Why smart sci-fi struggles to find its audience in a 'Star Wars' world

Brian Truitt | USA TODAY

Show Caption Hide Caption 'Annihilation' will give you the chills Natalie Portman plays a scientist who has no idea what scares are in store for her in 'Annihilation.'

There’s a renaissance of smart, original science fiction happening in movie theaters. If only the box-office receipts were as impressive.

While entertaining space operas like Star Wars and Guardians of the Galaxy rack up the cash, sci-fi films that tend toward the intellectual — about mankind’s dealings with androids, aliens and technology — just aren’t clicking with mainstream audiences.

Denis Villeneuve’s acclaimed Arrival scored eight Oscar nominations including best picture, but barely broke $100 million in 2016. Last year, Life boasted a cast headed by Jake Gyllenhaal and Ryan Reynolds — and tanked with only $30.2 million. Even the high-profile returns didn’t hit: Ridley Scott’s Alien: Covenant managed $74.3 million, while the long-awaited sequel Blade Runner 2049 snagged five Oscar nominations as the silver lining of a disappointing $92.1 million haul.

No time to read? Listen below or subscribe to USA TODAY's nerdy pop culture podcast, The Mothership, for free on Apple Podcasts.

First look: Netflix's 'Altered Carbon'

More: Jodie Foster's 'Black Mirror' episode casts a 'female eye' on futuristic sci-fi

The case in point: Rian Johnson’s 2012 time-travel movie Looper received great reviews (93% fresh on aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes), opened with $20.8 million and wound up with $66.5 million. The director's Star Wars: The Last Jedi also received great reviews (91%), opened with $220 million in December and is still going strong with $618.2 million.

“Sci-fi is a fun genre to work in; it tests creativity, but it seems like it also tests audiences’ patience. They don’t turn up for it,” says Jeff Bock, senior box-office analyst for Exhibitor Relations. “You really have to make a world that audiences are willing to step into and that’s proven the most difficult thing.”

The latest to try and break through is Annihilation (in theaters Friday), writer/director Alex Garland’s follow-up to his critically beloved Ex Machina ($25.4 million). The adaptation of Jeff VanderMeer’s horror-tinged novel stars Natalie Portman and centers on a group of women who venture into a mysterious area of Florida swampland surrounded by shimmering lights and containing genetically modified fauna and vegetation.

More: Why we still care about the original 'Blade Runner' 35 years later

Related: Ridley Scott on 'Alien' franchise: 'I’m not letting it go this time'

Bock says he has high hopes for it, “so this taboo doesn’t follow all these films around. I don’t want to see another Fast and Furious, but I do want to see a sci-fi film that is trying new things.”

Not all audiences embrace every kind of sci-fi, according to Lisa Yaszek, professor of science-fiction studies at Georgia Tech. Star Wars movies in particular represent a branch that focuses on humans being the center of the world: “They have more universal challenges. This is very much about the struggles between fathers and sons, quests for love and justice,” she says.

But sci-fi stories like Arrival and Blade Runner really lean into the unknown, Yaszek adds. “You get a sense of wonder about how big and amazing the universe is, but you also start to realize that humans aren’t the center of everything.” Those tales are more challenging for audiences. "It’s not a surprise that those movies don’t do as well as movies that tell a very familiar story that feels safe.”

It's hard to imagine now, but even Star Wars was new back in 1977, when George Lucas' original film became a phenomenon for the way it brought together Westerns, old adventure serials and swashbuckling action in a way no one had seen before. However, more esoteric, methodically paced fare was the genre standard during the 1960s and '70s, a heyday that introduced the original Alien, as well as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Soylent Green and The Andromeda Strain.

Modern audiences, like kids who grew up with the Star Wars prequels, "really want a confectioners' version of sci-fi — something to satisfy your sweet tooth,” says Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst for comScore.

Earlier: Who's going to stop the rise of the killer robots? Don't ignore sci-fi warnings

More: Meet the man who created the languages for 'Game of Thrones' and 'The 100'

A few films such as Gravity (which made $274.1 million in 2013) and The Martian ($228.4 million in 2015) have found the “perfect intersection” of heady material and entertainment value, Dergarabedian says. “That can be pure magic, but it’s becoming increasingly rare.”

While the genre has struggled at the cineplex, cable networks and streaming services have become a haven for intelligent sci-fi fare with the popularity of HBO’s Westworld and Netflix’s Stranger Things and Black Mirror. Those places have become another option for filmmakers wanting to get eyes on their material while avoiding demands to deliver at the box office.

The Cloverfield Paradox had a surprise release on Netflix earlier this month after the Super Bowl, and director Duncan Jones’ new noir film Mute, about a bartender (Alexander Skarsgård) trying to find his girlfriend in futuristic Berlin, premieres Friday.

Jones earned his sci-fi bona fides with the 2009 British Academy Film Award-winning Moon and then two years later with the time-bending thriller Source Code — which garnered great reviews but only $147 million worldwide.

“Studio films have to make a billion dollars to be considered a success. That’s stupid,” Jones says. “Not every film can be something that everybody wants to see and everybody’s going to love. It’s OK to make movies that don’t appeal to everyone. You can’t have McDonald’s every meal.”