I just don't freaking understand it. Now the chance for a sequel is slim. I can't believe Clash of the Titans is getting a franchise but not this movie. Even The Last Airbender has a greater chance for a sequel! That's just wrong
shareI just saw this movie last night, and I am also unsure why it flopped. It's really enjoyable. Guessing it's because of some misguided notion that the star was supposed to be an actual Persian. The studio should have pushed back harder on this one. I mean, did any of these PC reactionaries actually play the video games? Dastan looks pretty much like JG. If the alleged creative license with the so-called culture is a problem, take it up with the game creators. Anyway, last time I was out visiting the real world, there were no such thing as time controlling sands and magic daggers. People are always picking fine times to harp on realistic details. Sheesh.
share[deleted]
i agree with you. at first i thought jake was an unusual choice but he totally looks just like the prince in the games. i could see why people who didn't play it may not get why he was chosen lol personally i think it's cool it makes me like it more.
sharePersonally I think it was because of the decision to cast Gyllenhall as dashing, rougeish, warrior prince.
Jimmy Lennon... cricket bat
the movie was pretty awesome I enjoyed it
My mini city
http://wonker-town.myminicity.com/ind
[deleted]
[deleted]
Not sure how valid your point about Cleopatra is. With characters such as Julius Caeser, Octavian and Marc Antony it would seem to be set in the Roman Empire.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
It didn't flop. It underperformed.
It did so only in America. Around the world it was a hit.
Why so? Because most Americans are uneducated simpletons, that's why.
Easy. :)
[deleted]
No it flopped in America because obviously they have better taste in films then worldwide
[deleted]
It flopped because it was a poorly written, atrociously directed and shot, poorly acted mess of bad CGI and even worse storytelling.
Not saying that Clash of the Titans was any better, it wasn't, but at least it wasn't as expensive to make and therefore could warrant a sequel based on the numbers it made.
[deleted]
A lazy and contemptuous remake of Aladdin by way of Pirates Of The Caribbean.
shareThe rating had nothing to do with a project that was doomed from the moment the script was greenlighted. Nothing about that mess was "potential for a modern masterpiece", it was lazy, full of holes and bad dialog. The only thing that happened afterwards was a slew of poor casting choices, directorial decisions and a haste to rush a product out to the market without anyone stopping to say that none of this works.
Making a movie "dark" is a staple of idiocy today and nine times out of ten just makes the overall film worse because of it.
[deleted]
Again, the rating is totally irrelevant to the quality of the movie. It takes only an immature person to complain about how a movie would be better if it was "gritty and bloody with an R-rating".
shareI think what he means is that they were going for a PG-13 rating which means they were targeting the 10 to 16 year old demographic, but that they should have made the movie for a more adult audience which is mainly the people who played the video game series. (The first game was Teen, but the more successful sequel was a hard Mature.)
shareb
share