I understand that this was in development hell for decades (and that they made the other recent GB movie as a result of this one not coming together, basically). It's just a shame that it didn't get into production before Harold Ramis died, as he was in a way the heart and soul of the franchise. But I'm glad it's finally getting done, nonetheless.
This would be amazing. I was so disappointed in Answer The Call. It had terrible pacing, awful camera work and I remember thinking that only one of the main characters was funny, but clearly not all that funny as I don't remember which one.
Hmmm rietman is invloved, that gives me hope at least, as for new cast memebers, I don't have an issue with it per say as long as they deliver a good story and a good enough job at acting.
Interesting, but I think they'll have an added uphill battle if it resembles in any way possible to the recent awful film. I hope it can distance itself from that and enjoys a decent run.
If you don't think the new cast is going to catch a bunch of gak you are kidding yourself. And if you think the female cast are not going to get a bunch of gak directed at them related to the fact that they are female you are delusional.
It doesn't matter how good the movie will/won't be. They are all going to get this gak before it ever releases in theaters. And if the movie is anything less the universally praised as the perfect sequel they will get even more after it comes out.
I really think you guys might be overselling the harassment thing a bit. There is nothing special about Ghost Busters movies that make them targets of online harassment compared to pretty much anything people do in the public square. It's just that certain blogs get a lot of hate clicks when they report on some loser's nasty tweet.
Luciferian wrote: I really think you guys might be overselling the harassment thing a bit. There is nothing special about Ghost Busters movies that make them targets of online harassment compared to pretty much anything people do in the public square. It's just that certain blogs get a lot of hate clicks when they report on some loser's nasty tweet.
I think Ghost Busters is one of many sacred cows that 80s idiots place on a pedestal.
Ghost busters gets gak like SW gets gak, like Back to the Future would get gak, so on and so forth. The harassment is inevitable for that alone. I don't think it will be a majority of people that would do it. Just like it wasn't a majority before. But that minority will be LOUD. Just like they have been before.
Sure, they will be loud on Twitter, but that's what Twitter is. At this point, that's basically why it exists. If you don't think you can go on Twitter and find someone you've never met who hates you, it just means you're lucky enough not to have looked.
I think it's unlikely we'll see the whole of the original team. For one, Egon has snuffed it. And Venkman has been exceedingly reluctant to return.
Stanz and Zeddemore? Well, they're arguably the 'closest' buddies, going on GB2. After all, who is it keeps the uniforms and the car, and does kids parties?
And what caused them to disband this time? Maybe Egon's untimely death etc?
Luciferian wrote: Sure, they will be loud on Twitter, but that's what Twitter is. At this point, that's basically why it exists. If you don't think you can go on Twitter and find someone you've never met who hates you, it just means you're lucky enough not to have looked.
This. Sooo much this. It's getting extremely tiring to see repeated attempts to brand whole fandoms as "toxic" based on a wee band of angry twitter arseholes and some 4chan trolls, and the desperate attempts of companies who make questionably received or just outright bad movies to use that tendency to taint all criticisms of the work by association is genuinely harmful.
The people doing it are rampant hypocrites as well of course. Ghost in the Shell got all the same garbage as Ghostbusters, but apparently there it was OK because the people sending a female actress death threats and angrily denouncing the film and everyone involved with it as trash were The Good Guys defending Milady Animoo from "cultural appropriation"
As to the movie - meh, we'll see. I was born a bit late to be bitten with nostalgia for the original movies, I liked them but they're not a sacred cow for me. The new movie was alright, in a forgettable way, but I never saw it as some travesty, just one of those films you see once and then never bother with again. If they can use at least some of the original cast and handle the "handing off to a new generation" thing with a bit more tact and talent than the SW Sequels have, and with less of the above cynical marketing shtick, it should be worth a watch and might even spawn a decent new series.
Don't forget those same idiots chased scarlet Johansson away from a role as a trans person because she wasn't trans, they are all full of Gak anyway, GB 2016 was just the first large attempt to push away negative press for a shoddy movie using "ismphobes" as an excuse, they used the stupid people on Twitter and they didn't even know it.
Crack on 3 years and several films later and we can all see the shill critics for what they are, those who cant, cannot be helped.
Luciferian wrote: I understand that this was in development hell for decades (and that they made the other recent GB movie as a result of this one not coming together, basically). It's just a shame that it didn't get into production before Harold Ramis died, as he was in a way the heart and soul of the franchise. But I'm glad it's finally getting done, nonetheless.
It wasn't really in development hell. Bill Murray just refused to do another, and apparently Aykroyd and the rest didn't really think it would work without him.
Apparently they've decided to just move forward regardless. (signs point to Murray not being in this)
Elbows wrote: Interesting, but I think they'll have an added uphill battle if it resembles in any way possible to the recent awful film. I hope it can distance itself from that and enjoys a decent run.
I.....didn't hate the 2016 film. I wouldn't describe it as "amazing" or probably even "good", but I'd say most of the flaws lay firmly with a mediocre script, rather than the cast.
I think a "next generation" approach could work, let's just hope this one can avoid getting mired in culture war silliness.
Elbows wrote: Interesting, but I think they'll have an added uphill battle if it resembles in any way possible to the recent awful film. I hope it can distance itself from that and enjoys a decent run.
I.....didn't hate the 2016 film. I wouldn't describe it as "amazing" or probably even "good", but I'd say most of the flaws lay firmly with a mediocre script, rather than the cast.
I think a "next generation" approach could work, let's just hope this one can avoid getting mired in culture war silliness.
Agree. The real issue with that fil. Is the third act, where its just cgi smoke and nonses for 15 minutes. Then we get teased the ghost world but never get to actually see it.
The last ghostbusters film just felt like a cheap SNL movie with a vague script trying to tie it to a fun, goofy old movie (which, if we're honest - were not amazing films). It felt like a phone-in throw away nostalgia grab with a contrarian casting effort for no real reason. It was the epitome of lazy film making to me.
When I first heard of the GB remake I was stoked. I didn't care if it was all-female leads as I was a huge Melissa Macarthy fan.
I still think it stunk. Limited chemistry between actors, racist Black stereotypes, rehashed-old jokes, vaginal fart jokes, forced and strained character played by Hemsworth,... well the list goes on.
Forbes is now bashing this sequel as well. The author making some rather dubious claims like "the 2016 movie was just as good as the original", and that it's a waste to let a cis white male direct this.
I think the best way to describe ‘Answer The Call’ is competent.
It’s well shot, the plot holds together, and the acting is decent enough.
I for one enjoyed it, but I do get that it doesn’t quite measure up to the originals (and I’m a fan of the second one). Now, how much of that is me not being 9 years old at that point, and it being objectively ‘by the numbers’, I couldn’t say. But it’s still entertaining enough. I’ve got the Blu-ray, and it’s defo on my ‘want to watch something different’ list.
Elbows wrote: Interesting, but I think they'll have an added uphill battle if it resembles in any way possible to the recent awful film. I hope it can distance itself from that and enjoys a decent run.
I.....didn't hate the 2016 film. I wouldn't describe it as "amazing" or probably even "good", but I'd say most of the flaws lay firmly with a mediocre script, rather than the cast.
It didn't have much of a script. Dig into the director's commentary and you'll find that they routinely just filmed improv takes for hours at a time and then edited scenes together later.
The film was disjointed and often incoherently directionless by deliberate choice of the director. The cast did what they could, but were just told 'more, more.'
Making such a film this soon after the previous disaster shows that someone really believes this IP is very valuable, which honestly seems pretty questionable. Maybe the issues is, if the don’t make a likeable film now then they will have missed the boat forever because the demographic likely to care will have aged out.
Watched a ‘10 things you didn’t know’ about the originals. And the initial plan is that Ghostbusters was an international affair.
Clearly, that was scaled down to an ‘origins’ story. But it still allows for scaling back up. As a concept, it’s got legs. The trick is to keep the ‘buddy movie’ ensemble feel, even if it’s about the GB branching out and that.
It's like they said in the first movie: "The franchise rights alone will make us rich beyond our wildest dreams.". So there's always been the possibility of seeing other Ghostbusters in other locations.
Manchu wrote: Making such a film this soon after the previous disaster shows that someone really believes this IP is very valuable, which honestly seems pretty questionable. Maybe the issues is, if the don’t make a likeable film now then they will have missed the boat forever because the demographic likely to care will have aged out.
Eh. I think it's mostly just Aykroyd's passion for the subject matter, and the Reitmans jumping in on it. (Or the other way around? I've seen stories saying both Aykroyd and Jason Reitman (son of the original director) wrote scripts). And casting stories that talk about the original cast and/or four (as yet uncast) teenagers.
But the value of an IP can be tricky. Since its real world with pseudo-supernatural name drops, there isn't much work required (they don't really need to build a complex world or backstory), and Sony presumably owns enough of the rights to Ghostbusters Trademark that they don't have to shell out much.
But whether it will really pull in audiences at this point...? Some, obviously, as there are always, always nostalgia sales in the current movie market (I'd even argue there is little but nostalgia, remakes and format migrations [book/comic to film] at this point). I'm just not sure what kind of real pull it will have after the 2016 film.
Speaking personally... I'm curious if it will have a compelling story attached, or just devolve into a meaningless CGI-fest and mindless appeals to getting the band back together to do... whatever.
I was super excited by the news of an upcoming GB movie and the notion of an all-female cast didn’t phase me at all. I was even excited to hear Kristen Wig would be the lead. The. the trailer dropped ... and even then I was thinking, OK well maybe it could be alright. But on each re-watch of the trailer, anticipation turned to disappointment.
Naturally, I am excited again now. But I’m also feeling cautious.
I don't think it will be good. I have never been a fan of Ghostbusters in general. The three other movies in the franchise were ok, the first one was clearly the best in my opinion and this sequel to the first two that ignores the remake is probably going to be meh. Plus, it will suffer from the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia and from high expectation from hardcore fans (a bit like starwars).
Leslie Jones is now chiming in. Apparently making a sequel about the original movie instead of the reboot is "sexist". The Mary Sue has stated the same.
I can understand being bitter. But filter that sentiment through a reality check before sounding off. The last one was a loser for Sony. Why throw good money after bad especially since the obvious goal is to salvage the value of the IP before the current fanbase ages out.
Once you assert such a strong position and double-down on it, you don't really have any choice but to follow it to its logical conclusion. If she didn't raise the argument now, it would be inconsistent.
Manchu wrote: I can understand being bitter. But filter that sentiment through a reality check before sounding off. The last one was a loser for Sony. Why throw good money after bad especially since the obvious goal is to salvage the value of the IP before the current fanbase ages out.
Yeah.. I can't remember how many years a company has before the licence reverts back to original owner. But we are seeing Disney do the all live action stuff to keep copyright on things just to get a movie out.
All I can say... I never watched the 2016 because I had no interest in it. But I know Paul Feg had a long history of improvisational movies in the past and never cared for that type movies. Meaning little to no script.
I am hopeful but sad they waited until Harold Ramis had already passed.
Formosa wrote: Don't forget those same idiots chased scarlet Johansson away from a role as a trans person because she wasn't trans,
and yet, when Eddy Redmayne plays a trans woman, nothing but crickets ...
The Danish girl was at the start of the "culture" war, so they didnt give a virtue signal back then if they made that movie in the year of our lord 2019 you can bet your bum that the twitter mob would drop from on high in fake outrage.
Manchu wrote: I can understand being bitter. But filter that sentiment through a reality check before sounding off. The last one was a loser for Sony. Why throw good money after bad especially since the obvious goal is to salvage the value of the IP before the current fanbase ages out.
Yeah.. I can't remember how many years a company has before the licence reverts back to original owner. But we are seeing Disney do the all live action stuff to keep copyright on things just to get a movie out.
All I can say... I never watched the 2016 because I had no interest in it. But I know Paul Feg had a long history of improvisational movies in the past and never cared for that type movies. Meaning little to no script.
I am hopeful but sad they waited until Harold Ramis had already passed.
The Disney stuff sells, too. My daughter was mad for live action Sleeping Beauty and she was 17 at the time. I enjoyed it myself, for that matter.
Manchu wrote: I was super excited by the news of an upcoming GB movie and the notion of an all-female cast didn’t phase me at all. I was even excited to hear Kristen Wig would be the lead. The. the trailer dropped ... and even then I was thinking, OK well maybe it could be alright. But on each re-watch of the trailer, anticipation turned to disappointment.
Naturally, I am excited again now. But I’m also feeling cautious.
I was very excited to hear that Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy (I've loved both their previous efforts both together and separate) were going to be in it and thought that an all female reboot would be an interesting twist. I didn't hear about it for a while until the first trailer dropped and I didn't laugh a single time during that trailer for a comedy and I also thought the special effects looked like a badly done greenscreen mess. What sealed the deal for me was looking online to see if I was the only one unhappy with it and seeing that the cast and crew were actively insulting fans of the IP because they didn't like it. Sure... some of the complaints were unreasonable and sexist but those involved were responding in kind and tarring everyone with the same brush despite being the supposed "professionals" in that scenario. If you want my small contribution to the pot, don't insult me as a customer; that used to be a simple rule in business but no more apparently. Now Leslie Jones is pissed off that the reboot of the previously successful movie franchise she starred in that flopped is being brought back to the original timeline. Yes, she is insulted that her movie that ignored the previous two (something she was totally fine with) is now being ignored itself for the next. Ughh....
Elbows wrote: Because it's Hollywood and it's what they do.
That's the unfortunate truth. It's really kind of sad when it doesn't really take that much to tell a good story, even if every story has the same basic structural components. It's like, the groundwork has been laid out for thousands of years, so why would you try to reinvent the wheel in storytelling off the back of a popular film that itself was simply a well-applied effort in conventional narrative structure? All it would take to launch the next big franchise is to take the Hero's Journey and drape it in some imaginative world-building.
Because Hollywood is a business. Most businesses are risk averse, and established franchises are generally less risky than unknowns. You have some built in audience for the IP, and from nostalgia alone. Some of these movies are very popular overseas even if they "flop" in the US.
"Why do you guys keep using this same boring, lucrative formula?" is essentially what you are asking.
My thrust was that pretty much every movie on that chart was a sequel or a remake, and the reason they keep doing is is that they are generally successful, with less work and risk. If people stopped buying movie tickets to sequels and remakes, they would stop making them.
Ouze wrote: Because Hollywood is a business. Most businesses are risk averse, and established franchises are generally less risky than unknowns. You have some built in audience for the IP, and from nostalgia alone. Some of these movies are very popular overseas even if they "flop" in the US.
"Why do you guys keep using this same boring, lucrative formula?" is essentially what you are asking.
Of course. I'm not even saying they shouldn't use a formula, I'm just saying you'd think that they'd eventually try going back to the basics to recreate the initial success of beloved franchises rather than burning out all of their good will for diminishing returns.
My thrust was that pretty much every movie on that chart was a sequel or a remake, and the reason they keep doing is is that they are generally successful, with less work and risk. If people stopped buying movie tickets to sequels and remakes, they would stop making them.
Yeah, it's easy and lazy, that's self evident.
But the chart mostly says that foreign films shouldn't bother wasting money trying to get in the US market at all, and the film industry really needs to develop bigger audiences in other countries (because that's still a pathetically small slice of 7 billion person market, no matter what you're trying to use that chart for), and really, they need to differentiate between different markets. EU, China and 'Other' at the very least, because there are obviously major differences between them.
Sequel or first in a series doesn't really have a noticeable trend in any way at all, as you can see several of both at near 50/50, 40/60 AND 30/70. Origin and intended audience matter a lot more, especially for the Chinese audience (at least according to the article).
My thrust was that pretty much every movie on that chart was a sequel or a remake, and the reason they keep doing is is that they are generally successful, with less work and risk. If people stopped buying movie tickets to sequels and remakes, they would stop making them.
Reading from this and thinking back to the Great Wall;
Its less-than-stellar reception in both the US and worldwide, particularly in China, may show that co-producing a big-budget blockbuster isn’t necessarily the key to success in all markets.
Or you know, maybe just don't make future productions so god awful?
Manchu wrote: I was super excited by the news of an upcoming GB movie and the notion of an all-female cast didn’t phase me at all. I was even excited to hear Kristen Wig would be the lead. The. the trailer dropped ... and even then I was thinking, OK well maybe it could be alright. But on each re-watch of the trailer, anticipation turned to disappointment.
Naturally, I am excited again now. But I’m also feeling cautious.
I was very excited to hear that Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy (I've loved both their previous efforts both together and separate) were going to be in it and thought that an all female reboot would be an interesting twist. I didn't hear about it for a while until the first trailer dropped and I didn't laugh a single time during that trailer for a comedy and I also thought the special effects looked like a badly done greenscreen mess. What sealed the deal for me was looking online to see if I was the only one unhappy with it and seeing that the cast and crew were actively insulting fans of the IP because they didn't like it. Sure... some of the complaints were unreasonable and sexist but those involved were responding in kind and tarring everyone with the same brush despite being the supposed "professionals" in that scenario. If you want my small contribution to the pot, don't insult me as a customer; that used to be a simple rule in business but no more apparently. Now Leslie Jones is pissed off that the reboot of the previously successful movie franchise she starred in that flopped is being brought back to the original timeline. Yes, she is insulted that her movie that ignored the previous two (something she was totally fine with) is now being ignored itself for the next. Ughh....
I think you would be hard pressed to say Leslie Jones was treated fairly during the whole thing. So her still being angry about it is no surprise to me. If people hacked my phone and released nude photos of me on the inrternet, I'd be pissed for a long time too.
Manchu wrote: I was super excited by the news of an upcoming GB movie and the notion of an all-female cast didn’t phase me at all. I was even excited to hear Kristen Wig would be the lead. The. the trailer dropped ... and even then I was thinking, OK well maybe it could be alright. But on each re-watch of the trailer, anticipation turned to disappointment.
Naturally, I am excited again now. But I’m also feeling cautious.
I was very excited to hear that Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy (I've loved both their previous efforts both together and separate) were going to be in it and thought that an all female reboot would be an interesting twist. I didn't hear about it for a while until the first trailer dropped and I didn't laugh a single time during that trailer for a comedy and I also thought the special effects looked like a badly done greenscreen mess. What sealed the deal for me was looking online to see if I was the only one unhappy with it and seeing that the cast and crew were actively insulting fans of the IP because they didn't like it. Sure... some of the complaints were unreasonable and sexist but those involved were responding in kind and tarring everyone with the same brush despite being the supposed "professionals" in that scenario. If you want my small contribution to the pot, don't insult me as a customer; that used to be a simple rule in business but no more apparently. Now Leslie Jones is pissed off that the reboot of the previously successful movie franchise she starred in that flopped is being brought back to the original timeline. Yes, she is insulted that her movie that ignored the previous two (something she was totally fine with) is now being ignored itself for the next. Ughh....
I think you would be hard pressed to say Leslie Jones was treated fairly during the whole thing. So her still being angry about it is no surprise to me. If people hacked my phone and released nude photos of me on the inrternet, I'd be pissed for a long time too.
