Ghostbusters: Why can't we be Fiends?

[digiman619]

lol. Well, first off. Who listen to critics, or cares about their sites. Second, just because a movie makes money, doesn't mean it was worth that money. Look how many movies that should where good, but undersold, or did crappy with the critics. Look how many movies did phenomenally well in the box office and with critics that where crap.

What I am talking about, is actually conversations with people I have had, and have seen. Most of these movies with female leads, or pushed that type of agenda don't go over to well. How many people do you know who think .. OH Salt.. I love that movie, and don't shut up about it? Same with Lucy. There are tons of examples. They invariably go like this. Oh, that movie? I remember something about that movie. I can't remember if I seen it or not. (or it was boring) The saddest times are when people go.. .Oh that character, I liked her, but the movie was .. meh.

You do realize you just disregarded actual research and facts by just saying "Meh, My friends and I didn't like it", right?

[Lethologica]

lol. Well, first off. Who listen to critics, or cares about their sites. Second, just because a movie makes money, doesn't mean it was worth that money. Look how many movies that should where good, but undersold, or did crappy with the critics. Look how many movies did phenomenally well in the box office and with critics that where crap.

Glyphstone literally took the examples you gave and the claims you made about them and showed that those claims were entirely false. Now you're trying to sweep aside your own mistaken claims.

Anyway, let me critique a different part of your narrative. You said this is about a group of people trying to push their brand out there with movies like Salt and Lucy, and then hijacking popular brands when those movies failed (setting aside for now the fact that they didn't). What is this group, exactly? Is there even a single person who worked on Salt and Lucy and the Ghostbusters remake? Or are they by default a group because they all made movies with female leads, and never mind whether there's any actual connection?

[Kyberwulf]

Posting a couple facts doesn't make you right. I admit movies do well. What he said doesn't prove anything other then it made money, and some people liked it. If making money and having a couple people like it is the only criteria for good movies, then think of all the "crappy movies" out there that are good. Think of all the Adam Sandler movies that make more money then what people put into it. By that criteria, the Prequal trilogy are classic movies that are loved by everyone. The Star Trak, Remake, and into Darkness are good, and all the new remakes should follow that trend.

It's not just me and my friends. Its me and my friends.. and a lot of other people on the internet that aren't famous for ripping on movies.. that didn't like it.

He basically said, What makes a good movie intrinsically is money, and the opinions of popular people. If that is what you think makes something good. Then I don't know what to say.

[Rodin]

Posting a couple facts doesn't make you right. I admit movies do well. What he said doesn't prove anything other then it made money, and some people liked it. If making money and having a couple people like it is the only criteria for good movies, then think of all the "crappy movies" out there that are good. Think of all the Adam Sandler movies that make more money then what people put into it. By that criteria, the Prequal trilogy are classic movies that are loved by everyone. The Star Trak, Remake, and into Darkness are good, and all the new remakes should follow that trend.

It's not just me and my friends. Its me and my friends.. and a lot of other people on the internet that aren't famous for ripping on movies.. that didn't like it.

Why are you arguing about whether any of the movies are good?

Your argument was literally that they made the movies with an agenda, and the movie-going public didn't go to see them, so they became desperate and injected their agenda into a more popular franchise to trick people into seeing it. Statistics (in this case, box office returns) show that to be entirely false.

Everybody that went to see those movies could have hated it. You think Hollywood cares? They care about making money. Those movies made money.

And even if we ignore money, your argument still doesn't make sense. If they're trying to push an agenda, what matters isn't whether people liked the movie or not - what matters is eyeballs. Spreading the message as far as possible. Your argument is that they didn't get enough eyeballs on the earlier movies, so they moved onto something more popular. Which is again, quite obviously bullhockey, because audience attendance numbers are a thing.

Whether or not the decision to remake Ghostbusters with an all-female cast was a good idea, the idea of this "massive feminist conspiracy" in Hollywood that is trying to brainwash men is just utterly ludicrous, and quite offensive to boot. And I say this as someone who thinks re-making the Ghostbusters movie is a terrible idea, and I don't intend to see it unless it gets good reviews. The casting is simply irrelevant to that decision.

[blunk]

Posting a couple facts doesn't make you right. I admit movies do well. What he said doesn't prove anything other then it made money, and some people liked it. If making money and having a couple people like it is the only criteria for good movies, then think of all the "crappy movies" out there that are good. Think of all the Adam Sandler movies that make more money then what people put into it. By that criteria, the Prequal trilogy are classic movies that are loved by everyone. The Star Trak, Remake, and into Darkness are good, and all the new remakes should follow that trend.

