Support NeoGAF

[Trokil]

Well what did they expect? They made a movie for an audience that only exists in the fantasy of some people. While there is an audience for pretty bad action movies see Suicide Squad or Batman v Superman you have to play the right cords to attract them. If you are not, well your movie makes no money. And because in the end it is all about the money, that is all that matters.

But Hollywood will look close to this and WB will cater their fanbase like crazy for the Wonder Woman movie, because if that 200 million plus movie fails, it will be bad for them.

 

[Count Dookkake]

From what I remember of the RE films, despite the obvious ways in which they appeal to men, this is actually a good example of films that are defined by their female lead. It's one series though, and one whose success doesn't feel to me like it's opened many doors for other similar examples and on its own doesn't normalise the ethos it embodies; that's the real problem, more than a literal absence of any examples.

I wouldn't have brought it up if it wasn't a good example. Yes, it's only one series, but so is Ghostbusters. As for whether its success will open doors, who knows? However, I'm not sure how many doors will be opened by the failure of Ghostbusters.

 

[TatteredHat]

I haven't followed much about this movie aside from the controversies surrounding it, and I haven't seen it either, but I can only assume that they made some pretty big misjudgements when it came figuring out which audiences were actually interested in seeing it.

Or it could just be a bad movie in general, it happens.

 

[TBiddy]

No they aren't. Women are usually passive, helpless objects of desire. Men are usually active, powerful, heroic characters.

Yes you see a lot of topless guys in action movies.

No that alone doesn't make them sexualized.

Putting a woman in a tight outfit also doesn't make her sexualized, per default, then. Right?

 

[dumbo]

I know that you're trying to sound Not Sexist, but you sound sexist.
Ghostbusters shouldn't be women because gender isn't the point? Then why should they be all men?
You're assuming that the only reason gender-swapping occurs is to "make a point" or to "make the movie fresh". Which is stupid. There's no indication that Ghostbusters was made with all women for either of those theories.
It's ridiculous that is even an initial thought.

I have no problem with 'gender swapping'. But, there's no point in making 'Jane Bond' unless you've got a great film for that character... the main character's gender/race doesn't make a movie. So you end up with the "female lead doesn't work" conclusion, which is wrong.

For a "reboot", you want the director/writer to go back and look at the original in a new and "controversial" way - add something to the mix. Dark Knight's reboot of batman, Abram's reboot of ST etc.

For me, this reboot relies almost entirely on the idea of '[but with a female cast]', and lacks any real purpose for a new movie.

 

[Polari]

Reboot with Franco, Rogen, Ayoade and Mackinnon.

I can see it doing better with that cast.

I'll always give Paul Feig credit for Freaks and Geeks, and Bridesmaids was OK, but have no interest in seeing this after him and Melissa McCarthy did The Heat and Spy, which has about half a good joke between them.

Kirsten Wiig is alright, Kate McKinnon is pretty unfunny from what I've seen of her in SNL clips but to be fair there aren't many good SNL clips. I don't think I've seen Leslie Jones in anything, or had even heard of her before Ghostbusters.

 

[zoukka]

Putting a woman in a tight outfit also doesn't make her sexualized, per default, then. Right?

True.

 

[Camwi]

I can see it doing better with that cast.

I'll always give Paul Feig credit for Freaks and Geeks, and Bridesmaids was OK, but have no interest in seeing this after him and Melissa McCarthy did The Heat and Spy, which has about half a good joke between them.

Kirsten Wiig is alright, Kate McKinnon is pretty unfunny from what I've seen of her in SNL clips but to be fair there aren't many good SNL clips. I don't think I've seen Leslie Jones in anything, or had even heard of her before Ghostbusters.

She's easily the worst cast member on SNL.

 

[Busty]

I feel like there's a lot of hang wringing on the internet as to why this film didn't become a big hit but at the end of the day it just comes down to the general audience not being that interested in a new Ghostbusters film no matter who is starring in it.

Was the video game that big of a hit? Did any of the more recent comics sell well?

Face it, outside of the internet no one really cares about the Ghostbusters enough to warrant a sequel never mind a cinematic universe.

 

[heliosRAzi]

How did Ghostbusters compare to the Total Recall and Robocop remakes?

 

[Foggy]

I feel like there's a lot of hang wringing on the internet as to why this film didn't become a big hit but at the end of the day it just comes down to the general audience not being that interested in a new Ghostbusters film no matter who is starring in it.

Was the video game that big of a hit? Did any of the more recent comics sell well?

Face it, outside of the internet no one really cares about the Ghostbusters enough to warrant a sequel never mind a cinematic universe.

