The New Ghostbusters - Part 8

[ThePhantasm]

Have you all watched this? Its a pretty good summary of this whole ordeal to date:

 

[Kyle]

Phantasm to add to that, love this video:



It kicks off with reactions at :34 mark.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

So basically you have nothing to say. Thanks for making that obvious. I can also state since I won't give names away that I have had members private message me repeatedly to warn me about your reputation on here as being someone who loves turning everything into an argument. Thus, I can say you have a really great reputation on here as a real people person, Darth.

So, do you have anything to add or is it just still being Darth?

Also first time here. So banned, nope. But you - according to private messages and what members have told me concerning your argumentative personality, surprised you haven't been by now.

It is not hard to not get banned here you know. They tell you the rules pretty plainly.

I don't think it is any coincidence that this isn't the first time I have heard this argument. Last three times, those others got banned. I am sensing a pattern...

 

[Kyle]

Um... you've completely lost me outside of showing your paranoia. What argument exactly? What pattern? As said, the only thing you're showing is your paranoia. Which I think me stating members private messaging me, who I won't name, unfortunately maybe further set off and I'm sorry for that... If it helps, it was less than a handful and from what I have personally seen here since April. Nobody's out to get you. There's no men in black parked outside. You're safe.

But, as a new member this is the only time (on these boards) when I've posted why I hate films like this rather than ones that just are and let their characters be. Stating that because this happens beyond films with women protagonists, I see it with LGBT protagonists as well and it irks me as a bi guy. Turning LGBT characters into proclamations rather than just a normal part of life. As said, I personally love the way 'Teen Wolf' handles it - to me, that's progress. Furiosa and Rey were treated with the same level of class as well.

 

[ThePhantasm]

...

The mods have told us we are not allowed to speculate in posts about who may or may not be a previously banned member. We can only report them to the mods.

Just saying, you might want to be careful pursuing this accusatory line of discussion.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Which you read as sexist, should have put the full thing in because one other person got where it was going - you quite clearly didn't. It was all about creating controversy via pandering as was later explained and you're quite clearly ignoring because (as stated how I know this before) you love trying to stir up arguments and trying to get into fights.

So, unless, you have anything new to add other than beating around the bush. Don't see any reason to waste any more time on this, because as said - from what other members have told me - that's precisely what you seek out.

And for you casting females is a odd form of pandering that results in controversy that you hope doesn't work because it would somehow lead to nothing but female lead films. Dude, you wrote it, not me. The first part was sarcastic, the second part clearly wasn't.

It is sexist. That someone else here "got it" doesn't surprise me considering what this thread has been full of from the start.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The mods have told us we are not allowed to speculate in posts about who may or may not be a previously banned member. We can only report them to the mods.

Just saying, you might want to be careful pursuing this accusatory line of discussion.

That wasn't speculation on that, the other post was. I'll change that one. Thank you ThePhantasm.

 

[Kyle]

And for you casting females is a odd form of pandering that results in controversy that you hope doesn't work because it would somehow lead to nothing but female lead films. Dude, you wrote it, not me. The first part was sarcastic, the second part clearly wasn't.

It is sexist. That someone else here "got it" doesn't surprise me considering what this thread has been full of from the start.

I call pandering using characters as proclamations and clear political statements rather than letting them be.

Here's my nightmare scenario and this is the last time I'll state it because you always ignore this.

Suits see that you can make crap film because controversy sells. They start spending less time. They start shooting them out without regards to quality, just aiming to make a quick buck. Soon enough we have Catwomans, Aeon Fluxes, and Elektras overshadowing the good films in people's minds that it will become seen as a fluke. When really, the films can and do work - just when you spend time to actually make them... you know... quality films.

Suits want to make a fast buck. This film sucking. And the controversy around. This film earning quick bucks. It's a lot easier and it's a lot cheaper to make a product that's terrible than it is to make something that's not. They'll aim for making it as cheap and as fast as they can to piggy back off of a bad film doing well because it has gender controversy around it. As said, sounds ridiculous - but suits are ridiculous, they're driven by numbers and stats rather than creative integrity. The numbers and stats this film can show them if successful - 20% rotten tomatoes, 400 mil box office + - will send a very wrong kind of message into their analytical minds. Controversy and pandering can make a terrible film sing at box office, which is why I thought all I would need to say would be two examples that would be born out of controversy and pandering.

With them delaying when the reviews coming out, showing lack of faith in it being remotely close to quality... if it is successful, I don't see how that can be good - because those skewed stats would have suits come running like wolves to shoot out cheap products.

