Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Music, Movies & Media' started by Failstation, Mar 3, 2016.
i thought it was mediocre.
yes moron, and as I explained, the math on that doesn't add up to 70 million in losses.
The writer probably tries to go soft on them and assume that they can still make plenty of money from foreign countries which are still going to show it, and from other sources.
Instead of saying "70 million plus" it'd be better to go with "at least 70 million" if the writer wants to cling onto that number.
The secret life of pets is too a mediocre movie, but it chose a large profitable audience of both kids and animal lovers which the movie knows very well
Unlike, you know, this fuckin movie, who treats its supposed audience like trash in favor of winking to an extremely unprofitable niche that are Sunday Feminists™
By the way, I don't think we discussed what degree of financial catastrophe this thing is.
Remember, this is a tentpole movie. This means the years projected budget was being built around this thing succeeding. And investors! Imagine how mad they must be. In the long run this movie means cutbacks for future Sony movies, less trust from investors leading to less money invested, leading to worse movies leading to more cutbacks. The have a movie like this fail this badly has a long lasting ripple effect and Sony is going to have to knock something completely out of the park sometime in the next 18 months or so if they want to get their shit back on track.
Sony have done nothing but flops recently. They did $103 million dollar loss this quarter alone.
The $70 million amount seems to be the "Wikipedia" effect:
* Someone makes up a number on Wikipedia, but it's "Citation Needed"
* Said someone emails popular rumor blog about made up number, but blog notes that it is likely made up
* Slightly reputable news source cites popular blog, leaves out any info that the blog's source could be bad
* Definitely reputable news source cites slightly reputable news source
* Wikipedian who initially made up the bogus number finally has a reputable news source to cite his bogus entry with
Anyways, I'm enjoying all these articles from pro-Fembusters news sites which are slowly beginning to realize that "the haters" might be right about Fembusters... of course, without actually saying so. Like, beneath their veneer of "yah GRRL POWAH" is a mutter under their breath: "but... MAYBE the Haters had a point...":
>> "It would be easy in this case to blame the haters who wanted this movie to fail from day one—but that would be giving them way too much credit. A bloated budget, failure to secure a Chinese release, and sequel ennui also seem to have wreaked havoc on this ghostly romp."
>> "But the film, which presumably would have been cheaper since it was an original offering, could do its own thing absent the need to justify itself as well as the need to “pay respect to” the original picture. No older cast cameos, no callbacks, no need to retrofit your story to fit an existing mythology even while ignoring that mythology, and (for what it’s worth) a lot less Internet whining over the last two years."
>> "Sources around Sony say the studio is devastated by the results of the feature. All involved were hoping the film would both shut up the online trolls who decried that rebooting the film with women ruined their childhood and reinvigorate a studio that has needed a franchise to get them back in black. ... The fact that Ghostbusters did neither makes the sting extra painful. "
I can't remember if I gave my meaningless opinion to this. It was really just a pretty average shitty summer blockbuster movie. It wasn't a trainwreck, but it was utterly forgettable.
I would argue that a trainwreck would have been better than being average and forgettable. At least you can market it for being hilariously bad.
I actually have high hopes for this movie. Unlike GB, it has a good cast. I mean, it's still as pointless as Fembusters (moreso, being a genderbender remake of a remake that was really good but recent enough and not legendary enough to warrant a remake), but has hopes of being good. It'd be a shame if this one crashed and burned a the box office like GB did because of a reactionary response from the parts of the anti-feminist movement that really do just hate woman for no reason and everyone else just jumping on the bandwagon because of how fun fucking over GB was.
Imagine how cool Ghostbusters would have been if it starred Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
Better yet if it only starred The Rock. But alongside the Fembusters? Nah, he's too good for that.
Former WWE Superstar Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is so talented
Herpa Derpa Ghostbusters is just not a profitable franchise! More Adam Sandler Movies!
btw, this movie's shittiness is not all Fieg's fault.
You can clearly see that this is a film that has been edited to shit.
The original cut was roughly 4.5 hours (which isn't as much as it sound but still somewhat longer than usual). I speculate that as the bad reactions started coming in the studio started tweaking the film with focus groups. The problem with that is that it's a very primitive way of analysing a film, done by soulless studio execs with no artistic vision. They just give a random sampling the ability to score 1-10 during the movie and try to edit things in and out based on a numerical score. This is why The Joker is in only about 8 minutes of Suicide Squad. That's what the studio extrapolated from focus group data somehow.
Then, as it became clear that no amount of editing will make this move succeed, they cut out even more, hoping the salvage more money by making it shorter and thereby allowing for more screenings a day.
As a result this film is clearly missing massive chunks of it. Some of the jokes that should have been running gags and were seen in the trailers are gone. Character development is gone. Bad guy's motivation has been condensed to the point it became 20 seconds of notebook drawings and monologs. Hemsworth's "I was meant to be a ghostbuster!" thing that comes near the end of the movie seemingly out of nowhere probably had some precursor originally. A major third act conflict between the characters seems the have been cut out but with some of its parts still renaming due to incompetency or inability to edit around them. The entire third act has bee chopped to shit and the whole movie's plot structure is just a giant mess as a result of all this.
I can't know for sure, and I don't know what else they cut out (besides a dance number that would have actually been good), but my guess is that the DVD's extended director's cut will be much better (like it was with movies such as "The Crow 2" and "Daredevil" that turned out to be actually good without the studio interference) but still nowhere near good. Another thing that the studio probably cut for GOOD reason is man hating. It was, for the most part, conspicuous in its absence. I presume there was a lot more of it in the original cut but the studio realized it's best not to intentionally egg people on like Fieg may have wanted. My guess is that the odd "I was meant to be a ghostbuster!" line that I mentioned earlier was possibly part of a bigger, discarded plotline about the secretary trying to muscle his way into the team because he's a big, dumb, entitled man.
I hope the dance sequence is on the DVD so that
a) we can all laugh at how stupid it is as a concept
b) the people who worked really hard to choreograph and perform it didn't do all that work for nothing.
It's in the end credits but only some of it
Ok. So we know where it all went to hell.
i assume its already been posted but redlettermedia did a "science man explains ghostbusters 2016" video...
it really opened my eyes on just how big of a pile of shit everyone involved with that film is.
it didnt exactly tell me anything i didnt know already,
but it did validate my previously baseless argument with facts.
HAHAHAH OMG WHAT AN UPDATE
Someone hacked Leslie Jone's site and filled it with dox, harambe jokes and HER NUDES that he stole from either her icloud or phone
the site has already been taken down but the pictures will probably soon resurface
/pol/ has a thread about it and seems people have linked some pictures.
so someone released some media involving Leslie Jones that there was zero demand for? par for the course in this franchise, I guess.
4chan or 8chan?
4chan, one thread was archived already but there was other ones as well.
depending on what it's for, some companies will let you send scans/photos of your IDs when filing paperwork where they want to see it, much like sending a paper photocopy through the mail. sure, you can 'shoop it that way, but if they still have to verify the info on the image and it doesn't gel with official records, they'll know you shooped it. she may have taken photos of it for something like that and neglected to delete them when she was done.
Didn't find other info on this.
And @FlamingTofuSquare I thought it might be about something like that, here sending copies of IDs have been p much replaced with other methods.