more »
Scifi
more »
First question, about this week's major release:
You've said before that some superhero films are science fiction and some are not. Where does the new Captain America fall on that scale?
more »
It's a sad moment for them, but it's a sad and interesting moment for Hollywood, too, and particularly for Warner Bros., the film studio behind the Harry Potter series. Warner now has the unenviable task of trying to find something to replace the most successful film series ever (in terms of worldwide box office grosses) and a series which features six of Warner Bros.' top ten films of all time.
I wish the studio luck, but I'm not entirely convinced they'll pull it off. In many significant ways, the Potter series is entirely unique in recent film, and the elements of its success may not be repeatable. Here's some of what Potter has that most film series don't -- and won't:
more »
Any thoughts for us on the box office performance of Transformers: Dark of the Moon last weekend? We all know how much you love that series.
Heh. The sarcasm! It burns! And actually, yes, I have a number of thoughts.
more »
1. Stone-faced government officials seeking and/or hiding aliens. This one got trotted out again this year with Super 8, and was the most wearisome part of an otherwise pretty entertaining flick. Look, Area 51 and officious looking g-men and scads of government minions invading a town have had a good run, and back when they showed up in E.T., they were still a little scary. But that was thirty years ago, and now, when you see them you know they're the token opposition. Too easy. Move on.
2. The overwhelming alien invasion. Most recently essayed in Battle: Los Angeles, but, of course, going all the way back to War of the Worlds. It's not that I don't enjoy watching apparently superior alien forces blow the hell out of large buildings while a rag-tag team of humans fights back, eventually finding whatever chink in the alien armor, be it the power source of the invading armada or a bunch of water glasses lying around the house, that will allow the humans to score a major victory and turn the tide against the alien horde. But as the previous sentence may suggest, the folks making these sorts of films are relying a little too heavily on one particular plot engine. No matter how you deck out the details it still runs the same.
more »
Is it just me, or does it seem like movies aren't making as much money as they used to? The big summer movies so far don't seem to be having as big opening weekends as I remember them having before.
Indeed, the big summer movies, including those of a science-fiction or fantasy nature, are down a bit from previous years, at least domestically -- although "down" is something of relative term. For example, the latest Pirates of the Caribbean installment is likely to be the least successful of that series at the domestic box office. But it had a $90 million opening weekend (the 22nd best of all time), it's made over $200 million so far, and it will likely hit $250 million here at home before it wanders out of the theaters. We should all underperform so well.
Likewise, Thor has not scaled the financial heights this year that Iron Man did a few summers ago, but it'll end up in the neighborhood of $180 million domestically -- a sum generally considered to be in hit territory. Ask most filmmakers if they would like to have produced a movie that makes $180 million, and they'll say, "Oh, yes, please." And they would be right to do so.
Relative or not, however, the box-office numbers don't hit the heights they have before. What's the cause? I have a few thoughts on the matter, naturally.
more »
The Perfectly Cromulent Sequel: This is the wise and cautious choice. This is one where the creative team says "Let's do everything we did in the first movie but at 110 percent!," which translates to everything you did in the first movie at 85 percent. But that's enough for a huge opening weekend and a perfectly decent overall box office. No one can complain -- too much. Example: Iron Man 2
The Undercooked Sequel: Hey, did we mention we want the sequel for summer, two years from now? That's enough time for a script, right? I mean, you were working on something already, right? What? Well, don't worry: the kids are going to love it anyway. We'll just put in an extra $30 million in effects. No one will notice! Examples: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Batman Returns, Men in Black II
more »
The irony of this package is that when 3-D was first used, in the fifties, and when its later iterations were trotted out, in the eighties and today, one of the arguments for it was that it gave people something they couldn't get on their TVs at home; it raised the spectacle level of going to the cinema to a whole new dimension (pun intended). Film buffs can argue whether 3-D ultimately lives up to its billing, but by and large there's no doubting the rationale -- or wasn't, until now. Not all that many people have the total 3-D setup at home yet, but the capability for anyone to have it is there. The limiting factor at the moment is the expense, and that's likely to go down as time goes on, just as the cost of HDTVs went from ridiculous to (mostly) affordable over time. more »
Teresajusino: Would you let your 12-year-old daughter see Sucker Punch?
A: Heck, I've let her see Starship Troopers. (She wasn't impressed, by the way.) She should handle Sucker Punch just fine.
Maantren: Why was it Star Wars and not Logan's Run that changed everything?
A: Logan's Run was just more of the early-seventies dystopic-film thing that was winding down; Star Wars was a whole new ball of fun.
more »
Mars Needs Moms looks like it's flopped. What went wrong there? I thought science fiction animation was doing decently these days.For those who need context, the Disney animated film Mars Needs Moms clocked in with just $6.8 million in box office for its opening weekend; it's especially bad when you consider that Box Office Mojo estimates the production for the film cost $150 million. It's a flop.
So what went wrong? Well, I can point to a lot of things, but I'm going to highlight one big thing, which is that this film is an adventure story designed to appeal to young boys called Mars Needs Moms. Because what 8-to-12-year-old boys really want in an animated adventure movie is to be reminded of how much they need their mommies. I'm rather some distance away from being an 8-to-12-year-old boy myself, but, when I reach back into the recesses of my memories of the time, pretty much the only way I would've gone to see a movie with that title was if I were dragged to it by, like, my grandmother. Because that's what grandmothers do. And if I saw that any of my friends were at the movie theater when I was there, I would have lied and told them I was there to see Battle: Los Angeles or at least Rango.
more »
I Am Number Four was 2011's first big science fiction release and was expected to win the weekend box office -- and didn't. Why not, and what does it mean?
Indeed, I Am Number Four ended up saying "I am number three" for the extended Presidents' Day weekend box office, with about $22.6 million in box office, behind Gnomeo & Juliet ($24.8 million) and Unknown ($25.6 million). In itself, $22.6 million is not a horrible opening for a film that cost $60 million to make, but the filmmakers were hoping it would be the start of a beautiful franchise for them. Barring direct-to-home-video sequels, that doesn't seem likely now.
So how did this happen? Here are three reasons.
First -- and, one would like to think, primarily -- it doesn't appear that it was particularly good. The film got an aggregate 30 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with most reviews calling it an ersatz Twilight, with the hot sparkly vampires replaced by studly aliens with lasers in their palms. (This will be important later.) A bad Rotten Tomatoes rating doesn't automatically mean box-office failure, particularly for science fiction. Case in point: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which had a 20 percent rating and a $400 million box-office haul. But when you're attempting to start a new franchise from scratch and you don't have built-in name recognition, it certainly doesn't help.
more »
The reasoning is typically this: the phrase "science fiction" generally implies that whatever you're seeing on the screen is at least in some way related to science, i.e., that there's a rational reason things work the way they do and that actual physical laws and observable scientific principles apply or at least are bowed to with respect. But some films, despite spaceships or whatever, hardly nod to science at all and therefore don't deserve the "science fiction" label. For the record, the films that are almost always used as an example of science fantasy are the Star Wars films, although other films may occasionally be offered: the Transformers films are excellent science-fantasy candidates, for example.
As this argument pops up often, I understand that people get worked up and feel fervent about it, but I personally have a number of problems with the science-fantasy argument with regards to films. more »
And, as it happens, in the science-fiction realm, Hollywood is already in the process of revamping or sequel-izing a number of eighties classics (and non-classics). TRON: Legacy is a hotly anticipated holiday release, while the latest Predator flick will pop out in August, and new versions of films ranging from RoboCop to The Last Starfighter are in various stages of preproduction. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on your perspective; personally, I'd like more new stuff than reheated versions of what came before. Regardless, mining the past is a big business in Hollywood, and, with that in mind, here are my suggestions for eighties science fiction worth reheating, which are either not completely obvious choices or not (as far as I know) already far along in the process of being remade. To make it extra challenging, I'll pick one from each year of the decade.
1980: This year contains one of my B-movie favorites, Battle Beyond the Stars, but the movie I think really cries out for a revision is Ken Russell's slice of sensory-deprivation-tank weirdness, Altered States. Hand it over to Darren Aronofsky, and we're talking huge art-house science-fiction hit, although I freely admit that not any component of the phrase "huge art-house science-fiction hit" makes any sense next to any other part.
more »
Sci-fi fans are a spoiled lot: these days, pretty much every movie we geek out over gets released on DVD. No matter how obscure (or downright awful) the film might be, it will inevitably be discovered in some studio's fault, polished up, and given the full DVD treatment. But there are a few gems that, for whatever reason, have not made it to DVD. While some are available in foreign editions (or through the many means of bootlegging), these good, bad, and so-bad-they're-good sci-fi films have yet to properly join our DVD collections.
Take a look, and tell us what you gotta have on DVD in the comments!
Damnation Alley
If you remember anything about this movie, it's the awesome Landmaster vehicle that the characters ride around in. Set in the nuclear fallout of World War III, a ragtag group -- including Jan-Micheal Vincent (Airwolf) and George Peppard (The A-Team) -- drives around fighting giant cockroaches and generally being postapocalyptic. The flick was released by 20th Century Fox in 1977-- the same year as another little sci-fi epic about some wars in the stars. Guess which one is available on DVD.
The Fantastic Four
Long before Marvel Comics heroes ruled at the multiplex, Roger Corman's low-budget 1994 take on the superhero family came along. Never released in theaters, but long passed around in bootleg circles, the film achieved cult status for its B-movie production values, soap-opera-level acting, and laughable special effects. Still, comic-book geeks (and fans of low-rent kitsch) have longed to get their hands on an official copy of this turkey.

A friend of mine was discussing Blade Runner with me, and during the course of the conversation, she noted, in (I think) mock alarm, that there was now less than a decade separating us from the events of that flick. If we are really going to have replicants, offworld colonies, and Los Angeles getting more rain than the Pacific Northwest, then we had better get cracking! I responded by saying that before any of that could happen, Jupiter was supposed to turn into a red dwarf this very year -- as promised to us in 2010 -- and yet to date it gave no sign of actually being infested with implosion-facilitating monoliths. No matter how you slice it, whether you're hoping for replicants or red dwarfs, if you're a sci fan reality is really letting you down.
This shouldn't be too surprising. Reality has been proving scifi wrong for decades now -- or, if you prefer, it's been science fiction movies (and their makers) who have been letting down reality: Always promising wonders right around the corner, and yet when the date for those wonders comes to pass, we're still just us, still without the proverbial flying cars or robot butlers. How can movies get the future so wrong for so long?
more »Here's something about Diary of a Wimpy Kid (which hits theaters Friday) that you might not know: it started life as a comic. And though the story is mostly known as a series of hit illustrated books, creator Jeff Kinney first introduced the world to the diary of a hapless junior-high kid named Greg via a popular Web comic.
The Wimpy Kid books have become a hit with all ages, thanks to their melding of cartoony artwork with witty tales of bullies, school plays, and other adolescent woes. With comic-book movies becoming increasingly dark, it's nice to see something that kids and parents can enjoy equally. There are many all-ages comic books out there that should follow Wimpy Kid to the big screen. Let's take a look at a few.
Bone
Combining artwork worthy of classic Disney animation with a sweeping story that calls to mind The Lord of the Rings, Jeff Smith's 55-issue comedic fantasy series is one of the most acclaimed comic books of all time. Young and old have discovered the comic, which regularly tops library lists of the best all-ages comics and graphic novels. Warner Brothers is currently developing a CGI take, with hopes of turning the series into a three-movie franchise. While CGI could be interesting, one look at Smith's artwork will make you long for the days when traditional hand-drawn animation was the norm.
Mark Millar has been one of the biggest names in comics for years, but it wasn't until the movie adaptation of his book Wanted became an international hit that he crossed over to the mainstream. His second movie adaptation, Kick-Ass, hits next month, and it's already riding a wave of positive buzz, helped, in part, by the recent release of Millar's on-set diary, Kick-Ass: Creating the Comic, Making the Movie, which documents the comic's path from page to screen. We talked with Millar by phone to find out what to expect.
Q: So, is it true that the Kick-Ass comic came about because you wanted to make more original movies but had no material to work with?
A: There's an element of truth to that, actually. The producers said to me, "Okay, this film's just made $341 million. We want to do another film with you." And I said, "I don't have anything else, really, you know?" And it was quite stupid of me, from a monetary point of view, not to do that. Also from the creative point of view, because I really like the idea of bringing something to the table. I love working with Marvel and DC, but you're playing with other people's toys, really. So the idea of doing what Stan Lee did back in the sixties -- creating a new wave of characters -- no one seemed to be doing that. So that inspired me, in a sense, to go off and create whole new franchises, and Kick-Ass was the next one out.
Q: How well do you think the transition from comic book to movie was handled?
more »