Best SciFi Movie of 2000s - Nominations

[Luzifer's right hand]

I nominate "The Fountain".

[Havok]

Deja Vu is my nomination. Though really the time travel in it makes no sense.

Gah! That movie was going great right up until the last 15-20 minutes or so, then it got all 'Hollywood'.
Also, I don't know how in one sentence you can nominate a movie and in the next sentence say that what made it a sci-fi movie, makes no sense.

Hollywood in what sense? The Hero died at the end. That seemed pretty Unhollywood to me.

Guess we watched a different movie, as Doug 'rides of into the sunset' so to speak, with Clair after stopping all the bad guys, and foiling the evil plot.

[Darth Hoth]

If no one has nominated it so far, put me up for The Chronicles of Riddick. I probably prefer RotS personally, if I have to choose, but it definitely deserves to be on the list.

[Crazedwraith]

Guess we watched a different movie, as Doug 'rides of into the sunset' so to speak, with Clair after stopping all the bad guys, and foiling the evil plot.

Yeah but its not the same Doug is it? Its an alternate Timeline Doug. Its less 'rides off to the sunset' than 'is hitched to a crazy lady who claims to know him'

How would you have ended it?

[Balrog]

And just to let people know, nominations will arbitrarily end next Friday. Why? Because it's arbitrary but really it's so we can eventually get this finished.
Current List of Nominees
Children of Men
Moon
District 9
Wall-E
Iron Man
Revenge of the Sith
Sunshine
Serenity
Avatar
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Watchmen
Donnie Darko
Titan A.E.
Equilibrium*
Star Trek*
Minority Report*
The Dark Knight
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
V for Vendetta*
I, Robot*
Cypher*
Deja Vu*
The Fountain*
The Chronicles of Riddick*

*Not Seconded

[Knobbyboy88]

Can we second more than one flick?

[Havok]

Guess we watched a different movie, as Doug 'rides of into the sunset' so to speak, with Clair after stopping all the bad guys, and foiling the evil plot.

Yeah but its not the same Doug is it? Its an alternate Timeline Doug. Its less 'rides off to the sunset' than 'is hitched to a crazy lady who claims to know him'

How would you have ended it?

I wouldn't have. Not story wise. It would have been an endless time loop.

[Manus Celer Dei]

How the hell is V for Vendetta a sci-fi film? The most sci-fi-esque part of the comic - the supercomputer in control of everything - isn't even in the film.

[Batman]

How is Watchmen? TDK and Iron Man at least have the excuse of not having people with superpowers.

[Jim Raynor]

V for Vendetta is scifi, it just relatively subtle about it. IIRC, they said that V had enhanced strength because of the experiments that he was subjected to.

How is Watchmen? TDK and Iron Man at least have the excuse of not having people with superpowers.

Ignoring the wire-fu of the other characters (which was just martial arts wank and not meant to be actual powers), Dr. Manhattan's powers in that movie were handwaved as the result of a "scientific" accident. It's scifi. Science fiction is just fantasy that labels things as tech, mutations, etc instead of outright calling it magic.

[Batman]

Jay's, Barry's and Wally's powers were ALSO the result of 'scientific accidents'. Clark, J'onn and the rest of their ilk don't get their powers from outright magic, but because they happen to be aliens with special powers that are nevertheless SOMEHOW supposed to be scientific. Lantern rings (other than Alan's) are allegedly incredibly advanced TOOLS as opposed to magical artifacts. All of that lands in 'Fantasy' here regardless.
I wonder why that may be.

[Jim Raynor]

Jay's, Barry's and Wally's powers were ALSO the result of 'scientific accidents'. Clark, J'onn and the rest of their ilk don't get their powers from outright magic, but because they happen to be aliens with special powers that are nevertheless SOMEHOW supposed to be scientific. Lantern rings (other than Alan's) are allegedly incredibly advanced TOOLS as opposed to magical artifacts. All of that lands in 'Fantasy' here regardless.
I wonder why that may be.

