@baqui63 Dont' get me wrong, I understand there are a lot of people that love Blade Runner. However, I don't understand why it's so popular. I watched it recently, and wasn't impressed, even given the release date. Maybe I'm too young to get it?
@modulusshift Because it transcends mere science fiction and is less about special effects, future tech and gee whiz than it is about the essential questions of what it means to be human.
But, yeah, I would have been impressed (and quickly voted for it) if it had been.
As it was, I went for Close Encounters, despite my affection for Star Wars and Star Trek.
@capguncowboy I'm going to guess that you have not read any (or much) Philip K Dick. Apologies if you have.
Most of the movies listed are little more than fun scifi (or scifi/fantasy) romps about little green men (tho not always little, green or men, e.g. Alien). I'm not knocking them: except for 2001 (which forced my father to leave the theater with a terrified five-year-old me in tow), I greatly enjoyed all of them; going to back 2001 over two decades later, I enjoyed it. (In fact, my very first paycheck paid for watching Star Wars (and Smokey and the Bandit) four times the week they came out.)
But Blade Runner, like pretty much all of Philip K Dick's work, is more than mere scifi; much more. His works are stories that examine what it means to be human, to be racist, to be a hypocrite. They are more about philosophy and the human condition than scifi. They are certainly not fun, at least not any that I can recall.
Blade Runner in particular does an excellent job of staying true to PKD's "Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep?", unlike The Minority Report, which completely misses the main point of PKD's story and is barely mediocre (ha!) as a result.
@capguncowboy If you are at all into scifi and/or dystopian fiction, check him out: you will not be disappointed.
As for adaptations of his work, you are likely familiar with some of them: The Man in the High Castle, Total Recall, The Adjustment Bureau, Screamers, Radio Free Albemuth, Next, A Scanner Darkly, Paycheck, The Minority Report, Impostor, The Crystal Crypt, Confessions d'un Barjo and Blade Runner.
@baqui63 Blade Runner has a well-deserved cult following and is considered a classic, but it (unfotunately) wasn't a big hit when originally released, and the poll specifies "blockbusters".
@capguncowboy I dunno. I'm likely younger than you (born second half of the 90's) and I enjoyed it a lot, though I did a lot of giggling at the technology. (Seriously, though, they were using vector based UI? Was anything in that movie digital? It's more of an Asimov-like analog pipe dream than what actually dominated the next few decades.)
But it was a beautiful film, and it was good sci fi, not science fantasy as most of the rest of these were. Sci fi is supposed to be one example in a changed world that says "this is what we are now," and makes us wonder if we might already be that, and if we were only ever pretending to be different.
I've tried to figure out if Star Wars is technically sci-fi. It doesn't really seem concerned with any attempts to fit actual science. And it takes place a long time ago.
@dave I've always wondered, if it takes place a 'long time ago' and all these beings from all over the galaxy were able to develop all that technology, what's taking us so long in our modern times to come up with the same shit?!
Just to note, I think "science fiction" is basically a misnomer anyway in regards to movies. There are very few that are actually based on scientific principles or theories. I agree with @tHumperchick that it intersects with fantasy, though I'd go so far as to say it's closer to 90% fantasy and 10% science.
@dave@cinoclav@Thumperchick To me, science fiction as a genre incorporates both fantasy, the alien/other (as regards many things: technology, species, culture) and a more expansive view of our world and the broader cosmos. I'd argue that it's a mistake to get hung up on the "science" in the genre's name. Seriously. Etymology and literal meanings (as much as I enjoy them) are often dangerously misleading paths to understanding what a thing is.
I think if we look at science fiction literature and even the classics of sci fi lit, they're substantially consistent with Star Wars.
@dave Well, the robotics aspects of it were pretty spot-on, especially in the first movie. R2-D2 was a lot more similar to real robots than most sci-fi robots up to that point like the nearly-human androids in Westworld.
1950's War of the Worlds. Best of the George Pal extravaganzas. Others get pretty funny: in "Conquest of Space" they are on their version of the space station and everybody is smoking! In "When Worlds Collide" the spaceship taking the few lucky ones to the new planet to restart humanity ARE ALL WHITE!!!
