|
Post by essayceedee on Mar 12, 2024 13:18:45 GMT
Outstanding. Hopefully incel boy will do us all a favor and slit his fucking wrists.
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Mar 12, 2024 17:38:58 GMT
I want nothing at all to do with anyone who wants nothing to do with half of the country, or any other group of millions of people that they've never met but decided that they hate. The Cambridge Dictionary defines bigotry as "the fact of having and expressing strong, unreasonable beliefs and disliking other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life." And I don't like bigots. There is a BIG difference between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan. And a big difference between Regan Republicans and MAGA - now I am sorry if you are too stupid to understand that but MAGA is NOT Republican - most real Republicans (all of the decent ones) have come out and switched sides and voted for Biden - these REAL republicans do this not because they support Biden or Democrat belief systems but because they put the country first - the Lincoln Project spend most of their existence putting out political attack adds to skewer Democrats - this is a Republican organization led by a Republican - now they spend their time ripping Trump. The mistake you are making is equating Trump to Reagan Republicans - Most people can disagree on policy - Bush Sr and Reagan - meh - hell Clinton mostly followed the same agenda. People made fun of W because he mangled the English language and admitted he wasn't a reader s- it is a bit funny when the best people they can come up with are genuinely illiterate dummies. But not too many questioned that he was at least human - as is Mitt Romney as is Liz Cheney as was John McCain. People who support the racist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamaphobic, *********, rapist, who has stolen from children's charities (and found guilty and charged!), a traitor stealing US Military secrets and abetted an insurrection to stop the peaceful transfer of power - people who STILL vote for that guy are ALL saying this is the person they LOVE with all their hearts and body and soul - the president you choose is a reflection of what you ARE and what you want. This is not an irrational dislike buddy - it is very rational to not like fascist wannabes and their supporters. It wasn't wrong to hate Hitler and all the people who voted for and helped Hitler. If those slimeballs hate me - good - I have done my small part. Seriously “stupid” , calling another poster that is ok ? Someone who doesn’t know the meaning of fascism shouldn’t call anyone that, but those words are callously thrown around and they get many to buy it. Nasty bunch of people .. Why is this thread off the rails Because rational people are beyond tired of politicians who are in bed with Putin (and other fascists), break the law, lack any human decency, and lie constantly. Kimmel said more about the tweet incident in the talk show monologue tonight you can watch on youtube. Tackier than the Oscars, IMO. I'll refrain from pulling senator quotes from 30 years ago or showing the vintage Karl Malone or Oprah videos by Kimmel.
|
|
|
Post by Brick Wall on Mar 12, 2024 18:30:59 GMT
Well played, sir.
|
|
|
Post by cockledge on Mar 12, 2024 19:10:50 GMT
"The ratings they used to get were achieved in part because they used to try hard not to offend any segment of the viewing public."
That's BS and the ratings they used to get were because there was NOTHING ELSE to watch on TV and the internet and social media was virtually non-existent for the masses.
|
|
|
Post by cockledge on Mar 12, 2024 22:19:35 GMT
Thank You BEAThoven, said it better than I could:
Jedi:"It's a great thing to do only if you don't care about ratings for late-night comedy shows and awards shows continuing to sink into the toilet. The ratings they used to get were achieved in part because they used to try hard not to offend any segment of the viewing public."
BEAThoven: "So clueless, it's amazing...
Rating for shows like the Oscars has been on a downward trend for quite a while now... mainly because the time of "catch it now, or miss it forever" is long gone... you can watch the Oscars at any time now.
And the Oscars not offending the viewing public? When the hell was that? Back in the '70s when the ratings for this type of show were through the roof at 40%? When John Wayne and half the country got in a twist because Marlon Brando sent a Native American up to the podium to accept the award and make a political speech? Or was it when Vanessa Redgrave addressed the "Zionist hoodlums" in 1978?
Yeah, I miss the days when the Oscars never offended anybody."
|
|
|
Post by halftime on Mar 13, 2024 14:13:57 GMT
I guess the Oscars thread got zapped.
|
|
|
Post by The 801 on Mar 13, 2024 15:14:12 GMT
Good thing “Killers Of The Flower Moon” didn’t win any Oscars, amirite?
|
|
|
Post by gobshite on Mar 13, 2024 15:14:35 GMT
Dang, I should have captured the last poat I saw where someone asked for details on how Oprah dictates the In Memoriam segment. That's probably what did it, exposing SHite stupidity too nakedly
|
|
|
Post by gobshite on Mar 13, 2024 17:28:25 GMT
Does Jedi have a time out? He is unusually absent from the Last Message list in Visual Arts. What time does the gun shop open?