I consider them scifi too (blatantly soft scifi, but still scifi). Comic book superheroes being shunted off into the "Fantasy" forum here doesn't prove them to be "fantasy" and not "scifi." From what I've gathered that decision was made to keep the wankers of unquantifiable/inconsistent superpowered characters out of scifi versus debates (someone correct me if I'm wrong). In fact many people on this board have spoken against the pretentiousness of some narrow scifi definitions (i.e. scifi must be socially relevant, Star Wars is "science fantasy" and not scifi). And previous posts in this very thread have already treated Watchmen as scifi.

[RedImperator]

How the hell is V for Vendetta a sci-fi film? The most sci-fi-esque part of the comic - the supercomputer in control of everything - isn't even in the film.

How is it not? It's set in the near future and it explores dystopian themes. If alternate history is categorized as sci-fi, why wouldn't this be?

This is why, incidentally, the SFWA doesn't have separate awards for comics, sci-fi, and fantasy: it short-circuits arguments like this.

[Gil Hamilton]

How is it not? It's set in the near future and it explores dystopian themes. If alternate history is categorized as sci-fi, why wouldn't this be?

This is why, incidentally, the SFWA doesn't have separate awards for comics, sci-fi, and fantasy: it short-circuits arguments like this.

I can't imagine how V for Vendetta, the movie, would be. I wouldn't consider "1984" or "Fahrenheit 451" science fiction even though both were (at the time it was written) set in the future and exploring dystopian themes. even though the latter was written by Ray Bradbury. As was pointed out, the only science fiction element in the story, Fate, was removed from the movie. It is dystopian fiction, but I wouldn't call it science fiction. There are certainly dystopian fiction out there that is science fiction (classic example: "Brave New World"), but not all dystopian fiction is science fiction. I've heard the term "Social Science Fiction", which might cover it, but I'm not sure I buy the phrase as a genre. It almost seems like you are casting your net in an unnecessarily broad fashion to avoid argument.

Why are we categorizing alternate history as science fiction? I would think that Alt-History is its own genre distinct from science fiction.

[Gil Hamilton]

GHETTO EDIT: In hindsight, Fahrenheit 451 is a bad example, if only for the robot dog and the home theatre system supplanting books IS science fiction-y with respect to the time Bradbury was writing.

[Lord Relvenous]

I nominate "The Fountain".

Seriously? That movie was a pile of bull shit.

[Shroom Man 777]

Jay's, Barry's and Wally's powers were ALSO the result of 'scientific accidents'. Clark, J'onn and the rest of their ilk don't get their powers from outright magic, but because they happen to be aliens with special powers that are nevertheless SOMEHOW supposed to be scientific. Lantern rings (other than Alan's) are allegedly incredibly advanced TOOLS as opposed to magical artifacts. All of that lands in 'Fantasy' here regardless.
I wonder why that may be.

Luke's, Anakin's and Obi Wan's powers were not even the result of 'scientific accidents', but were also the result of 'scientific midichlorians'. Maul, Yoda, Greedo and the rest of their ilk don't get their powers from outright magic, but because they happen to be aliens with special powers that are nevertheless SOMEHOW supposed to be scientific 'midichlorian'y. Death Stars (other than the Hutts' ) are allegedly incredibly advanced WEAPONS as opposed to magical artifacts. All of that lands in 'Science Fiction' here regardless. I don't wonder why that may be.

[Luzifer's right hand]

I nominate "The Fountain".

Seriously? That movie was a pile of bull shit.

I personally think it's an awesome movie and have watched it three times so far.
I even got the soundtrack.
The only SF movie in the 2000s I enjoyed nearly as much is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

[RedImperator]

How is it not? It's set in the near future and it explores dystopian themes. If alternate history is categorized as sci-fi, why wouldn't this be?

This is why, incidentally, the SFWA doesn't have separate awards for comics, sci-fi, and fantasy: it short-circuits arguments like this.

I can't imagine how V for Vendetta, the movie, would be. I wouldn't consider "1984" or "Fahrenheit 451" science fiction even though both were (at the time it was written) set in the future and exploring dystopian themes. even though the latter was written by Ray Bradbury. As was pointed out, the only science fiction element in the story, Fate, was removed from the movie. It is dystopian fiction, but I wouldn't call it science fiction. There are certainly dystopian fiction out there that is science fiction (classic example: "Brave New World"), but not all dystopian fiction is science fiction. I've heard the term "Social Science Fiction", which might cover it, but I'm not sure I buy the phrase as a genre. It almost seems like you are casting your net in an unnecessarily broad fashion to avoid argument.

