2001 vs. blade runner vs. star wars vs. alien

[Thompson]

Equilibrium is good (sort of a cross between 'The Matrix' and 'Fahrenheit 451'). I also like 'Serenity' and the brief tv series that lead to the movie 'Firefly.' Probably more 'space opera/western' than science fiction if that's how you want to classify it, but who cares, it was good.

I never really liked 2001. Spending 20 minutes on 'apes' learning to use tools was a bit much. The middle was interesting, the end not so much ('mankind taking the next step in their evolution into pure thought' -yeah, ok).

I love 'The Empire Strikes Back.' The music, cinematography, story, everything. I don't spend time agonizing over the sounds of the ship's blasters ('sound doesn't travel in space'). It's a movie, at some point you should just enjoy it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Those concepts are never really fleshed out to any important degree and quickly take a backseat to the action and horror.

A true Sci-Fi film would've explored those ideas for the majority of the film.

Alien(s) is as much a science fiction film as The Bourne Iden y is a political thriller.

Nice try, though. But any way you slice it, Alien and Aliens are Horror films first and science fiction films second.

This coming from the guy that thinks the Monkees are a good band....

The only argument lamer than Aristotelian categorization is an argument over semantics.

Its an arbitrary categorization. There is no absolute right or wrong.

[midnightpulp]

This coming from the guy that thinks the Monkees are a good band....

The only argument lamer than Aristotelian categorization is an argument over semantics.

Its an arbitrary categorization. There is no absolute right or wrong.

Convenient of you to leave that thread hanging. Got tired of the beat down, I take it?

[midnightpulp]

FuzzyDumpkins (on the Beatles):

"Society didn't think they were the best back then!"

[midnightpulp]

This coming from the guy that thinks the Monkees are a good band....

The only argument lamer than Aristotelian categorization is an argument over semantics.

Its an arbitrary categorization. There is no absolute right or wrong.

I never claimed so.

I simply stated my opinion on why I believe that Star Wars and Alien(s) are dubious choices as science fiction films.

Oh, and categorization is essential to the point of this thread, the OP did le it, "Best SCIENCE FICTION films."

[hater]

mmm scientist, what do they know huh?

Scientists vote Blade Runner best sci-fi film of all time
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...fictionspecial

Ridley Scott's Blade Runner is the favourite science fiction film of scientists, according to a poll for the Guardian. Second and third places went to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and the first two films of the original Star Wars trilogy.

Scott's film, based loosely Philip K 's short story, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, presents a dystopian vision of a future Los Angeles in which a policeman is hunting four illegal androids.

"Blade Runner is the best movie ever made," said Dr Stephen Minger, stem cell biologist at King's College London. "It was so far ahead of its time and the whole premise of the story - what is it to be human and who are we, where we come from? It's the age-old questions."

Professor Chris Frith, of the Ins ute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College, London, was impressed by the way the film used science as an integral part of its narrative. The Voight-Kampff empathy test, for example, is used by the police in the film to differentiate androids - who have memories implanted and are programmed with artificial emotions - from humans. "The Voight-Kampff empathy test is not far away from the sort of thing that cognitive neuroscientists are actually doing today," said Prof Frith.

Kubrick's 2001 was praised by scientists for its bold vision on the evolution of humanity. Aubrey Manning, emeritus professor of natural history at Edinburgh, pointed to "the brilliance of the simulations - still never done better despite all the modern computer graphics. The brilliance of using Brazilian tapirs as 'prehistoric animals'. The brilliance of the cut from the stick as club, to the space shuttle. Kubrick declaring that once tool use begins - the rest is inevitable. Hal: the first of the super computers with its honeyed East Coast establishment voice."

The poll also established Isaac Asimov as the scientists' favourite science fiction author. He was praised for making the science in his books understandable. "Unlike a lot of sci-fi writers, Asimov knew how to explain the science, and was a great populariser of real science," said Professor Mark Brake, a science communication lecturer at Glamorgan University. "But what sets him aside is that he was also masterful at do enting human responses to scientific progress."

John Wyndham, author of The Day of The Triffids, and Fred Hoyle, author of The Black Cloud, were second and third favourite writers.

Top sci-fi authors

1 Isaac Asimov
2 John Wyndham
3 Fred Hoyle
4 Philip K
5 HG Wells

Top five sci-fi films

1 Blade Runner (1982)
2 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
3 Star Wars (1977 ) / The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
4 Alien (1979)
5 Solaris (1972)

[redzero]

My only real problem with Blade Runner is that there is no definite version. There have been way too many re-releases.

[leemajors]

I never really liked 2001. Spending 20 minutes on 'apes' learning to use tools was a bit much. The middle was interesting, the end not so much ('mankind taking the next step in their evolution into pure thought' -yeah, ok).

No, the movie is about the apes being enlightened by the obelisk in order to eventually reach the stargate. 2001 is quintessential science fiction.

[leemajors]

Yeah, Blade Runner was so good that they had to release four different cuts of the film. The original was so horrible that the director doesn't even want his name associated with it. Look, get over it, it was one of the biggest flops in the history of film. The story was slow, there was hardly any action, the dialogue sucked, and if you really want to get technical, it's not even a sci-fi. It's more of a crime-thriller with a futuristic twist added to it.

And the book it's based on is way better.

[monosylab1k]

And the book it's based on is way better.

tbh that's the main reason I don't particularly care for Blade Runner. An adaptation more faithful to the book would be worlds better.

[Xevious]

I agree with midnightpulp somewhat. There are different degrees of sci-fi, and it could easily be argued that the films in this poll are classified better in a different genre entirely. Having aliens or taking place in the future is not enough. Species, Space Truckers, and a slew of other films meet that loose criteria and I wouldn't call them sci-fi. Even Star Trek is mainly just space opera. Star Trek: The Motion Picture is the only trek film that I'd call true sci-fi.

So I have to vote for 2001 using that logic. If the question were "what movie do you like best?" My answer would be different.

[hater]

Yeah, Blade Runner was so good that they had to release four different cuts of the film. The original was so horrible that the director doesn't even want his name associated with it. Look, get over it, it was one of the biggest flops in the history of film. The story was slow, there was hardly any action, the dialogue sucked, and if you really want to get technical, it's not even a sci-fi. It's more of a crime-thriller with a futuristic twist added to it.

If you had watched it you would know that they released multiple cuts because 1 was the US theatrical version which the director hated, 2 was the international cut which has more gore and violence and 3 was the directors cut which Scott still says is not what he really wanted. (most differences are a few seconds of film here and there. It's not like they're completely different movies )

Whatever it is, the complete package (I like director's cut better without the narration and with scenes that suggest Harrison Ford is a robot) is a great movie. Many critics out there call it best sci fi ever.

star wars is a tale, a fantasy, a fable, it doesn't really make you think much. Alien is like someone said, a lot of horror, you just wonder who will survive in the end. 2001 and Blade Runner actually make you think about how technology affects human beings lifes. That is why they're superior IMO. But like I said, it's a movie after all so it should be entertaining, and Blade Runner is way more entertaining than 2001.

Who cares if its either 1, 2, 3 or 4 in this group. It belongs in this group and to say it does not belong in this group is plain ignorant..

[hater]

duplicate post

[The Reckoning]

almost forgot...

STARGATE. that movie really makes you think.

[LnGrrrR]

I voted Aliens, because I can always watch that movie. Blade Runner is right up there, but I have to want to watch it.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

No, the movie is about the apes being enlightened by the obelisk in order to eventually reach the stargate. 2001 is quintessential science fiction.

bingo, it is such an amazing story, and as I said earlier, repeated viewings really help.


And I agree with lakaluva, Moon is a great film, even if it does try a little too hard in its homage to 2001.

[Fpoonsie]

You going a little too far in this whole classifying bit. I would call it a Sci-fi horror, with the majority of the movie being Sci-fi.

Agreed.

And for the record...



...owns all.

[monosylab1k]

Agreed.

And for the record...



...owns all.

/thread

[Johnny RIngo]

If you guys enjoyed 2001 and Alien, then you would probably enjoy Moon, and Event Horizon as well.

Moon is a good flick but Event Horizon blows. Almost everything Paul W.S. Anderson's done is unwatchable. The dude is like an extremely poor man's James Cameron. Sunshine (2007) is more appropriate seeing as it's a high class version of Event Horizon. While both films suffer from bad science/ ty writing, at least Sunshine is worth seeing for the cinematography alone.

[Johnny RIngo]

Oh, and on topic, I'd rank the films like this(I don't consider Star Wars to be science fiction):

Alien/Aliens
2001
Blade Runner

[Thompson]

No, the movie is about the apes being enlightened by the obelisk in order to eventually reach the stargate.

Details. Same theme though. Obelisk 1-jump in evolution to tools, etc. Later obelisks -next step in human evolution into 'pure thought/star child.' 2001 is hailed as one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time, I'm aware of that. I just didn't care for it.

[LnGrrrR]

Speaking of Terminator, that's a heck of a sci-fi movie too. You could classify the Matrix as sci-fi as well, which was a great movie. (The FIRST one only.)

[LnGrrrR]

Details. Same theme though. Obelisk 1-jump in evolution to tools, etc. Later obelisks -next step in human evolution into 'pure thought/star child.' 2001 is hailed as one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time, I'm aware of that. I just didn't care for it.

Agreed. Too long and drawn out for me. Then again, I didn't like Clockwork Orange either.

[Johnny RIngo]

You hear this quite a bit about Anderson's films. However, Event Horizon did remind me of Alien. I liked Sunshine. With the technology that filmmakers have at their disposal today, you would think Sci-fi's would dominate the market, but Hollywood is stuck on rehashing proven success stories. I think Cameron is just a bit overrated. He spends too much time showing off his work rather than telling a great story that will stand the test of time. I thought he did a great job in The Terminator, but not so much in his other films.

Cameron's been overrated, especially since anic and Avatar, but T1/T2/Aliens will always remain among my favorites.

[mojorizen7]

I'd toss the original Planet of the Apes in there to hold it's weight as well.

Gets my vote for best sci-fi movie ending ever....hands down.
BTW, i voted ALIEN.
Truckers in space and a monster that bleeds acid....what the else do you need?