General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHiding female cast, 'Ghostbusters' courts male moviegoers
To sell "Ghostbusters," who are you going to call? In the film's initial nationwide TV spots, not its female stars.
Sony Pictures trotted out commercials Thursday night that promoted the female-led reboot not with cast members Melissa McCarthy or Kristen Wiig, but basketball stars Kobe Bryant and Carmelo Anthony. The ads ran on ABC during game one of the NBA Finals, which is watched by a largely male audience.
Targeting different demographics through varied marketing strategies is commonplace for Hollywood films. Rarer are ads that replace a movie's actual cast wholesale.
The ads, which drew mixed reactions from viewers Thursday night, exhibited the anxiety Sony may have in getting enough male moviegoers to buy tickets for the big-budget comedy. A lot is riding on the film, due out July 15, which cost more than $150 million to make.
To sell "Ghostbusters," who are you going to call? In the film's initial nationwide TV spots, not its female stars.
Sony Pictures trotted out commercials Thursday night that promoted the female-led reboot not with cast members Melissa McCarthy or Kristen Wiig, but basketball stars Kobe Bryant and Carmelo Anthony. The ads ran on ABC during game one of the NBA Finals, which is watched by a largely male audience.
Targeting different demographics through varied marketing strategies is commonplace for Hollywood films. Rarer are ads that replace a movie's actual cast wholesale.
The ads, which drew mixed reactions from viewers Thursday night, exhibited the anxiety Sony may have in getting enough male moviegoers to buy tickets for the big-budget comedy. A lot is riding on the film, due out July 15, which cost more than $150 million to make.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Warpy
(114,615 posts)Nobody gonna pay to see that.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Tries Pig Play.
Kingofalldems
(40,277 posts)does not look funny at all.
Here you go:
wheniwasincongress
(1,307 posts)not a real one
Kingofalldems
(40,277 posts)Um.
wheniwasincongress
(1,307 posts)they fell for a clearly fan-made trailer 
Kingofalldems
(40,277 posts)Too funny. I am sure the 'um' you inserted was an attempt to embarrass me but it failed.
wheniwasincongress
(1,307 posts)with various clips of the (real) film's stars in various SNL skits and movies. you thought it was the real trailer but it was clearly fake (although still not clear to you?)
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)the real trailer wasn't funny at all. (Fake trailer confusion or no.)
snooper2
(30,151 posts)You will be demoted shortly
Feathery Scout
(218 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)
name not needed
(11,665 posts)If you want to get asses in the seats, come up with something original instead of a dogshit rehash of a good idea you had 30 years ago.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)...and this deviates too far away from the originals. It's also being billed as a "reboot" instead of a continuation. This could have been eased if it was billed more as a next generation type of thing instead of a replacement.
The death of Harold Ramis a few years ago also notched up the emotional attachment fans have for the originals that they feel is now being purposely ruined to push a certain agenda.
It also looks like crap. For a $150 million, they overspent big time. And it looks like Sony is finally realizing that.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Looks like the biggest bomb of the year.
metroins
(2,550 posts)Unfunny.
IT's a shame, too. The actresses all deserve much more.
WolverineDG
(22,298 posts)but after reading rant after rant by men whining about the all female cast, I decided that I will be seeing this movie on opening night.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)You want a movie with strong women, that's fine. And people don't have a problem with that. Look how successful The Hunger Games movies were.
But make a new story. Don't just rehash what men did 30 years ago, change all the characters to girls, and then scream about sexism when no one wants to see it.
What's next? Reboot "Back to the Future" with Marty as a teenage girl?
wheniwasincongress
(1,307 posts)People don't care about using the same story over and over. There's a reason why all these superhero movies and all 17 Transformers sequels do extremely well at the box office. If people cared, those movies would tank. It's the women.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)The naysayers are convinced that there could be no other reason that people don't want to see this movie.
Mostly men, since that was the original audience.
It can't be the rehashed plot... Nope, hate of women.
Can't be the people playing the roles... Nope, hate of women
Can't be the obvious cash grab with little to no effort put towards quality... Nope, must hate the women folk.
This just looks like a bad movie. It's that easy...
wheniwasincongress
(1,307 posts)don't seem to have a problem with other rehashed films. "Transformers 23" and "Captain America Meets Batman and Friends 2" doesn't have the millions of downvotes comments and on YouTube and around the net.
If this same Ghostbusters script was made with guys, we wouldn't even be talking about this. Everyone would want to see it and no one would be complaining about remakes and reboots.
I'm curious, have you seen the movie? Or are you basing your rating of the film on the two-minute trailers (of which for nearly all comedic movies are awful?)
TipTok
(2,474 posts)The last Transformers was terrible....
Captain America was pretty good...
This movie just doesn't seem to add or improve anything to Ghostbusters.
It comes off like a movie studio guy was sitting in his office and said something like... "I know that we'll have all the 80s kids if we redo Ghostbusters. How could I add a new demographic and get my movie talked about while insulating it from any hint of criticism?"
It's manipulative and a more obvious cash grab than most.
I have not seen it. A quick google search shows that it will come out in July.
The clincher for me was Melissa McCarthy. She makes any movie unwatchable for me. I actually remember chuckling at some bits in Bridesmaids and then immediately regretting it when she talked.
Before you ask... Yes, there are indeed male actors that make a movie unwatchable for me as well.
Matthew McConaughey comes to mind but I'm sure there are others.
Doctor Who
(147 posts)His last good movie was "Dazed and confused". In the early 90's I think. Yea, I don't get the buzz on that guy. Although, my girlfriend likes him..probably because he takes his shirt off in every movie he does. Lol. Must be in his contract.
Orrex
(67,111 posts)If this same Ghostbusters script was made with guys, we wouldn't even be talking about this. Everyone would want to see it and no one would be complaining about remakes and reboots.
It's too early to draw conclusions about the quality of the current film, but the trailers don't exactly fill one with confidence.
The film might be great. Unfortunately, it's also entirely possible that it could fail solely due its quality.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Look, sometimes movies suck. Look at Indiana jones and the crystal skull. It still had harrison ford, but it was poorly done, and it sucked.
Its stupid to just blame sexism when a shitty trailer is released.
If there was a good trailer, and a good moive, and it tanked, you could blame sexism. But if the movie sucks, and tanks, sexism is not to blame.
PJMcK
(25,048 posts)In the Indiana Jones series, isn't it interesting how movies 1 and 3 are terrific while episodes 2 & 4 are not as good. Indy's at his best fighting the Nazi's, I guess.
Orrex
(67,111 posts)Ghostbusters II was one of the worst films I've ever seen in the theater, screamingly unfunny from start to finish, and that was with the original cast and production staff. The first film was lightning in a bottle and, as I've heard it described elsewhere, it could have been about time-travelling cab drivers and would have been just as successful because of the cast.
But the second one? Garbage! And Murray and Aykroyd were at their full box office comedic strength at the time!
This one faced a tough uphill battle from the minute it was proposed. They could have cast the biggest male names in comedy right now and it would still be an uncertain prospect. Judging from the online comments, sexism is clearly a big factor in the pre-release hatred we're seeing, but the movie might yet tank solely because of its own shortcomings.
I remain cautiously optimistic about it, but I probably won't get to see it in the theater in any case.
WolverineDG
(22,298 posts)how many new Spiderman/Superman/Batman movies have been made in the last 25 years? Where was the "concern" about rehashing old stories then? :crickets:
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Many thought the whole Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice was stupid and unnecessary. The super hero movies are sort of a genre of their own, though. Most of the time it is kids that find the most enjoyment out of them.
But the movie blogs I frequent complain about them being overdone to death too. They all have the same cookie-cutter plot.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)" They all have the same cookie-cutter plot."
Irony is that your phrase accurately describes the criticisms of a movie unseen.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)No matter who is playing in it....
That said you aren't paying attention because people are bored with those three characters in constant reboots. Hell they even made a joke in Civil War about "no one wants to hear your story, kid" to Spider-Man. Just stick to one origin and have them interact with all the new characters that have been brought to the screen over the last ten years and there's plenty of fresh material to make good popcorn flicks.
As far as DC the reason the Batman v Superman movie did well was because they had NEVER been in a movie together (and with Wonder Woman). Sadly it just wasn't very good and I don't think Justice League will be given the same goodwill if it's made by the same incompetent director.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)Some of the biggest complaints are about having to sit through the more than once re-hashed origin story. There are complaints a PLENTY about re-hashed plots of super hero movies. Not everything you read needs to support your political/social agenda.
You're just seeing what you want to see, patriarchy or whatever...
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)I haven't seen a spiderman movie since Toby McGuire's second one. I don't do superhero movies much (because they're overkill!) And I do watch Gotham and other superhero shows.
Dead pool looks interesting to me, though, because it hasn't been done before (on screen).
I would have given this (Ghostbusters) a chance if there was anything funny in the trailer. Not one (almost) laugh. Nothing. Zilch.
WolverineDG
(22,298 posts)Money quote: But Sony and Feig were quickly disabused of their optimism in March, when the first trailer for “Ghostbusters” appeared and was met with an engulfing wave of hate, eventually becoming the most-disliked movie trailer in YouTube history. This was the work of a small but vocal and well-organized cadre of male fans of the original film who were outraged at the prospect of a worshiped text being rewritten according to new norms, but with no actual, you know, Norms — or Egons or Rays. (Apparently, no one hipped these guys to the fact that a remake doesn’t render the first one nonexistent. Strange but true.)
Democat
(11,617 posts)You sound like you're looking for sexism in everything.
WolverineDG
(22,298 posts)about a movie with an all-female lead cast. And sexism IS the only reason these "men" are whining.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Constant bellowing.
But I don't go to movies.anymore so no great loss.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)I can't believe a terrible idea like this was greenlit in the first place.
I'm sorry sexist idiots had to turn this into a gender issue. It gives this thing way more attention than it deserves.
Amishman
(5,929 posts)
MowCowWhoHow III
(2,103 posts)Straight to DVD/Blu-Ray would be a kindness.
wheniwasincongress
(1,307 posts)yet apparently it's really bad? Did anyone get a special early screening of it or travel into the future? curious
linuxman
(2,337 posts)Check it out.
Usually they can make even the biggest turd look palatable in one. After seeing this one...no thanks. I'll leave it at that.
wheniwasincongress
(1,307 posts)people can determine a full-length film's quality by a two-minute video? I've got to check it out!
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)to put in a 2 minute trailer to make the audience laugh, then a full length feature is going to be really tedious.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)How the hell am I to believe that they have 90 minutes worth watching in the movie.
I'm not saying the movie sucks, I just have no plans to see it. I suppose when it comes out on Netflix I'll give it a try. And if the official reviews come out, and are amazing, I'll go see it in the theater, but I don't see that happening.
Look, sometimes movies suck, and sometimes trailers suck. It doesn't mean its automatically sexist.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Prism
(5,815 posts)It's the writing.
When the idea first floated, an all-female Ghostbusting team, people were interested in the how. Would one of the Old Guard come and train up some new recruits? People were fine with the idea. Then came, "It's a totally new reboot!" and people asked why. Bill Murray's a bit of a curmudgeon, but I'm sure Dan Akroyd would've been willing.
But, still, people grumbled but wanted to wait and see.
Then the trailer came out.
So bad.
So, so, so bad.
"The power of Patty compels you!" Seriously? An Exorcism joke? And that's when people went apeshit. Even the second trailer doesn't help. The original humor was dry and nerdish - these were scientists after all. This iteration's humor seems slapstick and overbroad. (The only genuinely laughter I got out of the second trailer was the selfie stick gag).
It just isn't made in the same spirit as the original. And with Ramis's death, people are possessive.
But rather than admitting, "Hey, maybe we misfired this reboot," the reaction was, "If you hate this, you're sexist." And, hooray, now we have GamerGate 2.
This reboot was mishandled from the beginning.
I like each of the actresses individually in other projects they've done. The only person here I'm partial to is Kate McKinnon. Chris Hemsworth is also out of place. Jeannine in the original was a cynical, sarcastic working class New Yorker with intellectual interests and a crush on Egon. Chris Hemsworth is a himbo. Winston was a blue collar worker who just wanted a paycheck. Here, Patty is dropping racial stereotypes left and right.
They screwed up. If it doesn't bomb spectacularly, maybe they can do a sequel that involves self-reflection and how they went wrong here.
metroins
(2,550 posts)The original movie had decent acting, and primarily dry humor.
This movie is slap stick.
The writing on this movie seems to be awful and I'm not a huge fan of the cast ONLY because of the type of humor I knew was going to be written for them.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)Is the painfully hackneyed and unfunny humor of the trailer.
Lines like "that's going to leave mark" haven't been funny since forever.
The studio wrongly thought the concept outweighed how much people liked the characters of Peter, Ray, Egon and Winston.
Fans didn't want a remake and continuity wipe, and the film would be hated regardless of the cast's gender.
jmowreader
(53,194 posts)You know what this really reminds me of? Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Also the recent Star Trek reboot(the first one).
jmowreader
(53,194 posts)The Dark Knight trilogy was very different from the Tim Burton movies. They didn't feel like, "we need to make some money, what do we have in the vault that we can remake verbatim but with flashier effects?" Compare that to...oh, the 2014 version of Robocop, which should have thrown five minutes of Robo backstory on the screen for the benefit of our younger audience, introduced the New and Improved Robocop Combat Chassis, then jumped into a new adventure. Murphy fighting terrorists would have been great. Murphy fighting Republicans would have been even better.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)At some point the Federation became Melrose Place...? And htey still listen to music that was dated in the 1990's? The writing is the sort of stuff I expect out of a prime-time series on CW. It'll put asses in seats to watch the pretty colors fly by, but it's ultimtely forgettable, and is most definitely not a Star Trek film.
I calss it with Avatar. "ooooh, shiny! ...What's on next?"
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)Entertaining movie, but I really do not consider it to be a Star Trek movie.
RandySF
(84,263 posts)It's supposed to pickup where the last one left off, only years later.
jmowreader
(53,194 posts)
Bad Dog
(2,044 posts)So much better than the original.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Still, that's better than making a rambling poorly crafted conclusion that ignores most of the big questions and where they do something silly like fly their ships into the sun and found humanity a million years ago.
Yup... that would have been awful...
Bad Dog
(2,044 posts)They reached Earth (this one) and bred with the early hominids, with the last scene in the present day. A lot better than the original where at one point they were travelling back in time to stop Hitler winning WW2 with alien technology.
Orrex
(67,111 posts)Also, despite your objection further down, Batman Begins is generally considered a reboot of the horrible Burton-esque films that preceded it. What else could it be? It was a complete change of tone, theme and direction for the character. If that's not a reboot, then what is it?
The Evil Dead reboot is generally considered quite effective, so there's that.
The Hanks/Aykroyd Dragnet was a reboot before reboots were cool. Sure, it's pretty awful in retrospect, but it was successful at the time.
I'm not quite sure what exactly you're considering to be a reboot, since you seem to lump van Sant's Psycho in that category while excluding Batman Begins.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)Orrex
(67,111 posts)The first Abrams film took in more at the box office than any eight of the original eleven films.
Purists might decry it for a host of reasons of varying legitimacy, but they can't deny that it was a box office success.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)A lot of the old hardliners don't like discarding the original canon, but I say hell with it -- The movies for the most part have had great writing, well-paced action, dazzling cinematography, and have been incredibly entertaining...
It's not the same old Star Trek, of course, but the same old Star Trek had been circling the drain for decades with generally declining revenues.
The Abrams reboot reversed that trend, and as The Onion rightly noted: Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)(cheating a little by naming a TV series instead of a movie).
jmowreader
(53,194 posts)A reboot is where they go back to the beginning of a franchise. Doctor Who picked up where they left off.
Revanchist
(1,375 posts)After all, they acknowledged the past reincarnations so I view it as a continuation of the series after a hiatus.
RandySF
(84,263 posts)Everyone panned the trailer.
romanic
(2,841 posts)they don't like it because it looks like shit.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....in the trailer is already off on the wrong foot. Such cliche.
brettdale
(12,748 posts)Good points someone made in this thread, I would like to add.
So the reason the sitcom "Super Fun Night"
got cancelled after one season was people hated woman??
And not...
It was the biggest piece of crap ever created for television and everybody involved
shouldnt be allowed within 100 feet of a studio for the next 25 years.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Was it on Netflix or something?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)using the excuse of misogyny to cover up the fact it's just crap writing.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's a shame, because it's a good cast. I like Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy. But the film doesn't look like anything I'd pay 10 bucks for in a theater. It looks like 2 straight hours of green slime jokes.
Bad Dog
(2,044 posts)And he'll be going to see it in the cinema. Not all "family" films appeal to adults.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)I enjoyed Ghostbusters when it came out. I never saw the sequel because, I dunno, I'm not a big movie person. It didn't seem like I'd see anything new, so why bother. But now that I'm not jazzed up about seeing the all-female remake 30 years later, I'm a male chauvinist pig. Fuck me.
Captain Stern
(2,253 posts)Awful, and unnecessary.
The original movie served up a unique idea, with a great cast, and even a damned catchy song. Everything that is good about Ghostbusters was done in the first movie. They never even should have made the second one, much less this steaming pile.
It's a shame that they were able to put together this cast, and then wasted them.
alarimer
(17,146 posts)and made enough noise.
God forbid women (and girls) get to see movies where they are the main characters and not the mom, the girlfriend, or the whiny bimbo that needs rescuing.
Do they have any idea what it is actually like to live in a world where no one who looks like you is EVER the star of the show, is EVER the hero? No, they do not, because the entire fucking world of television and movies caters to these whiny fucking assholes. They seem to think that is where the money is. Well, it is because no one else wants to see the utter shit Hollywood produces. Maybe, just maybe, if they tried something different, something that wasn't comic book schlock or superhero bullshit, MORE people of all kinds would go to see a movie.
They whined incessantly about Star Wars: The Force Awakens. OMG, the hero is CHICK! And there's a black stormtrooper! Childhoods everywhere are ruined at one fell swoop! And now, CHICK GHOSTBUSTERS! They'll never recover from this blow.
Who will they turn into a girl (eww) next? Marty McFly? Bruce the shark?
Orrex
(67,111 posts)The larger concern, though, is that it doesn't seem like the film is going to be funny which, since it's a comedy, is kind of the point. And as for complaints that we shouldn't judge from the trailer, well, that's the studio's fault. They have the entire film to cherry-pick for great trailer-worthy moments, and yet they gave us this trailer with these unfunny bits. Like seriously unfunny. Like Ghostbusters II-level unfunny.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a terrific film regardless of the idiocy of its sexist and racist detractors. Unfortunately, it's starting to look like this new Ghostbusters will be a crap-fest also regardless of its sexist and racist detractors.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Tumbleweeds...
Right...
In any case, women are free to see this trash fire of a movie but the rest of us aren't a bunch of he man woman haters for thinking it looks like garbage.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)They look forward to the receipt of your righteous-outrage dollars.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)I expect you hated it.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Because it was a decent movie.
Based on the trailer, this movie will suck. Its not sexism when a bad movie gets bad raitings.
i could care less if they hire a woman for a reboot of back to the future. If its good, Ill watch it. If it sucks, I wont.
Just dont make a shit movie and blame it on sexism when it bombs. Blame the writers.
GOLGO 13
(1,681 posts)Jokes were Disney level attempts at humor. Lame & tired are the words that come to mind after enduring the trailers. I don't care that it's a reboot, just be funny & entertain me.
Sony continues the losing streak with this movie.
Javaman
(65,711 posts)the cast is amazing.
I couldn't wait to see the trailer, I was really eager to see it.
but quite honestly, either it was a really badly cut trailer or the movie just doesn't look that funny.
I find both Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy incredibly funny and very talented people. (watch the movie Welcome to Me w/ Wiig, if you want to see an amazingly funny, yet poignant movie). and I think McCarthy has yet to fully display her talent. I think she just needs the right roll (although she was pretty damn funny in Spy).
that said, what makes me a nervous about this movies is the long list of cameos.
they should have just started from scratch as if the first movie never existed, wrote a fresh script without the need of any of the old cast coming on.
Frankly, I don't believe it's the cast that is the problem, I have a feeling it's a forced-to-be-funny script.
I truly hope I am wrong, but I have a queasy feeling about it.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)Or Stiller, Wilson, Vaughn, and Ferrell. Ghostbusters was done once (sequel not withstanding) and done right. The characters were original to the movie and created by Aykroyd and Ramis. Compare that to Superman or Spiderman whose characters originated in other media-- anyone new coming along to play them or Batman or whatever has only to pay homage to the original print character, not to previously cast actors, so no one really objects when a new actor takes over.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Ugh.
This movie has a Pixels feel to it.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Like really, really bad. I hate seeing great franchises used this way. This is just a cash grab trading on name recognition. I gave up on the new Transformers movies after Bay's first attempt, didn't even bother with TMNT, and am not planning to fund this latest desecration.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Maybe its just me, but I haven't seen many remakes or "reboots" that I thought were much of any good.
Battlestar? Puhleeze. Bleck.
The star trek reboots? WTF!?! You don't just destroy Vulcan out the gate like that. Major fail, in spite of its box office earnings.
The Mathew Broderick Godzilla film? Good grief.
Even the Gareth Edwards Godzilla reboot was not so good.
The latest fantastic 4 reboot? Terrible.
Hollywood has a huge problem, in my opinion. "What" you say? "Some of those are good", you say?
Yes, but they all have the same problem, the 'hollywood' problem:
They can't seem to respect canon. The original story is great because it was a GREAT STORY. The original in nearly every case, was great WITHOUT groundbreaking special effects and/or the latest Hollywood face. So add them if needed, but leave the story and canon mostly alone for cripes sake.
Stories need not be turned into barely recognizable piles of garbage like Hollywood tends to do with them.
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)It had nothing to do with the characters being woman either. It seems way over the top and blaaah. I need to go back and watch the originals to see if I get the same feeling though. As I suspect it could be that the humor was the same, but I was just younger at the time so I enjoyed it more. But I just got the feeling that this new one seemed more childish or something.
I also disliked the more recent Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles too. So there's a good possibility this could be a result of a personality flaw on my part 
*edit*
Since I can't watch the full movie now, I decided to just compare the trailers. I still feel the same way about the new one. The original just seems better written and less reliant on goofy. Obviously the first was goofy too, but it seems more well executed. I guess we'll see how the whole movie is when the time comes.
mainer
(12,554 posts)Hoping the movie is better.
"Spy" still makes me laugh like crazy.)