Total Film Top 10 Science Fiction readers poll

mike65

No real surprises, pleasing number of oldish films and lack of generally modern CGI infested sh1te.

1. Blade Runner (1982)
2. Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
4. Alien (1979)
5. Star Wars (1977)
6. ET: The Extra Terrestrial (1982)
7. Aliens (1986)
8. Inception (2010)
9. The Matrix (1999)
10. The Terminator (1984)

The full top 50 will be published tomorrow

The Floyd p

No T2?

Sad Professor

The Matrix has no place on that list. 2001 should be number 1. And I'd consider Star Wars to be science-fantasy. Some possibly more deserving films imo would be 12 Monkeys, Brazil and maybe Children of Men.

Mr. Presentable

Sad Professor wrote: »

The Matrix has no place on that list. 2001 should be number 1. And I'd consider Star Wars to be science-fantasy. Some possibly more deserving films imo would be 12 Monkeys, Brazil and maybe Children of Men.

I concur. Surprised there's no Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but I suppose you have to ask what demographic subscribes to Total Film.

DeepBlue

Sad Professor wrote: »

The Matrix has no place on that list.

Reason being?

TheIrishGrover

Nono, it's been up for a week or so. Here's the complete list:

50: Barbarella
49: Primer
48: Flash Gordon
47: The Man Who Fell To Earth
46: A.I.
45: Godzilla (1954)
44: Serenity
43: Forbidden Planet
42: THX 1138
41: Tron
40: Independence Day
39: Moon
38: Total Recall
37: The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951)
36: The Fly (1986)
35: Akira
34: Starship Troopers
33: District 9
32: Solaris (1972)
31: Dark Star
30: Brazil
29: Predator
28: 12 Monkeys
27: Mad Max 2
26: Metropolis (1927)
25: A Clockwork Orange
24: Minority Report
23: Robocop
22: Eternal Sunshine On The Spotless Mind
21: Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1956)
20: Wall-e
19: Jurassic Park
18: Planet Of The Apes (1968)
17: Star Trek (2009)
16: The Thing (1982)
15: T2: Judgement Day
14: Close Encounters Of The Third Kind
13: Donnie Darko
12: Back To The Future
11: Avatar
10: The Terminator
09: The Matrix
08: Inception
07: Aliens
06: E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
05: Starwars (A New Hope)
04: Alien
03: 2001: A Space Odyssey
02: Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
01: Bladerunner

TheIrishGrover

Sad Professor wrote: »

The Matrix has no place on that list. 2001 should be number 1. And I'd consider Star Wars to be science-fantasy. Some possibly more deserving films imo would be 12 Monkeys, Brazil and maybe Children of Men.

You're going down a slippery route with Science Fantasy and all that. I know where you're coming from but where would you draw the line: Alien- Horror; A Clockwork Orange- Social commentary; District 9- historical allegory?

Tipsy McSwagger

My Top 10.

1. Aliens
2. Predator
3. Jurassic Park
4. Back to the Future
5. The Thing
6. Wall-E
7. T2
8. Blade Runner
9. The Empire Strikes Back
10. The Matrix

jaykhunter

Nobody's ever going to agree with this list. But c'mon, Donnie Darko is rated higher than T2? Avatar aswell? T1>T2?? Get out! Sigh :pac:

Sad Professor

DeepBlue wrote: »

Reason being?

It sucks! The acting is terrible, the visual effects are gimmicky, the story is rubbish and the dialogue is unbearable. Fishburne is laughably bad in it. "You are one, Neo... You... are .... the... one... I know it in my heart, Neo." I'm sorry, but he's dreadful.

And Keanu, well the less said the better, but I think this is by far one of his worst performances. I actually thought he was kinda decent in Speed, but in The Matrix he's like a plank of wood. His love interest is a plank of wood as well. The film is a love story between two planks of wood doing kung-fu in leather trench coats. It's almost like Fishburne and Weaving looked at the two leads and decided they had to compensate.

As a piece of science fiction the film isn't deep or interesting either. What could be more shallow than a bunch of guys in trench coats running around doing kung-fu and shooting people for no particular reason? Oh, yeah, it never occurred to me that I might be living inside a computer system. Plato's cave is rubbish anyway. And it's not like the film deals with any of the ideas it supposedly introduces. Once the kung-fu starts all the pop philosophy is forgotten about.

