To preface all of the following replies: I do agree with Richard that Ghostbusters
(2016) complicates box office speculation, although we probably don't agree on why. Personally, it complicates things because the movie was a PR controversy, and thus it becomes impossible to say whether audiences rejected it because the Ghostbusters
brand is not as strong as fans might think it is, or they were dissatisfied with the movie they were being presented with. However, I do think it is equally possible that either (or perhaps a little of both) are true.
Look. I love Dan Aykroyd. I really do. But take everything he says with a grain of salt. The man's comments on GB16 weren't even correct on a numbers level. It wasn't too expensive (it was actually inexpensive for a big visual effects movie with comedy stars). It just should've been more successful. Look at big tentpole movies, and you'll see a pattern. You'll see figures like 170, 150, 140, 200 etc. Can movies be made for less? Hell yes. Deadpool proved that. But I'll take the quote of that woman in the newspaper who works for the province over Danny boy.
I grant you that Aykroyd's statement that the reshoots cost $30-40m were wrong (by 10x!). However, movies are a business venture, so it doesn't matter what other studios spend on a summer tentpole. What matters is relative to each production itself: how much return are you going to get on your investment? It's not complicated for Marvel to spend $200m on something like Infinity War because they have no doubt that the audience is large enough to make their money back 5x, 6x, 7x over. In the studio's business-minded perspective, Ghostbusters
(2016) didn't produce an effective cost/profit ratio, and thus, it cost too much.
As I said before, Aykroyd can let his emotions get the best of him, but he's not a complete idiot. He is actually a producer on this movie, and a producer on Ghostbusters
(2016). The numbers are there in black and white: it didn't make enough money to be profitable. The woman quoted in the paper is a city official who would've heard the number from someone else, and she probably just got it wrong. I have complete and total confidence that this movie costs significantly less than $170m Canadian or
American dollars (I wouldn't go so far as to bet on a specific number, but I feel fairly confident it will be under $100m as Aykroyd stated), although I can easily buy that rebates might be part of the budget.
My man..Did I say that Indiana Jonea and Ghostbusters as a franchise are EXACTLY the same? No. I didn't. I said Ghostbusters and Raiders, the first movie, are a 1:1. Not the franchise. (Did you also leave out GB16's numbers in that Boxoffice figure. I mean..comparing two movies to 3? Huh?).
Temple of Doom and Ghostbusters 2 are very similar. Notice I say similar. Please don't go into a thing about how they aren't the same. They are both sequels to movies that were a phenomenon and both were a perceived disappointment.
Okay, fine. While first two Ghostbusters
movies and the first two Indiana Jones
are separated by a pretty significant $100m in box office (Ghostbusters
are in the $200m range, and the Indiana Jones
films are in the $300m range), I can more or less get on board with that comparison. However, Indiana Jones
' 1980s run closed on Last Crusade
, which managed to jump another $100m to get into the $400m range. The series went out on a high note, both financially and in the eyes of the audience. My point was that the basic audience perception of a third Ghostbusters
movie and the perception of a fourth (and now fifth) Indiana Jones
movie are not sensible equivalents in terms of audience demand, because the audience (outside of us fans) was not necessarily left wanting more. The Ghostbusters
franchise has the perception of having petered out (and while I didn't factor in the reboot here, that's another mediocre box office performance).
"People like trilogies" No....Movie companies like Trilogies and story tellers like trilogies. People like good movies.
When factoring timelines or universes in, how many series can you think of that are objectively considered pop culture classics that only made it 2 movies as opposed to a great movie and an underwhelming sequel (perhaps followed by a reboot, like Ghostbusters
And your math about the 50 million ghostbusters fan...well it's something. It's a guess and a ridiculous one. Don't pretend to try and know how many fans there are to try and make a point lol.
The point wasn't the number. I acknowledge it is a guess. The larger point is that a fanbase is a relatively fixed number. Whether it's 10 fans or 100,000,000 fans, you cannot expect every fan to show up, and even if you do, that will always be a finite audience. It is up to the filmmakers themselves to pay tribute to us. As far as the studio is concerned, they're marketing to the masses. The number of people in the world who haven't seen literally any movie ever made is always going to be higher than the number that have -- I'm sure there are even more people on planet Earth who haven't seen Star Wars
than people who have. The studio's goal with any summer blockbuster based on something that already exists is going to be attracting the largest number of people with no pre-existing interest while retaining as many fans as possible.
Ghostbusters 1 has not aged poorly in anyone's mind(did you actually say that?). It's an extremely popular film that's regarded as a classic and cultural touchstone. The people who grew up loving Ghostbusters are now parents and starting families. That shit gets passed down.
The 2016 film (and the exhausting discourse around it) prompted quite a few writers to re-examine the original through a modern lens. I'm not saying this is a huge number of people, but we live in an era where people are interrogating works and public figures from the past and questioning aspects that haven't aged so well (she doesn't note any reservations about Ghostbusters
, but even Violet Ramis Stiel does this with some of the other movies Harold Ramis was involved with in her book, like Animal House
I'm as die-hard a fan as anyone else, and had a great time at Fan Fest watching it on the big screen, and it's also not that hard for me to say that many women don't appreciate Venkman's hustling of the psychic volunteer or him hitting on Dana, or the ghost blowjob, or the "housekeeping or food service industries" line, or how Winston was handled, etc. I saw a 2019 article about how the movie has aged just a couple weeks ago on a major site (I glanced at it and thought it wasn't very well-written, so I'm not gonna link it, but it's at CinemaBlend if you want to find it). This concerns the cast, too -- I hate to say it out loud, but if Bill Murray is in the movie, this might be a high-profile enough thing to prompt another go-round of questions about his ex-wife's abuse allegations toward him.