The moment we all been waiting for. How did Ghostbusters did at the box office? Let's see!

1. The Secret Life of Pets - $50,560,000
2. Ghostbusters - $46,000,000 (new release)
3. The Legend of Tarzan - $11,120,000
4. Finding Dory - $11,040,000
5. Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates - $7,500,000
6. The Purge: Election Year - $6,080,000
7. Central Intelligence - $5,300,000
8. The Infiltrator - $5,287,124 (new release)
9. The BFG - $3,747,000
10. Independence Day: Resurgence - $3,450,000

Well there ya have it, not really surprising but I will say this. I was expecting $50 million at the very least but $46 million isn't necessarily bad nor good, it's average at best. Considering how many movies have performed way under expectations this Summer, that's not a bad opening. It is the 9th highest this year so far. Feig stated that it needed $500 million for a sequel to happen and that's on the low side.

So OT, did you expect more/less from the Ghostbusters reboot?

July 15-17 mojo's box office

I won't watch it because the idiots on both sides of the gender politics spectrum have made it feel absolutely toxic to me. Will give it a look in a few years when people stop acting stupid about it.

I was gonna watch it to spite the turds who gave it flak for the female only cast, then James Rolfe (AVGN) says why he won't watch it, and the other sides illogical and frankly unhinged reaction to that kinda made me wanna not see it to spite THEM.

Seems ok to me. I'll probably wait for it to come out on bluray. I enjoyed the original movie but I never really thought of it to be some sort of epic franchise or movie like super hero movies or animated movies usually are.

I didn't expect anything. Wasn't planning on watching it....didn't. The first one was okay.....over rated now though....the sequel I didn't bother with.

Nonetheless this got decent reviews and decent box office. Now what can the internet cry about?

According to Box Office Mojo it has a production budget of $144 million, it did an additional $19 million worldwide.

I think going up against Secret Lives of Pets though, you're going to lost out to those big budget Disney Pixar family films every time.

It sucked. A girl I wanted to bang dragged me to it. She was in the "Females, YEAH!!!!" camp. She admitted it suuuuucked. We then ate tons of Indian food, and boned, and it worked, we cleared it out of our systems....

It looked like a snoozer with too much CGI. I guess it's cool that it did fair, well done hollywood, boned up another classic.

I didn't watch it because (like Robocop) it has no other reason to exist than banking on a name.

My apologies to all.

After watching it myself, The Internet was right about his one.

The Robocop reboot was actually pretty decent, though. Same with the Dredd reboot. I can tolerate things like this every couple decades, but then you got the whole Spiderman thing and that's getting out of hand.

I think a lot of people want to dislike these movies before even seeing them, but if you watch these originals, they are not the works of art we make them out to be, either. I feel most are looking at the originals with rose-tinted shades, and looking at the present and future with cynicism.

Not saying any of these reboots are amazing or better, mind you, just saying they are OK. Most importantly I think people forget to have fun.

@uninspiredcup: I watched robocop when it came out on Netflix, big mistake. Such a cheap cash grab, it did NOTHING better then the original.

Robocop and Ghostbusters are two of my favorite 80s movies, no way I'm spending $20 to see downgraded cheap versions of them. The only good the new ghostbusters has done is bringing back ecto cooler.

I would strongly disagree about Robocop, it is quite literally a contemporary retelling of the resurrection with ques from Frankenstein, Westerns with very anti-corporate themes and a moral core - without being Christopher Nolan try hard.

Robocop 2014 (which I did watch) has literally no reason to exist. Robocop 1987 hasn't aged badly, it's not a bad movie - it's a great movie- and I think pretty much everyone would agree doesn't hold a candle to the original.

It seems Robocop became exactly the movie was about - making it super-super high end art?

That's not impressive at all considering it's 144 million dollar budget, it'll be lucky to make back it's budget, and it doesn't help that Star Trek releases this week. It needs like 288+ million to do good.

You guys know what's funny? Star Trek The Search for Spock came a week before Ghostbusters in 1984 and now Star Trek Beyond comes a week after Ghostbusters, and both Star Trek movies are the 3rd in their franchise.

