-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Edge of tomorrow
- Thread starter singveld
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 23,454
- Points
- 0
your the number 1 spammer with your clones. vagina bleeding waiting for world cup?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 23,454
- Points
- 0
nonsense, it is well done and best sci fi film for years.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 28,387
- Points
- 113
No difference from watching this.
[video=youtube;tSVeDx9fk60]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSVeDx9fk60[/video]
[video=youtube;tSVeDx9fk60]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSVeDx9fk60[/video]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 23,454
- Points
- 0
tell me all the modern film of last 10 yrs you like , and i can find some older film with similar story. does that make all your film unworthy of watching?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 23,454
- Points
- 0
The Fault in Our Stars had a near-flawless opening this weekend, stunning analysts with a No. 1 debut that clobbered Tom Cruise's latest and underscored moviegoers' appetite for female-driven films
Stars collected $48.2 million, according to studio estimates from box-office trackers Rentrak.
The debut smashed expectations, which hovered around $35 million for the young-adult novel adaptation.
But the film became a social media sensation when author John Green and the film's stars embarked on a nationwide mall tour. By the time it hit theaters, the $12 million movie had plenty of momentum to crush Cruise's $178 million sci-fi spectacular Edge of Tomorrow, which settled for third place and $29.1 million.
Stars collected $48.2 million, according to studio estimates from box-office trackers Rentrak.
The debut smashed expectations, which hovered around $35 million for the young-adult novel adaptation.
But the film became a social media sensation when author John Green and the film's stars embarked on a nationwide mall tour. By the time it hit theaters, the $12 million movie had plenty of momentum to crush Cruise's $178 million sci-fi spectacular Edge of Tomorrow, which settled for third place and $29.1 million.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 23,454
- Points
- 0
3 Reasons Edge Of Tomorrow Fumbled At The Box Office
We'd like to think good movies are successful movies. That box office isn't about commercial appeal or marketing, but merit. That only bad movies flop. But time and time again, that proves to be untrue. The latest unfair failure is the action-thriller Edge of Tomorrow.
It has Tom Cruise as its leading man. Director Doug Liman has The Bourne Identity to his credit. Edge of Tomorrow has a cool premise, a major star, a respected director, and loads of action and special effects, plus Emily Blunt as an epic badass. It was even showered in critical praise for its inventive use of video game concepts, dark humor, and Cruise's performance. Yet it was crushed at the box office by The Fault In Our Stars and Maleficent. How did this happen?
Personally, I am proud to have my review quoted in Edge of Tomorrow's ads, as I found it to be a fast-paced and wildly fun summer movie. But apparently the enthusiastic praise of me and my colleagues wasn't enough to lure American audiences in. (The $178 million movie has only made $29 mil domestic in its opening weekend, though overseas its already amassed $111 million.) This has left me wondering where Edge of Tomorrow went wrong in its debut? And I've come up with three unfortunate mistakes.
Edge of Tomorrow
That Lame Title Change
Based on a Hiroshi Sakurazaka novel, Edge of Tomorrow was originally named for its inspiration, All You Need Is Kill. That would have been a bit of an awkward title, sure, but at least it gave a sense of war and even edgy humor. However, Warner Bros. got spooked about this title, and so swapped for "Edge of Tomorrow" last summer, just ahead of Comic Con. The problem is, Edge of Tomorrow is not evocative. It doesn't sell the concept better than the name All You Need Is Kill would have. It's only apparent advantage is that it sells the sci-fi angle a bit more.
Ultimately the title Edge of Tomorrow meant nothing to moviegoers, and despite a barrage of movie posters, trailers, and TV spots, the title couldn't cut through the white noise of summer movie season. When I'd go to early summer BBQs or cocktail parties, again and again I was asked what was coming up that people should see. I'd tell them eagerly, "Edge of Tomorrow!" And again and again, the response I got was a blank stare. About half the time, this stare would be shaken off with a, "Oh…is that the Tom Cruise one?" Yes, it is. But apparently one that hasn’t made much of an impression.
