[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
film/video

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 22960)
Message
File  []
close
>> No. 22960 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 4:39 pm
22960 Ghostbusters: Afterlife

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahZFCF--uRY

This looks fucking brilliant, ladm8s
Expand all images.
>> No. 22961 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 4:46 pm
22961 spacer
I've gone off Stranger Things, tbh.
>> No. 22962 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 4:50 pm
22962 spacer
Competent yet still transparent pandering.
>> No. 22963 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 5:02 pm
22963 spacer
>>22962

How do you make a film from a beloved franchise without 'pandering'? Unless you don't include anything that makes the original films what they were, in which case twonks like yourself would complain it's 'not ghostbusters'

Have a word.
>> No. 22964 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 5:05 pm
22964 spacer
>>22962

Nice to know we have a Hollywood executive posting here. Explain how making a sequel to a beloved classic that is actually respectful to the original is 'pandering'?
>> No. 22967 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 5:12 pm
22967 spacer
>>22964
They've very obviously written something to appeal to the latest generation of kids, opening up new markets for the franchise and the potential for endless more sequels.

>>22963
>in which case twonks like yourself would complain it's 'not ghostbusters'
I wouldn't complain that, at least in part because I don't give a fuck about ghostbusters and never have.
>> No. 22968 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 5:16 pm
22968 spacer
>>22967

>>I don't give a fuck about Ghostbusters and never have


You are Paul Feig and I claim my £5
>> No. 22969 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 5:25 pm
22969 spacer
>>22968
Pandering to the young woke demographic didn't work, may as well try with too-young-to-be-woke demo next.
>> No. 22970 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 5:28 pm
22970 spacer
>>22969

Get Woke, Go Broke
>> No. 22971 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 5:28 pm
22971 spacer

77124121_2694594607274680_2034619075761537024_n.jpg
229712297122971
>>22969
>Pandering to the young woke demographic didn't work

See also: Charlie's Angels.
>> No. 22972 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 5:46 pm
22972 spacer
>>22969

>Pandering to the young woke demographic didn't work

The last Ghostbusters film grossed $229m on a $144m budget. Making 85 million dollars in profit is a funny definition of "didn't work".

>>22971

It was shite but it still turned a slight profit.
>> No. 22973 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 5:52 pm
22973 spacer
>>22972
Weren't they hoping to launch franchises for both of them?
>> No. 22974 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 5:57 pm
22974 spacer
>>22972

Err, no.

It cost $144million dollars budget plus another $100million in marketing. That's $244million dollars. Because only in your own magical fantasy land does the studio get all of the box office take, the movie actually needs to make at least twice what it cost to make at the box office (theaters tend to get around half of the ticket sales).

The movie made roughly $230million at the box office meaning Sony only took away about half of that, or $115million. Meaning that it actually LOST Sony over $100million and thus cementing its status as a bomb.

Next time make sure you know what you're talking about, lest you make yourself look like a fucking moron again.
>> No. 22975 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 6:01 pm
22975 spacer
>>22971

I think the problem with that one was the total lack of advertising. Personally I didn't even know they'd made a new one until it was out and the director was hating on men.
>> No. 22976 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 6:01 pm
22976 spacer
>>22974
How much of that marketing spend was actually on the film, as opposed to offset from other other films out of the same studio?
>> No. 22977 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 6:07 pm
22977 spacer
Stranger things meets the goonies?
No thanks
>> No. 22978 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 6:08 pm
22978 spacer
>>22967

Then your review of this trailer is incredibly valuable.
>> No. 22979 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 6:13 pm
22979 spacer
>>22976

The $100 million was entirely marketing for Ghostbusters 2016. It would have been higher if they'd bought a Superbowl ad spot but despite them having already prepped a teaser for that exact purpose, they ended up not buying an ad spot and simply dropped it online a day or two after. By that stage they knew which way the wind was blowing and didn't want to waste any more money on it.
>> No. 22980 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 6:15 pm
22980 spacer
>>22978
You boys are really protective of this particular corporate IP, huh.
>> No. 22981 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 6:15 pm
22981 spacer
>>22979
A source on that would be great. I only ask because on paper the entire canon of Potter-related films made a loss.
>> No. 22982 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 6:17 pm
22982 spacer
>>22980

I don't give a shit about Ghostbusters.
>> No. 22983 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 6:21 pm
22983 spacer
>>22982

Just defending its honour on the internet for no reason. Get over it, Ghostbusters is never going to sleep with you.
>> No. 22984 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 6:37 pm
22984 spacer
I feel the same way about Ghostbusters as I do about Back to the Future, in that it's an alright film with a couple of shit sequels and it was pretty funny, but I have no fucking clue how it has such a strong, vocal fanbase.

I mean, it's just Ghostbusters. Robocop has a legitimate claim to being the best film ever made, but where are the legions of fans of that film? Lots of people slated that one's remake, but there were no hardcore Robocop fanboys threatening to kill people on Twitter.

I realise you could probably say the same thing about The Terminator, except that it's not a comedy. It's had shit sequels and remake reboots with too many women in them, and at most people gave a resigned sigh. The trouble is obviously that with Ghostbusters they were deliberately and heavy handedly shoving the HEY LOOK THEY HAVE VAGINAS THIS TIME thing down your Jap's eye, but like I said. I don't understand were that bothered, you must surely have realised Hollywood is only good for shitting over old names and squeezing blood out of stones these days.
>> No. 22985 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 6:52 pm
22985 spacer
>>22983

It's more just infuriating how angry people get about films they don't like and are never going to see.

I suppose it's no better that I'm angry about how others feel about a film I don't care about and will never see, but it feels a lot more righteous.
>> No. 22986 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 7:01 pm
22986 spacer
>>22984
Get people mad about lefty identity politics, make them vote Trump. There's a vested interest in whipping up outrage.
>> No. 22987 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 7:33 pm
22987 spacer
>>22985

I'm not angry about it, I'm just commenting on how it's clearly marketed to a particular demographic for the stated reasons. It looks competently made and as though it was done by people who care about handling the IP respectfully but that doesn't make the rest of what I've said any less valid.
>> No. 22988 Anonymous
10th December 2019
Tuesday 11:32 pm
22988 spacer
Trailer looks unexciting in content other than the nostalgic nods. Tonally there is nothing 'Ghostbusters' in there (they forgot the funny) it is stranger things with 80s nostalgia (so just stranger things see also: IT part 1).

>>22962 is right, get over yourself, you are all just punch drunk from the last film being dog shit and the marketing for it being so abrasive, that you will accept anything that isn't immediately obnoxious even if it is off brand.
>> No. 22989 Anonymous
11th December 2019
Wednesday 10:13 am
22989 spacer
>>22988

It's only the first trailer, they aren't going to put all the best jokes in the trailer like say The Simpsons Movie did. Also there was zero legitimate humour in the 2016 version, unless you count queef jokes and jokes about wonton soup not having enough wonton in it as legitimate humour. It's also worth remembering that there is only one actual 'Ghostbusting' sequence in GBII, ie the courtroom battle. The rest of it is all story driven.
>> No. 22990 Anonymous
11th December 2019
Wednesday 12:17 pm
22990 spacer
>>22984
>Robocop has a legitimate claim to being the best film ever made
Sorry, what? Are you trolling? It's not even in IMDB's top 250.
>> No. 22991 Anonymous
11th December 2019
Wednesday 12:50 pm
22991 spacer
>>22990
It's no Starship Troopers.
>> No. 22992 Anonymous
11th December 2019
Wednesday 3:42 pm
22992 spacer
>>22990
As we all know, the I in IMDB stands for "infallible."
Let him enjoy his shooty shooty cyborg film.
>> No. 22993 Anonymous
11th December 2019
Wednesday 6:13 pm
22993 spacer
>>22990
I agree with them. It's a fucking fantastic film. Keen satire dressed up as a "shooty shooty cyborg film".
>> No. 22994 Anonymous
12th December 2019
Thursday 10:50 am
22994 spacer
>>22993
I'm by no means arguing that it isn't a fantastic film. Just that it isn't one of the best ever made.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password