Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4882694
Raystantz Italy wrote:But you have to take into account that Labirynth wasn't a soulless reboot.
GBII is one of my favorite movies, but it is very obviously a cash grab. Every sequel is by definition. We seem to have forgotten that in this age of franchises gone wild. If you want integrity, go watch an indie. Cherry picking Hollywood films won't help you achieve that goal.
Alphagaia liked this
#4882697
JurorNo.2 wrote:But again, is that why you like the movie, because it made money? Would you be ashamed to be seen with it otherwise?
No, it matters to me because I wanted to see my favourite franchise be a success, to have a future and to be the kind of hit franchise it had every potential to be.
deadderek liked this
#4882700
Commander_Jim wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:But again, is that why you like the movie, because it made money? Would you be ashamed to be seen with it otherwise?
No, it matters to me because I wanted to see my favourite franchise be a success, to have a future and to be the kind of hit franchise it had every potential to be.
That's fair, but it's already had enough success worth 10 lifetimes. How has it not reached its potential already?
#4882734
lol...I like how this GB reboot fiasco turned most of our forum members into accountants when it comes to budget and marketing analysis. Who said we'd never use math outside of school?!

Btw, red letter media just released a video today talking about box office numbers and marketing. Check the 7:20 mark, they talk about Ghostbusters.

#4882748
Heh, just watched that video. They touched on something that's Ive noticed with the press. The way they were really spinning it to try make the movie look like it was successful early on - "Ghostbusters has biggest ever opening for a Melissa McCarthy movie!" and now articles are just plain referring to it as "failed reboot" and "box office disaster". Wonder what caused the turnaround.
#4882764
JurorNo.2 wrote:Because it didn't make the splash something like Force Awakens did.

Anyone who thought the reboot would even go anywhere near Force Awakens money in any way needs to be carted off to Arkham.
#4882765
Well, even RLM admits a positive score received by critics and audience (see my previous post) does not influence box office. They show a bad movie can do well and vice versa.

No one is saying now that GB:ATC has run it's cinematic course the movie did good box office wise. The new movie was liked well enough however and did bring back the spotlight on the franchise, for new and old fans.

Let's hope it created enough new fans and merchandise income for Ghost Corps to survive, instead of becoming a Ghost Corpse, as RLM claims it already has become.

Also, are they not calculating it wrong?
They say Batman vs Superman made a profit:

BvsS: budget+ marketing: 500
BO: 800
Profit: 300

Was everyone here not making a big deal about how we should half the BO as the studio only getting 50% per ticket?

That means BO becomes 400 for BvsS and (400-500) makes it a loss of 100 instead if a profit of 300.

If I look at all the other movies, with the 50% BO rule, almost none make a profit.
#4882768
deadderek wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:Because it didn't make the splash something like Force Awakens did.

Anyone who thought the reboot would even go anywhere near Force Awakens money in any way needs to be carted off to Arkham.
In a perfect world, a corporate created Star Wars wouldn't have made money at all.
#4882776
Alphagaia wrote: Also, are they not calculating it wrong?
They say Batman vs Superman made a profit:

BvsS: budget+ marketing: 500
BO: 800
Profit: 300

Was everyone here not making a big deal about how we should half the BO as the studio only getting 50% per ticket?

That means BO becomes 400 for BvsS and (400-500) makes it a loss of 100 instead if a profit of 300.

If I look at all the other movies, with the 50% BO rule, almost none make a profit.
Actually whether or not Superman v Batman managed to break even or not has been one of the biggest points of discussion about the box office this year.

The figure usually given for Batman v Supermans budget + marketing is $420 million, with most writers estimating it needed to make about $800 million to break even. So if it did it only scraped by.

You need to take into account though that with $800m that's still a huge hit movie that a hell of a lot of people saw and consequently bought merchandise for etc.
#4882780
Commander_Jim wrote:
Alphagaia wrote: Also, are they not calculating it wrong?
They say Batman vs Superman made a profit:

BvsS: budget+ marketing: 500
BO: 800
Profit: 300

Was everyone here not making a big deal about how we should half the BO as the studio only getting 50% per ticket?

That means BO becomes 400 for BvsS and (400-500) makes it a loss of 100 instead if a profit of 300.

If I look at all the other movies, with the 50% BO rule, almost none make a profit.
Actually whether or not Superman v Batman managed to break even or not has been one of the biggest points of discussion about the box office this year.

The figure usually given for Batman v Supermans budget + marketing is $420 million, with most writers estimating it needed to make about $800 million to break even. So if it did it only scraped by.

You need to take into account though that with $800m that's still a huge hit movie that a hell of a lot of people saw and consequently bought merchandise for etc.
I understand the merchandise is not calculated in this, but you did not answer my question: doesn't the BO have to be cut in half because of ticket price? So how can it cut even with 800 million?
#4882790
Well we dont know if it did. If you go to the BvS IMDB board whether or not Batman V Superman made money is about the most common thread.

Its not as simple as a 50% split. That figure is the rule of thumb because its about the average split between studio and vendor by the end of an average movies box office run. But its a sliding scale, studios take the biggest percentage in the first week and it drops over time, as the cinema plays to more empty seats it gets a bigger cut of each ticket.

BvS was an odd movie that made half a billion dollars in its first week, then fell off a cliff with like an 80% drop in its second week. Meaning the studio took the biggest percentage in the one week that it made almost all its money. So the 50/50 split doesnt really work with it and yeah, the studio probably did make money from the movie.

GB 16 took a much more traditional cinematic journey. It opened low and had average week to week drops. So the 50% split is probably right on.
#4882792
Alphagaia wrote:I think you should delve a bit deeper in the numbers behind that outcome of 5.5/10.
It has a median of 7 for instance.

Look how many people voted a 10 or a 1. Both are considered biased votes in my opinion: I think if we remove those from the equation we can get a much more fair number.

All of a sudden the number 6,7,8 stand out in the reviews, with even the 9 having more percentage then the negative votes.

Image
I checked out this IMDb page yesterday to see if anything has changed, but it's still the same. For each age group of men, one star always has the most votes. For each age group of women, ten stars always has the most votes.
Last edited by Sav C on October 11th, 2016, 2:35 pm, edited 4 times in total.
#4882793
Commander_Jim wrote:Well we dont know if it did. If you go to the BvS IMDB board whether or not Batman V Superman made money is about the most common thread.

Its not as simple as a 50% split. That figure is the rule of thumb because its about the average split between studio and vendor by the end of an average movies box office run. But its a sliding scale, studios take the biggest percentage in the first week and it drops over time, as the cinema plays to more empty seats it gets a bigger cut of each ticket.

BvS was an odd movie that made half a billion dollars in its first week, then fell off a cliff with like an 80% drop in its second week. Meaning the studio took the biggest percentage in the one week that it made almost all its money. So the 50/50 split doesnt really work with it and yeah, the studio probably did make money from the movie.

GB 16 took a much more traditional cinematic journey. It opened low and had average week to week drops. So the 50% split is probably right on.
Hmm, it sorta makes sense, but do we know what the startof split is for any these movies? I thought it was 50/50 and becoming more in the favor of the cinemas as the weeks progessed? In short, BvsS still only got 50% of the BO? Do we have any proof of how this exactly works?

Didn't most movies have a 80-% drop off anyway according to RLM after the first week?
#4882811
I'm glad that you clarified that the bold part wasn't part of the quote, but I think that's still fairly misleading to include it in the quotes (for those who may not read your entire post). It really doesn't do anything to serve your point either, as he didn't actually say that.