I'd rather watch Dark City which is a visually far superior film. And Jennifer Connolly is in it. :pac:

Sorry for the rant. All my opinion, of course. I do kinda like The Matrix in places.

Sad Professor

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

You're going down a slippery route with Science Fantasy and all that. I know where you're coming from but where would you draw the line: Alien- Horror; A Clockwork Orange- Social commentary; District 9- historical allegory?

Maybe you are right, but each of those films can still be considered sci-fi in addition to other things. Alien is sci-fi and horror, District 9 is sci-fi and historical allegory, etc. Where as Star Wars is just fantasy as far as I'm concerned.

doc_17

The Matrix imo deserves its' place on the list. The other two were trash though.

mike65

I think this the decade breakdown -

1920s 1
1930s 0
1940s 0
1950s 4
1960s 3
1970s 8
1980s 13
1990s 5
2000s 13
2010s 1

Hmm still missing a few...

TheIrishGrover

mike65 wrote: »

I think this the decade breakdown -

1920s 1
1930s 0
1940s 0
1950s 4
1960s 3
1970s 7
1980s 13
1990s 5
2000s 11

That's pretty cool. About what I'd expect from a pole (for good or bad): Many in their mid to late 30's voting for the 80's films and younger readers not looking back further than 1999 because of "outdated, old-fashioned" effects etc other than the Starwars originals. I remember showing a niece Bladerunner as part of a media studies paper she was writing. She had heard of it but did not appreciate HOW influencial it was until she saw it. Then it became:"but..... but..... EVERYTHING stole from it!!!"
.
.
.
.
It could be worse. I can't wait to see the Empire one (I predict the twilight films will all be in the top 15..........)

saintsaltynuts

Sad Professor wrote: »

The Matrix has no place on that list. 2001 should be number 1. And I'd consider Star Wars to be science-fantasy. Some possibly more deserving films imo would be 12 Monkeys, Brazil and maybe Children of Men.

Children Of Men was the best Sci-Fi movie of the last ten years without a doubt.

Marty McFly

I know this is not going to be a popular opinion on this thread but Blade Runner number 1:eek::eek::eek:, I thought Blade Runner was the biggest pile of crap id ever seen, been hearing about it for years finally sat down to watch but struggled to watch the whole lot of it, finished it and just thought well that was a waste of my time.

Sad Professor

saintsaltynuts wrote: »

Children Of Men was the best Sci-Fi movie of the last ten years without a doubt.

Yeah, it's excellent. My only problem with it is the ending. There's no third act. It's like they didn't know how to end it and decided ah sure we'll just end it here.

Galvasean

Donnie Darko beating T2 and Jurassic Park? Only reason that film is any good is they locked the director out of the editing room!

jaykhunter

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

I know this is not going to be a popular opinion on this thread but Blade Runner number 1:eek::eek::eek:, I thought Blade Runner was the biggest pile of crap id ever seen, been hearing about it for years finally sat down to watch but struggled to watch the whole lot of it, finished it and just thought well that was a waste of my time.

I couldn't agree more. This should probably be put in the "unpopular opinions" thread lol. I found it slow, boring, and the direction to be incredibly intrusive and self-reverential. So many times during the film it felt like the director Ridley Scott said "stop! look how nice I lit and shot this scene.....[minutes pass].....now continue".

I was impressed with the futuristic utopia realised and how much Attack of the Clones ripped it off but in terms of an overall film, I didn't like it at all. I'm sure it's an important/influential film, but IMO it's not an enjoyable one.

Galvasean

Is it still taboo here to call people who disagree with you philistines?

mike65

jaykhunter wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. This should probably be put in the "unpopular opinions" thread lol. I found it slow, boring, and the direction to be incredibly intrusive and self-reverential. So many times during the film it felt like the director Ridley Scott said "stop! look how nice I lit and shot this scene.....[minutes pass].....now continue".

I was impressed with the futuristic utopia realised and how much Attack of the Clones ripped it off but in terms of an overall film, I didn't like it at all. I'm sure it's an important/influential film, but IMO it's not an enjoyable one.

Dystopia! No wonder you disliked it!

