# Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)



## Cli-Fi (Nov 10, 2016)

I'm not so sure how this is different from Star Wars or Jupiter Ascending, but I'll check it out all the same:


----------



## Rodders (Nov 11, 2016)

I'm looking forward to this. I generally like Luke Besson, so I'm holding out for a good movie.


----------



## Droflet (Nov 11, 2016)

Yeah, it's pretty, but does it have a decent story. I like Besson too, but I'll wait for the reviews.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 11, 2016)

Certainly visually impressive. Hope there's a decent enough script to match.


----------



## WilliamDavey627 (Nov 11, 2016)

I'm really, really looking foward to this. The 5th Element is propbably one of my favourite movies. I definetly get a similar feel off this tralier.


----------



## Gonk the Insane (Nov 12, 2016)

I'd never heard of this, but it looks good and will hopefully see Luc Besson returning to his Fifth Element/Leon best.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 13, 2016)

It looks awesome  !


----------



## EJDeBrun (Nov 14, 2016)

Looks great! I'm excited for it.


----------



## JunkMonkey (Nov 14, 2016)

I've always liked the BDs on which this is based. 
Valérian and Laureline - Wikipedia

Hope they don't screw it up.  I was less than impressed by M. Besson's take on Adele Blanc-Sec.


----------



## Vince W (Nov 14, 2016)

It looks very, very promising.


----------



## WilliamDavey627 (Nov 18, 2016)

Gonk the Insane said:


> I'd never heard of this, but it looks good and will hopefully see Luc Besson returning to his Fifth Element/Leon best.


Same as. Never heard of Valerian before, but it does look good.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Apr 29, 2017)

slightly longer trailer....


----------



## Lumens (Apr 30, 2017)

Oh my god! I absolutely loved the graphic novels! Didn't realise what I was looking at until I saw their ship. This should be good!


----------



## Lumens (Apr 30, 2017)

The story that they chose is one of the best in the series, IMO. Luc Besson is well suited for it since the original is French too, and there are lighter moments scattered throughout. I think he handles that dynamic well for the most part. If that makes sense. 

The only confusing thing to me is how they left out her name in the title. When I read the comics (translated to Norwegian), they shared the title of the series. 

Anyway, this will get me to the cinema guaranteed.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 30, 2017)

Film wise , I think we have winner here.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Apr 30, 2017)

Lumens said:


> The story that they chose is one of the best in the series, IMO. Luc Besson is well suited for it since the original is French too, and there are lighter moments scattered throughout. I think he handles that dynamic well for the most part. If that makes sense.




as long as there's no DJ Ruby Rhod!!!


----------



## WaylanderToo (May 26, 2017)

latest trailer & a recap of the others


----------



## Rodders (May 26, 2017)

I'm looking forward to this a lot.


----------



## REBerg (Jun 5, 2017)

Looks like a good candidate for the 3-D experience.


----------



## Ihe (Aug 7, 2017)

I saw it yesterday... Stunning visuals. I'd strongly recommend you see it in 3D. Some of the best use of 3D I've seen, even without many 3D-focused set pieces. The world Besson's built is just that magnificent... better than Avatar, hands down. Aaaaaaand that's where the positive comments stop, I'm afraid.

I don't usually wander into this corner of the forum, but I felt such an overall disappointment after seeing this movie that I cannot contain it within myself. Gotta bleed the misery before I explode. Come, wallow in my sorrow, share my pain.

I found myself literally cringing in my seat while watching this, which is a first for me--and I've watched plenty of awful movies in my lifetime. Not the action scenes, those were alright (even good-great if seeing them in 3D). It was the quiet moments I felt embarrassed for. Specially the dialogue. It was meandering, without much movie-long coherence or thematic relevance, juvenile but not funny, lacking wit on par with the worst B movies, full of non-sequiturs and empty small talk. It didn't feel like production spent a moment's thought on the dialogue--it seemed like a small child wrote it, basing it on unbelievably worn cliches. I don't think the movie would hurt in any way if it was a silent film. This, and other factors, also leads to non of the characters being likeable or even relatable. 

There is zero character development. This is in part because the movie rarely slows down and is too enamoured with its visual exploits. In the end the whole thing feels incredibly superficial, but it could also be because the MCs are just inherently not interesting. Simply, it doesn't give you time to care, and given the content, it doesn't give you a reason to want to, as the plot itself is pretty simplistic, and full of holes. It has most likely been crippled in post-production, as it feels at times they have edited out nexus scenes that could make sense of some parts of the movie (although everything is kinda dumbed down anyway, so it's not that obvious maybe, except for those who have some knowledge on basic storytelling).

The acting was also subpar. Most of it was both underacted and overacted. Simultaneously. Really. I don't even know how that is possible. The smallest dull remarks pass as clever and draw exaggerated, sometimes even illogical reactions from other characters. And the more "poignant" scenes (and that's stretching the term, as there's nothing even remotely emotionally impactful) fall off thanks to a combination of bad dialogue, underachieving acting, bad use of pace, and the mishandling of thematic coherence, plucking unrelated elements out of thin air not previously explored, but suddenly placed at the forefront for only a minute, to never be discussed of again after the scene is over.

I'll leave it at that. I feel a bit better now, but this has been a much bigger disappointment than Batman vs Superman, and that's saying something. Sadly, my next movie will be The Dark Tower, and I hear it also is not great, which will finish off my broken heart. So much potential wasted lately! Maybe Dunkirk will wash away this bad aftertaste....


----------



## Cli-Fi (Aug 7, 2017)

Ihe said:


> I saw it yesterday... Stunning visuals. I'd strongly recommend you see it in 3D. Some of the best use of 3D I've seen, even without many 3D-focused set pieces. The world Besson's built is just that magnificent... better than Avatar, hands down. Aaaaaaand that's where the positive comments stop, I'm afraid.
> 
> I don't usually wander into this corner of the forum, but I felt such an overall disappointment after seeing this movie that I cannot contain it within myself. Gotta bleed the misery before I explode. Come, wallow in my sorrow, share my pain.
> 
> ...



Yeah the reviews for Valerian kinda said the same thing. I am not surprised. It means no sequels or franchise opportunities. Too bad, because it's so hard to get a space epic off the ground. Jupiter Ascending failed in the same way. So did Passengers, but that movie wasn't such an epic as the other two. Even the Expanse is having trouble, but syfy loves it and it's their baby. I don't know what this means for the future of the space opera industry. 

Can't we have another Star Wars? Or was that just one-off dumb-luck? No one can beat George Lucas? No one?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 7, 2017)

All I know about this film is that it's based on a French comic that ran for over 40 years - so it's possible that they tried to put too much in, but the wrong details (kind of like the first Judge Dredd film).


----------



## Ihe (Aug 7, 2017)

Apparently it has flopped big time, and they're hoping to break even in the European market, where the Valerian comics were more widely known. I've been checking out reviews now, and indeed there is consensus on the negative aspects of the movie.


Cli-Fi said:


> Even the Expanse is having trouble,


Really? I didn't know that. That series blew me away, and whatever reason it's in trouble, I wouldn't think that the story is to blame.

Anyway, producers and directors should know by now that epic sci-fi is a hard formula to get right in the big screen, so why not strengthen the area most reviewers usually bash? (pace, character development, relatability, overindulgence in cliches and overused tropes...). The world-building overtakes character development, and many times overshadows the plot itself. I would think that after so many big-budget flops (ie, Ghost in the Shell was one of the last ones to hurt me ), producers would start making smart movies. HBO, some other incredible TV series (Breaking Bad, etc), and even Marvel, have upped the ante, and viewers are no longer that easily impressed by shiny things, they should know that. Reviews do matter. I'm not asking for perfect movies, just movies that are at least 50% good. Is that too much to ask? I won't say I feel robbed with Valerian, mainly because the visual experience alone is worth the money, but c'mon, "well, I guess technically I didn't get robbed..." shouldn't be the thought leaving the cinema after a $200m movie.