 

[Sithborg]

(looks at Feig's biggest hits)
(looks at Ghostbusters)

Clearly, Feig is pandering and not in any way straying from what has gotten him his best results.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Um... you've completely lost me outside of showing your paranoia. What argument exactly? What pattern? As said, the only thing you're showing is your paranoia. Which I think me stating members private messaging me, who I won't name, unfortunately maybe further set off and I'm sorry for that... If it helps, it was less than a handful and from what I have personally seen here since April. Nobody's out to get you. There's no men in black parked outside. You're safe.

But, as a new member this is the only time (on these boards) when I've posted why I hate films like this rather than ones that just are and let their characters be. Stating that because this happens beyond films with women protagonists, I see it with LGBT protagonists as well and it irks me as a bi guy. Turning LGBT characters into proclamations rather than just a normal part of life. As said, I personally love the way 'Teen Wolf' handles it - to me, that's progress. Furiosa and Rey were treated with the same level of class as well.

The pattern is very simple. I point out what someone says for what it is, and they lose it blaming me. I am looking for argument, I am making stuff up, etc.. I pointed out what you said. I explained the obvious sexist quality of it. Then this became about how I am a bad person who nobody likes around here. Yes, I know, I have heard this argument before. People obsessed with the prequel, the guy who wouldn't give up on Snoke being Plagieus and who is best off not being mentioned.

Your post's punchline was about changing genders of characters and women taking over. Not simply as a joke. If it was all a joke, being relieved about how this wasn't the case wouldn't have been in your post.

It is funny that you mentioning pandering, talk about seeing Spy, and not realize they theoretically do plenty of that there. McCarthy plays up the classic trope of the lonely middle aged woman looking to open up her horizons, and of course she is secretly a great spy. Still, her boss treats her like she is anything but. Treats her like the trope. They play this up throughout through her and those surround her. And yet this wasn't pandering because?

I have no idea if this movie will work. I am leaning towards no, but the trailers for Spy were horrible, and I loved it. This is similar comedy here. The last thing I think is a problem is that it is lead by a female cast. The idea that Ghostbusters would sink the ship this side of the Hunger Games is bizarre and just wrong.

 

[Kyle]

No offense, but you have more of a problem with paranoia than I thought. Because that person is not me. If you're blaming me for being that person, I'm seeing it as very likely that those could very easily be two separate people.

Yeah because that would be clearly feeding into what suits see as part of it's success - controversy. They'll see it as something two fold. They'll jump on controversial sex changes and they'll jump into shooting out as poor products as they can to leech off of how this film turned out: a terrible movie with gender controversy pulling in the numbers. Yeah, they're not completely sex change examples but they're more than half of the way their or at least in how they're marketing it because everyone can clearly point out who they're supposed to be. The most obvious being female slimer.

You can watch this leeching easily, look for a film that does good... now wait and look at all of those films that are announced around the same time those stats come in. You'll see the leeching.

'Spy' was subtle to me. Did it come up a couple of times? Yes. Here, it looks and feels like it's going to keep coming up. If this film isn't filled with the moments like the ones I listed from very limited footage, then it will stop being seen as pandering. However, right now - it looks as though that's going to be a heavy backbone of it. Unless, as a youtube poster stated which makes sense... it could just be the marketing team's fault of making it come off that way in every way that they're aiming to sell this. Hopefully that poster is right and that isn't as repeatedly hammering it in as it comes off as in their marketing "plan." Which is why I asked and still waiting for an answer from bluejake is - how far and how many times do they reiterate that? A couple of times, okay. If it's the central focus, as said it slips into being the opposite of the intended.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I call pandering using characters as proclamations and clear political statements rather than letting them be.

Here's my nightmare scenario and this is the last time I'll state it because you always ignore this.

Suits see that you can make crap film because controversy sells. They start spending less time. They start shooting them out without regards to quality, just aiming to make a quick buck. Soon enough we have Catwomans, Aeon Fluxes, and Elektras overshadowing the good films in people's minds that it will become seen as a fluke. When really, the films can and do work - just when you spend time to actually make them... you know... quality films.

Suits want to make a fast buck. This film sucking. And the controversy around. This film earning quick bucks. It's a lot easier and it's a lot cheaper to make a product that's terrible than it is to make something that's not. They'll aim for making it as cheap and as fast as they can to piggy back off of a bad film doing well because it has gender controversy around it. As said, sounds ridiculous - but suits are ridiculous, they're driven by numbers and stats rather than creative integrity. The numbers and stats this film can show them if successful - 20% rotten tomatoes, 400 mil box office + - will send a very wrong kind of message into their analytical minds. Controversy and pandering can make a terrible film sing at box office, which is why I thought all I would need to say would be two examples that would be born out of controversy and pandering.

