Mix Master
Member
...so there is this.
LMAOO
...so there is this.
I still don't understand how that movie blew up the way it did
...so there is this.
So I wrote this whole thing on mobile and Safari ate it, so, here we go again.
We've discussed this before. The issue is Ghostbusters is an special effects heavy action -comedy. When you actually look at the numbers, the original Ghostbusters and Men in Black are special. They are not even matched by their sequels.
From Box Office Mojo (Budget, Opening weekend, Domestic Total, Worldwide Total)
Ghostbusters: $30 million budget | $13,578,151 OP | $242,212,467 Domestic | $295,212,467 WW
Ghostbusters II: $37 million budget | $29,472,894 OP | $112,494,738 Domestic | $215,394,738 WW
Men in Black: $90 million budget | $51,068,455 OP | $250,690,539 Domestic | $589,390,539 WW
Men in Black II: $140 million budget | $52,148,751 OP | $190,418,803 Domestic | $441,818,803 WW
MIB 3: $225 million budget | $54,592,779 OP | $179,020,854 Domestic | $624,026,776 WW
GB2 had less than half its predecessor's domestic take. MIB3 only beat MIB because of a growing international market.
The truth is the comedy film game is hard as hell above a certain budget. Comedies don't make money like that on the regular. Let's take a look at the lists.
Action - Buddy Comedy: The strongest list, led by MIB and Rush Hour 2. But number #6 is The Heat, starring McCarthy and directed by Feig, at only $159 million domestic. Sci Fi Comedy if all three MIB films and then Honey I Shrunk the Kids. Horror Comedy is Ghostbusters followed by Scary Movie, with $157 million domestic. Seriously, look at the drop offs.
Comedy films are usually predicated on making money because they have rather low budgets. Once you add special effects into the list, things start to go awry.
A great shot for the Geboot would $40-50 million and $200 million domestic, which would put it in 22 Jump Street and Men in Black II territory. Sony should be damned happy with that. The problem is the budget $140 million (same problem MIB2 had, by the by). 22 Jump Street made roughly $144 million in profit, since it had a worldwide take of $331 million and a production budget of $58 million. Throw another $90 million on that production budget and a ton of marketing and I think GB 2016 needs around $400+ million, which again, is hard for a comedy.
Even if it's amazing, the film has an uphill battle to profitability and if it hits it, you'll hear Sony shouting it from the rooftops and greenlighting that second GB film and a sequel immediately.
And no, the budget really isn't out there.
If the leaked plot IS correct(which it's looking to be, it isn't more deserving). Though that doesn't mean Secret Life of Pets is any more deserving...Why is Ghostbusters more deserving than 'Pets' of financial success? Let's remember that Ghostbusters is a tired IP that's being brought back by a studio that's trying to crowbar it into a cinematic universe. It's like it ticks off everything on the list of reasons why people get tired of big studio films.
Oh yeah? Well I hope it shits all over Ghostbusters.
![]()
After recently re-watching Brad Jone's backseat review(Midnight Screenings that aren't at midnight anymore) for Zootopia(just re-watching Zootopia on blu-ray a few days ago), I agree with him that this movie looks like a discount Toy Story, just with pets instead of toys, And especially with something LIKE Zootopia that not only tries to do something different(and interesting), this movie looks among the grade of the Minions BS and Norm of the North. Hey, if people like that shit, more power to them, but there is no law against liking shit(and shit's still shit, regardless how much one tries to paint it golden).
The only thing I would argue against is that ticket prices in 1989 were like $4 (according to Google). The average ticket price is easily double that now, which makes GB2 closer to a roughly $430 million take in today's world. If GB2016 opens at $50m, it will probably have a hard time even matching GB2 performance after adjusting for inflation in ticket prices. Ghostbusters 2 was still a top 10 movie in 1989, even if it was particularly well received.
$50 million opening for a franchise that hasn't seen a new entry in nearly two decades, and for a film that has been subjected to unprecedented scrutiny for a litany of reasons, sounds like a triumph.
Budget is 150 million. Depends on subsequent weekends at the box office if anything.
Why the fuck is the budget so high?
Ludicrous.
Why the fuck is the budget so high?
Ludicrous.
Adjusting for ticket inflation is kind of a bust at this point, as movie-going habits are simply not the same anymore. Our biggest movies don't hit the heights of the 80s or 90s in tickets sold, partially because $4 in ticket adjusted for average income in 1989 ($51,681) meant things go a lot farther than a $14 ticket with the most recent average income ($51,017 in 2012) and we have far more ways to occupy our time. Gone With the Wild is the highest film when adjusted for inflation and tickets sold, but it was up against... nothing. No TV, no internet, no home video. It ran in theatres for four years.
To illustrate, here's estimated tickets sold across all theatrical runs:
Ghostbusters: 71,173,700
Ghostbusters 2: 28,336,200
Men in Black: 54,616,700
Men in Black II: 32,774,300
MIB 3: 22,113,000
Those first shots are really good, but subsequent films drop into the normal comedy range. And some others from the All-Time List:
22 Jump Street: 23,263,100
Avengers: 76,881,200
The Dark Knight: 74,455,400
Civil War: 47,270,000
Star Wars: 178,119,600
Star Wars: The Force Awakens: 108,120,000
The Empire Strikes Back: 98,180,600
Avatar: 97,255,300
Once again, Ghostbusters and MIB... anomaly. GB2 is not a part of that magic, in any way shape or form.
Here's the genre lists sorted by tickets sold. 15-25 million is the comedy range.
Action - Buddy Comedy
Comedy - R-Rated Youth
Horror Comedy
Comedy Sequel - Live Action
Essentially, trying to hold GB 2016 up to the direct performance of the first two by adjusting for inflation is a fool's game, same as it was to put The Force Awakens up against Star Wars.
Sigh.
Paul Feig comedy everyone....so there is this.
Ghostbusters is not a tired franchise, It's a franchise that could continue to be a really strong movie franchise.Why is Ghostbusters more deserving than 'Pets' of financial success? Let's remember that Ghostbusters is a tired IP that's being brought back by a studio that's trying to crowbar it into a cinematic universe. It's like it ticks off everything on the list of reasons why people get tired of big studio films.
Hit the nail on the head. What made Ghostbusters not only work but become the mega hit was the 4 headed creative hydra that was Murray,Aykroyd, Ramis and Reitman. All four of them were at the height of their comedic peak when the first came out. Plus them all being friends and frequent collaborators through Second City,SNL, National Lampoons, films etc they all had a creative comic synergy that caught lightning in a bottle. And it was the original talents creative of them that resonated with audiences not the concept.
...so there is this.
I mean yeah the actors sold the concept really well, but you can't deny the power the premise had on kids. Ghostbusters enjoyed like a 5 year cultural window where it was extremely popular, and that was part movie, part cartoon
Adjusting for ticket inflation is kind of a bust at this point, as movie-going habits are simply not the same anymore. Our biggest movies don't hit the heights of the 80s or 90s in tickets sold, partially because $4 in ticket adjusted for average income in 1989 ($51,681) meant things go a lot farther than a $14 ticket with the most recent average income ($51,017 in 2012) and we have far more ways to occupy our time. Gone With the Wild is the highest film when adjusted for inflation and tickets sold, but it was up against... nothing. No TV, no internet, no home video. It ran in theatres for four years.
To illustrate, here's estimated tickets sold across all theatrical runs:
Ghostbusters: 71,173,700
Ghostbusters 2: 28,336,200
Men in Black: 54,616,700
Men in Black II: 32,774,300
MIB 3: 22,113,000
Those first shots are really good, but subsequent films drop into the normal comedy range. And some others from the All-Time List:
22 Jump Street: 23,263,100
Avengers: 76,881,200
The Dark Knight: 74,455,400
Civil War: 47,270,000
Star Wars: 178,119,600
Star Wars: The Force Awakens: 108,120,000
The Empire Strikes Back: 98,180,600
Avatar: 97,255,300
Once again, Ghostbusters and MIB... anomaly. GB2 is not a part of that magic, in any way shape or form.
Here's the genre lists sorted by tickets sold. 15-25 million is the comedy range.
Action - Buddy Comedy
Comedy - R-Rated Youth
Horror Comedy
Comedy Sequel - Live Action
Essentially, trying to hold GB 2016 up to the direct performance of the first two by adjusting for inflation is a fool's game, same as it was to put The Force Awakens up against Star Wars.
Interesting. Looking at this, there's almost no way GB2016 makes money. If it needs to make $400-500 million to be profitable, we can basically already call it a dud.
It could probably do $200 million just on name alone but it looks like $400 million will be tough.
I wonder how Sony is prepping for this in terms of continuing the franchise beyond this reboot. They're desperate for franchises right now, and they HAVE to know that this reboot is facing an extremely uphill battle, so I wonder if they'll be more lenient with their definition of "success" for this particular movie.
I mean if nothing else it sure as fuck has people talking about Ghostbusters again, so the IP itself is very very fresh in people's minds. Will they capitalize on that in any way possible to try and revive the brand as a whole or will they bury it until the 50th anniversary if it doesn't break records? And if the movie doesn't blow people away, what does that mean for the newly announced Ghostbusters: Ecto Force animated series and GhostCorps studio?
$400+ million will be damned tough. Sony has to hope that people see it as a blockbuster action film, not a comedy.
I wonder how Sony is prepping for this in terms of continuing the franchise beyond this reboot. They're desperate for franchises right now, and they HAVE to know that this reboot is facing an extremely uphill battle, so I wonder if they'll be more lenient with their definition of "success" for this particular movie.
I mean if nothing else it sure as fuck has people talking about Ghostbusters again, so the IP itself is very very fresh in people's minds. Will they capitalize on that in any way possible to try and revive the brand as a whole or will they bury it until the 50th anniversary if it doesn't break records? And if the movie doesn't blow people away, what does that mean for the newly announced Ghostbusters: Ecto Force animated series and GhostCorps studio?
The Real Ghostbusters had 140 episodes over 5 years (with a few additional Slimer! shorts), and was followed by 40 episodes of Extreme Ghostbusters in 1997. The toyline persisted throughout it and had a sizable marketing presence, and there was plenty of other merchandise like comics and a few video games. Ghostbuster's popularity went way, way beyond the two movies.But there's a reason there isn't an expanded Ghostbusters universe, or tons of fan fiction or novels further or much of any media beyond the brief Saturday morning cartoons - that is, because no one really cares.
Interesting. Looking at this, there's almost no way GB2016 makes money. If it needs to make $400-500 million to be profitable, we can basically already call it a dud.
It could probably do $200 million just on name alone but it looks like $400 million will be tough.
In what world does it need to make 400-500 million to be profitable? Lets assume for a second that the 150 mil budget doesn't include Marketing... Are you trying to say that they invested 250 million into marketing alone?
A Ghostbusters with the Avengers cast would be the greatest thing ever. I could definitely imagine Robert Downey Jr. as Peter Venkman.
I'm one of the few that actually really liked GBII but you absolutely have to watch the first one. ASAP. If I could lend you one of my copies through the internet I would put it in your hands right now.Is it weird that I've only ever seen Ghostbusters 2, and not the first one?
The Real Ghostbusters had 140 episodes over 5 years (with a few additional Slimer! shorts), and was followed by 40 episodes of Extreme Ghostbusters in 1997. The toyline persisted throughout it and had a sizable marketing presence, and there was plenty of other merchandise like comics and a few video games. Ghostbuster's popularity went way, way beyond the two movies.
In what world does it need to make 400-500 million to be profitable? Lets assume for a second that the 150 mil budget doesn't include Marketing... Are you trying to say that they invested 250 million into marketing alone?
The $150 does not include marketing - that's the production budget alone. You usually double this amount to get a ballpark of total cost, including marketing, so you're at $300mil. But even then, depending on the film they may spend more on marketing than they do on production (look at Angry Birds). And on top of all of this, their goal isn't to just break even but to make a profit.
I agree with the idea that anything less than $500 mil won't be seen as a success. Whether it crosses that mark in the end, I don't know.
I'm one of the few that actually really liked GBII but you absolutely have to watch the first one. ASAP. If I could lend you one of my copies through the internet I would put it in your hands right now.
RGB actually had 173 episodes according to Wikipedia, and was 7 "seasons" long. That's crazy for a cartoon even by today's standards. The only show I can name off the top of my head that isn't aimed at adults like Family Guy or The Simpsons that has that many seasons is Adventure Time and maybe Regular Show? And even then those are 11 minute episodes whereas RGB and EGB were full 22-minute episodes.
I wonder if people who think Ghostbusters only had popularity from the movies are really young? Or maybe too old to remember or have cared? Because it was absolutely a phenomenon with kids during the mid/late 80s and early 90s. I was one of them. Kids these days probably don't give as much of a shit about toys as we did in the 80s but Ghostbusters was absolutely huge.
Even now, the IDW comics that expand the world set up in the movies and game, got brought back from the dead due to fan demand. With the 30th anniversary having just happened and the reboot coming out brand awareness is probably the highest it's been since the original craze. It's madness to say Ghostbusters isn't popular outside of the movies. The lack of proper theatrical sequels sure as hell is not from lack of trying.
This is such a selfish mentality. Yes let's hope Sony's attempt at revitalizing one of the most beloved franchises ever bombs so that they bury the IP and fans never, ever get another chance at visiting the world. Great thing to hope for, thank you. As an actual fan of Ghostbusters I hope it fails too because lord knows I never want another Ghostbusters movie or comic or TV show or game.I really hope it bombs.
This is such a selfish mentality. Yes let's hope Sony's attempt at revitalizing one of the most beloved franchises ever bombs so that they bury the IP and fans never, ever get another chance at visiting the world. Great thing to hope for, thank you. As an actual fan of Ghostbusters I hope it fails too because lord knows I never want another Ghostbusters movie or comic or TV show or game.
It wasn't until I viewed the movie through adult eyes that I felt a connection to the actors and the characters. To this day I'm still finding new things every time I watch it. I literally just noticed the cleaning lady in the background at the hotel trying to put the fire out with her spray bottle after the guys blew up her cart.
Sometimes less is more if the franchise is just going wallow in mediocrity or implode on itself. As a Silent Hill fan I know that all too well.
Why do I get the uneasy feeling of if this movie starring 4-5 hot young women the interenet reception wouldn't be 1/5th as bad :/
I could definitely imagine Robert Downey Jr. as Peter Venkman.
As an "'80s kid", that looks like a '50s or '60s couple out for a drive....so there is this.