PDA

View Full Version : Most overrated movie in the IMDB top 10 horror films.


Dark Lord
11-04-2001, 01:19 AM
I think that all films include in the IMDB top 10 horror film are great....but for some reasons, I don't think The Others should be put in a "top 10 horror movie of all-time" list. What is your choice?

slinker
11-04-2001, 08:57 AM
I voted for the `Sixth Sense` i personally thought `The Others` was far superior and it did put me on the edge of my seat throughout the whole movie, the sixth sense had one decent scare and Bruce Willis!! =^,^= `The Others` is certainly the best example of a haunted house movie ive ever seen.

rhett
11-04-2001, 09:49 AM
I've never really understood all the praise Silence Of The Lambs has gotten. Sure it is a good film, but the other two Lecter films are better (IMO) and the Academy must have been smoking something out there for it to win the top 5 Oscars. Hopkins was in top form in SOTL though, but the rest of the film seemed meandering and unfocussed, just waiting for that "he's still out there" conclusion. A good film with a few excellent scenes...no more, no less.

Hellbilly
11-04-2001, 11:23 AM
Sorry but i gotta pass on this one. These are all favorite films of mine (exept for The Others which i haven't seen yet) and none of them seemed overrated at all. I think Silence of the Lambs deserved all the attention and Oscars that it got so i have to disagree here with you rhett :)
http://www.allposters.com/images/19/PF2097_a.JPG
Quid pro quo, Dr. Lecter

bigdaddyhorse
11-05-2001, 12:09 AM
I'm gonna wait until I see the Others to vote. I'm leaning toward Sixth Sense thou. This movie was boring me to tears until the ending. A second viewing bored me and didn't have that nice suprise, so a third view is out of the question.

AceRimRat
11-05-2001, 12:52 AM
Though I think I've only seen 8 of the films, I voted anyway.

I voted for the Shining, which I know most people love, but I just can't get into. I liked the book, but the movie just struck me as dull and weird. I couldn't get into it.

It's probably just me, though.

maybrick
11-05-2001, 06:45 AM
It was a tough call, but I finally decided on Aliens. There are some scary parts to it, but overall it's more of a sci-fi/action film. Besides, there isn't a need for two sequels on the top 10, especially when there are some obvious choices missing, such as Exorcist, TCM, and Night of the Living Dead. The sixth sense and The others are too new to justifiable consider them for the top 10. Not enough time has past to judge whether or not they are indeed classics. That's why The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame waits 25 years to induct artists.

Silence of the Lambs is a great movie. It's not overrated. Unfortunately, Anthony Hopkins is. I hate him in everything I've seen him in. And I want to hit people whenever they start reciting that fava beans line.

Jaws is good, but again, it seems more like an action film to me than horror. There are some scary moments though.

Dark Lord
11-05-2001, 07:41 AM
I simply can't understand why someone vote Caligari as an overrated movie, it is a true work of art, one of the best horror movies of all-time that truly deserves its place in the top 10. Well...to each his own.

The Chaostar
11-05-2001, 04:09 PM
I do not believe that one who voted for Calligari really knows what horror cinema is all about and he should stuck with Julia Roberts comedies and Steven Siegal action flicks. For all eternity.

ctyankee
11-05-2001, 05:37 PM
Spoiler - Spoiler - Spoiler -

While I also believe that The Shining was a mediocre movie and further I believe that if more people read the book the movie would have been a disappointment for them .... my vote still goes to The Others. Visually terrific and I can watch Nicole Kidman forever .. however the movie has major premise gaps in it that ruined it for me.

For example, in this Ghost existence the other ghosts work and (work for other ghosts) because ...?

Even more of a problem, the mother believes that they can go to the nearest village because why ...?

Even more of a problem, the old ghosts lie to the mother (or go along with her delusion) and say that they did talk to the priest (from the village) about coming to the house when (the older ghosts) stated objective is for the mother to leave her delusions ... then why?

Finally, when you go to a ghost movie you need to accept some premises ... ahh... like there are ghosts for example. No problem. Here you need to buy that some ghosts can present themselves to others ghosts when they choose and others cannot. More importantly, you need to buy the premise that the ghosts can use objects around them - like fire a gun at other ghosts where the bullets go right through them yet at the same time understand why these bullet passthrough ghosts cannot pass through doors.

Rich

Grim
03-26-2009, 05:05 PM
Old ass thread, but I went with the Sixth Sense. Didn't like the Others either, but at least it had atmosphere going for it. I'm sure the top 10 is probably a bit different now.

eric_angelus
03-26-2009, 05:10 PM
I have never liked The Sixth Sense. A movie that depends almost fully on the ending, which for me was pretty obvious half way through.

allmessedup
03-26-2009, 06:06 PM
THE SIXTH SENSE, definitely. Gimmicky ending with no rewatchability.

