‘Ghostbusters’ Director Says He Won’t Reboot Another Classic Movie - Polidicks

[QUOTE=AntonioR;50850544]Well, Ghostbusters will probably end up losing a ton of money. Even though it will earn around $200 million on a $150 million budget, theaters get at least half of it, plus there are marketing costs. So probably [U]no one will let him[/U] reboot another franchise even if he wanted to.[/QUOTE] It was confirmed to be over 100 million in ads, minimum. I think at the moment the maximum amount of money they've gotten from the gross is like 80-90 million and thats generous, its likely around 75-80 in reality. So they've lost a lot of money regardless.

Why the fuck pick a director like Paul Feig to remake such a timeless classic? Looking at his history of movies is just terrible, whoever thought he'd be a good fit for this remake is stupid. He churns out the shit-tier comedy type of crap that people only watch when they're high.

[QUOTE=mark6789;50851340]Movie theaters get 1% of ticket sales. Their money comes from popcorn[/QUOTE] I think the amount they get from ticket sales changed a couple of years ago across the board, which is why they're more expensive now.

"We know audiences are stupid but not stupid enough to fall for the same marketing gimmick twice" Then again regular cinema audiences continue to surprise with how complacent and vulnerable they are to cheap tactics.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;50850544]Well, Ghostbusters will probably end up losing a ton of money. Even though it will earn around $200 million on a $150 million budget, theaters get at least half of it, plus there are marketing costs. So probably [U]no one will let him[/U] reboot another franchise even if he wanted to.[/QUOTE] He actually mentioned how much it has to make: [quote]“A movie like this has to at least get to like $500 million worldwide, and that’s probably low,”[/quote] source: [url]http://www.vulture.com/2016/07/paul-feig-ghostbusters-reboot-c-v-r.html[/url]

Does anyone actually think that this film is "manbashing"? Like legit, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard...

[QUOTE=p0rtal;50853498]Does anyone actually think that this film is "manbashing"? Like legit, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard...[/QUOTE] From what it all seems to generally be, while some people may be kneejerking, all but one or two males in the movie are retarded, an asshole, or both and play second fiddle to the heroines. Especially Chris Hemsworth's character, who hits all three marks. The main villain [sp]is an antisocial and friendless scientist turned janitor who decides "to hell with the world and life, fuck you all"[/sp] and he's defeated by [sp]shooting him in the dick while crossing the beams.[/sp] And all of this played with the 'grace' of a movie-long Saturday Night Live skit, meaning it really doesn't give a shit about the implications and mocks everyone involved.

[QUOTE=p0rtal;50853498]Does anyone actually think that this film is "manbashing"? Like legit, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard...[/QUOTE] Well considering [sp]they literally defeat the big bad by shooting him in the junk[/sp] that doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to me.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;50853545]Well considering [sp]they literally defeat the big bad by shooting him in the junk[/sp] that doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to me.[/QUOTE] How's that manbashing though? That's just a really moronic and childish way to kill the big boss.. If they screamed out "die you male scum, you filthy man who sucks strictly because he's a man, you stink... because you're a man!!", then that could be called "slightly not nice towards men", but legit there's no reason why the film could be called manbashing. [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RikohZX;50853532]From what it all seems to generally be, while some people may be kneejerking, all but one or two males in the movie are retarded, an asshole, or both and play second fiddle to the heroines. Especially Chris Hemsworth's character, who hits all three marks. The main villain [sp]is an antisocial and friendless scientist turned janitor who decides "to hell with the world and life, fuck you all"[/sp] and he's defeated by [sp]shooting him in the dick while crossing the beams.[/sp] And all of this played with the 'grace' of a movie-long Saturday Night Live skit, meaning it really doesn't give a shit about the implications and mocks everyone involved.[/QUOTE] ......So? [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] And dude, the whole fucking mainvillian story is something that's been used in movies for decades. It's not anything new. Just because the film stars women and they're going up against a cliché that's been in movies forever doesn't make it manhating..

-snip-

[QUOTE=p0rtal;50853568] ......So? [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] And dude, the whole fucking mainvillian story is something that's been used in movies for decades. It's not anything new. Just because the film stars women and they're going up against a cliché that's been in movies forever doesn't make it manhating..[/QUOTE] Imagine a movie that has a cast of men surrounded by a bunch of support character ditsy dumb women who are either idiots, assholes, or both and the villain. The movie 'badguy' is defeated by 2 blokes lazering her in the cunt aiming their guns from the crotch. Would that be perceived women friendly? The entire movie ghost busters is an ode to what the movie thinks women are better in then men, and every guy being an idiot is just their way of saying 'we had to bash these men into the ground for the women to stand out' its not pretty for either gender, but at least some women are extravagant but realistic personalities...

As far as I heard every man in this film is displayed as a dumb, ignorant idiot. Take that was whatever you want.

