What did you think of AvP?

[Dachande]

1) You really think an AvP film doesn't need CGI because previous films didn't use it before it was invented !! and sith was so cheap because lucas owns the company !! and they splashed £200mill on x-men last stand because the previous 2 movies made alot of money !!

I never said it doesnt need it, i said it was unnecessary, CGI was first used in 1973, 6 years before Alien came out, and Alien used CGI technology itself for the landing sequence. Im just saying that in my eyes i'd rather have a  man in a suit as they used anyways, even though CGI was available, they didnt use it because, IMOi think that used creature suits looks better, as you can always tell what is CGI, and using actors instead not only means you get a better experience, but it draws you in more whereas with CGI, your thinking 'Thats clearly been made on a computer' no point in being scared of that. Which is exactly the same in Aliens, A3 and for the most part A:R.

Your saying X3 had a high budget because the previous films were succesful moneywise....all the Alien and Predator movies combined grossed more than $725,000,000 (i was unable to get the full figures for Pred 1 and 2) now if you look at the price inflation from 79 till now, thats over 1 Billion in revenue, so your saying that X3 got lots of money because it was succesful, the Alien quadrillogy is probably in the top 3 of the most successful franchies ever, up with Star Wars and more recently Lord of the Rings

[stickaround]

You're disillusioned dude !!

1) CGI was first used EFFECTIVELY/b] in the abyss and then obviously T2. I'm not a huge fan when it's over done but thought it was used effectively in AvP and for the most part it was men in suits anyway !!!

2) You're wrong dude, as far as Predator is concerned (and this is for factual reasons, i love the films) These are the US grosses :

Predator $59mill
Pred 2 $28 mill   

Why do you think there hadn't been a pred film for so long if it had been so successful ??

As for aliens

Alien $60mill (including re-release)
Aliens $81
Alien 3 $54
Alien R $47

As much as we love these films, they haven't ben critically or commercially successful since the 80's. You should know hollywood is a money making machine which takes fewer & fewer risks. AvP was a risk but was marketed very well & was certainly an improvement on Aliens resurrection and the cinema cut of alien 3.

For the record, in the US alone X-men earned the following

X-men $157
X2 $214

You see the difference !!!!

Stickaround !

[Dachande]

The amount of income you got for each film is quite probably JUST the amount it go in the US, the amounts i got were the worldwide income recieved, as well as the fact that you are also forgetting how much the amounts would of inflated since the 80's.

And since when were we talking about how CGI had been used effectively, but are you saying that the CGI in Tron wasnt effective? Your saying the first photrealistic CGI character in Young Sherlock Holmes WASNT effective? You said that CGI wasnt used in Alien/Aliens because it hadnt been invented yet, when it had in fact been around a few years before Alien came out, i never said CGI had been used effectively before then, i was just proving you wrong in your comment of 'because previous films didn't use it before it was invented'

[SiL]

Are those numbers by the Alien movies the grosses?

Here are their world-wide grosses:

Alien: $185,000,000 (including re-release)
Aliens: $131,060,248
Alien 3: $159,773,600
Alien Resurrection: $161,295,658

Each 'Alien' movie, Alien re-release notwithstanding, has been financially more successful than the last on a global level.

As with the Predator movies, though, their world-wide totals aren't listed, so I wouldn't know.

[stickaround]

Daschande

I'm not going to let these arguments roll on & on !!! It's not that serious !!

1) You obviously know more about CGI than me ! (T2 was the turning point for that exact type of technology not Tron or young sherlock holmes!!!)The point i was trying to make is you need CGI to create certain images men in suits / other technology can't effectively e.g. an alien jumping on a predators back. I agree you should use it as little as possible but as i've said in certain instances it works

Plus now you sound like you're a fan, make your mind up !


Daschande and Sil

Here are the facts

Regardless of how financially successful you think the franchises have been you're wrong !

1) Predator 2 didn't make money and wasn't well received, that's why there haven't been more films (shame a star, top director didn't take a chance)

2) Aliens made $180mill worldwide so if you factor in budgets, marketing etc the films have made less & less since then and Alien 3 and Alien R weren't well received either (if only the studio had left fincher alone  ) That's why the studio lost confidence, they like to make money !

