[QUOTE=AaronM202;50818546]No, actually, thats probably what it needs to break even and begin turning a profit.
You'd need to just about double the budget for this movie based on its total budget to make it back, which would be around 488-500 million.[/QUOTE]
They may need to make $500m to be profitable, but that's not what Feig said - at least the way I read it. When Feig says "A movie like this needs to make $500m, and that's probably low" he's not talking about breaking even, because a movie needs to do more than break even.
Maybe the $500m only includes a very modest profit, but I doubt it's for simply breaking even.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50820800]They may need to make $500m to be profitable, but that's not what Feig said - at least the way I read it. When Feig says "A movie like this needs to make $500m, and that's probably low" he's not talking about breaking even, because a movie needs to do more than break even.
Maybe the $500m only includes a very modest profit, but I doubt it's for simply breaking even.[/QUOTE]
Either way the film would need to score just about 500 million to break even, so his comment corroborates it in either meaning.
[editline]3rd August 2016[/editline]
Chalk it up to Feig being an ambiguous idiot.
And Sony being idiots.
Fucking Melissa McCarthy was almost 10% of the fucking production budget.
Yeah, pretty much how I thought it would be since those articles started popping up, Sony used the whole feminist angle as a marketing ploy to guilt people into supporting the movie when the sole feminist thing about the movie is that the cast is all women and it is otherwise pandering and unfunny.
The sad part about it, is that there will likely not be another Ghostbusters movie, ever. Good job Paul Feig, you have killed the franchise for good.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;50820911]Yeah, pretty much how I thought it would be since those articles started popping up, Sony used the whole feminist angle as a marketing ploy to guilt people into supporting the movie when the sole feminist thing about the movie is that the cast is all women and it is otherwise pandering and unfunny.
The sad part about it, is that there will likely not be another Ghostbusters movie, ever. Good job Paul Feig, you have killed the franchise for good.[/QUOTE]
Maybe its for the best, not like it would've been the same without Ramis anyway.
Granted, the only reason Ghostbusters 3 never happened is because Amy Pascal and Sony were being huge cunts and continuously cockblocking Ivan and Ramis until Ramis fucking died.
People are dumb, in other news water is wet
In retrospect it's pretty obvious that it was going to bomb. It feels like a company just looked at today's issues, noticed that people get offended more these days, and thought they could sell a movie by manufacturing controversy.
I think it's almost certain they knew going with an all-female cast would cause a controversy and did it specifically to cause that controversy so they could cry sexist and get people to take up arms for the movie and go see it to support it, thinking that would carry them. They wanted people to respond to it with sexist shit, so they could blow it up to massive proportions and get them the headlines they wanted, and it worked magnificently.
Unfortunately, a shitty movie is a shitty movie, people could tell it was a shitty movie, the vast majority of people took issue with it because it was shit not because women, and a persecution complex isn't really a good advertising scheme I don't think. They stirred the controversy they wanted but it didn't do what it needed to. I think the most interesting part is wondering whether the people involved will stop playing up the (minor) sexism thing or continue their self-affirming circlejerk where they can tell each other it's just because sexists. I'm just glad the movie bombed so it didn't reinforce all of that on a massive scale.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;50821406]In retrospect it's pretty obvious that it was going to bomb. It feels like a company just looked at today's issues, noticed that people get offended more these days, and thought they could sell a movie by manufacturing controversy.
I think it's almost certain they knew going with an all-female cast would cause a controversy and did it specifically to cause that controversy so they could cry sexist and get people to take up arms for the movie and go see it to support it, thinking that would carry them. They wanted people to respond to it with sexist shit, so they could blow it up to massive proportions and get them the headlines they wanted, and it worked magnificently.
Unfortunately, a shitty movie is a shitty movie, people could tell it was a shitty movie, the vast majority of people took issue with it because it was shit not because women, and a persecution complex isn't really a good advertising scheme I don't think. They stirred the controversy they wanted but it didn't do what it needed to. I think the most interesting part is wondering whether the people involved will stop playing up the (minor) sexism thing or continue their self-affirming circlejerk where they can tell each other it's just because sexists. I'm just glad the movie bombed so it didn't reinforce all of that on a massive scale.[/QUOTE]
That's what happens when a studio in a slump gets really desperate for a hit
[editline]3rd August 2016[/editline]
And the producer is a crazed turbo-feminist (?)
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;50821406]In retrospect it's pretty obvious that it was going to bomb. It feels like a company just looked at today's issues, noticed that people get offended more these days, and thought they could sell a movie by manufacturing controversy.
I think it's almost certain they knew going with an all-female cast would cause a controversy and did it specifically to cause that controversy so they could cry sexist and get people to take up arms for the movie and go see it to support it, thinking that would carry them. They wanted people to respond to it with sexist shit, so they could blow it up to massive proportions and get them the headlines they wanted, and it worked magnificently.
Unfortunately, a shitty movie is a shitty movie, people could tell it was a shitty movie, the vast majority of people took issue with it because it was shit not because women, and a persecution complex isn't really a good advertising scheme I don't think. They stirred the controversy they wanted but it didn't do what it needed to. I think the most interesting part is wondering whether the people involved will stop playing up the (minor) sexism thing or continue their self-affirming circlejerk where they can tell each other it's just because sexists. I'm just glad the movie bombed so it didn't reinforce all of that on a massive scale.[/QUOTE]
I think it's less so that Sony saw this off the bat and decided to make and sell a movie using these tactics, and more so that when the trailer for it came out and they saw that everyone hated it, they attempted to distract from it's shitness by calling out those that didn't like what they saw as sexist manchildren.
Sony's movie section is made of opportunistic hyenas who only see trending topics as potential cash cows and often fail spectacularly in their estimates because they overestimate the niches they try to appeal to and underestimate word of mouth.
See how After Earth crumbled domestically within days of release because the few people unlucky enough to see the movie on day one immediately went around and told everyone how garbage it was, causing the movie to lose all traction within the US and not even make half of its budget (marketing costs notwithstanding).
Sony Pictures is hemorrhaging money and if we're lucky they'll go out of business in the next couple of years.
[QUOTE=Flubbman;50818245]I don't know very much about how this stuff works, how is it a bomb if it made more than its budget back and counting?
[IMG]http://puu.sh/qnDAo/242d56114f.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Sony wanted a big profit though, and it barely made it above the production budget. Who knows what the marketing budget was, but definitely not a success in Sony's eyes.
[QUOTE=Revan564;50825073]Sony wanted a big profit though, and it barely made it above the production budget. Who knows what the marketing budget was, but definitely not a success in Sony's eyes.[/QUOTE]
Psst.
No it didnt.
Not even close.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50824867]Sony Pictures is hemorrhaging money and if we're lucky they'll go out of business in the next couple of years.[/QUOTE]
honestly doubt it. sony has so much invested in a ton of other places (tvs, games, home audio, the list goes on) and unless this big box office bomb happened every 2 films, they'll be fine. plus, sony owns a metric fuckton of studios. I should also note that Columbia is actually the studio who owns the ghostbusters movie and paul blart and all that, sony just oversees it. sony as a whole can do good, columbia's just been shitting the bed lately (they'll still make billions of dollars to come, they own too many properties not to.) blame them.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/EEhiAbC.png[/t]
Do you think this will have any sort of knock-on effect in the industry? Or will it just be somethng swept under the rug with no lessons learned?
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;50825729]honestly doubt it. sony has so much invested in a ton of other places (tvs, games, home audio, the list goes on) and unless this big box office bomb happened every 2 films, they'll be fine. plus, sony owns a metric fuckton of studios. I should also note that Columbia is actually the studio who owns the ghostbusters movie and paul blart and all that, sony just oversees it. sony as a whole can do good, columbia's just been shitting the bed lately (they'll still make billions of dollars to come, they own too many properties not to.) blame them.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/EEhiAbC.png[/t][/QUOTE]
I said Sony Pictures.
They're the laughing stock of all of Sony's divisions, to the point where Sony of Japan had to step in with the Spider-Man deal because they were so fucking stupid (at one point after TASM2 they tried to sell Spider-Man in full for 5 billion dollars AND in exchange for the rights to Thor).
With how much money they're bleeding from the company that they never see again, i wouldnt doubt if the movie division is shrunk in the next few years and eventually, for all intents and purposes, ceases function if (when) it continues down this path of failure.
[editline]4th August 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;50825875]Do you think this will have any sort of knock-on effect in the industry? Or will it just be somethng swept under the rug with no lessons learned?[/QUOTE]
Execs listen when money is involved, so it might actually, yeah.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
