Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[Amaris]

Actually, the post you quoted was mostly factual, not opinion. The FACT is that women lead action movies have done fantastic for decades. This is not really a point that you can argue, and it's a pretty devastating refutation of the sexism angle. This Ghostbusters movie is a severe outlier from the norm - from that perspective.

I also promised a look though this stuff.

This stuff is not my forte and I'd rather not talk about it in relation to this movie, it's really not worth the time. Why don't we just talk about how the entire history of the human race is conspiring against a Ghostbusters remake while we're at it.

Ok, talking about hack clickbait bloggers who don't have a clue IS more of my forte. This article is just saying that the trailer was strongly disliked, then leaps to the conclusion that it's sexism, presumably because that will increase the number of clicks. Do not put stock in crap like this. They are making assumptions. Very dramatic, news friendly assumptions that also help the SONY hype machine, nothing more. Go on youtube right now, and search through the reaction videos people have made to find out what their opinions really are, and what their reasons are. You will have done more work than that blogger apparently did.



This is an even worse, and more poorly written article. I hope SONY didn't pay too much for it:

Yes, comparing this to that other movie no one has even heard of, or cares about is totally relevant. This person doesn't understand the internet, or what bandwagoning is, or how to properly prove a point.

...because fewer women made people...hate it less? This article was written by a simpleton or a SONY marketing shill, I'm not sure which since there is no connecting thread between those 2 thoughts. The first graphic is a perfect example of the sort of statistical tomfoolery I really hate. It got more dislikes than other selected movies huh? Wow, thrilling. It was a bad trailer & it went viral (probably intentionally), this isn't rocket science.
This author also doesn't understand trolling, or pretends not to. But I'm sure the 5 comments listed are totally representative of the entire internet. The thing about the internet is, you can go see for yourself what's going on, making hack bloggers less and less necessary. Speaking of which:

Sony did delete comments. But only non troll comments. Pretty good marketing, it seems to have worked miracles on some people.

That's a lot of text just to say "I don't see it, so it doesn't exist."

 

[Csalem]

Interesting article on Paul Feig, questioning whether or not it was right what he had to go through over the last eighteen months:
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/paul-feig/40886/a-few-thoughts-on-the-vilification-of-paul-feig

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Actually, the post you quoted was mostly factual, not opinion. The FACT is that women lead action movies have done fantastic for decades.

"fantastic for decades?" Your blanket, detail-free statement demands...details. We know there have been successful movies with female leads, but for you, titles and numbers (of movies and their earnings) to prove such a sweeping claim of doing "fantastic, as you say.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Though I do smell a strong whiff of misogyny swelling not only through this thread, but generally around this topic IRL with my film-fan-friends, I just want to look into the remark of female-driven actions films as put up by @ancient

Though there are some films in recent memory that have been solid, if not outright box-office winners, that have female leads, the majority of attempts to push through such films has led to rather disappointing BO overall (especially when one considers production costs). Those that have been successful typically have inbuilt fanbases attached to them (see The Hunger Games Quartet) and so the lone wanderer of Action Heroine generally does not fare as well as one would hope:

Taken from Boxoffice Mojo World Wide Unadjusted Grosses based on action films where the central character(s) are female, or if part of an ensemble/duo the perceived lead:

The Force Awakens (2015): $2.067b
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013): £865m
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay 1(2014): $755m
Gravity (2013): $723.2m
The Hunger Games (2012): $698.4m
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay 1(2014): $653.4
Brave (2012): $539m
Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991): $519.8m
Twister (1996): $494.5m
Mr & Mrs Smith (2005): $478.2m
Lucy (2014): $463.4m
Prometheus (2012): $403.4m
Snow White & the Huntsman: $393.6m
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015): $378.4
Edge of Tomorrow (2014): $370.5
Wanted (2008): $341.4m
Divergent Series: Insurgent (2015): $297.3m
Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010): $296.2m
Salt (2010): $293.5m
Divergent (2014): $288.9m
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001): $274.7m
Charlies Angels (2000): $264.1m
The Fifth Element (1997): $263.9m
Knight & Day (2010): $261.9m
Charlies Angels: Full Throttle (2003): $259.3m
The Mask of Zorro (1998): $250.3
Resident Evil: Retribution (2012): $240.2
Spy (2015): $235.7m
The Heat (2013): $229.9
Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013): $226.3m
Flightplan (2005): $223.3m
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000): $213.5m
Miss Congeniality (2000): $212.7m
Kill Bill 1 (2003): $180.9m
Hero (2004): $177.9m
Alien Resurrection (1997): $161.4m
Underworld: Awakening (2012): $160.1m
Alien 3 (1992): $159.8m
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life (2003): $156.5m
Kill Bill 2 (2004): $152.2m
Resident Evil: Extinction (2004): $147.7
Aliens (1986): $131m
Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2007): $129.4
Underworld: Evolution (2006): $111.3m
Resident Evil (2002): $102.4m
Miss Congeniality 2 (2005): $101.3m
Courage Under Fire (1996): $100.8m
GI Jane (1997): $97.1m
Underworld (2003): $95.7m
House of Flying Daggers (2004): $92.9m
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009): $91.3m
Sucker Punch (2011): $89.8m
The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996): $89.4m
Catwoman (2004): $82.1m
Elektra (2005): $56.6m
Aeon Flux (2005): $52.3m
Haywire (2012): $33.3m
Ultraviolet (2006): $31.1m
The Assassin (1993): 30.1m (USA only - no international figures)
Cutthroat Island (1995): $18m
Bad Girls (1994): $15.2m domestic (USA only - no international figures)
Supergirl (1984): $14.3m (USA only - no international figures)
Tank Girl (1995): $4.1m (USA only - no international figures)
Barb Wire (1996): $3.8m (USA only - no international figures)

Things of interest that immediately stick out about the above films:

Franchises/Branding: Star Wars / Resident Evil / Alien / Hunger Games / Divergent / Underworld - 21 flms all with built in audiences that have a running-jump start over many others
Stars: Angelina Jolie / Sandra Bullock / Scarlett Johanssen / Mila Jovavich / Kate Beckinsale - a limited number of females regularly playing in the genre
Female Led? - One could happily argue that many of the above films are in fact NOT female led, and even with co-stars one can happily see the film being market male-first... T2 as an Arnie film first, even though Linda Hamilton runs the show / Edge of Tomorrow and Knight & Day are Tom Cruise films first, co-female-lead/star second / Fifth Element would have been advertised as a Bruce Willis film even though Jovavich is an equal star throughout
Statistically Few: The top 33 are taken from the top 650 films grossing of all time (approx $200m or more). The remainder clearly fall well short, but they are not adjusted grosses. So those 33, in the top 650 account for approximately 5% of the films. There are MANY other female led films outside of the action genre that are in the top 650, but none of those ladies were fighting.
Poor Films: clearly a subjective thing here, but on that list, many of the films are poor to downright awful. One can say that about many male-centric action films also, yet when one looks at the list as is, the proportion sticks out - I class 33 out of the 61 films to be below average (watchable). Again, utterly subjective, but did highlight to me how many female centric films are ideas and barely real scripts
Genre: 41 of the films are SF/F oriented, which is likely to be matched by those male-oriented action flicks
Recent: 13 of the films are pre 2000. Trying to find a female-led action film in the 1990's is tricky, outside of the Alien franchise, almost unheard of.
Domestic Box Office: International BO is important. Good examples:

Resident Evil: Afterlife - US $60m / INT $236m
Gravity - US $275m / INT $449m
Mr & Mrs Smith - US $186 / INT $292
Lucy - US $126m / INT 336m
Salt - US $118m / INT $175m
Snow White & The Huntsman - US $155m / INT $241m
Mad Max: Fury Road - US $153m / INT $225m
Knight & Day - US $76m / INT $186m
Wanted - US $134m / INT $207m
Kill Bill 1 - US $70m / INT $111m

It's clear to me that there is in fact a dearth of solid female-led action films, regardless of sub-genre. There are some good highs but overall there appears to be little investment in them given I went back to 1984 and found barely 60, with the rules stretched somewhat to include a few. What the above does state to me, if I had to create a formula would be:

Previous fanbase + SF/F trappings + BO strong female actor + international appeal = hit

Hence why we are getting Ghost in the Shell with ScarJo next year

Or why a female Ghostbusters, to an ad-man and accountant sounds like it should be a winner...