[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;50849765]I'll probably never stop being amazed at how far up these people have their heads stuck up their asses. "the sexist and misogynistic criticism" is such utter fucking tripe. Sure there were some people who hated it from that pov but the majority hated it the cast being all women not because it was all women but because it was so blatantly trying to be ~progressive~ and HAI GUYS IT'S GHOSTBUSTERS BUT ALL WOMYN AINT IT COOL.[/QUOTE] In my opinion, anyone who thought Ghostbusters was the worst film ever or got overly negative about it was overreacting, but so is anyone who thinks it's amazing While I love all female casts and hope for more, overall it wasn't bad or good - just mediocre and forgettable [QUOTE=AntonioR;50850544]Well, Ghostbusters will probably end up losing a ton of money. Even though it will earn around $200 million on a $150 million budget, theaters get at least half of it, plus there are marketing costs. So probably [U]no one will let him[/U] reboot another franchise even if he wanted to.[/QUOTE] According to Wikipedia, the budget was $144 million and has so far made $179 million

Grossed 179 million. Hasn't really "made" anything, the stated threshold was $500m [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] Plus that's like 3 weeks of being out its pretty pathetic

[QUOTE=NiandraLades;50854061]According to Wikipedia, the budget was $144 million and has so far made $179 million[/QUOTE] $144m is just production, Sony spent another $150m on marketing. With the way money gets split across distribution, the break-even point is about $500m. Ghostbusters is on track to make roughly $200m in ticket sales and maybe $80-100m blu-ray/dvd. This isn't raising the bar just for Ghostbusters or anything, Suicide Squad (production $175m) needs to make $650m to break even, as it stands $300m sales means Sony only gets back $180m on their $300m investment. Ghostbusters on course for a $120m loss.

[QUOTE=uber.;50853975]As far as I heard every man in this film is displayed as a dumb, ignorant idiot. Take that was whatever you want.[/QUOTE] "As far as I heard" isn't really a great source when the film is actually out and can be viewed whenever. The films main male characters are; A stereotypical dumb receptionist role (gender flipped and Hemsworth'd the fuck out of) A stereotypical "against the world" shut in A sceptic being a standard overly-sceptical Hollywood stereotype sceptic A mayor who ignores pleas to listen because "bitches be crazy" Youtube comments (accurate portrayal of Youtube comments) A delivery guy who gets shouted at for things not actually his fault because the customer is just obnoxious Bystanders with no characterisation It's not attacking men in any way, it's just heavily reliant on the stereotypical roles for mostly antagonistic, and background characters. Because Feig really isn't that great a director/ producer and the screenplay was probably written by a committee or some shit. [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ardosos;50853545]Well considering [sp]they literally defeat the big bad by shooting him in the junk[/sp] that doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to me.[/QUOTE] You're overthinking a simple [sp]dick joke[/sp] buddy.

Paul should reboot Alien with an all-female cast

[QUOTE=MechaKat;50855304]Paul should reboot Alien with an all-female cast[/QUOTE] you monster, i know exactly your angle here and i have to say brazzers would fund that in a heart beat

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50855110] Youtube comments (accurate portrayal of Youtube comments)[/QUOTE] Ironic considering Sony were deleting specific types of comments on the Ghostbusters trailer to leave only the vile sexist shit in :v:. [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=NiandraLades;50854061] According to Wikipedia, the budget was $144 million and has so far made $179 million[/QUOTE] Of which at absolute best they maybe got 80-90 million of that 179 million. And like the other dude said theres still 100+ million in marketing, with Feig himself stating they need 500 million for this film.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50855110] [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] You're overthinking a simple [sp]dick joke[/sp] buddy.[/QUOTE] Thank you!

You're not though they totally knew what they were doing, just look up the scene and consider the context of the entire film

[QUOTE=p0rtal;50857018]Thank you![/QUOTE] To be fair, the director is kind of a fucking loon, so its understandable that people might question the motivation behind aspects of the film.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50857065]To be fair, the director is kind of a fucking loon, so its understandable that people might question the motivation behind aspects of the film.[/QUOTE] Feig is just a hack, I'm not entirely sure if he even knows that the word "malicious" exists. I honestly think people are just reading too far into this film. It's an attempt to reboot an otherwise dead franchise using current social commentary. That's really about as deep as it goes. [editline]10th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=AaronM202;50856485]Ironic considering Sony were deleting specific types of comments on the Ghostbusters trailer to leave only the vile sexist shit in :v:.[/QUOTE] Marketing teams are for sure staffed by nothing but failed clones of various villains from history. Trying to find the next way they can annoy the piss out of a given audience as that's the only thing that can ease their clone pains. Marketing teams aren't something I'm particularly fond of if that's not entirely obvious :v:

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50850296]how could you not see how bad from all the promotional material and interviews it's like waiting for a tsunami to hit you before deciding it was deadly[/QUOTE] I did, but that didn't stop people from going YOU JUST HATE IT CAUSE YOU HATE WOMEN.