Blade Runner Is The Best Sci-Fi Film

Delchanat writes "Now there's scientific proof: according to 60 of the most influential scientists in the world, including British biologist Richard Dawkins and Canadian psychologist Steven Pinker, Ridley Scott's Blade Runner (1982) is the best science fiction film. Late Mr. Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) finished 2nd, followed by George Lucas' Star Wars (1977) and The Empire Strikes Back (1980)." There are several other stories as well: favorite authors, the basics of science fiction, and an excerpt of a new Iain M. Banks novel.

I'd have to agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blade Runner is awsome. Everytime I see the cityscapes and the hear the music that was used in those scenes I get chills down my spine. I'd love to live in a dark, gritty Blade Runner style world.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[grub]

I'd love to live in a dark, gritty Blade Runner style world.

Yeah! A world where you leave your shitty jobs to travel home through the throngs of other civilians in the endless rain just to find a renegade replicant in the kitchen that kills you.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[haystor]

Yea, but if I'm gonna die, I choose to go out between Daryl Hannah's thighs.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Boston's MBTA

[Hoi Polloi]

The MBTA in Boston late at night is more like Mad Max.

A film without heros or villans

[GuyMannDude]

Blade Runner is my favorite movie of all time. There's so much to like. One thing that fascinates me is that there is really no hero and no villains in the movie. I'm sure that most people argue that Harrison Ford's character is the hero. But let's think about that: his job is to execute escaped slaves. Hardly a noble persuit. Yes, he does this very relucantly but really that's not much of an excuse. When the film starts, we see him looking in the want ads for a job. Really, I wonder just how hard he's looking. With so much of humanity on the off-world colonies, there's probably plenty of jobs available -- just not very good ones. In addition, once Deckard is on the assignment, he seems to really get into it. Even when he's at home drinking he's studying the photo that he took from Leon's apartment with that fancy photo analyzer of his. He hardly seems to be someone who can't stand his job.

The part about no villians is probably easier to argue. The replicants are simply doing what they can do survive. Yes, they have killed some people when they were trying to escape but they were slaves for chrissake! Pris is described as "'yer standard pleasure model." Basically she was created solely for use as a prostitute. It's not too surprising that she'd be willing to kill to get out of such a depressing situation.

Even though the movie is set in the future and deals with technology and places that don't exist, I think the fact that there aren't any real true 100% heros or 100% villans makes the film very interesting and realistic. I think most people realize this on some level and it draws them to watch what happens when "realistic" people have to deal with messy situations.

I think this is one reason why hardcore fans hate the dubbing. It makes the viewer tend to side with and identify with Deckard. That makes you see him as the hero even if he does questionable things. The Director's Cut lets you watch the movie as an impartial observer.

GMD

Re:A film without heros or villans

[Simonetta]

Since you liked BR, I suggest Chinatown 1973 if you haven't already seen it. It's not futuristic, but it does have the same errie feeling to it that BR does

Re:A film without heros or villans

[MrNemesis]

"He hardly seems to be someone who can't stand his job."

Possibly because he was programmed that way?

(Cue huge original theatrical release vs. directors cut flamewar)

About the flamewar

[tiltowait]

>Possibly because he was programmed that way?

Parent post is referring Ridley's direction that Decker is a replicant [bbc.co.uk] -- although he was not in the book. As for how Ford acted the part, you can just as easily that he didn't act anything. The action star hated being in the film. (or more precisely, the director).

The director's cut eliminated the cheesy voiceover. Voiceover narrations almost never work (Dances with Wolves comes to mind, ug) except when done by John Cusack.

Re:About the flamewar

[Muad'Dave]

Not to disagree with Mr. Scott, but if Deckard was a replicant, why did he always get his ass kicked by the 'real' replicants? Where was his super strength? ...or was he being underclocked on purpose?

Re:About the flamewar

[MrNemesis]

Exactly, The whole point of the film (the dirs. cut anyway) is that a) Tyrell is sufficiently advanced to create replicants that are identical to humans and that b) Deckard and Rachel are both these news types of replicants. They both have human memories, but they're implanted, as shown with the VK test with Rachel. It's only at the end of the film that Deckard knows for certain he's a replicant when he finds Chu's unicorn.

It's a pretty good paradox thing really. Replicants are getting too smart for humans, so the humans have to make special replicants to work for them to hunt the replicants, but they have to make sure the replicants think they're human.

It's probably a mistake to compare the film and the book. The film is based pretty much only on the book's concept and imagery, the storyline is very different.

Damnit, I've watched this film too many times...!

Re:A film without heros or villans

[FeloniousPunk]

If he is a replicant, why is he so much weaker than the others, especially if he designed as a replicant killer?
I can think of a couple of reasons. First of all, in an age of firearms, you ultimately don't need much strength to kill someone else, all you need to be able to do is shoot straight. Which Deckard clearly can do, so long as his fingers don't get broken. Considering that your quarry is extremely difficult to differentiate from the populace at large, the key attribute to getting replicants "aired out" is not physical strength and stamina, but excellent detective work. Where Deckard apparently excels.

By the nature of the job, a Blade Runner has to be able to move freely and have considerable police powers, this is something that the society would never tolerate a replicant having. Also, replicants are banned on Earth anyway. If Deckard obviously possessed superhuman strength and stamina, it wouldn't take long before people figured out that he was a replicant. So, he's got to resemble normal humans a little more closely in order to be effective.

Early in the movie when Bryant the police superintendant is showing Deckard the videos of the replicants, you'll note that there is some text that appears next to their faces and in addition to name and incept date, they seem to be rated in strength, stamina, and intelligence (or something close related to those, can't remember exactly now). It appears that there is variation amongst the Nexus 6 replicants in their abilities, so it's not a stretch to believe that Deckard's abilities could be quite a bit different than the others if his job required it.

Re:A film without heros or villans

[FeloniousPunk]

If this info was available on replicants and Deckard seemed strangely unnatural then how did he get hired to serve in a critical police force? I'd assume that they'd go over his past with a fine-toothed comb before hiring him and they would have found the truth about Deckard.

The police know he's a replicant - he's their replicant, their tool - but they must hide that fact from the public. The theory is that it is Gaff who is Deckard's controller. Gaff is always shadowing Deckard's activities, always in the background with a knowing smirk. The clincher is Gaff's origamis at key moments. He'll make an origami that corresponds to what Deckard is thinking, such as making the origami of a man with an erection when Rachel comes up as a subject in a conversation, and especially the unicorn origami. In the Director's Cut, Deckard has an inexplicable dream of a unicorn, and later Gaff leaves a unicorn origami for him. This shows that Gaff knows about his dream - Deckard is likely a replicant like Rachel, with implanted memories, and Gaff as his controller, knows what these memories are (also note Deckard's excessive collection of family photos...). Deckard does Gaff's dirty work for him, without knowing it.

Re: A film without heros or villans

[gidds]

the dubbing... makes the viewer tend to side with and identify with Deckard. That makes you see him as the hero even if he does questionable things. The Director's Cut lets you watch the movie as an impartial observer.

Interesting analysis!

I first saw the theatrical version (with dubbing); after that, the Director's Cut seemed to lack focus and drive, and the lack of explanation made things a little more confusing if you weren't paying extremely careful attention. So I tended to prefer the first one.

But I see your point. By fixing on Deckard's PoV, we tend to take his motives, and his humanity, for granted, and miss some of the parallels with the (other) replicants -- things that Scott clearly didn't want us to do. Maybe the distance that the Director's Cut brings encourages us question these things. Next time, I'll view it with this in mind. Thanks!

Or maybe Roy is the Hero

[Morgaine]

Well, to be 100% correct Deckard is the Hero:
"The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation".

True enough, in our simplistic "hero always wins" mass media movie form. But in some ways, I consider Roy Batty (the lead replicant played by Rutger Hauer) as the Hero, albeit a tragic one. He dies with honour, accepting death at the end and letting his rival live. And his final "Time to die" is sheer poetry, not the death grunt of the archetypal villian, but truly heroic.

A really great film. :-)

Re:I'd have to agree.

[GrahamCox]

I'd love to live in a dark, gritty Blade Runner style world.
You do.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[BWJones]

I don't know if I would like to live in a dark gritty Blade Runner style world, but the movie did have a profound effect on me. I always thought the concept of restoring vision loss was cool, so I became a vision scientist. The line in the move "I designed you eyes", has got to be one of the coolest ever.

Bladerunner with Dialog, or without? ;-)

[FyRE666]

I actually preferred the movie with the dialog left in. I've heard that Ford hated having to recite the lines, so purposely sounded bored, but I think it adds to the film. Of course, the really stand-out dialog is from RH. The "Tears in rain" speech was a bit of a master-stroke...

Re:I'd have to agree.

[mikael]

Blade Runner is awsome. Everytime I see the cityscapes and the hear the music that was used in those scenes I get chills down my spine. I'd love to live in a dark, gritty Blade Runner style world.

The music was by Vangelis [uibk.ac.at] who composed the soundtracks for many other movies including "Chariots of Fire" and "Antartica".
One of my favourite tracks was "I'll find my way home" which was really a haunting melody.

WTF?

[dougrun]

dudes, stay on topic! Logans Run should be in there somewhere.

Logan's Run

[James Turpin]

Although Logans Run is one of the best sci-fi films from its era (possibly ever), most people have never heard of it, including people who have actually watched it. And this is coming from an avid fan of the series. Oh, you didn't know they made a series too? That's exactly the type of ignorance I'm talking about.

OT, reply to sig

[PsiPsiStar]

Mathematics is not a crime.

Maybe not, but it can get you 5 -10

Highest Grossing Movies List

[SeinJunkie]

Instead of using the standard US list [the-movie-times.com], try using the list adjusted for inflation [the-movie-times.com]. It really sheds some light on what people considered a good movie during their time. By that measure, Ford has been in 4 of the top 20 movies of all time:

• 02. Star Wars
• 14. The Empire Strikes Back
• 15. Return of the Jedi
• 18. Raiders of the Lost Ark

Top Scientists

[ParticleMan911]

Wow, i'm glad our top scientists have taken so much time to come to this important conclusion!

In related news....

[ender81b]

Still no cure for cancer!

What?

[Anonymous Writer]

No Battllefield Earth [imdb.com]?

Re:What?

[maeka]

This poll was for the best SF movies, not the most scientifically accurate.

Star Wars?

[Rolo Tomasi]

What does Star Wars have to do with science fiction?

Re:Star Wars?

[McDrewbie]

I agree. This is an adbenture film that just happens to be set to in space. There are not any real sci-fi themes beyond the fact they are in space ships.

Re:Star Wars?

[Pyromage]

Exactly what I was wondering when I saw the list. I classify maybe half the movies up there as sci-fi. The rest are pure fantasy. If they'd really been polling about sci-fi, they'd include at least one of: 1984, Equilibrium, X-Men, A Clockwork Orange, Minority Report.

The original Star Wars was a great movie. But it's space opera at its best.

I think part of the problem is just the relative lack of good sci-fi films. There's a lot, sure. But there's more good dramas.

Yeah, it's a bit nit-picky to knock them quite so much on what may be a small topic, but I think the article would have made out much differently if they'd only allowed sci-fi movies.

Re:Star Wars?

[Tassach]

"What does Star Wars have to do with science fiction?" Mod parent up!!!

(so we can all point and laugh...) Laugh at you, maybe. Star Wars isn't science fiction - it's space fantasy.

Yes, it's entertaining. Yes, it is (or was, before Lucas dorked it up) a fun movie to watch. The point the grandparent was trying to make is that, strictly speaking, it's not really SCIENCE fiction because there's no science. Read some real science fiction(*) and compare it to Star Wars and you'll see the only thing they have in common is that they're set in space. (*) Some real Sci-Fi titles to check out:

1. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein (or any of his short story collections)
2. The Mote In God's Eye by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle (or any of Niven's short story collections)
3. Eon by Greg Bear
4. Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card

Sci-Fi isn't about science; it's about "What If?"

[mrchaotica]

Like Psymunn said, "science fiction" isn't the same as "fiction with science." Science Fiction is a story that asks "What if?" Here's some examples: Back to the Future 2 asks "What if someone tried to change the past?" Gattica asks "What if genetic engineering and genetic profiling were commonplace?" Star Trek 4 asks "What are the consequences of our destruction of the environment". The movie has a happy ending, but looming over it is the question "We fixed it [in the movie], but what if we hadn't been able to?"

