ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, July 18, 2016

Gamma reviews

This is not a Gamma review:
Gamma Reviews: Advanced Review Copies

Advanced Review Copies, or ARCs, are the books that the publishers print out early with ordering information including print run size & co-op information instead of a back cover blurb. These are given out to bookstore buyers, professional reviewers, (and, in the case of Baen, lucky people at the Baen Roadshow.)
Now THIS is a Gamma review:
What I thought of the new Ghostbusters: I liked it, and would happily rewatch it. It’s definitely the second-best Ghostbusters movie, and much closer to the original in terms of enjoyment than the willfully forgotten Ghostbusters 2. There are legitimate criticisms to make of it: the plot is rote to the point of being slapdash, the action scenes are merely adequate, and Paul Feig is no Ivan Reitman, in terms of creating comedic ambiance. But the film got the two big things right: It has a crackerjack cast that’s great individually and together, and it has all the one-liners you can eat. And now that the origin story of these particular Ghostbusters is out of the way, I’m ready for the sequel.

But what about the Ghostbusters being all women?!??!?? Yes they were, and it was good. If you can’t enjoy Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones snarking it up while zapping ghosts with proton streams, one, the problem is you, not them, and two, no really, what the fuck is wrong with you. The actors and the characters had chemistry with one another and I would have happily watched these Ghostbusters eat lunch, just to listen to them zap on one another. And in particular I want to be McKinnon’s Holtzmann when I grow up; Holtzmann is brilliant and spectrum-y and yet pretty much social anxiety-free and I honestly can’t see any sort of super-nerd not wanting to cosplay the shit out of her forever and ever, amen.

BUT THEY’VE RUINED MY CHILDHOOD BY BEING WOMEN, wails a certain, entitled subset of male nerd on the Internet. Well, good, you pathetic little shitballs. If your entire childhood can be irrevocably destroyed by four women with proton packs, your childhood clearly sucked and it needs to go up in hearty, crackling flames. Now you are free, boys, free! Enjoy the now. Honestly, I don’t think it’s entirely a coincidence that one of the weakest parts of this film is its villain, who (very minor spoiler) is literally a basement-dwelling man-boy just itchin’ to make the world pay for not making him its king, as he is so clearly meant to be. These feculent lads are annoying enough in the real world. It’s difficult to make them any more interesting on screen.

But this is just the latest chapter of man-boys whining about women in science fiction culture: Oh noes! Mad Max has womens in it! Yes, and Fury Road was stunning, arguably the best film of its franchise and of 2015, and was improbably but fittingly nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Oh noes! Star Wars has womens in it! Yes, and The Force Awakens was pretty damn good, the best Star Wars film since Empire, was the highest grossing film of 2015 and of all time in the domestic box office (not accounting for inflation. Accounting for inflation, it’s #11. #1 counting inflation? That super-manly epic, Gone With the Wind).

And now, Oh noes! Ghostbusters has womens in it! Yes, and it’s been well-reviewed and at $46 million, is the highest grossing opening for its director or any of its stars and perfectly in line with studio estimates for the weekend. Notably, all the surviving principals of the original film make cameos, suggesting they are fine with passing the torch (Harold Ramis is honored in the film too, which is a lovely touch), and Ivan Reitman and Dan Aykroyd are producers of the film. If your childhood has been ruined, boys, then your alleged heroes happily did some of the kicking.

I’m an 80s kid; my youth is not forever stained by a Ghostbusters remake, any more than it was stained by remakes of Robocop or Point Break or Poltergeist or Endless Love or The Karate Kid or Clash of the Titans or Footloose or Total Recall and on and on. I think most of these remakes were unnecessary, and I don’t think most of them were particularly good, or as good as their originals, and I question why film companies bother, aside from the “all the originals were made before the global movie market matured and there’s money on the table that can be exploited with these existing brands,” which is, of course, its own excuse.

But after a certain and hopefully relatively early point in your life, you realize remakes are just a thing the film industry does — the first Frankenstein film listed on imdb was made in 1910, and the most recent, 2015, and Universal (maker of the classic 1931 version) is planning yet another reboot in 2018 or 2019 — and maybe you get over yourself and your opinion that your childhood is culturally inviolate, especially from the entities that actually, you know, own the properties you’ve invested so much of your psyche into. It’s fine to roll your eyes when someone announces yet another remake, tweet “UGH WHYYYYYY” and then go about your life. But it causes you genuine emotional upheaval, maybe a reconfigure of your life is not out of the question.

(Not, mind you, that I think these shitboys are genuinely that invested in Ghostbusters, per se; they’re invested in manprivilege and, as noted above, would have wailed their anguished testeria onto Reddit and 4chan regardless of which cultural property had women “suddenly” show up in it. This is particularly ironic with anything regarding science fiction, which arguably got its successful start in Western culture through the graces of Mary Shelley. Women have always been in it, dudes. Deal.)

The happy news in this case is that, whether or not this Ghostbusters reboot was necessary, it’s pretty good, and fun to watch. That’s the best argument for it. I’m looking forward to more.

So brave. But having finished demolishing his own reputation as a movie reviewer in the interest of virtue-signaling his feminist superiority to "manboys" and "shitboys", whatever they are, McRapey also had to be the first to comment on his own post on his shrinking little blog.
John Scalzi says:
JULY 17, 2016 AT 12:15 PM
To get ahead of any potential “but there are women saying their childhood was ruined too!” nonsense: Maybe there were? But if there were, and they weren’t gamergate-like sockpuppet accounts, a) I didn’t see much of them, b) they were swamped by the wailing boys, c) the advice to them is the same as to the whining dudes: Remakes happen, maybe get over it.

To get ahead of “it’s sexist to bag on the men here,” argument, leaving the whole larger argument about power stuctures and sexism and all the stuff you recognize play into sexism when you think about sexism on a level higher than “this is a playing card I can slap down in this game called Rhetoric,” you can imagine me in that Wonka meme pose, saying “Tell me again as a man how I can’t criticize men, that’s adorable.”

Finally, to get ahead of any “beta cuck” stupidity, I’m not the one who just spent half a year wailing about the ruin of my childhood, boys. I do find there’s an correlation between the sort of dude who questions my masculinity and the sort of dude who whines excessively about how mean the world is to him, waaaaaaaaaaaah. And this is me in the Wonka pose again.

All of which is to say, Mallet is out for general whiny male bullshit. Behave, children.
Spacebunny cracks me up. Her entire response: "Isn't he married? Why is he trying so hard?" Sadly, despite his brave and heroic efforts, Scalzi got it wrong in the end. You see, the official feminist line is that Grrlbusters is not only better than the original, but seeing it is important.
The nerdy guy doesn’t get the girl. That was a standard trope in the 80s, and the Ghostbusters of 1984 was no exception. The lack of consent factor that makes all of the Zhoul-possessed Sigourney Weaver scenes difficult to watch is not an issue here, because there is no romance in the new Ghostbusters, creepily possessed or otherwise. Yes, Erin (Kristin Wiig) awkwardly hits on Kevin (Chris Hemsworth) but it’s generally met with disapproval from her fellow Ghostbusters (if not laughter) and Kevin seeming to be oblivious to it. And even better than the nerdy guy being the hero is the fact that the nerdy guy is the villain and the nerdy girls save the world. Boom.

An appreciation for their receptionist by the Ghostbusters. I loved Janine as a kid. As a child, I thought that Janine pining quietly for Egon was romantic. Now it pisses me off. That and the fact that nobody paid any attention to her, generally speaking, because she was competent and therefore invisible. As doofy and dumb as Kevin is, and even though Erin hits on him, the team still values him and learns to work with him because they genuinely care about him. That’s not subtext. That’s actual text.

Using the “ghost” as an allegorical commentary. One of the themes in this movie is the importance of being believed. Yes, in this movie, it’s about being believed about ghosts. Erin talks about how she saw a ghost when she was 8, every night for a year. Her parents didn’t believe her, and she went into therapy. Abby (Melissa McCarthy) was the only one who believed her, which was one of the reasons they became friends. It’s not that much of a stretch to think about all the things that women are also often not believed about, as children or as adults. And that part of the movie, thankfully, and pointedly, doesn’t devolve into comedy. It lets the moment of remembered trauma be serious.

Real friendship between the Ghostbusters. The other moment of seriousness that is allowed to be serious is at the very end, when Jillian (Kate McKinnon) stands up to give the gals a toast. Up to this point, the majority of Kate McKinnon’s screentime has been devoted to sight gags and making straight girls question their sexuality, both of which she excels at.
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that sequel, Johnny. I expect it will be out around the same time that Paramount releases the Old Man's War movie.  But at least we'll have that television show based on Redshirts to look forward to.

Labels: ,

179 Comments:

Blogger Human Animal July 18, 2016 6:16 AM  

Obligatory.

Blogger weka July 18, 2016 6:25 AM  

Well, if it was still clinging onto some semblance of life, albeit as a revenant, then Scalzi just nailed a stake through its shambling corpse.

Anonymous Bobby Farr July 18, 2016 6:25 AM  

Something seems to be mentally off about this Scalzi person - the teenage girl diction, overuse of caps and explanation points to convey his emotions, babytalk ("oh noes"), calling men boys, references to Wonka memes. This isn't how adult men think or write.

Anonymous BitMumbler July 18, 2016 6:26 AM  

Scalzi's writing is reminiscent of PoZ Myers' trademark prose: flick-spittle ranting and flailing, angry virtue signalling and table pounding, rapid fire sarcasm, complete with ALL CAPS and punctuation abuse. It's like an insane hobo standing on the street corner shouting at people in text form.

