- 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
Sky captain and the world of tomorrow
Posted on 8/10/24 at 8:16 pm
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 on 8/10/24 at 9:24 pm to Hogules68
I remember it having some great visuals and cool moments but overall very underwhelming.
Posted on 8/10/24 at 10:31 pm to Hogules68
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 on 8/11/24 at 9:48 am to Hogules68
I recall liking it about 20 years ago.
Posted on 8/11/24 at 9:55 am to rebelrouser
I think it took the dude 20 years to get it made?
Posted on 8/11/24 at 6:39 pm to Hogules68
Posted on 8/11/24 at 9:18 pm to Hogules68
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 on 8/12/24 at 9:06 am to Hogules68
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.
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 on 8/12/24 at 9:11 am to Hogules68
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 on 8/12/24 at 11:53 am to blueboy
quote:Gonna disagree with you here.
but the movie was a total disappointment, on par with Valerian in the looks good/is bad category
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.
Popular
Back to top
