MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Friday Estimates by Still The Same Old Gender Klady

Friday Estimates 2016-07-16 at 9.21.11 AM

Be Sociable, Share!

24 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Still The Same Old Gender Klady”

  1. Christian says:

    The rending of garments over the performance of the D’Souza doc is going to be amusing.

    My wife is off to see “Ghostbusters” with my daughters. My sons and I weren’t even invited!

  2. HWKE says:

    Ghostbusters is a bomb compared to costs. Fantastic because after the way the director and cast attacked the fans of the original, they deserved this.

  3. Movieman says:

    Was always more into “Gremlins” than “Ghostbusters,” so I wasn’t expecting much. Or necessarily dreading it like so many were.
    What was most disappointing to me was that Feig merely recycled (instead of reimagined) the original template.
    It felt lazy to me: a real missed opportunity.
    The Times Square CGI blow-out was a disaster, and so distracting in its schizoid mix of 1970’s TS and the modern-day one.
    I did love Kate McKinnon, though. She easily gives the freshest, funniest and freakiest performance.
    D’Ouza’s two previous right wing screeds banked major Tea Party bucks, but had minimal impact on presidential politics (or nat’l elections).
    Fingers crossed the same holds true this time. Anything else would be inconceivable.

  4. Geoff says:

    Suuuuuuuure HWKE because the fanboys were so dignified in the savaging of the film several months before it even came out. Sony’s marketing department is to blame for this one – they overspent putting out the same shitty clips again and again…..when they had legitimate laughs to work with. If only Disney bought the property and released it: guaranteed 90% plus score on Rotten Tomatoes, non-stop interviews with the director and stars on YouTube channels, unanimous praise from fanboys, and $800 million worldwide. Oh well.

  5. Amblinman says:

    Ghostbusters is at best okay. Hemsworth has the best material to work with, McCarthy the least. Hated the ending. Another boring stupid shitty fx fight. Movie felt so rote, speeding through the set up, speeding through the middle just to get to the end which itself felt half formed.

    Ugh. Hollywood just sucks right now.

  6. Hmmm says:

    HWKE, those fans deserved to be attacked. GHOSTBUSTERS is my favorite comedy of all time but these Ghost Bros acted like unhinged lunatics.

  7. YancySkancy says:

    Feig tried to make it clear that his beef was with the misogynists and others who were being openly insulting and abusive to him and the cast before a frame had been shot, not those who disliked the trailers or were wary of a favorite film being remade. But somehow it’s turned into “Feig and the cast attacked fans of the original.”

  8. Hmmm says:

    That’s because lunatic fans want to be coddled and treated like the most important people in the world.

  9. pat says:

    Ironically Feig is being attacked by the same generation of socially maladjusted dweebs he celebrated in his series Freaks and Geeks. You convince these nerds that they can rule the world…you reap what you sow.

  10. Martin says:

    You know what would have opened to $100 mill this weekend? Ghostbusters (2016) starring Seth Rogen, James Franco, Jay Baruchel, and Leslie Jones. Here’s a fact that no one wants to admit: All-female Ghostbusters entirely loses credibility because it is 2 stages of suspension of disbelief. 1st stage is a group of people fighting ghosts for a living. OK, crazy but we’ll go along with it. 2nd stage that GB2k16 has is 4 WOMEN fighting ghosts for a living. Simply put, it is not believable and that lack of credibility kills the laughs and anticipation of seeing such a film. People will generally put up with 1 level of disbelief, but not any more than that. Psychologically, the character of a Ghostbuster is a nerdy, antisocial, paranoid loner type – an insecure semi-failure of a man-child that in a parallel universe would be living with his mom in manhattan and taking upskirt videos on the subway. When Hollywood changed it to 4 women, the entire premise and joke of the original fell apart, and left us with a square peg forced into a round hole, to appease some pc excuse for a reboot. Sony would have a 3-400 mill domestic hit on their hands if they doubled down on the original, cast as i suggested above, and had more significant cameos for the original cast. Instead, they have a weak, unfunny imitation of a Ghostbusters movie that should never have been made. And no, i’m not talking about GB2.

  11. Geoff says:

    Feige, McCarthy, and the rest of them seem like class folks – he’s a comedy director first and foremost, we’re not talking Oliver Stone or Spike Lee here – I highly doubt he was ever trying to antagonize anybody, pretty obvious when you see the movie and just about every notable actor from the original (sans William Arherton sadly) had to have a cameo. My biggest issue with the movie was all of the shoe-horned fan service……the film approaches Force Awakens-type levels of fanboy fellatio.

  12. Geoff says:

    Sorry Martin but THIS version could have opened to $100 million plus domestic if Sony would have known how to market it. Having the 40th Rogan/Franco pairing in five years (or so it seems at least) would have just caused more yawns than excitement.

  13. Martin says:

    Geoff, guaranteed the rogen/franco/baruchel/jones movie directed by Adam McKay would have had a very, very funny trailer, a much higher believability factor, and a lack of geek disdain that this Feig one is getting. People don’t care if they’ve seen something before, as long as it looks funny and brings back the same great feelings they got from the original. The Feig version did not promise many good laughs in the trailers, and it also did not do a good job convincing audiences that it would give them everything they loved about the original. Instead it felt like a weak, politically corrected rehash without the laughs. And so, they didnt show up to see it. The version I suggested would have been essentially GB1 with more weed and sex jokes. In other words, an entirely appropriate, believable update of the original.