Previous fanbase + S/F trappings + Wiig/McCarthy + international appeal = hit...??

Yet this formula pretty much works for ANY film these days - get something lots of people know or love, chuck in the flavour of the month, blend in big spectacle and effects and... tada.

So why choose almost solely women, over men, or even a combination? From a beancounters perspective it is a greater gamble. Why not just have Chris Hemsworth, Chris Pratt, Dev Patel and Zac Efron and run with a young male reboot. Fiscally this would make more sense as, noted above, risk is reduced, reward (hopefully) increased.

Paul Feig I guess wanted to make a film with people he likes and convinced the studio to let him do it. I see no obvious studio agenda to undermine what came before or even jump on a "bandwagon". What I do see is a fanbase agenda screaming through their keyboards because someone is not following their formula. Ghostbusters (1984) is a fine, fine film. A lightening bolt of talents firing on all cylinders (terrible mixed metaphor). Unlikely to be recaptured? Yup, just look at the amusing but mostly lifeless sequel. Burnt into the psyche of a generation? Perhaps, but it's that same generation that seems to think that their cultural touchstones are theirs and theirs alone (Star Wars / Indiana Jones / A-Team / Knight Rider / Terminator / Star Trek etc) and not a property to be shaped, reshaped, melded or flushed at the owners will.

Some reboots work, most don't. Just because ladies are up front and centre doesn't mean it is an automatic fail, or even an insult to your fandom. What is an insult is looking at your fandom in such a rigid fashion that anything outside of that box is "abomination".

I will likely watch this film if only because, thus far, Paul Fieg has shown a general knack for comedy direction. Will the writing match up, who knows, but I do know that if I don't like it I still have Ray, Egon, Peter and Winston on my Blu Ray shelf, untarnished, unmolested. Why? Because history can't be undone.

Hugo - Awaits the backlash.

 

[Amaris]

Though I do smell a strong whiff of misogyny swelling not only through this thread, but generally around this topic IRL with my film-fan-friends, I just want to tackle the issue of female-driven actions films as put up by @ancient

Though there are some films in recent memory that have been solid, if not outright box-office winners, that have female leads, the majority of attempts to push through such films has led to rather disappointing BO overall (especially when one considers production costs). Those that have been successful typically have inbuilt fanbases attached to them (see The Hunger Games Quartet) and so the lone wanderer of Action Heroine generally does not fare as well as one would hope:

Taken from Boxoffice Mojo World Wide Unadjusted Grosses based on action films where the central character(s) are female, or if part of an ensemble/duo the perceived lead:

The Force Awakens (2015): $2.067b
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013): £865m
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay 1(2014): $755m
Gravity (2013): $723.2m
The Hunger Games (2012): $698.4m
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay 1(2014): $653.4
Brave (2012): $539m
Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991): $519.8m
Twister (1996): $494.5m
Mr & Mrs Smith (2005): $478.2m
Lucy (2014): $463.4m
Prometheus (2012): $403.4m
Snow White & the Huntsman: $393.6m
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015): $378.4
Edge of Tomorrow (2014): $370.5
Wanted (2008): $341.4m
Divergent Series: Insurgent (2015): $297.3m
Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010): $296.2m
Salt (2010): $293.5m
Divergent (2014): $288.9m
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001): $274.7m
Charlies Angels (2000): $264.1m
The Fifth Element (1997): $263.9m
Knight & Day (2010): $261.9m
Charlies Angels: Full Throttle (2003): $259.3m
The Mask of Zorro (1998): $250.3
Resident Evil: Retribution (2012): $240.2
Spy (2015): $235.7m
The Heat (2013): $229.9
Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013): $226.3m
Flightplan (2005): $223.3m
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000): $213.5m
Miss Congeniality (2000): $212.7m
Kill Bill 1 (2003): $180.9m
Hero (2004): $177.9m
Alien Resurrection (1997): $161.4m
Underworld: Awakening (2012): $160.1m
Alien 3 (1992): $159.8m
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life (2003): $156.5m
Kill Bill 2 (2004): $152.2m
Resident Evil: Extinction (2004): $147.7
Aliens (1986): $131m
Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2007): $129.4
Underworld: Evolution (2006): $111.3m
Resident Evil (2002): $102.4m
Miss Congeniality 2 (2005): $101.3m
Courage Under Fire (1996): $100.8m
GI Jane (1997): $97.1m
Underworld (2003): $95.7m
House of Flying Daggers (2004): $92.9m
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009): $91.3m
Sucker Punch (2011): $89.8m
The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996): $89.4m
Catwoman (2004): $82.1m
Elektra (2005): $56.6m
Aeon Flux (2005): $52.3m
Haywire (2012): $33.3m
Ultraviolet (2006): $31.1m
The Assassin (1993): 30.1m (USA only - no international figures)
Cutthroat Island (1995): $18m
Bad Girls (1994): $15.2m domestic (USA only - no international figures)
Supergirl (1984): $14.3m (USA only - no international figures)
Tank Girl (1995): $4.1m (USA only - no international figures)
Barb Wire (1996): $3.8m (USA only - no international figures)

