tylergfoster wrote: ↑March 1st, 2024, 10:35 am Moving RichardLess and I's discussion from the general Frozen Empire thread to here in order to avoid clogging up the other one.
RichardLess wrote: ↑March 1st, 2024, 1:08 amAnd the cast’s lack of blockbuster roles doesn’t matter a single bit. i see it different. To me that is not how this works. Please let’s just think about the logic of it for a minute. People don’t say to themselves “Oh look! A new ghostbusters movie is coming out. It’s too bad Bill Murray hasn’t had a hit movie in awhile”.
I mean, that's not something I said, so, sure, I don't think that's what people would think. It's more like, "Man, Bill Murray's been making a lot of bad movies recently, and now he's running back to Ghostbusters to make a few extra bucks. The second one wasn't very good either, so I don't know..." Or, "Man, Dan Aykroyd just made a bad sequel to The Blues Brothers and now he wants to do Ghostbusters. Not getting my hopes up..."
In the end, the specific instinct I'm talking about is pretty minute and very subjective. It's simply that little switch in a person's mind between "I don't want to see that" or "I don't know if I want to see that" to "I'm willing to see that" or "I want to see that," and I think with sequels, there should also be some subconscious layer of "I was already expecting there to be more of these." I think that last part is pretty essential, and I just don't buy that general audiences, who in the early internet days, had probably not heard more than a few words about a Ghostbusters 3 for years, were sitting around going, "Well, where is it?" I was obviously as much of a fan then as I am now, and even I struggled to find, say, a passing referencing to Murray wanting to come back as a ghost in an issue of Wizard Magazine, and I just can't imagine the people who only go to the movies 5 times a year were seeing even that. Without that, I don't see where this big anticipation is coming from, because the series simply appears to be over. I believe you could have created a certain amount of hype for it simply by announcing it was happening between, say, 1999 and 2012, but I definitely see that hype being tempered by the quality of Ghostbusters II (even in a place like this there would've been people saying, "yeah, but Ghostbusters II...") and the cast's age and track record in recent years.
RichardLess wrote: ↑March 1st, 2024, 1:08 amI think the issue here is you are thinking Ghostbusters 2 is way more important than it is in anyone’s decision making. It was 1989. Again, prior to 2016, the majority of people’s association with Ghostbusters would be: The movie, the song or the cartoon. GB2’s biggest sin is probably how forgettable it was.
Like I said, I think even in a fan community like this there would be lots of people arguing that Ghostbusters II was lesser than the original and that Ghostbusters 3 could be lesser than that. I know lots of people in the fan community love the sequel, but I find it odd that you don't think that could possibly have been widely viewed as a strike against a third. It certainly was for many of the key folks involved in making it, who would often preface comments about a third one being developed with some variation on, "I don't think the second one was up to snuff."
I also think you're overestimating the cartoon. I think of the movie as being aimed at an "SNL" audience of young and middle-aged adults, and while it was obviously an unexpected success with younger audiences, I still think most people who liked it were already too old for the kid-aimed cartoon, which certainly has a nostalgia factor, but mostly for people of a certain age. RichardLess wrote: ↑March 1st, 2024, 1:08 amAs for Harrison Ford, Dial of Destiny would like a word with you. That movie tanked. Why? They popped the balloon with KOTC in 2008.
I also did not make any sort of case that Dial of Destiny was unaffected by Crystal Skull. That's essentially my reasoning as to why a negative stink of something like a Ghostbusters II would stick around through to a Ghostbusters 3, even though they are not perfect parallels for various reasons. It's like they say, when people have a bad experience with something, they're more likely to tell someone else about it than if they had a good one, and thus, even though 15 years passed between the two movies, people still had that skepticism that a new Indiana Jones could be as good as they wanted, and I see no reason that would not have held true with Ghostbusters II.
I’m so glad you brought up why that wouldn’t be the case with Ghostbusters 2.
See Ghostbusters 2 came out in the pre internet days. This is part of the reason Answer the Call destroyed the box office feasibility.
