Posts by wiredraven82

bluenomad2 said:Just tell me—where on earth did you find this film list? I’m asking for a specific reason. If you claim to be such a massive fan of the Classic Western genre and have actually watched them, how could you possibly overlook http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074740/
?
Following the works of Leone, those are the absolute best Classic Westerns. It has cult status—Nero. Honestly, it feels a bit strange to me; it isn't just some random flick, it's widely considered one of the top tier entries right alongside Leone's own work, regardless of whether people personally enjoy it or not.

The list comes from one of my favorite directors, Quentin Tarantino—after looking closely at which films he included, I wasn't even remotely surprised that I ABSOLUTELY agree with him (though I do disagree with his specific ranking, we both agree that The Good, the Bad and the Ugly takes the top spot).

Now, Tarantino claims these are the best Classic Westerns. Obviously, he isn't Zeus sitting on Olympus deciding what's good, but look—be honest: if you were voting, would you cast your two votes for any other movie besides the ones on this list?

You might try to argue, "but that's not the point"; why wouldn't it be? The idea is that we should be looking at movies that we know wouldn't get a single vote and have zero chance of cracking the top five of these twenty. ☕ Why not just play fair and vote accordingly? 🙂

Alright folks, let's settle this once and for all—which Classic Western reigns supreme? Let's kick off this "conflict" just like the standoff in this picture 😁:



First, a quick disclaimer here: I've set it up so you can pick multiple options, but I’m asking you to limit yourselves to two votes—maybe three IF YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST.

For me, there isn't even a debate—even though I genuinely love every single film I included in this voting list—my top pick for the best Classic Western is:

1. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

And coming in at number two:

2. Once Upon a Time in the West

So, those are my two picks. We can, of course, get into the weeds and discuss our choices—why they matter, how they stack up, etc. Cast your votes and let's find out WHO HAS THE FASTEST HAND IN THE WEST. 🙂

Additionally, I’m leaving you with the one thing you simply cannot ignore when discussing these films: the legendary Ennio Morricone. His entire body of work—something I could personally listen to for as long as I live 🙂:

Ennio Morricone - The Very Best of Ennio Morricone (2000)



P.S.: Please, look—these are truly elite titles. These twenty films actually deserve to be part of this poll. If you think there's a title here that you absolutely would NOT vote for, but you feel the need to mention it anyway just because it crossed your mind, don't bother. If we go down that road, I'll have to close the thread, and then what was the point? I believe these represent the absolute pinnacle of the genre, so please, just vote and try to see where I'm coming from. Cheers.

Mark Cruz15 said:We shouldn't be judging this solely based on special effects. There are plenty of films out there without a single flashy effect that we still rightfully label as Sci-Fi. If the setting is established in the future, you've already crossed that line. You even have post-apocalyptic stories that rely on nothing but atmosphere rather than CGI.
One of the most iconic examples—if I recall correctly—is Stalker, which uses virtually zero special effects.

When it comes to superheroes, look at the breakdown: Spider-Man was bitten by a spider, Hulk was hit by gamma radiation, Batman relies on high-tech gadgets, Superman is an Alien from another world, and Captain America is essentially a product of advanced technology... many of them carry a distinct Sci-Fi background.
On the flip side, Catwoman is pure Fantasy. Based on that one subpar movie (I don't have any other source to go on), her whole thing stems from some ancient Egyptian cat influence—some kind of primordial magic.

My take is that we simply cannot view these superhero films through a strict Sci-Fi or Fantasy lens—even if, by technical definition, they should fit there. They just don't. They’ve carved out their own specific niche, their own genre, or whatever you want to call it, that sits entirely outside those two categories. Personally, I just call them "superhero movies," and that’s the end of it.

I mean, how am I supposed to watch Superman and view him through the same lens as Predator? Sure, they are both Aliens from different planets, but the difference in genre and execution is so glaringly obvious that it feels like an insult—as much as I might enjoy a good superhero flick—to lump them into Sci-Fi or Fantasy. To me, they aren't serious entries in those genres; they are a sub-genre all their own: the superhero genre.

I can't take these movies seriously in a traditional sense at all.

P.S.: This doesn't apply to something like Nolan's Batman, which really has nothing to do with the typical superhero formula; those are legitimate masterpieces.

As for all the rest of these superhero films... man, no matter how polished or pretty they look... it's basically just pop-country trash.

cosmicgull said:Alright, so Edge of Tomorrow is half Sci-Fi, half Fantasy 😉

Look, there isn't a single shred of Fantasy in Edge of Tomorrow—and I’m not trying to insult anyone's taste here, but let's be real—that movie is pure Sci-Fi and lacks any actual Fantasy element whatsoever.

The entire premise revolves around time travel, which is facilitated by the Alien presence—and that alone qualifies as Sci-Fi—not to mention the heavy reliance on advanced technology, like those exosuits, and so on...

The "powers" those Aliens in EOT possess—specifically their ability to reset people (bringing the Alphas and Omegas back) into the past—isn't some sort of "magic" fantasy trope; it's simply an aspect of their biological makeup.

P.S.: This isn't directed at you specifically, but someone mentioned earlier that since time travel is scientifically impossible, it can't be Sci-Fi (or at least, that's how I interpreted it)—well, if that isn't Science Fiction, then I truly have no idea what is.

Are we supposed to only watch movies where every concept is 100% validated by scientists before they earn the Sci-Fi label? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Any form of time travel involving a Time Machine or similar mechanisms (like the aliens in EOT) is Sci-Fi squared. 🙂

briskhound2 said:wiredraven82, take a breath, man.

The reason people call Gravity Sci-Fi is because a significant portion of it actually holds water—it exists and functions based on actual science. You want to know where the fiction lies? It’s in the synchronized orbit of that space debris and the specific way they enter Earth's orbit. That alone violates the laws of physics, and you can't just hand-wave that away as "realism."Theoretically, everything in there is possible, but in practice, it’s complete nonsense.

Look, I get it... but listen... if this were happening on Earth, nobody would even think to label it Sci-Fi—it would be treated like some gritty drama or something like Die Male... which is technically feasible... the issue is simply that because the setting is in space, the moment anyone sees a fictionalized version of the cosmos (regardless of whether we're talking about TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY or our current era of space exploration), everyone immediately starts shouting: "Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi! Sci-Fi!"

Grace Sanchez50 said:Don't pieces of junk—like old telescopes—orbit the Earth or drift through space following specific paths over certain periods because they're being pulled by Gravity or whatever else... that stuff is basically just pure Fantasy

History will eventually settle this debate once and for all—whether I'm right or you are regarding whether Gravity qualifies as Sci-Fi or not.🍿😁

Patrick Martin said:Look, man—nobody has actually lived through that, especially not out in deep space. That’s where the fiction comes in.

Wait a second... Has anyone actually survived the stunts in Mission: Impossible? 😁

Sure, it's fictional, but that doesn't make it Sci-Fi. It might just be pure fiction, but it doesn't qualify as Science Fiction.🍿🙂

Grace Sanchez50 said:Hehe.

You’re veering pretty far off-topic—both with your takes on Gravity and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Honestly, maybe I should be the one giving you a warning instead of the other way around?

To be perfectly blunt, I don't actually care about Gravity as a film; it didn't leave any lasting, profound impression on me. Everything I’ve been saying isn't because I'm some massive fan of the movie—it’s because I absolutely loathe the lazy assumption that if a story takes place in space, it automatically qualifies as Sci-Fi.

As for 2001: A Space Odyssey, I've already stated my piece. And regarding your little warning about going off-topic when discussing organized religions—go ahead, man, hit me with a ban. It would honestly be my privilege to take a hit for stating my opinion that those religious institutions are absolute TRASH. 🍿

Patrick Martin said:if this were based on actual events, we’d be looking at history or a biography—but as it stands, it’s just Sci-Fi.😉

The second you step foot into space, you’re firmly in the realm of Sci-Fi ☕

🤣

Good grief—I can't tell if you're pulling my leg or if you actually believe that... Either way, you have to admit that's a pretty dismal take. To suggest that any depiction of space travel becomes mere Sci-Fi simply because it isn't a documented historical event? I'll say it again: that's a terrible way to look at it. 🍿

Grace Sanchez50 said:What am I supposed to make of this suggestion that 2001: A Space Odyssey is just some overrated piece of trash? ☕

2001: A Space Odyssey is a genuine masterpiece—one that stands far above any typical filmography. The core message within the Odyssey, coupled with the sheer execution of the vision, pushes past the standard limits of human comprehension. That is precisely why the ending was crafted to be exactly what it was.

2001: A Space Odyssey explains the concept of humanity through metaphor about 20,000 times better than any of those self-important institutions that think they run this world—and since we’re on the subject of such institutions, let me tell you exactly what I consider to be overrated TRASH:

Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism.

P.S.: Just a heads-up—this is coming from someone who actually believes in God.

I might just take myself out of this discussion entirely—consider me throwing in the towel—but don't mistake my exit for an admission that I'm wrong. On the contrary, it’s quite the opposite. 🙂

Grace Sanchez50 said:@Dragon
You’re insisting all the tech in the movie comes from the present day—I don't even know if the film explicitly states its timeline—but sure, maybe it's the near future, or maybe...

It qualifies as Sci-Fi because those asteroids attacking her are actually disguised alien ships, and those aliens are essentially some kind of God—supernatural beings who arrived just to test Sandra, pushing her to the absolute limit to see if she can overcome the death of her daughter. Even George Clooney is part of it; when she thinks she's imagining him, he's actually been hardwired into her brain, nudging her to keep fighting, to move past the grief, and to actually live her life.
That’s why everything in the movie feels so convenient and surreal—why you can somehow "surf" through space using nothing but a fire extinguisher.
Furthermore, some of these aliens have basically placed a bet on whether she'll pass their tests, so they help her out with cryogenics while others root for her failure. In reality, she isn't even in space; she's trapped in some sort of cosmic simulation they control at will. There you go—made-up alien technology, there's your Sci-Fi!

Here is a bit of free advice: man, stop writing stuff like this before someone loses their mind and calls you out—I'm not trying to be a killjoy here, but seriously, take it as friendly advice.

Patrick Martin said:Anything touching science or any sort of specific event—whether it's strictly factual or purely fictional—can be shoved into the Sci-Fi category.
It isn't just about launching rockets into orbit; you just need that underlying weight of scientific logic to be felt throughout the film.
If the primary focus shifts toward action, drama, or a thriller vibe, then sure, we can categorize it there too—setting plays a massive role in that distinction.

Fantasy, on the other hand, deals with things that are much harder to grasp; the very foundation of Fantasy relies on entirely invented worlds and settings.

@Patrick Martin/">@@Patrick Martin, you know damn well that Gravity isn't a Sci-Fi movie—for crying out loud, don't start this nonsense too. 🤣 🍿

Grace Sanchez50 said:👏
I know you’re going to lose it the second I mention the holy grail, the Odyssey, so I might as well lean into it.

The Odyssey is the absolute gold standard—a total masterpiece, at least in my book.🙂

Grace Sanchez50 said:wiredraven82 can try to explain themselves all they want, but Gravity is clearly Sci-Fi because it features scientists in orbit, space stations, asteroid belts, and shuttle control panels, and so on.

I’m only responding this way because it’s obvious you're just trolling: 🤣

Grace Sanchez50 said:One could argue it's an action drama set in a Sci-Fi setting, but even then, by my definition and understanding of what constitutes Sci-Fi, it still falls under that genre.

Honestly, why should anyone care about *your* specific definition of Sci-Fi? That is a purely subjective take. You could claim MARISOL is Sci-Fi if you wanted to, but that doesn't make it true. I am telling you objectively what qualifies as Sci-Fi and what doesn't; but hey, go ahead and keep digging your heels in if it makes you feel better.

cosmicgull said:I hadn't really looked at the movie from that angle before—and honestly, you're right, it doesn't actually have any Sci-Fi elements. I'm completely on board with your take.

Cheers, 🙂

Lawrence Edwards58 said:Well, actually, the difference is night and day. Just listen to wiredraven82—they’ve already laid it all out for you more than once.

👍

I'm trying to explain this, but it feels like I'm talking to a brick wall. ☕

Grace Sanchez50 said:By that logic, even 2001: A Space Odyssey isn't Sci-Fi🤷 according to your reasoning

What kind of logic is that?

Where exactly are you seeing human colonies on the Moon like the ones in the Odyssey—or maybe those space stations with that specific design, purpose, and level of technological advancement found in the Odyssey?

Do we currently possess passenger spacecraft that look anything like what was depicted in the Odyssey?

And don't even get me started on the entire ending involving HAL 9000 and that whole ship.

I honestly can't believe you're trying to draw a comparison between that and Gravity, DJIS FAKING KRAJST 🤦

Grace Sanchez50 said:Gravity is Sci-Fi☕

Phew, quite the dramatic realization you've had there—why don't you enlighten me? What specific parameters in Gravity actually make it Sci-Fi—aside from the obvious fact that the plot takes place in space? Please, do go on.

And if you happen to start throwing out arguments like, "well, it would be impossible to escape those specific situations," then I’ll just start bringing up scenarios from James Bond films, the Bourne series, Mission: Impossible, Westerns, or various Thriller-Action films.

Because honestly, what other answer could you possibly offer to justify calling it Sci-Fi? None. You aren't presenting any actual TECHNOLOGICAL elements that would qualify Gravity as a "Sci-Fi film"—unless your only argument is "it's Sci-Fi because it's set in space," in which case, I can't help but laugh. ☕

cosmicgull said:Basically, I believe certain films are completely misplaced—and undeservedly so—within the Sci-Fi genre. This isn't a discussion about personal taste; it’s an attempt to untangle specific categorical dilemmas.

The pinnacle of the Sci-Fi genre—the very reason the genre even exists—consists of:

• 2001: A Space Odyssey
• Solaris
• Close Encounters of the Third Kind
• Blade Runner
• Interstellar
• Gravity
• ...

As I stated, Gravity isn't Sci-Fi, nor is it Fantasy; it is a Drama-Thriller + Action set in space, period. 🍿

cosmicgull said:Films categorized as Sci-Fi instead of Fantasy:

• Superman
• Iron Man
• X-Men
• Captain America
• Transformers
• Edge of Tomorrow
• Godzilla
• ...

Edge of Tomorrow is a Sci-Fi film—there is absolutely no debate there, my friend. As for these superhero movies, I've never wanted to get bogged down in them; to me, they belong to an entirely different category altogether. They aren't quite Sci-Fi or Fantasy in my eyes; we really ought to establish a separate "superhero genre."

By definition, most superhero films are both Sci-Fi and Fantasy at once. The issue is that they've somehow carved out their own established niche over the years. I can't quite put my finger on why, but everyone understands what I mean—I simply cannot view someone like Captain America or Iron Man through the same lens as a pure Sci-Fi work like Aliens or a Fantasy epic like Lord of the Rings. To suggest otherwise would be sheer madness.

cosmicgull said:Do you think Sci-Fi requires certain qualities—perhaps a more robust scientific foundation than just mentioning something like genetic modification at the start of a movie—in order to qualify?

The definition of Sci-Fi is brief and clear:

A setting involving technology that HAS NOT BEEN INVENTED YET—or if you prefer: technology that does not exist. Or, if you want to go another route: a post-apocalyptic film like Mad Max where technology has vanished because everything is decaying. Though, in my opinion, post-apocalyptic films sit right on the border of Sci-Fi, making it debatable; however, the point regarding those first two categories is crystal clear:

Technology, technology, and more TECHNOLOGY that simply doesn't exist in our reality— that kind of advanced tech that makes our current world look like primitive tools compared to actual Sci-Fi.

The Fantasy genre is just as easy to define; it’s when you have elements of some sort of "power" derived from Earthly myths and legends, or perhaps something entirely detached from science—something striving toward spiritual strength or mythology. Take Star Wars, for example: it functions as both Fantasy (because of the Force) and Sci-Fi (due to the technological setting), whereas on the other hand, Lord of the Rings has absolutely zero connection to Sci-Fi—it is pure Fantasy.

cosmicgull said:For instance, if the beginning of Lord of the Rings featured a scene—or a book describing a nuclear catastrophe that triggered the entire plot—would LOTR be classified as Sci-Fi instead of Fantasy?

A nuclear disaster preceding the events of LOTR? 😁 You certainly have a vivid imagination—but fine, let's play along. Generally speaking, even if that were the case, it would still fall under Fantasy because of those core parameters I already laid out—though you could arguably tack on a Sci-Fi label. But like I said, in my view, a post-apocalyptic scenario sits right on the borderline of Sci-Fi, which is always up for debate. Still, that's essentially what Sci-Fi is: post-apocalyptic settings, the total collapse of technology (again, technology), and the resulting decadence within an imagined scenario.

cosmicgull said:See, this is exactly why I started this thread. For instance, you don't seem to grasp why Gravity is considered Sci-Fi. Honestly—and I'll concede this—you could argue it isn't Sci-Fi, or perhaps even the ending is—though, yeah, the ending qualifies as Sci-Fi 😁—but at least someone finally gets my point. 🙂

👍

P.S.: Even the ending isn't really Sci-Fi; nothing in Gravity actually falls under the Sci-Fi genre. Beyond that, there's the fact that our species has become far too soft—pardon my language—to ever step foot outside our own backyard, let alone venture into space. So now, the moment they see a setting in orbit, everyone immediately starts shouting: "Sci-Fi, Sci-Fi, Sci-Fi!"

Look, man, if Gravity is Sci-Fi, then I guess we should call Apollo 13 Sci-Fi too, right? But that’s impossible, isn't it? That's just History. It's absurd... "maybe" it becomes Sci-Fi if you take an action Set in the present and include absolutely zero invented technological segments regarding space travel? Truly fascinating logic.

So, here is my proposal: starting today, let's classify ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING except pure Drama as Sci-Fi. Let's just assume that if the plot takes place in space, then IT IS SCI-FI. 🙂

I mean, let's imagine Se7en, BUT SET IN SPACE—boom, there's your Sci-Fi. Let's go, brother! Everything is Sci-Fi because the whole plot is made up anyway. In fact, from this moment on, everything that isn't a documentary is Sci-Fi. Is that clear enough for everyone? ☕😁

Here is the plain truth: Gravity is a PURE Thriller-Drama (with some action thrown in), without any intention whatsoever of being a Sci-Fi genre film. Only people with a very specific—and frankly questionable—way of thinking could possibly believe otherwise.

Honestly, I’ve just completely lost it—this is a massive sore spot for me. Please, for the love of God, explain to me exactly WHAT criteria make Gravity 2013 Sci-Fi? Seriously, go ahead and explain it—who here is going to be the first one to step up? I’m waiting.

I’ll tell you why some people label Gravity 2013 as "Sci-Fi"—it’s for the simplest, most bottom-of-the-barrel reason imaginable: because it takes place in space. That’s it. That’s the absolute rock bottom of logic. An Impossible Mission involves far more impossible elements than anything in Gravity, but—lo and behold—Impossible Mission isn't set in space, is it?

So, the rule is: if it’s in space, it’s Sci-Fi, right? It doesn't matter that the technology used in the film is pulled straight from our current reality—there isn't a single piece of non-existent tech or imaginary machinery in the entire movie. It doesn't matter that the film and its story are Set in the present, utilizing contemporary space technology and modern orbital events; apparently, as long as they are in orbit, it magically becomes "Sci-Fi."

God, I just want to throw everything out the window when I see this kind of nonsense.

Everyone knows I absolutely adore Sci-Fi as a genre, but I cannot stomach this—labeling a film like Gravity as Sci-Fi simply because of its setting. And NO ONE HERE CAN DISPUTE MY CLAIM that the only reason it gets that title is the location. It’s pathetic; it is a total reflection of the intellectual bankruptcy of society today.