She's gorgeous, has a great voice and generally picks amazing movies to be in.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Deadline: Ghost in the Shell will Lose $60M+
- Thread starter kswiston
- Start date
- Status
Its a live action TV show and not a movie, but you could probably add Sword Art Online to that list, I feel.
(Yes that's coming. Written by the person who did Terminator Genisys. Sounds promising, eh?)
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
You forgot Batman that wears white instead of black.
It was never gonna happen. Now, it's never NEVER gonna happen.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
It would have at least thrown a bone to GitS fans. As it stands, it seems like it disappointed all parties.
(For what it's worth, I personally don't think it's a dumpster-fire or anything. Definitely could have been far worse. But still not anywhere near the GitS film I wanted. At least it's pretty. )
If we're comparing white actresses in that age range at a certain stardom level, I think she has more range and presence than Jennifer Lawrence. She's really good in all of her art house films, especially Under the Skin. As to her Marvel stuff, she isn't really given material or time to work with. They mostly use her as T&A to oogle at to be honest, except for maybe Winter Soldier.
I think Under the Skin is by far her best film in part because it kind of directly addresses, in a way, that she's famous for the way she looks. That no matter what kind of an actress she is, most people still think of her as that hot one with the husky voice.
Oh God no...
This guy knows whats up.
Yup. (Though I feel like the original avengers is the film that treats her the best rather than WS)
holy shit. bill murray as Tom Nook?
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
That is very ambitious. But Nintendo would never allow it.
I just don't see what makes someone go see her in a movie. She's so boring. She just looks and sounds bored and monotone in almost every single one of her movies.
I didn't see Under the Skin but from what I read about it she's very emotionless in that one too, isn't she? I actually completely forgot she was in Don Jon, I did like her in that. Otherwise though I just feel like Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence, Emma Watson, Natalie Portman, etc. are much more engaging and likable on screen whenever I see them, although I never really followed any of their careers. I do want to see Jackie though.
I do appreciate the thought out response though. I guess it'd be better to say I understand logically what draws people to her movies, I just really don't feel that way myself and the dissonance there feels weird to me. I've liked her in Don Jon, Her, and thought she was fine in Lost in Translation (although Bill Murray was the real draw to that), but going out of my way to see Scarlett very likely play the same boring, monotone character she does every time? Crazy to me.
endlessflood
Member
Maybe. I think the diehards who hate the film would've probably disliked it for some reason or other no matter what sort of movie they made. If it had been a shot for shot remake, they would've criticised it as unnecessary. If they changed anything at all, we would've heard about how that minor aspect was a crucial element of the original and its absence destroyed the movie.
For the movie to be financially successful, it had to win over people who'd never heard of the original, and it clearly didn't manage that. The concept just didn't seem to reasonate with the public, and even big GitS fans didn't all go and see it. Not a recipe for success.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
I'm pretty sure the live-action Sword Art Online movie is just gonna take the premise of people living in an MMO and do their own thing with it. I would be surprise if the characters are in the movie.
Cool, there is some solid material if they just based it on the first half of the first season. Could be very cool. Cautiously optimist..
FUCK
Her Under the Skin performance is much more complicated than simply being emotionless. She plays a certain role to attract men, and a lot of it is based in physical acting and kind of a social commentary on how we expect women to be.
I'd definitely agree that Emma Stone has a more relatable "girl next door" quality. Johansson's strongest asset as a screen presence is that unique, unattainable kind of quality. That she isn't the girl next door. It's partly why I think she's getting a lot of roles as robots, aliens, and whatever she was in Lucy. She has an aloof presence, and depending on the role it comes off as either natural or (like in Don Jon) born out of a self-awareness of her body and what she looks like. Regarding straight up acting talent, she hasn't had a lot of opportunities at really heavy leading actress material, but what she does in Under the Skin is IMO beyond anything any of the actresses you mentioned have ever done barring Portman in Black Swan. There's a level of extreme vulnerability in that film, exposing the essence of what her career actually is and what it represents, that only Portman has come close to. I think Lawrence showed a lot of promise and ability in Winter's Bone but ever since then has played the exact same character in every film, and I just couldn't care less about anything she does now.
So based on Ghost's numbers...not that many people then.
Blade runner didn't bomb at the box office. It was a moderate success. However it was a hit on home release.
All You Need Is Kill was actually a legit good movie. It's not the movie's fault it flopped at the box office.
Edge of Tomorrow was called All You Need Is Kill here in Japan.
7DollarHagane
Banned
Controversies aside I think this is writing on the wall for a lot of studios. Big budget theater releases are something a lot of people are skipping until home video. Theater attendance is way down and people just don't see the appeal of it anymore.
I find going to the theater a pain in the ass and just wait for films to be on Blu-ray or digital.
I find going to the theater a pain in the ass and just wait for films to be on Blu-ray or digital.
