Support NeoGAF

[BattleMonkey]

Ghostbusters is everywhere right now, and alot of cross marketing deals were established for this movie. Even if the movie just breaks even or makes a little profit, all the extra money its bringing in is going to be a win for it.

GI Joe was a similar case, first movie didn't do that great, but it made a lot of money for Paramount with all the marketing deals and merch, so they went ahead with a sequel.

 

[KingV]

This movie was better than GB 2.

And was basically the movie version of the cartoon.

Actually, Ghostbusters 1984 is the movie version of the cartoon. There is an episode where they go the premiere with clips,from the film and complain that the actors look nothing like them

 

[obijkenobi]

Ghostbusters is everywhere right now, and alot of cross marketing deals were established for this movie. Even if the movie just breaks even or makes a little profit, all the extra money its bringing in is going to be a win for it.

GI Joe was a similar case, first movie didn't do that great, but it made a lot of money for Paramount with all the marketing deals and merch, so they went ahead with a sequel.

They also got rid of like, half of the cast from the first one right?

 

[mreddie]

I wished we stopped pushing this "big name actor" trump's diversity rhetoric when its already proven that diversity makes more money and more audience.

The new lesson is talking animals = Money

Oliver and Company reboot incoming.

They also got rid of like, half of the cast from the first one right?

Yep and Tatum got killed off but he got big post 21 Jump Street so they had to reshoot the movie to make his death into a possible fake death, fuck that movie for getting rid of Scarlet though.

 

[BattleMonkey]

They also got rid of like, half of the cast from the first one right?

Budget was lowered, and they attempted to recast to bring in more international business since the property was too US focused.

 

[kswiston]

The new lesson is talking animals = Money

Oliver and Company reboot incoming.

The Domestic Top 10 for 2016 is currently 5 talking animal movies, 4 superhero movies, and Kevin Hart/The Rock (in 10th place).

 

[excelsiorlef]

Actually, Ghostbusters 1984 is the movie version of the cartoon. There is an episode where they go the premiere with clips,from the film and complain that the actors look nothing like them

Stylistically bro.

 

[And_Gignac]

Ghostbusters is everywhere right now, and alot of cross marketing deals were established for this movie. Even if the movie just breaks even or makes a little profit, all the extra money its bringing in is going to be a win for it.

GI Joe was a similar case, first movie didn't do that great, but it made a lot of money for Paramount with all the marketing deals and merch, so they went ahead with a sequel.

Going by the toys, the merch isnt selling.

And unless its legs are fantastic, the movie probably wont get any close to break even. The franchise is very anglo-centric too, so I am not expecting big numbers from international markets. I think Sony totally miscalculated how big the property could become in 2016.

 

[Rickelodeon]

$144 million seems like a surprisingly small/in control budget for a massive blockbuster, i dunno. but lots of blockbuster movies are so fucking out of control that anything even barely under 150 is a pleasant surprise. (like Ant-Man last year! that was only 130) . I mean, just in theaters now we have a damn Tarzan movie that costed $180mil, and the same studio who made that out last year released a damn Peter Pan reboot that costed over $150mil i think. Don't get me started on Disney's ridiculous amounts they spent for John Carter and Lone Ranger too. the budget for this movie is pretty low by Sony standards all things considered, when you look at how much the 2 TASM movies and MIB3 cost.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

Going by the toys, the merch isnt selling.

And unless its legs are fantastic, the movie probably wont get any close to break even. The franchise is very anglo-centric too, so I am not expecting big numbers from international markets. I think Sony totally miscalculated how big the property could become in 2016.

Pretty much what I was going to say. This brand is nowhere near as close to whatever the MCU/DC/under-the-rader movies conjures up. It has a lot more negative hype which hurts perception, and the merchandise isn't even selling. I think this is another example of a studio trying to cash in on nostalgia only to realize that it has a very limited scope.

Also, to the post you quoted, no studio is going to make another movie and burn millions just to make "little profit." That's bad business.

 

[BattleMonkey]

Going by the toys, the merch isnt selling.

And unless its legs are fantastic, the movie probably wont get any close to break even. The franchise is very anglo-centric too, so I am not expecting big numbers from international markets. I think Sony totally miscalculated how big the property could become in 2016.

Action figures are only a small fraction of merch being put out. The movie has been a pushing point for tons of GB related merch, and new waves of stuff related to the old movies too. Also obvious product placement and cross promotion money. Licensing money also is a big factor for franchise building

As for merch not selling, this is all based on some pic someone posted online of a store chain putting on sale some of the figs. Very premature

 

[plasmawave]

whens it out in china?

China is afraid of ghosts.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

I think it's mostly due to those awful first two (three?) US trailers. You can't expect people to show up for an action-comedy when the trailer has literally nothing going for it. The MRA element is secondary to that, since men tend to follow like little bitches what other men anyway (you can't talk about alphas and betas and pretend you ain't the beta, but they don't).

But mostly any momentum for the movie was killed by those trailers. Seriously, that first trailer was like watching a live asteroid impact where your face got stuck in cringe cramp. Let's not downplay just how terrible that trailer really is. Hell, the only thing that convinced me they were just incompetently cut was the UK trailer. But before that I had zero interest in this, and I still don't feel compelled to see it now.

I guess they would have had a chance at the parent audience if they had felt it was funny for all of them. I know the young male retard audience is great for big, loud, obnoxious, and nonsensical, but its not like all young men are suddenly driven solely by a small group. Also, I don't think most people actually like those kind of delusional people.

edit: but it might get better legs from early reviews saying it's actually funny, but the momentum was killed by Sony marketing itself.

 

[Mix Master]

I agree. I'm a young guy and watching the commercials and everything the movie just didn't seem like it was made for me. It looked like something my mom would watch. And the few scenes I did see on tumblr were just cringey; it wasn't funny at all. I'm probably never going to go see it.

I agree, the marketing alienated me.

 

[alfredofroylan]

Action figures are only a small fraction of merch being put out. The movie has been a pushing point for tons of GB related merch, and new waves of stuff related to the old movies too. Also obvious product placement and cross promotion money. Licensing money also is a big factor for franchise building

As for merch not selling, this is all based on some pic someone posted online of a store chain putting on sale some of the figs. Very premature

Ecto-cooler seems to be the most popular item, and it isn't directly tied to this movie.

 

[bananafactory]

This might be controversial to say but I really don't think the trailers misrepresented the film as badly as some say.

They definitely used the worst of all the jokes in them but I think in terms of tone and style they were pretty true to what the movie is.

I recognized they were bad trailers but I didn't hate them so much as to be put off the film, because I liked the couple of minutes I saw of the characters. I do believe that people who absolutely hated the preview stuff will likely still not enjoy the film.

 

[alfredofroylan]

This might be controversial to say but I really don't think the trailers misrepresented the film as badly as some say.

They definitely used the worst of all the jokes in them but I think in terms of tone and style they were pretty true to what the movie is.

I recognized they were bad trailers but I didn't hate them so much as to be put off the film, because I liked the couple of minutes I saw of the characters. I do believe that people who absolutely hated the preview stuff will likely still not enjoy the film.

I agree, the trailers were bad overall, but they're quite representative of the kind of humor used in the film. On the other side, now I know what a

Spoiler

queef

is.

 

[Lothar]

I think it's mostly due to those awful first two (three?) US trailers. You can't expect people to show up for an action-comedy when the trailer has literally nothing going for it. The MRA element is secondary to that, since men tend to follow like little bitches what other men anyway (you can't talk about alphas and betas and pretend you ain't the beta, but they don't).

Yeah, if you blame the low box office on sexists and MRAs rather that it looking like dog shit in the trailers, you have to believe the majority of movie goers are sexist and MRAs. Something that doesn't make sense when you think about Star Wars 7's numbers.

edit: but it might get better legs from early reviews saying it's actually funny, but the momentum was killed by Sony marketing itself.

What I gather from reviews and reactions here is that it's just a good kids movie. Critical reviewers and others who expect more out of it than that seem to be very lukewarm.

 

[karasu]

So much mediocrity.

 

[Mr. Pointy]

What's the tracking for Star Trek Beyond? I'm personally hoping for 2x STID's worldwide total.

 

[jstripes]

Sony and Feig never should have tried to attach an agenda to the movie. I don't think casting four women was a big problem, but the way they reacted to the reaction to that was...

Blah, blah, blah.

"I mean, yes, we acted like complete assholes, but they should never have called us out as being assholes..."