It's not just me and my friends. Its me and my friends.. and a lot of other people on the internet that aren't famous for ripping on movies.. that didn't like it.

If a movie makes money, and especially if the critics kinda like it, do you really think studios care how many "people on the internet" didn't like it?

What I find really funny, is that a group of people tried to push their brand out there. When people didn't bite,(think Salt, Lucy, you know, movies that had a "strong" character) and the stuff didn't make money. They want to hijack other popular movies.

I find it way more likely that the studio execs said something more like, "Salt and Lucy were well-received. I bet if we combined female protagonists and a giant franchise, people would eat it up! We could make bank!"

No agenda, just conservative, unimaginative studio execs trying to make lots of money.

[The Glyphstone]

I don't think that the gender is what most people object, I think its more that an agenda is being pushed where one didn't need to be pushed.

What I find really funny, is that a group of people tried to push their brand out there. When people didn't bite,(think Salt, Lucy, you know, movies that had a "strong" character) and the stuff didn't make money. They want to hijack other popular movies.

Salt: Grossed 293 million on a budget of 110 million. 62/59 RT score, 65 MC score.

Lucy: Grossed 463 million on a budget of only 40 million. 67/47 RT score, 61 MC score.

So yes, my facts do in fact make me right. Quality was not mentioned in your (false) claim nor my refutation of such.

[Misery Esquire]

You know, I always have a moment of existential uncertainty when I gaze upon that meme-picture, as my eyes curiously attempt to resolve the moustache into arms. I mean arms into a moustache. ...Wait, uh. They are arms. Probably.

[huttj509]

You know, I always have a moment of existential uncertainty when I gaze upon that meme-picture, as my eyes curiously attempt to resolve the moustache into arms. I mean arms into a moustache. ...Wait, uh. They are arms. Probably.

Dangit, now i'm seeing the stick figure as Fu Manchu.

[Rodin]

Dangit, now i'm seeing the stick figure as Fu Manchu.

And somehow, it becoming Gendo Manchu only makes it more badass.

[Kyberwulf]

What I find really funny, is that a group of people tried to push their brand out there. When people didn't bite,(think Salt, Lucy, you know, movies that had a "strong" character) and the stuff didn't make money. They want to hijack other popular movies.

I did admit they might have made money. I just don't think people really Took a "bite" of those movies, and clamored for more.

I mean, look at when they announced Lucy 2. Most of everyone I know and places I read on the internet went..what..why. Make A Black Widow movie instead.

You guys arguing that money and critics make things good. You are on the side of Justin Bieber, Kim Kardasian, and well.. basically every crappy reality show out there. This line of logic is responsible for all the crappy music that comes out. The reason why a blank canvas is "High art". The reason the emperor is walking around naked.

The money Made means nothing. It just shows the marketing was good. Most movies do very well the first couple weeks, then they just disappear.

Critics mean nothing either. The famous ones are usually just blowing hot air out. Anyone on websites usually log on just to crap on a movie.

[TechnoWarforged]

Is it possible to not like this movie just because it looks unfunny and uninteresting, and not because of the gender of it's protaganists? I never saw the original ghostbusters and this isn't making me want to go back and see it.

Depends on who you talked to. There's a certain segment of the population out there that'll attack you just because you don't agree with their agenda.

BiblioRook: Couldn't have said it better myself. Your point regarding the tone of the movie is very insightful: It contrasts very well to the attitude of the working people now to a generation ago. Back then people just do their job and the working men are the underdogs that are admired but not often appreciated. Now all we have are Millennials.

lol. Well, first off. Who listen to critics, or cares about their sites. Second, just because a movie makes money, doesn't mean it was worth that money. Look how many movies that should where good, but undersold, or did crappy with the critics. Look how many movies did phenomenally well in the box office and with critics that where crap.

What I am talking about, is actually conversations with people I have had, and have seen. Most of these movies with female leads, or pushed that type of agenda don't go over to well. How many people do you know who think .. OH Salt.. I love that movie, and don't shut up about it? Same with Lucy. There are tons of examples. They invariably go like this. Oh, that movie? I remember something about that movie. I can't remember if I seen it or not. (or it was boring) The saddest times are when people go.. .Oh that character, I liked her, but the movie was .. meh.

Meh. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, especially in today's entitled society. Critics are human and they'll also have their bias, and that's why a certain genre of films always takes home the academy awards. Keep in mind thou that the very same film critics was accused of racism because there's not enough black people at the academy awards. #Oscarsowhite

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...htmlstory.html

I sorta get what you are saying on the second paragraph. For example the God awful Star Wars 3: revenge of the sith is actually the top 50 highest grossing film of all time raking in $848,754,768.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...grossing_films

Sure Lucy and Salt did get and both did better then breaking even, but a fairer comparison is to compare what they've made to similar films. if anything, we just underestimate how much money there is in the movie industry.

Glyphstone : Not sure if it's really a meme if your meme looks like your avatar.

[Zigwat]

What I find really funny, is that a group of people tried to push their brand out there. When people didn't bite,(think Salt, Lucy, you know, movies that had a "strong" character) and the stuff didn't make money. They want to hijack other popular movies.

I did admit they might have made money. I just don't think people really Took a "bite" of those movies, and clamored for more.

I mean, look at when they announced Lucy 2. Most of everyone I know and places I read on the internet went..what..why. Make A Black Widow movie instead.

You guys arguing that money and critics make things good. You are on the side of Justin Bieber, Kim Kardasian, and well.. basically every crappy reality show out there. This line of logic is responsible for all the crappy music that comes out. The reason why a blank canvas is "High art". The reason the emperor is walking around naked.

The money Made means nothing. It just shows the marketing was good. Most movies do very well the first couple weeks, then they just disappear.

Critics mean nothing either. The famous ones are usually just blowing hot air out. Anyone on websites usually log on just to crap on a movie.

On that, we agree Kyber. I don't think that just because something is popular and makes money means that it is good or in any way a work of art. Some things just appeal to a higher demographic, and not exactly the smartest demographic on the face of the planet. Some things just take advantage of a lower understanding, while the ones who can see through the crap stand on the sidelines, shaking their heads. Pandering on such a scale is not a good thing and should not be encouraged because it is killing braincells at a horrible rate (such as Justin Beiber and the Kardashians or however the hell you spell it) and quite honestly, that's how I view this new Ghostbusters movie.

It is so blatantly trying to cashgrab from old Ghostbusters fans and a female demographic of a new generation, and I am happy to report that a lot of women are not happy about it, and are not fooled. I would say that this fact gives me hope for humanity, but if it does it's a miniscule flicker of a hope.

[AMFV]

As to the "agenda bit". I think a lot of the reason why people are seeing an agenda here (regardless of whether there is or isn't one) is because most of Hollywood tends to not be very quiet about political leanings that would support such an agenda. So when something looks like it fits the agenda of the particular of politics that Hollywood elite's often espouse, it might look more to an outside observer as somebody deliberately attempting to push a particular political agenda.

You see a lot of this particularly in film criticism and film critics where there's very clear ties to particular schools of criticism that tend to look more highly on films that are like this than they necessarily deserve. So you can also see this as an attempt to appease that particular bunch of critics.

As far as my own opinion goes. I have no idea if the movie is pushing an agenda, but I could see how somebody might draw that conclusion given Hollywood's predominant political stances and many of their politicized messages in films previous to this one.

[Lethologica]

Apparently Paul Feig just doesn't like the sequel idea.

What I find really funny, is that a group of people tried to push their brand out there. When people didn't bite,(think Salt, Lucy, you know, movies that had a "strong" character) and the stuff didn't make money. They want to hijack other popular movies.

I did admit they might have made money. I just don't think people really Took a "bite" of those movies, and clamored for more.

I mean, look at when they announced Lucy 2. Most of everyone I know and places I read on the internet went..what..why. Make A Black Widow movie instead.

Come on, you know the "feminist!" fingerpointing would have been plenty loud for that. But yeah, no, I can't imagine why people on the places you frequent would clamor for more of the biggest movie franchise in cinema instead of literally anything else. I'm sure that says a lot about the literally anything else.

You guys arguing that money and critics make things good.

Who? You made an argument based strictly on lack of money and critical support, and it was refuted on those terms. Nobody said anything about whether Salt and Lucy were good. Well, except you.

[Ceiling_Squid]

Here's my own pessimism talking, so take it with a heaping pile of salt:

"Agenda" is a very poor choice of words to apply to this type of film. It's not so much "pushing an agenda" as it is cynically cashing in on a marketable gimmick. I highly doubt this reboot is trying to be some kind of feminist masterpiece, save in the most superficial of ways.

"Girl Power is a big thing nowadays! Lets do the reboot by gender flipping all the characters, and make it part of the marketing! They'll eat it up!"

