GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

On Ghostbusters specifically, I think the best thing to do would have been to just leave it alone. Even if they had stuck with the original cast to some degree it would have been a boring, no stakes, CGI-fest.

On the fans, I think we have to agree to disagree. I do agree with you up to a point but, for me, when the success of a brand or an artist or whatever is due in part to the loyalty of the fans then that becomes a two way relationship. The support of the loyal fans brought success and so I'd feel like it's important, or just nice, to give something back.

johnny_ultimate

The problem I have with the criticisms of the film ill-serving or directly disrespecting the original film or its fans is that, frankly, that is simply not borne out in the film itself. The adherence to the original and the onslaught of fan service is IMO by far the biggest problem with the film, and what restricts the cast and director from truly doing their own thing. Outside a direct Ghostbusters 3 - which IMO remains a really bad idea, given the highly publicised circumstances surrounding it - this is almost as fan friendly a sequel as I can imagine, to an absolute fault. There are plenty of wholly reasonable criticisms that can be directed the film's way - and of course there will inevitably be disagreements between individual viewers - but I do admit some frustration at seeing people who haven't seen the film criticising it for things that frankly I cannot marry with the film I saw last week. Unless the argument is that its insistent loyalty to the original is itself an act of disloyalty :pac:

I have no problem with people refusing to see the film - hell, I point blank refuse to go to see any superhero films anymore for a plethora of reasons. But I also understand that if I don't see a film, I basically surrender my ability to meaningfully criticise its content. Consensus or reviews don't determine my own response to any given film - I have to make up my own mind about it. You by no means have to see the film, but eventually if one is indeed unwilling to watch it there's not a whole lot you can actually add to the conversation about it.

ps3lover

ps3lover wrote: »

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?

It's the studios money, they can do what they want and no I have no problem with studios making films PG13. I would have no problem with an R rated Ghostbusters, I'd assume that had it been so it would have been as a result of Deadpool doing so well and studios desperate to jump on the bandwagon of R rated films. Certain films can be improved with an R rating but generally the kinds of films forced to be PG13 aren't going to be all that better unless you equate the word "fuck" and added violence with quality film making.

Tychoo

Lads it's only a movie!!!!!!!

orubiru

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The problem I have with the criticisms of the film ill-serving or directly disrespecting the original film or its fans is that, frankly, that is simply not borne out in the film itself. The adherence to the original and the onslaught of fan service is IMO by far the biggest problem with the film, and what restricts the cast and director from truly doing their own thing. Outside a direct Ghostbusters 3 - which IMO remains a really bad idea, given the highly publicised circumstances surrounding it - this is almost as fan friendly a sequel as I can imagine, to an absolute fault. There are plenty of wholly reasonable criticisms that can be directed the film's way - and of course there will inevitably be disagreements between individual viewers - but I do admit some frustration at seeing people who haven't seen the film criticising it for things that frankly I cannot marry with the film I saw last week.

I have no problem with people refusing to see the film - hell, I point blank refuse to go to see any superhero films anymore for a plethora of reasons. But I also understand that if I don't see a film, I basically surrender my ability to meaningfully criticise its content. You by no means have to see the film, but eventually if one is indeed unwilling to watch it there's not a whole lot you can actually add to the conversation about it.

Does anyone understand the concept of "Shovelware" in the context of Video Games? That's what Ghostbusters 2016 is. The movie equivalent of Shovelware.

There is nothing there to get particularly outraged about but there's nothing to get excited about either. It's a thing you can do when you've got time to kill.

To be honest, the "misogynist" outrage or the "feminist" pandering is really the most interesting thing worth talking about with this movie. The movie itself doesn't even go into any of that stuff! I was disappointed that it wasn't an obvious "pro-feminist" cringe fest. It's just... nothing.

So all you are really left with are talking points like "what's the point of reboots" or "are fans even entitled to anything from the creators".

Which is where I suppose I agree with yourself and Darko because, even though I think it's OK (and entertaining) for "fanboys" to go on rants, it's probably true that the fans don't even know what the hell they want. After all, "fan fiction" is generally god awful terribleness.

The video below is way more entertaining than the movie itself and it would be a shame to lose this kind of mindless ranting over garbage movies.

And for folks who have no interest in ever watching the film then the spoiler filled review is probably the one for you!

