- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
well either sony just lets it rest
or keeps pushing the bloated corpse through the town
either way it's not moving on it's own
from what i know is that the movie hasn't made up it's advertisement costs
i hope to god sony isn't just vomiting up money just to die on this hill
A
AP 297
Guest
kiwifarms.net
They will make it up in the merchandise, global ticket sales, distribution and residuals. Sony is doing fine.
Besides, it was a completely dead franchise before. No merchandise was selling then.
Can you honestly think of another way they could have rebooted it? Can anyone in this thread think of a serious group of SNL Alumni's that could be in this reboot except for the women? Remember the previous male cast would not do it because the original Egon(Harold Ramis) is dead.
Leslie Jones was a mistake in my mind. Maya Rudolph would have been better for that role, but already done now. I think they wanted Maya for the role and had to settle on Leslie.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2016
My info might be a bit dated, but wasn't Sony struggling economically for years? Their console and video game division is doing fine but everything else was in the red. A few years ago, they were about to sell their offices in Tokyo... that's not really "doing fine".
And as for the movie, the longer it takes to generate a profit (mind you, we're not even close, yet), the worse for Sony. If it eventually breaks even somewhere in the future, that's nice, but that doesn't make this a success. It just makes this an unremarkable project that is economically underwhelming. I doubt Sony was going for that blurp on a DVD case. "Ghostbusters 2016 - It's not a failure!"
This was meant to be the starting point for a strong, new franchise based on the Feig movie. What did we get so far? A movie that's rather average and a video game so bad that it made the dev go brankrupt within 72 hours.
That is not a good start for a "strong franchise".
Here's an idea: If SNL has noone capable of doing this movie, give it to somebody else.
Noone involved in this movie was the least bit passionate,and it shows. Paul Feig had to be convinced over a long time to even take it up and what we ended up with is a rather average (bordering on subpar) comedy. When Sony wants to cash in on the former glory of the Ghostbusters Franchise, shitting out a soulless title is not the way to go.
There's no shame in making a cash-in title (after all, that's the whole raison d'être for Hollywood), but the more iconic the franchise is, the more you have to pay attention to what you're doing. A cash-in title in the Transformers franchise would never generate as much controvery as GB did.
Equally, going at it more respectful towards the original and the fans of the original would have meant to not doom this movie to be the designated shitfest of the year it has become with people spilling salt all over the place (whether they hate or love it).
Compare it to the new Star Wars. That movie is the reboot of a new iteration of a classic franchise and it was doing tremendeously good. Disney didn't take many risks,making it a bit of a rehash in parts of the old movies, but still it held up pretty well.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2015
Because tomboys and girls into things that aren't stereotypically feminine are all lesbians and lesbians can only play lesbians.
I saw the movie. The sexuality of these characters never crossed my mind. Have these people's arms broken yet from reaching that hard?
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2015
No, they're very probably right.
(source)
On one hand, it's ironic that the studio trying to play up this oh-so-progressive movie would actively shut down a gay character. On the other, well, they were trying to add a second blatant stereotype in the main cast.
A
AP 297
Guest
kiwifarms.net
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/28/sony...profit-as-its-turnaround-plan-takes-hold.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/sony-reports-surprise-profit-in-first-quarter-1469774502
Like I said, Sony is doing just fine!
Sales of the toys are doing great too:
http://variety.com/2016/film/news/mattel-strong-ghostbusters-toy-sales-1201820557/
Comparing Ghostbusters to Star Wars is unfair. Star Wars had kept its brand alive for nearly 40 years while Ghostbusters let its franchise die on the vine for the last 30 years. Not a single tv show, movie, or much of anything else had been done for Ghostbusters in nearly 30 years.
Star Wars was already well alive when they did the most recent movie. People were scared of Disney doing it, but Disney was investing in a very alive franchise. Ghostbusters was already dead.
This is business, not fantasy. Fanboys can indulge in fantasy, but from a business standpoint a much more riskier approach was needed to revive this very dead franchise.
The core of the ghostbusters franchise was always humor. The cast would have to be comedians. SNL has created some of the strongest comedic stars of the past 40 years. There was no other place to look.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2016
As I said my Info is a tad outdated, though it seems they had to lose quite some deadweight to get there when you look at this graph. Sony wasn't doing too well financially for the past 6 years. They are by no means in a position where they can just watch an expensive franchise turn out to be a dud. Fortunately, GB didn't end up a box office bomb, but I wouldn't call it a success either. If this is Sony's big new franchise, I am not impressed.
I'm not comparing it to SW in terms of money or franchise value, but rather how the new movie was treating the franchise (and fans thereof) overall. Sure, SW wasn't dormant as GB was, but the attitude with which GB was treated differs greatly from what we've seen Disney doing with SW. That's the entire point I was making.
I am not familiar with american comedy actors, but I sorta doubt they only have SNL to rely on. Also, while I do concur that a reboot like GB should take some risks, the ones they took were pretty much the wrong ones. Feig, Wiig and McCarthy have been taken into this project as Sony's cash-cow-combo, but the style of Bridesmaids all female humor doesn't really add up with the humor of the old Ghostbusters movies. Pissing off fans of the old stuff by declaring them misogynists wasn't a viable strategy for marketing either.
It's not like the new movie is the only logical conclusion where it's either "make no movie at all" or "make a movie with all female cast, Paul Feig and queef jokes".
