[Kingpin]

YES!

Yay!

[RichardLess]

Honestly? Same here. I thought the budget would be about 90 million. But I'm convinced that the 170 number(whether in CDN or not) is legit.

You know cellphone plans? For example something like 45 dollars gets something like 450 weekday minutes, 2 Gigs of Data and unlimited Eve and weekends? Well that's how *some* movies work a budget. Which is why you see a lot of movies with similar numbers. So, for example, 120 million dollars will you get X number of shooting days, with X Number of crew and X number of visual effect shots. Now it's not EXACTLY like that, but I was trying to find a way to describe why the 170 number makes sense to me and that's the best way I can describe it.

So if this $170 million budget is true then where does the money go. How does it break down to actors/actress, equipment, food, hotels, costumes, props special effects etc.

I was trying to find a comparable movie without lots of CGI special effects

2018 The Mule (directed and starred Clint Eastwood)
Budget $50 Million
I have not seen this movie so I would not think it has a lot of special effects or fancy props/ costumes. Besides Clint Eastwood I have not heard of any of the other actors in this movie.

2018 The Favourite (Starred Emma Stone)
Budget $15 Million
I did see this movie and it has a lot of costumes and props. I am not familiar with the director or other actors.

2018 Annihilation (stars Natalie Portman, Jennifer Jason Leigh)
Budget $40-55 Million
I am not familiar with the director or other actors. A lot more special effects compared to the two movies above. Some props and costumes.

As a comparison Annihilation seems to be the movie closest to GB2020. Even at $120 Million compared to Annihilation where would the extra $60+ Million go? Salaries for the actors?

Would it be CGI SFX? I thought they were going to do as much practical SFX as possible?

The Favourite has loads of costumes and props and only cost $15 Million. Granted there weren't many explosions in this movie but a $100+ Million difference?

Those movies aren't accurate comparisons to a summer tentpole PG-13 sci-fi comedy based on a franchise. A better comparison might be the more recent Men in Black movies.

So we know GB2020 is working with kids and doing lots of location work. Kids can only work so many hours which limits production time which increases production length and length=money. Location work is also very expensive. Every business that closes, every road that closes, costs money. You've got to feed the crew, house the crew.

Practical effects can actually be more costly than CGI. Christopher Nolan is someone who likes to avoid CGI and his movies are routinely 100 million dollar plus. Interstellar cost about 170. Inception cost 160. The Dark Knight Rises cost 250 million(which is insane).

Some directors are known to get more bang for their buck than others. You mentioned Clint Eastwood. He's known for his very efficient shooting style and doing things very quickly. Michael Bay, who works with some very high budgets, is known for really using his budget wisely. Some productions you can see where the money went, others, like The Dark Knight Rises, blow my mind that they cost so much. Christopher Nolan doesn't use a 2nd Unit like most films, which means he shoots everything himself, so his films tend to cost more. Some directors, like Gore Verbsinki, have a very particular visual aesthetic and that aesthetic needs to be streamlined throughout the entire production. That's means lighting rigs, props, lenses, costumes, make up, everything needs to have a very specific function and look. That raises the budget.

Here's an example I use sometimes. So has everyone seen Hellboy 2? The Golden Army? That movie cost 80 million dollars. It looks like a 150 million dollar film. Easily. There's lots of great CGI, make up, animatronics, big set pieces...the works. It came out in 2008. Same year as Iron Man(which cost about 175-180 million) and The Dark Knight(185 million). I'd say Hellboy 2 has more production value on screen than either of those 2 movies. That doesn't mean those movies are bad. I love Iron Man. But Guilemoro Del Toro knows where to spend his money.

The very first Deadpool cost 50-60 million dollars. It looks like a 100 million dollar movie.

So? How can some movies look more expensive than they are? Planning is a big one. Minimal location work is another. Speed is another. Some directors only do a few setups per day. Directors like Michael Bay and GDT? 25-30 set ups a day. They work hard, they work fast. They work with the same crew over time. Trust and a shorthand get developed. The director of the first Deadpool came from the video game/visual effects world. He owns his own company. So he knew what was required and what wasn't. How many shots he needed to be CGI, what needed to be mocapped. How they could get more for less. And it worked.

[droidguy1119]

Those movies aren't accurate comparisons to a summer tentpole PG-13 sci-fi comedy based on a franchise. A better comparison might be the more recent Men in Black movies.

This is fundamentally nonsensical because the last two MIB movies (the only two that could be called recent) cost wildly different amounts. MIB³ (2012) cost $225m. Men in Black International (2019) cost less than half that at $110m. Ironically, the former was far more profitable; the new one is on par with Ghostbusters (2016)'s middling box office performance.

I maintain that suffering the hit of MIB: I's failure, which was equivalent to the box office performance of Ghostbusters (2016), and on a movie that also represents an IP they're desperate to relaunch, right as Ghostbusters 2020 is about to start shooting, is going to make them very nervous...unless it's coming in at a lower cost than either of those previous films. I almost worried the movie might get delayed and rebudgeted, but it seems to have proceeded on schedule.

Here's an example I use sometimes. So has everyone seen Hellboy 2? The Golden Army? That movie cost 80 million dollars. It looks like a 150 million dollar film. Easily. There's lots of great CGI, make up, animatronics, big set pieces...the works.

The very first Deadpool cost 50-60 million dollars. It looks like a 100 million dollar movie.

This also feels like an argument that Ghostbusters 2020 doesn't need to and shouldn't cost $120m ($170 CAN).

[RichardLess]

Those movies aren't accurate comparisons to a summer tentpole PG-13 sci-fi comedy based on a franchise. A better comparison might be the more recent Men in Black movies.

This is fundamentally nonsensical because the last two MIB movies (the only two that could be called recent) cost wildly different amounts. MIB³ (2012) cost $225m. Men in Black International (2019) cost less than half that at $110m. Ironically, the former was far more profitable; the new one is on par with Ghostbusters (2016)'s middling box office performance.

I maintain that suffering the hit of MIB: I's failure, which was equivalent to the box office performance of Ghostbusters (2016), and on a movie that also represents an IP they're desperate to relaunch, right as Ghostbusters 2020 is about to start shooting, is going to make them very nervous...unless it's coming in at a lower cost than either of those previous films. I almost worried the movie might get delayed and rebudgeted, but it seems to have proceeded on schedule.

Here's an example I use sometimes. So has everyone seen Hellboy 2? The Golden Army? That movie cost 80 million dollars. It looks like a 150 million dollar film. Easily. There's lots of great CGI, make up, animatronics, big set pieces...the works.

The very first Deadpool cost 50-60 million dollars. It looks like a 100 million dollar movie.

This also feels like an argument that Ghostbusters 2020 doesn't need to and shouldn't cost $120m ($170 CAN).

That's my bad. I meant the most recent Men in Black movie. Men in Black 3 was so expensive because it's production was a mess. They started filming without a finished script. Also Will Smith is expensive lol.

Again, it feels like you are cherry picking a bit. I listed many different movies of differing budgets. You pick Deadpool because it's the cheapest. Jason Reitman has never filmed a film of this size before. The director of Deadpool (a first time director it's true) came from the effects world, that really helped keep the budget down, the movie was also planned extremely well. Deadpool also feels like a bigger movie than it is because it's told in a non linear fashion. Besides the highway portion of the film, most of the movie was shot on sound stages. The small budget is given away at the climax which takes place in a non descript junk yard. Look at Deadpool 2 and Deadpool 1. Deadpool 2 has lots more outdoor locations, lots more sets(better lighting). And it was still made for a decent amount, 120 million.

Don't get me wrong. It's very possible to make a Ghostbusters movie for as little at 35 million. It's totally do-able. It wouldn't look great but it could be done. Most of it would have to be shot very quickly and in doors.

But there are some things that we know about Ghostbusters 2020 that can help us deduce its budget a bit. The length of the shoot, for one, that it has kids, that it's shooting outdoors. And we have that 170 figure which, for whatever reason, some people refuse to believe despite no other number available and it coming from a public official. Also? Though they haven't been announced yet, the original cast will be in this film. That doesn't come cheap. Neither does Paul Rudd. The production even refurbished a local eyesore building that will be operational after production wraps.

When they announce which visual effect companies will be working on the film and how many, it will also give us a bigger piece of the budget puzzle. Same with the other cast announcements. But again, based on what we know 120 million sounds totally reasonable.

