I agree, tbh this disaster began decades ago with the lackluster GB2. Although loved by devout fans it wasn't a huge hit like it's predecessor and thus the movie franchise was frozen for OVER 25 YEARS! Heck, Indy Jones franchise was stuck for only 19 years.
In short, they tried to bring back the GB movie franchise too late. Plus there's no such thing as clean Walmarts.
wow, I was expecting at least 500m WW. I think they waited way to long. Would have prob been a better movie if Ramis was still alive.
shareIt's a shame, but I didn't think it was a good idea for them to use kids as the main characters. They should've used adults. This is why I consider the 2009 video game as the true Ghostbusters 3.
That said, it was still better than the 2016 movie, it didn't lose money like the 2016 movie, and Sony included it in an ultimate collection box set without the 2016 movie (although Sony caved and included 2016 as a digital code, which I doubt anyone will use).
Actually it cost 75 million to make so it made it's money back.
shareNOT a disaster at all since the budget was $75,000,000 and the worldwide gross is $178,788,000.
shareExactly.
They learnt there lesson from 2016 where it cost 145 million to make but with marketing and other costs it needed 300 million to break even and half a billion to be considered a success.
Geeze. That's less that than the reboot a few years ago. I think this actually shows that the market appeal for Ghostbusters simply isn't very large. Passionate, loud, but small. It's a one movie premise, it always was. Here's your ghosts, here's your proton packs, here's a few jokes. Okay, we got it.
shareActually the the cost 75 million to make so it's made it's money back unlike 2016 which cost 145 million, but with marketing and other costs it needed 300 million to break even and half a billion to be considered a success, so 2016 lost over 100 million dollars.
shareSure. I'm just saying that Ghostbusters, whatever they do with it short of a time machine, is only good for about 200 mill worldwide. Nobody knows the numbers but I guarantee the cartoon made a f ton more than that. Those would normally be good numbers but this is an effects driven franchise. Even in TV world, i'm not sure that recoups. It's a dead stick. There's too many hit novel series that are more exciting for fresh views. They'll keep trying, but Ghostbusters live action is never gonna come close to the original. It was a product of the moment. The entire f'n 80s was just a moment.
shareThe movie came out during the pandemic and winter has a lot of films coming out.
shareThat was an excuse until Spider-Man dropped. It turns out when people actually care, no fucks given.
shareFuck off you whiny twat
shareI'm not hating on Ghostbusters, i'm just saying. It's a 200 mill franchise. Two movies back to back have proven that. That's all the interest there is. Could I pitch you MY Ghostbusters movie with my dream cast and witty writing that would break the bank? I think anybody reading this could. Hollywood doesn't work that way. (It's all white guys and anti-women humor anyhow. It wouldn't sell today. It would sell great in the 80s! That's the part of nostalgia everybody ignores.)
Why don't they go make a spy kids sequel for adults. But first make a Bridget Jone's Diary for men, we shall see how well they do at the box office. The producers spent all these years trying to craft ghostbusters into something else for a different demographic. It's just fcking dumb, they've reworked a script around other franchises for the last 30 years.
shareNot a disaster, not at all.
It actually made some money so ... it's a success.
Cause it cost 75 million to make which is a reasonable budget.
shareI used to agree with this but I don't anymore. The Industry has changed. If you're not a smashing hit, you're out of work for life. It's all high stakes now. Like any gambling arena. Ghostbusters is back on the Slots. Small pay in, small payout, raptured clients. The real players are on the poker tables with a dozen cameras on them.
shareNot everything has to be a smash hit. A lot of movies barely break even, a lot of movies are from start considered a loss and still are made.
In my opinion is VERY possible to see a sequel.
Terminator is a good example: few of those broke even, dark fate lost a lot and they still making them for some reason ...
But anyway, it was not a disaster ... if this was a disaster what about Ghostbusters 2016??
Terminator: Genysis did very well outside of America, particularly in China, which is part of why making Dark Fate seemed like a viable prospect to investors. That film didn't do particular well anywhere, so there are no plans for any further films, all that is in the pipeline is an animated series for Netflix, which will cost less and have much less expected of it.
The 2016 Ghostbusters film failed to turn a profit or perform particularly well anywhere, which makes making another film so soon afterwards an odd move. No matter what "continuity" it's in a tarnished brand is a tarnished brand.
Apparently there will be another Terminator.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14820580/
The point is: if they focus only on big shot francizes we would have only 3-4 big movies per year. Which is obviously not the case.
Making money is still making money.
I'm pretty sure that's a holdover from before Dark Fate came out. That said, I'm sure there will be another Terminator movie at some point, maybe a remake rather than anything directly connected to the first/first two movies. I'm sure we'll see something else Ghostbusters soon enough, maybe a TV series.
share