First Man - What Went Wrong? - Houston, We Have a Problem.....

[filmlover]

10 minutes ago, grim22 said:

One thing I saw online was "The movie has less than 8 minutes of full IMAX??" That feedback killed it as an IMAX event. If they wanted an IMAX event, at least 30 minutes or more is needed to make the audience feel like they got their money's worth.

The film's entire marketing campaign made it look like a more "exciting" movie than it really is tbh. Universal tried their best to make it seem like an event despite the odds, but alas, it just didn't pan out. It's like when they gave week early exclusive IMAX only releases to Everest and The Walk a few years back in an attempt to make them seem like events and it worked out for neither (the latter of which got completely rejected by audiences).

[Barnack]

8 minutes ago, La Binoche said:

Adults can only pay $200 for a movie and a babysitter once every few months

A lot of the potential audience for this is far older than the babysitting needing parents age, with lot of moneys and time, movies like that can get 60% of their box office from the over 50 year's old audience.

 

I think the movie is not helping is legs at all and there is not much need for any explanation why it is not having saving the bad OW multiplier, long&cold, family drama. ASIB was also a really strong competition for that older audience.

 

I tend to look at trailer for most opening success of failure, but looking at them not sure what better they could have done, the last one when all-in patriotic with JFK speech, flags.

 

Has for the knowing how it's end, I do not know that the case of popular book adaptation, Lincoln, American Sniper, Argo, King Speech, Lone Survivor has it right in the title and the movie open with the end. Sully, etc... You can have success with a story a lot of the audience has some good idea on how it end.

 

It is really hard to tell why (And I imagine if it was possible with decision you can control movie will always work), but I think the pace/tone aesthetic that make it an hard sales among the watcher that was felt through the trailers (versus a really warm and dynamic Nasa movie like Hidden Figures) is a big part why.

[Premium George]

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

A lot of the potential audience for this is far older than the babysitting needing parents age, with lot of moneys and time, movies like that can get 60% of their box office from the over 50 year's old audience.

 

I think the movie is not helping is legs at all and there is not much need for any explanation why it is not having saving the bad OW multiplier, long&cold, family drama. ASIB was also a really strong competition for that older audience.

 

I tend to look at trailer for most opening success of failure, but looking at them not sure what better they could have done, the last one when all-in patriotic with JFK speech, flags.

 

Has for the knowing how it's end, I do not know that the case of popular book adaptation, Lincoln, American Sniper, Argo, King Speech, Lone Survivor has it right in the title and the movie open with the end. Sully, etc... You can have success with a story a lot of the audience has some good idea on how it end.

 

It is really hard to tell why (And I imagine if it was possible with decision you can control movie will always work), but I think the pace/tone aesthetic that make it an hard sales among the watcher that was felt through the trailers (versus a really warm and dynamic Nasa movie like Hidden Figures) is a big part why.

Maybe using maker of whiplash, la la land in marketing in more dominating way. And that patriotic thing you said. 

[AndyK]

3 hours ago, La Binoche said:

Everyone knows how it ends 

 

 

Every knew how Apollo 13 ended.

[Jessie]

what went wrong? probably the fact it's the director of La La Land so most likely and artistic bore and no-one gives a flying fuck about the moon landing. like cool, we wasted billions to land on a rock in space 50 years ago, whoopdie doo, we know they got their safe and we know it was a pretty uneventful trip, it was always going to struggle to find an audience now let's move on. 

[Jessie]

1 hour ago, AndyK said:

Every knew how Apollo 13 ended.

apollo 13 had troubles and it was interesting to see how they overcame them. it also had a better director and cast

[FantasticBeasts]

Not every important figure has a life worth to be told.

[Jessie]

4 hours ago, FantasticBeasts said:

Not every important figure has a life worth to be told.

is Neil Armstrong an important figure though? I wouldn't say so. he's just a guy that put his foot on the moon before anyone else did

Edited October 22, 2018 by Jessie

[aabattery]

I'd say he has a story worth telling. Obviously (in hindsight) not a story that lends itself to making a lot of money, but most of the movie is a quiet character study. It's tricky to sell that to a wide audience, and the actiony space scenes weren't enough to offset that like they were hoping.

 

I don't think it'll have too many repercussions career wise for those involved. It's still been pretty well received overall and it's hardly going to be a massive bomb in the grand scheme of things. Won't be a money maker but Universal can take the hit, especially after they get all that Halloween money.

[Deja23]

7 hours ago, Barnack said:

Has for the knowing how it's end, I do not know that the case of popular book adaptation, Lincoln, American Sniper, Argo, King Speech, Lone Survivor has it right in the title and the movie open with the end. Sully, etc... You can have success with a story a lot of the audience has some good idea on how it end.

