I know Internet lists and opinions and all that, but I'm sorry but any list that puts 2001 behind Interstellar is one to ignore, at least the rankings.
All good movies on the list, though.
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Science Fiction
13651 readers
9 users here now
Welcome to /c/ScienceFiction
December book club canceled. Short stories instead!
We are a community for discussing all things Science Fiction. We want this to be a place for members to discuss and share everything they love about Science Fiction, whether that be books, movies, TV shows and more. Please feel free to take part and help our community grow.
- Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.
- Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or advocating violence will be removed.
- Spam, self promotion, trolling, and bots are not allowed
- Put (Spoilers) in the title of your post if you anticipate spoilers.
- Please use spoiler tags whenever commenting a spoiler in a non-spoiler thread.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Gravity and Ad Astra don't belong on this list. Also they suck.
That's very subjective. I hate Interstellar because I think it's laughably dumb but many other people have a raging hard-on for that shitty movie. Ad Astra was very weird and very boring, but I liked the interesting visuals.
Hard to define 'hard', a few more I liked: (no ranking)
-
The Time Machine (both the Pal and the Wells films; quite different)
-
Dark City (1998, Pryas)
-
Forbidden Planet (1956, Wilcox)
-
The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951, Wise)
-
Fifth Element (hilarious, Besson, 1997)
-
Alien (Scott, 1979)
-
13th Floor (Rusnak, 1999)
-
Stargate (1994, Emerich)
-
Steamboy (2004, Otomo)
Movies made from famed series I'd REALLY LIKE to see:
-
Ringworld (Niven, a crime noone's DARED to try).
-
Some setting of Riverworld. (Farmer)
-
ANY of Neal Stephenson's SF books, esp. Snow Crash, Cryptonomicon, Diamond Age, Anathem.
(Not even the BBC? I mean, who expected Doctor Who to get THIS far?!)
There's too much kinky sex in Ringworld to be accepted by puritanical audiences.
Ringworld has an adaptation! It's one of the most popular video games.
What? Where? What's it called?
I have no idea what they’re talking about. The only Niven “Known Space” Ringworld games are all DOS based from decades ago.
However, Halo and Outer Wilds have both taken shots at ringworlds, but they are not Known Space universe.
Yeah I was talking about Halo.
I read Ringworld after playing Halo, thinking "haha I'll check out this thing that looks like it influenced this game that I enjoyed" but then it turns out Bungie just lifted a bunch of stuff wholesale.
This is just a SciFi Movie list rather than a hard SciFi one.
I agree that The Martian is hard SciFi tho.
Solid first few, then it went to kid’s films? Really not impressed by the list at all, like the furthest they reached back was Blade Runner and only mentioned it because it’s popular, not because it was a genre defining film.
Blade Runner absolutely brought cyberpunk to the big screen, it was absolutely genre defining for a lot of people. Prior it was just Neuromancer that imagined it.
Plus they had "Metropolis" from 1927, did you read the whole list? Lol
Their list:
15 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
14 Interstellar (2014)
13 Gattaca (1997)
12 Solaris (1972)
11 Ex Machina (2015)
10 Coherence (2013)
9 Sunshine (2007)
8 Primer (2004)
7 Stalker (1979)
6 Gravity (2013)
5 THX 1138 (1971)
4 Ad Astra (2019)
3 Contact (1997)
2 The Martian (2015)
1 Blade Runner (1982)
doesn't contain Arrival (2016) wtf.
Conspicuous in its absence: anything animated, like Ghost in the Shell (1995), which I'd argue is harder than quite a few things on this list.
Great movie, but I'm not sure it's considered "hard SF." There's no real basis to anchor much of the science in it.
I'd say the same thing about "Sunshine" and "Interstellar".
Some movies I might consider including, in no particular order:
- Moon (2009)
- 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984)
- Silent Running (1972)
Both the book and the screenwriting required the invention of a form of alien linguistics which recurs in the plot. The film uses a script designed by the artist Martine Bertrand (wife of the production designer Patrice Vermette), based on scriptwriter Heisserer's original concept. Computer scientists Stephen and Christopher Wolfram analyzed it to provide the basis for Banks's work in the film.[32][33] Their works are summarized in a GitHub repository.[34] Three linguists from McGill University were consulted. The sound files for the alien language were created with consultation from Morgan Sonderegger, a phonetics expert. Lisa Travis was consulted for set design during the construction of the scientist's workplaces. Jessica Coon, a Canada Research Chair in Syntax and Indigenous Languages, was consulted for her linguistics expertise during the review of the script.[35]
If you're trying to say that the fact that they invented a realistic language for the film makes it hard SF, I think that's quite a stretch. What's the basis for
?spoiler
a language changing a human's concept of time and allowing them to remember the future
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, though decades old & sounding like it’s from Star Trek, is the basis, from actual linguists. Highly implausible for humans & long outdated, but as the film’s linguist consultant quips, “for aliens, all bets are off.”
what’s the basis for
fiction
I don't think we're connecting here. Hard science fiction is science fiction with an emphasis on scientific accuracy or plausibility. It's sort of a subgenre, and this list is about movies in that subgenre. It doesn't mean that there aren't great SF movies outside of that subgenre, but this isn't about those.
Although now I have to question the inclusion of Interstellar on this list, because it gets pretty far out there as well, especially at the end.
Gravity is on this list? That movie had the most ridiculous physics.
It's been a long time since I've seen it. I don't remember loving the movie, but I thought it got kudos for getting the physics right. No?
They flew from the Hubble Space Telescope to the ISS using a Manned Maneuvering Unit, nothing about that is "getting the physics right".
The part that had me screaming at the TV was where George clooney's character and Sandra Bullock's character were tethered together. There are attached to the space station via straps. George Clooney releases the clip and immediately goes flying off into space. There's no spinning, nothing at all pulling him away. If he unclipped, he would just hang there.
I'm not trying to be a stickler here, but if you're making a movie about space following the basic details of how things move around in space is kind of important.