Why are we categorizing alternate history as science fiction? I would think that Alt-History is its own genre distinct from science fiction.

Why wouldn't social science fiction be a genre (or subgenre, more properly)? If babyshit soft "Roman Empire....IN SPAAAACE!" space opera with no actual science in it gets categorized as science fiction, then why shouldn't works which explore possible future or alternate psychology, economics, linguistics, anthropology, political science, etc. be counted?

Under that definition, then, it's easy to see why alternate history falls into sci-fi's catchment. History isn't exactly a science, but (when properly practiced) it uses scientific methodology to test hypotheses about the real world. A genre which explores what happens if you change history--that creates fictional history--would fall into sci-fi. At any rate, the publishing industry and the actual authors (represented by the SFWA) still see alternate history as a SF subgenre, even alternate history with no overt SF elements.

And I gotta say, even if you don't agree with any of the above, I don't understand how you wouldn't categorize 1984 as science fiction, unless you think two-way television and novel-writing machines existed in 1948. The Party's physical infrastructure of oppression isn't possible with technology that existed in Orwell's day.

[Gil Hamilton]

Why wouldn't social science fiction be a genre (or subgenre, more properly)? If babyshit soft "Roman Empire....IN SPAAAACE!" space opera with no actual science in it gets categorized as science fiction, then why shouldn't works which explore possible future or alternate psychology, economics, linguistics, anthropology, political science, etc. be counted?

Under that definition, then, it's easy to see why alternate history falls into sci-fi's catchment. History isn't exactly a science, but (when properly practiced) it uses scientific methodology to test hypotheses about the real world. A genre which explores what happens if you change history--that creates fictional history--would fall into sci-fi. At any rate, the publishing industry and the actual authors (represented by the SFWA) still see alternate history as a SF subgenre, even alternate history with no overt SF elements.

And I gotta say, even if you don't agree with any of the above, I don't understand how you wouldn't categorize 1984 as science fiction, unless you think two-way television and novel-writing machines existed in 1948. The Party's physical infrastructure of oppression isn't possible with technology that existed in Orwell's day.

Because if you accept those, could classify just about anything as science fiction, as long as it is in anyway speculative. By your notion, Gulliver's Travels is science fiction because speculated whole societies based on the silly behavior of European royals. Such a defintion where the exploration of any subject is science fiction is overbroad. I'm not sure I want to live in a world where Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" is science fiction, even though it speculates on economics.

Besides, with "1984", you could make the argument that the Party's physical structure of oppression isn't possible with the technology that permits two-way television* and writing machines, except by writer fiat. It's still a pretty grey area at best to call it science fiction. I greatly enjoyed "Children of Men" too and would say it was my favorite movie of the 2000s, but I wouldn't really call it science fiction either (in that case, there was NOTHING that appeared in the movie that couldn't be achieved today with modern technology, and I include that funny videogame system the one guy had and the automatic turret on the Humvee).

*(actually, two-way television wasn't a particularly far-fetched idea in the 1948, since they had the technology to that up already. After all, at the time, ALL television was live television, since making a movie reel to record television wouldn't be effective and video tape wasn't invented yet. Two-way television consists of two live television crews operating in tandem. What makes 1984 does is make it remotely efficient. I suppose that is speculative there, but I'm still not convinced that it makes "1984" science fiction)

[Drooling Iguana]

Jay's, Barry's and Wally's powers were ALSO the result of 'scientific accidents'. Clark, J'onn and the rest of their ilk don't get their powers from outright magic, but because they happen to be aliens with special powers that are nevertheless SOMEHOW supposed to be scientific. Lantern rings (other than Alan's) are allegedly incredibly advanced TOOLS as opposed to magical artifacts. All of that lands in 'Fantasy' here regardless.
I wonder why that may be.

Jay, Barry and Wally live in a world in which the Greek gods are real and people like Zatanna and John Constantine exist. Therefore, their comics are considered fantasy.

However, movies based on these characters tend to isolate them from the universe that their comicbook counterparts inhabit, and can therefore be considered science fiction if the characters themselves don't exhibit any outright fantastical elements.

[Rye]

Because if you accept those, could classify just about anything as science fiction, as long as it is in anyway speculative. By your notion, Gulliver's Travels is science fiction because speculated whole societies based on the silly behavior of European royals. Such a defintion where the exploration of any subject is science fiction is overbroad. I'm not sure I want to live in a world where Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" is science fiction, even though it speculates on economics.

Gulliver's Travels, from what I remember, was more fantasy-style than science fiction. Atlas Shrugged is sci-fi, by the way; it has a bunch of speculative inventions and special materials that are the catalyst for the actual story.

Besides, with "1984", you could make the argument that the Party's physical structure of oppression isn't possible with the technology that permits two-way television* and writing machines, except by writer fiat. It's still a pretty grey area at best to call it science fiction. I greatly enjoyed "Children of Men" too and would say it was my favorite movie of the 2000s, but I wouldn't really call it science fiction either (in that case, there was NOTHING that appeared in the movie that couldn't be achieved today with modern technology, and I include that funny videogame system the one guy had and the automatic turret on the Humvee).

*(actually, two-way television wasn't a particularly far-fetched idea in the 1948, since they had the technology to that up already. After all, at the time, ALL television was live television, since making a movie reel to record television wouldn't be effective and video tape wasn't invented yet. Two-way television consists of two live television crews operating in tandem. What makes 1984 does is make it remotely efficient. I suppose that is speculative there, but I'm still not convinced that it makes "1984" science fiction)

What's your definition of science fiction, then? I'm pretty sure it's not the normal one.

Jay, Barry and Wally live in a world in which the Greek gods are real and people like Zatanna and John Constantine exist. Therefore, their comics are considered fantasy.

I don't see why they're being treated as wholly discrete genres in comics, at this point there's enormous amounts of pastiche in comics anyway, and aside from things that specifically stake their claim to one's genre limits, they'll be a mixture. I mean, The Avengers have The Hulk (sci fi) and Thor (fantasy) creatures side by side, fighting the Shi'ar (sci-fi), Baron Mordo (fantasy) and whatever else.

[RedImperator]

Why wouldn't social science fiction be a genre (or subgenre, more properly)? If babyshit soft "Roman Empire....IN SPAAAACE!" space opera with no actual science in it gets categorized as science fiction, then why shouldn't works which explore possible future or alternate psychology, economics, linguistics, anthropology, political science, etc. be counted?

Under that definition, then, it's easy to see why alternate history falls into sci-fi's catchment. History isn't exactly a science, but (when properly practiced) it uses scientific methodology to test hypotheses about the real world. A genre which explores what happens if you change history--that creates fictional history--would fall into sci-fi. At any rate, the publishing industry and the actual authors (represented by the SFWA) still see alternate history as a SF subgenre, even alternate history with no overt SF elements.

And I gotta say, even if you don't agree with any of the above, I don't understand how you wouldn't categorize 1984 as science fiction, unless you think two-way television and novel-writing machines existed in 1948. The Party's physical infrastructure of oppression isn't possible with technology that existed in Orwell's day.

Because if you accept those, could classify just about anything as science fiction, as long as it is in anyway speculative. By your notion, Gulliver's Travels is science fiction because speculated whole societies based on the silly behavior of European royals. Such a defintion where the exploration of any subject is science fiction is overbroad. I'm not sure I want to live in a world where Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" is science fiction, even though it speculates on economics.

So wait a minute here. Space opera like the early Honor Harrington novels, which does little more than glue zap guns onto Horatio Hornblower, counts as science fiction because it has sci-fi window dressing, but stories which actually speculate about what the world would look like if history, anthropology, economics or whatever were altered aren't because they don't? Since when is window dressing a good marker of what is and isn't a genre, rather than fundamentals like basic themes?

Besides, with "1984", you could make the argument that the Party's physical structure of oppression isn't possible with the technology that permits two-way television* and writing machines, except by writer fiat. It's still a pretty grey area at best to call it science fiction.

If we're going to start excluding works from sci-fi because of "setting only works by writer fiat", then that's going to be a very long list.

