Stallion Dan
Member
It's Ghostbusters, should be doing hundreds of millions.
-
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?
- Thread starter bananafactory
- Start date
- Status
A Link to the Past
Banned
It's really curious, just how much it seems like a theme ban by the Chinese government could influence the creative decisions of the industry. China has certainly influenced discriminatory casting behaviors (even if it is just a myth that informs that decision), so I wonder how much of the industry is influenced by these bans. Like, does the ban of time travel mean that a Back to the Future reboot is less likely, for instance?
In its opening weekend?
It should also be noted that Ghostbusters 2 didn't earn hundreds of millions period, let alone in a short period of time. I don't see why I divisive sequel should be held to such expectations.
In its opening weekend?
It should also be noted that Ghostbusters 2 didn't earn hundreds of millions period, let alone in a short period of time. I don't see why I divisive sequel should be held to such expectations.
Five of the seven people you mentioned are in the new Ghostbusters film.
So, yes. They did.
Ghostbusters was one big film over 30 years ago and then one very frontloaded sequel 27 years ago. It's not Star Wars.
Alot of people overestimate the vocal minority of the internet in some cases. I feel this movie is going to do really well and have some long summer legs with kids and moms and families. To the chagrin of many vocal internet peeps.
A Link to the Past
Banned
They're in because they want these people who actually do want to be in a new Ghostbusters film to have good success with it. There's a reason why Bill Murray is vehemently opposed to a GB3 and yet considered it fine to be in this.
vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
I'd call it a success if it opens over $50M - could very well be the next ID4 (domestically), it'll be interesting to watch.
I don't believe many people know the exact saga that Ghostbusters 3 went though. There was more than Bill Murray having issues with the product, as well as no confirmation he was against the idea.
Also money helps their cause of being in the new film.
A Link to the Past
Banned
He may have not directly come out and said "fuck GB3", but he has not kept it a secret that he isn't a fan of the idea.
AHA-Lambda
Member
It's Sony, they're seemingly inept at budgeting most of their movies it seems
Sure. I still don't see a scenario where he would have been 100% against the idea of being in it. There seemed to be more ongoing issues between creative and Sony than Bill Murray holding everyone up.
He probably would have done it, giving equal or less Ghostbusters 2 effort.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I was talking more of Bill being an example; I think that the other three would have been fine with doing it, but I think Akyroyd and Ramis were the only ones who really were pushing for it.
Mostly Akyroyd. I think every chance he had, he would make a comment being well aware it would trend somehow.
Could be the channels. I see a different one like every 30 min. Either one of the couple movie trailers, the papa johns commercial (fucking a-hole) or one of the Progressive commercials.
Sony in particular has a nasty habit of giving up way more than they should for a film.
Go look at the budget for the Paul Blart movies. It's funnier than the actual films.
bananafactory
Banned
One thing I absolutely believe about Ghostbusters that will play into its box office is that more than a lot of other big, popular or 'geeky' franchises, this is much more closely tied to its original actors.
That is, many people don't love Ghostbusters because they want to see more of that universe, or what new types of Ghostbusting a new film could explore. They just love Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson and what they did IN that universe.
So yeah, Ghostbusters IS popular. The Bill Murray Ghostbusters. Not necessarily whatever this will end up being, which SEEMS to be a Feig and Co movie with a well known name tied to it.
Thats why I think the 'it should make hundreds of millions!' argument is flawed
That is, many people don't love Ghostbusters because they want to see more of that universe, or what new types of Ghostbusting a new film could explore. They just love Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson and what they did IN that universe.
So yeah, Ghostbusters IS popular. The Bill Murray Ghostbusters. Not necessarily whatever this will end up being, which SEEMS to be a Feig and Co movie with a well known name tied to it.
Thats why I think the 'it should make hundreds of millions!' argument is flawed
I suspect the film is going to commit the ultimate crime of being neither a huge hit nor a flop.
This confuses everyone who wants to position it as one or the other and pleases nobody.
It's budget is too big, it's cast draw in lower numbers than the budget would demand, it's got too much controversy around it and to be blunt too many trailers just looked bad for it to be a hit IMHO.
That said I also think the brand and decent star draw will bring in enough business such that it won't flop either but will only be modestly profitable.
This confuses everyone who wants to position it as one or the other and pleases nobody.
It's budget is too big, it's cast draw in lower numbers than the budget would demand, it's got too much controversy around it and to be blunt too many trailers just looked bad for it to be a hit IMHO.
That said I also think the brand and decent star draw will bring in enough business such that it won't flop either but will only be modestly profitable.
The budgets for those films are $26 and $30 Million. That's pretty cheap.
I wonder if this movie might be able to get a bit of a slow burn going to build up a new, younger audience. I mean, ok, a lot of the fans of the original movies might not like it, but if kids end up latching on to it and pushing the movie via word-of-mouth, there might be the possibility of legitimately re-igniting the franchise?
Yeah but that's to be expected since it's a Happy MadisonSCAM Production.
Yeah but that's to be expected since it's a Happy Madison
A Link to the Past
Banned
Ah yeah, I was kind of guessing on Ramis lol.
That reminds me, I really ought to play that one day.
WordAssassin
Member
Seeing as Sony were actually going to try and take legal action to force Murray to do Ghostbusters 3, I think it's safe to say he was a very large part of why it never happened. I'm sure there were other reasons, but Murray being a holdout was THE reason it never happened.
I've not seen it confirmed anywhere that Bill Murray is the sole reason the Ghostbusters franchise did not lift off the ground since the 80s.
WordAssassin
Member
I even just said that there were other reasons beyond him but that he was the main one. Or did I just think that while I was typing and not actually type it?
He didn't even want to do GBII. It's not a secret at all that he didn't want to do 3, and Sony couldn't make the movie without him. In the email hacks they were literally talking about taking legal action to make him do it. If they could have made GB3 without him I don't see a reason for them to ever even consider that.
There were tons of scripts and different writers and ideas but the main reason GB3 never happened was because Murray didn't want to do it. Again he's not the only reason, but he is the main one.
Edit: ok I did type that an not just think it. I wasn't trying to be a smartass I honestly was second guessing if I actually typed it or if I just thought about it and posted before saying it.
WordAssassin
Member
Sanjuro I really like you and I don't want to fight with you but you are really really splitting hairs here. I clearly said in my post there were other reasons but that Murray being the holdout was the main one.
I mean he's even on record somewhere saying he'd only consider it if they killed Venkman in the first 10-15 minutes of the movie or something.
I mean he's even on record somewhere saying he'd only consider it if they killed Venkman in the first 10-15 minutes of the movie or something.
IdreamofHIME
Member
I cant believe I live in the timeline where a Deadpool movie kicked Batman, Spielberg and Ghostbusters ass in the same year.
I think the Bill Murray wanting to do it or not is blown out of proportion in the overall narrative. Bill is a weird guy. Most of his statements probably reflect his mood on random appearances in public or The Late Show than his actual conviction on wanting nothing to do with the franchise.
He wasn't the song and dance man for the franchise that Aykroyd was. If Sony had gotten their ducks in a row he likely would have cashed his gigantic paycheck.
So, yeah. Murray stating he wanted his character killed off to me says he had a bad lunch that day.
Garrett Hawke
Member
I hope it does well because if it doesn't, Hollywood might see it as reinforcing the idea that female protagonists don't sell in this genre which will be the wrong lesson to take from this. :/
Yup. Word of mouth is what will make it or break it. I can see plenty of people having a wait and see attitude because of all the controversy.
Next Jump Street crossover? After MIB 23 maybe they can do ECTO 24?
There's a review embargo, but I've seen a few critics admit the movie left them with a grin on their face, and that it diverges enough from the original to not be a retread.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
It didn't need to be a reboot, a sequel without the original cast is fine.
Especially after the game was a satisfying GB3.
The reason they gave was "we want the realization of ghosts to be new to this world" is as I said, a dumbass reason.
WordAssassin
Member
I don't think he ever expanded on the killed off thing but it could have been just a way out of having to wear the pack or physically be there, if they made him a ghost. Or maybe he really only wanted to cameo at the beginning and be done with it. Or you could totally be right about his comments reflecting his mentality on any given day too. I just know from a legal standpoint they couldn't make another Ghostbusters movie without his blessing or him being in it. Kinda like how another Back to the Future can never be made until after the creator dies because of how different contracts were back then.
But I mean even going back and watching the end of GB1 and seeing everyone absolutely smothered in marshmallow goo except for him, with only a little whip in his hair and on his suit, it's obvious he wasn't as into it as the others. In GBII he only wears the Proton Pack what twice? because he complained so much about how heavy they were. There are a couple scenes where everyone except him have the packs on, too, like when they first go to check out the Vigo painting and Ray, Egon, and Winston are fully suited up and he's just wearing slacks and a coat.
Don't get me wrong I love Bill Murray and I wouldn't really want a Ghostbusters movie set in the original canon without him but he definitely comes off as kind of a butt about the entire thing. But that's also his personality too hehe, lovable smartass.
$150M is basically the standard price tag for a blockbuster film these days.
Ghostbusters is Sony's tentpole summer film this year.
His entire character is that he isn't as gung-ho as the rest of the team. It was a visual gag in the film, not a statement towards his dedication to the film.
I think with that statement you are thinking about it a bit much overall. It's likely he created additional legwork for the creative teams, but there was an unspecified number of drafts the lack of commitment from the studio for years. As mentioned before, I think the Bill Murray narrative works well for articles and links, however there were likely far more problems behind the scenes which kept the franchise down.
i think sony knew this wouldn't be box office behemoth on virtue of it being female-led. $50 mil opening weekend would probably hit their mark
the franchise's future will be pretty shaky but whatever. i just hope we don't get some derpy reboot as a knee jerk response. like some shit with seth rogan or whatever
the franchise's future will be pretty shaky but whatever. i just hope we don't get some derpy reboot as a knee jerk response. like some shit with seth rogan or whatever
starchild excalibur
Member
A lot of it will hinge on word of mouth and its legs. If the movie is generally well received I could see this holding well week-to-week even if it never has an explosive OW.
I'm still sad about that because I loved Legacy and how everything looked.
No clue. I wonder when the embargo lifts. It opens July 11th in the UK, so it has to be sometime this week...
And_Gignac
Member
The flop is unavoidable if it debuts below $50m. Unless it has honestly rave reviews.
WordAssassin
Member
Yeah it's kind of funny how now that Sony is hurting and panicking for franchises suddenly a new Ghostbusters movie has become a top priority for them. There were so many version of the movie that we even know about, let alone the versions we didn't. Hell on Earth, Ghostbusters Inc, Aykroyd written, the writers from The Office, who knows how many others. It feels like such an easy concept to milk the shit out of to me (there's almost 175 episodes of the cartoon, plus Extreme, plus the brilliant IDW comics) I'm honestly surprised and confused by why it's taken over 29 years to get another movie, sequel or reboot, out the door.
I don't think I've ever wanted to know more about the making of a movie than I do for Ghostbusters 2016. I have heard some really crazy shit about its production, hopefully after it's actually come out we'll finally hear a more complete story of what happened behind the scenes.
Personally I don't really care if it's good or bad I just want more Ghostbusters and if we have to slog through a shitty one to get a chance at better ones then so be it. I mean I hope that it's good and I'll be seeing it opening night but Ghostbusters is my favorite movie ever so to me, more Ghostbusters is better than no Ghostbusters. There's so much to explore with the concept and now that they've basically freed themselves from the shackles of the originals they can finally do so much with it if given the chance. They need to adapt the IDW comics into movies, even if it means replacing the original team with new people. They're so damn good.
Saucycarpdog
Member
I blame Disney. They've set the bar too high.
- Status