Monster Crap: Ghostbusters (2016 GINO Award Winner)

[Jiren]

Jan 31, 2017 22:35:58 GMT -5 StuntGranny® said:

Yeah, I would agree that it's not the worst of the year. That's still Yoga Hosers but a wide margin. Ghostbusters 2016 is just a really, really poorly written, stupid movie with awful jokes. It's a pointless gimmick of a movie that was designed to cause the reaction it did. I still feel sorry for James Rolfe/hate Patton Oswalt for being so petty. It will forever be known as something not remotely worth the garbage fire it caused. The only good thing about the movie was Kate McKinnon.

The build was more entertaining & funnier than the movie itself.

[Seth Drakin of Monster Crap]

Jan 31, 2017 22:26:05 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

Jan 31, 2017 20:51:07 GMT -5 Seth Drakin of Monster Crap said:

Yeah, let's not lower ourselves to the filmmakers in their defense of this film.

How about we cut it out entirely before warnings go out.

It was a joke on my end.

[Welfare Willis]

Jan 31, 2017 22:40:47 GMT -5 Jiren said:

Jan 31, 2017 22:35:58 GMT -5 StuntGranny® said:

Yeah, I would agree that it's not the worst of the year. That's still Yoga Hosers but a wide margin. Ghostbusters 2016 is just a really, really poorly written, stupid movie with awful jokes. It's a pointless gimmick of a movie that was designed to cause the reaction it did. I still feel sorry for James Rolfe/hate Patton Oswalt for being so petty. It will forever be known as something not remotely worth the garbage fire it caused. The only good thing about the movie was Kate McKinnon.

The build was more entertaining & funnier than the movie itself.

In my experience, whenever a movie generates a huge amount of controversy it generally does poorly at the box office. People get so worked up, some even protest.The film doesn't die due to the controversy, but general audience apathy. I'm thinking of films like Silent Night, Deadly Night or Golden Compass. Considering this film didn't make back it's budget I think this may be another example.

[agent817]

Feb 1, 2017 0:18:25 GMT -5 Welfare Willis said:

Jan 31, 2017 22:40:47 GMT -5 Jiren said:

The build was more entertaining & funnier than the movie itself.

In my experience, whenever a movie generates a huge amount of controversy it generally does poorly at the box office. People get so worked up, some even protest.The film doesn't die due to the controversy, but general audience apathy. I'm thinking of films like Silent Night, Deadly Night or Golden Compass. Considering this film didn't make back it's budget I think this may be another example.

It was shot on a $144 million budget but only made about $85 million more than its budget. It made only $229 million worldwide.

I will admit that I had seen this movie four times in theaters. The first time was for free because I had received tickets to an advanced screening.

[Welfare Willis]

Feb 1, 2017 8:28:32 GMT -5 agent817 said:

Feb 1, 2017 0:18:25 GMT -5 Welfare Willis said:

In my experience, whenever a movie generates a huge amount of controversy it generally does poorly at the box office. People get so worked up, some even protest.The film doesn't die due to the controversy, but general audience apathy. I'm thinking of films like Silent Night, Deadly Night or Golden Compass. Considering this film didn't make back it's budget I think this may be another example.

It was shot on a $144 million budget but only made about $85 million more than its budget. It made only $229 million worldwide.

I will admit that I had seen this movie four times in theaters. The first time was for free because I had received tickets to an advanced screening.