Hell, I'm petty enough that I still hold one or two grudges from high school. Thing is, I hold them against the people I consider wronged me, not every student that ever attended a school, every person that knows someone who ever attended a school, and every person who's ever publicly agreed with a position taken by a person who attended a school, and I don't use them as an excuse to gak on other people's stuff.
I mean seriously, the "logic" that's used to excuse their behaviour is literally "Hitler was a vegetarian you know..." tier nonsense.
I think you would be hard pressed to say Leslie Jones was treated fairly during the whole thing. So her still being angry about it is no surprise to me. If people hacked my phone and released nude photos of me on the inrternet, I'd be pissed for a long time too.
I heard about that but can you link the proof where it was related in any way to the stupidity permeating the Ghostbusters 2016 debacle? Regardless, her being the subject of sexist twitter trolls doesn't excuse her own sexist twitter trolling. Two wrongs don't make a right nor should you get a pass for bad behavior just because you're part of a traditionally marginalized group(s).
Tannhauser42 wrote: It's like they said in the first movie: "The franchise rights alone will make us rich beyond our wildest dreams.". So there's always been the possibility of seeing other Ghostbusters in other locations.
IIRC that was also the idea behind the old rpg from back in the day
Ouze wrote: What sexist twitter trolling did she engage in specifically? Can you link to it here?
The tweet she sent complaining specifically that the movie is switching back to a male cast. If the people complaining on social media were sexist for whining about the switch to women then the reverse is also true. You can't have it both ways. Unnecessarily bringing politics into it just makes it even worse trolling and she knows exactly what she is doing as a supposedly professional actress as she says "I don't give a feth".
Ouze wrote: What sexist twitter trolling did she engage in specifically? Can you link to it here?
The tweet she sent complaining specifically that the movie is switching back to a male cast. If the people complaining on social media were sexist for whining about the switch to women then the reverse is also true. You can't have it both ways. Unnecessarily bringing politics into it just makes it even worse trolling and she knows exactly what she is doing as a supposedly professional actress as she says "I don't give a feth".
He already knows, ignore him and stick to the topic, otherwise this will degenerate into yet another politics thread and get closed.
On topic: I am hoping this movie goes down the route of the end times like they apparently wanted originally, an end of the world type film that is dark and nasty.
Genoside07 wrote: All I can say... I never watched the 2016 because I had no interest in it.
I didn't watch it either, similarly not interested in it.
Politically, genderflipping a movie as a remake is a good way to score points with the SJW crowd, but does it drive money and profits? Movies are about making money, and controversy won't matter if it pulls in the big money. You can do "Cowboys & Indians" in space movie, and it just won't matter with the Native Americans say if the movie pulls a BILLION dollars at the box office. You can even do "Cowboys & Indians" for laughs, and racist depiction of Native Americans won't matter if it becomes a Netflix spotlight.
I won't support a movie merely because it has women in it. I'll support a movie because it's good.
I think you would be hard pressed to say Leslie Jones was treated fairly during the whole thing. So her still being angry about it is no surprise to me. If people hacked my phone and released nude photos of me on the inrternet, I'd be pissed for a long time too.
I heard about that but can you link the proof where it was related in any way to the stupidity permeating the Ghostbusters 2016 debacle? Regardless, her being the subject of sexist twitter trolls doesn't excuse her own sexist twitter trolling. Two wrongs don't make a right nor should you get a pass for bad behavior just because you're part of a traditionally marginalized group(s).
Ghostbusters 2016 comes out in July, Twitter bans Milo Yiannopoulos weeks later, and her website was hacked in August.
Ouze wrote: What sexist twitter trolling did she engage in specifically? Can you link to it here?
The tweet she sent complaining specifically that the movie is switching back to a male cast. If the people complaining on social media were sexist for whining about the switch to women then the reverse is also true. You can't have it both ways. Unnecessarily bringing politics into it just makes it even worse trolling and she knows exactly what she is doing as a supposedly professional actress as she says "I don't give a feth".
I think I have to disagree that is sexist trolling. I would say she seems frustrated that they rebooted the franchise, and now they are pretending their movie never happened only a few years after it came out, which I can see as frustrating... if a little hypocritical, since their movie was a recast reboot in and of itself.
Fair enough. Regardless, I'm not particularly excited to hear about a third movie in the original continuum. I was more excited to hear initially about the 2016 movie once the cast was released but the fruit it bore has dampened my enthusiasm. Like with the Mummy, it might just be better to let it sit for another decade.
On that I would totally agree. I was fairly interested in the 2016 movie when it was announced, and then my enthusiasm started to wane hard as I saw more. When I finally saw the movie, it was as described in this thread: A lazy SNL sketch that should went on far too long, as is their wont.
For good, ill, or indifferent, that movie well and truly gak the ghostbusting bed and to be honest regardless of the associated controversy surrounding it, I am not sure there was ever that much appetite for a sequel or reboot to begin with. As Manchu said, clearly someone believes the IP is valuable, but I don't think I am one of them, and less so after the 2016 fiasco.
Ouze wrote: What sexist twitter trolling did she engage in specifically? Can you link to it here?
The tweet she sent complaining specifically that the movie is switching back to a male cast. If the people complaining on social media were sexist for whining about the switch to women then the reverse is also true. You can't have it both ways. Unnecessarily bringing politics into it just makes it even worse trolling and she knows exactly what she is doing as a supposedly professional actress as she says "I don't give a feth".
He already knows, ignore him and stick to the topic, otherwise this will degenerate into yet another politics thread and get closed.
Complaining that your movie that came out less than 3 years ago is being ignored and swept under the rug is not really sexism. Not sure how you are interpreting it that way.
Complaining that your movie that came out less than 3 years ago is being ignored and swept under the rug is not really sexism. Not sure how you are interpreting it that way.
Not sure how you can possibly miss her multiple references to gender specifically in that twitter post.
Complaining that your movie that came out less than 3 years ago is being ignored and swept under the rug is not really sexism. Not sure how you are interpreting it that way.
Not sure how you can possibly miss her multiple references to gender specifically in that twitter post.
She is complaining that they are pretending her movie never happened and going back to the old formula, never giving them a real chance.
But sure, she referenced gender so it must be sexist trolling?
Complaining that your movie that came out less than 3 years ago is being ignored and swept under the rug is not really sexism. Not sure how you are interpreting it that way.
Not sure how you can possibly miss her multiple references to gender specifically in that twitter post.
She is complaining that they are pretending her movie never happened and going back to the old formula, never giving them a real chance.
But sure, she referenced gender so it must be sexist trolling?
It has been my experience over this last year that the people who want to be insulted by anything that could possibly be construed as "leftist" "SJW" will place themselves directly in the cross hairs of every comment and claim it is painting them and everyone else in a broad brush. It doesn't matter if the line they are upset about is being taken out of context. It doesn't matter if they were talking about people who actually said or did awful gak. If anyone, anywhere, makes any kind of comment, then that comment is unjustly directed at them and the person making that comment is some kind of wacko who is attacking everyone for reasons.
No point in arguing with people who want to be the victim.
I didn't watch it either, similarly not interested in it.
As a fan of the franchise I did and I was interested in how the women were going to fare. Turns out, male or female cast didn't matter at all because the movie is junk and rightfully bombed.
She is complaining that they are pretending her movie never happened and going back to the old formula, never giving them a real chance.
They got the chance, it cost Sony 70 million dollars and Sony isn't a charity, what did she expect?
I didn't watch it either, similarly not interested in it.
As a fan of the franchise I did and I was interested in how the women were going to fare. Turns out, male or female cast didn't matter at all because the movie is junk and rightfully bombed.
She is complaining that they are pretending her movie never happened and going back to the old formula, never giving them a real chance.
They got the chance, it cost Sony 70 million dollars and Sony isn't a charity, what did she expect?
I expected them to not make another Ghostbusters movie. Ghostbusters 2 was awful. Why would they want a sequel to that?
Dreadwinter wrote: I expected them to not make another Ghostbusters movie.
That level of naïveté stretches credulity.
But then again, maybe it’s also naive to take Leslie Jones’s complaints at face value. I cannot really believe she actually thought she and Melissa McCartney and Paul Feig, etc., would get another crack at this. So what’s probably going on is, she saw an opportunity to get a lot of publicity for the cheap-as-free price point of tweeting some outrage.
Dreadwinter wrote: I expected them to not make another Ghostbusters movie.
That level of naïveté stretches credulity.
But then again, maybe it’s also naive to take Leslie Jones’s complaints at face value. I cannot really believe she actually thought she and Melissa McCartney and Paul Feig, etc., would get another crack at this. So what’s probably going on is, she saw an opportunity to get a lot of publicity for the cheap-as-free price point of tweeting some outrage.
It does? You are going to have to explain to me how Ghostbusters 2, a movie that performed worse for audiences and critics, is the better choice here. Even Bill Murray said it was bad.
But sure, she must be looking for a little fame just because.
LOL certainly not “just because” ... I mean, we’re talking about her career.
GB2 was a box office hit. GB2016 was a flop that damaged the value of the studio that released it.
Anyhow, this certainly isn’t a referendum on GB2 — although I see why you would like to frame that debate rather than what is really at issue. The real issue is this 2020 film, unlike the 2016 film, is in continuity with the 1984 film, which means it is also in continuity with GB2.
Dreadwinter wrote: I expected them to not make another Ghostbusters movie.
That level of naïveté stretches credulity.
But then again, maybe it’s also naive to take Leslie Jones’s complaints at face value. I cannot really believe she actually thought she and Melissa McCartney and Paul Feig, etc., would get another crack at this. So what’s probably going on is, she saw an opportunity to get a lot of publicity for the cheap-as-free price point of tweeting some outrage.
It does? You are going to have to explain to me how Ghostbusters 2, a movie that performed worse for audiences and critics, is the better choice here. Even Bill Murray said it was bad.
But sure, she must be looking for a little fame just because.
Ghostbusters 2 made it's budget back and then some.
Ghostbusters 2016 sold at a loss.
People are feeling nostalgic as well which helps.
Though I am touching the bait a bit too much at the moment.
Dreadwinter wrote: I expected them to not make another Ghostbusters movie.
That level of naïveté stretches credulity.
But then again, maybe it’s also naive to take Leslie Jones’s complaints at face value. I cannot really believe she actually thought she and Melissa McCartney and Paul Feig, etc., would get another crack at this. So what’s probably going on is, she saw an opportunity to get a lot of publicity for the cheap-as-free price point of tweeting some outrage.
It does? You are going to have to explain to me how Ghostbusters 2, a movie that performed worse for audiences and critics, is the better choice here. Even Bill Murray said it was bad.
.
That's not much of an authority. Murray didn't particularly like the GB franchise and was the main reason it didn't go forward while everyone was still alive.
You realize though, it doesn't sound like they're going to follow up that much on the details of 2. More and more it just sounds like Stantz and Zeddemore are going to sell those 'franchise rights' to a group of kids, who are going to get stuck with the zany antics, while the mentors nod sagely in the background. Or possibly they're going to get skipped entirely by the kids finding the car (and gear) in the abandoned barn, given Hudson and Aykroyd are still waiting for phone calls.
Manchu wrote: LOL certainly not “just because” ... I mean, we’re talking about her career.
GB2 was a box office hit. GB2016 was a flop that damaged the value of the studio that released it.
Anyhow, this certainly isn’t a referendum on GB2 — although I see why you would like to frame that debate rather than what is really at issue. The real issue is this 2020 film, unlike the 2016 film, is in continuity with the 1984 film, which means it is also in continuity with GB2.
Yeah, because speaking out about the controversy before really helped her career out. She had a lot to gain by speaking out here. LOL
Yes, it is a sequel to those movies. That is how I am framing it. I am also framing it as the movie after GB2, which was a critical failure. So it was a bad movie. The argument is that instead of following up a movie that had much better critical success, they decided to go back to a franchise that was killed off by its own sequel. So that is why GB2 is being brought up here and why it is a perfectly valid argument in this case.
So the real issue is this 2020 film, unlike the 2016 film, is in continuity with the 1989 film, which means it is continuity with the film that killed the franchise.
If there’s anything I’ve learned about fame in the last few years it’s that you don’t have to say anything insightful or even factually accurate to be heard by millions — you just have to tap into controversy. I think that’s where Ms. Jones’s comments are coming from and she knows that having people arguing about her comments is far, far preferable to everybody forgetting her because she was in a forgettable movie. I mean, that’s why Sony did everything it could to change the conversation about the 2016 film from “this doesn’t look worthwhile” to “this is an important issue about representation and diversity!”
I don’t think anyone is willing to take the bait and argue that GB2 is a great movie. But, again, that’s not even relevant. We have two continuities: one was successful and one was not. They are following up on the one that was. It’s a total no brainer.
Manchu wrote: LOL certainly not “just because” ... I mean, we’re talking about her career.
GB2 was a box office hit. GB2016 was a flop that damaged the value of the studio that released it.
Anyhow, this certainly isn’t a referendum on GB2 — although I see why you would like to frame that debate rather than what is really at issue. The real issue is this 2020 film, unlike the 2016 film, is in continuity with the 1984 film, which means it is also in continuity with GB2.
Yeah, because speaking out about the controversy before really helped her career out. She had a lot to gain by speaking out here. LOL
Yes, it is a sequel to those movies. That is how I am framing it. I am also framing it as the movie after GB2, which was a critical failure. So it was a bad movie. The argument is that instead of following up a movie that had much better critical success, they decided to go back to a franchise that was killed off by its own sequel. So that is why GB2 is being brought up here and why it is a perfectly valid argument in this case.
So the real issue is this 2020 film, unlike the 2016 film, is in continuity with the 1989 film, which means it is continuity with the film that killed the franchise.
Except for the cartoons, comics, video games (10-12 depending on what counts), toys, and role-playing game. You know, the kind of things (well, except probably the latter) a company does with a successful and living franchise.
The first cartoon started before and continued past 89's GB2 (1986-91), and the sequel cartoon had a 40 episode run in '97, and both followed the continuity of both films. The games started after the first film, but most were done after GB2.
Given that movie studios exist to make money, the choice between continuing a profitable line, versus one that lost a lot of money is pretty simple. Arguing that that the one that lost a lot of money is somehow "good" is pointless if it doesn't ultimately translate into a lot of money.
Ouze wrote: What sexist twitter trolling did she engage in specifically? Can you link to it here?
The tweet she sent complaining specifically that the movie is switching back to a male cast. If the people complaining on social media were sexist for whining about the switch to women then the reverse is also true. You can't have it both ways. Unnecessarily bringing politics into it just makes it even worse trolling and she knows exactly what she is doing as a supposedly professional actress as she says "I don't give a feth".
He already knows, ignore him and stick to the topic, otherwise this will degenerate into yet another politics thread and get closed.
On topic: I am hoping this movie goes down the route of the end times like they apparently wanted originally, an end of the world type film that is dark and nasty.
I don't believe that kind of scenario fits into the action-comedy vibe which made original Ghostbusters so successful.
Dreadwinter wrote: I expected them to not make another Ghostbusters movie.
That level of naïveté stretches credulity.
But then again, maybe it’s also naive to take Leslie Jones’s complaints at face value. I cannot really believe she actually thought she and Melissa McCartney and Paul Feig, etc., would get another crack at this. So what’s probably going on is, she saw an opportunity to get a lot of publicity for the cheap-as-free price point of tweeting some outrage.
It does? You are going to have to explain to me how Ghostbusters 2, a movie that performed worse for audiences and critics, is the better choice here. Even Bill Murray said it was bad.
But sure, she must be looking for a little fame just because.
GB2 was bad, but not as bad as GB2016. "Critics" are becoming more and more disassociated with reality (just look at Rotten Tomatoes scores for Dr. Who and compare critics to fans scores).
GB2 was the largest grossing film for 3 weeks after its premier. It was the 8th largest grossing movie of 1989. It cost $37 million to make and made $215.4 Million. GB2016 on the other hand? Cost $144 Million, and made $229 Million.
Ouze wrote: What sexist twitter trolling did she engage in specifically? Can you link to it here?
The tweet she sent complaining specifically that the movie is switching back to a male cast. If the people complaining on social media were sexist for whining about the switch to women then the reverse is also true. You can't have it both ways. Unnecessarily bringing politics into it just makes it even worse trolling and she knows exactly what she is doing as a supposedly professional actress as she says "I don't give a feth".
He already knows, ignore him and stick to the topic, otherwise this will degenerate into yet another politics thread and get closed.
On topic: I am hoping this movie goes down the route of the end times like they apparently wanted originally, an end of the world type film that is dark and nasty.
I don't believe that kind of scenario fits into the action-comedy vibe which made original Ghostbusters so successful.
Yeah your probably right, but the originals had a nice dose of dark to them too, kind of like coraline, a kids movie that wasnt afraid of being dark and gritty.
Manchu wrote: If there’s anything I’ve learned about fame in the last few years it’s that you don’t have to say anything insightful or even factually accurate to be heard by millions — you just have to tap into controversy. I think that’s where Ms. Jones’s comments are coming from and she knows that having people arguing about her comments is far, far preferable to everybody forgetting her because she was in a forgettable movie. I mean, that’s why Sony did everything it could to change the conversation about the 2016 film from “this doesn’t look worthwhile” to “this is an important issue about representation and diversity!”
Okay, why do you think that though? Why do you think she would not be upset that her newer, more recent movie with far better reviews is a better candidate for a sequel than a movie that was almost universally panned by critics and viewers?
Especially given the way she was personally treated during the filming of the last movie.
Manchu wrote: LOL certainly not “just because” ... I mean, we’re talking about her career.
GB2 was a box office hit. GB2016 was a flop that damaged the value of the studio that released it.
Anyhow, this certainly isn’t a referendum on GB2 — although I see why you would like to frame that debate rather than what is really at issue. The real issue is this 2020 film, unlike the 2016 film, is in continuity with the 1984 film, which means it is also in continuity with GB2.
Yeah, because speaking out about the controversy before really helped her career out. She had a lot to gain by speaking out here. LOL
Yes, it is a sequel to those movies. That is how I am framing it. I am also framing it as the movie after GB2, which was a critical failure. So it was a bad movie. The argument is that instead of following up a movie that had much better critical success, they decided to go back to a franchise that was killed off by its own sequel. So that is why GB2 is being brought up here and why it is a perfectly valid argument in this case.
So the real issue is this 2020 film, unlike the 2016 film, is in continuity with the 1989 film, which means it is continuity with the film that killed the franchise.
Hardly a 'killed' franchise.
That was a straight up killed film franchise for what, 27 years?
That was a straight up killed film franchise for what, 27 years?
Not sure why you're bothering to quote me when you're cutting out and ignoring the entire explanation for why it isn't.
All but one of the actors wanted to do another film. The director wanted to do another film. The studio was willing to do another film.
The supporting franchise material continued for years, some of it for decades
That is not a 'killed' franchise by any standard.