Anonymous Bobby Farr July 18, 2016 6:28 AM  

*exclamation

Anonymous Shut up rabbit July 18, 2016 6:33 AM  

Ah, Johnny "wimminz is da best!" Scalzoid. The Steve Shives of SF/F: mad, bad and exponentially growing in utter irrelevance.

Blogger Whisker biscuit July 18, 2016 6:36 AM  

Took my kids to the drive inn Saturday night. It was a triple feature: The Secret Life of Pets, Grrrlbusters, and Tarzan. The sandwiched that visual turd between two movies everyone wanted to see; it's was like a "watch this because" forced decision.

75% of the crowd left after Pets. I guess it grabbed revenue, but it will fade quickly. Star Trek next weekend and Pets is insanely popular right now. Look for a 50-70% decrease in ticket sales for Grrlbusters, soon.

Anonymous Arnold Gavin July 18, 2016 6:39 AM  

The new Ghostbusters, the new Mad Max, and the new Star Wars he celebrates as being breakthroughs for women were all written and directed by men.

Blogger Rantor July 18, 2016 6:41 AM  

I showed my wife the Ghostbuster's movie poster. That was enough to convince her that she didn't want to see the movie.

So was Secret Life of Pets worth it?

Blogger Phillip George July 18, 2016 6:44 AM  

Female exorcists in the bible. I'm up to zero and still counting.
Feminists should hold their breath. When the count changes I'll get back to the immediately.

Anonymous Steve July 18, 2016 6:49 AM  

in particular I want to be McKinnon’s Holtzmann when I grow up; Holtzmann is brilliant and spectrum-y and yet pretty much social anxiety-free and I honestly can’t see any sort of super-nerd not wanting to cosplay the shit out of her forever and ever, amen.

I thought this was written by some fat girl on Tumblr, then I realised it was Scalzi.

Close enough.

Blogger YIH July 18, 2016 6:51 AM  

Whisker biscuit wrote:Took my kids to the drive inn Saturday night. It was a triple feature: The Secret Life of Pets, Grrrlbusters, and Tarzan. The sandwiched that visual turd between two movies everyone wanted to see; it's was like a "watch this because" forced decision.

75% of the crowd left after Pets. I guess it grabbed revenue, but it will fade quickly. Star Trek next weekend and Pets is insanely popular right now. Look for a 50-70% decrease in ticket sales for Grrlbusters, soon.

You weren't the only one. Despite all the hype, the holdover Pets beat Turd Flushers for the #1 spot.
Watch it get creamed by Star Trek next week.

Blogger Dave July 18, 2016 6:51 AM  

That’s not subtext. That’s actual text.

Actual text: douche

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 18, 2016 6:53 AM  

I thought this was written by some fat girl on Tumblr, then I realised it was Scalzi.

Close enough.


That was my exact reaction. I didn't realize it was Scalzi. I honestly thought it was some resentful FUBWABA fat chick.

Which explains so much about John Scalzi. He's a resentful woman trapped in a resentful man's body.

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 18, 2016 7:02 AM  

You see, the official feminist line is that Grrlbusters is not only better than the original, but seeing it is important.

Can confirm.

Stephanie Zacharek, declared what the official line of GoodThink is on Ghostbusters: The Envaginating, from her perch as the reviewer for Time Magazine.



But the loudest people on the web are never the most sensible, and it’s always the loudest that skew reality. If you dislike the original Ghostbusters—or even if you just think it’s merely OK—for the sake of mankind, it’s time to break your silence.

You aren't being publicly obnoxious enough to be a proper SJW. You are ordered by an almost but not quite journalist to work on that.

I’m more of a Ghostbusters II person myself.

Ha! Ha! Ha! (*gasp...wheez...gasp*) Ha! Ha! Ha!

How on Earth are you permitted to be a film critic? Okay hating Ghostbusters is fine. Maybe Bill Murray turns you off because he reminds you of the guy you used to sleep with in college but wouldn't say in public that you were his girlfriend (because you weren't), I get it. But Ghostbusters II is a perfect example of "how not to make a sequel". There was no attempt whatsoever to expand on the original story or characters. they just repeated what they had done before, which is bluntly a tasteless money grabbing ripoff.

How did you get a job at Time? I mean seriously lady, whose balls did you fondle?

Blogger SteelPalm July 18, 2016 7:10 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 18, 2016 7:11 AM  

CH is right, they are exhausted and running on fumes. Now if we could only get them to cos play as cops

Blogger SteelPalm July 18, 2016 7:11 AM  

Horrific, whiny tumblerette writing aside, Scalzi is wrong on the only objective point that matters.

Box office revenue. $46 million is poor and disappointing given the $140 million production budget and extensive P&A (press and advertising) costs. Certainly not "perfectly in line with studio estimates for the weekend" as he claimed.

Now, while it's not a catastrophic opening weekend, when coupled with how poorly Hollywood comedies perform in the international market, AND China's decision not to play the movie, the possibilities for this movie are anywhere from "will take 10 years of ancillary rights to make its money back" to "huge bomb that causes people to get fired".

Specifically, my guess is that they need $400 million total to be a small success (Feig claims $500+ million, but SJWs always lie), and it appears they will fall short of that already.

By how much is the question.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 18, 2016 7:11 AM  

How many paragraphs in that review were about the movie?

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 18, 2016 7:17 AM  

High school was three decades ago dude, it's time to let it go.

Blogger Raziel Walker July 18, 2016 7:21 AM  

I saw Scalzi's review but didn't read it entirely exactly because it was a gamma shitpost and not a movie review. At least Howard Tayler from Schlock Mercenary only told me what I needed to know: the movie is not as bad as it appears in the trailers and has some fun parts. Looks like I'd enjoy watching it on Netflix but not in theaters where I'd have to spend money to watch it.

Blogger Anchorman July 18, 2016 7:22 AM  

Good gravy. The gamma reviews are what you'd expect from sycophants.

The third review screams, "THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!! Now laugh."

The demonic possession "without consent." Laughably missing the point. It's a demon! Had she "consented," I'm sure feminists would've snarked that it's just another way to blame Eve for the Fall, because of course he couldn't seduce a man to be possessed.

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 18, 2016 7:23 AM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:How many paragraphs in that review were about the movie?

I am 80 percent certain he didn't actually see it.

He wasn't alone there.

The damage according to Boxofficemojo is 44 Million, which is under the projected take.

Feminist Ghostbusters came in behind The Secret Lives of Pets.

That is the domestic total. The Foreign Box office sales are hovering in the 19 million range. If Ghostbusters The Envaginating had only cost 75 million to make (which it should have), they's be laughing. But the budget was inflated to just shy of 150 million. Unless the FBO seriously picks up this going to be a bomb. Although not the bomb it deserves to be.

Anonymous Ellipsis Lacuna July 18, 2016 7:24 AM  

Just recently rewatched Ghostbusters (1984) and the misbegotten sequel (1989) as Redbox had them on DVD. It must've been the first time I've watched both films in maybe twenty years from back to back. Maybe time has aged my tastes a bit, but I was not all that impressed with the originals.

I found the first Ghostbusters mildly intriguing, but sluggishly paced, and the jokes low-key to the point of easily being overlooked. I know it wasn't supposed to be a slapstick on the order of Stripes or Caddyshack, but it struck me as falling in that gap between action-with-a-bit-of-comedy and comedy-with-some-action. It tried to be both and accomplished neither.

Haven't seen the new one yet and not planning to.

Blogger Anchorman July 18, 2016 7:26 AM  



The new Mad Max was heavy on the "Men bad," but did remember the #1 focus of an action movie should be action. There were good sequences in that film.

Blogger Anchorman July 18, 2016 7:28 AM  

The Foreign Box office sales are hovering in the 19 million range.

And I think China banned it, didn't they? They have a weird ban-hammer for occult related movies. If they can't get into the Chinese theatres, the international take is significantly cut.

Blogger Shimshon July 18, 2016 7:31 AM  

Vox, I'm afraid to click on the link. Was that an excerpt or the whole review?!

Meanwhile...

The Guardian: Ghostbusters fails to top US box office with $46m opening weekend

Forbes: 'Ghostbusters' Box Office: Is A $46 Million Weekend Big Enough?

I wonder if it'll even top $100M domestically.

Blogger Chrom July 18, 2016 7:37 AM  

"Boy, things really turned bad quickly, but at least Scalzi's on my side," said no one.

Anonymous Steve July 18, 2016 7:38 AM  

Cataline - Which explains so much about John Scalzi. He's a resentful woman trapped in a resentful man's body.

His big handsome wife must be tempted to smother him with a pillow.

Ellipsis - by modern standards it's pretty tame, but for the early 80's GHOSTBUSTERS had eye-popping special effects and risque humour.

Blogger VD July 18, 2016 7:48 AM  

Vox, I'm afraid to click on the link. Was that an excerpt or the whole review?!

The whole review with a bonus! Scalzi's review plus Scalzi's comment on Scalzi's review.

Blogger Whisker biscuit July 18, 2016 7:55 AM  

I don't keep up with unHOLYwood, so forgive me if I'm regurgitating previously discussed topics....

I read they're doing a remake of Road House with Holly Holm, er, Rhonda Rousey. What's the purpose of remaking a turd? To shove this feminist garbage down the gullets of the masses I suppose. But they never come up with original franchises or material, do they? It's all piggybacking on known commodities.

