"Just what is an "Epic Failure"?" Topic

Having wanted "Prometheus" to be, at the very least, up to the level of the first two Alien movies and being so horribly disappointed, I have a question:

What does "Epic Failure" mean, exactly:

1) Does it mean that a movie came so terrifyingly close to reaching new heights, only to fail in the last gasp caused its failure to be Epic?

or

2) All the potential ingredients and money in the world could not have saved this movie from almost the very start.

Thanks in advance for your assistance and answers.

I think it can mean a couple of things:

This movie was supposed to be so great but it failed miserably to deliver on the promise.

In other situations:

Even though the promise of the outcome wasn't going to be anything spectacular, the failure was so monumental that it became epic. An example would be someone trying to be cool on a skateboard. If they do the move, it is just ok but if they trip, roll head over heals up to a steep hill and then fall over it landing in a tree, then that's also an epic failure.

IMO, more like 1 then 2 but elements of 2 are also present.

Generally it would mean that the movie or anything else being rated would be seen as a complete and total failure when success should have been reasonably easy to attain.

This does not mean that it failed at the last moment, it can be caused by any number of factors. For example, the fail was made possible right at the start when a crucial element was left out that changed an otherwise successful idea.

The usual vernacular for "epic failure" is simply a really spectacular failure – not just failing, but making an utter mess of it – of your options 2 is closer, but the "epic" is really just a superlative – it's a colossal failure, not just a minor balls-up….

What Dom said. In RPG terms, it was a critical failure or a fumble.

I'm with Dom and this joker.
Also, it's easier to spell than monumental.

To put it in gaming terms not only did you miss the tank with the RPG you hit the guy about to place an anti-tank bomb on it.

The quote below summarizes neatly what makes a movie truly dreadful:

This brings me to my major point. To qualify as one of the worst films of all time, several strict requirements must be met. For starters, a truly awful movie must have started out with some expectation of not being awful. That is why making a horrific, cheapo motion picture that stars Hilton or Jessica Simpson is not really much of an accomplishment. Did anyone seriously expect a film called The Hottie and The Nottie not to suck? Two, an authentically bad movie has to be famous; it can't simply be an obscure student film about a boy who eats live rodents to impress dead girls. Three, the film cannot be a deliberate attempt to make the worst movie ever, as this is cheating. Four, the film must feature real movie stars, not jocks, bozos, has-beens or fleetingly famous media fabrications like Hilton. Five, the film must generate a negative buzz long before it reaches cinemas; like the Black Plague or the Mongol invasions, it must be an impending disaster of which there has been abundant advance warning; it cannot simply appear out of nowhere. And it must, upon release, answer the question: could it possibly be as bad as everyone says it is? This is what separates Waterworld, a financial disaster but not an uncompromisingly dreadful film, and Ishtar, which has one or two amusing moments, from The Postman, Gigli and Heaven's Gate, all of which are bona fide nightmares.

Six, to qualify as one of the worst movies ever made, a motion picture must induce a sense of dread in those who have seen it, a fear that they may one day be forced to watch the film again – and again – and again. To pass muster as one of the all-time celluloid disasters, a film must be so bad that when a person is asked, "Which will it be? Waterboarding, invasive cattle prods or Jersey Girl?", the answer needs no further reflection. This phenomenon resembles Stockholm Syndrome, where a victim ends up befriending his tormentors, so long as they promise not to make him watch any more Kevin Smith movies. The condition is sometimes referred to as Blunted Affleck

I guess this was brought about by the announcement that there will be a sequel: TMP link

'Prometheus' hardly qualifies as an epic failure. While it had plot holes, a muddled logic and mixed reviews, its Rotten Tomatoes rating is actually pretty 'Fresh' at 74%/70% (the second lower percentage is from 'Top Reviewers'). It was a box office success, since at a budget of around $125 USD million it broke even domestically ($126 million) and went on to gross over $400 USD million internationally.

