[JurorNo.2]

Without a narrative hook connecting them, many of these elements didn't resonate for me.

Going back to my analogy, and correct me if I'm wrong, you need for both brothers to be related by birth. I'm saying family is deeper than DNA.

At the end of the day, I kind of wish GB2016 took the Abrams Star Trek approach

IMO, Abrams Trek had none of the essence of Star Trek. I don't care how much they connected things, the themes and execution completely missed the point of the franchise. GB16 was far closer to the essence of its origins. As a Trekkie, I disown my biological brother, Abrams Trek, lol. But as a Ghosthead, I am more than happy to embrace my adoptive brother, GB16.

But thank you for the discussion, a YouTube video would be interesting!

[seaniccus]

Without a narrative hook connecting them, many of these elements didn't resonate for me.

Going back to my analogy, and correct me if I'm wrong, you need for both brothers to be related by birth. I'm saying family is deeper than DNA.

To be honest, your analogy confuses things for me, so I discarded it. Sorry.

It depends on the film. Maybe they would have resonated with me better if I liked the characters more? It's really hard to say. The lack of resonation with callbacks isn't why I didn't like the movie, it's just something that didn't resonate with me. The movie itself failed for me simply because the writing and characters felt weak to me. Like I said before, Jones' character was the only one who felt like a believable character to me. The rest felt like sketch-comedy characters. To me, at least. I know other people fell in love with them.

At the end of the day, I kind of wish GB2016 took the Abrams Star Trek approach

IMO, Abrams Trek had none of the essence of Star Trek. I don't care how much they artificially tried to connect things, the themes and execution completely missed the point of the franchise.

I can't disagree with the first part of this. Abrams Trek is Abrams Trek. I feel like I would have rejected it more if they didn't have original spock doing the alternate universe nonsense -- but on a whole, that universe has never really felt like "Star Trek," but they were fun action movies. ...but again, something in my brain doesn't reject it as hard because of that narrative tie in. Maybe i'm weird? I can't explain it.

You know, it's probably just Karl Urban. Everything ELSE about new Star Trek is wrong, but his Doctor McCoy is almost perfect.

[JurorNo.2]

I'm sorry if I'm not making sense. Hmm...see I'm also a Transformers fan. And there's a story in a novelization where different versions of Optimus Prime from different continuities meet each other. They feel a familial connection, even though narratively, they are not at all connected. That's how I feel about some reboots, including GB16.

Urban is great. Just never given a script to work with. And for that reason he will never be anywhere near perfect for me, as a Trekkie.

[ccv66]

There needs to be new Ghostbusters media in one form or another or interest will die off. Need to create younger fans.
Where Sony screwed up,
its not the movie the fans wanted and didn't appeal enough to the causal audience. Low box office and youtube dislikes Support this.
Sonys marketing was terrible. Very few disagree with that. What id give for a Ghostbusters made by marvel marketed by D.C.

All would be forgiven if the movie was great. Every one ive personally talked to said it was either: good, ok or "ive seen worse". If ATC was amazing it would have overcame any backlash. But it wasnt and it didn't. I think if the movie wasnt called Ghostbusters it would have made 100 million less

[JurorNo.2]

No, a lot of amazing movies don't overcome obstacles at the box office. The world is not a fair place where if you're amazing, everything just works out for you. I know you guys want this to be the end for GB16, but that remains to be seen.

[seaniccus]

Urban is great. Just never given a script to work with. And for that reason he will never be anywhere near perfect for me, as a Trekkie.

He does great with what he has, though. His performance feels like McCoy.. where as the film's version of Kirk and Spock simply don't match the characters as well. Urban has a bit of an angrier spin on McCoy, but at least he feels like McCoy to me. He's easily my favorite part of those films.

Maybe the ultimate contrast to him is Scotty. I love Simon Pegg, but his Scotty doesn't feel like the real Montgomery to me.

[ccv66]

Good movies might not be able to get over. Not all movies that do well are good. But spending a bunch of money on just an ok movie with fan resistance and terrible marketing is a for sure failure. I blame sony and paul feig, Not the cast

[JurorNo.2]

If calling it a failure makes your day brighter, I'll leave you to it.

[ccv66]

... Well not profitable and disappointing. Even if like ATC, you have to be disappointed that we will not get any live action Ghostbusters anytime soon. If a GB16 did $700 mil plus, we'd be swimming in ghostbusters stuff for years to come

[tylergfoster]

All I wanted to stress is that fans, which I am not trying to diss, just don't matter to a major studio blockbuster. Do you think Deadpool, the most successful of all the X-films, was propelled to nearly $800m worldwide by readers of an obscure spin-off comic far less popular than the "headliner" X-Men? Of course not -- it was the fact that the marketing had a good hook and Ryan Reynolds went on television and told people it was funny. Movies that played to the fans include stuff like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and Kick-Ass -- big bombs.

Another good example I thought of the other day: Star Trek is the older franchise, the one with more variants and iterations, and in fact Star Trek fans are basically the reason for modern fandom. I imagine Star Trek and Star Wars actually have pretty comparable die hard fanbases -- two of the biggest. Yet, The Force Awakens grossed more than three of the most profitable Star Trek movies, because one draws in the moms and dads and aunts and uncles and little kids -- when you're at work and the people who seem like they care more about home repair and football than anything say they saw the new Star Wars, that's general audience penetration. As fans we live in concentrated communities of like-minded people.

The fact that Ghostbusters never established itself fully as a movie franchise is a really relevant aspect of a new movie succeeding or failing. What the general public outside of fandom loves is the specific movie Ghostbusters, as a self-contained work.

Anyway, I'm with Kingpin. I loved the series since I was a kid, I've grown up my entire life feeling 100% confident there would be a new Ghostbusters movie in my lifetime, and past about 2009 it really did not bother me that the odds were it was going to be a remake or a reboot. Either way, it's the idea of recapturing lightning in a bottle. Either way, things were going to be very different. Either way it was a risk. The Video Game provided a preview of what it would've been like...which, in my opinion, was more hit-and-miss than the reboot, with great visuals but a really awful Murray performance, the exaggerated constraints of CG comedy acting, and without the joy of the new stuff (it's even more regurgitated than Ghostbusters II!), although hearing Ramis rattle off technical nonsense in near monotone was a genuine delight. The idea of this, with the additional constraints of live-action, with more emphasis placed on a new team than the old one, minus at least one but probably two of them? I just don't see how that's appealing, how that scratches that itch.

[ccv66]

Dead pool was a movie the fans wanted, ryan Reynolds seem perfect for the role, didnt have a ton of money invested and it was a great movie. Things that GB16 had against it. If ATC was as good as dead pool it would have done over $700 Million too

Id agree you need to attract people other than the core fan base. Its hard for me to judge the video game, but i found it extremely satisfying. Like it filled a void

[JurorNo.2]

If ATC was as good as dead pool it would have done over $700 Million

If Shawshank, It's a Wonderful Life. Labryinth, Blade Runner, etc, etc, etc, were good, they wouldn't have bombed. Right...?

Deadpool is like Suicide Squad in that it had hype. Hype goes a long way. Just like Star Wars, it's too big to fail. It has zero to do with the movie itself being "good" or "bad." You're basically praising the marketing team, rather than the creators.

Find something to replace the box office argument, guys. For your own sake. Are you fans of movies, or commericals?

[RichardLess]

All I wanted to stress is that fans, which I am not trying to diss, just don't matter to a major studio blockbuster. Do you think Deadpool, the most successful of all the X-films, was propelled to nearly $800m worldwide by readers of an obscure spin-off comic far less popular than the "headliner" X-Men? Of course not -- it was the fact that the marketing had a good hook and Ryan Reynolds went on television and told people it was funny. Movies that played to the fans include stuff like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and Kick-Ass -- big bombs.

Another good example I thought of the other day: Star Trek is the older franchise, the one with more variants and iterations, and in fact Star Trek fans are basically the reason for modern fandom. I imagine Star Trek and Star Wars actually have pretty comparable die hard fanbases -- two of the biggest. Yet, The Force Awakens grossed more than three of the most profitable Star Trek movies, because one draws in the moms and dads and aunts and uncles and little kids -- when you're at work and the people who seem like they care more about home repair and football than anything say they saw the new Star Wars, that's general audience penetration. As fans we live in concentrated communities of like-minded people.

The fact that Ghostbusters never established itself fully as a movie franchise is a really relevant aspect of a new movie succeeding or failing. What the general public outside of fandom loves is the specific movie Ghostbusters, as a self-contained work.

Anyway, I'm with Kingpin. I loved the series since I was a kid, I've grown up my entire life feeling 100% confident there would be a new Ghostbusters movie in my lifetime, and past about 2009 it really did not bother me that the odds were it was going to be a remake or a reboot. Either way, it's the idea of recapturing lightning in a bottle. Either way, things were going to be very different. Either way it was a risk. The Video Game provided a preview of what it would've been like...which, in my opinion, was more hit-and-miss than the reboot, with great visuals but a really awful Murray performance, the exaggerated constraints of CG comedy acting, and without the joy of the new stuff (it's even more regurgitated than Ghostbusters II!), although hearing Ramis rattle off technical nonsense in near monotone was a genuine delight. The idea of this, with the additional constraints of live-action, with more emphasis placed on a new team than the old one, minus at least one but probably two of them? I just don't see how that's appealing, how that scratches that itch.

Some interesting points but I disagree with a lot of it. I'll start with Deadpool

Here's how wrong you are: Deadpool was made because test footage leaked and the fans went NUTS. It has been a well reported fact that without that test footage leaking and without the fan response, guess what? No Deadpool. Scott Pilgrim failed because it's a niche product starring an actor audiences had grown tired of.

What are the major films of our time? Star Wars, Marvel movies, lord of the rings, other comic book movies. You know what those movies have in common? Major fanbases. That is no accident my friend. What happens when studios ignore the fans? Well we get movies like GB16 & Batman & Robin

What's the more popular movie? Friday the 13th or Ghostbusters? Friday the 13th is a well established franchise but doesn't have near the fandom or box office of a Ghostbusters film. You are also forgetting how much of an impact Real Ghostbusters had.

And yes Star Wars is bigger than Star Trek. There are a million and a half reasons for that. Ranging from story, quality, novelty & all the way to John "The man" Williams.


Oh and Kingpin: ID4 is '90s cheese. It just is. First comes denial then acceptance. I still watch it every now and again. It's a fun nostalgic movie like that. But it's pure cheese. You know it to be true

[JurorNo.2]

Here's how wrong you are: Deadpool was made because test footage leaked and the fans went NUTS.

In other words, they were hyped.

What are the major films of our time? Star Wars, Marvel movies, lord of the rings, other comic book movies. You know what those movies have in common?

Yup, hype.

What happens when studios ignore the fans? Well we get movies like GB16 & Batman & Robin

From what I've heard, the studio was concerned that Burton's Batman had gotten too dark and parents wouldn't buy toys for their kids. That's why they changed tones with Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. And neither were box office bombs I believe (once again, hype).

In any case, I just don't have that worship of fans that others do. I admire the movies. I admire the creators of said movies. I don't think anyone (myself included) deserves admiration for merely liking a movie. And fans don't always understand their favorite movies as much as they think they do.

And yes Star Wars is bigger than Star Trek. There are a million and a half reasons for that.

Primarily that Star Wars is more action oriented.

But it's pure cheese.

I wonder, when did the Internet collectively decide that was a problem to be corrected? Was it Nolan? It was, wasn't it...

[JurorNo.2]

we'd be swimming in ghostbusters stuff for years to come

I did feel like I was swimming in Ghostbusters stuff this year. I will never understand fans who chose to wallow in disappointment instead of realizing how fortunate we've been.

*I watched Ghostbusters II on TV for the first time in forever. More than once.

* I went to not one, but two screenings of GB84.

*The original cast got together on a talk show, also for the first time in forever.

*Dan Aykroyd talked about the Blues Mobile and Ecto-1 on Jay Leno's Garage.

*A Ghostbusters book was dedicated to Harold Ramis.

*Golden Books has released a Ghostbusters kids book (for both the new and original characters).

*My favorite movie review podcast (Now Playing) is finally given an excuse to do a Ghostbusters retrospective.

*Madame Tussauds is doing a Ghostbusters Experience (which was incredible!!!)

*I saw Ghostbusters gear outside my Macy's window.

*I've seen the Ghostbusters logo on several subway walls.

*I've been able to purchase freakin Twinkies with the Ghostbusters logo on the packaging.

*I witnessed three different theater audiences laughing and applauding at cameos from the original cast.

*I've met many fellow fans I wouldn't have otherwise.

If a GB16 did $700 mil plus

And again, it's not all about box office. Studios know that that kind of success isn't a guarantee in the long term, if a movie isn't well liked overall. GB16 built up good will, even if it didn't beat some over hyped (and yet extremely disliked) comic book movie.

[JurorNo.2]

By the way, um, is the OP ever going to post again?

[DarkSpectre]

Nope, you pretty much own this thread now.

[JurorNo.2]

[RichardLess]

Here's how wrong you are: Deadpool was made because test footage leaked and the fans went NUTS.

In other words, they were hyped.

What are the major films of our time? Star Wars, Marvel movies, lord of the rings, other comic book movies. You know what those movies have in common?

Yup, hype.

What happens when studios ignore the fans? Well we get movies like GB16 & Batman & Robin

From what I've heard, the studio was concerned that Burton's Batman had gotten too dark and parents wouldn't buy toys for their kids. That's why they changed tones with Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. And neither were box office bombs I believe (once again, hype).

In any case, I just don't have that worship of fans that others do. I admire the movies. I admire the creators of said movies. I don't think anyone (myself included) deserves admiration for merely liking a movie. And fans don't always understand their favorite movies as much as they think they do.

And yes Star Wars is bigger than Star Trek. There are a million and a half reasons for that.

Primarily that Star Wars is more action oriented.

But it's pure cheese.

I wonder, when did the Internet collectively decide that was a problem to be corrected? Was it Nolan? It was, wasn't it...

Batman Forever did pretty well at the Box Office but Batman and Robin bombed big time. You are correct though. It was all about Toys. They didn't care about story or characters or anything, just toy sales. It's interesting to think that the best Batman stories we've ever had on screen weren't live action but the Bruce Timm/Paul Dini "Batman the Animated Series". A series that was intended for kids and made to sell toys had more heart and soul than a 125 million dollar live action film.

I think "cheese" went out when the towers fell. The whole post 9/11 mentality. Films started going for realism and grit. Also: Chris Nolan.

[JurorNo.2]

I think "cheese" went out when the towers fell. The whole post 9/11 mentality. Films started going for realism and grit. Also: Chris Nolan.

If I want realism and grit, I go to a 70s movie. I chuckle when any Hollywood movie today is called gritty, lol.

But I agree it was that 9/11 mentality that caused it all.

And I agree the animated Batmans are where they get things truly right.

[tylergfoster]

Here's how wrong you are: Deadpool was made because test footage leaked and the fans went NUTS. It has been a well reported fact that without that test footage leaking and without the fan response, guess what? No Deadpool.

Deadpool was MADE because of the fans. Deadpool was not a $780m hit because of the fans. There's a reason the movie also cost only $58m. The studio was probably hoping for $250m worldwide -- it was slated for the February doldrums for a reason.

The reason the studio needed convincing in the first place was...hmm...

Scott Pilgrim failed because it's a niche product starring an actor audiences had grown tired of.

...the movie starring an X-character that had already appeared in one bomb (X-Men Origins: Wolverine) starring an actor not only reprising his role from that flop but also three other comic book bombs (Green Lantern, R.I.P.D., and Blade: Trinity) sounded like a massive gamble.

What are the major films of our time? Star Wars, Marvel movies, lord of the rings, other comic book movies. You know what those movies have in common? Major fanbases.

Yeah, and how many people who like the new Iron Man and Captain America movies do you really think read the comics BEFORE the movies were a success? I saw the Lord of the Rings movies, and I never read those books before or afterward. The MCU is a self-sustaining thing: people got into the movies because they wanted to see the movies, and they are now enjoying the movies as a contained universe.

There's a difference between a movie being made because it has a name recognition value and a movie being a hit because the fans cared about it. The way to see whether or not a movie was propelled by the fans is to check the drop off in box office after the opening weekend. Fans go to see it opening day or at least within the first three. What a big studio movie needs is legs that draw out the success for several weeks afterward -- which, ironically, Ghostbusters 2016 did not have, suggesting plenty of fans contributed to the money the movie did make.

You are also forgetting how much of an impact Real Ghostbusters had.

That had an impact on kids in the 1980s and 1990s, but that too has been off the air (and not always as easy to get ahold of) for decades.

And yes Star Wars is bigger than Star Trek.

You missed my point. Star Trek is the source of modern fandom. It has a comparable base to the Star Wars fandom. Yet, there is a huge discrepancy in how much a Star Trek might make and a Star Wars might make -- a difference of more than a billion dollars. If fans drove box office, then the two performances would be more comparable.

[RichardLess]

Here's how wrong you are: Deadpool was made because test footage leaked and the fans went NUTS. It has been a well reported fact that without that test footage leaking and without the fan response, guess what? No Deadpool.

Deadpool was MADE because of the fans. Deadpool was not a $780m hit because of the fans. There's a reason the movie also cost only $58m. The studio was probably hoping for $250m worldwide -- it was slated for the February doldrums for a reason.

The reason the studio needed convincing in the first place was...hmm...

Scott Pilgrim failed because it's a niche product starring an actor audiences had grown tired of.

...the movie starring an X-character that had already appeared in one bomb (X-Men Origins: Wolverine) starring an actor not only reprising his role from that flop but also three other comic book bombs (Green Lantern, R.I.P.D., and Blade: Trinity) sounded like a massive gamble.

What are the major films of our time? Star Wars, Marvel movies, lord of the rings, other comic book movies. You know what those movies have in common? Major fanbases.

Yeah, and how many people who like the new Iron Man and Captain America movies do you really think read the comics BEFORE the movies were a success? I saw the Lord of the Rings movies, and I never read those books before or afterward. The MCU is a self-sustaining thing: people got into the movies because they wanted to see the movies, and they are now enjoying the movies as a contained universe.

There's a difference between a movie being made because it has a name recognition value and a movie being a hit because the fans cared about it. The way to see whether or not a movie was propelled by the fans is to check the drop off in box office after the opening weekend. Fans go to see it opening day or at least within the first three. What a big studio movie needs is legs that draw out the success for several weeks afterward -- which, ironically, Ghostbusters 2016 did not have, suggesting plenty of fans contributed to the money the movie did make.

You are also forgetting how much of an impact Real Ghostbusters had.

That had an impact on kids in the 1980s and 1990s, but that too has been off the air (and not always as easy to get ahold of) for decades.

And yes Star Wars is bigger than Star Trek.

You missed my point. Star Trek is the source of modern fandom. It has a comparable base to the Star Wars fandom. Yet, there is a huge discrepancy in how much a Star Trek might make and a Star Wars might make -- a difference of more than a billion dollars. If fans drove box office, then the two performances would be more comparable.

I work in development at what's called a "mini major". The studio I work at has a film in production at this very moment with a pretty large fan base. Of course I cant reveal which one but let me just say it's based on a fairly popular book series. They have hired two people whose only job is to comb the Internet and report feedback. When casting was underway they intentionally leaked the top 10 names in consideration for the main part. Based off the feedback 4 names were eliminated, including a front runner who has worked with the main producer before. Trust me these people care. Some studios have taken note at what happens when you hire fan favourite guys like Joss Whedon, James Gunn & J.J Abrams.

Deadpool was a success because they listened to the fans. They used Deadpools costume, broke the 4th wall and made it Rated R. They stayed true to the character and made a good movie, unlike what happened in X-men Origins(which was a critcal failure but not a bomb). Was it only the fans that made it a success? Of course not. That's not what we are arguing here. The debate is about whether or not studios care or listen to fans. They do(for the most part). The fact that you think releasing a movie on Valentine's Day weekend shows a lack of faith on the studios part tells me quite a bit. That date is prime real estate. Fox made a genius move scheduling the movie on Feb 14th. That isn't "doldrums". It's prime time baby. The reason the studio needed convincing is because there's a ton of risk involved with making an R rated superhero movie.

[tylergfoster]

Was it only the fans that made it a success? Of course not. That's not what we are arguing here. The debate is about whether or not studios care or listen to fans. They do (for the most part).

Well, that's not what I was debating. Still, even if it was, I think you vastly overestimate the degree to which studios look at fans as any more important than any other demographic. They're looking for audience interest in general, for a way to tap into the zeitgeist or what's trendy. Scanning the internet doesn't just give you fan feedback, it gives you public feedback. Before the release of the movie, just to see what people were saying, I would search "Ghostbusters" on Twitter and scroll the results, and easily 75% or more of the results were non-fans based on what they wrote (for instance, a huge swath of them were fans of the bands on the soundtrack, and were clearly Tweeting for that reason).

The fact that you think releasing a movie on Valentine's Day weekend shows a lack of faith on the studios part tells me quite a bit. That date is prime real estate. Fox made a genius move scheduling the movie on Feb 14th. That isn't "doldrums". It's prime time baby.

I didn't say February 14th was a doldrums (obviously, a prime time for romantic comedies), I said February was a doldrums. Before the last couple of years, and excepting Passion of the Christ, it's a lot of $30-$50m openers. Deadpool will probably change that, but in general, Oscar season (when families are together, and likely seeing movies en masse) leads into a huge drop-off in January (possibly the only remaining true dump month on the movie release calendar) when relatives return home, parents go back to work, and kids go back to school traditionally tracks into February. Studios have been successful in moving "early summer" up to March and April, when some superhero or Fast and the Furious movies open, but February overall is still not necessarily a great month.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/we ... o=2&p=.htm

[pferreira1983]

We have to remember it wasn't just fans who didn't like Answer The Call, it was general audiences as well. No one loves remakes because 80% of time they are either rubbish or unnecessary. All the studios want remakes or reboots except because Ghostbusters is only below Star Wars in popularity and appreciation people found it one remake too far. Sony is that guy who follows everyone around, doing naughty stuff everyone else does except unlike everyone else gets caught in the act. Sony picked the wrong franchise to remake since everyone has been remaking everything and the studio got caught out by audiences this time. Some films are just off limits to people, as I said it was one remake too far.

[tylergfoster]

Given Sony's Magnificent Seven remake is seemingly about to open well, it probably had more to do with the summer's overall tepid box office and the poor trailers than it being a remake.

[Skyknight]

Given Sony's Magnificent Seven remake is seemingly about to open well, it probably had more to do with the summer's overall tepid box office and the poor trailers than it being a remake.

I think I've seen all four of the Magnificent Seven movies when I was a kid. Will not watch the remake! Why? Because I've already seen it! It's a western, good guys vs bad guys, lots of shooting, many bad guys die and some of the good guys, too! No need to make that movie again, if I want to see that story I'll watch the existing one!
A western can't be improved by fancy CGI! And that rap song in the trailer makes me want to throw up. That's something that certainly does not belong into a western!

And if it will do great will depend on how it's recieved by the people that go see it! If they all write on the internet that it's shit compared to the original, then the numbers will drop faster than a Sony guy can say "I think we screwed up, again"!

[Commander_Jim]

There is a reason studios, directors and actors now have huge presences at the likes of ComicCon and other fan events and more news and trailer footage etc comes from them than actual movie festivals. Because studios certainly have recognised how important fans are and are now really putting in the effort to try have them on-side.

If you look over the past decade or so, all the movies we've had that have been remakes, reboots, or based on books or comics - movies based on properties with built in fanbases in other words, one thing becomes very clear - movies that are fan-pleasing are almost always the most critically and commercially successful, whilst the ones that alienate the fans or are least respectful of the property they're using are almost always the biggest failures. Its not a cast iron rule and there are exceptions, but overwhelmingly thats the way it goes.

Partially its because in the age of the internet fans have a lot of power, all early buzz for a movie, good and bad, comes from the fans. Its the fans that generally set the narrative to how the rest of the wider internet will treat a film. But also because - who knows what a good movie based on a property should be better than the people who know it best? If the fans think a movie is misguided or bad, theres a good chance it is. Its EXTREMELY rare that a movie fans hate doesnt coincide with a low Rotten Tomatoes rating or vice versa.

[JurorNo.2]

who knows what a good movie based on a property should be better than the people who know it best?

I think this "fans know best" thing came about because of the Star Wars prequels. That was an extreme, unusual case. I don't think it should have become some kind of axiom. Fans have their biases, just like anyone else, that can color their perspective. And many of them aren't writers themselves, or aren't really familiar with the film making process or the business. And certainly they aren't always aware of the manipulation that goes into advertising and hype.

Don't get me wrong, fans are important. But creators remain quite important too.

[RichardLess]

Was it only the fans that made it a success? Of course not. That's not what we are arguing here. The debate is about whether or not studios care or listen to fans. They do (for the most part).

Well, that's not what I was debating. Still, even if it was, I think you vastly overestimate the degree to which studios look at fans as any more important than any other demographic. They're looking for audience interest in general, for a way to tap into the zeitgeist or what's trendy. Scanning the internet doesn't just give you fan feedback, it gives you public feedback. Before the release of the movie, just to see what people were saying, I would search "Ghostbusters" on Twitter and scroll the results, and easily 75% or more of the results were non-fans based on what they wrote (for instance, a huge swath of them were fans of the bands on the soundtrack, and were clearly Tweeting for that reason).

The fact that you think releasing a movie on Valentine's Day weekend shows a lack of faith on the studios part tells me quite a bit. That date is prime real estate. Fox made a genius move scheduling the movie on Feb 14th. That isn't "doldrums". It's prime time baby.

I didn't say February 14th was a doldrums (obviously, a prime time for romantic comedies), I said February was a doldrums. Before the last couple of years, and excepting Passion of the Christ, it's a lot of $30-$50m openers. Deadpool will probably change that, but in general, Oscar season (when families are together, and likely seeing movies en masse) leads into a huge drop-off in January (possibly the only remaining true dump month on the movie release calendar) when relatives return home, parents go back to work, and kids go back to school traditionally tracks into February. Studios have been successful in moving "early summer" up to March and April, when some superhero or Fast and the Furious movies open, but February overall is still not necessarily a great month.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/we ... o=2&p=.htm

Did you forget your own stance? You said fans don't matter to studios. Those were your words. I'm saying they *do* matter. Otherwise as Commander Jim noted, they wouldn't bother with Comic con. Did you know studios like Marvel pay visual effects companies extra cash to finish footage on time*just* to show to Comic Con audiences? Kevin Feige, the head of Marvel, said he does that. You could say it's just a promo. But come on. Every single fan that shows up for those presentations are already sold. No one goes to the Avengers panel or Star Wars panel that wouldn't have already bought a day 1 ticket. They do it for the fans.

Typically January and February are called dumping ground months, this is correct. However two weekend's are seen as valuable. MLK day and Valentines day. You mentioned Deadpool and it's February release date in a context of a lack of expectations on Fox's part, you used the term doldrums. I saw that as needing to be corrected since it's misleading and incorrect. Like I said, Valentine's weekend is a sweet spot with barely any real competition until mid-late March. That's exactly what Fox wanted. Did they think it would open to 130+ million? Hell no. That shocked everybody. I still can't believe it. No X-Men movie has ever come close to that amount on a PG-13 rating & those are 3-4X more costly than Deadpool. But I digress.. More and more movie studios are looking for that kind of weekend real estate since the summer time is dominated by sequels and superheroes that eat up all the business for weeks. Movies like "Speed" wouldn't stand a chance in today's summer movie market place. Back in the '90s though? Those type of movies were what the summer schedule was all about. Today? That's a Jan-February release

[Sav C]

You understand though that they were reacting that way because they were in the originals? If they acted like that based on silly cameos, imagine what the reaction would've been like had they been playing the real thing. Just imagine. It would've been glorious.

I'm actually glad I didn't see Murray or Aykroyd attempting to don the old uniforms and strap on the Packs again.

I'm glad too, I think Ghostbusters II's ending was the perfect way to end the original series. I absolutely love everything about the first one, but I think GBII had a more conclusive ending. At the end of the first one it felt like anything could happen (such as the 'busters getting sued, going separate ways, performing at birthday parties, hosting public access TV shows, owning occult bookstores, working in a lab taking away puppies,) while at the end of the second one it felt like everything would continue to work out as they were getting the appreciation they deserved.

And for the record, I think Ghostbusters III would've been huge (although I'm not sure how huge it would've been compared to the reboot.)

*****

My definitions of
Sequel: Any film that is a continuation of a previous film, (Force Awakens was a sequel in my mind.)
Reboot: Any film that retains the concept but does not tie in with a previous plots, (concept: people bust ghosts.)
Remake: Any film that reuses characters and plot.