the best Sci-Fi?

[zenith]

What made Blade Runner the "best sci-fi" movie as voted by certain persons? more importantly, what makes the perfect sci-fi? <br /><br />is it not merely creating the illusion of impossibilities to become very-easy-abilities? such as having light sabres and travelling at Warp Speed?<br /><br />also, what do people enjoy most about certain sci-fis over others?

 

[little_star]

I personally like sci fi that is well written, not formulaic, has good story lines, makes you think, and has some amount of scientific possibility. It doesn't have to be accurate science, but it must make me think that what they talk about is possible.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Blade Runner took a classic suspense story and set it in an entirely believable Sci-Fi background. It was "Casablanca" in the future. If you remember, very little was done which emphasized the sci-fi environment over the storyline. The cinematography was outstanding and the work that made the backgrounds, models and effects flow together was the best that had ever been done.<br /><br />It was rare that a Sci-Fi movie was produced that made the "science fiction" portion feel real. Blade Runner was gritty "high" science fiction with very little marketing of special effects. The world was laid out before the audience's eyes in such a way as to make the unbelievable, transparent. Nothing "science fictionish" detracted from your focus on the story.<br /><br />A definite "Top Ten" of all time Sci-Fi movie.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">..what do people enjoy most about certain sci-fis over others? </font><br /><br />What I said above. If the fantastic elements of sci-fi detract from the story or distract the audience needlessly, then it lessens the quality of the film. Too much is energy is focused on having characters "interact with" the science fiction elements and not enough is done to have the characters "act within" the science fiction elements. Very different. I want a good story, not a spectacular light show. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Gattacca was another great example and one of my all time favourite movies (any genre)<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[summoner]

I think that's what made the first Star Wars movie so great. Yes, it had the bells and whistles , but the story itself was what drove the movie. The rest was just icing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[tom_hobbes]

Where Dick was interested specifically by those qualities which make us human, (in this book as in many others) the film concentrated on the one aspect of slavery which lurked as a sub-thematic thread in <i>Do androids Dream-</i>, but was hardly central.<br /><br />I would say that Dick is comparable to Shakespeare in one respect, the universality of his gaze. He took in everything around him, and even though he wrote to nail down a very specific idea or philosophical notion, he innevitably reflected so many other themes and ideas almost incidentally. What is more astonishing is that he did all this with a pared down prose, an absolute minimum of <i>style</i> which spoke eloquently nevertheless. His fictions will resound for a long time to come.<br /><br />I can't help but marvel how easily we now inhabit Dick's nightmares in our real lives. Fred Pohl and C.M. Kornbluth had the late 20th century nailed down perfectly in their <i>Space Merchants</i>, (first published in 1952 in Galaxy magazine as <i>Gravy Planet</i>, and published as a novel in 1953.)<br /><br />But from now on it seems, the future belongs to Philip K Dick. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#339966"> I wish I could remember<br /> But my selective memory<br /> Won't let me</font><font size="2" color="#99cc00"> </font><font size="3" color="#339966"><font size="2">- </font></font><font size="1" color="#339966">Mark Oliver Everett</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[tom_hobbes]

I think Dick profoundly understood the banality of evil.<br /><br />He also understood that ultimately, technology will never set us free. Or at the very least, that it would never be <i>used</i> to set us free. Sure it can give us the illusion that we spend our time more profitably these days. But he understood that it always ends up being utilised by the most highly motivated among us. To sell us ideas, products, diversions.<br /><br />He gave his machines silly names, deliberately so. Dick couldn't care less how they worked, he kept technological exposition to a minimum. He knew that if these things could be done at all, then this is what we would do with them.<br /><br />Buy it. Be happy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#339966"> I wish I could remember<br /> But my selective memory<br /> Won't let me</font><font size="2" color="#99cc00"> </font><font size="3" color="#339966"><font size="2">- </font></font><font size="1" color="#339966">Mark Oliver Everett</font></p><p> </p> </div>