Rise of the Silver Surfer BOX OFFICE Discussion

[Tony Stark]

Actually I agree with him.

Rating it PG only turned even more people off--and I said that was going to be the case from the get-go. Teens and adults have a certain stigmatism when it comes to PG-rated films that aren't animated. As soon as they announced that rating I was like, "They are really handicapping themselves now."

I think aside from lame post-release marketing scheme, the PG rating was the single worst move they made with this film's release.

I completely disagree. I don't nessisarily think it was good, I just think it was a non factor.

You can find plenty of successful films that were PG that are not animated films. Star Wars Episodes I and II , the first three Harry Potter movies, and the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, were all high grossing PG movies.

Moreover, I think the general public was unaware of the change in rating, nor did they care.

There are many criticisms to make over this movie, but that's not one.

Furthermore it was Tim Story who went for the PG rating. He went to Fox and said, he thought they could get a PG rating the way the film was cut. So if you want to blame someone for the PG rating, it was Stories idea to push.

 

[X-Maniac]

I completely disagree. I don't nessisarily think it was good, I just think it was a non factor.

You can find plenty of successful films that were PG that are not animated films. Star Wars Episodes I and II , the first three Harry Potter movies, and the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, were all high grossing PG movies.

Moreover, I think the general public was unaware of the change in rating, nor did they care.

There are many criticisms to make over this movie, but that's not one.

Furthermore it was Tim Story who went for the PG rating. He went to Fox and said, he thought they could get a PG rating the way the film was cut. So if you want to blame someone for the PG rating, it was Stories idea to push.

I agree with some of this. I don't think rating was the killer.

The film:
1) was a sequel to a poorly-regarded original
2) is not based on superheroes who are iconic household names in the mainstream (despite several animated series, Joe Public doesn't know who the FF are)
3) wasn't deep enough or good enough to stand out
4) was ripped apart by this summer's big movies
5) had weak marketing

I think 3, 4 and 5 are the strongest factors. People would forget the lacklustre original quick enough if this one was a great movie that was well-marketed and well-publicised as a must-see movie (most people today are fickle, channel-hopping, ADD types.. they are on to the next thing in milliseconds). Sadly, it wasn't that well marketed and when it was publicised, the critics didn't like it.

FF has stopped playing at my local cinema, and even Die Hard is down to just two screenings a day. Shrek is still on, Potter is going strong, Transformers is going strong too. For the kids who are on the summer break from school, and their parents, it will be Shrek, Potter and Transformers that they want to see.

Fox needed to make something far 'bigger' and better for this to succeed. I'm almost tempted to mention the Bay/Spielberg giant that is Transformers which, although I haven't seen it, is being touted widely now as the standard for a summer action blockbuster on a very reasonable budget.

 

[TheVileOne]

I completely disagree. I don't nessisarily think it was good, I just think it was a non factor.

You can find plenty of successful films that were PG that are not animated films. Star Wars Episodes I and II , the first three Harry Potter movies, and the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, were all high grossing PG movies.

Moreover, I think the general public was unaware of the change in rating, nor did they care.

There are many criticisms to make over this movie, but that's not one.

Furthermore it was Tim Story who went for the PG rating. He went to Fox and said, he thought they could get a PG rating the way the film was cut. So if you want to blame someone for the PG rating, it was Stories idea to push.

Believe me, I have absolutely no problem with blaming Tim Story at all.

He was the wrong person for these movies from the start. He was also not a person that was going to have NOR fight for a strong vision of these characters.

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ You know Edgar Wright would have done an awesome Fantastic Four IMO. Actually he'd do well with Spider-Man as well. I really hope he eventually does Ant-Man because if anyone on the planet can make that film it's him.

 

[TheVileOne]

Edgar Wright is great, but he's a guy that cannot fight Fox or beat them on any of the battles. Edgar Wright has been able to make great, fantastic movies so far because they've been small, little movies and mostly with more indy kind of production houses that were NOT studio tent-poles.

These movies needed a director and producers that wouldn't take crap from the studios and understood what battles are OK to lose, and what battles aren't.

A studio that understood how important these characters and stories are would've helped also.

 

[highguard]

Edgar Wright is great, but he's a guy that cannot fight Fox or beat them on any of the battles. Edgar Wright has been able to make great, fantastic movies so far because they've been small, little movies and mostly with more indy kind of production houses that were NOT studio tent-poles.

These movies needed a director and producers that wouldn't take crap from the studios and understood what battles are OK to lose, and what battles aren't.

A studio that understoond how important these characters and stories are would've helped also.

I have to agree with Vile on this one, Tim and Ralph Winter are apparently not fighters, however Fox probably would not have hired them if they were. So you can't blame them, Fox has to take the fall I think.

James Marsden had to call these people to tell them that he was still available for X3, and still they made a mess of that cause they spited him. How else to explain what they did to the great love story between Cyclops and Jean.

And for the record if my memory is correct it was Fox that told Tim he could get a pg rating. Anyone recall otherwise.

As for the pg rating I don't think that was the biggest mistake LS, I think the biggest mistake was not leveling with the fans months ago on Galactus which set up the Memflix, negative buzz of the last week when tracking crashed about 20 million.

I think where the pg rating hurt was that combined with the publicized running time their was some concern about the quality of an FF film and given the reviews of the first this was the last thing that they needed.

 

[Carp Man]

Believe me, I have absolutely no problem with blaming Tim Story at all.

He was the wrong person for these movies from the start. He was also not a person that was going to have NOR fight for a strong vision of these characters.

Fox was not going to put out the money to get a top flight director. Get used to it. Why Singer left for SR. Fox would not give him the money, or the power to do it. WB did, and we saw the result. A mediocare at best movie. Story has not done a bad job. The 1st film, he had to work within the script he was given. This time he was in on it from the get go, and the difference is as plain as night and day. What a difference a good writer makes. And Vile, get off the stick. We know it did not perform up to snuff. We don't need your constant reminder.

 

[TheVileOne]

Fox was not going to put out the money to get a top flight director. Get used to it. Why Singer left for SR. Fox would not give him the money, or the power to do it. WB did, and we saw the result. A mediocare at best movie. Story has not done a bad job. The 1st film, he had to work within the script he was given. This time he was in on it from the get go, and the difference is as plain as night and day. What a difference a good writer makes. And Vile, get off the stick. We know it did not perform up to snuff. We don't need your constant reminder.

Yet people are constantly agreeing with the points I make. And no I'm not going to stop. I'm not being a troll. I'm not spamming. I'm going to continue expressing my views as I see fit. Why do we have a forum for it, if not for that reason?

I'm not saying Fox needed a director to give complete and total control over the project, and all the money they wanted.

I'm saying this project needed a director with vision, and needed a director who would fight Fox a lot more and would still submit to them WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE. Not like what happened with Superman Returns. Tim Story is not that director.

Look at the results. You can call Superman Returns a mediocre movie fine. But don't act like these two movies are excellent cinematic achievements if you are going to say that.

 

[Docker2.0]

So SR is cinematically excellent?

 

[TheVileOne]

I never said it was.

 

[Docker2.0]

Ok. Just checking................cuase it wasn't.

Dang it! It pains me to say this but............F42 is a disappointment at the box office. This movie could have made a lot more had Fox done the right thing!

 

[TheVileOne]

It could've done better if it had a director that was competent.

 

[Docker2.0]

I really don't think this is Story's fault. I think Fox had their hands in this movie ALOT!

 

[GL's Light]

WB did, and we saw the result. A mediocare at best movie.

Have you seen SR, Carp?

 

[TheVileOne]

I really don't think this is Story's fault. I think Fox had their hands in this movie ALOT!

Story's mouth still wrote checks his @$$ couldn't cash. Fox had nothing to do with that.

The guy directed TAXI. He's not a great director, that simple.

 

[Docker2.0]

I've seen it GL. Heck I own the dvd and that movie is.........confusing yet boring. But yet, I find myself watching it all the time.

 

[GL's Light]

I've seen it GL. Heck I own the dvd and that movie is.........confusing yet boring. But yet, I find myself watching it all the time.

Perhaps you actually like it and just haven't come to terms with it yet.

I ask Carp whether he's seen it because he sometimes refuses to see DC films, yet still feels he can comment on their quality.

 

[Malus]

The guy directed TAXI. He's not a great director, that simple.

In your Opinion.
He also directed Barbershop, which was widely acclaimed.
Then he made the mistake of signing with Fox to direct Taxi.
Taxi was a shallow star vehicle for Jimmy Fallon and Queen Latifah.
(I mean what good could come from that, under any director?)

Story's no Stanley Kubrick, but I don't think he's nearly as bad as you'd like everyone to believe. Jeez.

 

[Docker2.0]

Perhaps you actually like it and just haven't come to terms with it yet.

I ask Carp whether he's seen it because he sometimes refuses to see DC films, yet still feels he can comment on their quality.

I think I wanted to like it because of the other Superman movies but Singer has really dragged Supes name in the mud with the movie. Now he's a stalking ex boyfriend who basically date-rapes her and made her forget. I hate to use that word rape but the truth is, that's what happens when you drug the girl and she forgets what happens. He even has a son, knows it's his and doesn't even take responsibility for it.....well he can't cuase Lois would know he violated her. Well Singer just messed up Supes.

 

[Kelly]

I really enjoyed Superman Returns, saw it 2x and bought the DVD...

 

[TheVileOne]

In your Opinion.

That's fine. But I'd say the results more often than not agree with my opinion.

He also directed Barbershop, which was widely acclaimed.
Then he made the mistake of signing with Fox to direct Taxi.
Taxi was a shallow star vehicle for Jimmy Fallon and Queen Latifah.

Barbershop does not make him a great director.

(I mean what good could come from that, under any director?)

I'm not sure, but it certainly doesn't come from a great one.

Story's no Stanley Kubrick, but I don't think he's nearly as bad as you'd like everyone to believe. Jeez.

Everything that's come out of his mouth regarding this production makes me think otherwise.

 

[Docker2.0]

In your Opinion.
He also directed Barbershop, which was widely acclaimed.
Then he made the mistake of signing with Fox to direct Taxi.
Taxi was a shallow star vehicle for Jimmy Fallon and Queen Latifah.
(I mean what good could come from that, under any director?)

Story's no Stanley Kubrick, but I don't think he's nearly as bad as you'd like everyone to believe. Jeez.

Agreed! Story got the dynamics of the F4 right, there comic is built on the family value thing. He only messed up on Doom and I'm not going to blame Galactus on him, that's Fox's fault. Story is just being used as a scapegoat becuase even before the movie came out, people was bashing it just cause his names on it. Totally unfair!

 

[TheVileOne]

Why is it unfair? Bryan Singer had to deal with Fox, but X-men was still a decent movie. And he had less money.

For starters he for the most part cast people that were right for the roles instead of flavors of the month, and GQ cover model types.

 

[Malus]

Agreed! Story got the dynamics of the F4 right, there comic is built on the family value thing. He only messed up on Doom and I'm not going to blame Galactus on him, that's Fox's fault. Story is just being used as a scapegoat becuase even before the movie came out, people was bashing it just cause his names on it. Totally unfair!

I think it is mostly scapegoating, and it's getting very old.

Most people have no idea what a director even does.

 

[TheVileOne]

I'm a film student, and I graduated from college with a degree in it. I know what a director does. So people like you can't tell me I don't.