And she actually broke Twitter ToS whilst insulting far more people and calling for targeted abuse, Milo does nothing but gets reported by Lesley and Jack has the cheek to pretend he was impartial - WikiLeaks' reaction is fucking hilarious here, I want to find the tweet where they're all "We're not defending Milo, fucks sakes we're defending free speech against feudal moderation." Classy
I wonder if we could get a decent lawyer to twist this around at anti-discrimination laws
I kept looking into this wondering why now of all times Jake would want to ban Milo over fucking_nothing.jpg and apparently it's because Ghostbusters really needed to do well ($500mil global) to make its money back or else not only would Paul's career end, he'd bring the Sony USA movie branch down.
At first it seemed like quite a safe move, bold progressive projects usually do commercially and critically well (see the Danish Girl or 12 Years a Slave for recent examples) AND this was going to be a reboot of a beloved franchise, which has in the cases of the Dark Knight, Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel Superheros, even the critically panned Batman vs Superman been phenomenally successful - with the recent decade being a deluge of reboots and sequels. I seem to recall the director of American Ultra complaining about how audiences only wanted to see the same shit (explaining why no one watched American Ultra), ignoring that American Ultra was the same shit with a different name - the reboots were different shit with the same name.
So - all round, safe bets.
Paul seems to have panicked upon the universally panned reception of the trailers. Good Lord, the criticism was immense. The CGI was worse than Scooby Doo. They made all the white girls physicists and the black girl a pleb. There was a total absence of jokes or comedy. It was a reboot that completely missed every quality that made the original a cult classic - it looked like it was going to be a dated, pandering piece of crap.
That was before the hellish marketing began.Paul responded at first with grace by cutting out the most poorly received scenes (leaving them for the end) and then disastrously by having his marketing team spread the news that everyone hated the film because they're misogynists, and not because the film is shit.
They even went so far as to delete negative reviews but keep misogynistic comments up. The PR move was a critical mistake, because you can't force someone to watch your piece of shit out of sympathy - people aren't going to watch crap even if it's made by the Dalai Llama, and Paul Feig is nowhere close to cheeky Llama.
My favourite question for him has to be when he went on an interview and said men can't write comedies - someone in the comments asked him why then, was he writing one? XD
Salt reached legendary proportions when some youtube reviewer said he just wasn't going to watch the new Ghostbusters, because he thought the film wasn't for him. He somehow managed to
get attacked by everyone from twitter to media journalists even though he was just some guy on youtube.
Somehow threatening enough to warrant this level of pure salt. Private companies have more rights than consumers? Wat?!!
Of course he got harassed for this, but did the smart thing and just ignored it
Sadly Milo seems to have been a continuation of this :/
Thus you have critics like the one linked below just flat out lying to try and spin this narrative:
He wasn't harassing, he was just trying to score points by criticizing an unpopular thing.
An unpopular thing you say?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ghostbusters-is-a-perfect-example-of-how-internet-ratings-are-broken/
IMDb average user rating among men: 3.6 out of 10, of 7,547 reviewers
IMDb average user rating among women: 7.7 out of 10, of 1,564 reviewers
The movie isn’t even out in theaters as I’m writing this, but over 12,000 people have made their judgment
Written: Jul 14, 2016 at 11:24 AM
Premiered Los Angeles: July 9, 2016
Released theatrically UK: July 11, 2016 (in the UK it had #1 opening in its first week)
Your article writer is confused and arguing that people should be ignored in favour of mongs like them, ghostbusters clearly had been out for 5 days before they wrote the article and out for 3 days theatrically before they wrote that article. Not even factoring in dodgy Cambodian merchants or
AlternativesFor Americans too impatient who didn't live in LA or UK or have dodgy Cambodian merchants xD
Milo was the biggest guy (4u) to say the film was shit, so even though he did nothing wrong,
in order to protect 600 jobs Sony had to silence him, and Jake was more than happy to oblige because Milo had wrongthink.
This is why you don't try to replace quality with politics, least of all politics that a minority of consumers hold xD
Interesting that they don't post any evidence that the dread legion of misogynerds even exists, whilst if you look at the actual posts from people showing the empty theatres
They're just normal people, and the critics are once again posting lies with no sources to defend a film that failed because it was a piece of shit.
Thus to protect the narrative, random youtube reviewers become hateful anti-feminists, Milo becomes the mastermind behind a systematic targeted campaign of hate against Leslie, and ordinary reviewers become a nebulous shill brigade. Of course, no sources provided - but you can trust these people, the people they are getting rid of, whose voices they are taking away? They contributed nothing to the discussion. Wanted to hear what they said, or even why they were removed?
No, trust us, you really don't.
Direct messages, probably.
@LWpost:Seriously, that got him banned? What
Jack's banning based off of tribalism
Not very inclusive !
I just don't think Milo incited or participated.
He was kind of a dick about it though.
Source please? From what I'm seeing Leslie acted vindictively, far far worse than Milo - told her to stop being a victim and ignore the hatemail, which is not even close to the level of shit Leslie's walked away from.
In hindsight it's unsurprising that she didn't take that so well, because
she didn't know you could do that. It's hilarious to say that Milo was a dick when Leslie was clearly calling for her fans to attack women she was calling bitches - she had no chill whatsoever and Milo did nothing wrong.
Paul tried to pull off star wars, but turns out he's talentless compared to JJ, so he instead decided to try and force commercial success by silencing negative reviews on social media -
this can't work in the information age, and is a lesson all have learned well today.
*EDIT
Actually on that note, it seems quite disturbing how often it comes up that shit directors blame their failure not on them being incompetent, but on their viewers not being progressive enough.
I recall having this very same accusation when analyzing GoT's season of failure from a feminist viewpoint, which leads me to consider the worrying possibility that not only will directors continue to try and use politics as a shield for incompetence, but they will enjoy enough support to continue doing so for as long as they have commercial profitability
Which I suppose is no issue for Paul cos his career's over, so will this trend continue? I dunno, one thing for certain is, shitposts remain.
I can't think of any other product for example, where people are attacked for trying to warn other consumers that the product is total shit. That it is somehow more ethical to deprive consumers of the ability to make an informed purchase - so you're only stuck with positive reviews whilst there's an embargo on negative ones. Smh tbh fam
Author
Topic: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0 (Read 1424096 times)