I don't know why THE OTHERS is on the list either, but it's a better film than THE SIXTH SENSE, so I didn't vote for it.

maybrick
03-26-2009, 06:22 PM
After all of this time I still say I have to stick with ALIENS, although really NONE of them except PSYCHO and THE SHINING deserve to make the top 10. :lol:

wago70
03-26-2009, 06:39 PM
I chose the SIXTH SENSE. For the "life" of me, seeing this classified as horror makes me cringe. It's fascinating, mysterious but not the least bit scary, disturbing, frightening or scream-out-loud terrifying. It's very "Twilight Zone" (and, apparently, viewers actually surprised by the ending have never even seen a Twilight Zone episode, lol) which isn't really horror, either.
Good movie, though. Overrated for sure.

Angelman
03-26-2009, 07:47 PM
I kind of think that is a good list of good movies. I have my personal faves but I can't vote for one that doesn't belong - because they are all pretty good.

Kolpitz
03-26-2009, 08:26 PM
I've never really understood all the praise Silence Of The Lambs has gotten. Sure it is a good film, but the other two Lecter films are better (IMO) and the Academy must have been smoking something out there for it to win the top 5 Oscars. Hopkins was in top form in SOTL though, but the rest of the film seemed meandering and unfocussed, just waiting for that "he's still out there" conclusion. A good film with a few excellent scenes...no more, no less.

Really?! You think Hannibal is better than The Silence of the Lambs? I'll give you Manhunter, as I love that film. And, I assume there's no way that you think Red Dragon is a better film.

Workshed
03-26-2009, 08:28 PM
Aliens is a fun, popcorn-munching action movie with gruesome Sci-Fi elements, but it doesn't belong on that list (neither do The Others or The Sixth Sense, but at least they have more in common with the other films listed than Aliens [and that's even acknowledging that it's a sequel to one of the films listed, :D]).

captain_brandon
03-26-2009, 08:33 PM
Looks like I voted for the majority again, as I included The Sixth Sense in my vote. It's also not really horror. Well made, but slightly overrated in my eyes.

Interestingly enough, I just recently asked scabboy of scabboy.net, on his YouTube blogs what HE thought the most overrated as all fuck genre film was, and me and him actually agree'd, even if it may be a bit controversal. He was actually kind enough to answer an entire fuck load of my questions here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msFoDvmFD8o&feature=channel_page

KamuiX
03-26-2009, 08:50 PM
Unquestionably The Sixth Sense...

Rockmjd
03-26-2009, 09:03 PM
The top 10 has changed over the last 7.5 years. Here it is now:

1. Psycho
2. Alien
3. The Shining
4. Aliens
5. Diabolique
6. Jaws
7. Let the Right One In
8. Faust (1926)
9. The Thing (1982)
10. Frankenstein (1931)

I liked Let the Right One In as much as anyone but #7 of all time? :lol:

cazzasguy
03-26-2009, 10:38 PM
It was a tough call, but I finally decided on Aliens. There are some scary parts to it, but overall it's more of a sci-fi/action film.

Gotta disagree. If there is a film which straddles the horror and sci-fi genres, this is surely it. I'm probably as impervious to nightmares as anyone but the couple I've had were based on Aliens. The sense of foreboding as the marines approach the planet, and sheer terror when they first encounter the aliens is remarkable. It quickly descends into hopelessness when they are trapped inside the station and realise the extent of the threat surrounding them. Claustrophobia supreme! I love older films and probably discriminate against anything post 1970s but think this is superb.

Darga
03-26-2009, 10:38 PM
I liked Let the Right One In as much as anyone but #7 of all time? :lol:

'Let the Right One In' is up there for the same reason 'Sixth Sense' and 'The Others' were on the list a few years back- they all just happen to be the current horror hit. Not long from now it will have dropped from the list even though it is a great film. What I want to know is why the hell 'Twilight' didn't make the Top 10?! :lol:

Matt89
03-26-2009, 10:59 PM
No, Aliens is a sci-fi/action/fantasy. The original is a horror film, not the rest. Star Wars isn't even sci-fi (this issue was covered in this one sci-fi course my friend took) and yeah, it's considered fantasy.

The original is set-up like a slasher movie that just so happens to take place in space. Aliens is not horror at all. It has horror elements to it, but it's more sci-fi/action than anything else.

~Matt

Rockmjd
03-26-2009, 11:10 PM
I wouldn't consider Aliens a horror movie either. Alien 1 and Alien 3, I would.

Darga
03-26-2009, 11:15 PM
Just because a sci-fi course considers Star Wars a fantasy film doesn't mean it's the definitive word on the subject. Who is to say what the definitive genre classification is for any film aside from the filmmakers themselves. There are plenty of people out there who still argue that Alien isn't a horror film. It takes place in outer space, so it must be a goddamn sci-fi film, right?

