Ghostbusters heading for $70 million loss

[Hawki]

Feminism is political. This movie advertised itself on the Mary Sue and other more conventional sites as being all about the women and feminism. Even before the first trailer appeared.

I'd classify feminism as being societal rather than political. Also, the act of advertising on a politically affiliated site doesn't make the work in of itself political, nor is the presence of politics an inherent negative.

All of that said, you seem to have taken tones of what I wrote out of context. I didn't realise how pin point you needed me to be. I thought depicting that the fan base of Ghostbusters was established among roughly 8 year olds would demonstrate that at the time they became fans they were entirely a-political. Meaning that you have adults now who have picked sides or are on the fence and are no longer a-political. And those theatres full of kids? Some of them became Trekkies, others went on to love Rambo. But they all liked Ghostbusters and all still do. That's a massive reach compared to most franchises. And should be considered in any remake attempting to gross the largest audience. Obviously you misinterpreted my mentioning children to be an appeal to emotion rather then a demonstration of a radically diverse fan base.

Wait, what?

I wasn't asking you to pinpoint anything - you singled out the 8 year olds, not me. Also, it's a faulty assumption that the only time you'll be introduced to any media is when you're a child, and that you're introduced to it at a particular time. Of the examples given, I wasn't 'properly introduced' to Ghostbusters until the 2000s (at which point I'd have been a teenager), Star Trek until the 2010s, Star Wars until the 1990s (the one example here where I WAS introduced to it as a child). I'm not claiming that my experience is the be all and end all, but point is, you can't assume that the entirety of a fanbase was all introduced to the same product at the same time at the same age. You're also making a lot of assumptions about demographics here. I'd also like to think that making a film would be based more on trying to do the best you can rather than pandering to a fanbase.

And yes, as to Star Trek Beyond, there are those who are saying it's the best of the Kelvan universe and there is still some doubt... perhaps better said a lack of certainty that they'll follow it up with a fourth. And it's quite obvious that quite a few people who liked various other incarnations of Star Trek aren't interested in the Kelvin universe. By and large this isn't such a major issue for Star Wars and wouldn't have been for Ghostbusters. I was trying to point out that of the film fan bases, Star Trek is divided by series but unified more or less in politics, class and outlook. Unlike Ghostbusters where children grew to be different adults. And that homogeneity of views isn't there.

Again, that's a lot of assumptions about fanbases. The one thing I can agree on is that it's demonstrated that a portion of TV fans don't like the Kelvinverse, and not every person who was introduced via the Kelvinverse is going to jump into the TV series. Claiming there's no divide in Ghostbusters or Star Wars is very iffy, considering that the former has possessed a split continuity since GB2, and the latter has multiple tiers of canon that the consumption of which is going to depend on your investment, not to mention that not everyone is going to be introduced to Star Wars in the same way at the same time, or even with the same trilogy.

And what I meant to say that apparently didn't come across was that recapturing the magic of the first Ghostbusters was likely impossible. However they could still have made a fairly satisfactory family friendly comedy that would entertain parents and could capture a new generation's interest. They didn't do that.

Based on...what, exactly? The box office? Because that's about the only thing that can generate that conclusion outside of critical consensus (mostly positive), demographic studies (far too early to say), or personal opinion (which we're all entitled to, in the event of actually seeing the movie). I can say however, that as someone who writes and posts on ff.net, the Ghostbusters section got a surge of stories post-2016 movie release, in what was otherwise a section with a low story count.

As the saying goes, a man is entitled to his opinions, not his facts. So, under what basis did they not "made a fairly satisfactory family friendly comedy that would entertain parents and could capture a new generation's interest?" Because based on personal exposure to the film itself (y'know, having actually seen it), and the absence of supporting evidence outside a box office count, that wasn't the case.

Edit: I'll come right out and say it - have you seen the movie or not? Because if not, then this discussion should have ended a long time ago.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

I do wonder if there wasn't all the perpetuated contreversy around it would it have done better

Probably. Define "better" though.
You have a director known for making comedies aimed at women, starring a cast of comedians who mainly star in films aimed at women, rebooting a frachise whose fans are mainly men.

It MIGHT have broken even, it certainly wouldn't have been the billion dollar success they expected.

 

[Angelblaze]

So you would burn millions of dollars just to spite a handful of sexist idiots?

Yes.

Please do everyone a favor and stay FAR away from anything involving budget management.

Nah.

The whole thing was basically a disaster from the start: Now that the trainwreck is almost complete, no amount of narrative-spinning is going to save it. The feminists have no clothes, and worse, they're fat tattooed pigs...

Wonderful news all round - One more step to reclaiming our birthright from the cold, clammy hands of the feminists.

And this is why.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

So you would burn millions of dollars just to spite a handful of sexist idiots?

Yes.

Please do everyone a favor and stay FAR away from anything involving budget management.

Nah.

The whole thing was basically a disaster from the start: Now that the trainwreck is almost complete, no amount of narrative-spinning is going to save it. The feminists have no clothes, and worse, they're fat tattooed pigs...

Wonderful news all round - One more step to reclaiming our birthright from the cold, clammy hands of the feminists.

And this is why.

Again, you would waste millions and millions of dollars just to spite a handful of sexist trolls. That mentality is what helped lead to Tale of Tales shutting down.

Stay. Away. From budget management. You would do more damage to the feminist movement than 1,000 burnouts simply by associating the brand with box office poison.

I do wonder if there wasn't all the perpetuated contreversy around it would it have done better, my guess is it would have, in my experience people on camps don't really support product made for them, so the movie tried to appeal to people who wouldn't see it regardless while insulting (thus cutting down) potential customers.

honestly, every single person and reviewer I watch has seemed to enjoy it, and everyone who this movie was theoretically made for went out to see it. I mean this isn't 'videogames', you really can't claim that women don't go see movies.

If anything, this movie did fine. Just it's flaws were drawn and quartered out by people looking for flaws in it.

A 70 Million loss is not doing fine, and you don't have to go looking for flaws with this thing to find them. I won't say much more than that out of spoilers courtesy, but it commits the mortal sin of comedy by regularly killing it's own jokes.

 

[Zontar]

Now we all know Sony's full of it when they say it's not as much as 70 million, and that it's either that or more, and that some people have been doing the math and getting numbers like 130 million.

Well, some wannabe mathmatition has placed it at around 159 million in loss.

If these numbers check out, then someone's in it really, really deep.

 

[starbear]

Here are the numbers for Ghostbusters:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ghostbusters2016.htm

Currently:

Domestic: $120,049,002 65.7%
+ Foreign: $62,800,000 34.3%

On a budget of $144 million

Here are the current numbers for Star Trek, released one week later:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek2016.htm

Domestic: $134,704,949 66.8%
+ Foreign: $66,909,967 33.2%

On a budget of $185 million

Star Trek is barely doing better than Ghostbusters, and arguably (compared to its production budget) doing much worse. Yet no-one is arguing that the numbers mean "the death of the Star Trek Franchise." No one is arguing that Star Trek's bad numbers were caused by its male dominated cast and the producers "making things political." No one is even arguing that Star Trek is a bad movie or suffered from poor marketing. No one is claiming that Star Trek has made a $100 million dollar loss, even though it would need to make approximately $340 million to [hollywood accounting]break even[/hollywood accounting].

 

[starbear]

If these numbers check out, then someone's in it really, really deep.

Cool infographic! Can you make one for Star Trek Beyond? That would be AWESOME!

 

[Zontar]

If these numbers check out, then someone's in it really, really deep.

Cool infographic! Can you make one for Star Trek Beyond? That would be AWESOME!

I'd love to, but I'm not the one who made it and have no idea how to do so.

Hell I don't even know what Beyond's marketing budget was outside of the fact it was significantly lower then Ghostbusters.