At some point, hopefully sooner than later, enough people will wake up to the agenda. But it's going to be hard; most males today are females with peckers. They're so indoctrinated with this rot gut crap that it would take an act of God to shake them free.

Blogger Kallmunz July 18, 2016 8:00 AM  

My favorite part of Scalzi's tearful rant is:

"I do find there’s an correlation between the sort of dude who questions my masculinity and the sort of dude who whines excessively about how mean the world is to him, waaaaaaaaaaaah."

Scalzi was one of those losers in high school who could only repeat "I know you are but what am I ?" For him to call men "manbabies" is the height of projection.

Blogger Shimshon July 18, 2016 8:02 AM  

It seems to me (is this meta-Gamma when I use a Gamma tell against a Gamma?) Scalzi likes to think of himself as your arch nemesis. He's like the slapstick equivalent of a supervillain, except not funny. Next thing you know he'll start throwing around lines like "I expect you to DIE Mr. Day."

Anonymous trk July 18, 2016 8:03 AM  

Subconsciously he calls them fat. He uses phrases like "all you can eat", "crackerjack" and Wonka candy. Why does he hate women so much?

Blogger Shimshon July 18, 2016 8:04 AM  

Somewhat OT but the Hugo voting deadline is fast approaching, is it not?

Blogger Leo Little Book in Shenzhen July 18, 2016 8:06 AM  

Obviously Scalzi must lick the pseudopenis of Feminism and present his own erect Mallet for inspection.

The only way to silence a cackle of hyenas is to sever the spinal cord of the matriarch.

He is threatening to not give us blowjobs.

Blogger SteelPalm July 18, 2016 8:06 AM  

@27

"I wonder if it'll even top $100M domestically."

While I'm sure we all hope otherwise, the reality is that it will. Under any scenario. Personally though, I'm rooting for less than $250 million worldwide.

That would be "major bomb that gets people fired" status and has some chance (I would put it at around 20%) of occurring.

Blogger TarjaJu July 18, 2016 8:07 AM  

I'm relatively new to this blog. So far, it has not failed entertaining my morning coffee time. The comment on his review is a gem.

Blogger Jason July 18, 2016 8:08 AM  

All i can think is, he doesn't half go on does he.

Learn to get to the point

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 18, 2016 8:09 AM  

He has time to moderate the comments, tells you where he is at in life.

In the larger scheme any little criticism seems to weigh heavy on their little heads.

Blogger Markku July 18, 2016 8:11 AM  

Box office / business for
"Red Shirts" (2013)
Budget
$15,000 (estimated)

Uhhh... Well, I guess that's impressive, in a way.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet July 18, 2016 8:16 AM  

He tries so hard because he's likely a serial killer.

Exhibit A: "I would have happily watched these Ghostbusters eat lunch."

I have $20 he's got a "cosplay" cage with chains in that basement of his to go with that big lawn.

Anonymous M.W. Peak July 18, 2016 8:19 AM  

I loved Janine as a kid. As a child, I thought that Janine pining quietly for Egon was romantic. Now it pisses me off.

And this is what feminism does to little girls. It moves them from being inspired artists to perpetually miserable cynics. Then they go and write things like movie reviews and something resembling fantasy and science fiction.

Blogger Alexander Thompson July 18, 2016 8:19 AM  

Wait is that Red Shirt thing real? How have I never heard of it? Like anything about it? Does it even air in the US?

Blogger horsewithnonick July 18, 2016 8:21 AM  

Uneasy lies the head that wears the Secret Crown.

Blogger horsewithnonick July 18, 2016 8:21 AM  

Uneasy lies the head that wears the Secret Crown.

Blogger Stephen St. Onge July 18, 2016 8:26 AM  

Rule of thumb for break even on a movie is 180% of the production cost. For GII, that means a gross of about $290 million.

Off to a bad start.

Blogger Jon M July 18, 2016 8:30 AM  

A 50 million opening weekend generally indicates a 200 million total gross. Really lousy movies don't reach that 4x opening mark, but let's be generous for this analysis. Clearing 50 million on a 150 million dollar budget movie puts Ghostbustettes on the same level of financial success as Green Lantern, John Carter, and Lone Ranger.

Those were all considered failures, but remember Hollywood is all about image. The pre-release backlash might have lowered expectations to the point that any profit beats the expectations.

Either way, though, there ain't no way this movie gets a sequel.

Blogger John Williams July 18, 2016 8:32 AM  

"Red Shirts" (2013)
Has it been on Netflix already?
<\sarc

Blogger Human Animal July 18, 2016 8:34 AM  

Love the comment section.

[Deleted because really, that was just sad. — JS]
[Deleted for uselessness – JS]
[Deleted for responding to a deleted comment. No worries, FossilFishy, you’re fine — JS]
[Deleted for responding to a deleted post. Come on, guys, you should know a post like that was going to get Malleted by me –JS]

John Scalzi says: Turning off comments for the night — see you all in the morning.

Someone buy the man an ant colony to talk to.

Blogger Jon M July 18, 2016 8:35 AM  

This movie was so ill-avised the studio, press, and other adherents to the narrative have had to engage in all sorts of chicanery. My understanding is that the studio had to spend way more on marketing than normal - to the tune of 100 million, which is... rare. Most analyses don't take that into account.

Blogger Worlds Edge July 18, 2016 8:38 AM  

Rule of thumb for break even on a movie is 180% of the production cost. For GII, that means a gross of about $290 million.

Feig himself is on record as saying it needs to clear $500 million to be a success. I guess that means "success" defined as a sequel being greenlit, but to my mind that also implies an ROI of some percent above a break-even figure that must be in the $350 million range.

Blogger Anchorman July 18, 2016 8:40 AM  

Either way, though, there ain't no way this movie gets a sequel.

I was just going to comment on the initial weekend draw and the possibility of a sequel. I know they want to do one. Movies today like to leave endings open for sequel possibilities.

If the sequel is made, the backers have to know it's dead money.

I don't think it's makes $200 million. It got as much push-buzz as it could get going into the weekend.

It's not a family movie (Secret Life of Pets). It's not a cult-following movie (Star Trek/Marvel/DC). It's not a fresh script/concept. Its not great enough for folks to go multiple times.

My guess is that the fan base for this type of movie made its big showing this weekend and it will limp forward, quickly dropping in weekly rankings.

I guess those basement-dwelling losers have more cultural sway than Hollywood, feminists, etc.

Anonymous DeeJay July 18, 2016 8:45 AM  

WTH. Why is this... guy even on Twitter and snark-blogging lengthy virtue-signal movie reviews? Doesn't he have some big unprecedented multi-book contract, with millions of dollars on the line? Frankly, if someone was paying me that much money to bang out novels, I'd put the television in storage, shut down my internet provider and completely disengage from the world's incessant distractions to get some work done... or at least immerse myself in my book's 'world'.

Blogger pdwalker July 18, 2016 8:47 AM  

goodness.

that "review" and "rant" were painful to read. heterosexual men do not talk or write that way

Blogger Anchorman July 18, 2016 8:47 AM  

or at least immerse myself in my book's 'world'.

Give him a break. He ordered more Heinlein from Amazon. It's just backordered.

Anonymous Thales July 18, 2016 8:58 AM  

Spacebunny cracks me up. Her entire response: "Isn't he married? Why is he trying so hard?"

Because the emperor is so obviously naked that the Lie must either Go Big or Go Home. Why else spend 9 freaking paragraphs leaning over people telling them what they're supposed to think if they know what's good for them?

Blogger Markku July 18, 2016 9:02 AM  

DeeJay wrote:WTH. Why is this... guy even on Twitter and snark-blogging lengthy virtue-signal movie reviews? Doesn't he have some big unprecedented multi-book contract, with millions of dollars on the line?

https://tempestinateardrop.com/2016/06/03/scalzis-schedule/

Blogger Josh July 18, 2016 9:03 AM  

Someone buy the man an ant colony to talk to.

The John Scalzi School for strong fierce independent funny women who can't write good and want to do other stuff too.

Blogger Rabbi B July 18, 2016 9:05 AM  

Scalzi's review plus Scalzi's comment on Scalzi's review.

Now, that's funny. Scalzi: the gift that keeps on giving.

Blogger synp July 18, 2016 9:13 AM  

Important? I don't think that means what you think it means.

I can understand the claim that if no movie has ever shown a strong woman, having such a character is "important". OK, I guess.

If there hasn't been a movie or TV series showing a serious woman scientist, having one would be important. But we've had Dr Ann McGregor in The Time Tunnel. If we had never seen a woman as a military officer, such a character would be important, but we've had Lt Uhura in 1967. If we never had a woman captain.. But we had Janeway in the 90s and probably some others earlier. If we never had a bad-ass warrior woman before, but we had Cmdr Ivanova in Babylon 5. And a few others before her.

Once the trail has been blazed, you don't have important roles. Characters can be good or bad, but they're not important. So if the plot is "rote to the point of being slapdash", nothing can save the movie. You can get over bad effects and some bad acting, but not around sucky plot. And what about "I would have happily watched these Ghostbusters eat lunch, just to listen to them zap on one another"? Is the new Ghostbusters like Sex and the City?

Anonymous ZhukovG July 18, 2016 9:14 AM  

Doesn't Scalzi have a book he's supposed to be writing?

Blogger Josh July 18, 2016 9:16 AM  

Doesn't Scalzi have a book he's supposed to be writing?

