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 08-14-2016 01:00 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 941522)
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.


I wasn't referring to the foreign box office, but the domestic one, and you ignoring the point that I want to see GOOD, female-led films only de-legitimizes your argument. This reboot didn't do well, and its' only purpose now is being an example of how not to make a bad, female-led film, let alone a bad film. I want female-led films that are well made, not female-led films that are crap.

UpandComing 08-14-2016 01:22 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 941566)
I wasn't referring to the foreign box office, but the domestic one

It made $121 million at the domestic box office, which is almost its entire production budget. That's not bad at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 941566)
and you ignoring the point that I want to see GOOD, female-led films only de-legitimizes your argument. This reboot didn't do well, and its' only purpose now is being an example of how not to make a bad, female-led film, let alone a bad film. So deal with it.

You say you want to see GOOD female-led films, which references quality. First of all, you haven't actually seen the movie, so it is idiotic for you to make a judgment on it (whether based on a trailer or comments in a forum). Second, it has a 77% score on Rotten Tomatoes, so the general critical consensus is that it is good, even if you to choose to ignore it.

The only thing this reboot is an example of is the need to not spend so much money on a property just because it is a sequel to a popular film. If the budget wasn't so high, this film would've been considered a success.

You know what I don't get? Why you feel the need to keep referencing that it is a female-led film. Why the differentiation? When a male-led film bombs, people don't say, "I want to see more GOOD male-led films." Or "this is an example of how not to make a bad male-led film." It shows you think there are a different set of standards for female-led movies, and frankly, that's just pathetic.

Madbandit 08-14-2016 01:55 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 941569)
It made $121 million at the domestic box office, which is almost its entire production budget. That's not bad at all.



You say you want to see GOOD female-led films, which references quality. First of all, you haven't actually seen the movie, so it is idiotic for you to make a judgment on it (whether based on a trailer or comments in a forum). Second, it has a 77% score on Rotten Tomatoes, so the general critical consensus is that it is good, even if you to choose to ignore it.

The only thing this reboot is an example of is the need to not spend so much money on a property just because it is a sequel to a popular film. If the budget wasn't so high, this film would've been considered a success.

You know what I don't get? Why you feel the need to keep referencing that it is a female-led film. Why the differentiation? When a male-led film bombs, people don't say, "I want to see more GOOD male-led films." Or "this is an example of how not to make a bad male-led film." It shows you think there are a different set of standards for female-led movies, and frankly, that's just pathetic.

When I first saw the first GB 2016 (reboot, NOT A SEQUEL) trailer, I didn't laugh. I CRINGE. Not because I didn't like the fact it was female-led, but I didn't think the jokes were funny, and I didn't find it necessary for the characters' abilities to be verbally noted (the "show, don't tell" rule was broken here). The second trailer didn't persuade me either, giving me the impression that the identities of the characters were, in the eyes of the filmmakers and studio, more important than the story. When you have a film trailer that's supposed to promote a comedy, and the jokes within the trailer aren't funny, the studio has a big load on its' hands. I stayed home and saved $11. So did a good amount of people, I imagine, and the idea of a live-action sequel is unlikely. I take the opinions of film critics with a grain of salt because I don't want to be sold a film that looks crappy to me. I wouldn't buy a car that looks like a s***-box. Being an educated consumer helps.


Regardless of identity, I want to see a good film. This reboot didn't look like one.

UpandComing 08-14-2016 02:25 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 941571)
When I first saw the first GB 2016 (reboot, NOT A SEQUEL) trailer, I didn't laugh. I CRINGE. Not because I didn't like the fact it was female-led, but I didn't think the jokes were funny, and I didn't find it necessary for the characters' abilities to be verbally noted (the "show, don't tell" rule was broken here).

