Work on the Sequels Stopped?

[Alionic]

Well, It Comes At Night was marketed as something other than it was, I'll give you that.

[Jonesy1974]

I didn't like it comes at night and it's only made13 mil so far so must be a bad film by that logic.

But I don't think me not liking it makes it bad, it just means I didn't like it. Nothing more.

It Comes At Night made 13 million with a budget of 5 million. It covered the production costs on its opening week. Those are good numbers by all accounts. Covenant didn't even make its budget domestically to this day, and was only just barely saved from being a flop thanks to international box office.

That's irrelevant. 13 mil clearly shows it's not pulling in crowds. films that were made for less have been huge hits at the cinema. People are not going to see it, pure and simple.

And it's an international marketplace, it's not just about US BO anymore.

And as previously stated, what about blade runner or the thing, are they bad films?

I'm not saying Covenants a good film because I like it, far from it, it's just my opinion of it and I respect others views who didn't. I don't see why you feel the need to justify you're opinion by ignoring the fact that BO isn't a measure of a films quality.

[Mr. Xenomorph]

And as previously stated, what about blade runner or the thing, are they bad films?

I'm not saying Covenants a good film because I like it, far from it, it's just my opinion of it and I respect others views who didn't. I don't see why you feel the need to justify you're opinion by ignoring the fact that BO isn't a measure of a films quality.

Box office certainly doesn't measure a film's quality.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cult-classics-that-bombed-2016-6

[Jonesy1974]

And as previously stated, what about blade runner or the thing, are they bad films?

I'm not saying Covenants a good film because I like it, far from it, it's just my opinion of it and I respect others views who didn't. I don't see why you feel the need to justify you're opinion by ignoring the fact that BO isn't a measure of a films quality.
[/.

Box office certainly doesn't measure a film's quality.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cult-classics-that-bombed-2016-6

Wow, so many great films. I love all of them... except maybe the room and troll 2...

[Paranoid Android]

That's irrelevant. 13 mil clearly shows it's not pulling in crowds. films that were made for less have been huge hits at the cinema. People are not going to see it, pure and simple.

And it's an international marketplace, it's not just about US BO anymore.

And as previously stated, what about blade runner or the thing, are they bad films?

I'm not saying Covenants a good film because I like it, far from it, it's just my opinion of it and I respect others views who didn't. I don't see why you feel the need to justify you're opinion by ignoring the fact that BO isn't a measure of a films quality.

A film does well by measuring how much money it made compared to how much it cost to produce and market. Making 13 million for a small low budget horror film that cost 5 million to make (and by rule of thumb, let's assume 5 more to market) is a pretty nice profit. precentage-wise, compared to Covenant, that's like making 70 million in profit, and this is not even counting the fact that Covenant is part of a franchise, so it's expected to perform better than a movie with no ties to any other franchise.

Blader Runner's original cut was pretty terrible. It included Harrison Ford's terrible narration that is flat out unbearable. We are not talking about the Final Cut that's available today and is regarded a masterpiece. The Thing is indeed one of those few exceptions when a movie under-performs for unexplained reasons but gains popularity later on (Fight Club also comes to mind). But those movies are the exceptions that prove the rule. They are the rare cases.

[Jonesy1974]

That's irrelevant. 13 mil clearly shows it's not pulling in crowds. films that were made for less have been huge hits at the cinema. People are not going to see it, pure and simple.

And it's an international marketplace, it's not just about US BO anymore.

And as previously stated, what about blade runner or the thing, are they bad films?

I'm not saying Covenants a good film because I like it, far from it, it's just my opinion of it and I respect others views who didn't. I don't see why you feel the need to justify you're opinion by ignoring the fact that BO isn't a measure of a films quality.

A film does well by measuring how much money it made compared to how much it cost to produce and market. Making 13 million for a small low budget horror film that cost 5 million to make (and by rule of thumb, let's assume 5 more to market) is a pretty nice profit. precentage-wise, compared to Covenant, that's like making 70 million in profit, and this is not even counting the fact that Covenant is part of a franchise, so it's expected to perform better than a movie with no ties to any other franchise.