By the argument you're trying to use, the Star Wars, Star Trek and Terminator franchises were all killed too, and mysteriously brought back for no reason.
That was a straight up killed film franchise for what, 27 years?
Not sure why you're bothering to quote me when you're cutting out and ignoring the entire explanation for why it isn't.
All but one of the actors wanted to do another film. The director wanted to do another film. The studio was willing to do another film.
That is untrue. Ramis didn't want to be in it as well as Murray. But that wasn't really a deal that Columbia was fine with. By the time they got a script that everybody agreed on, Columbia backed out of the deal because of production costs and risk of it being a flop. Then came rewrite after rewrite for new ghostbusters and directors dropping out. Then 2016 and the film franchise is back!
Okay, why do you think that though? Why do you think she would not be upset that her newer, more recent movie with far better reviews is a better candidate for a sequel than a movie that was almost universally panned by critics and viewers?
Arguing in bad faith is not a good thing y'know. Also reviews mostly don't matter, as people love to bring up "This movie is reviewed favorably!" despite not selling well, and of course Micheal Bay despite having his movies panned by Critics sell quite well and continue to do so.
Critics are often nowadays not really that intune with the consumer
That is untrue. Ramis didn't want to be in it as well as Murray. But that wasn't really a deal that Columbia was fine with. By the time they got a script that everybody agreed on, Columbia backed out of the deal because of production costs and risk of it being a flop. Then came rewrite after rewrite for new ghostbusters and directors dropping out. Then 2016 and the film franchise is back!
You seem to have left out a lot.
Yeah. Going over every single deal in detail didn't seem necessary. The fact that they kept trying to make deals (regardless of individual buy in for specific cases, which did vary) indicates to me that it was far from a 'dead franchise.'
LordofHats wrote:
To be fair I think a lot of us are just wishing that Terminator would die already, and in my Head Canon the franchise died in 1991
Truthfully, I think everything Terminator is awful. But overall, it's been very successful as a franchise.
Which is the point that seems to be escaping Dreadwinter. A specific bad movie in a decades-spanning profitable franchise that keeps coming up for renewal doesn't mean the _franchise_ is dead.
There would, I think, be no franchises whatsoever if that were the case.
Dreadwinter wrote: Okay, why do you think that though? Why do you think she would not be upset that her newer, more recent movie with far better reviews is a better candidate for a sequel than a movie that was almost universally panned by critics and viewers?
I guess this is for the .. third time? but I see what you are doing. You want us to imagine that Sony has to pick between GB2 and GB2016. But that’s not true. Sony is picking from GB1+GB2+Everything In Continuity With Those Filmes versus GB2016. I also don’t agree that GB2016 was a critical success. I read tons of “positive” reviews of the movie that turned out to just be rants against phantom bigotry — so “siding with” the movie in an imaginary struggle against the internet, rather than actually explaining why the movie itself succeeds as a film.
GB'16...happy with the cast, vfx and director, but omg wtf happened in the editing phase? The funny jokes were butchered by lingering shots, the villian wasn't even introduced at all and an obvious "evil" dance scene was just snipped with scissors, yet appeared in the credits...for no reason at all leaving us totally baffled. Thankfully, "Answer the Call" was released(directors cut) which resolved the majority of the above issues and is actually a passable film. That cut told me everything I needed to know as to why the film was really a failure; Sony essentially hijacked their own production, where if they had just left editing to Paul then GB'16 would have been better recieved and I do believe there would have been a better sequel. The proof is in the pudding; I laughed my ass off when watching The Heat, Spy and even Bridesmaids but GB'16 was not even close. Giving Paul and his cast and crew the benefit of the doubt where it is due - they were screwed over by Sony.
As for this new one...nah. Sony butchered that last film and I don't see any reaon why they will not butcher the new one by interferring with the editing once again. Seriously, when you consider the budget going into these movies and how much we spend these days on a single 2D screening, then a studio as large as Sony can at least do us the decency of a professional editing job.
Don't get me wrong, if this new one turns out to be a genuinely good flick then great, but I don't care who they have on board - I have little faith in the project with Sony pulling the strings.
That is untrue. Ramis didn't want to be in it as well as Murray. But that wasn't really a deal that Columbia was fine with. By the time they got a script that everybody agreed on, Columbia backed out of the deal because of production costs and risk of it being a flop. Then came rewrite after rewrite for new ghostbusters and directors dropping out. Then 2016 and the film franchise is back!
You seem to have left out a lot.
Yeah. Going over every single deal in detail didn't seem necessary. The fact that they kept trying to make deals (regardless of individual buy in for specific cases, which did vary) indicates to me that it was far from a 'dead franchise.'
Who kept trying to make deals though. Columbia kept shutting down Aykroyd and Ramis. 1989-2002, nothing, then suddenly they finally have a script! Oh the script sucks. 2002-2008, we got nothing. Then they finally have something they think is decent! Oh wait no, it sucks and it is going to cost too much. 2008-2014, we have something! But oh no it took two decades and Harold Ramis has died, also the director quits after disagreeing with the direction the movie is going to be taken. Oops, now its 2016 so reboot time!
Those details are very important. Columbia wasn't interested. In fact, it turned down most of the attempts. This is an odd way of framing your argument.
Okay, why do you think that though? Why do you think she would not be upset that her newer, more recent movie with far better reviews is a better candidate for a sequel than a movie that was almost universally panned by critics and viewers?
Arguing in bad faith is not a good thing y'know. Also reviews mostly don't matter, as people love to bring up "This movie is reviewed favorably!" despite not selling well, and of course Micheal Bay despite having his movies panned by Critics sell quite well and continue to do so.
Critics are often nowadays not really that intune with the consumer
You have to remember that the movie was boycotted by snowflakes who were upset about the gender of the people in the roles. It's not a bad faith argument. She also took a lot of the flack for speaking out against it. Also, the audience score is not much better than the critics scores here. Critics on RT, 51%. Audience on RT, 63%. So they cannot be that far off. For anecdotal evidence, I do not know a single person in real life that would suggest this movie to you. I know several that would tell you not to watch it if you enjoyed the first one.
No chief, we don't have to remember that at all, because it was a load of garbage.
"Ebil manbabies hate this film because girl cooties" is the horse manure narrative drummed up by people who'd decided the film was "important" - eagerly latched on to by the folk involved in the production - who were simply incapable of grasping that a lot of fans were boycotting the film because it was a reboot and they didn't want a reboot, whether the stars were male, female, or the twenty-gendered Garblobrons from Ishnark 7.
Just like with Star Wars, just like with Discovery, the actual number of people outraged by black people, or women, or gay people being in "their" favourite nerd IP was, proportionally, minuscule. But the idea that any number of existing fans could fail to appreciate the supposed-genius of the new versions offends the egos of the creators, and the studios are happy to have an excuse to deflect criticism and an army of right-on hacks churning out free advertising, so now anyone and everyone who dislikes or is merely unmoved by these trashy low-effort reboots and remakes and sequels to beloved franchises are tarred as racist misogynist basement-trogs by association.
Of course the fact that all these Very Smart thinkpiece writers are erasing loads of female and minority fans who also think the new versions were pish either never enters their minds or is dismissed as them being "brainwashed by the patriarchy"
Yodhrin wrote: No chief, we don't have to remember that at all, because it was a load of garbage.
"Ebil manbabies hate this film because girl cooties" is the horse manure narrative drummed up by people who'd decided the film was "important" - eagerly latched on to by the folk involved in the production - who were simply incapable of grasping that a lot of fans were boycotting the film because it was a reboot and they didn't want a reboot, whether the stars were male, female, or the twenty-gendered Garblobrons from Ishnark 7.
Just like with Star Wars, just like with Discovery, the actual number of people outraged by black people, or women, or gay people being in "their" favourite nerd IP was, proportionally, minuscule. But the idea that any number of existing fans could fail to appreciate the supposed-genius of the new versions offends the egos of the creators, and the studios are happy to have an excuse to deflect criticism and an army of right-on hacks churning out free advertising, so now anyone and everyone who dislikes or is merely unmoved by these trashy low-effort reboots and remakes and sequels to beloved franchises are tarred as racist misogynist basement-trogs by association.
Of course the fact that all these Very Smart thinkpiece writers are erasing loads of female and minority fans who also think the new versions were pish either never enters their minds or is dismissed as them being "brainwashed by the patriarchy"
Did you participate in the Ghostbusters 2016 thread on Dakkadakka?
Ms. Jones’s comments are nothing more than a follow-on to Sony’s sleazy attempt in 2016 to shift the headline about their dud product from “this movie is trashy and not funny” to “this film is standing up against sexism.” It’s a shame that GB2016 is garbage. The greater shame would be willfully churning out another garbage film as its sequel. In 2016, Sony told us they made a movie to oppose sexism. But it lost them a ton of dollars and so they scrapped that line of development altogether. Could it possibly be that they actually never cared about sexism one way or another? The answer is of course they didn’t. Sony and Hollywood generally do not give even the first feth about feminism or representation unless it can earn them money. Despite bragging for decades about being progressive, the truth is that Hollywood is and has always been run by people like Harvey Weinstein.
Yodhrin wrote: No chief, we don't have to remember that at all, because it was a load of garbage.
"Ebil manbabies hate this film because girl cooties" is the horse manure narrative drummed up by people who'd decided the film was "important" - eagerly latched on to by the folk involved in the production - who were simply incapable of grasping that a lot of fans were boycotting the film because it was a reboot and they didn't want a reboot, whether the stars were male, female, or the twenty-gendered Garblobrons from Ishnark 7.
Just like with Star Wars, just like with Discovery, the actual number of people outraged by black people, or women, or gay people being in "their" favourite nerd IP was, proportionally, minuscule. But the idea that any number of existing fans could fail to appreciate the supposed-genius of the new versions offends the egos of the creators, and the studios are happy to have an excuse to deflect criticism and an army of right-on hacks churning out free advertising, so now anyone and everyone who dislikes or is merely unmoved by these trashy low-effort reboots and remakes and sequels to beloved franchises are tarred as racist misogynist basement-trogs by association.
Of course the fact that all these Very Smart thinkpiece writers are erasing loads of female and minority fans who also think the new versions were pish either never enters their minds or is dismissed as them being "brainwashed by the patriarchy"
Did you participate in the Ghostbusters 2016 thread on Dakkadakka?
Do you understand the meaning of the word "proportionally"?
Yodhrin wrote: No chief, we don't have to remember that at all, because it was a load of garbage.
"Ebil manbabies hate this film because girl cooties" is the horse manure narrative drummed up by people who'd decided the film was "important" - eagerly latched on to by the folk involved in the production - who were simply incapable of grasping that a lot of fans were boycotting the film because it was a reboot and they didn't want a reboot, whether the stars were male, female, or the twenty-gendered Garblobrons from Ishnark 7.
Just like with Star Wars, just like with Discovery, the actual number of people outraged by black people, or women, or gay people being in "their" favourite nerd IP was, proportionally, minuscule. But the idea that any number of existing fans could fail to appreciate the supposed-genius of the new versions offends the egos of the creators, and the studios are happy to have an excuse to deflect criticism and an army of right-on hacks churning out free advertising, so now anyone and everyone who dislikes or is merely unmoved by these trashy low-effort reboots and remakes and sequels to beloved franchises are tarred as racist misogynist basement-trogs by association.
Of course the fact that all these Very Smart thinkpiece writers are erasing loads of female and minority fans who also think the new versions were pish either never enters their minds or is dismissed as them being "brainwashed by the patriarchy"
Did you participate in the Ghostbusters 2016 thread on Dakkadakka?
Do you understand the meaning of the word "proportionally"?
Sure, did we forget we had a current presidential candidate(Now President) using the film in his campaign, calling it awful to use an all female cast?
There were also many “news articles” comparing the allegedly misogynistic reception of GB2016 to the allegedly misogynistic criticism of Hilary Clinton’s campiagn.
One might begin to suspect that perhaps a mediocre movie was exploited to make all kinds of unrelated points ...
Manchu wrote: No doubt, and probably because they are, after all, two sides of the same coin.
So one side used it to stir hate and resentment and the other side used it to make money. Meanwhile the cast is in the middle of all this getting flak for just being in a movie and Leslie Jones is the bad guy now. For standing up for herself and the movie.
Ms. Jones is on the side making money, not stuck in the middle. She realizes that if shouting on Twitter can make you president, it can probably also get you some publicity, a.k.a., the bread’n’butter of celebrity.
Manchu wrote: Ms. Jones is on the side making money, not stuck in the middle. She realizes that if shouting on Twitter can make you president, it can probably also get you some publicity, a.k.a., the bread’n’butter of celebrity.
Also your phone hacked and naked pictures of you spread around the internet. Also death threats and other threats against her person/character.
Manchu wrote: So she’s not an opportunist because she has suffered the negative aspects of celebrity? That doesn’t follow.
Your argument is she is doing this for publicity. My argument is that publicity is dangerous at times and that cannot be all she is interested in. She may actually be upset about this move. Is that not a possibility with you?
I have no doubt she is truly upset, although I think it has more to do with what that implies about her own career than whether society is just and good.
I also agree that publicity — actually, the right term is celebrity — that celebrity can be dangerous as well as profitable. But those who embark on the venture are well aware of the risk.
That doesn’t absolve people who hack into celebrities’ personal information or threaten them. Those dangers shouldn’t be ones we just take for granted. But commercial failure is a risk we can and should take for granted in business.
GB2016 was a commercial failure. Ms. Jones can have no reasonable expectation that a business would throw good money after bad. But she can try her hand at information alchemy by reframing what anyone can see is a sound business decsision as a matter of injustice.
Manchu wrote: I have no doubt she is truly upset, although I think it has more to do with what that implies about her own career than whether society is just and good.
I also agree that publicity — actually, the right term is celebrity — that celebrity can be dangerous as well as profitable. But those who embark on the venture are well aware of the risk.
That doesn’t absolve people who hack into celebrities’ personal information or threaten them. Those dangers shouldn’t be ones we just take for granted. But commercial failure is a risk we can and should take for granted in business.
GB2016 was a commercial failure. Ms. Jones can have no reasonable expectation that a business would throw good money after bad. But she can try her hand at information alchemy by reframing what anyone can see is a sound business decsision as a matter of injustice.
You could also say the same thing about Ghostbusters 2. Especially since the movie killed the chances of a third movie for decades.
Manchu wrote: No in fact you could not say the same thing about GB2. The exact opposite is true. GB2 was a tremendous financial success.
It was a huge financial success. But as far as fans and critics, it was a big failure. So much so that a main actor from the movie didn't want to be involved anymore and it took more than two decades to even get a script the studio was okay with. Even then, they still couldn't get the original four together on screen. Which means the movie was a huge financial failure because it prevented the franchise from moving forward, like everybody at the time was predicting. Sure, GB2 made money. But GB3 should have made money as well had there been one. But because of GB2, that did not happen.
Strange that GB2016 had the living Ghostbuster's in it and they all even liked it. Some of them went on a tour for the movie talking about it. They just did cameos! Hell, Sigourney Weaver was in there. That was after she said she would only do another if her kid was one of the new Ghostbuster's in the lost 2014 project!
So you’re arguing that GB3 was held up by Murray refusing to do the picture because GB2 was critically panned. And that this, in turn, means GB2 is a financial failure because entirely hypothetical profits from a movie that was never made failed to exist. Despite the possibility that, had the movie been made, it may not have been profitable. That’s a horrible argument.
Whatever the many (and, ya know, actual) reasons GB3 wasn’t made, the point remains that GB2016 was a financial failure. Not in your sense of money that was never made on a picture that didn’t exist. I mean, a financial failure in that it contributed significantly to the loss of value of Sony Pictures. Considering that, please explain why Sony would (or even should) invest in a sequel.
The lesson Sony evidently learned from GB2016 is that the value of the IP is not just the name, logo, and high-level concept but all of those things PLUS the characters established in the 1984 film, who subsequently appeared (to varying degrees of success) in another movie, in cartoons, video games, and as toys and other licensed products which have sold well for 35 years.
Okay you keep saying "A main actor didn't want to to it because GB2 was bad" that's not even the thing Bill Murray admitted as his reasoning... And most of it really was about the issues in the background that he was trying to pull his career up on his on after having a major slump. It was not GB2's dislike that brought him away from it.
Strange that GB2016 had the living Ghostbuster's in it and they all even liked it. Some of them went on a tour for the movie talking about it. They just did cameos! Hell, Sigourney Weaver was in there. That was after she said she would only do another if her kid was one of the new Ghostbuster's in the lost 2014 project!
Because the best thing for someone's career is to pan the movie they were in right?.
The Sony hack revealed the studio was prepared to sue Bill Murray into participating. Dan Ayckroyd had serious issues with Paul Feig and is on camera blaming Feig for $30-40 million in reshoots, thereby making a sequel impossible. He made these pointed comments notwithstanding his vested interest in the movie’s success. Even Ernie Hudson said he didn’t think fans would want an all-female reboot. It’s hardly an uncomplicated sense of love for GB2016 coming from these guys.
Manchu wrote: The Sony hack revealed the studio was prepared to sue Bill Murray into participating. Dan Ayckroyd had serious issues with Paul Feig and is on camera blaming Feig for $30-40 million in reshoots, thereby making a sequel impossible. He made these pointed comments notwithstanding his vested interest in the movie’s success. Even Ernie Hudson said he didn’t think fans would want an all-female reboot. It’s hardly an uncomplicated sense of love for GB2016 coming from these guys.
Given Paul Feig's track record of keeping his film budgets around $40 million( some exceptions, though ), I'd guess such reshoots were at the request of Sony due to the vfx. Sony wanted a female cast and chose Feig to fit that requirement, but what they had not figured on was his lack of experience with crowd-pleasing vfx banazas. I personally feel he delivered on the vfx front, but apparently I'm in the minority there.
As for Dan disputing the cost of the movie, it was a major summer blockbuster which usually do command budgets of $150+ million. Whatever the reshoots were, they certainly did not kill off the chance of a sequel. The awful trailer did that...
The other thing is Paul Feig is notorious about having actors ablib most of their scenes. This can be great if you have people like Kirsten Wig and Melissa McCarthy. But in Brides maids they could pull from personal experiences add their comedic spin on it and make magic.
But with Ghost busters that formula doesn't work, None of them have dealt with the supernatural in real life and probably didn't have interest in Sci-fi prior to the movie. Also most actors already say green screen work is very difficult.. Then add to it you need to ablib half the
scene trying to be scared and funny to something you don't have a clue what you are acting against. Is it big, red have horns?? A lot easier when its just a fellow actor. They do have movies like "Best in show" and "Spinal Tap" that are improvisational movies, but don't
do it if you have a major budget for special effects and end up making a parody of a great movie unless that was your target all along like space balls.
The other thing with the Sony leak it was Amy Pascal wanted a Strong woman movie, don't shoe horn something in that might not work.
