I sat glued to the screen for the whole movie. The action is non-stop, but it's the strength of the story that really makes it work. It's the best science fiction movie I've seen, certainly the best alien invasion movie. It's a mixture of shoot-em-up and intelligent thought-provoker (without being pretentious or taking itself too seriously), with early Peter Jackson (he executive produced) splatter movie elements and touches of laugh out loud humour along with some real poignancy.
It is pretty bleak, but mainly in its view of the cynical multinational who are the motivating force behind the story, and who semm to have taken over responsibility from legitimate government - it's set in a recognisable but indeterminate future, but one which is at least 20 - 30 years in the future, a time reminiscent of "Children of Men" and is on a par with that movie for it's worldview. I loved it.
(One rider that might be of interest for some: the f-word count is pretty high but most of it is delivered in such a distinct South African accent that it doesn't have the same negative impact it usually has for me.)
edited for additional thoughts.
[ August 17, 2009, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Cashew ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I thought it was excellent too. Felt very 'real' to me, for all it was a movie about aliens landing (above) Johannesburg, South Africa, heh.
The protagonist especially felt very real. Y'all'll know what I mean when ya see it, I think.
I wouldn't say the action is non-stop, though. In fact, the first 20m or so of the film is jam-packed with exposition. This is a film where I'd suggest it's pretty important not to show up a few minutes late. The big surprise came in the second half of the movie, when it turned from a drama/thriller/suspense sort of deal to those things plus an action movie, with lots of action!
I won't say it's the best sci-fi movie I've ever seen, but it easily contends for the 'what might actually happen if aliens arrived on Earth' film I've ever seen, possibly being the best of those. For example, you're not going to find any Independence Day connecting a 1990s laptop to an alien computer network nonsense in this film!
It does take a very dim view of certain segments of human society, but to be fair to the film the way it does it is very plausible as well.
SPOILERS! . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
Among the questions it asks is this: what might happen if Blackwater were running security on a ghetto full of undesired aliens?
Yeah, you're right Rakeesh, the action isn't non-stop, but it's so intense it just seems that way. The first, expository part of the movie is just as entertaining in its own way as the secon part.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
I just saw it and am now decompressing. EL and I just went to see it this evening and were both quite impressed. It really is a very intense story.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah this is the guy who was originally lighted to do the Halo movie, and when that fell through, Peter Jackson felt the dude deserved another chance and gave him the opportunity to do this film instead.
In the artspay ichway evolvray arounday onspicuouscay etishizationfay ofay igh-hay echtay eaponaryway we can see the director efinitelyday iving-gay a latantbay inthay of owhay ellway ehay ouldway andhlehay a aloay oviemay (eryvay ellway).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
They still want to work on the Halo movie from the last issue of IGN i read last week, so we still might see it happen in a few years.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
To Samp:
Er... I don't... I'm sorry, I can't really...
...what? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
otnay luentfay inay igpay atinlay?
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Harder to read than it is to hear. Not sure why you used it though, nothing spoilerish in there...
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I especially enjoyed the camera work, always jumping between hollywood, guerilla styles with the random in-place camera.
SPOILERS / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / To respond to Rakeesh, alien holocaust. He really should have left that stupid suit on auto pilot. / / / / / / / / / / / / END OF SPOILERS, AND THE HITCHHIKERS GUIDE TO THE GALAXY AND ITS NEVER COMING BACK It was really nice how no two aliens looked 100 percent the same. Movies have a hard enough time doing that with human extras let alone complex cg models.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Loved this movie. One big question I have has to deal with the subtext of....
(Spoiler) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the conversation between the father and son praun about their home planet. I read into it that they couldn't return to their home planet for some other reason (destruction?) rather than that he lost the fluid. Anybody else think this? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
It's weird to see Spoilers in a thread that very clearly states No Spoilers.I appreciate them being clearly labeled but is still a bit frustrating since I want to read non spoiler comments but dont feel comfortable scanning ANY of the comments now. Oh, well.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
I also liked the movie a great deal, but I think that a lot of the graphic blood/guts etc. was gratuitous. The impact of the story could have been made without all of the splatter, and to me, I would have enjoyed the movie more.
I suppose there is probably a demographic for it, however, and I'm not it.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:andhlehay a aloay oviemay
"aloay"?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Brilliant movie. Easily in my top ten science-fiction films.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: I also liked the movie a great deal, but I think that a lot of the graphic blood/guts etc. was gratuitous. The impact of the story could have been made without all of the splatter, and to me, I would have enjoyed the movie more.
I suppose there is probably a demographic for it, however, and I'm not it.
District 9 was trying to original on all counts, including weaponry. Star Trek was the very to first to have deadly alien weapons that kill silently and cleanly, but all these years later its very boring when someone does a copy/paste so as to avoid showing what weapronry does. How in the world that one gun (the super messy one, trying to not divulge much info, but you know which one) did that to the target... but I want one.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Oooh I wanna see this movie sooooooo baddddd > Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: otnay luentfay inay igpay atinlay?
I believe the correct translation is,
otnay uentflay inyay igpay atinlay?
If you have a second letter L word like "fluent" or "blew" or "clue" you take the L along with the first letter and do the rest as normal. "uentflay" "ewblay" and "ueclay"
I was taught that vowel first words had a "yay" sound instead of an "A" as that helps differentiate between vowel words and consonants.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I saw this today with the boys in my family. We also seemed to enjoy it but none of us were singing it's praising or discussing our favorite scenes like we would with most movies.
I appreciate what they were trying to do from the film style to the atypical action hero and the political and social content. But while all the pieces for sheer awesomeness were there, the execution wasn't. It felt cheap and campy and the subtext wasn't anything particularly deep or thought provoking.
It was okay but I have no desire to sit through it and the disgusting gore ever again.
[ August 16, 2009, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Shanna ]
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
You have to have an awareness of Peter Jackson's first movies (Bad Taste; Meet the Feebles; Braindead) to get the splatter stuff and the black humour.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I didn't have a problem with the blood or the dark humor. I just didn't think it was sci-fi in the classic sense. This was a surprisingly emotional action movie about what would happen to one dude if. It's not a question of what would happen to humanity or society if.
Let's face it, most of humanity is entirely unaffected by District 9. There's a handful who choose to be there and one guy who got stuck. That's it.
Though I have to admit, I loved the irony of the black South Africans celebrating that the aliens are being kept away from everyone else. That amused me.
I'm also not a big fan of the modern, ambiguous ending. I know, it's a valid stylistic choice, it's just not my favorite. I would have preferred an epilog.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
We don't know that we're not going to get a sequel.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
The director has said, flat-out, that he would love to revisit the District 9 universe if the movie does well. And considering that it's more than made back its production budget in its first weekend alone, I suspect the chances of seeing "District 10" are pretty damn good.
That's another great thing about this movie. It creates such a rich world, yet focuses so closely on one tiny aspect of it, that it's almost stupidly easy to start imagining all sorts of different directions the sequel could go.
*SPOILERS BELOW*
* * * *
Regardless of whether a sequel is eventually made, I thought the ending was perfect - giving neither complete closure, nor a comic book movie-style cliffhanger ending. It wraps up exactly what it needs to in order to provide the audience with emotional closure. You don't need to see Christopher come back with the Prawn Armada to understand that his mission was a success. And that brief glimpse of Wikus after his transformation was complete summed up everything about his character's journey, both physical and mental, without resorting to a montage, or a slow-mo reunion, or any other narrative tricks a "typical" movie might have used.
* * * END SPOILERS
[ August 17, 2009, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Tarrsk ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tarrsk: Could you put in some spoiler warnings? Even though the thread that says (No Spoilers) I get that people want to talk about the details, and it's obnoxious to stop and put them in, but please oblige me.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Ack - sorry about that, BB. Posted edited as requested. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I just didn't think it was sci-fi in the classic sense.
This is why it's one of my favorite sci-fi movies. I am beginning to have hope that filmmakers are figuring out that speculative fiction can be used to tell more than one kind of story.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I just didn't think it was sci-fi in the classic sense.
This is why it's one of my favorite sci-fi movies. I am beginning to have hope that filmmakers are figuring out that speculative fiction can be used to tell more than one kind of story.
Paging Harry Turtledove...James Cameron on line one.
Tarrsk: Thanks a bunch!
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Tom's feelings are exactly mine. To me it's the best sort of science fiction, the sort I want to READ, as opposed to the Star Wars type space opera and the gungho rubbish of Independence Day.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I've edited the post title to indicate that there ARE spoilers, as people are getting upset that something that says there aren't spoilers actually has them. Hope that makes it easier.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I'm beginning to think I'm the only person in the universe who thought it was quite "meh."
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
There's at least one other person in the thread who didn't like it. You're not alone.
I'm not looking forward, however, to "District 10". With a bigger budget, there's a good chance they'll go more "Hollywood", and that increases the chances that it will suck.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I'm beginning to think I'm the only person in the universe who thought it was quite "meh."
Not so, I think it's quite meh as I have yet to see it.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I hope they don't do a sequel. The main reason I liked this movie is that it felt new and fresh to me.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: There's at least one other person in the thread who didn't like it. You're not alone.
I'm not looking forward, however, to "District 10". With a bigger budget, there's a good chance they'll go more "Hollywood", and that increases the chances that it will suck.
Blomkamp has stated that, if he were to make a sequel, he would want to remain within the same $30-45 million range for the budget, precisely because he likes the freedom (read: absence of studio interference) a smaller budget allows. I think, insofar as we can predict these things 2+ years ahead of time, the putative sequel is in good hands. Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I hope they don't do a sequel. The main reason I liked this movie is that it felt new and fresh to me.
Success = sequel/prequel. Sadly...
The Earth could EXPLODE and they'd still find a way to make another movie if there's money in it.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Saw this the other night with my family. My brother and his fiancee walked out about fifteen minutes in. She didn't realize it was going to be "messy" and didn't want to have nightmares, so off they went. My dad, best friend and I stayed and greatly enjoyed it. I think as far as pacing goes it sort of hung in the air a bit for the first half. I wasn't really sure what the plot was, and that's because as far as the overall movie went, it didn't really have one until about halfway through. I thought it was going to be about them moving the aliens to District 10, but that ends up barely being a sub-plot to the main points.
But all that exposition was necessary to really allow us to fully grasp what's really going on. The "main" story of trying to get Christopher to the ship so he could go home was good, and there were maybe a half dozen points where I either thought Christopher was going to die or that he was going to fail, which impresses me, because outside of Joss Whedon (who I generally ASSUME will kill the most beloved character), I usually assume that no matter what, something will intervene to make sure the good guys win. But here, with so many flawed and unpredictable characters, I really had no idea what was going to happen. That alone earns the movie some major points.
And as fun as the last half was from the point of view of someone who likes the occasional shoot em up CGI orgy of explosions, really it was about Wikus' character growth, from easily reviled casual baby killing bigot to a man willing to sacrifice his life in order to protect that which he only days prior hadn't even hesitated ordering the death of. And I believed it. From the moment he was in the shooting range and they put the alien in front of him and he protested, and when he saw the testing facility, and was about to have the same thing happen to him...the transformation was very fluid, believable, and impressive to watch, and that's where I think the bulk of the greatness of the movie lies.
Yes I'm interested to see what happens in District 10. Does Christopher come back and liberate his people, and does he help Wikus just like he promised? (He was pretty believable) And do we find out exactly what happened to begin with? There are enough unanswered questions to fill in a second movie and have it be impressive on its own. Expectations will be exceedingly high for a sequel though, but that's the natural consequence of having a surprise hit.
I think some of the complaints against it are valid, though I think Ebert missed the point by dismissing the third act as an explosion fest. The point, for me anyway, was how far Wikus was willing to go to save Christopher and his son. The fact that we got some visually explosive eye candy out of it was maybe catering to a certain demographic (of which Ebert is not a part of), but I don't think the point is lost. SOME stuff didn't make a great deal of sense, but a good enough movie drags you along without too much protesting against suspension of disbelief, and this one succeeded for me there.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I really liked this movie. And I usually hate science fiction movies.
Wikus was a really good character. I love (from the post movie perspective) that I pitied him at first, hated him within 15 minutes, and that I hated him almost to the end. Almost.
And Lyrhawn, I totally agree with you about the suspense - it was VERY effectively maintained. That this was done almost entirely without the typical Hollywood arbitrary withholding of POV-known information really impresses me.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I thought the movie was fantastic. I do wish that movies would move away from the jiggly camera/ motion-sickness-inducing film style that seems so popular nowadays. I would have walked out if the movie hadn't been so good. As it was, I felt fairly ill after the movie.
quote:the conversation between the father and son praun about their home planet. I read into it that they couldn't return to their home planet for some other reason (destruction?) rather than that he lost the fluid. Anybody else think this?
At first, I was reading too much in to it. But I think the rest of the context of the movie made it clear that he was referring to just the lost fluid.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah I'm not always a fan of shaky cam, but this wasn't nearly as bad as Cloverfield/Blair Witch type stuff. Not NEARLY.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I dont mind the shakey cam, it adds variety and a bit of a personal feel when done right, (used regularly in The Shield.) In the case of Cloverfield and Quarintine it was interesting how the fpc was used to hide certain images and really confuse the viewers, hopefully making them all the more interested in whats going on. One thing is for certain though, shakey cam cancels out my pet peeve in movies, foreshadowing, I dont want to watch over Freddies shoulder while he stalks up on his prey! I'd rather be as surprised as the victim.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I dont mind the shakey cam, it adds variety and a bit of a personal feel when done right, (used regularly in The Shield.) In the case of Cloverfield and Quarintine it was interesting how the fpc was used to hide certain images and really confuse the viewers, hopefully making them all the more interested in whats going on. One thing is for certain though, shakey cam cancels out my pet peeve in movies, foreshadowing, I dont want to watch over Freddies shoulder while he stalks up on his prey! I'd rather be as surprised as the victim.
The line you have to be careful of though, is that the shaking isn't so jarring that you're either confused or disoriented. Cloverfield crossed that line for a LOT of people. I was on the cusp. I would have enjoyed it better with less of that.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I liked it, didnt love it.
The main character wasnt super easy to sympathize with and I dont recall laughing at anything, and it didnt make senes for him to go down there in the first place. Some things felt predicatable too.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: and it didnt make senes for him to go down there in the first place.
Go down where? The building where they had the liquid?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Yeah, it doesn't make sense for the director of a massive project to be doing the grunt work...except. If the director wants and likes publicity and wants to stage a dramatic photo op. Then it makes sense. Although that doesn't translate to "good idea."
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Oh. To District 9 in the first place. Yeah, that was kind of dumb, but it was a minor detail overall. Disbelief easily suspended there.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You don't pick a director so close to the commencement of an operation like that. He was more of a coordinating team lead, the sort who is on the ground.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It helps that Wikus is consistently making bad decisions - he's not that smart. For instance, when he -
Spoiler!
- decides to try to fly the shuttle by himself. I nearly starting banging my head on the seat in front of me. (But in response to the character, not the movie itself.)
- end spoiler.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
[Spoiler]
Wikus trying to fly the shuttle was the biggest issue I had with the movie. Not because he was able to fly the shuttle, it's that he wanted to. I kept thinking that sure, he might make it to the mothership... Then what? What did he think he'd accomplish by himself?
The other little problem I had was how proficient he was in the mech-suit. A piece of equipment that advanced is completely intuitive? My suspension of disbelief failed there as well.
[/Spoiler]
Other than those small complaints, I thought the movie was fantastic. And really, those were small complaints when compared to the overall quality of the rest of the movie.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Wikus had the son with him, and he was pretty desperate.
The mecha thing didnt bother me while watchitng, but that's fair enough.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Taking the shuttle was a low probability play, but it's not like he had any better options. It was either that or stay and be killed/shrimpified.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It struck me that Wikus was considerably less effective in the mech than the mech was when on auto-pilot. And, of course, it bonded with his brain, so there's always that.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I'm pretty sure the mech was just targeting non-prawns.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm pretty sure the mech was just targeting non-prawns.
So am I. But since Wikus registered as a prawn, he'd've been a lot more effective in that final battle if he'd just let it continue to target non-prawns. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I thought it sucked. But then, I don't necessarily like gratuitous violence.
The storyline was interesting, but the "gore and splatter" made it impossible to stay with the story.
My friend and I left and got our money back.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I would argue that none of the violence in District 9 was gratuitous. Violence is put into our stories and films for specific reasons--it heightens the sense of danger we feel for the main characters, or horrifies us by reminding us of our own mortality. The "gore and splatter" is an aspect of realism that draws me INTO the story. The fact that some killing is senseless doesn't make it gratuitous. Humans have long been guilty of senseless killing--and it's good to remind ourselves of this in hopes of ending the cycle.
One of my friends has the same problem with gore--she explained to me that it wasn't the actual sight of the gore that bothered her, but the reminder that SHE is also just a fragile organism like those people on screen.
[ August 30, 2009, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Launchywiggin ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yeah, I just saw it and I thought the violence was completely necessary. There's a sort of subgenre of movie I categorize as "Brutal Africa Movie" which is specifically designed to remind us of how much horror is still going on today, and I thought District 9 was a pretty good blend of Sci Fi Flick and Brutal Africa Movie.
I personally cannot wait for District 10.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Off the top of my head, every BAM I can think of was extremely good.
Blood Diamond, Black Hawk Down, Hotel Rwanda, The Last King of Scotland (good but really, really creepy/freaky), and now District 9, but I think of all the BAMs I can think of D9 was the first that wasn't a PSA for African violence, but rather could have taken place anywhere, absent the intentional allegorical references.
Now I'm trying to think of a movie that took place in Africa that didn't involve incredible amounts of suffering or violence. Even The Lion King doesn't fit that description.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Now I'm trying to think of a movie that took place in Africa that didn't involve incredible amounts of suffering or violence. Even The Lion King doesn't fit that description.
I've got quite a few home movies of Africa that involve no violence. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
"Born Free?"
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Now I'm trying to think of a movie that took place in Africa that didn't involve incredible amounts of suffering or violence. Even The Lion King doesn't fit that description.
In case you're at work, around small children, or otherwise sensitive to such things, FYI there's some mature language in that video Blayne linked to.
If you want to save 5 minutes, it's a review that says District 9 is a very good movie. It's sort of slightly amusing in a rant-y way, if you like that sort of thing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The mecha made sense, I would think any such similar piece of technology would have an OS designed to be somewhat intuitive, I suspect though a trained professional wouldnt have been scratched, like the difference between a trained tank crew and a bunch of video game trained teenagers.
Oh just watched the movie myself now and agree with MovieBobs pronouncement that its essentially the best movie of 2009, though I still feel a Halo movie would be awesome (based from the franchise and backstory novels as a whole and not just the various games).
But yes, I liked how I could keep on going "No don't do that! Thats a stupid thing to do!" to the character then wall bang about the movie instead, the movie stayed believable.
To above, if you like Ben Croshaw's ranty video game reviews then youll pretty much like MovieBobs/Gameoverthinkers review. If you dont like Yahtzee then Bob is not gonna cause an epiphany.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne, how god-awful would a Halo movie have to be before you wouldn't think it was awesome? Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
A Halo movie would be good if the AI characters were as interesting as the original ones from Marathon.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Blayne, how god-awful would a Halo movie have to be before you wouldn't think it was awesome?
If they completely disregarded the setting, the franchise, pissed on the fans and made all of the established characters act completely out of character and replaced Keith David who voiced the Arbiter with some hack then I would be terribly disappointed.
As it is because I genuinely like the characters, the setting and the story thus far shown and dig the backstory and stay true to that theres no way that I wouldn't find it awesome. And since Neil and Jackson are fans of the series then I would be completely confident in them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hehe, so your answer is, "If they actively and deliberately sabotaged their own film, then I wouldn't think it was awesome."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Essentially, as the franchise is good on its own merits and Peter Jackson whose had the distinction of never ever, ever, ever, EVER made a bad movie I am highly doubtful a Halo movie could possibly be "bad" or un-entertaining to its target audience of Halo fans and by extension military thriller scifi fans.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: As it is because I genuinely like the characters, the setting and the story thus far shown and dig the backstory and stay true to that theres no way that I wouldn't find it awesome. And since Neil and Jackson are fans of the series then I would be completely confident in them.
I tend to agree with you because it seems that Jackson has the clout and position to take a project in the direction that he wishes, without too much executive meddling. It does amaze me how some of these big studio hacks continually helm crappy big budget movies. Michael Bay *has* made a good movie, The Rock, but most of his other movies are noisy and trashy crap. The question I suppose is whether he is just a talented project manager and a little short on taste, or whether he is powerless to affect the quality of his scripts and/or choose movies that are worth doing. Or maybe he doesn't care. Jackson, I can agree with you, seems to care deeply about making great movies, despite working in a field of tent-pole movies where artistic vision can often take a back seat to merchandising and focus-grouped crap salad.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think the issue strangely enough was that the various studios involved didn't like the budget going into the 150+ Million dollar range after I think a long series of development hell scenarios.
Which is strange that considering the success of Halo as a franchise you'ld think that 150 mil would be virtually a license to print money. Whats 150 million if you make back 900 million? I have every confidence that if ROTF made 880 million world wide a well done Halo movie taking the original concepts touched upon in the games and books and running with it would make even more.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
kind of related, it is pretty impressive how small a budget Hellboy 2 and District 9 have. Hellboy was ony 85 million (that's half of DK) and D9 is 40 mil.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Which is strange that considering the success of Halo as a franchise you'ld think that 150 mil would be virtually a license to print money. Whats 150 million if you make back 900 million? I have every confidence that if ROTF made 880 million world wide a well done Halo movie taking the original concepts touched upon in the games and books and running with it would make even more.
By ROTF do you mean Return of the King? (Which would be abbreviated RotK) Assuming you are, while I DO think a Halo movie is pretty guaranteed to make decent money, the Lord of the Rings are on a completely different order of magnitude of popularity than Halo. Halo is pretty popular as far as video games go and is enough of a household name that non-gamers will know what it is. But Lord of the Rings founded an entire genre and has been a classic for several decades. The two aren't really comparable and I doubt a Halo movie would make MORE money.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Revenge of the Fallen...... *cough transformers /cough*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're not taking into account how super-awesome-badass Halo is, though, Raymond;)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think I would go out of my way to not watch a Halo movie, even if it got mildly positive reviews.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
@Rakeesh: Well, yeah. That said there's an equally fun point to make now that I know what Blayne was referencing.
@ Blayne: Ah, I see. I think my point ends up staying, because Transformers had 20 years of childhood nostalgia built into it, was the sequel to another (reasonably) good movie, and had more cross-genre appeal. Or rather, it's prequel had more cross genre appeal and people went to the second movie expecting more of the same. I might see a Halo movie making something in the ballpark of Transformers but it would require precisely the kind of deliberate development hell that Transformers went through to make sure it appealed to more than 20-something teenage males.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think I would go out of my way to not watch a Halo movie, even if it got mildly positive reviews.
And thats not supposed to make you sound like an ass how?
quote:You're not taking into account how super-awesome-badass Halo is, though, Raymond;)
Dude, not appreciated, its a science fiction franchise thats Ender's Game but about Commando's and on the hard en of the Moh Scale what not to find interesting about it. Stop making fun of me, it isn't funny.
quote:Ah, I see. I think my point ends up staying, because Transformers had 20 years of childhood nostalgia built into it, was the sequel to another (reasonably) good movie, and had more cross-genre appeal. Or rather, it's prequel had more cross genre appeal and people went to the second movie expecting more of the same. I might see a Halo movie making something in the ballpark of Transformers but it would require precisely the kind of deliberate development hell that Transformers went through to make sure it appealed to more than 20-something teenage males.
