Young people will be shock to learn this movie was a critical and box office diaster in 2015.
Because good movies always overcome this unjust stigma.
Sometimes it takes a decade for people to appreciate a great movie.
This movie it being pounced on right now, because it so different from what we are used to seeing.
But when the dust settles, we will see how great JA really is.
Amen
Because I'm bored, List some films released in 2005 (10 Years ago) that people hated that now love.
share[deleted]
Saying there will be a paradigm shift in people's perceptions of the film within 10 years is probably a tad optimistic, but I definitely think it's going to happen eventually. The closest case I can think of is Labyrinth, which was a massive commercial failure and mostly rejected by audiences and critics upon its original release (some of the initial reviews for it are just as scathing as any of the notices JA received). While there wasn't an audience for it in cinemas, it gradually found one with subsequent TV airings and home video sales, spawning a rather large and enthusiastic fandom. I can easily see JA following a similar trajectory.
It's also impossible to over state the significance of childhood nostalgia when it comes to reassessment of critical/commercial flops. The people who are probably going to be the film's most enthusiastic defenders in 10 or 20 years are either little kids or yet to be born right now - JA is crying out to be seen by tween/teenage girls looking for a space adventure film with a feminine bend, and most of them won't have seen it in cinemas because it was marketed as being another Matrix and sold Channing Tatum rather than Mila Kunis as the hero.
They're going to have to find it for themselves, and it's going to be a gradual process of discovery. When the audience the film is most suited to accesses it in their childhoods/formative years, they'll become attached to it and, I predict, grow into its most passionate defenders.
The Labyrinth wiki!
http://labyrinth.wikia.com/wiki/Labyrinth_Wiki
I'm not sure if films will be found by younger generations like they where in the past with films like Labyrinth. It could happen with the shift to streaming but I see it happening less and less to films with poor reception as the general consensus gets pushed to the top. It saddens me when films like Thirst sit at a one star rating on Netflix.
I felt the trailers (not sure about tv adds as I don't watch tv) sold Mila as the lead which was probably a mistake as from a financial perspective selling a male lead is easier especially when your dealing with an big budget sci-fi action film. Thinking about it I can't think of one such example that was a financial success. The posters didn't help matters either as the shoot of what looks like her hair being smelt just looked silly (in a bad way). Some posters where slightly better like the one below, but none where memorable.
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/jupiter-ascending-character-poster-mila-kunis.jpg
Something like this may have worked as a teaser poster.
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/ODAwWDU1MA==/z/e~EAAOSwPgxVTCaY/$_12.JPG
The adds needed to up the mystery of the world building like the original teaser which ends with the line "you should have stayed dead" etc.
All that matters to me ultimately is that I loved the film and I own a copy of both the 2d/3d blu-ray combo pack (also picked up a second 3d blu-ray set as I can see it going oop and I was able to get a good price and don't want to loose access to it for a reasonable price like I have other films in the past) so I will be able to enjoy it for many more years to come. It's a shame so many seemed to have prejudged it but such is the fate of modern films. People want risk free entertainment, providing more of the same. Meaning established franchises (fast and the furious 7, marvel films, star wars jurrasic park etc) sadly will become more and more the norm. Whilst I am okay with those existing, the lack of new content from larger budget films to me is a real issue that is growing. I'm not against sequels per se, but the sheer lack of new films in this category is saddening. Anyway I have typed far more then I expected to and maybe started to ramble. :)
Film Reverie: http://filmreverie.blogspot.com.au/
My film diary: http://letterboxd.com/filmreverie/
You're absolutely correct in that we're now living in a vastly different climate to that prevalent in 1986 when Labyrinth came out. However, while people are definitely more quick to go by the consensus now than they used to be (which I consider a shame, since - as you observe with Thirst - the consensus is frequently *beep* and determined by the popular Zeitgeist rather than any considerations of quality or value), I do think that the new media environment has dramatically increased access to films. It's now simple to watch movies via Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc., and increased access ultimately means more people seeing Jupiter Ascending further down the line. While a significant proportion of those watching it will probably hate and dismiss it as many have previously, many others will find the film enjoyable and interesting.
I track the Amazon reviews, which are really quite interesting since they probably provide the best insight into how the film is going down with general viewers. While there's a tendency for the reviews (good and bad) to be infuriatingly brief, cryptic and poorly worded, they absolutely indicate that people who enjoyed the film outnumber those who hated it:
http://www.amazon.com/Jupiter-Ascending-Channing-Tatum/product-reviews/B00T9DLXYQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewopt_srt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=recent&reviewerType=all_reviews&formatType=all_formats&filterByStar=all_stars&pageNumber=1
As for the other issue, while they shifted gears with the marketing somewhat later on (when it was already too late, imo), the first trailer was highly Caine-centric:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoCyL_Pqzu8
Equally, many of the movie tie-ins focused on Caine over Jupiter. So you have Channing being given a prominent role in marketing images and things like the tie-in game Caine's Quest. Channing was also first billed over Mila, which says a lot even though it was probably just a formality determined by the contracts.
But, in the end, you're right - the wider public's perceptions of the film really don't matter, since at least we (and a not insubstantial number of others, I must add) enjoyed it and found it fascinating and refreshing. I love Jupiter Ascending and my enthusiasm and passion for it basically haven't dimmed since I first saw it in the cinema. I'm really glad that the board is still frequented by other fans, and I must say it's been nice to see new posters come out of the woodwork declaring that they enjoyed the film.
The Labyrinth wiki!
http://labyrinth.wikia.com/wiki/Labyrinth_Wiki
I would love to see a prequel or sequel focusing on Caine.
This could be easily done with a much lower budget.
P.S.
The Wizard of Oz and Fight Club were critical and box office flops at the time of their release.
It is never going to happen. Even if it the studio new it would do the same business as JA and could be made for lets say $40 million and thus be a huge success the studio will just want to distance itself, or at least that is the path they typically take. In any case I can't see how his back story done well could be done in an affordable manner, not do I think it would really be the interesting place to take the story.
Thankfully I find the film works perfectly as a stand alone film and honestly don't think I would want to see Jupiter stop all the wrong in the world. Saving everyone on earth was already a big enough of an achievement and like I don't know what the whisper at the end of Lost in Translation is, I don't need to know what happens later as the story's focus wasn't on that.
Film Reverie: http://filmreverie.blogspot.com.au/
My film diary: http://letterboxd.com/filmreverie/
I hope you are right and the advent of things like Netlfix leads to people watching things they otherwise wouldn't, I just feel it is sadly more likely that its 'user-curation' will lead to popular things becoming more popular/watched and vice versa. This is from my own experience where I almost had to force someone to watch a favorite film of mine that literally would cost them nothing as they already had netflix and it was available there, but it had a bad score so they didn't want to.
I could go into the problem with numerical ratings for films, especially when it is then weighted by any unknown formula like on metacritic, rottentomatoes, imdb etc, but I think most who care already understand the issues.
Regarding the adds, I actually think selling it with the male in the lead entirely probably would have made more sense financially. The only add I saw where one teaser and on theatrical trailer in cinemas. Both focused on Jupiter from memory. It was always going to be a hard sell though, the possible pay off though is why companies take risks on projects like this.
Many of the issues people bring more then what I would expect come from a bias when it comes to this film. I can see how you can not enjoy it, but when people start trashing its score (to me Michael Giacchino is the modern master of film music) and its production values I am lost for words.
Just as a question for you specifically, have you managed to see JA in 3d, if so what did you think?
Film Reverie: http://filmreverie.blogspot.com.au/
My film diary: http://letterboxd.com/filmreverie/
I did manage to see Jupiter Ascending in 3D - I believe it was at the VUE cinema in Leicester Square in London, the last screening of it I caught (I had wanted to see it in IMAX, but missed the last screening by two days). I wear glasses so had to wear the 3D glasses over them, and unfortunately 3D doesn't always work properly for me. There were, however, some superbly rendered 3D scenes in Jupiter Ascending - I remember the Chicago chase being really immersive and the bees really popping out from the screen. All of the planet scenery porn looked particularly impressive in 3D as well. I'd definitely recommend the 3D version, and expect it probably played even better to people who weren't wearing two layers of lenses over their eyes :p.
The Labyrinth wiki!
http://labyrinth.wikia.com/wiki/Labyrinth_Wiki
I wear glasses and JA has the best 3D I've ever seen (I've only seen a few movies in 3D but they are supposed to be the cream of the crop: Avatar, Hobbit 1, Gravity, X-Men DofP, JA). Super impressive considering it was a post conversion.
That being said 24hz 3D sucked during fast panning scenes as much as it sucked in every other 3D movie. I suppose that can't be helped.
This is why we should want films to move to 48fps (like the hobbit films) or higher. But sadly that doesn't seem likely. :( Was JA entirely a post conversion though, given the amount of computer generated imagery that could very well have been rendered in native 3d, like Alice in Wonderland did.
24fps sucks in 2d as well, most just are more use to it, it still has the panning issues present though.
Film Reverie: http://filmreverie.blogspot.com.au/
My film diary: http://letterboxd.com/filmreverie/
Yes, like in most if not all postconverted movies these days the CGI was rendered with two virtual cameras in native 3D. This has helped postconvertions look a lot better than the initial efforts.
And JA sure had quite a number of CG vistas but it wasn't exactly Gravity where for the most part the only live action element was the actors. In fact in JA I liked the 3D from the very first shots which were 100% live action.
Yes, 24fps 2D panning is far from smooth, but in 3D it looks like 12fps or something, very bad!
Off-topic: I quite like 24fps and film (as opposed to digital) but I am (very) open to more modern presentations as well. Some of them just look somewhat amateurish, as probably people are still getting used to the new tools available.
So well said.
shareElektra came out 10 years ago and still bad movie!
share