Gods of Egypt Director Blames Critics For Box Office Failure

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

It's because of Christianity

I can understand to some degree them not having actors of colour in pivotal roles for these kinds of movies. I mean it's not a historical documentary, it's escapism. But "whitewashing" deities? That's the kind of thing offering your first born can only remedy.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Implying Europeans like Shyamalans The Last Airbender

OT: That thing I'd only heard about due to peoples complaints bombed ?
Say it isn't so.

Europeans are not the sum total of "International". The fact remains that it was a significant financial success, in addition to being a disgusting pile of shit. I would certainly expect that international in this case includes China, the Middle East, India, and so on. No one is looking at Western Europe and blaming you for Airbender (I hope).

The Last Airbender had grossed $131,772,187 in the United States, and $187,941,694 in other countries, making for a total of $319,713,881 worldwide

How is $320,000,000 a good return on something that cost at least $150,000,000 to make? And that assumes marketing was covered in that figure - which it usually isn't. The Last Airbender was a critical and financial shit show with some changes small and annoying - the Aang to Oong thing for instance - to the major and plot derailing change implying the Avatar cannot have a family which is stupid because having a family is unlikely on a 12 year old's mind no matter how enlightened he is and it stomps to death one of the crucial reveals about Zuko and Azula.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Implying Europeans like Shyamalans The Last Airbender

OT: That thing I'd only heard about due to peoples complaints bombed ?
Say it isn't so.

Europeans are not the sum total of "International". The fact remains that it was a significant financial success, in addition to being a disgusting pile of shit. I would certainly expect that international in this case includes China, the Middle East, India, and so on. No one is looking at Western Europe and blaming you for Airbender (I hope).

The Last Airbender had grossed $131,772,187 in the United States, and $187,941,694 in other countries, making for a total of $319,713,881 worldwide

How is $320,000,000 a good return on something that cost at least $150,000,000 to make? And that assumes marketing was covered in that figure - which it usually isn't. snipped plot stuff I don't care about

I'm sorry, are you asking how something that make its investors $150 million dollars JUST IN BOX OFFICE ALONE (not merchandising, or video sales, and so on) is a "good return"?

It's doubling your money, and then more. I don't know what fantasy you entertain about the world, but that's an astoundingly good return on any investment.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not sure how accurate the figures Box Office Mojo have are, but it never says who got how much. See the studio doesn't see every dollar of those ticket sales: a substantial portion, especially in the first month, stays with the cinema chain. The longer a movie stays in cinemas with a consistent audience means the studio gets more money hence big returns for stuff like Avatar, Titanic and Star Wars TFA. So with that in mind I have two questions:

1. How much of that 320mil did the Universal studios get?
2. If it was an unqualified success, why wasn't there a sequel?

I mean if I'm wrong, hey, I'm wrong - it's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again - but I don't think in this case that I am.

 

[Mad World]

I've learned that you can't really trust anyone when it comes to movies. Just too subjective. I've had people state their dislike of X or Y movie; yet, I enjoyed them a lot. Professional critics, though... I really wouldn't even entertain the notion of listening to them. They seem extremely hard to please (like Yahtzee).

Anyway, this movie didn't look like anything special, but I still thought that it at least warranted a watch. It looked like mindless entertainment; and sometimes, that's all you want out of a movie.

 

[Alex V.Sharp]

I've learned that you can't really trust anyone when it comes to movies. Just too subjective. I've had people state their dislike of X or Y movie; yet, I enjoyed them a lot. Professional critics, though... I really wouldn't even entertain the notion of listening to them. They seem extremely hard to please (like Yahtzee).

Anyway, this movie didn't look like anything special, but I still thought that it at least warranted a watch. It looked like mindless entertainment; and sometimes, that's all you want out of a movie.

Truer words were never spoken. Well played, Vegeta!

 

[Therumancer]

What I want to know is who this was made for. No seriously, which audience was this made for? Because "fantasy movie about gods in ancient times" is not a general audience targeted movie, at least not unless it's part of a series that has eased audiences in first with more grounded movies.

I'm not sure if that's accurate. Movies like this have done quite well in the past, especially during the Harryhausan Era (Sinbad, Clash Of The Titans, etc...), we've also had TWO Percy Jackson movies which did okay apparently. This is to say nothing of the success of the "Mummy" movies. I think the concept here was perfectly acceptable to "General Audiences".

I think the director is right to an extent, that he was hurt by all of the pre-emptive left wing critics going off about the white washing which shouldn't have even been a thing. That said, no amount of pre-release political bashing is going to do this much damage... and really the problem is that this movie didn't look all that good in it's trailers, and by all accounts wasn't that good in it's entirety. The guy made a 140 million dollar bomb, and thought it would be good, that's not unheard of. Raging on social media isn't going to help the movie though. Of course given how much he lost, the director might be out of a job.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Wow.. that's a lot of salt.

