I thought you'd moved on from the political discussions, Sundakan? :P
I thought you'd moved on from the political discussions, Sundakan? :P
I'm in a frisky mood today, I guess.
If you want a less "problematic"/flippant response, Belle, it's pretty hard to dispute it's currently a commercisl flop. It's made back only a fraction of its budget.
Critical flops are another matter, and few are discussing this as one of those. A movie can be one without being both. See: Transformers. Critical flop, commercial uber success. Or vice versa, any number of highbrow art films that are well reviewed but do poorly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Literally the only places I've seen this film discussed as a flop are this forum and MRA sites.
Thanks to Hollywood accounting, flops don't exactly mean what they used to anymore. SERENITY was a failure on initial release, but actually turned a profit once foreign sales and media releases were taken into account. PACIFIC RIM was pretty damn close to failing, but then got a lift from abroad and is now getting a sequel (although they had to fight for it). The new STAR TREK movies made, on paper, reasonable profits given their budgets and marketing, but under-performed against Paramount's targets which has caused them issues (and STAR TREK BEYOND is not looking great either at the moment). There's actually a very good chance that BATMAN VS SUPERMAN's profits were nowhere near as good as it first looks, as the film's marketing budget (especially internationally) was considerably higher than the norm.
GB is now passing $90 million, which means it'll certainly make its production budget back, but may struggle to get to marketing as well. It'll certainly recoup the rest on DVD, Blu-Ray and streaming. So the film being a flop isn't realistically on the cards. It isn't a slam dunk for a sequel though, and Sony will have to think hard on that. Sometimes studios will double down on a franchise and deliver new installments as a sign of good faith even if the franchise has not delivered as highly as you'd hoped. But it'd be tricky to do that if the film hasn't recouped on the initial box office run.
What they'd need to do is come back in a couple of months and see where the film stands once the theatrical run is over and then look at where the media release and streaming takes them.
Wert,
I heard rumors that Sony has already said yes to the sequel.
Also heard while it wasn't a blockbuster like they hoped, Sony at least recouped their money and a little more so they might consider doing another one down the road.
I think it's definitely worth remembering merchandising in this case. The movie might have flopped, but it might still be worth pursuing the franchise in the hopes that the sequel will do better, just for the merchandising options.
There's most certainly that little dragon man person.
On GHOSTBUSTERS? No, it's at $90 million now. The budget is $144 million and with marketing the break-even point will be $300 million (or slightly less), so it's about a third of the way there. If it doesn't get to $300 million, Sony will lose money. With no Chinese release, I can't see the film getting that far unless the positive reviews keep it afloat longer then expected and it works as an alternative for people who don't want to go see something like SUICIDE SQUAD or STAR TREK. The weekend figures for this weekend will be very telling in that regard (but it sounds like STAR TREK BEYOND has opened at a much lower level than either of its predecessors; whether that will help GB is unclear).
Sony have been bullish about wanting to build a franchise off of GHOSTBUSTERS, but I can't see that flying unless this first movie at least breaks even and gives them confidence to do a sequel.
Merchandising will probably help a bit, but this Christmas is going to be dominated by STAR WARS and POKEMON. GB stuff will likely do okay but I don't see it being a huge factor.
Mmm we'll have to see won't we Wert.
You're right, everyone knows numbers are misogynistic.Literally the only places I've seen this film discussed as a flop are this forum and MRA sites.The point being that Ghostbusters isn't being discussed as a flop.It's highly unlikely that GHOSTBUSTERS is going to recoup it's budget in theatrical release. We'll see in a month or so. But right now? It's a flop.
Move goal posts around enough and everything's a flop.
No one even CAN move goalposts...none were set.
*moved the goal posts once in a metaphysical sense*
That's how I got the Pens to win the Cup. :p ;)
*moved the goal posts once in a metaphysical sense*
That's how I got the Pens to win the Cup. :p ;)
So one's saying one *had to cheat* for the Pens?
They couldn't win on their own strength/mojo/karma?
That's pretty cruel when one thinks about it?
Well, I suppose we'll know in two years.
If nothing is going on, or they say there is no sequel, it's pretty clear those who say it's a complete flop are right.
If a sequel is in the theaters or being filmed in two years time, that pretty much says it on that hand as well.
Either way, I imagine this debate will be answered in two years most likely.
Sony might also be judging its success as a comedy. It's the director (who generally is considered a pretty successful comedic director) largest opening weekend. a sequel with a reduced effects budget could actually be successful. Comedies just in general don't seem to be things that work effectively as big budget blockbusters.
It looks like there was some confusion over where the audience was. Paul Feig and Melissa McCartney are a proven winning combination, but their previous movies were very blatantly woman-and-couple-friendly comedies that had relatively low budgets and offered an alternative choice to big effects blockbusters. GHOSTBUSTERS is a big effects blockbuster, and I don't see it automatically appealing to people who liked BRIDESMAIDS beyond the (relative) tiny number who automatically know the director's name and his past work.
There's also the problem that the first trailer was awful. The second was a lot better and started turning things around, but that was rather late in the day. Plus the launch period turned out to be busier than maybe they initially planned.
No one is moving goalposts. It needs to make $300 to 400 million to break even. It's chances of doing so are slim, at best.
About $280 million, with $300 million being the magic number according to Sony insiders. More than that will be welcome, of course, but it certainly doesn't need $400 million to be declared a success.
The 2009 STAR TREK movie cost $150 million, needed $300 million to break even, took $385 million and that was enough to get a bigger-budgeted sequel. PACIFIC RIM was even tighter, costing $190 million, needing about $380 million, taking $411 million and only just squeezing out a sequel after a lot of number-crunching and leveraging a deal with a new studio with lots of backroom dealing.
Variety:
The film carries a massive $144 million price tag, plus at least $100 million more in marketing costs. Insiders estimate that it will have to do at least $300 million globally to break even and substantially more than that to justify a sequel. To get there, the film will have to show some impressive endurance while fending off a crowded field of summer blockbuster hopefuls. It will also need to resonate with foreign crowds unfamiliar with the original 1984 comedy or its 1989 sequel.
Hollywood Reporter:
It needs to do sizable business overseas, since it could top out in the $130 million range domestically. (Sony insiders counter that the break-even number is $300 million.)
As a rule of thumb, the 2x production figure is a reliable metric on what a movie needs to break even. The 3x figure is for a slamdunk sequel, although as STAR TREK 2009 and PACIFIC RIM show, that's not always necessary.
*moved the goal posts once in a metaphysical sense*
That's how I got the Pens to win the Cup. :p ;)
So one's saying one *had to cheat* for the Pens?
They couldn't win on their own strength/mojo/karma?
That's pretty cruel when one thinks about it?
Cruel? I don't think they noticed.
Also if you'd watched the series there were plenty of times shots just didn't go in...
So...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't even need to watch this movie to actually see the movie. Watch the trailers and you will see the entire movie laid out in front of you. They screwed up big there. Hey when was the last time that Sony made a good movie? I honestly can not remember, and I mean good as in it was quality, stands up to people actually paying attention to the movie rather than laughing at the shiny keys dangling in their face, and is rewatchable multiple times. Ghostbusters was a great film. Everything fit their narrative and you could tell they actually cared when they made this. The jokes were actually funny and the normal people actually acted like people. Plus, Officer Carl Winslow.
As someone who actually saw the movie, I couldn't disagree more. And as someone who recently watched the first movie, I actually find that just as many of the jokes in the original landed as the ones in this movie. Nostalgia can really help a movie.
I think the big failing of that there really is no market for a big budget blockbuster comedy. After all can you name a recent example? Other than Pixels, which I think was also a flop?
Sony should have reigned in the budget on this (a lot of the climax could have been trimmed down quite a bit without hurting the movie, and some more practical effects would have probably improved it in fact.
I like the original Ghost Busters.
*hated both honestly*
Also, I don't see how your quote discredits Polygon for all time.Leaving out the hyperbolic "for all time," it demonstrates disdain for the topic that they ostensibly cover. That, in turn, hurts their credibility. It's the same reason why ESPN doesn't say "all sports are a waste of time, of course."
That's just one of Polygon's recent issues; I won't even get started on the fiasco that was their review of Doom.
With such standards in place no media would be remotely credible.No, I don't believe it's unreasonable to have a standard of "don't hold your core audience in contempt."
I don't know why I came back to this trainwreck of a thread, but no - they might have once in your estimation expressed contempt for their audience (and let's not even get into whether and how much I disagree with that). It doesn't seem to be a habit, and this is basically just an attack on their credibility because you don't like what they had to say.
Well, if anything good came out of that article, it was this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, Studios are going to have to reevaluate the entire industry. They are spending WAY too much on movies now days, and have entirely too high of expectations.
CGI was supposed to be CHEAP. They weren't building anything... they weren't blowing anything up... they weren't putting actors into jeopardy anymore... but the cgi budget for these movies has skyrocketed.
Expecting 300 Million for a remake/reboot.... is unrealistic. Ghostbusters unfortunately is in that unfortunate genre, where a high CGI budget is almost necessary and expected... but they do it everywhere now.
Lone Ranger is my favorite example. There was a TON of CGI in that movie. Unrealistic stunts on an outdated property pushed that budget out to 215 MILLION dollars.
To make a western.
NOW... Personally I LOVE the Lone Ranger. I always have. My dad loved it, and he instilled some serious love of westerns in me. But 215,000,000?!?!? Needing what? $400M? $600M? The Dark KNight didn't make that kind of Gross!!!
Compare it to Mask of Zorro. That had a budget of $65M, made 93M and got a sequel.
Same principle. Masked outlaw riding horses, fighting bad guys, action... Adventure!!! Switch the sword for a six-shooter and you have the same concept. Lone Ranger did not NEED a budget of $215M.
