Ten Best and Most Important Sci-Fi

[vanhagar3000]

What would you all say are the ten best and most important Science Fiction films in cinematic history? And as Samptari always says- WHY? I'm not going to even try. I don't know enough, but I'd like to see what some of you gentlemen and ladies think.

I thought of this because of a list Arthur C. Clarke had (which was up to 12). Here is what he chose.
*Metropolis (1927)
*Things to Come (1936)
*Frankenstein (1931)
*King Kong (1933)
*Forbidden Planet (1956)
*The Thing (1982)
*The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
*2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
*Star Wars (1977)
*CE3K (Close Encounters of the Third Kind) Revised version (Special Edition) (1980)
*Alien (1979)
*Blade Runner (1982)

He goes on to say "No way can I make it ten... I'm still brooding over Jedi (Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi), Khan (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan), [and] E.T. (E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial). Actually it would make more sense to have two lists: Most important, and Best."

Source

[ijon]

It hasn't really aged well, but the Heinlein/Pal Destination Moon deserves to be remembered. Along with my avatar's efforts in co-operation with Collier's and Disney it did a lot to set the public stage for the space program of the next decade.

I also like THX-1138 (at least the original version) and the John Hurt 1984 as the classic screen dystopias.

[spacechief]

I focus more on the importance in my list. I'm sure you won't agree so I gave my opinion why over to the side so that you really wont agree.

"The Day the Earth Stood Still": The first time the aliens weren't just random killing beings, and wanted to help earth not destroy it (although they sort of threatened to)
"Earth vs. the Flying Saucers": The first "blockbuster" sci-fi film. Focused less on plot and acting and more on space ships attacking and crashing into the Capitol Building.
"Invasion of the Body Snatchers": Sci-fi thriller at it's best
"The Blob": Sci-fi thriller at its second best
"George Pal's The War of the Worlds": An early adaptation to a book, plus state of the art animation for the '50s.
"Star Wars": Because it was "Star Wars"
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture": OK bear with me as you stare at me blankly. TMP was not a good movie in itself, but it did two things: 1. It paved the way for many other movies based of TV shows and 2. It reenergized the Star Trek franchise leading to 4 more series and 9 more movies.
"Independence Day": It had been years since a decent alien invasion movie had come out and ID4 revitalized that market.
"Signs": After ID4 there were tons of alien invasion movies, all big on explosions and short on plot. Signs mellowed down the alien invasion field. Plus it's sci-fi thriller at it's tied for second best.
"Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie": It gave all of us something to talk about at least.

[Shep]

I'm seeing some really good lists. I'd also add:

Tarkovsky's "Solaris"
"Planet of the Apes" (the original)

[themanosguy]

10. Blade Runner- An overrated classic is still a classic. Gritty, dark, surreal, and it questioned the nature of... everything, pretty much.

9. Time After Time- H.G. Wells didn't just write the time Machine. He built it. Unfortunately, Jack the Ripper used it to escape into the future. This is a surprisingly good romance and a look at how much society has progressed (through the eyes of the idealist H.G. Wells) and deteriorated (through the eyes of Jack the Ripper)

8. Star Trek 2: the Wrath of Khan- A classic. The best of the Star Trek films.

7. Star Wars: A New Hope-the one that started it all.

6. Terminator 2- The first movie was not a sci fi film, it lacked the insight. This movie was a damn good robot story, with a look at a humanity.

5. Godzilla- The monster movie classic. King Kong was a butchery of Cinematography. It was savage with it's minimal camera angles. This movie is a great allegory not for the atom bomb, but a particular incident in which a japanese fishing boat came too close to an american nuclear test. The American government's response?

"If a japanese fishing boat can get that close, soviet spies can get closer."

The original GOOD giant monster movie (sorry, guys, admit it. Kong sucks).

4. Invasion of the Body Snatchers- This is still not a superior alien invasion story (V came close)

3. Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back- The greatest of the Star Wars Trilogy. Why? Lucas kept his hands mostly off.

