GBFans.com

RichardLess wrote: ↑July 26th, 2021, 11:41 pmKeep in mind studios don’t get all that money though. They keep on average about 50% of the WW reported gross. But Sony also didn’t pay for the entire movie. They had some financing partners.

Regardless. Once you cut 50% off of that gross your looking at some pretty big losses.

This is a worthwhile point, although you are exaggerating a bit. I can't find exact statistics, but 50% is not an overall number. Opening weekend favors the studio, 60/40 or higher, and then it evens out as the run goes on. Regardless, this is not going to cut the theatrical box office grosses in half, especially given Ghostbusters (2016) didn't do so well, which would make the take more favorable to the studio than the theaters.

I would say, between the tie-in books, the Mattel action figures and other assorted toys, the Funko Pops, the soundtrack album, clothing, and all other merchandise, $30m WW would be an extremely conservative estimate. I would say another $5m in domestic home video sales between the time The Numbers' data ends and today, $15m in domestic physical and digital rentals during the entire period the film has been on home video, and $25m in digital and physical rental and sales for the entire rest of the world, for the entire period the film was on video would also be extremely conservative hypotheticals. Those would get the film to $342m. That still leaves any cable and streaming deals, the various food tie-ins, The Void, and probably some other things that I haven't even thought of.

To be fair, I'm fully aware that these are all completely hypothetical numbers. However, it feels like, if the film did $38m in the US DVD and Blu-ray sales in less than a year, for example, and I'm only hypothesizing less than that for the entire rest of the world for the entire 5 years it's been on home video, and I can still get to a figure where it seems like Sony would have broken even, It becomes hard to imagine a scenario in which they don't.

droidguy1119 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2021, 1:19 am

RichardLess wrote: ↑July 26th, 2021, 11:41 pmKeep in mind studios don’t get all that money though. They keep on average about 50% of the WW reported gross. But Sony also didn’t pay for the entire movie. They had some financing partners.

Regardless. Once you cut 50% off of that gross your looking at some pretty big losses.

This is a worthwhile point, although you are exaggerating a bit. I can't find exact statistics, but 50% is not an overall number. Opening weekend favors the studio, 60/40 or higher, and then it evens out as the run goes on. Regardless, this is not going to cut the theatrical box office grosses in half, especially given Ghostbusters (2016) didn't do so well, which would make the take more favorable to the studio than the theaters.

I would say, between the tie-in books, the Mattel action figures and other assorted toys, the Funko Pops, the soundtrack album, clothing, and all other merchandise, $30m WW is an extremely conservative estimate. I would say another $5m in domestic home video sales between the time The Numbers' data ends and today, $15m in domestic physical and digital rentals during the entire period the film has been on home video, and $25m in digital and physical rental and sales for the rest of the world for the entire period the film was on video are all also extremely conservative hypotheticals. Even those bare numbers, which I would say have to be lowballs based on data we do have, the film gets to $342m. That still leaves any cable and streaming deals, the various food tie-ins, The Void, and probably some other things that I haven't even thought of.

To be fair, I'm fully aware that these are all hypothetical numbers. But if the film did $38m in the US DVD and Blu-ray sales in less than a year, for example, and I'm saying it did less than that for the entire rest of the world for the entire 5 years it's been on home video, and I can still get to a figure where it seems like Sony would have broken even, It becomes hard to imagine a scenario in which they don't.

It’s a general rule of thumb that usually reported BO averages to a 50/50 split between theatres and studios after all is said and done for your average release. Sometimes the terms are much more favourable to the studio when it’s a title like Star Wars or Avengers & they take 80/20 split and then in something like week 4 it reverses to the theatres favour. But even then it usually ends up pretty even. The really hard part is when it comes to worldwide box office, studios can get quite a bit less depending on the country. I can’t remember if GB ATC was released in theatres in China but studios get about 25% of the reported Chinese gross. Russia is a low percentage too. India is another low one. Then of course sometimes Studios sell the theatrical distribution rights to a local company. New Line Cinema lost out on a windfall when they hedged their bets on the LOTR trilogy. Those movies were bigger hits worldwide than in North America New Line sold almost all the foreign distribution to cover the budget in case the movies failed. They still made a lot of from the North American box office but man, at the time Return of the King was only the second movie to hit that magic billion dollar World Wide figure after Titanic.