Blader Runner's original cut was pretty terrible. It included Harrison Ford's terrible narration that is flat out unbearable. We are not talking about the Final Cut that's available today and is regarded a masterpiece. The Thing is indeed one of those few exceptions when a movie under-performs for unexplained reasons but gains popularity later on (Fight Club also comes to mind). But those movies are the exceptions that prove the rule. They are the rare cases.

That's not a measure of popularity though is it. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Take a look at the link from Mr xenomorpth. The thing and blade runner are not isolated cases.

I like loads of films that didn't make large sums of money, makes no difference to how I feel about a film. I also despise a great number of films that did make loads of money, still doesn't make me like them.

[Paranoid Android]

That's not a measure of popularity though is it. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Take a look at the link from Mr xenomorpth. The thing and blade runner are not isolated cases.

I like loads of films that didn't make large sums of money, makes no difference to how I feel about a film. I also despise a great number of films that did make loads of money, still doesn't make me like them.

I did. That's a list comprised of films gathered in the span of decades. Per year, those are pretty isolated cases, and each year you always have one (I can name A Monster Calls from last year, for example). Some films on that list are now popular literally because of how bad they are (such as The Room).
The thing that all of those movies have in common: They are all single entries featuring an original idea that's not tied to any existing franchise or pop culture. They are not your Pirates of the Caribbean's or your Alien:Covenants or your Star Wars. They don't have brand familiarity, large fan base or strong marketing to push them, so sometimes they are overlooked (to the point when even movie critics miss them). When a franchise installment fails, it fails because of its quality, because it means that even the people who support the franchise backed away from it.

[426Buddy]

Should just move on, he's not going to listen to reason. BO is not an objective measure of qaulity, its a fact.

If it was then Transformers, Fast/Furious, and many other box office smashes would be great films, but they're not.

[Paranoid Android]

If it was then Transformers, Fast/Furious, and many other box office smashes would be great films, but they're not.

Transformers, Fast/Furious etc. are established franchises that cater to their demographic very well. They won't be winning any Oscars anytime soon, but they give their fans exactly what they want. The quality they produce is the quality that's expected of them.

[Jonesy1974]

That's not a measure of popularity though is it. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Take a look at the link from Mr xenomorpth. The thing and blade runner are not isolated cases.

I like loads of films that didn't make large sums of money, makes no difference to how I feel about a film. I also despise a great number of films that did make loads of money, still doesn't make me like them.

I did. That's a list comprised of films gathered in the span of decades. Per year, those are pretty isolated cases, and each year you always have one (I can name A Monster Calls from last year, for example). Some films on that list are now popular literally because of how bad they are (such as The Room).
The thing that all of those movies have in common: They are all single entries featuring an original idea that's not tied to any existing franchise or pop culture. They are not your Pirates of the Caribbean's or your Alien:Covenants or your Star Wars. They don't have brand familiarity, large fan base or strong marketing to push them, so sometimes they are overlooked (to the point when even movie critics miss them). When a franchise installment fails, it fails because of its quality, because it means that even the people who support the franchise backed away from it.

I think you're perception of the Alien 'brand' is popularity is very far from the mark. It's been in decline for years. Prometheus gave it a shot in the arm but it was a massive event movie with Ridley returning to sci fi.

Covenant didn't fail at the BO because the fans didn't turn out, they did. Some may not have liked it but they still went to see it. It's the wider audience that didn't and the reasons for that have all been covered in this thread, you're just choosing to ignore most of those reasons because you, personally, didnt like it.

Should just move on, he's not going to listen to reason. BO is not an objective measure of qaulity, its a fact.

If it was then Transformers, Fast/Furious, and many other box office smashes would be great films, but they're not.

You're right, he has a very narrow view of things.

[426Buddy]

Like I said, best just to move on and agree to disagree. Paranoid is clearly not going to be swayed by reality or facts in this case.