The internet era, meme culture, Nuke The Fridge. Remember that? Of course you do. Everyone does. That shit stays in the cultural zeitgeist. South Park made an episode about how bad Indy 4 was(which I actually kind of enjoy. I love the opening 45 minutes of that movie). So the association isn’t remotely the same as far as affect as on sequel on another.
You think I am overestimating the cartoon. I think you are overestimating the overestimation of my cartoon estimation.
I didn’t say it was incredibly important. I said that the association you would get in a room full of people would be 1 of three things. The song, the first movie or the cartoon. I said it was part of a franchise.
And I don’t know how old u are. But Real Ghostbusters was a huge show. The number 1 toy of the ‘87/‘88 season was the blue proton pack. Stores couldn’t keep them in shelves. Those toys SOLD. So for a lot of kids, just like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turrles and Transformers, they were a large part of their childhood. Ghostbusters was an active cultural phenomenon until about 1990-1991.
I brought up Dial of Destiny because you mentioned how Harrison Ford was somehow different and to highlight that when you pop that bubble, you get…that.
Like I said, I think even in a fan community like this there would be lots of people arguing that Ghostbusters II was lesser than the original and that Ghostbusters 3 could be lesser than that. I know lots of people in the fan community love the sequel, but I find it odd that you don't think that could possibly have been widely viewed as a strike against a third. It certainly was for many of the key folks involved in making it, who would often preface comments about a third one being developed with some variation on, "I don't think the second one was up to snuff."
Interesting, see what you did there? Did you catch it? Okay. I think this is super interesting.
You said even the fan community views the 2nd film as a “lesser” film. I 1000% agree with you. A lesser film. Most fans and non fans alike would agree on that.
You want to know an interesting fact? I’m sure you’ve heard of “Cinemascore” right? For those that don’t know who might be reading this it’s like a political poll only for movies. Audiences are asked to rate a movie on a scale of F-A+
Ghostbusters 2 got an A-. That’s a very good score.
So a lesser film? Yes. A meh film? Yes. A bad film? No.
Bill Murray has changed his tune over the years about GB2 but Ivan Reitman was proud of it, Danny was proud of it, and Harold had mixed things to say.
I mean, that's not something I said, so, sure, I don't think that's what people would think. It's more like, "Man, Bill Murray's been making a lot of bad movies recently, and now he's running back to Ghostbusters to make a few extra bucks. The second one wasn't very good either, so I don't know..." Or, "Man, Dan Aykroyd just made a bad sequel to The Blues Brothers and now he wants to do Ghostbusters. Not getting my hopes up..."
I didn’t say it was something you said I’m saying that’s the internal faulty logic of your assumption on how an audience member selects a movie.
In the end, the specific instinct I'm talking about is pretty minute and very subjective. It's simply that little switch in a person's mind between "I don't want to see that" or "I don't know if I want to see that" to "I'm willing to see that" or "I want to see that," and I think with sequels, there should also be some subconscious layer of "I was already expecting there to be more of these." I think that last part is pretty essential, and I just don't buy that general audiences, who in the early internet days, had probably not heard more than a few words about a Ghostbusters 3 for years, were sitting around going, "Well, where is it?" I was obviously as much of a fan then as I am now, and even I struggled to find, say, a passing referencing to Murray wanting to come back as a ghost in an issue of Wizard Magazine, and I just can't imagine the people who only go to the movies 5 times a year were seeing even that. Without that, I don't see where this big anticipation is coming from, because the series simply appears to be over. I believe you could have created a certain amount of hype for it simply by announcing it was happening between, say, 1999 and 2012, but I definitely see that hype being tempered by the quality of Ghostbusters II (even in a place like this there would've been people saying, "yeah, but Ghostbusters II...") and the cast's age and track record in recent years.
Bill Murrays been making a lot of bad movies lately? Yes, actors make bad movies. If that’s how people decided their movie watching no actor would go thru a dry spells and then have a hit. You are also confusing “bad” with “did not make much money”. Murray was nominated for an Oscar in 2004. He became Wes Anderson’s muse. He was the best part of Zombieland and he’s a beloved cultural icon. He had a documentary made just from the legendary stories that circulate about him. Murray wasn’t making bad movies. Beyond Garfield and City of Ember He was making different movies that didn’t have 4 quadrant mass appeal. That’s an important distinction.