So as i have said before, these are the reasons we were without the franchises for so long

& to finish the comparison for daschandes benefit ! x-mens worldwide grosses were as follows

x-men $295
X2 $406
X3 $458

& this is in the space of 6 years, there's just no comparison, if you cant understand why this is why X3 got a bigger budget than AvP then.......

I'm not here for arguments dudes ! Firstly, i just wanted to get my own opinion across about AvP as i think some of the criticism has been OTT. I didn't expect to get the volume of replies i have but there are reasons why the franchises stopped, no matter how much we love them.

But they're back and that's what matters

Stickaround !

[Dachande]

Go look on imdb.com, as judging from what i just looked at on the site, and then looking at SiL's post that seems to be where he got his information from as well. Your also completely ignoring the fact of how the prcies will have inflated since then.

An average ticket in 1979, the year of Alien's release was $2.51, X3 was released in 06 where the average price is $6.48 now thats just under 3 times as much as the prices in '79. Now for arguments sake, lets multiply the income of Alien by 3... which comes to $555 million, nearly 100 million more than X3. So im pretty sure there wasnt really a question of how finacially succesful the movies are as they raked in huge amounts of cash. So if i was to adjust the prcies to allow price inflation, im pretty sure that the Guadrillogy would come out tops

Also, you say that i know more about CGI than you....i dont, i just research what im going to say, also from what ive seen and heard about the first few films that used CGI in the 90's all of them took inspiration from Young Sherlock Holmes, so while in the publics eyes T2 and The Abyss may have been the turning point for them, most of the directors who used the CGI, all cited YSH as their inspiration, and i think its mentioned somewhat on the Aliens special features disc in the quadrillogy, either that or on one of the recent star wars's commentaries

PS: There isnt an S in my name

[stickaround]

You won't let it lie, will you dude !!

My box office info is from www.the-numbers.com

1) If you think YSH was a bigger influence than the abyss & T2 then that's upto you, but we're not talking about the first few films of the nineties, we're talking about the big picture. I do know what i'm talking about & T2 was the turning point because it was an amazing film & made lots of cash. I haven't seen YSH but i can't imagine it had anything as amazing as the T1000 & don't you think we,re getting off the point here ?!

You're initial point was that CGI is unnecessary in aliens and predator films & this simply isn't the case.

2) If you think Alien 3 was more successful than X3 you're wrong dude, that's like saying in 10 years time X3 made $1billion, it just doesn't work like that.


The fact of the matter, as i keep stating !!, is that predator 2, alien 3, alien r were commercially and critically unsucccessful WHEN THEY CAME OUT compared to what the studios expected, not what the ticket receipts would be worth in adjusted dollars in 10 - 15 years time, no one cares about that ! This is what greenlights the next movie, that's why X3 got such a big budget and AvP didn't.

If you're right and i'm wrong tell me why there was a 14 year gap for a pred film and 7 for an alien film ??

We can argue till the cows come home but if anyone out there thinks the alien films were bigger at the box office than the x-men franchise and that studios look into the future to adjusted dollars to gage a films success !!! then i'm all ears !!

Stickaround !

[SiL]

And those numbers are of the US gross only.

You've gotta look global. Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection were far better received outside of the US.

If you look at Alien 3's US gross only, it lost money for the studio. But in Europe, people loved the movie, and it ended up grossing double its budget outside of America. In all it had a profit of over $100,000,000! That's not a financial failure.

The reason we saw no more Alien movies was because they didn't have any good ideas - Whedon's Alien 5 script was rejected for various reasons, amongst them the drastic changes to Ripley - they felt it would cost too much, and for all intents and purposes that was it. That was the end of the series.

With Predator, you're right. Predator 2 wasn't very well received critically or financially, hence them not making any more movies.

However, your own site contradicts you!

You said that the reason we got no more movies was because the last few were critical and financial failures. Critically, AvP was a total flop, and when you add the production cost to the advertising cost, it made about four million more than Alien Resurrection did in terms of profit - Hell, it had a 67.59% drop-off in the first week, worse than any of the other movies. So, theoretically, seeing as AvP did so poorly all 'round, we shouldn't be getting a sequel.

Now the question is, why the hell am I arguing this?

In Reply To Thread

Could've been worse. Preds looked crap. Aliens as well.

[stickaround]

I know, why has this argument gone on so long !!! Blame dachande !!

I agree, alien 3 and alien resurecction did much better worldwide than in the states but they made less money than aliens (which was shot on a much smaller budget). The point i was making to dachande was they weren't as successful as the x-men franchise, especially recently, and thats why AvP didnt get an X3 size budget.

I haven't contradicted myself (AvP made $171 worldwide which is amazing considering the flak it got !) the huge extra factor now other than box office on how profitable a film is is dvd sales, tv rights, merchandising etc. AvP will have made a healthy (probably better than expected) profit hence AvP2

Critically, your right, it got malled, more than it should have done, which as i've said before just doesn't help future projects.

Stickaround !

[Darkness]

2) I'd have to disagree, the queen for example was more impressive than in aliens (it's how cameron would have had it in aliens if he'd have had the technology daschande!!)

Yeah, I liked the Queen. The CGI aliens weren't that great for me though.

3) I never said AvP was a great movie

What did you vote in this thread's poll out of interest?

I'm glad i took the positives out of it rather than all the negatives.

But for every positive thing in AvP, there's at least 100 negatives. How can you just ignore them?

The team up scene is from a storyline in the original AvP comic

Hmm, so just because it was in a comic, that makes it okay?

You guys seem to think i'm pro AvP & against the originals

I don't think you're against the originals. I just don't think you appreciate them.

It's like liking T3 aswell as T1 & 2. It could never live up to the originals but stood out alone (apart from the sunglasses scene !!)

I agree. I liked T3 as a standalone film but it had some flaws. The guy who played John Connor was terrible and not to mention the silly one liners they made Arnie say. Still, the action was great.

4) Fair point about the script, but pred 2 didn't have the best script but it was absolutly kik ass & everyone seems to love it now unlike when it was originally out.

Sure, Predator 2 script wasn't great but I like Predator 2. I got what I expected. Maybe I was naive when AvP was coming out but I was just expecting a serious film like the Alien series and I got the total opposite.

regardless of what you "haters" of AvP think of the film, do you think your OTT criticism will help Alien 5 get made ??

It's not really about what the fans think. It's whatever makes the most money. Reason, why A5 won't get made is that it would cost too much and they probably won't make a lot of profit.

[Dachande]

You won't let it lie, will you dude !!

My box office info is from www.the-numbers.com

1) If you think YSH was a bigger influence than the abyss & T2 then that's upto you, but we're not talking about the first few films of the nineties, we're talking about the big picture. I do know what i'm talking about & T2 was the turning point because it was an amazing film & made lots of cash. I haven't seen YSH but i can't imagine it had anything as amazing as the T1000 & don't you think we,re getting off the point here ?!

You're initial point was that CGI is unnecessary in aliens and predator films & this simply isn't the case.

I said that YSH was a bigger influence to the FILMMAKERS, nowhere in my post did i say it was a bigger influence worldwide. Except that it proved to the filmmakers that you CAN do good looking things with CGI, and your just drifting from the point im trying to make, by completely ignoring most of the stuff i wrote.

Films such as T2 made more cash than Aliens because for one, it was released in over 1000 more screens than Aliens was.

2) If you think Alien 3 was more successful than X3 you're wrong dude, that's like saying in 10 years time X3 made $1billion, it just doesn't work like that.



The fact of the matter, as i keep stating !!, is that predator 2, alien 3, alien r were commercially and critically unsucccessful WHEN THEY CAME OUT compared to what the studios expected, not what the ticket receipts would be worth in adjusted dollars in 10 - 15 years time, no one cares about that ! This is what greenlights the next movie, that's why X3 got such a big budget and AvP didn't.

If you're right and i'm wrong tell me why there was a 14 year gap for a pred film and 7 for an alien film ??

We can argue till the cows come home but if anyone out there thinks the alien films were bigger at the box office than the x-men franchise and that studios look into the future to adjusted dollars to gage a films success !!! then i'm all ears !!