All of these movies are obviously sci-fi, since they all feature neat-o technology and such. But there are others that I'd call sci-fi that aren't so obvious. For example, about half of Jim Carrey's movies are sci-fi: Liar, Liar asks "What if I couldn't lie?" The Mask asks "What if I lost all of my inhibitions?" Bruce Almighty asks "What if I were God?" -- just like Frankenstein (only different).

Now, as for Star Wars, it doesn't ask "what if." Star Wars is just a classic Greek epic, set in space. It's more similar to The Odyssey (by Homer) than 2001: A Space Odyssey (by Clarke/Kubrick).

Re:Star Wars?

[aled]

the definition of science fiction basically says "set in space"

That's not a good definition. I'll quote a bit of Wikipeadia on science fiction [wikipedia.org]:

"Science fiction is a form of fiction which deals principally with the impact of imagined science and/or technology upon society or individuals. ...
The term is more generally used to refer to any literary fantasy that includes a scientific factor as an essential orienting component, and even more generally used to refer to any fantasy at all. Such literature may consist of a careful and informed extrapolation of scientific facts and principles, or it may range into far-fetched areas flatly contradictory of such facts and principles. In either case, plausibility based on science is a requisite, so that such precursors of the genre as Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's Gothic novel Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus (1818) and Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886) are plainly science fiction, whereas Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897), based purely on the supernatural, is not. Sometimes utopic and dystopic literature is also regarded as science fiction, which is accurate insofar as sociology also is a science."

Re:Star Wars?

[CaptainAvatar]

the definition of science fiction basically says "set in space". I looked it up before making that post.

Good grief. That's a totally asinine definition of science fiction. Otherwise The Time Machine, The War of the Worlds, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Fahrenheit 451, The Caves of Steel, Timescape and many, many other science fiction classics don't qualify. Try again (and no, the definition is not "set in space OR the future OR both"!)

Ugh

[NanoGator]

The Matrix is up there but Wrath of Khan isn't?

How about the scene in ep 2

[rsilvergun]

With the hover craft wheel chair? Or the common use of specialized droids? Or the Senetorial room also using antigravity devices? Or cloud city? Or any one of a dozen other instances where we see advanced technology seamlessly blended into society? True, Star Wars isn't hard Science Fiction, but there was some effort to make it more than just an action flick in space.

Wrath of Khan (and others)

[NetSettler]

I don't know why it's marked "funny" that someone would suggest Wrath of Khan belongs here. I put it not only in my list of top 10 scifi pics, but in my list of top-ten best movies ever. It seems to me that it is the movie sequel that pioneered the idea of treating the time between movies as "part of the movie" instead of as "something to be ignored". So while James Bond grows older and we're supposed to ignore the fact, Star Trek did something boldly different: it allowed the characters to age with the actors, and allowed "grown up" thoughts about aging and death from people who used to be carefree young bucks and had off-screen learned what life was. Not to mention being a brilliant idea for a sequel and an outstanding plot.

Also, before The Matrix, I would always prefer to see The Thirteenth Floor, which it seems to me is the same sci-fi concept cast into a much more thoughtful rather than Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark format.

And while I think War of the Worlds was a pivotal book and radio production, I don't think the movie was an especially important work.

And though I thought Star Wars was a fun movie, I have emotional trouble listing it as a great work of scifi. It's pulp. And maybe that entitles it to a spot. There's been tons of pulp scifi (Flash Gordon, etc.) that isn't represented. But there are such amazingly thoughtful pieces that I just don't see giving up a slot to something like this.

Some other overlooked options for this list:

• Slaughterhouse 5
• The Andromeda Strain
• Soylent Green
• Planet of the Apes (the original only--don't even think of seeing the remake, or else be sure you stop watching about 10-15 mins before the end).
• Silent Running
  (Well, I was very moved by it because of the age I was at when it came out. It might not appeal in the same way to a modern audience on a small screen, but...)
• Back to the Future and its sequels (not to mention the Deep Space 9 episode where they Back-to-the-Futured the Star Trek Classic "tribbles" episode).
• The Abyss
  (Also high on my list of all-time most romantic movies just for that scene where Virgil and Lindsey are stuck in the sub together needing to get back to the main habitat.)
• The Forbin Project
  (Perhaps Wargames is also worth a mention in this general category.)
• Total Recall
  (You may also like Vanilla Sky and Paycheck in the same category.)
• 12 Monkeys
  (And if you liked this kind of thing you might also try the more obscure The Lathe of Heaven. I also enjoyed Timecop here, but a lot of people classified that as a simple action flick.)
• Dark City
• Contact

And, ok, they're funny, but they are also still sci-fi and outstanding:

• Demolition Man
• Dark Star
• Galaxyquest

Contact

[MauMan]

I'm a bit suprised taht "Contact" did not make the list....

Re:Contact

[MrNemesis]

Hell yeah. That fantastic CGI sequence at the beginning as all our radio waves zoom off into the universe gives me shivers every time I see it.

Best thing I liked is the human aspect, especially the juxtapostion of the fiercely rational scientist with the preacher.

Hopefully it serves as a fitting epitaph to Carl Sagan. Certainly one of my favourite SF movies.

No Star Trek...Wow

[Groovus]

0 for 9 is it? I'd have thought maybe 2 or 4 would have gotten a mention. There's a couple on the list I think one of those could replace.

Brainstorm

[thedogcow]

Despite the awkward ending due to the death of Natalie Wood, Brainstorm [imdb.com] (1983) is a pretty good sci fi film.
Very underappreciated.

60 of the most influential?

[Trespass]

Careful. Influential is not the same as 'important', or even 'competent'. It kind of makes me think 'attention whore', personally.

That, and what do they mean by 'best'? The one that most closely aligns to my worldview? Prettiest?

This is no better than those fluff 'top 100 whatever' pieces from the popular press. Meaningless and divisive.

Gattaca

[Joel Aemmer]

Gattaca [imdb.com] is a great one about DNA manipulation that is a little too close to reality for comfort. A great movie!

