The Technodrome Forums

The Technodrome Forums (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/index.php)
-   TV and Movies (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   More Ghostbusters movies coming (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showthread.php?t=57598)

Andrew NDB 03-22-2017 01:08 PM

More Ghostbusters movies coming
 
http://community.digitalmediaacademy...s-concept.jpeg

http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/more-g...s-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 01:21 PM

They really don't want to admit that they missed their window of opportunity

Autbot_Benz 03-22-2017 01:26 PM

Finally Ivan Rietman comes out and calls Feigbusters a flop

Andrew NDB 03-22-2017 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProphetofGanja (Post 1669555)
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 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB (Post 1669549)
* 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 01:32 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 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939 (Post 1669560)
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 01:54 PM

None of this is going to happen, & it shouldn't anyway. Ghostbusters are now a busted ghost.

plastroncafe 03-22-2017 02:00 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 02:44 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 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdp (Post 1669595)
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 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plastroncafe (Post 1669574)
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 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plastroncafe (Post 1669574)
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 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plastroncafe (Post 1669574)
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.

Quote:

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 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939 (Post 1669598)
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 03:14 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939 (Post 1669598)
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 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plastroncafe (Post 1669604)
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 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdp (Post 1669607)
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/Gho...6)#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 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdp (Post 1669607)
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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB (Post 1669609)
... 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 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plastroncafe (Post 1669604)
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:


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.