Ghostbusters (2016)

[Commander S]

Eh, RT doesn't much matter to me - for example, Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness got 95% and 86% respectively (or if you're counting audince aggregates - and why would you DO that?!? - 91% and 90%), and I thought both of them were utter pish (first one was the only time I've nearly walked out of a movie, and the second was only entertaining because I watched it on YouTube in the 48 hours it leaked online right after release, and I turned it into a drinking game... ).

Again, read enough reviews from outlets/reviewers I usually fall back on to feel it's worth a punt, but I figured it'd be interesting to see what MovieBob made of it, considering he did what's one of the best deep dives into what made the original classic work:

From the sounds of his review, it's everything in line with what I've heard elsewhere (characters/cast work great, shame about the weak/rote 3rd act, but fun enough overall) - seems to fall in line with my estimation that it'll be Evolution-level enjoyable, at least:

(unrelated: not sure if I dig Bob's recent switch to 'to-camera' for his videos - he's not got the most natural/relaxed camera presence, and I do like some of the quick-fire visual gags you get with slides-and-voiceover videos, like wot Jim Sterling does to great effect) Edited July 15, 2016 by Commander S

[Abel.]

 

I might give this film a chance.

 

Might.

 

 

....mighty big of you?!??

 

 

Yes, given that it looks like a churned out cash-grab which sullies the memory of a beloved series. I know Indi's a big fan of the franchise so to see it fall this low must suck.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Failure

[Abel.]

Don't give them ideas. Biff will be a sympathetic character whose bullying is down to closeted homosexuality, Marty will be a sassy Puerto Rican girl from "the streets" and Doc Brown will be played by Meryl Streep. The new adventure centres around going back in time to get Al Gore into power. Amy Schumer and Seth Rogen will play Marty's parents, divorced of course; Lena Dunham will be his mother's new lesbian lover.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2016 by Failure

[Richard Power Colt]

Meh the movie seems okay at best. Don't think I plan on seeing it at all. I'm generally not a huge fan of a lot of Hollywood comedy films, even the ones that many others seem to enjoy.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Nutsack McQueen

[Otter]

It was pretty damned fun. McKinnon was hilarious. The humor definitely rode the just-stupid-enough line for me, particularly Kevin.

 

It was a shame they had to pay so much fan service, though. Really got in the way of the pacing and tone - like you could pretty much see what the studio notes were from a mile away.

 

I mean, for my money, would have been a better original IP. The pointless fan drama was a major distraction.

[slimeball supreme]

doesn't look that great to me at least. chickflicks and whatnot.

might see it when and if yms dives into it

 

MovieBob

cringe

[X S]

Was looking at the box office numbers, and The Life of Pets bested it on its second weekend. Not great.

 

Budget for the film was about $144 million, and they did about $46 million for the weekend. There is no release date for this film in China (only Hong Kong), and it debuted in 50% of the international markets already. It may take them 3 to 4 weeks just to recoup their losses and consider a sequel.

[Otter]

Keep in mind that the merchandise is a real moneymaker here, and the rebirth of the franchise alone is worth it, even if the film's a total flop. Which it isn't.

 

So, I don't know. Don't count 'em out just yet.

[Queen]

I saw The Secret Life of Pets two nights ago and it was a mediocre movie. So from my perspective, this doesn't look great. I'll probably see Ghostbusters either tonight or tomorrow. I'll try to reserve my judgement until then.

[darthYENIK]

, could actually happen though. Bob Gale and Bob Zemeckis said a reboot will never happen whilst they are alive. f*ck knows what happens when they die though. The studios I guess have power over it then. Urghghhgh, I don't wanna think about it.

With BTTF, unless I'm mistaken, they practically own it being the creators, producers, director, and having Spielberg/Kennedy/Marshall on their side. Anyone who is in charge of the franchise is on their side. All of these people would probably have to die for a new BTTF to happen.

 

I'm also sure I've heard something about Universal being against reboots. Off the top of my head the only one I can think of is the Mummy, which was rebooted almost seventy years after the fact, but then again they're making a new one with Tom Cruise.

 

This might all be bullsh*t on my part.

[Otter]

Universal's aiming to reboot the entire monster catalog - last I read it's going to be an attempt to create their own 'cinematic universe'. But it seems to have hit some road blocks.

