Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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".

https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/1086748467828019200

 warboss wrote:

 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".

https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/1086748467828019200

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.

 warboss wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

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.

https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/leslie-jones-website-hacked-article-1.2764043?cid=bitly

 warboss wrote:

 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".

https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/1086748467828019200

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.

 Formosa wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 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".

https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/1086748467828019200

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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

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.

 warboss wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

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?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

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?

XuQishi wrote:

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?

Just so. If the movie had been even a little bit profitable, I think her argument would have a lot more merit.

XuQishi wrote:

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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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:

 Manchu wrote:

 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:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Ghostbusters 2016 sold at a loss.

Girlbusters had an budget of $144M+, and only pulled $128M Domestic, for global total of $220M. It bombed, big time.

Independent analysts figure that Girlbusters lost $70M, although creative Studio accounting says it was less.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Ghostbusters 2016 sold at a loss.

Girlbusters had an budget of $144M+, and only pulled $128M Domestic, for global total of $220M. It bombed, big time.

Independent analysts figure that Girlbusters lost $70M, although creative Studio accounting says it was less.

That's why I said it sold at a loss. I didn't have the numbers at the time.

But yeah, here's hoping that 3 is gonna be decent.

 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.

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.,

GB2 sold well enough that it made back what it made and had a healthy profit.

The argument is that instead of following up a movie that had much better critical success

GB2016 had a 70 million dollar loss. This is a strange method one considers a critical success.

Your framework is inaccurate, and doesn't match up to the reality of any situation involved. You may wish to rejudge your framework process.

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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 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.

Hardly a 'killed' franchise.

Even moreso because the reason it never happened is because Murray was a shareholder on the Ghostbusters property, and alternately refused to lower his asking price to something reasonable, and simply refused to do it, partly because of his split with Ramis and partly for his image.
They repeatedly got everyone else on board over the years for various attempts, but Murray kept saying no. This isn't a franchise issue.
https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/ghostbusters-3/239512/bill-murrays-continued-rejection-of-ghostbusters-3
https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Bill-Murray-Finally-Explains-Why-He-Kept-Passing-Ghostbusters-3-67711.html

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.

Critical success doesn’t fund sequels. That would be financial success.

 Formosa wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 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".

https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/1086748467828019200

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:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 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".

https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/1086748467828019200

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.