GHOSTBUSTERS Pre-Release - film discussion only, no social commentary please!

d_osborn said:

They flopped the conversation from "most disliked trailer in Youtube history" to "HA-- WHINY NERDS!". Many hits were generated, many tickets sold, many laughs directed at fans that have been constantly complaining since this thing was announced.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And in so doing, they managed to simply turn all valid criticisms about the film (which pre-date release) into just more whiny nerd rants. The whole public conversation is about "Are these nerds truly whiny? Are they all sexists? Film at 11." Instead of "There's been a ton of negative response to this, much of which has nothing to do with the sexist trolling, and instead is based on criticisms of how the film was greenlit and made."

The Angry Videogame Nerd takedown by the Daily Dot is a perfect example. It actually completely mischaracterizes his comments, taking "things he said in passing" and turning them into "central points in his argument about why he won't see the film." And that's just...not the case. If you watch the clip and read the Daily Dot piece, it's pretty clear that the Daily Dot piece is tailor made for people who don't watch the clip to get all huffy about what the Daily Dot has described. And, to be fair, if what he had said was actually reflected by the Daily Dot piece, they'd be fair in criticizing him. But the article is totally disingenuous in its description of the content of his video and its characterization of him.

But that's the whole marketing approach to this film now. Critics are whiny man-baby sexists who need to be defeated, so go watch the film and buy a bunch of ****** with the log on it.

Feig himself, as I say, is likely not responsible for this, but whoever is did a bangup job of insulating what would otherwise receive "Meh. Whatever. 2.5 stars" reviews.

Solo4114 said:

Oh, I agree, actually. They've completely sidestepped all discussion over the film's actual merits, and turned the entire conversation into one about meta-film considerations like feminism and female representation in Hollywood, and the entitlement of fan culture......all while neatly avoiding any actual criticism of the film itself on its merits. That part is genius.

I don't think most of it came from Feig himself. I actually suspect that Feig himself -- and his cast -- have personally been focused on the sexist troll angle because they've personally encountered a lot of it. But I think the suits at Sony took a look at this and recognized the opportunity they'd been handed.

Click to expand...

that's pretty much all MOST supporters can do when defending this film. the irony being since THEY havn't seen it yet, it's the only argument they've got. but since WE can make pre judgments based on past projects of cast and director, we can nail down pretty good what kind of film we're going to get.

Add to that these kind of people shaming or twisting words around to make you feel embarrassed to be a 'hater'.....or try to anyway....and it's one sad mess. IT happened to me just a few days ago.

Personally, I have no doubt in my mind feig and pascal know EXACTLY what they are doing. Just look at the sony emails and how they make fun of some of the more trashier bashers.
from the pre paid bashing articles, to the talk show appearances. I don't recall it being this way from the get go. I think the tone in change shifted when the hospital stuff happened. and some of the nastier elements started to surface all over the net claiming to be GB fans. that's when I think it got personal on the side of the supporters and probably the cast and crew as well.

where as most of us saw it as a publicity stunt to try and get some positivity going, others took to trashing the cast, and making memes of sick kids in hospitals.
that's when i think the tide shifted.

IF attacking all critics as sexist works, you're going to see a lot more of it.

Neil,

You do realize that Amy Pascal was basically fired from her position not long after the emails leaked, right? She's not around directing this stuff anymore. She set the wheels in motion, but then left the building, so to speak.

I also don't think that there's necessarily as much of a media conspiracy as you seem to. Like, I don't really think there are "paid shills" running around. I mean, yeah, there are social media folks who go out to try to boost the film, but on forums like this one? Unlikely. And I doubt, for example, that they paid for the Daily Dot article to be written. That said, the marketing team has helped to drive the tone of the discussion by focusing on the worst of the fan reaction, and used that to buttress the film.

Feig might be involved in that, but probably more in a "Hey, Paul, we're gonna do this, so, you know, when you go on Graham Norton, try to drop a reference to the sexist jackasses who've been harassing you, ok?" "Oh, sure. No problem. I was planning to anyway." "Cool. Have fun on the show!"


I do agree that making fun of sick kids and using them in memes was really beyond the pale, though. Whether that shifted the tone altogether, I don't know, but someone may analyze the marketing and reaction to this film down the road, and I'd bet that it played a role in shifting public perception of who the critics were and what they were about.

