-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Box Office 0729-3116 - Bad to the Bourne, Trek continues to give 'er all she's got
- Thread starter xaosslug
- Start date
- Status
Succinct Verbosity
Member
Cbs announced the series in already profitable before shooting has even started thanks to the Netflix deal.
The current Star Trek films have had a good run. If the 4th film happens that will make it 4 films over a 10-11 year span. Seems about the right time to let it sit awhile and bring it back with a new cast (not sure how soon that would happen).
They are pricey films with budgets reaching 185M+ for the last two. They don't seem to have enough appeal OS to break the 500M barrier. Not too shabby to get 4 films with this cast and Paramount providing big budgets.
They are pricey films with budgets reaching 185M+ for the last two. They don't seem to have enough appeal OS to break the 500M barrier. Not too shabby to get 4 films with this cast and Paramount providing big budgets.
WordAssassin
Member
After finding out that the inflated budget was specifically because of Feig and that he orignally wanted close to $180 Million to make it, I doubt it. McCarthy and Jones have both said they'll be in Ghostbusters movies until Sony stops making them so maybe they'd take a pay cut but who knows about the other two or Feig himself.
Honestly I could see them writing out Erin (Wiig's character) between movies and maybe changing directors (not sure what kind of contract Feig has though, last I heard he's basically "in charge" of the mainline GB movies with Reitman and Aykroyd doing the TV shows and spinoffs) Sony is just totally shit at reasonable budgets it seems. I imagine they're still gonna make the TV show, and the animated movie, and I could see them brute forcing a direct sequel to Answer the Call, but if that bombs it'd be the end of Ghostbusters until the 50th anniversary IMO.
The upcoming Smurfs movie (The Lost Village) has absolutely nothing to do with the other two beyond being called "Smurfs". This one is a completely CGI animated movie/reboot. AKA what they should have fuckin done from the beginning.
In Sony Animation we trust
Kite
Member
I think they just chose the wrong director, a Feig comedy + Ghostbusters is just not a good match imo. It's the wrong type of humor.
Agent_Carnage
Member
I really enjoyed Star Trek. It is what Into Darkness should of been. I started to get misty eyed at the end there.
I really REALLY hope Star Trek Discovery is good. I dont want the franchise to go into the box for another 10+ years.
I really REALLY hope Star Trek Discovery is good. I dont want the franchise to go into the box for another 10+ years.
What it needed was an all-male cast.
Affeinvasion
Member
It won't matter how good it is because only the hardcorest of fans are going to shell out to get CBS streaming service.
It's fairly standalone.
It pretty much ignores it completely.
excelsiorlef
Member
This is a joke right?
Beyond like... one completely missable reference, it stands on its own.
Not at all. Why would you think so?
The movie reviewed well. The second trailer was much more well-received. It had a massive marketing budget. It had so much controversy around it (there is no such thing as bad publicity). It's a reboot of a beloved movie and also based off of a very popular cartoon and toy series in the 80s/90s. It's virtually a no-brainer summer blockbuster.
The fact that the movie bombed so hard speaks volumes. People downvoting the trailers was a pretty obvious clue that many weren't going to watch this movie out of principle/spite/whatever; the trailers weren't that bad even.
You can call me sexist but I didn't watch this solely because it was an all-female cast. I even thought the trailers were pretty decent. Star Wars TFA had a fantastic female protagaonist who I can't wait to see more of but that's because they built a good new movie around her and not shove her into the prequels and expect me to like the fact that Luke Skywalker is suddenly female.
Agent_Carnage
Member
I dont know about that. I think once CBS All Access starts to have more orgional content more people will sign up for it. Also if it does really well steaming on CBS All Access for the first season I think it might move to CBS Channel for season 2.
excelsiorlef
Member
Well I thought so because it's ridiculous thing to bloody say.... Like it screamed sarcasm and wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt..... Even still does now because you've said the trailers were fine you just don't like that they're women.
Your comparison to Luke would make sense if the new characters were just female version of the old ones but they weren't.
But hey at least you're open about your sexism. It's depressingly refreshing.
I don't see how its ridiculous. Many boys grew up watching the Ghostbusters cartoons and that's how they remember them. To suddenly insert female characters into the exact same setting is, as cringeworthy as it is to say, childhood-destroying. This really isn't that hard to figure out; the scale of the backlash shows just how obvious this should have been. Whoever greenlit this project at the studio deserves to get fired.
excelsiorlef
Member
Childhood destroying because women bust ghosts now too?
I do like the argument that nothing misogynists disapprove of should ever get made.
The movie's mistake was the insane budget and bad trailers not the genital configuration of the leads.
Eh, no. What it needed was the original cast and continuity. Do you really want to see a remake of the 1984 Ghostbusters starring Seth Rogan, James Franco, Kevin James and Chris Rock, or some other modern male comedians?
The only sensible way to make this movie was to make a soft reboot where the old cast gives the business to the next generation, made up of male and female ghostbusters.
TBiddy
Member
It's not sexist or misogynistic to dislike when a classic IP suddenly switches the gender of all the main characters, to be honest. If it had been a generic comedy, I don't think people would've cared that much.
Movies like this are meant to make money. If it does not, then yes, it should not be made. Studio executives are not going to make a movie just to spite the "misogynists".
As I said, this movie had everything going for it. It should have been an easy sell. You can continue to delude yourself into thinking that the all-female cast had nothing to do with the box office bomb and that minor inconsequential things like a poor trailer actually matters to a movie's success or failure.
lol what the heck. The only delusion here is the notion that the gender of the cast was the sole contributing factor to its poor gross
BassForever
Member
I don't think the all female cast was the issue as much as it was a fieg lead all female cast. As others have said feig's style of comedy doesn't really gel with the style of comedy of the of ghostbusters. A feig directed male cast with similar style of male actors might have done slightly better but not in a significant way to make the film go from bomb to hit. Ghostbusters as a concept could easily work with any combination of races and genders like Star Wars, but unlike TFA which wrote great characters and then cast them as a female and a black who fit the role, this new GB seemed to cast female actresses before really knowing how they would be defined in the film.
I do think the above thought "this film bombed because of the female cast" is probably what a lot of casual fans will take away though. If people's first vision of this remake was the terrible first trailer where all they got was its like ghostbusters BUT with girls oooooo I can see why a lot of people would instantly dismiss the film. I see it more like the people who dismissed terminator gensys cause it was terminator BUT with old arnold OOOOOO. Both films failed to reinvoke the magic of the classic and appeared at a surface glance to be like that simpsons image of "now with new hat". If you expect someone to pay $20-30 to see a remake that all you sell them on is "its the film remade with a new hat" you shouldn't be upset with fan reaction is either anger or apathy and the film disappoints.
I do think the above thought "this film bombed because of the female cast" is probably what a lot of casual fans will take away though. If people's first vision of this remake was the terrible first trailer where all they got was its like ghostbusters BUT with girls oooooo I can see why a lot of people would instantly dismiss the film. I see it more like the people who dismissed terminator gensys cause it was terminator BUT with old arnold OOOOOO. Both films failed to reinvoke the magic of the classic and appeared at a surface glance to be like that simpsons image of "now with new hat". If you expect someone to pay $20-30 to see a remake that all you sell them on is "its the film remade with a new hat" you shouldn't be upset with fan reaction is either anger or apathy and the film disappoints.
Fuck yeah Netflix. They're always renewing stuff too.
GB 2016 is a mediocre movie that had a lot of controversy surrounding it, the kind of controversy that I think pushed people away. While sexism did play a large role in the controversy, throwing it out towards people who didn't like the trailers as haphazardly as some in the media did certainly did not help matters.
GI Joe and TMNT says hi. Both were utterly shit summer films that saw easy box office success based on nostalgia alone. GI Joe even had a terrible trailer to go along with it, much like Ghostbusters, and barely even related to the original IP.
