Looking at modern politics, 58% is pretty damned good. It's all a matter of perspective.

Movies are not politics.

If only 58% of the audience (that should be predisposed to like the movie) thinks a movie is good that's a failure.

Cinemascore is a joke. Of significant recent releases, the lowest rating was a B- for The Nice Guys.

Watching this Ghostbusters thread is like watching the five stages of grief. Hopefully, "acceptance" will arrive for some of you soon.

Give me another reboot, but this time I want it ala Bugsy Malone.

It's more than half, it's a success (or, more success than fail). Again, perspective.

So, I was at the dentist the other day, getting my face torn apart, and on the TV screen in the room, they were showing the live-action Scooby Doo. It made me think of this thread because some folks said that they heard that GB2016's CGI was on par with Scooby Doo. Having never seen it, I was curious how bad it really was because I thought GB's CGI was decent.

Fucking. Terrible.
And no, GB2016's CGI isn't even remotely close to being as bad as Scooby Doo's.

Anyway, that's my story. Thought I'd share.

(oh, and I bought the novelization of this movie at Target as an impulse buy. I used to LOVE novelizations when I was a kid. I remember having a Mortal Kombat one and even a The Crow: City of Angels one. So those memories made me buy this one. I'm 3 chapters in, but it's bad.)

Anyone try watching Ghostheads on Netflix? Another fanatic doc. They may be nutty, but got nothing on some folks here.

There's more to it, like how it had a 35% before it officially opened with 30,000 ratings. It's weighed heavily with bias, mainly underrating but also "how is this so low?" Overrating to correct it

I will watch it next time I have Netflix, but will skip any and all parts involving the new one, I heard Paul Feig was interviewed for it.

How do you have the strength and fortitude to even type his name? You're an inspiration! Fight the good fight! Devoting your life to the betterment of humankind. Amazing.

Hollywood Reporter story this morning says GB16 is heading for a $70M loss and a sequel is now unlikely. Story says they'll now focus on animated spin-offs.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ebook_20160810

Very telling. And even more of frustrating to fans after all this behind the scenes crap... what could've been.

I get the feeling if GB3 had happened as Reitman wanted it still would have been a step down from GB2. Alas, it wouldn't have had as much flack and would have been more successful.

When I was younger, i read the novelization of almost every movie that intrigued me. To be honest, I had no idea these still existed.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...-sequel-918515

Immediately upon the opening of Ghostbusters in mid-July, top Sony executives boldly declared a sequel to Paul Feig's all-female reboot of Ivan Reitman's 1984 classic was a given. "While nothing has been officially announced yet, there's no doubt in my mind it will happen," said Rory Bruer, president of worldwide distribution at Sony.

That was the studio's last public mention of a sequel. As of Aug. 7, Ghostbusters had earned just under $180 million at the global box office, including $117 million domestic. The film still hasn't opened in a few markets, including France, Japan and Mexico, but box-office experts say it will have trouble getting to $225 million despite a hefty net production budget of $144 million plus a big marketing spend. The studio has said break-even would be $300 million.

Sony hardly is alone in suffering from audience rejection of sequels this summer. But film chief Tom Rothman and his team, along with partner Village Roadshow, had high hopes for launching a live-action Ghostbusters "universe." Now they are preparing for steep losses (think $70 million-plus) and an uncertain future for the franchise.

Well, that certainly isn't a surprise.

I hate that they will explain away the movie's failure as we were all biased against the all-female cast. They will never have to admit the movie just wasn't good.

Not disagreeing with you Double Oh 7 (I think you are right), but it wasn't that bad either. It's as if Sony has taken a defeatest attitude and are making this a self-fulfilling prophecy. The article Traxan posted mentions a Ghostbusters "universe" and that wouldn't be a bad way to continue without having to go back to square one. I don't know that I would want to see another GB with this entire cast and crew, but I would like to see some of them come back.

Perhaps Sony should have managed marketing costs better and done better PR. Their entire campaign was a fail, from shoddy trailers to $20 action figures (and virtually no other tie-ins) to perpetuating the whole misogyny angle. This wasn't the fault of the cast and crew (well, maybe that last part a little bit).

RichC2 mentions a GB3 with the potential to be worse than GB2 ... I know some here have defended GB2, but I did try to rewatch it recently. My god was it bad. After that, I can see why the franchise died for almost 3 decades. The new one is MUCH better. Even where the two (GB2 and GB2016) fail, the new one wins in shoing some potential in the areas it missed.

I don't think they should shelve future plans and tuck their tails with animation. There is potential for a continuing franchise, they just need to be a little more savvy with how they proceed. Hell, even showing this many cards is stupid as it could hurt the home video release where lots of ground could be made up.

There is a lot more here, behind the scenes, than was the movie any good or not. Studio execs are going to have to answer for that huge loss, and I guarantee Rothman and new staff will be putting this one on Pascal and rightfully so. With that in mind I can see him ignoring this movie, and any chance of a direct sequel with the same cast.

[ ]QUOTEThere is a lot more here, behind the scenes, than was the movie any good or not. Studio execs are going to have to answer for that huge loss, and I guarantee Rothman and new staff will be putting this one on Pascal and rightfully so. With that in mind I can see him ignoring this movie, and any chance of a direct sequel with the same cast. [/QUOTE]

Pretty much. Sony pretty much realized they were screwed with male moviegoers and I'm willing to make a bet that they had no faith in this movie. I honestly don't think a GB3 would have been that great but Ivan Reitman did make two movies that today would have made like $800 million ww. He deserved another shot at this franchise and not the garbage that god made instead.

No way is the break even point $300M. It will have to be MUCH higher. With a production budget of $144M and the huge marketing push (at least $100M) so total invested is $244+, $300M will not get their investment back. Theaters take their cut and in overseas markets, the $$ going back to Sony is even less then US theaters. Going by the old 3x budget before profit means they'd have to make almost $450 M before they come close to making back their investment.

Ghostbuster 2 isn't a good film but when my son asked me if I liked the new one better than Ghostbusters 2 (the bar I set for it being acceptable) I said yeah but I'd probably watch Ghostbusters 2 again before I'd watch the reboot. If I'm not going to watch the best film I'd rather watch one with the characters I love than one with characters I'm not that attached to even if the new one is slightly better.

So that's who we're blaming now?

The conspiracy against True(tm) Ghostbusters fans goes RIGHT TO THE FUCKING TOP, MAN!!