Ghostbusters Reboot

[Gob Hobblin]

...what's your point?

[Bagheera]

...what's your point?

Probably that we're spending too much, which means we need ever-larger profits, which means we need to court the favor of China to break even. If we worked with smaller budgets we wouldn't need their support and could more easily make whatever the fuck we want.

[MuscleRobo]

I remember a Japanese artist I occasionally chat with on twitter talked to me about seeing Magic Mike XXL and Pixels in a double feature. I also remember him telling the advertisements for Ted were subtitled completely different than the actual english dialogue in the film. I wonder what this film will be advertised like in Japan.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Probably that we're spending too much, which means we need ever-larger profits, which means we need to court the favor of China to break even. If we worked with smaller budgets we wouldn't need their support and could more easily make whatever the fuck we want.

Yes, exactly. Ghostbusters will never be a blockbuster hit just so long as China is afraid of those ghosts. If you wanna revive the blockbuster title of Ghostbusters, you need to re-budget the film to not depend as much on the global market.

[Ray]

@friskyian
Sony Distribution dealers say the movie WILL likely get a sequel. For better or worse.

http://www.thewrap.com/ghostbusters-seq ... ppen-sony/

[Zeta_One]

Really makes you think...

@friskyian
Sony Distribution dealers say the movie WILL likely get a sequel. For better or worse.

Studios usually say this to boost confidence in a product. Especially when it's not doing too well. Fox said it for Fantastic Four, Sony said it for Spider-Man, Paramount Pictures said it for Terminator Genisys, Warner Brother said it for Superman Returns and Green Lantern. What do they all have in common? Never saw a sequel.

[Reichu]

Really makes you think...

There's no real point to posting a YouTube link if you can't even provide the briefest of reasons why someone else should click it. Please be more descriptive.

[Zeta_One]

There's no real point to posting a YouTube link if you can't even provide the briefest of reasons why someone else should click it. Please be more descriptive.

Comic Book Girl 19's commentary on the Ghostbusters debacle. She mentions how she was one of the first to criticize GB and there was no push back against her. Yet people viciously attacked James Rolfe for having an inoffensive and similar opinion (that she agrees with). She brings up how Sony blew the sexism nonsense out of proportion in order to use it as a marketing scheme. And she goes into detail about why Ghostbusters (2016) and most reboots/remakes suck and how critics probably aren't being completely honest about liking the film.

[Ray]

Really makes you think...

Youtube: This video does not exist.

[Zeta_One]

Youtube: This video does not exist.

My bad. Fixed.

[Ray]

I agree with her mostly. . . It's a shame they didn't follow Disney and Paramount's example with Star Wars and Star Trek and I love that Richard Roeper dropped the Mike on this BS.

She brings up what I wanted to bring up, I do suspect that the majority of mainstream critics do find this movie terrible, but want to play it safe to avoid being blacklisted or having their reputations smeared by the mass media as sexists. Similar to Self Censorship in the Video game industry with feminist outcry over jiggle physics

[Bagheera]

I agree with her mostly. . . It's a shame they didn't follow Disney and Paramount's example with Star Wars and Star Trek and I love that Richard Roeper dropped the Mike on this BS.

She brings up what I wanted to bring up, I do suspect that the majority of mainstream critics do find this movie terrible, but want to play it safe to avoid being blacklisted or having their reputations smeared by the mass media as sexists. Similar to Self Censorship in the Video game industry with feminist outcry over jiggle physics

Okay. Before I respond to this I have but one question to ask. I don't particularly want to ask it, since it will make me feel like I'm kicking an abused puppy, but it's relevant to what you're saying here, so here it is:

Have you seen this film, Ray?

[Ray]

I plan to see it eventually but I don't want to give Sony my money at the box office after the whole controversy poisoned it for me, and the people behind the movie outright insulted the fans.

