Here a great marketing idea.

>>82695195
All male remake would have been hated too. Keyword: remake

>>82695246
That another thing they got wrong. It was the original cast that made it so endearing. You can't force that kind of chemistry in film.

File: oceans-eight-sandra-bullock-cate-blanchett-anne-hathwaway.jpg (284KB, 825x464px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 825x464px

>>82695195
Did Hollywood learn anything?

No.

>>82695555
How will they make female "banter" not sound bitchy and passive aggressive? Is that possible?

>>82695555
>Its called Ocean 8 but the last one was called 13?

How does one get into the Oceans movie. How many are their actually and in what order do I watch them if the numbers don't mean anything?

>>82695195
the movie didnt tank
they made a profit which is pretty much what hollywood wants

>>82695195
I honestly believe that Sony's execs are plants with the mission to bankrupt the company.
Probably to sell dirty cheap all their IPs to Disney.

Maybe the movie tanked because most people don't give two shits about reboots.

Either you're old enough to remember the original property and avoid it or you're too young to remember what the fuck it is.

>>82695246
not all remakes are bad. little shop of horror, oceans 11, the thing, scarface, all were better then their original. the problem is, does everything need to be remade?

>>82695653
watch oceans 11, ignore all others, they are garbage. if you need another heisty movie watch italian job

>>82695684
It didn't even make its budget. They lost money on that movie. I heard they even scrapped the sequel. Hell they even got Lesia Jones to retweet Hamtaro porn during the Milo incident just so she could fain outrage and get SJWs to see it.

>>82695195
You're taking about Sony, the vile and evil company in the movie business.

They haven't learned a thing.

>>82695700
You might actually be right about that. No one could unintentionally be this incompetent

>>82695246
not if it was a "soft" remake, like Jurassic World and The Force Awakens.

>>82695758
Budget $144 million[4]
Box office $229.1 million[4]
you are wrong, sadly

>>82695769
>the vile and evil company in the movie business.
Sony isnt evil, just hilariously incompetent. Does no one else remember the leaks from a few years ago?

>>82695555
how is it Oceans anything if Danny Ocean isnt the mastermind?

>>82695937
Go to bed Paul.

>>82695911
Remakes masked as sequels should be destroyed.

Will never forgive JJ Abrams for tricking me into seeing a worst version of a New Hope with a few good sceans and characters.

We will see if the The Last Jedi can actually give this "trilogy" its own identity in the saga or if its just going to be more Member berries and forced memes.

>>82695937
You are not accounting marketing costs.

>>82695684
>>82695937
>Sources familiar with the film’s finances say that it’s likely to end up losing about $75 million, with Sony’s financial hit coming closer to about $50 million, because of its co-financing arrangement with Village Roadshow.

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/ghostbusters-loss-sony-50-million-1201834911/

>>82696053
And boy did they market the crap out of that sucker. Adding characters to that toys to life Lego game, the Progressive commercials, Hashtag emogi's, getting the cast on Ellen with Hillary.

They were hoping brand alone like Star Wars would sustain it.

>>82696053
>>82696086
thank god
im glad to hear it
>>82696178
you know liberals...

>>82695684
Budget: $144 million

The rule of thumb is that a movie needs to make twice its budget in ticket sales in order to be considered profitable. Worldwide, Ghostbusters made $229 million, which brings them about $60 million short of the goal.

And that's while presuming that Hollywood accountants are operating on the up and up. Those fuckers can prove that 1 + 1 = 0 if they try hard enough.

Remember the cautionary tale of Winston Groom, the author of Forrest Gump, who sold the film rights for his book for $300k plus a percentage of the net profits. Despite the fact that the movie made nearly $700 million over a $55 million budget, Groom pretty much didn't see a penny over his $300K, because he was told that the movie didn't make a profit. He got back at the producers by writing a really shitty sequel and refusing to sell the film rights (if no literary sequel existed, they could have made their own Forrest Gump sequel film, even without Groom's permission). He basically said that he couldn't condone the spending of even a single dollar on producing film that was sure to be a flop.

Thomas Harris wrote Hannibal Rising for pretty much the same reason. Dino De Laurentis' company told him that they were going to make a Hannibal Lecter prequel and he could be a part of it or not, so he wrote the shitty book, collected his paycheck, and whistled a happy tune while it tanked.

>>82695289
>You can't force that kind of chemistry in film
The issue was that (((2016))) had zero chemistry and zero jokes.

>>82696246
This is fascinating as fuck. Thanks for the info.

Reminder there will never be another GB movie because China doesn't like ghosts or some shit

This was the last hurrah

>>82696246
Is there any way for an author to craft a contract to guard against ((((((them)))))) keeping all the money, even if the movie is a Forrest Gump level super hit? A cut of the merchandise, maybe?

That sequel clause is pretty smart.

>>82696967
Ghosts are scary as fuck, so I support this decision.

>>82696967
I wonder what movies would look like if one day china just decided to embargo all american movies

>>82696246
>net profit
>not gross
He fucked up.

>>82695195
Jesus Christ, who the fuck keeps this kind of shit up just for (you)s? This is beyond tiresome

File: images (1).jpg (6KB, 276x183px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 276x183px

>>82695195
>hes still emotionally invested in this

SAD

Reminder that the Russos wanted to remake Ghostbusters with Chris Pratt and Channing Tatum. Talks died down and then they made Civil War which made a billion dollars.

>>82696246
>net profits
Remember gross not net, every time.

>>82697409
It would have been a piece of shit everyone hated too.
Muh all female cast wasn't why no one wanted to watch a Cuckbusters remake.

>>82697522
It would have made money with Pratt and Tatum.

>>82696246
>Budget: $144 million
This also doesn't include Promoting/Advertising the movie, which I believe was estimated at over $100M

File: 635806366582996575Ghostbusters2-2.jpg (63KB, 620x347px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 620x347px

>>82695195
I think they made a terrible mistake when they chose a chick flick comedy director for the project.
He then compounded the mistake by casting a bunch of his female friends in the cast.
The absurdly idiotic media campaign only gave it the killing blow.

I have to admit that watching the whole trainwreck unfold was entertaining tho.
I don't think we will see a flop with such a monumental shitposting ever again.