Ghostbusters (2016) (1 Viewer)

[Tony J Case]

So, assuming that the budget of 144 million is accurate, it has to do roughly 430 million to just break even.

Here's what Forbes had to say: "Sony’s Ghostbusters took a tumble on its second weekend. The $144 million comedy earned $21.6m (-53%) to give it a new $86.8m ten-day cume. That’s a sharp fall for a comedy, and dreams of a 3.8-4x multiplier are now out the window. It’s about on par with Pixels and The Boss. So now it’s a question of which of those two precedents matches up. It’s still looking like a cume of $135m-$150m by the time it’s done."

Here's the Hollywood Reporter: "When factoring in marketing costs — the price tag for promoting a summer tentpole globally can be upward of $150 million — Ghostbusters may have to earn $375 million to $400 million worldwide to break even for Sony and partner Village Roadshow Pictures. That means it needs to do sizable business overseas, since it could top out in the $130 million range domestically. (Sony insiders counter that the break-even number is $300 million.)

Overseas, the jury is still out. Ghostbusters debuted in only a few major markets this weekend, earning $19.1 million, with first-place finishes in two major English-speaking markets, the U.K. ($6.1 million) and Australia ($3.7 million). Some analysts caution that comedy doesn't travel as well as other genres. And China is not allowing Ghostbusters into the country."

So yeah, if not necessarily a bomb it looks like a flop.

I kind of think they have to go through with it. Too much negative PR if they back out.

I'm still predicting that Sony will FantFourStic the sequel. They'll talk big about it, say that they're pleased with the result, save face by saying that it's moving forward and then two or three months from now, after the DVD has come and gone, they'll quietly never mention it again.

 

[Tino]

I would say more of a disappointment. But hey, most people and critics have enjoyed it so despite its lackluster box office performance, I think it will find a bigger audience on home video and the sequel will go forward.

 

[TravisR]

Here's the Hollywood Reporter: "When factoring in marketing costs — the price tag for promoting a summer tentpole globally can be upward of $150 million — Ghostbusters may have to earn $375 million to $400 million worldwide to break even for Sony and partner Village Roadshow Pictures. That means it needs to do sizable business overseas, since it could top out in the $130 million range domestically. (Sony insiders counter that the break-even number is $300 million.)

Once again, that just illustrates that studios need to realize that spending a fortune doesn't guarantee that the movie is going to be a hit. I've got no business experience and at best, I've got an armchair quarterback knowledge of the movie industry but even I can figure out that you can't spend so much money on a movie that it absolutely NEEDS to be a gigantic hit just to break even. Even if none of the controversies had occurred and it was a wonderful movie, I still can't imagine it making $300 or $400 million.

 

[Tino]

Which is the case with almost every big Hollywood movie being released.

 

[WillG]

Which is the case with almost every big Hollywood movie being released.

You know what, good. Maybe there needs to be an industry crash. Things seems to have gotten too overindulgent and the lack of original ideas don't help either.

Is it an accident that is far as I can recall, the best new movie I've seen this year was 10 Cloverfield Lane?

 

[Tino]

But this has been the case for years now. Nothing new. There's no industry crash. Some succeed. Others don't. Nothing is going to change.

 

[TravisR]

But this has been the case for years now. Nothing new. There's no industry crash. Some succeed. Others don't. Nothing is going to change.

I don't expect a massive sea change where people start only seeing small dramas but I do think there's going to be a point where alot of these wannabe franchises really start to fail miserably. The big ones will always keep making money but I want to think that a large enough segment of the audience will finally decide that they want something new and then Hollywood will give it to them. As of right now, if it's not an established property, the audience just isn't interested but since a number of sequels have started doing poorly, I'm more optimistic that some kind of change is finally coming. Of course, I've been saying that about for about a decade now and it hasn't happened so what the hell do I know?

 

[WillG]

But this has been the case for years now. Nothing new. There's no industry crash. Some succeed. Others don't. Nothing is going to change.

I don't expect a massive sea change where people start only seeing small dramas but I do think there's going to be a point where alot of these wannabe franchises really start to fail miserably. The big ones will always keep making money but I want to think that a large enough segment of the audience will finally decide that they want something new and then Hollywood will give it to them. As of right now, if it's not an established property, the audience just isn't interested but since a number of sequels have started doing poorly, I'm more optimistic that some kind of change is finally coming. Of course, I've been saying that about for about a decade now and it hasn't happened so what the hell do I know?

Maybe it's they way things have always been but I'm kind of seeing parallels to the video game crash of '83. Huge, hyped up product made for a ton of money that ends up being of dubious quality and missing expectations as well as oversaturation (think MCU and DCCU).

Has there been any big tentpole releases this year that ended up as huge moneymakers (excluding Pixar/Disney animated films)

 

[Malcolm R]

Has there been any big tentpole releases this year that ended up as huge moneymakers (excluding Pixar/Disney animated films)

These are 2016 releases that have exceeded $500M worldwide, to date:

1. Captain America: Civil War $1.15 Billion
2. Zootopia $1.03 Billion
3. The Jungle Book $940 Million
4. Batman v. Superman $873 million
5. Finding Dory $784 million
6. Deadpool $782 million
7. The Mermaid $554 million
8. X-Men: Apocalypse $534 million
9. Kung Fu Panda 3 $520 million

 

[ChristopherG]

Oddly enough, I haven't seen even one of those ^

 

[Patrick Sun]

I thought this re-mix was simply okay, not great, not totally horrible. I think I liked Kate and Leslie the most out of the main cast.

I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.

 

[Tony J Case]

I don't expect a massive sea change where people start only seeing small dramas but I do think there's going to be a point where alot of these wannabe franchises really start to fail miserably. The big ones will always keep making money but I want to think that a large enough segment of the audience will finally decide that they want something new and then Hollywood will give it to them. As of right now, if it's not an established property, the audience just isn't interested but since a number of sequels have started doing poorly, I'm more optimistic that some kind of change is finally coming. Of course, I've been saying that about for about a decade now and it hasn't happened so what the hell do I know?

This isn't necessarily looking at the past with Rose Tinted Glasses, but I think the movie scene in the eighties (and the nineties, to some extent) was a really good time to make movies. You could make reasonably low budget flicks - some really good, some really terrible, some cheesey as hell - and most likely get a return on your investment. You didnt have a constant stream of sequels and remakes, you'd have movies like Piranha and Friday the 13th, movies that were inspired by other movies, shamelessly ripped off other movies, but were still their own thing.

Now sure, in the last 25 or so years, inflation will have adjusted the cost of movies upwards, but does it really take 200 million bucks to make a movie? If your industry has gotten to the point where a movie not making a billion dollars is considered a failure, then your industry needs to really rethink its expenditures.

Oh, and speaking of - here's the latest Box Office Mojo has to say about G16:

Finishing in what is currently a tie for third place with Lights Out was Sony's Ghostbusters reboot, which dropped 53% for an estimated $21.6 million. The drop is just a step above the 51.4% average when you compare to other films that had similar opening weekends and also scored a "B+" CinemaScore, but for director Paul Feig and star Melissa McCarthy this is a much larger drop than they are used to. The duo's three previous films together saw an average 34.4% second weekend drop. Ghostbusters carries a $144 million budget and has grossed $86.8 million so far domestically and just over $120 million worldwide.

Three weeks released and it hasn't even made back its production costs yet, let alone the 2x (or 3x, depending on what metric you use to determine after market costs) it needs to cover everything else. Oh, it'll probably break even at some point - once DVD and Netflix come into play - but you can pretty much kiss G'18 goodbye. "Break even" is not what investors want to hear.

 

[WillG]

you can pretty much kiss G'18 goodbye. "Break even" is not what investors want to hear.

Well, they may not want to hear "Sony is misogynist" from all over the online community either. I believe that was a major if not the sole deciding factor in them "committing" to a sequel so early.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I cannot describe how much it warms the cockles of my heart to know that Deadpool is raking in over a billion dollars (considering video and tie-in merchandise).

 

[Tony J Case]

Well, good news for Sony! The movie finally just barely made back it's production costs. Mind you, it's looks like just one screen in town is playing it anymore, so it's on it's way out the door - but hey! It's not a flop!

Now it's just up to the DVD sales and netflix rentals make up the rest of the movies costs!

/sarcasm

 

[Steve Christou]

Only a $160m grossed so far? Might not even pass $200? Was it worth the gamble? Was this trip really necessary? Who were the target audience? The demographics were botched. Women huge fans of the previous Ghostbusters films? Heads should roll.

But it's a hit compared to Senor Spielbergo's recent attempt at an ET for the new millennium. Wow. The biggest flop of his career?

 

[Johnny Angell]

But it's a hit compared to Senor Spielbergo's recent attempt at an ET for the new millennium. Wow. The biggest flop of his career?

I think this is a perfect example of what a crapshoot making a movie is. My wife and I both thought BFG was a good movie but the public did not. I don't think this was the kind of failure that when the producers first watched the completed movie they knew it was a BO bomb.

 

[TJPC]

Sorry to be dense, but what movie are we talking about? I have always been bad at just initials. You should see how painful it is for me to play Scrabble!

 

[Johnny Angell]

Sorry to be dense, but what movie are we talking about? I have always been bad at just initials. You should see how painful it is for me to play Scrabble!

This happens to me too. BFG is Big Friendly Giant.

 

[TJPC]

Sorry to be dense, but what movie are we talking about? I have always been bad at just initials. You should see how painful it is for me to play Scrabble!

Ok! I looked it UP! That's the name of the movie! Picture me slapping my forehead.