Which is the best active scifi blockbuster franchise?

[jonathancrane]

I am not including the Marvel films, as they're cbms.

Presently, I'd say Star Trek. I have not seen the new Apes films, but mean to.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Star Trek by a country mile.

Agree with others, Bond ? Sci Fi, like how ?

Plus would not include MCU if DC are not included.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Prometheus had it's problems, but it was still a good movie, a definite step above Alien Resurrection and the AVP films

Heard so much bad about that movie that even though I'm interested I never got around to it

 

[Heretic]

I am not including the Marvel films, as they're cbms.

Presently, I'd say Star Trek. I have not seen the new Apes films, but mean to.

Star Trek is an adaptation of a tv show. Why do tv adaptations count yet comic book adaptations dont? It can't be because it's printed, because Hunger Games was also printed. It seems like a rather silly bias against a medium.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

^^
I may be wrong but it's not a matter of being an adaptation. For jonathancrane, CBM is a ( sub ) genre in itself like scifi is a sub genre of Fantasy so they doesn't count ( like the James Bond's ).

Anyway, I voted Star Trek for the franchise was near dead ( movie wise ) and it was resurrected in a good way.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Star Trek is an adaptation of a tv show. Why do tv adaptations count yet comic book adaptations dont? It can't be because it's printed, because Hunger Games was also printed. It seems like a rather silly bias against a medium.

Well Space travel, future and aliens is more Sci-Fi than a super serum enhanced Man or armoured business man

 

[Heretic]

Comic Book Movie can't be a subgenre of fantasy. I see nothing very sci-fi or fantasy oriented about Road to Perdition, Blue is the Warmest Color, A History of Violence etc.

It seems odd to suggest that movies about Wandering Star and Strangers in Paradise would be considered the same genre of film...and neither of which would be sci-fi, when SURELY Wandering Star would be Sci-fi.

Are films based on novels all considered the same genre? That would place The Great Gatsby and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter as the same genre of film. Doing this with tv shows would make the X-Files movie and the Dukes of Hazzard movie the same genre. It just doesn't make any sense.

Bottom line...if the Marvel films don't count because they are based on comic books, then James Bond, Hunger Games and Planet of the Apes don't count because they are based on novels. That leaves Star Trek (based on a tv show...and I'm at a loss as to why that should count) and Transformers (based on a toy...so again...you have to stretch a bit to include it and not include the others).

 

[DA_Champion]

James Bond and Marvel are both soft science fiction.

In the world is not enough they made up a medical condition for the villain.

In Die Another Day there is some Icarus satellite that drives the plot, also, invisible cars show up.

Fact is James Bond would look completely different without made up science and technology, same with Marvel.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Marvel Cinematic Universe for me
Followed by the Hunger Games

James Bond and Marvel are both soft science fiction.

Marvel? Soft? They are heavy on it
James Bond? Yes
I agree with you including them both in the poll

 

[DA_Champion]

Marvel Cinematic Universe for me
Followed by the Hunger Games
Marvel? Soft? They are heavy on it
James Bond? Yes
I agree with you including them both in the poll

"Hard" Science Fiction doesn't mean that there's a lot of science fiction, it means that the science fiction is rigorous. Marvel's cinematic universe is soft science fiction, on a similar level as Star Wars. If it benefits the plot, then it exists. In contrast, hard science fiction would follow strict rules.

Hard science fiction is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific or technical detail, or on scientific accuracy, or on both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Using the label "hard science fiction" narrows the field greatly. Hardly any modern sci-fi movies use hard science fiction exclusively.

 

[DA_Champion]

Using the label "hard science fiction" narrows the field greatly. Hardly any modern sci-fi movies use hard science fiction exclusively.

That's exactly correct, hardly any blockbusters qualify as hard science fiction. Most science fiction, nearly all, is scifi/fantasy.

Interstellar looks like it will be pretty hard science fiction, given that the great physicist Kip S. Thorne is a producer.

At the lower budget end, Europa Report and Moon were hard science fiction. One can make a case for Oblivion and District 9 at the intermediate budget end.

 

[Lord]

Considering modern times, i'dd call most of these franchises science fiction, even if they may end up going more towards fantasy, Star Wars for example is known by most of the general public as a science fiction franchise. The new James Bond films aren't exactly seen as much of that, but i guess you could put it in there.

 

[Evil Twin]

I like the MCU, but it's too variable in quality to call it the best. The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Thor: The Dark World are thoroughly mediocre, IMO. While I do like Iron Man, Iron Man 3, Captain America, and Thor, I wouldn't clamor for them to be best picture nominees at my most generous. The MCU has settled into an above average groove, but I don't know if they're really changing anything except for the concept of massive, interconnected franchises. And, I'm not convinced that's a change for the better.

For that reason, I prefer Hunger Games and POTA which haven't had a down entry yet, IMO. And I think Hunger Games is going to permanently change the viability of women as action protagonists for the better.

 

[Mandon Knight]

I like the MCU, but it's too variable in quality to call it the best. The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Thor: The Dark World are thoroughly mediocre, IMO. While I do like Iron Man, Iron Man 3, Captain America, and Thor, I wouldn't clamor for them to be best picture nominees at my most generous. The MCU has settled into an above average groove, but I don't know if they're really changing anything except for the concept of massive, interconnected franchises. And, I'm not convinced that's a change for the better.

For that reason, I prefer Hunger Games and POTA which haven't had a down entry yet, IMO. And I think Hunger Games is going to permanently change the viability of women as action protagonists for the better.

Ripley got there about 30+ years first though...

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I like the MCU, but it's too variable in quality to call it the best. The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Thor: The Dark World are thoroughly mediocre, IMO. While I do like Iron Man, Iron Man 3, Captain America, and Thor, I wouldn't clamor for them to be best picture nominees at my most generous. The MCU has settled into an above average groove, but I don't know if they're really changing anything except for the concept of massive, interconnected franchises. And, I'm not convinced that's a change for the better.

For that reason, I prefer Hunger Games and POTA which haven't had a down entry yet, IMO. And I think Hunger Games is going to permanently change the viability of women as action protagonists for the better.

MCU offers more variety with endless characters to explore in countless ways.

The Hunger Games and PotA are far more limited by their single story narrative.

So I can see why some would find MCU more exciting to watch unfold.

 

[Heretic]

Marvel has a reasonably good track record of quality...and even when the movie itself isn't very good, we have the credits stingers to get us excited as we leave the theater...and then in 6 months or so we'll have another installment....and for much of the year we'll have weekly updates on tv that fills the story out even more. It's never been done before and as long as it remains exciting and maintains a decent track record of quality, it can keep going.

 

[Erzengel]

I thought the Hunger Games has been done pretty well and even reading the book, I never really got into the Katniss character which is why I probably never saw these movies in theaters.

I've watched ever other MCU movie. I even likened it to the Pixar movies prior to Cars 2.

 

[DA_Champion]

There is no comparison between Marvel and Pixar. Marvel has not made a film in the same league as Ratatouille, Up, et cetera, and as far as I know Pixar has not made a film as awful as Thor 2.

 

[Erzengel]

Cars 2 was bad. And even The original Cars was barely passable. Then you have Monsters U and Brave which I would put on the same level as Cars.

However, I was talking about consistency and I think MCU has done pretty well.

 

[Victarion]

Truthfully, the Avatar franchise would be my favorite active sci-fi franchise...assuming Cameron follows through with films 2-4. Strawmen in Avatar aside, it reminds me of an old sword and sorcery novel a really enjoyed...and it is certainly better than any sci-fi franchise active today. The MCU is certainly consistent...and as Oscar Wilde said, consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.

 

[Evil Twin]

Ripley got there about 30+ years first though...

Sure, but it really didn't stick. Not when about half a decade ago a major studio head was publicly doubting the viability of female lead action movies. The Hunger Games makes an argument that's pretty difficult to refute.

 

[Boom]

I am all about Planet of the Apes right now.

 

[Lord]

There is no comparison between Marvel and Pixar. Marvel has not made a film in the same league as Ratatouille, Up, et cetera, and as far as I know Pixar has not made a film as awful as Thor 2.

It seems liek you think Thor 2 is worse than it actualy is, what you call generic and boring battle at the end, i would call an interesting twist on final battles with ingenious use of portals.

Cars 2 was kinda bad, would call it worse than Thor 2.

 

[Roadkill]

There is no comparison between Marvel and Pixar. Marvel has not made a film in the same league as Ratatouille, Up, et cetera, and as far as I know Pixar has not made a film as awful as Thor 2.

You say that there is no comparison between Marvel and Pixar and to a degree that is true because the comparison is apples to oranges. It really depends on what you find entertaining. For example, I love Ratatouille and Up but because of my strong bias toward comic book flics, I personally prefer both The Avengers and Captain America: Winter Soldier to them and indeed reflecting this bias I also rank The Incredibles over both of these Pixar movies.

Also reflecting my personal preference, I actually prefer the much dissed Thor: The Dark World to the Pixar movies Cars, Brave, and Monsters U. I haven't seen Cars 2 but have not heard much good about it.