SHUT UP YOU STUPID MAN BABY GAMER GATER!

HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WRITING OR THE WRITING PROCESS SINCE YOU SO OBVIOUSLY DO NOT HAVE A BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE FROM THE UNIVERSITY PIG CHICAGO?

Blogger Marsh 01701 July 18, 2016 9:16 AM  

Boy...he does go on. and on. and on. Is this guy a child?

Sorry, I'm feeling obvious today.


marsh01701

Blogger Diego Del Sol July 18, 2016 9:17 AM  

While reading the review I was asking myself "Can women be gammas?" cause I thought it was a males only problem.

@31 On the Rousey House phenomenon. I think Hollywood has found that people generally have ZERO interest in original stories with strong (punches out guys twice her size) female leads. Gina Carano played the bad guy's henchman in Deadpool. A while back they tried her as a lead in her own movie, Haywire, where she had to rescue her kidnapped husband (I think, I didn't actually see the whole thing). She wasn't too bad looking then, seems like she's really bulked up (blech) since though. It made almost $19 mil vs. its $23 mil estimated budget. Can't make too many of those mvies without getting fired I would think.

Blogger YIH July 18, 2016 9:26 AM  

Anchorman wrote:The Foreign Box office sales are hovering in the 19 million range.

And I think China banned it, didn't they? They have a weird ban-hammer for occult related movies. If they can't get into the Chinese theatres, the international take is significantly cut.

Probably will be banned:
Though “Ghostbusters” hasn’t officially been screened for Chinese officials, its subject matter will likely run afoul of the country’s censors, according to an insider. The state-controlled film board does not approve of films that promote cults or superstitious beliefs. In the past, movies that focus on the paranormal, such as last fall’s “Crimson Peak,” have been unable to secure a berth in the country.

OpenID malcolmthecynic July 18, 2016 9:27 AM  

I keep hearing about these mysterious men who think that women ghostbusters ruin their childhood. I'd like to meet one of those guys. Everybody talks about them but, funny thing, whenever anybody asks for examples they suddenly go silent.

How odd.

Blogger Diego Del Sol July 18, 2016 9:28 AM  

My 12 y/o reviewed Secret Life of Pets as "OK". My 8 y/o opined "there wasn't any adventure."

How can something be "rote to the point of being slapdash"? Unless you take many separate rote themes/ideas and slap them together, maybe? Can't wait to see that. Actually I could probably wait forever.

Anonymous Steve July 18, 2016 9:33 AM  

The John Scalzi School for strong fierce independent funny women who can't write good and want to do other stuff too.

Kek.

Re: Yeastbusters.

I wasn't gonna see it anyway, obnoxious grrrl-power marketing or no, because I'm generally not interested in seeing remakes. (FRIGHT NIGHT was the only good remake of an 80's cult classic, and that bombed.)

But the long-winded dissertations on why it's really, really good - nay, "important" - prove it's actually shite.

Last time I saw this phenomenon was when people were trying to convince themselves the excruciatingly laugh-free Netflix version of ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT was funny.

Blogger Markku July 18, 2016 9:35 AM  

synp wrote:Important? I don't think that means what you think it means.

I can understand the claim that if no movie has ever shown a strong woman, having such a character is "important".


It's important because The Internets raised a stink about using a beloved IP cynically as a platform for pontificating on feminist issues. They fear that if The Internets are proven right, and the movie tanks, then Hollywood will learn a lesson that anyone whose career selling point is SJW'ism, most certainly doesn't want to learn. That would be a disaster for their financial future.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer July 18, 2016 9:36 AM  

#65 Geena Davis was in something similar in 1996, "The Long Kiss Goodnight." A super spy who loses her memory and ends up getting married and having a kid. For some reason I can't remember the bad guys find her and try to kill her, but she regains her memories and goes all bad ass on them.

IMDB says it cost 65 million to make and earned a little under 90 million.

Blogger Junius Stone July 18, 2016 9:40 AM  

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and will be posting a review in my blog this evening. That said, Scalzi's rolling over and pissing in the air virtue signalling is pretty sad.

Anonymous Steve July 18, 2016 9:40 AM  

Ron - IIRC "The Long Kiss Goodnight." came out around the same time as girl-cowboy movie THE QUICK AND THE DEAD. Turned out audiences weren't all that interested in seeing women play tough guys.

Blogger Krul July 18, 2016 9:40 AM  

I'm thinking of getting the Ghostbusters video game. Not only do the original Ghostbusters reprise their roles, including Harold Ramis, but the secretary and "dickless" guy do as well. Akroyd and Ramis also contributed to the game script, so it has the authentic GB feel.

Blogger Nate July 18, 2016 9:41 AM  

point of fact: any other "Big Summer Movie" that opened had a 40 million dollar opening weekend would have the Hollywood media shouting "disaster!" Instead you get silence.

But the fact is... anything other than "GHOSTBUSTERS ROCKS THE BOXOFFICE!" is prima facia proof that the open was a massive disappointment to them.

Blogger Markku July 18, 2016 9:41 AM  

Long Kiss Goodnight was made because Renny Harlin the director wanted to please his then-wife Geena Davis. It was hilariously transparent.

Blogger The Other Robot July 18, 2016 9:46 AM  

Ghostbusters opens in empty theaters so how much can we believe that they hit $44M for real?

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus July 18, 2016 9:47 AM  

John Scalzi likes women, just not in that icky "boy-girl" way.

Blogger Harsh July 18, 2016 9:52 AM  

What a weird little man...

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer July 18, 2016 9:58 AM  

That review reads almost like a parody of a SJW review. Also, 12 year old girls should not write like that, let alone 47 year old men.

Blogger Thucydides July 18, 2016 10:03 AM  

Why are they still trying so hard? The preview was awful (even without the SJW/feminist tropes), the story a pale remake and based on the reports of real viewers (gluttons for punishment, apparently) the rest of the movie is "meh" as well.

Movie makers and reviewers, follow Vox's advice, you failed to make an adequate movie, now get up, dust yourself off and try again. Learn from your failures and fix at least one element in the next project. I know this violates the second law of SJW's, but there is a real world out there with an infinite number of possibilities.

(Actually, I know no SJW will ever read or take that advice, but for aspiring movie makers out there YOU can buy studio quality equipment for reasonable prices and use Kickstarter and similar venues to get financed. Go out and kick some ass).

Blogger James Dixon July 18, 2016 10:04 AM  

> But at least we'll have that television show based on Redshirts to look forward to.

An Award Winning Cruelty Artist at work. Don't try this at home. :)

Anonymous Broken Arrow July 18, 2016 10:04 AM  

Scalzi is taking out his personal frustrations of having to write 10K words a day now to finish his two books on time, on straw man "man-boys". He's tweeted recently about his breakneck pace of writing to finish by the due date and he's already a year overdue.

Unless you believe that faster, exhausting writing makes for better writing, it's extremely unlikely that his new books be as successful as Tor would like given the size of his contract.

Anonymous Steve July 18, 2016 10:07 AM  

Junius - I thoroughly enjoyed the movie

I salute your contrariness.

I loved, loved, loved GENTLEMEN BRONCOS but nearly everybody else seems to hate it (19% on Rotten Tomatoes). I thought it was a work of comic genius, with unforgettably brilliant performances by Jemaine Clement, Sam Rockwell and Jennifer Coolidge.

I also thought TERMINATOR SALVATION was a lot of fun (it even had Michael Ironside in it, what more do people want?) but that got panned too.

Be interested to read what you liked about GIRTHBUSTERS. Because, you know, it's a lot cheaper than going to the movies.

Blogger Markku July 18, 2016 10:07 AM  

How are these opening revenues calculated in USA? By actual tickets sold, or by how many theaters they... persuaded... to license the film?

Blogger praetorian July 18, 2016 10:08 AM  

Finally, to get ahead of any “beta cuck” stupidity

Oh, won't you Cuck, just a little bit harder.
Please, please, please, please, please tell me that you're gonna.
Now, your wife don't mind,
And your wife's daughter's father don't mind
If you have wear another dress: just one more,

One, more time,
Oh, won't you cuck just a little bit harder,
Please current year, please say that you will.

Say you will.

Blogger Josh July 18, 2016 10:11 AM  

How are these opening revenues calculated in USA? By actual tickets sold, or by how many theaters they... persuaded... to license the film?

Tickets sold

Blogger The Other Robot July 18, 2016 10:12 AM  

How are these opening revenues calculated in USA? By actual tickets sold, or by how many theaters they... persuaded... to license the film?

Since they keep talking about how many cinemas it screened in, I suspect it is not by tickets sold.

The cinemas are not going to want to keep losing money on that turd ...

Blogger The Other Robot July 18, 2016 10:14 AM  

So, Josh, I cannot find numbers on tickets sold, only this:

2). Ghostbusters (SONY), 3,963 theaters (+11) / $17.2M Fri. (includes $3.4M previews)/ $16.35M Sat. (-5%) / $12.45M Sun. (-24%) / 3-day cume: $46M /Wk 1

Anonymous The Pike July 18, 2016 10:16 AM  

Does it bother you that yours is neck in neck with a blog that Scalzi increasingly neglects?


How popular is voxday.blogspot.com?
Alexa Traffic Ranks
Global Rank
Global rank icon 88,062
Rank in United States
United States Flag 16,900




How popular is scalzi.com?
Alexa Traffic Ranks
Global Rank
Global rank icon 84,980
Rank in United States
United States Flag 19,877

OpenID thetroll July 18, 2016 10:16 AM  

> I think Hollywood has found that people generally have ZERO interest in original stories with strong (punches out guys twice her size) female leads.