Sony wants desperately to get this film right. They've seen what happens with Spider-Man when they get it right. There is no other movie of more importance right now at Sony than Ghostbusters 2020, I assure you. Not even the next Spider-Man film. There is more riding on this film than we can know. If they get it wrong? That's it. Ghostbusters as we know it is dead. Ghostcorp will fold and there will be no more GB films for a good long while. If they get it right? Well, I don't have to explain the positives on that front.

Based on what I've heard and read? Sony and everyone is really excited and really believes in this movie. That might sound ridiculous but trust me when I say, that is rarely the case in this industry. People know when they are making generic crap. They talk. There's none of that here. It's all "Just wait until you see this movie the fans are going to go crazy". So I guess we will just have to wait and see. Honestly? All the postive talk makes me nervous. But it's rare. The last movie I heard such universal praise for this early was "Man of Steel" & "Mad Max Fury Road". Take from that what you will lol.

[Styrofoam_Guy]

The thing that sticks out in this whole thing is that Jason Reitman has not directed a film this size before.

After some searching on the movies that Jason has directed

Tully (2018)
Budget est $13 Million

Labor Day (2013)
Budget est $18 Million

Young Adult (2011)
Budget est $12 Million

Up In The Air (2009)
Budget $30 Million

Juno (2007)
Budget est $7.5 Million

Looking at his past movies I find it very hard for the Sony bean counters and execs would green light a U$120 Million budget for a director that has not done a huge blockbuster. Now I am thinking even U$70 Million sound high according to his past budgets.

[RichardLess]

The thing that sticks out in this whole thing is that Jason Reitman has not directed a film this size before.

After some searching on the movies that Jason has directed

Tully (2018)
Budget est $13 Million

Labor Day (2013)
Budget est $18 Million

Young Adult (2011)
Budget est $12 Million

Up In The Air (2009)
Budget $30 Million

Juno (2007)
Budget est $7.5 Million

Looking at his past movies I find it very hard for the Sony bean counters and execs would green light a U$120 Million budget for a director that has not done a huge blockbuster. Now I am thinking even U$70 Million sound high according to his past budgets.

That's not how things really work. Here's a few examples: Christopher Nolan went from Memnto and Insomina to Batman Begins. Rian Johnson went from small indie films to Star Wars The Last Jedi. The guy that directed Bumblebee the Transformers movie had only made inexpensive stop motion animation.. Look at Alan Taylor. Did nothing but TV work and was given a 160 million budget Thor sequel and then a 170 million dollar Terminator sequel. It happens all the time. With much less talented filmmakers than Jason Reitman. True he's just never made a film of this scale before. He'll rely on his line producer & father to guide him thru the process. Look at Joss Whedon's budgets before he started making 200 million dollar+ Avenger movies. He had one film. From 2005. That cost something like 30-40 million. He went from that Avengers. Like I said, it's very common.

He's an Academy Award winning/nominated director. He's very well respected. 120 million dollars may sound like a lot. But it's not. It really isn't. Not in today's Hollywood. Movies are now hitting 300 million or more. They want that expensive spectacle that foreign markets like Japan & China love.

[droidguy1119]

Sony wants desperately to get this film right. They've seen what happens with Spider-Man when they get it right. There is no other movie of more importance right now at Sony than Ghostbusters 2020, I assure you. Not even the next Spider-Man film. There is more riding on this film than we can know. If they get it wrong? That's it. Ghostbusters as we know it is dead. Ghostcorp will fold and there will be no more GB films for a good long while. If they get it right? Well, I don't have to explain the positives on that front.

While I definitely don't agree that this movie matters more to Sony than Spider-Man -- the last entry just became their highest-grossing movie ever (frankly, I'm not sure it means more to them than Jumanji 2), I would agree it's a top 5 priority at worst...which is precisely why I expect they're being cautious, budget-wise. Last time, they did a big spend and it didn't pay off. If they want to build this up into a profitable film franchise again (as opposed to a reliable merch machine), they're going to take a more cautious approach across the board. That includes finding a bar for success they feel they can safely hit even in a middling scenario (for example, a $70-80m budget at which 2016's numbers would be more than satisfactory).

[RichardLess]

Sony wants desperately to get this film right. They've seen what happens with Spider-Man when they get it right. There is no other movie of more importance right now at Sony than Ghostbusters 2020, I assure you. Not even the next Spider-Man film. There is more riding on this film than we can know. If they get it wrong? That's it. Ghostbusters as we know it is dead. Ghostcorp will fold and there will be no more GB films for a good long while. If they get it right? Well, I don't have to explain the positives on that front.

While I definitely don't agree that this movie matters more to Sony than Spider-Man -- the last entry just became their highest-grossing movie ever (frankly, I'm not sure it means more to them than Jumanji 2), I would agree it's a top 5 priority at worst...which is precisely why I expect they're being cautious, budget-wise. Last time, they did a big spend and it didn't pay off. If they want to build this up into a profitable film franchise again (as opposed to a reliable merch machine), they're going to take a more cautious approach across the board. That includes finding a bar for success they feel they can safely hit even in a middling scenario (for example, a $70-80m budget at which 2016's numbers would be more than satisfactory).

It's not my opinion that this is the most important movie at Sony right now. It's what I've been told & what I've seen written @ Deadline & Vareity. Why is it so important?

Because it's one of the few Sony IP's that are 100% original and belong to them. Is Spider-Man and Jumaji important? Heck yes. But they also have major back end participants. Spider-Man is licensed, and it isn't even under Sony's stewardship. Disney via Kevin Feige, are running the Spider-Man show over at Sony and...Sony is embarrassed right now. Sure they made a billion dollars. But this was a Marvel run movie. It's part of the MCU. They've made Spider-Man bigger and better than he's ever been and they had to go outside of their studio to do that.

Ghostbusters is a legacy project. It's in Sony, Columbia's, DNA. It helped make them what they are. The reason Jumanji and Spider-Man arent as important? Those franchises are healthy and running just fine. Ghostbusters is at a cross roads. If they nail this film and get it absolutely right? It's another money machine. If they don't? Well...like I've said. We won't be seeing a Ghostbusters movie for a looong time. It's important not just for the bottom line but for the reputation of the company. Hollywood is a town concerned with image and..

Sony wants to show the world it can make movies that the fans love. They did it with Spider Into the Spiderverse...but that wasn't the hit they thought it would be. I mean, yeah Jumanji is a big property but it isn't exactly something people are die hard fans of. People have a fondness for the original but you don't see people cosplaying at comic con in Jumanji gear like you do with the big fan properties.

And that's what Ghostbusters is. It's an original property with an big active fan base. Sony wants to show they can do it right. Which is weird because Tom Rothman use to disrespect fans during his tenure at Fox. I guess he's learned a few things.

[droidguy1119]

It's not my opinion that this is the most important movie at Sony right now. It's what I've been told & what I've seen written @ Deadline & Vareity.

I didn't say it wasn't important. I just said it wasn't such a drastic leader of the pack (again, top 5). It is obviously important to Sony -- I'm pretty sure I mentioned it being a rare piece of IP they own in this thread before you, you don't have to tell me. That said, as much as Sony wants to relaunch this franchise, they know (as you do, since you started the thread with it) that the 2016 movie damaged the brand (not a reflection of the quality of the film necessarily, which I like, but the tiring discourse followed by an underperforming movie). I'd say this naturally pushes it down the list because it becomes a riskier proposition the studio is less likely to want to roll big dice on. They're hoping this is a sly winner, like an ace in the hole.

Disney via Kevin Feige, are running the Spider-Man show over at Sony and...Sony is embarrassed right now. Sure they made a billion dollars. But this was a Marvel run movie. It's part of the MCU. They've made Spider-Man bigger and better than he's ever been and they had to go outside of their studio to do that.

Per Feige himself in an interview, he does not run the Sony Spider-Man movies like people seem to think he does. Marvel Studios advises informally and somewhat minimally during the early planning stages -- he says he has maybe a couple of meetings with them. Any Sony Spider-Man movie is 85-90% Sony's work, again. Plus, even if it wasn't a $800m smash, Spider-Verse is still an Oscar-winning success (which Feige had zero involvement in).

Ghostbusters is at a cross roads. If they nail this film and get it absolutely right? It's another money machine. If they don't? Well...like I've said. We won't be seeing a Ghostbusters movie for a looong time.

