Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4874511
Commander_Jim wrote:The movie has now fallen behind Feig's film The Heat at the box office. The Heat went into its third weekend with 98 million and made another 14 million. GB is at 96 million and is predicted to make 10 million. Considering the Ghostbusters name, a movie with triple the budget as well as the huge marketing push compared to The Heat (which I never even heard of until it was in cinemas), yikes.

I never expected the film to do all that well, but its still hard to see a movie with the Ghostbusters name doing so poorly.
Funny enough, it's doing better than Bridesmaids which made more than the Heat domestically.

There is a lot of woulda, coulda, shouldas with the whole thing, but who's to say how well a male led reboot or continuation would do? It would have had the same marketing team and, most likely, less coverage because of lack of controversy. Maybe it would have been Jurassic World 2.0, or if could have just been the next Independence Day Resurgence.

Thursday is $2 million. Drops aren't bad with weekly totals and this weekend will be interesting. Box Office Mojo is saying $10.3 million for Friday-Saturday. My hope would be $12 million. Might even break $100 million tomorrow.
Sav C liked this
#4874516
Jangonate wrote:
Commander_Jim wrote:The movie has now fallen behind Feig's film The Heat at the box office. The Heat went into its third weekend with 98 million and made another 14 million. GB is at 96 million and is predicted to make 10 million. Considering the Ghostbusters name, a movie with triple the budget as well as the huge marketing push compared to The Heat (which I never even heard of until it was in cinemas), yikes.

I never expected the film to do all that well, but its still hard to see a movie with the Ghostbusters name doing so poorly.
Funny enough, it's doing better than Bridesmaids which made more than the Heat domestically.

There is a lot of woulda, coulda, shouldas with the whole thing, but who's to say how well a male led reboot or continuation would do? It would have had the same marketing team and, most likely, less coverage because of lack of controversy. Maybe it would have been Jurassic World 2.0, or if could have just been the next Independence Day Resurgence.

Thursday is $2 million. Drops aren't bad with weekly totals and this weekend will be interesting. Box Office Mojo is saying $10.3 million for Friday-Saturday. My hope would be $12 million. Might even break $100 million tomorrow.
It should be destroying both bridesmaids and The Heat! Those were R rated low budget comedies and not a franchise tent pole. Comparing it to those two movies is meaningless. Ghostbusters is a PG-13 quarter of a billion dollar franchise film. You are kind of grasping at straws here. The legs of GB Boxoffice are not very good either. 2 million is weak. A 10 million third weekend is weak. It's time to accept that this movie is not doing "good" or even "ok". It will not make it's production budget back. That's a disaster for Sony right now. I get that you and others really enjoyed the film and wished things were going better, so do I. But there is not one postive thing you can take away from the films performance. If the film had simply been on course to make its money back? That would be "ok". But a continuing 50% fall on a sub 50 million dollar opening for a movie of this size is *bad*. Sony should have released this in March. I can't prove it, but a March opening? With the poor buzz of BvS? I think we'd be looking at much higher numbers.
#4874518
Meh. If they make a sequel, that will tell the tale. People are not willing to give GB a chance in theaters because of...

1) Negative publicity
2) Sequel fatigue
3) Reboot fatigue

etc.

It's Batman Begins all over again. The sour taste of Joel Schumacher's Batman movies (esp. that absolute turkey Batman and Robin) caused Begins to have a very poor box office performance for a Batman movie. But once people saw it on DVD/TV/streaming they loved it. The next movie went wild at the box office.
Sav C liked this
#4874520
Commander_Jim wrote:The movie has now fallen behind Feig's film The Heat at the box office. The Heat went into its third weekend with 98 million and made another 14 million. GB is at 96 million and is predicted to make 10 million. Considering the Ghostbusters name, a movie with triple the budget as well as the huge marketing push compared to The Heat (which I never even heard of until it was in cinemas), yikes.

