D
Dude#1279435
Audioholic Warlord
Thanks for listening and letting me complain and be negative LOL.
(I haven't seen them, but nonetheless it's my interpretation.)
In this scenario Ghostbusters 2016 was a flop. Instead of returning to its roots it went with an all-female cast (or mostly). I thought the marketing was rather superb given a choice between returning old geezers and new male models. It cost I think $145 million to make and grossed roughly $229 million with a loss of $70 million due to marketing costs I imagine.
Come Ghostbusters Afterlife. It was deemed successful by Sony not because it grossed more ($207 million) but because it cost less ($75 million). Pay some kids thousands and a little more for the cameos. Now what made the movie for fans? The few cameo scenes and the loving homage it paid to the ghost of Harold Ramis. Basically it's a "family" movie built on nostalgia.
I throw my hands up in the air.
(I haven't seen them, but nonetheless it's my interpretation.)
In this scenario Ghostbusters 2016 was a flop. Instead of returning to its roots it went with an all-female cast (or mostly). I thought the marketing was rather superb given a choice between returning old geezers and new male models. It cost I think $145 million to make and grossed roughly $229 million with a loss of $70 million due to marketing costs I imagine.
Come Ghostbusters Afterlife. It was deemed successful by Sony not because it grossed more ($207 million) but because it cost less ($75 million). Pay some kids thousands and a little more for the cameos. Now what made the movie for fans? The few cameo scenes and the loving homage it paid to the ghost of Harold Ramis. Basically it's a "family" movie built on nostalgia.
I throw my hands up in the air.