This chart is no good. The current year is 2000? What does the length of the bar mean? Apparently nothing. Why do the horizontal bars start at different dates? Jesus.

Ah. Release date of the film. Carry on.

This is a cool chart. The dark green line to the left of 2000 is obviously the year the movie came out with the other side being the year it is set in.

The bar to the left represents the year of release; the bar to the right represents the year the story was actually set. So... the length of the bar represents how far in the future those movies took place.

A) The current year isn't 2000 - it's 2009. The labels along the bottom are only accurate if the START of the number is the proper place. So "2000" on the chart is in front of the "2" not between the first set of 0's. That threw me off as well, but look at 2001 and Freejack. The chart is obviously set at 2009, despite any confusion at the bottom.

B) The bars start at different dates because they denote when the movie was released. Hence the "I've also charted the years in which they were released".

C) Therefore the length of the bar is from when the movie was released until it supposedly takes place.

Souldn't there be an altenative Universe chart for Star Track 2009 and Star Wars?

Leaves out too many films to be interesting, including the obvious: 1984.

Comprehensive, my ass. No Terminator, Terminator and TSCC should dominate

I agree, needs to be a fuller chart.

Where's Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy? or Wall-E? Fahrenheit 451?

I'm sure there are many, many other sci-fi classics left out. It would be huge if all were included.

Yeah, but Terminator took place mostly in the present-day. And 1984 the film actually released in 1984, so at that point it was a parallel present-day. This chart is all about the future. (it's also only for movies, no TV series)

I bet all you nitpicky nimrods lead charming lives. If you wanted this to be comprehensive, it'd be illegible. And if by some divine intervention it was created as such, you'd be all ticked that it didn't include literature either. Go get a tan.

Headline fail. Definitely not comprehensive.

sooo tired of hearing people whine about sarah connor show.

Wasn't the Logan's Run film set in the 23rd Century? The film's poster certainly states so.

The chart is also far from comprehensive (Omega Man, I Am Legend, Aeon Flux, Code 46, Mission to Mars, etc, etc, etc). I imagine the headline of this article is merely intended to bait our "inner geek" into saying so.

How would you chart HG Wells' Time Machine?

Cool, a nice list, but too bad it doesn't have all the sci-fi movies. Where's "The Island", "I-Robot", "I Am Legend", "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun"???

Star Trek did not take place in 2387. Star Trek takes place in the 23rd century, which would be the 2200s. Even Star Trek: The Next Generation, which did take place in the 24th century, began in 2363, which means it would have ended its seven-year run in 2370, 17 year earlier than the chart suggests.

Well, i really hate to add to all of this, but the Matrix did not happen in 2199, they said thats what it was closer to, but they didnt know, and then the architect tells you its been a handful of anomolies since the original matrix so the year is probably closer to 3000

the orginal "1984" was released in "1956", the later one was a remake. check IMDb. and there is a new verison due out in 2010, also

The best part about any post on scifiwire is the uber-nerd catfights that erupt over the most arcane and usually pointless topics.

The timeline on the X axis is accurate enough to me. It is 50 year blocks, so the line doesn't slide much too the right.

Obviously could have put hundreds of good and bad scfi movies on the Y axis, but that could get absurd very quickly. Good concept though.

"No one really pays much attention to what year sci-fi movies take place." Interesting assumption, but wrong.

Nice chart though, I may even keep a copy, more or less ignoring all the nay-sayers except for Star Trek. That was pretty definitive... everything else; what wasn't definitive was obviously a best guess and fair enough...

Nice work!

Tut tut. Sci-Fi Wire strikes again by baiting the poor nerds into getting themselves all worked up over "questionable" details. It's almost as bad as when they declared the new Star Trek film to be an "international hit" when its box office tally outside of the US is certainly nothing to write home about.

...and Firefly would be where? :(

Dune takes place in an alternate universe,
who's to say it takes place in our future? looking forward to the new installment.9

The Matrix is closer to 2799, morpheus says he thinks it's 2199 but the matrix had five matrices and five THE ONES, Ergo, each anomalous event occurs up to a century validating the emergence of the one, to reload the core program and reboot the system.

Dune probability is the closest with more than ten thousand years into our future, since Dune's time line occurs ten thousand years after the machine revolt.

If one wants to chart something, let's do the tech from movies. Communicators from 1967's Star Trek are in everyones back pocket now. 1981's Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy had the Guide, an electronic book, and here in 2008 we have many that will d/l the book you wish at a press. Yes, they missed so many movies, but the reality is that we will not be in space as a whole for some time (2001 & 2010 missed their marks, as do so many of the top picks). Reality is that we have seen tech spring from our movies and shows. Chart that one! - KH

I think you missed 1999, the year the apes took over in Conquest Of The Planet Of The Apes

I agree that if the poster tried to compile all set-in-the-future scifi films it would be an unreadable muck. And folks would complain about that. Like any timeline, inclusion of an event is at the discretion of the creator and is only meant to touch on the highlights of the event. This is a nice effort that is fun to look over and chat about with others. Well Done!

Ado: Star Trek's overseas box office may seem like nothing to write home about in the context of other blockbuster films. But Star Trek films have never done that well internationally. Until Now. This is already the most successful Star Trek film ever made. And it's still going strong. That's a news story anyway you look at it.

What about Demolition Man or Judge Dredd? With enough plastic surgery, Stallone might still be around when these movies take place.

Impossible to be "comprehensive" it would be huge. Love that Zardoz was included, a very under-appreciated and mis-understood movie. People don't often realize that Dune takes place in a -very- distant future.

The Jetsons?

Great Chart

Impossible to say Clockwork Orange is from 1995. Just AT LEAST 95 because he mentioned the Durango 95. I could say my 69 Chrysler convertible ran well today and obviously it wouldn't make this year 1969.