Agreed about the cinematic universe nonsense, but in a sane world, a $225 million worldwide gross should be a tremendous success for a sci fi comedy. This movie should have never ever cost as much as it did. Getting rid of stuff like a 7-figures song and dance number and not going hog wild with a cg bonanza at the end could have easily framed this an unqualified success.

 

[old manatee]

How did Ghostbusters compare to the Total Recall and Robocop remakes?

They are all shitty, but Ghostbusters remake is at least trying to do something interesting before failing.

 

[Macadinho94]

Who are we gonna call now?

Task Force X? The Avengers?

 

[peteykirch]

HAPPY DANCE!

 

[heliosRAzi]

They are all shitty, but Ghostbusters remake is at least trying to do something interesting before failing.

How do they compare in the box office?

 

[Mortimer Brewster]

I feel like there's a lot of hang wringing on the internet as to why this film didn't become a big hit but at the end of the day it just comes down to the general audience not being that interested in a new Ghostbusters film no matter who is starring in it.

Was the video game that big of a hit? Did any of the more recent comics sell well?

Face it, outside of the internet no one really cares about the Ghostbusters enough to warrant a sequel never mind a cinematic universe.

I kept saying pre release that this movie wasn't going to do well because the concept of Ghostbusters wasn't the driving force behind the popularity of the original it was the talent of the talent both in front and behind the camera. People love Ghostbusters if it's the lightning in the bottle combination of Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis writing, with Ivan Reitman directing staring Bill Murray, Akroyd, Ramis, Sigourney Weaver,Ernie Hudson, Rick Moranis and Annie Potts. Without the original talent interest in Ghostbusters just evaporates which means the viability of the property died with Harold Ramis.

 

[Koyuga]

I don't want to see the movie, but this is a bit sad. It does mean a great deal to have women in roles typically not done for kids to look up to so I wish this could have been great and successful like it needed to be. Unfortunately Sony Pictures has no idea how to spend money, and the marketing was a disaster.
Hope the financial failure of this film doesn't poison the ghostbusters brand, was really hoping to get a new cartoon or something out of this at least.

 

[PandaShake]

I don't remember what happens in ghostbusters 2, but I may enjoy a sequel where they treat the time gap like TFA. Ghosts have become rumors and the original crew legends. But it's real, all of it. Some original crew pops in, saves the new cast and passes on the torch.

 

[kswiston]

How do they compare in the box office?

Total Recall made $198M
Robocop made $242M

Ghostbusters made the most by far domestically.

 

[Grizzlyjin]

I don't remember what happens in ghostbusters 2, but I may enjoy a sequel where they treat the time gap like TFA. Ghosts have become rumors and the original crew legends. But it's real, all of it. Some original crew pops in, saves the new cast and passes on the torch.

The entire world saw a man made of marshmallows and the statue of liberty walk through the city. The Force Awakens reset is dumb enough for only 30 years, but it would be even more egregious here. You could go 100 years into the future and it would still be a major copout. They either have to go into it accepting that everyone knows about ghosts or reboot.

 

[Aztechnology]

I thought it was pretty fun. The end was pretty terrible though and the Villian was a joke. Should have been Chris duping them the whole time.

 

[Lothar]

I feel like there's a lot of hang wringing on the internet as to why this film didn't become a big hit but at the end of the day it just comes down to the general audience not being that interested in a new Ghostbusters film no matter who is starring in it.

Was the video game that big of a hit? Did any of the more recent comics sell well?

Face it, outside of the internet no one really cares about the Ghostbusters enough to warrant a sequel never mind a cinematic universe.

It making as much money as it did with as awful as it looked and poor word of mouth and most fans of Ghostbusters seemingly not wanting to see it shows that there's a huge audience for it. A big missed opportunity.

 

[Lucky Seven]

It really doesnt deserve one.

 

[old manatee]

When the Ghostbusters logo came to life my brain legit dripped out of my ear and started crawling for the emergency exit.

 

[Cimarron]

A shame. If they spun as as a sequel or spin off it would have done better. This was the worst type of reboot they could have done.

 

[FrontalMonk]

It's a shame, I thought the movie was a lot of fun, and I really enjoyed it.

Looking through the comments here, I guess I'm in the minority, though. *shrug*

 

[starchild excalibur]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think even in the best of circumstances this wasn't a film that was ever going to make back its budget regardless of cast, director, or writer. There are undoubtedly still tons of people out there who are fans of the original, but I don't think the casual appeal to see a sequel all these years later was really there by the general audience. The Hangover 1 made $500 million worldwide, but if you rebooted it in 20 years I bet the audience then would also be largely indifferent to whatever that new film is.

The internet was having this year-long debate about the film, while most people were probably happily indifferent or unaware about the fact that this movie was a thing.