One-Note Marketing
From the tagline "LIVE. DIE. REPEAT." to a string of trailers detailing its time-loop narrative, Warner Bros. worked hard to make sure moviegoers understood the unconventional premise of Edge of Tomorrow. The rest of the screentime in trailers and TV spots went to showing off its star, Tom Cruise, along with the scads of praise Edge of Tomorrow was pulling in. Many critics, myself included, were pleasantly surprised that Cruise had followed a lackluster sci-fi adventure (Oblivion) with a clever and downright hilarious one. It seemed a great move for WB to play up our excitement, but apparently our enthusiasm was not contagious.
Setting aside what I know about Edge of Tomorrow, I watched the trailer again to try to see what the public did. Maybe it just looked too much like so much other sci-fi with its cool tones, teeth-gritted heroes and high stakes. The trailers aimed to emphasize our excitement over the film's originality and thrills, but sidestepped our love of the movie's macabre sense of humor, which sets it apart from recent sci-fi offerings like Prometheus or World War Z. Admittedly, that's a tricky thing to sell in a 30-second spot. But I can't help but wonder if WB had shown a little less of the movie's explosions and a little more of its distinctive comedy, would it have made more of an impression?
Underestimating The Competition... And Women
Through movies like Bridesmaids, Frozen and The Hunger Games, there's been a shift in Hollywood. Female-fronted movies are being seen less and less as movies meant only for the "niche" female audience. Women outnumber men in theaters, and so it should be less of a surprise that two movies that were marketed intensely to women beat Edge of Tomorrow at the box office.
Despite being scorned by critics, Maleficent has already proved itself a hit in its second week, an event that might be best credited to Angelina Jolie's still strong star power. Perhaps Oblivion soured Cruise's rep more than WB expected. But it seems Edge of Tomorrow shouldn't have dared face off against the box office force that is The Fault In Our Stars. The teen-centered tearjerker has been building momentum for months, tantalizing its massive and fervent fanbase as well as that of its beloved author John Green. Combine this with the popularity of YA adaptations at the box office, and Cruise and Edge of Tomorrow were doomed on their debut.
Basically, even though Edge of Tomorrow was the best-reviewed movie of the week, it's being called a box office loser, admittedly prematurely. Regardless of ungrateful American audiences, the film is thriving overseas, and could pick up Stateside if word of mouth takes off. But considering two movies fronted by females are at the top of the box office, perhaps Edge of Tomorrow should rush to put Emily Blunt and her Full Metal Bitch at the front of their second week promotions.
We'd like to think good movies are successful movies. That box office isn't about commercial appeal or marketing, but merit. That only bad movies flop. But time and time again, that proves to be untrue. The latest unfair failure is the action-thriller Edge of Tomorrow.
It has Tom Cruise as its leading man. Director Doug Liman has The Bourne Identity to his credit. Edge of Tomorrow has a cool premise, a major star, a respected director, and loads of action and special effects, plus Emily Blunt as an epic badass. It was even showered in critical praise for its inventive use of video game concepts, dark humor, and Cruise's performance. Yet it was crushed at the box office by The Fault In Our Stars and Maleficent. How did this happen?
Personally, I am proud to have my review quoted in Edge of Tomorrow's ads, as I found it to be a fast-paced and wildly fun summer movie. But apparently the enthusiastic praise of me and my colleagues wasn't enough to lure American audiences in. (The $178 million movie has only made $29 mil domestic in its opening weekend, though overseas its already amassed $111 million.) This has left me wondering where Edge of Tomorrow went wrong in its debut? And I've come up with three unfortunate mistakes.
Edge of Tomorrow
That Lame Title Change
Based on a Hiroshi Sakurazaka novel, Edge of Tomorrow was originally named for its inspiration, All You Need Is Kill. That would have been a bit of an awkward title, sure, but at least it gave a sense of war and even edgy humor. However, Warner Bros. got spooked about this title, and so swapped for "Edge of Tomorrow" last summer, just ahead of Comic Con. The problem is, Edge of Tomorrow is not evocative. It doesn't sell the concept better than the name All You Need Is Kill would have. It's only apparent advantage is that it sells the sci-fi angle a bit more.
Ultimately the title Edge of Tomorrow meant nothing to moviegoers, and despite a barrage of movie posters, trailers, and TV spots, the title couldn't cut through the white noise of summer movie season. When I'd go to early summer BBQs or cocktail parties, again and again I was asked what was coming up that people should see. I'd tell them eagerly, "Edge of Tomorrow!" And again and again, the response I got was a blank stare. About half the time, this stare would be shaken off with a, "Oh…is that the Tom Cruise one?" Yes, it is. But apparently one that hasn’t made much of an impression.
