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.

Just to reiterate here, if people never made a sequel to a bad movie, we would never have gotten the gem that was Star Trek II, the Wrath of Kon.

 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.

Voss wrote:

 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.

Hardly a 'killed' franchise.

That was a straight up killed film franchise for what, 27 years?

That, and parts of the main cast wanted to do other things?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Voss wrote:



Hardly a 'killed' franchise.

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.

Voss wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Voss wrote:



Hardly a 'killed' franchise.

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!

You seem to have left out a lot.

Voss wrote:
.Terminator franchises were all killed too

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

Whilst not as good as the first two, the others are all quite enjoyable enough on their own.

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

 Dreadwinter wrote:

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.

GB1 & 2 are fantastic movies. Love'em

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.

Can someone please provide a link to the plethora of Oscars, Golden Globes and other prestigious awards that Girl Buster's won?

No?

Then it was actually a gak movie, after all, and putting the leads on skirts doesn't make a movie good.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Can someone please provide a link to the plethora of Oscars, Golden Globes and other prestigious awards that Girl Buster's won?

Do the high prestigious Kid's Choice Award's (by Nickelodeon) count

Obviously a show hosted by actors with dead careers is the most prestigious there can be

Exactly! For all I know, it's the top-recommended movie by Kathy Griffen, which means nothing, and is more likely a knock than a plus

 LordofHats wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Can someone please provide a link to the plethora of Oscars, Golden Globes and other prestigious awards that Girl Buster's won?

Do the high prestigious Kid's Choice Award's (by Nickelodeon) count

Obviously a show hosted by actors with dead careers is the most prestigious there can be

Did it win a Razzy? If it didn't win at least one, it should have.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Can someone please provide a link to the plethora of Oscars, Golden Globes and other prestigious awards that Girl Buster's won?

No?

Then it was actually a gak movie, after all, and putting the leads on skirts doesn't make a movie good.

Well, according to Wiki it got some nominations for various fluff and the odd award here and there.

But being serious, some films go criminally ignored for years on end, even when they definitely deserve an academy award or two...

When do you think GB2016 will finally be revealed as a comedy masterpiece?

Presumably it will at the very least not happen before the studio takes another stab at wringing money out of this franchise in 2020.

Voss wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

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.

 ZebioLizard2 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?

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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 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:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 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 ...

By both sides of the coin though.

No doubt, and probably because they are, after all, two sides of the same coin.

 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?

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.

Your framing of her as an opportunist is lacking.

So she’s not an opportunist because she has suffered the negative aspects of celebrity? That doesn’t follow.