 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 30, 2014 - 4:24 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
I will note that despite Ado's proclamations of what is "obviously" bad, I simply don't look at and see these shots the way (s)he does. Yes, I can look at them and be aware they're not real, but to my eyes they do look like realistic depictions of the fictions being portrayed. I do not come at this from the perspective of some young'un ignorant of the great physical effects work of cinema history, either - I grew up on and continue to love the effects in such films as the earlier Star Trek movies, Blade Runner, and so on. I actually think the Blade Runner comparisons are a wee bit unfair, since to me it's possibly the most beautifully shot movie ever, and for the most part anything looks bad next to it, whether we're talking about realism or composition. That Guardians of the Galaxy may not measure up in this one area to its all-time gold standard out of tens of thousands of motion pictures produced over more than a century of cinema hardly means it's some horrible abomination; 99.999% of other movies fail that standard, too, regardless of whether they use CGI, traditional effects, both, or neither.
Moreover, that's all beside the point. Nitpicking over perceived and disputable shortcomings in a handful of effects shots completely ignores why people love this movie. Where are your arguments about the characters, the story, the humor, heart and soul? People love and adore this movie, and it's not because of its CGI; they can go to any number of contemporary movies with comparable effects (we may disagree on the effectiveness of the effects, but I bet we agree they're comparable to what we can get in most other contemporary genre movies - but they're not all getting the response this one is). Here's an article some may find illuminating:
http://io9.com/just-a-few-months-ago-everybody-was-writing-about-how-1617011259
Oh, and since others find the box office results so important, here's a little update:
http://io9.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-is-now-the-highest-grossing-mov-1628832126
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently the suits aren't quite jumping for joy after all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/29/film-industry-worst-summer_n_5739828.html
Which has very little, if anything, to do with GotG; and even less to do with the quality of said film. And whatever schadenfreude a few party-poopers may glean from the above news, ultimately it's bad news for everyone who loves the theatre experience, and I imagine that's at least 99% of this board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 31, 2014 - 8:49 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
Not performing as bad as expected doesn't mean it did as well as they would have liked.
This was wrong the first time you said it and it's wrong now. They expected this film to do well -- well enough, at least, that they greenlit the expensive sequel before this one was released, before they knew it would be a hit. And it has far exceeded their expectations. At the beginning of the summer, Box Office Mojo was predicting it would do $180 million domestically. It did more than half of that on its first weekend. They predicted it would do $250 million in foreign markets, and it is nearly there even before opening in some large markets. A $65 million dollar opening weekend would have been a success for Guardians; it did nearly $30 million better than that, setting August opening records DESPITE this being a slow year at the box office. There is absolutely no way that you can twist these numbers to say "not as poorly as expected."
You can rightly point out that a blockbuster today isn't a blockbuster of decades past -- audiences and the way they consume entertainments have been changing across all media, not just movies. You can rightly point out, as we have known for decades (Spaceballs, anyone?), that, yes, merchandising is a huge factor in how the suits gauge the success of expensive movie properties. But none of that changes the fact that GOTG's performance is not just "better than bad," it's downright good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 31, 2014 - 11:23 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
I will note that despite Ado's proclamations of what is "obviously" bad, I simply don't look at and see these shots the way (s)he does. Yes, I can look at them and be aware they're not real, but to my eyes they do look like realistic depictions of the fictions being portrayed. I do not come at this from the perspective of some young'un ignorant of the great physical effects work of cinema history, either - I grew up on and continue to love the effects in such films as the earlier Star Trek movies, Blade Runner, and so on. I actually think the Blade Runner comparisons are a wee bit unfair, since to me it's possibly the most beautifully shot movie ever, and for the most part anything looks bad next to it, whether we're talking about realism or composition. That Guardians of the Galaxy may not measure up in this one area to its all-time gold standard out of tens of thousands of motion pictures produced over more than a century of cinema hardly means it's some horrible abomination; 99.999% of other movies fail that standard, too, regardless of whether they use CGI, traditional effects, both, or neither.
Moreover, that's all beside the point. Nitpicking over perceived and disputable shortcomings in a handful of effects shots completely ignores why people love this movie. Where are your arguments about the characters, the story, the humor, heart and soul? People love and adore this movie, and it's not because of its CGI; they can go to any number of contemporary movies with comparable effects (we may disagree on the effectiveness of the effects, but I bet we agree they're comparable to what we can get in most other contemporary genre movies - but they're not all getting the response this one is). Here's an article some may find illuminating:
http://io9.com/just-a-few-months-ago-everybody-was-writing-about-how-1617011259
Oh, and since others find the box office results so important, here's a little update:
http://io9.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-is-now-the-highest-grossing-mov-1628832126
As far as the effects the industry has been brilliantly effective at training our modern audience to expect less because we are supposed to think anything out of a computer must be better than a model, or something hand built on a stage. There is a problem when something like The Wrath of Khan, made for less than $20 million, translated into about $50 million now, has overall better more compelling effects (except for that awful genesis cave planet interior) than something they spent $170 million on 30 years later.
On the box office stuff:
All that is fine and good, but you are still talking domestic only, which is all nice and everything, I am sure they are all happy at Marvel Disney, but there are a lot of movies that have out-grossed this one when you account for all the profits. And as I said before, these days most of these big movies are in fact most profitable outside the US, the US is really a small piece of the pie. Fine, all said it is successful. There are a lot of successful movies that I do not like.
Maybe this movie is just not for me. When you say people 'adore' this movie, i really do not comprehend it, and I am not being coy. I understand people when they say that they ADORE Star Wars or ET, or Jaws, or Wizard of Oz, or Lawrence of Arabia or Indiana Jones or 2001.
I do not understand, whatsoever, what a person would find to be 'adorable' about this movie. It is a passable popcorn entertainment, passably crafted, passably - not brilliantly, directed or written, with some okay performances with some passable special effects that we have seen better is dozens of other movies in recent years. I also did not understand the wild frothing at the mouth worship of The Avengers, I thought it was passable at best similarly. Yeah, I know it was a huge hit - yeah I think our popular audience does not really have the best judgement either.
I just had a thought, that of the people that are really going crazy and using language like "best movie" this and that and 'adore", they are usually older adults, and I think that it has everything to do with the songs. Most of those songs are pretty far out of the wheelhouse of young people. But for people in late 40's and 50's, which at least one of comment said earlier, they really like it, and it might be because it pulls at some nostalgic strings of youth. If that is what is going on, well it is a brilliant use of songs. And I wonder if these songs were taken out for a straight score if there would be so much hyperbole for this picture?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 31, 2014 - 2:34 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
@ Riotengine - No, and I went into lengthy discussions why the film doesn't interest me.
Okay, the film doesn't interest you. You've said that. Yet, you wrote numerous posts about why the film was going to fail, which it has not. Why the film is poor, (with illustrations, too) and it is not.
I'm not one of the people saying this is the second coming of Welles, it's not. But it does what it's supposed to do very well. Transformers: Age Of Extinction this is not.
I'm a firm believer of what Ellison wrote; "Everyone is entitled to their informed (and/or enlightened) opinion."
You have...NOT. ACTUALLY. SEEN. THE. FILM. 
At this point it seems obvious to me you are pretty entrenched in a viewpoint that's not likely to change. If you're going to expend so much effort taking the film down, at least give the filmmakers the respect of watching their movie.
Then you will have an informed opinion. Then you'd at least be fair.
Greg Espinoza
I've seen Iron Man 1 and 2, Cap America 1 and 2, Thor 1 and 2, Hulk 1 and 2, and Avengers. I have a good idea what to expect from a Marvel film. The previews shows me the style of the film, the art design, the characters, the music. I've read the reviews, generic script, boring villains. I have plenty to go on in making an informed decision without seeing the entire film. Ado's screen caps support my view even more.
The film at best has broken even in the US. The numbers don't lie. The saving grace will be the foreign market. I agree with Ado, this is no Star Wars or Jaws financially or is it ingrained in the public conscious as the next big thing in pop culture. I imagine it's a decent escapist film for the masses, but it will be soon be forgotten by November.
But like you said we are just going around in circles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The film at best has broken even in the US. The numbers don't lie. The saving grace will be the foreign market. I agree with Ado, this is no Star Wars or Jaws financially or is it ingrained in the public conscious as the next big thing in pop culture. I imagine it's a decent escapist film for the masses, but it will be soon be forgotten by November.
For what it's worth, the film has taken around $547,710,000 to date.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marvel2014a.htm
Interesting that it's beaten Transformers 4 in the USA, but the Bay film obliterates it if you take foreign box office into account.
$828,100,000 for Age Of Extinction
Against
$273,100,000 for GOTG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 1, 2014 - 10:03 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
Interesting that it's beaten Transformers 4 in the USA, but the Bay film obliterates it if you take foreign box office into account.
$828,100,000 for Age Of Extinction
Against
$273,100,000 for GOTG
Not too surprising. For one thing, the Chinese market in particular has grown very rapidly in the last few years. Transformers took full advantage of that and coproduced with and filmed in China and Hong Kong, targeting that market. A full 300 million of its box office take was from China. (Not the first film to do this kind of thing, either - remember how Iron Man 3 shamelessly put in a character played by Wang Xueqi who had no real purpose, but IIRC had extended screen time in the Chinese release of the movie?)
Also worth noting, as has been noted multiple times, Guardians still has not opened in several territories. If you remove China, Japan and Germany from the equation, Age of Extinction's foreign totals come to between 450 and 460 million. GOTG almost certainly won't perform as well as Transformers in China, but comparing a movie that's run its course to one that is still playing out is apples and oranges. GOTG won't be the international #1 without a miracle, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it in the top 5 or even the top 2. (And frankly I'd be delighted to see it knock the shitty X-Men film out of the top 3. Guardians isn't great but it's certainly way better than that!)
(Also interesting, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes just opened to nearly a 50 million dollar weekend in China, it's very possible it may make the top 5 briefly, too, before Guardians knocks it back out.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 1, 2014 - 5:35 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
JJH
(Member)
|
By all reports, the movie is a resounding success.
I mean, I guess $300M is a bomb, but I err on the side that no...it's not, and those saying it is are akin to flat-earthers, insisting the Earth is flat when it's indeed round...
The movie is a success because it doesn't have the weight of a franchise behind it as strong as well-known as the Transformers franchise. Nobody gave two shits about the Guardians of the Galaxy....until they saw this movie, and the fact it's taken off like it has gives you no pause?
I dunno. Repeating a lie over and over again doesn't turn that lie into truth....especially when you're just trying to be a pig-headed contrarian for no reason whatsoever.
Hate the movie, pick it apart..whatever makes you happy. but this movie is hardly a John Carter-level box office bomb, and you know better than that.
Also, pull my finger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
