Ghostbusters heading for $70 million loss

[Namehere]

August 25 2015: http://www.themarysue.com/ghostbusters-girl-power/
The Mary Sue no less. This movie was political from it's inception, as was it's advertising.

...that's your smoking gun?

THAT'S YOUR SMOKING GUN?

An image showing female actors and production members showing a message that hey, it's possible for females to actually work on a film in a male-dominated industry? An image that was tweeted by one of the cast members and went through a third party rather than Sony itself? "Girl power" is political? Seriously? But hey, I've got it all wrong. My sense of security in the world is at stake because members of the opposite sex teamed up to have a groupie.

Also, funny that you choose the Mary Sue, where one can find arguments against Final Fantasy XV for being entirely male-dominated. Am I to assume THAT'S political as well? The "Ghostbusters is bad because it's all female" and "FF15 is bad because it's all male" are both rediculous arguments, along with the idea that there's inherent political bias behind them. The difference however, is that I can at least take heart from the groupie pic in the knowledge that females are under-represented in the film industry.

The known facts of Paul Feig taking on this project included his refusal to do it two times prior, because he didn't feel he could work with the script they had. So he got the reins and rewrote it to what we have today. This was all politics. I urge you to read the emails.

It isn't simply a chicken and egg scenario. Ivan Reitman got screwed out of his director position thanks to some very underhanded actions on the part of Amy Pascal. It's all there in black and white. I urge you to actually look it over. Paul Feig would have taken Star Trek, Indiana Jones, any movie if he got to do it his way, but refused to do the original script - because by his own admission he didn't know how. Paul Feig isn't the same sort of director as Ivan Reitman. Few humans are.

I'm willing to believe you, but you do realize that over 1000 emails were leaked (which would make for a lot of reading), and that this kind of thing is par for the course in the movie business? Script rewrites happen, studio powerplays occur, etc. Also, I find it telling that so far, every post of yours has been based on gripes with the film's production, rather than its execution.

With that said it's obvious this movie has taken a beloved franchise and instead of honouring it, in any way whatsoever, they hired someone incompetent who had to rewrite it to be comfortable shooting it, and demanded that it carry an overshadowing political message, regardless of the effective outcome on the property. The fans were pissed and lashed out, the internet is full of people who don't care but have otherwise marginalised voices. They got pissed because 'politics' and lashed out to. If you make a right wing statement expect a left wing response, and that goes both ways.

Right. Because, y'know, the cameos, and shotouts, and references...yep, didn't honour it any way whatsoever. And speaking as someone who has seen the film, I didn't see any political message whatsoever. Heck, the original arguably has a more political slant.

There was quite a bit of racism and sexism surrounding The Force Awakens... but it still made its share of money didn't it? The Star Wars universe will go on, yes? The latest, and some would argue best, Star Trek film is considered a financial success, but it's arguable as to whether it was successful enough to justify shooting a fourth movie. Star Trek fandom is remarkably small. Some love TNG, some love DS9 some love the original. Making a movie in one continuation doesn't guarantee the audience of the others will come out and see it. Small fan bases.

Ghostbusters crosses economic and educational lines. Some of its fan base may indeed be rabid right wingers. You won't find many of those in the Star Trek fan base. And I expect, while more then one might at first have thought, not too many in the Star Wars fan base either. Again, Ghostbusters has a very, very, diverse fan base.

A lot of the Ghostbusters fan base isn't reading comics. They're living pay cheque to pay cheque, even poorer in some cases, their education is across the board from Ivy League to High School drop out. This is a film that captured the hearts of eight year olds. They were eight then, and they wanted to see that magic again. It was impossible but not impossible to enchant another generation of eight year olds and keep their parents relatively entertained/satisfied with the product. The fans wanted something on the silver screen again, one last go round. And they didn't get that and now it looks like this project has failed. That means no more Ghostbusters movies. It's pretty obvious why that would piss the fan base off. All because Amy Pascal and Paul Feig wanted to make a political propaganda piece instead of a Ghostbusters film.

Oh boy...

First, I haven't heard anyone that Beyond is the best Star Trek film (maybe the best Kelvinverse film, but that's only 3 out of 13). Second, you'd have a hard time arguing that Beyond was a box office success. Third, I'd hardly call the Star Trek fanbase small. Star Trek is within the cultural zeitgeist. Maybe not to the extent of Star Wars, but it's hardly an obscure property.

Now, moving onto Ghostbusters. That's an extreme generalization/assumption of a fanbase's demographic, and it isn't the first time you've done so (e.g. the NASCAR racing example). But wait, we've reached the coup de grace:

"This is a film that captured the hearts of eight year olds. They were eight then, and they wanted to see that magic again. It was impossible but not impossible to enchant another generation of eight year olds and keep their parents relatively entertained/satisfied with the product. The fans wanted something on the silver screen again, one last go round. And they didn't get that and now it looks like this project has failed. That means no more Ghostbusters movies. It's pretty obvious why that would piss the fan base off. All because Amy Pascal and Paul Feig wanted to make a political propaganda piece instead of a Ghostbusters film."

First of all, this is flower speech. Second of all, why "eight year olds" specifically? Third of all, "it was impossible, but not impossible" to enchant another generation of eight year olds." I think you meant "it was DIFFICULT, but not IMPOSSIBLE," and your authority that eight year olds weren't enchanted is based on...what, exactly? Eight year olds don't have any purchasing power, and unless you have authority on what "kids these days" are into, it's far too early to say how children of that age range reacted (and I'd be very surprised if children that age would even be allowed to see the film). Fourth of all, this:

"The fans wanted something on the silver screen again, one last go round. And they didn't get that and now it looks like this project has failed. That means no more Ghostbusters movies. It's pretty obvious why that would piss the fan base off. All because Amy Pascal and Paul Feig wanted to make a political propaganda piece instead of a Ghostbusters film."

Except they got that "something," unless by "something," you mean a specific 'something.' Likewise, the fanbase was pissed off from the moment the film showed its trailers. If a fanbase wants a film to fail, and is then pissed off when it does fail, then that's self-fulfilling failure. Or, for all I know, if the film was a success, then the people who'd made up their minds from the outset would be attributing it to people who were only just introduced to the film and 'didn't know any better.' Goodness knows the Star Trek fanbase has demonstrated that mindset, albeit not nearly on the same level of vitriol.

So, since this has again taken far more time to respond to than I thought it would, I'm going to, hopefully, leave this off with the final thoughts:

a) I'm going to guess that since you were born in 1981 (according to your profile), you're the proverbial eight year old in this analogy, and probably saw the original film on VHS or in a cinema re-release (since GB1 was released in '84). If you hold the film as sacrosanct, good for you. However, appealing to emotion isn't a good way to win arguments. It's a close cousin to the argument of "ruined my childhood."

b) I'm willing to believe you on the notion that the producers wanted to make a film with a political message. To which, I say, "so what?" How did this affect the quality of the film? Why should Ghostbusters be kept clean from any political or sociatal sub-text when the original wasn't free of it? How is the presence of sub-text inherently detrimental to a work of fiction? As stated, as someone who HAS seen the film, I didn't see any of it.

c) Taking point b as true, nothing can excuse the level of backlash the Internet has generated. Nothing. Maybe we have very different values, but to me, the abstract notion of "ruining my childhood/runining a work of fiction" doesn't compare to personal attacks on individual human beings. I'm not accusing you of taking part in those attacks, but I do find it concerning that your level of concern is based on the production of a work of fiction rather than people verbally abusing those involved in said work.

This isn't going anywhere and I can't tell if your intentionally misunderstanding me or if I'm inadvertently talking in a manner you can't understand.

Feminism is political. This movie advertised itself on the Mary Sue and other more conventional sites as being all about the women and feminism. Even before the first trailer appeared.

All of that said, you seem to have taken tones of what I wrote out of context. I didn't realise how pin point you needed me to be. I thought depicting that the fan base of Ghostbusters was established among roughly 8 year olds would demonstrate that at the time they became fans they were entirely a-political. Meaning that you have adults now who have picked sides or are on the fence and are no longer a-political. And those theatres full of kids? Some of them became Trekkies, others went on to love Rambo. But they all liked Ghostbusters and all still do. That's a massive reach compared to most franchises. And should be considered in any remake attempting to gross the largest audience. Obviously you misinterpreted my mentioning children to be an appeal to emotion rather then a demonstration of a radically diverse fan base.

And yes, as to Star Trek Beyond, there are those who are saying it's the best of the Kelvan universe and there is still some doubt... perhaps better said a lack of certainty that they'll follow it up with a fourth. And it's quite obvious that quite a few people who liked various other incarnations of Star Trek aren't interested in the Kelvin universe. By and large this isn't such a major issue for Star Wars and wouldn't have been for Ghostbusters. I was trying to point out that of the film fan bases, Star Trek is divided by series but unified more or less in politics, class and outlook. Unlike Ghostbusters where children grew to be different adults. And that homogeneity of views isn't there.

And what I meant to say that apparently didn't come across was that recapturing the magic of the first Ghostbusters was likely impossible. However they could still have made a fairly satisfactory family friendly comedy that would entertain parents and could capture a new generation's interest. They didn't do that. Kids don't just go to movies, parents take them.

I'm not here to assuage feelings or combat the ills of a world of internet trolls or mean people. That isn't my personal responsibility and I'm not going to sit here and virtue signal about how bad it all is! Woe is me! You know the Romans believed that anyone who sought the limelight was a pervert of some sort, a social deviant? They considered actors a lower class of being and politicians burdened by their celebrity and honoured them, at least in theory, for being forced to hold up under that necessary and unpleasant celebrity. I tell you this not to portray actors as deviant, but to explain that people in public positions are always subject to undue harassment and a portion of the public who believes those celebrities owe them their time. There will always be those willing to fling emotionally ripe verbal abuse at celebrities and the causes are myriad. If Leslie Jones can't handle her Twitter account, she should hire someone to do so. That's just part of being a celebrity. Barring that she can reduce the scope of presence and withdraw from some or all social media. That's her decision. Just like it's Paul Feig's choice as to how to respond to people. That goes for all these actors and actresses and anyone famous in Hollywood frankly. But I no more control them then I do the trolls and angry fans.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Guys, have your page-long arguments if you want to, but clip them. I just scrolled through a page-long post that quoted a page-long post that was quoting several parts of another page-long post. It's like an infinity mirror of nitpicking.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

In short: Anything that makes a bunch of obnoxious men on the internet angry and one step closer to dying of a heart attack makes me a happy gal, burn more money. Make them suffer.

In long: Yeah, the shit being spat out by either sides didn't help buuuuut the moment things exploded and it was revealed that -- at least in my general circle of the internet -- people didn't even remember there were five Ghostbusters, the four you all know of and the PH.D awarded Winston Zeddemore. So combine my already instinctive joy of people who don't listen to me or will use any logical fallacy required to justify putting their fingers in their ears and going 'lalala' with a group of vitriolic assholes who can hardly be called a 'fanbase' but more a 'lynch mob' and you've got me singing praises that the movie came out period.

Fuck the loss, this is Hollywood. They spend millions to crank out horrific shit that will never make a profit so they can keep the IP. (See: Dragonball)

So you would burn millions of dollars just to spite a handful of sexist idiots?

Please do everyone a favor and stay FAR away from anything involving budget management.

Also, Winston was the 4th Ghostbuster. I have no idea where you got the idea there were five unless you're talking about the second movie, and even then it was Louis Tully who slapped on the 5th proton pack. Not Winston.

Seriously, where did you get the idea that Winston was the 5th buster?

 

[Hawki]

Feminism is political. This movie advertised itself on the Mary Sue and other more conventional sites as being all about the women and feminism. Even before the first trailer appeared.

I'd classify feminism as being societal rather than political. Also, the act of advertising on a politically affiliated site doesn't make the work in of itself political, nor is the presence of politics an inherent negative.

All of that said, you seem to have taken tones of what I wrote out of context. I didn't realise how pin point you needed me to be. I thought depicting that the fan base of Ghostbusters was established among roughly 8 year olds would demonstrate that at the time they became fans they were entirely a-political. Meaning that you have adults now who have picked sides or are on the fence and are no longer a-political. And those theatres full of kids? Some of them became Trekkies, others went on to love Rambo. But they all liked Ghostbusters and all still do. That's a massive reach compared to most franchises. And should be considered in any remake attempting to gross the largest audience. Obviously you misinterpreted my mentioning children to be an appeal to emotion rather then a demonstration of a radically diverse fan base.

