Safety Month BOTMKT Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Adele The best from Bose just got wireless Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks STEM Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors STEM
Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

New, Upcoming Science Fiction Movies

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 908 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012 11:25:36 AM PDT
I thought it looked intense too. I saw the trailer while at the Avengers movie

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012 11:31:44 AM PDT
Oddly the Matt Smith, Dr. Who & the new Sherlock series are presented by the same current writer & producer, Steven Moffat. Here's a short interview:

Posted on May 20, 2012 8:55:02 PM PDT
I guess its old news, but I just saw that Cameron will be doing a Blade Runner sequel.

Posted on Jun 8, 2012 12:05:35 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Just back from the midnight showing of Prometheus.

An interesting variation on the Alien-verse. A couple of things gave me pause (no spoilers here), but there was more than enough eye candy to make up for them. Well worth the wait. :)

Posted on Jun 8, 2012 7:07:41 AM PDT

This is a comedy-adventure about Time Travel, and is getting good reviews. Only local in Seattle for now, let's hope it gets a wider release.

Posted on Jun 8, 2012 7:24:17 AM PDT
D. J. Bowler says:
The next Big Thing from Mr. Scott: "Prometheus".

Posted on Sep 11, 2012 8:44:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 11, 2012 8:45:13 AM PDT


In reply to an earlier post on Sep 11, 2012 10:17:35 AM PDT
W.T. Keeton says:
I hope Cameron's success with "Avatar" has not blinded him to the criticism of the film, because if he listens to it, he can make the sequels into much superior movies.

Posted on Sep 11, 2012 6:21:10 PM PDT
Tom Rogers says:
"Cloud Atlas" is just around the corner--it's already gotten some good buzz, looks like my kind of flick.

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 8:28:19 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2012 8:34:24 AM PDT

Posted on Nov 11, 2012 1:42:05 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 11, 2012 1:44:12 PM PST
(This doesn't mean they'll be green-lighted into production.)

Posted on Nov 13, 2012 9:55:03 PM PST
I've heard a lot about "Ender's Game" the book. I'll be interested to see what kind of movie it makes.

Posted on Nov 14, 2012 10:23:55 AM PST
Science Fiction movies generally make more money than the insipid goofy-guys or lame romantic-comedies Hollywood turns out. Yet Hollywood treats Science Fiction like the bastard step-child. "Lincoln" ads, reviews, articles and interviews are everywhere, yet I chanced upon "Looper" when it opened to practically no press at all. They put out tons of previews and trailers for "John Carter," yet buried it when it opened.

Anyone know why this is? Why Science Fiction movies get made - and then released with no publicity? (Unless it's a major franchise, like "Star Trek" or "Terminator".)

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012 11:09:19 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 14, 2012 11:09:36 AM PST
W.T. Keeton says:
It depends of the case. I understand that "John Carter" got caught in the middle of politics between old-school Disney and Pixar employees, and that caused some of the odder executive decisions and statements made surrounding that movie.

More generally, one thing is that sci-fi budgets tend to be higher, and that makes execs nervous enough that they "cut and run" late in the game sometimes, effectively stranding movies that could otherwise be successful.

Posted on Nov 15, 2012 8:10:20 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 15, 2012 8:10:42 AM PST
Bill -

Thanks for your comments. Although I don't know who the "old-school Disney" execs are you referenced. Walt Disney's nephew, who ran the Animation Department, has been dead for a few years now. And Disney's acquisition of Marvel and "Star Wars" certainly shows they are building up their powerhouses of pop-culture franchises.

I know special effects make Science Fiction more expensive. But there seems to be plenty of money-maker Sci Fi movies in the mid-expensive range that are successful, especially if they are also action-adventure, like "Riddick" and "Looper".

I thought James Cameron's "Avatar" stopped the "science fiction is too expensive" arguments. The worldwide box office was phenomenal. He's working on the next couple movies now.

And all the Sci Fi remakes (like "Total Recall") are generally terrible. Why would studio execs green-light a atrocious remake - than take a chance on a better and original script?

Posted on Nov 15, 2012 8:39:21 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 15, 2012 8:39:49 AM PST

They have all made money in the last quarter - and their top movies were mostly Science Fiction and Comic Book-Fantasies.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 5:57:08 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 12:51:41 PM PST
W.T. Keeton says:
The term I used was probably confusing and inaccurate because "old school" brings to mind something in relation to Disney that I didn't mean. What I was getting at is this. There were media reports of a feud between Pixar people and Disney proper, which is not at all unusual after acquisitions. Stanton was a Pixar guy treading in the territory belonging to established Disney people, in a "turf war". Marketing did him no favors, and Disney was quick to label the film a "flop" when it was still very viable, sealing its fate (though it did limp to very slight profitability overall, I understand)

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 11:38:49 AM PST
Thanks for the explanation, Bill.

It's global box office didn't quite make back its production costs. But - as often happens with Sci Fi movies - it made almost $20 Million in DVD sales.
This says Andrew Stanton demanded creative control over the movie's trailers - overriding Disney marketing - and doomed the movie before it even came out.

Posted on Nov 20, 2012 12:59:11 PM PST
The mistakes made on marketing this picture are numerous. We can start with the decision to kick "of Mars" out of the title. So, except for fans of the books, what does "John Carter" mean to the average movie-goer? The answer to this is the same as the answer to that classic question, "War, huh, good God, What is it good for?" The answer is "absolutly nuthin'!"

Then there were bad trailers, little explanation of what the movie is about (and with the crippled title, some explanation was needed), and well it goes on from there.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 1:06:21 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 1:06:43 PM PST
W.T. Keeton says:
Interesting links, thanks!

I have seen several pieces that contradict parts of the Vulture article. There was obviously some clash going on inside Disney. Both sides agree on some parts of what happened and disagree on others, but it's good to hear both sides.

Here' s an interview with Stanton that contradicts part of what the article claims as to Stanton's myopic view of the importance of John Carter as a cultural icon.

Also, we know that Stanton lost the big battle to call the movie "John Carter of Mars", which to my mind was half the problem.

Posted on Nov 21, 2012 9:14:42 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 9, 2012 12:53:17 PM PST
Hi Sailor!

There always several sides to every controversy. But Disney has also had a long history of bad live action movies - at least until Bruckheimer showed up. (Simpson and Bruckheimer were dumped by Paramount, and Disney grabbed them. One of the smartest moves Disney ever made.)

Hi Bill!

You are most welcome for the links. That animation-honed director apparently had a lot of problems with that movie, beyond the trailer debacle. He reportedly was ready to make a sequel to 'John Carter', which will never happen now. And he's back to directing another "Nemo" animation movie, where he knows the terrain better.
'John Carter' ranks 25. But note how the top dozen or so are all science fiction, paranormal, fantasy cartoons - or sequels. So there is an audience for well done genre movies - even if they cost more to make.

Posted on Nov 23, 2012 9:49:21 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 23, 2012 9:51:52 AM PST

According to this, movie audiences don't care anymore if there is a story-arc (beginning, middle and end) or not.

Is a movie which is just a series of vignettes reflective of our Internet-surfing culture? Or, since U.S. public schools do such a poor job of teaching Critical Thinking or Logic, are younger audiences especially not bothered by a lack of coherent structure, with shallow characters and a rambling, or slice-of-life structure?

I think that people may go see these movies - but only once. And they are still buying DVDs for movies which are powerfully structured "stories".


In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2012 7:44:21 PM PST
Tom Rogers says:
I suppose it's possible that movie audiences have become more sophisticated and are better able to follow or appreciate nonlinear story structures. Having said that, I haven't really noticed a proliferation of such stories, though one of the more interesting I've seen is the recent, relatively lowfi horror flick "The Triangle" which does some fun things with the basic structure of "The Third Policeman". What I have observed as a trend is that the story arc is becoming simpler, a devolution which I have trouble reconciling with the notion that audiences are becoming more sophisticated.

Posted on Nov 24, 2012 6:29:51 AM PST
Thanks for your comments, Tom.

The "devolution" of the story arc is interesting. Maybe it's being driven by the YouTube generation, where video clips don't even try for a story structure. Yet there has to be at least one "wow-factor" or "big-reveal" element, or the viewers will vote down the clip. So maybe it's not so much a lack of story structure, as a hidden build-up to a big-reveal.

On the other hand, foreign films have always tended toward the rambling, slice-of-life type of story-telling. Although my favorites (Le Chevre and Cinema Paradiso) have a definite beginning-middle-end.

Although a lot of foreign films seem to have trouble finding the right ending. In the U.S., audiences hate loose-ends, unanswered questions or anything that doesn't resemble a "satisfying ending" - usually upbeat.

Posted on Nov 26, 2012 3:39:07 PM PST

The Big Directors may be too busy, but the buzz seems to favor Matthew Vaughn.
‹ Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 37 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Science Fiction forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  63
Total posts:  908
Initial post:  Aug 23, 2011
Latest post:  Jun 29, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions