FInally saw Ghostbusters

[Avilan the Grey]

It's a 7 out of 10 movie. It is really enjoyable and fun movie. My biggest complaints are in no particular order:

Like most movies taking place in New York it feels less... real and more Hollywood Pretending To Be New York.
The slow start was boring and childish in a bad way
The CGI felt too CGI-y at times despite going for a "pretend to be practical effects" thing.

Oh and the new version of the theme song does indeed suck. A lot.

I loved Wiig and McKinnon. I found McCarthy being McCarthy; I don't think I have ever see her actually play a character other than "McCarthy playing Sookie playing characters in a movie". Never seen Jones in anything before, but she did what was expected I think.

All in all though I will definitely watch this again and quite likely buy it on actual disc.

[JoshL]

I like how the movies seems to KNOW the new theme sucked, opened with the original and played only 1 chorus of Fall Out Boy's crap (contracts, man), but all of Missy Elliot's verse, which I actually enjoyed. In fact, they should have just taken that groove, had her rap a full song over it and not pretended to be a cover of the theme. Wouldn't be to everyone's taste (not everyone likes rap, and she's her own thing in the genre), but at least people wouldn't be comparing.

[Avilan the Grey]

Yeah, you have a point there.

Also, to clarify: I am NOT against someone covering the theme song. Just let someone do it well... good.

[dropbear8mybaby]

The first five minutes had me wondering if all the BS that surrounded it actually had some merit.

After that atrocious beginning, though, it was enjoyable enough. Nothing great, but then I think that most people romanticise the original through rose-coloured glasses of nostalgia and that, in reality, it wasn't that great either.

Worth $10 to see at the movies.

[Avilan the Grey]

Exactly my thoughts, plus better than Ghostbusters 2.

[DigoDragon]

One thing I'll give this movie that the original can't compete with-- that battle with the ghosts on the streets was some pretty darn good action. Using their proton packs to grab and throw ghosts around was an interesting trick.



Worth $10 to see at the movies.

I went for the early matinee and saved $2. Good thing too, popcorn is almost $5 on it's own. O.o`

[NecroDancer]

I felt like the movie was good and bad. There was no middle ground, either a scene was good or it was bad. My one major pet peeve was that the original cast couldn't have a larger part in the movie.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Exactly my thoughts, plus better than Ghostbusters 2.

That's a bar set so low as to be subterranean.

[Avilan the Grey]

That's a bar set so low as to be subterranean.

That's not remotely true.
Or you have seen very few movies.

:smallbiggrin:

[Rogar Demonblud]

No, I just really hate that movie, for a lot of reasons.

[Sith_Happens]

One thing I'll give this movie that the original can't compete with-- that battle with the ghosts on the streets was some pretty darn good action. Using their proton packs to grab and throw ghosts around was an interesting trick.

Huh, weird, for me the big fight scene was the one place where the movie really fell apart. It's kind of hard to describe why, the closest I can get is that it just felt... really generic and also really out of place?

[DigoDragon]

That's a bar set so low as to be subterranean.

Well, there are so many holes in 1st Avenue, we really didn't think anyone would notice. :smallbiggrin:



Huh, weird, for me the big fight scene was the one place where the movie really fell apart. It's kind of hard to describe why, the closest I can get is that it just felt... really generic and also really out of place?

My reasoning for liking the action is because the original Ghostbusters didn't have any complex combat sequences. The action was... casual for the most part. The boys didn't do much running around when they busted ghosts; they kept their proton beams steady. The gals did something a little different for their fight, and so I gave them a point for that.

[BWR]

I'll admit I was not in the best of moods when I watched it so that may be coloring my opinion of it slightly.
Even taking this into account, the best bits of the movie were the brief snippet of the original theme and the brief glimpse of the original Mr. Stay-puft.

The characters were annoying and bad, the plot was ok but buried under crap and the action was horrible. I was bored nearly to tears during it and wished I hadn't forgotten my phone at home so I could be one of those annoying jerks who plays with their phone during a movie.

[NecroDancer]

Sadly thanks to a number of movies the word "reboot" has become an omen of evil for me

[Cikomyr]

Sadly thanks to a number of movies the word "reboot" has become an omen of evil for me

I have good news for you. There's going to be a reboot of The Mummy.

With Tom Cruise and Sofia Boutella. and Courtney B. Vance. And.. Russell Crowe (WTF?)

[BiblioRook]

And.. Russell Crowe (WTF?)

As the mummy? Please tell me he's the mummy.

[Cikomyr]

As the mummy? Please tell me he's the mummy.

Sofia Boutella is the Mummy.

Russell Crowe is... Dr Jekyll

....hey. Dont look at me. I dont write this ****.

[Rodin]

I have good news for you. There's going to be a reboot of The Mummy.

With Tom Cruise and Sofia Boutella. and Courtney B. Vance. And.. Russell Crowe (WTF?)

Sometimes I wonder why they bother making a movie as a reboot. Ghostbusters, sure. Everything from it is iconic, so making a reboot has a lot of benefits that can potentially outweigh the reboot hate. A Ghostbusters-style movie with the serial numbers filed off would quite possibly have gotten more hate, not less.

But why remake The Mummy, specifically? It's a standard action-adventure romp, and doesn't have anything well-known tied to it. You're already using an entirely different set of actors - what part of the original franchise is irrevocably connected to it? It has a Mummy as the villain. Great. So do 1000 other B-horror flicks. Mummies aren't trademarked. Do they particularly want to use the name Imhotep? The dude is a historical character. Even if for whatever reason the Imhotep name wouldn't be available, there's scads of famous Egyptians it could be and it's not even like most people had heard of Imhotep when The Mummy first came out either.

The only possible reason is that they want to recycle the plot, which is just...ugh. It's a mummy movie, do your own spin on it for crying out loud.

[BiblioRook]

Sofia Boutella is the Mummy.

Russell Crowe is... Dr Jekyll

....hey. Dont look at me. I dont write this ****.

Russell Crowe as Jekyll? Wouldn't he be more appropriate as Hyde? :P

Not familiar with the actress so I had to look her up.

...
...
...Why did they feel it necessary to go and make the mummy 'sexy'?
Not like as in 'fully restored flawless Egyptian beauty' but pale and dead looking and wrapped in filthy bandages yet still form-fitting and curvaceous with strategically exposed skin.


But why remake The Mummy, specifically? It's a standard action-adventure romp, and doesn't have anything well-known tied to it. You're already using an entirely different set of actors - what part of the original franchise is irrevocably connected to it? It has a Mummy as the villain. Great. So do 1000 other B-horror flicks. Mummies aren't trademarked. Do they particularly want to use the name Imhotep? The dude is a historical character. Even if for whatever reason the Imhotep name wouldn't be available, there's scads of famous Egyptians it could be and it's not even like most people had heard of Imhotep when The Mummy first came out either.

The idea is to create one big shared movie universe for all of the classic Universal Monsters. It's shamelessly bandwagony but I can't lie that it sounds like it could end up pretty cool.
I'm reconsidering my opinion on that after what I just saw of those Mummy pictures though...

[Friv]

But why remake The Mummy, specifically? It's a standard action-adventure romp, and doesn't have anything well-known tied to it. You're already using an entirely different set of actors - what part of the original franchise is irrevocably connected to it? It has a Mummy as the villain. Great. So do 1000 other B-horror flicks. Mummies aren't trademarked. Do they particularly want to use the name Imhotep? The dude is a historical character. Even if for whatever reason the Imhotep name wouldn't be available, there's scads of famous Egyptians it could be and it's not even like most people had heard of Imhotep when The Mummy first came out either.

The only possible reason is that they want to recycle the plot, which is just...ugh. It's a mummy movie, do your own spin on it for crying out loud.

Keep in mind that the 1999 movie "The Mummy" was itself a reboot of the 1932 movie "The Mummy", starring Boris Karloff. So the new "The Mummy" is another reboot of the original '30s movie, not a reboot of the '90s Brendan Fraser movies. And as BiblioRook noted, the plan is to get another Avengers-style franchise going, but for all the classic Universal monsters, which... we'll see.

[Olinser]

Keep in mind that the 1999 movie "The Mummy" was itself a reboot of the 1932 movie "The Mummy", starring Boris Karloff. So the new "The Mummy" is another reboot of the original '30s movie, not a reboot of the '90s Brendan Fraser movies. And as BiblioRook noted, the plan is to get another Avengers-style franchise going, but for all the classic Universal monsters, which... we'll see.

Yes, but as I've said in several other threads, old movies being a 'reboot' had much different connotations, and quite frankly isn't very applicable to modern reboots. Yes, many famous movies were actually reboots of earlier movies. Heston's Ben-Hur, Carpenter's The Thing, Ocean's 11, heck a whole bunch of Heston's westerns were effectively reboots of John Wayne movies.

For the average person it was almost impossible to watch the 1932 movie once it left theatres. For decades the only way to watch it would have been to find a theatre that A) had a copy of the reel, and B) actually planned to show it, and then make a large advance commitment to be there. Even towards the end of the 90s it was pretty difficult to find and watch a copy of a lot of earlier movies. So movies from the 60s, 70s, even up to the late 90s being a 'reboot' simply didn't matter nearly as much, since the original was effectively unwatchable for a very large portion of the audience. They got big boosts from people nostalgically remembering the movie and wanting to see a re-interpretation on the big screen with modern technology and film techniques.

But that isn't true any more. The average person can pull up and watch early movies with a minimum of effort and inconvenience, and special effects just aren't that big a difference anymore. And given the extremely poor recent track record of reboots, more and more people are just watching the original instead of shelling out for a poorly thought out 'reboot'.

[Kantaki]

...Why did they feel it necessary to go and make the mummy 'sexy'?
Not like as in 'fully restored flawless Egyptian beauty' but pale and dead looking and wrapped in filthy bandages yet still form-fitting and curvaceous with strategically exposed skin.

:smallamused:Maybe they want to make mummies the next vampires?:smallamused:
That's the best explanation I can come up with.

:smalleek:Great now I'm imagining a romance-plot between the protagonist and the mummy.:smalleek:
Curse you brain.

[Closet_Skeleton]

With Tom Cruise and Sofia Boutella. and Courtney B. Vance. And.. Russell Crowe (WTF?)

Aren't you supposed to use younger actors in a reboot:smallconfused:


:smalleek:Great now I'm imagining a romance-plot between the protagonist and the mummy.:smalleek:
Curse you brain.

Anne Rice already did that.

[Darth Ultron]

It's a 7 out of 10 movie. It is really enjoyable and fun movie.

A 7, I agree.

It was a decent ''ghost'' movie. I liked all the ''easter eggs'' back to the original. The stuff that is just for the fans. It was nice to see a government that knew all about ghosts and such, instead of the really over done ''the supernatural does not exist''. I bet that came from Akroid....

[Bohandas]

Since you've seen it, I need to know, was it actually justified in having the "Ghostbusters" title though, or was that just a cheap cashgrab?

From what I saw in the ads it didn't seem much more similar to the original Ghostbusters films than to any other film with paranormal investigators using specialized high-tech equipment (ie. Poltergeist, Scary Movie 2, etc)

[BiblioRook]

Since you've seen it, I need to know, was it actually justified in having the "Ghostbusters" title though, or was that just a cheap cashgrab?

From what I saw in the ads it didn't seem much more similar to the original Ghostbusters films than to any other film with paranormal investigators using specialized high-tech equipment (ie. Poltergeist, Scary Movie 2, etc)

This feels like a weird thing to suggest because probably more then almost anything else people would accuse the new film of piggybacking to much on things from the old Ghostbusters rather then too little.

[Avilan the Grey]

Since you've seen it, I need to know, was it actually justified in having the "Ghostbusters" title though, or was that just a cheap cashgrab?

From what I saw in the ads it didn't seem much more similar to the original Ghostbusters films than to any other film with paranormal investigators using specialized high-tech equipment (ie. Poltergeist, Scary Movie 2, etc)

Two things:

1. It has a lot in common with the original movies
2. How could you get that impression?

[Kantaki]

Anne Rice already did that.

That doesn't make it better. If anything the fact that something like this exists makes it worse.

Eh, even if the worst happens and there is a mummy romance, at least it allows to make jokes about some people being into the brainless type.:smallamused:
literally

[Avilan the Grey]

About sexy mummies:

http://www.newnownext.com/wp-content/uploads/imported/4b06db942a8e1ae3.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ef/c0/c8/efc0c8597822e854324986b4b5cf7e5b.jpg


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e9/fe/9c/e9fe9c2997b08a077210a27c6c779cdf.jpg

[BiblioRook]

About sexy mummies:

http://www.newnownext.com/wp-content/uploads/imported/4b06db942a8e1ae3.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ef/c0/c8/efc0c8597822e854324986b4b5cf7e5b.jpg


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e9/fe/9c/e9fe9c2997b08a077210a27c6c779cdf.jpg


That's why I tried to make a distinction, there's a pretty big difference between appearing as a normal person while just happening to be a mummy and sexying up an otherwise stereotypical bandage and rags mummy like so
http://cdn01.cdn.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/headlines/2016/07/sofia-boutella-films-the-mummy-in-full-costume-makeup.jpg

(Though with your examples I would argue the first one is false as that's her while she was alive, her mummy form is far from sexy...)