With them delaying when the reviews coming out, showing lack of faith in it being remotely close to quality... if it is successful, I don't see how that can be good - because those skewed stats would have suits come running like wolves to shoot out cheap products.

Trailers making proclamations has nothing to do with the films itself. We have no idea how the film handles it. Secondly, and most obviously, it has to be a bad film first. What if it isn't? What if it is great? Your nightmare scenario is built on the idea that this movie is a wreck, which of course you have no proof of. And what is even better, we know this doesn't really happen. The films that make trends are those that make bank and are good. The only studio making Transformers like films is Paramount, who cloned their own formula.

You are making a strawman argument to avoid your original statement.

 

[Kyle]

Trailers are typically a look into the film, hammering this home has been a focus of their marketing campaign. As said, right now - it has me worried and I have a right to express that worry.

I'm pretty sure at this point it's obvious that it is going to be a bad film. They pushed the embargo up to right before. The jokes have never really landed for me, I'm guessing for you since you said it looks bad, and for a lot of people online complaining that it just doesn't look funny. Unless this is the oddest marketing campaign ever of compiling a trailer with the worst jokes in a film. But, that mixed with the embargo... it's all pointing in a certain direction.

I am interest to hear from BlueJake about the film that gets released in theaters. I am wondering if, people will get offended by this - but I don't know how to put this any other way, a certain segment of audience members (talking Jerry Springer type audience members) watched the film and the studio decided from them what they would largely use to attract middle America to it. Saying that because you have someone who enjoyed the film, saying they're using some of the weirdest and worst parts to sell this with.

Controversy sells. Curiosity sells. I could be looking at this wrong. But, as said pages ago I see people seeing this out of the mere curiosity about all the weird talk surrounding it. I wouldn't even be surprised if that is why they are going to weird places with their marketing tactics now and feeding upon that to stir the controversy up more.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I'm not so sure its true that controversy and curiosity sells. If it did, The Interview would have been one of the most successful comedies ever.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No offense, but you have more of a problem with paranoia than I thought. Because that person is not me. If you're blaming me for being that person, I'm seeing it as very likely that those could very easily be two separate people.

Yeah because that would be clearly feeding into what suits see as part of it's success - controversy. They'll see it as something two fold. They'll jump on controversial sex changes and they'll jump into shooting out as poor products as they can to leech off of how this film turned out: a terrible movie with gender controversy pulling in the numbers. Yeah, they're not completely sex change examples but they're more than half of the way their or at least in how they're marketing it because everyone can clearly point out who they're supposed to be. The most obvious being female slimer.

You can watch this leeching easily, look for a film that does good... now wait and look at all of those films that are announced around the same time those stats come in. You'll see the leeching.

'Spy' was subtle to me. Did it come up a couple of times? Yes. Here, it looks and feels like it's going to keep coming up. If this film isn't filled with the moments like the one I listed, then it will stop being seen as pandering. However, right now - it looks as though that's going to be a heavy backbone of it. Unless, as a youtube poster stated which makes sense... it could just be the marketing team's fault of making it come off that way in every way that they're aiming to sell this. Hopefully that poster is right and that isn't as repeatedly hammering it in as it comes off as in their marketing "plan."

I am saying you are acting like that, not that you are those persons. Which is why you brought up, "people PM'ed me". The exact same argument. This is done when someone wants to make the argument about something else other then what they said. It is a classic pattern.

The "controversy" is from people losing their sexist minds. If they results in a big box office, it would be hilarious. If this mobilizes people, I will be happy. It gives me some faith in the nation that put Trump one person away from the White House.

Spy is not subtle. Nothing about it is subtle. Bridesmaid is far more subtle, and it really isn't either. Spy is full of tropes that they hit on the nose.

 

[Sithborg]

(starts to read some of the wall of texts)

Jesus H Crackers.

Kyle, you seem to be having a few problems. Number One: Assuming that creating NEW characters, who happen to be female, is either part of an agenda or pandering. That idea right there is sexists in itself. Number Two: Taking one of the jokes (one of the more unfunnier ones, I agree) that has been used a lot in the marketing as blowing it up as the whole movie.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm not so sure its true that controversy and curiosity sells. If it did, The Interview would have been one of the most successful comedies ever.

Of course. And our theaters are packed this summer with crappy blockbusters. Good blockbusters and bad blockbusters will continue to be made in abundance. The idea that this movie will change that either way is just not true.

so what makes this controversy? The women. Which is exactly why this argument reeks of sexism. Because this film is getting all the attention not because it looks awful, but for the same reason people were panning it from the start.

