[HunterCC]

My impression is the movie gets a solid "Meh" from youtube critics

YouTube critics who were guaranteed to get more Likes by being negative. Another reason the Internet isn't taken seriously. Mainstream news outlets have their biases of course, but there's even less of a filter for that online.

One could just as easily write off the critics positive reviews as political correctness and "virtue signaling". How else to explain articles like this http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/movie ... -wiig.html for a movie that flopped. And movies that earned as much as GB`16, like Pixels, are called busts and flops, yet GB16 isn't?

I never trolled anyone. Therefore I never felt lumped in. Not sure why you did. You shouldn't have needed Reitman to assure you no one thinks you're a troll.

I'm a geek, a ghostbusters fan, and was critical of the movie since the first trailer. I sure as hell was lumped in with the trolls by Feig and other movie supporters online. Read my previous posts.

[Sav C]

Wait. Hasn't rent gone digital in America like in the Netherlands (so no need to bring the actual stores back as online is just as handy) or had that ship sailed already for you guys and did it evolve in the next thing (probably called Piracy)?

My town still has a video store (although I never go there, Netflix is good enough for me.) As for the rest of North America, it's probably all digital.

Still, if they reopened and rebranded like in the image I shared, I think I'd be going there a lot.

[JurorNo.2]

One could just as easily write off the critics positive reviews as political correctness and "virtue signaling". How else to explain articles like this http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/movie ... -wiig.html for a movie that flopped.

As I already said, mainstream news outlets have their own biases. I simply said YouTube critics are even less reliable, IMO.

And movies that earned as much as GB`16, like Pixels, are called busts and flops, yet GB16 isn't?

Because for the millionth time, it's not purely about money. It's about a movie's reputation overall. And outside of the misery of the Internet, the movie simply isn't that hated.

I'm a geek, a ghostbusters fan, and was critical of the movie since the first trailer. I sure as hell was lumped in with the trolls by Feig and other movie supporters online.

For the millionth time, again, no one minded if some fans were critical. The problem was the fans who took it to bandwagon, toxic levels. If you weren't doing that, then no one was remotely talking about you.

[HunterCC]

You misunderstood me. I said whatever takes Twitter's place with be more garbage.

And rebooting once is one thing. Rebooting constantly because you're desperate to please your entitled, nitpicky audience that is determined to never be pleased? That is the real problem with reboots. IMO, studios look stronger when they stick to their guns. And that's really why fans were so annoyed with Feig and Sony, because they dared to not pander for once.

Ahhh. My bad on what the post you were responding to was actually about: Twitter not GB16.

I think Sony is indeed desperate to make money. When your best success lately is "Sausage Party"......

I think most fans were annoyed, one way or the other, with Feig and Sony and their trolling campaign.

[JurorNo.2]

I think most fans were annoyed, one way or the other, with Feig and Sony and their trolling campaign.

I'm annoyed with the trailer because it gave a false, unflattering impression of the movie. I had no problem with how Feig reacted to the trolls and fans who took things too far. I'm tired of the Internet and its nonsense. That's where the real trolling campaign came from.

No problem, I can see how it looked like we were talking about the movie and not Twitter.

[HunterCC]

As I already said, mainstream news outlets have their own biases. I simply said YouTube critics are even less reliable, IMO.

Given the positve mainstream reviewers were wrong about the movies success, and youtubers were right that GB16 was either (positive) not that good or bad a movie to get worked up over, or (negative) Feig, Sony, and this movie come off as a bunch of misandrist trolling, I think who had the greater bias in this has been proven out.

Because for the millionth time, it's not purely about money. It's about a movie's reputation overall. And outside of the misery of the Internet, the movie simply isn't that hated.

Not to any decent business. Money is the bottom line. For better or worse. And the general public's reaction to GB16 was the movie flopping like Pixels.

For the millionth time, again, no one minded if some fans were critical. The problem was the fans who took it to bandwagon, toxic levels. If you weren't doing that, then no one was remotely talking about you.

Google "James Rolfe ghostbusters". It's a microcosm of what Feig and Sony got rolling. And read my previous replies to Alpha.

[Sav C]

DVD sales ARE NOT what they were. Studios can't count on them like they use to.

DVD is pretty much a dead medium on life support fit for $1 Redbox rentals and the bargain bin at Wal-Mart.

