MIPCOM: Diversity Sells, Sony and Viacom Executives Say
- Thread starter SummerMadness
- Start date
Anyone pushing diversity for the sake of diversity needs to remember Ghostbusters 2016.
As we clearly saw, even people who don't care either way about "diverse" casts will go honey badger if the involved creative talents accuse them of being an -ist for not liking whatever the production is, regardless of reason.
As we clearly saw, even people who don't care either way about "diverse" casts will go honey badger if the involved creative talents accuse them of being an -ist for not liking whatever the production is, regardless of reason.
Upvote
0
Ghostbusters?
Suicide Squad had a diverse cast, it made money.
X-Men: Apocalypse has a diverse cast, it made money.
Why bring up Ghostbusters when there are other successful movies that show the exact opposite of your argument? Ah yes, confirmation bias.
Suicide Squad had a diverse cast, it made money.
X-Men: Apocalypse has a diverse cast, it made money.
Why bring up Ghostbusters when there are other successful movies that show the exact opposite of your argument? Ah yes, confirmation bias.
Upvote
0
Diverse cast.
Trailer got panned for cheap special effects and bad jokes.
Director Paul Feig launched an internet counter-offensive accusing the critics of the film of being sexist, regardless of their stated reasons for not liking matters.
Film hits and tanks almost immediately because... cheap special effects and bad jokes.
Feig doubles down on his baseless accusations.
Leslie Jones pays the price.
Diverse cast.
Lukewarm reception because "Batman / Superman" was a flaming wreck.
Involved creative talents let it ride, as they believe the film will speak for itself.
Audiences discover that the film does, indeed, have heart and should not have been compared to BvS.
Diverse cast.
Teased at the end of the previous X-Men movie, which was also a big hit.
Fans are encouraged, as it seems the franchise is back on track.
Fans are rewarded for their patience by a film that mostly met their expectations.
...then kvetch over a rumor that Idris Elba was originally considered for the role of Apocalypse, as he'd have been better than the person who was ultimately cast.
Because it was such an absolute cluster foul-up that we'll probably see business textbooks make case studies out of it.
Neither Sony nor Feig could handle the fact that the first trailer, as composed, did not clearly establish the movie's relationship to the originals and presented the film as being half-baked. Rather than admit that the critics - most of whom were responding to these elements - had a point and that there was last-minute work to do, they tried to fabricate a scandal in a "Wag The Dog" effort at diverting attention away from these legitimate shortcomings and the criticisms thereof. This backfired spectacularly, as all it did was enrage people who had previously been on the fence about matters.
The end result was that so many people chose to stay away from the film that individual theaters were all but deserted opening night.
Not only did Sony lose a stupendous amount of money on this film, the company hired to produce the tie-in video game declared bankruptcy because they saw the writing on the wall; they needed the game to be a hit to compensate for some serious financial setbacks, but after reading the early reports they packed it in days after the game hit shelves because they knew that it wasn't going to happen.
Upvote
0
Why are you still talking about Ghostbusters? It was a failure because it was not a good movie, this topic is about diverse casts and how they are quite profitable (if I wanted to go back to 2015, I could mention films like The Fast and the Furious, Mad Max: Fury Road, Ant Man, etc.). What's evident is the argument that you cannot have a diverse cast is weak and some cliche Hollywood arguments no longer apply.
I thought X-Men: Apocalypse, Suicide Squad and Ghostbusters (Star Trek Beyond could be on this list too) were all mediocre films, their box office has little to do with whether the films are high quality. Arguing films based solely on box office is not really an argument, it only provides a gauge of audience reception (weekly grosses tells you a lot more). What we're witnessing is the fact that films with a diverse cast compete well at the box office.
Upvote
0
1. MBA
2. Movie reviewer whose job obligated him to sit through it.
You may as well be asking why I'm still having to explain the Bollinger decisions to people.
...except when they aren't.
"Make your cast diverse if you want your film to succeed!" isn't an absolute. There are many, many other factors that need to be taken in to consideration. Even something as simple as "the weather that weekend" can affect a film's performance.
Note: the following website relies heavily on pop-up and banner ads; ad-blocking software is recommended.
The problem comes when people decide they want diversity for the sake of diversity, something that can lead to a mediocre film or even muck things up royally in ways people might not expect.
For example, consider the 2009 "G. I. Joe" theatrical movie.
One of the characters was Ripcord, an airborne infantryman played by one of the Wayans brothers - http://www.yojoe.com/action/09/ripcord3.shtml
This is the Ripcord character as he was originally released in 1984: http://www.yojoe.com/action/84/ripcord.shtml
"So they made a white dude black; what's the big deal?" you're asking.
Well:
1. Hasbro had a toy based on the 1984 Ripcord figure already in the hopper for an upcoming release: http://www.yojoe.com/action/09/spcaltitude.shtml . Thing is, because the original guy was white and the film guy was black, Hasbro had a problem on their hands. In order to avoid confusing the two versions of the character, Hasbro... used the name of a second character and gave him the bio info from a third, creating an even bigger mess that chain-reacted through the rest of 2009 and most of 2010 as other characters got re-named as well in order to compensate.
2. The whole darn thing wouldn't have been necessary in the first place had the script been re-written: http://www.yojoe.com/action/90/staticline.shtml .
Yep, Hasbro already had an African-American airborne infantryman. What's more, Static Line is far closer to the kind of characters that the Wayans normally end up playing anyway. You see, Ripcord has, historically, been "hot", a daredevil who lives for action. In contrast, Static Line is "cool", a man who sets his own pace and keeps his head even when others are losing theirs.
(Needless to say, I ended up repainting my Movie!Ripcord figure as Static Line.)
You contradict yourself here.
Is arguing based solely on box office takes not really an argument, or is the strong box office takes of select "diverse" films proof that diversity works?
Upvote
0
I ask you why are you still talking about Ghostbusters in this thread, not why you watched it.
That's not what the article said, the article clearly states, "The idea that shows with a diverse cast cannot sell commercially is nonsense," they were not saying if you want a film succeed, use a diverse cast. The argument is against the idea levied that a diverse cast is not profitable or marketable. That is patently false according to the box office.
And you can look at Nick Fury in the Marvel films, Thor, John Stewart in the DC animated series, etc., and find characters changed in films that still do well in ratings and box office take.
Context is your friend. You listed movies and argued that they were good films based on their box office, citing X-Men: Apocalypse and Suicide Squad as good films because they made a lot of money. I completely disagree, I thought both films were on par with Ghostbusters in terms of quality. I didn't think any of those films were good. But whether a film is considered good, is not the same whether the film does well at the box office.
The long-running argument is a diverse cast does not sell movie tickets. This article argues that such a belief is inaccurate citing many film and television shows that have done well at the box office or TV ratings. You brought up Ghostbusters to argue that diverse casts don't sell, I brought up those other two films because they did well with a diverse cast. This has nothing to do with whether films are worthy of critical acclaim.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
