Just watching The Day After Tomorrow and it occurs to me that with enough special effects, and enough spectacle, any film of the genre would be a worldwide smash, wouldn't it? I mean, isn't this sort of film the kind a lot of people would want to see just to see the grandeur on the screen?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Big Disaster Films - Guaranteed Moneyspinner?
- Thread starter kimmayyxo
- Start date
smashlee_1014
New member
I once read a wonderful comment about how, post 9/11, critical analysis would continue to elude the psychology behind why people would still enjoy watching tall things falling down with people still in them.
gengidashiell
New member
Disaster movies will always tend to look good in trailers, it's easy to sell the spectacle of it and show plenty of big effects sequences.
That will always guarantee a reasonable audience - but it's no guarantee of quality.
That will always guarantee a reasonable audience - but it's no guarantee of quality.
If you look at the history of cinema, then disaster films have always been popular, especially during the 1970s, with films such as The Poseidon Adventure, The China Syndrome and The Towering Inferno.
These were popular though as there was a certian amount of quality in their writing and they created characters which you could care about. These days, people just seem to be so overwhelmed by CGI that they'll say a disaster film was brilliant, when it was most likely only a shadow of the films that I mentioned above.
These were popular though as there was a certian amount of quality in their writing and they created characters which you could care about. These days, people just seem to be so overwhelmed by CGI that they'll say a disaster film was brilliant, when it was most likely only a shadow of the films that I mentioned above.
Et in arcadia ego
New member
No this done really well.
2012 opened at number one with an estimated $65 million on its first weekend, and with $225 million at the worldwide box office in its opening weekend. The film has grossed $164.7 million in the United States and Canada markets and $602.3 million in international markets, for a worldwide total of $767 million[2], making it the 5th
2012 opened at number one with an estimated $65 million on its first weekend, and with $225 million at the worldwide box office in its opening weekend. The film has grossed $164.7 million in the United States and Canada markets and $602.3 million in international markets, for a worldwide total of $767 million[2], making it the 5th
nathaniel_russell2001
New member
I would not class the China Syndrome as a disaster movie. I would call it more of a conspiracy thriller, based loosely on factual events. For a start, it did not contain any actual disaster, and very little in the way of effects sequences or set pieces.
Excellent film, all the same.
Also not sure I would agree that movies like Towering Inferno and Poseidon Adventure were well written - better written perhaps than todays efforts, but largely they were usually just packed with big star names and usually contained plenty of action and effects, plenty of incident. But they were still fairly cliched affairs.
Maybe we didn't notice the cliched back then when we were younger.
That said, I still think TW is the daddy of disaster films. Newman, McQueen, Wagner, Dunaway, Astaire, Chamberlain...great cast. Best effects for my money too, and a lot of them looked physically dangerous, with the cast being unfeasably close to the action a lot of the time.
Recently picked up the blu ray release of this, and it is an excellent transfer.
Excellent film, all the same.
Also not sure I would agree that movies like Towering Inferno and Poseidon Adventure were well written - better written perhaps than todays efforts, but largely they were usually just packed with big star names and usually contained plenty of action and effects, plenty of incident. But they were still fairly cliched affairs.
Maybe we didn't notice the cliched back then when we were younger.
That said, I still think TW is the daddy of disaster films. Newman, McQueen, Wagner, Dunaway, Astaire, Chamberlain...great cast. Best effects for my money too, and a lot of them looked physically dangerous, with the cast being unfeasably close to the action a lot of the time.
Recently picked up the blu ray release of this, and it is an excellent transfer.
parkfieldnr16
New member
Maybe less well written, but good characterisation - just putting normal people into extraordinary circumstances. The same can't be said of current disasters flicks e.g. The Day After Tomorrow having Dennis Quad as an absent father (yawn) climatologist; 2012 having John Cusack as an absent father (double yawn) who had written about the Mayan prophesies.
What I love about these films though is the stunts and the set-pieces. The though that must have went into them at the time must have been vast and there was a genuine sense of threat, until the CGI laden films of today. (Btw, I'm only 22 - I'm not just yearning for the films of my childhood or anything like that).
What I love about these films though is the stunts and the set-pieces. The though that must have went into them at the time must have been vast and there was a genuine sense of threat, until the CGI laden films of today. (Btw, I'm only 22 - I'm not just yearning for the films of my childhood or anything like that).
I will agree with you to a degree - in my youth I very much enjoyed movies like Earthquake, TW and Poseidon. And I can still appreciate the physical work that went into the stunts and special effects back then...something that mar's modern disaster movies.
Back then we were not massively exposed to how movies were made as much as we are now, and they were not trailered to death. So watching movies was often a voyage of discovery, and they would unfold in front of your eyes in ways that would astound, shock and surprise you.
I think it's sad that we have lost that - now it's all about marketing, making sure you are battered into submission and almost physically made to part with your money.
So despite some occasionally wooden acting, the odd dodgy effect and the cliches, I would agree with you that despite all of that I still prefer most of them to modern CGI laden disaster movies.
Back then we were not massively exposed to how movies were made as much as we are now, and they were not trailered to death. So watching movies was often a voyage of discovery, and they would unfold in front of your eyes in ways that would astound, shock and surprise you.
I think it's sad that we have lost that - now it's all about marketing, making sure you are battered into submission and almost physically made to part with your money.
So despite some occasionally wooden acting, the odd dodgy effect and the cliches, I would agree with you that despite all of that I still prefer most of them to modern CGI laden disaster movies.
Ace_Killington
New member
No this done really well.
I stand corrected, i never did see the film i thought it died a death and wasnt around in cinemas very long
True, and the vogue was of course not new even then. John Ford's 1937 South Seas melo The Hurricane builRAB to a truly spectacular eponymous sequence of groundbreaking special effects and editing, the sheer onslaught of which is still quite harrowing to watch today. MGM's 1936 San Francisco and Fox's 1938 In Old Chicago also still stand up very well, as does even 1939's The Rains Came to a more modest extent. Earth, wind, fire and water all covered in four classic, rousing entertainments.
ijoinedyou
New member
For every disaster hit there are several huge budget flops-in the seventies the sequel to the poseiden adventure tanked (and its recent remake)as did Sean Connery faced with a Meteor and Michael Caine with a swarm of killer bees. Paul Newman flopped with his volcano lark- when time ran out.