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

[Barnack]

27 minutes ago, cookie said:

 

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).

 

And even when it is more well known, Mojo do not seem to update themselves, they still have Guardian at 170, captain america first avenger at 140, Pirates of the Caribbean On Stranger Tides at 250, etc...

 

Without being totally useless, they are far from a good source for budget, it is just a guy writing what was around at some point without time to follow up.

 

Them saying that Ghost was 110 is not a strong sign that it was the case, Johansson said it was in the 130isshh range for example and she known about it much more than them.

[The Stingray]

I thought it was pretty good. It looked gorgeous, the action was solid, Scarlett was great, and the predictable plot didn't stop it from being exciting.

 

7.5/10
 

[Marcus Cato]

16 hours ago, Kalo said:

I am surprised to say I thought Ghost in the Shell was not only good, but great! 

 

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.

 

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by Marcus Cato

[ban1o]

1 minute ago, Marcus Cato said:

 

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.

 

 

lol at thinking 62% is good 

[ChrisTelclear]

9 minutes ago, ban1o said:

lol at thinking 62% is good 

Always need to be cautious with aggregated audience review sites.  Between the SJW's, the fanboys, the Alt-Right, and whoever else has an ax to grind, you can wind up with major swings based on politics rather than actual movie watchers rating the movie.   I usually trust that anything above a 60 on RT won't be unwatchable, although I have to admit that from time to time I've been burned using that measure.

 

 

[drdungbeetle]

2 hours ago, Barnack said:

 

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) 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.

"Bankable" stars didn't save this. There is no such thing as a "bankable" star anymore if a name as big as ScarJo struggles to get 20 mil off this. 

[Barnack]

Isn't a 

62% liked it

Average Rating: 3.5/5

User Ratings: 29,737

 

A very mediocre RT audience score ? 

 

That is Batman V Superman 63% territory, X-Men Apocalypse was at 67%, Passenger 64%, Suicide Squad 62%, The transformer also usually score over 50% in RT audience score.

 

I would agree with that it could be artificially low, apparently:

Ironically, Screen Engine/ComScore’s PostTrak audience polls show that Asian Americans bought tickets to watch Ghost and even enjoyed the film. They repped 13% of Ghost‘s audience, on par with the demo’s turnout for Arrival (14%, $24M), Passengers (12%, $14.9M opening) and xXx: The Return Of Xander Cage (14%, $20.1M FSS), the latter which featured several Asian stars including Donnie Yen and Wu Yifan. Zero percent gave Ghost a poor rating. Of the Asian Americans who watched Ghost, 93% gave it a good, very good or excellent rating, which isn’t that far from Caucasians, Hispanics (both 97%) and African Americans (94%).

 

People that didn't like a movie probably are disproportionately motivated to go score them on some public platform, specially if there is a some negative online buzz around them.
 

 

[Valonqar]

Leo and Denzel are bankable and that's about it. And even they get by cause they choose appealing concept, not an easy sell, mind you, but they are better at picking serious stuff than Will Smith. 

Edited April 6, 2017 by Valonqar

[Barnack]

5 minutes ago, drdungbeetle said:

"Bankable" stars didn't save this. There is no such thing as a "bankable" star anymore if a name as big as ScarJo struggles to get 20 mil off this. 

 

Arguably it kind of did (at least jury still out until all market open) of being a serious loose your jobs flop.

 

The Revenant opened at 38 million and made 538 million worldwide, do you really believe that there is not such thing as a bankable star ?

 

How do you explain Kevin Hart What Now box office performance or Identity Thief opening at 35 million if Melissa McCarthy was not a bankable star ?

[drdungbeetle]

Just now, Valonqar said:

Leo and Danzel are bankable and that's about it. And even they get by cause they choose appealing concept, not an easy sell, mind you, but they are better than picking serious stuff than Will Smith. 

I don't even think Leo and Denzel are "blockbuster" level bankable. Most Denzel projects seem to be midbudget things that outperform because he's in them while still not making huge (150 mil plus) grosses. Leo is only bankable because he chooses prestige stuff that audiences want to see anyway. Neither would get like a Pirates-level gross just because they were in it.

 

I'm still laughing at the fact that people around here act like J-Law somehow drew huge money to Passengers when it was her salary (and Pratt's) that inflated the budget and made the movie unable to make a good profit windfall anyway. Most "stars" simply aren't worth the time and expense anymore.

[drdungbeetle]

2 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Arguably it kind of did (at least jury still out until all market open) of being a serious loose your jobs flop.

 

The Revenant opened at 38 million and made 538 million worldwide, do you really believe that there is not such thing as a bankable star ?

 

How do you explain Kevin Hart What Now box office performance or Identity Thief opening at 35 million if Melissa McCarthy was not a bankable star ?

No, it didn't. Did you even look at the Deadline figures? Paramount will lose money on this and have yet another tax write-off. No one gained by casting ScarJo in this and she wasn't a "draw" in this role (although I'm having trouble seeing who would be, given the script).

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, drdungbeetle said:

Leo is only bankable because he chooses prestige stuff that audiences want to see anyway. 

 

How much do you think The Revenant is making with unknowns actor ? You think world audience was asking for The Revenant anyway ? Compare director filmography result and you will usually see a huge bump between their movie featuring DiCaprio or not, Scorsese, Nolan, Tarantino, Iñárritu, their biggest non franchise movie tend to be the one with DiCaprio in it by a really good margin.

 

 

Quote

I'm still laughing at the fact that people around here act like J-Law somehow drew huge money to Passengers when it was her salary (and Pratt's) that inflated the budget and made the movie unable to make a good profit windfall anyway. Most "stars" simply aren't worth the time and expense anymore.

 

There is a bit too much focus made on production budget vs total budget I think and I'm not sure what you mean by being worth the time (what time ?), a movie like that total cost will probably a bit over 250 million before participation bonus (Elysium had a 126 million net budget and a total cost of 275.29 million before participation bonus for a close example).

 

Remove the movie star and is 20 million paycheck from Elysium, now the movie cost 256 million instead of 275.29, a 7% rebate, but how much more you need to spend on marketing to get an equivalent release in audience awareness and exhibitor that accept to give it the same amount of theater screen ? You probably do not save the full salary amount of the star because you needed to spend more on your marketing campaign to reach audience.

 

A movie like Passenger achieved to get an Holidays release with a relatively small marketing expense (much smaller than say monster truck or Live by Night), because those star salary are more a form of marketing expense than production expense.

[Barnack]

11 minutes ago, drdungbeetle said:

No, it didn't. Did you even look at the Deadline figures? Paramount will lose money on this and have yet another tax write-off. 

 

Deadline figures are people doing estimate, they think Paramount will lose money they do not know.

 

Quote

No one gained by casting ScarJo in this and she wasn't a "draw" in this role

 

I doubt that it is true, how to you know if dreamworks didn't gain when it came time to find a distributor in the movie to have a star attach to it ? How do we know if they didn't got more in pre-sales like those:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/chinese-ticketing-service-weying-takes-stake-paramounts-ghost-shell-987261

 

Because a star was attached to it ? That they didn't get better third party financier because a star was attach ?

 

How do we know if the really excellent world release (IMAX 3D screens, every market almost at the same time, all of them in the same 7 days windows) was not achieved because a star was attached to the movie ? That she didn't helped Russia nice performance ?

 

Why is the exit poll say that 39% of the audience had her as a reason to by a ticket if she was not a draw ?

[drdungbeetle]

It costs something like 30 mil to get both J-Law and Pratt for Passengers. They clearly weren't worth it, especially when the movie probably could've made a decent profit at 50 mil with a lower profile cast. They both brought nothing to that movie in terms of fanbase.

[drdungbeetle]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

 

Deadline figures are people doing estimate, they think Paramount will lose money they do not know.

 

 

I doubt that it is true, how to you know if dreamworks didn't gain when it came time to find a distributor in the movie to have a star attach to it ? How do we know if they didn't got more in pre-sales like those:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/chinese-ticketing-service-weying-takes-stake-paramounts-ghost-shell-987261

 

Because a star was attached to it ? That they didn't get better third party financier because a star was attach ?

 

How do we know if the really excellent world release (IMAX 3D screens, every market almost at the same time, all of them in the same 7 days windows) was not achieved because a star was attached to the movie ? That she didn't helped Russia nice performance ?

 

Why is the exit poll say that 39% of the audience had her as a reason to by a ticket if she was not a draw ?

Ah yes, the "those numbers are fake but my imaginary head numbers are correct" argument.

Nobody but you seems to be arguing that Ghost is not a bomb. Deadline has even provided a structural analysis of why they think it's a bomb. 

You're arguing that ScarJo is somehow justified because of Russia...? Even though this movie couldn't even bring home the bacon in its primary market?

[Dementeleus]

Barnack is right. Especially with these complicated production deals, unless it's an extreme result, it's hard to tell whether someone was "worth it" or not. Presales and foreign investment is heavily dependent on talent involved with a project.

[drdungbeetle]

I'm sure all that sweet Wanda/DaLian/Russian mob cash is really happy about a 20 mil opening.

[Barnack]

7 hours ago, drdungbeetle said:

It costs something like 30 mil to get both J-Law and Pratt for Passengers. They clearly weren't worth it

 

The rumors are that 50%+ of that movie achieved to be co-financed and/or pre-sold, from a studio point of view they were clearly worth it before the movie was finished too shoot, the movie was saved by their presence (exit poll show 78% of the audience naming Lawrence or Pratt as a reason to be there). the excellent release date and those deals, that Sony achieved to get purely because of the star power attach.

 

Quote

 

especially when the movie probably could've made a decent profit at 50 mil with a lower profile cast. 

 

 

 

 

That is pure speculation, the movie Life:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=life2017.htm

 

Is a bit what you are describing, around 50-60 million budget, lower profile cast but still a B-list level and it about doubled Passenger on is rotten tomato score, had some horror genre put in it that can work very well, will it make a decent profit ? No. Passenger will make a small to good (depending on the pre-sales/co-financier deal) profit for Sony, Life will loose money for them. Why do you think Passenger will make more than 4 time the world box office of Life while having a significantly worst reception ?

Edited April 7, 2017 by Barnack

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, drdungbeetle said:

Ah yes, the "those numbers are fake but my imaginary head numbers are correct" argument.

 

never said fake, I said they do not know (they are very clear about them not knowing, in that article the movie did cost between 110 and 180, Paramount is exposed between 30 and 70%, etc...)

[drdungbeetle]

I fail to see why funding this movie is a success when you could make 10 Blumhouse things with the money from it. Funding nonprofitable movies is not a "win" for the studio regardless of the fact that the stars can generate slightly more funding if cast. All that Chinese money dumped into losing Hollywood productions won't last forever, movies like Ghost will burn them.