“Beautiful Creatures” movie – what went wrong?

Laer Carroll · Apr 16, 2013

The producers who optioned the “Beautiful Creatures” books surely hoped they had another “Twilight” on their hands. The books are moderately successful with a decent following. And they are paranormal romance, a popular literary category.

The movie came out Valentine’s Day this year and stayed in theaters only 8 weeks. It cost $60 million dollars to make and made not quite that worldwide. It was a flop.

What went wrong? I don’t know. I only have a few guesses, and that’s all they are.

The paranormal romance market has become saturated, especially in the movie world. Teen girls, their biggest audience, see PR as ho-hum. Been there, done that.

BC is about witches. Bo-ring. Not scary and sexy, spicy, the way vamps and furries are.

“Twilight” had powerful male love interests. The male love interest in BC was a wimp, an ordinary boy with no power. Despite it being a country setting where guns abound, he didn’t even come to the table with a hunting rifle or shotgun. (Where I grew up, I could have faced off witches with a cousin’s AK-47 and hand grenades!)

Anyone here read the books? Seen the movie? Have any ideas why BC on the screen crashed?

lolchemist · Apr 16, 2013

OMG HAHAHAHA I didn't even know the movie was out yet! Did it even get promoted? I thought the book was awful and I never even finished it so I'm not too broken up about this.

However I do feel bad for the authors. I think a lot of us have a fantasy that our books might get turned into movies and it sucks if the movie bombs!

Eheteredactyl · Apr 16, 2013

Lack of press? I personally didn't feel the acting performances were particularly compelling from the leading cast (I did enjoy Jeremy Irons admittedly) but at the end of the day I think people really do need that hype to see the movie before it comes out. It wasn't marketed like Twilight (read: a lot, through both word of mouth, tv, the internet etc) and so it didn't sell like it. I don't think that the less powerful male protag should have made much of a difference, I mean the female is the one in the position of power here (if you discount the whole main plot line of the movie) and I'd certainly hope that women as the main target audience didn't pass because of it. That would certainly be more disappointing than the movie's success or lack thereof, and would set back so many more potentially good YA movies with females in the privileged position.

Zoombie · Apr 16, 2013

For me...it was the fake southern accents.

Also, the fact that, apparently, women didn't get to choose whether they were good or evil, it was just kinda chosen for them? Or something?

Eheteredactyl · Apr 16, 2013

For me...it was the fake southern accents.

Also, the fact that, apparently, women didn't get to choose whether they were good or evil, it was just kinda chosen for them? Or something?

Both of these things... though I watch True Blood and am Australian so Southern accents all sound pretty similar to me (bad or otherwise). The latter irked my feminist sensibilities.

Cyia · Apr 16, 2013

Simple economics:

It came out opposite a huge comedy and a huge action movie. There wasn't much of an audience left to be had. Without huge opening numbers, most movies fall off fast, and this one was declared DOA, even before the box office takes were in because of the aforementioned films. (Identity Thief and Die Hard: six million and ten.)

Also, simple fan-service.

The story was solid, but the film apparently needed some post-production work. They also made a "combo-character," which meant cutting out a couple of established characters to create a single, new one.

And, yes, furries are scary, but for a whole different reason than werewolves

Zoombie · Apr 16, 2013

Eheteredactyl said:
Both of these things... though I watch True Blood and am Australian so Southern accents all sound pretty similar to me (bad or otherwise). The latter irked my feminist sensibilities.

Well, my dad still calls it (jokingly) the War of Northern Aggression and I'm also a femminist...

But it also bugs me from a NARRATIVE sensibility. Choice and temptation is a more interesting framework than a coin flip.

Zoombie · Apr 16, 2013

Cyia said:
And, yes, furries are scary, but for a whole different reason than werewolves

We're terrifying! I'll destroy you! Rawr!

G. Applejack · Apr 16, 2013

Lack of marketing probably played a huge role. The only time I ever saw it advertised was a few months before, during a theater preview, and the night before it was supposed to come out. And I'm a big TV watcher.

Also, the book sucked (But that didn't do any harm to Twilight. At least the first Twilight book had a definable ending. I'm still mad about Beautiful Creatures. Grrrr.)

Zoombie said:
Also, the fact that, apparently, women didn't get to choose whether they were good or evil, it was just kinda chosen for them? Or something?

If I remember correctly, in the book no one in the family had a choice if they were good or evil. Not just the ladies. Unless they changed it in the movie--that would be redic.

Eheteredactyl · Apr 16, 2013

If I remember correctly, in the book no one in the family had a choice if they were good or evil. Not just the ladies. Unless they changed it in the movie--that would be redic.