----------



## Cli-Fi (Aug 7, 2017)

Ihe said:


> Apparently it has flopped big time, and they're hoping to break even in the European market, where the Valerian comics were more widely known. I've been checking out reviews now, and indeed there is consensus on the negative aspects of the movie.
> 
> Really? I didn't know that. That series blew me away, and whatever reason it's in trouble, I wouldn't think that the story is to blame.
> 
> Anyway, producers and directors should know by now that epic sci-fi is a hard formula to get right in the big screen, so why not strengthen the area most reviewers usually bash? (pace, character development, relatability, overindulgence in cliches and overused tropes...). The world-building overtakes character development, and many times overshadows the plot itself. I would think that after so many big-budget flops (ie, Ghost in the Shell was one of the last ones to hurt me ), producers would start making smart movies. HBO, some other incredible TV series (Breaking Bad, etc), and even Marvel, have upped the ante, and viewers are no longer that easily impressed by shiny things, they should know that. Reviews do matter. I'm not asking for perfect movies, just movies that are at least 50% good. Is that too much to ask? I won't say I feel robbed with Valerian, mainly because the visual experience alone is worth the money, but c'mon, "well, I guess technically I didn't get robbed..." shouldn't be the thought leaving the cinema after a $200m movie.



The expanse is not a ratings gainer (avg 500K-1 million viewers per season) and it seems like the only reason syfy keeps renewing it is because they love it and they are behind it 100% even if hardly anyone watches it. It's a show for scifi fans and one has to happen upon it or hear about it from word of mouth and in the days of 400 TV shows and game of thrones, that's almost impossible to do.

I think a lot of it comes from the executive/corporate side. It's the reason so many movies fail. Cable TV seems to let the creatives do their thing without much interference.


----------



## Nick B (Aug 7, 2017)

I thought this would be another Jupiter Ascending (which wasuruly awful). Shame, but expected. Too much importance given to the visual experience.


----------



## Droflet (Aug 12, 2017)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll give it a miss.


----------



## Cat's Cradle (Aug 12, 2017)

I went in with no expectations except the hope of seeing good or interesting visuals. And there was a lot of really cool looking stuff. But the story was bleh, and the acting was even worse...probably the most annoying part of the movie for me. Clive Owen, who I often like, was a petulant, over-acting tosser; what a nothing role for someone of his stature (or at least his fame). And the male lead, DeHaan seemed to be channeling Matrix-era Keanu. I closed my eyes a number of times, and I swore the voice I heard was Keanu's.

Not the worst thing I've seen in the last year (Jupiter Ascending, was perhaps, the worst) but not good. I doubt there could be a sequel.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Aug 12, 2017)

Cli-Fi said:


> Yeah the reviews for Valerian kinda said the same thing. I am not surprised. It means no sequels or franchise opportunities. Too bad, because it's so hard to get a space epic off the ground. Jupiter Ascending failed in the same way. So did Passengers, but that movie wasn't such an epic as the other two. Even the Expanse is having trouble, but syfy loves it and it's their baby. I don't know what this means for the future of the space opera industry.
> 
> Can't we have another Star Wars? Or was that just one-off dumb-luck? No one can beat George Lucas? No one?




the saving grace for any potential sequel is that:

1 - it wasn't studio money
2 - it many make it back in Europe and (especially!) the far east

The major problem IMO is Carla Deligveine [sp] who is truly atrocious with her co-star not that far behind

The visuals though, the visuals........ just WOW! Quite possibly the best looking film of all time


----------



## Ihe (Aug 12, 2017)

WaylanderToo said:


> The visuals though, the visuals........ just WOW! Quite possibly the best looking film of all time



That, and that alone might be the only reason to watch it. I'll say it again: on the big screen, in 3D. Otherwise there's no point.


