Was Battlefield Earth an actual nomination or a suggestion? I can't back that. Quite possibly the worst movie I ever saw in cinemas. How they messed up with that cast I'll never know.
Was Battlefield Earth an actual nomination or a suggestion? I can't back that. Quite possibly the worst movie I ever saw in cinemas. How they messed up with that cast I'll never know.
Like Counter Culture Shock on Facebook
I also think we should remove Abres Los Ojos since I'd nominated Vanilla Sky already. Not to discredit the movie but how many people have seen it compared to Vanilla Sky? That and I've seen Vanilla Sky about 25 times. I love it.
Like Counter Culture Shock on Facebook
Agreed and put 1984 back on the list.
Agreed about Gravity not being s.f. Space is just the setting for a survival story, no more.
Too bad Space Odyssey 2010 didn't make it. I liked that movie a lot. The first one is a classic, but Kubrick's Commodore 64 self-congratulatory scene that never seems to end feels dated.
Some random thoughts...
Since it helps free up a space, I'll retract Abres Los Ojos. I think it is a better film (slightly) than Vanilla Sky, but it probably won't get any votes. Let someone (Jean?) add one in its place.Originally Posted by Mattrick
I don't agree with voting on a series as a whole. Aliens is a great movie, but Alien 4 (Alien: Resurrection) is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I own the 9-disc box set, which is now actually an 8-disc box set b/c I threw away that disc in disgust at just how horribly awful it is. I didn't want it contaminating the rest of the discs!
As much as I love Jacob's Ladder (it's in my all time top-10 American films), I don't consider it sci-fi. Likewise, superhero movies. No.
I know there is vehement opposition to this opinion, but to me just the fact that there is a time discontinuity or time travel does not automatically make a film a science fiction film. I defy anyone to watch Il Mare or The Lake House, or Ditto and say, "Oh, what a great science fiction film!" These are all romance or romantic dramas, with a time disjunction filling in for the star-crossing of the lovers--no different than Romeo and Juliet. Is Kar Wai Wong's 2046 (sequel to In the Mood for Love) a science fiction film?
Despicable Me? No. Just about any animated film has fantastical elements. Why not The Incredibles, then? Tons of animated films have robots (The Iron Giant?), are all of them automatically sci-fi? I'm not saying animation is an automatic disqualifier (I think Wall-E counts), but there has to be some discernment.
I thought we agreed that we were not going to allow superhero movies? Maybe we can have a separate vote in the future on just those movies. Then we could remove Spiderman, Hellboy, and X-Men: DOFP (although it has more sci-fi elements than most superhero movies) and get a few more nominations from those who didn't get a chance.
FYI, this is coming from someone who really likes superhero movies.
Also, I can't believe there is not a single Star Trek movie although I don't think any were great. It is just too iconic of sci-fi to be completely ignored.
These tournaments are fun and seem to draw a lot of interest. We have done "The Best Director of All Time" tournament, as well as "Best Movie". We just finished "Best Horror" film. There might even be a few other tournaments that I'm missing from past years.
I see no reason why we can't do an Action movie tournament somewhere in the future. That's where superhero movies would best fit.
Also, I'm shocked nobody nominated 2001 a Space Odyssey. I was waiting for somebody to nominate it. This list seems somewhat incomplete without it.
Check out my website: PopCulturedwithMovieMike
Add me on Letterboxd: https://www.letterboxd.com/MovieMike80/
Ha ha. It was the FIRST movie nominated!
"Science fiction film is a film genre that uses science fiction: speculative, fictional science-based depictions of phenomena that are not fully accepted by mainstream science, such as extraterrestrial life forms, alien worlds, extrasensory perception and time travel, along with futuristic elements such as spacecraft, robots, cyborgs, interstellar space travel or other technologies. Science fiction films have often been used to focus on political or social issues, and to explore philosophical issues like the human condition."
"fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component."
"science fiction, abbreviation SF or sci-fi, a form of fiction that deals principally with the impact of actual or imagined science upon society or individuals."
Sources: Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and Encyclopedia Britannica, respectively.
If someone can make a decent argument that the portions that I've bolded do not fall in line with the setting or film, its involvement with science and technology, and how exploring the universe with said technology doesn't have a direct impact on Bullock's character and the film's "explor[ing] philosophical issues like the human condition", then I will happily accept that Gravity be withdrawn.
A NEW GAME BEGINS
No doubt it fits all criteria. I mentioned two books by the same author: Caves of Steel and Foundation. One is a detective story in space (fits all the parts you bolded but it could be happening anywhere, right now, right here included) and the other is science fiction. It also fits everything you bolded but there's a world of difference in intent.
I have to disagree with only having one entry in the franchise. These are all different films. They should all be judged on their own merit. I'm not sure if The Terminator was nominated, but Terminator 2 is a vastly different film, even through it's from the same director.
They won't be able to. The film is unquestionably sci-fi and is recognised as such on IMDB and Wikipedia."Science fiction film is a film genre that uses science fiction: speculative, fictional science-based depictions of phenomena that are not fully accepted by mainstream science, such as extraterrestrial life forms, alien worlds, extrasensory perception and time travel, along with futuristic elements such as spacecraft, robots, cyborgs, interstellar space travel or other technologies. Science fiction films have often been used to focus on political or social issues, and to explore philosophical issues like the human condition."
"fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component."
"science fiction, abbreviation SF or sci-fi, a form of fiction that deals principally with the impact of actual or imagined science upon society or individuals."
Sources: Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and Encyclopedia Britannica, respectively.
If someone can make a decent argument that the portions that I've bolded do not fall in line with the setting or film, its involvement with science and technology, and how exploring the universe with said technology doesn't have a direct impact on Bullock's character and the film's "explor[ing] philosophical issues like the human condition", then I will happily accept that Gravity be withdrawn.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(film)
I officially second Gravity as being a valid entry to this list. It should not be removed.
I agree with Aliens, Judgement Day (Terminator) and Empire Strikes Back.
I DO NOT agree with Back to the Future 2 because it was not nominated. Only part 1 was nominated. The Back to the Future franchise didn't require pruning.
However, The Quatermass Experiment parts 1 & 2 and Mad Max parts 1 & 2 were both nominated and do require pruning, so they should be included in the process of elimination.
I agree with Aliens, Judgement Day (Terminator) and Empire Strikes Back.
I DO NOT agree with Back to the Future 2 because it was not nominated. Only Part 1 was nominated. The Back to the Future franchise didn't require pruning.
However, The Quatermass Experiment parts 1 & 2 and Mad Max parts 1 & 2 were both nominated and do require pruning, so they should be included in the process of elimination.THE NOMANATION'S STAND
QUATERMASS...Three different Directors... THREE DIFFERENT FILMS.
Dear friends,
we used to have a rather complex, but effcient procedure that worked for Best Director, Best Film, Best Character and Best Actor (only talking about the tournaments that took place in Gem Theater). It involves additional work, but is totally worth it.
Namely: we don't only nominate, but also second.
Only films that get seconded (in this case, I would suggest films that get at least two secondings) make it to the final list.
Now since a raw list has been compiled, I suggest our going through it for, say, three days, and see what films are seconded. Thus, we'll see how many slots, if any, will remain, and what is weeded out.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We'll never get a perfect list unfortunately. Everyone has their opinions and favorites. It worked fine for the horror tournament, I don't think there was too much juggling.
The original Star Wars trilogy had three different directors, but I wouldn't classify them as being three totally separate and independent films. They, like The Quatermass Experiment films are part of one continuous franchise.I agree with Aliens, Judgement Day (Terminator) and Empire Strikes Back.
I DO NOT agree with Back to the Future 2 because it was not nominated. Only Part 1 was nominated. The Back to the Future franchise didn't require pruning.
However, The Quatermass Experiment parts 1 & 2 and Mad Max parts 1 & 2 were both nominated and do require pruning, so they should be included in the process of elimination.
QUATERMASS...Three different Directors... THREE DIFFERENT FILMS.
There is absolutely no need to be so aggressive. I am simply proposing that a limit of one nomination per franchise be introduced, so that the very best film from each franchise can be judged on its individual merits without a sense of repetition. It will also free up space for people who have not yet had a chance to nominate a film.
It doesn't matter, anyway. Whatever anybody says, the Best Science Fiction Movie of All Time is still Howard the Duck.
Duh.
LOL!!!!!
You challenged Ricky and I will accept!
But the ISS ISN'T FUTURISTIC, it's present day. It's up there. There are people up there right now. And if you can tell me the political issues of the film it focuses on I'd love to hear. The Russians blew up a spy satellite, about as political as that gets. And as for the human condition, it's a survival story about someone being marooned and isolated, about someone who has no reason to live re-discovering they want to be alive and again, the fact they are in space doesn't it is science fiction as these same themes can easily work in a film like All Is Lost or 127 Hours, which are not science fiction.
What impact? All the impact in the film is in the periphery and is not a focus of the plot and are more asides that are never explored. Now if the movie was about Russia destroying a spy satellite that created a hailstorm of shrapnel that destroyed everything in orbit, satellites and everything and ripped the internet and telecommunications from society and how society breaks down, how perhaps the outcry would instigate World War 3...yet all we get is "half of America just lost their Facebook". They do not: explain the science Ryan knows, what she's working on, why she's working on it, what Explorer's purpose even is etc. That's all irrelevant because it's a movie about surviving in space. There is no talk of how the science these people are ensconsced affects them at all, what affect space travel has on people, spending time in isolation, away form the earth...according to this film it lets you reach Clooney levels of charming."fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component."
I think in order to really tackle this I need to know what the actual/imagined science is impacting society or individuals. Ryan Stone doesn't know enough about space travel to explain anything or to do anything but wing it. Gravity is a film about re-birth in a spiritual sense and it really isn't about much else. This shot encompasses the main theme of the film:"science fiction, abbreviation SF or sci-fi, a form of fiction that deals principally with the impact of actual or imagined science upon society or individuals."
Like Counter Culture Shock on Facebook
Technically, we could expand the nominations to 160 titles. This then would give us in the first round 16 brackets of 10 titles, with the top 6 moving on. Round 2 will have thus 96 titles. So 12 brackets with the top 4 moving on. This gives us 48. To make it more interesting we can have 16 brackets of 3 (single-choice) with the winner moving on. Then we can just have 16 titles in a kind of single-elimination playoff. This would be a lengthier process but should be fairer. And we could compensate just by having three or four polls at a time, instead if two.
The problem is the level of Fandom that exists with science fiction. If we nominated even half of all the films in the following franchises:
The Matrix
Star Wars
Planet of the Apes
Star Trek
Back To The Future
Robocop
Alien
Terminator
It would account for 20-25% of the nominations. It's not that there aren't multiple films in some franchises worthy and for different reasons, it's just a matter of variety. Granted we got a very diverse set of nominations anyways so it's not that big of a deal and kind of a non-issue here. I'm more concerned with say if The Day The Earth Stood Still being nominated for both the original and the remake, that's just superfluous, which is why I asked if we could remove Abres Los Ojos since Vanilla Sky had already been nominated.
Like Counter Culture Shock on Facebook
Well to me the issue is that most sci-fi franchises have crap sequels. The Matrix Revolutions, Terminator 3, X-Men: Last Stand, and so on. So every sequel would not be nominated anyway. But often there will be two or three great films in a franchise. So it should really be on a somewhat objective level. Crappy sequels should not be nominated but great ones should. So we can have Terminator 1 and 2 but not 3.
Why would you need both Terminator 1 & 2? They both follow an identical plot device, the only difference being that part 2 is executed with a greater level of panache and flair.
IMHO it's totally redundant to have both these movies included, just as much as it's superfluous to include all of the other multiple franchise nominations I have already highlighted.
Well for one both T1 and T2 are in IMDB's Top 250.
Agreed!
At least The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) made the list. I'd have added Dune, as well as Logan's Run and Soylent Green. I am sure there are others more deserving than some of the 128!
DT Spoiler - Enter at your own risk!
Spoiler:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
