Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4950538
kahuna900 wrote: June 11th, 2021, 11:44 am
Kingpin wrote: December 1st, 2018, 6:29 pm And the moral of the story is: don't let a fast food franchise dictate the artistic integrity of a movie.
I thought Taco Bell won the franchise war...
Some say it was Pizza Hut.... ;)
jpetrutis81, kahuna900 liked this
User avatar
By deadderek
#4951758
Alphagaia wrote: November 30th, 2018, 4:43 pm Well, the trailers and articles at least were very clear it was a world where ghostsbusting did not exist .

Funny thing by the way, it's all the royalties from the merch, VR stations, Toys (Mattel paid a lot for the rights), German Parkride, hotel rooms, (digital) home sales and Netflix deals what saved the ATC franchise from losing money (and even making a profit). Though they hoped the movie itself would already do that of course.
Citations needed. The movie did not turn a profit and I'd like to see some proof that ATC was "saved" by the merchandise. Considering we've have exactly no new ATC merch since the movie came out, I find that especially hard to believe.

Like ATC all you want, but the financial reality is what it is.
User avatar
By mrmichaelt
#4951759
deadderek wrote: July 15th, 2021, 6:43 pm Citations needed. The movie did not turn a profit and I'd like to see some proof that ATC was "saved" by the merchandise. Considering we've have exactly no new ATC merch since the movie came out, I find that especially hard to believe.
There was this article in August 2016, it was reported Sony was taking a $70 million loss with a total domestic gross of $117 million and total gross of $180 million, with foreign markets added, as of August 7. A Sony representative disputed the loss calculation saying "multiple revenue streams, including consumer products, gaming, location-based entertainment, continued international rollout, and huge third-party promotional partnerships that mitigated costs, the bottom line, even before co-financing, is not remotely close to the number."
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... ly-918515/
Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By deadderek
#4951762
Very nice but there's nothing in that article that says ATC broke even let alone made any profit.

Pure damage control. No numbers of any kind actually given. So it's more than safe to assume ATC did not so much as break even.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4951764
What that article says that even without adding stuff like the DVD sales, Void profits and all that other stuff mentioned it's not just an easy BO minus Costs and Marketing Calculation.

You can choose to see his words or any other direct sources as mere damage control, but that's also acknowledging you don't include the whole financial situation.
User avatar
By deadderek
#4951767
Alphagaia wrote: July 15th, 2021, 11:41 pm What that article says that even without adding stuff like the DVD sales, Void profits and all that other stuff mentioned it's not just an easy BO minus Costs and Marketing Calculation.

You can choose to see his words or any other direct sources as mere damage control, but that's also acknowledging you don't include the whole financial situation.
It's pure damage control. You can choose to believe what you want, but the plain truth is in the end ATC and it's merchandise didn't cut it in anyway.
By RichardLess
#4951771
deadderek wrote: July 16th, 2021, 12:13 am
Alphagaia wrote: July 15th, 2021, 11:41 pm What that article says that even without adding stuff like the DVD sales, Void profits and all that other stuff mentioned it's not just an easy BO minus Costs and Marketing Calculation.

You can choose to see his words or any other direct sources as mere damage control, but that's also acknowledging you don't include the whole financial situation.
It's pure damage control. You can choose to believe what you want, but the plain truth is in the end ATC and it's merchandise didn't cut it in anyway.
Yeah I’m not trying to turn this into a hate train or anything, but that is a 100% BS damage control statement.

Here’s the truth: Now a days studios don’t really make deals on a per movie basis. So when Ghostbusters 2016 plays on cable TV or Netflix or even an airplane, Sony signed a generic distribution deal with those partners. They didn’t say “hey Netflix! Give me 15 million dollars for the right to play Ghostbusters 2016!”. They said “hey Netflix give me X amount of money for a slate of our movies”. That slate included GB16 and probably every other Sony movie released that year.

Ghostbusters 2016 is still in the red. If this were 2005? It probably would’ve made its money back easily on DVDs alone. But that just doesn’t happen anymore. There’s just no way they’ve made up that 70m in ancillaries.