There was lots of hype about Ghostbusters 3. It was all over AICN, IGN, Countingdone and TV newsmagazines. Murray not talking about it doesn’t surprise me because Murray didn’t want to do it and dropped the amount of press he did post Space Jam/That Elephant movie.
If Hype is making the news then anyone who waited for a GB3 can attest to how often it was talked about. Why it didnt show up in your magazine about Wizards, I’m not sure. Wasn’t that primarily a video game mag?
GB3, much like Indy 4, would go thru cycles of news and discussion. It would get cold for a while, then around 2007ish it heated up again. And again. And again.
Just to get a sense of how far we are apart on this. Is your contention that a Ghostbusters 3, released in 2010-12, with the original cast passing the torch, would have made the same or less than ATC’s opening weekend?
Ghostbusters is one of those few movies that exists, like Back to the Future, like E.T. or Raiders or the Lost Ark. it’s one of those movies 9 out of 10 people really enjoy. It’s not, or didn’t use to be prior to ATC, political or controversial. It’s a fun time at the movies. A forgettable sequel, and some actors who haven’t had big hits in awhile aren’t going to change that.
If I had to guess, a Ghostbusters 3 would open, AT LEAST OPEN, to a domestic gross of 80-100 million in 2012.
See I actually think the opening of ATC, now that it’s all said & done, was high. That movie had nothing but horseshit thrown at it from every angle, one of the worst trailers ever made next to Jack & Jill(who released that?), constant political back & forth. I mean all the press ATC got should show u how important these movies are. It was negative, negative, negative and that it managed anything above 25 million is a miracle. At the time I thought I was an embarrassment. But when you sit and think about it, the movie was a pariah. That year you didn’t bring up 4 things at parties instead of the usual 3. Sex, politics, religion—And Ghostbusters.
I’ve seen my fair share of focus groups and while I never saw one on Ghostbusters or anything comparable I did get to see how people chose their movies that they want to see and anytime it was something remotely familiar? Scores went up over the mean.
This one comes to mind.
So one of the focus groups run was one we called “The Red/Green Slide Show”(there was a Canadian show called Red Green Show so the name was a play on that). So how “The Red/Green Slide Show” worked was we’d show a group of people a selection of photos of actors and musicians or politicians. Everytime they had a positive or negative impression of the person shown on screen they’d hit a red or green button on their desk. Red for negative and green for positive. If it was neutral they wouldn’t do anything. So if, say, Don Cheadle’s face would come up & 70% liked him? 70% clicked green.
But this wasn’t about Don Cheadle. This one I remember specifically was about a Mel Gibson film. He was the star. But he’d been in lots of trouble prior to this. Racist/antisemitic stuff. Ugly shit. So before we show them a frame of footage from the movie, we do this slide show test. We show them a few different actors and musicians, then Mel’s face and name finally showed up. When it did 80% hit the red button( the negative button). And they hit it quick and hard(which the device measures). So afterwards we take all the buttons and gear away. Move them into a new room. And now we show them a trailer of the movie. For a movie staring Mel Gibson. After the trailer is done, we gave them a piece of paper to fill out. A questionnaire. How likely are they to see the movie in a theatre, or wait to rent it, recommend it, overall impression.etc You follow?
So With 80% having a negative opinion of Mel from pressing the red button, what do you think the % was of wanting to see the movie? 70%! 70% said they’d be willing to see the movie in theatre or rent it. After 80% saying they didn’t have a postive impression of the man. And people pressed that button hard & quick. So the quicker and harder the reaction? Then we quantify it as a STRONG emotion. Anyways. Just an interesting thing to think about.
I worked a lot of focus groups over the years at my prior job and there’s a reason film studios are scared of “New”. People are as well. They respond to what they know. The familiar.
- By ravencro
- By zeta otaku
- By OnEdge