Listen now | Brandon Peters guests to help dissect an underwhelming debut for Warner Bros.' latest "What you say you want, right?" big-screen spectacle.
Hey Scott! A general suggestion, you can take over leave; it would be interesting to see if Lisa's assessment of Sci-fi non-franchise films holds across the last decade and change. I think she's onto something since Sci-fi hits are rare compared to other genres like horror, but that's just my surmise, it's not routed in any actual numbers.
If we’re just referring to original science-fiction since 2010, should Nolan movies be excluded because he’s always the main draw? If so, the genre’s viability for original hits seems pretty bleak. Especially now when any attempts to create a sci-fi future based on our current world’s trajectory are bound to have heavy messages and aren’t escapism. But sci-fi in the present day with a fun, lighter tone might have a better chance.
Yeah, tell me about it. I just saw a sci-fi writer post on Bluesky talking about how to write about the future living in a dystopian present. Lighter sci-fi does sound like the future for the genre. At this point anything less than mad max seems like you’re being too optimistic about what’s around the corner.
Then wouldn’t the best-case scenario be Edge of Tomorrow’s $28m opening, or are you attributing the extra $9m to “Tom Cruise > Robert Pattinson” and the R rating?
Actually, I think it's also a tonal thing. Edge of Tomorrow had some comedy around Cruise's recurring demise, but overall, the tone was sci-fi action. The marketing for the movie posited Mickey's comedic deaths as one of the draws, which, if you're a weird movie person who culls joy from the deeply ironic like us, you'd be into it, but for average moviegoers, I think it would be a much harder sell. Groundhog day worked, but it wasn't in a sci-fi setting which adds an extra hurdle for the average moviegoer, since it comes across as more hard sci-fi than soft sci-fi (which is an easier sell as well).
I haven't seen it yet, but the trailers sell it as a fun space adventure comedy that's at least funnier than, for example, Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian, and Passengers, and I don't think general audiences found Edge of Tomorrow or Guardians of the Galaxy to be too weird as science-fiction alien action comedies.
Hey Scott! A general suggestion, you can take over leave; it would be interesting to see if Lisa's assessment of Sci-fi non-franchise films holds across the last decade and change. I think she's onto something since Sci-fi hits are rare compared to other genres like horror, but that's just my surmise, it's not routed in any actual numbers.
If we’re just referring to original science-fiction since 2010, should Nolan movies be excluded because he’s always the main draw? If so, the genre’s viability for original hits seems pretty bleak. Especially now when any attempts to create a sci-fi future based on our current world’s trajectory are bound to have heavy messages and aren’t escapism. But sci-fi in the present day with a fun, lighter tone might have a better chance.
Yeah, tell me about it. I just saw a sci-fi writer post on Bluesky talking about how to write about the future living in a dystopian present. Lighter sci-fi does sound like the future for the genre. At this point anything less than mad max seems like you’re being too optimistic about what’s around the corner.
Oh the premise of Mickey is too morbid and weird for general audiences. This was the best case scenario.
Then wouldn’t the best-case scenario be Edge of Tomorrow’s $28m opening, or are you attributing the extra $9m to “Tom Cruise > Robert Pattinson” and the R rating?
Actually, I think it's also a tonal thing. Edge of Tomorrow had some comedy around Cruise's recurring demise, but overall, the tone was sci-fi action. The marketing for the movie posited Mickey's comedic deaths as one of the draws, which, if you're a weird movie person who culls joy from the deeply ironic like us, you'd be into it, but for average moviegoers, I think it would be a much harder sell. Groundhog day worked, but it wasn't in a sci-fi setting which adds an extra hurdle for the average moviegoer, since it comes across as more hard sci-fi than soft sci-fi (which is an easier sell as well).
Doesn't anyone think that Mickey 17 is just too weird for the average moviegoer?
I haven't seen it yet, but the trailers sell it as a fun space adventure comedy that's at least funnier than, for example, Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian, and Passengers, and I don't think general audiences found Edge of Tomorrow or Guardians of the Galaxy to be too weird as science-fiction alien action comedies.