Yup, dead on with the production budget. However there is also marketing and production budgets, as explained here:

Marketing/advertising/distribution was roughly $150 million (which brings it to around $300 million). A film doesn’t get all the box office receipts – it is usually between 1/2 and 2/3 of a box office domestically. So, if a film makes say $200 million at the box office, the company actually takes in somewhere between $100 million and $135 million depending on the length of its run, etc. So, taking all that into account, to break even, this movie needs to make back the $290 million they have put into it (production+marketing+ads+distribution). Under the high end 2/3 box office ratio, that means it would need to $435 million worldwide box office to break even. Under the 1/2 box office ration, it would need to make $580 million to recoup its costs. The middle figure for the 1/2 to 2/3 is just north of $500 million Now, they will obviously get some money from merchandising and DVD sales. A legitimate estimate for that would be around $100 million. Which would put the necessary box office take to break even at $400 million

According to the Hollywood Reporter:

link

When factoring in marketing costs — the price tag for promoting a summer tentpole globally can be upward of $150 million — Ghostbusters may have to earn $375 million to $400 million worldwide to break even for Sony and partner Village Roadshow Pictures. That means it needs to do sizable business overseas, since it could top out in the $130 million range domestically. (Sony insiders counter that the break-even number is $300 million.)

Then consider this quote from Variety:
variety.com/2016/film/news/ghostbusters-loss-sony-50-million-1201834911/

Nearly a month after its release, “Ghostbusters,” has brought in just $180 million worldwide. And with a total take projected to end up at something like $240 million, the reimagining of the 1984 favorite will not come close to making back its large production and marketing budgets. Sources familiar with the film’s finances say that it’s likely to end up losing about $75 million, with Sony’s financial hit coming closer to about $50 million, because of its co-financing arrangement with Village Roadshow.

[A Platypus Rave is Correct]

The marketing budget on this was f***ing huge. For instance there was an NBA final spot with players for one thing and none of that sentence is cheap.

this movie is one of the biggest bombs of all time, and that's not hyperbole it is literally on the list of top 100 box office bombs of all time

Jan 31, 2017 21:25:43 GMT -5 FinalGwen said:

(Which obviously wasn't a priority for the original given that they cut most of Ernie Hudson's material and backstory right before filming because... Reasons?)

Because the part was originally written for and supposed to be played by Eddie Murphy until he dropped out.

and as much as I love Ernie Hudson and don't think anyone would have done a better job with the Winston that appeared on film.

He is not 1980's Eddie Murphy in terms of star power nor comedic timing.

[Jiren]

Feb 1, 2017 9:10:20 GMT -5 A Platypus Rave is Correct said:

The marketing budget on this was f***ing huge. For instance there was an NBA final spot with players for one thing and none of that sentence is cheap.

this movie is one of the biggest bombs of all time, and that's not hyperbole it is literally on the list of top 100 box office bombs of all time

[agent817]

Feb 1, 2017 8:33:05 GMT -5 Welfare Willis said:

Feb 1, 2017 8:28:32 GMT -5 agent817 said:

It was shot on a $144 million budget but only made about $85 million more than its budget. It made only $229 million worldwide.

I will admit that I had seen this movie four times in theaters. The first time was for free because I had received tickets to an advanced screening.

Yup, dead on with the production budget. However there is also marketing and production budgets, as explained here:

Marketing/advertising/distribution was roughly $150 million (which brings it to around $300 million). A film doesn’t get all the box office receipts – it is usually between 1/2 and 2/3 of a box office domestically. So, if a film makes say $200 million at the box office, the company actually takes in somewhere between $100 million and $135 million depending on the length of its run, etc. So, taking all that into account, to break even, this movie needs to make back the $290 million they have put into it (production+marketing+ads+distribution). Under the high end 2/3 box office ratio, that means it would need to $435 million worldwide box office to break even. Under the 1/2 box office ration, it would need to make $580 million to recoup its costs. The middle figure for the 1/2 to 2/3 is just north of $500 million Now, they will obviously get some money from merchandising and DVD sales. A legitimate estimate for that would be around $100 million. Which would put the necessary box office take to break even at $400 million

According to the Hollywood Reporter:

link

When factoring in marketing costs — the price tag for promoting a summer tentpole globally can be upward of $150 million — Ghostbusters may have to earn $375 million to $400 million worldwide to break even for Sony and partner Village Roadshow Pictures. That means it needs to do sizable business overseas, since it could top out in the $130 million range domestically. (Sony insiders counter that the break-even number is $300 million.)

Then consider this quote from Variety:
variety.com/2016/film/news/ghostbusters-loss-sony-50-million-1201834911/

Nearly a month after its release, “Ghostbusters,” has brought in just $180 million worldwide. And with a total take projected to end up at something like $240 million, the reimagining of the 1984 favorite will not come close to making back its large production and marketing budgets. Sources familiar with the film’s finances say that it’s likely to end up losing about $75 million, with Sony’s financial hit coming closer to about $50 million, because of its co-financing arrangement with Village Roadshow.

Although the controversy was a factor in the movie underperforming, it could also be noted that another reason it didn't do as well was because of The Secret Life of Pets dominating the box office. Also, Finding Dory was still in theaters during that time and that did well, too. I remember that Star Trek Beyond came out a week after Ghostbusters did and that didn't perform as well either. It performed better than Ghostbusters but it was not a huge hit like TSLoP or Finding Dory.

[HMARK Center]

Yeah, on the movie itself I mostly enjoyed it, but it didn't have a full three act build that really worked. Liked the concept, the characters were likable for the most part, but the script wound up lacking and running out of steam when things go to the third act. Decent build, poor climax. Some of that was attributable to a villain that didn't have enough interesting factors going for him, and CGI that went back and forth between working really well and working really, eh, maybe not horribly, but just off. Good portions of the humor worked, as well, but I kind of dislike the modern format of largely improvised movie humor, a Ghostbusters movie should probably have a tighter script than that. I do wish it had done well, though; I would've dug getting to see this cast with a stronger script and a better payoff, maybe less executive fingerprints on the final product.

The fact there was ever a "controversy" over it was supremely silly at best, horrifying at times at worst. For what it was, it was fine, but certainly wasn't great either. There really isn't anything more to it.

[Fade]

This finally arrived on Starz so I took a couple shots and watched it last night.

What a piece of shit.

Just..awkward. A lot of the times. Cringey and unfunny. It's a movie that doesn't even know what the f*** it wants to be. Its not even one of those "So bad you watch it for the lulz" flicks..just..shallow. Void. Empty. And again..awkward. It's like a person who has no self-awareness and think it's funny. So you walk away. But it's a movie so you're just f***ing stuck there.

Hemsworth was funny but I think even his performance has an aura of "IDGAF". And McKinnon had moments. The women is hilarious and has some charisma.

Just an awkward bomb of a flick. I actually thought at multiple times "Ya know...I kind of do want a new Ghostbusters flick..just..you know..good".

[agent817]

Jan 30, 2017 8:47:37 GMT -5 Seth Drakin of Monster Crap said:

Jan 29, 2017 1:29:03 GMT -5 agent817 said:

I voted for Max Steel as I felt that was truly the worst film on that list. A movie that I regret paying $6 to see and I know that is not much, but still.

I am a movie who has defended the 2016 Ghostbusters film and stands by his own positive opinion of the film, even though a lot of people may want to lynch me for it. However, this was an interested read. Good job.

Thank you very much for the compliment and I have no problem with you defending the film as even I can admit the acting wasn't bad.

Well I am glad that you respect my opinion.

[Seth Drakin of Monster Crap]

Feb 1, 2017 20:05:41 GMT -5 agent817 said:

Jan 30, 2017 8:47:37 GMT -5 Seth Drakin of Monster Crap said:

Thank you very much for the compliment and I have no problem with you defending the film as even I can admit the acting wasn't bad.

Well I am glad that you respect my opinion.

To me, this film isn't bad enough to be worth having issues with people liking it. I've seen easily worse in 2016.

[Welfare Willis]

Feb 1, 2017 20:26:35 GMT -5 Seth Drakin of Monster Crap said:

Feb 1, 2017 20:05:41 GMT -5 agent817 said:

Well I am glad that you respect my opinion.