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Mar 26, 2024 17:39:41 GMT
One review of “Frozen Empire” made a good point in that, while any sequel (going back to the 1989 “Ghostbusters II” film) is made in order to capitalize on the “franchise”, “Frozen Empire” is the first Ghostbusters film that seems to truly exist only to be a product A bunch of baloney coming from critics who, for a long time, were congenitally incapable of giving an MCU movie a negative review. Tell me when they start saying that they're making too many Batman, Spider-Man or James Bond movies. These are simply fake talking points they're making up because their agenda is to trash this movie and the Ghostbusters fans who demanded the studio abandon the GB2016 reboot. There are plenty of groundbreaking, seminal original films out there that still get tons of sequels, even though there's little hope of matching the original film's quality. Yet this seems to be the only series today where the very idea of making sequels gets criticized. And it's because there is so much utterly disingenuous criticism of this franchise, sadly stemming from Sony's incompetent decision to reboot the series in 2016, and throw out some of the finest world-building in motion picture history. I think the reviews are skewed on the last two Ghostbusters movies and Joker for the exact same reason. The "incel" thing you cited. A sizable number of critics, certainly enough to skew the score by 20% or so, decided that the people supporting movies like Joker or Ghostbusters: Afterlife were their enemies, or reprehensible people in some way. They then made it a point to distance themselves from those people by trashing the movies, and often trashing their fans along with them. They continually mention the GB2016 movie in their reviews of the two recent Ghostbusters movies, when it has absolutely no relevance to them, and doesn't exist in the same universe. They are still focused on an agenda to mount some kind of defense of that movie against its critics. As I pointed out, it's biased to judge a movie based on outside factors like who its fans are, or the existence of some other movie. Another case where this kind of bias happened is on Passion of the Christ, with its 49% RT score, contrasted with its rare A+ Cinemascore. Maybe no one can be objective about a movie like that, but all I'm trying to prove is that a significant minority of the critics are indeed biased when it comes to movies that get caught up in cultural, social or political issues. Afterlife is a good movie. Even Rotten Tomatoes rates it fresh. It is a question that needs to be answered why these movies are called "nostalgia grabs," but Top Gun: Maverick and Force Awakens are praised to high heavens, even though they have the same kind of mirror images, references and callbacks to their original films. I've provided an answer here that makes sense to me. What are the alternate theories? That Sony isn't schmoozing it up with the critics as well as Disney and Paramount are? Try to find one other movie besides the Ghostbusters sequels where "nostalgia" is used as a negative word in its reviews. The top RT review of Force Awakens says, "It's both nostalgic and fresh, a tender homage to, especially, the initial Star Wars." Another review praises the "powerfully nostalgic displays from the original members." The top RT review of Maverick says, "Burnished 1980s blockbuster nostalgia as Tom Cruise and producer Jerry Bruckheimer prove they can still make ’em like they used to." I didn't say they were the same group. I said the critics had an axe to grind against their perceived enemies in both cases, who were supporters of those films, and that caused them to review the films more negatively. Not that Joker fans and Ghostbusters fans are the same people. But they definitely get labeled with the meaningless epithet "incel," a generic slur used to attack any male fan of anything.
|
|
|
Post by essayceedee on Mar 26, 2024 17:50:18 GMT
Does anyone on earth outside of the incelsphere give a fuck about any of this garbage? I wasn’t aware that there was another dipshit Ghostbusters movie until I saw a commercial for it the other day.
|
|
|
Post by Chicken in Black on Mar 26, 2024 19:01:38 GMT
Ghostbusters II showed, well before incels were a thing, that there was no point in making a sequel to Ghostbusters.
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Mar 27, 2024 19:26:07 GMT
2016's "Ghostbusters", 2021's "Ghostbusters: Afterlife", and 2024's "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" ALL had nearly identical opening weekends at the box office: 2016's "Ghostbusters" - $46,018,755 2021's "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" - $44,008,406 "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" - $45,004,673 I haven't seen anybody in the zillion YouTube "box office breakdown" videos point this out. And the 2016 remake and "Afterlife" both ended with very similar worldwide box office numbers, with the 2016 film doing slightly better. I suspect "Frozen Empire" will end at a similar mark, in the $200-$250M worldwide range like the other two. All this isn't even getting into the bizarre continued narrative that the 2016 film "bombed", "was hated", and "nobody went to go see it", even though it performed nearly *identically* (and in fact *slightly better*) than the subsequent two Ghostbusters sequels that "did what the 'fans' wanted." The 2016 film did better *at the box office* and *with critics*, yet the narrative remains that it bombed. I say this objectively; I haven't particularly liked any of these remakes or sequels. Sure seems like the "Ghostbusters" as a "franchise" has a pretty locked in core audience and not much beyond that. The 2016 film was a bomb that lost tens of millions. It was a prime summer release but opened in second place, and was down to FIFTH place in its SECOND weekend. That's a disastrous audience reception by any standard. Dan Aykroyd himself said the 2016 film was a failure whose performance ensured it would get no sequels. From Wikipedia, "the studio stated the film would need to gross at least $300 million to break even." Its director Paul Feig said, "A movie like this has to at least get to like $500 million worldwide, and that's probably low." This has absolutely nothing to do with YouTubers. The director, producer and studio all said the 2016 film bombed. The reviews of that film and the subsequent ones are meaningless, because critics turned this franchise into a "cause du jour," and spent their reviews lecturing Ghostbusters fans, falsely accusing them of being sexist just because they didn't want to see a reboot that threw out all of the original characters. Reboots get rejected by audiences 9 times out of 10, and that's why this film was rejected by the fans. But some people saw an opening to be self-righteous and sanctimonious, and to push a specific narrative, and took it. Afterlife, on the other hand, was a hit that turned a profit. It was one of the films spearheading the exit from the pandemic in late 2021 (November). It opened in #1 and stayed in the top 3 for a month. It had a higher Cinemascore, higher IMDB rating, and higher "legs" at the box office in subsequent weeks than GB2016. Yes, the lower budget is a key factor, costing $69 million less than GB2016. But with that came less marketing and an off-season release date. It was a lower scale release in every way. So it had less of a machine behind it to draw in a casual audience. Ultimately, it was a beautifully handled release that threaded the needle through the pandemic's aftermath, a lower budget, and the bad reception of the previous film to become a solid, well-received success. And that brings us to Frozen Empire. Its fate at the box office is nowhere near as assured as Afterlife. The lower Cinemascore than Afterlife is a definite problem for its legs. The negative reviews will impact casual viewers' interest in seeing it. Fans' reviews are just as mixed. One poll I saw had fans roughly split down the middle on whether they thought it was better or worse than Afterlife. The biggest problem is it cost $25 million more than Afterlife, so it's got a higher bar to clear. And, while March probably seemed like a safe spot on the calendar to give it some breathing room, the massive schedule shifts due to the strikes ended up pushing other films right on top of it in the calendar, like Dune and Kong. Probably NOT the situation they were hoping they'd be in. Ultimately, I don't think you're correct that the same audience just keeps showing up for any film called Ghostbusters. A lot of fans stayed away from the 2016 film. Their absence was probably made up for by casual people showing up for the film in the summer, just attracted by the brand name. Because of how bad that film was, some of them probably never came back to watch subsequent films. Especially overseas, where they knew little about the brand name before 2016. But fans came back for Afterlife and Frozen Empire, making up for the 2016 audience that never returned. Yeah, I mean, at the end of the day the 2016 film sold more tickets than "Afterlife" and quite possibly more than what "Frozen Empire" will pull in. Budgets on these films weren't identical; the 2016 film's was higher. At the end of the day, I suspect the net profit on all of these movies for Sony were *very similar*. If you're Sony shareholder and you want to try to argue that "Afterlife" netted the studio like $10 million more than the 2016 film, I guess that's certainly possible. If you want to try to argue that something damaged the "branding" of the franchise, something that is not objectively measurable, then that's something you can try. If you want to try to argue that Sony expected the 2016 film to make even *more* money than it did, that's certainly possible. If you want to talk about how many *people* bought tickets, sat in seats, and watched these movies in theaters, then the numbers are pretty hard evidence that you can't stretch things so far that the 2016 film is a "bomb" and the subsequent two are hits. I'm amazed how often people call things "bombs" and other things "hits" and don't use the easy internet tools to *actually compare* the box office numbers. They don't tell *the entire story*, but it's certainly a *big part* of the story. "The Flash" sold more tickets than any of these three Ghostbusters movies, and it was a HUGE bomb, right? Right? Yes, it lost money because it had an inflated budget. Again, if you're a Warner-Discovery shareholder, then that's an issue for you. If you're just trying to argue what's "good" or "bad" or what "people like" or "don't like", then the budget on these films doesn't matter. If we want to start talking about how "film" discussion, on the internet especially, has gone sideways, I think such strong emphasis on *profitability* has totally skewed the discussion. First of all, on most of these films, we don't *actually* really know what the budget was. Any number you see online is an estimate. Unless you're looking at that old infamous Harry Potter budget sheet (which itself is compromised in other ways, also infamously), you don't actually know what money went into a given film. Plus, most people aren't privy to profit participation between the studios and various production companies, producers, etc. They also usually aren't privy to the precise split studios and theaters make for films. All of these numbers are "out there" on the internet, but they're almost always estimates. But more importantly, the fixation on *profitability* has warped how a whole generation of supposed "movie fans" view the movie industry. They all think like movie executives, the same ones they like to say they hate or despise. I often ask people who cite budgets to make a point, "Are you a shareholder? No? Then, A) Why do you care? and B) Why does it matter in relation to what you're talking about?" If you're a shareholder, of if you're *specifically* trying to determine whether you're going to get more sequels or follow-ups to a given movie, then profitability is germane to the discussion. If you're trying to discuss how much of a "bomb" something is, then you need to define it. You can't just mix it all up. If you're trying to just say what people liked or didn't like, or what was more "popular", then a movie that sells more tickets than another is more popular. So many people online use box office to justify what's good or bad, until the thing they like didn't make enough money (or the thing they don't like made too much money), and then all the criteria conveniently change. My favorite cases are when the "narrative" coalesces so quickly that nobody ever realizes that it's wrong. Something like "Elemental" was deemed a huge bomb, but then ended up making $485M at the box office. Even the trades can't get it straight. I remember back when the "Dumbo" live action remake came out. It made $45M the first weekend. I literally saw on the same weekend headlines that read: "Dumbo scores big with $45M opening" "Dumbo meets expectations with $45M opening" "Dumbo disappoints with $45M opening" Is "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" a hit? Nobody knows! Will they know once the final numbers are in? Nope! It's right in that middle ground that is VERY EASY to formulate an argument in either direction. I could easily write paragraphs explaining why it's a dud, or paragraphs explaining why it's doing just fine. With all due respect, that's what you appear to be doing here. I'm amazed that you're lecturing people about box office statistics while clinging to a complete misinterpretation of the numbers in this case. I have studied box office figures for 20 years, and studied the numbers for the Ghostbusters films in depth. GB2016 is a bomb because the numbers show it lost tens of millions, the director said so, the producer said so, the studio said so, and the trades said so ( Hollywood Reporter reported that it lost $70 million). Most tellingly, it did NOT get a sequel. Successful movies get sequels. The next film in the franchise doesn't get a "course correction" when the movie was successful. GB2016's breakeven point was $360 million by the 2.5x rule of thumb. It only got to $229 million. It lost about $65 million, by the rule of thumb, which is very close to what Hollywood Reporter estimated (that comes from counting half of the shortfall in box office gross, the half the studio would get). The rule of thumb works. If we depended on knowing home video sales, merchandise sales, etc., we would NEVER be able to talk about box office, and we'd all have to sit around wondering whether Star Wars or Battlefield Earth was more profitable. There is a standard, accepted language for talking about and measuring box office hits or flops, and that's exactly what I am using here. As for Afterlife, its breakeven was $187.5 million. It surpassed it by $16.8 million, for an estimated profit of $8.4 million. Not a lot, but they probably made a sequel because they were hoping for an increase in that. They may have thought the pandemic was depressing those figures. They may have been wrong about that. So far, Dune 2 is the only follow-up to a 2021 movie that has shown a noticeable increase over its 2021 predecessor. It may, however, be the case that Ghostbusters merchandise brings in enough money to make production of a new movie more attractive than it might be for a non-merchandisable movie that made the same amount of money.
|
|
|
Post by Mediocrates on Mar 27, 2024 19:37:23 GMT
I found this to be amusing and on point:
|
|
|
Post by Hoof Huffyman on Mar 28, 2024 8:02:38 GMT
I found this to be amusing and on point:
It's 100% spot on, but try telling that to these right wing assholes who think life back in 1955 is something to be emulated now.
|
|