 

[Matt]

What's the tracking for Star Trek Beyond? I'm personally hoping for 2x STID's worldwide total.

....what makes you think that's possible?

 

[PhoncipleBone]

....what makes you think that's possible?

Beyond doubling Into Darkness's WW gross would be like beating the Kobyashi Maru without cheating.

 

[Mr. Pointy]

Beyond doubling Into Darkness's WW gross would be like beating the Kobyashi Maru without cheating.

Considering how loopy this year's box office has been, I figure it'd be better to aim high.

 

[kswiston]

Considering how loopy this year's box office has been, I figure it'd be better to aim high.

$930M definitely isn't low!

I think that tracking has Beyond dropping from the first two films domestically.

I am not sure how it will do overseas. It's a pretty good candidate for $100M+ in China based on Into Darkness' gross there.

 

[Matt]

Considering how loopy this year's box office has been, I figure it'd be better to aim high.

I think it's unfortunately more likely Beyond will fail to reach ID's gross, at least domestically.

 

[dangeraaron10]

The new lesson is talking animals = Money

Oliver and Company reboot incoming.



Yep and Tatum got killed off but he got big post 21 Jump Street so they had to reshoot the movie to make his death into a possible fake death, fuck that movie for getting rid of Scarlet though.

I lived Oliver and Company. It wasn't Disney's best but I did like it.

Also, if all the big hitters are talking animals and super heroes, then to make the ultimate money, we need the ultimate film:

Avenger Buddies

 

[Edwins]

I lived Oliver and Company. It wasn't Disney's best but I did like it.

Also, if all the big hitters are talking animals and super heroes, then to make the ultimate money, we need the ultimate film:

Avenger Buddies

Pet Avengers.

IT WAS RIGHT THERE, MAN!!! The Buddies already had their superhero film. Lockjaw and Throg, they're the heroes the box office needs. Friggin' Buddies...

 

[SatoAilDarko]

I lived Oliver and Company. It wasn't Disney's best but I did like it.

Also, if all the big hitters are talking animals and super heroes, then to make the ultimate money, we need the ultimate film:

Avenger Buddies

This film came out three years ago:

 

[vinnygambini]

I am not sure how it will do overseas. It's a pretty good candidate for $100M+ in China based on Into Darkness' gross there.

With how TMNT2 & ID4 performed, I don't even know if that's a sure thing anymore.

China market is hard to grasp these days, who would have thought that NYSM2 would gross almost $100M there? Crazy.

 

[kswiston]

With how TMNT2 & ID4 performed, I don't even know if that's a sure thing anymore.

China market is hard to grasp these days, who would have thought that NYSM2 would gross almost $100M there? Crazy.

Compared to how it performed everywhere else, Turtles 2 did pretty well in China. ID4R probably ran into the same sorts of problems that The Force Awakens did. Those films don't have any cultural cache in China. At least not more than any random blockbuster.

The Star Trek films are recent, and the second film saw a huge boost over the first. Maybe $100M is too big a bump, but I would be surprised if it ends up under $75M

 

[WordAssassin]

Going by the toys, the merch isnt selling.

If we wanna play the anecdotal merch game, I was just at WalMart and their Ghostbusters section was absolutely blown out. I was there a week before the movie and it was overflowing with products and when I went today? Almost nothing on the shelves. A couple Hot Wheels of the Ecto 1 & 2, then the $20 of Peter Venkman, Abby, and Erin figures. Everything else they had the week prior to the movie coming out was gone, both Classic and Reboot.

 

[KingV]

"I mean, yes, we acted like complete assholes, but they should never have called us out as being assholes..."

Who's "we"?

I liked the movie but hated the trailers. It made the movie look like the tone was all off. The tone was different, but close enough to still be really fun.

Edit: This post is basically what I'm talking about. Anything critical of the movie in any way and someone dumps on you for being a misogynist. I don't even have a twitter account, much less use it for hate speech.

The results speak for themselves. The crappy marketing and PR push resulted in a movie that got beat by a talking dog movie in its second week, despite being an actually good movie!

