Top Movies of Summer 2017

[brevity]

2016 - X-Men Apocalypse (#7) and Alice: Through the Looking Glass (#19) - critics hated them and both were major boxoffice disappointments
2015 - Tomorrowland (#13) and Poltergeist (#23) - The worst film in Brad Bird's catalog and a miserably failed attempt to reboot a classic horror flick
2014 - X-Men: Days of Future Past (#5*) and Blended (#25) - Our first good film. The other was a failed effort to recapture the magical pairing of Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore
2013 - Fast and Furious 6 (#5), Epic (#17), Hangover III (#16) - FF6 was a good entry in that series; Epic was an entirely forgettable animated film; and Hangover III was a horrid ending of that series
2012 - Men in Black 3 (#7) - ugh... not just a bad movie but a tragic career decision by Will Smith who turned down Django so he could make this flick
2011 - Hangover II (#3) and Kung Fu Panda II (#11) - Hangover II made money at the boxoffice, but no one loves that film. KFP II did about 30% worse at the boxoffice than the first film
2010 - Prince of Persia (#15) and Sex and the City 2 (#14) - A pair of train wrecks that both instantly killed potential Hollywood franchises
2009 - Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (#8) and Terminator Salvation (#12) - Wow... just wow.
2008 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (#3) - If you are not completely convinced that Memorial Day sucks, this is my most compelling argument
2007 - Pirates: At World's End (#4) - See comment directly above
2006 - X-men: The Last Stand (#3) - widely regarded as the worst X-men movie... though Apocalypse comes close.

I've added summer box office rankings. Jason's point was that Memorial Day films do tend to suck to moviegoers, either as franchise attempts or later franchise installments, and he's probably right. My point is that, for purposes of these box office contests, they are usually bad bets as well. Only 6 of the 19 films on this list made the Top 5. (*X-Men: Days of Future Past was the #4 film of Summer 2014, but #5 of the contest because Jason included April's Captain America: Winter Soldier.)

Many years/contests ago (2010?) I pointed out that Memorial Day films were generally sucker bets; aside from the X-Men, I've since avoided choosing them. And the X-Men proved me right in 2014 and wrong in 2016, so I'm not even wedded to my exception.

There is no need to beat me over the head with rotten tomatoes and metacritic data -- I know that Tomorrowland was not a popular very movie.

I understand (and admitted) that I am in the minority ... but I remain convinced that it is the best movie of the last decade -- a real science fiction movie in a world where comic books and space operas rule.

But, hey, I think Prometheus -- for all its flaws (and there are many) -- is a better and more interesting film than anything Marvel has done and MUCH better than the junk that Star Wars has become.

Do you prefer Star Trek to Star Wars? I ask not to draw a cultural line or anything, but the former seems to be grounded in more pure science fiction ideas, and that seems to hold a greater appeal to you. I would agree that Star Wars -- which I prefer and love, despite many flaws -- is not pure science fiction, and may never have been. George Lucas has always been more about the universal experience and how it might straddle genres and the spectrum of film budgets.

[Olympic Fan]

Do you prefer Star Trek to Star Wars? I ask not to draw a cultural line or anything, but the former seems to be grounded in more pure science fiction ideas, and that seems to hold a greater appeal to you. I would agree that Star Wars -- which I prefer and love, despite many flaws -- is not pure science fiction, and may never have been. George Lucas has always been more about the universal experience and how it might straddle genres and the spectrum of film budgets.

Definitely prefer Star Trek ... although a lot of Star Trek is drek. But the best Star Trek -- City on the Edge of Forever, Beyond the Stars -- is among the best scify in any medium in the modern era --- much of the rest is good space opera -- Yesterday's Enterprise, Best of Both Worlds, the Wrath of Khan ... I think the best Star Wars (Eps 4-5 and Rogue 1) is good space opera -- both most of the rest is bad space opera.

Can I return to my love of Tomorrowland and my belief that it will one day be recognized as a great movie?

The best parallel I can find is a science fiction movie released in 1982 that was a total flop -- both at the box office (where it failed to match its $28 million budget) and with the critics that almost universally panned it -- Roger Ebert gave one of the best reviews, saying he loved the visuals, but thought the story and the characters were "thin and clichéd". It was buried at the box office by ET, Wrath of Kahn, Tron and (if you consider it scify) Poltergeist.

Ten years later, Blade Runner was recognized as a great movie -- it's consistently been rated the best or second-best scify film of all time.

