Discuss the upcoming movie to be released in 2020 and directed by Jason Reitman.
#4922343
Ok. It might be a wee bit early but seeing as this GB2020 section is pretty empty I figured "Why Not?". So here we will discuss what we think and/or hope GB2020 can do box office wise. Visit Boxofficemojo.com for all your box office/budget/opening weekend references. Also something we can discuss: How GB2020 might do compared to GB16 and what affect(if any) that movie might have, pro or con, on GB2020's release.

Before we begin, somethings to consider: Release Date. July 10th 2020, Competition: What movies will be in theatres and what movies will we be opening against? And Budget? So far the only number I've seen is 170 million. Is that in Canadian Currency?


Ok. So there are multiple things to consider this far out before I can even begins to think about what GB2020's box office potential is. The big thing is main trailer reception and marketing. The other is how prominent are the original cast members going to be(this is assuming they all sign on).

Unfortunately, and this isn't meant to bash GB16 I swear, but I think that film is going to negatively affect GB2020's box office unless it has a higher than average quality marketing campaign that helps audiences forget that film completely. And this is where things get iffy. Sony is known to have one of the worst marketing teams in the business. I hate to get all inside baseball on this but our hope here is that Sony hires some of the layoffs and crumbs from the Disney/Fox merger, those two companies have the best there is in the marketing world. Top 3? Disney/Fox and Warner Brothers.

So right now, as things are, if the film were to launch with an average marketing effort? I'd say we can expect a similar opening to GB16. Maybe up to 65 million. If they name the film "Ghostbusters 3"? I think Sony can squeeze an easy 15-20 million more in that opening weekend. If they keep the current moniker? This is going to have to be a word of mouth movie. Meaning things aren't looking good. Word of mouth movies(movies with great reviews and audience reactions) don't do well in summer. Not anymore. The market is too saturated with content. Febuary/March/late August and October are the "Word of Mouth" months.

So right now: 65 million opening, 150-165 million total domestic, 370 WorldWide. That's my read. Again, it's insanely early. Now...this is where some of you might get mad. Just know I mean no disrespect and that I'm coming at this from a pure number/marketing standpoint:

If GB16 never happened...I think GB2020 would easily have had a 100 million plus opening weekend. Over 300-400 million domestic. And 800 million worldwide. Similar to Indy 4.

So that gives you an idea how much I think GB16 is affecting this movie. Why? Not because I didn't like it. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with perception, demand and anticipation.

GB16, even if it had been a huge success, took some wind out of the anticipation and demand sails. If there hadn't been a GB16, GB2020 aka GB3 would be much better positioned. A) Not a reboot. B) first Ghostbusters film in over 30 years. C) A film that's been promised and anticipated for over 20 years. Perception? If the title is GB2020 it's going to confuse people. Is it a sequel to GB16? Another reboot? What is it? Marketing, GREAT marketing will have to answer a lot of those questions.
#4922347
Interesting points. I really have no idea about how big a profit this movie can turn. As you can see most of my friends are here so I have no idea how excited the general public is for another Ghostbusters film. Like you said it really depends on what it is opening with. If it’s another Batman movie we could be screwed. Honestly though I don’t think ATC will impact this movie in a negative way. If anything I think ATC may even make those who were overly critical of Ghostbusters 2 a bit more appreciative of this movie. I know that may seem like a bit of a leap, but I actually think people will really appreciate the heart behind this movie because of ATC.

I know I Appreciate ATC way more now than I did when it was coming out. When I first saw ATC when a lot of the humor was going over my head I was thinking, “It takes real effort to make a movie this bad.” Of course statements like that are going to make it seem like I am a conspiracy theorist LOL! ;)

No ATC made me realize just how strong this property is. I really treated the movie unfairly and I could live with having to get to know new characters, but I had zero interest in seeing a world where the original Ghostbusters never existed. What made it worst is the movie came out just 2 years after the world lost Harold Ramis. It was just real bad timing of the whole thing really soured me on ATC. I am happy it exists now because we got 3 more years of Comics from it. An interest that got reignited and got us here today awaiting another genuine sequel to the original Ghostbusters. Even if this movie closes the chapter on the originals, If this one knocks it out of the park I hope we do eventually see that Ecto Force Cartoon and That Animated movie. :)

As for box office predictions if we’re lucky maybe we will see close to those Indy 4 numbers you mentioned. I think there is a demand for these classic properties right now. I mean look at the excitement for Stallone’s new Rambo movie, Kobra Kai, Ash Vs Evil Dead, Creed, Creed 2, Another Indy in development, and even another potential Rocky film. I think the time is right and I hope that this new Ghostbusters becomes another hit in the IP comeback market. :) :) :)
#4922353
I think it will hold it's own provided the magic/story/surprise isn't revealed beforehand. It seems like a bunch of trailers nowadays make it a point to put huge turning points or gags/scenes in trailers. No. I want to jump/scream/be surprised when whatever happens. Not think oh yeah.. saw this in the trailer.

What I fear the most for hurting it is if the media decides to paint this vs. GB:ATC and why that didn't continue, etc. The last thing this movie needs is to turn politicized in any way, shape, or form. It just needs to stay true to GB cannon and impress the hell out of everyone and be funny of course. If it can do that word and views will spread and the numbers will come.... think field of dreams.
deadderek liked this
#4922357
My question is what is the average age of people who goes and sees movies these days?

If the answer is under 30 then will the majority of these people have not seen the GBI or GBII movies and will they be interested in seeing a GBIII? What would draw people in to see this movie if they know nothing about the other 2?

Fans of the franchise can only do so much. We need the average movie goer to flock to see this movie for it to do well. We need average movie goer to go see the movie. Love it and spread the word so their friends will want to go see it.

GB:ATC had Melissa Mccarthy, Kristin Wigg and Paul Feig as name draws for someone who has not seen the other movies.

GB:2020 has Paul Rudd (Ant Man, Avengers) and Jason Reitman (The only movie I know he directed was Juno)

Don't forget the movie will not be shown in China so that will also impact total ticket sales.

We need trailers that are not fan service trailers but ones that will make the average person eager to see the movie.

I reserve judgement on how the movie will do until the trailers start to come out.
#4922358
Here's the thing that we may not want to take into account but should:

Ghostbusters is not a traditional franchise. It is a franchise to us, because we love it, but to the general public, even if they have an affinity for the movies, it's two movies from 30+ years ago (one of which has, in some people's eyes, aged poorly, and another that is not necessarily well-liked), and a reboot that came with some irritating controversy. We must assume they haven't seen either show, or read the books, or played the game. They might not have even seen either movie in years. You can't expect a new movie to have even 1/5th the cultural cachet as a new Star Wars, a new Rocky, even a new Mad Max.

The important thing to remember is that fans won't sustain this movie, or really any movie. This is a discussion I had often before the 2016 film came out. People can point all they want to the filmmakers being deferential to the fans and their slavishness to the tone, but a character like Deadpool wasn't a household name before that movie came out, and there's no way there were already $860m+, even $100m worth of Deadpool fans. What this movie and the 2016 movie need to do for the sake of the series is attract new blood, new viewers.

It will help if this one is under $100m -- although, there was a Canadian article I read about filming that quoted a town official or mayor as saying it was a $170m movie. I'm sure that's a mistake -- that'd be more than 2016 cost -- but it was jarring to read. Maybe she meant $70m?
robbritton liked this
#4922360
My question is what is the average age of people who goes and sees movies these days?

If the answer is under 30 then will the majority of these people have not seen the GBI or GBII movies and will they be interested in seeing a GBIII? What would draw people in to see this movie if they know nothing about the other 2?

Fans of the franchise can only do so much. We need the average movie goer to flock to see this movie for it to do well. We need average movie goer to go see the movie. Love it and spread the word so their friends will want to go see it.

GB:ATC had Melissa Mccarthy, Kristin Wigg and Paul Feig as name draws for someone who has not seen the other movies.

GB:2020 has Paul Rudd (Ant Man, Avengers) and Jason Reitman (The only movie I know he directed was Juno)

Don't forget the movie will not be shown in China so that will also impact total ticket sales.

We need trailers that are not fan service trailers but ones that will make the average person eager to see the movie.

I reserve judgement on how the movie will do until the trailers start to come out.
I'm not sure why you think that most people under 30 haven't seen the originals. I'm not sure that's an accurate estimate.

Stars aren't the box office draws they once were. Very few actors are able to command that kind of power. More often it's the I.P that's the star.

If any names are goiwng to draw people to the theatre it's Aykroyd, Murray, Moranis and Weaver. Not because of who they are but because who they play.

Do we know for sure the movie isn't playing in China? Even if that's true Hollywood studios only collect about 20% of the reported ticket sale gross from China.
Also keep in mind studios collect about 50% of the reported domestic gross. And production budget is only part of the cost. Marketing can another 100 million or more. So if we have a summer tentpole we are looking at about 270 million dollars needed to be recouped. Which means a 540 million dollar gross at minimum to turn a profit.
#4922361
Here's the thing that we may not want to take into account but should:

Ghostbusters is not a traditional franchise. It is a franchise to us, because we love it, but to the general public, even if they have an affinity for the movies, it's two movies from 30+ years ago (one of which has, in some people's eyes, aged poorly, and another that is not necessarily well-liked), and a reboot that came with some irritating controversy. We must assume they haven't seen either show, or read the books, or played the game. They might not have even seen either movie in years. You can't expect a new movie to have even 1/5th the cultural cachet as a new Star Wars, a new Rocky, even a new Mad Max.

The important thing to remember is that fans won't sustain this movie, or really any movie. This is a discussion I had often before the 2016 film came out. People can point all they want to the filmmakers being deferential to the fans and their slavishness to the tone, but a character like Deadpool wasn't a household name before that movie came out, and there's no way there were already $860m+, even $100m worth of Deadpool fans. What this movie and the 2016 movie need to do for the sake of the series is attract new blood, new viewers.

It will help if this one is under $100m -- although, there was a Canadian article I read about filming that quoted a town official or mayor as saying it was a $170m movie. I'm sure that's a mistake -- that'd be more than 2016 cost -- but it was jarring to read. Maybe she meant $70m?
Ghostbusters is one of the most well liked movies in history. Next to the Coke logo, the Ghostbusters no ghost logo is the most recognized brand icon in the world(from a marketing study done in 2009. Crazy eh?).

Ghostbusters most equal franchise for comparison, BEFORE GB16 came, would be Indiana Jones. Yes there are obvious differences. But take away the sequels and you've got a simple 1:1. Indiana Jones had a sequel come out in 2008 after not having a movie for nearly 20 years. The 4th film, like GB3, had been in active stop and go development for years.

Everyone knows what Ghostbusters is and everyone loves that first film. It's passed on from generation to generation.
Ghostbusters, that first film, is up there with Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, Star Wars and Jaws as a movie pretty much everyone loves. Ghostbusters 2 was about was well recieved as Temple of Doom and the Back to the Future Sequels. That didn't hurt those franchises.

The outlier and biggest issue, and where the Indy comparison has its biggest roadblock, is the reboot. Whether anyone here liked or hated the reboot is moot. It muddied the franchise waters. If anything the incredible vocal outrage towards that movies mere existence should tell us something. The people didn't want a reboot. They wanted to see the old characters they grew up with. Lots of movies get rebooted all the time, not many are talked about on CNN, Fox News or by the President. This tells us something. Ghostbusters is important to people. They feel protective over it.

Frankly I think if Ghostbusters 2020 wasn't a passing the torch film and just a straight up Ghostbusters sequel, I think we'd be ok, box office wise. Seeing those remaining actors in uniform with packs on their back in action would go a long way.

If that first trailer lights up the Internet, if it has a moment equal to the "Chewie, We're Home" moment from that first Force Awakens trailer, we'll be ok.

Let us not forget how god awful the marketing for GB16 was. That first trailer is thought of as one of the worst trailers ever made. Ever. It's up there with that Adam Sandler in drag playing his twin sister movie.
We need a marketing campaign that will help audiences forget all that noise.

I think the budget is 170 million. That's about the standard for summer tentpole flicks. Now...there's a few questions there. Is it 170 Canadian? Is that just what they are spending in the area? Is that pre tax rebate or post rebate?

The man who heads up Sony right now, is Tom Rothman. A name that sends a chill up my spine from his days at being the head of 20th century fox. Rothman is a notioursly cheap man but maybe he's changed.
#4922362
Don’t sleep on the fact that Finn Wolfhard has about 15 million IG followers, and he’s following up Stranger Things season 3 and It: Chapter 2 with Ghostbusters.
deadderek liked this
#4922364
I think a safe prediction to make is it will open #1 at the box office. I said it in the main 2020 thread but I feel a LOT hinges on how well received the 1st trailer will be.

ATC just flat out didn't connect with the average moviegoer. Blame it on whatever you wish, but it opened #2....to a kids movie that was in it's second week of release. Reportedly $100 million was spent on marketing and it still flopped. Sony hopefully will still do just as big a marketing push if not more for this flick.

I think ATC won't really have an impact as long as it's made clear that it's not connected at all.

Just ONE scene/shot of a suited up Ray/Winston/Peter and that WILL put asses in seats, even if the movie somehow turned out mediocre.

I would guess 2020 finishes about 4-500 million. Ridiculously early to speculate but still fun to think about.

Even the "straights" I've spoken to are excited about the movie as soon as it's brought up to being the real sequel us fans have waited 30 years for.

Cheers to this thread!
#4922367
I think a safe prediction to make is it will open #1 at the box office. I said it in the main 2020 thread but I feel a LOT hinges on how well received the 1st trailer will be.

ATC just flat out didn't connect with the average moviegoer. Blame it on whatever you wish, but it opened #2....to a kids movie that was in it's second week of release. Reportedly $100 million was spent on marketing and it still flopped. Sony hopefully will still do just as big a marketing push if not more for this flick.

I think ATC won't really have an impact as long as it's made clear that it's not connected at all.

Just ONE scene/shot of a suited up Ray/Winston/Peter and that WILL put asses in seats, even if the movie somehow turned out mediocre.

I would guess 2020 finishes about 4-500 million. Ridiculously early to speculate but still fun to think about.

Even the "straights" I've spoken to are excited about the movie as soon as it's brought up to being the real sequel us fans have waited 30 years for.

Cheers to this thread!
Here's the 100 million dollar question though.

Can you honestly say that if GB16 never existed, GB2020 wouldn't be in a much better position, box office prospect wise? Sony now has to do something it wouldn't have otherwise had to do: make audiences realize this isn't connected to that movie. It has to rebuild the goodwill with the fanbase. Indy 4 had a great tagline, it was "Remember When Adventure Had a Name?". I think Sony needs to rename the movie as of yesterday and just call it Ghostbusters 3. For the good of the franchise.

Here's an example. Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse. Great, awesome movie. It didn't cross 400 million worldwide. Why? I mean...its Spider-Man. Even terrible Spider-Man movies make boat loads of money. This was a GREAT spider-man movie.

I do this for a living guys and while it's nowhere near an exact science, and no one will believe this isn't coming from a place of pure GB16 hatred(which it's not I swear), that movies negative affect on the box office prospect of this movie should not be underestimated. Like I said, even if GB16 was the greatest Ghostbuster movie of all time I'd be saying the same thing. It took some wind out the franchise's commercial appeal. People have seen what a Ghostbusters movie in the 21st century looks like with the new movie making technology that's been developed since 1989. It'll only have been 4 years. It would've been 30! You can't buy that kind of anticipation.

Personally, I had heard that they were planning on a big massive cast reveal for Comic Con in July. Something happened, the schedule got pushed back or deals weren't made in time...I don't know. But I do know we are a month into 70-80 day shoot and we have no OGB cast announcements. Now, they are coming. But the longer they go without those announcements the less our favourite characters are in this movie. That's an issue for me.

