I'm waiting to see if the all female Ocean's 11 remake is going to cause another crapstorm like this thing did.
I dunno. I found it a bit political for my tastes.
I also think that it kind of overstates the importance of the blogosphere and the online controversy surrounding the film.
I think that the controversy certainly hurt the film in the long run, in that it alienated some of the audience that might otherwise have given the film a chance. But that's not the sole reason the film failed to match expectations.
I think Sony took a risk with this film by tapping a director who wasn't that interested in the first place, and by acceding to his demand that the film be a reboot...and then drew a LOT of similarities to the previous film. So, they killed the old continuity to give freedom to the new guy to tell his own story, and the story he ends up telling really ends up not being anything all that special.
The other part of the risk -- the more important part by far -- is that they dumped a TON of money into this film on the belief that it could turn into a huge franchise. I just don't think that Ghostbusters as a property was going to become that kind of franchise. It certainly wasn't about to do so with this film as the basis. The marketing push, the big F/X budget, I mean...it was a risk.
Mostly I think the risk was premised on the belief in the brand itself carrying the day, regardless of the script, regardless of the controversies associated with it. In a way, I think the studio viewed this property as something like Star Trek: a bulletproof brand that even critical fans will go see. It just isn't as strong as that.
Let's be clear about something: as a standard comedy, Ghostbusters actually performed pretty well. If this film had a budget of, say, $80M, it would be doing fine right now, and a sequel would be likely. But given the amount of F/X work, and the $144M budget, it's just not good enough to break even, go a little over that, or fall slightly short. Had Sony played it a bit safer with the film, in any of the various respects in which they took risks, I think we'd likely be looking at a sequel.
And it's still possible that we'll see one if the licensing end of this pays off. Unlikely, yeah, but it could happen.
I think Sony took a risk with this film by tapping a director who wasn't that interested in the first place, and by acceding to his demand that the film be a reboot...and then drew a LOT of similarities to the previous film. So, they killed the old continuity to give freedom to the new guy to tell his own story, and the story he ends up telling really ends up not being anything all that special.
The other part of the risk -- the more important part by far -- is that they dumped a TON of money into this film on the belief that it could turn into a huge franchise. I just don't think that Ghostbusters as a property was going to become that kind of franchise. It certainly wasn't about to do so with this film as the basis. The marketing push, the big F/X budget, I mean...it was a risk.
Mostly I think the risk was premised on the belief in the brand itself carrying the day, regardless of the script, regardless of the controversies associated with it. In a way, I think the studio viewed this property as something like Star Trek: a bulletproof brand that even critical fans will go see. It just isn't as strong as that.
This scenario was a risk like making a JarJar Binks origin movie would be a risk.
IMO what they did was an obvious recipe to wreck the movie. Sony/Pascal shouldn't be let off the hook for that. You can't treat franchises with no respect or creative common sense and expect it to turn out well. Sony pretends to value this franchise highly.
Busting ghosts alone is probably not enough to sell the movie. ("There's an alien invasion!" won't sell a movie by itself these days either.) IMO it needs something else along with it. 35 years ago it was a a group of popular SNL alums on a winning streak + cutting-edge SFX. In 2016 they chose a comedy director who has a bone to pick with half the planet and another batch of SNL alums. They dumped pretty big money into the SFX again but it didn't seem to pay off as well this time.
I think GB is capable of being a bigger franchise than it ever has been before. But they need to put in the work & respect that other big franchises get.
Both Jurassic World and SW TFA are soft reboots. There were some similarities in story, but there were enough new things to make them different. Both were in the same respective universes and did not make the mistake of ignoring what came before. Totally ignoring the previous movies is one of the pitfalls of Feigbusters.I personally think pascal should be sued. It seems more and more likely that she set out to not only produce one last bad movie, but also sabotage sony for firing her. that's what i believe anyway.
I can't think of a better way to explain this, as to why these movies lack a certain flare, so PLEASE excuse the generalization of old topics.. but.
the Problem with these reboots and sequels... ID4, Star Trek, Bay Turtles, Feigbusters and to some extent star wars... is that not one has that creative individual person in charge with a creative spark. They are by the number studio written sequels. Instead of 'hey, that's a cool ship design, lets give it something interesting to do, who cares about cost!' or 'This lightsaber doesn't look unique enough. it needs a bit of character.' or, 'we can do this on the star trek TV series. why should we be doing this on a big budget movie?' instead we get.... 'We need to appear progressive. lets have a female lead who learns the force faster than anyone in history and turn one of the crew members gay! that'll draw people in!' and 'oh, we need to appeal to the general audience, so lets have the beastie boys save the universe...what?.....I KNOW WW3 happened and most of the music was probably wiped out...but lets put it in anyway!'
The whole ... vibe... of a project just comes off as phony. phony to the audience, and phony to the franchise it's trying to sell... I can't help but wonder if one of the reasons star wars was the only one to do so well is because, well, it's star wars....people where happy to see harrison and carrie back...and people where happy to see old school models and effects back. that alone would be enough to give a positive vibe to the whole thing, in what otherwise would have been a rather lackluster and forgettable movie without it.
there wasn't really enough of that creative spark and change that said 'yeah, this should be the story people have been waiting 30 years for!'
Regarding how the fans react to feigbusters ....It's an endless amount of amusement to see how certain fan pages react to people trashing the movie constantly ;o). quite rewarding in a sad no life kind of way ;o)
---- and before anyone jumps on me, no , I have no problem with Rey. I think she's awesome. but you have to admit that she learned the force AWFUL fast ;o).
Give it up. It's dead. Time for Sony to cut their losses and close down or sell off Ghost Corps.Just picked up the last kids book I didn't have from the film. Has some back story that got cut from the beginning of the film. One scene is Abby going on TV alone to talk about the book after she's ditched by Erin. Looks like the scene took place in the 90's when they put out the book. Another is Abby showing off their elementary school science project on the barrier she still has. Maybe these will end up in the director's cut but I think the back story got conveyed pretty well with what made the final.
View attachment 653926
View attachment 653927
Both Jurassic World and SW TFA are soft reboots. There were some similarities in story, but there were enough new things to make them different. Both were in the same respective universes and did not make the mistake of ignoring what came before. Totally ignoring the previous movies is one of the pitfalls of Feigbusters.
The pro rebooters are in flat out denial. They delete the $70 million loss articles whenever somebody posts them. I guess the pro rebooters want to keep their safe happy places. The pro rebooters are stretching when they say that revenue from other resources will make the box office number look better. Are they really that stupid?! These fools have got to understand that the box office take IS just the box office take. Merchandise licensing and DVD sales will not count towards the box office take.
Anyhow, if this article is true, then the Feigbusters mess just got more messy for Sony, Feig and their pro rebooters:
.
Seriously... Do some people on the RPF, not work? :lol
I see these looooooong posts from people all day long and think, "damn, while I am working, I am lucky if I can post a one sentence reply". If you add up the reply times of some posters here, in this thread alone, that would equal half a work day.
How do people do it?
Fandango only has it in five or so movie theaters in my area. Two of these only have one showing in the morning. It's dead.edit - it's all but gone from here, just one lone showing left in an amc theater. i think we can call it done.
I see that they are using classic GB movie characters in that promo. No Fiegbusters. No Rowan. I guess Sony promos going forward will focus on classic GBs. I think the marketing people are finally getting a clue. Classic GB = Good. Reboot/Feigbusters = Toxic Sludge.
Given the furor over this film, I...would have chosen a different slogan.![]()