Your very first comments on the movie, when it was first announced a year-and-a-half ago, before it even began shooting, so before you had a chance to see a trailer or hear any of its jokes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 917395)
I'm not keen with the all-female cast because IT WAS DONE FOR THAT REASON, not because of interesting characters.

http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...t=78366&page=2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 917423)
I'm just not keen with it. If there was one woman among the main characters, I wouldn't mind.

http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...t=78366&page=3

Yeah, it's clear you had a problem with the all-female cast from the beginning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 941571)
The second trailer didn't persuade me either, giving me the impression that the identities of the characters were, in the eyes of the filmmakers and studio, more important than the story.

I just looked at the trailer. I saw nothing to suggest that the female identities of the leads were more important than the story. Please feel free to point specific examples out, as it's only about two minutes long.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 941571)
Regardless of identity, I want to see a good film. This reboot didn't look like one.

Correction: you wanted to see a good reboot film with men in the lead roles.

Madbandit 08-14-2016 04:03 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 941577)
Your very first comments on the movie, when it was first announced a year-and-a-half ago, before it even began shooting, so before you had a chance to see a trailer or hear any of its jokes:


http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...t=78366&page=2


http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...t=78366&page=3

Yeah, it's clear you had a problem with the all-female cast from the beginning.



I just looked at the trailer. I saw nothing to suggest that the female identities of the leads were more important than the story. Please feel free to point specific examples out, as it's only about two minutes long.



Correction: you wanted to see a good reboot film with men in the lead roles.


1) I'm allowed to change/alter my opinion. What I posted in the past doesn't necessarily mean I still believe in it today. People change. Opinions too. Also, the fact you would bother to link previous posts on mine shows how desperate you are to defend a bad film.

2) A trailer's supposed to give an impression of what a film's all about, and a LOT of people saw an trailer pitching an social studies essay, not a trivial sci-fi comedy.NOT EVERYONE SEES WHAT YOU SEE OR BELIEVES WHAT YOU BELIEVE. I bet you don't believe in free will.

3) The film didn't do well. Unless you have some financial stake in it, I think you should move on. Seriously, you should.

4) Whoever's the administrator, please lock up this thread because this argument is getting to be nasty.

UpandComing 08-14-2016 04:25 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 941580)
1) I'm allowed to change/alter my opinion. What I posted in the past doesn't necessarily mean I still believe in it today. People change. Opinions too.

Riiiight. You and all the other haters suddenly stopped caring about the fact that it was led by women. Oh, wait:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 940701)
After seeing the trailers (ugh) and reading the spoilers (double ugh), I came with the impression of this reboot is nothing more than a cinematic essay on feminism disguised as a goofy sci-fi/horror comedy, which I won't bother to pay to see.

Posted less than a month ago!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 941580)
Also, the fact you would bother to link previous posts on mine shows how desperate you are to defend a bad film.

Nah, I just enjoy pointing out people's hypocrisy and attempts at deception for all to see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 941580)
2) A trailer's supposed to give an impression of what a film's all about, and a LOT of people saw an trailer pitching an social studies essay, not a trivial sci-fi comedy.NOT EVERYONE SEES WHAT YOU SEE OR BELIEVES WHAT YOU BELIEVE. I bet you don't believe in free will.

Again, when people make an argument, they usually try to prove it with evidence. A trailer is only two minutes long. If you can't point out any specific words or dialogue or images in that short period of time that support your argument that it looked like a "social studies essay", then it's more likely you are just projecting your own biases onto it rather than highlighting what's actually there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madbandit (Post 941580)
3) The film didn't do well. Unless you have some financial stake in it, I think you should move on. Seriously, you should.

4) Whoever's the administrator, please lock up this thread because this argument is getting to be nasty.

Aww, someone's a little scared of an intense Internet discussion? How on Earth are you going to survive in Hollywood?

FoxHound 08-15-2016 02:07 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxHound (Post 941539)
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.

Upon further thought, if I could choose the most bankable female stars right now, I'd probably cast Amy Shumer and Tina Fey in the lead roles. Now that is a Ghostbusters movie I would wait 2 years in line to see.

StoryWriter 08-19-2016 10:27 PM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by UpandComing (Post 941569)
It made $121 million at the domestic box office, which is almost its entire production budget. That's not bad at all.