I know why they want to do a passing the torch movie, but I think that's been a misguided approach since day 1 back in the '90s. That's not what the people want to see. Remember the reaction to Bill Murray 10 years ago at the screams awards in full GB gear? He looked AWESOME. I think a great movie could've been made about the GB's trying to hang onto their glory days and being too old and long in the tooth. They refuse to franchise out, or hire new recruits. Why? Because they love being heroes. And Venkman loves the attention. And the women. And the money.
#4922396
Ghostbusters is one of the most well liked movies in history. Next to the Coke logo, the Ghostbusters no ghost logo is the most recognized brand icon in the world(from a marketing study done in 2009. Crazy eh?).
This is what I'm talking about. I did know this, and it's essentially the problem that fans are going to have with predictions. Ghostbusters is popular, and the logo is recognizable, but that doesn't mean the movies are in their lives. The symbol itself is iconic. People will sing the song when it's on the radio. Will they see or care about a new movie? Do they even care about the old movies? People also remember radio jingles.
Ghostbusters most equal franchise for comparison, BEFORE GB16 came, would be Indiana Jones. Yes there are obvious differences. But take away the sequels and you've got a simple 1:1. Indiana Jones had a sequel come out in 2008 after not having a movie for nearly 20 years. The 4th film, like GB3, had been in active stop and go development for years.
No way.

People like trilogies. Ghostbusters didn't get there, and the general consensus is that the second wasn't as good, which creates the perception the series ended because people lost interest -- if Sony wasn't pushing to try and monetize Ghostbusters as a major original IP, I would suspect the general public wouldn't think of Ghostbusters as much different from something like Caddyshack or Fletch. The vast nostalgia isn't about Ghostbusters as a franchise, it's about Ghostbusters as one movie, and it's honestly not that clear whether people who aren't already fans are clamoring for more of it.

The comparison doesn't hold up money-wise either: the three Indiana Jones films grossed $1.197b WW in their initial runs. The two Ghostbusters movies grossed $510.5m WW -- and neither came close to matching the lowest grossing IJ film (the fact that Ghostbusters II got defeated at the box office by the highest-grossing original Indy really also seems like obvious evidence against this comparison). You're talking about the Star Wars and Jaws/Close Encounters guys teaming up. Bill Murray is globally famous, but he's not Harrison Ford.
If anything the incredible vocal outrage towards that movies mere existence should tell us something. The people didn't want a reboot. They wanted to see the old characters they grew up with. Lots of movies get rebooted all the time, not many are talked about on CNN, Fox News or by the President. This tells us something. Ghostbusters is important to people. They feel protective over it.
This isn't true either. Fans would like to think it is, but again, the math just doesn't make sense. If there were 50 million Ghostbusters fans in the world, at $10 per ticket, you're still topping out at $500m, and that's if literally every single one of them sees it. That's bad math for a studio that needs $500m to cover the $150m budget and $150m marketing, plus back-end deals, to be in the black. Studios always care about new consumers. This movie is being made because Sony wants to leverage an important company property, it sounds like it's gonna cost way less than $150m, and because buzzy talent wanted to do it. I'm sure plenty of people, Jason Reitman included, are very much invested in the fans (up to a point), and the movie will reflect that, but...they threw $150m at the one you feel (note: I disagree) was "not for the fans" within a year after 30+ years of not greenlighting a sequel for a reason!
Frankly I think if Ghostbusters 2020 wasn't a passing the torch film and just a straight up Ghostbusters sequel, I think we'd be ok, box office wise. Seeing those remaining actors in uniform with packs on their back in action would go a long way.
That might've been true 10 or especially 20 years ago. These days, I don't think so, especially without Harold. And based on everything Jason Reitman's been saying (this is the "up to a point" part), I don't think that's the movie we're gonna be getting.
I think the budget is 170 million. That's about the standard for summer tentpole flicks. Now...there's a few questions there. Is it 170 Canadian? Is that just what they are spending in the area? Is that pre tax rebate or post rebate?
Nah. Aykroyd mentioned the "under $100m" statement in an elaborate and detailed response where he, as a producer, took credit for Ghostbusters (2016) being too expensive, and stressed that this was going to be cheaper for a reason. He gets carried away by enthusiasm, but this was a sober, almost apologetic statement. Plus, as mentioned, I don't think there's any way we get less than a five year gap between 2016 and hearing they're even starting to develop a new movie unless financial success is a safer bet.
#4922408
Ghostbusters is one of the most well liked movies in history. Next to the Coke logo, the Ghostbusters no ghost logo is the most recognized brand icon in the world(from a marketing study done in 2009. Crazy eh?).
This is what I'm talking about. I did know this, and it's essentially the problem that fans are going to have with predictions. Ghostbusters is popular, and the logo is recognizable, but that doesn't mean the movies are in their lives. The symbol itself is iconic. People will sing the song when it's on the radio. Will they see or care about a new movie? Do they even care about the old movies? People also remember radio jingles.
Ghostbusters most equal franchise for comparison, BEFORE GB16 came, would be Indiana Jones. Yes there are obvious differences. But take away the sequels and you've got a simple 1:1. Indiana Jones had a sequel come out in 2008 after not having a movie for nearly 20 years. The 4th film, like GB3, had been in active stop and go development for years.
No way.

People like trilogies. Ghostbusters didn't get there, and the general consensus is that the second wasn't as good, which creates the perception the series ended because people lost interest -- if Sony wasn't pushing to try and monetize Ghostbusters as a major original IP, I would suspect the general public wouldn't think of Ghostbusters as much different from something like Caddyshack or Fletch. The vast nostalgia isn't about Ghostbusters as a franchise, it's about Ghostbusters as one movie, and it's honestly not that clear whether people who aren't already fans are clamoring for more of it.

The comparison doesn't hold up money-wise either: the three Indiana Jones films grossed $1.197b WW in their initial runs. The two Ghostbusters movies grossed $510.5m WW -- and neither came close to matching the lowest grossing IJ film (the fact that Ghostbusters II got defeated at the box office by the highest-grossing original Indy really also seems like obvious evidence against this comparison). You're talking about the Star Wars and Jaws/Close Encounters guys teaming up. Bill Murray is globally famous, but he's not Harrison Ford.
If anything the incredible vocal outrage towards that movies mere existence should tell us something. The people didn't want a reboot. They wanted to see the old characters they grew up with. Lots of movies get rebooted all the time, not many are talked about on CNN, Fox News or by the President. This tells us something. Ghostbusters is important to people. They feel protective over it.
This isn't true either. Fans would like to think it is, but again, the math just doesn't make sense. If there were 50 million Ghostbusters fans in the world, at $10 per ticket, you're still topping out at $500m, and that's if literally every single one of them sees it. That's bad math for a studio that needs $500m to cover the $150m budget and $150m marketing, plus back-end deals, to be in the black. Studios always care about new consumers. This movie is being made because Sony wants to leverage an important company property, it sounds like it's gonna cost way less than $150m, and because buzzy talent wanted to do it. I'm sure plenty of people, Jason Reitman included, are very much invested in the fans (up to a point), and the movie will reflect that, but...they threw $150m at the one you feel (note: I disagree) was "not for the fans" within a year after 30+ years of not greenlighting a sequel for a reason!
Frankly I think if Ghostbusters 2020 wasn't a passing the torch film and just a straight up Ghostbusters sequel, I think we'd be ok, box office wise. Seeing those remaining actors in uniform with packs on their back in action would go a long way.
That might've been true 10 or especially 20 years ago. These days, I don't think so, especially without Harold. And based on everything Jason Reitman's been saying (this is the "up to a point" part), I don't think that's the movie we're gonna be getting.
I think the budget is 170 million. That's about the standard for summer tentpole flicks. Now...there's a few questions there. Is it 170 Canadian? Is that just what they are spending in the area? Is that pre tax rebate or post rebate?
Nah. Aykroyd mentioned the "under $100m" statement in an elaborate and detailed response where he, as a producer, took credit for Ghostbusters (2016) being too expensive, and stressed that this was going to be cheaper for a reason. He gets carried away by enthusiasm, but this was a sober, almost apologetic statement. Plus, as mentioned, I don't think there's any way we get less than a five year gap between 2016 and hearing they're even starting to develop a new movie unless financial success is a safer bet.
"People like trilogies" No....Movie companies like Trilogies and story tellers like trilogies. People like good movies.

