What movie deserves to flop the hardest?

[Spike Spiegel]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Ghostbusters. All the reviews are over-praising it just to keep a pair of tits happy.

Someone finally said it.

It has an average two star rating on IMDB last I checked, yet it's still "certified fresh" on RT.

[Shred Head]

Ninja Turtles to me has the potential to be a propertey on the level of say Avengers or Guardian of the Galaxy. Yet its stuck in the walking toy ad phase from the 80's.The last movie was horrible just nostalgic nonsense. You think anyone would be happy with a Batman movie with the same tone and writing of the 60's show. Too me thats what OOTS is looking back to an era that was a product of the times and instead of evolving a property we are just going to keep it stagnent. **** that I'm glad it failed and why I voted on it.

Ghostbusters yes its **** but the original movie was lighting in a bottle anyway and nothing you do is going to get that back. Besides its just Sony trying to save face after the disaster that was Spider-Man. I love ghostbuster but the potential for what they want it to be just isn't there also the franchise has already been damaged enough. If we get a good cartoon out of this I' at least be happy. Besides I loved the 80's cartoon more then the movies anyway.

Star Trek Beyond yeah the reboot sucks but the Star Trek brand for me never went past the original and Next Geneation so I really dont care what happens to it.

[Andrew NDB]

My perspective:

TMNT: OotS -- Unabashed slap in the face to fans. Across the face, back of the hand first. I get that there's a lot of love from the more nostalgic among us for "The Big Bebop and Rocksteady and Krang" movie that feel like they've been deprived of for eons. Here it is, I hope you're happy. But when TPTB are buying TV spots and reaching through the TV telling us, "EVERYTHING A TRUE FAN WANTS! PIZZA AND BEBOP AND KRANG!" that's... more than a little heavy handed. And the film appears to be just as creatively bankrupt as the first, which is surprising since it seems like this time around they actually managed to shoot exactly the movie they wanted to out of the gate, and didn't have to shut down production 2/3 of the way through and redo it. Twice, if you believe the account of the Turtle actor from the last one.

Star Trek Beyond -- I guess by this third time around the slaps in the face have just kind of left my face numb. I mean, the first one was admittedly very, very fun and hard to look away from. I'll admit it, if Star Trek (2009) was ever on TV, I'd probably leave it on. It's entertaining. It's not Trek but it's tightly written and never not fun. "Into Darkness," however, proved what most, myself included already predicted... they would take this strange reboot (which is odd in itself on a premise basis... "What if Kirk and Spock... weren't Kirk and Spock? What if they were entirely different characters, with very different formative years and act completely different, with much better tech than before?" Why even do that? Who is this for? Original Kirk and Spock fans? They should hate this. New fans, who have never seen Kirk and Spock? Why even USE Kirk and Spock, then? Star Trek once evolved past Kirk and Spock... if it can't do so decades later, it doesn't deserve to endure, IMHO) and just end up recycling bits from Star Trek yore that were better done the first time around. Sure enough. And now Star Trek Beyond seems fully poised to reactionarily not do that, but rather appeal to the young hipsters of the world. But again, pretty numb to it. Maybe Captain Jayla will be the ish. Maybe not. Either way, we have what is apparently is a "real" Star Trek continuity TV series coming out in a year, so it's hard to get too bent out of shape about this.

Ghostbusters -- Dunno. It's a movie openly admitted to be chickensh*t by Feig, who goes on to actually berate fans not welcoming this in most interviews. Kind of sets me walking into this ready to hate it, but I'm not. I'm not angry about any of it, I just find myself vastly disappointed. Feig could have easily made this a requel with the ladies learning to fight ghosts from the (surviving) old guard, and I think everyone would have shut up. I know I would have. It's pretty strange that the only reason Feig said he didn't do that, was because it was too scary to live up to the universe set up by the original films... and yet... it sounds like this new movie is doing that precisely, complete with Stay Puft and Gozer sh*t. Very puzzling. But I'll go into the theater and watch it, unlike OotS. Like the Star Trek reboot that had Nimoy, this one has Murray, my favorite actor. Hook line and sinker.

[Wildcat]

Ha, this topic and people claim they're not haters.

No movie deserves to flop unless it's purposely being racist or something.

[ranger_scout]

I don't have an opinion for the poll, but I do have something to write about for the subject of box-office performances. Right now Ghostbusters is heading for a $45 million opening. Someone made an interesting point in this article.

“It’s not a bomb,” said one non-Sony executive today, “a bomb would be an opening in the $20M range. However, a start such as this really puts more pressure on overseas delivering.”

http://deadline.com/2016/07/ghostbus...ce-1201787149/

That is basically what happened with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows. After opening with $35.3 million, Paramount had to rely on overseas totals to make ground and so far that's not happening.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

Ghostbusters can't possibly turn much of a profit now that China has refused to show it in their theaters. China is where all these CGI films get their main revenue.