Yeah, also something I said in this thread that you don't have to tell me. My point isn't that this isn't the case, my point is that they'll just move on if it isn't a hit. It's not going to tarnish the good name of Sony. It'll just be viewed as another case of the audience not caring about a dormant (well, between 1989 and 2014) property.

I mean, yeah Jumanji is a big property but it isn't exactly something people are die hard fans of.

You do realize that Jumanji: WttJ was the studio's biggest movie ever, until it was topped by Far From Home, right? While they would certainly like both, you'd have to be nuts to think they're less interested in $950m+ just because it's not a merch juggernaut like Ghostbusters -- and remember, Ghostbusters' merch domination crossed a billion over a decade ago, when no new movies had been made since 1989. As much as they'd like new smash hit movies to go with the merch, even they'd probably admit that's historically been unnecessary.

[RichardLess]

It's not my opinion that this is the most important movie at Sony right now. It's what I've been told & what I've seen written @ Deadline & Vareity.

I didn't say it wasn't important. I just said it wasn't such a drastic leader of the pack (again, top 5). It is obviously important to Sony -- I'm pretty sure I mentioned it being a rare piece of IP they own in this thread before you, you don't have to tell me. That said, as much as Sony wants to relaunch this franchise, they know (as you do, since you started the thread with it) that the 2016 movie damaged the brand (not a reflection of the quality of the film necessarily, which I like, but the tiring discourse followed by an underperforming movie). I'd say this naturally pushes it down the list because it becomes a riskier proposition the studio is less likely to want to roll big dice on. They're hoping this is a sly winner, like an ace in the hole.

Disney via Kevin Feige, are running the Spider-Man show over at Sony and...Sony is embarrassed right now. Sure they made a billion dollars. But this was a Marvel run movie. It's part of the MCU. They've made Spider-Man bigger and better than he's ever been and they had to go outside of their studio to do that.

Per Feige himself in an interview, he does not run the Sony Spider-Man movies like people seem to think he does. Marvel Studios advises informally and somewhat minimally during the early planning stages -- he says he has maybe a couple of meetings with them. Any Sony Spider-Man movie is 85-90% Sony's work, again. Plus, even if it wasn't a $800m smash, Spider-Verse is still an Oscar-winning success (which Feige had zero involvement in).

Ghostbusters is at a cross roads. If they nail this film and get it absolutely right? It's another money machine. If they don't? Well...like I've said. We won't be seeing a Ghostbusters movie for a looong time.

Yeah, also something I said in this thread that you don't have to tell me. My point isn't that this isn't the case, my point is that they'll just move on if it isn't a hit. It's not going to tarnish the good name of Sony. It'll just be viewed as another case of the audience not caring about a dormant (well, between 1989 and 2014) property.

I mean, yeah Jumanji is a big property but it isn't exactly something people are die hard fans of.

You do realize that Jumanji: WttJ was the studio's biggest movie ever, until it was topped by Far From Home, right? While they would certainly like both, you'd have to be nuts to think they're less interested in $950m+ just because it's not a merch juggernaut like Ghostbusters -- and remember, Ghostbusters' merch domination crossed a billion over a decade ago, when no new movies had been made since 1989. As much as they'd like new smash hit movies to go with the merch, even they'd probably admit that's historically been unnecessary.

[/quote]

So here's something really important that I should repeat. Jumanji and Spider-Man are healthy franchises. Ghostbusters is not. Spider-Man and Jumanji are not original Sony IP. If you don't think that matters to a studio...I don't know what to say. It does. It just does. Again..it isn't something I've guessed at or it's an opinion of mine, it's something I've been told by marketing people I know who work @ Sony and have also read at deadline and variety. I mean, if you want to discount that, sure. But I can't debate things that aren't opinion. If you don't think it makes sense that Ghostbusters is the number 1 priority at Sony right now based on the reasons I've outlined..again..I'm not sure what I can say. You seem to determined to think box-office is the only thing that matters at studios. It's not. Box office can be but a small slice of the potential pie. And pride? Don't even get me started on this town and it's pride lol.

Also, I gotta ask: Why do you keep saying this "you don't have to tell me" stuff? You aren't the only person reading this thread and not a lot of people realize how things work.

And yes. If GB2020 doesn't work it 100% will tarnish the Sony Pictures name. 10000%. That seems fairly obvious, right? If GB2020 doesn't work people will probably lose their jobs. Tom Rothman might go. Ghostcorp will probably fold. That has real world consequences. Sony Pictures was once the toast of the town. They were well respected, around 2002-2005. They had Spider-Man and Adam Sandler with a robust DVD market. They are NOT well respected at all anymore. They've become a joke. The way Newline use to be a joke pre Lord of the Rings. Going to Marvel to take over the Spider-Man franchise was a great call. It was truly great. It took a lot of guts. Marvel has total creative control in the agreement over Spider-Man. I personally think Sony should be respected for that. They did what everyone wanted, the fans LOVED it. But they lost a lot of respect. With what happened during the whole "Interview" saga and then the GB16 fiasco. They lost James Bond to an indie start up that just almost had to declare bankruptcy the other day.

And yes Kevin Feige absolutely ran the show with Spider-Man Homecoming. Less so on Far from Home because of End Game, but Far From Home is A) an MCU film, B) Events tie it in with End Game and C) Kevin hired and approved the writers, Tom Holland and the director. Each of them signed on from the first film, Homecoming. After that it was run like a typical Marvel sequel with the same crew, less involvement by Kevin beyond approving storylines and saying "this is what happens, and no you can't do this". But he had less day to day involvement than homecoming. But more than Amy Pascal.

And yes Sony was extremely proud of Spider-Man Into the Spiderverse. It made money. Won an Oscar over Brad Bird & Incredibles 2. But with the Christmas release date and the Spider-Man name, they were hoping for much, much more. The sequel will do better though so they are good on that front. This Christmas the market was just too saturated with Aquaman, Mary Poppins, Transformers, Spider-Man. I mean EVERYONE thought Mary Poppins was going to be HUGE. That shocked everyone.

[Styrofoam_Guy]

I guess time will tell on what the actual budget for the movie is.

If Sony is anxious for a win then I think it would be easier to be profitable on a $70 Million budget as opposed to a $120 Million budget.

I understand GB 2016 was not shown in China which is a huge part of the box office numbers these day. Maybe if it was shown in China it may have been profitable.

It is currently unknown if GB 2020 will be shown in China.

[droidguy1119]

So here's something really important that I should repeat. Jumanji and Spider-Man are healthy franchises. Ghostbusters is not. Spider-Man and Jumanji are not original Sony IP. If you don't think that matters to a studio...I don't know what to say. It does. It just does. Again..it isn't something I've guessed at or it's an opinion of mine, it's something I've been told by marketing people I know who work @ Sony and have also read at deadline and variety. I mean, if you want to discount that, sure. But I can't debate things that aren't opinion.

Good lord, man. The post you were replying to, I literally said that I mentioned it was wholly Sony-owned IP and that was important before you did. How you read my previous reply and think I was denying that?

Also, while Jumanji is technically not studio-owned IP, it's certainly not a Spider-Man kind of deal with someone taking a big chunk of the profits. Sony has retained the rights to the Jumanji stuff since the original movie in the '90s, so while Chris Van Allsburg has probably made plenty off of this new movie, I don't think Sony is beholden to anyone but him.

You seem to determined to think box-office is the only thing that matters at studios. It's not.

Money is definitely the most important thing in Hollywood, and the most important thing to any business in a capitalist society. That's not to say ego isn't a thing, obviously, it definitely is, but I guarantee you, even people working overtime to accommodate people's pride are definitely navigating that with an eye toward how it can make them money first and foremost.

Ghostbusters is probably not the #1 priority at Sony right now BECAUSE Jumanji and Spider-Man are successful. In 2016, when Ghostbusters was a $144m tentpole blockbuster they were hoping would relaunch the franchise after 27 years, Spider-Man: Homecoming was still a year away and Jumanji was still being developed, that's when I buy it was their #1 priority, because they had nothing else to bank on. For a hit-starved studio like Sony, they're not going to just kick back because they raked in almost $2b on those last two franchise entry alone, they're going to invest in building those brands with Venom and Spider-Verse 2 (and, if the audience bites again, Jumanji 3). Meanwhile, Ghostbusters is an unexpected second chance to launch, one that they are inevitably going to be more cautious on, because Men in Black International was aiming for a similar audience and turned in a Ghostbusters (2016)-level performance.

I'll say I can believe Ghostbusters will move up in priority if Charlie's Angels bombs, although I still don't see them valuing it over Spider-Man (including Spider-Verse and Venom) or Jumanji. They've also got original IP in Zombieland 2: Double Tap coming up, which took so long it's basically a relaunch, as well as a new Grudge and a new Bad Boys (although, both being dumped in January is concerning).

If GB2020 doesn't work it 100% will tarnish the Sony Pictures name. 10000%. That seems fairly obvious, right? If GB2020 doesn't work people will probably lose their jobs. Tom Rothman might go. Ghostcorp will probably fold. That has real world consequences. Sony Pictures was once the toast of the town. They were well respected, around 2002-2005. They had Spider-Man and Adam Sandler with a robust DVD market. They are NOT well respected at all anymore. They've become a joke.

While I agree with your assessment of where the studio is at, it's an overestimation to suggest that Ghostbusters 2020 would somehow make them the talk of the town again if it were a hit, or that it'd be more than "another swing and a miss" if it bombed. 2016 was the big egg-on-face moment, now it'll just be part of a pattern if it's a flop.

Hard to say what it will mean if it's a success -- we still know so little about it that (and this is where I'll take anything Dan says with a grain of salt) we can't say what it will really mean for the future or what it would pave the way for. I will say, in 2016 we were hearing that they were thinking of launching a whole "Ghostbusters Cinematic Universe," with plans for Channing Tatum's movie, another mystery film, and a Slimer prequel. This time, I doubt we hear about anything concrete until the dust settles.

I gotta ask: Why do you keep saying this "you don't have to tell me" stuff? You aren't the only person reading this thread and not a lot of people realize how things work.

I say it when you're responding directly to me because you're quoting my post.

Kevin Feige absolutely ran the show with Spider-Man Homecoming.

Again, per Feige himself, you are not correct. He said himself, the beauty of the deal was that both parties got what they wanted: Spider-Man could appear in the MCU and Marvel would get some input on that, AND Amy Pascal would not lose creative control or the freedom to make the movies how she wanted to make them.

It is currently unknown if GB 2020 will be shown in China.

The reason Ghostbusters (2016) wasn't shown in China was because it contained ghosts, and the Chinese have religious objections to ghosts. I would assume Ghostbusters 2020 is not going to be an exception.

[RichardLess]

So here's something really important that I should repeat. Jumanji and Spider-Man are healthy franchises. Ghostbusters is not. Spider-Man and Jumanji are not original Sony IP. If you don't think that matters to a studio...I don't know what to say. It does. It just does. Again..it isn't something I've guessed at or it's an opinion of mine, it's something I've been told by marketing people I know who work @ Sony and have also read at deadline and variety. I mean, if you want to discount that, sure. But I can't debate things that aren't opinion.

Good lord, man. The post you were replying to, I literally said that I mentioned it was wholly Sony-owned IP and that was important before you did. How you read my previous reply and think I was denying that?

Also, while Jumanji is technically not studio-owned IP, it's certainly not a Spider-Man kind of deal with someone taking a big chunk of the profits. Sony has retained the rights to the Jumanji stuff since the original movie in the '90s, so while Chris Van Allsburg has probably made plenty off of this new movie, I don't think Sony is beholden to anyone but him.

You seem to determined to think box-office is the only thing that matters at studios. It's not.

Money is definitely the most important thing in Hollywood, and the most important thing to any business in a capitalist society. That's not to say ego isn't a thing, obviously, it definitely is, but I guarantee you, even people working overtime to accommodate people's pride are definitely navigating that with an eye toward how it can make them money first and foremost.

Ghostbusters is probably not the #1 priority at Sony right now BECAUSE Jumanji and Spider-Man are successful. In 2016, when Ghostbusters was a $144m tentpole blockbuster they were hoping would relaunch the franchise after 27 years, Spider-Man: Homecoming was still a year away and Jumanji was still being developed, that's when I buy it was their #1 priority, because they had nothing else to bank on. For a hit-starved studio like Sony, they're not going to just kick back because they raked in almost $2b on those last two franchise entry alone, they're going to invest in building those brands with Venom and Spider-Verse 2 (and, if the audience bites again, Jumanji 3). Meanwhile, Ghostbusters is an unexpected second chance to launch, one that they are inevitably going to be more cautious on, because Men in Black International was aiming for a similar audience and turned in a Ghostbusters (2016)-level performance.

I'll say I can believe Ghostbusters will move up in priority if Charlie's Angels bombs, although I still don't see them valuing it over Spider-Man (including Spider-Verse and Venom) or Jumanji. They've also got original IP in Zombieland 2: Double Tap coming up, which took so long it's basically a relaunch, as well as a new Grudge and a new Bad Boys (although, both being dumped in January is concerning).

If GB2020 doesn't work it 100% will tarnish the Sony Pictures name. 10000%. That seems fairly obvious, right? If GB2020 doesn't work people will probably lose their jobs. Tom Rothman might go. Ghostcorp will probably fold. That has real world consequences. Sony Pictures was once the toast of the town. They were well respected, around 2002-2005. They had Spider-Man and Adam Sandler with a robust DVD market. They are NOT well respected at all anymore. They've become a joke.

While I agree with your assessment of where the studio is at, it's an overestimation to suggest that Ghostbusters 2020 would somehow make them the talk of the town again if it were a hit, or that it'd be more than "another swing and a miss" if it bombed. 2016 was the big egg-on-face moment, now it'll just be part of a pattern if it's a flop.

Hard to say what it will mean if it's a success -- we still know so little about it that (and this is where I'll take anything Dan says with a grain of salt) we can't say what it will really mean for the future or what it would pave the way for. I will say, in 2016 we were hearing that they were thinking of launching a whole "Ghostbusters Cinematic Universe," with plans for Channing Tatum's movie, another mystery film, and a Slimer prequel. This time, I doubt we hear about anything concrete until the dust settles.

I gotta ask: Why do you keep saying this "you don't have to tell me" stuff? You aren't the only person reading this thread and not a lot of people realize how things work.

I say it when you're responding directly to me because you're quoting my post.

Kevin Feige absolutely ran the show with Spider-Man Homecoming.

Again, per Feige himself, you are not correct. He said himself, the beauty of the deal was that both parties got what they wanted: Spider-Man could appear in the MCU and Marvel would get some input on that, AND Amy Pascal would not lose creative control or the freedom to make the movies how she wanted to make them.

It is currently unknown if GB 2020 will be shown in China.

The reason Ghostbusters (2016) wasn't shown in China was because it contained ghosts, and the Chinese have religious objections to ghosts. I would assume Ghostbusters 2020 is not going to be an exception.

Yeah this just just going back and forth and you seem to be misunderstanding a few things. Again. One more time from the top: I have first hand knowledge that this movie is the top priority at Sony which has been confirmed by other news outlets. So, you are incorrect. You can have an opinion on why you don't think it should be, or whatever. That's fine. But it's a fact. This isn't something I want to believe or even really care about(you just disagreed with me and then I explained why that was wrong and you kept thinking it was an opinion or something). It's the situation as it exists now. I work for a film production company and I deal with the Sony marketing people all the time(well not ALL the time but often enough. Too often lol). I've even seen some production stuff from this movie, which is a story in and of itself. I had no idea what I was looking at was Ghostbusters related until after the "Rust City" code name was revealed. If only I had known! Then I had heard there was a big announced coming in July(which I foolishly let slip here. I know what the announcement is & I had heard there was suppose to be a comic con reveal but something happened behind the scenes that delayed things and there's been radio silence ever since then).

Another thing: of course money is important, please read what I said again. I said it's not the only important thing. Again, this isn't really fair because I work in film so I know what these people are really like. You don't work in the industry so you're at a bit of a disadvantage when discussing productions. (That probably sounds a lot more elitist and assholish than I mean it to be. I hate my job lol)

So when I say Kevin Feige was heavily involved in casting and making Spider-Man Homecoming(again less so on Far From Home) you'll have to take my word for it. Or not. I'm a stranger on the Internet. Maybe I'm really Jason Reitman(I'm not) or maybe I'm a burger flipper at McDonald's(again. No). But Here's how the situation more or less works: Marvel makes the story and casting choices(because they aren't just signing on for a Sony movie), Sony pays the bill. Yes Sony has to agree to the casting and directing hires. But they don't actually make them. They just say "Ok. We agree". If they don't agree then well..that's one thing I'm not sure on what happens. The line producer, who is not Amy Pascal, makes everything happen after that. Amy Pascal is pretty much is a paycheque. Maybe she shows up on set a few times during publicity days.