Streaming and digital has made huge strides the last few years, for Pete's sake I have seen Netflix apps on Wii, phones, tablets even my Blu-Ray player. Who the hell needs to pop out to the store and buy/rent a disc when you can push a button and watch instantly.

I think the only people who buy Blu-Ray are those who prefer physical media (raises hand) in support of a movie done good and even then I'll rip it to digital so I can store and watch on my Western Digital Live TV.

Where at the push of a button I can watch what I like with no stupid menus, warning messages, ads or infomercials.

Yes, I know sales aren't what they were. What I'm saying is there has to be the chance, even 1/1,000,000 that the sequel could be green lit if there is some fluke DVD sales wise.

I have Netflix, Apple TV (which is a box that gets iTunes and Netflix and MLB.tv all-in-one) but still largely prefer Bluray for movies I really like. Why? Because even with 26Mbit/s internet-download-speed, true HD movies still show digital artifacts. Sure it's not that bad, and it doesn't bug me to see these artifacts (they're usually in spots you wouldn't look on the screen anyways,) but Bluray is still higher quality once you factor compression in.

[gdonovan]

And outside of the misery of the Internet, the movie simply isn't that hated.

That is your opinion- I just spent SEVERAL hours at Terrificon at the MoheganSun Casino yesterday among several thousand people and the subject of GB16 came up several times.

My standard answer was "The movie was a lost opportunity" and demurred from stating anything else. The public's reaction at this event was... the movie was terrible and doesn't hold a candle to the original.

Other people do not agree with your opinion. I know because I dealt with a few thousand of them yesterday and my feet and shoulders are still killing me. A lot of kids are happy to get their pictures taken with "Ghostbusters" so it was all worth it.

BTW- There wasn't a single person dressed as a GB16 character and there was some pretty obscure co-players there yesterday. The most popular by far was Harley Quinn and Joker. Never seen anyone dressed as Captain Chaos (Cannonball Run) nor one of the Jokers goons from the '89 Batman movie. There were a few others that were pretty off the wall.

The guy walking around in the 8 foot tall Hulkbuster armor with lights and sound was epic.

[JurorNo.2]

Given the positve mainstream reviewers were wrong about the movies success, and youtubers were right that GB16 was either (positive) not that good or bad a movie to get worked up over, or (negative) Feig, Sony, and this movie come off as a bunch of misandrist trolling, I think who had the greater bias in this has been proven out.

There are many reasons why a movie might not make Force Awakens money. That doesn't make a bunch of YouTubers "right" for jumping on a bandwagon.

Not to any decent business. Money is the bottom line. For better or worse. And the general public's reaction to GB16 was the movie flopping like Pixels.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture made a ton of money. Yet everyone remotely involved in making TMP was kicked out the next time around. Money didn't save them. Reputation does matter to a decent business. That's what fans didn't take into account when they attacked this movie. They left a bigger stink than the movie ever could.

Google "James Rolfe ghostbusters". It's a microcosm of what Feig and Sony got rolling. And read my previous replies to Alpha.

Feig and Sony wouldn't have had to respond at all if fans behaved like reasonable human beings over a movie in the first place. We can agree to disagree on that one.

[JurorNo.2]

That is your opinion- I just spent SEVERAL hours at Terrificon at the MoheganSun Casino yesterday among several thousand people and the subject of GB16 came up several times.

My standard answer was "The movie was a lost opportunity" and demurred from stating anything else. The public's reaction at this event was... the movie was terrible and doesn't hold a candle to the original.

Well, heh, who do you think goes to conventions?

Other people do not agree with your opinion.

Ditto.

I know because I dealt with a few thousand of them

I've dealt with a lot of them too and they didn't treat the movie like a blight on the land.

The most popular by far was Harley Quinn and Joker.

Ehhh, that would be the case regardless of how this movie did.

[gdonovan]

Well, heh, who do you think goes to conventions?

People who buy movie tickets.

I coughed up $120 for tickets for Terrificon, money well spent.

[JurorNo.2]

Well, heh, who do you think goes to conventions?

People who buy movie tickets.

I coughed up $120 for tickets for Terrificon, money well spent.

I would speculate that more people buy movie tickets than go to conventions. Hard core fans only represent themselves, not the public.

[gdonovan]

People who buy movie tickets.

I coughed up $120 for tickets for Terrificon, money well spent.

