SCIENCE FICTION like old wine – sour, undrinkable, yet CULT CLASSIC

I drink alcohol literally only a few times a year and in minimal amounts because, in reality, there is no healthy dose of it. However, I’ve seen many different drinking styles. What caught my attention the most was wine. Some people went so far as to add sugar to dry wine just to make it drinkable, or they mixed it with juice or cola. All these tricks were meant to change the taste of so-called “acidic wine” into something sweeter and more aromatic, but in the end, these drinks had nothing to do with real wine. One could simply choose a semi-sweet wine instead of struggling, experimenting, and pretending that something tastes better than it actually does. The same applies to movies. Instead of forcing yourself to watch some old science fiction film that is considered “cult” and socially acceptable to like, maybe it’s better to go for newer titles that better suit your taste? Why go through all that effort? Searching for subtitles, reading positive reviews to adopt their arguments as your own, or even buying higher-quality recordings on Amazon than the ones available online, hoping that seeing more will somehow make the film better? Why do all that when you could just enjoy Jurassic World Dominion without pretending? Is it all done just to convince yourself that you belong to a higher intellectual class? It’s laughable—begging for social status like some Nikodem Dyzma wannabe.

Or maybe there really is something about those old retro sci-fi films that both hardcore fans and those desperately trying to reach their level feel the need to glorify and unconditionally love?

I’ve never been a hardcore sci-fi fan, nor do I intend to be, but I do enjoy the genre rationally—not obsessively like some convention-goers. I didn’t believe it myself until I saw firsthand how irrational and toxic that community can be. The stereotypical image of a sci-fi nerd trying to convince his unattainable female friend (one of many) to dress up in a costume from the “era” isn’t as exaggerated as it seems in some American comedies. That’s why I try to demystify the genre and make it accessible to everyone, not just a chosen few.

There’s another side to this coin. Science fiction as a film and literary theme doesn’t really care about another obsessive fanbase—the one dedicated to psychological dramas and all things “deeply realistic and life-experienced,” to the point that watching them becomes unbearable because you already experience similar things in your own life. That’s why sci-fi needs balance and time to evolve. I write a lot about it—both the old and the new, the bad and the great, as well as the completely average films that will never become cult classics.

There’s one more category I regularly cover—forgotten sci-fi films that are considered cult classics only within very small circles of fans who don’t care that 99% of these movies are technical disasters, sometimes narratively as well. But there are exceptions worth preserving from oblivion.

Don’t take offense at my strong words—only those who lack self-awareness get upset over something as insignificant as a low film rating. I have the right to critique these films, even though I irrationally appreciate some of them. That doesn’t mean I can’t analyze them critically.

So what makes older sci-fi films, especially the cheap and weak ones, so overvalued? And why is rewatching them so enjoyable?

Most sci-fi titles that were once distributed on VHS, without a theatrical release, are objectively poorly made—that’s a fact, no matter how much people on the internet try to deny it. The main reason these films are so fondly remembered and why articles about them perform well online is that most of us fans watched them as kids. We were usually no older than 15, often around 10, stepping into the difficult phase of adolescence during unstable times when everything around us was also transforming. So when we recall these movies, we return to the past—usually the more pleasant parts of it, even if the rest was dark.

This nostalgia influences how we rate these films today. Viewers—whether critics or casual fans—struggle to emotionally criticize movies that once brought them comfort. I completely understand this; I’m no different. However, even within this subjectivity, one should at least be aware of the process. The mechanism is simple enough that it shouldn’t be hard to grasp.

Thus, older sci-fi films gain value over time because we revisit them with nostalgia, not necessarily remembering the movies themselves but the feelings they evoked when we first watched them—back when digital technology wasn’t a part of everyday life, but it was present in movies. We formed our opinions about them at a stage of brain development that is crucial to shaping our entire personality.

And that leads me to another reason why we overvalue old sci-fi films. Back then, they gave us imaginative visions of advanced technology—computers, space travel, medicine, and everyday gadgets—that we didn’t have. Today, we do. As a result, many sci-fi films have ceased to be “science fiction” and have instead become action-dramas. Revisiting these films allows us to enjoy the verification of past expectations against present reality.

It turns out our old VHS-era movies were right: we do wear smartwatches on our wrists that practically tell us how to live—and we believe them without question. The fact that they have different screens and more colors is just a minor detail. In fact, it’s a positive one, as humans tend to value older things simply because they are old.

So do we treat retro sci-fi films the same way we do antiques? Absolutely. That’s why we overlook their technical flaws—because we inherently understand that they couldn’t have been better. Comparing them to today’s productions would be unfair and pointless. It’s similar in sports: you can’t discredit old world records just because new ones exist. Gold medals from the past are just as valuable as today’s, as they were earned under the rules of their time.

That’s why it sometimes takes a long time for a film to become a cult classic—it needs the shared cultural nostalgia and our natural respect for the past.

But what about the content of those older films?

People often say that older things are wiser because we associate experience with knowledge. While it’s true that older individuals often have greater life wisdom, this doesn’t necessarily mean they have superior subject knowledge. There’s also a huge difference between general wisdom and intelligence, which declines with age.

Experience should be respected, but it shouldn’t be overestimated or generalized. Respect must be earned—it doesn’t come automatically with age.

Applying this metaphor to old sci-fi films, fans of the genre tend to assign greater value to older productions simply because they come from a past era. Whether it’s their own youth or that of their parents—who may have instilled respect for those films in them—they assume these films are “smarter.”

But is that actually true?

If we start comparing old sci-fi to modern sci-fi, will we find that past scripts were truly better?

They were certainly different—not as filled with advertisements and with fewer references to the past, simply because there wasn’t as much history to draw from. Today, science fiction cinema has a much larger base of inspiration than it did 30–40 years ago, so it’s natural to see so-called references to past genre icons, reinterpreted for contemporary audiences. When it comes to advertisements, films were indeed less saturated with them in the past. As for content, older generations must also understand that society changes, and with it, the films created for each new generation.

A film is not an isolated entity, made by a timeless group of artists catering to the tastes of every individual on the planet. Like any art form that aims to reach the widest possible audience, film must be somewhat standardized, egalitarian. Only then does it have a chance to truly be art. Writing about older science fiction films doesn’t mean I consider them superior to contemporary ones. Setting aside the issue of excessive remakes—resulting from the sheer number of films made and the recurring themes throughout cinema history—older films are simply different. When they had lower budgets, it often showed in their scripts, though not always. However, our assessment of them is shaped by so many factors that it’s difficult to separate our rational understanding of a film’s narrative structure from our personal biases and ingrained value judgments.

Looking at a table overflowing with bottles of wine in every possible shade, the best way to form an opinion is to taste them—but there’s no need to force yourself to drink. It’s also useful to understand why something doesn’t taste the way the long-time drinker across the table insists it should. So let’s not force ourselves to sweeten the wine just to fit in and chat merrily, all the while feeling bored inside and cursing our supposedly inferior taste. Instead, let’s pick a different bottle—or maybe even find an entirely new table.