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

[drdungbeetle]

15 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

It is not from the studios, it is only people that work in film financing that speculate on how much it will possibly loose, they do not even know how much paramount is exposed and have no idea on the movie budget, rumors goes from 110 to around 180+ million apparently. Paramount could be loosing less than 20 (and depending on the presales deal, distribution deal they got not loose money at all) to loose a lot if it was an over 180 million budget and that some China co-financing didn't go through for this movie and leaved them exposed for a lot of the lost.

Dreamworks is losing the 20 mil, not Paramount. Paramount is losing the higher number.

[Barnack]

15 minutes ago, drdungbeetle said:

Dreamworks is losing the 20 mil, not Paramount. Paramount is losing the higher number.

 

If they are exposed to more than 30%, the If the China co-financing was lost (people writing the article do not know, who own how much of the movie and how the revenue are distributed often a distributor like Paramount will take a larger share of the revenue until distribution is paid over financier, financier have often riskier deal than studio and movies have a higher break even point for them), and because they do not know how much the movie cost, have not much idea on how much it will loose.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Barnack

[drdungbeetle]

11 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

If they are exposed to more than 30%, the If the China co-financing was lost (people writing the article do not know, who own how much of the movie and how the revenue are distributed often a distributor like Paramount will take a larger share of the revenue until distribution is paid over financier, financier have often riskier deal than studio and movies have a higher break even point for them), and because they do not know how much the movie cost, have not much idea on how much it will loose.

The article specifically said Dreamworks could lose up to 20 mil, Paramount 60 mil or more (I personally don't buy the 180 mil production budget claim and go with the 110 mil one). Regardless this is another bad blow to Paramount at a time it can ill afford them.

[BadAtGender]

5 hours ago, straggler said:

I do not think whate-washing was why this film flopped. It became a too convenient excuse for the studio and people jumped on the bandwagon after the damage was done. What sunk the film is that it just did not have broad enough box office appeal in general. 

 

People keep wanting to identify one sole reason for a film's failure (or success). It's rarely going to happen like that. There are multiple factors that can contribute.

 

The casting controversy wouldn't be the only reason the film did poorly, but it certainly didn't help.

[BadAtGender]

6 hours ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

That's an awful and terribly depressing piece.

 

It's depressing, but I have to question a lot of the reasoning in the piece. For instance: "A bankable star was essential for a film of this size". Because there are plenty of $100m+ films that have no bankable stars that, apparently, are successes, even if they don't break open the bank. 

 

 

Take something that's actually not a bad parallel for GitS: Pacific Rim. Yes, it disappointed, but it did pull in over $400m worldwide, and had basically no bankable stars. Idris Elba is the highest profile name and certainly didn't have a track record as a bankable star. He was followed by Charlie Day and going increasingly into no name from there. Yet it did well enough to get a sequel, and it wasn't even based on a specific property.

 

Or, alternatively, Mad Max Fury Road. Slightly under $400m worldwide, but no China release. And the biggest name in the cast is probably Charlize Theron. Yes, it's got a well recognized, if cult, brand, but Theron's previous biggest films were largely sold on other reasons.

 

Now, there's a clear difference between those two films and GitS. Both of them stemmed from clear visions of what they'd be, and those were kept to despite years (decades!) of time it took to bring them to screen. While GitS had been stewing around for almost as long as MMFR was, it seems pretty evident that there wasn't anyone trying to drive the vision. And lacking that, you'll see the production get back to conventional wisdom benchmarks. Instead of someone like Miller who is willing to go to the mat to defend their decisions because that's what makes the film work, they'll go with a "bankable star" and and such.

 

Someone probably could have done that work, if they'd been involved from the getgo and really planned out what the film was trying to do. Someone who had a clear understanding both of the Japanese cultural questions the property addresses as well as things like how it fits into the genre of cyperpunk, and perhaps, even, what cyperpunk means nowadays, when everyone has a supercomputer in their pocket. 

