Marcus Cato

I'm disappointed that i can't see this movie in cinema. It's one of the most intriguing films coming out this year. I still don't understand why Paramount made such a decision to not put this film in theaters outside the US.

Paramount it's a mess right now, just flop after flop after flop.. their markering department is just the worst.

Yes, i ment estimates for the movie. Actual tracking will come only a few days before the film opens. But so far it's following a similar trajectory as Atomic Blonde. Of course, in the end, the quality of the movie will decide.

Actually Atomic Blonde first tracking on pro.boxoffice was 27.5m OW. http://pro.boxoffice.com/long-range-forecast-atomic-blonde-emoji-movie/ With one week before realease, it was still at a very high 26m on pro.boxoffice. http://pro.boxoffice.com/long-range-forecast-see-american-assassin/ And it ended up with 18.3m OW actual number. Looks like Red Sparrow it's following the exact same path. Started with 26m OW first tracking, now it's lowered at 22m. So probably the actual numbers will come around 18m, if the movie it's good.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/japanese-fans-react-ghost-shell-992255 Fans from Japan reacted really well to the movie. "I heard people in the U.S. wanted an Asian actress to play her. Would that be OK if she was Asian or Asian-American? Honestly, that would be worse: someone from another Asian country pretending to be Japanese. Better just to make the character white," he added.

Most people that saw the movie actually liked it. Of course, like every movie, there are some people who won't like it, for various reasons. But for Gits the audience score is pretty good, 62% on RT compared with 47% for Lucy. The Imdb rating is higher as well. The problem is that too many people were influenced by the bad press and the bad reviews, and decided not to go see it. Those who decided to give it a chance, and went with an open mind, the majority liked it.

Well, i guess there won't be anymore adaptations of foreign properties by american studios, because there will always be some sort of backlash, which is a shame.

Well said... even Logan got a minor blacklash from feminists because there weren't enough females in the movie. And Ghost in the shell has one of the most ethnically diverse casts, and it's getting backlash for lack of diversity. Oh, the irony.

Every actor has hits and misses. It's funny, i see the same type of comments in a female tennis dedicated forum. Everytime a top female tennis player is losing a match to a much lower ranked opponent, there are many on the forum that are posting stuff like "that's it, her career is over, the talentless fraud has been exposed", and of course she comes back strong in the next tournaments.. but after that, when again she loses bad, more of the same comments.. "she's done, just retire now".. and it keeps going like that.. it's exactly the same here.

This story is old, it happened last year when they were shooting the film. There was a group of journalists that went to New Zealand to talk to her. This year, during the promotional tour for the film, she answered questions about whitewashing many times. She talks about it at 1:05

This is what i mean about critics also, there is a big difference between UK and US critics. Most UK critics gave this positive reviews, 4/5 stars from The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Sun. And most US critics gave it negative reviews. Is this because they just have different tastes in America compared to Britain, or is it because of the whitewashing?

"Consider Johansson's stunning performance, how she walks differently, how she's chosen to take another role that is inherently about the denial of the physical. She's a lot like Warren Beatty in her desire to comment on her attractiveness with the parts she plays (Her, Under the Skin, Lucy). She transcends her appearance in them. She loses the thing she's known for, more or less, or she's punished for it. The greatest impediment to her existential evolution is her appearance. Sometimes, looking like she does is literally fatal for her characters. She is the most interesting actress working in the United States, and the great irony of that is she's still seen as a starlet banking on her looks." Excellent remark about Scarlett. She said in one recent interview that she was offered many "sexiest woman in the world" type of awards from various magazines, throughout her carrer, but she refused most of them, because she didn't want to be objectified like that. That's also the reason she chose to have short hair lately. She wants people to see that she's more then just a beauty. She's a reluctant sex symbol.

I mean, it's obvious that some american critics already knew they will say this movie is rotten, no matter what, just to be "politically correct". They just didn't gave this movie any chance. Like Grace Randolph in her spoilers review, she started the video just screaming in that annoying irritating voice: "this movie is racist, this movie is racist".. omg, i couldn't last more than a few seconds. Her political agenda was so clear.

The audience adverage rating on RT is 3.6/5, almost the same as Kong, who stands at 3.7/5. So for the general public the quality of these two movies is virtually the same. But the RT score for Kong is 78% and for Gits 42%... and it was at 73% before american critics came in. So much about objective critics.

This movie was totaly buried by the press. All the other big movies had a lot of free good press. Gits had none of that, almost all the articles were about the stupid controversy.

Let's be honest, without Scarlett this movie would've been a monumental flop, nobody would've cared about this film if it had an unknown lead actress. ScarJo's star power is saving this movie from total embarrasment.

1.8m thursday night previews for Gits. That's decent, all things considered. A good comparison is with The Accountant, both have similar RT scores, and that one made 1.35m in thursday previews and 24.7 OW. Gits previws were 25% higher, so if this percentage stays, it could be around 30m OW.

It was at 73% until american critics came in took it down to 50%.. and we know what the main reason is. Sure, the movie isn't great, but is not that bad either. It would've ended up fresh at the end, without the stupid politics.

Without a major A-list star to lead this kind of movie, no studio would risk so much money on such a niche property. The movie simply wouldn't be made.

But shouldn't the casual viewer be freed from this politics when he's trying to decide what movie to watch, based on some of the reviews he's looking at? So he might decide to watch a lesser quality movie because the higher quality movie reviews were affected by those politics. Maybe the casual viewer doesn't know or care about those politics, but in the end it could affect his decision of what movie to see.

A feel bad for Scarlett, she is a really great person, and doesn't deserve this. She said in one recent interview that she became aware of the backlash only after the production of the movie was well under way, and it was really hard for her to go on, but she had to. If she could have anticipated this, i'm sure she would not have taken the role.

Yeah, critics should be objective, but they are not. Of course a movie review should be based solely on its own merits and quality. But some critics just can't leave politics out of it.. they want to be "politically corect". Look what happened with Ghostbusters last year, 73% on RT.

Exaclty, some rotten reviews were given just based on that, which is unfair.. There was one reviewer that gave it 1/5 stars just because of that.

72% on RT now. The last 8 reviews added were all fresh.

Even if it doesn't outgross Boss Baby, it will still do well overseas, especially in Asia, ironically enough.