Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4882598
The article in question:

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... -1.2821915

My favorite excerpt is the following:
Ernie Hudson wrote:I knew the studio would do a sequel because honestly, there's money there,” he said. “(Producers) thought going with the girls would keep people from comparing the two, but the fans were very adamant about what they wanted, they tried to ignore that.
I think the result shows.

I like the fact that he seems to understand the fans.

He also brings up all the nasty hatred that happened to Leslie Jones on social media. I might have disliked the reboot, but damn people were being straight up cruel.
Last edited by Kingpin on October 13th, 2016, 7:08 am, edited 3 times in total.Reason: Revised topic title
#4882601
So now will "fans" finally stop calling him a "traitor" or "sell out" for being in the movie? Now that they feel nice and pandered to? Hmm.

For the record, I agree the relationships weren't as strong. That's a normal critique of any reboot. The thing is, there was nothing normal about the way fans reacted to this movie. Like Hudson also said, I can't comprehend that kind of anger. It was frightening and just plain disappointing. More than any reboot ever could be.

You know why Easy Rider is a great movie? Because it doesn't end with "They blew it." It ends with "We blew it." This fandom needs to take a hard look at itself.
#4882619
Raystantz Italy wrote:Will the pro reboot fans start calling him sexist or "at least wait for a sequel to come out before judging the first movie"?

We were ALL saying that the problem wasn't the female Ghostbusters but the reboot idea....
I hope your not implying the sexist remarks were not real. Your tone is very black and white.
While I agree people went overboard with the term, so did quite a few of the people against the reboot. In the end, both sides escalated and became very toxic, while trolls infiltrated both sides to keep the fires burning.

The last few years has given us a lot of information about how hard it was to get a sequel going. If people would have known a proper sequel was so hard to get of the ground or people so scared to do a sequel without the boys, people might have understood it and be more forgiving about the reasons why this movie tried a different direction.

All in all, looking at all reviews both by audience and critics we did not get a bad film, just not what the audience expected. Would it have helped if all the fans were in board for this one? Sure, but would the fandom alone helped the box office? Is it really big enough? I don't have the numbers on that one, but the general audience was not interested as well, which was the main problem.

I'm very curious about Ghost Corps next movie, but they know for it make money they need to start smaller.
JurorNo.2, ghostJAR, Sav C and 2 others liked this
#4882625
There were sexists and racists remarks, very nasty ones. But, on the pro reboot side, there were people as nasty as the negative trolls, both here and on other forums. People whom I explained why I didn't liked the reboot idea....and still they insisted that the REAL REASON for my dislike was the Gb being girls.
deadderek, ghostJAR, SpaceBallz and 3 others liked this
#4882627
Both sides have said terrible things, but I'm happy to hear Ernie come out and say it instead of having blinders on and pretending the reboot didn't flop.

I understand not shit talking a movie you're in, but it irritates me that people are trying to spin a win out of something that isn't.
#4882630
It depends on what you think a flop entails: it just means not enough people watched it in the cinema. While still many people watched it, considering the cost to make it, this was not enough to make a profit on the movie alone.

For most people, the movie was enjoyable but flawed, which is why we can all agree the movie was a disappointment, because it could have been great.

Most people still got an enjoyable movie out of it, however!
JurorNo.2, Kingpin liked this
#4882632
Raystantz Italy wrote: We were ALL saying that the problem wasn't the female Ghostbusters but the reboot idea....
Wish that were true. I really do. And even when it was about the reboot, the reaction was still bizarrely over the top.
Will the pro reboot fans start calling him sexist
Will the anti reboot fans stop calling him a sellout?

There is no good moment for this fanbase this year.