If they wanted a strong female.. Ghost Busters already had Sigourney Weaver, proven to kick butt in other movies, Add a little reasoning, like make her the lead and recruiting women because the villain can control men..ghost sirens.
But good stories that make good movies have a reasoning behind them.. Modern movies don't understand that anymore.
Manchu wrote: No doubt, and probably because they are, after all, two sides of the same coin.
So one side used it to stir hate and resentment and the other side used it to make money. Meanwhile the cast is in the middle of all this getting flak for just being in a movie and Leslie Jones is the bad guy now. For standing up for herself and the movie.
The same coin you say?
I'd argue both sides used it to stir up hate and resentment, just with varying mixes of the two ingredients.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Okay you keep saying "A main actor didn't want to to it because GB2 was bad" that's not even the thing Bill Murray admitted as his reasoning... And most of it really was about the issues in the background that he was trying to pull his career up on his on after having a major slump. It was not GB2's dislike that brought him away from it.
Strange that GB2016 had the living Ghostbuster's in it and they all even liked it. Some of them went on a tour for the movie talking about it. They just did cameos! Hell, Sigourney Weaver was in there. That was after she said she would only do another if her kid was one of the new Ghostbuster's in the lost 2014 project!
Because the best thing for someone's career is to pan the movie they were in right?.
They had shown up as cameos and they were in no way obligated to do that. Also, Bill Murray admitted his reasoning for not wanting to be in GB2 was because it was bad and he hated being in it. So no, it wasn't a whole lot about the background. It was about not liking the movie.
Manchu wrote: The Sony hack revealed the studio was prepared to sue Bill Murray into participating. Dan Ayckroyd had serious issues with Paul Feig and is on camera blaming Feig for $30-40 million in reshoots, thereby making a sequel impossible. He made these pointed comments notwithstanding his vested interest in the movie’s success. Even Ernie Hudson said he didn’t think fans would want an all-female reboot. It’s hardly an uncomplicated sense of love for GB2016 coming from these guys.
Ernie Hudson later walked those comments back and showed full support of the movie.
Genoside07 wrote:The other thing is Paul Feig is notorious about having actors ablib most of their scenes. This can be great if you have people like Kirsten Wig and Melissa McCarthy. But in Brides maids they could pull from personal experiences add their comedic spin on it and make magic.
But with Ghost busters that formula doesn't work, None of them have dealt with the supernatural in real life and probably didn't have interest in Sci-fi prior to the movie. Also most actors already say green screen work is very difficult.. Then add to it you need to ablib half the
scene trying to be scared and funny to something you don't have a clue what you are acting against. Is it big, red have horns?? A lot easier when its just a fellow actor. They do have movies like "Best in show" and "Spinal Tap" that are improvisational movies, but don't
do it if you have a major budget for special effects and end up making a parody of a great movie unless that was your target all along like space balls.
The other thing with the Sony leak it was Amy Pascal wanted a Strong woman movie, don't shoe horn something in that might not work.
If they wanted a strong female.. Ghost Busters already had Sigourney Weaver, proven to kick butt in other movies, Add a little reasoning, like make her the lead and recruiting women because the villain can control men..ghost sirens.
But good stories that make good movies have a reasoning behind them.. Modern movies don't understand that anymore.
Well no, nobody has dealt with the supernatural in real life. Because it doesn't exist. Not sure what you are going for here. Also, their interest in sci-fi shouldn't really have anything to do with it.
Also, putting Sigourney Weaver in a reboot doesn't really make sense. They were going to just do another GB3 sequel with her kid from the other movies as a new ghostbuster. That was actually the only way she agreed to do that one, if that were to happen. Otherwise she wanted nothing to do with it.
Manchu wrote: No doubt, and probably because they are, after all, two sides of the same coin.
So one side used it to stir hate and resentment and the other side used it to make money. Meanwhile the cast is in the middle of all this getting flak for just being in a movie and Leslie Jones is the bad guy now. For standing up for herself and the movie.
The same coin you say?
I'd argue both sides used it to stir up hate and resentment, just with varying mixes of the two ingredients.
They did. But I don't think the cast was really on any side, they were just trying to make/defend their movie/themselves from attacks. I even made the argument earlier in the thread that both sides(Not the actors) were very malicious towards each other. Granted, the ones being sexist about the movie certainly deserved the vitriol, but there was spill over in to those who wanted the movie to be good and were giving honest critiques of what they had seen.
The problem was the movie didn't get to fail or succeed on its own. It was already deemed a failure and to many people, because of the controversy, was not worth their time anymore. One side won by throwing vitriol, threats, and what seems to be lies and the other side was left holding the bill. Which was the entire goal, they didn't want the movie to succeed and they managed to do that. They were vocal enough to get national attention and that national attention ruined the movie for a lot of people.
Dread winter is absolutely correct, it's well documented that the critics etc. Started attacking the fans before the movie even came out, they knew they had a lame duck on their hands and decided to align themselves with a particular movement in the hopes of getting more bums in seats, this backfired in a spectacular manner, who would have thought that insulting the very people you want to watch your film would mean they won't go and see your film.
I only hope that Sony has learned from this mistake and told it's producers, actors and other staff to stfu and stay off Twitter, dont stir up the fans and just do their jobs, don't get involved with the controversy and don't MAKE the controversy... In fact this should be standard operating procedure.
Formosa wrote: I only hope that Sony has learned from this mistake and told it's producers, actors and other staff to stfu and stay off Twitter, dont stir up the fans and just do their jobs, don't get involved with the controversy and don't MAKE the controversy... In fact this should be standard operating procedure.
Too late. That's why there's another "controversy".
Formosa wrote: I only hope that Sony has learned from this mistake and told it's producers, actors and other staff to stfu and stay off Twitter, dont stir up the fans and just do their jobs, don't get involved with the controversy and don't MAKE the controversy... In fact this should be standard operating procedure.
Too late. That's why there's another "controversy".
No one has come out and attacked the fans yet with "ismphobes", all they have done is said its not a sequel to GB 2016 and announced the film and thats it, its just lesley jones that has made some pretty dim statements so far, which is just spillover from the last movie.
mind you I should say "yet" as you are probably right and its only a matter of time before the journos (activists) start dropping the rage bait for stupid people.
Formosa wrote: I only hope that Sony has learned from this mistake and told it's producers, actors and other staff to stfu and stay off Twitter, dont stir up the fans and just do their jobs, don't get involved with the controversy and don't MAKE the controversy... In fact this should be standard operating procedure.
Too late. That's why there's another "controversy".
No one has come out and attacked the fans yet with "ismphobes", all they have done is said its not a sequel to GB 2016 and announced the film and thats it, its just lesley jones that has made some pretty dim statements so far, which is just spillover from the last movie.
mind you I should say "yet" as you are probably right and its only a matter of time before the journos (activists) start dropping the rage bait for stupid people.
Actually.... You are pretty far behind the times on this. Journalists all ready are trashing fans of the original series, and have been for a week. I'm not just talking about fringe elements either, I'm talking about mainstream publications like Forbes.
cuda1179 wrote: Actually.... You are pretty far behind the times on this. Journalists all ready are trashing fans of the original series, and have been for a week. I'm not just talking about fringe elements either, I'm talking about mainstream publications like Forbes.
Do you have a source for this claim? I just read 3 articles on the Forbes site (well, skimmed them) and didn't really see anything like that. The closest they came to was
It wasn’t. The reboot wasn’t clever, or funny, but bland, and the gender politics magnified the controversy, warping it into an ideological debate. And Ghostbusters is not the correct battleground for such a conversation.
It was a similar situation to what happened with The Last Jedi, in which hateful trolls were lumped in with disappointed fans, and the two groups started to exchange DNA. The discourse becomes so removed from the original point that it isolates angry, frustrated fans, who aren’t exactly the most reasonable at the best of times, prompting many to direct their anger against progressive causes.
Which was pretty insightful, and made a distinction between the fandom, and the trolls. And wasn't even about GB, to boot.
There was a different article that points out the GB3 director had had a string of flops and is failing upwards to this film, which seems both accurate and uncontroversial.
So obviously you saw something else which I didn't find.
Wow that's quite Ballanced for forbes, colour me surprised, let's see what Huffington post, BuzzFeed and Washington post have to say about it soon, they are the ones to watch out for.
Trust Scott Mendelsohn to deliver studio-approved castiagtion of the “toxic fnbase”:
it's hard not to view the film as a glorified rebuttal of the 2016 reboot and a relative victory for the very worst Ghostbusters fans that turned the Paul Feig-directed "all lady" reboot into a giant online talking point
He argues, somewhat incoherently, that Jason Reitman’s upcoming film isn’t the result of “the last Ghostbusters flopping (or the cultural sexism in play)” but rather that GB2016 itself should have been a sequel to GB1/GB2. Even so he can’t resist perpetuating Sony’s “toxic fan” narrative, which he so dutifully pushed when Lucasfilm adopted it in 2017.
The toxic fan narrative is not going away. Entertainment media has totally devoted itself to it ideologically as well as financially, to the point where even while publications like Buzzfeed are laying off their writers and Gawker can't find a buyer they have nothing else to rely on as a strategy. I'm sure that film studios are only too happy to take advantage of the free publicity. They're all just going to keep pushing it until people tune out altogether and they go out of business. It's a desperate short term strategy with no long term payoff, but they're so reliant on it for those little bursts of controversy and interest that they have little choice but to ride it into the ground.
You don’t have dig too deeply on the internet to find someone saying whatever you’re looking for. No one disputes that there are some real weirdos out there. The dispute is that these peope can suddenly be so powerful and compelling as to convince millions not to see a blockbuster film.
Manchu wrote: You don’t have dig too deeply on the internet to find someone saying whatever you’re looking for. No one disputes that there are some real weirdos out there. The dispute is that these peope can suddenly be so powerful and compelling as to convince millions not to see a blockbuster film.
Your continued insistence as it being a "narrative" does in fact imply a dispute to these people even existing. "Narrative" is a loaded term and you very much should be aware of that, but let's just continue on from that.
And really, if you "don't have to dig too deeply on the internet" to find people saying this crap...do you really think people aren't being exposed to it?
Pretending that it requires this garbage to be some kind of "powerful and compelling" argument is fallacious as well---people generally seem to be on the fence with regards to reboots, and it doesn't help when people spread false rumors or imply that there is some kind of "narrative"(read: implying that someone is tilting things their way) to generate ill will towards something that many people considered a 'beloved franchise'.
Manchu wrote: You don’t have dig too deeply on the internet to find someone saying whatever you’re looking for. No one disputes that there are some real weirdos out there. The dispute is that these peope can suddenly be so powerful and compelling as to convince millions not to see a blockbuster film.
thats the kicker right there isnt it, who is it that normies see the most, these "Toxic fans" or the mass media harping on about anyone not liking GB2016 is an "ismphobe", most normies will think, well i dont like the look of that movie, and the people making it are calling me names and telling me its not for people like me, they are also saying all the fans are horrible people, so why would i want to go and see it and be involved with such "toxic" people.
its almost like a funny self fulfilling prophecy.
whether or not any of us agree how good the film was, i am sure we can all agree the real "toxic" "fans" are the critics (activists) and ragebait media.
The narrative is that people with socially unacceptable bigoted viewpoints are convincing millions of others to not see a movie.
I don’t dispute at all that there are wacko racists and woman-haters out there on the internet.
But we know for a fact that Sony did push a narrative that GB2016 was torpedoed by those wackos rather than just being a mediocre, unfunny movie with ugly effects. And then the same narrative was trotted out to defend The Last Jedi.
I wonder if it will make a return if GB3 is a dud. The ‘Next Gen’ Ghostbusters in Jason Reitman’s film will no doubt be diverse. If the trailer looks like garbage, will Sony manipulate the comments section again?
Manchu wrote: The narrative is that people with socially unacceptable bigoted viewpoints are convincing millions of others to not see a movie.
I don’t dispute at all that there are wacko racists and woman-haters out there on the internet.
But we know for a fact that studios like Sony did push a narrative that GB2016 was torpedoed by those wackos rather than just being a mediocre, unfunny movie with ugly effects.
And we also know for a fact that there were "wackos" organizing mass boycotts and downvoting videos/reviews for things like GB2016 and TLJ.
Funny how your continued mention of a "narrative" forgets that, eh?
And to talk about the edit:
Manchu wrote:. And then the same narrative was trotted out to defend The Last Jedi.
I wonder if it will make a return if GB3 is a dud. The ‘Next Gen’ Ghostbusters in Jason Reitman’s film will no doubt be diverse. If the trailer looks like garbage, will Sony manipulate the comments section again?
So we'll talk about Sony "manipulating the comments section", but when the same crap gets done by the "wackos"...it doesn't get any mention.
Kanluwen wrote: And my point is literally made for me by Formosa.
Referring to people as "normies" and a whine about "activists" and "ragebait media"...you want an example of a toxic fan?
There ya go. Right. Fricking. There.
somebody doesn't get irony
I am using the terms they use hence the quotation marks, and "Ragebait" is a term coined by an M.I.T study into the new version of clickbait, anger, according to the study, is the thing that makes people click the most and is more likely to be shared by the target audience, regardless of affiliation.
And "Normies" is a term i quite like for the people who do not frequent the internet and do not really know about all this "culture war" nonsense, people like my mum for example, would you prefer "muggles" lol
And i am not a fan of ghostbusters, I just like it, I am a fan of Star trek and star wars though and B5.
Hey man, its not my fault you dont know what these terms mean, thats your hang up not mine, perhaps if you were less reactionary and emotional you would not have jumped the gun and gone straight for the stereotypical "well YOUR a toxic person" defence, As far as I am concerned we have all been having quite a nice even conversation until you did that, how about going out for a smoke or having a nice cup of tea and ten min break from the keyboard eh?
So I mentioned that then candidate for President Donald J. Trump(Now President) made tweets and posts about the movie. But you seem to ignore it and want to call it extremely unpopular opinions.
So I mentioned that then candidate for President Donald J. Trump(Now President) made tweets and posts about the movie. But you seem to ignore it and want to call it extremely unpopular opinions.
That seems reasonable.
Sure. GB 2016 flopped because Trump twitted about it...
Hey man, its not my fault you dont know what these terms mean, thats your hang up not mine, perhaps if you were less reactionary and emotional you would not have jumped the gun and gone straight for the stereotypical "well YOUR a toxic person" defence, As far as I am concerned we have all been having quite a nice even conversation until you did that, how about going out for a smoke or having a nice cup of tea and ten min break from the keyboard eh?
So I make one series of comments and now I'm the "reactionary and emotional" one while you're continually posting about critics being activists and the media being the one driving all of the "rage"?
Yeah. I'm the one who needs to step away and "jumped the gun".
Manchu wrote:Well who cares if some one with extremely unpopular opinions calls for a boycott? Who’s going to listen to a weirdo?
You understand that this isn't like some weirdo on the street corner harping on about the end of the world, right? We're talking about things like youtubers who go out of their way to try to present their arguments as reasonable and measured when the underlying argument is "It's not MY Ghostbusters!".
A good example of this was the people who tried to express faux outrage at Leslie Jones that her character was "too urban" and lacked any real depth.
But what if your movie is a flop AND weirdos are calling for boycotts? Then you can blame the weirdo.
Yes yes yes, we get it--you think that Sony tried to pin all the blame on a poor film on the "weirdos".
So I mentioned that then candidate for President Donald J. Trump(Now President) made tweets and posts about the movie. But you seem to ignore it and want to call it extremely unpopular opinions.
That seems reasonable.
Sure. GB 2016 flopped because Trump twitted about it...
Didn't you know? There are only three possible groups of moviegoers: Evil monstrous toxic misogynophobic manbabies, drooling morons who are brainwashed by the aforementioned, and Clever Big-brain Smart People Who Agree With Dreadwinter And Kan
If someone makes a reasonable argument that lots of people find compelling then we aren’t talking about a weirdo. That’s the point: people actually made compelling arguments criticizing these movies that reflected the opinions of millions of other people. That’s why GB2016 failed — because it was garbage. It didn’t fail because of misogyny.
Kanluwen wrote: And my point is literally made for me by Formosa.
Referring to people as "normies" and a whine about "activists" and "ragebait media"...you want an example of a toxic fan?
There ya go. Right. Fricking. There.
What kind of toxic behavior has he exhibited in the post to which you refer? Simply not agreeing with you?
It's absolutely clear to most people that there is an ideological motivation behind the way that these issues are reported. It is a narrative, and one with glaring inconsistencies and double standards that are more and more naked and obvious every day. Likewise, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that clickbait, or "ragebait" as Formosa put it, is not a distinct business strategy that has been adopted by blog-type publications in order to capitalize off of controversy and generate page views. Clearly, as you demonstrate, there is a core audience that responds to these strategies, but it's not large enough to sustain the profitability of the publications that employ them long term. "Normies", or in other words, your average people who are not ideologically committed one way or another, are tuning out. The message is not for them, it's for a small minority of people who are engaged in these issues, because those are the people who are going to share links and make noise whether they agree with the stories or not. I've got a news flash for you; half of the audience for this narrative is the so-called toxic fans. They are a major part of the customer base being served here.
There really isn't anything controversial in any of the sentiment I've just shared. Clickbait is a business strategy, and there is a minority of ideologically committed people who respond vocally to controversy. What part of that do you object to?
So I mentioned that then candidate for President Donald J. Trump(Now President) made tweets and posts about the movie. But you seem to ignore it and want to call it extremely unpopular opinions.
That seems reasonable.
Haha i remember that, I do not doubt that had an effect, as I am sure you will agree the media activists also had an impact too, I am quite surprised that we are all not just agreeing that the entire debacle around the movie was mishandled, I still think that it should be S.O.Ps to tell your staff to stay silent and out of these issues, last thing anyone wants is the twitter mob coming down from on high to make your life hell, get you sacked, call for violence against you and your family, better to just stay out of it all together I think.
BTW I do not know how much you use daily beast but this is what my media checker says about it.
Spoiler:
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I make one series of comments and now I'm the "reactionary and emotional" one while you're continually posting about critics being activists and the media being the one driving all of the "rage"?
Yeah. I'm the one who needs to step away and "jumped the gun".
Well yeah Kan, I am talking about a specific set of journalists here, how else would you describe them? they even describe themselves as activists, and yes clickbait and "ragebait" are ... well i hesitate to call them legitimate, but they are working strategies used to generate revenue, these people have latched onto a working method of getting that cash and will continue to do it.
Its a very simple formula
Find whats popular, Ghostbusters in this case
Make a title with a loaded term
Write an article claiming some kind of minority, ideal or some other "triggering" term, is being marginalised, or the opposite.
People see these loaded terms and click the article, usually a few hundred words at most with Adds everywhere, pure opinion with no citations claiming something outlandish or taking quotes out of context.
Person shares out of anger or shock at how good/bad the loaded subject is.
