I thought this was pretty good....apart from Chris Hemsworth's ridiculous character
Zuulan
17 Jul 173#7
Thought it was the original one :disappointed:
All comments (18)
powerbrick
17 Jul 177#1
overpriced by £11.89.
MrDB
17 Jul 175#2
I thought this was pretty good....apart from Chris Hemsworth's ridiculous character
EstorilBlue
17 Jul 171#3
Someone found a way to polish a turd?!?
Marcoos to EstorilBlue
18 Jul 17#15
Just roll it in glitter
aseddon130
17 Jul 172#4
This film wasn't that bad you know.
unknownorigin
17 Jul 171#5
Even if they paid you £11.89 this would be the most ripped off you have ever been.
Disco.Dave
17 Jul 171#6
Overpriced
Zuulan
17 Jul 173#7
Thought it was the original one :disappointed:
SimyJo
17 Jul 171#8
I watched this free on a streaming service, NowTV movies I think.
I would like to charge Sony Pictures Entertainment for my 2 hours of life back that was wasted watching this.
abk1891
17 Jul 17#9
Good price but the movie seriously was bad, had to stop watching half way and is no way near as good as the original.
fireman1
17 Jul 17#10
Strange isn't it how new Ghostbusters deals get hammered on here but when it appears on 4k the heat builds and suddenly it's not that bad anymore.
4k fanboys.
SimyJo
17 Jul 17#11
I dunno, a 4k turd is still a turd. For me personally speaking a film is a film [to be enjoyed] - not a tech demo.
garybb
17 Jul 17#12
Worst movie ever COLD.
vkash2236
18 Jul 17#13
I'd have to be paid to watch this crap again!
jahman
18 Jul 17#14
Should've been called SJWBusters. This film was such a turkey they'll never, ever make their money back. They lost $70 million on this turkey. Hilarious! I will never, ever watch this garbage. This isn't just cold, it's absolute zero.
dead4red69 to jahman
24 Jul 17#16
Such ****.
"The film grossed $229 million worldwide against a production budget of $144 million".
Facts probably don't mean much to you though, do they?
M3NDEREZ
28 Jul 17#17
Had to reply to this.. Are you so utterly devoid of mental capacity that you honestly believe every penny you pay at the cinema goes directly to the studio that made the movie? So essentially, those lovely cinemas that you visit are showing the films, renting the property, supplying heat and light etc absolutely free of charge? Wow, just wow. And of course, Marketing is free too. Those TV ads, billboards, trailers, they're just shown because the lovely ad execs gave them away for free! I would genuinely love to live in the world you seem to think you inhabit.
So, for information, the production budget was $144M. Marketing was likely that again, but certainly over $100M. From the tickets sales, over the life of the movie, the studio will see 50% of the revenue domestically, and as low as 34% in foreign territories. So lets say, conservatively, the movie cost $250M including Marketing. It made $229M at the box office, with the studio receiving roughly $120 back in ticket sales. So yeah, by my mat, that film lost a shedload of money. A $70M loss is EXTREMELY conservative. Sure, they'll make a bunch of that money back on Blu-Ray sales, and licensing to TV and streaming services, but there is absolutely no doubt that they lost a ridiculous amount of money on this film.
So, before you call someone out about checking THEIR facts, perhaps you ought to check yours first.
dead4red69
28 Jul 17#18
What facts are you using? You're not! You're speculating. Box office returns are not the sole revenue stream for a movie anyway, how about dvd/blu-ray/uhd sales? Licencing deals?
The only fact of the matter here is that both yourself and the other guy have used pure speculation. As the other guy said, he hadn't even watched the film, yet felt it was a garbage film. He clearly hadn't taken a rational approach to come to that conclusion. This led me to speculate that facts and evidence based decisions mean little to him.
Opening post
Top comments
All comments (18)
I would like to charge Sony Pictures Entertainment for my 2 hours of life back that was wasted watching this.
4k fanboys.
"The film grossed $229 million worldwide against a production budget of $144 million".
Facts probably don't mean much to you though, do they?
So, for information, the production budget was $144M. Marketing was likely that again, but certainly over $100M. From the tickets sales, over the life of the movie, the studio will see 50% of the revenue domestically, and as low as 34% in foreign territories. So lets say, conservatively, the movie cost $250M including Marketing. It made $229M at the box office, with the studio receiving roughly $120 back in ticket sales. So yeah, by my mat, that film lost a shedload of money. A $70M loss is EXTREMELY conservative. Sure, they'll make a bunch of that money back on Blu-Ray sales, and licensing to TV and streaming services, but there is absolutely no doubt that they lost a ridiculous amount of money on this film.
So, before you call someone out about checking THEIR facts, perhaps you ought to check yours first.
The only fact of the matter here is that both yourself and the other guy have used pure speculation. As the other guy said, he hadn't even watched the film, yet felt it was a garbage film. He clearly hadn't taken a rational approach to come to that conclusion. This led me to speculate that facts and evidence based decisions mean little to him.