MovieChat Forums > Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) Discussion > Why’d it Bomb? Independence Day: Resurge...

Why’d it Bomb? Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

posted 8 years ago by TMC-4 (20279)
19 replies | jump to latest

https://lebeauleblog.com/2017/04/05/whyd-it-bomb-independence-day-resurgence-2016/

For one reason or another, Roland Emmerich and Fox decided to wait 20 years to make a sequel to the blockbuster Independence Day. In hindsight, that might’ve not been the best idea. Domestically, Independence Day made $306 million and $817 million worldwide on a budget of $75 million (and this is 90’s money were talking about) while the new one made half that, if not less, making $103 million domestically and $389 million worldwide. But why was it such a disappointment at the box office? Let’s find out!

4. People no longer trust Roland Emmerich
Since Independence Day, Roland has mostly made one bad movie after another. Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow, 10,000 B.C., 2012, etc. have all been detested by critics and audiences. While I don’t think this had a huge effect on the movie’s BO, I think there were enough people wise enough to know Emmerich would churn out another lousy project that they decided to stay away.

3. The first movie is kind of divisive
When it comes to most people who’ve seen the movie, it seems like it has garnered two reactions from people-there are people who like or love it for being a dumb yet fun movie and there are people who just find it too dumb to be fun. Honestly, I thought the movie was alright myself but the sequel might’ve driven away a large chunk of people who didn’t like the first movie whatsoever, which might’ve affected it’s box office numbers.

2. Will Smith didn’t come back
When it was announced Will wasn’t coming back for the sequel, there was a huge backlash against the sequel and many people complained when they found out he wouldn’t be appearing in the movie. This might’ve been another factor that caused people to avoid the movie, as they didn’t see what the point of another Independence Day movie would be without Will Smith.

1. It just came out too late
Probably the biggest reason this movie underperformed is that the hype for an Independence Day sequel has just died down. I mean, while I wouldn’t say the movie’s been forgotten, who really cares about Independence Day anymore? Not that many people. Therefore, there was no hype for the sequel and it was probably the biggest factor that caused the movie to underperform. It also didn’t help that last year there were way too many sequels to movies that came out too late, most of which bombed or underperformed at the box office, and this movie couldn’t help but get lost in that shuffle.

Of course, there might have been other reasons this movie wasn’t the success they were hoping for but these were most likely the biggest reasons for its underperformance at the box office.

[–] evikeaz (37) 8 years ago

i agree with most of the points you brought up. first thing i thought was, where is will smith? i did like the original film and even though they had good actors, i.e. jeff goldblum in it, it just wasn't interesting. what i can't believe it how much $$ it made ($100mm+). i rate it just about what everyone rated it.

oh wait...i can't rate a movie on this site??!! i have to go to IMdb? no thanks...i deleted my IMdb account because they deleted the message boards. i try not to go on there unless absolutely necessary.

[–] Otter (24464) 8 years ago

You forgot the fifth point: It sucked.

Really, it did. It was a dumb idea, confusingly edited, with the most likeable character missing, and too much time spent of people we hadn't cared about for 19 years. And the boat sequence instead of a good battle.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 8 years ago

Exactly. It was simply not a good movie. I personally didn't care that Slick Willy didn't come back but one thing they couldn't do without was a good script. And it didn't have one.

Luckily, I read Independence Day: Crucible--it's a novel that tells what happens between the first and second movies and introduces a lot of the characters--because I would otherwise have been COMPLETELY lost.

The other problem was the over-reliance on CGI. The first film used miniatures for most of the destruction scenes which looked WAY better than the bullshit we saw in Resurgence. Seeing something real and physical explode will always look better than a purely digital creation.

It's a shame they fucked this up so badly because I loved the first film and was ready for a sequel. But they dropped the ball big time.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 8 years ago

Independece Day is a "special effect film" (or "tokusatsu" in Japanese). It has no new story, just regurgitating old proven alien invasion tropes. The main thing that make it so succesful was because the special effects. People at the time saw the trailer in which the White House was oblitrated into pieces and jaws slammed the floors. They immediately HAVE to see this!

Today, nobody really is rushing to see CGI destruction scenes gimmick in Independence Day: Resurgence. Over-reliance in CGI made special effect movies look generic. These special effect movies now should be called generic effect movies because there's nothing special anymore about the effects.

It has been like that since Armageddon which already perfected the CGI destruction scenes. I'm amazed how Hollywood producers haven't realized this and keep churning out these generic effect movies that has no story and characters like 2012, Godzilla, Battleship, Wrath of the Titans, Battle: Los Angeles, San Andreas, Exodus: Gods and Kings, Gods of Egypt, etc.

This makes me appreciate the genius of Michael Bay actually. When everybody else fail, he succeeds with the Transformers franchise. The movies may be terrible for critics, but he actually knows a thing or two about making money in this genre that nobody can emulate, even with the almost exact formula copy that is Pacific Rim.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 8 years ago

I felt like Independence Day did a good job of retelling War of the Worlds for a contemporary audience. But one thing is for certain: It did HAVE a story and that story was told coherently. The same cannot be sad for Resurgence, at least in regard to the latter half of that statement.

I do agree that today's "special effects" no longer feel special. And furthermore, they don't feel real. I can go back and watch Independence Day and HOLY SHIT do most of the effects still hold up today. There is some green screen work that looks pretty rough, but by and large the movie still looks amazing. When the Empire State Building blows up, you know you're seeing something tangible explode, and it still inspires awe (even if you know it's a miniature).

[–] actionkamen (23176) 8 years ago

True. It did have a story, I said it didn't have a NEW story. As you also wrote, it retells War of the Worlds.

Not every movie need a new story of course, but when a movie only retell a well-known tropes it has to offer something else. The original Independent Day offer special effect scenes, which was exceptionally good.

Independent Day: Resurgence doesn't have both. It has no new story (or even a story at all) and also didn't offer spectacular special effects. It doesn't even have nostalgia power because Will Smith isn't in it. So it has nothing.

All it had is just the title. No wonder it bombed.

[–] spurtle467 (1551) 7 years ago

I like your point about the special effects not feeling so special anymore, although I would disagree about the ones in the original movie holding up. I actually think they've dated quite poorly in parts.

Maybe it's different for the younger generation who weren't around for 90's cinema, but back then CGI in big blockbusters felt fresh. I guess T2 really got the ball rolling with that in 1991, and then Jurassic Park took it a step further 2 years later. It was still special seeing CGI utilised on such a large scale when Independence Day came out and other such movies around that time. Now we've had over 20 years of CGI being the "go to" form of special effects and it's been used in everything, and it's frankly not that special anymore.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8801) 7 years ago

The one instance of the effects in Independence Day not holding up well is when Vivica Fox and her son and the dog are in the tunnel and they have to escape the fire that is rushing toward them.

But I feel like for the most part the movie still holds up AMAZINGLY well, especially when the Empire State Building, White House, etc are blown up. I mean, just watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFG-4Ge668

That looks a hell of a lot better that today's films like ID: Resurgence or 2012 where they don't even bother to use practical miniatures anymore. They just make the whole thing CGI and it ends up looking like a cut scene out of a video game.

[–] spurtle467 (1551) 7 years ago

I agree with you. The miniatures are effective at looking realistic in those scenes. Goes to show how good practical effects can be even in CGI heavy movies. And yeah the scene in the tunnel with Vivica Fox and the cars flying up to a backdrop of flames looks poor now. Not much better than what you'd see from one of these low budget TV movies.

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

I am 18 mins. in and there is nothing happening...the original was quick and funny, with good effects. And stars.

So far, this one has NONE of those things : (
.

[–] TexasJack (12516) 7 years ago

It doesn't get any better after 18 minutes.

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

Thank you. I have bailed for MISS PERIGRINE'S HOME FOR PECULIAR CHILDREN...which looks like it has a (surprisingly) amazing cast.

Will I be burned again??
.

[–] TexasJack (12516) 7 years ago

I don't think so. I enjoyed it.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Well I actually think it depends on how you perceived the first movie. This is pretty much the same plot, only that the aliens came back with a much more powerful technology. I personnaly thought it was useless, long, pretencious and totally unnecessary. But the thing is that... I never cared much for the first movie neither. I don't even know why I bothered to watch the sequel. But if you enjoyed the first movie, well you might find this one entertaining as well.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 7 years ago

Nope. I enjoyed the first movie alot but I found the sequel not entertaining at all.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

This is why I said he "might" enjoy it...

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Well I would summarize it shortly: no one fucking asked for a sequel to a movie that was mostly considered ridiculous taken aside the impressive visual effects. Especially not 20 fucking years later...

[–] spurtle467 (1551) 7 years ago

Sooner rather than much later was definitely the time to make this sequel to reap the financial rewards. The audience that saw the original back in the cinemas are 20 years older. I was a teen when I saw it and now I'm in my 30's. I loved seeing it in the cinema as a teen. It felt like a powerhouse of CGI on display and the hype from this made it a real event to go and see it.

History has not been so kind to the film, and on many repeated viewings I noticed all the flaws; the cheese, the cliches, the stereotyping, and the special effects have lost much of their value. Had a sequel been made a few years afterwards when I held the first movie in relative high regard, and big budget effects still had that level of amazement attached, I and I imagine many others who saw the original at the time, would have flocked to see it in their droves.

[–] TMC-4 (20279) 3 years ago

https://tvovermind.com/why-independence-day-resurgence-bombed-at-the-box-office/

Will Smith Was Not Present for The Film

There’s no official word on why Smith truly passed on the sequel. While Emmerich gave an explanation, Smith has remained silent on the situation. Considering the fact that Smith did Bad Boys 3 several years later, it’s clear that he either A) changed his tune regarding making sequels or B) hated the script and wanted no part of it, but politely declined in the process. The second statement is pure speculation as Smith has never indicated such a reasoning; however, it’s not uncommon for actors to past on sequels if a script simply sucks. A prime example is Keanu Reeves and Speed 2: Cruise Control. However, Will Smith is a star, and was the main staple of the first film. It was great to see the returns of Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, Judd Hirsh, and Vivica A. Fox; however, the studio should’ve gone out of their way to bring in Smith, even if that means waiting for a couple more years. Smith is the driving force of the original film and there was a black cloud without him in the sequel.