The Sword and Laser discussion

155 views
TV, Movies and Games > Ghostbusters

Comments Showing 1-50 of 59 (59 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8146 comments Ghostbusters trailer dropped. How did they make a movie this bad with a cast this good? http://youtu.be/w3ugHP-yZXw


message 2: by Matthew (new)

Matthew (matthewdl) | 341 comments On a scale from TMNT to Dredd I think it looks like a reboot score of Terminator Salvation (C+).


message 3: by Trike (last edited Mar 04, 2016 03:18AM) (new)

Trike | 8146 comments You are a very generous grader.

The black character is such a cringe-inducing stereotype, I can only hope Leslie Jones got paid a truckful of money.

And why did they spoil the story? Name recognition alone is enticement enough.


message 4: by Aaron (new)

Aaron | 264 comments Trike wrote: "And why did they spoil the story? Name recognition alone is enticement enough."

If name recognition was enough, we would have a passing of the torch story (retirement/franchise office/etc), not a reboot.


message 5: by Sean (new)

Sean O'Hara (seanohara) | 2365 comments Aaron wrote: "If name recognition was enough, we would have a passing of the torch story (retirement/franchise office/etc), not a reboot. "

Bill Murray wouldn't've agreed to a cameo in that case. He's spent the entire last decade refusing to have anything to do with another GB film, claiming, quite rightly, that the second film was a mistake and the characters should've been retired after the first. And after Ramis's death, that would've left Aykroyd and Hudson to do the torch passing, which would be less than satisfying.


message 6: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8146 comments Aaron wrote: "Trike wrote: "And why did they spoil the story? Name recognition alone is enticement enough."

If name recognition was enough, we would have a passing of the torch story (retirement/franchise office/etc), not a reboot. "


It's not a reboot, though, as the opening titles make clear: it's a continuation of the original story.

Did anyone laugh at all during that trailer? It's almost painfully unfunny.

Sean wrote: "Aaron wrote: "If name recognition was enough, we would have a passing of the torch story (retirement/franchise office/etc), not a reboot. "

Bill Murray wouldn't've agreed to a cameo in that case. ..."


Murray wasn't anti-Ghostbusters, he was anti-Ramis. He did the video game, after all. He was just holding a petty grudge against Ramis and outlasted him. The fact that he's in this movie in any capacity underscores that.

Plus, look at the timing: Ramis and Ackroyd wrote numerous Ghostbusters scripts over the years, all of which Murray rejected. Ramis died in February 2014. Ghostbusters was officially greenlighted in January 2015. Melissa McCarthy signs on as the lead in March 2015, principal photography starts in mid-June 2015 and Murray signs on for a cameo in August 2015.

Murray resisted the movie for 30 years, then signs on less than 8 months after a Ramis-free script is approved. There aren't too many ways to parse that other than Bill was just pissed at Harold.


message 7: by Wilmar (new)

Wilmar Luna (wilmarluna) | 241 comments Yeah there was definitely bad blood between Ramis and Murray. Mainly, Murray's crumbling marriage made him difficult to work with and led him to fighting with his fellow friends and coworkers. Obviously a long time ago but Murray strikes me as the kind of guy to hold a grudge.

Anyway, the trailer was extremely unfunny and generic. I really lost interest with the whole possession thing and Melissa McCarthy turning her head. That entire scene with the woman punching her was so god awful bad.

What were they thinking? Hopefully this is a case of bad trailer editing but I fear that this is going to be overall tone of the movie.

Disappointing. I was really interested in seeing an all female ghostbusters cast but not like this.


message 8: by Paul (new)

Paul Harmon (thesaint08d) | 639 comments Good Cast? oooh I beg to differ
Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones are abhorrent as "actors" That casting from day one made me say no possible way this would be even decent.
Neither of them are funny McCarthy is such a one note joke and Leslie Jones is an insult to proud black female actresses she a nasty piece of work pushing bad Stereotypes.

If they wanted a funny big girl then why not Rebel Wilson instead of McCarthy or why not try for an amazing African American actress with a sense of comedy timing like Aisha Tyler or Gabrielle Union...and Im not just saying that because I crush on them both but if you want names and talent then much better choices.

I will never see this, even free on Hulu (netflix might not want it like with the last turtles movie :) ) this is a Fantastic Four level of crap wait and see. Its so bad Im surprised Michael Bey isnt making it


message 9: by Kevin (new)

Kevin Xu (kxu65) | 1081 comments For me, the new Ghostbuster feels like a SNL skit in part because two of them are actually current SNL cast members.


message 10: by Michele (new)

Michele | 1154 comments Did anyone else get a Scary Movie vibe? Like almost a parody-type of humor? That Exorcist/head turning thing...lame.

I did think that one woman was funny - the blonde engineer who builds the stuff.

I really don't care for Kristin Wiig or Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones seemed like a caricature.

Definitely looks like a wait-for-rental, which is a shame since I would love another good Ghostbusters movie.


message 11: by Kevin (new)

Kevin Xu (kxu65) | 1081 comments Michele wrote: "Did anyone else get a Scary Movie vibe? Like almost a parody-type of humor? That Exorcist/head turning thing...lame.

I did think that one woman was funny - the blonde engineer who builds the stuff..."


Yes I did since half of the main characters are casts from SNL.


message 12: by J (new)

J Austill | 72 comments But that was also true of the 1984 film...


message 13: by Paul (new)

Paul Harmon (thesaint08d) | 639 comments J wrote: "But that was also true of the 1984 film..."

Hah Yeah good point.....of course back then SNL was funny....with Murray, Ackroyd, Belushi, Radner, Curtain, and Morris


message 14: by Matthew (new)

Matthew (matthewdl) | 341 comments Trike wrote: You are a very generous grader.
Yeah, always have been. But I really didn't care for Salvation and I'm holding out some hope that this is just a shoddy trailer.

Michele wrote: "Did anyone else get a Scary Movie vibe? Like almost a parody-type of humor? That Exorcist/head turning thing...lame."

You hit the nail on the head there. Everything about this seems like a parody. I was on board with the whole "female ghostbusters" thing but I think it was a big mistake to make female versions of the characters. From this trailor it looks like they just reduced the characters to crude stereotypes and reproduced them in a different gender.

With so much of the old crew on board with this I was hoping for something more. But maybe it IS just a bad trailer...


message 15: by Tassie Dave, S&L Historian (last edited Mar 05, 2016 05:47AM) (new)

Tassie Dave | 3489 comments Mod
The trailer wasn't too bad up until the 2 min mark. That last bit ruined it though.

This fan remix did a better job than the studio. The left that whole section out. Still you can't un-see the official one. They really killed any buzz it may have had.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IDXp...


message 16: by Aaron (last edited Mar 05, 2016 08:37AM) (new)

Aaron | 264 comments Trike wrote: "It's not a reboot, though, as the opening titles make clear: it's a continuation of the original story."

I must have missed that part of the opening titles. Paul Fieg says it's a reboot and it's his movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eOLz...

(The emphasis is mine.)
"I had been contacted several times about doing a sequel for Ghostbusters and I just kept turning it down because I didn’t know how to do it. The scripts had been written, but I couldn’t figure out how to do it. I wasn’t excited about it. So finally, one day I was like, it’s a great franchise and it’s a great idea, if I was going to do it, how would I do it? And then I thought, if I could put four women in the lead roles, that’s exciting to me. That I know how to do, and I know how to make that funny. Again, there's so many women I've been dying to work with. ... Then I thought, I’d rather do it as a reboot so I’m not tied to the old movies. The old movies are so good, I didn’t want to mess with them. And I also want to see the beginnings of this group. I want to see people seeing ghosts for the first time, and how they’re going to fight them for the first time, how they develop their technology. So it just got very exciting to me. I just like working with funny women, and that’s all I really like to do with my career.”


message 17: by Michele (new)

Michele | 1154 comments Yeah, apparently the "30 years ago..." refers to our world, not the Ghostbusters movie world. Whatever.


message 18: by Phil (last edited Mar 05, 2016 10:55AM) (new)

Phil | 1134 comments I just watched the trailer for the original and it really wasn't any funnier than this one. Murray is highlighted and they show a couple of his one-liners (I particularly like the "cats and dogs living together") but overall the tone is fairly serious. There's a couple reaction shots that you might find amusing but I think that's only in the context of the memory of the whole movie.
I'm keeping a cautiously optimistic open mind for the new movie still.


message 19: by Joanna Chaplin (new)

Joanna Chaplin | 1175 comments Phil wrote: "I just watched the trailer for the original and it really wasn't any funnier than this one. Murray is highlighted and they show a couple of his one-liners (I particularly like the "cats and dogs li..."

