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.

Ghostbusters Afterlife Upsets The Critics And Fans Of Ghostbusters 2016

Ghostbusters Afterlife is finally out, and the critics seem to want to cry about it. They are using buzzwords like "fan service" and "nostalgia" as if they are bad things. Once upon a time, movies used to be made to entertain people. Movies that made a bunch of money generally did so because they entertained the people enough to make them want to spend money to see them. Over the last decade or so, beloved franchises have been used to push narratives and ideas that were never part of the franchise to begin with.

Some will cite the Ghostbusters 2016 movie as ground zero in the trend of woke remakes. Others will say it started before then, but there was certainly much controversy surrounding the 2016 Ghostbusters movie. For the record, I enjoyed the movie, although I avoided it like the plague when it was released. I didn't like the idea of swapping the gender of the lead characters, because it's my belief that it wasn't done to make a good movie but rather to earn woke points. I dislike that notion in the strongest possible way.

I didn't pay attention to what was happening on social media back then, although I heard bits and pieces of it. With the election happening in the United States at that point, the Ghostbusters movie seemed to be used to make political statements. If you liked the idea of this movie, you supported Hillary Clinton. If you didn't like it, you were a Donald Trump supporter. I don't particularly care for breaking it down that way, but that's the way it seemed. I also don't believe all of the criticism of the movie was fair, but the way the movie was marketed gave the fans of the first two movies the ammunition they needed to put it down.

In my opinion, if you can go into the Ghostbusters 2016 movie without paying attention to any of the noise surrounding it, you'll see it wasn't that bad of a movie. Yeah, some of the jokes didn't land, but overall the movie wasn't that bad. I gave it a positive review. When I say that, I still believe that the original Ghostbusters and its sequel were superior movies to this one, but that doesn't mean the movie wasn't enjoyable. However, all of the talk on social media surrounding this movie just served to make it about more than what was happening on the screen.

 

My Original Review Of Ghostbusters 2016

To understand how we got to that movie, we have to look at the efforts to make a sequel. Multiple scripts were written, but generally there was one holdup that kept the original cast from getting back together and doing it one more time. Bill Murray wasn't on board with it. They kept going back to the drawing board until the studio executives decided to reboot it and go with an all-female cast. Rather than acknowledging the first two movies, this movie was its own thing. Nobody who loved that movie seemed to be bothered by that fact, but many of those fans are crying over the fact that their movie isn't being acknowledged by the new movie.

When Ghostbusters Afterlife was announced, there were some negative things said on social media about it. It's just fan service was one thing that was said. Another popular complaint was the idea that the fans who wouldn't give Ghostbusters 2016 a chance or who were critical on social media were being rewarded for their "bad" behavior. 

Leslie Jones came out on social media and slammed the idea of this movie. While I understand people coming after her for expressing her opinion on the matter, I firmly believe that she and her cast mates have every right to say what they will. Some of the criticisms against them in 2016 crossed the line, in my opinion.

That not withstanding, Jason Reitman was the one directing Ghostbusters Afterlife. This movie can be seen as a love letter to the first two movies. He's picking up the directorial duties from his father (Ivan Reitman), and he's continuing where the storyline left off after the second movie. Obviously, this means introducing new characters who have a connection to the original characters. The movie isn't set in New York, and there are other changes. However, it's done in the spirit of the first two movies. This is a direct sequel to Ghostbusters Part 2, and long time fans will maintain that this is all they wanted from the franchise.

The sad reality is the third movie should have been made years ago. The feud between Bill Murray and Harold Ramis obviously didn't help. However, Murray had a love/hate relationship with the franchise as it was. While he seemed to enjoy the first movie, he wasn't particularly fond of the second one. At that point, he moved on to other things and wasn't even thinking of returning. Because of that, the window to making a proper third movie closed. It's impossible to get the original cast back together with the passing of Ramis. Furthermore, Rick Moranis hasn't been too keen on doing much acting due to things happening in his own life that necessitated him focusing on family. 

The bottom line is money talks. If it's not profitable, most Hollywood studios aren't keen on making a movie in the first place. They obviously felt like there was money to be made from the Ghostbusters name, so the geniuses at the studio went with the 2016 reboot and the all female cast. They had an opportunity to make a big enough profit to warrant a return with a sequel to that movie. Unfortunately, they didn't make enough money. Given enough time, it might have been possible to return to the Ghostbusters 2016 movie with a sequel, but the movie Jason Reitman is directing was never going to be that movie.

While people can complain about it, the bottom line is this was the only way forward if the studio was going to attempt to make any money from the Ghostbusters brand. At the end of the day, that's why they make most movies. It's too early to know whether Ghostbusters Afterlife is going to make money, and I'm not even sure what the story will be about as I write this. From the things I've been hearing, I think there's a good chance that this movie will be profitable, and that might even spark talks of a sequel with the new stars and even some of the original stars coming back again.

I know the Ghostbusters 2016 crowd will lobby for the ladies to come back, and long time fans of the franchise will gleefully say that this is never going to happen. To them I respond that never is a long time. While I don't think a movie that focuses only on the ladies will be made anytime soon, that doesn't mean that their characters couldn't be included in a Ghostbusters sequel if Ghostbusters Afterlife proves to be a success. In this day where we talk about alternate universes and those types of things, anything's possible. Somebody In Hollywood may even be drafting ideas to make it happen.

I don't hide the fact that I'm not enamored with the woke Hollywood trend and the damage it's done to long time franchises that I've enjoyed. I don't think it's a good thing. I don't believe that Ghostbusters has been damaged enough to ruin it, but Ghostbusters Afterlife needs to be a hit. I'm hoping this movie is successful. I don't care about fan service or nostalgia, because if it's written well enough, it adds to my enjoyment. All I really want from a movie is to sit down and enjoy it and not feel like I'm being preached to or treated like I'm a bad person if I don't enjoy the story.

Kathleen Kennedy's Disney Contract Quietly Renewed?

It's being reported through various sources that Kathleen Kennedy's contract at Disney has been renewed. Kennedy was pretty much the hand-picked successor of George Lucas to guide the Star Wars franchise into the future. I don't believe that George would have wanted Kennedy to be in charge of Star Wars had he known what direction she would take things. This has been the source of a bitter divide in the Star Wars fandom. Whether you are on one side of that debate or the other, I think most people would agree that the rift in the fan base is not a good thing.

There are fans of the original Star Wars trilogy who feel very strongly that the storyline has been ruined thanks to Kennedy, and there are those who feel the Disney Star Wars trilogy sequel did justice to the franchise. Again, this is a matter of opinion. It could be correctly pointed out that the profit margin of those three movies as well as Rogue One were huge and signaled success, but others will maintain that the storyline has been severely damaged.

Whether you like the Disney era of Star Wars or not, it's successes and failures can be put squarely at the feet of Kennedy. She might not have been involved in every creative decision, but she's the one who made the ultimate decisions. Give her credit or give her the blame, whatever your view might be. There are going to be people who claim that the renewal of Kennedy's contract is an endorsement of all of her efforts. That may be true, but it may be more nuanced than that.

Kennedy is not just some Hollywood chump. She's been involved in some of the biggest movie successes in the history of cinema. I don't care that some of those successes might have been attributed to other producers. She was involved in those projects as well. In the business world it would be disrespectful to say that she never brought anything to the table. It would also be disrespectful to publicly fire her, shame her or otherwise because a segment of fans weren't happy with the Star Wars trilogy sequel.

What's the point here? If she has been renewed, that can mean several things. Based on the successes she's had throughout her career, she's earned the respect of going out on her own terms. Therefore, one final renewal of her contract isn't a big surprise. Does that mean she's being rewarded? This depends on your perspective. Financially, the Star Wars trilogy made money. That's a fact, whether you liked the stories or not. Facts exist despite your feelings.

On the other hand, the storyline of Star Wars has been damaged, and there's no getting around that fact. You can like those movies. That's a matter of opinion. Same can be said if you hate those movies. The original six Star Wars movies told the story of the Skywalker family in which Palpatine was ultimately defeated when Darth Vader came back to the light and joined his son. At that point, the story was done. One can even argue whether the prequel trilogy needed to be made or not, but one can't argue against the fact that the story fit into the larger story.

It's basically been shown that there was no road map to where the Disney sequel trilogy was going. From one movie to the other, the directors seemed more interested in doing their own thing and one upping each other. Therefore, you had plot threads established in the first movie that were basically ignored or destroyed in the second movie. To try to save the trilogy and make an attempt to stick the landing, Palpatine`s character was brought back as the main bad guy in the third movie. The ending served to upset the long time fans as well as some new fans.

Long time fans were upset because Palpatine had been killed at the end of Return of the Jedi. The story was over. By bringing him back and having all of the Skywalker family dead, it's pretty much shown that Palpatine won. His granddaughter lived, but the Skywalker family was all dead. Newer fans were unhappy, because they enjoyed the romantic undertones of the Kylo Renn/Ray relationship. They didn't get the payoff they wanted in the end, and that led to some very unpleasant scenes witnessed in some movie theaters.

If this was viewed as a success, it's a certainty that an Episode 10 would have been planned. It would be on the drawing board, and we'd be getting updates. Weather a 10th movie was announced or we were just getting hints and rumors, the ball would be in motion. Why wasn't it? Kennedy was at the helm of this ship. She's deserving of any credit when it comes to the profit margin, and she's also deserving of the blame for storyline issues that have damaged the franchise.

This brings us back to the question. Why is she being rewarded if it was a failure? One should consider that her lifetime of work in the industry and the fact that each of the three trilogy sequel movies made 1 billion dollars or more at the box office is reason enough. Even if the storyline didn't go where a segment of the fan base wanted it to go, the cash registers were functional and profits were made. We are talking billions of dollars of profits from the billions of dollars of investment Disney made to buy Lucas Films from George Lucas. It wasn't a financial failure.

That's not to say that Disney itself is happy with her leadership. They may not want Kennedy to be making the big decisions in regards to the Star Wars franchise, but they can't publicly shame her and call her out on the problems with the story itself. What they can do is halt production of a 10th movie as long as she's the one in charge. Some will say her contract renewal is rewarding failure, and some will say she deserves it. The bigger question to ask is one that the people who didn't enjoy the sequel trilogy are asking right now.

Does this mean that Kennedy is in charge of Star Wars going forward for the next few years? At the moment, some projects are being canceled and others are being delayed. It's almost as if Disney wasn't happy with the direction the franchise was being taken. Kennedy may be back, but that doesn't mean she's going to be making the big decisions concerning where this franchise goes in the future. The indicator of what sort of power she holds is simple enough. When the 10th movie is announced that continues from where The Rise of Skywalker leaves off and Kennedy is the one making the calls, you'll have your answer. Until that time, everything is talk.

It's a sad time that we live in where people who are fans of long time franchises are not happy. They've looked at several different IPs and watched them get taken in a direction that goes contrary to what made these things popular in the first place. This has caused a divide in the fan base of these franchises, including Star Wars. People are picking sides and hurling insults at each other. People are trying to position themselves to be the ones who are right in the argument. It's sad that the majority of the people aren't just sitting back and talking about the product that was produced. It's almost as if being a fan doesn't just mean enjoying something anymore. You have to take sides and almost get political about it.

Kennedy had an opportunity to do good things with the Star Wars franchise. George Lucas even handed her a treatment of where the sequel trilogy would have gone under his leadership. Suddenly, people are pointing out how George was so wrong about everything. The reality is we wouldn't be talking about Star Wars in the first place if not for George. He must have done something right, but everybody now thinks they know better. Kennedy chose to use Star Wars as a platform to make her own political and social statements, rather than telling a story that united the fan base.

Therefore, this is more credit that she deserves. She might deserve credit for the profits being made at Disney via the Star Wars franchise. She might also deserve blame when it comes to where the story ended up going. Unfortunately, you have to point a finger at her when it comes to the divide in the franchise. She stirred the pot on this. Some will label the people who don't like the current franchise with negative political descriptions. This has nothing to do with politics. It's about whether people enjoyed the movies or not. Love it or hate it, Kennedy was in charge, and she deserves the blame here as well.