Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Was planning on watching it ...but i think i will give it a miss now "Just watch the trailer on YouTube and decide for yourself. Of course if that trailer looks good to you then you should consult your GP afterwards. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It looks pants to me" Agreed  didn't get the need for a new concept | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In a world where nothing is sacred and standards are low there is no inherent problem with an all female reboot. FFS there are enough movies where the leads are male and it is time there were ensemble women led films that are not "chick flicks". The only question should be: Is the film entertaining on its own merits?" The critics and box office can confidently answer that as no. Of course watch the trailer on YouTube and judge for yourself. I would like to point out that real progress would be a male and female team working together but that's the least of the problems with the film. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Sometimes shitty films can be awesome.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll probably watch it anyway. Much like verifications... I make my own mind up, I don't rely on strangers to tell me what I will and won't like.
Sometimes shitty films can be awesome. ""War Inc." and "the room" are so bad they are good so I do know what you mean. Ask yourself whether this joke is funny: a loud noise goes off and a man is so stupid he covers his eyes instead of his ears. If that made you laugh then I strongly recommend you do see this film. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've heard a lot of good things about the film. I don't have a problem with female casting, although it does have more than a whiff of publicity stunt as it has gained more column inches for this than the actual film itself. "What exactly have you heard about it that's good? IMDB has it at 5.5 which is 'straight to DVD' territory | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll probably watch it anyway. Much like verifications... I make my own mind up, I don't rely on strangers to tell me what I will and won't like.
Sometimes shitty films can be awesome.
"War Inc." and "the room" are so bad they are good so I do know what you mean.
Ask yourself whether this joke is funny: a loud noise goes off and a man is so stupid he covers his eyes instead of his ears.
If that made you laugh then I strongly recommend you do see this film. "Your description made me laugh but then I love your sense of humour.
That actual scene in a film would leave me cold so yeah maybe it's as bad as the Angry Birds film. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've heard a lot of good things about the film. I don't have a problem with female casting, although it does have more than a whiff of publicity stunt as it has gained more column inches for this than the actual film itself. "I wondered the same actually. Bit like reverse psychology. It's kept it in the news much longer than any other film lately.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll probably watch it anyway. Much like verifications... I make my own mind up, I don't rely on strangers to tell me what I will and won't like.
Sometimes shitty films can be awesome.
"War Inc." and "the room" are so bad they are good so I do know what you mean.
Ask yourself whether this joke is funny: a loud noise goes off and a man is so stupid he covers his eyes instead of his ears.
If that made you laugh then I strongly recommend you do see this film.
Your description made me laugh but then I love your sense of humour.
That actual scene in a film would leave me cold so yeah maybe it's as bad as the Angry Birds film. "I urge anyone considering it to simply invest a couple of minutes of your life to watch the trailer. That way we can't be accused of misogyny when we point out that it's just a bad film. Do watch "the room" on YouTube though because if that doesn't make you laugh then nothing will. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Was planning on watching it ...but i think i will give it a miss now "I thought it was good x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People will hate it cause they are comparing it to the original 84 version, GB 2 was awful, even Bill Murray said he wasn't happy with it cause of a lot reasons. The reboot was never going to get liked by the die hard fans of the 80s, but was aiming for the younger generation, I did like the cameos, I thought the nod to Harold Ramis was a nice touch. I don't set out to strip a movie down and look for faults, you're seeing a movie about people catching ghosts, you're not watching Shakespeare. Like these pages on Facebook who point out movie errors, Just switch ya brain off and enjoy it for what it is instead of looking for mistakes "I loved the original.. As did my kids.. but we watched the new one and giggled.. As you say the cameos and nice little bits that link back to the older one are nice.. I see not to many people are kicking up a fuss about the pending remake of splash... and its gender swapped roles. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People will hate it cause they are comparing it to the original 84 version, GB 2 was awful, even Bill Murray said he wasn't happy with it cause of a lot reasons. The reboot was never going to get liked by the die hard fans of the 80s, but was aiming for the younger generation, I did like the cameos, I thought the nod to Harold Ramis was a nice touch. I don't set out to strip a movie down and look for faults, you're seeing a movie about people catching ghosts, you're not watching Shakespeare. Like these pages on Facebook who point out movie errors, Just switch ya brain off and enjoy it for what it is instead of looking for mistakes "Good comedy has logic to it. Good jokes actually have logic to them. That's why it's possible to form a degree of consensus on things that are and are not funny. Comedians do not construct jokes randomly and hope for the best. You can't pretend to be amused by something that isn't funny, you don't have to analyse it to know why it's not funny (although you could) but a person covering their eyes to shield from sound simply isn't funny. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People will hate it cause they are comparing it to the original 84 version, GB 2 was awful, even Bill Murray said he wasn't happy with it cause of a lot reasons. The reboot was never going to get liked by the die hard fans of the 80s, but was aiming for the younger generation, I did like the cameos, I thought the nod to Harold Ramis was a nice touch. I don't set out to strip a movie down and look for faults, you're seeing a movie about people catching ghosts, you're not watching Shakespeare. Like these pages on Facebook who point out movie errors, Just switch ya brain off and enjoy it for what it is instead of looking for mistakes
Good comedy has logic to it.
Good jokes actually have logic to them. That's why it's possible to form a degree of consensus on things that are and are not funny. Comedians do not construct jokes randomly and hope for the best.
