I guess next Yahoo will go to the MTV music awards and come back with some poll that lists Hanna Montana and 50 Cents over Elvis, the Beatles, and Hank Williams.

 

The arrogance of some of the statements in this thread is disgusting. The only thing that makes some of these movies better than new movies is NOSTALGIA. I'm sorry, but as much as I LOVED TFTM 1986, it's a garbage movie. The first 20 minutes are brillant, and then it's utter drivel. And I still love it for nostalgia sake, but better than 2007? Can't see it. Merely based on the CGI alone, it's better than the 86 movie.

As for old movies like the Day the Earth Stood Still, I understand that they are great because of the acheivement they accomplished in that era, but honestly, it's just an average movie. A good movie is whatever the masses choose. Some of you guys are confusing "cult classic" with "great movie". For example, TFTM 86 was a box office flop, but a cult classic that sci fi geeks and cartoon buffs love. TF2007 was a great movie, that did excellent at the box office, but hasn't reached cult classic status (yet). Star Wars, however, is both.

Personally, I believe that sometimes peoples nostalgia keeps them from enjoying things, because they fear change. For example, Revenege of the Sith is knocked quite a bit, but to me, was a pretty great movie. Better than any of the original trilogy? Hell no, but the fight scenes and action DESTROY any sequence from the original 3, save the fight between Vader and Luke. The fight between Anakin and Obi Wan is friggin EPIC. Seeing why Anakin became Vader? Great.

Face it people, the masses have picked what they enjoy, box office tickets and the insignificant online lists prove it. And people aren't idiots or unknowledgable, because some of the precious "classics" are on there. Stop acting like just because you don't agree, people are stupid. Who the hell are you to decide for people what's good and what's not?

And for the record I'll give my top 10 since I'm ranting  

1. The Dark Knight- Story telling, action, relatable, and the best villian in a movie since damn near forever?
2. Empire Strikes Back - nuff said
3. The Matrix - A genre changing romp.
4. Terminator - One of the first modern kick ass robot movies
5. Jurassic Park - Scared the piss out of me as a kid, average story, CGI and anamatronics (spelling?) were off the chain.
6. Back to the Future - MFin Marty McFly.
7. Aliens - Another scare the piss outta you movie, but a good story to boot.
8. Transformers - Average story, but action sequences and the SCALE of CGI are among the best ever.
9. Star Wars - The Grand daddy of em all still holds up pretty well damn near 30 years later.
10. T2 - Liquid metal Terminator?! Oh hell yes.
10. Superman - First GREAT Superhero movie, though it hasn't aged well, but the acting it top notch.

 

THIS. And I'll repeat it every page if I have to until people here get it pounded into their heads.

 

EDIT there mucccch better.

 

I can't believe for a second that Dark Knight didn't come out as #1.
Forgetting the morbid obsession with Heath Ledger's death, the movie was heads and tails above Iron Man (which I loved, too). Iron Man had one thing going for it: Robert Downey Jr. He MADE that movie. If they stuck Charlie Sheen in the suit, the movie would have done worse than Super Mario Movie. Iron Monger was lame, Rhodes wasn't to character, and wasting a fortune on a suit to blow up some Al Quida wannabes was overthetop, but Downey was just awesome.

Dark Knight hit everything out of the ballpark. Joker was disturbingly BRILLIANT. The id/ego battle of Batman was compelling, and Harvey Dent's crusade was beautifully crafted. Throw in a few action scenes, some batgadgets, and you got a hell of a perfect movie. Everything felt right. It's easily the best movie made in decades (finest crafted since Silence of the Lambs).

Transformers had two great sequences and that was it: Highway fight with Prime/Bonecrusher, and the first 1/2 of the Prime/Megs fight. The rest of the movie was way too timid. The humor was either forced, or inappropriate. The acting was atrocious. And the storyline was so bad, even some of the G1 plots were superior.

 

<deleted>

 

It says in the original post they include superhero films. The ONLY way ghostbusters could be considered Sci-Fi is the proton packs, but that's really just elements of sci-fi in a comedy movie.

Just like one wouldn't call Spider-Man a romance film, even tho everything Spidey does in the film is to be with MJ, and the "upside down kiss", etc.

genres are so blurred these days, if it has a robot, a toaster, or a microwave some where in one of the shots, it can be considered sci-fi.

 

Ghostbusters is a lot closer to sci-fi than Dark Knight.

 

Oh, and one other thing....

Where the heck is SPACE BALLS on the list?????

This is an abortion of justice.

 

about the same, honestly. Batman has the Batmobile, echo-radar system, fancy stealth suit, utility belt, batpod, batcave, etc.

Ghostbusters have the Echo-1 car, proton packs, containment system.

