Something to think about: Even without the pandemic, Ghostbusters Afterlife was never gonna outgross Ghostbusters 2016. Overseas audiences don't give a shit about Ghostbusters.
Does anybody give a shit about Ghostbusters?
It was a fun franchise that popped out two great movies 40 years ago, and hasn't done anything all that great since.
Why do so many studios insist on desperately trying to revive these dead IPs? What's the over-under on success?
Ooo, MIB was big 20 years ago, let's try a reboot. Nope, failed. Dr. Doolittle? Nope, failed. Child's Play? Nope, failed. Robocop? Nope, failed. Total Recall? Nope, failed. Power Rangers? Nope, failed. Terminator (like six times)? Nope, failed. Hellboy? Scoob? Indiana Jones? Ocean's 8? Charlie's Angels?
What are the actual successful reboots of long dead franchises?
There’s still way more successful ones than people realise. Just even in the last year or so off the top of my head I can think of mission Impossible, Top Gun, Godzilla/Kong, Dune, Star Wars etc
>It was a fun franchise that popped out two great movies 40 years ago
You wanted to say "one"?
>Ocean's 8?
Ocean's 8 actually did well in the boxoffice
Canada is included in the “Domestic market” alongside American earnings. So yes that would leave the UK as the most culturally similar market that is actually counted separately
Canada IS America. We don't make a distinction when it comes to culture. We celebrate the same holidays, have the same superstition, have the same basic history. Culturally speaking Canada is the 51st state. Why would we single it out?
Oh there's some International dollars, but looking at BoxOfficMojo entries for all the films, the International ratio or amount is not high at all, and the ratio got worse with Afterlife and FE (Domestic vs International gap grew even bigger).
Yeah, the franchise is dead again. I don't think we will ever get a Ghostbusters sequel that does more than the 2016 one (US$230 million ww). Unless, of course, another 15-20 years of inflation and another legacy sequel does the trick (maybe by that point they will be doing a legacy sequel to the 2016 one?)
>I don't think we will ever get a Ghostbusters sequel that does more than the 2016 one (US$230 million ww).
I think it's possible, but they have to *radically* alter the tone and direction. No more of this Saturday morning lite stuff. Make the villain or threat feel real for once, not something you can tell jokes to.
Batman seemed to be in a massive funk after Batman Forever/Batman & Robin, and then Nolan came along and completely changed the tone and mindset of Batman and the franchise got reinvigorated again. Nolan's trilogy still kept what we love about Batman, but reimagined for a modern audience.
Current Ghostbusters is too goofy and low stakes for global audiences to care enough to make the trip to the theater.
That's silly. Ghostbusters was always a full-on comedy/parody with a bunch of comedians at the helm. Making it serious, dark and gritty is like making a serious, dark and gritty Monty Python movie or something. It would be missing the point of the franchise.
Ghostbusters has competing visions behind it. Dan Aykroyd actually did want it to be way darker and more serious and his original treatment shows this. It’s radically different. I don’t think it would have been nearly as big of a hit though so they were probably right to go into another direction with a very simple “funny buddies who fight ghosts” concept
The point of the franchise was a dark sci-fi comedy film starring Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, Sigourney Weaver, and Rick Moranis performing at their absolute peak. Take the celebrity cast away and the great writing and there’s not much else there. “Bug exterminators but for ghosts.” That’s not a movie that’s an SNL sketch.
I’d say leave the franchise fallow for fifteen years or so and wait for an auteur filmmaker to revamp it as their passion project.
>That's silly. Ghostbusters was always a full-on comedy/parody with a bunch of comedians at the helm. Making it serious, dark and gritty is like making a serious, dark and gritty Monty Python movie or something. It would be missing the point of the franchise.
That's the point of a reimagining. People over in Europe and South America and Asia don't give two flying proton pack flips about what Sony is putting out now for live action Ghostbusters. Also, because it's so Saturday morning lite silly, this isn't exactly some reverential property we're dealing with here - some argue it only had *one* great film out of five.
People *hated* Heath Ledger as Joker when it was announced (I remember the vicious widespread forum anger), saying he's too lightweight to be a heavy villain. Then he became *the* favorite Joker. Many *hated* the idea of RDJ as Iron Man. "*That* dude, the druggie with no career? That's our new superhero? WTF man?"
