robbritton wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 9:56 am Everybody needs to let Marvel numbers comparisons go, especially any businesses backing Ghostbusters. Ghostbusters could have maybe done business similar to that in 1985, but it's not even in the same time zone of popular these days, let alone ball park.
Ghostbusters is not a big deal. IDW had to bring in TMNT and Transformers to boost the comics numbers. We are a very, very niche market.
---
Bringing Vigo back would be absolutely awful. There's so much new stuff to do! Use your imaginations, Ghost Corps! Make us wonder again!
I gotta disagree there. All due respect, no movie that grosses 200 million dollars is “very very niche”. I mean come on. If Ghostbusters was “very very niche” we wouldn’t be getting a sequel, merchandise or a 500 dollar proton pack. Ghostbusters isn’t niche at all. It’s mainstream all the way. Because it doesn’t sell comic books doesn’t mean much of anything. I’d argue Comic books are niche these days, not Ghostbusters. The problem is the medium not the property.
Now is it marvel? No. Of course not. But it’s also not meeting its potential. Again, no one, and I mean no one, thought Top Gun Maverick would do the business it did. But that’s what happens when you make a movie that connects with audiences. Ghostbusters 3 could’ve been that movie at one point. Circa 2012 maybe? Again, look at Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. People just wanted to see Indiana Jones again. Now imagine if it had been great?
You know when Ghostbusters was very very niche? June 7th 1984. It opened on June 8th. You make the right movie, at the right time? It’s magic.
The question we need to ask is…does Ghostbusters have a ceiling on its box office? Before 2016, or whenever the reboot was greenlit, my answer would’ve been no.
And I still don’t know. Movies are funny things. If they make all the right moves on this next movie, who knows. If we start seeing comedians or funny people attached to this new movie…mixed with the December release date? It’s a good date.
Don’t forget we also have animated series and movies in the pipeline.
Look at how Paramount as been managing Star Trek. Now I’d say alot of “fans” aren’t pleased. Picard and Discovery have been controversial within the fanbase. But they are being smart. They saw the movies they were releasing in theatres werent doing the business they wanted so they went with what Star Trek has always been good at. TV. So now there’s 5-6 Star Trek shows on the air. Including animated series for kids. They are building the brand up so the attachment exists beyond trekkies. We’ll see how well it’s worked when the next movie hits. But it’s smart and it takes time and it takes investment. And it takes quality with a dash of luck.
Kingpin wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 9:11 amRichardLess wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 5:14 amLook at Uncharted. Here’s a movie that could’ve been the Indiana Jones of the 21st century but no. Did it make some money? Sure. But it was awful.
"Awful"? That seems a little harsh as it did seem to tick many of the same boxes as Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I went in with a generally casual knowledge of the Uncharted franchise (always wanted to play them, but they're exclusive to the console I don't own), but found it to be very entertaining - a film you can enjoy for the sheer entertainment/spectacle and not have to devote too much brain power to... Which seems representative of the game series from my casual experience of them.
Likewise a friend of mine who I believe has played the games also really enjoyed the film.
RichardLess wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 5:14 amScrew the fans. Screw us. Just make the movie you want to make.
While I'll definitely be wary about tailoring a film solely to appeal to the most devoted of the fan community, I feel it's at your peril to go the "screw the fans" route, one of the best recent examples of that is both the Resident Evil movie series and the now-cancelled Netflix series. They both went the "made the thing they wanted to make" route, choosing to employ stuff from the actual games as window dressing or seasoning, and resulted in generally bad stories/adaptations of the franchise.
RichardLess wrote: ↑August 29th, 2022, 5:14 amAnd I hate to say it but after the shit show of ATC controversy, what did this fandom do to deserve anything that’s “for them”?
Agreed with you on that score, there is a part of me that feels we didn't deserve to get another film after how some of us acted back in 2016.
Bill definitely should've been the one to say sorry... I'm just not sure if it would've sounded convincing from him if he had done it.
Well “awful” was just my personal opinion. I think it was mismanaged and I think the numbers kinda support that. Let’s break down the numbers. 41% on rotten tomatoes. 6.4 on IMDb. And a B+ cinemascore(the way cinemascore works anything below an A- is considered to have weak word of mouth potential. 4 quadrant movies want an A-or higher). In a properly managed movie I’d want to see a 75%+ on RT, an A- or above cinemascore, and a 7.5 or higher on IMDb. I don’t think that’s asking a lot. So when we see a movie still make some money despite those numbers, I think it’s fair to say, had they made a movie audiences really dug, you’ve got a bigger hit on your hands. My biggest gripe with the movie was all I could see was potential been wasted(noticing a pattern here with Sony movies). Uncharted could’ve been a Indiana Jones or a Pirates of the Caribbean type movie. Instead it was a middling forgettable time. “Awful” is a bit harsh, you’re right. It wasn’t good I’ll say that. And I think it could’ve been. Not every movie has that built in potential.
I’ve also come to really, REALLY, dislike Mark Whalberg. I like Tom Holland but I think he was miscast. This movie needed someone with a magnetic screen presence. I think Chris Pine would’ve been a good choice. That dude has charisma to spare. Ryan Reynolds maybe? But Tom Holland, as much as I like him, just didn’t do it for me.