GHOSTBUSTERS Pre-Release - film discussion only, no social commentary please!
- Thread starter Westies14
- Start date
astroboy
Master Member
And the fact is, Ghostbusters is one of the most successful blockbusters of all time.
Why would you want to write off the fans?
Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
KrangPrime
Master Member
Careful, K. Don't make too much sense! Someone might hear you!
or call you crazy!
or worse yet, lump you in with the obvious crazies just because you disagree with them ;o)
- - - Updated - - -
it literally makes no sense.
I'm curious. just HOW high up was Amy Pascal when she green lit ghostbusters?
And why was no one able to use her firing as an excuse to can this project into the ground before it even started?
it wasn't more than two months after it announced that I think she got fired and chris pratt came a callin' IIRC. they could have used that as a perfect excuse to switch gears and it wouldn't have made them look too bad.
jettajeffro
Active Member
While the Singapore event was going on, Sony also had a really awesome presence at the LA Pride Parade this weekend. Had the local busters out and one of the new Ectos in the parade plus tons of Sony staff and Robin Shelby, Slimer from Ghostbusters 2. Very cool, especially after the tragedy in Orlando over the weekend.
d_osborn
Sr Member
Very cool! I saw Robin Shelby's live Facebook video and thought it was really cool! With all of the hate floating around the property these days, it's nice to see something positive.
On a similar note, the GB Interdimensional Crossrip Podcast posted a GREAT episode this morning. They interviewed psychologist Alex Langley about the fan reaction to the reboot and it's a really interesting listen. Both sides of the argument are represented equally in the discussion-- can't recommend it more. It's pretty early in the show, right after some in-universe psychology discussion, which itself is a good listen.
http://www.ghostbustershq.net/the-ghostbusters-interdimensional-crossrip/
Westies14
Master Member
Feminism, involvement in pride parades, hospital visits to sick kids, this stuff is all great - but has zero bearing on the movie. Have you ever seen a film bend so far backwards to try and tie itself to outside positivity? Some of you guys may be buying the distraction from the obviously crummy product they're shoveling into theaters, but I'm more turned off than ever by Sony's attempts to leech off of the equity and positive energy of these unrelated movements. Visiting dying children and participating in social movements should be about supporting people, not about generating content for your social marketing. The individuals may believe in what they're doing and may feel good for having been a part of these events, but the coordinated Sony/GB tent they're operating under represents a transparent, insincere and crass display of opportunism.
KrangPrime
Master Member
yep.
anyone else find it kind of an odd duology too?
they are doing their best to **** off the core and casual audience, yet still doing all of these 'nice' things at the same time? also said nice things that would make it hard for any detractors to complain about, thus giving them super proof positive support for the movie? 'look at sony, they support so and so and did this and that charity event.....I'm gonna give that movie a chance now. screw the nerds!'
and most hospital visits tend to happen AFTER the movie is a hit, not before. even if the hospital staff 'asked' them, it seemed like it was an obvious plot to try and get something positive going.
I don't know. do they still do those E true hollywood stories? if someone can get all the dirt going, it'd make it the most interesting one, no doubt.
I'd REALLY love someone to do another email hack. i'd LOVE to see all that's gone on since the last one! I doubt they learned to keep all that stuff off the servers ;o).
anyone else find it kind of an odd duology too?
they are doing their best to **** off the core and casual audience, yet still doing all of these 'nice' things at the same time? also said nice things that would make it hard for any detractors to complain about, thus giving them super proof positive support for the movie? 'look at sony, they support so and so and did this and that charity event.....I'm gonna give that movie a chance now. screw the nerds!'
and most hospital visits tend to happen AFTER the movie is a hit, not before. even if the hospital staff 'asked' them, it seemed like it was an obvious plot to try and get something positive going.
I don't know. do they still do those E true hollywood stories? if someone can get all the dirt going, it'd make it the most interesting one, no doubt.
I'd REALLY love someone to do another email hack. i'd LOVE to see all that's gone on since the last one! I doubt they learned to keep all that stuff off the servers ;o).
Last edited:
d_osborn
Sr Member
I see a bunch of fans trying to do something positive, and for that I can't fault them. I could be mistaken, but as far as I can tell, the only thing Sony did for the parade was supply the new Ectomobile.
Even if the whole shebang was organized by Ghost Corps---if Hollywood marketing moves towards positive social events--- if THAT is as crass as it gets, that's not too shabby. Our society can use every little bit of positivity it can get, even if it's sent down by the evil corporate overlords. I can't help but smile when I see actors visiting children's hospitals in costume. Bring on more of it.
...and of course it has zero bearing on the quality of the reboot.
EDIT-- On a slightly related note, I just noticed that the Alberta GB crew is raising money for the Red Cross to help with relief for the Alberta Fires. http://www.redcross.ca/gb
...and on an unrelated note, I noticed that the new international GB16 poster is a bit of a throwback to the original GB international poster!
Last edited:
KrangPrime
Master Member
https://www.amazon.com/Ghostbusters...3432&sr=8-1&keywords=ghostbusters+movie+novel
if anyone wants to scorch their eyes early ;o)
I doubt a kids novel will reflect the full awful ness of a full paul feig film though ;o)
if anyone wants to scorch their eyes early ;o)
I doubt a kids novel will reflect the full awful ness of a full paul feig film though ;o)
d_osborn
Sr Member
...and apparently the movie is about to start screening for critics! A UK media personality I'm acquainted with is going to some sort of a review screening/press junket later this week. He didn't mention any embargo at all. I didn't realize the movie was already locked-- pretty cool!
KrangPrime
Master Member
more over the top acting by 'patty'!
Last edited by a moderator:
d_osborn
Sr Member
Are you referring to the people in the hospital that spelled out WHO YA GONNA CALL on poster boards, letter-by-letter, across the room windows of the hospital next to set? From what I gather, the hospital patients/families were excited that a big Hollywood movie was shooting outside. Hardcore GB fans or not, the actors popped in and took some pics in order to spread cheer. That's a pretty awesome move in my book. Aykroyd and Murray did the exact same thing back in the day at a children's hospital.
I get not being excited/satisfied with an upcoming movie, but this is getting crazy.
...and for the record, I'm not super pro-reboot. I'm enjoying the anticipation, but it's not the route I would have personally taken if given the keys to the franchise. My expectations were adjusted. Then again, I've been accused of often finding the silver lining in things.
Last edited:
Egon Spengler
Master Member
Did they do studies on cringe generating content and how to make it before they made this movie, it's promos, and it's jokes? So far it seems like they must have had a lot of funding for a study like that. I could be wrong, this movie could be amazingly funny and entertaining, but everything I see , except one or two things, makes me cringe so hard. Add this video to the list.
KrangPrime
Master Member
I don't agree with that.
THEMS FIGHTING WOIDS!
Hold on, let me lightly insult you, then post something positive hoping it'll get you to stop insulting the thing i love. perfectly sane, right? ;o)
d_osborn
Sr Member
Someone needs a safe space. :facepalm
You wouldn't have to be so passive aggressive if you would stop blocking people for making logical rebuttals to your complaints. Considering you were openly making fun of the director's name, I kinda figured light insults were game. Apologies if I hurt your feelings.
Back on topic, the in-universe book is making it's way out to reviewers! I'm not usually one to pick these things up, but I dig the cover design. Fun.
Solo4114
Master Member
So, I don't know that I entirely agree that the connection with the various social movements and such is crass marketing. If it's primarily fan-driven, that's probably pretty genuine.
What I do think is the case, though, is that Sony has likely recognized that its best insulation against criticism is to hold up a shield of social justice. As I've said previously, it may not have been intentional, but Feig's decision and subsequent response to those anti-reboot folks who are truly sexist has managed to make objective evaluation of the film completely impossible.
At least initially, there will be no way to separate the raw comedic product from the "Yeah, but it's ALL WOMEN!" angle. Likewise, criticisms of the film will instantly be tainted with sexism, even if it has nothing to do with who the actors are. At the very least, one will have to proactively say "But I'm not sexist" or "Now, I'm a feminist, but..." There's no way to get away from that issue at this point.
I think that it's certainly very possible that Sony has recognized this fact, and is steering into it. Rather than let the story be one of general "negative fan reaction" (see also: Fant4stic Four), the story is "Sexist Troglodyte Man-Babies Hate On Movie They Haven't Even Seen Because They're Sexist." And, to the extent that Sony can do positive brand association (because, again, it's ALL about the brand), then sure, they'll do it. You'll love the new Ghostbusters because of all those hospital visits the GBs did and because of the Ecto1 at the Pride Parade, not because it's, you know, funny.
This stuff works, too. These techniques are tested and proven to be successful ways to make people more positively disposed towards your brand. So, sure, why wouldn't Sony do it? And yeah, it's pretty transparent. The same way it's blatantly obvious that those Subaru commercials with the point-of-view car crash followed by the worried parent saying "Are you ok?!" to their kid and a small "I'm ok" voice coming from the back are attempting to manipulate their audience.
What I do think is the case, though, is that Sony has likely recognized that its best insulation against criticism is to hold up a shield of social justice. As I've said previously, it may not have been intentional, but Feig's decision and subsequent response to those anti-reboot folks who are truly sexist has managed to make objective evaluation of the film completely impossible.
At least initially, there will be no way to separate the raw comedic product from the "Yeah, but it's ALL WOMEN!" angle. Likewise, criticisms of the film will instantly be tainted with sexism, even if it has nothing to do with who the actors are. At the very least, one will have to proactively say "But I'm not sexist" or "Now, I'm a feminist, but..." There's no way to get away from that issue at this point.
I think that it's certainly very possible that Sony has recognized this fact, and is steering into it. Rather than let the story be one of general "negative fan reaction" (see also: Fant4stic Four), the story is "Sexist Troglodyte Man-Babies Hate On Movie They Haven't Even Seen Because They're Sexist." And, to the extent that Sony can do positive brand association (because, again, it's ALL about the brand), then sure, they'll do it. You'll love the new Ghostbusters because of all those hospital visits the GBs did and because of the Ecto1 at the Pride Parade, not because it's, you know, funny.
This stuff works, too. These techniques are tested and proven to be successful ways to make people more positively disposed towards your brand. So, sure, why wouldn't Sony do it? And yeah, it's pretty transparent. The same way it's blatantly obvious that those Subaru commercials with the point-of-view car crash followed by the worried parent saying "Are you ok?!" to their kid and a small "I'm ok" voice coming from the back are attempting to manipulate their audience.
KrangPrime
Master Member
while I agree that it's impossible not to talk about sexism more than ghostbusters at this point (largely thanks to sony and their bought for SJW articles)....
I disagree that it's all about the brand at this point, or ever in this case.
From the very start, it's been sony pushing 'women, women, women.' as if we wouldn't notice.
THEN when the complaints really became non stop, they started the sexism angle to go with it. I think at first it was just to counter the negative reviews in some odd way to try and gain sympathy. but then when they saw all these articles pop up on their own, that became the free publicity machine for the last year. and if you believe that sony pictures is on it's last legs, and this film has no marketing budget, (hence why their marketing department is getting laid off), it became a blessing in disguise.
it's the only thing that makes sense.
to me, this round of things under the GB's name has NEVER been about ghostbusters. it's always been about the cause thanks to the two people running it.
and if that IS the case, I wonder if Dan Aykroyd has cause to sue sony for ruining of a brand, intentionally. somehow i doubt amy pascal ever had good intentions with this thing...considering before this, she wanted to produce a female super hero movie called 'glass ceiling'. ghostbusters came along at the right time for her...and so did the death of harold ramis. one less rights holder makes it easier to push the agenda, i guess. maybe in the settlement, they could finally wrestle gb's away from sony and give it to a company that will actually do it justice. I dream for the marvel writers to tackle it one day. I think their sense of style would do GB proud for a new generation.
I disagree that it's all about the brand at this point, or ever in this case.
From the very start, it's been sony pushing 'women, women, women.' as if we wouldn't notice.
THEN when the complaints really became non stop, they started the sexism angle to go with it. I think at first it was just to counter the negative reviews in some odd way to try and gain sympathy. but then when they saw all these articles pop up on their own, that became the free publicity machine for the last year. and if you believe that sony pictures is on it's last legs, and this film has no marketing budget, (hence why their marketing department is getting laid off), it became a blessing in disguise.
it's the only thing that makes sense.
to me, this round of things under the GB's name has NEVER been about ghostbusters. it's always been about the cause thanks to the two people running it.
and if that IS the case, I wonder if Dan Aykroyd has cause to sue sony for ruining of a brand, intentionally. somehow i doubt amy pascal ever had good intentions with this thing...considering before this, she wanted to produce a female super hero movie called 'glass ceiling'. ghostbusters came along at the right time for her...and so did the death of harold ramis. one less rights holder makes it easier to push the agenda, i guess. maybe in the settlement, they could finally wrestle gb's away from sony and give it to a company that will actually do it justice. I dream for the marvel writers to tackle it one day. I think their sense of style would do GB proud for a new generation.
Solo4114
Master Member
Well, first, I don't believe Sony Pictures is anywhere close to on its last legs. I think some of their franchise choices didn't pan out (e.g. Spider-Man) and their attempt to revive an old one anew has been met with mixed reactions (e.g. Ghostbusters), but generally I think Sony's doing fine. They're not about to just disappear as a studio any time soon.
And as for the whole "women, women, women" thing, I think Feig led with that because that's just what Feig does, but I also think that it was always -- at its core -- about branding. Feig and his style of comedy is a brand the same way Judd Apatow is a brand and the same way the Farrely bros. are a brand. Ghostbusters is a brand. I think Amy Pascal figured "GB brand + Feig brand = box office success." Period. Feig promoting the women/feminist angle of the film is just him doing his thing. It's not "pushing" anything. That's just what he does. It's the kind of films he makes. It's a known quantity.
Amy Pascal wanted Feig to attach his brand to hers, and managed to accomplish that by giving Feig what he wanted: the ability to basically remake the original film, but with women instead. That was the only way Feig was going to be interested, and the only way she'd get Feig's brand associated with Ghostbusters, and she was fine with that.
The bottom line is pretty simple: branding sells movies these days. Remakes, reboots, reimaginings, sequels, franchise films, etc., it's all about audience familiarity with the material on an unconscious level, a.k.a. branding.
If this film was, say, about four women who fight ghosts in 1980s Chicago, using elaborate rube-goldberg-style devices, it'd just be some crappy Ghostbusters knockoff and nobody would go see it. But you slap the logo and the proton packs on top of that project, while leaving all the humor otherwise the same, and suddenly audiences say "Oh cool. I'll go see that." Why? Branding. Studios know this works, and that's why they do it.
Audiences won't take a chance on something "original." They want something familiar. That's the attitude in Hollywood, so that's what they keep making.
Um....
No.
Dan Akroyd will not sue Sony. Why would he? He doesn't care, man. He gets his check either way. Also, I think you are imputing a sense of protective ownership of the franchise to Akroyd that he, quite frankly, just doesn't have. If Dan was as protective of the franchise as you think he was...this film never would've been made in the first place. Dan could've stopped it. Bill could've stopped it. Bob could've stopped it. Assuming, of course, that they had the rights to do so. They didn't. That's because they didn't care. They aren't as attached to these films as you are. Or to the extent they are, it's much more of a commercial product to them than this thing they love so dearly.
And even if he wanted to, there's no grounds to sue. Sony is the exclusive studio that can make these films. I'm not even sure that Akroyd, Murray, and Zemeckis "own" Ghostbusters, or at least own it in a way that they could claim Sony acted against their interests. That's not how this stuff works, really. That'd be like James Cameron suing the studio for Terminator 3 (or, really, any subsequent Terminator film). He doesn't have the right to, nor does he have the legal grounds on which to base a claim.
Similar threads
