Lord Frieza
Member
But them's in Japanese
-
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.
Deadline: Ghost in the Shell will Lose $60M+
- Thread starter kswiston
- Start date
- Status
But them's in Japanese
Power Rangers will probably clear more due to the territorial breakdown as well won't it?
Lionsgate already sold off the international rights for Power Rangers. And given how terribly it is doing overseas, they probably took in more than their partners will end up recouping.
royalroyal
Member
Loved the anime and loved the live action (IMAX was amazing). Cant wait to own the 4k version.
Was Equilibrium a success?
lightskintwin
Banned
I'm waiting to read more Trokill's hilarious posts trying to spin this into a positive. LOL
Agent_ShortBus
Member
Yess!! What a horrible piece of hot garbage the movie was.👍👍 Hell the new king Kong movie was better. Should have watched the Power Rangers movie instead.
VindicatorZ
Member
This sucks. I actually really enjoyed alot of aspects of this movie. It wasn't perfect, but it did feel like watching a live action anime, which was a positive for me.
That disappeared this past weekend. Last week, he was already resigned to "not as big a bomb as Power Rangers", and now that's probably not even true.
Dolla Dolla
Member
Not in theatres. Made less than 6 million worldwide. Didn't find an audience until DVD hit.
GuitarAtomik
Member
Agreed. The fundamental problem with this whole thing business wise is that a faithful and likely critically lauded version of this movie would never had made it's money back because it wouldn't have been for mainstream audiences. I also don't think you could do the anime justice visually on less than $80-$90 million without setting it all in hallways or small rooms (even minus ScarJo). So the studio's best bet was to go a dumber, more blockbuster route which doesn't make sense for the property and you end up with something as shallow as what we got. Perhaps there was a better in between they could have found but it would have required a lot more finesse and I think would have been more based on SAC (which feels a little lighter in tone) rather than the original movie.
UnemployedVillain
Member
I strongly disagree. A lot of you discount just how much positive buzz for a movie can help. You look at Get Out and I'd say Jordan Peele doesn't necessarily have more "pull" than ScarJo, but the movie kept getting so much positive feedback it created a snowball effect and became successful.
I very much think if the director of this didn't do a shitty job, actually got an Asian lead, and basically didn't piss of Asian Americans as well as anime fans, it could have been a cool new current gen Matrix movie (and yes, I understand the irony considering GITS is older and had strong influences on the Matrix)
lightskintwin
Banned
The problem with your comparison is that low budget horror films almost always do really well no matter their critical reception. There's an audience that consistently shows up to watch them.
UnemployedVillain
Member
Get Out was hardly a horror film. It was more of a dark comedy if anything. I had to convince friends who can't deal with horror to see it and not a single person thought it was scary
starchild excalibur
Member
Get Out also hasn't made $200 mil worldwide. While it has done incredibly well for its budget, the buzz has tapped it out at $200 mil. That isn't to say a well-received GitS would have the same ceiling, but I doubt its legs could ever compare to Get Out which resonates socially with a lot of people and has the dual pull of comedy and "horror."
Most sci-fi films have a lower ceiling than other genres of equal cost to make. A great version of Ghost would be lucky to break $400 mil I would guess.
I take it that you mean a very specific brand of Sci Fi, because when I counted last, well over 80% of the top 50 highest grossing films of all time WW were sci fi or fantasy (I am lumping talking animals into fantasy).
UnemployedVillain
Member
Yeah I was thinking just this. The biggest movies are scifi and fantasy. The idea that they're niche genres isn't supported by anything, except for random movies failing, which happens with every genre
starchild excalibur
Member
I guess I mean hard sci-fi. Bladerunner, Ex-Machina, augmented bodies-type sci-fi and not Guardians of the Galaxy-type sci-fi or Star Wars sci-fi. I could be wrong, but The Matrix seems to be the last film series in that genre of sci-fi that was an unmitigated blockbuster success. And yeah, if you want to lump fantasy into it then that definitely increases your numbers - The Hobbit, Imaginary Beasts, etc. But I distinguish fantasy from sci-fi.
UnemployedVillain
Member
I only group them because I feel like there's a lot of fans of both, to the point in libraries and book stores they're usually group together as opposed to separately like most other genres
You are forgetting or glazing over Inception, Interstellar, The Martian, and Gravity if you mean more grounded sci fi (than star wars or GOTG), all of which were over $600M.
If you restrict things to augmented humans/androids, there's less to choose from obviously. Not a ton of those films get made.
Planet of the Apes, Terminator, and Matrix are all evidence that there is a larger audience for non-space scifi with high concept "what if" ideas based around technology and society, as long as there's fun action.
Prometheus showed that even with an R-rating and tons of criticism, an Aliens film could clear > 400 million worldwide. Which is why they're making Covenant.
We'll see how Blade Runner Too does.
Prometheus showed that even with an R-rating and tons of criticism, an Aliens film could clear > 400 million worldwide. Which is why they're making Covenant.
We'll see how Blade Runner Too does.
starchild excalibur
Member
I'll definitely give you Inception and Interstellar. I know I'm probably being picky, but I don't lump The Martian or Gravity in with those any more than I'd lump Apollo 13 in that. Just because something is set in space doesn't make it sci-fi, I feel like. There's nothing inherently sci-fi about Gravity. It's mostly an adventure/survival film that's just set in a space backdrop.
I can't think of many films like Ghost in the Shell that have come out and done comparable numbers. But films like Inception and Interstellar does show that there's a segment of the population that doesn't shirk at denser sci-fi, I suppose.
Even if you don't count Gravity, The Martian is set a couple of decades into the future and involves a man living on Mars for over a year after a mission accident. How is that not sci fi?
lightskintwin
Banned
None of that doesnt change the fact it's a horror film. Horror doesn't necessarily mean scary. Uneasiness and uncomfort is enough to satisfy being horror.
Beren the Empty-Handed
Member
This isn't directed at you in particular - you just brought it up.
But I hate how sci-fi and fantasy are lumped together so often, including in bookstores. I'm a big fan of fantasy and dislike or begrudgingly tolerate most sci-fi works. The aesthetics, tones, settings, and the ways those stories are usually structured are often completely different, and they have totally different effects on me. But for some reason people just lump them together because they both are "out there." Epic Poetry and Shakespeare plays have points in common, but you wouldn't lump those shits together, right? Shit makes no sense!
Sorry to veer off topic.
/rant
I feel you, even though I'm mostly the opposite preferring scifi to fantasy. I can tolerate fantasy if it's something that must be read, watched or played though.
The Pairing just feels like some execs deciding "it's all nerd shit" or something dumb.
Last time I had this argument, people said it was "cyberpunk" in particular that people hated. Also, the Matrix doesn't count as cyberpunk because reasons.
Admiral Woofington
Member
For those saying they hope Naruto movie will open its eyes, it is guaranteed to be set in high school with pretty white people. Don't kid yourself otherwise
"Naruto Kun the prom is tomorrow no jutsu"
"Naruto Kun the prom is tomorrow no jutsu"
it was an extremely generic reworking of the anime with some okay action and some very well done visuals. so i guess it depends on where you get your mileage from films like this. it definitely wasn't terrible and i guess there are much worse ways to spend 2 hours of your life, just don't expect it to be some underrated classic
lightskintwin
Banned
Definitely. What would be the point for Hollywood to acquire the rights only to cast an all Asian cast? However I do think they'll make certain at least one of the main characters is Asian American.
Chuckie
Member
I agree with you. I actually like both, but they seem like two totally different genres to me (even though of course there can be overlap)
Beren the Empty-Handed
Member
Yeah. Makes browsing some places less convenient than it could be.
deadscreensky
Member
Nope.
Beren the Empty-Handed
Member
That's why a "search by author" function usually exists, even in bookstores.
There's a good amount of crossover between audiences of the History and Religion sections, so I think those should be lumped together too. It simply makes sense.
Kadayi
Banned
I enjoyed it for the world building etc.However, I'm not surprised that it didn't make bank as Sci-fi is a hard box office nut to crack (and no SW is not sci-fi).I mean Arrival was a great film but that barely took $100 Million at the box office. However, that had the advantage of being a far less costly production.