Rinse and repeat
Now if a lot of people follow this formula it creates a false controversy (a non-troversy), and if it goes viral then it compounds the issue as the message is now everywhere and the Muggles see it, they then get a false impression because of this fake controversy that X is Y, its a bloody facinating thing to follow and watch in real time
I just wish the studios had taken a more subdued, tactful route. It's okay to say a movie just isn't for some people. Not everyone needs to be onboard. But lashing out or even making negative comments about a tiny minority of fans is uncouth and almost always comes back to haunt them. Fan bases seem to circle the wagons at any perceived criticism from the outside. It's like saying you were only talking about the deplorables, not realizing how many people will decide you must have been talking about them. Studios with marketing departments should never have fallen into this trap.
So I mentioned that then candidate for President Donald J. Trump(Now President) made tweets and posts about the movie. But you seem to ignore it and want to call it extremely unpopular opinions.
That seems reasonable.
Haha i remember that, I do not doubt that had an effect, as I am sure you will agree the media activists also had an impact too, I am quite surprised that we are all not just agreeing that the entire debacle around the movie was mishandled, I still think that it should be S.O.Ps to tell your staff to stay silent and out of these issues, last thing anyone wants is the twitter mob coming down from on high to make your life hell, get you sacked, call for violence against you and your family, better to just stay out of it all together I think.
BTW I do not know how much you use daily beast but this is what my media checker says about it.
Spoiler:
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
I know nothing of Daily Beast nor do I care to. It was a vehicle to get the video up. To show that it wasn't just a small amount of trolls or non-influential people doing this, as Manchu keeps stating.
Manchu wrote: If someone makes a reasonable argument that lots of people find compelling then we aren’t talking about a weirdo. That’s the point: people actually made compelling arguments criticizing these movies that reflected the opinions of millions of other people. That’s why GB2016 failed — because it was garbage. It didn’t fail because of misogyny.
It failed just as much because of misogyny as feminism. Both sides overreacted over this movie and it ruined it for the people who just wanted a fun Ghostbusters movie. You cannot argue that it was the studios fault for pushing a "narrative" and then say the movie only failed because it sucked.
Manchu wrote: Yeah, but maybe executives and directors never heard that thing low-level managment drums into low-level employees: the customer is always right.
I was just thinking that they must never have worked retail. Rookie mistake.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I just wish the studios had taken a more subdued, tactful route. It's okay to say a movie just isn't for some people. Not everyone needs to be onboard. But lashing out or even making negative comments about a tiny minority of fans is uncouth and almost always comes back to haunt them. Fan bases seem to circle the wagons at any perceived criticism from the outside. It's like saying you were only talking about the deplorables, not realizing how many people will decide you must have been talking about them. Studios with marketing departments should never have fallen into this trap.
I agree with you, but sadly, if you think that cultural and political discourse is pretty much ever going to be subtle or tactful again I've got bad news for you. It's going to get much, much worse from here on out, and it's going to seep into everything including marketing and public relations for products and companies that seemingly have nothing to do with it and nothing to gain other than quick bursts of viral notoriety.
You cannot argue that it was the studios fault for pushing a "narrative" and then say the movie only failed because it sucked.
I’ve consistently attributed the movie’s failure to its poor quality. The narrative pushed by Sony was an attempt to shift the conversation from how poor the quality was to something about ideology — better that the buzz around the movie was about fighting evil bigotry than it, ya know, the film being bad.
not trying to catch you out or anything dreadwinter, was just asking if you knew about the daily beast, they are basically exactly the kind of "journalists" that i have been talking about.
Anyway, curious to know what direction you lot would like to see this movie take, I have already said that I want dark and gritty like the first movie but with a bit of comedy thrown in, what would you all like to see?
Formosa wrote: not trying to catch you out or anything dreadwinter, was just asking if you knew about the daily beast, they are basically exactly the kind of "journalists" that i have been talking about.
Anyway, curious to know what direction you lot would like to see this movie take, I have already said that I want dark and gritty like the first movie but with a bit of comedy thrown in, what would you all like to see?
The best I feel like I can realistically expect is a "handing off the torch" story that's basically a retread of the original movie with a fresh face, a la The Force Awakens. If they keep a good balance between horror and comedy that would be a plus.
I still haven't seen the 2016 reboot, if only because I never thought of GB1 as being that good and I hardly wanted to wade into the giant "my feels are bigger than yours" value flag waving contest around it for a franchise I couldn't care less or more about. Honestly I probably won't even see this one unless the trailers really catch my interest somehow.
Thinking about what direction would get me in the door, I have the sudden thought of this kind of movie is the perfect premise for another Simon Pegg/Nick Frost comedy. You know, the kind that fully realizes how utterly ludicrous the premise is and just runs tongue and cheek the whole way to the finish line.
Formosa wrote: not trying to catch you out or anything dreadwinter, was just asking if you knew about the daily beast, they are basically exactly the kind of "journalists" that i have been talking about.
Anyway, curious to know what direction you lot would like to see this movie take, I have already said that I want dark and gritty like the first movie but with a bit of comedy thrown in, what would you all like to see?
The best I feel like I can realistically expect is a "handing off the torch" story that's basically a retread of the original movie with a fresh face, a la The Force Awakens. If they keep a good balance between horror and comedy that would be a plus.
yeah your most likely right, if done well it could be a really good story, cant remember the last "passing of the torch" story that was good though
actually sod that, i cant even remember a passing of the torch story in recent memory ???
Force awaken.... ok I will grudgingly give you that, its a crap film I still like for some reason
Creed, well yeah, hands down, cant believe i forgot about that, if GB 2020 hits that emotional tempo (fat chance) i will be great.
The Rocky franchise is probably not something that crosses a lot of people's minds when we're talking about reboots and sequels, but if you're a Rocky fan it's a pretty good example of how they can be done well. They stay true to what fans enjoyed about the original film in the first place, which people obviously appreciate enough for the same basic story to be told in eight movies with quite a decent measure of commercial success.
Manchu wrote: Yeah, but maybe executives and directors never heard that thing low-level managment drums into low-level employees: the customer is always right.
I was just thinking that they must never have worked retail. Rookie mistake.
I've worked retail. The 'customer is always right' isn't true or even a useful attitude. The customer either pays money and leaves, or is an annoying pillock; management just insists that staff be two-faced about it and humor them (in public).
I've worked retail. The 'customer is always right' isn't true or even a useful attitude. The customer either pays money and leaves, or is an annoying pillock; management just insists that staff be two-faced about it and humor them (in public).
Voss, I have to agree with you there. Add to that "the customer always reserves the right to be abusive." which isn't said but heavily implied...
Which reminds me, the abuse that the cast and crew of Last Jedi had received was absolutely disgusting. I nearly walked out of ROTJ:SE and The Force Awakens, but there was no way in hell I would have sunk that low about it. Don't get me wrong, I understand others felt Last Jedi was disappointing and totally support their right to voice their opinion, but that was taking the biscuit.
I've worked retail. The 'customer is always right' isn't true or even a useful attitude. The customer either pays money and leaves, or is an annoying pillock; management just insists that staff be two-faced about it and humor them (in public).
Voss, I have to agree with you there. Add to that "the customer always reserves the right to be abusive." which isn't said but heavily implied...
Which reminds me, the abuse that the cast and crew of Last Jedi had received was absolutely disgusting. I nearly walked out of ROTJ:SE and The Force Awakens, but there was no way in hell I would have sunk that low about it. Don't get me wrong, I understand others felt Last Jedi was disappointing and totally support their right to voice their opinion, but that was taking the biscuit.
Twitter mate, if you took the worst of both wings and threw them into a locked room, you still would not get anything near the insanity that is twitter.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m especially curious, as that was the point of the fething thread in the first place.
Well, you're the OP so I would have to let you speak to the point of the thread in the first place. However, where this thread was always going to go was 20% to talking about the movie, and 80% butthurt patrol to be outraged about the "outrage".
Twitter mate, if you took the worst of both wings and threw them into a locked room, you still would not get anything near the insanity that is twitter.
True. Its that old rule of thumb - half of what we post on the internet we wouldn't dare say in person...
Twitter mate, if you took the worst of both wings and threw them into a locked room, you still would not get anything near the insanity that is twitter.
True. Its that old rule of thumb - half of what we post on the internet we wouldn't dare say in person...
“The customer is always right” doesn’t mean the customer is actually right. It just means that behaving courteously even in the face of someone throwing a temper tantrum preserves your dignity, and that of your employer, in a potentially embarassing situation.
Manchu wrote: “The customer is always right” doesn’t mean the customer is actually right. It just means that behaving courteously even in the face of someone throwing a temper tantrum preserves your dignity, and that of your employer, in a potentially embarassing situation.
No. You do not have to face anything. If someone like that is throwing a temper tantrum, you do not have to take it. I have hung up on people when they are rude or say hateful things while taking their orders. I have refused to deliver food to people based on past interactions with them(Punching a wall and yelling at me about their food being two minutes past estimated delivery time) I have walked out of rooms in hospitals while working when I was abused, trying to give care. You do not have to be abused and your employer cannot force you to take abuse. The customer is not always right and that doesn't mean you have to take abuse in any way.
None of those anecdotes involves getting back in the face of a critical customer.
If you’re advocating that studios should just not respond to criticism, OK that is probably leaving opportunity on the table but I would agree it is vastly superior to accusing your customers of being bigots.
OK, now that we've got the "Customer is right" nonsense out of the way, can someone explain why Girlbusters is the hill that Les Jones wants to die upon?
Remakes happen all of the time, but you don't see Matthew Broderick claiming that his Music Man was better than the original. Or Jaden Smith claiming that Kung Fu Kid somehow is the proper inheritor of the Karate Kid franchise.
It's like one of the crew from F4ntastic claiming that their movie should be the launching pad for a new Fanastic Four franchise.
What makes Girlbusters special or good enough to deserve continuity? It was a box office bomb that won no real awards. gak movie that doesn't deserve anything.
Manchu wrote: Yeah, but maybe executives and directors never heard that thing low-level managment drums into low-level employees: the customer is always right.
I was just thinking that they must never have worked retail. Rookie mistake.
I've worked retail. The 'customer is always right' isn't true or even a useful attitude. The customer either pays money and leaves, or is an annoying pillock; management just insists that staff be two-faced about it and humor them (in public).
Exactly. They haven't learned to be two faced and humor the bad customers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: OK, now that we've got the "Customer is right" nonsense out of the way, can someone explain why Girlbusters is the hill that Les Jones wants to die upon?
]
I haven't really paid much attention to her film career so I could be wrong, but I assume this is her only hill.
cuda1179 wrote: Actually.... You are pretty far behind the times on this. Journalists all ready are trashing fans of the original series, and have been for a week. I'm not just talking about fringe elements either, I'm talking about mainstream publications like Forbes.
Do you have a source for this claim? I just read 3 articles on the Forbes site (well, skimmed them) and didn't really see anything like that. The closest they came to was
It wasn’t. The reboot wasn’t clever, or funny, but bland, and the gender politics magnified the controversy, warping it into an ideological debate. And Ghostbusters is not the correct battleground for such a conversation.
It was a similar situation to what happened with The Last Jedi, in which hateful trolls were lumped in with disappointed fans, and the two groups started to exchange DNA. The discourse becomes so removed from the original point that it isolates angry, frustrated fans, who aren’t exactly the most reasonable at the best of times, prompting many to direct their anger against progressive causes.
Which was pretty insightful, and made a distinction between the fandom, and the trolls. And wasn't even about GB, to boot.
There was a different article that points out the GB3 director had had a string of flops and is failing upwards to this film, which seems both accurate and uncontroversial.
So obviously you saw something else which I didn't find.
To quote Forbes: "You're essentially rewarding the specific demographics who reacted in the very worst way to the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot with the thing they claimed to want instead of the... horrors... all female sci-fi comedy." Later saying GB2016 was at least as good as the 1984 original.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I am hoping for deadpan humor set against effects that are spooky rather than IN UR FACE, at least until the third act.
I hope they throw a few jokes out there that make you think for a second before realizing it's funny, preferably stated by someone using a serious tone (AKA the 30-foot Twinkie). Also a couple cheap gross-out slapstick scenes to break the tension.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m especially curious, as that was the point of the fething thread in the first place.
Well, you're the OP so I would have to let you speak to the point of the thread in the first place. However, where this thread was always going to go was 20% to talking about the movie, and 80% butthurt patrol to be outraged about the "outrage".
We need to go deeper.
Deeper...into the butthurt? I'm pretty sure that isn't the solution to anything or serves any useful purpose.
Manchu wrote: None of those anecdotes involves getting back in the face of a critical customer.
If you’re advocating that studios should just not respond to criticism, OK that is probably leaving opportunity on the table but I would agree it is vastly superior to accusing your customers of being bigots.
Oh, I told the woman who punched the wall never to call us again, we wojld not be delivering food to her and she was blacklisted, in person. I also told the man who physically assaulted me, after I defended myself, security would be up immediately and if he was found outside of his room he would be restrained for the safety of others on the floor. The woman using racial slurs on the phone I told we dont serve pieces of gap here so she may want to check with the local sewage treatment services if she was hungry.
gonna skip joining in the controversy part of the thread and just comment on what i'd maybe like to see for the movie
Original group is old, tired, and have franchised ghostbustering, so passing the touch can be the new whoever it will be crew buying in to the brand to set up shop....well, any major city really, so options abound there, and then the fun of them trying to make it doing the job they totally thought they could do, but are really bad at for a while or something. hell, you could have them comparing themselves to a crew from another city thats tv famous or something
you get the scary from the newbies trying to go after the ghosts, and the comedy from them fething up at it
cuda1179 wrote: Actually.... You are pretty far behind the times on this. Journalists all ready are trashing fans of the original series, and have been for a week. I'm not just talking about fringe elements either, I'm talking about mainstream publications like Forbes.
Do you have a source for this claim? I just read 3 articles on the Forbes site (well, skimmed them) and didn't really see anything like that. The closest they came to was
It wasn’t. The reboot wasn’t clever, or funny, but bland, and the gender politics magnified the controversy, warping it into an ideological debate. And Ghostbusters is not the correct battleground for such a conversation.
It was a similar situation to what happened with The Last Jedi, in which hateful trolls were lumped in with disappointed fans, and the two groups started to exchange DNA. The discourse becomes so removed from the original point that it isolates angry, frustrated fans, who aren’t exactly the most reasonable at the best of times, prompting many to direct their anger against progressive causes.
Which was pretty insightful, and made a distinction between the fandom, and the trolls. And wasn't even about GB, to boot.
There was a different article that points out the GB3 director had had a string of flops and is failing upwards to this film, which seems both accurate and uncontroversial.
So obviously you saw something else which I didn't find.
To quote Forbes: "You're essentially rewarding the specific demographics who reacted in the very worst way to the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot with the thing they claimed to want instead of the... horrors... all female sci-fi comedy." Later saying GB2016 was at least as good as the 1984 original.
That doesn't seem to match what you claimed was said - that they were "trashing fans of the original series".
cuda1179 wrote: Actually.... You are pretty far behind the times on this. Journalists all ready are trashing fans of the original series, and have been for a week. I'm not just talking about fringe elements either, I'm talking about mainstream publications like Forbes.
Do you have a source for this claim? I just read 3 articles on the Forbes site (well, skimmed them) and didn't really see anything like that. The closest they came to was
It wasn’t. The reboot wasn’t clever, or funny, but bland, and the gender politics magnified the controversy, warping it into an ideological debate. And Ghostbusters is not the correct battleground for such a conversation.
It was a similar situation to what happened with The Last Jedi, in which hateful trolls were lumped in with disappointed fans, and the two groups started to exchange DNA. The discourse becomes so removed from the original point that it isolates angry, frustrated fans, who aren’t exactly the most reasonable at the best of times, prompting many to direct their anger against progressive causes.
Which was pretty insightful, and made a distinction between the fandom, and the trolls. And wasn't even about GB, to boot.
There was a different article that points out the GB3 director had had a string of flops and is failing upwards to this film, which seems both accurate and uncontroversial.
So obviously you saw something else which I didn't find.
To quote Forbes: "You're essentially rewarding the specific demographics who reacted in the very worst way to the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot with the thing they claimed to want instead of the... horrors... all female sci-fi comedy." Later saying GB2016 was at least as good as the 1984 original.
That doesn't seem to match what you claimed was said - that they were "trashing fans of the original series".
When these outlets have spent three+ years writing material that paints "demographics who reacted in the very worst way" as being synonymous with "anyone who didn't like the movie and stated so publicly", I'd say it does. It's a dogwhistle.
It also carries the bizarre implication that movies should be made in order to punish or reward social behavior rather than being made to be entertaining or profitable. That's a weird perspective.
There were one or two of the cartoon episodes that were interesting such as the Roller Coaster that came alive and Ray employs a fireman's tactic of indicating that he's there to help or something? That would make for an interesting vfx sequence while filling in for the godzilla-ghost role that the Marshmallow Man and Statue of Liberty played in the previous movies.
Thinking on it further, that would be a nice homage to the end of The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms.
cuda1179 wrote: Actually.... You are pretty far behind the times on this. Journalists all ready are trashing fans of the original series, and have been for a week. I'm not just talking about fringe elements either, I'm talking about mainstream publications like Forbes.
Do you have a source for this claim? I just read 3 articles on the Forbes site (well, skimmed them) and didn't really see anything like that. The closest they came to was
It wasn’t. The reboot wasn’t clever, or funny, but bland, and the gender politics magnified the controversy, warping it into an ideological debate. And Ghostbusters is not the correct battleground for such a conversation.
It was a similar situation to what happened with The Last Jedi, in which hateful trolls were lumped in with disappointed fans, and the two groups started to exchange DNA. The discourse becomes so removed from the original point that it isolates angry, frustrated fans, who aren’t exactly the most reasonable at the best of times, prompting many to direct their anger against progressive causes.
Which was pretty insightful, and made a distinction between the fandom, and the trolls. And wasn't even about GB, to boot.
There was a different article that points out the GB3 director had had a string of flops and is failing upwards to this film, which seems both accurate and uncontroversial.
So obviously you saw something else which I didn't find.
To quote Forbes: "You're essentially rewarding the specific demographics who reacted in the very worst way to the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot with the thing they claimed to want instead of the... horrors... all female sci-fi comedy." Later saying GB2016 was at least as good as the 1984 original.
That doesn't seem to match what you claimed was said - that they were "trashing fans of the original series".
When these outlets have spent three+ years writing material that paints "demographics who reacted in the very worst way" as being synonymous with "anyone who didn't like the movie and stated so publicly", I'd say it does. It's a dogwhistle.
So it didn't start in the last week, it actually started 3 years ago. I see, he was just mistaken on the timeframe, and that's not at all the goalposts being moved.
cuda1179 wrote: The same article did dump of people that wanted nostalgic sequels rather than reboots.