Look. I love Dan Aykroyd. I really do. But take everything he says with a grain of salt. The man's comments on GB16 weren't even correct on a numbers level. It wasn't too expensive(it was actually inexpensive for a big visual effects movie with comedy stars). It just should've been more successful. Look at big tentpole movies, and you'll see a pattern. You'll see figures like 170, 150, 140, 200 etc. Can movies be made for less? Hell yes. Deadpool proved that. But I'll take the quote of that woman in the newspaper who works for the province over Danny boy. The thing we don't know is: Was it Canadian? Before rebates? If that's the case then the movie may very well end up being a 100m dollar production. If not...and again. She's talking about the LOCAL spend. There's still post production done all around the world that she's not taking into account. So she's gotta be talking in Canadian dollars. It makes sense.

My man..Did I say that Indiana Jonea and Ghostbusters as a franchise are EXACTLY the same? No. I didn't. I said Ghostbusters and Raiders, the first movie, are a 1:1. Not the franchise. (Did you also leave out GB16's numbers in that Boxoffice figure. I mean..comparing two movies to 3? Huh?).

Temple of Doom and Ghostbusters 2 are very similar. Notice I say similar. Please don't go into a thing about how they aren't the same. They are both sequels to movies that were a phenomenon and both were a perceived disappointment. Ghostbusters 2 broke the opening weekend record set by Indiana Jones 3 in May. Did you know that Indy 3 opened on a Memorial Day weekend? Ghostbusters 2 opened on a non holiday. Here's why Ghostbusters 2 wasn't bigger: Batman. Batman opened the VERY next weekend and destroyed everything in its wake. Ghostbusters 2 had a cinema score of an A- When people talk about GB2 being a disappointment they always leave out the opening weekend record. That tells us that there are more movie goers that wanted to see Ghostbusters than wanted to see Indiana Jones 3. Did they end up making the same money? No. Indy 3 was a critical and audience hit they opened weeks before Batman hit.

Of course Bill Murray isn't Harrison Ford. People don't go see a Ghostbusters movie because Bill Murray is in it. They go because Peter Venkman is in it, played by Bill Murray. Wait..does that make sense lol?

And your math about the 50 million ghostbusters fan...well it's something. It's a guess and a ridiculous one. Don't pretend to try and know how many fans there are to try and make a point lol. And what is a fan? Is it someone that likes GB1 and not 2? Likes every movies? Buys all the merch? Or just simply says "Oh I love Ghostbusters! I'm a huge fan" but doesn't watch the movie 5 times a year? You can't quantify those kind of things. It's silly to try.

So to recap: GB16 did not cost too much. It was just a box office bomb and didn't perform near what it was expected to. Ghostbusters 1 and Raiders of the Lost Ark are extremely fair comparisons. Both made similar domestic totals. Both were pop culture phenomenon. It's the same with Back to the Future. Ghostbusters 2 and Temple of Doom are very similar.
We don't know the EXACT amount of what GB2020 will cost, but the figure we have makes sense on an industry level. Dan Aykroyd's comments not withstanding. And I will concede there is a very strong possibility that the figure mentioned is in Canadian dollars.

Ghostbusters 1 has not aged poorly in anyone's mind(did you actually say that?). It's an extremely popular film that's regarded as a classic and cultural touchstone. The people who grew up loving Ghostbusters are now parents and starting families. That shit gets passed down.

There are probably way more than 50 million Ghostbusters fans on a planet of over 6 billion people. But who knows? It's silly to try and guess that.

Bill Murray is not Harrison Ford. But is Harrison Ford Bill Murray? Hmm. A question for the Philosphers.
#4922417
To preface all of the following replies: I do agree with Richard that Ghostbusters (2016) complicates box office speculation, although we probably don't agree on why. Personally, it complicates things because the movie was a PR controversy, and thus it becomes impossible to say whether audiences rejected it because the Ghostbusters brand is not as strong as fans might think it is, or they were dissatisfied with the movie they were being presented with. However, I do think it is equally possible that either (or perhaps a little of both) are true.
Look. I love Dan Aykroyd. I really do. But take everything he says with a grain of salt. The man's comments on GB16 weren't even correct on a numbers level. It wasn't too expensive (it was actually inexpensive for a big visual effects movie with comedy stars). It just should've been more successful. Look at big tentpole movies, and you'll see a pattern. You'll see figures like 170, 150, 140, 200 etc. Can movies be made for less? Hell yes. Deadpool proved that. But I'll take the quote of that woman in the newspaper who works for the province over Danny boy.
I grant you that Aykroyd's statement that the reshoots cost $30-40m were wrong (by 10x!). However, movies are a business venture, so it doesn't matter what other studios spend on a summer tentpole. What matters is relative to each production itself: how much return are you going to get on your investment? It's not complicated for Marvel to spend $200m on something like Infinity War because they have no doubt that the audience is large enough to make their money back 5x, 6x, 7x over. In the studio's business-minded perspective, Ghostbusters (2016) didn't produce an effective cost/profit ratio, and thus, it cost too much.

As I said before, Aykroyd can let his emotions get the best of him, but he's not a complete idiot. He is actually a producer on this movie, and a producer on Ghostbusters (2016). The numbers are there in black and white: it didn't make enough money to be profitable. The woman quoted in the paper is a city official who would've heard the number from someone else, and she probably just got it wrong. I have complete and total confidence that this movie costs significantly less than $170m Canadian or American dollars (I wouldn't go so far as to bet on a specific number, but I feel fairly confident it will be under $100m as Aykroyd stated), although I can easily buy that rebates might be part of the budget.
My man..Did I say that Indiana Jonea and Ghostbusters as a franchise are EXACTLY the same? No. I didn't. I said Ghostbusters and Raiders, the first movie, are a 1:1. Not the franchise. (Did you also leave out GB16's numbers in that Boxoffice figure. I mean..comparing two movies to 3? Huh?).

Temple of Doom and Ghostbusters 2 are very similar. Notice I say similar. Please don't go into a thing about how they aren't the same. They are both sequels to movies that were a phenomenon and both were a perceived disappointment.
Okay, fine. While first two Ghostbusters movies and the first two Indiana Jones are separated by a pretty significant $100m in box office (Ghostbusters and GBII are in the $200m range, and the Indiana Jones films are in the $300m range), I can more or less get on board with that comparison. However, Indiana Jones' 1980s run closed on Last Crusade, which managed to jump another $100m to get into the $400m range. The series went out on a high note, both financially and in the eyes of the audience. My point was that the basic audience perception of a third Ghostbusters movie and the perception of a fourth (and now fifth) Indiana Jones movie are not sensible equivalents in terms of audience demand, because the audience (outside of us fans) was not necessarily left wanting more. The Ghostbusters franchise has the perception of having petered out (and while I didn't factor in the reboot here, that's another mediocre box office performance).
"People like trilogies" No....Movie companies like Trilogies and story tellers like trilogies. People like good movies.
When factoring timelines or universes in, how many series can you think of that are objectively considered pop culture classics that only made it 2 movies as opposed to a great movie and an underwhelming sequel (perhaps followed by a reboot, like Ghostbusters)?
And your math about the 50 million ghostbusters fan...well it's something. It's a guess and a ridiculous one. Don't pretend to try and know how many fans there are to try and make a point lol.
The point wasn't the number. I acknowledge it is a guess. The larger point is that a fanbase is a relatively fixed number. Whether it's 10 fans or 100,000,000 fans, you cannot expect every fan to show up, and even if you do, that will always be a finite audience. It is up to the filmmakers themselves to pay tribute to us. As far as the studio is concerned, they're marketing to the masses. The number of people in the world who haven't seen literally any movie ever made is always going to be higher than the number that have -- I'm sure there are even more people on planet Earth who haven't seen Star Wars than people who have. The studio's goal with any summer blockbuster based on something that already exists is going to be attracting the largest number of people with no pre-existing interest while retaining as many fans as possible.
Ghostbusters 1 has not aged poorly in anyone's mind(did you actually say that?). It's an extremely popular film that's regarded as a classic and cultural touchstone. The people who grew up loving Ghostbusters are now parents and starting families. That shit gets passed down.
The 2016 film (and the exhausting discourse around it) prompted quite a few writers to re-examine the original through a modern lens. I'm not saying this is a huge number of people, but we live in an era where people are interrogating works and public figures from the past and questioning aspects that haven't aged so well (she doesn't note any reservations about Ghostbusters, but even Violet Ramis Stiel does this with some of the other movies Harold Ramis was involved with in her book, like Animal House).