Solo4114 said:

Neil,

You do realize that Amy Pascal was basically fired from her position not long after the emails leaked, right? She's not around directing this stuff anymore. She set the wheels in motion, but then left the building, so to speak.

I also don't think that there's necessarily as much of a media conspiracy as you seem to. Like, I don't really think there are "paid shills" running around. I mean, yeah, there are social media folks who go out to try to boost the film, but on forums like this one? Unlikely. And I doubt, for example, that they paid for the Daily Dot article to be written. That said, the marketing team has helped to drive the tone of the discussion by focusing on the worst of the fan reaction, and used that to buttress the film.

Feig might be involved in that, but probably more in a "Hey, Paul, we're gonna do this, so, you know, when you go on Graham Norton, try to drop a reference to the sexist jackasses who've been harassing you, ok?" "Oh, sure. No problem. I was planning to anyway." "Cool. Have fun on the show!"


I do agree that making fun of sick kids and using them in memes was really beyond the pale, though. Whether that shifted the tone altogether, I don't know, but someone may analyze the marketing and reaction to this film down the road, and I'd bet that it played a role in shifting public perception of who the critics were and what they were about.

Click to expand...

yep, I know, but she's probably still there on set supervising. there was one of these articles where she was even interviewed on set. for this one last movie at least, she'll probably have a last hurrah of control. then after it fails, they'll have an excuse to fully cut ties, I think. if they haven't already now that it's wrapped.


I can concede that there are enough crazy people in the world that they don't have to pay for SOME of these articles. that daily dot one, for instance, was so rambling that it didn't even make sense. some others start out by complimenting rolfe, and then doing a complete 180 into bashing him like someone flipped a switch. THOSE I don't think are paid for. What I DO think are paid for are the Washington times, the CBSs, the WallStreetJournals of the world. I also think it's totally planned from the get go to bash fans on these talk shows as part of the script. If I understood how you phrased that right, there's no intern off stage saying to paul 'btw, the network wants you to do this'.... more like a sony rep saying to jimmy kimmel 'if you don't say this, we'll take your family hostage' (obviously not that extreme, but you get the picture. Kimmel looked SO uninterested in spewing the sony line, he couldn't even get through saying it without stumbling).


I think there IS a concerted effort to keep the narrative going, and I have no doubt sony is monitoring forums like these. They do it on the Turtle Forums all the time, to the point that the forum admins have to caution people to watch what they say in fear of having the site tarnished with a bad image.

these people are out there. whether any are here is a different story. but they are out there.

NeilT said:

...

this is the kind of stupid humor that is dummning down society....

...

Click to expand...

Wow. More footage. I really, really don't remember ever seeing a film release so much before a film was even out. People that say "You can't judge it til you've seen it ..." must not have seen it like I have already, from all the stuff they keep releasing.

My soda is flat, only one explanation.

Solo4114 said:

Neil,

You do realize that Amy Pascal was basically fired from her position not long after the emails leaked, right? She's not around directing this stuff anymore. She set the wheels in motion, but then left the building, so to speak.

Click to expand...

I freely admit that I don't follow the politics so I could very easily be wrong about this but... My understanding is that she's VERY much involved. That's it's actually being produced by Pascal Pictures and that Sony is the distributor.

Egon Spengler said:

Wow. More footage. I really, really don't remember ever seeing a film release so much before a film was even out. People that say "You can't judge it til you've seen it ..." must not have seen it like I have already, from all the stuff they keep releasing.

Click to expand...

if you watch the b roll, and the trailers and tv spots, i could chronologically edit the movie together now if i cared too

AJTaliesen said:

I freely admit that I don't follow the politics so I could very easily be wrong about this but... My understanding is that she's VERY much involved. That's it's actually being produced by Pascal Pictures and that Sony is the distributor.

Click to expand...

Ah, that I didn't know.

Egon Spengler said:

Wow. More footage. I really, really don't remember ever seeing a film release so much before a film was even out. People that say "You can't judge it til you've seen it ..." must not have seen it like I have already, from all the stuff they keep releasing.

Click to expand...

I swear I read this same comment on every big title movie that comes out. It's normal-- you're just paying more attention to this one.

