Ghostbusters Salt - Pro, Anti, whatever.

  • Thread starter Thread starter JU 199
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

If any of us had been over the massive PR flops that Caines had presided over, we would have been canned ages ago.

We also would not have this kind of line said about us after Caines string of spectacular failures:
In his memo, Greenstein praised Caines, who he said “built a world-class digital marketing function from the ground up, and transformed the way we market our films to consumers.” In his own note to co-workers, Caines said he would work toward a smooth transition and said he was proud to have been the first digital marketer to be appointed head of marketing at a major studio.

The worst thing about it is that he has enough cred to get another job, after this career of amazing failures. Think about that...
 
Sooo... that's what they are up to nowadays? I've just watched the first 3 minutes (that is: 10% of the review!) and I'm not even out of the hamfisted "sjw vs fanboy" skit.
Also, i just hope Doug's brother is only wearing that dead rat for the video.

Edit: this is sort of a wild guess, but was there any controversy surrounding Doug like what happened to James Rolfe?
Cause it looks like Doug wants to make himself seem more important by kinda sorta allude to that outrage even though he wasn't part of it.
 
Last edited:
Much salt to be had.

image.jpeg


http://www.themarysue.com/has-sony-given-up-on-a-ghostbusters-sequel-or-has-entertainment-media/
 
Sony's "PR strategy" pretty transparently consisted of people waving dollar bills in the faces of reviewers and roping people into making it a political statement to rate this garbage higher than it deserved.

It would have been a lot more efficient to wave dollar bills in the face of a competent script writer. Then you wouldn't need to bribe reviewers to claim your movie didn't suck dicks.
 
It would have been a lot more efficient to wave dollar bills in the face of a competent script writer. Then you wouldn't need to bribe reviewers to claim your movie didn't suck dicks.
For some reason, Hollywood (or the video game industry for that matter) is perfectly happy to shit out a massive turd of a movie (or game) and then sink a shitton of money into marketing that would have better served as additional funds for the project.

I guess that's the fault of people in said marketing departments that don't understand that a product based on creativity such as games and movies can't be marketed like coffee makers or beer.
Usually, products try to be as close to the average as possible and marketing sells them via some sort of message to make them stand out.
For instance, you could make a beer that tastes a bit different than the regular stuff and market it on that alone, however when you aim for a big market share, you try to make it taste pretty much like all the other big brands of beer out there and then have a marketing that puts some arbitrary attributes on that product, for instance making it some sort of lifestyle product.
The reason is simple: You know what the average product is and it sells. Deviating from that might mean that people don't like whatever it is that's different from the average, therefore you do not want to stray away from that.

Therefore "Making the same thing as the competition and trying to make it stand out via marketing" is the regular approach of these clowns.
That's why every game tried to be Gears of War or CoD, no matter how unfitting that is.
I assume it's the same with movies, though they try to save money in production by going with cheap scripts that don't take any risks and then pour money into the marketing.
 
If you want an example of the other side of the autism spectrum when it comes to the salt, there's a subreddit called /r/moviescirclejerk that originally was a joke subreddit (obviously) but now they're kinda serious with their whole "MAN THE NEW GHOSTBUSTERS IS FANTASTIC ANYBODY WHO DOESN'T LIKE IT IS A STUPID NECKBEARD AMIRIGHT???" shit.
 
And now for something completely different:

GAJCWdS.png


Huffington Post said:
“This one was just too tempting because I knew we could do something with it that was exciting,” Paul Fieg explained. A gender-bent sequel with cameos by all the original main cast members? Sure, that’s pretty exciting. Or blasphemous, depending on your view.

Actors including Melissa McCarthy and at least one Sony executive have joined Feig to speak out against the sexist, misogynist bits of “Ghostbusters” criticism, appropriately labeling it, well, sexist and misogynist.

....Wait, that was completely the same. *sigh*
 
A movie can't just be bad anymore.

It's the sad truth. I watched this damned piece of shit film twice at Movie Nights and I can safely say that it's a 4/10. Giving it a 1/10 is dishonest, there ARE jokes that are funny in the film, but there are also ones that cause my testes to shrivel up. If anyone gives this a 7/10 or up, then they are also dishonest.

Sometimes films are just mediocre. Shocking I know.
 
Why can't people simply dislike a mediocre movie anymore? Now they just go on and on about how terrible it is. Stop A-logging movies, it makes you look :autism:
 
Why can't people simply dislike a mediocre movie anymore? Now they just go on and on about how terrible it is. Stop A-logging movies, it makes you look :autism:

And on the flipside, can't you just enjoy a mediocre movie for the dumb fun it is? Instead of insisting it carries deep sociopolitical meaning and only the truly enlightened are worthy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back