To me, this film isn't bad enough to be worth having issues with people liking it. I've seen easily worse in 2016.

Yeah that's the thing. It's not good nor bad or even so bad it's good like The Room. It's just there. It's the kind of film you'd watch on AMC or Comedy Central in a year or so, but never in theaters.

[Jiren]

It's bad but DC's Trinity of Shit & Dirty Grandpa are WAY worse IMO, Those just flat out Pissed me off.

After watching GB 2016 I just thought "Well that sucked", And moved on.

[2coldMack is even more baffled]

I don't think the movie's terrible really, but it's not great by any stretch either. Me not being a Melissa McCarthy fan probably doesn't help my perception of it. But yeah, the villain, in both his incarnations, isn't really terribly interesting, and the plot as a whole never feels like it kicks into the "next gear" from what it starts out at. That said, it's better in my opinion than the alternative, which would probably have wound up as some Seth Rogen vehicle where you get" Rogan/James Franco/Jason Segel/do they have a black friend?" doing their usual bits, but with ghosts.

[stealthamo]

I saw it when it was the theater, and honestly, it's decent. It really depends on whether or not the humor lands for you, and while it definitely was cringeworthy at times, I never felt like it was the atrocity that so many others made it out to me.

And based on what I've seen, the worst movie I've seen from 2016 is still Nine Lives.

[agent817]

Feb 1, 2017 20:56:08 GMT -5 2coldMack is even more baffled said:

I don't think the movie's terrible really, but it's not great by any stretch either. Me not being a Melissa McCarthy fan probably doesn't help my perception of it. But yeah, the villain, in both his incarnations, isn't really terribly interesting, and the plot as a whole never feels like it kicks into the "next gear" from what it starts out at. That said, it's better in my opinion than the alternative, which would probably have wound up as some Seth Rogen vehicle where you get" Rogan/James Franco/Jason Segel/do they have a black friend?" doing their usual bits, but with ghosts.

It likely would have been Craig Robinson.

[Seth Drakin of Monster Crap]

Feb 1, 2017 21:15:09 GMT -5 agent817 said:

Feb 1, 2017 20:56:08 GMT -5 2coldMack is even more baffled said:

I don't think the movie's terrible really, but it's not great by any stretch either. Me not being a Melissa McCarthy fan probably doesn't help my perception of it. But yeah, the villain, in both his incarnations, isn't really terribly interesting, and the plot as a whole never feels like it kicks into the "next gear" from what it starts out at. That said, it's better in my opinion than the alternative, which would probably have wound up as some Seth Rogen vehicle where you get" Rogan/James Franco/Jason Segel/do they have a black friend?" doing their usual bits, but with ghosts.

It likely would have been Craig Robinson.

Oh, that's why I scoff at those "You only don't like it because they had women" arguments, I think it still would have gotten crap even if guys were in it, considering who we all know who we would have gotten.

[BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps]

You know what? I don't care anymore. It is a FACT that there was an outpouring of sexist complaints about this movie, and yes, it absolutely had to do with the fact that the protagonists were women. There is a portion, perhaps a minority, but they do exist, of people who don't care if this movie is funny/good or not. With them, they clearly don't like women in leading roles generally reserved for men.

If you want to call me a "social justice warrior " based on that, fine. I do not care.

And it wasn't exclusive to Ghostbusters. The same brand of people came out of the woodwork to complain about the heroines in Mad Max Fury Road. They threw a fit when they saw Rey take a lead role in Force Awakens.

People weren't entirely objecting to the new Ghostbusters because they didn't like the jokes. There's a significant, actual group of weirdos out there who freak out and get pissed when they see empowered women. That undoubtedly played a factor in the backlash. That's the truth.

[Mister Pigwell]

Let's just put a stop to this.
I'm not tolerating another round of bustin ghosts turning into making barn animal noises towards eachother.