This ties into Hollywood accounting that we talk about sometimes. So Ghostbusters 2016 very likely had gross profit participants. Meaning once GB16 is in the black, these people start sharing the success. But because Studios amortize the costs & earnings, it’s extremely hard and almost impossible to tell if a movie that lost a shit load of money like GB16 did will ever be profitable. If Sony signs a distribution deal worth, let’s say 200 million dollars, and that includes every movie Sony releases in a 5 year period, well that’s 200 million to Sony, but what about the gross profit participants? How much of that 200 million goes towards making the movies that lost money whole again? See how it gets complicated?


9/10 when a studio makes a statement like that to the press, it’s damage control.

Frankly, it’s amazing Hollywood works as a business model at all. When you look at the profit margins on most movies…it’s pretty thin. Sure the stuff like Avengers & Star Wars just roll in it. But when you have movies that cost 150-200 million before marketing & you need about 3X the budget to profit? You can see why these companies are bought & sold so often. It’s why I love hearing about the big gambles studios make sometimes that pay off. Like Lord of the Rings. Easily the ballsiest move ever made in Hollywood. 3 movies shot back to back in New Zealand with a director whose never had a hit or mounted a big budget production, with a cost of about 300 million? Man. If that first movie doesn’t work you are screwed! But then not only does it work, but it’s a bonanza & they go on to win multiple academy awards including Best Picture. Or look at the first GB. No script, just a cast, a pitch & a made up number for the budget and boom! Green light & 12 months later you’ve got a phenomenon! Amazing.
deadderek liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4951772
RichardLess wrote: July 16th, 2021, 3:37 am
deadderek wrote: July 16th, 2021, 12:13 am

It's pure damage control. You can choose to believe what you want, but the plain truth is in the end ATC and it's merchandise didn't cut it in anyway.
Here’s the truth: Now a days studios don’t really make deals on a per movie basis. So when Ghostbusters 2016 plays on cable TV or Netflix or even an airplane, Sony signed a generic distribution deal with those partners. They didn’t say “hey Netflix! Give me 15 million dollars for the right to play Ghostbusters 2016!”. They said “hey Netflix give me X amount of money for a slate of our movies”. That slate included GB16 and probably every other Sony movie released that year.
I agree it's complicated but your claim about how those generic deals work isn't the exact truth. The deals are detailed and the money is different per movie (depending on age and popularity, region and how long they are allowed to air them.)

Well at least that's how it works for Netflix, according to the lists in the Sony Leaks, where Netflix pays a different sum per movie.
By RichardLess
#4951777
Alphagaia wrote: July 16th, 2021, 4:26 am
RichardLess wrote: July 16th, 2021, 3:37 am

Here’s the truth: Now a days studios don’t really make deals on a per movie basis. So when Ghostbusters 2016 plays on cable TV or Netflix or even an airplane, Sony signed a generic distribution deal with those partners. They didn’t say “hey Netflix! Give me 15 million dollars for the right to play Ghostbusters 2016!”. They said “hey Netflix give me X amount of money for a slate of our movies”. That slate included GB16 and probably every other Sony movie released that year.
I agree it's complicated but your claim about how those generic deals work isn't the exact truth. The deals are detailed and the money is different per movie (depending on age and popularity, region and how long they are allowed to air them.)

Well at least that's how it works for Netflix, according to the lists in the Sony Leaks, where Netflix pays a different sum per movie.
I don’t know what you are referring to in the Netflix leaks but when a studio makes a deal with a streaming service it’s generally not on a per movie basis. What you may be seeing in the leaks is Sony amortizing that money movie by movie but Netflix isn’t giving them anymore money for Ghostbusters than say, Men in Black.

Edit: I should make a quick addendum to that. I think Netflix use to have a policy that when a popular movie was facing expiration they’d try to strike a deal to keep in longer and on that they’d pay a per movie fee. I’m not sure if they do that anymore.

Also TV shows work differently. TV shows are done on a per show basis(for the most part).
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4951778
I'll send you a link where they have multiple tiers for movies, with multiple amounts of money allocated to them, which is different per region, depending on how long Netflix rents them, if it's exclusive, which is different per region as each has it's own amount of describers and so forth.

Which should make it clear Sony bills Netflix per movie provided.
Last edited by Alphagaia on July 16th, 2021, 8:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By deadderek
#4951780
No proof ATC even remotely was near breaking even though. Enjoy going back and forth on how studios deal with streaming providers though.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4951781
I just wonder why you are so sure when you don't seem to know or acknowledge half of the information and ways a movie generates income for a studio.