 

Making a good film won't guarantee that audiences show up, but doing that first, along with a clear "sell" in the advertising, would have at least had the potential to do better. 

[shayhiri]

21 hours ago, Barnack said:

 

That not what I understand, Paramount metric are probably showing that bad reviews had a huge impact (good tracking before the embargo, lot of interest, lot of traffic and views of reviews and the difference in box office in market that didn't had those bad reviews vs domestic).

 

They are blaming the bad reviews for domestic market bombage, and blaming the white-washing controversy influencing the critics for those bad reviews.

 

And they are damn right!!

 

NOW you understand why they blocked your shitty ghetto "critics", America! Because you suck. "Social Justice" is a cancer, and you are long doomed. Hopefully more studios will wake up to the fact, which will lead to further and full ghettoization of the American "critics". No free screenings ever for the fat dogs that bite the hand that feeds! Make them pay!

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by shayhiri

[filmlover]

The whitewashing stuff is the least of the film's problems, even though Johansson is obviously miscast in the role.

[shayhiri]

Yeah, the ONLY problem of this movie - is it takes place OUTSIDE of America. And the average American actively boycotts ANYTHING that goes outside her fat limited entitled cultureless closed world.

 

It bombed in America DESPITE the "whitewashing"- not because of it.

 

Let that sink in...

[antovolk]

3 hours ago, DamienRoc said:

 

It's depressing, but I have to question a lot of the reasoning in the piece. For instance: "A bankable star was essential for a film of this size". Because there are plenty of $100m+ films that have no bankable stars that, apparently, are successes, even if they don't break open the bank. 

 

 

Take something that's actually not a bad parallel for GitS: Pacific Rim. Yes, it disappointed, but it did pull in over $400m worldwide, and had basically no bankable stars. Idris Elba is the highest profile name and certainly didn't have a track record as a bankable star. He was followed by Charlie Day and going increasingly into no name from there. Yet it did well enough to get a sequel, and it wasn't even based on a specific property.

 

Or, alternatively, Mad Max Fury Road. Slightly under $400m worldwide, but no China release. And the biggest name in the cast is probably Charlize Theron. Yes, it's got a well recognized, if cult, brand, but Theron's previous biggest films were largely sold on other reasons.

 

Now, there's a clear difference between those two films and GitS. Both of them stemmed from clear visions of what they'd be, and those were kept to despite years (decades!) of time it took to bring them to screen. While GitS had been stewing around for almost as long as MMFR was, it seems pretty evident that there wasn't anyone trying to drive the vision. And lacking that, you'll see the production get back to conventional wisdom benchmarks. Instead of someone like Miller who is willing to go to the mat to defend their decisions because that's what makes the film work, they'll go with a "bankable star" and and such.

 

Someone probably could have done that work, if they'd been involved from the getgo and really planned out what the film was trying to do. Someone who had a clear understanding both of the Japanese cultural questions the property addresses as well as things like how it fits into the genre of cyperpunk, and perhaps, even, what cyperpunk means nowadays, when everyone has a supercomputer in their pocket. 

 

Making a good film won't guarantee that audiences show up, but doing that first, along with a clear "sell" in the advertising, would have at least had the potential to do better. 

Great points.

 

I honestly wonder if doing a more faithful adaptation at least, with a lead like Rinko (or my pick Karen) - in any case a version of the film that the fan base would've loved - would help get good WOM out to general audiences? Because isn't it why they make these IPs with existing fan bases, they hope the fan bases will get positive WOM out to general audiences. Which is why, for instance, Lionsgate focused so much on making the fans happy with Hunger Games. While GITS, like - to carry on the Lionsgate comparison - the Divergent franchise, skipped the fan bases entirely.

[MrGlass2]

9 hours ago, Barnack said:

 

they do not even know how much paramount is exposed and have no idea on the movie budget

 

Deadline sometimes prints rumors about budget overruns based on anonymous sources, it just shows we have no idea how much most movies cost; only the box office is reliable.

