NASA knows science (fiction)

 

This post is about an article in which "NASA" picks what it thinks are the best and worst science fiction movies.  

As the article notes, "After looking at the lists, I think we can conclude that the last couple of decades has been both good and bad when it comes to sci-fi in the movies. Special effects can make our imagination come to life on the screen, as in Jurassic Park, but it's no substitute for good storytelling, which is what the worst of the worst all seem to lack. It wasn't that the science itself was bad—that can be ignored if there's a payoff—but there wasn't anything good to balance it out."

NASA Picks Best and Worst Sci-Fi Movies. What Are Yours?

Actually, this selection was made at a meeting at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, so the attendees weren't necessarily all directly affiliated with NASA.  

In a Yahoo! article on the same subject, the esteemed Neil de Grasse Tyson was noted in this manner:

"If you're curious, Neil deGrasse Tyson's approved sci-fi list also features several of these titles. Others he called out are "The Matrix," "The Martian," "Interstellar," the ever-classic "Back to the Future," "Deep Impact" from 1998, and Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" released in 1968."

I thought Interstellar, The Martian, and 2001 did deserve to be on the first list of the best, but they didn't make it.  

I guess The Chronicles of Riddick doesn't have a chance, but it sure is fun. 

Finally, I'd add the original Total Recall, despite the violence, and Arrival, which has a very interesting twist that Kurt Vonnegut would have probably liked.

I also liked Logan's Run, perhaps for different reasons than quality.