- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is there any surprise at all that Valerian bombed at the box office?
Posted on 7/25/17 at 7:56 am
Posted on 7/25/17 at 7:56 am
I noticed that it only made ~$17 million in its opening weekend, against a production budget of $177 million (not including advertising).
I remember the first time I saw the trailer for it, you could easily tell that this was going to happen. The trailer made it seem like an enormous overuse of CGI (even more so than the normal "CGI fest" type films), and the plot seemed paper thin at best. Now, I am not saying that it is a horrible movie per se, but the trailers for it certainly don't lead me to the conclusion that it is though.
It just seems like studios are stupid when it comes to shite like this. I assume they are hoping that a movie like this will be successful worldwide, but it seems like it has a lot of ground to make up since it is off to such an awful start. It's like sometimes they just love to throw money away on purpose.
And let me guess, was this supposed to be the start of some sort of trilogy or multi-sequeled movies?
I remember the first time I saw the trailer for it, you could easily tell that this was going to happen. The trailer made it seem like an enormous overuse of CGI (even more so than the normal "CGI fest" type films), and the plot seemed paper thin at best. Now, I am not saying that it is a horrible movie per se, but the trailers for it certainly don't lead me to the conclusion that it is though.
It just seems like studios are stupid when it comes to shite like this. I assume they are hoping that a movie like this will be successful worldwide, but it seems like it has a lot of ground to make up since it is off to such an awful start. It's like sometimes they just love to throw money away on purpose.
And let me guess, was this supposed to be the start of some sort of trilogy or multi-sequeled movies?
25
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:00 am to CocomoLSU
I feel like this is Avatar in a world where Avatar already existed. I have absolutely no desire to see this movie, and I'm not sure how studio execs thought there would be a high demand for it.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:02 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
Is there any surprise at all that Valerian bombed at the box office?
Not here... I didn't see much for it at all, but what I did just looked like excessive CGI to the point it looked more like a video game scene than a movie. And I had absolutely no idea what the movie was really about, other than some other world.
But, they will probably break even in China alone, so it likely won't be a financial bust.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:04 am to CocomoLSU
It didn't help that it came out the same week as Dunkirk, a week after Apes and with Spider-Man still around.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:06 am to CocomoLSU
Computer generated imagery had nothing to do with this box office failure.
This film was a big budget adventure with no brand recognition in a fully loaded summer movie season that had plenty.
You didn't have to be a industry insider to call this one.
This film was a big budget adventure with no brand recognition in a fully loaded summer movie season that had plenty.
You didn't have to be a industry insider to call this one.
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 8:10 am
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:07 am to Tactical1
I loved the fifth element. I'll probably check this movie out eventually.
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 8:10 am
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:09 am to LSUBoo
quote:
what I did just looked like excessive CGI to the point it looked more like a video game scene than a movie. And I had absolutely no idea what the movie was really about, other than some other world.
Exactly.
I don't know if it is similar to John Carter on Mars or whatever what movie was...I know people here have said that it was actually not bad/pretty good but the marketing for it just missed the mark completely. So maybe Valerian is like that?
I just remember seeing the trailer and thinking "Welp, that's gonna be an overly shitty movie...what were they thinking." And then I saw this morning that it only made 17 million against a pretty huge budget.
I agree that it looked like a video game. And if I want to see that, I'd just play video games.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:09 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
Is there any surprise at all that Valerian bombed at the box office?
A guy I watch on Youtube was "semi-excited" about the movie... too the point that he showed a few things about the movie, but even with him showing these things I never felt anything more than "meh" about the movie. So to answer your question - nah, not surprised at all, seemed like a super generic / boring CGIfest
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:10 am to jackwoods4
quote:
t didn't help that it came out the same week as Dunkirk, a week after Apes and with Spider-Man still around.
Do you honestly think that matters though? I feel like this movie would not have done well if it had been the only new release this week.
quote:
Computer generated imagery had nothing to do with this box office failure.
I disagree. Maybe not the only reason for sure, but it's definitely a pretty big one IMO.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:11 am to CocomoLSU
I thought it would bomb as well.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:12 am to CocomoLSU
Without seeing the movie, I think they would have benefitted from an earlier release in the year. By this time in the year, audiences get a little fatigued by CGI spectacles, I think. Front end of summer would have been better than the back end, I think.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:19 am to Tactical1
quote:This.
This film was a big budget adventure with no brand recognition in a fully loaded summer movie season that had plenty.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:23 am to SpqrTiger
quote:
Computer generated imagery had nothing to do with this box office failure.
I disagree. When I see trailers with that much cgi there is almost no way I will go see it. The only way I change my mind is if everyone comes back saying how great it is.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:36 am to CocomoLSU
this movie had February release written all over it. They were incredibly stupid to release in the middle of a very busy blockbuster year.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:37 am to CocomoLSU
I have seen a few of the trailers....I still have no idea what this movie is about
CGI and visuals are no longer enough in this day and age to lure me into the theater.
CGI and visuals are no longer enough in this day and age to lure me into the theater.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:37 am to CocomoLSU
The movie has been called the most beautiful movie ever made by many many critics, it looks incredible. The CGI has nothing to do with it so go ahead and drop that point.
It bombed because the lead actor/actress are shite, nobody knew what it was about, the marketing only started a month ago, it released the same weekend as Dunkirk and only a couple weeks after Spider-Man/Apes, and lastly because original Sci-Fi movies aren't making any money right now anyways. It's about superheroes, sequels, and reboots for some reason right now.
It bombed because the lead actor/actress are shite, nobody knew what it was about, the marketing only started a month ago, it released the same weekend as Dunkirk and only a couple weeks after Spider-Man/Apes, and lastly because original Sci-Fi movies aren't making any money right now anyways. It's about superheroes, sequels, and reboots for some reason right now.
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 8:43 am
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:39 am to Frac the world
quote:
The movie has been called the most beautiful movie ever made by many many critics, it looks incredible. The CGI has nothing to do with it so go ahead and drop that point.
I think I know where my downvote came from.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:40 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
I think I know where my downvote came from.
It actually wasn't me lol, I'm just relaying what critics are saying.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:41 am to CocomoLSU
I watched a couple of trailers, and I honestly had no idea what the movie was about. It looked like they were trying for a 5th Element vibe, but with a young married couple?
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:45 am to Frac the world
quote:
The movie has been called the most beautiful movie ever made by many many critics, it looks incredible. The CGI has nothing to do with it so go ahead and drop that point.
Drop it? More than half of the posts in this thread mention CGI as a negative. And most have even said it is a reason why they have no desire to see it. Like specifically because of too much CGI.
Nobody is saying it isn't a pretty movie. But to say that the overuse of CGI is not only not a reason, but to dismiss it entirely, is intentionally obtuse.
quote:
You're so off on this one, and very uninformed.
And you say I am uninformed? Just read the responses in this thread.
ETA: And note that I never said CGI is the only reason it bombed. Just that it was one of the reasons. I also said that the marketing for it doesn't make it look like anything I would want to see, nor that the general public would want to see.
ETA 2:
quote:
and lastly because original Sci-Fi movies aren't making any money right now anyways.
Edge of Tomorrow?
Interstellar?
Ex Machina?
Looper?
Her?
Gravity? (arguably not overly sci fi, but still)
The Martian?
Arrival?
All within the last five years.
They can make money. They just have to actually be good.
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 8:55 am
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News