Ghostbusters (2016) (Post-release)

[Lear60man]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/

this is a weird one. he trashes the new one, and trashes the old one (The effects of 1984 weren't very good? people are STILL scared of the librarian!)
I also don't see why all 'pro' reviewers are saying the director and actresses are funny. are they afraid to trash them like they trash the movie?

I was waiting for Roeper or Ebert to chime in. These are career critics, love em or hate em. They arent swayed by the politics du jour and will call a duck a duck. BTW, he didnt trash the 1984 GB as he called it a classic. He just doesn't look at it through the same set of fanboy eyes and thats fair.

As far as Sony packing in positive reviews from nobodies, that a common practice. You just have to look at the review and see if they are legit (Chicago Sun Times/Roeper) or from the Salina Community College Gazette.

I agree with Solo414, reviews are one piece of the puzzle, box office sales are the other...especially second week sales. Plenty of turds go on to make enough money to warrant being called a 'success'. Word of mouth will kill or keep GB 2016 on life support.

I cant believe its been a day already and no member from the UK has chimed in with a review.

 

[tubachris85x]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

Mike Meyers's character in "So I married an Axe Murderer" kicked the evil Rose in the groin which helped him defeat her. Does that count?

And while not a movie, you can play the first two Fallout games as a male character and use VATS to target the groin area of any humanoid target with every weapon in the game from your bare fists to a gatling laser. And with the 'Bloody Mess' perk, when your groin attack kills a target they will explode barrage of blood and gore.

Is that the only instance of such actions in that film?

As for Fallout, having personally play the 3rd one, how is that entirely relevant in this context? As a player, you have the choice to aim at whatever available body part there is, Unless you're streaming the game online or sharing your videos, you can do whatever action the game allows in your own privacy.

This is a film, where there's no differing outcome - It is what it is...and if you're gonna watch the movie, that sequence is the "big climax" of the film. Combined with the other factual aspects of the film portraying the men as either idiots or complete A-holes, to me sends a clear message to what Fiege was doing.

 

[Westies14]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

I won't pretend that all of the positive reviews are shills, but I can speak from firsthand experience as to how aggressively Sony has handled media relations with this film. The studios do not actually deal with most outlets directly - it's more of a pyramid structure, where a PR firm/rep in each market acts as a go-between for several studios and the local outlets. Running a story related to this film which Sony didn't want public caused the only instance I've ever even heard of in which a rep flew into full panic mode. It seemed clear that her relationship with the studio was at stake - and that if the author of the story didn't pull it immediately, he could face a loss of access at best, legal consequences at worst. Sony wanted his sources; the set clamped down and changed in tone the next day (in some cases this was an improvement, such as treating their extras better). This is a studio desperate for viable big-name franchises, as that's the model that generates revenue reliably in 2016, and they realllllly don't want GB2016 to sink.

 

[tubachris85x]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

I think you guys are painting a very weird picture of what goes on at Sony... No one in Marketing is writing cheques to buy reviews.

They may be in panic mode that this movie could bomb due to the negativity online, but I promise you they are rolling eyes and laughing at the "buying dorks on youtube for positive reviews" conspiracy theories.

Throwing money at getting all the cast of new and original on Kimmel or whatever? Yes absolutely...

Cutting trailer after trailer... flying stars around to every talk show with a pre written script to read? absolutely

Paying a youtube dude to say "I LIKED IT!"?... nope.

Paying for youtubers to see a special screening where they treat them like kings?... yep!... but EVERY MOVIE DOES THAT!

If this was Ghostbusters starring Bill Murray, Jonah Hill, Chris Pratt and Anna Kendrick with test screening scores through the ROOF, they would still put on a special screening for bloggers and youtubers to review it... and make them feel special with photo ops.

The leaked emails prove they conspired to use legal action against the original cast if they refuse to promote the film. I don't think it's beyond Sony's capabilities to put out a few bucks for reviews, if not paid, compensated through less obvious means.

 

[NeoRutty]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

Okay but what's the story on that... why COULD they sue... was it in the original casts contracts somewhere that they must promote it?

 

[Westies14]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

Ah yes, let's put to rest the naive notion that none of these endorsements are straight purchased. That's one of the most cost-effective - and flat out effective - forms of marketing today. While Sony wouldn't ring up the New York Times with an offer to purchase a positive review, they are certainly purchasing them from online outlets and social media personalities (youtube reviews, twitter, etc). It's a hugely prevalent tactic for all products in the digital age. In the marketing industry they're generously called "brand ambassadors" and the whole point of the approach is to make it look like an organic, non-sponsored endorsement from someone people are already paying attention to/invested in. They'll do it for a channel with tens of thousands of followers; they'll do it for an account with hundreds of followers (the latter simply costs less). Sneakers do it, energy drinks do it, the entertainment industry does it. Once in a while, you get a peek behind the curtain:

http://www.contactmusic.com/scott-d...kenly-uses-pr-text-for-instagram-post_5297007

 

[karmajay]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

Okay but what's the story on that... why COULD they sue... was it in the original casts contracts somewhere that they must promote it?

This discussion is actually covered in the older thread maybe someone could direct you to it.