Don't get me wrong. Sony probably won't get any props for making Ghostbusters a success again(if that happens). But people will lose their jobs if it fails. Ghostcorp is overhead that Sony is paying for. If GB2020 flops, there's no reason to keep that overhead anymore. So goodbye Ghostcorp. Which means goodbye Ivan, good bye Dan. You don't think that will happen because they created it? Read about what Paramount did to Gene Roddenberry post TMP. Read about how Tom Rothman treated talent at Fox(Go read Drew Mcweeny's X-Men 3 script review over at Aint it Cool News. He use to be under the name Moriarty in those day. That article cost Drew a potential job at Fox with his writing partner Scott Swann).

Also, one more thing. I have no idea what you are trying to say in your opening "good lord" paragraph. You said something first about Sony & Ghostbusters IP? Why is that relevant? Can you explain what you mean here? I didn't think you were denying anything other than the silly priority thing you think I'm guessing at or whatever. How did you get the impression I thought you were denying that Ghostbusters was Sony owned IP?

So just to recap: Things I know be to true and aren't opinions: #1 priority at Sony *at the moment* Sony's Spider-Man production(this is a hard one though because A) I'm not sure what quote by Kevin you are referring to and thus have no context to put it in and B) if he said it the way you claim it was said, he full stop lied. Which is weird for Kevin. He's the most real Hollywood dude I've ever met. He's a legit geek--and huge ghostbusters fan)

Things I'm guessing at that are opinions based on what's been reported: 170 million dollar budget.

Hope that clears things up.

As for China banning Ghosts. That's a weird one. They also claimed they banned time travel but then let in that Bruce Willis/Rian Johnson time travel movie. I think they also let in Coco from Pixar which is Ghost heavy. Plus Doctor Strange has a ghost in it, right? Harry Potter? China just bans whatever they want & then make up the reasons. It's also true China is important but it's not as important as some make it out to be. I mentioned before Hollywood studios get about 20-25% of the reported gross from China. That's when they get it. Getting it has been a huge issue.

[droidguy1119]

Yeah this just just going back and forth and you seem to be misunderstanding a few things. Again. One more time from the top: I have first hand knowledge that this movie is the top priority at Sony which has been confirmed by other news outlets. So, you are incorrect. You can have an opinion on why you don't think it should be, or whatever. That's fine. But it's a fact.

Guarantee with absolute certainty that you are confusing "a major priority" with "the top priority." Top 5 is pretty big. However, in a theoretical situation where Sony was forced to choose between Spider-Man or Ghostbusters, or Jumanji and Ghostbusters, I guarantee you they don't choose the one that's still a big question mark in terms of box office success looking toward the future.

Obviously, ideally, they would prefer Ghostbusters is also successful, and they can have a hit which they don't have to share with anyone, but I'm saying even if that's a major, major priority, success is still up in the air, and Sony is not going to put all of its eggs in a risky basket after they just did that exact same thing four years ago and it didn't work.

Another thing: of course money is important, please read what I said again. I said it's not the only important thing. Again, this isn't really fair because I work in film so I know what these people are really like. You don't work in the industry so you're at a bit of a disadvantage when discussing productions.

I didn't deny it was important. As with the above comment, both things can be partially true. Again, if forced to choose, Hollywood is going to choose financial success over ego. It's that simple. That doesn't deny any level of ego existing and being an obstacle. It just says that even then, money is going to eke out a priority. Sony could have all the pride in the world and it won't help if their next twenty movies bomb.

Also, I am plenty well-educated here. Let's just say we both have industry experience. I'm not doubting what you've heard and seen, I'm doubting the ways you've interpreted it.

So when I say Kevin Feige was heavily involved in casting and making Spider-Man Homecoming(again less so on Far From Home) you'll have to take my word for it. Or not. I'm a stranger on the Internet. Maybe I'm really Jason Reitman(I'm not) or maybe I'm a burger flipper at McDonald's(again. No). But Here's how the situation more or less works: Marvel makes the story and casting choices(because they aren't just signing on for a Sony movie), Sony pays the bill. Yes Sony has to agree to the casting and directing hires. But they don't actually make them. They just say "Ok. We agree". If they don't agree then well..that's one thing I'm not sure on what happens.

Well, again, I'm taking Kevin Feige's word over yours. He said this, and you yourself Identify him as trustworthy, which makes your position very strange. It's even stranger when your description in this quoted comment describes Sony doing most of the work. Feige may approve the writers, but then Sony is the company that actually delivers the script. They put in the work actually writing the movie, Marvel gives some notes, and then it's still down to a director who is beholden to Sony to cast the film, hire a crew, and realize a script written by Sony. Marvel's oversight on these things per your own description is getting to approve some key creatives and giving script notes.

Don't get me wrong. Sony probably won't get any props for making Ghostbusters a success again(if that happens). But people will lose their jobs if it fails. Ghostcorp is overhead that Sony is paying for. If GB2020 flops, there's no reason to keep that overhead anymore. So goodbye Ghostcorp. Which means goodbye Ivan, good bye Dan. You don't think that will happen because they created it?

No, because again, this was stuff I stated I agreed with. Yes, I think Ghost Corps will be in big trouble if this fails (although, they do oversee merch, so there's maybe some room for a drastically reduced GC if this fails since that's still a long-term winner for Sony). I don't think a corporation like Sony is greatly concerned about firing two old guys who haven't had a notable hit between them in a long time, no matter how strong their legacy is. Hey, that sounds like money mattering more than ego...

How did you get the impression I thought you were denying that Ghostbusters was Sony owned IP?

You said, ostensibly to me, "Spider-Man and Jumanji are not original Sony IP. If you don't think that matters to a studio...I don't know what to say. It does. It just does."

[RichardLess]

Yeah this just just going back and forth and you seem to be misunderstanding a few things. Again. One more time from the top: I have first hand knowledge that this movie is the top priority at Sony which has been confirmed by other news outlets. So, you are incorrect. You can have an opinion on why you don't think it should be, or whatever. That's fine. But it's a fact.

Guarantee with absolute certainty that you are confusing "a major priority" with "the top priority." Top 5 is pretty big. However, in a theoretical situation where Sony was forced to choose between Spider-Man or Ghostbusters, or Jumanji and Ghostbusters, I guarantee you they don't choose the one that's still a big question mark in terms of box office success looking toward the future.

Obviously, ideally, they would prefer Ghostbusters is also successful, and they can have a hit which they don't have to share with anyone, but I'm saying even if that's a major, major priority, success is still up in the air, and Sony is not going to put all of its eggs in a risky basket after they just did that exact same thing four years ago and it didn't work.

Another thing: of course money is important, please read what I said again. I said it's not the only important thing. Again, this isn't really fair because I work in film so I know what these people are really like. You don't work in the industry so you're at a bit of a disadvantage when discussing productions.

I didn't deny it was important. As with the above comment, both things can be partially true. Again, if forced to choose, Hollywood is going to choose financial success over ego. It's that simple. That doesn't deny any level of ego existing and being an obstacle. It just says that even then, money is going to eke out a priority. Sony could have all the pride in the world and it won't help if their next twenty movies bomb.

Also, I am plenty well-educated here. Let's just say we both have industry experience. I'm not doubting what you've heard and seen, I'm doubting the ways you've interpreted it.

So when I say Kevin Feige was heavily involved in casting and making Spider-Man Homecoming(again less so on Far From Home) you'll have to take my word for it. Or not. I'm a stranger on the Internet. Maybe I'm really Jason Reitman(I'm not) or maybe I'm a burger flipper at McDonald's(again. No). But Here's how the situation more or less works: Marvel makes the story and casting choices(because they aren't just signing on for a Sony movie), Sony pays the bill. Yes Sony has to agree to the casting and directing hires. But they don't actually make them. They just say "Ok. We agree". If they don't agree then well..that's one thing I'm not sure on what happens.

Well, again, I'm taking Kevin Feige's word over yours. He said this, and you yourself Identify him as trustworthy, which makes your position very strange. It's even stranger when your description in this quoted comment describes Sony doing most of the work. Feige may approve the writers, but then Sony is the company that actually delivers the script. They put in the work actually writing the movie, Marvel gives some notes, and then it's still down to a director who is beholden to Sony to cast the film, hire a crew, and realize a script written by Sony. Marvel's oversight on these things per your own description is getting to approve some key creatives and giving script notes.

Don't get me wrong. Sony probably won't get any props for making Ghostbusters a success again(if that happens). But people will lose their jobs if it fails. Ghostcorp is overhead that Sony is paying for. If GB2020 flops, there's no reason to keep that overhead anymore. So goodbye Ghostcorp. Which means goodbye Ivan, good bye Dan. You don't think that will happen because they created it?

No, because again, this was stuff I stated I agreed with. Yes, I think Ghost Corps will be in big trouble if this fails (although, they do oversee merch, so there's maybe some room for a drastically reduced GC if this fails since that's still a long-term winner for Sony). I don't think a corporation like Sony is greatly concerned about firing two old guys who haven't had a notable hit between them in a long time, no matter how strong their legacy is. Hey, that sounds like money mattering more than ego...

How did you get the impression I thought you were denying that Ghostbusters was Sony owned IP?

You said, ostensibly to me, "Spider-Man and Jumanji are not original Sony IP. If you don't think that matters to a studio...I don't know what to say. It does. It just does."

Dude. Really? You're trying to say I maybe misinterpreted something? I'm not the only employee at my company. It isn't just me saying these things. Again, both deadline and variety have noted that this movie is the top priority right now at Sony. All hands on deck. There are only so many was to interpret "Ghostbusters is our top dog for the next 8 quarters". You have to do some pretty crazy mental gymnastics to misinterpret what that means. I've been doing this for 11 years(oh god that's depressing..). I know how the system works. Trust me, there's nothing to misinterpret.

I guess somewhere along the line I gave you the impression ego mattered more than money. Perhaps I misspoke(err typed?). I meant money is not ALL of the equation. It's a lot of it. Obviously. But Hollywood is a town full of major financial mistakes made and flops made simply because of ego. That's all I was trying to say there.

Maybe I should explain what top priority means in the entertainment industry. It doesn't mean all other projects get put on hold or put on the back burner. It means the best people in the company are to focus on making sure Jason has everything he needs, that nothing major leaks etc. Here's what it means. Now this is a fictional scenario, but this is what it would mean. Let's pretend Ghostbusters and Spider-Man and Jumanji are getting a release next summer. It's Super Bowl time and Sony is going to purchase a single ad space in the 4th quarter. Which movie gets the spot? Which movie does Sony need to convince people to see? Which franchise needs the boost? That's what the top priority means. In the end Spider-Man is probably more valuable to Sony. But Spider-Man Jumanji AND Ghostbusters? 3 healthy franchises? Now they are cooking. It's not a matter of them saying "Oh Ghostbusters is the most important thing now and forever". It's just them saying "We need to make sure this movie reaches its potential". That's all.

So where in that last paragraph did I suggest you thought Ghostbusters wasn't Sony IP? I don't see how you make that connection. Why is it relevant that you said it before I did?

The reason Sony would let go of Dan and Ivan if GB20 fails is exactly the reason you stated. They are two old guys who haven't had a hit between them in years. 100%. Ghostcorp has one purpose. Ghostbusters.

As for Spider-Man. Sony doesn't write the movie. A writer writes the movie. You're a smart guy I know you know that. So I take it you didn't mean what you said there. How it works is, on the sequel, the director had some ideas on where he wanted to go, Kevin had some ideas based on what's important for the MCU(the Aftermath of Endgame plays a major role), Sony says "Ok cool. Here's the money", the writer has some of his own ideas, they all probably had a story conference. Again, if you can provide me the source for this Kevin Feige quote I can maybe give it some context or say "he's being modest" whatever. Until I see a source I don't know where you are getting your info from. Could be secondhand? Could be rumour? Or if it was an interview, like I said, I'd need to read it or see it to make a call on what exactly it was he was claiming he did/didn't do on the sequel.

If you watch the bonus features on Homecoming, Feige was heavily involved. It was his call to hire Tom Holland. They all wanted to bring Spider-Man back to high school. It was Kevin's call to have RDJ in there.

[Davideverona]

RichardLess, I hope you'll write something about all the behind the scenes stuff of GB20 once the movie is out.

[ShiftyHenry]

RichardLess, I hope you'll write something about all the behind the scenes stuff of GB20 once the movie is out.

Same. I'd love to hear what the SDCC announcement was going to be.

[Davideverona]

RichardLess, I hope you'll write something about all the behind the scenes stuff of GB20 once the movie is out.

Same. I'd love to hear what the SDCC announcement was going to be.

And why got postponed. My bet is on "Original Ghostbusters involvement" but negotiations dragged a bit too long making impossible to announce it at SDCC.

[droidguy1119]

I guess somewhere along the line I gave you the impression ego mattered more than money. Perhaps I misspoke(err typed?). I meant money is not ALL of the equation. It's a lot of it. Obviously. But Hollywood is a town full of major financial mistakes made and flops made simply because of ego. That's all I was trying to say there.

What you said was "Box office can be but a small slice of the potential pie." Box office is never going to be less than the biggest piece of the pie. It might only be slightly bigger than ego, but it's going to be bigger. We agree that there have been big swings and bombs based on ego, but I'm saying someone thought sating those egos also made financial sense on paper in some way beforehand.

Maybe I should explain what top priority means in the entertainment industry. It doesn't mean all other projects get put on hold or put on the back burner. It means the best people in the company are to focus on making sure Jason has everything he needs, that nothing major leaks etc. Here's what it means. Now this is a fictional scenario, but this is what it would mean. Let's pretend Ghostbusters and Spider-Man and Jumanji are getting a release next summer. It's Super Bowl time and Sony is going to purchase a single ad space in the 4th quarter. Which movie gets the spot? Which movie does Sony need to convince people to see? Which franchise needs the boost? That's what the top priority means. In the end Spider-Man is probably more valuable to Sony. But Spider-Man Jumanji AND Ghostbusters? 3 healthy franchises? Now they are cooking. It's not a matter of them saying "Oh Ghostbusters is the most important thing now and forever". It's just them saying "We need to make sure this movie reaches its potential". That's all.

In your Superbowl hypothetical, I'm saying they choose Spider-Man no question. I know how the industry works, and it should be clear I'm not saying "now and forever." I have the same understanding of the industry as you do, with your many years in it. And I would stake literally anything on Sony valuing Spider-Man and Jumanji over Ghostbusters simply because those movies aren't question marks. Spider-Man and Jumanji just made Sony over $2b and they don't have any other massive hits to gloat about right now.

Now, if you asked me a slightly different question, I would definitely agree that Ghostbusters is the property they'd most like to rehabilitate. 2016 wasn't a good box office year, but it was probably a great merch year. It's the the first big movie on their plate for 2020, as far as I can tell. But again, if for some reason, a hypothetical scenario arose where it was "finish Ghostbusters 2020 or keep Spider-Man," I have no doubt they're dropping GB2020. Spider-Man represents not just the MCU stuff, but Spider-Verse, Venom, Morbius, etc. They might hesitate more if it were a choice between GB2020 and Jumanji, but I kinda feel like 2016 makes Jumanji look like a safer bet


Also, while I admit I haven't yet found the Feige/Pascal interview where they talked about Spider-Man (I looked -- I feel like it was NYT or maybe USA Today), I also just looked at Deadline's GB2020 articles (there are only four), and none of them have any content about it being the studio's top priority (or any type of analysis in that area at all -- they're all short and pretty straightforward about the announcement, the teaser, Wolfhard/Coon casting, and Rudd casting).

As for Spider-Man. How it works is, on the sequel, the director had some ideas on where he wanted to go, Kevin had some ideas based on what's important for the MCU(the Aftermath of Endgame plays a major role), Sony says "Ok cool. Here's the money", the writer has some of his own ideas, they all probably had a story conference.

If you watch the bonus features on Homecoming, Feige was heavily involved. It was his call to hire Tom Holland. They all wanted to bring Spider-Man back to high school. It was Kevin's call to have RDJ in there.

Well, the problem we're having now is the scenario you describe in your post is the same largely hands-off setup I'm describing. Marvel is not running Spider-Man instead of Sony by helping them fit it in the overarching MCU plot or approving certain creatives (director, writer, star). That still suggests Sony found those people and Marvel simply agreed. People like to make it sound like Marvel essentially makes the movie and hands it to Sony, and Sony just puts it out. What you and I are both describing is a scenario where both companies worked together to conceive a new version of the character (in high school), found the guy and agreed on him (Tom Holland), agreed on a director and writers, and then Sony went and had the freedom to make a movie that Marvel lent Tony Stark to, and Marvel made movies Sony lent Peter Parker to.

As with so many things here, we agree in theory but don't in execution.

[droidguy1119]

You might be writing a reply right now, but just to clarify without getting entangled in our back-and-forth:

• I agree that Ghostbusters is important to Sony and important because it is IP they wholly own and want to exploit without having to give some of the profits away to another rights holder.
• However, this was probably more imperative to them in 2014-2016 when they had no successful franchises running, and a new Ghostbusters hadn't actually been made yet, which made the market potential more of a mystery.
• In my opinion, the middling performance of the expensive Ghostbusters (2016) (and this year's similarity middling performance of Men in Black International, ostensibly aimed at a very similar demo) have likely made Sony cautious about how much to roll the dice on this movie. It presents a marketing challenge in that it has to establish that we're back to the 1984 timeline, without dredging up the discourse again.
• Ghostbusters 2020 is the most ambitious and/or highest profile of their upcoming attempts to relaunch a series they control, and potentially the most exciting if people at the company are convinced it will be great...
• ...but even if it is the most exciting project in the pipeline at the moment, Sony would place more value overall on things like Spider-Man (which puts them into the pop culture sphere of Disney and the MCU, and garnered them an Oscar with Spider-Verse) and Jumanji (which is still comparatively close to Sony-owned IP).
• I don't buy that they'd spend $170m USD after they made a $144m movie in this series that flopped. I might buy that they'd spend $120m USD if there was a significant rebate that ultimately brings the budget to $100m or lower.

[RichardLess]

I guess somewhere along the line I gave you the impression ego mattered more than money. Perhaps I misspoke(err typed?). I meant money is not ALL of the equation. It's a lot of it. Obviously. But Hollywood is a town full of major financial mistakes made and flops made simply because of ego. That's all I was trying to say there.

What you said was "Box office can be but a small slice of the potential pie." Box office is never going to be less than the biggest piece of the pie. It might only be slightly bigger than ego, but it's going to be bigger. We agree that there have been big swings and bombs based on ego, but I'm saying someone thought sating those egos also made financial sense on paper in some way beforehand.

Maybe I should explain what top priority means in the entertainment industry. It doesn't mean all other projects get put on hold or put on the back burner. It means the best people in the company are to focus on making sure Jason has everything he needs, that nothing major leaks etc. Here's what it means. Now this is a fictional scenario, but this is what it would mean. Let's pretend Ghostbusters and Spider-Man and Jumanji are getting a release next summer. It's Super Bowl time and Sony is going to purchase a single ad space in the 4th quarter. Which movie gets the spot? Which movie does Sony need to convince people to see? Which franchise needs the boost? That's what the top priority means. In the end Spider-Man is probably more valuable to Sony. But Spider-Man Jumanji AND Ghostbusters? 3 healthy franchises? Now they are cooking. It's not a matter of them saying "Oh Ghostbusters is the most important thing now and forever". It's just them saying "We need to make sure this movie reaches its potential". That's all.

In your Superbowl hypothetical, I'm saying they choose Spider-Man no question. I know how the industry works, and it should be clear I'm not saying "now and forever." I have the same understanding of the industry as you do, with your many years in it. And I would stake literally anything on Sony valuing Spider-Man and Jumanji over Ghostbusters simply because those movies aren't question marks. Spider-Man and Jumanji just made Sony over $2b and they don't have any other massive hits to gloat about right now.

Now, if you asked me a slightly different question, I would definitely agree that Ghostbusters is the property they'd most like to rehabilitate. 2016 wasn't a good box office year, but it was probably a great merch year. It's the the first big movie on their plate for 2020, as far as I can tell. But again, if for some reason, a hypothetical scenario arose where it was "finish Ghostbusters 2020 or keep Spider-Man," I have no doubt they're dropping GB2020. Spider-Man represents not just the MCU stuff, but Spider-Verse, Venom, Morbius, etc. They might hesitate more if it were a choice between GB2020 and Jumanji, but I kinda feel like 2016 makes Jumanji look like a safer bet


Also, while I admit I haven't yet found the Feige/Pascal interview where they talked about Spider-Man (I looked -- I feel like it was NYT or maybe USA Today), I also just looked at Deadline's GB2020 articles (there are only four), and none of them have any content about it being the studio's top priority (or any type of analysis in that area at all -- they're all short and pretty straightforward about the announcement, the teaser, Wolfhard/Coon casting, and Rudd casting).

As for Spider-Man. How it works is, on the sequel, the director had some ideas on where he wanted to go, Kevin had some ideas based on what's important for the MCU(the Aftermath of Endgame plays a major role), Sony says "Ok cool. Here's the money", the writer has some of his own ideas, they all probably had a story conference.

If you watch the bonus features on Homecoming, Feige was heavily involved. It was his call to hire Tom Holland. They all wanted to bring Spider-Man back to high school. It was Kevin's call to have RDJ in there.

Well, the problem we're having now is the scenario you describe in your post is the same largely hands-off setup I'm describing. Marvel is not running Spider-Man instead of Sony by helping them fit it in the overarching MCU plot or approving certain creatives (director, writer, star). That still suggests Sony found those people and Marvel simply agreed. People like to make it sound like Marvel essentially makes the movie and hands it to Sony, and Sony just puts it out. What you and I are both describing is a scenario where both companies worked together to conceive a new version of the character (in high school), found the guy and agreed on him (Tom Holland), agreed on a director and writers, and then Sony went and had the freedom to make a movie that Marvel lent Tony Stark to, and Marvel made movies Sony lent Peter Parker to.

As with so many things here, we agree in theory but don't in execution.

Here's a link to Vareity https://variety.com/2019/film/news/paul ... 203236578/

Yes it says "huge" not "top". Don't give me a hard time over the semantics of that. You're going to say "I never said it wasn't a huge priority" which is true you didn't. But for this not to have leaked, in this day and age, is crazy. Even, J.J Abrams Super 8 trailer production leaked. Plus Mixed with what I've been told? There's another article from The Verge that mentions the trade papers talking about what a priority this movie is over a Sony. The word "top" again, isn't mentioned.

So you've got me being told it's a top priority, Vareity more or less confirming that by saying its a huge priority, and the verge again talking about its place as a priority. Where the deadline article is, I don't know. I haven't done a huge search. I think I read it in a non Ghostbusters related article where it was something about Sony's upcoming slate. If I remember correctly(maybe I don't?) it was a random line in an article not specifically about Ghostbusters. But I'll totally admit I could be misremembering the deadline thing. It's very plausible.

[RichardLess]

I guess somewhere along the line I gave you the impression ego mattered more than money. Perhaps I misspoke(err typed?). I meant money is not ALL of the equation. It's a lot of it. Obviously. But Hollywood is a town full of major financial mistakes made and flops made simply because of ego. That's all I was trying to say there.

What you said was "Box office can be but a small slice of the potential pie." Box office is never going to be less than the biggest piece of the pie. It might only be slightly bigger than ego, but it's going to be bigger. We agree that there have been big swings and bombs based on ego, but I'm saying someone thought sating those egos also made financial sense on paper in some way beforehand.

Maybe I should explain what top priority means in the entertainment industry. It doesn't mean all other projects get put on hold or put on the back burner. It means the best people in the company are to focus on making sure Jason has everything he needs, that nothing major leaks etc. Here's what it means. Now this is a fictional scenario, but this is what it would mean. Let's pretend Ghostbusters and Spider-Man and Jumanji are getting a release next summer. It's Super Bowl time and Sony is going to purchase a single ad space in the 4th quarter. Which movie gets the spot? Which movie does Sony need to convince people to see? Which franchise needs the boost? That's what the top priority means. In the end Spider-Man is probably more valuable to Sony. But Spider-Man Jumanji AND Ghostbusters? 3 healthy franchises? Now they are cooking. It's not a matter of them saying "Oh Ghostbusters is the most important thing now and forever". It's just them saying "We need to make sure this movie reaches its potential". That's all.

In your Superbowl hypothetical, I'm saying they choose Spider-Man no question. I know how the industry works, and it should be clear I'm not saying "now and forever." I have the same understanding of the industry as you do, with your many years in it. And I would stake literally anything on Sony valuing Spider-Man and Jumanji over Ghostbusters simply because those movies aren't question marks. Spider-Man and Jumanji just made Sony over $2b and they don't have any other massive hits to gloat about right now.

