Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4883431
I came across this video that really digs into the Ghostbusters 2016 controversy. It seems like Sony & the filmmakers might have had a bigger hand in this than we thought. Please give it a look see and let's discuss what the video has uncovered:

https://youtu.be/UWROBiX1eSc

Note: Please let's keep the dialogue and discussion civil. No name calling or trolling. Keep an open mind.

Let's get the obvious out of the way: there was a small contingent of people who hated this movie from the get go for sexist reasons. BUT!! If this videos evidence is to be believed it was an insanely small minority. Apparently, according to the video, Sony deleted even handed comments & promoted the sexist/angry ones.

Edit: how does one embed a YouTube video instead of it just showing up as a hyperlink?
#4883433
Yeah. If you go to the IMDB message board for Rogue One it's every bit the toxic, hateful board that Ghostbusters '16 was because all the trolls have moved onto it for the crime of being a SW movie with a female lead. But everyone knows they are a tiny, insignificant minority of scumbags so there is no "controversy" over Rogue One. Because the studio isn't fanning the flames and trying to make it a thing.

Sonys YouTube comment antics were almost as bad as that time it made up a fake reviewer. Wouldn't surprise me is some of the comments were from Sony accounts themselves.
LandoSystem, ccv66, SpaceBallz and 3 others liked this
#4883440
My beef w Rogue One? The possibility of injecting new character motivations into OT characters (Vader), funky new troopers and ties before the OT but then no evidence of existence, the "need" for martial arts to make up for lack of lightsabers, and the usual "destiny and family" plot.

Oh, and the woman thing...I just like Kyle Katarn, ok?
#4883444
I think it was pretty obvious Sony and Feig were trying to ride the lightning on the "controversy" and ended up getting burnt.

It started to be obvious that it was all PR when they sent the whole crew out to walk everything back once the release was imminent.

The idea that they are going to get mass market numbers on the back of marketing their movie as a social statement is stupefying. Like for a big tent pole movie to be successful it can't really be divisive. The Marvel movies are huge because they appeal to Republican 55 year olds as much as Millenials Clintonites.
#4883455
Commander_Jim wrote:Yeah. If you go to the IMDB message board for Rogue One it's every bit the toxic, hateful board that Ghostbusters '16 was because all the trolls have moved onto it for the crime of being a SW movie with a female lead. But everyone knows they are a tiny, insignificant minority of scumbags so there is no "controversy" over Rogue One. Because the studio isn't fanning the flames and trying to make it a thing.

Sonys YouTube comment antics were almost as bad as that time it made up a fake reviewer. Wouldn't surprise me is some of the comments were from Sony accounts themselves.
This X1000.

I'm a huge fan of RLM and I think they just about nailed it here.
They didn't take Twitter or other forums into account and there were some personal attacks from fans that they kind of glossed over. However, RLM got famous from their scathing reviews of the Star Wars prequels and have been targeted by legions of butthurt fanboys themselves. And since they primarily review movies they still constantly draw ire.
Even their video game duo of Rich and Jack get plenty of nasty hate mail. The most famous being the, "don't don't about things you don't like" guy.
They know more than anyone that fans and fanboys are lunatics.

I suspect Sony wanted to get some of the positive "girl power" buzz like Fury Road had earned. That movie benefited from that buzz and I know people who saw it only for its empowering message. And that's fine because it's a masterpiece of action filmmaking and everyone should see it.
Sony wanted that for this movie but didn't earn it. Instead of something powerful and beautiful we got queef and "slime in my vagina" jokes.

Fieg seemed interested in having this film stand on its own and wanted it to succeed on its own merits. I feel the studio betrayed that.
HunterCC liked this
#4883457
I can't believe there's any question of how much of the controversy was "real" when the first thing that happened, in front of absolutely everyone, was the explosion of actual legit misogyny. Did people forget that RETURNOFKINGS was one of the first to rant about GB2016?

They started it, and they didn't go away. Sony's reaction was quite small compared to the vast scope of people railing against the movie for their ridiculous right-wing reasons. How did any of you miss that? Sony itself wouldn't even have access to enough money to "fake" anything close to that level or make a dent in it. You guys are bordering on Chemtrail Conspiracy territory here.
#4883459
I take it you didn't watch the video?

The point of this thread isn't to say there weren't ignorant, hate filled rants online. There were. There are for every franchise. Rogue One is a current example, the Force Awakens was a recent one.
There were also people who threatened to kill Kristen Stewart if her character didn't choose Jacob in Twilight.
And people who threatened the writer of A Fault in Our Stars over that films casting.
And who made death threats toward Dakota Johnson for being cast in 50 Shades.
Or the girls who cut themselves because Justin Bieber got a new haircut.
Or the millions of other fans who do and say insane things online.

So why does Ghostbusters suddenly get so much coverage for its insane fans?
Why did Sony focus so much on it while promoting the film?
Sony obviously tried to manufacture the controversy for publicity. But since they suck at it and the movie didn't look good, it backfired.
HunterCC liked this
#4883464
LandoSystem wrote:I take it you didn't watch the video?

The point of this thread isn't to say there weren't ignorant, hate filled rants online. There were. There are for every franchise. Rogue One is a current example, the Force Awakens was a recent one.
There were also people who threatened to kill Kristen Stewart if her character didn't choose Jacob in Twilight.
And people who threatened the writer of A Fault in Our Stars over that films casting.
And who made death threats toward Dakota Johnson for being cast in 50 Shades.
Or the girls who cut themselves because Justin Bieber got a new haircut.
Or the millions of other fans who do and say insane things online.

So why does Ghostbusters suddenly get so much coverage for its insane fans?
Why did Sony focus so much on it while promoting the film?
Sony obviously tried to manufacture the controversy for publicity. But since they suck at it and the movie didn't look good, it backfired.
Exactly. I'm suprised the fact that Sony did stuff like this isn't making the news. I hope some pro reboot folks watch the video. That's not to say they should change their mind on liking the film, just that a lot of the controversy was amplified by Sony themselves. I mean they deleted even handed comments and didn't delete sexist comments! That's pretty darn manipulative considering all the press the sexist controversy received. This is WRONG.
HunterCC liked this
#4883467
And it was such a small number of fans, non-fans and men engaging in this behavior! But everyone was painted as sexist regardless.

They've tried to hijack the buzz over this film from the start.
Even now, after the films mediocre critic scores, unenthusiastic public response and financial failure, people are STILL trying to claim sexism.
They tried some damage control by interfacing with the fans right before release. It was too little too late.

Maybe the movie wasn't that good and people are sick of cheap remakes.
Nah, let's blame hoards of man-children who said mean things on the internet.
Last edited by LandoSystem on October 18th, 2016, 2:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
HunterCC liked this
#4883468
I have not yet addressed the YouTube comments thing as I don't have much experience commenting on there as it's very often one of the worst parts of the internet.

I have seen the video of a guy posting something 'fair' and then seeing it's gone after a day. Let's assume he did not remove it himself between the two videos to create controversy and look at another possibility:

I do know that I can blacklist people on my own account. Meaning after one rude comment, any new comments they make get automatically removed after some time. Do we know the people moaning about their 'fair' comments getting removed are not blacklisted by a far worse one they posted before that one?

Also, just because people see a sexist claim still on there does not mean it's not going to be removed. Blacklisting takes some time.

That said, I'm not saying Sony is above all of this, I just would like to see some definite proof of that claim. Which is probably also why Networks did not pick up on this. No/Hard to proof.

RLM is very hard on the reboot which is why I take their videos with a big grain of salt, but we have evidence on Twitter left and right about people trolling Feig. He is also has gone on record multiple times he acknowledges there is a bigger group that did not like the movie because it's a reboot.

People are often attacking Feig for saying he is piling all the haters in the misogynists group, so I think this false line if thinking is also to blame for people taking a disliking of the movie.

Also, we know from the Sony Leaks they have a hard time controlling the Press looking for a scoop.
Last edited by Alphagaia on October 18th, 2016, 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sav C liked this
#4883469
Alphagaia wrote:I have not yet addressed the YouTube comments thing as I don't have much experience commenting on there as it's very often one of the worst parts of the internet.

I have seen the video of the posting something and then seeing it's gone after a day. Let's assume he did not remove it himself between the two videos to create controversy:

I do know that I can blacklist people on my own account. Meaning after one rude comment, any new comments they make get automatically removed after some time. Do we know the people moaning about their 'fair' comments getting removed are not blacklisted by a far worse one before they posted before that one?

I would like to see some definite proof of that claim. Which is probably also why Networks did not pick up on this. No/Hard to proof.
Even if that part is hard to prove, there are still other data points that show how out of proportion this thing was blown out to be by Sony and the filmmakers. They use good old fashioned math lol.

Honestly? I believe it. It seems like something a PR firm would strategize as a way to get a film into the news cycle. Sony has a history of paying for fake reviews. What does that tell you? They are a devious bunch. It's Hollywood. Nothing suprises me.
HunterCC liked this
#4883470
... eh?
Youtube / Sony removing rational comments and leaving the nasty ones was a very small portion of that video. I doubt there really is a way to post definitive proof besides hearing that people posted "this film doesn't look funny" then having their comment removed while "fat bitches need to die" stays up unmolested.
All of that aside, there is a large portion of the video dedicated to how few of the comments were negative at all. And how many people viewed the video compared to the negative down votes. And despite those things, how the media and Sony portrayed it as some enormous MRA crusade against the film when the evidence and common sense says it was just a few fringe d-bags being d-bags. The video ends with Melissa McCarthy saying that exact thing.
Last edited by LandoSystem on October 18th, 2016, 2:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
HunterCC liked this
#4883471
Didn't Feig and Co always say it's a small but very vocal minority that's misogynists? I'm not seeing the problem here?

@Richardless: [youtube]last bit that contains video code without the URL part[/youtube]
LandoSystem wrote:... eh?
Youtube / Sony removing rational comments and leaving the nasty ones was a very small portion of that video. I doubt there really is a way to post definitive proof besides hearing that people posted "this film doesn't look funny" then having their comment removed while "fat bitches need to die" stays up unmolested.
It's a small part of the video but Richardless found it relevant enough to use as proof Sony is using the comments to stage controversy and point to it again in a second post how it's WRONG.
Like I said before: blacklisting takes some time so the fat bitches need to die comment could very well be gone a day later as well.
Last edited by Alphagaia on October 18th, 2016, 3:05 am, edited 3 times in total.
MonaLS liked this
#4883472
No. They didn't always say that. They've said in hindsight they focused too much on being devisive and shouldn't have given that minority such a platform.
And the media didn't spin it that way. Hence why this corny remake of a 30 year old comedy is "the most controversial film of the year."
#4883473
Before I can answer that, could you specify: 'In hindsight'? When did they say it first according to you?

Also, let's not forget one person can watch the trailer multiple times, upping the views, so the numbers on who did not comment on it are a bit off.

Furthermore, it's even stated people were going for a million dislikes by making alt accounts and disliking it every day, upping the views as well.

Just like RLM forgetting the profit margins for theatres in their latest video about Box Office, I would not hold very much faith in their math/logic skills.
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4883496
LandoSystem wrote:They've said in hindsight they focused too much on being devisive
Meanwhile the fanbase was just so focused on unity (Ha!).

However, I'll meet you halfway. If you've seen the Blues Brothers movie, the scene where they're getting booed by the Country & Western audience. The BB's could have just walked off in a huff, but then they wouldn't get paid. So they were wise, from a financial standpoint, to placate the audience with the songs they enjoyed. You can argue Sony and Feig could have reached a similar compromise by making the movie more of a sequel.

That said, we aren't meant to sympathize too much with the audience throwing broken glass at Jake and Elwood, nor the bar owner who billed them for their drinks. Sometimes placating an audience doesn't pay off. GB16 did end up going out of its way to provide plenty of callbacks (which were apparently insisted on by Reitman even!) and for fans to be "enraged" by that is more than a little absurd.
Sav C, MightyAni liked this
#4883545
Alphagaia wrote:Didn't Feig and Co always say it's a small but very vocal minority that's misogynists? I'm not seeing the problem here?

@Richardless: [youtube]last bit that contains video code without the URL part[/youtube]
LandoSystem wrote:... eh?
Youtube / Sony removing rational comments and leaving the nasty ones was a very small portion of that video. I doubt there really is a way to post definitive proof besides hearing that people posted "this film doesn't look funny" then having their comment removed while "fat bitches need to die" stays up unmolested.
It's a small part of the video but Richardless found it relevant enough to use as proof Sony is using the comments to stage controversy and point to it again in a second post how it's WRONG.
Like I said before: blacklisting takes some time so the fat bitches need to die comment could very well be gone a day later as well.
Once again you are giving a lot of wiggle room to a company that has been caught paying for fake reviews. It's interesting who you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to considering that fact.

Edit: also the Box office video is a Half in the Bag episode. This is a Scientist Man video. They are different things. Half in the Bag is done with very little research(obviously). It's the same with the Mr Plinkett videos, those are researched. They've said this all before.
#4883547
Yeah so well researched they forgot a single person can watch the same YouTube video multiple times and treated every view as a different person.

I don't know the full story behind the fake reviewer, but if we condemn everything before actually finding proof and without fact checking just because something happened in the past I find that just as controversial.

Again, not saying Sony is above it, but I don't judge them in default because I see people spin these stories left and right. Not saying you are spinning the story, but it does seem you believe RLM on their word without checking yourself.
#4883553
Alphagaia wrote:Yeah so well researched they forgot a single person can watch the same YouTube video multiple times and treated every view as a single person.

