I went to the opening weekend Friday night 10pm showing, and there were literally four of us in the auditorium. Me, and a group of three guys. That doesn’t seem good, and I don’t see any thread about it here which compounds the sense of a soft opening. It’s a shame if so, because it is so infrequent that we get hard sci-fi about traveling at sublight speeds. I give the movie a lot of points for that, and the related production design, even if the story isn’t the greatest ever.
Sounds like you’re politely saying it’s a bad movie.
I’m not sure hard sci-fi is a crowd pleaser. Notable exceptions like Interstellar or 2001 were anomalies.
Lemme get this straight: the OP’s question is “is this movie that opened less than 24 hours ago bombing?”
:rolleyes:
Rotten Tomatoes says 82% fresh, but the audience score is 48%.
edited to add: The commercials seem rather vague to me.
Box Office Mojo has Thursday night “previews” posted. Made $1.5M which is in line for a $20+M opening. Since BOM was predicting $19M, this is okay.
Friday numbers come later today.
Rotten Tomatoes has it at 82% overall and 91% among top critics. It’s not a bad movie.
But the dark side is its Cinemascore is B-. That is really not good. So word of mouth might drag it down below $20M.
And with a reported budget of $80-$90mm it better do really well overseas or that $20mm won’t get the job done.
I saw it yesterday and liked it, although there seemed to be some plot holes. Anyone want to talk about the movie?
Some people may be put off, thinking it’s two hours of commercials for a mediocre Vauxhall.
Looks good but the trailers don’t give an easy to identify plot. With The Martian you get what it’s about in 10 seconds and are interested in how he does it.
This is some sort of ant-matter-What’s-It-Space-Dad thing in outer space thing, if it’s even an actual thing.
Hope it does well, though. Unfortunately I’m one of those bastards ruining America by not going to a movie this week.
I can’t see this losing money since it’s so perfectly calculated to make money. Movies like this are on an unstoppable template.
The other thing is that it’s an original story. People regularly complain here that all of the movies seem to be comic-book superhero films, sequels or remakes. So when there is a movie out there that seems to be an original concept (particularly one that has 82% on Rotten Tomatoes), they should be flocking to see it.
Ok, I don’t see another thread about the film itself, what do people think of it? I’ve got AMC movie pass so I’m probably going to see it today or tomorrow in IMAX
Sadly, that matters little at the box office. The other two big openers this weekend are the Downton Abbey movie and a Rambo sequel (what???). Downton will win big and it will be close between Sly and Brad.
The BOP link above has been updated with Friday numbers. Now predicting $19.7M for the weekend. Given the budget, that’s not good- domestically. Note that Arrival opened at $24M and did $100M (*4). But that First Man started at $16M and ended up at $44M (*2.75). I think the latter multiplier is more likely. So in the $55M range. And after theater’s get their cut, it isn’t going to be much.
The question is how well this plays to the overseas markets. By which I mean China. They love space stuff if it’s action oriented. But this might be more “thinky” than “actiony” and that won’t do.
As to the OP’s 10pm showing experience. That’s surprisingly common. A lot of people are loathe to go at that time if the movie isn’t selling really big time and earlier times are not available.
I’ll discuss the movie as I just saw it. Ultimately it’s an intimate story about a father and son in an epic setting (literally spans the entire solar system). It’s sort of ponderous, but my GF and I were never bored. The VFX were beautifully done, and a lot of awesome backdrops like the Moon, Mars and a gorgeous close up of Neptune.
I feel like it’s fighting itself with a sleepy story and tone (B-/C+) but epic backdrop (A+), punctuated with interesting events.
There were a few issues I had with it, science/physics wise, that I’d let slide for other science fiction, but bother me more here since it’s presenting itself as hard scifi. It’s very disappointing when this happens, because they get SO much right, and beautifully executed, so when issues like instant communication happens across 2 billion miles, it pulls me right out of the movie, and I ask myself, “how did they get that wrong?” Other things like obvious earth gravity on the moon and Mars, and issues during one part where he climbs aboard a rocket, during launch, and the Gs don’t seem to pull on him or the crew at all. In fact, they’re still accelerating into space and him and the crew are weightless. ?? Just bizarre mistakes like this. Disappointing.
Overall I recommend it though. Just keep in mind it’s a story about the broken relationship between a father and son first, epic space odyssey second. And I don’t think it’s nearly as rewatchable as something like Interstellar or Gravity, and no where near as seminal as 2001: ASO. But if you like those sorts of films, definitely check this out.
No, overall I would rate it 8/10, to use the common online parlance. But that’s because I give more weight to the production design and grittiness of hard sci-fi than many people might. Another way to put it is that the worldbuilding is exceptional, but they chose to portray a story within that world that is not super gripping.
I dispute those being qualified as hard sci-fi. They certainly start out that way, but both end on a note of serious woo. “The Martian” is a better example. Hard science fiction all the way through, and it did very well.
i hear what you’re saying, but I think movies can still be hard scifi, with a fantastical element. It’s when they bend the technology and physics so far when it’s obvious the screenwriter is not even really considering the science behind it at all that I put it in soft scifi.
I think movies like this are the aforementioned Interstellar and 2001, but also movies like Contact, The Arrival and Powder.
Totally kidding about that last one.
Maybe we need a medium term. Semisoft?
I would not be surprised if it doesn’t do well.
From the trailer it looks like the classic Hollywood tearful farewell / I love you scene (as seen in Armageddon, Interstellar et al, and something I personally hate, as it usually takes place at a point in the plot where every second counts and there’s absolutely no time for that syrupy shit) times 20.
And one or two very fast cuts of action strongly give the impression that there isn’t a single significant action scene they could draw from for the trailer.
Finally, the “Hard sci-fi” thing is weird to me. When last year people were describing the film Wandering Earth* as hard sci-fi, I knew it had lost all meaning. As far as I can tell, it just means sub-luminal now.
- Plot summary contains spoilers:
It’s a film where humans decide to move planet earth to another star system by attaching thrusters to the equator. But they screw up the equations and earth is on a collision course with Jupiter! But – phew – at the last minute they realize that they can ignite Jupiters atmosphere, which will push the earth away (and presumably, back on course towards the target star system)
Lot of tearful farewells in this Chinese-made movie too.
I thought there were some good action scenes. But I don’t watch trailers, so…