Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
By HunterCC
#4885391
Which is why audience ratings of this movie continue to be highly questionable.
And yet, the audience rating is pretty similar to the box office result, that GB16 is a flop.

Sure a bad movie can have a great box office. More rarely, a good movie can have a bad box office. But usually bad box office = bad movie. It's evidence that the audience ratings were not highly questionable, they were correct about GB16.
As I understand Alphagaia's argument is that quite a few of the 10's and 1's votes were done before the movie was even released or by people who had not seen the movie. They had an alternate agenda as opposed to an honest rating.

So is it fair to include rankings by people who have never seen the movie?

I noticed the same thing happening with the Blue-Ray before it was even released.
Which was funny as the idea that a polarizing movie like GB16 would get a lot of 1's and 10's seems like a foreign concept to some people. Keeping in mind controversy was baked into the movie, with its promotion by the cast, director, and production company, and even had online trolling featured in the movie.

So is there any evidence that the audience ratings were skewed one way or the other by people who hadn't seen the movies? Maybe the audience ratings were skewed more positively than they should have been by people with an agenda?

All in all, arguing against the audience ratings just seems like a flimsy attempt to make a box office failure look better than it was.
SpaceBallz liked this
By RichardLess
#4885395
Hmm, according to sources which neither Sony or LCS confirms.
On top of that, is it that weird or uncommon when someone backing a film drops out? In the end, the other parties believed enough in the product to get the backing to a desirable amount.
It's very weird actually. After committing and then backing out? As a slate partner? That would be like Skydance dropping out of the Star Trek reboot. This is actually true, the story about Lstar and Sony. From what I heard Neither party want to talk Crap about each other because LStar wants that sweet Spiderman money in 2017 and Sony wants Lstar to keep bankrolling 25% of their flops. LStar is a slate partner so this is extremely unusual. I'm trying to think of the last time I heard this happening? Maybe when Legendary and WB flipped Kong from Universal but that's a bit different since they both had history. I can't think of another non bankruptcy film financer backing out like this after the commitment has been made. Whatever it was about, it wasn't about quality. LStar has invested in terrible film after terrible film. They had ulterior motives
By Commander_Jim
#4885397
From the sounds of it it seems like Sony agreed to let LSC off the hook for Ghostbusters in order to keep them financing future films, rather than hold them to account for GB and then have them cancel their financing deal. Apparently LSC execs have been unhappy with the deal and all of Sony's flops and letting them out of Ghostbusters was appeasement.
By RichardLess
#4885399
From the sounds of it it seems like Sony agreed to let LSC off the hook for Ghostbusters in order to keep them financing future films, rather than hold them to account for GB and then have them cancel their financing deal. Apparently LSC execs have been unhappy with the deal and all of Sony's flops and letting them out of Ghostbusters was appeasement.
That's a bingo!
User avatar
By SpaceBallz
#4885400
Twitter troll Milo Yiannopoulos is actually the CEO of LSC. Illuminati confirmed.
User avatar
By deadderek
#4885403
I will say this on the subject of product placement:

If it's too blatant and in your face it's annoying. However I prefer it when characters are eating/using real world brands.

In Ghostbusters there's a Coke in the fridge, Egon is eating Cheez-Its, and the mention of Twinkies.

In the reboot Jillian is eating Pringles and not some "Let's" chips. Or later they're eating Papa John's instead of some generic "NY Super Pizza" brand or some shit.

When attention isn't brought to it in that case it doesn't bother me. What REALLY can take me out of a moment is when there's product placement and people use the official and full product name instead of a nickname or what people in real life say.

Or start sounding more like an ad than actual human dialogue.

Image
By Mr_Saver
#4885408
The only objection I had with the product placement in the reboot was the involvement of that thief Papa John. I think Sony should've stayed clear of him.
Yeah, it sort of flies in the face of the political agenda. "Were a progressive film, but we did a commercial with right wing Papa John"
User avatar
By Sav C
#4885411
Ghostbusters used junk food brands for (mildly blatant) product placement, including Coca Cola. Ghostbusters II had Sony products, but I don't recall any food items (besides Ecto Cooler.)

Not to mention that Coca Cola owned Columbia Pictures in 84, but in 89 Sony had already bought them.
I watched the original recently and was almost surprised how blatant the product placement is. IMO, it's actually more blatant, on the whole, than GB16. Lots of lingering shots of Wise potato chips, Budweiser cases, Cheezits, and more. And several lines incorporate products or are just lifted straight off of marketing slogans.

Almost the last line in the movie is "Its Miller Time" (even though they drink Budweiser throughout the film).
To be completely honest I didn't realize the product placement in the film until one of the most recent times I watched it, and even then I only noticed it because I was actively looking for it. Usually I'm completely oblivious to it.
When attention isn't brought to it in that case it doesn't bother me.
If it's done for humorous reasons, then I enjoy attention being brought to it, such as in Arrested Development...
Carl Weathers: [at Burger King] I'm going to go get a refill. You know you can get a refill on any drink you want?
Tobias Fünke: It's a great restaurant!
Narrator: It sure is!
...or Wayne's World:

...And seen.
By RichardLess
#4885417
I could care less about product placement. Of all the problems a movie can have, this is very far down the list. I find it more distracting when filmmakers go out of there way to create false brands. The only time product placement took me out of a movie was Transformers. There's a scene where a character takes a Panasonic memory card out of a computer and unnaturally tilts it toward the camera so we can read the brand name clearly. Besides that? The brands exist in the real world so I'm cool with them showing up, so long as it's not an obvious commercial. Man of Steel has some crazy product placement as well. Sony movies usually unrealistically have characters using Sony laptops rather than a Mac. The James Bond movies are full of Sony stuff. But who cares? There are more important things to worry about, plus they can help pay for a budget.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4885421
From the sounds of it it seems like Sony agreed to let LSC off the hook for Ghostbusters in order to keep them financing future films, rather than hold them to account for GB and then have them cancel their financing deal. Apparently LSC execs have been unhappy with the deal and all of Sony's flops and letting them out of Ghostbusters was appeasement.
That's a bingo!
According to the article LSC was let go of their promised investment a month before the movie went into production.

So your logic is Sony knew from the start the movie was a flop but decided to go ahead anyways but let LSC out of the deal?

Do we even have any proof of LSC actually intended to invest in GB instead of one article jumping to a conclusion without any proof just because of LSC not contributing?

So is there any evidence that the audience ratings were skewed one way or the other by people who hadn't seen the movies?
How about the 12.000 votes before the movie was even out? Or just the simple fact an huge amount of people vote a 10 or 1? Who is right in that equation? How do we know the numbers were not altered by people making dummy accounts like trolls who were actively promoting to get the trailer to a million dislikes? The door swings both ways ofcourse.
Maybe the audience ratings were skewed more positively than they should have been by people with an agenda?
So now only the people voting positive are being biased? If you say people are not biased when voting how can a movie be regarded so great and so bad at the same time by so many people? If you say they are biased into being positive about the movie, the same thing can be said about being negative.

Which is why I dismissed the 1's and 10's by looking for a median.
By RichardLess
#4885425

That's a bingo!
According to the article LSC was let go of their promised investment a month before the movie went into production.

So your logic is Sony knew from the start the movie was a flop but decided to go ahead anyways but let LSC out of the deal?

Do we even have any proof of LSC actually intended to invest in GB instead of one article jumping to a conclusion without any proof just because of LSC not contributing?

So is there any evidence that the audience ratings were skewed one way or the other by people who hadn't seen the movies?
How about the 12.000 votes before the movie was even out? Or just the simple fact an huge amount of people vote a 10 or 1? Who is right in that equation? How do we know the numbers were not altered by people making dummy accounts like trolls who were actively promoting to get the trailer to a million dislikes? The door swings both ways ofcourse.
Maybe the audience ratings were skewed more positively than they should have been by people with an agenda?
So now only the people voting positive are being biased? If you say people are not biased when voting how can a movie be regarded so great and so bad at the same time by so many people? If you say they are biased into being positive about the movie, the same thing can be said about being negative.

Which is why I dismissed the 1's and 10's by looking for a median.
y

wait what? By my logic? Where the heck did you get that from? I didn't say anything like that. Did you even read my post? I said it wasn't about quality. You want to talk about jumping to conclusions, you should start there.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4885426
Did I misinterpreted the following line?
Apparently LSC execs have been unhappy with the deal and all of Sony's flops and letting them out of Ghostbusters was appeasement.
I interpreted these words as Commander Jim thinks LSC wanted to jump ship because GB was a flop and Sony agreeing to this. You say he is correct by thinking this, while I question the timeline and logic of this way of thinking as it was a month before production even started.
Last edited by Alphagaia on November 7th, 2016, 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
By RichardLess
#4885427
Did I misinterpreted the following line?
Apparently LSC execs have been unhappy with the deal and all of Sony's flops and letting them out of Ghostbusters was appeasement.
Um. Maybe you should ask the person who wrote it?
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4885428
Did I misinterpreted the following line?
Um. Maybe you should ask the person who wrote it?
Well, I quoted you both and you agreed to his post by stating 'that's a bingo?' Why is it a problem I did this?
By RichardLess
#4885430

Um. Maybe you should ask the person who wrote it?
Well, I quoted you both and you agreed to his post by stating 'that's a bingo?' Why is it a problem I did this?
Because I explicitly said it wasn't about quality and how the heck should I know what someone else meant or if you are misinterpreting them? You're grasping at straws here.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4885431
I read you post about it not being a problem of quality, because they invested in flops before.

However, this quote you agreed to seems to indicate a flop was the problem, which I found contradictionary.
Apparently LSC execs have been unhappy with the deal and all of Sony's flops and letting them out of Ghostbusters was appeasement.
To level it out and make sure there is no confusion, how did you interpreted this quote? Is there another way to interpret it besides mine especially when looking at the timeline?
By RichardLess
#4885433
I read you post about it not being a problem of quality, because they invested in flops before.

However, this quote you agreed to seems to indicate a flop was the problem, which I found contradictionary.
Apparently LSC execs have been unhappy with the deal and all of Sony's flops and letting them out of Ghostbusters was appeasement.
To level it out and make sure there is no confusion, how did you interpreted this quote? Is there another way to interpret it besides mine especially when looking at the timeline?
You think that quote means Sony or LStar knew it was going to flop? I think it means nothing of the sort. I think if anyone thought a studio would finance a movie that they knew wouldn't make money then that person is an idiot. That quote is about LStar not being happy with the previous flops they've been burned with(Aloha, and others as mentioned in the article). They pulled out to get better terms and perhaps take less risk. For whatever reason(iI've stated why I think it was) Sony let them out of the GB deal. Perhaps they didn't like the creative direction or perhaps they were playing a game of chicken. How you could read that quote and think Sony or whoever knew the movie was going to flop is beyond me, that's not how I took it, obviously. But I didn't write it. So who knows.
Alphagaia liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4885434
Well, a few people here used that article on this forum as another reason why the movie flopped, so thx for clearing it up!
By Commander_Jim
#4885437
According to the article LSC was let go of their promised investment a month before the movie went into production.

So your logic is Sony knew from the start the movie was a flop but decided to go ahead anyways but let LSC out of the deal?
No, as you said, it was a month before the movie came out. By that point it was a totally different environment than in April 2014 when they made the deal. Ghostbusters was looking shakier and shakier after dud trailers and all the general negativity surrounding it and LSC were (rightfully, in hindsight) upset at the prospect of yet another flop. It wouldnt have been in Sony's interest too much to have forced LSC to maintain their funding of GB and exposing them to more money losses if LSC were then to pull out of Sony's other future films.
Do we even have any proof of LSC actually intended to invest in GB instead of one article jumping to a conclusion without any proof just because of LSC not contributing?
We know that in April 2014 LSC made a deal with Sony to provide funding of $200 million specifically for the purposes of helping Sony be able to make a slate of big budget, big name movies. Ghostbusters (one of the biggest, if not the biggest budget Sony movie since then) was officially announced a few months later. It stands to reason it was one of the main movies the deal involved. Also when Sony was asked about LSC pulling funding from GB, they didnt deny it, just released the usual PR spin that they were still looking forward to future partnerships with LSC.
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4885441
According to the article LSC was let go of their promised investment a month before the movie went into production.

So your logic is Sony knew from the start the movie was a flop but decided to go ahead anyways but let LSC out of the deal?
No, as you said, it was a month before the movie came out. By that point it was a totally different environment than in April 2014 when they made the deal. Ghostbusters was looking shakier and shakier after dud trailers and all the general negativity surrounding it and LSC were (rightfully, in hindsight) upset at the prospect of yet another flop. It wouldnt have been in Sony's interest too much to have forced LSC to maintain their funding of GB and exposing them to more money losses if LSC were then to pull out of Sony's other future films.
One month before production means one month before they started shooting, so your line of reasoning with them getting scared from the trailer does not add up there. It could be something else ofcourse, but if it happened, according to the article it happened a lot earlier.

The rest is open for interpretation but at least sounds like one possibility, bu as Richardless concludes by naming a few possibilities, we just don't know the reason.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4885443
At this point, I'm just very curious as to how children and young adults will be remembering GB16. I don't know how many of you are familiar with Can't Stop the Music, it's basically the Village People's A Hard Day's Night (Well, an attempt at one anyway!). It won Worst Film and Worst Screenplay at the first annual Razzies, and has an 8% on RT. Financial flop as well (except in Australia, where it still gets annual New Year's screenings!). We can all agree that that's what a flop looks like, lol. But today, it gets iTunes customer reviews like this one:

"It was a giant bomb when it came out. Pretty much ruined a bunch of the people involved's careers. Yet 30 years later, at least if you were a teenager back then, it is wonderful."
By HunterCC
#4885446
At this point, I'm just very curious as to how children and young adults will be remembering GB16. I don't know how many of you are familiar with Can't Stop the Music, it's basically the Village People's A Hard Day's Night (Well, an attempt at one anyway!). It won Worst Film and Worst Screenplay at the first annual Razzies, and has an 8% on RT. Financial flop as well (except in Australia, where it still gets annual New Year's screenings!). We can all agree that that's what a flop looks like, lol. But today, it gets iTunes customer reviews like this one:

"It was a giant bomb when it came out. Pretty much ruined a bunch of the people involved's careers. Yet 30 years later, at least if you were a teenager back then, it is wonderful."
So Ghostbusters 2016 is in the same category as "Can't Stop the Music". Along with other classics like "Anaconda", "Catwoman", "Gigli", "Showgirls", and "Battlefield Earth"?
RichardLess, SpaceBallz liked this
By RichardLess
#4885448
At this point, I'm just very curious as to how children and young adults will be remembering GB16. I don't know how many of you are familiar with Can't Stop the Music, it's basically the Village People's A Hard Day's Night (Well, an attempt at one anyway!). It won Worst Film and Worst Screenplay at the first annual Razzies, and has an 8% on RT. Financial flop as well (except in Australia, where it still gets annual New Year's screenings!). We can all agree that that's what a flop looks like, lol. But today, it gets iTunes customer reviews like this one:

"It was a giant bomb when it came out. Pretty much ruined a bunch of the people involved's careers. Yet 30 years later, at least if you were a teenager back then, it is wonderful."
So Ghostbusters 2016 is in the same category as "Can't Stop the Music". Along with other classics like "Anaconda", "Catwoman", "Gigli", "Showgirls", and "Battlefield Earth"?
Haha. Nicely done.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4885449
At this point, I'm just very curious as to how children and young adults will be remembering GB16. I don't know how many of you are familiar with Can't Stop the Music, it's basically the Village People's A Hard Day's Night (Well, an attempt at one anyway!). It won Worst Film and Worst Screenplay at the first annual Razzies, and has an 8% on RT. Financial flop as well (except in Australia, where it still gets annual New Year's screenings!). We can all agree that that's what a flop looks like, lol. But today, it gets iTunes customer reviews like this one:

"It was a giant bomb when it came out. Pretty much ruined a bunch of the people involved's careers. Yet 30 years later, at least if you were a teenager back then, it is wonderful."
So Ghostbusters 2016 is in the same category as "Can't Stop the Music". Along with other classics like "Anaconda", "Catwoman", "Gigli", "Showgirls", and "Battlefield Earth"?
Well first off, you can't put all those movies together. Some are guilty pleasures, others are simply bombs. ;)
By HunterCC
#4885453

So Ghostbusters 2016 is in the same category as "Can't Stop the Music". Along with other classics like "Anaconda", "Catwoman", "Gigli", "Showgirls", and "Battlefield Earth"?
Well first off, you can't put all those movies together. Some are guilty pleasures, others are simply bombs. ;)
Good point, and then there's "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". A bad movie that IS a cult classic. I would put Supertroopers in the same category, just for meow, you know.
JurorNo.2 liked this
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4885454

Well first off, you can't put all those movies together. Some are guilty pleasures, others are simply bombs. ;)
Good point, and then there's "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". A bad movie that IS a cult classic. I would put Supertroopers in the same category, just for meow, you know.
Another good example! All these fans complaining recently about the Rocky Horror TV movie...well first off, it's a TV movie, what did you expect? Second, the whole point of Rocky Horror is that it's a bad movie! :boogieman:

I haven't seen Supertroopers, what type of bad is it?
By HunterCC
#4885457

Good point, and then there's "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". A bad movie that IS a cult classic. I would put Supertroopers in the same category, just for meow, you know.
Another good example! All these fans complaining recently about the Rocky Horror TV movie...well first off, it's a TV movie, what did you expect? Second, the whole point of Rocky Horror is that it's a bad movie! :boogieman:

I haven't seen Supertroopers, what type of bad is it?
Supertroopers is just uninspired, boring through most parts. I thought Reno 911 did some things a lot better comedy wise. Maybe Supertroopers was good for its time, but meow it doesn't hold up well. Still has some funny bits.
User avatar
By JurorNo.2
#4885458

Another good example! All these fans complaining recently about the Rocky Horror TV movie...well first off, it's a TV movie, what did you expect? Second, the whole point of Rocky Horror is that it's a bad movie! :boogieman:

I haven't seen Supertroopers, what type of bad is it?
Supertroopers is just uninspired, boring through most parts. I thought Reno 911 did some things a lot better comedy wise. Maybe Supertroopers was good for its time, but meow it doesn't hold up well. Still has some funny bits.
Yeah looking it up just now, Reno 911 is one thing I thought of, lol.

Another thing, Can't Stop the Music might have done better if it had come out a year earlier, before Disco was declared dead. GB16 might have done better a couple years ago when things were quite so divisive in our culture overall.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
[SPOILERS] NEW GB MOVIE SUMMER 2020!

I had this idea, but of course its just going of[…]

Hello from Washington State!

There's a few of us!

Dan Schoening finished pencils on TF/GB #5. https[…]

Please help! Does anyone know whether Anovos are s[…]