I greatly enjoyed "Children of Men" too and would say it was my favorite movie of the 2000s, but I wouldn't really call it science fiction either (in that case, there was NOTHING that appeared in the movie that couldn't be achieved today with modern technology, and I include that funny videogame system the one guy had and the automatic turret on the Humvee).

And the mysterious infertility plague was...what? Are you now limiting the definition to "must have future technology"?

Look, in a way, I agree with you. Sci-fi simultaneously too broad and too narrow a term. If I had my way, sci-fi, fantasy, alternate history, and all the other loose genres and subgenres which ask the same question--"What would happen if the rules were different?"--would get lumped under "speculative fiction", and then we could have a merry old time inventing subgenres to categorize everything. But this thread is trying to put together a list of the best sci-fi films of the decade. I think the rule in a situation like this ought to be, if the majority of filmgoers would classify the movie as sci-fi, then that's good enough.

[Hawkwings]

I'll second Minority Report.

[Gil Hamilton]

Gulliver's Travels, from what I remember, was more fantasy-style than science fiction. Atlas Shrugged is sci-fi, by the way; it has a bunch of speculative inventions and special materials that are the catalyst for the actual story.

Those were just props in the story, to convince the main characters that movers and shakers of the world were disappearing. They could have easily have been called "Creative Idea A", "Creative Idea B", et cetera, all crushed by collectivism and society that hates ambitions people. The story wasn't about them. Besides, one of them was an alloy of steel that was really good, if I remember right. As far as I know, metallurgy and inorganic chemistry aren't science fiction.

I would agree that Gulliver's Travels isn't science fiction, but in the broad and vague definiton that Red is throwing out, it meets the definition of it, because explores the existance of whole societies based on the court of King George, aside from having people that were inhumanely tiny and enormous respectively.

What's your definition of science fiction, then? I'm pretty sure it's not the normal one.

Honestly, I'm having trouble coming up with a systematic definition in the same way no one has ever made a systematic definition of pornography. However, the answer is not to say that everything counts to avoid debate about what counts.

So wait a minute here. Space opera like the early Honor Harrington novels, which does little more than glue zap guns onto Horatio Hornblower, counts as science fiction because it has sci-fi window dressing, but stories which actually speculate about what the world would look like if history, anthropology, economics or whatever were altered aren't because they don't? Since when is window dressing a good marker of what is and isn't a genre, rather than fundamentals like basic themes?

I could call the others their own branch of fiction. Tell me, let's say someone wrote a story about what would the 60s and 70s be like if the Japanese fighter ace Sakai had shot down the plane carrying Lyndon Johnson on it rather than the plane next to it during WW2 (which could have happened). It's still has the same technology, same setting, et cetera, but now with different politics. You are defining that as science fiction, even though there are no science fiction elements in the story, the only difference at the start is Lyndon Johnson dies in the Pacific. How is that science fiction at all? If you define science fiction as any thing speculative, then you've made it vague to the point of uselessness as a genre.

And the mysterious infertility plague was...what? Are you now limiting the definition to "must have future technology"?

I would call that the speculative part of speculative fiction. However, that doesn't make it science fiction. Both in the original story and in the movie they never explained what happened, except that suddenly every human uterus on the planet stopped working. The infertility thing was just putting a name on the theme of "What would happen to society if everyone knew that the world was ending" and going with it. There wasn't any science involved with it at all.

I should point out that your stating "1984" is science fiction was based entirely on "it has future technology in it".

Look, in a way, I agree with you. Sci-fi simultaneously too broad and too narrow a term. If I had my way, sci-fi, fantasy, alternate history, and all the other loose genres and subgenres which ask the same question--"What would happen if the rules were different?"--would get lumped under "speculative fiction", and then we could have a merry old time inventing subgenres to categorize everything. But this thread is trying to put together a list of the best sci-fi films of the decade. I think the rule in a situation like this ought to be, if the majority of filmgoers would classify the movie as sci-fi, then that's good enough.

Would the majority of moviegoers define "V for Vendetta" as science fiction? Most would say its an action film with politics in it and a few would say its a comic book film with politics in it that don't resemble the politics of the comic that Alan Moore wrote, while I would say it's the Wachowski brothers wanking each other off with how clever they were. I don't think too many people would go "science fiction" until after you suggested it might be under certain definitions.