Killzone Shadow Fall was actually a commercial success, but far from rejuvenating interest it lead the IP into obscurity and irrelevance.

The common criticism is that the rush to make it a launch title for the PS4 compromised the end quality of the product. I don't really buy that. At least to my recollection, the game was mechanically sound and pretty well everything that was promised was included. So it doesn't look like a case of "crunch".

IMO the games biggest issue is that the devs took past criticisms of the franchise as gospel.
The game is too brown? We'll expunge brown from the colour pallet!
You want a more nuanced story than "Helghasts bad"? The ISA will be the cartoon villains this time! And for added complexity, you'll still fight for them!
You're not a fan of our weighty movement system? Alright, zip lines and squire suits are now the main mode of travel.
You're not a fan of our characters? Say no more, they're no more.

The game felt and looked nothing like the rest of the franchise. It felt like a combination of every hot (at the time) trend in the genre, so not only did it feel generic, but it is now extra dated in hind sight. I think a more orthodox game set in the Killzone universe would have been better received, if only because that entails a more coherent guiding vision. If not, it would have at least retained the interest of the franchise's core fanbase of fanatics.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know why John Carpenter's The Thing performed so badly at the box office in 1982? Was it because E.T. had already been released at the time? If so, I wonder if it could've done better had these two movies' release dates been swapped.

For one, the critics lambasted it and hated it with a passion and that's usually a death knell for a movie.

Also another Sci-Fi opened in the same weekend . . . 'Bladerunner', and that was also classed as a commercial failure.
 
For one, the critics lambasted it and hated it with a passion and that's usually a death knell for a movie.

Also another Sci-Fi opened in the same weekend . . . 'Bladerunner', and that was also classed as a commercial failure.
A big problem for it is that the Wrath of Khan, Conan the Barbarian and ET were released at the same time as Bladerunner.
 
Thunderbirds (2004)

View attachment 635527

Couldn't believe that they actually f**ked up another one of my fav' TV series that I watched as a kid, the other being GINO (1998)!

How to avoid the 2004 movie becoming a 'turkey'

1) Have Lew Grade at ATV (ITC) not be such a greedy bar steward when trying to flog it to the USA in the 60's, thus the series becomes a success stateside and thus most Americans know what the hell 'The Thunderbirds' are.

View attachment 635528View attachment 635529

2) Series continually gets repeated over the next twenty years and thus a 'live action' is made through the 1980's/90's

3) Only then in 2004 does someone make a film of the series and actually gets someone to write a half decent script for the movie.

4) Get id of all the kids . . . . they were annoying as f**k and killed the film off.
And have the Theme performed by the Band of Her Majesty's Royal Marines!

 
On the subject of the Carrie musical, getting a different director would have helped save so many headaches in regards to it. Had they gotten someone who understood the concept of an American secondary school as a setting, that probably would have solved a lot of problem in it there and then.
 
Can I save "STTMP" with a whole new script & cast, instead of the megabuck remake of "The Changeling" they decided to do?

I'd suggest a sequel to "A Private Little War", "A Piece of the Action" (if you'll accept some comedy), or "Doomsday Machine".

I'd leave "WOK" for the second film, because I'm not sure you could arrange that "perfect storm" without a first cut at it. It may be necessary for the first film to actually do badly, sad to say.

Edit:
On reflection, a "PotA" sequel shouldn't try to be funny, IMO, but should seriously examine that situation with "TOS"-level tech: more like "The Godfather", with perhaps a flavor of "The Sting".
 
Last edited:
Meteor (1978)

Starring Sean Connery, Natalie Wood, Karl Malden, Brian Keith, Martin Landau.

Get the studio to spend some extra $$$ and use ILM's Motion Control and get a better script . . . . 'hey presto'!

Not only would you have a decent disaster flick that would make money, but it wouldn't kill off AI Pictures.
Or just not have a Skylab style space station near Mars. That killed my suspension of disbelief. If you need to have it away from Earth it can be a lunar orbital station supporting a new wave of moon landings.
 
Or just not have a Skylab style space station near Mars. That killed my suspension of disbelief. If you need to have it away from Earth it can be a lunar orbital station supporting a new wave of moon landings.

2nded

To be fair you'd also need a big suspension of disbelief to think that full sized ICBM's would orbit the Earth in the first place.
 
Here’s mine, the notorious Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park.

There’s hundreds of things I could’ve done for this film to make it better, and it was clear they were marketing it toward a younger audience. So here’s something that they could’ve done that would have made it 10 times easier to make and be able to do whatever they want with it.

Make it animated for christ-sake!

There were problems with filming it from day one, the band didn’t know their own lines, Ace and Peter either never showed up or were too drunk when they did show up, the effects were terrible, etc.

