- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
1
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:48 am to CocomoLSU
The biggest selling point in the trailers seemed to be that it was made by a director best known for creating cult classics. The Fifth Element made $63 million in the US and also had $17 million on opening weekend.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:51 am to GeauxTigers2020
The timing of its release is a major factor in its failure along with the lack of star power. The Fifth Element at least had Bruce Willis still in his prime.
They also should have played up the fact that its based on a comic in the advertising.
They also should have played up the fact that its based on a comic in the advertising.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:53 am to Jcorye1
quote:
It looked like they were trying for a 5th Element vibe,
i think this is based on source material that the 5th Element kind of ripped off
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:55 am to CocomoLSU
If you're going to spend 177 million dollars, you might as well bump it to 190 and get some leads that would help promote the flick.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:57 am to CocomoLSU
I, like most Americans, am unfamiliar with the source material; so it looked pretty stupid to me. Maybe it will do better overseas? France?
It also didn't help that they released it last weekend. I would have delayed the hell out of that. Make sure Dunkirk isn't even in theaters
It also didn't help that they released it last weekend. I would have delayed the hell out of that. Make sure Dunkirk isn't even in theaters
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:59 am to Brosef Stalin
There are plenty of shite films out there abusing computer imagery and have no problem pulling in money at the box office.
Why? Because these films are brands, or have star power.
Nobody went to see this movie because they didn't give a frick about it.
Why? Because these films are brands, or have star power.
Nobody went to see this movie because they didn't give a frick about it.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 8:59 am to Walking the Earth
Yeah, casting was awful; at least from an appearance perspective. They chose two people who look like 14 year old fraternal twins. I was taken aback when I found out that dude is 31.
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 9:00 am
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:01 am to Master of Sinanju
quote:
I was interested, but turned off by the CGI.
Nah, per Frac that isn't why and you should drop it. Because critics said it's the most beautiful movie ever made.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:02 am to SCLSUMuddogs
quote:
Yeah, casting was awful; at least from an appearance perspective. They chose two people who look like 14 year old fraternal twins. I was taken aback when I found out that dude is 31.
Hold up, they are married in the movie?
In all honesty, I thought they were supposed to be kids.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:06 am to CocomoLSU
It is no surprise. You can't have a big budget action movie starring Dane DeHaan and Cara DeLevigne and expect it to be a massive box office success.
Now, it may still make some money, but it will be a long term prospect. They aren't making it up during its run on the big screen. At least not in the States.
Now, it may still make some money, but it will be a long term prospect. They aren't making it up during its run on the big screen. At least not in the States.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:07 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
Edge of Tomorrow?
Interstellar?
Ex Machina?
Looper?
Her?
Gravity? (arguably not overly sci fi, but still)
The Martian?
Arrival?
Every one of these had pretty serious star power behind it, except for maybe Ex Machina, but even then more star power than Valerian.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:19 am to Frac the world
quote:
The CGI has nothing to do with it so go ahead and drop that point.
There are 4 or so people in this thread that say the cgi is what turned them off, myself included. Yes, there are a lot of reasons why this film failed, but for a lot of us the cgi is the big red flag that says this will suck. This doesn't mean that every cgi film sucks, but for a lot of us it's a turnoff.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:20 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
I disagree. Maybe not the only reason for sure, but it's definitely a pretty big one IMO
Except to say that the CGI was probably a large portion of the cost involved in making the movie and, therefore, the amount of money it would require to not bomb was extremely high, the CGI was likely the main draw to the film and, without it, the movie would have bombed worse.
If you look at all the reviews out there, the consensus is that the movie is perhaps the most beautiful movie ever made. Between the CGI and Luc Besson's name on the director's chair, there was a fair amount of buzz around the movie.
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.
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.
Problem was the studio thought this was a blockbuster. With Dane DeHaan as the lead. It's not like he had the MCU or a massive brand to fall back on like Tom Holland. It wasn't an established franchise like Apes. And it wasn't a massive war movie directed by one of the most beloved directors of the past 50 years starring Tom Hardy and a slew of big names, including Harry Styles.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:21 am to Ham Solo
quote:
This doesn't mean that every cgi film sucks, but for a lot of us it's a turnoff
Well, then you're a frickwit.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:26 am to CocomoLSU
yeah.. I really don't like that actor they got for the lead.
He was shite in spider-man.
But I love the 5th Element and the visuals look cool.
I will wait till I can illegally .. um , I mean... HBO to get it
He was shite in spider-man.
But I love the 5th Element and the visuals look cool.
I will wait till I can illegally .. um , I mean... HBO to get it
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:27 am to Ham Solo
The same board that can't stop jerking off over GOTG now hates cgi?
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:28 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
Well, then you're a frickwit
Wow, I guess when you don't have a valid response you just go straight to the insults.
My point is too many of these cgi movies turn out to be garbage. There is a reason the acting sucks time and time again in these movies. It's can't be easy getting into character in front of green screens all day every day.
These effects should compliment a movie not dominate it. It is a big red flag from the start that the people making the movie don't have their priorities straight.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:32 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.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 9:54 am to LSUBoo
quote:
Every one of these had pretty serious star power behind it, except for maybe Ex Machina, but even then more star power than Valerian.
Right, but the leads were his first reason that it bombed. Another reason was that 'sci fi movies don't make much right now," which is clearly untrue. The point was that good sci fi movies do pretty well, shitty ones do not.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News