[Bohandas]

2. How could you get that impression?
While it has a similar premise it doesn't appear to have anything else recurring from the original series, not the same plot, not the same characters, nothing. And the premise isn't near unique enough for it to qualify on just that.

[Bohandas]

Exactly my thoughts, plus better than Ghostbusters 2.

Ghostbusters 2 is a good movie provided you don't watch it from the beginning. The whole first act where they're not allowed to hunt ghosts makes little sense, isn't funny, and is mostly irrelevant to the plot but everything after the courtroom scene is great.

[Avilan the Grey]

(Though with your examples I would argue the first one is false as that's her while she was alive, her mummy form is far from sexy...)

Oh. Fine.
:smallwink:

[Ramza00]

So now that the controversy has died down let me try to understand something from a different person point of view :smallconfused:


Step 1: People say Ghostbuster 1 is a great movie

Step 2: Same people say Ghostbuster 2 does not exist

Step 3: Same people are getting angry that they are rebooting Ghostbusters with an all female cast

Step 4: Outrage prior to seeing the movie

Substitute Step 4: So instead of having pre-emptive outrage. You instead go see the movie, or pirate it if you do not want to give the movie makers money until you can stamp your approval or disapproval onto this reboot.

Substitute Step 4b: If the reboot is a good movie then rejoice, for we finally get the 2nd ghostbuster movie that the world needs. If the reboot sucks, then simply put banish the movie from your mind canon just like you did in Step 2 when Ghostbuster 2 does not exist.

I just do not really get it. Unless the goal is to complain for the sake of complaining for you want to complain about something and get angry and throw stones at people for doing so creates meaning in your lives.

I really do not understand this controversy.

[dropbear8mybaby]

I really do not understand this controversy.

It's much the same logic that is used by MRA groups and the far right. Twist the narrative, pervert the reasoning, and go on the attack in order to justify your illogical hatred of something that disturbs your precious sense of self.

You don't understand it because it doesn't make any actual sense. That means you have a healthy brain and the capacity for reason.

[Kyberwulf]

The same could be said about the rebooting this movie. The reason it was made, was because the narrative was twisted. The reason was perverting to fit an agenda in order to justify an illogical hatred of something that disturbed someones precious sense of self.

I don't understand why this movie was made, it didn't make in actual sense.

well.. except to push an agenda and to be a cash grab.

[Darth Ultron]

Since you've seen it, I need to know, was it actually justified in having the "Ghostbusters" title though, or was that just a cheap cashgrab?



It might depend what you think ''Ghostbusters'' is, of course. I'd say it is true to the original. Ghosts invade New York, and it's up to a group of weird paranormal believing scientists to stop them. Now the first Ghostbusters movie was way, way, way before the ''ghost hunters reality TV buzz'' . And when you watch the new one, your likely to see the parallels with the ''ghost hunters'' type TV shows. Of course the original movie also has lots of parallels too.




I really do not understand this controversy.

Some people will just complain about anything. The movie does a good job of ''making the main cast four characters'' and not ''women rule!''.

[Ramza00]

I don't understand why this movie was made, it didn't make in actual sense.

well.. except to push an agenda and to be a cash grab.

Human beings like telling stories+Human beings like making money=>This combination of this specific story is likely to make Money=>Leads to a New Movie being made.

I am being judgemental by saying this, but preventing people from telling stories for you think you should have control over other people's actions I find offensive on its face. I personally believe in a Hume's Harm Principle where in almost all cases unless your actions affect me, or hurt others in some way, it is none of my business. I should not be able to control your actions, because I offend you in some way, or something I want to do offends you in some way.

-----

But whatever I am taking this down a notch for it is okay in my mind to be offended by silly things. I just do not understand why such silly things offend a certain demographic of people for I am built differently.

But the contradiction of saying Ghostbuster 2 does not exist, and you should also not make a female ghostbusters instead of just in your head canon not saying both exist...seems like an outrageous and silly thing to get all outraged and feel like it is some form of injustice in this world.

[dropbear8mybaby]

The same could be said about the rebooting this movie. The reason it was made, was because the narrative was twisted. The reason was perverting to fit an agenda in order to justify an illogical hatred of something that disturbed someones precious sense of self.

Yeup, it was totally created for the sole purpose of emasculating you.

[JadedDM]

Yeah, 'cashgrab.' Because the original and sequel were both made solely for artistic merit and nothing else.

[Rodin]

Yeah, 'cashgrab.' Because the original and sequel were both made solely for artistic merit and nothing else.

The thought process really does seem to be pretty simple.

1) Every time Ghostbusters 3 is hinted at, the Internet goes nuts. License to print money, anyone?

2) Ahh...crap. Murray is out and Ramis isn't healthy. Let's do a reboot instead!

3) Wait...straight reboots don't go down well. We gotta put our own twist on it!

4) Female Ghostbusters!

[JadedDM]

Paul Feig himself explained (http://www.hitfix.com/the-dartboard/why-is-the-new-ghostbusters-a-reboot-not-a-sequel-let-paul-feig-explain) why it is a reboot: “I didn’t like, personally, the idea of them being handed technology, ‘here’s how to do this.’ I wanted to see it develop.”

As for why an all-woman reboot, he said (http://www.vulture.com/2016/07/paul-feig-ghostbusters-reboot-c-v-r.html), “I wanted for little girls to be able to see themselves up on the screen. The original one exists, so you can see boys doing it, but how fun for girls to have this experience!”

Now, was making money part of it? Of course. Sony doesn't do charity. But "conventional wisdom" in Hollywood also says that a woman led film can't make any money, so Feig had to call in a lot of favors and cash in all of his chips to make this movie happen. If this was just a simple 'cash-grab' and nothing else, why not play it safe? Why take such big risks with it?

[Bohandas]

The thought process really does seem to be pretty simple.

1) Every time Ghostbusters 3 is hinted at, the Internet goes nuts. License to print money, anyone?

2) Ahh...crap. Murray is out and Ramis isn't healthy. Let's do a reboot instead!

3) Wait...straight reboots don't go down well. We gotta put our own twist on it!
And therein lies the problem.

A direct reboot I would have gone to see.

A proper and direct rule 63 of Ghostbusters I would have gone to see.

A random movie movie with "Ghostbusters" slapped on the title despite only sharing the most basic of the original's defining characteristics, characters or plot I will avoid like the plague, as that's clearly a cashgrab. Based on the ads, the only thing that appears to differentiate this from a mockbuster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockbuster) is the trivial distinction that they actually happened to have the rights to the title.

And again, the problem isn't that they're female, the problem is that they don't map directly to the original's characters. If they had done a direct genderswapped remake of the original Ghostbusters, retaining all major plot points as well as gender neutral names such as "Dana Barrett" I probably would have gone to see it.

If they had released the same movie under a different title, I also would have gone to see it.

As it stands I might not even watch it if it comes on TV

EDIT:
Come to think of it, step 2 is a problem too. Recast!

[Bohandas]

And what's the deal with the accusations of sexism?

Personally I think that automatically assuming that the reason people don't like it is because of sexism, rather than because (based on both what I've seen in the ads and the plot synopsis on wikipedia) it clearly has nothig to do with the original film (except for the tacked on reuse of a couple of names), borders on tinfoil hat level paranoia

[Friv]

And again, the problem isn't that they're female, the problem is that they don't map directly to the original's characters. If they had done a direct genderswapped remake of the original Ghostbusters, retaining all major plot points as well as gender neutral names such as "Dana Barrett" I probably would have gone to see it.

In Hollywood terms, this is the difference between a reboot and a remake (http://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/movie-reboot-vs-remake-whats-difference.html/?a=viewall). What you're looking for is a remake - a recreation of a classic movie with only minor changes, usually done to either update something quite old for modern audiences, or to localize a foreign film for domestic audiences.

Personally, I would generally rather go and watch a reboot, provided that it's a good one; something where they've cribbed enough of the source material that you can't reasonably call it a distinct idea and property, but which is coming at the idea from a new angle, with new characters, and/or with a different direction of the plot. But I can respect your preference for a remake.

[Olinser]

Paul Feig himself explained (http://www.hitfix.com/the-dartboard/why-is-the-new-ghostbusters-a-reboot-not-a-sequel-let-paul-feig-explain) why it is a reboot: “I didn’t like, personally, the idea of them being handed technology, ‘here’s how to do this.’ I wanted to see it develop.”

As for why an all-woman reboot, he said (http://www.vulture.com/2016/07/paul-feig-ghostbusters-reboot-c-v-r.html), “I wanted for little girls to be able to see themselves up on the screen. The original one exists, so you can see boys doing it, but how fun for girls to have this experience!”

Now, was making money part of it? Of course. Sony doesn't do charity. But "conventional wisdom" in Hollywood also says that a woman led film can't make any money, so Feig had to call in a lot of favors and cash in all of his chips to make this movie happen. If this was just a simple 'cash-grab' and nothing else, why not play it safe? Why take such big risks with it?

The problem was not that it was an all female movie.

The problem is that it was a Paul Feig movie. And he DID play it safe - by his definition of playing it safe.

Seriously. Feig did this movie EXACTLY how he did his other recent movies. He took a crappy script that was just an excuse plot, and 3/4 of his stage direction was clearly, "You're kind of supposed to be doing this, be funny while doing it". He tried to rely on the talent of his lead actors to carry his poor script, because that's what he DOES.

And that formula works - when you're making a low to mid budget Melissa McCarthy delivery vehicle. It fails horribly as a strategy for making blockbusters, or for trying to enter a pre-existing franchise where people actually care about the plot.

This movie finished almost perfectly in line with his other movies. Ghostbusters made $228 million worldwide. Spy made $235 million, The Heat made $229 million. $230 million is basically the Paul Feig Zone at this point.

The anger at this movie is that Feig made a medicore movie chock full of plot holes targeting an audience that ACTUALLY CARES about plot holes, and the studio tried to salvage it by ginning up a controversy that only succeeded in pissing people off.

The entire sexism BS was ginned up by the studio when they finally realized that their projections had Feig finishing exactly where his other movies finished - which was an utter disaster for a movie with a production and advertising budget that big. So they tried to gin up the 'sexism' controversy to salvage it. And it failed, HARD, because shockingly, large parts of your audience don't enjoy being accused of sexism when they just don't like the trailer or the movie.

[dropbear8mybaby]

The entire sexism BS was ginned up by the studio when they finally realized that their projections had Feig finishing exactly where his other movies finished - which was an utter disaster for a movie with a production and advertising budget that big. So they tried to gin up the 'sexism' controversy to salvage it. And it failed, HARD, because shockingly, large parts of your audience don't enjoy being accused of sexism when they just don't like the trailer or the movie.
No they didn't. What an utter ****'n'bull story. There is zero evidence of that, and yet a ton of evidence that says that even before the movie was made, sexist commentary about it was rampant.

The above is just an invented excuse to justify all the hate in the first place.

The movie is not great. Nobody with a rational mind will call you a sexist for saying that. But goddamn, saying that the sexism was invented? ****ing seriously? EVERY bit of evidence points to that being a completely fabricated lie.

[BiblioRook]

Seriously. Feig did this movie EXACTLY how he did his other recent movies. He took a crappy script that was just an excuse plot, and 3/4 of his stage direction was clearly, "You're kind of supposed to be doing this, be funny while doing it". He tried to rely on the talent of his lead actors to carry his poor script, because that's what he DOES.

And that formula works - when you're making a low to mid budget Melissa McCarthy delivery vehicle. It fails horribly as a strategy for making blockbusters, or for trying to enter a pre-existing franchise where people actually care about the plot.

This is where the movie puts me solidly over the like of 'disliking it'. On it's own (for me anyways) it's a pretty harmless, average, and at times forgettable movie (seriously, so little for it stuck with me when I was trying to type it up the first time I was having trouble remembering most of it less then an hour afterwards), but god damn am I not a Melissa McCarthy fan...

[Bohandas]

The problem was not that it was an all female movie.

The problem is that it was a Paul Feig movie. And he DID play it safe - by his definition of playing it safe.

Seriously. Feig did this movie EXACTLY how he did his other recent movies. He took a crappy script that was just an excuse plot, and 3/4 of his stage direction was clearly, "You're kind of supposed to be doing this, be funny while doing it". He tried to rely on the talent of his lead actors to carry his poor script, because that's what he DOES.