I felt like there was something missing last night, but just couldn't think of it (The Abyss? No, that doesn't seem like it would've been a blockbuster.) I figured it out: Jurassic Park! Is that too new? It's from 1993.
Capricorn One wouldn't have been my top choice, but deserves a place on the list. A greatly under-appreciated film. If you're interested to watch it and haven't before, don't read a plot synopsis. Spoilers.
@jqubed I guess it depends on your definition. Dr. Strangelove might fit on the list as well, although frankly I'd be more inclined not to, and to remove 2001 and Planet of the Apes as well. Those were really a different era.
Blade Runner
@baqui63 seriously, why wasn't this on the poll?
@baqui63 Same.
@baqui63 Dont' get me wrong, I understand there are a lot of people that love Blade Runner. However, I don't understand why it's so popular. I watched it recently, and wasn't impressed, even given the release date. Maybe I'm too young to get it?
@modulusshift Because it transcends mere science fiction and is less about special effects, future tech and gee whiz than it is about the essential questions of what it means to be human.
But, yeah, I would have been impressed (and quickly voted for it) if it had been.
As it was, I went for Close Encounters, despite my affection for Star Wars and Star Trek.
@baqui63 And anything P.K. Dick.
(Yes, I know that this doesn't qualify for the poll.)
@capguncowboy I'm going to guess that you have not read any (or much) Philip K Dick. Apologies if you have.
Most of the movies listed are little more than fun scifi (or scifi/fantasy) romps about little green men (tho not always little, green or men, e.g. Alien). I'm not knocking them: except for 2001 (which forced my father to leave the theater with a terrified five-year-old me in tow), I greatly enjoyed all of them; going to back 2001 over two decades later, I enjoyed it. (In fact, my very first paycheck paid for watching Star Wars (and Smokey and the Bandit) four times the week they came out.)
But Blade Runner, like pretty much all of Philip K Dick's work, is more than mere scifi; much more. His works are stories that examine what it means to be human, to be racist, to be a hypocrite. They are more about philosophy and the human condition than scifi. They are certainly not fun, at least not any that I can recall.
Blade Runner in particular does an excellent job of staying true to PKD's "Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep?", unlike The Minority Report, which completely misses the main point of PKD's story and is barely mediocre (ha!) as a result.
@modulusshift it should have been.
Though a choice like "something based on a Philip K Dick story" would likely merit 50+ % of the votes.
@baqui63 I appreciate the backstory. I wasn't aware of the writer, nor his other films.
@capguncowboy If you are at all into scifi and/or dystopian fiction, check him out: you will not be disappointed.
As for adaptations of his work, you are likely familiar with some of them: The Man in the High Castle, Total Recall, The Adjustment Bureau, Screamers, Radio Free Albemuth, Next, A Scanner Darkly, Paycheck, The Minority Report, Impostor, The Crystal Crypt, Confessions d'un Barjo and Blade Runner.
@baqui63 Blade Runner has a well-deserved cult following and is considered a classic, but it (unfotunately) wasn't a big hit when originally released, and the poll specifies "blockbusters".
@capguncowboy I dunno. I'm likely younger than you (born second half of the 90's) and I enjoyed it a lot, though I did a lot of giggling at the technology. (Seriously, though, they were using vector based UI? Was anything in that movie digital? It's more of an Asimov-like analog pipe dream than what actually dominated the next few decades.)
But it was a beautiful film, and it was good sci fi, not science fantasy as most of the rest of these were. Sci fi is supposed to be one example in a changed world that says "this is what we are now," and makes us wonder if we might already be that, and if we were only ever pretending to be different.
Metropolis.
@Shrdlu The design C3PO was based on the Maschinenmensch from Metropolis, so even Star Wars was heavily influenced.
I've tried to figure out if Star Wars is technically sci-fi. It doesn't really seem concerned with any attempts to fit actual science. And it takes place a long time ago.
@dave I wouldn't say most sci-fi does, really. I'd say it's sci-fi as well as fantasy
@dave Sci-fi and fantasy often intersect like this to me.
