Mechmaster Posted May 8, 2004 Share Posted May 8, 2004 it'd be hard to imagine a sequel because they already used up all the monster premises... They could always have him in a 3 sided fight with Alien and Predator, or how about Godzilla? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soze Posted May 8, 2004 Share Posted May 8, 2004 Eh... could've been worse. Could have been the guy that directed Batman Forever (I think that's the one with AhhhNooold The Governor.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mechatek Posted May 8, 2004 Share Posted May 8, 2004 Saw it a few hours ago, and I got what I was expecting. Summer movies (all effects, next to nothing plot) are here again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GobotFool Posted May 8, 2004 Share Posted May 8, 2004 Eh... could've been worse. Could have been the guy that directed Batman Forever (I think that's the one with AhhhNooold The Governor.) No one beats Shumacher in badness. Cept maybe Ed Wood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That NOS Guy Posted May 8, 2004 Share Posted May 8, 2004 I didn't think it was possible but this movie was worse then Hellboy. I have to be like Randall in that one episode of Clerks the cartoon and get my money back from all the directors. -NOS "Get him out of my sight!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingNor Posted May 8, 2004 Share Posted May 8, 2004 i liked the frankinstein monster. he was the only intresting part of the movie. the werewolf model was neat too, but didn't fit in the live action. story was intresting a bit, but totally drowned out by the lame lame lame special effects. "bleh BLEH!! i aim drakoola, come to sook your bloood! bleh bleh" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uminoken Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 (edited) Ahh, sometimes it's fun to turn your brain off and just enjoy...it was basically a modern redo of all the old Universal horror movies (notably Wolfman vs. Frankenstein)....not much plot but a fun ride nontheless with an awesome score by Silvestri. And before you go on about it's the worst movie of the year, our trailer lineup included Soul Pain (er Plane), White Chicks, and Catwoman....I find it hard-pressed to call VH the worst movie in light of these cinematic wonders coming to a theater near you Edited May 9, 2004 by uminoken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRock Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 I dunno if you guys are aware of this. But Van Helsing sampled from Vampire Hunter D like P. Diddy sampled from Sting. Look at Van Helsing and compare him to D (Both versions). Stephen Sommers admitted that he's a fan of D and shewed the Anime to the costume designer and told her to make the outfits look like those in the Anime. Not to mention they raided Blade's warehouse for his weps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bandit29 Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 I dunno if you guys are aware of this. But Van Helsing sampled from Vampire Hunter D like P. Diddy sampled from Sting. Look at Van Helsing and compare him to D (Both versions). Stephen Sommers admitted that he's a fan of D and shewed the Anime to the costume designer and told her to make the outfits look like those in the Anime. Not to mention they raided Blade's warehouse for his weps. No kiddin I never would have guessed lol... Saw it last night...not bad, not great. kinda fun. I got what I expected. The overdone CG effects produced sensory overload at first and then boredom later. And that scene at the end with VH looking up into the clouds was beyond cheezy lol Kate Beckinsale was hot as ever though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolly Rogers Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Kate Beckinsale was hot as ever though Golden rule of crappy summer blockbuster. You can have a lame story, bad direction, and awful effects. As long as you cast a hottie, it'll put butts in theater seats. Jennifer Connelly certainly did that for The Hulk last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 I saw it yesterday. I liked it a lot. It was a simple good fun action movie. No more, no less. Good viewing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerwalk25 Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 I saw it today. A mindless action flick which I thought was okay; not good, not bad just okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oihan Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 (edited) Last night I went and saw the movie with my roommates and a few of us came out not happy at all. The movie could hardly keep my attention; I noticed that my attention kept on going elsewhere. Towards the end of the movie, right when they got to Dracula's castle, I probably fell asleep 3 times (trying to stay awake) missing the entire ending. Never have I ever fallen asleep at a movie theater before. What a waste of $8.50 and time that was. ThE only good thing about the movie is Kate Beckinsale. Hot damn! Edited May 10, 2004 by Oihan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macrosso Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Man that movie is the sh*t nice story and good action and effects. Its like castlevania the movie hope the next one comes out soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jemstone Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Man that movie is the sh*t nice story and good action and effects. Its like castlevania the movie hope the next one comes out soon. Nice story? It was pretty nonsensical. A good part of it seemed to be an inside joke for an upcoming Wolverine spin off film starring Hugh Jackman! The whole need for Frankenstein is what was the most far fetched part. Reminded me of Magneto tieing Rogue to the Statue Of Liberty for a similar purpose in X-men. The movie was entertaining but it is crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechwarrior Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Just caught a late showing showing of it. Glad I dont listen to the film critics in this thread, cuz I liked it alot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoptimus Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Man.. I thought this was really bad. I know it is suppose to be real B and real campy but it just came off as real sucking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Jenius Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 Man..I thought this was really bad. I know it is suppose to be real B and real campy but it just came off as real sucking. LAME LAME LAME! Many of you know that I am usually willing to give action movies a break just for the sake of them being a "fun action movie." But COME ON! This movie was terrible. You see, they hook you with the trailers showing Helsing using all ye olde gadgets to fight evil back in the day. Hell, they even show a huge ass gatling gun IIRC, but they never use it. Then, he sucks it up w/ a rapid fire crossbow(that should have been WAY cooler. The movie also takes a steep dive after a certain encounter w/ wolfman and proceeds to crash and burn in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 IMHO it would have been much better had they decided to go all the way either serious, or campy. First half very campy, second half more serious. But kept alternating between the two. I hate that. One or the other. Ending 20 mins---too "frenetic and random events/action" even for my tastes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Jenius Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 IMHO it would have been much better had they decided to go all the way either serious, or campy. First half very campy, second half more serious. But kept alternating between the two. I hate that. One or the other. Ending 20 mins---too "frenetic and random events/action" even for my tastes. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bandit29 Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 Ending 20 mins---too "frenetic and random events/action" even for my tastes. I agree with that. There was so much going on it bored me to death. Sensory overload turned to bordom. "Oh look lightning, explosions, fire.... yawn" lol Anyone pick up the animated Van Helsing DVD? It supposed to take place before the movie. It's around 9-10.00 at Best Buy etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GobotFool Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 Ending 20 mins---too "frenetic and random events/action" even for my tastes. I agree with that. There was so much going on it bored me to death. Sensory overload turned to bordom. "Oh look lightning, explosions, fire.... yawn" lol Anyone pick up the animated Van Helsing DVD? It supposed to take place before the movie. It's around 9-10.00 at Best Buy etc They did an animated prequel? Already? Geeze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bandit29 Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 Ending 20 mins---too "frenetic and random events/action" even for my tastes. I agree with that. There was so much going on it bored me to death. Sensory overload turned to bordom. "Oh look lightning, explosions, fire.... yawn" lol Anyone pick up the animated Van Helsing DVD? It supposed to take place before the movie. It's around 9-10.00 at Best Buy etc They did an animated prequel? Already? Geeze. Yep here it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 Ahh, sometimes it's fun to turn your brain off and just enjoy...it was basically a modern redo of all the old Universal horror movies (notably Wolfman vs. Frankenstein).... As should have been obvious to anyone in the theater when they did the Universal logo, and then the opening scene, in black and white. not much plot but a fun ride nontheless with an awesome score by Silvestri. And before you go on about it's the worst movie of the year, our trailer lineup included Soul Pain (er Plane), White Chicks, and Catwoman....I find it hard-pressed to call VH the worst movie in light of these cinematic wonders coming to a theater near you Indeed. Heck, Van Helsing was pee-holding worthy in my book. Very few movies get that from me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areaseven Posted June 3, 2004 Author Share Posted June 3, 2004 The animated Van Helsing DVD was sold out everywhere before I got a chance to pick it up. How is it compared to the movie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JsARCLIGHT Posted June 3, 2004 Share Posted June 3, 2004 Just for anyone who is interested in the take and make of movies like I am here is Van Helsing's current standing: Released in the US on May 7, 2004 and has been in general release for almost a month. Limited international release is in effect. Total US Gross $111,220,000 (from ticket sales to 6/1) Production Budget $170,000,000 (estimated, does not include marketing budget) Worldwide Gross $119,667,790 (includes US Gross to 6/1) (data obtained from The Numbers, a reputable industry site) So the movie is a month out of the gate, in limited international release and has yet to turn a profit. A good sign is that it is still supposedly in 2,000+ theaters, but it has not made it's primary production budget back yet and that is not a good sign for a summer blockbuster and generally a sign that no sequel will come. My guess is they intend to make their money back in rentals and sales of the general DVD release. If you like the movie or not is almost not a factor when it comes down to the brass that VH is a summer popcorn flick designed to make the studio some coin, which it is not really doing at the level they like their summer blockbusters to perform. Then again, most studios only get one "money picture" a season even though they produce between 5 and 10 high budget flicks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsu legato Posted June 3, 2004 Share Posted June 3, 2004 I never doubted VH's profit potential for an instant. It's the quintessential "big, dumb and loud" movie that appeals to the lowest common denominator. I expect no less than 2 sequels, to "complete the trilogy" as it were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syngyne Posted June 3, 2004 Share Posted June 3, 2004 And that scene at the end with VH looking up into the clouds was beyond cheezy lol My friends and I kept picturing that scene with the Ewok song from the end of Return of the Jedi in the background. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaine23 Posted June 3, 2004 Share Posted June 3, 2004 Just for anyone who is interested in the take and make of movies like I am here is Van Helsing's current standing:Released in the US on May 7, 2004 and has been in general release for almost a month. Limited international release is in effect. Total US Gross $111,220,000 (from ticket sales to 6/1) Production Budget $170,000,000 (estimated, does not include marketing budget) Worldwide Gross $119,667,790 (includes US Gross to 6/1) (data obtained from The Numbers, a reputable industry site) So the movie is a month out of the gate, in limited international release and has yet to turn a profit. A good sign is that it is still supposedly in 2,000+ theaters, but it has not made it's primary production budget back yet and that is not a good sign for a summer blockbuster and generally a sign that no sequel will come. My guess is they intend to make their money back in rentals and sales of the general DVD release. If you like the movie or not is almost not a factor when it comes down to the brass that VH is a summer popcorn flick designed to make the studio some coin, which it is not really doing at the level they like their summer blockbusters to perform. Then again, most studios only get one "money picture" a season even though they produce between 5 and 10 high budget flicks. Good lord... how on Earth did Van Helsing have a 170 million dollar budget? No Oscar calibur actors, both Jackman and Beckinsale are barely A-list... did they blow all that dough on effects or Sommers? That's a ridiculous budget... no wonder they haven't even broke even. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JsARCLIGHT Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 Now just to put the zap further on VH, here are some numbers from it's competition: Shrek 2: Released in the US on May 19, 2004, has yet to go international and has 15 days in theaters Total US Gross as of 6/1 $271,516,000 Production Budget $70,000,000 (estimated) Prints and Advertising Budget $50,000,000 (estimated) Shrek 2 total profit margin after a mere 15 days in release: $151,516,000 Troy: Released in the US on May 14, 2004, has yet to go international and has 20 days in theaters Total US Gross $112,275,000 Production Budget $150,000,000 (estimate) Prints and Advertising Budget $60,000,000 (estimate) Troy has a current loss margin of $97,725,000 (that is how much more the movie has to make to "break even") ... kinda makes you think, eh? Shrek 2 has a few low A level actors on the payroll as voice talent and is basically all effects whereas Troy has a few A level actors on the payroll and a good number of effects yet it cost almost $80 million more to make and had $10 million more advertising thrown at it. Shows how hollywood moves in strange ways... yet who here did not know Shrek 2 would be boffo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsu legato Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 JsARC, one variable that missing from your analysis is Number Of Screens. Hollywood has become so enamoured with opening weekends that they are throwing these summer films onto an insane number of screens. Their only concern anymore is to make as much cash over the weekend as possible. If a film hits, and manages to hang onto the top 5 for a few weeks, so much the better. It's literally becomming an all or nothing proposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EXO Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 I also hate that the tally is in total dollars made and not in total tickets sold... how fair is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JsARCLIGHT Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 (edited) Shrek 2 at 15 days out is controlling over 4,300 screens in the US whereas at the 15 day point Van Helsing held just over 3,400 screens. Being a children's movie and a predicted cash cow from the start comparing VH to Shrek is like comparing a fat retard to Michael Jordan... but! Troy currently has it's claws into 3,400 screens on day twenty and ironically enough Van Helsing also held 3,400 screens on that day in it's release. So those two are directly comparable... sort of... well they are both still losing money at least they have that in common... Edit to add: My initial point however was more of a sucker punch to Blaine's comment on "how the fark could that movie cost that much to make?" A movie like Shrek 2 which is 100% special effects and logically should take more effort to post-produce than Troy and Vanhelsing has a third the budget and makes money hand over fist. The only thing I think making VH and Troy cost so much money would be the cost of principal photography and all those darn sets and costumes. But the sad thing is that numbers like these change industries... hell, Disney has shatcanned their entire traditional cel animation department to focus on CG films from now on. Edited June 4, 2004 by JsARCLIGHT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsu legato Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 (edited) hell, Disney has shatcanned their entire traditional cel animation department to focus on CG films from now on. ...which shows just how clueless they really are. If they had an ounce of brains they'd realize that their cel animation flicks were tanking because they sucked, not because they weren't CGI. Conversely, their Pixar films were all sucesses because Pixar is f*cking talented. Edited June 4, 2004 by bsu legato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.