Now, his quote is definitely interesting, and he's right. It's interesting to see him sort of play both sides of this throughout the last year or so.
#4882829
Alphagaia wrote: Hmm, it sorta makes sense, but do we know what the startof split is for any these movies? I thought it was 50/50 and becoming more in the favor of the cinemas as the weeks progessed? In short, BvsS still only got 50% of the BO? Do we have any proof of how this exactly works?
Every movie is different, they make individual deals for every movie, taking into account projections of how much of a crowd they'll bring (a big crowd means cinemas make a lot of money from the Candy Bar. A smaller movie not so much), how many screens and it will show on and how much staff a cinema will need to employ to show it etc. Only the cinemas and studios know for sure.
I remember reading that with The Phantom Menace 100% of every ticket in the first week went back to the studio/distributor which they could get away with because they knew cinemas could clean up on Candy Bar sales from the massive crowd the movie was going to bring in. That kind of thing stopped happening with the Global Financial Crisis though because people stopped spending as much on a night at the cinema. So now for a typical big release (ie, a Marvel film) for the first two weeks the studio will take 75% of the gross. After that the cinema will take a bigger cut (which is also to encourage cinemas to keep playing a movie for as long as possible) and generally it will average out to about 50/50 overall. This is why studios are so heavily promoting midnight releases these days, they want as many people to see the film in the first week when they make the most money.
Comedies and dramas are a different thing, unlike the likes of the Superhero movies or Star Wars, they dont generally bring in big crowds or have huge opening weeks, but they dont usually have big week to week drops either, they kind of maintain a level audience for a lot longer. So the studio would make a different deal with them. Maybe 50/50 the whole way.

With Batman v Superman I very much doubt it was a 50/50 split, because the movie made practically all its money when the studio was taking the biggest cut. The movie was dead after two weeks so by the time the cinema was taking a bigger proportion it didnt make much difference.
Do we have any proof of how this exactly works?
Im just going from my own experience (I was assistant manager of a cinema back in the early 2000's) and as a movie nerd I took an interest in this stuff at the time, but if you google Box Office Economics theres a few more in depth articles out there.
Didn't most movies have a 80-% drop off anyway according to RLM after the first week?
Nah, the average for a blockbuster is about 60-65%% for its second weekend. This is what you see most of the Marvel films and other big hits doing. Smaller movies like comedies and dramas its more like 40%-50%. The big movies have bigger drops because more people see them on the opening weekend and go to midnight releases. Batman vs Superman's 80% drop was pretty unprecedented. Much of that was because it opened so massively, but then the bad reviews and WoM killed it on the second week.
Alphagaia liked this
#4882856
JurorNo.2 wrote:
deadderek wrote:

Anyone who thought the reboot would even go anywhere near Force Awakens money in any way needs to be carted off to Arkham.
In a perfect world, a corporate created Star Wars wouldn't have made money at all.

In a perfect world, we would've gotten Ghostbusters 3 instead of the flop reboot, but that's life. On the plus side we did get the video game which was a God send.
#4882859
GB 3 can still happen, if someone dares to take up that gauntlet and gets all the stars to align.

I get that you are angry after all those years of trying, and sometimes getting close, but nothing happening, but that's hardly GB: ATC fault.

GB:ATC came into being because people could not get a sequel going for 2016, it never wanted to shut the door on a possible sequel.

In the meantime, some of us got a nice distraction in the form of an alternate timeline while we wait.
Kingpin, pferreira1983 liked this
#4882860
We got our Ghostbusters 3 with the Video Game, even Dan himself says he considers it as such. A proper theatrical version would have been preferred obviously.
#4882861
deadderek wrote:We got our Ghostbusters 3 with the Video Game, even Dan himself says he considers it as such. A proper theatrical version would have been preferred obviously.
Yeah, I know that, I was just going from your wish there was a proper GB3 instead of GB:ATC/videogame.

I agree it's a sad day when fans have to be content with a videogame as their closing chapter. Still better then nothing ofcourse, considering how hard it was to get that videogame of the ground.

