The New Ghostbusters - Part 9

[GuestStar2004]

I been anti reboot for a while and the all women team just annoyed me because it sounded like a gimmick and it was proven to be the more it got out of hand with the cast and director turning it into a sexist rant.

Sony will put certain quotes in these reviews into their TVs spots because right now they need too do what they can to attract audiences but I personally don't care if it flops or not and at this point in time it's not gonna change much in terms of winning people over.

 

[Zero_Effect]

How exactly is that a problem?

It wouldn't be if people looked at the average rating. But they don't all they see is the %.

 

[Lighthouse]

Colour me surprised it's being as well received as it is, the marketing for this film has been nothing short of horrendous. Doesn't change anything for me personally, still against the idea of a remake in the first place.

I'm starting to think that Feig's movies just don't market well, as his jokes need the context of the scene to work. Cherry picked for promotional material makes them come off as awful. I thought the same thing about Spy and The Heat before I saw them.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It wouldn't be if people looked at the average rating. But they don't all they see is the %.

The percentage is the amount that recommend the movie. If the only question you have is, "should I see this movie", that is all you need. That is exactly why there is no issue here. 3/5, should see it, fresh. 3/5, don't see it, rotten. That is an even better system in that regard.

 

[regwec]

Oops, upping wrong post.

 

[jmc]

I'm starting to think that Feig's movies just don't market well, as his jokes need the context of the scene to work. Cherry picked for promotional material makes them come off as awful. I thought the same thing about Spy and The Heat before I saw them.

There was a fan cut trailer that was about 100 times better than the one that was released, so I don't know if I buy that argument.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm starting to think that Feig's movies just don't market well, as his jokes need the context of the scene to work. Cherry picked for promotional material makes them come off as awful. I thought the same thing about Spy and The Heat before I saw them.

I think this very well maybe the case.

 

[Kyle]

I think the marketing department did not do a good job, but they were not helped with an every evolving movie (they have a ton of cuts apparently), which they were probably told to promote in a certain way.

All movies have many cuts. That's how you target test it. Something this film didn't do in marketing it feels like. The greatest example of that is the song. Why market something that you can see many dislike? Wouldn't their testing tell them that? If so, why market a negative? As said there's an odd element of smear to it even though unintentional. "Because it has a song" isn't really an excuse because many films have songs, doesn't mean those songs need to be marketed - especially if received beyond poorly. So they basically put something out that they knew people hated unless they just thought they could skip testing.

 

[Zero_Effect]

Colour me surprised it's being as well received as it is, the marketing for this film has been nothing short of horrendous. Doesn't change anything for me personally, still against the idea of a remake in the first place.

Its two things.

1. Critics generally like Paul Feig in the same way they love JJ Abrams. There was a huge backlash against Star Trek Into Darkness yet it sits at 87% on RT with an average score of 7.6 out of 10.

2. No one wants to be on the wrong side of the "i hate women" debate. So they will be more inclined to give it a good review. While its likely to change (only 13 reviews) it has a 46% from "top critics" opposed to 74% overall.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

All movies have many cuts. That's how you target test it. Something this film didn't do in marketing it feels like. The greatest example of that is the song. Why market something that you can see many dislike? Wouldn't their testing tell them that? If so, why market a negative? As said there's an odd element of smear to it even though unintentional.

Uh, no they don't. Star Wars had like two cuts, all viewed internally. None of Nolan's films are tested screened.

They were given the song and told to use it. What are they suppose to do, not use it?

 

[Kyle]

Uh, no they don't. Star Wars had like two cuts, all viewed internally. None of Nolan's films are tested screened.

They were given the song and told to use it. What are they suppose to do, not use it?

The internal marketing team should have known better not to outsource it to a company to put out there. The internal marketing VP or President should have especially known. I wonder if the recent Sony shake up may be partly responsible due to internal shake ups making communication like this more complicated.

I didn't say all. I said many.

 

[Binker]

I'm more scared by the positivity, because when something happens later on, and its a problem that needs to be fixed or avoid, studios will use the Ghostbusters 2016 experience as proof to say "yeah, those guys don't know anything about movies. They're only good for paying for our movies, which they do for those they badmouth".

That's what I'm afraid of, especially with Rothman in charge, and what he's been saying on fans, and what movies are just "too good" to exist, like this or MiB/23.

 

[Zero_Effect]

The percentage is the amount that recommend the movie. If the only question you have is, "should I see this movie", that is all you need. That is exactly why there is no issue here. 3/5, should see it, fresh. 3/5, don't see it, rotten. That is an even better system in that regard.

GA doesn't see it that way. They see it as the films quality not as a recommendation.

 

[jmc]

Its two things.

1. Critics generally like Paul Feig in the same way they love JJ Abrams. There was a huge backlash against Star Trek Into Darkness yet it sits at 87% on RT with an average score of 7.6 out of 10.

2. No one wants to be on the wrong side of the "i hate women" debate. So they will be more inclined to give it a good review. While its likely to change (only 13 reviews) it has a 46% from "top critics" opposed to 74% overall.

I don't buy into that last one. Critics are use to fanboys going after them when their favourite genre film gets a negative review, so there's no reason to purposely post positive reviews for this. I think you're better off accepting this film is probably better than you hope for.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm more scared by the positivity, because when something happens later on, and its a problem that needs to be fixed or avoid, studios will use the Ghostbusters 2016 experience as proof to say "yeah, those guys don't know anything about movies. They're only good for paying for our movies, which they do for those they badmouth".

That's what I'm afraid of, especially with Rothman in charge, and what he's been saying on fans, and what movies are just "too good" to exist, like this or MiB/23.

Who is "those guys"? I understand being afraid of Rothman just on principle itself, but I'm a little confused by what you mean here.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The internal marketing team should have known better not to outsource it to a company to put out there. The internal marketing VP or President should have especially known. I wonder if the recent Sony shake up may be partly responsible due to internal shake ups making communication like this more complicated.

I didn't say all. I said many.

No, you said all:

All movies have many cuts. That's how you target test it. Something this film didn't do in marketing it feels like. The greatest example of that is the song. Why market something that you can see many dislike? Wouldn't their testing tell them that? If so, why market a negative? As said there's an odd element of smear to it even though unintentional. "Because it has a song" isn't really an excuse because many films have songs, doesn't mean those songs need to be marketed - especially if received beyond poorly. So they basically put something out that they knew people hated unless they just thought they could skip testing.

You know, I don't even like the marketing, but the reaction to it has also been extremely OTT, so blaming them for the reaction is par with the course of this whole thing.

 

[Lighthouse]

GA doesn't see it that way. They see it as the films quality not as a recommendation.

Hence my original statement. Love the site, hate how culture has reacted to it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

GA doesn't see it that way. They see it as the films quality not as a recommendation.

Well if 90% are recommending a movie, they usually think it is pretty good. I mean come on, how often do we see trashy movies with high RT scores? Heck I hate the Fast series outside of Fast 5, and even I realize why it has a high RT score.

 

[Bats123]

i honestly do not get the love for Spy, i saw that movie and tbh the only stuff i laughed at was the Staham and Rose Byrne scenes, even the small parts from Jude Law. i think Mccarthy's shtick is getting old, i didnt laugh at a single one of her scenes, and its pretty much her movie.

 

[Zero_Effect]

I don't buy into that last one. Critics are use to fanboys going after them when their favourite genre film gets a negative review, so there's no reason to purposely post positive reviews for this. I think you're better off accepting this film is probably better than you hope for.

Its not the "fanboys" they are worried about if they were they would probably be giving this more negative reviews. Because anyone saying anything positive is getting "hate" from the fanboys.

 

[Zero_Effect]

Well if 90% are recommending a movie, they usually think it is pretty good. I mean come on, how often do we see trashy movies with high RT scores? Heck I hate the Fast series outside of Fast 5, and even I realize why it has a high RT score.

Just because you get how it works doesn't mean the average person does.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Just because you get how it works doesn't mean the average person does.

We see plenty of examples on the Hype of people not understanding how Rotten Tomatoes works.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Just because you get how it works doesn't mean the average person does.

Do you think critics recommend movies they think are bad? I don't think they do. So a high RT percentage means most critics think it is a good film worth watching. Which is probably an even better barometer of overall quality then the average.

 

[Kyle]

No, you said all:



You know, I don't even like the marketing, but the reaction to it has also been extremely OTT, so blaming them for the reaction is par with the course of this whole thing.

Ah, my mistake then.

Job of the marketing department in that first trailer was damage control. Instead they released a trailer that a lot hated and gained new haters. As said I just don't see SONY being happy with them nor do I think they have any reason to be, that team cost them money. If I was a filmmaker and found out that same team were going to market my film, I'd be shaking in my boots scared lol. They made a bad situation worse and continually worse.

The only thing that would make sense is, as said, the whole thing got caught in the storm going on over there with corporate restructuring thanks to the leaks making communication within the studio a lot more complicated currently than it would otherwise be.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Ah, my mistake then.

Job of the marketing department in that first trailer was damage control. Instead they released a trailer that a lot hated and gained new haters. As said I just don't see SONY being happy with them nor do I think they have any reason to be, that team cost them money. If I was a filmmaker and found out that same team were going to market my film, I'd be shaking in my boots scared lol. They made a bad situation worse and continually worse.

The only thing that would make sense is, as said, the whole thing got caught in the storm going on over there with corporate restructuring thanks to the leaks making communication within the studio a lot more complicated currently than it would otherwise be.

I think they were given a brief and followed it. Perhaps Feig even had a hand in it, I don't know. JJ Abrams doesn't make his own trailers, but he certainly goes over them before they are released. He has to approve them.