The new feminist Ghostbusters can’t catch a break. First the youtube trailer for the movie was widely panned by feminists and normal people alike. Then the movie was released and eviscerated by critics, with reviews like Richard Roeper’s ‘Ghostbusters’ reboot a horrifying mess.
“Ghostbusters” is a horror from start to finish, and that’s not me saying it’s legitimately scary.
More like I was horrified by what was transpiring onscreen.
Seeing their high profile attempt at territory marking going terribly awry, feminists enlisted the media to try to turn the tide. But the defenses of the movie turned out to be far more damaging than the criticism. Wired lead the way by explaining that even if the movie were actually good, it would still suck (emphasis mine):
The new Ghostbusters will suck. That’s not a value judgement, it’s an Internet-predetermined truth—and come Friday, no matter how funny or smart or entertaining director Paul Feig’s reboot is, it’ll become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Put simply, Ghostbusters can’t win.
But Wired’s assertion that it isn’t the movie’s fault that it sucks was probably the least damaging defense. Andrew O’Hehir at Salon lectured moviegoers that right thinking people will find the movie light and funny, and won’t be distracted by the feminist message. But even O’Hehir has a hard time swallowing his own party line. He doesn’t even make it through the title before questioning his own premise: The new “Ghostbusters” delivers: It’s a cheerful exercise in feminist nostalgia — except, wait, is that possible? O’Hehir then tries to recover from his own lack of faith in the opening of the review:
Is Paul Feig’s “Ghostbusters” remake, supposedly shrouded in supposed controversy ever since its supposedly subversive casting was announced, an exercise in feminism or in nostalgia? If this highly entertaining summer retread proves anything, it proves that those things are not incompatible…
O’Hehir then explains that you will find this movie funny unless you are a basement dwelling Gamergater:
…“Ghostbusters” is a goofy, free-floating romp with an anarchic spirit of its own, a fresh set of scares and laffs and a moderate dose of girl power that is unlikely to seem confrontational to anyone beyond the most confirmed basement-dwelling Gamergate troll. (Did I just indiscriminately slime an entire subset of the male Internet population? Oops.) Whatever the bizarre reaction to the “Ghostbusters” remake in some quarters is really about, it isn’t about the movie, which is relentlessly cheerful, entirely inoffensive and distinctly above the popcorn-movie standard in terms of wit and style. (The screenplay, by Feig and Katie Dippold, has a few unexpected nuggets — the 19th-century mansion with an “anti-Irish security fence” — that will be funnier on repeat viewing.)
O’Hehir reinforces his message that right thinking people will find this movie funny by identifying the other group of movie goers who will fail to laugh when instructed, mouth breathing Donald Trump supporters:
It’s depressing but unavoidable to observe that the “Ghostbusters” cultural divide is like the political divide over Donald Trump, on a dumbed-down and entirely symbolic level. Except, no: Nothing could be stupider or more symbolic than the Trump phenomenon, so maybe “Ghostbusters” is the truly important issue.
This quickly devolves into a rant on how much he despises ordinary Americans:
America in 2016 is like a giant game of hide-and-seek conducted by blindfolded children in a dark room, with broken glass and rattlesnakes on the floor. If we look for the simplest explanation, the one that covers all the available evidence, it might be that Trump has gotten so bored with running for president that he’s spending his time writing hate-blurbs about “Ghostbusters” on the Internet. Sad!
Keep in mind, the point of this SJW lecture is to instruct the faithful that they will find Ghostbusters to be light and funny. Yet this supposedly relentlessly cheerful movie left him brooding about blindfolded children in a dark room with broken glass on the floor.
If you think the praises for the movie can’t get worse, you are mistaken. Jen Yamato with The Daily Beast came to the movie’s aid by explaining that Ghostbusters will be a smash hit with the lesbian feminist demographic: ‘Ghostbusters’ Review: Kate McKinnon’s Probably-Gay Gearhead Steals the Show
In the summer of 1984, crossing the streams was the ultimate male taboo the original Ghostbusters broke to defeat ghoulish evil from another dimension. In 2016, it’s female solidarity among four heroines whom the world has labeled hysterical, defying the odds and historically ingrained sexism…
Yamato explains that it is the quality of the characters that makes the movie so charming. Kristen Wiig’s character “carries the dramatic thrust” of the plot:
Wiig plays Erin Gilbert, a meek physicist up for tenure at Columbia University who wears her unhappiness with the strict patriarchal establishment on her face and in her stodgy, joyless wardrobe.
Yamato wants us to know this isn’t just a movie with solid lesbian feminist chops. This is a comedy so funny it is guaranteed to make even the most dour feminist crack a brief satisfied smile:
…laughs come when the Ghostbusters hire a male secretary named Kevin (Chris Hemsworth), a dim bulb with a pretty face who Erin takes an unsubtle shining to. It’s a role Hemsworth commits to with relish: Thor, God of Thunder, fetching the lady Ghostbusters coffee and answering their phones. He’s terrible at all of it but they keep him around just to have something nice to look at. The joke is broad and obvious, and yet so, so very satisfying.
But the part that will most endear moviegoers according to Yamato is the lesbian part, even though the patriarchy keeps it repressed:
McKinnon’s Holtzmann, meanwhile, is the secret weapon of this Ghostbusters. Aside from spewing rapid-fire technical jargon as the team’s resident eccentric gearhead, McKinnon oozes visceral charisma with the swagger—sans the womanizing douchiness—of Murray’s Venkman. She flirts brazenly with Erin, emanating cocksure confidence even if we learn very little about Holtzmann as a character. Hemsworth might be the beefcake on paper but it’s McKinnon who’ll leave moviegoers crushing.
…[Holtzmann] may or may not be gay but can’t say so because she’s trapped in a PG-13 summer studio blockbuster.
All of this goes to show that feminists can be funny after all, just not in the way they intend to be.
And the Road House reboot starting Ronda Rousey will be no better.
Pingback: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? – Manosphere.org
50. One to buy the light bulb. Three to suggest that there is no way that the socket can render consent. And finally 46 to form the “Survivors of Darkness” support group.
After it is determined to be an impossibility, a few of them hire Gloria Allred to sue everyone extant responsible for the sexist relationship between bulb and socket.
Pingback: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? | Alt-Right View
… widely panned by feminists and normal people alike.
Because feminists are not normal people.
Perhaps the 90s film Hocus Pocus is more accurate in portraying feminists characters:
Although Westerns are pretty much passé these days, I can’t imagine Hollywood passing up an opportunity to do a lesbo-redux of The Magnificent Seven. The title alone seems to demand it.
Reading the reviews about this movie have already made me feel nauseated. I despise the view that is prevalent: “If you don’t like the new Ghostbusters, you must be sexist….” among feminists. Personally, I hope this, and the new girly-and-gay Star Wars franchise flops, so that the film industry can re-set. Film critics are going to gush over this in an effort to get patrons in, but it won’t work. And Chris Hemsworth should be ashamed of himself.
It reminds me of a story my father, who grew up in fascist Italy, told me. Mussolini,demanded that movie makers to put fascist messages into their movies. Upon hearing that people were watching American movies rather than Italian ones because they wanted to escape the constant propaganda they were subjected to in all areas of their lives, he expressed genuine surprise. He issued the edict that “Italians are obligated to watch Italian movies, even if they don’t like them or find them painful.”
It seems that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
It’s actually got pretty good reviews. They’re just all telling people like you that YOU, specifically, will hate it.
@feeriker,
No lesbian one forthcoming, but a multi-racial diverse version? You bet!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magnificent_Seven_(2016_film)
This has a 76% score on Rotten Tomatoes. I wonder how many critics genuinely liked it and how many just said they liked it because they didn’t want to look sexist.
Saw the ad for “Pitch” during the All Star game that will be aired on Fox in September. Celebrating the first major league female pitcher. I really don’t think it can actually physically happen for simple strength reasons, but…….women invading yet another male space. Is nothing sacred?
@Dalrock:
“All of this goes to show that feminists can be funny after all, just not in the way they intend to be.”
They really are funny all the time. You have to give them that.
In fact, laughing at them makes them even funnier. It takes on a life of its own.
One review I like, who would be moderately disposed to support the Progressive line, danced around the fact that even he noted the movie is outright Sexist against Men. The “You’re sexist if you don’t like this movie!” is the Media Narrative to get around the fact the movie is actually bigoted to its core.
I just hope it has a sub 30-million opening weekend. That’s pretty much what is needed to sink the film.
Oh, as for Rotten Tomatoes, click the “Top Critics”: it’s currently sitting at 52%. Even they can’t summon up enough Progressive Kumbaya to not notice the nasty problems with it.
“One reviewer”. Why do I always miss 1 letter in the first sentence of my comments.
My favorite line from the original:
@ Trust says:
July 13, 2016 at 6:21 pm
“And the Road House reboot starting Ronda Rousey will be no better.”
True, but you can’t ruin a turd.
Hey, show, don’t tell: here’s a trailer, and there’s this really daring moment right at the end that NO ONE HAS EVER DONE BEFORE on film. No one. Ever. It’s, like, total female humor that’s so, so rad.
By the way, Grrlbusters toys are already marked down for quick sale, I cannot imagine why.
@malcolmthecynic
The awkward “positive” reviews sound like cries for help, written under duress.
CNET’s kindly beta reviewer, for example:
It’s fun and funny, breezy and playful…
“Ghostbusters” is fun and silly, and if you don’t like it you don’t have to watch it.
The special effects do a neat job…
Sure, it’s mostly chucklesome rather than laugh out loud…
Oscar,
This is what I think so many feminists are missing about the beauty of the original Ghostbusters. The star of the movie goes out of his way to admit (only AFTER the school throws him out into the street) that higher education/academia is a joke. We don’t have to produce… anything. I mean that is pure red pill Oscar. Is there any chance we could ever hear a feminist say something so correct and still be feminist? Doubt it. And that is on top of the fact that our bumbling fools get taken to the cleaners at the bank with the highest interest rate imaginable on their business loan AND their have a super un-cooperative government bureaucrat trying to shut them down for environmental regulations. And they foolishly overpay for all their plant and equipment. Not to mention all the freebie return trips to catch more ghosts because they gave their clients a guarantee. You know these are real world problems that real men have to face in the real world when running a real business. And its hysterical the way they handle much of it. You feel like you are going to work… with them. You think we have any chance of getting any of that realism from a lesbian business who would simply lawyer up the minute anyone in the real world made them cry?
This movie serves as a great example of “calling a deer a horse.” The critics who give it positive reviews are marking themselves out as politically reliable types.
@malcomthecynic Oh, no! The Magnificent Seven is one of my favorite movies. Why can’t they keep their paws off of classic films? (Yes, yes, I know that The Magnificent Seven is a remake of Seven Samurai, but it is a great movie in its own right. No way is the remake going to be anything but inferior.)
@ innocentbystanderboston says:
July 13, 2016 at 8:20 pm
Exactly. I thought Ghost Busters was awesome when I watched it as a kid in the ’80s, then I watched it again in my 30s and finally realized just how hilarious it really is.
“This has a 76% score on Rotten Tomatoes. I wonder how many critics genuinely liked it and how many just said they liked it because they didn’t want to look sexist.”
Movies with lefty messages start at ~70% for the message alone. If they have any other merits, they’ll get over 90% easily. This thing must suck as bad as all the normal people who have seen it say it does if it only has a 76% from film critics.
“If you don’t like the new Ghostbusters, you must be sexist….”
As I always respond: “Guilty as charged, and damned proud of it!”
The original Ghostbusters is disliked in feminist circles because of its tone. It’s loaded with fratty, devil-may-care, boys will be boys silliness and the natural comradery men can achieve but women can never duplicate. That’s the reason why THIS movie in particular was chosen for a grrrrlpower remake rather than a different male ensemble movie.
The people driving this agenda don’t entirely care if the movie makes any money – they want to break up “boys clubs” and Ghostbusters is definitely a boys club.
Pingback: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? | Reaction Times
CNN = Clinton News Network….
I hope Brianna’s employment isn’t terminated effective now. But I fear it is.
Alien, original, intense and a strong woman lead. Love it to this day. The important part of that sentence is original.
New ghostbusters, not original. That is all that matters.
Women supposedly can do anything men can. Yet what do they mostly do?
Imitate!
Idiots!
“It’s fun and funny, breezy and playful…”
Reads like copy for a new feminine hygiene product.
“Breezy.”
The reviews are probably funnier than the movie.
“No, please, don’t. Please… Don’t shoot. I’ll do it. I’ll do it, I’ll do anything… let’s just calm down, okay? Okay. NO, NO, easy, easy. Just opening ‘Word.’ See? Wait a sec… okay, okay, here we go… Alright? Okay.
“Ahem.”
“Audiences … will … love … director … Paul Feig’s …
…
…
… breezy,”
“No, AHHH! Ow. Ow… Wait, wait…”
“chucklesoM,<^&(SDF^H^H^H"
"AH. Oh, Jesus. Ow, ow. I'll do what you want, please, please. I can do better."
"… delightfully diverse …"
"… homage … "
"… to the classic, yet dated …"
Sadly, I imagine most of these reviews are genuine. Typed with hot yeasty progressivist fervor.
Manboobz Futrelle went all in about how the movie will not be as bad as ‘misogynists’ claim :
http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/07/11/angry-internet-men-terrified-that-lady-filled-ghostbusters-reboot-might-not-suck/
That gluttonous, fat, green ghost does remind me of a ‘feminist’….
@DeNihilist
”Alien, original, intense and a strong woman lead.”
At least she is portrayed as a human being: frail, vulnerable but brave for the sake of a girl that she saves.
Being only able to destroy the alien menace through her experience on how they act and the technology that she lays her hands on.
@DeNihilist, “Alien, original, intense and a strong woman lead. Love it to this day. The important part of that sentence is original.”
Not really that original, as all Ridley Scott and the screenwriter, the late Dan O’Bannon did was take the premise from a dodgy B-movie from 1958, “It!! The Terror from Beyond” and make it an excellent film.
This is the lesson that Hollywood always seems to forget; you take an awful movie like “Ocean’s Eleven” and make it into a good movie as opposed to taking a great movie like “Ben Hur” or a fun, entertaining movie like the original “Ghostbusters” and fucking them all up.
Yeah, when most of the people force-praising a movie are manginas, while almost no decent-looking woman who does not earn a living being a ‘feminist’ has anything to say about it, that is pretty much a guarantee of low quality.
But there are a lot of manginas who will buy tickets, so it may yet generate some box-office success, against the grain…
I always liked Alien and Aliens. Ripley isn’t a superhero, she isn’t stronger than the men (yet). In Aliens the men are unprepared for how serious the threat is, but it isn’t really played up that her “feminine wisdom” would have saved them; she just has first-hand experience that nobody really believes that much (because it sounds pretty outlandish).
In Aliens, she does the action hero thing only in order to save a child — she fights out of her mother instinct. I can buy that. It’s also done properly. A man would want to destroy the queen for threatening the child. She cares only about saving the child and getting away. She’s fine with the queen surviving as long as she and the kid get away — that’s definitely a female perspective on that situation. Those films cared about making sense with the characters, at least.
Heidi says: July 13, 2016 at 8:37 pm
Oh, no! The Magnificent Seven is one of my favorite movies. Why can’t they keep their paws off of classic films? (Yes, yes, I know that The Magnificent Seven is a remake of Seven Samurai
no worries. the villain in the new movie is “industrialist” Bartholomew Bogue. you know how the villain in these movies has always been a roving bandit horde?
well, a ‘roving bandit’ would, almost of necessity, be a member of the Proletarian working class. therefore, Good.
we had to make the bad guy an industrialist so we could actualize the Marxian war against the Bourgeois.
now that they have corrected the earlier films deplorable Crimethink, the new film will surely be required viewing for all Good Citizens.
also, don’t tell Markku that you think ‘Magnificent’ is a remake of ‘Samurai’.
oooooooh, he gets touchy about that.
I never saw GhostBusters or its sequel, but I saw the recent Trailer: I cringed but then I am a fully paid up chauvinist. As the late Christopher Hitchens observed, ‘women aren’t funny – they don’t need to be’ – neither of course do they need to be quantum-physicists; what does it say about America that it takes four unattractive females to save New York; what level of bull-shit misandry will America endure before someone observes that the Queen has no clothes. Italian movies, however, are great (or were when I watched them) and with women who looked sounded and acted as if they were female though not by any means push-overs (Loren, Lollobrigida, Schiaffino, Lisi and my own favourite Cardinale come to mind).
I really liked Groundhog Day, in fact Bill Murray is pretty good in anything I have seen him in (Ed Wood, Razor’s Edge, Kingpin).
Not sure if this like will work. Came with the tag line “Uhura doesn’t need a man to rescue her.”
http://mobile.fandango.com/startrekbeyond-188462/movie-times
I ain’t got the words.
entirely inoffensive comedy
Sounds like they know the secret to good comedy – no tension.
Road House was terrible to begin with. Feminist Road House will be a raging dumpster fire, especially since Rousey’s balloon popped after she was whipped in the octagon.
@ Dalrock
I was wondering when you were going to cover off the Ghostbusters reboot.
It’s going to be a turd, but I will never know the finer points – because I refuse to go see it.
It’s painful to watch all protest about the film get placed into one convenient little bucket called ‘sexism’. Yet less painful than actually going to see Melissa McCarthy play the same old predictable, unlikeable, fat bitch character that she is continually cast.
To a feminist, being a ‘fat bitch’ is strength.
This is status quo for feminists, who refuse to accept that a hacky reboot with entirely unlikeable female characters will NOT draw in the 80s Gen X-ers and Baby boomers who fondly remember the original.
Rescue attempts have reached a fever pitch recently with that 80s music show having Ray Parker Jr on to sing Ghostbusters. Given the efforts to talk up this movie, I believe the studio is truly worried it’s going to tank.
The original cast, who have an ownership stake in the franchise, were on Jimmy Kimmel along with the female reboot characters to try and attempt to ‘polish this turd’.
Melissa McCarthy wasted no time in attacking men who don’t like the female reboot; and calling them basement dwelling, live at home, 45+ losers.
Your shaming insults don’t stick to us, Ms McCarthy. You need our money far more than we need your feminist snark.
Dan Aykroyd, the late Harold Ramis’ estate, and Bill Murray all should have halted this nonsense before it began.
I am really hoping a serious lesson in economics is learned from this movie’s dismall failure.
Beyond “sexist”, our local newspaper used the term “haters” for those who didn’t like the film.
@ Hmm
Of course, any challenge to this film must be met with the frame of ‘like this film, or your a dick’.
feeriker says:
“If you don’t like the new Ghostbusters, you must be sexist….”
As I always respond: “Guilty as charged, and damned proud of it!”
Hear Hear!
Why do they think they can insult me with what I consider a badge of honor?
@ Dalrock
I’ll just leave this right here.
http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/07/11/support-chanty-binxs-legal-fund-to-fight-her-harassers/
Have you ever done an editorial piece on this ‘Chanty Binx’ situation?
She unwittingly managed to become the face of feminism that EVERYONE loves to hate.
@ The Other Jim says:
July 13, 2016 at 11:57 pm
“This is the lesson that Hollywood always seems to forget; you take an awful movie like ‘Ocean’s Eleven’ and make it into a good movie as opposed to taking a great movie like ‘Ben Hur’ or a fun, entertaining movie like the original ‘Ghostbusters’ and fucking them all up.”
Someone please, PLEASE, remake “Starship Troopers”, and keep it faithful to the book this time.
@ Eidolon says:
July 14, 2016 at 12:31 am
“In Aliens, she does the action hero thing only in order to save a child — she fights out of her mother instinct. I can buy that. It’s also done properly.”
And only because all the Marines died in combat, except for Hicks, who was badly wounded and incapacitated. The only other ambulatory “person” was Bishop, the android, and Ripley was an androidphobe.
James Cameron couldn’t help himself and messed things up a bit with Private Vazquez, but he wisely gave the most memorable lines to Private Hudson.
Great movie. Still holds up after all these years.
I think the single Ghostbusters thorn in the flesh for feminists comes when all four are carrying their phallic symbols at the end are ready to use them:
Yet less painful than actually going to see Melissa McCarthy play the same old predictable, unlikeable, fat bitch character that she is continually cast.
…
Your shaming insults don’t stick to us, Ms McCarthy. You need our money far more than we need your feminist snark.
McCarthy is THE Hollywood case study in typecasting. She plays the role of fat, snarky bitch in everything she appears in because, very simply, she can’t act, is one-dimensional, and can’t convincingly portray any other type of character; fat, snarky bitch is the only thing she is capable of portraying.
McCarthy lucked out by coming of age in an era where fat-acceptance shaming was coming into its prime. In any other era she wouldn’t have been allowed within five miles of a Hollywood camera, other than maybe as part of a public service advertisement against obesity.
I am really hoping a serious lesson in economics is learned from this movie’s dismall failure..
Not a chance. If there’s one immutable truth we’ve learned from warching one hundred years of Marxist Socialism in action, in all of its odious destructiveness, it is that these people have heads made out of a mixture of concrete and dog shit, with not a single functioning human brain cell anywhere to be found. They are incapable of learning from history and thus WILL repeat it – endlessly.
It’s just like landwhales like Melissa McCarthy, who never, EVER serm to learn the lesson that when you’re a landwhale and want to get people –especially men of value— to like you, you adopt a pleasant and cheerful demeanor in order to try to offset the battle damage you’ve done to your body. “Bitch costumes” are for Supermodels who have the SMV that enables them to afford to wear one. Landwhales don’t have that luxury!.
Yes, Hollywood, Gamergaters and Donald Trump are teaming up to ruin your beautiful movies! You must make more to drown out our voices!
…
Oscar @ 7:37 am:
“Someone please, PLEASE, remake “Starship Troopers”, and keep it faithful to the book this time.”
+1. How did Hollywood miss the entire concept of powered armor that Heinlein introduced in that book? Too busy making every male character a queer Aryan?
I don’t even care if they get the politics right, heck, I don’t even want actors. Just cast the stuntmen directly. Give the script to Larry Correia, production to Vox Day and pair the CGI nerds with dance instructors for choreography. Is Spielberg still making movie soundtracks?
And why not, let’s see if Trump will finance it. /drool
How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
The proper punch line is
THAT’S NOT FUNNY!!!
Do I have to teach you guys EVERYTHING? :^)
OK, seriously, I think that deal is that good humor tends to be transgressive, so when you introduce too open a message into the joke, you’re going to kill humor.
The Gunslinger – Remake- Black Cowboy
Roadhouse – Remake – Chick Bouncer
Dr. Strange – Movie – All-PC – Chick Spiritual Mentor
James Bond – Jane Bond
Ocean’s 11 – remake – All Female
Question: What is the last year of a Hollywood produced movie you would let your children watch?
@Gunner Q
I thought it was fascinating when I actually read Starship Troopers and realized that the “fascist white supremacy” that Verhoeven was mocking in the movie — had a Hispanic main character. Juan “Johnny” Rico, a name they kept in the movie. It’s so bizarre that they take what Heinlein actually wrote as a multi-ethnic society and turn it lily-white, then mock it for being fascist and white supremacist, when those were things they changed about it.
I suppose it’s that Verhoeven hated the idea of a society where only veterans vote (well argued in the book) and thought it was “teh fascist” so he plays that way up and also makes the society super-white so he can attach bad things to it and make it seem like the whole concept is evil, when it pretty obviously would be far superior to the system we have now.
In the end, I think the movie fails to achieve its goals in that you’re supposed to dislike this society and think it’s stupid, but I think it still comes across to the audience as quite attractive (aside from the women in combat thing, which they mostly added).
Question: What is the last year of a Hollywood produced movie you would let your children watch?
An even more relevant question is: when was the last time Hollywood produced anything original, innovative, interesting, or of a qualty worth spending time and money on?
I honestly am having a difficult time naming anything since the beginning of the Millennium that meets those criteria (V For Vendetta MIGHT qualify).
@ Eidolon says:
July 14, 2016 at 10:08 am
“I thought it was fascinating when I actually read Starship Troopers and realized that the ‘fascist white supremacy’ that Verhoeven was mocking in the movie — had a Hispanic main character. Juan ‘Johnny’ Rico, a name they kept in the movie.”
It’s been a LONG time since I read the book, but I think Johnny is actually Filipino. If I remember correctly, he says at one point that his family speaks Tagalog at home. I think his mom dies in Buenos Aires because she was visiting a relative, or something.
My favorite part in the book is when his dad becomes his platoon sergeant.
The women in the infantry thing is entirely from the movie, which was PC propaganda, as you point out. In the book, most of the pilots are women, but all the infantrymen are men.
Okay, just looked it up. Yep, Johnny’s Filipino.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Rico
That gluttonous, fat, green ghost does remind me of a ‘feminist’….
Now, now – David Futrelle isn’t THAT green.
Here’s what I’m finding about movies lately. They all suck.
There is a veritable rash of movies about the retired thief who has to come back for one more job because his loved one has been kidnapped. FSU mafia are the only acceptable villians because we don’t care about offending them, and they aren’t offended by Hollywood portrayals.
The storylines suck, and where there might be an interesting story, they’ve got to run it all past the social justice commissar first.
With Matt Damon’s anti-gun stance, I’m down to two movies I’m looking forward to seeing, the next John Wick, and the next Jack Reacher movie even though Cruise is much to small in comparison to the book character.
@Bike Bubba
Yes. This is what I had in mind with the title of the OP.
However, this answer from Reddit is pretty funny too:
I wonder about Melissa McCarthy. Someone her shape would also be perfect for the quiet, shy nerd who knows everything and seldom speaks. Does she let herself be typecast like she is, or does she maybe like it? Is that the only type of role her male “masters” will let her have, or is it perhaps that it’s the only role that other women can see her in?
Hmmm – try one dimensional actress
@Hmm – what diff? The effect is the same either way – obnoxious, tiresome fat feminist plays obnoxious, tiresome fat feminist. Doubly so in this effort. So? Which came first, the hard boiled egg or the lesbian hen? And who cares?
Look, here’s the Super Duper Feminist Reboot and what’s one of the big jokes?
“Ow! My Balls!”, supernatural version. Whoa! Nobody ever thought of THAT before! Especially not an obnoxious, tiresome, fat feminist! Whoohoo, YuGoGrrl!
Dalrock’s right, feminists can be quite funny, just not the way they intend.