One-Note Marketing
From the tagline "LIVE. DIE. REPEAT." to a string of trailers detailing its time-loop narrative, Warner Bros. worked hard to make sure moviegoers understood the unconventional premise of Edge of Tomorrow. The rest of the screentime in trailers and TV spots went to showing off its star, Tom Cruise, along with the scads of praise Edge of Tomorrow was pulling in. Many critics, myself included, were pleasantly surprised that Cruise had followed a lackluster sci-fi adventure (Oblivion) with a clever and downright hilarious one. It seemed a great move for WB to play up our excitement, but apparently our enthusiasm was not contagious.
Setting aside what I know about Edge of Tomorrow, I watched the trailer again to try to see what the public did. Maybe it just looked too much like so much other sci-fi with its cool tones, teeth-gritted heroes and high stakes. The trailers aimed to emphasize our excitement over the film's originality and thrills, but sidestepped our love of the movie's macabre sense of humor, which sets it apart from recent sci-fi offerings like Prometheus or World War Z. Admittedly, that's a tricky thing to sell in a 30-second spot. But I can't help but wonder if WB had shown a little less of the movie's explosions and a little more of its distinctive comedy, would it have made more of an impression?
Underestimating The Competition... And Women
Through movies like Bridesmaids, Frozen and The Hunger Games, there's been a shift in Hollywood. Female-fronted movies are being seen less and less as movies meant only for the "niche" female audience. Women outnumber men in theaters, and so it should be less of a surprise that two movies that were marketed intensely to women beat Edge of Tomorrow at the box office.
Despite being scorned by critics, Maleficent has already proved itself a hit in its second week, an event that might be best credited to Angelina Jolie's still strong star power. Perhaps Oblivion soured Cruise's rep more than WB expected. But it seems Edge of Tomorrow shouldn't have dared face off against the box office force that is The Fault In Our Stars. The teen-centered tearjerker has been building momentum for months, tantalizing its massive and fervent fanbase as well as that of its beloved author John Green. Combine this with the popularity of YA adaptations at the box office, and Cruise and Edge of Tomorrow were doomed on their debut.
Basically, even though Edge of Tomorrow was the best-reviewed movie of the week, it's being called a box office loser, admittedly prematurely. Regardless of ungrateful American audiences, the film is thriving overseas, and could pick up Stateside if word of mouth takes off. But considering two movies fronted by females are at the top of the box office, perhaps Edge of Tomorrow should rush to put Emily Blunt and her Full Metal Bitch at the front of their second week promotions.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 23,454
- Points
- 0
LOS ANGELES – The Tom Cruise sci-fi movie “Edge of Tomorrow” has a lot of ground to make up if it’s going to avoid being summer’s first big-budget box-office dud.
The futuristic Warner Bros. action film is looking at a June 6 weekend debut in the $25 million-$30 million range, according to pre-release tracking that came online Thursday morning. Emily Blunt co-stars in the film, which is directed by Doug Liman.
Tracking, particularly early, is intended to be a marketing tool rather a gauge of box office potential and there is still time for the studio to build momentum. But “Edge of Tomorrow” at this point isn’t packing the domestic punch of “Oblivion,” another Cruise sci-fi film that opened to $37 million last April.
That means “Edge of Tomorrow” will have to do a lot of business overseas if it hopes to make up its $175 million production budget and marketing costs. The studio has from the outset focused on foreign with this film, and Cruise remains a major force at the international box office. “Oblivion” brought in nearly 70% of its $286 million worldwide haul from abroad.
Compounding the problem for “Edge of Tomorrow” is that it’s opening against Fox’s “The Fault in Our Stars.” The romantic drama starring Shailene Woodley came on tracking as well Thursday - in the $25 million range as well.
The adaptation of John Green’s bestselling young-adult novel about young cancer patients finding love only stands to gain ground, because it has been a monster on social media - outstripping many of the summer’s biggest movies - so it’s very likely to go higher.
