[Morgoth]

I really liked Spy, so I'll be seeing this at some point too.

[Studlock]

This related to both this specific film, internet rating, and wider cultural phenomenon of men disliking things aimed at women (I actually remembering reading a lit review on this subject but I can no longer find it): http://fivethirtyeig...ngs-are-broken/

Also, I found this film to be a perfectly fine summer blockbuster--which is damning with faint praise I guess, but it was easily worth the ticket price.

[Aptorian]

Studlock, on 09 August 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

This related to both this specific film, internet rating, and wider cultural phenomenon of men disliking things aimed at women (I actually remembering reading a lit review on this subject but I can no longer find it): http://fivethirtyeig...ngs-are-broken/

After reading this article my understanding is that men just have better taste in movies

[Gorefest]

Studlock, on 09 August 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

This related to both this specific film, internet rating, and wider cultural phenomenon of men disliking things aimed at women (I actually remembering reading a lit review on this subject but I can no longer find it): http://fivethirtyeig...ngs-are-broken/

Erm. I'm sure Ghostbusters isn't 'aimed at women'. Just because it has a mostly female cast doesn't mean that it is a 'chickflick' or similar discriptor. It's aimed at the general public, as most summer blockbusters are. So I stopped reading after the second paragraph. Because the author just mutilated their own point by formulating it that way, in my opinion.

[Maark Abbott]

Gorefest, on 09 August 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Studlock, on 09 August 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

This related to both this specific film, internet rating, and wider cultural phenomenon of men disliking things aimed at women (I actually remembering reading a lit review on this subject but I can no longer find it): http://fivethirtyeig...ngs-are-broken/

Erm. I'm sure Ghostbusters isn't 'aimed at women'. Just because it has a mostly female cast doesn't mean that it is a 'chickflick' or similar discriptor. It's aimed at the general public, as most summer blockbusters are. So I stopped reading after the second paragraph. Because the author just mutilated their own point by formulating it that way, in my opinion.

You shitlord cishet patriarchy. How dare you question da sistahood.

[Maark Abbott]

So in other news I just landed as role as Oscar the Grouch in an upcoming Sesame Street musical. Apparently.

[QuickTidal]

I'll give a great example of the whole thing from two sides.

I had no interest in seeing Ghostbusters rebooted because it looked poorly written, with forced jokes and nothing new to offer the franchise. Of the main cast I only really find Kate McKinnon funny. So I chose to act with my dollars and not see the film at all. The marketing did not sell me. I feel safe in having chosen to avoid it. Add to that it had its petulant, childish director slam talking potential audience members by blanket calling anyone who didn't want to see it or who talked about how crap it looked a misogynist (and he did this more than once).

Meanwhile, I had zero issues going to see BAD MOMS which also features an almost entirely female cast, and is also a comedy. It looked hilarious. The trailers sold me. I went to see it, and think it's pretty much the best comedy I've seen since the first HANGOVER.

That's the difference here. BAD MOMS succeeds because it had an excellent marketing campaign, and the finished product was really great. Ghostbusters Rebooted failed because it had a shit marketing campaign, and the finished product is obviously nothing to write home about.

Morgoth, on 10 August 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

Also, Apt, you know that's not what that statistic means. Seriously, you have a weird ass taste in movies but you are not dumb. So either you misunderstood somehow, or you're just being less honest about your biases than Maark, whom at least is very open about his leanings.

I'm fairly sure Maark was joking. I could be wrong.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 10 August 2016 - 12:33 PM

[Morgoth]

How did Ghostbusters fail? It's a record box opening for both the director(Feig) and the main star (McCarthy). Sure, it didn't hit the great highs of openings, but it did perfectly alright as far as I can tell.

@ QT - I'm guessing you don't have Maark on facebook.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 10 August 2016 - 12:35 PM

[QuickTidal]

Morgoth, on 10 August 2016 - 12:35 PM, said:

How did Ghostbusters fail? It's a record box opening for both the director(Feig) and the main star (McCarthy). Sure, it didn't hit the great highs of openings, but it did perfectly alright as far as I can tell.

@ QT - I'm guessing you don't have Maark on facebook.

Ghostbusters failed because it cost 144million + 100million in marketing...so to even break even it needed to pull around 500million worldwide. It's been 4 weeks, and its worldwide pull is only 180million. The media played it off like a success, based on spin from Sony who called it a "triumph"...but it's box office speaks for itself. It hasn't even broken even with it's production budget and a portion of marketing.

I don't have anyone on Facebook no. I guess that means I'm wrong about him joking? My bad.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 10 August 2016 - 12:49 PM

[Morgoth]

QuickTidal, on 10 August 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 10 August 2016 - 12:35 PM, said:

How did Ghostbusters fail? It's a record box opening for both the director(Feig) and the main star (McCarthy). Sure, it didn't hit the great highs of openings, but it did perfectly alright as far as I can tell.

@ QT - I'm guessing you don't have Maark on facebook.

Ghostbusters failed because it cost 144million + 100million in marketing...so to even break even it needed to pull around 500million worldwide. It's been 4 weeks, and its worldwide pull is only 180million. The media played it off like a success, based on spin from Sony who called it a "triumph"...but it's box office speaks for itself. It hasn't even broken even with it's production budget and a portion of marketing.

I don't have anyone on Facebook no. I guess that means I'm wrong about him joking? My bad.

500 million? Jeez, that's crazy. I mean, I believe you, but it's crazy. It also makes Sony look.. incompetent? Or maybe I just dont get the accounting. From what I'm reading Sony had projected the movie to make 40 million in its opening week-end, and it made 46.

[QuickTidal]

Morgoth, on 10 August 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 10 August 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 10 August 2016 - 12:35 PM, said:

How did Ghostbusters fail? It's a record box opening for both the director(Feig) and the main star (McCarthy). Sure, it didn't hit the great highs of openings, but it did perfectly alright as far as I can tell.

@ QT - I'm guessing you don't have Maark on facebook.

Ghostbusters failed because it cost 144million + 100million in marketing...so to even break even it needed to pull around 500million worldwide. It's been 4 weeks, and its worldwide pull is only 180million. The media played it off like a success, based on spin from Sony who called it a "triumph"...but it's box office speaks for itself. It hasn't even broken even with it's production budget and a portion of marketing.

I don't have anyone on Facebook no. I guess that means I'm wrong about him joking? My bad.

500 million? Jeez, that's crazy. I mean, I believe you, but it's crazy. It also makes Sony look.. incompetent? Or maybe I just dont get the accounting. From what I'm reading Sony had projected the movie to make 40 million in its opening week-end, and it made 46.

Indeed. Basically the individual box office take is around 24% of the ticket sales to start with, but that increases as the weeks go on up to 50%. Usual math is that it needs to make about double what was spent on it to break even as a result. It's worse these days because the reported budget is never accurate, studios lie to make it look better and you are never told what the marketing cost (it's always extra above and beyond the budget).

I think Sony expected it to have legs (multiple weekends of solid box office) that it does not have. It they had multiple 40million-ish weekends in a row, they could have recouped their money. But it had something like a 70% drop in week 2, and then next to nothing for weeks 3 and 4...and BAD MOMS came out last week and pretty much stole the comedy crown.

[Vengeance]

You can make a topic in Discussions for it. But to me it looks like there are just a couple of posts off the topic. Earlier there are some posts that talk both about the box office return of GB and discuss why that return reflects attitudes in society. Which I find to still be on topic. I agree that a broader discussion about women as primary film drivers and the reaction should be in the discussion board.


Edit. Actually reading back over the last couple of pages. I agree and have moved the posts from where it seemed to start. I tried to leave any post that actually reference the movie.

You can find the discussion continuing on here Discussion on sexism in society

[QuickTidal]

[Mezla PigDog]

I just saw the new movie and I enjoyed it immensely. Lots of chuckles and Mr PigDog and I properly belly laughed a few times.

For context we are MASSIVE original movie fans, we can both do the script and bonded early in our relationship on the fact we could do the dancing walk from the end of the Real Ghostbusters cartoon (you know the walking and the pointing). I think the movie was respectful to the originals and they have a tenuous but plausible hint that the events in the original movies happened

Spoiler

with the mayor and his assistant saying that people forget about these things

. Anyway, I liked it.

I don't think I'd be as generous if it was a bunch of blokes. I'd be more inclined to repeat that you don't need to mess with perfection. But I respect the fact that they tried something "new" and I think it worked (smallprint - considering we live in an age where an original concept for a movie is fucking dead).