Movies: Ghostbusters...All Women Edition...Discussion thread
- Thread starter playahaitian
- Start date
a lot of critics got some nice brown envelopes
That and Joe's are my favorites so far. Joe's and Roper's reviews seem to be the most on point to me. They clearly didn't give a fuck about the SJWs.
Oh and you can't forget about my boy Mundane Matt. I love his review as well.
well Star Trek Beyond opens next friday..hopefully it tops the b.o
Mr. Sulu mad they made Mr. Sulu gay...
Its like we can't just have a MOMENT of unadulterated fun.
‘Ghostbusters’ Looking At $46M-Plus Opening Weekend – Midday B.O. Update
2nd UPDATE, 12:05 PM: Well, the ladies are driving sales to Ghostbusters according to ComScore’s PostTrak, with industry projections seeing an opening weekend that’s north of $46 million after an $18M Friday.
However, there’s a constituency of box office forecasters who still believe Ghostbusters can pull off a $55M-plus opening (Sony is sticking to their $40M-range estimate). Many still see Ghostbusters second to Illumination/Universal’s The Secret Life Of Pets, which will hold No. 1 with a second weekend north of $55M. Hands down, director Paul Feig and Ghostbusters star Melissa McCarthy can look forward to the best B.O. opening of their careers, outstripping The Heat ($39.1M). Given how early we are in the weekend, and how wild these estimates are, it’s too soon to rule whether Ghostbusters will sink or swim.
While it’s not a surprise to hear that women are dominating movie ticket sales, what is interesting to learn is that Ghostbusters is earning a solid 60% recommend among moviegoers according to PostTrak. That’s quite good. Here’s how that stacks up to other summer films: Captain America: Civil War and Finding Dory(74% definite recommend, that’s huge), Secret Life of Pets (61%) and Central Intelligence (59%). Fandango reports that Ghostbusters right now isthe No. 1 advance ticket seller of the weekend, edging out Pets.
RelishMix reports a social media universe of 160.7M for Ghostbusters across YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, which is strong for a summer tentpole. Sony is tapping brand partnerships and fans’ nostalgia to promote the movie, from partnering with Lyft to bringing back the Ecto-flavored Hi-C juice box. The original trailer from March is still getting 100K-plus views a day which is decent, and it has a 14:1 viral rate which is considered to be fantastic.
RelishMix notices that the social conversation is mixed at best, however. “Some fans can’t wait to see this take on Ghostbusters, while others are appalled at how bad it looks and are trying to rally others to skip it,” reports the social media monitor firm.
Chris Hemsworth has the biggest social following among the Ghostbusters cast members with 12.6M, but he’s not aggressively posting materials from the film. McCarthy counts 2.6M on social, while Feig has 2M and they’re busily promoting. Kristen Wiig and Kate McKinnon do not have a social footprint, while Leslie Jones has 330K between Twitter and Instagram.
http://deadline.com/2016/07/ghostbusters-weekend-box-office-1201787149/
2nd UPDATE, 12:05 PM: Well, the ladies are driving sales to Ghostbusters according to ComScore’s PostTrak, with industry projections seeing an opening weekend that’s north of $46 million after an $18M Friday.
However, there’s a constituency of box office forecasters who still believe Ghostbusters can pull off a $55M-plus opening (Sony is sticking to their $40M-range estimate). Many still see Ghostbusters second to Illumination/Universal’s The Secret Life Of Pets, which will hold No. 1 with a second weekend north of $55M. Hands down, director Paul Feig and Ghostbusters star Melissa McCarthy can look forward to the best B.O. opening of their careers, outstripping The Heat ($39.1M). Given how early we are in the weekend, and how wild these estimates are, it’s too soon to rule whether Ghostbusters will sink or swim.
While it’s not a surprise to hear that women are dominating movie ticket sales, what is interesting to learn is that Ghostbusters is earning a solid 60% recommend among moviegoers according to PostTrak. That’s quite good. Here’s how that stacks up to other summer films: Captain America: Civil War and Finding Dory(74% definite recommend, that’s huge), Secret Life of Pets (61%) and Central Intelligence (59%). Fandango reports that Ghostbusters right now isthe No. 1 advance ticket seller of the weekend, edging out Pets.
RelishMix reports a social media universe of 160.7M for Ghostbusters across YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, which is strong for a summer tentpole. Sony is tapping brand partnerships and fans’ nostalgia to promote the movie, from partnering with Lyft to bringing back the Ecto-flavored Hi-C juice box. The original trailer from March is still getting 100K-plus views a day which is decent, and it has a 14:1 viral rate which is considered to be fantastic.
RelishMix notices that the social conversation is mixed at best, however. “Some fans can’t wait to see this take on Ghostbusters, while others are appalled at how bad it looks and are trying to rally others to skip it,” reports the social media monitor firm.
Chris Hemsworth has the biggest social following among the Ghostbusters cast members with 12.6M, but he’s not aggressively posting materials from the film. McCarthy counts 2.6M on social, while Feig has 2M and they’re busily promoting. Kristen Wiig and Kate McKinnon do not have a social footprint, while Leslie Jones has 330K between Twitter and Instagram.
http://deadline.com/2016/07/ghostbusters-weekend-box-office-1201787149/
http://screenrant.com/ghostbusters-216-extended-cut-blu-ray/
Ghostbusters Extended Cut Will Be Released On Blu-ray
Ahead of the theatrical release of the much anticipated Ghostbusters reboot from director Paul Feig (Spy) due out this Friday, word of mouth has painted the film as being a solid return for the paranormal-comedy franchise – though one that plays it a little too safe on the whole. Despite the fact that some fans of the outstanding property and original film of 1984 have seen fit to decry and defame the very idea of the the new movie’s fundamental premise and creative conception, there has also been plenty of defensing made by the cast and crew already, as well as from others.
The first official trailer for the Ghostbusters reboot has since gone on to become the most disliked video on YouTube of all time, and yet the production as a whole is still expected to bring in between $40-50 million over the course of opening weekend. With that being said, it’s beginning to look more likely than not that general audiences are going to be onboard with the new movie in a big way, and should be more than pleased to hear the latest news on a forthcoming extended cut of Feig’s film.
According to an exclusive interview with Feig conducted by Collider, the theatrical cut of the Ghostbusters reboot was cut down from over four hours of initial footage. Such an excessive length for an early version of the new movie shouldn’t be all that surprising considering the collected improvisational talents of lead actors Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones. As Feig himself explained:
“The editor’s first cut was 4 hours and 15 minutes, and I trimmed that down to a slim 3 and a half hours. We generate a lot of stuff and I always wanna have all the underpinnings of a big, emotional story, and because of that it just added a lot of extra scenes that as you’re going through, you know you have to make a lot of choices because I knew I had to bring this down under two hours. You just start weeding and saying, ‘What do people want to delve deeper into and what do we wanna just kind of skirt through and get to the fun parts?”
That being said, an extended cut of the theatrical release of Ghostbusters will be included with its release on Blu-ray and DVD – one which will stand at a run time of 2 hours and 11 minutes (with roughly 15 minutes of added content). Speaking to what home video viewers can expect from the longer cut, Feig stated:
“We actually just finished [the extended cut] so it’s about another 15 minutes longer, but I will also include a lot of the deleted scenes and extra material that we have on the DVD. It’s actually some stuff that we finished the VFX on just because we wanted to have this nice-looking extended cut too, so it was very kind of the studio to let us finish all of that.”
Knowing that everything featured in theaters won’t be all that potential viewers of the Ghostbusters reboot will have to look forward certainly leaves room for plenty of excitement to continue to build leading up to the film’s theatrical release this weekend. Whether or not Feig will be able to win over even the most embittered fans of the franchise with his new take on the classic property remains to be seen, but here’s to hoping that everyone will find something to enjoy anyway.
Ghostbusters Extended Cut Will Be Released On Blu-ray
Ahead of the theatrical release of the much anticipated Ghostbusters reboot from director Paul Feig (Spy) due out this Friday, word of mouth has painted the film as being a solid return for the paranormal-comedy franchise – though one that plays it a little too safe on the whole. Despite the fact that some fans of the outstanding property and original film of 1984 have seen fit to decry and defame the very idea of the the new movie’s fundamental premise and creative conception, there has also been plenty of defensing made by the cast and crew already, as well as from others.
The first official trailer for the Ghostbusters reboot has since gone on to become the most disliked video on YouTube of all time, and yet the production as a whole is still expected to bring in between $40-50 million over the course of opening weekend. With that being said, it’s beginning to look more likely than not that general audiences are going to be onboard with the new movie in a big way, and should be more than pleased to hear the latest news on a forthcoming extended cut of Feig’s film.
According to an exclusive interview with Feig conducted by Collider, the theatrical cut of the Ghostbusters reboot was cut down from over four hours of initial footage. Such an excessive length for an early version of the new movie shouldn’t be all that surprising considering the collected improvisational talents of lead actors Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones. As Feig himself explained:
“The editor’s first cut was 4 hours and 15 minutes, and I trimmed that down to a slim 3 and a half hours. We generate a lot of stuff and I always wanna have all the underpinnings of a big, emotional story, and because of that it just added a lot of extra scenes that as you’re going through, you know you have to make a lot of choices because I knew I had to bring this down under two hours. You just start weeding and saying, ‘What do people want to delve deeper into and what do we wanna just kind of skirt through and get to the fun parts?”
That being said, an extended cut of the theatrical release of Ghostbusters will be included with its release on Blu-ray and DVD – one which will stand at a run time of 2 hours and 11 minutes (with roughly 15 minutes of added content). Speaking to what home video viewers can expect from the longer cut, Feig stated:
“We actually just finished [the extended cut] so it’s about another 15 minutes longer, but I will also include a lot of the deleted scenes and extra material that we have on the DVD. It’s actually some stuff that we finished the VFX on just because we wanted to have this nice-looking extended cut too, so it was very kind of the studio to let us finish all of that.”
Knowing that everything featured in theaters won’t be all that potential viewers of the Ghostbusters reboot will have to look forward certainly leaves room for plenty of excitement to continue to build leading up to the film’s theatrical release this weekend. Whether or not Feig will be able to win over even the most embittered fans of the franchise with his new take on the classic property remains to be seen, but here’s to hoping that everyone will find something to enjoy anyway.

BOX OFFICE

Sony
‘Ghostbusters’ Opening Is A Record For Melissa McCarthy & Paul Feig, But Is It Big Enough For A Reboot?
by Anthony D'Alessandro
July 16, 2016 8:30am
5TH WRITETHRU, Saturday 8:30am after 1:10AM: Sony/Village Roadshow’s female Ghostbusters has slowed in its weekend estimates from some of the hyper projections we saw on Friday, now heading toward a $44.5M weekend opening after winning Friday with a $16.9M gross. Sony is projecting a weekend of $46.5M, but this is where industry estimates have it as of now.
RELATED
Paul Feig On Re-Birthing 'Ghostbusters,' Hitting Rock Bottom With Donald Trump
Yes, that three-day is a record for director Paul Feig and star Melissa McCarthy (easily beating the $39.1M opening of their B.O. high The Heat), however, considering what Ghostbusters cost at $144M after rebates (and before an estimated $100M-plus global P&A), a number of rival sources consider anything in the $40M range to be a mediocre start for this reboot. Anything north of $50M is ideally safer.
“It’s not a bomb,” said one non-Sony executive today, “a bomb would be an opening in the $20M range. However, a start such as this really puts more pressure on overseas delivering.
BOX OFFICE

Sony
‘Ghostbusters’ Opening Is A Record For Melissa McCarthy & Paul Feig, But Is It Big Enough For A Reboot?
by Anthony D'Alessandro
July 16, 2016 8:30am
5TH WRITETHRU, Saturday 8:30am after 1:10AM: Sony/Village Roadshow’s female Ghostbusters has slowed in its weekend estimates from some of the hyper projections we saw on Friday, now heading toward a $44.5M weekend opening after winning Friday with a $16.9M gross. Sony is projecting a weekend of $46.5M, but this is where industry estimates have it as of now.
RELATED
Paul Feig On Re-Birthing 'Ghostbusters,' Hitting Rock Bottom With Donald Trump
Yes, that three-day is a record for director Paul Feig and star Melissa McCarthy (easily beating the $39.1M opening of their B.O. high The Heat), however, considering what Ghostbusters cost at $144M after rebates (and before an estimated $100M-plus global P&A), a number of rival sources consider anything in the $40M range to be a mediocre start for this reboot. Anything north of $50M is ideally safer.
“It’s not a bomb,” said one non-Sony executive today, “a bomb would be an opening in the $20M range. However, a start such as this really puts more pressure on overseas delivering.
There's been rumor that people at Sony have been paying people to fuck with the ratings to make it look better than it is. In fact there's a video on youtube of a reviewer who praised the movie that took a pic with the directore and he looks like he could be dude's son.
This is coming off the heels of allegations of Sony deleting negative comments on the trailer on youtube.
It's not bad.
Not great - it's not the original - but it's not as bad as people are making it out to be.
Was very cheesy sometimes, (and I like cheesy), but I laughed too. There were some genuinely funny spots in the movie. One thing I will say without spoiling anything is that I do wish that this movie was in the same universe as the first two. It's not, this is just a reimagining of the story. But there was a point where you might have thought that there were ghosts before...I think it was in the Mayor's office...anyhoo, that would have been nice.
Best thing about the movie?
Guess.
Not great - it's not the original - but it's not as bad as people are making it out to be.
Was very cheesy sometimes, (and I like cheesy), but I laughed too. There were some genuinely funny spots in the movie. One thing I will say without spoiling anything is that I do wish that this movie was in the same universe as the first two. It's not, this is just a reimagining of the story. But there was a point where you might have thought that there were ghosts before...I think it was in the Mayor's office...anyhoo, that would have been nice.
Best thing about the movie?
Guess.
^^^
Still some of the best special effects for its time. That holds up.
Still some of the best special effects for its time. That holds up.
Panning ‘Ghostbusters’ gets Roeper a dose of some freaky posts
The paranormal experts (from left: Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon) is freshly slimed in "Ghostbusters." | Columbia Pictures
Richard Roeper
@richardroeper | email
“Hey @richardroeper. You’ve got horrible taste. U physically look like that group of sad old men who r mad @Ghosbusters great reviews!”
“@richardroeper You were unfairly harsh towards @Ghostbusters. Do you even care about equality? Clearly you don’t. Write another review.”
“@richardroeper your @Ghostbusters review was in poor taste, mean spirited and worthy of a lowly film blog. U can dislike a film, but come on.”
“Do us all a favor and die. You don’t know the first thing about how to review a film.”
— Viewers/readers reacting to my review of “Ghostbusters.”
I’ve been slimed.
Also slammed, applauded, lauded, derided, accused of misogyny and told to go off and do things I have no interest in doing because they sound really painful.
All because of my admittedly rough but 100 percent honest review of “Ghostbusters.”
Well before its release, you might have heard a little something about director/co-writer Paul Feig’s reimagined take on the beloved 1984 blockbuster, with the new version starring Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon.
There were nasty comments from resentful fanboys about the casting, essays about the misogynistic reaction and reports the preview was the most reviled trailer in the history of YouTube.
How much of an impact does stuff like that have on me when the lights go down and the screening starts?
Zero. I have one rule when it comes to reviewing films. It’s crazy, but what I do is:
I review the movie.
