>Confronted by tepid box office for the reboot, the studio will instead focus on animated spinoffs.
>As of Aug. 7, Ghostbusters had earned just under $180 million at the global box office, including $117 million domestic. The film still hasn't opened in a few markets, including France, Japan and Mexico, but box-office experts say it will have trouble getting to $225 million despite a hefty net production budget of $144 million plus a big marketing spend. The studio has said break-even would be $300 million.
>"This loss calculation is way off," says the Sony rep. "With multiple revenue streams, including consumer products, gaming, location-based entertainment, continued international rollout, and huge third-party promotional partnerships that mitigated costs, the bottom line, even before co-financing, is not remotely close to that number."
>"With multiple revenue streams, including consumer products, gaming,
>Three days after releasing the new Ghostbusters game, development studio Fireforge Games filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, Kotaku has learned. The company has been liquidating assets throughout July in an attempt to pay off a debt of at least $12 million, according to bankruptcy filings.
>Fireforge, not to be confused with a tabletop company with the same name, may only be known for the recent Ghostbusters game, which was received terribly when it was released alongside the movie on July 12. One possible explanation: The game was developed in just eight months, according to one person who worked on it. On July 15, the company filed for bankruptcy.
Brody Diaz
>tfw Suicide Squad not only BTFOs MCUcks but SJWs as well.
Aaron Cook
>kotaku
Sebastian Scott
i think there was a screenshot not too long ago of steam statistics that showed that only 16 people actually bought that ghostbusters game
Tyler Rodriguez
>only 16 people actually bought that ghostbusters game
only 16 people? for real?
Bentley King
My favorite part is that they cite increased rentals of the original as a sign of their success with the remake.
Also;
>They're STILL going to make Slimer: Ghostbusters Origins
Ffffuuuuu
Hudson Perry
Now that's a bit misleading, the game had an active players peak of 16. That means as many as like, 50 people could have bought it!!!
Jace Williams
just checked, the stats have not changed.
Brayden Allen
Feels good tbqh family.
Evan Torres
>2016 >still making movies about ghosts >98% millennials are atheist or agnostic >paranormal activity movies going straight to video
>2016 >still making biblical films >Christian conservatives don't support Liberalwood, only Mel Gibson >Goywood doesn't ask to direct Ben-Hur fucking Hollywood, man
James Phillips
Did we need another one?
Lincoln Russell
>Movie tie-ins Have they ever been successful outside of the Lego games?
They all seem to be some D-grade shit that fails miserably, and now Fireforge is going down for not looking at past failures.
They don't WANT the company to recover from its death-spiral.
Tyler Gomez
Has Sony Given Up on a Ghostbusters Sequel, or Has Entertainment Media?
>It seems as though some people are determined to paint Ghostbusters as this huge, embarrassing failure no matter what anyone says.
>The Hollywood Reporter posted an article today that discusses Ghostbusters‘ potential $70 Million loss. The headline? “Ghostbusters Heading for $70M-Plus Loss, Sequel Unlikely.” Kinda sounds like a decision has been made, huh? Except it hasn’t, certainly not by Sony.
>n fact, within the body of the article it reports that Sony has made no such decision either way, but weirdly connects that to its other Ghostbusters plans in order to draw conclusions.
>Now, we’ve known about this upcoming Ghostbusters animated film since the end of 2015, and reported on the film finding a director in March of this year. Yet, with the sly phrase “perhaps tellingly,” this article presents its existence, as well as the existence of Ghost Corps. as a direct result of Ghostbusters’ box office. Ghostbusters was also a Ghost Corps. project! And yet, if you were to read this with no other information or context, you’d think that Ivan Reitman had nothing to do with Ghostbusters as a film, and created Ghost Corps. as a response to its failure.
>What’s “telling” is the unnecessary dig at Amy Pascal, separating Reitman and Rothman from her as if Reitman didn’t also produce this movie. Why did that need mentioning? Oh right, because we want to make sure that people know that it was the woman in the equation who thought this movie was a good idea, and let’s all remember she’s not working there anymore. What’s frustrating is that a female writer wrote this piece.
>I wonder if Spider-Man: Homecoming, also being produced by Pascal, will be credited to her if it succeeds, or blamed on her if it fails.
Julian Sanders
>The piece then proceeds to quote veteran box-office analyst, Jeff Bock, about the chances of a Ghostbusters‘ sequel. He says, “Ghostbusters is on ice until further notice. I just can’t fathom the creative talents behind it — Feig, McCarthy, Wiig, etc. — slogging out another one when the reception to the first one was so mediocre.”
>Was it, though? Ghostbusters was #2 at the box office its opening weekend, according to Box Office Mojo, which obviously isn’t #1…but is #2 “mediocre?” Is a mostly positive critical response mediocre? It seems that if Ghostbusters wasn’t perfect from the second it appeared in theaters, it would be branded a flop, talked about as if it were a flop, no matter what was actually happening.