Now, if you asked me a slightly different question, I would definitely agree that Ghostbusters is the property they'd most like to rehabilitate. 2016 wasn't a good box office year, but it was probably a great merch year. It's the the first big movie on their plate for 2020, as far as I can tell. But again, if for some reason, a hypothetical scenario arose where it was "finish Ghostbusters 2020 or keep Spider-Man," I have no doubt they're dropping GB2020. Spider-Man represents not just the MCU stuff, but Spider-Verse, Venom, Morbius, etc. They might hesitate more if it were a choice between GB2020 and Jumanji, but I kinda feel like 2016 makes Jumanji look like a safer bet


Also, while I admit I haven't yet found the Feige/Pascal interview where they talked about Spider-Man (I looked -- I feel like it was NYT or maybe USA Today), I also just looked at Deadline's GB2020 articles (there are only four), and none of them have any content about it being the studio's top priority (or any type of analysis in that area at all -- they're all short and pretty straightforward about the announcement, the teaser, Wolfhard/Coon casting, and Rudd casting).

As for Spider-Man. How it works is, on the sequel, the director had some ideas on where he wanted to go, Kevin had some ideas based on what's important for the MCU(the Aftermath of Endgame plays a major role), Sony says "Ok cool. Here's the money", the writer has some of his own ideas, they all probably had a story conference.

If you watch the bonus features on Homecoming, Feige was heavily involved. It was his call to hire Tom Holland. They all wanted to bring Spider-Man back to high school. It was Kevin's call to have RDJ in there.

Well, the problem we're having now is the scenario you describe in your post is the same largely hands-off setup I'm describing. Marvel is not running Spider-Man instead of Sony by helping them fit it in the overarching MCU plot or approving certain creatives (director, writer, star). That still suggests Sony found those people and Marvel simply agreed. People like to make it sound like Marvel essentially makes the movie and hands it to Sony, and Sony just puts it out. What you and I are both describing is a scenario where both companies worked together to conceive a new version of the character (in high school), found the guy and agreed on him (Tom Holland), agreed on a director and writers, and then Sony went and had the freedom to make a movie that Marvel lent Tony Stark to, and Marvel made movies Sony lent Peter Parker to.

As with so many things here, we agree in theory but don't in execution.

Kevin Feige cast Tom Holland. Tom Hollands first appearance was in Civil War. Sony had to sign off but Kevin did the leg work. His screen test was with RDJ in Atlanta. Homecoming filmed in the Marvel studio space in Atlanta. Homecoming had ILM has the primary VFX vendor. Sony Imageworks did all the other Spider-Man films(for obvious reasons) Sony Imageworks was a subcontractor on Homecoming film. Disney owns ILM. You starting to see the pattern here? Michael Giachinno did the score after having done Doctor Strange for Marvel. I could be wrong but I don't think Michael Giachinno has scored a Sony film before this. ILM being a vendor on a Sony Spider-Man movie should big a big clue who was making the calls here.

There's a show on Netflix called Chef with Jon Favreau. There's an episode with Tom, Jon, Kevin The Russo's and RDJ eating lunch & talking & they talk about casting Holland as Spidey. It's cool, check it out.


What you describe is pretty much what happens. Sony is involved, totally. They sign off on the directors and crew Marvel bring to the table. But it's Marvels game plan. It is extremely unusual for a company to work this way. Before this, Sony made the call all by themselves. Now Marvel makes the creative calls, Sony signs off, profits are earned. Basically, Sony was Princess Leia in A New Hope. And Marvel is Obi Wan, Luke & Han. "Help me Marvel, you're my only hope". Marvel comes in, saves the day, fans rejoice, billions earned. And fans debate on who did what lol.

[RichardLess]

RichardLess, I hope you'll write something about all the behind the scenes stuff of GB20 once the movie is out.

Same. I'd love to hear what the SDCC announcement was going to be.

When it happens, and it will happen, I'll say "this is the announcement I thought was coming in July".

Theres not much I know beyond that. I saw 2 things in a particular file which had LOTS more, under the "Rust City" moniker. I see so much crap from all over the world I had no idea this was Ghostbusters related. Then I felt like the biggest fool ever after it was announced. There was no Ghost Corp logo on anything. A co-worker told me he remembered seeing "Montecito" on it, which is Ivan's company. But I don't recall that.

[droidguy1119]

Here's a link to Vareity https://variety.com/2019/film/news/paul ... 203236578/

Yes it says "huge" not "top". Don't give me a hard time over the semantics of that. You're going to say "I never said it wasn't a huge priority" which is true you didn't. Plus Mixed with what I've been told? There's another article from The Verge that mentions the trade papers talking about what a priority this movie is over a Sony. The word "top" again, isn't mentioned.

So you've got me being told it's a top priority, Vareity more or less confirming that by saying its a huge priority, and the verge again talking about its place as a priority.

I have to give you a hard time about the semantics! Isn't that our entire board relationship?

My POV is that we were specifically debating "#1" vs. "one of Sony's top projects." Also, "priority" is not the same as "their most valuable project on the slate," which is the impression that I had of your position before. In any case, I think we know where we each stand and there's no need to keep going now.

[RichardLess]

Here's a link to Vareity https://variety.com/2019/film/news/paul ... 203236578/

Yes it says "huge" not "top". Don't give me a hard time over the semantics of that. You're going to say "I never said it wasn't a huge priority" which is true you didn't. Plus Mixed with what I've been told? There's another article from The Verge that mentions the trade papers talking about what a priority this movie is over a Sony. The word "top" again, isn't mentioned.

So you've got me being told it's a top priority, Vareity more or less confirming that by saying its a huge priority, and the verge again talking about its place as a priority.

I have to give you a hard time about the semantics! Isn't that our entire board relationship?

My POV is that we were specifically debating "#1" vs. "one of Sony's top projects." Also, "priority" is not the same as "their most valuable project on the slate," which is the impression that I had of your position before. In any case, I think we know where we each stand and there's no need to keep going now.

Very cool. It was fun. I extend my hand to you for an Internet handshake. You kept me on my toes, were very civil and I respect that. Thanks

[droidguy1119]

Hehehehehe, there goes Marvel's involvement in Sony Spider-Man...

https://deadline.com/2019/08/kevin-feig ... 202672545/

[RichardLess]

Hehehehehe, there goes Marvel's involvement in Sony Spider-Man...

https://deadline.com/2019/08/kevin-feig ... 202672545/

Isn't that weird? It's like they knew we were just debating this very topic. I just came here to post this very thing. Maybe Marvel read my post and was like "you know what? This Richardless guy is right! We deserve more money!" Lollol.

That's too funny.

[Davideverona]

https://fandomwire.com/2019/08/20/marve ... uncertain/

It's not over till it's over.

[droidguy1119]

In the last few months, the audience's disinterest in similar "legacy" revivals of IP like Terminator: Dark Fate, Doctor Sleep, and Charlie's Angels is all pointing to Ghostbusters 2020 being a potentially tough sell. We've been saturated with legacy sequels and reboots (Ghostbusters included) for a few years now, and audiences seem to be starting to reject continuations they feel are more about the studio keeping a property alive or banking on a brand name than the story, and while none of the three above examples are perfect analogues, and Ghostbusters doesn't have quite the number of swings and misses at the box office as the Terminator series, the baggage of 2016 will probably weigh heavily on people's interest in this movie. To be honest, I suspect the general public wanted the series back (in any form) less than we did four years ago, and it may be even less appealing to them now.

I know many board members will hate this, but's definitely going to be in Sony's best interest to sell this as an individual movie more than "Ghostbusters 3," with the hope that Finn Wolfhard, Paul Rudd, and the story (maybe others, but those seem like the obvious pre-existing and broadest draws) are enough to get people interested, with the franchise coming second.

As a fan, I'd say don't be surprised if the reception is grumpy or even hostile when the posters and trailers drop. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

[Styrofoam_Guy]

I was very surprised when Terminator: Dark Fate did so poorly. It had Arnold, Hamilton and the involvement of Cameron. I believe Cameron did the story line. If those were not enough to draw people into the movie I have no idea what would. They also seemed to have a decent amount of advertising. I enjoyed the movie and story.

In this case it may have been franchise fatigue.

I was also surprised that Charlie's Angels did terrible. It had Patrick Stewart and Kristen Stewart. I do not recall as much advertising for this movie.

Not as big names as the first 2 movies but for some reason people just stayed away from this one.


I also have no idea how GB2020 is going to do.