Ghostbusters (2016) (Post-release)

[KrangPrime]

Marketing is part of it. As hard as Sony tried, they just couldn't capture the young male audience or the boys to go see the reboot or take it seriously.

And then there is this:
http://www.vulture.com/2016/07/ghos...-mccarthy-paul-feig.html?mid=facebook_vulture

Did Sony really think they can compete with the Marvel Movies? Perhaps Sony thought they had a SW film.....

Who knows at this point. But the reboot finished in fifth place on its second week out. LMAO.

if you believe news outlets, i heard some are saying 3rd place ;o).

the thing i don't get is, why go after your audience? why do you engage the small few who truly hate anything..no matter if it's ghostbusters or not...rather than just ignore them?
do they not realize how many more on the fence fans might have given it at least a fair chance, rather than making it a life debt to criticize this thing till death?
and with dan aykroyds latest comments, some are swearing off ALL sony products on places like imdb. although, if dan has had to deal with these idiots at sony and bill murray for so long, at least we can understand why HE went crazy at least..

I've NEVER seen a studio go after it's fan base like this. not even F4, I don't think went to this level of hate where it was antagonizing classic fans on it's own facebook page 'call someone who cares....' Only thing I could think of, is that NO ONE was checking up on amy pascal and what she was doing. by the time she announced it and they looked into feigs history, it was too late to call it off. they knew we where right, they felt cornered... the dailies started coming in, and that was the route they chose.... who knows..


I'd love to have a look at their emails to see what happened since the last time. maybe it'd give us a glimpse of the un caring insanity.

 

[NeoRutty]

I am still hoping to see an example of them going after Ghostbusters fans.

Someone please post an article.:thumbsup

 

[Bryancd]

Yes, to be clears the shake ups at the US studio operations is a function of a series of bad decisions with their film properties over the last few years. GB will very likely continue as a viable franchise for Sony. They will make another film and try and monetize the property as best they can going forward. This film was a moderate fan success although the box office will be light, but there is enough "there" to drive it forward.

 

[batguy]

Agreed. The Hollywood branch of Sony has been mostly flailing around screwing things up with franchises like Spider-Man, F4, GB, etc, for the better part of a decade now. At the very least it was time for a big house-cleaning.

These aren't the kinds of movies that should be financially risky. These are the bread & butter franchises that studios normally use to balance the other riskier stuff. Something like GB should be easy money as long as the studio doesn't over-saturate the market with too much too fast.

 

[Krull]

This movie is weird,weird,WEIRD in that....

Money wise it's doing meh,so-so,slightly akin to a burning barrel of sewage at a military base.

Audience wise it's solidly so-so some folks like it,some hate it with the intensity of a thousand flaming suns.

The studio is going to be lucky to come crawling out of this with their skins intact I think but they seem hell bent on calling "success!" over it.

................
..........................

This thing may turn into the next Hulk in that the first one kinda-sorta does okay yet flops in some ways then they'll reboot it in a couple-three years in a wholly different way.

 

[NeoRutty]

It's a success in their books cuz everyone said it would tank. They were so worried about a 25 mill run that hitting the number they have was a huge relief.

And it can grow in popularity on bluray and Netflix, creating more of a buzz for a sequel.

 

[batguy]

True. It's an under-performing movie but it didn't crash & burn like they feared in the wake of the trailer.

 

[Solo4114]

Yes, to be clears the shake ups at the US studio operations is a function of a series of bad decisions with their film properties over the last few years. GB will very likely continue as a viable franchise for Sony. They will make another film and try and monetize the property as best they can going forward. This film was a moderate fan success although the box office will be light, but there is enough "there" to drive it forward.

I dunno. I could see it go either way, really. Actually, I could see it go one of three ways.

1. The new people in charge are far more risk-averse and frugal, and decide that for $144M, they should be getting back way more in box office than what they've seen. No sequel ends up being produced, and the franchise is mothballed.

2. The studio decides that the film was profitable enough to warrant a sequel to this film, with the same director, writer, and actors. In this case, my question would be whether they (a) reduce the budget and tell Feig to do more with less; (b) leave the budget about the same; or, (c) increase the budget and figure that "embiggening" the film will produce better box office next time around. Bryancd, seeing as how you think the studio will greenlight a sequel, what do you think they'll do with the budget?

3. The studio dumps the Feig crew and continuity, and reboots the franchise in another 3-5 years, this time with a mixed group of GBs, including men who aren't idiots. (figuring that the lower-than-hoped-for numbers were because much of the male audience was lost)

Agreed. The Hollywood branch of Sony has been mostly flailing around screwing things up with franchises like Spider-Man, F4, GB, etc, for the better part of a decade now. At the very least it was time for a big house-cleaning.

These aren't the kinds of movies that should be financially risky. These are the bread & butter franchises that studios normally use to balance the other riskier stuff. Something like GB should be easy money as long as the studio doesn't over-saturate the market with too much too fast.

You would think, right? I mean, we can run post-mortems on the film and speculate til the cows come home, but I think the bottom line is that the film SHOULD be performing better than it did, and that's taking into account the attendant controversy. I expected better first-weekend numbers, to be honest, in spite of what I saw in trailers and pre-release info.

 

[Bryancd]

Solo4114 I think option 2 is the most likely. I think they will take solace in the relatively positive reviews and stick with Feig and the girls but maybe shake up the cast a bit and bring in some men as well.

 

[Solo4114]

@Solo4114 I think option 2 is the most likely. I think they will take solace in the relatively positive reviews and stick with Feig and the girls but maybe shake up the cast a bit and bring in some men as well.

Think they'll leave the budget the same, increase it, or reduce it?

 

[karmajay]

I don't understand the talk about no boys or men liking or going to the film.

 

[Westies14]

I don't understand the talk about no boys or men liking or going to the film.

It's not "no boys or men," but from a business standpoint it's "not enough boys or men." Sony had planned on the relaunch of Ghostbusters being their massive Marvel/DC level franchise hit with that demographic, until they realized late in the game that they had misfired tremendously.

 

[goldenhawk]

I dunno. I could see it go either way, really. Actually, I could see it go one of three ways.

1. The new people in charge are far more risk-averse and frugal, and decide that for $144M, they should be getting back way more in box office than what they've seen. No sequel ends up being produced, and the franchise is mothballed.

2. The studio decides that the film was profitable enough to warrant a sequel to this film, with the same director, writer, and actors. In this case, my question would be whether they (a) reduce the budget and tell Feig to do more with less; (b) leave the budget about the same; or, (c) increase the budget and figure that "embiggening" the film will produce better box office next time around. @Bryancd, seeing as how you think the studio will greenlight a sequel, what do you think they'll do with the budget?

3. The studio dumps the Feig crew and continuity, and reboots the franchise in another 3-5 years, this time with a mixed group of GBs, including men who aren't idiots. (figuring that the lower-than-hoped-for numbers were because much of the male audience was lost)



You would think, right? I mean, we can run post-mortems on the film and speculate til the cows come home, but I think the bottom line is that the film SHOULD be performing better than it did, and that's taking into account the attendant controversy. I expected better first-weekend numbers, to be honest, in spite of what I saw in trailers and pre-release info.

I don't think Feig will go through this mess again. But then again, he already cashed in the $10 million check he got for directing the reboot.

I could see Option 1 and 3 being the most likely course.

 

[Bryancd]

Think they'll leave the budget the same, increase it, or reduce it?

The same, the franchise needs strong visuals.

 

[Solo4114]

I don't think Feig will go through this mess again. But then again, he already cashed in the $10 million check he got for directing the reboot.

I could see Option 1 and 3 being the most likely course.

Feig might be contractually obligated, though. Same with the cast members. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if that were the case, particularly since Sony views this as a tentpole franchise for them.

The same, the franchise needs strong visuals.

That makes sense.

 

[d_osborn]

I am still hoping to see an example of them going after Ghostbusters fans.

Someone please post an article.:thumbsup

No kidding! I'm as hardcore of a fan as you can get, and I never felt slighted by the marketing or cast/crew. They were railing on misogynists, racists, and overly-vitriolic complaining manbabies. True, the manbabies were low hanging fruit, but I don't blame them at all for striking back. The fact that the haters are complaining about being made fun of in the press is actually pretty funny to me.

Sony is too franchise hungry and has too much dough tied up in the Ghost Corps deal with the original approval primaries to not produce more content. People are acting like this is the first GB film to under-perform at the summer box office.

 

[AJTaliesen]

Feig might be contractually obligated, though. Same with the cast members. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if that were the case, particularly since Sony views this as a tentpole franchise for them.



That makes sense.

You guys are even more delusional than usual. Did this weird movie actually drive you insane? No. Studios do not bring in the same team and the same budget for a second try when a movie loses money. Not even if you show them a photo proving that at least one little girl liked the movie. Even then, box office performance is factored into the decision.

 

[KrangPrime]

It's not "no boys or men," but from a business standpoint it's "not enough boys or men." Sony had planned on the relaunch of Ghostbusters being their massive Marvel/DC level franchise hit with that demographic, until they realized late in the game that they had misfired tremendously.

And it's not the women angle that caused this to fail either. look at all the love wonder woman is getting.
Even I have hope for that one even with the misfire in the DC Cinematic universe...


The problem with this one was a lame duck director who not only doesn't know how to do comedy, he just doesn't know how to direct, period. and these fly by night actresses, who, I think, don't have any real talent minus what i've seen of mckinnon and her impressions. this is my only exposure to wigg, so I can't judge her fully yet..but she hasn't impressed me in these clips. that may not be her fault though, because paul feig sucks as a director.

If you had a decent director, some decent actresses like tina fey who know comedy, and realize it's not so much about the ghosts as it is the characters who deal with the ghosts (that giant ghost battle is bill murray's worst nightmare)...

it COULD have worked. but only if it where a sequel.

Even a reboot with great actresses and a good director would have gotten alot of hate. but make it a continuation....and make it good...it's such a simple formula for anyone to see.


also, how is it that all these youtubers tearing the movie to shreds can come up with cooler ideas in 5 minutes than feig did with $144 million?

that's just sad.

 

[KrangPrime]

. Did this weird movie actually drive you insane? .

actually, seeing how people and supporters in general react to it, despite having facts to back things up on the detractor side? hella yes. ;o)

And in this case, it's been pretty much proven there IS NO LOGIC to what sony is doing here. they are trying to re invent a franchise....yet **** off all but the die hard gb fans who'd want to give this a chance.

I would NOT be surprised if sony let them produce a sequel, just to say 'see, it worked, haters!' and THEN let the franchise fade away into forgotten lore and try again in maybe 10 years.

honestly, with all that has come out of this insane movie, it would NOT surprise me. ;o)



---

saw this posted online somewhere.
it's interesting to see how even psuedo celebrities can behave like racist jerks, yet one guy who makes two comments toward you can get thrown off twitter. andthis time it's a girl who posted this article. I guess she isn't buying into this leslie jones stuff either.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...to-see-if-twitter-has-bias-see-what-happened/

 

[dascoyne]

Did this weird movie actually drive you insane?

It's actually a pretty short drive for some of us.