Ignore him dude, keep telling you lol, he knows he is just playing stupid to troll.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. This is the third or fourth time in this thread that you've claimed that, and I am tired of reporting your comments to have them removed. If you filter the thread by my name, you will see I am engaging in this thread in good faith. I have no idea what your personal problem is with me, and I don't really give a gak, but why don't you put me on ignore, or report my "trolling" to the mods, and take up more fruitful pursuits. I suggest learning the difference between an O and a Q on your keyboard: my name is only 4 characters and yet you still manage a 25% error rate without fail - remarkable.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. This is the third or fourth time in this thread that you've claimed that, and I am tired of reporting your comments to have them removed. If you filter the thread by my name, you will see I am engaging in this thread in good faith. I have no idea what your personal problem is with me, and I don't really give a gak, but why don't you put me on ignore, or report my "trolling" to the mods, and take up more fruitful pursuits. I suggest learning the difference between an O and a Q on your keyboard: my name is only 4 characters and yet you still manage a 25% error rate without fail - remarkable.
Is this what you would consider to be engaging in good faith?
However, where this thread was always going to go was 20% to talking about the movie, and 80% butthurt patrol to be outraged about the "outrage".
cuda1179 wrote: The same article did dump of people that wanted nostalgic sequels rather than reboots.
Ignore him dude, keep telling you lol, he knows he is just playing stupid to troll.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. This is the third or fourth time in this thread that you've claimed that, and I am tired of reporting your comments to have them removed. If you filter the thread by my name, you will see I am engaging in this thread in good faith. I have no idea what your personal problem is with me, and I don't really give a gak, but why don't you put me on ignore, or report my "trolling" to the mods, and take up more fruitful pursuits. I suggest learning the difference between an O and a Q on your keyboard: my name is only 4 characters and yet you still manage a 25% error rate without fail - remarkable.
I am stating that you are trolling because this and other threads you clearly know what he is talking about but are playing stupid, that to me is trolling and absolutely not good faith, and I know you know what he is talking about Ouze because you have touched on this subject many many times, but for whatever reason you are choosing to play dumb this time.
He has explained himself quite well and in context, so if you are not understanding him its because you are choosing not to, I.E trolling.
Formosa wrote: I am stating that you are trolling because this and other threads you clearly know what he is talking about but are playing stupid
I don't think I follow this topic as closely as you seem to think I do (outside of Dakka, anyway). For example, I do not have a Twitter account and never have. I certainly don't read Forbes regularly.
Again, I suggest you put me on ignore or report my "rulebreaking" posts.
Sony absolutely bought into the hater = bigot thing, so arguing without accepting that is the same as ignoring that the earth is round. Just as the Flat Earthers exist as card-carrying trolls (the FE Society will send you an official membership card for a nominal fee), Ouze is obviously trolling, and he is trolling when he claims ignorance.
But, Ouze, are you arguing there has not been a strategy on the part of, for example, Sony to spin legitimate criticism of the movie as bigotry?
Let me answer this in an odd order.
I will say that when Leslie Jones expressed frustration over the franchise not continuing, I didn't see it in as machiavellian of a light as you did. I thought she was just honestly frustrated, not seeking a way to drum up publicity; but I will allow that perhaps that is naive of me as well. Maybe she felt like she especially bled for the movie since her nudes got hacked as a likely response to it, so seeing it all have been for nothing must have been especially galling. I will again reiterate that being mad that they chose not to continue a franchise that lost $70 million at the box office is pretty dumb, she should have known there wouldn't be a sequel about 2 weeks after the movie came out.
But I would seperate that out from a film studio trying their best to polish what they must have known early on was a turd. I don't know that there has or has not been a media management strategy to build up the negative comments as a way of framing seeing the movie as a way against... fighting trolls or whatever, but I wouldn't discount it either. I think one of you guys said something about manipulating youtube comments? Amy Pascal seems like a pretty lousy person so I can't give her much benefit of the doubt.
There is genuinely the weirdest hatred of this movie though, and that more than anything else I don't think I will ever really understand. For all the rage that was, or wasn't, spun by the studio it seems like there is a genuine vein of it in every one of these discussions not very far from the surface.
Honestly they could probably make it work pretty well I think. The Ghostbuster ghosts were never totally photo realistic to start, so they could make a caricature of him that avoids the uncanny valley problem by simply embracing it.
But, Ouze, are you arguing there has not been a strategy on the part of, for example, Sony to spin legitimate criticism of the movie as bigotry?
Let me answer this in an odd order.
I will say that when Leslie Jones expressed frustration over the franchise not continuing, I didn't see it in as machiavellian of a light as you did. I thought she was just honestly frustrated, not seeking a way to drum up publicity; but I will allow that perhaps that is naive of me as well. Maybe she felt like she especially bled for the movie since her nudes got hacked as a likely response to it, so seeing it all have been for nothing must have been especially galling. I will again reiterate that being mad that they chose not to continue a franchise that lost $70 million at the box office is pretty dumb, she should have known there wouldn't be a sequel about 2 weeks after the movie came out.
But I would seperate that out from a film studio trying their best to polish what they must have known early on was a turd. I don't know that there has or has not been a media management strategy to build up the negative comments as a way of framing seeing the movie as a way against... fighting trolls or whatever, but I wouldn't discount it either. I think one of you guys said something about manipulating youtube comments? Amy Pascal seems like a pretty lousy person so I can't give her much benefit of the doubt.
There is genuinely the weirdest hatred of this movie though, and that more than anything else I don't think I will ever really understand. For all the rage that was, or wasn't, spun by the studio it seems like there is a genuine vein of it in every one of these discussions not very far from the surface.
I think a noticeable amount of the hate the movie got wasn't really because of the movie, but because the studio lashed out at fans. Let's say I were a street artist and I drew a bad piece of art. If people said, "dang, that's bad", and I yelled at them " you only hate it because I'm a Jew!!! ", well I'd likely have more people mad at me and my art than the all ready bad critique it deserves.
There is genuinely the weirdest hatred of this movie though, and that more than anything else I don't think I will ever really understand. For all the rage that was, or wasn't, spun by the studio it seems like there is a genuine vein of it in every one of these discussions not very far from the surface.
Don't presume to read people's minds. If someone is raising rational points of criticism for the movie or for the narrative of toxic fandom, and you decide to read from that an emotional motivation that is not clear in a textual manner, then you are not engaging in good faith. In this particular thread, the topic would not have come up at all if a couple of users didn't immediately begin making predictions of horrific behavior against the cast based on the word of the studio and entertainment media. Nearly everyone who expressed their opinions about the 2016 movie just said that it was disappointingly bad, and if I'm not mistaken I believe that all of us share that sentiment. If there is a consensus that the movie was not good, and you have people dispassionately expressing that opinion, it doesn't make sense to infer from that some kind of ulterior motive.
Haven't you yourself said that the movie was bad, in much the same language as anyone else? If so, your criteria for believing that someone is irrationally hateful about it is not that they express the same opinion, but that they object to the narrative that they are irrationally hateful about it. So you've set a standard whereby protesting your innocence about something makes you guilty, and the only way to avoid the accusation of guilt is not to speak up or question the narrative of toxic fandom. That's the kind of thinking behind witch trials and inquisitions.
Boy, this really escalated with that last bit there.
No, I say that based upon the related context. For example, the Youtube trailer is (or at least was iirc) the most disliked video in Youtube history. That's some really abnormal action right there for a movie that really didn't seem to warrant it. Bad as it was I would say The Predator was clearly worse.
I don't remember the exact time line of events, but if the studio and media were lashing out at fans then you could easily assume there would be backlash against the trailer itself. In any case, you claimed that this type of hatred was "under the surface" right here on Dakka. My point is that you can't just assume that based on the reaction to the trailer, and ascribe motivations to individual users here without any other logical reason to do so. It may seem like an exaggeration to say that type of thought leads to witch trials, but it's true even if you're not out lighting pyres in a literal sense. You can't just assume that people have heresy in their hearts because they're not publicly displaying their faith.
cuda1179 wrote: I think a noticeable amount of the hate the movie got wasn't really because of the movie, but because the studio lashed out at fans.
Let's say I were a street artist and I drew a bad piece of art. If people said, "dang, that's bad", and I yelled at them " you only hate it because I'm a Jew!!! ",
I'd likely have more people mad at me and my art than the all ready bad critique it deserves.
That's basically it, except that your street art is actually graffiti spray-painted over an existing mural, and all of your homeless friends are screaming that "anybody who doesn't love your street art is a fething Nazi!", equating anyone who loved the mural as a Nazi.
That's basically it, except that your street art is actually graffiti spray-painted over an existing mural, and all of your homeless friends are screaming that "anybody who doesn't love your street art is a fething Nazi!", equating anyone who loved the mural as a Nazi.
There's a very easy way to test whether or not this is a logical conclusion.
Do people hate Paul Feig comedies with all-female casts?
No, they're extremely popular and successful.
Do people hate sci-fi movies with female leads?
No, some of the most beloved films of all time feature female leads who are revered and iconic characters.
Do people hate it when a popular franchise is used as window dressing for a Paul Feig comedy, and fans are told that they're bigots if that's not what they already knew they always wanted?
Obviously.
Luciferian wrote: I don't remember the exact time line of events, but if the studio and media were lashing out at fans then you could easily assume there would be backlash against the trailer itself. In any case, you claimed that this type of hatred was "under the surface" right here on Dakka. My point is that you can't just assume that based on the reaction to the trailer, and ascribe motivations to individual users here without any other logical reason to do so. It may seem like an exaggeration to say that type of thought leads to witch trials, but it's true even if you're not out lighting pyres in a literal sense. You can't just assume that people have heresy in their hearts because they're not publicly displaying their faith.
The gakstorm started around the time the cast was announced, well before the trailer.
Even the most radical of people can act polite and dignified when their guards are up. It's once they feel comfortable that their language slips and the beast is unleashed.
Sony absolutely bought into the hater = bigot thing, so arguing without accepting that is the same as ignoring that the earth is round. Just as the Flat Earthers exist as card-carrying trolls (the FE Society will send you an official membership card for a nominal fee), Ouze is obviously trolling, and he is trolling when he claims ignorance.
In Sony's defense, so much of the hate was directed at the very concept of the film without anyone really seeing it, it wasn't exactly the most unreasonable assumption to make. Not that there wasn't plenty from the trailer to be skeptical about, but the hate was definitely a bit above the level of an iffy trailer.
Original group is old, tired, and have franchised ghostbustering, so passing the touch can be the new whoever it will be crew buying in to the brand to set up shop....well, any major city really, so options abound there, and then the fun of them trying to make it doing the job they totally thought they could do, but are really bad at for a while or something. hell, you could have them comparing themselves to a crew from another city thats tv famous or something
you get the scary from the newbies trying to go after the ghosts, and the comedy from them fething up at it
Given this is a premise set up in the first movie, its definitely a good direction to go.
The gakstorm started around the time the cast was announced, well before the trailer.
Even the most radical of people can act polite and dignified when their guards are up. It's once they feel comfortable that their language slips and the beast is unleashed.
You're just engaging in the same kind of inquisitorial logic I was talking about, ever vigilant for signs of heresy that you suspect lies in wait behind the placid facade of your fellow man. I mean, just look at the language you are using.
Formosa wrote: As long as it has the original cast as leads im in, if its anything like the 2016 one im out
So, you're hoping for a return of Harold Ramis as a CGI ghost?
That would actually be an interesting idea for the entire movie. CGI "humans" do have their place - Klu from Tron: Legacy( he already exists in a digital world ) and a younger Leia at the end of Rogue One to be a foil to Darth Vader and to flow into ANH. Like Klu, Egon would already be accepted as a visual effect character if he was to be a ghost, and in that form he could be one to help progress the story by feeding information to his living colleagues. With the deepest of respect to Harold, Egon's passing could also be an opportunity for a bit of...black comedy, where one of his experiments goes very wrong, but when he finds himself on the other side hes like "Oh. Well at least we know that doesnt work" or something to that effect.
Also, if the remaining cast wants to put their characters to rest, then maybe they have to do something towards the end where they have to enter the "spirit world" and join Egon to put things right...and its a one-way ticket. So long as they keep the translucient effect with a very good voice artist, I really see merit in that idea.
I personally love the big pushes to bring a digital human to life on the big screen, but for it to work there has to be a genuine reason for it. Rogue One is a great example of both when to use a digital double and when not to...
Carrie Fisher( we miss you terribly! ) was too mature to pass for her younger self, but with the forces of darkness having their champion, Darth Vader, present in the finale it was only right to see his counterpart to represent the forces of light - "hope" as it were. It was for a moment only and in it we are like "OMG! YOUNG LEIA!" to deliver a quick word and then "iris-out" to the credits. It didn't outstay its welcome...
Personally, it was great to see "Peter Cushing" on the big screen and felt they had done him as best as technology and art will allow. However, with Krennic essentially being a stand in character he could have just reported to Vader, with Vader threatening to reveal his incompetence to the Emperor and Tarkin. Tarkin has too much screen time to accept as a real actor and unlike Klu in T:L he just doesn't have anything to help suspend the disbelief. At best, Tarkin could have been used as sparingly as Leia...
Sorry to bang on, but I find your idea fascinating...
I think Predator was better than GB16. They’re both stupid, but Predator still entertained as an action movie, while I didn’t find GB really at all funny.
AduroT wrote: I think Predator was better than GB16. They’re both stupid, but Predator still entertained as an action movie, while I didn’t find GB really at all funny.
To be fair the extended cut does have some fun moments; the dorky "protect the barrier!" school presentation and the emergency services being forced to dance against their will come to mind.
The gakstorm started around the time the cast was announced, well before the trailer.
Even the most radical of people can act polite and dignified when their guards are up. It's once they feel comfortable that their language slips and the beast is unleashed.
You're just engaging in the same kind of inquisitorial logic I was talking about, ever vigilant for signs of heresy that you suspect lies in wait behind the placid facade of your fellow man. I mean, just look at the language you are using.
You don't have to be vigilant. Let someone talk long enough and the racism and sexism slip out. Hell, now and days people are proud of it.
I thought Ghostbusters merely sucked, I left The Predator mad.
It wasn't terrible all the way through (although there were always rich veins of mediocrity flowing throughout, some scenese were indeed entertaining - I loved the "thumbs-up' on the bus for sure) but man, that post-credits scene just took a giant steamy dook on the whole mythos.
Ouze wrote: I thought Ghostbusters merely sucked, I left The Predator mad.
I have a hard time fathoming that Ghostbusters 2016 can be anywhere near as bad as The Predator. The Predator was bad in every way I think a movie can be bad and it's the only movie I can think of like that.
It's like there's "awful" and then there's "The Predator."
All the studios are after the franchise money and no matter how warn a property is there is someone out there going to try to make a dollar off it. The sad truth is studios now don't care about the movies, they want
the toy-line tie in, with restaurants buying the rights to the movie, etc. Just like the mummy was to kick off the "dark universe".. They needed to make sure the movie is good before thinking it would kick off a franchise.
But with a franchise they can plan on butts in the seats for each move.. you would think they would want to do right and make sure the movie is good.. but just look at the past few years that we had movies
that was start one or continue one.. and they didn't live up to anything..Mummy, Predator, Ghost buster 2016, Last Jedi and many move. They all where not good movies, and relied heavily on the existing property to get people
to go see it. If the studio just made that movie without anything linked to it.. they could ask.. is this a good movie??
I haven't seen the Predator, but I agree with the sentiment that none of the remakes or reboots in the recent cultural wasteland have been very good. It just brings me back to the question I asked earlier. How long are people going to keep paying to see these movies?
Luciferian wrote: I haven't seen the Predator, but I agree with the sentiment that none of the remakes or reboots in the recent cultural wasteland have been very good. It just brings me back to the question I asked earlier. How long are people going to keep paying to see these movies?
I'm going to do my part and skip this one.
The Predator is a sequel and feels like its aim is to celebrate the previous movies rather than replace or compete with them. There are nods to all three previous films and even sets itself aside by being a bit of an A-Team tribute.
I won't lie, its not Citizen Kane but at least a good laugh.
No one really expected Citizen Kane though. They expected a tense action thriller (with some campy bits) of man vs. alien cat and mouse, where the alien is largely winning.
GB2016 is similar. It didn't need to be a mirror to the first one. But it needed at least some of the following:
- to build on what it was presenting (the initial 'haunted house' up ate a ridiculous amount of screen time, with a wokrkable premise for a ghostly villain, then was outright abandoned in favor of a non-entity)
- the director needed to learn how to pattern the dialogue and jokes on the right timing, rather than encourage them to ramble on long past the sell by date.
- the whole entire 30 minutes of 'finale' needed a point and purpose beyond 'show off really boring CGI and time-slows'
Nothing, but nothing, in the film 'closed the deal' in any way. Every scene just lingered on uncomfortably, then was jettisoned and no longer relevant.
----
The new one is going to live or die based on the chemistry between the actors (especially if they go with a bunch of youngsters in a new generation). If they can't banter or get too caught up in overly-indulgent romantic subplots it's going to choke. They need to focus on the people (as authentic-seeming people) and punctuate with the supernatural, not get hung up on the tech or weird action shots.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you think it's become so easy to do CGI that some directors prefer that to the mess and expense of actual shoots with real actors?
Hmm. I'm not sure its a matter of ease. I do think some directors don't know how to direct it or integrate it well, and it just becomes its own weird bubble that happens according to the animators' collective whimsy, rather than central to the plot or characters.
That certainly happened in the Hobbit movies, where the story was just barged aside at random points for half an hour of cartoon antics.
A lot of modern films I just find myself checking out during the CGI sequences, and wander back when the action stops and actual people start talking to each other again.
One of the best things about films from the 80's and 90's was practical, in-camera effects. That includes the original Ghost Busters. CGI just can't recreate the same authenticity (or hilarious campiness) in the same way. I think that when you had to plan a film around physical effects shots involving the actual actors it made everything more of a cohesive whole than constituent parts.
Luciferian wrote: One of the best things about films from the 80's and 90's was practical, in-camera effects. That includes the original Ghost Busters. CGI just can't recreate the same authenticity (or hilarious campiness) in the same way. I think that when you had to plan a film around physical effects shots involving the actual actors it made everything more of a cohesive whole than constituent parts.
Luciferian wrote: One of the best things about films from the 80's and 90's was practical, in-camera effects. That includes the original Ghost Busters. CGI just can't recreate the same authenticity (or hilarious campiness) in the same way. I think that when you had to plan a film around physical effects shots involving the actual actors it made everything more of a cohesive whole than constituent parts.
What about the FX in Highlander 2?
Now THAT is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
Luciferian wrote: One of the best things about films from the 80's and 90's was practical, in-camera effects. That includes the original Ghost Busters. CGI just can't recreate the same authenticity (or hilarious campiness) in the same way. I think that when you had to plan a film around physical effects shots involving the actual actors it made everything more of a cohesive whole than constituent parts.
Just finished leadbelchering a reaver while watching The Fly...incredible movie.
The 80s'n'90s were amazing times for vfx movies. Stopmotion found its technological peak while make up artists such as Rick Baker, Stan Winston and Rob Bottin were running away with the faries and delivering awesome work. CGI was emerging as the next big thing...
