Ghostbusters Trailer

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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.
    "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

    Comment


    • Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

      Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

        Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post
        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.
        "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

        Comment


        • Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

          Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
          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.


          Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
          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!

          Comment


          • Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

            Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post
            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.

            Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post
            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.

            Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post
            And I'm telling you- You've won!
            Glad you finally woke up and saw the light!
            "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

            Comment


            • Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

              Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
              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.
              Last edited by Madbandit; 08-14-2016, 12:27 PM.
              "A screenwriter is much like being a fire hydrant with a bunch of dogs lined up around it.- -Frank Miller

              "A real writer doesn't just want to write; a real writer has to write." -Alan Moore

              Comment


              • Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                Originally posted by Madbandit View Post
                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.

                Originally posted by Madbandit View Post
                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.
                "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

                Comment


                • Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                  Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
                  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.
                  "A screenwriter is much like being a fire hydrant with a bunch of dogs lined up around it.- -Frank Miller

                  "A real writer doesn't just want to write; a real writer has to write." -Alan Moore

                  Comment


                  • Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                    Originally posted by Madbandit View Post
                    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:

                    Originally posted by Madbandit View Post
                    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

                    Originally posted by Madbandit View Post
                    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.

                    Originally posted by Madbandit View Post
                    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.

                    Originally posted by Madbandit View Post
                    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.
                    "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

                    Comment


                    • Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                      Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
                      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.
                      "A screenwriter is much like being a fire hydrant with a bunch of dogs lined up around it.- -Frank Miller

                      "A real writer doesn't just want to write; a real writer has to write." -Alan Moore

                      Comment


                      • Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                        Originally posted by Madbandit View Post
                        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:

                        Originally posted by Madbandit View Post
                        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!

                        Originally posted by Madbandit View Post
                        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.

                        Originally posted by Madbandit View Post
                        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.

                        Originally posted by Madbandit View Post
                        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?
                        "I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork.-- Peter De Vries

                        Comment


                        • Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                          Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
                          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.
                          I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                            Originally posted by UpandComing View Post
                            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.
                            "I just couldn't live in a world without me."

                            Comment


                            • 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.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Ghostbusters Trailer

                                Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X