Things of interest that immediately stick out about the above films:

Franchises/Branding: Star Wars / Resident Evil / Alien / Hunger Games / Divergent / Underworld - 21 flms all with built in audiences that have a running-jump start over many others
Stars: Angelina Jolie / Sandra Bullock / Scarlett Johanssen / Mila Jovavich / Kate Beckinsale - a limited number of females regularly playing in the genre
Female Led? - One could happily argue that many of the above films are in fact NOT female led, and even with co-stars one can happily see the film being market male-first... T2 as an Arnie film first, even though Linda Hamilton runs the show / Edge of Tomorrow and Knight & Day are Tom Cruise films first, co-female-lead/star second / Fifth Element would have been advertised as a Bruce Willis film even though Jovavich is an equal star throughout
Statistically Few: The top 33 are taken from the top 650 films grossing of all time (approx $200m or more). The remainder clearly fall well short, but they are not adjusted grosses. So those 33, in the top 650 account for approximately 5% of the films. There are MANY other female led films outside of the action genre that are in the top 650, but none of those ladies were fighting.
Poor Films: clearly a subjective thing here, but on that list, many of the films are poor to downright awful. One can say that about many male-centric action films also, yet when one looks at the list as is, the proportion sticks out - I class 33 out of the 61 films to be below average (watchable). Again, utterly subjective, but did highlight to me how many female centric films are ideas and barely real scripts
Genre: 41 of the films are SF/F oriented, which is likely to be matched by those male-oriented action flicks
Recent: 13 of the films are pre 2000. Trying to find a female-led action film in the 1990's is tricky, outside of the Alien franchise, almost unheard of.
Domestic Box Office: International BO is important. Good examples:

Resident Evil: Afterlife - US $60m / INT $236m
Gravity - US $275m / INT $449m
Mr & Mrs Smith - US $186 / INT $292
Lucy - US $126m / INT 336m
Salt - US $118m / INT $175m
Snow White & The Huntsman - US $155m / INT $241m
Mad Max: Fury Road - US $153m / INT $225m
Knight & Day - US $76m / INT $186m
Wanted - US $134m / INT $207m
Kill Bill 1 - US $70m / INT $111m

It's clear to me that there is in fact a dearth of solid female-led action films, regardless of sub-genre. There are some good highs but overall there appears to be little investment in them given I went back to 1984 and found barely 60, with the rules stretched somewhat to include a few. What the above does state to me, if I had to create a formula would be:

Previous fanbase + SF/F trappings + BO strong female actor + international appeal = hit

Hence why we are getting Ghost in the Shell with ScarJo next year

Or why a female Ghostbusters, to an ad-man and accountant sounds like it should be a winner...

Previous fanbase + S/F trappings + Wiig/McCarthy + international appeal = hit...??

Yet this formula pretty much works for ANY film these days - get something lots of people know or love, chuck in the flavour of the month, blend in big spectacle and effects and... tada.

So why choose almost solely women, over men, or even a combination? From a beancounters perspective it is a greater gamble. Why not just have Chris Hemsworth, Chris Pratt, Dev Patel and Zac Efron and run with a young male reboot. Fiscally this would make more sense as, noted above, risk is reduced, reward (hopefully) increased.

