Okay, thanks David. I will believe what I see with my own eyes instead of everything an executive in a trade magazine says who has something to lose.
Got it. And yet, that "believe what I see with your own eyes" approach didn't keep you from judging this movie as misandrist based on what others said about it.
Okay, thanks David. I will believe what I see with my own eyes instead of everything an executive in a trade magazine says who has something to lose.
Got it. And yet, that "believe what I see with your own eyes" approach didn't keep you from judging this movie as misandrist based on what others said about it.
Have you seen it yet?
I have.
MILD SPOILERS follow, for those that care.
Saw it on the Thursday night of opening weekend.
I thought it was good, not great. I hope they do have a sequel, as it would be nice for them to get out of the shadow of cameos and callbacks, and get on with doing its own thing (for what it is worth, I thought Force Awakens-- which I liked much better-- had the same drawback, and similarly I am hopeful that Episode VIII will be more distinctive and less of a creative echo of an earlier film). I thought it spent too much time getting the band together, and I would have preferred if they spent more time on them already being the Ghostbusters.
I thought Neil Casey was underused and I was bummed when he was switched out for Hemsworth, because I've seen him onstage as an improviser and I think he is a very talented and funny actor. And I think Hemsworth was overused. I liked the four leads, though. And I like that their characters were not just analogues of the original lineup, there were echoes, sure, but they were their own thing. There were laughs. I thought the effects were too digital looking, but I grew up in the age of practical shots with models and puppets, so I often tend to prefer practical to digital.
For what it is worth, to address this--
From what I hear, every male character in this movie is either inept, a creep, or the butt of a joke. Sounds a bit misandrist to me. Chris Hemsworth is the vacuous eye candy, Andy Garcia as the Mayor of NY is a pompous and incompetent buffoon, and the villain is a disaffected loser who lashes out at the world because it won't validate him so he turns into a giant version of the movie's logo ghost and gets busted in the balls for the win...
Yes. All the characters-- and not just the men, in fact, the mayor's aide, a woman, is actually the more opportunistic and dishonest operator than the mayor-- who are not the leads (not that they aren't full of their own foibles) are either an obstacle, a jerk, inept, a jerk, or the butt of a joke...
... just like in the original Ghostbusters.
It's a smart-alecky, sarcastic comedy. Like the original. Which means the joys of watching the underdog leads succeed is that they are in a world where everyone around them doesn't believe in them, kicks them out of the university, puts them down, tries to not pay the bill, or gets in their way. Just like the original. In the original, if you weren't a Ghostbuster, or Dana, the one love interest who has to be a character worthy of us wanting the lead to get her... then you are a villain, an obstacle, or the butt of the joke. You know the original. Can you think of a supporting character-- not one of the Ghostbusters or Dana-- for which that was true?
I don't think the original was trying to make a statement about all men, and I don't think this one was, either. This is just how it tends to be in a story about underdogs who overcome, then everyone else in the story is going to be the kind of person they have to overcome.
regardless if the toys are flying off the shelves or if the Mattle executive is embelishing a little, this is bad reporting by Variety.
After the exec said the toys were selling above expectations, the first question asked should have been "what were the expectations and what are the early sales figures?" If the exec does not give that info, you don't publish this.
Sales reports articles without numbers are worthless.
Variety articles tend to be short and to the point, especially when dealing with, let's be honest, not some huge, paradigm-shifting thing in the business. This is a pretty simple story-- that, for all the stories of boys not buying toys of girl characters, these are having strong early sales, and surpassing expectations. Will these be IPs with staying power, and a successful franchise? Time will tell. But, this was one positive indicator of a way that kids are engaging with these characters.
And a lot of numbers are proprietary info. I think you would be surprised how many business or trade stories will not get into projections and sales figures. If the reporter from Variety (who, for all we know, may and should, have verified these claims) believed that there are strong early sales, and reported that, then I believe that they believe that is true. And, given Variety's reputation in the business, call me crazy, but I am going to think Variety has a vested interest in not being spun or lied to. They don't show their math on plenty of other things they report on, too.
Again, if you want to believe that this Mattel source was deciding to lie to Variety about this, and face the repercussions of that later with retail partners or their own shareholders when that turns out to not be true, then that is your right. Heck, why trust what exhibitors report to Box Office Mojo? But this looks like a typical Variety story to me.
All the characters-- and not just the men, in fact, the mayor's aide, a woman, is actually the more opportunistic and dishonest operator than the mayor-- who are not the leads (not that they aren't full of their own foibles) are either an obstacle, a jerk, inept, a jerk, or the butt of a joke...