Seriously, back to film appreciation school for you.

podgemonster

Back to the Future 2 has way more Sci Fi elements to it than the part 1 with flying cars, hydrated pizzas, hoverboards, alternate timelines and 3D notice boards!

Moon should also be in the top 10!

johnny_ultimate

It is a pet peeve of mine that Serenity isn't held in a higher regard than Star Wars. Whedon > Lucas.

StonedParadoX

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

I know this is not going to be a popular opinion on this thread but Blade Runner number 1:eek::eek::eek:, I thought Blade Runner was the biggest pile of crap id ever seen, been hearing about it for years finally sat down to watch but struggled to watch the whole lot of it, finished it and just thought well that was a waste of my time.

i honestly thought i was alone in thinking that.. iv watched it twice because the first time i fell asleep in parts..

bullvine

No "Wrath of Khan"?? in top 50

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It is a pet peeve of mine that Serenity isn't held in a higher regard than Star Wars. Whedon > Lucas.

Serenity is what the Star Wars prequels should have been. The opening 10 minutes are more fun to watch than anything in the prequels.

"no grenades"
"awww!"

Wolflikeme

No mention of John Carpenter's 'The Thing'?!!

C'mon! That should easily make the top ten IMHO!

CerebralCortex

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It is a pet peeve of mine that Serenity isn't held in a higher regard than Star Wars. Whedon > Lucas.

Neither of which should be considered sci-fi. Where's Robocop, The Ghost in the Shell, Moon etc.?

CerebralCortex

The Thing!

mikhail

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Neither of which should be considered sci-fi. Where's Robocop, The Ghost in the Shell, Moon etc.?

Serenity's major themes are libertarianism and faith; the former in particular is posed using a futuristic technology. If it's not sci-fi, neither are Robocop which is about the relationship between government and industry posed in a Christ allegory posed in a futuristic setting, or Moon which is about certain ethical issues (spoilers prevent me being more specific) posed using a futuristic setting. Your implication that it's like Star Wars, which is ultimately 'just' an adventure movie, suggests that you've never seen it.

Oh, and Robocop is 23rd, and Moon is 39th. Akira made the list, but it's unsurprising that no other anime did: they're just not well enough known in the west.

johnny_ultimate

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Neither of which should be considered sci-fi.

Why not TBH, I consider genre classification an exercise in futility, but I don't think sci-fi should be relegated to cyberpunkian or technologically advanced ideas and themes. What exactly is Serenity - a group of individuals travelling around in their spaceship in a dystopian future - lacking in the science fiction department? Yeah, there's Western hints there, but personally I feel it's all a bit pointless getting caught up in that level of pedantry.

Goldstein

To quote Dr. Ian Malcolm: "That is one big pile of ****"

There are vegetables out there that would tell you Children of Men, Dark City, Gattaca, Sunshine should all be on there. At least they remembered the (sci-fan) Star Trek franchise that JJ Abrams invented in 2009. :rolleyes:

Bladerunner? Without a doubt the most overrated science fiction movie based on a book by the most overrated speculative fiction author.

Avatar is the 11th greatest science fiction movie ever made...fact!

That's gotta be the most laughable hipster science fiction list I think I've ever laid eyes on.

TheIrishGrover

mikhail wrote: »

Serenity's major themes are libertarianism and faith; the former in particular is posed using a futuristic technology. If it's not sci-fi, neither are Robocop which is about the relationship between government and industry posed in a Christ allegory posed in a futuristic setting, or Moon which is about certain ethical issues (spoilers prevent me being more specific) posed using a futuristic setting. Your implication that it's like Star Wars, which is ultimately 'just' an adventure movie, suggests that you've never seen it.

Oh, and Robocop is 23rd, and Moon is 39th. Akira made the list, but it's unsurprising that no other anime did: they're just not well enough known in the west.