Apart from Lincoln, I don’t think the general public has as much knowledge about the details of the other movies you listed compared to the first moon landing. I didn’t know about any of those and the only one I had vauge knowledge of was Captain Sully. So many know or think they know the details of the moon landing, true or not. And while Armstrong is definitely considered a hero, he never really seemed interesting on his own outside being the first man to step on the moon. I don’t think that’s the major reason the movie hasn’t done as well as expected though. 

[Jessie]

18 minutes ago, Deja23 said:

Apart from Lincoln, I don’t think the general public has as much knowledge about the details of the other movies you listed compared to the first moon landing. I didn’t know about any of those and the only one I had vauge knowledge of was Captain Sully. So many know or think they know the details of the moon landing, true or not. And while Armstrong is definitely considered a hero, he never really seemed interesting on his own outside being the first man to step on the moon. I don’t think that’s the major reason the movie hasn’t done as well as expected though. 

lol Neil Armstrong is not a hero. The term Hero gets thrown around too much these days

Edited October 22, 2018 by Jessie

[TomCruiseTop]

11 hours ago, tribefan695 said:

I don't think audiences wanted a movie that turns what many consider one of the country's greatest scientific achievements into an angsty, semi depressing mood piece. Walking out of it I feared it might actually discourage support for the space program, which I'm pretty sure is not something anyone who holds Armstrong in high regard desires.

Well said, I think it managed to pull a lot of emotion from what should have been a really emotive moment. Shame, I had high hopes for this. 

[TalismanRing]

4 hours ago, aabattery said:

I'd say he has a story worth telling. Obviously (in hindsight) not a story that lends itself to making a lot of money, but most of the movie is a quiet character study. It's tricky to sell that to a wide audience, and the actiony space scenes weren't enough to offset that like they were hoping.

 

I don't think it'll have too many repercussions career wise for those involved. It's still been pretty well received overall and it's hardly going to be a massive bomb in the grand scheme of things. Won't be a money maker but Universal can take the hit, especially after they get all that Halloween money.

Which would have been fine for a movie without a $58m movie after tax rebates. 

 

For that kind of budget they needed to leanon the wonder and grandeur of space and the passion for the mission.  If it it did the trailers failed to evoke it.

 

[filmlover]

2 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

Which would have been fine for a movie without a $58m movie after tax rebates. 

 

For that kind of budget they needed to leanon the wonder and grandeur of space and the passion for the mission.  If it it did the trailers failed to evoke it.

 

I think I read somewhere (Deadline, perhaps) that Universal wanted Chazelle to trim the running time down a bit but all parties ultimately decided to release the best version of the movie, not the most commercially viable one (and so the studio tried to sell it as something more 'exciting' than it really is but alas, it didn't work out because everybody figured it out).

[dxmatrixdt]

should have released this over Christmas.  it could have gotten 3,600 theaters and booted out whatever opened in early December/November.  

First Man is going to drop more now because new movies are opening in the coming weeks.  

If those movies can be stopped, First Man will stay in 3,000 screens for a few more weeks.

[Alli]

5 hours ago, aabattery said:

I'd say he has a story worth telling. Obviously (in hindsight) not a story that lends itself to making a lot of money, but most of the movie is a quiet character study.

 

 

But what character? The man was dull/glum. Not an interesting character. As i already said, not every man who accomplished great things merits a biopic. 

[Valonqar]

Goose is not a star

Previews looked boring af

niche interest 

GoT actor curse (same guy sunk JL, Red Sparrow, John Carter and countless other movies) 

[Barnack]

7 hours ago, Deja23 said:

Apart from Lincoln, I don’t think the general public has as much knowledge about the details of the other movies you listed compared to the first moon landing. I didn’t know about any of those and the only one I had vauge knowledge of was Captain Sully. So many know or think they know the details of the moon landing, true or not. And while Armstrong is definitely considered a hero, he never really seemed interesting on his own outside being the first man to step on the moon. I don’t think that’s the major reason the movie hasn’t done as well as expected though. 

It was well known in the US how American Sniper end and for Lone Survivor the cast/poster and title tell you how it will end pretty much.

 

A lot of the unknow was not about how it end but the journey.

[aabattery]

3 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

Which would have been fine for a movie without a $58m movie after tax rebates. 

 

For that kind of budget they needed to leanon the wonder and grandeur of space and the passion for the mission.  If it it did the trailers failed to evoke it.

 

 

I personally thought it had a good balance of quiet to exciting. Lots of genuine edge-of-your-seat stuff, especially during the Gemini mission. But I guess that side of it hasn't connected with a lot of people.

 

3 hours ago, Alli said:

But what character? The man was dull/glum. Not an interesting character. As i already said, not every man who accomplished great things merits a biopic. 

 

Agree to disagree. 

[CoolioD1]

this never looked that cool. after seeing that first trailer i knew the $150m predicts wouldn't pan out. the movie looked kinda drab. and it kinda was drab.