GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

ShakerMaker91

ShakerMaker91 wrote:

I really hope this film bombs, Sony apologies to the fans for this complete mess of a film and the next Ghostbusters film will be called Ghostbusters 3

The sense of entitlement from fan boys is beyond pathetic. I hope that Sony forges ahead with a sequel to this reboot and tells fanboys where they can stick their opinions. What in the world makes you think that you or other fanboys out there deserve an apology? Were you involved in productions of the original film and refused input to this modern reboot?

This idea that the viewer has a personal stake in the media they consume is beyond ridiculous. It's part of the modern sense of entitlement that has neutered big budget cinema. Constant reshoots and retroactive changes to existing products so as to make "fans" happy results in bland fare such as the Marvel film universe. Get over yourself and stop feeling like cinema owes you something

MilesMorales1

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

I really hope this film bombs, Sony apologies to the fans for this complete mess of a film and the next Ghostbusters film will be called Ghostbusters 3

Christ almighty. Take a break.

ps3lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Constant reshoots and retroactive changes to existing products so as to make "fans" happy results in bland fare such as the Marvel film universe. Get over yourself and stop feeling like cinema owes you something

Well, movie making IS a business and all this is business decisions. Look at the sheer amount of money the Marvel movies bring in and don't you argue tooth and nail that studios making money is the ONLY important thing? So it's the it better to get 1000s of bland movies that make money?

wp_rathead

The trailer made this film look absolute SH1TE. Saw it there and thought it was gas- I liked the originals but didn't grow up with them like some people.
However I went with my housemate who was a massive Ghostbuster fan growing up and he was very skeptical going in
He also thought it was really enjoyable - totally different to originals but enjoyable in its own right

It was basically the movie Spy with ghosts- alot of fun

ps3lover

ps3lover wrote:

Well, movie making IS a business and all this is business decisions. Look at the sheer amount of money the Marvel movies bring in and don't you argue tooth and nail that studios making money is the ONLY important thing? So it's the it better to get 1000s of bland movies that make money?

The only thing important to the studios is making money, and while Ghostbusters will hardly be a smash hit, it will make a nice profit and the goodwill its earned the studio from everyone bar fanboys is worth a considerable amount.

Marvel films would still make money if they took risks, say what you will about the DC films to date but at least they weren't afraid to try something new.

The way in which fanboys feel the need to speak their minds and try to dictate to studios is due to a sense of entitlement that's gone beyond a joke. Fanboys were slating Ghostbusters from the first announcement of an all female cast and even with most considering the film to be rather good, there's still a huge element writing the film off sight unseen. Maybe for he next film the studio should just go on forum boards and ask the "fans" what they want,I'm sure that the results would be the safest,most generic and boring film ever made as that's what fans want. They don't want to be challenged in any way, just served up the same familiar formula time after time.

I think that it's great that young girls have a film with strong female characters and hope to see many more. Boys have dozens of strong role models in cinema each year while girls draw the short straw. I would love to see Marvel give us some strong female led films but given that it would make grown men cry about their childhoods being ruined, it's not going to happen any time soon.

It's a little strange how kids, both boys and girls have no problem with the casting. My little brother is genuinely excited for the film and can't understand why people are so upset over the casting. He just assumes that people are "stupid" and he's not wrong.

There's so much in the world to worry about and get angry at, the casting in a Hollywood remake should be pretty on any list. But hey, when you live in a world where you have people getting killed by some scumbag in a truck or being killed while going to the shop, it's nice to know that for many, casting a female in a role originated by a man is a far more pressing concern than all else. People have little to be worrying about

ShakerMaker91

If people want a sequel to this and think this kind of slapstick lowest common denominator Adam Sandler esk comedy is the way foward for Ghostbusters I'll have lost all faith in humanity

MilesMorales1

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

If people want a sequel to this and think this kind of slapstick lowest common denominator Adam Sandler esk comedy is the way foward for Ghostbusters I'll have lost all faith in humanity

Do you have nothing better to do than endlessly insult a film you probably haven't seen, given how much your insulting it and how little your saying anything of actual substance?

wp_rathead

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

If people want a sequel to this and think this kind of slapstick lowest common denominator Adam Sandler esk comedy is the way foward for Ghostbusters I'll have lost all faith in humanity

like what the fnck does that even mean

ShakerMaker91

I care about Ghostbusters unlike some all I wanted was a new Ghostbusters film which saw the original crew pass the torch to a new crew made up of men and women. Was that so much to ask of Sony? I don't think that's being too entitled is it? A bit of fan service for genuine fans of the franchise?

