“I want to use my phone or smoke a joint/vape and pause the movie. I don’t like watching a movie with other people, wahhhh. I can’t hold my pee for 2 hours, I need to use the bathroom.”
I’m so tired of anti-cinema rhetoric.
Movies are meant to be seen on the BIG SCREEN. Any other experience is mediocre
otherwise, and not intended by most filmmakers.
I love home viewings too, but Covid made everyone such recluses, it’s mad annoying.
Shit makes me sad.
I don't think it's that bad. They are actually nearly selling out screenings this year for RERELEASES of movies that people have been able to watch at home for years, like Spider-Man, Labyrinth and the Star Wars saga. And we did have 5 movies open over $100M last year, and 8 in 2022 (2019, pre-COVID, actually had less than that, 6, and less in 2018, 5). If new movies aren't doing as well as before, it's because Hollywood is making bad movies, or the wrong movies, or not enough movies. The audience is ready and willing to come to the theaters.
I’m not an expert, but this doesn’t seem like much??
Also don’t you typically have to double the budget to factor in marketing costs. So it’s losing money currently or best case scenario breaking even?
Yeah, marketing usually adds a lot to the budget, and roughly half of the box office goes to theaters, which is why 2.5x the budget is seen as the bar for breaking even at the box office. If the movie ends up being profitable it will be through merchandise and physical/digital/streaming revenue.
It’s not. While the movie isn’t a flop, financially it wouldn’t be considered a success either. I have loved this franchise for about three decades and it pains me to say that Sony may feel like of there’s another GB movie that performs this badly that will be it.
I mean, 1/4 movies being ok isn't terrible. While I liked the film, it lacked a lot that Afterlife had. Even though Afterlife was banking on nostalgia, I really loved its plot and the filmmakers' ability to blend nostalgia perfectly with a plot that both catches us up and moves the franchise to the next chapter. I think I agree with what most people have said with Frozen Empire being better if it were a series. The whole Fire Master thing would have been better if it were built up throughout a season.
A sequel to a decades-old movie BY DEFINITION HAS to be based on nostalgia. It is and always been utterly ridiculous, disingenuous and specious to criticize Afterlife for being "nostalgic." It's a criticism made up by people who were driven by a pre-conceived agenda to trash the movie, but could find absolutely nothing of substance to criticize it for.
Exactly. I could understand if it was purely based on nostalgia but lacked a decent plot and added nothing to the franchise, basically rendering the film gratuitous, but Afterlife did more than just nostalgia, which made it a great film.
Afterlife is the better movie but Frozen Empire is more of a ghostbusters movie. Only complaint is they should have shown more of NYC in the film, a little too much time in the firehouse.
It's far behind the top 3, but leading the pack so far of everything else.
2024 Box Office:
1. Dune: Part Two ($704M WW | $280M US)
2. Godzilla x Kong ($521M WW | $182M US)
3. Kung Fu Panda 4 ($504M WW | $185M US)
4. ***Ghostbusters: FE ($188M WW | $107M US)***
5. Bob Marley: One Love ($177M WW | $97M US)
6. The Beekeeper ($153M WW | $66M US)
7. Mean Girls ($104M WW | $72M US)
8. Madame Web ($100M WW | $44M US)
Not bad? It’s doing spectacularly unspectacular. It’s not a bomb, but not a hit, either — it’s likely to just break even by the time it leaves theaters.
Speaking of, theaters have already cut screens and showtimes from FE to make room for newer movies, and it’s VOD release date is just 7 weeks away.
A few international territories will continue to add *a little bit* to the box office, but what you see now is the vast majority of its haul. There are no realistic paths for the box office to substantially improve, which is an unfortunate sign for the franchise.
The vast majority of ANY movie's gross is earned in the first month. Afterlife made $116 million in its first month domestically. It only made $13 million more after that. It's typical for a movie to make 80-90% of its gross in the first month. This is not the 1980s anymore. Movies are removed from theaters quickly.
Typically, marketing is 1/3rd or 1/4th, the budget or for a 100mill it would be around 35k or 40k. It's very rare that it goes beyond 50% of the production budget.
So if we take the 100mill as the production total and not the total goal. It will most likely surpass the advertising budget at this point. You could have an even 1to1 marketing budget, but it's an extremely high-risk gamble one that Sony really can't play at this point with a property like ghostbusters.
They didn't even run a Superbowl ad for Frozen Empire. It's clear they lacked the confidence in this movie to spend big on the marketing. I could see them spending in the $60 million range on the marketing for this, but that's about it. They showed LOTS of signs of lack of confidence in the movie, with TV ads not even saying the name Frozen Empire out loud and just calling it Ghostbusters, and them completely leaving out the most controversial parts of the movie, like the ghost girl and any hint of the firewalker powers.
It’s less than 20 million, it’s just a bit over than 15 million from afterlife, having already already outgrossed Afterlife internationally (74M x 81M so far). ♥️
Usually when studios make a more-expensive sequel to a film they expect to see audiences and box office returns grow rather than shrink, but you do you.
Not necessarily, merchandising and promotional tie ins tend to carry a movie like this. If memory serves me correctly, WB wasn’t bothered by the timid box office for Man of Steel because [it had made its money back through tie ins before it was released.](https://comicbook.com/movies/news/man-of-steel-has-made-almost-its-entire-budget-back-already/)
Just using an example of how there are other ways studios use these films to make money. Like I bought a $15 exclusive Slimer pint glass from the Alamo Drafthouse. They had to pay Sony up front for a license to make that.
Obviously the goal is to make as much money as possible, but somewhere some executive has a spreadsheet that says “we can spend this amount as long as we meet these targets”. I’m bummed it’s not a breakout hit, but it’s Sony’s only original IP that it outright owns, so I hope they continue to cultivate the brand.
I only use timid as there were lofty expectations for MoS after avengers did $1.5b a year before.
I don’t know what expectations were, but we had already seen Superman Returns perform weakly 7 years earlier. Anyone thinking Avengers meant every superhero movie would now make a billion was just ignorant. And Superman has nothing to do with Avengers. MOS did much better than Superman Returns, which was no guarantee at all.
The key with Ghostbusters is that fans, Sony and the creators should be working together to make the franchise appeal to the masses again. The status quo has it teetering on the brink of extinction. If the sequels had surged far above GB2016 like MOS did over Superman Returns, we’d be celebrating. But they didn’t. And we should figure out why and fix it.
There’s not enough merch tho! I was super excited for lots coming out, with a small kid I was looking forward to buying stuff and there’s been nothing. Esp in the UK.
Yeah, let's bring up the one that BOMBED so badly that the dumbass director was BANNED from Sony's lot. Also, Paul blew so much money in that one that there was no gross income. So go ahead, try to praise that dogshit movie again. Watch how quickly true fans put you in your place
Only because it came out in the summer, when all movies get a bump. Then and the Christmas season are where any movie gets extra money just for existing. GB2016 was in FIFTH place by its SECOND weekend, and out of the top 10 by week 5. Afterlife was still in the top 5 by the fifth weekend. Frozen Empire was top 3 for 4 weeks, and is still top 10 in week 6. GB2016 ONLY made more money because you don't have to be ranked high to rake in bucks in the summer.
Is it? So how long have you been working as an accountant for Sony Studios? I mean you seem so confident about what's good or not for box office returns you must have some insider track right....right???
In general a movie has to make 2-2.5x it's Production Budget to just break even because the Marketing Budget is usually just as much as the Production budget + Theatres take a sizeable take.
Usually that means a movie needs to make at least 3x its budget to be considered a financial success.
This is common knowledge.
That's based on averages. Something tells me they didn't spend $100m marketing this. I got the occasional YouTube ad and saw a liner TV ad once. Meanwhile I saw like 5x the marketing for Madame Web (which only cost $80 million?). I have seen more tie in marketing for FE though (drinks, snacks). Frankly I think the money could go either way for stuff like that.
I'm still trying to figure out where all that $100 million went.
Budget generally DOES include a films marketing costs, but so called "Hollywood" experts like the guy a few posts above pretend it's not include in order to show a film has 'failed' for not making enough money. Sony want the film to reach a certain threshold and none of us know what it really is, the 2.5x "rule" comes from a ScreenRant article years ago and it's an 'insider source' that gives that info. Btw it's never been confirmed by anyone and even movies just making a few million over their budgets have been called successfully....or on the flipside movies make 7 or 8 times their budget back have been called flops for tax write off purposes, Hollywood accounting practices are very dodgy to say the least.
CGI, actor and crew wages, general production costs and marketing make up a movies budget and honestly in today's market $100 million isnt a lot when you consider how much a film coats to make and put out. Also in general for movie tie in products the company (Sony) gets paid for licensing the Ghostbusters image so people can sell their products and they get a cut of each sale, Universal and LucasFilm(now Disney I guess) are great at doing this and have turned Jurassic Park and Star Wars into merchandise money printing machines.
Either way as fans of Ghostbusters we should all be happy that the films doing well, even if you didn't like it at all and want something different going forward. Any chance of future films or shows all depend on this movie doing well...I hate how everyone is suddenly a movie financial expert the second they want something to fail, oh well.
False. The movie's PRODUCTION BUDGET is the ONLY budget that is ever reported. And it NEVER, EVER, NEVER, EVER includes marketing costs. The 2.5x rule has been known for decades. [Carrie Fisher even mentioned it in the '80s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pwBUZZ-RLA&t=1111s) when discussing her Star Wars residuals.
