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

[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.

 

[brideck]

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.)

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.

These both kind of went together, so I'll do my best to explain. There was a lot of questioning of my use of the term "mothballed" wrt Dan Aykroyd, so they asked if I would use that term for Tobey Maguire, since he more or less disappeared from movies, too. I wouldn't. I don't think he was formally blacklisted, but something definitely happened to him between Molly Bloom's illegal poker games and his being a complete nozzle. [For more on both, see the Aaron Sorkin movie Molly's Game where he's more or less portrayed by Michael Cera. It is not flattering.]

The 20-year old comment is then specific to the notion of bringing back pseudo-retired actors. There's a contrived payoff that's forced into the main spine of the movie, and it only benefits people who are familiar with those older elements. In a world where so many things are franchises, etc. it becomes really wearying to feel like every single movie comes with its own set of homework. "You gotta watch these 3 movies first, man. Then you'll love it." There should be enough in a movie that would make an older audience member (like myself) appreciate it, even if that guy I loved from 40 years ago isn't in it.

 

[celluloid]

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.

And it opened when people say pandemic still effected numbers. For comparison Encanto did not break 100 domestically.
It also sold very well at home and was in a top spot for paid digital downloads. Sony, benefitted from having anywhere it was streaming pay for it. Word of mouth of how great it was compared to feared did it well at home. Very impressive for the damage 2016 had done. It takes awhile to come back and warm trust, we talked about that. Ghostbusters is proof you can for at least two films with original storyline rather than a remake.

I don't know if the movie will improve finances of its predecessor, but it is clear that they were frugal, still are and it was enough for Sony to greenlight another rather quickly. I doubt it will do what happened to Dune, but it will be healthy enough for Sony not to regret much.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

The 20-year old comment is then specific to the notion of bringing back pseudo-retired actors. There's a contrived payoff that's forced into the main spine of the movie, and it only benefits people who are familiar with those older elements. In a world where so many things are franchises, etc. it becomes really wearying to feel like every single movie comes with its own set of homework. "You gotta watch these 3 movies first, man. Then you'll love it." There should be enough in a movie that would make an older audience member (like myself) appreciate it, even if that guy I loved from 40 years ago isn't in it.

IMO, one should watch the first Ghostbusters before watching any of these new ones regardless of which actors are in it. A story is a story.

You may be right, but only in reference to the nostalgia factor, when suggesting young people don't know an actor, so they must "study up" or they won't appreciate that actor/character.

I think if an actor is a good actor, then they will bring something to the film that any audience member can appreciate.

Further, if an actor has played a role before (especially if they shined in that role) they have the potential to bring something truly special to that character vs. an actor just stepping into it - especially in a series that is not being rebooted/reinterpreted.

 

[DKampy]

In reading some of the reviews of the new Ghostbusters it appears it is overstuffed with having to find time for the old and new characters alike… perhaps they should of written 2 films… one that focused the new characters… and another focusing on the original characters…that could be comedy gold… having Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd playing older grumpier versions of their characters from their first film

They also say this one is too self serious with Patton Oswald’s character being a highlight and adding a fresh of breath air… with one critic saying they would like to see a whole movie based on his character…in my mind the original Ghostbusters was always a comedy first with some great one liners

I would like to preface everything I have said is also based off a trailer… I have not seen the film yet…I may think the movie is fantastic… a trailers jobs is to tell me why I need to see this movie… the trailer felt like it was just a nostalgic play… and I am not talking about just the original actors…stuff like including the State Puff Marshmallow gag which they just did in the last movie…the trailer failed at telling me how this movie stands on it’s own

 

[TP2000]

Don't confuse the claim to think that I mean that all franchises/sequels or nostalgia plays are successful. There are too many of varying quality for that to possibly be true. But I'll definitely stand behind the statement that the overwhelming majority of movies having the kind of BO grosses that people in this thread are seeking are part of franchises and/or well-established IPs.

I'll do some work for y'all. Here's the complete list of Top 20 films since 2018 [truncated to movies that made >$100m domestically] that I see that don't fall into that category:
- Bohemian Rhapsody (grudgingly -- Queen is obviously a successful brand, but biopics are in a unique space)
- A Quiet Place
- Crazy Rich Asians
- Us
- Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood
- Knives Out
- 1917
- Little Women
- Free Guy
- Jungle Cruise
- Elvis (again debatable)
- Uncharted (based on a video game series)
- Nope
- Smile
- The Lost City
- Bullet Train
- Oppenheimer
- Sound of Freedom (which people didn't actually go see, but had viral ticket sales/donations)
- Taylor Swift
- Elemental
- Five Nights at Freddy's (based on a video game series)
- Migration

Some of those are very generous decisions on my part to not consider them a well-established IP, so at best that makes only 22 of the last 97 domestic hits something relatively new/original, and only two of those (Oppenheimer & Bohemian Rhapsody) made more than $200m here. So, sure... only 80-85% of recent hits have been franchises, and only >95% of the megahits.

Your point is very valid. I would just add that if pre-existing characters and/or well known people like Taylor Swift Eras Tour or Five Nights at Freddy's or Elvis (which I actually saw and liked) is in there, then Barbie (which I actually saw and LOVED) should be in there too.

If Barbie had been a cheesy kiddy movie with bad Saturday morning animation or a schmaltzy live-action thing with awful Disney Channel acting, then I wouldn't include it in your list. But Barbie took a well known thing and sent it in a very different and unique and thrilling direction. Elvis stuck factually close to the life story and real events we all know. Barbie showed us the life story and unique culture we had no idea actually existed, and it was fabulous.