  14. Stella's Boy says:

    Wait a second why can’t four women be Ghostbusters? How is three men and a woman infinitely more believable? That seriously makes no sense whatsoever. Oh and I see you play the PC card, so that tells me exactly where you’re coming from here. Your cast suggestion is obvious and boring. Yes what really makes people fighting ghosts more credible is the presence of dirty jokes and weed. “Sure they do battle with paranormal entities, but they do it while making funny dick jokes.” “I am totally sold!” They made a movie with four female leads Martin. Get over it. Join the 21st century.

  15. Geoff says:

    Really Martin…… because Anchorman 2 was SUCH a huge hit, grossed half a billion worldwide and had folks clamoring for another sequel?? 🙂 What you’re describing would have been equally savaged by hardcore fans of the original just by virtue of how “typical” it would seem….ENDLESS talk about how Rogen and Franco are just stoner Millennials who could never approach the genius of Murray and Ramis! 😉 And after what happened with The Interview, can you imagine Sony EVER trusting those two with such an important property?

  16. AdamL says:

    BFG is a total bomb, no? Spielberg kids film and its limping towards $60 million… Wow.

  17. EtGuild2 says:

    This whole episode with GHOSTBUSTERS makes me feel dirty. There are two Hollywood trailers among the Top 100 most disliked YouTube Videos. Ghostbusters’ 1st trailer….and the 2nd Ghostbusters trailer.

    At one point, every 5th comment involved McCarthy or Wiig getting raped with a rusty broom handle, one I remember where they threatened to bomb the SNL set, or unspeakable racist filth directed at Leslie Jones. Really, really depressing.

  18. Amblinman says:

    Fanboys didn’t hurt this movie’s BO, and I don’t think a male cast moves the needle. Maybe just maybe people are tired of reboots and retreats, they’re finally voting with their wallets?

    I do wish there was one Venkman-like “is this shit really happening” character for the audience to rally around. The characters never once show the slightest fear or amazement that they’re dealing with ghosts and this might be scary. Jones comes closest.

    Oh and how did no one associated with the film notice that the new version of the theme might be the worst song ever? Like, ever?

  19. leahnz says:

    er, just because you didn’t find a character to ‘rally around’ doesn’t mean this is an issue for ‘the audience’, but rather you. i found all the characters rather delightfully weird to some degree and relatable in their way (except kevin playing the ‘straight man’ dumb blonde, i found him slightly annoying), with wiig and mccarthy somewhat uncharacteristically playing the ‘straight man’ opposite mckinnon and jones’ wackiness, which i didn’t expect.
    i also liked how it’s basically an ode to nerdy outcasts who’ve dealt with rejection and being shunned most of their lives and what they do with that pain; in the case of the science/history chickas they’ve channelled that (or tried to) into something more constructive whereas the angry nerd villain channels it into revenge and destruction (ironic considering how things played out irl), a timely theme. there’s also a sense of joy and celebration at finally achieving something (and being recognised by others) i found quite infectious amongst the four. the final act / end is uneven and deflates but the set piece with McK and her guns was a fave amongst the group of 4 teen boys i saw it with the second time, and i quite liked the evil parade balloons, very NY. the crowds i saw it with laughed a lot, a fun theatre experience. better in 2D, i think DP mentioned this also.
    (the assertion that the characters never once show amazement or fear of ghosts and how this might be scary is bizarre, i can think of numerous examples to the contrary)

  20. EtGuild2 says:

    I have to disagree on hurting the box office. Fanboys are simply laying waste to this movie on review sites in a way that’s never happened before. On Metacritic, it’s rated lowed than FROM JUSTIN TO KELLY and MEET THE SPARTANS. It’s the lowest rated movie in the site’s entire history with 100+ reviews. This could do some damage at the margins.

  21. Hcat says:

    It’s a Big budget summer movie from Columbia and we are surprised it’s opening soft? They’ve only got one or two of these right since the original Ghostbusters 30 odd years ago.

  22. Amblinman says:

    @leanz no idea of audiences agree with me, fair enough. I personally didn’t connect with any of the human beings on screen with the exception of Leslie Jones. McKinnon was great but seemed to be auditioning for a different movie. And I loved Hemsworth character but the final Act. Nothing happened. It made no difference to proceedings that he was involved. And I hated hated hated Mckinnon’s big set piece. Unimaginative, rote. She deserved better.

    Movie seems to be DOA at the BO which is a shame. I think Zuul would be a great villain for #2.

  23. leahnz says:

    “I have to disagree on hurting the box office. Fanboys are simply laying waste to this movie on review sites in a way that’s never happened before. On Metacritic, it’s rated lowed than FROM JUSTIN TO KELLY and MEET THE SPARTANS. It’s the lowest rated movie in the site’s entire history with 100+ reviews. This could do some damage at the margins.”

    yep this is the singularly most disgusting display of ‘fandom’ i’ve ever witnessed in my life and is really rather disturbing when considered from a sociological point of view – and that it’s not being called out more as such is also a bit disturbing

  24. YancySkancy says:

    Almost as disturbing is the obtuseness that non-racist, non-sexist, non-fanboy commenters are showing. They seem to think most of the antipathy toward the film is due to the bad trailers, and they keep defensively saying stuff like “Can’t we hate this project without being lumped in with all the misogynists and racists and cry-babies?” The answer is of course they can, and no one has said they can’t. But their whining distracts from the very real horrible behavior that has sprung up in reaction to the film.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon