The New Ghostbusters - Part 10

[nightwing06]

Like i said last week there was no way in the world i was going to pay to see this movie,even though a free ticket was waved in front of my face i still had to be dragged
to the theatre .So glad i saw it for free,not saying that this fick is the putrid waste of time i thought it was going to be,but it's not that good either.
Ok the first half hour worked for me ,the characters were introduced well i bought into the history and friendship of Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy.
I laughed ,i was having fun
Then all of the cringe worthy moments started happening
Now Chris Hemsworth's relentlessly brainless character was funny but after awhile it wears thin,and i swear there were scenes in which he's just walking around
with nothing to do.Kate McKinnon: people are raving about her and yes her quirks were funny for a minute here and there and i guess she was trying to channel Jim Carrey
or something but after awhile i didnt care
Leslie Jones was basically what you see in the trailer she has one funny scene.
There was one scene in the movie that perfectly combined scary with funny and this movie desperately needed more of them.
The cameos from the original cast made me groan One cameo actually made me think well that's the route they should have taken with all of these new characters.
Why not have the original Ghosbuster's hand over the reigns to family members and college students that showed great interest to what occured in the first 2 films?
The villain in this film was beyond lame and boring He was like one of the lame villains from a bad animated movie.
All of the male characters are either idiots,sexist,or cowards.
I did like some of the CGI,SFX and action in the in the films finale
As a whole i see this movie as a HUGE missed oppurtunity so much more could have been done to make it at least very good
Wait for cable or the DVD release.

Scale of 1-10 a 4

 

[_Superman_]

It's not just the story for me but the cast as well and not because they're all females. It's just because they are all actors who I think are over rated.

 

[GuestStar2004]

I know theres interest just not in the one the studio pushed. The toys all looked terrible and the movie had bad trailers. The effects looked cheap like pixels and the jokes just werent good.

I still think a passing of the torch film would have been better. Have ray still living in the firehouse and discovers dormant ghost sightings are coming back and he needs to put together a new team since hes too old to continue.

Have ray training them and trying to hold them together and succeed where he failed. The team breaks up toward the end of film after the main villian ghost takes turns possesing the team members and have them say and di hurtful things to eachother. Ray has a talk with the new team leader and reveals he wasnt strong enough to save the original group and they died at the hands of the villian whos about to turn all living people into ghost.

New team reunites and stops the ghost.

Interesting fan fiction but i'd hate that as it would go abit far to turning it into a less respectful ghostbusters 3 where 3 out of 4 of the original team were killed which i don't think they would have to go that far to keep it in the same universe.

All they had to do was make some excuse up about ghosts disappearing for a while so the ghostbusters moved on to other things, have Ackroyd in a very small role where he goes to these women and offers them this job and go on from there with the girls standing alone, hiring a new secretary ect ect, i wouldn't push for any of the originals to have a main character role though as it is likely meant to be a start of something new but it would feel like more of a respectful passing of the torch then reboot with everything from the original thrown in to tug at our nostalgic heart strings.

Infact i don't even think any of the original characters need to appear really just acknowledged that they existed but since retired.

 

[Astro13Zombie]

Because of the way this movie has been advertised, I refuse to see it in theaters.

I might give it a chance at some point in the distant future. I'm just pretty disgusted by Sony, Paul Feig, and some of the cast. Who knows? They might have a good movie here ... But they decided to sell it in the most condescending and insulting way.

I don't like politics with my Summer blockbuster entertainment, thankyouverymuch.

"But, but your daughter can be a Ghostbuster now! That's what all of this is about."

Sit down. NOBODY can be a Ghostbuster. They're. Not. Real. And it's pretty insulting to insinuate that when I was a little girl, I wasn't able to enjoy the original Ghostbusters (which I did; a lot).

 

[Kanon]

Interesting fan fiction but i'd hate that as it would go abit far to turning it into a less respectful ghostbusters 3 where 3 out of 4 of the original team were killed which i don't think they would have to go that far to keep it in the same universe.

All they had to do was make some excuse up about ghosts disappearing for a while so the ghostbusters moved on to other things, have Ackroyd in a very small role where he goes to these women and offers them this job and go on from there with the girls standing alone, hiring a new secretary ect ect, i wouldn't push for any of the originals to have a main character role though as it is likely meant to be a start of something new but it would feel like more of a respectful passing of the torch then reboot with everything from the original thrown in to tug at our nostalgic heart strings.

Infact i don't even think any of the original characters need to appear really just acknowledged that they existed but since retired.

Just the exact same movie we got, but reworked into a sequel (original team is a legend, people don't believe in ghosts, McCarthy rediscovers their investigation. or the villain rediscovers it and uses it to cause mayhem and the heroes react), that would had reduced the opposition to a minimum, and I could see it doing $70M+ OW (specially with all the originals that were reunited for cameos reprising their roles instead). It could be The Force Awakens of the GB franchise (Ectoplasm awakens? )

 

[Sithborg]

Again people really need to stop comparing this to Feigs other movies. This had a bigger production budget, bigger marketing budget, bigger everything. If this only makes as much or around what Feig's other movies make that won't be good. Saying this is Feig's biggest weekend doesn't mean much when the budget is much higher than Feig's movies.

It's not even about WOM, as I said above. This will lose theaters, especially 3D ones, to Star Trek, Suicide Squad, ICe Age 5 or whatever this is. Which will be a big blow. Star Trek is looking at 50-60 mill, last Ice Age made 45+ mill opening weekend (im still always surprised how well these Ice Age sequels do overall), and then Pets is still probably be decently big.

The only thing I think this really has going for it is that there arent many really hyped summer live action comedies left

I mean we'll see about the WOM, but with the competition I dont see this making GREAT numbers in the US. Not enough to justify a sequel

Again, it isn't about looking at the totals of his previous movies. It's about looking at the multipliers. Yeah, his previous movies didn't exactly break the bank. But, look at how much they opened up to. There are some insane multipliers there. I think it is good enough to have a similar run to Tarzan. Which is making pretty good money compared to expectations. Will that be good enough for Sony, who knows. They are kind of desperate for franchises, so I imagine they will jump on a well received one even if it loses them some money.

 

[GuestStar2004]

I seen the post credit scene floating around on youtube and i gave in and watched... so was that all it really was? i hoped [BLACKOUT]zuul[/BLACKOUT] was gonna be was just an easter egg but it does seem like its teasing the sequel and even then that tease was so weak it felt like an after thought, one of the characters just asks about [BLACKOUT]zuul[/BLACKOUT]

Does that mean [BLACKOUT]zuul dogs[/BLACKOUT] for the sequel?

 

[brandeezy89]

Just saw the weekend numbers, yeaaaaah i think this Franchise is done, no way is it making 300M+ to break even. Sony is gonna lose a lot off this, I wouldn't be surprised if the drop becomes the worst of all time especially since Trek is releasing this week

 

[Kanon]

Exhibitor Relations ‏@ERCboxoffice 23 h
GHOSTBUSTERS amassed $19M overseas on 3,900 screens. UK ($6M) OZ ($3.7M) BRZ ($2.2M)

https://***********/ERCboxoffice/status/754720371451039744

Box-Office Analysis: Why the 'Ghostbusters' Reboot May Haunt Sony

The big-budget franchise comedy opened to an estimated $46 million in North America, a problematic start for a movie with a net production budget of $144 million.

During box-office press calls on Sunday morning, Sony executives were in full spin mode as they declared Paul Feig's all-female Ghostbusters reboot a triumph, pointing out that the $46 million opening was the biggest launch for a live-action comedy since Pitch Perfect 2 took in $69.2 million in May 2015.

"We are ecstatic with this opening. We have successfully restarted an important brand," Josh Greenstein, president of worldwide marketing and distribution, told The Hollywood Reporter.

But box-office analysts and rival studios are skeptical that Sony has indeed relaunched the storied franchise, considering $46 million is a problematic start for a movie with a net production budget of $144 million (rebates and tax incentives brought it down from $154 million). Ideally, they say, it should have opened to $60 million or more.

Feig's previous female-skewing comedies — including Bridesmaids and The Heat — were extraordinarily successful thanks to incredible multiples, as they held on week after week at the box office. But they cost a fraction of what Ghostbusters did. And they were standalone offerings, not a VFX-driven franchise comedy designed to revive a 30-year-old, marquee film series.

When factoring in marketing costs — the cost of promoting a summer tentpole globally can be upwards of $150 million — Ghostbusters may have to earn $375 million-$400 million worldwide to break even for Sony and partner Village Roadshow Pictures. That means it needs to do sizeable business overseas, since it could top out in the $130 million range domestically. (Sony insiders counter that the break-even number is $300 million).

Overseas, the jury is still out. Ghostbusters debuted in only a few major markets this weekend, earning $19.1 million, with first-place finishes in two major English-speaking markets, the U.K. ($6.1 million) and Australia ($3.7 million). Some analysts caution that comedy doesn't travel as well as other genres. And China is not allowing Ghostbusters into the country.

When Tom Rothman replaced Amy Pascal as chief of Sony's movie studio in 2015, he shaved at least $15 million off the Ghostbusters budget, but the risk remained high.

"The more I ponder it, the worse this scenario plays out. Curiosity played a big factor in the $46 million debut and, as such, I doubt it will hold like a typical Feig comedy. In fact, I think it's going to drop big time when Star Trek Beyond and Ice Age: Collision Course open next week," says box-office analyst Jeff Bock.

