158 mil

>158 mil

apologize.

Other urls found in this thread:

boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=godsofegypt.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It has to make $400m to break even.

>certain replies: the thread
needs $275m to break even and thats a best case scenario.

>apologize

apologize

It needs $600 million to break even dude, stop shitposting

Justice for Harembe

only 342 million to go!

It needs $900 million to break even m8

Needs 250 at the minimum (150+100 in publicity), but it only makes about half of the profits it's grossing. So it needs 500m, like Feig said.

This needs to make 1.1 billion to just break even

>source for the 100m marketing expense : their asses

Feig himself, smartass.

It made its production budget back after just 3 weeks! Babymen BTFO!

Only losing to blockbusters such as Lights Out, Bad Moms and the critically acclaimed new Ice Age movie.

>Sony still hasn't made back it's production costs

You have no idea how expensive a major marketing campaign is, do you?

>implying Feig wans't just talking out of his ass
if a 144 mil movie needed 500 mil to break even, noone would do movies anymore.

well that settles it

Then why are movies like the new Ice Age, TNMT 2, Independence Day or Tarzan universally considered huge flops? If Ghostbusters 2016 was a success, then those movies were smash hits.

How the balls did this cost so much to make? What the fuck did they DO with all that money

500 doesn't sound unreasonable at all.

144 for making it, 100 at least for marketing, 50% of box office take.

So 500 mil worldwide sounds completely normal.

Sony were contacted by Variety about it, and they said 300 mil domestic is enough for break even.

Kek.

It's no one, not noone.

Deadpool made 800m. So did GotG. They're both franchises that normies didn't know much about.

Well known franchises make more. Spectre made more than 800m.

Little movies like The Conjuring cost 20m and make more than 300m.

I included interest payments for the $275m

new Ice Age isn't a real flop. They barely marketed it stateside because it's an international picture. Helped make it the most successful animated franchise of all time.

TMNT 2, Tarzan and ID4:2 were flops though. Sad.

they removed the gender pay gap

>all the virgins prematurely celebrating its failure

Pathetic. Look who's laughing now

It's really not much at all.

You've got a cast where at least one of the leads is pulling down 20 mil. Other lead is probably in the multiple of millions. Director is expensive.

Production costs for a large special effects feature like this only being 100 mil or so isn't much at all.

The real question is how do films like Hardcore Henry only cost 2 million to make?

Or why would someone drop 60 million on The Nice Guys?

150 mil for a Ghosbusters film sounds perfectly reasonable. Until you hear what they actually want to do with it, of course.

Think about a film like Town And Country.

That cost 100 million to make in the 90's.

It has no special effects. No large locations or even really major stars. It's just old people in a small town talking.

I read that there was a lot of reshoots because the finished scenes (pre-cgi) didn't look good enough. It's not even the acting, it's the cinematography.

But I have no sources, it' sjust something I read a few months ago.

Pretty sure it's not going to rebound anytime soon friendo.

Movies with a 150 million budget usually do make 500+.

underrated post

They shot a multi million dollar large dance number on an out door location with a large amount of special effects. Feig cut it out of the movie because the audiences thought it was retarded.

So it's a massive flop

they need to cover marketing and distribution still

also, when they go do a late night show, who do you think pays for their flight?

>ice age isn't a real flop

Like hell it isn't. It'll have to make a shitload more than that overseas to make money.

>barely out 2 weeks
>already made more than its production budget

Come on pal, the movie's far from a flop

The Lone Ranger made it's production cost back, it's still concidered a huge flop.

>already out 2 weeks
>only made barely more than it's production budget

ftfy

Who considers it a flop? Also that's a really specific example

not every movie is a Disney guaranteedcash-cow

If a movie doesn't make back CONSIDERABLY MORE than it's production + marketing budget, it is a flop.

Also, did you forget the exhibitor cut?

You can cut 40% from that 158 million, that's how much the studio has actually made.

Tarzan, Independence Day 2, the new Ice Age, Fant4stic, those movies are all considered flops.

I'm not sure what your argument is right now. Are you saying flops don't exist and every single movie that tanked in recent memory was actually a moderate success?

Ghostbusters should be tho, it is a pretty popular name.

You can probably take more than that. Studios get more domestic take than Sup Forums thinks and less foreign. Both together average around 50% but it's not the same. 70D/30F is closer, but it changes week to week.

Films have to make a fuck ton in foreign to make up for failing domestically.