Fox marketers have mobilized the book’s rabid young-female readers with an aggressive multi-city screening campaign, and “Fault” fanatics are making big noise on social media. For the past week, Twitter mentions of “Fault” have outstripped those of “Godzilla,” Fox’s blockbuster-to-be “X-Men: Days of Future Past,” “Neighbors” and Disney’s “Maleficent.” The first trailer from the film has been viewed 17 million times and “liked” on YouTube more than any film in history.
With a production budget of $12 million, “Fault In Our Stars” looks very much like a winner for Fox.
The futuristic Warner Bros. action film is looking at a June 6 weekend debut in the $25 million-$30 million range, according to pre-release tracking that came online Thursday morning. Emily Blunt co-stars in the film, which is directed by Doug Liman.
Tracking, particularly early, is intended to be a marketing tool rather a gauge of box office potential and there is still time for the studio to build momentum. But “Edge of Tomorrow” at this point isn’t packing the domestic punch of “Oblivion,” another Cruise sci-fi film that opened to $37 million last April.
That means “Edge of Tomorrow” will have to do a lot of business overseas if it hopes to make up its $175 million production budget and marketing costs. The studio has from the outset focused on foreign with this film, and Cruise remains a major force at the international box office. “Oblivion” brought in nearly 70% of its $286 million worldwide haul from abroad.
Compounding the problem for “Edge of Tomorrow” is that it’s opening against Fox’s “The Fault in Our Stars.” The romantic drama starring Shailene Woodley came on tracking as well Thursday - in the $25 million range as well.
The adaptation of John Green’s bestselling young-adult novel about young cancer patients finding love only stands to gain ground, because it has been a monster on social media - outstripping many of the summer’s biggest movies - so it’s very likely to go higher.
Fox marketers have mobilized the book’s rabid young-female readers with an aggressive multi-city screening campaign, and “Fault” fanatics are making big noise on social media. For the past week, Twitter mentions of “Fault” have outstripped those of “Godzilla,” Fox’s blockbuster-to-be “X-Men: Days of Future Past,” “Neighbors” and Disney’s “Maleficent.” The first trailer from the film has been viewed 17 million times and “liked” on YouTube more than any film in history.
With a production budget of $12 million, “Fault In Our Stars” looks very much like a winner for Fox.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 60,261
- Points
- 113
pretty good for sci-fi movie fans. i recommend it. will give it a 9 out of 10. sargeant vrataski is a warrior you want as your companion when you are fighting for life and the survival of your species. the only lingering unease i have is the possible post-ending scenario.....during mop-up operations and field forensics at the louvre, udf soldiers recovered the bodies of cage, vrataski, and members of j-squad who followed cage and vrataski in their final mission; however, cage, vrataski, and members of j-squad are still alive and garrisoned in london. wtf?! 
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 23,454
- Points
- 0
pretty good for sci-fi movie fans. i recommend it. will give it a 9 out of 10. sargeant vrataski is a warrior you want as your companion when you are fighting for life and the survival of your species. the only lingering unease i have is the possible post-ending scenario.....during mop-up operations and field forensics at the louvre, udf soldiers recovered the bodies of cage, vrataski, and members of j-squad who followed cage and vrataski in their final mission; however, cage, vrataski, and members of j-squad are still alive and garrisoned in london. wtf?!
yeah a great scifi movie, it is true the ending does not fit the overall tone of the movie. they tried to make it - so US viewers will like the ending, instead US viewers did not watch it. What a sad ironic.
barking up the wrong tree. i dun belive in clones unlike your IB "friends". and i dun even bet on football, why i bother to watch?
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,107
- Points
- 48
Agree with Singveld this is a nice movie. Although it is similar to Groundhog day, it has enough substance to stand on its own.
There are a few loopholes in the movie but which movie doesn't have those.
My rating: You won't regret spending two hours watching this.
There are a few loopholes in the movie but which movie doesn't have those.
My rating: You won't regret spending two hours watching this.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 23,454
- Points
- 0
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 28,387
- Points
- 113
Actually it seems more like the movie "Source Code" than "Groundhog Day".
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,107
- Points
- 48
Nope. Ask someone like eatshitndie, he lives in SF.
I like Oblivion more than this even though Oblivion suffers from a lack of character development and is like a one-man show but the story line is interesting.
Similar threads
