Queef of the Damned

Source: Facebook (locked post) with thanks to Eli, Lauren, and most especially Kathryn.

Next week on Manfeels Park... (6)

Ghostbusters was a totally serious movie with no low-brow humour except that time Egon collected ghost snot, or that time Venkman got slimed, or how there were no sex jokes except the whole “four guys mush their “wands” together to explode Gozer’s portal with a shower of white stuff.” Yep, no low-brow humour here.

Seriously, these guys who decided to hate Ghostbusters as soon as the news hit are lower than pond scum, especially the hassle Milo “Looks Like a My Chemical Romance Reject” Yiannopolous is targeting at Leslie. Absolutely pathetic.

Don’t forget Ray’s wet dream ghost blowjob! Yup, new Ghostbusters can NEVER live up to the pinnacle of highbrow humor that was original Ghostbusters. Which of course is why not one person who was involved in the original, many of whom couldn’t agree for DECADES on a new project, would have anything to do with the new project.

Ohwaitnottrueeverybodybutoneortwoifyoudontcountbustsisinit.

Buuuut of course as we all know that’s just a) cash grab or b) caving to PC culture or c) ‘too MANY cameos or the ever populas d) all of the above, cause actually acknowledging that everyone who loved the original was totally okay with this one would result in end times stuff with like, maybe TWO movies with women heroes as the main characters in them. Horror! Horror! Fetch me my smelling salts!

The gross, straight-faced and proudly-regressive misogynistic backlash was and is the saddest sort of predictable.
Opinions I actually trust haven’t exactly been generous to the movie itself either, though.

Maybe people just don’t want to see it because the original was such a classic that any remake would pale in comparison. Let’s see. $144M production budget, $100-$150M promotion budget, $124M domestic gross, $82M international gross. So, with a ~$250M budget and ~$200M gross (of which the theatres take 50%), the film still has to gross an additional $300M to break even. Does anyone else think it just wasn’t very good?

That film won’t see a dime of my money. I also wouldn’t see it if it were cast with new male leads.

Or you can make it about misogyny. Whatever floats your boat….

would be easier to believe without the rapemurderdiebitchslut rhetoric from the little boy’s corner of the Internet
whatever happened to “dude it’s only a movie, not the end of the world*”it’s your tenner and you can spend it how you like, just don’t leave a mess for the usher or demand a better seat it’s first come first served for a reason.

*starring: dude bro

Movie theaters do not make 50% of the revenue. They make a much smaller percentage, though that percentage usually increases week by week. The distributor gets the vast majority of a film’s revenue (that’s why popcorn is so pricey – the films themselves are a loss leader so that the theater can sell you snacks).

General wisdom about large budget movies with decent marketing is that, to break even, a movie has to make roughly twice its production budget (since they don’t announce the marketing budget at all). Ghostbusters made roughly 1.5 times its initial production budget. So yeah, it did under perform. However, it didn’t under perform too badly, and Sony is likely to be lenient if they believe it has brought back the franchise in a meaningful way and increased other revenue. It’s also hardly the worst performing film of the year or the summer. Star Trek Beyond had fairly similar numbers (making slightly more money but also having a higher production budget). Gods of Egypt, The BFG, The Divergent Series: Allegient, Zoolander 2, and, related to this site, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies were all bigger flops/disappointments than Ghostbusters.

Also, as someone who actually saw Ghostbusters this year, it was pretty fantastic. The cast was perfect, I was laughing the whole time, and everyone at my theater seemed to be having a blast. So yeah, my two cents.