| Author
|
Can anyone tell me the real deal on GB III?
|
TheBigGuy
Ghosthead
Joined: Jan 01, 2002
|
 Posted: Sep 07, 2002 10:07 PM
Alright, I've been away from the whole ghostbusters sceen for a while now. Last I heard, GB 3 was absolutely out of the question. But that was quite a while back. Can anyone tell me anything real about whats going on as far as the creation of GB 3? Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in what everyone THINKS, but I want to know what everyone KNOWS first!
|
|
|
|
 
|
Ghostbuster_D
Moderator
Joined: Nov 19, 2001
|
Posted: Sep 07, 2002 10:12 PM
Just look in the GBIII Forum. You'll find that this question has been asked and answered many times, and will get the info. you need. 
_____________
-Daryl, the Scoleri Brothers guy
Visit my Scoleri Brothers site
and
the river of slime!
"Don't worry. I'm not a real ghostbuster, but I've seen them on TV."
"A good person is one who is willing to forgive."
"You see, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now."-Val, Tremors
|
|
|
     |
|
GB3
Ghosthead
Joined: Jun 01, 2002
|
Posted: Sep 10, 2002 3:59 PM
Thought this post works here too:
Entertainment Weekly mentions how studios are trying to make contract deals giving the stars and talent a piece of the gross. This is supposedly more feasible to do then to give in the money up front before a movie begins filming (as it counts on the budget costs). Columbia did a complicated back end deal with Will Smith and Martin Lawrence for Bad Boys 2. This is what they did on MIB II for Smith and Lee Jones, Barry Sonnenfeld and Steven Spielberg. Supposedly they took in at least $100 mil combined of the gross of MIB II.
MIB II should've done better. As the film supposedly costed (through IMDB site and EW) $97-$140 mil and is at least going to rake in $200 mil. The higher cost is from EW and I can only think they're including the marketing costs. Now they think MIB 3 isn't a sure thing anymore. Studios are said they must make back twice the amount they spend on a film to break even.
Dan Ackroyd's last quote on GB3 is still from May 2001 and said Columbia was all for GB3 but the actors themselves were the problem. Not like they are huge box office draws anymore. $120 mil budget if true on GB3, compare how much MIB 2 grossed. Would GB3 be able to make a good profit once that budget and the marketing costs came around? I mean can you believe how bad Colmubia lost out on Stuart Little 2? Costed $120 mil and only made $65 mil.
_____________
GB3 support. Remember lets keep clicking on:
http://www.ghostbusters.com
http://www.ghostbusters3.com
http://www.haroldramis.com
http://www.sonypictures.com/spe/help_feedback_index.html
|
|
|
|
|
SurfinBuster103
Ghosthead
Joined: Apr 03, 2002
|
Posted: Sep 10, 2002 4:53 PM
I agree with u GB3, the original Ghostbuster actors really aren't as popular as they used to be. True, us Ghostbuster fans and adults will probably be see it but one must attract the teenage crowd and younger children. Keep the entire original cast but include some new, younger, hip GB's.
_____________
Dr. Peter Venkman: We came, we saw, we kicked its ass!
|
|
|
|
|
drugasbuster
Ghosthead
Joined: Aug 15, 2001
|
Posted: Sep 10, 2002 5:01 PM
i knew it was a "no go" till now
_____________
--------------------------------------------------
Sometimes shit happens, somebody has to deal with it, and WHO ya gonna call??
DRUGASBUSTER
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Info
|
|
|
|
|
|