>And, of course, reportage like this affects the way audiences see movies. After all, why would someone go see a movie lots of people are already talking about in terms of inevitable failure. Self-fulfilling prophecy. If you call something unsuccessful long enough, it eventually becomes that. Those are the words people remember.
>Meanwhile, Sony is doing their best to reverse that conversation. A rep for the studio said to THR, “This [$70 Million] loss calculation is way off. With multiple revenue streams, including consumer products, gaming, location-based entertainment, continued international rollout, and huge third-party promotional partnerships that mitigated costs, the bottom line, even before co-financing, is not remotely close to that number.”
Cooper Edwards
>I’m not trying to argue that Ghostbusters is more successful than it is. It could be doing a lot better right now. What concerns me is the way that the film is discussed and reported on, the way that male-centric films get to fail without much comment (see the “Sony hardly is alone in suffering from audience rejection of sequels this summer. But…” qualifier in the THR piece), whereas this film that audiences and critics actually like, this film that’s still in theaters, this film that has already made back its budget, is being talked about like a harbinger of doom for Sony.
>As for whether or not it gets a sequel, I suppose we’ll have to wait and see. Though, just for funsies, I decided to compare Ghostbusters (1984) with Ghostbusters (2016). Ghostbusters (1984) had a $30 Million budget, which adjusted for inflation comes out to a $69,597,112.61 budget in today’s money. Ghostbusters (2016) had a $144 Million budget, so this film breaking even was already going to be more of a challenge. Ghostbusters (2016) also made more in their opening weekend than their 1980s counterpart, pulling in $46,018,755 compared to Ghostbusters (1984)’s $13,578,151 (which is $31,500,003.47 today).
>I bring these numbers up, because yes, Ghostbusters (1984) went on to make more than the current reboot is likely to. However, I think that has a lot to do with 1) Budgets and spending being overblown and ridiculous right now, and 2) the way people were ready to receive it, sight unseen. As nice as it would be to clearly and cleanly make this solely about numbers, the fact is that systemic, institutionalized sexism plays a part in all of this. It plays a role in how the entertainment press talks about a film leading up to it. It plays a part in the way films are analyzed. It plays a part in what we deem “mediocre,” versus the films that we think deserve “a chance.” Ultimately, it plays a part in what audiences are willing to go see.
Caleb Ortiz
>Ghostbusters (1984) got a sequel because it made money, despite it relying on lazy, sexist humor and taking away any substance its one black actor could’ve had. I’d like to think that, in 2016, Ghostbusters (2016) will get a sequel because it wasn’t sexist, despite not making as much money. One can dream.
>And until Sony officially announces something one way or the other, I’m not going to assume it’s not happening.
Keep crying misoginerds
Benjamin Thomas
>One possible explanation: The game was developed in just eight months, according to one person who worked on it.
What? No one bought it because no one cares. It has nothing to do with the quality.
That Ghostbusters game from like 2007 that was basically just Ghostbusters 3 also didn't sell well, even though most people liked it.
>T-they didn't say they won't do another >I can't believe a woman wrote the HR article >S-s-stop blaming Pascal >Original Ghostbusters was sexist >They should do another one despite losses because muh feminism >Sexist companies only care about money
Cooper Jackson
This is so cancerous
Noah Bailey
Typing up a proper line by line rebuttal of this would involve far more effort than it would be worth but suffice to say I lolled
Joseph Moore
>What concerns me is the way that the film is discussed and reported on, the way that male-centric films get to fail without much comment because this movie gimmick (reported constantly on radio, online, in magazines and on tv before its release) was that it was film headed by women, with the expectation that it was going to join in breaking hollywood glass ceiling, and that it was a very special, important social-issue oriented movie that started start conversations.
I wonder if they're tired of being on the wrong side of history
Hudson Lee
They'll learn soon enough
Christian Cruz
Yoxgkzgkzg
Jose Reed
I like how their math is still fucked, they work out sony needing 300m to break even then call 230m gross a 70m loss as if theaters didn't get a cut.
Robert Bell
>Ghostbusters was #2 at the box office its opening weekend, according to Box Office Mojo, which obviously isn’t #1…but is #2 “mediocre? Kind of when the only competition it had was a third rate cartoon that had already been out for a week and a bunch of January tier garbage.
If it took #2 against Bourne or Suicide Squad, you could have an argument, but it lost to Secret life of Pets
Isaac Cook
Damn right it does.
Andrew Lewis
There is not a single person reading that site that isn't there to schlick to it or rage over how stupid it is.
Isaiah Perez
>Sony gets the reviews >WB gets the money >MCU still gets more of both
