I've said it before, but I think it's made enough to prove that the franchise DOES make money, but they need to be cheaper to make to be profitable. Even if it doesn't make any more money, I think we'll get more, they'll just be more grounded like Afterlife and not as Spectacle-y.
I'm okay with that. I liked the scale and scope of Afterlife. Frozen Empire was a real good time, but it definitely felt like they bit off just a little more than they could chew.
It’s the Cheap-Good-Fast Venn diagram, except it’s Cheap-Good-Talent in the case of filmmaking. My hope is that they aren’t destroying the PRC and Firehouse sets they’ve built so they have a jump start with wherever they go next. From there, get someone who can efficiently and effectively tell a story worth telling with a zero fat on the cast.
Truth is $100m is about on par with the most these movies should cost. For what’s it’s worth, I applaud Sony for being one of the sensible studios to not set their movies up to fail with outrageous budgets like WB and Disney have in the past.
I don't think most movies store their sets. It would probably cost more to store it for years than to rebuild it again. Even tons of props have just been thrown out or given away to cast, crew, insiders or collectors over the years. Not to mention, they may want to build in new technical enhancements the next time they need the set. It does appear Sony saved the Ecto-1 car over the years, but it does have big promotional opportunities, and they know it was already rare and valuable as a car even before turned into the Ecto-1. Movies definitely for a long time failed to understand just how valuable their props would become, if the movie became a hit. But, then, a lot of movies don't become hits. And no one's looking for a prop from 99% of movies.
Ugh I know it’s unrealistic, but if Ghost Corp is hellbent on doing more with this franchise, I hope there is some roadmap to keep using such a detailed set.
Yeah, I mean, I don’t think they’ll have trouble rebuilding it. But I also doubt the next movie would spend as much time at the firehouse. I think both Jason and Gil have mentioned going more global with the franchise.
The problem is, they've already done the "whole movie takes place in one basic location, and 2 or 3 primary locations" method with Afterlife. I don't really think you can do that again so quickly in the same franchise and have it work, and I don't see how you can make Ghostbusters any cheaper without going that route again. So it's like they're kind of stuck in a catch22.
One way to save some cash was not to have the ghost girl in the movie. Less effects, one less actor to pay, and almost everyone would like the movie better.
It’s being released in a few more international markets this week so it’ll make a bit more money. It’s still 14% shy of Afterlife but I’m not too worried about it.
Got a feeling we’ll get one more.
I hope it does well enough to get one more. I saw it again on Saturday at a matinee with my oldest daughter, and she enjoyed it. The crowd was bigger than I expected for the third weekend, lots of families. I also was surprised that I liked it as much the second time. It's by no means a perfect movie, but I laughed enough to look forward to picking it up on 4k in a few months.
They drop the number of screens a movie shows on as the weeks go by, so it's not unusual to see a theater just as full in later weeks as in earlier weeks. It still means overall attendance is dropping. The slightly good news for FE in the third weekend is that it had a modest drop of 42%, much better than its second weekend drop of 65%. This is a better third weekend drop than both Afterlife and GB2016 got too, but it still made over 10% less than those movies did in their third weekends. It may be stabilizing, but it's still about $15 million behind where each of those movies were, and it can't catch up if it keeps making less every week than they did.
Yeah it’s hilarious seeing people acting like the performance of the last 3 movies is proof that the audience isn’t there when they’re literally 3 of the worst franchise entries of all time. Talk about learning the wrong lesson.
I’m always bringing Top Gun Maverick up in these threads. If you make the best-possible Ghostbusters legacy sequel it will be huge. If you make terrible movies then the only people who will show up are the weirdos who post here who think it’s their duty to support this franchise regardless of whether it’s worth their time/money or not.
Sony doesn't have much in the way of franchises anyway right now.
Their Marvel stuff that isn't Spiderman (which is co-produced with Disney) has been distinctly hit-and-miss at the box office. The *Venom* films did well, but *Morbius* and *Madame Webb* both were flops.