Paul Feig I guess wanted to make a film with people he likes and convinced the studio to let him do it. I see no obvious studio agenda to undermine what came before or even jump on a "bandwagon". What I do see is a fanbase agenda screaming through their keyboards because someone is not following their formula. Ghostbusters (1984) is a fine, fine film. A lightening bolt of talents firing on all cylinders (terrible mixed metaphor). Unlikely to be recaptured? Yup, just look at the amusing but mostly lifeless sequel. Burnt into the psyche of a generation? Perhaps, but it's that same generation that seems to think that their cultural touchstones are theirs and theirs alone (Star Wars / Indiana Jones / A-Team / Knight Rider / Terminator / Star Trek etc) and not a property to be shaped, reshaped, melded or flushed at the owners will.

Some reboots work, most don't. Just because ladies are up front and centre doesn't mean it is an automatic fail, or even an insult to your fandom. What is an insult is looking at your fandom in such a rigid fashion that anything outside of that box is "abomination".

I will likely watch this film if only because, thus far, Paul Fieg has shown a general knack for comedy direction. Will the writing match up, who knows, but I do know that if I don't like it I still have Ray, Egon, Peter and Winston on my Blu Ray shelf, untarnished, unmolested. Why? Because history can't be undone.

Hugo - Awaits the backlash.

Wow. Thank you, @Hugo Rune for putting so much effort into your response. Beautifully stated!

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Taken from Boxoffice Mojo World Wide Unadjusted Grosses based on action films where the central character(s) are female, or if part of an ensemble/duo the perceived lead:

The Force Awakens (2015): $2.067b

..and I would remove this from the list, as the mere idea of a new Star Wars film was going to energize the global fanbase, and the whisper of the obsessively loved Original Trilogy "big three" coming back is what made the film a success, not an unknown female character.

Franchises/Branding: Star Wars / Resident Evil / Alien / Hunger Games / Divergent / Underworld - 21 flms all with built in audiences that have a running-jump start over many others

True.

Poor Films: clearly a subjective thing here, but on that list, many of the films are poor to downright awful. One can say that about many male-centric action films also, yet when one looks at the list as is, the proportion sticks out - I class 33 out of the 61 films to be below average (watchable). Again, utterly subjective, but did highlight to me how many female centric films are ideas and barely real scripts
Genre: 41 of the films are SF/F oriented, which is likely to be matched by those male-oriented action flicks
Recent: 13 of the films are pre 2000. Trying to find a female-led action film in the 1990's is tricky, outside of the Alien franchise, almost unheard of.
Domestic Box Office: International BO is important. Good examples:

Resident Evil: Afterlife - US $60m / INT $236m
Gravity - US $275m / INT $449m
Mr & Mrs Smith - US $186 / INT $292
Lucy - US $126m / INT 336m
Salt - US $118m / INT $175m
Snow White & The Huntsman - US $155m / INT $241m
Mad Max: Fury Road - US $153m / INT $225m
Knight & Day - US $76m / INT $186m
Wanted - US $134m / INT $207m
Kill Bill 1 - US $70m / INT $111m

Fascinating.

[quote[It's clear to me that there is in fact a dearth of solid female-led action films, regardless of sub-genre. There are some good highs but overall there appears to be little investment in them given I went back to 1984 and found barely 60, with the rules stretched somewhat to include a few. What the above does state to me, if I had to create a formula would be:[/quite]

So, in looking at member ancient's misleading:

Actually, the post you quoted was mostly factual, not opinion. The FACT is that women lead action movies have done fantastic for decades.

There's barely a whit of evidence to support his sweeping claim.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Are there examples of outrage against female protagonists that do not involve changing an existing IP?

 

[mos6507]

Are there examples of outrage against female protagonists that do not involve changing an existing IP?

The problem is there are too few new IPs being created in the first place. Most of the existing IPs with female protagonists go back a ways (like Alien).

 

[Tosk]

There are plenty of franchises (or big hits) that feature female leads without a whiff of complaint. Hunger Games, Twilight, Millennium Trilogy, Scream, Bridget Jones, Underworld, Bridesmaids, The Heat, Gravity, Resident Evil, Frozen, Pitch Perfect, 50 Shades... (But of course the number of them is still a drop in the giant bucket of male-lead franchises.)

I can think of at least one property that caught a bunch of ignorant hate due to a female lead. Mad Max Fury Road. Whether or not that movie constituted changing an existing IP is up to the individual.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I can think of at least one property that caught a bunch of ignorant hate due to a female lead. Mad Max Fury Road. Whether or not that movie constituted changing an existing IP is up to the individual.

Did it? I could see being upset that Max took kind of a back seat (literally?) to Furiosa but she was such a cool character it's a shame if there was some backlash simply due to her gender.

My point about the existing IP is not that sexism or racism don't exist but that there seems to be another element involved with changing established characters. I think making blanket statements about misogyny miss the point as it doesn't seem to apply near as much to original properties. There seems to be something additional that sparks it. Maybe there's something more threatening about seeing white males being replaced as opposed to being supplemented by new "diverse" characters.

 

[Rincewiend]

 

[Kemaiku]

I can't even tell what the hell that's supposed to be, but maybe the person making the gif isn't too good at it.

 

[JD]

It's Melissa McCarthy punching a ghost.

There are plenty of franchises (or big hits) that feature female leads without a whiff of complaint. Hunger Games, Twilight, Millennium Trilogy, Scream, Bridget Jones, Underworld, Bridesmaids, The Heat, Gravity, Resident Evil, Frozen, Pitch Perfect, 50 Shades... (But of course the number of them is still a drop in the giant bucket of male-lead franchises.)

I can think of at least one property that caught a bunch of ignorant hate due to a female lead. Mad Max Fury Road. Whether or not that movie constituted changing an existing IP is up to the individual.

Well, HG, Twilight, the Millenium Trilogy, Bridget Jones, Resident Evil and 50 Shades were all based on pre-existing popular IPs so they were already guarenteed a fairly big audience.
I think it's also worth keeping in mind who the target audience is, things like Twilight, Bridget Jones, Pitch Perfect, and 50 Shades are geared more towards women to start with, so you're not going to see as much backlash. Disney also already had a history of female lead films too, so a new one coming out with a female lead wouldn't have been a big issue. I haven't seen Gravity, but I was under the impression that it was just as much George Clooney's movie as it was Sandra Bullock's.
I really do think a lot of the backlash for GB is due to the fact that they are changing it from mostly men to mostly women.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I haven't seen Gravity, but I was under the impression that it was just as much George Clooney's movie as it was Sandra Bullock's.

While I don't remember how it was marketed, Gravity is strictly a Sandra Bullock film.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^ I don't know if it's mega-successful but the Underworld franchise has turned out a number of films with another on its way.

 

[Trekker4747]

I can't even tell what the hell that's supposed to be, but maybe the person making the gif isn't too good at it.

Melissa McCarthy punching a ghost with proton-pack brass knuckles. Because.... proton pack brass knuckles. Why not?

 

[Kemaiku]

Melissa McCarthy punching a ghost with proton-pack brass knuckles. Because.... proton pack brass knuckles. Why not?

Oh, that's...dumb.

 

[JD]

^ I don't know if it's mega-successful but the Underworld franchise has turned out a number of films with another on its way.

I'm honestly kind of amazed the Underworld movies have actually been successfull enough to get five movies. It's a new IP, without connections to any really big name stars or directors. Kate Beckinsale is fairly well known, but I don't think she's quite at the same level as somebody like ScarJo or Angelina Jolie. I'd never even of any of the directors before they did the movies.

 

[Kemaiku]

I love those movies, I know I'm in a minority there.

There were going to be two movies, David (the new male lead) would have gotten the actual Underworld 5 with Kate coming back a few months later for a connected UW "5.5" but they just put both films together, hence it not meeting the usual January 20th 3 year release cycle.

It has a pretty dedicated fanbase, and they have ideas for another couple of movies, I'll see them half a dozen times each before seeing this reboot though....

 

[Owain Taggart]

While I don't remember how it was marketed, Gravity is strictly a Sandra Bullock film.

I remember it quite clearly being marketed as a Sandra Bullock movie, with George Clooney as supporting actor, They made a big deal about it being a woman centered role. He wasn't really in it all that much. It was all about her journey from beginning to end.