I fully agree BO should be enough, which for ATC wasn't enough, but luckily for the studio that's hardly the only way to generate income as mentioned before. It had to take the long road.
User avatar
By deadderek
#4951783
Alphagaia wrote: July 16th, 2021, 8:39 am I just wonder why you are so sure when you don't seem to know or acknowledge half of the information and ways a movie generates income for a studio.
Because based on all the available information, ATC and it's merchandise did not break even.
#4951784
It's fair to say ATC drastically missed it's targets for profitability, but it's not just about income and doesn't mean the entire exercise was a disaster for Sony.

It reviewed fairly well and, whilst divisive, found an appreciative new audience. The decision to broadcast the extended edition over the theatrical is a wise one, and it has kept Ghostbusters in the public conscious ahead of Afterlife. ATC has potential for cult re-appraisal as a low-key evergreen title should the brand surge in popularity.

We can assume it made a loss or barely scraped even otherwise they'd be shouting about it, but Sony & Ghost Corp now stand by the movie and have taken whatever wins it can from the situation. If only the "fanbase" could stop arguing over it...
Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4951785
Chicken, He Clucked wrote: July 16th, 2021, 9:22 am It's fair to say ATC drastically missed it's targets for profitability, but it's not just about income and doesn't mean the entire exercise was a disaster for Sony.

It reviewed fairly well and, whilst divisive, found an appreciative new audience. The decision to broadcast the extended edition over the theatrical is a wise one, and it has kept Ghostbusters in the public conscious ahead of Afterlife. ATC has potential for cult re-appraisal as a low-key evergreen title should the brand surge in popularity.

We can assume it made a loss or barely scraped even otherwise they'd be shouting about it, but Sony & Ghost Corp now stand by the movie and have taken whatever wins it can from the situation. If only the "fanbase" could stop arguing over it...

Fully agree, not sure why Deadderek needed to dredge this up again, but let's leave it like this as the full information isn't provided in full detail either way, and one can only make assumptions. Either way, there is a lot more things that generate money for a franchise than many people realize.

I digged up a few multi million deals, profits and royalties from the leaks and other sources and if anyone is interested, I can send an PM to provide a more informed picture.
User avatar
By deadderek
#4951787
It's pointless to bring up further, obviously no one is going to open their eyes and change their mind.
By Davideverona
#4951788
Slightly off topic: has anyone seen the last Feig's Christmas movie? How is it?

Because I found Bridesmaids to be an attempt to follow in the steps of Hangover, I enjoyed The Heat and I didn't liked all the other Feig movies (I didn't liked the other McCarthy movies too).

So,I was thinking would a Ghostbusters reboot had been more successful if there was another director?
User avatar
By deadderek
#4951806
Davideverona wrote: July 16th, 2021, 2:56 pm So,I was thinking would a Ghostbusters reboot had been more successful if there was another director?
No matter what director, a reboot would not have been well received to begin with. As badly as the 2016 film? Debatable. There's just no scenario where any director doing a reboot of Ghostbusters wins.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4951810
Davideverona wrote: July 16th, 2021, 2:56 pm Slightly off topic: has anyone seen the last Feig's Christmas movie? How is it?
I've heard it's not terrible, and judging by the trailer it does look like it's trying to be treated more seriously than his earlier work, with more weight to it... But the story main twist was noted as very predictable.
Davideverona liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4951835
Kingpin wrote: July 17th, 2021, 7:48 am
Davideverona wrote: July 16th, 2021, 2:56 pm Slightly off topic: has anyone seen the last Feig's Christmas movie? How is it?
I've heard it's not terrible, and judging by the trailer it does look like it's trying to be treated more seriously than his earlier work, with more weight to it... But the story main twist was noted as very predictable.
Heard the same thing, and haven't watched it yet. Did watch A Simple Favor, which I enjoyed because of all the misdirections and an ending I damn well didn't predict. Fun movie.
User avatar
By droidguy1119
#4952323
With regard to the finances:

Ghostbusters (2016) cost $144m. Modern rule of thumb dictates you double that for marketing, so $288m to break-even, which is pretty much what THR reported (they said $300m). The movie made $229m of that at the worldwide box office, in theaters. TheNumbers.com has DVD sales numbers into March 2017 and Blu-ray sales numbers into January 2017, and lists $38m in revenue: https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Ghost ... ideo-sales

So that alone gets the movie to $267m, and that's without any merch (I cannot find it now, but I heard $50m for merch alone -- here is an article where just Mattel says sales "exceeded expectations": https://variety.com/2016/film/news/matt ... 201820557/), any foreign Blu-ray or DVD sales (If America alone did $38m, the rest of the world surely did at least $10m, and do The Numbers' numbers account for the 4K UHD combo packs?), digital sales, digital and physical rentals, cable deals, etc. I understand not wanting to paint a failure as a success, but I really think it's easy to see that the movie would have closed that gap, especially given many of those numbers are still going up today, albeit in very small increments. I fully agree that the film was not a financial win, but I also really don't think there's any doubt it broke even.

Also, as Sony said, the loss is covered anyway. As much as Sony also wanted the new movie to be a success in order to add to the possible revenue streams, the big benefit of making a new movie in an old franchise is you get to re-market the old one. I'm not saying this money goes in the Ghostbusters (2016) column, but even if you want to bet against all of those other elements filling in the remaining $21m, the studio ends up satisfied regardless because the existence of the new movie no doubt caused thousands of people to buy a new edition of the original two movies, or the cartoon, or any of the hundreds of pieces of 1984 or general series merchandise that hit the market.
Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4952330
Don't forget to add royalties from the toys, the airplane movies, VOD, digital downloads, Netflix, TVairings, Madame Tussauds, The Void ( sold out for years and expanded to multiple stations) and the theme park ride and GB Hotel floor as well.

For instance, just to get the toy deal Mattel paid 4 Million according to the Sony Leaks. For a theme park ride you have to pay a yearly amount of royalties as well, which is also estimated to be a least a Million a year. (Dubai was 1,6MM a year for the ride, Germany could be higher).
Last edited by Alphagaia on July 26th, 2021, 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By RichardLess
#4952377
droidguy1119 wrote: July 26th, 2021, 2:08 pm With regard to the finances:

Ghostbusters (2016) cost $144m. Modern rule of thumb dictates you double that for marketing, so $288m to break-even, which is pretty much what THR reported (they said $300m). The movie made $229m of that at the worldwide box office, in theaters. TheNumbers.com has DVD sales numbers into March 2017 and Blu-ray sales numbers into January 2017, and lists $38m in revenue: https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Ghost ... ideo-sales

So that alone gets the movie to $267m, and that's without any merch (I cannot find it now, but I heard $50m for merch alone -- here is an article where just Mattel says sales "exceeded expectations": https://variety.com/2016/film/news/matt ... 201820557/), any foreign Blu-ray or DVD sales (If America alone did $38m, the rest of the world surely did at least $10m, and do The Numbers' numbers account for the 4K UHD combo packs?), digital sales, digital and physical rentals, cable deals, etc. I understand not wanting to paint a failure as a success, but I really think it's easy to see that the movie would have closed that gap, especially given many of those numbers are still going up today, albeit in very small increments. I fully agree that the film was not a financial win, but I also really don't think there's any doubt it broke even.

Also, as Sony said, the loss is covered anyway. As much as Sony also wanted the new movie to be a success in order to add to the possible revenue streams, the big benefit of making a new movie in an old franchise is you get to re-market the old one. I'm not saying this money goes in the Ghostbusters (2016) column, but even if you want to bet against all of those other elements filling in the remaining $21m, the studio ends up satisfied regardless because the existence of the new movie no doubt caused thousands of people to buy a new edition of the original two movies, or the cartoon, or any of the hundreds of pieces of 1984 or general series merchandise that hit the market.
Keep in mind studios don’t get all that money though. They keep on average about 50% of the WW reported gross. But Sony also didn’t pay for the entire movie. They had some financing partners.

Regardless. Once you cut 50% off of that gross your looking at some pretty big losses.

But yeah Studios do all kinds of things to hide the true numbers. Tax breaks are also part of it.
By RichardLess
#4952378
Alphagaia wrote: July 26th, 2021, 10:43 pm Men In Black famously didn't make a profit so they didn't need to pay the writer a dime. It's shady as heck.
One of the most famous ones is Warner’s saying they didn’t profit off of Harry Potter & The Order of the Phoenix. It’s total BS

2TdeBrw2g_M Teaser BTS video from Tested.com H[…]

Wow, that video is a gold mine.

Adam Savage has a very important announcement: […]

Hello

http://i.imgur.com/1kB7fOZ.jpg