Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Agent5, thanks for your quick thoughts without spilling the beans. I admit I was put off by this movie when the release date got pushed back (coming as it did not too long after news that the film was being being tinkered with by Paramount) but the recent positive reviews and reports from people like you has got me thinking I want to see this.
 

Indy Smith

New member
I'll prolly go and see it. I've heard it's supposed to be not that enjoyable, but thats usually the critics who say that and I'm not one who has similar tastes to critics. I watch a film to relax and enjoy it, a critic watches to criticise, whether good or bad. Apparantly there's a nod to King Kong in this movie.
 

agent5

New member
Yes, definite King Kong nod. You can't miss it. I think there's also a nod to Raiders too. As Gweneth's character is heading off to danger she says to her worried boss, "You know what a careful woman I am".
 

Deadlock

New member
This quote from Roger Ebert (he loved it, BTW) is enough to make me go and see it:

"In its heedless energy and joy, it reminded me of how I felt the first time I saw "Raiders of the Lost Ark." It's like a film that escaped from the imagination directly onto the screen, without having to pass through reality along the way."
 
Last edited:

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Saw it in a 3/4 full 8:00 p.m. showing last night. I'll be surprised if the film cracks much over $100M US (or signifcantly more than that). I'll be shocked if it makes more than $30M this weekend. Visually, the film had a nice texture and the least amount of exposition that I've ever seen in a film -- but to me it's just the next in a long line of film's that include Rocketeer and The Shadow that try to capture the '30's but don't really capture the public's imagination.
 

Luckylighter

New member
I saw it twice on Friday. That should give you an idea of what I thought of it. I liked how the filmmakers put their own spin on old concepts. Like they do something like the Indy red line traveling map, but again they did their own version of it that totally worked and looked great.

There are some people who say it is not original--I disagree. What Conran et al. have done is tweek familiar concepts, cliches, etc., and put their own stamp on it.

Which isn't to say the movie was flawless. I would have liked to have seen more fisticuffs, more dogfighting in the planes, and more human enemies. But that is all minor. The film really succeeds in its visuals. It is really a film that tells its story through the visuals--its a visual storytelling style, much like the German expressionists, who are heavily referenced in the film.

I tend to rate a movie based on how many times I get goosebumps from what I see on the screen. I give it about 5 bumps up. Go see this movie!
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Stick a Fork in the 1930's?

O.K. so the film garnered $16.2M this past weekend with Paramount research showing that 70% of the audience was over the age of 25 while 55% was male. In this day and age, that number is mind-boggling for a big-budget/big cast film that's rated PG.

I love the 1930's but I've got to believe that studios will take this as a sign that it's time to just give up trying capture the period. Sure Raiders did it but how many other films have tried and failed? The big money in film is kids latching onto the film and that's just not going to happen with Sky Captain. The 1930's are just another age that is too far back in time, and kids today just can't relate and don't care. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that Sky Captain just goes to show that no one cares about bows to great films like Lost Horizon and 'aw-shucks' style adventure. I'm thinking kids would rather have their 'Fast and Furious 3 -- Go-Cart Madness'.

Further to my prior post, there is no way that this film cracks $100M in the U.S. (and I'll be surpised if it cracks $90M). Based on the audience info above, I'm betting that most of the people who wanted to see this film saw it the first weekend and now it will stagger on and die a quiet death.

[I'd like to kick around the artistic merits of the film -- which I enjoyed for the most part -- but right now I'm just too hung up on this fate-of-the-'30's-in-film issue.]
 

IndyFrench

TR.N Staff Member
Yeah, Joe. It's a shame. And I saw all of the films you mentioned in the theatre:

Sky Captain
Rocketeer
Shadow
Phantom

etc, etc, etc

Wish things could be different.

Mike
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
I meant to post this earlier but had problems:

From boxofficeguru.com:

"Nosediving 57% in its second flight, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow fell to second place with $6.7M pushing its cume to $25.5M in ten days. The $70M Paramount release should end its domestic journey with about $40M."

Sure with overseas grosses, cable and DVD sales, the film will make money but I think it goes to show that even with a big name cast, great period feel, great action, that it's just not enough to make $$$.

As I said, with the exception of Indy IV, I think this is it for action/adventure set in 1930's. I just don't see studio execs seeing the 1930's as a good place to spend their action/adventure dollars. We'll just have to make due with the occassional period movie like The Aviator and Finding Neverland.
 

agent5

New member
The don't even sweat it so much nowadays with dvd. They make soooo much of the $$$ on dvd sales and rentals.
 

Raffey

Member
Studios make a big deal when a movie tanks and doesn't generate profit. However, in reality, a large studio/distributor doesn't really mind as long as its catalog of films continues to grow with more and more films being played on cable or regular TV.

