io9
This summer will be the biggest "blockbuster" movie season ever, with no fewer than 23 would-be smash hits coming out between early May and mid-August. It didn't used to be this way. Back in the mists of time — like, say, in the late 1990s — there were only one or two big science fiction movies per summer, and only a handful of huge summer movies total. But summer movies have gotten bigger and more franchise-driven in the past decade, and science fiction is at the center of that transformation. We chart the rise of summer-movie gridlock, with a list of every summer scifi hit since 1980.
This summer will be the biggest "blockbuster" movie season ever, with 
The 1970s: 1975's Jaws is widely considered the first summer blockbuster. The original Star Wars came out in May 1977 and grossed about $307 million domestically in its first run. The other big summer blockbusters of the late 1970s were Jaws 2, Animal House and Alien, according to this site.
The 1980s: Science fiction scored about one summer blockbuster per year, or maybe two in a good year. Except for the late 1980s, when science fiction had a bit of a slump. Here's the roundup, by year. (A year with an asterisk is one where no science fiction film hit the top 10 movies of the year, box-office-wise.)
1980: Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back ($209 million)
1981: Superman II ($108 million)
1982: E.T. ($359 million) and Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan ($79 million).
1983: Star Wars: Return Of The Jedi ($252 million), Superman III ($60 million) and War Games ($80 million)
1984: Ghostbusters ($260 million) and Star Trek III: The Search For Spock ($76 million)
1985: Cocoon ($76 million) and Back To The Future ($211 million)
1986: Short Circuit ($41 million) and Aliens ($85 million)
* 1987: Predator ($60 million) and Robocop ($53 million)
* 1988: None. (Although Big and Willow were big summer hits.)
1989: Batman ($251 million), Honey I Shrunk The Kids ($131 million)
The 1990s: The number of science fiction movies in the summer's biggest movies increased slightly, with some ups and downs. Some years, the biggest blockbusters included films with a lot of special effects and action-adventure themes, but no overt science fictional elements.
1990: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles ($135 million), Total Recall ($119 million), Back To The Future Part III ($88 million), Flatliners ($61 million).
1991: Terminator 2 ($205 million)
1992: Batman Returns ($163 million)
1993: Jurassic Park ($357 million)
* 1994: None. (Although True Lies, Speed and The Mask were in the top 10, and non-summer films Stargate and Star Trek: Generations were in the top 20.)
1995: Batman Forever ($184 million), Apollo 13 ($172 million), Waterworld ($88 million)
1996: Independence Day ($306 million), Phenomenon ($105 million)
1997: Men In Black ($251 million), The Lost World: Jurassic Park ($229 million), Face/Off ($112 million), Batman And Robin ($107 million)
1998: Armageddon ($202 million), Deep Impact ($140 million), Godzilla ($136 million), The Truman Show ($126 million)
1999: Star Wars Episode 1 ($431 million), Wild Wild West ($114 million)
The 2000s: It's really just in the last five years that we've seen more than two or three big science fiction movies dominating the summer pretty much every year. A lot of these have been franchises, comic-book movies and sequels, or some combination of the three. The box-office take of the top 10 movies has increased dramatically, with every year's top 10 movies each grossing well over $100 million.
2000: X-Men ($157 million)
2001: Jurassic Park III ($181 million), Planet of The Apes ($180 million)
2002: Spider-Man ($404 million), Star Wars Episode II ($302 million), Signs (228 million), Men In Black II ($190 million)
2003: The Matrix Reloaded ($282 million), X2: X-Men United ($215 million), Terminator 3 ($150 million), Hulk ($132 million)
2004: Spider-Man 2 ($374 million), The Day After Tomorrow ($187 million), I, Robot ($145 million)
2005: Star Wars: Episode III ($380 million), War Of The Worlds ($234 million), Batman Begins ($205 million), Fantastic Four ($155 million)
2006: X-Men: The Last Stand ($234 million), Superman Returns ($200 million)
2007: Spider-Man 3 ($337 million), Transformers($319 million), The Simpsons Movie ($183 million), Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer ($132 million)
Note: Data is from BoxofficeMojo.com. Dollar figures aren't adjusted for inflation. I left out movies like the original Indiana Jones trilogy, which is clearly fantasy. (Unlike the new Indiana Jones movie, if all reports are to be believed.) I also left out spy movies that might have a few science-fiction touches aren't really about a science-fictional premise. Feel free to bitch at me in the comments.
Comments
Does that say "Star War grossed $307 domestically..."?
I thought it had done better than that.
when did science fiction start including all comic book movies, anything animated, and all fantasies set in space?
Is The Simpsons movie listed because the idea of covering a town with a dome to prevent it from polluting considered Sci-Fi?
@braak: Tickets were 5 bucks back then.
Bring us the head of Charlie Jane Anders! Rarrrgh!
Seriously tho'... CJA- $307?
@tetracycloide: I think Space Opera is generally accepted as a sub-genre of SciFi, and a strong case can be made for the Superhero genre being one as well. I'm too lazy to make it however, and its been done to death over the decades.
So comics are at the center of it all, no?
@tetracycloide: When Hollywood took over.
@braak: that was in its first release. It has been re-released many times.
While I enjoy the fact that SciFi is making some sort of weird resurgence and growth in the mainstream, I kind of wonder if this explosion is a bad thing.
23 movies this summer... And how many of them are going to actually be good?
Looking at the great list here (I'm totally surprised the first Matrix wasn't on it) just makes me more depressed: As more movies get crapped out, the number of them that are "classic" really dips. Not a one of the films in the past seven years is one that I'd consider amazing. Fun, entertaining and pretty well made? Sure.
The only solution: Give up on SciFi, move to Historical Romances. That's where the real fun is.
@jrwvampire: Yes.
The answer is simple: once a couple of studios found out you could make money with Summer blockbusters, they all started doing it. Now it has become repetitious, with mounds of steaming crap being dumped in theaters in the summer in the vain hope people will be dopey enough to spend millions on every single one.
@braak: Whoops. Should be $307 million. $307 is what it cost to make.
@tetracycloide: When we spent, like, eighty million hours trying to figure out what counted as Science Fiction, and failed to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion.
@Charlie Jane Anders: $307 is what James Earl Jones got paid for that movie.
@TheN: The scary thing is they might bring you the body as well, and nobody wants that.
OH NO!!! They're giving us too much of what we want!!! Fuckin Hollywood, the nerve of those bastards.
You're right io9 "Strung Out on Science Fiction", I would much rather have blockbusters of old like "Love Story" "Cleopatra" "Ben Hur" and "Airport" "The Towering Inferno" than robots fighting each other and space aliens.
God damn it! Now it want to see a Jaws swede with Chad Vader as sheriff Brodey
@Dunny0: I will watch a thousand Bruce Willises drill a thousand nukes into a thousand asteroids before I ever...EVER...sit through historical romance. Or a romance anything
@Garrison Dean, King Awesome: Something like "Ben Hur" sounds good to me.
@Garrison Dean, King Awesome: You raise a good point. But what about Ben Hur vs. robots and space aliens?
@braak: that seems like a pretty strong argument against asking pedantic questions like 'when did summer become science fiction overkill season?'
@tetracycloide: Also a valid point!
I'd have brought it up myself, but I was distracted by the Star Wars made three hundred and seven dollars thing.
That picture of E.T. with Jackson is terrifying.
@Dunny0: The original Matrix came out in March... so not really a summer movie.
@Tim Faulkner: @Charlie Jane Anders: I'm sure you went to go see The Passion and Apocolypto in the theaters then right? I did... they ruled.
And yeah robots would've made better rowers. And everyone knows.. .Jesus was a space alien robot, you'll find out in about 17 BSG episodes.
@Garrison Dean, King Awesome: No kidding.
SF, especially the comic book variant, has just grown up. Twenty years ago, you couldn't do a serious X-Men movie, because most grown-ups weren't reading comics, or at least weren't admitting it. You could do Superman and Batman, but only because they were Superman and Batman. Ten years ago, there were suddenly enough young adults around who knew who Jean Grey was to justify a worthwhile film. Moreover, the special effects had improved enough to make suspension of disbelief possible, instead of getting made fun of for cheesiness.
And really, the effects are probably a lot of what it comes down to. If you can make it look like cars really are transforming into robots, shit, what says "summer blockbuster" more than that? A black guy and a white guy chasing down drug dealers? Uh uh.
@tetracycloide: Aggred. Star Wars has never and will never be science fiction IMO.
i would say that SciFi/fantasy* became the dominant species right around Jurassic Park. Once CG became common, everybody started looking for an excuse to use it. Plus, if you stick Will Smith in front of a green screen and have him say "DAMN!", you'll make like a billion dollars.
@Garrison Dean, King Awesome: I saw Passion in the theaters and the only thing I could thing of when leaving was," Man, Mary Magdalene was fucking hot, Im going home and watching the Matrix."
Oh my,
I thought Serenity was the spark that started it all. But, then it came out in September.
My take on it is that the more SciFi the better. And Fantasy, lots of Fantasy.
I always complain when I get a lot of what I love.
Like sushi.
Or porn.
Total nitpick on an interesting piece, but is Apollo 13 science fiction? I dig the science part, but not so much on the fiction.
@Garrison Dean, King Awesome: They both sucked. I knew Passions would, but I had high hopes for Apocalypto. I guess I should have said: something like Ben Hur not directed by Mel Gibson. My point, besides making a joke, was: I would see nothing wrong with quality, expansive epics that are less frequently explored versus 3 to 4 comic book movies that suck.
@Tim Faulkner: I can see that, but all those recent versions were basically Sci-Fi films set in the past (right CJA?!) with all their effects and city scapes and what not. I would love a new Spartacus or Laurence of Arabia.. Basically I miss Kubrick and Lean.
I get the feeling some data is missing here. Perhaps it is selective memory. Having gone through my teens in the 70's and early 80's I recall a lot more excitement about summer movies than this blog post implies. In fact, my recollection is that summer blockbusters were far more of a draw than they are today, with lines wrapping around movie theaters.
If The Simpsons is included in this list where's Raiders of the Lost (1981) and while not strictly sci-fi there were some James Bond flicks such as Moonraker that were probably eligible.
@augie1: Apollo 13 is not science fiction. It was a historical drama based on actual events.
@augie1: I totally agree. Just because something happens in space, doesn't make it science fiction.
@OldDog1:
So it wasn't just me who saw the words 'Summer', 'science fiction' and 'overkill' and hoped against hope for a murderous Ms. Glau-featuring Serenity sequel?
omg! Michael Jackson's black?!?!?
@Metropolis:
ahh, yes. Monica Bellucci. One of the hottest actresses of all time! :)
My diagnosis is this: studio consolidation in Hollywood (check out the handful of producers in the latest AMPTA negotiations with the writers guild vice the dozens back in the 1980 edition) has stifled creativity. That list of 2000s films? It's full of "franchises" -- I count three films that didn't come from an established property (comic book, novel, prior movie) or spawn sequels. Why? Risk aversion. Hollywood is such a nickel and dime game these days that they'd far rather make horrid pap of a sequel than take a chance on a new, fresh, and original artistic vision.
The first X-Man film was fantastic. So was the first Spiderman. Other than that, none of those big-grossing movies are ones I've enjoyed or wanted to see at all.
Movies are expensive to make, they're expensive to market, audiences are declining, and the businessmen in charge of studios these days want a guaranteed return on their investment. It's why I seldom go to a theater these days -- nothing appeals, and so few films have provided a satisfying experience across a spectrum of criteria (storytelling, characterization, consistency, theme, portrayal of women and/or minorities in a respectful manner) that I'm wary of wasting my time.
But those mass audiences who do go to the movies enjoy the effects, and we get nonsense like X-Men 3 or The Day After Tomorrow.
@HomoPolitico:
So... Multiplicity + Armageddon... In space then?
Yeah, I'd probably watch that too.
@Charlie Jane Anders:
I did not know that. Although now that I think back to actually watching it in the theater (several times), there was snow on the ground. Then again, this was in Colorado Springs, so that might not be a good indicator of season.
First of all: In what *universe* can "The Simpsons Movie" possibly qualify as science fiction?
Secondly: The rest of your list is kind of suspect. Depends on how narrowly or broadly you define "science fiction", but I don't see any consistency in that list. You're arbitrarily picking movies that may or may not be science fiction and discounting movies that are similar to others already picked.
Finally: the answer is sort of obvious, no? It coincides with the rise of CG.
In the 80's, special effects didn't offer much bang for the buck. Starting with Jurassic Park and being perfected with The Phantom Menace, there was a huge jump in the kinds of effects you could get for your dollar.
Science fiction and fantasy happen to be the genres that lend themselves most to utilizing this.
@Tim Faulkner: "@Garrison Dean, King Awesome: Something like "Ben Hur" sounds good to me."
I just watched it on TCM and it's still a great flick. They did an interview with the late great Chuck Heston, and he said they ran the line by line budget from the movie into their cost calculating program, and it would cost over $200 million to make today. That does not include the cost of re-animating those involved.
@Charlie Jane Anders: "But what about Ben Hur {sic} vs. robots and space aliens?"
My money's on Judah, but he'd need a tin-foil yarmulke to ward off alien mind control rays.