Support NeoGAF

[DeathyBoy]

So, you're saying that Tarzan is a sleek, high performance machine that will reach the finish line? It just needs a tune up to perform great in its next race, ie. the sequel.

I'll accept that.

They've set up a great foundation and America trying to conquer the jungle and Tarzan going full savage...

 

[MHWilliams]

Tarzan is like that car who's engine stalled 10 seconds after the race started but is still puttering through the course out of shear inertia.

Tarzan is doing surprisingly well and steady business. GB is probably hoping for similar performance.

For people wondering about the legs, here's Box Office Mojo.

Finishing second was Sony's Ghostbusters, which matched Mojo's weekend forecast with an estimated $46 million. This is the largest domestic opening for both director Paul Feig and Melissa McCarthy. Attention will now turn to the film's future prospects, mostly due to how well Feig and McCarthy's films have performed beyond their opening weekend.

A look at Feig's last three films—Spy, The Heat and Bridesmaids—we find them performing, on average, with a 4.778 multiple. Should Ghostbusters enjoy such a performance it would result in a domestic run right around $220 million.

Performing a similar evaluation of McCarthy's last six wide release comedies in which she plays the starring role we find, on average, a 4.136 multiplier. Should Ghostbusters perform similarly we're looking at a $190 million domestic performance once all is said and done. Of course, with the larger opening weekend, Ghostbusters isn't likely to deliver such high multiples, so, for the sake of comparison, here's a look at the multipliers for McCarthy's last six wide release comedies in which she played a starring role and what kind of domestic run Ghostbusters would be looking at if it performed similarly to any of them:

•The Boss (2.674 multiplier) - $123 M
•Spy* (3.810 multiplier) - $175.3 M
•Tammy (3.917 multiplier) - $180.2 M
•The Heat* (4.080 multiplier) - $187.7 M
•Identity Thief (3.893 multiplier) - $179.1 M
•Bridesmaids* (6.443 multiplier) - $296.4 M
* Directed by Paul Feig

More realistically, we're probably looking at a domestic run around $135-145 million. Ghostbusters carries a $144 million budget (net after tax incentives and rebates) and received an "A-" CinemaScore for the under 25 crowd, and an overall "B+", on par with Bridesmaids and Spy and just behind The Heat's "A-".

Internationally, Ghostbusters delivered $19.1 million from three major territories along with a few smaller markets. The opening included $6.1 million from the UK where the film opened on July 11 along with $3.7 million from Australia and $2.2 million in Brazil. Key upcoming releases include Russia and Italy on July 28, Germany (Aug 4), France (Aug 10), Mexico and Spain on August 12 and Japan on August 19.

 

[bananafactory]

Tarzan is doing surprisingly well and steady business. GB is probably hoping for similar performance.

For people wondering about the legs, here's Box Office Mojo.

Holy shit at that Bridesmaids multiplier. Had no idea it was that steady.

 

[Officerrob]

If people think $46m is a 'bomb' for this, their expectations were kind of silly. It certainly isn't the ceiling for this type of thing, but given that it's by far Feig and the cast's biggest opening weekend, it's not completely terrible.

Here's a great post from the Forbes thread on the Ghostbusters BO predictions



The budget is definitely the film's biggest problem, moreso than the opening BO numbers. But it's also not a crazy budget when you line it up with other action comedies. Its success hinges on whether or not it has good legs, and China not showing it will be a pretty big blow.

I believe Feig said the film needed to make at least 500 million

 

[FTF]

Updated.

Finding Dory with IO legs here on out - 517M
Finding Dory with TS3 legs here on out - 510M
Finding Dory with Shrek2 legs here on out - 519M
Finding Dory with DM2 legs here on out - 504M
Finding Dory with Shrek3 legs here on out - 482M
Finding Dory with Minions legs here on out - 495M
Finding Dory with MU legs here on out - 478M

Basically this means that TDK is out of reach as Pets took a big bite out of Dory's legs.

Leaves the door (slightly) open for Rogue One to win the year.