... just like in the original Ghostbusters.
It's a smart-alecky, sarcastic comedy. Like the original. Which means the joys of watching the underdog leads succeed is that they are in a world where everyone around them doesn't believe in them, kicks them out of the university, puts them down, tries to not pay the bill, or gets in their way. Just like the original. In the original, if you weren't a Ghostbuster, or Dana, the one love interest who has to be a character worthy of us wanting the lead to get her... then you are a villain, an obstacle, or the butt of the joke. You know the original. Can you think of a supporting character-- not one of the Ghostbusters or Dana-- for which that was true?
Reset the goalposts, but if we do include Chris Hemsworth as one of the GB and also an inept male, like all the other men in this version, who exactly were the strong, sharp male counterparts to the Siguorney Weaver or Annie Potts characters of the 1984 film in this movie? I've been told by any one else that's seen it, that ALL the guys are all dolts in this. Not exactly just like the original I guess.
FWIW, the movie currently has a 73% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Except that if you look at many of the "fresh" reviews, several of them really aren't so fresh. For instance, one "fresh" review that gives it two out of four stars and opens with, "It's somewhat ironic that the funniest thing about Ghostbusters - the 'controversial,' all-female remake of the 1984 original - is a man." (That's Chris Hemsworth as Kevin, the dumb-as-rocks receptionist.) Another "fresh" one starts by rebuking the misogynists who think women can't be funny and then sheepishly admits that, actually, the movie isn't all that good. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Defend it all you like. Buy up all the toys while you still can. You're more than encouraged to enjoy it. I don't want to argue about it. I'm amused so many people want to defend it. I've discussed this film enough already. Everyone go see it and make up your own minds. It'll be easy to get a seat, I hear.
All the characters-- and not just the men, in fact, the mayor's aide, a woman, is actually the more opportunistic and dishonest operator than the mayor-- who are not the leads (not that they aren't full of their own foibles) are either an obstacle, a jerk, inept, a jerk, or the butt of a joke...
... just like in the original Ghostbusters.
It's a smart-alecky, sarcastic comedy. Like the original. Which means the joys of watching the underdog leads succeed is that they are in a world where everyone around them doesn't believe in them, kicks them out of the university, puts them down, tries to not pay the bill, or gets in their way. Just like the original. In the original, if you weren't a Ghostbuster, or Dana, the one love interest who has to be a character worthy of us wanting the lead to get her... then you are a villain, an obstacle, or the butt of the joke. You know the original. Can you think of a supporting character-- not one of the Ghostbusters or Dana-- for which that was true?
Reset the goalposts, but if we do include Chris Hemsworth as one of the GB and also an inept male, like all the other men in this version, who exactly were the strong, sharp male counterparts to the Siguorney Weaver or Annie Potts characters of the 1984 film in this movie? I've been told by any one else that's seen it, that ALL the guys are all dolts in this. Not exactly just like the original I guess.
FWIW, the movie currently has a 73% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Except that if you look at many of the "fresh" reviews, several of them really aren't so fresh. For instance, one "fresh" review that gives it two out of four stars and opens with, "It's somewhat ironic that the funniest thing about Ghostbusters - the 'controversial,' all-female remake of the 1984 original - is a man." (That's Chris Hemsworth as Kevin, the dumb-as-rocks receptionist.) Another "fresh" one starts by rebuking the misogynists who think women can't be funny and then sheepishly admits that, actually, the movie isn't all that good. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Defend it all you like. Buy up all the toys while you still can. You're more than encouraged to enjoy it. I don't want to argue about it. I'm amused so many people want to defend it. I've discussed this film enough already. Everyone go see it and make up your own minds. It'll be easy to get a seat, I hear.
Yes. As usual, you clearly never wanted to argue about it.
I finally went to see it, I LOVE LOVE LOVE Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy but I just couldn't get into it. I did enjoy some of the jokes and all the cameos but its a film ill probably never watch again.
For some folks, making male Ghostbusters fans miserable is considered a victory(?), even if the film turned out to be a financial disappointment and kind of 'meh' overall. Last month, BuzzFeed’s Alanna Bennett urged women to cause “male tears” by supporting Ghostbusters 2016. Ms. Bennett encouraged her feminist allies to “lay waste to their childhoods with your joy. Dance through all the male tears.”. Apparently it didn't help the box-office.
So guys, it's okay to be unimpressed, just don't cry about it...
Portraying all men as dumb when men happen to represent over half the Ghostbusters fan-demographic wasn't exactly brilliant marketing, I guess. But here's to hoping the producers learned their lesson when they release their gender-swapped version of the Tom Hanks / Daryl Hannah classic 'Splash' - oh wait, that's from Disney. Nevermind.
