http://impawards.com/2009/arthur_and_the_vengeance_of_maltazard.html
shareprolly cuz there's more than one book & they think ppl will enjoy it
Don't you dare-ah
Keep the Sarah
In the Frarah
[hehe. stole it from Lacy]
Because this film was planed as a trilogy (based on four books) from the start.
There are a lot of details that were finnaly crafted, but hardly were given screen time, because they were going to be used lately.
Remember this is, so far, the more expensive french film done to date, it took five years in the making, and it was well received around the world, and it is "almost" the second CG movie done in france (the first was Khaena)
They have to create a whole CG industry in france to do it. They are working also in a second CG film.
So, while it did not earnead as much as it was expected, it was a great hit in Europe. My daughters and I are eagerly awaiting the sequeles...
Yet the European cinema snobs think that their movies are better. They don't have a 100th of the moviemaking industry and production that we do. Our films range from low budget slashers to multi-million dollar epics to well-written art movies.
shareThat is another problem...
Besson hs commented that so far the french film industry has been dominated by the snoobs that want only art.. instead he has been trying to create an industry, with films for everyone.
Something that the snobs did not apreciate....
As a result, Luc Besson´s Eurocopr, in considered now as the only film indudstry in France. All the other production are sponsored by the state.
The CGI facilities that Besson create for making this film, are the basis for a new industry in france. I hope they learn form the mistakes they did in this, their first film.
Besson is making a gazillion -dollars- euros with the Taxi series, so he can work on (and pretty much say) what the hell he wants.
i took this note from the new york times:
"Over a 30-year career he has not only directed 10 features (Sony Pictures Classics will release “Angel-A” here on May 25) but has also written and produced dozens more, including a handful of the most commercially successful French movies ever. In the process he has almost single-handedly dragged French cinema, kicking and screaming, from the art house into the multiplex."
(By JAIME WOLF Published: May 20, 2007)
Because they can turn over a profit on it. if the books balance by making another production, why not mine a pre-existing formula that's low-risk rather than start a high-risk venture.
shareYet the European cinema snobs think that their movies are better. They don't have a 100th of the moviemaking industry and production that we do. Our films range from low budget slashers to multi-million dollar epics to well-written art movies.
Your reply:
@ jerryrip54:
Well, most of them (European movies) are (as it is not cinema for the masses), but it is not due to European movie snobs but due to a lack of creativity and innovation in Hollywood's movie landscape (especially in recent years) and astonishingly European movie makers do not have to warm up old movies (with new special effects and actors) and steal American movie scripts but vice versa. Moreover, you should know the history of Hollywood and movie industry if you want to debate about it, as the roots for the success of Hollywood's movie industry lie in Europe when all the European (very many German Jewish) producers fled to the US during before and during World War II and built up the industry there. "Your movies" are financed by a great deal of European money (movie stocks), which is not surprising if you look at the US banking/financial sector at the moment, and there are few well-written movies with high artistic value produced in the US in total (luckily now more than some years ago, as independent movie festivals like Sundance have gained in recognition). It is not about quantity or which movies generate most of the money but about quality ...
... chacun à son goût.
Oh by the way, if they do a sequel (which seems to be the case) I hope they'll substitute Freddy Highmore (I think his acting skills are highly overrated, in spite of "Finding Neverland" which I must admit was a good performance of his (in contrast to "The Spiderwick Chronicles"); it is annoying if one has to watch him in almost every new kid or teenager story movie adaptation (I'm glad he's not starring in any "Harry Potter" or "Narnia" movie yet)).
The first "Arthur" movie is below average and far from being considered by myself as a movie favourite (not comparable to Jim Henson, Pixar, Disney or Dreamworks productions) and it is not exclusively due to the less spectacular effects, but this is, of course, my personal opinion.
sadly thats a epic to crap ratio of 1 to 1 million.
----------
In this universe, there's only one absolute... everything freezes!
They are making because it will be good, and it wont be another Hollywood piece of *beep*
Jason Statham, Chuck Norris Disciple.
They're making a sequel because it's a 4 book series. The first movie was the first 2 books. The second movie is the 3rd book, and the 3rd movie is the 4th book. The combined the first two books into a single movie because the first book ended on a cliffhanger. After the success of the movie, they decided to complete the series.
share