Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Was Annihilation too brainy for the box office?

This is bad news for me, as I don't have Netflix. Also, as the article points out, the film was designed for large screen cinema release.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Was Annihilation too brainy for the box office?

This is bad news for me, as I don't have Netflix. Also, as the article points out, the film was designed for large screen cinema release.

Never heard of it - but it sounds like a great film from that article and itsgot Natalie Portman so thats great.

Maybe Holly wood didn;t like her crack about the all male short list.

It is based on the first of a trilogy of books (the Southern Reach trilogy) by an American SF author called Jeff Vandermeer.

They are what I would call "New Weird" genre, like say most of China Mieville's output.

I have just finished Vandermeer's latest book "Borne", which again is a bit far away from "safe, macho franchise formula."

i was really excited about seeing this movie, and I decided to read the book first. After reading the book, I no longer wanted to see the movie.

I'm not clear whether or not I was too dumb to get it, or just didn't like it. Either is plausible.

When they say a movie is too intelligent for most people I immediately go into acquisition mode on it. They said the same about shin gdozilla and I loved it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is based on the first of a trilogy of books (the Southern Reach trilogy) by an American SF author called Jeff Vandermeer.

They are what I would call "New Weird" genre, like say most of China Mieville's output.

I have just finished Vandermeer's latest book "Borne", which again is a bit far away from "safe, macho franchise formula."

I do enjoy China Melviles work and this does sound like a number of other sci-fi books I have enjoyed.

Have netflix now so all good

Oh, god. Perdido Street Station was so awesomely wierd.....

Never read the book, actually I didn't even heard of it before. But Ex Machina was amazing, and I always enjoy serious sci-fi movies that don't look like cartoons.

I'm really looking forward to watch Annihilation. Natalie Portman is also among my favorite actresses, this Annihilation is actually one of the most interesting movies since months IMHO. I can't believe that in UK is going to be released by Netflix.

I did like Ex Machina quite a bit.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
When they say a movie is too intelligent for most people I immediately go into acquisition mode on it.

You should check out Rick & Morty. The humor is extremely subtle and you'll need a solid grasp of theoretical physics, though.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Oh, god. Perdido Street Station was so awesomely wierd.....

The Moby Dick book on trains was also pretty fun-mad . Kraken was a bit more normal - did like the Sea in that one.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Was Annihilation too brainy for the box office?

I really dislike this kind of sentiment(though it's Guy Lodge in the Grauniad so no surprise). The biggest determinant of box office success or otherwise is and continues to be effective marketing - if you can find the audience you can make a box office success out of anything good. The reason it's on Netflix and not in the cinemas is dead simple - the distributor isn't willing to spend the money to find that audience when they can just get Netflix to cut them a cheque and wash their hands of the whole thing. They decided the effort and cost of marketing the film wasn't worth the payoff.

Trying to push the line that the film is just too clever for the masses to understand fnar fnar, or that it's because dirty evil men at the distributor are trying to sabotage a feminist masterpiece(yup, that one took about five minutes to pop up on the usual places), is just a way for people to make themselves feel clever. Frankly you can tell everything you need to know about the author of the article by two points - he persists in crediting Ex Machina as Garland's first directorial effort when it's been rumoured for a while and is now confirmed that in fact he was director in all-but-name on Dredd(both because he prefers to think of the director in the context of "intelligent filmmaking fnar fnar", and because Dredd was also a box office dud - though well reviewed and quickly a cult classic - despite being a brutal action film which rather punctures the idea that being "too brainy" is what holds back Annihilation at the box office), and his shots at Netflix over Bright and Mute(the former being particularly odd given the context - producing a film that's pretty popular with audiences but reviled by critics is pretty much the definition of "blockbuster genre territory", so why anyone would consider that a contributor to Netflix's "creative instincts being called into question" by their attempts to move into blockbuster genre territory is...confusing).

This is bad news for me, as I don't have Netflix. Also, as the article points out, the film was designed for large screen cinema release.

Eh, frankly I've no tolerance at all for directors who still insist *only* cinema is capable of adequately housing their masterpieces. I have a nice monitor and a solid pair of headphones, if I turn the light off I can enjoy a movie far more sitting at my desk than by paying 10+ quid to sit in some dank theatre filled with rustling, crunching, belching, phone-fiddling arseholes and I've yet to see what it is exactly I'm supposedly missing out on - accounting for distance from the screen it's about the same size, the resolution isn't better at a cinema, nor the soundscape. "It's better in the cinema" has become sheer pretension given advances in how we watch films at home, and given the way that streaming and home cinema is taking off while traditional cinemas are pretty much only still viable businesses because they can still push for a modest window of exclusivity on most new releases, I'd say the market has spoken on the issue as loudly and clearly as it can - if your film really was designed for "large screen cinema release"(which, again, I find confusing since there's no actual difference between a 27"+ high resolution screen a couple of feet away and a giant projector screen on the other side of a huge room, they have pretty much the same size and clarity to the eye of the viewer) in this day & age then it was badly designed, like a band that records only on physical vinyl discs being overruled by their label lamenting that people listen to their music on their 'orrible modern "mp-pod-player thingies" it just sounds petulant - you're getting to do an awesome job with a level of creative freedom most people will never get and have your work appreciated by a huge audience, and you're quibbling over exactly how the audience does so?

In your case - I've not subbed in a while, has Netflix gone way up in price or added a minimum sub period recently? I remember it being about the same price for the month as for a cinema ticket, so surely you can just sub, watch the film, then cancel and not be any more out of pocket than if you'd gone to the cinema to see it.

I liked Ex Machina(and, obviously, really liked Dredd) and the concept sounds interesting enough that I'll give Annihilation a watch, though I've seen a few reviews leaning fairly heavily on a "culture war" theme("it has a pretty much all-female cast, so you must think it's good or else") and the "visual spectacle" angle while heavily downplaying issues with the film's pacing and supporting characters that set off some mild alarm bells, and these kinds of "oh no, this is just too clever/progressive for the plebian misogynist masses" articles don't help that impression.

I really liked Dredd but did not enjoy Ex Machina. Annihilation is a film my wife and I were planning to see in the theater, but we may not get the chance. I doubt we'll bother once it hits Netflix in North America.

Aw, shame.

I read the book when I first heard about the movie - can definitely see how it might be a little inaccessible, but the impression I walked away with was "Lovecraftian field biology", which hits a lot of yes good buttons for me. Very weird book, and I need to get my hands on the rest of the series sometime soon.

"Lovecraftian field biology" is a good description, actually.

I think the nearly all female caste (the 'away team' is all women in the book) is not a culture war reference, it's just the way the book is written. (Lead characters in later books of the series are men and women.) But the book also plays a lot with the lead character's remembrance of her husband, and so on. There's quite a bit of emotions of love and remembrance, as well as fear and horror.

You have to get your head around all that, and the very slow reveal of the point of the film (which isn't even intellectually final in the book.) It's very psychological
.
In terms of marketing, there hasn't been any in the UK, and that is one reason why the film is going straight to video. But the marketing decision clearly was made months ago, and the question is why?

Had this movie released last year it would have been my second favorite, right behind BR2049. But yeah I saw this the weekend it released in the US and I could not stop thinking about it or a few days afterwards. There are a couple points in the movie where you can tell the sound was designed/made for the theatres, not sure home viewing will have the same feel.

I know this is wrong, but seeing the cast immediately makes me think of the Ghostbusters reboot.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Lovecraftian field biology" is a good description, actually.

I think the nearly all female caste (the 'away team' is all women in the book) is not a culture war reference, it's just the way the book is written. (Lead characters in later books of the series are men and women.) But the book also plays a lot with the lead character's remembrance of her husband, and so on. There's quite a bit of emotions of love and remembrance, as well as fear and horror.

You have to get your head around all that, and the very slow reveal of the point of the film (which isn't even intellectually final in the book.) It's very psychological
.
In terms of marketing, there hasn't been any in the UK, and that is one reason why the film is going straight to video. But the marketing decision clearly was made months ago, and the question is why?

I wasn't stating the film was intended to be "culture war" nonsense, just that when reviewers start playing up that aspect of a film while quickly glossing over flaws that would otherwise get a thorough examination it can be a warning sign.

This second bit has two things to address - in terms of "why?", you'd assume because they looked at the amount they'd have to spend for international marketing and then estimated the amount they could expect to earn from a surreal, cerebral genre film and decided the latter didn't justify the former. We must always remind ourselves; corporations will never be satisfied with merely making some money, they must make *all the money*, and if they can't they'll often paradoxically settle for less money so long as it also reduces their risk.