@dave I've always wondered, if it takes place a 'long time ago' and all these beings from all over the galaxy were able to develop all that technology, what's taking us so long in our modern times to come up with the same shit?!
Just to note, I think "science fiction" is basically a misnomer anyway in regards to movies. There are very few that are actually based on scientific principles or theories. I agree with @tHumperchick that it intersects with fantasy, though I'd go so far as to say it's closer to 90% fantasy and 10% science.
@dave The original SW owed a lot o the old, old Flash Gordon/Buck Roger 1930's serials
@dave @cinoclav @Thumperchick To me, science fiction as a genre incorporates both fantasy, the alien/other (as regards many things: technology, species, culture) and a more expansive view of our world and the broader cosmos. I'd argue that it's a mistake to get hung up on the "science" in the genre's name. Seriously. Etymology and literal meanings (as much as I enjoy them) are often dangerously misleading paths to understanding what a thing is.
I think if we look at science fiction literature and even the classics of sci fi lit, they're substantially consistent with Star Wars.
@dave Well, the robotics aspects of it were pretty spot-on, especially in the first movie. R2-D2 was a lot more similar to real robots than most sci-fi robots up to that point like the nearly-human androids in Westworld.
THE THING! How do you not include "The Thing"?!
@Robco44 That movie freaked me out
@chr Which one? The 50's one was one of the first sc-fi movies to utilizes "cross dialog" where actors' lines overlapped. Very effective.
Flesh Gordon. Duh.
@KWWhitaker Loved the rocket and Dr. Jerkoff. Great 70's soft core parody.
Abbot and Costello go to Mars
Back to the Future
@chr This! And given the above discussion, it is inarguably science fiction.
@chr A classic, but from the next wave of films.
@brhfl @thismyusername Anybody watch Hugo?
@jqubed Loved Hugo! Excellent performances by both Ender and Hit Girl. And of course anything with Sir Ben Kingsley in it is always entertaining.
@jqubed No, still need to. Have heard great things.
@jqubed
indeed... :)
1950's War of the Worlds. Best of the George Pal extravaganzas. Others get pretty funny: in "Conquest of Space" they are on their version of the space station and everybody is smoking! In "When Worlds Collide" the spaceship taking the few lucky ones to the new planet to restart humanity ARE ALL WHITE!!!
@radi0j0hn +1 on War of the Worlds. Also 1956's Forbidden Planet
@radi0j0hn but back in the 1950's all humans were white and smoked...
The Day the Earth Stood Still
@cranky1950 Great, but an earlier era.
@cranky1950 Yes, the original 1951 version is a great movie.
Not exactly a blockbuster, I suppose, but I'll also throw in The Man Who Fell to Earth.
I felt like there was something missing last night, but just couldn't think of it (The Abyss? No, that doesn't seem like it would've been a blockbuster.) I figured it out: Jurassic Park! Is that too new? It's from 1993.
@jqubed Good call, great film, but a bit too late to be in the same class as Star Wars.
Step it back a decade, kids. What about Planet of the Apes? The 1968 version with Heston. "Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape!"
Earth Girls are Easy
Flesh Gordon
2001 A Space Odyssey
@cranky1950 Hey does Paul Allen have the cinerama verision of this does anyone know?
@cranky1950 This is what I went with, hard choice vs. Alien and Star Wars.
Capricorn One wouldn't have been my top choice, but deserves a place on the list. A greatly under-appreciated film. If you're interested to watch it and haven't before, don't read a plot synopsis. Spoilers.
Also - Outland!
@JohnAbbe Never heard of that; does it meet the blockbuster qualification?
@jqubed I guess it depends on your definition. Dr. Strangelove might fit on the list as well, although frankly I'd be more inclined not to, and to remove 2001 and Planet of the Apes as well. Those were really a different era.
Rocky Horror Picture Show !
Dr Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine
@cranky1950 Dr Goldfoot and the Girl Bombs
Can't decide between Spaceballs or Alien.
Since it's not tomorrow yet and I feel like a laugh, I'm just going to put Dark Star out there as well.