Reeks of exploitation. Pandering, if you will.

The trailer looks pretty bad, which is the main problem. Trying to sell it on the gender of the cast alone, and accusing all naysayers of sexism is downright insulting to the intelligence of moviegoers.

If I'm looking to defend a movie with feminist underpinnings, this is a poor hill to die on.

[Keltest]

Here's my own pessimism talking, so take it with a heaping pile of salt:

"Agenda" is a very poor choice of words to apply to this type of film. It's not so much "pushing an agenda" as it is cynically cashing in on a marketable gimmick. I highly doubt this reboot is trying to be some kind of feminist masterpiece, save in the most superficial of ways.

"Girl Power is a big thing nowadays! Lets do the reboot by gender flipping all the characters, and make it part of the marketing! They'll eat it up!"

Reeks of exploitation. Pandering, if you will.

The trailer looks pretty bad, which is the main problem. Trying to sell it on the gender of the cast alone, and accusing all naysayers of sexism is downright insulting to the intelligence of moviegoers.

If I'm looking to defend a movie with feminist underpinnings, this is a poor hill to die on.

Pretty much my thoughts as well. I don't inherently think the female cast is a bad thing, but combined with a number of other things about the movie, such as how they've been accusing detractors of sexism and the poor trailer quality, it all but screams that this is not a thing that is going to go well.

[AMFV]

Here's my own pessimism talking, so take it with a heaping pile of salt:

"Agenda" is a very poor choice of words to apply to this type of film. It's not so much "pushing an agenda" as it is cynically cashing in on a marketable gimmick. I highly doubt this reboot is trying to be some kind of feminist masterpiece, save in the most superficial of ways.

"Girl Power is a big thing nowadays! Lets do the reboot by gender flipping all the characters, and make it part of the marketing! They'll eat it up!"

Reeks of exploitation. Pandering, if you will.

The trailer looks pretty bad, which is the main problem. Trying to sell it on the gender of the cast alone, and accusing all naysayers of sexism is downright insulting to the intelligence of moviegoers.

If I'm looking to defend a movie with feminist underpinnings, this is a poor hill to die on.

If I were a betting man, this is what I'd bet on. But I can see why folks would assume an agenda, when it's mostly just for money.

[Ceiling_Squid]

Right. I want more female leads. But I want them on good films.

And expecting an audience to buy into something based on gender alone, regardless of quality...it's a pretty damn sexist thought. It's trading the bad old days of blaxploitation for femsploitation.

Appealing to identity politics above all else is a marketing gimmick, make no mistake. Holywood is obsessed with marketing, to the point that I would never bet against it. If the market wants a thin veneer of social justice, they will tart that **** up and sell it to them.

My fear is that we got a team of all-female Ghostbusters for the same reason we got a white Major Kusanagi...marketability.

[Lethologica]

Between Ceiling_Squid and Fralex, I think that just about covers it.

[BiblioRook]

Apparently Paul Feig just doesn't like the sequel idea.

So he refused to have it a sequel just because he wanted an excuse to reinvent the tech? That's still pretty lazy. Considering that so much of the complaints towards the movie would probably be placated just by adding a single line admitting that the events of the original movies actually happened and, dare I say it, inspired the new team in some way and it doesn't seem worth it to piss off so much of the fan base not to at least attempt doing so. Want to reinvent the tech? Fine. That can be done by just adding another line; "These guys were able to build this stuff 30 years ago, but I think I can do a whole lot better". 30 years have past, of course the tech probably would be different by now...
To go with my superhero comparison, basically he wanted to have his big origin story movie.

BiblioRook: Couldn't have said it better myself. Your point regarding the tone of the movie is very insightful: It contrasts very well to the attitude of the working people now to a generation ago. Back then people just do their job and the working men are the underdogs that are admired but not often appreciated. Now all we have are Millennials.

Even with the possible Millennial bias towards the working-class I still feel like the idea of having a common subway worker join the team was never a criticism people had with this new movie and the fact that they try to use that to defect the actual criticism of that particular role is really annoying. But then again trying to say 'If you don't like this character then you are classist!' probably kind of pales in comparison to the greater annoyance of 'If you don't like this movie you are sexist!' bit.

[Zigwat]

Honestly, reinventing the tech is a way of getting the merchandise sales. I mean, look at all of those new little toys they've made, and one of the characters just licking them. It's the Batman and Robin syndrome, they wanted an excuse to get a whole new toyline, and they've already started. Full size proton packs and "Proton Boxing Gloves" will be next if they have not already gone and done them.