Milla Jovovich springs to mind as a counterexample. There's like what, six Resident Evil movies now? And all quite respectably profitable despite near-complete absence of plot, or pretty much anything other than Alice kicking monster ass, really.

Blogger Josh July 18, 2016 10:18 AM  

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/boxoffice.htm


KEY TERMINOLOGY
Box office tracking refers to theatrical box office earnings. Additional sources of revenue, such as home entertainment sales and rentals, television rights, product placement fees, etc. are not included. All grosses published reflect domestic earnings, i.e., United States and Canada, unless otherwise noted.
Theaters refers to the number of locations where a movie is playing, but it does not reflect the number of screens. One theater location, for example, may play a movie on several screens—this is a necessary distinction since print and Web references routinely and mistakenly refer to theaters as screens.
Box Office Mojo considers a movie in Wide Release or about to go Wide when it is playing at 600 or more theaters, which generally indicates a nationwide release (the term is short for "nationwide"). A movie is considered to be in Limited release when playing at less than 600 theaters, i.e., released in one or more markets but not nationwide.
Production Budget refers to the cost to make the movie and it does not include marketing or other expenditures.
Gross refers to gross earnings in U.S. dollars. On average, the movie's distributor receives a little more than half of the final gross (often referred to as the "rentals") with the remainder going to the exhibitor (i.e., movie theater). The money split varies from movie to movie, but, generally, the contract favors the distributor in early weeks and shifts to the exhibitor later on.

Blogger lowercaseb July 18, 2016 10:19 AM  

Quote Scalzi: Finally, to get ahead of any “beta cuck” stupidity

We never said you were a Beta...We said you were a rapist.

...and trust me, this movie isn't ruining my childhood. It is far too forgettable.

Blogger lowercaseb July 18, 2016 10:24 AM  

VD wrote:Vox, I'm afraid to click on the link. Was that an excerpt or the whole review?!

The whole review with a bonus! Scalzi's review plus Scalzi's comment on Scalzi's review.


This "bonus" is why people call you evil!

Blogger Alexander July 18, 2016 10:25 AM  

you can imagine me in that Wonka meme pose, saying “Tell me again as a man how I can’t criticize men, that’s adorable.”

I read the entire creed Scalzi posted, but it's only when he claimed to be a man that I concluded he really was making shit up for giggles.

Blogger YIH July 18, 2016 10:30 AM  

Markku wrote:How are these opening revenues calculated in USA? By actual tickets sold, or by how many theaters they... persuaded... to license the film?
IIRC estimated gross ticket sales.

OpenID malcolmthecynic July 18, 2016 10:30 AM  

@90

How is an over 3,000 rank difference in the global icon scale considered "neck and neck"?

Blogger Alexander July 18, 2016 10:32 AM  

Any chance of a hypothetical interesting "kick-ass" female superhero has been destroyed by feminists, because she simultaneously cannot

1. Ever express doubt or have regrets about her past actions or

2. Be physically beaten at any point

I don't remember bitching about Sarah Kerrigan or Special Agent Tanya (original), but then in neither case was I forced to stop the game and just contemplate the innate magicalness of either vagina.

Blogger Markku July 18, 2016 10:32 AM  

Also, since blogspot automatically redirects the visitor to the blogspot domain of his country (blogspot.fi for me, blogspot.co.uk for UK and so forth), this is comparing US visitors only, to global visitors.

Blogger S1AL July 18, 2016 10:34 AM  

People still question his masculinity? I thought his daughter put that one to rest years ago.

Blogger The Other Robot July 18, 2016 10:37 AM  

Note the studio reported estimates:


Below are the top films for the weekend of July 15-17 according to studio-reported estimates:

1). The Secret Life Of Pets (ILL/UNI), 4,381 theaters (+11) / $15.3M Fri. / $20.1M Sat. (+32%) / $15.1M Sun. (-25%) / 3-day cume: $50.56M (-52%)/Total Cume: $203.15M/Wk 2

2). Ghostbusters (SONY), 3,963 theaters (+11) / $17.2M Fri. (includes $3.4M previews)/ $16.35M Sat. (-5%) / $12.45M Sun. (-24%) / 3-day cume: $46M /Wk 1


Not also that The Secret Lives of Pets is in its second week and screening at more theaters.

If those empty theater screenings for Gostbusters is true, I expect lots of them will not be screening it again next weekend.

Let's see.

Blogger Chris Jackson July 18, 2016 10:38 AM  

I suppose if you wanted to demonstrate the Straw Man fallacy in a crystal clear way, reading Scalzi's review would do the trick.

Blogger Ingot9455 July 18, 2016 10:44 AM  

And of course, the studio gets the majority of the first week's take, but it drops off after that depending on how the deal is made with the theaters.

Checking the interweb, I see that the studio gets 80-100% of the take the first week, 45-55% as you swing into the second and third weeks, and 20% as you go into the fourth and fifth weeks. A popular film that promises to pack the theater can demand 100% the first week because packing the theater means the theater rakes it in on concessions. A film that has 'legs' and sticks around several weeks with a decent number of people coming to it is good for a trickle of money, but it also pays back the theater and results in some goodwill.

It's Sony and it's a large number of theaters so they probably negotiated pretty well to get the higher percentages. Especially if they negotiated that a year+ ago before it looked like a bomb. But if it drops off hard in the second week while their percentage is still high, the studio take crashes double hard.

Blogger Elocutioner July 18, 2016 10:45 AM  

It looks to me like Grrrlbusters was an attempt to push the feminist agenda first with the rehashed/mutilated original story second. Absent the feminist angle there was no reason to do this movie as they did. Clearly they weren't primarily interested in cashing in on a viable and beloved franchise (GB was BIG in the last 80's) or doing a sequel. We could easily crowdsource the bones of a better story in one afternoon.

Hollywood perverts have such a hard time creating anything beautiful or original.

Anonymous Trayvon Martin 2 July 18, 2016 10:45 AM  

Other than the typical leftist horseshit it was easy to see this movie was going to be a piece of crap when I saw this:

https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-41162-page-7.html

Go about half-way down. Yes, that's the four main cast members doing PR for sick children. Or to call it like it is, using sick children for PR for their foul movie. The utter cuntery of that is unacceptable.

Although, the redit/4chan joke format is funny.

Anonymous BJ July 18, 2016 10:49 AM  

Oh noes! Scalzi should have his kid DNA tested.

Blogger VD July 18, 2016 10:51 AM  

Does it bother you that yours is neck in neck with a blog that Scalzi increasingly neglects?

Not in the slightest. Alexa measures links, not traffic. In actual traffic terms, VP alone get more pageviews by the 15th of the month than Whatever did in its all-time best month in 2010.

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 18, 2016 10:57 AM  

I loved Janine as a kid. As a child, I thought that Janine pining quietly for Egon was romantic. Now it pisses me off.

Okay first of all...Who (and what the fuck come to that) loves Janine?!?

She was the receptionist. That's it. That was her function. Who the hell thinks the receptionist is the hero of a movie?

Nothing against Annie Potts, she's a very underrated actress. And she did deliver a great line, "I'm very psychic about these things. I'm afraid you're going to die, Egon."

But how the hell did anyone so emotionally invest themselves in the least important character in the movie?

She seems so resentful here, that I can only assume that what she is really mad about is that Janine never landed Bad-boy Alpha Egon and had to settle for Beta-Bucks Tully.

Egon just used Janine like Kleenex when it was convenient for him and then he threw her away like garbage! LIKE GARBAGE!

(*sniff...sniff*)

(*near silent whisper*) I still love you Egon.


SJWs Always Project.

Blogger Leo Little Book in Shenzhen July 18, 2016 10:57 AM  

It is not enough for Feminism to have badass female leads, for they know that Patriarchy raises the fell lioness.

Rather, they demand the positive portrayal of the daughters of Matriarchy, oversized husbandless hyenesses with clit-dicks. When feminists complain about objectification, they refer to female bodies that do not appear to be so roided on androgens that they must give birth through a pseudopenis. The somatype of Grllbusters is negroid.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer July 18, 2016 11:02 AM  

Okay first of all...Who (and what the fuck come to that) loves Janine?!?

Yeah, I had that reaction too. The EPA asshole probably has more lines and screen time than her.

Anonymous Longtime Lurker July 18, 2016 11:02 AM  

In an earlier era, Scalzi would have been a prime candidate for a Skimmington Ride.

Blogger The Other Robot July 18, 2016 11:04 AM  

Zuckerberg tells us what the cost of deporting 11M is, but does not tell us the benefit.

Blogger Eater of Rabbits July 18, 2016 11:05 AM  

Didn't even touch the 'Now THIS is a Gamma review' link before I read the review itself, and so I had a mystery in store.

At first, I presumed gamma review meant the writer was a Gamma Male. But as it went on, it looked more and more like the work of some teenage Tumblr girl. When a reference to being an 80s kid made that impossible, I thought WTF, maybe an old bitter feminist harpy trying to write like a teenager? The writing style itself was getting really tedious at that point as well. Then the reveal: McRapey.

Starting cold like that made it more than usually clear how childish and feminine Scalzi's writing style really is, and how 'off' it is to see a man in his 40s using that style.

Blogger Gunnar von Cowtown July 18, 2016 11:10 AM  

@32 Naw, this is the height of projection.

"Honestly, I don’t think it’s entirely a coincidence that one of the weakest parts of this film is its villain, who (very minor spoiler) is literally a basement-dwelling man-boy just itchin’ to make the world pay for not making him its king, as he is so clearly meant to be.

Sooooo gamma.

Anonymous Scalzaroma Crustsniffer July 18, 2016 11:17 AM  

Hey, Scalzi, pull that pus-crusted tampon out of your crotch - I can smell it over the internet. No offense.

Anonymous Arcturus_Rann July 18, 2016 11:18 AM  

Scalzi should stick to writing derivative, pink SF. This has to be the worst written movie review I've ever read, and I've read Harry Knowles.

The spin on $45 million is hilarious. Sony spent a ridiculous $130 million to produce this thing and another $100 million P&A. Sony (as producer and distributor) will get back about .50-60 on gross box office dollar.

Add to that relatively mediocre foreign numbers (so far) and no Chinese release? This thing is unlikely to make back its production and marketing costs during its theatrical run. It will take video, television sales, etc. for Sony to not only break even but to turn a profit over the next decade...if ever.

With Bourne, Trek, and Suicide Squad (this one will be a monster) hitting in the next three weeks, Sony had better hope that the feminist girl power types are loyal enough to see this movie multiple times.

This is a prime example of how out of step Hollywood is with their audience. When they rubber stamped this project at that budget they were hoping for an opening in the $70+ million range with a 3.5 multiple and a foreign gross of 2/3 domestic. Yet somehow they didn't think it would hurt them as the filmmakers time and time again went out of their way to alienate core fans of the original films.

But hey...girl power.

Blogger Krul July 18, 2016 11:18 AM  

I like Janine.

Annie Potts is a great comic actress (unlike some...) who could imbue simple lines with her unique brand of biting sarcasm.

Her cynical attitude was important for conveying the hopeless uphill battle the underdog Ghostbusters faced at the beginning of the movie in a comedic way, which payed off when, with characteristically well delivered lines, she signaled the Ghostbusters' transition from initial failure and obscurity to success and popularity.

Her interactions with Egon also added a bit to his character as well. Although, as good as she was, she was still just a minor character in a film full of great characters. To say you "loved" her is, I think, overly exaggerated.

Anonymous Alsos July 18, 2016 11:22 AM  

That Scalzi bit was a masterpiece of point-missing and bad faith argumentation. It's a particularly pure example of prose that's "too dumb to fisk".

Looks like shoo-in for next year's Related Work Hugo.


Anonymous Eric the Red July 18, 2016 11:24 AM  

Scalzi doesn't respond to real arguments found on the internet. Instead he puts up hyperbolic strawmen (congruent with leftist memes) and argues against them.

This behavior is the mark of a true narcissist, who refuses to hear what others say and instead argues with himself.

Blogger Gunnar von Cowtown July 18, 2016 11:28 AM  

"BUT THEY’VE RUINED MY CHILDHOOD BY BEING WOMEN!"

Is this really a thing, or just a straw man soaked in gasoline? A lot of critics and reviewers wrote that it's a pointless remake, the jokes aren't funny or even explained how it's missing key elements of the original. I can't recall anyone stating, "The Grrlbusters remake ruined my childhood".

Scalzi lying, projecting and doubling down. Shocking.


@108 Cataline Sergius

"She was the receptionist. That's it. That was her function. Who the hell thinks the receptionist is the hero of a movie?"

I saw the original when I was 12, and thought the concepts of two huge nerds like Egon and Janine flirting with each other was hilarious. Their complete lack of chemistry and Egon's deadpan one-liners like, "Print is dead" and "I collect mold, spores and fungi" made for some good lolz. But, yeah, that reviewer is nursing some epic butthurt.

Anonymous fop July 18, 2016 11:32 AM  

Wow. Just....

Blogger Phelps July 18, 2016 11:32 AM  

@37

"While I'm sure we all hope otherwise, the reality is that it will. Under any scenario. Personally though, I'm rooting for less than $250 million worldwide."

$100MM is still doable, since political turds like this have a huge surge as the "making a statement" viewers all rush out opening weekend, inflating the actual numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if the first run ends in less than 21 days.

Remember, this "met studio expectations." Not exceeded, and these expectations were based on the panning it was getting on every user-driven review site and the fact that it got the worst reaction of any youtube trailer in history.

"Met expectations?" Sure. The guy who got caught with his wife's head in one hand an the bloody machete in the other "met expectations" when he was convicted and given the death penalty. Doesn't mean he was happy with the result.

Anonymous Eric the Red July 18, 2016 11:36 AM  

@14 Cataline Sergius:

Watch for it... sometime in the next 5 years, Scalzi will come out and declare himself a woman, with whatever associated hype and nonsense will then be in vogue by all the leftist virtue-signallers.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer July 18, 2016 11:46 AM  

Her interactions with Egon also added a bit to his character as well. Although, as good as she was, she was still just a minor character in a film full of great characters. To say you "loved" her is, I think, overly exaggerated.

I liked Janine too. Annie Potts is funny. But complaining about her "pining" for Egon. Way to invested in the character. Also, she didn't "pine" for Egon. She made a play for him which he didn't respond to. That, of course, is too much to be born.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 18, 2016 11:47 AM  

I believe Fantasy Sports are the last un-cucked bastion of sports reporting, probably because the people listening are trying to win their damn leagues so they need real reporting. So, I was listening to a Fantasy Football show, and one of the hosts started virtue signaling about how exited he was to go see GrrrlBusters. The other host shut him quick:

"How many movies have you ever walked out of?"

"Ummmm, five."

"This'll be number six..."

Blogger Gaiseric July 18, 2016 11:48 AM  

@121. I doubt it, personally. In a reversal of the typical pattern, the aggregate reviews (at least as reported by Rotten tomatoes) are almost 20 percentage points higher than the aggregate audience reactions. The critics are circling their wagons around the Narrative. The audience is not responding. I'm expecting a very big second weekend drop off based on bad word of mouth and audience reception. I think the remainder of its run is going to be even more disappointing (financially, at least) than its opening.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 18, 2016 11:53 AM  

At first, I presumed gamma review meant the writer was a Gamma Male. But as it went on, it looked more and more like the work of some teenage Tumblr girl.

Funny thing is, I think Scalzi is regressing. If you've ever seen the clip of pre-Old Man's War Scalzi on Oprah, back then, he behaved like a ditzy girl in her early 20's trying to act like she's all grown up and serious.

Blogger Eater of Rabbits July 18, 2016 11:59 AM  

But they never come up with original franchises or material, do they? It's all piggybacking on known commodities.

That is the SJW way. They're hoping to make a 'statement', express their power, and rake in a quick easy buck. All in one. Not only that, but few of them have the talent to create something really new.

OpenID sigsawyer July 18, 2016 12:01 PM  

'Holtzmann is brilliant and spectrum-y and yet pretty much social anxiety-free and I honestly can’t see any sort of super-nerd not wanting to cosplay the shit out of her forever and ever, amen.'

Let's hang him for crimes against the English language.

Blogger lowercaseb July 18, 2016 12:13 PM  

Gunnar von Cowtown wrote:I saw the original when I was 12, and thought the concepts of two huge nerds like Egon and Janine flirting with each other was hilarious.

That was back when the idea of nerds flirting was sweet instead of nauseating like today.

Blogger Were-Puppy July 18, 2016 12:18 PM  

I couldn't read through the OP. Those quotes were so obnoxious, don't feel like wading through it.

Then I clicked the link, and it's Scalzi :P

No wonder!

Blogger Were-Puppy July 18, 2016 12:19 PM  

A general question:

Is another Gamma trait to use as much excess verbiage as possible?

Blogger Were-Puppy July 18, 2016 12:28 PM  

@14 Cataline Sergius

Which explains so much about John Scalzi. He's a resentful woman trapped in a resentful man's body.
---

if( ("resentful woman" && "trapped in a mans body") && (mans body trapped in a dress) )
{
You are Scalzi
}

Blogger Were-Puppy July 18, 2016 12:32 PM  

Screw this grrrlbusters crap.
I'm waiting on the all female Planet of the Apes.

Blogger F Harper July 18, 2016 12:34 PM  

Reading that review without first checking who wrote it was enlightening. I thought it was a random internet idiot. When I realized who it was, it brought things into sharp focus. What kind of moron writes a screed like that, projecting his insecurity like the beacon atop the Luxor casino?

John Scalzi, that's who.

Anonymous rubberducky July 18, 2016 12:35 PM  

Damn Scalzi is a pathetic bitch. What the hell is he going on about? The only guy I see running hither and thither crying about a ruined childhood is that girl Scalzi himself.

It's hilarious that his "movie review" has only a few cursory and perfunctory sentences about the movie itself. It was a bizarre, hate-filled screed on God only know what. Not a movie review.

Blogger Were-Puppy July 18, 2016 12:36 PM  

@29 Steve

Ellipsis - by modern standards it's pretty tame, but for the early 80's GHOSTBUSTERS had eye-popping special effects and risque humour.
---

The original had a lot of things going for it back in the day. Cool concept of catching ghosts. Cool car. Cool theme song. Happy fun times back then.

Blogger Were-Puppy July 18, 2016 12:37 PM  

@31 Whisker biscuit

I read they're doing a remake of Road House with Holly Holm, er, Rhonda Rousey. What's the purpose of remaking a turd?
---

That's one of the ultimate dude films. They are undermining all of reality and society by doing that :P

Anonymous fred July 18, 2016 12:39 PM  

"and Paul Feig is no Ivan Reitman, in terms of creating comedic ambiance."

