Blade Runner film makes the top 10 list according to AFI...

[PC Engine Fan X!]

The Amercian Film Institute (AFI) has listed the classic sci-fi film of Blade Runner as number six as one of the best science fiction films ever made...

Most die-hard sci-fi fans already regard it in even higher esteem like myself. Just like fine wine gets better with age, Blade Runner (Ridley Scott's "Final Cut" version) does too. The Blu-Ray version of BR "Final Cut" looks mighty nice on a 1080p LCD TV setup -- so crisp and detailed, indeed... ^_~

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[MX7]

Do you have a link to the films selected? And is this a list of science fiction films or just American science fiction films?

[trivial]

I've passed up the HDDVD's at low prices, repeatedly. I'd much rather have Brazil on HD for that kind of vibe. Snapped up a couple of Gilliam's films in the format.

Maybe with Rifftrax I'd go for BR.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

Do you have a link to the films selected? And is this a list of science fiction films or just American science fiction films?

This would be regulated to just American science fiction films:

AFI's Top 10 Films By Category

Science Fiction

1.) 2001: A Space Odyssey -- 1968
2.) Star Wars: Episode IV "A New Hope" -- 1977
3.) E.T. the Extra Terrestrial -- 1982
4.) A Clockwork Orange -- 1971
5.) The Day the Earth Stood Still -- 1951
6.) Blade Runner -- 1982
7.) Alien -- 1979
8.) Terminator 2: Judgement Day -- 1991
9.) Invasion of the Body Snatchers -- 1956
10.) Back to the Future -- 1985

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[gavin19]

Alien, Body Snatchers and Star Wars IV all have better sequels IMO.

A Clockwork Orange is sci-fi?

Coincidentally, I still haven't watched Blade Runner.

[neorichieb1971]

Blade runner is quite deep and makes you ask more questions than it answers. When a robot tells you he's seen things you wouldn't believe, it makes you appreciate life. By the time the movie got to the end, it made me cry. But believe me, you have to be the sort of person that can have deep feelings, the movie demands that of you.

I just ordered the blu-ray from tower.com at $12. Not bad considering its 5 discs.

Remember, a light bulb that burns twice as bright, only lasts half as long

[CStarFlare]

We watched Blade Runner after reading "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Perhaps it's because THE BOOK IS ALWAYS BETTER but I was seriously unimpressed.

Maybe I should watch it again.

[thegreathopper]

Alien, Body Snatchers and Star Wars IV all have better sequels IMO.

Alien does not have a better sequel. All the others are a bit crap 3 is not too bad but 2 that annoying Newt spoiled it for me.

[Stormwatch]

Lemme fix this shit...

1.) 2001: A Space Odyssey -- 1968
2.) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan -- 1982
3.) Star Trek: First Contact - 1996
4.) Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back -- 1980
5.) The Day the Earth Stood Still -- 1951
6.) Blade Runner -- 1982
7.) Alien -- 1979
8.) The Terminator -- 1984
9.) Invasion of the Body Snatchers -- 1956
10.) Mad Max 2 -- 1981

A bit better now.

[Skykid]

That's a suprisingly awesome list - I would've replaced E.T with the original planet of the apes, but I totally agree with the number one spot.

Good stuff the AFI, I'm impressed!

[trivial]

Remember, a light bulb that burns twice as bright, only lasts half as long

Does this mean the last Blu-Ray disc will be released in June 2010?

/me hugs my Odyssey²

[Kiken]

Lemme fix this shit...

1.) 2001: A Space Odyssey -- 1968
2.) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan -- 1982
3.) Star Trek: First Contact - 1996
4.) Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back -- 1980
5.) The Day the Earth Stood Still -- 1951
6.) Blade Runner -- 1982
7.) Alien -- 1979
8.) The Terminator -- 1984
9.) Invasion of the Body Snatchers -- 1956
10.) Mad Max 2 -- 1981

A bit better now.

You're still missing Dark City.

[kengou]

Do you have a link to the films selected? And is this a list of science fiction films or just American science fiction films?

This would be regulated to just American science fiction films:

AFI's Top 10 Films By Category

Science Fiction

1.) 2001: A Space Odyssey -- 1968
2.) Star Wars: Episode IV "A New Hope" -- 1977
3.) E.T. the Extra Terrestrial -- 1982
4.) A Clockwork Orange -- 1971
5.) The Day the Earth Stood Still -- 1951
6.) Blade Runner -- 1982
7.) Alien -- 1979
8.) Terminator 2: Judgement Day -- 1991
9.) Invasion of the Body Snatchers -- 1956
10.) Back to the Future -- 1985

That list is kind of crappy list. I'll break it down:

1.) 2001: A Space Odyssey -- excellent #1 spot. this one I agree on.