And that formula works - when you're making a low to mid budget Melissa McCarthy delivery vehicle. It fails horribly as a strategy for making blockbusters, or for trying to enter a pre-existing franchise where people actually care about the plot.

This movie finished almost perfectly in line with his other movies. Ghostbusters made $228 million worldwide. Spy made $235 million, The Heat made $229 million. $230 million is basically the Paul Feig Zone at this point.

The anger at this movie is that Feig made a medicore movie chock full of plot holes targeting an audience that ACTUALLY CARES about plot holes, and the studio tried to salvage it by ginning up a controversy that only succeeded in pissing people off.

The entire sexism BS was ginned up by the studio when they finally realized that their projections had Feig finishing exactly where his other movies finished - which was an utter disaster for a movie with a production and advertising budget that big. So they tried to gin up the 'sexism' controversy to salvage it. And it failed, HARD, because shockingly, large parts of your audience don't enjoy being accused of sexism when they just don't like the trailer or the movie.

I second this.

[JadedDM]

The anger at this movie is that Feig made a medicore movie chock full of plot holes targeting an audience that ACTUALLY CARES about plot holes,
Were that the truth, then the 'anger' would not have appeared until after the movie came out. Instead, it was there beforehand. There are even people in this forum right now, decrying this movie as an awful 'cash-grab' while also openly admitting that they never saw it. 'Plot holes' are not the crux of the anger this movie generated, as nobody could have been aware of them until after they saw it.

(Also, what plot holes?)


The entire sexism BS was ginned up by the studio when they finally realized that their projections had Feig finishing exactly where his other movies finished
Again, false. The sexism was very much real. There is plenty of evidence of that. One of the actors was even harassed off Twitter for awhile.

Are you really telling me that the movie studio making this all up to bolster ticket sales is more believable to you than the idea that misogyny is real?


And it failed, HARD, because shockingly, large parts of your audience don't enjoy being accused of sexism when they just don't like the trailer or the movie.
It did slightly better than Star Trek Beyond ($225 million). For some reason, nobody is accusing that movie of failing 'Hard.'

And the only people that were accused of sexism were the ones acting rampantly sexist.

[Avilan the Grey]

The same could be said about the rebooting this movie. The reason it was made, was because the narrative was twisted. The reason was perverting to fit an agenda in order to justify an illogical hatred of something that disturbed someones precious sense of self.

I don't understand why this movie was made, it didn't make in actual sense.

well.. except to push an agenda and to be a cash grab.

And that agenda was?
Because having an all male cast, like the original, is exactly the same amount of agenda-pushing as this movie has.

As for why this movie was made... You have grown up in a capitalist society I assume. Take a second guess.

[Bohandas]

But goddamn, saying that the sexism was invented? ****ing seriously? EVERY bit of evidence points to that being a completely fabricated lie.

I know I've never encountered it even after reading discussions about it on several forums.

I wouldn't be surprised if you got the standard assortment of complaints from reactionary crackpots and deliberate trolls posting on 4chan and reddit and so forth that you might expect, but that's not an important or legitimate part of the conversation, that's just noise.

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu:I'll only say this once. If this thread goes down the same sinkhole that the first Ghostbusters thread did, it'll be locked as well. Tread carefully and be polite.

[Bohandas]

The idea is to create one big shared movie universe for all of the classic Universal Monsters.

Seriously?

I hate when media companies do that. What is it that keeps possessing people to do that?

And why start with The Mummy when Frankenstein would be so much more apropos?

EDIT:
Speaking of which, can any of you explain to me why Frankenstein is classed as horror? I mean the book I get it, but The monster in the movie seems pretty harmless; the only innocent person he harms he harms by accident and in a moment that almost comes off more like dark comedy

[Olinser]

Were that the truth, then the 'anger' would not have appeared until after the movie came out. Instead, it was there beforehand. There are even people in this forum right now, decrying this movie as an awful 'cash-grab' while also openly admitting that they never saw it. 'Plot holes' are not the crux of the anger this movie generated, as nobody could have been aware of them until after they saw it.

(Also, what plot holes?)


Again, false. The sexism was very much real. There is plenty of evidence of that. One of the actors was even harassed off Twitter for awhile.

Are you really telling me that the movie studio making this all up to bolster ticket sales is more believable to you than the idea that misogyny is real?


It did slightly better than Star Trek Beyond ($225 million). For some reason, nobody is accusing that movie of failing 'Hard.'

And the only people that were accused of sexism were the ones acting rampantly sexist.

BS. First of all, MANY people have said that Star Trek: Beyond was a failure. It certainly wasn't a huge success. But at the same time, they didn't pour nearly as much money into it. Production budgets were about the same, but they spent nowhere NEAR as much in advertising on Star Trek as they did on Ghostbusters. But at the same time, Beyond was just another movie in the series. Ghostbusters was the flagship relaunch of a series. Beyond could lose money and not necessarily kill the franchise. Ghostbusters had to do well enough to justify continuing the franchise. Beyond was a fiscal failure, but not enough to de-rail the TV relaunch that is under weigh. Ghostbusters was a failure both financially and at re-starting the franchise.

The ANGER appeared when the studio first tried to gin up the controversy - after the first trailer came out. Prior to that it was pretty much radio silence. There was the usual, "OMG ALL REBOOTS SUCK" crowd, of course, and naturally a couple fringe sexist trolls, but not a lot. Most people were just of the, 'Eh, lets wait for the trailer' crowd.

THEN the first trailer hit. And don't even try to say it was anything but a complete train wreck. And it was treated like the train wreck it was by fans. Then the whole plot was leaked, and that's where the criticism of the ridiculous plot and script began.

Then the director and the studio started doing their BS deflection because they couldn't handle the criticism. There is plenty of evidence of them deleting well-articulated critiques of the movie and leaving profane, sexist rants at the top of the comment list.

Then it really came to a head with James Rolfe. He is pretty much a perfect symbol of this entire episode. He posted a very calm, reasoned video of why he had no intention of seeing the movie and why it was going to be bad, in which the fact that they were females played zero part. He was excoriated as a horrible misogynistic man, despite the fact that wasn't even part of his video.

And that played out again and again. Literally nobody could criticize anything about the movie without being accused of the sexism BS.

And after all that, the movie finished... exactly where you'd expect a Paul Feig excuse plot movie to finish.

And the counter-evidence of wide spread misogyny is simple: Wonder Woman. If the viewing public were some woman-hating cesspool, they would have savaged the Wonder Woman trailer and be all across the boards screaming about how a solo female superhero movie couldn't succeed and how Gal Godot needed to get back in the kitchen. Instead reception of the trailers and movie information has been pretty positive, most of the negative feedback has been generally related to skepticism of DC's ability to have a successful movie not including Batman. A few sexist trolls on the fringe, sure, along with a few racist ones, but they are ignored as per usual.

[JadedDM]

First of all, MANY people have said that Star Trek: Beyond was a failure.
"Many people?" The general consensus is, in fact, that it's the best ST reboot so far. Not everyone thinks so, of course, but in the conversations held about it here, for example, nobody calls it a bomb or a failure.


The ANGER appeared when the studio first tried to gin up the controversy - after the first trailer came out.
The anger appeared before the trailer was released. It was the announcement of an all woman reboot that garnered the anger. The trailer was just when it really ramped up.


Literally nobody could criticize anything about the movie without being accused of the sexism BS.
Lots of people offered legitimate criticisms in this very forum and were not accused of sexism.


And the counter-evidence of wide spread misogyny is simple: Wonder Woman. If the viewing public were some woman-hating cesspool, they would have savaged the Wonder Woman trailer and be all across the boards screaming about how a solo female superhero movie couldn't succeed and how Gal Godot needed to get back in the kitchen.
I went over this with you already before. Wonder Woman is not a gender flip of a male superhero. It's not the same thing. That's the spark that set off the flames of misogyny around the Ghostbusters reboot. Not that a movie dared to have women in it. But that it was seen as something that 'belonged' to men and then was 'taken away' from them and 'given' to women instead.

[dropbear8mybaby]

The anger appeared before the trailer was released. It was the announcement of an all woman reboot that garnered the anger. The trailer was just when it really ramped up.

Yeup, I distinctly remember all the hubbub about it way before even the trailer. It was the gall of someone to make an all-woman Ghostbusters that set it off in the first place, before filming even started.

The trailer was just an excuse to ramp it up to nuclear.

[Bohandas]

Hubbub from who? Where?

EDIT;
Likely the trailer wasn't "an excuse". It probably went "up to nuclear" because it showcased the movie's actual problems. If anything this was bad for whatever small pool of trolls was0 hating on it beforehand because their voices were drowned out by legitimate criticism.

EDIT:
And can anybody answer my question from the earlier aside about Universal Studios movie monsters regarding why/how frankenstein's monster as played by Boris Karloff is supposed to be scary?

[Olinser]

"Many people?" The general consensus is, in fact, that it's the best ST reboot so far. Not everyone thinks so, of course, but in the conversations held about it here, for example, nobody calls it a bomb or a failure.


The anger appeared before the trailer was released. It was the announcement of an all woman reboot that garnered the anger. The trailer was just when it really ramped up.


Lots of people offered legitimate criticisms in this very forum and were not accused of sexism.


I went over this with you already before. Wonder Woman is not a gender flip of a male superhero. It's not the same thing. That's the spark that set off the flames of misogyny around the Ghostbusters reboot. Not that a movie dared to have women in it. But that it was seen as something that 'belonged' to men and then was 'taken away' from them and 'given' to women instead.

Yes, it was well received critically and among fans. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a failure. As a continuation of Star Trek, it was a pretty good movie and closest in spirit and execution to the series (I enjoyed it myself). But that doesn't change that it was a financial failure and lost money, which many people have pointed out. Not a huge amount of money, but it definitely came up negative, and it's probably ended Star Trek on the big screen for anybody whose initials aren't JJA.

And the studio also spent SIGNIFICANTLY less marketing it than Ghostbusters. Star Trek was a financial failure. Ghostbusters was a financial disaster. The absolute lowest estimate I saw said that it had to make $375 million to break even. Paul Feig himself said it probably needed $500 million to be considered a success. It came nowhere close to those marks. By the studio's own admission it is a failure. By the director's own admission it is a failure. Seriously, this is indisputable. The movie was a failure. At this point the only question is whether it was enough of a failure to kill the franchise. It's DEFINITELY killed Paul Feig's role in it, which is 100% a good thing.

And if you didn't see people whose criticisms had nothing to do with the fact that the main cast was females constantly being accused of feminism in this forum, you seriously were not paying attention. I would quote examples, but quoting a locked thread is probably the quickest way to get this thread locked as well. Go back and read it. A 30 second read shows at least 5 different occasions against 4 different people.

Star Wars is another great example of how nobody really cares as long as you make a good movie. Sure, there were trolls around claiming that a woman as the only main Jedi character was OMG TEH TERRIBLEZ. But they were strictly on the fringe, and completely ignored by the bulk of the community, as they should have been. JJ Abrahms ignored them and went about the business of making a good movie - and by pretty much all accounts, he succeeded. Because he was more worried about making a good movie than focusing on what reproductive parts his cast had.

And you have done absolutely nothing to address James Rolfe. Again, he is the PERFECT example of somebody whose criticisms had absolutely zero to do with gender, who was excoriated for weeks, dragged through the mud as a terrible woman-hater, and called an evil sexist by everybody imaginable.

[Dilvish]

:smallamused:Maybe they want to make mummies the next vampires?:smallamused:
That's the best explanation I can come up with.

:smalleek:Great now I'm imagining a romance-plot between the protagonist and the mummy.:smalleek:
Curse you brain.

The Giant sort of went down that road with Julio Scoundrel. Making the reader cringe, laugh, and feel pity at the same time.

[Dilvish]

Russell Crowe as Jekyll? Wouldn't he be more appropriate as Hyde? :P

Not familiar with the actress so I had to look her up.

...
...
...Why did they feel it necessary to go and make the mummy 'sexy'?
Not like as in 'fully restored flawless Egyptian beauty' but pale and dead looking and wrapped in filthy bandages yet still form-fitting and curvaceous with strategically exposed skin.



The idea is to create one big shared movie universe for all of the classic Universal Monsters. It's shamelessly bandwagony but I can't lie that it sounds like it could end up pretty cool.
I'm reconsidering my opinion on that after what I just saw of those Mummy pictures though...

There have been past movies that feature more than one of the classic monsters. Also tv shows, books, short stories, comics, and of course fan fiction. The difference here would be a series of movies featuring all the monsters together. Maybe the difference would be a successful series of movies?