Yes, it's easy to break down the themes into sub categories. Just because this can be done, it doesn't mean a movie isn't Sci-Fi. That's one of the reasons I like Sci-Fi. Sometimes major themes can best be expressed through the medium of Sci-Fi. Look at the BSG Reboot. It's a very blatant post 9/11 story (Especially the start of Season 3). I mean, c'mon:

50: Barbarella -- Feminism (oddly enough) allegory
49: Primer -- Moralistic tale on advancement of technology
48: Flash Gordon -- Space Opera and a commentary of man's colonial spirit
47: The Man Who Fell To Earth -- Moralistic tale on the corruptive influence of modern society
46: A.I. -- Moralistic tale on advancement of technology..... and the debate on "What is human"
45: Godzilla (1954) -- Commentary on Japan's relationship to nuclear weapons
44: Serenity -- Space western and commentary on authoritarian government and the control/manipulation of people
43: Forbidden Planet -- Shakespeare
42: TH 1138 -- Space western and commentary on authoritarian government and the control/manipulation of people

Mickeroo

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Neither of which should be considered sci-fi. Where's Robocop, The Ghost in the Shell, Moon etc.?

The only fantastical elements in Serenity are arguably long distance space travel and terraforming. There isn't even any aliens in it, and they still use bullets in their guns, plus its one of very few films of that ilk that acknowledges there's no sound in space. It's very much a sci-fi movie. It's also a better film than Star Wars episodes I,II,III & VI imho.

Star Wars pretty much has magic in it,not sci-fi at all.

Oh and isn't allegory one of the main characterisitcs of most of the best sci-fi?

Sad Professor

Mickeroo wrote: »

The only fantastical elements in Serenity are arguably long distance space travel and terraforming.

And I wouldn't even consider these fantastical elements. Terraforming on that scale might be a stretch, but I though the lack of FTL was very realistic and refreshing.

Star Wars pretty much has magic in it,not sci-fi at all.

What about midichlorians? :P

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

What about midichlorians? :P

I had to google that, don't know how I missed that one, thats some good science :pac:

stoneill

Silent Running with Bruce Dern - an absolute classic!

nyarlothothep

That list seemed fairly reasonable and well thought out until...Inception!!!!!!! Its barely justifiable as Sci Fi and its above Terminator, how can that be!!??! How??¬!!! No!!!!

Also Twelve Monkeys should be way up on that list, its one of the best films ever and anyone who thinks otherwise is a philistine.

Dempsey

Sad Professor wrote: »

It sucks! The acting is terrible, the visual effects are gimmicky, the story is rubbish and the dialogue is unbearable. Fishburne is laughably bad in it. "You are one, Neo... You... are .... the... one... I know it in my heart, Neo." I'm sorry, but he's dreadful.

And Keanu, well the less said the better, but I think this is by far one of his worst performances. I actually thought he was kinda decent in Speed, but in The Matrix he's like a plank of wood. His love interest is a plank of wood as well. The film is a love story between two planks of wood doing kung-fu in leather trench coats. It's almost like Fishburne and Weaving looked at the two leads and decided they had to compensate.

As a piece of science fiction the film isn't deep or interesting either. What could be more shallow than a bunch of guys in trench coats running around doing kung-fu and shooting people for no particular reason? Oh, yeah, it never occurred to me that I might be living inside a computer system. Plato's cave is rubbish anyway. And it's not like the film deals with any of the ideas it supposedly introduces. Once the kung-fu starts all the pop philosophy is forgotten about.

I'd rather watch Dark City which is a visually far superior film. And Jennifer Connolly is in it. :pac:

Star Trek (2009) better than Jurassic Park? No chance imo

Sorry for the rant. All my opinion, of course. I do kinda like The Matrix in places.

This post should really be in here

Star Trek (2009) better than Jurassic Park? No way!

jaykhunter

So would a broad definition of Sci-Fi be "a film which includes things that do not exist in the world today or in the past"? That includes technologies that aren't available (spaceships, lightsabres etc) or animals not found on earth past or present.

Hopefully that applies to everything in that top 50 list so it could all be included instead of including sub-genres. In general any film that's worth it's salt will cross sub-genres.

johnny_ultimate

Remember, it is Total Film we're dealing with, so any exclusions are probably down to the casual readership the magazine aims at. It's why many 'big name' films are in the top ten, and truly intriguing sci-fi is buried in the bottom half of the list or indeed entirely absent.

Galvasean

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

pedantry.

