The Empty Theatres of the Ghostbuster's premiere

[Anonymous 3]

BritGHOW wrote:

So where are the women and the SJWs that were mouthing off that this was the best film ever made and that only bitter men were against it? Ooh yes, that’s right, they were never going to watch it anyway, which leaves the entire potential audience being the very fans who Sony thoroughly p~~~ed off by p~~~ing on their childhood in twisting the original idea into this stinking pile of feminist bulls~~~.

This is also why women’s sports always do so badly too. The only people that will actually watch it are the thirsty guys wanting to look at fit young attractive women. But the only sport that seems to really work for that is women’s tennis. Personally I think women’s volleyball should probably also be popular in that vein, but for some reason it’s only tennis. And the manginas are all openly thirsty about it too.

[GreekDragoonParticipant 460]

Note that from a financial perceptive the studio loses money even when a movie ‘breaks even’ at the box office.

The studio’s cut from the sale of a ticket is about 50%, the rest is the cut of the cinema. So if the studio says that they expect an opening of 45 millions then that means that they expect to get at best 22.5 millions.

Ghostbusters cost Sony roughly 150 millions to make. It will lose them a lot of money if the predictions of less than 100 million in world wide box office pan out.

[Anonymous 3]

I just watched a trailer. This movie seems to have a lot of girls drama and fake science and stupidity.

[chirParticipant]

Weekend take 45.5 million.
Cost to make 154 million.
Banned in China.
Where are all the SWJ’s and Feminists supporting “their” movie with attendance?

Nowhere to be seen.

Hypocrisy level: 1000%

S~~~ cake is still s~~~ no matter how much frosting you pile on it.

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning; it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.

[Deadly RaverParticipant]

judging by that opening number, I have a feeling this one won’t even get to 50mil, much less halfway to making back the cash they spent on it. People need to seriously stop listening to SJW and New Wave Feminist s~~~. I mean, by this point, you probably know someone by name who has a horror story to tell. mine is my buddy who’s married who constantly tells me,”Raver, Don’t get married. I’m tellin ya from experience, don’t get married.” The most f~~~ed up part is I know those two actually DO love each other and THEY are saying stay out of the game.

Learn from the past, Control the present, and you will know the Future.

[anonymousyamParticipant 4605]

chir wrote:

Weekend take 45.5 million.
Cost to make 154 million.
Banned in China.
Where are all the SWJ’s and Feminists supporting “their” movie with attendance?

Nowhere to be seen.

Hypocrisy level: 1000%

S~~~ cake is still s~~~ no matter how much frosting you pile on it.

Women are not the ones to be seeing this movie at all since the main fan base is for the guys in their mid to late 30’s who actually grew up with the flims and not the new SJW crowd. I will fully admit the reason i don’t give a s~~~ about ghostbusters or any other 80’s flim is that i am not part of the decade i have no nostalgia for it but neither do the SJW college crowd who wanted this s~~~ to come out.

Just an east coast asshole who likes to curse, If you get offended by words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, bitch or any racial slurs then you just scroll down.

[ConstantineParticipant 4420]

I’ve just been on Imdb – at the moment it’s lingering on $46 million, but The Secret Life of Pets has been holding its position at number one.

That’s more than I was hoping, but it’s still a measly result if the budget was $154 million. That’s not even half of what it cost to produce. And at least it made less than The BFG. I enjoyed The BFG and was disappointed for Spielberg when it didn’t do that great. I would’ve been p~~~ed if Ghostbusters had made more than that one.

To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle. -Orwell

[TorchemParticipant 453]

My younger brother took his wife to see it much to his disgust. She didn’t like it and he thought it was crap at best. He said the funniest was Heath ledger part. There was 6 others in the theater with them.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

GreekDragoon wrote:

The studio’s cut from the sale of a ticket is about 50%, the rest is the cut of the cinema. So if the studio says that they expect an opening of 45 millions then that means that they expect to get at best 22.5 millions.

I suspect a lot of the seats this weekend were sold to those free movie coupon deals they’ve been throwing out like candy. So Sony makes nothing from those tickets and instead has to reimburse the theaters.

Sony is going to lose a lot of money on this deal, as are all the toy makers etc. who signed onto it, but that still won’t stop them from calling it a success and ramming through a sequel. Sony as a company is notorious for not learning its lessons.

Ghostbitches 2016 – the betamax of reboots.

[ConstantineParticipant 4420]

Torchem wrote:

He said the funniest was Heath ledger part.

Heath Ledger part? Heath Ledger died eight years ago. How does that work?

To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle. -Orwell

[Oz-BlokeParticipant 3233]

It has a long way to go before it comes even close to the $295 million box office of the original Ghostbusters. Quite an expensive piece of feminist pandering and female-empowerment propaganda by Sony. Looks like most of babys~~~ters opted to take their child-support extortion units (kids) to the animated fare on offer –

Ghostbusters Can’t Scare Off Secret Life Of Pets

Sony lost me on the original trailer where the female Ghostbuster stage-dived and nobody caught her. She said something like ‘I don’t know if it’s a black thing or a woman thing, but I’m p~~~ed as hell’. Ugh, way to alienate any potential male audience Sony, kick us in the b~~~~ with two victim cards at once. I instantly thought, “I’m not paying a single dime to watch this social-justice warrior bulls~~~”. A few beers and a night in with Fight Club will suit me just fine

#ManOut

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Oz-Bloke wrote:

It has a long way to go before it comes even close to the $295 million box office of the original Ghostbusters.