 

[d_osborn]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

The leaked emails prove they conspired to use legal action against the original cast if they refuse to promote the film. I don't think it's beyond Sony's capabilities to put out a few bucks for reviews, if not paid, compensated through less obvious means.

That's completely false. The lawsuit discussion had NOTHING to do with Murray or any of the original cast promoting the Feig film.

From what I remember, Pascal was discussing the possibility of litigation to abrogate Murray's approval rights since he repeatedly refused to read submitted scripts for potential production. Aykroyd even mentioned it in an interview with Rolling Stone, if I'm not mistaken. Simply put, they believed Murray legally gave up his approval rights by refusing to read the material.

Again, hater reaching.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

I think you guys are painting a very weird picture of what goes on at Sony... No one in Marketing is writing cheques to buy reviews.

They may be in panic mode that this movie could bomb due to the negativity online, but I promise you they are rolling eyes and laughing at the "buying dorks on youtube for positive reviews" conspiracy theories.

Throwing money at getting all the cast of new and original on Kimmel or whatever? Yes absolutely...

Cutting trailer after trailer... flying stars around to every talk show with a pre written script to read? absolutely

Paying a youtube dude to say "I LIKED IT!"?... nope.

Paying for youtubers to see a special screening where they treat them like kings?... yep!... but EVERY MOVIE DOES THAT!

If this was Ghostbusters starring Bill Murray, Jonah Hill, Chris Pratt and Anna Kendrick with test screening scores through the ROOF, they would still put on a special screening for bloggers and youtubers to review it... and make them feel special with photo ops.

Right, when I say "finger in the scale," I'm talking more like manufactured Twitter accounts.

But actually, Westies' story makes way more sense. The studio would likely outsource the promotional work to PR firms and ad companies, who then are tasked with getting results. While I expect someone at Sony signs off on copy, I don't expect them to know that the quote from KNRQ in Kalamazoo is (a) fake or (b) heavily edited and out of context or whatever. Nor do they know or care that a battalion of Twitter accounts is being employed to promote the film and get hashtags buzzing.

But buying Variety or EW or Hollywood Reporter? No way. Like I said, at worst they'd lose the early access that they need to sell their publications. That makes them, at worst, interested parties, but hardly shills. The flip side is that as soon as they lose their credibility, nobody reads them anymore. So they also have an interest in remaining mostly impartial with a slight lean towards "continued access, so let's not really destroy films that warrant it."

I don't think most reviewers -- even the negative ones -- want to go all scorched earth on this film. Nor do I think a scorched earth review is warranted here. To my view, the Hollywood Reporter review is about as bad as you could hope for if you hate this movie, and it was pretty bad at that.

The real tell wil be word of mouth. That was what killed the recent fantastic four film. That and stories about an awful production. But you'll also note that Fox....didn't care a ton. That's because they have other franchises they can bank on. Sony? They have Bond and their main actor has been getting cranky about playing the role lately. Also they don't fully have Spider-Man anymore. So they're running low on franchises.

It was always a safe bet that they'd promote the hell out of this film. We shall see if it takes or fizzles. I expect a modest but not terrible domestic opening, the usual 50% drop week 2, and then a solid enough international run to warrant a sequel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Solo4114]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

I was waiting for Roeper or Ebert to chime in. These are career critics, love em or hate em. They arent swayed by the politics du jour and will call a duck a duck. BTW, he didnt trash the 1984 GB as he called it a classic. He just doesn't look at it through the same set of fanboy eyes and thats fair.

As far as Sony packing in positive reviews from nobodies, that a common practice. You just have to look at the review and see if they are legit (Chicago Sun Times/Roeper) or from the Salina Community College Gazette.

I agree with Solo414, reviews are one piece of the puzzle, box office sales are the other...especially second week sales. Plenty of turds go on to make enough money to warrant being called a 'success'. Word of mouth will kill or keep GB 2016 on life support.

I cant believe its been a day already and no member from the UK has chimed in with a review.

Side note: if you're waiting for Ebert reviews...best get comfy.

He's been dead since 2013.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NeoRutty]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

I dunno... I'm working with Sony Marketing right this minute, and a lot of this just sounds ludicrous. Like faked moon landing dumb.

I could be completely wrong of course... Just MHO.

 

[tubachris85x]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

That's completely false. The lawsuit discussion had NOTHING to do with Murray or any of the original cast promoting the Feig film.

From what I remember, Pascal was discussing the possibility of litigation to abrogate Murray's approval rights since he repeatedly refused to read submitted scripts for potential production. Aykroyd even mentioned it in an interview with Rolling Stone, if I'm not mistaken. Simply put, they believed Murray legally gave up his approval rights by refusing to read the material.

Again, hater reaching.

Oh is that the case now?

http://thecelebritycafe.com/2014/12...tion-against-bill-murray-over-ghostbusters-3/

"In order to more fully evaluate our position if Bill Murray again declines to engage on ‘Ghostbusters’, AG requested that we identify ‘aggressive’ litigation counsel with whom we can consult to evaluate our alternatives and strategize. Personally, while I’m fine with aggressive, I think we are in much worse shape if this goes public so seems to me we should look for someone who isn’t seeking the spotlight.”

"Engage on ghostbusters" seems rather broad VS "refusing to read scripts"


"hater reaching"

 

[Gary Weaver II]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

Seeing it for free tomorrow with my 14 year old daughter.

I still feel like I paid too much for the tickets.

 

[Lear60man]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

Side note: if you're waiting for Ebert reviews...best get comfy.

He's been dead since 2013.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OMG, that would be awesome A GB2016 review by a ghost! Forgot he had passed away, I was thinking of the new guy.

 

[d_osborn]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

Oh is that the case now?

http://thecelebritycafe.com/2014/12...tion-against-bill-murray-over-ghostbusters-3/


"Engage on ghostbusters" seems rather broad VS "refusing to read scripts"


"hater reaching"

Yes, that's exactly the case. I'll let Aykroyd explain it:

DA: Well, I have one-fifth of the voice, along with the partners and the other owner of the property, the picture company, and Ivan, Billy [Murray], and myself, and Harold [Ramis]. We all have to sign off on it unanimously — uh, I'm not sure Billy does anymore, since he abrogated his rights by sort of, by saying, two years ago he said, "I don't want to be involved," and the picture company I think had some clause in there that if he actually passed on the third of fourth offer, he no longer has a view of the franchise. So, that's for the lawyers to decide. Of course, I'd love to have Billy call me tomorrow and say, "Let's go to work and start writing."

http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/interviews/a17104/dan-aykroyd-interview-14813380/

 

[AJTaliesen]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

Right, when I say "finger in the scale," I'm talking more like manufactured Twitter accounts.

But actually, Westies' story makes way more sense. The studio would likely outsource the promotional work to PR firms and ad companies, who then are tasked with getting results. While I expect someone at Sony signs off on copy, I don't expect them to know that the quote from KNRQ in Kalamazoo is (a) fake or (b) heavily edited and out of context or whatever. Nor do they know or care that a battalion of Twitter accounts is being employed to promote the film and get hashtags buzzing.

But buying Variety or EW or Hollywood Reporter? No way. Like I said, at worst they'd lose the early access that they need to sell their publications. That makes them, at worst, interested parties, but hardly shills. The flip side is that as soon as they lose their credibility, nobody reads them anymore. So they also have an interest in remaining mostly impartial with a slight lean towards "continued access, so let's not really destroy films that warrant it."

This.

Of course they are paying fake reviewers...they'd be stupid not to. One guy with even an ounce of internet knowledge can sit in a cubicle and blanket the web. Any PR firm worth the price of parking a car in front of their offices is going to put a lot of stuff out there. Nowadays you cant even buy a washing machine without there being at least half a dozen sites reviewing it, all using curiously similar language.

Now that's not some conspiracy for this particular movie. It's just how the world works. Sony is too big a company not to be using that tool.


Now for major reviewers like Ebert, NYT, etc...no. I don't believe there's any check or threats. They WILL have junkets where they get goodie bags and such sometimes and that DOES help.

But it's also not unique to this movie. It's just what happens now.

 

[Westies14]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

Yes, "refuse to read scripts" or consider GB-related projects in any way is exactly what Sony means when they say "engage on ghostbusters."

While there's never been a hint of a lawsuit related to not promoting the new film, you can be sure it took a shiny penny from the studio to move the original cast from their clear-as-day disapproval (remember the Today show reunion? The comments from Sigourney, Potts, Hudson, even Aykroyd?) to cameos and promotional appearances.

 

[tubachris85x]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

Yes, that's exactly the case. I'll let Aykroyd explain it:


http://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/aykroyd-still-cheerleading-ghostbusters/

So you're gonna sit here and tell me that Bill Murray, all on his own, decided to come out and "promote" the film, completely of his own free will?

"He abrogated his say in the project, abrogated his rights to have any say in it by refusing the third offer from the picture company, which his lawyer put before him, and Billy said, "No, I can't respond.""

Sounds like there's much more to why he's even there at all, considering he refused for several years and then all of a sudden "agreed" to do a cameo at all. His "change of heart" comments seem more to avoid some unseen wrath from Sony.

The lawsuit discussion had NOTHING to do with Murray or any of the original cast promoting the Feig film.

And yes, his name is in the email itself, so it was about Bill Murray

 

[Moviefreak]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

Now for major reviewers like Ebert...

Again... the man is dead! He won't be reviewing this or any other movies again.

 

[Westies14]

Re: Ghostbusters Post Release

So you're gonna sit here and tell me that Bill Murray, all on his own, decided to come out and "promote" the film, completely of his own free will?



Sounds like there's much more to why he's even there at all, considering he refused for several years and then all of a sudden "agreed" to do a cameo at all. His "change of heart" comments seem more to avoid some unseen wrath from Sony.



And yes, his name is in the email itself, so it was about Bill Murray

They were discussing Murray, but not his promotion of the film. They were making sure they were in the clear to produce it without him signing off.

Murray does things for people he likes. He's as non-traditional a Hollywood operator as they come. Once his friend McCarthy was on board, he wasn't going to knock it.