When you think about all that, how much some of these movies can cost and all the distribution and marketing hurdles, you realize how slim the profit margins are on most movies, just from a theatrical stand point. Look at AT&T. How long were they in the game before they were like “oops. We made a mistake”. But when you have a hit? Man. You are printing money. Especially on all those ancillary stuff you talk about.

There’s an interesting show on Netflix called “The Toys That Made Us” & one of the episodes is super interesting. It’s about Star Wars and how the toy license deal was negotiated for the original trilogy and then the prequels. Turns out, on the original trilogy, Lucas wasn’t getting near the money people thought. He was still making shit loads just because the Toys were so popular but it was a relatively small percentage point out of each toy sold. Of course that all changed during the prequel era when the original company, Kenner, screwed up a simple contractual clause that made sure they kept the rights—causing them to lose the rights which returned them back to Lucas for renegotiating…to the highest bidder. Then he got a way bigger slice of the pie from the new licensee(Hasbro I think?). So even the Toys sometimes companies aren’t making what we think.

The truth of the matter is every single ancillary sold, Sony only gets a fraction of. Toys, T-shirts, VOD…whatever. Did Ghostbusters 2016 break even? I think we have the answer. I don’t think Sony would turn around & make another Ghostbusters movie so quickly if GB16 lost them that much money. Especially keeping theatrical after no doubt numerous streaming companies waved untold millions in there face to take it off their hands.

It’s been, what? 5 years? If it hasn’t broken even it’s gotta be close. I just don’t think they’d risk another potential money loser so quickly. Because they probably don’t see this as “reboot vs original” they just see it as “the brand”.

RichardLess wrote: ↑July 27th, 2021, 2:06 amDid Ghostbusters 2016 break even? I think we have the answer. I don’t think Sony would turn around & make another Ghostbusters movie so quickly if GB16 lost them that much money. Especially keeping theatrical after no doubt numerous streaming companies waved untold millions in there face to take it off their hands.

I just don’t think they’d risk another potential money loser so quickly. Because they probably don’t see this as “reboot vs original” they just see it as “the brand”.

It also helps that it sounds like they spent as little as $75m on this one, which would be the where "3x budget" profitability rule would kick in...at about around what Ghostbusters (2016) made at the box office.

droidguy1119 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2021, 6:56 am

RichardLess wrote: ↑July 27th, 2021, 2:06 amDid Ghostbusters 2016 break even? I think we have the answer. I don’t think Sony would turn around & make another Ghostbusters movie so quickly if GB16 lost them that much money. Especially keeping theatrical after no doubt numerous streaming companies waved untold millions in there face to take it off their hands.

I just don’t think they’d risk another potential money loser so quickly. Because they probably don’t see this as “reboot vs original” they just see it as “the brand”.

It also helps that it sounds like they spent as little as $75m on this one, which would be the where "3x budget" profitability rule would kick in...at about around what Ghostbusters (2016) made at the box office.

Is that your guess at the budget again or has something been confirmed? 75 just feels a bit too low. But maybe. They did shoot in Canada which saved them alot. Then again if you watch the latest trailer with commentary from Reitman, Jason talks about a lot about the production and it sounds like they spared no expense. They built that house *twice*.

I’d be shocked if that movie cost less than 75-90 but surprised if it cost more than 120. I don’t think there’s anyway they spent more than that. But from the sounds of it they did a ton of practical effects and practical is expensive. Granted sometimes movie can really surprise the hell out of me in either how little they cost or how much. Deadpool costing only 58 million is a big one. That movie looks twice as expensive. Then you look at something like the first X-Men Origins Wolverine movie. 175 million. That’s more than Transformers!

Having watched the 2nd trailer, is 75 million still the number you think it costs? Check out the commentary track Jason did on the trailer. He goes into some detail on the production.

RichardLess wrote: ↑July 27th, 2021, 12:55 pm

droidguy1119 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2021, 6:56 am It also helps that it sounds like they spent as little as $75m on this one, which would be the where "3x budget" profitability rule would kick in...at about around what Ghostbusters (2016) made at the box office.