You can't pretend to be amused by something that isn't funny, you don't have to analyse it to know why it's not funny (although you could) but a person covering their eyes to shield from sound simply isn't funny. "Not funny to you and a few others of course but in the context of the scene, some people may have laughed, there was a few moments I did actually laugh out loud, that scene wasn't one of them though, but loads of other funny moments. The thing is, not everyone will agree with the op on this, some will like it some won't, and that's what makes us human, we're all different. Different things make us laugh, if we all laughed at the same things, well, that would be quite boring and predictable really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People will hate it cause they are comparing it to the original 84 version, GB 2 was awful, even Bill Murray said he wasn't happy with it cause of a lot reasons. The reboot was never going to get liked by the die hard fans of the 80s, but was aiming for the younger generation, I did like the cameos, I thought the nod to Harold Ramis was a nice touch. I don't set out to strip a movie down and look for faults, you're seeing a movie about people catching ghosts, you're not watching Shakespeare. Like these pages on Facebook who point out movie errors, Just switch ya brain off and enjoy it for what it is instead of looking for mistakes
Good comedy has logic to it.
Good jokes actually have logic to them. That's why it's possible to form a degree of consensus on things that are and are not funny. Comedians do not construct jokes randomly and hope for the best.
You can't pretend to be amused by something that isn't funny, you don't have to analyse it to know why it's not funny (although you could) but a person covering their eyes to shield from sound simply isn't funny.
Not funny to you and a few others of course but in the context of the scene, some people may have laughed, there was a few moments I did actually laugh out loud, that scene wasn't one of them though, but loads of other funny moments.
The thing is, not everyone will agree with the op on this, some will like it some won't, and that's what makes us human, we're all different. Different things make us laugh, if we all laughed at the same things, well, that would be quite boring and predictable really."The question isn't whether some people laugh and some don't. That is inevitable. A good comedy film is a film that makes a lot of people laugh. Judging by the objective box office figures, not many people wanted to see the film the first place and judging by the objective scores on IMDB, those that did see it didn't find it very funny. Ergo, it is not a good film. Although naturally a minority of people will like it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've heard a lot of good things about the film. I don't have a problem with female casting, although it does have more than a whiff of publicity stunt as it has gained more column inches for this than the actual film itself.
What exactly have you heard about it that's good? IMDB has it at 5.5 which is 'straight to DVD' territory"Through friends that have been to see it. Most enjoyed it and had nice things to say about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People will hate it cause they are comparing it to the original 84 version, GB 2 was awful, even Bill Murray said he wasn't happy with it cause of a lot reasons. The reboot was never going to get liked by the die hard fans of the 80s, but was aiming for the younger generation, I did like the cameos, I thought the nod to Harold Ramis was a nice touch. I don't set out to strip a movie down and look for faults, you're seeing a movie about people catching ghosts, you're not watching Shakespeare. Like these pages on Facebook who point out movie errors, Just switch ya brain off and enjoy it for what it is instead of looking for mistakes
Good comedy has logic to it.
Good jokes actually have logic to them. That's why it's possible to form a degree of consensus on things that are and are not funny. Comedians do not construct jokes randomly and hope for the best.
You can't pretend to be amused by something that isn't funny, you don't have to analyse it to know why it's not funny (although you could) but a person covering their eyes to shield from sound simply isn't funny. "Hands over eyes not ears... isn't that an old joke like Laurel & Hardy/ The Three Stooges? People thought they were funny back in those days. Clowns slipping on banana skins. Standing on a rake and it smacks them in the face. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People will hate it cause they are comparing it to the original 84 version, GB 2 was awful, even Bill Murray said he wasn't happy with it cause of a lot reasons. The reboot was never going to get liked by the die hard fans of the 80s, but was aiming for the younger generation, I did like the cameos, I thought the nod to Harold Ramis was a nice touch. I don't set out to strip a movie down and look for faults, you're seeing a movie about people catching ghosts, you're not watching Shakespeare. Like these pages on Facebook who point out movie errors, Just switch ya brain off and enjoy it for what it is instead of looking for mistakes
Good comedy has logic to it.
Good jokes actually have logic to them. That's why it's possible to form a degree of consensus on things that are and are not funny. Comedians do not construct jokes randomly and hope for the best.
You can't pretend to be amused by something that isn't funny, you don't have to analyse it to know why it's not funny (although you could) but a person covering their eyes to shield from sound simply isn't funny.
Hands over eyes not ears... isn't that an old joke like Laurel & Hardy/ The Three Stooges? People thought they were funny back in those days.
Clowns slipping on banana skins.
Standing on a rake and it smacks them in the face."The point of the film is to show how smart women are compared to men, well white women anyway. So I wouldn't even say it's that Laurel & Hardy humor. The other type of humor is about black stereotypes that might have been funny in a 90's Eddie Murphy film when nobody had seen them (think 'norbit') but really are tiresome now. Ironic to find them in a film that considers itself progressive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Am I bovver'd? "I bet you don't even know what farm-to-table means | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Am I bovver'd?