Arghus

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Mad Max:Fury Road was an intense revival of a cult level success and was R rated in the States and 16 to 18s in most territories, Ghostbusters is a 12A broad comedy reboot of a famous film

Of course.

Mad Max was a harder sell, in some ways - though it did have overwhelmingly positive press when it was released, which didn't hurt it I'm sure. I think the PR campaign for Ghostbusters has been mixed and there has been a lot of negativity surrounding the film from the green light onwards.

My point was that if you look back, for instance, at the thread for for Fury Road, next to no-one had anything to say one way or the other about the film's chances of eventually turning a profit after the first weekends results were out - It wasn't part of the conversation. Most people probably didn't care, I reckon.

But yet in the case of Ghostbusters already there are numerous voices lining up to deem it a financial failure: even though it's budget/first weekend take ratio is nearly identical to a film we all, rightly, lauded last year. To me it feels a lot like people are queuing up to jump the gun in this case and using early box office numbers as some sort of smoking gun that invalidates the film as a whole. Which forces me to wonder: would any other movie get the same treatment?

Christy42

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

I care about Ghostbusters unlike some all I wanted was a new Ghostbusters film which saw the original crew pass the torch to a new crew made up of men and women. Was that so much to ask of Sony? I don't think that's being too entitled is it? A bit of fan service for genuine fans of the franchise?

Would you have complained about an all male cast?

ShakerMaker91

ShakerMaker91 wrote:

If people want a sequel to this and think this kind of slapstick lowest common denominator Adam Sandler esk comedy is the way foward for Ghostbusters I'll have lost all faith in humanity

If I was one of those grown men crying about the new film I'd have to ask a user whose name has 91 at the end of it, are you even a real fan? the real fans were the ones who saw it in the cinema and not at some stage in the 90s.

ShakerMaker91 wrote:

I care about Ghostbusters unlike some all I wanted was a new Ghostbusters film which saw the original crew pass the torch to a new crew made up of men and women. Was that so much to ask of Sony? I don't think that's being too entitled is it? A bit of fan service for genuine fans of the franchise?

I like the original film and the sequel, I grew up watching them and enjoy revisiting them from time to time but I'm an adult and as such couldn't care less what they do with the franchise. I've better things to worry about than the evil feminist agenda of this film which is an attack on men or some such nonsense.

It's weird that all those people who saw it in the cinema aren't crying about this reboot. It's generally 25-30 year old cry babies who were too young to see the film in cinemas who are so aggrieved. Maybe those who saw it upon it's original release have became adults and have genuine things to worry about and also, don't look at women at somehow unworthy of starring in a film about people who hunt ghosts

ps3lover

I don't really get the hatred for the girls. I thought the cast looked fine, it was the movie that looked really bad and Sony must have agreed as they fired their marketing department over this movie.
Personally I prefer female leads to male leads. That's why I love the Underworld and Resident Evil films, all of them feature strong female leads. I usually prefer horror films that have a female lead rather than a male lead, male leads are usually so boring (Ash being the exception).
Personally I would love to see a female lead superhero movie, unfortunately history has not been kind to them (Supergirl, Elektra and Catwoman Spring to mind, unfortunate as Catwoman was great in Batman Returns). So far the best solo outing (that I can think of) is Jessica Jones on Netflix.
The main thing keeping me away for Ghostbusters is the stigma that if you hate it, you hate woman, so why take the change of being labelled a mysoginist just because you didn't like a movie.
I'll probably catch it when it hits Netflix and all the heat has died down, when you can have an opinion on it without being labelled.

Meangadh

I'm starting to think ShakerMaker91 hasn't even seen the original two movies, but simply picked on this thread thinking "I'm going to just bitch about this film for the craic and see what happens cos I'm a gas fecker altogether, lol".

Jesus, in the time he's spent posting here, he would have the film seen 3 times over. I really cannot understand why someone would persist with posting in a thread about a film they haven't even seen, unless it was to keep trolling.

To be honest, whether it's trolling or it's genuinely complaining about a movie he hasn't even seen, it's cringeworthy at this stage.

wp_rathead

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

I care about Ghostbusters unlike some all I wanted was a new Ghostbusters film which saw the original crew pass the torch to a new crew made up of men and women. Was that so much to ask of Sony? I don't think that's being too entitled is it? A bit of fan service for genuine fans of the franchise?

A bit of fan service like:

having cameos from Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver, Dan Aykroyd and Annie Potts as well as a Giant Marshmellow man and even Slimer

johnny_ultimate

Mod note: ShakerMaker will no longer be posting in this thread. Please resume your normal discourse.

Mickeroo

ps3lover wrote: »

I don't really get the hatred for the girls. I thought the cast looked fine, it was the movie that looked really bad and Sony must have agreed as they fired their marketing department over this movie.
Personally I prefer female leads to male leads. That's why I love the Underworld and Resident Evil films, all of them feature strong female leads. I usually prefer horror films that have a female lead rather than a male lead, male leads are usually so boring (Ash being the exception).
Personally I would love to see a female lead superhero movie, unfortunately history has not been kind to them (Supergirl, Elektra and Catwoman Spring to mind, unfortunate as Catwoman was great in Batman Returns). So far the best solo outing (that I can think of) is Jessica Jones on Netflix.
The main thing keeping me away for Ghostbusters is the stigma that if you hate it, you hate woman, so why take the change of being labelled a mysoginist just because you didn't like a movie.
I'll probably catch it when it hits Netflix and all the heat has died down, when you can have an opinion on it without being labelled.

I don't think anyone posting a negative opinion of the film will be labeled anything if they've actually watched it and post actual reasons why they didn't like it.

Harry Palmr

Arghus wrote: »

Of course.

Mad Max was a harder sell, in some ways - though it did have overwhelmingly positive press when it was released, which didn't hurt it I'm sure. I think the PR campaign for Ghostbusters has been mixed and there has been a lot of negativity surrounding the film from the green light onwards.

My point was that if you look back, for instance, at the thread for for Fury Road, next to no-one had anything to say one way or the other about the film's chances of eventually turning a profit after the first weekends results were out - It wasn't part of the conversation. Most people probably didn't care, I reckon.

But yet in the case of Ghostbusters already there are numerous voices lining up to deem it a financial failure: even though it's budget/first weekend take ratio is nearly identical to a film we all, rightly, lauded last year. To me it feels a lot like people are queuing up to jump the gun in this case and using early box office numbers as some sort of smoking gun that invalidates the film as a whole. Which forces me to wonder: would any other movie get the same treatment?

Oh I take that point, clearly plenty want GB 2016 to fail, including me but because it's yet another needless remake/reboot/rehash and for the same reason I cheered a bit that Terminator 5/6/whatever and Independence Day 2 have both fallen well short as did Robo Cop as did the Thing and in fact almost every other attempt to re-invent the wheel in the last couple of years.

ps3lover

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't think anyone posting a negative opinion of the film will be labeled anything if they've actually watched it and post actual reasons why they didn't like it.

Try telling that to James Rolfe, he did a calm reasonable (yet admittedly pointless) video as to why he had no interest in seeing it and suddenly he became the poster boy for women hating. Yet Comicbookgirl19 does a video where she told people to boycott the movie and nothing was said about her.

Cartman78

Went to see this the other night (hadn't see any trailers, read a couple of reviews)....but was aware of the lukewarm response and a lot of general negativity

Was pleasantly surprised I have to say as was expecting a borderline car crash.

It won't live long in the memory or stand up to multiple re-watching but suited us perfectly on Saturday (tired parents of 2 small kids who haven't been to the cinema in months :pac:)

There was a LOT of nods to the original - some were quite subtle and clever, others were very very obvious and clunky (

the one with the graffiti artist in the subway station was really overdone imho....would have been perfect if the camera just panned back and showed the logo, rather than having one of the characters whipping out an phone, taking a picture and saying out loud "Is it just me or would that make a good logo"

)

Overall, an enjoyable couple of hours and not too taxing on the brain

smash

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't think anyone posting a negative opinion of the film will be labeled anything if they've actually watched it and post actual reasons why they didn't like it.

What about those who don't want to watch it, and have given reasons why they don't want to watch it?

MilesMorales1

smash wrote: »

What about those who don't want to watch it, and have given reasons why they don't want to watch it?

Then that's fine as well. Unless it's endlessly posting about how much they want to watch a movie they have no intention of seeing fail, or tin foil hat conspiracy theories.

Sad Professor

smash wrote: »

What about those who don't want to watch it, and have given reasons why they don't want to watch it?

Then they don't watch it.

Mickeroo was referring to a user who just posting over and over and over and over again about how he thought the film was crap while having no intention of going to see it and insulting everyone who had seen it and had a non-negative opinion of it.

When we only had a trailer to go on it was fine to argue over the premise of the remake. But the film is out a week now. It's put up or shut up time. Everyone who feels strongly about the film should see it or forget about it.

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

The sense of entitlement from fan boys is beyond pathetic. I hope that Sony forges ahead with a sequel to this reboot and tells fanboys where they can stick their opinions. What in the world makes you think that you or other fanboys out there deserve an apology? Were you involved in productions of the original film and refused input to this modern reboot?

This idea that the viewer has a personal stake in the media they consume is beyond ridiculous. It's part of the modern sense of entitlement that has neutered big budget cinema. Constant reshoots and retroactive changes to existing products so as to make "fans" happy results in bland fare such as the Marvel film universe. Get over yourself and stop feeling like cinema owes you something

Is this really a fair way of looking at it though?

Why shouldn't fans be emotionally invested in the future or continued success of a thing that they like?

I'm sure everyone has their favourite restaurant or football team or band and so on. I'm sure some people have invested a lot into the success of their favourite things by purchasing products and by spreading positive messages about those things. People often complain loudly when something they like, and have invested in, gets changed.

You are essentially arguing for people to not care without really taking the time out to understand WHY they care.

This is by far the most interesting discussion to emerge from the Ghostbusters reboot. Do the creators of media owe the fans anything at all? Or can they do whatever they like with the franchise?

Look at it this way. Ghostbusters will be a financial success mostly based on the title of the movie. However, this situation is facilitated by the previous success of the original movie. So the people who bought Videos and DVDs and merchandise, and who kept the hype about Ghostbusters 3 simmering, actually contributed to the market value of the Ghostbusters IP. Right?

So the creators of the new movie are saying that they want to cash in on the hype created by fans of the original BUT they also don't want to service those fans. That seems like a very odd way of doing things. Actually it seems like a really mean spirited attitude.

Look at the Star Wars prequels. Imagine if those movies were released without the Star Wars label. Would they even be released? Would the screenplays even be optioned? I doubt it.

They capitalised on the goodwill, support and continued hype from long term fans and then cashed that in while giving the fans a big middle finger.

What about if this movie was released without the "Ghostbusters" brand and history behind it? We'll never know but I think we can make some safe assumptions.

Most people will go to see this film because it has the label "Ghostbusters". That label is worth something because of the continued investment of fans. The movie wants to make the most of the value of the label while telling the people who created that value to go away.

OK anyone sincerely claiming that a movie "ruined my childhood" is a clown but I have a hard time saying all of the angry fans are in the wrong. To be honest, I can kind of see their point.

orubiru

orubiru wrote: »

Is this really a fair way of looking at it though?

Why shouldn't fans be emotionally invested in the future or continued success of a thing that they like?

I'm sure everyone has their favourite restaurant or football team or band and so on. I'm sure some people have invested a lot into the success of their favourite things by purchasing products and by spreading positive messages about those things. People often complain loudly when something they like, and have invested in, gets changed.

You are essentially arguing for people to not care without really taking the time out to understand WHY they care?

This is by far the most interesting discussion to emerge from the Ghostbusters reboot. Do the creators of media owe the fans anything at all? Or can they do whatever they like with the franchise?

Look at it this way. Ghostbusters will be a financial success mostly based on the title of the movie. However, this situation is facilitated by the previous success of the original movie. So the people who bought Videos and DVDs and merchandise, and who kept the hype about Ghostbusters 3 simmering, actually contributed to the market value of the Ghostbusters IP. Right?

So the creators of the new movie are saying that they want to cash in on the hype created by fans of the original BUT they also don't want to service those fans. That seems like a very odd way of doing things. Actually it seems like a really mean spirited attitude.

Look at the Star Wars prequels. Imagine if those movies were released without the Star Wars label. Would they even be released? Would the screenplays even be optioned? I doubt it.

They capitalised on the goodwill, support and continued hype from long term fans and then cashed that in while giving the fans a big middle finger.

What about if this movie was released without the "Ghostbusters" brand and history behind it? We'll never know but I think we can make some safe assumptions.

Most people will go to see this film because it has the label "Ghostbusters". That label is worth something because of the continued investment of fans. The movie wants to make the most of the value of the label while telling the people who created that value to go away.

OK anyone sincerely claiming that a movie "ruined my childhood" is a clown but I have a hard time saying all of the angry fans are in the wrong. To be honest, I can kind of see their point.

Fans may be emotionally invested in the film but they are still owed absolutely nothing. Bring up bands is an interesting one as you often see fans posting after a gig that they didn't enjoy it as the artist played "new songs" and not just the hits. The media which we consume owes us absolutely nothing and to think otherwise is ridiculous. When you have studios like Marvel and Disney going back and changing with aspects of a film after people have seen it so as to appease fans you have to wonder what is going on. By forcing artists to bend over to the will of fans then you are neutering what they create and that's a dangerous thing as generally the results are bland.

I've watched Ghostbusters since I was a kid, still have the bed set at home and there's toys and posters in the attic and I love introducing it to my younger brothers, in fact one of the most exciting aspects of this remake is taking my little brother to see it. As such, you could say that I am a fan of the franchise but honestly I couldn't care less what they do with it. I have no emotional investment in this reboot, if it's awful I'll just never watch it again, instead I'll simply re-watch the original. To say that fans are owed something is just nonsense, they're not and the sooner fans realise that the better. Also, all your arguments about the reboot could be aimed at the sequel to the original film, any o the subsequent spin offs, the video-games, food products, etc. They all exist to cash in on fans love of the franchise and honestly it's not as if the original was all the original to begin with, hell there was a tv series with the same name and premise a full decade earlier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdPfUYgY6nw

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

Fans may be emotionally invested in the film but they are still owed absolutely nothing. Bring up bands is an interesting one as you often see fans posting after a gig that they didn't enjoy it as the artist played "new songs" and not just the hits. The media which we consume owes us absolutely nothing and to think otherwise is ridiculous.

Creative media exists for its audience, and without its audience creative media simply wouldn't exist. Being 'owed' is a strong sentiment and something of an exaggeration, but it's not unreasonable or uncommon that a piece of pop culture is empowered and emboldened by its fans. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum and pop culture doubly so. Its lifeblood are those people who embrace and love it and so eventually the creator becomes a little beholden to the audience because they're the ones who shape it into a success story.

With a few notable exceptions, the only reason certain entities become pop culture icons in the first place is because people invest their enthusiasm and emotions in it after all. My go to here is Star Trek: without fans maintaining their passion and excitability for it during the bleak 1970s, it'd be a passing footnote in Sci-Fi history; instead fan persistence culminated in the original movies and eventually Next Gen. People en-masse saying 'give us more Star Trek!'

The internet era has definitely spawned the super fans and mutated that connection with intellectual properties, but ultimately, ownership of these things can reside in its fans.

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

Fans may be emotionally invested in the film but they are still owed absolutely nothing. Bring up bands is an interesting one as you often see fans posting after a gig that they didn't enjoy it as the artist played "new songs" and not just the hits. The media which we consume owes us absolutely nothing and to think otherwise is ridiculous. When you have studios like Marvel and Disney going back and changing with aspects of a film after people have seen it so as to appease fans you have to wonder what is going on. By forcing artists to bend over to the will of fans then you are neutering what they create and that's a dangerous thing as generally the results are bland.

