Why do decent films fail?

By Luke Jones

Let’s play a game where I describe a film that's currently on release and you try to guess which one it is. It's a live action update of an animation classic from the 90s. The strong, female lead is forced out of her comfort zone by a disfigured male, whom she initially fears but turns out to have hidden depths. The story is presented with the all the modern CGI-trickery that Hollywood can conjure, a true feast for the eyes. Oh, and there are four words in the title.

Yes, there are a few similarities between Beauty and the Beast and Ghost in the Shell, the latter of which I saw this evening. Less similar are the two film's box office takings; where Beauty is on its way to putting another Scrooge McDuck-style swimming pool in the back yard of Disney's executives, Ghost is expected to come in anywhere between $150m and $170m. For a potential franchise spawner that cost in the region of $110m (plus the usual rule of thumb to double the cost for marketing) the money men are sure to be regretting letting this ghost out of its shell.

What's unusual is that it’s a good film. Of course 'good' is subjective, and there are plenty of fans of the original who proclaim it a pale imitation. Yet at its worse it is a solidly constructed sci-fi action film. It has brains to go alongside some well-crafted action sequences, and demand for superhero-style films is yet to show signs of slowing down. Its main flaw is suffering from John Carter syndrome, whereby the original has influenced so many imitators that it ends up feeling derivative of its successors, but given the rarity of big budget cyberpunk it still stands out among 2017s other blockbusters.  Yet it has demonstrably failed to connect with audiences, and I find that fascinating.

One factor held up for Ghost’s box office failure is the controversy around casting Scarlett Johansson. Casting a white American in an iconic Japanese role is always going to feel icky, but within the film’s universe it makes sense; the body horror of transferring consciousness is only compounded by also changing the race of the body. I’ve no doubt that it made the accountants happier to have an A-lister as the lead, but casting decisions can work artistically even if made for pragmatic reasons.

Casting controversies also, historically, have had little bearing on the success of the final film. Daniel Craig’s Bond, Heath Ledger’s Joker, Ben Affleck’s Batman… all have had geek communities up in arms yet their films have gone on to big revenues. On the other hand, where casting problems have dogged films that enjoyed less than stellar box office (i.e. Johnny Depp as a native American in The Lone Ranger) there are usually more compelling reasons for why these films failed. You might argue that, in the latter cases, those casting choices were less successful than, say, Ledger’s Joker. Yet in an industry that relies on putting bums on seats for the opening weekend, quality of casting is irrelevant. Sure, it can hurt how long the film keeps pulling in the punters, but it doesn’t affect who turns up on opening night.

In review terms, ‘Beauty’ has been viewed generally positively, currently rating at 71% on Rotten Tomatoes (Ghost is sitting on 46%). Yet neither position is strong enough to sway either way; Beauty hasn’t been lauded in a way that would win around people who were on the fence, while Ghost hasn’t been trashed as a real stinker. Besides, the Transformers franchise continues to prove that reviews make little difference to a blockbuster’s performance, where Michael Bay can probably wipe his bum till the end of time with critical notices while enjoying series receipts of almost $4 billion.

This suggests that the way the film was marketed let it down, and yes, there have been notable examples of poor campaigns that have derailed films before they’ve even hit multiplexes (2016s Legend of Tarzan I’m looking at you). Yet even Ghost in the Shell’s marketing felt right, with a number of arresting trailers built around the numerous money shots (for all its faults Ghost is a gorgeous film). Did the trailers fail to set up the story behind these shots? Maybe, but again this feels like a weak reason for audiences to stay away; no-one knew what the Matrix was before seeing, well, the Matrix.

It may have never had the chance to be as big as Beauty and the Beast with its cross-demographic appeal and perfectly manicured eyebrows, but it feels like Ghost in the Shell got lost for a weird cocktail of reasons that combined to produce lacklustre box office. It's (kind of) an original property with an unusual aesthetic, a diverse cast, and a lack of support from the geek community that can produce good word of mouth. Home video and broadcast sales will certainly push the film into the black eventually, but for now Ghost in the Shell is the first film casualty of 2017.