Ghostbusters 2016 Was A Victim Of It's Own Budget

With Ghostbusters Afterlife doing moderately well at the box office after it's first two weekends, Ghostbusters 2016 is being brought into the discussion by both haters of that movie and fans who are bitter that the new movie was made. The haters will point out that the success of Afterlife proves that nobody wanted the other movie. They say the fans wanted a continuation of the original story. I count myself among those people, but I'm honest enough to admit one thing. Ghostbusters 2016 didn't succeed at the box office because it went over budget.

The Ghostbusters 2016 movie didn't have the original characters. It had many of the original actors making cameos in different roles. What it did have was characters busting ghosts. It continued the premise that was established. It didn't really offer anything unique to the franchise. What it did was give a new generation of fans the opportunity to have some Ghostbusters they could call their own. It told an adequate story and had good enough special effects. It would have been considered a success if it had stayed within a reasonable budget.

Movies these days suffer from the idea that everything has to be a block buster. Everything has to make a billion dollars globally, or it's somehow not a legitimate hit. The Ghostbusters IP is recognizable, but two things should be understood. This was never really a franchise in the same vein as Star Trek or Star Wars. It had a couple of good movies that made money in the 1980s. It had a good premise, but it wasn't really a franchise. We went over 25 years before the 2016 movie was finally made.

Sony saw dollar signs and felt it was a guarantee regardless of who was cast in it. However, was a Ghostbusters movie with any cast going to make a billion dollars at the box office? In my opinion, no.  However, a movie that resonated with the fans could have taken in $200-$300 million if done correctly. Perhaps it could have done a little more. The 2016 movie made $229 million during it's theatrical run. The latest movie might surpass that total. However, it's Budget was $75 million, meaning it will be considered a hit and a money maker if it does surpass the total of the 2016 movie.

The reason the 2016 movie is considered a failure is because it cost $144 million to make. It's common knowledge that you need to double your budget to break even, and tripling that is generally seen as being a success. The 2016 movie cost more than it should have. When Dan Aykroyd was criticizing the box office disappointment in a 2017 interview, he pointed out how it came in over budget. Re-shoots were needed. To me, that speaks more to the failings of the director than the stars of the movie, who didn't really do that badly in their roles, in my opinion.

If they made that movie for $75 million and pulled those same numbers at the box office, it's a success. There's no reason to think the movie wouldn't have been as good for half of what they spent on it. The people who didn't like it for whatever reason still wouldn't have liked it. However, it would have tripled it's budget. It would have succeeded. We might be talking about its sequel now, rather than Afterlife.  That didn't happen because the first movie cost too much to make. It was a victim of it's own budget.

It may be a moot point to say this. Then again, a Ghostbusters multiverse may make it possible. However, a sequel to the 2016 movie could be a box office success.  Whether it was Paul Feig being given one more chance to direct it or not, the studio could make money on a sequel with the female cast all reprising their roles. Two important things needed for that to happen are a good script and a tighter budget. Some people would come unhinged at the mere mention of a sequel, and the fact that it could be successful would really set them off. This is all a moot point as it's not likely to happen. Then again, you never know.