Best SciFi Movie of 2000s - Nominations

[Formless]

I said it when I nominated it, but its got as much to do with the sheer impact the entire franchise has had on our culture as with being a good movie experience. However, I didn't nominate the rest of the prequels because they were honestly too underwhelming to deserve it (esp. AOTC).

[Vympel]

I find it ironic that someone who was joining in over-the-top complaining about people deciding to merely mention other films in the vote thread flouted the purpose of the apparently sacred vote thread (yes, I'm being sarcastic) in a far more substantial manner. Not you, Gil.

[Formless]

'Twas merely answering a question, but you are correct.

P.S. why hasn't anyone moved the BS yet?

[Vympel]

'Twas merely answering a question, but you are correct.

P.S. why hasn't anyone moved the BS yet?

Just did it.

[Paradoxical]

Man, we can quibble about whether or not Children of Men is science fiction or not, but seriously, do people actually think Revenge of the Sith is a better movie than it or Moon or some of the other candidates up there? It had tons of pew pew for sure, but a "Best Science Fiction Movie of the Decade"?

It's a sure bet that the members here would heavily favor the Star Wars franchise in these types of discussions. Just as I would expect a Pearl Jam forum to be somewhat biased in their opinion of the best grunge bands of the early 90s.

[Vympel]

Personally I don't consider Children of Men science fiction. I can't think of any remotely futuristic / sci-fi/ fantastical / high-tech / etc elements it incorporates apart from the fact its set in the future - not even distant! which is pretty thin, IMO.

As for Revenge of the Sith, its Star Wars, one of the sci-fi greats, and a fitting end to the movie franchise IMO. I haven't seen Moon, so I can't speak for it.

[Bakustra]

Man, we can quibble about whether or not Children of Men is science fiction or not, but seriously, do people actually think Revenge of the Sith is a better movie than it or Moon or some of the other candidates up there? It had tons of pew pew for sure, but a "Best Science Fiction Movie of the Decade"?

What criteria are we using for "Best Science Fiction Movie of the Decade, though? If we are to declare that ROTS is clearly not such, and Children of Men and Moon are the more worthy, then we need some criteria beyond purely subjective likes or dislikes. Of course, I would argue that art is highly, indeed almost totally, subjective, and therefore any attempt to find the "best" science fiction movie of the decade will be inevitably a matter of taste, or a popularity contest if you prefer.

[Anguirus]

I can't think of any remotely futuristic / sci-fi/ fantastical / high-tech / etc elements it incorporates apart from the fact its set in the future - not even distant! which is pretty thin, IMO.

How about self-induced mass infertility? Last I checked that hasn't happened, and probably isn't possible. At no point is a fantastic explanation for the phenomenon seriously advanced; the Human Project thinks they can crack it with science. And then of course all the speculative stuff in the movie is about how people reacted to the affliction.

[adam_grif]

I've said it before, but I can't believe how many people voted for RotS. It was a harmless SciFi movie with some great visuals, but I think it's getting far too much attention just for being Star Wars. Being less crap than TPM and AotC is like being the best at mathematics in a room full of second graders.

[Formless]

But on the other hand, at least cultural impact isn't just a matter of opinion. How many other movies are as memorable or will have the kind of staying power that any of the Star Wars movies have? Not many, and that's why I think it deserves the honor.

[Vympel]

Yeah, when the question is "what movie will you remember most from the 2000s - and not for being really shit" - my answer is RotS. It had its flaws, sure, but its the only movie I'm sure I'll remember.

if it was best scifi movie of the 2010s, I'd say Avatar was a serious contender even at this early stage, since I don't think it legitimately belongs to the 2000s given how late it came.

[Gil Hamilton]

What criteria are we using for "Best Science Fiction Movie of the Decade, though? If we are to declare that ROTS is clearly not such, and Children of Men and Moon are the more worthy, then we need some criteria beyond purely subjective likes or dislikes. Of course, I would argue that art is highly, indeed almost totally, subjective, and therefore any attempt to find the "best" science fiction movie of the decade will be inevitably a matter of taste, or a popularity contest if you prefer.

Let's judge it as a movie. Putting aside the argument of whether or not Children of Men is science fiction (I'm not convinced that it really fits in the subgenre), there are plenty of metrics which we can use to judge whether or not one movie is better than another, by comparing their elements.

For example, which had a more cohesive plot? Which had better dialogue and character interactions? Which movie had better drama and tension? If they both tried to do a sad/scene scene, which which more effective? Et cetera, et cetera.

I would include "Which movie had Michael Caine in it?" but I don't think that counts, even though his character WAS brilliant in Children of Men.