I never expected the film to do all that well, but its still hard to see a movie with the Ghostbusters name doing so poorly.
I just hope it convinces SONY to go in a different direction with the next cinematic outing.
EddieSpenser liked this
#4874529
Ivo Shandor wrote:Meh. If they make a sequel, that will tell the tale. People are not willing to give GB a chance in theaters because of...

1) Negative publicity
2) Sequel fatigue
3) Reboot fatigue

etc.

It's Batman Begins all over again. The sour taste of Joel Schumacher's Batman movies (esp. that absolute turkey Batman and Robin) caused Begins to have a very poor box office performance for a Batman movie. But once people saw it on DVD/TV/streaming they loved it. The next movie went wild at the box office.
Lol where do you get this stuff from? Seriously.
When Batman begins was released it was the second highest grossing Batman film of all time. It opened on a Wednesday so it's Friday-Sun numbers seemed lower than a movie that opens on a Friday. Begins was successful. When it hit DVD it became even more so. 205 million domestic is nothing to sneeze at given the last Batman movie.

Ghostbusters is not Batman Begins! It won't gross anything close to 205 million.

You are trying to form a narrative that has no basis in fact. Ghostbusters is more like...Godzilla '98 or Terminator Salvation. That's an anology that works.
seekandannoy liked this
#4874533
Jangonate wrote:
Commander_Jim wrote:The movie has now fallen behind Feig's film The Heat at the box office. The Heat went into its third weekend with 98 million and made another 14 million. GB is at 96 million and is predicted to make 10 million. Considering the Ghostbusters name, a movie with triple the budget as well as the huge marketing push compared to The Heat (which I never even heard of until it was in cinemas), yikes.

I never expected the film to do all that well, but its still hard to see a movie with the Ghostbusters name doing so poorly.
Funny enough, it's doing better than Bridesmaids which made more than the Heat domestically.

There is a lot of woulda, coulda, shouldas with the whole thing, but who's to say how well a male led reboot or continuation would do? It would have had the same marketing team and, most likely, less coverage because of lack of controversy. Maybe it would have been Jurassic World 2.0, or if could have just been the next Independence Day Resurgence.
Honestly I see no reason that a Ghostbusters movie shouldnt have been one of the biggest movies of the year if they'd gone in a different direction (I dont mean male specifically). The name is there, the popularity is there, it has the geek following, it has all the ingredients of a modern major franchise, it had the big budget and marketing, it should have been competing with the superhero movies, not medium budget comedies. But the writing was on the wall from the moment it was announced, a Paul Feig/Melissa McCarthy comedy was never going to attract those kinds of crowds. And the all-female thing was never going to be a drawcard for boys and teenagers (who make up the biggest portion of the cinema going audience)

I'm imagining an alternate universe, one in which Ghostbusters was handed to somebody like Joss Whedon, Jon Favreau, the Russo's or Shane Black, people who make funny, character driven ensemble movies that arent straight out comedies (in line with the originals) , to make a reboot or passing-the-torch movie (anything but a remake) with a mixed sex cast. A movie that is hyped at things like Comic-Con (rather than Ellen) and embraced fans rather than alienating them. I think it would have been a huge hit and guaranteed the future of the franchise for years.
deadderek, dr.paul, seekandannoy and 1 others liked this
#4874534
RichardLess wrote:
Jangonate wrote:
Funny enough, it's doing better than Bridesmaids which made more than the Heat domestically.

There is a lot of woulda, coulda, shouldas with the whole thing, but who's to say how well a male led reboot or continuation would do? It would have had the same marketing team and, most likely, less coverage because of lack of controversy. Maybe it would have been Jurassic World 2.0, or if could have just been the next Independence Day Resurgence.