@feeriker – V For Vendetta, like all adaptations of Alan Moore’s work, was ruined on film. In this case by those tranny brothers the Wachowskis. I remember the revulsion I felt when they turned a story about fascism vs. anarchy into an anti-neocon attack on Bush (not that I’m a supporter of the political school).
There hasn’t actually been too many good films lately. High in the technical qualities of film making, sure, but that are really good? They’ve always actually been rare (as we only tend to hold onto the good ones), but we seem in an era of mediocre/passable films with less terrible but also less really good films. (I blame China for this, as it is now the most profitable Movie market.)
Side-point: http://www.businessinsider.com/ghostbusters-china-box-office-2016-7 Ghostbusters is almost an assured flop now. Possibly in the ~100 million or more loss range. If the weekend take is under 30mil this weekend, it’s a catastrophic loser.
I was thinking about “what good films have I liked?” and I realize that most of them pretty much are solid action-adventure films with little pretenses about them. They tell their stores but are unencumbered (mostly) from modern day necessities. Pixar’s “Up” was actually the first to come to mind.
When I first saw the promotional pictures of the ‘new’ Ghostbusters team I mistook it for the next season’s premier of Orange is the New Black.
I wouldn’t consider seeing that nonsense any more than I would go see a black James Bond it is all preposterous. I get inundated with drivel enough I certainly am not going to pay for it.
@ Damn Crackers says:
July 14, 2016 at 12:30 pm
“V For Vendetta, like all adaptations of Alan Moore’s work, was ruined on film.”
Did you watch “Constantine” with Keanu Reeves? If not, don’t bother.
This is a real forehead slapper.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2016/07/dear_prudence_i_want_to_leave_my_husband_for_my_gay_best_friend.html
@Dalrock: My first thought on this post is that Ghosbusters makes for an interesting test case on my theory regarding the power of a conscious marriage strike with agreed upon, definable goals as discussed in your last post.
If it craters as seems certain, this provides evidence that men actually have some power when they act collectively. Men are collectively rejecting the rewriting of uniquely male genres like Star Wars and Ghostbusters and they are suffering at the Box Office.
The marriage strike is one idea to exercise that power. Here is another off the cuff idea: An enterprising manospherian with a media background could set up a Red Pill movie site with Red Pill reviews and a Red Pill rating movie guide. Ghostbusters and Fireproof would score a 0 out of 100 on the Red Pill rating (low for demeaning portraits of men, favorable portraits of feminism and yougogirl nonsense, high for favorable portraits of strong, attractive men, satirizing feminism, sluthood and delaying marriage to sleep with ‘bad boys’ and masculine role models. “Fight Club” would be in the 90’s while “Matrix” might lose a few points for Trinity and the unisex world of the future. I can’t think of many movies since the first Terminator that would score in even the low 90’s.
Yammato’s review: “”The joke is broad and obvious, and yet so, so very satisfying.”
The word that came to my mind was “vulgar.”
>>>>I am really hoping a serious lesson in economics is learned from this movie’s dismall failure..
>>>>>Not a chance. If there’s one immutable truth we’ve learned from warching one hundred years of Marxist Socialism in action, in all of its odious destructiveness, it is that these people have heads made out of a mixture of concrete and dog shit, with not a single functioning human brain cell anywhere to be found. They are incapable of learning from history and thus WILL repeat it – endlessly.
I JUST today heard Hillary talking about ‘we are going to have the biggest jobs program since World War II when i am elected.
So…a stimulus package? American Recovery and Reinvestment Act part 2? Do people really think this works? Still?
I find it funny that the producers of the movie use an obvious sexist (male) caricature and then run around blaming their critics for being sexist. But again, that’s not the way the feminists are trying to be funny.
I think one of the places this movie is off the mark, is it’s a feminist comedy making fun of men. That’s not funny, that’s mean. Bridesmaids was more successful because it left men out of it. The reboot seems to say, come watch this feminist movie where we make fun of how much better we are than men. Who’s going to laugh at that except for sexist women, haha girl’s rule? Except the one’s who are turned off by that childish, hit ’em in the crotch humor are accused of sexism. No doubt another tool of the feminist agenda, projection. What is this movie but a bunch of Mary Sue’s and a sexualized ditz? Reverse the genders and you see why everybody in the world but feminists hates it. In a male hero movie, at least the villains are male too. In this one, all heroes female, all villains male.
I’d actually love to read a thesis examination on the differences between the original and the reboot and it’s relationship to the feminist mentality. If they’re about equality, why are there no men on the team, if they’re about ending harassment, why is the man objectified sexually by his female boss? Wiig has a panned book from her past turn out to be true all along, social media kickstarts their new careers, the government denies them as heroes in public but secretly funds them. This reads like a feminist wet dream: I was right all along but you social media haters don’t understand that because the patriarchy conspiracy keeping me down, even though it’s actually funding my existence.
So…a stimulus package? American Recovery and Reinvestment Act part 2? Do people really think this works? Still?
People don’t think about anything anymore. Do they still believe that such economic slight-of-hand will work, despite decades of obvious and proven failure?
Alas, yes. Far too many of them believe in exactly that. Ergo, the hopeless mess this country is in and that will continue to get worse.
Also, no one is going to learn any economic lessons here, because all identified problems are external: sexist men made it fail. The only available solution is to end sexism, not to improve the quality of the movies they produce which is already at 110% Excellent. If anything, they’ll double down with their thinking being that the only reason men are sexist is because they haven’t seen enough female heroes, so we have to keep making them and eventually they will earn to love it. That’s pretty much the logic behind affirmative action. Why improve the skills of minorities, when we can just force the majority accept the reduced skills that they bring? After all, the only reason we don’t have more female scientists is because we don’t have enough female scientists.
I think one of the places this movie is off the mark, is it’s a feminist comedy making fun of men. That’s not funny, that’s mean.
Actually, such movies are just … boring. And juvenile.
It really is true that the overwhelming majority of women are just NOT funny at all and have no idea how (or natural ability) to be so. That’s why most female comedians are hopelessly lame and fail to gain a wider audience outside of embittered feminist lesbians.
This is a real forehead slapper.
With both “Slate” and “Dear Prudence” in the mix, that’s a foregone conclusion. But after reading the letter, I’m pretty sure that this HAS to be a hoax, somebody’s idea of a bad joke.
@ feeriker says:
July 14, 2016 at 2:58 pm
I hope you’re right.
@Morgan
I think the problem the movie will have with women is the characters aren’t people most women aspire to be. Part of this is the movie dove into the worst stereotypes about feminists, going with the ball-busting dyke angle. This is why Yamato’s review is so unhelpful even though she is trying to help. But this is I think at least somewhat muted in the previews, so I suspect it won’t be a factor for the vast majority of women deciding to go see the movie. Instead, the bigger problem I think the movie will have is that the women don’t look attractive. Sure women want to be one of the guys, but this movie doesn’t really even deliver well on that. Moreover, women much more want to picture themselves winning over the hero, or at least having that potential.
What woman dreams of wearing an ugly jumpsuit and combat boots along with three other frumpy women? There isn’t even an alpha to win over by demonstrating their girlpower. They can’t identify with the hero, and the other option is likewise off the table; what woman dreams of being saved by another woman? This, along with the fact that the movie is known as a feminist movie, will cause large numbers of women to opt for something else.
@Morgan:
A few of the honest movie reviewers really have had to dance around the issue that the move is just outright sexist against Men. Straight up, it’s a bigoted film. And it was designed that way. Too much of the “backlash” is apparently addressed in the film itself, suggesting that the “backlash” was actually pre-planned. Which explains why they instantly had a “defense” of the trailer as being “sexist” against the film.
I saw the trailer with only the barest knowledge that it was a female reboot, and I easily felt the exact same insult as everyone else. It was a terrible trailer because they understood nothing about the Ghostbusters’ mythos. They completely missed it. Or, as it is now pretty obvious, intentionally tried to destroy it.
As for Starship Troopers, I think the movie is still worth a watch. Doesn’t hold up to the book, but for a cheesy Sci-Fi movie, it’s got some great performances. I loved Michael Ironside in it. Though, when I saw it, one of my take aways was that Women in Combat was really, really stupid. (Seriously, the Women in the combat parts screw up almost everything they do in the movie. Even 90s movies couldn’t make them look competent.)
But the best is Clancy Brown’s “Sgt” Zim. He’s the hero everyone needs. Which just showed, for as much as Verhoeven wanted to put so many things in a terrible light, that the enduring quality of Men fighting for Home & Honor still carries through as righteous.
What woman dreams of wearing an ugly jumpsuit and combat boots along with three other frumpy women? There isn’t even an alpha to win over by demonstrating their girlpower.
Dear God, I sincerely hope that even Hollywood isn’t deluded and stupid enough to believe that ANYONE would by the idea of an ueber-Alpha man being charmed/enchanted/”won over” by an ugly jumpsuit and combat boots-wearing, butch-cut, obscenity-spewing, ball-busting dyke.
What woman dreams of wearing an ugly jumpsuit and combat boots along with three other frumpy women? There isn’t even an alpha to win over by demonstrating their girlpower
Well, there’s the black guy, although going by the previews he’s not all that alpha…
BPP
I can’t think of many movies since the first Terminator that would score in even the low 90’s.
Disclaimer: I don’t go to movies much.
That said, Predator, Quigley and Die Hard all qualify. Yeah, older movies from the 80’s and 90’s. Die Hard is not really family viewing, either.
More recently, The Great Raid scores in the 90’s by your system.
I wanted to like Tomorrowland and there is much that I do like in it, even though I don’t care for George Clooney, but it would score in the 80’s due in part to the protagonist.
The Hobbit started out pretty good but then we had to have ElfGrrlPOWr and twu wuv interest, so…nah.
The real movie that I am surprised ‘feminists’ have not remade is ‘The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly’. It is one of the greatest films ever, yet we don’t even notice that there is no female character. Men are doing things, such as experiencing the death and suffering of soldiers during the Civil War.
@Anon Reader
I wouldn’t put Die Hard in the 90s, as good as the action is. The plot is pure blue pill. Wife got unhappy and moved across the country. Husband follows and has to try to win her over by saving her. It is the classic endless courtship fantasy.
Dalrock said :
Instead, the bigger problem I think the movie will have is that the women don’t look attractive.
If anything, if cuckservatives knew how to goad SJWs into self-cannibalism, this is a great chance for that. The sole black woman was cast to be the ugliest of the four. Why can’t the black woman be pretty? If anything, that is a much more legitimate point than ‘misogyny’.
Yet, SJWs only exist because cuckservatives provide the uniting force that prevents these very unnatural alliances of the SJW world from flying apart.
i.e. the accusation of racism towards the film is more legitimate than any bogus accusation of misogyny.
Dalrock, you are correct regarding Die Hard, I was initially recalling the conclusion of the film where wife is loyal to husband again, but – meh- that’s just “rescued Damsel”.
Scratch that movie from the list. One more near miss: Age of Ultron.
Like Tomorrowland I wanted to like Ultron in part because of Hawkeye’s very counter (to modern) cultural backstory plus the ugliness of Black Widow’s backstory, but it’s still not up to what it could have been.
Caught It Happened One Night from the 1930’s and there’s some pure genius in the first 2/3 of the movie, but then it becomes a standard rom-com. Blue pill goes back farther than many think.
@ BPP
“I can’t think of many movies since the first Terminator that would score in even the low 90’s.”
Inspired by Dalrock’s post about how Hollywood hates married fathers, I wrote up a list of movies that honor married fathers. Not all of them are great, but they all portray married fathers heroically.
http://snowgoosechronicles.blogspot.com/2016/06/movies-that-honor-fathers.html
Unsurprisingly, most are based on true stories. The best of the bunch, I think, is “Cinderella Man”, based on the real life story of boxer James J. Braddock. The book is much better, of course, but the movie is well worth your while.
I didn’t include “When the Game Stands Tall” because I hadn’t watched it when I wrote that list, but I watched it recently with my wife and kids, and it’s outstanding. Again, it’s a true story (of course).
It’s kind of a backwards sports movie in that the team starts out as the most dominant sports team in American history with 151 consecutive wins. They lose, then become the underdogs. But all of that is background for the real story, which is about how Coaches Ladouceur and Eidson forge boys into men. They just happen to use football to do it.
The coaches are mentors to the boys in the Homeric sense of the word. Best of all, the Coaches are devout Christians, and De La Salle High is a Christian school, and the coaches incorporate faith in Christ into every lesson they teach. Good stuff.
@ Dalrock
“I wouldn’t put Die Hard in the 90s, as good as the action is. The plot is pure blue pill. Wife got unhappy and moved across the country. Husband follows and has to try to win her over by saving her. It is the classic endless courtship fantasy.”
The movie is a staple Christmas film in my family, though my dad and I both roll our eyes at the wife/husband relationship stuff. As we see it, the movie has too many good scenes, too many good villains, and too many good lines to let that ruin the fun. What would have probably ruined it is if the film had ended with the wife doing some – to quote Aaron Clarey – “round-house kick female chick cop Ally McBeal ” type stuff and saving John in the end.
@BBP
” I can’t think of many movies since the first Terminator that would score in even the low 90’s.”
“Master and Commander: Far Side of the World” is a story about masculinity values totally removed from the feminine. It’s one of my favorites.
@ Kash says:
July 14, 2016 at 5:16 pm
“Misandry is going to be the norm and celebrated.”
Going? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
[D: Troll problem resolved.]
@anon:
I thought they tried to remake “The Good, The Bad & The Ugly” with “The Quick & The Dead” in ’95? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114214/?ref_=nv_sr_1 I’ve never seen the movie, but that’s what I remember hearing. And I remember hearing it was bad.
This movie opened in England on Monday. I see that my local cinema is showing Ghostbusters seven times a day starting at 11.15am in standard mode and four times a day in 3D.- far more than any other movie, so as schools are breaking up this must be aimed at children and adolescents and is I suppose what they want to see though why a story about four female Ghost-hunters in New York should appeal I cannot fathom – though when I remind myself of the dross I watched avidly when that age I suppose they will enjoy it – but (it’s in the trailer) lines such as ‘No one’s better at quantum physics than you’ and ‘we’ve devoted our whole lives to studying the paranormal’ coming out of the mouths of four ill-dressed and unattractive women just seems so off. May I recommend Gavin McInnes Rebel Media video on this movie where he rightly I think observes that women tend to scream at Ghosts and seek the support of men. Unfortunately there is a drive now to persuade both boys and girls that they are not in any material way different from each other but this delusion in its wilfulness can only be maintained by treating men not as equal to women but as hopeless – in this case devoid of men save for the male shortthand/typist – now when did you ever see one of those – I never did. I suppose that eventually reality will reimpose itself for if it doesn’t someone else will impose reality on you.
I shall pay attention to its box-office: I am the last person to judge it as I don’t get American humour; I saw a clip form Seinfeld which I did not understand and the only reason I knew it was supposed to be funny was the canned laughter; It’s that bad. Stephen Fry – though it may have been Hugh Lawrie – observed that British Humour is all about a person (usually male – though there is Bridget Jones) who no matter how hard they try always fail, whereas American humour is about people wisecracking their way to success. Ghostbusters is clearly of the latter sort. I loved Top Cat.
Prediction: Movie is a hit. The good Rotten Tomatoes reviews fools enough people into watching it that it does well enough to get a sequel.
Opus,
I always thought there was a storyline in both the British and American versions of “The Office” that was really telling.
Both versions have a story arc where the paper supply company is going to end up shutting down one of its two branches. Both story arcs do eventually reach roughly the same conclusion, but they end differently.
In the British version boss David Brent gets a promotion. The promotion will lead to him leaving his branch, causing it to shut down and for all of his employees to get fired. Everybody is mildly angry at him, but mostly accept it as inevitable and even turn it into a sort of positive: They get to escape! But Brent doesn’t get the promotion, because he fails the physical. The branch survives because Brent is a complete loser. He attempts to lie and say he turned it down to save face, but we know better.
In the American version essentially the same scenario occurs, but in reverse. This time instead of boss Michael Scott leaving and dooming all of his employees to unemployment, the boss of the OTHER branch – just told that his branch is not going to be the one cut – leaves for a better job and throws HIS employees to the wolves. Michael’s branch survives and the other branch is fired.
To further punctuate the difference, employee Jim says “Say what you will about Michael Scott, but he would NEVER do that.” And Michael, instead of placidly dooming his branch to unemployment, actually goes out and camps in his car outside of the CEO’s house in the hope of persuading him to keep his branch open.
An intriguingly different perspective on the whole scenario.
I plan to not see the new GrrlBusters, or the talked about feminist Iron Man or the supposed feminist James Bond. In fact I plan to not see them all at the same time.
Opus
Unfortunately there has been
isa drivenowfor the last 40 years to persuade both boys and girls that they are not in any material way different from each otherFIFY.
+1. How did Hollywood miss the entire concept of powered armor that Heinlein introduced in that book? Too busy making every male character a queer Aryan?
I’ve read that Hollywood takes existing movie scripts and then slaps tangentially related book titles on them for the name recognition. Apparently, Starship Troopers was one such casualty.
I am wondering how many feminists ran back (and not away from) to engage/stop the driver of that truck that ran over everyone and killed them in Nice France this evening? I think the number is probably pretty close to zero. Prayers be with them.
Re the title.
My son told me a joke,
“Dad, how many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?”
“I don’t know, son.”
“Feminists have never achieved anything.”
IBB,
I am wondering how many feminists ran back (and not away from) to engage/stop the driver of that truck that ran over everyone and killed them in Nice France this evening? I think the number is probably pretty close to zero. Prayers be with them.
You’re too generous. Not only do ‘feminists’ (and most other women) expect men to die to save women (see when any ship sinks), but as news of this attack gets out, women are getting gina tingles from the terrorist, and if he were alive, he would be getting love letters (as the Tsarnaev’s did). Nice incentive structure there.
Strict restrictions on women is the only way to sustain a free, prosperous, and wholesome society.
“Christian Estrosi, the president of the region in which Nice is located, said the truck was loaded with arms and grenades, according to the Associated Press.
French media confirmed tweeted reports of gunshots around the time of the crash and that the driver was shot dead by police. French authorities said occupants inside the truck opened fire on people after the crash.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tens-of-deaths-at-huge-bastille-day-event-in-france/article/2596562
I blame French gun culture. And grenade culture. And truck culture.
I am wondering how many feminists ran back (and not away from) to engage/stop the driver of that truck that ran over everyone and killed them in Nice France this evening?
To the extent that they care about the incident at all, it will be over how many women were killed. If the number of women killed should exceed the number of men, then they’ll blast men for not doing more to save the women.
French Lives Matter. God be with them at this time.
a) It seems that there is a two-digit-toll terrorist attack in the West every couple weeks now.
b) France in particular has had two in about 8 months.
c) The idiot SJWs who made Orlando all about guns were stupid enough to overlook that most of the attacks before that, as well as this one after that, did not use guns. In fact, a truck is easy as there is nothing to ban or even detect (unlike, say, a bomb). Any Muslim driving a truck can do the same at any time, again and again.
d) Women will vote to increase Islamic entry to the West, now with even more zeal than before (remember, tingles trumps all for the female voter).
Trump keeps saying the obvious….. something’s happening. He wants to take action, deny immigration from predominantly Islamic nations. That is doing…. something. That is a logical reaction to what is… happening. HRC is not even interested in identifying the problem. To not vote for Trump is irresponsible and unnecessarily puts lives in jeopardy.
@ Anon says:
July 14, 2016 at 10:43 pm
“The idiot SJWs who made Orlando all about guns were stupid enough to overlook that most of the attacks before that, as well as this one after that, did not use guns.”
It’s not stupidity. It’s cowardice, combined with something else for which I don’t have a name.
They know the problem is Islam, but if you correctly identify the problem, you then have to choose between two options:
1. Confront the problem
2. Don’t confront the problem
They also know that confronting Islam results in being labeled a racist, ostracized or even killed. They’re too chicken to face those possibilities, so they decide to avoid confronting the problem. But that – rightly – makes them feel like cowards. They don’t want to feel like cowards, so they invent enemies they can confront with impunity – guns, the NRA and Christians.
That’s the part for which I don’t have a label. What do you call a person who attacks an innocent person they know won’t hurt them because they’re too cowardly to attack the person they know hurt them?
Bill Whittle refers to this behavior as the “urge to suicide.” You are putting political correctness ahead of correctness. And people will continue to die as a result.
As you said, the problem IS Islam. That’s it. That’s the problem. Ann Coulter said it best 32 hours after 9-11:
The Game of Thrones cast welcomes Muslim refugees into Europe:
Except girls are better! Don’t forget that!
“I thought they tried to remake “The Good, The Bad & The Ugly” with “The Quick & The Dead” in ’95? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114214/?ref_=nv_sr_1 I’ve never seen the movie, but that’s what I remember hearing. And I remember hearing it was bad.”
It was more of a mashup of ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ with a few other westerns mixed in for good measure. It wasn’t horrible, even if Sharon Stone is no Charles Bronson. Hackman isn’t quite Henry Fonda. And Russell Crowe isn’t quite Jason Robards. Then again I like Sam Raimi as a directory mostly thanks to the movie ‘Army of Darkness’.
@The Question
I watch Die Hard and Lethal Weapon every Xmas season. That’s usually just a Cane thing, but my wife and I re-watch Band of Brothers every Xmas season, too. The whole family does the LotR trilogy, and the Narnia movies.
We start the day after Thanksgiving.
@Oscar
LOL
The word you’re searching for is “taboo”. It’s not an urge to suicide, as someone said. It’s just taboo to either appear as, or be, racist, sexist, Islamophobic, etc.–even when it is warranted and identical to common sense.
American cinema is weird: imagine a British movie where our hero, a lowly Detective Constable (probably played by Denzel Washington) single-handedly destroys East-End Villains who have taken over the Post Office Tower and merely so as to impress his Corporate-Cubicle wife who works with people who can correctly pronounce the word garage that she should take him back. As the body count reaches at least one….
I can never remember seeing a re-make of any movie that didn’t “suck on ice”. That said, adding feminism to any remake is probably going to make it suck worse.
Q: Why was the term “feminism” chosen?
A: Because ‘mad cow disease’ was already taken.
Q: Why was the term “feminism” chosen?
A: Because ‘mad cow disease’ was already taken.
I always thought it was “swine flu.”
elovesc36: I can never remember seeing a re-make of any movie that didn’t “suck on ice”.
They’re rare. But I liked the 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers even better than the original 1956 version.
However, the following two remakes (there have been four versions overall) were both pretty bad.
Stephen Spielberg did an excellent job working with Tom Cruise on War of the Worlds. And the original movie in 1956 was very good, so. And J.J. Abrahams rebooting Star Trek was outstanding.
But I agree, it is very rare that the remake is worth it.
IBB,
To not vote for Trump is irresponsible and unnecessarily puts lives in jeopardy.
a) Trump will have trouble getting more than 43% of the female vote.
b) Hence, Trump cannot win. Gina tingles is the foremost foreign policy objective, and importing more Muslims is hence the goal of the ‘electorate’.
Gina tingles is the foremost foreign policy objective, and importing more Muslims is hence the goal of the ‘electorate’.
What of the countervailing theory that women are more security-oriented than are men? Especially if they fear their children might be threatened. By that theory, increased terrorism this year will increase Trump’s chances with the female vote.
I can think of one movie remake which is infinitely better than its original although it is regarded as heresy to say so: The Lady Vanishes. The American leads set off the Charters and Caldicott characters who as portrayed by Lowe and Carmichael are genuinely funny which could not be said of Norton and Wayne in the original – and never in a month of Sundays was Michael Redgrave leading man material; Lockwood was static and repressed in comparison with the exuberant Cybil Shepherd; the memorised tune being far more chromatic in the remake sounds, unlike the simple original, as if it might be some form of encoded message; the attractive location scenery clearly offsets the Nazis (as it did in The Sound of Music) and supported by Richard Strauss-like music sets the period and place (unlike the original Islington studio-based production which is vague as to who might be the evil empire – don’t want to upset the Germans do we – in 1938). The remake was the last film made by Hammer; was surely their most expensive; yet failed at the box-office.
“You’re too generous. Not only do ‘feminists’ (and most other women) expect men to die to save women (see when any ship sinks), but as news of this attack gets out, women are getting gina tingles from the terrorist, and if he were alive, he would be getting love letters (as the Tsarnaev’s did). Nice incentive structure there.”
Feminists, like most of the prominent far-Left groups nowadays, will defend and excuse anyone who isn’t a cis White male, hence the reason they say and do nothing about TRUE “rape cultures” like the ones in Islamic theocracies, and why hardly any of them commented on the home invasion and rape of Cytherea.
Concerning the topic at hand, it only takes one Feminist to change a lightbulb – she holds it in place and the world revolves around her.
Red Pill Latecomer,
What of the countervailing theory that women are more security-oriented than are men? Especially if they fear their children might be threatened. By that theory, increased terrorism this year will increase Trump’s chances with the female vote.
No. Women are only ‘security-oriented’ in terms of wealth transfers, and police-state enforcement of AF/BB.
Most child abuse and child murder is by women. The notion that child safety inspires women into greater responsibility is patently false.
Women are absolutely, positively certain to vote for more, not less, Islamic importation into the West.
@ elovesc36 says:
July 15, 2016 at 9:38 am
“I can never remember seeing a re-make of any movie that didn’t ‘suck on ice’.”
“The Thing” (1982) is a remake of “The Thing From Another World” (1951). It features a lot of ice, but it doesn’t “suck on ice”. In fact, I consider it a horror classic. The special effects (all practical, of course) are still pretty awesome. And its budget was tiny.
I can’t think of any others right now. Some enterprising producer should comb through old movies that have a good basic story, but were made before that story could be realized on screen, or with too small a budget. I bet they’d clean house.
Instead they remake classics that cannot be improved upon, like “The Ten Commandments”, or “Ben Hur”. I mean, seriously.
@Oscar:
Actually a lot of pretty decent movies from the 70s & 80s ended up being either remakes or spiritual sequels to a lot of pre-1950s movies you’ve never heard about. Granted, so much of Star Wars is lifted from Japanese movies (for direct visual pieces) and Dune (for story) that it’s really hard to say we’re not completely used to this. What we complain about is that the current remakes are simply worse than the previous round.