JUST WAIT TILL SONY RELEASES THE ULTIMATE CUT
YOU'LL SEE

INSTANT DOLLARYDOOS

Im sorry
.
.
.
that the movie got made

The fucking Jews are buying tickets!!!!

>Out three weeks

>has basically earned as much as it cost to make

>Still has to double that at least to even come close to breaking even

It's a fucking summer tent pole movie called Ghosbusters that isn't going to make a profit.

How is that not a disaster?

The Ice Age films do about 80% of their business overseas.

That's the point.

The last two films earned a tiny amount domestically compared to their overseas hauls. They aren't even making them for the American market anymore.

>Made the production budget
Except it gets about half of the figure you're stating. So the final number needs to be twice the production budget, plus there is the marketing budget...

And man, onl 50m in foreign is a huge flop, the only reason it even got to 150 is that americans seem to be retarded.

>T. Faget who knows nothing about Hollywood

i hate planet earth

> It'll have to make a shitload more than that overseas to make money.

>~144 million production budget
>~at least 100 million marketing budget
> Studio gets ~50% of the ticket money in USA,40% or less foreign.
> No china
> Feig himself said the movie needed at least 500 million to be considered a success.

Is this franchise ded enough or will sony keep pushing this?

Disregard everyone in this thread.

But if you think turnover equates income after expenses you are delusional.

You don't have to make 4 times the budet as retards here suggests, twice is a must however.

>Is this franchise ded enough or will sony keep pushing this?

Ask Spider-Man, he'll have your answer.

I guess you know more than the guy who actually make the movie.

You're so cool, Brewster!

S-Spider-Man

You wrote it like it should be written... my mind... my soul... I can't take it. The joy. THE JOY!

I love you, mang. No homo.

Ah fuck it, I'm feeling a little bit homo right now.

In general. Sony went fucking all out with promotion on this one however: a new video game, toys/clothes/etc, sponsored content in news, online shilling, paying reviewers.

I'm glad they are losing huge amounts of money, hope Feig dies and Sony film declares bankruptcy

>Ask Spider-Man, he'll have your answer.

you mean they will give the movie to marvel?

>needs 400 million just to break even

What the fuck is wrong with Hollywood these days? How is their model even sustainable right now?

I swear the amount of batshit retarded spending they do makes me feel like these studios are just massive fronts for money laundering.

The longer it stays in cinemas, the bigger the profit share the cinema gets, so yeah it's fucked.

remember that officialy no film is ever profitable

Homecoming is still part of the Sony family.

Produced by Kevin Feige and Amy Pascal (Sony)

Distributed by Sony

It's just a matter of months before Sony goes bankrupt and Disney buys them.

HEY FUCKER
you don't talk shit about pearly blue
It's the people

Why?

Even if it makes back it's production cost it still doesn't warrant a sequel

Not only that but the movie was meant to be a tent pole for the franchise.

It's dead jim

>$275m
why 275?

it needs 6billion dead jews to break even

I know a guy for that

>Feig himself said the movie needed at least 500 million to be considered a success
Yes because only if you triple the budget in revenue, a movies is considered a success.

The year is not closed, lets not forget that after 2 or so years it'll get tv distribution which means a lot of cash.

>$144m budget
>$100m marketing
>standard 3.5% interest over 3 years from start of production to release because these hollywood jews dont use their own money to fund their movies
>works out at $8.5m every year so $25.5m over 3 years
thats $269.5m. $275m was estimating

>$100m marketing
I don't think so?
Sauce the figure.link?

People like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg believe it's not sustainable.

But look at it like this - Disney spends 150-200 on average with their Marvel flicks, and they bank about 500 to a Billion on average.

Same with their Pixar shit.

That's why Hollywood is so unoriginal. When you're spending that much money, you want what is a relatively safe bet. That's why in the next 2-3 years expect nothing but Animated Children's Films and Capeshit for the summer slate.

Also, all of this stuff is speculative.

So, yeah, Ghostbusters probably needs to make 500 million to be a success, but each film has so many different variables that you never really know if it's a hit or not.

Something like American Hustle cost Sony 40 million odd to produce. Made 250 worldwide.

They made a pittance in profit from it. Something retarded like 20 million.

Meanwhile This Is The End cost them like 30 million to make, made about 150 mil at the box office, and they netted themselves 75 mil.

Different deals, different results.

But yeah, Spielberg and Lucas gave a long talk on this and basically said large budget creative cinema was all but dead, and that studios that kept in that business were going to bankrupt themselves.

That it was basically moving to TV.

See stuff like Stranger Things - An Amblin homage that is basically an internet show now.

100m would be conservative.

One of the rags like Variety had the budget that Sony gave them. I'll google it.

Not that guy btw.

Well international marketing is a whole new thing.

They have to pay foreign ad consultant s to abide by rules of said country and to focus the marketing to the highest earning potential.

Like Japan won't go watch 4 American women fighting ghost but if you show more of an aloof Thor fucking up cops you might have a better chance

GB16 Related Thread:

As far as I know budget includes all cost.

Variety says "at least 100 million" according to Sony.

And that it needs to do at least 300 million to break even.

Sauce it up son!AAAAight?!

Well, you are wrong. The budget listed for a movie is the production budget. I.E. what it cost to PRODUCE. That includes everything but the marketing.

it can be anywhere upto the same figure as the production budget, but its an estimate eitherway. Im no expert, just basing it on stuff that has been leaked i.e. pic related

Any end product includes all cost before sale including marketing.

No.

Budget is just production budget.

Marketing budgets are no longer disclosed.

The MPAA used to list both product and separately "print and ads".

Now marketing budgets are no longer released. They are usually two thirds of the film's production on big summer flicks. But apparently they've been creeping up to match production budgets because of global launches.

Then there are films like those produced by Blumhouse or Screen Gems - These movies cost anywhere from 1 million to 20 million (Something like Insidious which was 1 million up to something like the Evil Dead remake which was like 17 million) and they spend basically a flat 15-20 every time.

Blumhouse himself produces a big raft of films every year, and then they test which ones will play the best, and spend the 15-20 million on their cinema release and marketing and the rest get dumped straight to netflix or video.

So, in those cases, the marketing way outstrips the budgets.

Sony Pictures Entertainment is just an enormous tax scam designed to make significant losses which can be written off as a tax break for Sony.

There's simply no way the people running it could actually be trying to make money. It's just not possible.

Not when it comes to movies. Distribution and Marketing are separate costs (often because Distribution, Marketing and Production are unrelated and often handled by different companies).

nice one

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be sarcasm because what you said is 100% correct.

Exactly how many times does it need to be explained that 144+100 marketing =244 million and if they only get 50% of ticket sales then the gross needs to be +$500 million before it turns a profit?

Once again, you are wrong. Stop flailing around your stupidity and ignorance and just fucking google it. Production budget = how much a movie cost to PRODUCE. Marketing budget is completely independent from that number, but on average the size of 50% of the production budget.

they don't include that bullshit or DVD in the gross profit

> 100 publicity
> marketing engine has been running for two years.

Closer to 300 and nobody is factoring in how much the rights cost them along with the golden parachutes for all the living owners, one of which thought a sequel was still viable as recent as 06. It's debatable Murray still had a share but considering he was forced into advertising as well he probably did.

Hell we might see a sequel anyways because at this point this film was just a drop in the bucket.

Well I hope this movie crashes and burns cause it's a pile of shit.
Check out this train crash:boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=godsofegypt.htm

distribution fee wont be 50%. the harry potter p&l sheet above has it around 35% so right now for Ghostbusters its at $55m

which means its $400m to make a profit lol

I thought it was $500.

You have like 4 lead actress and Chris Hemsworth. And all the original cast that didn't do it for free

It's a $144 million movie. It already did. It's now time for the marketing budget and the theater cut before it goes to make profits.

>by hollywood accounting no film is ever profitable
>Sony/SJW so desperate, GB16 would be the first ever officially profitable film in hollywood history.

$400m is right

666million to turn a profit

>the director who has a vested interest in making money doesn't know how much is needed to make money

???

A bit half of the gross goes to the cinemas, so no, it hasn't made it's money back yet.

Sooo. Will the articles come forth soon, and the interviews from the few same people around this cancer, about how fucked the production, PR, and marketing was for all of this.

Seriously, this disaster has a more interesting idea as a movie than the movie itself. Ironically, a mid range comedy about how much of a fuck up ghostbusters was might gross more than the actual reboot, because there are so many ways to ring humor out of all the stupid decisions that were made and all the drama that happened. Fieg and jones are already fucking comedic caricatures for god's sake.

>A bit half of the gross goes to the cinemas

Did you miss the part where I posted
>It's now time for the marketing budget and the theater cut before it goes to make profits.
>theater cut

I already acknowledged that point. Retard please.