Merchandising, merchandising!

Back to the Future 2, Terminator 2, and both ep 5 and 6 of star wars were all awesome!

TheSelphie: Merchandising, merchandising!

Dink, dink, dink, dink, dink and dink approve

LewDux: TheSelphie: Merchandising, merchandising!

Dink, dink, dink, dink, dink and dink approve

I HATE Raspberries.

Of that first bunch, Star Trek is the only one that was really really good. Iron Man was good too. So there is your quality that dumbmitter had missed.

The answer is "Toys, comics, sequels, remakes."

This isn't a problem. Only when these become a substitute for quality does it become a problem, and several counter-examples have already been given.

Episode 3 was pretty good, but not as good as the original trilogy.

Walle-E was a masterpiece, I'd say.

So 16/20 movies had one of four separate characteristics "in common"?

wolvernova: Of that first bunch, Star Trek is the only one that was really really good. Iron Man was good too. So there is your quality that dumbmitter had missed.

Came in here to say this.

So that guarantees Hollywood will continue to give us remakes, sequels and toy/comic book movies since they seem to generate so much cash. Gee, thanks.

Sci-Fi is not elements like robots and space ships. Sci-Fi is about themes, analyzing what might happen with some technology. Frankenstein is Sci-Fi, Star Wars is LotR in space. Most of the movies listed here aren't Sci-Fi.

Also, Subby is a stuck up art fag. And there IS something wrong with that.

nmrsnr: I hate using gross numbers, those will always go up.

Yeah, i've long thought this as well. You'll break records all the time. Count asses in seats, count asses that go back again.

nmrsnr: I hate using gross numbers, those will always go up. How about using the money and converting it to people/theater, the number that actually let's you know how popular it was? King Kong (the original) could've kicked Transformer's butt in the box office, but at $0.05 a ticket they'd have to outsell it 200 times over to break even in box office gross.

You know they can adjust for inflation right?

AR55:

You know they can adjust for inflation right?

This list doesn't look adjusted for inflation to me. And if they had adjusted for inflation, you'd think they would mention that in the article.

Where's my life size Uma Thurman doll form Gattaca?

Obvious tag isn't quite obvious enough.

can I get a my-size Primer playset?

No quality, Subby? C'mon.

Sexless comic book fans have a lot of disposable income that they don't spend on dating and going out.

Have at them.

The author of that article, John Scalzi, is a 1st rate Sci-Fi writer in his own right.

"Old Man's War" is a bit of brilliance.

apeiron242: Sci-Fi is not elements like robots and space ships. Sci-Fi is about themes, analyzing what might happen with some technology. Frankenstein is Sci-Fi, Star Wars is LotR in space. Most of the movies listed here aren't Sci-Fi.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you, but robots and space ships *are* technology. I think there is usually a healthy overlap of fantasy and sci-fi, particularly in movies.

Sev79: AR55:

You know they can adjust for inflation right?

This list doesn't look adjusted for inflation to me. And if they had adjusted for inflation, you'd think they would mention that in the article.

In the title they do mention that this is for just this decade...
I don't think there'd be much of a need to adjust for inflation over a 10 year period since ticket prices have largely remained constant (even marginally dropping until just recently).

However - I think that if there was a way to compute actual seats sold - that would be a better metric since adjusting for inflation isn't totally accurate either (I remember in the last 90s paying almost 15-16 per ticket for a movie at some theatres, however it dropped down to about 10 per ticket after the introduction of advertisements at the start of the trailers - and now its starting to creep back up to 12 per ticket at some theatres).

You don't just need to adjust for inflation if you're calculating via sales. You need to adjust for inflation accounting for how ticket prices have risen with respect to them. That amounts to counting asses in seats, which has been suggested as the best course.

What I question is how accurate the records are. These days I imagine that if they wanted to they could count every paid ticket, and even give an accurate adjustment for sneak-in numbers. But as little as 10 years ago these #s had to include a lot more fudging. And back in the day when more theaters were privately owned and NO ONE had computers, you can bet that owners weren't counting everyone so as to cheat the system.

Star Trek was good and I *hated* Star Trek growing up (my dad has watched it for like 20 years now, put me to sleep). Iron Man was great also. I had no idea I Am Legend was a remake, Wall-E was great for a "kids movie". Surprised Matrix Reloaded did better than Revolutions, I didn't like Reloaded.

Signs was STUPID, when they're showing the alien "footage" and the aliens walk by real fast and everyone screams I busted out laughing. X-Men: Wolverine was terrible, War of the Worlds remake was pretty bad, both Transformers movies blew.

So I guess 25% of the list is decent IMO, rest is pretty crappy.

Accolade: I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you, but robots and space ships *are* technology. I think there is usually a healthy overlap of fantasy and sci-fi, particularly in movies.

When robots and space ships are used to do what slaves and chariots would do in a sword-and-sandal flick, then it's not really sci-fi. It's just slapping a new coat of paint on the thing.

AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent: When robots and space ships are used to do what slaves and chariots would do in a sword-and-sandal flick, then it's not really sci-fi. It's just slapping a new coat of paint on the thing.

Agreed.

11. Signs ($228 million): Original
12. Wall*E ($224 million): Original
15. Monsters Vs. Aliens ($198 million): Original (but playing off all sorts of established scifi movie tropes)
17. The Day After Tomorrow ($187 million): Original

So we're stuck with two cliche storms, a post-laughingstock M. Night Shamalamadingdong ShamWow
Shalashaska Shyamalan flick, and this guy:



I'm filled with happy giddy yay thinking of all the sci-fi movies that Hollywood will shiat out in the 2010's.

1. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ($402 million)
3. Transformers ($319 million)

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

(Sigh... it's a dumb meaningless point - but that's what the internet is for):

Transformers 1 & 2 (and GI Joe) are not movies based on toys. They are movies based on CARTOONS that were based on toys.

Just bugs me.

If there is a Transformers 3, I will go see it. If there is Transformers 4, I will go see it. I will never understand the hate of things that are exactly what they are supposed to be. Honestly, what did some of you guys expect it to be?

Brostorm: If there is a Transformers 3, I will go see it. If there is Transformers 4, I will go see it. I will never understand the hate of things that are exactly what they are supposed to be. Honestly, what did some of you guys expect it to be?

Because the second one was unmitigated garbage, and sucked on just about every level short of good use of CGI.

For the record, I thought the first one was much better than it had any right to be. But the second was just Michael Bay trying to out-Bay himself.

LaserShark: Episode 3 was pretty good, but not as good as the original trilogy.

People say this, but I'm not seeing it. It's about as bad as the other two, IMO.

Unless by "pretty good" you mean "had me laughing my ass off for 20 minutes straight near the end"

I mean, you've got "nooooooooooo", a series of stupid farking cameos from Chewbacca and The Death Star and Tarkin and the Tantive IV and Beru Lars and I don't even remember who and what else, every single scene with Padme (the "naming the kids" scene is especially hilarious), that dying-of-a-broken-heart bullshiat or whatever... it's wonderful. You've also got the slightly less obvious humor of Obi Wan still being too damn young to be Alec Guinness in Ep. IV.

The funniest part of the new trilogy, IMO, is still in Episode II, though. The bit where Padme falls out of the transport thingy, looks dead or unconscious, then some dude comes up and is all like "are you OK?" and she gets up like nothing was wrong and says she's fine in a tone that implies the guy was stupid for even asking. It's practically slapstick. Such a perfect combination of poor shots, poor acting, and poor cuts, all subtly so on their own but combining in to a perfect storm of suck. Sure, the "love" scenes are more obviously funny, but I like the confluence of awfulness in that scene even better.

That's the only reason I like II and III better than Ep. I--the humor. Ep. I just makes me want to throw shiat at the screen (between Jar Jar and that motherfarking kid playing Anakin... GRRRRR), while the other two are as funny as many comedies I've seen. Hell, II's name is even funny.

they had to finish out the star wars original trilogy, and the later episodes were not that bad. if natalie portman was not in them, I would have a different opinion.

I wouldn't call I Am Legend a remake, the 07 film barely resembles the novel and is even less similar to the Italian film The Last Man on Earth.