@Anon:
Muslim immigration is defused tingles; Trump is running as a visible Alpha. Visible will beat diffuse nearly every time.
Also, Clinton is losing the key swing States with the Stock market at all-time highs. Just wait until it’s 20% lower by November. We’re at the end of a business cycle, there are costs to be paid.
Concerning the topic at hand, it only takes one Feminist to change a lightbulb – she holds it in place and the world revolves around her.
Winner!
Concerning the topic at hand, it only takes one Feminist to change a lightbulb – she holds it in place and the world revolves around her.
Winner, except that the ‘feminist’ will get the clockwise/counterclockwise wrong….
@ Anon says:
July 15, 2016 at 12:44 pm
“Winner, except that the ‘feminist’ will get the clockwise/counterclockwise wrong….”
Because “leftie loosey” is slut shaming.
@Oscar:
I let out a very loud laugh at that one. Thank you for that.
@Red Pill Latecomer, “What of the countervailing theory that women are more security-oriented than are men? Especially if they fear their children might be threatened. By that theory, increased terrorism this year will increase Trump’s chances with the female vote.”
As pointed out, women are the weak link in America’s security. In the 2012 Presidential election was a pretty interesting indicator of these trends as women made up 53% of the total vote, men only 47%. There were other voting patterns that demonstrated how differently men and women vote.
The racial breakdown of the 2012 election was;
Whites: 72%
Blacks: 13%
Hispanics: 10%
Asians: 3%
White Men voted 62% to 35% for Romney.
White Women voted 42% to 35% for Romney.
Black Men voted 87% to 11% for Obama.
Black Women voted 96% to 3% for Obama.
Hispanic Men voted 65% to 33% for Obama.
Hispanic Women voted 76% to 23% for Obama.
Asians(the NBC doesn’t break their vote down by sex) voted for Obama 73% to 26%.
Married Men voted 60% to 38% for Romney and were 28% of the total vote.
Married Women voted 53% to 46% for Romney and were 31% of the total vote.
Never Married Men voted 56% to 40% for Obama and were 18% of the total vote.
Never Married Women vote 67% to 31% for Obama and were 23% of the total vote.
Link: http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.V4k-Z4-cHIU
While one can look at the difference voting patterns between races, it is when they are broken down by sex and marital status is when you see the real disparities.
@ Looking Glass says:
July 15, 2016 at 1:43 pm
I couldn’t resist.
Well I have read about 12 reviews so far, about 2 said horrible, about 2 said great, the rest – meh.
Seems it is filled with stale jokes, ho-hum performances, and NOTHING ORIGINAL!!!
Was produced because it had to be to fulfill wimminz need to be part of the boys gang.
These feminists are really screwed up. Seems only Pagilia sees the real value in feminism.
Well number 13, by none other then Richard Roeper. He hated it!
Opened up a can of manginas bitching. Here is the salient reply:
Richard Roeper
✔ @richardroeper
I can’t overestimate the fucks I don’t give about a troll who’s never been paid a dime for his opinion telling me how to review movies.
https://heatst.com/entertainment/richard-roeper-accosted-by-male-feminists-over-negative-ghostbusters-review/
http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/
7:56 PM – 12 Jul 2016
http://heatst.com/entertainment/i-was-wrong-a-ghostbusters-review/
“Anyone who thinks this movie is anti-man is just being a big baby. If you take offense at slight jabs like “safety lights are for men,” you probably need your man card revoked.”
“The fun thing about being a man is not having to give a s–t about how men are portrayed in film like SJWs do with women. Yes, some men are written negatively in Ghostbusters, but I’m sure the species will survive it.”
“The girl power of the movie did not offend my delicate masculine sensibilities.”
I used to say these same types of things. So what? Who cares?
But reading here I’ve begun to see it all in the aggregate. I’ve come to understand the non-stop background drum beat that makes the FI, as someone once posted here, the very air we breathe.
This is not news to most that comment here, but you really do have to actively resist this, for the sake of our young men and boys who are breathing this air. For the sake of young women and girls too really, as they are being led down a path that will make them just one more competitor a man has to deal with. Who needs that?
I call it out now when I see it.
You know what, I’m not so sure about that anymore. The Brexit vote gives me hope for people (even women) in wanting to save…. civilization. I mean even the most feminist of women have got to look around the world and realize…. this Islam thingie isn’t working out.
https://heatst.com/entertainment/richard-roeper-accosted-by-male-feminists-over-negative-ghostbusters-review/
‘Accosted by MALE feminists’…
Again, when the most strident defenders are manginas, matched only by a complete absence of any decent-looking woman defending the film, you know that no one outside a small, degenerate audience, likes it.
IBB,
The Brexit vote gives me hope for people (even women) in wanting to save…. civilization. I mean even the most feminist of women have got to look around the world and realize…. this Islam thingie isn’t working out.
What have women done recently to give you any reason to believe that?
IBB,
The Star Trek reboots are horrible .
====
On Trump:
Many women despise HRC, so I am not sure it will be the cakewalk for her many think, even though she is the right sex.
On Trump:
Many women despise HRC, so I am not sure it will be the cakewalk for her many think, even though she is the right sex.
Everyone here seems to assume that the November elections are going to be clean and transparent, that the reigning Establishment that is now under siege and in a fight for its very survival is going to “fight fair,” letting the will of the People[TM] prevail.
I cannot fathom that kind of naíveté, especially not among the regulars here.
Everyone here seems to assume that the November elections are going to be clean and transparent
Of course not. A Republican has to win at least 53% of the vote in a swing state to carry that state. 3% is the Democrat margin of fraud.
What was even worse is that cuckservative establishment frauds are complicit in this, both in previous elections and certainly now.
“But reading here I’ve begun to see it all in the aggregate.”
The woman who mocks you today will sell you out to an invader tomorrow.
“Welcome refugees.”
Contrary to what that cuck types, it’s never manly to tolerate, to celebrate, betrayal. The men who encourage that sort of hostile behavior are attacking you by proxy.
Nipping at your flanks, they will wear you down for a fait-accompli. They are your enemy.
‘Children? Those shrieking, dribbling horrors? Not for me, thank you’: Why fatherhood is not for everyone
http://news.nationalpost.com/life/children-those-shrieking-dribbling-bawling-horrors-not-for-me-thank-you-why-fatherhood-is-not-for-everyone
‘It’s our choice, and you should be okay with that’: Why motherhood is not for everyone
http://news.nationalpost.com/life/its-our-choice-and-you-should-be-okay-with-that-why-motherhood-is-not-for-everyone-and-shouldnt-have-to-be
I mean even the most feminist of women have got to look around the world and realize…. this Islam thingie isn’t working out.
Hmmm.
Islam just won a big fight in Turkey. I think when women see Muslim men standing up to tanks and helicopters, they get the tingles for sure. It’s unimaginable that men in any Western country would stand up to their own militaries like that, to be honest.
Catcalling — whistling at women — is now a hate crime in parts of England: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437870/catcalling-illegal-uk-nottinghamshire
I don’t understand why Western women would get gina tingles over Muslim rapists and terrorists, but think that Western men are overly aggressive if they whistle at them.
If a Western man looks longingly at a woman, it’s a form of rape. If a Muslim actually rapes a woman, it’s okay?
I don’t understand
It’s easy to understand, really. If the men in question are attractive, it isn’t viewed the same way by women. It’s when unattractive men show interest in women that it is unacceptable. If the man generates the tingles, it’s all good. If he doesn’t, he must be stopped at all costs.
Oscar said, “They don’t want to feel like cowards, so they invent enemies they can confront with impunity – guns, the NRA and Christians.
That’s the part for which I don’t have a label. What do you call a person who attacks an innocent person they know won’t hurt them because they’re too cowardly to attack the person they know hurt them?”
The kind of person who is naturally attracted to Leftist politics is a primitive person, who had no strong, capable and respectable man as a father to equip them to deal with the competitive nature and social order of Modern Civilization. Their fathers were absent or were so weak they might have well been.
As a result, the products of these broken homes are suited to primitive communities with loose/non-existent social order, low child investment, high birth rate, live-for-today, novelty seeking savagery. Savages hate those more capable than they at thriving in modern civilized society and see socially adjusted and capable modern people as competitors for resources.
Today, the Democrat savages ally themselves with this nations mortal enemies the same way they allied themselves with the Communists of the Cold War. The ideology isn’t nearly as important to them as destroying Western Civilization itself. Today, Islam is just another tool for the Left to wreak havoc.
I don’t believe we are fighting ideological war of Capitalism vs Collectivism, instead we’re in a epigenetic war with mankind itself. Every person born to a matriarchal home is at odds God’s natural order and a cancer cell in the body of Western Civilization with the potential to metastasize.
Jesus Christ is the only cure.
Best comment I saw on reviews of this movie : ” Who you gonna call? Weight Watchers!”
Novaseeker: It’s easy to understand, really. If the men in question are attractive, it isn’t viewed the same way by women.
I understand that. I don’t understand how impoverished, unwashed, illiterate, Muslim migrants can be attractive — i.e. Alpha — to Western women.
I can understand how cocky CEOs and rock stars can be Alpha. I can even understand, sort of, how gangstas and outlaw bikers can be Alpha. But impoverished, unwashed, Muslim migrants are a new low as a source for Alpha-generated gina tingles.
It’s all relative.
When most of the other guys are beta/fag/cucks and act like it, well, then the Muslim guys, who aren’t raised in an emasculating culture, are not that, are actually masculine, and are therefore attractive, relative to the feminized non-Muslims.
Western women have been putting Western men through a series of shit-tests for the past several decades, most of which men have failed, as a group. It started with, “Don’t tell us we can’t vote,” then, “Don’t tell us we can’t work,” how to dress, how to act, whether to stay married, whether they can kill their babies, and so on. At every stage, Western man has caved in, which has increased women’s contempt for him and produced further tests, to the point that whistling at a woman is now a crime in some places.
By comparison, the Muslim man who pays no attention to any of that looks extremely masculine. That doesn’t mean every Western woman wants to be raped by him, but it does mean she’s not likely to get behind Western men in fighting him off. She’s too busy emasculating Western men to support them in anything.
Also, Western women don’t see the “impoverished, unwashed, illiterate” ones. Remember that women normally only see the men they find attractive. They think in terms of darkly handsome, mysterious foreigners and oil sheiks like Princess Diana’s boyfriend, not filthy goatherds.
feeriker @ July 15, 2016 at 10:54 pm:
“I cannot fathom that kind of naíveté, especially not among the regulars here.”
The key is recognizing Trump is himself one of the Elites. His entire appeal to the Manosphere comes from the possibility of his being “our” Elite. Definitely not the worst of the bunch, probably not a conspirator/DeepState or whatever, but aside from immigration he doesn’t threaten to the status quo. Just Hillary and the Republican Rabbit Warren.
Wake me when Trump starts talking about layoffs and limited gov’t.
…
Red Pill Latecomer @ 7:07 am:
“I understand that. I don’t understand how impoverished, unwashed, illiterate, Muslim migrants can be attractive — i.e. Alpha — to Western women.”
Women have been raised to despise Western men. It’s the inevitable result of all the affirmative action, diversity indoctrination and media constantly slamming Christian men while propping up Muslims as unstoppable winners.
The cucked state of the Church also helps, I’m sure. Women crave the Boyfriend Jesus gospel but I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the back of her head, she despises Christianity for the same reason she despises the manipulable husband she tried so hard to create. [Like Cail said.]
The cucked state of the Church also helps, I’m sure. Women crave the Boyfriend Jesus gospel but I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the back of her head, she despises Christianity for the same reason she despises the manipulable husband she tried so hard to create. [Like Cail said.]
BFF Jesus is important because he’s never judgemental and lovers her just as she is no matter what she does. So after chasing and riding a whole carousel of Harley McBadboys, BFF Jesus is always there to forgiver her, console her, and of course shame anyone who dares to criticize her. Lather, rinse, repeat.
The problem is, as noted, the churches are beta factories or worse. By catering to women and their need for BFF Jesus’s endless do-overs, the churches tend to either betaize men or disgust them. The disgusted men leave. Men capable of actually leading such a woman are therefore not in church. The men that are in church are just, well, not interesting. Something’s missing. She loves church but is not in love with church. She’s somehow unhaappy.
Oooh, look, here’s a new thing, Islam! Hmm, dark-eyed swarthy strangers…maybe one of them is secretly a hunky, handyman, oil shiek…
How many feminists does it take to change a light-bulb you ask??????
The answer is one hundred. One to just actually DO it, and ninety-nine to make a ‘documentary’ about it.
I learn that Ghostbusters has made so far about $44,000,000, and at IMDB its rating has risen from 4.1 to 4.6. Fairly respectable and thus not the flop once predicted. What (having only seen the trailers) I find hard to swallow is that there are or would be four women who join together – whenever did you see that (some clearly at genius level) wandering around in ill-fitting dungarees. So far as I can see, whatever women do, they like to be well-turned-out which is perhaps why you never see them getting stuck-in in sewerage work or street-cleaning. Given male interest in problems to be solved one can only suppose that if Ghosts were real and menacing that as with Video Games it would be an all-male preserve. The idea that women are physically tough and not prone to tantrums and tears is clearly part of my misogynistic fantasy though I can only wish they wouldn’t and the lack of men in the new film is only evidence of my insecurity and fear of these strong women. I will now go out for penance and in support and buy myself some high-heels and sheer pantyhose.