I bet you don't even know what farm-to-table means "I refer the Honourable Member to my previous answer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well the feminist reboot of Ghostbusters has failed miserably, set to lose millions. They shouldn't give up yet though, I think a female reboot of Brokeback Mountain would be a huge success" We enjoyed it, our kids thought it was great | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the film is to show how smart women are compared to men, well white women anyway. So I wouldn't even say it's that Laurel & Hardy humor. The other type of humor is about black stereotypes that might have been funny in a 90's Eddie Murphy film when nobody had seen them (think 'norbit') but really are tiresome now. Ironic to find them in a film that considers itself progressive. " Erm, eh? As a diehard fan of the original, I can honestly say I thought the film was brilliant! It was funny, had ghosts(!), a story and was enjoyable. People making out that the Patty character was anything but an intelligent, funny, brave and articulate person clearly hasn't seen the film. It also doesn't pit men v women to be honest. It's a real shame so many people haven't taken it on its merits; just watched the trailers or heard someone say it's shit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the film is to show how smart women are compared to men, well white women anyway. So I wouldn't even say it's that Laurel & Hardy humor. The other type of humor is about black stereotypes that might have been funny in a 90's Eddie Murphy film when nobody had seen them (think 'norbit') but really are tiresome now. Ironic to find them in a film that considers itself progressive. Erm, eh? As a diehard fan of the original, I can honestly say I thought the film was brilliant! It was funny, had ghosts(!), a story and was enjoyable. People making out that the Patty character was anything but an intelligent, funny, brave and articulate person clearly hasn't seen the film. It also doesn't pit men v women to be honest. It's a real shame so many people haven't taken it on its merits; just watched the trailers or heard someone say it's shit " Verbatim quote from the black character in the trailer "you guys are really smart about this science stuff but I know New York". On what planet does that make someone sound intelligent and articulate!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the film is to show how smart women are compared to men, well white women anyway. So I wouldn't even say it's that Laurel & Hardy humor. The other type of humor is about black stereotypes that might have been funny in a 90's Eddie Murphy film when nobody had seen them (think 'norbit') but really are tiresome now. Ironic to find them in a film that considers itself progressive. Erm, eh? As a diehard fan of the original, I can honestly say I thought the film was brilliant! It was funny, had ghosts(!), a story and was enjoyable. People making out that the Patty character was anything but an intelligent, funny, brave and articulate person clearly hasn't seen the film. It also doesn't pit men v women to be honest. It's a real shame so many people haven't taken it on its merits; just watched the trailers or heard someone say it's shit Verbatim quote from the black character in the trailer "you guys are really smart about this science stuff but I know New York". On what planet does that make someone sound intelligent and articulate!! " Yep, just the trailer! The actual film portrays her completely differently - you have to watch it in context | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the film is to show how smart women are compared to men, well white women anyway. So I wouldn't even say it's that Laurel & Hardy humor. The other type of humor is about black stereotypes that might have been funny in a 90's Eddie Murphy film when nobody had seen them (think 'norbit') but really are tiresome now. Ironic to find them in a film that considers itself progressive. Erm, eh? As a diehard fan of the original, I can honestly say I thought the film was brilliant! It was funny, had ghosts(!), a story and was enjoyable. People making out that the Patty character was anything but an intelligent, funny, brave and articulate person clearly hasn't seen the film. It also doesn't pit men v women to be honest. It's a real shame so many people haven't taken it on its merits; just watched the trailers or heard someone say it's shit Verbatim quote from the black character in the trailer "you guys are really smart about this science stuff but I know New York". On what planet does that make someone sound intelligent and articulate!! Yep, just the trailer! The actual film portrays her completely differently - you have to watch it in context" The trailer is taking clips from the film is it not?! The next line she says is "oh hell no" in another stereotypical tone associated with low intelligence / highly aggressive woman known in slang and gangsta rap as 'hood rats'. Then she proceeds to smack someone in the face. The people who did watch it gave it and average score of 5.5 on IMDB so I'm not sure it's worth the benefit of the doubt. Personally I don't want to spend money on it and encourage Sony to make more propoganda remakes. The CGI is amateurish too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the film is to show how smart women are compared to men, well white women anyway. So I wouldn't even say it's that Laurel & Hardy humor. The other type of humor is about black stereotypes that might have been funny in a 90's Eddie Murphy film when nobody had seen them (think 'norbit') but really are tiresome now. Ironic to find them in a film that considers itself progressive. Erm, eh? As a diehard fan of the original, I can honestly say I thought the film was brilliant! It was funny, had ghosts(!), a story and was enjoyable. People making out that the Patty character was anything but an intelligent, funny, brave and articulate person clearly hasn't seen the film. It also doesn't pit men v women to be honest. It's a real shame so many people haven't taken it on its merits; just watched the trailers or heard someone say it's shit Verbatim quote from the black character in the trailer "you guys are really smart about this science stuff but I know New York". On what planet does that make someone sound intelligent and articulate!! Yep, just the trailer! The actual film portrays her completely differently - you have to watch it in context The trailer is taking clips from the film is it not?! The next line she says is "oh hell no" in another stereotypical tone associated with low intelligence / highly aggressive woman known in slang and gangsta rap as 'hood rats'. Then she proceeds to smack someone in the face. The people who did watch it gave it and average score of 5.5 on IMDB so I'm not sure it's worth the benefit of the doubt. Personally I don't want to spend money on it and encourage Sony to make more propoganda remakes. The CGI is amateurish too. " I am one of those who watched it! I enjoyed it and anything taken of context can be misconstrued! It's naive to think otherwise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some films should never be messed with. A bit like with Point Break and a very few others, I won't watch the remakes." Point break was a very good remake.Robocop sucked though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the film is to show how smart women are compared to men, well white women anyway. So I wouldn't even say it's that Laurel & Hardy humor. The other type of humor is about black stereotypes that might have been funny in a 90's Eddie Murphy film when nobody had seen them (think 'norbit') but really are tiresome now. Ironic to find them in a film that considers itself progressive. Erm, eh? As a diehard fan of the original, I can honestly say I thought the film was brilliant! It was funny, had ghosts(!), a story and was enjoyable. People making out that the Patty character was anything but an intelligent, funny, brave and articulate person clearly hasn't seen the film. It also doesn't pit men v women to be honest. It's a real shame so many people haven't taken it on its merits; just watched the trailers or heard someone say it's shit Verbatim quote from the black character in the trailer "you guys are really smart about this science stuff but I know New York". On what planet does that make someone sound intelligent and articulate!! Yep, just the trailer! The actual film portrays her completely differently - you have to watch it in context The trailer is taking clips from the film is it not?! The next line she says is "oh hell no" in another stereotypical tone associated with low intelligence / highly aggressive woman known in slang and gangsta rap as 'hood rats'. Then she proceeds to smack someone in the face. The people who did watch it gave it and average score of 5.5 on IMDB so I'm not sure it's worth the benefit of the doubt. Personally I don't want to spend money on it and encourage Sony to make more propoganda remakes. The CGI is amateurish too. I am one of those who watched it! I enjoyed it and anything taken of context can be misconstrued! It's naive to think otherwise. " The context is that it's a film with shit reviews, a loss making take at the box office and a 5.5 score on IMDB. You are of course welcome to enjoy it but the evidence suggests that most people won't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the film is to show how smart women are compared to men, well white women anyway. So I wouldn't even say it's that Laurel & Hardy humor. The other type of humor is about black stereotypes that might have been funny in a 90's Eddie Murphy film when nobody had seen them (think 'norbit') but really are tiresome now. Ironic to find them in a film that considers itself progressive. Erm, eh? As a diehard fan of the original, I can honestly say I thought the film was brilliant! It was funny, had ghosts(!), a story and was enjoyable. People making out that the Patty character was anything but an intelligent, funny, brave and articulate person clearly hasn't seen the film. It also doesn't pit men v women to be honest. It's a real shame so many people haven't taken it on its merits; just watched the trailers or heard someone say it's shit Verbatim quote from the black character in the trailer "you guys are really smart about this science stuff but I know New York". On what planet does that make someone sound intelligent and articulate!! Yep, just the trailer! The actual film portrays her completely differently - you have to watch it in context The trailer is taking clips from the film is it not?! The next line she says is "oh hell no" in another stereotypical tone associated with low intelligence / highly aggressive woman known in slang and gangsta rap as 'hood rats'. Then she proceeds to smack someone in the face. The people who did watch it gave it and average score of 5.5 on IMDB so I'm not sure it's worth the benefit of the doubt. Personally I don't want to spend money on it and encourage Sony to make more propoganda remakes. The CGI is amateurish too. I am one of those who watched it! I enjoyed it and anything taken of context can be misconstrued! It's naive to think otherwise. The context is that it's a film with shit reviews, a loss making take at the box office and a 5.5 score on IMDB. You are of course welcome to enjoy it but the evidence suggests that most people won't. " The film itself more than made money; it's the marketing and promotion stuff that means it making a loss. Thank you for allowing me to enjoy the film I've actually seen and you haven't. I really appreciate your generosity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The film itself more than made money; it's the marketing and promotion stuff that means it making a loss." Do I really need to explain the difference between gross and net profit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The film itself more than made money; it's the marketing and promotion stuff that means it making a loss. Do I really need to explain the difference between gross and net profit? " You really are quite patronising aren't you? I've seen it, I enjoyed it. Using my knowledge of the actual film I feel I can more accurately judge any shortcomings better than someone who has just viewed trailers. Let's just agree to disagree shall we? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really enjoyed it. I thought it was funny and did a good job of having a bit of the old and new. Lose money? It's already made its budget back in boxoffice sales and then some. It's going to make more money when it comes out on DVD/Blu-ray and a bit more when with the likes of the streaming services." OK it turns out I do have to explain gross and net profit. The film cost $144m to make and has taken about $180m at the box office so far and will probably take $240m once international sales and DVDs etc are accounted for. That's a gross profit. Very few business don't make a gross profit. It's pretty hard to make a gross loss. However, film don't market themselves and it's expensive to get those billboards everywhere. Sony have said the breakeven point for the film is $300m. That's a net loss. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So is profit/loss the only measure of a film then?" If you read the thread properly you'd see the other objective measures I've already mentioned. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So is profit/loss the only measure of a film then? If you read the thread properly you'd see the other objective measures I've already mentioned." Nah, go on, repeat yourself | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it?"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it?" Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. " How about morphine in a hospital setting? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's funny to slate the film saying that it's "set to fail and lose millions" and then immediately follow that with "I watched it on pirate copy". " Who said that?! That is funny! I don't have all the facts at hand but I'm pretty sure this film isn't bombing because it's been especially vulnerable to pirating though!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. How about morphine in a hospital setting?" Yes I would watch Ghostbusters if I was in hospital bored out of my brain and there was nothing else on. Just to critique it properly. But until then I can think of a few thousand other better ways to spend my time and money. Like arguing with strangers on the Internet for one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. How about morphine in a hospital setting? In other new the purge election year is fairly I'd sooner drop a table on my toe to " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. " Straw man argument | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Was planning on watching it ...but i think i will give it a miss now "Why? Because a stranger said they didn't like it? Don't you have an opinion of your own? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah I've only heard shit things about it. This is what happens when you try and make a political point from a classic movie " So you've not actually seen it then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll probably watch it anyway. Much like verifications... I make my own mind up, I don't rely on strangers to tell me what I will and won't like.
Sometimes shitty films can be awesome. "Exactly this!!! I've seen films with rave reviews that have bored me rigid and crappy films that have entertained me no end. Give me Expendables over Theory of Everything! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument "If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them. I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources. Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Was planning on watching it ...but i think i will give it a miss now
Why? Because a stranger said they didn't like it? Don't you have an opinion of your own?"Because actually a lot of people said they didn't like it on IMDB. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly. "They're there to make money - not art | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art"Sarcasm? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fail to understand how someone can pass judgement on something they haven't seen. It's like saying you don't like broccoli because your friend tried it and didn't like it." Quite - but I don;t need to eat a dirty burger from a dirty burger van to know it's unhealthy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art
Sarcasm? "Sony's being sarcastic? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fail to understand how someone can pass judgement on something they haven't seen. It's like saying you don't like broccoli because your friend tried it and didn't like it. " If you and your friend have similar tastes and you have to choose between different foods, because you can't consume everything, is it not unreasonable to predict you are more likely to enjoy the food they recommend over the one they don't? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fail to understand how someone can pass judgement on something they haven't seen. It's like saying you don't like broccoli because your friend tried it and didn't like it. Quite - but I don;t need to eat a dirty burger from a dirty burger van to know it's unhealthy" Smooth | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art
Sarcasm?
