Awesome. I wanted nothing more than to see this movie flop. I probably would've at least watched it, if Melissa McCarthy, wasn't in it. She is such a terrible actress. I don't see why the general public, seems to like her so much.
How the hell that pile of shit costed 150m? Where did the money go? The special effect looks like scooby doo!
And to think that a masterpiece like Pan's Labyrinth was made with only 14m...
VGhippy said:
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. |
It might have looked dated by the time you watched it but its effects where excellent for the time and it was pretty much shot before CGI became pratical since the first movie that featured a very realistic CGI character Young Sherlock Holmes didn't come out until a year later 1985.
Yet Sony says they are making another one. They seem to be very confident in the franchise.
The movie is hardly bombing. At this rate it will easily make more than Ghostbusters II, just not nearly as much as the original. Remember, Ghostbusters II didn't do so hot either.
| 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. |
Having a all female cast totally ruined their chances of selling a lot of merchandise. Boys don't really want female action figures and girls would rather play with dolls. Should have made the cast half male and half female that way the merchandise would have a least a limited appeal to both boys and girls.
Chris Hu said:
It might have looked dated by the time you watched it but its effects where excellent for the time and it was pretty much shot before CGI became pratical since the first movie that featured a very realistic CGI character Young Sherlock Holmes didn't come out until a year later 1985. |
I definitely see what you mean. I was just a late bloomer when it came to movie watching to be honest, and didn't really start till after the CGI revolution. It must have been amazing watching Ghostbusters in the cinema back then.
Yikes. Not a good decision by Sony Pictures to make such an expensive movie.
NNID: FrequentFlyer54
movie will easily do 300 million with all the DVDs and BlueRay re releases, time to move on
| Dyllyo said: The movie is hardly bombing. At this rate it will easily make more than Ghostbusters II, just not nearly as much as the original. Remember, Ghostbusters II didn't do so hot either. |
Ghostbusters 2 made $215M WW on a $37M budget. Sure, it's not as good as the 1st one did, but it was still a big success. And keep in mind that $215M in tickets sales in 1989 would be like $470M today. Is this one is going to make that much? Hell no. It bombed. Time to accept it.
| Ruler said: movie will easily do 300 million with all the DVDs and BlueRay re releases, time to move on |
I'd guess $250-$280, when all is said and done. Even if you were right, it still means it won't even break even. It was a flop, time to move on.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
