i sorta dug how cartoony the tharks were, and that down-the-barrel shot of one of them aiming his funky homemade rifle reminded me of necron 99 from ralph bakshi's wizards - one of the film's few interesting images. the white apes were just like a million other CGI monsters, right down to the identikit movement set (the way these things move always only reminds you of other cgi monsters). i thought the whole thing was short on any genuine, memorable weirdness (or menace), everything felt stately and sanded down.
― Hungry4Ass, Friday, 25 May 2012 15:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
I quite enjoyed the film, but I don't think you can put its failure down to its quality. It was a "flop" and a joke because of it well before it was released. Besides how often does quality really stop people from seeing a movie in droves? at least on the opening weekend.
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Friday, 25 May 2012 16:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
well yeah, it's bad and it's difficult to market
― Number None, Friday, 25 May 2012 16:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
The quality of the film doesn't matter to the marketing. The problem is probably the look (silly CGI cartoony monsters, guy flying around with sword wearing a loincloth).
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Friday, 25 May 2012 16:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
"The quality of the film doesn't matter to the marketing"
disagree! i think its probably harder to market something that sucks ass than it is something thats good
that said the marketing was really incredibly bad on this one - as detailed in the article andrew links above, which also indicates that stanton may shoulder a lot of the blame for it
― Hungry4Ass, Friday, 25 May 2012 18:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
As long as there are requisite elements (stuff blowing up, portentous looks, maybe a funny quip but that's not necessary), then you can throw together a trailer/ad spot. Marketing was particularly bad for this one, sure, but I don't think that has to do with the quality as much as it does the content.
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Friday, 25 May 2012 18:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
I disagree about the quality of the film, but also I think that by the only yardstick that marketing cares about - will people go see it - it was a great film, the word of mouth despite the shitty campaign is what pulled it back into profit (not that any hollywood film is ever in profit etc etc)
― Andrew Farrell, Friday, 25 May 2012 23:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Friday, 25 May 2012 23:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
what a terrible 'movie'
― lag∞n, Saturday, 26 May 2012 04:49 (1 year ago) Permalink