As far as making the mummy sexy, sexy undead and sexy monsters have long been a thing in gaming and nerd culture. Maybe they are simply being open about appealing to that demographic?

[Avilan the Grey]

As someone pointed out upstream: There is a huge difference between Reboot and Remake.

[Kantaki]

The Giant sort of went down that road with Julio Scoundrel. Making the reader cringe, laugh, and feel pity at the same time.

Oh come on, Julio doesn't look that bad.:smalltongue::smallamused:

To be honest I have no idea what you are referring to...

[LokeyITP]

If you thought Snyder at the helm of the DC comics movie-verse was bad, wait til you see who's running the Universal monster movie-verse.

They've been trying to get this off the ground since Avengers came out, and the only reason is Universal doesn't have any other IP and won't come up with one themselves because Hollywood.

It'll be fun to the the rationalizations when this falls apart.

[Avilan the Grey]

I find it funny that people think the "shared monster universe" is a new thing...

[BiblioRook]

I find it funny that people think the "shared monster universe" is a new thing...

Admittedly it probably would be harder to think of times they weren't in a shared universe, but I don't think anyone was really claiming that it was new but just merely that it was being done (er, again).

[Bohandas]

I find it funny that people think the "shared monster universe" is a new thing...

The issue is it being recurring and official/legitimate. Or something along those lines, I can't quite place my finger on it

But it's, I dunno, just different from stuff like Penny Dreadful or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (Edit: or the Abbott and Costello comedies which occasionally mixed and matched monsters)

[-D-]

...Why did they feel it necessary to go and make the mummy 'sexy'?
Not like as in 'fully restored flawless Egyptian beauty' but pale and dead looking and wrapped in filthy bandages yet still form-fitting and curvaceous with strategically exposed skin.
Penny Arcade had a Premonition:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/675414490_3mN9N/0/2100x20000/675414490_3mN9N-2100x20000.jpg



Oh come on, Julio doesn't look that bad.:smalltongue::smallamused:
It's the smell :smalltongue::smallamused:

[Kyberwulf]

I haven't seen the movie yet. For a couple reasons. Mostly because leading up to the movie, Paul Fieg and the cast where making some pretty disparaging comments, that quite frankly (and Ironically) if someone said equal remarks about women or people of color or other protected class. Would come off as pretty (insert protected class)-phobic. So my stance is mostly a political one. And seeing how most of the defenders of this movie are mostly of the political nature rather then the product itself, I do feel I can comment on it.

I am saying it, the problem with this movie is that it was all women. It was trying to push an agenda. I have said it before, I didn't want all men. What they should have done was come up with good character concepts, and tried to find actors that could play those concepts. I agree, having all anything is bad.

If they had good characters, they could push any plot forward. The original Ghostbusters is proof. If it weren't for the characters, the plot of that movie is pretty bland. I mean seriously, looking back at it. When they get to that stairwell scene, and they are looking up and down. I think that is hilarious, because I think that is the general sentiment of the audience. "Man, is this over yet,...nope... just a little more more to go" The only thing that really kept that movie up, is the chemistry of the cast.

This is just basically feminism, culturally appropriating blaxploitation movies.

Or another PC term, Ghostbusters 2016, is just gender washing. They don't do anything new or interesting with Ghostbusters.

That's the funny thing. If this movie came out without all the hubbub about it. It would have been just another crappy remake. Like people say about Robocop or Total Recall. The only reason this movie is being defended at all, is because it has women in it. It's kind of counter intuitive to the agenda it was trying to push. If women could be the same as men, they should be able to take the same kind of criticism.

But wait, the response will be. Men don't get that kind of criticism at all when they make movies. Almost ALL the movies that come out are lambasted by Feminists, or equal rights people, for not having the main cast be what they want. Most of those comments are treated how they should be, as just opinions. The movie then, is usually judged on it's merits.

This movie however. It stopped the presses and focused ENTIRELY on those comments.

As to the movie itself. There seems to be two camps on it.
1st Being the defenders of the ideology. Both sides, of the coin. either you can tell people love it because they have to... cause females. Or they hate it because.. females. You can tell either side overlook either glaring holes, or hyper analyze it for any cracks.

2nd camp seem to actually want to critique the movie on it's own merit. For the most part, these guys all seem to come to the same consensus. Was it good? .... The answer a big resounding... meh. It wasn't as bad as they thought it was going to be. And on the subject of the actors and characters? I find that most people say the same thing. They don't want to jump into that sinkhole.

However, the tragedy seems to be there was a ghost of a good movie, in this movie. Except that it comes off as a Paul Fieg movie. Now, I heard that a couple times. I don't know what that means. I assume it means it comes off as a satire of Ghostbusters rather then a ... parody. Which people didn't want either. They wanted The Real Ghostbusters.

Personally, despite my political views on the inception of this movie, I think I am going to fall into the meh group. That's just a prediction. I tend to find things in most movies, that make me go meh. Even to the worst, or best movies. If threads or this movie are still going when I actually see this movie, I will most likely say something about wither I like the movie or not.

[Ramza00]

Wow I love all the mind reading that some people in this thread saying this is why you like a movie, this is why you defend it, no the director meant x, etc.

Can this mind reading ability also be used to buy lotto tickets, or for poker?

[Ruslan]

Wow I love all the mind reading that some people in this thread saying this is why you like a movie, this is why you defend it, no the director meant x, etc.

Can this mind reading ability also be used to buy lotto tickets, or for poker?

Nope. Because it's only their own mind they are reading, not anyone else's :smallbiggrin:

[Avilan the Grey]

I love how the world is full of "agendas". Remember how Fury Road was a feminist agenda-driven movie too?

[dropbear8mybaby]

I love how the world is full of "agendas". Remember how Fury Road was a feminist agenda-driven movie too?

And yet, one of the greatest movies ever made in the history of the human race.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh_eIReMeNw

[Avilan the Grey]

I was sarcastic but yes I agree.

[Cikomyr]

Agenda is political.

Id suggest we drop any mention of agenda, because it becomes automatically political.

[Kyberwulf]

Fury Road did have an agenda. I don't like that it was pushed on the medium. However, I agree that Fury Road was a good movie. Because it had such a great plot.

[Ruslan]

...push an agenda...

... agenda it was trying to push ...


...did have an agenda. I don't like that it was pushed...
I sense the kernel of a really good drinking game in the making here.

[tiornys]

I sense the kernel of a really good drinking game in the making here.

Let's see.
Whenever someone pushes an agenda, take a sip.
Whenever someone mentions pushing agendas, take a drink.
Whenever someone pushes your buttons, take a shot.
:smallcool:

[dropbear8mybaby]

Because it had such a great plot.

There was very little plot in it at all, actually.

[Ruslan]

There was very little plot in it at all, actually.It was a no-plot 90-minute-long action scene. A really really good one though.

[Olinser]

There was very little plot in it at all, actually.

Yes, but the movie knew its target audience and went after them. The plot that was there worked without any big plot holes that weren't already present in the Mad Max universe.

The director wasn't trying to win an Oscar for Shakespearean dialogue and drama. He was trying to make a Mad Max movie by blowing a whole **** ton of cars up in the most spectacular ways possible in a prolonged chase in a desert. And it worked pretty well. Thanks to good overseas returns it raked in just short of $380 million, and thanks to its comparatively small advertising budget made a respectable amount of money.

[Darth Ultron]

I am saying it, the problem with this movie is that it was all women. It was trying to push an agenda.

But it is not doing that. The movie is not a ''look how great women are and they can make a movie with no men and be even greater!'' or something like that.

It's just a movie about four women, who discover ghosts are real, and become Ghostbusters to fight them. Really...it's the plot of Ghostbusters in a nut shell. The only thing Ghostbusters 2016 is missing is no romantic sub plot, as Dr. Venkman spent like a third of the movie obsessed with Dana....

You would never say you had a ''problem'' with a movie that was all male, right? And you would not have a ''problem'' with an all woman movie if it was a ''female type'' movie. And you'd have no ''problem'' if it was a movie that was all men except for one woman.

But, because it's an action movie, or a sci fi movie or what? It is a ''problem''.

And if Ghostbuster 2016 had an agenda, what was it?

*Women can be heroes and save the day? Well..ok, but it has been done before and I think everyone knows and accepts this one, right?

*Women don't ''need'' men to..um...bust ghosts? Well, again..ok....you don't really ''need'' a melting pot of people to ''do'' anything.

*When all the main characters of a movie are women the movie is.....well...just like every other movie ever made?

*That ''geek'' women can..um..bust ghosts and save the day? Well, the movie sure was not ''supermodels vs the ghosts'' or anything like that. And it sure was not ''Jessica Alba, Jennifer Lawrence, Zoe Saldana, and Brooklyn Decker'' are the new Ghostbusters.

[Slayer Lord]

EDIT:
Speaking of which, can any of you explain to me why Frankenstein is classed as horror? I mean the book I get it, but The monster in the movie seems pretty harmless; the only innocent person he harms he harms by accident and in a moment that almost comes off more like dark comedy

The kid getting thrown in the pond and drowning may come off as dark humor to us nowadays, but back in the 30s child death in the movies was a really shocking thing, even if it happened off screen. They had a narrator at the start of movie with a "viewer beware," speech because by the standards of the time it really was quite frightening. We see it as less frightening now because we've been desensitized as a society, partly due to the standards of horror getting ramped up with each generation as filmmakers try to outdo each other, and partly because we've been exposed to far greater real life horror in the last 80-90. Think about it. Since Boris Karloff's portrayal as Frankenstein, we've had WW2, the threat of nuclear annihilation throughout the Cold War, the Vietnam War and all it's accompanying combat footage, 9/11, etc... By comparison, a sad and lonely monster who accidentally kills people doesn't seem quite so scary.

As for what actually makes it a horror movie, I'd say it's for a lot of the same reasons that the book is, most of it psychological. Man meddling in God's domain, the threat of our own scientific advances turning on us-- an especially poignant theme for the film's original viewers, many of whom would have experienced the horrors of World War I, or had loved ones who had. Then there's monster condemned to his lonely existence being hated by everyone; we are social animals, and the fear of being outcast by society is what drives a lot of social mores. And the poor monster is hated by nearly everyone for things he can't help and barely even understands, even by his "father." How horrible a life would THAT be?

As for harmless, well... Okay, two of them more or less deserved it in the first movie, but he does still kill three people (I think). If you watch any of the sequels, his body count skyrockets. It's been a while since I've watched them, but I remember the monster ends up killing quite a few innocent people in Bride of Frankenstein. Plus the sequels (for all they can be counted on for continuity) seemed to establish that in addition to his monstrous strength, Frank is also immortal, indestructible, and in some movies he's weak to mind control. The original Igor was even using the monster in Son of Frankenstein to murder the people who had tried to hang him. I guess what I'm getting at is that in the original Boris Karloff Frankenstein, the horror elements are more implied (the premise of a reanimated corpse(s) not withstanding), while the sequels were more overtly horror.

[Rodin]

I got really confused about the kid dying being dark comedy, but that's because I've never seen the Boris Karloff original and have only read the book. In the book, the child's death is quite deliberate, thank you very much, and is part of the larger scheme of punishing Dr. Frankenstein for his actions.

[-D-]

Watched the movie. "It's better Adam Sandler's Jack & Jill". It's also better than attempting to neuter myself, with a brick.

@Darth Ultron: The agenda was - Movie is great. People that hate it are pricks, because they hate women.

[Olinser]

But it is not doing that. The movie is not a ''look how great women are and they can make a movie with no men and be even greater!'' or something like that.

It's just a movie about four women, who discover ghosts are real, and become Ghostbusters to fight them. Really...it's the plot of Ghostbusters in a nut shell. The only thing Ghostbusters 2016 is missing is no romantic sub plot, as Dr. Venkman spent like a third of the movie obsessed with Dana....

You would never say you had a ''problem'' with a movie that was all male, right? And you would not have a ''problem'' with an all woman movie if it was a ''female type'' movie. And you'd have no ''problem'' if it was a movie that was all men except for one woman.

But, because it's an action movie, or a sci fi movie or what? It is a ''problem''.

And if Ghostbuster 2016 had an agenda, what was it?

*Women can be heroes and save the day? Well..ok, but it has been done before and I think everyone knows and accepts this one, right?

*Women don't ''need'' men to..um...bust ghosts? Well, again..ok....you don't really ''need'' a melting pot of people to ''do'' anything.

*When all the main characters of a movie are women the movie is.....well...just like every other movie ever made?

*That ''geek'' women can..um..bust ghosts and save the day? Well, the movie sure was not ''supermodels vs the ghosts'' or anything like that. And it sure was not ''Jessica Alba, Jennifer Lawrence, Zoe Saldana, and Brooklyn Decker'' are the new Ghostbusters.

Yes, it was. Because the director and studio MADE it about ''look how great women are and they can make a movie with no men and be even greater!'' If they'd just shut their mouths, announced the movie and cast without trying to make a big deal about OMG FEMALEZ, and talked about how their characters were going to live up to the spirit of the original Ghostbusters, there would have been no controversy.

And if the director and studio had made every announcement prominently feature the fact that it was all male, yeah, I would have a problem with that. Because that's not a factor relevant in any way to whether a movie is worth watching. That equally applies to any race drama. It's perfectly fine to have your lead characters be whatever gender and race you want (with the exception of adapting another work in which they are explicitly a different race/gender - you're adapting their work, you're locked into their vision and their characters). It's NOT fine to make a big deal about how awesome you are for having your main characters be X race or gender. Because that means that you're more concerned with BS outside the movie than in making a good movie people want to watch.

And THAT is why people were pissed about Ghostbusters. Not that it was all female. But that the studio and director made the fact that it was all female a Big Deal from day 1. Before we had any concrete information about plot, whether the original Ghostbusters were appearing at all, the role of the original Ghostbusters, whether it was actually going to be a reboot or a straight remake, whether it was going to be in the same universe, they made a Big Deal about Female Ghostbusters. And then tried to double down on it by whining about evil sexist people that thought they were more concerned with cramming 4 women in as Ghostbusters than in making a good Ghostbusters movie (which was proven true).

4 females could absolutely have worked (although I personally think McCarthy should never have even been considered. She's not a good actress and is the same character every movie - the schtick has gotten old.). But making a movie needs to be first and foremost about making a good movie. And when you spend months talking about what reproductive parts your cast has and NOT talking about your movie, you are not concentrating on making a good movie.

To make a good Ghostbusters - first get rid of Feig. Then get rid of anybody that had any role in that script. DEFINITELY fire whoever made and approved that first trailer. Probably replace the guys in charge of special effect, although that is debatable. Cast wise replace McCarthy and probably Wiig, keep Jones and McKinnon. Finally, remember that your first mission is to appeal to your potential moviegoers, not insult them.

[Ruslan]

The agenda was - Movie is great. People that hate it are pricks, because they hate women.Which part of the movie was that? Approximately how many minutes in?

[BiblioRook]

4 females could absolutely have worked (although I personally think McCarthy should never have even been considered. She's not a good actress and is the same character every movie - the schtick has gotten old.).

The fact that Feig was doing it meant McCarthy would have been inevitable. In fact, it's probably likely that he started with her and then just picked up whoever was available from SNL to fill out the rest. Like someone suggest already it really was less of a 'Hey look how funny our movie is' and more 'Hey look how funny these actresses are, and that makes our movie funny by default right?'

[Slayer Lord]

I got really confused about the kid dying being dark comedy, but that's because I've never seen the Boris Karloff original and have only read the book. In the book, the child's death is quite deliberate, thank you very much, and is part of the larger scheme of punishing Dr. Frankenstein for his actions.

I know, but the Boris Karloff movie tries to humanize the monster more and downplays the darker aspects of his character. So in the movie version, he throws her in because he thinks he's playing with her, and doesn't understand what he's doing. The dark comedy comes into play because it can come off as a little narmy to modern audiences, especially with the monster's "Oh s***!" face at the end when he runs away.

Check it out here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA9opHsLACk).

[NecroDancer]

I also think if the movie was called "Ghostbusters 3" it would have been accepted better

[BiblioRook]

I am curious just how much would change if they did go the sequel route rather then the reboot. I know they wanted to set it in a world where people didn't largely believe in ghosts and not to mention the whole thing about making a point on how the new Ghostbuster team came up with the idea to form a team as well as haven invented and designed all the tech themselves and not having to rely on some former team to pave the way for them, but for that latter point I really wonder of anyone other then them really cared or would have noticed if it wasn't so?
Granted the whole people not believing in ghosts thing would have been hard if the events of the original movie(s) happened in this continuity but still not impossible to work around. The other point could have just been as easy as putting them in a city other then New York (why does everything have to happen in New York anyways?).

[Olinser]

I am curious just how much would change if they did go the sequel route rather then the reboot. I know they wanted to set it in a world where people didn't largely believe in ghosts and not to mention the whole thing about making a point on how the new Ghostbuster team came up with the idea to form a team as well as haven invented and designed all the tech themselves and not having to rely on some former team to pave the way for them, but for that latter point I really wonder of anyone other then them really cared or would have noticed if it wasn't so?
Granted the whole people not believing in ghosts thing would have been hard if the events of the original movie(s) happened in this continuity but still not impossible to work around. The other point could have just been as easy as putting them in a city other then New York (why does everything have to happen in New York anyways?).

I don't think it really would have made a difference in reception, but it would have been pretty easy to justify. BOTH of the original ghost events were directly caused by singular entities that were defeated (Gozer and Vigo). With those entities gone ghosts wouldn't have been around anymore, throw in multiple decades with no more ghost incidents and it would be pretty easy to have nobody believing in it anymore and the original Ghostbusters destitute and considered harmless fringe crackpots by the general public, possibly with a few die hard fans that believed them.

[Darth Ultron]

Yes, it was. Because the director and studio MADE it about ''look how great women are and they can make a movie with no men and be even greater!'' If they'd just shut their mouths, announced the movie and cast without trying to make a big deal about OMG FEMALEZ, and talked about how their characters were going to live up to the spirit of the original Ghostbusters, there would have been no controversy.
.

Guess I don't remember all that much ''buzz'' and only saw like one Facebook meme about it. But I'm not plugged into the news/social media 24/7.



The fact that Feig was doing it meant McCarthy would have been inevitable. In fact, it's probably likely that he started with her and then just picked up whoever was available from SNL to fill out the rest. Like someone suggest already it really was less of a 'Hey look how funny our movie is' and more 'Hey look how funny these actresses are, and that makes our movie funny by default right?'

Of course this is true of the original too though as SNL and Second City(aka Canada's ye old SNL)

[Rodin]

@Darth Ultron: The agenda was - Movie is great. People that hate it are pricks, because they hate women.

The subjectivity of this tells you everything you need to know about the "controversy".

1% of people that saw it: "This movie is horrible, and anyone that says it's great is pushing a feminist agenda!!!!"

1% of people that saw it: "This movie was awesome, and anyone that hated it is a misogynist conspiracy theorist!"

98% of the people that saw it: "I liked it/didn't like it/it was merely okay....what agenda/misogynists are we talking about here?"


And the problem, as always, is that the 2% are extremely vocal and drown out everyone else.

Really, I just kinda roll my eyes whenever anyone starts talking about a secret agenda, for either side. There are places where that sort of discussion is appropriate, and movies is generally not one of them. Certainly not in the case of a cheesy comedy movie. I just find it a really weird hill to pick to die on.

[Avilan the Grey]

Seriously, there was no feminist agenda. It was not a threat, or a conspiracy. Neither with this movie or with Fury Road. The Ghostbusters team didn't even try to poke the bear until the bear had already unleashed it's rage on them for no reason. The scene where they were reading from the computer was shot AFTER and put into the movie, and the comments the actresses are reading are actually comments from the IRL internet from well... sad idiots.

I DO however agree that McCarthy can only play McCarthy playing McCarthy Pretending To Be Character X.

[Bohandas]

I got really confused about the kid dying being dark comedy, but that's because I've never seen the Boris Karloff original and have only read the book. In the book, the child's death is quite deliberate, thank you very much, and is part of the larger scheme of punishing Dr. Frankenstein for his actions.
The movie doesn't follow the book at all except in the broad sense of having a scientist who brings to life a creature pieced together out of dead bodies

[Anonymouswizard]

I have to say that I came in here hoping this had all died down so that I could get a measure on whether the film is worth checking out when it's available on DVD, and it might be, seeing as I disagree with popular opinion sometimes (The Force Awakens didn't get me interested in Episode 8: The Force Hits Snooze, I thought that Fury Road was significantly inferior to The Road Warrior, and I hate Game of Thrones [what happened to the 'A'?]).

The fact that this is still going on as strong as it is annoys me. Why can't people just let people have their own opinions on things, I hate having to justify why I don't find Harry Potter to be as awesome as people claim (the books were fun and easy to read, but poorly written and dont quite hold up to inspection, especially the world building).

[-D-]

Seriously, there was no feminist agenda. It was not a threat, or a conspiracy.

I do agree, it's not feminist agenda. It's corporate agenda, masking as a feminist issue.




Really, I just kinda roll my eyes whenever anyone starts talking about a secret agenda, for either side. There are places where that sort of discussion is appropriate, and movies is generally not one of them. Certainly not in the case of a cheesy comedy movie. I just find it a really weird hill to pick to die on.
The thing is, it's not secret. Villain is essentially an evil Ghostbusters nerd. They even comment, how they are upset by the fact that their book inspired him.

But from what I've heard Sony has been aggressively removing Youtube comments, leaving only the misogynistic ones. Not to mention Sony was caught buying reviews. And all GB2016 reviews had a misogynistic slant to them.


I have to say that I came in here hoping this had all died down so that I could get a measure on whether the film is worth checking out when it's available on DVD
Can't you just rent it? I think that's cheapish? I'm sure there are ways to watch movie for low cost, then decide to buy or not.


I don't think it really would have made a difference in reception, but it would have been pretty easy to justify. BOTH of the original ghost events were directly caused by singular entities that were defeated (Gozer and Vigo). With those entities gone ghosts wouldn't have been around anymore.
Yeah, but that's like saying Hurricane Gozer/Vigo never happened, it would be impossible to deny what large part of population saw - unless US turned into a super repressive regime bent on change of past records and executing people. Also ghosts were always present (e.g. Slimer was always there) , Gozer/Vigo merely made them more apparent/violent.

I could see Ghostbusters becoming useless, since there weren't any ghosts for like seven decades to sustain a business.

[Anonymouswizard]

Can't you just rent it? I think that's cheapish? I'm sure there are ways to watch movie for low cost, then decide to buy or not.

Not in a position to stream and renting physical copies isn't a thing anymore over here. TBH normally I'd borrow a copy from a friend or sibling, but none of them will be interested in getting the film.

[BiblioRook]

Yeah, but that's like saying Hurricane Gozer/Vigo never happened, it would be impossible to deny what large part of population saw - unless US turned into a super repressive regime bent on change of past records and executing people. Also ghosts were always present (e.g. Slimer was always there) , Gozer/Vigo merely made them more apparent/violent.

I could see Ghostbusters becoming useless, since there weren't any ghosts for like seven decades to sustain a business.

Well in the 2016 movie's own continuity the US government was explicitly covering up any signs of paranormal or ghost activity and making those that found out the truth to appear as frauds...
It's still iffy if you are expecting New Yorkers to forget the multiple incidents that happened on a city-wide scale in their own lifetime but that's why I suggested it would be more believable if the new movie took place in a different city.

[Rodin]

I have to say that I came in here hoping this had all died down so that I could get a measure on whether the film is worth checking out when it's available on DVD, and it might be, seeing as I disagree with popular opinion sometimes (The Force Awakens didn't get me interested in Episode 8: The Force Hits Snooze, I thought that Fury Road was significantly inferior to The Road Warrior, and I hate Game of Thrones [what happened to the 'A'?]).

The fact that this is still going on as strong as it is annoys me. Why can't people just let people have their own opinions on things, I hate having to justify why I don't find Harry Potter to be as awesome as people claim (the books were fun and easy to read, but poorly written and dont quite hold up to inspection, especially the world building).

Honestly, the big thing on whether you'll like this movie or not is whether you like McCarthy, McKinnon, and Jones's comedy styles. If you're a fan, you'll probably like it. If not, the movie likely isn't for you.

I'm a fan of McCarthy and not of McKinnon, so the movie came out as fairly average for me. I wasn't familiar with Leslie Jones, but found her the funniest thing in the movie. Still, I've heard other people say that the scenes with her I laughed at hardest were the worst thing in the movie.

In other words, it's really hard to give advice because nobody actually agrees on what bits of the movie are good and which weren't. I think the only universal thing I've heard is that the start of the movie was very poor, and that's a big part of why the trailer failed so hard - it focused on the early, un-funny parts of the movie.

[Avilan the Grey]

I'll definitely buy this. Despite McCarthy, I guess.

[Kyberwulf]

I am actually pretty good with poker. Lottery tickets aren't so good though, no minds to read.

I do, actually have a problem with movies, that go exclusively all male, when it doesn't seem to warrant it. Rather, I would have a problem if a movie came out and said,... We are going to be all males, because girls suck. I have a problem with movies that are "Chick Flicks". Because the guys in there are usually.. so.. blandly stereotypical. The non-hot guys in them are usually bland. Yes I do have a problem with movies, that stick some random "minority" in the group, just for the sake of inclusion.

Am I adverse to am all female, team? no, not it if it was handled better.

I can buy the premise of 4 (well 3+1) female scientists being on the fringe on the scientists community. Since I hear there aren't that many to begin with. Not only that, they hold some pretty radical views. This is basically the premise of the first movie.

I find it ironic, when groups can get together and claim all sorts of stuff about other movies. That clearly were made without any malicious intent... such as Ghostbusters. It was just made, no one got together, and said how can we keep women down. Yet, it is perfectly fine for groups to claim all sorts of stuff. Yet when some guys come together and say the same thing. With actual proof the director wanted to do the movie, only if he could do an all female staff. There are basically two groups that cannot do this. White people.. and Men. I also find it funny, because the claims are made that my view is done out of hatred. I don't hate women, just Hypocrisy. I find it incredibly hypocritical, to be accused of "mind reading", then being told I am misogynistic. Talk about mind reading and projection. I harbor no hatred for women. Disagreeing with a point of view is not hatred.

On the topic of the movie. I foresee a problem. Based on the reviews I have watched, and I agree they seem to be mixed. As I have said before. They all seem to say the same thing though. This movies seems like a satirical look at the Ghostbusters. That most of the comedy seems to be forced. That there seemed to be a good movie in there, but it was lost. If I had to guess, I imangine, when I see the movie. I will feel like I do when I watch most remakes. ..
Meh, didn't seem to capture the original.

In my mind, most Remakes are like that. When you take out the nostalgic aspect. Not bad, by no means good. I mean if you take out the hipster element. Meaning, that people like to harp on a movie because it is a remake.

[Ruslan]

It's pretty difficult to imagine anyone referring to a movie such as, I dunno, Reservoir Dogs or The Three Musketeers, or ANY OTHER GODDAMN MOVIE WITH ALL-MALE LEADS, and saying "Am I averse to an all-male team? No, not if it was handled better." For some reason, the "I am not against an all-women team, but ..." argument is only made one-way.

Given the large amount of all-male-leads-movies that are being made, one would think that, statistically, a lot of them would be bad, and the "I am not against an all-men team, but ..." argument would be made MORE OFTEN with respect to movies starring men. But it's not. It's almost exclusively reserved for movies starring women.

And we know it's not because people who make this argument are averse to women in leading roles. Because they tell us so themselves.

PS: Also, when a movie with men in the leading roles turns out to be bad, or at least perceived as bad, this is never connected to, you know, having men in leading roles. When a movie with women in leading roles is perceived as bad, discussion invariably connects it to, you know, having women in leading roles. Even if it's the seemingly innocuous "I don't mind women, but..." argument. As usual XKCD said it best (https://xkcd.com/385/).

[Olinser]

It's pretty difficult to imagine anyone referring to a movie such as, I dunno, Reservoir Dogs or The Three Musketeers, or ANY OTHER GODDAMN MOVIE WITH ALL-MALE LEADS, and saying "Am I averse to an all-male team? No, not if it was handled better." For some reason, the "I am not against an all-women team, but ..." argument is only made one-way.

Given the large amount of all-male-leads-movies that are being made, one would think that, statistically, a lot of them would be bad, and the "I am not against an all-men team, but ..." argument would be made MORE OFTEN with respect to movies starring men. But it's not. It's almost exclusively reserved for movies starring women.

And we know it's not because people who make this argument are averse to women in leading roles. Because they tell us so themselves.

Those movies WERE handled better.

First of all, Three Musketeers is a really stupid example. One of the main characters - Milady - IS female, and it focused on the Musketeers in a historical time frame in which yes, ALL MEMBERS of the Musketeers were male. That's history. Don't like it, invent a time machine. And yet, the fact that they are male really has nothing to do with why it has been a popular and well-known story for 170 years. Its got good heroes, great villains, and a story that is engaging.

As for Reservoir Dogs, point to ONE SINGLE CASE of anybody advertising the movie on the basis of an all male cast. I'll save you some time - it doesn't exist. They didn't spend months talking about how awesome it was to have an all-male cast. There was no announcements, no posters, no articles about how awesome it was that their cast was male. Yes, the cast is male, but that has zero to do with the movie or why the movie is good. Heck point to one single modern instance of ANYBODY advertising a movie on the basis of having an all male cast. They don't do it. Because they understand such a fact does absolutely nothing to sell their movie.

What did the fact that they were male have to do with the movie? Nothing. And that's why nobody tried to sell the movie on that basis.

And that's where Ghostbusters failed. If they'd just announced the cast and spent their time talking about the plot and the characters, there would have been no controversy. But no. They had to emphasize OMG FEMALEZ at every turn, as if that has anything relevant to do with whether a comedy movie is going to be funny, and then the studio went to Plan B with their cynical OMG SEXISTS marketing strategy when the backlash from the trailer hit and they realized Feig had made a crap movie.

For how to do it well, see JJ and Star Wars. Notice how nobody from the movie was making it a big deal that they had OMG BLACK JEDI (yes, they were trying to sell him as a Jedi in the advertising, everything included that shot of him with the lightsaber). They were talking about John Boyega, and how he was the best guy for the role, and pointed people to his previous well-received performance in Attack the Block. Likewise with Daisy Ridley. Because JJ correctly understood that being black or female had nothing to do with whether his movie was good.

When ANY studio or director spends a large amount of time talking about how awesome their movie is because it includes X gender or race, it generally means they've made a bad/mediocre movie and are trying to cover it up. Because it has zero to do with whether a movie is actually good.

[Ruslan]

But no. They had to emphasize OMG FEMALEZ at every turn

I do believe you have the events backwards. As far as I can recall, it started with a mix of "oh noes, females ruin Ghostbuster remake", and "I don't mind females in Ghostbusters remake, but..." from the interwebs crowd, causing the cast/crew to react. They didn't handle it the best way, that's on them, but that's incomparable. You don't compare the bully to the person who doesn't react to the bully in the best possible way. Both are not equally at fault.

[Olinser]

I do believe you have the events backwards. As far as I can recall, it started with a mix of "oh noes, females ruin Ghostbuster remake", and "I don't mind females in Ghostbusters remake, but..." from the interwebs crowd, causing the cast/crew to react. They didn't handle it the best way, that's on them, but that's incomparable. You don't compare the bully to the person who doesn't react to the bully in the best possible way. Both are not equally at fault.

What I'm reading here is, "I am completely unable to actually substantively reply to your post so I'm going to throw out a vague statement about being backwards with nothing to back it up."

You believe it based on what. From day 1 Feig was trying to sell this as OMG FEMALEZ. It was a freaking condition of him directing the movie. That's not a positive or negative thing, but it sure as heck shows where his mind is at. So yes, there was some minor backlash at the start, along with the same crowd that thinks all reboots or remakes are terrible.

But when all you can talk about is something that has NOTHING TO DO with the quality of your movie, and then actual facts come out about your movie and they are not good, people are rightly going to start blasting you for focusing on extraneous BS instead of making a good movie. Then when people actively attack critics like James Rolfe, you rightly expose yourself to backlash and criticism.

Making an all-female movie is not, in itself, necessarily a bad thing. Nor is it a GOOD thing. Making an all female movie and constantly emphasizing that its female is 100% a bad thing, because it has nothing to do with the quality of your work.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Making an all female movie and constantly emphasizing that its female is 100% a bad thing, because it has nothing to do with the quality of your work.

Says the male.

[JadedDM]

Even if Feig had gone out of his way to not mention or talk about the fact that it was an all woman cast, the media still would have seized on it anyway, because (sad to say) women-led action/sci-fi movies are very rare and the original cast were all men. It was noteworthy. And back when the movie was first announced, that was literally all we knew about it at the time--that it was starring all women.

So your premise that Feig somehow made things worse by putting emphasis on it is faulty. The media would have done it anyway.

[LokeyITP]

Time to review the omg wimmen are ghostbusters thread in forum then :)

[-D-]

What about new Ghostbusters comics? It had majority female cast - three out of four. Why not make movie based on that? I'm guessing because, Paul Feig only knows how to do Ghostmaids.

[BiblioRook]

I adore the IDW Ghostbusters comic (http://www.idwpublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ghostbustersnewtpb-cover11.jpg) and actually said much the same thing a few times over.

[Cikomyr]

Seems to me the timeline has been wrongly remembered by people.

First thing to hit the papers was that there was going to be a Ghostbuster reboot, and that the cast would be female. Thats it. No fanfare, no showing off.

Then the misogynistic storm hit the internet.

Then the production and cast decided to embrace their newfound status as the target of Return of Kings.

[-D-]

Then the misogynistic storm hit the internet.

Then the production and cast decided to embrace their newfound status as the target of Return of Kings.
I remember that storm was rather quiet until trailer came out. Also that "storm" was and is a really tiny set of people, and initially GB 2016 stars and director said that talking about trolls would only make the trolls stronger. Which was a smart move.

Then GB 2016 drastically changed their course.

[Ruslan]

Even if Feig had gone out of his way to not mention or talk about the fact that it was an all woman cast, the media still would have seized on it anyway, because (sad to say) women-led action/sci-fi movies are very rare and the original cast were all men. It was noteworthy. And back when the movie was first announced, that was literally all we knew about it at the time--that it was starring all women.

So your premise that Feig somehow made things worse by putting emphasis on it is faulty. The media would have done it anyway.
Also, I don't see any problem taking the advertising angle of "We have an action film with women!!"

Yes, no one advertises "We have an action film with men!!", but that's only because ... it's the default. Action films, by default, have mostly-manly casts. If you have something that's out of the ordinary, yes, it's fair game to advertise based on that.

Imagine if ... how can I explain it ... imagine every car on the road had a gasoline engine. No one would advertise "our car has a gasoline engine!", right? Because it's the default. And imagine someone comes up with an electric car. And advertises bases on that. "Our car has an electric motor!". And all the gasoline car fans are coming out of the woodwork. "How dare they! Gasoline cars are not advertised based on gasoline engines! They have no right to advertise the electric car based on the electric engine!". That would be dumb, right?

Well, that's what it looks like now. "I'm not against women, but how dare they advertise an action movie based on presence of women! No action movie is advertised based on presence of men!"

[-D-]

Yes, no one advertises "We have an action film with men!!", but that's only because ... it's the default. Action films, by default, have mostly-manly casts. If you have something that's out of the ordinary, yes, it's fair game to advertise based on that.

Well, that's what it looks like now. "I'm not against women, but how dare they advertise an action movie based on presence of women! No action movie is advertised based on presence of men!"
True, but it still doesn't explain why the movie is so goddamn dumb.

The way it turned out, is station is electric, except the plug is nonstandard USB **** and can't power-up a phone, let alone a car.

[Avilan the Grey]

I remember that storm was rather quiet until trailer came out. Also that "storm" was and is a really tiny set of people, and initially GB 2016 stars and director said that talking about trolls would only make the trolls stronger. Which was a smart move.

Then GB 2016 drastically changed their course.

That's because everyone involved got basically attacked by large group of bat**** crazy idiots. For months.
And btw, one are not a troll if one believe what one says.

[Cikomyr]

I remember that storm was rather quiet until trailer came out. Also that "storm" was and is a really tiny set of people, and initially GB 2016 stars and director said that talking about trolls would only make the trolls stronger. Which was a smart move.

Then GB 2016 drastically changed their course.

Not sure the storm was that quiet, between you and i. For a while, the only two things i factually knew about Ghostbusters Reboot was:

- all female main cast
- People were bitchin' about point 1

Maybe the reporting about the bitching overexposed them. But nevertheless, it was real and loud. And downplaying its existence is not a good idea in my opinion.

[BannedInSchool]

And btw, one are not a troll if one believe what one says.
Mmm, maybe in the original meaning of the word, but in current usage I might say it's just deliberately targeting someone with any disagreeable comment.

[Bohandas]

I do believe you have the events backwards. As far as I can recall, it started with a mix of "oh noes, females ruin Ghostbuster remake", and "I don't mind females in Ghostbusters remake, but..."

Where the heck did you get that from?

Like literally where? Because I'm inclined to believe that you're probably technically correct but that the sources are all trolls who say inflammatory things about everything and whose statements would therefore not be indicative of any actual controversy.

Don't feed the trolls.

EDIT:
There's also the issue of complaints about the tokenistic and pandering way that the female ghostbusters were hyped being confused for complaints against the fact that the ghostbusters were female

[-D-]

That's because everyone involved got basically attacked by large group of bat**** crazy idiots. For months.
And btw, one are not a troll if one believe what one says.
Yes, because getting in a shouting match with these People will help them.



Not sure the storm was that quiet, between you and i. For a while, the only two things i factually knew about Ghostbusters Reboot was:

It was relatively minor. It definitely didn't get coverage on The Guardian, before afaik.