I'm as die-hard a fan as anyone else, and had a great time at Fan Fest watching it on the big screen, and it's also not that hard for me to say that many women don't appreciate Venkman's hustling of the psychic volunteer or him hitting on Dana, or the ghost blowjob, or the "housekeeping or food service industries" line, or how Winston was handled, etc. I saw a 2019 article about how the movie has aged just a couple weeks ago on a major site (I glanced at it and thought it wasn't very well-written, so I'm not gonna link it, but it's at CinemaBlend if you want to find it). This concerns the cast, too -- I hate to say it out loud, but if Bill Murray is in the movie, this might be a high-profile enough thing to prompt another go-round of questions about his ex-wife's abuse allegations toward him.
#4922429
To preface all of the following replies: I do agree with Richard that Ghostbusters (2016) complicates box office speculation, although we probably don't agree on why. Personally, it complicates things because the movie was a PR controversy, and thus it becomes impossible to say whether audiences rejected it because the Ghostbusters brand is not as strong as fans might think it is, or they were dissatisfied with the movie they were being presented with. However, I do think it is equally possible that either (or perhaps a little of both) are true.
Look. I love Dan Aykroyd. I really do. But take everything he says with a grain of salt. The man's comments on GB16 weren't even correct on a numbers level. It wasn't too expensive (it was actually inexpensive for a big visual effects movie with comedy stars). It just should've been more successful. Look at big tentpole movies, and you'll see a pattern. You'll see figures like 170, 150, 140, 200 etc. Can movies be made for less? Hell yes. Deadpool proved that. But I'll take the quote of that woman in the newspaper who works for the province over Danny boy.
I grant you that Aykroyd's statement that the reshoots cost $30-40m were wrong (by 10x!). However, movies are a business venture, so it doesn't matter what other studios spend on a summer tentpole. What matters is relative to each production itself: how much return are you going to get on your investment? It's not complicated for Marvel to spend $200m on something like Infinity War because they have no doubt that the audience is large enough to make their money back 5x, 6x, 7x over. In the studio's business-minded perspective, Ghostbusters (2016) didn't produce an effective cost/profit ratio, and thus, it cost too much.

As I said before, Aykroyd can let his emotions get the best of him, but he's not a complete idiot. He is actually a producer on this movie, and a producer on Ghostbusters (2016). The numbers are there in black and white: it didn't make enough money to be profitable. The woman quoted in the paper is a city official who would've heard the number from someone else, and she probably just got it wrong. I have complete and total confidence that this movie costs significantly less than $170m Canadian or American dollars (I wouldn't go so far as to bet on a specific number, but I feel fairly confident it will be under $100m as Aykroyd stated), although I can easily buy that rebates might be part of the budget.
My man..Did I say that Indiana Jonea and Ghostbusters as a franchise are EXACTLY the same? No. I didn't. I said Ghostbusters and Raiders, the first movie, are a 1:1. Not the franchise. (Did you also leave out GB16's numbers in that Boxoffice figure. I mean..comparing two movies to 3? Huh?).

Temple of Doom and Ghostbusters 2 are very similar. Notice I say similar. Please don't go into a thing about how they aren't the same. They are both sequels to movies that were a phenomenon and both were a perceived disappointment.
Okay, fine. While first two Ghostbusters movies and the first two Indiana Jones are separated by a pretty significant $100m in box office (Ghostbusters and GBII are in the $200m range, and the Indiana Jones films are in the $300m range), I can more or less get on board with that comparison. However, Indiana Jones' 1980s run closed on Last Crusade, which managed to jump another $100m to get into the $400m range. The series went out on a high note, both financially and in the eyes of the audience. My point was that the basic audience perception of a third Ghostbusters movie and the perception of a fourth (and now fifth) Indiana Jones movie are not sensible equivalents in terms of audience demand, because the audience (outside of us fans) was not necessarily left wanting more. The Ghostbusters franchise has the perception of having petered out (and while I didn't factor in the reboot here, that's another mediocre box office performance).
"People like trilogies" No....Movie companies like Trilogies and story tellers like trilogies. People like good movies.
When factoring timelines or universes in, how many series can you think of that are objectively considered pop culture classics that only made it 2 movies as opposed to a great movie and an underwhelming sequel (perhaps followed by a reboot, like Ghostbusters)?
And your math about the 50 million ghostbusters fan...well it's something. It's a guess and a ridiculous one. Don't pretend to try and know how many fans there are to try and make a point lol.
The point wasn't the number. I acknowledge it is a guess. The larger point is that a fanbase is a relatively fixed number. Whether it's 10 fans or 100,000,000 fans, you cannot expect every fan to show up, and even if you do, that will always be a finite audience. It is up to the filmmakers themselves to pay tribute to us. As far as the studio is concerned, they're marketing to the masses. The number of people in the world who haven't seen literally any movie ever made is always going to be higher than the number that have -- I'm sure there are even more people on planet Earth who haven't seen Star Wars than people who have. The studio's goal with any summer blockbuster based on something that already exists is going to be attracting the largest number of people with no pre-existing interest while retaining as many fans as possible.
Ghostbusters 1 has not aged poorly in anyone's mind(did you actually say that?). It's an extremely popular film that's regarded as a classic and cultural touchstone. The people who grew up loving Ghostbusters are now parents and starting families. That shit gets passed down.
The 2016 film (and the exhausting discourse around it) prompted quite a few writers to re-examine the original through a modern lens. I'm not saying this is a huge number of people, but we live in an era where people are interrogating works and public figures from the past and questioning aspects that haven't aged so well (she doesn't note any reservations about Ghostbusters, but even Violet Ramis Stiel does this with some of the other movies Harold Ramis was involved with in her book, like Animal House).

I'm as die-hard a fan as anyone else, and had a great time at Fan Fest watching it on the big screen, and it's also not that hard for me to say that many women don't appreciate Venkman's hustling of the psychic volunteer or him hitting on Dana, or the ghost blowjob, or the "housekeeping or food service industries" line, or how Winston was handled, etc. I saw a 2019 article about how the movie has aged just a couple weeks ago on a major site (I glanced at it and thought it wasn't very well-written, so I'm not gonna link it, but it's at CinemaBlend if you want to find it). This concerns the cast, too -- I hate to say it out loud, but if Bill Murray is in the movie, this might be a high-profile enough thing to prompt another go-round of questions about his ex-wife's abuse allegations toward him.
About the woman and the 170 number. Again, you are just guessing at how something happened based on nothing but a notion that this movie should be cheaper because a man with an incredible history of inaccurate statements says so.

I can guarantee you that GB2020 cost more than 100 million dollars. Easily. That's just the way it works now. The only number we have is from a lady that would know. Doubting that number is a bit strange. If we have an alternate number from a reliable source, I'll be happy to hear it. Again, I trust that number because of how specific it is. It wasnt 180 or 200. It was 170. That's typical for Hollywood blockbusters and I'm not sure she would know that.

I work in development and film budgeting is an extremely complex process. Ghostbusters seems to be using an approx 80 day shoot schedule. It will be a visual effects heavy film. My guess is that the 170 number is Canadian. Part of the main attraction of shooting in Canada is tax rebates and the buying power of the American dollar compared to Canadian dollar. If I had to guess..I'd say the final budget will be about 120-130 million. I'd be shocked if it were any lower.