And btw, nothing about this quote says the movie "failed." That was the reporter's choice of words.
#4882633
Alphagaia wrote:It depends on what you think a flop entails: it just means not enough people watched it in the cinema. While still many people watched it, considering the cost to make it, this was not enough to make a profit on the movie alone.
Exactly. You know how it's often brought up that Wizard of Oz was a flop? Well, much like GB16, it's a little more complicated:
"'The Wizard of Oz' was a moneymaker for its time," noted William Stillman, co-author of "The Wizardry of Oz: The Artistry and Magic of the 1939 M-G-M Classic," by email. "But with the average national ticket prices at 25 cents (more than half of its audiences were juvenile patrons who paid a dime or 15 cents), it was not expected to recoup its $3 million in production and promotion costs." http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/11 ... n-20130311
Box office has always been a complex process. Certainly more nuanced than "everybody hated it."
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on October 9th, 2016, 7:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
ghostJAR, Sav C, Alphagaia liked this
#4882636
Raystantz Italy wrote:They were trying not to be compared with the originals......but there's no way you'll not be compared tackling something like Ghostbusters.
Agreed, that was inevitable. Inevitable for any reboot. Still doesn't explain the overreaction to this particular movie (and before fans even saw it).

And btw, it's worth noting Winston's relationship with the other guys is strongest in GBII, not the original.

Back to the reboot, I have heard many say that the extended version does develop the relationships more.
Lefty Throckmorton liked this
#4882640
Read the article. Ernie sums it up about right.

I think the Ghostbuster reboot could have done a lot better if it was released before the big Hollywood reboot push happen.

All in all. It has not been a good year for Ghostbusters. Not because the reboot being a box office flop but, because how both sides of the spectrum acted towards one another. A lot of people got caught in the crossfire that did not deserve it. Leslie Jones, James Rolfe, and a lot of fans that made their piece with it.

I guess they should had subtitled the Ghostbusters reboot "Civil War" ha.


"'The Wizard of Oz' was a moneymaker for its time," noted William Stillman, co-author of "The Wizardry of Oz: The Artistry and Magic of the 1939 M-G-M Classic," by email. "But with the average national ticket prices at 25 cents (more than half of its audiences were juvenile patrons who paid a dime or 15 cents), it was not expected to recoup its $3 million in production and promotion costs." http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/11 ... n-20130311


I did not know that The Wizard of Oz and even willy wonka and the chocolate factory were box office flops. It makes you realize that not everything is so black and white.
Last edited by ghostJAR on October 9th, 2016, 1:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
#4882642
You can have no budget for a film and still produce a good product. The Evil Dead films made up about a total of 30 million at the box office. They had almost no budget when making the first 2 and literately no budget when they made within the woods in 78. Those films have become cult classics and the tv series is now entering season 2.

The tv series is a product of Sam and Bruce listening to the fans input. they realized there was still a fan base after the not so successful remake which brought in 54 million.

A tv series would work well with Ghostbusters. Our fan base will be there.

I still feel they could have developed Ernie's character more then just a cameo and fans would have been more into this movie even if Ernie wasn't playing Winston. I cant wait to get a look at the official script. The result of any movie could be boiled down to proper management. I still feel like 2016 was rushed out.
ghostJAR, deadderek, pferreira1983 and 1 others liked this
#4882646
timeware wrote:You can have no budget for a film and still produce a good product.
Absolutely. It's just that all the studios are under pressure to deliver the CGI spectacle. They're competing (as usual) with TV, the Internet, Blu-Ray/HD, plus trying to please Chinese audiences. I think they're all afraid to take chances in that area.
Sav C liked this
#4882647
timeware wrote:You can have no budget for a film and still produce a good product. The Evil Dead films made up about a total of 30 million at the box office. They had almost no budget when making the first 2 and literately no budget when they made within the woods in 78. Those films have become cult classics and the tv series is now entering season 2.

The tv series is a product of Sam and Bruce listening to the fans input. they realized there was still a fan base after the not so successful remake which brought in 54 million.

A tv series would work well with Ghostbusters. Our fan base will be there.

I still feel they could have developed Ernie's character more then just a cameo and fans would have been more into this movie even if Ernie wasn't playing Winston. I cant wait to get a look at the official script. The result of any movie could be boiled down to proper management. I still feel like 2016 was rushed out.
Renewed for a third :)
ghostJAR, SpaceBallz liked this
#4882649
I think Ernie feels a bit let down by the studio in that he didn't get to co-star in a potential big summer blockbuster, instead being relegated to a mere cameo at the end of the film. We all know that Ernie's a very practical guy, and he would have much preferred the paycheck that would have accompanied a more traditional GB3. He probably wasn't too thrilled about the ridiculous amounts of money that Dan, Bill, Ivan, and Harold's estate earned as part of the whole Ghost Corps deal.
Alphagaia liked this
#4882655
They screwed the terror dog on that one. I would have thought given his experience with cartoon voice acting maybe they would have had him play a ghost that gets captured, or even the no ghost logo that Rowan transforms to. More then likely they blew half the budget on Chris Hemsworth.
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4882660
timeware wrote:They screwed the terror dog on that one. I would have thought given his experience with cartoon voice acting maybe they would have had him play a ghost that gets captured, or even the no ghost logo that Rowan transforms to. More then likely they blew half the budget on Chris Hemsworth.
Agreed, that's the old Hollywood elitism and "who's the bigger draw."
#4882666
I really dont understand why people keep bringing up the budget as though it was too high, as though GHOSTBUSTERS shouldnt be big budget, that it shouldnt be a hit film. The original film had the second biggest budget of 1984, more than the likes of Indiana Jones. It was an average budget for a summer movie. The film isnt a flop because of the budget, the movie is a flop because they made a movie that should have been one of the years biggest hits in other peoples hands and instead it couldnt even beat the latest reviled Adam Sandler flop.
Lefty Throckmorton liked this
#4882668
deadderek wrote: My favorite excerpt is the following:
Ernie Hudson wrote:I knew the studio would do a sequel because honestly, there's money there,” he said. “(Producers) thought going with the girls would keep people from comparing the two, but the fans were very adamant about what they wanted, they tried to ignore that.
Image
Last edited by Kingpin on October 13th, 2016, 6:35 am, edited 1 time in total.Reason: Revised quoted quote to remove comment not said by Ernie
#4882672
Commander_Jim wrote:I really dont understand why people keep bringing up the budget as though it was too high, as though GHOSTBUSTERS shouldnt be big budget
I don't think anyone is saying it "shouldn't be" big budget. Wizard of Oz certainly wouldn't have been as breath taking on a smaller budget. But as my example showed, they also knew it would be tricky to make any profit back on a big budget, with the audience they were aiming for. It really wasn't a wise move, financially speaking. Yet, I'm sure we all agree we're glad Wizard of Oz was made, regardless.

Similarly, GB16 perhaps appealed more toward the Bridesmaids audience, who aren't necessarily the types to rush in opening weekend, or return 5 or 6 times the way geek audiences tend to.

Again, it's not a black and white issue. Which is why you guys shouldn't be using box office as the ultimate gauge of success or failure.
#4882682
Ive brought up the budget in the past. The budget was fine for a blockbuster or a Ghostbusters movie, but not for the movie they made. The bridesmaid direction Good or bad, has a commercial cap and wasnt going to bring big blockbusters money like Jurassic world or star wars. Like Ernie Hudson, producers should have figured that it wasnt going to be record breaking commercially from the beginning. If it cant make big money don't spend big money. I personally wanted ATC to turn a profit so it could lead to more Ghostbusters project's, not loose $100mil and drop rhe franchise.. Lowering the budget seemed like the easist way for ATC to make a profit
#4882685
It just disappoints me to see people treating the GB franchise like it is some little known cult film where it's acceptable to expect a sequel to have a limited audience and only make $200m and have a small budget. No, Ghostbusters was one of the biggest movie properties to come from the 80s and there was no reason not to expect them to have made a movie that should have easily cleaned up half a billion (as a conservative estimate). When you look at what the likes of the Men In Black movies make, GB should EASILY have been in that same ballpark. (MIB 3 made $620 million). If anything I'd say GB is, or was, significantly more popular than MIB.
deadderek, SpaceBallz liked this
#4882686
Batman & Robin had a bigger box office take than Answer the Call....even without considering inflation.

For the Ghostbusters brand that's downright sad.
#4882687
The film may have gotten a 74% on Rotten Tomatoes, but the average critic score was around 6.5, which is a big fat D. Public response was 56% positive, the box office plummeted the second weekend and it's considered a flop by analysts and the studio.

People did not like this film. They did not respond well to this film. It is a failure. They might sell some extra Rice Crispy Treats this Halloween but that's not because they have Kristen Wiig's face on them. And everybody knows it.

Every remake, every adaptation, every sequel and every shameless, heartless attempt by a sleazy studio to milk out your money with nostalgia is met with criticism. There are ALWAYS fanatical, hysterical, lunatic fans of any franchise, property, or star who do and say horrible things. News flash to no one, Ghostbusters, obviously, isn't any different, and Sony's attempt to market this film around false flag sexism failed spectacularly.

Comparing it to a work of art like the Wizard of Oz is hilarious. This film will not age well and it will be remembered about as much as the Total Recall remake. Which is to say not at all.
#4882688
LandoSystem wrote:The film may have gotten a 74% on Rotten Tomatoes, but the average critic score was around 6.5, which is a big fat D. Public response was 56% positive, the box office plummeted the second weekend and it's considered a flop by analysts and the studio.

People did not like this film. They did not respond well to this film. It is a failure. They might sell some extra Rice Crispy Treats this Halloween but that's not because they have Kristen Wiig's face on them. And everybody knows it.
A 74% on RT and average critic score of 6.5 are decent, but not stellar, numbers. While there obviously are people who did not like the film, for various reasons, some fair and some not, the overall concensus is the movie is liked well enough, but could be improved. I would call it flawed when compared to GB84 as that movie is close to perfection, but certainly not a failure.

I'll repost my post about it I made in an earlier thread:
Alphagaia wrote: I think you should delve a bit deeper in the numbers behind that outcome of 5.5/10.
It has a median of 7 for instance.

Look how many people voted a 10 or a 1. Both are considered biased votes in my opinion: I think if we remove those from the equation we can get a much more fair number.

All of a sudden the number 6,7,8 stand out in the reviews, with even the 9 having more percentage then the negative votes.

Image
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4882691
Commander_Jim wrote:No, Ghostbusters was one of the biggest movie properties to come from the 80s and there was no reason not to expect them to have made a movie that should have easily cleaned up half a billion (as a conservative estimate).
But again, is that why you like the movie, because it made money? Would you be ashamed to be seen with it otherwise?
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on October 10th, 2016, 5:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
#4882692
LandoSystem wrote:but the average critic score was around 6.5, which is a big fat D.
And once again, there were top critics who didn't like GB84 at the time. By your "logic," that makes it a bad movie. Thankfully, that is no logic at all, lol.

And right now, WB would kill its collective first born to have GB16's RT rating. A lot of blockbusters this summer would.
the box office plummeted the second weekend and it's considered a flop by analysts and the studio.
Labyrinth plummeted to #13 its second weekend (after an opening weekend at #8). And of course was soon forgotten for all time...oh wait...:roll:

I understand you hate the movie, but there is no tried and true formula to prove "it's a failure" or "nobody liked it" (Not to mention that latter "argument" is pretty juvenile).
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on October 10th, 2016, 5:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Trivia, callbacks etc I noticed so far *Cover A *[…]

Matty Trap - Replace Pedal?

Has anyone successfully transferred the pedal elec[…]

Any idea when you might get the Goggle metallic la[…]

Be careful removing the Hasbro weathering using […]