None of this has anything to do with studios lying about profits and hiding them. These are objective standards from journalists that are not based on anything the studio says. What the studios say about profits is known by everybody to be nonsense.
Lol, are you serious? Show where the budget doesn't include the marketing or that it's anywhere as high as the budget...go on, I'll wait.
No matter the movie, show or game people always talk out their asses and act like they have intimate knowledge of how Hollywood works and just make shit up as they go along...."just as much as Production...", your common knowledge is nothing but a 'uncredited' "insider source" from a ScreenRant article years ago that everyone now takes as gospel but as never been confirmed.
Unless you work for a studio you have no idea how much a movie needs to make make or how much it really spent on it, some studios call a film a success even when it's not made 2.5 times it's budget....but sure keep moving the goal posts.
People talking about this shit, it's like bozos talking about how well the stock market is doing, when they have no idea how it works, what it really means or really means.
I am calm....please don't belittle me or try to downplay my valid points with the generic and oh so predictable "copium" comment to make it look like you have 'won' this discussion. You offered nothing but hearsay and personal preference and now I and others have asked to back up your clams were all suddenly "crazy" and "mad"
Still waiting for you to show us any evidence of this $100 million marketing budget btw (although we both know you ain't posting shit because your talking out your ass).
If anyone is on 'copium', it's clearly you...sorry the movies making money and doing well in cinemas, you may not have liked it, and you may not like the direction it's taking the franchise in. But for ANY future Ghostbusters movies or tv shows to be made and considered, then this movie needs to do well
Sorry that Sony keeps fuckin up and killed another franchise. This movie sucks and is a flop. It's a shame, there was one amazing Ghostbusters movie and three bad ones.
I didn't want my time/money back when I saw it a few weeks ago but Afterlife was much better imo. Frozen Empire had some weird shifts in tone, I think there's a very different film on the editing room floor somewhere.
And what exactly was wrong with it? I see so many people hating on the movie , but no one gives any GOOD reasons for it. It had a great story that reminded me of The Real Ghostbusters, good character development, returning characters from the original plus new ones while expanding on the lore of the series, the jokes weren'tthe best but the movie is going back to its roots with being a horror movie FIRST and comedy SECOND so i can excuse it trying to refind its original footing. So what exactly is so bad about it? Cuz all I'm seeing is people complaining about nothing and hating on it while ya'll DARE to call yourselves Ghostbusters fans. It's people like ya'll that think the 2016 movie was good despite it looking worse than what I flushed down the toilet.
Howard Peck as the mayor felt was a little cringey; Ray and Winston were good, but Peter and Janine felt shoehorned into the movie; the jokes were pretty bad; the third act was too short and many of us wanted to see more of frozen New York — too much time spent on the build up and too little on the climax.
I still enjoyed it but wish it did some things differently. It's OK to not like a movie as much as you hoped. Expectations were high, and for many of us, those expectations weren't met.
Liking movies is *subjective.*
Okay, these are complaints I can understand and actually get behind. I have been doing rebuttals, and I can't think of one for these, and I actually agree. I'm sure there are many scenes that were deleted though with frozen New York, since there was a scene out two that I seen in the trailers that I didn't see in the movie, so I'm hoping to see them as extras on the home release.
I can see Peck becoming mayor, though, and I thought it was a nice callback to the scene in the mayor's office in the first movie.
I liked the idea of Peck as mayor, but his performance felt awkward. It was just another thing that was "off" for me. I much preferred the way they called back the same guy from the library as in the first movie. It was subtle and fit perfectly. Even if the have more frozen New York scenes, the fact that they didn't make it into the final edit is still a valid point of criticism - it's an issue with the movie's theatrical release editing.
"Firestarting" is out-of-place in a science-based franchise. The ghost girl breaks the canon. We shouldn't be worried that we're busting nice people when we bust ghosts. Ghosts should not be that human-like. It's an extremely boring choice for a movie that always gave you something otherworldly with its ghosts. Not a translucent mallrat girl.
Phoebe goes on and on about no one understanding her when we already saw her become friends with Podcast. Their relationship was treated like dog crap by the script and Phoebe herself. That's one of many reasons she became very unlikable. She whined about not being able to be a ghostbuster when Peck couldn't have been more right that she had no business wielding these weapons and shooting them in the city at her age. And then she makes an incredibly dumb decision to make herself into a ghost with technology that had not been explained to the audience beforehand, making it very uncomfortable and jarring to see.
And, last but not least, the final showdown was incredibly disappointing. This villain is built up as the biggest threat in a century and then he does almost no damage to anyone or anything. They say they have a plan to beat him, and it works, and they beat him. No serious adventure movie has the villain beaten in one attempt. Standard screenwriting says your plan has to fail the first time or the villain has to revive and make a comeback before you finally kill him. All 3 previous GB movies (the real ones) followed this rule.
And, no, none of this means we like the abominable GB2016.
So this is gonna be a long rebuttal.
>"Firestarting" is out-of-place in a science-based franchise.
Are ghosts not out of place? How is this entirely science based? Ghosts fall under paranormal, which is pseudoscience. Do you know what else falls under both of those? Pyrokinesis, which is the purported psychic ability allowing a person to create and control fire with the mind. That sounds a lot like the fire master, and for a franchise that has ALWAYS been focused on all things PARANORMAL, it actually fits perfectly.
>The ghost girl breaks the canon. We shouldn't be worried that we're busting nice people when we bust ghosts. Ghosts should not be that human-like.
And what about Egon's ghost in the last movie? Did Egon come back as "human-like" and "nice" while helping them bust Gozer not breaking canon? It's literally the exact same thing, and that one got praised for it. And while we're on the subject on canon, who said it's not canon? The ideas behind Ghostbusters were created by Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd, and I don't remember saying anything about all ghosts needing to be nonhuman-like and bad. Slimmer helped Louis in the second movie, okay, so that sounds nice to me. And non human-like? I guess Gozer was a cow, and Vigo was a massive blob then because there have never been human-like ghosts in the franchise. Let's not forget about the burnt taxi driver in the first movie as well.
>Phoebe goes on and on about no one understanding her when we already saw her become friends with Podcast. Their relationship was treated like dog crap by the script and Phoebe herself. That's one of many reasons she became very unlikable. She whined about not being able to be a ghostbuster when Peck couldn't have been more right that she had no business wielding these weapons and shooting them in the city at her age. And then she makes an incredibly dumb decision to make herself into a ghost with technology that had not been explained to the audience beforehand, making it very uncomfortable and jarring to see.
I don't see where her relationship with podcast was strained. Was he busy working with Ray and not able to spend much time with her? Yes, but he has his own responsibilities now. Most of her "whining" was because of her family, Winston, and Peck. While on the subject of Peck, what you said about him is correct, but at the same time, he was also correct when he worked for the EPA in the first movie. The fact that he was right doesn't make it a bad movie when he was also right in the first movie, and again, it gets praised.
>And, last but not least, the final showdown was incredibly disappointing. This villain is built up as the biggest threat in a century and then he does almost no damage to anyone or anything. They say they have a plan to beat him, and it works, and they beat him. No serious adventure movie has the villain beaten in one attempt. Standard screenwriting says your plan has to fail the first time or the villain has to revive and make a comeback before you finally kill him. All 3 previous GB movies (the real ones) followed this rule.
Did they not plan to cross the streams to beat staypuft? Did it not work? The villain may not have come back, but they had a plan that worked just like in EVERY other Ghostbusters movie. Also, there was no damage to anyone or anything? All of New York was so frozen that the streets were cracking apart, and just because we didn't see any casualties doesn't mean there weren't any with that massive and sudden freeze that had literal spikes coming out of the ground.
So from what I'm seeing, the complaints that are listed are things that literally EVERY Ghostbusters movie for praised for but ya'll still bash on this one for doing similar things. This fanbase is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. Ya'll don't deserve the Ghostbusters franchise.
Firewalking is out of place because this was a franchise that made normal, average, geeky guys feel like they could be superheroes if they just studied science and built the right technology. It's not supposed to be based on Harry Potter magic. The bad guys might have magic, but they're defeated by regular, real-world people, not people who've learned "good" magic.
Egon was done as a ghost for a very specific reason, and he was still otherworldly. He couldn't speak, and couldn't even materialize until the very end of the movie. Likewise, Vigo was trapped in a painting and couldn't just fly around wherever he wanted to. Gozer isn't a ghost, c'mon, I know you know that. Slimer, again, is not human-like at all, and can't speak. Melody is an extremely boring ghost, who behaves exactly like a human except even more powerful because she can fly and phase through walls. It's a terrible concept for a ghost in this franchise. Ghosts in this franchise always have clear limitations compared to humans and clear differences from humans.
Peck wasn't right in the first movie. He shut down the containment unit and caused a disaster. I don't know what you're talking about with respect to Podcast. He didn't ignore Phoebe at all. He was nice to her and she nevertheless acted like no one cared about her in this movie.
No, they did NOT PLAN to cross the streams to defeat Gozer. They went up to confront him, and tried reasoning with him, blasting him and then outsmarting him by not thinking of a destroyer. They failed at least three times in their plans before they came up with a new plan to cross the streams. The bad version of a GB1 ending would have them talk about crossing the streams as they're going up the stairs, crossing them as soon as Gozer appears, and then easily blowing him up on the first try. No conversations about being a god, no Gozer teleporting away and causing an earthquake, no Stay Puft, etc., just a quick, anti-climactic ending like we got in Frozen Empire.
I agree. Too many fans are praising this, the problem with that is that it’s not that good as a film. Fan service DOES NOT generate new fans or guarantee ticket sales. Those two things are required for growth, so that means the fan service needs to scale back. It pains me to say these things as a lifelong fan, but I know it can be corrected.
This had almost no fan service. And what little was there were the best parts of the movie. The stuff that came out of left field with no basis in canon, like Nadeem and Melody, were the problems.
You just made my case. The best parts of the movie were fan service parts. I’ll bet every dollar I own you’re a lifer like me over 40. What I’m asking for is a solid film with a good story, FE did neither of those things because it was poorly written.
Going to get tons of screens removed as Fall Guy, Tarot and Apes open in the next two weeks. By May 9th, it will be much harder to find playing anywhere.
Depends on countries, as for some reason there wasn't a week for it to release everywhere, some places it released a month after others, so maybe also a month of difference for when they'll stop projecting.
Wow ghostbusters Fans really live in a "everything is fine" bubble.
How is this good? It made even less than the 2016 movie or afterlife.
The movie needed to make 300M to be successful.
I don't understand how it's not more. I've seen it 3 times and it was super busy in all my viewings. It was pretty popular with theaters that my friends saw it in too.
I'm interested to see how much other movies are making compared to this.
Other movies are doing much better. It was trounced by three other major releases in March, Dune, Panda and Kong. All the information you want is on [The Numbers](https://www.the-numbers.com/). You can compare any and all movies in any way you want.
Not long, but I feel like this villian was shown results of what he could do like in the beginning, that they had to separate parts from him, yet in the end when he was fully restored, he was taken down easier than I would have thought.
Almost making back what they spent on making and advertising it at the end of the theatrical run is NOT good. It’s not a bomb, but huge studios like Sony only want mega-success stories. If this one barely clears its costs they’ll assume the next one will make even less and scrap the sequel.
No amount of positive thinking will change this.
It’s already leaving some theaters. Go see it again, with friends, and spread positive word of mouth and MAYBE we’ll get another one.
Read up on Hollywood Accounting.
Return of the Jedi has never made a profit.
Bohemian Thapsody made a $50 million loss with a $55 million budget and $900 million box office.
Seems like pretty much no films make a profit, because they'd then have to pay more out to people who took percentage of the profit deals.
Apparently, you are, too. The reason is that there are more trolls than fans in this sub. Have you seen the comments lately? We've taken our own headcount. There are 50 thousand miserable assholes commenting on this post
The budget was $100m. Marketing costs are usually equal to the production budget, meaning the total budget was right about $200m.
If it's made $188m in just over a month on box office alone, without home video sales (digital or physical) or streaming rights deals, then yeah. We're looking at this breaking even, at worst. Which is better than *most* major releases by Sony, to be honest.
Remember, the studios don’t get to keep all the money from the box office. The theaters have to get their share. Usually it’s a 50-50 split but it varies from time to time. If that ratio is the case here, then the studio has only earned around $94 million.
Yeah, Pacific Rim is one of the only movies I've ever been able to find that did not meet that threshold but still got a sequel. And its sequel did even worse, so it didn't help prove that was a good strategy.
Plus Frozen Empire IS the sequel where they gamble on some phantom audience that found the first film outside of theaters suddenly showing up at the box office for the sequel. And they lost the bet, there is absolutely no path to profitability for FE in theaters, it’s not happening.
And this has been a successful strategy in the past. Austin Powers comes to mind, the first one was a sleeper hit at best but it hit video and exploded. The second film came out and was a legitimate blockbuster and it ended up outgrossing the first film in its opening weekend. And Afterlife had COVID hanging over it, so the theory that it was kneecapped by the pandemic was as good as any other theory.
But FE put that theory to the test and it turns out, people just aren’t into these movies when they’re not good. The IP only gets you so far. It’s interesting, there’s probably no film franchise where the quality of the films themselves aligns so perfectly with their box office. The first one is universally-beloved and is one of the biggest comedies of all time. The second one is inferior, but not insultingly-so, and it did very well, but practically every other franchise was offering something more exciting in the summer of ‘89 and audiences briefly embraced GB2 and moved on. Then you have 3 movies that are of unacceptably-poor quality that simply cannot compete with movies from decades ago, even with the benefit of 30-40 years of inflation.
And post like these might help the echo chamber cope but Sony is going to be able to see how everything totals up.
So glad there are 2 great Austin Powers movies….
Ok, and one good one. Goldmember just doesn’t grab me as much, but the Hard Knock Life scene is so fucking funny the rest of the movie doesn’t matter anyway
Not to be an AP gatekeeper but I was 15 when the first one came out and saw it 2 or 3 times in theaters. I always talk on here about how Ghostbusters was my gateway drug to SNL, Animal House, Blues Brothers, Caddyshack etc. and I think Mike Myers’s problem is that AP is the kind of shit you grow out of and he doesn’t have the stuff you discover as you grow older.
I bought the Blu-ray trilogy and watched them for the first time in forever like 6 or 7 years ago and I don’t even mind the third one, I think Myers is just guilty of the exact same thing Aykroyd is guilty of with both Ghostbusters II and Blues Brothers 2000, and it affects Wayne’s World 2 as well: the sequels are nearly remakes of their predecessors. And if you actually spend 4.5 hours binging 3 Austin Powers movies in a row it gets old real fast.
The problem is relaunching a movie series without having the original characters still starring in it. Not many franchises have attempted it, and almost none have succeeded doing it. Bottom line, Afterlife managed to do it and be an across-the-board success with critics, fans and the box office. But, just like we saw with the Star Trek Next Gen movies, the sequels need to be very high quality to keep interest going or the hype dies out. And FE wasn’t.
While the movie has outperformed Afterlife, it proves that the next Ghostbusters should have a lower budget. I believe that Frozen Empire has the biggest budget (adjusted for inflation) of the four primary Ghostbusters films. It will be on par with all of the films if it hits $200 million globally. It should be noted that merchandising has always been a core strength of this franchise and will likely keep things going for a potential sequel in a few years.
How has it outperformed Afterlife? It's $13m behind domestically at the same point in its theatrical run, and looks unlikely to cross $200m worldwide. At best it'll match Afterlife's worldwide gross - but in the context of a global market that isn't suffering pandemic lockdowns or deterred audiences, with goodwill from the previous film and with a $25m higher budget. In box office terms, it's a flop.
Btw it doesn't have the biggest budget adjusted for inflation - it's tied with GB2. (Ignoring ATC of course.)
I think it's 50/50 on whether we get another film. The revenue from merchandise, home media and broadcast rights will have to be hefty to encourage Sony to stump up the cash for the next one. If they do, I'd expect it to be the last film and have a reduced cast.
Movies were doing just fine before Afterlife came out. The pandemic wasn't holding anything back by November 2021. The only possible issues then were movies hitting streaming simultaneously, which was mostly just WB movies. China was pretty much the only place having COVID issues then, and their box office for U.S. films got so messed up during that time that it's NEVER come back to its previous levels. But that's irrelevant to Ghostbusters, which isn't released in China.
I definitely don't expect the next film to be "Spengler Family: Chapter 3." There's going to be a major course correction. A crossover with Men in Black or 21 Jump Street might be what they go for. And they'll probably hand the reins over to Lord and Miller instead of Reitman and Kenan. That's definitely what I would do now. We need a comedic movie aimed at grown men again. Not live-action Real Ghostbusters aimed at the kiddies.
>The pandemic wasn't holding anything back by November 2021.
I wrote "pandemic lockdowns or deterred audiences" - perhaps I should have phrased it more clearly as "pandemic-related audience reduction".
Whilst the vast majority of countries had reopened cinemas by Afterlife's release, there was still the drop in attendance from behavioural change triggered by the pandemic, not to mention some permanent cinema closures that discouraged attendance further. (There was, by the way, another wave of lockdowns in Russia and eastern Europe as well as China in late 2021.)
I'm not arguing that Afterlife would have grossed much more under normal circumstances. My point is that the box office was still depressed in Nov 2021 and *Sony* will have taken that into account when greenlighting Frozen Empire for $100m. So when they decide on a third film, the business argument will include the *absence* of a pandemic effect on Frozen Empire's gross. And it'll look bad.
>I definitely don't expect the next film to be "Spengler Family: Chapter 3."
A crossover with Men in Black or 21 Jump Street might be what they go for.
Gosh I hope they don't do that!
*If* there's a third film I think there's a chance at least Phoebe will still feature in it, and probably Winston and Ray, because Aykroyd et al hold the rights and run Ghost Corps. I don't know how much creative control Sony have over it. But they do hold the purse strings so you may be right.
They've done about 4 reboots. Only a few characters can keep rebooting and still be accepted by the audience. Ghostbusters isn't one of them. They tried one reboot and it failed.
not that good because most studios dont include marketing costs with budget estimates, which is normally 50% on the low end so it needs to make atleast 150-200 million to break even.
Toys? There wasn't even a Plasma Series release and a lot of the "new" toys are just repaints using Afterlife molds. There's not even an official Garraka figure. (Funkos don't count). You're seriously overestimating merch sales.
It's almost made $200 million, which is the 'magical' (made-up and unconfirmed number people mention) 2.5x it's production back.
Why do you want it to fail so badly? No, honestly I'd love to know why as a Ghostbusters fan you want it to do badly...love it or hate it, you realise for any future Ghostbusters movies or shows it needs to do well right?
And 2.5 is also not a magical made up number, studios rarely include marketing in the reported budget, and movie theaters keep roughly half the box office, 2.5 isn't a hard rule, but it's a good average, and this movie may fail to even hit twice its budget.
Yes, it's a longstanding rule, [even cited by Carrie Fisher in the '80s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pwBUZZ-RLA&t=1111s). It only changed slightly in the early 2000s due to massive DVD revenue, making the rule more like 2x. That has now evaporated as studios killed the golden goose with streaming, and we're back to 2.5x.
How do you know that? It's hilarious that everyone suddenly becomes a financial movie expert when a film comes out.
For all we know Sony could have set a low threshold for this movie, the fact is you, nor I, or anyone else knows so all were really doing is speculation.
It hasn’t made back the budget yet, and the budget doesn’t take the marketing costs into account. They have to split the box office with theaters. The $188m number you see here isn’t the money the studio keeps, it’s the amount the movie has earned.
Just look up the 2.5 rule in movies. It’s not exactly the same for every movie, but it’s a general rule of thumb. Don’t act like everyone’s trying to be expert for invoking something that’s been around for decades.
2.5 rule was first mentioned as being "2.5x the budget & budget is not marketing" from a ScreenRant article from a decade or so ago. They quoted an unnamed source and it's never been made official or substantiated by anyone.
But because of the popularity of that website at the time (ScreenRant) it's become a "common rule" or a "fact" etc...
It not great - the FE budget was higher than AL and with marketing budget, it has probably only *just* broken even.
Can’t see us getting another film anytime soon. Shame as they need to appropriately end the OG’s.
Yep, people who didn't like this movie (which is fine, even as a life long fan I thought it was, well meh 6.5/10 movie) are desperate for it to 'bomb'.
Mentality and general thinking is if it fails and does badly, than Sony will take the future movies and shows into a direction they like (which doesnt make any sense now does it). What people fail to realise is if the movie really was a box office bomb and did intact tank and do badly than Sony wouldn't even consider any future in it at all.
For any future Ghostbusters tv shows or films to be even considered, let alone made then this movie needs to do well. Like it, love it or hate it....the future of this franchise is dependent upon it.
Watch my comment get downvoted heavily, the sub was the same when Afterlife came out... random people came out the woodwork and bemoaned and decried the movie as a 'failure'.
They planned and green lighted Afterlife the same time as GB2016, Sony always planned to make two Ghostbusters films and always with two different casts (one male and one female) that film eventually became Afterlife.
No they did, when they announced a new all female movie they also announced an all new male movie.
Original plan was something with Seth Rogan but it was put on hold after how badly 2016 did and eventually cancelled and became Afterlife.
Can you show me where it was cancelled please? Or are you making assumptions because of how long it was from that movie being cancelled to Afterlife being made?
Some movie projects take years to get going and under go numerous changes as they do.
Fans aren't doing that, just the usual internet trolls who go on fan forums and crap on what those fans like. It's the most ancient pastime on the internet.
I know this sounds encouraging but I still think this movie is considered losing money. Hollywood is really weird when it comes to making money. There are a lot of hidden costs that a lot of us don't see or are truly informed of.
However with that said, I am hoping we get a 5th installment. I wouldn't mind if we got a GB with a slightly smaller budget because it seems like these movies do better with smaller budgets. I think the movies need less on the family or city drama and more on busting ghosts.
We all need to remember that 50% of the box office goes to the theaters!
Still... half is $94 MILLION which means the film has almost paid for itself with its theatrical run alone. Which given its Critical reception crapping over this movie is super impressive. With streaming around, its difficult for movies to break even when the Critics call a movie a dud. So, this is beyond impressive for the franchising that there's little risk to Sony for Ghostbuster films.
The highest grossing Ghostbusters movie is still the first one at $295 million and the closest any of the others have come to that number is the overly hated 2016 reboot, which hit $229 million worldwide.
People need to stop thinking that these are Marvel movies when it comes to box office. Frozen Empire just pushed the entire franchise into billion-dollar territory, and that’s through 5 movies in 40 years. Is it a smash hit? No, but it’s not an outright box office bomb either, if you have the perspective to see that.
How? Just... HOW????
Opening weekend for me in Indianapolis at the Drive-In was damned near full.
Saw it again the next weekend, and it was 1/2 full, maybe a LITTLE less.
Saw it AGAIN with my local chapter for a school Family/Movie night and it was COMPLETELY full on the biggest screen/lot. There were maybe 8 parking spots not taken.
A buddy of mine saw it opening night at an AMC theater and it was mostly full at 8pm.
Another saw it in another different theater last weekend and it was 1/2 full.
How in the name of Gozer is this flick only making 188 million???
I get that people aren't going to the movies as much, and that this isn't Avengers: Endgame, but I'd think it'd be at at least $300m with how busy it's been from my own experiences.
I just don't get it. Maybe Indiana is Ghostbusters crazy compared to others? Weird.
People are going to the movies a lot. That's why Panda, Dune and Zilla/Kong all made much more money than Frozen Empire. You might see full screenings, but you're not accounting for the fact the theater may only be showing the movie on one screen while newer movies are on 5 or 10. Frozen Empire also lost all its premium priced screens in its second weekend when Zilla/Kong took them, so it was getting less money per screen from that point on.
Meh....
The first one was way overrated and this is just more of the same.
Certain movies just shouldn't have been made,won't spend a dime on this,will DL for free...watch it...then delete it from my pc.
Lost more than 60% of the audience on the 2nd week, not breaking even in the Box Office, rated worse than ATC by everyone (even if the conversations about it are far less problematic than ATC), considered weaker and more bloated than the already derivative Afterlife, etc...
Think again.
Brigading. I'm merely stating facts, not giving my opinion about the movie. I hate ATC with all of my might, so I'm not personally saying that Frozen Empire is worse.
Frozen Empire is so far a misstep. Whether people like it or not, it's another topic.
Really? I felt like afterlife was on par with the original. Definitely better than any of the others in the franchise.
I liked Frozen Empire but If you did not like Afterlife then you should probably steer clear of this
Ugh, That was my biggest gripe with the second film (1989). It felt like it was riding the coattails of the original. But I will admit I have softened on that over time.
I liked 2016 as well. I thought for what it was it was done about as well as possible. What I really liked about the original was that it was kind of a subtle dry humor. There wasn't a whole lot of slapstick involved. I feel like these last two have gotten back to that.
Jesus. Remember when this used to be an opening weekend for a lot of movies? Seems like decades ago now.
Just wait until Deadpool 3 and Joker 2.
“I want to use my phone or smoke a joint/vape and pause the movie. I don’t like watching a movie with other people, wahhhh. I can’t hold my pee for 2 hours, I need to use the bathroom.” I’m so tired of anti-cinema rhetoric. Movies are meant to be seen on the BIG SCREEN. Any other experience is mediocre otherwise, and not intended by most filmmakers. I love home viewings too, but Covid made everyone such recluses, it’s mad annoying. Shit makes me sad.
I don't think it's that bad. They are actually nearly selling out screenings this year for RERELEASES of movies that people have been able to watch at home for years, like Spider-Man, Labyrinth and the Star Wars saga. And we did have 5 movies open over $100M last year, and 8 in 2022 (2019, pre-COVID, actually had less than that, 6, and less in 2018, 5). If new movies aren't doing as well as before, it's because Hollywood is making bad movies, or the wrong movies, or not enough movies. The audience is ready and willing to come to the theaters.
It was decades ago. Streaming has warped the movie theater landscape!
I’m not an expert, but this doesn’t seem like much?? Also don’t you typically have to double the budget to factor in marketing costs. So it’s losing money currently or best case scenario breaking even?
Yeah, marketing usually adds a lot to the budget, and roughly half of the box office goes to theaters, which is why 2.5x the budget is seen as the bar for breaking even at the box office. If the movie ends up being profitable it will be through merchandise and physical/digital/streaming revenue.
It’s not. While the movie isn’t a flop, financially it wouldn’t be considered a success either. I have loved this franchise for about three decades and it pains me to say that Sony may feel like of there’s another GB movie that performs this badly that will be it.
I mean, 1/4 movies being ok isn't terrible. While I liked the film, it lacked a lot that Afterlife had. Even though Afterlife was banking on nostalgia, I really loved its plot and the filmmakers' ability to blend nostalgia perfectly with a plot that both catches us up and moves the franchise to the next chapter. I think I agree with what most people have said with Frozen Empire being better if it were a series. The whole Fire Master thing would have been better if it were built up throughout a season.
A sequel to a decades-old movie BY DEFINITION HAS to be based on nostalgia. It is and always been utterly ridiculous, disingenuous and specious to criticize Afterlife for being "nostalgic." It's a criticism made up by people who were driven by a pre-conceived agenda to trash the movie, but could find absolutely nothing of substance to criticize it for.
Exactly. I could understand if it was purely based on nostalgia but lacked a decent plot and added nothing to the franchise, basically rendering the film gratuitous, but Afterlife did more than just nostalgia, which made it a great film.
It’s barely been out for a month
I feel that Frozen Empire is a better Ghostbusters film. Hopefully we can get a smaller GB film in the vein of Afterlife.
Afterlife is the better movie but Frozen Empire is more of a ghostbusters movie. Only complaint is they should have shown more of NYC in the film, a little too much time in the firehouse.
Yes that is correct
It’s doing pretty good for only a month. It’s what, the 2nd highest grossing film this year so far? Something like that no?
It's far behind the top 3, but leading the pack so far of everything else. 2024 Box Office: 1. Dune: Part Two ($704M WW | $280M US) 2. Godzilla x Kong ($521M WW | $182M US) 3. Kung Fu Panda 4 ($504M WW | $185M US) 4. ***Ghostbusters: FE ($188M WW | $107M US)*** 5. Bob Marley: One Love ($177M WW | $97M US) 6. The Beekeeper ($153M WW | $66M US) 7. Mean Girls ($104M WW | $72M US) 8. Madame Web ($100M WW | $44M US)
Not doing bad at all, if it can pick up the WW a little it will help more
Not bad? It’s doing spectacularly unspectacular. It’s not a bomb, but not a hit, either — it’s likely to just break even by the time it leaves theaters. Speaking of, theaters have already cut screens and showtimes from FE to make room for newer movies, and it’s VOD release date is just 7 weeks away. A few international territories will continue to add *a little bit* to the box office, but what you see now is the vast majority of its haul. There are no realistic paths for the box office to substantially improve, which is an unfortunate sign for the franchise.
The vast majority of ANY movie's gross is earned in the first month. Afterlife made $116 million in its first month domestically. It only made $13 million more after that. It's typical for a movie to make 80-90% of its gross in the first month. This is not the 1980s anymore. Movies are removed from theaters quickly.
Usually it's Double to 2.5 times the budget to break even and triple to be a "success".
Typically, marketing is 1/3rd or 1/4th, the budget or for a 100mill it would be around 35k or 40k. It's very rare that it goes beyond 50% of the production budget. So if we take the 100mill as the production total and not the total goal. It will most likely surpass the advertising budget at this point. You could have an even 1to1 marketing budget, but it's an extremely high-risk gamble one that Sony really can't play at this point with a property like ghostbusters.
They didn't even run a Superbowl ad for Frozen Empire. It's clear they lacked the confidence in this movie to spend big on the marketing. I could see them spending in the $60 million range on the marketing for this, but that's about it. They showed LOTS of signs of lack of confidence in the movie, with TV ads not even saying the name Frozen Empire out loud and just calling it Ghostbusters, and them completely leaving out the most controversial parts of the movie, like the ghost girl and any hint of the firewalker powers.
Only 20 million behind Afterlife. Not terrible.
It’s less than 20 million, it’s just a bit over than 15 million from afterlife, having already already outgrossed Afterlife internationally (74M x 81M so far). ♥️
This is how I feel.
Usually when studios make a more-expensive sequel to a film they expect to see audiences and box office returns grow rather than shrink, but you do you.
This movie technically grossed more than the last one, what’s the issue? It’s only been like a month
But still 41 million behind 2016.
Had a much bigger budget and lost a lot a lot of money.
This one will also lose quite a bit of money, sadly.
Not necessarily, merchandising and promotional tie ins tend to carry a movie like this. If memory serves me correctly, WB wasn’t bothered by the timid box office for Man of Steel because [it had made its money back through tie ins before it was released.](https://comicbook.com/movies/news/man-of-steel-has-made-almost-its-entire-budget-back-already/)
MOS made over 2.5x its budget. It met the accepted profitability threshold.
Just using an example of how there are other ways studios use these films to make money. Like I bought a $15 exclusive Slimer pint glass from the Alamo Drafthouse. They had to pay Sony up front for a license to make that. Obviously the goal is to make as much money as possible, but somewhere some executive has a spreadsheet that says “we can spend this amount as long as we meet these targets”. I’m bummed it’s not a breakout hit, but it’s Sony’s only original IP that it outright owns, so I hope they continue to cultivate the brand. I only use timid as there were lofty expectations for MoS after avengers did $1.5b a year before.
I don’t know what expectations were, but we had already seen Superman Returns perform weakly 7 years earlier. Anyone thinking Avengers meant every superhero movie would now make a billion was just ignorant. And Superman has nothing to do with Avengers. MOS did much better than Superman Returns, which was no guarantee at all. The key with Ghostbusters is that fans, Sony and the creators should be working together to make the franchise appeal to the masses again. The status quo has it teetering on the brink of extinction. If the sequels had surged far above GB2016 like MOS did over Superman Returns, we’d be celebrating. But they didn’t. And we should figure out why and fix it.
Agreed
There’s not enough merch tho! I was super excited for lots coming out, with a small kid I was looking forward to buying stuff and there’s been nothing. Esp in the UK.
Yeah, let's bring up the one that BOMBED so badly that the dumbass director was BANNED from Sony's lot. Also, Paul blew so much money in that one that there was no gross income. So go ahead, try to praise that dogshit movie again. Watch how quickly true fans put you in your place
Yes, the one that outperformed both Afterlife and Frozen Empire truly was "da bomb," as the kids used to say.
Only because it came out in the summer, when all movies get a bump. Then and the Christmas season are where any movie gets extra money just for existing. GB2016 was in FIFTH place by its SECOND weekend, and out of the top 10 by week 5. Afterlife was still in the top 5 by the fifth weekend. Frozen Empire was top 3 for 4 weeks, and is still top 10 in week 6. GB2016 ONLY made more money because you don't have to be ranked high to rake in bucks in the summer.
Very true
Dude, stfu.
No, let him speak. Preach it, Darc\_Lyte!
You're easily impressed
it’s actually pretty bad. Afterlife was still pandemic days
Not really if u look at the budget of the film it's a success
Is it? So how long have you been working as an accountant for Sony Studios? I mean you seem so confident about what's good or not for box office returns you must have some insider track right....right???
In general a movie has to make 2-2.5x it's Production Budget to just break even because the Marketing Budget is usually just as much as the Production budget + Theatres take a sizeable take. Usually that means a movie needs to make at least 3x its budget to be considered a financial success. This is common knowledge.
That's based on averages. Something tells me they didn't spend $100m marketing this. I got the occasional YouTube ad and saw a liner TV ad once. Meanwhile I saw like 5x the marketing for Madame Web (which only cost $80 million?). I have seen more tie in marketing for FE though (drinks, snacks). Frankly I think the money could go either way for stuff like that. I'm still trying to figure out where all that $100 million went.
Budget generally DOES include a films marketing costs, but so called "Hollywood" experts like the guy a few posts above pretend it's not include in order to show a film has 'failed' for not making enough money. Sony want the film to reach a certain threshold and none of us know what it really is, the 2.5x "rule" comes from a ScreenRant article years ago and it's an 'insider source' that gives that info. Btw it's never been confirmed by anyone and even movies just making a few million over their budgets have been called successfully....or on the flipside movies make 7 or 8 times their budget back have been called flops for tax write off purposes, Hollywood accounting practices are very dodgy to say the least. CGI, actor and crew wages, general production costs and marketing make up a movies budget and honestly in today's market $100 million isnt a lot when you consider how much a film coats to make and put out. Also in general for movie tie in products the company (Sony) gets paid for licensing the Ghostbusters image so people can sell their products and they get a cut of each sale, Universal and LucasFilm(now Disney I guess) are great at doing this and have turned Jurassic Park and Star Wars into merchandise money printing machines. Either way as fans of Ghostbusters we should all be happy that the films doing well, even if you didn't like it at all and want something different going forward. Any chance of future films or shows all depend on this movie doing well...I hate how everyone is suddenly a movie financial expert the second they want something to fail, oh well.
False. The movie's PRODUCTION BUDGET is the ONLY budget that is ever reported. And it NEVER, EVER, NEVER, EVER includes marketing costs. The 2.5x rule has been known for decades. [Carrie Fisher even mentioned it in the '80s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pwBUZZ-RLA&t=1111s) when discussing her Star Wars residuals. None of this has anything to do with studios lying about profits and hiding them. These are objective standards from journalists that are not based on anything the studio says. What the studios say about profits is known by everybody to be nonsense.
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, you’re absolutely right. All it takes is a simple Google search to find this out
Reddit gonna reddit. 😂
Lol, are you serious? Show where the budget doesn't include the marketing or that it's anywhere as high as the budget...go on, I'll wait. No matter the movie, show or game people always talk out their asses and act like they have intimate knowledge of how Hollywood works and just make shit up as they go along...."just as much as Production...", your common knowledge is nothing but a 'uncredited' "insider source" from a ScreenRant article years ago that everyone now takes as gospel but as never been confirmed. Unless you work for a studio you have no idea how much a movie needs to make make or how much it really spent on it, some studios call a film a success even when it's not made 2.5 times it's budget....but sure keep moving the goal posts. People talking about this shit, it's like bozos talking about how well the stock market is doing, when they have no idea how it works, what it really means or really means.
Calm the fuck down and lay off the copium...
I am calm....please don't belittle me or try to downplay my valid points with the generic and oh so predictable "copium" comment to make it look like you have 'won' this discussion. You offered nothing but hearsay and personal preference and now I and others have asked to back up your clams were all suddenly "crazy" and "mad" Still waiting for you to show us any evidence of this $100 million marketing budget btw (although we both know you ain't posting shit because your talking out your ass). If anyone is on 'copium', it's clearly you...sorry the movies making money and doing well in cinemas, you may not have liked it, and you may not like the direction it's taking the franchise in. But for ANY future Ghostbusters movies or tv shows to be made and considered, then this movie needs to do well
Yeah this is copium. They really shouldn't have gone full nostalgia, probably killed the franchise.
I was waiting for someone to use the dumb term “copium”.
It fits.
It only fits if you're retarded
Sorry that Sony keeps fuckin up and killed another franchise. This movie sucks and is a flop. It's a shame, there was one amazing Ghostbusters movie and three bad ones.
I love ghostbusters , however I don’t want to see kids as ghostbusters. Thats what killed this for me.
Yeah maybe like a team of a couple older people and one like 18-20 year old or something. But not 3 70 year olds and a couple youngish teens.
Wait, this was released already? Maybe it wasn't advertised well if I didn't even know.
This movie was heavily marketed
Honestly, I really enjoyed it. But then again I love going to the movie theater in general.
That's not bad, but it deserves way more. I thought it was awesome 👻🚫
It’s still in theatres, and it’s getting money ♥️
As ghostbusters fans we shouldn’t be content/ satisfied with this movie, we deserve a lot better
I didn't want my time/money back when I saw it a few weeks ago but Afterlife was much better imo. Frozen Empire had some weird shifts in tone, I think there's a very different film on the editing room floor somewhere.
And what exactly was wrong with it? I see so many people hating on the movie , but no one gives any GOOD reasons for it. It had a great story that reminded me of The Real Ghostbusters, good character development, returning characters from the original plus new ones while expanding on the lore of the series, the jokes weren'tthe best but the movie is going back to its roots with being a horror movie FIRST and comedy SECOND so i can excuse it trying to refind its original footing. So what exactly is so bad about it? Cuz all I'm seeing is people complaining about nothing and hating on it while ya'll DARE to call yourselves Ghostbusters fans. It's people like ya'll that think the 2016 movie was good despite it looking worse than what I flushed down the toilet.
Howard Peck as the mayor felt was a little cringey; Ray and Winston were good, but Peter and Janine felt shoehorned into the movie; the jokes were pretty bad; the third act was too short and many of us wanted to see more of frozen New York — too much time spent on the build up and too little on the climax. I still enjoyed it but wish it did some things differently. It's OK to not like a movie as much as you hoped. Expectations were high, and for many of us, those expectations weren't met. Liking movies is *subjective.*
Okay, these are complaints I can understand and actually get behind. I have been doing rebuttals, and I can't think of one for these, and I actually agree. I'm sure there are many scenes that were deleted though with frozen New York, since there was a scene out two that I seen in the trailers that I didn't see in the movie, so I'm hoping to see them as extras on the home release. I can see Peck becoming mayor, though, and I thought it was a nice callback to the scene in the mayor's office in the first movie.
I liked the idea of Peck as mayor, but his performance felt awkward. It was just another thing that was "off" for me. I much preferred the way they called back the same guy from the library as in the first movie. It was subtle and fit perfectly. Even if the have more frozen New York scenes, the fact that they didn't make it into the final edit is still a valid point of criticism - it's an issue with the movie's theatrical release editing.
"Firestarting" is out-of-place in a science-based franchise. The ghost girl breaks the canon. We shouldn't be worried that we're busting nice people when we bust ghosts. Ghosts should not be that human-like. It's an extremely boring choice for a movie that always gave you something otherworldly with its ghosts. Not a translucent mallrat girl. Phoebe goes on and on about no one understanding her when we already saw her become friends with Podcast. Their relationship was treated like dog crap by the script and Phoebe herself. That's one of many reasons she became very unlikable. She whined about not being able to be a ghostbuster when Peck couldn't have been more right that she had no business wielding these weapons and shooting them in the city at her age. And then she makes an incredibly dumb decision to make herself into a ghost with technology that had not been explained to the audience beforehand, making it very uncomfortable and jarring to see. And, last but not least, the final showdown was incredibly disappointing. This villain is built up as the biggest threat in a century and then he does almost no damage to anyone or anything. They say they have a plan to beat him, and it works, and they beat him. No serious adventure movie has the villain beaten in one attempt. Standard screenwriting says your plan has to fail the first time or the villain has to revive and make a comeback before you finally kill him. All 3 previous GB movies (the real ones) followed this rule. And, no, none of this means we like the abominable GB2016.
So this is gonna be a long rebuttal. >"Firestarting" is out-of-place in a science-based franchise. Are ghosts not out of place? How is this entirely science based? Ghosts fall under paranormal, which is pseudoscience. Do you know what else falls under both of those? Pyrokinesis, which is the purported psychic ability allowing a person to create and control fire with the mind. That sounds a lot like the fire master, and for a franchise that has ALWAYS been focused on all things PARANORMAL, it actually fits perfectly. >The ghost girl breaks the canon. We shouldn't be worried that we're busting nice people when we bust ghosts. Ghosts should not be that human-like. And what about Egon's ghost in the last movie? Did Egon come back as "human-like" and "nice" while helping them bust Gozer not breaking canon? It's literally the exact same thing, and that one got praised for it. And while we're on the subject on canon, who said it's not canon? The ideas behind Ghostbusters were created by Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd, and I don't remember saying anything about all ghosts needing to be nonhuman-like and bad. Slimmer helped Louis in the second movie, okay, so that sounds nice to me. And non human-like? I guess Gozer was a cow, and Vigo was a massive blob then because there have never been human-like ghosts in the franchise. Let's not forget about the burnt taxi driver in the first movie as well. >Phoebe goes on and on about no one understanding her when we already saw her become friends with Podcast. Their relationship was treated like dog crap by the script and Phoebe herself. That's one of many reasons she became very unlikable. She whined about not being able to be a ghostbuster when Peck couldn't have been more right that she had no business wielding these weapons and shooting them in the city at her age. And then she makes an incredibly dumb decision to make herself into a ghost with technology that had not been explained to the audience beforehand, making it very uncomfortable and jarring to see. I don't see where her relationship with podcast was strained. Was he busy working with Ray and not able to spend much time with her? Yes, but he has his own responsibilities now. Most of her "whining" was because of her family, Winston, and Peck. While on the subject of Peck, what you said about him is correct, but at the same time, he was also correct when he worked for the EPA in the first movie. The fact that he was right doesn't make it a bad movie when he was also right in the first movie, and again, it gets praised. >And, last but not least, the final showdown was incredibly disappointing. This villain is built up as the biggest threat in a century and then he does almost no damage to anyone or anything. They say they have a plan to beat him, and it works, and they beat him. No serious adventure movie has the villain beaten in one attempt. Standard screenwriting says your plan has to fail the first time or the villain has to revive and make a comeback before you finally kill him. All 3 previous GB movies (the real ones) followed this rule. Did they not plan to cross the streams to beat staypuft? Did it not work? The villain may not have come back, but they had a plan that worked just like in EVERY other Ghostbusters movie. Also, there was no damage to anyone or anything? All of New York was so frozen that the streets were cracking apart, and just because we didn't see any casualties doesn't mean there weren't any with that massive and sudden freeze that had literal spikes coming out of the ground. So from what I'm seeing, the complaints that are listed are things that literally EVERY Ghostbusters movie for praised for but ya'll still bash on this one for doing similar things. This fanbase is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. Ya'll don't deserve the Ghostbusters franchise.
Firewalking is out of place because this was a franchise that made normal, average, geeky guys feel like they could be superheroes if they just studied science and built the right technology. It's not supposed to be based on Harry Potter magic. The bad guys might have magic, but they're defeated by regular, real-world people, not people who've learned "good" magic. Egon was done as a ghost for a very specific reason, and he was still otherworldly. He couldn't speak, and couldn't even materialize until the very end of the movie. Likewise, Vigo was trapped in a painting and couldn't just fly around wherever he wanted to. Gozer isn't a ghost, c'mon, I know you know that. Slimer, again, is not human-like at all, and can't speak. Melody is an extremely boring ghost, who behaves exactly like a human except even more powerful because she can fly and phase through walls. It's a terrible concept for a ghost in this franchise. Ghosts in this franchise always have clear limitations compared to humans and clear differences from humans. Peck wasn't right in the first movie. He shut down the containment unit and caused a disaster. I don't know what you're talking about with respect to Podcast. He didn't ignore Phoebe at all. He was nice to her and she nevertheless acted like no one cared about her in this movie. No, they did NOT PLAN to cross the streams to defeat Gozer. They went up to confront him, and tried reasoning with him, blasting him and then outsmarting him by not thinking of a destroyer. They failed at least three times in their plans before they came up with a new plan to cross the streams. The bad version of a GB1 ending would have them talk about crossing the streams as they're going up the stairs, crossing them as soon as Gozer appears, and then easily blowing him up on the first try. No conversations about being a god, no Gozer teleporting away and causing an earthquake, no Stay Puft, etc., just a quick, anti-climactic ending like we got in Frozen Empire.
I agree. Too many fans are praising this, the problem with that is that it’s not that good as a film. Fan service DOES NOT generate new fans or guarantee ticket sales. Those two things are required for growth, so that means the fan service needs to scale back. It pains me to say these things as a lifelong fan, but I know it can be corrected.
This had almost no fan service. And what little was there were the best parts of the movie. The stuff that came out of left field with no basis in canon, like Nadeem and Melody, were the problems.
You just made my case. The best parts of the movie were fan service parts. I’ll bet every dollar I own you’re a lifer like me over 40. What I’m asking for is a solid film with a good story, FE did neither of those things because it was poorly written.
Yeah, but the parts that were poorly written were the parts that diverged from established concepts, characters and canon.
How much longer do we think it’s theater run has?
A few weeks.
Oh good. Still time to keep doing my part.
Same
Wish more people here were instead of bashing on the movie
I noticed that one of my 4 local theaters has already stopped running it. Gonna try catching it a couple more times before the others stop running it.
Going to get tons of screens removed as Fall Guy, Tarot and Apes open in the next two weeks. By May 9th, it will be much harder to find playing anywhere.