Happy times I'm sure we all have some experience of.
Using the Fly as an example, do you remember the bit where Seth smashes the door frame with his bare fist? Great example of the entire movie - all done practical. And unlike most other vfx movies of the 80s/90s everything was done in shot. None of this matt compositing work which doesn't quite work in many movies from that era. Even the awesome Empire Strikes Back had some noticable transparency in the film where one wouldn't mind some digital touching up. But the Fly...holy crap - amazing.
True, CGI became the all-in-one method of vfx, but the classic methods are starting to make a welcome comeback. For example, From Morningside Productions and the Harryhousen Foundation is the forthcoming Force of the Trojans which will be using stopmotion in the style of Ray and Charles' "monster movies while using CGI for compositing and effects where it is needed.
The new Star Wars movies are using more practical effects than ever before, making good use of locations in and around the UK. Directors prefer a practical effect to a CGI one - something they can see and shoot on set...
Luciferian wrote: One of the best things about films from the 80's and 90's was practical, in-camera effects. That includes the original Ghost Busters. CGI just can't recreate the same authenticity (or hilarious campiness) in the same way. I think that when you had to plan a film around physical effects shots involving the actual actors it made everything more of a cohesive whole than constituent parts.
What about the FX in Highlander 2?
Now THAT is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
Luciferian wrote: One of the best things about films from the 80's and 90's was practical, in-camera effects. That includes the original Ghost Busters. CGI just can't recreate the same authenticity (or hilarious campiness) in the same way. I think that when you had to plan a film around physical effects shots involving the actual actors it made everything more of a cohesive whole than constituent parts.
What about the FX in Highlander 2?
Now THAT is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
Highlander 2 - one of only two movies I ever walked out on...
Hopeful that Ghostbusters 2020 will be decent though!
Luciferian wrote: I haven't seen the Predator, but I agree with the sentiment that none of the remakes or reboots in the recent cultural wasteland have been very good. It just brings me back to the question I asked earlier. How long are people going to keep paying to see these movies?
I'm going to do my part and skip this one.
The Predator is a sequel and feels like its aim is to celebrate the previous movies rather than replace or compete with them. There are nods to all three previous films and even sets itself aside by being a bit of an A-Team tribute.
I won't lie, its not Citizen Kane but at least a good laugh.
It utterly failed to celebrate anything. That movie got everything good about any predator movie incredibly wrong. It did have 1 good scene though. The breaking out of the lab massacre. From the moment the pred wakes up it's good while that pred is on screen.
It utterly failed to celebrate anything. That movie got everything good about any predator movie incredibly wrong. It did have 1 good scene though. The breaking out of the lab massacre. From the moment the pred wakes up it's good while that pred is on screen.
Ah, thats cool beans. Personally, I felt they had done a much better job than Predators where it felt like a fan fiction preaching on "why the first movie is the best" only to miss the mark completely. At least with The Predator the A-Team theme( escaped military prisoners who should be harded criminals but are really a bunch of muppets ) allowed for a somewhat connected team once again like in the first two movies, and when each one got whacked there was at least some loss to be felt.
Regarding celebrating the previous movies; as much as Predators was disappointing it wasn't ignored. You had the pred-hounds and the two different classes of Predator. With Predator 2( criminally underrated sequel ) Gary Busey's son, Jake, is in the lab. Obviously the first movie got its fair share of nods...
Which leads me back into the thread topic of Ghostbusters. What could have strengthened GB16 was keeping within the world established in the first two movies. True, they had the original cast present in one form or another, but not their actual characters. I didnt mind it being a reboot, so to speak, but films like The Thing 2011 and The Predator, they don't just wipe the slate clean - they at least make an effort to acknowledge the films they are born from. They had part of it in place already; Ernie Hudson plays - briefly - the uncle of Patty...why not just make him Winston Zedmore already? How about Bill Murry had gone back to teaching and lecturing again, and Abby and Erin were his students. Ray somehow had horded all their old equipment...
The grumpy old men could have had a "get out there and do it yourself, like we had to" attitude to the girls...the possibilities were great, but for better or worse they made the bold move to just reboot instead.
Which leads me back into the thread topic of Ghostbusters. What could have strengthened GB16 was keeping within the world established in the first two movies. True, they had the original cast present in one form or another, but not their actual characters. I didnt mind it being a reboot, so to speak, but films like The Thing 2011 and The Predator, they don't just wipe the slate clean - they at least make an effort to acknowledge the films they are born from. They had part of it in place already; Ernie Hudson plays - briefly - the uncle of Patty...why not just make him Winston Zedmore already? How about Bill Murry had gone back to teaching and lecturing again, and Abby and Erin were his students. Ray somehow had horded all their old equipment...
The grumpy old men could have had a "get out there and do it yourself, like we had to" attitude to the girls...the possibilities were great, but for better or worse they made the bold move to just reboot instead.
When I heard of the all female cast, the idea I had was having Venkman lose control of the company to his ex-wife and she hires an all female crew.
I do understand why they choose to reboot, since passing the torch stories are harder to do. There is always the problem of the audience siding with the older characters and seeing the new ones as usurpers. Happens in comic books all the times. Take the Flash for instance. I thought the passing of the Flash mantle from Barry to Wally was really well done, but not everyone agreed and ultimately DC choose to undo it 20+ years later. A similar situation in Green Lantern was done quick and poorly and the fans revolted over it. Couldn't go to any comicbook forum without hearing "Hal Jordan is the only true Green Lantern" bullgak. The better characters don't always win.
It utterly failed to celebrate anything. That movie got everything good about any predator movie incredibly wrong. It did have 1 good scene though. The breaking out of the lab massacre. From the moment the pred wakes up it's good while that pred is on screen.
Ah, thats cool beans. Personally, I felt they had done a much better job than Predators where it felt like a fan fiction preaching on "why the first movie is the best" only to miss the mark completely. At least with The Predator the A-Team theme( escaped military prisoners who should be harded criminals but are really a bunch of muppets ) allowed for a somewhat connected team once again like in the first two movies, and when each one got whacked there was at least some loss to be felt.
Predators is great. As a movie taken out of the time of each predator movie it might even be the best predator movie. Because those movies are not about cohesive teams that suffer losses. It's about a vicious alien killer who hunts for sport. The game preserve element is a good twist.
Regarding celebrating the previous movies; as much as Predators was disappointing it wasn't ignored. You had the pred-hounds and the two different classes of Predator. With Predator 2( criminally underrated sequel ) Gary Busey's son, Jake, is in the lab. Obviously the first movie got its fair share of nods...
The new pred hounds were gross. And not in a way where a monster on screen is gross and thats cool. But gross in that the implication that the preds genetically engineer their own people into dogs is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. Predators WAS ignored. Regular Preds are at war with a bigger meaner variant of their species. That could be as simple as they are the Bad Blood clan from the comics given a new form on screen. Instead, Preds hunt people to collect DNA to mutate themselves. That ignores everything from every previous entry. The freshly blooded younger predator going on full safari in the 2nd movie makes no sense in the context of The Predator. Jake Busey being in the lab would have been great if his character had anything to do. He was 100% non essential to the plot and could have been played by anyone and named anything. He was generic lab scientist #4 who got killed just like generic Lab Scientist 1-3. How do you call Predators a fan fiction when all this lowest hanging fruit nods to the previous movies exist in The Predator? THIS was the fan fiction hack job.
Which leads me back into the thread topic of Ghostbusters. What could have strengthened GB16 was keeping within the world established in the first two movies. True, they had the original cast present in one form or another, but not their actual characters. I didnt mind it being a reboot, so to speak, but films like The Thing 2011 and The Predator, they don't just wipe the slate clean - they at least make an effort to acknowledge the films they are born from. They had part of it in place already; Ernie Hudson plays - briefly - the uncle of Patty...why not just make him Winston Zedmore already? How about Bill Murry had gone back to teaching and lecturing again, and Abby and Erin were his students. Ray somehow had horded all their old equipment...
The grumpy old men could have had a "get out there and do it yourself, like we had to" attitude to the girls...the possibilities were great, but for better or worse they made the bold move to just reboot instead.
If anyone is intelligent on any level when making another Predator movie they will either reboot from the begining and patch up the inconsistencies that exist in every movie except Predators or they will ignore that The Predator exists at all.
Ernie, Bill, and Dan didn't want to do another ghost busters movie. It's been off their table for a long long time. They are on recorded being VERY done with the movies. Doing brief cameos as a go ahead to the new cast was all anyone could get them to do.
I honestly think a Predator remake could actually do quite well. If you break Predator down to it's most basic elements, its First Blood except the cops are the heroes and Rambo is an inhuman monster. Or Commando, but you're rooting for Val Verde instead of Matrix. It's a subversion of classic action movies movies. That's kind of a timeless formula, and I think the inability to even try at replicating it is a big sign that movie makers don't really understand what made Predator so good while the sequels have been wildly inconsistent in quality.
I have been thinking about the claim that GB2016 is the victim of some kind of special or weird level of criticism. I don’t think that argument is very compelling.
A few years back, Fox informed us the Alien franchise was coming back with Sir Ridley at the helm. There was a lot of excitment. But the initial audience reaction to Prometheus upon release was hyperbolically negative — especially among long-time fans. Perhaps it might be said that Prometheus was the victim of some kind of weird fanboy hateboner?
Well, probably not. Over a decade before Prometheus was released, we were also told that Star Wars was coming back. Again, huge excitement. And then the aptly-named Phantom Menace was unleashed upon the world. Never has their been so much wailing and gnashing of teeth about movies, and it echoes down to this very day despite there being a whole new raft of disappointing Star Wars films currently underway.
Again, in 2011, we were told that the cinematic magic of Peter Jackon’s Middle-earth would once again delight moviegoers. The Hobbit films were increasingly derided as they released until by the third installment what might have been a triumphant conclusion was barely even relevant.
We could go on and on. I haven’t even mentioned Star Trek (too painful). GB2016 is just another failed attempt, among so very many, to capitalize on existing, beloved IPs by people who don’t understand or care about why they are enduring. There is nothing at all special about the disappointment and criticism surrounding GB2016. It will hardly be surprising if GB3 is also a disappointment.
The notion that GB2016 is a unique victim strikes me as another sly attempt to stop us from talking about the sub-par quality of the film and instead draw a line in the sand between an imaginary right side and wrong side of history, demanding that everyone pick — i.e., something that has absolutely nothing to do about a movie where some comical shlubs hunt ghosts.
If we discount the organized threats and harassment against the Cast and Director. As well as the hacking of Leslie Jones' website with racist pictures and the theft of her nude pictures. Then yes you could make that argument.
Manchu wrote: I have been thinking about the claim that GB2016 is the victim of some kind of special or weird level of criticism. I don’t think that argument is very compelling.
A few years back, Fox informed us the Alien franchise was coming back with Sir Ridley at the helm. There was a lot of excitment. But the initial audience reaction to Prometheus upon release was hyperbolically negative — especially among long-time fans. Perhaps it might be said that Prometheus was the victim of some kind of weird fanboy hateboner?
Well, probably not. Over a decade before Prometheus was released, we were also told that Star Wars was coming back. Again, huge excitement. And then the aptly-named Phantom Menace was unleashed upon the world. Never has their been so much wailing and gnashing of teeth about movies, and it echoes down to this very day despite there being a whole new raft of disappointing Star Wars films currently underway.
Again, in 2011, we were told that the cinematic magic of Peter Jackon’s Middle-earth would once again delight moviegoers. The Hobbit films were increasingly derided as they released until by the third installment what might have been a triumphant conclusion was barely even relevant.
We could go on and on. I haven’t even mentioned Star Trek (too painful). GB2016 is just another failed attempt, among so very many, to capitalize on existing, beloved IPs by people who don’t understand or care about why they are enduring. There is nothing at all special about the disappointment and criticism surrounding GB2016. It will hardly be surprising if GB3 is also a disappointment.
The notion that GB2016 is a unique victim strikes me as another sly attempt to stop us from talking about the sub-par quality of the film and instead draw a line in the sand between an imaginary right side and wrong side of history, demanding that everyone pick — i.e., something that has absolutely nothing to do about a movie where some comical shlubs hunt ghosts.
You have a few things wrong here.
1) Promethus was just bad. Any hate for promethius came after it's release and viewing. Not before.
2) Phantom Menace spent over an entire year when everyone collectively lied to each other and themselves saying it was good. It wasn't until about episode 3 when everyone finally admitted that all the prequels were gak.
3) Yup. The hobbit was obviously made into too many movies and the audience felt the fatigue from it.
And finally
4) Ghostbuster 2016 unlike all these other entries had hate BEFORE it was released. In fact it had hate before anyone had even seen anything about it when it was announced that it was an all girl cast. You are comparing apples to oranges. These things are not the same.
There is no right or wrong side. If you didn't like the movie then you didn't like the movie. But pretending that the movie wasn't being hated on before a single frame of footage was viewed is just pretending history didn't happen.
I think there are some unique situations in the examples you picked.
Prometheus: While Aliens is a beloved franchise, Prometheus came after 4 mediocre movies - Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection, AVP and AVP:R. I don't think expectations were very high for the movie, Sir Ridley or not. It was a distressed franchise.
Additionally while Prometheus was bad, it wasn't awful either. It cost $130m and brought in $400m, and the RT critic and reviewer score is close, they're both around 70%. It also was narratively seperated from the others Aliens movie, so it wasn't really a reboot. No one could claim it destroyed their childhood since this movie happened before Aliens and in a different place and the clear connections to the main Alien universe were always sort of tenuous until later.
The Hobbit is in the Prometheus boat. Not great, but not terrible, and seperated narratively.
Star Wars TPM: I think would surely have gotten the exact kind of hideous blowback and harassment and so on as GB16 got except by dint of when it came out: specifically, in a world when the ability to easily connect with a giant angry mob and start an epic monkey gak fling was very, very limited. Blogging was 3 years away. Youtube was 6 years away. Myspace was 4 years out. Twitter was 7 years away. If you hated the movie and you wanted to post Jake Lloyd's nudes to the world to teach him a lesson about... whatever (for example), you were very limited in how far you could spread it and you pretty much had to physically break into his house. Good luck finding said house by the way, Google wasn't big yet and he probably didn't list it in the Yahoo indexing request form.
Best you could practically do was put an angry screed up on your Geocities site next to the dancing babies and under construction spinning gifs.
I think there is something special about the kind of backlash GB16 has, but I also don't think it's like, unique to that movie forevermore. It came along at a perfect storm of many factors. You can see bits of it with TLJ too on this site - didn't every TLJ thread get locked because they turned into cesspools?
The problem with this discussion is it's sort of hard to avoid intermingling it with politics, but I will try to be oblique and brief: essentially, it came at a time where there was a resurgence of anger in the country about the perceived loss of dominance of some groups and the encroachment of other groups into new spaces (and the marketing to them, or pandering to them, pick whichever fits your level of cynicism). Look at the "feth your feelings" shirts. People were pissed. Part of why people hate the movie beyond how bad it was is what it represents - that's the only way I think I can really explain why people are so uniquely angry about such a meaningless mediocre movie. The most thumbed-down video on all of youtube; if that's not stigginit to the SJWs then I guess I dunno what is.
Nah, it’s just not convincing. No film has ever been hated like the SW prequels. Leslie Jones ain’t got gak on Jake Lloyd, or hell, even George Lucas. But anyhow it’s not to say that everything has always been the same at all times on this two-decade-and-counting reboot road we’re all barrelling down. Point is, by the time GB2016 waddled into the spotlight, good will had completely evaporated. Not because of politics. Not because of whatever your favorite talking head says is wrong with the world. It’s so much more obvious — we’d had this same Hollywood re-packaging shived down our throats since 1999 and the results were almost always gak. Utter gak. As discussed ITT, GB2016 isn’t even special for being a particularly egregious example. The only interesting thing about it at all is Sony decided to spin the massive cynicism with which audiences received their lazy, moronic movie, which of course just made people hate it more (also happened with TLJ).
Well, good for me I don't actually care if you are convinced or not.
The facts speak for themselves. Whether from some kind of reboot or rehash fatigue or whatever, the GB movie was trashed before it came out and everything else you were talking about was trashed after. GB 2020 doesn't appear to have the same hate bubbling under it that 2016 did and arguably it should be FARTHER into the reboot/rehash fatigue.
LOL I dunno where you’ve been but many reboots were trashed as trailers. Many of them start getting trashed when they are announced. Some get trashed as they are filmed, presumably by people working on the production itself.
Literally the only interesting thing about GB2016 is the studio got caught trying to flip the script.
Lance845 wrote: Well, good for me I don't actually care if you are convinced or not.
Then why are you working so hard to push a false narrative?
I am not pushing a false narrative.
Manchu tried to argue a point that somehow the hate directed at all female GB before its release till after it's release was equivalent to a story that has been a single 1.5 hour movie in the past being made into 3 2 hour movies, a prequel that barely had anything to do with the original movie, and the SW prequels that everyone pretended were good when they first came out.
No, you're saying it's about some kind of conspiracy, when the movie obviously disrespected the source material, and therefore deserves all of the scorn it received.
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, you're saying it's about some kind of conspiracy, when the movie obviously disrespected the source material, and therefore deserves all of the scorn it received.
He really isn't. He's pointing out that there is an additional 'rage stage' not present with other reboots/bad films, which is very true. GB2016 IS a bad film and does deserve scorn for the way it turned out, but that wasn't at all what the early rage was about. The film was unknown but the rage was all 'women as ghostbusters, Nooooo!' When that was the only detail known. And the reaction was not that polite or sane.
The only thing I'd argue about in his presentation is that people universally pretended the SW prequels were good. No one I know did that- they mostly complained. But that's off track.
Frankly, you can see it again with GB2020, though in the opposite direction. The trailer comments are speaking of the thing as their vaunted savior, come to rescue them from the horrors of women as main leads. Again without any actual knowledge of the film. Unsurprisingly there is a nasty faction out there, and their agenda isn't obscure. It isn't 'some kind of conspiracy,' it's people being openly hateful, and pretending it didn't/doesn't happen is poor form.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Given it's currently just a contextless soundbite, exactly how did GB16 'disrespect the source material'?
Three scientists form Ghostbusters. Recruit Spod of Colour. They then bust Ghosts.
Well for one, they only catch a single ghost, which they subsequently release to kill one of the original actors. They spend the rest of the movie killing ghosts.
Just incase anyone missed it, the following article mentions( at the end ) that they are going for teenagers, two male and two female characters this time...
...so, maybe the female ghostbusters did count for something - 50/50 this time instead of one or the other.
For the article itself, at least Paul is being a gentleman about it while still speaking his mind. He's already moved on and he'll probably cast Leslie in another film.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Given it's currently just a contextless soundbite, exactly how did GB16 'disrespect the source material'?
Three scientists form Ghostbusters. Recruit Spod of Colour. They then bust Ghosts.