[Paranoid Android]

I think you're perception of the Alien 'brand' is popularity is very far from the mark. It's been in decline for years. Prometheus gave it a shot in the arm but it was a massive event movie with Ridley returning to sci fi.

Covenant didn't fail at the BO because the fans didn't turn out, they did. Some may not have liked it but they still went to see it. It's the wider audience that didn't and the reasons for that have all been covered in this thread, you're just choosing to ignore most of those reasons because you, personally, didnt like it.

I'd say the original hype behind Covenant was larger than the hype behind Prometheus, mainly due to what Alien:Isolation did. That game was the real shot in the arm for the franchise. Alien:Covenant was on the most anticipated lists of every movie outlet out there.

I'm choosing to ignore the reasons covered in this thread because I've been to Youtube. The amount of hate videos released on Covenant is something I haven't seen in years; people posting hour+ videos in which they dissect the film to point out how bad it is; discussions filled with dread and horror about the idea that there might actually be a sequel to this thing in spite of everything; People vocally contemplating if they should even still bother with the franchise. It's bad. Yet here we are, on a fan site, where people who didn't like the film usually wouldn't even visit (cause what's the point), and you guys think the state of affairs here represents the fandom. I don't mind the fact that other people like the film. I would be the biggest hypocrite in the world, seeing as my own film library consists of some pretty controversial picks, but it doesn't make those films less bad and liking Covenant doesn't make it a good film. Its characters alone are reason enough to throw it into the bad films category.

[Jonesy1974]

I think you're perception of the Alien 'brand' is popularity is very far from the mark. It's been in decline for years. Prometheus gave it a shot in the arm but it was a massive event movie with Ridley returning to sci fi.

Covenant didn't fail at the BO because the fans didn't turn out, they did. Some may not have liked it but they still went to see it. It's the wider audience that didn't and the reasons for that have all been covered in this thread, you're just choosing to ignore most of those reasons because you, personally, didnt like it.

I'd say the original hype behind Covenant was larger than the hype behind Prometheus, mainly due to what Alien:Isolation did. That game was the real shot in the arm for the franchise. Alien:Covenant was on the most anticipated lists of every movie outlet out there.

I'm choosing to ignore the reasons covered in this thread because I've been to Youtube. The amount of hate videos released on Covenant is something I haven't seen in years; people posting hour+ videos in which they dissect the film to point out how bad it is; discussions filled with dread and horror about the idea that there might actually be a sequel to this thing in spite of everything; People vocally contemplating if they should even still bother with the franchise. It's bad. Yet here we are, on a fan site, where people who didn't like the film usually wouldn't even visit (cause what's the point), and you guys think the state of affairs here represents the fandom. I don't mind the fact that other people like the film. I would be the biggest hypocrite in the world, seeing as my own film library consists of some pretty controversial picks, but it doesn't make those films less bad and liking Covenant doesn't make it a good film. Its characters alone are reason enough to throw it into the bad films category.

Ah yes, you tube is always a good place to start if you're after a balanced view.

I like the characters so I must be an idiot who likes 'bad' things.

[Paranoid Android]

It gives a more balanced view than a fan site, to be honest. Youtube is a place where people gather to upload and watch videos. It contains all sorts of opinions. Fan sites are places where people gather with a built-in positive view on on a subject, making them biased by design.

You liking the characters doesn't make you an idiot; that's just you taking criticism of the film personally. I said it before and I'll repeat myself again: I have nothing against you as a person; I am not talking about you as a person; I am talking about a film, not about you.

[Jonesy1974]

It gives a more balanced view than a fan site, to be honest. Youtube is a place where people gather to upload and watch videos. It contains all sorts of opinions. Fan sites are places where people gather with a built-in positive view on on a subject, making them biased by design.

You liking the characters doesn't make you an idiot; that's just you taking criticism of the film personally. I said it before and I'll repeat myself again: I have nothing against you as a person; I am not talking about you as a person; I am talking about a film, not about you.

Ok so you tell me why I like the film and characters when it's all so bad? Why do you think that is? Is it because I'm biased, stupid or just blind to what you and the you tubers can see?