Top Ten SF Films... As Rated By Scientists

[filkertom]

Let the debates begin.

Update: Got the BBC link with the full list.

Comments

Here we go...

[miketheman.livejournal.com]

Really, who even cares what ssome foggy old scientist thinks about, in the long run?
We rate the movies WE like, not because some scientist tells us to.
Don't get me wrong, I like Bladerunner, but I hardly think it's the BEST sci-fi movie ever.
Today people are too tied into what other people think that they are afraid to have their own opinion. Ever hear of a "shopper's assistant"?
What a world.

[sdelmonte]

Nexy up: the top ten scientists, as rated by SF writers and filmmakers.

It makes about as much sense. Especially when thee is little on this list that screams "this is a film a scientist should love!" I love Star Wars, but it's certainly not a film that tells us anything about science.

Beyond that, these guys are entitled to their collective opinion. But as I find Bladerunner and 2001 to be rather dull, I don't think I will consider this list very authoritative.

[darkwolf69.livejournal.com]

Perhaps the opinions of a heretic who has never gotten around to watching Bladerunner don't matter... but two points jump out at me here.

1) They reference I, Robot as a recently movitized[1] novel. It is a collection of short stories which vaguely inspired a movie by the same name.

2) They didn't even MENTION Heinlein. How in seven hells can you talk about SF authors and NOT mention Heinlein??? Of course, they also didn't mention Frank Herbert, Spider Robinson, David Niven, Philip K. Dick, or Douglas Adams, but no Heinlein? Ridiculous.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

At the risk of starting a flamewar, I'll note that I had a far greater tolerance for Heinlein when I was younger, and he's generally on my "I could re-read that, but why?" list.

[darkwolf69.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes, I was afraid of the Heinlein/AntiHeinlein flamewar, too. I just don't see the author of "Day of the Triffids" coming in ahead of... well... ANY of the authors I mentioned above, of which Heinlein happens to be my favorite. :) But hey, at least they're Scientists and not Scientologists, or it would've been "Battlefield Earth" and L. Ron Hubbard. PERIOD. ;-)

[wcg.livejournal.com]

I don't imagine many top-ranked scientists are terribly familiar with SF authors. The voters may well have voted for Asimov because of his non-fiction science writing.

The generations of scientists and engineers who would unabashedly say that they were influenced by Heinlein or E.E. Smith or Olaf Stapledon has largely retired or died.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I don't imagine many top-ranked scientists are terribly familiar with SF authors.

Must respectfully disagree. I don't know specifically which scientists these were, to be certain, but in my experience, the large majority of people I know who can be called "scientists" were inspired to their careers by reading science fiction (at least in part). That most of the ones I know wouldn't cite Stapledon, but would cite Pohl (for example) is a reflection of age, I think. But the principle remains, and many such would stil cite Heinlein and Smith, I suspect.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

in my experience, the large majority of people I know who can be called "scientists" were inspired to their careers by reading science fiction (at least in part).

Our experience differs. Considering that my experience includes faculty posts in physics and astronomy at three different universities over the last 20 years, and involvement with three operational and one planned space missions, I will claim at very least a large body of annecdotal evidence.

Do I know scientists and engineers who've read SF? Certainly. Perhaps even a majority of them. Are most of them authoritatively familiar with SF? No. While I know a dozen or so who've read a lot of SF and can discuss it with authority, most of my colleagues, if asked, would only be able to identify Asimov off the top of their heads and that because of his excellent non-fiction science writing.

I am one of those people who came into this business due to the influence of Heinlein and Asimov and Clarke. But one of the things I had to realize early on was that not all, nor even a majority, of my colleagues shared my interest in SF.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Our experience differs. Considering that my experience includes faculty posts in physics and astronomy at three different universities over the last 20 years, and involvement with three operational and one planned space missions, I will claim at very least a large body of annecdotal evidence.

I certainly won't argue that you have a wider set of relationships with active scientists than I.

Are most of them authoritatively familiar with SF? No.

Nor would I dispute this. Especially if you insist on including "authoritatively." What I was noting was that, in my experience, folks whose day jobs could be called "scientist" would cite some SF as influences, and that among them, they would have included most of the classics and top sf authors.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

As I note elsewhere, I think the Wyndham thing is a result of his being much more read across the Atlantic from the U.S. (and the scientists polled having been from that side of the No-Quite-As-Big-As -the-Pacific-Ocean-But-Bigger-Than-The-Indian-Ocean-Ocan :-). And from the article as I see it, the complete list of authors isn't there. So who knows, the inventor of the waterbed and waldos might well be on it.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

The author's list is on much shakier ground, although they could be going for most influential in the formative years of SF. Of course, their missing Heinlein and Niven and Dick (oh my), particularly since they did name Dick's Blade Runner as the number one film, is egregious.

[(Anonymous)]

Phillip K. Dick is on the list, he's #4. So are Herbert (#9), Clarke (#7), and Bradbury (#8).

<link=http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1290565,00.html>Here is the relevant story from The Guardian.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Many thanks. Let's make that an active link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1290565,00.html). (Frickin' LJ.)

[arensb.livejournal.com]

Of course, they also didn't mention [...] David Niven

Unless the man who played Dick Charleston in Murder by Death also wrote SF on the side, I suspect you mean Larry Niven.

[darkwolf69.livejournal.com]

D'oh! Precisely so. <-- color me embarassed

"Oh. That's just... tacky..." --Dora Charleston, "Murder By Death"

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

Keep in mind that this was a poll by THE GUARDIAN, in the UK. The choices are bound to be different.

I find Spider's point of view to be noticably American, or North American rather. Possibly it does not play well to the UK readers.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

The unstated assumption in this poll is that scientists have some special expertise where SF is concerned. Is that a warranted assumption? What does a biologist know about physics or astronomy, to rate the scientific content of Catherine Asaro's Primary Inversion? The categories of Science and Science Fiction are both far too broad for this poll to have much meaning. If it says anything at all, it says that Asimov did a great job of being both a science writer and a SF writer.

[drzarron.livejournal.com]

Yeah.. but what KIND Of scientists are they? Let's see, certainly not one of the hard sciences, perhaps it was a group of nutritionist, I mean, there is a lot of food in Blade Runner.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

As others have mentioned, it would be nice to know how the disciplines of the "scientists" polled broke down, as well as their ages. But I don't see much wrong with Blade Runner on top of the list, especially the director's cut. (It had BETTER have been the director's cut!) On the other hand, Star Wars (forget all that IV: A New Hope jazz; when someone says "Star Wars", there's only one flick they can mean) had scientific errors and other problems, but it established new paradigms for sf films and set the standards for new films for years to come. "Best"? Why not. I'm inclined to look at lists like this for overall content, and rank them myself.

As for the authors, let's see the entire list first. (And I suspect the ethnicity of the polled was the reason for Mr. Wyndham's being there. Geographically, he's always been more read in the Old World than the New.)

[(Anonymous)]

Same with Mr. Hoyle, for that matter.

Opinions are soooooooo subjective.

[moose]

Scientists rate SF? Next up, Porn Stars Rate Porn Movies!

"I really love 'Big Boobies Backdoor MXVII," said Bambi Bimbolots, noted porn star, "She-Man got herself into all those hard positions. I respect talent like that!"

[No film at 11.]

Re: Opinions are soooooooo subjective.

[partiallyclips.livejournal.com]

I'd rather see scientists rate the porn movies.

Which brings to mind a conversation I had with a co-worker about animals which control their environment.

Him: "Have you ever seen beavers in action?"
Me: "No. But I rented 'Beavers in Action II' once."

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

How about "the day the Earth Caught Fire"? that's fantasy/SF with a real twist in the ending.
If fantasy then I reckon the 1933 King Kong is the beastie....almost a teaching example of how to make a movie that moves..

non scientist rate SF films

[nezmaster.livejournal.com]

First, theres fantasy, Science Fiction, and Space Fantasy. Science fiction actually bends or postulates some form of science. Space fantasy says reality be damned, lets just have fun.
Blade Runner wins as it is actually scince fiction. I am suprised that Clarke didn't make hte list. I would have thought the SCIENTISTS would have been noticed, and that Science fiction would have won over Terminator et al. And of course, naming I robot as being based on a novel is more than a joke.

1> Metropolis
2> Silent Running
3> 2001
4> Clockwork Orange
5> Close Encounters
6> War of the Worlds
7> Blade Runner
8> Fantastic Planet
9> Destination Moon
10> Fantastic Voyage

This list was written inside 10 minutes, and was not given the comprehensive thought it deserves. so alterations could happen. Books, I'm not as qualified to make a list.

Re: non scientist rate SF films

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Now, ya see, there we go. I just didn't want to be the first to make my own top 10 list.

If I think about it right this second, mine would be:

1. Metropolis
2. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
3. The Lathe of Heaven (Original PBS version w/Bruce Davison)
4. Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan
5. Star Wars
6. Forbidden Planet
7. The Day The Earth Stood Still
8. 2001: A Space Odyssey
9. Time After Time
10. War Games

Subject to change, of course. But Those are all favorites.

Re: non scientist rate SF films

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

So I didn't hallucinate 'The Lathe Of Heaven' (part of the same series that gave us 'Overdrawn at the Memory Bank', magnificently disassembled by the MST3K crew). I haven't seen it since it first aired.

But it doesn't make my own top ten. Man ... coming up with the list is easy, ordering it is hard! I have to go with:

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. Contact
3. The War of the Worlds
4. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
5. Metropolis
6. The Andromeda Strain
7. Forbidden Planet
8. The Day The Earth Stood Still
9. Fahrenheit 451
10. Star Wars

Also subject to change ... it kills me to not be able to include certain other titles, but ten is ten.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

What?! No "Spaceballs"?!

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

May the Schwartz be with you brother....

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

And I see your Schwartz is as big as mine... Now, let's see how well you... HANDLE it!

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE SCHWARTZ!

[/nicholson]

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

Aaaaaal-RIGHT, varmint! You FORCED me to use SCHWARTZ!

[/Yosemite Sam]

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Of course you realize dis means SCHWARTZ.

[/Bugs Bunny]

[(Anonymous)]

"What's the matter, Colonel Sanders? Chicken?"

[(Anonymous)]

"Well, there goes the neighborhood."

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

Feh. 'Contact' didn't make the list? We could eject one of the Terminator movies to make room.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

The reason I posted it in the first place was that I was intrigued. It seemed that the list was based on which SF films were... SF, y'know? Which ones explored the kinds of themes and circumstances of the best SF novels. Which ones influenced other filmmakers. That's what my list is based on, anyway. My list of action SF films would be rather different, as would my list of fantasy films. And I deliberately did not mention politically based SF films, such as Brazil, A Handmaid's Tale, and Dr. Strangelove.

Disagreement

[nezmaster.livejournal.com]

Personally I think it was based on whatever big budget eye candy they could think of. I'm sorry, but most of the films on hte list do not make the cut. The films don't explore real themes, they are effects based. I was discussing this with a friend, and we are trying to pinpoint the time frame in whcih Science Fiction films go from Scoial commentary to eye candy. Star Wars wsa certainly the film that changed it all. But what film before the last really true deep explorative sf film. He went all the way back to planet of hte apes, but I put it up to Silent Running or 2001.

Re: Disagreement

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

Well, not quite -- Day the Earth Stood Still, War of the Worlds and Solyaris made the list, none of which I would call "just" eye candy. The list is a good one ... just one a great one. :)

Re: Disagreement

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Deeply explorative? Don't have to back that far. Even though it had problems, Spielberg's A.I. had gobs to talk about (although there was about a 60/40 chance you'd be talking about the film or the filmmaking).

And if they just wanted to go with eye candy, ID4 would be on that list. :) Fortunately, it's not.

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

But this was scientists making the list, and that's what makes the exclusion of Contact all the more baffling to me--it's one of the purest hard-science SF movies there is. It's not perfect, but essentially, the math adds up and the science has a pretty solid footing. The book is better, of course.

Me, I just make my list based on the ones that trip my trigger, mentally. The only influence that counts is on me. :)

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Hey, I'd happily put Contact in a Top 20. Even a Top 15.