Ghostbusters Reboot/3

So this Friday's box office: $0.3 million. It doesn't seem like this movie will take any more than $1.1 million this weekend.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Ghostbusters

Well, look on the bright side..... it made more money than Ghostbusters II.

Ghostbusters II still made more money internationally, at $215 million, which comes to $415 million adjusted for inflation.

How much longer d'you think it'll be in theaters ? And what'll it's final gross be ?

I always forget that comedy movies just don't make as much as we think they do. I think part of the issue is we are wayyyy too used to the huge blockbusters. Any middling amount of profit is like "HOW DID THEY MAKE SO LITTLE!??!"

Well it wasn't just a comedy now was it ? it was also a special effects heavy franchise film with more than a little action.

Wikipedia classifies it as "Supernatural comedy". IMDB: Action, Comedy, Fantasy.

—shrug— I dunno, I just feel like probably the reason the special effects were a bit meh is probably because it wasn't top of the line special effects, it's just even middle ground special effects can look like, well, that.

It helps that they didn't need to make it look "realistic"

It is pretty undeniably an action comedy. he budget was somewhere north of 140 mill as well if I'm not mistaken. And since the studio only gets half only after it hits 280 mill will they start to see profit.

I'm not factoring in advertising budget since a) that's not disclosed and b) it's often off set by product tie ins, merchandising and product placement also undisclosed to the public so the numbers are really up in the air. Although from what I've heard it's merch hasn't been selling great other than some type of disgusting neon green' fruit' drink.

Mind you more than one film has gone from flop to 'worth it' in the eyes of the studio after going to home video so we'll see.

Also the roughly 124 mill, is it the worldwide gross or just domestic ?

Box office: 182.2 million USD Budget: 144 million USD

is what google says.

Box office mojo says 120 mill for domestic, 80 mill so far for foreign. And classifies it as a Horror Comedy.

edited 21st Aug '16 10:37:03 AM by MrAHR

Horror's stretching it. It's supernatural but no part is really 'scary'.

So it needs 288 mill to break even and it's got 200 so far. And it released in America, it's primary market on the 9th of July. So not looking like this is going to end up pulling in the big bucks.

I'm going to bring up a couple of comedy movies directed by Paul Feig and starring Melissa Mc Carthy.

As I mentioned before, there's Spy a 2015 comedy-action movie that got 94% on Rotten Tomatoes and grossed over $230 million out of $65 million budget. Before that, there's Bridesmaids, a 2011 comedy movie that has 90% on Rotten Tomatoes and grossed over $280 million out of $32 million budget.

Here's the kicker: they are both original R-rated comedy movies. Paul Feig is a competent director and Melissa Mc Carthy a competent actress. That's why when I initially heard that they will be involved in Ghostbusters 2016, I genuinely had a pretty high hope.

Well, and then came the trailer and Sony's disastrous damage control.

Even then, I was giving credits where it is due to Paul Feig's ability as a director and estimated the box office in the range of 290 to 400 million.

Here's something I find utterly baffling. The original Ghostbusters have grossed nearly $300 million out of $30 million, and even if we account for the inflation, the latter would be around $65 million. Despite that, it had a pretty damn good effects for a 1984 movie.

Now, Ghostbusters 2016 has a production budget of $144 million and as I mentioned earlier. In comparison, that's similar budget with that of Jurassic World, which has a production budget of $150 million, higher than Ant-Man's $130 million, higher than, Saving Private Ryan $110 million (adjusted for inflation), and you know where I'm going.

And my GOD, the special effects, both CG and practical, are just so, so, so bad for its budget. I'm half jokingly wondering if at least quarter of the budget went to casting Chris Hemsworth.

edited 21st Aug '16 6:15:38 PM by dRoy

Inflation doesn't account for costs of production, which tends to outrun inflation. Hollywood in particular has become more decentralized, with multiple production studios are listed as the ones making the film and specialized production houses handling individualized needs. Because of that, the expected cost of making a big budget movie has skyrocketed. You rarely see movies in the 50-75 million dollar range anymore, which is probably the more appropriate cost of the original film in 1984 dollars.

It still doesn't change the fact that Ghostbusters 2016 has an overbloated budget that went inefficiently.

That sounds more like an opinion than a fact though.

Do you know what the budget breakdown was?

Overbloated is a debatable term in this age when pretty much all blockbusters tend to be insanely expensive to make.

Fair points.

I do feel that the movie had an atrocious production value for its budget, but I guess that's a realm of subjectivity.

Honestly, I think this movie should have costed about the same as Deadpool.

Deadpool had a smaller primary cast. And its budget got cut late in production which resulted in an action scene getting scaled down. The scene was rewritten in a funny way but its something to keep in mind.

The entire finale was fairly big in scale, visual effects and number of people. On top of that there was considerable wire-work, a big cast of characters, loads of intricate set and prop design.

Deadpool was also an untested property and Ryan Reynolds took a pay cut. Most of the movie is also just him acting goofy with mostly nameless extras. Movies that focus on maximizing their budget tend to look good for their budget. Ghostbusters had a decent budget to start with. The only time I felt like the movie looked low budget was when the team fired at the moving mannequin while inside a dressing room.

It's really weird that nameless taxi driver is also in Ghostbusters as chinese delivery boy.

Do you mean a delivery boy for Chinese food or a delivery boy who's Chinese ?

And at some age shouldn't we call them delivery men ?

If you're referring to the taxi driver in Deadpool, he had a name. He was called Dupinder.

Re: "I'm half jokingly wondering if at least quarter of the budget went to casting Chris Hemsworth."

And possibly Bill Murray.

Regarding where Ghostbusters's budget went: getting nearly the entire original cast probably wasn't cheap. <.<