Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017) (1 Viewer)

[Mike Frezon]

But we have seen stranger things happen in the crazy box-office world and who knows, this may take off like a rocket.

I always think back to My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Not sci-fi...but word of mouth made that film a HUGE success.

 

[Alf S]

Plus it skewed towards the female and older audiences.

 

[Edwin-S]

Very true, but in some cases, just having say "Spielberg's" name attached to a movie probably ups the attendance a great deal regardless of what type of film he made. Same for a handful of others. But having an established movie "star" is what usually puts butts in chairs.

Valerian has none of that going for it and we're still in a fairly heated summer big movie season. This one may have been best served being played out during the dark winter months.

I don't go to movies based on who is in them. I go to movies based on whether the film looks interesting to me or not. The days of "Star Power" are gone. I like the fact that Besson went with unknowns, at least unknown to we North Americans. I actually like seeing new faces in films, not just the same old ones, because they have been chosen based on bankability, not suitability.

Maybe the film will bomb in North America, but so what? This film wasn't made with North Americans in mind as the main audience. This film was made with Europeans in mind. In this rare case we are part of that amorphous mass called the "global market". The success of this film is not reliant on the North American box office. North American box office take is gravy, not the main course.

 

[Alf S]

I agree that many don't go to a movie because person "X" is in it, but a TON of other people do. They like that comfort level that the film will most likely be better than average.

Problem with a movie like this is to the common moviegoer, it looks like yet another of the hundreds of "video game style" movies with pretty people running around in it. Compound the troubles by putting in pretty much unknown actors to the U.S. market and you have a recipe for tepid returns here, but it may be HUGE overseas though.

 

[Edwin-S]

It becomes eminently more understandable why the North American film market is filled with nothing but reboots and sequels if North Americans make a choice to stay away from a film solely on the basis of having no familiarity with source material. That is sad.

I had to drive 1200 miles to see "Your Name" in a theatre, because the North American film market is so plebeian.

 

[Alf S]

Problem is the sheer cost of going to the theater has become so over the top for say a family of 4 (not including snacks), people don't just run out to see something like this movie on a whim. They want to feel fairly sure that when they invest $50, 60+ for a night out at the movies, they want it to be worth it.

This kind of movie (and many just like it) are the kinds that many will probably say "Pass" or "We'll rent the dvd when it's a $1 kids"

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The days of "Star Power" are gone. I like the fact that Besson went with unknowns, at least unknown to we North Americans.

I agree that people don't really go to the movies for star power anymore. Star power also isn't as portable as it used to be. Robert Downey Jr is the biggest star in the world... when he's playing Tony Stark or Sherlock Holmes. Anything else and the audience shrinks dramatically. A couple years ago, he starred and produced in a drama with Robert Duvall, and while it wasn't an outright bomb, they were expecting much bigger numbers than they got. And Chris Hemsworth's Marvel films have made a combined billions between the two Thor movies and two Avengers movies so far, but absolutely none of that has carried over to his "brand" - whenever he's been asked to headline a non-Thor movie, that movie has flopped (and some of them were quite good!). It's not that people didn't know Thor was in those movies, but just having the same actor they liked from something else wasn't enough to get people to check out a different movie. I think, at best, having a known actor in your film can help with the final push of getting someone to see it, if they were already thinking about it. But no one is making plans to go out saying, "Let's go see the new Robert Downey movie on Saturday" the way they used to say, "Let's go see the new Cary Grant movie this weekend."

Now with that said, I don't think these actors are as unknown as people are saying. Cara Delevingne is a famous supermodel and was one of the stars of Suicide Squad, which made over $300 million domestically and about $745 million worldwide. Star power may not carry over anymore, but a pop culture audience would recognize her. On a similar note, Dane DeHaan was the star of Chronicle (a critical and commercial success), had a prominent role in Amazing Spider-Man 2, and was just seen in A Cure For Wellness. Again, no one's saying that he's Downey, but I would suspect that a lot of people would at least know him as "that guy" if they saw a picture of him or saw the trailer.

Maybe the film will bomb in North America, but so what? This film wasn't made with North Americans in mind as the main audience. This film was made with Europeans in mind. In this rare case we are part of that amorphous mass called the "global market". The success of this film is not reliant on the North American box office. North American box office take is gravy, not the main course.

