PDA

View Full Version : More Ghostbusters movies coming


Andrew NDB
03-22-2017, 02:08 PM
http://community.digitalmediaacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ghostbusters-3-artists-concept.jpeg

http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/more-ghostbusters-movies-developement

To summarize:

* The animated Ghostbusters movie will be coming to theaters in 2019 or 2020.

* All-female Ghostbusters movie was a flop because Reitman thinks he gave Paul Feig too much room.

* Live action movie is coming that will bring everything together. Or something.

ProphetofGanja
03-22-2017, 02:21 PM
They really don't want to admit that they missed their window of opportunity

Autbot_Benz
03-22-2017, 02:26 PM
Finally Ivan Rietman comes out and calls Feigbusters a flop

Andrew NDB
03-22-2017, 02:29 PM
They really don't want to admit that they missed their window of opportunity

True. No matter what they do at this point, even if it features Bill Murray and any of the old guard, nothing is going to be received remotely as enthusiastically were it in lieu of the movie they actually ended up doing.

TheSkeletonMan939
03-22-2017, 02:30 PM
* All-female Ghostbusters movie was a flop because Reitman thinks he gave Paul Feig too much room.

:lol: Yeah Reitman, the problem was definitely with the director, not the fact that the project was poorly conceived to start with.
How the f*ck can Sony produce bomb after bomb, and then decide that the problem is that there isn't enough executive meddling? How far up each other's asses are these retards?
With luck, Sony Japan will nuke Sony Pictures before any of this actually happens. How much money can they let the company bleed before just shutting it all down?

CyberCubed
03-22-2017, 02:32 PM
I have no idea why this franchise needs to keep going. It had one funny/decent movie and that's all it should have been. How this franchise spawned comics, cartoons and more movies is beyond me. Not everything needs to be a "franchise."

I don't think any kids of today care about a bunch of middle age men running around capturing ghosts.

Andrew NDB
03-22-2017, 02:35 PM
How the f*ck can Sony produce bomb after bomb, and then decide that the problem is that there isn't enough executive meddling?

I don't know that Feig should have ever gotten the job... but I kind of agree that maybe some more meddling was needed in this particular case.

Powder
03-22-2017, 02:54 PM
None of this is going to happen, & it shouldn't anyway. Ghostbusters are now a busted ghost.

plastroncafe
03-22-2017, 03:00 PM
Christ, here we go again.

Reitman said he wished it'd made more money, which is not the same as a flop. Especially considering it made $229 million and had a production cost of $144 million.

If anything has salted the earth around this franchise, it's the incessant whining about the 2016 movie.

sdp
03-22-2017, 03:44 PM
I watched bits of the movie on a plane but I kept dozing off so I can't comment a lot on the quality but it seemed ok and the internet overreacting as usual. Maybe it wasn't a huge classic but man did that movie get undeserved hate, mediocre? sure but that's it.

What boggles my mind is if they go out of their way to force cameos why not just have them play the god damn original characters they already played? The story would've only needed a few tweaks and boom it's GB3 with a new generation instead of it being a reboot.

TheSkeletonMan939
03-22-2017, 03:57 PM
What boggles my mind is if they go out of their way to force cameos why not just have them play the god damn original characters they already played?

I don't even think Bill Murray likes Ghostbusters. He only agreed to be cast on the condition that Columbia Pictures would in return finance a personal project of his. So it's not hard to imagine him saying, "absolutely no!" to the idea of really being drawn back into the GB world again.

The Deadman
03-22-2017, 03:58 PM
Christ, here we go again.

Reitman said he wished it'd made more money, which is not the same as a flop. Especially considering it made $229 million and had a production cost of $144 million.

If anything has salted the earth around this franchise, it's the incessant whining about the 2016 movie.

You mean the whining about people not wanting to see the movie? I agree.

snake
03-22-2017, 03:59 PM
Christ, here we go again.

Reitman said he wished it'd made more money, which is not the same as a flop. Especially considering it made $229 million and had a production cost of $144 million.

If anything has salted the earth around this franchise, it's the incessant whining about the 2016 movie.

"I-It made money guys, I swear!"

[ignores the heaps of Fembusters figures rotting the pegs at various toy stores]

Andrew NDB
03-22-2017, 04:08 PM
Christ, here we go again.

Reitman said he wished it'd made more money, which is not the same as a flop.

But it was.

Especially considering it made $229 million and had a production cost of $144 million.

C'mon... you've seen us prattle on about OotS numbers enough to know it's not as black and white as that.

Breakdown:

$144 million production budget
$100 million marketing budget
- $20 million (let's say, generously) in product placement/ad revenue sharing
= $224 million to make the movie

What it made:

$129 million domestic
$100 million international

Since theaters aren't running charities for movie studios and the more # of weekends a movie stays in theaters (and it took Ghostbusters 2016 a long time to make what it did domestically), the more the % of revenue favors the theaters and not the studio, it's safe to assume Sony only actually netted about $80 domestically from the film.

Rule of thumb, hand over fist, is of the international markets, studios only see half of that, if that. So only $50 million internationally/overseas is what they got from that. China numbers might have saved the ship, but it never got a Chinese release.

So that means the movie only made $130 million... and cost $224 million. Basically, Sony lost $100 million dollars on Ghostbusters 2016.

That's a flop, folks.

plastroncafe
03-22-2017, 04:08 PM
I don't even think Bill Murray likes Ghostbusters. He only agreed to be cast on the condition that Columbia Pictures would in return finance a personal project of his. So it's not hard to imagine him saying, "absolutely no!" to the idea of really being drawn back into the GB world again.

I get the feeling Murray just doesn't like mainstream culture very much, or the limelight in general, and because GB (1984) became this cult phenomenon, he pulled back from it.

sdp
03-22-2017, 04:14 PM
Even if the movie only cost 224 million and it made 250 million that is a flop. I mean 26 million dollars might be a lot of money if you only look at it like that but when you see it took a risk of 224 million dollars over X years it took to make that is not a good business model to have as those 224 million dollars could've been invested in something far more profitable or less risky.

With that said Sony is not losing money with this, they'll make money from physical media/digital downloads/tv airings/streaming services and what not for perpetuity so even the biggest flops eventually break even for studios, they're just not going to invest in the property not because they didn't make money, they just didn't make money fast enough.

I don't even think Bill Murray likes Ghostbusters. He only agreed to be cast on the condition that Columbia Pictures would in return finance a personal project of his. So it's not hard to imagine him saying, "absolutely no!" to the idea of really being drawn back into the GB world again.

Whether it was that or contractual reasons that he couldn't get off, he could've played the same character, he didn't need to have a major role, they could've had the same cameo but reference that he is still the same character. Again, nothing major for a re-write.

Andrew NDB
03-22-2017, 04:15 PM
I get the feeling Murray just doesn't like mainstream culture very much, or the limelight in general, and because GB (1984) became this cult phenomenon, he pulled back from it.

... only to dive back into it in 1989 for Ghostbusters 2. And both the Ghostbusters video game and putting on a Ghostbusters uniform and proton pack for Zombieland in 2009.

I think once it hit him that Ghostbusters was a success, he embraced it. And the experience of making Ghostbusters 2 and its reception really took a toll on him. He knows if he made nothing else but Ghostbusters his whole career, he'd still be a legend. Knowing that, he's probably been afraid in the past that a truly awful Ghostbusters 3 would retroactively ruin his legacy.

Andrew NDB
03-22-2017, 04:17 PM
With that said Sony is not losing money with this, they'll make money from physical media/digital downloads/tv airings/streaming services and what not for perpetuity so even the biggest flops eventually break even for studios, they're just not going to invest in the property not because they didn't make money, they just didn't make money fast enough.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Ghostbusters-(2016)#tab=summary

That doesn't account for online streaming or any kind of VOD, but it looks like it has only made $32 million in DVD/Blu-ray sales... which lessens the blow to only a $68 million loss. Although that doesn't account for manufacturing/distribution costs.

plastroncafe
03-22-2017, 04:22 PM
Whether it was that or contractual reasons that he couldn't get off, he could've played the same character, he didn't need to have a major role, they could've had the same cameo but reference that he is still the same character. Again, nothing major for a re-write.