Thursday is $2 million. Drops aren't bad with weekly totals and this weekend will be interesting. Box Office Mojo is saying $10.3 million for Friday-Saturday. My hope would be $12 million. Might even break $100 million tomorrow.
It should be destroying both bridesmaids and The Heat! Those were R rated low budget comedies and not a franchise tent pole. Comparing it to those two movies is meaningless. Ghostbusters is a PG-13 quarter of a billion dollar franchise film. You are kind of grasping at straws here. The legs of GB Boxoffice are not very good either. 2 million is weak. A 10 million third weekend is weak. It's time to accept that this movie is not doing "good" or even "ok". It will not make it's production budget back. That's a disaster for Sony right now. I get that you and others really enjoyed the film and wished things were going better, so do I. But there is not one postive thing you can take away from the films performance. If the film had simply been on course to make its money back? That would be "ok". But a continuing 50% fall on a sub 50 million dollar opening for a movie of this size is *bad*. Sony should have released this in March. I can't prove it, but a March opening? With the poor buzz of BvS? I think we'd be looking at much higher numbers.
You'll notice after a quick re read of my post that I really didn't comment on whether or not the numbers were good, bad or in between. I merely stated that, other than a bigger drop for the second weekend, it is still performing a lot like a Feig film, just a Feig film with a much bigger opening.

Yes, I really like the movie, but most of my posts are just the numbers and comparisons with Feig's other films. So, mentioning again that my love for the film has blinded me to reality is a bit silly. Remind me again, because it was a few pages back, what your thoughts on the film are. Do I remember correctly that you weren't a big fan of the film and hope that Sony goes with a much different approach and new team for the next one?

One other comment I will make is this...nobody really knew what this film would do. I don't think it's safe to say we were certain that Ghostbusters had the fan base and nostalgia to destroy these numbers. We haven't had a film since 1989 and releases of the film really didn't make much from the base. I do think there were a lot of little things that could've been done to tighten up the narrative and some of the run on jokes needed to be nixed or trimmed. Yeah, that might've gotten a better response, but, ultimately, bad marketing hurt this film. Good review scores and positive buzz going into opening weekend boosted them from a $30 million prediction to a $46 million actual, but after dissed trailers (that many will say were not good at conveying the actual product) the film had a tough hill to climb. Whose to say the very same thing could've happened for a direct sequel or that a lack of Bill Murray and Harold Ramis didn't get people as excited about Ray and Winston's return? Too many unknowns to just declare that this should have destroyed Feig's numbers.

Our box office could just as well be telling us that people weren't as excited about Ghostbusters as us jaded few on the boards discussing it are. Maybe Sony was hoping that this would re introduce it to a new generation and begin a new base of fans to carry on the torch that the old team was unable to pass.
Sav C liked this
#4874535
Commander_Jim wrote:
Jangonate wrote:
Funny enough, it's doing better than Bridesmaids which made more than the Heat domestically.

There is a lot of woulda, coulda, shouldas with the whole thing, but who's to say how well a male led reboot or continuation would do? It would have had the same marketing team and, most likely, less coverage because of lack of controversy. Maybe it would have been Jurassic World 2.0, or if could have just been the next Independence Day Resurgence.
Honestly I see no reason that a Ghostbusters movie shouldnt have been one of the biggest movies of the year if they'd gone in a different direction (I dont mean male specifically). The name is there, the popularity is there, it has the geek following, it has all the ingredients of a modern major franchise, it had the big budget and marketing, it should have been competing with the superhero movies, not medium budget comedies. But the writing was on the wall from the moment it was announced, a Paul Feig/Melissa McCarthy comedy was never going to attract those kinds of crowds. And the all-female thing was never going to be a drawcard for boys and teenagers (who make up the biggest portion of the cinema going audience)

I'm imagining an alternate universe, one in which Ghostbusters was handed to somebody like Joss Whedon, Jon Favreau, the Russo's or Shane Black, people who make funny, character driven ensemble movies that arent straight out comedies (in line with the originals) , to make a reboot or passing-the-torch movie (anything but a remake) with a mixed sex cast. A movie that is hyped at things like Comic-Con (rather than Ellen) and embraced fans rather than alienating them. I think it would have been a huge hit and guaranteed the future of the franchise for years.
My previous post addresses some of what you're saying, but to the bolded part, I disagree. I'll have to look up the article, but there is a lot of evidence that women make up just as big a portion and can carry films as well as men. Just ask yourselves how a book series like Twilight could spawn such a terrible, yet successful film franchise. It's amazing the response I've heard from them regarding this film.

