Scientists vote on 10 best science fiction films.

S

Serena

Administrator
So--agree or disagree with Blade Runner as the #1 sci-fi film? I thought it was great, but wouldn't call it #1--then again, I'm not a scientist. :D. Not sure which one I would call #1, really.

August 26, 2004
Associated Press

Top scientists have voted Ridley Scott's Blade Runner the best science fiction film ever.

The 1982 movie came top in a Guardian newspaper poll of 60 of the world's top scientists, including evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker.

Stephen Minger, stem cell biologist at King's College, London, said Blade Runner was the best he had seen. In the film, a retired cop portrayed by Harrison Ford hunts down renegade human replicants amid a dark futuristic vision of Los Angeles. "It was so far ahead of its time and the whole premise of the story - what is it to be human and who are we, where do we come from? It's the age-old questions," he said.

Stanley Kubrick's epic, 2001: A Space Odyssey, came a very close second in the vote, followed by the first two films of the Star Wars trilogy, Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, directed by George Lucas.

The scientists also voted for their favourite sci-fi authors. Russian-born writer Isaac Asimov topped the list for his Foundation Trilogy and the novel I, Robot, which has just been made into a film starring Will Smith. Englishman John Wyndham, author of Day of the Triffids and Chocky, came second. The other writers chosen, in descending order, were Philip K. Dick, H.G. Wells, Ursula Le Guin, Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury, Frank Herbert and Stanislaw Lem.

The scientists have been polled by The Guardian as part of a science fiction special to be published in Life, the newspaper's weekly science supplement.

Sci-fi top 10:

1. Blade Runner (1982)
2. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
3. Star Wars (1977) Empire Strikes Back (1980)
4. Alien (1979)
5. Solaris (1972)
6. Terminator (1984) T2: Judgement day (1991)
7. Day the Earth stood still (1951)
8. War of the Worlds (1953)
9. The Matrix (1999)
10. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
 
yudansha

yudansha

TheGreatOne
Thanks for the article, Serena! ... and I agree with you...

... about Blade Runner. I'm not a sci-fi fan per se, but I've seen Blade Runner and thought it was ok (but not that great). I'd personally have T2 and the Matrix in the top 5 (although I've probably seen not many more sci-fi movies :D)
 
Littledragon

Littledragon

Above The Law
Amos Stevens said:
Scientists? oh okkkkkkk,I can see why they would ask them-cough.

Can't believe Blade Runner got first though!
Click to expand...


Ye for real lol. Like they have any time to watch movies and rate them.

Why not movie critics but scientists?-- Meh.
 
tora

tora

Funmaker
I believe in the Matrix first of all.Everything is possible.Like I know kung-fu-Hiyyaaaaaa:D
 
Rodrigo

Rodrigo

Lucky Member
Come on, I disagree with the lab mates !!!! what about ROBOCOP ???? that's way too far from our time, and I loved it !!!!

I just love when the bad guys challenge him and start shooting at him at no mercy, and nothing happens, then he start shooting them with his great gun !!! and the bad guys aren't made of steal !!!! :)
 
ORANGATUANG

ORANGATUANG

Wildfire
War of the worlds and Alien they were ok the rest i think were not that good..another one i thought was good was "Bodysnatchers"...
 
TDWoj

TDWoj

Administrator
Staff member
If you look at what the scientists say about Blade Runner they were talking about the concepts that are in the film, something that a lot of people overlook when they watch science fiction films, because all they want to see is blasters and special effects.

True, the special effects were pretty cool in Blade Runner, but the movie, and the story it was based on (by Philip K. Dick! "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep") was all about the nature of humanity and what makes one human. A construct made to look human was the one asking these questions throughout the film.

Star Wars, strictly speaking, is what's known as "science fantasy". However, its concepts, though very well hidden and disguised behind a lot of fancy special effects, was more about the spiritual nature of one's being, and one's relationship to the world around you on almost the molecular level (also known as "The Force").

I've said this before: science fiction is the literature of ideas. The difficulty is translating those ideas to the screen, when all people want is fancy special effects and lots of things that go "boom". The choices the scientists made as the 10 best I agree with because those films - yes, even Star Wars and all of its action-adventure bits - were the ones that had at their heart very complex ideas.

Most sf films today shy away from putting in ideas mostly because producers and directors these days believe - quite rightly, too - that people aren't interested in ideas any more. All they want is special effects, blasters and babes with brass bras. Which was how science fiction was largely marketed in the early days.... so what goes around, comes around.

I've got two versions of Blade Runner (there are at least three more that I know of floating around out there). One version has the voice-over by Deckard (Harrison Ford). The other doesn't - and in fact, ends quite abruptly without the driving into the sunset scene the theatrical version had. You should try watching this version of the film. It forces you to pay attention to what's going on without the distraction of the voice-over telling you what you're supposed to be thinking in that scene. You end up empathising more with the villain - the replicant (played by Rutger Hauer) - than with the supposed hero. The voice-over version is a kind of science fiction film noir. The one without is like reading the story, only with pictures instead of words on a page. Stunning stuff.

-TD, sf writer and sf critic
 
J

Jampa

New Member
I do find the idea of asking scientists what they think of SF movies quite smart. SF as in *Science* Fiction <G>... I'd think that although it IS fiction, it should somehow be scientifically plausible... which is not as "restrictive" as it may sound. For example, according to Einstein's works/theories and views, time travel can be considered as scientifically possible... Humanoid robots are definitely already "workable" nowadays - it would certainly take a lot to make them as "realistic" as a real human, as in Blade Runner, but it does not seem especially foolish to imagine that it can be achieved in the future. I assume "The Matrix" would fall within the competence of neurologists and brain specialists...

I shall certainly not blame them for putting Asimov as the #1 SF author... and although I really liked "I, Robot" I find that the book itself has a greater "dimension".

Was Mary Shelley's creature part of the original list...? ;-)))

Wellness to All...

Jampa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top