Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
08-02-16 | 12:12 PM
#1051
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I'm sure it'd be aptly titled "Internet Message Board: A Documentary", it'll have a 100% on rottentomatoes and a 1.4 average on imdb for its first month.
08-02-16 | 12:17 PM
#1052
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I think other financials figure into it. I don't get the comment about it making as much as "Internet Detectives think qualifies it for future projects." It either makes enough to warrant a sequel or doesn't. It's not that subjective.
08-02-16 | 12:20 PM
#1053
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
In terms of profit, sales to premium channels, standard cable, and broadcast as well as home video sales, rentals, and sale to Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime streaming add a substantial amount. That in addition to merchandising and joint advertising sales.
However, considering how poorly sequels have been doing this year, they may want to tread carefully.
08-02-16 | 12:36 PM
#1055
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Popularity following theatrical release plays a big role as well (ie: Austin Powers). It didn't perform well enough theatrical to guarantee any sort of follow-up, it also didn't perform poorly enough to guarantee it's dead. Almost completely middle of the road.
This is pretty similar to Tarzan(which I liked) and opened around the same amount. It had a huge budget, people didn't flock to it and even though it will make back it's money eventually and is out grossing GB I guarantee Warner isn't looking at doing a sequel.
08-02-16 | 01:35 PM
#1056
DVD Talk Hero
08-02-16 | 02:24 PM
#1057
Member
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
There are more production companies than movies. Most have probably made only one movie.
08-02-16 | 02:34 PM
#1058
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Ghost Corps was established for the overall GB brand as well as on the basis that this movie was going to be a huge hit.The simple truth of the matter is that this movie won't even make back its budget in the US, it didn't open at number 1 and audiences haven't exactly been excited about it. Even though it's going to turn a profit eventually most likely that won't be good enough. They pretty much have an Amazing Spiderman 2 situation here and it looks like Amy Pascal killed Ghostbusters just like she ruined Spiderman.
Somebdody really needs to do a documentary about this. It's ripe with such craziness including:
-The Sony hack
-Stonewalling Reitman and Aykroyd
-Paul Feig comes aboard
-Fans angry about rebooting the movie in the era of TFA and JW
-The on set drama
-The story about it not being any good leaking by someone on Reddit
-Controversy over Target clearencing out the Toys
-Feig attacks the fans
-Douches attacking Leslie Jones
-The GB Twitter being stupid enough to officially endorse Hillary Clinton
-How Sony actually was stupid enough to let Amy Pascall run a studio and then replaces her with equally stupid Tim Rothman
So much stuff to cover.
Somebdody really needs to do a documentary about this. It's ripe with such craziness including:
-The Sony hack
-Stonewalling Reitman and Aykroyd
-Paul Feig comes aboard
-Fans angry about rebooting the movie in the era of TFA and JW
-The on set drama
-The story about it not being any good leaking by someone on Reddit
-Controversy over Target clearencing out the Toys
-Feig attacks the fans
-Douches attacking Leslie Jones
-The GB Twitter being stupid enough to officially endorse Hillary Clinton
-How Sony actually was stupid enough to let Amy Pascall run a studio and then replaces her with equally stupid Tim Rothman
So much stuff to cover.
08-02-16 | 02:37 PM
#1059
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Yep. Sony is looking at getting back around half their budget back at this point. I do think they will try again, but it will be a different take on the material, most likely a new cast.
08-02-16 | 03:29 PM
#1060
Banned
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 20,052
Received 169 Likes
on
127 Posts
From: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I too hope for a sequel. Something that jettisons everyone involved with this. There's so much potential in the Ghostbusters concept I'd hate for this to kill it. They just need to wait 4 years and then take a whole different stab at it.
08-02-16 | 06:10 PM
#1061
Banned by request
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Given how badly Sony wants Ghostbusters to be a long term franchise, they may just do that. It would be a shame, but they might do it.
