A Tale of 2 Sony's : How Jumanji became a Hit , while Ghostbusters Failed.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Point of clarification: I'm not arguing whether it made or lost money, but what Sony said. They clearly had a different agenda (get the rights away from a 100% stake situation) than making a great film.





Ugh ...

According to your Hollywood reporter and Variety (whom know the inside track like you said) both put it closer between a $40M - $50M loss.
http://variety.com/2016/film/news/gh...on-1201834911/
http://variety.com/2016/film/box-off...-2-1201816038/

But Sony said it made them $70M as of 2017. Up from $59M in 2016.

Sony reported a $30M ad budget. That's what they have on the books, you can't just make up what you want to fit your narrative. Sony has deals with the NBA to run cross promotions that are paid into already. Kinda like WWE running adds for their stuff on their own network. It doesn't matter the film, they have deals in place already. They don't "cost extra" ... it's been paid into.

Reitman, Dan, and other people in Ghost Corps indicated the main issues were Fieg refused to add in scenes for continuity purposes (which were included in the Extended Edition, which IMHO, is a WAY better film and what they should've ran with) and that Fieg went way over budget during reshoots and action set pieces. Fieg made too expensive of a movie for what they were trying to do. Murray, Dan, and Ernie said after they watched the film they loved the movie but were concerned that it had too much SFX stuff that would make it too expensive. And then Feig got permission from another producer to axe out more of the film. And then they asked him to pick a lane (go kid-freindly or lean into the R-rated end of what he wanted) but he went back and forth.

https://screenrant.com/ghostbusters-...rector-budget/

All your other stuff is speculative at best. For example, the sexist angle could easily of pushed the needle one way while the nostalgia act could've pushed it the other way.

The real problems the film suffered were:
1) being too expensive for what it was supposed to do (get people excited about Ghostbusters)
2) typical Hollywood political BS (producer meddling after one group agreed and then not reigning in the director after the fact).



^^^THIS^^^

Sony claimed the film was a success after the 1st week. How did a movie that is out of theaters and slow home video sales making a company $70 million ? And I doubt toy sales are that huge a year after the films arrival.


http://variety.com/2016/film/box-off...-2-1201816038/

or most comedies, that kind of debut would be a triumph, but then again, “Ghostbusters” isn’t most comedies. The film carries a massive $144 million price tag, plus at least $100 million more in marketing costs. Insiders estimate that it will have to do at least $300 million globally to break even and substantially more than that to justify a sequel. To get there, the film will have to show some impressive endurance while fending off a crowded field of summer blockbuster hopefuls. It will also need to resonate with foreign crowds unfamiliar with the original 1984 comedy or its 1989 sequel.

Yes there is rentals , but does anyone expect Ghostbusters to do $70 million in home PPV rentals in a year ? Doubtful. People know Justice League was a bomb , that it didn't perform good and Warners fired a guy over the studio. Sony continues to go to the school of Peter Guber/Jon Peters. If they lie just enough , if they bullshit just enough ...maybe...just maybe folks will believe it. I laughed hard at Sony's claim they spent $30 million in marketing when everyone is placing the tag at $100 million.

[Mister Mets]

The new Jumanji had a decent hook: kids get transplanted into the bodies of video game heroes. There's no clear indication about what made the new Ghostbusters film special; it was a remake of something that was good because of performances rather than concept. It seems to be an expensive, competent action comedy.

[CliffHanger2]

Jumanji was a good movie with a bankable cast. I don't think it was ever in any real danger. I think what hurt GB the most was the political message the director was trying to sell and antagonizing old fans. Most remakes make the mistake of changing the formula or trying to insult the original material-Baywatch would've likely done much better without dick jokes and gross-out humor. Baywatch wasn't about that.

Jumanji just stuck to the script no political agenda no insulting the original source material. Just good writing,acting and performances.

[Grim Ghost]

The original Jumanji was not some memorable and beloved film like the original Ghostbusters was. Jumanji was a fairly forgettable popcorn movie. It did well but you don't hear people quoting it all over the place and talking about how great it was today.
Expectations were pretty much non existent for a new Jumanji, most people probably didn't even know it was a remake.

I don't think it is really a fair comparison.

[Anthony W]

Does anyone remember Zathura? It was a spin-off of Jumanji except the game was focused on outer space?