People at Sony said it would have to make $400 million (worldwide) to be considered a success. Then when it was obvious that wasn't going to happen, they said it needed to do $300 million to break even. When they figured out they weren't going to make that number and fall at least $70 million short they claimed that the merchandising sales would make it a success. Now the toys are in the discount racks.

Sony has essentially fired Paul Feig and is relying on Ivan Reitman to do another Ghostbusters cartoon TV series. Reitman will also to be doing the next Ghostbusters feature film -- which will be animated (according to what I've read.)

Many critics claimed it was just not a well made movie. One ripped Feig for "not understanding how different lenses worked", "horrible edits, that had characters 'teleporting' from one side of the room to the other", "pointing a camera at the four women, hoping they would ad lib something funny" and claiming that he "filmed it like it was a 90s sitcom". Ouch!

Scott Mendelson, with Forbes, really wanted it to be a success, but said the movie was too expensive and could have been made for much less. Interestingly enough, he thought the controversy over the four women leads helped its box office. He said that without the controversy and with four male leads, it would have probably done less.

Just my two cents.

kintnerboy 08-20-2016 09:17 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
I think part of the over-protective love for the original Ghostbusters (which was openly derided by people who referred to the now grownup fans as 'man babies') had nothing to do with the gender of the remake or the sanctity of the original (it really wasn't THAT great to begin with), but rather an expression of nostalgia tempered with a regret over something that doesn't exist anymore.

If you were lucky enough to be 12-15 in 1984, you probably went to see Ghostbusters in June and then again in July and August and then September again. The whole appeal of summer movies was the ritual of going over and over with your friends, because movies played forever, and that's gone now when Deadline decides which films live and die by Friday afternoon.

Something else that's missing: If you turned on a radio that summer you would immediately hear a soundtrack song like Let's Hear It For The Boy or Against All Odds or Footloose or The Heat Is On or I Can Dream About You or When Doves Cry or - of course - Ghostbusters.

Movies used to be everything.

EdFury 08-20-2016 09:54 AM

Re: Ghostbusters Trailer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kintnerboy (Post 941811)
I think part of the over-protective love for the original Ghostbusters (which was openly derided by people who referred to the now grownup fans as 'man babies') had nothing to do with the gender of the remake or the sanctity of the original (it really wasn't THAT great to begin with), but rather an expression of nostalgia tempered with a regret over something that doesn't exist anymore.

If you were lucky enough to be 12-15 in 1984, you probably went to see Ghostbusters in June and then again in July and August and then September again. The whole appeal of summer movies was the ritual of going over and over with your friends, because movies played forever, and that's gone now when Deadline decides which films live and die by Friday afternoon.

Something else that's missing: If you turned on a radio that summer you would immediately hear a soundtrack song like Let's Hear It For The Boy or Against All Odds or Footloose or The Heat Is On or I Can Dream About You or When Doves Cry or - of course - Ghostbusters.

Movies used to be everything.

They did. But we live in an age where you can lie in bed and binge watch Stranger Things on your IPad. There is no mystique left. There are endless discussions on the Internet about films from the time they're announced. There are "leaks" from people who saw previews. Nothing is a delight or a surprise anymore unless it's an indie that lives on word of mouth, just like the big films used to. We live in an era of spectacle. And even that's wearing thin. The best content is on your TV or computer or phone now. I'm so fortunate that even though my dream forever was to write movies for the big screen that my first opportunities were TV. The new Ghostbusters is just a symptom of the desease that's killing film in theaters. Spectacle without content. Female leads or not. Most of my produced, and for that matter, unproduced content has female leads, not because I'm trying to do that but because my ideas run that way. My life is filled with fabulous females and you write what you know. I love female centric content. I hated Ghostbusters because it was bad filmmaking. And because the content on TV in all its new delivery systems is getting so good, people are recognizing the lack of it on the big screen and staying away accordingly.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:38 PM.

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