On what planet [pun intended] is “Blade Runner” an also-ran, and “Dark City” an influential film or creative success? 

“Blade Runner” is -explicitly- allegorical; Scott’s tremendous work with Oedipal tension in the creation/creator interplay, the exploration of machine functionalism as substitute for “authentic” subjectivity...I don’t understand how that is in any way trumped by a hammy, overreaching noir toss-off with more flair than gravity.

p.s. When it comes to set pieces trumping narrative, you don’t get much more onanic than Dark City’s final showdown.

Comment by Seth from Ann Arbor — May 29, 2007 @ 12:26 pm

The article definies “serious science fiction” far too narrowly. Films like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and A Scanner Darkly, are obvious recent examples of the science fiction genre expanding its reach. Also, the past decade saw probably the greatest science fiction film for kids, The Iron Giant, which tackled themes that are arguably weightier than those in, say, Close Encounters. The same can be said for Pan’s Labyrinth.

And no mention of Battlestar Galactica (the TV series, not the movie)—the show that regularly revolves around issues of preemptive war, religious fanaticism, military occupation, and the morality of torture?

Comment by Erik from USA — May 29, 2007 @ 12:56 pm

I absolutely agree that the SF genre has fallen on hard times--and computer graphics (CGI) are largely to blame.  Special effects supplant story and characterization and we’re left with tasteless confections like “I, Robot” et all. Increasingly movies are starting to resemble video games, visually oriented, shallow and vapid,immediately forgettable. How does the new movie, “Sunshine” by Boyle/Garland fare in this reviewer’s view (haven’t seen it yet myself but I’m curious). I’ve written a piece for scifidimensions.com titled “In Praise of men in Rubber Suits” that pays tribute to older SF flicks and I hope Mr. Gibron will pop by and skim through my overview of the vintage flicks his article didn’t have time to touch on.
("Forbidden Planet”, etc.) There are more ruminations on genre-related flicks and books on my “Beautiful Desolation” blog. Thanks, this way a thoughtful piece.

Comment by Cliff Burns from Western Canada — May 29, 2007 @ 6:05 pm

Somebody should really tell Bill about Primer.  Hard SF ain’t THAT dead.

Comment by Demosthenes — May 30, 2007 @ 8:16 am

I’ll avoid complaining about your piece by shaking my head in wonder at your “also ran” list (Blade Runner???) or presenting my own list of films you overlooked (Primer!) and merely point out that someone ought to create a Godwin-esque law bout how writing an opinion piece about the state/nature/quality/definition of SF TV/film/literature will always result in vitriolic, bitter disputes between nerds.  It’s inevitable.

You have perfectly fine taste in SF films and you make a good point about the trajectory the genre seems to be on, but really, you must see the can of worms you’ve opened.  Now I’ll blog about your piece and my readers will scoff and harumph and I’ll be right there with them, because, well, that’s what we do.  Good piece.

Comment by Bill Simmon from Burlington, Vermont — May 30, 2007 @ 1:22 pm

There are so many flaws in this article that I can barely begin to list them (and I’m not talking about the horrifyingly inept and/or nonexistent editing job). Dark City is a good movie, but good science fiction? Hardly! Blade Runner an “also-ran”? Foolhardy. Your selective argument, which denies the existence of many excellent speculative movies (some of which are mentioned in the comments above, more of which I could name off the top of my head - Pi? 28 Weeks Later? Pan’s Labyrinth? Terminator? V For Vendetta? X-Men? Twelve Monkeys? Should I go on?), says absolutely nothing.

Not to mention the fact that “blockbuster” is a separate category on its own, despite any genre trappings (whether SFnal, fantastic, western, spy, action, etc.), and which should not be held to represent the “science fiction movie” at all. I, Robot wasn’t written for SF fans - it was written for movie-goers.

And in what twisted universe was The Fountain “masterful” anyway? Superman Returns was better science fiction than that cobbled-together load of New Age-y crap.

Comment by gabe chouinard from wisconsin — May 31, 2007 @ 12:14 am

I am disappointed by the level of discourse/debate in response to this article.  Really, very little of it rises beyond the level of “Oh yeah? You suck!”.  I didn’t agree with everything Mr. Gibron said in this piece and I think space constraints probably caused him to pare down his list considerably.  Still, his argument was reasoned, articulate and thoughtful. SF fans consistently annoy me with their ridiculous defensiveness and obtuseness.  Perhaps it’s because so many SF mavens are boy-men still living in their parents’ basement and playing with their “Star Wars” action figures or spending umpteen hours on-line with an assumed identity, hooked to a role-playing game. Mr. Gibron clearly knows his stuff and has the ability to express himself with maturity and a good working knowledge of the English language.
Add your roster of SF faves but address the man with the respect he deserves.

Comment by Cliff Burns from Western Canada — May 31, 2007 @ 7:54 am

What a bizarre article.

1) If you are going to argue that science fiction film is on the decline, you need to setup what it is declining from.  You mention exactly two important SF films from before the 1960s.  That’s not exactly convincing.

2) In the first paragraph you call SF “the one literary ideal best suited for the most visual of all mediums.” Two paragraphs later you write “Finally, there’s the real nature of the genre itself. Serious science fiction questions and speculates, not the easiest of issues to sell to a ‘hurry up and explain it all to me” movie demographic.” Um, so is it the best suited or not?  And why would you think it would be—why would you assume that the ideas of SF rather than just the visual spectacle would be best suited for translation into film?

3) You criticize many SF films for lacking an “inherent allegorical nature” and then in the next paragraph criticize films where “the supposed science fiction element is merely a stunt—an outer shell hiding the film’s real purpose.” Please, make up your mind.  And while you’re at it, please realize that serious SF goes well beyond allegory.

Comment by MattD from Boston, MA — May 31, 2007 @ 8:33 am

Cliff said:

Still, his argument was reasoned, articulate and thoughtful.

No, it wasn’t. That’s part of the problem. The entire article is flawed and marred by critical sloppiness. Mr. Gibron displays a spectacular lack of context, which hardly puts him in a position to make sweeping proclamations on the “death of serious science fiction”, especially considering how flat-out wrong he is on every level. His choices for exemplary SF movies are based on fallacy: that “an inherent allegorical nature” defines ‘serious science fiction’? The entirety of the article reeks of intellectual laziness, and I’m not willing to accept such sweeping generalization as this article displays as noteworthy cinematic critical acumen.

Comment by gabe from wisconsin — May 31, 2007 @ 9:54 am

Any critique of contemporary science fiction cinema that begins by describing Blade Runner as an “also ran” cannot be read as anything but an arbitrary rant.

Comment by Chris Wren from Vancouver, Canada — June 12, 2007 @ 3:22 pm

It doesn’t matter if you agree with his “8 Science Fiction triumphs” or not. What matters is the point that he’s making about the continuing trend of dumbing down science fiction to be more palatable to audiences. I just hope that Frank Darabont finally gets his version of Fahrenheit 451 up on screen. (And that it actually sticks to the book, and doesn’t star Will Smith.)

Sure there are plenty of movies that I, personally, would call science fiction successes: Twelve Monkeys being the one that I would most likely push for placement on any sort of master list. But the master list that he compiled is completly subjective, and in all honesty, besides the point.

On another note, I like the point he made about sci-fi these days just being a revitilization of old westerns, and it got me thinking: Clint Eastwood should write and direct a science fiction movie. Because if he could do for sci-fi what he did for the Westerns with Unforgiven, then that movie would be wonderful.

Comment by Timothy P. from United States — June 21, 2007 @ 12:23 pm

Kudos for someone finally recognizing “Children of Men” as one of the most powerful, brilliantly subversive speculative films in recent memory. But anyone who includes “The Matrix” on a list of triumphs that are selected to specifically rebuke “Star Wars” is clearly out of his element. “The Matrix” is the most action-oriented, crowd-pleasing, special-effects heavy film since George Lucas left film school. Its “deep plot” is explained in one scene, and borrowed from the same ancient, archetypal sources as the Force. The rest is just CGI-laden action sequences and heavy-handed religious symbolism.

And the fantastic speculative fiction that is seen weekly on television is completely ignored—Battlestar Galactica, Lost, Heroes, to name a few—which regularly tackle issues ranging from existential philosophy to modern politics.

Furthermore, before I get even deeper into this rant, I would argue that there has been no “decline” in smart science fiction. There has always been good and bad, allegorical and action oriented, as long as there has been filmmaking. That’s just the way it is.

Comment by Pax W. from Phoenix, AZ — June 21, 2007 @ 5:00 pm