I was surprised by how much the original Ghostbusters' trailer...didn't credit Ernie Hudson at all. Or mention his character.


message 20: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8146 comments Michele wrote: "Yeah, apparently the "30 years ago..." refers to our world, not the Ghostbusters movie world. Whatever."

That doesn't even make sense. Why make an oblique reference like that?

I'm positive those titles refer to the in-universe original Ghostbusters.


message 21: by Sean (new)

Sean O'Hara (seanohara) | 2365 comments Paul wrote: "Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones are abhorrent as "actors" "

I think I speak for all fans of The Gilmore Girls when I say




message 22: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8146 comments Ghostbusters is now officially the most hated movie trailer of all time on YouTube. It has nearly 600k dislikes. Ouch.


message 23: by Joanna Chaplin (new)

Joanna Chaplin | 1175 comments It's not fair. I disapprove of just remaking the movie and recycling the plot. But they keep adding details that draw me in. Don't do this to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cCqO...

I love Leslie Jones' description. "It's not fair!"


message 24: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8146 comments If they had released that instead of the original trailer, people wouldn't have hated it so much. But that first trailer is godawful. It deserves the hate it's getting.


message 25: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8146 comments This is not an improvement.

http://youtu.be/gMfUjDnpfRY

Their new version of the Stay Puft guy is to make a giant version of the Ghostbusters logo, which looks like the marshmallow man without a hat? This is Starkiller Base all over again.


message 26: by Warren (new)

Warren | 1556 comments Maybe they can get parts on the Blade Runner reboot
Because they sure won't be making any more Ghost buster movies.


message 27: by Darren (new)

Darren Trike wrote: "This is not an improvement.

http://youtu.be/gMfUjDnpfRY

Their new version of the Stay Puft guy is to make a giant version of the Ghostbusters logo, which looks like the marshmallow man without a ..."


Or it actually makes sense in story, as this trailer makes it look like Hemsworth/Kevin becomes the mastermind, and he "designed" the logo in this movie....

I'm indifferent to this movie, but the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is hardly a sacred cow.


message 28: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8146 comments Darren wrote: "I'm indifferent to this movie, but the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is hardly a sacred cow. "

Someone needs to tell this new generation of filmmakers that.

That's certainly not what I'm saying. They're clearly retreading the original story the same way Jurassic World and Star Wars 7 did, so the filmmakers think that they need to hit the exact same beats except make them bigger.

In Jurassic World we got a bigger, badder T. Rex, while in Force Awakens we got a bigger, badder Death Star. Here they're giving us a bigger, badder Stay Puft marshmallow man. That's the extent of their thought process.

There's nothing original here, just the same things except embiggified.


message 29: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8146 comments I'm also perplexed by Feig's insistence that this is a reboot rather than a continuation. The first trailer has that "30 years ago" title, and they hit the nostalgia gong by showing the old firehouse and such, but this trailer looks like it's clearly a reboot.

Definitely getting mixed signals here, as if they want to have their cake and eat it, too.

If they're aping actual scenes and lines from the original ("Mass hysteria."), I'm betting we'll hear a lot of other bits of dialogue.

"Choose the form of the Destructor."
"I ain't afraid of no ghosts!"
"Whaddya want?"
"Back off, man, I'm a scientist."


message 30: by Darren (new)

Darren Trike wrote: "Darren wrote: "I'm indifferent to this movie, but the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is hardly a sacred cow. "

Someone needs to tell this new generation of filmmakers that.

That's certainly not what I..."


But nothing's original. That's Romantic nonsense (and Coleridge was full of shit when he was propounding it). The movies/books/music that felt original to us when we were kids, it was just because we didn't have the references.

This is a remake of an 80's summer popcorn comedy. And honestly, if the movie was totally different, people would just be bitching that "they" were just using the name with no respect for the source material, yadda yadda yadda.

There should be a moment when someone says "He slimed me."


message 31: by Rick (new)

Rick | 2775 comments it's not just that it's not original, it's that it seems to be a remake vs another story in the same universe. Remakes happen, but lately it seem that they, along with superhero movies, are all that Hollywood can do.


message 32: by Dara (new)

Dara (cmdrdara) | 2693 comments Just throwing this piece out there...