"I know Sony is crowing about it being a great opening for a comedy, but the entire Ghostbusters legacy is what's at stake here, and it's not looking good. This was supposed to be a blockbuster," he continues. "Sony definitively did not launch a franchise, and seemingly they might be the only ones that don't know it. I know it's been a tough road for them, and I feel for them."

For the past two years, Sony and Feig have had to ward off criticism from some outspoken male fans who were unhappy with Feig's decision to go with a female cast headed by Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, Kate McKinnon and Kristen Wiig as the ghoul chasers, who were famously played by Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd in Ivan Reitman's 1984 classic film. (Reitman produced the update alongside Pascal.)

In a recent interview with THR, Rothman insisted the online bashing was "the greatest thing that ever happened. Are you kidding me? We’re in the national debate, thank you. Can we please get some more haters to say stupid things?"

At the same time, Sony made sure to court males in its marketing campaign, creating special promos that aired during the NBA Finals on ABC between the Cleveland Cavaliers and the Golden State Warriors.

It's impossible to determine whether the naysayers hurt the movie because the opening weekend demographics were inconclusive. Men didn't exactly stay away, but women didn't show up in compensatory numbers either.

In fact, while Ghostbusters didn't play like a chick flick in North America, it didn't perform like an all-audience summer tentpole either. Instead, it landed somewhere in between. Females made up about 56 percent of the audience — versus 75 percent or more for a Pitch Perfect or Bridesmaids — while more than 60 percent of the audience was over the age of 25.

"If foreign grosses don't pick up the slack, this will go down as another big disappointment for Sony, who based their entire summer on this brand," says Bock.

Ghostbusters did earn generally good reviews, but audiences gave it a B+ CinemaScore, instead of a resounding A.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-analysis-why-ghostbusters-911836

 

[MadVillainy]

Because sometimes you have to invest alot of money in order for it to pay off at some point and sony really want franchises so if they see a way of doing it which will increase box office... they will.

But what you’re saying still doesn’t make any sense.

They already spent a lot of money making this. $200+ mill when you include marketing. They spent money making toys and allegedly they aren't selling well (I don't have a source), but even on the BO returns alone if this doesnt have great WOM/legs they wouldn't make a sequel. Yes you have to spend money to make money and sometimes franchise building costs money, but they already invested a large amount of money.

The only answer can't be "Well Sony wants a franchise". So they put even more money into a franchise that just lost them money. Due to the way movies are made nowadays, there will be sequel escalation. Bigger scenes need a bigger budget. For stars/talent to return they would need to pay them more.

SONY is desperate for a franchise but that doesn't mean they will put more money into a franchise that didn't get them the results they want (if this film doesn't have good legs or home video sales).
If they were that desperate that they would make direct sequels even to underperforming movies, then why partner up with Marvel instead of keeping all the next Spider-Man film profits for themselves? Why not make a sequel to Pixels? Why not make a sequel to Robocop 2014? White House Down? After Earth? All those were potential franchise starters that under-performed, failed, or disappointed. So SONY adjusted or isnt making a sequel to any of them.

Saying that a studio is going to make a direct sequel to a movie that under performs and that doesn't have a huge amount of critical acclaim because they're desperate for a franchise is just silly.

-Mediocre to bad box office (if it doesn't have legs)
-Toys not selling (again, allegedly)
-Movie that isn't getting phenomenal praise. I'm not saying a majority of people dislike it but this isn't getting rave reviews is what I mean
-All the trouble they went through pre-release
Why make a direct sequel?

This will get a sequel IF and only if, the legs are good or the home video sales are great.

Again, it isn't about looking at the totals of his previous movies. It's about looking at the multipliers. Yeah, his previous movies didn't exactly break the bank. But, look at how much they opened up to. There are some insane multipliers there. I think it is good enough to have a similar run to Tarzan. Which is making pretty good money compared to expectations. Will that be good enough for Sony, who knows. They are kind of desperate for franchises, so I imagine they will jump on a well received one even if it loses them some money.

Fair enough,
But saying "if this has multipliers like Feigs other films" is still kinda silly to me. I just don't see this getting multipliers like that because 1) Feigs other movies were received better 2) they didn't have the competition like GB16.
So yes, if this gets multipliers like Feig's previous films this will be good. But I don't see any evidence of that happening so far.

OT: i dont get why bring up Tarzan when WB is probably gonna still take a loss when it's all said and done unless the foreign box office picks up. I said this days ago, Tarzan is doing "well" because it's not the bomb everyone was predicting. It was made for 180 mill and it's still struggling to reach 150 mill domestic. Even 130 mill. At the end of the day, unless we box office picks up which it could; Tarzan won't be a success or the franchise starter they wanted

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Legend of Tarzan got an A- Cinemascore while GB gets B+ Cinemascore and yet GB has a better RT score and it's better on Metacritic as well. Doesn't look like it has got the legs to gross big in the domestic market. STB and Ice Age will take the next week,so it all goes downhill big time for Sony.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Didn't Feig say it needs to make at least 500 million to get a sequel? Good luck.

 

[The Joker]

Didn't Feig say it needs to make at least 500 million to get a sequel? Good luck.

Needs more than luck. Needs a miracle.

 

[Kanon]

Sony might try again with the franchise even if this bombs, but a direct sequel will be foolish if the numbers go with a normal blockbuster multiplier. Feig other movies appeal to a different demographic, I don't know why people bring that up as if the "Feig multiplier" is something he can phisically pull at this point.

Also, this movie is the child of Amy Pascal, who is history. Let's see if someone wants to continue her work.

But there is interest in the franchise. There is a reason this one got so relevant, and videogames are still made, etc.

 

[MadVillainy]

Yeah I'm just not seeing a direct sequel happening

 

[Frodo]

I went through GB mania in real time back in the day, so I really wasn't all that motivated to see the reboot 30 odd years later. Sometimes I really do think its lightning in a bottle and that certain properties sort of hit at the right time and place and the same hype and excitement can't always been replicated even with nostalgia as a factor. Something like Star Wars is an exception imo.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Needs more than luck. Needs a miracle.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I think 500 million is a bit blown out of proportion,but still if GB grosses about 130 million in stateside which seems a really big stretch at this point of time,it will still need in excess of 300 million in the global market and without China to bail out they are toast.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Sony and Paul really screwed the pooch, honestly. Now, I do believe some fans got a little too rabid, for sure. Yes, there are Misogyny out there...that being said, 9/10 remakes get crapped on. They should not have turned this movie into a act of "well, if you don't support it, clearly you hate women." Should've just trucked on, not pissed off almost all of the fans of the franchise....oh, and not treated Ivan Reitman like crap too. Amy Pascal is a total moron, glad she's gone.

 

[_Superman_]

Sony and Paul really screwed the pooch, honestly. Now, I do believe some fans got a little too rabid, for sure. Yes, there are Misogyny out there...that being said, 9/10 remakes get crapped on. They should not have turned this movie into a act of "well, if you don't support it, clearly you hate women." Should've just trucked on, not pissed off almost all of the fans of the franchise....oh, and not treated Ivan Reitman like crap too. Amy Pascal is a total moron, glad she's gone.

Agreed. But then again some movies are better left untouched. Like Gone with The Wind, Back to the Future, Ghostbusters, Wizard of Oz, etc.

 

[Kanon]

I think 500 million is a bit blown out of proportion,but still if GB grosses about 130 million in stateside which seems a really big stretch at this point of time,it will still need in excess of 300 million in the global market and without China to bail out they are toast.

$500M is probably right, if you count budget, reportedly 144M, plus $100 in advertising, and take into account that only half of boxoffice goes to studios. $488 WW is probably the break even point.

Even worst: The portion of boxoffice that goes to the studio is estimated roughly at 55% of domestic, 45% of overseas (If I recall correctly), but actually, that percentage is higher for the first weekend and then gets better for theathers and lower for studios, so not even great legs might be enough to save them. That's why some studios save their movies front loading movies, like BvS, and the theaters accept to keep old movies showing instead of always use the screens for the new ones (more money for a few tickets for an old movie is better than less money from a lot of tickets of a new one)

 

[Leenie]

My opinion. Not yours.

Okay. shrug.gif

 

[Leenie]

Spoiler

That's not in the film. There is a BUST of Harold Ramis in the hall of the university where Kristen Wiig's character works. There is not a Harold ghost that gets busted.

Good. In that case, that's not so bad at all.

 

[Sithborg]

I think one of the ghosts might've been Reitman, though.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

$500M is probably right, if you count budget, reportedly 144M, plus $100 in advertising, and take into account that only half of boxoffice goes to studios. $488 WW is probably the break even point.

Even worst: The portion of boxoffice that goes to the studio is estimated roughly at 55% of domestic, 45% of overseas (If I recall correctly), but actually, that percentage is higher for the first weekend and then gets better for theathers and lower for studios, so not even great legs might be enough to save them. That's why some studios save their movies front loading movies, like BvS, and the theaters accept to keep old movies showing instead of always use the screens for the new ones (more money for a few tickets for an old movie is better than less money from a lot of tickets of a new one)

Didn't know all this stuff,thanks for the info.

GB should have been a blast which sets the BO on fire but it didn't happen and that's a huge bummer. I just hope this movie sets a precedent that old fan favorite franchises should only be revived to create an entertaining and improved product that fans as well as the GA cares about.