 

I was actually over at GhostCorp's office on the Sony Lot the other day - absolutely littered with merchandise! They're probably already planning a 'ghostbusters universe'. These franchises can get a little bit insane.

 

Not a big fan of reboots myself. A BTTF sequel ala Force Awakens, though - WE'VE GOT TO GO BACK, MARTY!!!

[Commander S]

Eh, considering the age of the original BTTF cast, we'd probably be looking at something more like the Abrams Trek movies - quite possibly even using the same time-travel angle to justify the new look, new timeline, new cast playing the original characters, etc.

That's one thing about this rebooted 'Busters - I'd have much preferred it to be a 'loose sequel', more like Tron: Legacy or Star Trek: TNG (where it's technically a sequel, following on from the events of the original, but not massively bothered with trying to replicate the look/feel stylistically), and have the new car be 'Ecto-2', with the Erin & co. inheriting the old fire station (although that'd necessitate having to work in a world where ghosts are a known phenomena, and all the 'busting tech already exists). But since that probably throws up more complications than 'legacy' benefits, I'd say an 'all-different' reboot (new setting, new characters) is preferable to ...NuGhostbusters or the 'Ultimate Universe Ghostbusters', or whatever, with a new, modern cast playing NuPeter, NuEgon, etc. - again, like the Abrams Trek reboot.


(love/hate the new film all you want - at least the plot of this doesn't involved the villain going back in time to wipe out the original characters/story from existence, and even when they're defeated, reality has still been forever altered, and so the classic timeline has still been erased/replaced by the 'hip' new incarnation. The fact that the first Abrams Trek movie actually hinges around that, like the story equivalent of Wite-Out, is infuriating to me - like a big middle-finger from a guy who made it very clear he gave not one f*ck about the classic property he was working with... /rant)

[RARusk]

(love/hate the new film all you want - at least the plot of this doesn't involved the villain going back in time to wipe out the original characters/story from existence, and even when they're defeated, reality has still been forever altered, and so the classic timeline has still been erased/replaced by the 'hip' new incarnation. The fact that the first Abrams Trek movie actually hinges around that, like the story equivalent of Wite-Out, is infuriating to me - like a big middle-finger from a guy who made it very clear he gave not one f*ck about the classic property he was working with... /rant)

From what I understand the new Trek films take place in an alternate universe similar to the episode Mirror, Mirror and that the old universe is left behind but intact so one could go and do new stories there without worrying about the effects from the reboot. However, the focus is on the new stuff so I don't think we'll be going back to the old universe for awhile.

[Commander S]

Well, that's the 'excuse' - but traditionally with alt. universe stuff in Trek, those universes tend to make an appearance briefly, and then everything goes back to the 'prime' (ugh...) universe afterwards, as before. It's a real departure to suddenly say 'nope - we're now sticking to (what has recently been termed) the Kelvin Timeline for the foreseeable future, and it's the prime universe that's being left behind this time'. Same with Yesterday's Enterprise, or the DS9/Enterprise Mirror Universe episodes, or The Year of Hell from Voyager.

Also worth remembering that as part of the initial plan for the Trek reboot, JJ Abrams apparently wanted CBS to stop making TOS merchandise* and spin-off media, and swap to just his version instead (for example, IDW's TOS-era comic series were axed, and a new Abrams-Trek series started instead - one early casualty). So in other words, not only was the 'prime' universe being jettisoned in the movies, but effectively in branded tie-ins, too - a total 'out with the old, in with the new'. However, CBS ultimately decided against this (because they make mad bank off TOS stuff!), and that lack of a monopoly over Star Trek is (allegedly) partly why Abrams started to cool off on Trek, and jumped at the chance to helm Star Wars instead.

(although according to rumours about the new Bryan Fuller series, all of that's moot, since one of the big things circulating is that the new Trek show will be set in the original universe - something that, in the early days of the reboot movies, had been dismissed as 'not going to happen any time soon'. Theory goes that the diminishing returns of the new films, combined with the need to keep the new show from treading on the movies' toes, and for CBS to have more control over the series, rather than have to defer to Paramount, means the 'prime' universe is now back on the table as a possibility - we'll have to see what actually gets confirmed, obviously...)


