Ghost in the Shell | March 31, 2017 | Scarlett Johansson | Paramount | New Trailer on page 43!!!

[Valonqar]

@Harpospoke GitS was meant to be popular or otherwise they wouldn't invest 110M in it (and that's lowballing for sure). But Scarlett didn't make it popular domestically. Some things just won't be no matter whom they cast. That's how you know that actor/actress believed to have the drawing power actually doesn't. 

[Dementeleus]

7 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

@Harpospoke GitS was meant to be popular or otherwise they wouldn't invest 110M in it (and that's lowballing for sure). But Scarlett didn't make it popular domestically. Some things just won't be no matter whom they cast. That's how you know that actor/actress believed to have the drawing power actually doesn't. 

 

There's way more variables than just ScarJo. A muddled, confusing marketing campaign that didn't appeal or interest anyone who wasn't already familiar with the original didn't help at all (and those fans could potentially be turned off as well, for any number of reasons).

[Valonqar]

4 minutes ago, Telerian said:

 

There's way more variables than just ScarJo. A muddled, confusing marketing campaign that didn't appeal or interest anyone who wasn't already familiar with the original didn't help at all (and those fans could potentially be turned off as well, for any number of reasons).

 

Agreed. 

[SLAM!]

I've seen many flops over the course of my time following the box office, but this is one of the first undeserved flops I've seen in a while.

Edited April 1, 2017 by slambros

[Harpospoke]

2 hours ago, Valonqar said:

@Harpospoke GitS was meant to be popular or otherwise they wouldn't invest 110M in it (and that's lowballing for sure). But Scarlett didn't make it popular domestically. Some things just won't be no matter whom they cast. That's how you know that actor/actress believed to have the drawing power actually doesn't. 

 

Every movie is meant to be popular but there are still movies that don't work and it doesn't matter who the lead is.   Road to Perdition made half as much as Castaway.   Is that because Tom Hanks suddenly lost his "drawing power" or does that mean it's really the movie that draws people to the theaters?       That Thing You Do made 25 million just two years after Forest Gump made 330 million.   Then two years later he "drew" 216 million for Saving Private Ryan.     You can do that with anyone.   You get the right project, you are in a big grosser.   The actors who get into the right projects most often get the biggest grossers.     "Drawing power" might just be one of the biggest myths in Hollywood.   Every actor has grosses all over the map depending completely upon the ability of the movie to interest the public.

[Harpospoke]

2 hours ago, MrGlass2 said:

 

Clearly, Motoko Kusanagi is a whitey name.

 

Boy are you going to be surprised when you see what Bruce Lee looks like.   

 

It's a name.   Does the character have that name in the movie?   So that part is covered.

 

The conversation is about how the character looks and ScarJo looks like the character.   Much ado about nothing.

[Barnack]

49 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

 

Every movie is meant to be popular but there are still movies that don't work and it doesn't matter who the lead is.   Road to Perdition made half as much as Castaway.   Is that because Tom Hanks suddenly lost his "drawing power" or does that mean it's really the movie that draws people to the theaters?       That Thing You Do made 25 million just two years after Forest Gump made 330 million.   Then two years later he "drew" 216 million for Saving Private Ryan.     You can do that with anyone.   You get the right project, you are in a big grosser.   The actors who get into the right projects most often get the biggest grossers.     "Drawing power" might just be one of the biggest myths in Hollywood.   Every actor has grosses all over the map depending completely upon the ability of the movie to interest the public.

 

 

Better script, director, producer (well better project in general) with better release is yes the biggest factor, that does not mean that drawing power does not exist, it just mean that isolating that factor is really hard (they just found 7 draw while trying to remove quality of project/release from the actors in the 90's I think, Hanks being one of them).

 

Look at Kevin Hart, him alone on a stage:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kevinhart2016.htm

 

He open that over 10 million, he has without a doubt drawing power in a comedy he does not even need a movie, not every actor has grosses all over the map, look at Denzel first weekend:

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=denzelwashington.htm

 

All is wide release made over 20 million since out of time, that is 12 in row, and the 3 movie before out of time made over 20 too, it is really hard to argue that Denzel has no drawing power.

 

Yes bad movies, even in Tom Hanks peak, would have an hard time succeeding, people are not arguing that drawing power is John Wayne during B western movie into success making 100 time their production budget, there is 700 theatrical release, drawing power is turning one of the 12 new movie release this weekend into something people take an interest in, giving it a chance to get out of the lot.

 

But people do not start some Superheroes genre has no drawing power when Super, punisher war zone or KickAss 2 fail.

 

Believing that drawing power is only a myth is believing that The Revenant open at 39 million with an unknown lead if giving the same theater count, that The Heat and Identity Thief open over 34 million without Melissa McCarthy, do you really believe that ? There is a long list of really good movie getting really good release with actors in the right roles that fail, like The Nice Guys last year it is far to be an automatic that a good movie, with good promotions and actor in the good roles will work.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Barnack

[UTJeff]

So they cast a major star in the lead role...and it still didn't make a lot of money.

[Halba]

this movie looks sooo bad. runtime is a measly 106 min leaving zero development. RT is about 40%. Ave rating is about 5. box office is a flop.

 

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Halba

[aabattery]

1 minute ago, Halba said:

this movie looks sooo bad. runtime is a measly 106 min leaving zero development. RT is about 40%. Ave rating is about 5. box office is a flop.

 

 

 

I'm glad you're back.

[Gokira2012]

does Akira happen?

[junkshop36]

7 hours ago, hegemony said:

Whoever's behind the Battle Angel adaptation has to be a bit worried now. GITS was somewhat known to non-anime fans, but Battle Angel is really niche. 

 

 

Well, Cameron is on as a producer so you know they'll make mentioning him a priority in the marketing. 

 

Still, it would have been waaaaay better off had he stayed on as director as well. He should have done Alita fairly soon after Avatar. 

 

[Gokira2012]

the only asians claiming white washing are chinese and koreans actors

[Klingo]

Planning to watch it again today.

[jetmasters]

Not sure what people are expecting out of this movie. It is popular among Anime fans and that's about it. I would be surprised if this breaks out. Casting Scarlett Johansson was a good business choice since she is more popular than any Asian actresses. Only time when people want to watch films with Asians leading involves martial arts and that's about it. Hollywood never stays faithful to original source material so there will always be complaints. My only complaint of this movie is that it's not rated R.

[SLAM!]

1 hour ago, Gokira2012 said:

does Akira happen?

 

I'm worried for Lionsgate's Naruto film after this.

[Barnack]

11 minutes ago, jetmasters said:

Hollywood never stays faithful to original source material so there will always be complaints. My only complaint of this movie is that it's not rated R.

 

This time most of the complain is that they stayed too faithful to the original source material (something you heard too with Beauty and the Beast movie)

[Water Bottle]

5 hours ago, Telerian said:

 

There's way more variables than just ScarJo. A muddled, confusing marketing campaign that didn't appeal or interest anyone who wasn't already familiar with the original didn't help at all (and those fans could potentially be turned off as well, for any number of reasons).

 

Muddled, confusing that also gave too much away.

Really no surprises in the movie because the trailers gave it all away.

Mixed reviews and it's easy to see why the movie isn't performing amazing. Nobody and I mean nobody should be surprised by it's weak BO performance.

[commonsense88]

I just saw GITS, liked it for what it was, definitely not for everyone 

[hegemony]

does Fate of the Furious kill this movie's overseas potential?