Batman-Online.com

https://youtu.be/w3ugHP-yZXw

What do you guys think?

The opening with the 'ghost in the library' recall gave me a slight jump, as the original did, but sadly it was all downhill from there.

I'm not one of those Neanderthals who have a problem with an all-female Ghostbusters reboot; I just wish that this new film had a shred of originality/novelty besides the gender-change.  Why regurgitate everything from the symbol to the firehouse and hearse/Ecto-1 to Slimer and making the token black character the streetwise non-scientist?  It just seems almost akin to 'Psycho '98', a beat-for-beat remake with a few small changes, and thus I don't see the point, other than to bury the original movies.

Sometimes with sequels or reboots, there is a fear among the filmmakers in terms of deviating too much from the original film. I appreciate filmmakers who do something different with a sequel or reboot, whilst retaining the same "spirit" if you will, of the original.

I know schadenfreude is an ugly thing, but I sincerely hope this film crashes and burns on an epic scale. No, I'm not keeping an open mind about it. And no, I'm not giving it a fair chance. It doesn't deserve one. It's a cheap ploy on Sony's part to cash in on fan nostalgia for one of the most beloved films of all time, but without understanding what made the original so great to begin with. Sony's been desperate for a 'shared universe' ever since The Avengers (2012) was released. They tried and failed to launch one with The Amazing Spider-Man, and now they'll try and fail yet again with Ghostbusters.

I've been a diehard Ghostbusters fan for literally as long as I can remember. I've got pictures of my 3rd birthday party where I'm reading a Ghostbusters comic book, and I couldn't even read back then! I loved the cartoon show, the movies, the toys, the books, the videogames, all of it. I even visited the real Ghostbusters fire station in New York. Ray, Peter, Egon and Winston are the Ghostbusters. The franchise was never simply about the premise of fighting ghosts - it was about these four characters and the camaraderie they shared throughout their adventures; adventures which spanned over thirty years of films, TV episodes, games and comic books. In the new movie they've ditched the original line-up completely, instead using the premise as a vehicle for some flavour-of-the-month comediennes. That's like making an A-Team film without Hannibal, Face, B.A. and Murdock, or a Ninja Turtles film without Leonardo, Raphael, Donatello and Mikey. The fact Sony and Paul Feig don't understand this particular criticism is sufficient evidence they don't get what made the Ghostbusters franchise so appealing to begin with. If there was ever a film that didn't need to be remade, this was it.

Inevitably they'll fall back on the tired ad hominem defence mechanism of crying "sexism" and "misogyny" to deflect the tidal wave of criticism that's heading their way. But if they were truly interested in gender equality, why not give a group of comediennes the opportunity to create, write and star in a film based on their own original concept? Aykroyd and Ramis wrote the original Ghostbusters, and Murray improvised most of his own dialogue. The male cast came up with the premise, they wrote the script, they got the film made. How is it equality to take something men accomplished and hand it to a group of women who've done nothing to earn it? Wouldn't it be better to give those women the same creative freedom and financial resources the men had, to build something for themselves from the ground up, to create their own accomplishment?

And why does the sexism angle only work one way? What about lead actress Leslie Jones' response to diehard Ghostbusters fans on Twitter?

QuoteSeriously I'm so done men are the worst I swear I'm f***ing done!!

https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/699743317123162112

QuoteI DONT GIVE TWO sh*tS WHAT A MUTHAf***A THINK IM A GHOSTBUSTER BITCH!!

https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/677578072896503808?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Surely Tom Rothman, the head of Sony Pictures, has a classier response to the diehard Ghostbusters fans. Right?

QuoteSony Pictures Head On Ghostbusters Fans – 'f*** Them'

http://www.manlymovie.net/2015/11/sony-on-ghostbusters-fans-f***-them.html

Nice, Tom. ::) That tells you all you need to know about Sony's attitude to the fans.

Sony's damage control on this project has also been telling, not to mention hilarious. First they scrambled at the last minute to get the original cast members to make cameos, despite earlier saying they wouldn't. Then they arranged that PR stunt where the new cast showed up at a children's hospital. How disappointed would you be if you were a sick kid in hospital and someone told you the Ghostbusters were coming to see you, only for Melissa McCarthy to walk through the door?

Of course fanboys aren't always right. I'm sure we all remember times when fans have made the wrong call, only to be proven wrong at a later date. But fans aren't always wrong either. And when the core premise behind a film is so deeply and obviously flawed that 99% of the fan base are opposed to it, it's usually a good idea to listen to their grievances and try to take them on board. Simply saying, "The audience will like what we tell them to like" doesn't work. Fox learned this lesson the hard way with Fantastic Four (2015). And now Sony's going to learn it with their counterfeit Ghostbusters knockoff.

And it's going to be glorious watching it fail. Imagine the storm that'll erupt at Sony headquarters. Sequels being cancelled! Blame being allocated! Unsold merchandise! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes! Volcanoes! Human sacrifice! Cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria!

Like I say, schadenfreude is an ugly thing. But I can't wait. ;D

I was willing to give 'Ghostbusters with women' a chance because that premise alone is not necessarily a bad one fated for catastrophe.  There's a great deal a filmmaker can do with the whole 'busting ghosts' concept, so why not give a bunch of ladies a chance to lead?

However, everything I've seen since the initial cast announcement, from the insignia to the poster and costumes to the new trailer, indicates that Paul Feig and Sony have no interest in doing anything fresh or original with the concept.  They're simply piggybacking off the original films, almost beat-for-beat, except with a new cast filling in for Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Hudson, begging the question: what is the point?

The unfortunate thing is, if (or perhaps I should say, when) this film does fail people will chalk it up to 'people don't want to see women leading movies' which is absolutely the wrong analysis.  People, well at least me, want to see more female-led blockbusters (last year's Mad Max demonstrated that it was possible to take an old franchise/concept, put female characters front and centre, and still make it seem incredibly fresh and thrilling, and many of us have high expectations for the forthcoming Wonder Woman movie), but they also demand and deserve at least a modicum of originality and surprise.

people complaining about the complainers are making invalid comparisons. Some roles are gender defined and it isn't sexist to say so. A sex in the city or Charlie's angels film with male leads wouldn't work either.

Also the flavor of the week point is valid; had the 4 leads been say Rachel McAdams, Anna Kendrick, Karen Gilliam, and Tina Fey. It would have been more tolerable; not that it would be anywhere close to the original but at least they'd be injecting it with some actual talent.
Simply put this is a very special franchise to many adults when they were growing up and I can't imagine many fans wanted this.

The whole thing is unethical. If it breaks even it will be the biggest (negative) surprise of the year.

The comedy is much too broad. FAR too broad in fact. That "Exorcist" slapping joke? Ouch. Ouch, ouch, ouch!! Any Ghostbusters fan can see the comedy tone doesn't match the "believability" that Reitman and co went for in style for the films they made. On a simplistic analysis well, it just ain't really funny either. Having said that Feig has done a fine job on an effects level. Cool ghosts, the proton packs don't look as bad as I felt and Slimer.....IS FANTASTIC LOOKING! (A wonderful, modernized, bright green globule of optimism and hope....surrounded otherwise in a sea of brown sh*t....). So I don't loathe it entirely. I'd say the ghosts and effects are reason enough to take a chance and see it. The new Ghostbusters and their "gags" however are definitely terrible and isn't it the characters who should really matter?

I had a feeling the tone would be very different right from the start. If they really wanted this controversial film to be accepted making something that was actually consistent with the other two tonally, sequel, remake or not, would have been a smart start. We certainly haven't got that. It just won't sit nicely with the previous movies. Any episode of The Real Ghostbusters does a much more terrific job of that despite it's cartoon style. Some of the humor I actually think is horrifically dated. I mean I think The Exorcist is a cool film but is today's generation actually aware of what they are mocking here? Most people over the age of 19 don't bother watching films anymore that are even 10 years old (which is lazy and sad). So, The Exorcist from '72/73??? It's ironic in the sense some cruel people felt Ghostbusters is so dated now it needed a reboot to be appealing again at all. And suddenly this film has the honor of spewing an out of place joke that felt more appropriate to have in the disco age lol

I just don't believe for one second that unfunny kook Holzman, whatever her name is, is capable of building the proton packs (that part with the wig gag is genuinely the most embarrassing "comedy moment" in the 30 years of the franchise....until I got to the shocking "THE POWER OF PAIN!!" bellow, *shudder*). Harold Ramis was so convincing as a scientist I just have more belief in him being capable of doing so. Having a new film in which Egon has been cast down, forgotten and re-wrote out of the franchise history as their inventor is possibly the greatest crime (of many yet to come) this new crew could have done for the entire legacy. You can so tell this hasn't been written by Ackroyd and Ramis. That's why the comedy stinks. Why anybody had faith in this Katie Dippold script is beyond me. What did you expect? Of course it feels completely off. The master's have sadly left us. One died, the other was refused anywhere near the script that was shot. The very men who made Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters. It hadn't a chance.

Ah well, at least Peter Venkman gets to sing The Bare Necessities....oh wait, wrong film! That's a much better and funnier one on the way to spend cash on!....

Great arguments Cobblepot4Mayor.

Like I said before, I do think a female version could have, in theory, worked, but like you state, the comedy here appears to be way too broad.  One of the reasons the 1984 films worked so well as a genuinely funny comedy with a fair number of genuine horrific scares (the library ghost and the part where the dog rips out of Dana Barrett's couch, which could be a scene from a Nightmare on Elm Street style horror, still give me the chills) is that the film was played in fairly straight terms; thus audiences were able to suspend their disbelief.  This new film, unfortunately, looks too typical of modern comedies which discard credible, relatable humour for broad, easy laughs.

Looks rubbish.

I don't know if you guys have heard about this but there are actually guys from Sony on Youtube at this very moment deliberately deleting negative feedback  ;D

And not just the appalling language put downs of the cast and crew (which I don't approve of myself) but the more than reasonable analysis of why many feel disappointed. How did Ghostbusters come to this eh? Completely pathetic stuff. God forbid if the world ever gets another "Hitler". Imagine the horror of what can be done with social media propaganda now if this is for a mere bloody film lol

I can't say I care about this movie based on what I know about it but I might choose to see it just because Kate McKinnon is in it. I'm a big fan of her work on Saturday Night Live and think she is one of the funniest people in this galaxy right now. If the movie is bad I still bet Kate will be awesome.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 01:30
I don't know if you guys have heard about this but there are actually guys from Sony on Youtube at this very moment deliberately deleting negative feedback  ;D

And not just the appalling language put downs of the cast and crew (which I don't approve of myself) but the more than reasonable analysis of why many feel disappointed. How did Ghostbusters come to this eh? Completely pathetic stuff. God forbid if the world ever gets another "Hitler". Imagine the horror of what can be done with social media propaganda now if this is for a mere bloody film lol

Indeed.  God forbid...Are we so far from that scenario though?  :-X

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 01:59
Indeed.  God forbid...Are we so far from that scenario though?  :-X

Ironic you mention that here, in the ghostbusters video game (set in 1992), Vigo  the carpathian says "I see the evil of times to come. You will choose a king far more evil than myself to rule you. Twice" 

I already had a fairly low expectation and this trailer failed to even meet those.

I'm not a big Ghostbusters fan, so I'm truthfully not that emotionally invested. But yeah, this does follow a recent trend we're seeing with franchise media. Hijacking well known brands when new brands could be made instead. This seems like a politically correct version of Ghostbusters for the equality brigade. Like how all of a sudden James Bond has to be black, or Doctor Who must change sex or race to be relevant or edgy. 

Their loophole is anyone can be a Ghostbuster. But for me, it can't help but become Ghostbusters in name only. Or Bond/Doctor Who in name only. Mainly because we all know what came before. They were male roles. Here, it's Ghostbusters because we said so, and you, the viewing public better get on board with it. And if you don't, you're racist, sexist or homophobic. I really dislike it when gender games and politics creep into entertainment.

I'm all for females having leading roles, but I'm not a fan of hijacking existing media. Women and black actors are more than capable of carrying original roles and striking out on their own. For example, if the message is females can only be popular and strong willed if they play The Doctor, then I think that's rubbish.

If the film is basically a beat-for-beat remake of the original, I'm not sure I see the point of it. And if the film is poorly made, you're a dead duck anyway. Bottom line, I don't think we needed this film. Apart from the female cast, I don't see what's new or special about it. The original is always going to be revered, much like Robocop.

It just seems obvious that these characters are all stand in imitators for the original actors;
Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig stand ins for Ray and Peter as the somewhat odd and funny ones who write books and are laughed at for claiming ghosts are real.
Kate MacKinnon standing in for Egon as the extremely quirky and intelligent engineer.
Leslie Jones standing in for Winston as the African American with relevant paranormal or technical experience or even prior relationship with the other 3 but merely being 'street smart' . I can see this role getting annoying as the typical black lady slapping everyone around calling them fools.
Chris Hemsworth standing in for Janine. This one's obvious, I'll be honest I'm actually interested to see how he does in this role, it's different than anything else he's done but while he's never done comedy, he's shown he can generate laughs if he wants to "I wish for another"
It seems the villain is standing in for Vigo going on possessing people including at least one ghostbuster.

It seems pretty obvious at this point they are just remaking the original with role reversals instead of creating actual new characters. It reminds me of the Ashton Kutcher/Bernie Mac remake of Guess who's coming to dinner.

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 15:28
It just seems obvious that these characters are all stand in imitators for the original actors;
Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig stand ins for Ray and Peter as the somewhat odd and funny ones who write books and are laughed at for claiming ghosts are real.
Kate MacKinnon standing in for Egon as the extremely quirky and intelligent engineer.
Leslie Jones standing in for Winston as the African American with relevant paranormal or technical experience or even prior relationship with the other 3 but merely being 'street smart' . I can see this role getting annoying as the typical black lady slapping everyone around calling them fools.

I saw McKinnon more as the wise-cracking Venkman type (although she does somewhat physically resemble The Real Ghostbusters version of Spengler), and McCarthy as Stanz and Wiig as Spengler, since those two seem the more earnest of the group.

To be honest, there doesn't seem to be a proper Venkman stand-in, which is a shame.  I think Paul Feig was so intent on making the characters accomplished and inspiring lady scientists that he arguably took away from what made the original characters so much fun and likeable.  The original Ghostbusters often seemed like nutty eccentrics and charlatans, none of whom truly knew what they were doing, as opposed to brilliant, awe-inspiring scientists, and those glaring flaws are partly what made them such an affable bunch to hang with.

Unlike others, I have absolutely no problem with female leads in a Ghostbusters film.  I don't see why it's such a big deal or a sign of some PC apocalypse...but I do wish Feig had at least made these female Ghostbusters more appealing/interesting than they seem from the trailer.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 17:01

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 15:28
It just seems obvious that these characters are all stand in imitators for the original actors;
Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig stand ins for Ray and Peter as the somewhat odd and funny ones who write books and are laughed at for claiming ghosts are real.
Kate MacKinnon standing in for Egon as the extremely quirky and intelligent engineer.
Leslie Jones standing in for Winston as the African American with relevant paranormal or technical experience or even prior relationship with the other 3 but merely being 'street smart' . I can see this role getting annoying as the typical black lady slapping everyone around calling them fools.

I saw McKinnon more as the wise-cracking Venkman type (although she does somewhat physically resemble The Real Ghostbusters version of Spengler), and McCarthy as Stanz and Wiig as Spengler, since those two seem the more earnest of the group.

To be honest, there doesn't seem to be a proper Venkman stand-in, which is a shame.  I think Paul Feig was so intent on making the characters accomplished and inspiring lady scientists that he arguably took away from what made the original characters so much fun and likeable.  The original Ghostbusters often seemed like nutty eccentrics and charlatans, none of whom truly knew what they were doing, as opposed to brilliant, awe-inspiring scientists, and those glaring flaws are partly what made them such an affable bunch to hang with.

Unlike others, I have absolutely no problem with female leads in a Ghostbusters film.  I don't see why it's such a big deal or a sign of some PC apocalypse...but I do wish Feig had at least made these female Ghostbusters more appealing/interesting than they seem from the trailer.

McKinnon's character seems to be the most technical one of the group; her character is an engineer, seems she's the one who'll design and build the equipment while Wiig and McCarthy are the paranormal experts. Maybe they'll come across as hybrids of the 3 male scientists; Wiig seems extremely nerdy and socially awkward like Egon. McCarthy will likely have Peter's sarcasm, McKinnons seems to have Egons intelligence but Peter's penchant for pranks. Ray didn't exactly have a lot of his own identity, he isn't quite as smart as Egon but has more social skills. I guess Ray was the most enthusiastic of the group which is a trait McCarthy seems to follow.

It'll be a different role for Hemsworth, he usually plays macho characters in either action or romances. It'll be weird seeing him play receptionist for a bunch of ladies although I have a feeling the film will have him be under qualified with one of the female characters hiring him on a whim based on a schoolgirl crush similar to Rachel hiring a good looking guy with no experience as her assistant on friends.

Also will there be a stand in for Louis Tully? He is kind of the forgotten character (possibly due to Rick Moranis retiring from acting), he really helped carry the second film. I actually think Kristen Wiig would have been better filling that role than as a ghostbuster, maybe that was the plan with Emma Stone initially being offered a part?

I think you're right about Ray being the most enthusiastic of the original team.  He always had a naïve, puppyish enthusiasm which really helped get the whole Ghostbusters enterprise going to begin with.  I don't think it would have got off the ground if it had been left to the relatively more detached and/or cynical Egon and Peter.

I recall a quote back in the 80s or 90s where someone described the Ghostbusters team as follows: Egon is the brains, Peter the mouth and Ray the heart.  Unfortunately, I don't recall what body part Winston's role was related to, but he may have been described as 'the hands' (i.e. the most practical of the group).

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 01:30
I don't know if you guys have heard about this but there are actually guys from Sony on Youtube at this very moment deliberately deleting negative feedback  ;D

And not just the appalling language put downs of the cast and crew (which I don't approve of myself) but the more than reasonable analysis of why many feel disappointed. How did Ghostbusters come to this eh? Completely pathetic stuff. God forbid if the world ever gets another "Hitler". Imagine the horror of what can be done with social media propaganda now if this is for a mere bloody film lol

I've been keeping an eye on the comments, and you're absolutely right! It's hilarious. They're deleting the valid criticisms and leaving the authentically sexist ones so they can play the victim card and make it look like all the haters are misogynists. I've seen comments from people on other message boards saying they've been deleting some of the positive comments too. Sony's really panicking. And just check out some of the transparently fake comments left by studio plants. It's like an over-the-top parody of a viral marketing campaign that's gone horribly wrong.

And look at the down votes! As of me typing this, there are 178,380 down votes and only 99,430 up votes. That translates into an audience rating of 35.7% positive, 64.3% negative. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up disabling votes altogether.

Quote from: Nycteris on Thu,  3 Mar  2016, 22:39
The whole thing is unethical. If it breaks even it will be the biggest (negative) surprise of the year.

According to this article, the production budget is $154 million: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-budget-cut-fox-execs-789896
That includes a $14 million salary for McCarthy (seriously?) and $10 million for Feig himself.

Wow. The original film's budget was only $30 million. And adjusted for inflation, that's still only around $68 million. Once you factor in print and advertising costs, the new movie's going to have to make at least $400-500 million to break even. And judging from how toxic pre-release word of mouth is, I can't see it happening.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 17:56
I recall a quote back in the 80s or 90s where someone described the Ghostbusters team as follows: Egon ii the brains, Peter the mouth and Ray the heart.  Unfortunately, I don't recall what body part Winston's role was related to, but he may have been described as 'the hands' (i.e. the most practical of the group).

Traditionally Winston was the mechanic in charge of Ecto-1. Watch carefully after he's hired in the first film and you'll see he's usually the one behind the wheel whenever they drive anywhere. He always drove Ecto-1 in the cartoon show too. I always thought that Winston was the muscle of the group as well, since Ernie Hudson seemed like the most muscular/athletic of the four.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 13:54
I'm not a big Ghostbusters fan, so I'm truthfully not that emotionally invested. But yeah, this does follow a recent trend we're seeing with franchise media. Hijacking well known brands when new brands could be made instead. This seems like a politically correct version of Ghostbusters for the equality brigade. Like how all of a sudden James Bond has to be black, or Doctor Who must change sex or race to be relevant or edgy. 

Their loophole is anyone can be a Ghostbuster. But for me, it can't help but become Ghostbusters in name only. Or Bond/Doctor Who in name only. Mainly because we all know what came before. They were male roles. Here, it's Ghostbusters because we said so, and you, the viewing public better get on board with it. And if you don't, you're racist, sexist or homophobic. I really dislike it when gender games and politics creep into entertainment.

I'm all for females having leading roles, but I'm not a fan of hijacking existing media. Women and black actors are more than capable of carrying original roles and striking out on their own. For example, if the message is females can only be popular and strong willed if they play The Doctor, then I think that's rubbish.

If the film is basically a beat-for-beat remake of the original, I'm not sure I see the point of it. And if the film is poorly made, you're a dead duck anyway. Bottom line, I don't think we needed this film. Apart from the female cast, I don't see what's new or special about it. The original is always going to be revered, much like Robocop.

Excellent post, TDK. Agreed 100%.

Is anyone curious to hear director Paul Feig's thoughts on the fan backlash? We know the cast and studio head have expressed their hatred towards the fans. Here are a few of Feig's comments.

QuoteYou all have no idea what we did, so stop acting like you do. Enough is enough. Just let this movie happen.

QuoteYou're an ass. Oops, did I say that?

QuoteYou've been ranting at me and my cast for months with misogyny and insults. So go f*** yourself. Goodnight.

http://www.slashfilm.com/paul-feig-ghostbusters-haters/

In the immortal words of Dr. Venkman:

I had a feeling that once the bad buzz regarding this film came out the filmmakers, especially Feig, would try to paint the negative response as misogyny as a means of guilt-tripping and/or discrediting its critics.  ::)   But I didn't imagine that they'd swoop to such transparently underhand means to make their critics look bad (i.e. by deleting legitimate criticisms yet retaining misogynist rants on the YouTube comments section).

That's why I think it's so important to stress, in places like this where we don't have to worry about Sony censoring our freedom of expression, that the apparent problem with this 'reboot' has absolutely nothing to do with the female cast and everything to do with the utter lack or originality behind it.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 17:56
I think you're right about Ray being the most enthusiastic of the original team.  He always had a naïve, puppyish enthusiasm which really helped get the whole Ghostbusters enterprise going to begin with.  I don't think it would have got off the ground if it had been left to the relatively more detached and/or cynical Egon and Peter.

I recall a quote back in the 80s or 90s where someone described the Ghostbusters team as follows: Egon ii the brains, Peter the mouth and Ray the heart.  Unfortunately, I don't recall what body part Winston's role was related to, but he may have been described as 'the hands' (i.e. the most practical of the group).

I guess Winston is the most grounded one of the group; the blue collar working man. It seems the character had a bigger role when it was initially written for Eddie Murphy (for instance he would have been the one slimed instead of Peter in the first film) . Rather than remove the role when Murphy didn't sign on, they reduced it. They probably could have done without that role as Winston more or less just tags along and provides an extra proton pack but Ernie Hudson adds his own charm to the role.

Ghostbusters is a classic, but I wonder how amazing it would have been if Eddie Murphy had played Winston.  Imagine what a comedy powerhouse that would have been.

That said, I'm glad Winston wasn't the one who was slimed.  It's possible that people might have complained about the token black character being the guy who gets the short end of the stick.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 20:26
Ghostbusters is a classic, but I wonder how amazing it would have been if Eddie Murphy had played Winston.  Imagine what a comedy powerhouse that would have been.

That said, I'm glad Winston wasn't the one who was slimed.  It's possible that people might have complained about the token black character being the guy who gets the short end of the stick.

I don't know, the character didn't die so people might have been okay, apparently Murphy's character was supposed to be the smartest of the group, they probably would have let him ad lib the way Bill Murray did (imagine the quips those two could have had).

They kind of made Winston more of an everyman which helps because the public doesn't exactly 'get' the ghostbusters. I like his portrayal in the cartoon where he embraces the Ecto mobile as his own baby. I guess his role ends up being simply another line of thinking for the group.

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 20:34I don't know, the character didn't die so people might have been okay, apparently Murphy's character was supposed to be the smartest of the group, they probably would have let him ad lib the way Bill Murray did (imagine the quips those two could have had).

They kind of made Winston more of an everyman which helps because the public doesn't exactly 'get' the ghostbusters. I like his portrayal in the cartoon where he embraces the Ecto mobile as his own baby. I guess his role ends up being simply another line of thinking for the group.

So Winston would have been another scientist?  How do you think he would have played him?  Apart from The Nutty Professor Murphy's shtick has been playing the street-smart guy rather than the book-smart one.

And you're right.  Both Murray and Murphy ad-libbing throughout Ghostbusters could have been fun.  Unfortunately, I think Murray and Murphy have only appeared briefly on-screen together in a couple of early 1980s episodes of SNL.  I'm not sure but I think their respective tenures on the show just overlapped.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 21:10

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 20:34I don't know, the character didn't die so people might have been okay, apparently Murphy's character was supposed to be the smartest of the group, they probably would have let him ad lib the way Bill Murray did (imagine the quips those two could have had).

They kind of made Winston more of an everyman which helps because the public doesn't exactly 'get' the ghostbusters. I like his portrayal in the cartoon where he embraces the Ecto mobile as his own baby. I guess his role ends up being simply another line of thinking for the group.

So Winston would have been another scientist?  How do you think he would have played him?  Apart from The Nutty Professor Murphy's shtick has been playing the street-smart guy rather than the book-smart one.

And you're right.  Both Murray and Murphy ad-libbing throughout Ghostbusters could have been fun.  Unfortunately, I think Murray and Murphy have only appeared briefly on-screen together in a couple of early 1980s episodes of SNL.  I'm not sure but I think their respective tenures on the show just overlapped.

Murray left SNL the same year Eddie joined (1980). I don't know, it could have been gold it could have been a disaster, Bill Murray isn't exactly the easiest actor to work with, plenty of actors refuse to work with him and it could have been a scenario of Murray and Murphy trying to outdo themselves (two different actors ad libbing can be tough).

I kind of picture Murray as Jim Carrey's kids in me, myself, and Irene. Treating people like fools for not knowing technical stuff. Also keep in mind that Eddie Murphy would have taken screentime from Murray whom most feel is the best character.

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 21:37Murray left SNL the same year Eddie joined (1980). I don't know, it could have been gold it could have been a disaster, Bill Murray isn't exactly the easiest actor to work with, plenty of actors refuse to work with him and it could have been a scenario of Murray and Murphy trying to outdo themselves (two different actors ad libbing can be tough).

I kind of picture Murray as Jim Carrey's kids in me, myself, and Irene. Treating people like fools for not knowing technical stuff. Also keep in mind that Eddie Murphy would have taken screentime from Murray whom most feel is the best character.

You're right about the potential danger in having two comic actors trying to out-do one another, especially in view of Murray's notoriously prickly reputation (although I think this was before Murphy developed an ego), but it might have contributed to more of a group dynamic.  Egon is inherently funny because he has no social skills, and Ray is the enthusiastic wide-eyed one, but I do wish Winston had been given more to do.  One of my favourite moments is when Winston gets the line: "Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say 'YES!'"  I just wish Winston had been given some more witty lines.

And I like your idea about how Eddie could potentially have played Winston, rolling his eyes impatiently with the non-scientists.  ;D  But would Winston have been even smarter than Egon?  Egon struck me as the one with amazing intellectual prowess and absolutely no clue socially-speaking.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 18:18
Excellent post, TDK. Agreed 100%.

Thanks, I thought you would.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 21:49

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  4 Mar  2016, 21:37

And I like your idea about how Eddie could potentially have played Winston, rolling his eyes impatiently with the non-scientists.  ;D  But would Winston have been even smarter than Egon?  Egon struck me as the one with amazing intellectual prowess and absolutely no clue socially-speaking.

Similar to how Slimer got Peter instead of Winston once the role was reduced, it's possible the other characters absorbed traits and plot points initially intended for Winston. Perhaps Egon wouldn't have been as smart with Murphy there. Or it would have played out like the big bang theory with Winston similar to Sheldon Cooper being snobbishly brilliant and Egon like Leonard; still brilliant but not quite on genius level.

It's possible we will get a real or Real Ghostbusters sequel soon, albeit an animated one: http://www.superherohype.com/news/367297-animated-ghostbusters-movie-finds-director (http://www.superherohype.com/news/367297-animated-ghostbusters-movie-finds-director)

Well folks, the international trailer has landed. And the first thing you'll notice is they've corrected the most glaring mistake in the first. Well that's not entirely true, since the most glaring mistake is the fact it was ever made to begin with. But in terms of content, the onscreen title which says, "30 years ago four scientists saved the world." Now as anyone who bothered to watch the 1984 film will know, only three of the original heroes were scientists. So now the new trailer has been proofread and altered to say, "30 years ago four friends saved the world." Personally I think it would've been better if it had simply said "four men saved the world," but I guess they're trying to avoid the 'M' word.


What's particularly funny about this trailer is that a few days ago an alleged Sony employee leaked a truly dire synopsis of the film on reddit. The Sony shills defending the movie claimed this synopsis wasn't real on the basis that Sony would never release such a terrible film. But lo and behold, several scenes detailed in that synopsis are clearly present in this trailer, confirming that the leaked synopsis – the one which was so bad, even Paul Feig's diehard defenders were saying it must be fake – is in fact real.

A few details from that synopsis include Bill Murray's character being killed by getting knocked out of a window, a female Slimer, complete with hair and lipstick, and an ending that rips off the finale of the original, except with the white ghost from the logo rampaging through New York instead of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.

Meanwhile Paul Feig has continued fighting the good fight on Twitter. His latest message to critics:

Quotef*** the haters.

https://twitter.com/paulfeig/status/707293713299419137

Back at you, Paul.

Apparently he's planning to start a victim support group for Hollywood filmmakers who ignore source material, insult fans and deliver box office bombs. So far it's membership consists of himself and some guy called Josh Trank. Good luck to them, I say.

Sony have been trying to do damage limitation on this for a while now. Tell me one other film where the director is personally contacting websites to drum up support (fact).

Uh-oh.  This is sounding like this year's Fant4stic Four.

Quote from: Paul (ral) on Wed,  9 Mar  2016, 20:22
Sony have been trying to do damage limitation on this for a while now. Tell me one other film where the director is personally contacting websites to drum up support (fact).

I know I should feel sorry for the guy, but...

What a sad, sorry state of affairs.

Why did Ghostbusters have to be the butt of this bad joke?

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 10 Mar  2016, 01:16
What a sad, sorry state of affairs.

Why did Ghostbusters have to be the butt of this bad joke?

Let's not let this travesty tarnish the original movies anymore than the Star Wars prequels tarnish the greatness of Episodes IV to VI, or The Godfather Part III tarnishes the first two Godfather films.

I think it'll become a footnote. Something that happened, but something that's basically ignored. File it and forget it. Much like the atrocious Blues Brothers 2000, the sequel to the much loved original.

I told myself I wasn't going to watch the trailer or bother with anything about this movie. Then I clicked this thread and read it and morbid curiosity got the worst of me.

Trust your instincts, kiddies.

I mean it probably isn't the most horrible thing ever made and if the original never existed, well, if it never existed our lives would suck that much more but this would be some silly movie that wouldn't do great at the box office but build a cult following among those that watched it every other night on late night cable tv when their zombie cop show went off. Instead, it's fitting that the people keep saying f-you to the people who don't like it cause that's what it feels like. A big f-you. It makes me sick that they did a movie that forsakes the wonderfully witty and intelligent humor from the first in favor of stupid assed modern "comedy" under their self professed guise of breaking barriers for women (a big black woman screaming "Aw hell nah!" is just SO original and fresh and groundbreaking). It makes me even sicker that they pull the sexism card on anyone who dissents. It's like the morons who pull the racism card at every turn. All it does is make real issues with sexism or racism worse because you're diminishing the entire issue by making it about stupid sh*t like this. But I guarantee you're going to have ignorant Hollywood f***sticks do just that and make this sh*tty movie a cause. Cause that's what those thin-skinned left of center assholes are good at. Making a crusade out of a cow pie. Someone is going to try to turn this into a flag they can wave and cry "Outrage!" And it makes me sick. We have real issues but this is how we combat them. And that's why we're going to hell in a handcart.

I'm a girl. I'm also a huuuge Ghostbusters fan. When I played it with my male cousins, yes, I played a girl "fifth ghostbuster" (who took over and ran the team cause I was older and that's what I do). There was a time when I wanted there to be a girl ghostbuster or a whole team of girl ghostbusters or girl and guy ghostbusters who were screwing each other. Then I grew up. The ghostbusters were a male team and that didn't need to change. They were great. I love them. I love watching guys interact and save the world. We don't need this, and we don't really need a male/female mixed team either but I would have preferred that to this as long as the relationships were professional and platonic but in 2016 America that would be like them using a rotary telephone. So we got this mess that reeks of mock feminism. There are few things I hate more than false champions of a cause like the idiots who try to look SO progressive by changing a comic character's race, gender, and/or sexual orientation. sh*t like that and this pathetic excuse of a reboot are why this country's society is sliding down a slick slope to hell.

Ok, rant over. I'll catch my breath before I REALLY go off about the dying art of originality. Yall have been warned. Kitty is on the warpath now. And as cute as Melissa McCarthy is and as adorablle as Kate McKinnon's character seemed from pics and stuff (a part of me did totally go "A blonde ghostbuster that doesn't sound like the Brain! Hell yes!") there is no way in hell I'll waste my time with this. Ever.

Right on the money, Catwoman. Despite the cries of 'sexism', many of the most intelligently worded critiques I've seen have been penned by women. Feig should take note before going off on another Twitter rant.

On the subject of female Ghostbusters, it's worth remembering that Janine suited up several times during the animated series.


Her and Louis were de facto auxiliaries who'd don proton packs whenever the main Ghostbusters needed backup. They were essentially the fifth and sixth Ghostbusters. I had action figures of both of them when I was a kid, including this one.


If they were going to make a Ghostbusters 3, they should've done it in the early nineties. The last ship sailed when Ramis passed away. But even then, if Sony was truly determined to make a new Ghostbusters film, they still could have made a proper sequel to the originals. At the very least, they could have got Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson and Annie Potts back as the surviving members of the original team. And if Murray and Weaver were willing to cameo in Feig's trash, I'm sure they would've come back for a proper Ghostbusters movie too. Slimer is a special effect, so there's no problem there. And Ramis could've appeared as a ghost. He recorded hours of voice acting for the 2009 Ghostbusters videogame (which is ace, by the way). They could've used some of that material in conjunction with special effects to bring Egon back. It probably still would've sucked, but it would've been truer to the original franchise than this debacle.

