Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
User avatar
By droidguy1119
#4952379
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.
Last edited by droidguy1119 on July 27th, 2021, 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Alphagaia liked this
By RichardLess
#4952382
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”.
deadderek liked this
User avatar
By droidguy1119
#4952408
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.
By RichardLess
#4952586
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.
User avatar
By droidguy1119
#4952591
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.
By RichardLess
#4952704
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.
User avatar
By droidguy1119
#4952705
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.
deadderek liked this
By JediJones
#4953375
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.
Southern Illinois

We are both 38. We did register our group way back[…]

I don't know all 9f the details but they disbanded[…]

Victorville Ghostbusters?

Oh yeah? I'm interested. Nice, I’m als[…]

okay, I'm officially retracting my previous post. […]