Everyone was surprised by its success. Guiness called it a stupid and childish fairy tale (which it ultimately is - farmboy saves princess from the clutches of an evil warlord with the help of a wizard and a pirate).
The stupidest thing ever uttered by a movie executive was "Sure Mr. Lucas... You can keep the merchandising rights and soundtrack royalties." Which is why I side-eye any hate laid at the Ewoks and porgs as a ploy to sell merch; they were no more a ploy to sell merch than were the Jawas.
Other fits of financial brilliance were from Sir Alec Guiness (or more likely his agent), who opted instead of a negotiated salary to take .025% of ESB's revenues. His estate continues to collect money from it and his take from that movie alone is more than $100 million.
For less than 60 seconds of screen time.
Hand-waving psuedo-science "counts" rather than just allowing it to be what it was, Science Fantasy, was a fairly large misstep.You know, now that you mention it, I think that's why the later Star Wars movies fell so flat. They forgot that it was supposed to be a fairy tale
Hand-waving psuedo-science "counts" rather than just allowing it to be what it was, Science Fantasy, was a fairly large misstep.
Thats exactly what I said to my brother when Phantom Menace came out - the original movies were fantasy in space, Phantom Menace was too sci-fiYou know, now that you mention it, I think that's why the later Star Wars movies fell so flat. They forgot that it was supposed to be a fairy tale
Not being precognitive doesn't make one stupid. In no way was this down to stupidity. Do you have Apple shares? Does not having them make you stupid?The stupidest thing ever uttered by a movie executive was "Sure Mr. Lucas... You can keep the merchandising rights and soundtrack royalties."
Another video from Adam. Also, this movie is getting pretty positive reviews already. It may actually be good.
The Guardian reviewers tends to be pretty harsh.We must be looking at different reviews:
Jason Reitman takes over his father’s franchise and immediately tanks it with a tonally misjudged blend of fan service and bizarrely played-straight spectaclewww.theguardian.com
Jason Reitman takes up his father's legacy in the latest attempt to revive the 'Ghostbusters' franchise.ew.com
Granted, there are some good reviews out there--I know I'm always waiting with bated breath to hear what the finest minds of IGN have to say--but it's by no means a critical darling. And the problems critics are raising are exactly what some of us were worried about based on the trailers--an overdose of fan service. Though I guess that describes most of the MCU at this point, so maybe this'll be a hit, too. If nothing else the most vocal of the Ghostbuster reboot haters can finally feel seen!
Rotten Tomatoes can be a bit sketchy anytime, but especially when something hasn’t hit a ton of critics. If you check the Top Critics reviews on there, which filters out stuff like small or personal blogs, there are a whole lotta splats. Even the NY Post’s review, which I think RT considers Fresh based on whatever mysterious calculation, calls the movie “watchable.” Praise doesn’t get much fainter.The Guardian reviewers tends to be pretty harsh.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife is still running 82% positive on RottenTomatoes. That's with 33 reviews counted. So we'll see how it all sorts out, it's early.
We must be looking at different reviews:
Granted, there are some good reviews out there