The New Ghostbusters - Part 10

[chaseter]

Prove it.

What?

You think everything in the script is just coincidence?

 

[Zero_Effect]

Exhibitor Relations ‏@ERCboxoffice

Paul Feig's GHOSTBUSTERS reboot booted up $46M in its debut. Decent, but now it all depends on how well it holds.

 

[moviedoors]

agreed, yes some male characters are the butt of the joke and suddenly that's a bad thing?

Here's the real irony though: people who are typically anti-oppression Olympics, anti-PC, anti-over sensitivity are suddenly really upset by how this movie portrays men. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[GuestStar2004]

eh, I felt that way initially, but it would have been validating all the wimmen hating man babies out there that this new film had to kneel before its predecessor to get approval

Thats pretty much what all the nostalgia and cameos said anyway, even though they should just have set it in the same universe and alot of these things wouldn't have seemed so forced.

 

[Ozbridge]

I think in term of box office things are partly based on expectation. ID: Resurgence comes off an 80's phenomena so when it opened to 41M and will head to 110M domestic, people think of it as a huge failure for Fox. OTOH Legend of Tarzan, which is considered an unnecessary remake this summer and is expected to flop, opened to 38M and will head to a 130M domestic and people now considered it a minor success for WB. Yeah LOT made about 20M more in the domestic markets than IDR but its budget is 15M more, yet it seems to be a lot more successful than IDR.

Same goes for Ghostbusters. It might make the same money like LOT with a budget 36M less, yet it will be considered a minor failure. Personally I predicted Ghostbusters to opened to 50M so the real number (46M) is kinda an under-performance for me, yet for some people it might be a miracle to open anywhere north of 40M, considering the huge 2 year-long controversy surrounding it.

 

[Matt]

Prove it.

Dude, come on man. You've gone from having good points to coming off as childish. "Prove it"? Oy. That is such a silly and circular argument that can just as easily be said in the inverse. Prove it wasn't. No one can prove Feig's intent other than Feig and the creative crew (hasn't McCarthy straight up admitted that certain scenes were created in response to the negativity?).

I have not seen the movie. I have seen several clips that seem to be little more than men demeaning females because they have vaginas and women making fools of the men. One that sticks out is a man just randomly rides up to the ghostbusters on a bike and starts badmouthing them for being women so they respond by blowing up his bike. I can't imagine a context that makes that anything more than a **** you to the cro-magnons who bad mouthed the movie. Feig's interviews range from defensive to self-congratulatory boasting over the so called "male detractors." Come to think of it, I don't think I've seen a single clip of this movie that does not include some jab at the male gender.

You can say that people are projecting all you want, but there is a very valid argument that this movie contains quite a bit of man-bashing or whatever you want to call it. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest and makes you come off as the one who is projecting.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Some people just want every male character to be perfect. Stop trying to censor Feig's artistic vision; no real man is actually getting hurt by this, it's just for fun.

I don't think anyone cares about the way the male characters are shown its more about using the franchise as a gender political vehicle since ghostbusters has never been about the fact they were 4 guys, that was likely never the driving force behind that movie while with this remake it was likely abit more of a driving force then it should have been purely because it was used as an excuse to reboot and the moment sexism becomes a thing then yeah you open up a can of worms on both sides.

 

[Matt]

agreed, yes some male characters are the butt of the joke and suddenly that's a bad thing?

women have been used as trophies and sex objects since the dawn of Hollywood

So the answer to Hollywood portraying women poorly is to portray men poorly? Makes perfect sense. So much more than just writing characters as three dimensional, fully realized humans regardless of their gender.

 

[Saint]

How about they don't make the male or female characters incompetent. Crazy idea, I know.

Okay. If equal representation in every film is what we want, then, let's get started filing our complaints with the movies in which women are helpless and need to be rescued. So, basically every other movie.

It's not about under representation. It's about making the male characters extremely dumb to make the female characters look better. It's lazy and asinine.

No, it's mostly fine. Murray's character wasn't dumb, he was just smarmy. The Hotel manager wasn't dumb, he just had a girlish scream. The villain wasn't dumb, he was just a jerk. Ernie Hudson wasn't dumb, just practical. You may still consider these negative characters, which is fair, and you may point out that a film where the gender roles were reversed would never fly--which is absolutely true in the current climate. The reason that's true is precisely why you're wrong when you say "This isn't about representation." The reason it's true is because we have a surplus of positive roles for men, and a deficit of positive roles for women. If a movie has some dumb men in it, well, so what? There's a bevvy of positive roles to counter the negative ones.

It's a lot like affirmative action. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need it. But the world is not perfect. In fact, the world is significantly imbalanced, to the detriment of certain groups. That is why affirmative action is needed: to level the playing field.

Or in the simplest terms possible: almost every other summer blockbuster portrays women as less capable and less important than men. Is it really a big ****ing deal to have one film where the opposite is true?

Though, I think if people take off their gender war glasses, this is really just a film where the heroes are smart and everyone else just gets in their way... which is a lot of movies. This one just happens to have female heroes. If the heroes were men, nobody would have noticed that all the other men were terrible. I'm not necessarily saying it wasn't intentional, I'm just saying it doesn't matter.

