Post: #76

Zelcorpion said: "The budget is 150-200 mio. $ easily. "

That is what I figured but was too lazy and couldn't care enough to do any actual googling.

But really, it still blows my mind.

Like I said. I get the corporate profit angle of maybe turning one character or even two into women. Get Lucy Lu or some other hot actress and maybe a "Zany Pixie Girl type" and hey get a male black character to play the alpha male and a beta male dweeb who can be white or Asian or something. Maybe that Ansari indian dude or something.

Now, you have a film that will appeal to a wide audience and maybe even if it is done well could be funny and make money. I might would even go and see a film like that if you had Samuel Jackson in it.

While I don't like it, especially due to the PC SJW explicit purpose and overtones, I do understand it. It is always about profit. Hell, if the entire populace switched a decade from now and MRA/PUS/MGTOW/whatever was the dominant paradigm and feminists and SJW-ism was considered taboo then we would see advertisers and marketers and corporations bending over backwards to fund our charities and bend to our will.

In fact, we already see this to a small degree. Awhile back I was at my parents house house-sitting while they were out of town. I got stuck watching, I don't have cable, some NCIS marathon and about every other commercial break they had this CBS cares infomercial about prostate cancer and it had this weird ass german doctor talking about getting checked up and so on.

This is mainly due to Movember and how popular it has gotten with a portion of the hipster egalitarian idiots.

Now, I don't really want to knock that. In fact I would like to see more men's issues get air time, especially things like suicide, but let's not kid ourselves in thinking that CBS or any other company really gives a shit.

They simply know they can get more viewers by advertising their brand connected to popular issues. This is why you see all the pink shit in the NFL. A big portion of their viewership, due to many reasons, is female.

But this? Hundreds of millions?

I don't know who is leading with it, I think someone may have said Sony or maybe that was on the Fantastic Four thread I just read through, but I doubt they have that much money as liquid capital. Which means they have to talk to financers, accountants, and marketers who will do all sorts of market tests to determine if it is a good investment.

So, how does this get a green light? It seems unlikely to me that even the most SJW and feminist executives would propose spending that much money on a sure failure.

Or maybe it isn't a sure failure. Either way, maybe we should keep an eye out and consider this movie as a bit of a litmus test. If it fails, then good news. The gamergater types and young men in general aren't interested.

But if it succeeds, then fuck. Throw the towel in.

Post: #77

Ok, I'm frankly offended.
Where are the cis-gendered pansexual representation.
This is very NOT gender neutral...!!!

I will be ok and watch this show furiously as long as there are:
- tranny ghosts
- pansexual midget ghosts
- trans-nigger spooks that have a sex change and become trans-honkey ghost traitors
- No sexy ghosts
- every episode starts with the fat ones nude

Post: #78

Most importantly, who is playing Louis Tully(rick moranis)?!!

Post: #79

I don't see it being profitable, even a lot of female commenters don't seem interested.........which I can see as a lot of the appeal of the first movie for women was thinking Bill Murray was attractive.

My wife's first reaction when I told her was to a disgusted "why?"

Post: #80

Its all a gamble since females drive consumer spending now in America. They are hoping that women will drag thier boyfriends, husbands, kids, etc to go see this movie.

What we dont know is who the "supporting" cast is. You will need one or two big ticket male actors in supporting roles for this to make it even have a chance. If not it will flop. It will flop because women can't decide what type of water to drink let alone movie choices. The men will Stoll choose a movie to watch and it won't be this crap.

For all the hamster love Tina Fey and Amy Pholler get do those two routinely crank out box office booms? This idea that women can pull in numbers in comedy is a big stretch. I can't even think of the top grossing movie where it was a fem-centric comedy.

Post: #81

I am guessing "Bridesmaids" is top, with "Mean Girls" also having done well.

Post: #82

Lindy West weighs in (as it were) at GQ, which once claimed those initials stood for "Gentlemen's Quarterly".

http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/2015/01...women.html

Post: #83

(01-29-2015 02:03 PM)trian1 Wrote:  I am guessing "Bridesmaids" is top, with "Mean Girls" also having done well.

Rom-com, girl comedy demographics is a pretty long shot to revitalize the ghostbusters brand. You're talking about a niche. They are trying to expand that and hope young men will embrace it too.

Post: #84

(01-30-2015 12:45 PM)richler Wrote:  Lindy West weighs in (as it were) at GQ, which once claimed those initials stood for "Gentlemen's Quarterly".

http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/2015/01...women.html

Imagine paying money for a subscription to GQ not only for 70% advertisements, but an article by her.

Post: #85

(01-30-2015 12:45 PM)richler Wrote:  Lindy West weighs in (as it were) at GQ, which once claimed those initials stood for "Gentlemen's Quarterly".

http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/2015/01...women.html

Quote:To that end, I don't think we should stop with Ghostbusters. Let's make every new movie going forward, and remake every classic movie, with all-female casts! Don't worry, men--there'll still be work for you (until you hit 40, I mean--ew). You can play the secretary! Or the girlfriend! You'll be great! I'd put down that donut if I were you, though.

All-female Ocean's 11. All-female The Hangover. All-female Stand By Me. All-female Lord of the Rings. All-female Fight Club. All-female Star Wars. All-female Reservoir Dogs. The new Indiana Jones? Instead of Chris Pratt, how about Viola Davis? Hey, let's extend it to TV too! All-female Mad Men!

I'd say we'll only need, like, 100 years or so of that to achieve gender parity. After all, it's only fair. (And don't worry--you'll get used to it! Maybe the women in your life can give you some tips.)

Or, if you don't like that idea, I'm prepared to receive your counter-offers.

Oh, all-female Ghostbusters sounds pretty reasonable now? GREAT. THEN LET'S GO WITH THAT. GLAD WE HAD THIS TALK.

She was supposed to be a celebrity journalist, but of course it's clear that it is the usual feminist crap.

The only difference being that while we joked about redoing all Hollywood classic into all female casts, she actually wants it to happen.

Fuck them all! I won't be spending one fucking dollar on Hollywood crap any longer - let the Lindy West's go and watch those movies which will undoubtedly suck.

And see how she tries to make it look as if men at age 40 lose attraction to females. No you fucking moron - at around 35 we peak for the broad demographic, while you hit the wall!

Any Red Pill men who buys GQ should feel ashamed of himself.

Post: #86

I haven't heard of any of these female comics but my issue with the reboots are:

1) No target audience: Women don't like action movies. Men won't watch because only the lipstick lesbo is marginally bangable(5-6). They're going to overcompensate with CGI.

2) Bill Murray and Dan Aarkroyd were in their comedic prime when the first film came out. I don't think anyone could match their performances. Imagine going back in time to 1997 and replacing Michael Jordan with Manu Ginobili on the Bulls. The team wouldn't make it past the first round of the playoffs.

Post: #87

(01-30-2015 01:04 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Any Red Pill men who buys GQ should feel ashamed of himself.

Any Red Pill men who buys GQ should feel ashamed of himself.

Post: #88

^^^^

Men won't watch even if the women are slim and bangable:

Sucker Punch came out a couple of years ago, and it was directed by the guy who made 300 (Zack Snyder)

Quote:Budget $82 million
Box office $89.8 million

Post: #89

(01-30-2015 12:45 PM)richler Wrote:  Lindy West weighs in (as it were) at GQ, which once claimed those initials stood for "Gentlemen's Quarterly".

http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/2015/01...women.html

Am I the only who thinks her writing is just terrible? And no, I don't mean the content (that's a given) but the actual writing itself:

Quote:Everyone knows that when the prophets, Egon, Raymond, Peter, and Winston first met their messiah, Slimer, they brought gifts of jockstraps and beef, not Diva Cups and placenta omelets! And anyway, HOW CAN ONE PRESUME TO BUST GHOSTS WHEN COVERED ENTIRELY IN COOTIES!?!?!?

It reads like an angry, childish screed with all of the UPPER-CASE SHOUTING and overwrought punctuation(!!??!). Is that the caliber of writing that's coming out of GQ now? I often don't like or agree with the articles in Salon, The Atlantic, etc.... but at least they don't make my eyes hurt when I read them. I sometimes wonder if she's outsourcing her work to a middle-schooler.

Post: #90

Photo of the new Ghostbusters in uniform:



I suspected it would be a piece of shit, and it sure looks that way from this photo.

Post: #91

Looks dreadful, and I hope it fails massively. Not that I think male-lead Hollywood is much better. As Dustin Hoffman said recently, films are at their absolute worst these days. In fact, I had an argument with a friend of mine the other day, who chastised me for criticising the recent Terminator film as much as I did. He said I wasn't a 'real' fan, and I said it's people like him accepting dross that have caused the industry to continuing make dross. "It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be" is no excuse for accepting mediocrity.

Post: #92

(07-10-2015 04:00 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  Photo of the new Ghostbusters in uniform:



I suspected it would be a piece of shit, and it sure looks that way from this photo.

Post: #93

(07-10-2015 04:27 PM)Teedub Wrote:  Looks dreadful, and I hope it fails massively. Not that I think male-lead Hollywood is much better. As Dustin Hoffman said recently, films are at their absolute worst these days. In fact, I had an argument with a friend of mine the other day, who chastised me for criticising the recent Terminator film as much as I did. He said I wasn't a 'real' fan, and I said it's people like him accepting dross that have caused the industry to continuing make dross. "It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be" is no excuse for accepting mediocrity.

I have a theory about this. People are turning to TV for stories and plot more often than they do movies now. Most movies that came out this summer had stupid stories but some, like Jurassic World, have been fun to watch.

Post: #94

(01-30-2015 01:04 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  [quote='richler' pid='944702' dateline='1422639932']
Lindy West weighs in (as it were) at GQ, which once claimed those initials stood for "Gentlemen's Quarterly".

http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/2015/01...women.html

Quote:All-female Ocean's 11. All-female The Hangover. All-female Stand By Me. All-female Lord of the Rings. All-female Fight Club. All-female Star Wars. All-female Reservoir Dogs. The new Indiana Jones? Instead of Chris Pratt, how about Viola Davis? Hey, let's extend it to TV too! All-female Mad Men!

See, this totally makes sense. We absolutely live in a world where most of the major robbery/heist crews are all female, where the daring rebel leaders, fighter pilots, and tramp smuggler captains are female, where the preeminent risk-taking explorers of unknown places--the Amazon, the North African desert--have been female. It's only the misogyny of Hollywood that has hidden this reality from us. Time for movies to reflect reality, I say.

Not The Hangover, though. Women never get blackout drunk and do stupid shit. Oh no wait, they do, they just aren't held responsible for it.

Post: #95

(07-10-2015 04:00 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  Photo of the new Ghostbusters in uniform:



I suspected it would be a piece of shit, and it sure looks that way from this photo.

Pretty decent CGI on that demon in the back, though.

Post: #96

(07-10-2015 04:00 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  Photo of the new Ghostbusters in uniform:



I suspected it would be a piece of shit, and it sure looks that way from this photo.

This immediately rings false. When have you ever seen a work crew in the type of grimy, dirty job that requires wearing unflattering coveralls be all female? Women with options avoid that kind of thing.

Post: #97

(07-10-2015 04:00 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  Photo of the new Ghostbusters in uniform:

Post: #98

I hope it tanks completely.










Yeah - they can do it all. Most of all they should start by going to the cinemas by themselves and paying for everything as empowered women.

Post: #99

That black chick is one hideous beast!

Post: #100

(07-10-2015 07:19 PM)Chowder Head Wrote:  That black chick is one hideous beast!

"I've seen shit that would turn you white!"