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!
Can anyone tell me the real deal on GB III?
by
22 years, 2 months ago
by
22 years, 2 months ago
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. 
by
22 years, 2 months ago
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.
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.
by
22 years, 2 months ago
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.
by
22 years, 2 months ago
i knew it was a “no go” till now