# Best Sci Fi Movie Ever? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 2, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135 "2005-11-02T19:13:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Rocketeer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocketeer/32/4437_2.png) [@Rocketeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rocketeer)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/42 "2005-11-02T21:56:52Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Didn’t break new ground? It was > > The First movie with faster-than-light travel and similar ultra-high-tech > > The first movie where Earth People had non-cigar-shaped ships > > The first movie to use sentient robots with Asimovian “Three Laws” protection built in > > The first commercial movie with an electronic music score. > . Now, **Cal** , I wouldn’t expect you to make these claims; **This Island Earth** (1955, a year before FP) had non-cigar-shaped spaceships, faster-than-light travel, and Cal meacham. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/43 "2005-11-02T22:04:04Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > You could say the same for **King Kong, The Beast From 20,0000 Fathoms,** and **2001**. Well, sure. So what? **Rocketeer** : he did specify _humans_ piloting non-cigar shaped spacecraft. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/44 "2005-11-02T22:04:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Now, Cal, I wouldn’t expect you to make these claims; This Island Earth (1955, a year before FP) had non-cigar-shaped spaceships, faster-than-light travel, and Cal meacham. Yeah – but all by aliens in UFOs. Forbidden Planet was the first one with Humans using such technology. That’s why I was so deliberate in my wording. > [@](#): > > The first movie where Earth People had non-cigar-shaped ships There is – you should pardon the expression – a world of difference. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/45 "2005-11-02T22:04:27Z")
> [@Rocketeer](#): > > Now, **Cal** , I wouldn’t expect you to make these claims; **This Island Earth** (1955, a year before FP) had non-cigar-shaped spaceships, faster-than-light travel, and Cal meacham. … and the Professor. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/46 "2005-11-02T22:16:05Z")
Several people have put **Blade Runner** on their short list of nominees. To be honest, I don’t know why. I’ve seen the movie and it’s not particularly memorable for me. What’s the attraction? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/47 "2005-11-02T22:16:42Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > … and the Professor. What…no Mary-Ann? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/48 "2005-11-02T22:30:04Z")
_2001_ is, if nothing else, a great example of why you can’t translate a novel into a movie too directly. It would have been helped immensely by some exposition, some indication of why we should care about this bunch of guys in ape suits and what they are on the verge of accomplishing by banging those bones around. It would also have helped immensely to have some indication of what connection the Star Child had to David Bowman and what the Monolith was (i.e., a tool as advanced relative to our space stations as the space station was to the anthropod’s bone). The novel can be seen as one long meditation of how humans have used tools to shape the Universe and how those tools, in turn, shaped humanity. The movie still contains those themes, but it expects you to do inhuman amounts of extrapolation from some very bizarre visuals to ferret them out. This is wonderful if you have read the novel and frustrating if you have not: You end up beating your head against the beautifully shot effects sequences. The most you’re likely to get out of it is a ghost story, with HAL as the villian and Dave as the hero, bookended by a strange acid trip. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/49 "2005-11-02T22:50:49Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > _2001_ is, if nothing else, a great example of why you can’t translate a novel into a movie too directly. It would have been helped immensely by some exposition, some indication of why we should care about this bunch of guys in ape suits and what they are on the verge of accomplishing by banging those bones around. It would also have helped immensely to have some indication of what connection the Star Child had to David Bowman and what the Monolith was (i.e., a tool as advanced relative to our space stations as the space station was to the anthropod’s bone). It should be pointed out that Kubrick’s movie is not a “translation” of Clarke’s book: the book and the movie were created concurrently and in collaboration between the two artists, and the movie was actually released first, although the novel was _finished_ first. Kubrick had its publication held up for several months so as not to spoil the movie. > [@](#): > > The novel can be seen as one long meditation of how humans have used tools to shape the Universe and how those tools, in turn, shaped humanity. The movie still contains those themes, but it expects you to do inhuman amounts of extrapolation from some very bizarre visuals to ferret them out. This is wonderful if you have read the novel and frustrating if you have not: You end up beating your head against the beautifully shot effects sequences. The most you’re likely to get out of it is a ghost story, with HAL as the villian and Dave as the hero, bookended by a strange acid trip. I don’t feel that the book is a necessary (or even particularly helpful) component to understanding the movie, which functions perfectly well on its own. The movie certainly expects more of its audience than the book does, but I consider this very much a point in favor of the movie. _2001_ the movie is a genuinely challenging piece of work, that demands the audience engage it on its terms. _2001_ the book presents the reader with some interesting ideas, but does so in a fairly workmanlike and non-challenging manner. Which is largely a function of the respective places of the artists in relation to their medium. Kubrick was a genius, an utterly unique voice in the cinema who created masterpieces in a half-dozen or more genres. Clarke is particularly notable only when compared to other science fiction authors, and even then, as someone who was both preceeded and succeeded by much brighter lights. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/50 "2005-11-02T23:06:48Z")
No “Best of” Sci-Fi thread would be complete without the mention of _ **Silent Running** _ and _ **The Andromeda Strain** _. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/51 "2005-11-02T23:17:09Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I don’t feel that the book is a necessary (or even particularly helpful) component to understanding the movie, which functions perfectly well on its own. The movie certainly expects more of its audience than the book does, but I consider this very much a point in favor of the movie. _2001_ the movie is a genuinely challenging piece of work, that demands the audience engage it on its terms. _2001_ the book presents the reader with some interesting ideas, but does so in a fairly workmanlike and non-challenging manner. Not only that, but too much explanation would be counterproductive to the effect of the movie. We can intuit and interpret much in the film, but part of the majesty of the ending is that it has such an obviously monumental importance that it is even beyond our comprehension. The film is (in part) about man’s evolution, and the starchild, as the next incarnation, transcends us–its exact function or future are ambiguous, but there’s no doubt that it’s an image that implies hope, rebirth, and change for the better. The parts of _2001_ that are most “comprehensible” are the moments of horror (deaths in space) and sad banality (the routinization of something as marvelous as space travel). It’s Kubrick’s optimism that is rooted in something more spiritual and personal, and less literal. This is why the film, more than any other, is one I refuse to see on TV, since the boob tube truly trivializes the visual, aural, and thematic scale of the film. It’s also the reason why I find very few films more moving than _2001_. And it’s also why it’s the first film I’ll eagerly apply the YMMV tag to, since it will quite easily disappoint those who are expecting something more conventional, literal, or linear. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/52 "2005-11-02T23:19:49Z")
> [@Shat](#): > > Sorry Cal but you are dead wrong, LOTR is clearly Sci Fi dealing with the science of Middle Earth. “Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.” - Harry Turtledove 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/53 "2005-11-02T23:35:38Z")
> [@](#): > > “Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.” - Harry Turtledove See my post above. **Derleth** > [@](#): > > some indication of why we should care about this bunch of guys in ape suits Umm, seems like you’re not familiar with suspension of disbelief. None of it is real, dude. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/54 "2005-11-02T23:38:32Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Several people have put **Blade Runner** on their short list of nominees. To be honest, I don’t know why. I’ve seen the movie and it’s not particularly memorable for me. What’s the attraction? Phew! There are a lot of criticisms one can make about _Blade Runner_–the gaping plot and continuity holes, the dead-pan performances by the leads, the droll voice-over (in the cinematic release), the mush it made of Dick’s novel–but being unmemorably isn’t one of them. The dark, brooding, anachonistic sets, the powerhouse performance of Rutger Hauer and the coiled, innocent sensuality of Daryl Hannah, the strong supporting cast of character actors (Joe Turkel, M. Emmet Walsh, James Hong, Brion James, and the ubersleezy Hy Pyke), the incredible visuals, and the unimpeachable soundtrack by Vangelis all elevate the fairly mundane contemplation on the nature and purpose of existance to a higher level. This is the film _The Matrix_ and _Batman Begins_ were trying to be. If you’ve only seen it on the television screen then you’ve been cheated. Like _2001_ and _Lawrence of Arabia_ it demands to be seen in larger-than-life aspect. Just listening to the opening theme gives me chills. In the right environment, it is immersive. Scott is supposed to be releasing a newly minted and edited DVD version (as opposed to the faux “Director’s Cut” that was released a decade and change ago) as soon as the legal ownership issues get worked out “any day now”. :rolleyes: I’m hoping that they’ll cut a few prints as well and distribute them on the festival circuit. I’ve seen the decaying in-process cut a couple of times at festival showings and while it pales to other versions it is still an astonishing film and well worth seeing on screen. It’s a pity Scott hasn’t lived up to that promise he showed here and (to a lesser extent) in _Alien_. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/55 "2005-11-03T00:03:22Z")
> [@](#): > > “Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.” - Harry Turtledove > [@](#): > > See my post above. Sure, Clarke wrote in in our world. But if Napoleon had beaten Wellington at Waterloo, Turtledove would have written it first. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/56 "2005-11-03T00:07:24Z")
In my opinion, not only the best but pretty much the only science fiction movie ever made was _12 Monkeys_. _Alien_ was a horror movie with rocket ships; _Star Wars_ was a fantasy with rocket ships; _Outland_ was a western with rocket ships; _Blade Runner_ was a film noir with … well okay, it didn’t have rocket ships, but I think you get my point. _12 Monkeys_ was the only genuine science fiction movie in the bunch. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/57 "2005-11-03T00:08:13Z")
I wonder, **Stranger** , if you could please list some of the plot holes in Bladerunner. And as **Lissener** once said elsewhere, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is just fine. It’s still intact no matter how Bladerunner turned out. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/58 "2005-11-03T00:31:05Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > Sure, Clarke wrote in in our world. But if Napoleon had beaten Wellington at Waterloo, Turtledove would have written it first. No, read my (and **jimpatro** , damn his hide’s) posts. There’s a very slight but significant variation between Clarke’s Third Law and Turtledove’s Corrollary. As for your comment, have you ever read “He Stepped Between the Horses,” by H. Beam Piper? It suggests that your statement is not only but absolutely, factually true. 🙂 (“It’s just a matter of selection of coordinates.” – C.L. Dodgson, private communication to D.T.B. Carter, as reported by R.A. Heinlein ;)) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/59 "2005-11-03T00:47:40Z")
OK, **Polycarp** , what’s a quote from _Number of the Beast_ doing in a thread about _good_ science fiction? And I have to say that I largely agree with **Little Nemo** on _Twelve Monkeys_. I’m not quite sure I’d call it the best SF movie ever (it’s up against some awfully stiff competition, as noted by many other posters), but it’s damn good, much better than most of its publicity made it out to be. And I will without hesitation say it’s the best time-travel movie ever made. Which coming from me, means a lot, considering how obsessed I am with time travel. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/60 "2005-11-03T00:49:04Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > No “Best of” Sci-Fi thread would be complete without the mention of _ **Silent Running** _ and _ **The Andromeda Strain** _. Thank you. _Andromeda Strain_ was well done; I saw that one in a theater when it first came out, I believe. And _Silent Running_ I have the album for the music from; Bruce Dern was an actor, unlike most of his contemporaries. The fact I lived at the base of the Sierras and contemplated running away and living in the wild Sierra Forests might have had something to do with my love for the movie… Totally unrelated side note: the album with the soundtrack for Silent Running was made out of transluscent green vinyl. :eek: 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135/61 "2005-11-03T01:21:58Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > Star Wars? New ground? WTF??? 😕 > > This is a major whoosh, right? I’m betting you didn’t see Star Wars in 1977. It was the first movie that assumed its audience knew the sf conventions. It was the first movie that gave the mass market a taste of what we small band of sf fans loved about space opera. Forget about the movie technology - even the Force stuff was so much in keeping with Leigh Brackett Edmund Hamilton scifi from the '40s. Baird Searles, in his F&SF review, said that when he got to the Cantina scene he just burbled. It showed on the screen the images he had built up from reading sf for years. Forget how it enabled sf in the movies. Star Wars was the first effective screen presentation of a very popular sf genre. I still like 2001 better, but Clarke was my favorite writer already, and thanks to reading all his books (and the very good Life Magazine article about it) I understood it when I saw it the first time in May of 1968. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-sci-fi-movie-ever/329135.md?page=4)