Now does that mean it is everyone? No. I don't think it is even most. But the internet is where these horrible people can amass. This is exactly why we have had the overreaction from the other side, "defending" the movie, which isn't even about the movie. Remember the origin of this controversy wasn't defending the movie. It was people flipping out before anything was even made.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

(starts to read some of the wall of texts)

Jesus H Crackers.

Kyle, you seem to be having a few problems. Number One: Assuming that creating NEW characters, who happen to be female, is either part of an agenda or pandering. That idea right there is sexists in itself. Number Two: Taking one of the jokes (one of the more unfunnier ones, I agree) that has been used a lot in the marketing as blowing it up as the whole movie.

Yep. Especially when the basis of it is things being theoretically for girls only.

 

[bluejake01]

A little background on me real quick...I have been a very long time member of these forums, but stopped posting for the most part when life got in the way. The double punch of the Writer's Guild and the Director's Guild strikes killed the company I worked for. I went to culinary school as my exit from Hollywood left me adrift. I got injured and became a stay at home Dad. Being Dad took up a lot of time and I didn't have much time left to discuss movies. Film and cooking are my passions.

I came back to the forum specifically to share what I could about the test screening for Ghostbusters. I have no vested interest in misleading people or pimping the movie. What I'm giving you is my opinion of what I saw. I am a life long Ghostbusters fan...and I don't say that lightly either.

The movie is not amazing. It is not on the same level of the Original at all, but, it's better than Ghostbusters 2, in my opinion. The marketing is doing the movie a disservice. It's not that those parts weren't in the cut that I saw, it's that they were not memorable to me. There is a lot more there. More to the story, more to the characters. The marketing is repeating different angles and cuts of the same scenes, and showing all of the fan service Easter eggs. Very little of the actual movie has been shown between trailers and clips. It's really odd. Even the cameo they spoiled in the trailer has more than one take, and the one I saw was a much better take with better framing and delivery.

If the marketing is not to blame, then I'm scared that the final cut of this film will be a complete disaster. I'm going to see it though, because I know there is a halfway decent movie in there, if they didn't completely destroy the editing.

It's flawed, it could have been better, I would have preferred a different approach...but...it's still better than what the marketing is showing.

 

[Kyle]

You were saying that I was a banned poster, meaning you are making the assumption that I am someone who would get banned. I just threw that right back into your court.

The controversy is about that. And the studio is taking that and running full force with it. The studio is taking Internet negativity and spreading with their marketing tactics. They're not doing that blindly. 'The Force Awakens' made note of it, but it feels a lot more heavy-handed in these campaigns.

I would not be happy. I would be happy with them flocking to Rogue One and Wonder Woman, if it's good, and championing Harley Quinn as the stand out in Suicide Squad and star of that film if it's good (kind of like how Mad Max started out as a film about Mad Max, then shift gears into being the film a lot remember as Furiosa's movie).

Trump, not to bring politics into this, is not going to win. A recent article I read says he has about a 25% chance and that's putting it lightly. Comparing him to Bruce Willis in Sixth Sense, a man who doesn't realize he's ------ already.

Spy has tropes, but it never seemed to overdo it at all to me. It seemed counter balanced by everything else. Never saw Bridesmaids. As said, I'm hoping that this is just the marketing not knowing what they're doing. If it is one of the worst marketing team ever, I don't see that team working again anytime soon.

 

[Kyle]

(starts to read some of the wall of texts)

Jesus H Crackers.

Kyle, you seem to be having a few problems. Number One: Assuming that creating NEW characters, who happen to be female, is either part of an agenda or pandering. That idea right there is sexists in itself. Number Two: Taking one of the jokes (one of the more unfunnier ones, I agree) that has been used a lot in the marketing as blowing it up as the whole movie.

(1) I never said that creating new characters who happen to be female is pandering and has an agenda, I'm saying: ghost with boobs, having the guy say "you girls can handle this" rather than "you can handle this" (which could be downplayed if counter balanced better in the actual film into non-existence), and having the black character scream "is this a race thing or is this a lady thing?" is showing an agenda. If it's counter-balanced in the film it will work, hopefully it is.

(2) I've just listed three examples above, from about what I'm guessing is five minutes at most compiled of the movie that we've seen already. Probably more like 4 minutes.

Yep. Especially when the basis of it is things being theoretically for girls only.

Um I love Force Awakens, Tomb Raider, and Mad Max: Fury Road. As a bi guy I hate when LGBT characters are made into political statements as well, I think progress is not making a big deal out of it with fictional characters in fictional worlds. This isn't a strictly gender thing.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You were saying that I was a banned poster, meaning you are making the assumption that I am someone who would get banned. I just threw that right back into your court.

The controversy is about that. And the studio is taking that and running full force with it. The studio is taking Internet negativity and spreading with their marketing tactics. They're not doing that blindly. 'The Force Awakens' made note of it, but it feels a lot more heavy-handed in these campaigns.

I would not be happy. I would be happy with them flocking to Rogue One and Wonder Woman, if it's good, and championing Harley Quinn as the stand out in Suicide Squad and star of that film if it's good (kind of like how Mad Max started out as a film about Mad Max, then shift gears into being the film a lot remember as Furiosa's movie).

Trump, not to bring politics into this, is not going to win. A recent article I read says he has about a 25% chance and that's putting it lightly. Comparing him to Bruce Willis in Sixth Sense, a man who doesn't realize he's ------ already.

Spy has tropes, but it never seemed to overdo it at all to me. It seemed counter balanced by everything else. Never saw Bridesmaids. As said, I'm hoping that this is just the marketing not knowing what they're doing. If it is one of the worst marketing team ever, I don't see that team working again anytime soon.

That there is a controversy about the lead characters have to X chromosomes is the entire point, and why you are making it more clear with every post you don't get it. They aren't "spreading negativity" they are trying to combat sexist *******s, saying they don't control them.

I don't like the marketing at all, way to in your face. But I also get where the defense mechanism comes from. Especially as a lot of the sexism in the attack on this film has gone unchecked or blown off.

 

[Kyle]

That there is a controversy about the lead characters have to X chromosomes is the entire point, and why you are making it more clear with every post you don't get it. They aren't "spreading negativity" they are trying to combat sexist *******s, saying they don't control them.

I don't like the marketing at all, way to in your face. But I also get where the defense mechanism comes from. Especially as a lot of the sexism in the attack on this film has gone unchecked or blown off.

No, I said that before in a post above that hopefully this has to do a lot more with the marketing of it than the film itself. It's really hard to see where one begins and the other ends because of all the talk around it is magnetizing it to the point where it's almost over shadowing the film itself. I also think it's very possible that the trailers and TV spots are a reaction to that and it's not just in print.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

(1) I never said that creating new characters who happen to be female is pandering and has an agenda, I'm saying: ghost with boobs, having the guy say "you girls can handle this" rather than "you can handle this" (which could be downplayed if counter balanced better in the actual film into non-existence), and having the black character scream "is this a race thing or is this a lady thing?" is showing an agenda.

(2) I've just listed three examples above, from about what I'm guessing is five minutes at most compiled of the movie that we've seen already. Probably more like 4 minutes.



Um I love Force Awakens, Tomb Raider, and Mad Max: Fury Road. As a bi guy I had when LGBT characters are made into political statements as well. This isn't a strictly gender thing.

Except of course you are showing disdain for this film based around the cast being females...

The entire point behind "you girls can handle it this" is obvious. A male treating a grown woman as inferior? That never happens... If it had been a group of males and a female called them boys, would it even register? Of course not.

You take it like this because you are irked about it being females. Damn it obvious.

 

[Kyle]

No, I'm showing disdain for this film out of the number of times out four minutes they find a need to repeat that it's girls. Look at Force Awakens, look at Tomb Raider, look at Mad Max Fury Road. Which I would have loved to see this film turn out like. They don't constantly say so and so is a girl - it's just a matter of fact of life. That's the path that I like. Hell, look at Terminator - Sarah Connor.

As said, as a bi guy it irks me when movies turn LGBT guys into the political statement character of a film as well. I prefer the route where it's just a matter of fact. The political statement side rubs me the wrong because then it makes the character feel like a tool for a message rather than just being a part of every day life.

I can enjoy it when counter-balanced, but it's not my preferred way of handling those characters.

I never saw that as him treating them as inferior. I see that as the man has been turned into almost a damsel in distress and showing men as inferior. A reverse of how women in movies used to be portrayed years ago. Just like they flipped a very old script with the secretary, they flipped it there as well. 2 out 2 of the guy characters they've shown have been flipped that way - it seems like something that would have been maybe relevant in the early 00s or 90s but it doesn't in this day and age where a lot of women are running corporations and a woman's about to become a president or at least in marketing making it come off like that. I get what they're doing, but it feels dated.

If that person said "boys" I would wonder why he would even need to say it as well, it comes off as superfilious.