From what I understand on Pascal, her production company deal was to keep her placated after being canned for the leak backlash. Her name is on the movie since she help set up the deal, but it's no real power position. Keep in mind, Pascal delivered the franchise deal on a silver platter after decades of development hell.

The tin foil hat stuff I'm reading here is REALLY fun. PASCAL AND FEIG ARE LIZARD PEOPLE!

Calm down there. I'm not sure where you're getting tin foil from. Neil isn't a fan of her work. Solo and I are just speculating on whether or not she's even involved. Neither of us have even voiced an opinion on if thats good or bad.

and I've actually said before that I've enjoyed a couple of Feigs movies in the past. As for Pascal..I couldn't care less if I tried. It was something mentioned in passing. I know zero about this woman. She was mentioned. I never even heard of her before a couple days ago...as I said, I don't follow studio politics. It just doesn't interest me.

AJTaliesen said:

I freely admit that I don't follow the politics so I could very easily be wrong about this but... My understanding is that she's VERY much involved. That's it's actually being produced by Pascal Pictures and that Sony is the distributor.

Click to expand...

In all this, I don't think i've ever heard of pascal pictures before..


all I knew was that she was very much in charge of this movie at least. being a producer. after that, probably not so much .

AJTaliesen said:

But by all means, please keep trying to find ways to be snarky to anyone who dares challenge the glory of the messiah of films.

Click to expand...

;o) ;o) ;o) ;o)

like is said, sometimes it's easier just to keep some people on ignore ;o). you'll be much, much saner. not that this amounts to anything these days ;o).

AJTaliesen said:

Calm down there. I'm not sure where you're getting tin foil from. Neil isn't a fan of her work. Solo and I are just speculating on whether or not she's even involved. Neither of us have even voiced an opinion on if thats good or bad.

Click to expand...

I was talking about Neil's crackpot (yet highly entertaining) theories, not yours or Solo's.

...and you haven't seen snark. :devil Although, I'm not really sure where you got the "messiah of films" thing.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/06/30/ghostbusters-ivan-reitman-reboot-backlash-sexism

nice to see reitman has balls


>>>“How wonderful those four women are together,” Reitman said. “Individually and together, they’re as unique as Bill Murray and [Dan] Aykroyd and [Harold] Ramis and [Ernie] Hudson were. They look like they should be together. You can’t explain it until you see them moving and talking.”>>>

translation, 'hopefully i can give my true feelings once this crashes and burns'

d_osborn said:

I was talking about Neil's crackpot (yet highly entertaining) theories, not yours or Solo's.

Click to expand...

NeilT said:

>>>“How wonderful those four women are together,” Reitman said. “Individually and together, they’re as unique as Bill Murray and [Dan] Aykroyd and [Harold] Ramis and [Ernie] Hudson were. They look like they should be together. You can’t explain it until you see them moving and talking.”>>>

translation, 'hopefully i can give my true feelings once this crashes and burns'

Click to expand...

Case in point. :lol

d_osborn said:

From what I understand on Pascal, her production company deal was to keep her placated after being canned for the leak backlash. Her name is on the movie since she help set up the deal, but it's no real power position. Keep in mind, Pascal delivered the franchise deal on a silver platter after decades of development hell.

Click to expand...

That would make sense. I honestly haven't followed her much outside of the emails. It's worth noting that she was in that position for something like 10 years and had some real successes during that time, too. I THINK she was involved for Casino Royale, and that's one of my favorite Bond films ever. So, not everything she's had a hand in is bad. I just think she's, you know, a Hollywood suit who views things in Hollywood suit terms. She's apparently said as much (e.g. in response to Jennifer Lawrence being paid less than costars "If someone's willing to work for less, I'm willing to pay them less." Basically that Lawrence should've asked for more money if she wanted more money. A fact which, I think, Lawrence herself has acknowledge.).

The tin foil hat stuff I'm reading here is REALLY fun. PASCAL AND FEIG ARE LIZARD PEOPLE!

Click to expand...

But what if they were, man. What if they were?!?!?!