 

[BassForever]

If we wanna play the anecdotal merch game, I was just at WalMart and their Ghostbusters section was absolutely blown out. I was there a week before the movie and it was overflowing with products and when I went today? Almost nothing on the shelves. A couple Hot Wheels of the Ecto 1 & 2, then the $20 of Peter Venkman, Abby, and Erin figures. Everything else they had the week prior to the movie coming out was gone, both Classic and Reboot.

As someone who works at Wal-Mart, all the GB stuff that is selling well is the 30th anniversary toys, stuff of the new cast we get less of, doesn't sell as well, and takes longer to get restocked.

 

[Krejlooc]

I had no idea what the thread title meant, and basically clicked this thread to find out precisely what it was about.

 

[dangeraaron10]

This film came out three years ago:

No, man. You're thinking too small. This is SUPER Buddies. We need Marvel lisenced Avenger Buddies. With Iron Buddy, Buddy America, Nordic Buddy and Highly Irrational with Bad Skin Complexion Buddy.

Edit: Also Super Buddies had that live action nonsense. No, no we need animated Avenger Buddies.

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

This might be controversial to say but I really don't think the trailers misrepresented the film as badly as some say.

They definitely used the worst of all the jokes in them but I think in terms of tone and style they were pretty true to what the movie is.

I recognized they were bad trailers but I didn't hate them so much as to be put off the film, because I liked the couple of minutes I saw of the characters. I do believe that people who absolutely hated the preview stuff will likely still not enjoy the film.

The trailers were completely representative of the actual product. 100 percent.

 

[perfectchaos007]

After the decent reviews from Ghostbuster came out, I actually expected the film to do better domestically despite the negative backlash from the internet. Guess that was just too much to overcome. 46 million isn't terrible, but given the near 150 million budget it probably wont make its money back

 

[excelsiorlef]

The trailers were completely representative of the actual product. 100 percent.

I think Feig movies are hard to cut into trailers as a lot of the humour rests on context of the scene and
what not.

 

[KingV]

I think Feig movies are hard to cut into trailers as a lot of the humour rests on context of the scene and
what not.

I agree with that. A lot of the cringiest scenes in the trailer are not that bad I the actual movie because the characters are better-established. The only moment that stuck out as still dumb was "the power of patty compels you!" The rest of it worked fine in context.

 

[devilhawk]

"I mean, yes, we acted like complete assholes, but they should never have called us out as being assholes..."

Here's what happens:

My parents are 60 years old. They loved the original ghostbusters. They couldn't even begin to tell you what "a reddit" is and probably not even what a forum is.

This is what they see when they open the NYT for the review:

Girls Rule. Women Are Funny. Get Over It.

Half of the reviews (edit: meaning ones you find on major sites and papers - not just the NYT ones) seemingly delve into gender wars bullshit about online voting and likes. Then the actual relevant part of the review commonly mentions that it is mediocre or decent. My parents flip to the next page of the paper. Completely turned off from the movie. They'll see something else, if not see no movie at all. I might get a call a few days later, if they remember, asking to explain what half the bs was about.

Just realize how many people could not give two shits about the gender wars bullshit connected to this movie. Think about the number of people who only saw two pieces of media concerning this movie: a subpar trailer and a review that drones on about internet drama. Wesley Morris from the NYT made an excellent point in how many of the reviews tried to tell people that seeing the movie in essence was making a political statement and how it just completely turned people off.

So, yes, the reaction to the reaction definitely harmed the movie.

 

[Peru]

Here's what happens:

My parents are 60 years old. They loved the original ghostbusters. They couldn't even begin to tell you what "a reddit" is and probably not even what a forum is.

This is what they see when they open the NYT for the review:
Half of the reviews delve into gender wars bullshit about online voting and likes. Then the actual relevant part of the review mentions that it is mediocre or decent. My parents flip to the next page of the paper. Completely turned off from the movie. They'll see something else, if not see no movie at all. I might get a call a few days later, if they remember, asking to explain what half the bs was about.

Just realize how many people could not give two shits about the gender wars bullshit connected to this movie. Think about the number of people who only saw two pieces of media concerning this movie: a subpar trailer and a review that drones on about internet drama. Wesley Morris from the NYT made an excellent point in how many of the reviews tried to tell people that seeing the movie in essence was making a political statement and how it just completely turned people off.

So, yes, the reaction to the reaction definitely harmed the movie.

Manohla Dargis is one of the best film critics working today. She doesn't view or write about movies in a vacuum . She writes about movies and their place in society. If anyone who reads that review has ever read a NYT movie review before they know they're not going to simply get 'lots of laughs, 3/5'. If they're offended by that kind of analysis they'd avoid any movie reviewed in the paper.

 

[devilhawk]

Manohla Dargis is one of the best film critics working today. She doesn't view or write about movies in a vacuum . She writes about movies and their place in society. If anyone who reads that review has ever read a NYT movie review before they know they're not going to simply get 'lots of laughs, 3/5'. If they're offended by that kind of analysis they'd avoid any movie reviewed in the paper.

Sure. I'm sure her reviews are great.

Not really mu point, though. It's not even about the NYT.

 

[Harmen]

Here's what happens:

My parents are 60 years old. They loved the original ghostbusters. They couldn't even begin to tell you what "a reddit" is and probably not even what a forum is.

This is what they see when they open the NYT for the review:
Half of the reviews (edit: meaning ones you find on major sites and papers - not just the NYT ones) seemingly delve into gender wars bullshit about online voting and likes. Then the actual relevant part of the review commonly mentions that it is mediocre or decent. My parents flip to the next page of the paper. Completely turned off from the movie. They'll see something else, if not see no movie at all. I might get a call a few days later, if they remember, asking to explain what half the bs was about.

Just realize how many people could not give two shits about the gender wars bullshit connected to this movie. Think about the number of people who only saw two pieces of media concerning this movie: a subpar trailer and a review that drones on about internet drama. Wesley Morris from the NYT made an excellent point in how many of the reviews tried to tell people that seeing the movie in essence was making a political statement and how it just completely turned people off.

So, yes, the reaction to the reaction definitely harmed the movie.

I agree, it is what I mentioned a few pages back as well. All the reviews I have seen or read, including the mainstream ones my parents read, started out with a piece on sexism or a loaded piece in that direction. Not to say the reaction to the bullshit this film got isn't warranted, because it is, but when every review about a feelgood blockbuster comedy starts out like this, it doesn't really sell the film well, even if said review is positive. Some reviews unintentionally actually read a bit like an apology, accusation, or political statement initially, even when intentions were good.

 

[BassForever]

Manohla Dargis is one of the best film critics working today. She doesn't view or write about movies in a vacuum . She writes about movies and their place in society. If anyone who reads that review has ever read a NYT movie review before they know they're not going to simply get 'lots of laughs, 3/5'. If they're offended by that kind of analysis they'd avoid any movie reviewed in the paper.

But do you think the average NYT reader cares about a film's place in society? Most people see films as entertainment a way to escape the drama and struggles of daily life. If you read a review that spends 90% of its time talking about culture wars and 5 second saying "it's an okay film" that loses any reader who just wants to know if gb16 is worth spending $20 a person to see in theaters.

 

[devilhawk]

But do you think the average NYT reader cares about a film's place in society? Most people see films as entertainment a way to escape the drama and struggles of daily life. If you read a review that spends 90% of its time talking about culture wars and 5 second saying "it's an okay film" that loses any reader who just wants to know if gb16 is worth spending $20 a person to see in theaters.

I think it is perfectly alright to have reviews like that. That reviewer certainly may review all movies like that as well. I think the problem for ghostbusters, however, was that too many reviews, especially ones that don't typically explore gender politics, did so and turned potential viewers off.

 

[Violet_0]

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?

The Secret Life of Dead Pets, haunting theatres near you in Summer 2019

 

[Lothar]

It also takes away from the credibility of the review if it sounds like they badly want to say it's good to make a point. When reading reviews, I skipped over the ones with "Haha manbabies" and "basement trolls" phrases in the titles. It doesn't sound like I'd be getting unbiased content within. I know for a fact that some of the reviewers had already been embroiled in internet wars over the trailers.

In the meantime, there's reviewers like Roeper that don't seem to care much about the controversy giving it a one star and calling it one of the worst movies of the year.

 

[BronsonLee]

Roeper also has totally shit taste in movies tho so

Ebert passed away just to get away from his hot takes!

 

[Earendil]

Can't say I'm surprised. Seems like Secret Life of Pets had good word of mouth.

It's one of the funniest movies I've seen in a while. We saw it Saturday with the kids, and my right side still hurts from laughing.