Jump to content

grim22

Star Trek Beyond and Ghostbusters box office: What Went Wrong

Recommended Posts





24 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Newsflash: Mad Max: Fury Road, one of the most beloved hits of 2015, was a money loser for the studio. The sky is falling and I need to jump off a bridge.

 

 

 

Mad Max Fury Road was   more successful and had better legs (significant since one is an R rated action film and the other a comedy)  and will make more profit than Ghostbusters 2016. 

Edited by John Marston
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I usually think a movie that still makes a significant amount of money and (and enjoyed a solid enough reception) but not enough to put it in the black (like Ghostbusters did) as an underperformer. Flop or bomb is usually reserved for movies that are both critical and financial misfires of the highest degree.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, John Marston said:

 

 

 

Mad Max Fury Road was   more successful and had better legs (significant since one is an R rated action film and the other a comedy)  and will make more profit than Ghostbusters 2016. 

 

Well, this is possible...unless Fury Road didn't make a profit then...well, technically this and Ghostbusters tied on profit.

 

I like to think a Fury Road was profitable, it was probably at worst...really fucking close.  I bet it managed.  Ghostbusters ain't happening though,

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Weren't DVD/BD sales for FURY ROAD very good, as well?  And six Oscars, even if technical, will also help its overall catalogue reputation and sales.  I think it's doing alright for Warner Bros.  There was a strong effort to get this project back on track after losing its way down in Namibia during shooting, I have a friend of a friend who told me that things were more complex and problematic than was even being talked about.  But they came out with a winner (as far as I'm concerned), and they gave Miller all the credit, so respect to WB.  Now their administration of the DC stuff is another matter...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2016 at 7:12 PM, grim22 said:

 

New info on sequel deals. This is interesting info from EW

 

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/10/ghostbusters-sequel-looking-grim-after-box-office-disappoints

 

 

Sony didn't lock in the whole cast for sequels. What the hell????? Every single franchise locks in the key players for at least 3 movies regardless of whether they ever plan to make them or not.

I mean tbf if they did a sequel with just Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon, I'd be more interested lol. Not gonna happen either way but still

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Star Trek is hardly a dying franchise.  I've been amazed at how many people have jumped in and marathoned through the TV shows after seeing the 2009 movie.  The fanbase actually seems to have expanded considerably.  If it's handled right, the new show could take advantage of this fact... but the fact that they still didn't utilize the 50th anniversary is a tremendous failure on Paramount's part.I mean c'mon.  I've been surprised at how many Trek fans I know didn't even realize this movie was out until I asked about it.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Orestes said:

Losing money isn't the same as flopping.

 

I'm always surprised at how often this needs to be said. I'll even add "losing money theatrically". (Though at a guess it'll be a little while before GB16 goes into the black).

 

2 minutes ago, Sal said:

Star Trek is hardly a dying franchise.  I've been amazed at how many people have jumped in and marathoned through the TV shows after seeing the 2009 movie.  The fanbase actually seems to have expanded considerably.  If it's handled right, the new show could take advantage of this fact... but the fact that they still didn't utilize the 50th anniversary is a tremendous failure on Paramount's part.I mean c'mon.  I've been surprised at how many Trek fans I know didn't even realize this movie was out until I asked about it.

 

Couldn't agree more. In fact, what about looking at the situation from a "glass half full" perspective: despite a longer-than-desired gap between sequels and a miserable (and confused) marketing campaign, STB is still gonna cross 150m.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites





I don't want to be rude but why some of you pretend they are senior acountants at Fox, Parmount, Disney, Sony, Warner, Universal, Lionsgate ?

 

How do you know Ghostbusters is a money looser ?

Sony probably sold the brand for lots of products.

You re just assuming lots of things from incomplete or/and corrupted data.

 

Warcrat will have a sequel you can be sure of that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Just now, The Futurist said:

I don't want to be rude but why some of you pretend they are senior acountants at Fox, Parmount, Disney, Sony, Warner, Universal, Lionsgate ?

 

How do you know Ghostbusters is a money looser ?

Sony probably sold the brand for lots of products.

You re just assuming lots of things from incomplete or/and corrupted data.

 

Warcrat will have a sequel you can be sure of that.

 

 

just going by the same way other flops are determined. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





21 hours ago, filmlover said:

Newsflash: Mad Max: Fury Road, one of the most beloved hits of 2015, was a money loser for the studio. The sky is falling and I need to jump off a bridge.

 

It's also not getting a sequel :jeb!:

Link to comment
Share on other sites



17 minutes ago, Chewy said:

 

It's also not getting a sequel :jeb!:

 

We ll see.

 

Miller worked literrally decades on Fury Road and during the press tour, he mentioned they developped the mythology so much thye had enough material for 2 or 3 films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Yo homies, Ghostbusters didn't just "underperform", it lost a lot of money... a lot.  At the absolute minimum it needed 400m worldwide to break even if we're using the widely used 2-2.5x budget + marketing rule.  The movie made a little over half of that.  Half, folks.  Without all the controversy and politics surrounding this movie it already would've been forgotten as just yet another shitty flop attempt at rebooting/remaking a successful franchise or film by "creatively bankrupt Hollywood".

 

I know pundits and media hyped this movie up as being a beginning for better roles for women in Hollywood movies and ended up a crushing disappointment as being Adam Sandler-lite schlock, but come on, enough with the magical thinking already.  Its time to move on friends.  Maybe Ocean's Eight will be good despite Rihanna's acting chops.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



4 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

Yo homies, Ghostbusters didn't just "underperform", it lost a lot of money... a lot.  At the absolute minimum it needed 400m worldwide to break even if we're using the widely used 2-2.5x budget + marketing rule.  

 

The rule is 2-2.5x production budget. GB26 will still lose money initially, but not nearly to the extent of what you said.

 

edit: something we all forget about is that revenue streams don't just stop after that initial round of VOD/TV/HV/etc. Afterwards, it's a steady trickle of money coming in with very little expense. That's why studio libraries are so valuable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.