Many times, one successful film for a studio can pay for a dozen others that didn't do so well.

As the movies maintain a life in television rebroadcasts, in the long run, a studio generates some pretty hefty revenue from its film catalog as a whole, even if many of the movies weren't blockbusters.
 
Last edited:

Joe Brody

Well-known member
agent5 said:
The don't even sweat it so much nowadays with dvd. They make soooo much of the $$$ on dvd sales and rentals.

My point was that there's only 'X' amount of dollars that a studio spends on action/adventure, and it's much more profitable to churn out a $40M 'Fast & Furious' type movie which will do three or four times the box office of the $70M 'Sky Captain' and three or four times the DVD sales. Kids just ain't digging the Captain. So while Sky Captain won't lose money -- it's no where near as profitable of cheaper more popular alternatives. Studios will invest their action/adventure dollars accordingly.
 

monkey

Guest
With all due respect JB, at some point you have to stop looking at the dollar signs, and consider the Art.

The 1930's is indeed a very far gone age, but at least to this Indiana Jones/1930's junkie, it will live on forever.

Unfortunately for me dollar signs are too real these days, which is why I will wait until this movie comes out in DVD. At that time I will view this film, which appears very fascinating from its trailers. Angelina Jolie looks hot (duh!), and it looks like a great Action/Adventure flick.

Can't wait to see it (in a few months); I've already bought the microwave popcorn.
 

Tennessee R

New member
I thought it was okay, but, after reading Ebert's comments, and then seeing it (Tonight), I was a little dissapointed. A little dissapointed in the action, a little dissapointed in the tech-twist, and a little dissapointed in the ending.

All in all, I'm glad I saw it,
but it was messing up the colour on purpouse to make it look authentic.
It really reminded me of a Superman cartoon on VHS about these robots (Which looked extremely similar to the ones in the movie), and of course, Superman has to save Lois Lane, (Which was in the press business, also) and, I really think they used that in the making of the movie, it was so similar.
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
monkey said:
With all due respect JB, at some point you have to stop looking at the dollar signs, and consider the Art.

I hear you Monkey. I want to discuss Art and visually styling of Sky Captain as well but I'm hung up on Sky Captain's box-office returns because I think it's a bellwether film. The film got a lot of attention in the industry and it's success or failure will likely impact what movies get made in the future. Even a decent success would have boded well for other period action/adventure going forward.

Historically, one of the reasons why period films didn't get made was due to prohibitive cost -- which had two consequences: (1) a producer committed to spending big dollars on sets/design usually skimped on talent, which could lead to the film's demise, (2) a period film that cut costs sometimes wouldn't successfully capture the period -- which also would turn off fans.

CGI was supposedly going to solve those problems and enable a studio to spend the dollars on cast. Sky Captain was the poster child for the all CGI movie coupled with a big name cast and it fell flat on it's face. I've got to believe that this failure will hurt the prospects for other 1930's movies. I love the period and would like to see more. I guess we'll just have to see how King Kong does.
 

monkey

Guest
I hear you JB. All good points that you make. Yes, you're right that the Dollar signs are quite important, probably most important in the long run.

I can't comment until I see it. But I think that the trailers look cool. Maybe I'll be disappointed. But maybe not.

I loved the movie "The Rocketeer", and this looks kind of like it has that feel.
 

Luckylighter

New member
What really bothers me about it's dismal box office is the fact that it was intended to be a trilogy. But since the poor ticket sales, I doubt there will be any sequels. And I would have liked to have seen more installments.

Not that it was a perfect film. It sufferred from Phantom Menace-itis, in that there were no human enemies at all, except for those two guys in Nepal. There should have been more fisticuffs between Sky Captain and real, human villains. More than anything, that was what this film lacked, and it's what keeps it from instant classic status.

But, as it's been said ad nauseum here and elsewhere, the film had an amazing visual style that is sorely lacking in what is passing for blockbuster entertainment today--"Fast and the Furious", I'm looking in your direction.

People say today's youth market is more sophisticated than ever. That's a load of crap, because we are talking about a generation that made Vin Diesel a star. Although he was good in "Saving Private Ryan", he's really a one note actor, who's only appeal is the gimmick of his deep voice. Being computer savvy does not make a person or group of people "sophisticated"...life experience does.

If anything, I think today's youth market is more childish. I think they are less sophisticated than ever. Our parents grew up with the B Movies that we admire today. And they loved those movies despite and because of the low tech special effects. Because they relied on their imaginations to make the FX into something grander. Kids nowadays don't have to imagine anything because the work is already done for them.

And don't even get me started on how they dress. When did wearing a baseball cap cockeyed become a fashion choice? Because Kevin Federline does it?

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.--Dennis Miller
 
Top