Ghostbusters heading for $70 million loss

[BrawlMan]

Marvel Comics is garbage now. MCU is my Marvel Comics.

I wouldn't mind Star Wars every year, if it wasn't just poorly remaking A New Hope with poorly written characters. I like expanded universes and continuing stories. I like knowing what happens next.

As much as I like the MCU, there are movies that either don't like nor care for, or I find genuinely bad. Mainly Iron Man 2 and Thor: Dark World. I can't speak for Marvel Comics as I could never into that or DC. Though I assumed Marvel was doing okay with some of its Spider-Man spin-offs.

 

[Saelune]

Marvel Comics is garbage now. MCU is my Marvel Comics.

I wouldn't mind Star Wars every year, if it wasn't just poorly remaking A New Hope with poorly written characters. I like expanded universes and continuing stories. I like knowing what happens next.

As much as I like the MCU, there are movies that either don't like nor care for, or I find genuinely bad. Mainly Iron Man 2 and Thor: Dark World. I can't speak for Marvel Comics as I could never into that or DC. Though I assumed Marvel was doing okay with some of its Spider-Man spin-offs.

They have shot themselves in the foot so much lately, they don't have any toes left.

Sure some of the movies are bad, but so are plenty of the comics. Sure it sucks that some are bad, but as MCU grows, it will matter less when there are many great ones. Plus if/when they finally bring the movies and Netflix shows together, well, I will be a very happy person.

 

[Thaluikhain]

What people think this will mean: Fewer reboots
What it will actually mean: More reluctance from studios to put female characters in their action films

Was Ghostbusters an action film? But yeah, it will be taken as another example of why female led movies don't work.

(And yes, people will point out that there are other female led movies, as if their existence proved there was no bias against them)

 

[Redd the Sock]

I dont know if I'd trust a studio says "we need X amount of money to 'break even"

didn't the studios also say they needed a ludicrously large amount of money to 'break even' with Dawn of Justice? A ludicrously large amount of money they didn't come close to making?

The accountancy talk tends to include desired return on investment as a fixed part of the budget, as well as compares it to comparable movies. As such, BvS had a 400 million budget (including marketing) with a roughly 900 million return globally. That probably would put it in the black, even by Hollywood accounting, but it fell short of Avenges movies, so it gets counted in the "failure" column.

Ghostbusters had estimated 244 million in budget that it hasn't even totally made back yet, leaving nothing for investors, on a property that should have done far FAR better on brand recognition alone.

OT: Lessons to learn:

Don't ONLY sell your movie (or whatever) on having a female lead or the correct politics. Better still, don't make a movie where that is the only selling point. (there's a reason Wonder Woman isn't getting dumped on)

Don't vilify your critics with the veracity of an emotionally unstable fanfic writer.

Don't hire your wife's nephew to edit you trailer (at least that's how I assume that came out that bad).

Don't announce your cinematic universe to the world until you actually have a hit to start it off.

and, yeah, between this and other flops of the summer: don't think a popular brand name will make you a success. That worked 10 years ago, sometimes. Now most of us know better.

 

[Zontar]

Well that's 30 million better then what I last heard it was going to be.

So that's one cinematic universe aborted. Now there's just Marvel, DC, the planned Universal horror universe, and god knows what else.

Don't forget about the Hasbroverse (Transformers' setting is getting the other toy lines, including G.I. Joe) and the Monarch universe (Godzilla and King Kong are the 4 first movies in a giant monster universe focusing on the exploits of Monarch).

We're seeing the birth and abortion of movie universes, what a time to be alive.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Mmm. The sad thing about this is that it'll impact Hollywood's confidence in female-led films, as opposed to their confidence in reboots of 80s properties that no-one asked for.

Like, we all know that it's bullshit. The idea that female-led films and games make less money, I mean - it's old-timey nonsense. But can't one of these female-led films and games come out and actually hit a bullseye so that we have something other than common sense and basic human decency to base that opinion on?

I dont know if I'd trust a studio says "we need X amount of money to 'break even"

didn't the studios also say they needed a ludicrously large amount of money to 'break even' with Dawn of Justice? A ludicrously large amount of money they didn't come close to making?

How much box office the studio needs to turn a profit is a really complicated question. The percentage of the ticket sales that goes back to the studio is different overseas than it is domestically, and with half or more of a film's box office intake coming from overseas, the studio's actual payday can vary pretty wildly. Add that to a hidden marketing budget and the studio's general reticence to give hard numbers and it just gets mad confusing.

That's not counting the stuff that executives actually care about, like merchandising revenue and investor confidence - the latter of which is basically voodoo for all I understand about it.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

What people think this will mean: Fewer reboots
What it will actually mean: More reluctance from studios to put female characters in their action films

That's funny considering this wasn't supposed to be a frigging action movie!

Frick, even the ORIGINAL Ghostbusters wasn't an action movie! The closest it ever got was crossing the streams!

[

(And yes, people will point out that there are other female led movies, as if their existence proved there was no bias against them)

Those movies kind of DO prove that though. Know what the big differences between Aliens and Ghostbusters (2016) are?

First Aliens didn't cast Ripley as a woman for some GRRL power crap. Sigourney Weaver was good in the role, and having her as a woman actually lent itself pretty well to the themes in the first movie. (Such as the Alien's bastardization of birth and it's VERY phallic design.) and even the second movie worked with similar themes (In this case motherhood) with a bit of contrast between Ellen and the Xenomorph Queen.

Secondly, ALIEN AND ALIENS WERE ACTUALLY GOOD AND DIDN'T CRAP ALL OVER THEIR CRITICS AND TRY TO SMEAR THEM AS SEXIST JERKOFFS!

Like, we all know that it's bullshit. The idea that female-led films and games make less money, I mean - it's old-timey nonsense. But can't one of these female-led films and games come out and actually hit a bullseye so that we have something other than common sense and basic human decency to base that opinion on?

There have been quite a few of them actually. They just don't tend to sell themselves on having a female lead as the primary selling point.

 

[Saetha]

As sad as it is to know that this means women-led movies will probably take a hit in the eyes of executives/producers, maybe that will teach people to pick their battles a little better. Too many people - on both the "progressive" and "sexist nerd" sides of the debate - turned this movie into a battleground. Like it was representative and predictive of all female-led movies that ever have been and will be. Someone was bound to lose that fight, and lose hard.

Hopefully the takeaway here will be don't feed controversy. It just makes you look like a fool when you end up on the losing side.

 

[Dizchu]

That's funny considering this wasn't supposed to be a frigging action movie!

Frick, even the ORIGINAL Ghostbusters wasn't an action movie! The closest it ever got was crossing the streams!

It's certainly what they marketed it as. The same thing happened with that absolute abomination that was Pixels, the trailers made it seem like Independence Day with stupid video game jokes.

Hopefully the takeaway here will be don't feed controversy. It just makes you look like a fool when you end up on the losing side.

That'll never happen. Controversy means publicity, it means sites get clicks. Ghostbusters 2016 gave both sides of the ideological divide more than enough to complain about.

 

[omega 616]

I don't even like ghostbusters but even I thought the trailer for the new one was just a shameless money grab. It's a simple formula that we all know, take a famous franchise that hasn't had a new instalment for awhile, make a new instalment with modern stylings and completely miss what made the originals great.

All they want is the cash and they charge in blind to get as much as they can, the thing is, if they took their time and did the research, they would make far more money 'cos people will get what they want and when that happens they can't give you their money quickly enough (such as going for repeat viewings, then buying the blu ray)

 

[Saetha]

Mmm. The sad thing about this is that it'll impact Hollywood's confidence in female-led films, as opposed to their confidence in reboots of 80s properties that no-one asked for.

Like, we all know that it's bullshit. The idea that female-led films and games make less money, I mean - it's old-timey nonsense. But can't one of these female-led films and games come out and actually hit a bullseye so that we have something other than common sense and basic human decency to base that opinion on?

The Force Awakens annihilated records, and it was female-led. Even though it was just a mediocre rehash of a New Hope to me, it still did incredibly well.

 

[Zontar]

The Force Awakens annihilated records, and it was female-led. Even though it was just a mediocre rehash of a New Hope to me, it still did incredibly well.

While this is true it should be remembered that due to dominating force of presence coupled with the lead being written much, much worst then many of the other main cast, many people mistakenly believe Finn was the lead. Hell, it wasn't until Abrams said Rey was the lead in an interview I saw 3 weeks after the movie that I was told, I certainly did not think that was the case while watching the movie.

So Force Awaken doesn't really help much outside of showing that if other character are done right then a bland, uninteresting and forgettable female lead can make a decent amount of coin, though many will not be aware she is the lead.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

It's certainly what they marketed it as. The same thing happened with that absolute abomination that was Pixels, the trailers made it seem like Independence Day with stupid video game jokes.

Freaking a, the marketing department for Sony should be left in a white room with a katana in it. I have to wonder how many of those dips actually STUDIED Marketing.

As sad as it is to know that this means women-led movies will probably take a hit in the eyes of executives/producers, maybe that will teach people to pick their battles a little better. Too many people - on both the "progressive" and "sexist nerd" sides of the debate - turned this movie into a battleground. Like it was representative and predictive of all female-led movies that ever have been and will be. Someone was bound to lose that fight, and lose hard.

Hopefully the takeaway here will be don't feed controversy. It just makes you look like a fool when you end up on the losing side.

Thing of it is, the Progressive side struck first with the whole thing as far as I can tell. Right from the word go Amy Pascel and Paul Frieg wanted to make this movie the next big thing in feminism (http://newsexaminer.net/entertainment/leaked-sony-emails-paul-feig-is-putting-ghost-aliens-in-his-ghostbusters-reboot-and-the-studio-considered-suing-bill-murray/).

Then the trailer came out, Sony started deleting the more reasonable comments to make the sexist ones stand out more (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWROBiX1eSc), Paul Feig and Melissa McCartney crapping on the critics, and don't even get me started on the WAY overblown reaction to James Rolfe making a video telling people why he wasn't going to go see it (As an added bit of hypocrisy, a number of those people took personal shots at his wife, calling her a hired slut of all things.)

For some reason so many in the Progressive mindset decided THIS movie of all things needed to be feminism's next big victory, and took to defending it like the freaking Inquisition, and now Wonder Woman is coming out and looks to be much better received, and could possibly be a big hit for WB and DC.

They picked the WRONG hill to die on is what I'm saying.

 

[9tailedflame]

No surprise there, did you see the trailers?! So bad... Plus, the controversey left few actually wanting to see the movie, diehard fans of the original won't appreciate the politicizing of a movie they love, who nobody asked for a remake of, and the people who want this for political reasons probably don't give enough of a shit about the actual movie itself to actually take the time and money to see the movie, more just content with the fact that women are starring in a movie somewhere. Doesn't leave a lot of people who actually want to see the movie.

 

[irishda]

Only one publication has claimed a $70 million loss which Sony denies is accurate, claiming that merchandising and other venues have more than made up for the costs.

I for one really enjoyed the movie with only a few nitpicks, and will probably pick it up next to some of the other Feig movies I really loved. Like Spy. God I loved Spy, and not just because every Jason Statham movie now sounds like his character from Spy

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

Only one publication has claimed a $70 million loss which Sony denies is accurate, claiming that merchandising and other venues have more than made up for the costs.

And given the sheer volume of the toys in bargin bins, the closing of the company that made the tie in game, and the remaining venue mentioned being a frigging wax museum of all things, I can't call enough shenanigans on THAT claim.

Somehow, I doubt Ecto Cooler is gonna make up THAT much of the costs here. (Doubly so considering I can't find ANY of that stuff in my area!)

 

[Hawki]

Well, this is depressing. I quite liked the movie. Shock of all shocks, I know.