Batman is a superhero adventure/crime drama with sci-fi elements; Ghostbusters is a supernatural comedy with sci-fi elements.

Both excellent movies, but opposite sides of the entertainment spectrum.

 

No RoboCop??? Wow.

 

The 'fiction' part is generally a given. It's the 'science' part where things throw too wide a net across the movies out there.

I mean, would you count something like K-PAX as a sci-fi movie?

 

WALL-E, baby... WALL-E


That movie was great. best family friendly sci-fi film ever. Has a simple, cute character for the kids, romance for the missus, and explosions and robots for the grown-up geek.

Pixar can do no wrong.

 

I suppose that supports my assumption that as long as there's any form of explanation with science, it's considered a science-fiction movie. Due to the lack of any better example I can think of right now, something like Naruto wouldn't be science-fiction because there's absolutely zero explanation as to how the characters perform such feats, so it is 100% suspension of belief as they are explicitly shown as normal humans pulling god-like abilities out of nothing.

 

Initially, I was of the same opinion as anyone else till I read your statement. Its not as if on that of Top Music we would list Beethoven or a song from another country. Of if you were to get a list of the greatest books of all time, this generation is more likely to list Harry Potter than the original Hobbit. Each generation lists what they know in their time and place. Its unfair to expect people to list older movies or movies from other countries in their list because they probably have not seen those movies. Times change and the public's views will change along with the times.

Most people on here did not say that the 86 movie was better than the 97 movie.

I think its a better judge of a film's success to see how they did with what they were given rather than just see what the masses pick. I think that speaks to a movie's true success. For instance, Star Wars technology is nothing today compared to the CGI and what not that is out there. However, Star Wars did more with what they were given than a lot of big budget movies now. Also, if you DO look at "what the masses chose", TF is not even in the Top 50 in terms of tickets sold - and thats given that there are now more people in the US as compared to before and that movie theatres are much more ubiquitous and common than previously.

Again, you are comparing the technology of the past with the technology of the present. How is that fair? It would be like saying that the latest Nintendo game has much better graphics than Super Mario for the NES. Well, of course! But even then, think of how a game like Excite Bike was SOOO well loved even for being such a simple game.

Um, this entire thread is dedicated to a list thats stating what is good and what is bad. Thats the entire point of this thread! For everyone to JUDGE what they think is good and bad.

I sometimes wonder if Hasbro actually does have people to post positive views and defend the decisions on here.

EDIT: I just found this website:

http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/alltime.mv?adjusted+ByAG+All+SciF

It has TF listed as #19 on a list of the top grossing movies categorized by genre and adjusted for inflation.

 

I've wondered about that everytime I see people dancing in the halls about the 4,978th time Hasbro re-issued a seeker repaint, or the 5 millionth time the original Optimus Prime toy was reissued to promote something.

When it happens, some people here act like God Almighty has returned, but it's just the same damn toy yet again. Don't get me wrong, I love my Gen 1 Prime (still have my original I got when I was 6), but I don't need 5 million of them, with different colors, pack-ins, pepsi trailers, etc. It's almost a Pet Rock syndrome.

Ah well, at least I can credit Hasbro with recycling. LOL

 

Well, I can understand how they could get excited over a repaint. For some people - its their thing, their addiciton, their love. And there is nothing wrong in that. When you like something to the point where you cross a certain boundary, you are going to become biased. Its hard to like something a LOT and not be biased towards it. But I can't fault them for that - just like I can't fault anyone else for liking anyhing else either.

The thing I realized tho is that people ARE biased when they become obsessed.

 

Seriously, chill. People are entitled to their opinions on this board, even if they don't match yours.

That Yahoo list sucks. I have a Yahoo account and was never saw anything about this poll, so no, this poll doesn't really represent anything.

 

Well thats cool. I think its number one though.

 

You should see the Discovery (I believe?) channels "Batman Tech" special. They show that basically everything in there is just an exaggeration of technology already existing or in the development stages, and that given how rich Bruce Wayne (and Wayne Tech) is supposed to be, it's actually mostly plausible. Though they didn't cover using the network of cell phones like he did (I won't give any more details for fear of spoilers), but that one makes me skeptical.

The Incredibles, while awesome, had no explanation through science of their powers. No origin stories at all. The only science-ish explanation is how their individual costumes are made for their powers. (Well, I guess it does explain that Frozone makes ice by pulling moisture from the air, but that's as close as it gets).

So not even all the movies on the list fit THAT definition of Sci-Fi to me :S

Yes, I know they also included Super Hero movies, but they shouldn't call it a Sci-Fi list if they are adding movies from that might not fit in via any rules :S

This would be more helpful if you defined what "it" is.