Is that your guess at the budget again or has something been confirmed? 75 just feels a bit too low. But maybe. They did shoot in Canada which saved them alot. Then again if you watch the latest trailer with commentary from Reitman, Jason talks about a lot about the production and it sounds like they spared no expense. They built that house *twice*.

I’d be shocked if that movie cost less than 75-90 but surprised if it cost more than 120. I don’t think there’s anyway they spent more than that. But from the sounds of it they did a ton of practical effects and practical is expensive. Granted sometimes movie can really surprise the hell out of me in either how little they cost or how much. Deadpool costing only 58 million is a big one. That movie looks twice as expensive. Then you look at something like the first X-Men Origins Wolverine movie. 175 million. That’s more than Transformers!

Having watched the 2nd trailer, is 75 million still the number you think it costs? Check out the commentary track Jason did on the trailer. He goes into some detail on the production.

$75m is the low end of what I think it could have cost. It's based on how much Sony spent on Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, which I think is more or less the kind of successful reboot they're trying to model this one on.

Don't forget that Dan explicitly said, to my memory, that they spent less than $100 million.

droidguy1119 wrote: ↑July 27th, 2021, 1:02 pm

RichardLess wrote: ↑July 27th, 2021, 12:55 pm

Is that your guess at the budget again or has something been confirmed? 75 just feels a bit too low. But maybe. They did shoot in Canada which saved them alot. Then again if you watch the latest trailer with commentary from Reitman, Jason talks about a lot about the production and it sounds like they spared no expense. They built that house *twice*.

I’d be shocked if that movie cost less than 75-90 but surprised if it cost more than 120. I don’t think there’s anyway they spent more than that. But from the sounds of it they did a ton of practical effects and practical is expensive. Granted sometimes movie can really surprise the hell out of me in either how little they cost or how much. Deadpool costing only 58 million is a big one. That movie looks twice as expensive. Then you look at something like the first X-Men Origins Wolverine movie. 175 million. That’s more than Transformers!

Having watched the 2nd trailer, is 75 million still the number you think it costs? Check out the commentary track Jason did on the trailer. He goes into some detail on the production.

$75m is the low end of what I think it could have cost. It's based on how much Sony spent on Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, which I think is more or less the kind of successful reboot they're trying to model this one on.

Don't forget that Dan explicitly said, to my memory, that they spent less than $100 million.

Yeah that’s true & Jumanji wasn’t exactly lacking in the spectacle department. That another movie where you look at that cast and think “How did they make that for 90m?”. The Rock & Kevin Hart are some of the top paid talent working. Maybe they took back end deals to help keep the budget manageable

Yeah I do remember that Dan quote. I just can’t trust anything he says. He also said all that stuff about Sony having to spend something like 40 million more dollars on GB16 than originally planned & that Paul Feig wouldn’t be allowed back on the Sony lot. Which we know isn’t true at all.

RichardLess wrote: ↑July 28th, 2021, 10:23 amYeah I do remember that Dan quote. I just can’t trust anything he says. He also said all that stuff about Sony having to spend something like 40 million more dollars on GB16 than originally planned & that Paul Feig wouldn’t be allowed back on the Sony lot. Which we know isn’t true at all.

I don't take everything Dan says seriously either, but he also clearly said "$30-40" when it was actually "$3-4" and he was angry. Since he gave the "under $100m" quote in the aftermath of that, when he clearly felt a little bad for letting his anger get the best of him, I have a higher confidence in that quote.

RichardLess wrote: ↑July 26th, 2021, 11:41 pm But yeah Studios do all kinds of things to hide the true numbers. Tax breaks are also part of it.

One thing I remember reading recently is the shell game tactic. They'll set up a subsidiary company to do something like marketing for the movie. They'll pay them millions of dollars out of the profits of the movie to do the work. So the movie looks like it has no profit left when it comes time to pay out a percentage to the actors and filmmakers. But all the money just went to another company owned by Sony or whoever, so the studio still has the money, just storing it under a different umbrella.

I also really liked ATC. I never had any problems with it except it not being a sequel too. I used to feel like I had to defend it but people do things on purpose. It was just taken to the extreme.

I really like seeing the gear go through phases and the first test in the subway. I wish the original movie did something like that. I like that the gear is more streamlined with new stuff. I’ve always wanted to see an upgraded proton pack.

Thought the cast was fine. Erin was my favorite. Holtzmann was a little too wacky imo but I’m ok with her. Kevin was too silly though. The villain was alright. Giant Rowan/Logo was awesome. His effects were really well done.

I just don’t like the goofier parts like the proton stream causing Abby to fly around but the more straightforward jokes were funny.

I read the ideas for connecting it the originals and I had the exact same ones. About the OGB minds erased and such. Not possible now, which is ok I loved Afterlife, but always thought it’d be a cool way without requiring the multiverse (have not read the comics).

I remain against the idea of connecting the universes, because I still can't help but feel like it is, unintentionally or not, condescending to the new characters. It reiterates that the old guys were there first and these women are just picking up the torch instead of the uncontested heroes of their own story.

I agree about the tech though. One thing that I only picked up on through some of the behind-the-scenes footage is that the cart they take into the subway has the red cyclotron (I feel like this is the wrong phrase -- not a technical expert) on the backside, and I really wish there was a shot of it lighting up as they prepare to try and bust the subway ghost to more clearly illustrate that element of the tech evolution.

I don’t think it’d be condescending at all. I always pictured it as them uncovering the truth and saving the OGB.

My idea was either the government made them get new identities because they wanted control or an evil villain that can manipulate time “erased” the first 2 events so the GB would not get in it’s way.

Through a wrinkle in time/Mandela Effect the girls were able to make their own equipment and eventually piece together what happened and reverse the effects. Not go back in time but restore the events and people’s memories.

This would go perfectly with Ray as the taxi driver knowing about ghosts and the graffiti artist using the logo design. Like deja vu/cracks the in villain’s power.

tylergfoster wrote: ↑February 1st, 2022, 11:54 pm and I really wish there was a shot of it lighting up as they prepare to try and bust the subway ghost to more clearly illustrate that element of the tech evolution.

I know it's not the bit of the Proton Trolley you're talking about, but there is a moment of red glow emphasizing the machine powering up to a higher output level, at the 2:28 mark:

I loved GB ATC… I’ve heard a lot of hate and finally decided to watch it… it really wasn’t all that bad. It’s in a separate universe to the OGs… i loved it.

At the end of the day we ended up with the true sequel we wanted AND a hilarious elseworld version. Win-win.

A reminder the Extended Version on the home release is superior to the Theatrical.

Chicken, He Clucked wrote: ↑May 5th, 2022, 6:40 am A reminder the Extended Version on the home release is superior to the Theatrical.

I like both. The extended cut adds context, but I felt a few of the jokes were stronger in the theatrical cut.

I wish I had the editing skills to mix and match the two cuts.

zeta otaku wrote: ↑May 5th, 2022, 10:39 am I like both. The extended cut adds context, but I felt a few of the jokes were stronger in the theatrical cut.

The "Anti-Irish security fence" one was definitely better than the one about the grandfather clock from the Titanic.

The recreation of their childhood dance performance was great and added more to the the character’s depth. Leslie Jones line at the end of it was hilarious too. I think her lines are my favorite out of the 4

My 11 y/o younger sister has never seen any of the ghostbusters movies (So i showed her GB 1, 2, and ATC (afterlife not free yet)
Her verdict is that she loves ATC the best. She likes that there are badass women kicking ghost butt (Do ghosts have that?)
Anyways, I would have liked a sequel. The end credits talking about Zuul got her excited, these women were going to face off against Zuul! Sadly, I had to be the bearer of unfortunate news... they most likely aren't going to make a sequel.

Ghosts_are_REAL?? wrote: ↑May 7th, 2022, 8:12 pm She likes that there are badass women kicking ghost butt (Do ghosts have that?)

Yes, ghosts definitely have butts.

If there's cheese on the moon it's green, it's swiss, it's moldy.

Happy 7th anniversary, ATC.

Seven years on and I still love it.

I may not care for ATC, but if it hadn't underperformed we would never have gotten Afterlife and for that I'm grateful.

Still love it!

A shame it gets a lot of (un)deserved negativity. I feel the timing of the movie could not have been any worse as it became a political and misogynistic mess which drowned out the people with actual praise and complaints.

Perhaps it would have done better had people known a sequel was in the works or if it came out between Afterlife and Firehouse.

Either way, I had fun and it was the movie that made me have an online presence in one of the best GB forums!

I'll always have a fondness for the reinterpretations of the familiar franchise staples: the Proton Packs, Trap, P.K.E. Meter, Ecto-1 and the uniforms. Those along with the comics featuring the 2016 team have added extra variety to the great tapestry of content that is the Ghostbusters multimedia franchise.

Ghostbusters: Answer The Call's time was short-lived, but it helped keep the torch burning and introduce a new generation to this rich and exciting world.

Ok. I apologize for anyone who loves GB16 and is about to read my rambling thoughts.


I’ve gotta get this out. This may offend some people. I hope not. I’m sorry in advance. So excuse me while I just unload on this movie for it’s 7th Birthday. It’s been awhile. So here it is. I’ve been saving this up for the right time and right moment. Maybe it’s now? Sure why not. Without further ado..

*Clears Throat*


I feel like this movie has not a single redeeming quality. If Adam Sandler’s team did a Ghostbusters movie, this is about what we’d get. From the awful and lazy direction to the product placement to the shit improv and shit cameos. And the effects. It’s like the effects people said “Hey Paul, how bright should we make the ghosts look” and all Paul said was “Yes”. Ghosts shouldn’t look like they appear in HD/4K in the real world. They should be faded & spooky. Not super bright and contrasty!

It’s poorly directed, the writing is awful. I see laziness and haphazard choices right left and centre. You have a movie with Ghosts but all the lighting is super bright and super saturated. There’s no mystery and no spookiness. Everything just is. And they shove it down our throats and expect us to accept it because it’s Ghostbusters.

Verisimilitude baby. The key to why those original movies work. Here? It’s whatever works. The amount they don’t care is evident.

This movie makes me angry. I don’t hate a lot of movies. Very few. I hate this movie. I have to admit it. Im sorry. I hate it.

I’ve tried. Oh god how I have tried. I went without watching it for a looong time. I tried again around May. It somehow was worse than I remembered.

All the characters suck. They have zero chemistry. I don’t believe anything that they are saying. They don’t feel like scientists. It feels like all the technobabble they speak was learned the day of the shoot.

It feels good to finally get that off the old chest. I’ve ranted and raved about this movie before. But I’ve never used the “H” word. I reserve that for the worst of the worst.

And it’s not just because it’s a bad Ghostbusters movie. It’s a bad movie. Period.

It shocks me this movie has any fans among the fanbase. Those original movies are SOO different. The humour, the action, the direction, the music. I can’t imagine anyone watching Ghostbusters 1 or 2 and saying “yeah this is a good Ghostbusters movie” and then watching this and thinking the same thing. How? How? I get the whole “people like different things” but Jesus. Chris Hemsworth!?! He’s not believable here at all. He’s miscast. I feel like Ryan Gosling might’ve nailed what they were going for. But Hemsworth just isn’t good enough an actor. It feels like he’s on Whose Line Is It Anyways. He’s not a character. He’s a caricature.

What I see when I watch this movie is about the same effort that went into Pixels. The Sandler movie. Lazy crap. This is an Adam Sandler quality movie. All the hallmarks are there. Bad improv, distracting cameos, cheap production values and bottle of the barrel comedy. The only thing missing is the exotic location.

And I liked most of the creatives and actors here. Paul Feig? Freaks and Geeks? An all timer. Bridesmaids? Pretty funny.


One joke. There is one decent joke in this movie. And it’s a pop culture reference, which are easy and lazy but it’s the “Do not compare me to the Mayor from Jaws”. That’s it. I didn’t laugh so much as think “that’s kind of funny”

This movie is so bad if I was going out with someone who said they loved this movie I’d have to reconsider my options.

And it’s not even good or fun in a “so bad it’s good way” like Batman & Robin. Nothing seems real or reality based. People don’t talk or act like this.

If you are into Ghostbusters for the tech and the ghosts I can maybe understand why you dig this movie. Because there’s lots of Ghostbusting. Lots of proton pack action. Maybe if you were more into the cartoon than the movies? I don’t know.