Not nearly as impressive as Suicide Squad's debut. We'll see what next weekend holds, but I don't know if either of these two movies is going to score a profit at the box office after worldwide marketing costs are figured in. Ghostbusters still needs to earn another $320 million to get in the black, while Suicide Squad needs to earn another $532 million.
According to the Hollywood Reporter this morning, there will be no sequel.
Immediately upon the opening of Ghostbusters in mid-July, top Sony executives boldly declared a sequel to Paul Feig's all-female reboot of Ivan Reitman's 1984 classic was a given. "While nothing has been officially announced yet, there's no doubt in my mind it will happen," said Rory Bruer, president of worldwide distribution at Sony.That was the studio's last public mention of a sequel.
As of Aug. 7, Ghostbusters had earned just under $180 million at the global box office, including $117 million domestic. The film still hasn't opened in a few markets, including France, Japan and Mexico, but box-office experts say it will have trouble getting to $225 million despite a hefty net production budget of $144 million plus a big marketing spend. The studio has said break-even would be $300 million (some reported $500 million). Confronted by tepid box office for the reboot, the studio will instead focus on animated spinoffs.
It's shitty that Jones has had to suffer at the hands of meaningless pukes, who are cowards hiding behind their IP addresses. No. Question. About. It.
I tried reading this article, but the bullshit propaganda to bash the right shows the hypocrisy of the notion. I'm more pissed at myself for clicking this bait then what the writer was trying to proclaim.
I tried reading this article, but the bullshit propaganda to bash the right shows the hypocrisy of the notion. I'm more pissed at myself for clicking this bait then what the writer was trying to proclaim.
I tried reading this article, but the bullshit propaganda to bash the right shows the hypocrisy of the notion. I'm more pissed at myself for clicking this bait then what the writer was trying to proclaim.
M
The click-bait is strong with Salon.
The click-bait is strong with every self-described “news” site on the internet. That’s what we get when we don’t want to pay real money for good journalism.
When I heard this happened, my first inclination wasn't to think of the political positions involved.
I just thought "what a bunch of fucking assholes."
I hate that 15 a-holes on the Internet have forced this conversation. It's turned from what appears to be, by almost all accounts, a mediocre to decent movie into a "political" issue. Geez.
Which brings me to the conspiracy I'm leaning toward believing. Sony was driving force behind the "hate" so that narrative of the movie changes from "this movie is mediocre" to "not supporting this movie makes you sexist and racist".
Which brings me to the conspiracy I'm leaning toward believing. Sony was driving force behind the "hate" so that narrative of the movie changes from "this movie is mediocre" to "not supporting this movie makes you sexist and racist".
Sony embraced it so much they added a scene to the movie to poke fun at the online hate.
When I heard this happened, my first inclination wasn't to think of the political positions involved.
I just thought "what a bunch of fucking assholes."
I completely agree. This is just an example of someone drawing lines to various dots in several different Connect-The-Dot puzzles & claiming they finished the book. It's stuff like this that keeps me out of political parties.
Actually you may want to consider the source. This hyper-partisan blogger, Amanda Marcotte of Salon, somehow blames Leslie Jones' website being hacked on mysoginists Donald Trump. C'mon guys. This is after trumpeting that if you didn't support the Lady Ghostbusters you were racist mysoginists. I'm not condoning someone hacking the actress's website and posting racist imagery, but the outrage on that blog goes and the blame game she participates in goes a bit far.
I tried reading this article, but the bullshit propaganda to bash the right shows the hypocrisy of the notion. I'm more pissed at myself for clicking this bait than what the writer was trying to say
The click-bait is strong with Salon.
That’s what we get when we don’t want to pay real money for good journalism.
We're really getting off thread topic here, but I'd prefer media report the stories instead of create the narrative for the stories. We've gotten to a point where there's zero veil of objectivity.
Comments
MILD SPOILERS follow, for those that care.
Saw it on the Thursday night of opening weekend.
I thought it was good, not great. I hope they do have a sequel, as it would be nice for them to get out of the shadow of cameos and callbacks, and get on with doing its own thing (for what it is worth, I thought Force Awakens-- which I liked much better-- had the same drawback, and similarly I am hopeful that Episode VIII will be more distinctive and less of a creative echo of an earlier film). I thought it spent too much time getting the band together, and I would have preferred if they spent more time on them already being the Ghostbusters.
I thought Neil Casey was underused and I was bummed when he was switched out for Hemsworth, because I've seen him onstage as an improviser and I think he is a very talented and funny actor. And I think Hemsworth was overused. I liked the four leads, though. And I like that their characters were not just analogues of the original lineup, there were echoes, sure, but they were their own thing. There were laughs. I thought the effects were too digital looking, but I grew up in the age of practical shots with models and puppets, so I often tend to prefer practical to digital.
For what it is worth, to address this-- Yes. All the characters-- and not just the men, in fact, the mayor's aide, a woman, is actually the more opportunistic and dishonest operator than the mayor-- who are not the leads (not that they aren't full of their own foibles) are either an obstacle, a jerk, inept, a jerk, or the butt of a joke...
... just like in the original Ghostbusters.
It's a smart-alecky, sarcastic comedy. Like the original. Which means the joys of watching the underdog leads succeed is that they are in a world where everyone around them doesn't believe in them, kicks them out of the university, puts them down, tries to not pay the bill, or gets in their way. Just like the original. In the original, if you weren't a Ghostbuster, or Dana, the one love interest who has to be a character worthy of us wanting the lead to get her... then you are a villain, an obstacle, or the butt of the joke. You know the original. Can you think of a supporting character-- not one of the Ghostbusters or Dana-- for which that was true?
I don't think the original was trying to make a statement about all men, and I don't think this one was, either. This is just how it tends to be in a story about underdogs who overcome, then everyone else in the story is going to be the kind of person they have to overcome.
And a lot of numbers are proprietary info. I think you would be surprised how many business or trade stories will not get into projections and sales figures. If the reporter from Variety (who, for all we know, may and should, have verified these claims) believed that there are strong early sales, and reported that, then I believe that they believe that is true. And, given Variety's reputation in the business, call me crazy, but I am going to think Variety has a vested interest in not being spun or lied to. They don't show their math on plenty of other things they report on, too.
Again, if you want to believe that this Mattel source was deciding to lie to Variety about this, and face the repercussions of that later with retail partners or their own shareholders when that turns out to not be true, then that is your right. Heck, why trust what exhibitors report to Box Office Mojo? But this looks like a typical Variety story to me.
FWIW, the movie currently has a 73% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Except that if you look at many of the "fresh" reviews, several of them really aren't so fresh. For instance, one "fresh" review that gives it two out of four stars and opens with, "It's somewhat ironic that the funniest thing about Ghostbusters - the 'controversial,' all-female remake of the 1984 original - is a man." (That's Chris Hemsworth as Kevin, the dumb-as-rocks receptionist.) Another "fresh" one starts by rebuking the misogynists who think women can't be funny and then sheepishly admits that, actually, the movie isn't all that good. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Defend it all you like. Buy up all the toys while you still can. You're more than encouraged to enjoy it. I don't want to argue about it. I'm amused so many people want to defend it. I've discussed this film enough already. Everyone go see it and make up your own minds. It'll be easy to get a seat, I hear.
Who else enjoyed the movie? Any good spoilers?
M
It drops to 7th place with 9 mill.
106 mill total on a 144 mill budget.
So guys, it's okay to be unimpressed, just don't cry about it...
Portraying all men as dumb when men happen to represent over half the Ghostbusters fan-demographic wasn't exactly brilliant marketing, I guess. But here's to hoping the producers learned their lesson when they release their gender-swapped version of the Tom Hanks / Daryl Hannah classic 'Splash' - oh wait, that's from Disney. Nevermind.
9th place with 4.8 million.
116 million total domestic with a 179.5 million worldwide total on a 144 million production budget.
Not a money making hit but overall not as bad as some people thought.
I chuckled a few times, and laughed hard out loud twice.
I'm in love with Holtzman.
Negatives:
half the time, the humor didn't work so well.
I didn't really care for the CG. It felt like something out of Scooby Doo.
http://www.salon.com/2016/08/24/they-want-to-destroy-leslie-jones-harassment-targeting-ghostbusters-star-exposes-the-ugliness-driving-the-new-right/
I tried reading this article, but the bullshit propaganda to bash the right shows the hypocrisy of the notion. I'm more pissed at myself for clicking this bait then what the writer was trying to proclaim.
M
I just thought "what a bunch of fucking assholes."
Which brings me to the conspiracy I'm leaning toward believing. Sony was driving force behind the "hate" so that narrative of the movie changes from "this movie is mediocre" to "not supporting this movie makes you sexist and racist".
Shame it didn't make its money back or won't have a sequel.
Allow me to offer some perspective.
I should know...I have a degree in it. I'm the king of worthless degrees and having worked jobs that are now anachronisms or obsolete. :)