# 50 Most 'significant' scifi films



## dwndrgn (Oct 17, 2005)

...according to John Scalzi in his new book The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies

here they are:
_The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension!_
_Akira_
_Alien_
_Aliens_
_Alphaville_
_Back to the Future_
_Blade Runner_
_Brazil_
_Bride of Frankenstein_
_Brother From Another Planet_
_A Clockwork Orange_
_Close Encounters of the Third Kind_
_Contact_
_The Damned_
_Destination Moon_
_The Day The Earth Stood Still_
_Delicatessen_
_Escape From New York_
_ET: The Extraterrestrial_
_Flash Gordon: Space Soldiers (serial)_
_The Fly (1985 version)_
_Forbidden Planet_
_Ghost in the Shell_
_Gojira/Godzilla_
_The Incredibles_
_Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 version)_
_Jurassic Park_
_Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior_
_The Matrix_
_Metropolis_
_On the Beach_
_Planet of the Apes (1968 version)_
_Robocop_
_Sleeper_
_Solaris (1972 version)_
_Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan_
_Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope_
_Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back_
_The Stepford Wives_
_Superman_
_Terminator 2: Judgement Day_
_The Thing From Another World_
_Things to Come_
_Tron_
_12 Monkeys_
_28 Days Later_
_20,000 Leagues Under the Sea_
_2001: A Space Odyssey_
_La Voyage Dans la Lune_
_War of the Worlds (1953 version)_

are there any on this list you feel don't belong?  What significant movie do you think was left out?


----------



## Princess Ivy (Oct 17, 2005)

mad max an dthe incredibles...Back to the future? Conatct? has he seen any of these films? meh


----------



## Princess Ivy (Oct 17, 2005)

and i note, terminator 2, but not terminator?
ah, i get it, a joke, it must be a joke...
*wanders off muttering habloodyhaha*


----------



## stencyl (Oct 17, 2005)

I wonder why just certain versions were picked. I think that the 1982 Thing with Kurt Russell should get a nod as well as the latest version of Solaris....


----------



## Rosemary (Oct 17, 2005)

He's missed out one of my favourites - 'V' with Ms Signoury (?sp) Weaver


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 17, 2005)

Can't list Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back without including Return of the Jedi. 

Also, Star Trek 1 is a very underrated piece of cinema.


----------



## dreamwalker (Oct 18, 2005)

:s


----------



## Paradox 99 (Oct 18, 2005)

Yeah, and where the heck is "This Island Earth"?


----------



## ravenus (Oct 18, 2005)

I mainly raise brows at the inclusion of *Star Wars* in any SF films list - as I see it there's hardly any science, it's just a fairy tale with laser guns.


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 18, 2005)

> Yeah, and where the heck is "This Island Earth"?


 
Check out the price for this movie on DVD. The guy probably hasn't seen it because he can't afford  to buy  it.


----------



## garreth Jacks (Oct 18, 2005)

There are a lot of good films here but I cannot belive that The Matrix is on the list and not Equilibrium  

But the main thing is that this is personal taste and I do not think a lot of people would agree with me but that what makes’s life is interesting.


----------



## Leto (Oct 18, 2005)

And it's Le Voyage dans la Lune. Voyage (journey) is masculine name. 

As such this list don't strike me as one made a real SFF fan, but as one which could be made to have brilliant chat in downtown diner, about movies that you should known even if you haven't seen them. As many above have listed there's a lot of inconsistencies.
Terminator 2 without Terminator 1 is one of the example, no 2001 Space Odyseey mention is another one.

However Star Wars and The Empire Strikes back without Return of the Jedi don't shock me. The third movie is not as innovative in story-telling and directing as the 2 first. It's a good movie, but it relies on the innovations of the 2 before it.


----------



## polymorphikos (Oct 18, 2005)

I think it's reasonable, given he has to fit only fifty in and it's not a 'best-off' list (it seems, although many of the films are very good) so much as an innovation/influence thing. _Mad Max 2_, for example, whilst perhaps not to everyone's tastes, has been the major influence on post-apocalypse films since its release.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Oct 18, 2005)

ravenus: Much though I'd like to be more high-brow I must admit that Star Wars is inevitable in such a list - apart from being hugely popular, it does reflect a significant aspect of the literary genre too, the swashbuckling space opera. 

I'd like to add Rudolph Mate's When World's Collide, a 50's disaster flick which had notably good effects for its time, and set the tone for many more such films to come.


----------



## polymorphikos (Oct 18, 2005)

That film annoys me on numerous levels.

I'd like to add _Videodrome_ on the reality-bender front.


----------



## Paradox 99 (Oct 18, 2005)

Surely "The Time Machine" ought to be in there somewhere too?


----------



## moviefan (Oct 18, 2005)

return of the jedi is a must sci fi


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 18, 2005)

ravenus said:
			
		

> I mainly raise brows at the inclusion of *Star Wars* in any SF films list - as I see it there's hardly any science, it's just a fairy tale with laser guns.



The key to Star Wars was the backdrops - Lucas _*showed*_ us what the future could _look_ like. 

Planets with visible atmospheres and location filming instead of soundstages for external scenes created an unparalleled sense of realism in the viewer.


----------



## dwndrgn (Oct 18, 2005)

polymorphikos said:
			
		

> I think it's reasonable, given he has to fit only fifty in and it's not a 'best-off' list (it seems, although many of the films are very good) so much as an innovation/influence thing. _Mad Max 2_, for example, whilst perhaps not to everyone's tastes, has been the major influence on post-apocalypse films since its release.


His (Scalzi) explanation is very similar, basically, he hasn't placed films on this list as a show of support for fantastic art or wonderful storytelling, his main motivation is their 'significance' in other words, did they mark some change in scifi filmmaking, make an impact on future films, etc.  So yes, Terminator 2 is there because of the special effects of a liquid metal man - something not done on such a scale and with such success before and used as a springboard for new effects in other films.  Matrix, again, the stylistic effects have influenced many other filmmakers since.


----------



## ravenus (Oct 18, 2005)

I'd include Roger Corman's *X: Man with the X-Ray Eyes*, a low-budget but superbly executed sci-fi character piece about a scientist whose invention allows him to see beyond the normal range of human vision but with a frightening price to pay. A beautiful dialog from that film:

Sam: "Only the gods see everything"
James: "My friend, I'm closing in on the gods"

*Starship Troopers* and *Total Recall* may not have been faithful adaptations of their literrary sources but they were damn entertaining entries in the popcorn SF genre, as is the first *Men in Black*. Michael Radford's solid adaptation of Orwell's *Nineteen Eighty Four* also deserves to be given a look.

On a side note, modern day classics like Robert Zemeckis' *Contact* and Steven Soderbergh's *Solaris* in their commercial failure represent the tragic disinterest of audiences in well-made thoughtful (and thought provoking) mainstream science fiction films.


----------



## moviefan (Oct 18, 2005)

I'Brian i wouldent mind if there was a REAL star wars . It would be better then guns


----------



## manuel (Oct 18, 2005)

Barbarella .   Definately Barbarella .


----------



## Shoegaze99 (Oct 18, 2005)

Leto said:
			
		

> no 2001 Space Odyseey mention is another one.


Look again, it's there. As well it should be.

Any list purporting to outline "significant" science fiction films that omitted Kubrick's masterpiece would instantly lose any and all credibility. More than merely a significant genre film, 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most significant works in the cinematic art form, period.


			
				moviefan said:
			
		

> return of the jedi is a must sci fi


Widely consider one of the worst of the series, not particularly innovative or interesting when set next to the two films preceding it, with a hugely unsubtle attempt to draw in the kiddie market … I can’t see how anyone could consider this “must sci fi” (I’m assuming you mean “must see sci fi”). As part of the Star Wars saga it can’t be dropped, to be sure, but it hardly belongs on a list of significant science fiction films.


			
				ravenus said:
			
		

> *Starship Troopers* and *Total Recall* may not have been faithful adaptations of their literrary sources but they were damn entertaining entries in the popcorn SF genre, as is the first *Men in Black*.
> Entertaining? Sure. But significant? I don’t think so. All three features nice special effects for their time, but none are of particular significance for the genre or for film in general.
> 
> I would have liked to see the highly underrated *Gatacca* make the list, as well as the excellent (and clearly science fiction) *Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind*, but then that would involve bumping other films from the list, and most belong there. I think I’d ditch *Robocop* from the list in lieu of either of those, but it’s largely not a terrible list.


----------



## Rosemary (Oct 18, 2005)

polymorphikos said:
			
		

> I think it's reasonable, given he has to fit only fifty in and it's not a 'best-off' list (it seems, although many of the films are very good) so much as an innovation/influence thing. _Mad Max 2_, for example, whilst perhaps not to everyone's tastes, has been the major influence on post-apocalypse films since its release.


I really enjoyed Mad Max 2 which for a Fantasy Fan isn't bad!!  Actually I think I have watched it 6 times now


----------



## Shoegaze99 (Oct 18, 2005)

Too late to edit my previous post. Forgot to close a QUOTE tag. Obviously the bottom portion should look like this:



			
				ravenus said:
			
		

> Starship Troopers and Total Recall may not have been faithful adaptations of their literrary sources but they were damn entertaining entries in the popcorn SF genre, as is the first Men in Black.


Entertaining? Sure. But significant? I don’t think so. All three features nice special effects for their time, but none are of particular significance for the genre or for film in general.

I would have liked to see the highly underrated Gatacca make the list, as well as the excellent (and clearly science fiction) Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, but then that would involve bumping other films from the list, and most belong there. I think I’d ditch Robocop from the list in lieu of either of those, but it’s largely not a terrible list.


----------



## moviefan (Oct 18, 2005)

Shoegaze99 said:
			
		

> Too late to edit my previous post. Forgot to close a QUOTE tag. Obviously the bottom portion should look like this:
> 
> 
> Entertaining? Sure. But significant? I don’t think so. All three features nice special effects for their time, but none are of particular significance for the genre or for film in general.
> ...


 

Taking Return of the jedi out is like taking the story away ? It shows what happens to the empire .


----------



## Shoegaze99 (Oct 18, 2005)

moviefan said:
			
		

> Taking Return of the jedi out is like taking the story away ?


Are you asking a question? If so, you might want to rephrase it; your question is quite unclear.

Thanks in advance for clarifying your question.


> It shows what happens to the empire .


Yeah, but with all due respect … _so what?_ It’s not a particularly good film, and it’s hardly “significant” in the world of cinema. It may be the conclusion of the *Star Wars* saga, but Star Wars is not cinematically significant because it tells an important or innovative story, it’s cinematically significant for a host of other reasons (which have been outlined to such an extent pretty much _everywhere_ I won’t go into them here). The first film was groundbreaking on several levels and serves as a cultural landmark. *Return of the Jedi*? Just more of the same … only not quite as good.

I mean, by your logic, *Alien 3* and *Alien: Resurrection* should make the list, since they tell us what happened to Ripley (not to mention the title creature), capping off the saga. *Jurassic Park: The Lost World* and *Jurassic Park III* tell us what happened after they left the island in the first film. Under your logic, those films should therefore be included on a “significant” list. So, too, does *2010: The Year We Make Contact* clear up issues from the first film; and the follow-ups to *Planet of the Apes* do the same. Are they so significant they should bump other films on this list?

No, end of the Star Wars saga or not, Return of the Jedi does not belong on a list of “significant” science fiction films.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 18, 2005)

Return of the Jedi certainly suffered for the Ewoks - but the fleet battle around the part-constructed Death Star remains one of the best space battles ever put on screen and the stand-off between Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker define the trilogy entire.

2c.


----------



## stencyl (Oct 19, 2005)

ravenus said:
			
		

> On a side note, modern day classics like Robert Zemeckis' *Contact* and Steven Soderbergh's *Solaris* in their commercial failure represent the tragic disinterest of audiences in well-made thoughtful (and thought provoking) mainstream science fiction films.


 
Well put, Ravenus. I agree.



			
				Shoegaze99 said:
			
		

> I would have liked to see the highly underrated Gatacca make the list, as well as the excellent (and clearly science fiction) Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, but then that would involve bumping other films from the list, and most belong there.


 
Don't both these film suffer from similar considerations? Both are smartly written (Kaufman is easily among the best living film writers), but less-than-glitzy style. Eternal Sunshine may have done some neat things with its narrative, but the fragmentation it uses is a bit that is sort of a standard in postmodern film, so I guess it isn't incredibly influential.

All four films deserve nods, though.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Oct 19, 2005)

Gattaca was a good film, as was Contact. I agree with ravenus that Contact and Solaris are significant, if only in showing that really meaty sf-for-the-mind movies seem tragically underappreciated.


----------



## moviefan (Oct 19, 2005)

sorry i was not asking a question all i was saying was taking Retun of the Jedi out is like taking the story away. Also if u did take it out how will luke know what his father looks like ?????????????


----------



## Shoegaze99 (Oct 19, 2005)

stencyl said:
			
		

> Don't both these film suffer from similar considerations? Both are smartly written (Kaufman is easily among the best living film writers), but less-than-glitzy style. Eternal Sunshine may have done some neat things with its narrative, but the fragmentation it uses is a bit that is sort of a standard in postmodern film, so I guess it isn't incredibly influential.


Eternal Sunshine won’t be particularly influential in the world of film, I agree, because the fragmented narrative is something we’ve seen a lot in smaller, buzzworthy films of late (the excellent *21 Grams* being a good non-genre example). What makes it significant – at least for its time, i.e. _now_ – is that it is a good example of science fiction that the general public won’t immediately think of as science fiction. It shows the genre in a light the masses aren’t used to seeing – no explosions, no spaceships, no massive fights, no creatures – just an intelligent look into the human condition by way of speculative science. And make no mistake, though a tale of memory and love and relationships and fate, it’s a tale sparked by theoretical science. I believe such films are important for the genre.

Gatacca is more overtly science fiction, but it also grapples with issues more relevant to society today, as we plunge headlong into tinkering with human genetics. Gatacca does what some of the best science fiction ever written does – it peers into our near future and paints a picture of what our world could look like, serving as a warning of sorts, a caution sign in our road to the future. This, I think, makes it significant. Certainly more significant that most science fiction that came out around the same time.

Though again I’ll note that while both of these films are worthy of consideration, adding them to the list would require bumping something else, and that list is solid enough that not much deserves bumping.


----------



## Shoegaze99 (Oct 19, 2005)

moviefan said:
			
		

> sorry i was not asking a question all i was saying was taking Retun of the Jedi out is like taking the story away. Also if u did take it out how will luke know what his father looks like ?????????????


Your points are well taken, but are in my opinion not relevant to a discussion of "significant" films.


----------



## moviefan (Oct 19, 2005)

ohh ok put fans like the films .


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 19, 2005)

I suppose this whole debate hinges on the original author's interpretation of significant. For me, one significant omission is the much overlooked Charly. Significant, that is, in the sense that it was one of those movies that showed how close to home Science Fiction could actually come....and not only that, was a beautiful and poignant movie no matter what pigeonhole it was put into.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 20, 2005)

Charly? That wouldn't happen to be an adaption of "Flowers for Algernon" by any chance?


----------



## The Master™ (Oct 20, 2005)

Nice to see so much discussion (and a little negativity) about this list... Maybe the Chronicles site should have it's own TOP 50 Sci-Fi movies...  How about it, Brian???

We could all put in our TOP 50 (or so) and sort out the most rated... But who to send it to??? I don't mind... 

Bet we could put a better one together than that putz!!! Brother from another planet??? SHEESH!!!

Hardly significant!!! What about Scanners??? Village of the Damned??? The Incredible Shrinking Man??? Attack of the 50 foot Woman???


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 21, 2005)

> Charly? That wouldn't happen to be an adaption of "Flowers for Algernon" by any chance?


 
Yes. A Fine film, and a very fine book.



> Hardly significant!!! What about Scanners??? Village of the Damned??? The Incredible Shrinking Man??? Attack of the 50 foot Woman???


 
I've just finished reading Matheson's novel 'The Shrinking Man'. I thought the film was good but the book's even better.  

A Chronicles Top 50 Sci-Fi films (could even do it for Fantasy & Horror) wouldn't be a bad idea,  but compiling it could be one heck of an undertaking


----------



## Princess Ivy (Oct 25, 2005)

i'll add to the list, but not compile. whew! what a job!


----------



## kyektulu (Oct 25, 2005)

*I like highlander that is still as good today as ever.

 Would that be classed as sci fi or fantasy?*


----------



## The Master™ (Oct 25, 2005)

First film was fantasy... Second one was Sci-Fi... The rest, I would say were fantasy...


----------



## dwndrgn (Oct 25, 2005)

Foxbat said:
			
		

> I suppose this whole debate hinges on the original author's interpretation of significant. For me, one significant omission is the much overlooked Charly. Significant, that is, in the sense that it was one of those movies that showed how close to home Science Fiction could actually come....and not only that, was a beautiful and poignant movie no matter what pigeonhole it was put into.


I remember this story but not how it would be classified as scifi.  Maybe I've just shut it out or something?


----------



## wolfgirl (Oct 27, 2005)

"Escape from New York"?? HELLO?? Is he kidding? And he left out "Enemy Mine". Also, "Impostor"; very good, creepy ending.


----------