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

And so much care was taken with Eastman and Laird's characters...

Hell, it was even bastardized when looking at it as a Fred Wolf adaptation.

I've come to accept that we're not getting a good TMNT film again for a long time, if ever, so I really don't care how OotS did at the box office.

For Star Trek, I think there's at least a chance studios will be interested in making films in the spirit of the originals.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Ha, this topic and people claim they're not haters.

No movie deserves to flop unless it's purposely being racist or something.

So Transformers then.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Ha, this topic and people claim they're not haters.

No movie deserves to flop unless it's purposely being racist or something.

No. Movies deserve to flop when they're not good. Inferior products should always yield inferior revenue.

We can and have debate whether or not the examples Andrew listed are indeed bad movies... but Bad Movies, as usually evidenced by their financial returns, do indeed deserve to flop.

[TMNTInsighter]

I'm going to vote for Ghostbusters just because I'd love to see what the studio, the public, special interest groups, etc. try to pin the blame on for its underperformance. Hey, nothing brings people together nowadays unlike controversy does, no matter how justly or no matter how stupid. At least people start talking to each other.
Personally, I don't trust the cast, the writers, they've never explained the reason for making them all women (which is why I'll hold onto the belief that this is a social PR move until they explain otherwise), reboots and remakes have proven not to deserve the benefit of the doubt, and those are my other reasons why I'd love to see it falter.

TMNT OOTS has already flopped and I'm glad it did. I love TMNT so much but it's about time a Michael Bay involved movie got what it deserved. I just hope more than anything that it carries over to Transformers 5.

[Andrew NDB]

For Star Trek, I think there's at least a chance studios will be interested in making films in the spirit of the originals.

I dunno, maybe someday... but while there's been some very good Trek movies in the old days, there was plenty of stinkers... but at least they had the Trek flavor. The new ones don't even have that. I think Trek just functions a lot better on TV. When you involve a movie studio and big budgets and all of that there is too much temptation to try and make it some big tentpole thing. "Who is the villain going to be?? Who are they going to fight this time??" Those aren't even questions that should be asked in a good Trek story, yet they're like the cornerstones of like the last 4 or 5 movies.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I dunno, maybe someday... but while there's been some very good Trek movies in the old days, there was plenty of stinkers... but at least they had the Trek flavor. The new ones don't even have that. I think Trek just functions a lot better on TV. When you involve a movie studio and big budgets and all of that there is too much temptation to try and make it some big tentpole thing. "Who is the villain going to be?? Who are they going to fight this time??" Those aren't even questions that should be asked in a good Trek story, yet they're like the cornerstones of like the last 4 or 5 movies.

Most intelligent statement about Star Trek on this forum that wasn't said by me.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I think Trek just functions a lot better on TV. When you involve a movie studio and big budgets and all of that there is too much temptation to try and make it some big tentpole thing.

Indeed. I haven't watched much Trek but even I feel that even the TOS Trek films struggled to capture the true essence of Star Trek. They were kickass - most of them, anyway - but not always in line with the traditional Star Trek cycle. Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, and - to a lesser extent - The Undiscovered Country especially were just excuses I think to see the gang back in action. Not to say that they weren't great films - they were - but intellectually they demanded less from the viewer... and that's all right, since they were backed with subtle existential questions.

Not the Abrams films. I've only seen the first one and it seemed to be all about "I'm Captain Kirk... who am I?" Based on the trailers, the second one seemed to be about nothing, and the third seems to be about "Who am I?", which I thought was a base covered by the first. It's all about the goofy melodrama now to draw in young adults, who thrive on that sort of stuff for some reason.

The one-hour TV slot gives a Star Trek plot enough time to set itself up, present the thought of the day, maybe have a fight scene and dazzling effects, a wink from Shatner, and off to another adventure. Films seem to necessitate more padding, and oftentimes it's easier to fill in those necessary moments with explosions instead of more time exploring the real purpose of the tale.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

No. Movies deserve to flop when they're not good. Inferior products should always yield inferior revenue.

We can and have debate whether or not the examples Andrew listed are indeed bad movies... but Bad Movies, as usually evidenced by their financial returns, do indeed deserve to flop.

I know. I didn't mean movies should continue to thrive even after they release and turn out bad.

I meant movies don't deserve to flop over people's hostel feelings towards a yet unreleased movie. Which is obviously the purpose of this topic.

I don't know why TMNT 2 was included since its been out for over a month. Was it just to fill a 3rd spot?

[TheSkeletonMan939]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

I don't know why TMNT 2 was included since its been out for over a month. Was it just to fill a 3rd spot?

Because you're presuming that we're all in ecstasy over our imagined failures of an unreleased film. We're actually debating which of the three adaptations is the worst.