You're Whining About the Ghostbusters Reboot Because You're Still a Child and Need to Grow Up

I have no opinion at all on any Ghostbusters because I haven't seen them but maybe people should find something to love instead of tearing down a thing you haven't even seen yet. But that's just an idea.


message 33: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8146 comments I've seen the trailers. They look bad. Lumping people like me in with infantile misogynists is as bad as claiming a new movie "raped your childhood."

See my OP.


message 34: by Rick (new)

Rick | 2775 comments Eh. I dislike the "shut up, don't say anything negative you haters" rejoinder. it's too close to "love it or leave it" in feeling.

Criticizing things is perfectly valid. It's how we define what we feel is good, what errors, mistakes and creative choices don't work (for us at least). If someone is unwilling to entertain criticism of a thing, I wonder why - nothing and no one is perfect. Now, criticism is different from a simplistic "this sucks" reaction - it needs to have thought and evidence backing it. But telling people that they're children if they don't like the GB reboot is offensive in and of itself.


message 35: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8146 comments Darren wrote: "But nothing's original. That's Romantic nonsense (and Coleridge was full of shit when he was propounding it). The movies/books/music that felt original to us when we were kids, it was just because we didn't have the references. "

Context is king. No one is claiming anything is original, and protesting that is the same sort of nonsense as saying "there are no genres because all fiction is fantasy."

When anyone says "it's not original" in this context means that the story is the same thing we've seen before.

Ghostbusters back in 1984 -- when I was 19, btw, so not a kid, and in film school surrounded by movie nerds, so not lacking for references -- was not like anything we had seen before. There are glancing similarities to things that have been made previously, but this was a new mixture of elements.

Even if someone wanted to claim to Ghostbusters was merely a reimagining of earlier comic ghost-exterminating, it comes back to the point that previous incarnations of the idea weren't very good. The 1970s Saturday morning TV series with the guys from F-Troop was just riffing on the old Bowery Boys flick (complete with gorilla).

I have long maintained that reboots and remakes should be of movies that had a decent idea but didn't quite hit the mark or deviated substantially from the source material. Ghostbusters is a better version of those early stories, just as John Carpenter's The Thing (my poster child for how to do a remake right) remade a good 1950s monster movie which made changes to the short story. But the recent version of The Thing brought nothing new to the table; this version of Ghostbusters is the same pointless exercise.


message 36: by Rick (new)

Rick | 2775 comments it's not pointless, trike. It's about the $$. :)


message 37: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8146 comments Rick wrote: "it's not pointless, trike. It's about the $$. :)"

True. But to your point above, if we punish unoriginal movies often enough, maybe they'll get message.


message 38: by Sean (new)

Sean O'Hara (seanohara) | 2365 comments Rick wrote: "Eh. I dislike the "shut up, don't say anything negative you haters" rejoinder. it's too close to "love it or leave it" in feeling."

The problem is, the attitude we're seeing towards Ghostbusters is completely different from what we see towards the five bajillion other remakes that have come out in the last decade. People weren't cursing the RoboCop, Total Recall or The Evil Dead reboots six months before the first trailer hit, and even now, after we've all had a chance to see those films and know how shit they are, most people just shrug and ignore them.

But with Ghostbusters, people have been hating on the film since the moment the cast was announced. And there's a reason for that. Most of the shit-pile that's going on is because the cast is all women. I've seen people -- and by people, I mean guys, because it's universally guys who are doing this -- say that if there's going to be an all-female GB film, they should at least get good looking women for the roles, not people like Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones. There's one guy on a forum I frequent who swears up and down that it would be impossible for a woman to carry a proton pack.

That attitude is most certainly a bunch of self-entitled men who don't like that they have to share their toys with girls, and it needs to stop.


message 39: by Rick (last edited May 20, 2016 12:26PM) (new)

Rick | 2775 comments Sean -

I think we have to segment out the various criticisms as they're not all one big lump of 'I don't like this.'

First are the people who don't like the all female cast. I can see one semi-legit argument here, that doing it that was is form of tokenism, i.e. it's Hollywood trying to deal with the lack of female roles in general by taking a remake and giving it a female cast. Even if we accept that, though, it doesn't mean the movie is good or bad. If the gender of the actors really offends someone, well, that's ridiculous.