----------



## MemoryTale (Aug 12, 2017)

Ihe said:


> That, and that alone might be the only reason to watch it. I'll say it again: on the big screen, in 3D. Otherwise there's no point.



So basically only watch it if you're planning to spend a lot, don't bother when it comes out for free on TV?


----------



## WaylanderToo (Aug 12, 2017)

MemoryTale said:


> So basically only watch it if you're planning to spend a lot, don't bother when it comes out for free on TV?




I think you could say - think of the best, most amazing (or indeed maddest) scenes in the Fifth Element. You have that mental image there? That is an average scene in Valerian!


----------



## Cli-Fi (Aug 12, 2017)

WaylanderToo said:


> the saving grace for any potential sequel is that:
> 
> 1 - it wasn't studio money
> 2 - it many make it back in Europe and (especially!) the far east
> ...



Come to think of it, I never truly liked the simplicity of the Star Wars stories. It was just that the characters were good in an almost in your face type of way. I'm Darth Vader! I'm evil and have the Dark Side. I'm Luke Skywalker. I'm good with the Force on my side. Even the names of the characters told you if they were good or evil. 

As you mentioned with Valerian the actors weren't good and it was miscast. The story wasn't good. Kinda similar to Avatar but I'm not sure why Avatar was so successful and this was not. People went to see that movie 5 times in a row! I have a feeling it was because this was also attached to Luc Besson, and everybody remembers the let-down from Fifth Element. If they had a top notch director and an A-list rugged male as the lead. It would have done better.


----------



## Nick B (Aug 12, 2017)

I actualy like Luc Besson! I liked fifth element, taken and from paris with love is a great film.


----------



## Ihe (Aug 12, 2017)

MemoryTale said:


> So basically only watch it if you're planning to spend a lot, don't bother when it comes out for free on TV?


If it's free and you have a good TV, go for it , but don't expect much apart from pretty visuals.


----------



## Cli-Fi (Aug 12, 2017)

Nick B said:


> I actualy like Luc Besson! I liked fifth element, taken and from paris with love is a great film.



I did too I was too young to appreciate it when it came out, but I liked it when I watched it recently for the first time. I think the film had high expectations as did Valerian.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Aug 13, 2017)

people keep referencing 5th Element (for obvious reasons), I will say that at least Valerian does not have DJ (effing) Ruby Rhod in it! Single handedly one of the worst characters to ever 'grace' the silver screen!


----------



## Ihe (Aug 13, 2017)

WaylanderToo said:


> people keep referencing 5th Element (for obvious reasons), I will say that at least Valerian does not have DJ (effing) Ruby Rhod in it! Single handedly one of the worst characters to ever 'grace' the silver screen!



Really? I thought he set that world's tone of absurdity and outlandishness pretty well. Annoying as hell, yes, but he fit right in and strengthened the setting's "personality". When someone says "Fifth Element", the first thing that comes to mind is DJ, not the MCs. For me, he's the face of that movie . Granted, being memorable isn't synonymous with quality, but oh well.


----------



## Nick B (Aug 13, 2017)

WaylanderToo said:


> Single handedly one of the worst characters to ever 'grace' the silver screen!



That particular award goes to Jar Jar Binks. Hands down.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Aug 13, 2017)

Apparently, it's close to unanimous...
As did all of you, I found this a visual stunner.
Having done that, Bresson should have gone ahead and hired a couple of good writers...I think that creative people could simply erase the soundtrack and dub in new dialogue (and a plot that made some sense); and it might have come out better.
Key to my view: I kept thinking that Valerian was a teenager and his partner was Harly Quinn at 13 years old...


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 13, 2017)

Nevermind what the cities say about this film. go and see it !


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Aug 13, 2017)

Yes, it's definitely worth seeing -- just don't agonize over the plot and the dialogue.
But a really bad sign: it's already gone from most of the theaters around here -- that must mean something...


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 13, 2017)

2DaveWixon said:


> Yes, it's definitely worth seeing -- just don't agonize over the plot and the dialogue.
> But a really bad sign: it's already gone from most of the theaters around here -- that must mean something...



I plan to buy it dvd, Like it that much. They did Valerian anima series a fe years ago.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Aug 13, 2017)

BAYLOR said:


> I plan to buy it dvd, Like it that much. They did Valerian anima series a fe years ago.


Four months down the road, it'll be cheap.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 13, 2017)

2DaveWixon said:


> Four months down the road, it'll be cheap.



I wish it had been a hit, I would have like to seen their further adventures.


----------



## Ihe (Aug 13, 2017)

I think a big part of Valerian feeling off is the absolute lack of chemistry between their MCs. The story starts when they've already been working together for a while, and it drops the viewer halfway into their badly written, saggy "romance", which never clicks. Most of their personal history has happened offscreen, and it is never re-addressed in order to build rapport between them and give the MCs a reason to actually care for each other. That's what felt the most "off" to me, now that I can finally put a finger on it.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Aug 13, 2017)

BAYLOR said:


> I wish it had been a hit, I would have like to seen their further adventures.


But then, I said that about* John Carter* of Mars...


----------



## Cli-Fi (Aug 13, 2017)

Nick B said:


> That particular award goes to Jar Jar Binks. Hands down.





WaylanderToo said:


> people keep referencing 5th Element (for obvious reasons), I will say that at least Valerian does not have DJ (effing) Ruby Rhod in it! Single handedly one of the worst characters to ever 'grace' the silver screen!



C'mon guys don't be character-ist. That's not nice.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Aug 13, 2017)

2DaveWixon said:


> But then, I said that about* John Carter* of Mars...




I liked John Carpenter of Mars too - actually I may watch that later!


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 14, 2017)

WaylanderToo said:


> I liked John Carpenter of Mars too - actually I may watch that later!



It's a classic.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Aug 14, 2017)

I've been trying to decide whether you guys are saying "Carpenter" on purpose... I give up; I don't know.


----------



## Rodders (Aug 14, 2017)

Is it as bad as Lucy? 

I still want to see it. It looks like might be fun.


----------



## Ihe (Aug 14, 2017)

Lucy is worlds better.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Aug 15, 2017)

*Lucy* is a better movie, but *Valerian* is colorful -- the kind of movie you might want to see a second time because you think there was so much going on in some shots that you might have missed something...


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 15, 2017)

2DaveWixon said:


> *Lucy* is a better movie, but *Valerian* is colorful -- the kind of movie you might want to see a second time because you think there was so much going on in some shots that you might have missed something...



I saw *Lucy* , didn't care for it.


----------



## Rodders (Aug 15, 2017)

Agreed, Lucy was an awful movie.

I might try and see this at the weekend.


----------



## Harpo (Aug 20, 2017)

If it ever comes to Stornoway I want to see Valerian, but I'm not holding my breath - had to wait six weeks for Star Wars VII to come here, and Dunkirk arrives at the end of this month.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Aug 20, 2017)

If you have to make a choice, skip *Dunkirk* and go to *Valerian*.


----------



## Lumens (Aug 25, 2017)

I saw it in 3D. Lovely ride, and a nice bit of nostalgia for me. I used to love the comics, so I knew what to expect. Also I read this thread so I went in with low expectations. All that considered, it was fine. I didn't cringe, and I liked the rather simple message. 

3D makes big panoramas look like tiny models to me. Anyone else get that?


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Aug 26, 2017)

Lumens said:


> I saw it in 3D. Lovely ride, and a nice bit of nostalgia for me. I used to love the comics, so I knew what to expect. Also I read this thread so I went in with low expectations. All that considered, it was fine. I didn't cringe, and I liked the rather simple message.
> 
> 3D makes big panoramas look like tiny models to me. Anyone else get that?


*puzzled* Who are you again?


----------



## Lumens (Aug 26, 2017)

2DaveWixon said:


> *puzzled* Who are you again?


I'm not anybody _again_, I have been continously me.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Aug 26, 2017)

Lumens said:


> I'm not anybody _again_, I have been continously me.


Do you have documentation for that claim?


----------



## Lumens (Aug 26, 2017)

2DaveWixon said:


> Do you have documentation for that claim?


Not currently. I lost my planet and therefore my DNA.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 28, 2017)

Lumens said:


> I'm not anybody _again_, I have been continously me.



Nobody is continuous.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Aug 28, 2017)

I myself am contiguous.


----------



## Dave (Dec 11, 2018)

I think this was just released at the wrong time because I never had time to see it at the cinema, and having watched on the small screen now I can see that it would have been much more visually impressive on the big screen. On the other hand, I do like some substance to my science fiction and this seemed a little derivative. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the 40-year-old comic had all this first, but I just saw a rehash of _Avata_r and _Star Wars. _Probably too long, and with a poor excuse to have Rhianna dance and sing. However, Luc Besson can really do costumes and scenery well. Worth seeing at least once and didn't deserve to bomb at the box office.


----------



## Rodders (Dec 12, 2018)

I watched it and really enjoyed it. A great space opera romp. 

It didn't deserve it's box office takings. (Although I must confess that is didn't see it at the cinema.)


----------



## Vince W (Dec 12, 2018)

I enjoyed it for the most part. I thought the Rhinna bit was terrible but then those sorts of stunts, where they squeeze some so-called star into a role they have no place being, usually are.


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Dec 12, 2018)

Pretty, but boring. And, as others have said, there was no chemistry between the actors, so the whole romance thing fell flat.

Probably says a lot that I saw the movie about three months ago and can barely remember anything about it other than that.


----------



## Ihe (Dec 12, 2018)

Visually impressive, but I still think it definitely deserved bombing at box office. The writing was absolutely abismal, so much so that I couldn't believe a grown adult in the business could write something so laughable. The dialogue was specially cringe-worthy.  I came out of the movie feeling ashamed for the people behind that movie. It was THAT awful to me. I still shake in anger just thinking about it . I really wanted to like it.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Dec 16, 2018)

Dave said:


> I think this was just released at the wrong time because I never had time to see it at the cinema, and having watched on the small screen now I can see that it would have been much more visually impressive on the big screen. On the other hand, I do like some substance to my science fiction and this seemed a little derivative. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the 40-year-old comic had all this first, but I just saw a rehash of _Avata_r and _Star Wars. _Probably too long, and with a poor excuse to have Rhianna dance and sing. However, Luc Besson can really do costumes and scenery well. Worth seeing at least once and didn't deserve to bomb at the box office.




you hit the nail on the head in all honesty - IIRC SW was really a re-hash of the Valerian comics but was in the cinema a long, long time ago


----------



## Al Jackson (Dec 16, 2018)

Dave said:


> I think this was just released at the wrong time because I never had time to see it at the cinema, and having watched on the small screen now I can see that it would have been much more visually impressive on the big screen. On the other hand, I do like some substance to my science fiction and this seemed a little derivative. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the 40-year-old comic had all this first, but I just saw a rehash of _Avata_r and _Star Wars. _Probably too long, and with a poor excuse to have Rhianna dance and sing. However, Luc Besson can really do costumes and scenery well. Worth seeing at least once and didn't deserve to bomb at the box office.



I think Luc  Besson's nostalgia got the better of him. I am old enough to have seen reprints of the French comic in the 1970's , to me it was old hat! Just seemed like an  elaborated Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, been there done that. After all on the page science fiction space opera was light years ahead of this graphic story which was strongly young adult. When I heard he was doing this I thought 'even in this comic book movie age, this aint gonna work'! It did not.
If Besson was going to do a comic why not  Jean Giraud? Who signed as  Moebius. Giraud's science fiction graphic stores were so much better than Valérian and Laureline. In fact Giruad's future fiction costume and milieu design were used by Ridley Scott in Blade Runner 1982.


----------

