"Mortal Engines" Topic

I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. It is not getting good reviews, but I enjoyed it quite a lot. Interesting situation, some good characters, and great special effects. It does try to cram a bit too much into a two hour movie and there are a few inevitable 'Star Wars' comparisons, but overall I can give it a thumbs up.

I think it was mostly due to bad timing on when it came out.

Good cast too. I enjoyed it

Being a fan of the novels, I have high hopes for this, and have been disappointed by the poor response. (I've yet to see it myself.)

It's true that when shaved down to bare bones there are plot similarities to Star Wars. But then, Star Wars itself was an homage to a well-established mythic trope, so that's hardly surprising. (It's all basically "Young hero rises to kill the dragon, rescue the princess, and save the people from a tyrannical ruler." Anyone ever heard of Perseus? Same story, really.)

I personally suspect that the setting is too "out there" for the average movie goer, with London converted into a gigantic APC, roaming around an apocalyptic landscape "eating" other giant APC cities. There's a lot to grok what's going on in the novels, and the movie viewer doesn't have the luxury of time and consideration which a book offers. You're in it and BANG, off you go. If you're not ready, you're gonna be saying "Wait, what now?" through the whole thing. Since I'm already prepared for that series of surprises, I expect I'll appreciate it more than the guy who's just bumming around for something to watch.

Good popcorn movie. The family alway takes in a light movie on Christmas Eve and we saw it then.

I tried reading the first book and it was just to "kidsy" for me. I'm not the target audience if course. Do the books have more depth as the plot continues? The Clone Wars cartoon was that way. Once you got past the first few episodes they realized that adults were the majority of the audience.

I saw the trailer so I read the book beforehand. The book is great! Yes, for Young Adults, but so was Harry Potter. The movie stays close to the book but changes a few things (of course), a few quite a bit. I thought it was okay; my wife liked it a lot.

The subsequent 3 books in the series are very good as is the 3-book prequel and Anna Fang short story collection.

The books do get much deeper as they go on, even quite profound. Also, some of the humor is very mature (in the real meaning of the word "mature," not in being obscene or puerile).

Adding to the above, the characters also mature, so they don't remain young adults throughout the series. It may seem "kidsy" at first, but it's definitely not. (In fact, it was originally sold as both YA fiction and adult SF.)

I thought ME was alright, but that doesn't mean the "average moviegoer" is interested in seeing it.

Here's as good an explanation as any as to why it bombed at the box office: link

Yep, that lines up with my thoughts, too. And I think the author nails it on the now required combo of established, popular character and actor/actress in the role. Though, honestly, having a good story helps a lot, and is what really makes a movie sustainable in the long run.

I'm definitely going to see Mortal Engines, but then I love the books and think PJ's over-the-top approach fits the novels' setting and already over-the-top story. But to the "average moviegoer" the whole thing is obscure, with the question "Why would I want to see this?" never answered by the marketing. (Not unlike Disney's Jon Carter. Fine movie, but obscure character, barely known actors, and thus no connection to a broader audience. Spectacle isn't enough to sell a movie.

Plus remember today most of the individuals who they are targeting this movie for don't even read hardly anything.

They can barely write as well.

John Carter was also undermined by the abysmal marketing of the film. Disney should be flogged with a wet noodle.

It has long been established (back in the Deep Ages, during the Flame Wars) that there are no stupid posters on TMP, but that is a stupid proposition, Javelin98.

Disney needs to beaten severely with something much more effective than a noodle, so that they notice and learn not to "do a 20thCenturyFox" on the marketing of a spectacular movie ever again.

Sometimes no amount of marketing can save a movie from crashing and burning at the box office. Marketing/advertising costs can add a lot of expenditure to the overall budget (albeit undisclosed) of a movie, so to more aggressively market an ill-conceived film may only be throwing good money after bad. Take 'Solo' for instance.

If the general moviegoing audience have no interest in seeing movies like 'Mortal Engines,' 'Valerian and the City of 1000 Planets,' 'Jupiter Ascending,' 'Tomorrowland,' 'Ghost in the Shell' and, yes, 'John Carter' to begin with, then no amount of marketing is going to save them.

Let's face it. Large budget genre movies on obscure titles trying to appeal to the mainstream audience can be risky.

Plus remember today most of the individuals who they are targeting this movie for don't even read hardly anything.

They can barely write as well.

I'll skip the irony of that statement and suggest that someone is reading this series of books. Volume 2 of the series was temporarily sold out on Amazon recently. I think the idea that the newer generations don't read was blown out of the water with Harry Potter.

Sometimes no amount of marketing can save a movie from crashing and burning at the box office.

Perhaps, but the absolute absence of marketing will also finish off a movie. John Carter is the poster child for that.

As for Jupiter Rising, Valerian and Ghost in the Shell, those movies were Razzie-worthy, abysmal, bores. In the first viewing of each, I couldn't be bothered finishing the films. I had absolutely no interest in finishing the story. I can add Pacific Rim Uprising and Ready, Player One to that list, even though others may disagree. Movies with poor and unengaging storytelling won't do well.

I can't comment on Mortal Engines as I haven't seen it.

Jupiter Rising was a mess – couldn't decide whether it was an epic space opera or a super-hero/action movie. Ghost in the Shell just seemed derivative and dull.

Valerian and the city of a Thousand Planets, though, I liked a lot – it captured that quirky French SF feel really well I thought.

No amount of marketing will save a movie, regardless if it's good or bad, if few people are interested in seeing them to begin with.

A big budget blockbuster movie has to appeal to mainstream viewers nowadays to be considered successful (regardless of its critical reviews). Just because it created a buzz at SD Comicon doesn't mean it will succeed at the box office, because nerdy genre fanboys only represent a small slice of moviegoers and often overinflate expectations. 'John Carter' is a prime example of this phenomenon.