Not the personal lives of the filmmakers and the actors. Not the track record of the parties involved. Not the buzz about casting or the trailer.
The. Movie.
Of course I look forward to some movies more than others; of course I have my doubts and hopes about various projects before I see the film. (Like many a critic, I often write“Most Anticipated Movies of the Year” pieces.) But once the film starts, it’s hardly a challenge to set all that aside and just absorb and reflect upon the finished product.
When one of my favorite films of the 1980s, “About Last Night…,” was remade in 2014 with Kevin Hart, Joy Bryant, Michael Ealy and Regina Hall in the leads, I noted, “All four leads are terrific” and gave the remake three stars.
When another beloved comedy from the 1980s, “National Lampoon’s Vacation,” was given the next-generation treatment in 2015, with Ed Helms playing the grown-up version of Rusty from the original series, I found it to be “dreadful, crass and relentlessly annoying,” and gave it one star.
Enter the 2016 edition of “Ghostbusters.” I’m a major fan of Paul Feig, from his days as the creator of the brilliant “Freaks and Geeks,” through his work on “The Office” and “Arrested Development,” and films such as “Bridesmaids,” “The Heat” and “Spy.” I’ve also praised the vast majority of the work done by the talented and versatile cast — both the leads and the supporting players.
ROEPER’S REVIEW: Why ‘Ghostbusters’ is one of the year’s worst movies
But my sole obligation is to you, the movie consumer. My job is to tell you what the film is about, what I admired and what I found lacking, and whether I think you should invest your hard-earned money and your valuable time in the movie.
And in my view, the 2016 edition of “Ghostbuster” was a disaster: leaden, uninspired, overly self-conscious, visually unimpressive and largely unfunny.
That’s what I wrote and that’s what I said on TV, radio and on social media.
Enter the backlash, as well as the front lash and the side lash and the avalanche of opinions.
• • •
“For someone with a totally expendable job, what an inflated egomaniac.”
“You’re not in a position to say whether something [is] offensive to a group you’re not in…”
—More love from Troll Nation.
• • •
Salon posted a piece titled, “The Growing Gender Divide Over ‘Ghostbusters’: Why Movies Starring Women Get Slimed by Male Critics.”
The article, written by Nico Lang (a man), mentioned yours truly as one of the male critics who ripped “Ghostbusters,” and reported “84 percent of women giving the movie a thumbs up” while “77 percent of the critics who gave the film a thumbs down are male.”
That’s a bit of an apples/oranges comparison, but Lang uses the same criteria in reporting a disparity between male and female critical response to a number of female-lead films, from “The Hours” to “Ricki and the Flash” to “Pitch Perfect” to “Spy” to “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.”
To be clear: Unlike some of my critics on social media, Lang didn’t accuse me of sexism, but his thought-provoking piece led me to check my track record over the last two years re: films with females as the lead characters.
First — and this comes as no surprise — the number of films with women in the lead isn’t anywhere near the amount of films with men front and center. Come on Hollywood. You can do better.
Of the movies I screened in 2015 and 2016 that featured women in the lead roles, the positive reviews outweighed the negative reviews by more than a two-to-one margin. I praised “Trainwreck,” “Room,” “My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2,” “The Shallows,” “Ricki and the Flash,” “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot,” “The Meddler,” “Joy,” “I Smile Back” … and many others.
If I’m biased, I’m really bad at it.
• • •
In a piece posted on the Heatstreet website, William Hicks wrote: “At the end of two long days of getting hounded by femidorks, Roeper proved his baseness.”
He was right. In one of my more indelicate moments, I had tweeted:
“I can’t overestimate the f—s I don’t give about a troll who’s never been paid a dime for his opinion telling me how to review movies.”
As arrogant as that sounded, I have to point out I wasn’t saying I don’t care about the opinions of filmgoers and colleagues. Of course your views matter to me. I love hearing from fellow movie lovers, even when they disagree with me. (Passionate conversation about movies was kind of the point of the legendary “Siskel & Ebert” show, as well as “Ebert & Roeper.”
The tweet was aimed at people telling me HOW to do my job, including those who claimed I was sexist because I didn’t like the new “Ghostbusters.”
But how insulting would it be to give a film a pass because of good intentions and diversity in the casting? That’s not equal treatment; that’s condescension.
It was encouraging to hear from so many who agreed with me. In fact, by week’s end, the positive comments on Twitter and YouTube and in my e-mailbox outnumbered the negative.
• • •
“I never knew a Ghostbusters reboot was a social movement. People are reacting like you dismissed King’s [I Have a] Dream speech…”
“Holy s— I had no idea Richard Roeper had the blood of a f—ing savage.”
“Somewhere in heaven Siskel & Ebert are giving this man a thumbs up.”
“Thanks for being honest. Too many people are reviewing the controversy or the ‘good intentions’ of the cast and crew, not the actual film.”
I’m grateful so many people — yes, even the haters — care enough about my review to weigh in. As I write this on Sunday afternoon, my various timelines are still filling up with comments about “Ghostbusters.” I ain’t afraid of no posts — but I’m going to let this piece serve as my final word on the subject.
In the meantime, please go see “The Infiltrator.” THAT’S the best movie released last week.
The paranormal experts (from left: Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon) is freshly slimed in "Ghostbusters." | Columbia Pictures
Richard Roeper
@richardroeper | email
“Hey @richardroeper. You’ve got horrible taste. U physically look like that group of sad old men who r mad @Ghosbusters great reviews!”
“@richardroeper You were unfairly harsh towards @Ghostbusters. Do you even care about equality? Clearly you don’t. Write another review.”
“@richardroeper your @Ghostbusters review was in poor taste, mean spirited and worthy of a lowly film blog. U can dislike a film, but come on.”
“Do us all a favor and die. You don’t know the first thing about how to review a film.”
— Viewers/readers reacting to my review of “Ghostbusters.”
I’ve been slimed.
Also slammed, applauded, lauded, derided, accused of misogyny and told to go off and do things I have no interest in doing because they sound really painful.
All because of my admittedly rough but 100 percent honest review of “Ghostbusters.”
Well before its release, you might have heard a little something about director/co-writer Paul Feig’s reimagined take on the beloved 1984 blockbuster, with the new version starring Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon.
There were nasty comments from resentful fanboys about the casting, essays about the misogynistic reaction and reports the preview was the most reviled trailer in the history of YouTube.
How much of an impact does stuff like that have on me when the lights go down and the screening starts?
Zero. I have one rule when it comes to reviewing films. It’s crazy, but what I do is:
I review the movie.
Not the personal lives of the filmmakers and the actors. Not the track record of the parties involved. Not the buzz about casting or the trailer.
The. Movie.
Of course I look forward to some movies more than others; of course I have my doubts and hopes about various projects before I see the film. (Like many a critic, I often write“Most Anticipated Movies of the Year” pieces.) But once the film starts, it’s hardly a challenge to set all that aside and just absorb and reflect upon the finished product.
When one of my favorite films of the 1980s, “About Last Night…,” was remade in 2014 with Kevin Hart, Joy Bryant, Michael Ealy and Regina Hall in the leads, I noted, “All four leads are terrific” and gave the remake three stars.
When another beloved comedy from the 1980s, “National Lampoon’s Vacation,” was given the next-generation treatment in 2015, with Ed Helms playing the grown-up version of Rusty from the original series, I found it to be “dreadful, crass and relentlessly annoying,” and gave it one star.
Enter the 2016 edition of “Ghostbusters.” I’m a major fan of Paul Feig, from his days as the creator of the brilliant “Freaks and Geeks,” through his work on “The Office” and “Arrested Development,” and films such as “Bridesmaids,” “The Heat” and “Spy.” I’ve also praised the vast majority of the work done by the talented and versatile cast — both the leads and the supporting players.
ROEPER’S REVIEW: Why ‘Ghostbusters’ is one of the year’s worst movies
But my sole obligation is to you, the movie consumer. My job is to tell you what the film is about, what I admired and what I found lacking, and whether I think you should invest your hard-earned money and your valuable time in the movie.
And in my view, the 2016 edition of “Ghostbuster” was a disaster: leaden, uninspired, overly self-conscious, visually unimpressive and largely unfunny.
That’s what I wrote and that’s what I said on TV, radio and on social media.
Enter the backlash, as well as the front lash and the side lash and the avalanche of opinions.
• • •
“For someone with a totally expendable job, what an inflated egomaniac.”
“You’re not in a position to say whether something [is] offensive to a group you’re not in…”
—More love from Troll Nation.
• • •
Salon posted a piece titled, “The Growing Gender Divide Over ‘Ghostbusters’: Why Movies Starring Women Get Slimed by Male Critics.”
The article, written by Nico Lang (a man), mentioned yours truly as one of the male critics who ripped “Ghostbusters,” and reported “84 percent of women giving the movie a thumbs up” while “77 percent of the critics who gave the film a thumbs down are male.”
That’s a bit of an apples/oranges comparison, but Lang uses the same criteria in reporting a disparity between male and female critical response to a number of female-lead films, from “The Hours” to “Ricki and the Flash” to “Pitch Perfect” to “Spy” to “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.”
To be clear: Unlike some of my critics on social media, Lang didn’t accuse me of sexism, but his thought-provoking piece led me to check my track record over the last two years re: films with females as the lead characters.
First — and this comes as no surprise — the number of films with women in the lead isn’t anywhere near the amount of films with men front and center. Come on Hollywood. You can do better.
Of the movies I screened in 2015 and 2016 that featured women in the lead roles, the positive reviews outweighed the negative reviews by more than a two-to-one margin. I praised “Trainwreck,” “Room,” “My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2,” “The Shallows,” “Ricki and the Flash,” “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot,” “The Meddler,” “Joy,” “I Smile Back” … and many others.
If I’m biased, I’m really bad at it.
• • •
In a piece posted on the Heatstreet website, William Hicks wrote: “At the end of two long days of getting hounded by femidorks, Roeper proved his baseness.”
He was right. In one of my more indelicate moments, I had tweeted:
“I can’t overestimate the f—s I don’t give about a troll who’s never been paid a dime for his opinion telling me how to review movies.”
As arrogant as that sounded, I have to point out I wasn’t saying I don’t care about the opinions of filmgoers and colleagues. Of course your views matter to me. I love hearing from fellow movie lovers, even when they disagree with me. (Passionate conversation about movies was kind of the point of the legendary “Siskel & Ebert” show, as well as “Ebert & Roeper.”
The tweet was aimed at people telling me HOW to do my job, including those who claimed I was sexist because I didn’t like the new “Ghostbusters.”
But how insulting would it be to give a film a pass because of good intentions and diversity in the casting? That’s not equal treatment; that’s condescension.
It was encouraging to hear from so many who agreed with me. In fact, by week’s end, the positive comments on Twitter and YouTube and in my e-mailbox outnumbered the negative.
• • •
“I never knew a Ghostbusters reboot was a social movement. People are reacting like you dismissed King’s [I Have a] Dream speech…”
“Holy s— I had no idea Richard Roeper had the blood of a f—ing savage.”
“Somewhere in heaven Siskel & Ebert are giving this man a thumbs up.”
“Thanks for being honest. Too many people are reviewing the controversy or the ‘good intentions’ of the cast and crew, not the actual film.”
I’m grateful so many people — yes, even the haters — care enough about my review to weigh in. As I write this on Sunday afternoon, my various timelines are still filling up with comments about “Ghostbusters.” I ain’t afraid of no posts — but I’m going to let this piece serve as my final word on the subject.
In the meantime, please go see “The Infiltrator.” THAT’S the best movie released last week.
HFunk- please don't link to that bs blog anymore - this is the 3rd time I've read something from them that lacks any credibility especially considering they use the name of Dorkshelf
Agreed. Especially from 30+ years ago.
Sure thing - just ignore their links. I don't read their shit much, just enter to win their blu-rays and movie passes. They're based out of Toronto or something.
No they don't want Twitter and Tumblr wrath for saying it's anything other than a masterpiece. I've seen it. it's so-so, so don't pay full price to see it. and most of the honest critics have said the same. But according to the two Ts We all hate it because we are men.
Like i said last week there was no way in the world i was going to pay to see this movie,even though a free ticket was waved in front of my face i still had to be dragged
to the theatre .So glad i saw it for free,not saying that this fick is the putrid waste of time i thought it was going to be,but it's not that good either.
Ok the first half hour worked for me ,the characters were introduced well i bought into the history and friendship of Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy.
I laughed ,i was having fun
Then all of the cringe worthy moments started happening
Now Chris Hemsworth's relentlessly brainless character was funny but after awhile it wears thin,and i swear there were scenes in which he's just walking around
with nothing to do.Kate McKinnon: people are raving about her and yes her quirks were funny for a minute here and there and i guess she was trying to channel Jim Carrey
or something but after awhile i didnt care
Leslie Jones was basically what you see in the trailer she has one funny scene.
There was one scene in the movie that perfectly combined scary with funny and this movie desperately needed more of them.
The cameos from the original cast made me groan One cameo actually made me think well that's the route they should have taken with all of these new characters.
Why not have the original Ghosbuster's hand over the reigns to family members and college students that showed great interest to what occured in the first 2 films?
The villain in this film was beyond lame and boring He was like one of the lame villains from a bad animated movie.
All of the male characters are either idiots,sexist,or cowards.
I did like some of the CGI,SFX and action in the in the films finale
As a whole i see this movie as a HUGE missed oppurtunity so much more could have been done to make it at least very good
Wait for cable or the DVD release.
Scale of 1-10 a 4
to the theatre .So glad i saw it for free,not saying that this fick is the putrid waste of time i thought it was going to be,but it's not that good either.
Ok the first half hour worked for me ,the characters were introduced well i bought into the history and friendship of Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy.
I laughed ,i was having fun
Then all of the cringe worthy moments started happening
Now Chris Hemsworth's relentlessly brainless character was funny but after awhile it wears thin,and i swear there were scenes in which he's just walking around
with nothing to do.Kate McKinnon: people are raving about her and yes her quirks were funny for a minute here and there and i guess she was trying to channel Jim Carrey
or something but after awhile i didnt care
Leslie Jones was basically what you see in the trailer she has one funny scene.
There was one scene in the movie that perfectly combined scary with funny and this movie desperately needed more of them.
The cameos from the original cast made me groan One cameo actually made me think well that's the route they should have taken with all of these new characters.
Why not have the original Ghosbuster's hand over the reigns to family members and college students that showed great interest to what occured in the first 2 films?
The villain in this film was beyond lame and boring He was like one of the lame villains from a bad animated movie.
All of the male characters are either idiots,sexist,or cowards.
I did like some of the CGI,SFX and action in the in the films finale
As a whole i see this movie as a HUGE missed oppurtunity so much more could have been done to make it at least very good
Wait for cable or the DVD release.
Scale of 1-10 a 4
DAYUUUM!!!!!
Ghostbusters’ Main Problem Is That Sony Wanted It to Be a Marvel Movie
After all the troll-fueled hubbub, including a historically disliked trailerand studio support of the disdain, Ghostbusters finally arrived: no longer just a beachhead in the online gender wars, but a real movie in the real world, one that people can go pay real money to see. And while the hysterical post-Gamergate nightmare that was its lead-up often felt distracting from the movie itself, the truth of the matter is thatGhostbusters, despite its magnetism for controversy and inventive central concept, faced a bigger problem upon its release — one that has more to do with how it was positioned than the way it was conceived or executed.
To understand, let's look at both the good and bad news from opening weekend, both of which paint a full picture of a movie that may have been weighted with an unfair burden.
THE GOOD NEWS
There is good news, and it's very straightforward: Ghostbusters made $46 million this weekend. While that wasn't enough to top The Secret Life of Pets, which led the box office for the second straight week, $46 million is agreat opening for a live-action comedy. It's the highest opening ever for both Paul Feig or Melissa McCarthy, the ninth-highest opening of the year so far, and if we consider Ghostbusters a comedy first and foremost, then it's the best first weekend of 2016 for that genre — topping Central Intelligence ($35.5 million), McCarthy's The Boss ($23.5 million), andNeighbors 2 ($21.7 million). You'd have to go back to 2014 to find a better comedy opening: 22 Jump Street made $57 million on its way to a $191.7 million domestic total.
In fact, it's hard to expect it to have done much better; for a comedy — which tend to play to a more limited audience domestically than superhero or animated movies and to a far smaller international audience — it performed very well.
But.
THE BAD NEWS
Here's the bad news: This movie cost $144 million after tax incentives and rebates. It had a P&A (promotional and advertising) spend rumored to be over $100 million. That puts the total amount Sony sunk into this movie in the $250 million range, which is ... a lot for a comedy. Like: a lot. Box Office Mojo is predicting a total domestic run in the $135–$145 million range, which would barely be enough to earn back its production budget. And unlike similar openers from last year, like Mad Max: Fury Road andHotel Transylvania 2, Sony can't rely on overseas audiences to significantly boost that number.
In hindsight, it seems absurd: Why would Sony spend superhero money on a comedy? Feig's track record is impressive, but it's impressive because he tends to make sensibly budgeted movies that deliver a significant return on investment: Bridesmaids, The Heat, and Spy cost $32.5 million, $43 million, and $65 million, respectably.
The answer resides in the Sony leak. Hundreds of emails leaked in early 2015 were related to the reboot of Ghostbusters. But the most interesting of them all — more interesting than their attempts to hire Christopher Lord and Phil Miller to do Ghostbusters 3; more interesting than the efforts to balance power between Ivan Reitman and Paul Feig; more interesting than the dozens of actors, writers, and directors who tried to get themselves attached to Ghostbusters — is one Amy Pascal, then co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment, sent to Michael De Luca, then Sony's president of production, that frames everything in a much more understandable, if not entirely defensible, light: They were hopingGhostbusters would be the basis of a Marvel-like universe for Sony.
There are other emails where they compare the franchise to Marvel andStar Wars as well, taking into account the idea of a unified mythology and the other Ghostbusters idea being developed by Channing Tatum, Reid Carolin, and Joe Russo that would also star Chris Pratt. If theGhostbusters franchise was going to be Sony's Marvel, that would justify spending superhero money on Ghostbusters, the reboot that would have to kick the tires and light the fires for many more movies, merchandise, and other forms of media. And superhero money usually means budgets into the nine figures; in the Marvel Cinematic Universe alone, Disney's spent an average of $180 million on its 13 movies. Even Ant-Man, the comparatively cheap and fun entry into the MCU, cost $130 million, andCivil War and Age of Ultron both cost $250 million.
Which makes it a cold realization when you consider that the Ghostbustersopening is lower than any entry in the MCU yet — including The Incredible Hulk, which made $55 million on opening weekend. If you compareGhostbusters to the film that launched the MCU, Iron Man, the picture gets even uglier: Iron Man made about double what Ghostbusters did in its first frame, taking in $98 million.
In fact, here are some of the superhero movies that have opened better than Ghostbusters: the 2005 Fantastic Four and its 2007 sequel; Ryan Reynolds's Green Lantern; Watchmen; Batman Forever; Superman Returns; and every X-Men movie, including The Wolverine.
On the bright side, Batman Begins only managed $48 million on nearly the same budget, and that turned out pretty well for Christopher Nolan and Warner Bros. But Batman Begins was a critical hit that received an A CinemaScore; Ghostbusters has been met with mixed reviews, and its B+ CinemaScore, while totally fine, doesn't signal the kind of passion that launches cinematic universes.
Again, for a comedy, Ghostbusters did quite well. But Sony didn't makeGhostbusters like a comedy. They made it like a superhero movie — and as a superhero movie, it's a disappointment. Not quite a disaster on the scale of last year's Fantastic Four, but still a major letdown.
Putting that blame on the shoulders of Feig and the cast would be a mistake; it would also be a mistake to blame the gender-swapping concept. The problem lies in the expectations. Cinematic universes are all the rage these days, but it takes a hefty piece of IP to support that kind of spend — either superheroes or dinosaurs or Jedi, basically. There's a world in which the Ghostbusters franchise blossoms into a beautiful ghost-tree, with sequels and spinoffs and Ghostbusters Go. It's just a world that will have to cost a whole lot less.
After all the troll-fueled hubbub, including a historically disliked trailerand studio support of the disdain, Ghostbusters finally arrived: no longer just a beachhead in the online gender wars, but a real movie in the real world, one that people can go pay real money to see. And while the hysterical post-Gamergate nightmare that was its lead-up often felt distracting from the movie itself, the truth of the matter is thatGhostbusters, despite its magnetism for controversy and inventive central concept, faced a bigger problem upon its release — one that has more to do with how it was positioned than the way it was conceived or executed.
