Talk:Ghostbusters (2016 film)

Loss estimates

On August 10th, The Hollywood Reporter released an article stating that the film was heading for a $70million dollar loss. The figure appears in the title and the exact wording in that article is "Now they are preparing for steep losses (think $70 million-plus) and an uncertain future for the franchise." There aren't any specifics on how they arrived at that figure, but it has since been parroted by a number of generally reliable sources such as Vanity Fair, Entertainment Weekly, IGN, Maxim, usually attributing the figure to THR.

Within the THR article, a Sony Rep is quoted as saying "This loss calculation is way off. With multiple revenue streams, including consumer products, gaming, location-based entertainment, continued international rollout, and huge third-party promotional partnerships that mitigated costs, the bottom line, even before co-financing, is not remotely close to that number." Variety did its own report which found a $75m loss which is at least attributed to "Sources familiar with the film's finances". With co-financing, Sony's losses are said to be around $50m in that article. $25 million according to Sony insiders.

Given the pervasiveness of the estimates, I suggest they be added to the article with something like the following wording:

'On August 10th, 2016, The Hollywood Reported released a report estimating the film's financial losses would be over $70 million.[1][2][3] A representative of Sony found this loss estimate to be "way off. With multiple revenue streams [...] the bottom line, even before co-financing, is not even remotely close to that number."[1][2] According to Variety, sources familiar with the film's financing estimate the total loss to be about $75 million which, due to co-financing with Village Roadshow, Sony would lose about $50 million.[4] Sony insiders have projected, along with co-financing, a total loss of about $25 million. [4]'

Any thoughts or inputs? Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have never really understood why the Box-Office sections of movie articles have become so prevalent and over-bloated on Wikipedia in recent years (yes, this has been going on for a while). Maybe it's just that there's more info on this but frankly it's the least interesting or useful part of the article for me - when anyone with even elementary math skills can deduce (from the comparison of budget and box-office in the info-box) whether or not a movie was succesful. But sure, if the section is properly cited, go ahead. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that this movie is a box office bomb, is pretty relevant. Ghost Busters II made 215 million in 1989 money. So far GB hasn't made that. That it can't beat the previous film without even taking inflation into account is really bad. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Calling a film a box office bomb is labeling, which only should be done if we have reliable sources that use that phrase as well. Yes, the film likely lost money, its nowhere near as successful as the first, but its original research to call it a box office bomb by our own interpretation of the sources. That it likely lost money for Sony after accounting for marketing, sure, we can source that, but also keep in mind (from when I expended the history of this script), Sony was looking for reintroducing as a franchise, and they're looking at a long tail of revenue from other sources, and to that end, it was apparently successful. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I support Scoundr's proposed addition and wording as it gives both sides and is reliably sourced. TweedVest (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

In regard to CaptainN's remarks. There has certainly been a surge of interest in box office profits recently, especially with this film, which has polarized a lot of people. Unfortunately, though, it's not as simple as deducing the box office takings from the budget. Due to marketing, co-financing, product placement, and a number of other factors, there's very rarely a clear cut profit or loss line for a film, so we have to rely on third-party calculations from reliable sources. In fact, the List of box office bombs article recently underwent major changes for that reason. (Big shout out to User:Betty Logan for that, though Popcornduff and myself (as an IP) were involved.) I also agree with Masem that "bomb" or "flop" is a pretty subjective label, so I won't be involved in that specific labeling, just reporting that it lost money. Thank you all for your input. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sources are already calling it a flop, which is pretty standard in the press, and is used inter-changeably with "bomb". This isn't going to get better with time. It's not like sources are going to start calling it a success in a month. With the 70 million loss estimates, it's already in the top 100 for biggest bombs of all time. Sony is engaging in spin to try to cover up their massive loss. They're never going to admit that they released a movie that bombed this hard. They always try to spin things in a positive manner. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As said many times, a bomb/flop is a debatable term at any rate as what exactly qualifies as such? Point blank Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows is a much more clearer flop/bomb than Ghostbusters (2016 film) is, yet nothing about that has been noted on its article or talk page. Lets atleast be fair about this. Devilmanozzy (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

If it lost a ton of money, then it's a flop. A bunch of sources have called it such. They cite Ghostbusters, TMNT, and a bunch of other as well. This is beginning to be called the "Summer of flops" by many sources. The new Ben Hur looks to be added to the list. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with calling it a flop, I'm just not personally aware of when that labeling is necessary for the article. Pluto Nash? Sure, that's notable (great movie, btw). Anyway, I'm neutral to it. It definitely lost money and has been called a flop by notable sources. I do just have one request: could you please clean up the raw url references using cite web? It'd be appreciated. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I do see reasonably good reliable sources for supporting "flop", just that calling it a "bomb" only starts appear in opinion pieces and less reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's another source calling the film a "flop", and putting it in context of the rest of the flops of the year. http://www.wsj.com/articles/rising-box-office-masks-glut-of-big-budget-film-flops-1471192593

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning the other flops of the year seems pretty off-topic. I would honestly rather we just call this film a flop in the box office area, even using some of the previous sources. I'm neutral on whether or not it should be called such in the lede. Though let's see if we can clean up the urls using cite web, please. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd counter that what other films have done being off-topic, but I would also say its too early to tell. If analysts look at this (NA) summer's film releases and box offices and find them lackluster across the board, and thus considered part of why this film failed to do well, that's a completely fair argument to include. It's just that I think that since we still have a few more weeks of summer its far to early to be throwing the doom and gloom analyses around. I do agree that it's not lede material, but can be included in box office discussions. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Putting it in context is pretty relevant. This year has a lot of big duds at the box office. Ghostbusters poor performance was not a fluek, but part of a trend. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This is certainly reasonable but again to stress two points: we still have two more weeks left before Labor Day (when the summer period is then considered over) so right now these are very early guesses, and we need to avoid OR and have sources that attribute this film's poor box office, in part, to the weak summer overall. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If this talk page hadn't had an overly agressive archiving set, you would have noticed that i provided a reliable source that sayd it bombed, before this discussion every started. It bombed. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, PizzaMan, I saw your previous post and even used two of your sources. It's in the article under Box Office. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Slight head's up

Hey guys, just letting you know that I just took part in an AfD (I was the nominator) for an actress's article where someone tried to claim that Chaunty Spillane portrayed Gertrude Aldridge (the main female ghost). There was plentiful sourcing to prove this claim false, but I just wanted to give a head's up on this page in case there's an attempt to change this on the main Ghostbusters article. There were a ton of sourcing showing Rous as the actress in question, but the only one saying Spillane was Aldridge was a Facebook post. (And even there one of her friends cautioned her about lying about her role in the film, as this can and will backfire horribly if you try to steal someone else's acting credit.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2016

Ghostbusters: Answer the Call → Ghostbusters (2016 film) – The title of this film is Ghostbusters. It should not have been moved from Ghostbusters (2016 film) to Ghostbusters: Answer the Call. WP uses the title of the original theatrical release, not logos or later DVD releases, as appears to be the case here. See this source: http://uproxx.com/movies/ghostbusters-answer-the-call-dvd/. Gothicfilm (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Can't speak for protocol on this one, but note that according to the Gizmodo and (now removed) Yahoo source, the film was called "Ghostbusters: Answer the Call" quietly at release and that suffix appears in the closing credits. Scoundr3l (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

And as that source says: However, this title was not used in the film’s opening credits, or in any of the marketing material. WP uses the WP:COMMONNAME. As seen in the opening credits. Not something buried in the end credits. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll grant that 'Ghostbusters' is probably the common name used in reliable sources, but it's irrelevant whether or not they use the "official" title in the opening credits (see Apocalypse Now). It's still a title that's been attached to the product since its theatrical release and not only on logos and DVD releases, as you said. Scoundr3l (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Easily the WP:COMMONNAME. Pretty much nobody used this supposed "subtitle". Using "Answer the Call" is too obscure to be recognizable natural disambiguation. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support, Ghostbusters (without "Answer the Call") is the official title of the film in Rotten Tomatoes, which is a reliable source. --HamedH94 (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support, clear case of WP:COMMONNAME. Hundreds of sources (and a theatrical release) calling it "Ghostbusters" outweigh a DVD release and a subtitle buried in a credit sequence. -Fandraltastic (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)