$100 million seems like a pretty legit number though since the movie had a pretty big advertising campaign  it was heavily promoted before its release.  Anyway it having a all female cast not only didn't go well at the box office it also didn't help out when it comes to sell merchandise for the movie.

All I care is that we don't get a worthless sequel, and that key lessons were learned.

There's going to be like 10 high budget movies that lose money this summer ...

Warcraft, Alice Through the Looking Glass, The BFG, Independence Day, Tarzan, Ninja Turtles 2, probably Star Trek too to go with Ghostbusters.

I don't think it was the fact that it was an all female cast, but that they were portayed as unattractive females. It still did much better than many high profile movies in America.

As for the 100m advertising budget, you can believe whatever you want and you may even be right but until I see an official source, I will remain doubtful.

But a lot of the money mentioned by Sony in this article is being made off the back of the original franchise and being made despite the remake - with no remake at all they would have been able to achieve all the revenue streams they mentioned w the possible exception of increased rentals of the 1984 version -  of course they could have done a retro advertising campaign for the original for a lot less than $300 million and still seen rentals of the original increase 

Lmao. So they have to stretch so much as to include revenue from the game (yea, cause that must have been a HUGE hit and cost nothing to make) AND rentals of the 1984 one just to say it'll break even. Let's just ignore the first two were extremely profitable on their own merit. Just admit it Sony, it bombed. Is it the worst bomb ever? Of course not. But it's still a bomb.

Also, Sony already said the $144M production budget was AFTER all tax incentives were taken into account.

Studios still lie about marketing budgets all the time. For example with Ghostbusters 2016 it's been murmurred about that they're including costs of development from failed previous Ghostbusters movies into the "budget" as well. Inflating budgets is good for movie studios, it means they lose less on back end deals, this is why Warner Bros. tried to argue they weren't making money off Harry Potter movies (laugh out fucking loud). 

They gonna do another remake on the classic Splash movie with Tom hanks and Darryl Hanna

This new one gonna have a male mermaid(Channing Tatum) and a female human....

Ohhhh, you liked into darkness... dang I'm not sure so, there was some cool stuff to Beyond like there was some nice imagary that we didn't see before such as an amazing external shot of the Enterprise at high warp, looked great in the cinema, also this was the first time to my knowledge that they have a couple of things from before the split off in the timeline so there is objects in this movie from before the Kelvin was attacked by Nero's ship and they mention a group from Enterprise as well (the TV series with Scott Bakula)

I'm not sure... there was just something about it that was enjoyable, it could honestly have been the fact that I had zero expections of it being good after how much I disliked the previous film so all it had to do was not go out of its way to cause me phsical pain and it was going to be better than my expectations, I didn't know at the time of watching it that Simon Pegg was a co writer of the film but on thinking back over it there was area's where his sort of humour and love of sci fi were clearly raising their heads during segments of it.

I'd honestly recommend watching it if you find a Cinema still showing it.... or else Finding Dory, because we watched that last night and I cried my fucking eyes out... fuck you Ellen, you awesome heart string tugging monster!

Sony is still gonna make a big loss off of the movie - which is what needed to happen.