Report: Ghostbusters to See a $70 Million Loss, Sequel Likely Shelved

[Lizzy Finnegan]

Report: Ghostbusters to See a $70 Million Loss, Sequel Likely Shelved

//cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/1291/1291817.png

A report indicates that, while animated spinoffs are being discussed, a sequel to the Ghostbusters reboot is unlikely.

THR [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-heading-70m-loss-sequel-918515] is reporting that the $300 million needed for the Ghostbusters reboot to break even appears to be out of reach. Despite having a few markets to open in yet, experts say that the film will struggle to reach $225 million worldwide, resulting in what is expected to be a $70M+ loss.

While Sony has apparently disputed the extent of the projected loss - pointing not to the success of the film, but rather to alternate revenue streams that include merchandising and third-party partnerships - it seems that the reboot itself is not the success that anyone had hoped for.

In addition to the projected losses, Sony is not currently commenting on plans for a sequel, in spite of comments made just last month [http://www.thewrap.com/ghostbusters-sequel-will-happen-sony/] from President of Worldwide Distribution at Sony Rory Bruer that "there's no doubt in my mind it will happen." Instead, THR reports that a studio representative has stated that Sony is instead "actively pursuing" both an animated film and an animated TV series titled Ghostbusters: Ecto Force, both of which will be led by Ivan Reitman.

A representative told THR that the studio is "very proud of the bold movie," which "enlivened a 30-year-old brand and put it into the modern zeitgeist," resulting in "many ideas in the works to further exploit the Ghostbusters universe." However, box-office analyst Jeff Bock stated that he doesn't see a reboot sequel in the franchise's future, because he "can't fathom the creative talents behind it ... slogging out another one when the reception to the first one was so mediocre."

[gallery=6397]

Permalink

 

[RaikuFA]

*insert every popcorn eating and "this gonna be good" gif here*

 

[MatthewTheDark]

Honestly glad that it seemed people showed they don't want shit like this. Though I'm willing to bet when it does completely flop, they'll blame it on everyone being sexist rather than the movie being kinda shitty.

 

[SlumlordThanatos]

Honestly glad that it seemed people showed they don't want shit like this. Though I'm willing to bet when it does completely flop, they'll blame it on everyone being sexist rather than the movie being kinda shitty.

Part of the problem is that they spent too much on it.

They needed it to be a runaway smash hit...only it wound up being a pop-up fly ball into center. It didn't fail as bad as I thought it would, and it might have been fine if they didn't spend $300 million on it.

Such is life in Hollywood.

 

[circularlogic88]

That's unfortunate for Sony. Kick out Tom Rothman, anything he's even tangentially related with is an albatross around the production's neck.

Any word on Ecto Force being a continuation of the Real and Extreme cartoons or the comics or will it be a continuation of the 2016 Ghostbusters?

 

[the December King]

I'm surprised that the movie costs amounted to 225 million in the first place. Not because it was bad or anything, I haven't seen it, to be fair. I was more just speculating as to where the costs went.

 

[Remus]

Awwww I wanted to see a modern take on Zuul and Gozer, and the post-credit scene was pointed toward this. Would Gozer be gender-flipped too, since it can take any form? How would that look?

 

[MatthewTheDark]

Part of the problem is that they spent too much on it.

They needed it to be a runaway smash hit...only it wound up being a pop-up fly ball into center. It didn't fail as bad as I thought it would, and it might have been fine if they didn't spend $300 million on it.

Such is life in Hollywood.

Indeed. They put so much stock in the name recognition and the new spin on it that they didn't seem to see the monster they were making, instead just pouring in cash and damning the consequences because "Ghostbusters! They'll recognize the name and just throw money at it!" rather than work on making a decent movie with a less astronomical budget.

 

[Namehere]

So... I was right then? The real threat behind this film to it's fans was that it would kill the franchise and... seems it's killed the franchise. Paul Feig will be off making Spy 2 and the other actresses not involved in that will wind up getting work well after this debacle, but Ghostbusters is, for all intents and purposes, dead to the silver screen.

Why would the fans of the original be upset at that I wonder?

 

[Quellist]

So basically, they took a well known and loved brand, made a shitty sequel and then deny that its a flop? Business as usual in Hollywood

 

[Gorrath]

I'd rather the franchise die a terrible death than watch a sequel to this crap. Friends finally broke me down to go see it and holy hell was it awful. I've only ever walked out of one movie in my life that I bought a ticket for and this would have been the second if not for my wife being there. There was literally only one joke I would have laughed at in the whole film, but couldn't because by that point I wanted to shoot myself.

Plothole filled crap wrapped around Dumb and Dumber level humor. I'd rather watch Pixels. I'd rather watch Paul Blart 2.

Also if this was made to fit the modern zeitgeist, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

 

[Alma Mare]

Good. The world didn't need this film. Glad that point got across.

 

[Blazing Hero]

Serves them right for attacking the original series fanbase. Their movie had the worst public marketing strategy I have ever seen. You would think it would be obvious that calling anyone who thought the movie was going in the wrong direction a sexist would backfire. It goes to show that you can't shame people into spending money.

 

[Solkard]

Serves them right for attacking the original series fanbase. Their movie had the worst public marketing strategy I have ever seen. You would think it would be obvious that calling anyone who thought the movie was going in the wrong direction a sexist would backfire. It goes to show that you can't shame people into spending money.

