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

[AJBopp]

Didn't it loose like 70 mil?

No. It made about $85 million. Probably not enough to pay back its investors, as someone suggested.

[Judge Dredd]

Maybe it just did not suck as bad as that horrible Ghostbusters reboot. If the Rock was in Ghostbusters would probably had done better then the horrible cast they had who just were not funny.

[choptop]

No. It made about $85 million. Probably not enough to pay back its investors, as someone suggested.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.red...s_loss_sequel/

[Midvillian1322]

Maybe it just did not suck as bad as that horrible Ghostbusters reboot. If the Rock was in Ghostbusters would probably had done better then the horrible cast they had who just were not funny.

Jumanji didnt suck at all. One of the better Comedies of year imo.

[Deadxman]

Ghostbusters: given the details of leaks a total bitch backstabbed the guy that produced the original films, blacked mailed the original cast to make insulting cameos, fused a director that she could manipulate to make it a film to drive home her views, said director used more slapstick and gross out comedy then the more dry wit ad sarcasism that franchise was known fore, called fans showed true concerns about the film as sexist man children that live in their mother's basement. Then you have the marketing, and reshoots which increases the budget from the published 144 million and without a China release it could not absorb the the losses in the US since Sony only gets a fraction of international revenue.

Jumanji: One acknowledge the original in such a way it can be looked at like a squeal, (IE the hut having Robin Williams character's name etched in there ) it embraced the madness of the idea of tropes in this type of movie and video game logic. It had More bankable actors in the Rock, Black, Heart and Gillan all have experience with assemble acting and comedic timing that can follow the script instead of alibiing everything. It has a budget of 90 million and a much smaller marketing. it has a china release. and it is good.

[AJBopp]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.red...s_loss_sequel/

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Gh...6)#tab=summary

[choptop]

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Gh...6)#tab=summary

Ya but you have to faxter in marketing costs movie theaters cut over seas cut etc even counting DVDs I think it still lost 20-70 mill.

[BeastieRunner]

Ya but you have to faxter in marketing costs movie theaters cut over seas cut etc even counting DVDs I think it still lost 20-70 mill.

It made $70M and recouped $30M from DVD rentals/sales. They took $10M out for Ghost Corps setup and future projects (the whole point of the movie was to free them from the original agreement that the IP owners had to stake 100% for new stuff).

Total budget ($144M) + advertising was $170M. Sony put the plus in the $70M range when all was said and done. $70M was their original sequel range and $100M+ for a Feig sequel. The decided to opt-out of the ATC sequel and instead focus on building the brand up from the bottom, with kid-centric cartoons first.

We're getting 2 new films and a new animated show because of this movie. 1 of the new films is guaranteed to be animated. In fact, they're pushing out the animated film first over the Ecto Force cartoon series (which was set for release this year).

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/g...9-release-date
https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/07...tbusters-film/
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/fu.../1100-6451882/

[Deadxman]

It made $70M and recouped $30M from DVD rentals/sales. They took $10M out for Ghost Corps setup and future projects (the whole point of the movie was to free them from the original agreement that the IP owners had to stake 100% for new stuff).

Total budget ($144M) + advertising was $170M. Sony put the plus in the $70M range when all was said and done. $70M was their original sequel range and $100M+ for a Feig sequel. The decided to opt-out of the ATC sequel and instead focus on building the brand up from the bottom, with kid-centric cartoons first.

We're getting 2 new films and a new animated show because of this movie. 1 of the new films is guaranteed to be animated. In fact, they're pushing out the animated film first over the Ecto Force cartoon series (which was set for release this year).

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/g...9-release-date
https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/07...tbusters-film/
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/fu.../1100-6451882/

and show of hands who cares about that?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

It made $70M and recouped $30M from DVD rentals/sales. They took $10M out for Ghost Corps setup and future projects (the whole point of the movie was to free them from the original agreement that the IP owners had to stake 100% for new stuff).

Total budget ($144M) + advertising was $170M. Sony put the plus in the $70M range when all was said and done. $70M was their original sequel range and $100M+ for a Feig sequel. The decided to opt-out of the ATC sequel and instead focus on building the brand up from the bottom, with kid-centric cartoons first.

We're getting 2 new films and a new animated show because of this movie. 1 of the new films is guaranteed to be animated. In fact, they're pushing out the animated film first over the Ecto Force cartoon series (which was set for release this year).

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/g...9-release-date
https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/07...tbusters-film/
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/fu.../1100-6451882/

Advertising did not cost no $30 million. Not with the NBA Advertising and push they made. Your likely at most looking at over $200+ million in budget and promotion. Lets do the math.


The film cost $144 budget before promotion.


Sony only cleared $128+ million US Domestic. Ok not terrible really , so if the overseas box office was big and Feig claimed if it did $500 million they'd get a sequel. Sony itself said if the film did $300 million they'd be happy and that seemed to be what they wanted.

Sony cleared $100 million in overseas gross for a worldwide spot of $229 million. Which is not what Sony wanted. A fact almost every reliable source has said the film didn't perform (Feig , Dan Ackroyd , etc.


Now sometimes home video can save a bomb. In the case of Lethal Weapon . home video sales saved that. Also Showgirls , little known fact the film bombed but did over $100+ million in home video sales. So what did Ghostbusters do ? It did $37+ million in home video sales. Again none of the numbers match what Sony claimed they wanted combined.


Yes you can announce various films and doing animated films maybe what Sony does awhile before they dust off Ghostbusters and do a new film idea. Because they clearly left money on the table and screwed up major here. They can wait awhile and come back with better people behind it and all. Jumanji showed if you put the right people , behind the right project it will work.


Ghostbusters lost money. Its the truth folks...

[choptop]

Advertising did not cost no $30 million. Not with the NBA Advertising and push they made. Your likely at most looking at over $200+ million in budget and promotion. Lets do the math.


The film cost $144 budget before promotion.


Sony only cleared $128+ million US Domestic. Ok not terrible really , so if the overseas box office was big and Feig claimed if it did $500 million they'd get a sequel. Sony itself said if the film did $300 million they'd be happy and that seemed to be what they wanted.

Sony cleared $100 million in overseas gross for a worldwide spot of $229 million. Which is not what Sony wanted. A fact almost every reliable source has said the film didn't perform (Feig , Dan Ackroyd , etc.


Now sometimes home video can save a bomb. In the case of Lethal Weapon . home video sales saved that. Also Showgirls , little known fact the film bombed but did over $100+ million in home video sales. So what did Ghostbusters do ? It did $37+ million in home video sales. Again none of the numbers match what Sony claimed they wanted combined.


Yes you can announce various films and doing animated films maybe what Sony does awhile before they dust off Ghostbusters and do a new film idea. Because they clearly left money on the table and screwed up major here. They can wait awhile and come back with better people behind it and all. Jumanji showed if you put the right people , behind the right project it will work.


Ghostbusters lost money. Its the truth folks...

How much did it loose?

[Deadxman]

If it needed to 500 milion to break even then it lost a lot.

So much that they kicked Amy off everything but non MCU Spider-man films.

which is looking to be a hot mess as well

[SUPERECWFAN1]

How much did it loose?

I'd say the Hollywood reporter nailed its loss. They have a pretty inside track on things. I'd put it with what they claim it likely lost.

If it needed to 500 milion to break even then it lost a lot.

So much that they kicked Amy off everything but non MCU Spider-man films.

which is looking to be a hot mess as well

Spider-Man : Homecoming just did $880+ million worldwide. So far home video wise its done $26+ million. They seemed to have done best with going to Marvel for this property.

[shades of eternity]

jumunji the first was was okay, but not the epic that ghost busters was.

therefore, more wiggle room for a reinterpretation

It just confirms go for the "near misses" and "average movies" for remakes.

[BeastieRunner]

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.

Advertising did not cost no $30 million. Not with the NBA Advertising and push they made. Your likely at most looking at over $200+ million in budget and promotion. Lets do the math.


The film cost $144 budget before promotion.


Sony only cleared $128+ million US Domestic. Ok not terrible really , so if the overseas box office was big and Feig claimed if it did $500 million they'd get a sequel. Sony itself said if the film did $300 million they'd be happy and that seemed to be what they wanted.

Sony cleared $100 million in overseas gross for a worldwide spot of $229 million. Which is not what Sony wanted. A fact almost every reliable source has said the film didn't perform (Feig , Dan Ackroyd , etc.


Now sometimes home video can save a bomb. In the case of Lethal Weapon . home video sales saved that. Also Showgirls , little known fact the film bombed but did over $100+ million in home video sales. So what did Ghostbusters do ? It did $37+ million in home video sales. Again none of the numbers match what Sony claimed they wanted combined.


Yes you can announce various films and doing animated films maybe what Sony does awhile before they dust off Ghostbusters and do a new film idea. Because they clearly left money on the table and screwed up major here. They can wait awhile and come back with better people behind it and all. Jumanji showed if you put the right people , behind the right project it will work.


Ghostbusters lost money. Its the truth folks...

I'd say the Hollywood reporter nailed its loss. They have a pretty inside track on things. I'd put it with what they claim it likely lost.

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).

jumunji the first was was okay, but not the epic that ghost busters was.

therefore, more wiggle room for a reinterpretation

It just confirms go for the "near misses" and "average movies" for remakes.

^^^THIS^^^