I think I've seen you raise this point repeatedly and I don't get it. Are you really saying there is no other way to make a reboot, other than genderswapping the cast and dumbing down the humor to Sandler-levels?
Point is, if Sony can't handle the franchise, they might be better off using a different one.
GabeRegan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2015
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/28/sony...profit-as-its-turnaround-plan-takes-hold.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/sony-reports-surprise-profit-in-first-quarter-1469774502
Like I said, Sony is doing just fine!
Sales of the toys are doing great too:
http://variety.com/2016/film/news/mattel-strong-ghostbusters-toy-sales-1201820557/
Comparing Ghostbusters to Star Wars is unfair. Star Wars had kept its brand alive for nearly 40 years while Ghostbusters let its franchise die on the vine for the last 30 years. Not a single tv show, movie, or much of anything else had been done for Ghostbusters in nearly 30 years.
Star Wars was already well alive when they did the most recent movie. People were scared of Disney doing it, but Disney was investing in a very alive franchise. Ghostbusters was already dead.
This is business, not fantasy. Fanboys can indulge in fantasy, but from a business standpoint a much more riskier approach was needed to revive this very dead franchise.
The core of the ghostbusters franchise was always humor. The cast would have to be comedians. SNL has created some of the strongest comedic stars of the past 40 years. There was no other place to look.
The Real Ghostbusters ran from 1986-1991, and Extreme Ghostbusters ran in 1997.
Several companies published a variety of Ghostbuster comics between 1988 and 2005, including NOW Comics, Marvel UK, Tokyopop, and 88MPH Comics. In addition, since 2008 IDW has been publishing a continuous story line across several series.
Ghostbusters The Videogame was released in 2009, and the characters also show up in Lego Dimensions in 2015.
These are just the successful examples of Ghostbusters media published in the past thirty years. You seem to be under the impression that after Ghostbusters II the franchise was ignored until Sony decided to do the reboot. The fandom has been very much alive with several active fangroups, most famously the Ghostbusters Chicago Division.
As to only SNL alumni being cast as Ghostbusters, this is a terrible idea since the last SNL alum who could carry a film on his own was Chris Farley and maybe Will Farrel.
A
AP 297
Guest
kiwifarms.net
And barely anyone saw any of those cartoons or media. Admit it, the franchise was dead. I know it hurts fanboys to admit it, but the series was dead. No one was willing to make a serious investment into it until now.
The core of the first movie and much of the series was humor. Ghostbusters was and always is an ensemble comedy. Can you name a slate of 4 comedic actors who could get together as an ensemble and pull a 9 figure summer feature film off?
A combo of Will Ferrell/Ben Stiller/Paul Rudd/Kevin Hart/or someone else was about it. Even that is stretching it. Zoolander 2 did so poorly that no one wanted a repeat in the form of calling it Ghostbusters. Lets face it, male based frat-comedy these days is just not doing well. It gets critically panned and it is derivative. Adam Sandler movies are hated for a reason. They are tired and derivative.
I know some fanboys hate that they made neckbeards the butt of their publicity campaign, but again besides right-wing evangelicals - basement dwelling neckbeards are one of the few acceptable targets left.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
Remember when Amazing Spider-man 3 was gonna happen? yeah, me neither.
GB 2016 didn't bomb, but it's only doing mediocre. ASM 2 was more successful from a more lucrative IP and didn't get another, so I would hardly say a GB sequel is guaranteed. Could happen, but I wouldn't bet on Sony's word this early in the game.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
I now forgive the Ghostbusters reboot because Ecto Cooler just showed up at my local bargain basement warehouse place at a buck for an eight pack of the juice boxes. I bought a bunch and that's the last I'll think about Ghostbusters for a while.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2016
A
AP 297
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Really?
Sorry to be harsh, man; but that is the way the world works.
Old fandoms can be tricky things. People are passionate and sometimes to a studio; they simply come up with "we can't please them so lets just open the series up to as many new people as possible and not worry about stepping on the toes of the more stubborn ones(i.e. neckbeard fanboys)."
Cruel, sure. It is how things work though. 9 figures is a lot of money to spend. It better be a huge hit or it will sink the company. A small niche rabid fandom is not enough to support 9 figures. They have to expand it. Think of it as being like tearing down an old building on prime real estate to make a highrise so they can kickstart the development of a larger city block. Intellectual property is almost no different in that regard than Real Estate Property.
If you don't own it, you really don't have much of a say in how they develop it. True in land and in intellectual property.
MysticMisty
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2013
Sony would have to be ten kinds of stupid to greenlight a sequel. Why would they want to make a sequel to a movie that's sluggishly earning back it's costs and hasn't even begun to turn a profit yet?
Why don't they also count the ad revenue that the walking nigger stereotype generated for twitter as a part of the box office results? By the logic of that article anything goes
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
lol not anymore, they're gonna lose over 70 million dollars
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/08/ghostbusters-box-office-loss
rekt
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
They are officially performing worse than the Last Airbender movie
Dunno if much else needs be said at this point.
I mean.....
FUCKING LAST AIRBENDER DID BETTER THAN THIS
LAST
AIRBENDER
Dunno if much else needs be said at this point.
I mean.....
FUCKING LAST AIRBENDER DID BETTER THAN THIS
LAST
AIRBENDER
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2014
They should just throw $300 million dollars in burning trash.
- Status