*WARNING - ALL THE SPOILERS ARE IN THIS VIDEO*

WoolyJumper

Its just an average remake of an average movie. People are over analysing both movies way too much.

I know people REALLY love the originally movie but I think it was one of those movies that was of its time/more nostalgic. The movie came out 6 years before I was born and I didn't see it for the first time until I was an adult and honestly didn't get what the fuss was about. It wasn't that funny, and honestly I found it a little boring. I know this will be blasphemy for some but I enjoyed the new Ghostbusters more.

WoolyJumper

orubiru wrote: »

Does anyone understand the concept of "Shovelware" in the context of Video Games? That's what Ghostbusters 2016 is. The movie equivalent of Shovelware.

There is nothing there to get particularly outraged about but there's nothing to get excited about either. It's a thing you can do when you've got time to kill.

To be honest, the "misogynist" outrage or the "feminist" pandering is really the most interesting thing worth talking about with this movie. The movie itself doesn't even go into any of that stuff! I was disappointed that it wasn't an obvious "pro-feminist" cringe fest. It's just... nothing.

So all you are really left with are talking points like "what's the point of reboots" or "are fans even entitled to anything from the creators".

Which is where I suppose I agree with yourself and Darko because, even though I think it's OK (and entertaining) for "fanboys" to go on rants, it's probably true that the fans don't even know what the hell they want. After all, "fan fiction" is generally god awful terribleness.

The video below is way more entertaining than the movie itself and it would be a shame to lose this kind of mindless ranting over garbage movies.

And for folks who have no interest in ever watching the film then the spoiler filled review is probably the one for you!

*WARNING - ALL THE SPOILERS ARE IN THIS VIDEO*

Middle guy "Its a class 10 stinker, a class 10 god damn piece of sh*t movie" " I actually uhhh, I actually like uhh, my face was like uhhh *makes face* coming out of the movie"
Beard Guy "Pretty accurate"

That was a much as I could take of this review. I can't take anyone seriously if they think this movie was that bad. People saying it was just okay, not really funny, kinda boring I understand. But it wasn't awful. Their reaction made me cringe. They are grown up men.

ps3lover

Deleted User wrote: »

It's the studios money, they can do what they want and no I have no problem with studios making films PG13. I would have no problem with an R rated Ghostbusters, I'd assume that had it been so it would have been as a result of Deadpool doing so well and studios desperate to jump on the bandwagon of R rated films. Certain films can be improved with an R rating but generally the kinds of films forced to be PG13 aren't going to be all that better unless you equate the word "fuck" and added violence with quality film making.

Swearing, nudity and violence aren't the only things that will get you an R rating. The director of The Boy recently came out and said he felt like he was directing the movie with both his hands tied behind his back due to the PG13 rating. He said it's a total pain in the ass and seriously restricts you. The problems weren't so much blood or gore related but intensity and atmosphere related, if the film was too scary, it would be slapped with an R rating. That's why the climax is so short, if he made the intense, frightening climax he wanted to, the movie would have gotten an R. The director of The Forrest had similar complaints.
With The Conjuring, James Wan wanted to prove you could make a terrifying movie and keep it PG13, hence there is no blood, gore, nudity or swearing in the movie. The MPAA came back and said the athmosphere of the movie is so scary, there isn't any editing they could do to gain a PG13 rating. That's happened to a few horror films recently and studios are making them as bland as possible to avoid that because athmosphere is hard to edit out.
It doesn't even make any sense as R rated horror has been doing a lot better than PG13 at the box office.

Grayditch

I gotta say; it's really cool and hipster to say the original isn't that good. 1465 hipster points at least. That's a good haul for one movie.

WoolyJumper

Grayditch wrote: »

I gotta say; it's really cool and hipster to say the original isn't that good. 1465 hipster points at least. That's a good haul for one movie.

Is it? Maybe people (like myself) genuinely didn't think much of the original.

Grayditch

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Is it? Maybe people (like myself) genuinely didn't think much of the original.

Even better, all the points and the truth.

Arghus

WoolyJumper wrote: »

... They are grown up men

Not really though.

WoolyJumper

Grayditch wrote: »

Even better, all the points and the truth.

Great. I'll start growing out a man bun immediately. I hope my Dad still has all his old records.

Grayditch

It's a slippery slope. You'll start calling Spielberg a hack just to keep up.

py2006

Still haven't got around to seeing it!