[BiblioRook]

Honestly, reinventing the tech is a way of getting the merchandise sales.

What I'm saying is that they could have had their cake and eat it too. If fact if anything it feels like a wasted opportunity. Have the originals show up in a museum display somewhere. There, you now have whole two versions of tech in your movie for minimal effort. Although in terms of merchandising, it's not like at least half the merch I've been seeing so far hasn't already been of the original movie rather then just of the new one as it is.

[Zigwat]

No one said that they were very smart about it. Paul Feig is just very short-sighted, and that's a large part of what's wrong with all of this.

[gooddragon1]

Is it possible to not like this movie just because it looks unfunny and uninteresting, and not because of the gender of it's protaganists?

I say yes, on account of that being the way I feel about it at the moment.

[BiblioRook]

I guess I'm at a point where good bad or neither I just really can't wait for the movie to come out in three weeks just to have it out there and so we can put it behind us.

[Avilan the Grey]

So this song sucks, to nobody's surprise.

[tomandtish]

Depends on who you talked to. There's a certain segment of the population out there that'll attack you just because you don't agree with their agenda.

BiblioRook: Couldn't have said it better myself. Your point regarding the tone of the movie is very insightful: It contrasts very well to the attitude of the working people now to a generation ago. Back then people just do their job and the working men are the underdogs that are admired but not often appreciated. Now all we have are Millennials.



Meh. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, especially in today's entitled society. Critics are human and they'll also have their bias, and that's why a certain genre of films always takes home the academy awards. Keep in mind thou that the very same film critics was accused of racism because there's not enough black people at the academy awards. #Oscarsowhite

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...htmlstory.html

I sorta get what you are saying on the second paragraph. For example the God awful Star Wars 3: revenge of the sith is actually the top 50 highest grossing film of all time raking in $848,754,768.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...grossing_films

Sure Lucy and Salt did get and both did better then breaking even, but a fairer comparison is to compare what they've made to similar films. if anything, we just underestimate how much money there is in the movie industry.

Glyphstone : Not sure if it's really a meme if your meme looks like your avatar.

Comparing films on money made is also subjective unless you adjust for inflation. Adjusted, no film made 2000 or later is in the top 10, and they only hold 2 of the top 25 spots.

(And that's ignoring the reemergence of 3D which adds $2-$3 to many tickets for those films that have it).

You can have movies that make $200-$300 million and ACTUALLY lose money, not just lose it based on Hollywood accounting.

Right. I want more female leads. But I want them on good films.

And expecting an audience to buy into something based on gender alone, regardless of quality...it's a pretty damn sexist thought. It's trading the bad old days of blaxploitation for femsploitation.

Appealing to identity politics above all else is a marketing gimmick, make no mistake. Holywood is obsessed with marketing, to the point that I would never bet against it. If the market wants a thin veneer of social justice, they will tart that **** up and sell it to them.

My fear is that we got a team of all-female Ghostbusters for the same reason we got a white Major Kusanagi...marketability.

Very much this. Part of the issue for me is not finding the modern comedic style funny. There are very few comedies I enjoy anymore, and the comedy in this one looks right in the middle of what I don't like.

[themaque]

So this song sucks, to nobody's surprise.

The song was just so... boring. Over produced nothing with no real soul to it.

So really, perfectly in line with everything we have seen about the film thus far.

[Hopeless]

Been watching a face book article where they've been speculating there's a reason the original ghostbusters' haven't been mentioned.

Given there's evidence in the trailer for time travel what if the bad guy used that device to summon and control spooks to travel into the past and alter events which is why the original ghostbusters' team didn't form?

So we have the new team who in the process of investigating ends up in the past and discovers there was a previous team maybe forced to used their equipment to combat the spooks and the bad guy ending up having to confront whatever version of Gozer we witnessed in the trailer and restoring the timeline at least enough so they have a home to return to?

How likely is it that this is the case?

[Keltest]

Been watching a face book article where they've been speculating there's a reason the original ghostbusters' haven't been mentioned.

Given there's evidence in the trailer for time travel what if the bad guy used that device to summon and control spooks to travel into the past and alter events which is why the original ghostbusters' team didn't form?

So we have the new team who in the process of investigating ends up in the past and discovers there was a previous team maybe forced to used their equipment to combat the spooks and the bad guy ending up having to confront whatever version of Gozer we witnessed in the trailer and restoring the timeline at least enough so they have a home to return to?

How likely is it that this is the case?

If its a remake rather than a sequel? Unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely.