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

[Thunderous Cacophony]

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

I noticed the same thing. A weird choice for a representative to make; you'd imagine part of their orientation is, "Pretend you actually care about movies and that you aren't viewing everything through the lens of property from which you try to squeeze every last penny."

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

Only problem is that the list you linked gave domestic-only figures.

Ghostbusters <link=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ghostbusters2016.htm>isn't far beyond the $100M domestic mark.

This would put it between last year's "Kingsmen: The Secret Service" and "The Good Dinosaur", as well as an inexplicable four slots below "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" (what the heck).

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...you know, I was kinda expecting this. Not in the 'this movie is god awful because shitty reasons' but more... they kinda over-estimated it's audience? Like, despite the first movie being super-popular it never felt like this mega-blockbuster hit and more just a small-time comedy that did really well, and after seeing this it's... well, pretty much the same. It's good, but not 'Ultimate Blockbuster', just a... small-time comedy movie, which someone unfortunately stapled an Ultimate Blockbuster budget onto.

Also, my god, the advertising for this thing was awful. As in, 'Actively made me not want to watch it' awful. Ended up seeing it because a bunch of friends were going, but all the trailers were just... so bad.

 

[Nilanius]

The problem with this film, was not the fans of the franchise. The fans wanted a good movie that would be better than Ghostbusters II. To revitalize the franchise and put out there, a movie that would be funny, yet have its serious tones. What we got was a poorly written piece of crap, with badly written stereotyped characters, with an attempt at being funny with saturday night live humor. I mean come on... look at the secretary of the original 2 films. Smart, sassy, and had the hots for Egon. Then look at the male secretary of this film... who is written to be so dumb, he doesn't even know how to answer a phone for gods sake!

No, the ones to blame for this film, is the ones who wrote the characters and the script. Paul Feig made the script, he directed it, and he tried shaming fans with accusations of sexism for not liking this piece of trash of a movie. Sony made the mistake of giving the franchise to a hack. And they got what they asked for. A complete flop. It costed $300,000,000 and they are not even sure they will reach even $225,000,000. If anything, Sony should be apologizing for their abuse of the franchise fans, and asking the original owner of the fanchise to make a proper ghostbusters to redeem themselves. Unfortunately, the damage may already be done. Moment Feig attacked the fans, accusing them of being sexists for not liking this trash he made, and dropping the A bomb to describe everyone who disliked the trailer, he lost any and all respect from me, and the rest of the old schoolers. I never liked any of Feig's movies, and thanks to his attitude, any movie with his name on it, I am boycotting.

 

[Bedinsis]

I loved the movie but hot goddamn was the marketing bad for it. When your marketing is literally based around alienating not just the old fans but any potential new ones by blanketing criticism for the movie as "misogyny", and specifically targeting AVGN for his refusal to review it even though his opinion was no more invalid than Polygon's, and specifically attacking not just him but his f***ing wife and daughter? I'm sure that turned a lot of people off.

I only saw the trailers and the poster at local bus stops. When was the marketing for this movie targeting AVGN? It was my understanding that the backlash against AVGN was from various Internet commenters, not the actual marketing department of Sony.

 

[Hawki]

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?

Ecto Force is set in the 2016 film's continuity, but in the year 2050 or somesuch. I have a feeling that it's intended to be somewhat stand-alone.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

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

Don't worry, not all is lost yet. The "Zeitgeist" Feig and Pascal et al pandered to is tailored to a small, but very vocal minority. The stranglehold of Facebook and Twitter on the personal lives of teenagers usually quickly dissipates, as the war rhetoric quickly loses its appeal once real life comes knocking.

If the Ghostbusters franchise is allowed to live on under the control of Reitman, not all is lost. The creeps that have ruined Ghostbusters 3 forever before cast and staff start dying off have tried to take over the gaming industry (and failed) and they've tried to take over the literary world (and failed). They'll keep trying, but we now know they're there and we know what they're up to. Don't give up, love life, love your kids, make sure you realize it's no longer just creepy men in trenchcoats you and your kids need to be aware of.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Don't worry, not all is lost yet. The "Zeitgeist" Feig and Pascal et al pandered to is tailored to a small, but very vocal minority. The stranglehold of Facebook and Twitter on the personal lives of teenagers usually quickly dissipates, as the war rhetoric quickly loses its appeal once real life comes knocking.

