[pyhasanon]

And this just applies to myself, but I can't stand how overtly excited people seem to be about these characters of which we know nothing about. Seeing tons of fan art of these characters just reminds me of Seth Rogen's character in Fanboys with the gigantic Jar Jar Tattoo on his back. It's okay to be excited for the movie, but don't act like these characters are already somehow classics.

This I can understand... I am rooting for Kate McKinnon's character, but all I have to base anything off of is her cool looks, so I'm lying low... She can end up being the most annoying character ever and completely ruin the experience, so I get it...

[Alphagaia]

Is anyone here calling (all) the 'haters' sexist or (all) the 'fans' feminists? Ignore the idiots on the social media. They are on every post making a fool of themselves, fans and haters alike.

I'm on board for a reboot, but I'm also very aware it could still suck. The leak soured many fans and helped spread a lot of conjecture for facts, and some people don't even want to give this movie a fair chance, while making Feig out to be a non-fan who is only doing it for the money and to promote females. My opinion on the movie will have to wait until I actually see it, but so far I'm seeing what looks to be a fun ghostbusters movie.

[GuyX]

It could kill the franchise if the box office numbers don't add up.

Nothing can kill the franchise... Transformers and TMNT are doing just fine, and they can't go back and take away the older movies from us either...

Transformers and TMNT are massive merchandise sellers. They also have had successful films at the box office in the last couple years. Transformers and TMNT also have currently airing animated series. At this very moment, compared to the two franchises you just listed, Ghostbusters is small potatoes.

[zeta otaku]

Transformers was near death before the first live action movie... love it or hate it, that movie saved the franchise. TMNT was basically dead before Nickelodeon came in and breathed new life into it. Let's see what this movie does for THIS franchise.

(when I say dead, I mean in the eyes of people outside the fandoms)

[GuyX]

I hate to be one of those people but TMNT & transformers are bad examples. It's Apples to Oranges really. Men in Black is a comparative example to GB. TMNT and Transformees are designed to sell toys. They were toys before tv show or movies & always have a merchandise presence or a new rebooted cartoon every couple years. They are always in the public conscience in that sense. Men in Black 3 didn't earn enough and killed the franchise(also a Sony property). Is the same likely to happen with GB? Possibly. Or maybe not.
Frankly I think with Tom effing Rothman as the new head of Sony, Ghostbusters fans have ALOT to be worried about. Rothman back in his 20th Centry Fox days was pure evil. We shouldn't even be speaking his name. It's like Voldemort.

[Alphagaia]

Sigh, first Amy Pascal was the problem, now it's Rothman. But OK, I'll bite. What did he do wrong? Cause I found this?

From 2000-2012, Tom Rothman was chairman and CEO of Fox Filmed Entertainment (FFE).[3] FFE includes 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures, Blue Sky Animation, and Twentieth Century Fox Television.[3][10][14][15] During this time, the studio was nominated for over 150 Academy Awards, won three Best Picture Oscars, earned over $30 billion in worldwide box office sales.[10][15][17] Fox had the best profit margins of any film studio.[6] Some of the films produced over Rothman's tenure include: Lincoln, Life of Pi, The Descendants, Cast Away, Master and Commander, Black Swan, Walk the Line, Juno, The Devil Wears Prada, The X-Men series, the Ice Age series, Rio, and several others.[19] Under Rothman’s leadership, Fox produced Modern Family, Glee, and Homeland.

[Dr.D]

Rothman isn't much worse than any other studio Exec. Funnily enough, his first action as the new chair of Sony was to cut the budget of Ghostbusters by almost $10 million. For someone like Rothman, who has been around for a long time and been involved in countless blockbusters, to cut the budget almost immediately is something of a worrying sign.

[Alphagaia]

Rothman isn't much worse than any other studio Exec. Funnily enough, his first action as the new chair of Sony was to cut the budget of Ghostbusters by almost $10 million. For someone like Rothman, who has been around for a long time and been involved in countless blockbusters, to cut the budget almost immediately is something of a worrying sign.

Finding ways to tighten a budget is not always worrying,especially since the budget is still a hefty 154 million. If anything it shows he is the right man for the job.

On the financial front, Rothman already has managed to tighten the budget on Paul Feig's all-female Ghostbusters, planned for July 2016, without any apparent bloodshed (despite earlier friction with Feig when the director made The Heat at Fox). The Ghostbusters price tag when greenlit by Pascal was a hefty $169 million, with rich deals for talent, including $14 million for Melissa McCarthy and north of $10 million for Feig. Rothman couldn't do anything about those fees, but sources say Feig made tweaks to the script to reduce the cost to $154 million — just a few million above Rothman's target of $150 million.

[GuyX]

I didn't say anything about Amy Pascal! She's a godsend compared to Rothman. Rothman is a meddling micromanager who ruined the X-men franchise, the Alien franchise, the Fantastic Four films all sucked because of his meddling. If you don't know about Rothman's legacy as a Hollywood CEO you really have no idea what you are talking about. This guy caused Alex Proyas to swear off making films for Fox when he made I, Robot. He wouldn't greenlit X3 and let Bryan Singer go to WB and hired Brett effing Ratner to screw the X-Men franchise. He demands that his movies be a certain length to encourage more showings(if I remember correctly the perfect number is 104 minutes). He is not filmmaker friendly. He wouldn't greenlit Deadpool and guess what opened to massive numbers this weekend? Do some research on Tom Rothman my friend and you'll see the guy is a disaster for ANY franchise. Rothman wouldn't allow Sentiels or Robots to appear in his films. Which is why when he left the first X-Men movie to be made featured the Sentinels and was a massive hit. He dictated that Galctus in Fantasic Four be a Cloud. Rothman refused to greenlit an Independence Day sequel, with Will Smith still attached, in the early 2000s when the property was still hot and Will Smith owned the box office. You know why? Because the first Indepence Day was greenlit by Rothman's predecessor and Rothman didn't want to greenlit a movie that came from another CEO's tenure.

The guy is the devil.

[GuyX]

Sigh, first Amy Pascal was the problem, now it's Rothman. But OK, I'll bite. What did he do wrong? Cause I found this?

From 2000-2012, Tom Rothman was chairman and CEO of Fox Filmed Entertainment (FFE).[3] FFE includes 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures, Blue Sky Animation, and Twentieth Century Fox Television.[3][10][14][15] During this time, the studio was nominated for over 150 Academy Awards, won three Best Picture Oscars, earned over $30 billion in worldwide box office sales.[10][15][17] Fox had the best profit margins of any film studio.[6] Some of the films produced over Rothman's tenure include: Lincoln, Life of Pi, The Descendants, Cast Away, Master and Commander, Black Swan, Walk the Line, Juno, The Devil Wears Prada, The X-Men series, the Ice Age series, Rio, and several others.[19] Under Rothman’s leadership, Fox produced Modern Family, Glee, and Homeland.

did you just quote a freaking Wikipedia page at me? Did this really just happen? Dude. Don't be lazy. Do some real research

[GuyX]

Rothman isn't much worse than any other studio Exec. Funnily enough, his first action as the new chair of Sony was to cut the budget of Ghostbusters by almost $10 million. For someone like Rothman, who has been around for a long time and been involved in countless blockbusters, to cut the budget almost immediately is something of a worrying sign.

Finding ways to tighten a budget is not always worrying,especially since the budget is still a hefty 154 million. If anything it shows he is the right man for the job.

On the financial front, Rothman already has managed to tighten the budget on Paul Feig's all-female Ghostbusters, planned for July 2016, without any apparent bloodshed (despite earlier friction with Feig when the director made The Heat at Fox). The Ghostbusters price tag when greenlit by Pascal was a hefty $169 million, with rich deals for talent, including $14 million for Melissa McCarthy and north of $10 million for Feig. Rothman couldn't do anything about those fees, but sources say Feig made tweaks to the script to reduce the cost to $154 million — just a few million above Rothman's target of $150 million.

Wait.i think I figured it out Alphagaia IS Tom Rothman. Yup. Has to be

[Alphagaia]

Wow, relax dude. With an attitude like that no wonder you dislike the reboot. It feels like I released the KRAKEN by simply asking for more info!

All I did was look him up on wiki and browse a few news sites as I tend to distrust heated posts without links on a forum. I will be the last to say wiki is solid proof of anything, but as is, it at least showed the guy can also be very good at it's job. Like it or not, Avatar and Titanic, etc did happen under his wing. Could you provide some more insight/proof on the wall of text you put up? I don't mind a good debate, but I'm not just gonna take your word for it.

[pyhasanon]

You know... I love Ghostbusters too, it means a lot to me... but I think some fans are a little too passionate about it that it borders along the lines of insanity... Not obsession, as we are all obsessed to some kind of degree, but I think some fans are taking it waaaaaaaayyy too far...

[GuyX]

Wow, relax dude. With an attitude like that no wonder you dislike the reboot. It feels like I released the KRAKEN by simply asking for more info!

All I did was look him up on wiki and browse a few news sites as I tend to distrust heated posts without links on a forum. I will be the last to say wiki is solid proof of anything, but as is, it at least showed the guy can also be very good at it's job. Like it or not, Avatar and Titanic, etc did happen under his wing. Could you provide some more insight/proof on the wall of text you put up? I don't mind a good debate, but I'm not just gonna take your word for it.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/20443

http://forums.superherohype.com/archive ... 03032.html

http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/a ... the-studio

Check those links out and get back to me. Sorry but when someone mentions the name Tom Rothman and says he might be the right man for the job when it comes to my beloved Ghostbusters, you best believe I'm going to get Kraken on your ass. Tom Rothman is no joke. He's David Putnam times a thousand

[Dr.D]

Should be pointed out Rothman came into the picture very late in the game and had almost nothing to do with the movie directly. The movie was well into production when he took over at Fox. Pascal is still credited as Executive Producer. I know alot of people, especially X-Men fans hate the guy, but he wasn't really involved with Ghostbusters beyond cutting some fat off an already incredibly bloated budget.

Pascal isn't really a problem either, she was just desperate to get any franchise going at Sony. Their biggest franchise was Spider-Man and we all know what happened there. Sony needs something to keep up with other studios and their universe-building franchises. They want that to be Ghostbusters and I have a feeling most of the other writers and directors they approached were either uninterested in committing to a long-term franchise (why Emma Stone passed) or some felt Ghostbusters didn't need another movie. To me, and I don't say this inherently negatively, Feig is in something of a similar situation to Roland Emmerich in regards to the 1998 Godzilla film. A franchise movie that had been stuck in development hell for years, passed between writers and directors until the studio needed to produce something. So they reach out to a very (at the time anyway) popular and successful director. But said director wants to put his own spin on things rather than stay true to the original. Studio caves out of desperation and the movie happens.

I'm not saying this movie will be another Godzilla, but the parallels are interesting nonetheless. As shameful as I am to admit it I cannot find the source at this moment, but one of Feig's earliest interviews after taking the job he explains how he was at a lunch with Pascal who admitted to him no one wanted to make Ghostbusters 3. Feig pitched his concept which eschewed the older films and Pascal approved. Probably doing the simple math that some movie is better than no movie.

[GuyX]

That Feig/Emmerich comparison is a good one. Emmerich took on Godzilla just so he could make whatever movie he wanted to next(The Patriot) for Sony/Columbia. It's what they call the "one for them/one for me" dynamic.

While it's true Rothman didn't have much involvement in the development of this GB movie he now has control of the franchise going forward. Him cutting the budget I see as a negative. That's what got him in trouble at fox. 150 million might sound like a lot but truth is for a major summer tent pole it's average. Most cost 200 million these days. That extra 10 million might have bought an additional action beat or lord knows what else. His first act as studio head was meddling in a movie he had no involvement in by giving them less money than the previous studio head had promised. Not a good sign. I was actually hoping he'd cut the budget down to zero & greenlight a proper GB flick set within the existing continuity. But alas it was not meant to be.

[GuyX]

You know... I love Ghostbusters too, it means a lot to me... but I think some fans are a little too passionate about it that it borders along the lines of insanity... Not obsession, as we are all obsessed to some kind of degree, but I think some fans are taking it waaaaaaaayyy too far...

How so? who is taking it too far?

[Alphagaia]

I'll be checking these links when I have the time! Always nice to know more of the inner workings of a firm. Must say, so far that last link seems to be quite positive of the man, though without it's faults, and that first one seems looooooooooooooooong.

[Kingpin]

Him cutting the budget I see as a negative.

It's a development that has at least three possible sides:

1) He's wanting to cut down what he feels is a wasteful amount of money for the project - regardless of if it was.
2) He's wanting to save the studio a "chunk of change". True, $15,000,000 is rather small fry for a film studio, but for a studio that's been suffering of late regarding franchise properties that've been stalling, poor sequels and other reboots that've done poorly, I suppose I can see him viewing it as reducing Sony bleeding money via it's motion picture arm.
3) The film budget may indeed have actually been bloated, and making that reduction may actually help focus a few things - an abundance of money isn't always a good thing with a motion picture production*

* I'm told by my brother who's done a lot of research into the subject, that Star Trek: The Motion Picture had a pretty large budget for a movie of that day, and despite that, there were issues with how it was received at the box office.

When it came to make the second Star Trek movie, efforts were made to reduce the budget significantly compared to the Motion Picture, and despite the cuts that were made to the budget department, it led to arguably the best Star Trek movie ever made, The Wrath of Khan.

The slashed budget is smaller than other summer tentpoles, but Ghostbusters may not've needed a budget as big as $169,000,000. It could've been a bad move on Rothman's part, it could actually also have been a beneficial one.


For what it's worth, I liked the first two Fantastic Four movies, as well as Emmerich's Godzilla. I didn't mind the cloud version of Galactus, and it might be my casual acquaintance with the FF comics that helped gloss over any issues more dyed-in-the-wool FF fans would've noticed. The reboot of Fantastic Four however, looked terrible.

[GuyX]

I'll be checking these links when I have the time! Always nice to know more of the inner workings of a firm. Must say, so far that last link seems to be quite positive of the man, though without it's faults, and that first one seems looooooooooooooooong.

Want to know what's funny? They the first and last were written by the very same person. Moriarty is none other than Drew Mcweeny in his old AICN days. Funny huh?

[Alphagaia]

I'll be checking these links when I have the time! Always nice to know more of the inner workings of a firm. Must say, so far that last link seems to be quite positive of the man, though without it's faults, and that first one seems looooooooooooooooong.

Want to know what's funny? They the first and last were written by the very same person. Moriarty is none other than Drew Mcweeny in his old AICN days. Funny huh?

Don't understand why that would be funny, but it's good to know that bit of information when I'll form my opinion on the man. I'll go and read it tomorrow!

[GuyX]

Him cutting the budget I see as a negative.

It's a development that has at least three possible sides:

1) He's wanting to cut down what he feels is a wasteful amount of money for the project - regardless of if it was.
2) He's wanting to save the studio a "chunk of change". True, $15,000,000 is rather small fry for a film studio, but for a studio that's been suffering of late regarding franchise properties that've been stalling, poor sequels and other reboots that've done poorly, I suppose I can see him viewing it as reducing Sony bleeding money via it's motion picture arm.
3) The film budget may indeed have actually been bloated, and making that reduction may actually help focus a few things - an abundance of money isn't always a good thing with a motion picture production*

* I'm told by my brother who's done a lot of research into the subject, that Star Trek: The Motion Picture had a pretty large budget for a movie of that day, and despite that, there were issues with how it was received at the box office.

When it came to make the second Star Trek movie, efforts were made to reduce the budget significantly compared to the Motion Picture, and despite the cuts that were made to the budget department, it led to arguably the best Star Trek movie ever made, The Wrath of Khan.

The slashed budget is smaller than other summer tentpoles, but Ghostbusters may not've needed a budget as big as $169,000,000. It could've been a bad move on Rothman's part, it could actually also have been a beneficial one.


For what it's worth, I liked the first two Fantastic Four movies, as well as Emmerich's Godzilla. I didn't mind the cloud version of Galactus, and it might be my casual acquaintance with the FF comics that helped gloss over any issues more dyed-in-the-wool FF fans would've noticed. The reboot of Fantastic Four however, looked terrible.

I love Emmerich's Godzilla as well. Bit of a nostalgic thing for me but It will always have a place in my heart. Wasn't commenting on the films quality, just the director's reasoning. However you lost me at the FF movies. They are terrible(one look at their rotten tomatoes or IMDb score will tell you as much). But to each his own I guess.

You're Star Trek example work both ways. While the budget cut didn't affect Wrath of Khan a similar thing happened to the William Shatner directed Final Frontier(which by all accounts is the worst in the series). His budget was cut and the results speak for itself. It all depends on what's on the page really.

Look at how the first GB got made. Do you know the story? Reitman walked into Frank Prices(head of Columbia at the time) office, pitched the movie, Price asked how much he would need, Reitman came up with 30 million and Price said so long as it's in theatres by summer '84 then we are in business.

Budget cuts are part of the game but my point is it's bad form for an incoming studio head to slash the budget on his predecessor's project. Pascal is still an executive on this movie so think of the studio politics at work here. This was Rothman doing what Rothman does best: be a cheap ass.

I really don't care about this reboot abomination anyways but my overall point at the start of this thing was how unlucky we are to have Rothman in charge of our franchise's future. Maybe that's why Danny and Reitman started that Ghostcorp company. I wonder what's happening with that?

[GuyX]

Want to know what's funny? They the first and last were written by the very same person. Moriarty is none other than Drew Mcweeny in his old AICN days. Funny huh?

Don't understand why that would be funny, but it's good to know that bit of information when I'll form my opinion on the man. I'll go and read it tomorrow!

Funny in an ironic sense. Once you read the first one you'll understand what I mean.

[Alphagaia]

Titanic and Avatar are two of the most expensive movies made. How is this guy a cheap ass?

[GuyX]

No they aren't. And Titanic was a co production with Paramount not greenlit by Rothman. Avatar was the current Fox studio head's baby Jim Gianapolus(plus it's James Cameron). Rothman was against it but greenlit it because it's James Cameron. Avatar cost 230 million, Titanic 200 million. The last Pirates of the Carribean movie cost over 400 million, Spectre cost 245 million, Avengers 2 250 million. Shall I go on? Just trust me. The guy is known as a major cheap ass in Hollywood. I've given you sources and yet you still don't believe me?

[Kingpin]

It's not unforgiveable that Alphagaia might be sceptical, as you've posted a few times about Rothman with a lot of venom, which (playing devil's advocate here) could be construed as a disappointed fan reacting to a collection of films he was let down by. I'm not saying that is the case, but is a vibe that can roll off of what you've written.

And in Alpha's defence, he likes to work with cold facts, stuff that's backed up with articles and cited sources, as it helps separate facts from conjecture.

[GuyX]

Only time I've posted about Rothman is in this thread. What are you talking about? How does that require someone to be sceptical? That's a pretty ad hominem post if I must say so.

[Alphagaia]

No they aren't. And Titanic was a co production with Paramount not greenlit by Rothman. Avatar was the current Fox studio head's baby Jim Gianapolus(plus it's James Cameron). Rothman was against it but greenlit it because it's James Cameron. Avatar cost 230 million, Titanic 200 million. The last Pirates of the Carribean movie cost over 400 million, Spectre cost 245 million, Avengers 2 250 million. Shall I go on? Just trust me. The guy is known as a major cheap ass in Hollywood. I've given you sources and yet you still don't believe me?

I'll have to look up the first part about Rothman being against it, which seems strange as he had a good relationship with Cameron, but naming a few pictures from a different era that are more expensive does not proof Titanic and Avatar were not very expensive to make. At the time, and I'm going from memory here, but I know it's at least true for Titanic, it was a huge risk and the most expensive movie ever made. Of course when time (and inflation) passes new movies will take that title, but I'm looking at that particular era as whoever greenlighted (and worked on) that movie did not know it was going to be such a success or knew about future films. It would have to do extremely well to cover the costs. Which it did.

Not saying you are wrong about Rothman, but this does not hold up at least.

Still need time to read your links, but I'll get around to it today.

Edit: what Kingpin says holds true: it's not a personal attack. I just like to see some facts backing up claims as there are a lot of people on the net claiming half truths for facts. For me it's about learning new facts, knowledge about how you operate, and getting a handle on how the current movie business is operating.

[Alphagaia]

Okay, I have skimmed the first link as it's very long and indepth talk about a leaked script of XMAN3.
As this is the same guy who at first accuses Rothman to be the big problem with a movie and in a more current link says this about him:

I may have had my issues with Rothman's choices over the years, and it may have become publicly contentious at times, but he leaves the studio having made a real mark on this era of studio filmmaking. I'll be curious to see where he goes next and what he does. It's not always easy to jump to being a producer after you've run the show, and right now, there's no indication what his plans are. Whatever he does, this is the beginning of a new era for Fox, and it's going to be exciting to see how it shakes out.

Regarding the second link: it only shows us a lot of claims without links to base them on. I have no doubt some of them are true, and some are not his doing, and some were for the better of the company. But right now it seems to show a lot of butthurt people (probably because of X3 looking at the timestamps) claiming stuff without proof.

I think this sums up best what to think about the guy, quoted from the third link:

There is no denying that Fox has had great success under Rothman's leadership. He was part of the early days of Fox Searchlight, which has become one of the most reliable studio-brand independent arms, and he has nurtured some key relationships during his time at the studio, including the ongoing relationship they have with James Cameron which led to the studio releasing two of the most successful films of all time. When Rothman believed wholeheartedly in something, he could be a filmmaker's greatest friend and champion, and conversely, on those occasions he didn't fully believe in something, he could frustrate a filmmaker enormously.

In short, yes there are some (big) bumps on the road but he also did some great things. I think we can compare him with James Cameron: hard and extremely frustating to work with, but can conjure up some great things.

Also getting another company to chime on Titanic is a good move to cover risks. Fox took the greater risk as well. I don't see why you can hold that against him?
http://www.tomrothman.com/tom-talks-to- ... tanic-cnn/

[Kingpin]

Only time I've posted about Rothman is in this thread.

Indeed, but in the space of just this short thread, you've written the following about him:

Tom effing Rothman

Rothman back in his 20th Centry Fox days was pure evil. We shouldn't even be speaking his name. It's like Voldemort.

Rothman is a meddling micromanager who ruined the X-men franchise.

you'll see the guy is a disaster for ANY franchise

The guy is the devil.

Tom Rothman is no joke. He's David Putnam times a thousand

Him cutting the budget I see as a negative.

His first act as studio head was meddling in a movie he had no involvement in by giving them less money than the previous studio head had promised. Not a good sign.

And I'm just saying, you might want to be a bit more reserved/neutral in your wording, lest someone genuinely accuse you of being obsessed with/having a grudge against Rothman - it'd be that stuff that could make folks more sceptical about the points you're trying to make.