I think the new Blade Runner film is going to be interesting to see. The original is in my top 3 films, but it flatlined on initial release but made its reputation on video afterwards. I'll be there day one to see it at the cinema because I think Villeneuve is a fantastic director and The Deakins is on Cinematographic duties (who worked with Villeneuve on Sicario), but I think it's likely a hard sell for anyone who isn't an avid fan of the original.
I suspect GiTS will make a return on DVD/BR sales down the road
I think the new Blade Runner film is going to be interesting to see. The original is in my top 3 films, but it flatlined on initial release but made its reputation on video afterwards. I'll be there day one to see it at the cinema because I think Villeneuve is a fantastic director and The Deakins is on Cinematographic duties (who worked with Villeneuve on Sicario), but I think it's likely a hard sell for anyone who isn't an avid fan of the original.
I suspect GiTS will make a return on DVD/BR sales down the road
Duckhuntdog
Member
I knew that both I and the film were in trouble when I sat down and saw Ehren Kruger and Rupert Sanders names appear on screen.
I saw it with a friend who saw the anime a long time ago and when it was over he said, "I didn't know you could make both GiTS and action sequences so boring. And while I didn't fully understand the plot of the anime, what I did understand was way better than this."
There's just tons wrong with the movie along with the white-washing: Boring action sequences compared to the anime, dull characters compared to the anime, the city was so empty, and the protagonist was extremely weak-- the bad guy that does nothing bad on their own, but has others do it for them.
I saw it with a friend who saw the anime a long time ago and when it was over he said, "I didn't know you could make both GiTS and action sequences so boring. And while I didn't fully understand the plot of the anime, what I did understand was way better than this."
There's just tons wrong with the movie along with the white-washing: Boring action sequences compared to the anime, dull characters compared to the anime, the city was so empty, and the protagonist was extremely weak-- the bad guy that does nothing bad on their own, but has others do it for them.
twinturbo2
butthurt Heat fan
No release date there either.
TheJollyCorner
Member
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Nah
Weak action, weak plot
You could look at stills of the prettier parts online and get the best of it
Corronchilejano
Member
I know people are saying that if it was more akin to the original source material It wouldn't have made a difference. I respectfully disagree. As it stands, it had a laughably cliched argument and really there wasn't much of a reason to go see it.
sixteen-bit
Member
starchild excalibur
Member
I completely forgot it was even set in the future. You're right about that.
I just don't feel like it or Gravity are good comparison points for something like Ghost in the Shell when they boil down to basically being 127 Hours in space. And I'm not saying that to shit on them - I liked both films a lot, especially Gravity which was one of my favorites that year. But hard sci-fi is often a trickier sell. It's sci-fi that doesn't use its science as either a novelty (Lucy) or simply as a mere jumping off point (Jurassic World) to tell a story that isn't intertwined with the nature of science itself. It would be like positing Furious 7 as an example of a high-grossing movie about computer technology simply because hacking is part of its plot.
The Matrix, Bladerunner, Moon, Primer, and Ex-Machina are different beasts than many of the sci-fi offerings that come out each year that mostly use sci-fi as a means for cool set pieces. Ghost in the Shell is a film that - if properly adapted - would be more focused on the questions it raises about consciousness and identity than it would be on cool action scenes. And there's a market for that, but my gut tells me that it's a market that would never come close to reaching the market of a film like Gravity which has a high concept logline of "Sandra bullock must survive in space."
GitS in its best circumstances would probably still never set the box office ablaze because of its dense, more serious fable mixed with a relatively low-concept idea. Inception is probably the best counter-example to this because it also had a pretty low concept idea, but nevertheless went on to do very well (give the guy who cut the trailer to the film an Oscar).
I could absolutely wrong in my assertion. Maybe there's a version of Ghost that could go on to do even better than Lucy numbers while still preserving the "soul" of the original property. After all, rules are only rules until something breaks them. But I'd argue that outside of Bladerunner and the Matrix, Under the Skin - which ironically deals very little with technology - comes the closest to tapping Ghost's ethos. I'm curious to see how Bladerunner 2049 does this year, especially with it getting a boost from having an acclaimed director, a hot actor without any baggage, and a property that's well-known and respected: with the exception of "respected," none of the things GitS had going for it last month.
Same here. I saw the original movies a long time ago and loved this live action one too. Can't wait to grab it when it comes out.
- Status