.... Okay its hard to start on where to begin here, firstly transformers success of is most definitely not because nostalgia, and development hell is most definitely not the reason for success. Transformers is successful because of it was given alot of focus and hype and delivered on big giant robots tearing the crap out of each other and showed humans kicking ass as well, nostalgia could not have possibly pulled numbers of 880 MILLION dollars worldwide alone.
Halo is different, its a relatively new franchise, famous worldwide with millions of video game sales and is practically the driving flagship game for the Xbox 360 known for a good story, solid characters and a well rounded plot plenty of backstory books and is waste deep in possibly the most solid science fiction trope known to man, humans and space marines kicking alien ass but slowly losing.
Since when is having "cross genre" appeal a prereq for being a good movie or making money? This isn't politics appealing to the lowest common denominator you got enough subgenres that fit under military thriller action scifi that you don't need to compromise the source material, the source material already has more then enough substance to appeal to not just its target video game audience but also its science fiction audience and action thriller audience that it would otherwise appeal to if it didn't only come on the weirdly shaped white box.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think I would go out of my way to not watch a Halo movie, even if it got mildly positive reviews.
See, I would not. I'm not a big Halo fan, but, if it got over 85% on Rotten Tomatoes, and/or if most people whose movie opinions I respect said it was good, I'd go see it.
If course, the odds of it actually getting over 85% on Rotten Tomatoes are about 1 in 500, but...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think I would go out of my way to not watch a Halo movie, even if it got mildly positive reviews.
See, I would not. I'm not a big Halo fan, but, if it got over 85% on Rotten Tomatoes, and/or if most people whose movie opinions I respect said it was good, I'd go see it.
If course, the odds of it actually getting over 85% on Rotten Tomatoes are about 1 in 500, but...
and what about "So Okay its Average" replies?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Transformers 2 was, quite frankly, an abberation that hinged on a lot of variables intersecting each other - most of which had nothing to do with the quality of the movie, and it should not be used as any particular baseline of "normal." Compare it to Terminator Salvation. Giant robots. Similar hype. Similar effects. Hell, somewhat similar nostalgia. Terminator Salvation was a "flop" that only made 125 million domestic compared to a 200 million budget.
The only real discernible difference was sense of humor, but frankly everyone I know and every review I've read thought the jokes in Transformers 2 were lame and detracted from it. I DO think the robot fights were a little better in RotF than Terminator Salvation, but not by much and I did not hear anyone describe them in a way that would have given Transformers 2 better word of mouth than Terminator.
quote:Since when is having "cross genre" appeal a prereq for being a good movie or making money?
Cross-demographic appeal (cross genre was a bad choice of words, sorry) is not necessary for being a good movie (at all), but it is important for making money on the order of magnitude that Transformers did. There is simply a limit to how much money a movie can make while appealing to a single demographic.
Transformers 2 made the bucketloads of money it did based on people's expectations from Transformers 1. Transformers 1 did well because it had all kinds of things going for it. It had nostalgia value for people who grew up on the toys. It was fun for those people's children who would be later targeted with new toys. It was fun for young adult males who'd watch anything with explosions. It had enough (and the right kind) of humor and romance to bring in more females than the aforementioned young adult males' girlfriends. It was a carefully tailored to appeal to a wide range of demographics. No, this didn't require much sacrifice on the part of the source material since the source material was crafted for pretty much the same purpose, but they definitely made sure it was going to hit all the right notes before they greenlit it.
Transformers 2 had many of the same things, but by any metric was not as good a movie. It succeeded because it had all the hype from the previous movie on top of its own advertisements.
Finally, comparing this to Halo: Halo has a decent storyline, as video games go. It's good enough to make a movie out of. However, there is nothing in Halo's storyline that hasn't been done before, nor any characters that particularly stand out apart from your generic sci-fi archetypes.
This isn't inherently bad - you can make a good movie out of that. But it doesn't have anything more going for it than Terminator Salvation or a hundred other reasonably executed but not particularly inspired movies did. I'm sure that putting all the ingredients together correctly would be enough to satisfy you and other Halo fans, but you are not as numerous as you think you are. There are plenty of other sci-fi franchises with more more fans and traction (and better stories) than Halo has that still have produced plenty of flops. So yes, 150 million is fairly risky investment, and no "So Okay its Average" is not going to be good enough.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
But 150 million, with Peter Jackson is license to print money, no matter how you spin it, objectively it would be a success because it DOES have all the right elements for a good action scifi but seems to have talented directors willing to give it a shot and are by their own words fans.
And considering the books and other source material released by bungie are canon theres also alot of depth to it swimming around that may not be noticible on the first play through for the trilogy.
I think the studios were dumb and cowardly for not taking this own and hope that they get their act together soon to get this done, probably after the Halo animated series is released (Yay!).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
As for demographic I think at this point its infected popular culture to the point where it gained attractive popularity for many demographics, mostly the 16-40 group I think but covers many of the bases for those who like scifi, for those who like action, and for those who like thrillers.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Frankly, I think you are simply wrong. The internet has a dangerous tendency to provide with you with a continuous dense population of any topic you can possibly want, which leads to the false perception that that knowledge/appreciation for that topic is widespread across the general population. Lots of people know Halo exists. A somewhat smaller (but still large) number of people have played it at some point and are at least vaguely familiar with the story. The number of people who really followed and care about the story are fairly small.
According to some random site I just googled, Halo 2 and 3 both sold about 9 million copies. This is extremely respectable for a video game that costs $60. For a movie ticket that costs around 10 dollars, it's only 90 million. Yes, there will be many people who'd see the movie who haven't purchased the game, but there will also be plenty of people who'll see it at cheaper theaters or who will torrent it. All in all the initial box office results would probably be exactly in the $150 dollar range. That's not printing money. That's breaking even, which is not good business sense. It's a movie that could definitely be worthwhile if the budget were smaller or if Jackson had some amazing idea to give it far more mainstream appeal, but that's not what happened.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Michael Bay *has* made a good movie, The Rock, but most of his other movies are noisy and trashy crap. [/qb]
To be fair, Aaron Sorkin did some script doctoring on that one. Perhaps that's where some of the movie's strength came from. And it had Sean Connery.
As for a Halo movie... eh. I don't care for the games. They bore me, which is the exact opposite of what a game should do.
But the ads I've seen for ODST make me think there might be something to a movie given a competent director. I don't have a clue what's going on, but the advertisements were breathtaking.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Games aren't for everyone. Same thing for sex.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think I would go out of my way to not watch a Halo movie, even if it got mildly positive reviews.
And thats not supposed to make you sound like an ass how?
Oh, I'm willing to sound like an ass to avoid rewarding the annoying (though I realize not novel) trend to exploit every brand in every medium possible. But aside from just being contrary, I have no reason to think a movie based on it would be something I would care about, and a lot of reason to suspect it'd end up being nothing more than a special effects spectacle.
I'm perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, but it'd take strongly positive reviews, something better than the usual 2.5 star "serviceable summer action fare" stamp that most big budget movies end up with.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
A properly done Halo movie would be similar to a properly done Starship Troopers not the satire ridden parody and take that, that got shatted out instead.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I suspsect you're going to have to come up with a movie that was ACTUALLY made that was good to convince scifibum this would be worthwhile to him.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I haven't played Halo but I've seen enough of the clips and story to think it would make a good movie. I love the soundtrack. It gives me chills. I'd go see a Halo movie.
The story is sort of like part Niven, part Herbert, part Tolkien, part Heinlein. And the graphics are gorgeous. If well done, it could make a really great movie.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)