- 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
re: Is there any surprise at all that Valerian bombed at the box office?
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:57 am to CocomoLSU
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:57 am to CocomoLSU
I watched it this weekend and it really was a horrible movie. I had zero interest in the two lead characters. Like none.
I mean Valerian is suppose to be this bad arse, cocky, womanizer, and they chose this dweeb to play the part?
The casting director for this movie should never be able to find another job in Hollywood
I mean Valerian is suppose to be this bad arse, cocky, womanizer, and they chose this dweeb to play the part?
The casting director for this movie should never be able to find another job in Hollywood
1
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:58 am to Ham Solo
quote:
Wow, I guess when you don't have a valid response you just go straight to the insults.
My response is in my prior posts. Being turned off by CGI is idiotic and simply a false line of criticism for most people. No one was turned off by the CGI in Avatar. They were turned off by the plot. No one was turned off by the CGI in Guardians of the Galaxy, or really the entirety of the MCU. No one was turned off by the CGI in the Matrix or Lord of the Rings or fricking Star Wars because of CGI. To say that that is a reason to be turned off by a movie is dumb. Perhaps you believe it is an indicator that the movie will be mindless. While I can see your point with respect to Transformers and such, it really doesn't hold water when you consider how much CGI is used in the entire industry today and the host of movies like the Matrix that blow that association out of the water.
And the whole point of Valerian was the effects. They move from planet to planet searching for this thing that will destroy everything (or some shite, I don't really know to be honest, which is why I said the trailers sucked). Besson wanted to be able to show the alien worlds and to do that he had to use CGI. The CGI is a major focus of the film. It absolutely serves the story.
It's not the CGI that's a problem, it's the acting and plot and marketing. To say, "Welp, CGI everywhere. Movie sucks." Is a lazy arse critique and a lazy arse reason to not go see a movie.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 10:03 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
And it absolutely mattered that it competed against Dunkirk, Spider-Man, and Apes. If you have 3 tentpoles playing everywhere and then you find one little side show off to the right, the tentpoles are going to draw more customers. Most people don't see 2 movies in a weekend. It mattered. That's why studios try to avoid releases for minor movies during summer blockbuster months.
Maybe I worded that poorly. Obviously it matters to a point that it competes with movies. But even if it was the only new release this week and wasn't going against Nolan, how much do you think it would have mattered? It got 17 million...would it have gotten more than 30? For basically a $200 million movie, it wasn't going to get the type of opening that is expected with that sort of price tag IMO.
But there are definitely many reasons why it won't do well. Timing of the release, the actors, the CGI, the marketing, etc....all are valid reasons that go into it.
quote:
But the trailers were horrendous. They provided almost no context for the plot and no context for the characters, and attaching "based on the groundbreaking graphic novel" to it did nothing for an audience that had never heard of the book before and could not figure out anything more about the story based on that reference. Once again the marketing sank a movie that was a real attempt at creating something unique on screen.
Isn't this similar to what happened with John Carter? I remember people (Freauxzen sticks out in my mind) that basically said Disney botched the marketing and the actual movie was different from what the trailers show and how it was marketed. Is that similar to Valerian?
Posted on 7/25/17 at 10:12 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
It got 17 million...would it have gotten more than 30? For basically a $200 million movie, it wasn't going to get the type of opening that is expected with that sort of price tag IMO
Yeah, that's why I said earlier that the CGI wasn't a reason it bombed other than that it probably was the reason it cost so damn much money to make in the first place. It's hard to make up $200M at the box office on an unknown property. I bet they are banking on the overseas markets.
quote:I think they are weirdly similar. Now I won't say John Carter was a good movie and I haven't seen Valerian, but John Carter was not a movie so bad that it should have bombed like it did. And, if marketed properly, probably could have been a success at the box office or at least fared better.
Is that similar to Valerian?
Posted on 7/25/17 at 10:15 am to LoveThatMoney
If CGI is something you're concerned about, your watching movies for the wrong reasons. Movies are meant to entertain you. Watch the movie. Try to let yourself be entertained by it. if it doens't entertain you, so be it, but don't look for things to bitch about like saying it was too much CGI. If the movie told a better story, you wouldn't be saying that, like with GOTG, or Avatar, or Life of Pi.
