Ghostbusters 4K Ultra HD & Blu-ray & Bonus Disc & Digital [2016] @ Base - £11.89
271°Expired

Ghostbusters 4K Ultra HD & Blu-ray & Bonus Disc & Digital [2016] @ Base - £11.89

18
Found 17th Jul 2017
Community Updates

Groups

Top comments
overpriced by £11.89.
I thought this was pretty good....apart from Chris Hemsworth's ridiculous character
18 Comments
overpriced by £11.89.
I thought this was pretty good....apart from Chris Hemsworth's ridiculous character
Someone found a way to polish a turd?!?
This film wasn't that bad you know.
Even if they paid you £11.89 this would be the most ripped off you have ever been.
Overpriced
Thought it was the original one
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.
Edited by: "SimyJo" 17th Jul 2017
Good price but the movie seriously was bad, had to stop watching half way and is no way near as good as the original.
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.
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.
Worst movie ever COLD.
I'd have to be paid to watch this crap again!
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.
Banned
EstorilBlue

Someone found a way to polish a turd?!?



Just roll it in glitter
jahman

Should've been called SJWBusters. This film was such a turkey they'll … 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.



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?
dead4red69

Such ****. "The film grossed $229 million worldwide against a production … 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?



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.
M3NDEREZ

Had to reply to this.. Are you so utterly devoid of mental capacity that … 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.



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.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text