Exactly where in my post did i say that Alien 3 was more sucesful than X3? Or that i said that the studios compare the inflation prcies in the future. I was just saying that Aliens WAS a more finacially succesful movie than any of the X-Men movies. I never mentioned the studios, just the fact that with the prices and income adjusted to todays market, that the films made more money than more recent films.

Saying that the two franchises werent finacially succesful is BS, if there two series werent successful why are there many, many novels, comics, games, figures etc? Surely you dont manufacture these things for an unsuccessful movie?

[stickaround]

Hey darkness, i think we're getting on more common ground now dude !

More replies !

1) The aliens were a mix of good and bad i think but were better than alien 3 (which we all know had problems !) and alien resurrection (which again, had its good points)

2) I voted good

3) I don't ignore the negatives, but they didn't outweigh what i enjoyed :

a) Having lance henriksen back was cool
b) I thought the production design and look of the film was good
c) I enjoyed seeing the preds in an unfamiliar environment
d) I enjoyed the aliens & preds going toe to toe
e)The slo mo face hugger shot was cool
f) The queen fight was cool
g) Some nice nods to the other movies and comics

I just don't beleive absolutely slating the film and director gets us anywhere. It is what it is so lets move on to AvP2 !

We all get built up for films, especially ones that have been a long time coming. I'm fortunate that aswell as AvP, T3 turned out pretty good, land of the dead was great and the dawn of the dead remake was excelent. (& i've just got back from rocky balboa - it rocked, if only sly and arnie had teamed up in their peaks !!) If i come out feeling disappointed, say after the day after tomorrow for example,i will say so, ask my gf ! AvP does seem to be one of those films that people love or hate without much middle ground.

4) It doesn't make it ok, but having read the comics i apreciated the storyline. People who haven't seem to think this would never happen.

5) I appreciate them as much as any fan as my dvd collection will show, predator, aliens and predator 2 are among my all time favourites. I just don't see how enjoying AvP detracts from my love of the other films ?

6) I actually didn't mind Nick Stahl but some of the dialogue was dodgy !

7) Yeah, i think maybe fans who are more pro aliens, which is the bigger franchise, were more disappointed ? I just genuinely beleive it's a difficult concept to pull off, at least paul anderson had a go, what upsets me more is people like sigourney weaver saying it's a terrible idea full stop (alien resurrection didn't exactly do the franchise too many favours), why ?

It is about the money unless someone with any influence genuinely beleives in the idea (rocky balboa anyone !) A5 is a tough one, like you say the budget is a huge factor and where do you go with it ? I think pred 3 is more realistic.

Stickaround !

[stickaround]

Dachande, dachande,dachande !

1)If you truly beleive that YSH was a bigger influence on filmmakers than T2 then that's your opinion, can we agree to disagree as i don't want this argument going any further !!!

Your the one who drifted and i got back to the original point with my last reply ! You beleive it's unnecessary to have CGI in aliens and predator films. I beleive this isn't the case.


2)Adjusting the figures is pointless (adjusted money is worthless, how can't you understand that at the time of their releases after aliens all the films under performed) the x-men movies have made alot more money plain and simple

& I didn't say they wern't successful (predator 2 wasn't though and if you use your inflation argument A4 made less than A3) just not as successful as x-men. You're the one who said the studio would finance AvP with as big a budget as X3 because of the money the previous films had made compared to X1 & 2. This is just nonsense

The franchises are extremely popular, hence the comics, figures etc but the box office since aliens hasn't been spectacular.

I guarantee anyone with the box office figures will agree that the x-men films have been far more successful and i like those films too !

Stickaround !

[Dachande]

2)Adjusting the figures is pointless (adjusted money is worthless, how can't you understand that at the time of their releases after aliens all the films under performed) the x-men movies have made alot more money plain and simple

Looking at the figures at their time of realease then, yes X-Men made more money. Except what im trying to point out, is that if any of the Aliens movies were realeased today at the same price as X Men, then they would make far more money

[SM]

AvP had wasn't bad visually and the effects were generally good, but in every other respect it was awful.  It didn't even work as a mindless action flick, because of the minimal amount of actual 'action'.

Anderson would make a great production designer or DoP - but keep him away from a typewriter.