Ghostbusters: Afterlife

[Undrave]

I think at the point they made Ghostbusters: Answer the Call, an actual sequel had fallen off the table with Harold Ramis's death and Bill Murray's constant lack of interest. At that point, reboot (with cameos to incorporate the original cast rather than having them reprise their roles) seemed a reasonable thing to do.

More like an Hollywood thing to do. I’m still of the opinion they shouldn’t have waited for Bill Murray to make a Ghostbusters 3. This idea that people become fan of a franchise as nothing but a pile of names is why we got NuTrek instead of just continuing that universe, it’s why The Force Awakens was just Rebel VS Empire with the numbers filed off, or that Hasbro keeps putting out a crap ton of Bumblebees… or how we got Ghostbusters II in the first place.

If you look at what the Ghostbusters hard core fans have been doing, that is to say create their own Ghostbusters chapters all over the country and even world, you’d realize there was more to the franchise’s appeal than Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, Harold Raimis and Ernie Hudson (though Hudson got shafted in term of exposure and could have used more focus) and that obsessing over THESE FOUR GUYS meant we lost Harold Raimis before he could be Egon again and cost the franchise a lot of potential development. Imagine if they had just given an excuse for Venkman to not be there, use the third movie as a way to introduce more characters and kept going with a mix of old and new… and then at some point Murray might have come back on his own and then it would have been a big event. The Franchise could have been a big moneymaker if they had decided to develop it as a coherent universe.

Answer the Call didn’t need to reboot the franchise to star four women, nor to attract fans old and new.

This new movie looks primed to hook a new generation of young fans and I think if older fans bring their kids along, it’ll probably be spawning sequels for a while.

Now, just don’t obsessed over JUST those four characters…I think franchises who are willing to experiment a bit with their basic setup do better in the long run.

TL;DR: A franchise's appeal resides in more than just a pile of names.

 

[billd91]

Now, just don’t obsessed over JUST those four characters…I think franchises who are willing to experiment a bit with their basic setup do better in the long run.

TL;DR: A franchise's appeal resides in more than just a pile of names.

That, in part, depends on who's driving the franchise. In this case, it was largely in the hands of Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ivan Reitman the whole time. They had veto power over anything the studio wanted to do with Ghostbusters. So while the franchise may have appeal in more than just a pile of names, those names weren't just the stars, they were they creators and it was still theirs to develop until such time as they chose to relinquish it. And if they wanted to get the band back together for it, that was their right.

 

[Undrave]

That, in part, depends on who's driving the franchise. In this case, it was largely in the hands of Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, and Ivan Reitman the whole time. They had veto power over anything the studio wanted to do with Ghostbusters. So while the franchise may have appeal in more than just a pile of names, those names weren't just the stars, they were they creators and it was still theirs to develop until such time as they chose to relinquish it. And if they wanted to get the band back together for it, that was their right.

Fair enough, but I think they were blinded by that obsession just as any studio exec, even if not for the same reasons.

Maybe with the band now, sadly, broken forever, the franchise can move on in a more productive way...

 

[Nebulous]

Maybe with the band now, sadly, broken forever, the franchise can move on in a more productive way...

It will move on, yes. I doubt it will ever reach the phenomenal success of the first Ghostbusters, and even the team itself couldn't recreate that magic for the sequel.

 

[Umbran]

It will move on, yes. I doubt it will ever reach the phenomenal success of the first Ghostbusters, and even the team itself couldn't recreate that magic for the sequel.

Phenomenal success? Box Office Mojo reports the original movie having a budget of $144 million, and box office gross of about $230 million. That's not a failure, but phenomenal?

A phenomenal success is more like Spider Man: Far From Home with a budget of $160 million, pulling in $1 billion.

 

[Undrave]

Phenomenal success? Box Office Mojo reports the original movie having a budget of $144 million, and box office gross of about $230 million. That's not a failure, but phenomenal?

A phenomenal success is more like Spider Man: Far From Home with a budget of $160 million, pulling in $1 billion.

The Real Ghostbusters and its adjacent toy line don't get enough props for keeping the brand alive enough to justify a sequel five years later.

Do note that the first movie was the second highest grossing movie of 1984, behind Beverly Hills Cop.

 

[Umbran]

Do note that the first movie was the second highest grossing movie of 1984, behind Beverly Hills Cop.

Yes, but this is why I note both budget and gross, rather than just gross - you can then get a measure of return on investment in a way that's pretty inflation-proof. Ghostbusters returned something like 1.6 x its budget. Spider man returned like 6.8 x its budget.

Ghostbusters was a success. But not a phenomenal one.

 

[Undrave]

Yes, but this is why I note both budget and gross, rather than just gross - you can then get a measure of return on investment in a way that's pretty inflation-proof. Ghostbusters returned something like 1.6 x its budget. Spider man returned like 6.8 x its budget.

Ghostbusters was a success. But not a phenomenal one.

But have movie ticket prices matched regular inflation of have they gotten more expensive? And the advent of premium theatres have also changed the worth of the metric. And you have to consider it in context. I don't think that having the second highest grossing movie of a year would be considered anything but a great success. Especially considering it was a pretty high concept movie with no real character arcs...

 

[Nebulous]

Phenomenal success? Box Office Mojo reports the original movie having a budget of $144 million, and box office gross of about $230 million. That's not a failure, but phenomenal?

A phenomenal success is more like Spider Man: Far From Home with a budget of $160 million, pulling in $1 billion.

Yes. You can't compare a billion dollar movie franchise to a single 1984 comedy.

Over the June 8-10 weekend in 1984, director Ivan Reitman's Ghostbusters opened to $13.6 million — or $35 million when adjusted for inflation, a strong showing before the era of the mega-summer openings and when movies opened in far fewer theaters but played for much longer.

Ghostbusters quickly transformed into a hit, surpassing Steven Spielberg's Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom to become the highest-grossing film of summer 1984 and the No. 2 film of the year behind Beverly Hills Cop with $229.2 million. (Beverly Hills Cop, released in mid-December, earned $234.8 million.)

When adjusting for inflation, Ghostbusters earned $589.7 million at the North American box office, including grosses from when the classic VFX comedy was later rereleased. Put another way, it is considered the most successful comedy of the 1980s.

 

[Umbran]

But have movie ticket prices matched regular inflation of have they gotten more expensive?

I don't think ticket prices have outpaced inflation by that much.

Looking around, I found: The average movie ticket price in 1984 was $3.36. Adjusted for inflation, that should be about $8.30 in 2019. The averages suggest ticket sales of about 88 million units.

Average ticket price in 2019? $9.26. Only a buck more than an adjusted 1984 ticket. The average suggests Spider Man sold 122 million tickets.

So, based on these averages, I am sorry, but Spider Man sold lots more tickets overall than Ghostbusters did.

Be that as it may, I don't think it matters much. You are a movie studio. Which do you want more - a movie that returns 1.6 times what you put into it, or a movie that returns 6.8 times what you put into it? Which is more successful?

And the advent of premium theatres have also changed the worth of the metric.

See above - on average, ticket prices are only a buck higher today, adjusted for inflation.

And you have to consider it in context. I don't think that having the second highest grossing movie of a year would be considered anything but a great success.

Um, saying "second best in a year is always a great success" is specifically not taking the context into account. If I am rating tallest people... in a 3rd grade class... then coming in second doesn't really mean you;re all that tall.

So, again, Ghostbusters did okay. Not arguing that it was a flop or anything. Just saying that it wasn't earth-shattering in its sales or profitability back in the day.