I'm sorry Feig, but I thought this film wasn't for us? I thought that this was for the modern audience? How can it be the fault of people who aren't your audience?
These people love to blame everyone else for their own failure. And it's funny because anyone with any talent can recover from a bad original screening. The Thing, The Shining and Blade Runner are all examples of films that flopped in the box office but recovered after the fact. 2016 GB has never and will never recover. It's a bad movie.
And the fact Feig can't let it go only strengthens the idea that it was meant to be a statement. So when he says:
“It turned the movie into a political statement, as if to say: ‘If you’re pro-women, you’re going to go see this. If you’re not, then …’ I didn’t think it mattered at all that the main characters were women, but people brought a lot of baggage.”
his implication that this film isn't a statement just can't be taken seriously. Because it's clear that it was very much a statement since it still needs to be defended instead of just accepted as a loss.
It could just be embezzling and money laundering too. Makings movies is not always about making a statement, or even about money. Like Sony spiderman. Probably loads others. Reviving franchises can't really make comebacks later on because by then a new regurgitation is 'peoduced' and consumed by specific audiences, like u said.
And if it's not for money, then it's for power. In this case though influence in the target audience. Ya, it's not for us. Obviously. It's for someone. Not money either.
I'm sorry Feig, but I thought this film wasn't for us? I thought that this was for the modern audience? How can it be the fault of people who aren't your audience?
These people love to blame everyone else for their own failure. And it's funny because anyone with any talent can recover from a bad original screening. The Thing, The Shining and Blade Runner are all examples of films that flopped in the box office but recovered after the fact. 2016 GB has never and will never recover. It's a bad movie.
And the fact Feig can't let it go only strengthens the idea that it was meant to be a statement. So when he says:
his implication that this film isn't a statement just can't be taken seriously. Because it's clear that it was very much a statement since it still needs to be defended instead of just accepted as a loss.
It could just be embezzling and money laundering too. Makings movies is not always about making a statement, or even about money. Like Sony spiderman. Probably loads others. Reviving franchises can't really make comebacks later on because by then a new regurgitation is 'peoduced' and consumed by specific audiences, like u said.
And if it's not for money, then it's for power. In this case though influence in the target audience. Ya, it's not for us. Obviously. It's for someone. Not money either.