Maybe "bomb" is a little strong, but Blade Runner made like 23M in its initial release. That doesn't seem particularly strong or encouraging. I have to imagine the studio was hoping for more than that, given the popularity of Star Wars and the fact that Raiders of the Lost Ark had just raked in like 180 million dollars in the previous year. "Oh Harrison Ford just made major bank for Raiders, we should definitely greenlight this weird cyberpunk movie he's going to be in" almost exactly follows the same logic as "Scarlett Johannson just made major bank with Lucy, we should definitely greenight this weird cyberpunk movie she's going to be in." The difference is that the budget of Blade Runner was not astronomically bloated like it was with GitS.
Maybe but unlike ghost it made a profit because they kept their costs down. I think ghost could have been good/profitable but they made some questionable decisions​ on budget, casting, and timeframe.
Edge of Tomorrow also showed some impressive legs and kept working on word of mouth.
This was with a pretty disastrous marketing then never told us what the film was like. I remember I was going to skip it, till WoM came and said it was good.
I also think Battle Angel will be fine, since Rodriguez is one of the best in the biz at keeping budgets in check. Good? Probably not, but under 30million budget most likely. Which is where I feel a lot of these films should be targeting.
For GITS, I will say I don't see the issue with them investing more. It's a scifi fantasy film and they do typically do the best. 100mil+ is a bit much, but something like 70-80 million would have given them a lot to work with and still make a gorgeous picture.
Blade Runner's budget was supposedly 28 million. I think it's kinda doubtful that the film made any significant profit, at least upon theatrical release. Distribution costs were pretty high back before digital distribution came about, and the studio likely wasn't getting more than 75% of box office gross.
It's difficult to imagine a scenario where Ghost in the Shell does as well as Blade Runner, even if you concede that an unknown lead actress would have brought in as many people as ScarJo did. Outside of The Matrix, similarly themed films have always kinda been a bust.
It's weird though, because Westworld seems to prove that there is an avid audience for robot/AI philosophical stories. But maybe that audience is watching TV rather than going to the theater.
"Luc Besson is attached" is probably what set off the green light.
I'm probably this forum's biggest apologist for the first 12 episodes of SAO, and even I'm all notlikethis.gif at this news.
This is one puzzling thing I don't understand about the film. They're too chicken to use that song for the opening sequence. So that sequence is accompanied by some random, muted BGM while the song is used for the scrolling end credits. What a waste of opportunity. I don't know why they're afraid that the film will feel 'too Japanese' when the entire film is practically drenched in Japanese aesthetic. Why not just go all the way? I hope they fix this in Blu-ray version.
If way down means being down about 10% since 1996, sure.
In terms of actual money, the domestic box office is stronger now than it was in 1996, adjusting for US inflation. There was a period in the early 00s, and again in the wake of Avatar/the 3D boom where inflated totals beat last year's total, but again, that was by less than 10%
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Besides interesting visuals its going to be a challenge to make SAO worse than the source material.
Frozenprince
Banned
Which is hard to do.
The point is it's easy as fuck to understand. Everyone who saw one trailer remembers that line and knows what the premise of the movie is.
What's Ghost in the Shell about?
vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
Battle Angel initial budget was over $200M but FOX execs asked for a lower budget (think $150-160M)
It's by no means a $30M budget film.
Edit: In regards to the thread's subject, the film mostly faltered on it's flawed marketing campaign - it's started off strong with snippets released on that USA show, the name escapes me, and then the marketing team didn't know what else to do and sunk the film to the abyss.
Frozenprince
Banned
Gentleman Jack
Member
He'll hire every exotic dancer in the midwest and try to manufacture a scene where they all shoot each other to death while a 20 year old tarantino-inspired pop song plays.
Is that 10% down adjusting for population growth? The population has grown about 20% since 1996. If it has not adjusted for population growth, movie attendance is indeed way down.
broncobuster
Banned
For better or worse, it sounds like Scarlett Johansson is the one walking out with a hefty pay day. Hypothetically if they made it with Margot Robbie, or whatever other white actresses they were trying to get, it probably would've been less of a bomb. But I don't see another actress making it a success.
TDLink
Member
"From James Cameron" being used in the marketing is going to help it quite a bit. I think it will end up performing much better than GITS did.
TheVampire
Banned
Its called Pacific Rim
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
In all honesty, after seeing Life, Ryan wasn't really a lead at all in the movie. If anything I wish he was in more of the movie, in fact I think most of the other characters had way more screen time than he did. That's marketing's fault to make us think otherwise.
This is why Leonardo Dicaprio is the most bankable star in Hollywood imo. People go watch his movies because he carefully pick his projects and the directors attached to them. He's working with top tier directors and nearly all of his movies have hooks in one way or another to make a solid profit. Even then, he had a couple of underwhelming movies like J. Edgar which looked boring (and the director was Clint Eastwood).
I can guess why Johanssen picked Gits, as she probably think that it's best for her to strike while the iron is hot. However, just seeing the director attached to the project would of been a red flag to me that the ride was going to be messy.
2Smashed4U
Banned
The elevator pitch thing is dumb, not every movie needs to have a simple premise or hook. That's one criticism I don't think actually holds any water at all.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked