Ghostbusters movie by Paul Feig

[Birdie]

I don't really see this movie as the kind of property that will translate to big bucks overseas and break out despite potential failiure in the home market. All the signs seem to be pointing to this being treated by Feig as antother of his TM broad comedy movies over being a blockbuster sci-fi/fantasy/effects movie.That whole SNL schtick doesn't tend to translate especially well outside of the US even in other English speaking markets, so I wouldn't expect the massive Chinese market to drag it out of any domestic doldrums it might suffer.

 

[jlee562]

Well, unlike Bridesmaids, Spy took a majority of its lifetime grosses from overseas, which is more than can be said for some of this summer's other comedies that Spy out performed (Entourage, Ted 2, etc).

 

[Birdie]

Spy has international stars that are atypical to US comedies and falls into a genre beyond comedy that has a hugely broad appeal worldwide.

 

[Jeyl]

Spy has international stars that are atypical to US comedies and falls into a genre beyond comedy that has a hugely broad appeal worldwide.

So Paul Feig is guilty of casting his movies well and putting the actors to good use?

 

[jlee562]

But Spy wasn't marketed on having Jason Statham and Jude Law in supporting roles. I also don't think that the distance between the rumored plot of Feig's Ghostbusters and Spy's "hugely broad appeal" is as big as you're seeming to make it out to be. The original film is definitely effects driven, but I wouldn't put it out of the comedy genre and into sci-fi.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=spycomedy.htm

Spy ranks 7th overall in the "Comedy - Spy" category.

The fact of the matter is, Spy performed markedly different than other comedy films from this summer, the numbers are there:

22 Jump Street had higher grosses overall, but didn't sell well overseas

Ted 2 was a dud compared to Spy.

We can look at a movie like Get Smart, another franchise (albeit much less popular), which had a higher gross than Spy overall, but did worse in foreign markets. And Steve Carrell is arguably a bigger star than Melissa McCarthy.

 

[Birdie]

The point that I'm making is that the BIG money associated with US movies that are hitting abroad rather than at home are the dumb effects driven blockbuster where interesting characters/dialogue is second to catering costs in priority - Furious 7, Age of Extinction, Age of Ultron, some other movies with Age in the title, Avatar - not medium size character driven comedies. I think you are being obstreporous

Look, I could give a damn either way. Don't care for Feig, don't care for Ghostbusters full-stop. I just find this whole situation fascinating and perplexing from an entirely objective perspective.

I find the amount of sexism from certain butthurt characters here and elsewhere on the net troubling, but conversely am inclined to agree, from the evidence available, that this is cashgrab that has been assigned to a disinterested director who is attempting to pull the movie into his comfort zone rather than stretching to attempt something new and creatively worthwhile.

 

[Birdie]

But Spy wasn't marketed on having Jason Statham and Jude Law in supporting roles. I also don't think that the distance between the rumored plot of Feig's Ghostbusters and Spy's "hugely broad appeal" is as big as you're seeming to make it out to be. The original film is definitely effects driven, but I wouldn't put it out of the comedy genre and into sci-fi..

Are you an expert on the marketing of Spy in the UK? For that matter, do you have any idea of the cultural viewing habits of UK cinema goers? Do you know how the movie was marketed in Russia, another region where the movie was a pretty big hit? I sure as hell don't, maybe Jason Statham is a big draw due to his raging Putin-like masculinity? Talking about how the movie was marketed in countries and cultures you know little about is a nonsense in terms of how it catches on in any given region. Ever hear of word of mouth? I hear comrade Sergei liked the movie a lot.

And we're discussing a movie called SPY. Hmm, spy movies, do they have any easily pitched recognition and popular history worlwide? Tough one...

Oh, and we're talking about Paul Feig's Ghostbusters, not the original movie. I seem to recall the suggestion, that, just possibly, Feig might be going into this as a comdey vehicle for his favourite actresses, rather than a sci-fi epic. But then, of course, I'm forgetting his previous huge sci-fi hits like errr....Bridesmaids of the Stratosphere? Nope? Ya got me...

 

[jlee562]

Obstreporous? Umm...ok. Just pointing out some things that seemingly have not been considered in your analysis.

As far as "disinterested," I'm still not sure what to make of this.

It seems that nobody really wanted anything to do with what Reitman and Akroyd had in mind. Pascal wanted the reboot, not just Feig.

Feig wanted to make sure that Reitman wasn't going to interfere with a project that he was going to write and direct.

Pascal says "he is so excited,"

Feig writes in August "I'm dying to do this project and have been thinking about it pretty non-stop..."

 

[jlee562]

Are you an expert on the marketing of Spy in the UK? For that matter, do you have any idea of the cultural viewing habits of UK cinema goers? Do you know how the movie was marketed in Russia, another region where the movie was a pretty big hit? I sure as hell don't, maybe Jason Statham is a big draw due to his raging Putin-like masculinity? Talking about how the movie was marketed in countries and cultures you know little about is a nonsense in terms of how it catches on in any given region. Ever hear of word of mouth? I hear comrade Sergei liked the movie a lot.

Lol, what?

Movies are generally not marketed on their secondary cast.

If you're going to claim the opposite, the burden of proof is on you. Interestingly, in the UK, the film was marketed as "From Paul Feig, Director of Bridesmaids and The Heat."

"Objective," I do not think you know what this word means.

And we're discussing a movie called SPY. Hmm, spy movies, do they have any easily pitched recognition and popular history worlwide? Tough one...

Ghostbusters does not? We've gone from the "most recognized symbol in the world" to total insignificance. Interesting.

Oh, and we're talking about Paul Feig's Ghostbusters, not the original movie. I seem to recall the suggestion, that, just possibly, Feig might be going into this as a comdey vehicle for his favourite actresses, rather than a sci-fi epic. But then, of course, I'm forgetting his previous huge sci-fi hits like errr....Bridesmaids of the Stratosphere? Nope? Ya got me...

Umm...what?

 

[Birdie]

Since you seem to have reading comprehension difficulties, I would make a video for you so you can hear the sounds of words being spoken, but maybe I'll just type louder PEOPLE LIKE SEEING ACTORS THEY KNOW FROM THEIR OWN COUNTRY IN FOREIGN FILMS. FILM MAKERS AND REGIONAL MEDIA & MARKETERS LIKE PEOPLE SEEING ACTOR THEY KNOW, IT MAKE THEM GO SEE MOVIE. WE NO KNOW MELISSA MCARTHY, NOR GIVE CRAP, WANT UM JASON STATHAM!

I am objective, since I have no agenda. I am on neither 'side'. I am aginst disengenous pedants though.

Ghostbusters does not? We've gone from the "most recognized symbol in the world" to total insignificance. Interesting.

Uhhh...Ghostbusters is not AN ENTIRE FREAKING GENRE like spy movies.The second part of your sentence, Umm...what?

Umm...what?

Yeah, I'll give you that one, as I missread your statement

the original film is definitely effects driven, but I wouldn't put it out of the comedy genre and into sci-fi..

as

the original film is definitely effects driven, but I would put it out of the comedy genre and into sci-fi..

 

[Westies14]

Feig writes in August "I'm dying to do this project and have been thinking about it pretty non-stop..."

This is one of those constant miscommunications in this thread. Please understand - everyone knows Paul Feig is interested in making HIS films. He didn't become a very successful writer/director by accident. What everyone means when they talk about his (well-documented) disinterest is regarding a continuation/extension of the franchise. The franchise REALLY didn't need to be scrapped, and he's hardly doing anything original here. There's a reason Pascal chased him (and was turned down three times, by her count) for a year - he didn't want the project. They bugged him enough that he shifted his "female superhero team" story which he was working on a nudge to the left, and changed their uniforms to have ghost logos instead. The man did not want the job until the job was needlessly reworked to fit him.

Can we stop twisting this comment into something it's not? At this point, I have to believe it's deliberate.

 

[Jeyl]

I find the amount of sexism from certain butthurt characters here and elsewhere on the net troubling, but conversely am inclined to agree, from the evidence available, that this is cashgrab that has been assigned to a disinterested director who is attempting to pull the movie into his comfort zone rather than stretching to attempt something new and creatively worthwhile.

Here we go again. Nothing is good unless it is original. Well, put my feet to the fire because I'm going to stand by what I'm about to say. This kind of approach of rebooting a franchise and going with an all-female cast when there was originally all-male cast is original in and of itself. This is the kind of approach you would normally get in a parody, or a one-shot story in some sci-fi show. This isn't any one of those things because the decision to create a new take on the Ghostbusters with an all female team was clearly made as the foundation for something that the filmmakers want to stick. Seriously, who else has done that?

 

[jlee562]

Since you seem to have reading comprehension difficulties, I would make a video for you so you can hear the sounds of words being spoken, but maybe I'll just type louder PEOPLE LIKE SEEING ACTORS THEY KNOW FROM THEIR OWN COUNTRY IN FOREIGN FILMS. FILM MAKERS AND REGIONAL MEDIA & MARKETERS LIKE PEOPLE SEEING ACTOR THEY KNOW, IT MAKE THEM GO SEE MOVIE. WE NO KNOW MELISSA MCARTHY, NOR GIVE CRAP, WANT UM JASON STATHAM!

Aside from the hilarious irony of accusing me of reading comprehension difficulties in the beginning of your post while admitting to your own error at the bottom, I would note that this actually isn't the argument you've been making. It certainly is not an implicit argument from your first post today (#1221)

But ok, nobody knows who Melissa McCarthy is and doesn't care, so Spy did well overseas because it was a Spy movie, and had Jason Statham?

Uhhh...Ghostbusters is not AN ENTIRE FREAKING GENRE like spy movies.The second part of your sentence, Umm...what?

Ghostbusters not being a genre is inconsequential to your 'counterpoint.' Does Ghostbusters "have any easily pitched recognition and popular history worlwide?"

As far as the second part of the sentence, it's a call back to earlier in the thread.

This is one of those constant miscommunications in this thread. Please understand - everyone knows Paul Feig is interested in making HIS films. He didn't become a very successful writer/director by accident. What everyone means when they talk about his (well-documented) disinterest is regarding a continuation/extension of the franchise. The franchise REALLY didn't need to be scrapped, and he's hardly doing anything original here. There's a reason Pascal chased him (and was turned down three times, by her count) for a year - he didn't want the project. They bugged him enough that he shifted his "female superhero team" story which he was working on a nudge to the left, and changed their uniforms to have ghost logos instead. The man did not want the job until the job was needlessly reworked to fit him.

Can we stop twisting this comment into something it's not? At this point, I have to believe it's deliberate.

Can we start using more objective language then?

Also, saying that "I'm still not sure what to make of this," is in no way, shape, or form, deliberately twisting anything.

 

[Westies14]

The point is that it's been made plenty clear. You should know exactly what to make of it, exactly what we mean. And you know exactly why I'm calling you on it, too. You didn't just claim ignorance; you quoted Feig saying how excited he was to make the person commenting seem ridiculous - but of course you know he and Feig are talking about different things.

Sure, everyone's wrong but you. What happened to the eye roll emoticon?

 

[Axlotl]

Since you seem to have reading comprehension difficulties, I would make a video for you so you can hear the sounds of words being spoken, but maybe I'll just type louder PEOPLE LIKE SEEING ACTORS THEY KNOW FROM THEIR OWN COUNTRY IN FOREIGN FILMS. FILM MAKERS AND REGIONAL MEDIA & MARKETERS LIKE PEOPLE SEEING ACTOR THEY KNOW, IT MAKE THEM GO SEE MOVIE. WE NO KNOW MELISSA MCARTHY, NOR GIVE CRAP, WANT UM JASON STATHAM!

:lol This made me spit beer on my monitor.

How is this thread still alive?
You guys must thrive on internet conflict, that's all I can figure.
It's just a stupid movie (and it will be stupid...).
How any of you are expecting a sci-fi EPIC of the quality of the original Ghostbusters is beyond me.
Seriously - 50 pages defending what is obviously a film designed by a committee??
A committee that doesn't understand nor care to understand the source material?
I thought this was a web forum of film buffs...

All any of us can do is wait and see.
But if this movie is anything other than "22 Jumpstreet" with ghosts, I will eat the frikkin' internet.

 

[jlee562]

The point is that it's been made plenty clear. You should know exactly what to make of it, exactly what we mean. And you know exactly why I'm calling you on it, too. You didn't just claim ignorance; you quoted Feig saying how excited he was to make the person commenting seem ridiculous - but of course you know he and Feig are talking about different things.

Sure, everyone's wrong but you. What happened to the eye roll emoticon?

Actually, I don't assume that he and Feig are talking about different things. I don't assume everyone has been following every comment in the thread (especially when they've admitted as such, and I don't recognize their SN from previous pages of the conversation). I also don't assume that every single person speaks on the issue with the exact same verbiage.

Secondly, yeah, I am going to make an argument on semantics. "Disinterested director" =/= "was not interested in a continuation/extension."

I was totally serious when I said I was willing to let bygones by bygones, but you're bringing a whole lot of baggage back into this thread.

I address people as individuals and don't hold other people accountable for words they didn't write. No more, no less. No nefarious intent.

 

[Westies14]

When they say he was disinterested, why not assume they mean the bit turned down 3 times instead of the movie he said he's so excited to make?

 

[jlee562]

When they say he was disinterested, why not assume they mean the bit turned down 3 times instead of the movie he said he's so excited to make?

Why are you now making an argument which only demonstrates how ridiculous it was for you to interject yourself into this exchange in the first place? If there's obviously more than one way in which one might interpret the post in question, that only makes it even more illogical for me to assume that he meant what you meant.

"I'm still not sure what to make of this," is not a declarative statement. I didn't think I had to point this out.

 

[Westies14]

Keep pretending that's all you wrote about it! Very convenient.

 

[Westies14]

And seriously, there are a thousand ways one *could* interpret anything. But there's one established meaning for his discussion that makes sense, that jibes with what we know of Feig's involvement, and then there's the one that makes no sense, where of course he's excited that Sony let him do it his way, and to pull that quote in response simply renders the conversation meaningless.