Weekend Thread | Read first post for rules | Weekend #s: Pets 50.56M, GB 46M, Tarzan 11.1M, FTF 11M, MND 7.5M, Purge 6M

[Arlborn]

 

4 minutes ago, JediJones said:

Girlbusters is a colossal failure any way you look at it.

 

God, we just got ourselves a MRA member.

[JediJones]

Spare me the name-calling and dispute my analysis if you disagree.

[robertman2]

7 minutes ago, JediJones said:

Girlbusters is a colossal failure any way you look at it. This was one of the greatest brand names in movies, a visible franchise that has never stopped producing tie-in comic books and merchandise, one of the dormant properties with the biggest nostalgia and built-in fanbase based on an original movie that has proved timeless in its content if not in all of its effects. Just like Indiana Jones, knock-offs of the basic premise have been produced and been successful for years while the franchise remained dormant. Ghostbusters outgrossed Temple of Doom in 1984 and had an almost equal opening week to Last Crusade in 1989. Arguably, Ghostbusters had retained an even more enthusiastic fanbase than Indiana Jones with more cosplay action and a wider array of successful merchandise for many years up to the point of the new movie's release. If Sony had produced a proper sequel that respected the vast, rich 30-year legacy of the Ghostbusters universe, the way that was done for Star Wars and in an even more apt comparison Indiana Jones, the movie would have had a massive opening similar to Crystal Skull.

 

What we're seeing with the box office performance is flat-lining interest from the actual fans who should've been the built-in audience that gets satisfied first before an attempt to expand on the audience was made. The Thursday preview numbers, especially from premium format screens, were atrocious and paled in comparison to the advance sales we're seeing for Star Trek and Suicide Squad, films making every attempt to satisfy their fanbase first. Those are the screenings that the fans would've filled up under normal circumstances. Instead Sony said, screw the Ghostbusters fans, and is trying to cobble together an audience from the most casual moviegoers, resulting in a deeply depressed box office performance compared to the guaranteed potential that was there. When you take what may be the biggest comedy franchise of all time, with a huge curiosity factor as to where the story could have gone in a sequel, and can only muster up a box office performance on par with the last no-name Paul Feig comedy, you are doing everything all wrong.

 

For the supporters of the cinematic abortion Girlbusters to be spinning a chance for it to maybe, possibly break even in the long, long run as some kind of success is simply preposterous. This is as much of a wrongheaded reboot and a box office disappointment as Superman Returns was. There is only one way for Sony to redeem the franchise and that is to do what WB did with Superman Returns, pretend it never happened and do something different and more respectful to the original film next time. Superman is not supposed to be an absentee father with a bastard Superkid and the Ghostbusters are not supposed to be 4 women. There are basic lines you don't cross with a property if you want to avoid destroying the essence of what made its characters likable and popular in the first place.

Agreed. This should have been a surefire success, but it wasn't. This will be lucky to break even since OS markets aren't caring for it. And of course, the supporters of this are gonna dismiss you, because they're delusional.

[Blankments]

10 minutes ago, JediJones said:

Superman is not supposed to be an absentee father with a bastard Superkid and the Ghostbusters are not supposed to be 4 women. 

This sentence starts really well and then completely falls off a cliff.

[filmlover]

Lawd, some people be pressed.

 

I'm happy we just got a fun movie out of all this. Hail Feig!

[Goffe]

1 hour ago, The Futurist said:

Traditional animation is artistically & visually  limited, CGI movies have more depth, more complexity, a bigger color palette, astounding visual precision, incredible action, animation  and perspectives.

Characters look more alive, landscapes have no limitations, you can have giant crowds etc the only limit is your imagination.

 

There is a reason traditional animation died a very quick death with not a lot of people crying over it.

 

It was just a limited art form surpassed by a new,more complex & advanced film language with endless possibilities that is still evolving year after year.

 

Myazaki fans are either precious western cinephiles who think they see a delicate flower when they see a Ghibli film  or japanese citizens who actually truly understand the soul of Ghibli films because they are so imbued with the Japanese culture which is very peculiar.

So western cinephiles (the delicate flowers lovers) are in love with Ghibli because it s so different and exotic to them, it makes them feel special to be the only one in their entourage to "get" Ghibli movies ( it reinforces their superiority complex as the masters race of movie goers, Pixar & Disney are basic to them for the most part), which they really don't for the reason stated above.

 

The harsh reality is that outside of Japan, not a lot people really gives a crap about Ghibli and traditional animation anymore.

 

Renderman has won, sorry guys.

 

 

 

 

you are truly a piece of work.

[Impact]

Well as I said a few posts up-noticing very mixed reviews from fans of the first 2.

 

Well this should be Sony's biggest film of the year (I think)

 

In other news-I didn't realize The Shallows was doing that well until I looked at the top 10 today.

[MovieMan89]

Lol @ "girlbusters", sounds like a movie about trying to "out" drag queens or something. 

[JediJones]

Do you think you can just recast all the male characters in ANY movie with females and have it come out exactly the same or exactly as good? How about in the other direction? Can you recast Bridesmaids with all men and have it work just as well? Why do some people demand that more movies focus on womens' issues and concerns if you can supposedly make a movie with either gender and put the exact same content in it and have it work the same?

Ghostbusters was a hybrid of many genres, one of them being an Animal House-style frathouse comedy. Much of the comedy came from Bill Murray spending a lot of his time trying to get laid. All the 4 Ghostbusters had in their own way, some very specific male traits that are much less common in women. You put those traits in men and vast numbers of people can relate to them, recognize them and identify with them, leading to a well-liked movie. You put those traits in women, and the amount of the audience who can relate to it goes down considerably. And if you ignore all those traits and come up with radically different characterizations for your remake, you're not really remaking the original at all. You're just making a different movie and slapping a misleading brand name on it. And that type of approach has always been viewed as a rip-off and spelled poor box office returns.

 

Ghostbusters, judging by the people who made this movie, was simply about the technical premise of a company that busts ghosts. To them it wasn't about specific characters. That would be like saying Star Wars was about spaceships shooting at each other and that Disney could've just rebooted it with completely different characters and had an equal success to what they did. George Lucas knew Star Wars wasn't about its superficial premise, it was about its characters, most notably the Skywalker family. Disney continued with that attitude and had a popular movie because of it.

Edited July 17, 2016 by JediJones

[filmlover]

Just now, MovieMan89 said:

Lol @ "girlbusters", sounds like a movie about trying to "out" drag queens or something. 

I suggest the sequel actually have drag queens in them and their new boss being RuPaul. That's almost guaranteed to get the whiny manbabies even more up in arms than this movie did.

[Blankments]

2 minutes ago, Impact said:

Well this should be Sony's biggest film of the year (I think)

 

Passengers and Magnificent Seven should both be bigger I imagine

[Gautske]

Just now, JediJones said:

Do you think you can just recast all the male characters in ANY movie with females and have it come out exactly the same or exactly as good? How about in the other direction? Can you recast Bridesmaids with all men and have it work just as well? Why do some people demand that more movies focus on womens' issues and concerns if you can supposedly make a movie with either gender and put the exact same content in it and have it work the same?

Ghostbusters was a hybrid of many genres, one of them being an Animal House-style frathouse comedy. Much of the comedy came from Bill Murray spending a lot of his time trying to get laid. All the 4 Ghostbusters had in their own way, some very specific male traits that are much less common in women. You put those traits in men and vast numbers of people can relate to them, recognize them and identify with them, leading to a well-liked movie. You put those traits in women, and the amount of the audience who can relate to it goes down considerably. And if you ignore all those traits and come up with radically different characterizations for your remake, you're not really remaking the original at all. You're just making a different movie and slapping a misleading brand name on it.

 

This is totally for you... Courtesy of the LA Times... Oh it's coming... 

 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-ghostbusters-remake-reaction-20160716-snap-htmlstory.html

 

(there's a poll to vote in too!)

[Impact]

Just now, Blanks McCoy said:

Passengers and Magnificent Seven should both be bigger I imagine

I was thinking M7 has a great chance, but it is a western, not the biggest genre (granted it will do well where I live, ironically Django didn't do as well as most other westerns out here, then again that is more of a southern film and not as relatable as the other ones)

 

Fox is the only major studio this year without a bomb I think. (Ice Age 5 doesn't even have to be released in the US, it will still make a profit thanks to OS lol)

[POTUS 2020]

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Rman823 said:

I truly hope Lights Out beats Ice Age (I know it's  unlikely but couldn't there be some sort of animated animal fatigue ?). If the reviews are any indication it's going to be incredible and horror is on a roll this year. 

He already has one. @a2knet

[MovieMan89]

Random note: something about seeing Magnificent Seven typed out is making my brain auto-correct it to Maleficent. 

[UrosepsisFace]

Greatest animated movie is Transformers The Movie 1986. It had the touch. It had the power.

 

Speaking of traditional animation, anybody making a guess at how much Killing Joke will make?

[Chaz]

king of the comic book box office tbh (ot i know but i'm bored)

 

look at these adjusted opening weekend receipts

 

Batman - $87,506,800

Batman Returns - $94,458,000

Mask of the Phantasm - $2,466,000

Batman Forever - $104,112,700

Batman and Robin - $80,140,990

Batman Begins - $65,247,400

The Dark Knight - $189,299,500

The Dark Knight Rises - $177,434,000

Batman vs. Superman - $166,007,347

[MovieMan89]

3 minutes ago, Chaz said:

king of the comic book box office tbh (ot i know but i'm bored)

 

look at these adjusted opening weekend receipts

 

Batman - $87,506,800

Batman Returns - $94,458,000

Mask of the Phantasm - $2,466,000

Batman Forever - $104,112,700

Batman and Robin - $80,140,990

Batman Begins - $65,247,400

The Dark Knight - $189,299,500

The Dark Knight Rises - $177,434,000

Batman vs. Superman - $166,007,347

If that pattern holds, the next Batman film will open to 155m. 

[JediJones]

Here's another box office measurement to look at. GB1 was the 2nd biggest movie of 1984 and GB2 was the 7th biggest movie of 1989, domestically. Based on last year's chart, making $131 to $150 million would put GB16 at position 23 in the top 100.

 

Again, the entire premise of making a sequel, reboot or remake based on a brand name is to get a built-in audience to prop your box office up. It's not supposed to start you off at a disadvantage because you did something to tick off the original fans. There was simply no point in making this movie if that was going to be the approach. They should've used the budget to let Paul Feig make 3 of his cheaper, non-brand-name movies instead.

Edited July 17, 2016 by JediJones

[robertman2]

4 minutes ago, UrosepsisFace said:

Greatest animated movie is Transformers The Movie 1986. It had the touch. It had the power.

 

Speaking of traditional animation, anybody making a guess at how much Killing Joke will make?

That's not even a theatrical release though

And yes, Transformers 1986 is great