 

[starbear]

If these numbers check out, then someone's in it really, really deep.

Cool infographic! Can you make one for Star Trek Beyond? That would be AWESOME!

Hell I don't even know what Beyond's marketing budget was outside of the fact it was significantly lower then Ghostbusters.

...what makes you think that?

The infographic makes it quite clear that the Ghostbusters Marketing Budget is estimated: which translates to "pulled out of thin air." It looks like it uses the "Traditional Hollywood Accounting" formula to come up with the $100 million figure: so Star Trek would have had a marketing budget between $100-150 million.

 

[Zontar]

The infographic makes it quite clear that the Ghostbusters Marketing Budget is estimated: which translates to "pulled out of thin air." It looks like it uses the "Traditional Hollywood Accounting" formula to come up with the $100 million figure: so Star Trek would have had a marketing budget between $100-150 million.

I don't know how things where in the US, but in Canada Paramount most definitively did not spend anywhere near as much on marketing Beyond as Sony did with Ghostbusters. Hell it could easily be double as much spend on Ghostbusters in that regard given the fact that television advertisement began a full two weeks before the theatrical release instead of one week as is the norm, and the fact there where quite a few talk show and late show appearances by the cast to market the movie. Beyond on the other hand only got the standard one week ads coupled with pretty much no talk show or late show appearances.

Add to that the fact that the film is, while not great, better then Ghostbusters, the fact the marketing was not anywhere near as insulting, and the fact there was no Paramount hack revealing production problems for Beyond as well as those making it being genuinely terrible people, and it's just not as interesting to talk about Paramount's latest minor flop in a year filled with them when compared to Sony's major one.

 

[Shiver Me Tits]

If these numbers check out, then someone's in it really, really deep.

Cool infographic! Can you make one for Star Trek Beyond? That would be AWESOME!

Hell I don't even know what Beyond's marketing budget was outside of the fact it was significantly lower then Ghostbusters.

...what makes you think that?

The infographic makes it quite clear that the Ghostbusters Marketing Budget is estimated: which translates to "pulled out of thin air." It looks like it uses the "Traditional Hollywood Accounting" formula to come up with the $100 million figure: so Star Trek would have had a marketing budget between $100-150 million.

Estimates should be different than guesses, in that estimates are based on history and usually some kind of formula. Sadly, "Estimate" is often the term used by practitioners of the Guess. The test isn't to dismiss it though, but to ask for the basis of the estimate.

 

[starbear]

The infographic makes it quite clear that the Ghostbusters Marketing Budget is estimated: which translates to "pulled out of thin air." It looks like it uses the "Traditional Hollywood Accounting" formula to come up with the $100 million figure: so Star Trek would have had a marketing budget between $100-150 million.

I don't know how things where in the US, but in Canada Paramount most definitively did not spend anywhere near as much on marketing Beyond as Sony did with Ghostbusters. Hell it could easily be double as much spend on Ghostbusters in that regard given the fact that television advertisement began a full two weeks before the theatrical release instead of one week as is the norm, and the fact there where quite a few talk show and late show appearances by the cast to market the movie. Beyond on the other hand only got the standard one week ads coupled with pretty much no talk show or late show appearances.

Am I just supposed to "trust" you on this?


Sorry it doesn't work that way. I've looked: there is no primary source for the Ghostbusters marketing figure, as best as I can tell the figure is an estimate based on how Hollywood Accounting works. The same Hollywood Accounting that declares "Return of the Jedi, despite having earned $475 million at the box office against a budget of $32.5 million, "has never gone into profit" and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy "According to New Line's accounts, the trilogy made "horrendous losses" and no profit at all."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

The rule of thumb for "guestimating" break-even has always been to double the production cost. That is where the Ghostbusters Marketing figure came from. Star Trek has an estimated break-even of $370 million. In reality: Sony could well have spent either substantially more than that or even substantially less. And the same goes for Star Trek. It would take a law suit to find out the actual real number. Just because you personally don't recall seeing a lot of marketing for Star Trek doesn't mean a lot of money wasn't spent on marketing Star Trek. Your personal anecdote counts for nothing really.

