- 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 12:26 pm to LoveThatMoney
Posted on 7/25/17 at 12:26 pm to LoveThatMoney
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.
I know this will sound like I'm being a dick, but I promise I am not....but I don't believe you. Like I straight up think you're lying.
I just watched the trailer again and almost literally the whole thing looks like one giant video game/cartoon. I guess if you really want, I could take screenshots. But I have no idea how you don't remember that the trailer looks like kids in a cartoon.
I'll pull some images of the trailer from google:
Those are images literally taken from the trailer alone. And you don't remember the trailer looking like people in a cartoon?
2
Posted on 7/25/17 at 12:37 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
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?
It's a pretty good movie. The marketing was TERRIBLE which is a shame. I believe this is associated with a book a series so this could have been an interesting franchise.
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 7/25/17 at 1:01 pm to CocomoLSU
The opening scene on the beach planet looked amazing. I kind of wanted that to be the whole movie. Those blue people were better than any of the aliens in the Star Wars prequels.
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 7/25/17 at 1:13 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
And you don't remember the trailer looking like people in a cartoon?
Nope. I don't think that looks like a cartoon. Looks pretty incredible to me, actually. I think the CGI is pretty spectacular.
ETA: if you want to say that looks like a cartoon, I suppose you could. But it looks like they were able to blend the surreal into the real fairly well. Nothing in those photos serves to take me out of the suspension of disbelief.
I believe the guy said there's a scene in the trailer where it looks all janky as they jump onto a moving vehicle or something. That may be true. I can't remember seeing that. But the rest of the movie, at least in the trailer, is pretty visually stunning. Well, at least the photos you pulled.
So if you want to say that CGI aliens and planets are cartoonish, sure. I'll go along with that. I also have no problem with it. If what you mean by cartoonish is that it looks janky, I just don't remember anything in the trailer that would cause me to say that.
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 7/25/17 at 1:22 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
Nah, per Frac that isn't why and you should drop it. Because critics said it's the most beautiful movie ever made.
I laid out tons of reasons why it's a bomb, I'm not defending it I haven't even seen it. But to say it's bombed because of CGI is stupid. Those movies you listed made money but weren't blockbusters, Edge of Tomorrow severely underperformed. It ultimately goes back to the casting, nobody likes Dane Dehaan and Cara what's her name. If the leads were DiCaprio and Scarlet Jo it'd be a different story and ppl would go see it.
The CGI being the reason it's bombed is the stupidest reason I've ever heard. By that logic all of the Tranformers should've bombed, Guardians of the Galaxy should've bombed, Avatar should've bombed, I can go on and on
Posted on 7/25/17 at 1:33 pm to CocomoLSU
Looks like CGI overload but I'll still Redbox it
Posted on 7/25/17 at 1:41 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
The opening scene on the beach planet looked amazing. I kind of wanted that to be the whole movie. Those blue people were better than any of the aliens in the Star Wars prequels.
Yeah, the CG fell off after that. It was still impressive. I went in with low expectations hoping to be entertained. I thought it was a very average movie with some impressive visuals.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 1:42 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
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.
Arrival budget was 47 mill, it made 203 mill
Edge of Tomorrow budget was 178 mill, it made 370 mill
Looper budget was 30 mill, it made 176 mill
Ex Machina budget was 15 mill, it made 36 mill LOL
Her budget was 23 mill, it made 48 mill LOL
Interstellar budget was 165 mill, made 675 mill
The Martian budget was 108 mill, made 630 mill
The only two of those you listed that can be considered box office blockbusters were Interstellar and Martian. And that was because of the star power behind them.
All of the others listed, while fantastic, hardly blew away the competition at the theater. So yes, my point stands about original Sci-Fli films having a tough draw at the box office. Unless you go back to star power, which Valerian doesn't have in the least.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:21 pm to LoveThatMoney
quote:
Nope. I don't think that looks like a cartoon. Looks pretty incredible to me
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive though.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:31 pm to Frac the world
quote:
The CGI being the reason it's bombed is the stupidest reason I've ever heard. By that logic all of the Tranformers should've bombed, Guardians of the Galaxy should've bombed, Avatar should've bombed, I can go on and on
I don't think anybody here has once said that is THE reason it bombed. Hell, I even listed more than just CGI in the first post of the thread (since based on the trailers, the plot seems thin and there didn't seem to be much there).
And there is a difference between a movie having a lot of CGI, and then one having so much that that's basically all that is going on. And I'll reiterate that in no way did I say that a movie with CGI in it = suck, or even one with a lot of it. It doesn't automatically mean that something sucks. However, when I see a trailer and 99% of it is CGI cartoony bullshite, it doesn't surprise me when the movie fails.
quote:
Those movies you listed made money but weren't blockbusters
quote:
The only two of those you listed that can be considered box office blockbusters were Interstellar and Martian. And that was because of the star power behind them.
All of the others listed, while fantastic, hardly blew away the competition at the theater. So yes, my point stands about original Sci-Fli films having a tough draw at the box office. Unless you go back to star power, which Valerian doesn't have in the least.
Nobody was talking about them being "blockbusters." Hell, even the two that you laughed at (Ex Machina and Her) made more than double their production budgets.
But again, you are bringing up the term "blockbuster" now, when your original point was that sci fi movies don't make money. And you are wrong. That's just a list I threw together in about 2 minutes of movies in the last five years, and all of them "make money" (Hollywood Accounting aside
).
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:37 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
And there is a difference between a movie having a lot of CGI, and then one having so much that that's basically all that is going on. And I'll reiterate that in no way did I say that a movie with CGI in it = suck, or even one with a lot of it. It doesn't automatically mean that something sucks. However, when I see a trailer and 99% of it is CGI cartoony bullshite, it doesn't surprise me when the movie fails.
If your definition of CGI cartoony bullshite is basically anytime an alien character is used or a new world is presented, then I present the highest grossing global movie of all time, Avatar.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:45 pm to CocomoLSU
I truly don't know any person who will reject a movie Bc it has CGI. This board loves to fuss about CGI yet normal folk don't mind and even appreciate the fact we don't have puppets and crappy 80s effects anymore.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:52 pm to xenythx
quote:
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).
Its basically a self-financed,indie movie.
Besson has a pretty strong network and has been selling this movie to investors for years. All a studio had to do was prob pick up some marketing cost, so the fact that its bombing isnt hurting anyones feelings.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 3:05 pm to monkeybutt
quote:
If your definition of CGI cartoony bullshite is basically anytime an alien character is used or a new world is presented, then I present the highest grossing global movie of all time, Avatar.
Avatar was marketed so well. I'm far from a cinephile, but I knew about Avatar well in advance and knew it was something that should be seen on the big screen. I'm not sure I even heard of Valerian until about two weeks ago.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 3:17 pm to cigsmcgee
I went to see it opening night. Yes, I am that big of a sci fi nerd. I also went to see Dunkirk Saturday. I enjoyed both movies for their respective strengths. Valerian is an amazing cinematic accomplishment visually.
Unfortunately, I think the casting department felt they could capture the 13-21 market with these relatively unknowns to the rest of us.
Unfortunately, I think the casting department felt they could capture the 13-21 market with these relatively unknowns to the rest of us.
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 7/25/17 at 3:18 pm to CocomoLSU
Dude all of those numbers are weak sauce besides Interstellar and Martian, especially when you factor in that they featured the likes of Cruise, Bruce Willis, JGL, Phoenix. Edge of Tomorrow had a pathetic take for a Cruise film. All I'm saying is, that yes, small budget films like Ex Machina can make money relative to what they cost. But big budget Sci-Fi movies struggle if they don't have a Nolan/Mcconaughey or Scott/Damon combo to help out. Its truth. And my original point stands. Add some more emojis if it helps you feel better.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 3:25 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
enormous overuse of CGI
quote:
It just seems like studios are stupid when it comes to shite like this.
Yep. They were actually promoting the excessive use of CGI as an inducement to potential ticket buyers.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 3:45 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
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.
The guys who get to run studios are good at working a room and working deals, but they have little story sense or artistic bent. They really want to take few chances as possible so they piggy back on a concept that worked before.
One of the sight gags in one of the "Back to the Future" movies was a holo ad for "Jaws 34".
Or Gladiator. That is a big success so Troy soon follows.
And what, THREE different Spiderman reboots in 10 years?
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 7/25/17 at 4:02 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
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.
It's a YA (young adult) film.
You think this had anything to do with it.
Considering the massive support for Twilight and Maze Runner.
It's difficult to dumb-out the YA crowd. I mean I only saw the trailer but it looked no different from the above movies I mentioned.
You can't over-CGI a people who were born into it.
This post was edited on 7/25/17 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 7/25/17 at 4:04 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Twilight and Maze Runner
quote:
I mean I only saw the trailer but it looked no different from the above movies I mentioned
This is absolute bullshite. Absolute bullshite.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News