I guess I'm not going to see this movie anyway. If it fails at the box office I'll feel bad for Kate McKinnon who I think is great. :(

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 10 Mar  2016, 18:40
If they were going to make a Ghostbusters 3, they should've done it in the early nineties. The last ship sailed when Ramis passed away.

That's the thing. It happens all the time - Dumb and Dumber To, being an example. They can even manage to wheel out the old gang and it still can't help but feel unnecessary. It just doesn't feel the same, because as you say, the ship has sailed with our without them. It was a moment in time, lightning in a bottle. It's hard to accept for movie studios, or some audiences, but it's true. The glory days are rarely, if ever, recaptured. It's better to fade away gracefully than to burn out.

Don't rule this film out just yet.  I'm watching a British weekly politics show at the moment on the BBC (don't worry I'm not going to bring up politics anywhere on this forum), and they've started the show by showing a trailer for the new reboot, and are using the reboot as an excuse to discuss 'women in politics'.  Plus, you know what they say about 'all publicity, including bad publicity, is good publicity'.  :-\

I'm not saying I'm all for this film (I'm not), but it's curious that this reboot is getting mass media attention from unlikely sources.  I also understand that the film's director, Paul Feig, will be one of the guests on next week's "Talking Dead", the post-"Walking Dead" discussion show.

I'm sure there was enough material to do another movie in the 90's. But it would be almost hypocritical to do it now; the rest didn't do it without Bill Murray, it would be a disresepect to Ramis to do it without him.

The video game is a good defacto sequel. It's not comparable to dumb and dumber to, Dumb and Dumber was basically lightning in a bottle which could not be re captured including the failed TV show, prequel, and sequel. Ghosbusters had successful cartoons and quite a bit of merchandising. There were clearly enough ideas for another movie.

I think it would have been fine if Janine were a ghostbuster (although Annie Potts is probably too old) but it's obvious they are feminizing it. The bottom line is they are turning it into something it's not. No different than making a bad boys 3 film with white actors; protesting it wouldn't be racism, it's complaining about altering the essence to appease a different audience.


This seems like a film that you have to either see from yourself or listen to trusted sources to decide if you like it or not as there'll be plenty of people with agendas chiming in. For instance on the IMDB I'm sure there'll be plenty of people voting 1 or 10 prior to even seeing it. Melissa McCarthy, Chris Hemsworth, and Kate McKinnon have enough talent to make it good and despite all the criticisms over the trailer, the visuals do look excellent.

It seems Sony has cancelled their plans for a male Ghostbusters movie following on from the all-female reboot: http://www.blastr.com/2016-3-21/ghostbusters-spinoff-russo-brothers-has-been-scrapped

Meanwhile the trailer for the new film has accumulated a total of 670,884 votes on YouTube; 197,149 positive, 473,735 negative. That translates into an audience rating of 29%. It's also currently the 23rd most disliked video on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLirAqAtl_h2o1ism1dr5SbvB8Mf7Ve6Aa

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 21 Mar  2016, 23:49
It seems Sony has cancelled their plans for a male Ghostbusters movie following on from the all-female reboot: http://www.blastr.com/2016-3-21/ghostbusters-spinoff-russo-brothers-has-been-scrapped

Meanwhile the trailer for the new film has accumulated a total of 670,884 votes on YouTube; 197,149 positive, 473,735 negative. That translates into an audience rating of 29%. It's also currently the 23rd most disliked video on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLirAqAtl_h2o1ism1dr5SbvB8Mf7Ve6Aa

It's the only movie trailer even on that list. I guess we'll see if bad press is good press

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 22 Mar  2016, 13:49
It's the only movie trailer even on that list. I guess we'll see if bad press is good press.

I fear that this extremely adverse reaction will be all chalked down to sexism.  But this would be a very self-defeating conclusion for anyone who has an interest in more female-led films because it will simply cause studios to 'learn' the wrong lessons and discourage them from making good female-led movies.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 22 Mar  2016, 13:54

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 22 Mar  2016, 13:49
It's the only movie trailer even on that list. I guess we'll see if bad press is good press.

I fear that this extremely adverse reaction will be all chalked down to sexism.  But this would be a very self-defeating conclusion for anyone who has an interest in more female-led films because it will simply cause studios to 'learn' the wrong lessons and discourage them from making good female-led movies.

With all the talk about sexism, I'm surprised nobody's floated the discussion about racism; early impressions are that Leslie Jones is playing the stereotypical angry black woman slapping everyone silly and referring to everyone as "damn fools".

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 23 Mar  2016, 20:15With all the talk about sexism, I'm surprised nobody's floated the discussion about racism; early impressions are that Leslie Jones is playing the stereotypical angry black woman slapping everyone silly and referring to everyone as "damn fools".

Indeed.  It's ironic that a reboot that is priding itself on being progressive is once again relegating the token black character to the non-scientist support.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 23 Mar  2016, 20:45

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 23 Mar  2016, 20:15With all the talk about sexism, I'm surprised nobody's floated the discussion about racism; early impressions are that Leslie Jones is playing the stereotypical angry black woman slapping everyone silly and referring to everyone as "damn fools".

Indeed.  It's ironic that a reboot that is priding itself on being progressive is once again relegating the token black character to the non-scientist support.

Well from that perspective I don't know if it's racism, I think she's more of just a carbon copy of Winston. As we discussed earlier in the thread, Winston seemed to have a bigger role when Eddie Murphy was lined up to play him, they likely reduced his role and made him a non-scientist due to Ernie Hudson being less famous than the other 3. But even for a mid 80's film I never got the 'token black guy' from Winston. He wasn't treated badly, he was a very likeable character. He obviously had trouble paying his bills hence why he became a ghostbuster but seemed like a true working man. Overall you pretty much could have had a white actor play that role, the only thing different would have been the line "I've seen things that would turn you white" wouldn't have had the same effect.

With the new trailer it seems obvious the 4th female character was purposely made to be an African-American and it plays more as a token character; she's initially rejected by the other 3, she joins the team later likely to mirror Winston and is not a ghostbuster. But the other ghostbusters question her usefulness and the only reason she's brought on is a resource she has access to (their car), she doesn't possess any useful skills herself. I have a strong feeling they'll use a lot of cliché black jokes for her, for instance her seeing something paranormal and shouting HELL NO and grumbling to herself about the situation she's in. Another stereotype prediction; bad things happening to the black character when they are left to fend for themselves. The original films never did this to Winston, let's see if it happens here. 

I didn't mean to sound as if I was criticising the earlier Ghostbusters films when I made the comment about relegating the black character.  I just meant that surely it was now the time to give the black member of the team more of a significant part rather than simply side-lining them.  Winston is a great character and came out with as much, if not more, dignity as the other original Ghostbusters, but it's a shame that the reboot couldn't change things this time and have the black character as one of the scientists...maybe that's not racism, but it is once again a sign that this film exists entirely in the shadow of the original movies rather than attempting something new.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 24 Mar  2016, 17:36
I didn't mean to sound as if I was criticising the earlier Ghostbusters films when I made the comment about relegating the black character.  I just meant that surely it was now the time to give the black member of the team more of a significant part rather than simply side-lining them.  Winston is a great character and came out with as much, if not more, dignity as the other original Ghostbusters, but it's a shame that the reboot couldn't change things this time and have the black character as one of the scientists...maybe that's not racism, but it is once again a sign that this film exists entirely in the shadow of the original movies rather than attempting something new.

Oh I knew you weren't criticizing the earlier films. I just think that the reason why Jones has a lesser role is probably to have her parallel Winston (which to me emphasizes this film as a cheap carbon copy) but the films differ in a negative manner; Winstons portrayal was not demeaning to the black community, it is easy to justify since Hudson had the lowest star power of the 3 and he did not play a token black dude. My complaint is not only is Jones a shadow of Hudsons character but she IS coming across as a token black lady.

James Rolfe hits the nail on the head.

Looking forward to Rolfe's video on GB3. Damn shame we never got that!  :'(

Another video of note is one by the Midnight Edge channel on Youtube. They previously did a series on the BTS stuff with the Josh Trank Fantastic Four, that's pretty amazing to listen to. There should probably be a documentary devoted to the making of that film to be perfectly honest. Especially since we already have the one on Superman Lives, and the upcoming one about Roger Corman's FF.

Anyways, here's the Ghostbusters 2016 video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPAklIlov-A

Quote from: riddler on Thu, 24 Mar  2016, 18:07Oh I knew you weren't criticizing the earlier films. I just think that the reason why Jones has a lesser role is probably to have her parallel Winston (which to me emphasizes this film as a cheap carbon copy) but the films differ in a negative manner; Winstons portrayal was not demeaning to the black community, it is easy to justify since Hudson had the lowest star power of the 3 and he did not play a token black dude. My complaint is not only is Jones a shadow of Hudsons character but she IS coming across as a token black lady.

How neat would it have been if they had the actress who played Abbie Mills on Sleepy Hollow, Nicole Beharie, to play Hundson's role, but give her the character's original backstory of being a fighter pilot? I would have. Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

I don't see why they couldn't have got someone like Aisha Tyler to play the 'token black character' role.  She's funny and she is great at playing highly intelligent characters.  But it seems for all the blathering about progressive casting and feminism, black characters are still being relegated to the side-lines as the 'everyman/woman' character (i.e. the non-scientist).  ::)

It seems all Leslie Jones character has going for her is that she has access to the funeral vehicle which becomes the ecto mobile. I agree they needed a better less stereotypical actress.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 17 May  2016, 23:09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPAklIlov-A

Strewth. Pascal and Feig both deserve to be blacklisted after the way they shafted Reitman. >:(

Here's the latest trailer:


You all know what to do.

Feig and Sony's reaction to this film's performance at the box-office: "So, okay, I don't know if there was a race thing or a lady thing.  But I'm mad as hell!"

Brad 'Cinema Snob' Jones is also refusing to watch/review it.


The latest insider reports state Sony is panicking to re-edit the film in a desperate bid to salvage it:

Quote"There's been a lot of recuts and editing in recent weeks as concerns are growing over the movie," we're told. Even Bill Murray, who had top billing in the Ivan Reitman version of the poltergeist-pursuing classic — and supposedly a small part in the new one — has insiders wondering how "Ghostbusters" will play with audiences when it opens on July 15. The 65-year-old living legend doesn't appear in the film's official trailer.

"Bill's scenes have raised some eyebrows and many in the project are worried that the fans may turn against it before giving it a fair crack," says our insider. "I've never been involved in a project with so many different edits, re-edits and story alterations."

According to our spy, one scene unlikely to appear in the final cut is a musical number that wasn't working out.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/confidential/sigourney-weaver-returns-dead-ghostbusters-article-1.2635262

This particular quote says it all:

Quote"I've never been involved in a project with so many different edits, re-edits and story alterations."

This movie is D.O.A. Just seal it away in the Ecto-Containment Unit before Sony loses any more money.

This is looking more and more like exhibit A in a lesson of people who have grand ideas and no clue what the hell to do with them.

I've only just read all the leaked Sony emails and was pretty shocked by how revolting their treatment of Reitman appeared to be. Here in England with iconic shows such as Dr Who there has often been a tradition (with the 2005 revival series) to appreciate and value the opinions of "legends" from that show's past and welcome them back with open arms when potential for their involvement again presents itself. It really paid off like a charm with that massive success of that show. It seems in America things are....a little different. Obviously the industry there is different and so are "the rules" but if they paid heed to said formula of "respecting the past" boy could they be paid off just as handsomely.

Reitman is almost certainly furious about what has been allowed to happen. You see him sitting "proudly" next to Katie Dippold and Feig but the truth is he's been "rolled out" as a propaganda tool to smooth things over with the fanbase. You would think as one of the greatest ever comedy director's (and to be honest the half creator of Ghostbusters) they might want to listen to his opinion?

I do think though plans are afoot to reclaim his franchise (and as he rightfully, almost vengefully, pointed out in SFX's 30th anniversary Ghostbusters mag in 2014 it remains firmly HIS franchise). With all the hate mail Feig has gotten he'd have to be nuts to want to direct another. And with so many other projects in development at Ghost Corps he's not exactly the new "master" of who says what should happen with the future of Ghostbusters. Reitman is still very much in charge of all that. Feig is merely a hired hand. Evidence suggests their trying to "explain away" the rebooted universe already by talking about making a team up film between the old and new casts. Yeah I know, believe it when we see it! Yet another Avengers cash in and all that! But the point is a better project truer to the universe we love may present itself further along the line. My advice: let's wait till next year after the aftermath, let's see what comes...

It's nauseating how many media outlets are targeting James Rolfe over his decision not to see this film. Just search for his name on Google News and see how many articles there are. Most of these so-called journalists had probably never even heard of Rolfe until now, yet they're launching personal attacks at him en masse. And the main charge they're levelling is, of course, sexism. Even though he didn't say anything even vaguely sexist in his video. Even Patton Oswalt has been taking shots at him on Twitter. Apparently if you're reluctant to squander your disposable income on Sony's product, then you must be a misogynistic whiny MRA man-child. That's actually the level of argumentation these professional journalists are running with.

The encouraging thing to come out of all this is that the majority of comments on these articles are in Rolfe's defence. It's as if Rolfe is speaking for the fans while the media's speaking for Sony. I don't think I've ever seen this kind of conflict between a corporation and the reluctant consumer market they're targeting. The audience is screaming in one loud voice, "We don't want this product!" while the media attempts to bully them into paying for it. It's insane.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 19 May  2016, 18:17
It's nauseating how many media outlets are targeting James Rolfe over his decision not to see this film. Just search for his name on Google News and see how many articles there are. Most of these so-called journalists had probably never even heard of Rolfe until now, yet they're launching personal attacks at him en masse. And the main charge they're levelling is, of course, sexism. Even though he didn't say anything even vaguely sexist in his video. Even Patton Oswalt has been taking shots at him on Twitter. Apparently if you're reluctant to squander your disposable income on Sony's product, then you must be a misogynistic whiny MRA man-child. That's actually the level of argumentation these professional journalists are running with.

I'm sure no one believes that we are obligated to see this film.  But most of us aren't posting YouTube videos making a stand about our decision.  Maybe that's what people like Patton Oswalt are objecting to.

That said, it will be interesting to see whether these same journalists will continue to defend the new Ghostbusters when it's finally released and they see it for themselves (assuming they choose to do so).

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 19 May  2016, 19:16
I'm sure no one believes that we are obligated to see this film.  But most of us aren't posting YouTube videos making a stand about our decision. 

That's because most of us aren't YouTube celebrities with a fan base repeatedly asking us to comment on the situation. Rolfe originally posted the video on his own website, Cinemassacre.com, before Mike Matei reposted it on the Cinemassacre YouTube page. Any long-time followers of Rolfe will know that he always makes announcements in the form of videos like this. Cinemassacre has Twitter and Facebook pages, but Rolfe prefers communicating with his fans through videos rather than in written form. He's been doing this since around 2006. He's made numerous videos on the Ghostbusters franchise in the past and many people have been waiting to hear his views on the reboot, particularly since he's remained conspicuously silent on the subject until now. So he posted a video, just like the thousands of other videos he's regularly uploaded over the years, clarifying his stance and saying that he had no interest in seeing the movie just so he could trash it. He knows he won't like the film so he's choosing not to pay to see it.

He didn't say anything sexist.

He didn't attack the people who did want to see the film.

And he didn't present the video in-character as AVGN or as a 'click bait' entry in some other commercial series; it was just another video update, like the countless others he uploads on his website, stating his disinterest in reviewing a film he knew in advance he'd be prejudiced against.

The overreaction from Oswalt and several media outlets, calling Rolfe out and insulting him on a personal and political level, has been totally uncalled for. Oswalt took a lot of heat himself from DC fans over negative comments he made during a Screen Junkies video prior to the release of BvS. He should know better than to treat others the same way.

Why are these outlets ganging up on Rolfe, an independent filmmaker with zero influence in Hollywood? Why not go after Brad Jones, Joe Vargas and all the other YouTube celebrities who've made similar videos announcing their intentions to skip the Ghostbusters reboot? Why should any of these people be attacked on a personal level anyway, just because they voiced an opinion, and one which the vast majority of fans happen to agree with?

I don't know, but I don't tend to believe in conspiracy theories, so there must be some tangible reason why Patton Oswalt and others are singing out this individual and not others who have made videos expressing their decision not to see the film.

Anyway, Oswalt has got form behaving in a hypocritical manner.  He's the guy who used to make rape jokes and then one day had an epiphany and started calling out others for their sexism and misogyny.  I hate rape jokes too, but unlike Oswalt, I never made them, and I don't take it upon myself to act like an authority on the subject.

I don't generally buy into conspiracy theories either, but there's something suspiciously coordinated about the way so many sites are making an example out of this one indie filmmaker. They all seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that Rolfe is a professional film critic. He isn't. He makes comedy films and reviews videogames. Admittedly he did used to review movies for Spike.com, but he stopped doing those about five years ago. Since then he just does his annual 'Monster Madness' reviews in October and uploads the odd video of him and his friends chatting about a new release they've just seen.

The only time I remember a comparable backlash to one of his film-related videos was back in 2008 when he said he preferred Burton's Batman to Nolan's, thereby incurring the wrath of the Nolanites. But the press never got in on the argument like they're doing now, and neither did any celebrities. Rolfe simply isn't a pro film critic, so why single him out?

I sense a kill order from Sony's viral marketing division behind the whole thing. Ral confirmed that Feig's been personally contacting various websites to drum up support for the movie, and I know for a fact that at least one of the reboot's most dedicated defenders on the IMDb has been exposed as a Sony intern. They're working overtime to try and counteract all the negativity. I think Rolfe's a casualty of that campaign. As for Oswalt, I suspect he's probably friends with some of the people who worked on the movie and is defending it for personal reasons. Though that's still no excuse for him attacking people with different opinions.

Well, there you go.  The guy prefers Burton's Batman to Nolan.  To many people in the critical and filmmaking establishment, that represents heresy.  I guess for that reason he's a fair target.  :-\

You know, I checked out X-Men: Apocalypse this past Friday night, and during the trailers, this new Ghostbusters was previewed. The guy sitting directly in front of me, following the end of the Ghostbusters trailer, leaned up and said to his buddy sitting 2 seats away from him that he was on his own if he wanted to see that! Adding, "Sorry, that looks like garbage."

I then couldn't help but to tell a friend I was watching X-Men with by adding, "You know ... he's right."

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 31 May  2016, 07:24
You know, I checked out X-Men: Apocalypse this past Friday night, and during the trailers, this new Ghostbusters was previewed. The guy sitting directly in front of me, following the end of the Ghostbusters trailer, leaned up and said to his buddy sitting 2 seats away from him that he was on his own if he wanted to see that! Adding, "Sorry, that looks like garbage."

I then couldn't help but to tell a friend I was watching X-Men with by adding, "You know ... he's right."

This movie's production budget is around $150 million. Sony will probably squander a further $100 million on p & a costs. Which means it'll need to gross around $400-500 million worldwide just to break even. I'm sorry (no I'm not), but there's no way in hell that's going to happen.

I really wish it was opening opposite Suicide Squad. I'd love to see SS bury it at the box office. Payback for McCarthy's last film dethroning BvS. And although SS is an ensemble film, it's clearly spearheaded by Robbie's Harley Quinn. If audiences flock to see her instead of McCarthy & co, it would be a beautiful rebuttal to the 'misogyny' card Feig and Pascal will inevitably deploy as excuse for their film's failure.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 31 May  2016, 07:24
You know, I checked out X-Men: Apocalypse this past Friday night, and during the trailers, this new Ghostbusters was previewed. The guy sitting directly in front of me, following the end of the Ghostbusters trailer, leaned up and said to his buddy sitting 2 seats away from him that he was on his own if he wanted to see that! Adding, "Sorry, that looks like garbage."
I then couldn't help but to tell a friend I was watching X-Men with by adding, "You know ... he's right."

I'm indifferent to the new Ghostbusters. I enjoyed the original and the sequel as much as everyone else, though I wouldn't call myself a dedicated fan, and I simply have no interest nor antipathy for this new one. That being said, I find the Angry Video Game Nerd's foul-mouthed reviews of licensed Ghostbusters games a lot more entertaining than the latest trailer.  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLVGmvmNitg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF2snKCmqJo

I saw notorious online film critic Devin Faraci accusing James Rolfe of "unintentionally" having a sexist reaction against the new film. I say notorious, because Faraci has gone on record of making offensive remarks in the past:

Quote
"I don't think "Angry Video Game Nerd" knows that he's having a sexist reaction to Ghostbusters. I think a lot of guys online DO know that (or that they don't believe sexism exists, which is even worse), but I don't think "Angry Video Game Nerd" is sitting around stewing over women in Ghostbusters.

And that's why his attitude is maybe the most dangerous. It speaks to the way sexism (and racism and plenty of other isms) kind of lives quietly inside of us, and the way it can impact our beliefs and actions without us even once considering it. But it is truly the only answer for why the Ghostbusters reboot is THIS infuriating to this many men. They may not be consciously aware of it, but their innate sexism is giving a boost to their already-existing dislike of reboots and their disinterest in this new movie."

"Disliking the new Ghostbusters doesn't make you sexist.  But if you're raging about it – if you're angry enough to call a boycott, to make a video drawing a line in the sand – maybe you should consider where all of this anger is coming from."

Source: https://houseofgeekery.com/2016/05/21/the-angry-video-game-nerd-the-new-ghostbusters-and-why-ive-lost-all-respect-for-devin-faraci/

Faraci might've had a point if Rolfe played his Nerd persona in the video, but given he's misinformed... :-[

How the hell do these people get famous? Just by making videos of themselves talking about stuff? Hell I can do that. Squeeze my boobs together and bat my eyelashes and everything else. Fame here I come.

Back on topic sort of, has anyone found the new Ecto Cooler yet and if so how is it? I probably had a decent blood content of Ecto Cooler as a child but I know nothing's as good when you're older as it was as a kid so I'm afraid they f***ed it up same as they f***ed up by doing this movie.

'Unintentional sexism' sounded to me like one of those trendy PC-buzzwords like 'safe spaces' and 'micro aggressions', but reading Faraci's quote in full, I do think he has a point (although I'm not saying that point necessarily applies to Rolfe/'The Video Game Nerd').

Objectively speaking, the new Ghostbusters film looks bad for all sorts of reasons, none of which has anything to do with the genders of the main cast-members, but I also agree with Faraci that some of the OTT hate directed towards the new film very likely displays an underlying sexism which amounts to 'how dare they make a Ghostbusters film with girls!'

There are plenty of lame films to object to, like say the next Transformers sequel or Adam Sandler movie, so I do question where all the particular hate towards the Ghostbusters reboot is coming from.

It may, likely, be a very bad film, but the truth is, this hate was already revved up to eleven way before the first (admittedly woeful) trailer hit the screens.  I'm not saying anyone needs to love the upcoming movie or should feel compelled to see it (I certainly won't unless word-of-mouth somehow convinces me that we've all been wrong), but I'm still not sure whether this film merits quite the level of hate it has been generating.

Let's all be clear here: this film is not 'raping' anyone's childhood (a disgusting term in anycase).  We'll still always have the original 1984 and '89 movies, and no one can take that away from us. :)

I'm actually supporting the film and will be going to see it. And it took me a VERY loooooong time to accept it for what it is and what it's trying to do. Maybe seeing and loving Disney's The Jungle Book recently blinded my senses? lol Having a lot of great Bill Murray stuff in that rubbed off on me and gave me the enthusiasm to see what they have done. I think the people who hate the project are severely underestimating the film's release. This shall not be a flop.

We've seen so many superhero pictures nothing's really unique or surprising anymore. But it's been 27 years since the visuals of proton packs, ghost traps and that theme song have been seen or heard on the big screen and all this, for better or for worse, will I think push the film through and make it appealing for an audience. Not to mention the franchise's own "history" and it's lighthearted tone. I think audiences are feeling "dead" with the constant deep, dark atmosphere's of every single fantasy picture. Another reason why I think Jungle Book blew audiences away (and why I think the darker Andy Serkis' version hasn't a chance in hell regardless of it's technical achievements).

Then there are the cameos. At the end of the day this is the best we'll now probably get. I don't think you'll ever see Bill Murray or even Annie Potts in any sort of Ghostbusters movie ever again after this (reboot, sequel or not). So I'd much rather go and see that than miss out on the experience. If the film is a success and does end up getting sequels things will get far more displeasing much further down the line with an entirely new, unrelated cast. I keep recalling Tom Baker's cameo in the Dr Who 50th Anniversary special (which frankly was the greatest thing in that action packed roller-coaster ride). If done right the Ghostbusters cameos can be as good as that was. Don't tell me nobody could resist asking Murray to throw in a "touch" of Peter Venkman on his day on set...

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 13:56
I'm actually supporting the film and will be going to see it. And it took me a VERY loooooong time to accept it for what it is and what it's trying to do. Maybe seeing and loving Disney's The Jungle Book recently blinded my senses? lol Having a lot of great Bill Murray stuff in that rubbed off on me and gave me the enthusiasm to see what they have done. I think the people who hate the project are severely underestimating the film's release. This shall not be a flop.

We've seen so many superhero pictures nothing's really unique or surprising anymore. But it's been 27 years since the visuals of proton packs, ghost traps and that theme song have been seen or heard on the big screen and all this, for better or for worse, will I think push the film through and make it appealing for an audience. Not to mention the franchise's own "history" and it's lighthearted tone. I think audiences are feeling "dead" with the constant deep, dark atmosphere's of every single fantasy picture. Another reason why I think Jungle Book blew audiences away (and why I think the darker Andy Serkis' version hasn't a chance in hell regardless of it's technical achievements).

Then there are the cameos. At the end of the day this is the best we'll now probably get. I don't think you'll ever see Bill Murray or even Annie Potts in any sort of Ghostbusters movie ever again after this (reboot, sequel or not). So I'd much rather go and see that than miss out on the experience. If the film is a success and does end up getting sequels things will get far more displeasing much further down the line with an entirely new, unrelated cast. I keep recalling Tom Baker's cameo in the Dr Who 50th Anniversary special (which frankly was the greatest thing in that action packed roller-coaster ride). If done right the Ghostbusters cameos can be as good as that was. Don't tell me nobody could resist asking Murray to throw in a "touch" of Peter Venkman on his day on set...

The 2009 video game might be the a more nostalgic representation since they were able to turn back the clocks and make the characters look like they did in the 90's and got all the voices including harold Ramis. Even if they agreed to do it, would anyone want to see Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd hunting ghosts for more than a cameo at their current ages?

Besides seeing the cameos, the other part I'm intrigued about is to see how the effects look. One thing which hampered the 80's film was the film technology at the time. They had a tough act representing the paranormal without looking cheesy and that's why there wasn't much ghosts and ghostbusting;

-a ghastly scene early in the film (library/baby carriage possessed)
-the ghostbusters saving from a ghost attack (slimer in the hotel/courtroom scolari brothers)
-a montage with the theme music playing
-the end battle


Now we have CGI. We'll never know what Ivan Reitman would have done with todays technology but there's a lot more things which can be done today that couldn't have been done in those days. And in the trailer while the characters are up for debate, the visuals do look impressive. I kind of feel like if this film is terrible it wont sully the originals. Enough has changed that if it's awful, fans can ignore it as an entry in the series much like Grease 2, son of the mask, caddyshack 2, neverending story III etc. Who knows, maybe if it takes off we could see different variations. The initial idea for the first film and one which was implemented in the 09 video game was having ghostbuster stations around the country similar to fire departments and police stations, maybe if this film surprises the next film can focus on a different type of team.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 13:56
This shall not be a flop.

It will flop.

Sorry – I'm glad some of you are looking forward to it and I hope it meets your expectations – but in order for this film to break even, it has to make a minimum of around $500 million worldwide. Anything less than that and it's a flop.

The reality is it'll be lucky to make $300 million WW. Sony will lose money on this film. I guarantee it. If they don't, I'll eat my hat. I predicted Alice Through the Looking Glass would underperform, and it's presently flopping right on schedule. I'm also predicting Independence Day: Resurgence will underperform. But Ghostbusters will be the biggest and most embarrassing flop of the year. Count on it.

With regards to seeing the old crew back on the big screen, this movie has killed any chance of them reprising their classic roles. There won't be a sequel. And Dan Aykroyd is kidding himself if he thinks Pascal will suddenly revive his concept for Ghostbusters 3. They could have brought back the old gang and given us a real Ghostbusters sequel. Instead they decided to ditch the classic characters and mythology, pull the plug on the movie Reitman, Ramis and Aykroyd had been developing for over 20 years, and give us this drivel instead. There probably will be another Ghostbusters reboot one day, but it's unlikely to occur within the lifetime of the original cast. Not after this film buries the franchise so deep in development hell it'll be sharing a room with Bill & Ted 3.

This was their last shot at a proper follow up to the first two Ghostbusters films. But thanks to Pascal and Feig, we'll never get that now. Call it fate, call it luck, call it karma – this movie is D.O.A.

I know BvS wasn't a flop, but it was predicted to be a $billion-grossing movie.  It wasn't.  Wouldn't you say that whatever happens with the Ghostbusters reboot, BvS will end the year as the biggest 'failure'/underperformer?  After all, did anyone really expect the Ghostbusters reboot to do well in the first place (Cobblepot4Mayor and a few others excepted...no offence Cobblepot)?

Also, I wonder how much of the Alice Through the Looking Glass's poor box-office performance is attributable to the controversy surrounding Depp's private life. :(

I just hope that none of this tarnishes Tim Burton's career.  The 2010 Alice in Wonderland film wasn't my favourite Burton film by a long way (it's arguably his worst, give or take 2001's Planet of the Apes), but I'm a die-hard Burton fanboy.  I make no apologies about that. :)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 17:52

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 13:56
This shall not be a flop.

It will flop.

Sorry – I'm glad some of you are looking forward to it and I hope it meets your expectations – but in order for this film to break even, it has to make a minimum of around $500 million worldwide. Anything less than that and it's a flop.

The reality is it'll be lucky to make $300 million WW. Sony will lose money on this film. I guarantee it. If they don't, I'll eat my hat. I predicted Alice Through the Looking Glass would underperform, and it's presently flopping right on schedule. I'm also predicting Independence Day: Resurgence will underperform. But Ghostbusters will be the biggest and most embarrassing flop of the year. Count on it.

With regards to seeing the old crew back on the big screen, this movie has killed any chance of them reprising their classic roles. There won't be a sequel. And Dan Aykroyd is kidding himself if he thinks Pascal will suddenly revive his concept for Ghostbusters 3. They could have brought back the old gang and given us a real Ghostbusters sequel. Instead they decided to ditch the classic characters and mythology, pull the plug on the movie Reitman, Ramis and Aykroyd had been developing for over 20 years, and give us this drivel instead. There probably will be another Ghostbusters reboot one day, but it's unlikely to occur within the lifetime of the original cast. Not after this film buries the franchise so deep in development hell it'll be sharing a room with Bill & Ted 3.

This was their last shot at a proper follow up to the first two Ghostbusters films. But thanks to Pascal and Feig, we'll never get that now. Call it fate, call it luck, call it karma – this movie is D.O.A.

I don't doubt for a second that it flops but if hell freezes over and it makes $500,000,001 can we decide the hat you eat?

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 18:10
I know BvS wasn't a flop, but it was predicted to be a $billion-grossing movie.  It wasn't.  Wouldn't you say that whatever happens with the Ghostbusters reboot, BvS will end the year as the biggest 'failure'/underperformer?  After all, did anyone really expect the Ghostbusters reboot to do well in the first place (Cobblepot4Mayor and a few others excepted...no offence Cobblepot)?

BvS definitely performed below what Warner Bros was hoping. But it got close enough to breaking even at the box office that merchandise, promotional tie-ins and DVD/Blu-ray sales should push it into profitable territory. Certainly not as profitable as WB would have liked, but they should take home a few hundred million at least. We won't know the full extent of the economic fallout until we see how it affects the performances of Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman and Justice League. If they underperform too, then a lot of the blame will probably trace back to franchise disillusionment over BvS. In terms of cost-to-profit ratio, it probably will go down as one of the biggest disappointments of the year. But that's because it was so absurdly overbudgeted to begin with ($250 million production cost + $165 million promotional budget = way too much money to be spending on the sequel to a film that grossed $668 million).

Ghostbusters, on the other hand, is unlikely to turn a profit in any area. It's not just the box office revenue Sony should be worried about. What girl's going to want a Melissa McCarthy action figure when they can get a toy Harley Quinn or Katana from Suicide Squad? And while product placement has always been a big factor in Sony's films (see the recent James Bond movies for examples), I expect the toxic pre-release WOM may deter companies from investing in promotional deals. That said, it looks like at least one company has already backed the wrong horse.


Who knows, perhaps if 2016 sees a record surge in pressure washer sales Sony may yet turn a profit. Probably not, though.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 18:10I just hope that none of this tarnishes Tim Burton's career.  The 2010 Alice in Wonderland film wasn't my favourite Burton film by a long way (it's arguably his worst, give or take 2001's Planet of the Apes), but I'm a die-hard Burton fanboy.  I make no apologies about that. :)

You'll hear no arguments from me on that score. I saw Alice in Wonderland on the cinema and it was the first Burton film I've ever felt tempted to walk out of. He really phoned it in with that one.

Quote from: Catwoman on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 18:15
I don't doubt for a second that it flops but if hell freezes over and it makes $500,000,001 can we decide the hat you eat?

I'm afraid I subsist entirely on a diet of derbies and panamas. But you can choose the sauce.

Derby works. Topped in this.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tabasco.com%2Fobjects%2Fpages%2Ftabasco-products%2Fsauces%2Ftabasco-original-red-sauce%2Fimages-x%2Fpreview-red.jpg%3Fg%3DnPc03v%26amp%3Ba%3Dngshn6&hash=6b139240cedf788ef38a83b8f447a288c504db79)

Judd Apatow has declared people who aren't looking forward to the new Ghostbusters as Donald Trump supporters.

Quote
"I would assume there's a very large crossover of people who are doubtful Ghostbusters will be great and people excited about the Donald Trump candidacy. I would assume they are the exact same people. That movie is made by the great Paul Feig and stars the funniest people on Earth, so I couldn't be more excited. I think people have paid too much attention to just some angry trolls. And it will be judged on its own greatness. I don't think anything really matters the way you think it does. The movie comes out, and it will be great, and people will just be happy to have it. It's not like anybody really cares about a couple of idiots who hold onto the idea that things never evolve. I always think, you know, we have our past and if you can come up with a new, cool way to do something, then that's exciting and hopefully, it will make a lot of people happy."

Source: http://sciencefiction.com/2016/06/03/according-judd-apatow-ghostbusters-haters-trump-supporters/

I don't follow politics, but I assume any comparisons to approving Donald Trump is supposed to carry negative connotations?

Now more than ever I hope this movie bombs hard.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  5 Jun  2016, 07:39
Now more than ever I hope this movie bombs hard.