I was going to do it this evening but with that weather out there it would be a sin to sit in a dark cinema!

Any ideas how long it will be in the cinema for?

Links234

I just wanted to say, I think Ghostbusters 2 isn't as bad as people say.

MilesMorales1

I don't like the original ghostbusters. I've seen it 3 times, and its not good, it failed the 6 laugh test. If that makes me a hipster *shrug*

smash

Grayditch wrote: »

It's a slippery slope. You'll start calling Spielberg a hack just to keep up.

The cheek of him creating a movie of the BFG... :pac:

Grayditch

smash wrote: »

The cheek of him creating a movie of the BFG... :pac:

Childhood ruined.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I think you'll find that they actually do, because they care about their revenue stream and it's the "fans" that supply the bulk of that, not Joe Soap, the missus and the two kids that watch the flick one Sunday afternoon, cos there's feck all else to do.

It's the fans that watch the film multiple times in the cinema, buy the toys, the video games, the T-Shirts, the books, the comics. They buy the DVD, then the blu ray. Then the other blu ray with the extras. Then the box set extended edition. Then the original and the sequel combined. Then the trilogy box set. Then the "saga" boxset. Then the buy the spin offs and all the other tat that goes into a film franchise since 'Star Wars' and 'Jaws' kicked all that off in the 70's, culminating in the multi-million dollar nonsense we see today.

/\

Those are the people that make a franchise and the people in "power" most definitely care about them, because they care about their money.

They are they very reason why Disney spent 4 billion for George Lucas' baby and why Sony are so desperately seeking some franchise series to milk and hoping that if they tag the name 'Ghostbusters' onto something vaguely resembling something that a lot of people remember, that they can rake in the cash.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Except "real" fans wanted 'Ghostbusters 3' and not the name rape reboot cash in that this film is.

Fysh

Tony EH wrote: »

I think you'll find that they actually do, because they care about their revenue stream and it's the "fans" that supply the bulk of that, not Joe Soap, the missus and the two kids that watch the flick one Sunday afternoon, cos there's feck all else to do.

It's the fans that watch the film multiple times in the cinema, buy the toys, the video games, the T-Shirts, the books, the comics. They buy the DVD, then the blu ray. Then the other blu ray with the extras. Then the box set extended edition. Then the original and the sequel combined. Then the trilogy box set. Then the "saga" boxset. Then the buy the spin offs and all the other tat that goes into a film franchise since 'Star Wars' and 'Jaws' kicked all that off in the 70's, culminating in the multi-million dollar nonsense we see today.

/\

Those are the people that make a franchise and the people in "power" most definitely care about them, because they care about their money.

They are they very reason why Disney spent 4 billion for George Lucas' baby and why Sony are so desperately seeking some franchise series to milk and hoping that if they tag the name 'Ghostbusters' onto something vaguely resembling something that a lot of people remember, that they can rake in the cash.



Except "real" fans wanted 'Ghostbusters 3' and not the name rape reboot cash in that this film is.

1) If comics and sci-fi fandoms have taught me anything, it's that the fans you describe will not have any problem bitching until the end of time while still spending money on all the things you listed. There's a certain type of collector for whom actually enjoying the stuff they (repeatedly) buy seems to be a secondary concern compared to having the "full set", and that's the mindset that gets exploited by multiple releases. Until those fans actually stop buying stuff being released, those in power tend not to pay much attention to their complaints. See, for instance, Disney not giving a kitten's fart about fan's complaints when, as part of buying Star Wars, they effectively invalidated the vast majority of the Extended Universe. They rightly judged that the change wouldn't stop fans from paying to see a new film, or play new games, or any of the rest of it, and so the fan complaints had exactly zero impact.

2) "Real fans" would presumably have read up on the history of the film's development then and understood that while Reitman wanted to make a Ghostbusters 3 that had some form of legacy aspect (like the Extreme Ghostbusters cartoon, which "real fans" would also presumably know about), the contract around Ghostbusters 2 meant that Reitman, Aykroyd, Ramis & Murray all had to agree before further sequels got made. And Murray was the long-standing holdout, in some cases refusing to even read the script for a version of the film in which he would've had 1 scene and then some voicework. Which is why Reitman says he eventually started bouncing around the idea of a non-sequel after Ramis died.

