Independence Day 2? - Part 1

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Why did this movie do so poorly compared to Jurassic World last year (the sequel to the other giant mid-90s blockbuster)?

I think that the answers are extremely complicated. Jurassic Park is an expertly directed and classy blockbuster that has held up better than ID4. Nobody is going to argue that JP isn't a better film, just based on directing alone, than ID4.

And as DJ implies, JP stayed in people's minds longer because it had sequels. World didn't come out 20 years after the first film. Out of sight, out of mind. Another issue are the actors, people cared more about the dinosaurs than any one actor in JP while ID4 is more closely associated with Will Smith. It's seen as a Will Smith movie. Now could they have overcome that if they had hired a buzzed about charismatic actor like Jurassic World did? Yes but instead they opted to hire Thor's younger brother. Bone headed decision I think.

Unlike JP I think that ID4 was an of the moment shlockfest, even with Smith it wouldn't have been a JW style blockbuster unless it looked amazing, had an amazing hook. Every Superhero film is filled with destruction porn, that's not a new hook now or days. I truly think that all of the wrong moves were made and thus the film didn't even have a shot at breaking out.

Well it's box office run is just getting started so who knows where it will end but we already know that it isn't a breakout like JW so I don't think that we are being premature by talking about this.

 

[Boom]

Just for the sake of changing pace, they should have moved away from the focus on aerial combat and had more of a ground assault. Full blown terrestrial warfare. At least that would have had some sense of novelty.

And yeah, the focus definitely should have been on developing a better screenplay and doing whatever they could to get Will Smith back. Didn't give a fraction of a **** about these new characters.

 

[TheVileOne]

Zootopia, Jungle Book, Civil War and Dory.


Bob Iger is ****ting in a solid gold toilet.

Except for Alice Through the Looking Glass.

 

[StormC]

Will Dory break a billion?

 

[Gold Samurai]

Zootopia, Jungle Book, Civil War and Dory.


Bob Iger is ****ting in a solid gold toilet.

CGI Talking animals acting like humans going to war while looking for a friend


2 billion dollars box office right movie right there

 

[Alien Anal]

I wish there were more practical alien costumes. The designs are really cool and one of my favorite things from the first ID4.

Also I think I would have preferred if they got rid of Hemsworths character and had Maika Monroe as the lead that was best friends with Jessie Ushers character and while im at it totally replace Jessie with a more interesting actor.

 

[Rocketman]

Just for the sake of changing pace, they should have moved away from the focus on aerial combat and had more of a ground assault. Full blown terrestrial warfare. At least that would have had some sense of novelty.

I have a feeling that would've caused Aliens comparisons.

But... that's probably the plan for the next one (if there is a next one).

 

[jmc]

Isn't that on the competition to make it a competition? The problem here is the crap they keep releasing.

If Disney continues to gobble up production houses it's not.

 

[jmc]

Why did this movie do so poorly compared to Jurassic World last year (the sequel to the other giant mid-90s blockbuster)?

I honestly believe that it was the sequel everyone kinda wanted to see, people wanted to see the park open for business. But I don't think the next film will be nearly as big.

 

[Raiden]

Except for Alice Through the Looking Glass.

Maybe The BFG will tank as well (not looking good for that movie imo), but that doesn't derail the kind of year Disney is having in 2016.

I don't think IDR would have done any better against lesser competition, though; the moviegoers are just lukewarm to this lackluster sequel that arrives 20 years too late.

 

[Kyle]

Maybe The BFG will tank as well (not looking good for that movie imo)

There's no way a Spielberg movie is going to flop at box office. Underperform? Possible. Flop? Beyond absurd. Spielberg, to my knowledge, has only had one flop is his entire filmography and that's 'Hook' from more than 20 years ago. Even the mixed reception 'War of the Worlds' didn't flop. BFG underperforming? Possible. A Spielberg flop? 1/29 chance of happening.

 

[Raiden]

There's no way a Spielberg movie is going to flop at box office. Underperform? Possible. Flop? Beyond absurd. Spielberg, to my knowledge, has only had one flop is his entire filmography and that's 'Hook' from more than 20 years ago. Even the mixed reception 'War of the Worlds' didn't flop. BFG underperforming? Possible. A Spielberg flop? 1/29 chance of happening.

I guess we'll see, but except for Spielberg's name the trailer couldn't be more uninteresting to me. It seems like if you took out his name the movie would have nothing to show for.

 

[Kyle]

We'll see, but largely unlikely - as said, it's got a 1/29 chance in tanking. Spielberg's name has been the key selling point they went for, surprised they didn't focus more on the whole E.T. connection. They should have shown more varied footage and focused more on Spielberg reuniting with the team he made E.T. with.

ADDING: Mistake on my part, 'Hook' actually made a profit of $50 mil. Spielberg's flop was '1941' which came out in 1979, so we're looking at it not happening in 37 years. As said, underperforming - or performing like 'Hook' and 'Tintin' where it barely makes a profit and is deemed disappointing, that I can see. But tanking - that would be a first in 37 years, odds aren't in that direction with audiences.

 

[Greens]

I wish there were more practical alien costumes. The designs are really cool and one of my favorite things from the first ID4.

That's one of those 80's/90's things we're not gonna get back. Creatures used to feel special because they were practical and therefore used scarcely. Now they can just put some CG characters in there and kill the mystique.

 

[Marvolo]

No one should be shocked by the Tomato Score or the audience score. The majority of his film's percentages and audiences scores are below 50%.

 

[Alien Anal]

Tomato is a singular person?

 

[Marvolo]

Tomato is a singular person?

I've always seen it called the Tomato Score and RT Score and Tomatoes Score, Mr. Grammar Nazi.

 

[Neno_Kos]

Why did this movie do so poorly compared to Jurassic World last year (the sequel to the other giant mid-90s blockbuster)?

cause one is good film and other is not.

 

[Alien Anal]

I've always seen it called the Tomato Score and RT Score and Tomatoes Score, Mr. Grammar Nazi.

Wait..am I being called a grammar nazi? In the case I was, I was only asking because you said 'he' which confused me because I didn't think RT was a singular person but a collective of reviewers. Trust me, I am no grammar nazi, I'm too stupid to be

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I've always seen it called the Tomato Score and RT Score and Tomatoes Score, Mr. Grammar Nazi.

The official term is Tomatometer.

 

[chamber-music]

Alice Through the Looking Glass is pretty much a tax right off Disney

Disney's other movies have been so successful that Alice bombing won't dent their bank balance that much.

Disney releases at least one mega bomb a year like a Lone Ranger or John Carter but they can afford to lose a couple hundred million because they have a Marvel film, PoTC film, Pixar film or Star Wars film to pick up the slack.

Why did this movie do so poorly compared to Jurassic World last year (the sequel to the other giant mid-90s blockbuster)?

I think negative word of mouth is killing Independence Day 2.

 

[moviefreak]

Ooops. lol.

That audience score, damn. Look like that I'll be seeing it on small screen instead. Cannot be bothered to make the trip if the film is just boring.

 

[Mysteryman]

A lot of the effects for the original Independence Day was achieved with models.
Sounds like audiences were bored with an overabundance of CGI FX in the sequel.

 

[Matt]

We'll see, but largely unlikely - as said, it's got a 1/29 chance in tanking. Spielberg's name has been the key selling point they went for, surprised they didn't focus more on the whole E.T. connection. They should have shown more varied footage and focused more on Spielberg reuniting with the team he made E.T. with.

ADDING: Mistake on my part, 'Hook' actually made a profit of $50 mil. Spielberg's flop was '1941' which came out in 1979, so we're looking at it not happening in 37 years. As said, underperforming - or performing like 'Hook' and 'Tintin' where it barely makes a profit and is deemed disappointing, that I can see. But tanking - that would be a first in 37 years, odds aren't in that direction with audiences.

Hook would've been much more successful if Spielberg, Williams, and Hoffman took salaries instead of a combined 40 % of the profit. That is what really made Hook into a financial disappointment.

I am pretty shocked that this movie is bombing. I expected it to under-perform. But I thought 90s nostalgia combined with hipsters seeing the movie ironically would make it somewhat profitable, albeit not very. I guess there really just wasn't a market for this movie. I wonder if that would be different if Will Smith were involved?

 

[sueb1863]

They should have paid Will Smith whatever he wanted to get him in this. There was no point in making the movie without him.