Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[brideck]

Thought wrong. You are thinking of story credit and characters created by.
.He gets for story credit. But he also wrote and voiced every liscensed Ghostbusters video game project.

He even recorded game narration for Planet Coaster with Ray Stantz. He is a main character (not playable) in Ilfonic's Ghostbusters: Spirits Unleashed.
He hosts a show on Discovery Network.
He has been on a couple of recent Sitcoms.
There is a Blues Brothers Tv show in the works he is assisting with.

Its not A list work lately, but he does what he wants and doesn't do what he does not want to. He enjoys the heck out of Ghostbusters still and likes selling Crystal Head Vodka.
He has a movie right now in production.

He has not retired. He did just get separated/divorced Donna Dixon, one of the longest Hollywood Marriages and lost his very old dad recently before that. So I imagine that was rough. He is not a healthy spring chicken anymore either. His performance is said to be the best in the latest installment. He snaps back into Ray, as it is a caricature of himself, very well.

Your mothballed term was very much misused.

Since you seem intimately related to him, I'll let it be. To the average movie-going Joe Public like myself, though? They will only have seen him briefly for this property a couple times over the last 10 years.

FWIW, I don't see any video game credits on IMDb or Moby outside of a writing credit for a 2009 game (and its 2019 remaster) and voice work for both that and another 2022 game. If there should be more, they are not well-documented in the usual places for such things.

 

[celluloid]

Since you seem intimately related to him, I'll let it be. To the average movie-going Joe Public like myself, though? They will only have seen him briefly for this property a couple times over the last 10 years.

What the heck? Just being a realist. You were wrong when you said mothballed and later the phrase retired. And you can't admit that.

They have only seen him briefly in this property theatrically for the last ten years because there have only been two genuine attempts counting this one with him as the character the last ten years.
Again, unless you count the video games, which he has had a starring role in each one(as has Ernie Hudson, Bill Murray, William Atherton and Harold Ramis before his death for the first major video game.

Your same justification could be said about Toby Macguire, who has been off the radar of anything substantial but was "mothballed" (still not right use of the term but want to speak your language) for the supporting role in No Way Home.

 

[brideck]

Your same justification could be said about Toby Macguire, who has been off the radar of anything substantial but was "mothballed" (still not right use of the term but want to speak your language) for the supporting role in No Way Home.

I would use the term blacklisted with Tobey Maguire, but yes... his inclusion was obviously a nostalgia ploy there, too. In his case, I think he would be working more if he could get the roles. He seemed to enjoy being unhinged in Babylon.

 

[celluloid]

I would use the term blacklisted with Tobey Maguire, but yes... his inclusion was obviously a nostalgia ploy there, too. In his case, I think he would be working more if he could get the roles. He seemed to enjoy being unhinged in Babylon.

Explain how Aykroyd was mothballed from the Ghostbusters Franchise?

 

[brideck]

Explain how Aykroyd was mothballed from the Ghostbusters Franchise?

From Ghostbusters? He wasn't.

From being a regular on-screen presence? Yeah, he disappeared into a drawer 10 years ago, and for the most part only comes out infrequently to voice or portray Ray. I would hazard the guess that most people under the age of 20 would not generally recognize him.

 

[celluloid]

From Ghostbusters? He wasn't.

From being a regular on-screen presence? Yeah, he disappeared into a drawer 10 years ago, and for the most part only comes out infrequently to voice or portray Ray. I would hazard the guess that most people under the age of 20 would not generally recognize him.

Probably safe to presume the same for many characters when it comes to sequels. You either know who it is or if you are not a fan, you don't?

Their other work is irrelevant unless a movie was just going for star power. Celebrity star power is a different discussion altogether. It is funny you are so cynical about it when it would actually mean more that someone was cast for their character portrayal and not popularity. If people under the age of 20 have seen the other Ghostbusters films, they will. As he has been in each one.

Mothballed-As a verb, "mothball" has a metaphorical usage, meaning "to stop work on an idea, plan, or job, but leaving it in such a way that work can continue in the future". " Mothballed" is a common adjective to describe ships or aircraft which are stored for long periods, but not sent for scrapping.
The dude never retired from acting or entertaining.
Phrase does not really apply here with your ten-years mothball situation. As there was never ten years of ghostbusters without him or his character.

 

[Tha Realest]

It is weird when Disney pulls people out of retirement for a nostalgia play.

Heck, recently they brought back their retired CEO and just this week they’ve trotted out the also retired Bob Weis, Joe Rohde, and George Lucas to make an impassioned nostalgia plea.

 

[Tha Realest]

@brideck are you really taking the position that dusting off retired (or *permantently retired*) actors to boost an IP is a cynical move? Because you might want to sit down…

 

[brideck]

@brideck are you really taking the position that dusting off retired (or *permantently retired*) actors to boost an IP is a cynical move? Because you might want to sit down…

Indeed, I am. Though I don't think I would include Patrick Stewart (and possibly Warwick Davis) in that list of examples as he's worked steadily up to present. You must have me confused with someone who thinks that any of those things were a particularly good idea.

 

[DKampy]

Indeed, I am. Though I don't think I would include Patrick Stewart (and possibly Warwick Davis) in that list of examples as he's worked steadily up to present. You must have me confused with someone who thinks that any of those things were a particularly good idea.

Yes… I don’t understand arguing your debate with the use of those Characters…as if I were to guess you are not a fan of most of it… as far as I can tell from what I see you post here is that you want completely new and original stories which is why you prefer independent cinema

 

[brideck]

Yes… I don’t understand arguing your debate with the use of those Characters…as if I were to guess you are not a fan of most of it… as far as I can tell from what I see you post here is that you want completely new and original stories which is why you prefer independent cinema

Indeed. I see a fair amount of mainstream stuff, too, but most of it's... just okay. There are directors (Nolan, Villeneuve, Cuaron, etc.) that do great work in that sphere, but it's harder to come by.

But heck, I thought parts of Argylle were gloriously stupid fun (particularly two wonderfully staged action sequences near the end) and people seemed to pretty much universally hate that movie. ETA: And I think I might even be skipping out this afternoon to catch Madame Web because I can't resist a potentially great train wreck.

 

[DKampy]

Indeed. I see a fair amount of mainstream stuff, too, but most of it's... just okay. There are directors (Nolan, Villeneuve, Cuaron, etc.) that do great work in that sphere, but it's harder to come by.

But heck, I thought parts of Argylle were gloriously stupid fun (particularly two wonderfully staged action sequences near the end) and people seemed to pretty much universally hate that movie. ETA: And I think I might even be skipping out this afternoon to catch Madame Web because I can't resist a potentially great train wreck.

I agree with you about Argyle… that film was so ridiculous… I actually had fun with it… I thought I was the only one

 

[celluloid]

Yes… I don’t understand arguing your debate with the use of those Characters…as if I were to guess you are not a fan of most of it… as far as I can tell from what I see you post here is that you want completely new and original stories which is why you prefer independent cinema

Define the terms completely new and original?

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

From Ghostbusters? He wasn't.

From being a regular on-screen presence? Yeah, he disappeared into a drawer 10 years ago, and for the most part only comes out infrequently to voice or portray Ray. I would hazard the guess that most people under the age of 20 would not generally recognize him.

Aykroyd has been trying to get Ghostbusters sequels made for ages. If Bill Murray hadn't held out I'd bet we'd have seen at least one more movie back in the day.

He's not being dragged out of retirement to do this. This is a realization of his dream.

I also reject the dismissal of legacy casting as cynical nostalgia. He's alive and well so why wouldn't he be in Ghostbusters 4?

It's a weird argument to me, that a Ghostbusters movie shouldn't include the Ghostbusters.

It sounds like Aykroyd is also happy to pass the baton and support the new cast. He's involved as he should be but is also aware a modern Ghostbusters movie isn't going to just be the originals as sole leads.

 

[celluloid]

Aykroyd has been trying to get Ghostbusters sequels made for ages. If Bill Murray hadn't held out I'd bet we'd have seen at least one more movie back in the day.

He's not being dragged out of retirement to do this. This is a realization of his dream.

I also reject the dismissal of legacy casting as cynical nostalgia. He's alive and well so why wouldn't he be in Ghostbusters 4?

It's a weird argument to me, that a Ghostbusters movie shouldn't include the Ghostbusters.

It sounds like Aykroyd is also happy to pass the baton and support the new cast. He's involved as he should be but is also aware a modern Ghostbusters movie isn't going to just be the originals as sole leads.

This is nail on the head.

Reviews are saying, funny enough with all this disdain for him from someone , that he is one of the best parts/performance of the new movie. That shines through because the dude enjoys himself with it and as you said, has wanted this to happen long before back in the 90s. It also helps he charges pennies on the dollar so to speak for this passion, which helped keep costa down.
To bring it back to this thread of box office:

I read Frozen Empire had a budget similar to Afterlife at 100 million. For the franchise and spectacle it is, that is cheap for these days and even if a fifth does does not happen. Sony likely won't be bummed about much.

 

[brideck]

I also reject the dismissal of legacy casting as cynical nostalgia. He's alive and well so why wouldn't he be in Ghostbusters 4?

It's a weird argument to me, that a Ghostbusters movie shouldn't include the Ghostbusters.

New Ghostbusters stuff should absolutely take place in the universe of the previous movies and should acknowledge that through story, setting, etc. There is no reason that the original characters (now in their 70s) would need to actually suit back up and bust ghosts at any particular time, and the story is probably unnecessarily complicated just in order to make that happen.

 

[brideck]

To bring it back to this thread of box office:

I read Frozen Empire had a budget similar to Afterlife at 100 million. For the franchise and spectacle it is, that is cheap for these days and even if a fifth does does not happen. Sony likely won't be bummed about much.