 

[EBreda]

I went to the theatre yesterday and saw this movie with my 7 yo daughter and my wife.

It was extremely unfunny.

Yes, my daughter managed to laugh from time to time, mostly because she was nervous about the ghosts

Spoiler

(mannequins !)

, and there was maybe 2 jokes that were kinda amusing. That was it for the good parts.

Villain was horrible,the leads were terrible (expect for Leslie Jones, she was pretty good IMO), cameos were disappointing to say the least. Music was godawful, editing was even worse. Thor guy was amazingly bad (his best scenes were the credits).

Climax was completely forgettable. Impactful scenes demanded more screen time, but the director or the editor just zipped past it.

In short, the movie was bad. Im pretty sure there's an audience for it, and in fact the movie started alright on the BO, but word of mouth certainly hurt it. I believe it couldve been alright with better casting and script (the blonde girl was so damn boring the whole time), certainly with better editing, dialogues and a better villain.

I have faith for it, it could become watchable. GB2 was horrible by the first one standards as well. Its not easy to be successful in this franchise, bit the elements are there.

 

[heliosRAzi]

Total Recall made $198M
Robocop made $242M

Ghostbusters made the most by far domestically.

But not worldwide. Not being able to open in China hurt it, I guess. Still, it made less than both of those. Maybe people are tired of bad remakes.

 

[pantsmith]

How is 180 million not enough? Crazy.

 

[TBiddy]

But not worldwide. Not being able to open in China hurt it, I guess. Still, it made less than both of those. Maybe people are tired of bad remakes.

One could hope.

 

[MilkyJoe]

But not worldwide. Not being able to open in China hurt it, I guess. Still, it made less than both of those. Maybe people are tired of bad remakes.

but instead you are called sexy....

 

[heliosRAzi]

but instead you are called sexy....

But I'm very sexy

 

[old manatee]

They should have just let Paul Feig make a reasonably priced, original movie about women who fight ghosts. I don't even see what good the Ghostbusters license did them. The film is a full reboot and it is still drowning in legacy franchise baggage for its entire runtime.

 

[kswiston]

But not worldwide. Not being able to open in China hurt it, I guess. Still, it made less than both of those. Maybe people are tired of bad remakes.

It will pass Total Recall worldwide and will end up making more than both films since studios get about 55% of the domestic gross but only 25% of China's gross.

It was the most expensive of the three though.

 

[Busty]

Agreed about the cinematic universe nonsense, but in a sane world, a $225 million worldwide gross should be a tremendous success for a sci fi comedy. This movie should have never ever cost as much as it did. Getting rid of stuff like a 7-figures song and dance number and not going hog wild with a cg bonanza at the end could have easily framed this an unqualified success.

True. But $225m is still low for what the studio intended to be a major franchise moving forward regardless of the profit/loss ratio. Just look at the global numbers for New Line's Conjuring cineverse. Even the Annabelle spin-off made more than that WW.

Even if Sony had spend $75m making GB 2016 that worldwide gross just isn't the kind of number that a studio franchise with a big merchandising push needs.

 

[sans_pants]

I kept saying pre release that this movie wasn't going to do well because the concept of Ghostbusters wasn't the driving force behind the popularity of the original it was the talent of the talent both in front and behind the camera. People love Ghostbusters if it's the lightning in the bottle combination of Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis writing, with Ivan Reitman directing staring Bill Murray, Akroyd, Ramis, Sigourney Weaver,Ernie Hudson, Rick Moranis and Annie Potts. Without the original talent interest in Ghostbusters just evaporates which means the viability of the property died with Harold Ramis.

I really don't agree. The concept of fighting ghosts was really cool to me as a kid. This movie was just so poorly done

 

[Grinchy]

I don't remember what happens in ghostbusters 2, but I may enjoy a sequel where they treat the time gap like TFA. Ghosts have become rumors and the original crew legends. But it's real, all of it. Some original crew pops in, saves the new cast and passes on the torch.

I feel like they could have just shown a 10 second montage of the events of the second movie and then cut to Venkman waking up and saying, "That was the lamest dream I've ever had." Then just proceed with the new sequel to the first movie.

 

[trejo]

Reboot with Franco, Rogen, Ayoade and Mackinnon.

Franco and Rogen need to stay the fuck away from this franchise, seriously. I grew tired of Rogen's schtick ages ago. Dude doesn't know what to do other than play himself in everything he's in and the absolutely last thing we ever, ever need is stoner Ghostbusters doing "wacky stuff" cuz like, they're just so high, maaan.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

It was inevitable. Some people here in the GB threads got too confident and drank the Kool-Aid that this movie was guaranteed to have a sequel, when the numbers spoke for itself. Not to mention, this was Sony...they were never going to have a sequel when numbers didn't justify it, case in point: Amazing Spider-Man and all its plans for having a cinematic universe set up being dashed when 2 barely made less than 1.

Honestly, Paul Feig would have been better off making a film using women as leads instead of using an established license. It's easier to break the mold with a new IP as opposed to fighting expectations of the name behind a certain IP.

 

[ZackieChan]

Franco and Rogen need to stay the fuck away from this franchise, seriously. I grew tired of Rogen's schtick ages ago. Dude doesn't know what to do other than play himself in everything he's in and the absolutely last thing we ever, ever need is stoner Ghostbusters doing "wacky stuff" cuz like, they're just so high, maaan.

That's basically what we got with this movie (four people playing themselves). That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but in this case it was.

 

[WordAssassin]

That's basically what we got with this movie (four people playing themselves). That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but in this case it was.

I think the key difference being that the Rogen one would be stoner humor.

Someone in another thread said something along the lines of Jonah Hill going "Oh fuck man fuckin Slimber just got ghost spooge in my mouth with his tiny ghost dick!" and I agree that that's not where Ghostbusters EVER needs to go. I'd love to see that group make their own Ghostbusters-esque movie, sure. I'd probably adore a stoner comedy about hunting ghosts. But that is not anywhere near where Ghostbusters should ever be in a million years.

 

[brandonh83]

I think the key difference being that the Rogen one would be stoner humor.

Someone in another thread said something along the lines of Jonah Hill going "Oh fuck man fuckin Slimber just got ghost spooge in my mouth with his tiny ghost dick!" and I agree that that's not where Ghostbusters EVER needs to go. I'd love to see that group make their own Ghostbusters-esque movie, sure. I'd probably adore a stoner comedy about hunting ghosts. But that is not anywhere near where Ghostbusters should ever be in a million years.

Voice of reason.

I'd take these actresses again over others.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

So Feig should have ripped off Ghostbusters? If your gonna make a movie that sounds suspiciously close to GB than why would you not just use the property?

 

[uncelestial]

I think if there's anything we could've changed about the content, a diverse cast of Ghostbusters would've helped, and a better script with less "surface-level funny" improv jokes. But yeah. A cast of men and women representing a rainbow colors all being Ghostbusters would've been great to me, and a passing of the torch from the original cast (where they are in character instead of in awkward, out-of-context cameos) would've been great.

- Leslie Jones, doing what she already did in GB 2016; she was by far the best part of that movie and was just about the only thing that worked
- Margaret Cho, as the ghost fan who pays way too much attention to conspiracy theories and supernatural shit, and is low-key bi (just like the real Margaret Cho)
- Fred Armisen, as the nervous nerdy guy who knows all the science and rambles
- Rob Riggle - as the guy who has already peaked in life and is a little past his prime, but still sleazes his way by somehow and hops on the GB bandwagon

There. Queer, Straight, Man, Woman, Black, Latino, Asian, and White, all represented, and all pretty funny ass people. Not that the casting was the heart of the problem here, but the appeal of a diverse cast in terms of pure economics is pretty demonstrable if you look at, say, The Force Awakens. How there could've been any appetite left for Star Wars after that franchise milking/debasing is incredible, but it was great, had lots of representation for everyone, passed the torch, and kept the tone, and here we are two billion dollars later.

 

[S-Wind]

That's unfortunate.

I did my part. I saw it in 3D at my local cinema a few hours ago.

 

[Trokil]

I think if there's anything we could've changed about the content, a diverse cast of Ghostbusters would've helped, and a better script with less "surface-level funny" improv jokes.

Nobody is doing that anymore in Hollywood comedies.

After Adam Sandler has made so much money with this no effort improv comedy style, you will not find a production company which would allow that. Because this is a lot of work, you have to try a lot of stuff and if you still can make a profit with laziness and a director yelling "be funny", nothing will change that. Look at this movie, even the Sandler like whorish product placement was there.

Feig just had a big budget movie this time and in the first minutes it was painfully obvious that he is totally out of his league now. He makes nice cheap comedy movies, but for a scripted comedy, they would need somebody like Edgar Wrigth.

But of course, he would not let other people butcher his ideas, because they think this is Zeitgeist at the moment and the movie has to look like this. (Suicide Squad for example)

 

[Deleted member 74300]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avCMAm_r-Jg

 

[Skux]

Once again it seems like the internet and real life are completely separate worlds. Based on the online reaction you'd think everyone and their mother would be flocking to see what all the fuss was about.

Meanwhile, mainstream audiences called it for what it was: Another bad, unfunny Hollywood cash grab remake that would be forgotten two weeks after release.

 

[TGO]

I'm shocked.....