*...speaking of merchandise (and to get things back on-topic - sorry for the Trek nerd tangent! ), I'm really, really hoping that someone (Corgi?) releases a 1:18 model of the new Ecto-1 (and again, I just wish it were called 'Ecto-2', but whatever...). Preferably in the same series as a 1:18 Ecto-1, and maybe even the 'Ecto-1A' from GB2 (bit like those 1:18 BTTF DeLorean variants you can get) - the car is probably the one thing I just can't get over from the new movie, because when you look at all the little details, it's the perfect 21st-century counterpart to the original.

 

(see if anyone gets why - here's a clue: 'Cadillac commercial chassis'...)

[Spaghetti Cat]

Looks like Milo got banned from Twitter b/c Leslie Jones couldn't take the trolling. SJW can give but never take, this is why I lothe Twitter.

[make total destroy]

Looks like Milo got banned from Twitter b/c Leslie Jones couldn't take a slew of racist, sexist harassment, with hundreds of some self-loathing homosexual's white nationalist fans comparing her to an ape because she acted in a movie they don't like.

ftfy

 

Twitter is a private company. The "free market" has spoken.

[Abel.]

Looks like Milo got banned from Twitter b/c Leslie Jones couldn't take the trolling. SJW can give but never take, this is why I lothe Twitter.

 

Milo and his followers can get pretty awful though. Columnist/broadcaster Ben Shapiro has had pictures of his family photo-shopped into gas chambers posted on Twitter and such.

 

 

 

As someone who despises political correctness with the fiery hatred of a thousand suns, I find this problematic. Here’s why: I believe there’s a difference between political incorrectness and bigotry, or political incorrectness and vulgarity. I have this problem with Trump, and I have this same problem with the alt right that simplistically embraces Trump because they mesh being a jackass with being politically incorrect. They’re not the same thing. It is politically incorrect to point out that black Americans commit a wildly disproportionate share of crime, or that Jews comprise an outsized percentage of successful media moguls, doctors, and lawyers. It is also politically incorrect to point out that cultural stereotypes are sometimes rooted in reality -- Milo's right about that. It is racist, however, to tweet the word “n*****” at a black person, and it is anti-Semitic to tweet a meme of a stereotypical hook-nosed Jew controlling the world or greedily collecting shekels. There is a difference between the two.

 

Words have meanings. So do images. I don’t think it’s a worthwhile goal to remove the meaning of words so that all words are equally offensive or non-offensive. That just leaves us in a Kafka-esque (to use Milo’s word) world, in which we can’t even talk to each other because we have no common meanings. Discounting Der Sturmer cartoons to the level of Calvin and Hobbes may please the Beavis and Butthead 2.0 crowd, but it does nothing for actually changing things for the better. All it does is soft-pedal the anti-Semitism of Der Sturmer.

 

 

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/4396/responding-alt-right-are-they-bigots-or-just-ben-shapiro

 

 

I definitely understand not liking this film, but nothing excuses full on verbally attacking people over it. Jokes and banter are fine, but this goes far beyond that.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Failure

[Commander S]

Bit of a tangent, but ...good grief:

 

http://www.playboy.com/articles/ghostbusters-the-video-game-untold-stories

 

 

Fantastic retrospective on the making of the videogame - not least regarding how difficult it was getting the (increasingly-eccentric) Bill Murray to come on board (the trick involving hiring his brother to do V/O work and then pass a good word about the project - wow).

[X S]

Comicbook Girl weighs in. Yeah, this movie f*cking sucks, apparently.

 

 

Edited July 20, 2016 by X S

[Commander S]

Agree with the broad-strokes stuff about lazy remakes/reboots - although that's old news. And let's also not forget lazy, treading-the-same-beats sequels, either - for all that people (including Comicbook Girl) seem to think that Sony should have just 'continued the franchise', considering how unlikely it would have been to get most of the same creative team back for Ghostbusters 3, odds are you'd have had an older, weirder Dan Aykroyd plus a bunch of random 'name' actors, doing a glossy, CGI-heavy, ultimately-shallow retread of largely the same moments from the first film, like some shameless nostalgia-grab 'greatest hits' tour.

...or am I the only person here who remembers Blues Brothers 2000?

(or you can to such a good job of hitting those nostalgia buttons that people don't notice that the actual film is empty, going-through-the-motions and pretty dang cynical, because they're too busy basking in warm, fuzzy childhood memories the whole while. "And that, Charlie Brown, is how The Force Awakens works...")


But honestly, I don't see all the surprise about the way this film was ultimately put together - Hollywood isn't just reviving properties and spinning them out as long as they can, they're also trying to cobble together 'sure-fire hits' from a combination of currently-popular/successful creative teams, name-brand IPs (particularly 'geek culture' nostalgia mining, because 'Avengers' - hence why revivals of Star Wars, Star Trek, Jurassic Park, and quite likely Indiana Jones, to name but a few), and crucially, structures/formulas from previous successes.

That last bit's important - it's why you get Paramount figuring that 'Star Trek + Abrams + Wrath of Khan shout-outs + overall structure of Star Wars = jackpot. Or, when Christopher Nolan got lucky with a new approach to Batman, you get other studios trying to give other superheroes the Batman Begins treatment - sometimes it works (Iron Man 1), sometimes ...not so much (Amazing Spider-Man). And Sony'd been trying to do that for years with Ghostbusters - according to scuttlebutt, we could have easily been looking at Ghostbusters + Judd Apatow + Seth Rogen/James Franco/Jonah Hill/etc. as 'Peter, Egon, Ray', etc., if the film had been made earlier.

As it is, from all accounts this new film seems more like Paul Feig + Ghostbusters + Feig regulars/current SNL-ers (because SNLers in original Ghostbusters) + look/starting premise from Pixels* + Chris Hemsworth (because Chris Hemsworth) + big set-piece final act fight (because Avengers) = Ghostbusters 2016. Does it mean the film is good/bad/mediocre? No idea - I've heard all kinds of opinions from people I usually trust**. But it doesn't matter to the studio - either the film will make back enough money through tried-and-tested means to justify being made (and maybe get a sequel), or it'll flop, but the studio executive that gave the green-light to it can go into a board meeting, tell his superiors that "dunno what happened - we followed a tried-and-tested formula, and the numbers added up on paper, so I don't know how it could have been a flop", and ...he'll keep his job.


*count your blessings, folks - Happy Madison Productions has a lot of clout in the Sony Pictures stable, and I'm genuinely surprised that a Ghostbusters reboot didn't wind up as 'Pixels 2 is now getting retooled as a Ghostbusters movie'...

**my litmus test for this one is probably going to be 'is the humour essentially the same as Bridesmaids?' - I know a lot of people really rave about that one, but it just doesn't work for me, for whatever reason. If, however, it's more like Ivan Reitman's Evolution in terms of 'less dry improv than Ghostbusters, more slapstick and toilet humour, but ...still funny', I'll probably get a silly giggle out of it, at least.

...yeah, this film did dismally overall, and it's not big or clever, but eh, I'm easily amused by stuff like this - sue me.

 

Edited July 20, 2016 by Commander S

[Coin]

Comicbook Girl weighs in. Yeah, this movie f*cking sucks, apparently.

 

 

 

Having now seen it, I'd have say I agree with her 100% (and she put it better than I could anyway).

 

The only silver lining from the experience is that I didn't have to pay for my ticket, so there's that.

 

*count your blessings, folks - Happy Madison Productions has a lot of clout in the Sony Pictures stable, and I'm genuinely surprised that a Ghostbusters reboot didn't wind up as 'Pixels 2 is now getting retooled as a Ghostbusters movie'...

 

Are you sure that's not what ended up happening?

[Coleco]

I reluctantly went with a friend to see it - the loose justification being "at least I can have an informed opinion if I've sat through it" and also to see just how much of a cringeworthy train wreck it was.

 

Verdict? It's not actually that bad. In fact, I enjoyed it more than recent Marvel movies, which are becoming so tediously weighed down with tying multiple storylines and characters together (seriously Hawkeye, just f*ck off already) and offering teasers for future movies that I just drift when I'm watching them. Ghostbusters, in contrast, was pretty focused and had it's moments. Not laugh-out-loud funny moments, but it definitely exceeded my expectations. There are only a couple of gross-out jokes made at the start which I thought were setting the tone but the script seemed to forget about those and move on, thankfully.

 

The trailers were utterly atrocious. The 'Jurassic World' style one in particular with the pseudo-poignant piano intro referring to 1984... I hope someone got fired over that. There is no relation to the original story in this film. That was a shameless stunt to drag in older audiences. The racial stereotyping isn't present in the film like it was in the trailer. Kate McKinnon is a lot better as well, rather than just being portrayed as 'sexy Egon' as she was in this promotional disaster.

 

I don't watch SNL so I don't know the actresses that well. I couldn't say whether they're doing what they do or genuinely working with the material they were given to bring some personality to the roles, but thanks to this film I have discovered a bizarre fondness for Melissa McCarthy in glasses... ahem.

 

The story is light, the action slightly underwhelming, but it's not a serious film. It is entertaining if you go in with low expectations but if you're hell-bent on hating it then there's probably nothing in it that will change your mind. Overall, I enjoyed it. The constant lambasting the film had got over the last few months is a whole lot less entertaining than the two hours I spent watching the film.

 

No regrets, would see again. Bustin' still makes me feel good

[Real_Badgirl]

I saw this yesterday with my mom. It was okay I guess, but a lot of the jokes either fell flat or felt like they were there just to make the movie longer. The cat's in the bag bit and them discussing Patrick Swayze movies was unnecessary filler, and the Ozzy Osbourne cameo was pointless.

 

Overall, it wasn't terrible but it wasn't exactly memorable either.

[darthYENIK]

One final thought from me as I still plan on not seeing this. I think there are a lot of assholes in the world, and this movie has brought that out. On both sides. It's made good people act like twats. It's just a movie. Not a prolific or important movie, not a political statement of a movie. Just a movie. If you want to see it, see it. If you hate it, hate it. Like it, then like it. But don't act like it is anything more or less than a movie.

[MyName'sJeff]

Yup. I'm sure the producer or director came out and literally branded everyone who genuinely disliked the movie as sexist, which shows they were really using this high profile as a platform to brainwash people into modern cancerist feminism.

[darthYENIK]

I disagree. They wanted it to be a big political statement, but not for the sake of making the statement, but for the sake of profit. They knew the publicity would be bad. A remake of a very beloved classic. So they start to spin it into a crusade against the people who rejected the idea to guilt people into giving it a chance, and raising the amount they make on it, ever so slightly. Every bit counts. Agendas meant nothing to the studio. Only money.

[MyName'sJeff]

I'm not sure if it was Ivan, because afaicr, someone directly came out while the promotion was going on and literally branded people who disliked it even by the trailers as sexist. I just can't get my finger on who it was. I have a feeling it was Amy Pascal, because she was backing the idea of a full female cast only because she wanted to, disregarding the quality of the film and such.

Edited July 22, 2016 by MyName'sJeff

[Spaghetti Cat]

...and Amy Pascal is where now?

 

Darth believes it was just done as a profit motive. If you go out of your way to insult potential movie goers who don't like some change, that doesn't seem like a good business decision. Which is why Pascal is where she is right now for running SONY Pictures into the ground. Putting political correctness ahead of telling a good story isn't a winning combination.

[Otter]

It was Paul Feig himself, if I remember correctly, in the face of some of the most vile sh*t ever thrown at an unreleased movie. So I can't blame him much - he wasn't far off base.

 

That all said, it's not like I'm saying the film is beyond criticism - it's not a great movie by any measure. But's not a political statement nor is it male bashing. It's an action comedy starring four women. People didn't tear their dicks off when Dukes of Hazard was turned into a f*cking terrible movie, so it's not hard to infer that there's a bit of an extra edge to the vitriol here, a certain thread of 'what the f*ck do women know about Ghostbusting?!!?!?'

 

Or, you can just bury your head in the sand and claim that you're only going out of your way to say you dislike this movie, or that you're pointedly not going to see this movie, because it isn't not as good as the original. But that's a bit of a sh*t reason, innit? These guys, you see them boycott all subpar films? Not likely.

 

I mean, I think we can all agree that this is a better film than Ghostbusters 2. So there's no childhood being ruined anymore.

[Abel.]

If the originals had starred four females and the reboot had starred four men, there would be a justifiable backlash. Some of the particular insults have been awful, but I definitely get why fans of the series are angry because part of what made the reboot awful was shoehorning politics in.