I still insist, and have chuckled to hear disagreement, that the first one was a comedy with horror and action elements. If anything, Feig's was much more action packed while still maintaining that identity as a comedy. I had many more belly laughs in that movie than the films of the mentioned directors. Those were films I chuckled or smiled through (and enjoyed!), but I want my Ghostbusters to keep that comedy focus. I think there's an element of Ghostbusters that must go smaller than the summer tent poles to maintain the balance of horror and comedy.
#4874536
The first one was a comedy, but what made it a comedy was purely the fact that it just happened to be about people who were funny, it really wouldnt take much to rewrite it as a totally straight film. It was very much set in the real world. The new film was set in a more Achorman/Zoolander kind of reality where everyone is in on the joke, every single character in it is doing a bit. In the original Dana, the Mayor, Walter Peck, Gozer etc. werent comedic characters. Ghostbusters definitely needs to be a comedy, but for the horror aspect to have any impact it also needs to have that real world feeling.
#4874537
Jangonate wrote:
RichardLess wrote:
It should be destroying both bridesmaids and The Heat! Those were R rated low budget comedies and not a franchise tent pole. Comparing it to those two movies is meaningless. Ghostbusters is a PG-13 quarter of a billion dollar franchise film. You are kind of grasping at straws here. The legs of GB Boxoffice are not very good either. 2 million is weak. A 10 million third weekend is weak. It's time to accept that this movie is not doing "good" or even "ok". It will not make it's production budget back. That's a disaster for Sony right now. I get that you and others really enjoyed the film and wished things were going better, so do I. But there is not one postive thing you can take away from the films performance. If the film had simply been on course to make its money back? That would be "ok". But a continuing 50% fall on a sub 50 million dollar opening for a movie of this size is *bad*. Sony should have released this in March. I can't prove it, but a March opening? With the poor buzz of BvS? I think we'd be looking at much higher numbers.
You'll notice after a quick re read of my post that I really didn't comment on whether or not the numbers were good, bad or in between. I merely stated that, other than a bigger drop for the second weekend, it is still performing a lot like a Feig film, just a Feig film with a much bigger opening.

Yes, I really like the movie, but most of my posts are just the numbers and comparisons with Feig's other films. So, mentioning again that my love for the film has blinded me to reality is a bit silly. Remind me again, because it was a few pages back, what your thoughts on the film are. Do I remember correctly that you weren't a big fan of the film and hope that Sony goes with a much different approach and new team for the next one?

One other comment I will make is this...nobody really knew what this film would do. I don't think it's safe to say we were certain that Ghostbusters had the fan base and nostalgia to destroy these numbers. We haven't had a film since 1989 and releases of the film really didn't make much from the base. I do think there were a lot of little things that could've been done to tighten up the narrative and some of the run on jokes needed to be nixed or trimmed. Yeah, that might've gotten a better response, but, ultimately, bad marketing hurt this film. Good review scores and positive buzz going into opening weekend boosted them from a $30 million prediction to a $46 million actual, but after dissed trailers (that many will say were not good at conveying the actual product) the film had a tough hill to climb. Whose to say the very same thing could've happened for a direct sequel or that a lack of Bill Murray and Harold Ramis didn't get people as excited about Ray and Winston's return? Too many unknowns to just declare that this should have destroyed Feig's numbers.

Our box office could just as well be telling us that people weren't as excited about Ghostbusters as us jaded few on the boards discussing it are. Maybe Sony was hoping that this would re introduce it to a new generation and begin a new base of fans to carry on the torch that the old team was unable to pass.
You may want to re read your own post because you clearly state that the weekday numbers "aren't bad". I was not a fan of the movie. I don't care what they do so long as the movie is good. The only cast member that worked for me was Holtzman. The cast just didn't have the chemistry. I should also say that my post wasn't only a reply to your post it was for everyone who keeps spinning these numbers as anything but what they are: bad.
I can guarantee you, I can GUARANTEE you, that if a GB3 came out, this movie, regardless of quality would've had the biggest comedy opening of all time. 100+ million opening, easily. Easily! Nostalgia is in right now. People want to see the heroes they grew up with back on the big screen. People born in the '80s/ early '90s are nostalgic like no other generation in history. There would've been no controversy, no YouTube dislike campaign, no booing the trailer at the theatre.
The 30 million dollar prediction is bogus. That was Sony tempering expectations. It's in the movie PR handbook, page 1. Always, always, always lowball gross expectations. Cause when it does better? Then people will do exactly what you just did, use the expectation against the reality as a postive. The marketing was atrocious though you are correct. I didn't like the movie one bit but it was better than the trailers implied. That trailer has to be one of the worst I've ever seen. Especially since there was a ton of negativity surrounding the reboot thing, you'd think they would make a great first trailer their number 1 priority. No doubt marketing hurt this film. Absolutely it did.
seekandannoy liked this
#4874539
RichardLess wrote:
Jangonate wrote:
You'll notice after a quick re read of my post that I really didn't comment on whether or not the numbers were good, bad or in between. I merely stated that, other than a bigger drop for the second weekend, it is still performing a lot like a Feig film, just a Feig film with a much bigger opening.

Yes, I really like the movie, but most of my posts are just the numbers and comparisons with Feig's other films. So, mentioning again that my love for the film has blinded me to reality is a bit silly. Remind me again, because it was a few pages back, what your thoughts on the film are. Do I remember correctly that you weren't a big fan of the film and hope that Sony goes with a much different approach and new team for the next one?

One other comment I will make is this...nobody really knew what this film would do. I don't think it's safe to say we were certain that Ghostbusters had the fan base and nostalgia to destroy these numbers. We haven't had a film since 1989 and releases of the film really didn't make much from the base. I do think there were a lot of little things that could've been done to tighten up the narrative and some of the run on jokes needed to be nixed or trimmed. Yeah, that might've gotten a better response, but, ultimately, bad marketing hurt this film. Good review scores and positive buzz going into opening weekend boosted them from a $30 million prediction to a $46 million actual, but after dissed trailers (that many will say were not good at conveying the actual product) the film had a tough hill to climb. Whose to say the very same thing could've happened for a direct sequel or that a lack of Bill Murray and Harold Ramis didn't get people as excited about Ray and Winston's return? Too many unknowns to just declare that this should have destroyed Feig's numbers.

Our box office could just as well be telling us that people weren't as excited about Ghostbusters as us jaded few on the boards discussing it are. Maybe Sony was hoping that this would re introduce it to a new generation and begin a new base of fans to carry on the torch that the old team was unable to pass.
You may want to re read your own post because you clearly state that the weekday numbers "aren't bad". I was not a fan of the movie. I don't care what they do so long as the movie is good. The only cast member that worked for me was Holtzman. The cast just didn't have the chemistry. I should also say that my post wasn't only a reply to your post it was for everyone who keeps spinning these numbers as anything but what they are: bad.
I can guarantee you, I can GUARANTEE you, that if a GB3 came out, this movie, regardless of quality would've had the biggest comedy opening of all time. 100+ million opening, easily. Easily! Nostalgia is in right now. People want to see the heroes they grew up with back on the big screen. People born in the '80s/ early '90s are nostalgic like no other generation in history. There would've been no controversy, no YouTube dislike campaign, no booing the trailer at the theatre.
The 30 million dollar prediction is bogus. That was Sony tempering expectations. It's in the movie PR handbook, page 1. Always, always, always lowball gross expectations. Cause when it does better? Then people will do exactly what you just did, use the expectation against the reality as a postive. The marketing was atrocious though you are correct. I didn't like the movie one bit but it was better than the trailers implied. That trailer has to be one of the worst I've ever seen. Especially since there was a ton of negativity surrounding the reboot thing, you'd think they would make a great first trailer their number 1 priority. No doubt marketing hurt this film. Absolutely it did.
So why don't I just say that you're letting your dislike for the film blind you and making you see the numbers as bad because you don't want a sequel.

The numbers aren't great nor are they dire. That leaves them open to interpretation here and from other media outlets. Some positive about the film see hope in that the drops aren't bad at all, while those wishing this film never existed are seeing the numbers as a sign that their loathing is justified.

The door swings both ways, you know. And, no. Their is no guarantee that this movie as a sequel would have made $100 million. None.
#4874545
Jangonate wrote:
RichardLess wrote:
You may want to re read your own post because you clearly state that the weekday numbers "aren't bad". I was not a fan of the movie. I don't care what they do so long as the movie is good. The only cast member that worked for me was Holtzman. The cast just didn't have the chemistry. I should also say that my post wasn't only a reply to your post it was for everyone who keeps spinning these numbers as anything but what they are: bad.
I can guarantee you, I can GUARANTEE you, that if a GB3 came out, this movie, regardless of quality would've had the biggest comedy opening of all time. 100+ million opening, easily. Easily! Nostalgia is in right now. People want to see the heroes they grew up with back on the big screen. People born in the '80s/ early '90s are nostalgic like no other generation in history. There would've been no controversy, no YouTube dislike campaign, no booing the trailer at the theatre.
The 30 million dollar prediction is bogus. That was Sony tempering expectations. It's in the movie PR handbook, page 1. Always, always, always lowball gross expectations. Cause when it does better? Then people will do exactly what you just did, use the expectation against the reality as a postive. The marketing was atrocious though you are correct. I didn't like the movie one bit but it was better than the trailers implied. That trailer has to be one of the worst I've ever seen. Especially since there was a ton of negativity surrounding the reboot thing, you'd think they would make a great first trailer their number 1 priority. No doubt marketing hurt this film. Absolutely it did.
So why don't I just say that you're letting your dislike for the film blind you and making you see the numbers as bad because you don't want a sequel.

The numbers aren't great nor are they dire. That leaves them open to interpretation here and from other media outlets. Some positive about the film see hope in that the drops aren't bad at all, while those wishing this film never existed are seeing the numbers as a sign that their loathing is justified.

The door swings both ways, you know. And, no. Their is no guarantee that this movie as a sequel would have made $100 million. None.
Because I want this movie to succeed! I want the franchise to live on. The numbers are bad. When we know what it costs to make a movie and know how much it needs to gross then we can judge how a film does based on those merits. I've said all this previously. Had the movie cost 80 million? We'd be in fine shape. But it didn't. So we know the numbers are bad. When a movie doesn't make its money back(Ghostbusters will not hit the marks needed to be profitable in theatres. We can forecast that now) it is dire. Especially with the shape Sony is in. I didn't like the movie but I'd like a sequel *if* it's good. That's all I want. The chance to see a good GB movie. So I very much wanted this movie to do well. As for a GB3 doing insane business? That's just a guess on my part. But I would beg my bottom dollar on what I said. I would guarantee a massive opening weekend. I just know it in my bones. Look at how well Indiana Jones 4 did despite being a bad movie! That was in 2008 too. I think if Danny, Bill and Ernie were to suit up again the movie would be massive. Just massive. That didn't happen so all I have is what I think.
What door? I have no bias here. Only the numbers. I'm not the one saying "2 million is not bad" and then claiming "I didn't say if anything was good, bad or in between". We know what it will take just for the movie to break even. It won't.
#4874546
Cant guarantee 100 million, but it could still should have been better. Ghostbusters should have been a movie people are excited to see and hope its good. Not a movie people hate the minute it announced and hope it bombs. ( not every one but small portions). I have spent thousands on Ghostbusters stuff, might be spending thousands more after seeing comic con. Not sure i want to give gb16 $10 for a movie ticket. Sony screwed up
Robzy liked this
#4874550
I have a question about the budget. Doesn't $154,000,000 seem like too much money to sink into any movie? Could they have stayed under $100,000,000 and made the same film or is that out of the question? It just seems like an insane amount of money to make a film for, and I realize that the figure includes marketing.

Amendment: The figure does not include marketing (thanks for pointing that out.)
Last edited by Sav C on July 30th, 2016, 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#4874554
Sav C wrote:I have a question about the budget. Doesn't $154,000,000 seem like too much money to sink into any movie? Could they have stayed under $100,000,000 and made the same film or is that out of the question? It just seems like an insane amount of money to make a film for, and I realize that the figure includes marketing.
It doesn't include marketing, with marketing it's 250 million, maybe more. That number seems to be what these big tentpole movies cost these days, if not more(Batman Vs Superman cost 250 for production alone, Star Trek Beyond 185 million). Now given what was on screen? I don't see where the money went. The film had no behind the scenes top level talent. Production design, music and cinematography were all done by "B" grade talent(unlike the two original films which had the best of the best working in front and behind the camera). Certain directors know how to get every penny up on the screen, Feig doesn't seem to be one. He isn't use to working with a budget like this. I thought the visual effects were terrible. I don't think they could've made the film for under 100 million. Based on what was on the screen I'd say they could've made this movie for 125 million. As a comedy director my guess is Feig shoots a ton of film, on these types of films that can get pricey. Apparently Tom Rothman cut the budget to the figure it is now. It was 15-20 million higher under Amy Pascal.
Sav C liked this
#4874556
Just at quick glance, i think secret life of pets had a budget of 75 million and grossed 100 million its opening weekend.. I think an animated Ghostbusters would have been a better start to reboot the franchise. Lower risk. Cheaper to make, less fan resistances. Probably done better at the box office and even if it didn't, it would need less to turn a profit. There must be $30-40 million just wrapped up in paul feigs and the 4 girl busters saleries
#4874580
Hey RichardLess! I'm not going to quote our conversation above because it's getting a bit long. But I do want to keep it going.

The door swings both ways is referring to how our bias and lens will interpret the numbers. We all have them. That's why comments range from "Sony's going to green light a trilogy!" to "Paul Feig will never work again." Some of us want it to succeed, some of us want it to fail. Some of us want it to succeed just enough for more Ghostbusters films, but don't even want the girl busters back. Some of us are very optimistic and some of us are pessimistic. We can't help it! And when we start any conversation with "My bias is right and yours is wrong" it becomes very difficult to have a conversation. That's why it might be frustrating to some when their opinion is belittled by blind love of a film, just as it would be frustrating to you if I called your opinion silly because you didn't like the film.

When I say the numbers are not bad, I meant it. I'm not talking about the total box office right now. There is no doubt that this is not performing where Sony hoped it would. If they were hoping for a $100 million dollar weekend I would have laughed. Unless you're a super hero, talking fish, or animated dog, that is not likely to happen. I do think they were hoping for around $60 million. Look at a movie like Ant-Man. Ghostbusters is measuring just like it did because of very similar holds during the weekends and weeks, but Ant-Man started at $57 million. So while it hit $180 million, there is no way Ghostbusters will because of where it began. So the overall gross isn't where Sony wanted to be, but the holds (for a summer tentpole) have ranged from good to not bad.

And I think that will be something Sony is going to look at going forward. Independence Day Resurgence was setting up a sequel. It most definitely will not happen. It's drops were huge and it fizzled quickly. Word of mouth was bad. However, Ghostbusters continues to perform pretty good in that area. Yeah, you can argue that as a comedy the drops are bad, but if we take into account that this is not a typical comedy (Feig or otherwise) and should be looked at like those tons of comic movies, they aren't bad at all. Heck if you look at how most movies have performed this summer with 60-70% drops, it's doing good, actually. There are so many angles to look at it and this is the reason you see different opinions here and elsewhere on the numbers.

Lastly, there is more than just box office. It's not just a direct sequel we're looking at, but a shared universe...a franchise. It's not just how much money this film is making, but how much Ghost Corps is making. Everything goes into the big pot, the licensing for new movie and old, video games, action figures, tshirts and future movies. I, too, think an animated film could make a lot of money if released timely. I wouldn't be surprised if we see something about that very soon (if Sony still wants to make GB films). If it's successful, it goes into the pot and offsets the performance of ATC. SDCC had tons of new GB merchandise on display. Put it in the pot. There's a reason we never see the marketing budget and it's because there can often be things like licensing and merchandise that can reduce it.

