The OFCS Top 100 Sci-Fi Movies! (1 Viewer)

[Luc D]

Robocop should be higher and Blade Runner is overrated, but it's great to see Dark City get the respect it so deserves.

Edit: I would have liked to have seen Dune there. It may be a failure, but it has to be one of the most ambitious sci-fi films ever made. And even with its failings it's far better than some of the films on this list.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Ghostbusters is on the list but no Ghost in the Shell?

Whoa, I totally missed the absence of Ghost in the Shell.

Revote. Seriously, GitS has to be on there somewhere.

I have no problem with Ghostbusters being SF. It's not hard-SF but it does feature advanced technologies.

 

[Blu]

What were they smoking when they selected 2001 as number 1?????
That movie is horrible!
Was a sci-fi effects extragavanza when it was made but is the most over-rated movie I've ever seen!!!!

 

[Jack Briggs]

That movie is horrible!

*groans loudly*

Blu: Try this on for size--you simply did not like the film. It is still great whether you like it or not. Okay? JB

 

[Larry Sutliff]

Interesting list, though some of the films selected are bewildering. While I'm glad to see my all time favorite movie, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, on the list, I really consider it to be a horror fantasy, and not science fiction.

As far as 2001 goes, I think it's one of the best films ever. It's not a film I watch frequently, but it's beautiful and moving in a way few films are.
I can't do a top 100 list, but here's the top 10 Sci-Fi(IMHO):
1. THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL
2. THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK(honorable mention to all of the SW films here)
3. 2001: A SPACE ODDYSEY
4. THE WAR OF THE WORLDS
5. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND
6. METROPOLIS
7. SUPERMAN
8. THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN
9. FORBIDDEN PLANET
10. THINGS TO COME(1936)

There are several films on the list that I would consider the equal-or even better-than some of what I listed, but I consider KING KONG to be an adventure film with very little science fiction, and THE INVISIBLE MAN has scientific elements, but was definitely considered to be a horror film by all involved in it's production.

 

[Steve Christou]

Interesting list, I count 78 of them here in my movie collection.
2001 no.1, what else is new? No arguements there.
Blade Runner no.2 hmmm not surprised really, critics have gone gaga over it, back in the 80's it wouldn't even have been in the top 10 prob.
Happy to see Star Wars-A New Hope higher than Empire which is sooo overrated.
ET no.5? Is Signor Spielbergo's ET really SF? or just an exercise in audience manipulation? Like erm Spielberg's AI.
Nice to see the incredible Akira in there somewhere.
Dawn of the.. Night of the living dead, whaaa? Bad Taste in there somewhere?

 

[Blu]

Blu: Try this on for size--you simply did not like the film. It is still great whether you like it or not. Okay? JB

Correct I did not like the film and do believe it is WAY over rated. That is what makes these boards great! The diverse opinions of the users!
I would make a case for Frequency to be on the list if something like The Truman Show can make it.

 

[Guy_K]

I think Gattaca would have been a worthy addition to that list.

 

[Blu]

I think Gattaca would have been a worthy addition to that list.

It was number 52

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

Not a bad list! I pretty much agree with the first four. Not necessarily in that order though.
But...
King Kong
Bride of Frankenstein
Frankenstein
Jacob's Ladder
Night of the Living Dead
Edward Scissorhands

Are these movies really considered as sci-fi?
I agree with Scott about the omission of Flash Gordon. It should definitely be in that list. And where the hell is Logan's Run? It's easily better than at least half of the movies listed!
I also agree with George about Star Wars. I simply don't understand the people who thinks it's not sci-fi.

 

[Quentin]

I definitely think "Dune" belongs on the list.
I also agree that "Zardoz" belongs on the list...I was merely questioning putting it in the top 10. But, "works brilliantly"? I'm not sure I follow. I think it's good, solid sci-fi, but it's cornball as hell.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Quote:



I also agree with George about Star Wars. I simply don't understand the people who thinks it's not sci-fi.






I think I can address that part. As a Star Wars fan, I've come not to be angry with such a thing, but to rather understand the rhyme, reason, and logic behind why many people do not consider Star Wars to be Sci-Fi.

Here are the reasons as I think they are:

1. Setting is merely window dressing.
- Lasers and spaceships do not make a science fiction film. Such things are only superficial genre conventions.

2. "True" science fiction is based on some established scientfic fact/theory.
- Most "true" science fiction is in some way based on some generally accepted scientific fact (eg. spaceships not making noises in 2001: A Space Odyssey).

3. "True" science fiction is a socially responsible genre that seeks to enlightened its audience in some way, or it's a cautionary lesson concerning the current issues in the scientific community.
- Science fiction from the start has always been about teaching humanity an important lesson in life. Take a look at something like Godzilla for example. At its surface, it's nothing more than a lizard monster movie. But it's also a cautionary tale about the dangers of nuclear arms. Brazil is a scathing look at the ridiculous nature of buracreaucy through flights of fancy and chaos. Jurassic Park looks at the wonders and dangers that come about from genetic engineering. Frank Herbert's Dune book series takes a look at a maddening collision betweeen biological science (mainly genetics), politics, and religion.

4. "True" science-fiction is dead serious.
- While I'll probably get hell for this one, I honestly perceive that serious sci-fi junkies don't take themselves lightly. "True" science-fiction can't be light-hearted, and every theme must be heavy handed. If it's sad, depressing, and holier than thou, it's "true" science fiction.

I seriously think though that the two main reasons that Star Wars isn't considered Sci-Fi is because of

A. Star Wars is based on man's fascniation with the power of myth. It is a fairy tale/mythical universe filled with its own rules and heroes/villains. "True" sci-fiction deals with man's scienfic knowledge of the universe and how he deals with it in a creative story fashion. It basically boils down to myth vs. established science theory/fact.

B. Backlash. Once studioheads saw the power of the Star Wars franchise, they tried to capitalize on it by creating movies with the so-called Sci-fi "trappings". They made movies with alien monsters, spaceships, and laser battles. The "true" sci-fi junkies point to this moment as the downfall of "true" science fiction, and to some extent, the downfall of "great" American cinema. Essentially, they blame Star Wars for such a downfall and snobbishly exclude the films from its fellow brethren.

Personally, I feel that Star Wars is science fiction. Like any good science fiction tale, Star Wars is a morality tale as well. Underlying its flash and fancy are themes and cautionary lessons that have carried themselves throughout human history. Looking just at the original trilogy itself, the important lesson is the achievement of balance in one's life.

I think that it's highly hypocritical that those self-proclaimed sci-fi junkies (or film snobs for that matter) praise the virtue of looking past the surface of films to catch their deeper meaning, yet continually trash Star Wars as nothing more than laser swords and space fights.

Personally, I like the list. I'm even amazed to see anime on it as well, considering its less than good reception among the film community.

While I've still (two years and counting) only seen 2001: A Space Odyssey only once (and still not in OAR), my recollection tells me that I hated it. I thought it was boring. Its themes are certainly nothing new, yet they were presented in the most dull and mundane way possible. However, after having read up on the film (half of what I've read coming from Jack Brigg's obsessive posts about it), I've come to appreciate it more and more so much that I'll even watch it again in the near future. If I were to vote on the greatest Sci-Fi movies of all time, I'd put it number one. Is that shocking? Hell no it isn't. When you step back and consider what it has done for science fiction, much less the art of film itself, you can't deny its power and place in history.

But it's still boring as hell.

 

[Vickie_M]

But it's still boring as hell.

I don't agree, but I can understand. I think 2001 is one of those films that should be seen in a theater to fully appreciate. Unfortunately, that's pretty near impossible now for most people. I've seen it several times in the theater, from when it was originally released (I was 11 and was fascinated!) to a few months ago (a 70MM print!) and I've never been bored for one second. However, the couple times I've tried to watch it at home (the VHS I bought in the 80's, and the 2nd Kubrick box set DVD) I was too restless and couldn't do it. There are just too many disctractions. It's a problem with watching a lot of movies at home, but with 2001, the situation gets acute. The film really needs 100% attention and absorption. Total surrender to the images, mood and pace is required, and that's hard to do at home. I probably won't ever try to watch it at home again, but I'll be there first in line any time a theater revives it.



Btw, thanks Seth and Martin for the film information!

 

[Adam_S]

the Truman Show?

Lord of the Flies has more science fiction in it than the Truman Show. Oh well that's my only real beef with the list, I'm glad to see AI so high on the list, it certainly deserves it. Glad also to see so much Gilliam and Older films. Personally I'd have rated King Kong higher, but other than that pretty good list.

This list title is really a misnomer, considering some of the titles on that list, it should really be titled speculative fiction rather than science fiction. As someone else mentioned, science fiction is a story whose basic premise is dependent on some science element that if removed, would fatally cripple the story or make it meaningless. Often times, by hard scifi fans, if that element is not some sort of technological item, based on the best of bleeding edge modern science, then it is not really scifi. However, much of what is labeled science fiction deals with themes ideas and concepts extrapolated from current politics, trends, and issues of the day, often times exagerated to make a point, or offer scathing rhetoric on current or past society. This 'soft' scifi, many believe, should not be labeled scifi, but under the broader label of speculative fiction (a label that can also include fantasy and alternate history), because the stories being told speculate about the future, but perhaps have nothing to do with technology, in any meaningful way.

ADam

 

[Brian Lawrence]

Forbidden Planet way down at #32
I have no problem with Truman Show being listed as sci-fi.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Re: Dome's post.
SF is serious. You need to read more SF my friend if you think that is the case. Try Harry Harrison, Keith Laumer, Robert Heinlein, Rudy Rucker or Bruce Sterling on for size and tell me SF is dry, serious, boring, etc.
You've listed a few reasons why Star Wars isn't SF, but yet you still believe it qualifies as SF. Draw your own conclusion.
- Walter.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

You've listed a few reasons why Star Wars isn't SF, but yet you still believe it qualifies as SF. Draw your own conclusion.

That's pretty much what I did. I've come to understanding that line of reasoning, it's just one I don't really use. In the end, all story-telling seeks to tell a tale, and that the storyteller hopes that the audience and listeners get something out of it. Monikers like "science fiction" or "psychological horror" are just the icing on the cake, although I do like icing quite a bit.

 

[Ryan Potts]

I'm with Brian. Forbidden Planet at 32?
Overall, looking at the list, I felt it was a mixed bag. Like several have pointed out, some of the titles are a stretch at best (Dr. Strangelove as Sci-Fi?). sheesh.
Of course it does say a lot when most of the top ten in there were all made after 1970 (the notable exceptions being 2001 and metropolis). Oh well, not everyone thinks the classics deserve better.
Not that I could have done any better coming up with the top 100. I'm not gonna complain too much since Buckaroo Banzai is on that list...

 

[Walter Kittel]

For what its worth ( and why some of the films on the list definitely are not SF ) -
Definitions of Science Fiction
- Walter.

 

[george kaplan]

Walter,
Those are some interesting definitions by a bunch of sci-fi writers, but those definitions are so far ranging, I fail to see how they eliminate any of the films as science fiction.
I mean some of those are broad enough to cover any film. Some explain the difference between sci-fi and fantasy. Some call sci-fi a branch of fantasy.
Clearly, the 'experts' can't agree on what is science fiction, no wonder we can't.