Sony's being sarcastic?
"You know the film is not making money right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fail to understand how someone can pass judgement on something they haven't seen. It's like saying you don't like broccoli because your friend tried it and didn't like it. Quite - but I don;t need to eat a dirty burger from a dirty burger van to know it's unhealthy" But the question isn't is it healthy...it's do you like it. You are choosing not to taste it based on information, which is your choice and fair enough, but you can't say it doesn't taste good if you haven't actually tasted it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well we have a gremlins revamp in line and dare a say, a follow up to Goonies. So more judgements to regarding movie reboots etc." It's pointless. Are any of them gonna be better than the treasured originals? Or will they just dig up and reanimate an horrific creature? All for the love of money, lack of imagination and being risk averse. But that's Hollywood. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art
Sarcasm?
Sony's being sarcastic?
You know the film is not making money right? "I've paid no attention whatsoever. So it's losing cash too? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well we have a gremlins revamp in line and dare a say, a follow up to Goonies. So more judgements to regarding movie reboots etc. It's pointless. Are any of them gonna be better than the treasured originals? Or will they just dig up and reanimate an horrific creature? All for the love of money, lack of imagination and being risk averse. But that's Hollywood. "Well, that wraps this thread up quote nicely Geezer. I can't really add to that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fail to understand how someone can pass judgement on something they haven't seen. It's like saying you don't like broccoli because your friend tried it and didn't like it. Quite - but I don;t need to eat a dirty burger from a dirty burger van to know it's unhealthy But the question isn't is it healthy...it's do you like it. You are choosing not to taste it based on information, which is your choice and fair enough, but you can't say it doesn't taste good if you haven't actually tasted it." I don't like dirty burgers, irrespective of the van it's come from | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see not to many people are kicking up a fuss about the pending remake of splash... and its gender swapped roles. " I am looking forward to Brian Jones's Diary | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art
Sarcasm?
Sony's being sarcastic?
You know the film is not making money right?
I've paid no attention whatsoever. So it's losing cash too?
"Always great when people join a thread at the end, without reading the start, so we have to start repeating ourselves
But just for you, yes it is currently loss making and is projected to make a loss of $25m - $70m when international and DVD sales are taken into account. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fail to understand how someone can pass judgement on something they haven't seen. It's like saying you don't like broccoli because your friend tried it and didn't like it. Quite - but I don;t need to eat a dirty burger from a dirty burger van to know it's unhealthy But the question isn't is it healthy...it's do you like it. You are choosing not to taste it based on information, which is your choice and fair enough, but you can't say it doesn't taste good if you haven't actually tasted it. I don't like dirty burgers, irrespective of the van it's come from" And still you miss the point | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art
Sarcasm?
Sony's being sarcastic?
You know the film is not making money right?
I've paid no attention whatsoever. So it's losing cash too?
Always great when people join a thread at the end, without reading the start, so we have to start repeating ourselves
But just for you, yes it is currently loss making and is projected to make a loss of $25m - $70m when international and DVD sales are taken into account. "Just joking with ya 
I didn;t say they were making money, only that they (Sony) are there to make money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fail to understand how someone can pass judgement on something they haven't seen. It's like saying you don't like broccoli because your friend tried it and didn't like it. Quite - but I don;t need to eat a dirty burger from a dirty burger van to know it's unhealthy But the question isn't is it healthy...it's do you like it. You are choosing not to taste it based on information, which is your choice and fair enough, but you can't say it doesn't taste good if you haven't actually tasted it. I don't like dirty burgers, irrespective of the van it's come from And still you miss the point " I think food is a bad analogy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fail to understand how someone can pass judgement on something they haven't seen. It's like saying you don't like broccoli because your friend tried it and didn't like it. Quite - but I don;t need to eat a dirty burger from a dirty burger van to know it's unhealthy But the question isn't is it healthy...it's do you like it. You are choosing not to taste it based on information, which is your choice and fair enough, but you can't say it doesn't taste good if you haven't actually tasted it. I don't like dirty burgers, irrespective of the van it's come from And still you miss the point " Anyone can say "the burger tasted good to me" and nobody can dispute that. Anyone else can objectively say that the burger does not have the ingredients or preparation to be considered a "high quality" burger and therefore if a friend wanted to eat a high quality burger then one would not recommend the aforementioned van to them. If the friend was fond of poor quality burgers because they like a bit of rough, then said van would be a good recommendation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art
Sarcasm?
Sony's being sarcastic?
You know the film is not making money right?
I've paid no attention whatsoever. So it's losing cash too?
Always great when people join a thread at the end, without reading the start, so we have to start repeating ourselves
But just for you, yes it is currently loss making and is projected to make a loss of $25m - $70m when international and DVD sales are taken into account.
Just joking with ya
I didn;t say they were making money, only that they (Sony) are there to make money. "You nasty so and so | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's funny to slate the film saying that it's "set to fail and lose millions" and then immediately follow that with "I watched it on pirate copy". Who said that?! That is funny! I don't have all the facts at hand but I'm pretty sure this film isn't bombing because it's been especially vulnerable to pirating though!! " The OP said it within the original post and then said he's watched it on a pirated copy that his mate gave him. Which I wouldn't judge him for.. and not saying it's been the new ghostbusters downfall, but I doubt it's helped. And it's a bit rich to slate the film saying it's bombing at the box office when you didn't pay cash to watch it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art
Sarcasm?
Sony's being sarcastic?
You know the film is not making money right?
I've paid no attention whatsoever. So it's losing cash too?
Always great when people join a thread at the end, without reading the start, so we have to start repeating ourselves
But just for you, yes it is currently loss making and is projected to make a loss of $25m - $70m when international and DVD sales are taken into account. "How do you measure profit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art
Sarcasm?
Sony's being sarcastic?
You know the film is not making money right?
I've paid no attention whatsoever. So it's losing cash too?
Always great when people join a thread at the end, without reading the start, so we have to start repeating ourselves
But just for you, yes it is currently loss making and is projected to make a loss of $25m - $70m when international and DVD sales are taken into account.
How do you measure profit?"The same way all accountants do. It's not a subjective thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fail to understand how someone can pass judgement on something they haven't seen. It's like saying you don't like broccoli because your friend tried it and didn't like it. Quite - but I don;t need to eat a dirty burger from a dirty burger van to know it's unhealthy But the question isn't is it healthy...it's do you like it. You are choosing not to taste it based on information, which is your choice and fair enough, but you can't say it doesn't taste good if you haven't actually tasted it. I don't like dirty burgers, irrespective of the van it's come from And still you miss the point Anyone can say "the burger tasted good to me" and nobody can dispute that. Anyone else can objectively say that the burger does not have the ingredients or preparation to be considered a "high quality" burger and therefore if a friend wanted to eat a high quality burger then one would not recommend the aforementioned van to them. If the friend was fond of poor quality burgers because they like a bit of rough, then said van would be a good recommendation. " I agree with you. My point was that only the person that has actually tried the burger can say if it tasted good to them. Anyone that hasn't tried the burger, for whatever justifiable reason, cannot say it doesn't taste good. They can say they don't THINK it does...but not that it doesn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fail to understand how someone can pass judgement on something they haven't seen. It's like saying you don't like broccoli because your friend tried it and didn't like it. Quite - but I don;t need to eat a dirty burger from a dirty burger van to know it's unhealthy But the question isn't is it healthy...it's do you like it. You are choosing not to taste it based on information, which is your choice and fair enough, but you can't say it doesn't taste good if you haven't actually tasted it. I don't like dirty burgers, irrespective of the van it's come from And still you miss the point Anyone can say "the burger tasted good to me" and nobody can dispute that. Anyone else can objectively say that the burger does not have the ingredients or preparation to be considered a "high quality" burger and therefore if a friend wanted to eat a high quality burger then one would not recommend the aforementioned van to them. If the friend was fond of poor quality burgers because they like a bit of rough, then said van would be a good recommendation. I agree with you. My point was that only the person that has actually tried the burger can say if it tasted good to them. Anyone that hasn't tried the burger, for whatever justifiable reason, cannot say it doesn't taste good. They can say they don't THINK it does...but not that it doesn't. " Agree!! I've not tried to tell anyone they didn't enjoy it and I've said 4 times that people should watch the trailer and make their own mind up! Obviously some people liked it which is why it's got a 5.5 on IMDB, if nobody liked it then it would be a 1 or a 0!! But let's not pretend 5.5 is a good score. I'm just surprised at how many people (not you) seem to take offence at a statement of fact that the film is currently loss making and projected to make a net loss when sales tailor off. I don't really understand why that's so contentious to people? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fail to understand how someone can pass judgement on something they haven't seen. It's like saying you don't like broccoli because your friend tried it and didn't like it. Quite - but I don;t need to eat a dirty burger from a dirty burger van to know it's unhealthy But the question isn't is it healthy...it's do you like it. You are choosing not to taste it based on information, which is your choice and fair enough, but you can't say it doesn't taste good if you haven't actually tasted it. I don't like dirty burgers, irrespective of the van it's come from And still you miss the point Anyone can say "the burger tasted good to me" and nobody can dispute that. Anyone else can objectively say that the burger does not have the ingredients or preparation to be considered a "high quality" burger and therefore if a friend wanted to eat a high quality burger then one would not recommend the aforementioned van to them. If the friend was fond of poor quality burgers because they like a bit of rough, then said van would be a good recommendation. I agree with you. My point was that only the person that has actually tried the burger can say if it tasted good to them. Anyone that hasn't tried the burger, for whatever justifiable reason, cannot say it doesn't taste good. They can say they don't THINK it does...but not that it doesn't. " Yeah, but if it's mouldy and served by some dodgy geezer who looks like he hasn't washed in a week I ain't putting it in my mouth. But you go for your life | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art
Sarcasm?
Sony's being sarcastic?
You know the film is not making money right?
I've paid no attention whatsoever. So it's losing cash too?
Always great when people join a thread at the end, without reading the start, so we have to start repeating ourselves
But just for you, yes it is currently loss making and is projected to make a loss of $25m - $70m when international and DVD sales are taken into account.
How do you measure profit?
The same way all accountants do. It's not a subjective thing. "So are $$$ the only measure of profitability then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art
Sarcasm?
Sony's being sarcastic?
You know the film is not making money right?
I've paid no attention whatsoever. So it's losing cash too?
Always great when people join a thread at the end, without reading the start, so we have to start repeating ourselves
But just for you, yes it is currently loss making and is projected to make a loss of $25m - $70m when international and DVD sales are taken into account.
How do you measure profit?
The same way all accountants do. It's not a subjective thing.
So are $$$ the only measure of profitability then?"British accountants would typically measure profit using pounds rather than dollars. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art
Sarcasm?
Sony's being sarcastic?
You know the film is not making money right?
I've paid no attention whatsoever. So it's losing cash too?
Always great when people join a thread at the end, without reading the start, so we have to start repeating ourselves
But just for you, yes it is currently loss making and is projected to make a loss of $25m - $70m when international and DVD sales are taken into account.
How do you measure profit?
The same way all accountants do. It's not a subjective thing.
So are $$$ the only measure of profitability then?
British accountants would typically measure profit using pounds rather than dollars. "That's not answering the question is it, do you think a films profitability is only measurable in financial terms? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art
Sarcasm?
Sony's being sarcastic?
You know the film is not making money right?
I've paid no attention whatsoever. So it's losing cash too?
Always great when people join a thread at the end, without reading the start, so we have to start repeating ourselves
But just for you, yes it is currently loss making and is projected to make a loss of $25m - $70m when international and DVD sales are taken into account.
How do you measure profit?
The same way all accountants do. It's not a subjective thing.
So are $$$ the only measure of profitability then?
British accountants would typically measure profit using pounds rather than dollars.
That's not answering the question is it, do you think a films profitability is only measurable in financial terms?"It's not what I think, it's a fact. Sony is a floated business. Those businesses have to report their performance to shareholders. That is the job of accountants. Accounting has a standard definition of what profit it. Those are all undisputable facts so please don't bore me with semantics. Nobody cares if you have a personal opinion that profit is or should be something else. That's not what the word means, go invent a new word if you disagree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That's not answering the question is it, do you think a films profitability is only measurable in financial terms?" I'm a bit lost on this one. Are you trying to say that the film is profitable in terms what it gives to society, rather than its financial profit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That's not answering the question is it, do you think a films profitability is only measurable in financial terms? I'm a bit lost on this one. Are you trying to say that the film is profitable in terms what it gives to society, rather than its financial profit?" Are you saying that success of an artistic medium is not measurable purely in financial terms? Who can measure the worth of a simple piece of music that brings joy? A painting that makes you feel despair or a film that makes you laugh? I would suggest that any expression of art that evokes a reaction is a success | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art
Sarcasm?
Sony's being sarcastic?
You know the film is not making money right?
I've paid no attention whatsoever. So it's losing cash too?
Always great when people join a thread at the end, without reading the start, so we have to start repeating ourselves
But just for you, yes it is currently loss making and is projected to make a loss of $25m - $70m when international and DVD sales are taken into account.
How do you measure profit?
The same way all accountants do. It's not a subjective thing.
So are $$$ the only measure of profitability then?
British accountants would typically measure profit using pounds rather than dollars.
That's not answering the question is it, do you think a films profitability is only measurable in financial terms?
It's not what I think, it's a fact. Sony is a floated business. Those businesses have to report their performance to shareholders. That is the job of accountants. Accounting has a standard definition of what profit it. Those are all undisputable facts so please don't bore me with semantics. Nobody cares if you have a personal opinion that profit is or should be something else. That's not what the word means, go invent a new word if you disagree. "My understanding is that although there is standard definition of profit, there is flexibility as to what you deduct , and when you deduct all critical at arriving at profit. There is also the question of what markets you include. So John Carter from Mars initially made a loss in the US but when overseas sales and dvds sales were included it was profitable, but not profitable enough for a sequel. Also sales of toys and merchandising are not included as yet. So all that is being measured is the raw takings at the box office. However the Avengers Assemble box office takings were phenomenal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Flippin 'eck . I think it's best just left as the OP didn't like Ghostbusters, but some other people thought it was OK." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art
Sarcasm?
Sony's being sarcastic?
You know the film is not making money right?
I've paid no attention whatsoever. So it's losing cash too?
Always great when people join a thread at the end, without reading the start, so we have to start repeating ourselves
But just for you, yes it is currently loss making and is projected to make a loss of $25m - $70m when international and DVD sales are taken into account.
How do you measure profit?
The same way all accountants do. It's not a subjective thing.
So are $$$ the only measure of profitability then?
British accountants would typically measure profit using pounds rather than dollars.
That's not answering the question is it, do you think a films profitability is only measurable in financial terms?
It's not what I think, it's a fact. Sony is a floated business. Those businesses have to report their performance to shareholders. That is the job of accountants. Accounting has a standard definition of what profit it. Those are all undisputable facts so please don't bore me with semantics. Nobody cares if you have a personal opinion that profit is or should be something else. That's not what the word means, go invent a new word if you disagree. "So you've never heard of a loss leader? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, they made Ghostbusters as a loss leader??? To what??? " How many kids would have bought a Ghostbusters video game this time last year?, how many Ghostbusters Saturday morning cartoons were airing this time last year?, how many Ghostbusters toys were sold this time last year?, how many people clicked on the word Ghostbusters thus time last year? Sony is a multi stream company it doesn't need box office takings to make a film profitable | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it's actually very hard to make a loss in a big film. Even the famously unprofitable Waterworld eventually became profitable. " Blade Runner famously tanked at the box office | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it's actually very hard to make a loss in a big film. Even the famously unprofitable Waterworld eventually became profitable. Blade Runner famously tanked at the box office" As did Waterworld, boom boom! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, they made Ghostbusters as a loss leader??? To what??? How many kids would have bought a Ghostbusters video game this time last year?, how many Ghostbusters Saturday morning cartoons were airing this time last year?, how many Ghostbusters toys were sold this time last year?, how many people clicked on the word Ghostbusters thus time last year? Sony is a multi stream company it doesn't need box office takings to make a film profitable " It's embarrassing that you are so determined to try and keep scratching at things and haven't actually bothered to do any research or check any facts. Why not go and look at the meaning of the term "breakeven" before you embarrass yourself further. Why does it bother you so much that the film is loss making? You must really like the agenda it's trying to shove down people's throat. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How many people who dislike this film have watched it? Another logical fallacy. You don't need to take heroin to know it's bad for you. Straw man argument
If you have unlimited time and budget then yes you can personally sample every single product and service our beautiful capitalist market has to offer and write a personalised review of them.
I'm just a poor boy from a poor family and I have to make predictions about things to try and derive the maximum pleasure from my very limited resources.
Most movie studios try to make good trailers to entice people to watch film. That's how most people will form a big part of their prediction rather than relying on "oh I know the trailer is shit but just buy it anyway because there's still a chance you'll like it". Alternatively, Sony can do their damn job properly.
