Support NeoGAF

[Father_Brain]

I think the problem with GB 2016 has more to do with Feig's specific casting than with being female-led in general. You just can't cast Wiig and McCarthy as the leads and reasonably expect to draw the same four-quadrant audience as other FX-heavy action-comedies in the same budget range.

On a film with a $65M budget like Spy, that would have been fine, but $150M? Nope.

 

[BumRush]

I think the problem with GB 2016 has more to do with Feig's specific casting than with being female-led in general. You just can't cast Wiig and McCarthy as the leads and reasonably expect to draw the same four-quadrant audience as other FX-heavy action-comedies in the same budget range.

On a film with a $65M budget like Spy, that would have been fine, but $150M? Nope.

Agreed. On a $150M budget it'd need to make say, $500M-$600M to even sniff a profit. Asking a McCarthy / Wiig movie to make that money (when American comedies don't play well overseas) is asking a lot.

 

[The Hobo]

Murray seriously does not give a shit about the franchise as evidenced by his """"""performance""""""" in the Feig film.

The leaked Sony emails suggest there may have been some legal pressure applied to getting Murray in the movie.

 

[tkscz]

The idea that tying it to the original continuity and still getting a good movie feels like extremely wishful thinking, as if any of the surviving members of the original cast still has what it takes to make a good Ghostbusters film when they've already proven in the past that they cannot. Murray seriously does not give a shit about the franchise as evidenced by his """"""performance""""""" in the Feig film.

He wasn't that bad in the movie, they just gave him a weird, if not very awkward character to play. I also felt the movie lacked the excitement and build up and world. I like the characters, but the story was bland, the world was ok and the ghost felt non-threatening. The villain was lack luster as well. Over all, it's a Feig film. It's harmless, but forgettable. The characters are good, but the written isn't always that great.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

-Jean Grey is the most powerful hero of X-Men Apocalypse.
-Zootopia's main character is female bunnycop Judy Hopps.
-10 Cloverfield Lane's main character is Mary Elizabeth Winstead
- Eleven is the superhero of Stranger Things.
- Game of Thrones focus on female power is pretty obvious if not overbearing at this point.
- Star Wars Rogue One has another main female protagonist after last years Rey
- Disney's Moana has, you guessed it, a powerful female character as the main lead.

Ghostbusters 2016 being some much needed force for content starved female entertainment consumers thirsty for female empowerment is a complete false narrative that Sony cultivated as the one stand out feature of their very average reboot. Even then they were late to the party because theyre a 'chasing' production studio that chases trends rather than innovates. Everyone else has been doing female lead films and big budget tv series better and if anything Ghostbusters 2016 has hurt the cause of "more female led blockbusters" than helped it. Thankfully more competent and talented media houses are putting out content that paves over its failure.

How did it hurt the cause when the reception has been positive? So your just gonna ignore all the positive reception it's been getting from women and the fanart and the costumes? All the NEW fans the movie garnered? Your telling me nothing good came out of this?

Every thing you listed has powerful female characters. None of them star in properties devoted to female fans, that's specifically made FOR THEM especially in geek culture where, let's face it: 90% of it is made for us. You can't say "oh well Black Widow and Scarlet Witch are on the Avengers. See! We got plenty of female characters for you women!".

There are lots of female friendly (by that I assume you mean aimed at women) films every year. One just came out this week. Are you talking about blockbusters specifically?

Even then, opening weekend for Tarzan was more women than men.

And we need more of it. A lot more.

 

[March of the Crabs]

GB was unfunny and terrible because of Feig. It could have been good if someone else was involved. If this cast (minus McCarthy who is awful) was in an ensemble movie with no Feig involved it would have reviewed better and done better at the box office. Bummer.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

He wasn't that bad in the movie, they just gave him a weird, if not very awkward character to play.

Nah I ain't making excuses for him. He is literally the worst part of the film. Worse than Slimer. His screentime is 90% him sitting in a chair and reciting his lines. Badly. His role could have been played by any other actor better. As RLM correctly pointed out, the scene in their HQ would have worked 100% better with Chares Dance in that role. But instead we get Murray because for some reason the producers had this unexplained need for stunt cameos and sure why not give the biggest one to the actor who cares the least about the role. I guess I should be grateful that he wasn't given an expanded role to play because it hurt so bad to watch him actively attempt to sabotage the film.

 

[kswiston]

Ghostbusters was much more than a cult classic. It would be a $600 million movie in modern dollars.

So was Beverly Hills Cop, but I dont think anyone expects the fourth movie to make huge money.

Ben Hur was Avatar big back in the 1950s, but the remake is set to flop. Some properties are products of their time.

Ghostbusters has retained more fandom than those other franchises, but it's not Star Wars where general audiences actually care that the franchise is back.

 

[tkscz]

Nah I ain't making excuses for him. He is literally the worst part of the film. Worse than Slimer. His screentime is 90% him sitting in a chair and reciting his lines. Badly. His role could have been played by any other actor better. As RLM correctly pointed out, the scene in their HQ would have worked 100% better with Chares Dance in that role. But instead we get Murray because for some reason the producers had this unexplained need for stunt cameos and sure why not give the biggest one to the actor who cares the least about the role. I guess I should be grateful that he wasn't given an expanded role to play because it hurt so bad to watch him actively attempt to sabotage the film.

That's going far is it not? Honestly I felt the movie being petty to have him as one of the only deaths in the movie. As if it was flipping off the first one. The role wasn't even important as it's QUICKLY forgotten about. Like almost immediately looked over.

 

[Busty]

GB 2016 is a mediocre movie that had a lot of controversy surrounding it, the kind of controversy that I think pushed people away. While sexism did play a large role in the controversy, throwing it out towards people who didn't like the trailers as haphazardly as some in the media did certainly did not help matters.

You are correct. The controversy that audiences were somehow desperate for more Ghostbusters is what pushed people away.

Sony greatly overestimated the cinema going public's appetite for another Ghostbusters film never mind a new franchise.

The fact the film is circling the drain at the global box office (it's already out of most UK cinemas) is evidence of that.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

That's going far is it not? Honestly I felt the movie being petty to have him as one of the only deaths in the movie. As if it was flipping off the first one. The role wasn't even important as it's QUICKLY forgotten about. Like almost immediately looked over.

Every time someone/something popped up from the original film saying 'hey look at me? Remember me?' I cringed. Watching Bill Murray get flung out of a window was surprisingly satisfying. If anything, the cameos felt like a middle finger to the audience.

 

[kswiston]

Every thing you listed has powerful female characters. None of them star in properties devoted to female fans, that's specifically made FOR THEM especially in geek culture where, let's face it: 90% of it is made for us. You can't say "oh well Black Widow and Scarlet Witch are on the Avengers. See! We got plenty of female characters for you women!".

And we need more of it. A lot more.

It's easily demonstrated by exit poll demographics that men are a lot less willing to see a film aimed primarily at women than the other way around. Bad moms had an 80% female audience. Something like The Hangover 2 was about 50/50.

Studios arent going to throw away a third or more of their potential audience on a $150M film unless its a sequel to a proven series like Twilight (which started out as a midbudget film). As such, you are way more likely to see properties traditionally aimed at males adapted so that they appeal more to women as well, or new properties that try to cater to both like the Pirates films did.

 

[tkscz]

It's easily demonstrated by exit poll demographics that men are a lot less willing to see a film aimed primarily at women than the other way around. Bad moms had an 80% female audience. Something like The Hangover 2 was about 50/50.

Studios arent going to throw away a third or more of their potential audience on a $150M film unless its a sequel to a proven series like Twilight (which started out as a midbudget film). As such, you are way more likely to see properties traditionally aimed at males adapted so that they appeal more to women as well, or new properties that try to cater to both like the Pirates films did.

Oddly enough, about half of OG Ghostbuster's audience is female and most of them hated this new movie.

 

[Lothar]

You are correct. The controversy that audiences were somehow desperate for more Ghostbusters is what pushed people away.

Sony greatly overestimated the cinema going public's appetite for another Ghostbusters film never mind a new franchise.

The fact the film is circling the drain at the global box office (it's already out of most UK cinemas) is evidence of that.

The fact that a movie that looked as awful as it did in trailers and has a really mixed reaction (I see more people that dislike it here than like it, it has bad word of mouth, RLM ripped it apart like it was a Star Wars prequel) made as much money as it did shows that if it had been made with the same care of Star Wars: TFA or Jurassic World, it would have been huge.

I still cannot fathom how anyone would pay see a movie with "Power of Patty compels you", "That's going to leave a mark", "we're gonna need a bigger boat", and "say hello to my little friend" lame movie references that were in the trailer. How could that make even $1?

 

[Henkka]

How did it hurt the cause when the reception has been positive? So your just gonna ignore all the positive reception it's been getting from women and the fanart and the costumes? All the NEW fans the movie garnered? Your telling me nothing good came out of this?

Every thing you listed has powerful female characters. None of them star in properties devoted to female fans, that's specifically made FOR THEM especially in geek culture where, let's face it: 90% of it is made for us. You can't say "oh well Black Widow and Scarlet Witch are on the Avengers. See! We got plenty of female characters for you women!".

And we need more of it. A lot more.

Most movies are aimed at general audiences, not specifically men or women. Zootopia. GoT and Star Wars for example. I suppose of the big franchises, MCU is one that caters more specifically toward men than women.

Disney's princess movies, of which Moana is the latest, are specifically devoted to female fans, however. Saying GB16 is the only "female friendly" movie this year is absurd.

 

[Pie and Beans]

How did it hurt the cause when the reception has been positive? So your just gonna ignore all the positive reception it's been getting from women and the fanart and the costumes? All the NEW fans the movie garnered? Your telling me nothing good came out of this?

Every thing you listed has powerful female characters. None of them star in properties devoted to female fans, that's specifically made FOR THEM especially in geek culture where, let's face it: 90% of it is made for us. You can't say "oh well Black Widow and Scarlet Witch are on the Avengers. See! We got plenty of female characters for you women!".

And we need more of it. A lot more.

One of the lessons media companies are now learning is the harsh reality of a very noisy internet minority and the huge silent minority. Would that business could subsist on good feels alone, but charity doesn't keep runners and make-up artists and so on employed.

Making things for a narrow audience rather than "everyone" is the difference between being a good bankable director and a stubborn idiot. Yes, more great female characters, more female lead films please hence why I listed a big fat block of 2016's offerings of just that. But turning your entire rebooted franchise film into an attack on the opposite gender and the 'male nerdy fans' that kept the franchise relevant for the last 32 years is unsurprisingly a way to lose money and damage business. People had been saying that since the first trailer and here we are, reality has come pounding at the door. Ghostbusters 2016 was a commercial failure.

 

[Busty]

The fact that a movie that looked as awful as it did in trailers and has a really mixed reaction (I see more people that dislike it here than like it, it has bad word of mouth, RLM ripped it apart like it was a Star Wars prequel) made as much money as it did shows that if it had been made with the same care of Star Wars: TFA or Jurassic World, it would have been huge.

Disagree strongly. It doesn't matter if the film starred men, women, singing cats or North Korean defectors that film was always going to do middling business because people are not interested in Ghostbusters in the way they are about Star Wars or any other 'AAA' franchise/property.

A comedy with ghosts is never going to be a draw the way a film about rampaging dinosaurs (regardless of quality aka Jurassic World) is.

 

[Lothar]

Disagree strongly. It doesn't matter if the film starred men, women, singing cats or North Korean defectors that film was always going to do middling business because people are not interested in Ghostbusters in the way they are about Star Wars or any other 'AAA' franchise/property.

A comedy with ghosts is never going to be a draw the way a film about rampaging dinosaurs (regardless of quality aka Jurassic World) is.

It wouldn't have made those numbers but it would have made many times more than it did if it looked good. I made a edit to my previous post, you might not have seen it, saying I can't understand how the movie could make even $1 with that lame movie reference humor shown in the trailer. And it made 100 million. Just think if it looked good and had better word of mouth.

 

[WaffleTaco]

Agreed. On a $150M budget it'd need to make say, $500M-$600M to even sniff a profit. Asking a McCarthy / Wiig movie to make that money (when American comedies don't play well overseas) is asking a lot.

If anything McCarthy was the most well known of the cast. They needed more well known actors...hell Amy Schumer, Jennifer Lawrence or Emma Stone would have been much better casting the other three besides McCarthy.

 

[The Hobo]

One of the lessons media companies are now learning is the harsh reality of a very noisy internet minority and the huge silent minority. Would that business could subsist on good feels alone, but charity doesn't keep runners and make-up artists and so on employed.

This reminds me of a story Burnie from Rooster Teeth once told.

When Rooster Teeth first started printing t-shirts, they asked their users if they would be interested in a buying a t-shirt with a certain design. A lot of users said yes, but when they released the design, very few bought it.

The lesson RT took from it is that it's very easy for people to demand something when their own money isn't on the line. Once hands are asked to be put in wallets, people go silent.

It seems other companies are still struggling to learn this lesson.

 

[Timu]

This is a joke right?

I don't think so, in fact it may have done better!

GB 2016 is a mediocre movie that had a lot of controversy surrounding it, the kind of controversy that I think pushed people away. While sexism did play a large role in the controversy, throwing it out towards people who didn't like the trailers as haphazardly as some in the media did certainly did not help matters.

Agreed with all of this(it's quality and sexism)!

 

[RayStorm]

If anything McCarthy was the most well known of the cast. They needed more well known actors...hell Amy Schumer, Jennifer Lawrence or Emma Stone would have been much better casting the other three besides McCarthy.

She may be the most well known, but that might not necessarily be a positive if (hypothetically) she has her quite considerable audience but then acts as a deterrence for those that are not part of this audience and find her kind of humor or personality or whatever irritating. Speaking strictly for myself and having watched what I believe is two of her earlier comedies I'm not fond of the humor displayed in them. Hence I'm not inclined and actually a it dissuaded from watching any other comedic films with her in it. That being said I also didn't find the trailers for GB all that interesting either.

 

[KillerMan91]

Randomly watched Hancock again from tv last night and I ended up wondering: How come Sony hasn't made sequel for Hancock as it made good amount of money? Will Smith doesn't want to?

 

[BronsonLee]

So was Beverly Hills Cop, but I dont think anyone expects the fourth movie to make huge money.

Take that back

 

[The Hobo]

Randomly watched Hancock again from tv last night and I ended up wondering: How come Sony hasn't made sequel for Hancock as it made good amount of money? Will Smith doesn't want to?

The movie seemed like a one and done. The appeal of Hancock was seeing Hancock go from zero to superhero. Not sure there's an appetite to see anything beyond that.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

I don't know what would have made Ghostbusters successful, but a full reboot would have been the last thing I'd try. I mean, how many successful full on remakes have there been lately? I can't think of any. Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Total Recall, RoboCop, now Ghostbusters... the list of failures is pretty easy to come up with.

Star Trek, Star Wars, and Jurassic World seems to show people are far more interested in stories that still exist in those established universes. Granted, all three were dealing with franchises that were far bigger than the straight remakes I listed had. So, are studios just massively overestimating how big the nostalgia draw is?

It's just mind blowing at this point that Sony thought GB was going to start an entire film universe, and in the end that movie is barely going to make $200 million worldwide. Someone along with way made an amazing miscalculation.

Randomly watched Hancock again from tv last night and I ended up wondering: How come Sony hasn't made sequel for Hancock as it made good amount of money? Will Smith doesn't want to?

They've been talking about it since the original. Don't know that there's been any word on why it has failed to get off the ground.

 

[Abounder]

Ghostbusters died before it was even released, thanks to the ruling from our Chinese overlords. Good riddance, shit was more racist than Michael Bay's transformers

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

Randomly watched Hancock again from tv last night and I ended up wondering: How come Sony hasn't made sequel for Hancock as it made good amount of money? Will Smith doesn't want to?

There were talks in 2009 about a sequel but nothing has come up ever since. I imagine everyone has moved. The director just recently made Deepwater Horizon with Mark Wahlberg.

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

Holy shit, I can't believe we're still talking about Ghostbusters.

It was a decent flick but it would have been nothing short of a miracle for it to be successful.

 

[Abounder]

I betcha Hancock 2 would be made ASAP if they wrote in Jaden Smith

 

[Timu]

Holy shit, I can't believe we're still talking about Ghostbusters.

Of course, we'll talk about it until it's run is done!=p

 

[alfredofroylan]

Holy shit, I can't believe we're still talking about Ghostbusters.

It's been only 3 weeks since the release, granted the movie business move fast these days, but still is a semi-.fresh topic.

 

[Kite]

GI Joe and TMNT says hi. Both were utterly shit summer films that saw easy box office success based on nostalgia alone. GI Joe even had a terrible trailer to go along with it, much like Ghostbusters, and barely even related to the original IP.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=gijoe2.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=ghostbusters2016.htm

I'm no expert at reading these charts but to me it looks like GB2016 and GI J are performing about the same domestically but it's the foreign ticket sales that is making the difference. No China + action movies translates better than American comedies is probably the reason. I doubt the internets controversy is the reason.

 

[JABEE]

Speaking of Ghostbusters's legs.

Yep. And expect Star Trek to see this treatment soon.

 

[JABEE]

Last chance to make your Suicide Squad predictions before this place is flooded with impressions tomorrow.

I don't know if I made the cut-off but $102 million OW DOM

 

[excelsiorlef]

The fact that a movie that looked as awful as it did in trailers and has a really mixed reaction (I see more people that dislike it here than like it, it has bad word of mouth, RLM ripped it apart like it was a Star Wars prequel) made as much money as it did shows that if it had been made with the same care of Star Wars: TFA or Jurassic World, it would have been huge.

I still cannot fathom how anyone would pay see a movie with "Power of Patty compels you", "That's going to leave a mark", "we're gonna need a bigger boat", and "say hello to my little friend" lame movie references that were in the trailer. How could that make even $1?

Dude. You haven't seen the movie iirc. Yet continously judge it and talk down to people who did and enjoyed it.

 

[BattleMonkey]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=gijoe2.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=ghostbusters2016.htm

I'm no expert at reading these charts but to me it looks like GB2016 and GI J are performing about the same domestically but it's the foreign ticket sales that is making the difference. No China + action movies translates better than American comedies is probably the reason. I doubt the internets controversy is the reason.

Paramount had stated in the past that GI Joe got a sequel largely because of toy/merch sales that the movie created. It barely made profit as a movie, but the merch sold really well. GI Joe 2 did better as they lowered the budget, brought in a more bankable star, and pushed it harder in asian territories

 

[Exodust]

Ghostbusters 2016 has many problems, all female leads wasn't one of them(it might have deterred some idiots). Blaming the failure on budget is some false equivalency too.

A full on Ghostbusters remake just won't crush the buildings like the surprise success of the first. If it was a sequel/soft reboot thing it would have done better, but still not even Deadpool numbers IMO. As for budget, well what did you expect? A high budget makes sense considering how effects heavy a movie like Ghostbusters would be. Not to mention that the effects in the original are fondly remembered.

Where the problem lies is in a lot of factors, the audience being tired of remakes of beloved movies, the Ghostbusters franchise not holding that much weight, over saturation of Melissa McCarthy and Bridesmaids esque movies, the movie somehow becoming the most politically divisive movie of the year, lukewarm reception to trailers and footage, etc.

It was going to bomb, in retrospect it's actually pretty clear. It not due to MRA's, or because of picking the wrong budget. It's because most audiences never wanted this movie.

 

[Timu]

Ghostbusters 2016 has many problems, all female leads wasn't one of them(it might have deterred some idiots). Blaming the failure on budget is some false equivalency too.

A full on Ghostbusters remake just won't crush the buildings like the surprise success of the first. If it was a sequel/soft reboot thing it would have done better, but still not even Deadpool numbers IMO. As for budget, well what did you expect? A high budget makes sense considering how effects heavy a movie like Ghostbusters would be. Not to mention that the effects in the original are fondly remembered.

Where the problem lies is in a lot of factors, the audience being tired of remakes of beloved movies, the Ghostbusters franchise not holding that much weight, over saturation of Melissa McCarthy and Bridesmaids esque movies, the movie somehow becoming the most politically divisive movie of the year, lukewarm reception to trailers and footage, etc.

It was going to bomb, in retrospect it's actually pretty clear. It not due to MRA's, or because of picking the wrong budget. It's because most audiences never wanted this movie.

Everything you said is spot on!

 

[Sephzilla]

Ghostbusters 2016 has many problems, all female leads wasn't one of them(it might have deterred some idiots). Blaming the failure on budget is some false equivalency too.

A full on Ghostbusters remake just won't crush the buildings like the surprise success of the first. If it was a sequel/soft reboot thing it would have done better, but still not even Deadpool numbers IMO. As for budget, well what did you expect? A high budget makes sense considering how effects heavy a movie like Ghostbusters would be. Not to mention that the effects in the original are fondly remembered.

Where the problem lies is in a lot of factors, the audience being tired of remakes of beloved movies, the Ghostbusters franchise not holding that much weight, over saturation of Melissa McCarthy and Bridesmaids esque movies, the movie somehow becoming the most politically divisive movie of the year, lukewarm reception to trailers and footage, etc.

It was going to bomb, in retrospect it's actually pretty clear. It not due to MRA's, or because of picking the wrong budget. It's because most audiences never wanted this movie.

Spot on, this was a movie nobody was really asking for.

In regards to being a soft reboot, I want to bring up something RedLetterMedia mentioned in their Ghostbusters Half in the Bag episode. If this movie was made entirely after The Force Awakens do you think they would have gone the soft reboot route?

 

[Lothar]

Dude. You haven't seen the movie iirc. Yet continously judge it and talk down to people who did and enjoyed it.

I haven't said anything about people that enjoyed it. I just said I don't see how the trailer could convince anyone to pay money for it. If you think that's talking down; then you're very defensive. And sure, I've made many posts on the controversy but so have you. I feel it was a necessary post to make because I was replying to someone saying that an audience for it doesn't exist and I believe that's false. Certainly if it had a trailer that wasn't so horrible and it had better word of mouth, it would have made a ton more money.

 

[JaggedSac]

I think the problem with GB 2016 has more to do with Feig's specific casting than with being female-led in general. You just can't cast Wiig and McCarthy as the leads and reasonably expect to draw the same four-quadrant audience as other FX-heavy action-comedies in the same budget range.

On a film with a $65M budget like Spy, that would have been fine, but $150M? Nope.

I think on a smaller budget the ghosts would have looked better. Seems counter intuitive, but they went too far with them in the movie and I think a smaller budget would have reigned them in a bit. Drop Feig and McCarthy and baby you got a stew going.

 

[spookyfish]

Ghostbusters 2016 has many problems, all female leads wasn't one of them(it might have deterred some idiots). Blaming the failure on budget is some false equivalency too.

A full on Ghostbusters remake just won't crush the buildings like the surprise success of the first. If it was a sequel/soft reboot thing it would have done better, but still not even Deadpool numbers IMO. As for budget, well what did you expect? A high budget makes sense considering how effects heavy a movie like Ghostbusters would be. Not to mention that the effects in the original are fondly remembered.

Where the problem lies is in a lot of factors, the audience being tired of remakes of beloved movies, the Ghostbusters franchise not holding that much weight, over saturation of Melissa McCarthy and Bridesmaids esque movies, the movie somehow becoming the most politically divisive movie of the year, lukewarm reception to trailers and footage, etc.

It was going to bomb, in retrospect it's actually pretty clear. It not due to MRA's, or because of picking the wrong budget. It's because most audiences never wanted this movie.

Perfect post.

 

[BumRush]

Ghostbusters 2016 has many problems, all female leads wasn't one of them(it might have deterred some idiots). Blaming the failure on budget is some false equivalency too.

A full on Ghostbusters remake just won't crush the buildings like the surprise success of the first. If it was a sequel/soft reboot thing it would have done better, but still not even Deadpool numbers IMO. As for budget, well what did you expect? A high budget makes sense considering how effects heavy a movie like Ghostbusters would be. Not to mention that the effects in the original are fondly remembered.

Where the problem lies is in a lot of factors, the audience being tired of remakes of beloved movies, the Ghostbusters franchise not holding that much weight, over saturation of Melissa McCarthy and Bridesmaids esque movies, the movie somehow becoming the most politically divisive movie of the year, lukewarm reception to trailers and footage, etc.

It was going to bomb, in retrospect it's actually pretty clear. It not due to MRA's, or because of picking the wrong budget. It's because most audiences never wanted this movie.

You're right on, but the size of the budget (production and marketing) does make the term "success" relative. That's the only issue I have with what you wrote.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I haven't said anything about people that enjoyed it. I just said I don't see how the trailer could convince anyone to pay money for it. If you think that's talking down; then you're very defensive. And sure, I've made many posts on the controversy but so have you. I feel it was a necessary post to make because I was replying to someone saying that an audience for it doesn't exist and I believe that's false. Certainly if it had a trailer that wasn't so horrible and it had better word of mouth, it would have made a ton more money.

Yeah but I saw the movie, wanted to see it, was looking forward to it.

Ghostbusters 2016 has many problems, all female leads wasn't one of them(it might have deterred some idiots). Blaming the failure on budget is some false equivalency too.

A full on Ghostbusters remake just won't crush the buildings like the surprise success of the first. If it was a sequel/soft reboot thing it would have done better, but still not even Deadpool numbers IMO. As for budget, well what did you expect? A high budget makes sense considering how effects heavy a movie like Ghostbusters would be. Not to mention that the effects in the original are fondly remembered.

Where the problem lies is in a lot of factors, the audience being tired of remakes of beloved movies, the Ghostbusters franchise not holding that much weight, over saturation of Melissa McCarthy and Bridesmaids esque movies, the movie somehow becoming the most politically divisive movie of the year, lukewarm reception to trailers and footage, etc.

It was going to bomb, in retrospect it's actually pretty clear. It not due to MRA's, or because of picking the wrong budget. It's because most audiences never wanted this movie.

I disagree that the budget is a red herring. If this was a 50 million dollar comedy it'd have been a decent box office success.

It did solid comedy numbers.

 

[Exodust]

In regards to being a soft reboot, I want to bring up something RedLetterMedia mentioned in their Ghostbusters Half in the Bag episode. If this movie was made entirely after The Force Awakens do you think they would have gone the soft reboot route?

I honestly don't think so. Remakes of old movies, unnecessary or not, get announced like every other week. Hollywood execs seem to have a problem of always being late to trends or what have you and doubling down too quick expecting similar success to the high watermarks money wise. Be it MCU or whatever else. I think a lot of execs see Star Wars as a sort of anomaly fanbase wise, while also not realizing why Force Awakens worked as a success(fantastic marketing, promising something to a new generation while reminding people why they like the original movies in the first place, etc.).

Leaving movie quality out of it(love the movie personally, but that's not what we're talking about), Force Awakens was smartly done as a marketed product on all fronts. The lessons execs learned from it seem to be people want old brands back, but none of the context of why it worked. Mad Max and Creed might not be as successful as Force Awakens, with Mad Max doing alright but not good or great, are still very similar to Force Awakens in the way it approaches being a new movie in an old franchise. Having respect for previous installments and long time fans while being done in a way that makes sense for the modern era. They stick out due to their old sensibilities instead of following trends and are new in enough ways to earn the right to be a part of series.

That said, Ghostbusters was never gonna go the soft reboot route, anyway. They've tried for so long with the long rumoured Ghostbusters 3 and it could never get off the ground due to many factors. In many ways Sony decided it wanted a new one and realized that a soft reboot wasn't feasible. So they dove headfirst, and gave the name to a formula that has been successful lately. I don't think having an all female Ghostbusters movie was made as a political decision as much as it was a business one. Some of the biggest comedies lately have been Fieg and McCarthy's work, so it made business sense to them to have their already successful brand attached to what is already working in the comedy sector.

The MRA's came later like they did with Mad Max, which is not so much a "feminist propaganda" movie as it is an action movie with good female characters that were treated with respect. Dredd was similar in being an action movie with well done female characters but nobody brings it up in said discussions because it's not as highly marketed, successful or award winning. With Ghostbusters it was a bit less daring of a call but since it's less about the movie and all about the cause for MRA types, they bitched anyway. Sony decided to play the "political" route as really that's all they had going for them after footage didn't bring about excitement. Probably the smartest move they could have made, but it didn't work out like they were hoping.

 

[broncobuster]

I think the problem with GB 2016 has more to do with Feig's specific casting than with being female-led in general. You just can't cast Wiig and McCarthy as the leads and reasonably expect to draw the same four-quadrant audience as other FX-heavy action-comedies in the same budget range.

On a film with a $65M budget like Spy, that would have been fine, but $150M? Nope.

Anecdotally, I talked to a couple people that flat out thought Ghostbusters was a parody due to the SNL cast members.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Anecdotally, I talked to a couple people that flat out thought Ghostbusters was a parody due to the SNL cast members.

That's hillarious given the SNL SC TV background of everyone but Hudson in terms 9f the originals

 

[Exodust]

I disagree that the budget is a red herring. If this was a 50 million dollar comedy it'd have been a decent box office success.

It did solid comedy numbers.

I disagree that it's just a comedy. Ghostbusters is essentially a SciFi/Comedy/Action hybrid with heavy usage of effects. It had comedians as leads, but it wasn't in any way made like Stripes, Animal House, or any SNL produced movie like Wayne's World.

So as a Sci-Fi Action Comedy with heavy usage of effects, with a successful brand that spawned beloved movies, cartoons and toys it's a failure. And that's leaving out the fact that it was supposed to start a cinematic universe.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Anecdotally, I talked to a couple people that flat out thought Ghostbusters was a parody due to the SNL cast members.

do they know where bill murray and dan aykroyd came from