Ghostbusters: Afterlife

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I just checked and Wikipedia cites a budget of 25 to 30 million and a box office gross of 295,7 million, putting it at almost a 1:10 return on investment... not sure where you got the 144 million from? Maybe it's adjusted for inflation but not the 230 million? Ten fold investment seems common in that era for top grossing movies.

Yep. I think I got the wrong number flipping between tabs - I was comparing to various movies, and probably grabbed the budget from the wrong one. My apologies.

The unit ticket sales I worked out hold, however.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Undrave

Hero
Yep. I think I got the wrong number flipping between tabs - I was comparing to various movies, and probably grabbed the budget from the wrong one. My apologies.

The unit ticket sales I worked out hold, however.

Also, I don't think its fair to hold Ghostbusters to the standard of movies that came after it. Executives at the time wouldn't be aware of those figures. I think checking out '83 and '82 movies would be a better idea.

It's mentioned that before Ghostbusters, the highest grossing comedy movie was 1982's Tootsie. Tootsie had a budget of 21 million and a gross of 177,2 million and was number 2 of its year. That ends up being roughly a 8 times return on investment, slightly less than Ghostbusters. No 1 of '82 was E.T. and THAT was a hugh hit with other 35 times its return on investment so that might be the kind of things Execs would look at.

Return of the Jedi, the previous year, was no 1 movie and had a return, domestically anyway, of only 6 times its budget. Though it was a third sequel in an established franchise. No 2 of that year was Terms of Endearment which also had a return in the 10 fold range.

So I can see them considering Ghostbusters a hit, but I also see them think it was not enough of one to consider a sequel until five years later after the brand established itself in other markets. Hollywood was different at the time.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Fun little trailer. Maybe the Stranger Things vibe is what is needed. There's a fine line between fan service and copying to much of the previous movie.

If the movie works though the actors are young enough for sequels for a long time.
Some 80s movies being brought back need to be low budget though to maximise that investment. If the nostalgias still there the budget won't matter.
 

Undrave

Hero
Some 80s movies being brought back need to be low budget though to maximise that investment. If the nostalgias still there the budget won't matter.

Makes me think that Universal's Dark Universe biggest flaws was the massive budget style they went with, when they should have tried to compete in the same bracket and audience as the Saw and Conjuring franchises.
 


Fun little trailer. Maybe the Stranger Things vibe is what is needed. There's a fine line between fan service and copying to much of the previous movie.

Well, people kept saying that they should just follow the example of Stranger Things, and that is exactly what they did. So perhaps Sony is listening for a change?

So far this looks competent and fun, which is exactly what it needs to be.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top