The film is actually pretty good, one of the better films released this year.

@Archangel3371: "Seems ok to me. I'll probably wait for it to come out on bluray."

You mean Redbox?

@mrbojangles25:" Same with the Dredd reboot. "

lol, there was a Dredd reboot?

@Nuck81: "My apologies to all.After watching it myself, The Internet was right about his one."

Your review please?

@thehig1:" one of the better films released this year."

Is that saying much?

@sarahf:

So you're too influenced by others?

This film is very sexist towards men yet everyone ignores it.

I didn't go see it, but then again I wasn't really planning to do so because I've never really been in love with the original ghost buster films. They're definitely good, but never really something that I consider great.

My girlfriend and I actually went to the cheap theater this weekend and saw the Jungle Book which was the very definition of "just okay," and I never intend to see it again. We ended up renting and watching the original Jungle Book for all the wrong reasons on Saturday night and had a much better time.

Mind freak!!

By the way has anyone seen Now You See Me 2 that didn't like the first one's ending? I found the first one to be incredibly frustrating due to how good the beginning was yet consider the ending to be terrible. It leaves me very much on the fence about going to see the second one and I wanted to know if anyone had the same view of the first one and saw the second.

@PSP107: No.

Yep. There was the "original" with Stallone, which was campy as hell (personally I loved it, but it was a terrible, terrible movie).

Then there was the "reboot", starring the underrated Karl Urban and wicked Lena Headey. It was when 3D was making it's comeback a few years ago so it was kind of marketed as a gimmick, but the movie itself was pretty damn awesome. Good fun all around, with solid acting and great effects.

The best slow-motion-death-by-gravity since Die Hard

Lena Headey plays such a badass's badass, it's not even funny.

Some more badassery on behalf of the she-badass

Karl ain't messing around either.

@Archangel3371:

So you rather $16-$20+ for a movie vs renting it for $1.50-$2.00?

@mrbojangles25:"Lena Headeyplays such a badass's badass, it's not even funny."

I don't find female in movies as bad asses. It's not believable.

And now some hand wringing:

Was ‘Ghostbusters’ Too Expensive to Launch a New Franchise?

The comedy had a solid debut, but also carries an $144 million price tag

Sony claims that by arming Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig with proton packs and sending them out to battle the undead, the studio has successfully rebooted the “Ghostbusters” franchise. On Sunday, Sony marketing and distribution chief Josh Greenstein predicted more sequels to come.

“This is a restart of one of our most important brands,” he said. “We relaunched a 30-year-old property by making it both new and nostalgic.”

It’s true that internet trolls, horrified over the idea that the original ’80s all-male team was getting an estrogen injection, were foiled in their attempts to spew ectoplasm all over the film. But its $46 million debut isn’t exactly a blockbuster result. Indeed, the paranormal comedy’s launch exists in a nebulous region between hit and disappointment.

“The story isn’t told on this film,” said Jeff Bock, an analyst with Exhibitor Relations. “It’s too soon to say they’ve relaunched this franchise.”

For most comedies, that kind of debut would be a triumph, but then again, “Ghostbusters” isn’t most comedies. The film carries a massive $144 million price tag, plus at least $100 million more in marketing costs. Insiders estimate that it will have to do at least $300 million globally to break even and substantially more than that to justify a sequel. To get there, the film will have to show some impressive endurance while fending off a crowded field of summer blockbuster hopefuls. It will also need to resonate with foreign crowds unfamiliar with the original 1984 comedy or its 1989 sequel.

In the short term, the decision to bring on McCarthy, Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones, and pair them with director Paul Feig, turned out to be a shrewd one. The cast was the third-most cited reason that people went to the movie, according to comScore’s survey of ticket buyers. Moreover, the backlash around the film likely spurred audiences’ curiosity.

The problem is that the film cost too much — a fact that Sony’s film chief Tom Rothman seemed to grasp early on in the process. The reboot was greenlit under his predecessor, Amy Pascal, and one of Rothman’s first moves was to hack away at the budget, slashing roughly $15 million in production spending. It may not be enough.

So far, “Ghostbusters” earned a respectable $19.1 million in its first week of foreign release. Those grosses came from the United Kingdom and Australia — two English-speaking markets where U.S. comedies tend to perform better — as well as Brazil. It remains to be seen if the humor will translate to other regions. The big test will come over the coming weeks when the film opens in the likes of Russia, Germany, France, South Korea, Japan and Mexico.

Some underperforming films, such as “Warcraft,” have gotten a big assist from China this summer. Alas, that won’t be the case for “Ghostbusters,” which is expected to be rejected by the censors. China has an aversion to stories with ghosts, depriving the comedy of access to the world’s second-largest film market.

Even if “Ghostbusters” does gain traction overseas, it will have to grind it out stateside. The hope is that the film will play like previous McCarthy films, such as “The Heat” and “Spy,” which stuck around for the long haul, earning roughly four times their opening weekend grosses. “Bridesmaids,” which paired Wiig and McCarthy, ended with six times its opening weekend result. Most major films are lucky to do three times their debuts.

“It needs to continue being a crowd pleaser,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst with comScore. “That could be tough. Some people loved it, but some didn’t. The reaction has been pretty polarizing.”

The problem isn’t just that reviews were mixed. It’s that the competition is only going to intensify. Next weekend brings “Star Trek Beyond” and “Ice Age: Collision Course,” two well-established franchises that should bite into “Ghostbusters'” fanboy and family audiences. The following weekend offers up the raunchy comedy “Bad Moms” and “Jason Bourne,” both of which are tracking strongly. That doesn’t leave a lot of room to establish a foothold.

But that’s the mountain that “Ghostbusters” must summit if it wants to launch a new franchise. Now, it needs to claw its way to the top.

@PSP107: it's saying the film don't completely suck, if people can get over the fact it's another remake and it starts women it's actually an entertaining film.

This year has been ok for movies, I've seen 23 movies at cinema so far this year, I'd put ghostbusters in the top 5 of that.

Why not just watch it or not watch it because you find it interesting or you don't find it interesting?

I'm not saying what you should or shouldn't do, because that's your business. But I just find it really odd that someone would use spite as a criteria for what entertainment they consume. That one would deprive oneself of something that he/she wants, just to spite someone else. I seriously never really understood that kind of stuff.

I can see where you are coming from.

To be honest, when I watched the trailer. I couldnt really notice the whole female team. I never really noticed that the entire team was female until people started pointing it out. Maybe because I am so apathetic towards things like that. And I am not looking for reasons to get offended unlike some.

For a movie which has men being calles out as being sexist for not liking a unnecessary reboot of an amazing movie and a cult classic.....this movie sure is VERY sexist against men. Like so over the top sexist. Blown away at the hypocrisy from them.

It was a surprisingly great movie. I hope we get more sequels. People should remember that this is a comedy so it all depends on your sense of humor. Dare I say it was even better than the original in several ways.

Ghostbusters was never an amazing movie....come on.

Well I really don’t care about box office, Batman Vs Superman grossed notably @ box office but did that make it a good movie, NO, it was a fuckin garbage and so is the new Ghostbusters, Paul Feig had this big chance to make a great remake but he fuckin blew it by turning ghostbuster to a fuckin feminism symbol which just ruined the whole thing, I still don’t get it why all of the characters should be female, … and the only male characters is a dumbass goober receptionist played by chris hemsworth, so A male bimbo …noice and then they call the original movie sexist , lol , new ghostbusters is not a comedy , it’s a revenge movie , a tit for tat … so the old Hollywood made many sexist movies where they portrayed men as heroes and women as damsels in distress and now SJWs are going to take their vengeance by destroying a classic franchise

Think of it like modern day, currently played music. When you listen to your radio, how "artists" do you hear that you think will be around in thirty years? When I say "be around" I'm talking in an elevated sense as in one you look at as standing the test of time? How many of these reboots (Robocop, Ghostbusters, The Karate Kid, etc..,) will have the same stature as the originals?

@PSP107: I really don't care that much for renting.

The original Robocop is a work of art, because stop-motion animation is a work of art! :-)

Phil Tippett animating ED-209:

don't worry, they'll find something

@uninspiredcup: your absolutely right and tbh I kind of regret throwing Robocop out there as an example of "it's good but not as good as we think it is". Robocop was a masterpiece as far as social commentary goes, and more importantly was highly entertaining. I mean they developed this whole near-future culture that, quite honestly, is scary; still making cars that get 2 mpg, hole in the ozone in CA requires SPF 1000 sun screen, and more.

@Solaryellow: none of them will replace the originals, but that's not going to stop me from enjoying them. Some of my favorite songs are covers of othersongs, and though rarely better than the original, they put their own unique spin on them that makes them great, sometimes even as good as the original (rarely better).

@Stesilaus: I stand corrected! I really do prefer those practical effects to digital ones. Some people might say they are corny but, dammit, at least they are real and not CGI cartoons. One nice thing currently is that a lot of movies are going back to doing practical effects when, errrm...practical to do so. i.e. using CGI only when necessary. Movies like Star Wars, Star Trek, zombie movies (plenty of skinny wannabe actors out there to play zombie extras, no reason to CGI those).

But how can you hate women? Your mother is one.

I'm completely disinterested in watch this movie in cinemas, but not for the reasons others are. I simply was never a fan of the older Ghostbusters movies, they're OK, but greatly overrated, and I have no interest in this one because to me it seems more of the same, but staring a woman who's movies I've never enjoyed. I'll maybe watch this new one in a year or so, when it's added to Sky Movies, but I'm not in any rush.

It's a massive conspiracy. Next thing you'll know, they'll have women starring in serious roles, doing action things, doing nontraditional things, thus destroying the very fabric of this country.

OH THE FUCKING HUMANITY SOMEONE CALL THE WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHBULANCE. GET MY SAFE ZONE. WOMENZ ARE SCARYFDS IOAJS;DLFK ALS

No one cares. Most movies out right now star white men doing traditional roles with women supportive role, sex symbols, or otherwise complete bimbos. So they reversed the rolls in Ghostbusters. Big. friggen. Whoop.

I'm sorry that I'm not sorry you're offended.

You know what, I'll see Ghostbusters just so I can contribute to the female matriarchy. Mhuahahaha.

I want it to fail miserably because it represent what's wrong with entertainment industry.

Enjoying them is one thing but Hollywood seems almost outraged when people don't jump on the band wagon with these desperate attempts at cashing in on an established name. Granted, some remakes are done well (Halloween) but none I have seen are able to capture the magic and feeling of the original because they usually feel so forced. I.E. Hollywood will take the latest "next best thing" and put him/her in roles outside of their caliber.

@LJS9502_basic: "Ghostbusters was never an amazing movie....come on."

Are you ripping the original?

@the_master_race:"and the only male characters is a dumbass goober receptionist played by chris hemsworth,"

Really?

@Stesilaus said:

@mrbojangles25 said:

[...] Robocop [...]

I think a lot of people want to dislike these movies before even seeing them, but if you watch these originals, they are not the works of art we make them out to be, either.

The original Robocop is a work of art, because stop-motion animation is a work of art! :-)

Phil Tippett animating ED-209:

Ye, the fight with Ed-209 still looks great 20+ years on, and you have emotional investment making you actually give a shit what's going on - And then in the new one he's jumping around with cartoon physics in a blurry mess that doesn't look particular good on release.

@LJS9502_basic: the first one is a classic to me and my family. Seen it a hundred times and still love it. I'm 34 yrs old though so it was my era. To me this was blasphemy. They just better not do Back to the Future next or I riot

@uninspiredcup:

lol@ Dick Jones. lol@ ED-209 falling down the stairs.

lol@ that top video of Robocop 2014. Let me gets this straight, he now rides a motorcycle? Was that the end of the movie where they both shot each other?

You'd think The Infiltrator would be at a higher place. I haven't gone to watch a movie since March. Sucks

@LJS9502_basic: Lol, its a HUGE classic, it was great when it came out and it still considered great to this day, its a timeless classic.