Second are the people who simply hated the first trailer and maybe the second too. That's legit - the first one was a confusing trailer especially given previous comments from the director that this wasn't a remake of the first movie and the trailer as a trailer wasn't good. It made Jones look like the stereotyped loud black friend, etc The second trailer is better, but further cements this as a remake and not another story in the universe. As Trike notes, the better remakes all bring something new to the table vs being the same thing but with popular new actors.

Regardless, it's fair game to criticize trailers and say things like 'wow this looks crappy' - it's done all the time and there's no reason GB is exempt from that.

Third are the "but this will ruin my memories of the first one/ruin my childhood memories" people. They just need to get over that remakes happen. Their memories are still there, this movie doesn't erase them.

Finally, I wonder if some of the reaction is that McCarthy is getting over-exposed and people are tiring of her. That happens - see Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell, etc. After a while, some people think "really? Her/him AGAIN?" A bit of that might be happening here.


message 40: by Sean (new)

Sean O'Hara (seanohara) | 2365 comments Rick wrote: "First are the people who don't like the all female cast. I can see one semi-legit argument here, that doing it that was is form of tokenism, i.e. it's Hollywood trying to deal with the lack of female roles in general by taking a remake and giving it a female cast."

The original film had four guys in the main roles. Was that tokenism, too, or does it only count when women get the role?

Second are the people who simply hated the first trailer and maybe the second too.

The trailer is one of the worst rated videos on YouTube. Is it really that bad, or is that a bunch of nerd-rage about girl cooties in the boy movie?

Finally, I wonder if some of the reaction is that McCarthy is getting over-exposed and people are tiring of her.

Dan Aykroyd was in three movies the year before Ghostbusters came out, had one other starring role the same year as GB, and was in two movies the following year. McCarthy did one movie last year, has one other one coming out this year, and has one film in development. There is certainly a double standard towards her.


message 41: by Rick (last edited May 20, 2016 03:43PM) (new)

Rick | 2775 comments Sean wrote: "Rick wrote: "First are the people who don't like the all female cast. I can see one semi-legit argument here, that doing it that was is form of tokenism, i.e. it's Hollywood trying to deal with the..."

SIGH... I get so fracking tired of people wanting to distort what I've said just to pick a fight. However.....

Deciding to do an all female remake can be seen as tokenism because instead of addressing the underlying issue throughout Hollywood (a lack of female roles in general), it can be argued that the studio is doing an all female cast to deflect that and say 'here, see, we're down with women in roles!' without really making any commitment to create good new work for a wide variety of female actors. It's kind of the definition of the word.

On the first trailer - some of it is nerd-rage. But it really is a pretty poor trailer and was confusing as it wasn't clear on a few points (30 years ago in the movie or real world? Wait, they've been saying this isn't a reboot but it looks like one.., etc.) The second trailer does a much better job of giving you a feel for the movie. If you are just not down with a remake of GB it won't convince you otherwise, but as a trailer it's OK.

On McCarthy - Nice try at massaging the timeframe to fit your narrative but she's been in quite a few movies over the last few years - 10 in the last 6 years excluding voice work and TV work.

She's experiencing what a lot of popular actors see - they're EVERYWHERE for a time. NOTE that I mentioned two male actors too. There's no double standard here at all - it's perfectly reasonable for people to tire of an actor when they're around so much (god knows I got fed up with Will Ferrell long before his exposure faded back to normal). I don't blame the actor for this at all - but when this happens there is definitely a "really, more $ACTOR??" reaction in some quarters.

What's really tiresome is the stance that any and every criticism of the movie is motivated by sexism. Try again and put thought into it this time.


message 42: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8146 comments Sean wrote: "That attitude is most certainly a bunch of self-entitled men who don't like that they have to share their toys with girls, and it needs to stop. "

I absolutely, unequivocally agree with this. Those dickwads give the rest of us a bad name.


message 43: by Rick (last edited May 20, 2016 03:47PM) (new)

Rick | 2775 comments As do I, Trike. I just don't like that the counter to that is "Any man criticizing this movie for any reason whatsoever is the kind of sexist asshat who doesn't want to share their toys with women." I can totally support the idea of a female-led GB movie AND criticize the trailers of THIS particular implementation of that concept. And hey, I might find that the trailers were a terrible reflection of the movie and that the actual movie is awesome.


message 44: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8146 comments Sean wrote: "Dan Aykroyd was in three movies the year before Ghostbusters came out, had one other starring role the same year as GB, and was in two movies the following year. McCarthy did one movie last year, has one other one coming out this year, and has one film in development. There is certainly a double standard towards her. "

I don't think it's a double standard. Every entertainer's career goes cold, faster with overexposure.