This movie triggers me. Maybe if I knew it’s loathed by the entire fanbase it wouldn’t be so hard to fathom but that it has actual fans?I don’t see the appeal. No. It’s worse than that. I can’t comprehend the appeal. On one hand, it’s beautiful that we all see things differently and have different opinions. On the other hand…are we not watching the same movie!?! Usually with movies I think are bad I can at least understand why people like them. I can see the appeal somewhere. Beyond the aforementioned proton pack action…this one escapes me.


Anyways. That’s it for me. I’ll see ya in another 7 years. Sorry for the negativity. But I just had to release it. Get it out of the system. I’m not trying to be mean, I didn’t want to hate this movie. But I do. And it sucks. And I’m sorry.

My biggest problem is every time any of us ATC fans try to have a conversation about it, we get drowned out by the same negative opinions. I try to ask for advice on my ATC PKE build, I get 10 "this movie doesn't exist" replies for every 1 helpful reply. Everyone feels like they need to share their opinion even when it wasn't asked for. And none of the opinions are new or original. I'm saying that as someone that has his own problems with aspects of the film, I mean I didn't like that the Ecto siren sounded like a car alarm or that they hardly ever used their 1 giant yellow flashing light. I didn't like Mrs Slimer, or the Kevin dance number with the police (which was lifted straight from "The Mask").

And I feel it could have been a better film with a little more plot and none of the cameos (as if seeing Dan Aykroyd was going to make the haters like this film). But I loved seeing the evolution of the equipment, I like the (real life and on-screen) friendships between the characters, the expansion of the mythology in the (let's be honest) stagnated Ghostbusters universe (we've gone with Shandorian plots 3 times already if you count TVG).
I really think with the right writers an ATC2 could have worked, especially without the insane burden of rebooting the franchise, reintroducing characters, or placating fans with unnecessary nostalgic cameos.

But we'll never know now. I only hope the "Prime" GB universe can borrow from the best elements of ATC, even though I know for certain that if/when Firehouse tries to do something even slightly new to expand the universe there's going to be a lot of haters.

Otherwise, we just bring back Vigo and keep doing the same two movies over and over

RichardLess wrote: ↑July 16th, 2023, 7:03 pmI’m not trying to be mean, I didn’t want to hate this movie. But I do. And it sucks. And I’m sorry.

You may not've intended to be mean Richard, but I feel you were unsuccessful in trying to avoid sounding that way.

By all means critique the film, but I think you could've made more of an effort to not be quite so churlish and condescending of the people who either enjoy aspects of, or the entirety of Answer the Call.

Kingpin wrote: ↑July 17th, 2023, 11:14 am

RichardLess wrote: ↑July 16th, 2023, 7:03 pmI’m not trying to be mean, I didn’t want to hate this movie. But I do. And it sucks. And I’m sorry.

You may not've intended to be mean Richard, but I feel you were unsuccessful in trying to avoid sounding that way.

By all means critique the film, but I think you could've made more of an effort to not be quite so churlish and condescending of the people who either enjoy aspects of, or the entirety of Answer the Call.

I’m just being honest. If that’s condescending? Can’t help that. I literally do not understand how a Ghostbusters fan could like this movie. I explained my reasoning. I didn’t make fun of anyone who liked it. But to me? Liking Ghostbusters 1 and 2 and liking Ghostbusters 2016 is a mystery. They are so different in how they handle the subject matter. It honestly does not compute how you could like this movie as a Ghostbusters fan and like the original movies.

But I take issue with this “churlish” label. Was I churlish towards the movie? Sure. But towards anyone who liked the movie? heck no. But giving me an example of where you specifically thought I entered “churlish” territory I’d appreciate it so I can either explain myself or own it.

I don’t think I was condescending. I didn’t intend to me anyways. I don’t think mot understanding how someone can like something and saying so is condescending and if you think it is? Meh.. Wasn’t my intent but I guess if you are a fan of this movie and read what I wrote about the movie I could see how you conflate my feelings towards the movie with the people who like it.

So yeah. GB16 is dogshit. GB16 fans? Keep on trucking & loving the film. Just because I’m ignorant on how you could enjoy the movie doesn’t mean I begrudge anyone for that.

I don’t separate GB16 fans or OGB fans. We are all fans. We like different things for different reasons…but that’s the beauty of fandom.

Also? Please don’t let this thread devolve into a series of replies and responses about how any one person feels about the movie. I was hesitant to post my “revisiting” for that very reason.