MovieChat Forums > Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004) Discussion > Paltrow killed Conran's Career.

Paltrow killed Conran's Career.

posted 12 years ago by Hypatia42
13 replies | jump to latest

There was bound to be a subsection of movie goers who would be turned off by the computer animation in this film. The 30's style revivalist storyline also eliminated a faction of viewers. But even with this elimination of potential audience members, there should still have been a core of comic book readers, or Terry Gilliam loving type fans enjoy who the spectacle of another person's imagination laid bare. That was the target the audience; those who love escapism.

It has been my experience in speaking with comic book fans and devotees of cult favorites that Sky Captain has been slow to be picked up because Gwyneth Paltrow killed the film. Her expressionless, dispassionate portrayal of the lead character makes it unwatchable. The love able selfishness or self-righteousness that should have been evident in her character was instead an icy indifference to the plot and the audience. She thus alienated the last faction of potential viewers for the film.

It was a one-two-three punch for a film and a director.

Though I must say I don't understand why the cast of the film didn't make an effort to advertise for Sky Captain; the genre was atypical for most of the stars' resumes. They could have won devotees for themselves from otherwise untapped demographics.

[–] Unicorn-9 12 years ago

No, he killed it. The movie didn't fail because the cast didn't advertise it, it failed because it was a bad movie... and when you manage to convince Hollywood to give you tens of millions of dollars for your first movie and it flops, you're unlikely to get to make a second.

[–] Hypatia42 12 years ago

I wasn't arguing that the movie died because the cast didn't advertise it, I was saying that Paltrow killed the film with her inane acting. I was just wondering why the cast didn't advertise it as an aside. Were they miserable during production? Did they not like the film?

Incidentally, what, exactly, do you think made it a bad movie? I thought the story and the style was immensely more competent, polished, and interesting than, say, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008), which also demanded viewers to sit through improbable technology and era mincing fantasy. That one made $317 million in the US and, in my opinion, was juvenile, trivial and farcical in the extreme. In fact, IJKCS was god awful. It was a thoroughly unenjoyable, unrewarding film. Sky Captain was a better constructed world with 'classic' arc characters who were loaded with authentic touches and flourishes of a long-forgotten but well-resurrected world.

Again, my argument is that Paltrow single handedly destroyed the film because she made it unbearable for the audience who would normally be the 'cult' fans of this kaleidoscope of genres. I am, however, curious to hear from you why you think "it was a bad movie" and as to why no one bothered to advertise it.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] grendelkhan 11 years ago

What killed it was a first time director who was in over his had and a threadbare script. Paltrow didn't help with a bland performance, but a lot of that is down to a director who didn't work with her to develop the right tone. Jude Law didn't exactly set the screen on fire, either.

It was an homage to movie serials, pulps, industrial design, and futurism; it was never likely to be anything more than a cult movie.

"Fortunately, Ah keep mah feathers numbered for just such an emergency!"

[–] arcarese 11 years ago

Conrad killed the film; he's responsible for directing the actors.

They do a bad job, it falls on him. It's a great looking film, but not a great film.

[–] TheChamCham 10 years ago

She was a large part of the film being made at all so he should be grateful to her. She signed on before there was even a script, did not have previous experience working in a special effects laden film and was pregnant during filming. I thought she looked beautiful and did a fine job and was just as capable as the rest of the cast. This was an experimental film and frankly, I think the style and concept were over the average moviegoers heads.

"I say,open this door at once! We're British !"

[–] SinisterCreep 10 years ago

I think the title "Sky Captain" might have had something to do with the box office failure and not Paltrow. everyone i've talked to said straight away it sounded cheesy.

they should just have called it "World of Tomorrow".

[–] sun_scryer 10 years ago

I would have watched it but it looked unapologetically white bread. Great atmosphere but what was it going to say that was new?

---------
(In reply to hwcperfect re Godzilla 2014)
LaLlama: Make me give a *beep* whats going on

[–] Hypatia42 10 years ago

I think this was before we were truly inundated by comic book imitations. The intent seems to be showing us what a comic book world was to people, and recapturing it, in the early part of the 1900s. It's almost steampunk in nature. You're right, it is atmosphere, we are supposed to live in this yesterday's world of tomorrow. It's comforting (apart from Paltrow!).

The sepia, flyboy optimism any kid in the 1940s would have recognized and the luxury as defined by the 1920s makes it very retro-chic. I feel like I *get* what the film was trying to do. The Captain America or Superman tales that kids facing a world of depression and world war had is alive and well here. The reason the film overall feels right to me is, perhaps, because we have a generation growing up with similar insurmountable global odds?

The adaptations today of Captain America, Guardians of the Galaxy, Superman, Spiderman, etc. are all hopelessly 'updated' and lose some of the earthy farm-boy appeal that the original comics all had. I respect Conran for trying and I hate that he didn't quite succeed.

[–] userrrrr 9 years ago

if paltrow wasn't in this, this movie would be pretty good...

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

I would not have appreciated GP being consciously uncoupled from Polly Perkins. 🐭

[–] DarthBill 9 years ago

I was under the impression that being released in the grave yard season of September (back to school month) instead of either summer or the Thanksgiving/Christmas rush is what killed the film.

I'm not the biggest fan of Paltrow but I thought she was fine here.