Print Page | Close Window

X-FILES: I WANNA BE LEAVING...

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on NON-NOMINATED 2008 RELEASES w/LYNX!
Forum Name: X-FILES: I WANNA BELIEVE
Forum Discription: ...And if everyone claps REAL LOUD, Tinkerbell will LIVE!
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2937
Printed Date: September 23 2014 at 1:29pm


Topic: X-FILES: I WANNA BE LEAVING...
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: X-FILES: I WANNA BE LEAVING...
Date Posted: July 24 2008 at 4:50am

POOR 20th CENTURY-FOX -- TWO WEEKS AFTER THEY CRASHED-and-BURNED with 2008's BIGGEST B.O. BUST,  http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=292 - MEET DAVE ...and ONE WEEK AFTER the DECIDEDLY EARTH-BOUND http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=294 - SPACE CHIMPS MADE 'EM LOOK LIKE CHUMPS... THEY ALSO RELEASED the MOST UN-NECESSARY, UN-ANTICIPATED SEQUEL of the YEAR: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=296 - X-FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE ...

NEVER HAVING BEEN FANS of the SERIES (BUT HAVING BEEN to the ROSWELL, NEW MEXICO "UFO MUSEUM") WE WERE CURIOUS HOW THIS ONE MIGHT TURN OUT. WORD-of-MOUTH, BOX OFFICE and the http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2936&PN=1 - CRIX OVER at R.T. ALL SUGGEST NO ONE OVER at AREA 57 HAS ANYTHING to WORRY ABOUT...

SO, FORUM FILERS -- WE WANNA BELIEVE YOU WANNA HAVE YOUR SAY, TOO, SO... HERE's YOUR CHANCE!

GILLIAN: "I took a tip from Laurence Olivier when he made http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=332&PN=2 - INCHON , and insisted they pay me in cash..."

DAVID: "Thank God we didn't agree to work for box office points!"



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: Nasty Man
Date Posted: July 24 2008 at 5:13am

The TV show never held my interest, and a "follow up" a decade later makes no sense.

This one begs the question: Who's in charge over at Fox -- And how much longer will they still have a job??



-------------
Everything SUX!


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: July 24 2008 at 7:09am
I hate to say it, but X-Files has definitely worn out its welcome, and should have just been left it alone. A follow up was not necessary, and it's painful to see the franchise dragged through the dirt. The only saving grace at Fox, is that of all the crap they've released this summer, this may be one of the their lesser financial disasters (since it only cost around $35 million to make).    

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 24 2008 at 2:36pm

$35 million?  They may actually break even after worldwide box office and DVD sales and rentals.

Too bad it apparently isn't a good movie. 

I haven't watched the series that often, either, but from what I've gathered from those who did, each episode would either help explain a bit more about the aliens or would be a standalone episode, called a "freak show" by one fan because there would usually be one character with abnormal abilities.  The first movie was definitely about the aliens.  This one appears to be a standalone.

And I'm afraid we won't need Scully and Mulder to figure out why the theatres are so empty. . . .



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 24 2008 at 2:40pm
Unless the series still has quite a few hardcore fans left, I seriously doubt this movie is any threat to Dark Knight's reign as B.O. champion.

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: PopcornAvenger
Date Posted: July 27 2008 at 12:01am

"Hardcore fan" raising his hand here.

The movie trailers, when they appeared in the theaters, did surprise me. However, for fans of the show I think a second movie was warranted, because the first was a huge disappointment. It wasn't a bad movie, just a total rehash of the TV series.

I'm sure there's worse movies out there, and seeing it here is a bit painful  .  The X-Files worked extremely well as a dramatic series, but I always knew the translation to movies would likely not work at all. Not when you go to the movies and see aliens left and right, monsters popping out of the woodwork . . . and that's just in the audience!   



-------------


Posted By: moat
Date Posted: July 27 2008 at 12:24pm
The show stopped being any good around the time the first film came out. Despite the story never being appropriately concluded, this still isn't a worthy endeavor. It's too far gone for compelling drama to be evoked from material that has been as ravaged as The X-Files.

The franchise is creatively dead and it should be put out of its misery because of that. It's gone from being a serious attempt at being an engaging science fiction tale to, as has already been pointed out, an effort to squeeze as much money as possible out of a property.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 27 2008 at 12:46pm

This movie opened with a very disappointing $10 million, while "Dark Knight" (the only movie that matters right now), flapped its way to $314 million. The only thing that can stop it is really, really (really) HARDCORE Star Wars Fans, who are willing to sit thru that crappy-looking "Clone Wars" movie.

But ever since that "prettyboy" ruined Vader's image by making him a whining emo punk, that franchise is as dead to me as is "X-Files"!   



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: July 28 2008 at 2:58am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Then you should be pleased to know that the "prettyboy" was nominated for a total of 3 RAZZIES®, and "won" a Worst Supporting Actor trophy for his portrayal of "Darth Whiner." 

And he may well be back in our Worst Actor category this year for JUMPER -- Although the competition in that category (including Stallone in RAMBO, Al Pacino in 88 MINUTES, Mike Myers in LOVE GURU, Eddie Murphy in MEET DAVE, etc.) is already pretty stiff this year... 



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 28 2008 at 7:26am
I saw The Dark Knight this week. Last week was all sold out and this week too but I got the last showing for IMAX on the day I saw it and it was amazing....BUT, I still liked Wall-E better. TDK is #2 best movie of this year. Wall-E is #1.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 28 2008 at 11:44am

Yes, I knew Christensen was a Razzie "winner" -- and he deserved it so badly! As much as I would like him to "win" again for ruining "Jumper" (along with the crappy script), I have a strong feeling it will come down to Myers vs. Murphy.

Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Then you should be pleased to know that the "prettyboy" was nominated for a total of 3 RAZZIES®, and "won" a Worst Supporting Actor trophy for his portrayal of "Darth Whiner." 

And he may well be back in our Worst Actor category this year for JUMPER -- Although the competition in that category (including Stallone in RAMBO, Al Pacino in 88 MINUTES, Mike Myers in LOVE GURU, Eddie Murphy in MEET DAVE, etc.) is already pretty stiff this year... 

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: langby
Date Posted: August 03 2008 at 7:27am

It was alright -- Hardly the worst movie I've seen this summer, and certainly not as stomach-churning as Will Ferrell's latest output of cinematic fecal matter. I think it just wasn't what people were expecting for a summer movie.

But I do find it bewildering that a TV show about aliens produces a sequel about religion, and a movie trilogy about religion (Indiana Jones) produces a sequel about aliens...and they both come out in the same year. Bizarro world!   



-------------
Posted By Me


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 03 2008 at 12:21pm

This just in:

Actress http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000096/ - Gillian Anderson is blaming the popularity of new Batman movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/ - The Dark Knight for her  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106179/ - The X-Files film's low box office grosses.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443701/ - The X-Files: I Want To Believe , starring Anderson and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000141/ - David Duchovny , earned a disappointing $10.2 million (GBP5.1 million) in its opening weekend (26-27Jul08) in the U.S., while http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/ - The Dark Knight took an impressive $75 million (GBP37.5 million) in that same weekend.

And Anderson is convinced that her movie - based on the hit TV show - is suffering because so many people are flocking to see the Batman sequel instead: "It's (The X-Files film) had a bit of a rough time in the States. It's opening against one of the highest grossing movies, Batman. People in the States are so used to lots of CGI (computer-generated imagery), action and sex -- and we don't really offer a lot of that in this film."

Clearly she hasn't seen the movie. Because if she did, she would know "Dark Knight" doesn't have excessive CGI -- or sex either. Just a great script, and excellent acting to back it up.



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: langby
Date Posted: August 10 2008 at 10:15am
I think the comment was misinterpreted. Here's a link to the video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7534244.stm

The reference to the CGI was not referring to Batman specifically, but to the American summer-movie season in general.

-------------
Posted By Me


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 10 2008 at 12:34pm
That being the case, she's still blaming the paying audiences' tastes in movies for her movie's poor box office, when the real culprit is the really lame movie itself.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 10 2008 at 1:48pm
Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Then you should be pleased to know that the "prettyboy" was nominated for a total of 3 RAZZIES®, and "won" a Worst Supporting Actor trophy for his portrayal of "Darth Whiner." 

And he may well be back in our Worst Actor category this year for JUMPER -- Although the competition in that category (including Stallone in RAMBO, Al Pacino in 88 MINUTES, Mike Myers in LOVE GURU, Eddie Murphy in MEET DAVE, etc.) is already pretty stiff this year... 

                                                                                   Please don't forget Ed Burns. He has awful in "One Missed Call" and "27 Dresses". Stallone's performance in "Rambo" was, essentialy, the same one he gave in "First Blood". Seeing how a lot of people liked that one and the fact that Sly's already been Razzied to death should disquelifle him. Hayden wasn't to bad in "Jumper", Ed was way worse. I haven't seen any of the other movies that were mentioned.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


Posted By: langby
Date Posted: August 17 2008 at 6:38am
While I can see your point that the X-Files movie was "lame" and that's why people didn't show up, I can also see Gillian Anderson's point: A movie like "The Mummy 3" may be 10 times lamer than the X-Files movie, but it's filled with excessive CGI and pointless action scenes...and made 4 times as much money as X-Files 2...   

-------------
Posted By Me


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 17 2008 at 12:52pm

Yes, the Mummy franchise makes one cry for Mummy, yet the audience keeps coming, and I'd say it has as much to do with Brendan Fraser as it does with the CGI or action scenes (neither of which helped Hellboy II cross the $100 million mark, and that was a far superior movie to either Mummy 3 or X-Files 2.  If anyone should cry about the success of The Dark Knight, it's Hellboy II). 

But let's compare apples with apples.  Sex in the City was a popular cable TV series, and based on what I've heard, the movie is just okay.  http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=sexandthecity.htm - It kicked up over $150 million without any CGI or action scenes that I've read about.  It's just an extended episode of Sex in the City

So, why can SitC kick X-F:IWtB's butt despite stiff competition from Iron Man and Indy 4

I say it's the difference between an okay movie of a popular series and a lame movie of a popular series.

Shall we now compare X-F to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=getsmart.htm - Get Smart ?

 



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 12:59am

Ah, but the "Sex in the City" movie was full of SEX, yet another thing in American movies Anderson was complaining about. Plus, it had a very strong female fan following, including those who would dress up for the screenings like old "Rocky Horror Picture Show" movie-goers would.

"Mummy 3" did okay because it was family-friendly. It's a breezy, light-hearted movie that any kid can go see while his/her parents shut their brains off for 90 minutes. "Hellboy 2" I think didn't do well because 1. its story was cliched and 2. it's about a demon that looks like the devil who fights other demons, ie. not as family-friendly as "Mummy 3".

There seriously needs to be a way for a movie to be "family-friendly" without being insultingly stupid and simple.



Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 4:14am
They did make a "family-friendly" without being stupid; it was "Wall-E".

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 18 2008 at 3:42pm

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

They did make a "family-friendly" without being stupid; it was "Wall-E".

Truth.

 



Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: November 20 2008 at 7:05pm
This does meet the qualifications for Worst Sequel, but HSM3 and The Clone Wars might leave it far behind.


Posted By: langby
Date Posted: December 20 2008 at 4:28am
With all of the horrible sequels and remakes that came out this year, I certainly hope THIS wouldn't get singled out. I'm not saying it's great, but there's nothing really to hate about it. It has real actors, "real" special effects (meaning, it isn't loaded with cartoonish CGI), and there isn't one explosion or gunshot, which is usually mandatory for a summer film. No wonder it flopped. I think it was mostly a disappointment for fans of the show who were expecting something different, due to a lot of the pre-release press, and unwarranted "secrecy" concerning the script. Some of the better reviews came from critics who admitted to never having watched the show. As a stand-alone movie, it works well. As a continuation of the X-Files show however, it's dissappointing. High School Musical 3, Mummy 3, Star Wars: Clone Wars, The Punisher (seriously, how did THIS get a sequal?), Saw V, all aim for the lowest common denominator, and hit the mark. Hell, even Indian Jones was pretty bad. Oh, well. It was a crappy summer.

-------------
Posted By Me



Print Page | Close Window