And that’s in 1984 dollars, which is 2/3 of a billion in today’s dollars. And that doesn’t include all the tie-in revenue. The 1984 Ghostbusters sold a lot of toys and advertisements, DVD’s, tape rentals, spun off a couple of cartoons…

All told, the 1984 Ghostbusters probably made a billion dollars or so, at least. This new pile of crap will be lucky to break even, because it seems to be costing money for everyone who touches it.

Target can’t give away ghostcunster merchandise.

Of course the money is only a small part of the whole deal. I’m far more interested in any careers this thing ruins. You know they are going to ram through a sequel no matter what. And I have no doubt that the current cast are ironclad contract bound to appear in it. Imagine being chained to a trainwreck like that.

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

Took some advice from angry video game nerd and started watching the 2009 Let’s play of Ghostbusters. It’s actually pretty f~~~ing good. I have no reason why people are even going to the new movie.

[narwhalParticipant]

I actually took my kids and mother to see it Saturday. Theatres wasn’t empty, but it was certainly not a sell out either. Saw it in a new theatre that was absolutely spectacular. Tremendous sound system and reclining seats, so that had a big impact on my experience.

Anyway, I didn’t see the movie as terribly feminist in that it wasn’t an attack on me per se. The movie didn’t end with a crotch shot as has been reported, although that was part of the climax, but not a big part. The ghost didn’t actually have a crotch, they just aimed at that rejection and tried to make a relatively safe joke about it, which failed miserably.

I actually thought it started it off fairly well. It seemed like it might have decent character development and a well thought out story…but then it just went downhill. It seemed like it could decide if it was remake or it’s own movie, and settle for cheap laughs instead, that just got worse as time went on.

I could write pages of what didn’t work about this movie, but the most glaring aspect I noticed is that this version didn’t understand what made the first movie work. The original movie was just as much about the blue color working man as it was about ghosts. It was about taking a risk on a ridiculous idea and starting your own business. The original made a point of making sure the audience knew they took about a loan to get the capital, making cheap commercials, and thought they were done for when they weren’t getting any business. They made a point of showing how they charged a fee for their services.

This female version had none of that. They never talked about where they got their capital to get started (or maybe I missed it) and they never asked for payment on their first job (I know I didn’t miss that). There was very little emphasis put on trying to making a living. Instead, they focus on their reputation and what people thought of them. It focused much more on how they felt about each other.

That stuck out to me. This version completely missed the point of the movie and how it appealed to the audience. Even when I saw the original as a kid, the idea of going into business for yourself doing something you love no matter how crazy it was appealed to me. So why even do this movie if you aren’t going to get the point, why not make another Bridesmaids movie?

To be fair, in many ways it reminded me of Ghostbusters II, as that wasn’t nearly as good as the original either.

Ok. Then do it.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

narwhal wrote:

The original movie was just as much about the blue color working man as it was about ghosts. It was about taking a risk on a ridiculous idea and starting your own business.

This female version had none of that. There was very little emphasis put on trying to making a living. Instead, they focus on their reputation and what people thought of them. It focused much more on how they felt about each other.

This is an excellent analysis. Truly this is the core difference between male and female… that the men are taking a risk to do something difficult, dangerous and potentially ridiculous not only to do something good for society but also to do something good for themselves whereas the women are just interested in looking and feeling good.

I will definitely be using this in any discussion I may have about the film.

[SamsquanchParticipant 4226]

Rennie wrote:

The lying liberal media has been writing articles in the news about how good and funny this trash supposedly is. This is one of the ones I saw lately.

Calling all Internet trolls: The new, hilarious all-female Ghostbusters are the ones you know you’re gonna call

Anyone else think it was funny that the last name of the writer is Knight?

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

narwhal wrote:

There was very little emphasis put on trying to making a living. Instead, they focus on their reputation and what people thought of them. It focused much more on how they felt about each other.

What do you expect from female ghotscunsters? Of course they don’t even think about how they’re going to make a living off this. Women never do. They have men to make their livings for them.

That’s why they concentrate on feelings as the most important thing. With men doing all the heavy lifting for them, women don’t have anything real or actually important to worry about.

[narwhalParticipant]

Stargazer wrote:

This is an excellent analysis. Truly this is the core difference between male and female… that the men are taking a risk to do something difficult, dangerous and potentially ridiculous not only to do something good for society but also to do something good for themselves whereas the women are just interested in looking and feeling good.

I will definitely be using this in any discussion I may have about the film.

Thanks Doc. You could practically write a book comparing and contrasting the 2 movies. So many aspects reflected how men view things and how women view things….and how women still love the way men view the world.

Ok. Then do it.

[Author]

Posts