Ghostbusters heading for $70 million loss

[Breakdown]

The thing is, I watched the new Magnificent Seven trailer a couple of days ago and it looks really shit, so I'm not going to go see it when it's released. I'm not going to be labelled a bigot for having that opinion. Media critics aren't going to step in and defend the film, and write articles called "twenty reasons why the new Magnificent Seven reboot is the 2016 must see movie", or talk about how Magnificent Seven haters are basement dwelling antisocial losers.

 

[Hawki]

Snip

None of those films directly attacked the fans in a manufactured controversy.

Let's assume that's true. I don't recall any of those films reporting incidents of fans directly harassing the actors, nor does it account for the reporting of mysogenistic comments by news sources outside Sony from the outset of the 'controversy.' Even looking at the trailer now, the comments are just as vile as ever. If it's a toss between "company attacks fans in an attempt to save face" or "the Internet has a cesspool that can come bubbling up to the surface on a moment's notice," then I find the latter has more credulity.

 

[Schadrach]

Normalising female characters in action films that aren't there simply for eye candy can't be anything other than a good thing.

Sure it can. What you want is to normalize female characters in good action films that aren't there simply for eye candy.

 

[MatParker116]

Normalising female characters in action films that aren't there simply for eye candy can't be anything other than a good thing.

Sure it can. What you want is to normalize female characters in good action films that aren't there simply for eye candy.

Which Disney's been doing a decent job of.

 

[Namehere]

Snip

None of those films directly attacked the fans in a manufactured controversy.

Let's assume that's true. I don't recall any of those films reporting incidents of fans directly harassing the actors, nor does it account for the reporting of mysogenistic comments by news sources outside Sony from the outset of the 'controversy.' Even looking at the trailer now, the comments are just as vile as ever. If it's a toss between "company attacks fans in an attempt to save face" or "the Internet has a cesspool that can come bubbling up to the surface on a moment's notice," then I find the latter has more credulity.

If you can't point to sexism - which there was a lot of - significantly damaging the revenue of Force Awakens, or racism, then you have to acknowledge there's a good chance it didn't play a significant role in this production's failure either.

And as to the vitriolic crap in the Youtube comments section under the trailer, perhaps you hadn't heard, but Sony deleted a bunch of comments that weren't sexist enough to hold up the narrative. As for any doubts that this film was political in its conception, I refer you to the hacked Sony e-mails. The director of this film didn't want to make a Ghostbusters movie, but he was willing if he could use the franchise for his own ends. Ends that aligned with those of the studio at the time.

Finally: "I don't recall any of those films reporting incidents of fans directly harassing the actors..." Well you assumed that the marketing was an issue, marketing that wasn't done with Force Awakens or Mad Max, right? So why wouldn't there be a difference in reaction? And you'll again note that Force Awakens and Mad Max - although to a lesser degree - made money.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

Snip

None of those films directly attacked the fans in a manufactured controversy.

Let's assume that's true. I don't recall any of those films reporting incidents of fans directly harassing the actors, nor does it account for the reporting of mysogenistic comments by news sources outside Sony from the outset of the 'controversy.' Even looking at the trailer now, the comments are just as vile as ever. If it's a toss between "company attacks fans in an attempt to save face" or "the Internet has a cesspool that can come bubbling up to the surface on a moment's notice," then I find the latter has more credulity.

You know Sony deleted the reasonable negative comments and left the really insulting one right?

 

[Hawki]

If you can't point to sexism - which there was a lot of - significantly damaging the revenue of Force Awakens, or racism, then you have to acknowledge there's a good chance it didn't play a significant role in this production's failure either.

Did I claim that sexism/lack of it was the result for the film's failure? My above post was based on wondering why the film generated such vitriol pre-release.

Also, the Force Awakens:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/star-wars-mens-rights-activists-claim-boycott-cost-the-force-awakens-42m-a6796146.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/19/racists-urge-boycott-of-star-wars-episode-vii-over-black-lead-and-most-of-them-love-trump.html

http://www.etonline.com/movies/174761_jj_abrams_talks_star_wars_boycott/

It's dubious whether it cost TFA that much, but it's proof in of itself that there was a negative reaction to TFA pre-release based entirely on the actors' gender/skin colour.

And as to the vitriolic crap in the Youtube comments section under the trailer, perhaps you hadn't heard, but Sony deleted a bunch of comments that weren't sexist enough to hold up the narrative.

You know Sony deleted the reasonable negative comments and left the really insulting one right?

I've heard that claim, I've never been presented with any proof. It's the same kind of claim that usually belongs with the "critics are paid off" or "DC bias." The only report I've seen on that from a third party was that Sony was deleting the most mysogenistic claims (see http://fortune.com/2016/05/02/female-ghostbusters-trailer/). Also, let's assume that Sony has deleted comments to leave only the most hate-filled comments. Those hate-filled comments are thus left, and in such a large number, that it persists on the trailer to this day. Right now, some of the top comments include:

"fucking stupid feminists ruin innocent lifes everyday"

"Leslie Jones looks like a Gorilla."

"all western feminist need to be sent to the middle east then they will understand how lucky they are to live in the west."

"I'm pretty sure this is ghostbusters trying to be sexist"

A lot of the comments right now are gloating at its failure, but, yeah. Also, the comments pre-date the film's trailer by the better part of a year (see http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/128981/ghostbusters-paul-feig-tells-disgruntled-fan-to-go-fck-himself/). I think that such comments exist at all is far more disgraceful than Sony's supposed deletion.

Well you assumed that the marketing was an issue,

Where? Again, read my post. I wasn't speculating on why the film failed to turn in a profit, I was speculating on why it was Ghostbusters that drew in such ire. Which, honestly, is still bizzare, because:

Fact: Ghostbusters has had more than one continuity ever since Ghostbusters II.

Fact: Ghostbusters movie canon is still being continued in comic form (not to mention the game, not sure about cartoon canon)

Fact: Reboots/remakes are fairly common, but it's rare to see backlash to this extent

Fact: Ghostbusters III was in development hell for ages, and was stymied by the death of Harold Ramis and Bill Murry's lack of interest.

So, in light of the above, here comes a movie remake/reboot, based on a series that's had an established multiverse/multiple continuities since within a decade of its inception, made in the knowledge that Ghostbusters III was unlikely to ever occur in idealized form, and...yeah. I can concede that:

a) It might have been possible to do a 'passing the torch story,' or set it within original movie canon, and:

b) It's entirely possible that it's a black swan where frustration about Ghostbusters III, coupled with reboot/remake fatigue, and a poorly received trailer, simply generated a spike in user outburst.

But the comments are still a smoking gun. And to re-iterate, why the movie failed to turn in a profit wasn't the point of my post, only my comment that it was a shame. Only that I've never seen anyone offer a reasonable explanation for the hostile reaction.

 

[Namehere]

If you can't point to sexism - which there was a lot of - significantly damaging the revenue of Force Awakens, or racism, then you have to acknowledge there's a good chance it didn't play a significant role in this production's failure either.

Did I claim that sexism/lack of it was the result for the film's failure? My above post was based on wondering why the film generated such vitriol pre-release.

Also, the Force Awakens:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/star-wars-mens-rights-activists-claim-boycott-cost-the-force-awakens-42m-a6796146.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/19/racists-urge-boycott-of-star-wars-episode-vii-over-black-lead-and-most-of-them-love-trump.html

http://www.etonline.com/movies/174761_jj_abrams_talks_star_wars_boycott/

It's dubious whether it cost TFA that much, but it's proof in of itself that there was a negative reaction to TFA pre-release based entirely on the actors' gender/skin colour.

And as to the vitriolic crap in the Youtube comments section under the trailer, perhaps you hadn't heard, but Sony deleted a bunch of comments that weren't sexist enough to hold up the narrative.

You know Sony deleted the reasonable negative comments and left the really insulting one right?

I've heard that claim, I've never been presented with any proof. It's the same kind of claim that usually belongs with the "critics are paid off" or "DC bias." The only report I've seen on that from a third party was that Sony was deleting the most mysogenistic claims (see http://fortune.com/2016/05/02/female-ghostbusters-trailer/). Also, let's assume that Sony has deleted comments to leave only the most hate-filled comments. Those hate-filled comments are thus left, and in such a large number, that it persists on the trailer to this day. Right now, some of the top comments include:

"fucking stupid feminists ruin innocent lifes everyday"

"Leslie Jones looks like a Gorilla."

"all western feminist need to be sent to the middle east then they will understand how lucky they are to live in the west."

"I'm pretty sure this is ghostbusters trying to be sexist"

A lot of the comments right now are gloating at its failure, but, yeah. Also, the comments pre-date the film's trailer by the better part of a year (see http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/128981/ghostbusters-paul-feig-tells-disgruntled-fan-to-go-fck-himself/). I think that such comments exist at all is far more disgraceful than Sony's supposed deletion.

Well you assumed that the marketing was an issue,

Where? Again, read my post. I wasn't speculating on why the film failed to turn in a profit, I was speculating on why it was Ghostbusters that drew in such ire. Which, honestly, is still bizzare, because:

Fact: Ghostbusters has had more than one continuity ever since Ghostbusters II.

Fact: Ghostbusters movie canon is still being continued in comic form (not to mention the game, not sure about cartoon canon)

Fact: Reboots/remakes are fairly common, but it's rare to see backlash to this extent

Fact: Ghostbusters III was in development hell for ages, and was stymied by the death of Harold Ramis and Bill Murry's lack of interest.

So, in light of the above, here comes a movie remake/reboot, based on a series that's had an established multiverse/multiple continuities since within a decade of its inception, made in the knowledge that Ghostbusters III was unlikely to ever occur in idealized form, and...yeah. I can concede that:

a) It might have been possible to do a 'passing the torch story,' or set it within original movie canon, and:

b) It's entirely possible that it's a black swan where frustration about Ghostbusters III, coupled with reboot/remake fatigue, and a poorly received trailer, simply generated a spike in user outburst.

But the comments are still a smoking gun. And to re-iterate, why the movie failed to turn in a profit wasn't the point of my post, only my comment that it was a shame. Only that I've never seen anyone offer a reasonable explanation for the hostile reaction.

Here Comes Tomorrow: "None of those films directly attacked the fans in a manufactured controversy."
You: "Let's assume that's true..."
You assumed it was true only to immediately dismiss it. It's the only major difference between Mad Max and Force Awakens pre-release.

This film wasn't at all marketed like Star Wars. Consider JJ speaking about directing Force Awakens. He talked about being a fan of the franchise and how he understood that franchise. Then consider almost all of Paul's statements regarding Ghostbusters, most of which consisted of complaining about it's toxic fan base. Ghostbusters is to many today what Star Wars was to those just under a decade or so younger. It's a massive cultural icon to many, even if not you in particular. And when a beloved franchise - believe it or not - gets handed over to someone using it and abusing it rather then even attempting to handle it with any of the respect and care it's due, you can expect an outrage. Especially when the general assumption based on the trailer is that the movie is going to flop and any hope of a series coming out of it is going to be dashed on the rocks.

JJ, you'll recall, wasn't a Star Trek fan when he signed on to direct the first new movie. But he had a tone of previously experienced production team and cast chipping in with script ideas, right down to Leonard Nimoy, and it gave people hope that meant the movie would stand on its own. He didn't grab the opportunity to call George Lucas because he'd always preferred Star Wars in an effort to change Star Trek into Star Wars. And look at him now, doing his dream job!