To understand, let's look at both the good and bad news from opening weekend, both of which paint a full picture of a movie that may have been weighted with an unfair burden.
THE GOOD NEWS
There is good news, and it's very straightforward: Ghostbusters made $46 million this weekend. While that wasn't enough to top The Secret Life of Pets, which led the box office for the second straight week, $46 million is agreat opening for a live-action comedy. It's the highest opening ever for both Paul Feig or Melissa McCarthy, the ninth-highest opening of the year so far, and if we consider Ghostbusters a comedy first and foremost, then it's the best first weekend of 2016 for that genre — topping Central Intelligence ($35.5 million), McCarthy's The Boss ($23.5 million), andNeighbors 2 ($21.7 million). You'd have to go back to 2014 to find a better comedy opening: 22 Jump Street made $57 million on its way to a $191.7 million domestic total.
In fact, it's hard to expect it to have done much better; for a comedy — which tend to play to a more limited audience domestically than superhero or animated movies and to a far smaller international audience — it performed very well.
But.
THE BAD NEWS
Here's the bad news: This movie cost $144 million after tax incentives and rebates. It had a P&A (promotional and advertising) spend rumored to be over $100 million. That puts the total amount Sony sunk into this movie in the $250 million range, which is ... a lot for a comedy. Like: a lot. Box Office Mojo is predicting a total domestic run in the $135–$145 million range, which would barely be enough to earn back its production budget. And unlike similar openers from last year, like Mad Max: Fury Road andHotel Transylvania 2, Sony can't rely on overseas audiences to significantly boost that number.
In hindsight, it seems absurd: Why would Sony spend superhero money on a comedy? Feig's track record is impressive, but it's impressive because he tends to make sensibly budgeted movies that deliver a significant return on investment: Bridesmaids, The Heat, and Spy cost $32.5 million, $43 million, and $65 million, respectably.
The answer resides in the Sony leak. Hundreds of emails leaked in early 2015 were related to the reboot of Ghostbusters. But the most interesting of them all — more interesting than their attempts to hire Christopher Lord and Phil Miller to do Ghostbusters 3; more interesting than the efforts to balance power between Ivan Reitman and Paul Feig; more interesting than the dozens of actors, writers, and directors who tried to get themselves attached to Ghostbusters — is one Amy Pascal, then co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment, sent to Michael De Luca, then Sony's president of production, that frames everything in a much more understandable, if not entirely defensible, light: They were hopingGhostbusters would be the basis of a Marvel-like universe for Sony.
There are other emails where they compare the franchise to Marvel andStar Wars as well, taking into account the idea of a unified mythology and the other Ghostbusters idea being developed by Channing Tatum, Reid Carolin, and Joe Russo that would also star Chris Pratt. If theGhostbusters franchise was going to be Sony's Marvel, that would justify spending superhero money on Ghostbusters, the reboot that would have to kick the tires and light the fires for many more movies, merchandise, and other forms of media. And superhero money usually means budgets into the nine figures; in the Marvel Cinematic Universe alone, Disney's spent an average of $180 million on its 13 movies. Even Ant-Man, the comparatively cheap and fun entry into the MCU, cost $130 million, andCivil War and Age of Ultron both cost $250 million.
Which makes it a cold realization when you consider that the Ghostbustersopening is lower than any entry in the MCU yet — including The Incredible Hulk, which made $55 million on opening weekend. If you compareGhostbusters to the film that launched the MCU, Iron Man, the picture gets even uglier: Iron Man made about double what Ghostbusters did in its first frame, taking in $98 million.
In fact, here are some of the superhero movies that have opened better than Ghostbusters: the 2005 Fantastic Four and its 2007 sequel; Ryan Reynolds's Green Lantern; Watchmen; Batman Forever; Superman Returns; and every X-Men movie, including The Wolverine.
On the bright side, Batman Begins only managed $48 million on nearly the same budget, and that turned out pretty well for Christopher Nolan and Warner Bros. But Batman Begins was a critical hit that received an A CinemaScore; Ghostbusters has been met with mixed reviews, and its B+ CinemaScore, while totally fine, doesn't signal the kind of passion that launches cinematic universes.
Again, for a comedy, Ghostbusters did quite well. But Sony didn't makeGhostbusters like a comedy. They made it like a superhero movie — and as a superhero movie, it's a disappointment. Not quite a disaster on the scale of last year's Fantastic Four, but still a major letdown.
Putting that blame on the shoulders of Feig and the cast would be a mistake; it would also be a mistake to blame the gender-swapping concept. The problem lies in the expectations. Cinematic universes are all the rage these days, but it takes a hefty piece of IP to support that kind of spend — either superheroes or dinosaurs or Jedi, basically. There's a world in which the Ghostbusters franchise blossoms into a beautiful ghost-tree, with sequels and spinoffs and Ghostbusters Go. It's just a world that will have to cost a whole lot less.
^^
racist fucks - but no lie- except for the last one -they definitely got some type of humor
nope can't allow this
I heard MANY brothers and sisters didn't like her performance but we can't allow that.