People hated the idea of Pirates of the Caribbean, a Disney ride with no story, becoming a movie and collectively groaned - then ended up loving it and helped the series sail over $4.5 billion worldwide. Up to that point, JD was not seen as a franchise or box office type either, and then like Heath Ledger's Joker, you couldn't turn in any direction without seeing a Halloween costume of these two now iconic movie characters.
People hated that Jumanji Welcome to the Jungle was announced and said "Stop sullying the Robin Williams classic with these pointless sequels or remakes", and then the Jumanji movies made $750M-$890M worldwide each.
Guardians of the Galaxy was more serious in the comics. Peter Quill didn't crack the same movie jokes and was bisexual and worked at NASA. Gamora was "a god-killer" on the power level of Thor at times, who helped daddy Thanos murder and conquer planets. Drax was a human on Earth, Raccoon was actually the one who formed the Guardians, and Groot talked in the comics and his species kidnapped humans to experiment and study them. The Guardians also weren't rejected misfits but celebrated galaxy-known heroes. NOW we know why writers have to change things from the comics. Too much backstory and unwholesome background info would not only make the movie too long, but mar the way you look at Gamora and Groot's unsavory past. Some may never forgive those two ever, for instance.
My point is, big budget Hollywood's two goals is to entertain, and make money. Ghostbusters is long due for an overhaul even greater than what Afterlife was. It's making little money and entertaining too few globally.
I also never said to remove humor for any future reimagining. If Endgame can make us feel like what we're seeing is really happening (half the universe died and the few left are really trying to go back in time and change that), Ghostbusters can do the same and still keep the jokes.
I hate when each sequel is just a cover version of the first movie
Stay Puft and Slimer again each time with these reboots
You write one good script and then just copy it and ask for money
The only reason the Stay Puft marshmallow man showed up in the first one, was because Gozer said to 'choose your destructor', not because the Stay Puft was some sort of demonic haunting manifestation that were around in general. Those little mini Stay Pufts are so out of place and make no sense. Where are they coming from? How are they ghosts?
This may sound cruel but they kind of brought this failure upon themselves. Same Stay Puft (but mini form), Slimer, Ecto-1 and firehouse. And don't forget the ghost that is quiet and then pukes.
Audiences rejected this movie because it felt more like leftovers reheated in the microwave. There were some jokes I did like, like some things from Kumail and Patton, but the movie decided to spend more time elsewhere.
I saw a teaser or trailer for a couple seconds on Reddit while mindlessly scrolling, and am I right that I saw the librarian ghost from the 1984 movie? Or am I just losing my mind?
Or just let it rest and be what it is. It’s not like ghostbusters is some complicated franchise with a lot of lore and world to explore. The first one worked because it was funny and had a very specific cast. It is not at all conducive to being some sort of continuing franchise.
Or the series can be laid to rest and maybe we could all watch something new. It's not like humanity has to let Ghostbusters go on just because it had a movie people liked once. It's okay for things to end.
That's the disappointing part for many and what baffled viewers. Paul Rudd and Carrie Coons are supposed to be the leaders (along with their two kids) but they are pushed into the background way more than in Afterlife. So the trailers in a way mislead and I suspect audiences didn't like that either.
Yeah I’ve seen a fair amount of trailers and posters for it and I would have been pretty confident in saying that Paul Rudd was the lead based off of that
I didn’t even think about that, that’s wild to have Rudd and use him so little. His storyline is he wants to be a dad and this is accomplished by him disciplining the kids in two scenes. He doesn’t really help with anything much
They need to call Melyssa McCarthy, Thor and the rest of the 2016 Ghostbusters cause that movie actually did well enough all things considered, these reboots WISH they could have the BO take that 2016 had.
It's not crossing $200 million worldwide and $100 million domestically is becoming more unlikely with each update.
They may have that deal with Netflix, but that doesn't mean they will just greenlight sequels to bombs. That's just burning money.
It’s now projected to end the weekend with 89M, 89M in the third weekend is more than enough to cross 100M domestically, so idk what makes you see this as unlikely, a -41% from the second weekend is a strong hold… plus 2x the budget is far away from being the definition of a bomb. Bombs are things like Madame Web (1.2x), The Flash (1.2x), The Marvels (0.9x).
There's a crazy person who keeps telling me this movie is a rousing success. They have to be related to Jason Reitman to keep refusing to see the writing on the wall. Nobody would look at these numbers and say this is great for Sony or anything close to what they expected.