The Sony e-mail hacks didn't help the film either. They painted a damning picture of a director in well over his head, suggesting frankly almost cliched ideas were somehow wholly original. His first script ideas sounded like an ugly mash up of MIB and Hellboy with no awareness that either series existed. It's tantamount to handing Quentin Tarantino a film like Beauty and the Beast. However that comes out, it ain't gonna look like the last movie with that name, is it? And chances are fans of the story probably aren't going to be fans of Tarantino's remake. The wrong director for the job, especially if he's writing it along the lines of Kill Bill.

And let's remember, Star Trek appeals to a select group of people. Star Wars has a larger and frankly more ordinary audience. Ghostbusters appeals to people who grew up with it - nerds and jocks alike. Very different fan bases. You won't find many Trekkies at NASCar races, but you'll find just as many Ghostbusters fans there as you will at a Star Trek convention.

Finally: This film's been political since it's inception under Feig. The early promo photos included "girl power" photos of all the female cast and crew. Regardless of how you feel about it, meddling in politics is a sure way to alienate your audience and lure in your political opposites. Star Wars and Mad Max didn't market themselves like that, so I attribute it to marketing issues. And not issues that arose upon realising the movie would tank but that were built into it from the ground up.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Because I didn't read the last several post's worth of back-and-forth:

I felt the film would've worked better as a continuation of the first two films. There could've been a subplot about how the 80s paranormal outbreak was hushed up, being played for laughs (how do you hush up a skyscraper-sized marshmallow man? cue government agents leaning in close over their dark sunglasses and whispering "THERE WAS NO MARSHMALLOW MAN")

And they could've had a scene with Bill Murray where the girlbusters go to him and are like "Look, can you help us bust some of these ghosts, we know you used to do it" and he responds with the same attitude as a retired plumber being asked to come over and fix someone's pipes for them. It would've been a good metaphor for how unenthusiastic Murray was to continue the series in the first place. He's just like, "Look, you're capable ladies. It's the 21st century. You can stop the end of the world by yourselves. I'm going to go mack on Sigourney Weaver."

I don't know if that would've been considered patronising or - eugh - "mansplaining," but it would've given the original films a nod and maybe pandered the fans a bit, the same way Han Solo jumping into the Millenium Falcon did in TFA.

Really, I think the marketing of this film kind of bungled it by making enemies of the fanbase. It's one thing to recognise that a vocal minority of your fans are crazy misogynistic douchebags. It's another to behave as if all the old fans are like that, and that any trepidation about a reboot is due to old-timey sexism. Who were they going to sell the tickets to, if not the fans?

Plus, the original Ghostbusters had a fairly worldly - if not airtight - theme about Reagan-era economics and ham-fisted government regulation of small businesses. The reboot, as far as I'm aware (haven't seen it) had an evil janitor...?

 

[Chanticoblues]

Everyone's been silent on Ben Hur and Magnificent Seven gaining remakes.

Well they should stay silent, given both of those movies are already remakes.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Everyone's been silent on Ben Hur and Magnificent Seven gaining remakes.

Well they should stay silent, given both of those movies are already remakes.

Isn't Magnificent Seven a remake of a samurai film?

Yeah, I just checked. Seven Samurai. Man, I remember my Kurosawa binge phase. That guy was great.

 

[Angelblaze]

In short: Anything that makes a bunch of obnoxious men on the internet angry and one step closer to dying of a heart attack makes me a happy gal, burn more money. Make them suffer.

In long: Yeah, the shit being spat out by either sides didn't help buuuuut the moment things exploded and it was revealed that -- at least in my general circle of the internet -- people didn't even remember there were five Ghostbusters, the four you all know of and the PH.D awarded Winston Zeddemore. So combine my already instinctive joy of people who don't listen to me or will use any logical fallacy required to justify putting their fingers in their ears and going 'lalala' with a group of vitriolic assholes who can hardly be called a 'fanbase' but more a 'lynch mob' and you've got me singing praises that the movie came out period.

Fuck the loss, this is Hollywood. They spend millions to crank out horrific shit that will never make a profit so they can keep the IP. (See: Dragonball)

 

[Hawki]

Here Comes Tomorrow: "None of those films directly attacked the fans in a manufactured controversy."
You: "Let's assume that's true..."
You assumed it was true only to immediately dismiss it. It's the only major difference between Mad Max and Force Awakens pre-release.

Where did I dismiss it? I said "let's assume that's true," (and I have to assume that a lot of stuff is true, because claims are being made without sources attached to them), and pointed out the fanbase's own toxic reactions. It's a chicken and the egg scenario. I do know that Feig has lashed out at people, but that's mainly because the lashing out was directed at production before the trailer.

This film wasn't at all marketed like Star Wars. Consider JJ speaking about directing Force Awakens. He talked about being a fan of the franchise and how he understood that franchise. Then consider almost all of Paul's statements regarding Ghostbusters, most of which consisted of complaining about it's toxic fan base.

I'm aware that Feig's been vocal in defence of the film. In an ideal world, the director would take abuse in stride, but it's totally understandable when you don't. But the difference is, as I've pointed out, there were people abusing Feig even before the trailer was released. I'm not aware of any personal attacks on Abrams before The Force Awakens was in development from the Star Wars fanbase.

Ghostbusters is to many today what Star Wars was to those just under a decade or so younger. It's a massive cultural icon to many, even if not you in particular. And when a beloved franchise - believe it or not - gets handed over to someone using it and abusing it rather then even attempting to handle it with any of the respect and care it's due, you can expect an outrage. Especially when the general assumption based on the trailer is that the movie is going to flop and any hope of a series coming out of it is going to be dashed on the rocks.

Few points:

-I'm not disputing that people love Ghostbusters to the extent of zeitgeist. I haven't seen anything from Feig specifically to indicate that it was being "used and abused" (you come to this down below, so I'll say more then). I'm also not so ideal that Sony in of itself is more interested than cashing in on the name than anything else (which doesn't exclude quality in of itself). But is it not okay for a company to "use and abuse" an actual property, but okay for a fanbase to vocally abuse actual people?

-I can't specifically expect outrage in light of Ghostbusters as a whole. I've pointed out the multiple canon issues, the actor issues, and the Ghostbuster III issues. Ghostbusters is in a far better position for reboots/remakes than other franchises since the use of multiple continuities extends back to Ghostbusters II.

The Sony e-mail hacks didn't help the film either. They painted a damning picture of a director in well over his head, suggesting frankly almost cliched ideas were somehow wholly original. His first script ideas sounded like an ugly mash up of MIB and Hellboy with no awareness that either series existed. It's tantamount to handing Quentin Tarantino a film like Beauty and the Beast. However that comes out, it ain't gonna look like the last movie with that name, is it? And chances are fans of the story probably aren't going to be fans of Tarantino's remake. The wrong director for the job, especially if he's writing it along the lines of Kill Bill.

I can't comment on Tarantino, and Beauty of the Beast has had so many versions over the years, I doubt it has a core fanbase in the same sense as other medias.

Now, the Sony emails. I am aware of them, that they contained at least rumors, if not confirmation, that Sony was considering sueing Bill Murry, and there's talk of script issues. Now, Sony's actions against Murry are dispicable, if true. However, a far more nebulous thing like the quality of a script/lack of it doesn't give carte blanche for some of the behaviour seen.

And let's remember, Star Trek appeals to a select group of people. Star Wars has a larger and frankly more ordinary audience. Ghostbusters appeals to people who grew up with it - nerds and jocks alike. Very different fan bases. You won't find many Trekkies at NASCar races, but you'll find just as many Ghostbusters fans there as you will at a Star Trek convention.

Star Trek is more niche than Star Wars, I'll give you that, but I've never got the impression that it appealed to a select group of people. It's one of the most popular sci-fi TV series out there. There's far more fringe ones in the genre (Babylon 5, Farscape, Stargate, etc.) Also, Star Trek fans, while vocal, tend to voice their complaints based on the product themselves. The worse I've seen for Abrams is "Jar Jar Abrams," and with limited vitriol. Star Wars fans can be a bit more viscious with their personal attacks on Lucas and Berman (see RLM for instance), but even that's small fry compared to what the outburst to this film has generated.

Finally: This film's been political since it's inception under Feig. The early promo photos included "girl power" photos of all the female cast and crew. Regardless of how you feel about it, meddling in politics is a sure way to alienate your audience and lure in your political opposites. Star Wars and Mad Max didn't market themselves like that, so I attribute it to marketing issues. And not issues that arose upon realising the movie would tank but that were built into it from the ground up.

I'd need to see those photos, because the earliest promo photos I've found (dating back to 2015) have simply shown four females. I'd also hardly call that "political."

But anyway, this has taken far longer to respond to than I thought. I mean, I do find it a bit concerning that for all the crap Sony has pulled (e.g. the lawsuit), there's a willingness to speak out against those involved in the production, but I haven't heard a single word of concern against the more toxic elements of the fanbase on this thread. Yes, not everyone who dislikes the trailer were mysogenistic. What about the people who actually DID live up to the stereotype? "Insult the product, not the person," as the saying goes.

I felt the film would've worked better as a continuation of the first two films.

Plus, the original Ghostbusters had a fairly worldly - if not airtight - theme about Reagan-era economics and ham-fisted government regulation of small businesses. The reboot, as far as I'm aware (haven't seen it) had an evil janitor...?

I suppose I could be snarky and say that you 'feel the film would have worked better' doesn't entirely mesh up with not having seen it, but if we're comparing themes, the original is at least the motif of "small business deals with the supernatural, hindered by government (over)regulation." The new movie's theme, if summed up in one word, would be friendship. If summed up in a sentence, it would be "the world can be a cruel, uncaring place where bad things happen to good people, but don't let that get you down - things can work out in the end." If analyzed, Rowan, if judged as a character, is a twerp. He's an angry loner who claims he's been hard-done by (we never see direct evidence of this) whose motivation is "I want to destroy the world because I hate people." If judged as a foil, however, he works brilliantly, because he's a dark reflection of what Abby and Erin could be if they'd let the world's more mean-spirited elements get to them. It's telling that Erin is the one who has the 'crisis of faith,' that Abby is on one end of the spectrum (who never lets anyone get her down, bar the YouTube scenes), Rowan is on the other end (who's given up on the world), and Erin is the one who could swing either way. Also telling that while the city government tries to hush up the event, New York itself has a "Thank you Ghostbusters" lightshow at the end.

That's the great shame about Ghostbusters 2016 in my mind - its production is more discussed than its content.

people didn't even remember there were five Ghostbusters, the four you all know of and the PH.D awarded Winston Zeddemore.

Wasn't Winston the fourth? Or are you including Janine?

 

[Mechamorph]

Some lessons that can be drawn from the whole incident:

Play to the strengths of your cast and crew:
Paul Feig is a satirist whose body of work largely parodies its source material. That is what he is good at, asking him to do a franchise film is like asking Usain Bolt to get in the pool to race against Michael Phelps. The four comediennes are also stronger at different forms of comedy than that shown in the films. The script did not really play to their strengths either.