The fans don't blame Josh Trank for Fant4stic because he never went after them personally for not liking his take on the Fantastic Four, nobody blames Alan Taylor for Terminator Genysis because he never went after them or insulted thempersonally, and for all the jokes at the expense of Lucas for the Prequels he's NEVER outright insulted the Star Wars community.

But you know who called the fans who wanted this movie to be good, assholes? Paul Feige. You know who went after the fans for being 'sexist and racist'? Sony. You know who said 'all people who hate this movie are angry virgin's'? Melissa McCarthy and the rest of the cast on talk shows such as Ellen.

You know who else said crap like that about the people who make him millions of dollars every year? Michael Bay.

"Let them hate! They'll go see it anyway."

As a member of the public, I vote with my money. It's all the power I'm allowed as a moviegoer. I can support someone I disagree with personally or politically and still enjoy their work. But I draw the line at outright insulting me and people like me for not agreeing with the way they went about things.

[TheFriskyIan]

I plan to see it eventually but I don't want to give Sony my money at the box office after the whole controversy poisoned it for me, and the people behind the movie outright insulted the fans.

You could always go the route every other morally-grey person does: Pay for another movie and then walk in to see Ghostbusters, not like the movie is so big people are going to be asking for your ticket when you walk into the screening room.

[Tumbling Down]

I forget how to title my links, but you can tell what this is from the URL.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/1 ... stbusters/

I'm disappointed in Milo. He's really reaching with this anti-male stuff. Everything else is fair, though.

I'm hoping to see the movie tomorrow.

[Chuckman]

I'm not going to pretend the trailers weren't hot garbage but it's actually pretty clear to me now that the ones attacking this movie were the ones with the agenda, seriously. The people looking for a misandrist narrative in the movie are really reaching.

What struck me about the film is that it doesn't apply any of the typical tropes. None of the leads are wrecks who need a man to fix them, the idiot that the main character gets wet over is actually an idiot and doesn't turn out to have a hidden depth in the common romance tropes, and the movie isn't about them being women. At all. There's a few bits here and there like Charles Dance's character commenting on Kristen Wiig's clothes but it's no different from what he might say to a man seeking tenure who dresses in off the rack suits.

The villain is repeatedly described as creepy yet it's not a creep shaming narrative, he doesn't even really seem interested in women at all and doesn't mention that the heroes are all female.

I think the only problem that the food critic guy highlighted is that the proton packs start working differently at the climax of the film for no apparent reason... but if you pay attention, that's actually explained.

Even Rolfe's protests against seeing it ring hollow and kinda dumb now, but I still say there was nothing misogynist about his videos.

[Bagheera]

I plan to see it eventually but I don't want to give Sony my money at the box office after the whole controversy poisoned it for me, and the people behind the movie outright insulted the fans..

Right. So, you haven't seen the movie, and thus lack the basis for forming even your own opinion, and yet you are taking it upon yourself to claim that critics are lying about their opinions to avoid some speculative backlash that somehow only ever manifests when people like you start going on about the evils of feminism. There is only one way to respond to such nonsense, and it comes from someone we all know well: anta baka?

Here's the problem with your premise (and I can't believe I even have to point this out, given that you linked a review where it was explicitly mentioned): Jem and the Holograms was absolutely savaged by critics, and it was also a reboot that also had an all-female cast. And, surprise surprise, no feminist hordes showed up to blacklist reviewers or smear their reputations for being sexist pigs. And it's not alone! There are plenty of movies out there with all- or mostly-female casts that have been trashed by critics, with no ill effect on the reviewers. The trick there is simple: first, you actually watch the movie before opening your mouth (you seem to have a particular problem with this one . . . you really should work on that). Second, you trash the movies that actually suck. If the movies don't suck, and are instead mediocre, you say so. If the movies are good, you say that. It's not really hard, and it's something honest critics do all the time.