I agree though, Aliens is definitely straight-up sci-fi/action. :)

Xtro_13
03-26-2009, 11:45 PM
This one is easy for me. Without a doubt, The Shining. I never for the life of me understood why people liked this movie. I guess they didn't read the book. and WTF is up with "Tony" speaking through the kids finger????

maybrick
03-26-2009, 11:51 PM
Gotta disagree. If there is a film which straddles the horror and sci-fi genres, this is surely it. I'm probably as impervious to nightmares as anyone but the couple I've had were based on Aliens. The sense of foreboding as the marines approach the planet, and sheer terror when they first encounter the aliens is remarkable. It quickly descends into hopelessness when they are trapped inside the station and realise the extent of the threat surrounding them. Claustrophobia supreme! I love older films and probably discriminate against anything post 1970s but think this is superb.

The horror genre doesn't hold a monopoly on nightmare inducing imagery. Thousands of people all over the world cite The Wicked Witch from THE WIZARD OF OZ as one of the biggest creators of nightmares and yet only a fool would ever confuse that movie with a horror movie. That feeling you get in that scene from ALIENS? I find that in a lot of "War" movies, too.

But anyways, so you disagree. Whatever! I don't want to get into the age old discussion of the "definition" of horror. Whatever floats your boat, man. (Don't know if you noticed, but I wrote that post nearly 7 and a half years ago!)

X-human
03-27-2009, 12:33 AM
This one is easy for me. Without a doubt, The Shining. I never for the life of me understood why people liked this movie. I guess they didn't read the book. and WTF is up with "Tony" speaking through the kids finger????

I read the book first and found it to be nothing more than a time waster. Then I saw the film and I thought it was truly great, and this was before I really knew who Kubrick was. Someone talked me into reading the book again and I just couldn't do it, I found it to be quite terrible.

I'll give you the finger thing though, but overall the kid was really good. Normally I hate a kid in a flix, but he did alright for himself.

Matt89
03-27-2009, 12:34 AM
This one is easy for me. Without a doubt, The Shining. I never for the life of me understood why people liked this movie. I guess they didn't read the book. and WTF is up with "Tony" speaking through the kids finger????

Errrr....what exactly is wrong with The Shining? It's an extremely well-made film (albeit a little long). But look at the book, it wouldn't have translated well to film. The hedge animals coming alive? That would've looked stupid as hell if they incorporated that into the movie. I like to look at it this way: The book wouldn't have worked as a movie and the movie wouldn't have worked well as a book. I think Kubrick made the right changes. Sure Stephen King bashed The Shining, but most movie adaptations of his novels end up better than his books. (Misery, Carrie, The Dead Zone...) Just because the movie isn't exactly like the book doesn't mean it's bad. There are tons of films that are different than the books. The Tarnished Angels (based on the book Pylon by Ernest Hemingway) and To Have and Have Not (also by Hemingway) are different than the books, but they still work well as films. Stephen King has good ideas, but I'm sorry, he's a terrible writer. I still have no idea how he was able to sell Carrie as his first book. That book was fucking godawful. He's written a few good ones, but they're extremely few and VERY far between.

Just because a sci-fi course considers Star Wars a fantasy film doesn't mean it's the definitive word on the subject. Who is to say what the definitive genre classification is for any film aside from the filmmakers themselves. There are plenty of people out there who still argue that Alien isn't a horror film. It takes place in outer space, so it must be a goddamn sci-fi film, right?

I'm just saying that the people who organize these courses are experts in the field of film study. They have their Ph.D's, so I think they'd know a thing or two about film classification. There are entire courses on genre study, and trust me, it's not down to the filmmaker to decide what genre a film is. It's really nobody's decision, but through analyzing these films, you notice how certain themes are more overbearing than others. Star Wars ends up being more fantasy than sci-fi, Alien ends up being more horror than sci-fi. I mean look at the movie, it's about an unseen monster killing off a group of people, one by one...sounds like a slasher. The fact that it takes place in space isn't all that important. That's the backdrop.

~Matt

Harry Warden
03-27-2009, 12:41 AM
The most overrated has to be The Sixth Sense. Absolute Crap!!, as is just about anything M. Night has done.

The best on this list is by far The Silence of the Lambs, followed by The Shining and Psycho.

Workshed
03-27-2009, 12:47 AM
:o Yeah, I misread the thread and voted which title did not belong on the list, rather than which was overrated.

Overrated would be The Sixth Sense. Big twist was fairly obvious, but that doesn't mean it was bad, just not mind-blowing enough for me to need to re-watch the film.

maybrick
03-27-2009, 12:48 AM
Just because a sci-fi course considers Star Wars a fantasy film doesn't mean it's the definitive word on the subject.

In order to have a definitive word on the subject you must first understand the definition of the word "Science Fiction", and the definition of "science fiction" isn't open to debate. In fact, it's pretty cut and dried. Sci-Fi isn't just "anything that has to do with robots, aliens, fancy gadgetry, rocket ships, and space travel". Science Fiction is "Fiction extrapolated from known scientific concepts". That's where it's roots lie and once you understand that, it's pretty easy to see how STAR WARS falls into the category of "Fantasy", not "Science Fiction".

Katatonia
03-27-2009, 01:39 AM
The Sixth Sense easily. Sure, the ending was great once...and I honestly have no interest in seeing it again.

HellRazor
03-27-2009, 01:39 AM
I can't believe that anyone would choose THE SIXTH SENSE over THE OTHERS.

THE OTHERS sucked rocks.

othervoice1
03-27-2009, 04:21 AM
I agree the sixth sense is more a suspense film then horror- but it is a great movie if you didnt know anything about it-and even after seeing it once I still admire it. The others was just okay to me - dont see it as anything special and amazes me it even made the list.

Matt89
03-27-2009, 06:10 AM
The Sixth Sense is more psychological thriller I'd say. It's not exactly a suspense movie, but it's on the border of being psychological thriller/horror. I didn't think it was THAT bad, but M. Night Shayamalan has gone SERIOUSLY downhill since.

~Matt

shithead
03-27-2009, 06:12 AM
Sixth Sense, never understood the praise.

Mediocre movie at best.

Erick H.
03-27-2009, 06:38 AM
On whole I think they're all solid films but I would have to go with THE SIXTH SENSE.I felt it was slightly overrated when it came out and the whole "phenomenon" aspect of it's release became wearying.By the way,this list of ''the best'' horrors is way too frontloaded with fairly recent films.It lacks scope and a sense of perspective (guess that's the nature of IMDB though,the new stuff always gets the hits).

spawningblue
03-27-2009, 04:42 PM
Went with Aliens as it's the one on the list that i don't consider horror at all. I agree, the Sixth Sense is more suspense then horror as well, but I'm going to go with Aliens anyway.

As for all this hate towards Sixth Sense!? I don't get it at all, as it's a really well made, well acted movie with a great script. Sure once you've seen it once, the ending doesn't hold the same impact (Do any shock endings?), but I think the movie still works. I love that he barely uses music in his movies, and lets the quietness and the sound effects create the mood, and when music is used it's a score, not the top 10 of music at that time soundtrack like most other movies these days. I also think he is great at character development and really making you feel for each character, and really putting you into each scene. He also always seems to get the best out of his actors, with Sixth Sense and Unbreakable probably being Bruce Willi's best performances to date.

I think this movie gets shit on so much because lately his movies haven't been too great and rely more on shock endings then story, but I think Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs (minus the shock ending) were all very well made movies in every sense. Actually reading over most of people's opinions on here they say that they hate it because it's overrated. I never got that, because a movie has a lot of hype behind it, even if you enjoyed it, you consider it a failure because it didn't end up being the best movie of all time. Going into any movie expecting the best movie of all time will leave you disappointed, I promise you!

Darga
03-27-2009, 06:50 PM
In order to have a definitive word on the subject you must first understand the definition of the word "Science Fiction", and the definition of "science fiction" isn't open to debate. In fact, it's pretty cut and dried. Sci-Fi isn't just "anything that has to do with robots, aliens, fancy gadgetry, rocket ships, and space travel". Science Fiction is "Fiction extrapolated from known scientific concepts". That's where it's roots lie and once you understand that, it's pretty easy to see how STAR WARS falls into the category of "Fantasy", not "Science Fiction".

"Anything that has to do with robots, aliens, fancy gadgetry, rocket ships, and space travel"? Who were you quoting there? That certainly wasn't me.

As for the definition of "science fiction" not being open to debate, that's really not true. Where did you find your definition and what makes it the definition? I personally like the definition you provided but I also pulled this one out of the American Heritage Dictionary:

science fiction
n. A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.
sci'ence-fic'tion (sī'əns-fĭk'shən) adj.

Hmm, sounds like Star Wars might fit under there....

Anyways, this is all just nit-picking. I'm just tired of people making these definitive statements about what genre a film is like they're the final word on the subject. It's not always a black or white choice- there are gray areas especially when trying to stick a film into a single genre.

Darga
03-27-2009, 07:03 PM
I'm just saying that the people who organize these courses are experts in the field of film study. They have their Ph.D's, so I think they'd know a thing or two about film classification. There are entire courses on genre study, and trust me, it's not down to the filmmaker to decide what genre a film is. It's really nobody's decision, but through analyzing these films, you notice how certain themes are more overbearing than others. Star Wars ends up being more fantasy than sci-fi, Alien ends up being more horror than sci-fi. I mean look at the movie, it's about an unseen monster killing off a group of people, one by one...sounds like a slasher. The fact that it takes place in space isn't all that important. That's the backdrop.

~Matt

OK, my idea that it's up to the filmmaker to decide what genre his film is was kind of out there. I was just thinking that if I went out with the intent of making a horror film and in the end the critics and audience label it as science fiction, who the hell is right? God, this is stupid idea so I'm just dropping it......

And my line about "It takes place in outer space, so it must be a goddamn sci-fi film, right?" was meant to be facetious. I most definitely agree that Alien is much more a horror film than sci-fi.

maybrick
03-27-2009, 07:34 PM
"Anything that has to do with robots, aliens, fancy gadgetry, rocket ships, and space travel"? Who were you quoting there? That certainly wasn't me.

As for the definition of "science fiction" not being open to debate, that's really not true. Where did you find your definition and what makes it the definition? I personally like the definition you provided but I also pulled this one out of the American Heritage Dictionary:

science fiction
n. A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.
sci'ence-fic'tion (sī'əns-fĭk'shən) adj.

Hmm, sounds like Star Wars might fit under there....

Anyways, this is all just nit-picking. I'm just tired of people making these definitive statements about what genre a film is like they're the final word on the subject. It's not always a black or white choice- there are gray areas especially when trying to stick a film into a single genre.

I paraphrased my definition of Sci-Fi, but it jibes with the one available on dictionary.com. STAR WARS isn't based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments. George Lucas based Star Wars on Akira Kurasawa's THE HIDDEN FORTRESS and a bunch of other fantasy elements and changed the backdrop to outer space. Forget about the space ships and aliens. It's simply an old fashioned story about a boy with dreams of greatness going on a journey with a merry band of wanderers to save a princess from a Black Knight with sword and sorcery. That definition by the American Heritage Dictionary throws in extra concepts the majority of average people assume to be true of the genre, but most Sci-Fi writers and their hard core fans are in agreement that things like STAR WARS isn't true "Science Fiction", it's "Science Fantasy".

Darga
03-27-2009, 08:28 PM
That definition by the American Heritage Dictionary throws in extra concepts the majority of average people assume to be true of the genre, but most Sci-Fi writers and their hard core fans are in agreement that things like STAR WARS isn't true "Science Fiction", it's "Science Fantasy".


I refuse to accept that terminology- it's Sci-Fi/Fantasy.

Matt89
03-27-2009, 08:29 PM
OK, my idea that it's up to the filmmaker to decide what genre his film is was kind of out there. I was just thinking that if I went out with the intent of making a horror film and in the end the critics and audience label it as science fiction, who the hell is right? God, this is stupid idea so I'm just dropping it......

Well if the director had the intentions to make a horror film but everyone ends up interpreting the film as sci-fi, the director failed at what he set out to do, no? The film might not be bad, per se, but if the director started out with the intention of making a horror film and ended up making a sci-fi...something's wrong.

science fiction
n. A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.
sci'ence-fic'tion (sī'əns-fĭk'shən) adj.

Hmm, sounds like Star Wars might fit under there....

Well not really, since there's no solid evidence that there is life beyond our solar system, the idea of life beyond earth is mere fantasy. It's the plotline that makes Star Wars fantasy.

~Matt

Darga
03-27-2009, 09:43 PM
Well not really, since there's no solid evidence that there is life beyond our solar system, the idea of life beyond earth is mere fantasy. It's the plotline that makes Star Wars fantasy.

~Matt


I don't understand your argument in this case. Maybe I'm reading that definition of science fiction differently than you, but to me that encompasses Star Wars completely since it is a film in which fantasy, based on space travel and life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background. It thereby easily satisfies the terms of the definition.

Oh boy, it's a slow day at work today.

The Chaostar
03-27-2009, 10:35 PM
Who voted for Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens?

Darga
03-27-2009, 10:44 PM
It wasn't me! I voted for The Others although The Sixth Sense is just as worthy of being tossed off the list.

maybrick
03-27-2009, 10:46 PM
I refuse to accept that terminology- it's Sci-Fi/Fantasy.

Science Fantasy is a legitimate term and has been around for decades. I didn't just make it up. Rod Serling himself once said, "Science fiction makes the implausible possible, while science fantasy makes the impossible plausible."

X-human
03-27-2009, 11:50 PM
Who voted for Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens?

You know that popped into my head the first time I read that list too. Now I like a couple of snoozers myself, but Nosferatu is rather lacking in my book. Great for its time perhaps, and still iconic, but somewhat mishappen when you look at the core of it. Herzog gave if better form with his remake.

maybrick
03-28-2009, 12:00 AM
It's the plotline that makes Star Wars fantasy.

~Matt

It's a little bit more than that. It's mostly the concept of "The Force" that makes STAR WARS Science Fantasy. "The Force" isn't science, it's magic and in true Sci-Fi magic is verboten.

Erick H.
03-28-2009, 10:20 AM
It's a little bit more than that. It's mostly the concept of "The Force" that makes STAR WARS Science Fantasy. "The Force" isn't science, it's magic and in true Sci-Fi magic is verboten.

Well,"The Force" WAS magical until Lucas decided it was akin to a blood disease in PHANTOM MENACE.That change moved it out of the ''fantasy" realm and into the "crap" genre.

Not that I'm bitter.....

Matt89
03-28-2009, 05:47 PM
Well,"The Force" WAS magical until Lucas decided it was akin to a blood disease in PHANTOM MENACE.That change moved it out of the ''fantasy" realm and into the "crap" genre.

Not that I'm bitter.....

LOL so now crap's a genre all its own! :lol:

~Matt

allmessedup
03-28-2009, 10:23 PM
I think the argument about STAR WARS not being science fiction is basically that there's really nothing inherent in the plot that makes it science fiction. You could tweak it here and there and make it a western, a war movie, a samurai film [which is what the original story was from] etc, and basically have the same story. The existence of aliens, ray guns, etc., is not really important to the film--they're just part of the setting. There's no speculation, no "What if" in the story.

Something like GATTACA, BLADE RUNNER, or Carpenter's THE THING would be examples of science fiction to me.

In the end, it's not a big deal to me whether it is or not, that's just my take on it.

X-human
03-29-2009, 07:02 PM
I think the Death Star is perhaps reason enough to call it science fiction. The plot hindges on the fact that there is a weapon that can destroy an entire planet. I don't see how that can translate as effectively into any other genre; how can indians blow up an entire planet of cowboys? And it's science too, not The Force.

I use to be in the "Star Wars is Fantasy" camp but that thought just occured to me.

allmessedup
03-29-2009, 08:02 PM
The Death Star was the "hidden fortress" in the samurai movie of the same name, so it's not impossible. The original story was taken from a non-science fiction film.

Kim Bruun
03-29-2009, 09:37 PM
Apart from Alien (and Aliens, which is as much an action film as it is horror), none of those is actually a favourite with me...

I've always thought that Jack Nicholson was miscast and that The Shining was overlong, despite being technically impressive.

The Others and The Sixth Sense are both competent, but they lean more towards drama, and are not really the best or purest examples of the genre...

Shokk
03-30-2009, 12:43 AM
Siixth Sense..pretty easily.

maybrick
03-30-2009, 01:19 AM
The Death Star was the "hidden fortress" in the samurai movie of the same name, so it's not impossible. The original story was taken from a non-science fiction film.

Actually, The Hidden Fortress was a place of refuge for the heroes near the beginning of the film. It's true that THE HIDDEN FORTRESS inspired George Lucas, but it was in the development of C-3PO and R2-D2, not of The Death Star.

Matt89
03-30-2009, 03:29 AM
Simply put, Star Wars is not science fiction. It just isn't. The whole setting is the backdrop of the film, much like Alien being a horror movie that just so happens to take place in space. Space does not make a movie science-fiction. Blade Runner, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, La Jetée, THOSE are science-fiction films (among many others) but Star Wars doesn't technically classify as being one.

~Matt

Angelman
03-30-2009, 06:35 AM
Wow.

Are you really debating whether Star Wars is true science fiction?

Nerds. :)

maybrick
03-30-2009, 02:41 PM
...said the guy posting on a horror message board. ;)

Criswell
03-30-2009, 03:01 PM
i am mystified. The Sisth Sense is (to me) an excellent film. I really think his latter films have clouded some peoples view of the film.

I voted The Shining. Now that to me is a brutally overrated film.

Angelman
03-30-2009, 07:16 PM
...said the guy posting on a horror message board. ;)

Well-played, sir.

X-human
03-30-2009, 10:09 PM
i am mystified. The Sisth Sense is (to me) an excellent film. I really think his latter films have clouded some peoples view of the film.

I voted The Shining. Now that to me is a brutally overrated film.

...said the guy posting on how excellent Sixth Sense is which is written and directed by a Golden Turkey Award winner.

Simply put, Star Wars is not science fiction. It just isn't. The whole setting is the backdrop of the film, much like Alien being a horror movie that just so happens to take place in space. Space does not make a movie science-fiction.

Well Alien is about how a company is interested in extra terrestrial life for profit gain (over the life of its own human employees). There's science fiction themes in there, beyond the setting. You could probably make a better arguement against E.T. Make him a magical troll out of time and you could have a nearly identical plot.

As I pointed out with the Death Star, it's the gravity of the situation that makes it much more profound and something only science fiction genre can deliever. A weapon that can blow up entire planets is unprescedent. After all it's copied from E.E. Smith's Lensman series and that is considered science fiction. Lucas just change a few names around (and in some cases didn't even bother doing that) then bingo you've got 'Star Wars.' Doesn't really change the genre. The whole plot revolves around this science fiction convention.

Other examples of common themes with Star Wars would be H.G. Welle's The War in the Air and The World Set Free. Both considered Sci-Fi.

maybrick
03-30-2009, 10:28 PM
As I pointed out with the Death Star, it's the gravity of the situation that makes it much more profound and something only science fiction genre can deliever. A weapon that can blow up entire planets is unprescedent. After all it's copied from E.E. Smith's Lensman series and that is considered science fiction. Lucas just change a few names around (and in some cases didn't even bother doing that) then bingo you've got 'Star Wars.' Doesn't really change the genre. The whole plot revolves around this science fiction convention.

Other examples of common themes with Star Wars would be H.G. Welle's The War in the Air and The World Set Free. Both considered Sci-Fi.

None of that really matters because, again and simply put, in the STAR WARS universe magic exists. As defined by the father's of the genre, Magic and Science absolutely cannot co-exist in Science Fiction. It would defeat it's purpose. The only caveat one can give to this is the one which Arthur C. Clarke posited, where any technology sufficiently more advanced than ours would appear to be magic. This is clearly not the case with "The Force". It isn't technology, it's a divine energy that's tapped by the minds of the devout. It's no different than witchcraft. Ergo, NOT Sci-fi.

Angelman
03-31-2009, 12:13 AM
Could it be that people actually make films that exist in more than one genre?

BASTARDS!

maybrick
03-31-2009, 12:18 AM
Could it be that people actually make films that exist in more than one genre?

BASTARDS!

Yes, but not in this case, because there is already a genre that exists that encompasses STAR WARS perfectly. It's named "Science Fantasy"! :p

SickNick89
03-31-2009, 01:04 AM
Sixth Sense. Not even a horror film in my opinion.

X-human
03-31-2009, 01:18 AM
None of that really matters because, again and simply put, in the STAR WARS universe magic exists. As defined by the father's of the genre, Magic and Science absolutely cannot co-exist in Science Fiction. It would defeat it's purpose. The only caveat one can give to this is the one which Arthur C. Clarke posited, where any technology sufficiently more advanced than ours would appear to be magic. This is clearly not the case with "The Force". It isn't technology, it's a divine energy that's tapped by the minds of the devout. It's no different than witchcraft. Ergo, NOT Sci-fi.

Well George Lucas did develop a biological explaination with midi-chlorians, a biological weapon taken to the next extreme as it were. It could be argued that it was his intention to make it science fiction over fantasy, but was not aware enough of the distintions to define A New Hope in such universal terms.

Also magic in and of itself hasn't been "disproven" by science, therefore logically science fiction could prove it just as easily as it's proved reversing the polarity can solve any technical problem.

maybrick
03-31-2009, 01:45 AM
Science can't disprove God, either. Magic is by definition outside the realm of science. As soon as magic is proven it becomes Science. Midi-Chloreans doesn't make The Force any less magical. All that does is tell us that those with Midi-Chloreans can wield the force better than those who can't. That isn't any different than in any random Fantasy book where the main character has fantastic powers because his or her mother just happened to be a powerful witch. Just because wizardry is in his DNA doesn't mean that the Harry Potter series all of a sudden becomes Science Fiction, does it? And don't forget Anakin's supposed virgin birth: another fine example of how far into the realm of Fantasy the series is.

Bobbywoodhogan
03-31-2009, 06:42 PM
Silence of the Lambs and Sixth Sense, both bore me senseless.

HellRazor
04-01-2009, 02:02 AM
Let's just call STAR WARS "a movie" and be done with it. :P

X-human
04-01-2009, 02:06 AM
Science can't disprove God, either. Magic is by definition outside the realm of science. As soon as magic is proven it becomes Science.[quote]

That's the point. You may be confused by all the people who try to prove magic (or God) with unscientific methods. That doesn't mean that these's can't be scientifically proved. Science is a method after all. Therefore science fiction can fill in the gap. That's what it does. As soon as something becomes science fact it's no longer fiction. That was my example of the H.G. Welles books, which 'predicted' aerial combat, atomic weapons and cold wars.

[quote]Midi-Chloreans doesn't make The Force any less magical.

So the fact that there's science fiction that explains "the magic," which you yourself quote Clarke stating can appear magical, doesn't mean it's science fiction. Okay...

maybrick
04-01-2009, 02:32 AM
There is no factual basis whatsoever that "The Force" exists. George Lucas completely made it up. I suppose I could buy it if only one race in the Universe could use it as part of their biological makeup, like how Superman's powers come from the rays of a yellow sun, but it doesn't work like that. Every race in the Universe is capable of using it. The force ISN'T an example of future tech (as the Clarke reference relates to). It's an example of a non-existent form of energy.

Again, there IS no force in reality. It's made up. It's pure fantasy with not even a single IOTA of true scientific factual basis behind it, not one single credible theory or even a hypothesis, which is EXACTLY what it would need to be considered TRUE Science Fiction.

DVD-fanatic-9
04-16-2009, 05:17 PM
Out of that list - Sixth Sense. No question.

Spit
04-16-2009, 06:57 PM
The IMDB list has change some since the poll was posted.

1. 8.7 Psycho (1960) 119,506
2. 8.5 Alien (1979) 149,382
3. 8.5 The Shining (1980) 144,891
4. 8.4 Aliens (1986) 141,792
5. 8.3 Les diaboliques (1955) 11,172
6. 8.3 Jaws (1975) 116,083
7. 8.1 Faust - Eine deutsche Volkssage (1926) 3,524
8. 8.1 Låt den rätte komma in (2008) 22,480
9. 8.1 The Thing (1982) 61,526
10. 8.1 Frankenstein (1931) 19,191

I suppose whatever is hot at the time makes it on the list...I don't hate on the sixth sense as much as most people, I actually liked it. But does it deserve to go in the top 10, hell no. I feel the same way about this new list. Let the Right one in was pretty good, but is it top 10 material? pfft. no way.

DVD-fanatic-9
04-16-2009, 09:33 PM
The IMDB list has change some since the poll was posted.

1. 8.7 Psycho (1960) 119,506
2. 8.5 Alien (1979) 149,382
3. 8.5 The Shining (1980) 144,891
4. 8.4 Aliens (1986) 141,792
5. 8.3 Les diaboliques (1955) 11,172
6. 8.3 Jaws (1975) 116,083
7. 8.1 Faust - Eine deutsche Volkssage (1926) 3,524
8. 8.1 Låt den rätte komma in (2008) 22,480
9. 8.1 The Thing (1982) 61,526
10. 8.1 Frankenstein (1931) 19,191
Out of that list, since I haven't seen LtR1I yet, I'll say Jaws. Which isn't even a horror film, it's a Hollywood Drama with Adventure or Thriller highlights.

X-human
04-21-2009, 01:42 AM
1. 8.7 Psycho (1960) 119,506
2. 8.5 Alien (1979) 149,382
3. 8.5 The Shining (1980) 144,891
4. 8.4 Aliens (1986) 141,792
5. 8.3 Les diaboliques (1955) 11,172
6. 8.3 Jaws (1975) 116,083
7. 8.1 Faust - Eine deutsche Volkssage (1926) 3,524
8. 8.1 Låt den rätte komma in (2008) 22,480
9. 8.1 The Thing (1982) 61,526
10. 8.1 Frankenstein (1931) 19,191

Huh, you know that ain't such a bad list. Considering this isn't a specific person's list but instead the results from a mass poll, I'd say it's pretty damn good.

I'm kinda surprised Frankenstein snuck in ahead of Bride of Frankenstein. Although the first is my favorite of the two, it seems like the vast majority prefered Bride.

MisterTwister
04-27-2009, 06:17 AM
The Sixth Sense is highly overrated.

The Chaostar
05-06-2009, 06:11 PM
I think that the real question would be "what does it mean to be on IMDB's list". I mean, what does it tell us? Which films are better, or which films are more popular? When someone states "this film should not be on the list" he's probably thinking of the first one - that this is a list of the best films of all time. But actually, it's probably the second that happens. So, can a movie be "overated" because it's popular? Many of us love some very bad films, but of course, films can become popular for various reasons (good marketing, for example) other than their true "artistic" merit.
Point is, for a list of popularity, the term "overrated" has no actual meaning.

bigdaddyhorse
05-06-2009, 06:21 PM
I'm gonna wait until I see the Others to vote. I'm leaning toward Sixth Sense thou. This movie was boring me to tears until the ending. A second viewing bored me and didn't have that nice suprise, so a third view is out of the question.

...and the Others bored me to tears as well. O.K., I lied, it didn't bore me to tears, but it did bore me to sleep. Guess I could try that again, in daylight, sitting in the uncomfortable chair. I wasn't tired going into it the first time though, so I'm fearing the worst.

Angelman
05-06-2009, 07:47 PM
I'm kinda surprised Frankenstein snuck in ahead of Bride of Frankenstein. Although the first is my favorite of the two, it seems like the vast majority prefered Bride.

I can't say if Bride is better but it is more epic and fun (my opinion).