DavidBanner wrote:The original was not a classic for the ages, nor was it even the best movie of Ivan Reitman's questionable filmography. It was a fun movie to watch in summer 1984 with a bucket of popcorn and a Coke. Nothing more.
"A fun movie to watch in summer 1984 with a bucket of popcorn and a Coke" would describe Revenge of the Nerds, or Top Secret. But Ghostbusters was a landmark film, certainly in the comedy genre.
I saw Ghostbusters opening night -- and saw it again probably three or four times that summer. Audiences went wild over this movie (and it drew almost unanimously positive notices from critics as well). No, it wasn't Citizen Kane or Seven Samurai, but it was very fresh and original, inventively combining comedy, sci-fi and horror, and was unlike anything that had come before. It was also a massive hit, and cultural juggernaut, captivating the public consciousness and informing our pop culture lexicon (to a greater extent than most other box office hits of the time).
I remember seeing it the night it opened too. I might have been 9 but I remember it well -- the crowd was positively electric and went utterly nuts on many of Murray's lines. (Compared to this new movie, which had mild laughter but never one moment when people were laughing hysterically).
Paul's right, I certainly wouldn't place Ghostbusters on the same level as every other movie that comes out in the summer time either. Combining comedy and FX/horror on that kind of level -- with cutting edge special effects -- had really never been done before...it wasn't some Bob Hope comedy from the '40s. It was actually groundbreaking and very fresh, from a humor angle as well as a technical one.
The reaction audiences had to it speak volumes about its popularity and enduring fanbase as well. David's certainly entitled to his opinion, of course, but dismissing it as just another dumb summer studio film? It is not one shared by the majority of viewers who were alive in 1984, that's for sure, or the fans who have kept it in the public consciousness since.
I went to Ghostbusters on its opening weekend. My recollection was that I went to the Saturday night show in Westwood, which was sold out with a line around the block that we stood on for hours before we could get in. I recall the audience really enjoying the movie as well, although the movie builds in its own "audience reaction" by having the Ghostbusters constantly being cheered on by the crowds on the streets every time they get out of the Ectomobile...
I was not trying to say that Ghostbusters was just another "dumb summer studio film". I was saying that it isn't a classic comedy for the ages. It was an enjoyable summer movie which I had fun watching in the theater like everyone else, and which I am happy to have on Blu-ray. It's not Ivan Reitman's best movie by any means (although his career has never been known for high quality in any case), but it was a lot of fun to watch, and continues to be. I think of Ghostbusters as one of the pinnacles of the 1980s SNL movie craze, where alums of the late night show would leave TV to make big-screen comedies with varied results. When it came out, Ghostbusters was a big hit, easily beating everything else that came out that summer, including the Raiders sequel, the Star Trek sequel and various other movies, including Gremlins. It actually came in second for box office for the year as I understand it, in that Eddie Murphy's Beverly Hills Cop outgrossed it during the holidays. (Cop is another one I consider to be a pinnacle of the 80s SNL movie craze)
Ghostbusters was a good follow-up from Stripes and Trading Places in placing SNL actors in new genre material, and it brought in Rick Moranis to boot. The big innovation was the use of Richard Edlund's heavy-duty VFX, which were considered top-notch at the time. Having Bill Murray in it was a coup, and was conditional on Murray being given the money to do "The Razor's Edge" first. Aykroyd had of course been working on the concept as what would have been the ultimate pairing for him and John Belushi, but that was not to be. Aykroyd has commented that the slimer ghost is his representation of Belushi in the movie. Obviously when it made that much money in summer 1984, the studio demanded a sequel. And the obvious problem there was that there simply wasn't enough material in the concept to fuel any other movies. The awful sequel that followed was evidence of that problem. I remember being intrigued for years about them coming up with a third Ghostbusters movie but the bad taste of the 1989 sequel stayed with me, so I was happy that they just let it go at that point. (I never paid attention to their other spinoff ideas or the cartoon, so I have no idea what those were or whether they were any good)
This new movie is a frankly unnecessary reboot, made for the same reason that reboots were inflicted of Poltergeist, Robocop and Red Dawn. Remakes and reboots are nothing new in Hollywood - Robin Hood has been redone more times than I can count, as has A Star is Born. The 80s themselves were actually loaded with remakes of movies from the 50s, but there were at least a couple of those that held some interest. (The Thing and The Fly) It's sad that the filmmakers want to blame the movie's poor reception on the notion that men are resistant to a female Ghostbusting team rather than other, more pertinent reasons. For example, a terrible ad campaign. Perhaps the fact that much of the audience isn't as enthusiastic about this cast. Or perhaps that this idea has been done, and done much better in its previous incarnation. I don't recall the filmmakers of the reboots of Poltergeist and Robocop lashing out at the audience for not giving their retreads "a chance". For me, movies like the new Ghostbusters are yet another example of why many people like myself don't go out to the movie theater very much anymore. There just isn't much out there to see, and what we're getting at home from HBO and Netflix is a lot more interesting these days.
As for Melissa McCarthy, it's clear that she has a niche audience that will watch her comedies, which means she can continue to make movies so long as she does them cheaply - as she did with Identity Thief and Tammy. But I believe that studios will take the underperformance of The Boss and of Ghostbusters as a strong warning sign. Two years ago, her movies were 20-30 million dollar productions that would pull in 130-150 million. Last year, Spy failed to break even. This year, The Boss couldn't even get to 70 million on a 30 million dollar budget and it's looking gloomy for Ghostbusters. True, she and her husband are being allowed to make another comedy even as we speak, apparently her take on Rodney Dangerfield's "Back to School", but if that one has the same result as her current streak, she won't be able to keep this up. On the other hand, she has had a solid career in television and I believe she will continue to do so. Her style of humor is frankly better suited to the small screen. And contrary to popular belief, I can't see myself working on her shows - her TV work is mostly sitcom stuff and I work in hourlong episodics. Gilmore Girls was a production I steered clear of for various reasons, including the unhappiness of the cast and crew.
Melissa McCarthy’s Spy has crossed the $230 million mark at the worldwide box office. It has earned 3.5x its $65m budget so it is unquestionably a big hit for the comedy star. But what’s striking about the performance isn’t the overall total, which is solid without being overtly spectacular.
That's 3.5X its production budget before home video, on-demand, etc. I don't know if $65 mil included promotion but even so, i doubt it was pushed as heavily as most summer "tentpoles" and that doesn't include what it did afterwards.
I don't believe it did not break even -- at worst.
Andy's absolutely right.
I misread the Box Office Mojo sheet for Spy. I looked at the domestic one, not the international one.
Spy has indeed broken even and in fact gone into a little profit.
With a 65 million budget, they needed roughly 200 million to get back to even and they were about 35 ahead of that before home video, so yes, that one made money.
The 65 million does not include promotion. That was the production budget.
The studios regularly spend that budget amount again for promotion, particularly when they're trying to get the word out around the world in a big way - so as to get the big international grosses.
The remaining third is the amount of studio costs and interest payments generated from financing the first two thirds.
This number can be deceptive when the movie's budget is lower. For example, the Purge movies only cost a few million to produce, but the studio spends ten times that budget promoting them.
Regardless of my instincts about the quality of this movie or its potential box office, it's really unfortunate to see the attacks thrown at Leslie Jones yesterday. You'd think people would be more mature than that. I'm not a fan of hers, but I can never abide the meanness of haters.
I think it is disgusting but at the same time a group of comments or Twitter messages is no different than crap thrown on the bathroom wall. To some degree this is also keeping her and the movie in the news when I imagine most actresses get grief online all the time for their work. There are always haters out there and the internet is a public forum for all voices including vile ones...Yet is this any different than other movies and horrible internet comments other stars have endured? Just seems this movie has been very good at playing the victim card, getting free press and keeping itself in the headlines.
I wasn't even thinking of the movie in this case. More of a matter of the actress having a bunch of really nasty stuff put on her feed. I honestly don't know how much nastiness normally gets thrown at other actors and actresses' public pages, but some of this was way out there. I fully get that the moviemakers are trying to play the victim card given how fandom has not been going for their remake. To me, that's irrelevant. The matter at hand here is the actress on her own having a bunch of extremely unpleasant material thrown at her.
I also seriously doubt that this will encourage anyone to want to spend money to see this movie in the theaters. It just illustrates the nastiness of some people on the internet. It's true that there are always haters out there. It is also true that this is not the first time someone has been out of line with a celebrity online, and it won't be the last. I just feel it pertinent to say that I feel it's possible to not think much of a movie or of the stature of this or that celebrity, and still not denigrate that person as a human being.
I just don't see how an idiot hurling insults at an actress on Twitter is newsworthy -- at all -- especially in regards to what's going on in the world. Happens every hour, every day of the week. Oh wait -- he's a Trump supporter and contributed to Breitbart? Now I can understand why some people care.
I agree that the Twitter stuff isn't newsworthy at all. Had never heard of this Milo and have no idea why anyone cares what he says.
The issue we were discussing wasn't political or even about news. It was simply my statement that even if someone doesn't care for a movie or wish to see it, that doesn't mean it's okay to throw meanness and nastiness around. Yes, nastiness happens every day, everywhere in the world. I just didn't want my non-impressedness with this movie to be interpreted as tacit agreement with people making personal attacks.
You're not actually going to defend the comments that were made at her, are you?
This isn't about politics. Some trolls said nasty things to her, she tried to deal with it, got overwhelmed and dived off Twitter. She's not wrong to be upset about it. This has nothing to do with the movie, or even with her career, as I have little interest in either. We were discussing the fact that it's not okay to say personally hurtful things to someone just because you don't like their movies. It's not any more complicated than that. To me, this Milo commentator is irrelevant to that discussion. I had never heard of him and have no idea who he is.
----Okay, I'm confused now. There was a post here before and it disappeared. Am I imagining things?
Last edited by DavidBanner on Wed Jul 20, 2016 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
).