That's it. I hate this "Star Wars isn't sci-fi". Look, it's got space travel, it's sci-fi of a sort.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

That list seemed fairly reasonable and well thought out until...Inception!!!!!!! Its barely justifiable as Sci Fi

Why is Inception barely justifiable as sci-fi?

nyarlothothep

Galvasean wrote: »

That's it. I hate this "Star Wars isn't sci-fi". Look, it's got space travel, it's sci-fi of a sort.



Why is Inception barely justifiable as sci-fi?

Because there isn't really any science to it. At all. They have some magic mystery box which allows them to access a collective subconscious and thats it. Its more a psycho-drama/puzzle/mystery film as opposed to sci fi.

TonyD79

Wheres Sunshine?

CerebralCortex

Mickeroo wrote: »

The only fantastical elements in Serenity are arguably long distance space travel and terraforming. There isn't even any aliens in it, and they still use bullets in their guns, plus its one of very few films of that ilk that acknowledges there's no sound in space. It's very much a sci-fi movie. It's also a better film than Star Wars episodes I,II,III & VI imho.

Star Wars pretty much has magic in it,not sci-fi at all.

Oh and isn't allegory one of the main characterisitcs of most of the best sci-fi?

No Molecular Nanotech, no AI, no Cyborgs, in a future with FTL? I love Serenity but it's not Sci-fi.

Dman001

Have to agree with The Matrix. I loved the whole concept that we live in Computer System. But the trilogy was badly executed, badly written with a bad storyline. At the time, the fighting scenes and visuals were amazing, but it got way too focused on the fighting scenes. I didn't really mind the performances from the main cast, I'd get over that. But there were a number of things in the series that I don't believe were explained, or were reasoned because Neo was "The One" (Neo stopping the machine outside of the Matrix, the Oracle being able to predict the fate of Zion). I could watch 6 Seasons of Lost and accept when we weren't presented with answers to given mysteries, and still enjoy the series. But I struggle to accept some of the things we were presented with in The Matrix Trilogy.

humanji

Galvasean wrote: »

Why is Inception barely justifiable as sci-fi?

Because it doesn't exist. It was a dream you had...

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No Molecular Nanotech, no AI, no Cyborgs, in a future with FTL? I love Serenity but it's not Sci-fi.

Sorry to keep off topic, and feel free to ignore this, but can someone explain to me what constitutes a sci-fi film? Serenity has plenty of sci-fi elements in it, so I don't see how it can't be considered sci-fi.

With regards the list, I see these things like I do all "Top x Lists", it's a list of 50 popular sci-fi films in no particular order. Since we all know it's subjective (hell, I wouldn't have Avatar near the list). But I really am surprised at some ommissions. As mentioned above, I can't believe Dark City isn't on the list as well as Sunshine.

And I assume everyone is devestated that The Phantom Menace isn't on the list. George will be disappointed. :P

johnny_ultimate

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No Molecular Nanotech, no AI, no Cyborgs, in a future with FTL? I love Serenity but it's not Sci-fi.

I do not agree. The Internet doesn't either:

Wikipedia wrote:

Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginary but more or less plausible (or at least nonsupernatural) content such as future settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, aliens, and paranormal abilities. Exploring the consequences of scientific innovations is one purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".

So yes, I call nonsense on your common but entirely unnecessary criteria.

Mickeroo

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No Molecular Nanotech, no AI, no Cyborgs, in a future with FTL? I love Serenity but it's not Sci-fi.

No dice, you can't exclude it for stuff that's not in it. It makes no sense. All the elements that are in it are sci-fi. Thats like saying Robocop isn't a police drama or an action movie because it has a cyborg in it, and besides why would they put that stuff into the script when it would add nothing to the story or universe?


EDIT: Nerdiest thread we've had in here ever btw :pac:

Antar Bolaeisk

bullvine wrote: »

No "Wrath of Khan"?? in top 50

This has to be the greatest travesty of them all, no Wrath of Khan yet that stupid thing they called Star Trek appears.

CerebralCortex

Mickeroo wrote: »

No dice, you can't exclude it for stuff that's not in it. It makes no sense. All the elements that are in it are sci-fi. Thats like saying Robocop isn't a police drama or an action movie because it has a cyborg in it, and besides why would they put that stuff into the script when it would add nothing to the story or universe?


EDIT: Nerdiest thread we've had in here ever btw :pac:

Okay, fair enough. Serenity space opera primarily with elements of sci-fi?