Ghostbusters had a super popular cartoon and toy line just like GI Joe and TMNT. But unlike those two, it also had a cult classic original movie behind it, so much goddamn publicity leading up to its release and a pretty good critical reception to top it off.
So what else do you think caused Ghostbusters to tank?
Time to open your eyes.
Edit: Did not even mention Transformers. Nostalgia alone makes these movies an easy sell, especially for the first film.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Elyrion is wrong, but part of his sentiment is right.
Ghostbusters should have been a male and female team, because an all female team of exterminators is clearly forced. Therein lays the problem. Feig and Sony approached the GB like they were superheroes when the CORE of the humour of the originals is that they are schlubs that thought they were gonna get rich quick but ended up doing the grodiest job in the city. Thats the gag around which everything is built. If you don't understand that, you shouldnt make anything Ghostbusters.
Venkman and co were shit at aiming the beams, they cause massive property damage, theyre total goobers. By making GB a political issue, the female cast are put on a pedestal and there was only so much self-deprecating humour allowed. Thats bad news for a comedy.
'Comedy' movies have sunk to such a new low, the only laughs I find at the cinema are through Marvel movies and animated kids films. TV series have won the comedy war and SNL is a relic that needs burying.
Ghostbusters should have been a male and female team, because an all female team of exterminators is clearly forced. Therein lays the problem. Feig and Sony approached the GB like they were superheroes when the CORE of the humour of the originals is that they are schlubs that thought they were gonna get rich quick but ended up doing the grodiest job in the city. Thats the gag around which everything is built. If you don't understand that, you shouldnt make anything Ghostbusters.
Venkman and co were shit at aiming the beams, they cause massive property damage, theyre total goobers. By making GB a political issue, the female cast are put on a pedestal and there was only so much self-deprecating humour allowed. Thats bad news for a comedy.
'Comedy' movies have sunk to such a new low, the only laughs I find at the cinema are through Marvel movies and animated kids films. TV series have won the comedy war and SNL is a relic that needs burying.
GabeTheGrouch76
Member
As WordAssassin said, the upcoming Smurfs film has little to do with the previous live-action films. It's fully CG and it is actually based on the original comics/animated show; rather than the live-action/CG Alvin and the Chipmunks route the previous two films took.
Can't say I'm surprised about TMNT bombing. When a crappy reboot of a property performs well enough to get a sequel, the "fool me once" mentality kicks into play hard and the sequel underperforms; though there are certain exceptions.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Never stop doing this. It's hilarious.
VistraNorrez
Member
I just saw GB yesterday and did not take them for superheroes. They did a ton of damage and made plenty of mistakes. Erin was a character filled with hubris, enough to let a ghost out of the trap. And was very ego driven. Not an admirable trait. And one of the things I liked most about it is that they didn't make a big deal that they were all female. For the most part their gender was not the focus, not anymore than the original was about men. There wasn't even a romance plot in this one like the original. This was far more of a friendship film than the original.
You're also mischaracterizing the original film by saying all they cared about was getting rich. Venkman maybe did but was more concerned with inflating his ego, and Winston signed up because he needed work, but Egon and Ray were genuinely interesting in the paranormal and protecting people.
And why should it have been a mixed gender team? You never explained that. Why is the female team forced but the male one not?
Yeah the new Star Trek show is going to set new records for piracy in America thanks to CBS' idiotic plan.
I'd go one further, and say I enjoyed it more than ST 2009. The movie absolutely deserved better, but I think STiD poisoned the well. A true shame.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Never stop having zero counterpoints and just resorting to this empty shitposting.
- In the big CGI battle, the girls are doing barrel rolls with the beams, punching them, using them as hockey discs and so on. Thats the 'superhero moves!' creep. Everything in general was more flashier. They go to a rock concert and its all big event and stakes with everyone watching, whereas the originals first job is chasing a crap ghost out of a hotel and nobody cares.
- Venkman was the one that wanted to be rich, but both Ray and Egon were leaving their comfy university life behind in the hopes of far greater things and they're stuck working a menial job despite it being this huge breakthrough in understanding of the next plane of existence. It's hilarious, it's slightly mean spirited. You're not allowed that in 2016's version because its all a delivery mechanism for personal politics.
- Point me to an all female exterminator team. I'm sure female exterminators exist, I've never met one. It's always some slightly tubby gruff dude whose life is laying shit down to poison rats or have to go trawling through sewers. With Patty working in the metro, a lot more could have been made out of her dealing with NYC's subway rat population and trading sideways to NYC's resurgent ghost population. Thats where the humour of Ghostbusters exists, not in becoming superheroes and yelling out special moves and so forth. Would a sequel dare to demote the new Ghostbusters to out of shape and having to turn up at kids parties to be mocked just to make a paycheque? No chance of a "suck in the guts gals, we're the Ghostbusters!" when you've got to tread lightly around body positive issues.
The movie makes it very clear you can go all in on mocking men, the supporting cast, with characters like Kevin and the shit 'nerd' villain and being mean spirited about them while treating the leading ladies a little lighter. Thats the opposite of the original movies which were mean spirited throughout to the leading men and thats the problem with highly politicising a movie. Certain jokes are off the table because thats not the message you want to send and any stand-up comedian worth their salt will tell you thats an anti-thesis to comedy. They want to say anything, no matter the consequences, for that big laugh. It's also why Bridesmaids is the funnier and better Feig movie because it didn't have to blunt its own teeth.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
The feedback from GB was the majority of women liked it and men had divisive views on it. Feig wanted to make a movie where women were given the blockbuster spotlight in movies and he succeed. This GB is probably the only female friendly movie women are gonna have this year. The only problem was they now need to rethink their budget.
tkscz
Member
Looking around the internet, I actually see your opinion of not seeing this movie as the minority, even among sites like reddit and 4chan. This is a movie people really didn't want to see rebooted in a similar reaction to the Robocop movie. After seeing both movies, I feel exactly the same way about them. On their own, they aren't good, but they aren't god awful. Just bad to mediocre. But when compared to the originals, they just don't stand up, thus a lack of people seeing both.
wesleyshark
Banned
On Netflix... Everywhere but North America lol. So stupid.
Yeah, Beyond is absolutely hurting because of Into Darkness. Beyond is what should have followed up ST 2009
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
-Jean Grey is the most powerful hero of X-Men Apocalypse.
-Zootopia's main character is female bunnycop Judy Hopps.
-10 Cloverfield Lane's main character is Mary Elizabeth Winstead
- Eleven is the superhero of Stranger Things.
- Game of Thrones focus on female power is pretty obvious if not overbearing at this point.
- Star Wars Rogue One has another main female protagonist after last years Rey
- Disney's Moana has, you guessed it, a powerful female character as the main lead.
Ghostbusters 2016 being some much needed force for content starved female entertainment consumers thirsty for female empowerment is a complete false narrative that Sony cultivated as the one stand out feature of their very average reboot. Even then they were late to the party because theyre a 'chasing' production studio that chases trends rather than innovates. Everyone else has been doing female lead films and big budget tv series better and if anything Ghostbusters 2016 has hurt the cause of "more female led blockbusters" than helped it. Thankfully more competent and talented media houses are putting out content that paves over its failure.
There are lots of female friendly (by that I assume you mean aimed at women) films every year. One just came out this week. Are you talking about blockbusters specifically?
Even then, opening weekend for Tarzan was more women than men.
Ghostbusters was much more than a cult classic. It would be a $600 million movie in modern dollars.
Gentleman Jack
Member
The idea that tying it to the original continuity and still getting a good movie feels like extremely wishful thinking, as if any of the surviving members of the original cast still has what it takes to make a good Ghostbusters film when they've already proven in the past that they cannot. Murray seriously does not give a shit about the franchise as evidenced by his """"""performance""""""" in the Feig film.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Why would anyone waste their time making a counterpoint to that? Your argument is paper thin and filled with so much of the "personal politics" that you dislike so much. Just keep being funny, kid.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked