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

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

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

ghostbusters social

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

THR 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 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."

Permalink

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

SlumlordThanatos:

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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 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 only two movies broke the 300 million mark, Guardians of the Galaxy and the Hunger Games: Mockingjay. In 2013 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.

Gethsemani:
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 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 only two movies broke the 300 million mark, Guardians of the Galaxy and the Hunger Games: Mockingjay. In 2013 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.

Gethsemani:
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 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 only two movies broke the 300 million mark, Guardians of the Galaxy and the Hunger Games: Mockingjay. In 2013 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.

As long as this Ecto-force thing doesn't cast mildly funny comedians in completely unfunny roles, they might just have a shot of not completely shitting the bed.

Oh, there's also the whole "Turning the secretary from a sassy woman who doesn't take shit into a complete idiot male because competent men aren't funny" thing, but I sincerely doubt that the same mistake can be made twice. Although, this is non-gaming Sony we're talking about.

I always wonder what kind of world we live in when 220 million dollars is not enough to even break even on a film. Isn't that kind of horrid budgeting problems one of the reasons why the original Hollywood system crashed in the 50s? And again in the 70s?

Well, I mean when you actively chase away nearly all the fans of the old movies by calling them misogynists, nerds, basement dwellers and the like....

What did they expect?

They went for a niche market and forgot there are plenty of women that are fans of the original movie who hate being pandered too. Hollywood instead of appearing to exclude women, it now is making movies like women were literally discovered as a new race in the 90s and had never seen any media from before 1991.

I think its fair to say that the majority of women thought "glass ceiling broken" when this movie was announced. Hopefully the Ocean's 8 movie takes cues from this and invites their fans instead of insulting them.

crimson5pheonix:

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.

I dunno, given how poorly received the trailer for the movie was the takeaway could just as well be that they should have spent more money on making sure the trailer looked enticing. They can spend all the money in the world to make people aware that Ghostbusters is a movie playing in theatres but if Ghostbusters don't look enticing, why should people turn up?

I will admit I don't know how big impact the trailer had in these numbers.

Bedinsis:

crimson5pheonix:

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.

I dunno, given how poorly received the trailer for the movie was the takeaway could just as well be that they should have spent more money on making sure the trailer looked enticing. They can spend all the money in the world to make people aware that Ghostbusters is a movie playing in theatres but if Ghostbusters don't look enticing, why should people turn up?

I will admit I don't know how big impact the trailer had in these numbers.

That's what I'm getting at. They spent a ton of money on advertising and it got them some "meh, fuck it" tickets, but there wasn't a good movie underneath to get real sales.

I'm inclined to wait until about a year from now when the BluRay/Streaming/OnDemand/licensing numbers are fully figured in before they determine if it is a profit or a loss. Initial theater sales is becoming a smaller and smaller share of the revenues of movies, and given a lot of reviews were positive overall, I would not be surprised if it has more of a bounce there.

I'll say that I liked the movie as a good-not-great summer movie. I think the gender backlash did have an effect on the box office, but not enough to make or break the movie (especially given the sheer size of the loss being described). I know I'd like a sequel, but it might need a few years to wait until there's less saturation during the summer or opt for a lower budget (similar to GIJoe 2) to lower the profit threshold and move to a late September/October Halloween release. The promotional budget was clearly too large and squandered, so that would need to be dialed back tremendously, especially early marketing.

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

Bring on the claims it is a flop from them because everybody is sexist not because it is a pile of crap and insulting the target audience.

I'm a little surprised, honestly. Box Office Mojo lists its production costs as $144 million; I got the sense that it wasn't doing all that well, but I hadn't realized that other costs (promotion etc.) had more than doubled the stake.

...Ouch.

Wellll... I would hardly be the first one to suggest that, whatever the Internet may have coughed up to spite it, the reaction of the powers that be wasn't exactly wise. It's easy to "armchair quarterback" a situation like this, but I think the only message that might have helped would have been something along the lines of: "Look, we understand some of you have doubts, and this property means a lot to you for a variety of reasons. But we really care about what we're doing here, we're fans of the Ghostbusters, too, and we think you'll be pleasantly surprised if you give us a chance."

Instead, bluntly, the reaction of Feig and Sony might have been summed up as: "Oh, yeah? Well, we don't need any of you!"

And no amount of righteous rage is a substitute for box office receipts.

There comes a time when you need to swallow your pride and recognize you can't get to where you want to be alone. You didn't have to be some kind of misogynistic Internet troll to be a little nonplussed by just how tone deaf they were being.

I think the big problem is that they made a comedy with the the budget of a summer blockbuster. That never works out. It's always weird to hear about this movie on the Escapist though. Everywhere else I'm hearing meh to great things about it. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets a cult-classic label later. If nothing else because the science jargon being relatively accurate (outside ghosts existing, obviously)

And nobody gets to shit-talk Kevin. Kevin is awesome.

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?

It'd look like David Bowie, I'd imagine.

Can Hollywood just crash already? Please? And it's not like there's ANY shortage of talented and aspiring filmmakers to take their place. In fact, they're ravenous for it.

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.

Good. Faith in humanity restored slightly. The only way to see fewer of these reboots is by voting with the wallet. It also pleases me that they're not getting rewarded for their attitude of "everyone who disagrees is a misogynist". You don't get to reboot something and expect fans of the originals to stay quiet...

Burnouts3s3:
Look, I know Sony and Paul Feig's comments as painting all critics as misogynists was a bit much, [...]

When did they do that? The Escapist did a very poor job in representing what Mr. Feig actually said regarding his critics, so I'm curious if you have source on that?

I suspect it was down to the sheer amount of politics and nonsense surrounding this film. They should've just left Ghostbusters be and made something new. By rebooting a beloved franchise with an SJW/feminist thing, and making a hash of even that, this film was never likely to succeed. The original was a unique thing that worked because of the stars aligning with the cast/crew, story, script and so on. This one had none of those things from the start....it was a deliberate cash in made for the most cynical of reasons and combined with the politics was never going to please anyone.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here