wesleyshark
Banned
.....there was a second one???
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Box Office 0729-3116 - Bad to the Bourne, Trek continues to give 'er all she's got
- Thread starter xaosslug
- Start date
- Status
.....there was a second one???
I'd like to see them follow Harold Ramis' sequel vision and have Egon's daughter lead a new team. James Rolfe (AVGN) talked about that in his History of Ghostbusters 3 video. Two girls and two guys, with someone like Ernie Hudson (as Winston for real) playing a mentor role.
Really, they could have made McCarthy a Spengler, and kept it in the same continuity.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
I really can't explain it. It's one of the few films I've talked about with friends and family that has been universally loved this summer, so I assumed that would reflect the box office. I really just think this summer is TERRIBLE for box office returns in general, and that just may be Trek's saving grace when it comes to a sequel.
TheSecondSpitter
Member
You're not going to get ostentatious special effects for $50M
Also, two superhero films drastically under-performed this year.
Instead they wasted money on gratuitous cameos that only served to reinforce that it wasn't the same continuity.
Really? All I can think of is X-Men: Apocalypse.
broncobuster
Banned
I don't believe there's a problem with making an action film. It's just, the typical blockbuster formula soils what made TNG special. I'm imagining a cynical film with Q as the villain and Picard defeats him with a goofy plan.
BvS did good, not as much as WB wanted, but far from disappointing.
Agreed with TMNT 2 though.
OmegaSmash
Member
Don't you mean SPECTRE? At least Skyfall has the excuse of being an anniversary movie.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
I still think straight up bringing Patrick Stewart back to Star Trek would be a huuuuge box office draw... I mean the rest of the cast? Who cares. But Patrick Stewart is huuuuugely popular compared to fucking Chris Hemsworth.
broncobuster
Banned
It's hard to say with BvS, or even Civil War for that matter. Their companies likely expected more from both. Although, yes, now that we've seen the path this summer has gone, their numbers are better by proxy.
Not to forget, Deadpool was a huge success .
Dash_Riprock
Member
BvS needed $925 million to turn a profit. It made $872 million.
Civil War may also have been a disappointment, but there is no doubt it at least made a profit.
I don't think most of the movie going public really views TMNT as a superhero franchise.
Either way, Out of the Shadows is a double fail, since it managed to bomb with both superheroes and talking animals in a year that has seen audiences spend most of their money on films featuring those two things.
Either way, Out of the Shadows is a double fail, since it managed to bomb with both superheroes and talking animals in a year that has seen audiences spend most of their money on films featuring those two things.
Yeah, compare to movies that came out in June and July they did damn well.
Ha, I totally forgot about that. So yeah it didn't quite make it.
The last one he was in did 67mil. It's on par with the Voyage Home. Continually bringing people back for nostalgic memories is basically just going to drive the franchise to a painful demise once again.
On a worldwide basis Ghostbusters is doing so much worse than I ever thought was possible. While I never saw any potential in this IP becoming a trilogy never mind a 'cinematic universe' I did enjoy the film as a comedy from the Bridesmaids team.
Given that there aren't many international territories left for this film unless it explodes in Japan (unlikely I imagine) this film looks like it's going to end it's run with $200-225m or less which is nothing short of a disaster for Sony.
By the way there's no way we'll ever know how much money BvS (or any studio film for that matter) needs to break even/go into profit. While we can make general statements about the financial health of certain projects it's utterly pointless to try and work it out to specific figure like are doing here.
TheSecondSpitter
Member
It follows the trend from the previous year. Age of Ultron also came in below expectations and Fantastic Four crashed and burned. Ant-man exceeded most expectations.
This is an indication that film audiences have become very discerning when it comes superhero films. Either that, or the bubble is starting to burst. Deadpool at this point represents an aberration.
I feel that Suicide Squad represents a real litmus test.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Deadpool is literally the first big budget, intentional parody of Superhero films we've had since Mystery Men back in 1999. Of course its gonna feel new and fresh to audiences. Lets see if they stay interested with Deadpool 2.
Sibersk Esto
Banned
Deadpool had a really stellar marketing campaign.
Thinking about it, TMNT is one of the rare franchises that has had as many misses (3, 2007, Shadows) as it has had hits (OG, Ooze, 2014). I guess its continued success on TV and at retail mitigate those losses. Makes you wonder what Paramount will do with the next inevitable reboot. Maybe wait and see if that Sony Animation Spiderman movie does well?
This really can't be stated enough, quite amazing in the face of so many other marketing blunders recently.
I wonder if Civil War was much of a disappointment to anyone other than the hobbyist box office trackers who let strong ticket presales and good reviews inflate our expectations those last few weeks before release.
The domestic run was pretty much the same as Iron Man 3. The overseas run was even better, but poor exchange rates in some of the key superhero markets translated to a lower USD take.