[Blue Lantern]

Also, I don't see any problem taking the advertising angle of "We have an action film with women!!"

Yes, no one advertises "We have an action film with men!!", but that's only because ... it's the default. Action films, by default, have mostly-manly casts. If you have something that's out of the ordinary, yes, it's fair game to advertise based on that.

Imagine if ... how can I explain it ... imagine every car on the road had a gasoline engine. No one would advertise "our car has a gasoline engine!", right? Because it's the default. And imagine someone comes up with an electric car. And advertises bases on that. "Our car has an electric motor!". And all the gasoline car fans are coming out of the woodwork. "How dare they! Gasoline cars are not advertised based on gasoline engines! They have no right to advertise the electric car based on the electric engine!". That would be dumb, right?

Well, that's what it looks like now. "I'm not against women, but how dare they advertise an action movie based on presence of women! No action movie is advertised based on presence of men!"

Your analogy falls completely flat when you consider that the engine type has an extreme importance in the working on a car, on the other hand the gender of the cast has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of an action comedy movie.

If you are using the female cast as the principal marketing strategy in my opinion there are two reasons:


You want to attract a target audience that would normally not be interested on the movie.
You don't have much else to base your campaign on.


Neither of those seems to be good reasoning for me.

[Avilan the Grey]

The answer is not "where" but "Everywhere". Seriously, they were no trolls. Trolls say things to stir up people. These people were, and are, totally sincere. These people DO believe everything they say.
But yes. We didn't get it from anywhere special, we got it from EVERYWHERE.

[Bohandas]

Your analogy falls completely flat when you consider that the engine type has an extreme importance in the working on a car, on the other hand the gender of the cast has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of an action comedy movie.

If you are using the female cast as the principal marketing strategy in my opinion there are two reasons:


You want to attract a target audience that would normally not be interested on the movie.
You don't have much else to base your campaign on.


Neither of those seems to be good reasoning for me.

I always assumed it was purely the second one. Using tokenism and pandering as a smokescreen to hide the fact that the movie didn't have anything else going for it

[Ruslan]

Your analogy falls completely flat when you consider that the engine type has an extreme importance in the working on a car, on the other hand the gender of the cast has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of an action comedy movie.People who drive a car are actually unable to see the engine. 99% of the time, they forget it's even there. [yes, we all know it's a critical component, but most buyers are just not technically savvy to distinguish different engines, nor do they care]. People who go to a movie actually see the cast 100% of the time. The cast is right there, in front of their eyes. Marketing a movie based on the cast [whatever that cast may be!] is, if anything, more valid that marketing a car based on engine.

"They are marketing a movie based on Brad Pitt being in it!"
"That's completely unfair! I like Miles Teller, and they never marketed a movie based on Miles Teller being in it! Miles Teller is just as human as Brad Pitt!
"Yeah! How dare they attempt to pander to people who like Brad Pitt!"
"Let's form an Internet mob and complain!"

[Keltest]

People who drive a car are actually unable to see the engine. 99% of the time, they forget it's even there. [yes, we all know it's a critical component, but most buyers are just not technically savvy to distinguish different engines, nor do they care]. People who go to a movie actually see the cast 100% of the time. The cast is right there, in front of their eyes. Marketing a movie based on the cast [whatever that cast may be!] is, if anything, more valid that marketing a car based on engine.

"They are marketing a movie based on Brad Pitt being in it!"
"That's completely unfair! I like Miles Teller, and they never marketed a movie based on Miles Teller being in it! Miles Teller is just as human as Brad Pitt!
"Yeah! How dare they attempt to pander to people who like Brad Pitt!"
"Let's form an Internet mob and complain!"

People refuel their cars all the time though, so the kind of engine you have still makes a big difference in the upkeep and performance of your vehicle, not to mention potentially the cost.

Also, theres a rather substantial difference between marketing on a specific actor or actors, who's performance and reputation can in fact impact the movie, and on a very very broad category into which your cast fits into, in this case women.

[Ruslan]

People refuel their cars all the time though, so the kind of engine you have still makes a big difference in the upkeep and performance of your vehicle, not to mention potentially the cost.

Also, theres a rather substantial difference between marketing on a specific actor or actors, who's performance and reputation can in fact impact the movie, and on a very very broad category into which your cast fits into, in this case women.

Sorry, I don't see it. Saying "you can't market an action movie based on women" is not a rational statement that you probably think it is, it's just another form of sexism.
(And yes, you can market an action movie based on men, but you will never need to, because mostly-men cast is the default. "Our action film that is the same as any other!" makes no sense for marketing, which is why you never see action films advertised based on male casts).

[The Glyphstone]

The answer is not "where" but "Everywhere". Seriously, they were no trolls. Trolls say things to stir up people. These people were, and are, totally sincere. These people DO believe everything they say.
But yes. We didn't get it from anywhere special, we got it from EVERYWHERE.

That's not necessarily accurate. You can believe something and still be a troll if you deliberately try to incite reactions with it. For example, if a diehard Red Sox fan goes to a Yankees fan-site and starts posting about how the Yankees lead pitcher is an incompetent stooge, that's pretty blatant trolling, even if he does honestly believe said player is bad.

[Keltest]

Sorry, I don't see it. Saying "you can't market an action movie based on women" is not a rational statement that you probably think it is, it's just another form of sexism.
(And yes, you can market an action movie based on men, but you will never need to, because mostly-men cast is the default. "Our action film that is the same as any other!" makes no sense for marketing, which is why you never see action films advertised based on male casts).

The argument isn't "cant" as in a literal impossibility, its "Shouldn't" as in "doing so makes for a terrible marketing strategy." Its telling your audience that the most exciting thing about this movie is that it has women in it. And while that may be exciting from a feminist standpoint, it also means that its probably going to be a horrible movie, because the marketing team cant think of anything more to say about it besides "Look! Women!" Or worse, that the movie is going to shove an agenda down your throat (speaking generally here, not about Ghostbusters specifically).

Making a big deal out of things which should absolutely not be a big deal is going to fail to impress a lot of people.

[Ruslan]

Its telling your audience that the most exciting thing about this movie is that it has women in it.To be fair, that's not at all what the Ghostbusters advertising said. That's what a very certain segment of the population gleaned though.

[BannedInSchool]

That's not necessarily accurate. You can believe something and still be a troll if you deliberately try to incite reactions with it.
In popular usage you'll also get called a troll for voicing an unpopular opinion in a forum. Now that doesn't conflict with the definition there, as one might make the case that knowingly disagreeing with the popular opinion in a forum is deliberately inciting reactions no matter how one phrases it. 3E to-hit is better than THAC0; there, I said it. :smallwink:

[Bohandas]

"They are marketing a movie based on Brad Pitt being in it!"
"That's completely unfair! I like Miles Teller, and they never marketed a movie based on Miles Teller being in it! Miles Teller is just as human as Brad Pitt!
"Yeah! How dare they attempt to pander to people who like Brad Pitt!"
"Let's form an Internet mob and complain!"

If it comes down to it, I don't like advertising based on having some trendy actor or actress either (especially if it's a hot actress or a pretty boy actor rather than somebody who can actually act). It's only recently that I've stopped being actively hostile to it.

I think the directing is more important, and the writing more important still.

[Kyberwulf]

Okay, the Brad Pitt angle. Let's do that, but put it into better context.

Let's say they announce a remake. We will say... Training Day, or Glory. Then they announce Brad Pitt is doing Denzel Washington's part. They wanna do this, because they feel that he can act just as good as Denzel. They don't really change anything in the movie though, not a beat for beat remake. Also, they make it less serious too. (becuase they did more then just basically change out a white male, for a white male) So, instead of Femwashing a movie, they whitewashed it.

So your saying, the film is still the same. Still has the same meaning, the same context. That it should still speak to the same audience the same way. That act of changing a black male to a white one has no bearing.


The car thing too. It's not that it's being advertised. It would be more like, the car company is changing all the gas cars to electric cars and not really giving anyone a choice. It doesn't matter how well the electric car operates. How well it is, either good or bad. It's that the car company is giving in to dissenting views about the gas car. I mean, we recognize how prolific the gas cars are, and they aren't the best mode of transportation. The electric cars aren't quite there yet. Some are good, some are bad. Instead of putting together some good cars and letting people try them out. We are being made to try out ****ty to mediocare electric cars. Then being told its for our own good. Well, I am sorry. It may not be the "best" mode of transportation. But my gas car is good, it gets good gas mileage. Some of them are even hybrid cars, which is pretty good. Gives me hope for the future of cars.

[Thrudd]

I finally saw it, too. I liked it far less than I thought I would. Didn't really like it much at all. Disappointing because I like the actresses and want them to do well.
It was mostly the writing and the plot that I thought was weak. Dialogue and jokes were ho hum or stupid. The peripheral and bit characters had better stuff to do than the leads, like Kevin and the Dean of the "science institute". Kate McKinnon was good, though her Holtzman seemed to take on some aspects of her Bieber impersonation at some points. The other characters did not have enough character: Wiig and McCarthy's characters were really just boring. The special effects slapstick gags, like McCarthy flying around in the air testing the proton pack, was just lame. And their dancing interludes and school project song, that were supposed to be cute I'm sure, but it was just annoying. I mean, silly dancing is funny, but not in the context of this movie and characters. That's what a lot of the comedy felt like - just not right for the story or the characters.
There was a lot more action for them and bigger special effects than the original movies, of course, but I don't think it really helped.

I don't think the advertising was trying to say "see this because of women!" But people couldn't see a trailer or read about the cast and miss that the leads are all women. And some people freaked out because of that, for some reason. More people commented negatively because the trailer made it look like a not-great movie, and it wasn't, so they weren't wrong.

I don't think they should have made a Ghostbusters movie if nobody had a good idea for one. It feels like the studio was determined to do it, and their original stuff with Aykroyd had fallen through, so they called around to see if anyone wanted to write a Ghostbusters movie. Instead of making a Ghostbusters movie because someone came to them with a really great idea for a Ghostbusters movie.

[Avilan the Grey]

I definitely disagree on Wiig, I loved her character.
Now McCarthy... I got fed up with McCarthy playing the same character in everything about second season into Mike & Molly.
As for Leslie: I feel terribly racist for saying this but... Talk about a stereotypical performance. Not her fault, of course, but the role really is 110% troperiffic.

[Rogar Demonblud]

It was at least neat to see a history geek who isn't a scrawny pasty-faced nerd with thick glasses.

[Chen]

Okay, the Brad Pitt angle. Let's do that, but put it into better context.

Let's say they announce a remake. We will say... Training Day, or Glory. Then they announce Brad Pitt is doing Denzel Washington's part. They wanna do this, because they feel that he can act just as good as Denzel. They don't really change anything in the movie though, not a beat for beat remake. Also, they make it less serious too. (becuase they did more then just basically change out a white male, for a white male) So, instead of Femwashing a movie, they whitewashed it.

So your saying, the film is still the same. Still has the same meaning, the same context. That it should still speak to the same audience the same way. That act of changing a black male to a white one has no bearing.


Well for Glory, clearly not. The fact that Denzel is black is clearly important to the story in that one. Training Day though, I don't think the race of the corrupt cop matters. I don't recall any points where it was particularly pertinent. Any cop with enough of a "reputation" in the area would have been able to do what Denzel did.

[Leewei]

The argument isn't "cant" as in a literal impossibility, its "Shouldn't" as in "doing so makes for a terrible marketing strategy." Its telling your audience that the most exciting thing about this movie is that it has women in it. And while that may be exciting from a feminist standpoint, it also means that its probably going to be a horrible movie, because the marketing team cant think of anything more to say about it besides "Look! Women!" Or worse, that the movie is going to shove an agenda down your throat (speaking generally here, not about Ghostbusters specifically).

Making a big deal out of things which should absolutely not be a big deal is going to fail to impress a lot of people.

There are plenty of action movies that really don't work nearly as well without women in the lead. Marketing certainly can be more nuanced than "Action movie with female lead!"

Terminator II and Aliens both stand out in my mind as great action movies sprinkled with "Mama Bear" moments of awesome. The various Underworld movies rely on the vampire chic of Kate Beckinsale for a big part of their appeal.

Or were you only referencing gender swapping movie reboots?

[Olinser]

Okay, the Brad Pitt angle. Let's do that, but put it into better context.

Let's say they announce a remake. We will say... Training Day, or Glory. Then they announce Brad Pitt is doing Denzel Washington's part. They wanna do this, because they feel that he can act just as good as Denzel. They don't really change anything in the movie though, not a beat for beat remake. Also, they make it less serious too. (becuase they did more then just basically change out a white male, for a white male) So, instead of Femwashing a movie, they whitewashed it.

So your saying, the film is still the same. Still has the same meaning, the same context. That it should still speak to the same audience the same way. That act of changing a black male to a white one has no bearing.

That's a really dumb strawman.

Glory of course you absolutely can't because there is a major key difference. Namely, the STORY is 100% about the struggle of black soldiers to be accepted. They didn't advertise the movie as, "Look, black cast!" It was all about the STORY, and the main cast being black was critical to that story. All announcements of the movie were all about the plot and the characters.

Training Day you could flip him to Brad Pitt easily - nothing in the STORY depends upon him being black - any race cop that was established as having street cred could fill the role easily. And none of the advertising was about him being black. It was all about Denzel Washington - an actor who happens to be black. There was no advertising about 'Black Main Character!' It was 'Denzel Washington AS ...'. That's advertising based on star power, not race (although advertising on a single star is still a risky strategy). Now, if you were to remake it, it would probably better to keep him black to avoid whatever 'whitewashing' controversy trolls try to gin up, but if you have a better actor that's a different race, its not that big a deal to go with them. Switching to 'Brad Pitt AS ....' is not that big a deal. Unless of course you're dumb enough to try and advertise BASED on the fact that you have a white main character, instead of just advertising Brad Pitt. In which case you deserve the backlash.

Ghostbusters, in contrast, not 1 single part of the movie is dependent upon them being women (or the original is dependent upon them being men, for that matter, with the possible exception of Venkman). You could gender flip the new one and not even change their lines and have the same crappy movie. Being male or female isn't a positive or a negative at the start. But advertising on the basis of having a female cast is an extremely poor marketing angle. It adds nothing to the plot or quality of the movie, and when all you talk about is factors not relevant to the quality of your movie, you make people seriously question

[Kyberwulf]

You can make the changes, again I say, they remake Glory. Brad Pitt, for Denzel Washington for.. .reasons. Although, I was just using the actors and movies as examples. Although, it kind of sounds like the argument of "Basement dwelling nerds" to say something can't be made, for 100% reasons. Like I said, they mess around with the story so that it sounds plausible. Not a beat for beat remake. They change the tone of the movie, so that it isn't a reality based story, but a family dramady.

[Bohandas]

There's also the issue of the villain. There's a completely different villain. It's like if they did a remake of Frankenstein where Dr.Frankenstein never builds a monster because he's too bust fighting aliens of fending off the zombie apocalypse or something.

[Mightymosy]

In a gender equal world, it probably would be sexist to use an all-female cast just because.

But see, that's not the world we live in, and especially not the world movies are made in.

Watch this video, it opened my eyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLF6sAAMb4s
(it's about the Bechdel test)

So, yes, advertising an all-female cast is sexist. But it is good sexism.

For my part: I'm waiting for this movie and hope it is at least somewhat funny. I liked the last Melissa McCarthy films. Yes, she is the same person in all of them, but many well-known-huge-paid actors are like that. I haven't grown tired of this kind of humor yet, so who cares?

[-D-]

How do determine if you like new Ghostbusters 2016 - did you like Bridesmaids? Do you like Bridesmaids with ghosts? If answer to both is yes, go watch Ghostbusters 2016.

If you like old Ghostbusters and aren't interested in Bridesmaids? No. Don't watch it.

[Chen]

You can make the changes, again I say, they remake Glory. Brad Pitt, for Denzel Washington for.. .reasons. Although, I was just using the actors and movies as examples. Although, it kind of sounds like the argument of "Basement dwelling nerds" to say something can't be made, for 100% reasons. Like I said, they mess around with the story so that it sounds plausible. Not a beat for beat remake. They change the tone of the movie, so that it isn't a reality based story, but a family dramady.

You've seen Glory right? You could reshoot Glory and have Brad Pitt play a different character and be there star sure. But there's ZERO way to have him step in and play Trip in it.

[Mightymosy]

How do determine if you like new Ghostbusters 2016 - did you like Bridesmaids? Do you like Bridesmaids with ghosts? If answer to both is yes, go watch Ghostbusters 2016.

If you like old Ghostbusters and aren't interested in Bridesmaids? No. Don't watch it.

Sounds well, let's do that! :smallsmile:

[Avilan the Grey]

How do determine if you like new Ghostbusters 2016 - did you like Bridesmaids? Do you like Bridesmaids with ghosts? If answer to both is yes, go watch Ghostbusters 2016.
If you like old Ghostbusters and aren't interested in Bridesmaids? No. Don't watch it.

Heh.
I don't care for Bridesmaids. I LOVE Ghostbusters. I really like this movie.

[JoshL]

Heh.
I don't care for Bridesmaids. I LOVE Ghostbusters. I really like this movie.

I feel the same way. Fan of Ghostbusters since it first hit theaters, loved this new one, don't care about Bridesmaids. I tend to like comedies that are also something else (horror, sci-fi, fantasy, etc)

That said, if the sense of humor is the same, maybe I should give Bridesmaids a shot. I like to like things! I'm sure it lacks ghosts though, which is a downside to many movies.

[Velaryon]

I saw the film earlier today. I'm at work and about to leave soon, so I'll save detailed comments for later. For now I'll just say that I had very low expectations for this movie going in, and was pleasantly surprised to find that it was actually pretty good. Maybe not an all-time classic, but not the disgrace that I feared it would be, and much better than the initial trailer made it look.



It's just a movie about four women, who discover ghosts are real, and become Ghostbusters to fight them. Really...it's the plot of Ghostbusters in a nut shell. The only thing Ghostbusters 2016 is missing is no romantic sub plot, as Dr. Venkman spent like a third of the movie obsessed with Dana....

Well, Kristen Wiig's character does perv over Chris Hemsworth's quite a lot. Not the same I suppose, but it's definitely a thing.



Of course this is true of the original too though as SNL and Second City(aka Canada's ye old SNL)

Though they did expand into Toronto and make SCTV, I feel it necessary to point out that Second City is in fact based in Chicago.



I DO however agree that McCarthy can only play McCarthy playing McCarthy Pretending To Be Character X.

So she's basically a female Chris Pratt? Asking seriously, because this is actually the first of her films I've seen.



Not in a position to stream and renting physical copies isn't a thing anymore over here. TBH normally I'd borrow a copy from a friend or sibling, but none of them will be interested in getting the film.

Have you tried your public library? I'm not sure about the UK, but at least in the US most libraries will have a film collection as well as books.

[Avilan the Grey]

I saw the film earlier today. I'm at work and about to leave soon, so I'll save detailed comments for later. For now I'll just say that I had very low expectations for this movie going in, and was pleasantly surprised to find that it was actually pretty good. Maybe not an all-time classic, but not the disgrace that I feared it would be, and much better than the initial trailer made it look.

Well, Kristen Wiig's character does perv over Chris Hemsworth's quite a lot. Not the same I suppose, but it's definitely a thing.

So she's basically a female Chris Pratt? Asking seriously, because this is actually the first of her films I've seen.


I agree. I saw it again yesterday, and yep, definitely much better than my expectations.

Oh and for romance; Holtzmann (McKinnon) is all over Gilbert (Wiig). Not mutual, but yes.

I guess; I have seen her in Gilmore Girls, Bridesmaids, Mike & Molly. So far, the exact same character in all of them. Pratt at least knows how to turn up or down his quirks.
I don't mean to sound too harsh but yeah, she's worse. Or I don't find her quirks as funny as his. Not sure.

[-D-]

I agree. I saw it again yesterday, and yep, definitely much better than my expectations.

Oh and for romance; Holtzmann (McKinnon) is all over Gilbert (Wiig). Not mutual, but yes.
From what I hear, that was her intent, but it was cut from the movie.

[Avilan the Grey]

From what I hear, that was her intent, but it was cut from the movie.

If by cut you mean winking at her in a rather obvious way twice, and doing a dance that is far from erotic but is quite obvious in its attempt... Then sure. We can also conclude that Sony failed to cover that up by cutting. Not sure how blatant the scenes were that Sony actually cut...

[-D-]

If by cut you mean winking at her in a rather obvious way twice, and doing a dance that is far from erotic but is quite obvious in its attempt... Then sure. We can also conclude that Sony failed to cover that up by cutting. Not sure how blatant the scenes were that Sony actually cut...
No, I meant like it was canon. See this (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/ghostbusters-paul-feig-confirms-kate-mckinnon-character-jillian-holtzmann-is-gay-but-studio-stopped-a7136051.html).

[Friv]

AIUI, the cutting happened in the script stage, not in the filming stage. Sony just said, "You aren't allowed to have her explicitly be gay, because if you do we lose Russia and China," but she was allowed to hint at it and the actor went as blatant as she could get away with.

Of course, they lost China anyway, and I don't know how much money they made in Russia, so *le sigh*.

[-D-]

AIUI, the cutting happened in the script stage, not in the filming stage. Sony just said, "You aren't allowed to have her explicitly be gay, because if you do we lose Russia and China," but she was allowed to hint at it and the actor went as blatant as she could get away with.

Of course, they lost China anyway, and I don't know how much money they made in Russia, so *le sigh*.
They made about 5mil in Russia ($4,870,811 to be exact (http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Ghostbusters-(2016)/Russia-(CIS)#tab=international)). More than France and Germany, but probably relatively less than average movie in Russia.

[Velaryon]

Huh. I didn't pick up on the overtones between Holtzmann and Gilbert. It does explain the whole dance bit, which otherwise seemed pointless and like a waste of time, one of my least favorite parts of the film. If I get a chance to watch it again, I'll try and keep that in mind when watching that part.

[Bohandas]

AIUI, the cutting happened in the script stage, not in the filming stage. Sony just said, "You aren't allowed to have her explicitly be gay, because if you do we lose Russia and China," but she was allowed to hint at it and the actor went as blatant as she could get away with.

Of course, they lost China anyway, and I don't know how much money they made in Russia, so *le sigh*.

Well if it was banned in China then I may have to give it a chance.

[BiblioRook]

Well if it was banned in China then I may have to give it a chance.

I think it was only banned in China because something along the lines of them being superstitious and not liking ghosts?

[Chen]

I think it was only banned in China because something along the lines of them being superstitious and not liking ghosts?

That was the rumor, but the articles I've quickly scanned seemed to imply it was more a lack of interest in the franchise itself. Something about the first two movies being relatively unpopular and them not wanting to release another unpopular one.

[Friv]

That's also a possibility, but the big thing is that China only allows a grand total of 34 movies from non-Chinese countries to be released there each year. I think they also sometimes allow co-productions not to have to go through the quota system.

They do this mainly because they want Chinese culture to be what most Chinese people see, and the easiest way to do that is to heavily restrict how much Western culture is allowed.

The result is that a lot of movies make a lot of concessions to try to get into China, because it's such a huge market, and then most of them don't make it. It's a pretty good scam, all things considered.

[Bohandas]

That's also a possibility, but the big thing is that China only allows a grand total of 34 movies from non-Chinese countries to be released there each year. I think they also sometimes allow co-productions not to have to go through the quota system.

They do this mainly because they want Chinese culture to be what most Chinese people see, and the easiest way to do that is to heavily restrict how much Western culture is allowed.

So basically they banned it because they're racist?

[-D-]

So basically they banned it because they're racist?
More like Xenophobia? They dislike the culture rather than specific color skin of actors.

[JoshL]

The Chinese government has a history of censoring or outright banning Chinese made film too, so I definitely wouldn't call it racism. It is a huge market though and more or less saved Warcraft, so I can see from a business perspective why you'd want to try and win that market.

[BiblioRook]

The Chinese government has a history of censoring or outright banning Chinese made film too, so I definitely wouldn't call it racism. It is a huge market though and more or less saved Warcraft, so I can see from a business perspective why you'd want to try and win that market.

I heard it speculated that this is one of the causes of the push for things like remakes and reboots, because while while these movies may be old and familiar to American audiences they will be still fresh and new for things like the Chinese audience due to not having access to them the first time they came around.

[Olinser]

That's also a possibility, but the big thing is that China only allows a grand total of 34 movies from non-Chinese countries to be released there each year. I think they also sometimes allow co-productions not to have to go through the quota system.

They do this mainly because they want Chinese culture to be what most Chinese people see, and the easiest way to do that is to heavily restrict how much Western culture is allowed.

The result is that a lot of movies make a lot of concessions to try to get into China, because it's such a huge market, and then most of them don't make it. It's a pretty good scam, all things considered.

China is also notorious for banning video games with undead in them.

Apparently it is a cultural thing that it is disrespectful to the dead to show bones/skeletons. Or at least that's the excuse they use a lot - many a fantasy game has had to re-skin or re-model zombies, ghosts and skeletons to get approved for China release.

I mean quite frankly anybody with even a minor understanding of the China market could have told them a movie with ghosts as the central theme was almost certain to get banned.