OTOH 'John Carter' qualifies as an 'epic fail' in every sense of the word. It was highly anticipated and Disney marketed it like crazy. The buzz on TMP for it was insane (a quick search revealed 15 'John Carter' posts on the 'Movies Plus' board alone, vs. 8 for 'Prometheus'). It was certified 'Rotten' on Rotten Tomatoes with a score of 51%/36%, and costing $250 USD million to make it managed to recoup only $73 USD million domestically and ultimately made just $282 USD million after its international release.

Yes, 'Prometheus' was disappointing given our high expectations for it, which was based on our love for 'Alien' and 'Aliens,' but calling it an 'epic fail' would be a gross exaggeration.

moviesaccordingtodave blogger.

Justin Bieber

FRPG example: first adventure for a PC in full plate armor. Takes an arrow from a nomad horsearcher, and the shot was "epic" because the damage dice rolled all maximum numbers (which in the system being played said, roll over and add to total damage), not once but several/many times. The damage was so huge that there was almost no chance of survival. THEN the player rolled the worst possible "save" on top of that (which in the system used said, roll over and minus from the original roll, i.e. go into the "negative" spectrum, in a game where the bigger the positive number, the better the success roll), and the player did this not once but at least twice, I forget exactly: but the end result was a failure to roll to survive that would have made even a pea shooter kill him. :) – it was the most "epic failure" I have ever seen….

The crash of the shuttle in the opening of 6 Million Dollar Man is an "Epic Fail"!

Let's put it this way, I knew this post was about 'Prometheus' just from the words 'Epic Failure' in the title.

As movies go, Star Wars Episode I was a pretty-epic failure from a Star Wars fan POV. It not only failed in its own right but it managed to undo some of the greatness of the three movies preceding it.

'Prometheus' hardly qualifies as an epic failure.
OTOH 'John Carter' qualifies as an 'epic fail' in every sense of the word.

And yet, going by the quotation Pijlie posted, the exact opposite is true in my case. I'd happily watch John Carter again, while Prometheus is a steaming of a film, and two hours of my life I won't get back.

Agree with AGP, sawJohn Carter at the cinema & was only too happy to get a dvd. Missed Prometheus at the cinema so bought the dvd but wish I hadn't bothered, epic fail indeed!

Yep, I too love John Carter…it's a very good movie.

As for Prometheus…I can't even deal with it anymore as "Background noise" while on the computer at night.

" 'John Carter' qualifies as an 'epic fail' in every sense of the word. It was highly anticipated and Disney marketed it like crazy."

That's just it. Disney didn't. They all but pulled the plug on it. Disney promoting like crazy (their normal mode) would likely have led to a financial success.

"As movies go, Star Wars Episode I was a pretty-epic failure from a Star Wars fan POV"

And it is the best of the prequels. It is the "ample warning" noted above, and is what turns 2 and 3 into the Epic Fails they are.

OK to comment on Prometheus its was dumb waste of money on my part for seeing it and on the makers part for making it.

It was like they left big parts or even small bits out that would have tied the parts of the movie they had into a story.

That's just it. Disney didn't. They all but pulled the plug on it. Disney promoting like crazy (their normal mode) would likely have led to a financial success.

Yes they did. They poured a lot of money promoting the film, but it failed due to 'perceived clumsiness' and missteps in how Disney promoted the film, not for lack of trying or funds.

while Prometheus is a steaming of a film, and two hours of my life I won't get back.

I won't argue with that. If what constitutes an 'epic failure' is wholly subjective, then it would qualify as such.

I still say that John Carter is a much greater epic failure. Its fallout included the 'heads' of two head honchos, head of marketing MT Carney and head of Disney Studios Rich Ross. Outside of TMP, fewer people liked it compared to 'Prometheus' based on audience reception (72% for Prometheus and 61% for JC). Then there's the fact that few people (outside of TMP) bothered to see it, and that (unlike 'Prometheus') it's probably not getting a sequel. JC does have one advantage though: it seems to get a lot more love here on TMP than the hated 'Prometheus.'