 

[bananafactory]

I believe Feig said the film needed to make at least 500 million

Again, that's more an issue with the budget and marketing spend than the film's performance, though the two are of course still tied together so it's certainly relevant.

But 'bomb' - if people insist on using the word - shouldn't be used as a method of expressing that a film simply didn't make enough money.

 

[Busty]

Dat Ghostbusters cinematic universe tho.

The whole idea of Ghostbusters being this incredible brand with a wealth of source material like Marvel and DC is laughable and it was made all the worse by that 'Ghost Corps' logo at the start of the film.

Frankly I'm not sure that this film would have done much better at the box office with an all male cast opposed to Wiig, McCarthy etc. I'm sure that on paper Ghostbusters looks a potent brand/IP but I think that everyone has moved on and it just isn't a big mainstream idea anymore.

Man how far has Sony fallen if it considers Ghostbusters "one of our most important brands."

The thing is though that Ghostbusters and Men In Black are Sony Pictures two biggest studio owned IPs.

China is so excited about the movie, the government lifted the summer blackout so the movie could be released. Well. Not really. But still. The ban was lifted and The Legend of Tarzan is going to get that China money.

I have a feeling that China is going to fucking love Tarzan. It has that old school, Sunday matinee, pulp vibe that the Chinese are going to appreciate.

 

[Trokil]

Wait a minute.

So alienating the core audience for a sci-fi comedy is not the best business strategy? How could have anybody known that?

 

[bananafactory]

Dat Ghostbusters cinematic universe tho.

The whole idea of Ghostbusters being this incredible brand with a wealth of source material like Marvel and DC is laughable and it was made all the worse by that 'Ghost Corps' logo at the start of the film.

Frankly I'm not sure that this film would have done much better at the box office with an all male cast opposed to Wiig, McCarthy etc. I'm sure that on paper Ghostbusters looks a potent brand/IP but I think that everyone has moved on and it just isn't a big mainstream idea anymore.

Indeed. In fact, banking on Feig/McCarthy might actually be smart as pulling in that audience as well as the few who do still have interest in the GB property might yield better results than otherwise.

 

[jett]

GB's start would be okay if it wasn't for the idiotic budget.

 

[JABEE]

Tarzan is doing surprisingly well and steady business. GB is probably hoping for similar performance.

For people wondering about the legs, here's Box Office Mojo.

This is a good opening for a Paul Feig comedy. Either Sony overestimated the power of the Ghostbusters brand when budgeting this film or there was a miscalculation of what sold the previous Ghostbusters films to the previous generations.

There also has to be a questioning of how well the promotional material sold the concept and if that concept and visual style was marketable.

I would also say they are going to be running into competition the next three weeks looking at the release schedule.

July 22nd

Star Trek
Ice Age

July 29th

Jason Bourne

August 5th

Suicide Squad

Ghostbusters is going to lose screening rooms pretty quickly.

 

[Sectorseven]

How much of an influence is the merchandise sales when greenlighting a sequel?

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Skarsgard's abs are whats saving the movie.

This review can shed some light on it.

Best quote:

Amazing review. Thanks for the link.

 

[Trokil]

GB's start would be okay if it wasn't for the idiotic budget.

An almost 20 minute CGI fight sequence is not cheap. If you use a lot of CGI budgets are high.

And McCarthy was not cheap either I guess, so was Hemsworth. If you want names, you will have to pay for the names.

 

[Takao]

But 'bomb' - if people insist on using the word - shouldn't be used as a method of expressing that a film simply didn't make enough money.

That's the definition of a box office bomb:

In the motion picture industry, a "box office bomb" or "box office flop" is a film that is viewed as highly unsuccessful or unprofitable during its theatrical run, sometimes preceding hype regarding its cost, production, or marketing efforts. Generally, any film for which the production and marketing costs exceed the combined revenue recovered after release is considered to have "bombed".

Unless the movie has great legs and does well internationally, Sony isn't making money on this theatrically.

For people wondering about the legs, here's Box Office Mojo.

I wouldn't expect legs similar to the highest of Feig movies, if only because this is a franchise film and not something new.

It could have, had Bill Murray not been so petty that he only agreed to be in a Ghostbusters film after Ramis passed away.

Isn't he only in the new movie because Sony were looking to sue him if he didn't?

Man how far has Sony fallen if it considers Ghostbusters "one of our most important brands."

Saying they've fallen implies they've had a war chest of popular franchises at one point. They've tried to (re)launch a bunch of franchises but most have been met with apathy. When they're doing stuff like that 21 Jump Street crossover with MIB, you can smell the desperation.

 

[rou021]

I'm surprised by Tarzan not only being at #3, but also beating Dory. With how Pets and the animal films have been doing this year, I wonder if Sony will try to do a Ghostbusters spinoff starring only the ghosts now. Oh god--they're probably going to do this, aren't they?

Sony is the new FOX of ten years ago.

This is pretty on point considering Tom Rothman is now running the show at Sony (he was also head of Fox ten years ago). I'm sure there will more many more blunders to follow.

 

[bananafactory]

This is a good opening for a Paul Feig comedy. Either Sony overestimated the power of the Ghostbusters brand when budgeting this film or there was a miscalculation of what sold the previous Ghostbusters films to the previous generations.

There also has to be a questioning of how well the promotional material sold the concept and if that concept and visual style was marketable.

I would also say they are going to be running into competition the next three weeks looking at the release schedule.

July 22nd

Star Trek
Ice Age

July 29th

Jason Bourne

August 5th

Suicide Squad

Ghostbusters is going to lose screening rooms pretty quickly.

For sure. Screens will be an issue, not sure about audience. You'll lose a lot of the 'sci fi' demo if that's even a thing, but there were a ton of women in my GB showing. I'm not sure what the gender split looks like for things like Trek/Bourne/SS but I imagine GB could hold its own in that regard. Actually think Ice Age will be a big knock to the family tickets, there were also a ton of kids that I saw out this weekend.

 

[Plasticine]

Skarsgard's abs are whats saving the movie.

This review can shed some light on it.

He should be in a loin cloth throughout sequel. It would do wonders for the multiplier.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Again, that's more an issue with the budget and marketing spend than the film's performance, though the two are of course still tied together so it's certainly relevant.

But 'bomb' - if people insist on using the word - shouldn't be used as a method of expressing that a film simply didn't make enough money.

I thought that was the only criteria to determine if a film is doing well? The people behind the informant would be dancing in the streets of it pulled in $45 million domestic in the first week.

Expectations and budget always play a factor in the labels thrown around.

 

[JABEE]

I wonder if there are demographics for the first Ghostbuster's theatrical run. Are there any analytics published for the new films based on the first weekend?

The splits would be interesting.

 

[JABEE]

For sure. Screens will be an issue, not sure about audience. You'll lose a lot of the 'sci fi' demo if that's even a thing, but there were a ton of women in my GB showing. I'm not sure what the gender split looks like for things like Trek/Bourne/SS but I imagine GB could hold its own in that regard. Actually think Ice Age will be a big knock to the family tickets, there were also a ton of kids that I saw out this weekend.

I think Star Trek will struggle, but it will still eat away at some of Ghostbusters audience. I also think Paramount is going to open it big.

Ice Age and this Pets movie are going to continue to suck up money.

I don't think Ghostbusters will have legs like some are expecting.

 

[bananafactory]

I thought that was the only criteria to determine if a film is doing well? The people behind the informant would be dancing in the streets of it pulled in $45 million domestic in the first week.

Expectations and budget always play a factor in the labels thrown around.

Projects are mismanaged, though. Not saying GB was necessarily, but sometimes spend is way too high and something does as well as it possibly could but still doesn't reach that.

I'm well aware of the actual definition of bomb but I also believe that when actually discussing things like budget v results there should be some kind of middle ground, maybe a film that didn't make back its money but also didn't grossly underperform compared to what it should have done.

