New Ghostbusters movie action figures

MJTanner · **Posted:** Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:38 pm

Darko wrote:

Also, I think it's a bit early to declare "the sole change" when I don't think there has been a trailer or plot summary yet...in fact, at this point, no one is really sure if it is a reboot or a new installment (all of which is what I find most worrisome...doesn't seem like the studio has much faith in it). Either way, I agree, it is unnecessary, but I doubt there would be nearly the uproar if they had done the same movie but cast Will Ferrell, Bill Hader, Patton Oswalt and Tracy Morgan. At the very least, people wouldn't be using a bunch of homophobic slurs to talk about why they don't want to see it.

Yep, no one would say boo if it was a boys club remake.
Hell, a lot of fans in the 90s were clamoring for a remake with Sandler, Spade, Farley and Rock.
And then in the 00s people talking about Stiller, Vaugn, Farrel and Wilson doing a remake.
No one gave two farts then. But now... for some reason GB is sacred and untouchable....wonder what that reason is.

PaidLoad · **Joined:** Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:52 pm

MJTanner wrote:

Darko wrote:

Also, I think it's a bit early to declare "the sole change" when I don't think there has been a trailer or plot summary yet...in fact, at this point, no one is really sure if it is a reboot or a new installment (all of which is what I find most worrisome...doesn't seem like the studio has much faith in it). Either way, I agree, it is unnecessary, but I doubt there would be nearly the uproar if they had done the same movie but cast Will Ferrell, Bill Hader, Patton Oswalt and Tracy Morgan. At the very least, people wouldn't be using a bunch of homophobic slurs to talk about why they don't want to see it.

Yep, no one would say boo if it was a boys club remake.
Hell, a lot of fans in the 90s were clamoring for a remake with Sandler, Spade, Farley and Rock.
And then in the 00s people talking about Stiller, Vaugn, Farrel and Wilson doing a remake.
No one gave two farts then. But now... for some reason GB is sacred and untouchable....wonder what that reason is.

Can't wait for the outrage of them making the toys slimmer than the actors actually are.

Oh, and it's because for the most part women aren't funny.

Darko · **Joined:** Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:19 am

...because "funny" is an objectively measured quantity now?

DarkJedi · **Posted:** Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:50 am

This would be the only sequel or reboot I'd even like to see right now...

Attachment:

feature-weekend-bernies-3.jpg [ 69.6 KiB | Viewed 1390 times ]

AdrienVeidt · **Joined:** Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:19 am

Darko wrote:

...because "funny" is an objectively measured quantity now?

Box office receipts are, fwiw.

Dusty79 · **Posted:** Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:58 am

DarkJedi wrote:

This would be the only sequel or reboot I'd even like to see right now...

Attachment:

feature-weekend-bernies-3.jpg

Yes

Darko · **Joined:** Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:19 am

AdrienVeidt wrote:

Darko wrote:

...because "funny" is an objectively measured quantity now?

Box office receipts are, fwiw.

Yup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridesmaids_(2011_film)#Box_office
(Which is produced by the same guy and features two of the same stars)

The important part:

Quote:

Bridesmaids surpassed Knocked Up to become the top-grossing Judd Apatow production to date (...) Bridesmaids grossed $169,106,725 domestically and $119,276,798 in foreign markets, totalling $288,383,523.

Meanwhile...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_L ... _reception

Quote:

It grossed USD $5.5 million on its opening weekend, grossing US$17 million in the United States, just above its US$15 million budget. The film's worldwide gross outside of the US was $28 million, bringing its worldwide gross to $46,189,568.

But here's the thing: I didn't find Bridesmaids funny at all, and I have never not laughed myself into hysterics over the Big Lewbowski. Which is why box office numbers aren't a great measure of 'funny'. My point is, any discussion of what is and isn't funny is pointless, because humor is objective. Saying "women are less funny than men!" just means "I find women less funny than men." Obviously, enough people found Bridesmaids funny enough to make it a box office success. It would be ridiculous to make some blanket statement about it just because I didn't.

Redmao · **Posted:** Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:57 am

From their past failures and peg warming, I'm pretty sure Mattel is done with 4" figures.
BvsS seems to only have 9 poa 6" figures. It's what their "good" at. Plus at that size, the average customer can probably justify the price tag without costing much more to produce. A little bit more plastic, but the same number of parts to assemble.

AdrienVeidt · **Joined:** Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:19 am

Lol, I'm sure you mean 'subjective' in there, Darko.

We know that men and women have different senses of humor in general, and that Bridesmaids' success is likely more due to the paucity of comedy movies aimed at women than as a true indicator of its 'betterness' over TBL, but that just makes me wonder who this GB flick is aimed. Women because of the cast -in which case it's unquestionably a case of the studio pandering to women- or to the men that love the originals? I think they're sending mixed signals and this flick is probably not going to be successful enough to warrant its own sequel. In truth, that may simply be because the core concept isn't enough to support a lengthy franchise, as the original movies show.

MJTanner · **Posted:** Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:50 pm

AdrienVeidt wrote:

Women because of the cast -in which case it's unquestionably a case of the studio pandering to women-

If it was all guys would it be pandering to a men? If so, then is everything pandering?

pluv · **Posted:** Mon Jan 11, 2016 2:08 pm

I think it is neat they made figures for the new movie that will blend with the previous GB figures.

AdrienVeidt · **Joined:** Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:19 am

MJTanner wrote:

AdrienVeidt wrote:

Women because of the cast -in which case it's unquestionably a case of the studio pandering to women-

If it was all guys would it be pandering to a men? If so, then is everything pandering?

That point could probably be decently supported. How many 'guy's movies' are power fantasies, right?

But the apparent one-for-one swap out of the five GB members to their gender opposite without changing any of the basic personality characteristics (assumedly, but very very likely) or bringing in any other ethnicities *screams* pandering to me, and I really don't see how it can't be seen that way.

MJTanner · **Posted:** Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:13 pm

AdrienVeidt wrote:

MJTanner wrote:

AdrienVeidt wrote:

Women because of the cast -in which case it's unquestionably a case of the studio pandering to women-

If it was all guys would it be pandering to a men? If so, then is everything pandering?

That point could probably be decently supported. How many 'guy's movies' are power fantasies, right?

But the apparent one-for-one swap out of the five GB members to their gender opposite without changing any of the basic personality characteristics (assumedly, but very very likely) or bringing in any other ethnicities *screams* pandering to me, and I really don't see how it can't be seen that way.

Who is the Egon? Who is the Ray? Who is the Winston? Who is the Peter?

AdrienVeidt · **Joined:** Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:19 am

Who is the Winston?

Get

The

Hell

Real,

Man.

We can have a decent conversation without either of us being obtuse.

MJTanner · **Posted:** Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:27 pm

Edited-

We can talk honestly about this because it would violate the "no politics" rules.

But... interesting to see what you think are "personality characteristics."

New Ghostbusters movie action figures

Who is online