View attachment 644272
More like $280 if you include marketing. Historically a studio will spend the same amount as production on marketing for a summer blockbuster so 140 + 140 = 280M. Word of mouth will give GB16 legs or cripple it on the second week. Studios are looking for home runs like Deadpool, Bridesmades etc. Movies that were cheap to produce/market but doubled or tippled costs.. Since sequels rarely top the originals, studios can green light them but with smaller budgets anticipating smaller returns.
I doubt they spent that much on marketing. Weren't people in the other thread complaining because of the LACK of marketing and how that proved Sony was trying to make the movie go away? Now they've spent 140 million on it?
Maybe if we can find a link where someone official gives a estimate I'll believe it.
I doubt they spent the film's budget on marketing, either. That used to be the rule of thumb, but I don't think it always is these days. Much of the advertising is based on buzz and word of mouth, rather than big ad buys. I don't know how ads like the Progressive Insurance ad work, either. Does Progressive pay to use the IP, or does Sony pay Progressive for placement? Or is it all just a free exchange? I have no idea.
But I think that GB16 has been marketed in a much more toned down way. In an odd sense, the "haters" did a pretty good job of "marketing" this film on its own. Doesn't entirely appear to be enough to put the film over the top in the "strike a blow for feminism" sense, but it at least made people say "Wait, what? There's a new Ghostbusters coming out? Tell me more."
The one time I worked with Sony marketing they weren't putting out a whole lotta cash. The keyword is "viral" marketing... Do a small thing and let it grow through social media... Let the people promote it
Yeah, I think that's a bit of what happened here. "Viral" marketing, buzz, etc. News stories about overzealous fan response is basically free advertising along the "all publicity is good publicity" sense.
Could not beat "Pets" for number one.
Weeks ahead will tell if it can make enough to green light more.
Week 2 is the real telling point. If it loses more than 50% of its 1st weekend take, then I think you'll be looking at
probably a one-and-done "franchise." Although that'll depend on some other factors, too.
Yesterday was going to be the make it or break it day in my mind for GB16. It faces strong competition from Pets Ice Age 5? and Star Trek next weekend. With Dory and Pets still killing it in the Box office (family) and Trek (Sci-Fi crowd) coming out next weekend, this doesnt leave a whole lot left over for GB16. Late foretasted estimates are coming in at $47M domestically and $65M internationally for the weekend. Boxoffice Mojo wrote a great article this morning regarding the numbers and projections. They think it will fall somewhere in the $135-$145M range when the dust settles.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4207&p=.htm
Ill link a good page that explains the numbers in depth, but GB16 needs to take in $522M just to break even. This accounts for advertising and various payouts including theater owners and Netflix/Airline/Download. What people dont realize is that there are a lot of fingers in the pot. Writers, actors might have a percentage written into their contract. In short, if you want to know how much a movie needs to make to break even, take the production budget and times it by 373%. That will give you an all in ROI.
https://storyality.wordpress.com/20...n-feature-films-and-roi-return-on-investment/
GB16 needs to create the same amount of stir and fan base as the original, Toys, Tshirts, GB branded stuff will fly off the shelves to add to that $522M break even point.
I dont think that 'Hating' on this film does any good. And I mean that on both sides. At the end of the day, Its a piece of entertainment. The economics of the business will determine if the film has merit. For the true anti women, destroy my childhood crowd, ...the Anti GB16 efforts only caused the studio to dig their heels in and do what they wanted. This should be a teachable moment for both sides. Make the film the fans want, pass the torch and you will hit a home run. And conversely, starting a viral women bashing campaign is only gonna cause the makers to resolve. I cant remember when I last heard a studio say, 'Yea, we made a mistake with that movie'.
I think the merchandising and additional licensure opportunities will help affect the margins for whether this film gets a sequel. I still think it's likely, mostly because Sony
really really wants to launch a widespread franchise with this property, but if the externally licensed stuff does poorly, that could kill the deal alongside a tepid box office response (which, so far, I'd say could very well be the case).
To be clear, I think that $46M for an opening weekend is...about what you'd expect for a film like this going up against other competition.
I think that, had the film been handled a bit more...hmm...traditionally, it might have proven more successful. If there hadn't been the divided fan base, if it had been a true sequel, if you hadn't had the hater campaign and the anti-hater campaign, I think the film could've banked on the brand name of Ghostbusters more effectively. As it stands, I'd argue they basically devalued the brand (through the attendant controversy) to something along the lines of, oh, I dunno...Gremlins? A film some people like, which had kind of a mediocre sequel, and which for the most part, folks don't have particularly strong views of these days, but are familiar with the name.
To be clear: I'm not saying "Yes, the sexist trolls were right." Rather, I'm saying that Sony took a risk here by letting Feig have free reign to do what he wanted and make GB16 into a Paul Feig comedy. Had they played it a little safer (as in basically cast some men in the roles and had it been a sequel), I suspect that much of the outrage would've been ignored and the hardcore fans would've shown up in larger numbers. That $46M opening number might've cracked $50M, for example.
How the hell did Feigbusters make $46 million dollars? Last time I checked, the theaters were empty and this reboot couldn't even make $46 per showing. The sad thing is that Sony could have and should have made a movie that could have easily made $100 million during the opening weekend. But now we will never know.
Sequel? I thought Sony was making an animated GB flick as the next GB project.
I think $46M is perfectly reasonable for this film on opening weekend. What were people expecting, really? If you went in expecting F4ntastic Four numbers...that was unlikely to ever happen.
Opening weekend lower than the Snow White-less Snow White & the Huntsman sequel, lower than Sony's Pixels? Not low enough for my tastes, but perhaps low enough to make the next studio to pick up the thread of a classic property give it a little more consideration.
I think it will be a different calculus. I'd expect the next classic property to be picked up to be either remade (as in a very-close-to-the-original remake), or be a reboot that hews qute closely to the elements of the original film and doesn't really deviate a ton. As in, no gender-swapping of the entire cast. Or at least, that's the lesson I think Hollywood learns from this.
Of course, the next few weeks are the real telling point. If this film holds steady and makes another $40M next weekend, then I'd say it'll be viewed as a success.
There is an animated movie in the works. Whether or not this is a 'sequel' is unknown. I think the Sony execs and investors will wait and see it Feigbusters makes the targeted $500 million that they want to green light a sequel. Somehow, it seems to be the general consensus that the reboot will not make $300 million, let alone $500 million.
Where do you get the $500M figure for greenlighting from?