Well for one, they only catch a single ghost, which they subsequently release to kill one of the original actors. They spend the rest of the movie killing ghosts.
Not sure there's a difference when it comes to Busting? Ghost dealt with, whether caught or chinned.
And I do believe Bill Murray said he'd only appear in another one if he was killed off?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Given it's currently just a contextless soundbite, exactly how did GB16 'disrespect the source material'?
Three scientists form Ghostbusters. Recruit Spod of Colour. They then bust Ghosts.
Well for one, they only catch a single ghost, which they subsequently release to kill one of the original actors. They spend the rest of the movie killing ghosts.
The main problem of the original movie was the purgatory for profit theme.
I wonder if those souls freed by Dickless consider him a Savior?
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, you're saying it's about some kind of conspiracy, when the movie obviously disrespected the source material, and therefore deserves all of the scorn it received.
I never said it was a conspiracy. I said people hated it beforr they saw anything of it. People didnt get together and make a plan to hate it. They just did. And the comparisons with other properties dont show any similarities.
SamusDrake wrote: Just incase anyone missed it, the following article mentions( at the end ) that they are going for teenagers, two male and two female characters this time...
...so, maybe the female ghostbusters did count for something - 50/50 this time instead of one or the other.
For the article itself, at least Paul is being a gentleman about it while still speaking his mind. He's already moved on and he'll probably cast Leslie in another film.
Not really, several of the original Ghostbuster 3 drafts were supposed to be at least 50/50.
I never said it was a conspiracy. I said people hated it beforr they saw anything of it. People didnt get together and make a plan to hate it. They just did. And the comparisons with other properties dont show any similarities.
Remakes tend to draw such reactions, especially now that we've got so many bad failed remakes that have killed their franchises.
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, you're saying it's about some kind of conspiracy, when the movie obviously disrespected the source material, and therefore deserves all of the scorn it received.
I never said it was a conspiracy. I said people hated it beforr they saw anything of it.
Nobody needs to see a remake to know it's a bad idea when the original is beloved, and the new cast is not.
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, you're saying it's about some kind of conspiracy, when the movie obviously disrespected the source material, and therefore deserves all of the scorn it received.
I never said it was a conspiracy. I said people hated it beforr they saw anything of it.
Nobody needs to see a remake to know it's a bad idea when the original is beloved, and the new cast is not.
Great. Good. Good observation. Nothing i said disagreed with that point of view. In fact, it reinforces my original point that manchu was arguing against. Ghost busters is one of the wierd 80s sacred cows that get people mad no matter what.
He really isn't. He's pointing out that there is an additional 'rage stage' not present with other reboots/bad films, which is very true.
It's nothing to do with the film being bad or a reboot.
Let's see..
Michael Keaton (or anyone else basically) as Batman
Heath Ledger as the Joker
Daniel Craig as Bond
Gal Gadot as WW
The "rage stage" is not new and can be seen all the way back through cinema history, heck, apparently the studio were trepidatious about backlash when casting Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara because she was British!
What happened with GB2016 was no different, but unlike objecting to Craig as a blonde Bond, or Keaton because of his largely comic CV, anything gender related is massively loaded, irrespective of whether the criticism attached is legitimate or prejudiced. But if I wanted to silence a particular element criticizing my film, a narrative developing that attached anything legitimate to the wagon of frothing misogynists would suit me just fine.
He really isn't. He's pointing out that there is an additional 'rage stage' not present with other reboots/bad films, which is very true.
It's nothing to do with the film being bad or a reboot.
Let's see..
Michael Keaton (or anyone else basically) as Batman
Heath Ledger as the Joker
Daniel Craig as Bond
Gal Gadot as WW
The "rage stage" is not new and can be seen all the way back through cinema history, heck, apparently the studio were trepidatious about backlash when casting Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara because she was British!
What happened with GB2016 was no different, but unlike objecting to Craig as a blonde Bond, or Keaton because of his largely comic CV, anything gender related is massively loaded, irrespective of whether the criticism attached is legitimate or prejudiced. But if I wanted to silence a particular element criticizing my film, a narrative developing that attached anything legitimate to the wagon of frothing misogynists would suit me just fine.
Good, so the pre movie rage about them being women was entirely legimate mysoginstic bull gak. And post movie there was a mix of people disliking the movie and more mysogynists. I am not debating how the studio handled it. I am saying gb 2016 had unreasonable hate before it happened far out of proportion from the other examples you gave and that hate carried through to after it released. Perhaps legitimate critisim was missed amongst all the garbage.
He really isn't. He's pointing out that there is an additional 'rage stage' not present with other reboots/bad films, which is very true.
It's nothing to do with the film being bad or a reboot.
Let's see..
Michael Keaton (or anyone else basically) as Batman
Heath Ledger as the Joker
Daniel Craig as Bond
Gal Gadot as WW
The "rage stage" is not new and can be seen all the way back through cinema history, heck, apparently the studio were trepidatious about backlash when casting Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara because she was British!
What happened with GB2016 was no different, but unlike objecting to Craig as a blonde Bond, or Keaton because of his largely comic CV, anything gender related is massively loaded, irrespective of whether the criticism attached is legitimate or prejudiced. But if I wanted to silence a particular element criticizing my film, a narrative developing that attached anything legitimate to the wagon of frothing misogynists would suit me just fine.
Good, so the pre movie rage about them being women was entirely legimate mysoginstic bull gak.
FFS.
No.
Not unless every other fan base raging about every other casting of every other character was also somehow a bunch of bigots raging because there were/weren't female/black/Asian/male/brunette/blonde/funny/serious/tall/short/buff/weedy enough to play the role. People objected to JLaw because she was too pretty to play Katniss.
Pretty much without exception, the casting of any well loved pre-existing character attracts controversy. When that controversy is allied with something as politically charged as gender politics are in the current environment, inside Hollywood and out, then people who have less than savoury views are going to be attracted to it. Unless you're new to the internet you'll realize that these sorts of discussion almost always polarize into extremes, which will attract the most attention irrespective of how representative they are.
Much like the Last Jedi, this then creates an environment where anyone voicing legitimate criticism can be neatly written off because they're a bigot, which then serves to mute any more moderate criticism because people just get sick of being shouted down and misrepresented.
So in actual fact we have separate stages 1) controversy over recasting of characters (not unique) which becomes politicized because it's about gender and a minority view which gets excessive coverage because extremes are where the clicks are, and 2) a crappy movie which can't be criticized in some quarters because the environment created by the media around the casting has meant that the whole thing has become a gender-based powder keg.
I think the mistake you're making is conflating online reaction and real life. The overwhelming majority of people in the world couldn't give a gak about GB2016 and it's casting, in fact, in a truly global sense it's possible that the majority don't even know it exists. Online is full of people who have a living to make and do so by driving controversy and therefore clicks, and a percentage who will go after people purely for the sake of it for no other reason than to watch the world burn. Up to and including hacking and sending death threats.
These were not pre existing characters. In fact, we didnt know anything about their characters. All we knew was a new ghostbusters. This time they are women.
Hating based on that information alone is mysogony.
100% i agree that online reaction is different from global population reaction. But we are not talking about what % of humanity was a big bag of dicks. Were talking about the loud big bag of dicks that raged. And they raged more, about this, then any other example given so far.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Im not interested in the conspiracy that everyone with any criticsm gets lumped in with the bigots on purpose for the sake of big movie crushing critiques.
Im interested in the fact that these ass hole DO exist, did these things, made people suffer for doing their job with harrassment. I am also interested in the idea that not only can nobody mention that it happened without hearing about your (not YOU, the royal your) conspiracy, but manchu and others just flat out deny that it ever even happened.
*Hand raised* I refused to see GB 2016 simply because I hate Melissa McCarthy as an actress in the same way I hate Will Ferrell. I find them both talentless, idiotic wastes of movie roles. I won’t spend a dime on any movie she appears in (had nothing against the rest of the cast). But then the trailer looked like gak, and made me more comfortable in my decision not to waste time on a project she was involved in.
Lance845 wrote: These were not pre existing characters. In fact, we didnt know anything about their characters. All we knew was a new ghostbusters. This time they are women.
Hating based on that information alone is mysogony.
So what it is it when people lose their gak about other castings when the actor/s in question aren't female? Nevertheless, it's slightly disingenuous to say "that's all we knew." We knew the actresses' previous movies, we knew what Ghostbusters had been previously. We also had a quartet that appeared to broadly fit the same paradigm on fast glance (the brainy one, the tubby light relief, the snarky one and the token one.) It's also frankly ludicrous to boil down what could be any number of objections, good old "fans hate change" being likely so far ahead of anything even slightly misogynistic as to render it insignificant.
100% i agree that online reaction is different from global population reaction. But we are not talking about what % of humanity was a big bag of dicks. Were talking about the loud big bag of dicks that raged. And they raged more, about this, then any other example given so far.
Did they though? Or was it just given higher priority on various newsfeeds?
Im not interested in the conspiracy that everyone with any criticsm gets lumped in with the bigots on purpose for the sake of big movie crushing critiques.
Im interested in the fact that these ass hole DO exist, did these things, made people suffer for doing their job with harrassment. I am also interested in the idea that not only can nobody mention that it happened without hearing about your (not YOU, the royal your) conspiracy, but manchu and others just flat out deny that it ever even happened.
The correct term in that context is "one" FYI, although the royal Your might have legs.
You're making a correlation without causation to some degree. Trolls exist. Trolls will do what they do every day. If there's something in the media that paints a crosshairs on someone, they're likely to draw disproportionate attention. You're assuming they were targeted because they're female and cast in those roles, when it's equally plausible that the standard furore around a new casting in a popular IP raised their profile and handed the trolls a convenient stick to beat them with. That's not misogyny because it has nothing to do with their being women and everything to do with some people are douchebags and will jump on anything indiscriminately.
@ azreal - show me where craig, keaton, or gal gadot got their nudes hacked ond wiki articles changed to racial slurs to show that its just media inflation and not an actual disproportionate amount of effort on behalf of the trolls?
@yodhrin - im not the one assuming everyone or anyone is out to get me and put lables on me because i didnt like a movie.
Lance845 wrote: These were not pre existing characters. In fact, we didnt know anything about their characters. All we knew was a new ghostbusters. This time they are women.
We knew that they deliberately had nothing to do with the original, and were being positioned as a complete replacement, as if the beloved original had never existed. And then the studio, like you, got behind the narrative that anyone who didn't like that change was a Nazi.
That's patently offensive to the fans and anyone who might have wanted to otherwise have made up their minds. Given the false dichotomy, it's better to be a Nazi.
Lance845 wrote: @ azreal - show me where craig, keaton, or gal gadot got their nudes hacked ond wiki articles changed to racial slurs to show that its just media inflation and not an actual disproportionate amount of effort on behalf of the trolls?
Only if you stop drawing false equivalencies. Abuse is abuse. If you're going to start arguing based on a hierarchy of what's worse being called x racial slur or y insult or that having one's digital privacy invaded is worse than physical etc etc then we can just cease discussion here, because that's futile and arbitrary.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Besides, you're still not proving your case of misogyny over my case of trolls are douchebags and will hit you any way they can. You need to demonstrate that what happened was because they're women, not because they're in the public eye and at the centre of a news story that made them an easy target.
Lance845 wrote: These were not pre existing characters. In fact, we didnt know anything about their characters. All we knew was a new ghostbusters. This time they are women.
We knew that they deliberately had nothing to do with the original, and were being positioned as a complete replacement, as if the beloved original had never existed. And then the studio, like you, got behind the narrative that anyone who didn't like that change was a Nazi.
That's patently offensive to the fans and anyone who might have wanted to otherwise have made up their minds. Given the false dichotomy, it's better to be a Nazi.
Turns out, I didn't say anyone not behind that change was a nazi. I said people who didn't like it purely because they were women were misogynists. The hate didn't start when we found out it was a reboot. The hate started the very moment it was an all female team. We didn't know if it was a reboot. We didn't know if they were taking over from the old team in the same continuity. We didn't know anything. It didn't stop the videos, the posts, and the tweets that women couldn't be ghost busters.
Again, conspiracy much? Don't put words in my mouth. Stop saying people are calling you things they didn't say. If you didn't want it to be a reboot fine. Fair. Good on you. Them being women isn't a factor then.
I said people who didn't like it purely because they were women were misogynists.
I'm not going to trawl back through every thing you've posted on the subject, but somehow I think if all you'd said was this single, self evident, line, expressed in that way, this conversation wouldn't have gone on half as long as it has.
Lance845 wrote: @ azreal - show me where craig, keaton, or gal gadot got their nudes hacked ond wiki articles changed to racial slurs to show that its just media inflation and not an actual disproportionate amount of effort on behalf of the trolls?
Only if you stop drawing false equivalencies. Abuse is abuse. If you're going to start arguing based on a hierarchy of what's worse being called x racial slur or y insult or that having one's digital privacy invaded is worse than physical etc etc then we can just cease discussion here, because that's futile and arbitrary.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Besides, you're still not proving your case of misogyny over my case of trolls are douchebags and will hit you any way they can. You need to demonstrate that what happened was because they're women, not because they're in the public eye and at the centre of a news story that made them an easy target.
Yes, articles such as this probably aren't helping stem the flow of negativity, but as soon as the idea was released into the wild, there were plenty of detractors online ready to flame the movie into oblivion before it even began production. While many of them are misogynistic "neckbeards" simply touting an ignorant sexist agenda, there are also those more reasoned skeptics who cite genuine reasons for concern about an all-female Ghostbusters flick. The point is that so many have already made their minds up about the new movie and simply aren't prepared to give it a chance, even if the trailer ends up looking not-awful. Though some might go see it out of morbid curiosity, plenty will likely boycott a film with no involvement from the original actors or creative minds, even if the all-girl cast could easily open the film up to a wider new audience (namely teenage girls). There's absolutely no way all this Internet bile will result in the movie bombing, but it doesn't exactly set a great precedent right out of the gate.
posted Oct 23rd 2014
How many examples do you need to be sufficient evidence exactly?
I said people who didn't like it purely because they were women were misogynists.
I'm not going to trawl back through every thing you've posted on the subject, but somehow I think if all you'd said was this single, self evident, line, expressed in that way, this conversation wouldn't have gone on half as long as it has.
I will.
Lance845 wrote: If you don't think the new cast is going to catch a bunch of gak you are kidding yourself. And if you think the female cast are not going to get a bunch of gak directed at them related to the fact that they are female you are delusional.
It doesn't matter how good the movie will/won't be. They are all going to get this gak before it ever releases in theaters. And if the movie is anything less the universally praised as the perfect sequel they will get even more after it comes out.
Luciferian wrote: I really think you guys might be overselling the harassment thing a bit. There is nothing special about Ghost Busters movies that make them targets of online harassment compared to pretty much anything people do in the public square. It's just that certain blogs get a lot of hate clicks when they report on some loser's nasty tweet.
I think Ghost Busters is one of many sacred cows that 80s idiots place on a pedestal.
Ghost busters gets gak like SW gets gak, like Back to the Future would get gak, so on and so forth. The harassment is inevitable for that alone. I don't think it will be a majority of people that would do it. Just like it wasn't a majority before. But that minority will be LOUD. Just like they have been before.
Manchu wrote: I have been thinking about the claim that GB2016 is the victim of some kind of special or weird level of criticism. I don’t think that argument is very compelling.
A few years back, Fox informed us the Alien franchise was coming back with Sir Ridley at the helm. There was a lot of excitment. But the initial audience reaction to Prometheus upon release was hyperbolically negative — especially among long-time fans. Perhaps it might be said that Prometheus was the victim of some kind of weird fanboy hateboner?
Well, probably not. Over a decade before Prometheus was released, we were also told that Star Wars was coming back. Again, huge excitement. And then the aptly-named Phantom Menace was unleashed upon the world. Never has their been so much wailing and gnashing of teeth about movies, and it echoes down to this very day despite there being a whole new raft of disappointing Star Wars films currently underway.
Again, in 2011, we were told that the cinematic magic of Peter Jackon’s Middle-earth would once again delight moviegoers. The Hobbit films were increasingly derided as they released until by the third installment what might have been a triumphant conclusion was barely even relevant.
We could go on and on. I haven’t even mentioned Star Trek (too painful). GB2016 is just another failed attempt, among so very many, to capitalize on existing, beloved IPs by people who don’t understand or care about why they are enduring. There is nothing at all special about the disappointment and criticism surrounding GB2016. It will hardly be surprising if GB3 is also a disappointment.
The notion that GB2016 is a unique victim strikes me as another sly attempt to stop us from talking about the sub-par quality of the film and instead draw a line in the sand between an imaginary right side and wrong side of history, demanding that everyone pick — i.e., something that has absolutely nothing to do about a movie where some comical shlubs hunt ghosts.
You have a few things wrong here.
1) Promethus was just bad. Any hate for promethius came after it's release and viewing. Not before.
2) Phantom Menace spent over an entire year when everyone collectively lied to each other and themselves saying it was good. It wasn't until about episode 3 when everyone finally admitted that all the prequels were gak.
3) Yup. The hobbit was obviously made into too many movies and the audience felt the fatigue from it.
And finally
4) Ghostbuster 2016 unlike all these other entries had hate BEFORE it was released. In fact it had hate before anyone had even seen anything about it when it was announced that it was an all girl cast. You are comparing apples to oranges. These things are not the same.
There is no right or wrong side. If you didn't like the movie then you didn't like the movie. But pretending that the movie wasn't being hated on before a single frame of footage was viewed is just pretending history didn't happen.
Lance845 wrote: Well, good for me I don't actually care if you are convinced or not.
The facts speak for themselves. Whether from some kind of reboot or rehash fatigue or whatever, the GB movie was trashed before it came out and everything else you were talking about was trashed after. GB 2020 doesn't appear to have the same hate bubbling under it that 2016 did and arguably it should be FARTHER into the reboot/rehash fatigue.
Lance845 wrote: Well, good for me I don't actually care if you are convinced or not.
Then why are you working so hard to push a false narrative?
I am not pushing a false narrative.
Manchu tried to argue a point that somehow the hate directed at all female GB before its release till after it's release was equivalent to a story that has been a single 1.5 hour movie in the past being made into 3 2 hour movies, a prequel that barely had anything to do with the original movie, and the SW prequels that everyone pretended were good when they first came out.
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, you're saying it's about some kind of conspiracy, when the movie obviously disrespected the source material, and therefore deserves all of the scorn it received.
I never said it was a conspiracy. I said people hated it beforr they saw anything of it. People didnt get together and make a plan to hate it. They just did. And the comparisons with other properties dont show any similarities.
And so on.... the rest is all on this page. Those are all my posts in this thread that relate to actual ghost busters. There are some I didn't include when we went on the small tirade about The Predator a couple pages ago. I didn't think they were relevant.
if they made that movie in the year of our lord 2019 you can bet your bum that the twitter mob would drop from on high in fake outrage.
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9187315/summer_boxoffice__3_.jpg)
