Done Deal Pro Forums

Done Deal Pro Forums (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/index.php)
-   Films (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Ghostbusters Trailer (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/showthread.php?t=80430)

UpandComing 08-12-2016 11:14 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Journalists don't have to lie about Trump. Every insane thing he says is viewable on video.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kintnerboy (Post 941480)
Everyone knows that Universal dominated 2015 box office for one simple reason:

Their 2 biggest franchise films, Jurassic World and Fast & Furious 7, both of which should have come out in 2014 but were delayed (Jurassic World because of script problems and FF7 because of the death of Paul Walker). Therefore, 3 billion dollars of revenue that should have posted in 2014 showed up on 2015's books.

It's really a boring accounting issue that's barely worth noting. Unless you work in Hollywood infotainment media, where everything has to get twisted into clickbait-y headlines

Are any of the statistics listed in those articles factually untrue? No.

But the entire thesis is a lie of omission, and it's so irritating to see that it actually turns people away from your cause because they're disgusted by the dishonesty of it, and this occurs after they had already been on your side to begin with.

You seem to lack basic reading comprehension. Those articles don't neglect the contributions of Jurassic Park and Furious 7. They also don't say that the female-led/diverse movies are the sole reason Universal broke the annual box office record. They say that they are contributing factors.

And they are very important contributing factors. Here are the numbers:

Universal's 2015 Global B.O. Take: $6.9 Billion
Jurassic World 2015 Global B.O. Gross: $1.7 Billion
Fast 7 2015 Global B.O. Gross: $1.5 Billion

Jurassic World and Fast 7 contributed $3.2 billion to Universal's take, or 46.4% of its revenues. That means other movies contributed 53.6%. $3.2 billion would not be enough to take the annual record crown away from 20th Century Fox, which grossed $5.52 billion in 2014.

Straight Outta Compton, Trainwreck, Pitch Perfect 2, and Fifty Shades of Grey combined equaled about a little over $1 billion in global box office. That means they contributed 14.5% of Universal's total, no small number.

This number is significant because projections for all of these movies were below what they actually grossed. And these projections were low because studio executives, in their infinite wisdom, believed that white people wouldn't show up to a movie about NWA, and that men wouldn't show up to movies led by women. The box office totals are significant because since the movies had lower budgets, they were actually more profitable than the top 3 films.

The whole purpose of the articles is not to pretend like Jurassic World and Fast 7 didn't contribute a significant portion of box office. It is to say that if Hollywood continues to treat female-led and diverse movies like "niche" films, it will miss out on potentially huge profits that could help push a strong year into a record-making one. I think that point was pretty obvious.

But knowing your low opinion of the qualifications of women and minorities, it doesn't surprise me at all that articles like this would bother you.

kintnerboy 08-12-2016 01:09 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
I stand by my point, which was fairly clear and which I made without resorting to personal attacks.

For a journalist to write an article about a Hollywood studios record-setting revenue, without mentioning the fact that that record was the result of an scheduling anomaly that will likely never be repeated, is intellectually dishonest (btw, I just realized that Minions was also held back from 2014 to 2015, so it's even more skewed than I suspected).

I would also point out that Universal is not having a very good 2016 gross-wise, despite the fact that they seem to have embraced diversity even more this year, which kind of undermines whatever the whole point of that article was suppose to be.

But I do realize that people will continue to believe whatever they believe. Who am I to fight The Narrative.

UpandComing 08-12-2016 01:41 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kintnerboy (Post 941487)
I stand by my point, which was fairly clear and which I made without resorting to personal attacks.

Well, I think a history of bigoted comments is very relevant when the issue at hand is a commenter's annoyance with an article discussing diversity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kintnerboy (Post 941487)
For a journalist to write an article about a Hollywood studios record-setting revenue, without mentioning the fact that that record was the result of an scheduling anomaly that will likely never be repeated, is intellectually dishonest (btw, I just realized that Minions was also held back from 2014 to 2015, so it's even more skewed than I suspected).

Hollywood movies get delayed all the time due to all types of production issues. There is nothing notable about that. As I said, what's notable is that the movies targeted at diverse and female audiences made much more money than expected, which in turn helped push Universal from a strong year to a record-breaking one. It's a completely valid argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kintnerboy (Post 941487)
I would also point out that Universal is not having a very good 2016 gross-wise, despite the fact that they seem to have embraced diversity even more this year, which kind of undermines whatever the whole point of that article was suppose to be.

Haha, you are a piece of work. If you are referring to the minority- and female-led films that Universal has released this year:

*The Boss grossed $78.6 million, on a $29 million budget. A success.
*Central Intelligence grossed $206.3 million on a $50 million budget. A massive success.

Both original movies. The main reason Universal's performance is down this year is its heavy reliance on sequels and IP properties that no one really asked for. They include movies led by white males such as Neighbors 2, The Huntsman, and Warcraft. They also include movies led by minorities and women such as Ride Along 2 and My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2, but to say that the underperformance of those was due to who was leading them rather than general audience fatigue with sequels is disingenuous. And also demonstrates your profound prejudice.

Crayon 08-12-2016 03:20 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 941451)
I'm aware that there is a lot of sexism/misogyny internationally. But that doesn't automatically translate into proof that female-led movies don't do as well at the foreign box office because of that factor. If you have hard data showing that, I would love to see it.

Hard data is not required - national/international traditions of misogyny and gender inequality don't have to "translate into proof" when they shape everyone's psyche from birth. And so producers, studio bosses and executives don't need proof to support their conservative bigotry.

Q: How many of the progressives, liberals and feminists who worked on the production and marketing of X-Men: Apocalypse gave their OK to the poster that showed a blue, naked Miss Lawrence being strangled by a powerful male bully?

A: None of them. Or maybe all of them. Either way - egregious sexist sh!t such as that persists by default.

Crayon 08-12-2016 03:26 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Crayon (Post 941411)
Sadly, it can be inferred from 'hard data' that female-led movies make less money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronaldinho (Post 941453)
Actually, this is factually incorrect.

No, it's not. You've overlooked the key words "can be inferred".

Statistics have historically shown that the largest demographic of cinema goers is males under thirty. From that single fact, a bigoted producer or studio boss can infer that audiences are less likely to go see female-led movies. It doesn't make the bigoted producer or studio boss correct. But the bigoted producer or studio boss doesn't have to be correct - he/she just has to be a producer or studio boss.

UpandComing 08-12-2016 03:59 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
So let me get this straight. First you say this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crayon (Post 941492)
Hard data is not required - national/international traditions of misogyny and gender inequality don't have to "translate into proof" when they shape everyone's psyche from birth. And so producers, studio bosses and executives don't need proof to support their conservative bigotry.

And then you say this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crayon (Post 941493)
Statistics have historically shown that the largest demographic of cinema goers is males under thirty. From that sinlge fact, a bigoted producer or studio boss can infer that audiences are less likely to go see female-led movies.

So basically, you say that studio execs don't need hard data to show that people won't turn out for female-led movies, but studios do need hard data to show that most moviegoers are young males (which is actually not true in the U.S. -- see page 13: http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploa...015_Final.pdf). Boy, that's some selective use of data!

As the data and examples I presented previously showed, there is more evidence of a genre bias than there is of a gender bias. This means that men will show up for an action movie, even if it's fronted by a woman. And studios are starting to paying attention to this fact -- especially with the recent successes of Sicario, Lucy, and Hunger Games. That's why Tombraider is being rebooted and there've been a number of recent action spec sales with female leads. I'm sorry you're using historical patterns to inform your current thinking about this topic. That's never really a smart way to go.

FoxHound 08-13-2016 02:12 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 941482)
What are all these "numerous factors" you refer to?

Crappy trailer. Scary Movie-type gags. Dumb-looking CGI. etc.

Crayon 08-13-2016 05:34 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 941496)
So let me get this straight. First you say this:

And then you say this:

So basically, you say that studio execs don't need hard data to show that people won't turn out for female-led movies, but studios do need hard data to show that most moviegoers are young males (which is actually not true in the U.S. -- see page 13: http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploa...015_Final.pdf). Boy, that's some selective use of data!

As the data and examples I presented previously showed, there is more evidence of a genre bias than there is of a gender bias. This means that men will show up for an action movie, even if it's fronted by a woman. And studios are starting to paying attention to this fact -- especially with the recent successes of Sicario, Lucy, and Hunger Games. That's why Tombraider is being rebooted and there've been a number of recent action spec sales with female leads. I'm sorry you're using historical patterns to inform your current thinking about this topic. That's never really a smart way to go.

You seem to have formed an opinion of me based on presumptions and misreadings (eg: I did not say that those historic statistics informed my thinking / you've overlooked the words "can infer", among others) and are selectively quoting and egregiously paraphrasing me to support it. That suggests 'confirmation bias', which is common among bigots when deciding which data to acknowledge, and which data to discard.

Your apparent faith that proof and so-called 'hard data' can rid people of their prejudices is, self-evidently, blindly optimistic.

As I said before, life is a power struggle. And in the battle of the sexes, as in all wars, the first casualty is truth, and the unthinkable is normalised.*

[*egregious paraphrasing, indeed]

kintnerboy 08-13-2016 06:18 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 941489)
Well, I think a history of bigoted comments is very relevant when the issue at hand is a commenter's annoyance with an article discussing diversity.

Yes. Especially the terrible hateful comment I made before where I said that I loved Bridesmaids and The Heat.... Shameful.

One of the most distasteful (not to mention lazy) elements of the new Millennial Age rhetoric is to label any opposing viewpoint as biased and / or hate speech. It's so much easier than thinking up a reasoned response!

Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 941489)
Hollywood movies get delayed all the time due to all types of production issues. There is nothing notable about that.

I would like to point out that the highlighted portion of this quote (along with your continued personal attacks on me) are opinions, and they don't really matter much outside the context of this thread.

However, as I've stated before, very clearly, twice: a professional journalist, even one employed in such a seemingly frivolous field as media and entertainment has to follow standards and practices regarding ethics and integrity, which include not engaging in lies of omission or intentionally leaving out details that undermine their agenda.

Any writer who does this, whether covering Hollywood or Washington, does not deserve to be employed, and is a disgrace to anyone who ever did the job the right way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 941489)
Haha, you are a piece of work. If you are referring to the minority- and female-led films that Universal has released this year:

*The Boss grossed $78.6 million, on a $29 million budget. A success.
*Central Intelligence grossed $206.3 million on a $50 million budget. A massive success.

Both original movies. The main reason Universal's performance is down this year is its heavy reliance on sequels and IP properties that no one really asked for. They include movies led by white males such as Neighbors 2, The Huntsman, and Warcraft. They also include movies led by minorities and women such as Ride Along 2 and My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2, but to say that the underperformance of those was due to who was leading them rather than general audience fatigue with sequels is disingenuous. And also demonstrates your profound prejudice.

You can always tell when someone is fighting a losing argument, because they change the subject every 10 seconds to distract from the fact that there's nothing of substance there. Let's see if I can keep up with you.

The point of the articles I posted was that Universal Pictures grabbed market share and set a box-office record specifically by "embracing diversity" (which I took issue with). You're now changing the subject to Universals profit margin, which has nothing to do with anything.

Even if anyone did believe the goal should be to earn BOTH high grosses and profits, then I would recommend that studios just keep making white male comedies like Neighbors, which was Universal's highest grossing and highest profit film of 2014 (or better yet, just give everything to Blumhouse).

(I would like to point out here that I would not enjoy a world where Hollywood only made comedies featuring white males. I just wanted to make a point that you can't keep changing your answers after the fact to retrofit the argument).

I love your tactic of using the phrase "sequels no one asked for" to infer that it would somehow be possible for anyone to *know* what sequels people wanted (as opposed to just Monday morning quarterbacking the results to fit your argument) Jurassic World and Purge 3 were hugely successful because people *asked* for them , Neighbors 2 and Huntsman weren't because people didn't (as if either of those variables were ever knowable.... Riiiiight).

Also, I love your accounting system where any multiple-protagonist film that does poorly (Neighbors 2, Huntsman) goes in the "White Male" column, whereas the winners (Jurassic World) are considered "Diverse". Got it.

Fun stuff.

kintnerboy 08-13-2016 07:03 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
I will close out my thoughts on Ghostbusters with this opinion (which I have no Hard Data to back up, which means it's totally wrong, of course).

I have a feeling that the reason that Ghostbusters and so many other films have done poorly this summer is because people are too busy being outraged at whatever's flooding their daily newsfeed to even bother thinking about the movies.

All of the big media companies have news divisions which earn many many times more profit than their film divisions, in large part because the content, which they used to produce and pay for, is now mostly obtained for free from social media (people used to actually sell newsworthy video to news stations-- Now they just upload it to twitter, where it effectively becomes public domain) and the front page headlines, which used to be carefully curated, are now reserved for the most commented / most emailed / most outraged stories.

I was talking to a friend the other day who had just come from seeing Suicide Squad. I asked him how it was, and he shrugged and said "Eh..." I asked him why he went, since he must have heard the awful reviews beforehand, and he admitted that he had, but that he hadn't been to the movies all summer and just wanted to see something. That's where we are.

My point is that Hollywood no longer has a need or incentive to even care about the types of movies they make, since that's no longer where their bread is buttered, so to speak. Which is a shame, because there are a lot of great writers and filmmakers out there who do care and who deserve a shot.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Done Deal Pro