I don't know the full story behind the fake reviewer, but if we condemn everything before actually finding proof and without fact checking just because something happened in the past I find that just as controversial.

Again, not saying they are above it, but I don't judge them in default because I see people spin these stories left and right. Not saying you did, but you do believe them on their word without checking anything yourself.
And a single person can create multiple accounts to make sexist comments, what's your point? They say in the video it's an approximation. Most people watch a trailer once. I'd say that's a fair assumption. They also aren't including views from mirror channels that have the trailer. They use the info they have and given that I'd say it paints a pretty interesting picture. I've ALWAYS thought the sexist stuff was blown out of proportion, that it was a microcosm of idiots shouting the loudest. All this video does is re affirm that and possibly prove, *possibly*, that Sony used that mircocosm as a means to an end. Given their history of doing shady things to promote their films, I believe it. Did I say it was a 100% certainty? I did not. You'll have to use your own judgment to decide where you fall.

Also, If you don't know anything about the fake review stuff, check it out on Google. it's interesting.
HunterCC, pferreira1983 liked this
#4883569
RichardLess wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:Yeah so well researched they forgot a single person can watch the same YouTube video multiple times and treated every view as a single person.

I don't know the full story behind the fake reviewer, but if we condemn everything before actually finding proof and without fact checking just because something happened in the past I find that just as controversial.

Again, not saying they are above it, but I don't judge them in default because I see people spin these stories left and right. Not saying you did, but you do believe them on their word without checking anything yourself.
And a single person can create multiple accounts to make sexist comments, what's your point? They say in the video it's an approximation. Most people watch a trailer once.
My point is, they have no way of knowing how big a certain group is based on those numbers, even by approximation.
As you said yourself: the same person could have made multiple accounts. If that guy dislikes the trailer on a daily basis that throws a big wrench in the view and dislike numbers.
Same with likes.
Next we have the haters who were actively getting it to 1 million dislikes. Each click from them is one more view and one more invalid dislike.
On top of that we have the regular GB fans accross the world, let's take the user base from just this site for instance. You know they watched it at least a few times, like or dislike. Let's keep it low and say 3.

That total view count is next to useless if you cannot seperate the unique views.

Still, both Feig and RLM agree it's a minority portion of the fans who are misogynists and trolls. However, RLM's non misogynists/trolls approximation of 98 point whatever holds no mathematical grounds whatsoever.
#4883570
LandoSystem wrote:I take it you didn't watch the video?

The point of this thread isn't to say there weren't ignorant, hate filled rants online. There were. There are for every franchise. Rogue One is a current example, the Force Awakens was a recent one.
There were also people who threatened to kill Kristen Stewart if her character didn't choose Jacob in Twilight.
And people who threatened the writer of A Fault in Our Stars over that films casting.
And who made death threats toward Dakota Johnson for being cast in 50 Shades.
Or the girls who cut themselves because Justin Bieber got a new haircut.
Or the millions of other fans who do and say insane things online.

So why does Ghostbusters suddenly get so much coverage for its insane fans?
Why did Sony focus so much on it while promoting the film?
Sony obviously tried to manufacture the controversy for publicity. But since they suck at it and the movie didn't look good, it backfired.
Are we on the same internet? Or the same planet, for that matter? Never in my life have I seen more hate leveled at a movie than I have for Ghostbusters 2016. Not for the Star Wars prequels, not for any other controversial "remake" or "reboot," and there aren't many alternative explanations other than the fanaticism started by Roosh's hench-trolls.
JurorNo.2, Razorgeist, MightyAni and 1 others liked this
#4883615
scythemantis wrote: there aren't many alternative explanations other than the fanaticism started by Roosh's hench-trolls.
Of course, and thats the real issue. At the first signs of controversy it was all hijacked by the internet's resident "meninists" (if thats the correct term) and their troll armies as well as the internet's go-to feminazi bloggists and their troll armies. Basically the exact same people who'd been warring over the "Gamergate" controversy moved on to Ghostbusters. Actual Ghostbusters fans were caught in the crossfire yet got all the blame.
HunterCC, pferreira1983 liked this
#4883617
scythemantis wrote:
LandoSystem wrote:I take it you didn't watch the video?

The point of this thread isn't to say there weren't ignorant, hate filled rants online. There were. There are for every franchise. Rogue One is a current example, the Force Awakens was a recent one.
There were also people who threatened to kill Kristen Stewart if her character didn't choose Jacob in Twilight.
And people who threatened the writer of A Fault in Our Stars over that films casting.
And who made death threats toward Dakota Johnson for being cast in 50 Shades.
Or the girls who cut themselves because Justin Bieber got a new haircut.
Or the millions of other fans who do and say insane things online.

So why does Ghostbusters suddenly get so much coverage for its insane fans?
Why did Sony focus so much on it while promoting the film?
Sony obviously tried to manufacture the controversy for publicity. But since they suck at it and the movie didn't look good, it backfired.
Are we on the same internet? Or the same planet, for that matter? Never in my life have I seen more hate leveled at a movie than I have for Ghostbusters 2016. Not for the Star Wars prequels, not for any other controversial "remake" or "reboot," and there aren't many alternative explanations other than the fanaticism started by Roosh's hench-trolls.
Once again, I take it you didn't watch the video?
It could also be that you're a part of the Ghostbusters fan community and actually see the internal discussion.
There has been whining on the internet. People whine about EVERYTHING on the internet. The Ghostbusters backlash was pushed into the mainstream by Sony and people who fell for Sony's misguided marketing strategy.
#4883932
You know, I was just watching Phelous' review of the RGB episode "The Halloween Door" just now. And I was reminded of this quote said by the villain:
"You forgot the first rule of fanatics. When you become obsessed with the enemy...you become the enemy."
I think this fanbase can afford to take note. And btw, I mean that for BOTH sides, because I'm certainly not innocent of obsessing. :cool:
HunterCC, Kingpin, barison82 liked this
#4884018
RichardLess wrote:I came across this video that really digs into the Ghostbusters 2016 controversy. It seems like Sony & the filmmakers might have had a bigger hand in this than we thought. Please give it a look see and let's discuss what the video has uncovered:

https://youtu.be/UWROBiX1eSc
Thanks for posting that. They make some good points as well as one or two I didn't take into account.
featofstrength wrote: Oh, and the woman thing...I just like Kyle Katarn, ok?
Why did Disney have to get rid of the EU? Idiots... :roll:
Mr_Saver wrote:I think it was pretty obvious Sony and Feig were trying to ride the lightning on the "controversy" and ended up getting burnt.
I agree. The critics did as well, it only made the actual fans more angry. That was a really bad mistake on Feig and Sony's part. Very cynical and misguided to use the bad publicity in an effort to save the film. Had Feig and Sony the majority of the fans on their side to begin with the response may have been different. Of course we would have got a different movie and maybe something a bit better.
#4884024
Interesting points. It seems that Sony was trying to discredit the negative criticisms by making them out to be misogynist. Seriously, Sony needs an overhaul of their marketing department.
I only disagree with them saying that if someone gave a positive review that they're obviously lying. People are allowed to like things that you don't.
pferreira1983 liked this
#4884086
LandoSystem wrote:The Ghostbusters backlash was pushed into the mainstream by Sony and people who fell for Sony's misguided marketing strategy.
It was pushed into the mainstream long before Sony and/or the cast responded, it was pushed into the mainstream when some so-called fans started to sling some absolutely horrendous remarks onto the net via their twitter and youtube accounts (some of whom were the same ones who said similarly horrendous things about those children in the hospital in Boston).

Did Sony take advantage of the furore? I can't say 'no', they probably did to a degree, but it was some vile examples of humanity who also happened to be Ghostbusters fans who started this particular ball rolling.
JurorNo.2, Sav C, Alphagaia and 3 others liked this
#4884112
Alphagaia wrote:It's very odd how quick people forget and just blame Sony instead.
I'm telling you, it's the legacy of the Star Wars prequels. Fans nowadays are more likely to trust fellow fans than creators. As much as I enjoy those Plinkett reviews, I think fandoms have started adopting that attitude for all franchises that don't do exactly as they say.
#4884115
Kingpin wrote:
LandoSystem wrote:The Ghostbusters backlash was pushed into the mainstream by Sony and people who fell for Sony's misguided marketing strategy.
It was pushed into the mainstream long before Sony and/or the cast responded, it was pushed into the mainstream when some so-called fans started to sling some absolutely horrendous remarks onto the net via their twitter and youtube accounts (some of whom were the same ones who said similarly horrendous things about those children in the hospital in Boston).

Did Sony take advantage of the furore? I can't say 'no', they probably did to a degree, but it was some vile examples of humanity who also happened to be Ghostbusters fans who started this particular ball rolling.
How do you know many of the people saying sexist and racist things against the movie were GB fans, and not trolls posing as fans?

I hope nobody still wants to argue that the fanbase wasn't smeared by the controversy. Your post is another example of this fanbase being lumped in with the trolls.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 23

I don't remember exactly, But I think I've had pr[…]

Someone ID'd them on Facebook first, there w[…]

Two specific ideas I have are basically holiday sp[…]

While waiting impatiently for Frozen Empire to rel[…]