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

[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.

 

[BuddyThomas]

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

Those reviews are just not helping convince me to see this. I think I’ll be going to Late Night With the Devil this weekend.

 

[DKampy]

Those reviews are just not helping convince me to see this. I think I’ll be going to Late Night With the Devil this weekend.

I hear Late Night With The Devil is fantastic

 

[BuddyThomas]

I hear Late Night With The Devil is fantastic

I forget if someone posted the trailer or not, but in case not:

 

[celluloid]

Both movies were fun for very different styles.

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire has kept the tone of the original where the last one was very much a coming of age film. Both serve as movies that compliment the source material into two films instead of same exact retread.

Aykroyd and Hudson have the most supporting cast screen time but used with purpose. And really mainly Aykroyd with exposition. Which makes sense considering bringing information to the new team and researching the new baddie.

They did not pull a Harrison Ford on us.
None of them were close to leading.
I have my critiques but glad it happened and great for a fourth installment.

I will be interested to see where Late Night With The Devil does with it's place in the box office.

Nice to have a choice of too fun movies in same weekend.

 

[brideck]

I hear Late Night With The Devil is fantastic

I made good on my threat to see both this and Madame Web today.

Shout out to @celluloid for bringing Late Night with the Devil to my attention earlier in the thread (and a general shout out to the mods for giving us some leeway to more generally geek out about movies in here regardless of whether or not they're Disney -- it's useful both for comparative purposes and just generally speaking), I probably would not have otherwise sought it out. It's a great slow-burn horror with a nice build-up to its finale. M & I are still unpacking the third act a bit.

And I didn't actually hate Madame Web like I thought I might. It is not a good movie, but that's more down to a couple of poor performances (not Dakota Johnson, by the way -- she's certainly been better, but was perfectly adequate in this) and a whole lot of ham-fisted dialogue than anything else. I think the bones for an interesting story are there, and if executed well could have served as a decent launching point for Sony to continue developing. Alas.

Also, (tongue firmly in cheek) this is how Columbia Pictures chose to honor their 100th anniversary? Ugh. Or... maybe 100th anniversaries don't actually mean anything other than Hollywood has recently hit a milestone.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

It's a great slow-burn horror with a nice build-up to its finale.

That sounds right up my alley. My only question with most horror films: is it super gory? I don’t generally enjoy those. Give me Poltergeist, Paranormal Activity, and The Exorcist all day long over any slasher or otherwise gross film. (I have to look away during the operating scenes of Doctor shows. )

 

[DKampy]

That sounds right up my alley. My only question with most horror films: is it super gory? I don’t generally enjoy those. Give me Poltergeist, Paranormal Activity, and The Exorcist all day long over any slasher or otherwise gross film. (I have to look away during the operating scenes of Doctor shows. )

Although I can sometimes watch gory/bloody movies… I do agree with you… sometimes a film is scarier in your mind as oppose to a slasher film which is just bloody…I am over the torture P**n movies as those are just how can we up the ante on how extreme can we get with the gore… my favorite type of horror is the slow burn

 

[brideck]

That sounds right up my alley. My only question with most horror films: is it super gory? I don’t generally enjoy those. Give me Poltergeist, Paranormal Activity, and The Exorcist all day long over any slasher or otherwise gross film. (I have to look away during the operating scenes of Doctor shows. )

Super gory? No. The red band trailer for In a Violent Nature that aired before the movie was probably gorier than this was as a whole. Having said that, there are a couple of moments near the end of the movie that'll probably make you squeam a bit. Nothing excessive at all, though.

 

[celluloid]

Box office reports of of early previews for Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire estimates are 4.7 million.

 

[brideck]

Box office reports of of early previews for Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire estimates are 4.7 million.

Both that amount and its projected opening weekend total ($43m-$45m) are essentially identical to what Afterlife did. It'll probably have to have some really good word-of-mouth to hit profitability (from BO alone).

 

[celluloid]

Both that amount and its projected opening weekend total ($43m-$45m) are essentially identical to what Afterlife did. It'll probably have to have some really good word-of-mouth to hit profitability (from BO alone).

Possibly. Audience score is way up currently at 87 percent.

 

[Disney Irish]

I saw Frozen Empire last night, I liked Afterlife better. Cast was fine, story just made some of the characters insufferable.

 

[DKampy]

I saw Frozen Empire last night, I liked Afterlife better. Cast was fine, story just made some of the characters insufferable.

Based on last nights polling it appears it may appeal to longtime Ghostbuster fans most with it’s nostalgia…it got pretty good ratings until you got to the under 25 segment were it did awful

 

[celluloid]

I saw Frozen Empire last night, I liked Afterlife better. Cast was fine, story just made some of the characters insufferable.

Review wise I would agree Afterlife is superior as it is a coming of age film that works. Not surprising as it was Jason Reitman's take on it. I also am shocked how good Gil did as I never liked Monster House but thst is prob not fair to the guy.
Tonally, this one was closer to an homage of the original in humor in certain flare.

One subplot I felt went on too far and too dimensional that got messy that I would discuss but the spoiler tag is not appearing on my mobile.

 

[Disney Irish]

Based on last nights polling it appears it may appeal to longtime Ghostbuster fans most with it’s nostalgia…it got pretty good ratings until you got to the under 25 segment were it did awful

Well I'm not under 25 lol, and saw the original in theaters.

Even from the nostalgia play, it really didn't have much beyond the brief appearances by some of the original cast. It shows why critics were harsher to this one than Afterlife. Afterlife was more of a nostalgia play for me.

I'm not sure how it'll do, but as others said probably around the same as Afterlife.