it belongs to this genre.

4. All stories supposedly set on Earth, but before recorded history and contradicting the known archaeological record—stories about visits from ancient aliens, or ancient civilizations that left no trace, or "lost kingdoms" surviving into modern times.

5. All stories that contradict some known or supposed law of nature. Obviously, fantasy that uses magic falls into this category, but so does much science fiction: time travel stories, for instance, or "invisible man" stories._


What makes this taxonomy useful is that, generally, the five categories also (IMO) also happen to correlate, generally, to how most people view the science fiction categories. 1 is always a no-brainer ... while 5 is often contentious (fantasy or science fiction ....). 

Most importantly, it shows how broad the overall category is; it's like saying "Rock and Roll" music and then getting into a debate about how this year's finalists for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame include Judas Priest, Eminem, Kate Bush, Dolly Parton, Fela Kutti, Rage Against the Machine, Lionel Ritchie, A Tribe Called Quest and Dionee Warwick.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 9, 2022)

payn said:


> I think everything talked about here is sci-fi, but which sub-genre seems to be the debate. I'm especially puzzled by _Fury Road _as there really is no technology or fantasy element to it. It's the post apocalypse and people are using primitive means to fight for precious resources.
> 
> Is that enough to be sci-fi? Are stories like _The Road _or_ Book of Eli _also Sci-Fi because they are post apocalypse? I can see zombie apocalypse being sci-fi because, well zombies are science based and/or fantasy. What are the base requirements for sci-fi?



Apocalyptic movies and Zombie Apocalypse movies might as well be the same genre. The zombies are pretty much treated like extreme weather, in most cases, and the real danger is other people.


----------



## payn (Mar 9, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Apocalyptic movies and Zombie Apocalypse movies might as well be the same genre. The zombies are pretty much treated like extreme weather, in most cases, and the real danger is other people.



True, but usually some bio-weapon or space rock triggers the zombie event. Peak oil, nuclear war, or climate change are not fantastic events or technologically futuristic.


----------



## payn (Mar 9, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Most importantly, it shows how broad the overall category is; it's like saying "Rock and Roll" music and then getting into a debate about how this year's finalists for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame include Judas Priest, Eminem, Kate Bush, Dolly Parton, Fela Kutti, Rage Against the Machine, Lionel Ritchie, A Tribe Called Quest and Dionee Warwick.



Wut? The world is just not making sense anymore.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 9, 2022)

payn said:


> True, but usually some bio-weapon or space rock triggers the zombie event. Peak oil, nuclear war, or climate change are not fantastic events or technologically futuristic.



No, but such stories are a commentary on how technology can wreck the world. They project current events into the future. That is some of the best SciFi, at its heart.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 9, 2022)

Further along the line of projecting the future results of current tech/culture, My friend Matt wrote a Star Trek parody novel base don the concept of a Capitalistic Star Fleet.





__





						The Fatal Frontier : Vancil, Matt, Greeno, Danny: Amazon.ca: Books
					

The Fatal Frontier : Vancil, Matt, Greeno, Danny: Amazon.ca: Books



					www.amazon.ca


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 9, 2022)

payn said:


> Wut? The world is just not making sense anymore.


----------



## payn (Mar 9, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


>


----------



## Thomas Shey (Mar 10, 2022)

payn said:


> I think everything talked about here is sci-fi, but which sub-genre seems to be the debate. I'm especially puzzled by _Fury Road _as there really is no technology or fantasy element to it. It's the post apocalypse and people are using primitive means to fight for precious resources.
> 
> Is that enough to be sci-fi? Are stories like _The Road _or_ Book of Eli _also Sci-Fi because they are post apocalypse? I can see zombie apocalypse being sci-fi because, well zombies are science based and/or fantasy. What are the base requirements for sci-fi?




Classically, post-apocalyse stories are assumed to be sci-fi, just environmental or social sci-fi (or both).   Not all science fiction is technological.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Mar 10, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Apocalyptic movies and Zombie Apocalypse movies might as well be the same genre. The zombies are pretty much treated like extreme weather, in most cases, and the real danger is other people.




And note there are a number of possible stand-ins for the zombie problem--robots, mutants, alien animals.  Zombies have just become the best known one.


----------



## MarkB (Mar 10, 2022)

payn said:


> True, but usually some bio-weapon or space rock triggers the zombie event. Peak oil, nuclear war, or climate change are not fantastic events or technologically futuristic.



Frequently, though, the exact triggering event is irrelevant to the plot or message of the movie - as parodied in Shaun of the Dead, where we never learn exactly what caused the outbreak.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Mar 10, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Frequently, though, the exact triggering event is irrelevant to the plot or message of the movie - as parodied in Shaun of the Dead, where we never learn exactly what caused the outbreak.




Technically that was true in the original Dawn of the Dead.  It was assumed to be because of a crashed (satellite?  Its been too long) but there wasn't really anything their except temporal correlation.


----------



## Mannahnin (Mar 10, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Technically that was true in the original Dawn of the Dead.  It was assumed to be because of a crashed (satellite?  Its been too long) but there wasn't really anything their except temporal correlation.



Night of the Living Dead, yes.  The TV broadcasts in the original state that "Scientists theorize that the reanimations are occurring due to radiation from a space probe that exploded in Earth's atmosphere on the way back from Venus."

Dawn of the Dead and the other follow-ups leave the cause unspecified, as I recall.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Mar 10, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Night of the Living Dead, yes.  The TV broadcasts in the original state that "Scientists theorize that the reanimations are occurring due to radiation from a space probe that exploded in Earth's atmosphere on the way back from Venus."
> 
> Dawn of the Dead and the other follow-ups leave the cause unspecified, as I recall.



Duh, I meant Night.  I've been talking about the Dawn boardgame somewhere else, so its lodged in my brain.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 11, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Frequently, though, the exact triggering event is irrelevant to the plot or message of the movie - as parodied in Shaun of the Dead, where we never learn exactly what caused the outbreak.



It's very common trope for it to be left unanswered. From Day of the Triffids to Tremors.


----------