If the Ghostbusters franchise is allowed to live on under the control of Reitman, not all is lost. The creeps that have ruined Ghostbusters 3 forever before cast and staff start dying off have tried to take over the gaming industry (and failed) and they've tried to take over the literary world (and failed). They'll keep trying, but we now know they're there and we know what they're up to. Don't give up, love life, love your kids, make sure you realize it's no longer just creepy men in trenchcoats you and your kids need to be aware of.

What the shitting fuck does any of that actually mean?

Edit: Sorry if I came off rather bluntly. I'm just having considerable trouble parsing your post.

 

[Kahani]

People in this thread probably need to realize that 200+ million USD in gross revenue is a really successful film.

No it isn't. To start with, success can only be sensibly measured when compared with costs. A film that cost $10 million to produce that makes $50 million is a big success, a film that costs $1 billion to produce that makes $500 million is a massive flop.

But more importantly:

If we go by this list of last years top earners, Ghostbusters has grossed more than Spectre, Ant Man, Fifty Shades of Gray and Mad Max: Fury Road.

No it hasn't. That's a list of US domestic box office, and you're comparing it with the total global take for Ghostbusters (not even that, but the maximum predicted total; it's still a good $50 million away from that). If you instead look at this page [http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/custom-comparisons/Ant-Man/Ghostbusters-(2016)] on the same site, you can see that Ghostbusters is way behind on both domestic and global take - $118 to $180 domestic and %181 to $518 total. Note that Ghostbusters' entire global takings have so far only just equalled Ant Man's domestic. Mad Max was the least successful film you list, and it still made more than twice as much as Ghostbusters on about the same budget.

 

[Czann]

I thought it OK. I would like to see a second one with Gozer as the villain.

 

[Redvenge]

The suits at Sony are just idiots.

First, turning Ghostbusters into a "tentpole franchise" is short-sighted in this day. You need a brand that can earn as much (or more) internationally as it does domestically. That means pick a premise you can show in China. Most of the entertainment in the original Ghostbusters was character interaction, which is often lost when translated to other languages.

Second, since you hamstrung yourself into being a "tentpole franchise" that relies on domestic/English speaking sales, don't insult your existing audience. Every time someone creates something new, someone else will insult it. Does not matter what it is. This has been the case for every creative media since forever. Don't engage the detractors, and certainly don't paint everyone as vile. It often sucks being a content creator, but don't cut your own throat by throwing out blanket insults. Especially since this is the age of the easily offended, and your media has to compete with lots of entertainment.

...you know, I was kinda expecting this. Not in the 'this movie is god awful because shitty reasons' but more... they kinda over-estimated it's audience? Like, despite the first movie being super-popular it never felt like this mega-blockbuster hit and more just a small-time comedy that did really well, and after seeing this it's... well, pretty much the same. It's good, but not 'Ultimate Blockbuster', just a... small-time comedy movie, which someone unfortunately stapled an Ultimate Blockbuster budget onto.

Also, my god, the advertising for this thing was awful. As in, 'Actively made me not want to watch it' awful. Ended up seeing it because a bunch of friends were going, but all the trailers were just... so bad.

The original was a niche film. The remake is a niche film. This is all they could realistically expect from this IP (which is one reason it has been left to languish). All this money was a terrible idea from the start. To go with a remake (which traditionally does poorly at the box office) is an even worse idea.

I would make a comment about Sony's terrible marketing, but that is just the final stop on this fail train.

 

[RJ 17]

"many ideas in the works to further exploit the Ghostbusters universe."

So someone from Sony finally came out and called this movie for what it is: exploitation of a franchise.

 

[UberGott]

Don't any of you think that the reception and vitriol the film received was a 'little' unfair, just based on the premise alone? That the negative comments against Paul Feig, Melissa McCarthy, Kristin Wiig, Kate McKinnon and especially Leslie Jones was a little unfair and just them defending themselves against all that hate was something they had to do?

Not really, no.

Should Michael Bay defend himself from accusations of being a childhood-sodomizer, just because fans of the Transformers cartoon hate his live action movies? I doubt Feig and pals have gotten a quarter as much spite and bile as Bay's been wading through for over a decade. Even Bay is self-aware and professional enough to put fanboy criticism into perspective WITHOUT insulting the 30-something OG Transformers fans:

"They love to hate, and I don't care; let them hate. They're still going to see the movie! I think it's good to get a little tension. Very good."

Should Adam Sandler call everyone who makes fun of him for being a talentless jackass an Anti-Semite? Shifting the focus away from his own failings as a comedian to a scapegoat about his identity rather than his actual work? Because that's what every article and interview that focused on the casts' gender did, and the fact that McCarthy, Jones and everyone else was willing to throw out insults about neckbeards living in mama's basement instead of defending the ACTUAL MOVIE pretty much zapped out any benefit of the doubt I had for the project.

Do you feel bad when somebody calls Zack Snyder a hack? If not, why would you give a damn when someone calls Paul Feig one? Sony knew this movie was gonna' be a mess and they played the sympathy card as hard as they could, manipulating public perception that people were only mad about the gender swap, as opposed to them being angry that such a unique and potentially limitless concept was given to a group of (by all measure, quite talented) people who had no idea what to do with it.

 

[Metalrocks]

thats good news. i know already that these feminists will cry out like little 5 year old for not getting what they want, that the people who didnt watch it are all sexists pigs. and will ignore that star wars rogue one will cash in millions and has a female lead.

 

[Callate]

Okay, I guess I'll play the Devil's Advocate here. (Puts on Fedora).

Don't any of you think that the reception and vitriol the film received was a 'little' unfair, just based on the premise alone? That the negative comments against Paul Feig, Melissa McCarthy, Kristin Wiig, Kate McKinnon and especially Leslie Jones was a little unfair and just them defending themselves against all that hate was something they had to do?

Look, I know Sony and Paul Feig's comments as painting all critics as misogynists was a bit much, that much I agree with, but is that an excuse to brush aside and not pay attention to the death threats, the comments on appearance and Feig's sexuality that was received? Did anyone give this movie a fair chance? Because a lot of what I saw, people were wanting to hate this film and see negative criticism.

Since when do two wrongs make a right? Just because Paul Feig or Sony or the cast tried to defend themselves against the negative comments and might've aimed incorrectly at some people who didn't deserve it, doesn't mean Feig and co. deserved the abuse they received for almost a year.

Yes, some of it was unfair. I'm less familiar with Jones and McKinnon, but Wiig has done some fabulous work, and while McCarthy has made some... poor script decisions (Identity Thief, The Boss, Tammy), she's also been quite good in some things (Gilmour Girls, Spy, Bridesmaids.)

And, yes, Twitter harassment is low, and death threats well beyond the pale.

...But you really shouldn't calibrate your response to the worst responses you get, either. Given the typical Youtube channel, you would always be contemplating the eradication of the human race. Pooling "this character seems like a shouty sterotype" and "this trailer was poor and gives an inaccurate picture of how the movie fits in with the earlier Ghostbusters" with "Die you [racial epithet] [sexual epithet]" may feel vindicating, but it's tactically and diplomatically foolish.

They didn't deserve to be abused, but they bear responsibility for how they chose to respond. I recognize that high emotions can make it difficult to respond thoughtfully and carefully, but when hundreds of millions of dollars and people's careers are on the line, you have to recognize that that's what you signed up for. At least on Feig and Sony's level; I don't feel there's any reason the actors should have expected to need that kind of armor.

 

[Darmani]

I never liked any of Feig's movies, and thanks to his attitude, any movie with his name on it, I am boycotting.

You aren't fighting for reform of public bylaws, against a great injustice, or even bringing attention to critical cause. Just ignoring or nnotelecting to consume a product. Like you do with millions of others with your minimal available luxury spending.
Making this movie a battlefield was the fucking problem. On both sides.

That said. Yeah, don't feed the Feig or the media machine eager to fight a battle against trolls they ignore or get played against the public. Even if asshole internet behavior isn't anon or entitled anymore thanks to the social media revolution.

Though in this case, shit, most of the defense was to a damn FILM

"Not many women in movies" buwhu?

Don't any of you think that the reception and vitriol the film received was a 'little' unfair, just based on the premise alone? That the negative comments against Paul Feig, Melissa McCarthy, Kristin Wiig, Kate McKinnon and especially Leslie Jones was a little unfair and just them defending themselves against all that hate was something they had to do?

Not really, no.

Should Michael Bay defend himself from accusations of being a childhood-sodomizer, just because fans of the Transformers cartoon hate his live action movies? I doubt Feig and pals have gotten a quarter as much spite and bile as Bay's been wading through for over a decade. Even Bay is self-aware and professional enough to put fanboy criticism into perspective WITHOUT insulting the 30-something OG Transformers fans:

"They love to hate, and I don't care; let them hate. They're still going to see the movie! I think it's good to get a little tension. Very good."

Should Adam Sandler call everyone who makes fun of him for being a talentless jackass an Anti-Semite? Shifting the focus away from his own failings as a comedian to a scapegoat about his identity rather than his actual work? Because that's what every article and interview that focused on the casts' gender did, and the fact that McCarthy, Jones and everyone else was willing to throw out insults about neckbeards living in mama's basement instead of defending the ACTUAL MOVIE pretty much zapped out any benefit of the doubt I had for the project.

Do you feel bad when somebody calls Zack Snyder a hack? If not, why would you give a damn when someone calls Paul Feig one? Sony knew this movie was gonna' be a mess and they played the sympathy card as hard as they could, manipulating public perception that people were only mad about the gender swap, as opposed to them being angry that such a unique and potentially limitless concept was given to a group of (by all measure, quite talented) people who had no idea what to do with it.

I need to take this and bronze this in the halls where every fan can see it.... but HOW.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

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?

Probably going to be as hamfisted as the depiction of the male cast in this one, a misogynistic ghost who utterly despises women.

Okay, I guess I'll play the Devil's Advocate here. (Puts on Fedora).

Don't any of you think that the reception and vitriol the film received was a 'little' unfair, just based on the premise alone? That the negative comments against Paul Feig, Melissa McCarthy, Kristin Wiig, Kate McKinnon and especially Leslie Jones was a little unfair and just them defending themselves against all that hate was something they had to do?

Look, I know Sony and Paul Feig's comments as painting all critics as misogynists was a bit much, that much I agree with, but is that an excuse to brush aside and not pay attention to the death threats, the comments on appearance and Feig's sexuality that was received? Did anyone give this movie a fair chance? Because a lot of what I saw, people were wanting to hate this film and see negative criticism.

Since when do two wrongs make a right? Just because Paul Feig or Sony or the cast tried to defend themselves against the negative comments and might've aimed incorrectly at some people who didn't deserve it, doesn't mean Feig and co. deserved the abuse they received for almost a year.

"Smacks the Fedora off and gives you a beanie"

Anyways, whatever insults they got, they deserved it. This will forever taint the series and make it a dead franchise that has alienated the old guard. We fans are a fickle bunch with grudges and thanks to people like Yahtzee and social media like 4chan. we can be even louder about our grudges.

 

[deadish]

Maybe the director shouldn't have insulted his target audience and the movie would have done better.

Made it about gender ... piss off ~50% of your potential audience.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[Nilanius]

You aren't fighting for reform of public bylaws, against a great injustice, or even bringing attention to critical cause. Just ignoring or nnotelecting to consume a product. Like you do with millions of others with your minimal available luxury spending.
Making this movie a battlefield was the fucking problem. On both sides.

That said. Yeah, don't feed the Feig or the media machine eager to fight a battle against trolls they ignore or get played against the public. Even if asshole internet behavior isn't anon or entitled anymore thanks to the social media revolution.

Though in this case, shit, most of the defense was to a damn FILM

"Not many women in movies" buwhu?

I might not be fighting reform of public bylaws or great injustice, however boycotting isn't just limited to those things. A Boycott is about stopping bad behavior. The fans of the original ghostbusters, said they didn't like the trailer, that it looked badly written, and wasn't worth going to a theater to give money to see. For that, and it was in an article here on escapist, they got called a-holes by feig publicly and to the media.

The movie being a battlefield you are right, was a problem on both sides. However the side that should of been more mature, and simply shrugged and moved on, instead went on an attack rampage of name calling from a-holes, to sexism, etc. It is that kind of bad behavior, that should not be getting any money now or in the future until they admit publicly that they publicly attacked people because they didn't like their opinions that the movie was poorly made. They should then apologize for their behavior. And most importantly, they need to not put garbage like this film out again. If they are going to take classics, and remake and reboot them, then they should at least make some effort, to remain true to the original film.

I could care less what the gender of the cast was. What I care about, is was a movie entertaining? Was it well written? Were the characters well written? Were the characters at least believable? The answer to all them questions for me, was a solid no. Look at youtube. Every single review has been negative. Google the movie review, it's very very hard to find a positive review that doesn't feel like it was made from a bribe. This kind of attitude in Hollywood, is not going to help the film industry. It's going to kill it.

 

[iblis666]

the movie was ok if they had spent 100 mil on it but it was in no way worth 300 mil (including ads ect), all it was was a fun little shallow romp like the super mario movie but if you spend half the money on ads it better be worthy of it or you are just throwing money away