so… why didn’t the studio want to make any money off it? Seriously, if I showed you the DVD case and asked you to find the actual title on it in ten seconds or less you’d fail! It’s hidden way down at the bottom. WTF?
I watched Snowpiercer because everybody said it was the best sci fi movie in years and was kind of disappointed. I mean, it was fine, I didn’t hate it like some people did, I thought there was a lot of good stuff in it, but overall, meh. But Edge of Tomorrow is so good! It’s tightly written, it’s smart, it doesn’t fall down at the end - just a well done movie all over. Why on earth didn’t it do better? The generic title?
I loved the movie. I thought it was the best action movie in years.
From what I heard on the internet, so you know it’s true, it seems like the studio regretted the name of their film and wanted to rebrand it as “Live. Die. Repeat.”
Snowpiercer pulled in $86.2 million on a $40 million budget, sure as [del]All You Need is Kill[/del] Edge of Tomorrow [del]LIVE DIE REPEAT[/del] got $369.2 million on a $178 million budget for a comparable return on investment: they both got more than 2x, if less than 2.2x, what was put in – such that more than quadruple the budget equaled more than quadruple the gross.
(Same thing in 2013 with Pacific Rim, an even bigger-budget sci-fi movie that likewise grossed more than 2x, but less than 2.2x, what was put in; same thing with Her grossing more than 2x, but less than 2.2x, on its tinier budget that same year.)
And that’s actually another poor marketing choice - what better way to market to a slew of Cruise haters than a montage of him dying over and over and over and over in horrid ways? It’s perfect.
I am nearly certain that some marketing hack lost their job over this. It was almost as wretched a job as what Disney did to John Carter (of Mars).
See, that one didn’t even hit the 1.2x mark – and neither did Cowboys & Aliens, which had James Bond and Indiana Jones and cowboys and aliens, but fell short of the 1.2x mark the same year Green Lantern did likewise. Heck, I could name a whole bunch of recent sci-fi flicks that didn’t get anywhere near the 2x-2.2x range.
I have not watched the movie for one reason only: Tom Cruise. Not just because Tom Cruise is in it, but because the studio fucked up the story in order to have Tom Cruise in it. The protagonist needed to be someone young enough to pass as a recruit, not a fifty year old has-been.
Each their own, I thought the ending was pretty weak.
They basically introduce a new time-travel mechanic in the last three minutes of the film for the sake of a happy ending
They gave a semi-plausible reason for him being put on the front despite his age. And in any-case, I don’t think its that unusual for countries who are on their last legs in a war to start drawing from older cohorts for troops. And in the case they don’t even need to be in good shape, since the robo-suits do most of the work.
I liked the movie, but only if I keep myself from thinking too hard. And I didn’t like that ending at all. They might as well had him wake up and found it was all a bad dream.
But I liked the aliens and the scene where he was able to convince his fellow soldiers to help him.