That's inaccurate. The 2005 and 2007 films were both popular, and profitable. The second one was not well-reviewed, and despite the film making $300 million on a $130 million budget, it wasn't successful enough to warrant a third film.
There was no film before those. You are probably referring to the 1994 film, which was made only to maintain Bernd Eichinger's rights to the franchise. It was conceived as a film that would be shot but never released, which is exactly what happened.
Only the most recent film, the ill-conceived 2015 reboot, can be labeled a flop.
Will the new one make lots at the box office? Who knows? If it's good, it should. All we've heard so far has been promising, but it's early to say.
reply
share
redban (6776)
24 days ago
I was not referring to a 1994 movie (I had no idea that there was a 1994 FF film).
I said this 2025 movie would be the third reboot and fourth FF movie
The 2005 and 2007 films were critically panned by both audiences and professional critics, so I’m not sure they were popular. The 2005 film wasn’t a box office failure, but the 2007 film did not draw as much as the studios wanted, as they themselves noted
reply
share
FilmBuff (7435)
24 days ago
The 2005 film was the first, and the 2007 film was its sequel. The 2015 was the first reboot. If you weren't including the 1994 film, then what do you consider to be the second reboot?
reply
share
redban (6776)
24 days ago
I was referring to the 2005 film as a reboot in the sense that it was the start. But if you want to cling on the semantics between “boot” and “reboot,” then that’s being a bit pedantic
reply
share
FilmBuff (7435)
24 days ago
I've never heard anyone refer to the first film in a franchise as being a reboot. That was the confusion. You may want to look up the meaning of the word reboot before calling me pedantic for not realizing what you meant.
reply
share