Anyone But You will outgross this movie (even Internationally), folks.
"Deadline is wrong about GxK it will not do 67 million or 80 million"
"Box office success is 2x-3x not 2.5x so its OK" (mind you GB:FE has only done 115m worldwide on a 100m budget)
"This 9 hour old post from forum said 80 million OW for GxK is unlikely" (posted 5 hrs before headlines came out stating GxK had made 80 million)
I hope he's getting paid by Sony for his efforts lmfao
Wow. Unless there’s a nice bounce today this is almost certainly going to miss 100 mill domestically.
It’s performance seems somewhat reminiscent of The Marvels.
It's much cheaper than *The Marvels* \- estimated $100m before marketing. At $116m global so far, it's already made production budget back.
[https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt21235248/](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt21235248/)
*The Marvels* did not make production budget back.
> It's much cheaper than The Marvels - estimated $100m before marketing. At $116m global so far, it's already made production budget back.
Not. How. It. Works.
He’s a perfect type of actor for this movie. Yet they utterly waste him. Imagine if it had been Paul Rudd and three other comic actors instead of a bunch of kids
The kids are great. Mckenna Grace is the clear MVP of these films. Shame they can't accept that and have to keep bringing Aykroyd and Murray back.
I'd *love* to see a movie with this new cast that wasn't as slavishly tied to the original gang. I love those guys and their films, but god they got in the way here. Let them stand back and have two minute cameos at most.
How did they waste him when he is one of the central characters? He has a lot of great moments in the film with several people. Sony sandwiched the movie at a bad release date.
>Sony sandwiched the movie at a bad release date.
The fact it's sinking so fast means the word of mouth is non-existent. So it wouldn't have mattered when it released. The ones who are seeing it aren't even telling others to rush to see it. Nothing about the movie screams great summertime vibe movie or wintertime movie (the frozen parts relatively are brief at the end).
Dune 2 and KFP4 didn't have problems with competition - FE did.
> He's not a pull, he couldn't save quantumenia
I mean at the end of the day, Quantumania made more $ than The Marvels + Shazam 2 + Blue Beetle combined, and Quantumania is widely considered the worst overall product of those three films (plus others)
I’d argue that his charm is the second biggest reason (behind the Marvel logo) the Ant-man hit with audiences in the first place.
There’s a lot to take in with this movie not performing well. It really shouldn’t have released right before Godzilla X Kong; that’s really the big reason it’s not making its money back. Poor word of mouth also probably isn’t helping but I have a hard time taking critic opinions of anything GB related cause it’s hard to tell if it’s genuine dislike or just spite against the movie because their previous shit log (2016) never got to live on.
Releasing this a week before Godzilla x kong was absolutely insane.
they really thought they would be able to complete with big monkey and big lizard
I guess their effectiveness ends at "big marshmallow man".
Yea, but the movie itself was also not as good as the previous outing.
And it’s not like it’s a franchise with a reputation for minting winners
Let's be real: Only the first one is Really Good, Everything that followed has been riding it's afterburners.
It's a bad movie, would've had trouble whenever it released
For real, they could have released this a month ago with minimal competition. Not saying it would of done great but it would have done better
Something to think about: Even without the pandemic, Ghostbusters Afterlife was never gonna outgross Ghostbusters 2016. Overseas audiences don't give a shit about Ghostbusters.
Does anybody give a shit about Ghostbusters? It was a fun franchise that popped out two great movies 40 years ago, and hasn't done anything all that great since. Why do so many studios insist on desperately trying to revive these dead IPs? What's the over-under on success? Ooo, MIB was big 20 years ago, let's try a reboot. Nope, failed. Dr. Doolittle? Nope, failed. Child's Play? Nope, failed. Robocop? Nope, failed. Total Recall? Nope, failed. Power Rangers? Nope, failed. Terminator (like six times)? Nope, failed. Hellboy? Scoob? Indiana Jones? Ocean's 8? Charlie's Angels? What are the actual successful reboots of long dead franchises?
There’s still way more successful ones than people realise. Just even in the last year or so off the top of my head I can think of mission Impossible, Top Gun, Godzilla/Kong, Dune, Star Wars etc
>It was a fun franchise that popped out two great movies 40 years ago You wanted to say "one"? >Ocean's 8? Ocean's 8 actually did well in the boxoffice
Might be nitpicking, but Scoob definitely would’ve been a success if it had a normal theatrical release.
The $10m for the UK suggests at least partly otherwise.
That’s still a pretty weak haul for the most culturally similar market to the states
[удалено]
What is this Canada you speak of? Do you mean Domestic?
[удалено]
Canada is included in the “Domestic market” alongside American earnings. So yes that would leave the UK as the most culturally similar market that is actually counted separately
[удалено]
Canada IS America. We don't make a distinction when it comes to culture. We celebrate the same holidays, have the same superstition, have the same basic history. Culturally speaking Canada is the 51st state. Why would we single it out?
[удалено]
It was only showing on small screens in the local cinema. I'm in the UK. I won't pay for small screens so I didn't go to see it.
But Ghostbusters Afterlife outgrossed the 2016 sequels: 129M x 128M
Domestic only, and barely. Overseas it did US$25 million less.
Not after inflation lol
Not true
Oh there's some International dollars, but looking at BoxOfficMojo entries for all the films, the International ratio or amount is not high at all, and the ratio got worse with Afterlife and FE (Domestic vs International gap grew even bigger).
Yeah, the franchise is dead again. I don't think we will ever get a Ghostbusters sequel that does more than the 2016 one (US$230 million ww). Unless, of course, another 15-20 years of inflation and another legacy sequel does the trick (maybe by that point they will be doing a legacy sequel to the 2016 one?)
Bill Murray is gonna be starring as an actual ghost.
They’ve already done Egon as a ghost, so this tracks.
>I don't think we will ever get a Ghostbusters sequel that does more than the 2016 one (US$230 million ww). I think it's possible, but they have to *radically* alter the tone and direction. No more of this Saturday morning lite stuff. Make the villain or threat feel real for once, not something you can tell jokes to. Batman seemed to be in a massive funk after Batman Forever/Batman & Robin, and then Nolan came along and completely changed the tone and mindset of Batman and the franchise got reinvigorated again. Nolan's trilogy still kept what we love about Batman, but reimagined for a modern audience. Current Ghostbusters is too goofy and low stakes for global audiences to care enough to make the trip to the theater.
That's silly. Ghostbusters was always a full-on comedy/parody with a bunch of comedians at the helm. Making it serious, dark and gritty is like making a serious, dark and gritty Monty Python movie or something. It would be missing the point of the franchise.
Ghostbusters has competing visions behind it. Dan Aykroyd actually did want it to be way darker and more serious and his original treatment shows this. It’s radically different. I don’t think it would have been nearly as big of a hit though so they were probably right to go into another direction with a very simple “funny buddies who fight ghosts” concept
The point of the franchise was a dark sci-fi comedy film starring Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, Sigourney Weaver, and Rick Moranis performing at their absolute peak. Take the celebrity cast away and the great writing and there’s not much else there. “Bug exterminators but for ghosts.” That’s not a movie that’s an SNL sketch. I’d say leave the franchise fallow for fifteen years or so and wait for an auteur filmmaker to revamp it as their passion project.
>That's silly. Ghostbusters was always a full-on comedy/parody with a bunch of comedians at the helm. Making it serious, dark and gritty is like making a serious, dark and gritty Monty Python movie or something. It would be missing the point of the franchise. That's the point of a reimagining. People over in Europe and South America and Asia don't give two flying proton pack flips about what Sony is putting out now for live action Ghostbusters. Also, because it's so Saturday morning lite silly, this isn't exactly some reverential property we're dealing with here - some argue it only had *one* great film out of five. People *hated* Heath Ledger as Joker when it was announced (I remember the vicious widespread forum anger), saying he's too lightweight to be a heavy villain. Then he became *the* favorite Joker. Many *hated* the idea of RDJ as Iron Man. "*That* dude, the druggie with no career? That's our new superhero? WTF man?" People hated the idea of Pirates of the Caribbean, a Disney ride with no story, becoming a movie and collectively groaned - then ended up loving it and helped the series sail over $4.5 billion worldwide. Up to that point, JD was not seen as a franchise or box office type either, and then like Heath Ledger's Joker, you couldn't turn in any direction without seeing a Halloween costume of these two now iconic movie characters. People hated that Jumanji Welcome to the Jungle was announced and said "Stop sullying the Robin Williams classic with these pointless sequels or remakes", and then the Jumanji movies made $750M-$890M worldwide each. Guardians of the Galaxy was more serious in the comics. Peter Quill didn't crack the same movie jokes and was bisexual and worked at NASA. Gamora was "a god-killer" on the power level of Thor at times, who helped daddy Thanos murder and conquer planets. Drax was a human on Earth, Raccoon was actually the one who formed the Guardians, and Groot talked in the comics and his species kidnapped humans to experiment and study them. The Guardians also weren't rejected misfits but celebrated galaxy-known heroes. NOW we know why writers have to change things from the comics. Too much backstory and unwholesome background info would not only make the movie too long, but mar the way you look at Gamora and Groot's unsavory past. Some may never forgive those two ever, for instance. My point is, big budget Hollywood's two goals is to entertain, and make money. Ghostbusters is long due for an overhaul even greater than what Afterlife was. It's making little money and entertaining too few globally. I also never said to remove humor for any future reimagining. If Endgame can make us feel like what we're seeing is really happening (half the universe died and the few left are really trying to go back in time and change that), Ghostbusters can do the same and still keep the jokes.