Look at Mexico
Iron Man 3 - 591,366,759 pesos - $48,566,365 USD
Civil War - 725,755,205 pesos - $41,420,350 USD
Russia didn't like Civil War as much as they did Iron Man 3, but exchange differences make it look way worse in comparison
Iron Man 3 - 1 381 889 446 rubles - $44,220,462 USD
Civil War - 1 091 128 353 rubles - $16,556,840 USD
It's not like Disney would have been unaware of this.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
I'm not saying base the film around the guy, but I think the TOS reboot has run its course. Boot up TNG and get a Stewart cameo like Spock and it could work.
For the record, I really like Beyond... But it definitely didn;t connect with general audiences, so it's time to rock the boat.
One thing I will say is that Trek isn't dead asa film franchise. Star Trek has had bombs and it has had successes, but the real point is that it is a bankable franchise if done correctly.
It was a disappointment because I predicted 1.7B and a 200M+ OW.
To be fair the VFX and the fees of Wiig and McCarthy wouldn't have been cheap. The $140/150m (after rebates) being quoted actually feels pretty reasonable to me.
What Ghostbusters needed was a budget that didn't cause it to rely on overseas performance to turn a profit regardless of its domestic one. Ghostbusters doesn't have much appeal overseas, it's not a nostalgic franchise there at all.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Ghostbusters should have had a Goosebumps budget.
About a year ago, Hollywood reporter quoted $14M for McCarthy and $10M for Feig in a story about Tom Rothman cutting the budget from the $169M (presumably before tax-cuts) OK'd by Amy Pascal. No idea about the rest. Regardless of his many bombs, I am sure that Chris Hemsworth wasn't free either.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-budget-cut-fox-execs-789896
They're terrible, but they are super reliable performers at the box office and are mid-budget on their best days. Same with Resident Evil, though I wonder if all the horror stories about the production on the latest one with all the hurt or dead stuntmen might have ballooned the budget.
MHWilliams
Member
Cheaper budget. Budget it like a comedy and it would've been fine.
$130M opening / $350M domestic
So much this, that 1st trailer stings!
This won't change your mind then.=O
Yes!
AdventureRacing
Member
At that point is it even worth doing a ghostbuster movie? They just as easily could have got the cast to do another Feig comedy and made similar numbers without spending money on an expensive IP.
The whole reason they want to make a ghostbusters movie is because it's such a big IP and has the potential to do better numbers than your average comedy.
I do think they could have scaled the budget back a bit and some of the big heavy CGI sequences hurt the movie more than helping it. The best parts of the movie didn't really need a big budget to be achieved.
I'm still not convinced that's the only problem though. When all is said and done it won't make much more than 200 million WW, that's just awful. That's basically worse case scenario for such a popular IP. They won't even come close to matching the original ghostbusters despite inflation and the growth in WW markets.
I'm not one of the people who thinks ghostbusters is a cultural phenomen like star wars but I'm certain it could potentially pull a lot more money than that. The marketing for the movie completely missed the mark and I don't just mean the trailers.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
I'd imagine there are a lot of people at Sony asking this question right now. They intended for this to start an entire universe, and it's only going to bring in $200 million. I don't know why they'd bother carrying on from here. Let it go.
Violence Jack
Member
If they were going to do this, I'd rather it be McKinnon. When they first cast her, my first thought was pretty much "Egon's daughter".
Green Embers
Member
To me the trend seems to be that people are being more discerning for all genre of movies and not just superhero films. Word of mouth and YouTube reviews really do seem to make a huge difference now. Almost all of the YouTube reviews I saw for Ghostbusters hated it. Me personally I thought it was a fun movie but I all the complaints I heard about it I consider valid, they just didn't bother me.
On another note, I see fewer movies in theater now. I love going to see movies in theaters but after spending $20 on a movie and popcorn I realized the value proposition just wasn't there for me. I could spend the same amount of money buying movies digitally, unseen, and watch it again if I feel like it.
Biggest-Geek-Ever
Member
$155M OW, $400M close.
kunonabi
Member
It would have been had they gone the sequel route, hired a better director, wrote a better script, and had a more reasonable budget. It was obvious from the get go that they only cared about leveraging the name and not about putting out a quality product. You could totally put out a Ghostbuster's movie that pulls at nostalgia while also introducing it to a younger audience. Would it be a Force Awakens or Jurassic World kind of hit? Probably not, but it could have definitely been another Creed.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Edit: nvm I see why.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Weird to say this about a movie that costs so much and looks so good, but Star Trek is one of the safest sequels I've seen in a long while. Just walked out a few hours ago and I can't think of a single memorable scene.
That's a plot point in the movie.
The OP numbers are just from this past Weekend (Friday Jul 29 to Sun Jul 31)
The domestic box office week starts on Friday since movies traditionally open on Fridays in the US/Canada. The week runs Fri-Thu, but typically only the weekend takes are reported outside of dedicated sites.
Here was last week's full box office report. Killing Joke was #13
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekly/chart/?yr=2016&wk=30&p=.htm
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Yeah my bad, had a brain fart and forget these were weekend only while Killing Joke was a weird limited Monday and Tuesday thing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked