Ghostbusters: Afterlife

[Gray2233]

The 2016 movie bombed because it was objectively crap and the social media presence shared by the cast and production team had an anti-male sentiment.

The original movie is a classic, still stands up well today imo. It's from an era you possibly need to have had some connection with to understand, but honestly I don't entirely think that's the case as I've younger relatives who absolutely love it. Comedy has shifted a lot since then unfortunately, and I think a lot of younger people are conditioned to assume anything that mocks or makes fun is automatically bad. A lot of people are utterly incapable of being accountable or critical of themselves now, and I genuinely think that plays into it. Much like the outrage on 'social media' a little while ago over the tv show Friends, which was mild as mild could be back in the 90's.

 

[b00merang69]

No such thing as a homophobe, made up modern PC word.

I saw the original movies in the cinema but skipped the last junk (I did watch the trailers) and will keep my eye on this one.

 

[Gerard]

No such thing as a homophobe, made up modern PC word.

I saw the original movies in the cinema but skipped the last junk (I did watch the trailers) and will keep my eye on this one.

The first trailer pretty much sunk the 2016 movie, badly edited and it referenced the first movie as if it was carrying on from those events. It's like whoever made the trailer didn't know what the movie was supposed to be, a continuation or a reboot. Then by the time the second trailer hit people had already made up their minds and the "anti female" rhetoric was blown out of all proportion with Sony selectively deleting comments on the trailer to try and skew what was going on.

 

[b00merang69]

They say "You cannot judge a book by its cover" In my quite long (living) experience I'd say at least 9/10 I can.


This says it all:

 

[ianh]

The 2016 movie bombed because it was objectively crap and the social media presence shared by the cast and production team had an anti-male sentiment..

Thats the main reason. If it'd been a great movie then the negative SM about the fans would have had little to no effect overall.

 

[Gray2233]

Thats the main reason. If it'd been a great movie then the negative SM about the fans would have had little to no effect overall.

Agreed.

The garbage going in from social media, marketing, whatever, would ultimately have been overwhelmed by simply presenting a good movie.

Same thing is happening right now with the Charlies Angels reboot, it's just a crap movie that nobody is all that interested in. Yet it's being presented as a huge affront to women by the director. Even feminist outlets aren't impressed, they struggle to call it average and it's obvious in their reviews.

 

[b00merang69]

Why are we not allowed to dislike/hate a Movie/TV show?

I have seen cast of TV shows (GoT for one) and movies up in arms over fans comments about there content.

I think the fans can like or dislike what they want and if the highly/overpaid paid actors do not like, it then get another job in McD's or stacking shelf's in ADSA and see how they get on in the real world.

They have no right/entitlement for everyone to like their content esp when today's is 90%+ crap.

 

[Gerard]

If movies would be movies and stop trying to push agendas or ride bandwagons \ trends into the ground they'd be better for it.

 

[Scam]

I never saw the all women Ghostbusters but I'm still amazed at the outrage.

I went to an film industry security event a few years ago and saw a very interesting talk showing how russian trolls infected the online discussion of the movie before even the first trailer dropped. They made the whole conversation about the apparent "agenda" of removing men, how offensive that is to me etc. Basically stirring outrage. It's still impressive to see how those "opinions" are still being banded around years later.

I honestly can't find the presentation anywhere but it was done by a company specialising in uncovering/proving social media manipulation and there was plenty of evidence to back it up.

Best I can find is bizzarely from the DM when they attempted the same for the Last Jedi: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-Star-Wars-Jedi-weaponize-negative-buzz.html

 

[ianh]

I went to an film industry security event a few years ago and saw a very interesting talk showing how russian trolls infected the online discussion of the movie before even the first trailer dropped. They made the whole conversation about the apparent "agenda" of removing men, how offensive that is to me etc. Basically stirring outrage. It's still impressive to see how those "opinions" are still being banded around years later.

The "outrage" was just a few thousand twitter/youtube people at most spread across the globe. The amount of outrage that "normal" people actually saw reported was very minimal unless you actively looked for it. So what sunk the film wasn't this relatively small amount of SM outrage compared to the number of people who actually went to see it, instead it was these two main reasons -

1. It was a film that a surprisingly large amount of people just didn't want to see remade and who therefore wouldn't pay to watch it even if it was the best film ever, and......

2. Those that did want to watch it mostly (but not totally) found to be a poorly made film, leading to masses of negative reviews, which just put off more people.

In the end whilst the negative SM did have a part to play, the amount of outrage actually raised (which may have prevented people who did want to see it from going to watch it anyway) was absolutely tiny, as the "outrage" was mainly created by and for people who were never going to see the film anyway.

 

[aardvark]

Thats the main reason. If it'd been a great movie then the negative SM about the fans would have had little to no effect overall.

yep

 

[IvanDobskey]

Oh joy, another one of these

Bound to be full of SJW bs and about as funny as root canal surgery.

 

[ElliorR]

It's based around the original movies (it's their grandkids) rather than that abortion from a few years back and it has Carrie ****, count me in.

Not just Carrie **** but also Paul Rudd. I'll watch it but it'll be a case of low expectations and a small hope that it's actually good.

 

[Marsman]

Oh joy, another one of these

Bound to be full of SJW bs and about as funny as root canal surgery.

We'll see, but I'm willing to give it a chance given the people involved. If it were a sequel to the 2016 film, then I'd totally agree.

 

[Gerard]

Oh joy, another one of these

Another? 4 movies in 35 years is hardly pushing the boat out, 1 a failed reboot and this one continuing the story of the first 2. We've had 3 marvel movies this year alone ffs.

 

[Tombstone]

One of the best things for me about this is that Oliver Cooper is in it. He was utterly superb in the brilliant tv show Red Oaks. Always thought he should break the big time, so I'm really glad to see him getting a role in this.

 

[Scam]

So what sunk the film wasn't this relatively small amount of SM outrage compared to the number of people who actually went to see it, instead it was these two main reasons -

There was outrage well before the film came out. The whole point of the trolling was to make the whole discussion about the "outrage" and it worked. The whole conversation was about it being female-led, how terrible that is.. once they got that argument swirling there was no way back. The way the trolls worked was to simply change the nature of the conversation. The film could never stand on it's own merit once you had so many loud voices arguing about the feminism, or not, or misogyny, or not.

1. It was a film that a surprisingly large amount of people just didn't want to see remade and who therefore wouldn't pay to watch it even if it was the best film ever, and......

That I would agree with, hence (from what I remember) it didn't do very well at the BO.

2. Those that did want to watch it mostly (but not totally) found to be a poorly made film, leading to masses of negative reviews, which just put off more people.

That's not really true though. I'm not going to drag up links to reviews but for example Kermode addresses the whole trolls thing, and says how in comparison, actually most reviews were actually very positive.

In the end whilst the negative SM did have a part to play, the amount of outrage actually raised (which may have prevented people who did want to see it from going to watch it anyway) was absolutely tiny, as the "outrage" was mainly created by and for people who were never going to see the film anyway.

Partly true. It's not so much the "outrage" that the trolls and bots created, they just managed the make the whole conversation about the outrage, and that's why they won. Even now, that's all people remember about the film.

The "outrage" was just a few thousand twitter/youtube people at most spread across the globe.

Yet it was initially begun by Russian bots. People don't know how to form their own opinion nowadays.. if you're slightly misogynist and don't like the sound of an all-female Ghostbusters, you might hold your tongue until you actually see it. Yet if you see thousands of bot-opinions (not knowing they're bots), that are targeted at you, saying the same thing, you might decide to join in and voice your own. Hence, the snowball effect.

I'm not trying to argue either way, I never even saw the film... I just think everyone should be a little more aware of social media manipulation - especially with regards to our election!

 

[ianh]

I'm not trying to argue either way, I never even saw the film... I just think everyone should be a little more aware of social media manipulation

I agree, I'm just not sure that in this single case that many of the "general public" who did want to see the film were genuinely put off from seeing it just because of a SM campaign.

 

[PC777]

People didn't like the 2016 Ghostbusters because it was so obviously designed to wantonly change the very fundamentals of a beloved movie franchise that was still fresh in many viewers' hearts and minds.

No one really cared it was all women, what people cared about it was so obviously forced together by numbers with a fat character and a loud black one who was way more regressive a portrayal than the understated and just plain believable character of Winston Zedmore from 1984.

Winston Zedmore from 1984 was a great character that didn't rely on any stereotypes or making any stupid jokes, he was a really great character who just so happened to be black and was one of my favourite characters as a 10 user old kid watching it. They did a better job of giving him a believable tone than they did with Leslie Jones 30 years later who seems to have been disrespectfully cast as fat, loud comic relief. He was a quiet, intelligent character who didn't speak much but when he did it really meant something.

Leslie Jone' character is an absolute disgrace compared to the refined, calm, cool and collected character of Winston Zedmore.

Most 'woke' movies are actually regressive as they stereotype and add characters purely to tick boxes and fill quotas.

'Woke' 2016 Ghostbusters was way more offensive it its portrayal of black people as being fat comic relief than the original one was.

 

[Grandmaster Fap!]

So official GB3 at last, i just wish Murray hadnt dragged his heels so much to the point we lost Ramis before it was made. Although im sure they will do some CGI to bring him back in some fashion even if its just to honour him.