Re:Gattaca & Forbidden Planet

[efedora]

Gattaca is one of the most underrated SF movies ever made. It's easy to show the distant future (or past) but the near future is much more difficult. Sadly, Gattaca probably got it close to right. Very scary.
The scariest movie I remember was Forbidden Planet. Way ahead of it's time. I saw it recently and it's still scary. Even though the ID monster now reminds me of the Tasmanian Devil.

Brazil

[wigle]

Brazil should have made top ten if for anything because of its visual and somewhat frightening view of the future. Of the best sci-fi movies Brazil is one of the least outdated (technology wise). Its theme, very similar to 1984, I suspect will always be relevant.

Re:Brazil

[Monkelectric]

I love Brazil, and I *LOVE* dystopian fiction, I consider myself a fan of the genre. However, the problem with Brazil is it really *IS* 1984. If you've read 1984, you've seen Brazil. Same with Farenheit 411 and most other dystopian fictions, which is why there is so little of it. (Although I consider Fight Club to pretty much be the pinacle of dystopian fiction)

Brazil doesn't really make any contributions other then its gorgeous visual design, and the irony of being a rip-off of 1984 the book while simultaneously being a better movie then 1984 the movie :)

1984 gives people too much credit

[AllenChristopher]

1984 was made in the wake of WWII and during the rise of communism. It really seemed then that this kind of thing could hold onto a people into the future.

Brazil is about how these movements fall apart and all we're left with the the crumbling infrastructure of a grand social scheme and petty regulations designed to protect that system that trap the ordinary fellow.

1984 is about what the Western World feared communism would be. Brazil is about what communism, small-time fascism, and British capitalism all turned into.

So yeah, it's just like 1984, but rewritten from the side of things where the worst didn't happen. That's not an insignificant contribution. If more tinfoil hat types would watch Brazil, we could all relax just a bit. It's not a nice world, but it's not that much worse than any world we've ever had.

I think Dave Sims said, in one of his famous misogynists rant, that the key point in communism is that you do a lot of things to prepare society and then *boom*, human nature changes overnight, and you're free. Slashdot type know this as the ??? step. Brazil is about what happens if there is no ???.

I can't wait to see what the similar view of today's "war on terror" is forty years from now. We fear a worldwide network of people who would attack us yearly in horrible ways.... what will we get?

Re:Brazil

[ktakki]

Same with Farenheit 411 and most other dystopian fictions, which is why there is so little of it.

Fahrenheit 411? Wasn't that the movie where they burned all the phone books?

k.

ALIENS!

[MaineCoon]

On slashdot, anybody can hear you scream.

Seriously, though, my all time favorite. Better than Bladerunner by far.

Re:ALIENS!

[el-spectre]

Aliens was a HELL of an action movie... 20 years later is is still considered one of the greats... between ugly nasties, blazing guns and a series of chase scenes, what more do you want in an action movie?

Was it the tense horror of Alien? Nope, but both stand as fine examples of their genre.

Re:ALIENS!

[mblase]

Sorry, I just don't understand why the sequel consistently seems to rate higher with the general public.

From a sheer sci-fi/futurism perspective, it does a good job of taking the original's idea of a universe traversed by space "truckers" working for cynical corporations and adds space Marines, greedy corporate bastards and colonial families. In addition, it fleshes out the alien life cycle by asking and answering the obvious question: who's laying all the eggs?

Add that to the fact that Cameron expanded a cliche horror flick that happened to be set in space to a fairly novel horror/action flick set in... well, space, with characters you actually got interested in over time. (This was his strength in "Terminator 2" as well: taking what could be a by-the-numbers action/FX film and adding good, solid characterization to the ENTIRE cast.) "Aliens" may have played up the cliches itself, but it was a more-than-worthy successor, and a lot of sci-fi today owes tribute to it in some way, shape or form.

Get your stories straight, lads.

[grub]

The article says "Blade Runner was the runaway favourite in our poll." followed by 2001 which was "A very close second". Which is it?

Dark Star

[StarWynd]

What?! No Dark Star [wikipedia.org]? As the wiki says, "Four lonely, stoned hippy astronauts are adrift in space, have several adventures and find various ways to relieve their boredom." Classic. Just classic.

Why Blade Runner...

[digitalhermit]

Science fiction always gets a bad rap in a lot of literary criticism. Part of the reason is that some of the ideas are so bare, so obvious. But I think this is what makes it so powerful. Blade Runner (at least to me) has always been about the unfairness of life; specifically, it's too damn short. It's very clear that the replicants are lots more human than the real ones. They burn brighter, bleed more, feel pain more. They're the Ubermensch, the hero, the essential human. The "humans" are passionless and evil. There's this idea that their short lifespan is a consequence of their superiority. If this was the reason then it's maybe not too tragic. However, it isn't a consequence of nature that dooms them; rather, it's an arbitrary decision by their creators that their lifespans would be shorted. This idea kicks me.

The other reason I enjoy Blade Runner is that science is not the scapegoat. Almost every other movie I've seen has made scientists and intellectuals (not that I count myself as either) as "evil". Technology running rampant destroying the earth is a common theme (Terminator, various post-Apocalyptic movies, "mad scientist" blandness). Even movies that celebrate the triumph of the intellect eventually bow down to superstition (the scene of an Aborigine praying to unseen gods to help a lunar module land safely sticks in my mind).

So yeah, I'm glad that Blade Runner is up there.

"Best?"

[gmuslera]

Ok, i could understand their idea get the idea that Matrix is more martial arts than sci-fi, or Star Wars that could be located anywhere, or that Alien is more terror.

But there are a lot of not named movies that plays with very hard sci-fi topics, i.e. 12 Monkeys with time (or Terminator or even Back to the future), or Avalon with virtual reality, or more topics covered by the science fiction concept or even Dark City.

But also, they are movies, not just must touch some advanced scientific or science fiction topics, but must be good as a movie... ok, Blade Runner is good, but there are a lot that were don't even named there.

And if well is the author behind Blade Runner, the article don't even names P.K.Dick, that have a bunch of really good sci-fi movies based on his books and tales, maybe him alone should have most top ranked movies in their selection.

If you go by the Sci-Fi channels standards...

[tao_of_biology]

of what is science fiction... How can Raiders of the Lost Ark not be in the top 10?! And, what about Tremors??

Two words...

[darnok]

Buckaroo Bonzai

Other Great Sci-Fi Movies

[Khomar]

Here are a couple missing sci-fi films that should be considered. They were not exactly blockbusters, but they made for good sci-fi.

• Gattaca [imdb.com] - This was a very interesting sci-fi that looks into the ramifications of cracking the genetic code. Can you get insurance or a good job if you have the wrong genes?
• Minority Report [imdb.com] - An interesting view of future law enforcement and questions of infallibility.
• A.I. [imdb.com] - While the last 20 minutes was suspect, the previous couple hours were quite good and offered an interesting look at the "humaness" of advanced robots.

I know I am forgetting a whole host of other options, but at least this is a start.

The Essence of Good Sci Fi

[Phoenix666]

All the special effects and futuristic themes notwithstanding, what separates the neat from the incredible is what a sci-fi film says about the human condition. It's no surprise that Blade Runner is so highly placed--it deals with the question of what really makes us human. Likewise the other films in that poll pretty much do that too.

Perhaps one measure of a truly great sci-fi film is the extent to which it becomes a popular metaphor afterward. For that reason, unlike others here, I'm not surprised Matrix is on the list. I hear people make reference to it a lot.

I can't believe...

[hunterx11]

They didn't mention Metropolis? That would be like having a "top-ten films of all time" without Birth of a Nation. Hell, Fritz Lang wasn't even racist. But in all seriousness, try naming a sci-fi film that doesn't take something from Metropolis.

History

[hwestiii]

I'm clearly dating myself, but I saw Blade Runner in its first theatrical release, and its my recollection that it was pretty much a disappointment to most people.

It was Ridley Scott's follow up to Alien, and it just doesn't have the narrative drive and shock value of Alien. Of course it grows on you with repeated viewings, but it really didn't go over very well initially. What really cinched Blade Runner's reputation was the advent of home video. People got a chance to look at it again and really appreciate it. I know I do. It is one of my favorite movies.

Not more favorite than 2001: A Space Odessey, however. I'd quibble about the 1 - 2 placement. I vastly prefer 2001. I don't know exactly what it is, but the combination of impressionism and cold realism is completely gripping. Its never quite the same movie twice. Its driven by ambiguity and it is exceptionally beautiful. Nothing else even comes close.

Re:History

[thrash242]

Yes, it was a financial failure and got very bad reviews from critics. It was only later that it was accepted as a classic.

If you are a fan of the movie and want to know everything you could possibly know about it, check out the book Future Noir. It covers the making of Blade Runner and it's quite interesting.

Brazil?

[possible]

I agree with Bladerunner as the top pick, but I thought Brazil [imdb.com] should have been in there (how can you pick Terminator over Brazil?). Oh well.

Contact

[Fractal Dice]

If I were to add a film to this list, it would likely be "Contact". The opening shot is the best explanation of "space is big" I've ever seen, it deals with the big science-vs-religion flamewar in a way that seems respectful to both sides and it says an amazingly large number of things about science. I didn't like the movie at first, but it's really grown on me the more I've thought back to it.

(although I do think it should have ended at the limo - that's when it had made its point and that's when it was done).

Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[code_rage]

Can anyone explain how the replicants are physiologically superior to regular humans, yet the only way to identify them is to ask them stupid questions while videotaping their irises?

Wouldn't some sort of DNA test, or blood protein assay, work a lot easier?

(But then there wouldn't be much of a movie, would there.)

"Do Androids Dream..." was written in 1968, but the idea of genetic assays might not have been known to Philip K Dick. But the film was not until 1982...

Bonus points if you answer the following questions:
1. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
2. What do Electric Sheep dream of?

Re:Scientists, please explain Blade Runner to me

[darkmeridian]

2. What do Electric Sheep dream of?

Electric Irishmen.

"Plan 9 From Outer Space"

[M. Baranczak]

It's bad enough it got passed over at the 1959 Oscars, now this?

Gattaca

[HarveyBirdman]

Good projection of current trends and technologies, a study of how they may affect society and the story of how one man fought back over those adversities. Extremely underrated.

"What's your fucking number?" is still used amongst my circle of friends. :-)

And Soylent Green, which has three of the most chilling scenes ever filmed for an SF film.

Re:Hey I hate to break it to you

[celeritas_2]

It's great when scientists concentrate on the more importing questions of life.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Door-opening Fascist]

I really enjoyed 2001, particularly in subsequent viewings. It is less of a movie, and more of an art masterpiece. Kubrick uses a variety of subtle techniques, my two favorite being writing the movie for the music ("The Blue Danube" in particular) and silencing the voices when he wants to suggest that Hal is reading lips.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Rew190]

The movie was not written for the music. As a matter of fact, there was an actual original score that was made for the film (it's released). While Kubrick was filming, he'd use classical music to set a mood... he ended up liking it so much that he decided to keep it for the final cut.

Re:Non sequitur

[Anonymous Coward]

To paraphrase Ebert: It's not what the movie is about, it is how it is about it. Example - Almost every Tarantino movie.

Art is beauty of form that inspires thought

[tentimestwenty]

2001 and Blade Runner are both beautifully executed masterpieces. Their form is beautiful, both in their story and their presentation, to a level of perfection that few other films have EVER achieved. Beyond this, their existence is the impetus for a continued informed dialogue on humanity. All great art shares this. Form and beauty first, with the power to inspire secondary thoughts, creation and revelation.

Re:Non sequitur

[Yaztromo]

The greatest directorial performance in history would not make a plotless movie good, it would just make it a bad movie with great direction.

Except that 2001 does indeed have a plot. A rather complex plot at that.

If you simply "don't get it", try a Google search -- there are lots of websites out there that will describe the plot for you.

It's admittedly a complex movie. Many people "don't get it" the first time, but subsequent viewings usually bring out important items you might have missed.

Yaz.

Re:Non sequitur

[Anonymous Coward]

This site does a very good job.

Link [kubrick2001.com]

Re:Non sequitur

[Anonymous Coward]

So a plotless movie like Koyaanisqatsi [imdb.com] can not be a good movie?
I think your appreciation of cinema is far too constrained by the mainstream.

It was supposed to be boring.

[Beardo the Bearded]

The thing about space travel is that it would take a very long time to get anywhere. Most of that time would be boring, stupid little tasks like talking to the AI so it doesn't go crazy or making sure that the thing that never breaks isn't broken. That's what the movie was trying to convey - it takes a long time to get anywhere, and there aren't fantastic space fights to get to Europa. There's nothing out there to impede our progress except that we don't really want to go.

Imagine the first people to fly to Europa. It would be exciting for the first, say, month. After that, you'd start to get bored and wig out.

"What's on the scanner / out the window?"

"Uh, nothing. Same as yesterday."

"Ah. Want to play cards / Doom3 / on the holodeck?"

Nothing exciting happens, and that's the point.

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[Dr. Evil]

Not just boring, but lethally unforgiving. If the normal sci-fi rules were applied to the leap from the pod, or the evacuation of the atomosphere, then it wouldn't seem so desolate and hopeless. Tossing in a crew which gets slaughtered without introduction makes it even more imensely unforgiving.

I think it was a great film, no question at all. It's also probably the only film I know of which tries to get sci-fi accurate rather than cool.

Sure, it gets boring, and the end is just weird, but it makes you think and what it makes you think are not happy escapist pulp-sci-fi thoughts, but frigtening and real thoughts about human purpose and mortality.

Re:It was supposed to be boring.

[Atrax]

Oh, I don't know. I'd concede the point for Barry Lyndon, likewise Eyes Wide Shut (couldn't finish the damn things) but you may have missed:

Full Metal Jacket
Dr Strangelove
A Clockwork Orange
The Shining (in particular, slow for a reason, to build tension)

Re:2001 sucked.

[Tassach]

Stanley Kubrick's films are very different than typical Hollywood fare -- you may not like them, appreciate them, or even get them, but you can't deny that they're art. But hey, tastes differ; that's why Baskin-Robbins makes 31 flavors of ice cream. Just because YOU don't like mint chocolate chip doesn't mean that it sucks.

Re:2001 sucked.

[scotch]

Just because YOU don't like mint chocolate chip doesn't mean that it sucks.

That's exactly what it means.

Re:2001 sucked.

[anagama]

• Baskin-Robbins makes 31 flavors of ice cream.

Shouldn't that be "31 Colors" of ice cream?

Re:2001 sucked.

[Concerned Onlooker]

Yes, that would definitely be true from an MTV type of perspective. We have developed ever shorter attention spans so that if something doesn't blow up or someone doesn't get shot every few minutes it doesn't hold people's attentions.

I saw 2001 when I was in grade school and I was completely fascinated, totally absorbed by what was happening on the screen. Not that I understood it, of course. :-)

Blade Runner not all that special

[Simonetta]

Actually Blade Runner didn't seem all that special. It was a 1940's detective story with a few 22nd century visuals. It is Humphrey Bogart film set in the future with Harrison Ford as Bogart. Rutger Hauer and Daryhl Hannah looked great in the film, the best-looking film for either of them.
My favorite scene is Harrison Ford talking to the computer to examine in great detail the random digital photograph for clues. Each time I consider buying a digital camera, I wonder if it can get a level of detail described in that scene.

The greatest science-fiction film ever is La Jetee (1964) by French director Chris Marker. This was the inspiration for 12 Monkeys, but it is a much better film. It's quite short at 29 minutes, but still leaves people in deep cinema shock whenever it gets shown in festivals or on campus. It's widely available in video and may be at your local library for checkout. It's a collage of black and white photos zoomed and panned like Ken Burn's documentaries with narration and music. French with English subtitles. It was written during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when the Americans and Soviets came far too close to nuclear war than anyone wants to talk about.

2001 was OK, but extremely slow. It does hold up after 35 years only if you have a lot of patience and are not expecting a Star Wars type of movie.

Science Fiction is always better in books than it is in film. It's a genre that needs one's individual imagination projecting imagery from written text.

Re:Blade Runner not all that special

[Wavicle]

Actually Blade Runner didn't seem all that special. It was a 1940's detective story with a few 22nd century visuals. It is Humphrey Bogart film set in the future with Harrison Ford as Bogart.

It was meant to smack of a 40's detective story, but if that was all you saw, I think real point passed you by. It was a much deeper story of "I don't want to die, where will I go when I do, what will become of everything I have experienced? Can I meet God and negotiate for more time?" We're supposed to connect with Deckard and then at the end suddenly realize that he too is a replicant (if he were merely human, the replicants would have smashed him to pieces 10 minutes into the movie).

The last scene in the movie where Roy saves Deckard we suddenly realize that the replicants are not mindless killing machines. Roy knows his pre-programmed death is near, and even though Deckard has killed his 3 friends, he saves Deckard from a fall that would certainly mean death. Roy then sits down and gives the most important lines of the movie.

Re:Blade Runner not all that special

[Voivod]

The greatest science-fiction film ever is La Jetee (1964) by French director Chris Marker.

You were bored by 2001, but were on the edge of your seat through a movie composed (almost) entirely of black and white photographic stills with French naration? Sorry, but as someone who has seen and very much enjoyed this film (saw it as a double header with Sans Soleil no less) I'm going to have to say "No." I have the feeling you thought nobody else on Slashdot had seen this film?

While a very beautiful work of art (I still get chills thinking back to the single bit of motion where she opens her eyes) the story is essentially time travel with a cliched twist ending, and there is no science to speak of. What is extraordinary about the film is the style in which it was told, and the the power with which it evoked the tension of that moment. But I really would not rank it against Blade Runner, 2001, etc as science fiction cinema. It deserves its own category.

Re:2001 sucked.

[Wavicle]

Just another trip into Kubrick's mangled mind, but I think in this case you just needed a little too many drugs to appreciate it.

I don't think that is a completely fair evaluation of 2001. 2001 was the most honest portrayal of space travel out there. It wasn't glamorous, there were no lasers, communicating with earth involved very long round trip times. It is one of the few movies to show that space is very cold, very quiet and very, very big.

Re:omg

[Yaztromo]

Any poll that puts 2001 in the top 10 is suspect.

I am of the opinion that the exact opposite is true: I'd be exceedingly suprised if a group of scientists didn't include it in their top 10. Indeed, I'm rather suprised it wasn't in the #1 position.