They're there to make money - not art
Sarcasm?
Sony's being sarcastic?
You know the film is not making money right?
I've paid no attention whatsoever. So it's losing cash too?
Always great when people join a thread at the end, without reading the start, so we have to start repeating ourselves
But just for you, yes it is currently loss making and is projected to make a loss of $25m - $70m when international and DVD sales are taken into account.
How do you measure profit?
The same way all accountants do. It's not a subjective thing.
So are $$$ the only measure of profitability then?
British accountants would typically measure profit using pounds rather than dollars.
That's not answering the question is it, do you think a films profitability is only measurable in financial terms?
It's not what I think, it's a fact. Sony is a floated business. Those businesses have to report their performance to shareholders. That is the job of accountants. Accounting has a standard definition of what profit it. Those are all undisputable facts so please don't bore me with semantics. Nobody cares if you have a personal opinion that profit is or should be something else. That's not what the word means, go invent a new word if you disagree.
My understanding is that although there is standard definition of profit, there is flexibility as to what you deduct , and when you deduct all critical at arriving at profit. There is also the question of what markets you include. So John Carter from Mars initially made a loss in the US but when overseas sales and dvds sales were included it was profitable, but not profitable enough for a sequel. Also sales of toys and merchandising are not included as yet. So all that is being measured is the raw takings at the box office. However the Avengers Assemble box office takings were phenomenal."I gave the figures earlier, the projected take included international sales, DVD sales and merchandise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, they made Ghostbusters as a loss leader??? To what??? How many kids would have bought a Ghostbusters video game this time last year?, how many Ghostbusters Saturday morning cartoons were airing this time last year?, how many Ghostbusters toys were sold this time last year?, how many people clicked on the word Ghostbusters thus time last year? Sony is a multi stream company it doesn't need box office takings to make a film profitable It's embarrassing that you are so determined to try and keep scratching at things and haven't actually bothered to do any research or check any facts. Why not go and look at the meaning of the term "breakeven" before you embarrass yourself further. Why does it bother you so much that the film is loss making? You must really like the agenda it's trying to shove down people's throat. " Fuck me count up the number (of repetitive) posts you've made in here if you wanna see who's bothered | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, they made Ghostbusters as a loss leader??? To what??? How many kids would have bought a Ghostbusters video game this time last year?, how many Ghostbusters Saturday morning cartoons were airing this time last year?, how many Ghostbusters toys were sold this time last year?, how many people clicked on the word Ghostbusters thus time last year? Sony is a multi stream company it doesn't need box office takings to make a film profitable It's embarrassing that you are so determined to try and keep scratching at things and haven't actually bothered to do any research or check any facts. Why not go and look at the meaning of the term "breakeven" before you embarrass yourself further. Why does it bother you so much that the film is loss making? You must really like the agenda it's trying to shove down people's throat. Fuck me count up the number (of repetitive) posts you've made in here if you wanna see who's bothered " Because people like you keep re-wording the same questions hoping to get a different answer. Or just randomly throwing in business terms hoping one sticks. How many ways are you going ask what profit is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Admin are making a new sub-forum like they did with Politics, for the ongoing Ghostbusters debate. "I must admit, I've never seen such a trivial subject go the way it has, obviously people are very passionate about this movie. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Admin are making a new sub-forum like they did with Politics, for the ongoing Ghostbusters debate.
I must admit, I've never seen such a trivial subject go the way it has, obviously people are very passionate about this movie."I believe the technical term is 'first world problems' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Admin are making a new sub-forum like they did with Politics, for the ongoing Ghostbusters debate.
I must admit, I've never seen such a trivial subject go the way it has, obviously people are very passionate about this movie.
I believe the technical term is 'first world problems' "I've had this argument with a few friends, one thought it was great (he also loved the 84 version and is as geek as they come), the other totally panned it and even had a go at the wooden performance of the blond chick, I was ready to throw the custard at them, needless to say when we all meet up again the subject will come up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Admin are making a new sub-forum like they did with Politics, for the ongoing Ghostbusters debate.
I must admit, I've never seen such a trivial subject go the way it has, obviously people are very passionate about this movie.
I believe the technical term is 'first world problems'
I've had this argument with a few friends, one thought it was great (he also loved the 84 version and is as geek as they come), the other totally panned it and even had a go at the wooden performance of the blond chick, I was ready to throw the custard at them, needless to say when we all meet up again the subject will come up. "Beats another brexit arguement though doesn't it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Admin are making a new sub-forum like they did with Politics, for the ongoing Ghostbusters debate.
I must admit, I've never seen such a trivial subject go the way it has, obviously people are very passionate about this movie.
I believe the technical term is 'first world problems'
I've had this argument with a few friends, one thought it was great (he also loved the 84 version and is as geek as they come), the other totally panned it and even had a go at the wooden performance of the blond chick, I was ready to throw the custard at them, needless to say when we all meet up again the subject will come up.
Beats another brexit arguement though doesn't it "Shit man don't even go there, Facebook turned in to the fucking House of Commons following that for about a week. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Admin are making a new sub-forum like they did with Politics, for the ongoing Ghostbusters debate.
I must admit, I've never seen such a trivial subject go the way it has, obviously people are very passionate about this movie.
I believe the technical term is 'first world problems'
I've had this argument with a few friends, one thought it was great (he also loved the 84 version and is as geek as they come), the other totally panned it and even had a go at the wooden performance of the blond chick, I was ready to throw the custard at them, needless to say when we all meet up again the subject will come up.
Beats another brexit arguement though doesn't it
Shit man don't even go there, Facebook turned in to the fucking House of Commons following that for about a week. "The politics forum still is! I just come up here for air. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