Bingo! I imagine this is how it must feel for the rest of the world when another American blockbuster is exported to their territory. That feeling of, "this doesn't seem relevant to my life or made for me, but does look like it could be a kind of stupid fun." Frankly, I think we need more movies that aren't giant make-or-break endeavors. I like that instead of having to hit one massive box office target in one territory or be doomed to failure, that this movie can work on hitting a bunch of little targets in a bunch of places. That seems like a much more reasonable and sustainable way of doing this.

Look at a studio like Disney - they used to make large budget, medium budget and small budget films. Not only did they make big family animated blockbusters, but they also made smaller all ages films, and had subsidiaries that did adult dramas and indie releases. Now, they've gotten rid of all of that, and only make $100+ budgeted films that must appeal to most or all audiences. And Disney is big enough, and has enough subsidiaries with enough valuable properties, that they can afford to do that and take those risks and not have all of them work out. But not every studio can. Paramount tried it, and they're now about one step away from going out of business forever. They stopped making small movies, and haven't had enough big movie successes to make up for that. And if Paramount isn't able to turn it around and sinks, they're not being replaced by another major studio, that's just one less voice out there in the studio world.

There are tons of problems, across the board, with how production and exhibition is handled today and how the business is viewed and run by the people making decisions. But the general idea of making a big budget film but spreading that risk around so that no one distributor is losing his or her shirt on it is a good idea. Without having any inside information, I can guarantee that the U.S. market is not the most important one for this film, and the U.S. distributor didn't take on an outrageous risk. The movie seems like it could at least make $50 million in the U.S. If the distribution rights for the territory could have been had for $10 or $20 million, they'll make money.

 

[Edwin-S]

People will complain about a 60 dollar night for a family as being too expensive, but have zero issue with spending that amount on a restaurant meal that ends up going down the toilet 24 hours later.

Sixty for a night a the movies is too much, because they may be disappointed, but 200 or more for concert tickets or 300 for a nosebleed seat at an NFL game is just about right. It makes me chuckle.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

People will complain about a 60 dollar night for a family as being too expensive, but have zero issue with spending that amount on a restaurant meal that ends up going down the toilet 24 hours later.

Sixty for a night a the movies is too much, because they may be disappointed, but 200 or more for concert tickets or 300 for a nosebleed seat at an NFL game is just about right. It makes me chuckle.

I think some of those prices are too much, and I think we see the results of that represented in what people choose to see and how.

The cost of concert tickets has increased outrageously in the past twenty years, in no way keeping up with inflation or any other reasonable metric. Even new artists are able to charge $100 for their first headlining tours. This means fewer people are going out to see new music. Bands that are established acts and known to deliver phenomenal shows consistently still do well, but much like the movies, there are more epic flops now than before. Acts like Bruce Springsteen, U2, Paul McCartney, etc., are able to sell consistently because people know what they're going to get. I remember twenty years ago, even ten years ago, I was still seeing a ton of bands and seeing a mixture of people I knew and loved and people that were new to me. Now, I see fewer shows than I have at any point in my life, and being far more selective. I can't afford to take a chance on a guy who has a new song that I like, because that guy wants $100 face value on his ticket, and I don't want to spend that if I don't know if I'm going to like it. If it was half that, I'd give it a shot.

It's the same with movies for a lot of people. My preferred format for seeing a film is IMAX 3D, and the cost of an IMAX 3D ticket near me is a few cents short of $27. It's a dollar cheaper for IMAX 2D. So take a movie like "Logan" which came out earlier this year. That's the kind of movie that in the past, I would have seen at least a couple times in theaters. So "Logan" cost me $26 to see in theaters just once (or really, $52 since I went with my wife) -- the Blu-ray cost less than $20 and was available less than three months later. I was willing to see "Logan" in theaters because I like the character and felt it would be something I'd at least get my money's worth out of. For films with lesser known actors or directors, or where the story doesn't seem as gripping, it's harder to justify taking that chance - especially when the quality of watching a movie at home can equal or exceed the presentation in theaters. I'd say if a family could go to a movie for $60, that'd be a steal these days. For me, that's just the cost of the tickets for the two adults going, let alone kids tickets, and cost of food and transportation. I bet if a family could go to a movie for $60 all inclusive, they'd be really happy. The reality is probably twice that. I don't mean to take us this far off-topic and my apologies for doing so. But I think the cost is higher than you're giving it credit. Even conceding that I live in one of the most expensive movie markets, things just within that market have changed so much, and so far ahead of the pace of inflation and cost of living. The cost of an IMAX ticket near me has gone up from about $15 in 2012 to $27 now. That is in no way consistent with inflation or local economic conditions. The cost of a standard 2D ticket near me went up from about $11 in 2012 to $17 now. That's not consistent with the economy either. Projection quality hasn't made a measurable improvement, most theaters haven't been substantially renovated, etc. They're not giving us anything to make up for that price increase. And at the point where it's now cheaper for me to blind buy a movie than it is to see it in theaters, that really does make me think twice about going out.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't know about this movie. I'll be interested to see what some of you feel about it after viewing it.

 

[Alf S]

People will complain about a 60 dollar night for a family as being too expensive, but have zero issue with spending that amount on a restaurant meal that ends up going down the toilet 24 hours later.

Sixty for a night a the movies is too much, because they may be disappointed, but 200 or more for concert tickets or 300 for a nosebleed seat at an NFL game is just about right. It makes me chuckle.

But all those other things you mention give them "joy". They know the musical artists songs, they know it will be fun hearing them in person. When they go to their fav restaurant, they know they will be happy with their meal, to them it is worth the investment. But spending the same money blindly at a movie like this to them is a gamble they don't won't to take, they rather, like you said, invest in something they like.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

I agree that people don't really go to the movies for star power anymore. Star power also isn't as portable as it used to be. Robert Downey Jr is the biggest star in the world... when he's playing Tony Stark or Sherlock Holmes. Anything else and the audience shrinks dramatically. A couple years ago, he starred and produced in a drama with Robert Duvall, and while it wasn't an outright bomb, they were expecting much bigger numbers than they got.

You're talking about The Judge, right? That one was really great.
And I, for one, go to movies for star power, if it's the right star, like Robert Downey, unless it happens to be a movie where he is Tony Stark, which I find is such a waste of good talent.
I choose movies based on actors, directors, even script writers, at times, but I choose carefully, even the most proven favorites make curious choices now and then, so you have to beware.
So Luc Besson hasn't really done anything worthwhile to me in a long time, although Lucy was quite OK, mostely due to Scarlett, not Luc, so I guess I'll wait for this one to turn up on blu

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Mikael, yup, The Judge. I actually haven't seen the movie yet. I wanted to when it was in theaters, but I ran into that conundrum that I was hinting at before. Seeing a movie in theaters near me is so expensive that I end up restricting my theatrical movie viewing to blockbusters that need to be seen on the biggest screens to be fully appreciated, movies that have exclusive perks or tech specs for certain formats (like the upcoming Dunkirk being shot in a unique IMAX aspect ratio), etc. A 2D movie that doesn't appear to have any special effects component, that's presented theatrically in a 2K DCP from the same master that will be used for the eventual Blu-ray, is a harder sell for me right now, and that's probably what happened with The Judge. I don't think a movie like The Judge will play much differently for me at home than it will at a theater. It's cheaper now for me to buy a new release Blu-ray on its street date than it is to buy a ticket to see it in theaters. And a streaming rental at home is obviously far cheaper than even a purchase.

Meanwhile, I think a movie like Valerian, or Dunkirk, will be a much different experience on a big screen and will try to check those out in theaters.

Obviously the calculation will be different for every individual viewer, but that's what I was saying about star power not really being as much of a consideration for audiences anymore. The Judge came out in 2014, and grossed $84 million worldwide. This was Downey's follow-up to Iron Man 3, which came out in 2013 and grossed $1.2 billion worldwide. I don't know how many tickets that translates to, but Iron Man 3 did over a billion dollars in business, and less than ten percent of the people that saw it were interested or willing to see Downey in another role at movie theater prices. While I don't think anyone expected The Judge to make a billion dollars, that it couldn't crack $50 domestically, nor $100 million worldwide, must have been a huge disappointment and rude awakening/reality check for both Downey and the movie industry.

 

[DavidMiller]

The Judge was on of the most boring waste of my time I have ever seen... I didn't find Downey interesting at all in that role and I saw it because of who was in it. That is also the problem with star power, you expect more from them as well.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I knew that Iron Man 3 outgrossed The Judge, but just looking up the numbers for the earlier post, I was shocked to see that The Judge didn't even manage 10% of what Iron Man 3 did. I'll repeat something I said in another thread: Robert Downey Jr is probably the biggest movie star in the world right now, and even he can't open a non-franchise picture to blockbuster numbers.

 

[Alf S]

You have to admit, the subject matter of The Judge was FAR from exciting and even though RDJ is in it, I think the boring topic is what killed it. No "star" could have saved that movie.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Why do I have to admit that? I don't believe it to be true.

We simply live in a different era. For example, Tom Cruise was the biggest box office star on the planet for much of the 1980s and 1990s, but very few of his films were the giant action blockbuster types that he now makes. He got that way on films like A Few Good Men, Jerry Maguire, Rain Man, Born On The Fourth Of July, etc - films that were primarily character and dialogue driven, not action films. The Judge fits in with that type of film. If Cruise had made The Judge in that same late 80s/90s period, it would likely have been a hit based on the star power. If Downey had been the star in that period that he is now, and this film came out then, it would have done better. But in an era where most people have HDTVs at home at relatively large sizes and relatively high quality, where movies become available for almost nothing mere months after their release and are incredibly convenient to watch at home on your schedule, there's nothing about The Judge that screams out that it has to be seen on a big screen at a premium price. I think that's the biggest change.

Last year I watched all 72 of Cary Grant's films. The overwhelming majority of them are character driven stories, not blockbusters or action-adventure type films, and yet, Grant was one of the biggest stars of his time. People came to see him on the big screen because they enjoyed him. People enjoy Downey, but for whatever reason (and I believe there are a few), the mass audience today doesn't follow stars in the way they used to in Cary Grant's day.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

The Judge was a horrible film...I believe that's why it failed. I mean it was really bad on a lot of levels and seemed to have been written by George and Jerry on an episode of Seinfeld. Bad writing, bad acting, horrible story, and looked and felt like some crap made for TV Hallmark film. Just a total stinker.

I should add I think Downey and of course Robert Duvall are excellent but this film was a total embarrassment for them.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

The Judge was on of the most boring waste of my time I have ever seen... I didn't find Downey interesting at all in that role and I saw it because of who was in it. That is also the problem with star power, you expect more from them as well.

The Judge was a horrible film...I believe that's why it failed. I mean it was really bad on a lot of levels and seemed to have been written by George and Jerry on an episode of Seinfeld. Bad writing, bad acting, horrible story, and looked and felt like some crap made for TV Hallmark film. Just a total stinker.

I should add I think Downey and of course Robert Duvall are excellent but this film was a total embarrassment for them.

Wow, not much love for The Judge here, well diff'rent strokes, I guess
And did it really fail, as such? It may not have been as successful as its creators hoped, but fail is a bit strong, don't you think?
I enjoyed it, and will probably watch it again soon. I actually prefer RDJ when he is not acting like RDJ, the star of the movie, but rather plays a character in the movie, ie. like in Wonder Boys. Even the Sherlock Holmes movies, though I liked them, was a bit too much of RDJ rather that Holmes, the character.

 

[Edwin-S]

Just got back from seeing this. For starters, I will say the only relation this film has to The Fifth Element is some superficial visual similarities and that is where it ends. While I don't hate this film, I'm not sure I really love it either. I thought it was okay, but the story is played pretty straight and does have a bit of been there seen that feel.

There were no over-the-top character types like Zorg or Ruby Rod and one-liners are, for the most part, absent in the film. This film pretty well took itself seriously and did not have the humorous edge that TFE did.

There are some visually inventive scenes, such as one involving a "Big Market". The one thing that I really missed in this film, compared to TFE, was an inventive soundtrack. I really thought this film would have a really interesting soundtrack considering the music that was used in the trailers, but I really found the soundtrack in the film to be pretty well undistinguished. It was just your typical prosaic Hollywood movie music. Boring.

There was only part where the music had some energy and that was during a scene that took place in a bar. There was some references to movies such as Cabaret and Who Framed Roger Rabbit that were interesting to pick out.

This film is probably the type that would grow on me much like TFE did, because when I originally saw TFE I thought the story was pretty dumb, especially the ending. The story in this one wasn't goofy like TFE was, but it also lacked some of TEE'S energy.

It felt somewhat derivative and had one really overused movie cliche that stood out like a sore thumb. I' ll let anyone who goes to this film decide what it is.

All in all not terrible, but I was expecting something a little more unique than it turned out to be.

One other thing, I would recommend seeing this in 3D. I thought the 3D in the film was pretty decently done.​