So Dany Aykroyd is a producer on the movie. But he's what we call a PINO. A producer in name only. He isn't an active producer. Yes he's involved in Ghostcorp. But Dan is a pay cheque producer who happens to be a co-star in the film. It's an extremely common thing. He's a producer the same way that someone like Steven Spielberg is a producer for the Jurrasic World or Men in Black movies. He just sits back and collects a pay cheque. That's what he got for giving up his veto power and financial ownership stake when Ghostcorp was created. He isn't a producer the way Ivan Reitman is, someone extremely hands on and involved in the day to day.
#4922437


Personally, I had heard that they were planning on a big massive cast reveal for Comic Con in July. Something happened, the schedule got pushed back or deals weren't made in time...I don't know. But I do know we are a month into 70-80 day shoot and we have no OGB cast announcements. Now, they are coming. But the longer they go without those announcements the less our favourite characters are in this movie. That's an issue for me.


man thats so cool.

its always possible those scenes are still %100 in tact on the shooting schedule, they just flipped the schedule around to shoot the the non-OG scenes first.
#4922439
Ok. It might be a wee bit early but seeing as this GB2020 section is pretty empty I figured "Why Not?". So here we will discuss what we think and/or hope GB2020 can do box office wise. Visit Boxofficemojo.com for all your box office/budget/opening weekend references. Also something we can discuss: How GB2020 might do compared to GB16 and what affect(if any) that movie might have, pro or con, on GB2020's release.

Before we begin, somethings to consider: Release Date. July 10th 2020, Competition: What movies will be in theatres and what movies will we be opening against? And Budget? So far the only number I've seen is 170 million. Is that in Canadian Currency?


Ok. So there are multiple things to consider this far out before I can even begins to think about what GB2020's box office potential is. The big thing is main trailer reception and marketing. The other is how prominent are the original cast members going to be(this is assuming they all sign on).

Unfortunately, and this isn't meant to bash GB16 I swear, but I think that film is going to negatively affect GB2020's box office unless it has a higher than average quality marketing campaign that helps audiences forget that film completely. And this is where things get iffy. Sony is known to have one of the worst marketing teams in the business. I hate to get all inside baseball on this but our hope here is that Sony hires some of the layoffs and crumbs from the Disney/Fox merger, those two companies have the best there is in the marketing world. Top 3? Disney/Fox and Warner Brothers.

So right now, as things are, if the film were to launch with an average marketing effort? I'd say we can expect a similar opening to GB16. Maybe up to 65 million. If they name the film "Ghostbusters 3"? I think Sony can squeeze an easy 15-20 million more in that opening weekend. If they keep the current moniker? This is going to have to be a word of mouth movie. Meaning things aren't looking good. Word of mouth movies(movies with great reviews and audience reactions) don't do well in summer. Not anymore. The market is too saturated with content. Febuary/March/late August and October are the "Word of Mouth" months.

So right now: 65 million opening, 150-165 million total domestic, 370 WorldWide. That's my read. Again, it's insanely early. Now...this is where some of you might get mad. Just know I mean no disrespect and that I'm coming at this from a pure number/marketing standpoint:

If GB16 never happened...I think GB2020 would easily have had a 100 million plus opening weekend. Over 300-400 million domestic. And 800 million worldwide. Similar to Indy 4.

So that gives you an idea how much I think GB16 is affecting this movie. Why? Not because I didn't like it. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with perception, demand and anticipation.

GB16, even if it had been a huge success, took some wind out of the anticipation and demand sails. If there hadn't been a GB16, GB2020 aka GB3 would be much better positioned. A) Not a reboot. B) first Ghostbusters film in over 30 years. C) A film that's been promised and anticipated for over 20 years. Perception? If the title is GB2020 it's going to confuse people. Is it a sequel to GB16? Another reboot? What is it? Marketing, GREAT marketing will have to answer a lot of those questions.
double post, but i wanna put my opinion in.

I feel that GB16 will hurt any 'hits' coming from a Ghostbusters name. Unless they solidify the old cast and the marketing will hammer in "hey look we promise this is the real deal, the ogs are back"

regardless of opinion, what hurt GB16 is the fact that it was a remake and not a sequel. The general audience who are fans of the original went in thinking it was a sequel when it sure as heck fire wasnt, that word got out and the numbers dropped.

Now that the novelty of a "NEW" Ghostbusters movie in theaters is a little worn, and since the last one was met with lukewarm reviews and still fresh in memory..a new movie will be met with a 'meh' reaction and enthusiasm. Especially since it's forming to be more and more like a reboot (disguised as a sequel), just swap female-comedians with kids...and i think when the first rumors came about; i remember seeing comments like "didnt they learn the last time? girl version didnt work, now we're getting kids-reboot? nice job Sony"

especially since theyre keeping this such a 'big' secret...no one outside of the film nerds like us know its happening. so there's no hype in the general public eye and were in the production phase. dropping the holy "bill" name will certainly boost some ticket sales. I know i'd drop all negativity if i knew Venkman was gonna be on screen.

My prediction is it might do the same or worse than GB16. a little pessimistic, but im just being realistic...Unless they really have something up their sleeve that will turn the general public's heads toward it.
#4922446
About the woman and the 170 number. Again, you are just guessing at how something happened based on nothing but a notion that this movie should be cheaper because a man with an incredible history of inaccurate statements says so.

I can guarantee you that GB2020 cost more than 100 million dollars. Easily. That's just the way it works now.
Well, I can't change your mind, but I'd absolutely bet anything on a significantly lowered budget compared to 2016. A $70m-80m budget makes the $220m gross of that movie solidly profitable before video, and it's scaled up from Jason Reitman's previous movies but also not gargantuan. Speaking from his perspective, he's coming off of a strong of box office flubs (some of which I loved, like Tully and Young Adult), and I don't think he wants the responsibility of carrying a $170m burden (which would need to make $510m back to be in the black). Sony is also coming off of not just Ghostbusters (2016), but now Men in Black International, and even $120m ($170m CAN) is a pretty high spend. Based on everything I've heard Jason say about this being an intimate movie, and different in style from the original Ghostbusters films (while still being in that timeline and a tribute to them), I'd happily place big money on this intentionally being scaled down from the spectacle of any of the previous movies in terms of major visual effects, and thus, significantly cheaper. The original Ghostbusters only cost $30m, and while there are 35 years of inflation there, I imagine they're trying to do something more like that, where costly effects are deployed carefully, and mostly at the climax, with only a few ghosts throughout the rest and plenty of practical work to keep costs down.

While this is in large part based on Aykroyd's literal words "we're gonna do it for as little as possible," it's also largely based on the direction the film seems to be taking, which in Jason's own words is "a different idea of what a Ghostbusters movie can be."
#4922473
About the woman and the 170 number. Again, you are just guessing at how something happened based on nothing but a notion that this movie should be cheaper because a man with an incredible history of inaccurate statements says so.

I can guarantee you that GB2020 cost more than 100 million dollars. Easily. That's just the way it works now.
Well, I can't change your mind, but I'd absolutely bet anything on a significantly lowered budget compared to 2016. A $70m-80m budget makes the $220m gross of that movie solidly profitable before video, and it's scaled up from Jason Reitman's previous movies but also not gargantuan. Speaking from his perspective, he's coming off of a strong of box office flubs (some of which I loved, like Tully and Young Adult), and I don't think he wants the responsibility of carrying a $170m burden (which would need to make $510m back to be in the black). Sony is also coming off of not just Ghostbusters (2016), but now Men in Black International, and even $120m ($170m CAN) is a pretty high spend. Based on everything I've heard Jason say about this being an intimate movie, and different in style from the original Ghostbusters films (while still being in that timeline and a tribute to them), I'd happily place big money on this intentionally being scaled down from the spectacle of any of the previous movies in terms of major visual effects, and thus, significantly cheaper. The original Ghostbusters only cost $30m, and while there are 35 years of inflation there, I imagine they're trying to do something more like that, where costly effects are deployed carefully, and mostly at the climax, with only a few ghosts throughout the rest and plenty of practical work to keep costs down.

While this is in large part based on Aykroyd's literal words "we're gonna do it for as little as possible," it's also largely based on the direction the film seems to be taking, which in Jason's own words is "a different idea of what a Ghostbusters movie can be."
The original Ghostbusters cost 30 million. That's 100% true. It's also a very expensive movie for the time. I know this is hard to imagine based on the budgets of today(which haven't kept pace with inflation due to a number of factors: The expense of CGI being a main one and just the number of effects each film has). Ghostbusters cost more than Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom, Back to the Future, Star Wars, Jaws. At the time, which is incredible, it had one of the highest greenlit budgets in Hollywood history. Crazy eh? 30 million? For those that might not know the story, Frank Price, one of the execs at Coloumbia(& apparently high on Coke) agreed to a 30 million dollar budget so long as Ivan could get the movie in theatres by June '84. This was May '83 I think. The turnaround on Ghostbusters is INSANE. It was a massive film. They also had to create a visual effects company from scratch lol. It's nuts.
deadderek liked this
#4922474
About the woman and the 170 number. Again, you are just guessing at how something happened based on nothing but a notion that this movie should be cheaper because a man with an incredible history of inaccurate statements says so.

I can guarantee you that GB2020 cost more than 100 million dollars. Easily. That's just the way it works now.
Well, I can't change your mind, but I'd absolutely bet anything on a significantly lowered budget compared to 2016. A $70m-80m budget makes the $220m gross of that movie solidly profitable before video, and it's scaled up from Jason Reitman's previous movies but also not gargantuan. Speaking from his perspective, he's coming off of a strong of box office flubs (some of which I loved, like Tully and Young Adult), and I don't think he wants the responsibility of carrying a $170m burden (which would need to make $510m back to be in the black). Sony is also coming off of not just Ghostbusters (2016), but now Men in Black International, and even $120m ($170m CAN) is a pretty high spend. Based on everything I've heard Jason say about this being an intimate movie, and different in style from the original Ghostbusters films (while still being in that timeline and a tribute to them), I'd happily place big money on this intentionally being scaled down from the spectacle of any of the previous movies in terms of major visual effects, and thus, significantly cheaper. The original Ghostbusters only cost $30m, and while there are 35 years of inflation there, I imagine they're trying to do something more like that, where costly effects are deployed carefully, and mostly at the climax, with only a few ghosts throughout the rest and plenty of practical work to keep costs down.

While this is in large part based on Aykroyd's literal words "we're gonna do it for as little as possible," it's also largely based on the direction the film seems to be taking, which in Jason's own words is "a different idea of what a Ghostbusters movie can be."
There is no way this movie is costing 70-80 million. I'm sorry. But no. You are guessing. Until we have a reason to doubt a number a public official gave us we should assume it's correct. Also 120 million is way cheaper than GB16. GB16 actually cost 160 million BEFORE rebates. Once rebates came in it was 140. Which is still 20 million cheaper. 20 million is a big number. It's the difference between breaking even and profit.

Jason's previous box office issues are moot. Those weren't blockbusters. Men in Black Inc costing 120 million is actually cheap. Check out the budget for MIB 2 & 3. Sony also had its first billion dollar hit with Spider-Man: Far From Home(160 million budget. About 10-15 cheaper than Homecoming. Probably because no RDJ).
#4922484
When they announced the movie I was also thinking of a $70 million dollar budget.

When I read in the article $170 Million budget I thought absolutely no way.

I would not see Sony green lighting a budget anywhere close to what it cost for GB2016. Sorry to say but I think GB2016 made the bean counters at Sony gun shy about another GB movie. I am thinking the execs at Sony had to be convinced that they could make a new GB movie on a much lower budget.

Also try to convince the execs to open the purse strings without the OGB signed on. If they were signed on before they went to Sony asking for $$ why have they not announced it yet?
droidguy1119 liked this
#4922490
]The 2016 film (and the exhausting discourse around it) prompted quite a few writers to re-examine the original through a modern lens. I'm not saying this is a huge number of people, but we live in an era where people are interrogating works and public figures from the past and questioning aspects that haven't aged so well (she doesn't note any reservations about Ghostbusters, but even Violet Ramis Stiel does this with some of the other movies Harold Ramis was involved with in her book, like Animal House).

I'm as die-hard a fan as anyone else, and had a great time at Fan Fest watching it on the big screen, and it's also not that hard for me to say that many women don't appreciate Venkman's hustling of the psychic volunteer or him hitting on Dana, or the ghost blowjob, or the "housekeeping or food service industries" line, or how Winston was handled, etc. I saw a 2019 article about how the movie has aged just a couple weeks ago on a major site (I glanced at it and thought it wasn't very well-written, so I'm not gonna link it, but it's at CinemaBlend if you want to find it). This concerns the cast, too -- I hate to say it out loud, but if Bill Murray is in the movie, this might be a high-profile enough thing to prompt another go-round of questions about his ex-wife's abuse allegations toward him.
i think we've gone backwards in what offends us. usually its new stuff coming out thats supposed to be edgy and pushing boundaries..now it seems people scroll to the past to be offended.

Firstly, Winston's role was much larger in earlier drafts when it was meant for Eddie Murphy, but since Ernie was practically an unknown in the 80s, the role was scaled down.

Secondly, Venkman is supposed to be obnoxious, snarky, and self centered. That's what makes him funny. His imperfections are what make him grounded as a character. Strip that away and its bland and white bread. If he wasnt hitting on the Co-ed..would it end with just him shaking the two students hands and saying 'okay, thanks! have a good day, guys!"..without the great "it's pissing me off!!" line? the scene is hysterically beautiful in setting up our unlikely hero, it's also helps us set up his meeting with Dana, an intelligent woman who doesn't buy his shit...which makes their chemistry so hilarious.

... its not like the screenplay ignores his behavior, Dana kicks him out of her apartment because of his unprofessional demeanor:
"so then she threw me out of her life.."
its pretty much the catalyst for his whole personal arc in becoming a hero in the film :
"yeah, you'll say Pete Venkman's a guy who can get things done.."
Dana: "right...I bet i am."

I always loved the Dream Ghost sequence, Dan's reactions make me chuckle every time. It's one of the gags that keeps the spirit of the their National Lampoon/early SNL days, which brings me to Animal House: the whole movie is essentially supposed to be anarchy bringing down the establishment; it's punk rock, it's shocking and unapologetic.
RichardLess liked this
#4922491
When they announced the movie I was also thinking of a $70 million dollar budget.

When I read in the article $170 Million budget I thought absolutely no way.

I would not see Sony green lighting a budget anywhere close to what it cost for GB2016. Sorry to say but I think GB2016 made the bean counters at Sony gun shy about another GB movie. I am thinking the execs at Sony had to be convinced that they could make a new GB movie on a much lower budget.

Also try to convince the execs to open the purse strings without the OGB signed on. If they were signed on before they went to Sony asking for $$ why have they not announced it yet?
Honestly? Same here. I thought the budget would be about 90 million. But I'm convinced that the 170 number(whether in CDN or not) is legit.

You know cellphone plans? For example something like 45 dollars gets something like 450 weekday minutes, 2 Gigs of Data and unlimited Eve and weekends? Well that's how *some* movies work a budget. Which is why you see a lot of movies with similar numbers. So, for example, 120 million dollars will you get X number of shooting days, with X Number of crew and X number of visual effect shots. Now it's not EXACTLY like that, but I was trying to find a way to describe why the 170 number makes sense to me and that's the best way I can describe it.
#4922493
]The 2016 film (and the exhausting discourse around it) prompted quite a few writers to re-examine the original through a modern lens. I'm not saying this is a huge number of people, but we live in an era where people are interrogating works and public figures from the past and questioning aspects that haven't aged so well (she doesn't note any reservations about Ghostbusters, but even Violet Ramis Stiel does this with some of the other movies Harold Ramis was involved with in her book, like Animal House).

I'm as die-hard a fan as anyone else, and had a great time at Fan Fest watching it on the big screen, and it's also not that hard for me to say that many women don't appreciate Venkman's hustling of the psychic volunteer or him hitting on Dana, or the ghost blowjob, or the "housekeeping or food service industries" line, or how Winston was handled, etc. I saw a 2019 article about how the movie has aged just a couple weeks ago on a major site (I glanced at it and thought it wasn't very well-written, so I'm not gonna link it, but it's at CinemaBlend if you want to find it). This concerns the cast, too -- I hate to say it out loud, but if Bill Murray is in the movie, this might be a high-profile enough thing to prompt another go-round of questions about his ex-wife's abuse allegations toward him.
i think we've gone backwards in what offends us. usually its new stuff coming out thats supposed to be edgy and pushing boundaries..now it seems people scroll to the past to be offended.

Firstly, Winston's role was much larger in earlier drafts when it was meant for Eddie Murphy, but since Ernie was practically an unknown in the 80s, the role was scaled down.

Secondly, Venkman is supposed to be obnoxious, snarky, and self centered. That's what makes him funny. His imperfections are what make him grounded as a character. Strip that away and its bland and white bread. If he wasnt hitting on the Co-ed..would it end with just him shaking the two students hands and saying 'okay, thanks! have a good day, guys!"..without the great "it's pissing me off!!" line? the scene is hysterically beautiful in setting up our unlikely hero, it's also helps us set up his meeting with Dana, an intelligent woman who doesn't buy his shit...which makes their chemistry so hilarious.

... its not like the screenplay ignores his behavior, Dana kicks him out of her apartment because of his unprofessional demeanor:
"so then she threw me out of her life.."
its pretty much the catalyst for his whole personal arc in becoming a hero in the film :
"yeah, you'll say Pete Venkman's a guy who can get things done.."
Dana: "right...I bet i am."

I always loved the Dream Ghost sequence, Dan's reactions make me chuckle every time. It's one of the gags that keeps the spirit of the their National Lampoon/early SNL days, which brings me to Animal House: the whole movie is essentially supposed to be anarchy bringing down the establishment; it's punk rock, it's shocking and unapologetic.
So true. Soooo true. People letting imaginary characters in a fake movie offend them probably says more about them than it does the movie.

I mean it works the same for the reboot. The ghost blow job isn't offensive in the original, but neither is the ghost logo being shot in the crotch area. Or the ladies making fun of virgins & man children. Though I guess the reboot is a bit different since it's making a point to do and say those things due to what occurred when the film was announced. But whatever. It's just a silly joke. Who cares?

Anyone that is triggered or offended by Ghostbusters probably has bigger issues in their life to worry about.

Also, whether or not Murray was abusive to his wife or not, I'm not sure. But that same wife in that same report also said Bill was heavily addicted to marijuana. Marijuana lol. Again, it may or may not be true. But putting that your husband is addicted to marijuana out there in the world says a lot. That you are desperately trying to hurt him & his image in whatever way possible.
deadderek liked this
#4922552
When they announced the movie I was also thinking of a $70 million dollar budget.

When I read in the article $170 Million budget I thought absolutely no way.

I would not see Sony green lighting a budget anywhere close to what it cost for GB2016. Sorry to say but I think GB2016 made the bean counters at Sony gun shy about another GB movie. I am thinking the execs at Sony had to be convinced that they could make a new GB movie on a much lower budget.

Also try to convince the execs to open the purse strings without the OGB signed on. If they were signed on before they went to Sony asking for $$ why have they not announced it yet?
Honestly? Same here. I thought the budget would be about 90 million. But I'm convinced that the 170 number(whether in CDN or not) is legit.

You know cellphone plans? For example something like 45 dollars gets something like 450 weekday minutes, 2 Gigs of Data and unlimited Eve and weekends? Well that's how *some* movies work a budget. Which is why you see a lot of movies with similar numbers. So, for example, 120 million dollars will you get X number of shooting days, with X Number of crew and X number of visual effect shots. Now it's not EXACTLY like that, but I was trying to find a way to describe why the 170 number makes sense to me and that's the best way I can describe it.
So if this $170 million budget is true then where does the money go. How does it break down to actors/actress, equipment, food, hotels, costumes, props special effects etc.

I was trying to find a comparable movie without lots of CGI special effects

2018 The Mule (directed and starred Clint Eastwood)
Budget $50 Million
I have not seen this movie so I would not think it has a lot of special effects or fancy props/ costumes. Besides Clint Eastwood I have not heard of any of the other actors in this movie.

2018 The Favourite (Starred Emma Stone)
Budget $15 Million
I did see this movie and it has a lot of costumes and props. I am not familiar with the director or other actors.

2018 Annihilation (stars Natalie Portman, Jennifer Jason Leigh)
Budget $40-55 Million
I am not familiar with the director or other actors. A lot more special effects compared to the two movies above. Some props and costumes.

As a comparison Annihilation seems to be the movie closest to GB2020. Even at $120 Million compared to Annihilation where would the extra $60+ Million go? Salaries for the actors?

Would it be CGI SFX? I thought they were going to do as much practical SFX as possible?

The Favourite has loads of costumes and props and only cost $15 Million. Granted there weren't many explosions in this movie but a $100+ Million difference?
#4922557
Do we know for sure the 170 deal is for one movie?
Sav C, deadderek liked this
#4922570
There is no way this movie is costing 70-80 million. I'm sorry. But no. You are guessing. Until we have a reason to doubt a number a public official gave us we should assume it's correct. Also 120 million is way cheaper than GB16. GB16 actually cost 160 million BEFORE rebates. Once rebates came in it was 140. Which is still 20 million cheaper. 20 million is a big number. It's the difference between breaking even and profit.

Jason's previous box office issues are moot. Those weren't blockbusters. Men in Black Inc costing 120 million is actually cheap. Check out the budget for MIB 2 & 3. Sony also had its first billion dollar hit with Spider-Man: Far From Home(160 million budget. About 10-15 cheaper than Homecoming. Probably because no RDJ).
The rebate is irrelevant because it's factored into the cost. It's not the difference between breaking even and profit because the current math is 3x production budget is profit. It used to be 2x, but now the studio will spend the production budget again on marketing alone, so you have to add an additional 1x for anyone who has points in the back end, and for the theaters' cut. Ghostbusters (2016) needed $420m theatrically to be in the black before video (and video only adds so much, so studios obviously prefer to hit that milestone in theaters).

As Styrofoam_Guy says, Ghostbusters (2016) probably makes Sony gun-shy. Jason pitching a smaller movie was almost certainly a huge plus. They also just made almost $1b WW on Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, another Sony IP revival, and that only cost $90m. I'm sticking to my guess of $70-90m (after CAN exchange and maybe rebates).

I also reached out to the guy who wrote that article and he indicated he didn't fact-check the number.
i think we've gone backwards in what offends us. usually its new stuff coming out thats supposed to be edgy and pushing boundaries..now it seems people scroll to the past to be offended.
You don't have to agree with it, but I think the criticisms from younger audiences are both sincere and normal. Intent is not particularly meaningful -- plenty of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobia, etc. things throughout history were not intended intended as bigotry. People need to accept that times change. It shouldn't make any difference to you if some younger person doesn't like the movie like you do. There are millions of people from various generations who don't like or don't care about the movie for a million reasons.

The most tiring thing in the world is this insistence that things have to stay as they were. I want to see my favorite things turned inside out, taken apart, reconsidered, deconstructed, reconstructed, and changed into something new. That's what's exciting about Ghostbusters 2020 -- while it will be in the spirit of the originals and even in that timeline, it sounds like it'll be something different.
Sav C liked this

No ghost sightings in 30 years? Damn looks lik[…]

Relaunching theecto1.com

I’m in. But- a lot of what I learned came f[…]

Looking over countspatula's 4k screen grabs, in th[…]

oh wow, I didn't know about it skipping, I apolo[…]