Wachowskis’ Jupiter Ascending (Post-release)

[dascoyne]

Yeah maybe their follow up movies could be termed under pseudointellectualism, but The Matrix itself was anything but that. I am aware it's partly inspired by other existing works and known philosophical themes but they were able to blend it all into a great entertaining visual treat, that even if somebody doesn't want to dwell into its deeper roots could still enjoy it immensely. They really set the bar pretty high for themselves and I don't think they will ever top that. I would say the same about Richard Kelley and Neill Blomkamp. Both had excellent debut films and it will be tough for them to even match those. Maybe Wachowskis' work in TV might turn out to be more promising.

I feel they started on that road with Matrix Reloaded. That film made me groan in disbelief.
Meanwhile The Matrix remains a brilliant and timeless film which manages the concepts without the conceit.

The only reason we both brought Gravity into the mix was cause it was used as a example by LW for a movie not being released in summer. Though you had your reasons and I directed my statement based on you not seeing it, I also it meant it in regards to everyone else who didn't give the movie a chance. Just search the movie's thread on the forum and see how the early reactions were. And it's not just here, it's pretty much everywhere. There are always these suspicions and excuses not to give the non-franchise movie a chance these days.

Again, though the following is based on your reason about not liking a particular actor and not choosing to watch it, but I keep seeing similar trends and that's what I am addressing below.

People who irk at of some of the actors/writers/directors etc, will actively avoid their works especially when it's a non-franchise film. If those same individuals end in their favourite franchise film, they will suck it up and will at least give the movie a chance, cause they are supporting that franchise and brand. But they won't do the same to a original film.

Okay, maybe you won't do it either ways but many would and they have already expressed their interests in similar fashion.

Gravity was by the director of Children of Men, Clooney was a supporting role or more like a early cameo. There are more reasons to watch it, then to avoid it.

Again, I understand everybody has their preferences and its their prerogative as to what they want to watch. But when we see the growing trend in sequels/reboots and the audience keeps saying they want to see more new original movies, it's not just Hollywood that needs to change the audience need to be more open to that change too.

I didn't realize that was an existing discussion regarding Gravity. I wouldn't be surprised if I'd like the film - in fact I believe it's more than likely to be the case. I had similar misgivings about Solaris (even more so because I've seen the original) but I did end up liking it.

 

[ghostryder]

Transformers 4 made over $1.087 billion worldwide

 

[ghostryder]

Jupiter Ascending Flops: Why the Wachowskis’ Failure Is Bad for Movies

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/jupiter-ascending-flop-wachowskis-failure-1201427887/

 

[dascoyne]

Jupiter Ascending Flops: Why the Wachowskis’ Failure Is Bad for Movies

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/jupiter-ascending-flop-wachowskis-failure-1201427887/

I hate being the sourpuss in this thread but I just don't get it. The W's must be loved so much by the media that the press is rallying for them because the Variety article (as with the earlier BuzzFeed article) seem to lament the failure of originality using Jupiter Ascending as the core example.

In a Wired opinion piece, Angela Watercutter urged people to buy a ticket to “Jupiter Ascending” even as she acknowledged that it was deeply flawed.

“Do it because the Wachowskis are part of a shrinking species: original sci-fi filmmakers,” she wrote. “And in these long, cold months before the Marvel machine cranks back up, it’s good to remember what those look like — for better or worse.”

If the author wants to use Marvel as an example of Hollywood being "unoriginal" then I say she's got it backwards.

Marvel Studios is the prime example of a studio that has taken chances, is original and has been rewarded for their approach.

Iron Man was an original treatment of a dangerously familiar premise - the tortured billionaire playboy who fights crime by night and has a personal manservant/butler/confidant... but isn't Batman. It was a risk to hire Favreau to direct and even more to star RDJ. Remember, at the time, RDJ was not employable in Hollywood (I even recall he was trying to have a music career) - Terrence Howard was paid more than him for the film.

When Marvel made the mistake of trying to be more formulaic (e.g. Iron Man 2) they were punished for it by critics and fans. And I believe they learned from their mistakes.

I believe Marvel Studios subsequent successes (under Kevin Feige, a comic book guy) were guided by a desire to tell good stories and an appreciation of quality storytelling. To put down Marvel movies is really putting down the works of Joss Whedon, Russo Brothers, James Gunn, Kenneth Branaugh, Jon Favreau, Joe Johnson ... all of whom have publicly stated that their experience with Marvel was refreshingly collaborative. (The one exception being Favreau with Iron Man 2 - an awful misstep on the part of Marvel).

I say folks like Whedon and Gunn, today, make more personal and original works than the Wachwskis who seem to have lost their way. Maybe it would be a good thing for them to work on smaller films for a while. Maybe the problem with their films has to do with studio interference. Gunn and Whedon still appreciate working on smaller, more intimately scaled films because of that.

The W's have tremendous vision and I miss the purity of that. For the past 16 years I get the sense they've been drunk on budget and blinded by visuals. JA is not the embodiment of originality - that's why it's getting panned and shunned. On a visual basis I do think it deserves a degree of success and I think it would be better received if Guardians of the Galaxy hadn't come along. I Think the public is more astute than they're credited for - they just want good stories with engaging characters.

 

[Vivek]

Marvel is a great example of doing something original with their properties and how they are redefining the genre with superheroes. But their properties themselves are not original as they are all existing intellectual property.

Whiplash for example is a great original film but can't really be compared to big budget genre films like Edge of Tomorrow or Jupiter Ascending. Edge of Tomorrow's marketing wasn't really at fault as many try to pin the failure on that, but the public just didn't show up and it had good story and compelling characters.

We will continue to get great small budget original films, but the chances of seeing big budget genre films not based on existing IP are getting slim every year. Thankfully Passengers is actually moving forward now.

 

[JD]

How original can Iron Man be when the character and concept first appeared in 1963? I'll give Marvel tons of credit for creating something exciting out of existing properties - they are doing amazing things. But, in the end they are still taking existing properties and translating them to the big screen (and yes, there are original ideas mixed with these "unoriginal" properties).

I really don't think Marvel is doing anything new or groundbreaking. They're doing what they've been doing in comic form for years and merely adapting and molding it for the big screen... that's new for the movie world. Favreau - or whomever is responsible for the added scene at the end of the first Iron Man and started the blueprint for the Marvel Movie Universe made a genius decision - just as casting Downey Jr. was. Marvel is making good (often great) comic book movies - tying them together in a cohesive universe on the big screen like this is... well, we've had comics, movies and TV tie-ins for a very long time (heck, Batman and the Green Hornet crossed over on the Adam West series).

Speaking of James Gunn, let's not forget that prior to Guardians of the Galaxy has been around for decades. They took an existing concept and did great things with it. But, if you want something more original look at Gunn's Super.

I'll give the Wachowskis credit for trying... even though it ultimately failed on many different levels.

 

[JD]

http://deadline.com/2015/02/jupiter...e-at-the-international-box-office-1201369098/

"The Wachowskis’ Jupiter Ascending may have had a bumpy ride on its domestic debut but, internationally at least, the sci-fi sudser is showing some wings. The film grossed $32.5 million with 5.4 million admissions from just under 10,200 screens in 65 countries. The results were particularly strong in Eastern Europe and Asia where Jupiter topped the box office in a number of locations."

 

[Vivek]

'Jupiter Ascending' Survival Guide - Defending Your Love of 'Jupiter Ascending' - Esquire

 

[dascoyne]

How original can Iron Man be when the character and concept first appeared in 1963? I'll give Marvel tons of credit for creating something exciting out of existing properties - they are doing amazing things. But, in the end they are still taking existing properties and translating them to the big screen (and yes, there are original ideas mixed with these "unoriginal" properties).

I really don't think Marvel is doing anything new or groundbreaking. They're doing what they've been doing in comic form for years and merely adapting and molding it for the big screen... that's new for the movie world. Favreau - or whomever is responsible for the added scene at the end of the first Iron Man and started the blueprint for the Marvel Movie Universe made a genius decision - just as casting Downey Jr. was. Marvel is making good (often great) comic book movies - tying them together in a cohesive universe on the big screen like this is... well, we've had comics, movies and TV tie-ins for a very long time (heck, Batman and the Green Hornet crossed over on the Adam West series).

Speaking of James Gunn, let's not forget that prior to Guardians of the Galaxy has been around for decades. They took an existing concept and did great things with it. But, if you want something more original look at Gunn's Super.

I'll give the Wachowskis credit for trying... even though it ultimately failed on many different levels.

I've watched Super dozens of times. I think it's a great movie done with an appropriate budget. It didn't need a huge studio backing and Gunn never griped over how unpopular it was with critics and most viewers. He never complained about the box office reception and followed his vision knowing it would be appreciated by a tiny minority of viewers. I watched Super expecting a subversively caustic satire but was surprised at how moving and personal the film actually was. Super made me cry more than once.

In interviews Gunn was initially reluctant to do GotG because of the specter of working with a large studio. I think he managed to make a personal film with GotG which is as much of a triumph as Super IMO.

It's really hard for me to see JA as "original" (outside of the stunning visuals) because the story itself seems so familiar and the characters little more than archetypes. I'm hard on the W's because I know they're capable of so much more. Have you seen Favreau's film, Chef? I feel like the W's are like Favreau's character and I'm the Oliver Platt critic whose harsh only because he has faith in a greater potential. I'm not this harsh with Michael Bay because I don't expect much from him.

But I'll continue to watch W's films hoping to be surprised. But I'll still call them out for falling short.
JA has glimmers of promise so I remain hopeful about their future.

 

[niennumb1]

Just touching on one of Variety's notes:

“Audiences are kind of reticent to take a chance on something they don’t know or understand,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Rentrak. “They marketed the heck out of this movie, and it was still tough to bring people through the door.”

The only thing I saw was a movie I just wasn't interested in. It looked original, but nothing about it brought me in to wanting to see it. You can be as original as you want, or rebooting, or ripping off a concept (or whatever)... If it doesn't appeal to me I just flat out am not going to see it. Maybe the trailer should have felt more personal? You need to grab the attention of your audience with a message. In this day in age, visual effects are seen all the time and are not a selling point for a movie. If they support the overall story and not overshadow it, then great!

FOR ME, this movie does not appeal. It looks terrible. But I could be way wrong and just suffered poor marketing and ineffective trailers showing big shiny pretty VFX.

 

[Solo4114]

So, admittedly, I have not seen the film. It looks gloriously awful, but it may turn out to be an underappreciated gem. I'll wait for Netflix to find out.

That said, I think that the comment about audiences craving familiarity is...fairly accurate, or at least plausible as an explanation. Audiences do seem to crave familiarity in some sense, and more original premises -- at least within the scifi/fantasy/action genre -- have not fared as well in the last 15 years.

I think a big part of that is the audiences, but a bigger part is the studios. The studios are looking for formulas for success. Derivative properties -- especially comic books -- have proven highly successful. So, Hollywood figures that's what audiences want, and makes more. Enough of those films make money that Hollywood interprets this as a sign that, yes, more comic book films = what the public wants = more money.

Now, the public could opt out of this stuff. They could skip these derivative films -- but they aren't. By contrast, my guess is that plenty of people are gonna skip Jupiter Ascending. Now, maybe that's because it's unfamiliar, but maybe it's because of other factors -- such as the underlying concepts appearing kinda dumb, or the visuals looking hokey to people.

I gather that the film was inspired a lot by Moebius and European comics (which are very different from U.S. superhero-based fare). The look of the film certainly matches what I've seen of Moebius and his style. Maybe the issue is more that these kinds of images just...don't really translate well into the real world. In an illustrated or animated form, they work fine. But to see an ACTUAL werewolf/dog-man on rocket skates? It ends up looking hokey. So, is it hubris? Is it just a total misread of audiences? Is it resting on laurels now 16 years old? Who knows. But someone thought this was a good bet for a film, and bankrolled it.

Personally, I think the Wachowski brand itself is...not exactly gold these days. The Matrix sequels are somewhere between loathed and tolerated. Speed Racer was generally regarded as bad or just ignored. Cloud Atlas went the same way. I think audiences just don't trust them to do good stuff these days, so when your only other "Come on, trust us!" angle is "These are the folks who made The Matrix!" audiences aren't exactly lining up when the rest of the film looks to be kinda hokey and weird, from the visuals.

 

[Solo4114]

Just touching on one of Variety's notes:

“Audiences are kind of reticent to take a chance on something they don’t know or understand,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Rentrak. “They marketed the heck out of this movie, and it was still tough to bring people through the door.”

The only thing I saw was a movie I just wasn't interested in. It looked original, but nothing about it brought me in to wanting to see it. You can be as original as you want, or rebooting, or ripping off a concept (or whatever)... If it doesn't appeal to me I just flat out am not going to see it. Maybe the trailer should have felt more personal? You need to grab the attention of your audience with a message. In this day in age, visual effects are seen all the time and are not a selling point for a movie. If they support the overall story and not overshadow it, then great!

FOR ME, this movie does not appeal. It looks terrible. But I could be way wrong and just suffered poor marketing and ineffective trailers showing big shiny pretty VFX.

That's a good point, too. I find that a lot of films emphasize visual FX anymore, and I really just don't give a crap. I expect competent FX. But the FX is there, for me, to support the story, not to draw focus from it. In the original Matrix movie, the FX worked because they highlighted the unreality of the simulation and what characters who could "hack" the simulation could do. The opening sequence of the film with Trinity running away was great for this, especially if -- like me -- you went in not really know what the film was about. But that's where stunning FX is supporting the story. By contrast, the sequels felt more like the FX was taking over from the story, and the story that was there...just wasn't that interesting.

That's kind of where I am based on the previews of this. That or "Oh man, this looks TERRIBLE in an awesome-to-make-fun-of way." Like, Battlefield Earth levels of bad-with-a-huge-budget-and-taking-itself-quite-seriously. Might just be that the trailers are ineffective. Might be they're showing me the film as it is.

 

[ProfKSergeev]

The Variety article claims Jupiter Ascending is "original and innovative." How can a film of wall-to-wall cliché, tired formula, and painfully undisguised hommage be called "original and innovative"? Perhaps it breaks new ground aesthetically, but the story and characters are old hat.

 

[JD]

It's really hard for me to see JA as "original" (outside of the stunning visuals) because the story itself seems so familiar and the characters little more than archetypes. I'm hard on the W's because I know they're capable of so much more. Have you seen Favreau's film, Chef? I feel like the W's are like Favreau's character and I'm the Oliver Platt critic whose harsh only because he has faith in a greater potential. I'm not this harsh with Michael Bay because I don't expect much from him.

But I'll continue to watch W's films hoping to be surprised. But I'll still call them out for falling short.
JA has glimmers of promise so I remain hopeful about their future.

It's hard for you to see JA as "original" - yet Iron Man was?

As you said, you're pretty harsh on the Wachowskis - I think some of your posts border on being unnecesary hostile towards them. Unlike Favreau's character in Chef - the W's were not forced or coerced to make this movie they way they did... this was the movie they wanted to make. (As far as we know) there isn't a studio making demands about the menu - this is the dish they wanted to serve us.

I understand the JA may not have been the most original movie - there's a great deal of sci fi cliche involved - but, the same could be said of Star Wars, Raiders and the rest. JA is definitely not one of those movies - but, in the world we have of reboots, sequels and adaptations... it was something original.

I'm not trying to defend them (as I can't really say I'm a huge fan of their movies). Maybe they are capable of bringing more to the screen than what we've seen here... maybe the Matrix was a fluke (and the sequels sure help that argument) - I didn't care much for Cloud Atlas and didn't see Speed Racer. They really don't have much in the way of movie directing credits - Bound, the Matrix flicks, Speed Racer, Cloud Atlas and this - add some producing and writing stuff (notably V for Vendetta). Obviously, they are competent in some manner of film making - perhaps they need a studio/producer with a heavier hand to help streamline their work.

 

[ecl]

Jupiter Descending!

 

[Lord Boron]

The biggest turn off for me with this movie is the cast. Channing Tatum and Mila Kuns. Yuck!

 

[joshvanrad]

To me, it seems like they try to do WAY too much with their concepts. I REALLY liked The Matrix, Speed Racer, and V for Vendetta. Those movies were fairly consistent rides. Cloud Atlas, the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies, and now Jupiter Ascending seem like they are trying to do way too much inside of a film. They seem really A.D.D. with it. Cloud Atlas was a disaster of a film. If this movie is anything like that, I don't think I'll be seeing it.

 

[Lear60man]

I liked Cloud Atlas, Im a sucker for Sci Fi. Hell, I even liked A.I. Movies are personal, I didnt like Snow Piercer and it was free on Netflix.

I hope Jupiter is still in theaters in a week because the wife said she wants to see it (shock).

 

[Vivek]

Technically if we go with the notion that Everything Is A Remix, nothing in the world of fiction is truly original anymore.

But in most cases when a movie is regarded as original, it just means it's not based on a existing property, which itself is a rarity these days.

So it can still be considered as a original film even if it incorporates elements of Hero's Journey which have been part of storytelling and fiction for centuries now.

 

[JD]

Joseph Campbell anyone?

http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/movie-heroes-person-joseph-campbell-monomyth-83796