Jackman only a star in X-Men? Surely you're forgetting the his tour-de-force as the voice of Roddy in (the seminal) "Flushed Away*"? Which incidentally is also about the only movie where Kate Winslet produces a performance that I find appealing.

*Not to mention doing something or other in "Happy Feet". (actually, let's not mention that one again).

John, do you watch old "James Bond" movies? That's pretty much what "G.I. JOE" was based on. Sure, it's not one of Sommers' movies where there's actually a lot of things you have to look at deeper, but I wouldn't call it 'dumb'.

But seriously, there are a LOT of well-known people in that film...Christopher Eccleston, Ray Park, Channing Tatum, Joseph Gordon Levitt....although I am a moviephile...

Michael Bay is a member of my fraternity. This summer I donated a nominal amount to the fraternity in his memory.

LaDracul:

You're suggesting that many of the old James Bond films were not, in fact, deeply dumb. Some time spent with Moonraker should clear that right up.

Also, of course, name brand stars are no guarantee of smartness. It's more likely an indicator of a star's desire to be in a likely popular film and/or the need to make a mortgage payment.

I actually LIKED Aliens in the Attic. I'm not foolish enough to call it a great movie, or even a particularly good movie (if it had been made for TV it would have been a good movie), but I was fairly surprised it didn't do better than it did since it was so friendly to elementary kids and tweens. I took my kids to it (once each at separate times, family schedule being what it was), so I had the questionable honor of seeing it twice. It was better the first time, but it was pretty fun both times and although my sons liked GI Joe a lot better, I didn't because, well, GI Joe was stupid.

And while I'm on the topic of GI Joe, I'd like to ask three questions. 1. What's up with Dennis Quaid's career, anyway? 2. If Quaid's character is supposed to be so rough and tough, how come he gets taken out so easily? 3. Hey, Bad Guys! If you want to really screw with GI Joe, once you've stabbed/shot (whichever) the head of the organization, put a freakin' bullet or two in his head.

Seems to me Jackman was pretty fine in The Prestige, which I claim is science fiction.

Seems to me Jackman was pretty fine in The Prestige, which I claim is science fiction.

I'd like to think that the lesson of District 9 is that SF Movies can take some risks and be successful even in financial terms.

Why shouldn't smart SF movies get a lot of press? Perhaps I don't understand Lesson 2.

Theophylact:

I'm not aware of saying Jackman isn't a fine actor; I said he's not really a huge star outside of the X-Men films. The Prestige made $50 million domestic, which is fine bu not great and not evidence of Jackman's ability to be a box office draw outside of being Wolverine.

Gregnnn:

I'm delighted smart SF films get lots of press; I'm not convinced that journalists are drawing the correct conclusions about them.

Does Inglourious Basterds count as SF? It's an alternate history, and that's usually lumped in with SF, right? Not sure it represents any sort of lesson, though if the Coen Brothers' forthcoming adaptation of The Yiddish Policemen's Union is any good, we may see a trend towards that sort of alt-history movie...

I'm pretty sure the correct lesson to draw from District 9 is this:
If you build it, they will come.
But remember that the building does need a few drops of precious blood from sanctified beings, or it'll crumble back into the sun-yellowed dirt it was made out of before people figure out what it was.

Nice commentary, Scalzi, but I have one issue.

I can identify three of the four images at the top of the article, but there is one I can't figure out, and not knowing is unacceptable to my brain.

Someone please identify the third image from the left for me.

Thank you!

I agree that Jackman isn't as big a star outside of X-Men as in it, but that being said, he is starting to rack up a fairly varied list of decently performing movies:

Australia - 50M
Happy Feet - 198M (voice)
Flushed Away - 64M (voice)
The Prestige - 53M
Van Helsing - 120M
Kate & Leopold - 47M
Swordfish - 70M

(I'm defending him, as Australia is probably my favourite movie I watched this summer.)

I keep thinking of "Push" as being a 2009 Summer Sci-Fi as I just watched it for the first time on Blu-Ray - that was one of my high points in Sci-Fi for the summer. For some reason the "sci-fi mythology" of it made sense to me, and I found that by not over explaining it I was able to really enjoy it.

Star Trek cast "unknowns"? Really? Simon Pegg, Karl Urban, Zachary Quinto? None of them are big stars, a la Mel Gibson or Will Smith, but they aren't "unknowns", IMO.

The third one across is from Monsters vs. Aliens. Not that I've seen it, but the animation matches my memory of the trailers.

Bob,

I'd never heard of any of the main actors in Star Trek.

Reminds me, I need to go look up Simon Pegg - I liked him as a manic Scotty and as the new character in Ice Age too.

Yes, "Unknowns" they were. At least in the conventional sense of most of the audience having no specific recollection of having seen them in any particular prior film.

In fact, with the Star Trek reboot I would go considerably further and say that even if audience members saw that particular actor before, it's unlikely that they *remember* having seen that particular person in any particular role.

Kudos to you for being above the mean in actor recognition. I admit to consulting IMDB and *still* scratching my head a bit.

John, how you could forget Sienna Miller (and that skintight outfit) being in G.I. Joe is ... puzzling. I bet that was at least 1/3 of the box office draw right there. And Megan Fox was probably 2/3 or more of the box office draw for Transformers 2. There's a reason that shot of her on the motorcycle was in all the trailers for it. Plus admit it - that bit with her character torturing the little Decepticon into obedience was twisted and brilliant.

Every time I see that picture of Zachary Quinto as Spock, I can't help but notice that he's making a face that looks a bit like the "lion" emoticon. >:3

I can't be the only one who sees this.

Yes, that's Susan from Monsters vs Aliens. Or as B.O.B. calls her "Suuuuusan".

Wait...There were stars in Land of the Lost?

@jeffshultz

As far as Simon Pegg goes I have 4 words for you.
Shaun of the Dead
Brilliant comedy role.

John I have to take issue with you on GI JOE:The Rise Of Cobra being part of your short list of stupid SF doing well.
First I liked both Star Trek and GI JOE: The RIse Of Cobra, but if either of those films should be tagged as stupid SF it is Star Trek.
Star Trek presents itself as SF and seems to be unaware of how big sapce really is. Have any concept how much danger a Super-Nova can be(Up to 6000 light years is what I seem to remember not galaxy wide.) Have no respect for what a black hole is or how they work. I could go on and on but you get the drift. Despite that I enjoyed the film and will buy it in Blu-rayin Nov.
GI Joe: The Rise Of Cobra did not sell itself as a SF film but as what it was an adaptation of an 80s cartoon. It was the cartoon blown up to really big scales and filmed. It was not meant to be a movie you sat and thought about but one where you cheered the good guys and boo'd the bad guys. (In that they avoided having every exploding craft spout a parachute the instant before it exploded it was smarter than its source material.) Yeah ICe Floats and that was cosmically dumb, but I think for what they were intending to make (Big Cartoony action) vs what JJ AAbrams and co were intending to make (Big SF) the Joe team made a smarter movie.

1) I think I am the only person that didn't particularly like District 9. The hero was a idiotic slob and the I think the marketing campaign was a bit of bait-and-switch.

2) I saw UP yesterday and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it

3) I live in a major metropolitan area and think that 'Aliens in the the attic' didnt play here or if it did it was for a week on one screen.

4) Saw Star Trek and while not a fan, enjoyed it.

1) I think I am the only person that didn't particularly like District 9. The hero was a idiotic slob and the I think the marketing campaign was a bit of bait-and-switch.

2) I saw UP yesterday and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it

3) I live in a major metropolitan area and think that 'Aliens in the the attic' didnt play here or if it did it was for a week on one screen.

4) Saw Star Trek and while not a fan, enjoyed it.

Pheron:

You seem to be conflating two phenomena: on one hand you have a science fiction story with unrealistic science, and on the other hand you have a science-fictionish story with a bad story. For most of the public, the first is unobjectionable, but the second isn't, because more people care about story than science.

This is expecially contentious in my home. I'm a writer and my wife's an astrophysicist. I froth at bad stories and she throws things over bad science. We only watch comedies together.

Star Trek was a pathetic attempt to make its
creators feel better by making the characters
look worse:

1) Kirk's mother would not have remarried a man
who could not earn his stepson's respect.

2) J.T. Kirk, even under the given circumstances,
would not have grown up a border-line J.D. in
need of rehabilitation.

3) "Bones" is short for "SawBones" which is an
obsolete slang for doctor; It has nothing to do
with choosing a mate so poorly that one ends
up divorced, and stripped to the bones.

4) Spock with a secret lover ?!? Not logical.

5) Scotty as a gluttonous buffoon. The original
was played by a genuine war hero, playing
himself.

Terminator, on the other hand, had a cast of
respectable characters, and the Fem Fighter
pilot was to die for. :)
"You've got a strong heart; Love that sound."

Funnily enough, chicks in bikinis wielding weapons isn't rocket science, John.

To M. Report,

You must be a Trekker or Trekkie. How do you know what these characters will do? This is a reboot and, just because you've watched these people innumerable times doesn't mean you havwe a handle ob how they might react in an alternate universe.
And for the record, I daresay I've been a Trek fan far longer than you. I was there for the first run airing of The Man Trap.
I'm a fan(call me Trekkie or Trekker, I don't obsess about it) and enjoyed this new movie. No, the science wasn't great but it was enjoyable nonetheless.

I really enjoyed District 9... I thought it was the quite achiever... I saw no press about it here in Australia so maybe I missed some of the hype and didn't realise PJ had anything to do with it until the credits... Then again I have been a little busy - so that might be why I missed the fuss

@ M Report
As a Trekkie you should be able to appreciate the concept of cannon. As far as the new movies are concerned, "Enterprise" has just become the only valid cannon in the new ST universe. This is now an alternate universe the old rules no longer apply.

1. We never met Krik's mother we have no idea who she would marry or why.

2. We have no idea how Kirk would have grown up without his father's influence and also living in the shadow of his heroic accomplishment.

3. "Saw Bones" is a throw back to the old concept of "Wagon train to the stars". I really don't care that they came up with a new, and quite frankly more entertaining, reason for the nickname. Plus, the original reason for the name was never to my knowledge mentioned on the show.

4. Logic is little tweeting bird chirping in meadow. Logic is wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad.

5. Scotty was a borderline alcoholic in TOS. I think Glutton is a step up.

OK that fills my geek quota for the month. I now step down from my soapbox.

Saw G.I. Joe - loved it. I wore my 3-wolf-moon shirt too.

Karl Urban and Chris Pine are *not* unknowns! Karl Urban had a HUGE role as Eomer in LotR and Chris Pine is on Heroes! But granted, the rest were relatively unknown to me... perhaps I'm just a nerd, to remember the names of all of the main actors in LotR?

M Report:

Given the number of times Trek shows hit the 'temporal anomaly' reset button with a warp-powered sledgehammer, I really think the "JJ Abrams raped my childhood" crowd should sit down and shut up with the 'how dare he screw around with the sacred cannon'.

And with all due respect to Peter Jackson (and he deserves a lot), it seems rather unfair to put ALL (or even most) of District 9's success down to "geek goodwill" for the Lord of the Rings. I don't think I was the only person motivated more by a very intriguing premise, and a lot of very positive word of mouth from quarters not exactly know as friends of genre flicks.

Sorry it's long, but that's how it turned out...

I'm a new reader to this blog and it seems that the author's standpoint is that unless a particular movie story is material for a literary award and features the most stand up science (irrefutably correct by all modern science), then it doesn't deserve a lick of attention from anyone. Maybe the rub is that movies that claim 'science fiction' need to stand up to the strictest science criticism or else they are unworthy piles of crap. To each his own I guess, and if I'm wrong there (it's just a broad stroke based on only the most recent articles, not mean to describe the depths of a persona), please correct me.

It seems to me that the one thing ignored by most of this criticism is the only purpose for this medium. Entertainment. Every so often we have a movie that seeks to enlighten us as a people with history, or compassion, or something like that. But those are the rare exceptions and as nice as they are, they aren't the point or the big money makers we flock to see. From the beginning of movies (in my opinion of course) the silver screen has been a place to be entertained. Even the news reels were not strictly newscasts, but filled with sensationalism that in my opinion, is fitting for the big screen. If those first movies were just talking heads telling us how many people died at war that day then I very much doubt they would have been as popular as they were. But huge text declaring unbelievable feats and excited voices describing events in a literary fashion are more likely the reasons we flocked back. We had dullard radio at home, but at the theater there was wonder and amazement!

In the past, I think a tremendous love story, or a harrowing story of a brave person or group fit well on the silver screen because we had never been told stories that big in such a big way. Today however, we've been told these stories time and time again, and even the best of stories cannot hold much weight at a box office without people screaming "show me something I haven't seen before". This is the quandary of modern movies (and indeed modern games too). We want something brand new that we've never seen, yet we flock to things we know and shy away from new things out of fear. It's a classic double standard and hypocritical action at work much to the dismay of many a movie producer.

Personally, I really enjoy a slow moving drama with a compelling story, but not in a theater. I've got Moon saved in my Netflix queue, but never would have paid to see it in a theater - it sounds too slow. (speaking of slow, holy crap how did castaway make it to the theater? I thank the Lord I didn't go see it in a theater. But I digress) I like those stories at home on my home theater and in my controlled environment. The crowd is distracting if it's not quiet for a movie like that, and it's even frustrating sometimes to hear someone not 'get' something when you know it's just because they weren't paying attention.

For the theater, I go there for a group experience and big action. There isn't much in life as engaging as an entire room laughing at the same joke or gasping at the same explosion or other large event. Those 'big' events though, aren't realistic by design because real isn't that exciting. Real life isn't that big, it doesn't have that obvious of effect. Our lives are full of deep meaning and complicated stories and relationships. We thrive on movies that simplify things because they make us feel better about the chance of something working out with our overly complicated real lives. At least that's some psycho babble that sounds relevant. *I* just like to be entertained. As a side note, Momento is one of my favorite movies. Not because the story itself is all that great, it's actually pretty drab about a guy who kills some people under false pretenses. But the WAY they told that story was EVERYTHING. There was no other way to tell that story and leave you the viewer understanding what the main character was feeling. The viewer was lost, confused, and didn't know things that we felt we should know. That's how the main character felt and I love sharing that movie with people who haven't seen it. However, not everyone 'gets' it. And that's ok with me. Anyway, back to the point...

I don't really want to walk out of a theater these days thinking deeply to myself or starting a deep discussion with friends about the movie. For one, the very fact that it's a movie hurts the credibility of the thought process. And I don't mean that it deserves to be put down, but only that our reactions are so often tuned that way these days. If we add to a conversation about real war by adding some comment about how the Japanese did such and such in the Pearl Harbor movie, there's a good bet someone will shoot it down with "THAT was a movie, but in real life… such and such" Which may drive home the point that movies need to adhere VERY close to facts… or rather, that movies are usually just MOVIES. For entertainment. Pick them apart in jest, that IS fun, but it's not serious stuff.

I'm a tech guy, so I find myself sneering at certain tech follies in movies. I can find common ground with a science geek there I guess. But even though the tech of, for example, Swordfish and Firewall were laughable and if a discussion started I could hardly contain my overwhelming sneers… I simply don't start the discussion. WHY start it? Those movies were not written for the purpose of educating us in the ways of computer hacking, they were written to entertain. Period. Tech in movies is sometimes written plausably, sometimes written impossibly. Either way it was put there for story purposes or atmosphere, or some other entertainment purpose. It wasn't put there to educate us about how a real tech works. Science in movies is the same to me. It's put there to provide some manor of common ground or some form of valid premise, but it's certainly not meant to be looked up to or aspired to as fact. Doesn't even the genre name science fiction tell us not to take it seriously? Hey folks, this movie is going to 'sound' scientific, but guess what? We made it all up. It's not like they lied to us going in. Yeah some writers aspire to be as real as possible, and sometimes that makes the story better. But plenty of times it doesn't. Any movie on any planet other than Earth would have to build in huge time frames for travel to be realistic and that would completely destroy any chance of a story on screen without another fake tech of status.

In the end, this does seem to be a blog about science fiction and discussing all things related thereto. So the very point of the site is to start the discussion I guess. But for me personally, I think I would respect the author a little more if the discussion was more like "This movie misses pretty bad with the science, here's some of the more funny points I found", and less like "wow, this pile of steaming crap should have been burned before it was finished and the director needs to be shot… twice… in the face! The writers and all involved are worthless pieces of crap merely for the fact that they didn’t maintain my faultless level of realism in their pretend world. How did they even think to produce this? Nobody in their right mind would even accept this as creative, much less worthwhile to waste their time with."

Yeah, I exaggerated. But that's the impression that only a few articles has left me with. Maybe that's the point. If so, well done. I'll check in now and then either way, your site is now entertainment for me as well. If for no other reason than to laugh at how serious you seem to take the dumbest things. Please don't tell me you actually feel the emotion you write into your stories.