Top Ten Sci-fi Movies

[Rob P]

From the Guardian: thought this may provide an interesting read/thread.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2013/oct/16/top-10-sci-fi-movies

Personally I was surprised to see ET in the top ten, though I did enjoy seeing it at the cinema, with my little brother back in ..... well too long ago. ;)

[Astro_Bot]

Yes, surprising. Overall, the list was predictable, and safe, IMHO. It seems a bit out of date, actually. I've read polls of "top ten sci-fi movies" from sci-fi fans that I agreed with more than that list.

[brian nordstrom]

:shrug: Yep 99% hollywood pap !!.
There are way better SIFI movies out there made by the British , French , even the KIWI's ,, but as already said SAFE :question:.
Brian.

[BPO]

The Matrix certainly doesn't deserve inclusion, IMHO. It's nothing more than a cheap rip-off of just about every other science fiction story since forever.

[AdrianF]

Happy that 2001 got in to top 10 although I have watched the movie numerous times I still don't fully understand the movie.
Was it really that long ago? See it when it first came out in Mt Isa

Adrian

[JB80]

It's not entirely awful although the order is a over t and at least 3 I wouldn't of chosen.

It's subjective though, it's entirely unlikely two of us will have the same list and 10 is hardly enough to get a real guide on what a person feels.
That list seems slapped together in a lunch break as opposed to a well thought out Friday night on the pints.

p.s I think I'd have E.T in the ten.

[johnt]

Perhaps a list of 10 isn't enough to capture most of the good ones, especially given variations in different peoples opinions. I like top 50 or top 100. Here are some other interesting lists that came up.

Looking forward to the low budget "Europa Report" when it comes out in November.

http://www.film4.com/special-features/top-lists/top-50-sci-fi-movies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_about_outer_space

http://io9.com/top-10-most-gorgeous-space-movies-ever-filmed-1442053579

http://www.imdb.com/list/JwkNp7kTj0Y/

http://www.ranker.com/list/the-best-space-movies/all-genre-movies-lists

[sjastro]

Can someone explain to me what the hell "2001 A Space Odyssey" was about?
I have never been able to stay awake for the ending.

Regards

Steven

[multiweb]

It's a very dark and fairly out of the box story line. :lol:

[Ric]

Agreed with the top 5, don't know about the rest though.

[gary]

Hi Adrian,

I can confess to having paid to go and see it at the cinema in excess of fifty times. :)

I have even come out of the cinema and gone back in again to see the following session.

How many times I would have watched it on VHS and DVD, I have lost track of.

Despite that, each time I watch it I will typically discover something in it that I
had never noticed before.

If I had to choose a single film worthy of being alongside the greatest work's
of art ever conceived, I would choose Kubrick's 2001.

[Barrykgerdes]

I have not seen 2001 but I have a set of audio tapes of a reading of the book (also never listened to).

It is an allegory and gather it would be hard to follow for most.

I may get around to listening to it sometime

I liked most of the English Sci-fi TV series a lot better than any of the movies ever made. (of course Dr Who leads this field)

Barry

[RobF]

You should get the book out or buy it sometime Steven. Arthur C Clarke's story is great. Kubrick may have been artistically brialliant but the last 15mins of the movie do little to portray Clarke's vision.

Spoiler: Basically the suggestion is Dave Bowman moves on to a higher form of existence and is born as a "star baby". He doesn't actually know what to do next other than hang around looking at earth "but he'll think of something"......

[LewisM]

Very happy to see Solaris included. Brilliant psychology in that film - I enjoyed it immensely even before I learnt to speak Russian. Watched it first on SBS many years ago as a teenager. Now I have the DVD. The Yank remake of it with Johnny Depp and Charlize Theron - The Astronaut's Wife - is just AWFUL

I will join the 2001 "Huh?" team. I really yawned during the whole film. Spectacular, but just too obtuse. FAR too obtuse. I understood the symbology, but just disliked it.

Blade Runner... MEH. Take it or leave it.

Very happy to see none of Paul Verhoeven's nauseating films made it.

[el_draco]

Watched Solaris last night based on this "list". Seemed more like Dr Phil on prozac; Cluney? Really? For the most part... boring as bat poo, IMHO of course, and I can think of a few dozen other films that I would have put on the list ahead of this film. Theen, of course I just read the previous post. Taste is very subjective... :D

[MortonH]

The problem with any "Top Ten" is there can be an infinite number of ways to define "top". Is it based on technical merit? Acting? Effects? Or more personal, such as the way the movie made you feel the first time you saw it?

I remember watching ET as a kid and thinking it was wonderful, and I cried my eyes out at the end. But as an adult I've watched it and thought it was cliche-ridden, stereotypical Spielberg rubbish.

Maybe the test should be whether you own the movies and how many times/how often you have watched them.

I own only three of the movies in that list: The Matrix, Terminator 2 and 2001. The first two I have watched countless times as they were groundbreaking and still stand up to today's standards. I have watched 2001 a few times as I think the atmosphere and visuals are amazing, but I never understood the ending until I Googled it!

I think Alien was an awesome film as well. Blade Runner left me cold.

Does Ghostbusters count as sci-fi? :P

[LewisM]

That's my opinion of the entire Star Wars series. Cliched, badly acted, predictable.

Me, I am a 100% Alien franchise fanatic. I even TOLERATE Alien 4 (JUST, only darned JUST). And I oddly enjoy and understand Alien 3 fully.

Prometheus, as problematic as it is, thrills me with the premises expounded in it. I LOATHED it at first (anticipating an Alien like movie), watched it again with an OPEN mind, and LOVED every second of it (apart from the crap actors).

[sn1987a]

Some of my favourites in no particular order.....

Silent Running
Soylent Green
Pitch Black
The Day The Earth Stood Still (original)
Blade Runner
The World The Flesh And The Devil
Moon
Watchmen
Wrath Of Kahn
V For Vendetta
Blakes Seven (ok it was a TV series but was awesome in its day):P

[LewisM]

I have to say, and VEHEMENTLY so, who could even possibly leave out THE best Sci-Fi movie EVER made?

Forbidden Planet

A Top 10 without it is useless drivel.

[sn1987a]

....or Spaceballs :D

[Manav]

Forbidden planet should be on the list and you know what so should back to the future.

I also enjoyed Gattaca. twelve monkeys, Dune, fifth element...there is quite a few movies that could be in top ten

[gary]

Hi Rob,

Kurbrick sat down with Clarke and Kubrick suggested they write the novel, the
idea being that the film would be based on it. As it transpired, the workload of the
film's production made it difficult for Kubrick to also work on the book.

The screenplay, written primarily by Kubrick, and the novel, written by Clarke, then
progressed concurrently and the two would meet regularly to exchange ideas.
Sometimes upon seeing the rushes, Clarke re-wrote sections of the novel.

As it transpired, the film was released before the book was completed.

In the original screenplay, the Discovery's mission was to Saturn but
Douglas Turnbull and the special effects team struggled to create convincing
rings, so it was decided that it would be a mission to Jupiter. The book
still uses Saturn as the destination.

Kubrick's eye for detail was extraordinary. For example, whenever Poole or Bowman
enter the Pods he makes sure the viewer sees the
"CAUTION EXPLOSIVE BOLTS" warning as the Pod's door closes -
http://www.collativelearning.com/PICS%20FOR%20WEBSITE/stills%202/ae3515.jpg

However, if one looks very carefully, the "Maintenance and Replacement Instructions"
for the bolts are detailed there as well, even though you as an audience member
will barely have time to notice them let alone read them (zoomed image here - )
http://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo294/krellday/Movies/2001KubrickArchiveExplosiveBolts.jp g

[Steffen]

I don't think so. Solaris, 2001 and Metropolis are most certainly not Hollywood pap, so you're down to 70% at best.

Cheers
Steffen.

[brian nordstrom]

:mad2: There are so many great SIFI movies out there , but what really gets to me is that you go to the movies to see a movie , and really enjoy it so go out and buy the DVD only to find its been edited so badly to DVD that its un-watchable :mad2::mad2::mad2: , :shrug: why do they have to do that ?.

'Dune' ( the origonal by Dino De Laurentiis ) is a classic example , I love this book ( read the lot of them , and there are plenty ) and the (origonal) movie that I watched on the big screen in Hamilton NZ years ago .
I have the NZ DVD in NZ and this versionis pretty bad , but I grabbed the Aussie version and its a shambles to watch in this version , they destroyed the complex story to the extent that its un-watchable :sadeyes:.
Its no wonder it was a flop on Vidieo tape and DVD ??? .

'Star Trek' , the motion picture , is another example of this :question: .

Brian.

[RobF]

Thanks Gary. I was aware of the film leading the novel although I thought Kubrick asked Clarke originally if he had a good idea for a classic sci-fi film, and Clarke described ideas based off earlier short stories. Perhaps replace my last word "vision" with "Clarke's clearly communicated version" then ;)

Kubrick was clearly a leader in his field, but the end of 2001 the movie is a bit much for most mere mortals to figure out. Presumably that's what he wanted though.

[gary]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the response.

Turns out perhaps as not clearly communicated by the great author as one might
suppose.

Initially the two spent approximately 2400 hours brainstorming together
for up to six hours a day at a time to create the first draft of a story line.
Two extraordinary minds bouncing ideas back and forth.

Over the years, Kubrick had already read a great deal of science fiction and
after a time suggested to Clarke they use "The Sentinel" as a starting point.
Now "The Sentinel" is a very short story, only about six pages long.
You can read a copy here -
http://japetus.name/visionaryjourneys/pdf/TheSentinel.pdf

According to Clarke, when Kubrick told him he wanted to make the proverbial
good science fiction movie, implying that there hadn't been any good ones before then,
Clarke said he didn't agree with him and said he was fond of "Things to Come (https://archive.org/details/things_to_come_ipod)",
a version of H.G. Welles book. He got Kubrick to see it and as Clarke said,
"Stanley found it absolutely terrible and of course it was very naive." :lol:

Kubrick continued to work independently on the screenplay whilst working
on the film and had the studio supply him with a large blue trailer, that at one
time earlier had been Deborah Kerr's dressing room. He had it wheeled onto
the studio floor where he could go in and continue writing privately.

It is interesting to contrast Kubrick's depiction of Heywood Floyd's flight aboard the
Orion Pan Am Clipper to the orbiting space station compared to that of Clarke.

Clarke writes -


Now you would think flying aboard a rocket plane to an orbiting space station
and then onto the Moon would have us all glued to the window and our hearts
racing the whole time.

But if there had already been regular commercial services to the Moon in
service for many years to the point it is routine and commonplace, Kubrick's vision is
likely the more accurate. Get onboard an early morning flight in a 747 and look
around what many of your fellow passengers will be doing. Despite the miracle of
the wide body jet passenger airliner that can transport them half way around
the world, many of them sleep or watch the in-flight entertainment screen
in the back of the seat in front of them.

And what does Kubrick show Heywood Floyd as doing? Sleeping!

The in-flight movie is playing in the seat back in front of him and he has obviously
dozed off whilst watching.

Now keep in mind that Kubrick started filming 2001 in December 1965 and it
was released in April 1968.

The 747 passenger aircraft was rolled out on September 30th 1968 and before
that, you had to be pretty wealthy to travel routinely by jet airliner around the
world. The 747 brought international air travel to the masses and soon after the
excitement wore off, people stopped being glued to the windows and dozed off
instead. And those little LCD screens in the back of the seats in front of
you didn't come out until years later.


He definitely wanted you to come out thinking. :)

For example, if da Vinci had put an inscription below the Mona Lisa that said
"The real reason she is smiling is simply because I pulled funny faces at her",
it wouldn't be quite as cool! :lol:

Here is a fabulous documentary where directors such as Steven Spielberg,
George Lucas, Sidney Pollack, Peter Hyams, Dan O'Bannon and William Friedkin
talk about the impact the movie 2001 had on them and on film making that followed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7-VnIqKhM

Thanks again for the post. :thumbsup:

[RobF]

Interesting material, and good points Gary - I particularly like the one above :thumbsup:

One thing I really admire 2001 for is the lack of "zooming" and "banking" spaceships "flying" about, something almost ubiquitous in sci-fi alas. Wonder if that was Clarke or Kubrick, or both? The movie "Gravity" is the most recent realistic rendition in that regard I can recall.

[Steffen]

Absolutely! In more general terms this seems to be the difference between adult cinema and, well, Hollywood. Movie makers who take their viewers seriously leave them with questions, with unsolved dilemmas to ponder. Most Hollywood movies concoct suspenseful situations or tensions and then resolve them, delivering all the answers to the viewers, akin to playing peekaboo with a toddler.

Cheers
Steffen.

[brian nordstrom]

in space :thanx: well said Steffen :thumbsup: , bad guys / good guys / fight/ action scene's /explosions/ car chase's / good guys win /bad guys loose and 'Ill be back' ,,, waow :question: hollywood again .
Brian.

[gary]

Thanks Rob. :)



The answer to that was that the creation of the film was entirely under Kubrick's
direction but he consulted widely with Clarke and technical experts and those
he employed he insisted they ensure that everything was as authentic as possible.

For example, Fred Ordway was hired as the scientific advisor and his role was to make
sure that every technical and scientific aspect of the film was legitimate.

Ordway had been a member of the American Rocket Society since 1939, written
widely on spaceflight and worked at the Marshall Space Flight Center.

Harry Lange was a German illustrator who had moved to the United States and
worked alongside Von Braun at the Army Ballistic Missile Agency and later the future
projects division of NASA.

Clarke introduced Ordway and Lange to Kubrick and Lange worked on the film's
design team and was eventually nominated for an Academy Award for Best Art Direction.

The production team visited various NASA facilities, private companies and
universities regularly during the film's six months of preproduction and consulted
widely to make sure the spacecraft depicted in the film would be as realistic as
possible.

For example they would visit the General Electric Missile and Space Vehicle
Department to seek ideas on the propulsion system for Discovery, visit Bell
Labs to look at video telephony and voice synthesis, Whirlpool Corporation
for ideas on the spacecraft food equipment, IBM, Honeywell, RCA, etc.
for computers, guidance and communications systems and so on.

The film of course pre-dated CGI and the elaborate spacecraft sequences were
created with detailed models on rigs that could provide repeatable motions
and sophisticated pan, tilt, track systems were built for the cameras to film them.

So there were a lot of talented advisors consulted for the film and often these
same people were the ones designing things such as the Apollo spacecraft
and the Saturn V and the most advanced computers and navigation systems of
that time.

Kubrick of course famously exploits the physics of low gravity into creating
a technological ballet. The spacecraft move slowly and carefully and obey the
laws of physics. The space station and interior of Discovery spin to create an
artificial gravity. More than any other space movie, Kubrick exploits the fact that
there is no "up" or "down" in space and that in a vacuum, there is no sound.

Consider by comparison the movie Apollo 13, were Ron Howard can't resist
exterior shots where you hear boosters firing. Kubrick instead shocks you
with cuts to the silence of space. It puzzles me nearly 48 years on why
so many other directors still don't get it right and exploit that fact to their
artistic advantage. :)

There is a wonderful sequence in the film where HAL predicts that a black box
that steers the main communications antenna, designated AE-35, will go
100% failure within 72 hours. Dave Bowman performs an EVA to retrieve it
and we cut to he, Frank Poole and HAL scrutinizing it on a workbench.

We see diagnostics run on it. At first we see what we now might call a computerized
tomography (CT) X-ray scan of the units mechanicals. This is followed by a sequence
where Bowman touches a logic probe device onto various test points on the circuit board
which appears to inject a test sequence into the circuitry, the results of which are then shown
overlaid on a CAD image of that part of the circuit assembly.

Whoever consulted on this sequence was a visionary. When you consider when the
film was made that computer graphics was in its infancy and that every computer
screen shown in the film is not a computer screen but a hand made animation,
from a man/machine interface aspect alone it is remarkable.