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)

How the hell did it cost 150m to make the movie?

The special effects weren't even that amazing...



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

Around the Network
VGhippy said:
I actually liked the movie, but I have no idea how the budget ended up in the realm of 150m just for production costs.... I've got a feeling Sony just made a mistake handing this to Feig, who'd never done anything like this before, and he didn't realise how much what he invisioned would cost to turn into CG. Ghostbusters is essentially the reboot of an 80's b-movie horror-comedy and should never have been allowed that kind of budget.

Love how people belittle the original to prop this one up.  First of all, Ghostbusters was nowhere near a B-movie.  It cost over $72M in today's money to make.  It was the 2nd highest domestic grossing movie of 1984, barely being beaten by Beverly Hills Cop, and  handedly beating The Neverending Story, Sixteen Candles, Nightmare on Elm Street, Muppets Take Manhattan, The Terminator, Red Dawn, Amadeus, Star Trek 3, Police Academy, The Karate Kid, Gremlins, and Temple of Doom.

 

The funniest part is that Ghostbusters made almost $300M WW, a total this one won't even come close to, IN 1984 MONEY!!  That would be like $700M in today's money.  So, no, Ghostbusters was not a B-movie.  It was a mainstream movie that became a HUGE blockbuster.  A far cry from this new garbage.



hershel_layton said:
How the hell did it cost 150m to make the movie?

The special effects weren't even that amazing...

It had a lot of reshoots those are pricey.  Fan4stic doesn't look like a $120 million movie either it also had a ton of reshoots and even more production problems then Ghostbusters. 



Its only done 130 million. This movie will be lucky to break 200 million, so epic flop indeed (and a well deserved one)!



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

hershel_layton said:
How the hell did it cost 150m to make the movie?

The special effects weren't even that amazing...

Compensation for the gender wage gap?



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

Around the Network
MikeRox said:
hershel_layton said:
How the hell did it cost 150m to make the movie?

The special effects weren't even that amazing...

Compensation for the gender wage gap?

Ha! That was well done, bravo good sir. 



 

Arkaign said:
I think the movie looks bad and probably won't see it, well maybe eventually on Netflix if it ends up there, but does merchandising help them out much?

I am in the toy sections constantly buying stuff for my 3 and 9yos, and to be honest I've seen very little in the way of Ghostbusters stuff available. It really makes you wonder, considering what a big deal the original 80s GBs were as far as tons of toys being out there.

You can watch it for free on ******

(link to copyrighted material removed)

I tried to watch, but it is just sad, I lasted 20 minutes.

Moderated - Miguel_Zorro



My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.

foodfather said:
daredevil.shark said:
Sony pictures makes cheap and shit movies. Plus they lack direction. This is kinda expected.

Theres nothing wrong with being cheap.

Take shelter only has a budget of 5 mil and the movie was brilliant. That was Sony picture classics but still, point stands. 

Fieg is probably taking EVERYTHING into account including back end stuff. I'm sure the studio will be fine with it making less, but it probably needs over $400 mil for everyones to get their money and back end / points. 

lol as of writing this I though tthe movie would have done well WW but that doesn't seem the case. Glad to see it flop so hard. I guess there is no way this is making more than $200 mil. Now resudiuals definitely aren't going to be given. 

no Feig is almost certainly correct. Many studios do not include marketing costs when they mention what the initial 'budget' was. so the 150 million budget was very likely BEFORE a lot of marketing.

a potentially like 200$ million made film will need to make well over 500 million worldwide to be considered a success for the effort and investment by the studio.

The theaters and other things are going to take more than HALF of any revenue from ticket sales and no movie studio is going to invest hundreds of millions into a film and potentially call it a win to make like 50 million off of the film. That's not good at all per the investment

at any rate Ghosbusters is currently at like 140 million worldwide. It is possibly it will not even make more with domestic/international combined than was invested in it. Collosal failure.

Its a poor film too. has nothing to do with women being casted, the jokes just fall flat and it basically disrespects the classic and great film that preceded it. 

hopefully Hollywood learns from this, that they DO need to listen to fans to some degree and should never give that much control to a director who is extremely biased and has went as far as to write articles where he blatantly claimed that (quote) "Men are not funny". This being a blockbuster failure is about as close to justice and fair karma as you can get

I wll mention this fact to: its been reported that a number of the stars of the film (yes, the female stars) were extremely unhappy during production with the direction the film was going and were shushed.



MikeRox said:
hershel_layton said:
How the hell did it cost 150m to make the movie?

The special effects weren't even that amazing...

Compensation for the gender wage gap?

A+ for the joke



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

thismeintiel said:
VGhippy said:
I actually liked the movie, but I have no idea how the budget ended up in the realm of 150m just for production costs.... I've got a feeling Sony just made a mistake handing this to Feig, who'd never done anything like this before, and he didn't realise how much what he invisioned would cost to turn into CG. Ghostbusters is essentially the reboot of an 80's b-movie horror-comedy and should never have been allowed that kind of budget.

Love how people belittle the original to prop this one up.  First of all, Ghostbusters was nowhere near a B-movie.  It cost over $72M in today's money to make.  It was the 2nd highest domestic grossing movie of 1984, barely being beaten by Beverly Hills Cop, and  handedly beating The Neverending Story, Sixteen Candles, Nightmare on Elm Street, Muppets Take Manhattan, The Terminator, Red Dawn, Amadeus, Star Trek 3, Police Academy, The Karate Kid, Gremlins, and Temple of Doom.

 

It was probably because it looked dated by the time I watched it that I thought it was low budget. It's a good entertaining movie, but it will always look B-movie to me. Probably because by the time I started watching movies I watched it alongside things like terminator 2.