Jack The Giant Slayer Should Make A Big Killing At The Box Office!

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03 March 2013   #16
I guess more fall-out from the unsatisfactory result of the Writer's Strike (I heard somewhere from a veteran writer that "We were all out-bid by AMATEURS... So that's what you're going to see now in the stories.... ")....

After that though.. the next wave (2015) will probably see the results of an unmitigated VFX disaster....

Then we'll have amateurish stories paired with sub-par (in a "you get what you paid for" sense) VFX.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
Old 03 March 2013   #17
I thought things were getting pretty amateurish before the last writer's strike.

Changes in studio management--marketing people who dont care about storytelling aspects of the film.
So someone thought Jack the giant killer could be a recognizable franchise.

I havent looked at the trailer but I once saw this painting of Jack fighting two giants on a field in an old Time Life Enchanted World book and it looked interesting. The giants had big heads and hands so it couldnt have been done with makeup if that went that route in concept.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #18
Originally Posted by kelgy: I thought things were getting pretty amateurish before the last writer's strike.

Changes in studio management--marketing people who dont care about storytelling aspects of the film.
So someone thought Jack the giant killer could be a recognizable franchise.

I havent looked at the trailer but I once saw this painting of Jack fighting two giants on a field in an old Time Life Enchanted World book and it looked interesting. The giants had big heads and hands so it couldnt have been done with makeup if that went that route in concept.


I think I honestly wouldn't have wanted to do any fairy tale "updating" to begin with. My reaction would have been: "But they did that already with the Shrek films."


Now if you tell me that we'd write a NEW fairy tale in the style of the old stories but totally new... You have my attention.


P.S.: Any chance this is just another sham? To turn the spotlight away from Studios making money and leaving partners to close down, they start under-reporting how ALL the films are doing so the rankings are correct, but the news becomes "Studios lose money"... taking attention away from VFX studios closing down and asking for more money.

That'd be rich.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation

Last edited by CGIPadawan : 03 March 2013 at 04:59 AM.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #19
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan: I think I honestly wouldn't have wanted to do any fairy tale "updating" to begin with. My reaction would have been: "But they did that already with the Shrek films."



Shrek was 2001. It's out of date. Besides, since when does "it's already been done" matter. All that really matters is that someone made a lot of money with something similar.

I blame the recent fairytale-blockbuster trend on Alice in Wonderland. Not an actual fairytale, but for modern audiences, it might as well be. So now they're doing the kind of stories that used to be Disney animated films as 'dark' live-action movies. Any time a film that grosses $1billion, they just can't ignore it. So now we have Snow White and the Huntsman, Hansel and Gretel, and Jack the Giant Slayer.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #20
Jack looks bad. I had it estimated at 30 million tops this box office weekend and it did 28 Million.

I really didn't look appealing. ON the other hand Oz the Great I'm predicting 75 million opening weekend. Think I'll be right? It looks good. It looks like Sam Raimi having fun.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #21
Originally Posted by Papa Lazarou: Shrek was 2001. It's out of date. Besides, since when does "it's already been done" matter. All that really matters is that someone made a lot of money with something similar.


Because it would be boring. And if something is boring... usually you don't choose to do it.

The only exception for me would be that you didn't know a certain gag or gimmick was being used and by the time you find out, it's too late.

In that scenario it doesn't matter cause you got your "rise" from it already and you're done.

And in market it DOES matter, because you sometimes don't want to be "second-in-market". This is sometimes the kind of thing you cancel films over (Ex: "Prometheus" vs "In The Mountains of Madness").
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
Old 03 March 2013   #22
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan: Because it would be boring. And if something is boring... usually you don't choose to do it.

The only exception for me would be that you didn't know a certain gag or gimmick was being used and by the time you find out, it's too late.

In that scenario it doesn't matter cause you got your "rise" from it already and you're done.

And in market it DOES matter, because you sometimes don't want to be "second-in-market". This is sometimes the kind of thing you cancel films over (Ex: "Prometheus" vs "In The Mountains of Madness").


Well Spiderman was done before. It made so much money they had to do it again. There are people in the movie business who care about being fresh and breaking new ground. It's a far more valid motivation to try to make the films that aren't being made, to try to find new material, to reflect a different side of society, humanity.

