How did Mortal Engines do when stacked up against Star Wars?

[Mal12345]

It didn't suck. Everybody on the net says it sucks. But if there is any redeeming factor at all, then it doesn't suck. The digital effects were awe-inspiring, so the movie didn't suck.

Within the sci-fi/fantasy genre every story must be compared to Star Wars.

Star Wars originally, in 1977, was giving an average rating of 2 1/2 out of 4 stars. The music and special effects were outstanding, but the acting was so-so. The special edition released by Lucas will lower the rating by 1/2 star or so.

Despite the mediocre critic reviews, I remember how Star Wars nearly swept the Academy Awards. Here are the stats on awards given to Star Wars:
"The top Academy Award-winning Star Wars film, this motion picture was nominated for ten Oscars and won six. These included Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Costume Design, Best Sound, Best Film Editing, Best Effects (Visual Effects), and Best Music (Original Score)." But movies also contain such factors as the likability of the characters (do I even care about them?) and the credibility of the story-line (plot-holes).

How did Mortal Engines do when stacked up against Star Wars?

Likability of the characters.
Mortal Engines gave me no reason to like or care about the protagonist. I don't care about her goals.

Credibility of the story-line.
Cities have been put on wheels or legs in previous stories. Authors have even strapped rockets on them and blasted them into space. There's not much left to do with cities that hasn't been done.
London is the biggest, baddest city-with-traction of them all. It cannibalizes other cities in order to survive. But it is slowly losing the battle against entropy. There's got to be more cities to gobble up and the pickings are becoming slim. Fortunately, there are still "static" cities, but they all exist beyond the Shield Wall.

Does anybody recall where a Shield Wall was mentioned before in science fiction? And do you remember what happened to it? Mortal Engines gains much of its credibility (and, um, traction) from elements of old science fiction stories such as Star Wars, Dune, Terminator, and John Carter.

Musical score.
The score wasn't over-powering, but it didn't stand out in any way either compared to the scores from Star Wars.

Editing.
I dislike when the music drowns out the dialogue.

Bad guy.
A standard baddie. He believes the ends justify the means, just as they all do.

Pacing.
There was rarely a dull moment in this movie.

Tension.
Not much build up and release of tension, even at the end (which was predictable).

Character development.
Almost none. Shrike, who had the least personality, showed the most development. He was also the scariest bad guy. But was he a bad guy? I thought so at first and then slowly came around to understanding that his goal and the main protagonist's were identical at one time.

Digital Effects.
Outstanding. They put Lucas to shame.

Beginning to end:
The consensus I've seen is that the story began great and then kind of petered out toward the end despite all the action. The movie captures the audience and then slowly drops them into the abyss with the introduction of the main protagonist, and so on. In my opinion she under-played her role. Rey in Star Wars is more interesting.

Favorite line:
(Spoken by the bad guy): "You are a dinosaur. And I am the meteor."

 

[Totenkindly]

There. I read it.
Your review about the actual film content parallels other comments I've seen from the critical community.

I will probably never see it, though, nor have I read the books.
Which is also why probably myself and others haven't bothered to respond. Nothing to say.

(Except maybe, why did they spend so much money on this film without regularly monitoring its artistic progress, and why didn't the studio spend more on advertising if they planned to invest so much in the film to start with? I really didn't hear about the film until shortly before release, and then had no real interest regarding the marketing I DID intersect with. They really needed to spend a lot more effort selling this thing. I assume the books made more sense, but it sounds like a dumb idea or at least one you can't easily get your mind around... so you need to market the crap out of it to get people excited.)

 

[Mal12345]

There. I read it.
Your review about the actual film content parallels other comments I've seen from the critical community.

I will probably never see it, though, nor have I read the books.
Which is also why probably myself and others haven't bothered to respond. Nothing to say.

(Except maybe, why did they spend so much money on this film without regularly monitoring its artistic progress, and why didn't the studio spend more on advertising if they planned to invest so much in the film to start with? I really didn't hear about the film until shortly before release, and then had no real interest regarding the marketing I DID intersect with. They really needed to spend a lot more effort selling this thing. I assume the books made more sense, but it sounds like a dumb idea or at least one you can't easily get your mind around... so you need to market the crap out of it to get people excited.)

Thank you for reading. Part of my intention was to develop a categorized method of rating movies while comparing them to something well-known and revered in the same genre. This was my first attempt. I won't know how well it went unless someone objectively informs me if the categories were helpful.

I forgot to mention that suspension of disbelief was very much required by the audience. The cities on treads, while extremely detailed and beautifully complex, always looked too small to be actual cities. And the way they moved around most of the time, it would be impossible to live in one. People living in them would be tossed around like socks in a dryer.

I saw a few tv ads for this movie, but they didn't inspire me to watch it. It was better advertised than John Carter, I think. The problem with the marketing is that the idea of cities on tread is obscure to people. The name "Mortal Engines" doesn't bear any real relationship to anything, much like "John Carter" for those who had no idea what "John Carter" referred to.

 

[Totenkindly]

Thank you for reading. Part of my intention was to develop a categorized method of rating movies while comparing them to something well-known and revered in the same genre. This was my first attempt. I won't know how well it went unless someone objectively informs me if the categories were helpful.

Ah okay. Let me revisit that later, since I didn't comment on that.

I forgot to mention that suspension of disbelief was very much required by the audience. The cities on treads, while extremely detailed and beautifully complex, always looked too small to be actual cities. And the way they moved around most of the time, it would be impossible to live in one. People living in them would be tossed around like socks in a dryer.

That's the kind of thing that makes no sense to a potential audience that has not read the books and has no idea what the film is about. It sounds really silly, although I'm slightly curious (as a personality trait), but a lot of average movie-goers will be turned off automatically by their own sensibilities as it makes no sense and they have no idea what the film is about. "Cities moving about and devouring other cities? How does that work? Whatever." It's not a draw.

So yeah, the most positives I heard were about the production quality and flow of action once the film moves in -- but a real lack of human connection with the viewer and an ambiguous lead in terms of character.

I saw a few tv ads for this movie, but they didn't inspire me to watch it. It was better advertised than John Carter, I think. The problem with the marketing is that the idea of cities on tread is obscure to people. The name "Mortal Engines" doesn't bear any real relationship to anything, much like "John Carter" for those who had no idea what "John Carter" referred to.

I think the only ad or two I even ran across (not that I watch regular TV, really, aside from DVR recording) was all sound and action and didn't really tell me about the film, it might as well have been the next Transformer movie (ironic, that Bumblebee released at same time might have revitalized that franchise, lol). But yeah, the title doesn't tell you anything about the content.

Yeah, I knew who John Carter was simply because of my age and interest in sci-fi/fantasy/comics in the 70's, and even then it was an "old" franchise. People nowadays? Mostly not. I just don't get, though, how the executives can make these kinds of investments without really grasping the bare essentials of audience and market base and what the pitch NEEDS to do. If you are going to spend $250 million on a movie (damn), then you really need to be all-in with regards to the marketing, you can't afford to fail. If you're just making a small arthouse film for $5 million, which is still a lot of money but a small film honestly, heck, just make a good movie and you'll either get publicity or break even and occasionally you'll hit one out. Some TV shows have bigger budgets nowadays, now that it's become a viable story format.

It shows a real breakdown somewhere in the chain -- either at the vision level, or in the marketing level, or somehow production quality sucked but no one was monitoring the film as it was developing and they realized too late that it was dead on arrival, etc. John Carter got middling reviews -- about half the viewers enjoyed it on some level, half did not -- so it wasn't a complete dog, but it wasn't worth the financial budget they gave it, apparently.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

How does it stack up against Lord of the Rings?

 

[Totenkindly]

And "The Life and Times of Bilbo Baggins in Nine Startling Hours Most of Which Were Never in the Book?"

 

[Mal12345]

How does it stack up against Lord of the Rings?

Mortal Engines isn't a quest fantasy (apples and oranges), so it goes against my rules. However:

In Mortal Engines, Hester (the protagonist) tries to kill Valentine (the villain),

but he gets away and is eventually crushed by his own city (so ironic).

In Lord of the Rings, there is one end boss and several mid-bosses. Although he is an anti-hero, Frodo's quest is heroic while Hester's is not, it is driven purely by revenge.

Middle Earth is a beautiful place, the world of Mortal Engines is a dirty, ugly place.

Lotr was paced fairly well, although the slow parts in both the movie and the trilogy bothered me. Mortal Engines was fast-paced, it held my attention and didn't distract me with side-plots as did Lotr. The rest goes to Lotr, hands down.

 

[Mal12345]

Ah okay. Let me revisit that later, since I didn't comment on that.



That's the kind of thing that makes no sense to a potential audience that has not read the books and has no idea what the film is about. It sounds really silly, although I'm slightly curious (as a personality trait), but a lot of average movie-goers will be turned off automatically by their own sensibilities as it makes no sense and they have no idea what the film is about. "Cities moving about and devouring other cities? How does that work? Whatever." It's not a draw.

So yeah, the most positives I heard were about the production quality and flow of action once the film moves in -- but a real lack of human connection with the viewer and an ambiguous lead in terms of character.



I think the only ad or two I even ran across (not that I watch regular TV, really, aside from DVR recording) was all sound and action and didn't really tell me about the film, it might as well have been the next Transformer movie (ironic, that Bumblebee released at same time might have revitalized that franchise, lol). But yeah, the title doesn't tell you anything about the content.

Yeah, I knew who John Carter was simply because of my age and interest in sci-fi/fantasy/comics in the 70's, and even then it was an "old" franchise. People nowadays? Mostly not. I just don't get, though, how the executives can make these kinds of investments without really grasping the bare essentials of audience and market base and what the pitch NEEDS to do. If you are going to spend $250 million on a movie (damn), then you really need to be all-in with regards to the marketing, you can't afford to fail. If you're just making a small arthouse film for $5 million, which is still a lot of money but a small film honestly, heck, just make a good movie and you'll either get publicity or break even and occasionally you'll hit one out. Some TV shows have bigger budgets nowadays, now that it's become a viable story format.

It shows a real breakdown somewhere in the chain -- either at the vision level, or in the marketing level, or somehow production quality sucked but no one was monitoring the film as it was developing and they realized too late that it was dead on arrival, etc. John Carter got middling reviews -- about half the viewers enjoyed it on some level, half did not -- so it wasn't a complete dog, but it wasn't worth the financial budget they gave it, apparently.

They probably limited the marketing of Mortal Engines in order to cut their losses. But it's still possible that the European movie-goers and DVD sales will save it financially, as I've seen before.

Why do Mortal Engines (whatever that is) when they could have produced The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever?

 

[Totenkindly]

Weird synergy here...

I happened to stop by Wonder Books in Frederick MD on my way home from PA last night (I can get a lot of cheap used movies and good used books there, they've been in business in their most-of-a-stripmall-storefront facility for 38 years, along with stores they opened in Gaithersburg and Hagerstown I think), and managed to grab a used copy of John Carter 3D (it had everything -- the bluray, the 3D, the DVD, and the Digital Copy disc) for only $8.

I figured wth....

 

[Totenkindly]

They probably limited the marketing of Mortal Engines in order to cut their losses. But it's still possible that the European movie-goers and DVD sales will save it financially, as I've seen before.

Yeah, i was thinking that later. Sometimes if they think it's going to die regardless, why drop another $75 million on marketing? So getting back to oversight on production, to avoid the marketing dilemma: It seems like there is a sweet spot with oversight, since you don't want to kill a production's energy but also want to make sure it didn't go off the rails. There have been times where studio oversight might have improved a movie (and times when you know something isn't working and you end up fixing it to great success, like replacing Stoltz with Fox in "Back to the Future") but other times (like with Suicide Squad and Fantastic Four) where the studio has gutted a movie unnecessarily.

I just finished watching the "Old School" comedy and I'm not sure what is up with that -- the outtakes and deleted/alternate scenes almost hands down beat the actual film content in terms of humor. Did the studio get involved and sanitize it?

Why do Mortal Engines (whatever that is) when they could have produced The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever?

As a side note, I was excited to see there's a TV series production of "His Dark Materials" in the works (YES! -- I hope they don't try to 'un-religion' it like the movie did). James McAvoy is Asriel, Dafne Keen who played Weapon X in "Logan" is Lyra. Let's pray this one gets some justice.

But doing Covenant would be scary. I don't think Donaldson would sell out his works like Terry Brooks did (when MTV bastardized the spirit of Shannara), but damn that would be tricky to handle with the right touch because you get the wrong director and they'd try to focus on special effects, cheap horror, and war sequences and magic use. What makes the books good, though, is the undercurrent of Covenant's faith vs unbelief through the lens of his leprosy. I figure it would end up getting screwed up along the likes of the Earthsea property. Donaldson is great at writing severe, tortured characters -- I like how the "good" guys are generally pretty rough / conflicted in some way. The most "morally upright" characters are probably Mhorham and Foamfollower.

The rape sequence in the first book really turned some people off to Covenant. But I see it as something reflected in the nature of the Land itself and is intrinsic to Covenant's grasp for survival in the face of his leprosy, where to believe in anything is a weakness that could kill him. Donaldson doesn't really shirk from it either -- he makes Covenant pay for this repeatedly, and OTHERS are damaged/transformed by this act as well. It leads to Lena's madness, and Elena's extremity, and Trell's despair, and Triock's self-torment, and Atiaran's summoning of Hile Troy which results in the events and outcome of The Illearth War... hell, Hile pays a long-term cost in the end, impacting Covenant later in the second trilogy. IOW, it's a severe awful act that ends up being paid for and used as a transforming tool in the end....