That being said, this movie looked like it would be awesome to see in the theaters in 3D. The trailers did a terrible job of giving even a hint at what this movie was about. and as others have said, the two lead actors aren't big names, or even middle of the pack names, and they look like they belong in a highschool movie. The dude looks like a wimp and i don't know if i'm supposed to be attracted to the girl b/c she's trashy looking hot, or actually hot. They in no way look like the universes greatest bounty hunters, which is what i think they are in some form of fashion from the trailer.
Had the movie had two guys like Liam Hemsworth and little Eastwood, that way you know you can get women to go to it, and have them quipping at each other while being bad arse's throughout the movie, it likely could have done much better.
That being said, this movie looked like it would be awesome to see in the theaters in 3D. The trailers did a terrible job of giving even a hint at what this movie was about. and as others have said, the two lead actors aren't big names, or even middle of the pack names, and they look like they belong in a highschool movie. The dude looks like a wimp and i don't know if i'm supposed to be attracted to the girl b/c she's trashy looking hot, or actually hot. They in no way look like the universes greatest bounty hunters, which is what i think they are in some form of fashion from the trailer.
Had the movie had two guys like Liam Hemsworth and little Eastwood, that way you know you can get women to go to it, and have them quipping at each other while being bad arse's throughout the movie, it likely could have done much better.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 10:17 am to Ham Solo
quote:
The same board that can't stop jerking off over GOTG now hates cgi?
That is a good one, and I already said there are a few exceptions, but not very many. All I am saying is that when I see that much cgi it makes me skeptical from the start.
I will say that while I don't think either GotG is overly great, I enjoyed them (though the second one is inferior to the first IMO). But the worst part of the second one was the CGI. It just looked ridiculous at times. But overall it was still entertaining and funny (albeit way too long).
Posted on 7/25/17 at 10:24 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
More than half of the posts in this thread mention CGI as a negative.
Yeah, and they all jerk off onto each other's faces over Justice League, Ready player 1, captain america 6, avengers 9, guardians of the universe 3. Hysterical
Guardians and the justice league trailer look like cartoons
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 10:28 am
Posted on 7/25/17 at 10:30 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
Being turned off by CGI is idiotic and simply a false line of criticism for most people.
quote:
To say that that is a reason to be turned off by a movie is dumb.
quote:
It's not the CGI that's a problem, it's the acting and plot and marketing. To say, "Welp, CGI everywhere. Movie sucks." Is a lazy arse critique and a lazy arse reason to not go see a movie.
And see, I think it's just the opposite. If a movie relies too much on CGI, it hurts the movie. You mention the Matrix. The first one was great, and the CGI enhanced the movie and made it better. Then the sequels overused it to the point that you had ridiculously fake looking CGI Neo fighting 100 ridiculously fake Agent Smiths. That's a perfect example of how CGI can be properly used versus overly and improperly used.
You act like disliking too much CGI is a bad thing or something only an idiot would say. That is incredibly short-sighted IMO. Too much CGI makes for lazy filmmaking a lot of times, not to mention bad acting more times than not.
You say this:
quote:
While I can see your point with respect to Transformers and such
That is exactly what I am getting at. The Transformers have used more and more CGI each time they've made one, and it affects the quality of them IMO (now, if you want to argue blockbuster quality, that is a different discussion).
But when I saw the trailers for the latest Transformers movie, one thought I had was "Holy shite, that is too much CGI bullshite, looks ridiculous." I thought similar things when I saw the trailer for Valerian. How does that make me an idiot?
shite, you mention Star Wars...one of the main gripes about the prequels was the overuse of CGI, especially the second one. And what percentage of SW fans hate that Lucas keeps going back to the original trilogy and adding in unnecessary and ridiculous CGI special effects? Oh, just about 100%.
There are also different qualities of CGI. Some look far more realistic than others. So when you combine shitty CGI (not saying Valerian is that, btw) with subpar acting, bad plots, etc...it's just as good a reason to dislike a film as anything else.