When rebooting a beloved franchise, prepare for bile
Look, this is the internet. There was hate for practically every sequel, remake, reboot or anything that vaguely threatens someone's nebulous definition of their "childhoods". Whether it was Transformers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Star War or Star Trek, there will be at least some online hate. If your marketing machinery is not ready for it, make sure you are before you venture into that territory.

Do not alienate a franchise's existing audience in an effort to garner a new audience
Expanding an audience is a good idea. Throwing away the one you have to try and woo a brand new one is generally not. There is no guarantee that they will bite but it is guaranteed that if you scorn the in-built audience, they will shun the movie in droves.

Leave politics out of marketing
Unless the work is inherently political, marketing something according to its politics or the politics of it creators is typically a bad move if only because it will alienate people on the other end of the political divide. It has a good chance of alienating neutrals too since most people do not consider consuming media to be political statements and can find politics in their entertainment to be a turn off.

Bad publicity is bad publicity
Especially when it comes to the quality of the product. Hearing that Robert Downey Junior had a mile-high drunken orgy with a dozen gorgeous Ukrainian supermodels is publicity. Learning that a director tried to shoot himself rather than live with the shame of helming his latest film is not. When your intended audience reacts badly to your marketing strategy, doubling down is not likely to yield a good outcome.

So anyone wants to bet that Hollywood would take home at least two of these possible interpretations? Anyone?

 

[Fox12]

Well, this is depressing. I quite liked the movie. Shock of all shocks, I know.

What's more, the reaction has just been bizzare, in my eyes. Even if we conclude that actual mysogenists were the same vocal ratbags that declared boycotts of The Force Awakens and Finding Dory due to female/black protagonists and a lesbian couple respectively, even if we ignore the harassment of Leslie Jones on Twitter, even if I can understand why people might dislike a Ghostbusters reboot, I have to ask "this is the hill you chose to die on?" After it was clear that Ghostbusters III was never going to happen? After the series was split in continuity the moment Ghostbusters II occurred? After the movie continuity was being continued for the better part of a decade in comic form, not to mention the videogame? What, was a third Ghostbusters continuity one step too far? Even if I entertained the idea that the film could have done a Force Awakens and still took place in one of the original continuities, albeit with the focus on a new cast, the reaction still comes off as bizzare. Even if I took this as being the straw that broke the camel's back, it's still bizzare that Ghostbusters was the confluence of nerd rage. No-one was complaining when Planet of the Apes gained its third movie continuity. Everyone's been silent on Ben Hur and Magnificent Seven gaining remakes. No-one's complaining that we're getting a third Spider-Man character in the space of a decade, not to mention every other bloody comic reboot. No-one complained when Goosebumps was released, ignoring old continuity, also functioning as supernatural comedy, and released by Sony no less. You couldn't have directed this ire at Neil Blokamp's Alien fanfiction project that's basically scrubbing a decade's plus of continuity under the rug? Ghostbusters 2016 at the least doesn't invalidate anything that happened in either of the previous two continuities.

I dunno. Maybe Ghostbusters became this sacred artifact and I didn't know it, even while liking the first film. And look, I don't have a problem with people disliking the movie after seeing it - goodness knows it has its share of flaws. But years from now, I expect I'll look at Ghostbusters 2016 and ask "what made the stars align to make everyone hate this movie, and give reboot/remake/remastering #116 the a-okay?" This likely still being the era where the MCU is popping out movies like McDonalds fries.

I can't speak for others, but I hated every single film you mentioned. Especially anything by Neil Blomkamp. Thankfully Ridley Scott crunched him like a roach, so there will be no new movie. Sadly, Ridley Scott will ruin the franchise himself.

In any case, I think films have been more controversial then you're willing to admit. Spider-Man recieved a third reboot because it's been plagued by failure. Every expanded universe outside of Marvel has been a failure. This includes the Spider-Man expanded universe, the x-man expanded universe, the Universal Monsters expanded universe, and now the ghostbusters expanded universe. The Santa-barbera expanded universe will probably be a failure as well. The Thing, Terminator, Fantastic Four, and many others films recieved unsuccessful remakes and reboots. Reboots fail as often as they succeed. Ghostbusters may have recieved additional hate due to other contributing factors, but I don't think it's failure is somehow out of the blue.

 

[Hawki]

In any case, I think films have been more controversial then you're willing to admit. Spider-Man recieved a third reboot because it's been plagued by failure. Every expanded universe outside of Marvel has been a failure. This includes the Spider-Man expanded universe, the x-man expanded universe, the Universal Monsters expanded universe, and now the ghostbusters expanded universe. The Santa-barbera expanded universe will probably be a failure as well. The Thing, Terminator, Fantastic Four, and many others films recieved unsuccessful remakes and reboots. Reboots fail as often as they succeed. Ghostbusters may have recieved additional hate due to other contributing factors, but I don't think it's failure is somehow out of the blue.

Quality of individual films aside, while I'm not really onboard the cinematic universe concept (since the MCU has shown that you can release a slew of average movies and still rake in the cash), I have to ask what universes you've listed have been "failures." Spider-Man? Yeah, pretty much. X-Men? Still going. Universal Monsters? It's had one film released and has a slew yet to be released, it's too early to call anything. Far too early to call anything else, whether it be SB, the "Hasbroverse" or the "Godzilla-Kong" universe. I think at this point it might be better to use "shared universe" rather than "cinematic universe," since stuff like X-Men, Star Wars, and Ghostbusters is still based on a franchise with a core property, whereas stuff like the MCU has a bunch of different properties that take place in the same setting. Also, if we go into TV, the Arrowverse, Whoniverse, Xenaverse, DCAU, and Buffyverse are/were successful in the "different properties, same setting" format.