But you can't conceive of an honest critic who disagrees with you, can you? So when Sibling Rivalry gave the movie a B-/C+ they had to be lying, right? Of course they did! After all, you know what's what, because some chick on the internet told you so! And everyone who disagrees with her? They're lying, since they're scared of those mean ol' feminists! You know the absolute truth of the matter, and you knew it without even having to watch a minute of the film, so anyone who disagrees with you is deluded, a liar, or both.

Honestly, I cannot find the words to articulate the contempt I feel for your position. The sheer hubris required to make such claims about a film's viewers, when you haven't even seen the film yourself, is such that it would leave me ashamed to show my face in public. And yet here you are, seemingly oblivious to the incredible absurdity of your position. It really is something to see.

[Chuckman]

It's just a movie. We really should relax.

[Gendo'sPapa]

I'm going to say the following and then I'm done -

1. I've seen Ghostbusters 2016. As I expected it's a genuinely enjoyable movie that while loaded with flaws - a messy third act, cameo & call-backitis - is still the best thing to have the Ghostbusters name since the original in 1984. It's a hell of a lot better than the cruddy sequel.

2. I'd like to see how the movie plays at the US Box office before we start calling it a massive failure. Paul Feig's three previous films have all been successes primarily to their longevity. Bridesmaids, The Heat & Spy all did close to four times their opening weekend gross when they finally left theaters which is a far better average then the usual double margin. Most mainstream theatrical features nowadays basically end up doing double or 2.5 what the film does on opening weekend. The movie makes $20 million the weekend it opens, it ends with $40 to $50 million. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. I'll be curious to see how Ghostbusters does in the long run before calling it a flop (which it never will be because even with studios having overspent on productions they've worked out the business to such a tee that everything breaks even in the end, even 'disasters' like Fantastic Four).

3. The general anti-Ghostbusters community is a hate group. I personally got attacked on twitter for stating my views about the film and then they reached out to my families accounts and attacked them as all. Doesn't mean you the person who reads this is a hateful person but the overall community who writes articles about "Why Paul Feig is a beta male" or "No true man can like new Ghostbusters" or "So glad it flops" is a part of a hate group. All claims of the film being 'misandrist' was complete nonsense. Ancillary characters being antagonist & foolish to the main characters is a mainstay of almost all genre films - you need someone to knock your heroes down so you the viewer feel elated when they prove them wrong - and this movie even had a woman calling them a joke. Any guy who felt "offended or slighted" by the film may need to check their own reality and see why that is the case. It's more an issue with the viewer, not the film which generally has a love for all people except the Pale Sad Eyed Guy who I think far too many angry loners identify with. Hell, even Andy Garcia the Mayor had a little magic humanity in him cause I loved when he got offended that he was compared to the Mayor from Jaws.

4. I'm done with this thread & this whole conversation personally. It's sad to see the EvaGeeks community which is a place where I love to partake in genuine conversations is full of people who can embrace the obvious hatred that stems from other parts of the web & try to pass it off as intelligent discourse. It's not. The new Ghostbusters film was just another corporate movie that is no more offensive than every other studio film designed to make money. It's sad that this rather fun (if not fantastic) project was not allowed to just be two fun hours at the movies but angry men online need to make everything about themselves.

So yeah. Ghostbusters 2016. Should not be the "most controversial movie of the year" when it does nothing inoffensive & equals + surpasses the original in some parts (and not so well in others) is otherwise a great time at the movies. Probably the best pure mainstream movie of the summer in a rather lackluster season overall.

You can disagree with me & you can call the movie garbage. That's a valid statement & I welcome your response. But, if you're argument for why the movie is bad has to do with "Bitches can't bust no ghosts" or "It hates men" or needs the aid of a video or essay stemming from people with the same mindset that's not a valid place to make an argument from.

P.S. To see what the "fans" have been sending the people behind the new Ghostbusters go look at Leslie Jones twitter page. It's not a pleasant picture. It's the exact kind of disgusting awfulness that thrives on the animosity of the internet. Put a bunch of letters together to create your online account, throw up a random picture & then call an actress ugly, stupid or any of the millions of racial slurs you can think of and that's what these people have had to del with for two years. And Paul Feig called the fans disgusting after a year of death threats, rape threats against his cast & general negativity online. I'd like to see ANYONE on this thread keep a perfect composure when people are sending you pictures of your face - your actual face - smeared with cum as a form of communication. Something she has actually had to deal with from "fans" for being in a Ghostbusters movie.

https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755126377691680768

The word "Fans" is not a term that encompass all people. It's not a race. It's a term for people who like something. And I can assure you, when a filmmaker or an actress (rarely do male actors experience this...it's strange that almost no one is sending Chris Hemsworth or Michael Kenneth Williams rape threats over Ghostbusters) calls "certain fans gross" they're referring to a very loud subset of angry people who deserve all the hate these people are expressing. The internet has given people around the world an opportunity to talk to anyone on the planet who is out there. And some sad angry people (usually men) have used the internet to reach out to absolute strangers just so they can call a famous woman a "cunt" or a filmmaker working hard a "faggot". It's really sad.

And yeah, I'm done. Ghostbusters 2016 - don't listen to the loud vocal haters who are most likely people you wouldn't want making your food. Go see the movie & make up your mind. I found it to be a lot of fun, it's a far superior movie to Ghostbusters II and I hope we get a sequel.

[Zeta_One]

Aren't the reboot supporters guilty of the same things? Some of critics who gave positive reviews are the same people who adamantly defended it over the last several months. So it seems both sides stood their ground. But apparently only the detractors are giving false feedback about the quality of the actual film. Ignore stuff like this. And this. This too. Critics have proven to be fairly influential this year. Films that received positive reviews have generally done well. Alternatively, films with less favorable feedback have either under-performed or flopped.

If Ghostbusters (2016) is actually good, how do you explain the middling box office at the moment? It should have made bank on name alone. Instead it came in second place behind The Secret Life of Pets, which has already been out a week. If word of mouth doesn't kill it, the competition probably will. Starting next week we'll begin seeing the release of heavyweights like Ice Age, Star Trek, Jason Bourne, and Suicide Squad. The media will attempt to paint the weekend as a success. But the facts don't lie. Unless a miracle happens, it's over. Paul Feig has admitted Ghostbusters needs $500 million to be considered successful. With a $46 million domestic opening weekend and no Chinese intervention, numbers don't seem to be adding up. Even if it breaks even, it's still a disappointment. This is a summer blockbuster Sony was hoping would be the foundation of cinematic universe.

Unlike Universal Pictures's Jem and the Holograms, Sony made Ghostbusters about gender politics. They choose to highlight a small minority of people (who were likely trolls) and use it as a marketing campaign. Ghostbusters (1984) is cultural milestone and high expectations were surrounding its return. Of course it was going to get massive amounts of attention. If handled correctly, this could have been easy money for Sony. Instead Sony managed to botch another franchise. Remember Godzilla (1998) and Spider-Man? Their incompetence is mind-blowing.

Why should Ray or anyone else unimpressed spend money to watch this film? Why support Sony's failures? Everything about it has looked awful. The trailers were poorly received, the leaked (accurate) summary didn't get positive reactions, and the new versions of the theme song got a mixed reception. A good number of reviews have called it meh and forgettable. Yes, go help line the pockets of a corporation with a reputation for mismanaging classic franchises and insulting fanbases.

Want a good example of reviving a beloved property? Star Wars. Possible misgivings about the film aside, Abrams and Disney did a phenomenal job building hype for The Force Awakens. They reached out to the fans and released genuinely great trailers. Not calling its built-in audience assholes and man-babies. Or attacking preexisting property. And how many reboots use the original cast to shill the new project? A reboot usually tries to distance and distinguish itself from what came before. This is an unmitigated disaster.

You might personally like the movie. But, if the marketing has been an accurate representation of the actual product, it isn't Ghostbusters. It's more like Scary Movie: Ghostbusters Edition.