What's more, the reaction has just been bizzare, in my eyes. Even if we conclude that actual mysogenists were the same vocal ratbags that declared boycotts of The Force Awakens and Finding Dory due to female/black protagonists and a lesbian couple respectively, even if we ignore the harassment of Leslie Jones on Twitter, even if I can understand why people might dislike a Ghostbusters reboot, I have to ask "this is the hill you chose to die on?" After it was clear that Ghostbusters III was never going to happen? After the series was split in continuity the moment Ghostbusters II occurred? After the movie continuity was being continued for the better part of a decade in comic form, not to mention the videogame? What, was a third Ghostbusters continuity one step too far? Even if I entertained the idea that the film could have done a Force Awakens and still took place in one of the original continuities, albeit with the focus on a new cast, the reaction still comes off as bizzare. Even if I took this as being the straw that broke the camel's back, it's still bizzare that Ghostbusters was the confluence of nerd rage. No-one was complaining when Planet of the Apes gained its third movie continuity. Everyone's been silent on Ben Hur and Magnificent Seven gaining remakes. No-one's complaining that we're getting a third Spider-Man character in the space of a decade, not to mention every other bloody comic reboot. No-one complained when Goosebumps was released, ignoring old continuity, also functioning as supernatural comedy, and released by Sony no less. You couldn't have directed this ire at Neil Blokamp's Alien fanfiction project that's basically scrubbing a decade's plus of continuity under the rug? Ghostbusters 2016 at the least doesn't invalidate anything that happened in either of the previous two continuities.

I dunno. Maybe Ghostbusters became this sacred artifact and I didn't know it, even while liking the first film. And look, I don't have a problem with people disliking the movie after seeing it - goodness knows it has its share of flaws. But years from now, I expect I'll look at Ghostbusters 2016 and ask "what made the stars align to make everyone hate this movie, and give reboot/remake/remastering #116 the a-okay?" This likely still being the era where the MCU is popping out movies like McDonalds fries.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

Well, this is depressing. I quite liked the movie. Shock of all shocks, I know.

What's more, the reaction has just been bizzare, in my eyes. Even if we conclude that actual mysogenists were the same vocal ratbags that declared boycotts of The Force Awakens and Finding Dory due to female/black protagonists and a lesbian couple respectively, even if we ignore the harassment of Leslie Jones on Twitter, even if I can understand why people might dislike a Ghostbusters reboot, I have to ask "this is the hill you chose to die on?" After it was clear that Ghostbusters III was never going to happen? After the series was split in continuity the moment Ghostbusters II occurred? After the movie continuity was being continued for the better part of a decade in comic form, not to mention the videogame? What, was a third Ghostbusters continuity one step too far? Even if I entertained the idea that the film could have done a Force Awakens and still took place in one of the original continuities, albeit with the focus on a new cast, the reaction still comes off as bizzare. Even if I took this as being the straw that broke the camel's back, it's still bizzare that Ghostbusters was the confluence of nerd rage. No-one was complaining when Planet of the Apes gained its third movie continuity. Everyone's been silent on Ben Hur and Magnificent Seven gaining remakes. No-one's complaining that we're getting a third Spider-Man character in the space of a decade, not to mention every other bloody comic reboot. No-one complained when Goosebumps was released, ignoring old continuity, also functioning as supernatural comedy, and released by Sony no less. You couldn't have directed this ire at Neil Blokamp's Alien fanfiction project that's basically scrubbing a decade's plus of continuity under the rug? Ghostbusters 2016 at the least doesn't invalidate anything that happened in either of the previous two continuities.

I dunno. Maybe Ghostbusters became this sacred artifact and I didn't know it, even while liking the first film. And look, I don't have a problem with people disliking the movie after seeing it - goodness knows it has its share of flaws. But years from now, I expect I'll look at Ghostbusters 2016 and ask "what made the stars align to make everyone hate this movie, and give reboot/remake/remastering #116 the a-okay?" This likely still being the era where the MCU is popping out movies like McDonalds fries.

None of those films directly attacked the fans in a manufactured controversy.