Opus from the land of Brexit
I learn that Ghostbusters has made so far about $44,000,000,
Eh? Opening night box was closer to $14 million, I think that $44 millio is the expected take for the entire opening weekend. Some millennials I know went to see it and found it “funny” but no idea if they ever saw the 1980’s original or not.
I will now go out for penance and in support and buy myself some high-heels and sheer pantyhose.
Gosh, it’s been years and years since I viewed that great Peter O’Toole flick, The Ruling Class, thanks for reminding me of it. Maybe a double feature with a rather red-pill Bedazzled (the Raquel Welch / Peter Cook / Dudley Moore version, natch).
Pingback: YAGBR — Yet Another Ghostbusters Bad Review | Spawny's Space
@Anon Reader
I expect that this weekend will be a success for the film in the box office. Very few films benefit from the amount of mindshare this film has received, even though much of it has been negative. Controversy tends to create interest.
But I would be surprised if that momentum can be sustained. The film is more and more being framed as a lesbian feminist triumph, which will ultimately make it less appealing to most women. As I noted above, four dumpy women in ugly jumpsuits and combat boots isn’t an image destined to delight the average woman. I don’t think the misandry itself will be the problem, as I don’t think the film is more anti male than the current culture will embrace. But the main characters are ugly, and I don’t think ultimately that will be forgiven.
As I noted above, four dumpy women in ugly jumpsuits and combat boots isn’t an image destined to delight the average woman.
Wait, you’re telling us that is NOT 3 fat broads and one fat black man? Are you sure? Really sure? Totally truly sure? Because I watched the trailers, and…are you sure?
Plus size either way, Ballbusters seems to have pretty big potential for some fat profits from the “obese, obnoxious woman” market segment, which is growing larger every day…
My bad: – it is a prediction based on yesterday. I’ll be interested to see what the British take (and it has been on show since Monday) will be. The Ruling Class/Bedazzled would perhaps be a rather lengthy double bill 154’/103′ but Bedazzled does at least have a scene at the top of The Post Office Tower – which I had earlier in this thread fantasized for a British Die Hard – serendipity.
Most Arnold Schwarzenegger movies are not feminist. Many extol the role of the father to a great degree. Also Taken all of them are the most anti politically correct statements of principle that I have seen in the public arena.
Initial tracking has kept dropping for Ghostbusters. They were thinking 50-60 million opening weekend, but it’s down to 44 mil “projection” so far. But I expect its Sunday drop off will be pretty massive. Then a 55-60% drop off next weekend. “The Secret Life of Pets” should top the weekend.
That sounds “good”, but let’s be clear, this is a massive flop. Sony is going to have dropped upwards of 300+ million into a film that won’t air in China. Unless the rest of the World, minus China, goes over 400 million USD equivalent, this is going to be a massive loss for Sony. This was supposed to be a new film Franchise; a tent-pole for Sony. This is a failure on the level that’s going to cost jobs at Sony and possibly ruin careers.
It couldn’t happen to a more worthy bunch.
@Avraham rosenblum
Taken is another franchise built on the endless courtship fantasy. Like Die Hard, the action is good so if you can get past the ejected husband/father trying to prove he is still worthy compared to the new man who replaced him they are generally enjoyable.
@ Opus
@ Looking Glass
I am hoping the Sunday drop-off is epic.
I was hoping for numbers as bad as the Fantastic 4 reboot, but this mediocre gate still means a
loss for Sony.
Sony pulled out all the stops to market this movie, because they knew they had a P.R. disaster on their hands.
Sony dropped $ 144 mm to make this disaster, and another $ 140 mm to market this turd.
Paul Feig is on record as saying Sony needs a box office somewhere north of $ 600 mm to breakeven (the theatres take their cut). That simply is NOT in the cards.
Ghostbusters made $ 3.4mm on Thursday, and $13.8mm on Friday.
The broadcast headline of $ 17.2 mm on Friday INCLUDES Thursday previews.
The opening weekend projection of $ 45 mm would seem to indicate they expect no drop off on Sunday. Which doesn’t seem plausible.
I agree with Dalrock. This dud of a movie won’t maintain it’s sales through the weekend, let alone the week.
Expect any 2nd installment of the Ghostbusters franchise in its current ‘femme fatale’ form to be put in indefinite hiatus.
I am not expecting any young girls to dress as a Ghostbuster this Halloween. Nor do I expect any to dress as an Electrician, a Plumber, or a HVAC tech. The uniform simply has no appeal to a young girl.
@Casey:
Non-kids movies have higher Friday/Saturday grosses, while the kids movies tend to have higher Saturday/Sunday. That’s why the tracking keeps going down. And this is a franchise that’s mostly US-based. And the fact the reviews are “meh” across most boards will tend to mean the word of mouth won’t be good.
This won’t be as bad as Fant-Four-Stick (I love that that name for it) because the production was more heavily controlled by the studio & there wasn’t a big fight over the movie’s direction. Plus, comedies are *all* heavily screentested to make sure at least some jokes land. (It’s amazing how much jokes in movies are down to editing more than any other part of the delivery.) And at least some of the jokes landing is enough to get people into the audience.
But this is seriously going to lose to “The Secret Life of Pets”, which is actually a very similar setup of comedy send-up. That should generally tell you how badly this is going to go for Sony.
But the China news was the nail in the coffin. Movie Studios only get back about ~35% on US ticket sales, after their direct expenses. (It’s close to about 50%, but all director/actor contracts have % on Gross because Hollywood Accounting is evil.) But Global sales are much, much higher. Depending on how it goes in China, it’s upwards of >60%. This is the reason you’ll see Fast & Furious 10 & Transformers 7 in the future. (Also, SE Asia loves Nicolas Cage. And we don’t know why!)
I used to be a pretty big cinephile, which is part of the reason I know so much about the mechanics. But, I grew up and, frankly, the culture keeps growing more childish. But the failure of Ghostbusters is going to cost jobs: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/chart/?view2=upcoming&view=company&studio=sony.htm Sony’s year looks to be horrible. Though most of their tentpoles are next year, so the top producers should be holding onto their jobs. Granted, I also didn’t realize we had a Spiderman movie coming next year.
Thanks for the info, Looking Glass, the % of box office from China is eye opening. Big movies will continue to dumb down, clearly. No limit to CGI, either. Plus as I understand it most screenwriters are under 30 now anyway, this has a lot of implications.
I wonder, do they still have desks in Hollywood to pack up after greenlighitng something like Ballbusters? Or is it just, “Get your iPad and leave”?
Wonder what the sammich budget of the film was I do…
The huge amount of buzz about the movie, even though much has been negative, will surely draw some first-weekend crowds out of curiosity to see if it’s as bad as they heard. There won’t be any long-term ticket sales generated from that.
Also, fat, obnoxious women won’t flock to it in large numbers, because they don’t like to consider themselves fat and obnoxious. They want to identify with women like the ones in Sex and the City, not with these.
@AR:
I would expect the % return that Studios get from foreign cinemas to drop over time, simply as they’ll have much more leverage in contract negotiations. But Hollywood Studios really are the only ones with both the finances & skill to pull off the world-wide smash hits.
Almost all script writers work independently these days. I’m not sure any studio actually has in-house writers anymore, but I don’t keep tabs on that type of stuff. So I don’t have direct information. TV production has staff writers, however. Though the real problem isn’t the script writers but the Producers. As their quality has dropped, things just get more generic and bland.
The both sad & funny part is that Hollywood has a massive cognitive dissonance problem. They understand what makes movies work, but they have to sell it for completely different reasons. Hollywood is big on casting diversity simply because if you don’t have a race represented in a Movie, people of that race won’t go to it. Humans relate to someone that looks like them, thus Hollywood needs a good looking White Lead, and a “diverse” supporting cast so regional minorities and Asia will watch it. (There’s also the side issue that North Asian populations view themselves as functionally “White”, so there’s a reason China is so important. Beyond just the size. Frozen was an epic hit in Japan, for instance.)
You see this even reflected in the Gender Swapped characters. Rey (from the new Star Wars) is simply a gender-swapped Male Protagonist. If she acted at all truly feminine, they’d lose their audience instantly. Humans can’t accept a female as an action hero in a realistic setting, but they have to push the Progressive line. How do you do that? Well, you remove all gendered aspects from a character. Any decent actor can pull that off. Though when a Man does it, it obviously comes off as horribly gay. But it’s believable.
Aw, c’mon Cail, where’s your faith in Strong, Independent Wymmin and their GrrrlPOWR?
I bet any number of fat, obnoxious lesbian feminists will pony up for more than one viewing just to try to pump the numbers, and once a film has got that huuuge demographic, there’s no stopping it!
Yessir, you get 50% of 2% and you got…something.
@ Cail Corishev says:
July 16, 2016 at 9:08 pm
“Also, fat, obnoxious women won’t flock to it in large numbers, because they don’t like to consider themselves fat and obnoxious. They want to identify with women like the ones in Sex and the City, not with these.”
They want to be horse-faced and obnoxious?
@Red Pill Latecomer, “I understand that. I don’t understand how impoverished, unwashed, illiterate, Muslim migrants can be attractive — i.e. Alpha — to Western women.”
The entire basis of Feminism is hatred of Western Civilization, and in the context of Feminist ideology, hatred of White men. Don’t believe me? Take it from arch-Feminist/Lesbian/Jewess Susan Sontag,
“If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization.[…]
[…]The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself. What the Mongol hordes threaten is far less frightening than the damage that Western “Faustian” man, with his idealism, his magnificent art, his sense of intellectual adventure, his world-devouring energies for conquest, has already done, and further threatens to do….”
From Susan Sontag’s collection of essays, ‘Styles of Radical Will’, 1969. Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=cHoIAP6CTkoC&lpg=PA202&dq=%22If%20America%20is%20the%20culmination%20of%20Western%20white%20civilization%22&pg=PA202#v=onepage&q&f=false
IMO, this is the veritable ‘Rosetta Stone’ of the Left. Feminism, Marxism, Post-Colonialism, LGBTnXYZ, Black Nationalism, MultiCulturalism, et al. All of it is about a visceral, obsessive hatred of the Christian, Western Civilization that White men have created over the past 3000+ years.
@ Cane Caldo
Nice. Band of Brother is a great miniseries, too.
@ Dalrock
“Taken is another franchise built on the endless courtship fantasy. Like Die Hard, the action is good so if you can get past the ejected husband/father trying to prove he is still worthy compared to the new man who replaced him they are generally enjoyable.”
I was chatting about the whole Die Hard thing with my dad the other night to get his thoughts. One thing we noticed is that the wife defends John when her coworker Ellis is bitching about how John’s screwing everything up by fighting the terrorists rather than staying put. She says John is “doing his job” and at no point thinks he should have done otherwise. McClane saves the day and saves his wife who does little else in the film. She makes one (actually funny) remark about how “only John can drive someone that crazy,” but other than that she says nothing bad about him after their initial dispute.
Honestly, when I first saw the movie in my younger, blue pill days I interpreted the story as one about an underappreciated man who demonstrates how important he is and why men like him shouldn’t be taken for granted by their wives or families.
I think the film was just a movie of its time rather than intentionally the endless courtship story that it comes off as to RP men; it portrays John too sympathetically and makes him out to be very devoted to his family.
To The Other Jim: Not all Jewish people agree with those views. She might be Jewish but feminism is not the view of the Law of Moses. Not everything Jewish people do is in accord with the law of God. She is clearly an enemy of Western civilization but that is not representative of all Jewish people nor of the Torah
“Also, fat, obnoxious women won’t flock to it in large numbers, because they don’t like to consider themselves fat and obnoxious. They want to identify with women like the ones in Sex and the City, not with these.”
They want to be horse-faced and obnoxious?
Y’know, now that I think about it, weren’t The Three Stooges one of the most successful comedy teams in cinematic history, still popular with audiences today? So why not The Three Stoogettes? Sony (which owns Columbia Pictures, the home studio of the original Stooges) would just have to find three lesbo comediennes, and VOILA! — instant success. They wouldn’t even need to write any original material for them, just recycle old plots from the classic Stooges shorts, with minor adaptations. How could this NOT be a formula for YouGoGrrrrllllll success?
@feeriker:
Because Women hitting each other for physical comedy would quickly come off as if the Apocalypse had happened. Though the reaction would be funny to watch.
Thanks to Looking Glass and Casey for their informative and interesting input.
I see that at IMDb its rating is now up (again) at 4.8%
Last night I watched the Trailer for the 1984 Ghostbusters. Call me sexist (I know you will) but as the ‘Busters arrive at the hotel – looking entirely right in their costumes – and hearing Bill Murray’s first line I knew this was a movie I would not be averse to watching – and Murray has that inexplainable authority of a movie star – which perhaps only a man, and few at that, can achieve – which tells you things are or will now be under control.
I also watched on Youtube an interesting piece about the genesis of the new ‘Busters and we know so much about it thanks to the Dear Leader and the leaked Sony E-Mails; a female head of studio allowing her Female-centric dreams to be supported by lap-dog Director Paul Feig – the John Scalzi of Film Directors. Feig clearly sees himself as or at least identifies with the unattractive man turned into the megalomanaical Ghost – could one sub-text the movie by seeing the people being turned into Ghosts as men being turned effeminate?