This is going to be a common problem for all the studios. The ticket prices have all gone up... Poor 3D is jacking them even more... and people are being much pickier about what they want to spend their money on. There are a LOT of ways that movies are released to the public now... and going to the theater to watch something that even SOUNDS disappointing is death to a franchise.
If they don't find ways to cut those budgets/CGI/salaries down to a reasonable expectation... I see some sad sad days for Hollywood soon.
TotalBiscuit talking about games journalism?
TotalBiscuit talking about games journalism?
Dramatic readings are very controversial, I hear.
Well I guess we'll see come the end of this week if Sony decides to say yes to Ghostbuster II or not.
Mmm good point Krensky.
Still really confused on what Polygon has to do with anything.
IIRC, the link to the news item posted from that website was something not novel to them and was covered by a wide variety of media.
Try posting the whole quote rather than cherry picking to support your and Sony's narrative.
Given your constant cherry-picking of figures to support your narrative of wanting this film to flop, forgive me if I smile here.
Considering the duplicity, deception, and cynical PR that Song is known for generally and demonstrated in regards to this movie, I'll take keep their optimistic numbers with a grain of salt.
Of course. Why trust or discuss the information coming from the people who financed and backed the movie? Clearly, they want it to do well and present the best face possible on things, but there are limitations on how far they can spin that.
The film has now taken $130 million and should reach its production budget in the next few days. Then it has to claw back the marketing budget, which Sony has not disclosed. As was said earlier, this will be around 2x the production budget. 3x is only necessary if the film was marketed all around the world on a massive scale, which GHOSTBUSTERS very definitely was not.
The suggestion the film needs to make $400 million or even $350 million to be judged successful (a far higher standard than the higher-budgeted and considerably better-marketed 2009 STAR TREK movie) is patently ludicrous, and seems to have been suggested by people with a vested interest in watching it fail. $300 million will make it comfortably profitable, but it still might not reach that figure.
but no - they might have once in your estimation expressed contempt for their audienceLeaving aside that that's just the most notable example, I'm quite confident that my estimation of their contempt for their audience is an accurate representation of their views.
We're talking about a review of Rock Band 4 that included lines such as:
"I don't care about rock music."
"Look, sometimes in this job you gotta cover games you don't really give a stuff about."
"All video games are stupid, of course."
This is the person who the video game news company sent to review the rock 'n' roll video game; someone who doesn't care about rock music, thinks video games are stupid, and openly admits he doesn't care about this game in particular. But that's not at all contemptuous of their audience?
Meh. Seems like a sarcastic style choice to me more than contempt. It's not like they don't have footsteps to follow in. Ben Croshaw's been doing it in a far more over the top manner since when - 2007?
The film has now taken $130 million and should reach its production budget in the next few days. Then it has to claw back the marketing budget, which Sony has not disclosed. As was said earlier, this will be around 2x the production budget. 3x is only necessary if the film was marketed all around the world on a massive scale, which GHOSTBUSTERS very definitely was not.
OK, so it doesn't look like it's on track to earn back the marketing budget on its own, but it seems they're making a killing on merchandising.
If the film is successful purely on the strength of merchandising, does that merit a sequel?
Meh. Seems like a sarcastic style choice to me more than contempt. It's not like they don't have footsteps to follow in. Ben Croshaw's been doing it in a far more over the top manner since when - 2007?
Watch or read a Zero Punctuation review, and then immediately read that article again. The difference will become apparent VERY quickly.
The broad difference here is the Polygon author is hating on video games as a medium. They're stupid and not worth his time.
Croshaw hates on the industry fairly often, because most of what is produced is trash, but never dips into the realm of "I hate video games, they're stupid". He also quite often will tell when he had fun with something even when it WAS trash, because he likes to play video games, and can find the fun in something that's not his cup of tea.
It's the difference between a scathing, overly critical review and outright contempt for the thing you're reviewing as a whole. Croshaw sees the benefit of the medium, he just apples Sturgeon's Law a lot more broadly than other people. The Polygon author does not seem to get why anyone would like ANY video game, and music games in particular, so his entire "review" is pretentious whining about he can't have any fun because Rock Band 4 is dumb, and he can't like dumb things.
At best, it's the difference between a good, funny writer and a complete hack who tried to copy the former's style and failed in a spectacular fashion. At worst, the latter is just a pretentious dick who for some reason decided to make a job out of reviewing things he doesn't understand.
Either way, the credibility of the site as a whole takes a small hit just for him being on staff, and in light of all the other dumb things they've done points to a trend of ignorance and inability.
So...bueller? Sorry I meant no news then on updated figures and such for Ghostbusters?
Still, money made through merchandising looks just as good on the balance sheet as money made from ticket sales.
I guess my implicit question was "Would the merchandising sales still be as strong for a sequel?"
I would guess there would be some market saturation issues (if you have the set of action figures from the first movie, will you buy the new ones when the sequel comes out?), but on the other hand, I don't think a franchise like Harry Potter had that problem.