What are the odds that gender politics will persuade the majority of critics to give the film good reviews?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun,  5 Jun  2016, 07:23
Judd Apatow has declared people who aren't looking forward to the new Ghostbusters as Donald Trump supporters.

That's one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read in my life, but thanks for the chuckle, Judd.

QuoteI don't follow politics, but I assume any comparisons to approving Donald Trump is supposed to carry negative connotations?

Pretty much. It's nothing new. Just childish BS.

Back in the 50's, these simple minded plebians would be calling people who didn't agree with them Communists/Soviet spies/sympathizers, ect. These days, in our current political climate, it's now you're a Trump supporter. Either way, it's the same demagogic nonsense. Primarily used to rile up an emotional reaction, rather than actually using the 'ol noggin and thinking for one second by considering, "Well, hey. Maybe some people don't want to see this cause it looks like it actually blows!?!"

Before you know it, they'll be adding; biting fingernails, eating meat, cracking your knuckles, nibbling while cooking, not moisturizing, fiddling with keys, excessive throat clearing, and gambling to the list of people who support Trump.

Cause really, that's logical right?

::)  ;)

Bravo, Joker. Perfect post.

All the people that aren't on board this movie's concept are just sexist, racist and homophobic pigs. Label 'em and start chanting equality slogans to drown everything out. That'll work. That'll make the world a better place.

Let's see, they can't use the sexism card on me and I think Donald Trump is an idiot (still infinitely better than the alternative. Third party vote FTW) so that don't work either. What's their next excuse for why people hate this sh*t?

Judd Apatow is a moron who hasn't made a good film in a decade.

As much as I personally dislike Trump's politics, this smug, neoliberal, 'we're all part of the same club and know better than you' elitism really bugs me, and partly explains why many regular people are put off by mainstream politics and mainstream media.

Apatow is no doubt good mates with Paul Feig and his Ghostbusters cast, and thus he is using the whole 'if you don't like this film you're a sexist/homophobic/racist reactionary pig' card to bully people into saying nice things about the new movie.

It's a form of entitlement.  They seem to be saying 'you're now obligated to see this film and anyone who doesn't is a bigot'.

Now, I do think some of the people attacking the Ghostbusters reboot, especially ones who were doing it from the start, may be sexist, and unwilling to give the film a chance because of the female line-up.  But having seen the mirth-free trailer, and the utter lack of originality or wit on display as far as the film's synopsis and marketing goes, there are clearly many valid reasons for choosing to give this film a wide berth.

That said, it will be fascinating to see what type of reviews the critics give this film.  Many critics are liberals, but I hope, like me, that they are objective liberals and won't let their politics dictate their honest assessment of the film.

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun,  5 Jun  2016, 11:12
Let's see, they can't use the sexism card on me and I think Donald Trump is an idiot (still infinitely better than the alternative. Third party vote FTW) so that don't work either. What's their next excuse for why people hate this sh*t?

I see Dan Akroyd came out and said the new movie is funnier than the originals. Not that he is going to bad mouth the product. But his comments are predictable. The studio will need more than a previous cast member publically supporting the new film to run a profit at the box office. People are already offside.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  5 Jun  2016, 15:15
I see Dan Akroyd came out and said the new movie is funnier than the originals. Not that he is going to bad mouth the product. But his comments are predictable. The studio will need more than a previous cast member publically supporting the new film to run a profit at the box office. People are already offside.

Exactly. I like Dan Akroyd, and I think he really did put in a honest effort in trying to get GB3 up and running, but these days I think Dan, after it became clear GB3 just wasn't going to happen, is much more concentrated on the prospects of multiple films in a GB franchise, and all the merch/revenue that will come with that (whichj Dan is assuredly going to get a piece of), than he is being the least bit critical of what Sony's putting out there. He's not going to damper the product in any way. Never has, never will.

I saw the trailer for this movie and I didn't laugh once. And on top of that I thought it looked and sounded stupid.

This is a shame too because I like Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Cecily Strong. I hope their careers are able to recover if the movie fails.

But I don't think I can watch a movie that has both Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones in it. One would be bad enough. But both?

Something occurred to me tonight while I was in the store looking at the toy section. There were quite a few toys for the new movie and I kind of hissed at them, but then I looked beside them and there were action figures of the four original Ghotsbusters. So it got me thinking that in a way, it's good that this movie is coming out because it will turn people back towards the original and reawaken the love for it and maybe remind people who haven't thought of it in a while what geniuses Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd were. It's such a classic from top to bottom with the story and the effects and the sight gags and everything else. And hopefully if people come along thinking that it is somehow tied to this steaming pile of who knows what, we can all set them straight.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun,  5 Jun  2016, 13:13
Judd Apatow is a moron who hasn't made a good film in a decade.

As much as I personally dislike Trump's politics, this smug, neoliberal, 'we're all part of the same club and know better than you' elitism really bugs me, and partly explains why many regular people are put off by mainstream politics and mainstream media.

Apatow is no doubt good mates with Paul Feig and his Ghostbusters cast, and thus he is using the whole 'if you don't like this film you're a sexist/homophobic/racist reactionary pig' card to bully people into saying nice things about the new movie.

It's a form of entitlement.  They seem to be saying 'you're now obligated to see this film and anyone who doesn't is a bigot'.

Now, I do think some of the people attacking the Ghostbusters reboot, especially ones who were doing it from the start, may be sexist, and unwilling to give the film a chance because of the female line-up.  But having seen the mirth-free trailer, and the utter lack of originality or wit on display as far as the film's synopsis and marketing goes, there are clearly many valid reasons for choosing to give this film a wide berth.

That said, it will be fascinating to see what type of reviews the critics give this film.  Many critics are liberals, but I hope, like me, that they are objective liberals and won't let their politics dictate their honest assessment of the film.

Trump is mostly perceived as a modern day Hitler wannabe but without the brains. From the same political party that brought the world George Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, and still maintains Barack Obama is an inside terrorist. I think what they are getting at with that comment is Trump is visibly sexist and racist so they're attempting to say "If you don't like this movie you must be sexist or racist like Trump"

I respect Akroyd's stance. He's a very classy guy. Maybe he's pushing to bring Ghostbusters back for financial gain but I perceive it as him looking at GB like his baby and wanting his baby to grow. He was very tight with Harold Ramis and likely wants to do it for Harold's memory. I don't think he's as juveneille as others to criticize those who don't like his project. He actually defended Bill Murray for many years when people blamed Murray for the lack of a third film.

Filmmaker Michael Moore had the audacity to laugh at Britain's consideration at wanting to leave the EU recently. Even going so far as describing us as "nuts" I think....well, I suppose the man perhaps "cares" about our stance to be that passionate. But on the subject of Trump I think it's much more than horrendously nuts that some Americans want a lying twat of a business man potentially running and keeping safe their country. It's....not too smart a move, know what I'm sayin? lol

Maybe this will cheer us all up instead getting back onto the subject of Ghostbusters....? Yes, this really IS happening!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY00ic-1dmc

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat, 18 Jun  2016, 16:39
Filmmaker Michael Moore had the audacity to laugh at Britain's consideration at wanting to leave the EU recently. Even going so far as describing us as "nuts" I think....well, I suppose the man perhaps "cares" about our stance to be that passionate. But on the subject of Trump I think it's much more than horrendously nuts that some Americans want a lying twat of a business man potentially running and keeping safe their country. It's....not too smart a move, know what I'm sayin? lol

Maybe this will cheer us all up instead getting back onto the subject of Ghostbusters....? Yes, this really IS happening!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY00ic-1dmc

Better than a lying twat with no leadership qualities whatsoever. They both suck ass though.

By now I've lost track of the number of insults the cast and crew have hurled at diehard Ghostbuster fans. According to Feig and McCarthy, anyone who doesn't like the trailers is a whiny friendless Trump-supporter living in their mother's basement, etc and so forth. I honestly can't recall another film with a promotional campaign that hinged so heavily on insulting the audience. All they've incurred by doing this is a widespread desire to see Paul Feig humiliated when the movie flops.

But Sony continues to battle on. They're still deleting negative comments on YouTube and allowing only the sexist comments to remain. Meanwhile the cast has done a sterling job responding to all of those misogynistic complaints. I'm just wondering when they'll start addressing the numerous other criticisms, such as the poor quality CG effects, racial stereotyping, unfunny jokes, disrespect for the mythology, and the fundamental obsolescence behind the entire project.

The latest trailers – showcasing fart jokes and McCarthy's character hip-thrusting after shooting the Marshmallow Man in the groin – are making it look more and more like one of those Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer flicks. Yet Billy Murray and Dan Aykroyd have repeatedly assured us "these girls are funny." Word to the wise: truly great comedians don't need other comedians to inform their audience that they're funny; it should be evident in their material. Or in this case, in the copious amounts of footage they've already released.

It's also interesting to note how social media reactions are tracking. I think I mentioned this in one of the Batman v Superman threads, but pro.boxoffice.com monitors daily Twitter activity to constantly update a positive/negative post ratio. An index of 9:1 or better is considered good. Anything less than that is considered worrying. An example of an upcoming film that's getting positive pre-release Twitter activity is Steven Spielberg's The BFG.


And here's the current Twitter index for Ghostbusters.


Sony should be afraid. Very afraid. Particularly since there seems to be some doubt over whether this will even get released in China, which is the largest overseas market for big budget Hollywood films.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat, 18 Jun  2016, 16:39
Filmmaker Michael Moore had the audacity to laugh at Britain's consideration at wanting to leave the EU recently. Even going so far as describing us as "nuts" I think....well, I suppose the man perhaps "cares" about our stance to be that passionate. But on the subject of Trump I think it's much more than horrendously nuts that some Americans want a lying twat of a business man potentially running and keeping safe their country. It's....not too smart a move, know what I'm sayin? lol

I respect our US cousins, and many of them, including their own leader, want us to stay in the EU.

Not that any country's decisions should be dictated by another's opinions.  But in this instance, I believe the US has the UK's best interests at heart, and we'd be fools to ignore their advice, and the vast majority of the world's business and political leaders, as well as the IMF and 9 out of 10 economists.  That's one of the many reasons why I urge every Brit to vote 'Remain'! :)  We're better together than apart.

I think we should all keep schtum until the film is released.  If it's as bad as we all suspect it might be, the reviews and word-of-mouth should settle it.  Until then, the film's defenders will use every trick in the book to paint the detractors as being unfair/possessing an agenda.

For what it's worth, I'm a neutral.  The film looks bad from everything I've so far seen, but I don't object, on principle, to an all-female reboot, and I think it's only fair to withhold final judgement until its release.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat, 18 Jun  2016, 16:39
Filmmaker Michael Moore had the audacity to laugh at Britain's consideration at wanting to leave the EU recently. Even going so far as describing us as "nuts" I think....well, I suppose the man perhaps "cares" about our stance to be that passionate. But on the subject of Trump I think it's much more than horrendously nuts that some Americans want a lying twat of a business man potentially running and keeping safe their country. It's....not too smart a move, know what I'm sayin? lol

Britain should leave for many good reasons. Hopefully it happens. I won't say any more, but given others had their say, I've added my two cents in as well.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 19 Jun  2016, 09:11Britain should leave for many good reasons. Hopefully it happens. I won't say any more, but given others had their say, I've added my two cents in as well.

What reasons?

Since you're American and won't be affected if Britain leaves the EU, I'm curious to know why we should take your advice.  Explain yourself. >:(

And where are you getting your 'knowledge' and 'facts' from on this topic from?

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 19 Jun  2016, 09:30

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 19 Jun  2016, 09:11Britain should leave for many good reasons. Hopefully it happens. I won't say any more, but given others had their say, I've added my two cents in as well.

What reasons?

Since you're American and won't be affected if Britain leaves the EU, I'm curious to know why we should take your advice.  Explain yourself. >:(

And where are you getting your 'knowledge' and 'facts' from on this topic from?

From a Canadian's perspective (and we are probably closer to the UK than the United States are in many facets including similar political systems) it seems the popular opinion here for Britain to remain part of the EU. I actually wonder aloud how much the upcoming US election could  impact that decision. Trump has so much distain world wide that many countries are preparing for world war three as though it is a realistic possibility if he gets in.

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 20 Jun  2016, 16:35From a Canadian's perspective (and we are probably closer to the UK than the United States are in many facets including similar political systems) it seems the popular opinion here for Britain to remain part of the EU. I actually wonder aloud how much the upcoming US election could  impact that decision. Trump has so much distain world wide that many countries are preparing for world war three as though it is a realistic possibility if he gets in.

I'm going to refrain from saying anything about Trump, since I know I've caused 'offence' before for voicing an opinion on the man, but I will say that I am concerned about the reckless world we're all potentially heading towards.

But I am curious, what do you mean when you suggest that the US election might factor in how the UK votes on Thursday?  I'm not really sure how significantly it will play on voters' minds.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 20 Jun  2016, 18:40

Quote from: riddler on Mon, 20 Jun  2016, 16:35From a Canadian's perspective (and we are probably closer to the UK than the United States are in many facets including similar political systems) it seems the popular opinion here for Britain to remain part of the EU. I actually wonder aloud how much the upcoming US election could  impact that decision. Trump has so much distain world wide that many countries are preparing for world war three as though it is a realistic possibility if he gets in.

I'm going to refrain from saying anything about Trump, since I know I've caused 'offence' before for voicing an opinion on the man, but I will say that I am concerned about the reckless world we're all potentially heading towards.

But I am curious, what do you mean when you suggest that the US election might factor in how the UK votes on Thursday?  I'm not really sure how significantly it will play on voters' minds.

I think the thing that every country should and probably is thinking right now is "If there were a War, who would our allies be?" People joke about it but it's not a coincidence that 9/11 happened within months of Bush and Cheney taking office and Trump is regarded even lower than Bush on two key fronts; he seems far less intelligence and far more reckless. The probability of a third world war happening this decade increases heavily if Trump wins and that should be in the back of every world leader's minds.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 19 Jun  2016, 09:30
Since you're American and won't be affected if Britain leaves the EU, I'm curious to know why we should take your advice.  Explain yourself. >:(

Personally, I'm way more curious as to why Obama is taking it upon himself to pressure Britain to remain in the European Union? Quite frankly, it's not Obama's place to say one way or the other, and thus should have kept his nose out of it. It's Britain's decision, and theirs alone. I mean, I know he literally cannot help himself in interjecting himself into various topics, while remaining creepily silent on others, but oh well.

Quote from: Riddler
I think the thing that every country should and probably is thinking right now is "If there were a War, who would our allies be?" People joke about it but it's not a coincidence that 9/11 happened within months of Bush and Cheney taking office and Trump is regarded even lower than Bush on two key fronts; he seems far less intelligence and far more reckless. The probability of a third world war happening this decade increases heavily if Trump wins and that should be in the back of every world leader's minds.

It's funny you mention allies, cause I guess the United States could scratch long-time ally, Israel, off the list, and considering all the disrespect shown during Obama's tenure, who could blame them? Russia? China? Probably not. Maybe Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin just likes giving the middle finger to Obama, but yeah, considering both have shown to have no qualms in openly becoming more and more anti-american in recent years, you certainly have your answer there. I really have no desire to sit here and get into conspiracies about 9/11, but if we're going to lay what happened to the WTC on that horrible day completely at Bush's feet, who I am also not a fan of, then it's also fair to say that Bill Clinton was a inept clusterF in his continued decisions to pass on taking out Osama Bin Laden. Which goes back as far as 1998.

With Trump, I'm not a fan of everything he says, and outright disagree with some comments of his, and he's certainly brash in his personality, but I can't say I'm buying into the talking points of him being some sort of unintelligent, reckless, future war monger. It's unfortunately just not consistent with his past in business dealings which has proven him to be fairly astute, and even savvy to some extent. It's such an obvious thing to say but becoming successful is one thing, remaining successful is another, and I would think that being counseled by partners/employees is a typical aspect in his profession, rather than the idea of him shooting from the hip day-to-day with a volatile temper. Which is laughable. Course, when does consistency mean anything? I mean, ISIS is on it's heels and their presence and influence poses the minimalist of threats, right?  ::)

I'm sure the CIA would agree.

Unfortunately I fear that World War III is inevitable regardless of who the president is. What keeps me up at night is my anxiety that westerners might be too busy hating themselves to unite together and confront the threat. I wish we could once again see ourselves as the good guys in this world. Are we more terrified of being politically incorrect than of the destruction of our civilization?

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 21 Jun  2016, 21:30Personally, I'm way more curious as to why Obama is taking it upon himself to pressure Britain to remain in the European Union? Quite frankly, it's not Obama's place to say one way or the other, and thus should have kept his nose out of it. It's Britain's decision, and theirs alone. I mean, I know he literally cannot help himself in interjecting himself into various topics, while remaining creepily silent on others, but oh well.

I don't think anyone should be primarily making their decision this Thursday on the basis of what any US politicians and commentators say.  Likewise, I would not expect any US citizen to be taking too much note of what any of us in the UK opine with respect to the November presidential election.

That said, Obama is entirely right to state his reasonably held belief that were the UK to leave the EU, the Brits would be 'at the back of the queue' with respect to any trade negotiations.  It would be wrong of him to withhold such a reasonably held belief.  He's not simply stating his own personal opinion on what is the right or wrong decision; he's stating a belief based on facts, experience and logic, as to what will, or at least most likely will, occur if the UK leaves.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 21 Jun  2016, 22:12
I don't think anyone should be primarily making their decision this Thursday on the basis of what any US politicians and commentators say.  Likewise, I would not expect any US citizen to be taking too much note of what any of us in the UK opine with respect to the November presidential election.

That we can agree on, but what was the point of any united states politician, let alone Obama chiming in? Other than attempting to influence the vote in some fashion. Perhaps another beer summit is in order?

QuoteThat said, Obama is entirely right to state his reasonably held belief that were the UK to leave the EU, the Brits would be 'at the back of the queue' with respect to any trade negotiations.  It would be wrong of him to withhold such a reasonably held belief.  He's not simply stating his own personal opinion on what is the right or wrong decision; he's stating a belief based on facts, experience and logic, as to what will, or at least most likely will, occur if the UK leaves.

I'll once again refrain in saying that it's none of Obama's business, and that Brits are not only intelligent, but are perfectly capable in forming their own conclusions, and decisions when it comes to the said upcoming vote. I'm not going to sit here like a politician and claim to know what "I" think is personally best for another country, but from what I understand, there are definite reasons why such a vote is taking place for the people of Great Britain to begin with, and some of it has to do with increased national defense security, and no longer having to acquiesce to EU in the area of Britain's national defense. Which is pretty important in this day and age. I get that Obama is in the process of a free trade agreement with the EU and with Britain out, it would complicate matters very much, which explains his eagerness to chime in with his opinion, but once again ... butt out and let the people of Great Britain decide what's best for them.

I believe another issue British people who support their nation leaving the EU are concerned about is immigration. Many may believe there's to much of it and that the immigrants aren't properly assimilating. Many Europeans and Americans are understandably concerned about this issue because of terrorism, jobs and other factors.

No offence The Joker but I'm not sure where you are getting your information from.  At no point during the endless and rigorous EU debate has the national defence budget been an issue for the 'Leave' side of the campaign.  If the US news or certain politicians are reporting this to be a major issue, then I am afraid to inform you, they are misrepresenting the truth.

If anything the UK's security will be at greater risk if it leaves the EU.  As part of the EU, there is a European Arrest Warrant that makes it possible for the UK to cooperate with police and security forces across European borders to apprehend criminals.  Moreover, terrorism is a problem that can best be solved through cooperation with European allies.

There has been discussion from the 'Leave' side about increased resources for the NHS if we were to leave the EU (although the figures they've cited have been exposed as a sham), but nothing whatsoever about increased defence spending.  Once again, speaking as a Brit, I am curious to know where you're getting your information from and what lies are being reported across the Atlantic in order for you to be under this impression.

And whilst JokerMeThis is entirely right to state that immigration is the main issue for the 'Leave' campaign, and clearly that issue is partly related to security concerns, mostly the issue of jobs and resources (including school places and NHS waiting times) seem to be cited for tackling EU immigration.  What this all fails to account for however, is that by leaving the EU, the UK will suffer a significant loss in trade and global investment, all of which costs jobs.  As Obama (rightly IMHO) explained, any trade treaty that already exists between the EU and US would have to be renegotiated, and that will take time.  Whilst it may not be Obama, or for that matter Trump's, place to tell the UK how to vote, Obama is entirely right to reasonably explain the cold hard facts with respect to what will, or at least most probably will, occur if the UK does decide to leave.  We're entitled to have that information, and I am grateful to Obama for imparting it.  He would be irresponsible not to.

Finally, assuming security is the biggest issue on everyone's mind, whether they are American or European, bear in mind that one of the few international leaders who will be most rubbing his hands with glee if the UK were to leave the EU and thus possibly prompt a gradual domino effect across the EU of other countries leaving, is Vladimir Putin.  A divided and weaker Europe allows him to further stretch his military might across Eastern Europe, including the Crimea, unabated.  It also allows him to continue funding despots like Assad in Syria, which is turn has contributed to the rise in recruitment for opposing terrorist groups like ISIS. 

Surely the threat posed by Russia should be at the forefront of our minds and I despair that the same people who would have once have talked tough on the USSR, are now seemingly cosying up to Putin, a leader who openly speaks of recapturing Russia's glory days under the old regime, and contemptuously of people like Gorbachev who worked with Reagan to end US-USSR hostilities.

Ok ......

After 9/11, the Bush administration negotiated very tough agreements to place an ABM system in Poland and the Czech Republic.  Their leaders expended much political capital, and in doing so, found themselves against a rising chorus of Leftists in those countries.  That is the deal that Obama scrapped soon after being elected.  Yet today, the threat of missile attacks from Iran are greater than they were after 9/11.  Sure, they may not have a nuclear warhead, but does that make them no less dangerous?

That is why many of the supporters of leaving the EU in Britain note that in doing so, will increase security for Great Britain in two ways.  First, they would not have to acquiesce to EU demands and policy in the area of national defense.  This would likely bring US-British security relationships even closer than anything they could achieve while in the EU.  Second, they would not have to adhere to EU guidelines, mandates and quotas over immigration or refugees. Which is what JokerMeThis was referring to. That is, they-Great Britain, not the EU, would be responsible for their borders.

Speaking of borders, cause it kinda goes without saying, even though the Obama administration downplays acts of terrorism as "workplace violence" or whatever else that can be imagined, the biggest international threat right now is not completion of a free trade agreement with Europe.  It is radical Islamic terrorism.  Many British intelligence officials actually support Britain leaving the EU. Arguing that other countries are not serious about confronting the very real threats now played out three times in less than two years.  We have already seen the results of a lack of intelligence sharing between Holland, Belgium, France and Turkey. It's a serious threat, see said examples, and should never be taken lightly and/or downplayed.

Both sides of the vote have valid points and criticisms as it relates to the upcoming vote. Which is visibly in response to growing sentiment in Britain that has been under the surface for a generation now. I'm sure you can appreciate that fact.

As it relates to Obama hoping to effect the vote in Great Britain, it's no secret that the United States are in the process of negotiating a free trade agreement with the EU and with Britain out, it would complicate matters very much.  Obama has actually told Great Britain that it would lose influence. Even to the extent of having his chief trade negotiator informing his British counterparts that the US is not interested in making trade agreements with individual countries and intimated British goods could be subject to hefty tariffs. Fortunately, because of history, Great Britain ties to America run deeper than British ties to continental Europe.  For this reason, both sides in the British EU debate likely realize that a weakened lame duck President like Obama deciding to take it upon himself to chime in and issue a feeble ultimatum towards another country's right to vote on said topic is for naught. If anything, his comments may very well accomplish a backlash with undecided voters and cries of Yankee interference.

Quote from: JokerMeThis on Tue, 21 Jun  2016, 22:04
Unfortunately I fear that World War III is inevitable regardless of who the president is. What keeps me up at night is my anxiety that westerners might be too busy hating themselves to unite together and confront the threat. I wish we could once again see ourselves as the good guys in this world. Are we more terrified of being politically incorrect than of the destruction of our civilization?

World War III is happening right now. Mass immigration coupled with surging birthrates. This war is in our neighborhoods and cities with the clash of ideologies. It's hilarious that the left wingers champion LGBT rights and all these causes, but then welcome in groups of people en masse who have gays stoned and thrown off buildings.

The locals are the ones who are having to change their way of life to suit the arrivals. Not the other way around. Labels such as 'racist' have stifled all debate. Religion is not a race but a belief anyone of any background can share.

The world of the future is going to look a lot different, and not for the better. But nothing is changing on this front. Let's put our heads in the sand and not cause offence. How dare a civilised human being reject medieval barbarisms. It's far worse to talk about these issues than to actually commit them, apparently.

It's about time western civilization stood up for itself.

♫Lay down your funky weapon, come join us on the floor
Making love and music's the only things worth fighting 4.
We r the new power generation, we want 2 change the world.
The only thing that's in our way is u.
Your old fashioned music, your old ideas,
We're sick and tired of u telling us what 2 do.

New power generation, you've got to rearrange. We've got
We r the new power generation, you've gotta give up all the fight
We gotta try 2 love one another, baby.
We r the new power generation♫

So say the lyrics from a good man recently taken from us. Take heed, chill and get funky with your bad self! lol Sorry, it was all getting a little depressing on here so I tried to instigate a lil cheer. I think I much preferred when we were all arguing about why the Ghostbusters had suddenly sprouted tits.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Thu, 23 Jun  2016, 02:17
I think I much preferred when we were all arguing about why the Ghostbusters had suddenly sprouted tits.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages0.hiboox.com%2Fimages%2F2516%2Ff8d41b5ae007091244fc4bda3a182e5b.gif&hash=04ee7f9e68ad7ce2a522662ccb5134043198cb55)

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Thu, 23 Jun  2016, 02:17
I think I much preferred when we were all arguing about why the Ghostbusters had suddenly sprouted tits.

Contrary to the narrative being spun by Sony's marketing division, I don't think anyone in this thread has argued about the sex of the Ghostbusters.

Anyway, here's the title theme cover from the new movie. The quality is consistent with everything else we've seen so far.


Meanwhile Sony Pictures Entertainment's Motion Picture Group chairman Tom Rothman recently commented on the negative response from the core Ghostbusters fanbase:

QuoteIt's the greatest thing that ever happened. Are you kidding me? We're in the national debate, thank you. Can we please get some more haters to say stupid things?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tom-rothman-spider-man-plans-904849

The perfect visual metaphor for Sony's relationship with their target audience:

Perfect GIF to summarise the situation. I am really curious how much money this makes at the box office.

Would be funny if the reception is like that of Fan4stic, but unfortunately I think there's too many people who are morbidly curious about the new GB that would make it tank that hard.....

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 30 Jun  2016, 00:51

Would be funny if the reception is like that of Fan4stic, but unfortunately I think there's too many people who are morbidly curious about the new GB that would make it tank that hard.....

At the very least it has SOMETHING going for it; the visuals look impressive and fans of 3-D would probably be interested to see what the ghosts look like. I still have nothing intriguing me to watch Fan4stic and it's sitting right there on netflix in front of me.

It's too bad modern technology wasn't available in the 80's, having CGI available for the original cast would have been something. That's probably why there isn't much ghost busting, it was too hard to accomplish convincingly at a low cost back then.

I was right about Alice Through the Looking Glass underperforming.

I was right about Independence Day: Resurgence underperforming.

Trust me - Ghostbusters is next. Just look at the latest positive-to-negative Twitter ratios:


1:1! And the bomb drops in less than two weeks! The only way it could be worse was if there were literally no positive tweets, even from Sony.

Heads will roll once this debacle reaches its inevitable conclusion. At this stage, not even an apology from Paul Feig and Tom Rothman would suffice. Anything short of ritual seppuku live streamed on the internet will be inadequate.

Much like Alice 2, which came and went without much interest, I'm getting the same vibes with Ghostbusters.

Saw my first ad for this sh*t while watching a Jeff Dunham special. Ugh. The black lady, Leslie whatever her name is, there's a part at the end where she apparently tries to dive in the crowd and misses and lands on the ground and she goes "I don't know if it was a lady thing or a race thing" and at that point I just flipped the f***ing TV off. I've had enough.

I wouldn't be surprised if many people don't even know that a sequel to Independence Day is in the theaters right now. What happened to it?

Quote from: JokerMeThis on Mon,  4 Jul  2016, 01:07
I wouldn't be surprised if many people don't even know that a sequel to Independence Day is in the theaters right now. What happened to it?

Very true. That's been quiet as well.

If it exists, there's a female version of it. Rule 63.

Here's an interesting video recapping some of the dishonest and bullying tactics Sony has employed against fans over the past few months. If you don't already want this film to fail, you probably will after watching this.


The five stages of failure I'm predicting we'll see from Sony:

1)   The film underperforms opening weekend. Representatives of the movie issue statements blaming its unpopularity on sexism and misogyny.

2)   The film is annihilated by Star Trek Beyond during its second weekend (though I'm predicting STB will also underperform compared to the previous two Trek films). Someone at Sony comments on the disappointing box office performance, claiming that they're happy with the results and still have plans for a sequel in development. Alternatively, they might make a vaguer noncommittal statement about how they still have "big plans" for the franchise as a whole. They might try and show confidence in the property while distancing themselves from the reboot, touting the potential for spinoffs rather than direct sequels to Feig's film. Either way, they'll try and save face by acting like the franchise has a future at Sony.

3)   The film moves into VOD and home release windows. Here it fares slightly better than it did in theatres, mainly due to morbid curiosity from a microscopic portion of the 99.9999999999% of humanity who wisely decided not to see it on the big screen.

4)   Sometime in the future, Sony Pictures issues a press release detailing every film they currently have in production. Ghostbusters 2 is conspicuously absent from the schedule. Sony refuses to comment on the omission.

5)   Someone connected with the reboot is interviewed years from now. During the course of the discussion, the interviewer asks, "Whatever happened to that Ghostbusters reboot sequel?" To which the interviewee replies, "What sequel? Oh, that sequel. Yeah, it's been indefinitely shelved."

In the interests of wishful thinking, two further possible stages:

6)   Sony Pictures goes out of business and loses the rights to all the properties they were planning on rebooting/remaking. Spider-Man returns to Marvel Studios and Ghostbusters is laid to rest with dignity.

7)   Bill Murray tells us what he really thinks about the remake.

I looooooooove point 7.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  4 Jul  2016, 17:28Here's an interesting video recapping some of the dishonest and bullying tactics Sony has employed against fans over the past few months. If you don't already want this film to fail, you probably will after watching this.

Sony is in an interesting position right now.

The movie is modestly budgeted which, I assume, means it has a modest marketing push behind it. If the full weight of Sony Studios was behind this movie, I'm convinced they could buy a big opening weekend somehow. But something tells me that's not possible in this case.

So basically the movie will have to sink or swim by itself. That's bad news for Sony because not many people seem too interested in the movie and Sony has personally offended key demographic shares they need in order for the movie to gain traction. What little interest the movie seems to have comes mostly (based on what I've seen) from a sort of political ideology. "See this movie because it has women in it!"

Nobody can predict the future, especially not with a situation this unprecedented. But what I'll say is I genuinely don't know how the hell you come back from toxic buzz like new Ghostbusters has with so few resources and so little time.

What's really fascinating here is how the sex politics have been at play with this movie at literally every step of the way. From inception to opening day, it's All About Women. From the get-go the issue was framed (by force when necessary) that opposition to the movie is a weird type of misogyny.

This is honestly the first time I can remember a movie studio launching a smear campaign against their own audience to promote a movie. I've been interested in marketing for a long time now and I'm curious how this will play out. Something tells me it won't be so good.

By the by, the movie looks crappy as well but that's apparently not even the point anymore.

Jeez Independence Day: Resurgence is currently 5.6 on the IMDB. I didn't have much interest without Will Smith but figured it would still be a watchable blockbuster in the vein of Transformers. It does seem the producers and studio somewhat ran a smear campaign against Smith who mainly cites scheduling conflicts and contractual obligations as his reason for declining. I've seen several people involved in the film bring up After Earth's failure when discussing Smith which to me is a low blow.

Part of me is wondering if SONY is intentionally causing this film to be a trainwreck at this stage. Clichees like "bad press is better than no press" or "people can't help but slow down and look when they see a car accident" come to mind. Some people will go see it for the controversy alone.

This will definitely be a film in which you can't trust IMDB ratings; expect plenty of votes of 1 once voting opens up.

Quote from: JokerMeThis on Mon,  4 Jul  2016, 01:07
I wouldn't be surprised if many people don't even know that a sequel to Independence Day is in the theaters right now. What happened to it?

Alot of that is probably due to just a lack of relevance with the general public.

Sometimes waiting 10-20 years to do a follow-up works, sometimes it doesn't. Clearly in the case of ID4, it didn't work. Certainly not as well as exec's were hoping. Now if the follow-up had been ready by say ... 1999, or 2000. Maybe even 2005. I can easily picture the film doing quite well. Maybe not as successful as the original, but well enough to perhaps justify the thought of a 3rd film in the series. Unfortunately, too much time has passed, and it's just not a very relevant property. Unlike other films that have a strong nostalgic following that includes various forms of merchandising (Transformers, Back to the Future, Alien, Predator, TMNT, Karate Kid, Robocop, or hey Ghostbusters! ect), ID4 pretty much enjoys none of that. As you really don't ever see someone walking around with a ID4 movie shirt, or say even cosplayers as the ID4 aliens. Nothing. Merchandising? Zip. What was once a complete spectacle to see in 1996, has become very routine in 2016.

Can't say it's surprising that there's just a severe lack of interest.

I really want this to bomb hard. HARD. It's obnoxious. The whole undercurrent that anyone who critiques the film is sexist. Entertainment being hijacked by such issues just pisses me off to the extreme. But the filmmakers actually double down on this and throw it back in your face. Seriously? Get the eff outta here. If you want to be treated equal, don't complain when it's too equal. I won't watch the movie, but I'll watch the aftermath with glee.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue,  5 Jul  2016, 10:00
I really want this to bomb hard. HARD. It's obnoxious. The whole undercurrent that anyone who critiques the film is sexist. Entertainment being hijacked by such issues just pisses me off to the extreme. But the filmmakers actually double down on this and throw it back in your face. Seriously? Get the eff outta here. If you want to be treated equal, don't complain when it's too equal. I won't watch the movie, but I'll watch the aftermath with glee.

The critical embargo ends in a few days. Let's crack open the popcorn and watch the reviews and box office figures pour in. It's gonna be a blast.

Okay this is going to sound awful and I guess it is awful but it's the only analogy I can think of to sum up what I'm thinking of. Know how the special ed kids get participation ribbons at athletic events and everyone acts like they won even though they finished 20 minutes after the actual winner and that was with taking a short cut? I'm afraid this movie will get it's participation ribbons from some critics for being the special ed kid and a girl to boot. Well I shouldn't say afraid cause I don't care except for the fact that I have a low bullsh*t tolerance and hate seeing it perpetuated.

Plus I'm gullible and if enough people say "Hey it was good!" I may waste $8.50 and then get banned for life from the theater for throwing handfuls of Milk Duds at the screen when it's as bad as it looks. Keep me on the straight and narrow, y'all. Don't let me stray.

The rumours about a female Slimer in a wig were true:

Quote from: Catwoman on Tue,  5 Jul  2016, 18:24
Okay this is going to sound awful and I guess it is awful but it's the only analogy I can think of to sum up what I'm thinking of. Know how the special ed kids get participation ribbons at athletic events and everyone acts like they won even though they finished 20 minutes after the actual winner and that was with taking a short cut? I'm afraid this movie will get it's participation ribbons from some critics for being the special ed kid and a girl to boot. Well I shouldn't say afraid cause I don't care except for the fact that I have a low bullsh*t tolerance and hate seeing it perpetuated.

I'm afraid you may be right. A few of the more leftwing media outlets like Vox and Salon – the types who score films according to how many minorities are represented rather than actual quality of filmmaking – might buy into Sony's victim narrative and support it for political reasons. Then again, they might just as easily latch onto the stereotypical depiction of the lead black character and use that as a basis for criticism. Either way, we'll soon find out.

Quote from: Catwoman on Tue,  5 Jul  2016, 18:24Plus I'm gullible and if enough people say "Hey it was good!" I may waste $8.50 and then get banned for life from the theater for throwing handfuls of Milk Duds at the screen when it's as bad as it looks. Keep me on the straight and narrow, y'all. Don't let me stray.

A part of me wants to say, "Save your money." But another part of me thinks it would be hilarious to let you go ahead and ruin the screening for the other viewers. But then I realised there probably wouldn't be any other viewers anyway. So I think you're best off saving your cash. It's not worth the trauma of sitting through this wreck.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue,  5 Jul  2016, 19:14
The rumours about a female Slimer in a wig were true:

(https://i.redditmedia.com/Y2MP9rhaHT6xoZrkz4chK3Ie16HD8xyeIRwm1u5uiUM.jpg?w=1024&s=b110f3875a814a67db35be43df01d2e3)

Hmmm ....

Well, I would love to see an interview where Paul Feig is asked goofy questions about this, while the interviewer is slyly showing off custom made cue cards only the audience/crew can see.

"Now tell me, Feig, I always wanted to know, what is the difference between a male Slimer and female Slimer really?"

"Well, she has wig and a bow in her head."

"That's it? Get right out of town!"

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue,  5 Jul  2016, 17:22
The critical embargo ends in a few days. Let's crack open the popcorn and watch the reviews and box office figures pour in. It's gonna be a blast.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2Fpopcorn_yes.gif&hash=894b2fdc3f745e241be7ec532d86a9672b806baa)

It's clearly a transvestite Slimer! lol Seriously, that may be the gag here.

But that's not my issue. There is a wider problem in my book. There are smart ass, snot nose, articles such as this which is why I'd very much like Kim Jong Un to nuke the World quite frankly lol http://www.wired.com/2016/07/open-letter-from-ghostbusters-ii/

No here's my issue. Here they are attempting to reintroduce a legendary franchise. Question? Should you then piss on the past of the less successful installments during the grand celebrations of the big relaunch? I don't think so. When Doctor Who came back I cannot recall many people saying "Y'know that Colin Baker era? Well that was sort of bollocks wasn't it?". That may have been true but I genuinely don't recall anyone saying it publicly. Everybody pretty much wonderfully got all nostalgic in the wider media. 

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Wed,  6 Jul  2016, 11:06
There are smart ass, snot nose, articles such as this which is why I'd very much like Kim Jong Un to nuke the World quite frankly lol

Don't ever say that.

The cop out for the apologists of the film will likely be that the film was ambitious; it dared to be different. Different isn't always better though, there's a reason the status quo was the status quo.

I must be the only person who liked Ghostbusters 2 lol.

I like Ghostbusters 2 as well. I've never understood why it's so unpopular. I thought it had a lot of really intelligent and thought-provoking things to say about human nature. And the effects human nature can have on the human race collectively.

I always liked the implication about the incident that happened in Berlin in the late 1930's. We know there was a lot of anger and hate in Berlin at that time.

Last week the film's defenders (both of them) were boasting about the review embargo being lifted on July 4th, citing the underlying note of confidence as proof the film must be good. Then it was clarified the embargo was in place until July 10th. Now I'm hearing rumours it's been extended until the day of release.

Their confidence in early reviews was the one thing Sony's marketing division had going for them, and now it looks like they won't even have that. The reviews will likely be terrible either way. But if they at least have the balls to lift the embargo this weekend, then I'll give them some small modicum of credit for doing so. If however they keep the embargo in place for another full week, then that'll be the final nail of indignity in this film's miserable coffin.

I honestly can't recall another movie in my lifetime receiving this much pre-release hate. Not even Fantastic Four. People aren't just apathetic towards it – they're actively hyping it to fail. It's anti-hype, if such a thing exists. I've seen so many people across the internet who are eagerly anticipating its release. Not because they want to see it, but because they want to see it bomb.

Meanwhile there are rumours Target stores are pulling all their Ghostbusters merchandise due to poor sales. The movie comes out next week, and they're already displaying the toys under clearance. :D

Quote from: Catwoman on Wed,  6 Jul  2016, 20:45
I must be the only person who liked Ghostbusters 2 lol.

I like Ghostbusters 2 a lot. It's true that it recycles a lot from the first film, particularly in terms of structure and pacing. But it's still a pretty good movie in its own right. The court room sequence is one of the funniest in either film, there are some wonderfully spooky apparitions (Vigo, the Scoleri Brothers, the ghost train, the passengers alighting from the Titanic, etc) and overall it's a lot scarier than the first film. I'd rate the original Ghostbusters a solid 9.5/10. The sequel is at least a 7/10. The new movie looks like a 0/10.

Heh, I'm loving it! Maybe in the future movie studios will think twice before demonizing 49% of the public... and probably 60% of this movie's core audience.

The beauty of it is that it doesn't matter how much money the movie makes anymore. At this point, the entire narrative revolves around how alienated people are from this movie. Heads could roll no matter what because the perception will be it could've done better had it not been for all the pre-release hatred. Even if the movie turns a profit, Sony will look for lost revenue where there may not have been any. All because they invented a non-existent narrative.

You live by spin, you die by spin.

Quote from: riddler on Wed,  6 Jul  2016, 20:08
The cop out for the apologists of the film will likely be that the film was ambitious; it dared to be different. Different isn't always better though, there's a reason the status quo was the status quo.

Yup. If anything, this will probably go the way of so many lackluster remakes that have spewed out of Hollywood in the past 10-15 years, where in due time, it's essentially downgraded to being just 'there' while the original continues to be  exploited, and thus, remaining in the public consciousness.

I guess some of it depends on one's age bracket, but whenever someone brings up, say, Total Recall, you're likely to be met with a quote from the Arnold film. Not the remake/reboot or whatever you want to call it. Mention Footloose, and probably the 1980's Kevin Bacon film is going to be referred to. Same with Robocop, Karate Kid, Arthur, The Omen, Conan the Barbarian, Stepford Wives, ect. It's not to say that remakes in of themselves are complete garbage, cause 1. That's ridiculous, and 2. There are remakes which are actually superior to the original film, however there are quite a few (remakes) that just flat out did not manage to make a impact that was anything like that of the original's, and thus, as a consequence, become less and less relevant as the years go on.

With Feig's ... "film" I would be surprised if it's influence, or lack there of, is any different than the examples provided above.

Here today, gone tomorrow.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed,  6 Jul  2016, 23:06Yup. If anything, this will probably go the way of so many lackluster remakes that have spewed out of Hollywood in the past 10-15 years, where in due time, it's essentially downgraded to being just 'there' while the original continues to be  exploited, and thus, remaining in the public consciousness.

I guess some of it depends on one's age bracket, but whenever someone brings up, say, Total Recall, you're likely to be met with a quote from the Arnold film. Not the remake/reboot or whatever you want to call it. Mention Footloose, and probably the 1980's Kevin Bacon film is going to be referred to. Same with Robocop, Karate Kid, Arthur, The Omen, Conan the Barbarian, Stepford Wives, ect. It's not to say that remakes in of themselves are complete garbage, cause 1. That's ridiculous, and 2. There are remakes which are actually superior to the original film, however there are quite a few (remakes) that just flat out did not manage to make a impact that was anything like that of the original's, and thus, as a consequence, become less and less relevant as the years go on.

With Feig's ... "film" I would be surprised if it's influence, or lack there of, is any different than the examples provided above.

Here today, gone tomorrow.

What is everyone's favourite remake?  One of mine is 1988's Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, with Steve Martin and Michael Caine, which I think improves on the Marlon Brando and David Niven film, Bedtime Story, on which it is based.  Some of the scenes are identical to the original but work so much better because of the even superior chemistry between the two leads.

My favorite remake (and also my favorite movie) is the 1959 version of Ben-Hur. The silent movie is great too but since I doubt many people today watch silent movies I wouldn't be surprised if many people don't realize it's a remake. And there's a new remake coming out soon.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed,  6 Jul  2016, 23:35What is everyone's favourite remake?

Ocean's 11 is probably my favorite. It was so well done and so its own beast that a lot of people don't even know it's a remake of the Rat Pack's Ocean's Eleven.

Father of the Bride was pretty done well. Not my genre but well done on its own merits. It's tempting to credit Steven Martin and Martin Short with a big proportion of its success.

Dawn of the Dead comes to mind... but it's done in a way that if you want it to be not a remake but instead a parallel story of the original it can be. Or it can be a remake.

True Lies is technically a remake. I never saw the original but I can't imagine it being better than Cameron's version.

Probably the worst remake I've seen in the last ten years is Rob Zombie's Halloween. First, it doesn't need to be remade. But second, if it did, it deserved to be remade by someone who understood the original. Zombie proved he didn't GET Michael Myers. He's not human. He's literally the boogie man. He doesn't speak because he has fundamentally no humanity in him.

I never saw the remake of Halloween and it sounds like that's a good thing. The original version is one of my favorite scary movies ever. It's a pretty intelligent and thought-provoking film. I even like some of the sequels. Mainly 4 and 5 because Danielle Harris was a brilliant child actress. I like Part 3 too but that's not about Michael Myers.

Scarface, True Grit, The Fly, Cape Fear, and Little Shop of Horrors comes to mind.

I agree with Dawn of the Dead as well. I know George Romero doesn't advocate the whole zombies being able to run deal, but I thought Snyder did a effective job in essentially re-telling that story in a modern setting.

John Carpenter's The Thing is another, though admittedly, it's a much more loose remake (if it can be called that) if anything.

I didn't mind the Robocop reboot with Keaton, even though I've only seen it once.

Ghostbusters: PC edition feels like Blues Brothers 2000. A poor film which didn't really set anyone's world on fire. Everyone loves the original, but the sequel limped into the cinemas and is best ignored. However this Ghostbusters movie actually seems like it'll be worse.

Online sources say "Ghostbusters" is tracking for an opening weekend between $40 and $50 million in the US.

Time will tell, and very soon. But even if that figure bears out, that means "Ghostbusters" will top out, what, at $120 million in the US? Some percentage of those numbers will come from the morbidly curious... and that's business which won't last very long.

I might be wrong but I don't think this will be very pretty.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  7 Jul  2016, 04:36
Online sources say "Ghostbusters" is tracking for an opening weekend between $40 and $50 million in the US.

Time will tell, and very soon. But even if that figure bears out, that means "Ghostbusters" will top out, what, at $120 million in the US? Some percentage of those numbers will come from the morbidly curious... and that's business which won't last very long.

I might be wrong but I don't think this will be very pretty.

Any ideas how much this movie cost to make?

Wiki cites a budget of $154 million (source is the Hollywood Reporter). That tallies with what I've found elsewhere.

Did I mention that Girlbusters doesn't exactly have a clear field? It'll face new competition every weekend for the rest of the summer. Take a look at what's opening in the next few weeks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_film

If the $40-$50 million opening weekend bears out, essentially Girlbusters must ultimately go on to triple that figure in order to pull its weight in the US. Good luck with that.

Yeah, to be honest, I've watched the Robocop remake a time or two on Blu ray since seeing it in the theater, and have since changed my mind somewhat on it. It's a decent film. I don't think it in any way made a lasting impression like that of the original, but it's certainly not terrible. I think the tired and boring all black armor was very much a fatal mistake in that "different to just be different" approach studios take with various degrees of success, but overall it's a decent enough take. To me, it's frustrating to an extent cause I think the Robocop remake had the opportunity to be something really exceptional, but again, it was always a uphill climb due to how straightforward the plot of the original was, along with all of the unique satire components added in by Verhoeven & crew, in addition to that film (the original Robocop) being rather tightly and smartly edited. The film didn't waste time. It continued to go forward, shaping the story, and all while giving time for the actor's to let their character's shine. Whenever I think of 1980's movies, Robocop and indeed, Ghostbusters do instantly come to mind.

With the upcoming opening weekend for Feig's "film", I'm thinking the 2nd weekend's box office is really going to tell us if this movie is going to be considered a success or not. Considering whatever the cost of this was, along with all the marketing that's been going on for awhile now, I really don't see the projected 40-50 million opening weekend being something Sony would consider fabulous (no matter the spin) considering it could very well drop like a stone the following weekend with all that morbid curiosity some may have being greatly diminished by that point in the game.

Speaking of '80's, I remember the 2009 reboot/remake of Friday the 13th had a very respectable opening weekend, to which I'm sure was alot cheaper to produce than Feig's "film", but with the following weekend, the Friday13th reboot/remake took a nose dive, and thus, despite talk, there never was a sequel.... Which we all know was most assuredly on the agenda.

I'm a Friday the 13th fan, I enjoyed the remake quite a bit (helps I'm a jared paledecki fan). I liked how it went back to the roots of Jason stalking teens in the woods rather than being an invincible super force (no body snatching, no going to space, no telekinesis). Other remakes I enjoyed include heat, father of the bride, the longest yard, and flight of the phoenix.

I remember the initial goal was to have a ghostbusters franchise become the MCU. I think it could have worked if they went about it better; the initial idea for the first time and plot used for the 2009 video game was to have ghostbusters stations around the nation as emergency services similar to police, fire departments, and paramedics. They could have made this work with different types of teams. The female ghostbusters isn't an awful idea but it was too big of a leap for the first modern film. Ideally they should have casted male leads for this one (basically make it a contemporary remake of the first two films) and go from there. They could have had different teams in different regions and eventually an Avengers style ghostbusters film. Sadly I don't see this happening as this film has too many bad things going against it- even if it isn't a flop it wont be a cash cow. 

Something of a buzz presently going on regarding an actual end credits surprise scene in the film. It sounds pretty big from those who have seen early previews. With cries of "stay till after the credits. People will be happy!" and someone (who appears to be a family relative of Paul Feig) announcing "Best...end credits...ever!!".

I had my own speculations about what it might feature, posted my thoughts up and less than a couple of hours later....it's been deleted. So I think I hit the nail on the head. I won't say what I wrote up but if you'd like me to illuminate?

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Fri,  8 Jul  2016, 00:06Something of a buzz presently going on regarding an actual end credits surprise scene in the film. It sounds pretty big from those who have seen early previews. With cries of "stay till after the credits. People will be happy!" and someone (who appears to be a family relative of Paul Feig) announcing "Best...end credits...ever!!".

I had my own speculations about what it might feature, posted my thoughts up and less than a couple of hours later....it's been deleted. So I think I hit the nail on the head. I won't say what I wrote up but if you'd like me to illuminate?

What has anybody said here to make you believe we're at all concerned about spoilers? Especially when any "spoiler" is absolute conjecture on your part?

Bill Murray doing a cameo is my guess, btw.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Fri,  8 Jul  2016, 00:06
With cries of "stay till after the credits. People will be happy!" and someone (who appears to be a family relative of Paul Feig) announcing "Best...end credits...ever!!".

Is it because the ordeal is over and the audience get a refund?

Quote from: JokerMeThis on Wed,  6 Jul  2016, 23:56
My favorite remake (and also my favorite movie) is the 1959 version of Ben-Hur. The silent movie is great too but since I doubt many people today watch silent movies I wouldn't be surprised if many people don't realize it's a remake. And there's a new remake coming out soon.

Will you be catching the new remake of Ben-Hur JokerMeThis?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  7 Jul  2016, 00:07

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed,  6 Jul  2016, 23:35What is everyone's favourite remake?

Dawn of the Dead comes to mind... but it's done in a way that if you want it to be not a remake but instead a parallel story of the original it can be. Or it can be a remake.

Probably the worst remake I've seen in the last ten years is Rob Zombie's Halloween. First, it doesn't need to be remade. But second, if it did, it deserved to be remade by someone who understood the original. Zombie proved he didn't GET Michael Myers. He's not human. He's literally the boogie man. He doesn't speak because he has fundamentally no humanity in him.

I particularly agree with you on these two.  Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead might not be as inspired as the 1970s original but it's still pretty damn entertaining, and apart from the 'zombies in a mall' premise, it's an entirely different film, with an entirely different set of characters and story to the original.

And you're right about the Halloween remake.  An absolutely ugly, atrocious, nasty movie, that replaces the genuine thrills of the original with grot.

Quote from: JokerMeThis on Thu,  7 Jul  2016, 00:18
I never saw the remake of Halloween and it sounds like that's a good thing. The original version is one of my favorite scary movies ever. It's a pretty intelligent and thought-provoking film. I even like some of the sequels. Mainly 4 and 5 because Danielle Harris was a brilliant child actress. I like Part 3 too but that's not about Michael Myers.

I have a soft spot for Halloween 3 too, although I think that's the one Halloween film that could benefit from a remake.  Such a great idea (centring around haunted children's Halloween masks) that would benefit from better execution.  They would have to keep the 'Silver Shamrock' theme though.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu,  7 Jul  2016, 00:31

Scarface, True Grit, The Fly, Cape Fear, and Little Shop of Horrors comes to mind.

I agree with Dawn of the Dead as well. I know George Romero doesn't advocate the whole zombies being able to run deal, but I thought Snyder did a effective job in essentially re-telling that story in a modern setting.

John Carpenter's The Thing is another, though admittedly, it's a much more loose remake (if it can be called that) if anything.

Oh yeah, that's a great list of remakes, especially The Thing (one of my all-time favourite horror movies), and Little Shop of Horrors.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  8 Jul  2016, 02:51

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Fri,  8 Jul  2016, 00:06Something of a buzz presently going on regarding an actual end credits surprise scene in the film. It sounds pretty big from those who have seen early previews. With cries of "stay till after the credits. People will be happy!" and someone (who appears to be a family relative of Paul Feig) announcing "Best...end credits...ever!!".

I had my own speculations about what it might feature, posted my thoughts up and less than a couple of hours later....it's been deleted. So I think I hit the nail on the head. I won't say what I wrote up but if you'd like me to illuminate?

What has anybody said here to make you believe we're at all concerned about spoilers? Especially when any "spoiler" is absolute conjecture on your part?

Bill Murray doing a cameo is my guess, btw.

It's well known Murray is doing a cameo. If they save it for the end credits, it wont be much of a surprise.

Murray cameos as a sceptic TV host who gets killed when the ghost dragon from the trailer knocks him out of a window during the concert scene.

Aykroyd cameos as a cab driver.

Hudson cameos as the uncle of Leslie Jones' character.

Weaver cameos as a college professor who has a conversation with Wigg's character.

Fair warning, the preceding content of this post contained spoilers and should not have been read by anyone who cares about such things.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  8 Jul  2016, 15:59
Murray cameos as a sceptic TV host who gets killed when the ghost dragon from the trailer knocks him out of a window during the concert scene.

Aykroyd cameos as a cab driver.

Hudson cameos as the uncle of Leslie Jones' character.

Weaver cameos as a college professor who has a conversation with Wigg's character.

Fair warning, the preceding content of this post contained spoilers and should not have been read by anyone who cares about such things.

Shouldn't you have put SPOILER at the top of post?

If I wanted to remove the irony, then yes. However I was in fact ripping off a joke from The Simpsons.

I'm not bothered, but should we assume that there aren't any posters here actually looking forward to the new Ghostbusters film?

Considering this thread contains over 16 pages of unremitting negativity, I'd say it's a fair assumption to make. If there is anyone who wants to discuss their enthusiasm for this film in a non-spoiler environment, it should be apparent by now that Batman-Online is probably not the best place to do it. And if there is anyone whose anticipation of this film is contingent on 20 second cameos from the 1984 cast, then that merely illustrates how shallow their investment in Feig's vision was to begin with.

With regards to the cameos themselves, those details were leaked back in March and have been widely circulated in the comment sections of every website on the internet. Descriptions of Dan Aykroyd and Annie Pott's cameos are actually listed next to their names on the cast section of the Wikipedia page. From reddit to YouTube to IGN to the IMDb and beyond, everyone already knows the disappointing details. I believe they were even discussed in some of the videos posted earlier in this thread. Hence the irony in my describing the information as 'spoilers'.

I really think most of you are a pack of miserable cocksuckers actually lol The hell with the quality of the film. Such stroppy attitudes.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat,  9 Jul  2016, 00:24I really think most of you are a pack of miserable cocksuckers actually lol The hell with the quality of the film. Such stroppy attitudes.

That's rather unnecessary. And rude. Sony has gone far out of their way to upset half (or more) of this movie's core audience. They've created a divisive, artificial sexist narrative as part of this movie's promotional campaign. They're only getting what they deserve.

On balance, I find the overall atmosphere here relatively fair. I know of other forums where the reception to, say, Batman v Superman has been mostly toxic... and that for reasons almost entirely unrelated to the movie itself. Even the BVS detractors on this forum are willing to acknowledge what they consider to be the movie's strong points while still disagreeing with the whole.

I think calling them names just because they don't like a movie you apparently are looking forward to is fair, especially in light of Sony's own actions in this whole mess.

Sit back, relax and get a tub of popcorn. Deadline now says Equalitybusters is tracking to open between 35-41 million.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  9 Jul  2016, 01:39Sit back, relax and get a tub of popcorn. Deadline now says Equalitybusters is tracking to open between 35-41 million.

Heh... I know we're not supposed to take pleasure in other people's misfortunes... but... heh...

Cinemas will dark and mostly empty. You could even label them ghost towns.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat,  9 Jul  2016, 00:24
I really think most of you are a pack of miserable cocksuckers actually lol The hell with the quality of the film. Such stroppy attitudes.

Get bent.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat,  9 Jul  2016, 00:24
I really think most of you are a pack of miserable cocksuckers actually lol The hell with the quality of the film. Such stroppy attitudes.

I'm surprised Feig and McCarthy haven't tried this particular line themselves. It fits the obnoxious adversarial tone of the marketing campaign perfectly. Speaking of which, a new scene was added specially to the film in which the cast make fun of online haters. They actually did this. For real.

http://www.cnet.com/news/new-ghostbusters-cast-ad-lib-replies-to-youtube-trolls-in-movie/

Because insulting the audience has done wonders for them so far. ::)

Oh, and the first couple of reviews are in:

QuoteEarly Bird Critic
‏@EarlyBirdCritic

#Ghostbusters (2016) Review - 4/10.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm5BrOnUcAA8wAd.jpg)

https://twitter.com/EarlyBirdCritic/status/751610406834049025

No surprises there then.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  9 Jul  2016, 01:39
Sit back, relax and get a tub of popcorn. Deadline now says Equalitybusters is tracking to open between 35-41 million.

Lol. A few weeks ago it was tracking for a $65 million OW. Then forecasts dropped to around $50 million. Now they're down to $35 million. I can already hear the whistling sound of this bomb plummeting to Earth.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  9 Jul  2016, 02:44
Heh... I know we're not supposed to take pleasure in other people's misfortunes... but... heh...

I feel the same way, but... Why fight it?

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat,  9 Jul  2016, 00:24
I really think most of you are a pack of miserable cocksuckers actually lol The hell with the quality of the film. Such stroppy attitudes.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZKiEPU2.gif&hash=343b70feda0f111996e5b4d6de33d3e3184c8fef)

I no defender for this film, but I do have some sympathy for Cobblepot4Mayor, even if I can't endorse his 'cocksucker' comment (that said, it did seem to be made in jest).

I occasionally find that there is an echo chamber type mentality here, with some posters seemingly taking it for granted that we all think alike and share the same opinions and beliefs, whether it comes to politics, movies, or the best incarnation of Batman.  Thus, minority opinions, for instance 'Ghostbusters 2016 might be good' or 'I prefer Nolan's Batman to Burton's/Snyder's' (and I'm not suggesting I personally subscribe to either of these POVs) are derided and dismissed, rather than respectfully disagreed with.  I won't bring up any specific political opinions, but even here there are a number of posters who assume we all sing from the same hymn book, and worse, all come from the same monocultural perspective.

We need to be much more tolerant of a variety of opinions, including those we don't agree with, and stop arrogantly assuming we all think alike, or that such a thing is even desirable.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  9 Jul  2016, 14:58
I'm surprised Feig and McCarthy haven't tried this particular line themselves. It fits the obnoxious adversarial tone of the marketing campaign perfectly. Speaking of which, a new scene was added specially to the film in which the cast make fun of online haters. They actually did this. For real.

http://www.cnet.com/news/new-ghostbusters-cast-ad-lib-replies-to-youtube-trolls-in-movie/

Because insulting the audience has done wonders for them so far. ::)

This is our motivation. Equalitybusters continues to throw down the gauntlet, rubbing this smelly diaper in our faces. So we stay in our trenches and dig in. By abstaining from the cinemas, shouting from the rooftops with bullhorns and laughing at their failure, we win. But we win by default anyway, given PC Busters very likely dished up a substandard product which will tank harder at the box office than a M1A1 Abrams. If you fight your very audience, you deserve their wrath. So, well done Sony. I need a laugh every day, and you provide that.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freplygif.net%2Fi%2F219.gif&hash=37ee71195700016249f65ca0f0a2733bc6908c15)

It's currently sitting at 74% 'Fresh' at Rotten Tomatoes at the moment...

...cue the conspiracy theories/outrage at 'liberal'/'feminist' critics being forced to give this film good reviews...

By the way, I am not a defender for this film, but I do prefer to wait for a film to be released before making my judgement...

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 10 Jul  2016, 22:58


By the way, I am not a defender for this film, but I do prefer to wait for a film to be released before making my judgement...

You're so full of sh*t even a manure silo is impressed.

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 10 Jul  2016, 23:07You're so full of sh*t even a manure silo is impressed.

Excuse me?  How was that remotely called for?

Personally, I haven't been terribly impressed by the omens for this film or any of the footage I have seen, but I've always asked the reserve judgement until it is actually on release.

I'm not sure why that merits such an abusive response, especially since I didn't direct my post to you (and yet you've regularly asked me to not respond to your posts).

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 10 Jul  2016, 22:58
We need to be much more tolerant of a variety of opinions, including those we don't agree with, and stop arrogantly assuming we all think alike, or that such a thing is even desirable.

The problem, johhnny, is you're not exactly innocent either. You insulted several other people recently over a political topic. And it's not like they were hostile towards you, they simply gave their own opinion about the subject.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 10 Jul  2016, 23:48
Personally, I haven't been terribly impressed by the omens for this film or any of the footage I have seen, but I've always asked the reserve judgement until it is actually on release.

Too bad you wouldn't give Batman v Superman a chance and outright dismissed it instead.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 10 Jul  2016, 22:58
It's currently sitting at 74% 'Fresh' at Rotten Tomatoes at the moment...

...cue the conspiracy theories/outrage at 'liberal'/'feminist' critics being forced to give this film good reviews...

It's not really "conspiracy", when you have top reviewers actually admitting to having a bias.

-"I'll confess that I'm pulling for Ghostbusters to work both creatively and financially, because I fear that its relative success or failure will be taken as evidence about the viability of female-led movies. It's unfortunate, because it's clear that I, as a result of this "controversy," now have a bias in favor of this film. I'd rather just go in objectively, but I can't honestly say that it's possible any longer."


Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/the-dartboard/ghostbusters-has-become-fun-summer-movie-the-battleground-for-internet-politics#6dHdRhqUa5hcoHVw.99

Quote from: Travesty on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 15:27

Quote
It's currently sitting at 74% 'Fresh' at Rotten Tomatoes at the moment...

...cue the conspiracy theories/outrage at 'liberal'/'feminist' critics being forced to give this film good reviews...

It's not really "conspiracy", when you have top reviewers actually admitting to having a bias.

-"I'll confess that I'm pulling for Ghostbusters to work both creatively and financially, because I fear that its relative success or failure will be taken as evidence about the viability of female-led movies. It's unfortunate, because it's clear that I, as a result of this "controversy," now have a bias in favor of this film. I'd rather just go in objectively, but I can't honestly say that it's possible any longer."

Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/the-dartboard/ghostbusters-has-become-fun-summer-movie-the-battleground-for-internet-politics#6dHdRhqUa5hcoHVw.99

That's a single example.  But in this instance the critic is clearly an idiot.  If they really give a damn about sexism they should either be honest and say that the film doesn't work, irrespective of the gender dynamics, or they should have lied (and yes I realise that the latter option is wrong, but it's certainly not as idiotic and self-defeating as admitting to providing a biased review).

But you can't use one critic as an example of the general consensus.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 13:55

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 10 Jul  2016, 22:58
We need to be much more tolerant of a variety of opinions, including those we don't agree with, and stop arrogantly assuming we all think alike, or that such a thing is even desirable.

The problem, johhnny, is you're not exactly innocent either. You insulted several other people recently over a political topic. And it's not like they were hostile towards you, they simply gave their own opinion about the subject.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 10 Jul  2016, 23:48
Personally, I haven't been terribly impressed by the omens for this film or any of the footage I have seen, but I've always asked the reserve judgement until it is actually on release.

Too bad you wouldn't give Batman v Superman a chance and outright dismissed it instead.

I 'insulted' the poster, The Joker.  I have since apologised.  However, I never called him any names.  I simply asked what his motives were for supporting Brexit, even though it didn't personally affect him as an American.  I also reminded everyone to avoid discussing politics since I had believed we had agreed to avoid the subject on this forum, but since the subject had already been raised and since I felt so passionately about how disastrous Brexit would be in economic and political terms and in terms of social cohesion, I felt compelled to respond to the pro-Brexit rhetoric.  And needless to say, I have so far been proven right in terms of my fears regarding a post-Brexit UK/world.  In fact, even I hadn't foreseen the significant rise in racist/xenophobic attacks that followed the decision to leave the EU.

As for my comments on Batman v Superman, I as hoping, contrary to the bad word-of-mouth and my significant doubts over the casting of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex, that the film would be good.  As soon as the unanimously negative reviews and underwhelming, even borderline disastrous, public reception and box-office emerged (and I have seen various comedy shows and articles take it for granted that the film is now a popular joke), it was clear that my fears were realised.  Something which seems to be an all-too-common occurrence.

And just to be clear, once again, I am not a defender of Ghostbusters 2016.  I still suspect that it is a pointless exercise that will eventually end up as a footnote with respect to the Ghostbusters franchise.  However, I will reserve judgement on whether the film is a complete failure or disaster until it is finally on general release. :)

I guess compared to others here I'm more receptive to the film. I can't imagine a scenario where many people claim this is the third entry everyone has been waiting for but I've read a few reviews indicating despite it's horrendous marketing, the film itself was good. I think like BvS it may be the type of film in which a viewer must see for themselves to decide whether it's good or bad.

Predictably now that voting is open on the IMDB, there's floods of votes of 1 from people with no intention of seeing it so that wont be a good indicator. Despite critics having their own conspiracies and agendas, I do find RT to be more accurate than the IMDB: rotten tomatoes critics can't create multiple accounts and their professional names are attached to their reviews so they are at least held accountable. An example of IMDB flaws; it's well known Nolanites would vote 1 on other superhero films but the other thing they're notorious for doing is voting 1 on films just ahead of Nolan's films. As an example the film directly above the dark knight rises is a Japanese film called 'Grave of the Fireflies' and no surprise has an influx of votes of 1 from voters who gave the dark knight rises a 10.

Whether or not I see it in theatres is up in the air. I have stated previously in this thread that the visuals do seem impressive especially in 3d. For me it might be a 'beggars cant be choosers' scenario. 25 years I've been praying for another ghostbusters film, it would feel almost ungreatful to decide that I would dismiss this one simply because I didn't get the gift I asked for the way I wanted it.

Wise words riddler, although I'd hesitate calling the people who post over at IMDb 'critics'.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 16:24
That's a single example.  But in this instance the critic is clearly an idiot.  If they really give a damn about sexism they should either be honest and say that the film doesn't work, irrespective of the gender dynamics, or they should have lied (and yes I realise that the latter option is wrong, but it's certainly not as idiotic and self-defeating as admitting to providing a biased review).

But you can't use one critic as an example of the general consensus.

Except it's not just one critic. I believe this was originally posted by a user on reddit when the first batch of reviews came in, but it's since been reposted on several other sites. The author highlights some interesting points.

QuoteI find it hard to believe that the reviews from people who had turned the movie into some bizarre political litmus test or used it as an opportunity to soapbox about "misogynist haters" are primarily based on the quality of the movie itself. It seems pretty predictable that someone who blames negativity towards the movie on misogynistic "ghostbros" or who already wrote articles supporting the movie months ago is unlikely to be negative.

For example, quickly looking at positive reviews and the other activity from the authors:

Stephanie Zacharek (TIME)
The same author wrote this a month ago:
"Why Ghostbusters Is the Must-See Movie of the Summer Season
The misogynist outrage over the Ghostbusters remake has made it essential viewing"
How likely was someone who wrote that to give the movie a negative review?

Barry Hertz (Globe and Mail)
"This reboot is a revelation – and it ain't afraid of no misogynists
Well, maybe not so much a mystery as just a dispiriting reminder that misogyny is alive and well on the Internet, where it can metastasize to gross extremes with zero justification. And for anyone eager to stand atop a pedestal to righteously proclaim that objections to a new Ghostbusters simply stem from a frustration with Hollywood exploiting adolescent nostalgia, well, where are all the virulent Internet campaigns against, say, the new Ninja Turtles series?
No, it is easy to see what the Ghostbusters furor is really about: angry, bored, women-hating men expending otherwise untapped energy mining their own feelings of social inadequacy in a toxic bid for attention."

Nigel M. Smith (Guardian)
"Ghostbusters review: call off the trolls – Paul Feig's female reboot is a blast
Shockingly the guy that's been complaining about "haters" for months before seeing the movie thinks the haters were wrong."

https://twitter.com/nigelmfs/status/707580882022830080
Can't wait - and screw the haters: New Ghostbusters trailer nods to controversy over race and gender
https://twitter.com/nigelmfs/status/732925646230282242
*beep* the haters - this new #Ghostbusters trailer has me psyched:
https://twitter.com/nigelmfs/status/738816760489476096
It doesn't need to - women & gays will make it a hit: #Ghostbusters targets male viewers w/ new NBA ads

Manohla Dargis (New York Times)
"Girls rule, women are funny, get over it."

Joshua Rothkopf (Time Out)
https://twitter.com/joshrothkopf/status/752197739052724225
I actually think the #Ghostbusters concept works better as "nerd girls vs mansplainers" instead of "blue-collar schlubs vs the EPA."

Alison Willmore (Buzzfeed News)
Remaking this beloved film with women as leads is an act revolutionary enough to attract the ire of legions of Ghostbros insisting that the very concept will warp time and space to retroactively ruin their childhoods.

Robbie Collin (Daily Telegraph)
Previous article:
Forget the sexist naysayers, says Robbie Collin - if the first trailer is anything to go by, this all-female reboot will be every bit as fun as the 1984 original
https://twitter.com/robbiereviews/status/520216415832666113
Yes yes but when is it MALE Ghostbusters Day?

Devin Faraci (Birth.Movies.Death)
One of his previous articles on it:
The Soft Sexism Of Hating On The New GHOSTBUSTERS
On twitter:
http://archive.is/Yzykr
@devincf If it's good, that's awesome. But this opinion that if anyone says the movie looks bad they are automatically sexist is crazy
@BoustanuA it's not crazy. It's true.
@devincf why?
@BoustanuA I don't know why you're sexist. Probably because girls don't like you.

For the record, I don't buy into conspiracy theories about paid critics or whatnot. But when you've got a bunch of journalists who've openly politicised a particular film and telegraphed their ideological stance months in advance of its release, it's painfully obvious where their agendas lie. These are the same journalists who've spent the past few months calling the film's sceptics "trolls" and "misogynists"; the same people who launched nasty personal attacks on James Rolfe and his family for not wanting to see the film, and who've waxed lyrical about seeing the haters put in their place. Did anyone seriously think these people would turn around and give it a bad review after all their campaigning?

Most of the positive reviews I've seen have focused more on the controversy than the film itself. Some of them even flaunt the words "troll" and "misogynist" in their headlines. And we're supposed to think there's no agenda at play? We're supposed to take a review titled "I ain't afraid of no misogynists" as completely unbiased and without prejudice? I think not. These critics are about as objective as I am. And I'm a petulant butthurt fan boy.

Even with that agenda in place, most of them are only giving the film a marginal thumbs up. The most common scores seem to be C-grades or ratings of 3/5 and 6/10. Hardly critical acclaim. At present its Rotten Tomatoes average critic rating is only 1.6 higher than that of Batman v Superman's average rating. And yet Batman v Superman is being portrayed as a disastrous cinematic misfire, while Ghostbusters – at least according to some of the more zealous defenders – is the best film of the summer. If it's as good as all that, why is its 'top critic' score sitting at 50% 'rotten'? That's the same 'top critic' score as Ghostbusters II. Are we to believe the lame slapstick, fart gag, crotch-blasting humour of the trailers is isolated to those particular clips, and that the rest of the film is sophisticated comedy gold? If so, why hasn't Sony released any of this hilarious footage to the public?

Sorry, but I think the 78% RT score is presently about as reliable as the IMDb user rating of 3.5/10. Most people are not evaluating this film on artistic merit, but rather are championing/attacking it according to political and ideological prejudices.

Regardless, a high RT score won't mean squat if it's final box office gross is smaller than Bob Cratchit's Christmas bonus. If anything, the smug 'suck it haters' tone of the positive reviews is only further exacerbating many people's antipathy towards the film. The outcome of the true battle won't be determined by RT scores or IMDb user ratings – it'll be determined by the box office results. And on that score, I stand by my earlier prediction.

This movie will flop.

The problem is, as I stated in a previous post, that the opposing sides in the so-called cultural war are becoming even more resolute and unreasonable in their positioning.  Both sides, haters and defenders alike, have allowed this trifling film to become politicised, and for what it's worth, I think they're both wrong.  Films, like any art-form, should be judged on quality and merit, and not attacked or championed for the gender, ethnic and social composition of their characters.

That said, there are some liberals/feminists who have been refreshingly sincere in their assessment of the movie: https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2016/jul/10/i-love-ghostbusters-and-i-love-paul-feig-so-why-do-i-only-like-his-female-remake (https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2016/jul/10/i-love-ghostbusters-and-i-love-paul-feig-so-why-do-i-only-like-his-female-remake)

Here is a segment:

QuoteMcCarthy has said that she doesn't want the movie to be compared with the original, and that is understandable. But it is also unavoidable, not least because there are so many nodding references. Even aside from the obvious continuations – Ecto-1 the car, Slimer, the cameos from the original's stars – the former film's structure is all but cut and pasted into the new version, but with a flimsier plot.

Where the original was sweetly shonky, the modern version is, inevitably, far slicker. Too much so at times, to the point where it's hard to see what, exactly, is happening in the special effects. While the original was at heart a celebration of the friendship between the characters, there is little sense of connection between the women here, which is surprising given the film was co-written by Katie Dippold, who worked on the brilliant female-friendship based sitcom Parks and Recreation.

More puzzling is why they've retained the original's one mistake, which was relegating the one African-American ghostbuster to a lesser role. Leslie Jones gets more screen time than poor Ernie Hudson did, but her character – the sassy black woman trying to keep up with the more educated white women – certainly feels like something from the 80s, but not in a good way.

Nonetheless, there are some extremely funny lines, such as the mayor's office dismissing the ghostbusters as "those sad and lonely women – it's like they read Eat, Pray Love and ran with it." It is genuinely thrilling to see four women in ghostbusters uniforms, and they have fun mocking their online critics, sneering at comments such as: "Ain't no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts." It is definitely better than most film remakes, and McCarthy proves again she really can carry a blockbuster. But she and Feig set the bar high with their other excellent collaborations, especially Bridesmaids and The Heat, and this is nowhere near as satisfying. Sometimes fine isn't quite enough.

I just wish the other, more favourable reviews, hadn't made any reference to fanboy rage.  If the film is as good as they're saying, why invite scepticism and attacks by holding a red rag to the haters?

It seems to me that some people, on both the liberal left and reactionary right, thrive on hating the other side.  In fact they seem to define themselves by this hatred.

Me, I'm a liberal, but hopefully an honest one who listens to and respects what the 'other side' says, even if I don't agree.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 20:17Both sides, haters and defenders alike, have allowed this trifling film to become politicised, and for what it's worth, I think they're both wrong.

Um, no. "Both sides" didn't do jackanything. Sony's marketing department has framed opposition to this movie as inherently sexist as part of their marketing push. Apart from being offensive (What, I'm not allowed to not want to see a movie because it looks like dog crap?), it's unprecedented for marketing to go on the literal offensive like this and set out to smear opponents. This isn't electoral politics. Demonizing the opposition won't win friends or influence people.

I enjoy the original Ghostbusters but it's hardly a crucial staple of my childhood nostalgia. I grew up watching it, I enjoy it but I don't CARE about it. I'm theoretically the perfect mark for this movie... and I'm uninterested in it (A) because it looks idiotic and (B) I'm kind of sick of this "Let's find anything but a white man to play a role that was made famous by a white man!"

If these characters are so amazing and original, why not create a completely original film as a vehicle for them? Isn't that a better showcase for, say, a comedic talent of Melissa McCarthy's pedigree?

I probably should watch myself. Some Sony marketing wonk is probably preparing a press release to demonize me right now.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 20:17Me, I'm a liberal, but hopefully an honest one who listens to and respects what the 'other side' says, even if I don't agree.

That would make you unique among liberals.

I'm not going to argue with you but I do think comments like 'I'm kind of sick of this "Let's find anything but a white man to play a role that was made famous by a white man!"' don't help your case and are exactly what this film's more zealous, perhaps even mendacious, defenders will seize upon.  It also illustrates why I said that both sides of the cultural divide need to start understanding and tolerating the other a bit more.

Sony were asses to frame the entire opposition to this film as one that came down to misogyny, but it is also very true that some of the people complaining about Ghostbusters 2016 are if not outright misogynists then at least expressing less-than-enlightened views. 

But I am genuinely grateful that you didn't argue with me or take umbrage when I made the following statement: "Me, I'm a liberal, but hopefully an honest one who listens to and respects what the 'other side' says, even if I don't agree." :)  And I do concede that many liberals, much like many conservatives, do have problems with respecting others with different views to themselves.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 21:33I'm not going to argue with you but I do think comments like 'I'm kind of sick of this "Let's find anything but a white man to play a role that was made famous by a white man!"' don't help your case and are exactly what this film's more zealous, perhaps even mendacious, defenders will seize upon.

I can't help it if they don't grasp the point.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 21:33It also illustrates why I said that both sides of the cultural divide need to start understanding and tolerating the other a bit more.

It isn't my side that views anybody with a different opinion as a terrorist.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 21:33Sony were asses to frame the entire opposition to this film as one that came down to misogyny

This is the only part of your statement that matters. The customer is always right. But even if you believe the customer to be wrong, what you don't do is lambast him publicly.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 21:33But I am genuinely grateful that you didn't argue with me

What's in it for me? You apparently have carte blanche to say anything you please on this forum no matter how political (and thus taboo) it is... while the rest of us get all the warnings. The boundaries set for others apparently don't apply to you. The boundaries you set for everyone else also don't apply to you.

Hell, I'm still "Watched" right now even though the "infraction" which prompted that occurred something like two years ago, or even more. Thus it would be a mistake to confuse my reluctance to engage with some kind of tacit acceptance or retreat.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 21:51Hell, I'm still "Watched" right now even though the "infraction" which prompted that occurred something like two years ago, or even more. Thus it would be a mistake to confuse my reluctance to engage with some kind of tacit acceptance or retreat.

Guess what?  I'm 'watched' too.

I guess that secret has just been blown (thanks, admittedly, to you).  Clearly we can only see the 'watched' warning when it applies to ourselves.  For all you and I know, there could be many other posters here who are also being 'watched' (and it's of course their business whether they tell us or not).

But hopefully that should put your mind at ease that I have been held to just as much account as you, or indeed anyone else, for any comments, political or otherwise, that may have crossed the line.  But to my defence, I have tried not to initiate any political discussions of late, and have merely responded to others who have initiated such discussions.  Perhaps in future, I should just remind them that political discourse is not acceptable here, but if they are allowed to continue such discussions unabated then why shouldn't I be allowed to join in?  Because my views aren't appreciated around here?

And having politely thanked you in my previous post, I am a tad disappointed that you decided to go on the offensive with me this time round.  I appreciated the relatively civil way you framed your last post.  I hope that you can continue to converse, and indeed argue, with me in a civil and non-accusatory way. :)

You know, I'm not a big conspiracy-type when it comes to films, and when I hear libs fall back on Trump for being responsible and sole beneficiary of society's ills, like Brexit, or even this "film" receiving misogynistic hatred from, what were they referred to again ... oh yeah, Trolls, due to females in the lead parts (which is curious considering something like f'n STAR WARS recently had a female as it's lead, along with Rogue One, and the overwhelming majority of these 'trolls' don't seem to have a problem with it), it all mounts up to a bunch of BS, and would be, at the very least, amusing, if it wasn't so pathetically sad.

In addition, I've become less and less interested in what critics have to say in recent times. Especially in light of BvS. A film I openly had problems with, but at the same time, enjoyed the hell out of. It's the lemming mentality that I am not a fan of. "Hey! Enough people think it's bad. It must be, right?", "Hey! Enough people think it's good. It must be, right?" Uh, no. You go in, form your own opinion, and then leave. Blindly basing your own personal review on other's opinions before even knowing what you're talking about, is a pure example of being blissfully ignorant and liking it. Course, some people subscribe to that old, "Go along, to get along" mentality, so whatever floats your boat, right?

Will this "film" be met with predisposed negativity? Yup. It already has. Will proponents openly condescend, and use ridiculous blanket statements towards others who disagree with them in their effort to support it? You betcha. Once again, and not surprisingly, that's already happened. As a consequence, what you end up with, is something that's not going to be thought of as a attempt (fruitful or not) to remake one of the greatest/enduring comedies of all time, but rather, for it's well established reputation of stirring contention and controversy, to which Sony most definitely, had a hand in. As a guy who absolutely loves the original 1984 Ghostbusters (GB2 has it's moments), and would easily put it in my top 5 favorite films of all time, it's just a damn shame to think this near-universally beloved franchise may be mired to some extent in it's overall perception going forward by all the open antagonistic PC-Fear mongering crap that has transpired leading up to the release date of this "film".

Ugh.

If some people hadn't made such a big deal about this film's gender balance in the first place, it might have been allowed to die a peaceful fate at the box-office, instead of becoming a cause celebre for the SJW crowd.  As a consequence it may now, as The Joker suggests, sadly end up besmirching the legacy of the 1984 classic.

Thing is, if this "film" bombs or doesn't even re-coup it's budget back domestically, then buh-bye Feig, franchise possibilities, and any kind of notion from supporters to prop this movie up as some sort of transcendent example of film making.  ::)

Financially speaking, Feig's previous movies did not do badly. They just played well with the portion of the audience who don't spend a lot of time talking about them afterwards. Now throw in his idea of choosing a cast that's consciously and unashamedly inviting controversy where there should be none, and yeah, sounds like Sony's got themselves a winner for a viable franchise going forward.

Make your bed, and lie in it, Sony.

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 23:46

Thing is, if this "film" bombs or doesn't even re-coup it's budget back domestically, then buh-bye Feig, franchise possibilities, and any kind of notion from supporters to prop this movie up as some sort of transcendent example of film making.  ::)

Financially speaking, Feig's previous movies did not do badly. They just played well with the portion of the audience who don't spend a lot of time talking about them afterwards. Now throw in his idea of choosing a cast that's consciously and unashamedly inviting controversy where there should be none, and yeah, sounds like Sony's got themselves a winner for a viable franchise going forward.

Make your bed, and lie in it, Sony.

I don't think Paul Feig was consciously trying to court controversy and turn his film into a cause celebre for liberals when he decided on an all-female cast.  I think he was just continuing with what he knows and his strengths as a 'woman's filmmaker' having scored big with the critically-acclaimed and hugely successful 'Bridesmaids' and 'Spy'.

Unfortunately, too many people on either side of the conservative/misogynist and liberal/SJW debate seized upon the film via social media and tried to turn it to some sort of battlefield in the damned culture war that is currently destroying our society (and by 'our' I mean the world at large, and not just the US).  It's a shame because this film should either have prospered or failed simply on the basis of its quality or otherwise, and not on external political posturing.  Not everything has to be turned into a frigging run-off into the general election.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 23:58Unfortunately, too many people on either side of the conservative/misogynist and liberal/SJW debate seized upon the film via social media

You just refuse to blame Sony for this, don't you?

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 23:58
I don't think Paul Feig was consciously trying to court controversy and turn his film into a cause celebre for liberals when he decided on an all-female cast.  I think he was just continuing with what he knows and his strengths as a 'woman's filmmaker' having scored big with the critically-acclaimed and hugely successful 'Bridesmaids' and 'Spy'.

See, I'm more in the belief that Feig did want to stir up controversy, which Sony merrily went along with, by going the route they took. As it certainly lends itself to criticisms, and most definitely invites it. Problem is, relying on the current PC culture to quiet protestors on something they feel very passionate about doesn't always work, and didn't work in this case, which in turn had people associated with this film verbally label and attack fans who opposed this. Throw in Sony's conscious effort in deleting substantive arguments in order to sway the negative reaction as a misogyny angle, and the picture you have isn't pleasant.

The notion of female Ghostbusters isn't new. Dan Aykroyd has been a proponent of the idea for years, perhaps for even over a decade now, as he often mentioned it during interviews pertaining to GB3, and like Star Wars, adding one or two female Ghostbusters as leads for the new team would have been just peachy. That's been done before, and clearly it's a non-issue. It's when you pervert a beloved property to serve your own personal agenda/motives/viewpoint/needs, rather than serve the franchise and the fan base, is when you start having problems. Rather than be verbally combative, and painting the people who have issues with this take as misogynistic trolls, it would have been much more productive for Feig and Sony to pull back, and re-think their approach. Listen, compromise, and re-evaluate. If said director is unwilling, or uninterested in doing that, then you get yourself a new director. It's maddening to think how much of this could have been easily remedied, but nope. It became all too apparent that it was do or die. Full speed ahead and to hell with the opposition.

Way to go, guys.

QuoteUnfortunately, too many people on either side of the conservative/misogynist and liberal/SJW debate seized upon the film via social media and tried to turn it to some sort of battlefield in the damned culture war that is currently destroying our society (and by 'our' I mean the world at large, and not just the US).  It's a shame because this film should either have prospered or failed simply on the basis of its quality or otherwise, and not on external political posturing.  Not everything has to be turned into a frigging run-off into the general election.

I ideally agree with alot of what you said here. Given the chosen direction, it was going to be controversial from the jump, Sony and Feig deliberately fanning the flames did nothing but assist in increasing to the climate of debate.

Pitiful.

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 23:46
Make your bed, and lie in it, Sony.

It doesn't have blankets and sheets, but this bed will do Sony nicely.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.hswstatic.com%2Fgif%2Fbed-of-nails-3-1.jpg&hash=1eedd9af90419def4a85a0820dc2950b338c71d5)

I actually want to do that some way. Stupid me will screw up and get myself impaled head to toe though.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 22:21
And having politely thanked you in my previous post, I am a tad disappointed that you decided to go on the offensive with me this time round.  I appreciated the relatively civil way you framed your last post.  I hope that you can continue to converse, and indeed argue, with me in a civil and non-accusatory way. :)

So it's okay for you to call thecolorsblend a "moron" over a political point of view back in the positive thoughts thread (which that portion of the thread has now been deleted), yet you hope he can debate in a civil manner? This is none of my business, but I just can't help myself from shaking my head at how hypocritical your comment is. Bloody hell.

Back on topic for Ghostbusters. Again, I'm neither for or against it if I can ignore the stupid "every skeptic is a misogynist" campaign perpetuated by certain aspects of the media for a moment, but I'm wary about the critical reviews. There can definitely be a bias going on among some critics. While I definitely won't say everyone who didn't like Man of Steel has an agenda against the movie and understand it's not everyone's cup of tea, I have seen a large portion of critics who reviewed the film by comparing it to Richard Donner's classic. For example, Red Reed was one critic who gave MOS a scathing review, but if you look at his background, you'll discover that he appeared as an extra in the 1978 film. Call it a bias, call it an agenda, call it whatever you want, but in my opinion, this is why you're better off taking a critic's word with a grain salt, and judge something for yourself.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 22:21And having politely thanked you in my previous post, I am a tad disappointed that you decided to go on the offensive with me this time round.  I appreciated the relatively civil way you framed your last post.  I hope that you can continue to converse, and indeed argue, with me in a civil and non-accusatory way. :)

My explanation for why I refuse to take your silly little bait constitutes "go[ing] on the offensive"? Golly, you really are a sensitive little flower, aren't you?

Protip: You've seen me openly disagree with you before. Usually it's because you started it. The post to which you're replying isn't me coming after you. It's me explaining why I'm NOT coming after you. Recognize.

Give me an F!

https://twitter.com/Magodadrummaboy/status/752698501021196288?lang=en

Give me an L!

https://twitter.com/LivvyMaslow/status/752607998376312832?lang=en

Give me an O!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnG5aaEWgAEhFoG.jpg:large

Give me a P!

https://twitter.com/Memphis90/status/752474313064869889?lang=en

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 12 Jul  2016, 04:18

Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 23:46
Make your bed, and lie in it, Sony.

It doesn't have blankets and sheets, but this bed will do Sony nicely.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.hswstatic.com%2Fgif%2Fbed-of-nails-3-1.jpg&hash=1eedd9af90419def4a85a0820dc2950b338c71d5)

I tried that once, but I awoke with terrible pins and needles and a splitting headache.

Lol. Gotta love the sight of empty cinemas with this version of 'Ghostbusters' playing. A waste of electricity though. The apologists will defend this film out of 'girl power', but the real test will be at the box office. And judging by these types of Twitter posts, it's gonna be ugly.

just some food for thought;

with the extremists having an agenda (either hating it to the death or defending it to the death) I removed the IMDB ratings of 10 and 1 to calculate an average; 5.5 based on the 2-9 votes. So not as putrid of it's current rating of 3.7 but not good.

I'm hoping someone from here goes and sees it just so I can get a trusting opinion.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 12 Jul  2016, 00:50

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 23:58Unfortunately, too many people on either side of the conservative/misogynist and liberal/SJW debate seized upon the film via social media

You just refuse to blame Sony for this, don't you?

In what way does my post exonerate Sony?  Please stop reading things that aren't there.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 12 Jul  2016, 13:01but the real test will be at the box office

True, just like it was with BvS...

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 12 Jul  2016, 15:27

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 12 Jul  2016, 13:01but the real test will be at the box office

True, just like it was with BvS...

But as TLF and colors pointed out (my full of sh*t comment referenced it too) you did the same pre-release doomsdaying about it that you're calling out people for with this. It's just like you bitching about people discussing the UK's political affairs when you've stuck your stupid ignorant nose in the US's affairs repeatedly to the expense of several arguments and deleted topics. You're such a hypocrite it's insulting to other hypocrites. They need to create a new level of hypocrisy just to fit you in.

Honest question. Have you ever wondered why it seems like you're always in arguments on here, IMDb, etc.? It's not having a different opinion. It's being a pompous asshole, a broken record, annoying as a misplaced tampon, and such a hypocrite the pot and kettle melted down. You need to step back and recognize, boy, and straighten your sh*t out.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue, 12 Jul  2016, 15:24

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 12 Jul  2016, 00:50

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 11 Jul  2016, 23:58Unfortunately, too many people on either side of the conservative/misogynist and liberal/SJW debate seized upon the film via social media

You just refuse to blame Sony for this, don't you?

In what way does my post exonerate Sony?  Please stop reading things that aren't there.

Your comment placed all the burden upon partisan observers. This is in defiance of easily verified fact but there is no allowance made in your post that Sony's marketing engine is primarily responsible for creating this phony-baloney narrative of sexist trolls gunning for Girlbusters.

But I'll go ahead and play Devil's Advocate... with the proviso that very few people really believe this.

For argument's sake, let's say someone DOES oppose Girlbusters because it's made entirely up of women. Again, I doubt many people actually feel this way. But let's say there is someone who does. Or even several someones. Their distaste for the movie comes exclusively from resenting an all-female team.

So what?

There are any number of films and franchises all about the girl power. Hunger Games, Divergent, that Melissa McCarthy/Sandra Bullock movie from a few years ago, Salt, Lucy, Twilight and other stuff. Women also have TV shows like Supergirl, Agent Carter and so forth. Women are hardly lacking representation.

But even if they were, again, so freaking what?

Why is anybody obligated to support this movie just because it's all-female and dammit we're supposed to support everything women do? Why is it not okay for someone to say "Hey, I've got zero interest in seeing something that's all women"?

Women say stuff like that all the time. By and large, movies like the Expendables revolve around predominantly male audiences. It's no affront to men for women to say that movies like that aren't for them. Nobody calls that "misandry"; they simply recognize that some movies aren't likely to be popular with women. And that's okay.

Why is it then that male disinterest in an all-female movie (whether that disinterest is real or perceived) is inherently a negative thing and a smudge on that male's character? Why is he apparently not allowed to think Girlbusters is a completely retarded idea and refuse to see it without being called names?

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffree0.hiboox.com%2Fimages%2F2816%2F75f1f6fc1500c63bb5dd7a1cd9705e6e.gif&hash=458a6d9f9ef9d2a0dba46a597592d72ec89a06f1)

Yup. Pretty much sums it all up.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 13 Jul  2016, 05:23
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffree0.hiboox.com%2Fimages%2F2816%2F75f1f6fc1500c63bb5dd7a1cd9705e6e.gif&hash=458a6d9f9ef9d2a0dba46a597592d72ec89a06f1)

Yup. Pretty much sums it all up.

BLB.

Bill Looks Bored.

#equalitybusters

I kind of wonder if Bill only took the role as a nod to the departed Ramis.

I think Sony's got his kids.

But in all seriousness, there's an email exchange on WikiLeaks where Sony plots to pursue "aggressive" litigation against Murray if he "again declines to engage with Ghostbusters". It dates from late 2013, approximately 9 month before Paul Feig was officially announced as director. The emails also indicate Sony's plans to keep the lawsuit secret, fearing the public would turn against them if they found out. You can read the whole exchange here: https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704

Now whether or not they ever did threaten Murray with litigation is open to speculation. But here we have concrete proof they were plotting to do so as recently as October 2013. It's not hard to imagine similar threats being made since. That would certainly explain the look on Murray's face.

While we're on the subject of Sony's dishonest tactics, I noticed that picture of Wiig at the premiere - the one with the little girls in Ghostbusters outfits - has been circulating on social media, usually captioned with: "This is why the new Ghostbusters film is so important." Apparently these people are unaware that the little girls weren't actually Ghostbusters fans. In fact they hadn't even seen the movie. They were part of a dance troupe Sony paid to perform in costume on the red carpet. But now all the SJWs are spreading the picture around as proof the next generation of females need this film to succeed. And if you don't pay to see it, you're betraying your daughters, nieces and granddaughters.

It's almost as bad as when Sony tried to score points with the public by having the cast show up at a children's hospital. Because we all know how much kids love the cast of Bridesmaids, right? In the end the stunt backfired epically and spawned a series of memes about Sony exploiting sick kids for photo ops.


And to think, some people still support this film.

Meanwhile the RT score has dropped to 75% and is presently 48% ROTTEN with Top Critics. The Metascore has dropped to 59, which places it in the 'mixed' bracket. Analysts have increased their OW predictions to $50 million. Unless it performs amazingly overseas, $50 million would still indicate a flop.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 13 Jul  2016, 16:26Meanwhile the RT score has dropped to 75% and is presently 48% ROTTEN with Top Critics. The Metascore has dropped to 59, which places it in the 'mixed' bracket. Analysts have increased their OW predictions to $50 million. Unless it performs amazingly overseas, $50 million would still indicate a flop.

If $50 million is all it makes during its entire run, it would be a flop, but for an OW it isn't a disaster.  Kung Fu Panda 3 made 'only' $41 million on its OW.

Also, who decides who is a 'Top Critic'?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 13 Jul  2016, 16:26
I think Sony's got his kids.

But in all seriousness, there's an email exchange on WikiLeaks where Sony plots to pursue "aggressive" litigation against Murray if he "again declines to engage with Ghostbusters". It dates from late 2013, approximately 9 month before Paul Feig was officially announced as director. The emails also indicate Sony's plans to keep the lawsuit secret, fearing the public would turn against them if they found out. You can read the whole exchange here: https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704

Now whether or not they ever did threaten Murray with litigation is open to speculation. But here we have concrete proof they were plotting to do so as recently as October 2013. It's not hard to imagine similar threats being made since. That would certainly explain the look on Murray's face.

While we're on the subject of Sony's dishonest tactics, I noticed that picture of Wiig at the premiere - the one with the little girls in Ghostbusters outfits - has been circulating on social media, usually captioned with: "This is why the new Ghostbusters film is so important." Apparently these people are unaware that the little girls weren't actually Ghostbusters fans. In fact they hadn't even seen the movie. They were part of a dance troupe Sony paid to perform in costume on the red carpet. But now all the SJWs are spreading the picture around as proof the next generation of females need this film to succeed. And if you don't pay to see it, you're betraying your daughters, nieces and granddaughters.

It's almost as bad as when Sony tried to score points with the public by having the cast show up at a children's hospital. Because we all know how much kids love the cast of Bridesmaids, right? In the end the stunt backfired epically and spawned a series of memes about Sony exploiting sick kids for photo ops.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMCaxL7YRj0

And to think, some people still support this film.

Meanwhile the RT score has dropped to 75% and is presently 48% ROTTEN with Top Critics. The Metascore has dropped to 59, which places it in the 'mixed' bracket. Analysts have increased their OW predictions to $50 million. Unless it performs amazingly overseas, $50 million would still indicate a flop.

Not only will I not be supporting the film, I won't be supporting Sony period. If I still had a Playstation I would have thrown it in the yard for the way they've treated fans of one of the most beloved movies ever for not wanting that movie's legacy to be, well, slimed on.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 13 Jul  2016, 18:53
If $50 million is all it makes during its entire run, it would be a flop, but for an OW it isn't a disaster.

It is for a movie that cost approximately $300 million after rebates (including global p & a) and which isn't getting a release in the largest overseas market (China).

Also take into account the fact that US box office has been significantly down this year (which is why almost every big budget movie has underperformed, with a few notable exceptions such as Deadpool, Zootopia, Cap 3 and Jungle Book), combined with the fact The Secret Lives of Pets overperformed in its opening weekend (to the amount of over $100 million – and animated films usually experience smaller 2nd weekend drops than live action films), then factor in the impending release of Star Trek Beyond next week, and things aren't looking too good for Ghostbusters.

Sony was banking on this film bringing in the kind of money a Marvel superhero film would. And that's not going to happen. Barring some sort of miracle, this movie is definitely flopping. Sony is about to lose millions. And that's to say nothing of the money wasted on producing merchandise that's destined for a landfill in the Arizona badlands.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 13 Jul  2016, 18:53Kung Fu Panda 3 made 'only' $41 million on its OW.

Like I say, animated movies experience smaller week-to-week drops than live action films, so a big OW isn't the be all and end all. Kung Fu Panda 3 also made 41% of its foreign gross in China. Last I heard, Ghostbusters isn't getting released in China. Also remember that Kung Fu Panda 3 was the lowest grossing entry in the trilogy. Sony's hoping for a lot more from Ghostbusters. And they're not going to get it.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 13 Jul  2016, 18:53Also, who decides who is a 'Top Critic'?

From RT's help desk:

Top Critic is a title awarded to the most significant contributors of cinematic and critical discourse. To be considered for Top Critics designation, a critic must be published at a print publication in the top 10% of circulation, employed as a film critic at a national broadcast outlet for no less than five years, or employed as a film critic for an editorial-based website with over 1.5 million monthly unique visitors for a minimum of three years. A Top Critic may also be recognized as such based on their influence, reach, reputation, and/or quality of writing, as determined by Rotten Tomatoes staff.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/critics/

Quote from: Catwoman on Wed, 13 Jul  2016, 19:11Not only will I not be supporting the film, I won't be supporting Sony period. If I still had a Playstation I would have thrown it in the yard for the way they've treated fans of one of the most beloved movies ever for not wanting that movie's legacy to be, well, slimed on.

A lot of people feel that way. Sony's films haven't been doing too well at the box office lately, which is one of the reasons why there's so much pressure on Ghostbusters to bring in the big bucks. A lot of Marvel fans are hoping it won't so Sony's bargaining posture will be weakened and they'll have to sell the full rights to Spider-Man back to Marvel. I don't think that's a very realistic scenario, but I'm all in favour of seeing Sony Pictures crash and burn after the nasty, dishonest marketing campaign they run against Ghostbusters fans.

What Sony really wants is its own version of the MCU. They tried starting a shared universe with The Amazing Spider-Man, but they failed. Now they're trying to start one with Ghostbusters, but that's going to fail too.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 13 Jul  2016, 20:07What Sony really wants is its own version of the MCU. They tried starting a shared universe with The Amazing Spider-Man, but they failed. Now they're trying to start one with Ghostbusters, but that's going to fail too.

I'm convinced such a thing was possible with Amazing Spider-Man... and might've happened had someone explained to Webb that he's directing a superhero film rather than Apocalypse Now. A safe, relatively paint-by-numbers sequel to an at best shaky reboot would've been the way to go. I believe it could've been viable.

Then again, there's an argument that all Spider-Man ever was for Sony was a flash in the pan. When you track out the box office grosses, the numbers diminish with every subsequent film until ASM2, which was at best break-even, or even a loss. That started happening with Spider-Man 2 in 2004.

This idea that Spider-Man will automatically do better at Marvel may prove to be an unwise assumption.

Back to Girlbusters though, I wasn't aware that it wouldn't be released in China. This is the first I've heard of that. What gives? That's a huge market. It could be the difference between profitability and loss in foreign grosses. Who the hell made that decision??

A lackluster opening weekend along with stiff competition in the coming weeks and no release in China basically means Girlbusters has literally no chance whatsoever. I can't envision how it doesn't fail miserably at this point.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 13 Jul  2016, 21:01Who the hell made that decision??

The Reds, apparently.

"China's official censorship guidelines technically prohibit movies that "promote cults or superstition" — a holdover from the Communist Party's secular ideology — and the country's regulators occasionally have been known to use this obscure provision as rationale for banning films that feature ghosts or supernatural beings in a semi-realistic way (Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest suffered such a fate in 2006, thanks to its depictions of ghouls and cannibalism)."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-denied-release-china-910563

Even without China, this movie could have had a massive geek audience championing it, if only the filmmakers had courted the approval of the diehard fans. Instead they decided to abuse and ostracise them, as well as anyone with a Y chromosome or IQ number exceeding room temperature. And contrary to Sony's narrative, there are plenty of women against it. Just look at this hateful misogynist right here:


My advice to anyone thinking of going to the pictures this weekend – if you fancy a good comedy, go see The Nice Guys. If you're in the mood for a good ghost story, go see The Conjuring 2. Just don't waste your money on Ghostbusters.

I don't know if this has been brought up, I did mention it in my one long rant but just so I'm clear, we're all in total agreement that we would have been just as dismissive of this if it had been an all male team, right? Obviously we wouldn't have all been accused of stuff (me being accused of being sexist is pretty hilarious because, well, you know) but we would have all had the "Why the f*** is this necessary" attitude we had with this before the studio's sh*t started, right? Cause that blows their arguments away.

Quote from: Catwoman on Wed, 13 Jul  2016, 22:19I don't know if this has been brought up, I did mention it in my one long rant but just so I'm clear, we're all in total agreement that we would have been just as dismissive of this if it had been an all male team, right? Obviously we wouldn't have all been accused of stuff (me being accused of being sexist is pretty hilarious because, well, you know) but we would have all had the "Why the f*** is this necessary" attitude we had with this before the studio's sh*t started, right? Cause that blows their arguments away.

I'll clue you in on something. I speak only for myself in saying remakes are stupid and I try not to patronize them. "Remake" is a dicey term considering I'm a comics fan. But in general something that began life as a film and is being remade as a film for no reason other than a cash-in is just bad form.

Yes, I would've been just as dismissive about an all-male team. Slightly different reasons perhaps. Because you KNOW Seth freaking Rogen would've been the Bill Murray analog of the movie. But the end result would've been the same. Had a Ghostbusters 3 been made with all or most of the original cast, I think people would've been more tolerant. But a straight remake with a new cast? No thanks!

The fact that this is yet another silly Girl Power thing makes it more obnoxious... but a remake is unnecessary no matter who the stars are.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 13 Jul  2016, 20:07
Like I say, animated movies experience smaller week-to-week drops than live action films, so a big OW isn't the be all and end all.

That's absolutely correct.

Even if whatever film has a 'good' or 'decent' OW, that's simply not enough to celebrate and throw a parade. There's examples of alot of films that have a very strong OW, only to drop significantly during subsequent weekends, essentially stunting any real consideration for a follow-up. I've used a horror film franchise remake as an example of this previously in this thread, but if you want another, go check out Superman Returns. Which had a fairly strong to decent opening, only to barely crawl to the $200 million mark domestically. Needless to say, those kind of profits stunted any plans Singer and company had for future Superman films, and it took another 7 years for another Superman movie (Man of Steel) to debut.

As I've said before, I really don't care for the stigma this "film" is going to have in association with Ghostbusters, but if there is a positive to all this mess, it's that the notion of a shared Ghostbusters universe that Sony was wishing for, is alot less likely now. Which is good. Had abolsutely no interest in Channing Tatum in a Ghostbusters movie anyways. Duke was enough.

Quote from: Catwoman on Wed, 13 Jul  2016, 22:19
I don't know if this has been brought up, I did mention it in my one long rant but just so I'm clear, we're all in total agreement that we would have been just as dismissive of this if it had been an all male team, right? Obviously we wouldn't have all been accused of stuff (me being accused of being sexist is pretty hilarious because, well, you know) but we would have all had the "Why the f*** is this necessary" attitude we had with this before the studio's sh*t started, right? Cause that blows their arguments away.

If this had starred Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Rob Schneider and Chris Rock it would have been equally reviled. And I'm pretty sure the critics wouldn't have been so kind to it either. The problem for me has always lain in the fundamental concept of discarding 30+ years of beloved mythology in favour of yet another needless remake. Particularly when we'd been waiting so long for a real Ghostbusters 3 – since 1989, in fact – and had been repeatedly teased with assurances from Dan Aykroyd that it was getting closer to fruition. Then Sony buys Columbia's catalogue of films, cancels Ghostbusters 3, co-opts the property for a politically-motivated remake, conducts meetings behind Ivan Reitman's back to cheat him out of the deal, conspires to threaten Bill Murray with litigation if he doesn't support the enterprise, produces an overbudgeted CGI-fest filled with unfunny jokes and pointless cameos from the 1984 cast, and then has the nerve to launch a smear campaign against anyone who isn't thrilled about it.

Now I'm not naive enough to think there aren't some people who are opposed to the film on misogynistic grounds. I'm sure there are. But I refuse to believe that the majority of the film's detractors, male or female, fall under that category. And I resent some money-grubbing Hollywood bigwig labelling me a bigot because I decline to fuel his coke habit with my disposable income. It was Sony and the filmmakers who kicked up the fuss about gender. And the irony, according to many of the reviews, is that the film itself is deeply sexist and misandric. All the male characters are portrayed as evil or idiotic. And the film ends with the Ghostbusters defeating the male villain by shooting him in the groin.

If they really wanted to make a progressive Ghostbusters film without insulting the fans or alienating the male demographic, why didn't they simply do a passing of the torch movie where the old actors return – playing their original characters, not random cab drivers – and train a new team comprised of both men and women? I could have got behind a film like that.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 13 Jul  2016, 22:23As I've said before, I really don't care for the stigma this "film" is going to have in association with Ghostbusters, but if there is a positive to all this mess, it's that the notion of a shared Ghostbusters universe that Sony was wishing for, is alot less likely now. Which is good. Had abolsutely no interest in Channing Tatum in a Ghostbusters movie anyways. Duke was enough.

Good point. The Tatum movie sounded just as bad and would've been a sorry waste of the Russo brothers' talents.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 13 Jul  2016, 22:53
If this had starred Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Rob Schneider and Chris Rock it would have been equally reviled. And I'm pretty sure the critics wouldn't have been so kind to it either. The problem for me has always lain in the fundamental concept of discarding 30+ years of beloved mythology in favour of yet another needless remake. Particularly when we'd been waiting so long for a real Ghostbusters 3 – since 1989, in fact – and had been repeatedly teased with assurances from Dan Aykroyd that it was getting closer to fruition. Then Sony buys Columbia's catalogue of films, cancels Ghostbusters 3, co-opts the property for a politically-motivated remake, conducts meetings behind Ivan Reitman's back to cheat him out of the deal, conspires to threaten Bill Murray with litigation if he doesn't support the enterprise, produces an overbudgeted CGI-fest filled with unfunny jokes and pointless cameos from the 1984 cast, and then has the nerve to launch a smear campaign against anyone who isn't thrilled about it.

Beautifully stated.

QuoteNow I'm not naive enough to think there aren't some people who are opposed to the film on misogynistic grounds. I'm sure there are. But I refuse to believe that the majority of the film's detractors, male or female, fall under that category. And I resent some money-grubbing Hollywood bigwig labelling me a bigot because I decline to fuel his coke habit with my disposable income. It was Sony and the filmmakers who kicked up the fuss about gender. And the irony, according to many of the reviews, is that the film itself is deeply sexist and misandric. All the male characters are portrayed as evil or idiotic. And the film ends with the Ghostbusters defeating the male villain by shooting him in the groin.

Wow.   ::)

Having watched the trailer just a few minutes ago, it just strikes me how incomparable the humor and writing is with the original. The original was about chemistry and totally organic. This one comes across as being about who can spew the most one liners.

QuoteIf they really wanted to make a progressive Ghostbusters film without insulting the fans or alienating the male demographic, why didn't they simply do a passing of the torch movie where the old actors return – playing their original characters, not random cab drivers – and train a new team comprised of both men and women? I could have got behind a film like that.

Yeah, evidently the 2009 video game is about as close to GBIII that we'll ever get. Makes me wish someone with some actual sense (and well this is Sony we're talking about) would have got Dan Aykroyd and a writer of his choosing, go in and expand upon the plot of the video game, and just made that into a computer animated Ghostbusters III movie. Incorporate what audio of Harold Ramis was recorded for the game, get a sound-alike or whatever for any additional dialogue, and you're off to the races. I mean, Bill Murray dragged his feet on a live action GBIII, but even Bill would have probably lent his voice for a animated project. Especially considering he actually participated in the video game.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 13 Jul  2016, 22:01

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tC27RDtosM

Wow. Not familiar with her, but that girl has style.

Jesus marimba!

A lovely beast like that running around... could put steam in a man's strides.  ;)

Yeah it was obvious this was going to go the man hater route. Which is just ridiculous, but par for the course here. They do realize that they have done the best job of any movie that I can think of to minimize their audience, right? I mean sure five or six years ago I would have been like "Hell yea stick it to the man! Literally!" but I outgrew that when I realized the men who aren't wretched pigs outnumber the ones who are. You guys are alright, I mean you're not perfect but you're definitely serviceable. I just wish y'all liked me. :( lol

And colors we're in total agreement, it's the whole remake thing that's the issue. WHY ALL THE FREAKING REMAKES?! Ghostbusters especially don't need to be remade! That legacy and everything still holds up 32 years later and still makes people smile. Trying to reboot it is pitiful. Can Hollywood seriously be that badly out of ideas? Come on now. And ugh, you are so right about them using Seth Rogen inevitably if it had been a guy team. Ughhhh. He makes me ill.

Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 14 Jul  2016, 03:22Yeah it was obvious this was going to go the man hater route. Which is just ridiculous, but par for the course here. They do realize that they have done the best job of any movie that I can think of to minimize their audience, right? I mean sure five or six years ago I would have been like "Hell yea stick it to the man! Literally!" but I outgrew that when I realized the men who aren't wretched pigs outnumber the ones who are. You guys are alright, I mean you're not perfect but you're definitely serviceable. I just wish y'all liked me. :( lol

And colors we're in total agreement, it's the whole remake thing that's the issue. WHY ALL THE FREAKING REMAKES?! Ghostbusters especially don't need to be remade! That legacy and everything still holds up 32 years later and still makes people smile. Trying to reboot it is pitiful. Can Hollywood seriously be that badly out of ideas? Come on now. And ugh, you are so right about them using Seth Rogen inevitably if it had been a guy team. Ughhhh. He makes me ill.

Here's a rule I'd like to see Hollywood adopt.

Do these Hollywood hacks desperately want to do remakes? Obviously yes. Okay, fine.

Want a challenge, Hollywood? Remake Ishtar. Or Pluto Nash. Or the Room. Or basically anything Ben Affleck did from 2000-2007. Or some other God-forsaken turd bomb.

Remake those things AND TRY TO GET THEM RIGHT THIS TIME. Make an engaging, enjoyable film that puts right what once went wrong.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 14 Jul  2016, 06:33
Or basically anything Ben Affleck did from 2000-2007.

;D

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 14 Jul  2016, 06:33

Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 14 Jul  2016, 03:22Yeah it was obvious this was going to go the man hater route. Which is just ridiculous, but par for the course here. They do realize that they have done the best job of any movie that I can think of to minimize their audience, right? I mean sure five or six years ago I would have been like "Hell yea stick it to the man! Literally!" but I outgrew that when I realized the men who aren't wretched pigs outnumber the ones who are. You guys are alright, I mean you're not perfect but you're definitely serviceable. I just wish y'all liked me. :( lol

And colors we're in total agreement, it's the whole remake thing that's the issue. WHY ALL THE FREAKING REMAKES?! Ghostbusters especially don't need to be remade! That legacy and everything still holds up 32 years later and still makes people smile. Trying to reboot it is pitiful. Can Hollywood seriously be that badly out of ideas? Come on now. And ugh, you are so right about them using Seth Rogen inevitably if it had been a guy team. Ughhhh. He makes me ill.

Here's a rule I'd like to see Hollywood adopt.

Do these Hollywood hacks desperately want to do remakes? Obviously yes. Okay, fine.

Want a challenge, Hollywood? Remake Ishtar. Or Pluto Nash. Or the Room. Or basically anything Ben Affleck did from 2000-2007. Or some other God-forsaken turd bomb.

Remake those things AND TRY TO GET THEM RIGHT THIS TIME. Make an engaging, enjoyable film that puts right what once went wrong.

Those are the remakes I want to see; ones that can be done better. I know it will never happen but I'd love to see a Jaws 3 remake with proper film making (it's obvious they were more concerned with making a 3d movie than making an actual movie. And the director never directed another film). Rather than unearth a film that is fine the way it is, do remakes which add something.


A GB shared universe could have worked if they relaunched it properly. Dan Akroyds initial idea for the first film was having teams of ghostbusters around the country, the idea was nixed for an origin story to show how the team got started. This idea was used in the video game at the end. In doing so they could have had different teams if they so chose; a harlem team of black ghostbusters, a comedic team among the likes of Sandler and his gang, a badass action team, an elderly expendables type team etc. Whether or not it can still be pulled off remains to be seen as they've likely gained far too much negative traction.

One update; it did crack 4.0 on the IMDB so the rating is slowly increasing.

Tomorrow's the big day for our chums stateside. Paul Feig's Ghostbusters is about to drop into theatres, and Sony's spared no expense hiring the Enola Gay to deliver it.

Here is a good article written by Harold Ramis daughter Violet http://splitsider.com/2016/07/on-my-dad-harold-ramis-and-passing-the-ghostbusters-torch-to-a-new-generation-of-fans/

her main point is that it is unfair to mark the film as untouchable. Creating a new film for a new generation to cherish and grow up with is not a bad thing and not something her father would have endorsed. By no means is she lumping all the 'haters' into the same boat, I'm sure like most mature people she realizes there's nothing wrong with not liking a film unless it's for reasons other than not enjoying the film

QuoteAs much as I wanted to stomp my foot and align myself with the opposition, there was no way I could stand behind the viciousness and ugliness that seemed to fuel these fundamentalists. From flat-out rejection of women as funny, to remarks about the actor's looks, to the invocation of GB84 as 'untouchable' and disgust with 'reboot culture' generally, I was shocked by the anger and outrage. Are these people for real? I wondered. Sure, the timing sucks, but damn! I mourn my dad's absence in this world as much, if not more, than anyone, but for people to say that he is "rolling in his grave" or would never have let a female-centered cast happen is INSANE. In his personal life, Harold Ramis was a kind, generous, and gracious person. Professionally, he was always about sharing the spotlight and making the other guy look good. Please, stop using my dad as an excuse to hate the new Ghostbusters. It degrades his memory to spew bile in his name. 

QuoteSo let's take a page out of the Ghostheads' book and not restrict the Ghostbusters universe from extending as far and wide as it possibly can. Let's be generous and make room for all of the visions and interpretations of what Ghostbusters can be. I still get annoyed when I see blond cartoon Egon, but who cares?! It's a 20-year-old cartoon! The new movie is not the original and it's not trying to be. Give it a chance and go see it! Or don't, that's fine. But resist the urge to hold on so tightly to the past that you choke off new life. I reserve my right as an almost 40-year-old to mutter about how everything was better when I was young, but let's let this generation have their own Ghostbusters. Let's give my nine-year-old daughter a chance to put on a proton pack and feel like a badass. In the spirit of my dad and his love for movies and comedy above all, I'll be there for Ghostbusters 2016 opening weekend with my kids, eating popcorn, wearing my Egon Spengler tribute pin, cheering on the new crew, and laughing loudly, from the heart.

I remember when the director of the Bedazzled remake was interviewed back in Total Film #47 (Dec 2000). Unfortunately I don't have the issue handy to provide scans, but I clearly remember him describing his attitude to remakes. He said remaking a good film was a pointless exercise, as it was almost impossible to improve on the original. Instead he argued it made sense to remake bad films, where promising concepts had not reached their full potential. That was why he chose to remake a deeply flawed film like Bedazzled instead of one which was highly acclaimed and beloved.

That director was Harold Ramis.

The silence after the 7:15 mark says it all.

This angry YouTube reviewer is selling "sh*tbusters" T-shirts for $20 to protest against this film.  :-[
***NSFW***.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FiNoKCBu8g

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Jul  2016, 22:24The silence after the 7:15 mark says it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCP937VRfI4

It may not have ever been possible to win over fans that devoted with a film this irreverent toward the original. If the movie is half as bad as they say, there was probably never a way to avoid their wrath.

Whatever bonehead decisions the marketing department has made, one thing we should keep in mind is ultimately this is a movie and it has to sink or swim. A crap movie is a crap movie. Any franchise's core audience won't accept a crap movie... whether they've been smeared to the international media or not.

The betrayal those fans are experiencing is from a crap movie that fell so far short of their expectations that words fail them, like you say. This is simply a bad film.

But no, the smear campaign hasn't helped. This I do affirm.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Jul  2016, 22:24
The silence after the 7:15 mark says it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCP937VRfI4

I dig these guys. One of the most entertaining and truthful reviews I've seen.

Damn this hijacking of Ghostbusters. What a disgrace.

https://twitter.com/NitkowskiTweets/status/754008662893588480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/DJEchoPapa/status/754091893970141184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/silentFuseVW/status/754095065136377856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/RonBasler/status/754125705131220992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/RaeBChunglo/status/754153712214429696?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/KietChieng/status/754174140349763584?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/Bastille1791/status/754212585084362752?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/jessiesarah/status/754219787174154240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/LucyGoosey0000/status/754221657699540992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/Magodadrummaboy/status/753881803451228160/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/scottbalf/status/752848141318234112?lang=en


Regarding box office, I predicted back in March that this would need to gross around half a billion WW to break even. Paul Feig has now confirmed this:

QuoteAs opening day approaches, Feig can't help but think about the stakes of making a $150 million movie. "A movie like this has to at least get to like $500 million worldwide, and that's probably low," he says. "But the thing I care about most is the industry looking for an excuse to say, 'See, a tentpole can't be carried by female leads' " — three of whom are over 40. "I cashed in all my chips," he says. "I had to use every chip to make this happen. And if this doesn't work, I will probably have to go back to movie jail."

http://www.vulture.com/2016/07/paul-feig-ghostbusters-reboot-c-v-r.html

In light of the marketing budget estimates I've been seeing, as well as Feig's comment about the $500 million mark being "low", I'm starting to suspect the real breakeven point might be closer to $600 million. Either way, it won't reach it. The mood must be pretty grim at Sony Pictures right about now.

These badass dudes - real Ghostbusters fans, give their spoiler analysis.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4m6F9g9Mu64&ebc=ANyPxKrDbJpZiJaAnGeGw3ohK4aTMAxjPgVl6NH8L5X5GcLO3hflCjmAcSpBFS3Xrl4Vvz8_tiOGHgOhr3Tt7E-S4nKSpNyZJA

Love these guys. It must hurt them to endure such a travesty. As they warn, don't see the movie. Let it bomb.

Box Office Mojo puts the movie at an estimated $46 million for opening weekend. So the tracking was fairly accurate.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ghostbusters2016.htm

From here, the numbers are likely to tumble. I can't picture how this movie earns its money back any time soon.

When you consider the competition it will have in the coming weeks, don't be too surprised when this weekend is remembered as the movie's (relative) high point.

Ease off, sir. This is the studio saving face. Pay it no mind. There was all kinds of talking about sequels to Steel, Spawn, the Ang Lee Hulk, Catwoman, the Thomas Jane Punisher, Superman Returns, Green Lantern and other duds.

They never happened because the movies never earned a penny. Studio heads do this because they can't very well go out there and say "Man, this movie is a major bomb, what kind of maniac would I have to be in order to make a sequel to this sinking turd with corn in it?"

No, it's their job to put a positive spin on everything. And the best possible spin is "Hey, this is great, we're making a sequel!" Don't hold your breath. Remember how Sony announced they were creating a shared Spider-Verse? Yeah, how'd that work again?

The studio is a corporation. And corporations have shareholders. And those shareholders don't give a flaming fart about egalitarianism. They want to get paid. And they're less likely to get paid if they order sequels to failures. Girlbusters is a failure. If Sony green lights a sequel, it'll only be because it's run by absolute psychos.

But for argument's sake, let's say they do the illogical and make a sequel. What, is that somehow supposed to do better than the original crap factory movie? I don't think so.

That's what I was going to say, only in a lot less words, lol. Basically I was going to say "What were they supposed to say on their opening weekend? 'We f***ing blew that one!'?" Give it time.

Classic studio spin.

It's not anywhere near breaking even, according to Feig, something like $500 million would be necessary (was the massive marketing campaign factored into this?), China's box office is completely out, and here we are with an announcement for a sequel? Sure, Sony is very proficient in burning money and coming up with unproductive ideas, but an announcement like that, especially in this moment in time, is pure poppycock.

Reminds me of Fox saying, "Hey! A sequel could happen!" right after Fan4stic completely bombed. Then wouldn't ya know it, a few months later, their planned Fan4stic sequel was quietly erased from their upcoming release schedule. A shocking turn of events to pretty much no one.

Spin it around like a record, Sony. Right round, round, round.

I predicted this sequel 'confirmation' back in my 'five stages of failure' post a fortnight ago. All is proceeding as I have foreseen.

It's hilarious seeing various news outlets try and put a positive spin on the numbers, describing them as 'solid' and 'respectable'. The actuals should be in later today and we'll see if they tally with the predictions. But even if they do, these are weak opening figures. It debuted in three major overseas territories and only nabbed $19.1 million. And the UK's opening weekend was in fact a 7-day total, as the film was released over here on July 11th. So by 'opening weekend' they actually mean 'opening week'.

That brings the global total up to $65.1 million. Great. So only another $434.9 million left to go and Sony is out of the red.

YouTube reviewer Comic Book Girl 19 has made an excellent video about the reboot. She gives her own thoughts on the movie and chronicles how Sony created a gender war to demonise the remake's critics and get the media on their side. Well worth watching.


Richard Roeper, seen in this video discussing the backlash to his review, has now written an article on the subject. It seems his negative appraisal of the film incurred the wrath of male feminists who've since been hounding him on Twitter. It's a shame, because he was one of the few critics who actually reviewed the content of the film rather than the furore surrounding it. As he says in the article:

Quote"I review the movie.

Not the personal lives of the filmmakers and the actors. Not the track record of the parties involved. Not the buzz about casting or the trailer.

The. Movie."

http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-hater-roeper-ive-had-a-dose-of-some-freaky-posts/

Here are a couple more reviews from hateful misogynists who clearly care naught for equality:

I'll skip over watching the reviews posted for now. 10 years from now it'll be remembered based on how good of a film it is rather than how it was marketed. Critics and Web Critics have an agenda so honesty and objectivity can take a back seat. So far the few people i know who have seen it said they enjoy it; nobody is calling it great but enjoyable. On the IMDB it started out around 3.6 but has risen to 5.1 so once you get past the initial haters (or defenders) it does seem people are enjoying the film itself.

I'm probably going tomorrow night. The plan will be for me to ignore everything but the movie itself. We'll never get a ghostbusters III with the original cast, I accept that so I'll try and look at the film as its own entity.

Ok two thoughts that have nothing to do with anything relevant.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 18 Jul  2016, 16:15
I predicted this sequel 'confirmation' back in my 'five stages of failure' post a fortnight ago. All is proceeding as I have foreseen.

I had always heard fortnight from my friends on that side of the pond, never knew how long it was. Finally googled it cause of this, lol.

Quote
YouTube reviewer Comic Book Girl 19 has made an excellent video about the reboot. She gives her own thoughts on the movie and chronicles how Sony created a gender war to demonise the remake's critics and get the media on their side. Well worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn_vAcFGTJU

I'm totally going to adopt this style. Freaking adorable.

The official number is in: $46,018,755 opening weekend.

That's closer to the best case scenario for Girlbusters' opening weekend... but still pretty far short of where it needed to be. Had the movie opened at $85'ish million, it would have a more solid foundation to work from. Combine that with a lackluster international reception (at least so far) and I think it's safe to say this movie is in danger. It won't be a repeat of Pluto Nash but it won't make a profit either.

The studio made this about a lot more than the movie. There's a media narrative forced onto this movie and that narrative is taking a serious hit right now.

QuoteI'm totally going to adopt this style. Freaking adorable.

She reminds me of a blond Kennedy. Do you know who Kennedy is?

Quote from: JokerMeThis on Tue, 19 Jul  2016, 03:31

QuoteI'm totally going to adopt this style. Freaking adorable.

She reminds me of a blond Kennedy. Do you know who Kennedy is?

Yup.

Saw the film last night, here is my review of it;

The 4 female leads were fairly good especially Kate McKinnon. Some people expected them all to be individual female clones of the male ghostbusters but they weren't, they were their own individual characters. Chris Hemsworth comes across as a pleasant surprise in the secretary role. It's hard to look at the film as its own entity without comparing it to what came before as the overall plot is similar and it does add many references. It is at least respectful to the source material and doesn't attempt to lampoon the former films. It definitely had its laughs but the humour seemed more forced.

Now the big elephant in the room was how were gender roles addressed? You can easily tell the target audience was females (both adults and children) which I didn't have a problem with. I half expected it to be extremely feminist and demeaning towards men with a bunch of misogynistic male characters acting demeaning to women but they didn't do that. There's antagonistic male and female characters so they didn't make gender much of an issue. They also didn't turn it into a chick flick which was good, Hemsworth's character is clearly portrayed as a dumb sex object but it's at least done in a humorous way. Females will probably like it more than males which is fine, I still enjoyed it for the most part and of course the original two films still exist. I'm sure in school yards boys and girls will argue which version is better so at the end of the day both sides have their own.

Where it definitely lacked was the main villain and his motives. Gozer, Zuul, and Vigo were all terrifying villains with clear aspirations. This time around it felt like more of a cheap rehash of the first film. The plot in general is the weakest of the three ghostbuster films. I liked how the first films incorporated paranormal psychology (aka parapsychology) as opposed to simply having a bunch of ghosts out there for the heroes to catch, this one didn't divulge much into paranormal psychology, possibly because the bad guy pulling all the strings is human for most of the film and using the paranormal as a means to power. Also the new title track from Fall Out Boy is awful but luckily we do get one short rendition of the Ray Parker classic.

Where it ended up better? The visuals are very impressive and the film used modern technology and 3D to its advantage. There were more  ghosts and ghost bustings than the original film, the ghostbusters also had more tools than the standard proton packs and traps. I will say it has the best end credits of any film I'd ever seen, it actually gave a reason to watch the entire credits instead of just sticking around to see if anything else came.

Final thoughts? Definitely not as good as the first two. It's a great theatre experience in 3d and I'd definitely recommend it but once it goes to home video and television, it might not be that re-watchable. I don't plan on purchasing it when it comes out, maybe in a few years I'll watch it again. I'd rate it 6.5/10

Honestly, I think I can describe my problems with this movie from the offset:
1. I don't like something being imposed on me. The all female ghostbusters idea felt like that was it. It felt like it was done to fuel some agenda.
2. Ghostbusters being remade with this agenda, instead of a sequel.
3. I don't like any of these female comedians. Not that I dislike them. But I've never seen anything they've been in as mainstream comedians. Get Amy Poehler and Rashida Jones up in there and you've got me, maybe even Ellie Kemper and Zooey Deschanel. Not this group. I don't even know who half of them are. I don't watch current Saturday Night Live. Personally I think it's lame. I've only watched old school SNL.
4. The trailer really felt indicative of the kind of comedy that is around today, loud, annoying, in your face comedy. I liked one actress in the trailer and it was the only other actress that I had never seen before, who I've since learned is someone named Kate Mckinnon, who seemed to be the most subtle thing in the trailer, next the Chris Hemsworth and that's because he barely appears in it. With more thought put into it, I realized that I thought the characters were too stereotyped and came off as even kind of silly best in their field type characters, which goes against the losers underdog vibe that the original had. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

I can't find any interest in seeing this movie.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the film, riddler. That reads like a fair and balanced review. I don't think I'd have been able to view it as objectively myself. If this was any other movie, I'd think it wrong to judge the film without actually seeing it. But in this one instance I'm afraid I'm locked in irrational fan boy mode.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 20 Jul  2016, 17:00Get Amy Poehler and Rashida Jones up in there and you've got me,

You know, this is an interesting point. I'm not a Poehler or Jones devotee but I kind of enjoy some of their work. I'd be rather interested in seeing where they'd take the material. Jones especially since she can do comedy but she can also play straight too. Interesting ideas there...

I am not a fan of the series, okay? Let's just get that out there straight away. But I can't help but feel like this is a missed opportunity. Rebooting the franchise and wiping the slate clean sucks in my opinion. It could have been a passing of the baton movie to the next generation. But here, the cameos by the old cast members are effectively worthless. I think that's a crying shame. The fans could've got on board with the new Girlbusters a lot more if say, Dan Akroyd came back in character and presented his old gear and said 'your turn'. But no. They went down another road, which is disappointing.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 21 Jul  2016, 06:56I am not a fan of the series, okay? Let's just get that out there straight away. But I can't help but feel like this is a missed opportunity. Rebooting the franchise and wiping the slate clean sucks in my opinion. It could have been a passing of the baton movie to the next generation. But here, the cameos by the old cast members are effectively worthless. I think that's a crying shame. The fans could've got on board with the new Girlbusters a lot more if say, Dan Akroyd came back in character and presented his old gear and said 'your turn'. But no. They went down another road, which is disappointing.

Apparently what you're describing was the original plan. But Feige wanted a reboot where he could set all the terms and parameters for the movie rather than having to fit in with what's come before.

I think Ghosterbusters fans would've embraced that. I wouldn't have because I wanted the original cast and crew back for another adventure. This is the same objection I have to the Force Awakens, incidentally. It's why Rogue One looks infinitely more appealing.

But Hollyweird "logic" took over and the rest is box office... well, I can't say "box office history". Maybe "minor box office footnote" will be more accurate.

For better or worse, Blues Brothers 2000 went down the path I mentioned. Jake is confirmed dead, with Elwood finally getting out of prison and forming a new band. The story continues. The movie isn't that good, but I can respect that general concept. Even if it's more or less a remake of the original, and a disappointing one at that.

Dumb and Dumber To went down the Blues Brothers 2000 route too. A sequel to a very old movie resisting to push the reboot button. However, they didn't replace the two leads. A Ghostbusters 3 with the surviving cast members suiting up one last time would've brought down the house. This is the absolute dream scenario in my mind. But yeah, if Girlbusters had to happen, I would've preferred it to be in-continuity with proper cameos.

You know, one thing I feel bad about with Girlbusters is some of the cast. I mean, Feige made his own bed and now he can sleep in it for all I care. The prick did it to himself. No sympathy.

But imagine you're any one of those cast members. Your agent calls and says he has an offer for an all-female Ghostbusters reboot/remake/relaunch. Say, you remember laughing at the movie! At least once or twice. Eh, why not?

Paul Feige is the director. The pay is probably fairly meh but it's a relatively big budget and there will be a lot of hype and media exposure. It won't be so huge that you're personally lost in the shuffle, your agent says, but it won't be so small that your movie is lost in the shuffle. Just the right size!

So you do it. Feige... well, he is what he is. And maybe you don't get along so well with the other cast members. But hey! Big opportunity! Lots of exposure!

Then the studio's marketing division starts running with a sort of hostile approach of smearing the opposition. Ah well, some of 'em probably ARE sexists. This will ruffle their egos a little bit. It's good for their circulation. And better for ticket sales!

Then Feige starts personally attacking them as "a**holes". Mmm, that's maybe over the line. But! MEDIA EXPOSURE!

Then you do a personal appearance on a talk show with Hillary Clinton. So much for not politicizing the thing.

Then you do a personal appearance on a talk show with former Ghostbusters stars who were blackballed into attending. That's not very nice!

The toys are going on clearance before the movie has even opened, the tracking for opening weekend sucks, ticket sales on opening weekend are below the tracking, the movie is not winning many admirers among non-political critics, the core fanbase revolted a year ago and nobody told you about it, at best sequel prospects are dicey and you're the face of Hollywood's big failure right now.

All you wanted to do was make a fun movie with a popular director, beef up your resume, pad your wallet a tiny bit and get some experience doing a big effects movie. Instead, you're the star in a toxically-political morass of anger and division, your pay wasn't so good as to justify the blame you're facing, one of your castmates quit Twitter over something or other and the "media exposure" is alternately hostile in your favor or else totally biased about stuff you can't even control.

This is by far the biggest thing you've ever done.

And it wasn't worth it.

I don't know this to be true but I wonder that Melissa McCarthy wishes she'd done Gilmore Girls after all.

You're making me feel bad for them.

Ok I guess I kind of already did but now I really do lol.

But this is what we've been saying, it's not the cast or any of that, it's what the studio and director and stuff have done and the fact that they're trying to "restart" the freaking Ghostbusters. It doesn't NEED restarting. But yah I feel worse and worse for the cast cause they didn't ask for the backlash.

I think people need to let go of the fact that it's not Paul Feige or Sony's fault a Ghostbusters III never happened with the original cast. If you want to blame someone for that, blame the original ghostbusters; Bill Murray never signed on until Harold Ramis died and the rest of the cast never wanted to do it without all four involved. I respect that as do I respect the fact that they decided not to rehash their characters in smaller roles without Ramis.

Having seen the film I think I know why they rebooted it; they went with the traditional plot of nobody believing in paranormal activity and the notion that the Ghostbusters themselves are the cause of all of it. They do twist it a little bit; the mayor in the first two films seemed to believe the Ghostbusters but his office didn't. Here the modern twist is that the FBI is involved and does in fact know that ghosts are real but is attempting to cover it up due to the belief that humanity is not ready for it (basically a government conspiracy). It's implied for this reason that this is not a sequel. Whether you consider this lazy writing or a homage is up to you.

Thing is we didn't NEED a Ghostbusters III period, old cast, new cast, whatever. The original more than stood on its own, for peeps that like the second one like myself it was a nice little supplement but there was no need for more, let alone a remake. We can't be that badly out of ideas.

That said government coverup stuff annoys me (I tried to watch "Man of the Year" with Robin Williams and kept throwing my remote cause it was pissing me off, I still have to remind myself I don't have to hiss every time Jeff Goldblum pops up on the screen anymore) so it's probably a good thing I'm not interested lol.

I think I may revise my box office predictions for Star Trek Beyond. I figured it would underperform based on the trailer, but Anton Yelchin's death + strong reviews + positive word of mouth is making me think it'll do better than I thought. That's good news for Paramount. Bad news for Sony.

Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 21 Jul  2016, 13:56
Thing is we didn't NEED a Ghostbusters III period, old cast, new cast, whatever. The original more than stood on its own, for peeps that like the second one like myself it was a nice little supplement but there was no need for more, let alone a remake. We can't be that badly out of ideas.

I agree. The time to make Ghostbusters III was in the early nineties. Back then, it could have been awesome.


Luckily we got the 2009 videogame, which was the real Ghostbusters III. But the franchise should be laid to rest now. Comics are fine. Maybe another video game or animated series. But as far as live action films go, the ship has sailed.

A good example of the dignified repose Ghostbusters has been denied can be found in the Back to the Future trilogy. Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale have taken measures to make certain those films are never remade, and there probably won't be another sequel either. But why would there need to be? Last year there was a massive amount of hype surrounding Back to the Future Day. The cast appeared on chat shows, there were theatrical screenings. new merchandise was issued. But the films themselves remained unaltered. No new effects. No sequels. No extended cuts. None of that stuff was necessary. The films have aged beautifully – if anything, they play better now than when they were first released. The excitement surrounding BttF Day was a respectful celebration of a beloved film series. And that's how it should be done for all classics.

Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 21 Jul  2016, 13:56I still have to remind myself I don't have to hiss every time Jeff Goldblum pops up on the screen anymore) so it's probably a good thing I'm not interested lol.

Goldblum is, uh, indeed, a, uh, uh, talented actor. It's easy to, uh, confuse him, uh, with the, uh, characters he, uh, portrays. Uh.

Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 21 Jul  2016, 13:56Thing is we didn't NEED a Ghostbusters III period, old cast, new cast, whatever. The original more than stood on its own, for peeps that like the second one like myself it was a nice little supplement but there was no need for more, let alone a remake. We can't be that badly out of ideas.

I don't think we needed anything beyond the first one. As you say, Ghostbusters II is an interesting accessory. I even rather enjoy it because it has more of Bill Murray being Bill Murray. But it doesn't have the same flare as the original. Good but not great. And hardly essential, like you say.

I was never thrilled about the idea of Ghostbusters III. My honest opinion was the crew behind the original were lucky they didn't stink up the screen with the second one. A third one after all these years seemed like tempting fate.

But a reboot? Maybe I could've gotten on board with the idea of Ghostbusters III. Maybe. But a reboot, no way. No chance in hell. I don't care if it starred reanimated versions of WC Fields, Don Rickles, Laurel and Hardy, some things are too big an idea after too long a period of time.

Hollywood isn't listening. These reboots and remakes tank more often than not. But they keep coming anyway because Hollywood's current leadership wants retreads. It doesn't matter that we can come up with better ideas today. Even money isn't important judging by how much is spent on these reboots. They WANT retreaded cinema, picking apart stuff from 30 or more years ago instead of creating something new right now. It isn't about money.

It's fair to ask why they're determined to strip mine the past instead of build something new for the present.

I've always liked the idea, in fiction and in conspiracy theories, that the government, military, intelligence agencies and other powerful and influential people such as academics, scientists and clergy know all sorts of things that they keep from public knowledge because "if people knew the truth civilization would break down". And that they keep these things secret for "the good of the world" and will even resort to committing murder to keep these secrets because they believe that it's "a small price to pay". That they might sacrifice small numbers of people to whatever this horrible secret or evil is in order to preserve the human race as a whole.

It's a very Lovecraftian idea. That ignorance is bliss because the truth drives one mad.

Well, yeah. The truth draws outrage from certain groups, and thus denial. The truth is too difficult for some to accept because the truth can be scary. But we have to face up to it. Take control. Or it really does reach the point of no return.

Quote from: JokerMeThis on Sat, 23 Jul  2016, 06:07I've always liked the idea, in fiction and in conspiracy theories, that the government, military, intelligence agencies and other powerful and influential people such as academics, scientists and clergy know all sorts of things that they keep from public knowledge because "if people knew the truth civilization would break down". And that they keep these things secret for "the good of the world" and will even resort to committing murder to keep these secrets because they believe that it's "a small price to pay". That they might sacrifice small numbers of people to whatever this horrible secret or evil is in order to preserve the human race as a whole.

It's a very Lovecraftian idea. That ignorance is bliss because the truth drives one mad.

I can understand that. And the allure of that.

But I can't shake the suspicion that the REAL answer is the conspiracy theory explanation is interesting because it gives meaning to something. "Yeah, society sucks right now. No two ways about it. But it's all the Illuminati's doing!"

The alternative to that is there is no grand conspiracy and that society is governed by total morons.

Under the circumstances, a conspiracy theory is the more satisfying answer.

I'm not saying that there isn't a conspiracy (or that there is); just throwing in my two pennies.

Look up information about a Clive Barker story called "The Midnight Meat Train". That's an example of the kind of fictional story I'm talking about.

A movie about this kind of thing is one with Julianne Moore called "The Forgotten".

As for conspiracy theories look up what various believers in UFOs believe.

I'm not saying it's true. But I think it's interesting and scary.

Allow me to begin by saying I know nothing and care nothing about Kate McKinnon.

But in the unlikely event I ever watch Girlbusters, it'll probably be because of her. In literally everything I've seen related to Girlbusters, she's the standout element. Her look, her body language, everything. She's one of those actresses you can't take your eyes off of because of how she looks, the way she carries herself and so forth.

She's by far the most interesting component of this movie that I will probably never watch.

Same here. She seems f***ing adorable.

I won't be watching Girlbusters. Evah.

If I kidnap you and torture you for the whereabouts of something VERY valuable and VERY shiny, you will. Oh yes, you will....

I believe you ....

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 24 Jul  2016, 06:00
If I kidnap you and torture you for the whereabouts of something VERY valuable and VERY shiny, you will. Oh yes, you will....

Ben Affleck will save me.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 24 Jul  2016, 14:38

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 24 Jul  2016, 06:00
If I kidnap you and torture you for the whereabouts of something VERY valuable and VERY shiny, you will. Oh yes, you will....

Ben Affleck will save me.

Ben Affleck? Ben Affleck you say? HOO HOO! Blubberdoo! Blubberdoo!

I'm......COUNTING ON IT!

Kate McKinnon is on Saturday Night Live. She is hilarious. Cute too.

Production Budget: $144 million
Weekend 01 Gross: $46,018,755
Weekend 02 Gross: $21,600,000 (estimated)
US Total Gross: $86,856,739 (estimated)

At this point, I don't see how Girlbusters makes it money back. We're beyond profit now. At this point, it's all about how much Sony will lose their shirts over this thing.

The movie lost over 50% of its opening weekend business this weekend. Even if Girlbusters hits $15 million during weekend 03, that'll put it at, what, $116 million in the US? Not even close to where it needs to be.

Girlbusters is officially a dud now.

I like some of the people in the movie and feel sorry for them. But I just can't find any interest in seeing this movie. I wish I could but I can't.

Yup. The "film" is basically dead in the water. It would really have to over-perform overseas for any slight chance of turning the corner, and getting out of the red. The second week was going to be the judgement call. Morbid curiosity from a portion of the audience who saw it opening weekend can only carry you so far, and getting to the finish line of profitville looks bleak.

It's doing even worse overseas. It's already opened in around half of its foreign markets, including several key territories such as the UK and Brazil. In some places it's now entering its third week. Yet its total foreign haul is presently only $36 million.

Of course I'm far too classy to gloat.

Those are the real box office numbers?

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgiant.gfycat.com%2FShamefulOblongInvisiblerail.gif&hash=dc306940d897a1d73eabda27f6a87477f66aa4f0)

As of 07.31.2016...
Domestic: $106,497,206
Foreign: $51,705,399
Worldwide: $158,202,605

I haven't been this amused at a movie's failure since Superman Returns... although this lacks the personal pain that Superman Returns had. This is just nothing but schadenfreude.

(https://s25.postimg.org/5qauud26n/icon_sleep.gif) (https://s25.postimg.org/5qauud26n/icon_sleep.gif) (https://s25.postimg.org/5qauud26n/icon_sleep.gif)

^This pretty much sums up it all up. Imagine how much an actual Ghostbusters 3 would've made, as opposed to Feigbusters which is struggling to get past even "Spy" numbers?!

I can take some solace in knowing all the dissension will pass, and eventually the "film" will become a distant memory like other sh*tty remakes, and the original films, especially the 1984 GB, will continue to be the go to films. Much like how any GB merch going forward is going to be, unsurprisingly, based on GB1+2, rather than Feigbusters.

Oh, and .....

Quote from: Paul Feig"As opening day approaches, Feig can't help but think about the stakes of making a $150 million movie. "A movie like this has to at least get to like $500 million worldwide, and that's probably low," he says. "But the thing I care about most is the industry looking for an excuse to say, 'See, a tentpole can't be carried by female leads' " — three of whom are over 40. "I cashed in all my chips," he says. "I had to use every chip to make this happen. And if this doesn't work, I will probably have to go back to movie jail."

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhollywoodandswine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2Fdirector-jail-christmas-card.jpg&hash=f6c726f870b1fcb97416264018aa1b2030a317e3)

Couldn't happen to a nicer dick.

I'll bail out Schumacher. The rest can stay in.

it looks like the IMDB rating is settling around 5.5 for now; slightly below where it belongs due to the massive amount of 1 votes from people who didnt see it it but still quite a bit below the 6.5 the maligned second film has.

Now we've discussed how Sony announced another film likely as a marketing ploy but supposedly the rumour de jour is the next film will indeed be a sequel to the first two films.

Quote from: riddler on Tue,  2 Aug  2016, 18:57
Now we've discussed how Sony announced another film likely as a marketing ploy but supposedly the rumour de jour is the next film will indeed be a sequel to the first two films.

Even without Harold Ramis?

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue,  2 Aug  2016, 19:01

Quote from: riddler on Tue,  2 Aug  2016, 18:57
Now we've discussed how Sony announced another film likely as a marketing ploy but supposedly the rumour de jour is the next film will indeed be a sequel to the first two films.

Even without Harold Ramis?

There's no confirmation that any of the original ghostbusters will appear but the film itself is supposed to be set in the same universe. This 2016 film is presumably not in the same universe as it's never brought up by any characters that ghosts in new York had ever been a problem of that magnitude before or that ghostbusting had ever been done.

though I don't understand how they can have a remake and a sequel somehow achieving their goal of a shared universe?

Quote from: The Joker on Tue,  2 Aug  2016, 04:31
Imagine how much an actual Ghostbusters 3 would've made, as opposed to Feigbusters which is struggling to get past even "Spy" numbers?!

I try not to think about how amazing a real Ghostbusters 3 could have been, particularly if it had been made back in the nineties. I've been wanting to see that my whole life. :(

Instead we got this: a pitiful box office flop and a tie-in game so bad it literally bankrupted the developer just three days after release: http://kotaku.com/ghostbusters-developer-fireforge-games-goes-bankrupt-1784625739

Oh, Sony, Sony, Sony.

James Rolfe reviews Ghostbusters. The Real Ghostbusters. I think a lot of people who were never really into the franchise (e.g. Paul Feig) underestimate just how rich the mythology was. This video brings it home:

Never watched this series so there's no nostalgia involved like with the movies, but it's always interesting watching Rolfe talking Ghostbusters.

Excuse me for the opening paragraph, I'm just the messenger.

Quote
Ghostbusters director Paul Feig says he won't reboot any more Hollywood classics

Petulant man babies can sleep easy in their single beds after Ghostbusters director Paul Feig confirmed that he won't be rebooting any more Hollywood classics.

Speaking during an interview with The Huffington Post, Feig confirmed that he wouldn't consider a new take on any other iconic films – and said that he was attracted to Ghostbusters because of the project's 'exciting' possibilities.

Ruling himself out, Feig said: 'No, no, no. No, I will not.

'This one was just too tempting because I knew we could do something with it that was exciting.'

Feig's comments came after the release of Ghostbusters last month – with the film receiving positive reviews, despite a concerted campaign to derail the film's success that was launched by detractors who took exception to the film's female leads.

After the film was released, lead star Leslie Jones also found herself at the centre of a campaign of racial slurs and online abuse.

After directly addressing the attacks, she left the site for a short while.

She said: 'It's so sad, most of these comments sound like they are from ignorant children.

'You have to hate yourself to put out that type of hate. I mean on my worst day I can't think of this type of put out.
'I don't know how to feel. I'm numb. Actually numb. I see the words and pics and videos. Videos y'all. Meaning people took time to spew hate.'

But director Feig was among the first to defend her, saying: 'Leslie Jones is one of the greatest people I know. Any personal attacks against her are attacks against us all. #LoveForLeslieJ.'

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2016/08/08/ghostbusters-director-paul-feig-says-he-wont-reboot-any-more-hollywood-classics-6054151/#ixzz4Gk9qnXlY

The motives behind this remake sounded dubious to say the least, but there's no excuse for racial abuse against this actress. Oh well, they don't speak for the majority of the fans.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon,  8 Aug  2016, 12:36but there's no excuse for racial abuse against this actress. Oh well, they don't speak for the majority of the fans.

You f**k with the bull, you get the horns. There's a thing called "sympathy" and I have none for Jones.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue,  9 Aug  2016, 02:13

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon,  8 Aug  2016, 12:36but there's no excuse for racial abuse against this actress. Oh well, they don't speak for the majority of the fans.

You f**k with the bull, you get the horns. There's a thing called "sympathy" and I have none for Jones.

I do. It's one thing that people hate the movie but she'd received some pretty harsh comments on twitter including one of the KKK lynching a black woman. That is beyond excessive I don't care how much people feel that their favourite film is being bastardized.

Quote from: riddler on Tue,  9 Aug  2016, 16:15

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue,  9 Aug  2016, 02:13

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon,  8 Aug  2016, 12:36but there's no excuse for racial abuse against this actress. Oh well, they don't speak for the majority of the fans.

You f**k with the bull, you get the horns. There's a thing called "sympathy" and I have none for Jones.

I do. It's one thing that people hate the movie but she'd received some pretty harsh comments on twitter including one of the KKK lynching a black woman. That is beyond excessive I don't care how much people feel that their favourite film is being bastardized.

Agreed. Jones handled the situation badly by fighting with trolls in the first place, but those racist comments were way out of line. I saw some of the things people posted before the comments were deleted and they were horrible. It's one thing to hate the movie, but to stoop to that level is uncalled for.

It was wrong for the supporters of this film to verbally abuse the fans the way they did, particularly when they launched nasty personal attacks on James Rolfe and his family. But that doesn't justify the film's critics resorting to racism to redress the balance.

Yep. There's a way to attack something. You have to keep all the usual fallbacks the other side falls back upon in mind if you really want to defeat them. Attack the film and their acting ability, not the people. Otherwise, they'll just say "SEE, all people who hate Ghostbusters are racist, sexist pigs!"

Quote from: riddler on Tue,  9 Aug  2016, 16:15I do. It's one thing that people hate the movie but she'd received some pretty harsh comments on twitter including one of the KKK lynching a black woman. That is beyond excessive I don't care how much people feel that their favourite film is being bastardized.

She started half of the trouble (at least) and then whined and cried to Twitter's little mod police when her poow widdle feewings get huwt. Sorry, no, she did it to herself.

People say "Where's your compassion?" And I always say "I left it in the dictionary somewhere between crap and chlamydia; go look for it, I bet you'll find it."

Let's face facts here, Leslie Jones isn't employed for her looks or intelligence. She's a slapstick. A walking, talking 'angry black woman' self deprecating typecast. That's her schtick, and that's how she gets a paycheck. The fact that she was even cast in a "film" that sooo wants to be thought of as something that's highlighting a progressive movement is hilarious in of itself. On the topic of her Twitter/Racist comments, it's definitely not a case where the one who has claimed to being victimized is completely exempt from making racist tweets on her own, so I really don't have a whole lot of empathy for her, but going the half-wit route and engaging Jones on her race, and sending tweets featuring photos of her that's been ejaculated on, doesn't really do sh*t besides validate the pushed narrative that everyone who dislikes the film and the casting are racist bigots, who hate women, pick on the developmental disabled, children, and kick dogs.

Yeah, pass.

The attacks against Leslie Jones were disgusting. No justification for them.

Definitely engaging the trolls was a bad move on her part but she paid for it and then some with all the hate she got. Saying she deserved any of the brutal racism she got is akin to blaming a rape victim for dressing skanky.

If people want to hate the film, hate it. But hate it for the right reasons, before the release I brought up the racial aspect of how it seemed Jones was playing the stereotypical angry black woman. There's still no need to basically wave the confederate flag in her face.

The silver lining is I think a lot of people in the film industry learned a lesson from it; social media is still relatively new and so celebrities will hopefully learn the hard way what can happen when you engage negatively with fans. In the entertainment industry in general you don't insult or demean people who aren't interested in your product. I work in the hockey industry but it would be career suicide for those within to attempt to market our sport by bashing other sports or insulting people who don't like ours. The proper way to market something is to promote the benefits of it rather than say "you're crazy for not buying what we're selling"

Courtesy of The Hollywood Reporter:

Quote'Ghostbusters' Heading for $70M-Plus Loss, Sequel Unlikely

...

Feig hasn't said whether he'll return. Stars Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon are said to be signed for two potential sequels, and initially they said they were game. But now? "Ghostbusters is on ice until further notice," says box-office analyst Jeff Bock. "I just can't fathom the creative talents behind it — Feig, McCarthy, Wiig, etc. — slogging out another one when the reception to the first one was so mediocre."

Sony disputes the amount of the potential loss, insisting that revenue streams from merchandising and such attractions as a new Ghostbusters exhibit at Madame Tussauds and a theme park ride in Dubai will help defray any deficit. The studio also notes that the number of people renting the 1984 film has soared over the summer.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-heading-70m-loss-sequel-918515

I'd say that's game, set and match, old man.

I'll let Bond have the final word on the matter:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HnyuICVSuBY

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 10 Aug  2016, 06:31Let's face facts here

Yes. Let's.

She sought those weirdos out, she pushed, prodded, trolled and ultimately got the reaction she wanted. Then she played the victim so that those people would get banned from Twitter.

To switch things around, it's like the beginning of Die Hard With A Vengeance where some White person goes into Harlem wearing a sandwich board covered in slurs getting the crap beaten out of him and expecting others to sympathize simply because technically he broke no law and technically what was done to him is a bona fide crime.

And yet not very many people would pity that person.

Sympathy: That thing I have none of for Jones.

Oh boy.

Rather than go around in circles, do we want to turn this into a, "Why Leslie Jones isn't a high class broad" thread?

Cause that can be done quite easily.

(https://i.redd.it/alu8fn0jebax.png)


And here I was content with letting Bond have the final word.  ::)

Is that supposed to be the monolith from the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey?

;)

Quote from: JokerMeThis on Sun, 14 Aug  2016, 03:46
Is that supposed to be the monolith from the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey?

;)

Ahhhhh, so I'm not the only one then.

"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

;)

Edit

http://movieweb.com/leslie-jones-hack-attack-homeland-security-investigation/


Homeland security is getting involved in the Leslie Jones twitter battle. I'm not on twitter but I wasn't aware of racist things Jones herself says. I'm not condoning what she's done but she is bringing this on herself.

Interesting. This movie made the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Quote from: riddler on Thu, 25 Aug  2016, 21:10http://movieweb.com/leslie-jones-hack-attack-homeland-security-investigation


Homeland security is getting involved in the Leslie Jones twitter battle. I'm not on twitter but I wasn't aware of racist things Jones herself says. I'm not condoning what she's done but she is bringing this on herself.

My comments to that effect got drowned out in a sea of virtue signalling vanity. Hopefully you'll have better luck.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 26 Aug  2016, 00:23Interesting. This movie made the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

It was never going to be about the box office. Good golly, the movie has grossed $217 million worldwide after 45 days of release. It's still playing in 434 theaters and this, Weekend #7, marks its first sub-$1 million weekend.

Before the movie came out, the egalitarians were praying to mother Gaia or something that this movie would do well because of what it would mean for women in cinema if the movie tanked. Well, the movie has indeed tanked. So here we are.

Meanwhile, Suicide Squad is at $635 million worldwide. It was pronounced a failure if it failed to break $500 million worldwide. Well, here's $635 million. But there aren't very many retractions or mea culpas going on right now.

I'm having the time of my life. The Girlbuster fans' tears are so delicious.

By the way, the post you quoted was not my original message. I edited it. Perhaps I shouldn't have. Because I hate SJW with the intensity of a billion suns. They need to be fought and mocked with every fibre of our being. Girlbusters sucks harder than a cheap and nasty vagrant in a dingy back alley. Let it burn.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 29 Aug  2016, 05:20By the way, the post you quoted was not my original message. I edited it. Perhaps I shouldn't have.

I figured you probably deleted something that was a little too hot for TV. :D

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 29 Aug  2016, 05:20Because I hate SJW with the intensity of a billion suns. They need to be fought and mocked with every fibre of our being. Girlbusters sucks harder than a cheap and nasty vagrant in a dingy back alley. Let it burn.

It crashing and burning as we speak...

Ivan Reitman still insists that more Ghostbusters movies are in development, despite Paul Feig saying he'll never direct another one again.

Quote
There's going to be many other class Ghostbusters movies, they're just in development right now.

Source: http://movieweb.com/ghostbusters-movies-in-development/

I'd take it with a grain of salt though. He doesn't go into detail if there were plans for a sequel, or another reboot, or a spin-off. And for all we know, it's probably just spin as ordered by Sony.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu,  2 Jun  2016, 11:04
I saw notorious online film critic Devin Faraci accusing James Rolfe of "unintentionally" having a sexist reaction against the new film. I say notorious, because Faraci has gone on record of making offensive remarks in the past:

Quote
"I don't think "Angry Video Game Nerd" knows that he's having a sexist reaction to Ghostbusters. I think a lot of guys online DO know that (or that they don't believe sexism exists, which is even worse), but I don't think "Angry Video Game Nerd" is sitting around stewing over women in Ghostbusters.

And that's why his attitude is maybe the most dangerous. It speaks to the way sexism (and racism and plenty of other isms) kind of lives quietly inside of us, and the way it can impact our beliefs and actions without us even once considering it. But it is truly the only answer for why the Ghostbusters reboot is THIS infuriating to this many men. They may not be consciously aware of it, but their innate sexism is giving a boost to their already-existing dislike of reboots and their disinterest in this new movie."

"Disliking the new Ghostbusters doesn't make you sexist.  But if you're raging about it – if you're angry enough to call a boycott, to make a video drawing a line in the sand – maybe you should consider where all of this anger is coming from."

Source: https://houseofgeekery.com/2016/05/21/the-angry-video-game-nerd-the-new-ghostbusters-and-why-ive-lost-all-respect-for-devin-faraci/

Faraci might've had a point if Rolfe played his Nerd persona in the video, but given he's misinformed... :-[

I mentioned this elsewhere, but I thought post this again: It turns out that Faraci, who suggested people who were passionately against the new Ghostbusters were sexist, was himself accused of sexual misconduct by a woman and was forced to quit his job at Birth.Movies.Death.

***WARNING: These links contains some NSFW language***
http://movieweb.com/devin-faraci-resigns-sexual-assault-allegations/
http://www.themarysue.com/devin-faraci-steps-down/

As I said before, good riddance. One less hypocrite in the world to worry about.

#dumpbusters

any predictions on what happens next with the ghostbusters franchise?

A) Have last years entry being the first of a series of ghostbuster team movies with each one taking place in a different city.
B) essentially do the same thing WB did with Superman returns and basically leave it as its own solo outing without building upon it
C) put the franchise to bed on the big screen. I don't see this happening, this disaster wasn't bad enough to kill the franchise especially now that the barrier of pleasing the talent (Bill Murray) is gone

I think we can pretty much rule out a direct sequel to the 2016 film, at best I could see the Melissa McCarthy character show up in future Ghostbuster films if they go the shared universe route or it be included in a Ghostbusters version of the JLA/Avengers.

Quote from: riddler on Sun,  4 Jun  2017, 02:54any predictions on what happens next with the ghostbusters franchise?

A) Have last years entry being the first of a series of ghostbuster team movies with each one taking place in a different city.
B) essentially do the same thing WB did with Superman returns and basically leave it as its own solo outing without building upon it
C) put the franchise to bed on the big screen. I don't see this happening, this disaster wasn't bad enough to kill the franchise especially now that the barrier of pleasing the talent (Bill Murray) is gone

I think we can pretty much rule out a direct sequel to the 2016 film, at best I could see the Melissa McCarthy character show up in future Ghostbuster films if they go the shared universe route or it be included in a Ghostbusters version of the JLA/Avengers.

Well, there's what I want vs. what I expect.

What I want is for a beloved film "franchise" from my childhood to be left alone. Hollywood is supposedly full of the most creative people alive. Isn't it time they prove it?

What I expect is Sony will put the franchise on ice and perhaps do token efforts to keep it in the public mind before attempting another relaunch. By 2020, most people won't remember Girlbusters and it'll be safe to try something new. If we MUST continue this franchise, a change of scene might be interesting. How about a Ghostbusters shop in Europe? Or the American south?

They can play different character types: a tough former cop, a paranoid fringe conspiracy theorist, a down on his luck Mr. Nice Guy who just needs a job, a stuffy (but disgraced) "serious author" looking to get back into the game, a reality TV host looking for The Next Big Thing, someone from a Mythbusters type of show trying to bust the Ghostbusters, an Elon Musk type of wacky inventor who has Big Business ideas for monetizing ghosts in some way or whatever else.

New locales, different types of characters, different types of ghosts, any (or all) of those could do the trick.

Skip the politics and the agendas. Just try to make something funny. The Ghostbusters fanbase might be forgiving of how they were treated last year if they're offered a quality product. Remember, we're marketing a movie here, not storming Omaha Beach.

Ghostbusters is dead. After a short but brave battle against feminism, it passed away peacefully in its sleep surrounded by loved ones. Of course that won't stop Sony from trying to milk its corpse.

Some properties have a limited shelf life. This is especially true of franchises where the lead actors are the main selling point. A good example of this is one of my favourite TV shows, The A-Team. That franchise is over. They could publish some comics, maybe make a video game. But as far as live action film or television goes, it's done. You can't artificially recreate the chemistry and charisma those original four actors shared. They tried in 2010 and it didn't work. Someone will probably buy the rights to The A-Team brand and try reviving it at some point, but that won't work either. There are countless stories about mercenaries. What made The A-Team special was the characters and the actors who played them. The same is true of Ghostbusters. There are lots of other properties about people fighting ghosts, but what made Ghostbusters so beloved was the mythology built around the original four heroes. Sony didn't understand that, which is why they screwed the pooch.

Could they have breathed new life into the franchise with a third movie? Possibly. Though even if they had produced a proper sequel with the original cast, at this point I think it would still have ended up a hollow nostalgia trip rather than a worthy continuation of the series. But it might have worked. They could have made a third film with the emphasis on the original cast while introducing a younger generation of Ghostbusters in supporting roles. Then they could have followed this up with a new animated series focused on the younger characters, and eventually a fourth movie with them in the lead roles. That might have given Ghostbusters a shot in the arm. We waited literally decades for a new film, and when it arrived it turned out to be a horrible bait-and-switch. We all told Sony their approach was misguided. We literally couldn't have stated it more clearly. But they wouldn't listen. And now the franchise is permanently stained by their failure. If the chance to make another film ever does come around, the original cast will be too old to participate. Sony had one shot at getting this right. They failed. I don't think fans will ever trust them again after that.

Commercial American cinema in general has become far too reliant on branding. Instead of giving us original IPs, studios are playing it safe and rehashing familiar franchises that they know have a pre-existing fan base. The result is an endless stream of sequels, reboots, remakes and reimaginings that fail to capture the freshness of the movies they're imitating. Most movies these days are being committee planned by studio execs who use market research and focus groups to make creative decisions. "The fans like A and C, but they dislike B. So let's sell them A and C all over again. They'll love that." The upside of this is that studios are finally listening to what the fans want (with notable exceptions, such as Sony Pictures). The downside is that they're playing it safe and not doing anything new. The proliferation of 'shared universes' is perhaps the biggest symptom of this issue.

Take for instance the new Han Solo movie. I'm a diehard OT Star Wars fan, but even I think this movie is a waste of time and money. Maybe it'll end up being good, but wouldn't it be more exciting if the talent and resources involved were committed to something original? And yes, I know nothing is completely original – everything is influenced by something else – but when I say 'original' I'm referring to original IPs: scripts, books or short stories that have never previously been adapted into live action. I can just imagine the market research analysts over at Disney crafting the film's storyline: "Our focus groups show fans like Han shooting first, so let's reference that." Then there'll be a scene in the movie where Han is caught dead in the sights of a villain. He freezes. There's the sound of a blaster. Han flinches. Then the villain drops dead. Standing behind the villain is a good guy (either a tough female character or a cynical mentor), who says something like, "Next time, shoot first." Fan service delivered. Throw in a cameo by Greedo, some Chewbacca growls and a bloated Kessel Run FX sequence that makes 12 parsecs feel like forty minutes, and it's money in the bank.

That's modern cinema for you. For every inventive high quality sci-fi film like Ex Machina or Arrival there are a dozen generic over-budgeted shlockfests based on tired overused corporate brands. People prefer fast food over home cooked meals. A few interesting facts about Hollywood:

•   Almost 87% of American box office revenue goes back to just six film studios.

•   Of the top fifteen highest grossing movies of the eighties, only three haven't received a sequel, prequel or remake: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hollywood-loves-the-1980s-as-much-as-it-loves-franchises-and-remakes-2017-05-26

What we've basically got here is an oligopoly selling us the same stuff over and over again, where the competition is as limited as the imagination. The battle between Hollywood studios is the battle between McDonald's, Burger King and Pizza Hutt. Ghostbusters was a casualty of that war. There are still plenty of wonderful inventive movies being made each year. But they tend to be either small films based on original IPs or else movies made outside of Hollywood. Hollywood itself is in a bad way, and the recent drop in box office shows audiences are getting wise to this.

I'd get beaten up by the militant SJWs for what I'm about to say, but as you guys know, I am certainly not from the political right.  Although I am a liberal, for the most part I try to stay apolitical.  What I do object to, whether it arises from a liberal or conservative source, is lack of common-sense and logic.

So, anyway, I find it ironic and quite laughable that last year so-called 'liberals' were attacking men for refusing to watch a blatant POS movie like Ghostbusters 2016 on the basis they were 'sexists' (never mind that irrespective of whether the lead characters were male, female, transgender, or something else entirely, the film looked like a mirthless travesty), yet know we do have a feminist movie featuring a strong female lead, that many men want to go see and champion, certain cinemas are now restricting them from seeing Wonder Woman thanks to 'all female' screenings. ::)

Look, I don't particularly object to all-female screenings in practice.  It's a drop in the ocean as far as the thousands of theatres that will be screening this likely blockbuster, many of them with multiple screens in 2D or 3D.  But it does expose the absurdity of certain SJW thinking, where the usual suspects complain if men are choosing not to see a female-led action/adventure movie (that looks crap), and then proceed to stop them from showing up when they do want to see a female-led action/adventure movie (that looks awesome).  Don't they see the inconsistency of their behaviour?

Anyway, like I said, this is not really a liberal/conservative thing for me.  There are utter irrational and extremist morons on all sides of the political spectrum, but on this instance it is the so-called left and so-called feminists who are behaving like jackasses.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  4 Jun  2017, 12:19Take for instance the new Han Solo movie. I'm a diehard OT Star Wars fan, but even I think this movie is a waste of time and money.

At the risk of getting lost in the weeds (eg, specifically about Star Wars) and missing your broader point (eg, Hollywood is a cesspool of cheap marketing gimmicks masquerading as cinema), I must say that as time goes on I really do think Disney owning Star Wars was a horrible move.

First, there's the creative angle. You touched on that already. But it bears emphasizing that this new crop of Star Wars movies has left me utterly cold. There are reasons for that which detract from the point. So I'll skip them. Suffice it to say though, I bow to nobody when it comes to loving the original trilogy. And I just can't get into these new movies.

Second, I've truly come to believe that Disney is the evil empire. Apart from the theme parks, there's very little of the wider Disney universe that I enjoy. Or approve of. Their ownership of Star Wars has been detrimental. But still profitable. For now.

But it's like anything. The public's appetite for Star Wars had been building for decades. I doubt the totality of the new movies' success is due to their creative merits. As much as anything, I attribute it to pent-up demand. For better or worse, Lucasfilm only produced six Star Wars movies even though the franchise was manifestly capable of supporting more movies than that. Right now, people are "getting their fix".

But the day will come (and at the rate Disney is going, it'll be very soon) when they've gotten their fix. After that, Star Wars will be just another big film franchise in a sea of clones and competitors. Disney won't be able to get away with half-assed stories and creative poverty anymore. Sooner or later, they'll have to sink or swim.

And if their creative decisions up to now are anything to judge by, it'll be Star Wars that sinks. Disney, meanwhile, will just assume the public is over their fascination with Star Wars (partly true) and then go look for another property to crash into an iceberg.

Fanservice checklist; professionaly produced studio-budgeted fanfic; the filmic equivalent of the old EU; fanarts (one can't deny the new footage of Vader, Tie Fighters, Star Destroyers, space battles, is good). Not bad but not Lucas.

Dan Aykroyd once said the game is the third film that we're never going to get.

The plot managed to connect parts 1 and 2 altogether through various nods, and ultimately, it's about as good as a GB3 is going to get. Dan spent about 20+ years trying to get a GB3 made, and with Bill Murray being aloof, and Harold Ramis dying, it's clear that Hollywood views the franchise as a "Bill Murray series", or simply does not care about GB. Or both.

As it currently stands, whatever the hell the 2016 version was titled, "Ghostbusters", "Ghostbusters: Answer the Call", or "Ghostbusters: Don't answer the call, and run away from the theater screaming for your life", it's a black eye on the franchise. I'm not sure where the animated GB film stands, or the Ecto Force animated series. I vaguely recall something about a supposed live action show being planned as well. I suppose any of these, in order to just lessen the bad taste from 2016, would be fine, but what got shat out last year by Hollywood's agenda pushing arse, clearly, wasn't the way to go. 

I mean, 40 million just for reshoots? Because Feig is that incompetent.

That's the budget for John Wick 2.

Yeah the whole movie.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  4 Jun  2017, 23:39

Dan Aykroyd once said the game is the third film that we're never going to get.

The plot managed to connect parts 1 and 2 altogether through various nods, and ultimately, it's about as good as a GB3 is going to get. Dan spent about 20+ years trying to get a GB3 made, and with Bill Murray being aloof, and Harold Ramis dying, it's clear that Hollywood views the franchise as a "Bill Murray series", or simply does not care about GB. Or both.

As it currently stands, whatever the hell the 2016 version was titled, "Ghostbusters", "Ghostbusters: Answer the Call", or "Ghostbusters: Don't answer the call, and run away from the theater screaming for your life", it's a black eye on the franchise. I'm not sure where the animated GB film stands, or the Ecto Force animated series. I vaguely recall something about a supposed live action show being planned as well. I suppose any of these, in order to just lessen the bad taste from 2016, would be fine, but what got shat out last year by Hollywood's agenda pushing arse, clearly, wasn't the way to go. 

I mean, 40 million just for reshoots? Because Feig is that incompetent.

That's the budget for John Wick 2.

Yeah the whole movie.

I'm sure there are youtube videos of the cutscreens of the video game making it into a movie. And the plot is decent enough that there's enough there into making an animated movie out of the cutscreens. As Akroyd said, that is the closest we'll ever see to a GB3 because we'll never see Hudson and Murray suit up without Harold Ramis.

Take this for what it's worth but I've read from multiple sources stated that part of the agreement between Marvel and Sony on Spider-man Homecoming was that Feig would be denied any involvement after April 2017.

Out of fear of being labelled a misogynist, Aykroyd has now clarified his comments with the following statement:

"Paul Feig made a good movie and had a superb cast and plenty of money to do it. We just wish he had been more inclusive to the originators."

So the originators should have had more involvement? That's exactly what the fans have been saying since day one, and Aykroyd labelled us KKK members for doing so. I'm afraid loss of creative input is the price of selling out, Dan

As for Paul Feig, Hollywood's biggest misandrist – for some reason whenever I think about him this song pops into my head:


Not to go off topic with the politics, but I would just like to point out that Hillary Clinton tacitly endorsed the Ghostbusters remake when she appeared alongside the cast on the Ellen DeGeneres show. Meanwhile Donald Trump condemned the movie from the get go. Now I'm not saying that was the decisive factor in last year's presidential election, but... Actually, no, that is what I'm saying.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  4 Jun  2017, 16:53Second, I've truly come to believe that Disney is the evil empire. Apart from the theme parks, there's very little of the wider Disney universe that I enjoy. Or approve of. Their ownership of Star Wars has been detrimental. But still profitable. For now.

I'll always like Disney's classic films. I loved watching them as a child. And now I've got a three-year-old nephew and a ten-month-old niece, I enjoy revisiting the classics in their company. But the golden age of Disney creativity has long passed. Even in the late 70s and early 80s they were producing live action films like The Black Hole and Tron. Not great movies per se, but fun imaginative popcorn flicks that were suitable for family viewing and which retain a certain charm even in 2017. But today, what does Disney produce? Live action remakes of their animated movies, Pirates of the Caribbean, Marvel and Star Wars films. Touchtone and Pixar are the only divisions doing anything new, and even the latter is getting bogged down in sequelitis.

Say what you will about Uncle Walt, but the man understood art. He was a businessman, yes, but he also understood the creative process needed to make good films. The same is true of George Lucas. Sure, he merchandised the hell out of Star Wars. He was out to make money. But he also wanted to tell a story. The heart of the OT began with one man's vision. The end product wasn't solely down to Lucas, and others must be acknowledged for their contributions. But the starting point, the core of the OT, was one artist's desire to express himself. The core of the recent Star Wars films is a bunch of lawyers and market research analysts trying to figure out ways of making money off something they didn't create.

Just to clarify, I don't begrudge people enjoying films like Transformers or Pirates of the Caribbean. My mother works at a primary school, and she was telling me the other day that lots of the kids – children who weren't even born when the first Bayformers film was released – really love the character of Bumblebee. And that's fine. I grew up loving G1 Transformers and had one of the original Bumblebee toys back in the late eighties. There's nothing wrong with enjoying commercial franchise movies once in a while, including Marvel and DC films. But I don't think those types of picture should constitute the totality of a studio's ambition.

Filmmaking has to be commercial to sustain itself, but it shouldn't be commercial to the complete exclusion of artistry. There has to be a balance. And wasting $144 million remaking Ghostbusters is the wrong way to go about it. Imagine if they'd taken that money and financed ten smaller films based on original concepts. Some of them might well have sucked, but I'll bet at least a few would have been good. One of them might even have spawned a new franchise. But then why risk creating a new IP when you can leech off an old one?

Anyway, what's Sony doing making movies in the first place? They should be manufacturing Blu-ray players in Chinese sweatshops, not accelerating the artistic decline of an entire medium.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  4 Jun  2017, 16:53But the day will come (and at the rate Disney is going, it'll be very soon) when they've gotten their fix. After that, Star Wars will be just another big film franchise in a sea of clones and competitors. Disney won't be able to get away with half-assed stories and creative poverty anymore. Sooner or later, they'll have to sink or swim.

And if their creative decisions up to now are anything to judge by, it'll be Star Wars that sinks. Disney, meanwhile, will just assume the public is over their fascination with Star Wars (partly true) and then go look for another property to crash into an iceberg.

Like I say, I do like the recent Star Wars films (because I'm a corporate shill who'll buy anything with the Star Wars logo on it). I enjoyed The Force Awakens and Rogue One and thought they were both fun, well made films. But the Original Trilogy was so much more than that. It was magic. And that magic is never going to be recaptured. I'd love to be proven wrong on this point, but I don't think I will be. If any upcoming Star Wars film stands a chance of coming close to the OT, it'll be The Last Jedi. Rian Johnson did a good job with Brick (2005) and Looper (2012), and of all the writers and directors involved in the future of this series, I reckon he's the one with the best chance of injecting some originality.

I'm less enthusiastic about Colin Trevorrow helming Episode IX; Safety Not Guaranteed (2012) was a decent indie flick, but Jurassic World (2015) was a bland spectre of Spielberg's 1993 original. If The Last Jedi is good, it'll stave off cynicism until the Han Solo flick. But if Episode VIII turns out to be a remake of Episode V, and fails to transcend the baseline of mediocrity that audiences have come to expect, then I imagine the tide will turn against Lucasfilm within the next twelve months.

Quote from: Azrael on Sun,  4 Jun  2017, 19:13
Fanservice checklist; professionaly produced studio-budgeted fanfic; the filmic equivalent of the old EU; fanarts (one can't deny the new footage of Vader, Tie Fighters, Star Destroyers, space battles, is good). Not bad but not Lucas.

That about sums it up.

Quote from: The Joker on Sun,  4 Jun  2017, 23:39I mean, 40 million just for reshoots? Because Feig is that incompetent.

That's the budget for John Wick 2.

Yeah the whole movie.

And people will still be enjoying John Wick long after Feigbusters has become an embarrassing footnote on Dan Aykroyd's career. The John Wick films stemmed from an original screenplay, had a combined budget of $70 million (half the cost of Ghostbusters 2016) and earned a combined revenue of over $250 million (more than Ghostbusters 2016). They're proof that investing in something new can yield greater profit than rehashing old properties.

Quote from: riddler on Mon,  5 Jun  2017, 16:34I'm sure there are youtube videos of the cutscreens of the video game making it into a movie. And the plot is decent enough that there's enough there into making an animated movie out of the cutscreens. As Akroyd said, that is the closest we'll ever see to a GB3 because we'll never see Hudson and Murray suit up without Harold Ramis.

Yep. The game was the true conclusion to the franchise. Now Ghostbusters should be allowed to rest in peace.

I already posted this earlier in the thread, but it's probably my favourite video on the subject so I'll post it again.

Quote
The original Ghostbusters franchise is getting a new film in 2020

Fire up your proton packs, people, because there's going to be another Ghostbusters movie from Sony Pictures, according to Entertainment Weekly. Jason Reitman (Juno, Thank You For Smoking) will direct the new film, which will be set in the same fictional universe as the 1984 original and its sequel—unlike Paul Feige's 2016 all-female Ghostbusters.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/01/a-new-ghostbusters-film-is-in-the-works-set-in-the-original-universe/

I didn't know Reitman directed Thank You For Smoking. I liked that movie, Aaron Eckhardt plays a great douchebag in it.

As for this news, I think it's come two decades late. A third movie should've been made in the early 90s, when Harold Ramis was at his peak. It's a shame that Ramis and Bill Murray had a falling out.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  4 Jun  2017, 16:53At the risk of getting lost in the weeds (eg, specifically about Star Wars) and missing your broader point (eg, Hollywood is a cesspool of cheap marketing gimmicks masquerading as cinema), I must say that as time goes on I really do think Disney owning Star Wars was a horrible move.

First, there's the creative angle. You touched on that already. But it bears emphasizing that this new crop of Star Wars movies has left me utterly cold. There are reasons for that which detract from the point. So I'll skip them. Suffice it to say though, I bow to nobody when it comes to loving the original trilogy. And I just can't get into these new movies.

Second, I've truly come to believe that Disney is the evil empire. Apart from the theme parks, there's very little of the wider Disney universe that I enjoy. Or approve of. Their ownership of Star Wars has been detrimental. But still profitable. For now.

But it's like anything. The public's appetite for Star Wars had been building for decades. I doubt the totality of the new movies' success is due to their creative merits. As much as anything, I attribute it to pent-up demand. For better or worse, Lucasfilm only produced six Star Wars movies even though the franchise was manifestly capable of supporting more movies than that. Right now, people are "getting their fix".

But the day will come (and at the rate Disney is going, it'll be very soon) when they've gotten their fix. After that, Star Wars will be just another big film franchise in a sea of clones and competitors. Disney won't be able to get away with half-assed stories and creative poverty anymore. Sooner or later, they'll have to sink or swim.

And if their creative decisions up to now are anything to judge by, it'll be Star Wars that sinks. Disney, meanwhile, will just assume the public is over their fascination with Star Wars (partly true) and then go look for another property to crash into an iceberg.

I totally forgot that I wrote all this. At the time that I wrote that stuff, I was thinking that Star Wars would sink like a stone in 2020 or some time after.

I wasn't expecting to be proven right in just one year. And yet, here we are.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 16 Jan  2019, 10:57

Quote
The original Ghostbusters franchise is getting a new film in 2020

Fire up your proton packs, people, because there's going to be another Ghostbusters movie from Sony Pictures, according to Entertainment Weekly. Jason Reitman (Juno, Thank You For Smoking) will direct the new film, which will be set in the same fictional universe as the 1984 original and its sequel—unlike Paul Feige's 2016 all-female Ghostbusters.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/01/a-new-ghostbusters-film-is-in-the-works-set-in-the-original-universe/

I didn't know Reitman directed Thank You For Smoking. I liked that movie, Aaron Eckhardt plays a great douchebag in it.

As for this news, I think it's come two decades late. A third movie should've been made in the early 90s, when Harold Ramis was at his peak. It's a shame that Ramis and Bill Murray had a falling out.

Just for fun on a "what if", now there's question! Bill Murray and Harold Ramis basically had a falling out following Groundhog's Day, correct? So WHAT IF that movie had never been made? Would we have got a GB3 during the mid-late 1990s? Would you take the gamble on that trade?

On to the new topic of discussion ... Honestly, I want to believe. I really do. Things appear to be moving along fairly quickly, and Jason Reitman comes across like a guy who's actually passionate about the franchise, and wants to do right by course correcting, rather than pushing AGENDAS and such. There's obviously alot of hurdles to overcome, and alot of damage to address, but I don't know. Maybe. Maybe... Perhaps it's just me wanting to have just a slight glimmer of hope following successful revivals like Cobra Kai, Rocky/Creed, & Halloween. I agree that with Ramis having since passed on, and this GB3 not exactly being in the ideal time frame, but I would like to think there's something worthwhile there.

I'm just not too confident about that right now.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 17 Jan  2019, 01:56
Just for fun on a "what if", now there's question! Bill Murray and Harold Ramis basically had a falling out following Groundhog's Day, correct? So WHAT IF that movie had never been made? Would we have got a GB3 during the mid-late 1990s? Would you take the gamble on that trade?

It was only a day ago I found out from a friend that Ramis and Murray fell out during production of Groundhog Day. Who knows, maybe it was only a matter of time before their friendship would turn sour. But would it be worth swapping Groundhog Day for Ghostbusters 3? That's a hard question to ask for me, I reckon that Groundhog Day is a classic. And let's face it, most comedy sequels aren't a great follow-up of the prequel. Look at the consensus for Ghostbusters II. I enjoy it, but it seems to be the most forgotten comedy sequel ever made. I had to remind my supervisor at work about that movie because he had mistaken the remake as the second movie of the franchise.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  4 Jun  2017, 16:53But the day will come (and at the rate Disney is going, it'll be very soon) when they've gotten their fix. After that, Star Wars will be just another big film franchise in a sea of clones and competitors. Disney won't be able to get away with half-assed stories and creative poverty anymore. Sooner or later, they'll have to sink or swim.

And if their creative decisions up to now are anything to judge by, it'll be Star Wars that sinks. Disney, meanwhile, will just assume the public is over their fascination with Star Wars (partly true) and then go look for another property to crash into an iceberg.

I'm torn between this GIF...


...and this one:


Sadly both work in relation to your prophecy. And no amount of Ewoks can save us this time. :(

Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 17 Jan  2019, 01:56Just for fun on a "what if", now there's question! Bill Murray and Harold Ramis basically had a falling out following Groundhog's Day, correct? So WHAT IF that movie had never been made? Would we have got a GB3 during the mid-late 1990s? Would you take the gamble on that trade?

I've rated around 3,000 titles on the IMDb, and of those 3,000 I rated fewer than 100 films a perfect 10. Groundhog Day was one of the 10s. So if I had to choose between a potentially good Ghostbusters 3 or a definitely great Groundhog Day... Well, much as I love Ghostbusters and would kill for GB3, I think I'd have to stick with Team Punxsutawney.

That said, GB3 still ranks at the top of my dream movie wish list. Other films on that list include a third Michael Keaton Batman film (since Warner Bros is making a Joker film unconnected from the DCEU, a Batman Beyond movie could still happen) and a sequel to Return of the Jedi focusing on the adventures of Jedi Master Luke Skywalker (obviously that's not going to happen now, thank you very much Rian Johnson).

Leslie Jones isn't taking the news of Ghostbusters 3 very well.

Quote
Leslie Jones Slams New 'Ghostbusters' Film: "It's Like Something Trump Would Do"

The actress, who starred in the all-female reboot of the franchise in 2016, tweeted her disappointment about the news earlier this week that Jason Reitman will helm a new movie that will continue the story that began with the 1984 original and its 1989 sequel.

In response to the news that Jason Reitman's new Ghostbusters project will continue the story that began with Ivan Reitman's 1984 original and its 1989 sequel, and ignore the female reboot from director Paul Feig in 2016, Leslie Jones, a cast member from the latter, has voiced her disappointment on social media.

The comedian took to Twitter on Saturday in a post that said, "So insulting. Like f*** us. We dint count. It's like something trump would do. (Trump voice) "Gonna redo ghostbusteeeeers, better with men, will be huge. Those women ain't ghostbusteeeeers" ugh so annoying. Such a dick move. And I don't give f*** I'm saying something!!"

Jones tagged her fellow Ghostbusters co-star Melissa McCarthy, along with Reitman. So far there have been no responses from anyone involved in the film, which has received backlash since the announcement of its intent. In England, a journalist wrote an "open letter to Jason Reitman," citing his missed opportunity.

Feig's Ghostbusters received mostly positive reviews upon its release (it currently sits at a 74 percent Rotten Tomatoes score) and grossed $229 million worldwide, and in particular the strong foundation of female friendship was mentioned in many reviews.

Reitman is writing the screenplay for his film in collaboration with Gil Kenan. Casting details have not yet been released, though the film is set to enter theaters in 2020.

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/leslie-jones-slams-new-ghostbusters-film-like-something-trump-would-do-1177578

Here are some excerpts from another THR article still using the 2016 movie to promote their political agenda.

Quote
Less than three years after Sony's Ghostbusters reboot battled online trolls and fizzled at the box office, Tuesday's news that the property is coming back quickly sparked conversations among fans about nostalgia, toxic fandom and legacy.

Quote
Ignoring the 2016 film is a missed opportunity, Hannah Woodhead argues in a piece she wrote for the London-based film magazine Little White Lies titled "An Open Letter to Jason Reitman." She writes that while 2016's Ghostbusters wasn't an original idea, the all-female team pushed the franchise forward in an important way that may be lost in the new version.

"I think we suffer from this collective sense of nostalgia in film, where we're always looking to the past rather than the future," she tells The Hollywood Reporter. "The past is safe. The past is easy."

1984's Ghostbusters is widely considered a classic, and while the 1989 follow-up was less well-received, it does have its fans. Decades later, Feig's all-female 2016 Ghostbusters received a fresh 74 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, higher than Ghostbusters II. In addition to misogynistic trolling online, Jones faced racist attacks that caused her to leave Twitter for a period of time.

"I think it's a really entertaining movie that was doomed simply because it wasn't the film a certain very loud percentage of the audience wanted," says Drew McWeeny, co-creator of the 80s All Over podcast and longtime film critic.

Quote
Cracked contributor Chris Sutcliffe was a fan of Feig's film and grew up with Ghostbusters. He's more concerned about the direction of the new film under Reitman.

"What frustrates me about this new film, and I'm very aware that we've had very little news, is how keen they are to distance themselves from the 2016 film," says Sutcliffe. "Not only will it feel like a victory to all the wrong people, but it just feels like a creative step backwards."

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/why-is-ghostbusters-3-ignoring-all-female-reboot-1177318

I might be wrong, but I think I remember Drew McWeeny criticising Man of Steel. Well, considering there is a vocal group of nostalgic Donner Superman fans who had an axe to grind with Snyder's interpretation, I hope McWeeny now knows how it feels.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 20 Jan  2019, 05:50
Leslie Jones isn't taking the news of Ghostbusters 3 very well.

Quote
Leslie Jones Slams New 'Ghostbusters' Film: "It's Like Something Trump Would Do"

The actress, who starred in the all-female reboot of the franchise in 2016, tweeted her disappointment about the news earlier this week that Jason Reitman will helm a new movie that will continue the story that began with the 1984 original and its 1989 sequel.

In response to the news that Jason Reitman's new Ghostbusters project will continue the story that began with Ivan Reitman's 1984 original and its 1989 sequel, and ignore the female reboot from director Paul Feig in 2016, Leslie Jones, a cast member from the latter, has voiced her disappointment on social media.

The comedian took to Twitter on Saturday in a post that said, "So insulting. Like f*** us. We dint count. It's like something trump would do. (Trump voice) "Gonna redo ghostbusteeeeers, better with men, will be huge. Those women ain't ghostbusteeeeers" ugh so annoying. Such a dick move. And I don't give f*** I'm saying something!!"

Jones tagged her fellow Ghostbusters co-star Melissa McCarthy, along with Reitman. So far there have been no responses from anyone involved in the film, which has received backlash since the announcement of its intent. In England, a journalist wrote an "open letter to Jason Reitman," citing his missed opportunity.

Feig's Ghostbusters received mostly positive reviews upon its release (it currently sits at a 74 percent Rotten Tomatoes score) and grossed $229 million worldwide, and in particular the strong foundation of female friendship was mentioned in many reviews.

Reitman is writing the screenplay for his film in collaboration with Gil Kenan. Casting details have not yet been released, though the film is set to enter theaters in 2020.

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/leslie-jones-slams-new-ghostbusters-film-like-something-trump-would-do-1177578

Here are some excerpts from another THR article still using the 2016 movie to promote their political agenda.

Quote
Less than three years after Sony's Ghostbusters reboot battled online trolls and fizzled at the box office, Tuesday's news that the property is coming back quickly sparked conversations among fans about nostalgia, toxic fandom and legacy.

Quote
Ignoring the 2016 film is a missed opportunity, Hannah Woodhead argues in a piece she wrote for the London-based film magazine Little White Lies titled "An Open Letter to Jason Reitman." She writes that while 2016's Ghostbusters wasn't an original idea, the all-female team pushed the franchise forward in an important way that may be lost in the new version.

"I think we suffer from this collective sense of nostalgia in film, where we're always looking to the past rather than the future," she tells The Hollywood Reporter. "The past is safe. The past is easy."

1984's Ghostbusters is widely considered a classic, and while the 1989 follow-up was less well-received, it does have its fans. Decades later, Feig's all-female 2016 Ghostbusters received a fresh 74 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, higher than Ghostbusters II. In addition to misogynistic trolling online, Jones faced racist attacks that caused her to leave Twitter for a period of time.

"I think it's a really entertaining movie that was doomed simply because it wasn't the film a certain very loud percentage of the audience wanted," says Drew McWeeny, co-creator of the 80s All Over podcast and longtime film critic.

Quote
Cracked contributor Chris Sutcliffe was a fan of Feig's film and grew up with Ghostbusters. He's more concerned about the direction of the new film under Reitman.

"What frustrates me about this new film, and I'm very aware that we've had very little news, is how keen they are to distance themselves from the 2016 film," says Sutcliffe. "Not only will it feel like a victory to all the wrong people, but it just feels like a creative step backwards."

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/why-is-ghostbusters-3-ignoring-all-female-reboot-1177318

I might be wrong, but I think I remember Drew McWeeny criticising Man of Steel. Well, considering there is a vocal group of nostalgic Donner Superman fans who had an axe to grind with Snyder's interpretation, I hope McWeeny now knows how it feels.

Holy crap, the revision at play there is beyond the beyond. Scarcely a mention of how the movie tanked it at the box office. Plenty of out of context citations of the movie's worldwide box office (meaningless without the production cost sitting next to it), it's critical reception (not brought on by PC critics at all, heavens no), the Rotten Tomatoes score (only the pro critic rating; I wonder why the general audience rating was skipped?) and all that other stuff.

At the end of the day, the movie was crap and it was received by audiences as crap.

Worse, nobody is mentioning how the movie studio and marketing wonks brought the backlash upon themselves by hurling all sorts of invective at the movie's core audience.

The funny thing is that all these strong, empowered, independent wamen aren't capable of any kind of self-reflection. When their turd movie sinks like a turd, it can't possibly by their fault. Heavens no, it must be toxic white male privilege or something.

Berating the studio for going in a different direction and trying to resurrect the original franchise truly puts their screeching over the top.

McWeeny? Ah, I guess he's decided to finally use his real name. Good thing too, that "Moriarty" shtick from his AICN days was lame from the get go.

One final thing. The Internet drips abuse. I've been using it for nearly thirty years now and I've never known a time when the online discourse as mature, enlightened and rational. No, the tone of the Internet has always been a clown car next to a dumpster fire in the middle of a s**t show. If you do anything of any visibility or prominence whatsoever, you will catch grief over it. You'll catch love and affection too. But lots of grief, don't kid yourself.

Why is it, then, that the abuse that is the currency of online communication should exempt wamen simply because they're wamen? Why should Leslie Jones not get the same kind of nasty messages that literally EVERYBODY ELSE RECEIVES?

If you start a YouTube channel and it gains traction, you will be called everything in the book. Mark my words and read them back to me later. You will be on the receiving end of toxicitiy like you can't even imagine. It's how things work. I'm not saying it's a positive thing. I'm just saying it's a normal thing.

Is it right that Jones received that stuff? Maybe not. But, for better or for worse, it's normal for famous or high profile people to receive all kinds of invective in comments, tweets and everything else. If you don't believe me, check out the YouTube, Instagram and other comments of famous people. Jones wasn't treated any better or any worse. Neither was Daisy Ridley, Kelly Marie Tran or numerous others.

But for some reason, the acid bath that the Internet can be sometimes shouldn't be directed at wamen because they have girl parts or something? It's idiotic but people believe that because they're idiotic too.

Quote
"So insulting. Like f*** us. We dint count. It's like something trump would do. (Trump voice) "Gonna redo ghostbusteeeeers, better with men, will be huge. Those women ain't ghostbusteeeeers" ugh so annoying. Such a dick move. And I don't give f*** I'm saying something!!"

What a dumb comment. Girlbusters was the redo. The first two ORIGINAL films which ESTABLISHED the universe had a majority male cast. The all female reboot had no prior grounding in the material. That is the abberation, not the original series, and anyone who didn't get on board with it were insulted. The studio mindset (and that of the actors) truly was 'Gonna redo Ghostbusters, better with women'. They're the ones who went political, so don't whine now.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 20 Jan  2019, 09:57What a dumb comment. Girlbusters was the redo. The first two ORIGINAL films which ESTABLISHED the universe had a majority male cast. The all female reboot had no prior grounding in the material. That is the abberation, not the original series, and anyone who didn't get on board with it were insulted. The studio mindset (and that of the actors) truly was 'Gonna redo Ghostbusters, better with women'. They're the ones who went political, so don't whine now.

Exactly. The misguided sense of entitlement displayed in her quote is hilarious. As if the 2016 movie were the original and the new film a bastardisation of the concept. The irony is that the frustration she's describing perfectly articulates how the rest of us felt back in 2016. Just change a few words, like so:

Quote"So insulting. Like f*** us. We dint count. It's like something Amy Pascal would do. (Pascal voice) "Gonna redo ghostbusteeeeers, better with women, will be huge. Those white men ain't ghostbusteeeeers" ugh so annoying. Such a dick move. And I don't give f*** I'm saying something!!"

What we're seeing with this media backlash is pure Neo-Marxism at work. Marxism teaches people to categorise themselves into marginalised tribal subsets. The more oppressed you are, the more entitled you are to have your voice heard. Because if you're part of a marginalised group, then your experience is unique and nobody outside of that group can possibly relate to it. This empowers you to impose guilt on everyone outside of your group and demand that they listen to you. And sadly this usually results in increased tribalism and hostility between different demographics.

But you can see why this ideology appeals to young undergraduates in particular. Normally you'd have to go out into the world and actually do something with your life in order to have your opinion carry any weight. But here comes this philosophy that teaches people they already have expert knowledge simply by virtue of who they are. It also appeals to older people, as it undermines the notion of meritocracy in such a way that comforts underachievers. If someone else has done better than you in life, it's not because they're more talented, worked harder or just had better luck; no, it's because the system is rigged and they had advantages you didn't have based purely on group identity. Consequently you have a right to attack their success and demand reparative measures to redress the balance.

This same school of thought promotes the concept of moral virtue being measurable by how easily offended you are, or by the number of different demographics on whose behalf you're willing to act offended. There was a similar trend in 18th century English society where sensitivity was seen as emblematic of social and intellectual refinement, so people would constantly posture about how delicate their nerves were and go around openly weeping in public. The literature of the time is replete with sentimental novels in which the characters faint and call for their smelling salts in a glib and ostentatious manner. At the time this was seen as sophisticated. The modern day equivalent would be virtue signalling on social media about how triggered you are because you saw a six-year-old girl wearing a Moana dress on Halloween and realised it might offend someone living on an island somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. This is what it means to be woke in 2019.

Identity politics also provides a great defence mechanism for people who can't take criticism. Go ahead and insult someone, and if that person insults you back simply retreat into the fortified plurality of your group identity. It wasn't you the person insulted; it was the collective. So if a man calls a woman "stupid" he didn't insult a fellow human being, he insulted all women. And the only reason anyone would do such a thing is misogyny. Now you've established that premise, you can play the victim card. Because, once again, victimhood is one of the most valued currencies in modern political discourse. And there are always male feminist white knights waiting in the wings, ready to leap to the defence of a marginalised victim in a heroic display of chivalric wokeness. Never mind that infantilising adults in this way, by acting as if they need the protection of a middle-class college-educated white man, is itself a form of sexual and racial condescension. Just so long as you score some upvotes on social media.

What's really fascinating is the way film studios have exploited identity politics, and especially victimhood culture, as a weapon against fan criticism. If your movie is encountering strong consumer resistance, then the first step to getting the press on your side is to have a female cast member make a show of quitting social media. Cite "targeted harassment" or "bullying" as the reason. Bonus points if she's a 'person of colour' or LGBT, as that makes her critics look like bigots and gives journalists a cause to fight for. Now your multimillion dollar corporate product has a victimised human face to incite sympathy amongst the press. It won't win over the fans. In fact accusing the fans of being bigots usually has the complete opposite effect and results in box office disaster. But at least you'll have journalists on your side and will significantly increase your chances of getting a 'FRESH' rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

For the record, I have an extremely low tolerance for bullying of any kind, and particularly racially-motivated bullying. My own nephew and niece, whom I love more than anything, are mixed raced. And I wouldn't tolerate anyone saying or doing anything hurtful towards them. But I also have little patience for people who use their group identity to play the victim card in situations where matters of race, gender or sexuality are irrelevant. Especially when it distracts from the real issue. I'm genuinely sorry to hear that people receive hateful comments on social media, but that's life. Millions of people use those platforms and law of averages dictates some of them will be A-holes. It's harsh, I know. But that's just the reality for people who put themselves in the public eye. You have to expect the consumer base to react to what you're feeding them, and not all of those reactions will be good. Taking a tiny sample of bigoted reactions and projecting their guilt onto everyone who says anything remotely negative about you is not a productive or honest way of dealing with such criticisms.

A culture war was fought over the 2016 Ghostbusters movie, and the studio lost. Decisively. The white knights need to accept that and move on. The main reason they lost was that they picked the wrong battlefield to begin with. I mean, why are we even having this discussion about a Ghostbusters movie? Ghostbusters is something everyone should be able to enjoy, regardless of politics. The fact I'm even posting this in a Ghostbusters thread is ridiculous. But if the media really wants another war over GB3, then bring it on. To misquote John Rambo, we'll give them a war they wont believe.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 20 Jan  2019, 17:40
For the record, I have an extremely low tolerance for bullying of any kind

That's a little rich coming from you, considering you've talked down to people and dismissed them as Burton or Snyder fanboys whenever they expressed legitimate gripes with certain things like Nolan or Superman II. You might not see it as bullying, but it sure as hell isn't very flattering, is it?

But yes, I agree that identity politics is a problem. There's nothing at all wrong with making movies starring people of diverse backgrounds, but you can't praise something just for the sake of diversity alone.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 20 Jan  2019, 06:19
Is it right that Jones received that stuff? Maybe not. But, for better or for worse, it's normal for famous or high profile people to receive all kinds of invective in comments, tweets and everything else. If you don't believe me, check out the YouTube, Instagram and other comments of famous people. Jones wasn't treated any better or any worse. Neither was Daisy Ridley, Kelly Marie Tran or numerous others.

Very true. You only have to look at some of the demented trash some "people" (and I use the term loosely) wrote about Zack Snyder after his daughter died. No matter how bad the insults towards those actresses may have been, they're nothing compared to the vile, hateful comments I've seen degenerates write about that man's personal tragedy.

I've heard Leslie Jones is guilty of making some anti-white comments on Twitter. She's not innocent by the sound of it, but that's still not an excuse to attack her either. As a matter of fact, making racist comments against her only gives these agenda-driven people in the entertainment industry more ammunition to run this this narrative against the entire fanbase. If this article is indicative of anything to come, I expect the critics to give Ghostbusters 3 negative reviews out of spite, regardless if the movie is good or bad.

Quote
To say that I have mixed feelings about this is an understatement. On one hand, you're rewarding a white male director whose last five movies bombed (and of those, only the two starring Charlize Theron and penned by Diablo Cody received positive reviews) the keys to a hugely valuable franchise mostly because he's the son of the guy who directed those first two Ghostbusters movies. And yes, unintentional or not, 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. And yet, we have only ourselves to blame. Studios aren't charities and they tend to want movies that attract moviegoers and make money.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/01/16/jason-reitman-ghostbusters-3-sony-jumanji-star-wars-halloween-jurassic-world-box-office/

It's kind of interesting how critics and commentators suddenly become aware of the importance of box office returns when Diversity Almighty is under threat.

It's almost like they have a different agenda or something...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 21 Jan  2019, 18:02
It's kind of interesting how critics and commentators suddenly become aware of the importance of box office returns when Diversity Almighty is under threat.

It's almost like they have a different agenda or something...

Box office revenue is the one metric that can't be fudged. It's a poor indicator of quality, but a strong indicator of popularity. Numbers don't lie. Although that said, we have seen attempts at manipulating box office results in recent years. Take for example the celebrities who bought out theatres to try and inflate the box office performance of the romantic comedy Love, Simon (2018): https://people.com/movies/stars-buyout-theaters-love-simon/

I haven't seen that movie and I've got nothing against it. I'm just citing it as an example of industry personalities trying to fudge the box office results in order to make the film look more successful than it actually was. Did it work? Well it grossed around four to six times its production budget, so I'd say yes. But its production budget was only around $10-17 million to begin with. It would be much harder to manipulate the performance of a film with a $144 million budget like Feigbusters. The studio knows this and they know that a proper sequel featuring the original cast is a more lucrative business prospect than a sequel to the 2016 film.

At the end of the day the media can cite the critical response as proof of the 2016 movie's success, and the fans can cite the audience scores as proof of its failure. But the decision to make GB3 over a sequel to Feig's film is the final adjudication on which side is correct.

I don't want to open up old wounds... but I did finally watch this movie over Christmas. I usually never trash a film unless I've actually seen it, but I made an exception for this one back in 2016 and I've felt slightly guilty about it ever since. I don't regret opposing the movie, and I stand by my objections to the concept of a hard reboot of Ghostbusters. But now that the controversy has died down, and I'm able to distance myself from Sony's heated smear campaign against the fans, I decided to try and give it an objective appraisal. It was on TV anyway, so I figured what the hell. Here's my review.

The four lead actresses bring a lot of energy to their roles and deliver spirited performances (pun intended). No one in the cast can be accused of phoning it in, except Bill Murray. But considering he was effectively blackmailed into doing it, I can't say I blame him. Sigourney Weaver also seems a bit bemused during her mid-credit cameo. But everyone else is clearly trying to make the movie a success, and there's something endearing about the enthusiasm they all bring to the project. If you had to find four comediennes to star in an ensemble of this nature, then these four ladies aren't bad picks.

The problem lies in the fact the movie itself just isn't very funny. There are one or two ok gags, like the "Please don't be the mayor from Jaws" line. But the script is weak, and you can tell a large percentage of the dialogue is improvised. Murray improvised much of his own dialogue in the 1984 film, but the results here are far less successful. The quirky improv-vibe gives the movie a light and breezy tone, but at no point during its surprisingly long runtime did I actually laugh out loud. There are also far too many scenes were the main cast start spontaneously dancing for no reason. Some people might find this funny, but I didn't. I noticed some of the more cringe-worthy moments from the trailer were absent from the finished film, but the material they left in was often just as bad.

The themes of female friendship, combined with the abundance of misandric jokes and persistent sexual objectification of Chris Hemsworth's character, make it clear that this movie is targeting a female demographic. There's nothing much in it for male viewers to enjoy. And that's odd considering the Ghostbusters fan base has always been predominantly (but not exclusively) male. But how does it compare to the original 1984 film? Well it follows many of the same plot beats as the old movie: the three academics get kicked out of college, start up their own business, recruit a fourth team member, discover a supernatural threat to the city, try to warn the mayor, inadvertently conjure a giant ghost, and finally save New York by "crossing the streams".

Within that framework they try to do a few things differently, and I give them credit for that. But it never comes together the way the 1984 film did, and the creepiness that helped define the old Ghostbusters movies and cartoon show is noticeably absent. As a kid, I found the original films scary in places, but the reboot never aspires to be anything more than a goofy lightweight comedy. The closest it comes to being spooky is a scene where Leslie Jones's character is pursued by a mannequin. But even this scene is very brief and not particularly well executed. Yes, the old Ghostbusters films and TV episodes were comedies, but they were also ghost stories. They were 'horror comedies'. By contrast, the 2016 reboot is a comedy that just happens to feature ghosts. It never rises above its own silliness, or even attempts to, and that prevents it from ever achieving the kind of atmosphere that Ghostbusters fans have come to know and love.

If this wasn't called Ghostbusters – if it was a Ghostbusters-influenced original IP, like Men in Black or Evolution – and if it had a better script, tighter editing and more disciplined direction (e.g. less improv and fewer dance scenes), then it might have worked as a cheerful diversion. But as it stands, it's a mediocre film that is neither a successful comedy, nor a good reboot of a beloved franchise. As a Ghostbusters movie, it's plain bad. And at the end of the day, that's the yardstick against which the majority of fans will be judging it. I'd compare GB16 to Sony's 2014 RoboCop reboot in so far as neither is the 'worst movie of all time' cynics might have been expecting, yet neither truly acquits itself in relation to its progenitor. They're just forgettable misfires that will ultimately serve as footnotes on the history of better films.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 17 Jan  2020, 20:30The themes of female friendship, combined with the abundance of misandric jokes and persistent sexual objectification of Chris Hemsworth's character, make it clear that this movie is targeting a female demographic.

And, seemingly, a very small and rather peculiar female demographic who (A) is aware of objectification (real or perceived) of women in much of film history (B) view that as a negative and (C) want revenge.

On that basis, I'm surprised the movie's numbers are as high as they are.

The other thing is that the OG Ghostbusters was intentionally a stylistic clash. It was shot like a 1970's New Hollywood horror film but performed as a comedy. For a lot of people, the blending of those two genres is successful. The horror never overpowers the comedy and the comedy never overpowers the horror.

2016 GB's comes off like a supernatural adventure film, and that might actually have been successful... except for the above mentioned skewed feminist approach.

This article shows a general chronology of how fan gates begin.

https://disneystarwarsisdumb.wordpress.com/the-phases-of-a-geeker-gate

I suspect that the pattern, and especially some of the tactics, will be familiar to most of the participants in this thread.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 20 Jan  2020, 18:59
This article shows a general chronology of how fan gates begin.

https://disneystarwarsisdumb.wordpress.com/the-phases-of-a-geeker-gate

This is painfully accurate. And yet I guarantee we'll be seeing this sorry sequence of events play out again in the near future. Many, many more times.