[Arlborn]

10 hours ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

Paramount on a roll this year with Monster Trucks and Ghost In The Shell. Their marketing department needs to go, they totally messed up Star Trek's 50th anniversary last year. Transformers franchise on decline stateside also.

 

Pretty much this, marketing sucked. I'm still baffled how they managed to screw Star Trek up last year.

 

2 hours ago, shayhiri said:

 

And they are damn right!!

 

NOW you understand why they blocked your shitty ghetto "critics", America! Because you suck. "Social Justice" is a cancer, and you are long doomed. Hopefully more studios will wake up to the fact, which will lead to further and full ghettoization of the American "critics". No free screenings ever for the fat dogs that bite the hand that feeds! Make them pay!

 

 

You have no idea how stupid you sound when you say stuff like that, do you?

 

"Social justice is a cancer"? Jesus fucking Christ man, tone it down a bit.

 

1 hour ago, antovolk said:

Great points.

 

I honestly wonder if doing a more faithful adaptation at least, with a lead like Rinko (or my pick Karen) - in any case a version of the film that the fan base would've loved - would help get good WOM out to general audiences? Because isn't it why they make these IPs with existing fan bases, they hope the fan bases will get positive WOM out to general audiences. Which is why, for instance, Lionsgate focused so much on making the fans happy with Hunger Games. While GITS, like - to carry on the Lionsgate comparison - the Divergent franchise, skipped the fan bases entirely.

 

I went with a huge fanboy of animes(he's studying Japanese and wants to live in Japan, so you know how nerdy he is about it) and he loved it way more than I did and said Scarlett was Major, she was perfect as it as he argues she didn't look Asian anyway in the anime and her body is just a shell but it isn't who she truly is. But then again he isn't Asian so maybe he wouldn't have liked it as much if he were?

 

I don't know though, I just get the vibe that this whole whitewashing controversy is much smaller than we think it is out there in the real world. Or maybe it's just a thing inside of America, but even then I do question how much it really affected things. I still think the flop was mostly due to poor marketing as the film itself was good enough; better than many others wannabe blockbusters that do better than this anyway.

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by Arlborn

[Kalo]

11 hours ago, straggler said:

I do not think whate-washing was why this film flopped. It became a too convenient excuse for the studio and people jumped on the bandwagon after the damage was done. What sunk the film is that it just did not have broad enough box office appeal in general. 

 

Yeah me either, I think the white-washing is part of the reason for it's negative reviews though, which could have affect it a little. But March was just a really stacked month, with Logan, and BATB overperforming, Skull Island and Power Rangers opening decently, then Boss Baby, the market was just oversaturated. Also I didn't think GITS had the best marketing campaign.  

[antovolk]

28 minutes ago, Arlborn said:

I went with a huge fanboy of animes(he's studying Japanese and wants to live in Japan, so you know how nerdy he is about it) and he loved it way more than I did and said Scarlett was Major, she was perfect as it as he argues she didn't look Asian anyway in the anime and her body is just a shell but it isn't who she truly is. But then again he isn't Asian so maybe he wouldn't have liked it as much if he were?

 

I don't know though, I just get the vibe that this whole whitewashing controversy is much smaller than we think it is out there in the real world. Or maybe it's just a thing inside of America, but even then I do question how much it really affected things. I still think the flop was mostly due to poor marketing as the film itself was good enough; better than many others wannabe blockbusters that do better than this anyway.

 

Wasn't talking as much casting an Asian (although that'd be ideal) but an adaptation that's closer to the original anime/manga.

 

Yes, the whitewashing controversy is almost exclusively an American/anglophone countries thing. I think it just contributed to 1. negative reviews and 2. the WOM. And that's on top of it being a, as much as I enjoyed it, a frankensteined-for-mass-appeal version instead of something more faithful.

Edited April 6, 2017 by antovolk

[Barnack]

9 hours ago, drdungbeetle said:

The article specifically said Dreamworks could lose up to 20 mil, Paramount 60 mil or more (I personally don't buy the 180 mil production budget claim and go with the 110 mil one). Regardless this is another bad blow to Paramount at a time it can ill afford them.