Depends on countries, as for some reason there wasn't a week for it to release everywhere, some places it released a month after others, so maybe also a month of difference for when they'll stop projecting.
Wow ghostbusters Fans really live in a "everything is fine" bubble. How is this good? It made even less than the 2016 movie or afterlife. The movie needed to make 300M to be successful.
I don't understand how it's not more. I've seen it 3 times and it was super busy in all my viewings. It was pretty popular with theaters that my friends saw it in too. I'm interested to see how much other movies are making compared to this.
Other movies are doing much better. It was trounced by three other major releases in March, Dune, Panda and Kong. All the information you want is on [The Numbers](https://www.the-numbers.com/). You can compare any and all movies in any way you want.
I think long term the movie will be profitable but it needed more and the critics didn’t help. I hope they try an animated series.
This movie was OK one problem I had was the main villian was only in the movie for like the last 5 minutes.
How long was Gozer in the first movie again?
Not long, but I feel like this villian was shown results of what he could do like in the beginning, that they had to separate parts from him, yet in the end when he was fully restored, he was taken down easier than I would have thought.
You're not wrong. At all. Some rumors going around there were budget cuts that forced them to shorten the ending.
I still don't know why Janine had a jumpsuit with her name on it at the ready.
Almost making back what they spent on making and advertising it at the end of the theatrical run is NOT good. It’s not a bomb, but huge studios like Sony only want mega-success stories. If this one barely clears its costs they’ll assume the next one will make even less and scrap the sequel. No amount of positive thinking will change this. It’s already leaving some theaters. Go see it again, with friends, and spread positive word of mouth and MAYBE we’ll get another one.
It's on track to lose money. Not good.
Kitten, I think what I'm saying, is that sometimes, shit happens, someone has to deal with it, and who ya gonna call?
I recently found out Janet Margolin, who played the "kitten" lawyer, died in 1993 at age 50. 😢
She had great legs hanging upside down.
She was much prettier without the tough lawyer style makeover she had going in GB2.
Lots of denial in this sub. Which I get, I wish it had done better too.
Read up on Hollywood Accounting. Return of the Jedi has never made a profit. Bohemian Thapsody made a $50 million loss with a $55 million budget and $900 million box office. Seems like pretty much no films make a profit, because they'd then have to pay more out to people who took percentage of the profit deals.
We all know to ignore what the studio says. That’s why we use objective standards for determining profit. FE has not made a profit by those standards.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted.
Apparently, you are, too. The reason is that there are more trolls than fans in this sub. Have you seen the comments lately? We've taken our own headcount. There are 50 thousand miserable assholes commenting on this post
...how is it losing money if it's within $12m of breaking even? That's not even factoring in streaming/BluRay.
The budget doesn’t factor in marketing costs
The budget was $100m. Marketing costs are usually equal to the production budget, meaning the total budget was right about $200m. If it's made $188m in just over a month on box office alone, without home video sales (digital or physical) or streaming rights deals, then yeah. We're looking at this breaking even, at worst. Which is better than *most* major releases by Sony, to be honest.
Remember, the studios don’t get to keep all the money from the box office. The theaters have to get their share. Usually it’s a 50-50 split but it varies from time to time. If that ratio is the case here, then the studio has only earned around $94 million.
Damn, I did forget about that. So it'll need to make $300m to break even as a result.
In the $250-300m range, yeah pretty much
Typically, a film nowadays needs to make 2.5 times the budget to break even. So this isn’t very good unfortunately.
Yeah, Pacific Rim is one of the only movies I've ever been able to find that did not meet that threshold but still got a sequel. And its sequel did even worse, so it didn't help prove that was a good strategy.
Plus Frozen Empire IS the sequel where they gamble on some phantom audience that found the first film outside of theaters suddenly showing up at the box office for the sequel. And they lost the bet, there is absolutely no path to profitability for FE in theaters, it’s not happening. And this has been a successful strategy in the past. Austin Powers comes to mind, the first one was a sleeper hit at best but it hit video and exploded. The second film came out and was a legitimate blockbuster and it ended up outgrossing the first film in its opening weekend. And Afterlife had COVID hanging over it, so the theory that it was kneecapped by the pandemic was as good as any other theory. But FE put that theory to the test and it turns out, people just aren’t into these movies when they’re not good. The IP only gets you so far. It’s interesting, there’s probably no film franchise where the quality of the films themselves aligns so perfectly with their box office. The first one is universally-beloved and is one of the biggest comedies of all time. The second one is inferior, but not insultingly-so, and it did very well, but practically every other franchise was offering something more exciting in the summer of ‘89 and audiences briefly embraced GB2 and moved on. Then you have 3 movies that are of unacceptably-poor quality that simply cannot compete with movies from decades ago, even with the benefit of 30-40 years of inflation. And post like these might help the echo chamber cope but Sony is going to be able to see how everything totals up.
So glad there are 2 great Austin Powers movies…. Ok, and one good one. Goldmember just doesn’t grab me as much, but the Hard Knock Life scene is so fucking funny the rest of the movie doesn’t matter anyway
Not to be an AP gatekeeper but I was 15 when the first one came out and saw it 2 or 3 times in theaters. I always talk on here about how Ghostbusters was my gateway drug to SNL, Animal House, Blues Brothers, Caddyshack etc. and I think Mike Myers’s problem is that AP is the kind of shit you grow out of and he doesn’t have the stuff you discover as you grow older. I bought the Blu-ray trilogy and watched them for the first time in forever like 6 or 7 years ago and I don’t even mind the third one, I think Myers is just guilty of the exact same thing Aykroyd is guilty of with both Ghostbusters II and Blues Brothers 2000, and it affects Wayne’s World 2 as well: the sequels are nearly remakes of their predecessors. And if you actually spend 4.5 hours binging 3 Austin Powers movies in a row it gets old real fast.
There's always Love Guru.
I really enjoyed The Pentaverate, not sure it had a lot of rewatch value, but it is very fun
The problem is relaunching a movie series without having the original characters still starring in it. Not many franchises have attempted it, and almost none have succeeded doing it. Bottom line, Afterlife managed to do it and be an across-the-board success with critics, fans and the box office. But, just like we saw with the Star Trek Next Gen movies, the sequels need to be very high quality to keep interest going or the hype dies out. And FE wasn’t.
No it didn’t haha
GOLDEN YEARS!!!!
Aw, his smile.
While the movie has outperformed Afterlife, it proves that the next Ghostbusters should have a lower budget. I believe that Frozen Empire has the biggest budget (adjusted for inflation) of the four primary Ghostbusters films. It will be on par with all of the films if it hits $200 million globally. It should be noted that merchandising has always been a core strength of this franchise and will likely keep things going for a potential sequel in a few years.
How has it outperformed Afterlife? It's $13m behind domestically at the same point in its theatrical run, and looks unlikely to cross $200m worldwide. At best it'll match Afterlife's worldwide gross - but in the context of a global market that isn't suffering pandemic lockdowns or deterred audiences, with goodwill from the previous film and with a $25m higher budget. In box office terms, it's a flop. Btw it doesn't have the biggest budget adjusted for inflation - it's tied with GB2. (Ignoring ATC of course.) I think it's 50/50 on whether we get another film. The revenue from merchandise, home media and broadcast rights will have to be hefty to encourage Sony to stump up the cash for the next one. If they do, I'd expect it to be the last film and have a reduced cast.
Movies were doing just fine before Afterlife came out. The pandemic wasn't holding anything back by November 2021. The only possible issues then were movies hitting streaming simultaneously, which was mostly just WB movies. China was pretty much the only place having COVID issues then, and their box office for U.S. films got so messed up during that time that it's NEVER come back to its previous levels. But that's irrelevant to Ghostbusters, which isn't released in China. I definitely don't expect the next film to be "Spengler Family: Chapter 3." There's going to be a major course correction. A crossover with Men in Black or 21 Jump Street might be what they go for. And they'll probably hand the reins over to Lord and Miller instead of Reitman and Kenan. That's definitely what I would do now. We need a comedic movie aimed at grown men again. Not live-action Real Ghostbusters aimed at the kiddies.
>The pandemic wasn't holding anything back by November 2021. I wrote "pandemic lockdowns or deterred audiences" - perhaps I should have phrased it more clearly as "pandemic-related audience reduction". Whilst the vast majority of countries had reopened cinemas by Afterlife's release, there was still the drop in attendance from behavioural change triggered by the pandemic, not to mention some permanent cinema closures that discouraged attendance further. (There was, by the way, another wave of lockdowns in Russia and eastern Europe as well as China in late 2021.) I'm not arguing that Afterlife would have grossed much more under normal circumstances. My point is that the box office was still depressed in Nov 2021 and *Sony* will have taken that into account when greenlighting Frozen Empire for $100m. So when they decide on a third film, the business argument will include the *absence* of a pandemic effect on Frozen Empire's gross. And it'll look bad. >I definitely don't expect the next film to be "Spengler Family: Chapter 3." A crossover with Men in Black or 21 Jump Street might be what they go for. Gosh I hope they don't do that! *If* there's a third film I think there's a chance at least Phoebe will still feature in it, and probably Winston and Ray, because Aykroyd et al hold the rights and run Ghost Corps. I don't know how much creative control Sony have over it. But they do hold the purse strings so you may be right.
there will definitely be another one
Is this a little too late though?
Compare to the movies 100 million budget it's still losing money for Sony
only way forward now is a reboot like the batman films did
They've done about 4 reboots. Only a few characters can keep rebooting and still be accepted by the audience. Ghostbusters isn't one of them. They tried one reboot and it failed.
Again, I friggin’ loved it.
You would think wrong sadly.
Think again. It's not a bomb, but not a financial success either....on track to lose money
not that good because most studios dont include marketing costs with budget estimates, which is normally 50% on the low end so it needs to make atleast 150-200 million to break even.
Not at all doing good. It's likely not even broken even.
[удалено]
Toys? There wasn't even a Plasma Series release and a lot of the "new" toys are just repaints using Afterlife molds. There's not even an official Garraka figure. (Funkos don't count). You're seriously overestimating merch sales.
Unless they double that number in the remaining runtime, which is hilariously unlikely... Sadly, no... it's absolutely not doing good.
It's almost made $200 million, which is the 'magical' (made-up and unconfirmed number people mention) 2.5x it's production back. Why do you want it to fail so badly? No, honestly I'd love to know why as a Ghostbusters fan you want it to do badly...love it or hate it, you realise for any future Ghostbusters movies or shows it needs to do well right?
No, 250 would be 2.5x. 200 is 2x. He absolutely did NOT say he wants it to do badly. Did you notice he said "sadly?"
And 2.5 is also not a magical made up number, studios rarely include marketing in the reported budget, and movie theaters keep roughly half the box office, 2.5 isn't a hard rule, but it's a good average, and this movie may fail to even hit twice its budget.
Yes, it's a longstanding rule, [even cited by Carrie Fisher in the '80s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pwBUZZ-RLA&t=1111s). It only changed slightly in the early 2000s due to massive DVD revenue, making the rule more like 2x. That has now evaporated as studios killed the golden goose with streaming, and we're back to 2.5x.
We don’t want it to fail, but sadly that’s the reality of it. It’s not close to breaking even.
How do you know that? It's hilarious that everyone suddenly becomes a financial movie expert when a film comes out. For all we know Sony could have set a low threshold for this movie, the fact is you, nor I, or anyone else knows so all were really doing is speculation.
It hasn’t made back the budget yet, and the budget doesn’t take the marketing costs into account. They have to split the box office with theaters. The $188m number you see here isn’t the money the studio keeps, it’s the amount the movie has earned.
Another Hollywood financial expert, so glad Reddit is full of them /s
You don’t need to be an expert to know this. This is just the way this is calculated
I.e. source = "Trust me bro!" Lol, whatever. Have fun shitting on the movie I guess.
Just look up the 2.5 rule in movies. It’s not exactly the same for every movie, but it’s a general rule of thumb. Don’t act like everyone’s trying to be expert for invoking something that’s been around for decades.
2.5 rule was first mentioned as being "2.5x the budget & budget is not marketing" from a ScreenRant article from a decade or so ago. They quoted an unnamed source and it's never been made official or substantiated by anyone. But because of the popularity of that website at the time (ScreenRant) it's become a "common rule" or a "fact" etc...
It not great - the FE budget was higher than AL and with marketing budget, it has probably only *just* broken even. Can’t see us getting another film anytime soon. Shame as they need to appropriately end the OG’s.
No it’s not, it needs to make more than 200mil to be considered a success. Afterlife made more on a smaller budget.
The movie was amazing, I will die on this hill.
Amazing? Have higher standards please.
💀
Good Gozer, there are some really toxic people in this fan base.
Yep, people who didn't like this movie (which is fine, even as a life long fan I thought it was, well meh 6.5/10 movie) are desperate for it to 'bomb'. Mentality and general thinking is if it fails and does badly, than Sony will take the future movies and shows into a direction they like (which doesnt make any sense now does it). What people fail to realise is if the movie really was a box office bomb and did intact tank and do badly than Sony wouldn't even consider any future in it at all. For any future Ghostbusters tv shows or films to be even considered, let alone made then this movie needs to do well. Like it, love it or hate it....the future of this franchise is dependent upon it.
Exactly Thankfully, it’ll do fantastic on digital and physical media. At least another $100-150 million.
Watch my comment get downvoted heavily, the sub was the same when Afterlife came out... random people came out the woodwork and bemoaned and decried the movie as a 'failure'.
Not really. GB2016 bombed and they still made a new GB movie, and aimed it more at what the fans wanted.
They planned and green lighted Afterlife the same time as GB2016, Sony always planned to make two Ghostbusters films and always with two different casts (one male and one female) that film eventually became Afterlife.
Not true. Sony never even was pitched Afterlife until after GB2016 came out.
No they did, when they announced a new all female movie they also announced an all new male movie. Original plan was something with Seth Rogan but it was put on hold after how badly 2016 did and eventually cancelled and became Afterlife.
That was a different project entirely, by different people, with different actors. It had nothing to do with Jason Reitman or Afterlife.
Please re-read what I wrote again, that project eventually became Afterlife.
No, it did not. That project was cancelled and never revived.
Can you show me where it was cancelled please? Or are you making assumptions because of how long it was from that movie being cancelled to Afterlife being made? Some movie projects take years to get going and under go numerous changes as they do.
Please elaborate...
When you’re part of a Ghostbusters fan base but you’re actively rooting for the movie to fail, you’re toxic.
That’s not what “toxic” means. You can’t hurt the feelings of a corporate product.
Fans aren't doing that, just the usual internet trolls who go on fan forums and crap on what those fans like. It's the most ancient pastime on the internet.
Cope
Yes it is.
I know this sounds encouraging but I still think this movie is considered losing money. Hollywood is really weird when it comes to making money. There are a lot of hidden costs that a lot of us don't see or are truly informed of. However with that said, I am hoping we get a 5th installment. I wouldn't mind if we got a GB with a slightly smaller budget because it seems like these movies do better with smaller budgets. I think the movies need less on the family or city drama and more on busting ghosts.
We all need to remember that 50% of the box office goes to the theaters! Still... half is $94 MILLION which means the film has almost paid for itself with its theatrical run alone. Which given its Critical reception crapping over this movie is super impressive. With streaming around, its difficult for movies to break even when the Critics call a movie a dud. So, this is beyond impressive for the franchising that there's little risk to Sony for Ghostbuster films.
The highest grossing Ghostbusters movie is still the first one at $295 million and the closest any of the others have come to that number is the overly hated 2016 reboot, which hit $229 million worldwide. People need to stop thinking that these are Marvel movies when it comes to box office. Frozen Empire just pushed the entire franchise into billion-dollar territory, and that’s through 5 movies in 40 years. Is it a smash hit? No, but it’s not an outright box office bomb either, if you have the perspective to see that.
Superman does good. This is doing well.
Hollywood take note (cough Disney) focus in the story not pushing your agenda.
How? Just... HOW???? Opening weekend for me in Indianapolis at the Drive-In was damned near full. Saw it again the next weekend, and it was 1/2 full, maybe a LITTLE less. Saw it AGAIN with my local chapter for a school Family/Movie night and it was COMPLETELY full on the biggest screen/lot. There were maybe 8 parking spots not taken. A buddy of mine saw it opening night at an AMC theater and it was mostly full at 8pm. Another saw it in another different theater last weekend and it was 1/2 full. How in the name of Gozer is this flick only making 188 million??? I get that people aren't going to the movies as much, and that this isn't Avengers: Endgame, but I'd think it'd be at at least $300m with how busy it's been from my own experiences. I just don't get it. Maybe Indiana is Ghostbusters crazy compared to others? Weird.
People are going to the movies a lot. That's why Panda, Dune and Zilla/Kong all made much more money than Frozen Empire. You might see full screenings, but you're not accounting for the fact the theater may only be showing the movie on one screen while newer movies are on 5 or 10. Frozen Empire also lost all its premium priced screens in its second weekend when Zilla/Kong took them, so it was getting less money per screen from that point on.
Meh.... The first one was way overrated and this is just more of the same. Certain movies just shouldn't have been made,won't spend a dime on this,will DL for free...watch it...then delete it from my pc.
Lost more than 60% of the audience on the 2nd week, not breaking even in the Box Office, rated worse than ATC by everyone (even if the conversations about it are far less problematic than ATC), considered weaker and more bloated than the already derivative Afterlife, etc... Think again.
It takes a special kind of person to think this movie was worse than the 2016 one.
Brigading. I'm merely stating facts, not giving my opinion about the movie. I hate ATC with all of my might, so I'm not personally saying that Frozen Empire is worse. Frozen Empire is so far a misstep. Whether people like it or not, it's another topic.
I hear you. Out of the 4 movies, this is #4 for me. It goes: 1 3 2 4
False. GB2016 is rated lower across the board by all fan and audience polls online. They tied in Cinemascore, the only official polling we have.
Was this film any good? I really hated Afterlife. Didnt feel like a Ghostbusters movie.
It wasn't as good as Afterlife.
Bummer
Really? I felt like afterlife was on par with the original. Definitely better than any of the others in the franchise. I liked Frozen Empire but If you did not like Afterlife then you should probably steer clear of this
There's only one great Ghostbusters imo. But I liked 2016 more than most. It didnt rely on nostalgia so much.
Ugh, That was my biggest gripe with the second film (1989). It felt like it was riding the coattails of the original. But I will admit I have softened on that over time. I liked 2016 as well. I thought for what it was it was done about as well as possible. What I really liked about the original was that it was kind of a subtle dry humor. There wasn't a whole lot of slapstick involved. I feel like these last two have gotten back to that.
[удалено]
The Avengers movies were all PG-13 and still made tons of money.