2.) Star Wars: Episode IV "A New Hope" -- as much as I love star wars, its not science fiction. It's a good-vs-evil adventure story told in space. It even has fantasy elements (the Force). It has nothing significant to say about science, the future, society, or anything that most sci-fi has to have deep messages about to even be called sci-fi. The best way to tell if something is actually sci-fi is to ask whether the same story could be told in a modern setting with no futuristic or fantastic elements and still carry the same weight. In Star Wars' case, the answer is yes. And it's called World War II, or Julius Caesar's rise to power, or a wide variety of classical hero stories like hercules or the odyssey.

3.) E.T. the Extra Terrestrial -- meh, see Star Wars. It's a fine film, but just not really sci-fi. It features aliens, but it doesn't have any really deep messages or anything. it doesn't DO anything significant with the alien characters. The story could be told without any aliens or spaceships and still carry the same weight. Replace ET with a leper or something.

4.) A Clockwork Orange -- wtf? Is this even remotely related to sci-fi? I admit I haven't seen it, and I hear good things, but I've never heard it classified as sci-fi before.

5.) The Day the Earth Stood Still -- Yeah, this was alright. I would have put War of the Worlds instead as an example of classic sci-fi, but whatever.

6.) Blade Runner -- Should be higher on the list! This story has deep things to say about the nature of robots, about humanity, about life itself, about technology. The story couldn't really be told without the sci-fi elements that make it great, which is robots seeking an escape from inevitable death.

7.) Alien -- No way. This is an action movie. Replace the alien with a rabid tiger or something and it's practically the same thing.

8.) Terminator 2: Judgement Day -- Ok, this one is legitimate sci-fi. It has some interesting stuff to say about time travel, although the first movie was more pure sci-fi than this one is. T2 comes across as much more of an action movie than real sci-fi, but it has legitimate elements that would be near impossible to tell in a modern setting.

9.) Invasion of the Body Snatchers -- I'll admit I haven't seen this one. Can't talk about it.

10.) Back to the Future -- Yes, this is legitimate sci-fi. It's not very deep or anything, and it doesn't have much of a message about anything important, but it wouldn't be possible to tell the story without time travel, I think.

Here's some I would have added:

2010 -- It's probably just as deep and awesome as 2001. And in the actual storyline of the Odyssey series, it's probably far more significant, with the creation of the second sun Lucifer and all that. Shame it wasn't as popular as 2001.

The Matrix -- yes, this is seriously good, deep sci-fi, in the guise of an awesome action movie. Try telling the story of this one without robots or virtual reality! And it has important and interesting messages and questions it brings up about a lot of things.

Serenity -- actually I'm on the fence about this. I LOVE firefly and serenity, but it's hard for me to classify them as sci-fi at all. Almost all of the show, at least, could easily be told as a western or something without losing anything significant in the story or in the underlying meaning of the series. The movie, however, is hard to imagine as anything other than taking place in the future and in space. The Reavers and River Tam's origins seem to me to be pretty legit sci-fi stuff to me, and offer some interesting messages. It still feels like more of a human story than a sci-fi one, but I feel the awesomeness of the movie deserves a spot.

War of the Worlds -- as I said earlier, this one's a true classic. It would be virtually impossible to tell without aliens, and it has some depth as well.

Planet of the Apes -- I can't believe they didn't include this! It's CLASSIC sci-fi! How could anyone dispute this film as a sci-fi epic?

The Time Machine -- I thought the film adaptation (the most recent one) was really well done, even if it differed quite a lot from the short story. Solid sci-fi, important messages about the future of mankind, all that jazz.

Anyway, that's all I've got, take your pick. Sci-fi is such a misunderstood genre, though, it's sad. There's fiction that takes place in space, or fiction that has aliens, or fiction that has robots, and THEN there's SCIENCE FICTION! It's a major difference that I wish people would understand better.

[szycag]

A Clockwork Orange would count, I think, it's largely about a drug that nullifies violent emotion. The subgenres in wikipedia would put it under soft sci-fi, I think. The Wiki entry for the book calls it sci-fi on the side bar, but then describes it in the first paragraph as speculative fiction. I had no idea how loosely drawn the genres were.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

A Clockwork Orange would count, I think, it's largely about a drug that nullifies violent emotion. The subgenres in wikipedia would put it under soft sci-fi, I think. The Wiki entry for the book calls it sci-fi on the side bar, but then describes it in the first paragraph as speculative fiction. I had no idea how loosely drawn the genres were.

Some folks disagree with films are chosen to be included in AFI top ten list of all time. And who is exactly on this AFI board is unknown and mysterious. Reminds me of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and their usage of mysterious legion of movie raters to rate the upcoming American films...just who the fuck are they? A very powerful entity indeed with their lawyers and all. If your movie doesn't make the cut, it's a back and forth trip to see what can be done to get it shown on the big screen nationally (meaning pass the MPAA's very strict guidelines for it's rating system -- fail it and it's back to the editing room for some more last minute expensive editing and changes). For some film makers, going the independent distribution route is the only way to go... ^_~

Do they work in the Hollywood/independent film industry or are they just plain average Joes and Janes like you and me that decide what to include for the definitive film list?

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[kengou]

Just as a quick addendum, here's the definition of Science Fiction from Wikipedia:

Science fiction (abbreviated SF or sci-fi with varying punctuation and capitalization) is a broad genre of fiction that often involves speculations based on current or future science or technology. Science fiction is found in books, art, television, films, games, theater, and other media.

In organizational or marketing contexts, science fiction can be synonymous with the broader definition of speculative fiction, encompassing creative works incorporating imaginative elements not found in contemporary reality; this includes fantasy, horror, and related genres.[1]

Science fiction differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

Science fiction is largely based on writing entertainingly and rationally about alternate possibilities[2] in settings that are contrary to known reality. These include:

* A setting in the future, in alternative time lines, or in a historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archeological record
* A setting in outer space, on other worlds, or involving aliens[3]
* Stories that involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature[4]
* Stories that involve discovery or application of new scientific principles, such as time travel or psionics, or new technology, such as nanotechnology, faster-than-light travel or robots, or of new and different political or social systems[5]

Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".

Emphasis mine.

If a piece of speculative fiction does NOT "explore the consequences of such differences" it is NOT Sci-Fi This is a better definition than I tried to hastily explain earlier.

[Ed Oscuro]

Kengou: I won't touch on this subject much because I agree the part you highlighted is likely the most important part, but I think the rest of the quote is pretty obnoxious, particularly the idea that science fiction is "contrary" to reality. It's meant to reflect a possible reality, else it's not science! Wikipedians don't understand what words they're using, what else is news, eh?

The rest comes down to the frantic and hilarious genre-classification postage stamp collecting type of behavior that's part publisher's business decision and part fans trying to defend their craft from the encroachment of other 'non-traditional speculative works' that happen nowadays to be more relevant to the average person than works that try to push as far ahead today as yesterday's short stories from Galaxy did - with far less likelihood of achieving anything like relevance to today's people, for a reason that I mention below.

The era of science fiction Hugo Gernsback ushered in was, as I remember, when the term started being used.

At the time people were less interested in "consequences" as they were in "possibilities."

This is indeed a "glass half empty/half full" deal and it'd be easy to say that some writers back then weren't cynical or critical enough, and I shouldn't make some pronouncement

One of the great divisions of science fiction vs. "skiffy" work is that between "hard sci-fi" (Hal Clement) versus "science fantasy," which of course isn't really science at all, but may still have some worth.

To me, the interesting question is this: Most science fiction is actually a study of utility and design choice. When you think about the future, traditionally you think about applications people would like - so naturally, people would want mobile telephones and the ability to fly between worlds; and if we can put together a "wish list" we might as well throw teleportation and other stuff on there as well.

In some old-fashioned (Doc E.E. Smith) science fiction (the space opera variety), they just didn't give limits any heed and just made everything bigger and better as it was getting hard to satisfy with the same old capital ship busters and world-destroyers...people with the same small minds as those that fought the World Wars end up disinterestedly playing ping-pong with Pluto and Neptune.

The rub is that these stories were really only applicable to "modern" 20th-century people, and unfortunately few (actually, at the moment I can't think of any) careful considerations about what will happen to the human lifestyle - the biological lifestyle - adapting for the future. There's plenty of stories about the end of the world (the skeletons of the '50s nuclear family staring eyelessly at their T.V. set in an interesting piece by K.M. Kornbluth with his green teeth), but scarcely any about the movement of human consciousness and functionality into other forms until after mid-century.

The Dune books are filled with interesting references to history, but, just like I always imagined A.E. Van Vogt's novels, superhumans are simply oddities that make life complicated for "normal" folks. Star Trek has its borg, but it also has regular humans bumbling about anachronistically and good-naturedly in the futuristic far-flung corners of a flat universe with four corners.

I think that the problem with modern sci-fi - aside from the problem of scientific ideas being absorbed through literature too quickly - is that most of it doesn't seem to have much of a conscience (assuming for a moment that we can read Asimov's Bicentennial Man as pertaining to the then-pressing issue of civil rights), and while this may have always been the case, what is left is often drowned out by mass media and television's blustery mouths - and god help the non-specialist who tries to write "science fiction" these days.

With the still increasingly-quick dissemination of ideas, and the commonsense reaction to them developed by our well-heeled media moguls, all a person can do is paint broad strokes and try to take on one or two issues at a time. I think that the fact that a few people are noticing technological changes is a good thing, and with climate change and other issues more people are paying attention than ever before. That's bad news for writers who like to do the economic balancing act or fit together the results of a study, but hey, writers haven't been inventors since Gernsback.

LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT MY MOTHER

What's left, then, is the applications-based approach to creating science fiction futures, but I personally feel it would be mildly embarrassing to make a bunch of prophetic pronouncements and end up grabbing the envelope all puffed up with hot air and no substance while reality takes unexpected turns.

That, of course, is what is left if you accept the narrow definition that "science fiction" needs to contravene known natural laws or reality. Any thinking person will realize that the more a work of fiction flaunts reality, the less applicable (and therefore less interesting) it becomes to daily life (thankfully we live in a time when it's not at all discouraged to talk about alternate universes with their own laws of physics, so I'll just use that in place of a longer explanation of what I mean).

Personally, I think that near-future military fiction is science fiction.

It's late, and I'm going to stop making any sense disturbingly soon, so that's enough from me.

p.s. Snow Crash is a pure farce. If you read it with that in mind, it can be quite amusing, but to me the pace of the jokes feels like somebody is stuffing cats and chipmunks down a drainpipe and making me listen. I also think it's hilarious that Stephenson noted taking a liberty on the meaning of BIOS for the sake of a terrible pun. Actually, that's better than I gave it credit for being, now that I think about it...if only barely.

p.p.s. I haven't read any of the books I referenced in here, but I read about them on Wikipedia. I read Flowers for Algernon though. Take care of Stormwatch for me.

[Skykid]

2010 -- It's probably just as deep and awesome as 2001. And in the actual storyline of the Odyssey series, it's probably far more significant, with the creation of the second sun Lucifer and all that. Shame it wasn't as popular as 2001.

Hold the phone, someone's on DRUGS!

2010 is a half decent sci-fi movie sure, it even follows the plot of the book pretty accurately.
But brought to you by the director of such greats as Timecop, End of Days and Outland, it, like most films, doesn't even deserve to be uttered in the same breath as 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is probably the reason it's been largely forgotten by...everyone.

[Ed Oscuro]

Arbitrary new post selected so I can talk about Blade Runner some (edit: nevermind that, Skykid to the rescue again!)

Blade Runner's overall plot arc isn't quite as fascinating to me as it must've been at release. It's basically - hey go shoot em renegades - okay - oh shit you don't know how much time - that's the way it is.

What I find amazing about the movie (aside from the successful attempts at predicting a future world; they even got the "Walk - don't walk" talking crossings down years before any were introduced) are the psychological angles - basically anything that doesn't deal with Deckard (no hate there, I just find the silly unicorn dream thing overrated).

As you can guess, I really like the introductory Leon vs. the second-rate Deckard guy discussion. I think that's probably my favorite few hundred feet of film ever, add in the trippy introduction sequence for good measure (I like the music that plays during the intro text scroll).

You're not helping, Leon!

A far distant second for a favorite concept from the film is the question of why the Replicants are coming to Earth when it's implied that people are leaving. Of course, I'm afraid that - like so much else - there isn't really a message here, just the sort of context-free logic that leads to shit like THIS being written.

[Super Laydock]

Where's T.R.O.N.?

2001 is a fantastic number 1 of course.
Alien should be much higher and someone please ditch E.T.!

Also Total Recall has to be in there for cults sake.

[Ed Oscuro]

Frankly, I don't find Tron or 2001 very entertaining myself. Read the novelization of 2001, meh.

Funny thing about 2001 and the "See you next Wednesday" thing (I can only hear the line as spoken off-screen during the movie theater segment of "Thriller," which is arguably not a science fiction work).

[Acid King]

Though I liked the movie, I'm much more interested in the original book. The name for the movie was swiped from a treatment William S Burroughs wrote for a book called The Bladerunner. The original book was set in a dystopian future where a black market for doctors and medical supplies springs up after government seizes control of healthcare and offers free medical care as long as you qualify, which includes being sterilized. Bladerunners were children used to ferry medical and surgical supplies to the black market practitioners. Now personally, I think that's a much more interesting concept than the one the movie is built on.

Unfortunately now Ridley Scott owns the rights to the Blade Runner name, so even if genuine adaptation of the book was made, it couldn't even be called that.

[kengou]

Ed Oscuro: Thou shalt not criticize Dune to even the slightest degree as it is unquestionable as the greatest piece of literature mankind has ever achieved! Bi La Kaifa!

Skykid: Sure the filmography isn't as good as 2001 but it does follow the book very well and it does tell a really good story with plenty of depth to it. I enjoyed it very much and fail to see that many flaws about it.

[Ed Oscuro]

Unfortunately now Ridley Scott owns the rights to the Blade Runner name, so even if genuine adaptation of the book was made, it couldn't even be called that.

If it came first, and it's one word, I bet Burrough's estate could win a case to use the name. They'd use a different logo as well.

Ed Oscuro: Thou shalt not criticize Dune to even the slightest degree as it is unquestionable as the greatest piece of literature mankind has ever achieved! Bi La Kaifa!

*stabs with a gom jabbar and watches you fail*

[gavin19]

Thou shalt not criticize Dune to even the slightest degree as it is unquestionable as the greatest piece of literature mankind has ever achieved! Bi La Kaifa!

You haven't read the B.F.G then? Shame.

[PROMETHEUS]

Lemme fix this shit...

1.) 2001: A Space Odyssey -- 1968
2.) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan -- 1982
3.) Star Trek: First Contact - 1996
4.) Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back -- 1980
5.) The Day the Earth Stood Still -- 1951
6.) Blade Runner -- 1982
7.) Alien -- 1979
8.) The Terminator -- 1984
9.) Invasion of the Body Snatchers -- 1956
10.) Mad Max 2 -- 1981

A bit better now.

I agree with you here, especially for replacing Star Wars 4 with Star Wars 5 and Terminator 2 with Terminator 1.

[Skykid]

Lemme fix this shit...

1.) 2001: A Space Odyssey -- 1968
2.) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan -- 1982
3.) Star Trek: First Contact - 1996
4.) Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back -- 1980
5.) The Day the Earth Stood Still -- 1951
6.) Blade Runner -- 1982
7.) Alien -- 1979
8.) The Terminator -- 1984
9.) Invasion of the Body Snatchers -- 1956
10.) Mad Max 2 -- 1981

A bit better now.

I agree with you here, especially for replacing Star Wars 4 with Star Wars 5 and Terminator 2 with Terminator 1.

Yep, I'm agreed on both those changes too, for what its worth.

[KindGrind]

I got flamed for that in the past, but I dare say it again: Vangelis' music was utterly terrible in this movie. I have watched the movie several times, and all the possible cuts, and I think the movie *aches* because of the music.

And it's not because I don't like that style of music or anything, I just think it was out of place in this. Combined with the dark, foggy scenes (mostly at Tyrell Corp), it had a surpringly soporific effect on me and other people I know. And I'm quite an awake / patient viewer... Personal opinion, that's all.

[kengou]

I got flamed for that in the past, but I dare say it again: Vangelis' music was utterly terrible in this movie. I have watched the movie several times, and all the possible cuts, and I think the movie *aches* because of the music.

And it's not because I don't like that style of music or anything, I just think it was out of place in this. Combined with the dark, foggy scenes (mostly at Tyrell Corp), it had a surpringly soporific effect on me and other people I know. And I'm quite an awake / patient viewer... Personal opinion, that's all.

I had the opposite reaction, actually, I felt like the music was really well done and felt perfect in the film. But, as you say, personal opinion.

[Nuke]

Anybody read the original Blade Runner, or Do Androids dream of electric sheep? as it was originally called?
As much as I love Blade Runner, I'd rather see a faithful version of it some day as it's almost completely different plot and theme handles the questions of empathy and humanity vs. mimicry in a more intelligent manner while also including questions about the reality of religion, decay, hierarchy of values and existence itself.
The book leaves both the protagonist and the reader is emotionally spent, something Philip K. Dick was exceptionally good at.
Plus, it introduced the word kipple into popular language.