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)

Madbandit 08-13-2016 10:01 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 941408)
Thanks : ) I'm merely a Sir who finds the continuing efforts of men in the industry (and of men who hope to get in the industry) to de-legitimize female-led movies tiresome. Especially when those claims can often be easily debunked with hard data. It's time we evolved already.

Does that "evolution" include feelings meaning more than facts? I don't think that's a good idea.

I don't want to "de-legitimize" female-led movies (I've written three female-led specs). I want to "de-legitimize" BAD female-led movies so GOOD female-led movies can be made. The Ghostbusters reboot, which failed, due to alienating its potential audience (men), overestimating its targeted audience (women), having a bigger budget than the original film and having a twit of a director who didn't want to work on it in the first place because the original had guys and who couldn't keep his mouth shut when the first trailer was piss poor, is a BAD female-led film.

UpandComing 08-13-2016 10:44 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Crayon (Post 941509)
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.

Our back-and-forth largely stemmed from this statement:

Quote:

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

In a global market, movies face global misogyny.

There is no mention of the thinking of studio executives or Hollywood here. It certainly sounds like it's coming from your viewpoint (i.e., "sadly, from hard data I can infer that female-led movies make less money").

If you were referring to other parties, then any misinterpretation has less to do with confirmation bias than a poor ability on your part to frame a clear sentence.

UpandComing 08-13-2016 10:52 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kintnerboy (Post 941511)
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!.

Nah, there’s a difference between presenting an opposing viewpoint and casting a broad negative generalization about a group of people based on their ethnicity or gender. Here’s a classic example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by kintnerboy (Post 932888)
In my script the Leo character was originally black but I unfortunately had to change him to a white guy, because only white guys can abuse each other at work that way and get away with it. Any other ethnicity or gender would go running to HR and file a complaint or call the ACLU.

http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...=80261&page=11

Quote:

Originally Posted by kintnerboy (Post 941511)
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.

Oh my God, you are seriously bad at reading comprehension. Allow me to quote portions of the first article (NOTE THE UNDERLINED PARTS):

“Universal’s big pay days are clearly borne of success on multiple fronts, from the executive offices to the marketing department to the performers, storytellers, and other creatives who contribute to every facet of the studio’s films. But one clear answer also emerges: the studio’s willingness to cater to female moviegoers and audiences of color — and hire women and racially diverse filmmakers to tell their stories.”

“Universal had more demographically traditional fare like “Minions” and “Jurassic World” to add to this year’s ledger books, too, but the takeaway here seems clear: gender and racial diversity sells.”

http://www.indiewire.com/2015/08/emb...ctures-202796/

Allow me to quote portions of the second article:

“Universal, which dominated the field with five of the top ten moneymaking films of summer 2015, including three billion-dollar franchise behemoths: “Jurassic World,” “Furious 7” and “Minions...”

“The box office is global, and diversity sells….Notably, the “fourth-, fifth-, sixth-, and seventh-highest grossers this year,” Mark Harris points out in his analysis for Grantland, were also released by Universal. These films–“Pitch Perfect 2,” “Fifty Shades of Grey,” “Straight Outta Compton,” and “Trainwreck”– share more than a few features in common, including the fact that they’re cinematic Velveeta...”

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/27/we_h...wood_catch_up/

All these articles are saying is that:

· Jurassic World and Furious 7 were the top films of the year
· Universal achieved record global box office this year
· Female-led/diverse films accounted for four (40%) of the top ten films and those four in particular contributed to a significant portion ($1 billion, or 14%) of the year’s overall revenues

Unlike the lies you spouted, the articles do not ignore the contribution of Jurassic World and Furious 7; they merely indicate that the two movies alone would not have achieved the box office record by themselves (as they added up to $3.2 billion out of the $6.9 billion total) and that four of the top 10 movies had female-led or diverse casts, indicating that there was a wide audience appetite for those kinds of movies, indicating that those types of movies also sell (in addition to male-led and white lead movies). Why is that so hard for you to understand?

BTW -- 75% of the opening weekend audience for Furious 7 was non-white (compared to just 42% for Jurassic Park). Its diverse cast had at least something to do with that, which provides an even greater testament to the power of diversity at the box office.

UpandComing 08-13-2016 10:58 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 941517)
The Ghostbusters reboot, which failed, due to alienating its potential audience (men), overestimating its targeted audience (women), having a bigger budget than the original film and having a twit of a director who didn't want to work on it in the first place because the original had guys and who couldn't keep his mouth shut when the first trailer was piss poor, is a BAD female-led film.

You have no way of knowing if the reasons Ghostbusters underperformed at the foreign box office were different than the reasons than any other action comedy underperformed. Your belief about its sales reception among men and women is just that -- a belief. An assumption. There are multiple other possible explanations which I listed previously: that it wasn't released in China, which drives significant global box office; that comedies don't perform well overseas; and that sequels in general have underperformed this summer. So stop trying to lay all the blame on the gender of the leads.

FoxHound 08-14-2016 12:31 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Another likely reason it underperformed is it's inability to match the original actors screen presence. Mellissa McCarthy is no Bill Murray by a factor of 10, Wiig is no Dan Akroyd by a factor of 5 and Kate McKinnon is definitely no Harold Ramis.

I assure that the "Some Like it Hot" re-make replacing Marilyn Monroe with Amy Shumer, Tony Curtis with Channing Tatum and Jack Lemmon with Seth Rogen would also under-perform.

UpandComing 08-14-2016 08:10 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
That's a possible reason. Although I can't say "likely", because there's nothing to actually back that up. Anyone can throw out a complaint they have about the movie and say it's a "likely reason it underperformed." But it's much more instructive to look at similar categories this movie is in (comedy, sequel, movie that wasn't released in China) and make assumptions off of that based on past patterns. For example, the way BoxOfficeMojo does it.

Like I said, my main problem is with people trying to lay all or most of the blame for it on gender when there's no proof of that whatsoever beyond a chorus of bitching from a vocal minority on the Internet.

kintnerboy 08-14-2016 08:14 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 941521)
Nah, there’s a difference between presenting an opposing viewpoint and casting a broad negative generalization about a group of people based on their ethnicity or gender. Here’s a classic example:



http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...=80261&page=11



Oh my God, you are seriously bad at reading comprehension. Allow me to quote portions of the first article (NOTE THE UNDERLINED PARTS):

“Universal’s big pay days are clearly borne of success on multiple fronts, from the executive offices to the marketing department to the performers, storytellers, and other creatives who contribute to every facet of the studio’s films. But one clear answer also emerges: the studio’s willingness to cater to female moviegoers and audiences of color — and hire women and racially diverse filmmakers to tell their stories.”

“Universal had more demographically traditional fare like “Minions” and “Jurassic World” to add to this year’s ledger books, too, but the takeaway here seems clear: gender and racial diversity sells.”

http://www.indiewire.com/2015/08/emb...ctures-202796/

Allow me to quote portions of the second article:

“Universal, which dominated the field with five of the top ten moneymaking films of summer 2015, including three billion-dollar franchise behemoths: “Jurassic World,” “Furious 7” and “Minions...”

“The box office is global, and diversity sells….Notably, the “fourth-, fifth-, sixth-, and seventh-highest grossers this year,” Mark Harris points out in his analysis for Grantland, were also released by Universal. These films–“Pitch Perfect 2,” “Fifty Shades of Grey,” “Straight Outta Compton,” and “Trainwreck”– share more than a few features in common, including the fact that they’re cinematic Velveeta...”

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/27/we_h...wood_catch_up/

All these articles are saying is that:

· Jurassic World and Furious 7 were the top films of the year
· Universal achieved record global box office this year
· Female-led/diverse films accounted for four (40%) of the top ten films and those four in particular contributed to a significant portion ($1 billion, or 14%) of the year’s overall revenues

Unlike the lies you spouted, the articles do not ignore the contribution of Jurassic World and Furious 7; they merely indicate that the two movies alone would not have achieved the box office record by themselves (as they added up to $3.2 billion out of the $6.9 billion total) and that four of the top 10 movies had female-led or diverse casts, indicating that there was a wide audience appetite for those kinds of movies, indicating that those types of movies also sell (in addition to male-led and white lead movies). Why is that so hard for you to understand?

BTW -- 75% of the opening weekend audience for Furious 7 was non-white (compared to just 42% for Jurassic Park). Its diverse cast had at least something to do with that, which provides an even greater testament to the power of diversity at the box office.

I don't know how much time you spent clipping this all together, but I do apologize for making you waste part of one of your few remaining summer weekends on me.

Your insults and semantic pretzel-logic mean nothing to me.

UpandComing 08-14-2016 08:47 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kintnerboy (Post 941551)
I don't know how much time you spent clipping this all together, but I do apologize for making you waste part of one of your few remaining summer weekends on me.

Your insults and semantic pretzel-logic mean nothing to me.

No apologies needed. I do think it's kind of laughable that you think it took a long time to pull quotes from two articles and do a quick search in DDP for one of your old posts. But a lot of things you say are laughable, so there you have it.

I'm glad your feelings weren't hurt. That wasn't my intention; my only goal was to use clear evidence to show a lot of what you say is easily disprovable.

kintnerboy 08-14-2016 09:44 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 941550)
Anyone can throw out a complaint they have about the movie and say it's a "likely reason it underperformed." Like I said, my main problem is with people trying to lay all or most of the blame for it on gender when there's no proof of that whatsoever beyond a chorus of bitching from a vocal minority on the Internet.

You are completely right.

There is no proof that Ghostbusters underperformed because of the gender choices in the casting.

No one here is disagreeing with you.

The argument at hand is, that since there is NO PROOF that Ghostbusters underperformed because of the gender casting, then that means there is also NO PROOF that Pitch Perfect 2 (to use one example previously mentioned) was a wild success because of it's gender casting.

You can't agree with a result when it fits your argument and disagree with it when it doesn't. That's not how logic works.

My opinions have never been anti-gender or anti-race (that's why I've never gone back to delete them, and why I'm not embarrassed of you quoting them). They are strictly anti-nonsense.


Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 941553)
a lot of what you say is easily disprovable.

You can't just say that and have it be true. It's your opinion. And since I know that you and I could never resolve a semantic argument over what exactly constitutes *easily* or *disprovable*, we will have to call it a draw.

Normally when two parties have an argument, one side will present their case, and then the other side might concede a few points with which they agree, but then go on to make a reasoned counter-argument to the points that don't seem logical. And vice versa. And then over again, until boredom sets in or someone is given a standing 8 Count.

Your rhetorical game appears to be to blindly contradict anything that is said on principle, and then pepper your response with a lot of quotes taken out of context and links to statistical analysis which are arbitrary in nature and don't really mean anything other than what you want then to mean in that particular moment.

The fact that you could never ever concede even the smallest, most meaningless point I've made, anywhere in this thread, even if you secretly agreed with it, reveals the bias in your viewpoint.

You're basically letting me know that there is no point in replying to anything you say, because you've already decided that anything I say in the future is already wrong.

You're not here to resolve any interesting discussion topics. You're only here to win an argument that literally no one cares about but you. And I'm telling you- You've won!

UpandComing 08-14-2016 10:21 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kintnerboy (Post 941556)
The argument at hand is, that since there is NO PROOF that Ghostbusters underperformed because of the gender casting, then that means there is also NO PROOF that Pitch Perfect 2 (to use one example previously mentioned) was a wild success because of it's gender casting.

Hollywood is obsessed with opening weekends because they usually represent the best opportunity for a big weekend and often predict how a movie's attendance will play out over its run.

-- Pitch Perfect 2's opening weekend audience was 72% female
-- Fifty Shades of Grey's opening weekend was 70% female
-- Trainwreck's opening weekend was 66% female

Women don't usually show up in such high numbers on opening weekends. This strongly suggests that the leads of these movies being female proved to be a draw. It may not be definitive proof (the only such proof would be a survey asking them if they went to see the movie because of its female leads), but educated people have learned to make educated guesses based on certain statistical patterns. Of course, if you believe all data suggesting diversity sells is subject to suspicion (as you are wont to do), then it's easier to just ignore that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kintnerboy (Post 941556)
My opinions have never been anti-gender or anti-race (that's why I've never gone back to delete them, and why I'm not embarrassed of you quoting them). They are strictly anti-nonsense.

Most bigots are blind to the fact that they're bigoted. Thankfully, everyone else can see the truth for themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kintnerboy (Post 941556)
And I'm telling you- You've won!

Glad you finally woke up and saw the light!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:55 PM.

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