Just this remark alone shows that some people have no idea whatsoever how sausage, legislature, or comedy are made.

Anonymous Longtime Lurker July 18, 2016 12:39 PM  

"Is another Gamma trait to use as much excess verbiage as possible?"

Don't know. But Scalzi's blog posts can be a chore to read when he's in high dudgeon. Verbosity. Awkward phrasing. Such tics are evident in the Old Man's War series, especially in the later installments. It's like he had to write an insane amount in a short period and his editor just said fuck. it. out of sheer exhaustion and pressing deadlines.

Blogger Were-Puppy July 18, 2016 12:41 PM  

@46 horsewithnonick

Uneasy lies the head that wears the Secret Crown.
---

"By this shnark I rule"
-- Skullzi of Gammalonia

* apologies to Robert E Howard

Blogger VD July 18, 2016 12:47 PM  

It's like he had to write an insane amount in a short period and his editor just said fuck. it. out of sheer exhaustion and pressing deadlines.

Imagine how bad Foundation's Flow is going to be....

Blogger Mastermind July 18, 2016 12:47 PM  

When I read the Scalzi review without checking who wrote it I thought Vox got it wrong/was trolling and it was actually written by a woman.

I continue to maintain I'm not too far off. Scalzi's so effeminate he makes Caitlyn Jenner look like Bruce Jenner.

Anonymous fred July 18, 2016 12:54 PM  

Let me see if I got this straight. Bill Murray, Danny Aykroyd and Harold Ramis required the services of Ivan Reitman in order to create a "comedic ambiance."

Have I understood this correctly?

Blogger Were-Puppy July 18, 2016 12:56 PM  

@98 Alexander
I don't remember bitching about Sarah Kerrigan
---

She turned into an evil bug queen.

Shotgun, zerg, and you
https://youtu.be/ysrg7joWrxk

Blogger Diego Del Sol July 18, 2016 12:56 PM  

@91 (all numbers from IMDB)
I haven't watched any of the Resident Evil movies, but they were based on a fairly popular video game I believe which brings in a built in audience (so not completely original material), plus having the lovely Milla J is gonna boost box office receipts with that target audience. However the budget was $33 mil for the first and was barely recouped by a gross of $39.5 mil and is probably considered to be a loser by Hollywood bookkeeping standards.

Salt, which had Angelina Jolie, an even bigger (though I'll take Milla every time) star, barely made back its estimated budget of $110 mil of receipts of $118 mil. Her Tomb Raider movie apparently did US box office of $131 mil vs. budget of $110 mil. Sure there's more money made on cable and DVDs, but neither Milla or Angelina have hit the box office bonanza by playing strong, kick-ass types.

Anonymous Stickwick July 18, 2016 12:57 PM  

And in particular I want to be McKinnon’s Holtzmann when I grow up; Holtzmann is brilliant and spectrum-y and yet pretty much social anxiety-free and I honestly can’t see any sort of super-nerd not wanting to cosplay the shit out of her forever and ever, amen.

I'm brilliant and spectrum-y and social anxiety-free. I always knew my type would eventually be an inspiration to girls everywhere!

Anonymous FP July 18, 2016 12:58 PM  

@128

She's spectrum-y and dream-y, oh my!

I'll be in my bunk. Thinking of Janine.

Anonymous Ain July 18, 2016 12:59 PM  

"And now that the origin story of these particular Ghostbusters is out of the way...."

Yes, this sounds like a ringing endorsement.

Anonymous Longtime Lurker July 18, 2016 1:00 PM  

"Imagine how bad Foundation's Flow is going to be...."

I can't help but wonder if the whole thing is a thinly veiled homage to Mrs. Clinton, just in time for her first year in office. If it's truly that bad, Scalzi is looking at his own personal GB2.

Anonymous artaud July 18, 2016 1:06 PM  

"plus having the lovely Milla J"

I've had the privilege of meeting MJ. She's so ethereally beautiful in person, it's almost sort of scary. Jennifer Aniston is, too, which is less expected but delightful all the same (with JA it's more about personal charisma and glow, although she is also physically quite beautiful).

Anonymous EH July 18, 2016 1:10 PM  

Scalzaroma Crustsniffer wrote:Hey, Scalzi, pull that pus-crusted tampon out of your crotch - I can smell it over the internet. No offense.

No, you've just sniffed out a particularly bad case of Post-Dramatic Dress Disodor. Have some pity for the afflicted -- that is, everyone not gifted with anosmia.

Blogger Austin Ballast July 18, 2016 1:16 PM  

All the stuff about Scalzi just made me wonder who he bullied prior to bullying Vox?

Who didn't push back and got pummeled because of that?

Anonymous DeeJay July 18, 2016 1:21 PM  

Even the pre-Internet, proto-viral marketing for the original Ghostbusters was quite innovative; a month before it premiered in '84, my father noticed these cryptic fliers sporting only the circle-slash logo and COMING TO SAVE THE WORLD THIS SUMMER pasted up around town; he even sketched it out for me, and though neither of us (nor my friends) had any clue what it was about, we were all intrigued.

Contrast it to the promotions for this movie, which apparently involved... uh, deliberately alienating/insulting as many potential viewers (and old-school fans of the franchise) as possible? Frankly, I had no opinion either way regarding the female casting when it was announced; even Ghostbusters II seemed rather unnecessary, to be quite honest. But the subsequent declaration of this odd decision being the OMG BEST THING EVER, coupled with a bizarre stream of in-your-face "take THAT, basement-dwelling middle-aged patriarchy!" sneering soon convinced me they really didn't want my money, after all. And Scalzi sure isn't doing them any favors here.

Anonymous SumDood July 18, 2016 1:33 PM  

re: movie profitability

The general rule used to be that a movie had to gross 3x its budget to be profitable. It doesn't look like Scrotebusters will get to that milestone.

But the studios always play games with the numbers. On paper, The Return of the Jedi has not yet turned a profit. As a result, people who worked on that film and were supposed to be paid as a % of profits have received nothing. Example: David Prowse (the man behind the Darth Vader mask.

In this case, the studio will make excuses for political reasons, and shortchange other projects to pay for this boondoggle. Hell, they might even cancel some projects, which will result in fewer remakes and sequels.

But maybe I am just being overly optimistic.

Blogger Eater of Rabbits July 18, 2016 1:39 PM  

My original post got deleted, probably for the link. If it was something else, let me know. No Scalzi-links this time.

In reply to:

Funny thing is, I think Scalzi is regressing. If you've ever seen the clip of pre-Old Man's War Scalzi on Oprah, back then, he behaved like a ditzy girl in her early 20's trying to act like she's all grown up and serious.

I watched it. The clip is from 1996. Scalzi was in the audience, and was asked for commentary on a women's dating book. He did have the energy of a girly-girl trying come across as mature, except it was off-putting from a man, and the undertone of the audience reaction reflected it.

Same old Scalzi, his opening line was "I'm just a guy, so I don't know anything." Women in the audience cheered, but others looked a bit uncomfortable. He was also very, very publicly proud of his then-new wedding ring. Given his style of effeminacy was rarer in straight men back then, he would have otherwise easily been taken for gay. Once he had the camera and attention on him, he wasn't eager to let it go either. Kept trying until it was time for commercial break.

Scalzi looked like somebody's creepy, prematurely aging uncle. Hard to believe he was a twenty-something Gen-Xer at the time.

Anonymous fred July 18, 2016 1:42 PM  

The ultimate problem with the feminist neo-take on Ghostbusters is that the women didn't actually go and do something new, like make something as fresh and vivid and unexpected as Ghostbusters was in the first place. They just invaded a pre-existing parking lot and re-did something which had already been done. Wow. Let's do an all-grrrl version of "Abbey Road" instead of thinking up something else. Though we'll give Neko Case a lot of cred for thinking up something else.

Cinematically, Bridesmaids was a lot more interesting. Let's remake it with a bunch of Pakistani men who like to gang-rape little white girls and stone women for being adulteresses, and find out what the feminists really think about cultural switcheroo.

OpenID frankluke July 18, 2016 1:57 PM  

Did Grrlbusters keep the Call of Cthulhu hat tips? I had never heard of Lovecraft in '84, but I started reading him about 8 years ago. I rewatched G1 for the first time in over 20 years a few months ago. It was like a filmed CoC campaign. 4 nonheroic Joes dealing with an otherworldly horror. Egon had a library of esoteric tomes. A cult from the jazz age had built the apartment building.

Anonymous Bz July 18, 2016 1:58 PM  

John Scalzi mansplains Grrlbusters to America. Hush John, let the women speak for once. This is a woman's experience.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit July 18, 2016 2:26 PM  

The Pike wrote:Does it bother you that yours is neck in neck with a blog that Scalzi increasingly neglects?

Ha ha ha, how low does one have to crawl to be a supplicating minion to a gamma rapist? We're gonna need a bigger Greek alphabet...

Blogger VD July 18, 2016 2:29 PM  

All the stuff about Scalzi just made me wonder who he bullied prior to bullying Vox?

In fairness, Scalzi is not a bully. He was simply trying to curry the favor of Patrick Nielsen Hayden, who is an out-of-control bully. Obviously, it worked for him, although the contract PNH gave him is likely to sink them both.

And that will be amusing.