Also though, the "straight to video" comment needs unpacking. The same sentiment permeates the article, as well as a lot of other articles that reference streaming, and I think it's unfair. That term has a *lot* of baggage attached to it, implying either that a film being discussed is trash that couldn't make it in the "real" cinema, or as in this case implying that the film is thought of in that way by the people in charge. But that baggage is based on a model of the media industry that simply doesn't exist any more - streaming is not a consolation prize for otherwise failed projects or a dumping ground for low-budget trash and tax write-offs in the way that direct-to-video used to be. It is, increasingly, the default platform for media consumption, and frankly "cinephile" types - reviewers especially - need to get with the times and stop bringing preconceptions formed in the media landscape of the last century to the modern table. If things continue as they are, traditional mass-market chain cinemas will have died out within a decade or two, and to be honest the main sentiment that comes to mind at that prospect is...

I wasn't stating the film was intended to be "culture war" nonsense, just that when reviewers start playing up that aspect of a film while quickly glossing over flaws that would otherwise get a thorough examination it can be a warning sign.

One of the many many issues with Film Reviewers - they seldom review the film but often rather try and twist to fit the current zeitgeist.

Trailer looks good - thats enough to me - reminds me alot of the Nano Flower by Peter Hamiltion

 Ouze wrote:
You should check out Rick & Morty. The humor is extremely subtle and you'll need a solid grasp of theoretical physics, though.

Can't tell if you are sarcastic or not.

My friends who saw it in the theater said the sound is too loud and pretty much an assault on the senses. One of them left with a migraine. Otherwise they enjoyed the movie itself.

Just saw the movie against my better instincts. It was better than the book but I still didn't like it very much at all.

I really enjoyed the movie. Intend to buy when it comes out.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
You should check out Rick & Morty. The humor is extremely subtle and you'll need a solid grasp of theoretical physics, though.

Can't tell if you are sarcastic or not.

Given my niece and I watch it together and she gets it just fine, I assume he is joking.

 Formosa wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
You should check out Rick & Morty. The humor is extremely subtle and you'll need a solid grasp of theoretical physics, though.

Can't tell if you are sarcastic or not.

Given my niece and I watch it together and she gets it just fine, I assume he is joking.

I was, yes.

imagine you had ' a friend' who thinks if it wasn't for J-Law that Natty P would be the most over-rated actor ever, but kind of likes weirdy sci-fi could he tolerate this movie ?

 Ouze wrote:
Just saw the movie against my better instincts. It was better than the book but I still didn't like it very much at all.

I'm on the fence about seeing it, could you say a bit more about your thoughts?

Well, it's got a good setup. I think it just falls apart really hard in the third act.

The story is about a woman whose husband has gone missing into an unknown military mission. He shows back up unexpectedly, and acts odd, and then falls very ill. It turns out that he had gone into a large area of weird occurences, an area which is spreading. The woman in question is also a biologist, and it turns out the powers that be are planning on trying another expedition into what is going on there. This is all in the trailers I am pretty sure. Here are some light spoilers:



The basic premise was good, but some of the execution was bad. One character makes a decision that makes sense but is described super ham-fistedly. There is a romantic subplot that was not in the book at feels tacked on for no real reason I can discern other than filler. For what it's worth I think the movie was pressing some buttons that just don't register for me - I think Lovecraftian field biology as above was very apt, and neither that nor body horror are really themese that I am into. It's also got the open-ended ending you would expect for a movie that's intended to be part of a trilogy, but I don't think it did very much to justify an additional 2 movies either plotwise or box-office-wise; so you're likely gonna wind up with 1/3rd of a story.

There was a movie called The Void which came out about a year ago or so. I had a lot of friends who loved it, and I didn't like it one bit and wound up bailing halfway through. This movie felt quite a bit like that, so if you liked The Void, you'd probably like this, I think.

If you think you would like it, then you're probably best seeing it in the theater because in the third act, as someone else noted, the sound was clearly composed for a theater.

At least one person said it reminded him of the Ghostbusters reboot, presumably because the cast is largely women. That's like saying Dunkirk reminds me of The Hangover because they both are largely male casts: the movies have nearly zero similarity.

Interesting, I would not have thought to compare this to the Void. That movie, to my mind, was like a reel for the filmmakers - they used generic plot elements and references to some of their favorite IPs to show off their skills and talents. I didn't find the story (much less the themes, to the extent there were any?) compelling in Void but then again I watched it as a technical demo.

So I am intrigued by Annihilation because I have heard it is open to interpretation. But then again almost every interpretation I read says the film is a meditation on cancer. So that's why I'm on the fence.

Lovecraftian field biology is an apt description.

It's probably not much of a coincidence that I enjoyed the Void.