Side note for another fantasy series -- I am on Gabriel Guy Kay's FB feed and I think he has suggested that Fionavar either is close to being picked up as a TV series or has actually been picked up, as of this past year.

 

[Totenkindly]

Likability of the characters.
Credibility of the story-line.
Musical score.
Editing.
Bad guy.
Pacing.
Tension.
Character development.
Digital Effects.
Beginning to end
Favorite line

Not sure if I'd break editing into visual editing vs sound editing, since they're kind of different. Your comment was more about the sound editing. The visual editing is more about cutting/pacing of the scenes although it's also important. In action movies, a good editor can make or break the movie -- i've seen films with shit visual editing that you can't tell what's going on in the shot due to the flurry of camera angles and all the quick cuts, whereas a decent editor can keep a fast-moving scene visually coherent. it's quite an art. And even outside of that, knowing how to put together a movie, what angles to use (when you have a selection), and how long to let a scene linger for emotional reverb is crucial. Sorry, I am rambling, I am just kind of enamoured by the art -- it's amazing how much a movie can change from raw footage through the assembly stage.

 

[Mal12345]

Likability of the characters.
Credibility of the story-line.
Musical score.
Editing.
Bad guy.
Pacing.
Tension.
Character development.
Digital Effects.
Beginning to end
Favorite line

Not sure if I'd break editing into visual editing vs sound editing, since they're kind of different. Your comment was more about the sound editing. The visual editing is more about cutting/pacing of the scenes although it's also important. In action movies, a good editor can make or break the movie -- i've seen films with shit visual editing that you can't tell what's going on in the shot due to the flurry of camera angles and all the quick cuts, whereas a decent editor can keep a fast-moving scene visually coherent. it's quite an art. And even outside of that, knowing how to put together a movie, what angles to use (when you have a selection), and how long to let a scene linger for emotional reverb is crucial. Sorry, I am rambling, I am just kind of enamoured by the art -- it's amazing how much a movie can change from raw footage through the assembly stage.

I'm staying within my comfort zone, since I haven't studied movie editing and don't know camera A from camera B. Napoleon Dynamite came out great with just a single camera. The more cameras and angles the better the movie? Or does it depend on how you do with what you have?

 

[Norexan]

Mortal Engines

ISFJ: "Did you learn something from the past?"
ENTJ: "You are like a dinosaur!"
ISFJ: "And what are you?"
ENTJ "The meteor"

BOOM

ENTJ makes you dead with laugh on your face

Star Wars VIII makes franchise dead.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm staying within my comfort zone, since I haven't studied movie editing and don't know camera A from camera B. Napoleon Dynamite came out great with just a single camera. The more cameras and angles the better the movie? Or does it depend on how you do with what you have?

well, Mal is banned but I might as well respond for anyone else who is reading...


Yes, you can make a decent film with the use of just one camera, depending on the material. (There's a lot of variables.) But a single camera can still be cut for pacing rather than just letting the camera / recording control the length of the shot -- sometimes films will actually cut (although it has to be cut sensible) from a single stream feed rather than one long scene take. And especially if cuts are to be used anyway, then suddenly it becomes a pain in the ass to do the cut because you have to constantly start and stop with your one camera.

Obviously it's easier to do video editing with at least two feeds, because you then do cut to other angles. But the editing can be used to control timing and pacing of the sequence, get rid of dead space, pick the best angle for a particular thing -- and do it all in a way that the sequence is still visually rational and feeds straight into the mind, rather than leaving the viewers scratching their heads and wondering what they just saw.

This can be a problem with the slew of action pics coming out in recent years. You can tell the good ones from the bad, because with such fast action, you need to be able to cut the film to show the best angle for a given action, while not screwing up the natural flow/timing of the action, and making it all perceptible in the time flow to the human mind. Some action pictures pass this test (and they are usually giving kudos for it, because of all the BADLY edited sequences we sit through the rest of the time... you know the ones, where everything is visually muddled either because of angles and/or far too many cuts spliced together from various angles).

Also, from a dramatic standpoint, you again are picking the best camera angles, cutting together long, mid-range, and close-up shots depending on dramatic need, and so forth. Basically everyone is working in tandem (the camera operators on the set, the cinematography, the director, the visual editor) as far as the pacing, dramatic needs, focus of the film, to convey the right emotion and tone.

It's also pretty amazing what you can do by recutting a film visually. You can change the feeling of the story, you can even change the story by how something is sequenced. And some films are based on the visual cut (take Memento and Following, films by Christopher Nolan, for example -- both great because the cuts were thought-out ahead of time and you never lose track of where you're at time-wise in the story despite jumping around).