I think the only way I'd have appreciated seeing the old guard back in their original characters is if they were doing what Winston, Venkman, and Stantz would be up to in a world where Egon was taken too young.

That this movie was down the other leg in the trousers of time, as it were.
Short of that, the other cameos were a lot of fun and no where near as forced as Akroyd and Murray's were.


... only to dive back into it in 1989 for Ghostbusters 2. And both the Ghostbusters video game and putting on a Ghostbusters uniform and proton pack for Zombieland in 2009.

I think once it hit him that Ghostbusters was a success, he embraced it. And the experience of making Ghostbusters 2 and its reception really took a toll on him. He knows if he made nothing else but Ghostbusters his whole career, he'd still be a legend. Knowing that, he's probably been afraid in the past that a truly awful Ghostbusters 3 would retroactively ruin his legacy.

We're never going to see eye to eye on this.
I'm just shocked you're in support of more studio meddling. That's not a stance I thought you'd take.

Powder
03-22-2017, 04:30 PM
I get the feeling Murray just doesn't like mainstream culture very much, or the limelight in general, and because GB (1984) became this cult phenomenon, he pulled back from it.

He did a Christmas special with Miley Cyrus... :tlol:

Andrew NDB
03-22-2017, 04:45 PM
I think the only way I'd have appreciated seeing the old guard back in their original characters is if they were doing what Winston, Venkman, and Stantz would be up to in a world where Egon was taken too young.

That could work. Imagine another big ghost invasion... and the Ghostbusters are just mulling around, long retired and out of business (again). Occasionally they visit Egon's grave, and that's the only time they see each other. Columbia University students seek them out one by one for help with the invasion, but they're just not having it. They're old and retired and those days are long behind them, and all of that enthusiasm died with Egon.

Then we get the big Ghostbusters version of Unforgiven, with them taking the ibuprofen and grudgingly getting back in the saddle (or putting on the proton packs, in this case) to take on the new ghost Big Bad, played by some big, popular British actor or something. With or without the Columbia students on the team. Probably with, to appeal to younger audiences.

We're never going to see eye to eye on this.
I'm just shocked you're in support of more studio meddling.

Not in general. But Ghostbusters (2016) certainly needed... eh, something other than what it got. To put it diplomatically.

Allio
03-22-2017, 05:47 PM
I have no idea why this franchise needs to keep going. It had one funny/decent movie and that's all it should have been. How this franchise spawned comics, cartoons and more movies is beyond me. Not everything needs to be a "franchise."

I don't think any kids of today care about a bunch of middle age men running around capturing ghosts.

idw comics are amazing, so up yours.

I mean, it's about ghosts, unsurprising why it works.

What surprises me is "Puppet Master," I get action labs is desperate for titles, but Why?

Christ, here we go again.

Reitman said he wished it'd made more money, which is not the same as a flop. Especially considering it made $229 million and had a production cost of $144 million.

If anything has salted the earth around this franchise, it's the incessant whining about the 2016 movie.

you forgot about the extra cost regarding how much it is for promoting the movie, which ends up being probably about 80 million, some reports says it was about 100 million.

ToTheNines
03-22-2017, 06:11 PM
idw comics are amazing, so up yours.

This.

I'll never watch a Ghostbusters 3, not without Ramis. They should have made it happen a decade ago. But they didn't, now they're screwed.

ProphetofGanja
03-22-2017, 06:16 PM
Yeah, the IDW Ghostbusters comics are pretty good. Dan Schoening does a pretty good job on art, there are a few characters who look a little "off" to me but Erik Burnham's writing is pretty great also so all in all it works. I'm glad the Turtles got a crossover with them

snake
03-22-2017, 06:49 PM
Doing GB3 without Ramis is f*cked. Enough said.

ToTheNines
03-22-2017, 06:52 PM
Yeah, the IDW Ghostbusters comics are pretty good. Dan Schoening does a pretty good job on art, there are a few characters who look a little "off" to me but Erik Burnham's writing is pretty great also so all in all it works. I'm glad the Turtles got a crossover with them

I love Schoening, he puts so much detail into his work, even if his character designs can be simplified. I know what you mean about some characters looking off, but I always get used to them eventually.

Burnham is great. Very funny and knows GB inside and out. And Delgado is possibly my favorite colorist of all time.

ProphetofGanja
03-22-2017, 08:03 PM
I love Schoening, he puts so much detail into his work, even if his character designs can be simplified. I know what you mean about some characters looking off, but I always get used to them eventually.

Burnham is great. Very funny and knows GB inside and out. And Delgado is possibly my favorite colorist of all time.

I think the only thing that's weird to me is Winston, who looks waaay more buff than he did in the movies (I guess Dan is playing up the whole ex-marine thing?) and his female characters mouths, the way they all look the same and seem to sit at a funny angle. It works for some, not for others

His Chi-You was freaking bad ass though, I'm curious to see how other artists depict him if he ever turns up again. Maybe he'll at least be mentioned in the next Pantheon story coming up

ToTheNines
03-22-2017, 08:30 PM
His Winston doesn't really look line Hudson, but it works for me. I hear his voice coming out of him just fine. His Venkman is what initially turned me off. And yeah the female mouths always reminded me of Angelica/Charlotte Pickles lol.

We got a glimpse of CP Wilson doing Chi-You, but Schoening is still king there. Imagine a Santolouco take though...

ProphetofGanja
03-22-2017, 08:32 PM
His Winston doesn't really look line Hudson, but it works for me. I hear his voice coming out of him just fine. His Venkman is what initially turned me off. And yeah the female mouths always reminded me of Angelica/Charlotte Pickles lol.

We got a glimpse of CP Wilson doing Chi-You, but Schoening is still king there. Imagine a Santolouco take though...

Mannnn, that will be freaking sweet. I hope Santolouco gets to do artist duties whenever IDW gets to the big Pantheon grand finale

snake
03-22-2017, 08:53 PM
I'd be fine seeing the animated GB film following the original characters. I love TRGB anyway.

ProactiveMan
03-22-2017, 09:14 PM
Short of that, the other cameos were a lot of fun and no where near as forced as Akroyd and Murray's were.

I didn't mind Aykroyd's, at least he looked like he was enjoying himself. I think the Sony hack revealed that Murray's cameo was almost literally forced, or at least heavily coerced under threat of legal action.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but Sony are probably better off making a sequel to "Answer the Call" than trying to bring the old guys back. Spend a little less money and see what happens.

Wildcat
03-22-2017, 11:38 PM
Here we go again huh? I read this news yesterday.

Love how people continue to post box office numbers to prove whether people liked something. Bit of a double standard though...it justifies a "failure" or an underrated movie.

I would argue DVD/BR sales mean a little more since buying equals owning. Ive seen it's done well on home release. I can understand waiting. I hardly go to the theater.

I don't know if people realize (maybe but won't admit it concerning this) but movies that have done worse at the box office or initially had bad reception have gotten sequels. Movies that didn't even seem to make an impact either way.

Well I certainly hope they don't ignore the reboot. I'd like to see this universe they keep talking about. I want there to be multiple teams in other places.

DestronMirage22
03-22-2017, 11:41 PM
This'll end well. :roll:
Feel bad for the real GB fans who have to experience this kinda stuff happen to their beloved franchise, but as already stated, at least there's the IDW comics.

ProactiveMan
03-23-2017, 12:00 AM
Love how people continue to post box office numbers to prove whether people liked something. Bit of a double standard though...it justifies a "failure" or an underrated movie.


I don't know why people care so much. I guess Hollywood accounts are interesting on a certain level, but those studios cook their books so hard it’s very difficult for the average chud to know what’s going on with any certainty. Ghostbusters is a good example. The budget was cut before shooting, and we sort’a know what it was, but then most of the effects were apparently done by Image Works off the books, so how much did it cost? There are probably only a handful of people in the world who know for sure. More importantly, who gives a poop?! Movie finance is the studio’s problem; I just watch the damn things.

Wildcat
03-23-2017, 12:21 AM
I don't know why people care so much. I guess Hollywood accounts are interesting on a certain level, but those studios cook their books so hard it’s very difficult for the average chud to know what’s going on with any certainty. Ghostbusters is a good example. The budget was cut before shooting, and we sort’a know what it was, but then most of the effects were apparently done by Image Works off the books, so how much did it cost? There are probably only a handful of people in the world who know for sure. More importantly, who gives a poop?! Movie finance is the studio’s problem; I just watch the damn things.Someone posted a good question on another site...If the budget was lower but it still did the same would people still say it flopped?

Those who like hating it obviously would. However it technically would have been a better ratio.

Cure
03-23-2017, 12:31 AM
Someone posted a good question on another site...If the budget was lower but it still did the same would people still say it flopped?


That's not a good question at all; of course not. It's...common sense. "Get Out" hasn't made nearly as much money and probably won't by the end of its run but because it was made for like $5 million, it's considered a smash hit. Relativity, man.

Andrew NDB
03-23-2017, 02:51 AM
Someone posted a good question on another site...If the budget was lower but it still did the same would people still say it flopped?

Those who like hating it obviously would. However it technically would have been a better ratio.

That's not a good question at all; of course not. It's...common sense. "Get Out" hasn't made nearly as much money and probably won't by the end of its run but because it was made for like $5 million, it's considered a smash hit. Relativity, man.

Yeah, that's a pretty dumb statement/semi-question that sort of self-cancels itself out. Numbers are numbers.

Wildcat
03-23-2017, 03:04 AM
Yeah but that's the point. A budget is not a pre-determined measurement for success. It's just the amount it cost to make the movie.

How far it goes over that threshold is just an arbitrary number because every budget is different. Unless it's something outrageous like Star Wars but that's in a league of its own.

The box office and budget are 2 different things. You can't look into the future and price your budget according to box office sales.

If I spend a lot of money to make a movie that's my decision. That's not what the movie must exceed in order to be a "success". Only to make a profit.

ssjup81
03-23-2017, 03:33 AM
All I want is this...

Old Ghostbusters pass torch to new Ghostbusters. They could've done that with the 2016 film. It's a good premise, and they could've adapted something from the IDW comics.

ProactiveMan
03-23-2017, 04:09 AM
Yeah but that's the point. A budget is not a pre-determined measurement for success. It's just the amount it cost to make the movie.

I think the hang up there is the term “flop”. Unless it’s qualified by something else, e.g. “critical flop”, I think most people would define a flop as a movie that experiences a financial shortfall. I would have thought that it meant a considerable shortfall, and I think the term is used pretty loosely in the media, but then again it’s not exactly scientific. How many flops = a disaster = a bomb?

It’s OK to like a flop, not all flops are bad movies, and not all bad movies flop.

Andrew NDB
03-23-2017, 12:05 PM
All I want is this...

Old Ghostbusters pass torch to new Ghostbusters. They could've done that with the 2016 film. It's a good premise

But they needn't just fade back into the shadows entirely. Ray could be the equivalent of their Alfred, and they could round up Peter and Winston for the "main event" at the end.

ToTheNines
03-26-2017, 07:19 AM
Mannnn, that will be freaking sweet. I hope Santolouco gets to do artist duties whenever IDW gets to the big Pantheon grand finale

Asuming that is the arc leading up to and including #100, I'm sure it'll be him. Unless he's been snatched up by Marvel/DC by then, which I can't believe hasn't happened yet.

Anyways, the 1984/2016 Ghosbusters crossover kicked off last Wednesday. Here's a little writeup and some preview pages: http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2017/03/22/comic-spot-ghostbusters-101-1

Fozzy Badfeet
03-27-2017, 09:51 AM
I have yet to see the newest movie. Is it even worth checking out?

Candy Kappa
03-27-2017, 10:03 AM
I have yet to see the newest movie. Is it even worth checking out?

I liked it. I think it's better then GBII, but it does suffer from "Blockbuster Formula" by being too bombastic for it's own good.

Autbot_Benz
03-27-2017, 12:47 PM
I have yet to see the newest movie. Is it even worth checking out?

its worth checking out if you like to torture yourself with middle age women who aren't funny. Kate mckinnon being the exception as she was the only tolerable part

Wildcat
03-28-2017, 12:20 AM
The only real fault I can give GB'16 is it's a reboot. I'm not against reboots but this was a very specific situation being in limbo so long. Would have been very easy to at least make it a soft sequel.

Just turn the business over. Movie could have remained basically the same. It could have started with them already having inherited the company trying to figure things out. No need for a "passing the torch" scene.

Judging on its own merits I was worried the humor would be over the top. Being PG-13 helped. I thought it was good except for Kevin. He's not funny just dumb.

I know people liked Kate McKinnon. I like her too but her Holtzmann character seemed a bit forced at times. Maybe that's just me.

Again I wish the equipment was elaborated on but it was nice seeing a prototype before the backpacks. The extra weapons like the proton-glove were kinda cool.

Andrew NDB
03-28-2017, 12:30 AM
Judging on its own merits I was worried the humor would be over the top. Being PG-13 helped. I thought it was good except for Kevin. He's not funny just dumb.

Yeah. I think the whole discussion was literally, "Let's get THOR! And have him act REALLY DUMB! People will laugh hysterically!"

No.

I know people liked Kate McKinnon. I like her too but her Holtzmann character seemed a bit forced at times. Maybe that's just me.

She could have been great in a better Ghostbusters movie. Adlibbing is great, but there actually has to be something on the page, and substance to the character.

Again I wish the equipment was elaborated on but it was nice seeing a prototype before the backpacks. The extra weapons like the proton-glove were kinda cool.

Though it all seemed to make them Ghost Annihilators, and not Ghostbusters. They successfully caught a grand total of one ghost in the whole movie, then let it go.

Wildcat
03-28-2017, 01:24 AM
Though it all seemed to make them Ghost Annihilators, and not Ghostbusters. They successfully caught a grand total of one ghost in the whole movie, then let it go.I don't mind if they seem more like "Annihilators". New gadgets and stuff was something I wanted and it was nice to see. They hadn't built the containment unit yet.

The scene with Bill Murray when they let the ghost out was one of my favorites. I don't know if they meant it this way but it was funny that he was trying to disprove them and the ghost attacked him...since in real life he was against doing another movie.

I thought it was funny he called the ghost trap a thermos. It does resemble one.

ToTheNines
03-28-2017, 06:52 AM
I have yet to see the newest movie. Is it even worth checking out?

It's worth a redbox rental if you're a Ghosbusters fan. The cameos were mostly awful though, so don't get excited about seeing the original cast.

ProphetofGanja
03-28-2017, 06:43 PM
Wow, now there's a new show (http://collider.com/new-ghostbusters-cartoon-2018/) coming too

DestronMirage22
03-28-2017, 11:13 PM
Wow, now there's a new show (http://collider.com/new-ghostbusters-cartoon-2018/) coming too

Yeesh, when will it stop?

Autbot_Benz
03-31-2017, 02:33 PM
Netflix has the first 5 seasons of The Real Ghostbusters ready for streaming. so that's good news

Andrew NDB
03-31-2017, 02:41 PM
Wow, now there's a new show (http://collider.com/new-ghostbusters-cartoon-2018/) coming too

That's old news from June of last year. We already know about that cartoon.

Leofan26
04-02-2017, 03:40 AM
I wish they'd do a film based off the game that was supposed to be kind of like the third film since Bill Murry wouldn't return to make it, man did they make it awesome. If they are going with Animation this time, why not? I'm sure the Ghost Busters fandom would love it.

The Deadman
10-03-2017, 08:01 PM
Animated ‘Ghostbusters’ Story to Be Told From a Ghost’s Perspective? (http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3462715/animated-ghostbusters-story-told-ghosts-perspective/)