Travis McClain

The coolest thing about this chart (which I did not create) is that I learned about it from a Roger Ebert tweet.

Ranger

Cool. Is Spc (1999) supposed to be 2001 Space Odyssey?

RagingBull80

I may be blind but I don't see Blade Runner.

FinkPish

I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be Space 1999

2001 is element HAL (#25).

Ash Ketchum

I don't get that chart at all. (But then when they tried to teach me something that looked like that in chemistry class back in 7th or 8th grade, I didn't get it then, either.)

Drexl

Aw, I thought this was going to have fake elements like Kryptonite and Unobtainium.

GoldenJCJ

I (think) I get them all except the 3001 Tom Hanks one. What am I missing with that one?

Drexl

There was a rumor that Hanks wanted to direct it, but that was several years ago.

Dr Mabuse

Did Meitner get screwed over on the Nobel again?

Where's the one named after her?

RagingBull80

Ok, let me rephrase it as a question; does anybody else not see Blade Runner on there?

GoldenJCJ

^ I looked it over and there's no Blade Runner. For a second I thought it was on the top right corner but determined that to be Buck Rogers.

Actually, looking it over, I don't see any Philip K. Dick films listed.

mikehunt

why is indy 4 on there?

Supermallet

That chart is amazing. I'm in love!

Michael Corvin

That was my first thought. Seems like this should be updated to add/remove a few. Lost could be added along with Blade Runner.

I know it has it's detractors but i, Robot would look good as an element.

Abob Teff

Overall, pretty cool. Families 1-8 are pretty cool, but I don't get the rest of the groupings though ... example -- Family IX: The Matrix films are with 5th Element, X-Files, and Andromeda. ??

UAIOE

Xanadu??

islandclaws

AVP?

It must've taken up a lot of some nerd's time for this massive fail.

Travis McClain

The family name is Metallicrichtonide. I assume from this that these are Metaphysical in nature, or based upon something written by Michael Crichton. It makes sense, in a thematic kind of way (despite the fact that Crichton's works could have been a family all their own).

Do you have a problem with its inclusion, or are you unfamiliar with it? I can't help you either way, but I'm sure someone can.

Aw, why you be hatin'?

Incidentally, I just realized that, according to this chart, the sci-fi equivalent of water is two parts Star Trek (original series) bonded with one part WALL-E.

PopcornTreeCt

Unless I'm just not seeing it, the greatest sci-fi movie of all-time: Tarkovsky's Solaris, is not listed.

Edit: It is listed but no indication of which one... hmm...

Ash Ketchum

Where's GODZILLA in that chart? What is this, some kind of Eurocentric Periodic Table?

Abob Teff

I caught the "crichton" in the middle ... but that's not it. This family should have been made of:

O (Sphere)
JPk (Jurassic Park)
ASt (Andromeda Strain)
Ape (Congo)
13W (13th Warrior)
And I have nothing for the last one ...

Abob Teff

OK:
I -- Star Trek
II -- Star Wars
III -- Aliens
IV -- Terminator
V -- Time travel
VI -- Early sci-fi TV
VII -- Arthur Clarke
VIII -- Battlestar Galactica
IX -- ??
X -- "Men" (Dr. Who is a stretch though)
XI -- Starts off as "iron" ... last three don't fit
XII -- Robots
XIII -- ??
XIV -- ??

The bottom two rows have some neat ones that should have been worked into the upper portion.

Drexl

Lr (Looker)

UAIOE

Inclusion.

I would hear someone mention "Blade Runner" or Godzilla in any sci-fi discussion before I would ever hear "Xanadu".