4 ms·

Pick the top sci-fi movie rating-wise from every year, going back 50 years. Then rank them. Would the past be over-represented? My hunch is yes, but I think it

Pick the top sci-fi movie rating-wise from every year, going back 50 years. Then rank them. Would the past be over-represented? My hunch is yes, but I think it's a fair metric.

dehrmann 5y ago
Sci-fi is a weird genre because there was arguably more interest in it during the space race--Star Trek happened at the same time as early Apollo missions. There was just a lot more content and a lot more imaginative content.
enkid 5y ago
I mean, maybe? But I don't really think so. Here's a list from IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls009003184/ https://www.imdb.com/list/ls009003184/ Let's take a look at a few of the entry's from the 1970's that actually had practical effects: Logan's Run - Here's Logan fighting a robot: https://youtu.be/USADM5Gk9Gs?t=106 https://youtu.be/USADM5Gk9Gs?t=106 Star Wars - : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g3_CFmnU7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g3_CFmnU7k Soylent Green - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z2txLk0ybo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z2txLk0ybo Invasion of the Body Snatchers - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc_0dlmSq7I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc_0dlmSq7I Alien - here's the chest buster scene - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPQ7om598OM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPQ7om598OM I don't think these hold up as well as nostalgia would suggest, the exception being the alien chest buster scene, which is amazing. The others are much less ambitious and simply don't look as good as modern movies. Many of the practical effects look small or toy like. Maybe there's a sweet spot in the 90's?
- Joeboy 5y ago
  The chest burster scene holds up, up until the baby alien scurries off at the end. But there's a hilariously terrible effect later on where it cuts from a model of John Hurt's head to the real thing. Edit: Ian Holm, not John Hurt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA8jv1M6Y2g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA8jv1M6Y2g
- greedo 5y ago
  Using the low quality trailer for Star Wars is pretty disingenuous since it was intended to be viewed on small TV at 480i compared to 35mm (or 70mm) in the theater.
- tasha0663 5y ago
  > Logan's Run Oh god. I can't imagine anyone ever thought Box (the robot) didn't look completely awful. It may lack good practical effects, but some of the matte paintings in that movie are gorgeous. I love when they get to the overgrown Washington D.C.
tshaddox 5y ago
Are you controlling for things like, say, the age you were when you first saw a certain movie? It's kinda unfair to rank a brand new movie against the older movie that you watched a hundred times because it was one of the few VHS tapes at your house when you were growing up. There could be thousands of kids now watching that brand new movie hundreds of times on their iPads who are going to have similar attachments to that movie. Some of those kids will grow up to be filmmakers, movie critics, pop culture writers, etc.

Pick the top sci-fi movie rating-wise from every year, going back 50 years. Then rank them. Would the past be over-represented? My hunch is yes, but I think it's a fair metric.

dehrmann 5y ago

Sci-fi is a weird genre because there was arguably more interest in it during the space race--Star Trek happened at the same time as early Apollo missions. There was just a lot more content and a lot more imaginative content.

enkid 5y ago

I mean, maybe? But I don't really think so. Here's a list from IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls009003184/ https://www.imdb.com/list/ls009003184/ Let's take a look at a few of the entry's from the 1970's that actually had practical effects: Logan's Run - Here's Logan fighting a robot: https://youtu.be/USADM5Gk9Gs?t=106 https://youtu.be/USADM5Gk9Gs?t=106 Star Wars - : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g3_CFmnU7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g3_CFmnU7k Soylent Green - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z2txLk0ybo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z2txLk0ybo Invasion of the Body Snatchers - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc_0dlmSq7I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc_0dlmSq7I Alien - here's the chest buster scene - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPQ7om598OM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPQ7om598OM I don't think these hold up as well as nostalgia would suggest, the exception being the alien chest buster scene, which is amazing. The others are much less ambitious and simply don't look as good as modern movies. Many of the practical effects look small or toy like. Maybe there's a sweet spot in the 90's?

Joeboy 5y ago
The chest burster scene holds up, up until the baby alien scurries off at the end. But there's a hilariously terrible effect later on where it cuts from a model of John Hurt's head to the real thing. Edit: Ian Holm, not John Hurt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA8jv1M6Y2g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA8jv1M6Y2g
greedo 5y ago
Using the low quality trailer for Star Wars is pretty disingenuous since it was intended to be viewed on small TV at 480i compared to 35mm (or 70mm) in the theater.
tasha0663 5y ago
> Logan's Run Oh god. I can't imagine anyone ever thought Box (the robot) didn't look completely awful. It may lack good practical effects, but some of the matte paintings in that movie are gorgeous. I love when they get to the overgrown Washington D.C.

tshaddox 5y ago

Are you controlling for things like, say, the age you were when you first saw a certain movie? It's kinda unfair to rank a brand new movie against the older movie that you watched a hundred times because it was one of the few VHS tapes at your house when you were growing up. There could be thousands of kids now watching that brand new movie hundreds of times on their iPads who are going to have similar attachments to that movie. Some of those kids will grow up to be filmmakers, movie critics, pop culture writers, etc.