Tony EH

Fysh wrote: »

1) If comics and sci-fi fandoms have taught me anything, it's that the fans you describe will not have any problem bitching until the end of time while still spending money on all the things you listed. There's a certain type of collector for whom actually enjoying the stuff they (repeatedly) buy seems to be a secondary concern compared to having the "full set", and that's the mindset that gets exploited by multiple releases. Until those fans actually stop buying stuff being released, those in power tend not to pay much attention to their complaints.

Um...many do. Everybody has the point they reach where they feel that a particular love of a particular medium isn't doing it for them any more.

Sure, there are the completists, but most people in geekdom will draw the line at some point.

The point still stands though, THEY are the people for whom these franchises exist.

1000's of people attended the Star Wars open day last week. They weren't casuals who saw 'The Force Awakens' once last December.

Those are the people whose money drives these franchises.

Fysh wrote: »

1)2) "Real fans" would presumably have read up on the history of the film's development then and understood that while Reitman wanted to make a Ghostbusters 3 that had some form of legacy aspect (like the Extreme Ghostbusters cartoon, which "real fans" would also presumably know about), the contract around Ghostbusters 2 meant that Reitman, Aykroyd, Ramis & Murray all had to agree before further sequels got made. And Murray was the long-standing holdout, in some cases refusing to even read the script for a version of the film in which he would've had 1 scene and then some voicework. Which is why Reitman says he eventually started bouncing around the idea of a non-sequel after Ramis died.

Of course. But still didn't stop them wanting 'Ghostbusters 3' and not "Nu-Ghostbusters".

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

I think you'll find that they actually do, because they care about their revenue stream and it's the "fans" that supply the bulk of that, not Joe Soap, the missus and the two kids that watch the flick one Sunday afternoon, cos there's feck all else to do.

It's the fans that watch the film multiple times in the cinema, buy the toys, the video games, the T-Shirts, the books, the comics. They buy the DVD, then the blu ray. Then the other blu ray with the extras. Then the box set extended edition. Then the original and the sequel combined. Then the trilogy box set. Then the "saga" boxset. Then the buy the spin offs and all the other tat that goes into a film franchise since 'Star Wars' and 'Jaws' kicked all that off in the 70's, culminating in the multi-million dollar nonsense we see today.

/\

Those are the people that make a franchise and the people in "power" most definitely care about them, because they care about their money.

They are they very reason why Disney spent 4 billion for George Lucas' baby and why Sony are so desperately seeking some franchise series to milk and hoping that if they tag the name 'Ghostbusters' onto something vaguely resembling something that a lot of people remember, that they can rake in the cash.



Except "real" fans wanted 'Ghostbusters 3' and not the name rape reboot cash in that this film is.

Fanboys will bitch and moan and then go out and spend all the monies on whatever the studio releases, hell look at how successful something like the Staw Wars prequels were. Fans moaned and complained and yet still queued days in advance so as to see the films. You mention Disney and Star Wars and if Disney thought that they could make a dollar more by changing everything the fans loved they'd do it in a heartbeat, they care about money not the fans and it's sad to see how the Marvel universe is being neutered so as to ensure that all that money keeps rolling in and part of it is doing nothing that the fans may complain about. And you know what, it's the worst thing that can happen to any property.

Also, it's important to remember that most real fans of something like Ghostbusters are people like myself, people who enjoy the film but aren't expecting to be asked by the studio to sit in on meetings and offer suggestions as to how the franchise should go. Being vocal does not make you a fan and that's evident from so much of the criticism of Ghostbusters. Those crying the loudest have yet to even watch the film and had formed their opinion of it a year ago. Real fans are the ones who are withholding judgement till they see the film.

The fans up in arms over how "you can never replace Bill Murray" should remember that the only reason they didn't get a Ghostbusters 3 with the original cast is down to the fact that Murray is something of a prat who deliberately went out of his way to ensure that such a sequel never happened. Hell when Harold Ramis died, Murray's tribute was as much about himself as the old friend whom he had barely spoken to in 21 years.

“Harold Ramis and I together did the ‘National Lampoon Show’ off Broadway, ‘Meatballs,’ ‘Stripes,’ ‘Caddyshack,’ ‘Ghostbusters’ and ‘Groundhog Day.’ He earned his keep on this planet. God bless him.”

orubiru

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Middle guy "Its a class 10 stinker, a class 10 god damn piece of sh*t movie" " I actually uhhh, I actually like uhh, my face was like uhhh *makes face* coming out of the movie"
Beard Guy "Pretty accurate"

That was a much as I could take of this review. I can't take anyone seriously if they think this movie was that bad. People saying it was just okay, not really funny, kinda boring I understand. But it wasn't awful. Their reaction made me cringe. They are grown up men.

That's fair enough.

I think for a lot of these Youtubers and bloggers a big part of their "shtick" is ranting and raving about terrible movies.

This is the first time, that I can recall, where there has been widespread pushback against those people.

So you can go on a mindless rant about Independence Day Resurgence or Batman v Superman but heaven help you if you start a rant about Ghostbusters? It's silly.

It's probably a fair statement to say that Angry Joe is pandering to his audience here. We've seen it on the thread that there are people who just want to see reviewers destroy this movie, right?

The movie itself is certainly not as bad as they are saying in the video, for sure.

On the other hand, is there anyone one on the thread who will admit that they went to see this movie and are determined to say it's really good based on a sense of "duty"?

It's not really all that good either.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Fanboys will bitch and moan and then go out and spend all the monies on whatever the studio releases

This ISN'T an argument against what I am saying.

They're still spending the money. Money that the studio wants and makes up the bulk of their profit.

Joe and his missus and two kids don't spend anything after they watch the flick at their local cineplex.

Deleted User wrote: »

Those crying the loudest...

When did "fandom" come to be represented by such a sentence?

Most fans of a franchise are usually rather enthusiastic about things.

It's the minority who piss and moan about ruined childhoods.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

This ISN'T an argument against what I am saying.

They're still spending the money. Money that the studio wants and makes up the bulk of their profit.

Joe and his missus and two kids don't spend anything after they watch the flick at their local cineplex.

You do realise that most of a films profits come not from the actual theater but rather from the toy sales and in most cases the studio earns more from Joe and his missus buying toys for their kids than from the average fan. Marvel and Disney will make more from the average 12 year old boy who goes see the film than it will the 35 year old fan on the internet demanding that his voice be heard.

There's fallacy that the huge popularity of superhero films has been a boon for the comic book industry but in reality less people are reading comics than before, in fact for Marvel all a book has to sell is 40K+ to be considered a hit and for DC that figure is 30k+. It's toy sales and partnerships with the likes of McDonald's that are raking the money in, not from the likes of me and you, unless were purchasing toys for kids.

Tony EH wrote: »

When did "fandom" come to be represented by such a sentence?

Most fans of a franchise are usually rather enthusiastic about things.

It's the minority who piss and moan about ruined childhoods.

Yes most fans are enthusiastic, but were not talking about the average fan who is like myself. We're talking about the "fans" who are up in arms over something like Ghostbusters and had decided to hate it the second the casting was announced.

Fysh

Tony EH wrote: »

This ISN'T an argument against what I am saying.

They're still spending the money. Money that the studio wants and makes up the bulk of their profit.

Joe and his missus and two kids don't spend anything after they watch the flick at their local cineplex.

What you're not accepting is that the kind of fan we're talking about here, as can be seen in comics or sci-fi or any number of other fandoms, has to go up against a huge amount of foolishness at a company's hand before they stop spending money on the franchise.

You brought up Star Wars and talk about the people at the Star Wars Celebration - a couple of friends of mine paid to go to it. They were, at the time of the decision, keenly pissed off about the way Disney has effectively invalidated the Extended Universe as they'd spent a lot of money and time on parts of it. They're still spending money on Star Wars stuff, so Disney can be argued to have made the right call, in terms of profit at least.

Ditto with this film - if there are serious hardcore fans of Ghostbusters as a franchise, they'll be hard-pressed to argue that the new film is appreciably inferior to Ghostbusters 2 and, in any case, given the various forms the franchise has taken (across films, cartoons, comics, videogames etc), the key take-away here is that it's still new Ghostbusters.

Contrary to what you seem to think, the choice wasn't "This version" or "that other version". As Darko and I have both mentioned upthread, the choice (thanks to Bill Murray being a stubborn old goat) was "this version" or "no version". So if you actually consider yourself a fan of the franchise, then this film is axiomatically better than the real-world alternative, which is no film at all. And if you think this film is so bad, then you're in luck because nobody's going to force you to watch it.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise that most of a films profits come not from the actual theater but rather from the toy sales and in most cases the studio earns more from Joe and his missus buying toys for their kids than from the average fan. Marvel and Disney will make more from the average 12 year old boy who goes see the film than it will the 35 year old fan on the internet demanding that his voice be heard.