Add to that the fact that the film is, while not great, better then Ghostbusters, the fact the marketing was not anywhere near as insulting, and the fact there was no Paramount hack revealing production problems for Beyond as well as those making it being genuinely terrible people, and it's just not as interesting to talk about Paramount's latest minor flop in a year filled with them when compared to Sony's major one.

Both flops look about equal to me. What defines one as "minor" and one as "major?" The numbers are practically identical. So Ghostbusters had worse reviews, had (according to you)insulting marketing, it had leaks that (according to you)revealed production problems, and it was made (in your personal opinion) by horrible people, is doing about the same in box office as a movie that cost more to make and didn't have those same problems? That in itself is something interesting to talk about, don't you think?

 

[starbear]

If these numbers check out, then someone's in it really, really deep.

Cool infographic! Can you make one for Star Trek Beyond? That would be AWESOME!

Hell I don't even know what Beyond's marketing budget was outside of the fact it was significantly lower then Ghostbusters.

...what makes you think that?

The infographic makes it quite clear that the Ghostbusters Marketing Budget is estimated: which translates to "pulled out of thin air." It looks like it uses the "Traditional Hollywood Accounting" formula to come up with the $100 million figure: so Star Trek would have had a marketing budget between $100-150 million.

Estimates should be different than guesses, in that estimates are based on history and usually some kind of formula. Sadly, "Estimate" is often the term used by practitioners of the Guess. The test isn't to dismiss it though, but to ask for the basis of the estimate.

I've given the basis for the estimate. Hollywood Accounting.

 

[Zontar]

Snip

I'm aware of how Hollywood Accounting works, but that's for making something that grosses 1.5 billion still officially loose money, not for something that physically makes less money for a studio then it cost to make and market somehow in reality not be a flop.

While we don't know how much Beyond cost to market, it's simply not realistic that the marketing cost was anywhere near what it was for Ghostbusters by the simple virtue of Ghostbusters getting literally twice as many ads purchase for it, coupled with additional media marketing in the form of talk show and late show appearances that cost money for the studio.

While we'll never know the solid numbers, industry estimates are that for Ghostbusters was 100 million, and those estimates don't come from Hollywood Accounting.

had (according to you)insulting marketing, it had leaks that (according to you)revealed production problems, and it was made (in your personal opinion) by horrible people

Adding "(according to you)" to something does not invalidate a fact.

is doing about the same in box office as a movie that cost more to make and didn't have those same problems? That in itself is something interesting to talk about, don't you think?

It's not exactly a comparable situation when one looks beyond the hard numbers of revenue. Even ignoring the fact that Beyond came out a full week after Ghostbusters, Beyond's production history [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBwPQMcf40k] and place within its franchise and pop culture are very different from Ghostbusters, as one was rebooting a property while the other was the 3rd instillation in a franchise reboot that is 7 years old now that has been on a downward spiral.

 

[starbear]

Snip

I'm aware of how Hollywood Accounting works, but that's for making something that grosses 1.5 billion still officially loose money, not for something that physically makes less money for a studio then it cost to make and market somehow in reality not be a flop.

While we don't know how much Beyond cost to market, it's simply not realistic that the marketing cost was anywhere near what it was for Ghostbusters by the simple virtue of Ghostbusters getting literally twice as many ads purchase for it, coupled with additional media marketing in the form of talk show and late show appearances that cost money for the studio.

While we'll never know the solid numbers, industry estimates are that for Ghostbusters was 100 million, and those estimates don't come from Hollywood Accounting.

Those industry estimates are made by using Hollywood accounting. How do you think they came up with the 100 million estimate? As I've said: there is no primary source. Take the production cost and double it to get the break-even and then you estimate your marketing budget from there. Its the way its always been done.

Can you provide a cite that Ghostbusters had twice as many adverts placed for it please? The Star Trek cast were all over late night TV as well. Can you cite that there was a significant difference?

had (according to you)insulting marketing, it had leaks that (according to you)revealed production problems, and it was made (in your personal opinion) by horrible people

Adding "(according to you)" to something does not invalidate a fact.

It does actually. I don't think Ghostbusters was made by horrible people. I don't think the marketing was insulting in the slightest. I didn't see any major production problems behind the scenes that any other movie hasn't experienced.

is doing about the same in box office as a movie that cost more to make and didn't have those same problems? That in itself is something interesting to talk about, don't you think?

It's not exactly a comparable situation when one looks beyond the hard numbers of revenue. Even ignoring the fact that Beyond came out a full week after Ghostbusters, Beyond's production history [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBwPQMcf40k] and place within its franchise and pop culture are very different from Ghostbusters, as one was rebooting a property while the other was the 3rd instillation in a franchise reboot that is 7 years old now that has been on a downward spiral.

"Zontar declares Star Trek Franchise is on a downward spiral."

Ya see? Thats how clickbait headlines are made. And the Hollywood Reporter story is nothing but click-bait. The "sequel unlikely" is based on nothing more than speculation, the 70 million dollar loss is based on estimates made using Hollywood Accounting.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

snip

Because Star Trek's failure isn't nearly as entertaining to watch as Ghostbuster's.

 

[Zontar]

Take the production cost and double it to get the break-even and then you estimate your marketing budget from there. Its the way its always been done.

Given how it would require a marketing cost of 0$ to possibly lead to brake even given how much of the domestic and foreign gross the studio takes, the fact a single 30 second ad spot costs between 40,000 and 80,000 USD on a single network/broadcaster, and the fact there where both twice as many adds as a typical blockbuster gets for Ghostbusters and the fact they had additional costs of talk show and late show appearances, the universal estimate of 300-400 million needed for brake even (with most leaning closer to 400) it's pretty hard to argue that the industry insiders are wrong about something that using your own methodology doesn't disprove.

It does actually. I don't think Ghostbusters was made by horrible people. I don't think the marketing was insulting in the slightest. I didn't see any major production problems behind the scenes that any other movie hasn't experienced.

So threatening people with lawsuits for not appearing in a movie they want no part of as a legal means of harassment isn't something a terrible person would do (and let's not even pretend this isn't the case when the Sony hack chiselled it is stone as a fact that is so cemented it will outlive us both)? Openly stating that the fanbase of your product are terrible people like Feige and the cast went out of their way to do isn't insulting? And the last one was not what I said.

"Zontar declares Star Trek Franchise is on a downward spiral."

Ya see? Thats how clickbait headlines are made. And the Hollywood Reporter story is nothing but click-bait. The "sequel unlikely" is based on nothing more than speculation, the 70 million dollar loss is based on estimates made using Hollywood Accounting.

Stating the Star Trek franchise is on a downward spiral is a numerically demonstrable fact when one looks at the gross of the three reboot movies each being less then the one before it.

And the 70 million estimate, the lowest estimate anyone is throwing around, uses a methodology much more realistic then the one you proposed that only cares about production costs without taking marketing into consideration. If the Hollywood Reporter was the only one observing that it's been a spectacular flop, then it would be one thing, but they aren't. In fact the only ones not pretending it's a flop are those with no connection to the industry whatsoever.

 

[starbear]

Take the production cost and double it to get the break-even and then you estimate your marketing budget from there. Its the way its always been done.

Given how it would require a marketing cost of 0$ to possibly lead to brake even given how much of the domestic and foreign gross the studio takes, the fact a single 30 second ad spot costs between 40,000 and 80,000 USD on a single network/broadcaster, and the fact there where both twice as many adds as a typical blockbuster gets for Ghostbusters and the fact they had additional costs of talk show and late show appearances, the universal estimate of 300-400 million needed for brake even (with most leaning closer to 400) it's pretty hard to argue that the industry insiders are wrong about something that using your own methodology doesn't disprove.

So no cites huh? Just listen and believe? No thanks.

Can you provide a cite that Ghostbusters had twice as many adverts placed for it please? The Star Trek cast were all over late night TV as well. Can you cite that there was a significant difference?

It does actually. I don't think Ghostbusters was made by horrible people. I don't think the marketing was insulting in the slightest. I didn't see any major production problems behind the scenes that any other movie hasn't experienced.

So threatening people with lawsuits for not appearing in a movie they want no part of as a legal means of harassment isn't something a terrible person would do (and let's not even pretend this isn't the case when the Sony hack chiselled it is stone as a fact that is so cemented it will outlive us both)? Openly stating that the fanbase of your product are terrible people like Feige and the cast went out of their way to do isn't insulting? And the last one was not what I said.

The "hack" shows that no-one was actually threatened with a lawsuit. And the people that launched misogynistic attacks of Feige and the cast were terrible people.

"Zontar declares Star Trek Franchise is on a downward spiral."

Ya see? Thats how clickbait headlines are made. And the Hollywood Reporter story is nothing but click-bait. The "sequel unlikely" is based on nothing more than speculation, the 70 million dollar loss is based on estimates made using Hollywood Accounting.

Stating the Star Trek franchise is on a downward spiral is a numerically demonstrable fact when one looks at the gross of the three reboot movies each being less then the one before it.

And yet no-one has started this particular narrative, and no-one wants to make it stick. Why not?

And the 70 million estimate, the lowest estimate anyone is throwing around, uses a methodology much more realistic then the one you proposed that only cares about production costs without taking marketing into consideration.

And what methodology was that? And when you apply that methodology to Star Trek what do you get?

If the Hollywood Reporter was the only one observing that it's been a spectacular flop, then it would be one thing, but they aren't. In fact the only ones not pretending it's a flop are those with no connection to the industry whatsoever.

It hasn't been a spectacular flop. It is a flop though. With merchandising and DVD sales etc added on the movie will make its money back at the very least.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

snip

Star Trek hasn't been in stasis for the past 30 years. Star Trek has been CONSTANTLY shooting out movies, TV shows, games, etc, and it's had it's fair share of flops and missteps.

Edit: Added bonus in that, last I heard, the latest Trek movie hasn't hit China yet which could make up the difference.

In comparison, Ghostbusters hasn't really had crap going on. It had the games released back in I think 09, and the comic series, but beyond that nothing. This movie was the biggest thing to happen with it in frigging YEARS!

Star Trek will survive a movie doing badly. Heck, this isn't even the first time a Trek movie did badly. But Ghostbusters? Not so much.

With merchandising and DVD sales etc added on the movie will make its money back at the very least.

Yep. It SUUUURE will. After all the tie in videogame sure sold well! And a number of stores haven't been putting the toys in the discount bins!

Seriously, if people didn't go to see it in theaters enough to make back the budget, what on EARTH makes you think they're gonna buy enough home copies to make up the difference!?

 

[Saetha]

Star Trek is barely doing better than Ghostbusters, and arguably (compared to its production budget) doing much worse. Yet no-one is arguing that the numbers mean "the death of the Star Trek Franchise." No one is arguing that Star Trek's bad numbers were caused by its male dominated cast and the producers "making things political." No one is even arguing that Star Trek is a bad movie or suffered from poor marketing. No one is claiming that Star Trek has made a $100 million dollar loss, even though it would need to make approximately $340 million to [hollywood accounting]break even[/hollywood accounting].

Well, as I recall there was an article on this very website declaring the newest Star Trek to be a flop, so if it's pulling in similar numbers and had a similar budget to Ghostbusters, I think we can conclude that GB is also a flop.

Also, you complain about people making a big deal about Ghostbusters by... coming into a Ghostbusters thread to make a big deal about Ghostbusters. The only reason people are frothing at the mouth over this movie and not Star Trek is precisely because of what you're doing - because people decided it was controversial.