Ghost Rider SOV - What Went Wrong?

[Drz]

Originally Posted by Midnyte_Sun

It received a fresh rating on Rotten tomatoes. That mean's it's pretty good to me.

What you believe doesn't mean it was critically "pretty good".

Same budget as the first movie, with a Rated R rating, and a real compelling story.

Amd how many 110 million budget films with an R rating have you seen as a Box Office hit in today's market?

That didn't stop DC from pimping the Watchmen line into prequel territory.

Are you honestly implying the Prequels have anything to do with the movie? No, absolutely nothing. It's all about Jim Lee & Dan Didio being in charge and doing things Paul Levitz was againts.

Disney doesn't have to do it. From what I remember, Marvel doesn't want to make any R rated movies and wants to give a franchise out to another party to make R titles.

So now you want Ghost Rider to get back to Marvel, only to be sold again?

[Midnyte_Sun]

Originally Posted by Drz

What you believe doesn't mean it was critically "pretty good".

Fresh rating is 'good' on Rotten Tomatoes. That means the majority of critics like it. 7.7 on IMDB also. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean it was horrible. Watchmen complete is a masterpiece.

Amd how many 110 million budget films with an R rating have you seen as a Box Office hit in today's market?

What's wrong for asking for a bigger budget? That's what Ghost Rider deserves.

Are you honestly implying the Prequels have anything to do with the movie?

No. You missed my implication that DC is pimping the Watchmen franchise for every penny it's worth since it doesn't have the bankable titles that Marvel has. Hypothetically speaking, if the prequel became a HUGE success, there will be nothing stopping DC for making another Watchmen movie. Nothing.

So now you want Ghost Rider to get back to Marvel, only to be sold again?

So now I want what? Stop putting words in my mouth. Marvel studios themselves said they won't make R-rated movies. Marvel executive Peter Cuneo said in 2008: " it would be very hard for us to partner with another studio, unless it was an R-rated film, and then I think that's pretty self-obvious because we are not interested in making R-rated films [at Marvel Studios]." Source

[Drz]

Originally Posted by Midnyte_Sun

Fresh rating is 'good' on Rotten Tomatoes.

Fresh rating with a 65% is barely something i'd ever dare to say "pretty good".

That means the majority of critics like it.

But not the major critics that people care about.

What's wrong for asking for a bigger budget? That's what Ghost Rider deserves.

You're asking so much from Hollywood without doing any research. You want an R rating, okay. You want a huge budget? Look at Ridley Scott's Prometheus, even that movie may become an PG-13 movie, why? Studios want quarenteed profits. You don't throw bigger budgets and make it R rated.

there will be nothing stopping DC for making another Watchmen movie. Nothing.

Why would Warner Brothers want to make another movie to a franchise that didn't even make a profit? Common sense is one good thing to stop Warner Brothers from producing another movie. Having a succesful comic series doesn't ever quarentee a movie, i mean the nerd culture isn't what Hollywood demands. Movies like Scott Pilgrim, Watchmen and so forth didn't give any profits whatsoever.

Ghost Rider has never been a top seller and he has received two movies instead of top selling titles like Justice League, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (has been a huge succes for almost a year now, even outselling all Marvel comics from time to time), Flash and so forth.

[Midnyte_Sun]

Originally Posted by Drz

Fresh rating with a 65% is barely something i'd ever dare to say "pretty good".

There's a lot of movies in that general number that I would say are pretty good movies. Public Enemies got a 68%, Point Break 67%, The Highlander 67%, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows got a 60%, Crank got 60%, The Running Man 63%, Starship Stroopers 62%, I'm sure I could find more if I wanted to.

But not the major critics that people care about.

Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars, nobody cares about Chicago Sun Times? I really doubt that.

You're asking so much from Hollywood without doing any research. You want an R rating, okay. You want a huge budget? Look at Ridley Scott's Prometheus, even that movie may become an PG-13 movie, why? Studios want quarenteed profits. You don't throw bigger budgets and make it R rated.

You also don't want to piss off the fans. Look at the Expendables, an 80 Million dollar movie that made $274 million box office and the sequel was going to be PG-13. Fans created such a huge outcry they went back to making it rated R.

Look at the Matrix, rated R, $463 Million in profits. Matrix Reloaded 150 million dollar budget, Rated R, $742 Million in profit.

Rated R movies can do extremely well if made right.

Why would Warner Brothers want to make another movie to a franchise that didn't even make a profit? Common sense is one good thing to stop Warner Brothers from producing another movie. Having a succesful comic series doesn't ever quarentee a movie, i mean the nerd culture isn't what Hollywood demands. Movies like Scott Pilgrim, Watchmen and so forth didn't give any profits whatsoever.

Might not guarantee, but it does give it a DAMN good chance. Spiderman, X-Men, Thor, Iron-Man, the Avengers, Batman, the Walking Dead, have all become widely successful.

Ghost Rider has never been a top seller

Again, not true. Ghost Rider in the 1990's was one of the most top-selling comics of that decade. It spawned numerous related projects and was very close to getting it's own animated show; which the studio believed was too dark for saturday morning TV.

[Drz]

Originally Posted by Midnyte_Sun

There's a lot of movies in that general number that I would say are pretty good movies.

Again we come back to what you think, not generally viewed.

Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars, nobody cares about Chicago Sun Times? I really doubt that.

So 1st you cite Rotten Tomatoes' meter as something positive, i point out how top critics are not so pleased by it and you decide to now cite a single reviewer? What gives?

Look at the Matrix, rated R, $463 Million in profits. Matrix Reloaded 150 million dollar budget, Rated R, $742 Million in profit.

This was nearly 10 years ago completely. Things aren't the same.

Might not guarantee, but it does give it a DAMN good chance. Spiderman, X-Men, Thor, Iron-Man, the Avengers, Batman, the Walking Dead, have all become widely successful.

Again, why would Before the Watchmen becoming a critical and sales hit make a movie out of it? It's like asking did Ghost Rider need a sequel when you think about it, luckily they got the Crank guys to do it.

Again, not true. Ghost Rider in the 1990's was one of the most top-selling comics of that decade. It spawned numerous related projects and was very close to getting it's own animated show; which the studio believed was too dark for saturday morning TV.

Numerous projects? Top-selling comic of the decade? I'm going to ask for some citations, officer!

[Midnyte_Sun]

Originally Posted by Drz

Again we come back to what you think, not generally viewed.

Your subjective reasoning over mine. Most of the movies I gave examples of are pretty good movies in the same exact range as Watchmen; some of them have become cult hits, and they even got some good critical response. If you think because it was not raved by the majority of the "top" critics, therefore it is not good, then that can only be what YOU think.

So 1st you cite Rotten Tomatoes' meter as something positive, i point out how top critics are not so pleased by it and you decide to now cite a single reviewer? What gives?

So you're saying Roger Ebert is not one of those "top critics?"

This was nearly 10 years ago completely. Things aren't the same.

I have said from the beginning that GR should be rated R. You wanted an example, I gave you one. You come back and say that was ten years ago, when in fact, Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions came out about 5 years apart from Ghost Rider in 2007. A action-horror character like Ghost Rider should never be rated PG 13. Ofcourse now it has been 5 years, and they still have not learned their lesson.

Again, why would Before the Watchmen becoming a critical and sales hit make a movie out of it?

It's like why is two the outcome of 1+1? Because it will create buzz, it will create swathes of fans, it will become a greater pop culture icon, the reasons go on and on.

Numerous projects? Top-selling comic of the decade? I'm going to ask for some citations, officer!

I never said it was "THE" top selling comic of the decade. If you want to keep up your game of cynical baiting, don't put words in my mouth.

"Even given the comic boom that was taking place during the early 1990's, Ghost Rider sold exceptionally well. Before long, the lead character was guesting all over the place, from the X-men, to Daredevil, and the Punisher. Whenever old Ghost appeared on a cover, sales rose, and so the character quickly became all-pervading. At that time, Marvel was grouping many of its ongoing series under umbrella titles. So successful was Ghost Rider, it was seen as a good vehicle to launch a new swathe of supernatural series [projects] under the Midnight Sons banner. Darkhold, Nightstalkers, Morbius: The Living Vampire, and Ghost Rider's own spin off series, Spirits of Vengeance, all resulted from this strategy. - Andrew Darling (Ghost Rider: The Visual Guide 2007)

--

GHOST RIDER volume 2 (1990-1998)

Relaunched as part of Marvel's "Heroes For the Nineties" campaign, the new Ghost Rider series by creators Howard Mackie, Javier Saltares, and Mark Texeira was an undeniable smash hit in the early part of the decade. The book's success spawned a spin-off group of titles - the Midnight Sons - and enjoyed a lengthy run until sales finally slipped in 1998.."
(Source)

--

"...Sales department insisted would be dead within four issues, but the first issue sold better than anything on the stands at the time." - Howard Mackie, Sin and Salvation: 40 years of Ghost Rider Comic Book History, 2007.