Wait, what?

I wasn't asking you to pinpoint anything - you singled out the 8 year olds, not me. Also, it's a faulty assumption that the only time you'll be introduced to any media is when you're a child, and that you're introduced to it at a particular time. Of the examples given, I wasn't 'properly introduced' to Ghostbusters until the 2000s (at which point I'd have been a teenager), Star Trek until the 2010s, Star Wars until the 1990s (the one example here where I WAS introduced to it as a child). I'm not claiming that my experience is the be all and end all, but point is, you can't assume that the entirety of a fanbase was all introduced to the same product at the same time at the same age. You're also making a lot of assumptions about demographics here. I'd also like to think that making a film would be based more on trying to do the best you can rather than pandering to a fanbase.

And yes, as to Star Trek Beyond, there are those who are saying it's the best of the Kelvan universe and there is still some doubt... perhaps better said a lack of certainty that they'll follow it up with a fourth. And it's quite obvious that quite a few people who liked various other incarnations of Star Trek aren't interested in the Kelvin universe. By and large this isn't such a major issue for Star Wars and wouldn't have been for Ghostbusters. I was trying to point out that of the film fan bases, Star Trek is divided by series but unified more or less in politics, class and outlook. Unlike Ghostbusters where children grew to be different adults. And that homogeneity of views isn't there.

Again, that's a lot of assumptions about fanbases. The one thing I can agree on is that it's demonstrated that a portion of TV fans don't like the Kelvinverse, and not every person who was introduced via the Kelvinverse is going to jump into the TV series. Claiming there's no divide in Ghostbusters or Star Wars is very iffy, considering that the former has possessed a split continuity since GB2, and the latter has multiple tiers of canon that the consumption of which is going to depend on your investment, not to mention that not everyone is going to be introduced to Star Wars in the same way at the same time, or even with the same trilogy.

And what I meant to say that apparently didn't come across was that recapturing the magic of the first Ghostbusters was likely impossible. However they could still have made a fairly satisfactory family friendly comedy that would entertain parents and could capture a new generation's interest. They didn't do that.

Based on...what, exactly? The box office? Because that's about the only thing that can generate that conclusion outside of critical consensus (mostly positive), demographic studies (far too early to say), or personal opinion (which we're all entitled to, in the event of actually seeing the movie). I can say however, that as someone who writes and posts on ff.net, the Ghostbusters section got a surge of stories post-2016 movie release, in what was otherwise a section with a low story count.

As the saying goes, a man is entitled to his opinions, not his facts. So, under what basis did they not "made a fairly satisfactory family friendly comedy that would entertain parents and could capture a new generation's interest?" Because based on personal exposure to the film itself (y'know, having actually seen it), and the absence of supporting evidence outside a box office count, that wasn't the case.

Edit: I'll come right out and say it - have you seen the movie or not? Because if not, then this discussion should have ended a long time ago.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

I do wonder if there wasn't all the perpetuated contreversy around it would it have done better

Probably. Define "better" though.
You have a director known for making comedies aimed at women, starring a cast of comedians who mainly star in films aimed at women, rebooting a frachise whose fans are mainly men.

It MIGHT have broken even, it certainly wouldn't have been the billion dollar success they expected.

 

[Angelblaze]

So you would burn millions of dollars just to spite a handful of sexist idiots?

Yes.

Please do everyone a favor and stay FAR away from anything involving budget management.

Nah.

The whole thing was basically a disaster from the start: Now that the trainwreck is almost complete, no amount of narrative-spinning is going to save it. The feminists have no clothes, and worse, they're fat tattooed pigs...

Wonderful news all round - One more step to reclaiming our birthright from the cold, clammy hands of the feminists.

And this is why.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

So you would burn millions of dollars just to spite a handful of sexist idiots?

Yes.

Please do everyone a favor and stay FAR away from anything involving budget management.

Nah.

The whole thing was basically a disaster from the start: Now that the trainwreck is almost complete, no amount of narrative-spinning is going to save it. The feminists have no clothes, and worse, they're fat tattooed pigs...

Wonderful news all round - One more step to reclaiming our birthright from the cold, clammy hands of the feminists.

And this is why.

Again, you would waste millions and millions of dollars just to spite a handful of sexist trolls. That mentality is what helped lead to Tale of Tales shutting down.

Stay. Away. From budget management. You would do more damage to the feminist movement than 1,000 burnouts simply by associating the brand with box office poison.

I do wonder if there wasn't all the perpetuated contreversy around it would it have done better, my guess is it would have, in my experience people on camps don't really support product made for them, so the movie tried to appeal to people who wouldn't see it regardless while insulting (thus cutting down) potential customers.

honestly, every single person and reviewer I watch has seemed to enjoy it, and everyone who this movie was theoretically made for went out to see it. I mean this isn't 'videogames', you really can't claim that women don't go see movies.

If anything, this movie did fine. Just it's flaws were drawn and quartered out by people looking for flaws in it.

A 70 Million loss is not doing fine, and you don't have to go looking for flaws with this thing to find them. I won't say much more than that out of spoilers courtesy, but it commits the mortal sin of comedy by regularly killing it's own jokes.

 

[Zontar]

Now we all know Sony's full of it when they say it's not as much as 70 million, and that it's either that or more, and that some people have been doing the math and getting numbers like 130 million.

Well, some wannabe mathmatition has placed it at around 159 million in loss.

If these numbers check out, then someone's in it really, really deep.

 

[starbear]

Here are the numbers for Ghostbusters:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ghostbusters2016.htm

Currently:

Domestic: $120,049,002 65.7%
+ Foreign: $62,800,000 34.3%

On a budget of $144 million

Here are the current numbers for Star Trek, released one week later:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek2016.htm

Domestic: $134,704,949 66.8%
+ Foreign: $66,909,967 33.2%

On a budget of $185 million

Star Trek is barely doing better than Ghostbusters, and arguably (compared to its production budget) doing much worse. Yet no-one is arguing that the numbers mean "the death of the Star Trek Franchise." No one is arguing that Star Trek's bad numbers were caused by its male dominated cast and the producers "making things political." No one is even arguing that Star Trek is a bad movie or suffered from poor marketing. No one is claiming that Star Trek has made a $100 million dollar loss, even though it would need to make approximately $340 million to [hollywood accounting]break even[/hollywood accounting].

 

[starbear]

If these numbers check out, then someone's in it really, really deep.

Cool infographic! Can you make one for Star Trek Beyond? That would be AWESOME!

 

[Zontar]

If these numbers check out, then someone's in it really, really deep.

Cool infographic! Can you make one for Star Trek Beyond? That would be AWESOME!

I'd love to, but I'm not the one who made it and have no idea how to do so.

Hell I don't even know what Beyond's marketing budget was outside of the fact it was significantly lower then Ghostbusters.

 

[starbear]

If these numbers check out, then someone's in it really, really deep.

Cool infographic! Can you make one for Star Trek Beyond? That would be AWESOME!

Hell I don't even know what Beyond's marketing budget was outside of the fact it was significantly lower then Ghostbusters.

...what makes you think that?

The infographic makes it quite clear that the Ghostbusters Marketing Budget is estimated: which translates to "pulled out of thin air." It looks like it uses the "Traditional Hollywood Accounting" formula to come up with the $100 million figure: so Star Trek would have had a marketing budget between $100-150 million.

 

[Zontar]

The infographic makes it quite clear that the Ghostbusters Marketing Budget is estimated: which translates to "pulled out of thin air." It looks like it uses the "Traditional Hollywood Accounting" formula to come up with the $100 million figure: so Star Trek would have had a marketing budget between $100-150 million.

I don't know how things where in the US, but in Canada Paramount most definitively did not spend anywhere near as much on marketing Beyond as Sony did with Ghostbusters. Hell it could easily be double as much spend on Ghostbusters in that regard given the fact that television advertisement began a full two weeks before the theatrical release instead of one week as is the norm, and the fact there where quite a few talk show and late show appearances by the cast to market the movie. Beyond on the other hand only got the standard one week ads coupled with pretty much no talk show or late show appearances.

Add to that the fact that the film is, while not great, better then Ghostbusters, the fact the marketing was not anywhere near as insulting, and the fact there was no Paramount hack revealing production problems for Beyond as well as those making it being genuinely terrible people, and it's just not as interesting to talk about Paramount's latest minor flop in a year filled with them when compared to Sony's major one.

 

[Shiver Me Tits]

If these numbers check out, then someone's in it really, really deep.

Cool infographic! Can you make one for Star Trek Beyond? That would be AWESOME!

Hell I don't even know what Beyond's marketing budget was outside of the fact it was significantly lower then Ghostbusters.

...what makes you think that?

The infographic makes it quite clear that the Ghostbusters Marketing Budget is estimated: which translates to "pulled out of thin air." It looks like it uses the "Traditional Hollywood Accounting" formula to come up with the $100 million figure: so Star Trek would have had a marketing budget between $100-150 million.

Estimates should be different than guesses, in that estimates are based on history and usually some kind of formula. Sadly, "Estimate" is often the term used by practitioners of the Guess. The test isn't to dismiss it though, but to ask for the basis of the estimate.

 

[starbear]

The infographic makes it quite clear that the Ghostbusters Marketing Budget is estimated: which translates to "pulled out of thin air." It looks like it uses the "Traditional Hollywood Accounting" formula to come up with the $100 million figure: so Star Trek would have had a marketing budget between $100-150 million.

I don't know how things where in the US, but in Canada Paramount most definitively did not spend anywhere near as much on marketing Beyond as Sony did with Ghostbusters. Hell it could easily be double as much spend on Ghostbusters in that regard given the fact that television advertisement began a full two weeks before the theatrical release instead of one week as is the norm, and the fact there where quite a few talk show and late show appearances by the cast to market the movie. Beyond on the other hand only got the standard one week ads coupled with pretty much no talk show or late show appearances.

Am I just supposed to "trust" you on this?


Sorry it doesn't work that way. I've looked: there is no primary source for the Ghostbusters marketing figure, as best as I can tell the figure is an estimate based on how Hollywood Accounting works. The same Hollywood Accounting that declares "Return of the Jedi, despite having earned $475 million at the box office against a budget of $32.5 million, "has never gone into profit" and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy "According to New Line's accounts, the trilogy made "horrendous losses" and no profit at all."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

The rule of thumb for "guestimating" break-even has always been to double the production cost. That is where the Ghostbusters Marketing figure came from. Star Trek has an estimated break-even of $370 million. In reality: Sony could well have spent either substantially more than that or even substantially less. And the same goes for Star Trek. It would take a law suit to find out the actual real number. Just because you personally don't recall seeing a lot of marketing for Star Trek doesn't mean a lot of money wasn't spent on marketing Star Trek. Your personal anecdote counts for nothing really.

Add to that the fact that the film is, while not great, better then Ghostbusters, the fact the marketing was not anywhere near as insulting, and the fact there was no Paramount hack revealing production problems for Beyond as well as those making it being genuinely terrible people, and it's just not as interesting to talk about Paramount's latest minor flop in a year filled with them when compared to Sony's major one.

Both flops look about equal to me. What defines one as "minor" and one as "major?" The numbers are practically identical. So Ghostbusters had worse reviews, had (according to you)insulting marketing, it had leaks that (according to you)revealed production problems, and it was made (in your personal opinion) by horrible people, is doing about the same in box office as a movie that cost more to make and didn't have those same problems? That in itself is something interesting to talk about, don't you think?

 

[starbear]

If these numbers check out, then someone's in it really, really deep.

Cool infographic! Can you make one for Star Trek Beyond? That would be AWESOME!

Hell I don't even know what Beyond's marketing budget was outside of the fact it was significantly lower then Ghostbusters.

...what makes you think that?

The infographic makes it quite clear that the Ghostbusters Marketing Budget is estimated: which translates to "pulled out of thin air." It looks like it uses the "Traditional Hollywood Accounting" formula to come up with the $100 million figure: so Star Trek would have had a marketing budget between $100-150 million.

Estimates should be different than guesses, in that estimates are based on history and usually some kind of formula. Sadly, "Estimate" is often the term used by practitioners of the Guess. The test isn't to dismiss it though, but to ask for the basis of the estimate.

I've given the basis for the estimate. Hollywood Accounting.