Why is Sony REALLY ignoring the restart of just women?



[ad_1]

Ghostbusters 3
Sony

When Jason Reitman's secret Ghostbusters project made itself known to the world, we should all have been ridiculously excited. The director is extremely talented and, what is more important, is the son of the man who made the original film. In the context of things like Halloween and Terminator, the reboot to more closely reflect the spirit of the originals (while ignoring bad sequels), should have been announced as an intelligent idea.

But due to the toxic culture inspired by the remake of Ghostbusters 2016, especially the unpleasant way it was received online long before anyone saw it, this conversation has turned into something else.

Despite the reactions of the audience to that reboot (their audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB are not anomalous, they are reactive and reflective), there are now supporters of the film who say that the decision to ignore the restart and continue the line of original time is unforgivable. An open letter was written, which is always a sign that People Are Mad.

And then Leslie Jones, the star of SNL and one of the four actors who replaced "the originals" in the new version of Paul Feig, intervened on Twitter to say that she was disgusted with the decision to eliminate the new version of existence. It does not matter that Jason Reitman has respected the remake in the advertisement of the film or has recognized that he would not be against seeing more of that timeline, now he is a villain in this conversation, as is Sony. a planned universe of Busters with the female cast.

But let's be frank here. The fact that an actress is militant about the fact that her restart is ignored does not require a study to pay attention. What they pay attention to, as if you need to be told, is money. What matters to them is the audience, not the critics (so the critical score of Ghostbusters 2016 in Rotten Tomatoes does not matter).

Ghostbusters Kate McKinnon
Sony

You can write as many open letters as a virtual email bag on this topic, but it will not change the simple fact that a continuation of that timeline is simply not welcome for most fans. And in box office terms, the biggest crowd screams louder, which tends to turn against the political movements initiated in social networks.

In such an environment, an account can amplify the outrage and become a dangerous spokesperson that causes people to lose their Oscar-hosting jobs or the films or scenes that the actors remove from roles they did not know were being bleached (such as In the case of the next Hellboy). But this is a losing battle for anyone who wants to sell the second life opportunity of Ghostbusters 2016, because you can not convince a studio to change its mind about something that did not generate money.

Do you remember that sequel to Dredd? Hellboy 3 by Guillermo Del Toro? Alien by Neill Blomkamp? They were great, right? The aftermath that the fans wanted the studios to do despite the fact that their predecessors did not earn enough and did not make sense in real commercial terms based on projections and facts, and not on social networks that said "oh, I want let that movie happen. " "No, they were not, because they did not happen.

If you build it, they will come. Also, if you do not buy the tickets, they will not build them.

What matters to Sony on the Ghostbusters front is not the nostalgia that Reitman directs. Not that they can mark the nostalgic bad at the moment in the whole culture (Stranger Things, Sabrina, It, Halloween, Candyman, Child's Play … this is not a problem, fans are eager for news) . It is not that they can make the original cast do what they had refused to do for three decades and they mostly met. It's not that they have the right story to continue that timeline. All are factors, but NONE of them would matter if Ghostbusters 2016 had made money.

Even entertaining the idea of ​​doing that reboot in the first place, the studio was doing what they thought was the right business movement. They could not do Ghostbusters 3, because it was simply not an option and they thought that bringing a team of women would be a positive commercial. They did not make a political decision, but a business decision, and then, when the movie earned only $ 229.1 million from an initial budget of $ 144 million, it made another business decision. The franchise discussed was dead in the water.

Sony bathed in that movie. It does not matter that the critical reviews were mostly favorable or that it was a progressive idea to have a female cast or that Leslie Jones thinks that a sequel should happen. Marketing costs required a $ 300 million return at the box office and, as Paul Feig himself said, movies of this type would need to earn $ 500 million. What he did not say explicitly is that he NEEDS to do that for Sony to consider him even remotely successful and move forward with his plans for the sequels.

Ghostbusters 2016
Columbia

In the end, it was projected that the losses in the film would be between $ 25 and $ 75 million and the performance of the film actively contributed to Sony being reduced $ 1 billion in January 2017. This is not a speculation, it was reported in fact by Sony. Why the hell would they persist with a franchise that did that?

On top of that, including the reset of all women in a continuation of the original Ghostbuster timeline does not make sense. Let's be clear here, the decision to restart in the first place eliminated the originals (therefore, it is being marketed as a restart and the original distribution appears for the frankly horrible cameos). At that time, we did not consider worrying about the originals or about the way in which someone could be angry about the fact that this continuity was over. This is how the reboots work and their decision not to turn them into a sequel made their inclusion in the Reitman project impossible, no matter how many positive lessons the director of that film can take.

What matters to Sony is that Ghostbusters 2 did what Ghostbusters 2016 could not. It could have a considerably worse critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but it earned $ 215.3 million with a budget of $ 37 million, initially breaking the record for the highest three-day opening weekend gross in history (until Batman arrived weeks later and broke it again)). It ended up being the eighth highest-grossing film of 1989 and that's what matters.

They could also have seen the Ghostbusters video game released in 2009 to reflect the financial viability of continuing the timeline, as they had done at that time. What they would have found was a "real sequel", at least in the perception of the fans, which was launched in June 2009 and reported sales in the United States of one million copies at the end of July of the same year. That is a figure that would have raised smiles.

When Sony was considering continuing with a brand, KNEW was financially viable, because Ghostbusters did, they only saw two things. badyzed the financial performance of a film that contributed to a reduction of one billion dollars and looked for one that broke records. It does not matter that 30 years have pbaded, because the studies work in absolute black and white. One was a yes, one was a no and no matter how many open letters are written, how many tweets Leslie Jones sends, how horrible it is that a progressive movie with good intentions has failed … It's not personal, it's business.

Look Next …

[ad_2]
Source link