any sci-fi film list that would have 2001 so low and star trek (2009) so high clearly isn't based on a serious metric

No one person made this list. It's calculated by the adjusted scores of all the movies in the Sci-Fi category ever rated on Rotten Tomatoes. They just listed in order the top 100 movies based on that score. It's not one person's opinion that led to this list.

Exactly. And, it's not like this genre is known for cranking out overly intelligent films anyway. What do they expect? Ingmar Bergman? Come on, it's Sci-fi.

Contact should have been on the list if not #1

You know you can just look up it's score and see why it is not on the list. This is a list by aggregate reviews score. That's what Rotten Tomatoes it.

I liked Stewie Grffins (Family Guy) opinion of Contact.

Not number one, but Foster has a great turn in that film. Is there a better actress for our generation? Not many.

She's an incredible actress and the film should be on this list.

Foster has tailed off lately, but she has 5 or 6 iconic roles that should put her in the HOF.
The film Contact is pretty good. I wouldn't consider it a classic or anything. Above average. And that's only because Foster is in it.

Terrible actress.

Well your credibility just went to zero minus. No one can take any of your positions expressed here seriously when you refer to Foster as a terrible actress.

Not really though.

Really. Most definitely really.

Yeah but no not really

Not really.

People were just disappointed that there were not little green men at the end of the movie. Best line in the movie in my opinion was First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?

Why that line?

Only if you regard space opera as Science Fiction. Real Science Fiction is about the exploration of metaphysical ideas which cannot be presented within the current state of technological/sociological advancement. Blade Runner is a fine example. Mad Max Fury road is borderline sci fi at best. Star Wars is mostly space opera with an occasional good idea thrown in.

Any great film is in fact a genre film, like horror or sci-fi, because it is about stylized reality or magical realism. Most of Bergman is in fact sci-fi, like The Seventh Seal, Wild Strawberries or Through a Glass Darkly, as is Stalker by Tarkovski and many others. It may not what sci-fi is defined by the conventional fare, but it is sci-fi- it moves in the realm of dreams

You got me thinking. You're probably right. I needed a kick in the stomach. Thank you.

Which is evidence that Rotten Tomatoes scores are a terrible way to judge a movie. This list is RT posting an article about why only idiots consult RT scores before going to a movie.

Just because you do not agree does not diminish the intelligence of the person writing the list - I disagree too. Noticeably missing - the original time machine, journey to the center of the earth and any of the Micheal Bay Transformer films - Just kidding

No one put anything anywhere, "ranked by adjusted Tomatometer from at least 40 reviews," which is hardly indicative of actual quality.

yeah they did. If it was a straight up tomatometer ranking, fine, but they're "adjusted" scale seems tailored to fit the movies they liked.

No, they're using statistical analysis to even things out, i.e. using math to account for aberrations (outliers, difference in total number of reviews, etc.).

It is the exact opposite of tailoring things to what they liked, if they want to do that they could have just made a list of movies based on what they liked the most instead of using numbers. Your comment, and those of others, is a clear sign of someone being cynical for the sake of being cynical.

Please, enlighten me. Why does the tomato meter need to be adjusted one way for one movie, a different way for another? I am being serious here, not trying to be snarky. To me, an 'adjusted' scale for older movies implies a different algorithm is being used compared to newer movies. Is it a sliding scale based on how old the movie is? Or is it a hard and fast scale that is only applied to movies that are pre-Internet?

Have you bothered to read what the adjusted Tomatometer score is about? They explain the point of it for you.

The only way for the scores to be even from movie to movie is if every movie is reviewed by the same number of people, and frankly by the exact same people. That does not happen, thus they're using statistical formulas to try and normalize the scores so they're on a more equal footing.

Could someone manipulate the math or numbers to get results more fitting to what they want? Sure, but what the hell would be the point in this context when you could just make up your own list?

Thanks for explaining Tomatometer, I'll read it and see what I think about their method. What you've described though is a poor attempt of trying to turn a subjective grade into something objective which is impossible. Even if the same number and the same people watched every movie, as they grew older, went through life's ups and downs, etc their taste would all change unpredictably. In other words the past doesn't equal the present and the present doesn't equal the future. I suspect the algorithm to give each film the most accurate & relative value would be quite complex.

For example if you take movies all the way back to 1950, you'd have to develop a ratio/correlation between the average number of movie goers each year, the number of available cinemas, an economic index for each day of the year to account for recessions, depressions, booms. You might have to do some kind of scaling based on spectrum of genres in 1950 versus any other year or period. You would have to account for special effects relative to the time in which it was created as well as a comparison of all special effects in all time periods.

Once your algorithm could be stress tested to filter for consistency, then you could apply it to all movies in all times. That being said this list is missing some amazing sci-fi movies. Not sure what thats all about.

Which shows that you can't trust critics (they're just tools of the industry), and that this entire undertaking was poorly conceived.

In their right mind would ever listen to critics? They also all stated black panther was the best superhero ever made. Sure it was entertaining but best superhero movie? Not even close

cuks gonna be cuks
the over fawning over compensatory gushing of a white person for a minority, which is never receprocated on the reverse is surely indicative of repressed racism...

or naivety...

Are you really that dumb?

Nope not even close. Personally, I thought Black Panther was alright to a point. But realistically, for me, Superman. He's just an all out nice guy who can get pissed off like the rest of them and can get the job done when he needs to. It seems that over the years there have been many story writers who are trying desperately to quell Superman's shining example by creating more powerful heroes or villains with uncharted strengths or mind controlling aspects. Black Panther by comparison to Superman or Thor himself would make him look like a choir boy in the middle of a gay parade in downtown San Fransisco. In my view the comic world needs to keep Black Panther in just comics and off the movie screen.

I disagree. Regardless of the power level associated with Black Panther versus anyone, the movie was amazing. Best Superhero movie? not to me. Great super hero movie? Absolutely.

They where rank by tomatometer not by their favorite

Yeah, that's a stupid system in and of itself. How can you have more than 100% of critics score? Also, it rigs the system in favor for new things over established giants and true classics.

How the hell does that adjusted junk work?

hover your mouse over the '?' after the adjusted score for any of the movies and it will tell you what they did. You can google anything there you need a better understanding of.

Did the hovering mouse thing and still didn't understand.

That's what search engines are for, they let you look up things you don't understand and find people who can explain it for you.

40 reviews in a population set of 300 million? Run that through SPSS and the statistical significance = nothing! Where was Android? John Carter of Mars? The Time Machine? Still, most of the big ones made the list....

If you know how to use SPSS then you'll know that the population size is all but irrelevant to the statistical significance.

No person exists.

No, not an idiot. I don't agree with many of the films placement on this list but intelligence has nothing to do with ones taste in films.

I don't know, I can not say someone has good taste in movies if they completely skip the Empire Strikes Back but find a place on the list for Revenge of the Sith.

Intelligence has nothing to do with taste. That's a simple fact. And this list isn't a person's list. It's a list based on stats and data.

(listened to a jordan peterson lecture today.. i think those 2 should be able to be separated .. if the intelligent person is intelligent enough ;) - no,... maybe... 'mindful' enough...?)