Some of it will come down to which movie appealed to you, but at the same time, I'm not sure how anyone who did a real comparasion of the choices would come to the conclusion that Revenge of the Sith was a better done movie than some of the nominees when you start comparing elements.

[adam_grif]

But on the other hand, at least cultural impact isn't just a matter of opinion. How many other movies are as memorable or will have the kind of staying power that any of the Star Wars movies have? Not many, and that's why I think it deserves the honor.

You and I both know "cultural impact" doesn't equate to "best". It's entirely subjective. And "best" is the topic of the poll, after all.

I shouldn't have expected anything else from "Stardestroyer.net" though. I don't know why I was surprised by this.

[Kingmaker]

What criteria are we using for "Best Science Fiction Movie of the Decade, though?

Whichever gets the most votes. The whole point of asking such a question on such a subjective topic to allow people to apply their own criteria and cast their vote based on what their personal judgement is. Some people will be voting based upon 'most memorable', while others will be attempting to compare the various movies based upon perceived artistic value and so forth.

Some of it will come down to which movie appealed to you, but at the same time, I'm not sure how anyone who did a real comparasion of the choices would come to the conclusion that Revenge of the Sith was a better done movie than some of the nominees when you start comparing elements.

You've got to take into account nostalgia value. (I think, at least) Revenge of the Sith did a better job of conjuring the long departed spirit of Star Wars than the other two prequels, and so people look upon it more favorably than they would otherwise.

[Formless]

Edit: this is directed at adam_grif

Memorable, however, does. That's my other metric for how good a movie is, and frankly, RotS fits it. Even District 9, which I really liked, isn't something I imagine watching a second or third time.

But really, I don't know why you are complaining in the first place. There is no objective standard for "what is the best movie of the decade?" Its a matter of opinion. Why do you think we are voting on it in the first place? Popularity doesn't make something good either, but at least it can tell you what people like. And yeah, I did like RotS that much. So sue me, I'm not out to win points with the poseur crowd who likes to bash the Star Wars prequels because that's a popular nerd pastime; I think it was a really enjoyable and memorable movie, and that is why I voted for it.

[Shroom Man 777]

I've said it before, but I can't believe how many people voted for RotS. It was a harmless SciFi movie with some great visuals, but I think it's getting far too much attention just for being Star Wars. Being less crap than TPM and AotC is like being the best at mathematics in a room full of second graders.

For the first time in one hundred thousand million billion years, we are actually in agreement for once! SQUAWK! SQUAWK!

I mean, man, Revenge of the Sith was pretty cool, but it's not the super hottest shit in the world mangs.

Screw it, I vote for motherfucking Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

[Havok]

But on the other hand, at least cultural impact isn't just a matter of opinion. How many other movies are as memorable or will have the kind of staying power that any of the Star Wars movies have? Not many, and that's why I think it deserves the honor.

You and I both know "cultural impact" doesn't equate to "best". It's entirely subjective. And "best" is the topic of the poll, after all.

Could you refresh my memory? Which are the movies that aren't considered "best" by some metric, that have a "cultural impact"?

[Shroom Man 777]

The Old Trilogy had "cultural impact". But there's nothing that separates The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith from all the other big-budget effects-laden science-fiction smorgasbords of the decade. Big, dumb, and with lots of pew-pew and bling-bling and spaceships. They might as well have been different movies with a bunch of similar names and laser swords tacked together.

[adam_grif]

But on the other hand, at least cultural impact isn't just a matter of opinion. How many other movies are as memorable or will have the kind of staying power that any of the Star Wars movies have? Not many, and that's why I think it deserves the honor.

You and I both know "cultural impact" doesn't equate to "best". It's entirely subjective. And "best" is the topic of the poll, after all.

Could you refresh my memory? Which are the movies that aren't considered "best" by some metric, that have a "cultural impact"?

Batman & Robbin has a league of people who watch it regularly for pure hilarity factor, with or without rifftrax commentary. I am one of them.

Cultural impact? Twilight, but I'm sure some fangirl somewhere thinks it's the greatest movie ever. In fact, I think you could probably find someone in the world who thought nearly any movie was the greatest movie ever. Are you really arguing that "best" has an objective value that we can measure here?

But I shouldn't be surprised at someone with a darth maul avatar defending the prequel trilogy.

Edit: this is directed at adam_grif

Memorable, however, does. That's my other metric for how good a movie is, and frankly, RotS fits it. Even District 9, which I really liked, isn't something I imagine watching a second or third time.

The only times since release I've watched RotS was a rental so I could see it with Rifftrax commentary.

My favorite film, Donnie Darko, is a movie I've only watched like 4 times. I try not to watch my favorites too often, for the same reason I don't listen to my favorite albums too often - I'm afraid I'll get sick of them if I do.

