Sign in to follow this  
GustavoLeao

GHOSTBUSTERS Bombs, Are you Surprised ?

Recommended Posts

Geee, I hope STAR TREK BEYOND do better than this mess of a reboot..................

The GHOSTBUSTERS Reboot Has Officially Bombed At The Box Office; Sequel Now Unlikely
 
Despite a respectable domestic opening and good reviews, the tallies have now been totaled and reports indicate that Paul Feig's Ghostbusters reboot actually suffered a $70 million loss.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geee, I hope STAR TREK BEYOND do better than this mess of a reboot..................

The GHOSTBUSTERS Reboot Has Officially Bombed At The Box Office; Sequel Now Unlikely
 
Despite a respectable domestic opening and good reviews, the tallies have now been totaled and reports indicate that Paul Feig's Ghostbusters reboot actually suffered a $70 million loss.
 

Pretty sure this will be the end of Feig's Ghostbusters; but I think someone else might (someday) be foolish enough to try again.

As for ST?  I wouldn't predict it's demise till it opens in Asia and South America.   And even if it doesn't do well, ST has survived many duds and continued sailing.   STV nearly broke the franchise's back, as did NEM, but it continued.   ST is steady, if not spectacular, business.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kc1966   

Worldwide earnings as of August 8th - $195,442,353

Budget - $185,000,000  

So it is already in the black (not counting any accounting tricks) before opening in Asia and South America.  It will be a comfortable moneymaker but not the mega-hit they wanted.  Probably means JJ STIV will be scaled back budget wish.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if there will be a STAR TREK 4, I think they (Paramount, Bad Robot and Skydance) will pull a STAR TREK II and produce a cheaper movie. Only the salaries of Chris Pine, and Zoe Saldana have already hit the sky because of WONDER WOMAN and AVATAR 2 and 3. And Chris Hemsworth is a very busy and costly actor, so what they gonna do ?

Who you gonna call ?

Gus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worldwide earnings as of August 8th - $195,442,353

Budget - $185,000,000  

So it is already in the black (not counting any accounting tricks) before opening in Asia and South America.  It will be a comfortable moneymaker but not the mega-hit they wanted.  Probably means JJ STIV will be scaled back budget wish.

 

Making its budget back isn't the same as profitable however.   Rule of thumb is that a movie has to double its production budget to be considered a hit.   STB, as much as I personally loved it, isn't a hit.   But it WILL make money; the blu ray/DVD release alone should do well enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kc1966   

Worldwide earnings as of August 8th - $195,442,353

Budget - $185,000,000  

So it is already in the black (not counting any accounting tricks) before opening in Asia and South America.  It will be a comfortable moneymaker but not the mega-hit they wanted.  Probably means JJ STIV will be scaled back budget wish.

 

Making its budget back isn't the same as profitable however.   Rule of thumb is that a movie has to double its production budget to be considered a hit.   STB, as much as I personally loved it, isn't a hit.   But it WILL make money; the blu ray/DVD release alone should do well enough. 

And I think that should be the point.  Most ST makes money but has never been the mega-hit.  ST09 was different due to the Abrams factor (and to a lesser extent STID).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star Trek budgets under Abrams HAVE been too high.  They can make a great movie on a much lower budget and not sacrifice much on effects.  I know it's a different medium, but TV shows make terrific effects, and even fan films have great effects.

 

As for Ghostbusters, check this out:

 

http://movieweb.com/ghostbusters-2-not-happening-box-office-bomb/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worldwide earnings as of August 8th - $195,442,353

Budget - $185,000,000  

So it is already in the black (not counting any accounting tricks) before opening in Asia and South America.  It will be a comfortable moneymaker but not the mega-hit they wanted.  Probably means JJ STIV will be scaled back budget wish.

 

Making its budget back isn't the same as profitable however.   Rule of thumb is that a movie has to double its production budget to be considered a hit.   STB, as much as I personally loved it, isn't a hit.   But it WILL make money; the blu ray/DVD release alone should do well enough. 

Worldwide earnings as of August 8th - $195,442,353

Budget - $185,000,000  

So it is already in the black (not counting any accounting tricks) before opening in Asia and South America.  It will be a comfortable moneymaker but not the mega-hit they wanted.  Probably means JJ STIV will be scaled back budget wish.

 

Making its budget back isn't the same as profitable however.   Rule of thumb is that a movie has to double its production budget to be considered a hit.   STB, as much as I personally loved it, isn't a hit.   But it WILL make money; the blu ray/DVD release alone should do well enough. 

Also, Paramount must know it was their mistake that made the film work badly. If they don't they really have incompetent people woking there. The movie got great reception, great reviews, it was their lack of care that made STB not be a hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worldwide earnings as of August 8th - $195,442,353

Budget - $185,000,000  

So it is already in the black (not counting any accounting tricks) before opening in Asia and South America.  It will be a comfortable moneymaker but not the mega-hit they wanted.  Probably means JJ STIV will be scaled back budget wish.

 

Making its budget back isn't the same as profitable however.   Rule of thumb is that a movie has to double its production budget to be considered a hit.   STB, as much as I personally loved it, isn't a hit.   But it WILL make money; the blu ray/DVD release alone should do well enough. 

And I think that should be the point.  Most ST makes money but has never been the mega-hit.  ST09 was different due to the Abrams factor (and to a lesser extent STID).

There was also the breakout hit "Voyage Home"; which broadened ST's appeal by making it into a comedy (in the mid '80s fish-out-of-water comedies were big business).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worldwide earnings as of August 8th - $195,442,353

Budget - $185,000,000  

So it is already in the black (not counting any accounting tricks) before opening in Asia and South America.  It will be a comfortable moneymaker but not the mega-hit they wanted.  Probably means JJ STIV will be scaled back budget wish.

 

It's not in the black. Theyalso spent money trying to market the thing. Now some of all of it is offset by pieces of merchandising sales, product placement, etc.

At the end of the day it's still not guaranteed that the film will make so much as a buck for the studio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worldwide earnings as of August 8th - $195,442,353

Budget - $185,000,000  

So it is already in the black (not counting any accounting tricks) before opening in Asia and South America.  It will be a comfortable moneymaker but not the mega-hit they wanted.  Probably means JJ STIV will be scaled back budget wish.

 

It's not in the black. Theyalso spent money trying to market the thing. Now some of all of it is offset by pieces of merchandising sales, product placement, etc.

At the end of the day it's still not guaranteed that the film will make so much as a buck for the studio.

I'm not quite that pessimistic.   It'll make money eventually (with video, streaming, etc) but it'll never be a solid hit.  However, being Star Trek?  I'd say it's a sure thing that there will be at least one lower-budgeted sequel coming sometime.   

It's such a shame; this movie was a vast improvement over the last one, and probably the most solid of the Bad Robot movies.   Sometimes critical darlings don't always translate into popular successes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worldwide earnings as of August 8th - $195,442,353

Budget - $185,000,000  

So it is already in the black (not counting any accounting tricks) before opening in Asia and South America.  It will be a comfortable moneymaker but not the mega-hit they wanted.  Probably means JJ STIV will be scaled back budget wish.

 

It's not in the black. Theyalso spent money trying to market the thing. Now some of all of it is offset by pieces of merchandising sales, product placement, etc.

At the end of the day it's still not guaranteed that the film will make so much as a buck for the studio.

I'm not quite that pessimistic.   It'll make money eventually (with video, streaming, etc) but it'll never be a solid hit.  However, being Star Trek?  I'd say it's a sure thing that there will be at least one lower-budgeted sequel coming sometime.   

It's such a shame; this movie was a vast improvement over the last one, and probably the most solid of the Bad Robot movies.   Sometimes critical darlings don't always translate into popular successes...

Oops. I thought we were discussing Ghostbusters tally, but a quick check of BO Mojo corrects me. I'm not even counting Beyond quite yet simply because, in so much of the world (But mostly China) it remains unreleased. It's still likely to underperform, yes, but it's not going to tank like the Ghostbusters reboot that no one but Sony asked for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worldwide earnings as of August 8th - $195,442,353

Budget - $185,000,000  

So it is already in the black (not counting any accounting tricks) before opening in Asia and South America.  It will be a comfortable moneymaker but not the mega-hit they wanted.  Probably means JJ STIV will be scaled back budget wish.

 

It's not in the black. Theyalso spent money trying to market the thing. Now some of all of it is offset by pieces of merchandising sales, product placement, etc.

At the end of the day it's still not guaranteed that the film will make so much as a buck for the studio.

I'm not quite that pessimistic.   It'll make money eventually (with video, streaming, etc) but it'll never be a solid hit.  However, being Star Trek?  I'd say it's a sure thing that there will be at least one lower-budgeted sequel coming sometime.   

It's such a shame; this movie was a vast improvement over the last one, and probably the most solid of the Bad Robot movies.   Sometimes critical darlings don't always translate into popular successes...

Oops. I thought we were discussing Ghostbusters tally, but a quick check of BO Mojo corrects me. I'm not even counting Beyond quite yet simply because, in so much of the world (But mostly China) it remains unreleased. It's still likely to underperform, yes, but it's not going to tank like the Ghostbusters reboot that no one but Sony asked for.

 

Ghostbusters won't make squat, you're quite right. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea of continuing the Ghostbusters franchise has merit ... in theory. The idea as a whole lends itself to multiple ideas that could make for good movies (or a show). It's the execution ....

Well, as Sehlat said, one day someone else will try it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever a studio says, "it'll make money eventually," I'm guessing they are usually right, but that's still not the plan they envision going in.  I still think this was a stupid idea--rebooting with a female cast.  The movie should have been a straight sequel, with the remaining original Ghostbusters working with new Ghostbusters.

 

They could have even had a nice seen with a CGI Harold Ramis as a ghost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever a studio says, "it'll make money eventually," I'm guessing they are usually right, but that's still not the plan they envision going in.  I still think this was a stupid idea--rebooting with a female cast.  The movie should have been a straight sequel, with the remaining original Ghostbusters working with new Ghostbusters.

 

They could have even had a nice seen with a CGI Harold Ramis as a ghost. 

^
Nice?  Really?  If I were part of his family, I'd find that ghastly as hell... 
:S

Not sure anyone would like to see a dead relative come back to life as a floating ghost in a horror/comedy. 

However I do agree that a straight sequel might've been the way to go; even though I think GB was a one-off concept (it's really a 2 hour SNL sketch with a big budget).   But if one has to do it?   Might a well do it to include ALL Ghostbusters fans.   I would've liked to have seen the old crew giving words of advice/wisdom to the new Ghostbusters (and how about a mixed gender squad, instead of all-male or all-female?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Ghostbusters' Likely to Cause $50 Million Loss for Sony

I always thought the way to go with a new GHOSTBUSTERS movie would have been kind of a STAR TREK GENERATIONS type of movie, with Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd in pivotal roles as they passes the torch to a new team of Ghostbusters. That would really bring the fans of the original movies back, I think.

I think that Aykroyd even wrote a script years ago for a new sequel when Harold Ramis was still alive.

Gus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Ghostbusters' Likely to Cause $50 Million Loss for Sony

I always thought the way to go with a new GHOSTBUSTERS movie would have been kind of a STAR TREK GENERATIONS type of movie, with Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd in pivotal roles as they passes the torch to a new team of Ghostbusters. That would really bring the fans of the original movies back, I think.

I think that Aykroyd even wrote a script years ago for a new sequel when Harold Ramis was still alive.

Gus

^
This.

The humor would've been more from the old generation clashing with the new; like "Space Cowboys." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice?  Really?  If I were part of his family, I'd find that ghastly as hell...

If done out of love and a tribute, it would be touching.  I'm not talking about having him as a full fledged character.

It wouldn't be anymore ghastly than showing Nimoy's picture in STB.  Picture a climactic moment, and the tide is turned by a ghost that helps the Ghostbusters.  The battle is over, and that ghost approaches the Ghostbusters gently, and morphs into Ramis, smiles, and fades away.

 

That would be a nice tribute.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice?  Really?  If I were part of his family, I'd find that ghastly as hell...

If done out of love and a tribute, it would be touching.  I'm not talking about having him as a full fledged character.

It wouldn't be anymore ghastly than showing Nimoy's picture in STB. 

Nimoy's picture wasn't haunting the decks of the Enterprise...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Ghostbusters' Likely to Cause $50 Million Loss for Sony

I always thought the way to go with a new GHOSTBUSTERS movie would have been kind of a STAR TREK GENERATIONS type of movie, with Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd in pivotal roles as they passes the torch to a new team of Ghostbusters. That would really bring the fans of the original movies back, I think.

I think that Aykroyd even wrote a script years ago for a new sequel when Harold Ramis was still alive.

Gus

What's the reason they ended up going with the reboot route and not a passing the torch sequel anyways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice?  Really?  If I were part of his family, I'd find that ghastly as hell...

If done out of love and a tribute, it would be touching.  I'm not talking about having him as a full fledged character.

It wouldn't be anymore ghastly than showing Nimoy's picture in STB. 

Nimoy's picture wasn't haunting the decks of the Enterprise...  

 

That.

There's a difference between a respectful nod than trying to use said ghostly character to save the day in some fashion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That.

There's a difference between a respectful nod than trying to use said ghostly character to save the day in some fashion. 

Even though they didn't use his face, they did do a tribute like I have in mind to General Stewart on Doctor Who.  Cybermen were using dead people in some capacity, and in the end dead General Stewart helped fight back on the Doctor's side.  The writers made it clear it was him, and even had a nice salute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That.

There's a difference between a respectful nod than trying to use said ghostly character to save the day in some fashion. 

Even though they didn't use his face, they did do a tribute like I have in mind to General Stewart on Doctor Who.  Cybermen were using dead people in some capacity, and in the end dead General Stewart helped fight back on the Doctor's side.  The writers made it clear it was him, and even had a nice salute.

^
Yes, but that was 
implicit; it was implied that it was the Brigadier.   You didn't SEE his face CGI-mapped onto a stunt double's double with a frozen expression on his face.   The image of a dead actor coming back as a zombie would be WAYYY too creepy.   I feel the same way about a CGI cameo of Ramis as a ghost.  Maybe his photo on a character's desk a dedication at the end/beginning of the movie would've been the way, but that's water under the bridge now... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this