What's particularly funny is that this is the same guy who wrote and directed Dark City, a film which was a) fucking awesome, b) absolutely loved by critics and c) still a box office failure.

Films can be critically panned and still financially successful. Conversely, films can be critically adored and still bomb hard. When a film is both critically panned and has a weak box office, however, it's generally a sign that it's just not a very good film. I don't think Proyas has anything to prove in this regard.. we know he can do good work, but it's rare for a director to get through a career without making a bad film, and this lack of grace about it is both surprising and unnecessary.

 

[william1657]

I actually thought this movie sounded pretty good based on the first few lines of the Wikipedia plot summary and after seeing the TV trailers...

...but that full length trailer look BAD. I can't even put my finger on why, but I just thought it looked terrible.

Then after reading the director's post saying that anybody that doesn't like it doesn't think for themselves or make up their own opinions, well, that made me lose the little remaining desire I had to watch this movie.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Implying Europeans like Shyamalans The Last Airbender

OT: That thing I'd only heard about due to peoples complaints bombed ?
Say it isn't so.

Europeans are not the sum total of "International". The fact remains that it was a significant financial success, in addition to being a disgusting pile of shit. I would certainly expect that international in this case includes China, the Middle East, India, and so on. No one is looking at Western Europe and blaming you for Airbender (I hope).

The Last Airbender had grossed $131,772,187 in the United States, and $187,941,694 in other countries, making for a total of $319,713,881 worldwide

How is $320,000,000 a good return on something that cost at least $150,000,000 to make? And that assumes marketing was covered in that figure - which it usually isn't. snipped plot stuff I don't care about

I'm sorry, are you asking how something that make its investors $150 million dollars JUST IN BOX OFFICE ALONE (not merchandising, or video sales, and so on) is a "good return"?

It's doubling your money, and then more. I don't know what fantasy you entertain about the world, but that's an astoundingly good return on any investment.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not sure how accurate the figures Box Office Mojo have are, but it never says who got how much. See the studio doesn't see every dollar of those ticket sales: a substantial portion, especially in the first month, stays with the cinema chain. The longer a movie stays in cinemas with a consistent audience means the studio gets more money hence big returns for stuff like Avatar, Titanic and Star Wars TFA. So with that in mind I have two questions:

1. How much of that 320mil did the Universal studios get?
2. If it was an unqualified success, why wasn't there a sequel?

I mean if I'm wrong, hey, I'm wrong - it's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again - but I don't think in this case that I am.

You're wrong, and in fact if you just google "Avatar Sequel" and any spelling of Shamalamadingdong you'll see that a sequel is already greenlit, with him directing again.

Well blow me down. After the shit-show that was the original they're handing over the sequel reins to the same idiot? And with almost half decade between them, in which a new Avatar has been and gone, this is probably the very opposite of striking while the iron is hot.

But you're right, they're doing another one; can't fathom why but there it is.

 

[AMMO Kid]

I never even read a critic's review of it. I saw the trailer and thought "man, that looks like a steaming pile of boring shit."

 

[ensouls]

I never even read a critic's review of it. I saw the trailer and thought "man, that looks like a steaming pile of boring shit."

and you're not the only one.

Whitewashing was the least offensive thing about that trailer, well behind the overblown, ridiculous CG, the 0 acting they saw fit to show, the stupid premise..

 

[tiamat5]

People always shred the critics because they see the movie first and evaluate their opinions on it. So they are the first ones to get the anger, stubbornness and rage from everybody. No one is forcing anyone to listen to them only. You take their opinion, combine it with your own thoughts, gut feelings and evaluation then you decide if it is worth your time or not. And many times the critic's evaluation is right on the money but rage and stubbornness always take precedence over common sense and even a person's own eyes or ears. People want the critics to say what they want to hear not what their opinion is. If they say what people want it's fine. People cheer them on and boast to everyone about their praise. But the moment they look down on anything that people wanted to be good or thought would be at least average suddenly critics are idiots and don't know what they are talking about. Just watch. If Batman Vs Superman ends up less than average and the critics don't hold back on it,the comments will flow in how stupid critics are and how they are just a bunch of Marvel movie lovers. But if they give it nothing but praise suddenly critics are great again.

 

[tiamat5]

.....

 

[CaitSeith]

I don't see why this guy is complaining. From my understanding this movie has all the makings of a cult classic that countless people will buy or at least rent just so they can laugh at how cheesy and bad it is.

Hearing what critics and movie-goers say about it, I got the same feeling. Probably he expected it to be a blockbuster instead.