But I can think of a whole lot of memorable films I won't be watching again, and not because I like them.

I understand this is a subjective comparison of course, but I certainly disagree with your criterion here. I'll vote for my films based on how they made me feel, and RotS did not make me feel anything at all. The most character driven moments in the entire prequel trilogy came off as hamfisted and flat. It was 2 movies building up to the end, and Annakin turning to the dark side still felt sudden and jarring.

Effects were great for their time and still hold up well today, but that's not enough to drive the movie. The action scenes were competent, nothing that will go down in history though.

But really, I don't know why you are complaining in the first place. There is no objective standard for "what is the best movie of the decade?" Its a matter of opinion.

Yes, and I'm expressing my shock that so many people can hold such wildly different ones. I'm questioning whether we were even watching the same film. Maybe I never saw RotS, and it was just some cruel prank played on me, and that the real RotS is a modern day masterpiece.

I just don't know.

For the first time in one hundred thousand million billion years, we are actually in agreement for once! SQUAWK! SQUAWK!

I mean, man, Revenge of the Sith was pretty cool, but it's not the super hottest shit in the world mangs.

I dunno if I'd even give it pretty cool. Elements were cool but others were crappy imo.

Tangent:

I recall when they first announced they were naming it "Revenge of the Sith", and I hated the name so much. I thought it sounded so terrible. I'm used to it now though. I thought they'd name it "Return of the Sith" or something to mirror Return of the Jedi".

[Havok]

You and I both know "cultural impact" doesn't equate to "best". It's entirely subjective. And "best" is the topic of the poll, after all.

Could you refresh my memory? Which are the movies that aren't considered "best" by some metric, that have a "cultural impact"?

Batman & Robbin has a league of people who watch it regularly for pure hilarity factor, with or without rifftrax commentary. I am one of them.

Holy shit. Did you just say that Batman & Robin had a cultural impact? I think that pretty much sets up the level of intelligence that is going to be in the rest of your post.*

Cultural impact? Twilight, but I'm sure some fangirl somewhere thinks it's the greatest movie ever. In fact, I think you could probably find someone in the world who thought nearly any movie was the greatest movie ever. Are you really arguing that "best" has an objective value that we can measure here?

Wow, you are a fucking moron. Do you even know what a cultural impact is? Hint, it is not "makes a lot of money". Twilight has had no impact on our culture. At best it is a fad that will end up on a VH1 Remember 2009 show. And before you jump on that, having a memory of something does not equate to 'cultural impact'.

As for what 'best' is in the context of this list? It is what the poster likes the most. The reasons are irrelevant. Clearly that is too far beyond your comprehension to understand.

But I shouldn't be surprised at someone with a darth maul avatar defending the prequel trilogy.

Eat a dick you pretentious fuck. The fact that I think Darth Maul looks cool has nothing to do with anything I am saying in this thread. P.S. It isn't the only AV I use here and none of the others are Star Wars related.

I'll leave the rest of your "I didn't like it so how can people possibly think it is great" moronic ramblings to others.

*Man, I was fucking right.

[Bakustra]

What criteria are we using for "Best Science Fiction Movie of the Decade, though? If we are to declare that ROTS is clearly not such, and Children of Men and Moon are the more worthy, then we need some criteria beyond purely subjective likes or dislikes. Of course, I would argue that art is highly, indeed almost totally, subjective, and therefore any attempt to find the "best" science fiction movie of the decade will be inevitably a matter of taste, or a popularity contest if you prefer.

Let's judge it as a movie. Putting aside the argument of whether or not Children of Men is science fiction (I'm not convinced that it really fits in the subgenre), there are plenty of metrics which we can use to judge whether or not one movie is better than another, by comparing their elements.

For example, which had a more cohesive plot? Which had better dialogue and character interactions? Which movie had better drama and tension? If they both tried to do a sad/scene scene, which which more effective? Et cetera, et cetera.

Okay, but those are still subjective. One person may be tremendously effected by the emotional scenes in a movie,while the other shrugs them off. Should either person's criteria be used? Further, how do we define cohesiveness when it comes to plot, or better drama? I agree that these are useful criteria, but they need some definitions, so that everyone can say, "oh, that plot is a mess" or whatever, and understand the reasoning applied to the film.

I would include "Which movie had Michael Caine in it?" but I don't think that counts, even though his character WAS brilliant in Children of Men.

Some of it will come down to which movie appealed to you, but at the same time, I'm not sure how anyone who did a real comparasion of the choices would come to the conclusion that Revenge of the Sith was a better done movie than some of the nominees when you start comparing elements.