Whenever they make a new movie, I think the videogame becomes 2.5 or non canon, but it depends on the story presented.

I feel it's debating about semantics, though.
#4882866
Even with the 15 minutes of new footage, what are we still missing out on?

There's some really fun stuff -- a lot of it is in the deleted scenes. There's a lot of backstory or emotional story between Kristen and Melissa's characters, because it was really a movie about legitimacy and validation. Kristen's character, who'd been called crazy her entire life because she saw a ghost and everybody thought she was nuts, when she finally find out it's real, she is so desperate to let everybody know she's not crazy. But then either they can't prove it or people don't believe them or when they finally are ready to believe them, the mayor says they have to say they’re frauds so they don't cause mass hysteria. So, there are scenes dealing with that. Kristen's character ends up going back to the college to try to get her job back and then she and Abby have kind of a breakup scene outside that I find very touching and sweet. Sadly, there was just too much of it. Or just move than a movie like this could hold. You can't put out a three hour cut of a comedy about people catching ghosts.
Interesting! The extended edition reveals more about these outtakes regarding the relationsship between Erin and Abby, but it seems there is so much more left of the cutting room.
#4882868
deadderek wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:
In a perfect world, a corporate created Star Wars wouldn't have made money at all.

In a perfect world, we would've gotten Ghostbusters 3 instead of the flop reboot, but that's life. On the plus side we did get the video game which was a God send.
In a perfect world, the fanbase wouldn't have had a freak out over not getting what it wants.
Sav C, Kingpin liked this
#4882887
JurorNo.2 wrote:
deadderek wrote:

In a perfect world, we would've gotten Ghostbusters 3 instead of the flop reboot, but that's life. On the plus side we did get the video game which was a God send.
In a perfect world, the fanbase wouldn't have had a freak out over not getting what it wants.
Again, they can't all be Fury Road..but a sincere effort would be nice.

Also, not sure about your comment about "all sequels being cash grabs" in that case. Quite a lot of risk riding on that one.
#4882892
I think GB:ATC is a sincere effort.

I wish we could finally leave this kind of mudslinging. You like or dislike the movie.

No need to keep dissing the movie or the haters and finding ways to bring it/them down as if one's opinion is the only right one.

It only causes people from either side to become triggered and the struggle continues.
JurorNo.2, Sav C, Kingpin liked this
#4882894
Alphagaia wrote: No need to keep dissing the movie or the haters and finding ways to bring it/them down as if one's opinion is the only right one.
Well a lot of fans have this idea that they're defending the honor of the original movies it's their duty to keep pushing the issue. You'd think, since they're constantly reminding us the movie failed and all, they'd realize the war was over and they could move on. And yet, here we are. ;)
Sav C, Razorgeist liked this
#4882897
JurorNo.2 wrote:In a perfect world, the fanbase wouldn't have had a freak out over not getting what it wants.
LOL look at you still all bitter over ATC failing, it wasn't the fans' fault that the film flopped. Maybe 3% of the internet GB fanbase, but news flash: NOT ALL GHOSTBUSTERS FANS USE THE TWITTER. In a "perfect world" star wars fans would have backed up the prequels too? Complete with Jar Jar, I suppose? This thing failed popular franchise 101: never change the origins, characters, and flip off the fans (even if a few were obnoxious, everybody was bundled in and it felt like an attack on all of them). Some may not like the "force awakens" logic, but that film stayed in continuity while simultaneously introduced new characters and not only did the hardcore fans enjoy it - but the general audience too. And the results show.

With a "screw the fans" attitude it makes me wonder if you're actually Tom Rothman.
Last edited by SpaceBallz on October 12th, 2016, 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

My Little Pony/Ghostbusters crossover done by my d[…]

Great work identifying the RS Temperature Control […]

I read Back in Town #1. Spoilers : Hate to b[…]

I'd really like to see the new t-shirt unlocks tra[…]