GhostBusters Spoilers and the Sony Protection Scheme

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:06 pm

I know you said spoilers, but maybe also use a spoiler tag. Not that I was planning on seeing this movie disaster Cleveland Browns dumpster fire.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 7:12 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:When are they going to remake Thelma and Louise ?

Just askin. :P

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/ ... 34x967.jpg

scarlett Johansson and Penélope Cruz.

no one in particular · Thu Mar 31, 2016 7:36 pm

corplinx wrote: ... "MEH SOTCH ANY!" defense ...

What the fuck is this? A Google search only yields one other use of this phrase in this format, and it was used by you in this forum. So what the fuck is it?

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 8:04 pm

Spoiler:

--J.D.

no one in particular · Thu Mar 31, 2016 8:08 pm

corplinx wrote:It's what it sounds like when an SJW screams "misogyny" in your face.

Ah, thanks. I didn't sound it out.

For the most part I like the dames they chose, and I enjoy the concept of putting Chris Hemsworth into the sexy receptionist role. But the trailers look like garbage.

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 8:21 pm

Doctor X wrote:
Spoiler:
This film will suck.
--J.D.

:meananim:

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 8:31 pm

corplinx wrote:Ben Affleck: I hope it tanks so people will stop talking about my shitty Batman movie.

The shitty Batman movie is making bank. Which in the end, is all that matters.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 8:37 pm

In all seriousness, I believe the only one interested in doing a third movie was Harold Ramus. As far as I know Bill Murry has had zero interest, even waving bags of money at him. Then one gets into story ideas--the second film is widely considered a huge failure in that respect.

I then wander a bit trying to figure out why this project got "green lit" in the form it is in. Frankly, I cannot. There are just too much wrong with it conceptually.

--J.D.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:08 pm

Doctor X wrote:In all seriousness, I believe the only one interested in doing a third movie was Harold Ramus.

this ...
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000601/
explains that.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 11:49 pm

Of the many negative comments and comparisons, Some Guy noted that the Japanese Original and Only Good GhostBusters film was played somewhat straight rather than "for laughs." Such as:

[youtube][/youtube]

The comedy came from the situation. Even Murry plays more of a pest who is funny rather than these girls constantly REMINDING YOU YOU ARE WATCHING A COMEDY!!! LOOK! JOKE!

--J.D.

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:04 am

The gift that keeps on giving: because corplinx is right-- they still think the trendworthiness of the elements of a movie make it or break it instead of ... you know, whether it's a shitty movie. So then when it tanks, "Sorry, we can't greenlight any female-dominated casts anymore... look how much Ghostbusters lost us!"

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:09 pm

gnome wrote:The gift that keeps on giving: because corplinx is right-- they still think the trendworthiness of the elements of a movie make it or break it instead of ... you know, whether it's a shitty movie. So then when it tanks, "Sorry, we can't greenlight any female-dominated casts anymore... look how much Ghostbusters lost us!"

Maybe hold your righteous indignation until the movie is out?

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Sat Apr 02, 2016 6:49 am

What fun is that?

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Sat Apr 02, 2016 7:06 am

Since when has evidences--thanks--been necessary for Righteous Indignation?

--J.D.

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:39 pm

corplinx wrote: @Gramm: the drop in revenue from Friday to Sunday last weekend was actually really high. It was a Titanic, huge but sinking.

This weekend:
"BATMAN V SUPERMAN BREAKS NEW RECORD, AND IT'S NOT A GOOD ONE
Making just $15.35 million during its second Friday."

So?

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:19 pm

Hasn't it already more than broken even?

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:08 am

I think it has:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id ... an2015.htm

Production Budget: $250 million

Domestic: $261,457,793 38.3%
+ Foreign: $421,400,000 61.7%
= Worldwide: $682,857,793

How much money does a movie need to make to be profitable?

The short answer is, it depends on a number of factors, but a rule of thumb seems to be that the film needs to make twice its production budget globally.

So it has already surpassed the "rule of thumb".

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:29 am

Exactly the metric I was using.

The movie made money, and will continue to do so. It will also make more once it comes out on blu-ray and such, as well as Netflix-like streaming deals. Thus it's making bank.

Ben Trovado · Post by **Ben Trovado** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:40 pm

corplinx wrote: Which has nothing to do with the GhostBusters fiasco. Ghost Busters was however probably thought to be a sure thing tent pole as well.

If anyone really and truly thought that, then clear the corporate headquarters -- there was a big gas leak of some kind, and everyone that has not yet suffered major brain damage had better be cleared out.

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:26 pm

corplinx wrote:Some of the estimates put the profit point for BvS at around 900 million.

That's a fair point.

It isn't enough for this film to make 901m to be successful. This was supposed to be what they call a "tent pole". It is supposed to make so much bank that it holds the tent up.

I am not sure if that's true. The movie is very successful, and while it fell short of expectations, WB doesn't really deviate from their plan much in using this to launch Justice League universe. Man of Steel (the most recent Superman film) pulled similar but slightly smaller numbers, as an example, and they still went ahead with this sequel.

They aren't going to see the kind of ROI Zootopia or Deadpool have. That said, Deadpool wasn't supposed to be a tent pole. It was supposed to be a February flophouse relegation.

Not sure about Zootopia, but Deadpool for sure was never expected to be this wildly successful. They spent $58 million and got $754 million worldwide, that kind of ROI is very rare in the movie world.

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:33 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:Definitional question:

Does this mean the new Ghostbusters is a "chick flick"?

No.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:55 pm

I do not see how it cannot be a "Chick Flick."

--J.D.

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:25 pm

Doctor X wrote:I do not see how it cannot be a "Chick Flick."

--J.D.

Elaborate please.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:30 pm

You need to support your negative declaration.

I have res ipsa loquitur.

http://i.imgur.com/GwxhdR7.gif

--J.D.

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:54 pm

Hmm, ok.

I have not seen it, but it doesn't look like a Chick Flick from the advertisement. To me, a Chick Flick is a romantic story first and everything else second.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:59 am

Grammatron wrote:To me, a Chick Flick is a romantic story first and everything else second.

Then you have a narrower definition that I have. I see this as a film marketed to "chicks." The vomit inducing Sandra Bullock and That Not Funny Fat Broad was not "romantic" but was clearly geared to "chicks."

--J.D.

Nyarlathotep · Post by **Nyarlathotep** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:59 pm

I'll have to say, my definition is closer to Grammatron's than yours, though not exactly the same as either. To me a "chick flick" is any film whose intended audience is, by design, almost exclusively female (though males may end up watching it incidentally, on a date or whatever). This pretty much includes all Romance movies but also a few others.

It does not, include the Ghostbusters reboot though. I don't think it INTENDS to draw an exclusively female audience, not the impression I get from the marketing. That may or may not be the effect it achieves, we won't know until it comes out, but by my definition, its all about intent.

Nyarlathotep · Post by **Nyarlathotep** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 3:00 pm

corplinx wrote:http://www.comicbookmovie.com/suicide_s ... la-a133142

Reshoots for Suicide Squad. Too late for Ghostchasers though.

Which worries me for Suicide Squad, a movie I was looking forward to seeing. last Minute reshoots, for any reason, are almost always a bad sign.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:08 pm

Nyarlathotep wrote:I'll have to say, my definition is closer to Grammatron's than yours, though not exactly the same as either. To me a "chick flick" is any film whose intended audience is, by design, almost exclusively female (though males may end up watching it incidentally, on a date or whatever). This pretty much includes all Romance movies but also a few others.

:oops: :oops: :oops:

Some are worthy.

Nyarlathotep · Post by **Nyarlathotep** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:20 pm

I'll also have to admit, a few that I have gotten dragged to over the years, I have enjoyed despite fully expecting not to.

There was one with Hugh Grant and Sandra Bullock where he was some befuddled rich guy and she was an idealistic lawyer working for him. I don't remember the name off hand, but I thought it was pretty funny despite being a romantic comedy. Not the sort of movie I would have ever sought out on my own, but I enjoyed it nonethelss

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 7:31 pm

corplinx wrote:Bridesmaids was basically a dick and fart joke movie but for women. It was made to be like kids movies designed to amuse the parents as well.

"Here is a chick flick that your man friend can not hate himself for watching with you."

And it was a Chick Flick that I enjoyed. But it was a Chick Flick in my opinion.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:38 pm

Nyarlathotep wrote:I'll have to say, my definition is closer to Grammatron's than yours, . . .

Fag.

[youtube][/youtube]

--J.D.

Nyarlathotep · Post by **Nyarlathotep** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:58 pm

Please.

I prefer my preversion to be UNdeviated

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:49 am

Nyarlathotep wrote:I'll have to say, my definition is closer to Grammatron's than yours, though not exactly the same as either. To me a "chick flick" is any film whose intended audience is, by design, almost exclusively female (though males may end up watching it incidentally, on a date or whatever). This pretty much includes all Romance movies but also a few others.

It does not, include the Ghostbusters reboot though. I don't think it INTENDS to draw an exclusively female audience, not the impression I get from the marketing. That may or may not be the effect it achieves, we won't know until it comes out, but by my definition, its all about intent.

The Wikipedia article on chick flicks seems to agree with this definition. It doesn't have to be about romantic relationships, although it usually is, but it does have to be about relationships. So a movie about a woman's relationship with her mother would be a chick flick, but an action movie with a female protagonist would not be.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 3:06 am

There is a male counterpart to the chick flick: the guy-cry film.

Examples include Saving Private Ryan and Field of Dreams.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy-cry_film

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 5:31 am

Anaxagoras wrote:
Nyarlathotep wrote:I'll have to say, my definition is closer to Grammatron's than yours, though not exactly the same as either. To me a "chick flick" is any film whose intended audience is, by design, almost exclusively female (though males may end up watching it incidentally, on a date or whatever). This pretty much includes all Romance movies but also a few others.

It does not, include the Ghostbusters reboot though. I don't think it INTENDS to draw an exclusively female audience, not the impression I get from the marketing. That may or may not be the effect it achieves, we won't know until it comes out, but by my definition, its all about intent.
The Wikipedia article on chick flicks seems to agree with this definition. It doesn't have to be about romantic relationships, although it usually is, but it does have to be about relationships. So a movie about a woman's relationship with her mother would be a chick flick, but an action movie with a female protagonist would not be.

That would put all Adam Sandler films in the Chick Flick category, and I can't say I disagree.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:56 pm

Quod erat demonstrandum.

--J.D.

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 1:49 am

Ghostbusters is already winning awards.

Today it wins an award for the most disliked trailer on Youtube.

http://screencrush.com/ghostbusters-tra ... n-history/
[youtube][/youtube]

Wow.

The most uncomfortable thing about Ghostbusters was the stereotypical token black man. So, to be certain to secure the lowest Rotten Tomatoes score of all time, they included a very obvious stereotypical toke black woman and crammed and crammed her so much stereotypical blackness, you'll slap your momma. :shock:

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 6:00 pm

I suppose it is a step-up from Jar Jar Binks?

--J.D.

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 6:06 pm

The original character's racial implications weren't built into his lines or attitude. The unfortunate implications were in other things, like how he was always cut from the pan & scan shots of the team, or the "oncoming train" bit in Ghostbusters 2.