 

[Matt]

Okay. If equal representation in every film is what we want, then, let's get started filing our complaints with the movies in which women are helpless and need to be rescued. So, basically every other movie.



No, it's mostly fine. Murray's character wasn't dumb, he was just smarmy. The Hotel manager wasn't dumb, he just had a girlish scream. The villain wasn't dumb, he was just a jerk. Ernie Hudson wasn't dumb, just practical. You may still consider these negative characters, which is fair, and you may point out that a film where the gender roles were reversed would never fly--which is absolutely true in the current climate. The reason that's true is precisely why you're wrong when you say "This isn't about representation." The reason it's true is because we have a surplus of positive roles for men, and a deficit of positive roles for women. If a movie has some dumb men in it, well, so what? There's a bevvy of positive roles to counter the negative ones.

It's a lot like affirmative action. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need it. But the world is not perfect. In fact, the world is significantly imbalanced, to the detriment of certain groups. That is why affirmative action is needed: to level the playing field.

Or in the simplest terms possible: almost every other summer blockbuster portrays women as less capable and less important than men. Is it really a big ****ing deal to have one film where the opposite is true?

Though, I think if people take off their gender war glasses, this is really just a film where the heroes are smart and everyone else just gets in their way... which is a lot of movies. This one just happens to have female heroes. If the heroes were men, nobody would have noticed that all the other men were terrible. I'm not necessarily saying it wasn't intentional, I'm just saying it doesn't matter.

But leveling the playing field is not tearing down one gender to promote another. Males definitely have disproportionate representation in Hollywood. But its not as if roles for women are overtly stupid, discriminatory caricatures.

I've been reading up quite a bit on this since listening to that youtube review of the young lady who said that it went too far. As a single father, I am all for equality. I want my daughter to be able to find positive female role models where ever she can, especially in the media. But I don't want her to feel that being a strong woman means insulting and demeaning men. I don't want the media to give her the idea that the majority of men are buffoonish Neanderthals who are out to hold her down and marginalize her. I don't want her to grow up thinking that she is in an adversarial role with the other gender. That isn't how equality is brought about.

Just as I wouldn't want my daughter to laugh at racist jokes, I don't want her thinking jokes that knock a man, simply for being a man, are funny.

 

[MadVillainy]

I think in term of box office things are partly based on expectation. ID: Resurgence comes off an 80's phenomena so when it opened to 41M and will head to 110M domestic, people think of it as a huge failure for Fox. OTOH Legend of Tarzan, which is considered an unnecessary remake this summer and is expected to flop, opened to 38M and will head to a 130M domestic and people now considered it a minor success for WB. Yeah LOT made about 20M more in the domestic markets than IDR but its budget is 15M more, yet it seems to be a lot more successful than IDR.

Same goes for Ghostbusters. It might make the same money like LOT with a budget 36M less, yet it will be considered a minor failure. Personally I predicted Ghostbusters to opened to 50M so the real number (46M) is kinda an under-performance for me, yet for some people it might be a miracle to open anywhere north of 40M, considering the huge 2 year-long controversy surrounding it.

I think this will break even and make a very small profit when it's all said in done. So I guess I would classify it as a disappointment

In my head
-A bomb means you lost a lot of money
-A flop means you lost some money
-A disappointment is that you broke even, didn't lose money, or made a really small profit. You don't make a product to only break even. You want to make big profits. So that's why I classify that as a disappointment

Of course this is all just a guess based on the OW. I just don't see it having that good of legs domestically to justify a sequel. The WW box office could take off and give it a huge boost that would help make this the franchise starter they want it to be.

 

[GuestStar2004]

This film will be seen as a success either way

 

[MadVillainy]

What do you mean "either way". What ways?

 

[moviedoors]

Just as I wouldn't want my daughter to laugh at racist jokes, I don't want her thinking jokes that knock a man, simply for being a man, are funny.

It doesn't make those jokes. They aren't specifically aimed at masculinity. It's quirky characters in a comedy. They're flawed and weird. But there's not a mean spirited bone in it's body. I honestly don't see what there is to be upset about. I suppose there are more silly men than women, but I don't see why that should matter unless your one of those people that likes to keep score. Haven't you not seen it yet anyway?

 

[Matt Mortem]

I wonder if this much attention will be paid to the Ben-Hur remake. Doubt it. Ghostbusters is an enduring classic that changed the very face of cinema so of course the remake needs to be examined and picked apart from every conceivable angle. I'd add the sarcasm smiley, but I don't think it'd probably express how ****ing sarcastic I'm being right now.

 

[GuestStar2004]

What do you mean "either way". What ways?

if it doesn't break even sony are still gonna say it was a success and if it manages to break even no one is gonna say it was a disappointment so its still be called a success.

 

[MadVillainy]

if it doesn't break even sony are still gonna say it was a success and if it manages to break even no one is gonna say it was a disappointment so its still be called a success.

Yeah but that's all "spin" it doesn't make it true.
You can say any movie is a success or a studio can say "we're happy with the results". It's kinda like no matter how a movie does the tv spots always say something like: "The #1 comedy in America"

 

[Matt]

It doesn't make those jokes. They aren't specifically aimed at masculinity. It's quirky characters in a comedy. They're flawed and weird. But there's not a mean spirited bone in it's body. I honestly don't see what there is to be upset about. I suppose there are more silly men than women, but I don't see why that should matter unless your one of those people that likes to keep score. Haven't you not seen it yet anyway?

I don't plan to pay to see it, but I will probably end up watching it in the next couple days.

Even so, a movie that portrays the male gender as a bunch of shortsighted, obnoxious, incompetent, sexist buffoons is no more something I want my daughter being exposed to than a movie that portrays her gender as a weak, naive, helpless one.

 

[Kyle]

I wonder if this much attention will be paid to the Ben-Hur remake. Doubt it. Ghostbusters is an enduring classic that changed the very face of cinema so of course the remake needs to be examined and picked apart from every conceivable angle. I'd add the sarcasm smiley, but I don't think it'd probably express how ****ing sarcastic I'm being right now.

That film (Ben Hur) is going to be met by the criticism of few going to it and it flopping out of existence like Point Break.

Ghostbusters is more of a pop icon with many people who saw it in theaters still being alive and young today. Even as a 90s kid it was beyond huge because my cousin's generation saw the films in theaters. Same can not be said of Ben Hur.

All to most remakes are met with harsh criticism and mocking. Most who would be complaining and see Ben Hur as pop culture rather than film history mostly don't use the Internet like the Ghostbusters gen and further do. Older audiences and film fans are going to show Ben Hur their respects by making the remake disappear in less than two weeks and from theaters in less than three. It doesn't have any word in comparison to most remakes because, as said, there's mostly a generational gap with technology where many (not all) are concerned.

 

[MadVillainy]

That film (Ben Hur) is going to be met by the criticism of few going to it and it flopping out of existence like Point Break.

Exactly

 

[danoyse]

Checks in on Ghostbusters thread again...

 

[bluejake01]

Dude, come on man. You've gone from having good points to coming off as childish. "Prove it"? Oy. That is such a silly and circular argument that can just as easily be said in the inverse. Prove it wasn't. No one can prove Feig's intent other than Feig and the creative crew (hasn't McCarthy straight up admitted that certain scenes were created in response to the negativity?).

I have not seen the movie. I have seen several clips that seem to be little more than men demeaning females because they have vaginas and women making fools of the men. One that sticks out is a man just randomly rides up to the ghostbusters on a bike and starts badmouthing them for being women so they respond by blowing up his bike. I can't imagine a context that makes that anything more than a **** you to the cro-magnons who bad mouthed the movie. Feig's interviews range from defensive to self-congratulatory boasting over the so called "male detractors." Come to think of it, I don't think I've seen a single clip of this movie that does not include some jab at the male gender.

You can say that people are projecting all you want, but there is a very valid argument that this movie contains quite a bit of man-bashing or whatever you want to call it. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest and makes you come off as the one who is projecting.

First of all, that was my point. You can't prove it. It's an opinion, and saying someone's opinion is just wrong with no other supporting evidence is asinine.

Secondly...you haven't seen the movie, so your opinion is not based on seeing the full picture.

Every secondary character is hostile towards the main characters and can be seen as incompetent when dealing with the supernatural, male or female.

 

[bluejake01]

Fun fact...in the original Ghostbusters the secondary characters (mostly male) were either dumb, hostile towards the Ghostbusters or incompetent.

 

[danoyse]

It doesn't make those jokes. They aren't specifically aimed at masculinity. It's quirky characters in a comedy. They're flawed and weird. But there's not a mean spirited bone in it's body. I honestly don't see what there is to be upset about. I suppose there are more silly men than women, but I don't see why that should matter unless your one of those people that likes to keep score. Haven't you not seen it yet anyway?

Exactly. There were no ‘battle lines’ being drawn between men vs. women at any point in the movie. Hell, Cecily Strong’s character was just as obnoxious as any of the male villains in the movie. Rowan didn’t wage some ghost war on women - he went after everyone. The mayor didn’t try to take down the Ghostbusters because they were women, he tried to take them down because he didn’t want the public to know there were ghosts. He was still insisting that at the end of the movie.

I don’t even think there’s a scene where they decide they have to prove something ‘because they’re women’. The whole thing was about making people people that ghosts were real.

That scene with them blasting the motorcycle of the guy who asks about ‘their little science experiments’ isn’t even in the movie.

Yes, Kevin being a hot, ditzy blonde who needed to be rescued was a joke on how women are usually the ones in these roles. People getting so angry about that is kind of a hilarious bit of irony here.

 

[C. Lee]

So, it I get this right......in this COMEDY......there are multiple people portrayed as - stupid, obnoxious, sexist, incompetent morons.....or in other words.....this COMEDY is like every other COMEDY made, but people are mad at this one.