Getting someone like Hanna-Barbera to animate it for them would’ve done wonders, as Kiss would’ve only had to lend their voices for it and if they couldn’t, pull a Beatles cartoon and get other people that sound like them to do some lines. Here they could’ve also gotten the fullest potential of the characters (Demon, Starchild, Space Ace, the Cat) since they only had to draw it and not actually film it.

I’m not going to go into how I would change the plot since we would be here for hours. But that’s what I would have done to smoothen it out and make it more bearable to watch.
 
There is a difference between having politics have an influence on your story and having it take over your story. Johnson did the latter and even that poorly. Although he clearly wanted to show "strong females" each and every one of them actually come out poorly due to his very poor writing. Leia is a senile old lady who somehow doesn't know that sacrificing a handful of strike fighters and bombers is completely worth it to take down a dreadnought even though she led both the Rebel Alliance and the Resistance for years . Phasma gets her ass kicked again, after about 10 minutes of screen time even though she was played by an excellent actress who should have gotten more screen time in both movies (the first isn't Johnson's fault). Holdo is the poorest excuse for an admiral shown in film to date while Rey becomes even a more of a Mary Sue who succeeds in everything despite not having to put in any effort.
Johnson did nothing of the sort. The Disney era has been astonishingly good. The classic era characters were served well and given endings suited to their arcs, the new ones were fleshed out quite well (Rey is nothing like Alice from the Resident Evil film series, who is the very definition of a Mary Sue, and there is plenty of signs of struggle and effort on Rey's part), and the universe makes one tight continuity from The Phantom Menace through to Rise of Skywalker. It all fits quite suitably.

Problems you may perceive with writing, dialogue and characterization were there in the prequels, and they were there during the original trilogy even. So, if anything, the Disney era has very much continued in Lucas' tradition. That includes both having a specific blueprint, but also not being slaved to it and evolving organically. Lucas wasn't shackled like that, and no one else should be either. And the streaming series are continuing in this expansion as well.

The only problem that Disney has done regarding the series is with the printed materials. Making the division between canon and Legends was needed and necessary, but despite claiming to get rid of the tiered-continuity system that existed before, the system is clearly still very much in place, especially regarding comics, novels and encyclopedias. That should definitely be overhauled further.

The fact remains is that Disney has done quite well by the series and cares very deeply about the integrity of it and doing right by the real fans, those who have accepted and embraced it all warmly and with open arms. Other than Solo (which only flopped because of a May release date mandated by Alan Horn, not Kathleen Kennedy), the films have all done well. Making over $1 billion is not a flop any means. There was no "money left on the table", except for the fact that idiots went and spoiled everything on the Internet, and that convinced the remaining idiots in the idiot brigade not to show up.

I'm quite tired of those who worship at the altar of St. Gary Kurtz and hold the original trilogy and EU material as holy scripture, an ossified interpretation and holy text that must be adhered to at all times, and any deviation from it is heresy. The problem is not with Lucas, Rick McCallum, Kathleen Kennedy, J.J. Abrams, Rian Johnson, Ron Howard, Dave Filoni, the cast, the crew, Jar-Jar, BB-8, Rey, Rose Tico or anyone else. The problem is with you.

Don't believe me? This is a problem that has often occurred in many series, even the best. It's not restricted only to GoT or anger about how the Alien franchise lost its way. The book series Animorphs had such a fallout because of how Katherine Applegate and Michael Grant ended the series without having a neat, tidy resolution or a happy ending. Applegate even said as much in a response, a lot of which feels eerily prescient, given the series ended in May 2001 and response to it and this message was done before 9/11 upended everything:

Animorphs was always a war story. Wars don't end happily. Not ever. Often relationships that were central during war, dissolve during peace. Some people who were brave and fearless in war are unable to handle peace, feel disconnected and confused. Other times people in war make the move to peace very easily. Always people die in wars. And always people are left shattered by the loss of loved ones.

That's what happens, so that's what I wrote. Jake and Cassie were in love during the war, and end up going their separate ways afterward. Jake, who was so brave and capable during the war is adrift during the peace. Marco and Ax, on the other hand, move easily past the war and even manage to use their experience to good effect. Rachel dies, and Tobias will never get over it. That doesn't by any means cover everything that happens in a war, but it's a start.

Here's what doesn't happen in war: there are no wondrous, climactic battles that leave the good guys standing tall and the bad guys lying in the dirt. Life isn't a World Wrestling Federation Smackdown. Even the people who win a war, who survive and come out the other side with the conviction that they have done something brave and necessary, don't do a lot of celebrating. There's very little chanting of 'we're number one' among people who've personally experienced war.

I'm just a writer, and my main goal was always to entertain. But I've never let Animorphs turn into just another painless video game version of war, and I wasn't going to do it at the end. I've spent 60 books telling a strange, fanciful war story, sometimes very seriously, sometimes more tongue-in-cheek. I've written a lot of action and a lot of humor and a lot of sheer nonsense. But I have also, again and again, challenged readers to think about what they were reading. To think about the right and wrong, not just the who-beat-who. And to tell you the truth I'm a little shocked that so many readers seemed to believe I'd wrap it all up with a lot of high-fiving and backslapping. Wars very often end, sad to say, just as ours did: with a nearly seamless transition to another war.

So, you don't like the way our little fictional war came out? You don't like Rachel dead and Tobias shattered and Jake guilt-ridden? You don't like that one war simply led to another? Fine. Pretty soon you'll all be of voting age, and of draft age. So when someone proposes a war, remember that even the most necessary wars, even the rare wars where the lines of good and evil are clear and clean, end with a lot of people dead, a lot of people crippled, and a lot of orphans, widows and grieving parents.
 
@RedBeetle

Great idea for KMTPOTP. One difficulty, though...

In the USA, that movie was made-for-TV, and IIRC, it showed at night, prime time. How likely would it be that an animated, non-Christmas movie could get into that time slot?

(Remember when the cop shows up at the poolside to accuse one the Kiss guys of trashing the park, and the Dragon growls at him? Yeah, I would have to be drunk to get through filming that as well.)
 
Grease 2
Not bad songs but badly needs a better script and a talented cast. For God's sake the films set during the Cuban Missile crisis, where's the bloody angst?
 
Last edited:
2nded, one of my favourite disaster flicks alongside 'Earthquake' and 'The Towering Inferno'

The Motion Picture was a bit too 'high brow' for most cinema goers. They should've left that type of stuff to the Arthur C Clarke 2001 trilogy!
Make Star Trek: The Motion Picture into some sort of Federation-Klingon conflict. The audience was looking for something like that after Star Wars, but Gene Roddenberry didn't want to go militaristic with the franchise. In TOS they did the Federation-Klingon stories very well, and another story like that would have been a good movie. Roddenberry could have even put an anti-war twist into the movie, for example a Federation-Klingon war being caused by hard-headed diplomats failing to solve an intergalactic problem or border dispute between the two empires, and Kirk losing a guy like Decker in the war, and saying at the end, "We fought and lost all these lives for nothing but ego."

You could have the Klingons destroying a border planet with a dirty bomb, and the Klingons forced to clean up the planet at the end of the movie, but the Federation doesn't trust them to do it. Therefore, it gives rationale for the Federation to develop the Genesis device in TWOK
 
Last edited:
Anyone feel like taking a stab at Altman's Popeye?

When that film came out, my local paper's critic said that the first few minutes were "a work of genius", but that the rest was a mess. I'm guessing he really liked the scene with the Sweethaven anthem, which did rather draw one into its rollicking pathos.

As I recall, some of the other musical numbers kinda rambled, and the dialogue didn't always seem suitable for a kids' flick.
 
The funny thing is that we just got an example of how to do this only this week.

I think the version of "Justice League" released in theaters did make Warner Brothers a profit, and it didn't totally screw up the DCEU, but is widely regarded as a disappointment. The three and a half hours Zach Snyder had gotten made before he had to leave the project was just released on cable, along with an additional half hour of new material, and its fairly obvious that this could have been edited differently down to a good two and a half hour movie (but not two hours like WB wanted). And I think a lot of flops and near flops could have been saved with better editing, but this is a unique case where we got to see the original unedited version.
I just watched the Snyder Cut yesterday. I thought it was a literal masterpiece, and I wasn’t even a fan of Snyder’s vision for the DCEU.
 
Make Star Trek: The Motion Picture into some sort of Federation-Klingon conflict. The audience was looking for something like that after Star Wars, but Gene Roddenberry didn't want to go militaristic with the franchise. In TOS they did the Federation-Klingon stories very well, and another story like that would have been a good movie. Roddenberry could have even put an anti-war twist into the movie, for example a Federation-Klingon war being caused by hard-headed diplomats failing to solve an intergalactic problem or border dispute between the two empires, and Kirk losing a guy like Decker in the war, and saying at the end, "We fought and lost all these lives for nothing but ego."

You could have the Klingons destroying a border planet with a dirty bomb, and the Klingons forced to clean up the planet at the end of the movie, but the Federation doesn't trust them to do it. Therefore, it gives rationale for the Federation to develop the Genesis device in TWOK
Just cutting a good 30 minutes of pointless panning shots would have greatly improved ST TMP. E.G. There was no need for something like 10 minutes of Kirk and Scotty in the shuttle cruising alongside the Enterprise in Spacedock.
 
Top