 

[Namehere]

Here Comes Tomorrow: "None of those films directly attacked the fans in a manufactured controversy."
You: "Let's assume that's true..."
You assumed it was true only to immediately dismiss it. It's the only major difference between Mad Max and Force Awakens pre-release.

Where did I dismiss it? I said "let's assume that's true," (and I have to assume that a lot of stuff is true, because claims are being made without sources attached to them), and pointed out the fanbase's own toxic reactions. It's a chicken and the egg scenario. I do know that Feig has lashed out at people, but that's mainly because the lashing out was directed at production before the trailer.

This film wasn't at all marketed like Star Wars. Consider JJ speaking about directing Force Awakens. He talked about being a fan of the franchise and how he understood that franchise. Then consider almost all of Paul's statements regarding Ghostbusters, most of which consisted of complaining about it's toxic fan base.

I'm aware that Feig's been vocal in defence of the film. In an ideal world, the director would take abuse in stride, but it's totally understandable when you don't. But the difference is, as I've pointed out, there were people abusing Feig even before the trailer was released. I'm not aware of any personal attacks on Abrams before The Force Awakens was in development from the Star Wars fanbase.

Ghostbusters is to many today what Star Wars was to those just under a decade or so younger. It's a massive cultural icon to many, even if not you in particular. And when a beloved franchise - believe it or not - gets handed over to someone using it and abusing it rather then even attempting to handle it with any of the respect and care it's due, you can expect an outrage. Especially when the general assumption based on the trailer is that the movie is going to flop and any hope of a series coming out of it is going to be dashed on the rocks.

Few points:

-I'm not disputing that people love Ghostbusters to the extent of zeitgeist. I haven't seen anything from Feig specifically to indicate that it was being "used and abused" (you come to this down below, so I'll say more then). I'm also not so ideal that Sony in of itself is more interested than cashing in on the name than anything else (which doesn't exclude quality in of itself). But is it not okay for a company to "use and abuse" an actual property, but okay for a fanbase to vocally abuse actual people?

-I can't specifically expect outrage in light of Ghostbusters as a whole. I've pointed out the multiple canon issues, the actor issues, and the Ghostbuster III issues. Ghostbusters is in a far better position for reboots/remakes than other franchises since the use of multiple continuities extends back to Ghostbusters II.

The Sony e-mail hacks didn't help the film either. They painted a damning picture of a director in well over his head, suggesting frankly almost cliched ideas were somehow wholly original. His first script ideas sounded like an ugly mash up of MIB and Hellboy with no awareness that either series existed. It's tantamount to handing Quentin Tarantino a film like Beauty and the Beast. However that comes out, it ain't gonna look like the last movie with that name, is it? And chances are fans of the story probably aren't going to be fans of Tarantino's remake. The wrong director for the job, especially if he's writing it along the lines of Kill Bill.

I can't comment on Tarantino, and Beauty of the Beast has had so many versions over the years, I doubt it has a core fanbase in the same sense as other medias.

Now, the Sony emails. I am aware of them, that they contained at least rumors, if not confirmation, that Sony was considering sueing Bill Murry, and there's talk of script issues. Now, Sony's actions against Murry are dispicable, if true. However, a far more nebulous thing like the quality of a script/lack of it doesn't give carte blanche for some of the behaviour seen.

And let's remember, Star Trek appeals to a select group of people. Star Wars has a larger and frankly more ordinary audience. Ghostbusters appeals to people who grew up with it - nerds and jocks alike. Very different fan bases. You won't find many Trekkies at NASCar races, but you'll find just as many Ghostbusters fans there as you will at a Star Trek convention.

Star Trek is more niche than Star Wars, I'll give you that, but I've never got the impression that it appealed to a select group of people. It's one of the most popular sci-fi TV series out there. There's far more fringe ones in the genre (Babylon 5, Farscape, Stargate, etc.) Also, Star Trek fans, while vocal, tend to voice their complaints based on the product themselves. The worse I've seen for Abrams is "Jar Jar Abrams," and with limited vitriol. Star Wars fans can be a bit more viscious with their personal attacks on Lucas and Berman (see RLM for instance), but even that's small fry compared to what the outburst to this film has generated.

Finally: This film's been political since it's inception under Feig. The early promo photos included "girl power" photos of all the female cast and crew. Regardless of how you feel about it, meddling in politics is a sure way to alienate your audience and lure in your political opposites. Star Wars and Mad Max didn't market themselves like that, so I attribute it to marketing issues. And not issues that arose upon realising the movie would tank but that were built into it from the ground up.

I'd need to see those photos, because the earliest promo photos I've found (dating back to 2015) have simply shown four females. I'd also hardly call that "political."

But anyway, this has taken far longer to respond to than I thought. I mean, I do find it a bit concerning that for all the crap Sony has pulled (e.g. the lawsuit), there's a willingness to speak out against those involved in the production, but I haven't heard a single word of concern against the more toxic elements of the fanbase on this thread. Yes, not everyone who dislikes the trailer were mysogenistic. What about the people who actually DID live up to the stereotype? "Insult the product, not the person," as the saying goes.

I felt the film would've worked better as a continuation of the first two films.

Plus, the original Ghostbusters had a fairly worldly - if not airtight - theme about Reagan-era economics and ham-fisted government regulation of small businesses. The reboot, as far as I'm aware (haven't seen it) had an evil janitor...?

I suppose I could be snarky and say that you 'feel the film would have worked better' doesn't entirely mesh up with not having seen it, but if we're comparing themes, the original is at least the motif of "small business deals with the supernatural, hindered by government (over)regulation." The new movie's theme, if summed up in one word, would be friendship. If summed up in a sentence, it would be "the world can be a cruel, uncaring place where bad things happen to good people, but don't let that get you down - things can work out in the end." If analyzed, Rowan, if judged as a character, is a twerp. He's an angry loner who claims he's been hard-done by (we never see direct evidence of this) whose motivation is "I want to destroy the world because I hate people." If judged as a foil, however, he works brilliantly, because he's a dark reflection of what Abby and Erin could be if they'd let the world's more mean-spirited elements get to them. It's telling that Erin is the one who has the 'crisis of faith,' that Abby is on one end of the spectrum (who never lets anyone get her down, bar the YouTube scenes), Rowan is on the other end (who's given up on the world), and Erin is the one who could swing either way. Also telling that while the city government tries to hush up the event, New York itself has a "Thank you Ghostbusters" lightshow at the end.

That's the great shame about Ghostbusters 2016 in my mind - its production is more discussed than its content.

people didn't even remember there were five Ghostbusters, the four you all know of and the PH.D awarded Winston Zeddemore.

Wasn't Winston the fourth? Or are you including Janine?

August 25 2015: http://www.themarysue.com/ghostbusters-girl-power/
The Mary Sue no less. This movie was political from it's inception, as was it's advertising. Thus a large chunk of the problem. The known facts of Paul Feig taking on this project included his refusal to do it two times prior, because he didn't feel he could work with the script they had. So he got the reins and rewrote it to what we have today. This was all politics. I urge you to read the emails.

It isn't simply a chicken and egg scenario. Ivan Reitman got screwed out of his director position thanks to some very underhanded actions on the part of Amy Pascal. It's all there in black and white. I urge you to actually look it over. Paul Feig would have taken Star Trek, Indiana Jones, any movie if he got to do it his way, but refused to do the original script - because by his own admission he didn't know how. Paul Feig isn't the same sort of director as Ivan Reitman. Few humans are.

With that said it's obvious this movie has taken a beloved franchise and instead of honouring it, in any way whatsoever, they hired someone incompetent who had to rewrite it to be comfortable shooting it, and demanded that it carry an overshadowing political message, regardless of the effective outcome on the property. The fans were pissed and lashed out, the internet is full of people who don't care but have otherwise marginalised voices. They got pissed because 'politics' and lashed out to. If you make a right wing statement expect a left wing response, and that goes both ways.

There was quite a bit of racism and sexism surrounding The Force Awakens... but it still made its share of money didn't it? The Star Wars universe will go on, yes? The latest, and some would argue best, Star Trek film is considered a financial success, but it's arguable as to whether it was successful enough to justify shooting a fourth movie. Star Trek fandom is remarkably small. Some love TNG, some love DS9 some love the original. Making a movie in one continuation doesn't guarantee the audience of the others will come out and see it. Small fan bases.

Ghostbusters crosses economic and educational lines. Some of its fan base may indeed be rabid right wingers. You won't find many of those in the Star Trek fan base. And I expect, while more then one might at first have thought, not too many in the Star Wars fan base either. Again, Ghostbusters has a very, very, diverse fan base.

A lot of the Ghostbusters fan base isn't reading comics. They're living pay cheque to pay cheque, even poorer in some cases, their education is across the board from Ivy League to High School drop out. This is a film that captured the hearts of eight year olds. They were eight then, and they wanted to see that magic again. It was impossible but not impossible to enchant another generation of eight year olds and keep their parents relatively entertained/satisfied with the product. The fans wanted something on the silver screen again, one last go round. And they didn't get that and now it looks like this project has failed. That means no more Ghostbusters movies. It's pretty obvious why that would piss the fan base off. All because Amy Pascal and Paul Feig wanted to make a political propaganda piece instead of a Ghostbusters film.

 

[Hawki]

August 25 2015: http://www.themarysue.com/ghostbusters-girl-power/
The Mary Sue no less. This movie was political from it's inception, as was it's advertising.

...that's your smoking gun?

THAT'S YOUR SMOKING GUN?

An image showing female actors and production members showing a message that hey, it's possible for females to actually work on a film in a male-dominated industry? An image that was tweeted by one of the cast members and went through a third party rather than Sony itself? "Girl power" is political? Seriously? But hey, I've got it all wrong. My sense of security in the world is at stake because members of the opposite sex teamed up to have a groupie.

Also, funny that you choose the Mary Sue, where one can find arguments against Final Fantasy XV for being entirely male-dominated. Am I to assume THAT'S political as well? The "Ghostbusters is bad because it's all female" and "FF15 is bad because it's all male" are both rediculous arguments, along with the idea that there's inherent political bias behind them. The difference however, is that I can at least take heart from the groupie pic in the knowledge that females are under-represented in the film industry.

The known facts of Paul Feig taking on this project included his refusal to do it two times prior, because he didn't feel he could work with the script they had. So he got the reins and rewrote it to what we have today. This was all politics. I urge you to read the emails.

It isn't simply a chicken and egg scenario. Ivan Reitman got screwed out of his director position thanks to some very underhanded actions on the part of Amy Pascal. It's all there in black and white. I urge you to actually look it over. Paul Feig would have taken Star Trek, Indiana Jones, any movie if he got to do it his way, but refused to do the original script - because by his own admission he didn't know how. Paul Feig isn't the same sort of director as Ivan Reitman. Few humans are.

I'm willing to believe you, but you do realize that over 1000 emails were leaked (which would make for a lot of reading), and that this kind of thing is par for the course in the movie business? Script rewrites happen, studio powerplays occur, etc. Also, I find it telling that so far, every post of yours has been based on gripes with the film's production, rather than its execution.

With that said it's obvious this movie has taken a beloved franchise and instead of honouring it, in any way whatsoever, they hired someone incompetent who had to rewrite it to be comfortable shooting it, and demanded that it carry an overshadowing political message, regardless of the effective outcome on the property. The fans were pissed and lashed out, the internet is full of people who don't care but have otherwise marginalised voices. They got pissed because 'politics' and lashed out to. If you make a right wing statement expect a left wing response, and that goes both ways.

Right. Because, y'know, the cameos, and shotouts, and references...yep, didn't honour it any way whatsoever. And speaking as someone who has seen the film, I didn't see any political message whatsoever. Heck, the original arguably has a more political slant.

There was quite a bit of racism and sexism surrounding The Force Awakens... but it still made its share of money didn't it? The Star Wars universe will go on, yes? The latest, and some would argue best, Star Trek film is considered a financial success, but it's arguable as to whether it was successful enough to justify shooting a fourth movie. Star Trek fandom is remarkably small. Some love TNG, some love DS9 some love the original. Making a movie in one continuation doesn't guarantee the audience of the others will come out and see it. Small fan bases.

Ghostbusters crosses economic and educational lines. Some of its fan base may indeed be rabid right wingers. You won't find many of those in the Star Trek fan base. And I expect, while more then one might at first have thought, not too many in the Star Wars fan base either. Again, Ghostbusters has a very, very, diverse fan base.

A lot of the Ghostbusters fan base isn't reading comics. They're living pay cheque to pay cheque, even poorer in some cases, their education is across the board from Ivy League to High School drop out. This is a film that captured the hearts of eight year olds. They were eight then, and they wanted to see that magic again. It was impossible but not impossible to enchant another generation of eight year olds and keep their parents relatively entertained/satisfied with the product. The fans wanted something on the silver screen again, one last go round. And they didn't get that and now it looks like this project has failed. That means no more Ghostbusters movies. It's pretty obvious why that would piss the fan base off. All because Amy Pascal and Paul Feig wanted to make a political propaganda piece instead of a Ghostbusters film.

Oh boy...

First, I haven't heard anyone that Beyond is the best Star Trek film (maybe the best Kelvinverse film, but that's only 3 out of 13). Second, you'd have a hard time arguing that Beyond was a box office success. Third, I'd hardly call the Star Trek fanbase small. Star Trek is within the cultural zeitgeist. Maybe not to the extent of Star Wars, but it's hardly an obscure property.

Now, moving onto Ghostbusters. That's an extreme generalization/assumption of a fanbase's demographic, and it isn't the first time you've done so (e.g. the NASCAR racing example). But wait, we've reached the coup de grace:

"This is a film that captured the hearts of eight year olds. They were eight then, and they wanted to see that magic again. It was impossible but not impossible to enchant another generation of eight year olds and keep their parents relatively entertained/satisfied with the product. The fans wanted something on the silver screen again, one last go round. And they didn't get that and now it looks like this project has failed. That means no more Ghostbusters movies. It's pretty obvious why that would piss the fan base off. All because Amy Pascal and Paul Feig wanted to make a political propaganda piece instead of a Ghostbusters film."

First of all, this is flower speech. Second of all, why "eight year olds" specifically? Third of all, "it was impossible, but not impossible" to enchant another generation of eight year olds." I think you meant "it was DIFFICULT, but not IMPOSSIBLE," and your authority that eight year olds weren't enchanted is based on...what, exactly? Eight year olds don't have any purchasing power, and unless you have authority on what "kids these days" are into, it's far too early to say how children of that age range reacted (and I'd be very surprised if children that age would even be allowed to see the film). Fourth of all, this:

"The fans wanted something on the silver screen again, one last go round. And they didn't get that and now it looks like this project has failed. That means no more Ghostbusters movies. It's pretty obvious why that would piss the fan base off. All because Amy Pascal and Paul Feig wanted to make a political propaganda piece instead of a Ghostbusters film."

Except they got that "something," unless by "something," you mean a specific 'something.' Likewise, the fanbase was pissed off from the moment the film showed its trailers. If a fanbase wants a film to fail, and is then pissed off when it does fail, then that's self-fulfilling failure. Or, for all I know, if the film was a success, then the people who'd made up their minds from the outset would be attributing it to people who were only just introduced to the film and 'didn't know any better.' Goodness knows the Star Trek fanbase has demonstrated that mindset, albeit not nearly on the same level of vitriol.

So, since this has again taken far more time to respond to than I thought it would, I'm going to, hopefully, leave this off with the final thoughts:

a) I'm going to guess that since you were born in 1981 (according to your profile), you're the proverbial eight year old in this analogy, and probably saw the original film on VHS or in a cinema re-release (since GB1 was released in '84). If you hold the film as sacrosanct, good for you. However, appealing to emotion isn't a good way to win arguments. It's a close cousin to the argument of "ruined my childhood."

b) I'm willing to believe you on the notion that the producers wanted to make a film with a political message. To which, I say, "so what?" How did this affect the quality of the film? Why should Ghostbusters be kept clean from any political or sociatal sub-text when the original wasn't free of it? How is the presence of sub-text inherently detrimental to a work of fiction? As stated, as someone who HAS seen the film, I didn't see any of it.

c) Taking point b as true, nothing can excuse the level of backlash the Internet has generated. Nothing. Maybe we have very different values, but to me, the abstract notion of "ruining my childhood/runining a work of fiction" doesn't compare to personal attacks on individual human beings. I'm not accusing you of taking part in those attacks, but I do find it concerning that your level of concern is based on the production of a work of fiction rather than people verbally abusing those involved in said work.

 

[Shiver Me Tits]

Putting aside all of the pointless internet venom, I saw the movie and it wasn't funny. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't funny. For a comedy, that's not exactly a win. I don't think the original Ghostbusters was the height of cinematic majesty, but it was funny.

So yeah, a comedy that isn't funny probably should lose money; too bad that doesn't seem to happen more often or Adam Sandler would be poor.