AJTaliesen said:

Calm down there. I'm not sure where you're getting tin foil from. Neil isn't a fan of her work. Solo and I are just speculating on whether or not she's even involved. Neither of us have even voiced an opinion on if thats good or bad.

and I've actually said before that I've enjoyed a couple of Feigs movies in the past. As for Pascal..I couldn't care less if I tried. It was something mentioned in passing. I know zero about this woman. She was mentioned. I never even heard of her before a couple days ago...as I said, I don't follow studio politics. It just doesn't interest me.

Click to expand...

I'll say that, at least based on her emails surrounding this project, I think she exhibited...about the level of concern and consideration I'd expect from a Hollywood suit. She wanted to land the brand/franchise, she saw its marketing and merchandising potential, and she wanted to land some hot names to attach to the project (e.g. Channing Tatum! Paul Feig! The Russo Bros.!). Her attitude about gobbling up hot properties/names basically exemplifies what I see as a problem in Hollywood: they focus -- and have for a VERY long time -- on the most superficial aspects of filmmaking, and not nearly enough on the actual storytelling. Brands first and foremost, and we'll worry about the story later.

NeilT said:

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/06/30/ghostbusters-ivan-reitman-reboot-backlash-sexism

nice to see reitman has balls

Click to expand...

I don't see it as having balls so much as expressing an opinion which, oh by the way, also pats himself on the back. "It's everyone's love of the original [which, you know, I made] that leads to much of the backlash." I mean, he's right, but let's not lose sight of the fact that he gets to toot his own horn in pointing this out.

That said, I doubt he'll bash the project even long after it's done with. Films have to REALLY fail before the circular firing squad assembles and people involved in the project start crapping on it. When that happens, it's usually an attempt to explicitly distance oneself from the project so its lingering stench won't ruin your reputation going forward. Otherwise, there's no benefit to slagging off a project you worked on, especially at this stage of the game (the prerelease hype period), when doing so will likely only imperil your career going forward after you're labeled (ahem) "difficult to work with."

Solo4114 said:

I don't see it as having balls so much as expressing an opinion which, oh by the way, also pats himself on the back. "It's everyone's love of the original [which, you know, I made] that leads to much of the backlash." I mean, he's right, but let's not lose sight of the fact that he gets to toot his own horn in pointing this out.

That said, I doubt he'll bash the project even long after it's done with. Films have to REALLY fail before the circular firing squad assembles and people involved in the project start crapping on it. When that happens, it's usually an attempt to explicitly distance oneself from the project so its lingering stench won't ruin your reputation going forward. Otherwise, there's no benefit to slagging off a project you worked on, especially at this stage of the game (the prerelease hype period), when doing so will likely only imperil your career going forward after you're labeled (ahem) "difficult to work with."

Click to expand...

i know he did. but out of all these people in this mess, i think he's the only one who's earned the right to do so. him and dan.

so, i'm ok with that ;o).

Solo4114 said:

That would make sense. I honestly haven't followed her much outside of the emails. It's worth noting that she was in that position for something like 10 years and had some real successes during that time, too. I THINK she was involved for Casino Royale, and that's one of my favorite Bond films ever. So, not everything she's had a hand in is bad. I just think she's, you know, a Hollywood suit who views things in Hollywood suit terms. She's apparently said as much (e.g. in response to Jennifer Lawrence being paid less than costars "If someone's willing to work for less, I'm willing to pay them less." Basically that Lawrence should've asked for more money if she wanted more money. A fact which, I think, Lawrence herself has acknowledge.).

I'll say that, at least based on her emails surrounding this project, I think she exhibited...about the level of concern and consideration I'd expect from a Hollywood suit. She wanted to land the brand/franchise, she saw its marketing and merchandising potential, and she wanted to land some hot names to attach to the project (e.g. Channing Tatum! Paul Feig! The Russo Bros.!). Her attitude about gobbling up hot properties/names basically exemplifies what I see as a problem in Hollywood: they focus -- and have for a VERY long time -- on the most superficial aspects of filmmaking, and not nearly enough on the actual storytelling. Brands first and foremost, and we'll worry about the story later.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, you pretty much nailed it. She's not the worst/meanest/dumbest person in the industry-- not by a long shot on all accounts. She just had the unfortunate experience of having her emails on display for the world to see. Honestly, there was very little that shocked me in the Sony emails. They were VERY interesting, but about what I expected them to be.