I still believe Tomorrowland will eventually follow a similar path.

[cato]

I've added summer box office rankings. Jason's point was that Memorial Day films do tend to suck to moviegoers, either as franchise attempts or later franchise installments, and he's probably right. My point is that, for purposes of these box office contests, they are usually bad bets as well. Only 6 of the 19 films on this list made the Top 5. (*X-Men: Days of Future Past was the #4 film of Summer 2014, but #5 of the contest because Jason included April's Captain America: Winter Soldier.)

See. It's comments like this that keep Jason on his toes, and the bounds of our contests reasonable.

[cato]

Blade Runner was recognized as a great movie -- it's consistently been rated the best or second-best scify film of all time.

I still believe Tomorrowland will eventually follow a similar path.

Hmm. I do love Blade Runner. But there are so many wonderful sci-fi movies. I would hate to rate them. To start, the genre is too broad.

[chriso]

Definitely prefer Star Trek ... although a lot of Star Trek is drek. But the best Star Trek -- City on the Edge of Forever, Beyond the Stars -- is among the best scify in any medium in the modern era --- much of the rest is good space opera -- Yesterday's Enterprise, Best of Both Worlds, the Wrath of Khan ... I think the best Star Wars (Eps 4-5 and Rogue 1) is good space opera -- both most of the rest is bad space opera.

Can I return to my love of Tomorrowland and my belief that it will one day be recognized as a great movie?

The best parallel I can find is a science fiction movie released in 1982 that was a total flop -- both at the box office (where it failed to match its $28 million budget) and with the critics that almost universally panned it -- Roger Ebert gave one of the best reviews, saying he loved the visuals, but thought the story and the characters were "thin and clichéd". It was buried at the box office by ET, Wrath of Kahn, Tron and (if you consider it scify) Poltergeist.

Ten years later, Blade Runner was recognized as a great movie -- it's consistently been rated the best or second-best scify film of all time.

I still believe Tomorrowland will eventually follow a similar path.

Is George Clooney paying you to say this? Seriously I love both Star Wars and Star trek. Star Wars more. Funny you mention City On the Edge of Forever; it's my favorite Trek episode.

[Olympic Fan]

Is George Clooney paying you to say this? Seriously I love both Star Wars and Star trek. Star Wars more. Funny you mention City On the Edge of Forever; it's my favorite Trek episode.

Written by Harlan Ellison, one of the great scify writers -- although he complained that Roddenberry had mangled his script. But he did win a Hugo Award for the script. It's funny, but Ellison's only scrip for the original Twilight Zone (an episode entitled Soldier, starring Michael Ansara and Lloyd Nolan) about a super soldier from the future sent back to the past, also won a Hugo Award. Later, Ellison sued James Cameron and claimed his story was the inspiration for Terminator. Cameron denied everything, but his production company settled and now Ellison's name is on the movie's credits.

I'm interested that you prefer Star Wars, which is unabashedly space opera. Much of Star Trek is too, but your favorite episode is not -- it's real science fiction.

And, no, I'm not being paid by Clooney. I'm not really a big fan of his ... I like him in Tomorrowland and a couple of Coen Brothers movies (O Brother Where Art Thou), but that's about it.

[chriso]

Written by Harlan Ellison, one of the great scify writers -- although he complained that Roddenberry had mangled his script. But he did win a Hugo Award for the script. It's funny, but Ellison's only scrip for the original Twilight Zone (an episode entitled Soldier, starring Michael Ansara and Lloyd Nolan) about a super soldier from the future sent back to the past, also won a Hugo Award. Later, Ellison sued James Cameron and claimed his story was the inspiration for Terminator. Cameron denied everything, but his production company settled and now Ellison's name is on the movie's credits.

I'm interested that you prefer Star Wars, which is unabashedly space opera. Much of Star Trek is too, but your favorite episode is not -- it's real science fiction.

And, no, I'm not being paid by Clooney. I'm not really a big fan of his ... I like him in Tomorrowland and a couple of Coen Brothers movies (O Brother Where Art Thou), but that's about it.

I've liked Star Wars since I was a kid. Star Trek I've always liked as well, but only the original series. I consider SW to be more fantasy while ST and Blade Runner are hardcore sci-fi. People ofter ask me how I can like both. I ask "why not?" Just kidding on the Clooney thing; I haven't even seen Tomorrowland.

[wilson]

...Can I return to my love of Tomorrowland and my belief that it will one day be recognized as a great movie?

The best parallel I can find is a science fiction movie released in 1982 that was a total flop -- both at the box office (where it failed to match its $28 million budget) and with the critics that almost universally panned it -- Roger Ebert gave one of the best reviews, saying he loved the visuals, but thought the story and the characters were "thin and clichéd". It was buried at the box office by ET, Wrath of Kahn, Tron and (if you consider it scify) Poltergeist.

Ten years later, Blade Runner was recognized as a great movie -- it's consistently been rated the best or second-best scify film of all time.

I still believe Tomorrowland will eventually follow a similar path.

I love Tomorrowland too, and genuinely don't understand why it wasn't better received.

[JasonEvans]

I blew it... Why one Earth did I pick War for the Planet of the Apes over Dunkirk?!?!?!

I just spoke to a boxoffice analyst I know and he said early tracking is really strong for Dunkirk. He says surveys seem to indicate it will be a film that is going to have really long legs. What's more, tracking shows strong interest in folks over 50 in addition to the 20-40 year old folks who know and love Christopher Nolan from DarkKnight/Inception/Interstellar fans. Nolan has apparently been pressuring the studio to market it as an action/adventure film, not a war movie. My analyst friend said the whisper number around town is $220-$250 million, maybe more.

-Jason "as for Apes, he thinks it will top out at about $175 mil unless the reviews are really stellar. Sigh..." Evans

[BLPOG]

I've liked Star Wars since I was a kid. Star Trek I've always liked as well, but only the original series. I consider SW to be more fantasy while ST and Blade Runner are hardcore sci-fi. People ofter ask me how I can like both. I ask "why not?" Just kidding on the Clooney thing; I haven't even seen Tomorrowland.

Star Wars is fantasy set in space. Blade Runner is sci-fi. Star Trek is something masquerading as sci-fi.

Don't get me wrong, I do like Star Trek. The problem is that one of the fundamental technologies of the Star Trek 'verse involves teleportation/matter replication, and that is pretty much the single dumbest idea possible from a scientific perspective, probably tied with free energy. Now sure, a show can ask for some suspension of disbelief, but it's still up to the writers to come up with an internally consistent system. The narrative problem with that sort of tech is that you can't make it internally consistent, especially with the specific post-scarcity angle they give it. It assumes away essentially the most fundamental laws of nature and the biggest problems facing humanity, which results, IMO, in a very uninteresting premise for a show-world.

That sort of thing is less of a problem when you don't make any​ pretense of science in the first place - see Star Wars. (Not that there aren't​ still some problems with internal consistency)

[BD80]

I blew it... Why one Earth did I pick War for the Planet of the Apes over Dunkirk?!?!?!

... Nolan has apparently been pressuring the studio to market it as an action/adventure film, not a war movie. ...

Are there new trailers out? The ones I've seen make it look like a preachy war movie - "everybody's dying, its your duty to go back in there and be one of the casualties!"

[Olympic Fan]

Star Wars is fantasy set in space. Blade Runner is sci-fi. Star Trek is something masquerading as sci-fi.

I think your characterization of Star Trek is wa-a-a-y too general. It's true that when Roddenberry sold the original Star Trek to network executives, he described it as "Wagon Train to the stars," which sounds like a standard TV drama disguised as scify.

But once he had it up and running, he was able to insert some real scify. The succeeding series were even better at that.

The thing is, Star Trek encompasses a wide range of genres -- with five different series (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT), it includes hundreds of episodes and almost a dozen movies -- some of them awful (Star Drek, as I like to call it), some of them mindless entertainment ... some them superb space opera ... some of them poor space opera ... and some of them brilliant -- and real -- science fiction.

I mentioned City on the Edge of Forever (TOS) and Far Beyond the Stars (DS9) as examples of great scfy, but I could name dozens of others -- Inner Light (DS9) is one of the most beautiful examples of science fiction ever put on TV (and the nightmarish reverse is DS9's Hard Time).

The thing about Star Trek is its variety. I won't argue that much of it is really bad, but at its best, it's given us the best real science fiction in modern media.

[BLPOG]

I think your characterization of Star Trek is wa-a-a-y too general. It's true that when Roddenberry sold the original Star Trek to network executives, he described it as "Wagon Train to the stars," which sounds like a standard TV drama disguised as scify.

But once he had it up and running, he was able to insert some real scify. The succeeding series were even better at that.

The thing is, Star Trek encompasses a wide range of genres -- with five different series (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT), it includes hundreds of episodes and almost a dozen movies -- some of them awful (Star Drek, as I like to call it), some of them mindless entertainment ... some them superb space opera ... some of them poor space opera ... and some of them brilliant -- and real -- science fiction.

I mentioned City on the Edge of Forever (TOS) and Far Beyond the Stars (DS9) as examples of great scfy, but I could name dozens of others -- Inner Light (DS9) is one of the most beautiful examples of science fiction ever put on TV (and the nightmarish reverse is DS9's Hard Time).

The thing about Star Trek is its variety. I won't argue that much of it is really bad, but at its best, it's given us the best real science fiction in modern media.

You're probably right that I was being overly-general. There definitely is some good science fiction in Star Trek (and good stuff that isn't, for that matter). That one point about replicators REALLY bothers me though, because it fails on the science and economics (I studied engineering and economics at Duke, so I'm sort of predisposed to be judgemental on certain grounds).

Also, I kind of love the especially bad episodes in the original series anyway. Laughing at Shatner is just too fun.

[Olympic Fan]

You're probably right that I was being overly-general. There definitely is some good science fiction in Star Trek (and good stuff that isn't, for that matter). That one point about replicators REALLY bothers me though, because it fails on the science and economics (I studied engineering and economics at Duke, so I'm sort of predisposed to be judgemental on certain grounds).

Also, I kind of love the especially bad episodes in the original series anyway. Laughing at Shatner is just too fun.

Replicators? And transporters (which you mentioned in a previous post)?

They bother you? And faster than light travel, which is at the heart of the great majority of science fiction, doesn't bother you?

The replicators and transporters are just plot devises -- and neither is really integral to Star Trek (for instance they can and often do use shuttles in place of transporters). It's just a way of condensing the action -- although, I admit, they have done some interesting things with transporters in Trek -- the episodes Relics and Realm of Fear are both high quality episodes that do turn on transporters.

But faster-than-light travel is central to all of Trek... and all of Star Wars (and Battlestar Galactica and Firefly and Babylon 5 and dozens of other scify or semi-scify stories on the TV or movie screen).

That doesn't bother you?

[camion]

Replicators? And transporters (which you mentioned in a previous post)?

They bother you? And faster than light travel, which is at the heart of the great majority of science fiction, doesn't bother you?

The replicators and transporters are just plot devises -- and neither is really integral to Star Trek (for instance they can and often do use shuttles in place of transporters). It's just a way of condensing the action -- although, I admit, they have done some interesting things with transporters in Trek -- the episodes Relics and Realm of Fear are both high quality episodes that do turn on transporters.

But faster-than-light travel is central to all of Trek... and all of Star Wars (and Battlestar Galactica and Firefly and Babylon 5 and dozens of other scify or semi-scify stories on the TV or movie screen).

That doesn't bother you?

Faster than light travel may be problematic, but without it you would be stuck in one solar system or on a space ark. I'm willing to give the authors that plot device to speed up the action.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Now that this thread has been thoroughly hijacked into the realm of TV, I'll throw in my two cents that I loved the Replicators as bad guys in Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis.

[YmoBeThere]

Looks like Pirates is tracking to 75 million, which means it is in trouble. Baywatch is DOA as far as the contest is concerned.

[chriso]

Looks like Pirates is tracking to 75 million, which means it is in trouble. Baywatch is DOA as far as the contest is concerned.

Surprised about Baywatch. Looks dumb but it's summer. I've heard Pirates is better than expected; my sister saw it and liked it. It's always been interesting to me how a movie's success is determined by cost/profit and how it does against analysts projections. The analysts that predict these things punish the movie for not performing to the projections that the analysts themselves made. I understand the profit factor but gold/platinum albums are solely based on CDs sold, not weighed against the cost of making a CD, which can be very expensive based on producers or studio time. Just rambling, have a great holiday weekend!

[PackMan97]

Looks like Pirates is tracking to 75 million, which means it is in trouble. Baywatch is DOA as far as the contest is concerned.

Yup, opening Friday for Pirates was $23 million vs $56 for Guardians. Baywatch pulling in a paltry $5.7m barely above Guardians in it's 4th week.

Baywatch is definitely DOA and Pirates doesn't seem to be getting good enough word of mouth to have long legs. Although audiences are liking it better than Stanger Tides, critics are panning it.

[DUKIECB]

We took in Pirates Friday and I thought it was actually pretty good. My son loved it. It's not great but exceeded my expectations. Definitely better than the last couple in the series.