Merchandise isn't just toys for johnny. It's a ton of other stuff too, a lot of which Johnny doesn't get a hold of.

Seriously, I just can't buy this line that studios don't care what fans of a given franchise think.

It's bizarre to say the least, when everything counts against it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes most fans are enthusiastic, but were not talking about the average fan who is like myself. We're talking about the "fans" who are up in arms over something like Ghostbusters and had decided to hate it the second the casting was announced.

I am.

And studios very much care about serving those people, because they want their shillings, which is why this Ghostbusters has gone out of the way to include members of the old cast as some sort of placation (they're not even in the same roles!!), or why Disney was willing to offer Ford whatever he wanted to reprise the role of Han Solo.

Because they knew that without doing so, the profits would be dented.

Those on either side of the fringes, whining, may make a lot of noise, but they don't represent fans as a whole.

But it's still remarkable to say that studios couldn't give a tinkers cuss about what the fans of a franchise are looking for. It's a tricky balancing act, without doubt. But, you can bet your ass they care. Well, at least "care", because it affects their bottom line.

ps3lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Fanboys will bitch and moan and then go out and spend all the monies on whatever the studio releases, hell look at how successful something like the Staw Wars prequels were. Fans moaned and complained and yet still queued days in advance so as to see the films.

I seem to recall everyone being really excited for those Star Wars prequels to the point of lying to themselves after seeing them. The backlash didn't hit until afterwards.

Tony EH

Fysh wrote: »

What you're not accepting is that the kind of fan we're talking about here, as can be seen in comics or sci-fi or any number of other fandoms, has to go up against a huge amount of foolishness at a company's hand before they stop spending money on the franchise.

You brought up Star Wars and talk about the people at the Star Wars Celebration - a couple of friends of mine paid to go to it. They were, at the time of the decision, keenly pissed off about the way Disney has effectively invalidated the Extended Universe as they'd spent a lot of money and time on parts of it. They're still spending money on Star Wars stuff, so Disney can be argued to have made the right call, in terms of profit at least.

Contrary to what you seem to think, the choice wasn't "This version" or "that other version". As Darko and I have both mentioned upthread, the choice (thanks to Bill Murray being a stubborn old goat) was "this version" or "no version". So if you actually consider yourself a fan of the franchise, then this film is axiomatically better than the real-world alternative, which is no film at all. And if you think this film is so bad, then you're in luck because nobody's going to force you to watch it. [/QUOTE]

Most Star Wars fans I know couldn't care less about the Eu, or the majority of it. Because it was largely crap. Some are happy it's been done away with as it's a chance to "right the wrongs" of letting people write any of crap and stick a Star Wars logo on it. 'Skippy the Droid', I'm looking at you.

YMMV.

However, none of what we are talking about here negates the fact that studios care about fans money and they make these franchises with a lot of fan service (often completely unnecessary fan service) built in.

This is because they don't want to alienate those fans, who make up a huge bulk of their sales and the franchise in general.

If they didn't give a crap (and I don't mean in an altruistic way), why bother having a Star Wars celebration in the first place?

Fysh wrote: »

Ditto with this film - if there are serious hardcore fans of Ghostbusters as a franchise, they'll be hard-pressed to argue that the new film is appreciably inferior to Ghostbusters 2 and, in any case, given the various forms the franchise has taken (across films, cartoons, comics, videogames etc), the key take-away here is that it's still new Ghostbusters.

It's "Ghostbusters" in name only for a lot of fans though. TBH, I didn't know there were that many. I know a few for whom 'Ghostbusters' is their 'Star Wars' <- quote, which I have to admit I find remarkable, but there it is.

They've seen the picture and either didn't like it, or thought it was just OK. But it still isn't the 'Ghostbusters' sequel they were looking for. It wasn't even a sequel.

To me personally, 'Ghostbusters' was an entertaining 80's flick that capturing a particular something, never to be repeated and this one is an attempt to riff on a popular name to kickstart a new franchise based on the popularity WITH FANS of the original film.

But to say that studios just don't care what fans think is silly. Even the mouthy ones to some degree, with their irritating penchant for hot air and extremes.