2. 2001: A Space Odyssey- Not much to say, beyond "This is a flapjacksing classic. Respect it. Love it." Stand in awe as it uses visual effects not to impress, but to tell the story.

1. Metropolis- The original sci fi classic. Deep, involving, and able to make you forget the atrocious acting in the film.

[Shep]

themanosguy said:

9. Time After Time- H.G. Wells didn't just write the time Machine. He built it. Unfortunately, Jack the Ripper used it to escape into the future. This is a surprisingly good romance and a look at how much society has progressed (through the eyes of the idealist H.G. Wells) and deteriorated (through the eyes of Jack the Ripper)

This has been a fave film of mine since I was a kid. Scary David Warner is THE Jack the Ripper IMO. Malcolm McDowell is amazing as the mild-mannered H.G. Wells.

Can't believe Malc's son, Charlie, had never seen this one. It features some of his parents' finest work.

[losingmydignity]

don't really see how King Kong can be considered a science fiction film...where's the science?


And no mention of Tarkovksy's Solaris which gets my vote for greatest science fiction film.

[Wild Rebel]

themanosguy said:

(sorry, guys, admit it. Kong sucks)

No.









(otherwise, I'm impressed with your list...particularly that you included Time After Time)

[Chuck]

I agree with Rebel. I do not think that the original Kong sucks. I love it.

I'm also glad you included Time After Time. I've always loved Cyndi Lauper.

[Torgo]

I am a massive Godzilla fan, but I have to go with the majority. The original King Kong is an excelent film.

[Wild Rebel]

chuck said:

I'm also glad you included Time After Time. I've always loved Cyndi Lauper.

LOL

[themanosguy]

Alright, let me explain my distaste for the original King Kong.

There are many scenes that are, well, just conversations, with a stationary camera for over five minutes. Yeah..... Some of the most horrible cinematography I've ever seen. Granted, many movies were like that in the thirties, however, not all movies that were pre-Citizen Kane lacked camera skill like what I am seeking. For example, D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation."

At one point during Kong, I shouted at the screen "Move the damn camera, you savages!"

[Wild Rebel]

themanosguy said:

Alright, let me explain my distaste for the original King Kong.

There are many scenes that are, well, just conversations, with a stationary camera for over five minutes. Yeah..... Some of the most horrible cinematography I've ever seen. Granted, many movies were like that in the thirties, however, not all movies that were pre-Citizen Kane lacked camera skill like what I am seeking. For example, D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation."

At one point during Kong, I shouted at the screen "Move the damn camera, you savages!"

Funny....I'm always too interested in what they're saying to care about what the camera is doing...or not doing.

So, I'd hate to ask what you think of Frankenstein.

[Chuck]

themanosguy would never survive a Warhol film.

[themanosguy]

wildrebel said:

themanosguy said:

Alright, let me explain my distaste for the original King Kong.

There are many scenes that are, well, just conversations, with a stationary camera for over five minutes. Yeah..... Some of the most horrible cinematography I've ever seen. Granted, many movies were like that in the thirties, however, not all movies that were pre-Citizen Kane lacked camera skill like what I am seeking. For example, D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation."

At one point during Kong, I shouted at the screen "Move the damn camera, you savages!"

Funny....I'm always too interested in what they're saying to care about what the camera is doing...or not doing.

So, I'd hate to ask what you think of Frankenstein.

Frankenstein wasn't nearly as bad with cinematography... That and some of the worse scenes had your attention all over the frame anyway, as opposed to just part of it.

Of course, I'm in the minority who, of all universal horror, prefers "The Invisible Man."

But yeah, I find camera work important. If somebody besides Hitchcock made Psycho and took liberties with the photography, it would have sucked horribly. But all Hitchcock's films are like that. He understood the value of Camera work (and lighting, which I, personally, am not so good at). This man wanted a long "Dolly shot" moving up the stairs. But he couldn't do that. You'd see the dolly tracks. So he got a bunch of perfectly synchronized individual shots to make it work.

That qualifies as brilliant camera work. Though if he could just digitally wipe out the tracks like they did in the remake, he would. It wouldn't lose the scene's intensity.