So far I've heard everything from $300 million worldwide for $500 million worldwide for more films. Me, personally, have always thought $400 million was the magic number. But ultimately it isn't just the final dollar amount that will determine what happens. It will be whether or not Sony sees potential for growth. We know where the film opened, but where does it land and how did those legs looks? How did people receive it? Is there a surge in merchandise?

Am I declaring direct sequel right now? Not at all, but I'm not counting one out just yet.
#4874581
ccv66 wrote:Just at quick glance, i think secret life of pets had a budget of 75 million and grossed 100 million its opening weekend.. I think an animated Ghostbusters would have been a better start to reboot the franchise. Lower risk. Cheaper to make, less fan resistances. Probably done better at the box office and even if it didn't, it would need less to turn a profit. There must be $30-40 million just wrapped up in paul feigs and the 4 girl busters saleries
I think Sony is hoping that there animated film and the cartoon series will bring more kids into the fray and boost whatever live action film follows this one.

They mentioned there plan a while back was to have ATC, another team, a team up and even one about a ghost. I'm curious as to how mapped out this whole thing was and how far along some of these other scripts might be. I'd like them to get that animated film out, pronto, though. And it still needs to be quality.
ccv66 liked this
#4874606
Jangonate wrote:Some of us want it to succeed just enough for more Ghostbusters films, but don't even want the girl busters back.
That is exactly where I'm at. One of the reviews out there said "pleasant but pointless" which sums it up nicely.
ccv66 liked this
#4874626
RichardLess wrote:
Jangonate wrote:A not so great $2.9 million for Friday. Was hoping for $12 million, but it's on track for $9 or $10 million.
Hey can I ask you a question? Did you receive a private inbox message from a mod today?
Yeah, for multiple back to back posts. Why?
#4874647
Ron Daniels wrote:
TrickOrTreater wrote:
Oh yeah. Amazing Spider-Man 2. That worked out so well for Sony.
If they made a sequel to Ghostbusters Answer The Call for the same costs and the sequel made what ASM2 made, Sony would net almost 200m in profit.

ASM2 made a small profit. It's just a messy movie.
So is the new GB movie it seems. I think a sequel to the reboot movie will get the same audience reaction and sales ASM2 did the way the reboot movie has been received with ASM.
#4874648
Jangonate wrote:
RichardLess wrote:
Hey can I ask you a question? Did you receive a private inbox message from a mod today?
Yeah, for multiple back to back posts. Why?
Because I got one awhile back for doing the same thing. Just wondering if you got one as well. Good to know they give everyone the same treatment.
deadderek liked this
#4874667
Yup. My problem is that sometimes the board is quiet for a while and I just post box office updates. Don't really think about it.

On topic, not liking Friday's numbers for Ghostbusters. Interesting enough, did you see that Star Trek Beyond is predicted to drop in its second week by 70%? They announced a sequel even before its release! This summer hasn't been kind to a lot of the big releases. Even the one's doing well critically now.
#4874675
pferreira1983 wrote:
Ron Daniels wrote:
If they made a sequel to Ghostbusters Answer The Call for the same costs and the sequel made what ASM2 made, Sony would net almost 200m in profit.

ASM2 made a small profit. It's just a messy movie.
So is the new GB movie it seems. I think a sequel to the reboot movie will get the same audience reaction and sales ASM2 did the way the reboot movie has been received with ASM.
New director, mixed team. Don't get political with it it'll do fine. Disney wants to do the same thing with Rocketeer. If they have the female lead be Cliff Secords girlfriend as in the comics you wont have a lot of pissed of fans. I want to see actress' with strong roles but they can be original with the process.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 42
Proton Props UK

I've seen that too...... Maybe, I don't know? […]

Hasbro Ghostbusters

While you're 100% correct about the function[…]

Uniform Tips

It does rain frequently here in London, but not to[…]

The yellow parts are raw 3D prints, unsanded and u[…]