Beautiful Creatures

[terry78]

She's not that far gone. If she prefers lower budget stuff after this bomb, that's her. The new Ninja Turtles is pretty much guaranteed box office, unless they just stray completely from the material.

 

[dark_b]

She's only 26 though, .

i thought she was 30 or something. interesting

 

[TheVileOne]

She could be fudging her age .

 

[Sawyer]

Nah, I'm sure she's 26. She looked young as hell in The Day After Tomorrow.

 

[Octoberist]

I felt like that this movie did two things wrong:

1.) Out of curiosity, I read some of the comments from the 'Beautiful Creatures' facebook page. And while people will complain no matter what, I think the complaints with the film feel legit. Which leads me to my other point:

2.) It felt like WB didn't make this movie because they were interested. It felt like they wanted to capitalize on the 'Twilight/Hunger Games' crowd and that was it. Because of the internet, people will see through that. It's best to keep the adaptations faithful. Because of that, I think that's why the movie failed.

Finally, yes, Rossum needs a new agent. Thank God she's on SHameless, but the girl is pure talent. I hope she finds better film roles.

 

[Airwings]

I think it was a decent film. I happen to like wizardry/witchcraft and the use of energy beams. I give it 3,5 out of 5.

the complete lack of star power.

Jeremy Irons, Emma Thompson, Emmy Rossum....the first Twilight had less star Power than that, and yet it was a huge success.
Explain why to me!

how dare you not recognize Emma Thompson!

Terry hasn't seen enough films, I guess

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Jeremy Irons, Emma Thompson, Emmy Rossum....the first Twilight had less star Power than that, and yet it was a huge success.
Explain why to me!

Lets look at the three films for a second.

Twlight is based on a hugely popular book series. That is all it needed to at least hit a 100mil, spending extra on big stars would have been pointless. Also it had killer marketing and like all hit films a right place at the right time thing.

The Hunger Games had strong book sales (not as good as Twilight's), a great lead Oscar nominated actress who had a ton of buzz surrounding her, an intriguing storyline with more appeal and a bigger scope than Twilight and because the book series wasn't as popular as the Twilight Saga the studio actually got well known older actors for the supporting roles. Plus after learning lessons from Twilight the studio marketed the movie fantastically. Add in actual good reviews and you have a winner.

Beautiful Creatures was based on a mildly successful book series (It was hardly putting up Twilight or Hunger Games numbers), staring two actors with very little buzz, they couldn't even manufacture buzz for the two leads and although they tried with mall tours, like the afore mentioned films, the marketing was ****** because the movie didn't have a hook. Twilight's trailers and T.V spots weren't great but they had a hook and millions of book sales to back them up. Creatures did have the same type of actors in supporting roles as Games did but they didn't have buzzed about leads. I'm sure they're performances are perfectly fine and better than the one's in Twilight and I'm sure the movie is technically better than Twilight but that doesn't mean anything unless it was as well reviewed as Warm Bodies or Hunger Games and it flat out wasn't. Being better than Twilight does not mean that a film is good. And the dumbest move of all is pissing off your fanbase by making changes that they didn't like. If you are going to piss of your fanbase with changes you better have made an actual good movie.

The movie tanked because it had virtually nothing going for it.

 

[Lencho01]

What changes were made?

Seemed to me that WB was concerned with marketing Singer's Jack film.

 

[Airwings]

I SEE SPIDEY: Didn't you say that the complete lack of star power was one of the reasons for BC's failure?

 

[jacobed]

while they may be phenomenal actors. To the general person that's just Scar, Nanny McPhee, and the Anne Hathaway wanna be. They arent ticket selling star power.

 

[Airwings]

jacobed: I believe Irons is more known to GA for other roles than Scar nowadays.
Show them a picture and they will recognize him from sword and sandal adventures.

 

[DACrowe]

What, Kingdom of Heaven? That's a great film, in director's cut, but only cinephiles saw that version. The theatrical cut's forgettable and bombed at the box office. I also highly doubt many watch The Borgias.

Irons is a phenomenal actor but he's Scar and maybe, maybe Simon Says to the most die hard of action fans (heh). Thompson is either Nanny McPhee or her character from Harry Potter. And I'd like to think Rossum is at least remembered as Christine Daaé, but sadly she is as jacobed said, viewed as a weaker Hathaway (even though Rossum's a much better singer).

But then again, I think it flopped because in this one the teenage girl is the dominant one in the pair and she's a witch. Witches don't provide the rather regressive fantasy of a mysterious Prince Charming with fangs taking control of their lives and "protecting them." That is why it did not take off, in my opinion.

 

[Airwings]

What about Eragorn? It's kinda in the same "genre" but with a different setting/time period.

You bring up action fans? What for? They are not the ones who will go and watch this film.

And Emmy Thompson was in Love Actually

 

[Octoberist]

What about Eragorn? It's kinda in the same "genre" but with a different setting/time period.

You bring up action fans? What for? They are not the ones who will go and watch this film.

And Emmy Thompson was in Love Actually

So you're saying that Irons is famously known for his breathtaking performance in the epic bomb that no one talks about: Erargorn? Reaching!

 

[Airwings]

It's not like the first thing the younger audience Thinks when seeing Irons: OH IT'S SCAR!
No no no. His face is recognized from other films. Lion King is animated (remember), but if going back to mid-90s, I believe that he's remembered more from the third Die Hard.
To be seen on the big screen and be able to do physical acting, is more important than just providing a voice.

Octoberist: Regardless of Eragorn's failure, it kind of targeted the same audience as BC. And shouldn't those people remember him more as a mentor in that one than a 19-year-old animated film?

 

[Hush]

Learn to quote people with the actual quote feature.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I SEE SPIDEY: Didn't you say that the complete lack of star power was one of the reasons for BC's failure?

Eh I should have said buzzed about young actors.

 

[TheVileOne]

Irons is well known but he's not a big name or a big draw. He's basically like a character actor in movies like this anyway. He's rarely the lead or the marquee name or star.

 

[Airwings]

Before the opening, I saw pics from BC in a movie magazine. And it struck me how impossible it seems for the lead male to be only 16. Holly boiled sandwiches, they could have added 10 years to the character's age.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

My sister saw the film and said the same thing after she saw the film. She said he looked too old and believe me she has a lot of tolorence for how old actors are who play teens.

None of them ever look like teens but sometimes an actor gives off a youthful enough flavor to make you believe that they are a teen.