I would speculate that more people buy movie tickets than go to conventions. Hard core fans only represent themselves, not the public.

Define hard core? I saw a bunch of average people in t-shirts and shorts having a good time. The Mohegan Sun is a big casino that has lots of general public foot traffic thats always packed.

You can wish away the internet, the critics and the general public all you like the fact remains that GB16 was a mediocre movie with terrible marketing.

"flop"

Lets hope the next one is better.

[EJLambert]

Here's a small recap if you can't follow:

No one can agree on whether or not GB16 is a flop or not. We do have a few keyboard warriors looking into it now. I'm STILL waiting to see if any Sony bots will come up and say SOMETHING.

The internet isn't real life.

And I'm done with this thread. Back to building props.

[JurorNo.2]

I would speculate that more people buy movie tickets than go to conventions. Hard core fans only represent themselves, not the public.

Define hard core? I saw a bunch of average people in t-shirts and shorts having a good time. The Mohegan Sun is a big casino that has lots of general public foot traffic thats always packed.

You can wish away the internet, the critics and the general public all you like the fact remains that GB16 was a mediocre movie with terrible marketing.

"flop"

Lets hope the next one is better.

I hate to be that guy, but look up the word "fact."

And I don't dress up at conventions so I probably look like an average person. But I can assure you, the overwhelming number of average people I know still find my level of interest quite odd.

And whatever shape the next one takes, it won't be pandering to the fans who think the matriarchy is out to get them. At best, I could see Sony deciding to make a more direct tie to the original movies. And that I would be totally cool with. But I don't know how likely it is they'd bring in a brand new cast. An all male cast or even a mixed cast might send the message "It's OK as long as men are there." And contrary to what you guys seem to think, studios do care about reputation. That's why they have PR departments.

They could bring in yet another new director and/or writer, but then you're getting even further away from the origins of the originals. And I don't particularly want to see another writer try and copy the tone of the original; that would just be parody. Feig was right to go in a different direction and avoid that comparison.

[gdonovan]

And whatever shape the next one takes, it won't be pandering to the fans who think the matriarchy is out to get them.

If I may point something out- Why are you bringing this up?

The movie was boring, characters fairly lifeless, jokes crass, the effects mediocre, the story arc terrible.

Whom portrayed the main characters is immaterial, they had no chemistry among them I could detect unlike GB84. That is what really made the 1984 movie shine aside from the humor.

This is my opinion of course and subject to disagreement being just an opinion.

[JurorNo.2]

And whatever shape the next one takes, it won't be pandering to the fans who think the matriarchy is out to get them.

If I may point something out- Why are you bringing this up?

The movie was boring, characters fairly lifeless, jokes crass, the effects mediocre, the story arc terrible.

Whom portrayed the main characters is immaterial, they had no chemistry among them I could detect unlike GB84. That is what really made the 1984 movie shine aside from the humor.

This is my opinion of course and subject to disagreement being just an opinion.

Because it still gets brought up on this thread and board quite frequently.

And yes, we do disagree on the movie itself. I've never understand how a thing like chemistry can be disagreed on, but... ::shrugs::

[Sav C]

I've never been to a convention

[HunterCC]

There are many reasons why a movie might not make Force Awakens money. That doesn't make a bunch of YouTubers "right" for jumping on a bandwagon.

Plenty of youtubers called the movie for what it was, before it flopped. As opposed to mainstream media proclaiming victory over "man-babies" after a $46 mil opening weekend. *lol*

Star Trek: The Motion Picture made a ton of money. Yet everyone remotely involved in making TMP was kicked out the next time around. Money didn't save them. Reputation does matter to a decent business. That's what fans didn't take into account when they attacked this movie. They left a bigger stink than the movie ever could.

#1. ST:TMP still made a profit and got a sequel. GB16 won't. I think the fans and general public did not get that wrong when they disliked ("attacked"????) this movie.

#2. The reason for the stink on this movie, as opposed to the following recent movies with female leads: Force Awakens, Fury Road, Hunger Games series, Kill Bill, etc., is all on Fieg, Sony, and their defenders hands. As I posted above.

Feig and Sony wouldn't have had to respond at all if fans behaved like reasonable human beings over a movie in the first place. We can agree to disagree on that one.

Juror, I don't think you meant to be nasty here, just slipped into the trolling campaign I am talking about and you are denying. You say that Feig and Co. didn't lump in the fans with the trolls attacking the movie. You just lumped the fans in with the trolls attacking the movie. lol. Again, I blame Feig and Sony for this, not you.

If Feig and Sony had responded to the fans and ignored the trolls, instead of the other way around, there wouldn't be a stink about this movie. Look at how Reitman in the links I posted ignored the trolls and responded to the fans, Exact opposite of Feig and Sony, in that regard. Again, any stink from this movie is all on the people who made GB16.

[JurorNo.2]

#1. ST:TMP still made a profit and got a sequel. GB16 won't.

A sequel that bore no relation whatsoever to the movie that made a profit. A sequel that the Writer/Producer of TMP (who, btw, was the creator of Star Trek) was blocked from participating in. A sequel that made less money than TMP and yet is still considered a classic so many years later. I seriously recommend you give reputation another look.

You just lumped the fans in with the trolls attacking the movie.

No, already covered this. I think some were trolls, and some were fans who took things too far. I am not letting those fans off the hook here, simply because they're fans. If you want to read that as "All fans took things too far," I can't help that. That is not what I said.

If Feig and Sony had responded to the fans and ignored the trolls, instead of the other way around, there wouldn't be a stink about this movie.

I don't agree. First off, ignoring trolls doesn't work anymore. You ignore one and ten more come to take their place. There are communities online that are, IMO, permanently lost due to trolling. We can't pretend otherwise anymore. Ignoring them has simply allowed them to grow. As for the fans: Many severely overreacted to this movie from the beginning and had no intention of ever changing their minds, no matter what Feig tried to say. You can't reason with people who seriously think a movie has been "erased" from some fictional continuity. That is not a legitimate gripe for a professional writer or director to respond to, IMO. Furthermore, many fans do seem to be involved in this alt-right movement, which has convinced them the world is out to get them, merely for being men. That's where a TON of the toxicity came from. (I'm an Independent btw, before anyone jumps on my back, lol). Trump joining up with Breitbart came as no surprise to me. Both are only interested in fear mongering and insults, and taking advantage of people's unfocused outrage at life.

[HunterCC]

Here's a small recap if you can't follow:

No one can agree on whether or not GB16 is a flop or not. We do have a few keyboard warriors looking into it now. I'm STILL waiting to see if any Sony bots will come up and say SOMETHING.

Nobody can argue that GB16 isn't a flop. Well, not without ignoring reality.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id ... rs2016.htm

One Sony bot said $300 mil was breakeven this movie. Another Sony bot claimed that talk of a flop was wrong because of things like dvd rentals (in 2016, lol), games (the GB16 game flopped too), merch (Marked down early at Target and Toys R Us), and an amusement park in Dubai (hey spidey may sell there, will 4 lead women?) And before the movie flopped, Feig claimed $500 mil was needed for a sequel.

Add fan reasoning that normally a movie needs to make 2-3 times its production budget to break even, depending on ads, theater cut, etc..... and yeah it would take creationist/truther level denial to claim GB16 is anything more than a flop.

The internet isn't real life.

And I'm done with this thread. Back to building props.

Have fun, take care.

[JurorNo.2]

Nobody can argue that GB16 isn't a flop. Well, not without ignoring reality.

One Sony bot said

and yeah it would take creationist/truther level denial to claim GB16 is anything more than a flop.

So much for not being nasty...

[JurorNo.2]

x
Add fan reasoning that normally a movie needs to make 2-3 times its production budget to break even

You guys are basing your entire argument on "Money is King." Which is a little strange after complaining this movie was a soulless cash grab for so many months. You guys brag that people vote with their wallets, as though that's somehow less soulless?

If money is what you want your fandom to be about, that's your business. Sure, the original movie was unapologetically about making money, that's not a bad thing in itself. But the Ghostbusters aren't heroes because they make money. It's because they persevere despite ridicule. They don't give up just because people start booing them. That's why I admire the team behind Ghostbusters (2016), they put up with a ton of ridicule and didn't let it get them down. They stood up for themselves. You guys wanted them to pander? That's not what Ghostbusters has ever been about.

And again, about box office, Ghostbusters (1984) isn't a good movie just because it made a ton of money. It would be a good movie regardless of what people though of it. Come on, guys...

[EJLambert]

Here's a small recap if you can't follow:

No one can agree on whether or not GB16 is a flop or not. We do have a few keyboard warriors looking into it now. I'm STILL waiting to see if any Sony bots will come up and say SOMETHING.

Nobody can argue that GB16 isn't a flop. Well, not without ignoring reality.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id ... rs2016.htm

One Sony bot said $300 mil was breakeven this movie. Another Sony bot claimed that talk of a flop was wrong because of things like dvd rentals (in 2016, lol), games (the GB16 game flopped too), merch (Marked down early at Target and Toys R Us), and an amusement park in Dubai (hey spidey may sell there, will 4 lead women?) And before the movie flopped, Feig claimed $500 mil was needed for a sequel.

Add fan reasoning that normally a movie needs to make 2-3 times its production budget to break even, depending on ads, theater cut, etc..... and yeah it would take creationist/truther level denial to claim GB16 is anything more than a flop.

The internet isn't real life.

And I'm done with this thread. Back to building props.

Have fun, take care.

Did you enjoy proving my joke wrong? I'm not just mocking you, it's everyone.

Great...now I'm back in. Happy?

[HunterCC]

Nobody can argue that GB16 isn't a flop. Well, not without ignoring reality.

One Sony bot said

and yeah it would take creationist/truther level denial to claim GB16 is anything more than a flop.

So much for not being nasty...

Woah. What's nasty? To deny that GB16 is a flop, one would basically have to say that $200 mil (let's be generous and say the film hits $225) is somehow equal to $480 mil. ($140 mil+$100 mil (ads)) / .5 (theater cut.) How is that not an objectively epic level of denial? Like creationst/truther level denial take your pick I don't care. Again, Pixels made more money on less budget, and is considered a flop. How can anyone realistically say GB16 isn't a flop?

[JurorNo.2]

How can anyone realistically say GB16 isn't a flop?

With the logic you're using, Ghostbusters (1984) is a good movie merely because it made money. And I can't get behind that.

Like I said in my other post (which you may not have seen yet, that's fine), the Ghostbusters were heroes in '84 and '89 because they persevered despite the threat of ridicule. Not because their business made money. And I admire the team behind Ghostbusters (2016) for standing up for themselves against the worst River of Slime since '89. That says more than money to me any day. And studios also recognize that money isn't the only consideration. They supported an underdog, and for that they were critically rewarded (i.e. the NYT review you mentioned, for instance). They wouldn't have done that if money was the only thing on their minds.

[EJLambert]

Ok, you win. Where can I send you your trophy?

[HunterCC]

Ok, you win. Where can I send you your trophy?

No trophy, just please stop the passive-aggressive BS, like "you win" or your "mocking" comment earlier. This is a box office thread. $200 mil is less than $480 mil. I know emotions run high over ghostbusters stuff here, and that's good, but we don't need to attack each other over it. Fight the issue, fight the message not the messenger, OK?

[gdonovan]

How can anyone realistically say GB16 isn't a flop?

With the logic you're using, Ghostbusters (1984) is a good movie merely because it made money. And I can't get behind that.

What can you get behind then? This is a very serious question as I pointed out the other day people are trying to redefine what success is.

The "heads I win, tails you lose mentality"

GB84 was a smashing success both financially and in the public imagination people are still watching it to this day not to mention cos-play, short movies and prop building. Kids are quoting a movie that was made 20-25 years before they were born!

What is your metric for success for GB16?

[JurorNo.2]

With the logic you're using, Ghostbusters (1984) is a good movie merely because it made money. And I can't get behind that.

What can you get behind then? This is a very serious question as I pointed out the other day people are trying to redefine what success is.

There is no redefining. The concept that there's more to success than just money wasn't invented 3 o'clock yesterday morning.

GB84 was a smashing success both financially and in the public imagination people are still watching it to this day not to mention cos-play, short movies and prop building. Kids are quoting a movie that was made 20-25 years before they were born!

GB84 would be a well made movie regardless of finances and regardless of the public's reaction. Money and the public don't create art, they just acknowledge it.

What is your metric for success for GB16?

At the moment, it's that they stuck to their guns. Sony didn't panic at the last minute and edit the movie to shreds (unlike another studio I could mention). Sony, Feig and the original cast went out of their way to stand up for the actresses. And that defense went way further than mere studio commitment. There is such a thing as a moral victory, and that is also good for business.

Beyond that, it's hard to tell what success will look like for the movie. It has only been out for two months, people, and you guys have its legacy all picked out already!