Viewing Thread:
"Top 10 Sci-fi movies, like, EVER... and stuff"

[URL]http://www.theshiznit.co.uk[/URL]

Got a new guy writing stuff for the site, an American dude called Chris. He's pretty cool, he likes lists. Don't we all? So enjoy his list of the Top 10 Sci-fi movies of all time, and feel free to disagree vehemently in the comments section so I can totally see how popular I am.

Personally? I've seen two of the top ten. Whoops. I'm quite lame when it comes to Sci-fi. I'm always gonna argue for Jurassic Park to be in any list of top whatevers, just cos it rules.

For Goaty: the most audacious opening shot ever, I cried at Eternal Sunshine, etc etc etc. Your own little paragraph.

Mr Snuggly wrote:
> I actually edited that post earlier, to say 'not really a
> sci-fi' because I realised it was a bit definitive. In my eyes, a
> film like Star Wars wouldn't belong on a Top 10 sci-fi list because
> it's just not sci-fi through and through. Seems like not including
> it might cause just as much discussion as including it would.

Ah, so you did. I just saw the arsonists post. I agree though, IMHO SW is a Space Opera. I prefer my SF to be grounded in reality (Gattaca, Fahrenheit 451).

Like "Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone"

Wha? No The Ice Pirates?!?

I actually edited that post earlier, to say 'not really a sci-fi' because I realised it was a bit definitive. In my eyes, a film like Star Wars wouldn't belong on a Top 10 sci-fi list because it's just not sci-fi through and through. Seems like not including it might cause just as much discussion as including it would.

Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Do we think the Matrix should be on the list?

Well, IMHO it's futuristic setting and the "false reality as a method of population control" sits it firmly in the SF camp.

It's too derivative to be on a best of list IMHO.

[edit]Oh, and the big nasty AI entities enslaving the human race.

Mr Snuggly wrote:
> It's not a conventional sci-fi though, not one that sits squarely
> within the boundaries of the genre, that's why it wasn't on the list
> (remember that?).

Ahh, sorry, I thought you were arguing: -

Mr Snuggly wrote:
> It's not a sci-fi. It might be fiction, but it's certainly not based
> in the realms of science, is it? ... To me, sci-fi
> only succeeds if you believe it's happening in our world, our
> universe.

Do we think the Matrix should be on the list?

It's not a conventional sci-fi though, not one that sits squarely within the boundaries of the genre, that's why it wasn't on the list (remember that?). It has sci-fi elements, sure, but it's much more suited to the fantasy genre. Dringo, it's not a case of 'it is this and isn't that', it's a grey area. Just because you heard it in a lesson doesn't make it true.

I'd agree Star Wars is SF, but in a "Space Opera" style.
The best description of Sf I've found is: -

* the effect of imagined science
* the imagined effect of actual science
* imagined technology based upon actual science
* imagined technology based upon imagined science
* the effect of science and technology, or both, upon imagined societies
* the effect of science and technology, or both, upon imagined individuals,

It has element of a Western, but to call Star Wars a Western is simply insane. It also has elements of King Arthur and Robin Hood, does that make it a historical epic?

Mr Snuggly wrote:

> Oh, and I trump your Media A-level with a BAHons course in Film
> Studies, so there.

I'm not trying to say my point is more valid because I studied Media Studies, just saying that I actually had a lesson on whether Star Wars was a Sci-Fi or not.

It was.