GHOSTBUSTERS (2016) Headed For Massive Loss
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35758
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: GHOSTBUSTERS (2016) Headed For Massive Loss
Headed for $225 mil worldwide? That is utterly pathetic, as bad as it gets for a "summer blockbuster" of any kind. Sony now trying to do damage control and say it's going to be just a $70 mil write-off, but that's with Feig's new claim they would have broken even at $300 mil. Earlier he said it was going to take $500 mil worldwide to turn a profit.
I will add -- I do think there is a lot of interest in "the brand". The Time Life REAL GHOSTBUSTERS DVD box set I bought for like $125 when it initially came out now sells for literally hundreds of dollars. The video game (not the new one, the old one) was a hit. If the statement that their merchandizing and third-party usage of the brand brings in money (and the continuous repackagings of the 1984 film on video sell as they claim), then there's truth there.
All that being said, I'd let the dust settle and make an animated sequel to the Reitman movies using Murray, Akyroyd, etc.'s voices. Could get kids and fans onboard in equal measure. We'll see if they're smart enough to go that route.
I will add -- I do think there is a lot of interest in "the brand". The Time Life REAL GHOSTBUSTERS DVD box set I bought for like $125 when it initially came out now sells for literally hundreds of dollars. The video game (not the new one, the old one) was a hit. If the statement that their merchandizing and third-party usage of the brand brings in money (and the continuous repackagings of the 1984 film on video sell as they claim), then there's truth there.
All that being said, I'd let the dust settle and make an animated sequel to the Reitman movies using Murray, Akyroyd, etc.'s voices. Could get kids and fans onboard in equal measure. We'll see if they're smart enough to go that route.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/g ... uel-918515Immediately upon the opening of Ghostbusters in mid-July, top Sony executives boldly declared a sequel to Paul Feig's all-female reboot of Ivan Reitman's 1984 classic was a given. "While nothing has been officially announced yet, there's no doubt in my mind it will happen," said Rory Bruer, president of worldwide distribution at Sony.
That was the studio's last public mention of a sequel. 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.
Sony hardly is alone in suffering from audience rejection of sequels this summer. But film chief Tom Rothman and his team, along with partner Village Roadshow, had high hopes for launching a live-action Ghostbusters "universe." Now they are preparing for steep losses (think $70 million-plus) and an uncertain future for the franchise.
Sony won't comment on whether it has banished a sequel to the netherworld, but perhaps tellingly, a rep says the studio actively is pursuing an animated Ghostbusters feature that could hit theaters in 2019 and an animated TV series, Ghostbusters: Ecto Force, which is eyeing an early 2018 bow. Both are being guided by Reitman, who firmly is back in charge of the Ghostbusters empire via Ghost Corps., a subsidiary with a mandate to expand the brand across platforms. (It was former Sony film chief Amy Pascal who first embraced Feig's vision for the live-action reboot, not Reitman or Rothman.)
"We're very proud of the bold movie Paul Feig made, which critics and audiences loved," a studio rep tells THR. "It has enlivened a 30-year-old brand and put it into the modern zeitgeist. As a result, we have many ideas in the works to further exploit the Ghostbusters universe."
Feig hasn't said whether he'll return. Stars Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon are said to be signed for two potential sequels, and initially they said they were game. But now? "Ghostbusters is on ice until further notice," says box-office analyst Jeff Bock. "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."
Sony disputes the amount of the potential loss, insisting that revenue streams from merchandising and such attractions as a new Ghostbusters exhibit at Madame Tussauds and a theme park ride in Dubai will help defray any deficit. The studio also notes that the number of people renting the 1984 film has soared over the summer.
"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."
-
DavidBanner
Re: GHOSTBUSTERS (2016) Headed For Massive Loss
Sony is in panic mode.
They are realizing how much of a bath they are taking with this movie and they're trying to minimize the embarrassment. I have no idea how they could think that they could spend 144m to make this thing, another 144m to market it, and then the same amount again in interest and associated payments, and then try to play the game that 200m of that would simply disappear into the sauce.
I agree that there is always some interest in Ghostbusters, particularly in recent years with the revivals of the 1984 movie and with kids' interest in the animation. But Sony's spinmeisters are insane if they think they can sell the notion that the new movie is a success because people are avoiding it and looking up the original and its related merchandise. Let's be very clear about the direction this money flows. The Ghostbusters "brand" stems from the 1984 movie and the various ancillary products that have come from it. If we're going to credit the merchandising and video sales to any movie's budget, I'd tag it back to the original, which continues to get positive attention to this day. People aren't happily buying Ghostbusters stuff because they loved the new movie - most people stayed away from it and don't even know much about the new movie other than that their friends told them it was awful.
Sony needs to just deal with the fact that they made a terrible decision in choosing to push forward with this new movie without having a cast or creative staff that could accomplish it. As I've said before, the moment that Jennifer Lawrence turned them down, and as Andy has noted, the moment that Emma Stone turned them down, they really needed to have that second thought. Yes, they would have been writing off 20-30m in development costs, which I would then have agreed could be made up with by doing other merchandising around the 1984 original. But that would have been greatly preferable to taking what appears to be a 200-275m haircut.
The buried lead in the article shows that they are turning to Ivan Reitman to do the animated productions, and I agree with Andy that they would be best advised to focus on those. I think it's pretty obvious that Paul Feig and Melissa McCarthy have been shown the door. McCarthy is currently making a new lower-budgeted comedy with her husband, which she hopes will be do better proportionately. Feig is currently involved in some new lower-budget productions himself as well, but I don't see anyone handing him over 100m to make a movie again. For them to continue their feature film trajectories, they'll need their next projects to really hit. If they don't, they'll have other options on the small screen.
(As a sidenote, I've seen over the years that various successful movie directors wind up returning to episodic television after a career lull. John Badham, Jeannot Szwarc, Steve Minor and others enjoyed varying periods of making bigger budgeted movies, but wound up retreating to television to make episodes for current series. This is a pattern we will continue to see, and it affects star cast as well.)
They are realizing how much of a bath they are taking with this movie and they're trying to minimize the embarrassment. I have no idea how they could think that they could spend 144m to make this thing, another 144m to market it, and then the same amount again in interest and associated payments, and then try to play the game that 200m of that would simply disappear into the sauce.
I agree that there is always some interest in Ghostbusters, particularly in recent years with the revivals of the 1984 movie and with kids' interest in the animation. But Sony's spinmeisters are insane if they think they can sell the notion that the new movie is a success because people are avoiding it and looking up the original and its related merchandise. Let's be very clear about the direction this money flows. The Ghostbusters "brand" stems from the 1984 movie and the various ancillary products that have come from it. If we're going to credit the merchandising and video sales to any movie's budget, I'd tag it back to the original, which continues to get positive attention to this day. People aren't happily buying Ghostbusters stuff because they loved the new movie - most people stayed away from it and don't even know much about the new movie other than that their friends told them it was awful.
Sony needs to just deal with the fact that they made a terrible decision in choosing to push forward with this new movie without having a cast or creative staff that could accomplish it. As I've said before, the moment that Jennifer Lawrence turned them down, and as Andy has noted, the moment that Emma Stone turned them down, they really needed to have that second thought. Yes, they would have been writing off 20-30m in development costs, which I would then have agreed could be made up with by doing other merchandising around the 1984 original. But that would have been greatly preferable to taking what appears to be a 200-275m haircut.
The buried lead in the article shows that they are turning to Ivan Reitman to do the animated productions, and I agree with Andy that they would be best advised to focus on those. I think it's pretty obvious that Paul Feig and Melissa McCarthy have been shown the door. McCarthy is currently making a new lower-budgeted comedy with her husband, which she hopes will be do better proportionately. Feig is currently involved in some new lower-budget productions himself as well, but I don't see anyone handing him over 100m to make a movie again. For them to continue their feature film trajectories, they'll need their next projects to really hit. If they don't, they'll have other options on the small screen.
(As a sidenote, I've seen over the years that various successful movie directors wind up returning to episodic television after a career lull. John Badham, Jeannot Szwarc, Steve Minor and others enjoyed varying periods of making bigger budgeted movies, but wound up retreating to television to make episodes for current series. This is a pattern we will continue to see, and it affects star cast as well.)