2001: A Space Odyssey still stands today as one of the most scientifically accurate Sci-Fi movies. And when you consider that it was produced prior to man's first landing on the moon, that's quite a huge feat.

Not only that, but the story is vastly moree thought provoking than your typical sci-fi fare intended for mass consumption. It deals with issues such as human evolution, human exploration, the role of artificial intelligence, man's attempt to "play god" gone terribly wrong, and man's place in the universe.

It's not a movie for people with a closed mind, or people who don't want to think about the story for themselves. I don't think there is anything wrong with people who want to go to a movie that tells them a simple to understand story (like, say, anything in the Star Wars series) -- but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for well through, thought provoking films in the genre.

2001: A Space Odyssey is simply brilliant. There's a reason why it appears on virtually every top movies list (like the AFC Top 100). And even thought the movie was filmed nearly 40 years ago, it still stands up as scientifically realistic in its portrayals of computer science and space travel.

How many movies out there can say that?

Yaz.

Re:omg

[fyngyrz]

2001: A Space Odyssey still stands today as one of the most scientifically accurate Sci-Fi movies.

Consider these points:

• Stargates - no scientific basis whatesoever, then or now. Much less packed into a box the size of the black thing in the movie. I agree with the statement (paraphrasing, due to lack of memory) "sufficiently advanced science appears as magic to less advanced cultures" but to invoke this is basically to invoke fantasy, not science. The whole idea of good science fiction is to extrapolate reasonably from what we know at the time of the writing. When you begin seriously vague handwaving, you're writing fantasy, not science fiction, IMHO. Ding.

• Invisible interference with the apes. This really needs a lot of work to be anything near reasonable, but it is closest to having an explanation. DNA sample on touch, subsequent EM manipulation of subject DNA. Certainly not possible now (much less when 2001 was written), but EM does have bio effects, and there might be a path to reason here. The problem is, 2001 didn't follow one, so it fails the test. Ding.

• Radical transformation of conciousness (the embryo in the movie was symbolic - but it was symbolic of fantasy, not accurate science.) No supporting science exists in nascent or developed form. Ding.

• Most arguable in my opinion, HAL itself. I'm inclined to think that computer science is heading right for AI and it is all but inevitable. But there are many who will tell you I am an utter optimist in this area and that science points the precise other direction. Quiet little ding. :)

2001 was reasonably tolerable when it came to spaceflight itself; even the moon buggy seemed somewhat reasonable (I built one of those once.. by Revell, maybe?) at the time. The space station was a bit optimistic, but in the legitimate realm of SF rather than fantasy, no question about it.

Don't get me wrong - I loved the movie then, and I still do - but I do think there's plenty of outright fantasy creeping around in there, fouling up the movie's sf heritage.

Re:omg

[Yaztromo]

Consider these points:

Sure, why not. I have some extra time on my hands tonight :).

Stargates - no scientific basis whatesoever, then or now.

And yet for some reason they remain a staple of science fiction. Note the fiction portion of "science fiction". This is not science fact.

Basides which, there have been theories (some of which have been disproven since) that would make such a system posssible. Many cosmic theorists have postulated that there may be "shortcuts" between two points in space.

Note, however, that of the three monoliths we see, only one is actually a stargate -- and it's several kilometres across. The small units never once are shown to be star gates of any sort -- the first one on earth simply has an effect on the apes living in its vicinity, and the one on the moon only sends a signal out towards Jupiter.

Invisible interference with the apes.

The movie purposefully leaves the method of interference to the viewer. Indeed, I'd say that DNA manipulation would have been the last things on Clarke's mind when developing the movie. A more likely scenario would be something akin to telepathy (note that this whole scene is expanded upon in the book -- the monolith does indeed take control of various proto-humans to run tests and experiments on them, and uses imagery to teach them some basic skills in an attempt to see if they can jump-start evolution).

Radical transformation of conciousness

Again, a staple of science fiction -- and part of the "fiction" part of the movie.

Most arguable in my opinion, HAL itself.

Humanity itself seems to prove that HAL should be possible. The more important part of HAL's sub-plot, however, is the questions it forces the viewer to ask themselves which are important parts of modern computer science (see my other posting on this topic -- I'm not going to repeat it all here).

You seem to have picked on the "fiction" portions of the movie pretty good, missing almost completely the science aspects. Note that I didn't claim that the movie was 100% scientifically accurate -- otherwise we wouldn't call it "science fiction" (sorry to belabour that point). Some of the parts that are rather scientifically accurate (or at least possible) include:

• The orbiting space station, and it's use of centripedal motion in the creation of simulated gravity (later revisited in the Discovery),
• The design of the earth-to-orbit ship (shuttle-like),
• The complete lack of aerodynamics for ships that are never intended to fly through an atmosphere (it's unnecessary),
• The complete lack of sound in space (Poole only hears his own breath when attempting to change the antenna dish control unit),
• The zero gravity toilet (an early book about the movie actually had a reprint of the directions in it),
• The use of velcro in zero-gravity environments to enhance human mobility,
• The food (sticky goopy items that stay stuck to plates),
• The long length of time it takes to travel from Earth to the moon, or from Earth to Jupiter,
• The communications delays involved in communicating across these long distances,
• Realistic propulsion methods,
• ...and many more (hey, I said I had some free time -- not the rest of the night! ;) ).

These elements make it vastly more scientifically accurate than most scifi movies. Or do you think those movies that involve instantaneous travel between star systems with aerodynamically styled ships using impossible propulsion mechanisms with lasers that travel slower than the speed of light and emit loud sounds in the vaccuum of space are more realistic? :)

Yaz.

Re:omg

[Yaztromo]

the 30 minute acid trip was ..... trippy .. and the star child ..... out of this world .....

Indeed. But there was a purpose and mesage behind both of them.

Admittedly with modern special effects there may have been some better ways to get that message across. I think one of the reasons why some people today "don't get it" is because the special effects in the move are generally so good that it's easy to compare it to your expectations for a modern movie.

The "acid trip" (which isn't 30 minutes long -- closer to 20 :) ) is supposed to represent Dave Bowman seeing wonders of the universe he can't properly comprehend. He's seeing these things, but the best his mind can percieve of them are a bunch of swirly colours, odd planetscapes, the birth and death of stellar phenomenon, etc.

The star child is supposed to be as different as you and I as the apes in "The Dawn of Man" are to you and I. We can't comprehend what Bowman has become through alien influence. How are you supposed to realistically show someething that doesn't exist, and which, by definition, the audience (as humans) can't comprehend? Maybe they should have taken the Star Trek route and had him turn into a green vapour cloud with flashing lights and had some doctor step in at the end to point at him and say he's evolved beyond humanity -- but that ending would have sucked :).

Yaz.

Re:2001

[Yaztromo]

I'm struck by how much these comments also apply to Blade Runner.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not knocking Blade Runner, which is a fine piece of film on its own. I'm merely countering those who don't think 2001 should have been on the list (which can't be all that hard -- after all apparently I have 60 of the most influential scientists behind me on that one :) ).

Realistic computer science in 2001? Dude, one of the major characters was an AI the likes of which we've never seen.

It deals with some theoretical AI issues that have been bandied about by computer scientists since Turing. What is it to be sentient? Can computers be sentient? If we give them artificial intelligence, can we control them? Will we be able to produce a knowable result?

These are the areas where 2001 shows some scientific acccuracy in the realm of computer science. True, it is fantasy, and it is dealing with only one possible outcome. But all of these topics are dealt with. in the BBC interview, we learn that while HAL appears to simulate a person, he is viewed as non-sentient, but instead as merely a complex simulation. At the same time (which we learn later), HAL is given conflicting programming (no distortion or withholding of information, the protection and health of the crew, the need to complete the mission at all costs, and the keeping of the true nature of the mission a secret from the crew). These orders come into conflict.

Now if we do create a human-like AI system like HAL, how will it react to conflicting orders? Conflicts in programming in current "dumb" systems usually results in a dead-lock situation, but what if the machine can make a value judgement to resolve that deadlock? Will it make the right choice?

In this case, HAL made what most people would consider a wrong choice. Faced with the need to keep a secret and violate his primary design in doing so, he became, for lack of a better description, psychotically ill.

It is still fiction of course -- but these remain important questions and aspects of modern computer science. Clarke thought that by 2001 we'd be wrestling with the practical implications of these questions -- but instead we're still wrestling with them in the theoretical realm.

Yaz.

Re:2001

[rs79]

I'm still pissed off at the fact that 3 years later I still can't walk up to a Bell videophone booth. Or that there's no Pan-Am space clipper. Hell, there isn't even a Pan-Am any more.

Talk about lousy product placement.

Re:You got the wrong "omg"

[Tassach]

Robots designed to do menial labor and fight in wars that are made to look and act exactly like people? Why, for God's sake?

1. Because they're biotech -- the product of genetic engineering, not mechanical engineering.
2. Because the WHOLE POINT of the movie is to make you question what it means to be human.
3. Because there wouldn't be much of a story left if they looked like Robbie the Robot from Forbidden Planet

Re:You got the wrong "omg"

[fyngyrz]

You missed some important points that directly affect your conclusions:

Replicants aren't robots at all. They're bioforms crafted from DNA. That's why they look like people; they are people. Really tough, capable, designed-for-function people. Not to mention that products like Pris, which are designed for, er, "service", will generally do better if they look like people. So will soldiers, as they're properly built to deal with weaponry that was designed for human handling.

Olmos wasn't supposed to be Japanese. The story was saying that cultures were merging, that's all. There were tons of other examples. Punk style, traditional cop sleaze, high tech advertising, corporate hegemony, DNA manipulation at the "street stall" level and leading to designer pets and props (remember the snake that was instrumental in the "detective" oriented portion of the plot?)

The Vangelis score is certainly a matter of taste. I found it quite apt. I preferred the narrated version of the movie to the director's cut, though - the mood was more apparent and fit the score better in my mind.

Re:You got the wrong "omg"

[Mr_Huber]

You missed the point. These were not 'robots ... that are made to look and act exactly like people'. They were not mechanical creations. They were artificial, true, but they were biological. They were living, breathing, thinking, feeling people we created, then enslaved. And when they fought against their enslavement, they were hunted down and executed.

The point of the film is summed up early on in Deckard's examination of Rachel. If it takes a trained professional over an hour to spot the small emotional responses that differentiate a human from a replicant, is it moral to enslave replicants? If it is so close to human, does it deserve human status?

This is not a noir dressed up in sci-fi clothes. This is a sci-fi flick asking hard questions dressed up in a slinky noir outfit to get your guard down.

Re:Clarke's Three Laws

[kalidasa]

Clarke's First Law:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Clarke's Second Law:

"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

Clarke's Third Law:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

The sibling post was quicker on the gun with the third law, though it's obviously from memory.

Not a plot hole, and this is explained in movie

[mikeg22]

The replicants could not know they were not human or they would have severe emotional problems. This is why they were given human memories...to trick them. It would not be possible to trick them if there was some obvious thing showing that they were replicants, like having green skin.

Re:Because they were intended to replace humans.

[DavidBrown]

Remember Pris, the pleasure model? Of course she's going to look human - would you want to engage in sexual activities with a green bodied replicant? No!

Speak for yourself.

James Tiberius Kirk

Re:What's special about Blade Runner?

[Larthallor]

Traditionally, science fiction movies are either a) very effects/action oriented or b) mostly wow factor from a "big idea".

Blade Runner is a story about humanity, life and death. It is about the feelings and emotions of the "people" and about seeing the moral complexity behind something that starts out seeming very black and white.

Are Roy and Pris, et al "bad guys"? Yes. But, after getting past expectations from action sci-fi, you begin to see why they are the way they are and you end up feeling more pity and relief than hatred and joy that they are dead.

It offers a poignancy most sci-fi distinctly lacks, although I have to admit I still tear up in the scene from 2010 when Chandra finally levels with HAL and trusts him/it to make the right decision. Is it a bad thing to so closely identify with a homicidal computer?

Anyway, the choice of a film noir style gives it a look and feel that seems much more rich and interesting than generic spaceship and space base interiors. And the saxophone work makes me feel like I do when I listen to "Us and Them" from Dark Side of the Moon.

As other posters have noted it definitely is a film that grows on you.