• 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.

Forbes - 'Ghostbusters' Box Office: Is A $50 Million Weekend A Big Enough Debut?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

groansey

Member
heliosRAzi said:
An actual, written review

Haven't read it yet, though. Doesn't sound positive

Ew
Click to expand...

Erm...

"Ghostbusters 2.0 suffers from the anxiety of influence... It never strays far from the anodyne, generic humor that pervades the Ivan Reitman–directed 1984 original."

You're happy to go along with a review that disses the original film?

I thought the issue was that film wasn't enough like the 1984 film? Now it's too much like the 1984 film?
 
N

NR1

Member
heliosRAzi said:
An actual, written review

Haven't read it yet, though. Doesn't sound positive
Click to expand...

This whole movie sounds like a contradiction on to itself. Sony and Feig trumpet that this is a reboot and they are doing their own thing from the original, but from the sound of things it makes itself a slave the original.

If you're going to reboot, then full on reboot. Leave the 1984 version alone and make something totally different.

Hell, they could have done a great soft reboot if they wanted too! Set the film in a distant future like the original movie's script was written with time travel and cross dimensional encounters. Only reason why that got rewritten into what we actually got was because the script was too big and expensive to film in 1984. Reitman said, "Let's tell an origin story for this massive ghost hunting organization. How did it get started? Let's start with a couple of guys in their garage in present day NYC." Basically Jurassic World-- reference the first film lightly and move on with your own story. You could have had the original busters in containment tubes like Zordon from Power Rangers dispensing sage advice. Maybe reference Egon "living" in the ghost world as an ambassador or cut together a few lines from several sources to get him a very small speaking role like Marlan Brando in Superman Returns.
 
F

forgeforsaken

Member
Sir_Stoo said:
Erm...

"Ghostbusters 2.0 suffers from the anxiety of influence... It never strays far from the anodyne, generic humor that pervades the Ivan Reitman–directed 1984 original."

You're happy to go along with a review that disses the original film?

I thought the issue was that film wasn't enough like the 1984 film? Now it's too much like the 1984 film?
Click to expand...

That's an odd bit from that review as from all the clips released (and there's been a lot) the style of humor in this movie seems definitely different than what was present in the original.
 
R

rou021

Member
Concerning Bill Murray's reluctance to do a Ghostbusters 3, he's talked about it at different times over the years. One reason is that he wasn't very satisfied wth how GBII turned out and was hesitant to do another lackluster sequel. Murray goes over some of it here in a Howard Stern interview from 2011. Around the time the game came out, however, he did express some interest in doing a third. Until I can find the links, I'll have to go off my memory of it, but this was when Harold Ramis had a new GB3 idea. He was going to have the two writers that he worked with on the Office and that wrote Year One for him write GB3. Murray seemed open to the idea. Then Year One came out. Murray either saw it or heard it was terrible and immediately got cold feet, IIRC.
 
L

lowhighkang_LHK

Member
Hero_of_the_Day said:
If the budget is really around $150, then it's going to need a lot from overseas to make a profit if we're looking at a 40-50 million opening here.

Isn't the conventional wisdom that a movie needs to double its budget to make a profit?
Click to expand...

Generally movie theaters will take anywhere from 30 to 60 percent of a film's revenue all dependent on the agreed revenue sharing. Furthermore, the percentage cut going to the distributor (Sony Pictures) is probably a little bit less from non-domestic revenue than domestic revenue due to extra middle men required overseas.
 
H

heliosRAzi

Banned
Sir_Stoo said:
Erm...

"Ghostbusters 2.0 suffers from the anxiety of influence... It never strays far from the anodyne, generic humor that pervades the Ivan Reitman–directed 1984 original."

You're happy to go along with a review that disses the original film?

I thought the issue was that film wasn't enough like the 1984 film? Now it's too much like the 1984 film?
Click to expand...

I was iffy on that part, but I don't hold the original Ghostbusters up on a pedestal, either. I don't care if it's too close to the original or strays too far. I just want a good movie. Clearly this reviewer didn't care too much for the original.
 
N

Nipo

Member
BronsonLee said:
For Murray, ya'll are on your own with that. I'm not interested in just bilking out Variety articles for you to ignore, as per usual with this sort of thing
Click to expand...

Are you sure you're not thinking of Chevy chase? I read variety pretty regularly and the only really negative things I remember reading about Murray were around his divorce when his ex accused him of a bunch of things.
 
M

Mortimer Brewster

Member
Boem said:
That's what makes him cool! I don't see those as shitlord-characteristics, the guy is a rockstar. He chooses super interesting movies over big million dollar-movies, works way below his salary for starting directors to help them out (often paying expenses out of his own pockets), chooses projects based on them being interesting instead of them having to reach a large audience, he doesn't mind admitting his own shortcomings and has put out several amazing performances over the last years. It's a very refreshing thing for a big Hollywood star.

If doing that (as opposed to continually and shamelessly cashing in on old franchises and fanbases) makes you a shitlord, I want to be a shitlord when I grow up.

(Of course, I also know it's fun to shower some over-the-top hate on something or someone that's popular. Not liking his acting or movies is totally fine, but the guy has definitely shown a lot of integrity towards his work and he's almost always praised for being this kind guy towards others (apart from his SNL/early comedies-years, which he himself has repeatedly mentioned as being filled with too many big ego's and too much drugs - which is nothing surprising for people involved in those SNL-groups. That was years ago though, and he proved he grew past that).

Signed,

Dumdum
Click to expand...


That has been Murray's raison d'être for years. Murray has always looked for unique and different films and has often chased after more dramatic roles. With the original Ghostbusters he was able to get Columbia to produce one of his passion projects Razors Edge in return for agreeing to make the original a Ghostbusters. Hell the reason for his falling out with Harold Ramis was Murrays frustration with Ramis editing Groundhog Day into a more lighthearted film. Murray had wanted it to be a much more of a drama with strong philosophical elements mixed with very dark humor but Ramis edited it into the classic form it is in, which Murray hated.
 
G

Goodstyle

Member
heliosRAzi said:
I was iffy on that part, but I don't hold the original Ghostbusters up on a pedestal, either. I don't care if it's too close to the original or strays too far. I just want a good movie. Clearly this reviewer didn't care too much for the original.
Click to expand...

A popular sentiment some modern critics is that the film is overrated today. They certainly didn't like it that much back when it was originally released.

It wasn't the critics that made the original Ghostbusters a cinematic classic, it was the fans.
 
TGO

TGO

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
For Ghostbusters I think anything under 100m is a failure
 
E

Elandyll

Banned
lowhighkang_LHK said:
Generally movie theaters will take anywhere from 30 to 60 percent of a film's revenue all dependent on the agreed revenue sharing. Furthermore, the percentage cut going to the distributor (Sony Pictures) is probably a little bit less from non-domestic revenue than domestic revenue due to extra middle men required overseas.
Click to expand...
Afaik the ballpark rule is 50% overall.

If you want to be a bit closer, 60% for domestic, 40% foreign (with both having variations, but it's a "ballpark" estimate).

So they'll be in the black at $300m overall, or something like $120m domestic ($72m back), $200m foreign ($80m back) which is doable, and probably a bit more if the cinemascore isn't in the toilet.

Neither count the marketing expenses, which seem to have been high, but I expect a lot of product placement and there are marketing deals which probably helped a ton with that.
 
G

Goodstyle

Member
lowhighkang_LHK said:
Generally movie theaters will take anywhere from 30 to 60 percent of a film's revenue all dependent on the agreed revenue sharing. Furthermore, the percentage cut going to the distributor (Sony Pictures) is probably a little bit less from non-domestic revenue than domestic revenue due to extra middle men required overseas.
Click to expand...

Elandyll said:
Afaik the ballpark rule is 50% overall.

If you want to be a bit closer, 60% for domestic, 40% foreign (with both having variations, but it's a "ballpark" estimate).

So they'll be in the black at $300m overall, or something like $120m domestic ($72m back), $200m foreign ($80m back) which is doable, and probably a bit more if the cinemascore isn't in the toilet.

Neither count the marketing expenses, which seem to have been high, but I expect a lot of product placement and there are marketing deals which probably helped a ton with that.
Click to expand...

On topic posts? Get this filth out of this thread!
 
B

brandonh83

Banned
Jarmel said:
Movie seems like it tries to rleference the originals too much and not focus on being its own satisfying movie.
Click to expand...

I was happy that they were starting with a clean slate, so this has always been a chief worry of mine. Strange, I know. Most peoples' worries stem from so many other things, but for me if they're going to reboot it as a new thing, it needs to be a new thing without trying to reference/pander too much. This could, of all things deflate my opinion, but we'll see. It could be totally harmless, or just not end up bothering me that much (see: Force Awakens)
 
K

Kimawolf

Member
eh the last preview i saw with Dan Akroyd makes me want to see it now. So i'll check it out at a matinee showing on saturday morning most likely.
 
G

GabeTheGrouch76

Member
Sir_Stoo said:
Erm...

"Ghostbusters 2.0 suffers from the anxiety of influence... It never strays far from the anodyne, generic humor that pervades the Ivan Reitman–directed 1984 original."
Click to expand...

I have a really hard time taking this line seriously, because the comedic tone from I've seen of the new film seems to be anything but similar to the original film. If he was talking more about cosmetic stuff (winks, nods, shout-outs), then I would be more inclined to agree, but this line really comes off as if he hasn't even seen the first movie to begin with (at least, not recently anyway).

plasmawave said:
That face he made when he said "is that good enough for me?" suggests it wasn't.

In an alternate universe there's a UK GB directed by Edgar Wright starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost.
Click to expand...

You have no idea how much I would want to see a Wright-helmed GB now. D:

BronsonLee said:
In that alternate universe, that one bombs too :(
Click to expand...

Yeah, it probably would :/
 
B

brandonh83

Banned
GabeTheGrouch76 said:
I have a really hard time taking this line seriously, because the comedic tone from I've seen of the new film seems to be anything but similar to the original film. If he was talking more about cosmetic stuff (winks, nods, shout-outs), then I would be more inclined to agree, but this line really comes off as if he hasn't even seen the first movie to begin with (at least, not recently anyway).
Click to expand...

It's super weird, unless Sony's marketing literally plucked out all the unlike Ghostbusters 1984 humor. On top of even that though is saying the humor in the original was generic. I mean, that's... straddling the lines of being objectively false.

I might throw up a review thread shortly as they should be going live (officially) in a few hours.
 
Kite

Kite

Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeCiTwuyWq0

Another review, some channel called Pretty Much It w 76k subscribers.

tl;dr reviewer laughed, found it funny but not exactly exactly good. Compared it to Jurassic World, reboot with a modern coat of paint. Same could be said of TFA but that was in more capable hands. Like JW and ID4 it won't be remembered in 6 months. Should not have been called Ghost Busters.
 
F

Forsaken82

Member
forgeforsaken said:
That's an odd bit from that review as from all the clips released (and there's been a lot) the style of humor in this movie seems definitely different than what was present in the original.
Click to expand...

The Style of humor is typical Feig, however from the trailer, there are clear call backs to the originals. Ignoring the obvious 3 scientists + 1 civilian (as well as ignoring the race of the characters which is also identical in the roles), also ignoring Slimer and 100 foot not-staypuft running thru the city shots which i can only assume is summoned in the same way... the very first shot of the team in the original trailer is literally them first encountering a library ghost... in later trailers there is a near identical shot to a skyscraper during an eclipse that seems to occupy that "spook central" location that is likely going to serve as the set piece for the climax (and a major location throughout) of the film much like the original (and sequel). It isn't hard to believe that it follows the same beats of the original. Humor doesn't all of a sudden change a concept. If anything the most recent trailers lean more heavily ON nostalgic moments than it does on any different. There is even a scene where they comment, they don't want to incite mass hysteria. I think there was even a scene in the trailer where Kate McKinnon all but says "were the best, the beautiful the only ghostbusters" or something along those lines after what I can only assume is their first successful job.

The actual film may very well be far removed from the original, but in my opinion the marketing team has shown a LOT of call backs in the trailers.
 
F

forgeforsaken

Member
Forsaken82 said:
The Style of humor is typical Feig, however from the trailer, there are clear call backs to the originals. Ignoring the obvious 3 scientists + 1 civilian (as well as ignoring the race of the characters which is also identical in the roles), also ignoring Slimer and 100 foot not-staypuft running thru the city shots which i can only assume is summoned in the same way... the very first shot of the team in the original trailer is literally them first encountering a library ghost... in later trailers there is a near identical shot to a skyscraper during an eclipse that seems to occupy that "spook central" location that is likely going to serve as the set piece for the climax (and a major location throughout) of the film much like the original (and sequel). It isn't hard to believe that it follows the same beats of the original. Humor doesn't all of a sudden change a concept. If anything the most recent trailers lean more heavily ON nostalgic moments than it does on any different. There is even a scene where they comment, they don't want to incite mass hysteria. I think there was even a scene in the trailer where Kate McKinnon all but says "were the best, the beautiful the only ghostbusters" or something along those lines after what I can only assume is their first successful job.

The actual film may very well be far removed from the original, but in my opinion the marketing team has shown a LOT of call backs in the trailers.
Click to expand...

Right there are call backs and references for sure, but that reviewer was specifically commenting on the style of humor or that's how I interpreted that line.
 
D

DevilSnake

Member
If it does 50 million you'll hear a lot of execs & film cast say it's performing well, has legs, slow burn etc... But no, for Ghostbusters 50 million isn't good enough.

Despite not having a film entry in years the series has retained a massive following around the world & when this film got the go ahead I bet they were expecting double that, at least. I haven't seen the film so I can't judge the quality of this reboot, but if this was the Ghostbusters 3 so many fans wanted, 50million would definitely be a disappointment, the same applies to the reboot.
 
B

BatDan

Bane? Get them on board, I'll call it in.
From what I hear, Sony doesn't just want a single movie, they want a Shared Universe franchise.
Doing $50 million on opening weekend with negative word of mouth already existing is not a good outlook.
 
S

Saucycarpdog

Member
BatDan said:
From what I hear, Sony doesn't just want a single movie, they want a Shared Universe franchise.
Doing $50 million on opening weekend with negative word of mouth already existing is not a good outlook.
Click to expand...
Ghostbusters 23 street MIB crossover incoming!
Studios really are learning all the wrong lessons from Marvel
.
 
B

brandonh83

Banned
Kite said:
tl;dr reviewer laughed, found it funny but not exactly exactly good. Compared it to Jurassic World, reboot with a modern coat of paint. Same could be said of TFA but that was in more capable hands. Like JW and ID4 it won't be remembered in 6 months. Should not have been called Ghost Busters.
Click to expand...

There's so much bullshit in this it's mindblowing.

Jarmel said:
Is the embargo 1pm EST today?
Click to expand...

That's the word.
 
B

BatDan

Bane? Get them on board, I'll call it in.
Saucycarpdog said:
Ghostbusters 23 street MIB crossover incoming!
Studios really are learning all the wrong lessons from Marvel
.
Click to expand...

Yep, even Marvel movies not produced by them are teaching wrong lessons.
"Deadpool made a ton of money? MORE R-RATED MOVIES!"

It's why the Hasbro Cinematic Universe is a dumpster fire waiting to happen.
 
J

Jarmel

Banned
Plasticine said:
I don't know how you can make comparisons to ASM and justify a 3/5 score.
Click to expand...

ASM had multiple problems, only one of those had to do with feeling pointless and lost in direction. This seems more competent but also suffers from not bringing something interesting to the table.
 
N

Nipo

Member
Reviews are really split on this one. Some saying it is perfect summer fun others a pale copy of the original.
 
Grinchy

Grinchy

Banned
I'd rather watch the first trailer for this movie on repeat for a week straight than sit through Amazing Spiderman 2 again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Box Office: ‘Kraven the Hunter’ Aims for Weak $15 Million in Opening Weekend (Lower than Madam Web)
33
2K
Reizo Ryuu replied
Weekend Box Office - Jul 26 - 28, 2024 - Alive & Howling
Business
17
2K
jason10mm replied
Weekend Box Office - Aug 2 - 4, 2024 - Trapped between a twist and a despicable film
30
2K
Jinzo Prime replied
Weekend Box Office - Jul 19 - 21, 2024 - The twist here is we hate Disney shills
Business
36
2K
Valonquar replied
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire Poised to Become MonsterVerse's Biggest Global Box Office Hit
22
2K
JCK75 replied
Top Bottom