In this age? No, shame doesn't work. You need to use fear.

 

[Imre Csete]

An R-Rated recut will save it, that's all the rage in Hollywood nowdays I hear.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

All this movie did was further the stereotype that Melissa McCarthy should be in movies. and the world responded with a resounding 'Nope'

 

[Anti-American Eagle]

I like how he used the word exploit rather than continue or expand.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

People in this thread probably need to realize that 200+ million USD in gross revenue is a really successful film. If we go by this list [http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2015/top-grossing-movies] of last years top earners, Ghostbusters has grossed more than Spectre, Ant Man, Fifty Shades of Gray and Mad Max: Fury Road. That's a great, if not stellar, run at the box office. In 2015 only 7 movies got above above 300 million USD. If we go back to 2014 [http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2014/top-grossing-movies] only two movies broke the 300 million mark, Guardians of the Galaxy and the Hunger Games: Mockingjay. In 2013 [http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2013/top-grossing-movies] 3 movies got above 300 million USD, Iron Man 3, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and Despicable Me 2.

The obvious problem, as SlumlordThanatos points out, is that the budget was way inflated and meant that the movie would not break even with anything less than equaling the gross of the top 5 or so movies of any given year. How anyone would approve of such an insane budget and bank it on nostalgia is one of those mysterious, inane business decisions.

But to suggest that this is somehow an example of "people showing their discontent with the movie" is to hilariously misrepresent or misunderstand the facts at hand. The movie has had somewhere in the ball park of 25 million ticket sales and a gross revenue that puts it in the top 10 for any given year. That would qualify as a success for any movie with a sensible budget and even if the result is a net loss, the confidence in, and approval of, the movie by box office metrics is more than satisfactory.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

People in this thread probably need to realize that 200+ million USD in gross revenue is a really successful film. If we go by this list [http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2015/top-grossing-movies] of last years top earners, Ghostbusters has grossed more than Spectre, Ant Man, Fifty Shades of Gray and Mad Max: Fury Road. That's a great, if not stellar, run at the box office. In 2015 only 7 movies got above above 300 million USD. If we go back to 2014 [http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2014/top-grossing-movies] only two movies broke the 300 million mark, Guardians of the Galaxy and the Hunger Games: Mockingjay. In 2013 [http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2013/top-grossing-movies] 3 movies got above 300 million USD, Iron Man 3, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and Despicable Me 2.

The obvious problem, as SlumlordThanatos points out, is that the budget was way inflated and meant that the movie would not break even with anything less than equaling the gross of the top 5 or so movies of any given year. How anyone would approve of such an insane budget and bank it on nostalgia is one of those mysterious, inane business decisions.

But to suggest that this is somehow an example of "people showing their discontent with the movie" is to hilariously misrepresent or misunderstand the facts at hand. The movie has had somewhere in the ball park of 25 million ticket sales and a gross revenue that puts it in the top 10 for any given year. That would qualify as a success for any movie with a sensible budget and even if the result is a net loss, the confidence in, and approval of, the movie by box office metrics is more than satisfactory.

On the other hand, Amazing Spiderman 2 made ~$200 million as well and that's what finally convinced Sony to give Spiderman back to Marvel. There is an expectation that if you market a movie enough, you'll get ticket sales. The fact that Ghostbusters did this bad with no strong contenders shows that pumping money into marketing only gives a very small return (or in this case, a loss). It's a tell that people don't want this.

 

[P-89 Scorpion]

People in this thread probably need to realize that 200+ million USD in gross revenue is a really successful film. If we go by this list [http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2015/top-grossing-movies] of last years top earners, Ghostbusters has grossed more than Spectre, Ant Man, Fifty Shades of Gray and Mad Max: Fury Road. That's a great, if not stellar, run at the box office. In 2015 only 7 movies got above above 300 million USD. If we go back to 2014 [http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2014/top-grossing-movies] only two movies broke the 300 million mark, Guardians of the Galaxy and the Hunger Games: Mockingjay. In 2013 [http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2013/top-grossing-movies] 3 movies got above 300 million USD, Iron Man 3, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and Despicable Me 2.

The obvious problem, as SlumlordThanatos points out, is that the budget was way inflated and meant that the movie would not break even with anything less than equaling the gross of the top 5 or so movies of any given year. How anyone would approve of such an insane budget and bank it on nostalgia is one of those mysterious, inane business decisions.

But to suggest that this is somehow an example of "people showing their discontent with the movie" is to hilariously misrepresent or misunderstand the facts at hand. The movie has had somewhere in the ball park of 25 million ticket sales and a gross revenue that puts it in the top 10 for any given year. That would qualify as a success for any movie with a sensible budget and even if the result is a net loss, the confidence in, and approval of, the movie by box office metrics is more than satisfactory.

Ghostbusters hasn't grossed $200 million worldwide yet
( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=ghostbusters2016.htm ) and using boxoffice grosses for one country is meaningless today as it's whether a film can make money worldwide that counts.

$225 million worldwide (projected for Ghostbusters it may not reach even that) would be mid 30's in yearly film boxoffice grosses not top 10.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?view2=worldwide&view=releasedate&p=.htm

click on the year for a list of films by yearly gross you have to go to 2006 for the last time a film got in the top ten with less than $400 million worldwide.