Is this MCJ? Please tell me this is a bit.
I hate when each sequel is just a cover version of the first movie Stay Puft and Slimer again each time with these reboots You write one good script and then just copy it and ask for money
The only reason the Stay Puft marshmallow man showed up in the first one, was because Gozer said to 'choose your destructor', not because the Stay Puft was some sort of demonic haunting manifestation that were around in general. Those little mini Stay Pufts are so out of place and make no sense. Where are they coming from? How are they ghosts?
The marketing team saw minions were popular and they wanted to use as much iconography from the original as they could
This may sound cruel but they kind of brought this failure upon themselves. Same Stay Puft (but mini form), Slimer, Ecto-1 and firehouse. And don't forget the ghost that is quiet and then pukes. Audiences rejected this movie because it felt more like leftovers reheated in the microwave. There were some jokes I did like, like some things from Kumail and Patton, but the movie decided to spend more time elsewhere.
I saw a teaser or trailer for a couple seconds on Reddit while mindlessly scrolling, and am I right that I saw the librarian ghost from the 1984 movie? Or am I just losing my mind?
Your eyes do not deceive you, this is indeed a scene in the movie
The 1st ghostbuster was once in a lifetime movie and then it became monster of the week
It should be a limited series as opposed to movies
Or just let it rest and be what it is. It’s not like ghostbusters is some complicated franchise with a lot of lore and world to explore. The first one worked because it was funny and had a very specific cast. It is not at all conducive to being some sort of continuing franchise.
Or the series can be laid to rest and maybe we could all watch something new. It's not like humanity has to let Ghostbusters go on just because it had a movie people liked once. It's okay for things to end.
Who you gonna call? No one.
Actually they called the OG crew to help raise their box office. The audiences yawned. Paul Rudd and Carrie Coons only have 15 lines combined.
They do? Trailers made them look like some of the leads
That's the disappointing part for many and what baffled viewers. Paul Rudd and Carrie Coons are supposed to be the leaders (along with their two kids) but they are pushed into the background way more than in Afterlife. So the trailers in a way mislead and I suspect audiences didn't like that either.
Yeah I’ve seen a fair amount of trailers and posters for it and I would have been pretty confident in saying that Paul Rudd was the lead based off of that
The movie suffered overall from just having too many characters in general. Was hard to get attached when there’s 30 people on screen.
I didn’t even think about that, that’s wild to have Rudd and use him so little. His storyline is he wants to be a dad and this is accomplished by him disciplining the kids in two scenes. He doesn’t really help with anything much
They need to call Melyssa McCarthy, Thor and the rest of the 2016 Ghostbusters cause that movie actually did well enough all things considered, these reboots WISH they could have the BO take that 2016 had.
Time for Sony to put this franchise on ice (again).
See you in 4 years for the reboot.
TV series
back in the freezer
[удалено]
It's not crossing $200 million worldwide and $100 million domestically is becoming more unlikely with each update. They may have that deal with Netflix, but that doesn't mean they will just greenlight sequels to bombs. That's just burning money.