I've watched Ghostbusters since I was a kid, still have the bed set at home and there's toys and posters in the attic and I love introducing it to my younger brothers, in fact one of the most exciting aspects of this remake is taking my little brother to see it. As such, you could say that I am a fan of the franchise but honestly I couldn't care less what they do with it. I have no emotional investment in this reboot, if it's awful I'll just never watch it again, instead I'll simply re-watch the original. To say that fans are owed something is just nonsense, they're not and the sooner fans realise that the better. Also, all your arguments about the reboot could be aimed at the sequel to the original film, any o the subsequent spin offs, the video-games, food products, etc. They all exist to cash in on fans love of the franchise and honestly it's not as if the original was all the original to begin with, hell there was a tv series with the same name and premise a full decade earlier.

The media which we consume owes us absolutely nothing and to think otherwise is ridiculous.

Then why do people bang on about "representation" in media so often? Clearly a lot of people do not agree with this point of view. Or they do agree, but only when it suites them?

Also, all your arguments about the reboot could be aimed at the sequel to the original film, any o the subsequent spin offs, the video-games, food products, etc.

Yes, and I would aim those same arguments at the sequel etc. I aimed those same arguments at the Star Wars prequels in my post.


Can you at least understand why fans are emotionally invested in these movie franchises? I get that you don't personally care and I am myself close to the same opinion that it doesn't really matter (I'd use comic books as an example of franchises that often shift wildly in terms of content and tone depending on various factors).

However, I don't feel I can dismiss fans who are so emotionally invested outright. It really does feel like Ghostbusters 2016 is a very cynical cash-in. It's kind of sad, I think, to take a much beloved original concept and "re-imagine" it as a total non event. Surely, that would send some people off on a rant.

Aren't they even entitled to their rants anymore?

Another thing I'm curious about is if anyone would be willing to admit that they've felt a "feminist duty" to not only see this movie but to say that it's good? Or will we have to wait a few years for that kind of self-reflection?

conorhal

ps3lover wrote: »

I don't really get the hatred for the girls. I thought the cast looked fine, it was the movie that looked really bad and Sony must have agreed as they fired their marketing department over this movie.
Personally I prefer female leads to male leads. That's why I love the Underworld and Resident Evil films, all of them feature strong female leads. I usually prefer horror films that have a female lead rather than a male lead, male leads are usually so boring (Ash being the exception).
Personally I would love to see a female lead superhero movie, unfortunately history has not been kind to them (Supergirl, Elektra and Catwoman Spring to mind, unfortunate as Catwoman was great in Batman Returns). So far the best solo outing (that I can think of) is Jessica Jones on Netflix.
The main thing keeping me away for Ghostbusters is the stigma that if you hate it, you hate woman, so why take the change of being labelled a mysoginist just because you didn't like a movie.
I'll probably catch it when it hits Netflix and all the heat has died down, when you can have an opinion on it without being labelled.

You can just take that back about Supergirl right now! That film was just flat out fun what with Faye Dunnaway and Peter Cook chewing their way through the scenery and of course Helen Slater was lurrrrverly....
OK, perhaps some nostalgia comes in to play regards my fondness for that movie, but the same could be said for me with regard to Ghostbusters, which is why I'll probablty catch it on Netflix also. From the sound of it the film is a soulless cash grab with little respect for the original.
I just spent the weekend watching the Netflix original series 'Stranger Things', which I couldn't help but binge watch because it's that damn good. If you like your 80's Spielberg, this 80's set paranormal thriller which is effectively a loving homage/mashup of ET, Poltergiest and Close Encounters with a dash of the Goonies could be for you. It's such a loving homage to everything that was great about those films (but without any requirement to have seen them to enjoy what is a cracking paranormal thriller) that it made me wish those responsible, the Duffer brothers had been given the reigns to revive the Ghostbusters franchise because you know that they would have delivered.

ps3lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Fans may be emotionally invested in the film but they are still owed absolutely nothing. Bring up bands is an interesting one as you often see fans posting after a gig that they didn't enjoy it as the artist played "new songs" and not just the hits. The media which we consume owes us absolutely nothing and to think otherwise is ridiculous. When you have studios like Marvel and Disney going back and changing with aspects of a film after people have seen it so as to appease fans you have to wonder what is going on. By forcing artists to bend over to the will of fans then you are neutering what they create and that's a dangerous thing as generally the results are bland.

You mean like how studios sometimes force artists to make their movie PG13? Forcing them to make a bland and forgettable movie even though they wanted to go R rated?

Would you have had an issue if Sony had decided to make Ghostbusters an R rated raunchy comedy since that is what Feig is known for?

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Creative media exists for its audience, and without its audience creative media simply wouldn't exist. Being 'owed' is a strong sentiment and something of an exaggeration, but it's not unreasonable or uncommon that a piece of pop culture is empowered and emboldened by its fans. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum and pop culture doubly so. Its lifeblood are those people who embrace and love it and so eventually the creator becomes a little beholden to the audience because they're the ones who shape it into a success story.

With a few notable exceptions, the only reason certain entities become pop culture icons in the first place is because people invest their enthusiasm and emotions in it after all. My go to here is Star Trek: without fans maintaining their passion and excitability for it during the bleak 1970s, it'd be a passing footnote in Sci-Fi history; instead fan persistence culminated in the original movies and eventually Next Gen. People en-masse saying 'give us more Star Trek!'

The internet era has definitely spawned the super fans and mutated that connection with intellectual properties, but ultimately, ownership of these things can reside in its fans.

Fans play a huge part in keeping so many favorites alive but what people forget is that no matter what they do, no one in power really cares. The way in which fans have been treated by Paramount says so much. Their recent rules regarding fan films was two fingers to the people who hold the franchise dearest.

The fans of something like Ghostbusters were up in arms as soon as the film was announced and maybe it's just me, but I always thought that real fans would actually give the film a chance and not write it off immediately due to the fact that they cast women in the place of men. I grew up with Star Trek, Star Wars, Ghostbusters and so many others but have no problem with subsequent interpretations of each taking a new path, in fact I welcome it can lead to far more interesting results than simply doing the same thing again. If fans love the original so much then simply revisit it, don't expect the same tired things just repeated 30 years later, part of the issues with the new Trek universe is that it's so indebted to the original that it just feels a little too bland.

orubiru wrote: »

The media which we consume owes us absolutely nothing and to think otherwise is ridiculous.

Then why do people bang on about "representation" in media so often? Clearly a lot of people do not agree with this point of view. Or they do agree, but only when it suites them?

Also, all your arguments about the reboot could be aimed at the sequel to the original film, any o the subsequent spin offs, the video-games, food products, etc.

Yes, and I would aim those same arguments at the sequel etc. I aimed those same arguments at the Star Wars prequels in my post.


Can you at least understand why fans are emotionally invested in these movie franchises? I get that you don't personally care and I am myself close to the same opinion that it doesn't really matter (I'd use comic books as an example of franchises that often shift wildly in terms of content and tone depending on various factors).

However, I don't feel I can dismiss fans who are so emotionally invested outright. It really does feel like Ghostbusters 2016 is a very cynical cash-in. It's kind of sad, I think, to take a much beloved original concept and "re-imagine" it as a total non event. Surely, that would send some people off on a rant.

Aren't they even entitled to their rants anymore?

Another thing I'm curious about is if anyone would be willing to admit that they've felt a "feminist duty" to not only see this movie but to say that it's good? Or will we have to wait a few years for that kind of self-reflection?

Media owes us nothing, I don't watch or experience for anything other than entertainment or to be challenged but that's getting rarer and rarer these days given that what most people want is the same tired ideas over and over again. If the fans had their way, the latest Ghostbusters film would be about three men in the mid 60s going through the motions and cashing in on their past glories. At least with the revitalized cast we are getting something different. All this talk of cynical cash in is just nonsense, yes the film only exists because of the original but it's obvious from all involved that this is so much more than just a cash in, all those involved seem to have a genuine love for the original film and it's no more cynical than Ghostbusters 2 was.

I'd actually have no problem listening to the "fans" arguments about why this film is awful if they actually bothered to watch the film before forming an opinion. Fanboys were up in arms the second the cast was released and seemed to take the casting as a personal affront. They say never judge a book by its cover but when it comes to fan boys it seems to be a different belief that drives them.

Once again, the media which we consume owes us nothing. Yes it's always a good thing when a film reflects the world we live in and gives us characters which represents the world at large but it's not something we should feel entitled to.