That was the impression I was left with - the men could choose but the women couldn't. At least I don't have to hate on the books for this I guess, just Hollywood.

Maramoser · Apr 16, 2013

I haven't seen it yet, but....it wasn't an explosive phenomenon like Twilight, and perhaps it didn't appear interesting enough to get people who hadn't read the book (the majority) to see it. There just wasn't enough buzz.

I also suspect that Ethan wasn't hot enough.

I too feel bad for the authors, even though I was lukewarm on the book.

G. Applejack · Apr 16, 2013

Eheteredactyl said:
That was the impression I was left with - the men could choose but the women couldn't. At least I don't have to hate on the books for this I guess, just Hollywood.

Huh. It definitely wasn't that way in the book.

I guess we'll have to ask someone who actually saw the movie in the theaters to be sure, but based on the ticket sales that'll be hard to do.

Sage · Apr 16, 2013

There was a preview during one of my viewings of The Hobbit, but I don't know about other advertising.

This is one rare book where I had really good mental images and excellent voices in mind for the characters and scenes (mostly due to the fact I listened to it as an audiobook). So the previews just didn't match what I expected, and I found the book just okay to begin with.

Eheteredactyl · Apr 16, 2013

I guess we'll have to ask someone who actually saw the movie in the theaters to be sure, but based on the ticket sales that'll be hard to do.

I have actually seen it, and there was only one scene where they addressed what the male family members went through (Jeremy Irons makes a comment, from memory it was that the men got to choose) and there was further emphasis on the females of the family and their 15th birthdays. That said, I could have interpreted it incorrectly and there was a poor communication somewhere as there were more female casters than males and much of the story seemed to revolve around the two youngest sisters. Could just be poor editing, but this is the message I got despite it being brushed over very quickly.

Basically, anyone want to back me up on this one?

thebloodfiend · Apr 16, 2013

The book wasn't that good?

With Twilight, the two lead roles were pretty straight forward. The romance was the main plot. Nothing detracted from Edward and Bella. And, well, vampires vs witches. C'mon.

With this... well, the romance wasn't the lead. The mystery and the suspense was bad and I didn't see it translating well to screen. Plus, if you're going to play the mysterious female with a secret card, well, you can't just make her Edward. She's got to be a MPDG. Otherwise, you aren't going to get the guys to come see it. And the MC wasn't hot enough for the girls to come see it. Plus, unlike Shiver, the book is really, really long. And in Shiver, the guy is the magical creature.

Basically, I think it failed for all the reasons The Host did. And now, hopefully, Hollywood will stop buying up lukewarm YA romances (since they're flopping and not making money) and start making more movies like The Perks of Being a Wallflower. If Mortal Instruments: City of Bones bombs, I don't see many more of these being made. And given its horrible release date... I don't predict good things.

At least with Twilight, I came away with feelings of "god I hate this, but at least I remember the characters." With Beautiful Creatures, I could barely remember who I was reading about. I've got Link, Lena, and Ethan... and after that? Meh.

Sage · Apr 16, 2013

Even in the book, there's a lot more focus on the females than the males. I can only think of one guy in the family (other than Macon, who doesn't count), but it was pretty clear that he was claimed as well.

frankiebrown · Apr 16, 2013

Cyia said:
Simple economics:

It came out opposite a huge comedy and a huge action movie. There wasn't much of an audience left to be had. Without huge opening numbers, most movies fall off fast, and this one was declared DOA, even before the box office takes were in because of the aforementioned films. (Identity Thief and Die Hard: six million and ten.)

Hum, I didn't actually see the movie. How were the special effects and the acting? Was it a quality thing as well? Because I saw The Host in theaters, and man, I wanted to leave thirty minutes in.

Polenth · Apr 16, 2013

The Beautiful Creatures trailer implied it was a story where a rich family spend a lot of time angsting and arguing about something they can't control. There's a lot of talk about danger, but the most shown is a few magic sparkles frightening the locals. It felt slow and like it was going to drag.

Compare that to the Mortal Instruments trailer, where her mother is attacked by unknown forces, demons appear, there are sword fights, and all round it feels like a lot is going on.

I don't know about the books, as I've not read them. But from trailers alone, I know which movie I'd pick. Beautiful Creatures just didn't nail making the paranormal part exciting.

sarahdalton · Apr 17, 2013

I really enjoyed the book, and at first I was really excited for the film... but then I didn't go and see it.

I got bored of the series after the second book and never picked up another. The ending was really bad, and predictable, and I just couldn't be bothered with it. Plus the books are too long! I'm sick of this trend of writing long books for the sake of writing long books. It has to maintain your interest or be cut - simple as that.

Perhaps fans were turned off by the disappointing sequels.

It's a shame because I was hoping this genre might take off. I like Southern Gothics and would like to read more YA stuff.

Roly · Apr 17, 2013

For me I think it's a matter of understanding that Twilight was a phenomenon. So was Harry Potter and the Hunger Games. Their fanbases alone could carry the movie to success. BC has a big enough fanbase to make it a NYT bestsellers, but it takes millions upon millions more $$ to make a movie break even let alone make a profit. I don't think BC's fanbase was big enough for that, and because of the Twilight-y marketing it didn't appeal to anyone outside it. As for why a lot of Twilight fans didn't see it...well, if producers are marketing a movie as 'just like Twilight,' a Twilight fan might say 'but I've already seen Twilight so....?'

So far the only YA movie that's done okay is Warm Bodies, probably because it was marketed as a fun zombie comedy. I think it's safe to say that Catching Fire is going to make tons of money, but I wonder about City of Bones and Divergent. Hope they do well. There's also The Fault in Our Stars - I think that might do well enough given that it's not trying to be too epic or anything.

lolchemist · Apr 17, 2013

I just watched some clips of this and I think another reason might be that the actor they chose for the male lead just looks too old in real life he's 24, he's supposed to be playing a high school junior but he's running around with a 5 o'clock shadow and looks actually older than 24 even. The girl doesn't really look high school aged either even though the actress actually was 17/18. Another thing is, yes, he's a good looking guy, but he just doesn't have that teen-heartthrob charisma going for him. I guarantee you nobody has posters of this kid in their room and nobody's thinking about him at night.

I know it's awful to say but I think, in order for a movie aimed at teenaged girls to succeed, you really do need to pimp out a good looking male actor (or ten and make them take all their shirts off while you're at it!) especially if your source material sucks.

ellio · Apr 17, 2013

I don't know what happens in the book. I don't know who any of the lead actors are in the film. I don't know what happens in it.

The only thing I have heard is that it's "along the same lines of Twilight", which lets be honest has been drawn out and exhausted by fans and haters alike. Nobody cares anymore.

Let's say that I'm your average cinema goer and that's all I know to decide whether I want to see it, it really isn't surprising it flopped.

I'm intrigued, though, does anyone have a list of YA book-to-film releases that are hitting cinemas across the next year or two? I'd be really interested to see what the trends are at the moment.

Cyia · Apr 17, 2013

I'm intrigued, though, does anyone have a list of YA book-to-film releases that are hitting cinemas across the next year or two? I'd be really interested to see what the trends are at the moment.

City of Bones is due out in the next few months.

Catching Fire comes out in Nov.

Divergent is out next year.

Daughter of Smoke and Bone, Shadow and Bone, The Graveyard Book, Arclight, the first Trylle novel, etc. are all "in production," meaning optioned, but still in a holding pattern.

AFAIK, both The Forest of Hands and Teeth and Wings have been shelved.

Delerium, Matched, the Selection, Unraveling, etc. are slated for pilot season to see if they get picked up for series.

Director Chris Columbus has his own series that straddles the MG/YA line, which was packaged for film from the get-go.

eventidepress · Apr 17, 2013

Zoombie said:
For me...it was the fake southern accents.

My favorite is how the British actors faked southern way more convincingly than the American ones... (also see: Walking Dead) <.<

Cjiadon · Apr 17, 2013

I feel like it was poor marketing so those who were not fans of the books did not know about the movie. Plus, the trailer looked horrible. I enjoyed most (everything but the last 75%) of the book so i was optimistic about the movie, but the trailer completly turned me off. The acting looked terrible, the effects looked half done, and they merged two characters together to make one super charcter. Oh and if i remember correctly, i felt like the had warped the ending. I mean i didnt like the ending of the book either but i dont like it when a director feels like he or she has to wrote thier own ending because it makes me feel like they felt the original wasnt good enough. Why make the movie if you dont believe in it?

“Beautiful Creatures” movie – what went wrong?

Aerospace engineer turned writer

Shooting stars.

Flying dinosaurs are always cool

Dragon of the Multiverse

Flying dinosaurs are always cool

Rewriting My Destiny

Dragon of the Multiverse

Dragon of the Multiverse

Write faster! FASTER!

Flying dinosaurs are always cool

much writing. very books

Write faster! FASTER!

Our Lady of Parentheticals

Flying dinosaurs are always cool

Cory

Our Lady of Parentheticals

Simplify.

Mushroom

silly puppy monster

Shooting stars.

a hardback life on an ebook budget

Rewriting My Destiny