Anonymous Minion 0172 July 18, 2016 2:31 PM  

Those who don't know JohnnyCon may wonder why a guy who wants to be a best selling SF writer goes out of his way to insult a broad swathe of potential readers, but the Chinless Wonder has a history of crudely disparaging people who don't agree with him, claiming he doesn't want such shitbirds, shitballs, dipshits, (etc., etc.) to buy his stuff anyway. Self-destructive behavior is a sign of mental illness.

"Foundation's Flow" must not be going well.

Anonymous cheddarman July 18, 2016 2:57 PM  

Eric the Red wrote:@14 Cataline Sergius:

Watch for it... sometime in the next 5 years, Scalzi will come out and declare himself a woman, with whatever associated hype and nonsense will then be in vogue by all the leftist virtue-signallers.



i would not be surprised if he decides to be a she and gets a sex change

Blogger Noah B July 18, 2016 3:26 PM  

How about an SJW remake of Gone With the Wind where Scarlet O'Hara single handedly stops Sherman's March to the Sea with a longwinded speech and emancipates the slaves? McRapey would see it.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 18, 2016 3:47 PM  

Scalzi declares himself to be a woman with most everything he writes. It's just that, true to form, he uses too many words instead of a simple, direct statement.

Anonymous bgkb July 18, 2016 4:34 PM  

The whole review with a bonus! Scalzi's review plus Scalzi's comment on Scalzi's review.

Why what a brave masculine man who is willing to appreciated girlbusters.

Blogger Diego Del Sol July 18, 2016 4:37 PM  

@150 I'm simultaneously envious and delighted that you got to meet her and that she's as beautiful as she appears on the screen. I've been a fan since the 5th Element (that is one crazy flick). So many celebrities are shockingly plain IRL (cough Jennifer Lawrence cough).

Anyone ever meet Kate Beckinsale?

Anonymous LastRedoubt July 18, 2016 4:37 PM  



@Aeoli Pera

How many paragraphs in that review were about the movie?


Yeah. It's not a review of the movie so much as a rant about people who said they didn't like the changes being made.

@Raziel Walker

I saw Scalzi's review but didn't read it entirely exactly because it was a gamma shitpost and not a movie review. At least Howard Tayler from Schlock Mercenary only told me what I needed to know: the movie is not as bad as it appears in the trailers and has some fun parts. Looks like I'd enjoy watching it on Netflix but not in theaters where I'd have to spend money to watch it.


I love Schlock, but Howard's recommendations have been even further and further off base for me over the last couple years. Starting with Jim Hines books. (Thankfully I never tried the "princess" ones, but read the goblin one first)

That said, given his skew, he knows what makes for good storytelling usually, and factoring the two in I can usually tell if I'll enjoy it.


On the "feminist" note. Know one hard core feminist/Hillbot who saw it and was... unimpressed. Wanted to see the original again.


@Anchorman


The new Mad Max was heavy on the "Men bad," but did remember the #1 focus of an action movie should be action. There were good sequences in that film.


Despite some forgettable attempts to make "men bad" the supposedly tough grrrrrl screwed a bunch of stuff up by the numbers, and the "tuff womyn" were not much better.

@Josh

The John Scalzi School for strong fierce independent funny women who can't write good and want to do other stuff too.


I think Mary Puppinette was his first student....


@s1al

People still question his masculinity? I thought his daughter put that one to rest years ago.


Ouch.


@VD

Imagine how bad Foundation's Flow is going to be....




Given how much of a ditzy pussy and teenage girl he comes across as, that title alone makes me break out in laughter when seeing it.


@ artaud J

I've had the privilege of meeting MJ. She's so ethereally beautiful in person, it's almost sort of scary. Jennifer Aniston is, too, which is less expected but delightful all the same (with JA it's more about personal charisma and glow, although she is also physically quite beautiful).


Cool. Not surprising that a number of feminist types I've met hate both of them.

Met Amanda Seyfried once - she also has that ethereal quality, or did.




Anonymous Shut up rabbit July 18, 2016 4:53 PM  

cheddarman wrote:i would not be surprised if he decides to be a she and gets a sex change

I don't think he identifies as a woman, he's just ashamed of being male because he's not very good at it. Therefore (bloated ego oblige), all men should share his shame.

Anonymous Longtime Lurker July 18, 2016 5:22 PM  

"I don't think he identifies as a women. . ."

But he does identify with women!

Anonymous Arcturus_Rann July 18, 2016 6:13 PM  

Diego Del Sol wrote:@150 I'm simultaneously envious and delighted that you got to meet her and that she's as beautiful as she appears on the screen. I've been a fan since the 5th Element (that is one crazy flick). So many celebrities are shockingly plain IRL (cough Jennifer Lawrence cough).

Anyone ever meet Kate Beckinsale?


I met her a few years back when I doing a job in the UK. She seemed nice enough, which is something you can't say for most starlets, and she's much more stunning in person. The only bad thing the (mostly American) crew had to say about her was that she was carrying around a nasty smoking habit at the time, like a pack a day.

Anonymous Arcturus_Rann July 18, 2016 6:15 PM  

Longtime Lurker wrote:"I don't think he identifies as a women. . ."

But he does identify with women!


Based on his movie review, are we sure he doesn't identify as a teenage Tumblr girl?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 18, 2016 6:45 PM  

Arcturus_Rann wrote:Based on his movie review, are we sure he doesn't identify as a teenage Tumblr girl?
Based on his output, are we sure he doesn't identify as Tub Girl?

Anonymous artaud July 18, 2016 6:52 PM  

"She seemed nice enough, which is something you can't say for most starlets,"

Well in fairness, the thing you have to understand is a) they're completely exhausted from having men hit on them all the time, so they get overly defensive and often make kind of a wall around themselves, and b) actors are sort of tribal, and tend to only identify with and socially accept other actors. The people whom we call "starlets" are usually not bad people in themselves, they're just in a very weird situation, and they react to it in sort of a weird manner, which I find forgivable. There used to be a joke amongst actresses that I knew which was, you're not really famous until you're getting loads of fan mail from psychopaths on Death Row. It's sort of a version of the cliché about what letters to the editor actually mean.

I used to work with a certain well-known, strikingly good-looking actress who was always very nice and professional, but purposefully distant and socially excluded me. Then one day, I brought onto the set my stunningly beautiful girlfriend to give her a tour. After that the actress was suddenly now very friendly with me (I mean, not overly so, but noticeably so). I was suddenly OK because she knew I wasn't going to perv on her, I had better stuff going.

Blogger rcocean July 18, 2016 9:56 PM  

Just JS playing up to his audience and benefactors. Hollywood producers, SJW book publishers, and the fems and Gamma Males who buy JS's book will all love this review.

Of course, this review will either turn the stomach or induce laughter in every one else, but don't ever say that JS doesn't know where his interest$$ lie.

Blogger rcocean July 18, 2016 10:00 PM  

Don't get me wrong. I thing JS really is a sincere Gamma, SJW, and all-around SWPL leftist. He was the snarky little wimp in HS who made the fat chicks laugh and made his English Cat lady teacher proud.

Blogger Diego Del Sol July 19, 2016 9:33 AM  

@169 Thanks for the response. Its a shame that cigarettes have so many negative health consequences (and the appalling cigarette smell), because if they kept chicks thin without giving them the leatherface or cancer I'd be running a non-profit to hand them out to women over 18.

@172 Like the Seinfeld episode where George get into "the club" by fooling women into thinking he had a beautiful fiancee who died.

Blogger tublecane July 19, 2016 9:56 AM  

How can the "lack of consent factor" make the excellent bed levitation scene difficult to watch? Consent to what? Nothing happens, because Bill Murray turns her down. There is the question of why he brings along sedatives, but that's just a plothole. Feminists should celebrate that scene. But, no, they don't like gentlemanliness.

As for Annie Potts, what's the matter with her liking Harold Ramis? That's not explained. They don't ignore her, and if they treated her like they treat Hemsworth in this movie the feminists would have a fit over it. They probably mention sexual harassment in the current movie, though no one would take it seriously because it's a man, and a hunky one at that.

Anonymous Arcturus_Rann July 19, 2016 11:09 AM  

artaud wrote:Well in fairness, the thing you have to understand is a) they're completely exhausted from having men hit on them all the time, so they get overly defensive and often make kind of a wall around themselves, and b) actors are sort of tribal, and tend to only identify with and socially accept other actors. The people whom we call "starlets" are usually not bad people in themselves, they're just in a very weird situation, and they react to it in sort of a weird manner, which I find forgivable.

Stop apologizing for them. Actress and starlet aren't the same thing. Actresses realize they are disposable; there's another pretty girl right around the corner. With a starlet, everyone from the producers to the director down are trying to make her the next big thing, so they kiss her ass until the girl thinks she can shit test everyone around her and get away with it.

Beckinsale fit that description at the time, but she treated people well.

When you tell the current next big thing that you need to her for some BTS Q&A and she starts treating the crew like shit because she wants to sit in her trailer and not do the grunt work, that has nothing to do with her being hit on by pervs.

I've told plenty of starlet what they can do with themselves. It's gotten me laid and I've never been fired for it. So win, win.


artaud wrote:Then one day, I brought onto the set my stunningly beautiful girlfriend to give her a tour. After that the actress was suddenly now very friendly with me (I mean, not overly so, but noticeably so). I was suddenly OK because she knew I wasn't going to perv on her, I had better stuff going.

You give her too much credit. She spotted your girlfriend and it raised your status in her eyes. That's all.

By the way, some of them like the pervs and the creepers.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts