Greatest sci fi of the decade??

[Philosopher B.]

Serenity had it all. Action, humor, characters you cared about when they died unexpectedly, and a last battle that had me convinced every single character was going to go up in smoke. The last 45 minutes were some intense shit. Its biggest flaws, to me, came from the fact that there was too much of the characters' stories left over from the show still to tell; despite that, however, I think it did a damn fine job.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

The Iron Giant was 1999.

Whoops, was it? I thought it squeaked by into 2000. Maybe I'm thinking of the video release (when I saw it for the first time).

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

I had to look up the year for Dark City.

 

[Troll]

I think some people's definition of "sci fi" is a wee bit strict.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I think some people's definition of "sci fi" is a wee bit strict.

Go on.

 

[Hailey Knight]

I think some people's definition of "sci fi" is a wee bit strict.

And some are too broad. A couple of those are such a stretch that going by the list's logic, you could call The Simpsons Movie sci-fi because it was all about that big dome. And it has that one scientist character!

 

[Andromache]

my list does not differentiate between live action, animated or anime, as they are different mediums to me, not genre

Frequency
Titan A.E.
Artificial Intelligence: AI
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Minority Report
Animatrix
Paycheck
Innocence: Ghost in the Shell
Serenity
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
War of The Worlds (starring Dakota Fanning and some dude)
A Scanner Darkly
The Children of Men
I am Legend
Iron Man
Star Trek
District 9
Moon

 

[Null]

I'd be tempted to make the case for X-Men and X-2, but though it's based off scientific ideas - genetic mutation, evolution to the superhuman - it's a superhero movie, not science fiction. Why? Because it's not about the nature of human evolution, it's about people with superpowers kicking the asses of bad people who also have superheroes.

 

[ElJuski]

Once again, what makes something technically science-fiction is that the universe has a logical, technical base. Just because it has "science" or "technology" or takes place in the future doesn't make it science-fiction. In science-fiction, the universe can be logically explained. In fantasy, it doesn't matter. Therefore, most super-heroes are fantasy, and not science fiction.

 

[Null]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at. Spaceships don't make it science fiction, as Star Wars amply proves.

 

[ElJuski]

Word

 

[Null]

I don't think I've seen too many real Science Fiction movies this decade, honestly.

Frequency was really good, I'd forgotten about that one. I didn't like AI or Animatrix. I consider Iron Man to be more of a superhero movie but it was enjoyable. Most of the others that have been mentioned so far, I just haven't seen.

 

[Calleja]

Watch "Moon". Seriously. Science Fiction AND a great effin' flick.

 

[Null]

Yeah, I'd like to see Moon, Children of Men, and Serenity.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Yeah, I'd like to see Moon, Children of Men, and Serenity.

Look, I'll stop after this, but I am all boggling so hard and nerd-raging seeing Serenity constantly mentioned among Moon and CoM. AUGH.

 

[Calleja]

Serenity is vastly superior to Children of Men in every single way. There is absolutely nothing, nada, about Children of Men that is even one iota better than anything in Serenity. Not a thing, not acting, not music, not photography, nothing whatsoever. Children of Men is the most overrated movie since Babel. It's not even original, it feels like a watered down "artsy" copy of Y: The Last Man, but in a not awesome way... with the cinematographic feeling of "Y Tu Mamá También" but in an apocalyptic setting.

And I'm a big supporter of Alfonso Cuarón... but.. no. Just no. It's a pretty forgettable movie.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Serenity is vastly superior to Children of Men in every single way. There is absolutely nothing, nada, about Children of Men that is even one iota better than anything in Serenity. Not a thing, not acting, not music, not photography, nothing whatsoever. Children of Men is the most overrated movie since Babel. It's not even original, it feels like a watered down "artsy" copy of Y: The Last Man, but in a not awesome way.

And I'm a big supporter of Alfonso Cuarón... but.. no. Just no. It's a pretty forgettable movie.

Are you trolling me

 

[Calleja]

I'm being a bit hyperbolic, maybe, but also sincere. I think Children of Men is extremely overrated. It's the type of movie I usually love, from a writer/director I really feel like supporting cause he's giving Mexicans a good name in Hollywood.... but CoM was.. I'm not gonna say crap, because it wasn't, but I would never see it again.

 

[Chad Sexington]

I just watched Primer because it was mentioned in that list, and I have a soft-spot for small-budget cult films. Fuck that movie is a trip. I recommend it just to be confused. It's really good.

 

[Andromache]

Once again, what makes something technically science-fiction is that the universe has a logical, technical base. Just because it has "science" or "technology" or takes place in the future doesn't make it science-fiction. In science-fiction, the universe can be logically explained. In fantasy, it doesn't matter. Therefore, most super-heroes are fantasy, and not science fiction.

i lol'd

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I would rather go on and on about the merits of Children of Men than trash Serenity again, but really. Originality? There has never been a group of ragtag crew members on the run from an evil space empire before. Not ever. And the same writer didn't make Aliens Ressurrection either, which I hear is really similar to Firefly/Serenity. Nope.

 

[Calleja]

Watch Y Tu Mamá También, which is were Cuarón made the Children of Men style first. Where it was still original and not since copied by a trillion different indie films. The same far shots with every dialog, the same camera movements. He recycled his own work. And then took the script idea from any number of apocalyptic movies with a Y: The Last Man essence that feels dirty... unclean... stale.

Nevermind the completely predictable script, that I can even forgive if the ride is worth it. But it's not. It's stale and boring is what it is.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I don't think a directorial style being used by the same director or a hundred other movies does anything to take away from the look of a given movie. And... uh, he can't rip himself off? Kubrick wasn't stealing his own work, nor Scorsese or any other number of famous directors that use the same style. It's just them doing what they do.

 

[Null]

I don't give a shit what you assholes think about the movies, I just want to fucking see them. I liked Firefly, I just haven't gotten around to seeing Serenity. I like Sam Rockwell, and I liked Solaris, and looks sort of what the trailer for Moon looked like. I think the idea behind Children of Men is interesting, so I'd like to see it at some point, too. What I want to see has nothing to do with your opinions or hype.

 

[figmentPez]

Once again, what makes something technically science-fiction is that the universe has a logical, technical base. Just because it has "science" or "technology" or takes place in the future doesn't make it science-fiction. In science-fiction, the universe can be logically explained. In fantasy, it doesn't matter. Therefore, most super-heroes are fantasy, and not science fiction.

I say we should forget drawing a line between the two. The Discworld novels didn't cease to be fantasy because there has been more and more of a logical, technical base to the story elements. (Most notably the "clacks" system of telegraph towers). Nor do science fiction tales like David Brin's "Kiln People" or Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey" cease to be science fiction near the end of the story when they start touching on metaphysical questions that get away from the technical base of the story, and in many ways defy logical explanation.

 

[Andromache]

Bit off topic, but it relates to Chuck's statement: whedon's A.R. script wasn't used as he liked, or as he meant it to, so it's a bit of a stretch to say that this was the same guy who made AR. He didn't have any executive control over AR director/producer use of his script.

---------- Post added at 02:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:40 PM ----------

I don't give a shit what you assholes think .

Then how can you expect anyone cares about what you think, hmm? It's pretty goofy to expect credibility for your POV if you lend none for others

 

[Calleja]

I've had some great recommendations from the forum and value the opinion of several posters. Except Charlie's. He hates Serenity.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I also think that he said somewhere that he re-did/repurposed a lot of the stuff in AR for Firefly/Serenity.

---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

I've had some great recommendations from the forum and value the opinion of several posters. Except Charlie's. He hates Serenity.

I actually don't hate Serenity, I just think it's a really average movie.

 

[Andromache]

i couldn't hold any of whedon's works up as technically awesome, but I'm a sucker for dialogue that makes me giggle, in this case. In my list above, I tried to choose true stand out films that added something to the genre, without being restricted to classically sci fi, though quite a few fantasy/horror films were ditched.

I'm actually not very happy with Sta Trek's inclusion, with the above in mind, except that as a remake goes, it actually felt more fresh than stale.

But I'll leave ElJubray's neat little box definition alone, because although I dont believe in Santa Claus, no reason someone else can't.

 

[Calleja]

Whatever, you suck and I hope you are stranded in a desert island with nothing but a copy of children of men so you finally get how boring that movie is.

This was for charlie.

 

[Andromache]

Whatever, you suck and I hope you are stranded in a desert island with nothing but a copy of children of men so you finally get how boring that movie is.

This was for charlie.

Don't hate me Frosty, I liked CoM and Serenity, just for different reasons. It's like being bisexual, you know? Surely you understand that (ignore that last bit if you arent bi, I can't remember who is anymore)

 

[Calleja]

That comment was directed at Lovely Boner, you posted seconds before me and I was too lazy to edit the quote in.

And I've said I WISH I were bi... but I'm not. :/

 

[fade]

Serenity was okay. It was nice in that Whedon and Co. did a good job making the universe feel established and real, but I also got the recycled feel from it. I don't draw too many connections to AR, though. That's a stretch. I've said it before: I don't like Whedon's fakely peppy dialogue (and no, that doesn't mean I don't understand how real conversation works or that it's meant to be fiction, or whatever take-what-I-said-to-the-extreme argument someone made last time I said that). "I'm a mass murdering hitman--let's talk about my feelings." I don't feel anything for River's character--I just don't care. But all in all, I wouldn't call it a top 20. The show was far superior. Serenity felt like a hobbled Firefly.

 

[ElJuski]

Haha, the pissy pants got kicked into high gear in here, huh.

As for the distinctions: I'm talking from a writer's /aesthetic perspective. From a technical point, there is a distinction. But really, in the end, who fucking cares what bargain bin you find it in? Genres melt, mold, molt, conform, combine, and inspire. Such is art.

Also, oh my god Children of Men is a beautifully shot, masterfully acted and well-written. SO much better than Serenity.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Haha, the pissy pants got kicked into high gear in here, huh.

So, how's Charlie's cock taste this time of year?

[/Chazzing]