Pajiba

How about we make a list of good Science Fiction films, in the entire history of film?

I suspect it will be a very short one.

That list being labeled as science fiction just makes me want to lie down on the floor and just give up and die.
But these are the dumbfucks who purposely changed their name from 'SciFi' to 'SyFy,' so there is no surprise.
Just a smothering sense of listlessness overcomi...........................................................

Is Zowie Bowie not sci-fi-ing it up in 2011? I thought he'd be Moon-ing us again or summat.

Well, it's a stretch for Thor but they at least approach the idea in the trailer.

"...but you call it science. I come from a land where they are one and the same."

I shall once again accept OldSchool60's (non-)challenge!

Metropolis
Forbidden Planet
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The Man Who Fell to Earth
Planet of the Apes
2001: A Space Odyssey
Solaris
The Empire Strikes Back
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
A Boy and His Dog
Blade Runner
Alien/Aliens
Terminator/T2
Akira
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Brazil
The Abyss
Twelve Monkeys
Ghost in the Shell
The Matrix
Serenity
Children of Men
Moon
District 9
Inception

Most of those are off the top of my head, and mostly just American offerings. I left out some things like Starship Troopers and Jurassic Park, which are arguably sci-fi but kind of beside the point.

As for next year's movies... Thor, if they do the Kirby Aliens version, could be science fiction. And I can see how the X-Men fit that vein; Bryan Singer definitely made the first two feel more sci-fi than super hero, but I agree it's not what people think about when they consider the genre. Most comic book stories, or super hero stories, really are just science fiction in tights. But, of course, the modern-day settings and the costumes tend to overshadow the sci-fi aspects.

The future does look fairly bleak... Would we count Source Code as science fiction? It seems like it ought to be, from the trailers. And isn't District 9 supposed to have a sequel? At least those two directors offer a glimmer of hope.

Hope that will surely be crushed by the monolithic Avatar series. Look at that list, Mr. Cameron! You used to make good sci-fi. You still can, I'm sure of it. Just... put that rib back in and stop doing yoga.

I blame Star Wars for the whole mess.

Posted by: (Not So) Blonde Savant at December 30, 2010 10:22 AM

Which is precisely why I only listed Empire above. Stupid George Lucas.

I'm holding a dimly lit torch for Iron Sky and Cowboys and Aliens.
You kind of get the feeling that if a movie doesn't blatanly mention or can’t be linked to sex, alcohol or money then eyes swivel into the back of heads, mouths fall open and it is labelled sci-fi.

What is so un sci fi about green lantern?

Green Lantern seems sci fi to me. The ring and lantern are pieces of technology from one of the first sentient races in our corner of the universe.

RobP: Great list but I'd add the following:

Sunshine - solid movie with a wonky ending
Contact
Dark City

Hollywood is so screwed up and as a consumer I take some responsibility for it. I remember as a kid taking the bus downtown to the Omni mall in Miami and watching the movie “C.H.O.M.P.S.” about twenty times.

Star Wars isn't Sci-Fi or Fantasy as much as it's a Western. I like to think of sci-fi as a thematic description rather than settings, props or characters. If the only purpose of the scientific/futuristic/dystopian elements is to serve as a frame to hang an old story on, then the sci-fi aspect is secondary to whatever else it is. There is an old Sean Connery vehicle, "Outland" about a sheriff on a mining colony dealing with corruption and graft. It's a clear lift from about a dozen Westerns, down to the soundtrack and weapons. (shotguns used in the station to prevent breaching the hull). It's a good movie, but it's not sci-fi. There's no point in it being set in the future, other than being cool.
In contrast the Terminator movies are rooted in the whole "What do we do when computers decide we suck" question. The Robocop movies are concerned with "What makes us human" in addition to the dehumanizing effects of large corporations. Both of these are soft, vastly entertaining movies but the scientific aspect is important to the overall plot.
By this rather non-rigorous method 9 of these at least nominally make the sci-fi cut. I'm being reallly generous with Captain America, because I'm assuming the super-soldier serum to be more than a McGuffin.

Holy crap, mrcreosote just read my mind! And beat me to the punch, to boot. ;)

Wait, where's that Nazis on the moon thingy? Iron Sky! Yeah, that's it!! That's the one I'm waiting for!

Oh, wait, Peanut is waiting for that one, too.

What about this? http://www.thetunnelmovie.net/About.php

Yes, I gave them some of my ill-gotten gains.....

Twig, its probably not for everyone but story is superb, the characters are all memorable, and if youre a fan of the game it brings together many aspects of that storyline quite nicely too. And it looks beautiful. Different strokes and all that, i guess

I would argue that it's a continuum between fantasy and science fiction. Star Wars is defintely not "hard" science fiction, in the way that Ben Bova and Greg Bear are hard science fiction writers; it's also not other end of the spectrum fantasy, like Harry Potter, where no explanation is given or needed for the otherworldly setting. To be more clear: in SW there is an element of fantasy in the Force...but they don't write off hyperdrives and blasters as magic. In Harry Potter, everything is magic. Stop asking. And yes, Star Wars is a Western, but if you described it that way to someone who'd never seen it, presuming they got past the odd title for a Western, they'd probably come back and say "yeah...that had the basic thematic elements of a Western...but they were flying spaceships and shooting lasers, dude." SPACE Western. Sci-Fi Western. It doesn't make sense to say Western without that qualifier. And you can't divorce thematic elements entirely from the setting. That would fuck up ALL the pigeonholing. Kind of like calling Inception a heist movie (for it's thematic elements) would do disservice to the soft science they've developed in the script to elevate a simple heist movie to something far more engaging. Am I making any sense?

Green Lantern rips off one of the first and most famous Sci Fi series of all time (The Lensmen). It's pretty clearly science fiction.

[Sighs]
Betrayed by my own link...
I meant this one.

...and I meant interstellar space travel.

Steven, I love you, but Star Wars is not science fiction. As for Sherlock Holmes, are they pretending that it is steampunk and therefore science fiction? It's a reach but I could ride that logic train...no wait, I can't.

It seems that anything that is alt/geek/nerd-gasm inducing is being labeled as science fiction. [sigh]

That being said, I am PSYCHED for "Cowboys and Aliens".

Captain America is science fiction. I mean, he received his powers through a super soldier serum, created by WWII scientists. Yes? Yes.

Ian, There is a grey area here. Space Western is actually a better description than Sci-Fi. It's also friendlier-you know there are robots and Wookies, but the implications of that are pretty negligible. (I've always been bothered that the Jedis have absolutely no problem with the slavery and torture of sentient droids-how is that not a crime? If we're going to feel sorry for little Ani because he's not free, what about C3PO and R2?) This is all accepted because the scientific aspects are just like those boxed halloween costumes from the 70s. Just a plastic smock and mask slapped on archetypical characters. There's a reason Chewie doesn't get a medal-no one cares about sidekicks.

Three-Nineteen

Army of Darkness has zombies, demons, evil twins the Necronomicon and cueses yet it's not a horror movie. The elements should serve the story, right? Hell Star Wars is set in the distant past-if anything it's speculative history.

I'm pretty sure smarter people than me have made these arguments better, but the basic premise is apparently anything that you'd get beaten up for liking in high school is now Sci-Fi.

Silent Running,
On the Beach,
Soylent Green,
1984, depending on what qualifies.
I'll claim Sleeper and Barbarella, count as science fiction, and are awesome.

As the hollywood hacocracy (Government, economy or culture dominated by hacks, hackishness and hackery. It is too a real thing. Look it up.) does not get at all the point is not 'splody robot boobs, laser zinging space operas or under-clad rainbow-hued alien wenches falling for the homo-sap hero of chisled jaw & bumbling earnestness. ("Switch me to manual you under-evolved ape-boy!")

The point, and I do have one, is seeing here and now by picking a distant vantage point. "Science" as story-Velcro for hooking sensory manipulation on a screen does not "science fiction" make.

Bah.

Science Fantasy!

If you have to actively look for a reason to exclude some of these films from the science-fiction category, then you probably shouldn't bother. Yes, Star Wars has some mystical elements; but it's still obviously science fiction. Laser-swords, blasters, space travel, robots, FUCKING CYBERNETIC BODY PARTS! It's sci-fi. And so is Terminator. And so is Alien. And so is any fictional movie with some kind of focus on science. Even made up, bullshit fictional science that doesn't and can't exist.

Now, I'll agree that the best science fiction are those stories that explore the way science effects our lives. District 9 as a recent example; it doesn't just introduce aliens, bizarre technology and impossibly amazing scenarios -- it takes the time to do so within the context of the characters. It explores the way these events have unfolded not only within the lives of the individuals, but also within society in general. The Alien and Terminator movies do the same thing. Dark City, Blade Runner, The Matrix, The Invastion of the Body Snatchers all did the same thing. They don't just show how the fictional science has effected one or two characters (like in the movie Moon), they show how it effects society in general. It asks the question "What if?"

Furthermore, science fiction doesn't have to be exclusively science fiction to remain locked in that category. As it has been pointed out already, Jedis are very much like wizards (performing impossible feats with nothing more than the power of their will). Alien and Pitch Black have a TON of horror elements. Avatar is very much a movie whose themes celebrate nature over science. But none of these movies are excluded from being categorized as sci-fi just because they have elements of other genres. You wouldn't say that "Little Fockers" is a drama just because there are serious scenes (you probably shouldn't call it a comedy though either -- BOOM). You wouldn't label "The Godfather" as a romantic comedy even though a huge part of that story is a long, beautiful romance. The movie Timer (with my beautiful, dead Anya) is still Sci-fi even though the whole movie is basically a romantic comedy. As luck would have it, we are able to objectively categorize a movie in diverse ways despite Blockbuster's propensity to file them under one section or another.

There's no rule that states that a film that contains an archetypal Western plot cannot also be a science fiction film. Science Fiction developed so late in the game that it's hard to watch or read anything with the "Science Fiction" label and not see structural elements that came from something older. You look at Green Lantern or Captain America and you can see Greek heroes that were given powers and responsibilities by the gods. You read Jules Verne and you can sense echoes of older exploration stories. Science Fiction is simply any story that relies on the idea of advances in technology or other phenomena that can be explained by science, such as the existence of offworld life forms. True, there are a lot of books and films that rely more heavily on sci-fi elements than others, but they're still old enough at their roots to be read in other ways: Blade Runner isn't a story about flying cars and androids, its' a parable about recognizing one's humanity. District 9 wasn't about aliens, it was about the effects of apartheid on the oppressed and the oppressive. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a spiritually introverted movie to the point where it's awash with technological innovation and you barely notice it, but it wouldn't exist without HAL. And yes, Star Wars is a Western, but there's no way that it would be Star Wars without hyperdrive or droids or lightsabers or the death star. And really, it's not so much a Western as it is an Arthurian saga. But again, no blaster rifles, no Star Wars. In that respect, I can see a lot more of the films on this list as Science Fiction. Comic book movies that have to do with space travel or genetic mutation or a medicine to create a superhuman? Check. A kids movie about alien abductions? Check. Tintin? Have you read the comics? A lot of them have to do with scientific advancements, especially space travel and medical advancements that, at the time Hergé was writing, were definitely in the area of Science Fiction. And I'd say that Sucker Punch counts, based on the sheer amount of robot I saw in the trailer.

Ok so that got more long-winded than I hoped, but then again, I did write a short paper once about how Singing in the Rain could be read as Science Fiction. So I'm a bit more loose on the definition.

What about porn remakes of sci-fi movies? They should count because nothing makes space travel better than full penetration.

And if you're dismissing Star Wars because there's no technobabble, you forgot about midichlorians, the babbliest technobabble of all time. Lucas tries to use science (biology is science, remember) to explain how the Jedi have their "magic" powers. Since it's in Episode I, I will forgive you if you've blocked it out - I certainly have tried.

I didn't forget about midichlorians, they just prove how little actual science is in the story. It is technobabble of the highest order, because they don't tie to or influence anything else. I just want more science in my fiction, as well as less fiction in the science.

*choking noises*

This bickering is pointless. Lord Vader will provide us with the location of the Rebel fortress by the time this station is operational. We will then crush the Rebellion with one swift stroke!

Darth Vader existed just fine for 20 years without midichlorians, Pookie. He isn't predicated on midichlorians, rather, he predicated them. A more logical* statement would be, without Darth Vader there would be no midichlorians. So, again: stupid George Lucas.

I absolutely see the merits to Star Wars being considered sci-fi, to me it just feels more like The Once and Future King or The Faerie Queene or any number of Greek myths than it does science fiction. It may have the trappings of technology, but it's not about the technology. Lightsabers are pretty damn important, sure, but they have more in common with Excalibur or Harry's wand than they do phasers or Doctor Who's sonic screwdriver.

I mean, I still counted Empire in my list, I just think it's the only one of the six that really counts. But the arguments for are valid, especially Paul D's.

* Huzzah for the Logic course I took in college!

And that he was wearing bathroom slippers at the time, no less.;)

I liked you earlier when you were Not As Great As You Think You Are Moff Jar Jar.

Late-to-the-game-props for the original radio broadcast of "War of the Worlds."

I get the impression that the article's using "Sci-Fi" when they mean "speculative fiction." Sci-Fi is often (bizarrely) used as shorthand for speculative fiction. Don't ask me why, I think it's ridiculous to, but people are stupid. From that point of view, then most of the films could indeed be considered Sci-Fi - if you're making Sci-Fi short for SpeCulatIve FIction. Which is stupid, but it at least makes a crazy sort of sense.

Regarding the Star Wars argument: Star Wars is Science Fiction. Star Wars is also fantasy. Ergo, Star Wars is Science Fiction Fantasy. Now what's so hard about that? It's like arguing whether Alien is science fiction or horror: it's Science Fiction Horror.

Did you forget Apollo 18 and Oren Peli's Area 51?

Science fiction doesn't necessarily mean just aliens, robots, lasers or space battles. It is what it's become about since the 60s-70s, but it's not just that. Technically speaking, anything having to do with the realms of the scientifically-plausible, but presently-impossible fits into science fiction. The Time Traveler's Wife is science-fiction.

Someone seems to have forgotten "2001: A Space Odyssey". In remembering the old "Herge's Adventures of Tintin", there were times when Tintin was involved with some seriously messed up inventions of Professor Cuthbert Calculus. There was the sound-cannon, and a two-arc series "Destination Moon" and "Explorers on the Moon". And what about "raijajah juice", which as a plant alkaloid rendered its victim insane until their brain rotted. That was pretty freaky! I could see Tin tin getting involved with other quirky scientific entanglements. Science fiction need not necessarily be that far out. Think of "M-m-m-max Head-d-d-d-roo-room" (20 minutes into the future)

Techno-mages? Nice. Clarke said it best: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. That's a very speculative fiction-y question right there. What do you do when you encounter a technology so advanced it looks like magic?

Also, I forgot Dune the miniseries in the list. Not the movie. God (Emperor) no, not the movie. The miniseries was the tits (in the European version and director's cut DVD, anyway.)

Also, not the second miniseries which although also high-rated was full of 'splody robot boobs & crappy CGI. The dipshit producers & idiot sci-fi, er syfy channel decided that the story needed more empty spectacle. Now, I'm all for lingering pans over Damiela Amavia in various outfits and Susan Sarandon was delightfully batshit chewing the scenery. BUT they left out three story threads leaving the whole thing empty and WTF.

Muad'Dib / Roy Batty '12
Let's try some real ubermensch for a change.

Sorry to take so long to get back to this.
Thank you 'RobP' for a great list of Science Fiction films.

I know this debate could go on forever [that's why it's so much fun to start], but I prefer to think of good SF along fairly narrow lines. I found some good definitions here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction

For example:
Theodore Sturgeon. 1952. "[A] good science-fiction story is a story about human beings, with a human problem, and a human solution, that would not have happened at all without its science content."

or...

Isaac Asimov. 1975. "Science fiction can be defined as that branch of literature which deals with the reaction of human beings to changes in science and technology."

I love SF eye candy as much as the next person, but just hoping for some quality story telling mixed in with the shiny exploding things.

Source Code is very much sci-fi, and very high on my list of most anticipated films of 2011.

Also, I don't mind fantasy being lumped in with sci-fi. It's the same basic appeal and story stylings, only with less science and more magic and shit. But I can't even comprehend how something like Sherlock Holmes or Green Hornet get called sci-fi.

@Uda: Funny, I've been reminded of the Steve Gutenberg episode of Party Down, where Roman is so adamant about the superiority of "hard sci-fi". Then the Gute sets him straight.

Actually, pretty much any talk about the themes, styles, and appeal of science fiction always makes me think of Roman, now. Like the episode where he's forced to serve his ex-writing partner and his novelist hero, and ends up inadvertently helping them with a breakthrough for their adaptation.

It may not be sci-fi, but Party Down nails the subject matter for folks like us.

Yoga has been an important part of my life for quite some time now, for me the best part of picking up Yoga has been all the weight I have lost when I combine this with excercise and nutrition. Haven't looked back once since I started.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (It’s a bloody simple litmus test. Are there wizards? Then it’s not fricking science fiction)
Oh! I know this one! It's a rom-com!

I have to echo what several others have said: Green Lantern IS science fiction.

It may be a comic book, but the Silver Age Green Lantern is a superb echo of E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman series in so many ways.

Lensman (and therefore Green Lantern) is Science Fiction.

I guess I'm going to be the only one who throws in Back to the Future. Yes, it's funny. Yes it is SciFi.