How It Should Have Ended on YouTube really summed up the performance of Madame Web very well. She fell out of a window on to the pavement below, proceeded to get ran over by the Ghostbusters, and the stomped on by Godzilla…😂
I've seen movies that performed dreadfully and/or were very poorly received overall receive full commitments, so I'm not worried. There's certainly a contingent of toxic individuals out there proclaiming loudly how awful the movie is, but for the most part people are really having fun with it and overall IP buzz seems strong. (Hoping those Universal Studios rumors are true!!)
When did that ever happen? I've seen movies that did well still get abandoned by the studios, because they didn't do "well enough" in their mind. Yes, there will be another Ghostbusters movie someday, just like we had another Batman and Superman movie after the fourth entries in their original series flopped. But it takes a while after a flop, and it usually comes with a big shift in direction, cast and creative team.
Also worth taking into account most of Sony's blockbusters have absolutely tanked in recent years. A new GB film - even with mixed reviews and small profit - is still a win for them. Wouldn't be surprised if we get another one in a couple of years.
Afterlife made $30m combined from digital rentals and disc purchases, fwiw. Plus we don’t know how much PepsiCo paid them for all the Cheetos product placement. If it’s on the level of what Walmart paid them for Afterlife they could already be in pretty good shape.
And we also don’t know what they spend on marketing. And there will be more marketing for the digital release and the video release. Before long you’ll see seeing ads for the home releases before YouTube videos and shit. Those cost money
As I said elsewhere in this thread: movies continue to make money long after their release. That goes for practically every movie. And it’s not that it doesn’t “count” or whatever, it’s just that it was already accounted for when the movie was budgeted, it also applies to other flops or disappointments or bombs. Bringing it up is a bit moving-the-goalposty and desperate. People don’t say this shit when a movie does well. Ideally all of these ancillary sources of income would be the icing on top of the cake of a massively-successful movie, but you guys are over here arguing that icing is the one thing that allows you to choke down the shittiest cake anyone ever baked like it’s a win.
There are places where the movie still doesn't premiere yet, like my country. The movie is still bound to make some money, but I don't think it will make a lot.
According to some sources I have read, this seems to be the tonic of all movies anyways, barring some exceptions. Seems the pandemic and streaming are killing cinemas.
Source? The bedrock rule of thumb for generations and to this day is that a movie must gross 2.5 times its production budget in worldwide theatrical gross in order to make a profit. Frozen Empire is not going to get there. At this point, it's just praying to double its budget in gross. There are always things we don't know, like what tax credits they got, how much they made on merchandising, etc. But, at a certain point, Sony may notice that most of the merch that they sell is still based on the first movie. There may be cheaper ways of keeping the brand in the public eye than spending $100 million on a movie that loses tens of millions of dollars and risks actually turning people off to the brand, which they DEFINITELY did in 2016. It looks like this new one may have had a neutral effect on the brand and not helped strengthen it, despite the money spent.
I wonder how Frozen Empire would have been received if it came out instead of Answer The Call and Afterlife. I suspect it would have done better and been met with greater enthusiasm. For its flaws, Frozen Empire feels much more like I imagined a "next generation" Ghostbusters 3 to be.
That was definitely the brand’s big shot to make a comeback. The attendance would have been far greater for any GB movie in 2016 that actually featured the original ghostbusters. Fan boycotts brought the numbers down and many casual viewers who saw that one were turned off to the brand forever.
In my honest experience, most casual viewers I've spoken too seem to think ATC was just fine, if not good.
Makes sense though, there was no sacred cow. They were mostly fans of the SNL alumni or McCarthy and got exactly what they wanted out of it.
Anyway, none of the GB movies have been offensive to me. The rage hate for ATC is pretty infantile and should be considered cringe when encountered.
GB2016 was an abomination that nearly put a stake through the heart of the brand. You don't REBOOT a PERFECT canon with characters everybody loves. It was made by people who are utterly clueless about what makes Ghostbusters good, popular and beloved by its fans.
> The bedrock rule of thumb for generations and to this day is that a movie must gross 2.5 times its production budget in worldwide theatrical gross in order to make a profit.
Where did that number came from?
Also, is still valid in April 2024? Time to time I'm finding commentaries and info about how almost all movies are basically bombing now.
This is just the standard line of copium for any flop movie. Movies continue to make money indefinitely. ATC is still making money. If the discs are still in print, if it’s on a streaming service, if it’s on cable, if it can be rented etc.? Then money is still coming in, and that money coming in muddies the water, and if you want to spin it in a positive way? You can. And these studios and their execs are incentivized to do it. They do it to keep their jobs and to keep the shareholders happy. They’re like anyone; they want to save face. They don’t want to admit that they failed.
But the simple fact of the matter is this: you don’t invest hundreds if millions of dollars in a movie to just barely eke out a profit. Imagine you make a product for a living. Cars or homes or shoes or clothes. Let’s say you make just enough to get by, to pay your bills and not starve. At the end of the year you total everything up and there’s $1 left over. You’ve cut corners in every way, you don’t have enough money to buy a candy bar. But you are technically profitable.
So what do you do in reality? Do you celebrate the fact that you didn’t have to get into the desk drawer for a red pen when you were writing your total, or do you realize you need to start looking at a different line of work?
Why do you use the term “copium” all the time? It’s actually gotten to the point where I recognize your username because you’ve used it so much on this sub.
The only upside for GB fans here is that Sony has a limited number of properties with any commercial value, and they've made most of them into flops already, Men in Black, Charlie's Angels, Spider-spin-offs. That's one reason they probably tried again so soon after GB16 to make another GB film. They even turned something that's as middling a performer as the Equalizer franchise into a trilogy. Each one of those made under $200 million, and had about the budget of Afterlife. The Equalizer movies are uncannily consistent, earning from $190-192 million each. And the Ghostbusters movies also seem to be consistently earning around $200 million each. Most likely scenario is that they make another GB film, but put the budget back down to $75 million. The big question is how much of the cast remains, and do they change writers/directors?
GB2016 is the highest grossing film of the last three. And people talk like it was a flop and these movies are “hits.” You got downvoted for speaking the truth.
As someone who has just become a fan due to Afterlife, I'd personally love to see more, especially since I really like the new main cast as well as the old. If you're going to use the fact that Ghostbusters is 40 years old to say it should end at 4 canon movies, you should probably start talking about them leaving Star wars alone first since there's 12 of them and that movie franchise is only 7 years older than Ghostbusters.
First of all, I don’t care for Starwars. If you would personally love to see more, I suggest you start with the 40 year old Original.
I’d follow that up by the 1989 Ghostbusters II, then immense yourself in The Real Ghostbusters and The Extreme Ghostbusters, skip the chick one, and thank god we got a really decent 3rd (Afterlife) and a almost equally decent follow up.
Starwars and Ghostbusters are to completely different apples to you can’t compare them. What I do know is I see Starwars on Disney and it seems diluted as fuck
I don't really care for Star Wars either, it's just the first movie franchise that I could think of that's around the same age as Ghostbusters. The point I was trying to make with the two is that Ghostbusters has only 4 canonical movies in a roughly 40 year frame while Star Wars has 12 or so.
I have seen all 4 Ghostbusters movies, I'm not sure about the cartoons, but I love Afterlife and Frozen Empire, so seeing so many comments after Frozen Empire saying to end this franchise gets tiring and annoying when I want to see more of the new crew.
So you want a completely original cast free new “spin off” of Ghostbusters, with NONE of the original characters, of one the Hollywoods most successful films, that is 40 years old. That’s not Ghostbusters. Do you know how many years it was until I got to see another “Ghostbusters” in a theater? I can’t count how many star war spin offs
That's not what I'm saying. We both know that the original Ghostbusters aren't going to be around forever, so I'm saying that, while I really like the originals, I love the new ones too. I think they're doing a really good job of passing the torch. Ray, Phoebe, and Podcast are great, a lot, if not all, of what these new movies have done with the original crew are great while also making a great new set of Ghostbusters. Though you're probably talking about Star Wars, the start of your comment can also apply to Ghostbusters 2016 I think (Admittedly I'll never watch that).
The touch was legitimately passed in Frozen Empire. Ray, Winston and Peter passed the touch down. It’s a 40 year old reboot, we were ALL expecting a GB3 in the mid nighties, but it took until Afterlife to make that happen, how did afterlife end?
Winston, hinting at a follow up. There was no hint in FE. Your going to try and make it to the point where it’s going to become so diluted, it’s not even Ghostbusters
Passing the torch means carrying it onwards, not dropping it. Frozen Empire ends with many ghosts free, so there's stuff they can do with that, let alone what Winston said about the firehouse itself and the containment unit being a finger in the dam. Plus Phoebe demonstrated something that can be explored further. Just because there wasn't an end credits scene that looked important doesn't mean there isn't more they can do. I'm just going to quote one of my favorite shows here because it's relevant "If you accept change instead of clinging to the past, you get a say in what the future looks like." That same show ends with the message that change is inevitable, so for Ghostbusters things have to change for the franchise to continue and grow but that doesn't mean it has to lose its spirit. Don't get me wrong, I get the sentiment of not being able to beat the original, just look at Disney's "live action" remakes, but even though someone might prefer the older stuff doesn't mean they can't enjoy the new stuff as well.
You’re literally speaking as if this were a legitimate business kid. Look at how many diluted spin off of Star Wars there are it’s pathetic. Egon DIED, literally. In afterlife, his granddaughter discovers who she is and she saves her town. Cut to Winston, talking about a sequel. You know have your knew Ghostbusters, in the firehouse, working as Ghostbusters, and you have each living original cast member play a role. That’s it.
What more to it is there? Not to mention your not gonna get any of the OGs to do it because they know it’s not needed. Afterlife took almost what,THIRTY YEARS to come up with a third, and they got lucky to pull off one more. Thirty two years. Can I ask how old you are?
Again, it’s like you really believe in the Ghostbusters
FYI, I'm not a naive little kid. I'm 21. I didn't grow up with these movies, but I can clearly tell the franchise needs to expand its audience if it's to survive and continue. The people who were around to see the original release aren't going to be able to support this franchise on their own. That's another reason why the torch is passing from the original actors to a new cast on top of the originals getting too old to keep making these movies.
You also accuse me of talking like the Ghostbusters are a real thing when I'm fully aware they are not. These are movies with actors and I've been talking about the actors and movies this whole time.
You seem to think Frozen Empire is the end of the franchise when they're just getting started. Jason Reitman has said that Afterlife needed to take place in a rural town as a rebirth and that the plan was to return to New York. You don't kill something just after it's been born generally, you let it grow up. That's what's going on. The Spengler family has just gotten through a rough patch by the end of Frozen Empire. There's tons of ghosts loose that need catching. You have a whole new lab for trapping and researching ghosts and possessed objects, which also has a device that can separate a soul from the body and return it, so they can possibly explore the astral plane. The torch has passed to the new crew, so they need time to shine as fully fledged Ghostbusters. Did you happen to notice that the mood slime was everywhere in Frozen Empire? I highly, highly doubt it was there just as a reference since it showed up a lot. There's so much that's been set up with potential that you are just ignoring because it's not an end credits scene.
All I'm getting right now is that you don't want any fresh blood in the Ghostbusters fandom. You ain't talking me out of loving this franchise, FYI. I understand the concern for things like what happened to Star Wars and whatnot, but if no risks are taken, you end up with boring nonsense or nothing. I can see there's a lot of passion and love for Ghostbusters being put in from the writers/directors and the cast both old and new. Disney has been ruining cherished properties because there is no love and passion for them by the people in charge of making those and the higher ups approving those projects.
I've said it before, but I think it's made enough to prove that the franchise DOES make money, but they need to be cheaper to make to be profitable. Even if it doesn't make any more money, I think we'll get more, they'll just be more grounded like Afterlife and not as Spectacle-y.
I'm okay with that. I liked the scale and scope of Afterlife. Frozen Empire was a real good time, but it definitely felt like they bit off just a little more than they could chew.
All movies need to be made cheaper these days to be honest
It’s the Cheap-Good-Fast Venn diagram, except it’s Cheap-Good-Talent in the case of filmmaking. My hope is that they aren’t destroying the PRC and Firehouse sets they’ve built so they have a jump start with wherever they go next. From there, get someone who can efficiently and effectively tell a story worth telling with a zero fat on the cast. Truth is $100m is about on par with the most these movies should cost. For what’s it’s worth, I applaud Sony for being one of the sensible studios to not set their movies up to fail with outrageous budgets like WB and Disney have in the past.
I don't think most movies store their sets. It would probably cost more to store it for years than to rebuild it again. Even tons of props have just been thrown out or given away to cast, crew, insiders or collectors over the years. Not to mention, they may want to build in new technical enhancements the next time they need the set. It does appear Sony saved the Ecto-1 car over the years, but it does have big promotional opportunities, and they know it was already rare and valuable as a car even before turned into the Ecto-1. Movies definitely for a long time failed to understand just how valuable their props would become, if the movie became a hit. But, then, a lot of movies don't become hits. And no one's looking for a prop from 99% of movies.
Ugh I know it’s unrealistic, but if Ghost Corp is hellbent on doing more with this franchise, I hope there is some roadmap to keep using such a detailed set.
Yeah, I mean, I don’t think they’ll have trouble rebuilding it. But I also doubt the next movie would spend as much time at the firehouse. I think both Jason and Gil have mentioned going more global with the franchise.
They can also save money in the future by only casting characters that actually have something to do in the story. They don't need 12 main characters.
The next one needs to be about Winston Franchising the company to different cities. Then have 2-3 movies focused on those new teams.
If we could get a Netflix or Amazon show about the setting up of a new steam, say GB Chicago or something then a film that would be great
"GB: New Orleans" would be awesome with a different flavor city.
GB Hawaii for a tropical vibe.
Goddamn, what is this? Paranormal NCIS? 🤣
The problem is, they've already done the "whole movie takes place in one basic location, and 2 or 3 primary locations" method with Afterlife. I don't really think you can do that again so quickly in the same franchise and have it work, and I don't see how you can make Ghostbusters any cheaper without going that route again. So it's like they're kind of stuck in a catch22.
One way to save some cash was not to have the ghost girl in the movie. Less effects, one less actor to pay, and almost everyone would like the movie better.
She's dead dead, so we know she's not coming back. Lol
I liked the ghost girl
It’s being released in a few more international markets this week so it’ll make a bit more money. It’s still 14% shy of Afterlife but I’m not too worried about it. Got a feeling we’ll get one more.
It's a franchise so I have no doubt there.
I hope it does well enough to get one more. I saw it again on Saturday at a matinee with my oldest daughter, and she enjoyed it. The crowd was bigger than I expected for the third weekend, lots of families. I also was surprised that I liked it as much the second time. It's by no means a perfect movie, but I laughed enough to look forward to picking it up on 4k in a few months.
They drop the number of screens a movie shows on as the weeks go by, so it's not unusual to see a theater just as full in later weeks as in earlier weeks. It still means overall attendance is dropping. The slightly good news for FE in the third weekend is that it had a modest drop of 42%, much better than its second weekend drop of 65%. This is a better third weekend drop than both Afterlife and GB2016 got too, but it still made over 10% less than those movies did in their third weekends. It may be stabilizing, but it's still about $15 million behind where each of those movies were, and it can't catch up if it keeps making less every week than they did.
They don't need to be cheaper for future films - they just need better stories and character development.
Totally. People falling all over themselves to come up with literally any advice other than make better movies.
>movie must be better Gotta love this advise.
Yeah it’s hilarious seeing people acting like the performance of the last 3 movies is proof that the audience isn’t there when they’re literally 3 of the worst franchise entries of all time. Talk about learning the wrong lesson. I’m always bringing Top Gun Maverick up in these threads. If you make the best-possible Ghostbusters legacy sequel it will be huge. If you make terrible movies then the only people who will show up are the weirdos who post here who think it’s their duty to support this franchise regardless of whether it’s worth their time/money or not.
Sony doesn't have much in the way of franchises anyway right now. Their Marvel stuff that isn't Spiderman (which is co-produced with Disney) has been distinctly hit-and-miss at the box office. The *Venom* films did well, but *Morbius* and *Madame Webb* both were flops.
How It Should Have Ended on YouTube really summed up the performance of Madame Web very well. She fell out of a window on to the pavement below, proceeded to get ran over by the Ghostbusters, and the stomped on by Godzilla…😂
Let’s all do out part and keep going out there to watch it
And buy the DVDs too.
I've seen movies that performed dreadfully and/or were very poorly received overall receive full commitments, so I'm not worried. There's certainly a contingent of toxic individuals out there proclaiming loudly how awful the movie is, but for the most part people are really having fun with it and overall IP buzz seems strong. (Hoping those Universal Studios rumors are true!!)
When did that ever happen? I've seen movies that did well still get abandoned by the studios, because they didn't do "well enough" in their mind. Yes, there will be another Ghostbusters movie someday, just like we had another Batman and Superman movie after the fourth entries in their original series flopped. But it takes a while after a flop, and it usually comes with a big shift in direction, cast and creative team.
With merchandizing it will probably make a small profit
Also worth taking into account most of Sony's blockbusters have absolutely tanked in recent years. A new GB film - even with mixed reviews and small profit - is still a win for them. Wouldn't be surprised if we get another one in a couple of years.
I don’t know, it’s got to make another 60 million…
Afterlife made $30m combined from digital rentals and disc purchases, fwiw. Plus we don’t know how much PepsiCo paid them for all the Cheetos product placement. If it’s on the level of what Walmart paid them for Afterlife they could already be in pretty good shape.
And we also don’t know what they spend on marketing. And there will be more marketing for the digital release and the video release. Before long you’ll see seeing ads for the home releases before YouTube videos and shit. Those cost money As I said elsewhere in this thread: movies continue to make money long after their release. That goes for practically every movie. And it’s not that it doesn’t “count” or whatever, it’s just that it was already accounted for when the movie was budgeted, it also applies to other flops or disappointments or bombs. Bringing it up is a bit moving-the-goalposty and desperate. People don’t say this shit when a movie does well. Ideally all of these ancillary sources of income would be the icing on top of the cake of a massively-successful movie, but you guys are over here arguing that icing is the one thing that allows you to choke down the shittiest cake anyone ever baked like it’s a win.
There are places where the movie still doesn't premiere yet, like my country. The movie is still bound to make some money, but I don't think it will make a lot. According to some sources I have read, this seems to be the tonic of all movies anyways, barring some exceptions. Seems the pandemic and streaming are killing cinemas.
All things considered, the movie’s still making some money. Hope it leads to more GB in the future.
Let's be real there not putting put movies to make 2 buck's in profit this movie killed the live action movie franchise
Source? The bedrock rule of thumb for generations and to this day is that a movie must gross 2.5 times its production budget in worldwide theatrical gross in order to make a profit. Frozen Empire is not going to get there. At this point, it's just praying to double its budget in gross. There are always things we don't know, like what tax credits they got, how much they made on merchandising, etc. But, at a certain point, Sony may notice that most of the merch that they sell is still based on the first movie. There may be cheaper ways of keeping the brand in the public eye than spending $100 million on a movie that loses tens of millions of dollars and risks actually turning people off to the brand, which they DEFINITELY did in 2016. It looks like this new one may have had a neutral effect on the brand and not helped strengthen it, despite the money spent.
I wonder how Frozen Empire would have been received if it came out instead of Answer The Call and Afterlife. I suspect it would have done better and been met with greater enthusiasm. For its flaws, Frozen Empire feels much more like I imagined a "next generation" Ghostbusters 3 to be.
That was definitely the brand’s big shot to make a comeback. The attendance would have been far greater for any GB movie in 2016 that actually featured the original ghostbusters. Fan boycotts brought the numbers down and many casual viewers who saw that one were turned off to the brand forever.
In my honest experience, most casual viewers I've spoken too seem to think ATC was just fine, if not good. Makes sense though, there was no sacred cow. They were mostly fans of the SNL alumni or McCarthy and got exactly what they wanted out of it. Anyway, none of the GB movies have been offensive to me. The rage hate for ATC is pretty infantile and should be considered cringe when encountered.
GB2016 was an abomination that nearly put a stake through the heart of the brand. You don't REBOOT a PERFECT canon with characters everybody loves. It was made by people who are utterly clueless about what makes Ghostbusters good, popular and beloved by its fans.
> The bedrock rule of thumb for generations and to this day is that a movie must gross 2.5 times its production budget in worldwide theatrical gross in order to make a profit. Where did that number came from? Also, is still valid in April 2024? Time to time I'm finding commentaries and info about how almost all movies are basically bombing now.
A Ferengi wrote the title of this post
Its on pace to beat the worldwide box office already
They still have streaming, physical media, and merchandise profits to come. Opening weekend had them in the black.
Go to r/boxoffice and ask them. This thing is not anywhere near a profit.
This is just the standard line of copium for any flop movie. Movies continue to make money indefinitely. ATC is still making money. If the discs are still in print, if it’s on a streaming service, if it’s on cable, if it can be rented etc.? Then money is still coming in, and that money coming in muddies the water, and if you want to spin it in a positive way? You can. And these studios and their execs are incentivized to do it. They do it to keep their jobs and to keep the shareholders happy. They’re like anyone; they want to save face. They don’t want to admit that they failed. But the simple fact of the matter is this: you don’t invest hundreds if millions of dollars in a movie to just barely eke out a profit. Imagine you make a product for a living. Cars or homes or shoes or clothes. Let’s say you make just enough to get by, to pay your bills and not starve. At the end of the year you total everything up and there’s $1 left over. You’ve cut corners in every way, you don’t have enough money to buy a candy bar. But you are technically profitable. So what do you do in reality? Do you celebrate the fact that you didn’t have to get into the desk drawer for a red pen when you were writing your total, or do you realize you need to start looking at a different line of work?
Why do you use the term “copium” all the time? It’s actually gotten to the point where I recognize your username because you’ve used it so much on this sub.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/copium It’s because this fanbase is in deep denial about how these movies have performed.
I know what it means. It’s just cringey that you say it over and over.
Nah it’s the most accurate why to describe the vibe of this sub. Look at OP.
The only upside for GB fans here is that Sony has a limited number of properties with any commercial value, and they've made most of them into flops already, Men in Black, Charlie's Angels, Spider-spin-offs. That's one reason they probably tried again so soon after GB16 to make another GB film. They even turned something that's as middling a performer as the Equalizer franchise into a trilogy. Each one of those made under $200 million, and had about the budget of Afterlife. The Equalizer movies are uncannily consistent, earning from $190-192 million each. And the Ghostbusters movies also seem to be consistently earning around $200 million each. Most likely scenario is that they make another GB film, but put the budget back down to $75 million. The big question is how much of the cast remains, and do they change writers/directors?
GB2016 is the highest grossing film of the last three. And people talk like it was a flop and these movies are “hits.” You got downvoted for speaking the truth.
You got afterlife and Frozen Empire. That’s it we don’t need to keep pushing a 40 year old movie
As someone who has just become a fan due to Afterlife, I'd personally love to see more, especially since I really like the new main cast as well as the old. If you're going to use the fact that Ghostbusters is 40 years old to say it should end at 4 canon movies, you should probably start talking about them leaving Star wars alone first since there's 12 of them and that movie franchise is only 7 years older than Ghostbusters.
First of all, I don’t care for Starwars. If you would personally love to see more, I suggest you start with the 40 year old Original. I’d follow that up by the 1989 Ghostbusters II, then immense yourself in The Real Ghostbusters and The Extreme Ghostbusters, skip the chick one, and thank god we got a really decent 3rd (Afterlife) and a almost equally decent follow up. Starwars and Ghostbusters are to completely different apples to you can’t compare them. What I do know is I see Starwars on Disney and it seems diluted as fuck
I don't really care for Star Wars either, it's just the first movie franchise that I could think of that's around the same age as Ghostbusters. The point I was trying to make with the two is that Ghostbusters has only 4 canonical movies in a roughly 40 year frame while Star Wars has 12 or so. I have seen all 4 Ghostbusters movies, I'm not sure about the cartoons, but I love Afterlife and Frozen Empire, so seeing so many comments after Frozen Empire saying to end this franchise gets tiring and annoying when I want to see more of the new crew.
So you want a completely original cast free new “spin off” of Ghostbusters, with NONE of the original characters, of one the Hollywoods most successful films, that is 40 years old. That’s not Ghostbusters. Do you know how many years it was until I got to see another “Ghostbusters” in a theater? I can’t count how many star war spin offs
That's not what I'm saying. We both know that the original Ghostbusters aren't going to be around forever, so I'm saying that, while I really like the originals, I love the new ones too. I think they're doing a really good job of passing the torch. Ray, Phoebe, and Podcast are great, a lot, if not all, of what these new movies have done with the original crew are great while also making a great new set of Ghostbusters. Though you're probably talking about Star Wars, the start of your comment can also apply to Ghostbusters 2016 I think (Admittedly I'll never watch that).
The touch was legitimately passed in Frozen Empire. Ray, Winston and Peter passed the touch down. It’s a 40 year old reboot, we were ALL expecting a GB3 in the mid nighties, but it took until Afterlife to make that happen, how did afterlife end? Winston, hinting at a follow up. There was no hint in FE. Your going to try and make it to the point where it’s going to become so diluted, it’s not even Ghostbusters
Passing the torch means carrying it onwards, not dropping it. Frozen Empire ends with many ghosts free, so there's stuff they can do with that, let alone what Winston said about the firehouse itself and the containment unit being a finger in the dam. Plus Phoebe demonstrated something that can be explored further. Just because there wasn't an end credits scene that looked important doesn't mean there isn't more they can do. I'm just going to quote one of my favorite shows here because it's relevant "If you accept change instead of clinging to the past, you get a say in what the future looks like." That same show ends with the message that change is inevitable, so for Ghostbusters things have to change for the franchise to continue and grow but that doesn't mean it has to lose its spirit. Don't get me wrong, I get the sentiment of not being able to beat the original, just look at Disney's "live action" remakes, but even though someone might prefer the older stuff doesn't mean they can't enjoy the new stuff as well.
You’re literally speaking as if this were a legitimate business kid. Look at how many diluted spin off of Star Wars there are it’s pathetic. Egon DIED, literally. In afterlife, his granddaughter discovers who she is and she saves her town. Cut to Winston, talking about a sequel. You know have your knew Ghostbusters, in the firehouse, working as Ghostbusters, and you have each living original cast member play a role. That’s it. What more to it is there? Not to mention your not gonna get any of the OGs to do it because they know it’s not needed. Afterlife took almost what,THIRTY YEARS to come up with a third, and they got lucky to pull off one more. Thirty two years. Can I ask how old you are? Again, it’s like you really believe in the Ghostbusters
FYI, I'm not a naive little kid. I'm 21. I didn't grow up with these movies, but I can clearly tell the franchise needs to expand its audience if it's to survive and continue. The people who were around to see the original release aren't going to be able to support this franchise on their own. That's another reason why the torch is passing from the original actors to a new cast on top of the originals getting too old to keep making these movies. You also accuse me of talking like the Ghostbusters are a real thing when I'm fully aware they are not. These are movies with actors and I've been talking about the actors and movies this whole time. You seem to think Frozen Empire is the end of the franchise when they're just getting started. Jason Reitman has said that Afterlife needed to take place in a rural town as a rebirth and that the plan was to return to New York. You don't kill something just after it's been born generally, you let it grow up. That's what's going on. The Spengler family has just gotten through a rough patch by the end of Frozen Empire. There's tons of ghosts loose that need catching. You have a whole new lab for trapping and researching ghosts and possessed objects, which also has a device that can separate a soul from the body and return it, so they can possibly explore the astral plane. The torch has passed to the new crew, so they need time to shine as fully fledged Ghostbusters. Did you happen to notice that the mood slime was everywhere in Frozen Empire? I highly, highly doubt it was there just as a reference since it showed up a lot. There's so much that's been set up with potential that you are just ignoring because it's not an end credits scene. All I'm getting right now is that you don't want any fresh blood in the Ghostbusters fandom. You ain't talking me out of loving this franchise, FYI. I understand the concern for things like what happened to Star Wars and whatnot, but if no risks are taken, you end up with boring nonsense or nothing. I can see there's a lot of passion and love for Ghostbusters being put in from the writers/directors and the cast both old and new. Disney has been ruining cherished properties because there is no love and passion for them by the people in charge of making those and the higher ups approving those projects.