08-02-16 | 07:55 PM
#1062
Rest In Peace
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Didn't see it.. don't care to see it. I'll wait until it comes out on Amazon streaming or something (How long will I wait? Like.. 2 months?).
My aunt and uncle saw it.. this was their Facebook post:
Uncle 07:35 Waiting to see new Ghostbusters! Can't wait!
Someone 07:38 Who's idea was it to go see it?
Uncle 07:40 Mine! I heard it was funny
Someone 09:30 So how was it?
Uncle 10:15 Uhhhhg
Aunt: 10:18 Should have stayed home
Some professional opinions there
My aunt and uncle saw it.. this was their Facebook post:
Uncle 07:35 Waiting to see new Ghostbusters! Can't wait!
Someone 07:38 Who's idea was it to go see it?
Uncle 07:40 Mine! I heard it was funny
Someone 09:30 So how was it?
Uncle 10:15 Uhhhhg
Aunt: 10:18 Should have stayed home
Some professional opinions there
08-02-16 | 11:38 PM
#1063
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
With a likely 225m worldwide finish, only BFG made less (of major films) this summer. Not sure if the juice boxes will make up for the other few hundred million...
08-03-16 | 10:08 AM
#1064
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Agreed. They would be smart to do that if they actually want to make some money on the franchise, and produce a decent film.
08-03-16 | 10:19 AM
#1065
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
They DID produce a "decent film". It's currently at 73% on Rotten Tomatoes.
08-03-16 | 10:46 AM
#1067
Thread Starter
Moderator
08-03-16 | 02:43 PM
#1068
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
08-03-16 | 02:54 PM
#1069
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
And a B+ at Cinemascore.
08-03-16 | 03:57 PM
#1071
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I take Rotten Tomatoes site as a whole with a grain of salt. Actually reading some of the "positive" reviews you get the impression that its not a quality film yet still scores 3/5 which in Tomatoes language is "fresh". Hell even here the first theatrical review reads like a 2/5 yet in the Content score its 3/5. For what reason? Who the hell knows. "Ehhh this movie was kinda garbage and too many references to the old movie and not super funny. But they tried. THREE STARS!"
08-03-16 | 11:07 PM
#1072
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I take Rotten Tomatoes site as a whole with a grain of salt. Actually reading some of the "positive" reviews you get the impression that its not a quality film yet still scores 3/5 which in Tomatoes language is "fresh". Hell even here the first theatrical review reads like a 2/5 yet in the Content score its 3/5. For what reason? Who the hell knows. "Ehhh this movie was kinda garbage and too many references to the old movie and not super funny. But they tried. THREE STARS!"
I have never read a more lukewarm to lukeCOOL group of, "Positive," reviews in the internet era. Based on the content of the reviews at least half of them should really have been counted as negative (they had more criticism of the movie than praise).
08-04-16 | 06:48 AM
#1073
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Honestly, this thing could have been universally praised and no one could ever convince me it was a good movie. The only worse movie I've seen this year has been the Independence Day sequel.
08-04-16 | 07:42 AM
#1074
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
But then all of this has been discussed to death at this point. Turns out different people have different opinions on this movie, amazing isn't it?
08-04-16 | 11:51 AM
#1075
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I take Rotten Tomatoes site as a whole with a grain of salt. Actually reading some of the "positive" reviews you get the impression that its not a quality film yet still scores 3/5 which in Tomatoes language is "fresh". Hell even here the first theatrical review reads like a 2/5 yet in the Content score its 3/5. For what reason? Who the hell knows. "Ehhh this movie was kinda garbage and too many references to the old movie and not super funny. But they tried. THREE STARS!"
But only 59% among top critics. And the majority of "positive" reviews are really "middling" reviews..."better than average", but not "really good" or "great."
Honestly, this thing could have been universally praised and no one could ever convince me it was a good movie. The only worse movie I've seen this year has been the Independence Day sequel.
Honestly, this thing could have been universally praised and no one could ever convince me it was a good movie. The only worse movie I've seen this year has been the Independence Day sequel.