Elton John once said something to the effect of, "When you hit it big, you have about 5 years when people will love everything you do, then you're done." After that you have to earn it back, and then people start talking about your comeback.

You can quibble with Elton's specific timeframe, but it's true. The biggest acts in the world fall by the wayside once people tire of them. The only way to combat it is either to die or keep plugging away until you become the elder statesman and/or get a second crack at it.

Dan Aykroyd had about 5 solid years, as did Bill Murray. Same with Michael Keaton, Al Pacino, Chevy Chase, Will Ferrell, Eddie Murphy, Robert De Niro, Keanu Reeves, Gene Wilder. Even the genuine superstars like Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, Will Smith, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Clint Eastwood, Jim Carrey, Sylvester Stallone and John Wayne only got 15 years while on top. We tend to think of musicians like Elvis, Michael Jackson, Prince and so on as having masterful and long careers, but for each of them they had about 5 years before they stopped charting. Same thing with The Beatles.

And yes, I chose all men specifically to underscore Elton's point. Once you see the pattern for them you can look at superstar women and see their careers follow essentially the same trajectory. Madonna, Sandra Bullock, Meg Ryan, Bette Davis, Angelina Jolie... really hot for 5 years or so before people start getting tired of them.

Right now among the biggest movie stars are Jennifer Lawrence and Kevin Hart, two actors who can open a movie with name recognition alone. Lawrence is on year 5 of hitting it big, and Hart is on year 3. She's done the smart thing by hitching her career to the X-Men, thus giving her a boost, but unless Hart has a breakthrough hit that's the equivalent of The Hangover in the next couple years, he's peaked. (Speaking of which, Bradley Cooper hit 5 years and was done at the top. Now he's famous but he's just a regular working actor again.)

This is just how it goes, for men and women. I think McCarthy is perceived as being one-note, but her biggest hits have had a certain similarity to them.


message 45: by Darren (last edited May 22, 2016 03:31AM) (new)

Darren Trike wrote: "When anyone says "it's not original" in this context means that the story is the same thing we've seen before."

Right.

They're pretty upfront about it being a reboot/remake, though. But just in case that fact was missed, they're using the same title, and front-and-centring the logo...


message 46: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8146 comments I didn't write that.


message 47: by Darren (last edited May 22, 2016 03:31AM) (new)

Darren Trike wrote: "I didn't write that."

Yeah, that was my bad. I had the Sean quote in there too, and cut it because I had to leave. Cut the wrong quote.

Anyway, fixed.


message 48: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8146 comments This is probably not a surprise to anyone....

'Ghostbusters' Heading for $70M-Plus Loss, Sequel Unlikely

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news...


message 49: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor Regardless of how bad the movie might be, if they're looking at a $70 million loss after taking in $180 million at the box office, then the problem may not be the quality of the film, but that they invested more money than they should have into the project. It's probably another Lone Ranger or even Waterworld...


message 50: by John (Taloni) (new)

John (Taloni) Taloni (johntaloni) | 3858 comments Ghostbusters is not the loser the press is making it out to be. In many ways reporters who don't understand the niceties of film finance are looking for an inflammatory headline. Certainly box office is not film rental, and no movie is expected to earn a profit from theatrical alone. Well, maybe a Star Wars movie. That's about it.

The rule of thumb for film profitability is that if the movie grosses in Domestic (US\Can) box office an amount equal to its budget before print and ads ("Negative cost" or the amount to come up with a Negative from which to strike prints) then the film will eventually make a profit from theatrical film rentals, video sales/rental, and license fees from TV. That's an oversimplification as it assumes a certain level for overseas theatrical and concomitant video, pay tv and free tv sales, but it is still a useful metric.

Ghostbusters is not far off that metric and I would expect that when all is said and done, it is a modest loss for the studio. It's not a big loss and when you have to keep a lot of studio people busy to stay in business, it's just part of the portfolio of films.


« previous 1
back to top