I am speaking of it's worldwide gross. Any objection?
shareThat's impressive! "Squirm" (1976) was the most successful killer worm movie ever released.
shareWorldwide gross?
shareI think Wichak is making a point of how narrow of a field it is.
shareI got his sarcasm. Thanks for your explanation anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Underwater_action_films
Yes, yes, yes.... Great, this is the most successful movie starting Jason Momoa, Amber Heard and a Trident. What an awesome accomplishment, never to be seen again...
shareI didn't invent the "underwater movie" category. I just focused it with "non-animated" because I do think it is an awesome accomplishment.
shareHi aquaman
shareGiven the amount of CGI I'm not sure you can label it non-animated. Even when we were watching real people they looked like characters from a game and I'm wondering how much remodeling went on to get that slightly plastic feel to everyone's features.
shareThe amount of CGI in a $160M budget film like this? Hell Yeah! Why not?
What I meant by ”non-animated" is that "Aquaman" is not an animation like "Finding Dory". I watched Aquaman in 3D theatre from close, yet didn't notice any "plastic feel". All main characters looked natural to me and the underwater world is quite splendid!
Agreed, Aquaman is not animation in the traditional sense. But I'm wondering at what point a film, where most frames are CGI and the remaining frames apparently processed to blend in, can be said to be animated. To my eye the whole film took on the look of a not quite realistic computer game. As it happens I watched Mortal Engines a few days earlier and even though a film based on Traction Cities is an equally ridiculous premise and least the people in it looked like people.
shareApparently you have a higher expectation of the realistic appearance of the characters when they are underwater. Which I think is quite a challege and they did good enough in this film. Maybe your are right- they can do it better in the Aquaman sequel.
shareFair enough. Despite my carping it was watchable and I'd probably turn up for a sequel - given the earnings so far I suspect there will one.
shareWouldn't what the movie "net" (couldn't help myself) be a much better sign of success than gross?
shareGross is not the only measure, for sure. From investment point of view, it is all about "net". Yet, why should the cost (budget) be a negative factor? After all, people in the film industry are earning those money, which is good. That's why I think as long as the film is not losing money, measuring the success with "gross" is better.
shareThe artistic and commercial success are astounding.
James Wan and his team delivered. BIG TIME.
The amount of salty fanboy tears from certain factions says it all.