But remakes, rehashes, sequels, spinoffs, in the long run these are seen as the safer bets. The idea being what worked before will work again.

Originally Posted by AangtheAvatar: Jack looks bad. I had it estimated at 30 million tops this box office weekend and it did 28 Million.

I really didn't look appealing. ON the other hand Oz the Great I'm predicting 75 million opening weekend. Think I'll be right? It looks good. It looks like Sam Raimi having fun.


I agree. It looks substantially better. It actually seems to be about something rather than empty spectacle.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #23
Originally Posted by AangtheAvatar: Jack looks bad. I had it estimated at 30 million tops this box office weekend and it did 28 Million.

I really didn't look appealing. ON the other hand Oz the Great I'm predicting 75 million opening weekend. Think I'll be right? It looks good. It looks like Sam Raimi having fun.


I put those two very much in the same bracket. Both unwanted, kind-of-remake films with huge amounts of vfx and tiny amounts of plot. I've paid to see Sam Raimi have fun in the past and he still owes me the price of those tickets so i'm definitely not going to pay to see this. I'd predict $40m tops, but hopefully you are right and its both a good fun film and does well on opening weekend...
 
Old 03 March 2013   #24
They could make an imaginative Harryhausen-style adventure with giants and a guy named Jack if they put the work into the story and took a few risks.
Shrek was a comedy version of fairy tales--its hardly the final word on the subject.
Dragons had already been in comedies by the time they made Dragonslayer.

I originally thought they were doing Jack the Giant Killer or remaking the 60s film, not Jack and the Beanstalk.

In theory they had far more opportunity to tell an interesting story than yet another Spider-man film which will forever be chained to the comics and rigid character properties.


They just have to be imaginative and think about it which seems a hard task these days.

I am going to watch that Turkish Spider-man as a bad guy film sometime soon just so I can watch something different.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #25
Trailer looked awful, like a bunch of video game cut scenes.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #26
People only complain about un-needed reboots when the reboots are bad.

I don't hear people saying, "Why did Nolan make another batman series, we already had one in the 90's."

As Kelgy said they just need to be interesting, to do something truly new with the subject matter, not just put a dark and gritty filter over the script and film and call it a day.
__________________
-Michael

www.MichaelSime.com
 
Old 03 March 2013   #27
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan: I guess more fall-out from the unsatisfactory result of the Writer's Strike (I heard somewhere from a veteran writer that "We were all out-bid by AMATEURS... So that's what you're going to see now in the stories.... ")....

After that though.. the next wave (2015) will probably see the results of an unmitigated VFX disaster....

Then we'll have amateurish stories paired with sub-par (in a "you get what you paid for" sense) VFX.


I'd never know.
The trailers looked so bad that I'll never see how the writing was.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #28
I take back most of what I said about the film in that trailer thread. I was really fun! Could it be that I went in with low expectations? I don't know, but I ended up enjoying it a lot. One thing I still don't agree with, though, is the giants being CG. It looked good, but why? In some of the better shots, they looked very photorealistic and because they were performance captured, they ended up looking like actors composited in large anyway. In close up, some of those faces could not be done with makeup, but I still think real actors in makeup would have looked better.

I read somewhere that the audience for the film was nearly 60% over the age of 25. Maybe they should have gone PG-13 and put a lot more violence in it. It seemed a bit dark for a children's movie as it is. Not saying they should have done in the R-rated Hansel and Gretal direction, but still.

It's kind of a shame that it will be hailed as a failure. A sequel taking place in modern times would really be something to see!
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
Old 06 June 2013   #29
Originally Posted by teruchan: I read somewhere that the audience for the film was nearly 60% over the age of 25. Maybe they should have gone PG-13 and put a lot more violence in it. It seemed a bit dark for a children's movie as it is.

According to the article posted earlier in this thread-it *is* PG-13.
Which kinda gives the film an identity crises; A children's story not suitable for most children. Meanwhile most adults dismiss it as a kids film. And everyone else has just seen the trailers.
Gee-maybe they should do that with Toy Story 4?!-and throw a 'dildo character' in there-yeah! That will eliminate the audience for sure!
Good idea!

Hollywood - you just suck at the moment! Fire all your ruling committees and put some story tellers in charge!
 
Old 06 June 2013   #30
The movie was ok. It just didn't have the star power to draw in the crowd.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.