Ghostbusters (2016)

[Otter]

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.

 

Yeah but it's not. A genderswap isn't f*cking politics. It's a story twist. It's a gimmick. It's Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. It's only 'politics' to people who don't like women with agency in their movies.

[Abel.]

Otter, you're putting words in my mouth. I love La Femme Nikita, I love the first two Alien films and I love the first two Terminator films; I love Foster's performance in SotL. However, I wouldn't want to see reboots of those films with blokes replacing Nikita/Connor/Ripley because their femininity and how they react to the world as women are central themes to those films, in the same way that being an ageing man past your prime is/was a theme in the GB movies. Taken wouldn't work with Neeson replaced by Eva Green (fantasic actress) and his daughter replaced by some teenage pretty boy because the father-daughter dynamic is a theme of the film, and remakes and reboots are supposed to respect the central themes of the original--otherwise why even use the license?

Edited July 22, 2016 by Failure

[Otter]

No, I think you're forgetting that they were speaking to very specific online comments - we could post a few in here and I think we'd all have trouble not accepting the label of 'manchild crybabies'. You can't blame them for reacting to vitriol.

 

It's like some of you guys - and I'm not pointing fingers or assigning any blame here - some of you guys seem ignorant to the massive catch 22 they faced there.

[Abel.]

Otter, you still haven't justified your claim that I don't like female leads in action movies, which is ridiculous. Reviews of the film are replete with references to constant jokes about gender politics in the film. Is that really necessary in an action-comedy?

 

 

@sh*t sequels: I actually really enjoyed the first Wolverine origins film (except for mouthless Deadpool).

Edited July 22, 2016 by Failure

[Otter]

I didn't make any claim of the sort. You weren't one of the f*ckwits posting sh*t like 'sluts can't bust ghosts' on Twitter, were you? I simply missed your post.

[Abel.]

If you look at the top of the page I actually condemned the abuse the actresses received on Twitter from the alt-right crowd.

[Otter]

Good God, man, I don't know if I can make this any clearer - I'm not saying you were bashing women. I'm saying those people existed. Undeniably. They are the reason the film was 'politicized' - not the genderswap, but a certain segment of the population's reaction to it.

 

 

edit:

Indy, I got to see a ton of the new merch - including the green twinkies - in the GhostCorps office. Some really cool stuff. Additionally, you can't blame Sony for everything - Montecito/Ghost Corps have a lot of autonomy with the property. They're not strong-armed into everything. I think, a lot of the time, people assume there's some shady character forcing everything on the lowly creatives. That just isn't so.

[X S]

Whoa whoa whoa... the best song came from Ghostbusters 2.

 

 

[iBUCKEYE]

 

 

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.

I liked Ghostbusters 2.

 

@sh*t sequels: I actually really enjoyed the first Wolverine origins film (except for mouthless Deadpool).

I enjoy that movie as well. Same with the Star Wars prequels, T3 and Salvation, Alien and Predator sequels, Spider-Man 3(compared to the reboot at least), Blade 3 etc.

 

 

Its actually pretty hilarious the number of movies that get sh*t on that I actually enjoy.

Edited July 22, 2016 by iBUCKEYE

[X S]

I'm hearing that this was filmed in Boston?

 

BOSTON?!?!?!?

 

HERESY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[X S]

That's just wrong on so many levels.

 

Anyway, got my hands on a copy of the movie. I'll give my verdict some time this weekend.

[Coin]

 

I mean, I think we can all agree that this is a better film than Ghostbusters 2.

 

It really isn't.

 

I think we can all agree that we're not a hive mind.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Coin.

[The Dedito Gae]

...Ghostbusters 1984 (I have to call it the f*cking 1984 version now)...

No you don't, i still call Robocop...well, Robocop, i don't call it "Veroheven's Robocop" or "The Original Robocop" or whatever, apparently it has a ridiculous PG 13 reboot i never bothered to see.

Thing is, a reboot doesn't affect the original.

 

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.

I never cared too much that Feig choosed to make a gender swapped version, but i would had prefered a mixed team much more, that's more inclusive and less controversial.

 

I would had also liked to have more terror in said reboot but that's just personal preference, might not seem like it now but ghostbusters has

that i would love to see intensified.

A creepier but not less funny Ghostbusters would had been my wet dream.

 

...The one and only thing that didn't make sense was the fact that NYC apparently forgot that a big giant f*cking marshmallow man as well as a sh*t-ton of ghosts came into downtown Manhattan. Who would honestly forget something like that?!?! That's my only gripe with it...

I love that movie and it pains me that is so hated by the fanbase but they make a point, is basically the first movie, the events are mostly the same, i even confused them as a kid. I still love it though, the courtroom battle, the montage where the GBs return (this time actual ghosts appear), the chemistry between the cast, Janosz Poha and Vigo the Carpathian.

I dare to say that Vigo is a better villain than Gozer and makes most of the movie for me, motherf*cker actually scared me as a kid, painting was so menacing that is kinda underwhelming when he finally gets out of it, but he turns into that horned blood demon and it makes it all worth it.

 

Whoa whoa whoa... the best song came from Ghostbusters 2.

 

-Snip-

I always liked the

.

 

 

Sorry if i already posted these, i just love honest trailers (even though i don't agree with them all the time):

 

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2016 by Midnight Hitman

[X S]

So I finally watched it, and I just couldn't wait to finish it. It was HORRIBLE. I don't see how anyone could even think this was mediocre. The only joke I laughed at was the Baba Booey joke at the end. The rest of it just had me cringing and wondering why the movie was even necessary from anything other than a "because we can" standpoint.

 

Spoilers:

 

Going back to what Comicbook Girl had said about this movie, it was totally soulless and uninspiring. I felt no sense camaraderie or emotional attachment to it. The movie was moving way too fast and had no pacing. One minute Patty is an MTA worker, and the next she's catching ghosts with little effort. I distinctly remember the original Ghostbusters having to go through large hurdles of disbelief, both from the GB's themselves and the public-at-large before they started believing in ghosts. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that an entire concert hall is taking selfies with a ghost without issue? It also lacked a good mythology like the story of Zuul, the keymaster and gatekeeper from the original. That was totally absent from this film, a thus everything just seemed like filler.

 

Secondly, was the chemistry between the girls. It was there, but it wasn't representative of what a true New York blue collar vibe is, and we got from the original cast. And that's not a knock a shortcomings of an all-female cast. Just look at a NYC firehouse, and notice how the women carry themselves. That would have been much more representative of the team. Which brings me to my next point, NYC was sort of a character unto-itself in the original, and the very fact that many of the scenes lacked the grit and demeanor of true New York culture, it completely lost its personality. I distinctly remember the mayor of the original saying, "Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right." That was completely absent from this film.

 

Thirdly, the music was not as good. I distinctly remember the original for its soundtrack, especially that nonchalant jazz piano vibe it had. It also had no scary themes. See:

 

 

 

 

 

Thirdly, my biggest peeve of this film was that they were constantly breaking the fourth wall. I get it, the villain is a personification of some basement-dwelling neckbeard who was bullied his entire life and now seeks revenge, but really? I get Paul, you hate bullies. Oh and how could I forget about the dumb story by Kristen Wiig's character about being bullied in school and losing friends for believing in ghosts, or the unapologetic pokes at YouTube comments, "Ain't no bitches gonna catch ghosts"? Oy vey! f*ck off already with that.

 

Finally, there was no fan treatment here. The only nods to the original were the terrible cameos. Akroyd's was the best, but only because he gave a good New York vibe, "I don't drive to Queens". That was one of the few times I chuckled, and it's what was missing from this film when I referred to it having no NYC soul or vibe. But even Murray, one of my favorite comedians of all time, wasn't funny. Yes, Bill Murray was not funny, and at most, all Bill really needs to do is give you a deadpan expression and it's funny, but not even that was present. It just really showed how terribly this film was written and produced.

 

 

If you're a die-hard fan of the originals, you're going to hate this movie. Kill it with fire. It deserves 1/5 stars. Garbage, and I'm glad I didn't pay to see it.

Edited July 23, 2016 by X S

[Spaghetti Cat]

So I finally watched it, and I just couldn't wait to finish it. It was HORRIBLE. I don't see how anyone could even think this was mediocre. The only joke I laughed at was the Baba Booey joke at the end. The rest of it just had me cringing and wondering why the movie was even necessary from anything other than a "because we can" standpoint.

 

...It just really showed how terribly this film was written and produced

 

 

This is what the critics of the critics are missing. Are there stupid man-children out there that make dumb statements on the internet? Sure there is. Lumping in actual criticism with the silly stuff is where the filmmakers and studio went wrong. Instead of saying 'hey it was a bad movie, we tried, different concept, different cast, it just didn't work the way we thought it would'. The studio and filmmakers blamed the audience for their failures. Calling out these failures resulted in being labeled as anti-women. I actually defended the actresses in this movie. If Feig had wanted to make some paranormal film with funny ladies it would have probably turned out differently. Instead they tried to shoehorn in a classic film with modern grievance politics. I don't like politics in my movies any more than the next guy (or gal) but that's the truth. And a terrible Ghostbusters movie is what we got out of it.

[X S]

Oh, how could I forget this? Cuz nothing says girl-power more than striking "them" where it hurts, right?

 

 

 

Huehuehue let's shoot him in the peepee!

 

 

 

I don't think Bill wanted to do the cameo to be honest.

 

I oddly sensed that, almost as if he was being forced to be there.

Edited July 23, 2016 by X S

[acmilano]

Oh, how could I forget this? Cuz nothing says girl-power more than striking "them" where it hurts, right?

 

 

 

Huehuehue let's shoot him in the peepee!

 

 

 

I don't think Bill wanted to do the cameo to be honest.

 

I oddly sensed that, almost as if he was being forced to be there.

Immediatly remembered this:

 

 

[Queen]

Don't worry. It's spoiler free:

 

I saw the film last night and while the people around me were enjoying the film immensely, I myself couldn't help but be reminded of the brilliance of the original film. First of all, I have no problem with the full female main cast -- I thought they worked for this film and the direction it was trying to go in. In particular, Melissa McCarthy interjected the kind of overblown persona that made her famous, and I am a fan of her career, particularly her role in Mike and Molly. Frankly, I thought the chemistry between the characters (which I've read is a major criticism) was just fine.

 

My problem is with the jokes, which were generally silly without enough substance. I laughed at maybe three or four of them. Perhaps it would have been better if we had time to breathe in between the jokes as opposed to being hit by them one after the other. And I get it, it's supposed to be a comedy, but I felt like the movie was drowning whereas the original had dryer, and sometimes more subtle humor, because the original was just as much about the humor as it was about the story.

 

Which brings me to the story. I agree with several of the above posters in that the film felt rushed. But I have no problem with the overall story arc. For what it was it worked, and had a similar vibe to the original Ghostbusters movies. The villain in particular reminded me of the villain in Ghostbusters II...though it's been so long since I've seen it that I reserve the right to change my opinion. Oh and by the way, I've been to NYC too many times to count, and something felt off about the location in the movie. I'll bet it wasn't filmed entirely in NYC...maybe not at all (with the exception of the skyline shots of course).

 

I will say that the movie does wonders for little girls who lack strong female heroines to look up to. I read some reviews that are praising the movie for this, and I have to agree. These characters were not sexualized in anyway -- they were simply scientists (and an MTA worker) in the pursuit of fulfilling their dreams and saving a city from doom. It was refreshing, and I hope this becomes the norm for future films.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Queen

[X S]

I'm pretty sure it was Boston.

 

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who sensed it. NYC has particular personality to it filled with grit, grime and art deco. Streets are cluttered with large metal sheets covering potholes, cones blocking traffic, and steam coming up from subways. The sets they used look fake, and we never got a full massive crowd scene. Also, there was no montage. Montages were a defining feature of the originals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[X S]

Well, apparently I wasn't counting the marketing budget and other expenses, but Sony estimated that a break-even point for this film would be about $300 million, and they're about $70 million in the hole. A movie sequel is not likely, but they do plan to continue cashing in on old-school memorabilia and cartoon spin-offs.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-heading-70m-loss-sequel-918515

 

In the end, the people spoke with their wallets.

[The Dedito Gae]

I've seen pieces of it in Youtube and yeah.. looks bad. Is weird that Sony is not bothering to remove the uploads.

[feckyerlife]

 

In the end, the people spoke with their wallets.

And that is how you say to the big execs at these movie studios that you don't want anymore of it. That's why I didn't go to the cinema to watch it (still haven't seen it) because it looks bad.

 

Didn't work obviously since they are doing it with Oceans 11 now

[X S]

Didn't work obviously since they are doing it with Oceans 11 now

 

I heard. Ocean's 8 it's called?

 

Give me a f*cking break. They never learn.

[thatstupidbug]

Watched the movie... finally!

 

It wasn't bad, come on!

It was colorful, campy, out-loud, in-your-face, and as crazy and hyperactive as a child movie should be...

 

Because it was clearly a child's movie, right?

 

- the best jokes were the physical ones

- the banter were mostly uncoordinate ramblings and screams like a typical child's game

- jokes were repeated over and over and over in the span of seconds (like kids do often)

- super-duper-nosense combat and explosions (like my cousin when he plays with toys)

- things happens because they're funny, not because they made sense in context, like a child who made superman fights against ninja turtles and godzilla because "cool"

- slimer and lady driving and doing funny faces because... it's funny, i guess?

 

 

But then there was the swear and middle finger, the balls joke, the sexula innuendos, the (mildly) scary ghosts... what the????

 

repackage this movie, tone down the "risky" stuffs, and you have a decent (but with an excessive budget) kid's movie.

Trying to sell it as anything but that, and it's a total chaos... and not a "sharknado" kind of chaos.

[Erik Decimus]

I don't mind the female cast.. and there were some amusing moments.. but ultimately.. this should have been SO much better. What a disappointment.

[Tchuck]

Seen it, didn't hate it. It would never compare against the original, nor should it. Taken as a standalone thing, it's alright. Tries too hard a couple of times, but it does have its moments. Could have been a lot better, that's true, but it isn't complete utter garbage, imo. As long as you don't compare it to the original, of course.

 

The cameos were alright, didn't feel too out of place in the story. Besides a full on remake with 4 dudes reprising the original roles, I find it hard to think of how they could have made this into a sequel of the original.

 

Anyway, not as horrible as I'd expected. Don't compare it to the original, and it's watchable.

[iBUCKEYE]

Don't compare it to the original,

Then it shouldnt have been named Ghostbusters.

[Tchuck]

 

Don't compare it to the original,

Then it shouldnt have been named Ghostbusters.

 

 

I don't disagree with that. Though to be fair, you can't really compare Ghostbusters 2 to the original either...

[The Dedito Gae]

Though to be fair, you can't really compare Ghostbusters 2 to the original either...

How not?

They are practically the same movie.

[pulpfriction]

Better than I expected. I went in with zero expectations.