The Ghostbusters Thread (Old, New, Animated, Whatever)

Frank_Jaeger said:
Lol most people at advanced screenings liked it, it's gonna be great and you nerds are gonna look like the fox with sour grapes in a weeks time
Click to expand...
Yeah well you know what film also had a somewhat postive reception at the advanced screenings?
images
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Winner
Reactions: A Hot Potato, Super Collie, AN/ALR56 and 4 others
Somari1996 said:
I should have worded that better, I meant the people who saw it at the premiere said it was good.
Click to expand...
It's still got a decent audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes (66% compared to the Critics 27% )

Karen Riley said:
Asides from feeling like a mixed gender team is much better for being progressive than a sexist film featuring all women, I feel quite ambivalent towards this film but this attitude of trying to piss off as many people as possible who were fans of the originals has never made any sense to me.

For a reboot or sequel to be successful you need to be able to rely on ticket sales from people who were fans of the original films, so angering those fans and convincing them that the last thing they want to see is your reboot is the dumbest promotional tactic I've seen for a film.

Regardless, it's kind of sad that a film is able to bring out the ugliness in so many people, from the hyper sensitive feminists who will defend the film and claim going to see it is a political act, to the fans of the first two films that claim this movie is ruining their enjoyment of the original two films and getting way too offensive and over emotional about a film. A remake of a film you enjoyed shouldn't ruin the original for you. It's so much better to just ignore it and stop giving it attention if it's that bothersome.
Click to expand...
I agree, I really don't understand the mindset behind such a negative promotional campaign, does Sony think it's better than a positive one?

Also I agree with a mixed gender team being better, for one thing you'd get a potentially more interesting team dynamic, this sort of feminism reminds me elementary school level "Girls/Boys rule! Boys/Girls drool!" kind of mentality.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: A Cold Potato, Super Collie, The Nothingness and 5 others
Pickle Inspector said:
Also I agree with a mixed gender team being better, for one thing you'd get a potentially more interesting team dynamic, this sort of feminism reminds me elementary school level "Girls/Boys rule! Boys/Girls drool!" kind of mentality.
Click to expand...
It seems a lot more natural to have mixed gender ghostbusters if you want to make the movie 'progressive', anyway. All they're doing by having female heroes/the male characters being stupid or assholes is just further cementing it in some people's mind that this is Shitty Feminist Ghostbusters.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: A Cold Potato, Karen Riley, Hellsperger and 1 other person
Xerxes IX said:
It seems a lot more natural to have mixed gender ghostbusters if you want to make the movie 'progressive', anyway. All they're doing by having female heroes/the male characters being stupid or assholes is just further cementing it in some people's mind that this is Shitty Feminist Ghostbusters.
Click to expand...

I don't give a shit about mixed gender, there's enough all male shit I'm down for all female. Now the second point oooooooh boy here's the gold. Now we're reducing men to idiots and jerks. That's not in the spirit of what feminism should be. I understand that's what a lot of feminists turn it into, and that's not OK. Like for tiny side movies or whatever who gives a shit, but when you take a large franchise and shit on half (or more) of the population congrats you just alienated way more of your audience than you should have.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: A Cold Potato, Trombonista, AN/ALR56 and 3 others
The deleted review:

Kindly allow this lengthy aside and conspiracy theorizing: I can't start my review of Paul Feig's all-distaff redo of Ghostbusters without first mentioning the stupefying chaos that attended last Thursday evening's press screening, the only one of two scheduled a half-hour apart in New York before the movie's opening. This unprecedented incompetence had me convinced, for an hour or more, that Sony, the film's distributor, had been so cowed by the gynephobic holy war that has been waged against the film on social media (including Donald Trump's Twitter feed) for the past eighteen months that the company simply did not want the movie to be seen, ever. (Would it be The Interview redux?)

After the Lord of the Flies–level mayhem of the press check-in, Ghostbusters, which was supposed to be shown in IMAX 3-D, began in 2-D...with the Windows logo glaringly visible in the bottom left of the screen and a running timer tracking each second in the bottom right. At around the fifteen-minute mark, the lights came up, and a Sony rep announced, "This isn't the way we wanted you to see it" and then told us the film would start over. As a consolation, there was mention of free popcorn, soda, and candy in the lobby; as several spectators bolted for the snacks, it was clear that this sop would also be a further time-suck.

And so, fifty disorganized minutes after it was supposed to, Ghostbusters began in the proper format. What I watched for the next two hours was mostly a tragic underutilizing of four of this country's funniest women — Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon as the evil-ectoplasm battlers of the title, fighting to save a New York that is played primarily by Boston — combined with what felt like the world's longest laser-tag game. Feig, who directed Wiig and McCarthy in Bridesmaids (2011) and the latter in The Heat (2013) and Spy (2015), has done more than any other filmmaker to expose the idiocy of an industry that still insists that women cannot carry big-studio-financed comedies. But his Ghostbusters, which he co-wrote with Katie Dippold (the scripter of The Heat), is too risk-averse, despite its nominally radical gender-switching premise.

Ghostbusters 2.0 suffers from the anxiety of influence — or, more specifically, from the fear of not wanting to alienate the fans (Gen X'ers and others) of 1.0. It never strays far from the anodyne, generic humor that pervades the Ivan Reitman–directed 1984 original, written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, who starred with Bill Murray and Ernie Hudson. All of the principal cast (except for Ramis, who died in 2014, and to whom the film is dedicated) pop up in cameos, as do three secondary actors (two made of flesh and bone, the other from sugar and gelatin) — cloying appearances that have become de rigueur in remakes but that here especially highlight the timidity of Feig's project. The biggest of these small roles goes to Murray, whose smug self-regard in Reitman's film continues in Ghostbusters 2016 in a bizarre bit of doubling: He plays an imperious debunker whose lavishly patterned three-piece suits and walking stick are meant to recall Feig's own well-documented sartorial excess.

However awkward, that odd meta-moment is, sadly, one of the few signs of flamboyance, of a personal stamp, in the film. There is an easy camaraderie and chemistry among the central quartet, a harmony that continues when Chris Hemsworth, charmingly stupid, enters as the phantom-vanquishing squad's receptionist. Yet the main performers rarely get to display their individual idiosyncratic strengths. It's particularly dispiriting to hear McCarthy, one of the most floridly gifted verbal riffers in comedy, have to utter frat-brah catchphrases like "Let's do this."

That kind of lifeless, recycled language sounds even worse when Wiig, another performer who has perfected how to do things with words, cries out, "Say hello to my little friend" before zapping a spook in the film's near-interminable final act, a glut of green beams that suggests nothing more than an f/x trade show. (Look how much technology has advanced since 1984!) Playing an expert in particle physics, the brilliant chameleon McKinnon, in her biggest screen role to date, isn't given much to do besides wear steampunk-inspired getups and speak in weird intonations, though she does have a killer line very late in the film. Conversely, the best scenes featuring Jones, McKinnon's SNL castmate, also in her first starring role, are her earliest ones: Her MTA-employee character often lapses into jittery self-talk, tangents that are made more hilarious by Jones's amplified indignation — but that soon devolve into banalities.

It is only during Ghostbusters' loopy, unpredictable, and detail-dense final credits — the best such sequence I've seen in a film this year — that Feig's rethink seems liberated from the burden of the past. As for the burdens of the present, it seems inevitable, and ridiculous, that his Ghostbusters will continue to be savaged on the spleen-soaked battlefields of the internet simply for existing. The film has assumed an outsize role as a referendum. Call it the Broxit.
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
Reactions: A Cold Potato, Super Collie, *Asterisk* and 6 others
Judging from what I've heard on these forums and from reviews, it seems that this film is merely painfully mediocre, as opposed to horrifically unfunny. I don't know which is worst honestly.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: A Cold Potato and Super Collie
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back