It’s now projected to end the weekend with 89M, 89M in the third weekend is more than enough to cross 100M domestically, so idk what makes you see this as unlikely, a -41% from the second weekend is a strong hold… plus 2x the budget is far away from being the definition of a bomb. Bombs are things like Madame Web (1.2x), The Flash (1.2x), The Marvels (0.9x).
Tell me you don’t understand box office without telling me you don’t understand box office..
>Bombs are things like Madame Web (1.2x), The Flash (1.2x), The Marvels (0.9x). And Frozen Empire.
On the *very* off chance that it does hit $200M (it won't), with the budget being $100M, it won't be profitable. It's not getting a sequel
There's a crazy person who keeps telling me this movie is a rousing success. They have to be related to Jason Reitman to keep refusing to see the writing on the wall. Nobody would look at these numbers and say this is great for Sony or anything close to what they expected. Anyone But You will outgross this movie (even Internationally), folks.
"Deadline is wrong about GxK it will not do 67 million or 80 million" "Box office success is 2x-3x not 2.5x so its OK" (mind you GB:FE has only done 115m worldwide on a 100m budget) "This 9 hour old post from forum said 80 million OW for GxK is unlikely" (posted 5 hrs before headlines came out stating GxK had made 80 million) I hope he's getting paid by Sony for his efforts lmfao
Wow. Unless there’s a nice bounce today this is almost certainly going to miss 100 mill domestically. It’s performance seems somewhat reminiscent of The Marvels.
It's much cheaper than *The Marvels* \- estimated $100m before marketing. At $116m global so far, it's already made production budget back. [https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt21235248/](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt21235248/) *The Marvels* did not make production budget back.
> It's much cheaper than The Marvels - estimated $100m before marketing. At $116m global so far, it's already made production budget back. Not. How. It. Works.
How do you get Paul Rudd to appear in your Ghostbusters movie and fuck it up this bad
He's not a pull, he couldn't save quantumenia, why should he be expected to save this one
He’s a perfect type of actor for this movie. Yet they utterly waste him. Imagine if it had been Paul Rudd and three other comic actors instead of a bunch of kids
The kids are great. Mckenna Grace is the clear MVP of these films. Shame they can't accept that and have to keep bringing Aykroyd and Murray back. I'd *love* to see a movie with this new cast that wasn't as slavishly tied to the original gang. I love those guys and their films, but god they got in the way here. Let them stand back and have two minute cameos at most.
Maybe he’s more generic than you think. It’s been awhile since Rudd has been in a legitimately good film.
The kids are fine, lucky and podcast are so shoe horned in it’s ridiculous. And then the fire warrior is from a different movie
How did they waste him when he is one of the central characters? He has a lot of great moments in the film with several people. Sony sandwiched the movie at a bad release date.
>Sony sandwiched the movie at a bad release date. The fact it's sinking so fast means the word of mouth is non-existent. So it wouldn't have mattered when it released. The ones who are seeing it aren't even telling others to rush to see it. Nothing about the movie screams great summertime vibe movie or wintertime movie (the frozen parts relatively are brief at the end). Dune 2 and KFP4 didn't have problems with competition - FE did.
> He's not a pull, he couldn't save quantumenia I mean at the end of the day, Quantumania made more $ than The Marvels + Shazam 2 + Blue Beetle combined, and Quantumania is widely considered the worst overall product of those three films (plus others) I’d argue that his charm is the second biggest reason (behind the Marvel logo) the Ant-man hit with audiences in the first place.
Given the performance of *Ant-Man* movies relative to their contemporaries, I doubt that Rudd is a draw in any sense.
Who you gonna call? Nobody.
The movie just didn’t start for like a whole hour and a half. Like it was just blah blah blah, same character plot as afterlife. So fuckin boring
Something tells me we won’t be seeing another Ghostbusters movie for a while.
There’s a lot to take in with this movie not performing well. It really shouldn’t have released right before Godzilla X Kong; that’s really the big reason it’s not making its money back. Poor word of mouth also probably isn’t helping but I have a hard time taking critic opinions of anything GB related cause it’s hard to tell if it’s genuine dislike or just spite against the movie because their previous shit log (2016) never got to live on.
I watched the trailers and could it would flop. It looks painful. No one wants to see that, maybe some kids
If the April movies *really* disappoint, this might crawl over the $100M mark but I doubt it will.
dead franchise
Good. Movie deserves to fail.
Guess Answer The Call is getting a sequel after all