I think that ROTS was worse in some areas than other SF movies I have seen, but that it was better in others. On the other hand, that's just my opinion, and in any case I haven't seen that many. If it came to ranking them by being well-done as a film, I would put forward WALL-E, and if it came to having a message and communicating that message, I would go with District 9. So, if it came to the traditional values of best, I would have to say District 9, but I found ROTS a far more fun movie.

[adam_grif]

Holy shit. Did you just say that Batman & Robin had a cultural impact? I think that pretty much sets up the level of intelligence that is going to be in the rest of your post.*

Not a large one, but in the same way Plan Nine From Outer Space has a cult following because of how terrible it is. Poor example in retrospect, a better one would be Ahnold films, or the recent infatuation with Chuck Norris. Cultural impact, they're icons, most of their stuff is total trash and nobody has any illusions about it.

Wow, you are a fucking moron. Do you even know what a cultural impact is? Hint, it is not "makes a lot of money". Twilight has had no impact on our culture. At best it is a fad that will end up on a VH1 Remember 2009 show. And before you jump on that, having a memory of something does not equate to 'cultural impact'.

What, and Revenge of the Sith has cultural impact? This is a joke right? Star Wars in general maybe, the original trilogy had a cultural impact. But RotS? More than Twilight? RotS is just another in a long line of anticipated big name movies. What is your metric for determining Cultural Impact? Ticket sales? DVD sales? Popular vote? What?

As for what 'best' is in the context of this list? It is what the poster likes the most. The reasons are irrelevant. Clearly that is too far beyond your comprehension to understand.

Yep, I'm just too dumb, even though I already said that it's all subjective. The shocker here is that people can think RotS deserves the top spot.

Eat a dick you pretentious fuck. The fact that I think Darth Maul looks cool has nothing to do with anything I am saying in this thread. P.S. It isn't the only AV I use here and none of the others are Star Wars related.

I'll leave the rest of your "I didn't like it so how can people possibly think it is great" moronic ramblings to others.

*Man, I was fucking right.

Awesome. That makes you the what? 30th person who I've got to hate me here? Maybe you folks can form a club and get me banned by popular vote or something.

[Gil Hamilton]

Okay, but those are still subjective. One person may be tremendously effected by the emotional scenes in a movie,while the other shrugs them off. Should either person's criteria be used? Further, how do we define cohesiveness when it comes to plot, or better drama? I agree that these are useful criteria, but they need some definitions, so that everyone can say, "oh, that plot is a mess" or whatever, and understand the reasoning applied to the film.

I think you can do better than that. You can make a more objective judgment in some of these cases. For example, RotS' big death scene of the end, Padme's where she dies in delivery, ending up having the entire theatre laughing hysterically when I went to see it because of Anakin going "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" and Frankenstein monstering around while the Emperor enjoyed a good cackle.

I somehow doubt that when Michael Caine's character uses the suicide kit on his wife and is then shot to death by the Fishes anyone was so busy laughing that they missed the next few scenes trying to contain themselves.

So which was a better scene, objectively?

[Bakustra]

Okay, but those are still subjective. One person may be tremendously effected by the emotional scenes in a movie,while the other shrugs them off. Should either person's criteria be used? Further, how do we define cohesiveness when it comes to plot, or better drama? I agree that these are useful criteria, but they need some definitions, so that everyone can say, "oh, that plot is a mess" or whatever, and understand the reasoning applied to the film.

I think you can do better than that. You can make a more objective judgment in some of these cases. For example, RotS' big death scene of the end, Padme's where she dies in delivery, ending up having the entire theatre laughing hysterically when I went to see it because of Anakin going "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" and Frankenstein monstering around while the Emperor enjoyed a good cackle.

I somehow doubt that when Michael Caine's character uses the suicide kit on his wife and is then shot to death by the Fishes anyone was so busy laughing that they missed the next few scenes trying to contain themselves.

So which was a better scene, objectively?

Objectively, neither. Most people would agree that Children of Men's scene is better at conveying emotion, but that does not make it any more objective. Literature, and indeed all art, is a primarily subjective experience, as you can see when anybody discusses shakycam and its split between people who like it and people who don't like it. If you disagree, then which is better, shaky cinematography or non-shaky cinematography? Is it better to focus on plot or character in writing? Are comedies or tragedies inherently better (let alone any other genre)?

To forestall any idiots from declaring me a drooling fanboy, I agree that the end of Revenge of the Sith was not particularly emotional, but that is solely in my opinion. I will not pretend that my opinions are somehow objective fact if a number of people agree with me.

[Bakustra]

Ghetto edit: Looking back over my post, there are elements of film and literature that I feel can be considered objective, such as the quality of film-making and sound quality for movies and spelling and grammar for literature, but these are divorced from the emotional impact, which is what we are arguing about here. Disregard the cinematography parts of my post, then.