[Nate Grey]

Does anyone remember Zathura? It was a spin-off of Jumanji except the game was focused on outer space?

I actually saw this in theaters. Thing is, I know the book is a spinoff but the movie omitted any and all references to Jumanji.

[Anthony W]

I actually saw this in theaters. Thing is, I know the book is a spinoff but the movie omitted any and all references to Jumanji.

I just assumed it was a sequel because the concept was so similar, I never read the book. Does the book ever explain....

1. Who is building these magic boardgames?

2. How many magic boardgames are out there? Jumanji was the jungle adventure game. Zathura was outer space. I'm thinking there must have been a third game that focused on gothic horror....

3. Has anyone ever beat both games and what happens if you do.

[choptop]

I always assumed it was the same ghosts who did the goosebumps haunted house game.

[Nate Grey]

Well the wiki makes it seem like its a bookend sort of thing (Jumanji's connection to Zathura). Though now I'm curious to read both myself to see if there's more to it than just that.

[JCAll]

Does anyone remember Zathura? It was a spin-off of Jumanji except the game was focused on outer space?

Great movie, though I doubt we'll see a sequel to Zathura like Jumanji got. Just not as bankable a name.

[Soubhagya]

Jumanji is pretty enjoyable. I haven't seen it but i have heard only good things about it. On the other hand, i don't hear that kind of praise for Ghostbusters. At best i have heard that its serviceable or okay. That much is not enough.

Plus you have The Rock who is one of the biggest stars right now and its a winning combination. Others things helped too. Like the fact that it is a standalone. They focused in making a good film first and foremost. Not that trying to make a 'cinematic universe' or a series is bad. The film itself has to be good. And any such teases should be bonus material. Something which most people don't understand. MCU strives to concentrate on the film itself. Other stuff is for longtime fans. Something additional, which does not distract from the film itself.

[Judge Dredd]

Ghostbusters started off with a backlash about it so was rough from the start. My biggest issue was the cast was just not funny at all.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Ghostbusters started off with a backlash about it so was rough from the start. My biggest issue was the cast was just not funny at all.

I'm gonna counter that. Wiig , McKinnon and Jones are great on SNL and very damn funny. McCarthy while her act is kinda stale (the over the top physical comedy for a bigger person) since she's done so many films. Those 3 I listed are very funny ladies. What killed this is....Feig likely felt he had 3 women who could create funny lines and more like a SNL sketch.

Now ya know I'm a big Robin Williams fan and he too loved to improv . In fact his last series The Crazy Ones , its said the director would allow Williams to improv a lot on the show. And a lot went into post credits but a few things came out. But I'm sure the director didn't sit hours and hope for funny lines and try to leave a lot in the film.

That to me is what sunk the Ghostbusters film. They didn't have defined roles and everyone was competing to be the funniest one there. (and the only real funny one who had an impact was McKinnon's character ...almost everyone felt she was the best one) .

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Here is how powerful Jumanji : Welcome to the Jungle is folks in its 4th weekend of release. The film repeated as #1 . It also beat out the wide release of The Post (which came at #2) , it held off Liam Neesom's "The Commuter" at #3 , Paddington 2 #7 and Proud Mary #8. So the film held off all those films. Next weekend 12 Strong and Den of Thieves come out. Can the film hold those off ?

Also as of right now the movie has earned over $666+ million worldwide !

[skyvolt2000]

Ghostbusters had backlash towards the fact you had a team of women.

It did not matter who they were or what box office draw they had or may have had. The entitlement group was going to go off on them no matter what. They just saw 4 women as lead and got offended that we would see a different team than the 21984 version.

Never mind we had another version in 96 in a cartoon.

So it became an attack on women especially towards the one black one-who got chased off of Twitter and got threats like a certain Johnny Storm and black stormtrooper got.

When we saw the final product-that depending on who you are-was not good to add on the entitlement group's attacks-you get an under performing movie. However it still gave way to new projects that uses the 1984 and the female team in them.


Jumanji did not have any of that. You could use who you wanted and survive backlash. Then you have The Rock & Kevin Hart-hard to get flops with them in the lead. Especially Hart. When he's a lead-his films don't need overseas box office to make a profit.

Unlike some of the other films including JL & Star Wars-it has no backlash.