Honestly I thought this was going to be a slam dunk, can't lose hit movie. Yes, I know some people love it but ultimately the B.O. isn't there. My best guess is people look at it like a boring Stranger Things movie instead of a Ghostbusters movie.
Maybe a summer release would have been more successful?
What a fucking retard! Go play in traffic.
shareI wouldn't really call it a bomb. It topped the box office in its first week, and actually over performed initial expectations. Will it be a mega hit- no, but it has made almost twice its budget. So, it is making a profit. One should also figure in that people aren't going to theaters like they use to. The "covid crisis" has hampered a lot of films that probably would have performed a lot better otherwise. That doesn't mean that I am defending this film- I'm not. This is a kids film, and it should have been a comedy for adults like the first one, or at the very least, a family comedy like the second one. I have no idea why they went the full blown kids film route, but they did. I know that that aspect completely turned me away from seeing it, and I suspect that it turned a lot of other people away too. Most fans wanted the original cast, and weren't going to settle for anything else. It's just the way it is. Still, I'll probably watch it when it comes to TV. So, in that regard I'm more interested in this one than I was in seeing the 2016 version.
shareI think they thought having Paul Rudd as the cool parent of a new generation of Stranger Things Ghostbusters was a win-win. I'm not a huge fan of those RLM critics but man, they were spot on with their review this go around.
shareWere they really because all it was a hour of Nitpicking to me.. There reviews use to make nuanced reviews. Now they just tell you how much they hate it in very nasty tone and nit pick every fucking scene. "Oh someone said, Dont Cross the Streams, Its the worst thing ever, because its nostalgia." Give me fucking break
shareIt cost 75 million to make and so made 145 million world wide, if it wasn't for covid it would've made over 200 million.
A huge reason for it starring kids was due to it being in development hell for so long. They waited so long to make another movie to the point where Ramis is no longer around and the other guys were too old, so a new edition to the franchise needed younger talent and the filmmakers knew it.
> Most fans wanted the original cast, and weren't going to settle for anything else.
Have you seen what Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd look like? Nobody wants to watch seniors chasing ghosts.
They're all so fucking old especially Bill Murray.
Stuck between a rock and a hard place, fans wanted the original cast and nothing more but that wasn't going to work.
De-aging technology does exist...
shareFrankly I disagree. It sort of worked here cause Egon was a ghost at the end. But in Rogue One it looked way too weird and off. I think the X-Box 360/Playstation 3 game was a good sequel to the movies. I would not have liked a whole movie where all the main characters are CGI recreations.
shareRogue One wasn't de-aging on Peter Cushing, it was full cgi.
shareBut de-aging tech is too expensive.
sharePeople said the woketivism one sucked extremely hard, so I assumed this one would also suck, I've payed it no mind up until seeing the trailer yesterday.
shareIt might be a good movie, but I simply don't care about a bunch of kids playing Ghostbusters. I wouldn't have wanted to see that crap when I was a kid either. I hated that kind of thing.
shareGB2 underperformed in 1990 already.
share