I think Afterlife was cited at $75m, so on BO alone it maaaybe barely squeaked by. [We can let TP do the big table-driven breakdown, if he wants.] I'm sure there are all sorts of ancillary benefits with an IP like this, though, as Sony said it did fine for them.

It'll have to improve on those numbers with a slightly larger budget. The market is definitely better than it was in 2021, but can this movie improve on its predecessor? We'll see. For a comp, Afterlife opened at $44m.

 

[DKampy]

New Ghostbusters stuff should absolutely take place in the universe of the previous movies and should acknowledge that through story, setting, etc. There is no reason that the original characters (now in their 70s) would need to actually suit back up and bust ghosts at any particular time, and the story is probably unnecessarily complicated just in order to make that happen.

I agree… New Ghostbusters should take place in the universe which is why I said in my original post that the last movie was perfect in bringing in the old characters to pass the baton… now let the new actors breathe new life into the film…as they are all likable enough… not just rely on the same old stuff that they have been doing since the first one… Ghostbusters seems like the type of IP that you could get really creative with it

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I read Frozen Empire had a budget similar to Afterlife at 100 million. For the franchise and spectacle it is, that is cheap for these days and even if a fifth does does not happen. Sony likely won't be bummed about much.

The budget is smart. They know this franchise isn't going to Avengers business so they keep things where they should turn a profit.

It's also a well known property that people will seek out post theatrical, even if the initial release doesn't do super well. It's not a movie that will bomb and then be ignored.

I'm curious to see how it does. Afterlife had the nostalgia factor and return of the originals. That won't be a novelty this time. Afterlife was released during that nebulous COVID period I believe which would have hurt it a bit. Then, this one isn't getting great reviews. We'll see how it lands.

So many movie franchises, especially of that era, went crazy with budgets for sequels.

Die Hard was a movie about an everyday cop forced into an extraordinary situation. It was all contained in a pretty basic setting. By the fourth movie he's jumping on fighter jets and the franchise has morphed into an action franchise that completely ignores who the character is and why the first film resonated.

Lethal Weapon was about conflict between two characters, one of which had real mental health issues. That was the core of the movie and why it worked. By the fourth movie they're driving a car off a bridge, through an office building, and back onto the road.

A movie does well, they get a higher budget, and seem to forget what made the movie work in the first place. Maybe they see that with Ghostbusters. They don't need to turn it into two straight hours of CGI ghosts. They can keep the scale reasonable and spend time with the characters.

On a side note, I wonder why they don't reuse the technique of Ghostbusters 2016 for the 3D version. That was the rare movie I thought really benefitted from clever use of 3D. They filmed and presented it in a way that the effects went beyond the standard film image and was a cool technique. It's a great way to enhance the theatrical release without spending more money, and is in incentive to see it in a theater in a premium format.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

So maybe what people are saying when they say they want Disney to "tell original stories", is that they really want them to adapt anew some more stuff? I can buy that. It's just not actually what they're saying.

I don't think half of them know what they want. They just think Jesus gives them bonus Heaven Points if they don't go see a cartoon with a gay character in it.

And I have nothing against Dan Aykroyd at all, but when a movie franchise essentially pulls someone out of retirement it does smack of a cynical nostalgia play to me.

I disagree here. It makes perfect sense. Some would be disappointed without him.

I would use the term blacklisted with Tobey Maguire, but yes... his inclusion was obviously a nostalgia ploy there, too. In his case, I think he would be working more if he could get the roles. He seemed to enjoy being unhinged in Babylon.

I can't see the post to which you are responding here, thanks to the ignore feature, so forgive me if I'm misreading something. What happened with Tobey Maguire being blacklisted? I always thought he was one of the better young actors of his day. As for the "nostalgia play," I'm sure that was part of it, but again it made total sense. If you are showing a multiverse, why would it intentionally omit previously known characters? They exist. They've aged appropriately. They have something to offer in terms of advice and perspective. It totally fit, and did hit a nostalgia nerve at the same time. Also, it was a surprise, I believe. I don't think it was advertised in the trailer or elsewhere, so it wouldn't have brought people into theaters until word of mouth got around (at least 4 seconds LOL.) It was well done, and I loved it. Now, if Tobey Maguire made his own full length Spider Man movie, that would almost be pulling a Harrison Ford (even though I enjoyed the last Indy film.)

I would hazard the guess that most people under the age of 20 would not generally recognize him.

Who cares? People under the age of 20 don't run the world. I have more money and more free time. People under 20 should watch the first Ghostbusters.

I also reject the dismissal of legacy casting as cynical nostalgia.

Agreed.

I agree… New Ghostbusters should take place in the universe which is why I said in my original post that the last movie was perfect in bringing in the old characters to pass the baton… now let the new actors breathe new life into the film…as they are all likable enough… not just rely on the same old stuff that they have been doing since the first one… Ghostbusters seems like the type of IP that you could get really creative with it

If you're trying to reach all audiences and bring the most people into the theater, put all those actors in it. The time will come soon enough when the older actors won't be available. (Hello, Princess Leia.) Then lean more heavily on the new ones.