Pondering on this business of Movie Franchises and recalling that when I was of Movie-going age no such thing (other than Bond and perhaps The Carry-ons neither of which are, of course, American) existed, it seemed to me that these Franchise block-busters are merely modern and over-large versions of – before my time – movie serials like Buck Rogers. Franchise was for Television or as with the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes pictures, B movies: Movies were more sophisticated; a movie star, not the subject matter, would sell the picture.
America seems to have an apocalyptic view of itself as permanently under attack for which purpose a man of super-human power is needed to save the day. Serials for children are one thing, but at adults?
Rebooting this movie was a bad idea, but if you were going to do it trying a completely different angle – like hiring a female cast – was a reasonable thing to do. That was not what will kill this movie. What killed this movie was someone deciding it was a feminist movie. Kills humor. Suffocates the goal of making a good movie.
Now my guess is they made the movie and it was so bad they figured the best they could do it was by guilting SJW and letting lefties virtue signal by praising it so they introduced the feminist angle. It’s modern day damage control. It will probably be enough to keep them losing lots of money. Lots of lefties need to virtue signal.
Latest – http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-ghostbusters-no-2-911812
Funniest quote of the weekend –
“We’re ecstatic with this opening. We have successfully restarted an important brand,” said Sony’s worldwide marketing and distribution president Josh Greenstein, adding that it’s especially a win considering the controversy surrounding the film. “We have lots of room to run in the coming weeks as the big comedy in the marketplace.”
TFF!
@Kevin:
The “all our critics are sexist!” response was clearly chosen as a way to try to drum up sympathy. But the reality is that the film itself is deeply misandrist, thus it was in the original drafting of the script. For as much as Hollywood is converged, it doesn’t mean the rest of the world is as well.
But, yeah, it was clear to everyone that they didn’t “get” Ghostbusters, which is what lead to the brutal backlash against the first trailer. But the movie was always going to be an anti-male send up.
@Opus:
The Poseidon Adventures (1972) and Star Wars (1979) are the films that set the disaster genre & the “serial adventure” genres in modern films. The original Godzilla (1954) was the major progenitor of the post-Apocalyptic movie, which would set the baseline for how a lot of things would go in the Cold War.
Movies, like all art, is a creation of its time. But if someone finds a formula that’s very popular, it will be copied and refined. (The Three Musketeers is the basis of the modern action-adventure storytelling, for instance.) Thus, all of the modern movies are variations on the previous ones. And people like those movies because they, normally, aren’t polemics. Hollywood would do so dang much better if they weren’t horribly corrupt Progressives.
The Disaster Genre has moved from small scale events, to against a country to now World-wide disasters. (Mostly reflecting the reality of a global audience.) Since we live in a Globalist age, that’s what we see. I can’t say I’m a fan, but there’s a reason this stuff does really well and a lot of people like it.
Since I’m on the topic, 9/11 is what revived the Horror Genre. It was all but dead, then we lost the Twin Towers, and now you’re getting at least several horror movies each year that make a solid amount of money. These events are directly related to each other.
Let’s see. 144 million to make, plus 100 million to promote via product tie-ins, promotional materials, etc. Ghostbusters cost Sony roughly 250 million and only made an estimated 46 million in a weekend with no other studio tentpoles, losing to The Secret Life of Pets in its second week of release (only cost 75 million to make). This is a flop, especially considering that Star Trek and other new releases will cut into the movies bottom line next week.
And as far as the BS that the Sony exec is claiming; that’s what studio execs do, they lie to save face. Trust me, behind the scenes they’re panicking at the thought of having to explain why their feminist movie failed to turn a profit to their Sony overloads back in Japan. This movie is a flop, and just like Paramount had to sell off some of their property after Zoolander bombed, there will be a significant fallout. The result being that other studios reconsider green lighting any more feminist, misandric features in the future.
@BT:
My guess is that after the final numbers are in, mid-week, the Weekend take will be closer to 43-44 million. And that’s a disaster if it comes to pass. If it ends up coming in even below the lowered weekend estimate, it’ll track for an even larger drop next weekend. Which means it probably doesn’t top $100 million in the States.
The total cost is going to be north of $300 million. This was supposed to be a tentpole and a franchise starter, so there’s going to have been a lot of extra money for the further development that simply isn’t on the official budget for this movie. This isn’t Heaven’s Gate-level of disaster, but it’s going to cause massive problems for Sony. Granted, the main producer responsible got fired last year, so at least that scalp was taken already.
Expect it to cost everyone on the main billing & the director a lot of job opportunities. Feig is a niche director anyway, so he’ll just be back there. The main actresses (Wiig & McCarthy) have only 1 more bomb before their careers are over. But at least the original Ghostbusters main cast, who had much of the control of the property, will make money from this. The joy of “on Gross” payment.
Morning update: It was up at 5.0 last night on IMDb and this morning higher still at 5.1 – the original Ghostbusters at 7.8 does not exactly look catchable and Ghostbusters 2 is at 6.5 The financial results for GB are not in yet, to my disappointment (but referring back to above where I set out the number of Ghostbuster performances at my local flea-pit) I see that for the remainder of the week there are now only five standard daily performances (down from seven) whereas The Secret Life of Pets (which does not have 3D) – now in its fifth week – has six performances a day.
Picking up on Looking Glass’ observation above that movies like art are creations of their time is not the new Ghostbusters then an artistic expression of the reality of women having become now front line troops. It just isn’t however in either case very convincing. To my amazement I found (not a very good copy) that the original Ghostbusters is available for view on YouTube. It begins with a middle aged woman librarian being chased around narrow basement corridors lined by books, record cards etc and naturally she is screaming. The scene cuts to Bill Murray who is scamming a young couple and clearly with a view to sleeping with the young lady as he administers electric shocks to the man. The young man having had enough, departs. When Harold Ramis arrives to say that they are needed over at the library, Bill Murray is less than enthused. Call me sexist (again) but I can relate to that.
I went to go see this movie and didn’t find it that much entertaining. I give it a 3 out of 5 because there were some parts that were good. However the acting wasn’t all that good. The characters didn’t mesh well, IMO and everything seemed more political and stereotyped then any movie I’ve ever seen.
Note:
About every woman in the theater was cracking up so there were a lot of inside jokes and something about the Jaws mayor which I will have to go back and watch it to get a better idea of what they were talking about. There were no clear understanding of the script and the plot was a little disjointed.
This was a political move instead of a reboot. There was a point the movie was trying to get across. I absolutely hated how the receptionist was portrayed.
Opus @ July 17, 2016 at 5:26 am:
“America seems to have an apocalyptic view of itself as permanently under attack for which purpose a man of super-human power is needed to save the day.”
A superhuman disguised as a normal Joe, no less, who after performing incredible feats happily returns to the anonymous shadows. That’s the American concept of a hero: ordinary men winning extraordinary battles against leaders acting like tyrants instead of public servants, business titans abusing the freedom America allows, monstrous lawyers perverting justice into bureaucracy. Such attacks never stop and our answer is Batman not “the proper authorities”.
“Serials for children are one thing, but at adults?”
Don’t underestimate humanity’s need for good mythology. Tolkien didn’t.
@ Gunner Q says:
July 18, 2016 at 9:29 am
“Don’t underestimate humanity’s need for good mythology. Tolkien didn’t.”
The stories about Heracles, Theseus, Achilles, etc. weren’t written for children.
I think when women see Muslim men standing up to tanks and helicopters, they get the tingles for sure.
Yes, as long as the tank crews and helicopter crews back down and don’t open fire. If the protesters get gunned down, women will just dismiss them as idiot beta shitheads who should’ve stayed put instead of playing warriors, and forget about them in a second.
It’s unimaginable that men in any Western country would stand up to their own militaries like that, to be honest.
Except that the Turkish protesters weren’t standing up to their own military. They were standing up to a small and totally incompetent cadre of conspirators, answering the call of their own president, whose henchmen obviously infiltrated the conspiracy and manipulated them.
I was wondering whether in centuries to come, latter-day Americans will be saying, ‘oh yes, of course the ghostbusters really existed’ much as ancient Greeks or at least some of them believed in Heracles. Did Sherlock Holmes exist? He must have as people apparently write him letters addressed to 221b Baker Street, indeed one can go to that address and it is as it would have been when he was allegedly alive – what greater proof do you need.
The figures are in: for the weekend, Ghostbusters earned $46,000,000 in America and $19,000,000 outside America (including at the present exchange rate $8,000,000 in Britain – but America has five times the population, so pro-rata, fairly comparable figures) – thus a grand total of $65,000,000. As the break-even target is, according to the film’s director Paul Feig, half a billion dollars, there is still some way to go. Perhaps someone can help me: with DVD (downloads?) and Television showings, both terrestrial and celestial, is it ever possible for a movie to lose money?
I forgot to mention that Dalrock was quite correct in predicting a fall-off in revenue on Sunday, indeed, there was also a fall-off as early as Saturday; the takings for the three respective days (beginning Friday) amounting to $17,129,166, $16, 395,482 and $12,494,107, drops of 4.3 and 23.8%.
I am sure that my mother (big holidays treat) would have taken myself and siblings to the cinema mid-week, whilst my Father slaved over a hot-ledger. Despite its ‘U’ certificates courtesy of Lord Harlech who presided over The British Board of Film Censors, I tend to think that Lawrence of Arabia was perhaps a little too adult for children.
The Friday sales take into account early showings and the Midnight ones on Thursday, as well. Friday’s actual, normal showings was around 13 million in the States.
The final take will be between $300 & $350 million USD, world-wide, I would imagine. The film did better than any of the movies the two principal actresses have done, but it should lose closer to 50% going into the second weekend. Without China to make an easy buck, this is going to be a very nasty loss for Sony, though not bad enough to force massive changes at the Studio.
The “benefit” of the Studio System and their marketing departments is that they can always shift the amount of money a movie makes. Though it’s far more important in the bad ones than the good ones, as taking a movie from a 50 million to 25 million loss means that the big hits produce much larger amounts of profit. (There’s only so many people that will go see certain types of movies; the huge hits normally get nearly all of them.) Though the downside of avoiding those problems is that significant changes at the top of Studios don’t happen very often, which is sad. Sony & Fox seem really incapable of handling a Franchise movie properly.
But, what do you expect from people with no respect for their audience. Disney/Lucasfilms opened Star Wars Ep. 7 to all-time box office takes with no-name leads simply because the trailers showed “We get what you actually wanted! REALLY!”. Though I don’t like the direction that they’ve gone with Star Wars that much, I can’t blame people for wanting to see & enjoy it.
I was having an outdoor coffee at Pret (warmest day of the year so far) with my friend and I enquired as to whether he had been to the cinema lately. He said that he had and had seen Tarzan in 2D and was very positive about the film. I enquired whether he was going to see Ghostbusters and this is what he told me: He said he had seen the trailer (presumably at the cinema) and that the trailer did not in any way persuade him that he would want to see the full movie, in fact quite the reverse – so another woman-hating misogynist so misogynistic that last year he went to see Suffragettes – a film you could not pay me to watch, and the same goes for Made in Dagenham. He was also blaming the £10.00 for Tarzan entrance fee on Brexit – I ask you!
Couple of things bouncing through the noggin today,
Ghostballbusters for some reason has intrigued me. I think the idea and movie is bullocks (ode to Opus), then it hit me today. This movie is about 5 to 8 years to late. If it had been produced during the rise of the Obama culture, it would have been a YUGE hit. But it was not. It has been released at the begining of the next huge cultural change. Brexit. Trump. Rise of far right wing parties in Europe. Hatred of the elites, etc. This movie is the canary in the feminist coal mine! They are losing my friends, and this stinker proves it.
I believe we will look back at this movie as the time in history, when sane people finally decided that they have had enough, and rose to take back our world.
Second thing, reading comments upthread about how women are against advancement of society. Was driving through a road construction site today, and there it was. The excavator was doing his thing. The tamper was pounding the ground. Dump trucks all about, and lo and behold, who is there watching all this with intense study? A well dressed middle aged man.
It hit like a lightning bolt. I have NEVER seen a lone woman /group of women stare at any type of construction process, with any type of interest, EXCEPT, if they are watching with their male child! Otherwise it may be the forest for the trees to them.
I know that still to this day at the age of 58, I love watching these men and their machines doing their thing. It is totally a deep genetic difference in the sexes.
@ De Nihilist
Spelt Bollocks
Perceptive ideas. Put me in mind of Time Team (a three man sit-com masquerading as Serious Archaeology – I guess Archaeology is not going to be exactly big in America). I always found it fascinating as layer-by-layer they uncovered what the Romans or the Normans had done at the particular site but my girlfriend said that all she could see was mud. Oh, after about fifteen years they introduced an ethnically challenged female archaeologist. It folded the next season.
Results in for Monday: a fall-off of course’ but would one have predicted $4,906,793 a 60% drop from Sunday?
Weekdays are always quite low, with the majority of sales on the weekend. Almost 5mil on a Monday isn’t actually bad.
That Limey fag Milo with the Greek surname has been banned from Twitter for telling Leslie Jones that she is not a funny dude. [Now that’s funny] I thought that it was part of the job description for comedians to be able to deal with hecklers without resorting to crying or to the police. Does Sony need this kind of publicity?
She does look very butch but I object to the cultural appropriation: I don’t think she has even been to Wales.
I’m learning a lot this week about the business of movies: The Secret Life of Pets was down 56% on Monday but with $6,790,450. I was wondering: now that so many movies are in Franchises or Animation, is the leading man a dieing breed unable to command the high fees that they were once able to demand. Even Cruise or Depp only seem to be able to have hits in, respectively, Impossible Mission and Caribbean Pirates. I think I’d really like to see a film in 3D.
@LookingGlass
Over 300 million? Egads man!
What’s interesting to me is how much the press has continued to indirectly promote the movie via the Twitter debacle and continued click bait about about gender politics and fan boys.
Ironically, I think this is what happens when you adopt a victim narrative when promoting a film, you wind up politicizing it – not a good thing when it’s supposed to be a comedy. I think it was a mistake for Feig and the cast to call anyone who criticized the film a misogynist and that supporting the film meant you were a supporter of women/feminists. Once you politicize a film you can’t go back, and wind up dividing the audience into parties that are either for the message or against it – again not funny. Interestingly enough, this happened with Fury Road as well. The lead adopted a similar women are the victim mentality, which wound up hurting its bottom line. It was supposed to be a tent-pole and cost a fortune to make, but you don’t hear of any sequels in the works now do you?
BT @ 12:18 pm:
“Over 300 million? Egads man!”
That’s… hmm… let’s see… twenty-five movie tickets with popcorn.
Opus, noted.
Here is a review that seems to be about right –
https://www.allthink.com/1479692
@BT:
300-350 million is an disaster in the 100+ million dollar loss range. Maybe even higher, though the money from down-channel stuff might save some of the disaster. (If you’re flying International next month, expect to see it on the Movie options.)
Though the “you’re anti-Women if you don’t like this movie!” stuff was pre-planned. They were too quick with that response when they dropped a terrible trailer, and they had been courting that narrative since they announced an all-female lead cast. Which is important, as the script is likely the most bigoted Studio Film ever made. A lot of reviewers, that wouldn’t really have sympathies our ways, couldn’t even get around how hateful the script was against all of its male characters. (Amazingly enough, the only actor that will come out find from this movie is Thor, haha.) Though there’s technical story telling reasons that writers will always end up with Stupid and/or Asshole Men when they place a primarily female cast. (Because it ends up breaking the suspension of disbelief if they’re “better” than competent Men.)
As for Mad Max, the visuals were great, but George Miller is one of the hardest people to work with. Most of the cast didn’t get along and it making another seems pretty hard to pull off, at this point. Though I think the major problem there was the storytelling. While the “Mad Max” character is fairly quiet, he really wasn’t much of a protagonist in the movie. Far too much of the movie was everyone was just running and/or along for the ride. For as much discussion there was around Furiosa, it’s Nicholas Hoult’s “Nux” (the “what a lovely day” guy) that’ll be remembered. But, man, was some of the effects amazing. Oh, and blind flame-shooting guitar guy. Whoever came up with that deserved their Oscar.
But the comparison needs to be made to the first “300”, which did far greater box-office, several years before, with an R-rating, lots of violence and an amazing Art Direction. “300” had a traditional narrative, memorable performances and a classic Pro-Civilization message. Which had a much better stay in the cultural memory?
I was just looking at the British figures for last weekend and to my surprise Ice Age and in its third week was the most successful movie grossing £3,900,00 for the weekend. Ghostbusters trailing in second with a gross of £2,700,000 and thus overtaking Life of Pets with just £2,000,00 but in its fourth week. In fifth place however was Absolutely Fabulous (commonly known as AbFab) which in its third week had grossed in total since release £13,600,000. AbFab (written and directed by females) has an almost all-female cast and like Ghostbusters one piece of male eye-Candy but no controversy surrounds the picture. It certainly seems strange to me that a commercial organisation, I mean Sony, whose ultimate purpose is making money should go out-on-a-limb to upset many of its core audience and then insult that audience for disliking the finished product.
Although there have always been remakes; one William Shakespeare has had more films made from his writings than anyone else, it does appear to me that Hollywood (and Pinewood – AbFab is after all a reboot of a thirty year old TV sit-com) is plagarising itself, but sooner or later people will tire of what is essentially the same product. It was not like that when I was of cinema-going age – all those Sword and Sandal epics and Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals and the best best best best mad world comedy ever made .
The Friday July 22nd estimate figure for Ghostbusters is a paltry $ 6.2 million. This is a 68% drop over the previous Friday’s gate. To be fair, that figure included Thursday opening previews.
Even after removing Thursday previews, it’s still a 55% drop over the opening Friday.
This is an unmitigated disaster for Sony, and there is no way this film will be profitable when the final damage is tallied. As stated by Paul Feig, Sony needs somewhere in the vicinity of $ 600 million gross box office to break even.
This is a dismal showing for a 2nd Friday screening of a $ 144 million budget film. Not to mention the $ 100 to 150 million in marketing this turd.
They are still marketing this thing in the previews one week after the opening weekend. That is rare, and smells of REAL desperation.
Currently pulling in $ 1,564 per screen (with 2 to 4 showings per screen daily) that works out to somewhere between 40 and 78 attendees per showing at $ 10/ticket. That is a movie theatre that is well over half-empty on a Friday night.
Expect the # of screens to be half of what they currently are on Friday July 29th. It simply isn’t pulling in enough per showing.
Sony & Paul Feig expected women to fill the financial void of disenfranchised devote Ghostbusters fans with this feminist driven franchise.
Not to mention the piss-poor storyline…….it is truly awful writing that couldn’t be salvaged even if the original cast was billed to act out this garbage.
Feel the burn Sony & Paul Feig.
This is what happens when you flip-off your fan base.
Couldn’t have happened to a better bunch.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=ghostbusters2016.htm
I figure I should actually link where I get all of my numbers information.
Roughly a $21.6 million weekend. After 2 weekends, around $86 mil in the USA.
This puts the upper USA take (25% of gross is the Opening Weekend) at $184 million.
Lower bound is going to be around $121 million (assuming a 38% as Opening Weekend vs Total Domestic Gross).
It’s still looking to be a loss on the $100 million range, by the time its done.
@ Looking Glass
The insults on top of injury just keep coming for Ghostbusters.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
It ranked # 5 this past weekend, coming in behind a horror film ‘Lights Out’ which has a $ 4.9 million budget.
That’s not a typo………a $ 4.9 million dollar budget.
I expect Sony will not be gracious about this box office flop.
When the time comes to dissect this mess, every excuse (but not the real reason) will be invoked to cast blame.
I’ll sum up your 8 critical missteps for you Sony:
1) You disappointed your fan base with your direction
2) You dismissed all criticism of your intended direction
3) You didn’t ‘pass on the torch’ from one generation to the next
4) You delivered a shoddy, male bashing, mediocre turd……and called it a movie.
5) You told your fan base to go fuck themselves
6) You told your fan base to go fuck themselves
7) You told your fan base to go fuck themselves
8) You told your fan base to go fuck themselves
When the time comes to dissect this mess, every excuse (but not the real reason) will be invoked to cast blame.
Expect them to double down on the failure and release another even smellier SJW-inspired turd in the future as soon as they recover from the kick-in-the-nuts loss from Ghostbusters.. They’ll probably fund it by stealing money from something else that’s a runaway success (if such a thing any longer exists at Sony Pictures).
Looking Glass, Casey, thanks very much for continuing to document the ongoing Ballbusters train wreck.
I need to start getting popcorn before looking at the comment stream. It’s that entertaining.
Schadenfreude is not a luxury I generally engage in, but this is a special case.
@Casey:
Well, the Producer at Sony responsible got canned last year, so they’ll relegate most of the fault to her. Then they’ll chalk it up as “not funny enough”. Feig won’t see a budget above $80 million again in his career.
But, frankly, the major problem Hollywood has had for years is they ran off literally everyone with any ethics a long, long time ago. So the only way most properties translate well to the big screen is if one of the Producers is originally a fan of the source material. It’s fascinatingly sad how simple most of the problems Hollywood has are to solve.
Or, maybe it’s just easier to think of nearly all Producers as 6th graders that never grew up. That explains most of their problems.
@Looking Glass
Why Sony trusted Feig with the Ghostbusters franchise is baffling to me.
I assume it’s because he produced mediocre hits starring Melissa McCarthy……and Sony had already decided to take the franchise towards a feminist bent.
Even Feig has expressed concern he’ll be sent back to the minor league for directors because of a ‘failure to launch’ of this franchise.
As Dalrock has stated previously, feminism requires a MASSIVE pumping operation to keep up the façade. The moment the pumps are turned off, reality comes flooding back.
That’s what has happened with Ghostbusters. Enough men turned off the pumps, and replied with a ‘Fuck you too!’ towards at Sony/Feig.
Women on their own couldn’t maintain the façade, and the franchise flopped.
@Casey:
Producer Amy Pascal had a hard-on for removing Ivan Reitman (directed both Ghostbusters) and replacing him with Paul Feig. That was, apparently from the Sony Emails, the biggest hold up for the previous few years.
Though, it always starts with Control issues. Then, Mrs. Pascal simply wanted to do the Feminist Territory marking. But things went so badly she was canned a year before the movie released (though most of principal photography was already done).
Good Producers really are extremely hard to find.
Are women funny? By chance I have been watching an old movie starring Bob Hope in which he is joined by Phyllis Diller as his maid, Marjorie Lord as his wife and Elke Sommer as a Bridget Bardot like moviestar – and Diller does not necessarily have the weirdest haircut! Diller however desperately she tries to mock her appearance is just not funny but Sommer – was there ever an actress with more ice-cool looks – is actually pretty funny especially after she takes some sleeping -pills but then she is not making fun of the fact that she is female and the jokes fit naturally into the story.
I see that after two weeks of distribution Ghostbusters has receipts of $96,371,471 and foreign takings of $36,164,353 making a grand total so far of $132,535,824, that is to say about $12,000,000 short of its estimated production cost of $144,000,000. At my local flee-pit it has now been relegated to just two 2D performances a day. Oh dear.
Looks to be about 9.8 million dollars this weekend, bringing the State-side total to 106 million through 3 weeks. This looks on track for 120-130 million as a final take in the States.
This epic disaster couldn’t have happened to a nicer group of evil fools.
There was a movie about a comet that was directed by a woman under the direction and advice of Steven Spielberg that was very good. It was not feminist but it was done with great talent. I think the name was Deep Impact. Very beautiful and powerful.
This post did make me buy and watch the original again. Women can enjoy one another’s company, but just have a hard time duplicating the chemistry that can come naturally to a group of men. I think it bugs them.
After twenty-two days of release and after its fourth Friday Ghostbusters has now grossed $113,246,936 having pocketed $1,335,000 yesterday (Friday). The foreign take amounts to $51,705,399 – so far. Will it still be on release Stateside after next Thursday? There are still a few foreign markets such as France and Germany where it has yet to tout its ware.
It is of interest to me that the former Crown Colony (on an expired 99 year lease and now by effluxion of time part of China) has been exhibiting the movie. Hong Kong where it has in two weeks grossed $1,419,425 thus appears to operate under different rules from the rest of China where it falls foul of China’s rules as to respect for ancestors and where it will thus not be viewed.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=ghostbusters2016.htm
And the absolute disaster is confirmed. It’ll top out below $125 million in the States and probably around $200 million Worldwide gross. Unless they had some weird production deals happening, this is going to badly impact Sony’s revenue on the year. It’ll be interesting to see if their filings on the year show how much. But we probably won’t see that information until late this year/early next year.
I have been following and on a daily basis the fate of this film. If I understand BoxOffice Mojo correctly, yesterday, after fifty-six days of continuous theatrical exhibition Stateside it is no longer being shown. It’s final take as Looking Glass’s ballpark figure so accurately predicted amounts to $126.792,895. In addition to its American take it has so far grossed $98,001,979 overseas, so that looks to me (quick calculation) like a loss of about twenty million dollars plus the cost of advertising which must for such an expensive movie have been considerable.
Correction: a thirty million dollar loss, and marketing costs, what, fifty or sixty million?
Having also followed on Boxoffice Mojo the disaster – to my surprise – of the new Ben Hur* and then the so-so new Morgan (not, a suitable case for treatment – sadly – oh come on, Vanessa Redgrave was given an Oscar for it) I will now be intrigued by the new Bridget Jones. In this third and surely last outing for the character forty-seven year old Zellweger has a baby and without first obtaining, the benefit of clergy. I cannot say regrettably that this sort of thing is even in my experience unknown. Replacing Hugh Grant with an American – no matter how hunky – however, for me, makes it unwatchable – and then I forget that Zellweger is American – but she is great as she gets the right sort of accent just right. Americans in British movies so often look out of place no matter their star quality – what was Richard Widmark doing or supposed to be doing in London for To the Devil a Daughter? Perhaps Dalrock will have something to say about Bridget. Funnier than Ghostbusters, I would say, and more like Lucille Ball as everything always goes wrong for Bridget though inexplicably hot-guys want her at least for short time love. That bit rather stretches believability. Feminist without being in your face. A budget of $35k should ensure a profit though it won’t achieve that without American success.
*Never seen any cinematic version but have read the novel one and a bit times.