Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Sky captain and the world of tomorrow

Posted on 8/10/24 at 8:16 pm
Posted by Hogules68
parts unknown
Member since Sep 2012
255 posts
Posted on 8/10/24 at 8:16 pm
I think this is a grossly underated movie I really enjoyed it did anyone else
Posted by Havoc
Member since Nov 2015
33985 posts
Posted on 8/10/24 at 9:24 pm to
I remember it having some great visuals and cool moments but overall very underwhelming.
Posted by CAD703X
Liberty Island
Member since Jul 2008
86699 posts
Posted on 8/10/24 at 10:31 pm to
There's one scene of the various test robots as they evolved over time and one looks exactly like the iron giant. You gotta look fast but I thought that was a nice tie-in that actually made sense for both movies.
Posted by rebelrouser
Columbia, SC
Member since Feb 2013
12070 posts
Posted on 8/11/24 at 9:48 am to
I recall liking it about 20 years ago.
Posted by sqerty
AP
Member since May 2022
7223 posts
Posted on 8/11/24 at 9:55 am to
I think it took the dude 20 years to get it made?
Posted by SouthEasternKaiju
SouthEast... you figure it out
Member since Aug 2021
35557 posts
Posted on 8/11/24 at 10:24 am to
"lens cap"


Posted by Dairy Sanders
Member since Apr 2022
2963 posts
Posted on 8/11/24 at 11:03 am to
I thoroughly enjoyed it
Posted by chinese58
NELA. after 30 years in Dallas.
Member since Jun 2004
31785 posts
Posted on 8/11/24 at 6:39 pm to
Posted by Scoob
Near Exxon
Member since Jun 2009
21764 posts
Posted on 8/11/24 at 9:18 pm to
It was definitely fun. I think it came out at the wrong time, because people were starting to focus on tentpole properties instead of just name actors and visuals.
Posted by Fewer Kilometers
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2007
37155 posts
Posted on 8/12/24 at 9:06 am to
The creator, Kerry Conran, makes for a very interesting internet deep info dive. His idea was to make the film without big name stars, for $3 Million, all blue screen-CGI. But once he got backing they insisted on stars, jacking the budget up to $20 Million, which escalated to $70 Million (which his brother and co-creator disputes as Hollywood bookkeeping).

Even with the film losing money, Hollywood saw that all blue screen-CGI could work (this was before Sin City and 300) and Conran was fast-tracked to do John Carter of Mars (he came after Robert Rodriguez dropped out and before Favreau jumped in). He was then put on a couple of other films that never saw the light of day (The Shadow, Doc Savage... he was pigeon-holed as a pulp guy) and then did nothing but a couple of shorts and commercials.

He went from being Hollywood's next big innovator to just living his life as he wanted.
This post was edited on 8/12/24 at 9:12 am
Posted by blueboy
Member since Apr 2006
60269 posts
Posted on 8/12/24 at 9:11 am to
It was awful, just scatterbrained nonsense. The trailer looked fun but the movie was a total disappointment, on par with Valerian in the looks good/is bad category.
Posted by Scoob
Near Exxon
Member since Jun 2009
21764 posts
Posted on 8/12/24 at 11:53 am to
quote:

but the movie was a total disappointment, on par with Valerian in the looks good/is bad category
Gonna disagree with you here.

Valerian suffered from terrible casting. Dane Dehaan is probably the worst male action hero I've ever seen. He was skinny, flaccid, and effeminate. And unlike Timothy Chalamet in Dune, he lacked the charisma to make it work.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram