John Scalzi - Passing Judgment on Indiana Jones and Other Pseudo-SciFi Movies
I'm looking at the box office records for 2008, trying to figure out just how much of the $9.62 billion in domestic sales can be attributed to science fiction movies. The good news is that no matter how you slice it, scifi accounted for a pretty big chunk of the change, so it seems a pretty safe bet that we'll continue to see Hollywood pony up millions to make big, expensive eye-popping science fiction flicks. Go us. The bad news -- and it's not really bad news; just interesting news -- is that I'm having a hard time deciding which of last year's movies should genuinely get credited as scifi, and which just have science fictional elements.
I've discussed this before, of course, most specifically about The Dark Knight, which I don't think quite qualifies as science fiction. True, it features a number of scifi elements (most notably all the BatTech that gets cooked up at Wayne Industries), but at the end of the day I don't think it tips the scale. Leaving aside the murky science fictionality of The Dark Knight, however, other major movies this year are also on the "is it really scifi or not?" bubble. Consider the following $100 million-plus-grossing flicks (and be prepared for minor spoilers):
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
It's pretty clear this one has a distinct science fictional component, thanks to George Lucas putting his foot down during the screenwriting phase. But no one on the planet went to go see this movie because of its scifi elements (which were, in fact, the source of most fans' complaints); people went to see it because it's an Indiana Jones flick. Does its box office accrue to the scifi ledger despite the fact that it was never billed as such? I'm going to say yes, but I'm not going to argue it very hard.
Bolt
A very cute animated movie about a dog that thinks he's a genetically-engineered super-pup because that's the character he plays on a TV show, and no one's ever told him the TV show isn't real life. It's definitely a satire of science fiction and riffs on any number of science fictional movies including, clearly, The Truman Show. The question is, if you riff enough on science fiction and even stuff in a few ginchy special effects, do you become sufficiently scifi to count? Maybe, but for my money this one doesn't.
Journey to the Center of the Earth
Based loosely on Jules Verne's scifi novel, this one should be a no-brainer. But at this point in the game (i.e, 144 years after the novel was originally released), I'm going to front the proposition that the whole "there's another world inside our world" concept is proper fantasy as opposed to scifi, and any movies based on it -- even those featuring a dinosaur -- don't fit squarely into the genre.
Eagle Eye
It's another "Supercomputer Tries to Run Things" sort of movie, a concept which is definitely science fictional (The Terminator, The Matrix, etc.). But the movie itself was marketed as a contemporary action thriller, and you actually had to be in a theater seat before you knew it was science fiction. I slot this in as a scifi credit, but as with Crystal Skull, you can easily argue that if the movie studio isn't marketing a flick as science fiction, it shouldn't really get to count as such.
Hancock
Science fictional superhero origin story? Sorta. But science fiction like the origin stories of The Incredible Hulk or Iron Man? Not so much. You could actually have a big debate over whether this was science fiction or straight up generic superhero fantasy, with valid arguments on either side. But to do that you'd have to find two people who actually care enough about Hancock to argue the point. For everyone's sake, I'll just say this one's too close to call.
So are these movies science fiction? Ultimately it's a judgment call, and I want to hear your opinion. The bright side to all these "bubble" cases is that whether one considers them genuinely scifi or not, the concepts are so pervasive that a movie can snatch up an explicitly science fictional plot point and no one blinks an eye. When scifi is essentially part of the background noise of common culture -- something that filmmakers can use without worrying whether people will follow it or not -- it means that we've won an essential argument about the genre's validity. Once again: Go us.
Winner of the Hugo Award and the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, John Scalzi is the author of The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies and the novels Old Man's War and Zoe's Tale. He's also the editor of METAtropolis, an audiobook anthology on Audible.com. His column appears every Thursday.
I mentioned back in the "Worst Of" article that Indy IV took my personal top spot for worst sci-fi film of 2008. So, yeah, I saw it as a sci-fi flick. And, yeah, I thought that was one of its major shortcomings.
I liked Hancock, and liked it a lot. But it's definitely not sci-fi. But I don't classify superhero movies as sci-fi anyway, not even Superman. Hancock is straight fantasy.
Don't try to characterize what SCI FI is...I think if we assume that SCI fi is robots and ray guns, many episodes of Twilight Zone didn't have either, yet we class it under sci fi.
If futuristic gadgets make SCI Fi, then what of James Bond "invisible" Astin Martin?
Your novel, the Androids Dream, could be thriler, mystery even, yet..it has Space travel, so gets lumped into SCI-FI. (probably your intent)
So I return to Twilight Zone, if we lump stories with a twist element for drama as SCI FI, we must consider that "It's A Wonderful Life" is SCI FI, Angels changing the whole history of a person.
Just enjoy the movie!
"Don't try to characterize what SCI FI is"
Yeah, but if I didn't, I'd be out a gig here.
I don't have a problem with Indy being ridiculous, implausible, etc. All of the movies have elements of that. I do, however, resent the producers boring the crap out of me. I know they spent a lot of money on those sets, but the lingering shots of them...just lingered. And since they were shot kind of dark, you were staring at a lot of nothing as they refused to just get on with the story.
Even the chase scenes were way too long.
It's not the aliens that bothered me so much about Indy. It was some of the poor characterizations of the supporting players like Jim Broadbent and Ray Winstone...geez, man. Better cut myself off. In short, I mostly just felt let-down.
Still, I don't have a problem labeling the majority of the above as Scifi (with the exception of Journey to the Center of the Earth). It probably helps more than hurts Scifi as a genre.
M@D (nice handle by the way) wrote: "we must consider that "It's A Wonderful Life" is SCI FI, Angels changing the whole history of a person."
Nah, that is religious fantasy! Scifi has to have, well science! And even though it had futuristic speculation of a type, the Indy movie was adventure with some scifi elements.
For me, the SCI part of scifi is crucial!
Trey
Nathan is so right. You could just hear the producers yelling "We spent a hell of a lot of money on these effects, dammit, and we want our money's worth!"
I thought the ant stampede would never, ever end.
You've said that The Dark Knight is "not science fictional the way, say, Iron Man or The Incredible Hulk are." I would go back to the question I asked before -- if superhero sequels focus more on the crime-fighting aspects rather than the techy stuff (the way The Dark Knight did), is that enough to drop them out of the SF category? Or is it more dependent on the nature of the particular superhero?
I don't think we can limit discussion of science fiction movies to movies that are promoted as such. Some of the best SF concepts in film have come out of films that were simply marketed as dramas or comedies. In Hollywood-speak, it isn't SF unless it's a special-effects-laden space opera, or sometimes super-hero movie.
Was The Truman Show marketed as SF? Heck I would question whether Jurassic Park was marketed as SF.
It's the scifi movies that don't get made that upset me. 2009 is here and still no foreseeable date for Ender's Game, still no word on there ever being A Childhood's End. Foundation, Moon is a Harsh Mistress, etc etc. Everytime someone in Hollywood whines about ideas not being there I look at my bookshelf and wonder what else they are missing.
I suppose I missed the dismissal of Wall-E as SF, but I argue that this is the best sort. Tropes to burn, optimistic, well-written and beautifully rendered.
I just saw Eagle Eye.
A supercomputer which has gained sentience and is prepared to act on its own? It's not only SF, its Vernor Vinge's Singularity. I'd say its SF even if it wasn't marketed as such.
(And yes, I realize that Tony Stark's computer seems to also have reached something approaching sentience as well...)
Just as novelists can write SF novels without purposely setting out to do that, as in Ice by Anna Kavan, it may be possible for a film maker to also do that. Especially given that SciFi concepts are an accepted part of our culture.
I think a film is a SciFi film if it has SciFi elements as a key or essential component, either plot, actors or setting.
Whether or not an ad exec decides to market a film as SF or not, shouldn't define the film.
Producers are, I suspect, at least as ignorant about science and technology as the general public. Technological devices and appeals to science are just a way to allow the suspension of disbelief. I value Science Fiction as a way to think about the implications of science and technology; anything that does that, I think of as real SF - the rest is a romp.
On that criterion, one film you cite is almost "real SF" - Bolt. The rest are SF romps - they need a technological excuse to allow characters to do implausible things (validation of suspension of disbelief). :)