By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Ghostbusters budget (150 Million) need 500 million worldwide to be considered successful (NOT BREAK EVEN)

Acevil on 29 July 2016
thismeintiel said:

To break even this movie needs to make about $260M WW, as on average theatres end up taking 45% of the box office. Of course, some companies include advertising in the production budget they give, some don't. I'm pretty sure I read this movie didn't. So, it may need more like $300M-$320M to break even. This movie will make $180M-$220M WW, so it's definitely a flop. This is what happens when you make a generic reboot of a comedy classic, then make it about girl power and insult fans of the original.

It'll be interesting to see how Sony precedes. Will they just drop it? Or will they go ahead with the Chris Pratt and Channing Tatum reboot Amy Pascal turned down for this trash heap.

I think the damage to the franchise is done (Again I meant this more of success, but since I cannot avoid the talk about breaking even). Based on a couple of articles and what people are saying break even after Rentals, Marketing Budget, and other costs is between 300-350 million (No one truthfully knows the break even point, or has a break down), it will fall short of that as well.  

You could very much get Sony Reboot to Reboot issues ala Amazing Spiderman, so I imagine they will shelve it for a bit, given their are more of a healthy company overall recently, so they might take that risk. 



 

Around the Network
naruball on 29 July 2016

People were ready to call it a flop even before it was released. The hatred it has received is insane.

The movie neither flopped nor bombed. It underperformed and worst case scenario Sony will lose some, but much money because of it. Look at the other movies it's released lately and how badly they've done. This one did better, just not good enough to be a success.



DonFerrari on 29 July 2016
Nem said:
DonFerrari said:
So we can assume they have a flop.

I'm pretty sure it's gonna snatch alot of Razzies aswell. It's a terrible movie from what i hear.

Dunno what is Razzies



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

naruball on 29 July 2016
Nem said:
DonFerrari said:
So we can assume they have a flop.

I'm pretty sure it's gonna snatch alot of Razzies aswell. It's a terrible movie from what i hear.

Then you must be listening to people who haven't seen it or went with a mindset that they would hate it. The people who have actually seen it (and we have quite a few of those here) said it's decent (6-7). The critics agree.



DonFerrari on 29 July 2016
naruball said:

People were ready to call it a flop even before it was released. The hatred it has received is insane.

The movie neither flopped nor bombed. It underperformed and worst case scenario Sony will lose some, but much money because of it. Look at the other movies it's released lately and how badly they've done. This one did better, just not good enough to be a success.

Please explain to me how a movie making the company lose money isn't a flop or bomb....

naruball said:
Nem said:

I'm pretty sure it's gonna snatch alot of Razzies aswell. It's a terrible movie from what i hear.

Then you must be listening to people who haven't seen it or went with a mindset that they would hate it. The people who have actually seen it (and we have quite a few of those here) said it's decent (6-7). The critics agree.

Guess Angry Joe haven't watch it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
thismeintiel on 29 July 2016
Acevil said:
thismeintiel said:

To break even this movie needs to make about $260M WW, as on average theatres end up taking 45% of the box office. Of course, some companies include advertising in the production budget they give, some don't. I'm pretty sure I read this movie didn't. So, it may need more like $300M-$320M to break even. This movie will make $180M-$220M WW, so it's definitely a flop. This is what happens when you make a generic reboot of a comedy classic, then make it about girl power and insult fans of the original.

It'll be interesting to see how Sony precedes. Will they just drop it? Or will they go ahead with the Chris Pratt and Channing Tatum reboot Amy Pascal turned down for this trash heap.

I think the damage to the franchise is done (Again I meant this more of success, but since I cannot avoid the talk about breaking even). Based on a couple of articles and what people are saying break even after Rentals, Marketing Budget, and other costs is between 300-350 million (No one truthfully knows the break even point), it will fall short of that as well.  

You could very much get Sony Reboot to Reboot issues ala Amazing Spiderman, so I imagine they will shelve it for a bit, given their are more of a healthy company overall recently, so they might take that risk. 

I know you meant more of success, but at least breaking even in theatres is very important to studios. If they break even, or just come shy of it, they can make that up with DVD sales and downloads.  It just gives there a better chance of them investing in a sequel.  Thankfully, this trash will be so far away from breaking even, it'll still be a loss even after home video.

 

I kinda would like to see another reboot, if it handles the franchise with A LOT more respect than this movie did.  Hate for this to be the last note on the franchise. And be what some little kids see as the only Ghostbusters.  And really I could definitely see Pratt as Peter and Channing as Ray.  I believe one of the leaked emails mentioned Ryan Gosling, presumably as Egon.  And after Cival War, I could see Chadwick Boseman as Winston.  Just to be a dick to all the SJWs who even called legitimate criticism sexist, base it a little more on the cartoon (Slimer stays with them, but is less annoying and Peter doesn't entirely like him, and maybe at some point, or in a sequel, Janine can help them bust a ghost or two) and call it The REAL Ghostbusters.



 

pokoko on 29 July 2016
naruball said:

People were ready to call it a flop even before it was released. The hatred it has received is insane.

The movie neither flopped nor bombed. It underperformed and worst case scenario Sony will lose some, but much money because of it. Look at the other movies it's released lately and how badly they've done. This one did better, just not good enough to be a success.

If it loses the studio money then it's a flop.  The entire point of any business investment is profit.



naruball on 29 July 2016
DonFerrari said:
naruball said:

People were ready to call it a flop even before it was released. The hatred it has received is insane.

The movie neither flopped nor bombed. It underperformed and worst case scenario Sony will lose some, but much money because of it. Look at the other movies it's released lately and how badly they've done. This one did better, just not good enough to be a success.

Please explain to me how a movie making the company lose money isn't a flop or bomb....

naruball said:

Then you must be listening to people who haven't seen it or went with a mindset that they would hate it. The people who have actually seen it (and we have quite a few of those here) said it's decent (6-7). The critics agree.

Guess Angry Joe haven't watch it. (A single example. Great. That sure disproves my point)

The Three Musketeers (2001) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1509767/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_10

Budget:

$75,000,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend:

$8,674,452

Gross:

$20,315,324 (USA) (16 December 2011)

= bomb/flop

John Carter

Budget:

$263,700,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend:

$30,180,188 (USA) (9 March 2012)

Gross:

$73,058,679 (USA) (22 June 2012)

= bomb/flop
Look up any lists with movies that flopped. It's not movies that simply didn't break even, but movies that did so badly that there were no plans for a sequel and cost the studio a ton of money. This is not case here.

But if it makes you feel better calling it a flop/bomb, by all means, do so. Not gonna stop you.


thismeintiel on 29 July 2016
naruball said:

People were ready to call it a flop even before it was released. The hatred it has received is insane.

The movie neither flopped nor bombed. It underperformed and worst case scenario Sony will lose some, but much money because of it. Look at the other movies it's released lately and how badly they've done. This one did better, just not good enough to be a success.

Oh, it flopped.  Badly.  Not the worst it could have flopped, but it'll lose Sony quite a bit of money.  

 

And, uh, you might want to look at something like Pixels box office, again.  Not only did it make $245M WW, which is much more than this will make, it did it on an $88M budget.  So, it actually turned a profit for them.  And even more so when home video is taken into account.



 

JRPGfan on 29 July 2016
Peh said:
Never ever will this make $500 million.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ghostbusters2016.htm

The people who wanted to watch the movie already did, and the rest will be just curious to see it. The numbers of people seeing it decreases with time. After 1 month or 2 month. No one will care for it anymore. Probably estimated world wide money will be between $200 and $250 million.

So it wont even flop? It ll earn back more than its production costs? a shame.

I think it does good if something is crap, it flops hard enough for them to realise they made a mistake.

All the trailers for the movie still look crap, and most of the reviewers I trust, all say that the movie was shallow and poor.