0
30

[–] FeelinFroggy 0 points 30 points (+30|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I guess everyone's sexist then, right? Or racist? Was it race or sex that was driving the blind hatred for this movie again? I'll twitter Leslie Jones and ask her, I'm forgetful you see.

0
11

[–] Antiseed117 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

They think we're all sexist. But what they fail to realize is that if they came out with The Dark Knight version of Batman first. Then came out with the George Cooney version after that, we would be pissed just the same.

0
0

[–] Totenglocke 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's the best analogy ever.

1
26

[–] trucking_foal 1 points 26 points (+27|-1) ago 

"flops"? you sexist pig! The word "flop" is in "flophouse" which is a cheap hotel where you probably abuse and rape women, because you are a cis male coasting through life on your massive privilege."really hard"? of course you are "really hard", waving your erect penis around like a weapon, a weapon of sexual death. "box"? really? why don't you just scream "cunt!" into all the faces of the women that you have violated just by being on this earth?

All I hear you saying is "I don't like Ghostbusters 2016, rape, erect penis, vagina!"

0
25

[–] ElementalPee 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

So are companies going to start realizing it doesn't actually pay to pander to these people? Yeah you have to deal with people whining at you on blogs and twitter or whatever, but it turns out that doesn't matter in the real world. Apart from some annoying vocal minority, no one wants their movies cast by college brochure designers.

0
23

[–] rulloff_in_a_jar 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago 

Leslie Jones preformance was baffingly bad. She speaks entirely in jive, like Tarintino at a BET interview. It wasn't even racist so much as it was like Leslie Jones was some rejected extra from Soul Train teleported into the future by her own ugliness. Proving that no one sees race more than regressives.

0
6

[–] RoryBellowsLives 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Does Tarantino actually do BET interviews? Do they like him or just tolerate him because he made Django but actually laugh at him behind his back?

0
9

[–] SO_TRIGGERED 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

It's not about money to these people, it's about pushing a social agenda, which all the discussion about the movie is doing. Even if they take a hit once in a while, creating discord and promoting feminism creates consumers of D-grade politically correct claptrap who will spend money simply as a signal to how progressive they are. In the long run it's still a net positive. As someone very wise said before, media doesn't need to promote anything, they only have to show it over and over to affect minds.

Best thing to do is ignore it or treat it as a joke, anything else dignifies it too much.

0
10

[–] 0x4F 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Hollywood is the propaganda wing of the Democratic (Communist) Party. Democrat Hollywood actors, producers, directors, etc. are what the Soviet Union referred to as the nomenklatura -- members of the upper echelons of the Party who held important positions essential to its continued functioning and dominance over all aspects of public and private life. In this case, they're the media. They can be exempted from the responsibilities of living like a regular proletarian because of their status as the indispensable core, which means they are absolved of any guilt over being handsomely rewarded for it. The only thing they have to do is to espouse their self-criticism otherwise, which is why you see people like Clooney and Jolie hemming and hawing about Africa and rapeugees. They're just the leaders. The everyday proles -- that would be you and me -- are the ones who actually have to deal with the consequences of what they're promoting. Other than that they parrot various other party lines like feminism, sexual liberation, gun control, etc., and deal with dissidents accordingly (anything from blacklisting to outright murder).

Silicon Valley is just the next iteration of this technology-wise. Milo is an unacceptable dissident therefore he must be punished.

0
12

[–] pm-me-your-pm 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago  (edited ago)

-Makes movie targeted at minority groups in the USA (feminists, SJWs, black women)

-Gets upset when it doesn't appeal to the majority of people in the USA

lolwut?

0
7

[–] pyres 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

After seeing the trailer, and now the lack of income, I'm wondering if SONY is using The Producers as a model.

0
6

[–] Hilarious_Exception 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

The Ghostbusters 2016 film can best be summarized by that scene where Melissa McCarthy flails around on the ground while trying to hold on to the proton pack: a total flop.

2
4

[–] Porphyrogennetos 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

More like Paul FAG am I right?

0
3

[–] LiberalPenguin 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Well...he is, isn't he?

0
3

[–] Rainy-Day-Dream 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

he goes on and on about how he hates men so it's hard to say really, tho imo if he wasn't such a cuck he'd probably have become a tranny lesbian

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
7

[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

It's far lower than Sony wanted--they had visions of creating a Ghostbusters cinematic universe. However, it may not be low enough to ensure Pascal is fired and Feig doesn't work again. They may even go ahead with some of the smaller Ghostbusters properties, and the execs will probably argue that it didn't succeed more because they didn't go far enough with the man-bashing and girl power shit. That's how Hollywood execs' minds work.

0
4

[–] barset 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

46, but for comparison The Secret Life of Pets pulled in over 100 million.

1
6

[–] RoryBellowsLives 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

If the average ticket price is ~$10 a pop (may be more now) that means only 4.6 million people actually went to see it. That's pretty fucking awful considering how much it was advertised and how it is a remake/sequel of one of the most iconic comedies of all time.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] Landao 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I read it cost a whopping 144 million to produce. As of recently it's only pulled in about 90 million or so. A movie is usually considered successful if it makes back double of what it cost.

0
11

[–] great_regret 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Feig came out and said (after being expressly told not to BTW) that the movie needed to make something in the ballpark of $400 million to be considered profitable.

Also, keep in mind, these are the gross profits, not net profits, since cinemas first have to take their cut before the studio can get their cash. Also, the $144 million dollar price tag is ignoring all the money spent on marketing the turd, on top of all the cash Sony invested in planning and preparation of the rebooted Ghostbusters franchise, and whatever else they spent on merchandise (that didn't sell either). And this after China banned the movie, so they basically lost a guaranteed $100 million there as well.

Basically, (((Pascal))) is done for, Sony fired her and she has only a tangential connection to them. (((Feig)))'s career is also pretty much over, he'll never be allowed to direct anything with this kind of budget again.

Meanwhile, Sony of Japan is putting everyone to the chopping block because of this latest fuckup (on top of all previous fuckups), and (((Thomas Rothman))) is buys throwing everyone else under the bus to save himself.

All in all, the movie was a godsend.

load more comments ▼ (15 remaining)