|
Josh Lyman posted:I'd argue a regarded chimp could have marketed those movies to the same box office success. Those campaigns were awesome. She also oversaw the Inception campaign. She knows her stuff she just plays it conservative. I heard it was hilarious the first time somebody pitched a trailer with dubstep to her.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
When the Dark Knight trailer was released people thought they were spoiling the end of the movie with the Batpod fight but it turned out that all the stuff in the trailers happened in the first half of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
 Is IMDb like Wikipedia, where there's a bunch of nerds frantically arguing behind the scenes and trying to get each others edits reversed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
MorgaineDax posted:
Yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:The cure for a bad title: consumer confusion Yeah this is comical mismanagement. How much of an upswing are they expecting in DVD sales/rentals? Are they positioning this for cult movie status? And I don't think Star Wars/ANH is an apt comparison when it was a much more popular movie and the original title became the name of the series. Also I didn't know that All You Need Is Kill is supposed to be a Beatles riff. I always thought it was a bad translation for All You Need To Do Is Die, Just Die, or something like that. For the record I really enjoyed the movie, thought the title was awful, but think its too late for a name change. It's gotta sleep in the bed it made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
I would really like someone to explain to me why they think "Edge of Tomorrow" is a bad title. I don't get it. People keep talking about it, talking about how bad it is, talking about changing it, and I don't get it. Even if you think another title might be better thematically, how is it that you think the title "Edge of Tomorrow" was so bad that it effected ticket sales?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
It's not a bad title, it's just a really unremarkable one. Doesn't stick in the brain as much as "ALL YOU NEED IS KILL" or even "Live Die Repeat."
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
I actually liked it as a title. It just suffered from sounding pretty generic if you didn't know what the movie was about. As is, the way Cage never actually gets to the tomorrow he really wants as long as he's jacked in to the Mimic network means the title is actually kinda clever. But only kinda. Live, Die, Repeat is much more immediately distinct and attention grabbing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:It's not a bad title, it's just a really unremarkable one. Doesn't stick in the brain as much as "ALL YOU NEED IS KILL" or even "Live Die Repeat." But looking at the titles of other successful films, I can't believe that a title like "All You Need is Kill" would actually have done better at the box office. Yeah it's a sweet title, I'm not arguing that, but it's basically been proven that desensitized nerds are still a minority as far as box office returns are concerned. Tom Cruise's fanbase is like, 40% older women, who probably wouldn't have gone to see a movie called "All You Need is Kill". Based on what criteria is "Edge of Tomorrow" unremarkable? compared to say: Schindler's List Crimson Tide Bridge on the River Kwai Tomorrow Never Dies Adaptation Stranger Than Fiction I swear I'm not trolling or trying to get a rise of out anyone. I just don't get it. Movies are named different poo poo all the time. It's a good movie, has some big names in it. How did the title become an issue? This "blame the name" phenomenon is something I can't remember ever happening to a good movie before (I'm sure that it's happened to some bad movies)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
As a title, Edge of Tomorrow just seemed to blend together with Oblivion in terms of "space movie where Tom Cruise saves everyone". The title made the movie already feel kind of like a rehash instead of something interesting and fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Snak posted:But looking at the titles of other successful films, I can't believe that a title like "All You Need is Kill" would actually have done better at the box office. Yeah it's a sweet title, I'm not arguing that, but it's basically been proven that desensitized nerds are still a minority as far as box office returns are concerned. Tom Cruise's fanbase is like, 40% older women, who probably wouldn't have gone to see a movie called "All You Need is Kill". All of those are more interesting and help tell you about the movie except maybe Adaptation which doesn't really stand out to me. Schindler was a real recent-historical figure with a compelling story. Crimson Tide's title reminds me of Red October, which works since it's a submarine moral drama. Tomorrow Never Dies is a very interesting comparison since it is very generic and "what does that even mean?" sounding, but it has the power of being 007 Tomorrow Never Dies and following up on 007 Goldeneye which was incredibly popular and basically still is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Chronojam posted:All of those are more interesting and help tell you about the movie except maybe Adaptation which doesn't really stand out to me. Schindler was a real recent-historical figure with a compelling story. Crimson Tide's title reminds me of Red October, which works since it's a submarine moral drama. You're not wrong on any of these points, but they're incredibly subjective. I would bet 99% of people who saw Schindler's List had no idea who Oskar Schindler was before the movie came out. In the case of Crimson Tide, it being reminiscent of The Hunt for Red October is a good thing, as opposed to Edge of Tomorrow somehow being reminiscent of Oblivion being a bad thing. The Bond naming trend is a valid thing. Every one knows that Bond films are ridiculous and have ridiculous titles. I think that Edge of Tomorrow is compelling and descriptive, and you know from the trailer that it's a time loop movie, so it immediately makes sense. I can go on and on listing films that have reletively uninteresting titles completely independent of the quality or success of the film, but that's not my point. I feel like there's some sort of weird hindsight logic or scapegoating going on here, but at the same time I'm not trying to point fingers and I'm open to the very probable possibility that I simply have different taste. Edge of Tomorrow is currently winning the IMDB edit war...
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Maybe more movies should be direct like that. Drive: "Ryan Gosling commits violence." Matrix: "IT'S GREEN!" Speed Racer: "Yes, you're high."
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Maybe more movies should be direct like that. I don't see how any of those relates to what was being discussed. Or are you just talking about tag lines? Wasn't Edge of Tomorrow's tagline Live.Die.Repeat?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
The best way I can describe why "Edge of Tomorrow" is too generic in my opinion is that it sounds like a name for a made-up movie in another movie's script.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
That's what I was thinking, like it came from a Seinfeld episode. Seinfeld had some excellent made-up movie names. http://seinfeld.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Seinfeld_fictional_films
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
MorgaineDax posted:This page shows Edge of Tomorrow to me, but Cruise's page shows the title as Live, Die, Repeat? Who edits IMDb pages? If you look under the alternate titles, which lists the titles around the world... quote:USA (working title) All You Need Is Kill I don't know where "We Mortals Are" comes from. I'm guessing that's another Liman working title when "All You Need Is Kill" fell through.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
We Mortals Are would have been great.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Saw this again last night. Still just as fun. This part is so cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
PaganGoatPants posted:Saw this again last night. Still just as fun. This part is so cool. this movie is the tops
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Just call it Recursion or something. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
futureproof posted:Just call it Recursion or something. Jesus. That would be an even worse title than Edge of Tomorrow. Also nobody knows what it means.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Sivart13 posted:I was shaking with joy at the part where he had finally went through enough iterations to get to Rita safely. Rewatching the film, I can't imagine the number of times he has to repeat. I wish they called it out at the end or at least clued us in on that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Shadowhand00 posted:Rewatching the film, I can't imagine the number of times he has to repeat. I wish they called it out at the end or at least clued us in on that. They sort of did that with the helicopter scene.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Shadowhand00 posted:Rewatching the film, I can't imagine the number of times he has to repeat. I wish they called it out at the end or at least clued us in on that. A number on his hand would have been helpful, I suppose.  (It's more of a book reference than a snarky reply...)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
 I had no idea this was so successful worldwide, or that it's been one of Cruise's best grossing films in the late period of his career. Why is this considered a bomb again? Just because it didn't do $100 mil in the US? Mat Cauthon fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Sep 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:I think companies only take in about 1/3 of international grosses compared to domestic, so while it helps, it's not a substitute. They take less, also the statement is untrue unless you count War of the Worlds as a sequel to Risky Business or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
Trump posted:They take less, also the statement is untrue unless you count War of the Worlds as a sequel to Risky Business or something. WotW was close enough to a decade ago to list as a factoid in an indignant tweet. Rap Record Hoarder posted:
Unrelated note: Just checked Cruise' page...there's going to be a Top Gun 2? Hahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
It was called a bomb because it had a large drop off in the second week. That's literally the only reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:
What prompted me to make that post is the fact that it did just pass the $100 million mark in the US (so roughly three times more than its $28M US opening), and the last Tom Cruise non-sequel movie to do so was War of the Worlds. The worldwide total is $364 million. That's pretty good, but nobody talks about this movie like it's successful. All you hear is "audiences must be sick of these Tom Cruise sci-fi movies," "it must have been because of the movie's name," "movies have to make double their stated budget to turn a profit" and so on and so on. You hear similar things about Amazing Spider-Man 2, and that movie made over $700 million. Trump posted:They take less, also the statement is untrue unless you count War of the Worlds as a sequel to Risky Business or something. Yes, you sure got me and exposed the flaws in my logic by pointing out that I didn't have enough characters to write "nine years and 3 months" at 2:50 AM when I posted it, so I foolishly rounded it to the nearest 10th instead of the nearest single digit. Daryl Surat fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Sep 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
I really don't think people saying "This other title would have been better" are saying "This movie's box office take would have been entirely different with a different title." It's just an aesthetic thing to discuss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It was called a bomb because it had a large drop off in the second week. That's literally the only reason. Except it had a really low drop-off of only 42%. It's called a bomb because it's a summer tentpole with a huge budget that only made 29 million in it's opening weekend. Edit: I see you said week, my point still stands however. Daryl Surat posted:Yes, you sure got me and exposed the flaws in my logic by pointing out that I didn't have enough characters to write "nine years and 3 months" at 2:50 AM when I posted it, so I foolishly rounded it to the nearest 10th instead of the nearest single digit. I'll make my point clear then instead of being snide. You can't compare how Jack Reacher or Knight and Day performed to Edge of Tomorrow. Lower budgets, different expectations, though you could see Jack Reacher as a failure on another level since it was meant as a franchise starter. Trump fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Sep 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Trump posted:Except it had a really low drop-off of only 42%. It's called a bomb because it's a summer tentpole with a huge budget that only made 29 million in it's opening weekend. I'm a little disappointed by this because I thought it was a really good movie. When it finally gets released on bluray, it is going to sit next to Groundhog Day in my personal collection. Maybe it isn't something I would want to watch every day, but I've certainly seen worse. It's not Manos, Hands of Fate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Edge of Tomorrow was a really fun, pretty drat good and entertaining movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Really enjoyed this, but I'm slightly confused by the ending. A mortally wounded Cage successfully kills the Omega, then gets some of its blood on him, dies, and resets to back to earlier in the film, when the helicopter landed in London. Then it is announced there is some sort of power surge in Paris, and the mimics are all dead. Why? If Cage was reset, why does he not need to go through that whole mission again? Who actually killed the Omega in this version of the timeline? Did the dead Omega travel back with Cage into this new version of the timeline, in which case why was Cage restored and alive but the Omega stayed dead? The answer is probably staring me in the face, I just don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
DentArthurDent posted:Really enjoyed this, but I'm slightly confused by the ending. A mortally wounded Cage successfully kills the Omega, then gets some of its blood on him, dies, and resets to back to earlier in the film, when the helicopter landed in London. Then it is announced there is some sort of power surge in Paris, and the mimics are all dead. Why? The general interpretation is that the Omega exists outside of time (i.e., there's only ever one Omega) so when you kill it at one point in time you kill it forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
It's helpful to remember that when Cage killed the alpha, he replaced it and it was missing from all subsequent loops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Snak posted:It's helpful to remember that when Cage killed the alpha, he replaced it and it was missing from all subsequent loops. Yeah. This. My memory from the movie about this is that the alphas function as a reset button for the omega. If they get killed, the omega knows how to re-do the day more optimally. Sometimes there's a glitch in the system where a person gets killed by alpha blood (and has whatever lets the alpha reset time floating around in their bloodsteam), and takes the place of the alpha as a reset button initiator until their ultrablood is lost via transfusion or bleedout. When Cage kills the omega, it basically spills timeblood everywhere, engulfing Cage and sending him back a couple days. Much like the result of the alpha kill, the Omega remains dead in the 'new' timeline. What I was hoping would be answered would be if he still retained the time-reset power after absorbing the omega blood, or if that power was generally dependent upon the omega being alive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Pander posted:Yeah. This. My memory from the movie about this is that the alphas function as a reset button for the omega. If they get killed, the omega knows how to re-do the day more optimally. Sometimes there's a glitch in the system where a person gets killed by alpha blood (and has whatever lets the alpha reset time floating around in their bloodsteam), and takes the place of the alpha as a reset button initiator until their ultrablood is lost via transfusion or bleedout. Now I've got this image in my head of Cage living a nice, full life, growing to a ripe old age, passing peacefully in his sleep. And then waking up again in that helicopter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 15:48
|
|