Most people hated the way Green Lantern looked when it first started airing trailers. The overuse of CGI (and shitty CGI at that) was a big reason why IIRC.
Another example. I enjoyed the Hobbit movies well enough, but shite like this is lazy and stupid, and you see it in more and more films:
When CGI starts making movies look like cartoons when they aren't supposed to be cartoons, it sucks IMO. Plain and simple.
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 10:59 am
Posted on 7/25/17 at 10:35 am to VinegarStrokes
quote:
ncredibly stupid to release in the middle of a very busy blockbuster year
And hindsight applied, a bad blockbuster year.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 10:39 am to BlackAdam
Literally the only reason to see this movie is the CGI. I would guess almost in American who saw this movie saw it because they watched a trailer and went "oh that looks neat."
Posted on 7/25/17 at 10:58 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
If the movie told a better story, you wouldn't be saying that, like with GOTG, or Avatar, or Life of Pi.
That being said, this movie looked like it would be awesome to see in the theaters in 3D. The trailers did a terrible job of giving even a hint at what this movie was about
Yep.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 11:14 am to LoveThatMoney
How in the world did this movie even get such a high budget in the first place? Zero known bankable stars, and Luc Besson has had a total of ONE modest box office hit with Lucy (which did have a bankable actress).
I think they overestimated how many Fifth Element fans would watch this movie.
I think they overestimated how many Fifth Element fans would watch this movie.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 11:17 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
Being turned off by CGI is idiotic and simply a false line of criticism for most people.
There's one point in the trailer where they're jumping on to a moving vehicle or something and it just looks so unnatural it shatters any suspension of disbelief.
quote:
No one was turned off by the CGI in Avatar
Because they spent $1 Billion to make it ground breaking CGI and got most people to pay extra to see it in 3D.
I watched Rogue One in IMAX 3D and was asking myself "Isn't the actor that played Tarkin dead by now?" Maybe it's the slight blur/tint/haze that comes with 3D glasses, but I found the CGI Tarkin pretty convincing in IMAX 3D. I've since seen the same scenes in 2D and they look terrible and worthy of the ridicule they've received. It looks like a video game character dropped in the middle of a live action movie.
If a movie has to be in IMAX to look good then it will not be enjoyed by as many people as it should be. "Too much CGI" may not be a valid complaint, but "unconvincing CGI" is a good reason to not like the movie and there are just some parts of the film showed in the trailer that look like people in a cartoon. Maybe this will find legs as a cult classic like his other work, but right now people are into gritty and realistic, and this is neither.
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 11:19 am
Posted on 7/25/17 at 11:17 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
And see, I think it's just the opposite. If a movie relies too much on CGI, it hurts the movie. You mention the Matrix. The first one was great, and the CGI enhanced the movie and made it better. Then the sequels overused it to the point that you had ridiculously fake looking CGI Neo fighting 100 ridiculously fake Agent Smiths.
There are numerous examples of bad CGI. There are numerous examples of fantastic CGI. In fact, 9 out of 10 films use CGI without the audience even knowing it. But to say a movie that is world building using CGI because there's nothing in the real world that can lend itself to practical effects that give the same sense of awe and color and oddity uses too much CGI and is, therefore, bad, is a silly critique. And not a reason anyone should or should not see the movie. This is more akin to Avatar rather than the Matrix 2.
quote:No. Lazy filmmaking leads to lazy filmmaking. CGI has nothing to do with it. It's a tool. If the filmmaker can't use that tool, then he either needs to learn how to use it or to find a different way to convey the image. If a carpenter can't use a reciprocating saw, but can use a mitre and saw, he should use the latter. It's not that CGI leads to lazy filmmaking, it's that lazy filmmakers don't learn to use CGI effectively. The Wachowskis knew how to use CGI effectively, but the tech wasn't up to snuff for Matrix 2. That's a bit different. But Cameron learned how to do CGI and he brought the tech to where it needed to be. Titanic and Avatar both use CGI to tremendous effect.
Too much CGI makes for lazy filmmaking a lot of times, not to mention bad acting more times than not.
And say what you will about Transformers, but the CGI in those movies is amazing. The CGI has nothing to do with why you and I think those movies suck. Bay can direct an action flick and scene well, but those movies have very little meat. That's why they don't resonate with us. That those movies have soured people on CGI is really those people misplacing their blame. CGI is not indicative of laziness. Using tons of CGI is not indicative of laziness. In fact, it's probably more the opposite. All it is is a correlation between the heavy use of CGI and what people on this board perceive as bad movies, despite the examples listed that use CGI (and lots of it) effectively in great or well loved movies.
quote:I agree. But I don't think it's correct to say that too much CGI renders a movie bad. I think the poor use of CGI renders a movie bad.
When CGI starts making movies look like cartoons when they aren't supposed to be cartoons, it sucks IMO. Plain and simple
Posted on 7/25/17 at 11:22 am to SpqrTiger
quote:
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.
it's a little late in the year to depend on spectacle to open amovie.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 11:22 am to Carson123987
quote:
Yeah, and they all jerk off onto each other's faces over Justice League, Ready player 1, captain america 6, avengers 9, guardians of the universe 3. Hysterical
To be fair I was the one bitching most about the cgi, and I despise a majority of these movies.
The biggest indicator today that a movie is going to suck is when you see two good looking teenagers staring in a movie that looks more like a video game.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 11:26 am to TigerinATL
quote:
Too much CGI" may not be a valid complaint, but "unconvincing CGI" is a good reason to not like the movie
Yes. Or at least a valid critique of the movie in any case.
quote:
there are just some parts of the film showed in the trailer that look like people in a cartoon
Not saying you're wrong, but I just don't remember that.
And in any case, I think people would be willing to forgive a few slip ups of CGI if the story and characters were compelling. But the trailer fails utterly to provide either of those things and so no one knows why they should see it. So they didn't. And they won't.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 11:37 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
No. Lazy filmmaking leads to lazy filmmaking. CGI has nothing to do with it. It's a tool. If the filmmaker can't use that tool, then he either needs to learn how to use it or to find a different way to convey the image.
I agree with what you're saying, but what I mean is that overuse of CGI can lead to lazy filmmaking because they can always just assume they can go back and fix it in post-production. And when you are using so much CGI that almost anything can be fixed, that can lead to problems.
I don't mean to sound like I think that lots of CGI automatically means that a movie sucks. That isn't the case at all. But I do think it can easily lead to a shitty looking product. And I agree with this:
quote:
But I don't think it's correct to say that too much CGI renders a movie bad. I think the poor use of CGI renders a movie bad.
I think that is true, but the overuse of CGI opens up the door for more and more poor use of it.
And to go with your Tranformers example. The quality of CGI may be great, but when I am looking at the screen and can't tell what is going on because there are literally a hundred different things going on every ten seconds, that's a problem for me. And I understand that a movie like Transformers, about alien robots that can transform into vehicles and whatnot, is gonna require a lot of CGI. But it at least seemed toned down in the first movie. And now in the (I think) fifth one it feels like that is all there is and the whole thing was filmed with Marky Mark running around a giant auditorium that is painted lime green.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 11:43 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
CocomoLSU
Agreed.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 12:24 pm to LoveThatMoney
Also, the first time I saw this trailer, I said to myself "Welp, this looks like one of those overly CGI movies that will suck and bomb at the box office." And that was within the first ten seconds of watching it. Once it was over, my thoughts were confirmed (at least to me).
So I think you can fairly easily tell what movies will succeed or which ones will fail based on how it looks, which includes CGI.
ETA: I thought the exact same thing about Gods of Egypt the first time I saw that trailer. And it bombed big time in the US. It at least made its production budget back thanks to overseas grosses, but that movie was a relative bomb (at least domestically). And you could easily tell just by watching the trailer.
So I think you can fairly easily tell what movies will succeed or which ones will fail based on how it looks, which includes CGI.
ETA: I thought the exact same thing about Gods of Egypt the first time I saw that trailer. And it bombed big time in the US. It at least made its production budget back thanks to overseas grosses, but that movie was a relative bomb (at least domestically). And you could easily tell just by watching the trailer.
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 12:30 pm
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News