oldandintheway

Space_Crime

PhelderCarb

zenpoet

Then they both destroy the universe.

edosan

Signal

Signal

tezby

Charlie Jane Anders

I want to see that Darth Vader VS Jaws movie you guys are advertising wit that photo!

Whats the plot? Is Lucas actually direction or Spielberg?
Will Harrison Ford Co-star?

dOk

Charlie Jane Anders

Charlie Jane Anders

stronty

But, for the love of all that is Sci-Fi, I want more, well.. Hard science fiction? There are so few movies that come close to the real essence of the stuff that lots of folks who sucked at the teat of Asimov and Heinlein can find in these modern movie spectacles.

I mean, can you point to really good space operas in this list? Not plentiful. The sorts of stories we look to in good book-SF are more like Hollywood's dramas. I mean, we have military SF, sure.

And when something which is more Sci-Fi roots true comes out, it's often A. suffers from strange interpretations (Darn you AI! DANG YOU! Inspired by Supertoys my arse) or under appreciated (GATTACA is a good example)

We have all of these great Sci fi writers emerging now, maybe they ought to be tapped to write original screenplays. Film adaptations of some books have been in development hell for two or three decades (And we all know / fear Hollywood would butcher them!) so, why won't hollywood use emergent sci-fi talent to create originals with the medium in mind?

Crimson (PS3 ID Black--Tiger)

justpat

justpat

Macloserboy

Tim Faulkner

vurtscribe

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.

RAHfanboy

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.

ejp1082

@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.

Dunny0, ELE Hopeful

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.

Pouncer

Craig Dawson

namanintx

CargoCult

TheRealVeon

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.

Logan5

Garrison Dean, Mr. Privilege

Tim Faulkner

augie1

Plague

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.

OldDog1

Metropolis

DSTRYA

Metropolis

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.

moff

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, Mr. Privilege

Charlie Jane Anders

Bluecell

I'd have brought it up myself, but I was distracted by the Star Wars made three hundred and seven dollars thing.

braak

tetracycloide

Charlie Jane Anders

Tim Faulkner

HomoPolitico

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.

Garrison Dean, Mr. Privilege

Charlie Jane Anders

braak

braak

Charlie Jane Anders

Charlie Jane Anders

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.

Dunny0, ELE Hopeful

BloggyMcBlogBlog

aspiringexpatriate

Tim Faulkner

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.

TheN

aspiringexpatriate

jrwvampire

tetracycloide

I thought it had done better than that.

braak