>130 million box office against a budget of 140 million
>Key upcoming markets include Russia and Italy (July 28), Germany (August 4), France (August 10), Mexico and Spain (August 12) and Japan (August 19).
Seems like Sup Forumseddit was wrong and this movie will profit
>budget of 140 million
without ads
>include Russia
Russia will add from zero to 3 percent.
Add another $100m in marketing costs user.
It might, MIGHT, break even. Might. If everything goes much better than expected in Russia. Which it won't. MIGHT
What does it matter if it squeaks past the finish line or not? "Making back the film budget" can't possibly be called an impressive feat, in fact the GB franchise alone is probably worth more than that just on its foundation. The best thing they can do is either give future sequels to someone who gives a shit and try again in 5 years, or just immediately accept they fucked everything up and search for a different cherished IP to dig up instead.
XAXAXAX HET TOBAPNW
Ghostbusters has empty theaters in Moscow. Even ST Beyonce will get more money.
Cinemas are generally empty af here since 2014.
Hello Ryssä bro
Friendly reminder Juden were expecting one billion dollar and cinematic universe out of this. LMAE
It's cuz nobody has $$$ with those sanctions
FUCKING ITALY
...
>this movie will profit
if they are lucky they will break even
>By comparison, Ant-Man had a $120 million dollar budget and needed $400 million just to break even.
Ghostbusters is still in trouble.
...
Whats that? Cant read commie-runes.
Hello other finnfag.
Weird math.
Adjusted to inflation, original ghostbusters did 700 mill on 60 mill budget.
Original ghostbusters scenari was similar to deadpool. 2016 GB is a flop.
Does this mean we'll be getting more fem-reboots directed by based Paul Faig?
130 millions box office means 65 millions at best for the studio.it still needs 75 millions just to cover the production cost and 100 millions more fir the marketing.
>it's doing well lads.
Money isn't everything.
The movie being made was already a huge victory and has made a massive profit in... Ethics.
Nice bait. This was already confirmed to be a failure.
You're also forgetting that Ghostbusters is mostly only liked in America and that it's also competing against other blockbusters coming out too.
This movie is not going to be a success or get a sequel.
yet another shitty movie, am i upset? hardly.
Even if the studio managed to take in 80% of the supposed 92 mil it made domestic, that's barely half the production budget, and even when you toss in the foreign cash, it still hasn't even broken 100 mil.
That piece of shit bombed, just like everybody knew it would.
I figured the audience would be the same "you go girl" crowd that liked shit like sex and the city and 50 shades of gay, but they apparently don't like it much more than the rest of us.
I'm calling it 120 mil domestic...after like 2 months, and 50 mil foreign, for a total of 170 mil gross, and about 120 mil net loss in ad and production funds for Sony and their incompetent SJW brigade.
>Make a tentpole production
>Barely break even before taking advertising into effect
Feig did it bros, total success!
Far fetch. It'll be lucky to make 200 m. Flop.
>the world runs on ethics.
>ethics was how America became the biggest world power.
>ethic is worth more than money.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Ethics profits are all investors really care about.
Are you guys ready for Girl Power Ocean's Eleven next?
Where do I cash in my ethics stocks?
$100+ million marketing, only get half the actual boxoffice, etc...
I really hope they will go on and start filming it.
It will be hilarious.
That's all fine and good, but you'd think a movie to launch an entire cinematic universe should at least be doing a minimum of 500m.
You think investors are going to be okay with "well, at least we made our money back" for 10 movies?
Well, could be worse
Does Russia really need that many designated cinema shooters? Seems a bit uncalled for
>spending more than 2x the movie budget on other shit alone
i don't think you quite understand what is in the movie budget
by that logic, BvS would have needed 833 million to break even and would have made just 39 million profit
>Weird math.
Not weird at all. The studio get 50% of domestic and 30% of international box office. That's how much money they actually get. Thus 400million adds up.
Not during opening weekend. They usually get like 90-95%.
nevermind then, didn't account for that my bad
Should be $300mil to break even for a $120mil budget movie. The standard formula is that it takes 2.5x the production budget in gross to break even.
they wanted a franchise
they got a lukewarm fart of a reception
You cannot really "cash" them.
They are like a store specific funny money or "bonus points".
But once you have enough of them that one dyke will give you some attention for sure.
Feig said it needed to make at least $500 million at the box office to break even, I'll believe him ahead of you contrarian faggots.
>implying """"progress"""" isn't more important than profit.
>Not during opening weekend. They usually get like 90-95%.
That's the old rules. Cinemas ended up bankrupt because of it. So now the rules are pure percentage taking, generally 50/50.
Hysterical
Fuck man, I've been saving up for that for over a decade and she still won't talk to me, guess it's time to ask /biz/ how to diversify my ethics shares
I think he's exaggerating. It probably needs ~350 million to break even. 500 million is probably what is needed to make investors happy and to green light the whole cinematic universe thing.
>guy who made the movie said $500m
>anonymous forums user says no $350 "probably" with nothing to back this
Oh okay so we're just posting bullshit now good to know.
>America the biggest world power.
Standard is 2-2.5x budget to break even. 2.5x 140m = 350m.
How bout this?
...
Full house.
But the budget wasn't 140m. It was 144m without advertising. With advertising, people are saying it's 250m (a conservative estimate).
250m * 2.5 = 625m
So it hasn't even made a fifth of its money back, and will probably not even make half of its money back.
Pardon: it has made a fifth of its money back.
The 2x-2.5x production budget thing is to account for the marketing budget as well.
It's Shang Tsung from Mortal Kombat starring in shit-tier russian movie.
>€14.50
Goddamn. Finland cinema is expensive.
Then it's a shitty, wrong formula you have there, because studios spend different amounts of money on marketing.
>But the budget wasn't 140m. It was 144m without advertising. With advertising, people are saying it's 250m
That's not how the calculation works, dumbass.
If progress is not profitable, it won't get funding.
If we had a based mod/janny the Feig 500 million comment would be sticked on Sup Forums through summer to finally kill off these shill threads.
>That's not how the calculation works, dumbass.
See Debunked.
Maybe, just maybe, that's why it says 2-2.5 and not a precise number.
That's actually exactly how it works. Advertising is a part of a film's budget. Excluding it makes no sense because it's money spent on the movie same as paying an actor to do a role.
>doesn't understand the concept of an estimate based on the production budget, which is always the most readily-available information about the money that is spent on a movie
You are autistic.
Still makes no sense. A movie could have spent $0 on advertising, but it'd still need to make x2? And then a movie that spent twice its budget on advertising needs to make x2.5?
No. The 2-2.5x is to factor for theaters taking a cut on ticket sales. Advertising isn't factored in and has to be counted as a part of the budget (it's money spent on the film). It's not a precise number because different markets take a bigger/smaller cut (like China usually takes a bigger cut on ticket sales than the US).
It's got its own budget allocation though, it's not part of the production budget which is the cost they always cite
You don't understand. Take a break. Think about it. Come back when you realize you're wrong.
Goddamn everything is expensive over here.
Except calls and internet.
You yankbros should see our gas prices.
You'd die of a heart attack.
Then you don't know who funds progress.
This shit will be flop in Russia. Sure, many plebs here love low-tier humor, but can't tolerate sjw-shit. Nostalgia will not help either since everyone who remember real ghostbusters know how to use internet and know how shitty new ones are. We tired to save Warcraft as much as we could. And we'll not help this shit to get money. That's two times when I saw that USA has shit taste, but our country don't.
Russians will just pirate it. And you forget how Hollywood Accounting works. 140million doesn't include marketting
million box office against a budget of 140 million
They need 450-500 million box office to break even. Thanks God is a huge flop.
pretty sure they're just trolls m8, why waste money on a doomed project? even the ones who did it for free know it's a lost cause and are trying to forget it.
It isn't production budget x 2 to 2.5.
It's budget x 2 to 2.5. That means production budget, advertising budget, and any other money spent on the film.
>That's actually exactly how it works. Advertising is a part of a film's budget. Excluding it makes no sense because it's money spent on the movie same as paying an actor to do a role.
Nope. What you got to understand is that studios don't like to tell anyone about any film's budget. And that they are basically forced to disclose it against their will for whatever trading or commercial reason. However, what happens is that they don't legally have to disclose the advertising budget, which is why they always leave it out. We have to guess the advertising budget because the studio doesn't want to tell us.
>Nope.
Yup.
Do you think the advertising money was just make-believe? It was real money. They have to make that money back.
It won't be enough to justify a franchise which is what Sony desperately wanted.
>thinks they get 100% of the ticket sales
my sides
Paul Feig said the movie needs $500M
No, you see, that's not true, because math I made up. I'm the expert here.
>Finnkino
Feig is a moron though, and there's empirical evidence to support that.
Everywhere I've seen says that 2.5x production budget, because you double it to account for advertising, and that extra .5x is for cinema taking their share.
>Do you think the advertising money was just make-believe? It was real money. They have to make that money back.
I am just saying that the advertising money is separet and unknown, I agree that the film is losing money.
>my sides
I am on your side, mate.
Paul Feig said it needs to make $500 million to break even.
Probably needs to make closer to $600 million to break even, but who knows.
And who cares? Either way, it's a flop.
See
All though theres no use cap for internet. Everythings expensive as fuck.
Like others, there's no accounting for the advertising budget, which conviently makes it closer to getting profitable.
Regardless, Sony wants this to be a franchise, because they want the gravy train success of the MCU. They even had the head of distribution say it's pretty much greenlit a sequel.
I mean the producers etc, can always fall back on the "It didn't make money cause sexism".
You need to read more carefully.
Wut? You serious?
>I am on your side, mate.
My sides are in space from laughing at you.
>My sides are in space from laughing at you.
I am aware of the box office division between the cinema and the studio. I was just talking about why the advertising budget is deliberately hidden.
If every movie with a 140m budget needs 500m to break even, then a lot of movies are flops.
>If every movie with a 140m budget needs 500m to break even, then a lot of movies are flops.
Yes. That is exactly correct. Most expensive movies fail, and a few major hits a year is what keeps the lights on. Cheaper films have higher sucess rates.
So you're assuming that the theaters show these movies for free?
They get 50% of the takings, the other 50% goes to the theater that shows it. Also they had a 100mill advertising budget.
It's made 70million on a budget of 230 million and it's been banned in the 2nd biggest region in the world.
For all their bullshit, there is no way in hell they will make a sequel.
They spent more than $140m on it is the thing. $140m was just the reported production budget, or in other words, total bullshit.
Most movies don't make the bizarre decision to market their shit at NBA after making this bullshit all about women or something, I'd really like to get the recordings of those meetings
How do we save Paul Feig from movie jail, lads?
>If every movie with a 140m budget and ridiculous ad campaigns with giant parade float balloons and NBA stars shilling for the movie needs 500m to break even, then a lot of movies are flops
No, just one.