 

That not how I understand the article (but English is a second language to me):

 

After vanishing in its opening weekend at the domestic box office to $18.6 million, film finance sources tell Deadline that Paramount/DreamWorks-Reliance’s Ghost In The Shell stands to lose at least $60M

....

Ghost was originally part of the Shanghai/Huahua deal, with both companies supposedly vested in director Rupert Sanders’ movie alongside DreamWorks and Paramount; each studio maintained 30% exposure. While DreamWorks reportedly stands to lose as much as $20M, Paramount could incur a bigger black eye sans the Chinese funds. Paramount provided no comment.

 

From what I understand they are saying that the movie should loose at least 60 million among those investor, the 20 million for DreamWorks and Paramount if it they have a 30% exposure, but if they had a bigger one (say it was not in fact part of the deal with Shanghai/Huahua they could loose more)

[Barnack]

14 hours ago, DamienRoc said:

 

It's depressing, but I have to question a lot of the reasoning in the piece. For instance: "A bankable star was essential for a film of this size". Because there are plenty of $100m+ films that have no bankable stars that, apparently, are successes, even if they don't break open the bank. 

 

Those tend to have big name director or high-concept/IPs thought, like the MadMax (Miller doing a MadMax movie) or Pacific Rim (Del Toro/ Kaiju) for example, James Cameron big movie do not need a star either or franchise movie in general.

 

If you remove those factor (strong director appeal like a Cameron/Nolan, strong franchise/concept appeal), you will not see many live action 100m+ films without bankable stars that are successes.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Barnack

[Barnack]

51 minutes ago, Kalo said:

 

Yeah me either, I think the white-washing is part of the reason for it's negative reviews though, which could have affect it a little. 

 

I think in the context that the marketing failed to sell the movies, the reviews became essential to it, Arrival made $10,390 by theater on is first weekend vs $5,429 for Ghost in a shell, I think the main factor between those 2 result was the difference in critical acclaim.

[The Futurist]

Whaterver happened to :

 

"It  s just  a damn movie, calm your tits people."

 

[shayhiri]

I don't think it should lose a dime. It costs 110m according to Mojo. Should make 220m WW with its hands tied (by the evil SJW).

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, shayhiri said:

I don't think it should lose a dime. It costs 110m according to Mojo. Should make 220m WW with its hands tied (by the evil SJW).

 

Mojo is just a guy writing number from no where mostly no ? They have no reliability budget wise, wikipedia tend to be much better.

 

Example:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=21jumpstreet2.htm

Production Budget: $50 million

Reality:

It was a 84.5 million gross production budget movie with a 69 million net budget.

 

https://fastlane.louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com/Film/FilmSearchDetails.aspx?ProjNum=VCPHNNs1db1807DgywngyQ%3d%3d

https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/03_03/RISKMGMT/Production Files/22 Jump Street (9-29-13 to 12-18-13)/Budget/22JS Budget 15 131008_FINAL BUDGET top sheet.pdf

 

 

[cookie]

41 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Mojo is just a guy writing number from no where mostly no ? They have no reliability budget wise, wikipedia tend to be much better.

 

Example:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=21jumpstreet2.htm

Production Budget: $50 million

Reality:

It was a 84.5 million gross production budget movie with a 69 million net budget.

 

https://fastlane.louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com/Film/FilmSearchDetails.aspx?ProjNum=VCPHNNs1db1807DgywngyQ%3d%3d

https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/03_03/RISKMGMT/Production Files/22 Jump Street (9-29-13 to 12-18-13)/Budget/22JS Budget 15 131008_FINAL BUDGET top sheet.pdf

 

 

 

Mojo only reports the budget that's acknowledged when the film first comes out. In many cases the actual budget isn't made known until later (like when they reported that Guardians of The Galaxy was $170 million and Disney later revealed it was $196 million after tax breaks).

Edited April 6, 2017 by cookie