You could call X-Men Apocalypse a 'bomb' with 65m OW when you consider what other superhero movies are doing, and the name recognition associated with that brand, and it's past entry's openings. But I wouldn't say something like Mad Max is a bomb, considering how long it had been between entries and the pretty niche nature of the content.

 

[Kickz]

Well damn, GhostBusters bombed hard

 

[jstripes]

Wait a minute.

So alienating the core audience for a sci-fi comedy is not the best business strategy? How could have anybody known that?

a) Pandering to nerds doesn't make you money in the world of movies. Look at Serenity.

b) The "core audience" chose to be alienated from the beginning.


Look at the Star Trek reboot. It was a sci-fi blockbuster action movie aimed at a mainstream audience. There were lots of nit-picky things in there that bugged me, like the Enterprise being built on Earth. But, I enjoyed it (I wouldn't call it great), and it made money.

 

[BronsonLee]

If you talk shit about Serenity prepare for me to shoot you with a water gun

 

[MHWilliams]

This is a good opening for a Paul Feig comedy. Either Sony overestimated the power of the Ghostbusters brand when budgeting this film or there was a miscalculation of what sold the previous Ghostbusters films to the previous generations.

I'm leaning on the former.

GB's start would be okay if it wasn't for the idiotic budget.

Yup. Comedies tend to top out in the $200-400 million range. Unless shit gets crazy, like Hangover.

21 Jump: $36 million OP, $201 million WW.
The Hangover: $44 million OP, $467 million WW.
The Heat: $39 million OP, $229 million WW.

Bad would be something like... Green Hornet.

Green Hornet: $33 million OP, $227 million WW. $120 million budget.

 

[Tobor]

a) Pandering to nerds doesn't make you money in the world of movies. Look at Serenity.

b) The "core audience" chose to be alienated from the beginning.


Look at the Star Trek reboot. It was a sci-fi blockbuster action movie aimed at a mainstream audience. There were lots of nit-picky things in there that bugged me, like the Enterprise being built on Earth. But, I enjoyed it (I wouldn't call it great), and it made money.

You're looking at it backwards. Star Trek '09 still had characters named Kirk and Spock and Bones. It was faithful to the characters. They also included Leonard Nimoy as a bridge between the old and new. That was a job well done.

Star Trek is one way to do it. Jurassic World and Star Wars is another way to do it. Both are proven methods to take advantage of nostalgia and still be progressive.

Ghostbusters threw away the continuity of a sequel and then threw away the beloved characters. It was down two strikes in the count before you even get to the gender swap.

 

[Kite]

a) Pandering to nerds doesn't make you money in the world of movies. Look at Serenity.

lol not alienating =/= pandering. Calling people who were not thrilled with the trailer misogynists is a fast way to kill any interest I had in it. I'm not even a hardcore GB nerd; it was a fun movie of my childhood and on the same level as stuff like Beatlejuice and Back to the Future, better than Honey I Shrunk the Kids, and far behind the stuff I truly cared about like Star Wars, Star Trek, Indiana Jones, Terminator, Aliens and Ninja Turtles. The reboot GB trailer looked meh, and being told that I have to go see it or I'm supporting sexism is manipulative as hell.

I'm just here for the popcorn, never thought Ghostbusters would be the battleground that keyboard warriors would fight over. It's almost as fun as the NPD/console war threads I used to follow despite being a PC only gamer.

 

[KillerMan91]

Sony should bring up some people from their games division to sort out Pictures. What a mess.

 

[Anth0ny]

ghostbusters?

more like ghostbomba!

 

[cw_sasuke]

Man i wonder how much Dori could have ranked in if it wasnt for Life of Pets crashing its Party.

 

[Dai101]

Never, China has a strict ban on movies about ghosts. Also we don't have a release date for Mexico and other countries, which is weird because the movie was scheduled a few weeks ago for July.

August 12 AFAIK.

 

[Stage On]

Welp Ghostfloppers lived up to it's nickname. They where saying before this weekend that anything below an $50 million opening would be really bad for it. Doubt it'll have much legs given what's on the menu for the next few weeks

 

[Son Of D]

But 'bomb' - if people insist on using the word - shouldn't be used as a method of expressing that a film simply didn't make enough money.

Yeah Ghostbusters isn't a bomb. Underperformed for sure but I wouldn't say a bomb.

 

[Father_Brain]

This is a good opening for a Paul Feig comedy. Either Sony overestimated the power of the Ghostbusters brand when budgeting this film or there was a miscalculation of what sold the previous Ghostbusters films to the previous generations.

There also has to be a questioning of how well the promotional material sold the concept and if that concept and visual style was marketable.

I would say a mix of all of these. You don't have to condone the misogynistic backlash to conclude that there's a significant demographic mismatch between the IP and the casting here.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

lol not alienating =/= pandering. Calling people who were not thrilled with the trailer misogynists is a fast way to kill any interest I had in it. I'm not even a hardcore GB nerd; it was a fun movie of my childhood and on the same level as stuff like Beatlejuice and Back to the Future, better than Honey I Shrunk the Kids, and far behind the stuff I truly cared about like Star Wars, Star Trek, Indiana Jones, Terminator, Aliens and Ninja Turtles. The reboot GB trailer looked meh, and being told that I have to go see it or I'm supporting sexism is manipulative as hell.

I'm just here for the popcorn, never thought Ghostbusters would be the battleground that keyboard warriors would fight over. It's almost as fun as the NPD/console war threads I used to follow despite being a PC only gamer.

None of that matter when in the end the movie turned out to be fine and not the worst thing since the recent GB game Activision put out. We got too many loud cry babies complaining how this ruined their childhood. Can't even think for a second what this movie can do for a next generation of fans.

 

[JABEE]

I would say a mix of all of these. You don't have to condone the misogynistic backlash to conclude that there's a significant demographic mismatch between the IP and the casting here.

And I think Sony budgeted for this movie like they were making Avengers/Iron Man when the original Ghostbusters was an Animal House or Blues Brothers level thing.

 

[vinnygambini]

TMNT2 will finish with $250-260M when all is said and done compared to it's predecessor at $493M.

What a drop.

 

[MHWilliams]

I don't think Ghostbusters will have legs like some are expecting.

I doubt it as well. Probably $350 million tops?

And I think Sony budgeted for this movie like they were making Avengers/Iron Man when the original Ghostbusters was an Animal House or Blues Brothers level thing.

Yep.

 

[Calm waterfall]

An overall B+ cinema score is not good at all for GB, especially when Borne, and Ice Age coming next week.

Pets is doing extra ordinarily well.

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

TMNT2 will finish with $250-260M when all is said and done compared to it's predecessor at $493M.

What a drop.

While TMNT 2 is an upgrade over it's predecessor, it was always going to be a hard sell to all those people who got burned by that godawful first film.

I'm also not sure how much the film appealed to kids. I took my little nephew to the original one and he told me he didn't like the film because the Turtles were too scary. Despite being a fan of the Nickelodeon cartoon, he did not want to go see the new one.

 

[NR1]

lol not alienating =/= pandering. Calling people who were not thrilled with the trailer misogynists is a fast way to kill any interest I had in it. I'm not even a hardcore GB nerd; it was a fun movie of my childhood and on the same level as stuff like Beatlejuice and Back to the Future, better than Honey I Shrunk the Kids, and far behind the stuff I truly cared about like Star Wars, Star Trek, Indiana Jones, Terminator, Aliens and Ninja Turtles. The reboot GB trailer looked meh, and being told that I have to go see it or I'm supporting sexism is manipulative as hell.

I'm just here for the popcorn, never thought Ghostbusters would be the battleground that keyboard warriors would fight over. It's almost as fun as the NPD/console war threads I used to follow despite being a PC only gamer.

Totally agree. Sony needs to get their shit together. They had something that does have the potential to become as successful as Jurassic World or a major Disney property, but they threw alway everything for what??? Those characters are iconic. Those old films are classics. They have a built in audience with kids of their own now. Instead of building on that solid and established foundation, they burned the house down and started from scratch while making their core audience feel unwelcomed.

I don't care that they had an all female cast, but I'm going to ask this question again:

What really surprised me is why they went the all-female route with this since it is a toy selling property. I got nothing against the female cast, but haven't we heard time and again from toy makers that female character toys don't sell to little boys--- the target demographic? That's the surprising thing to me, for that reason alone I would have expected Sony to veto that idea alone. Maximize profits and such.

 

[KeyBladerXIII]

I hope Star Trek does well next weekend. Star Trek 4 is a done deal, yes? Judging by the positive reviews and JJ saying Chris Hemsworth will be back, I think it'll happen but I can't remember if it's confirmed.

 

[Tobor]

And I think Sony budgeted for this movie like they were making Avengers/Iron Man when the original Ghostbusters was an Animal House or Blues Brothers level thing.

You're short selling the original. It was a cultural phenomenon, with a hit song, merchandise, and was big with audiences of all ages.

The new movie could have been an event if handled correctly. The budget wasn't the mistake here. They spent that budget poorly

 

[Violence Jack]

Adjusted for inflation, the new GB beat the original opening weekend's take by about $12 million, but the original film had absolutely insane legs as it grossed between $30-$16 million for 14 weeks in a row. I don't think this movie was ever expected to match those numbers.

GB2 opened at $69 million in 2016 numbers then sunk like a stone afterwards finishing with $112 million domestic.

But with Star Trek, Ice Age, Jason Bourne, and Suicide Squad coming in the next few weeks, plus the somewhat mixed word of mouth, it's not looking good for the new film. The budget was way too high, and no Chinese release hurts.

Still, I don't think the film is a major bomb or flop, but I don't see it having the legs that it needs to make its budget back.

 

[enigmatic_alex44]

I hope Star Trek does well next weekend. Star Trek 4 is a done deal, yes? Judging by the positive reviews and JJ saying Chris Hemsworth will be back, I think it'll happen but I can't remember if it's confirmed.

Ghostbusters is a certified flop. Star Trek Beyond has incredible reviews, a great cast and people really love the rebooted Star Trek movies. Not sure what you mean about Hemsworth returning as he died in the first 10 minutes of the first film though.

Star Trek Beyond is going to bury Ghostbusters next weekend. There's no way it isn't #1, mark my words.

 

[Father_Brain]

And I think Sony budgeted for this movie like they were making Avengers/Iron Man when the original Ghostbusters was an Animal House or Blues Brothers level thing.

Eh. Those two particular franchises are unrealistic targets, but I absolutely would expect a better-marketed, more commercially cast GB film, reboot or not, to be doing a lot better at the box office. Certainly enough to justify a $150M budget.

 

[KeyBladerXIII]

Ghostbusters is a certified flop. Star Trek Beyond has incredible reviews, a great cast and people really love the rebooted Star Trek movies. Not sure what you mean about Hemsworth returning as he died in the first 10 minutes of the first film though.

Star Trek Beyond is going to bury Ghostbusters next weekend. There's no way it isn't #1, mark my words.

Yeah, I think it's a rumor, but here's the thread:

http://neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1247343

 

[NR1]

Adjusted for inflation, the new GB beat the original opening weekend's take by about $12 million, but the original film had absolutely insane legs as it grossed between $30-$16 million for 14 weeks in a row. I don't think this movie was ever expected to match those numbers

I don't think I will ever understand this reasoning. The goal is to make money. Ideally money equal or greater than that of a previous success. Disney didn't buy the Star Wars franchise looking to have marginal success-- they wanted a full on cultural phenomenon just like the original trilogy. And guess what? They got it! Toys, clothing, product tie-ins, social conversation on TV/radio/internet/ect... They got mad bank on just the FIRST film produced after the purchase. They already have the next 4 or 5 in various stages of production. It's a money machine.

Sony dropped the ball hard on this and they have only themselves to blame.

 

[Enter the Dragon Punch]

Surprised Ghostbusters is even that high. Opening night had like 8 pre reserved seats in my town lol