Manchu wrote:
This will certainly be better.

Your optimism will be your downfall.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
This will certainly be better.

Your optimism will be your downfall.

Optimism? Look into these dead eyes that have seen the horror of Warner Bros pathetic attempt to copy Disney. There is no optimism.

i have no plans to go see this movie...
But now it seems they are trying to show everything in the trailers.

 Manchu wrote:
It doesn't look great. I will still go see it. I saw Batman v Superman. This will certainly be better.

If the various blogsites my wife frequents have their way, I may well also be seeing it at the cinema, unless I can convince her to take girl friends with her and I can stay home and watch the original with a bottle of bombay and a pizza.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It doesn't look great. I will still go see it. I saw Batman v Superman. This will certainly be better.

If the various blogsites my wife frequents have their way, I may well also be seeing it at the cinema, unless I can convince her to take girl friends with her and I can stay home and watch the original with a bottle of bombay and a pizza.

You are in my prayers to the god emperor.

 Genoside07 wrote:
i have no plans to go see this movie...
But now it seems they are trying to show everything in the trailers.

"Quick! Throw something at them! Anything! Everything!"

-Unnamed studio executive.

 General Kroll wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Mattel toy fair showed the new Ghostbusters big bad- I'm guessing he's the one possessing everyone.
http://www.slashfilm.com/ghostbusters-villain/

Spoiler:

This screams "Using Stay Puft will be too obvious, what can we make LOOK like Stay Puft?"

It's right near the end of the trailer, giant and flaming just like Stay Puff.

It looks like the marshmallow man from the original, yes, but the toy makes it more obvious that it's also that ghost in their logo. I wonder which comes first?

So apparently Adam Sandler is playing the main villain in the movie?

 AduroT wrote:
So apparently Adam Sandler is playing the main villain in the movie?

Really?

Apparently, according to YouTube-

That guy is from a graffiti piece in the subway one of the "girlz" remembered, (ALA Staypuff) "You made your choice!"

He shows up in the end of the second trailer.

I hope Thor 3 can rub the stench of this bad boy off of Helmsworth.

The cliché is just too ... much. for this movie.

So, I'm ready for this gak show to come and go because I'm really tired of being just dismissed by my circle of friends for "Oh, you just don't like it because of girls."

I don't like it because it looks like a tired and unfunny by the numbers garbage, And because Paul Fiege is an donkey-cave but yeah no, clearly mysoginist.

Fingers crossed this film goes nuclear. I hate it now not because its (probably) a bad film but because of the jackassery its inspired in people I know.

Anyone else getting this high and mighty attitude over this film?

lonestarr777 wrote:
Anyone else getting this high and mighty attitude over this film?

I have no plans to watch the film and hope it dies.. for the simple reason, if it sales.. we will get
the same trash again... reward good behavior (deadpool) punish bad behavior (green lantern);
if this can be used to train dogs... maybe movie executives could work too..

But I just hate to see the tie in with these movies; Toys, video games, bed sheets you name it..
I want this to hit like Speed Racer.. all the merchandises didn't sale and the movie did very poorly
Not there is anything bad with Speed Racer if it done right.

lonestarr777 wrote:
So, I'm ready for this gak show to come and go because I'm really tired of being just dismissed by my circle of friends for "Oh, you just don't like it because of girls."

I don't like it because it looks like a tired and unfunny by the numbers garbage, And because Paul Fiege is an donkey-cave but yeah no, clearly mysoginist.

Fingers crossed this film goes nuclear. I hate it now not because its (probably) a bad film but because of the jackassery its inspired in people I know.

Anyone else getting this high and mighty attitude over this film?

It's not even registering on my social media, or in my group of friends. I think my friends are all of the same opinion, this film deserves no attention. It's barely even deserves our contempt.

lonestarr777 wrote:
So, I'm ready for this gak show to come and go because I'm really tired of being just dismissed by my circle of friends for "Oh, you just don't like it because of girls."

I don't like it because it looks like a tired and unfunny by the numbers garbage, And because Paul Fiege is an donkey-cave but yeah no, clearly mysoginist.

Fingers crossed this film goes nuclear. I hate it now not because its (probably) a bad film but because of the jackassery its inspired in people I know.

Anyone else getting this high and mighty attitude over this film?

I've wanted to like the film from the start but the trailers really disappointed me. I am ambivalent on the film's success because if it flops I think people will just chant misogyny and use that as justification for the films potential failure regardless of the film's actual merits.

That said, I like Ghostbusters both as a film and an idea, and will go see the movie so I can form my own opinion. I like the actresses in the film and I've enjoyed the director's previous films, so I do want it to be a good movie. I just despise the politics surrounding the film and I think their are guilty parties on both sides who have pissed gasoline on those flames. McCarthy's basement dweller comment, some of Fiege's interview/twitter comments, as well as all of the genuine trolls who were taking jabs at the film for reasons other than the questionable story-line, lack of connection to the past film and shoddy CGI, are all to blame for turning what should have been a fun summer popcorn movie into a hill for Twitter users to die on.

It's weird, every nostalgic reboot has it's gak storms but this one just doesn't seem to be able to calm down any. I have no opinion on the movie myself, but I'm just so tired of hearing about everything I can't wait for it to come and go. Don't care how successful it is or not, just want to refer to it in the past tense.

'Course, with how the toys are being *clearanced* two whole weeks before the movie even hits + how every ad I've seen is just "kinda-celeb re-enacts generic Ghostbuster scene", I don't expect the film to stay in theaters that long...

 Rootbeard wrote:
It's weird, every nostalgic reboot has it's gak storms but this one just doesn't seem to be able to calm down any. I have no opinion on the movie myself, but I'm just so tired of hearing about everything I can't wait for it to come and go. Don't care how successful it is or not, just want to refer to it in the past tense.

'Course, with how the toys are being *clearanced* two whole weeks before the movie even hits + how every ad I've seen is just "kinda-celeb re-enacts generic Ghostbuster scene", I don't expect the film to stay in theaters that long...

I hadn't heard of the whole clearance thing.

I'm going to sound really bitter here. And I don't want to. But I genuinely want this film to fail, the comments that some of the actors and the director have made about geek culture have been vile, and they are making a film that is based on one of the pillars of geek culture. I hope they reap what they have been sowing. Now I'm not saying they haven't had to put up with abuse from idiots themselves, and that they should just suck it up, but they've gone about this all wrong. it probably is going to be a really bad movie, it looks like a paint by numbers execumovie and they've screwed it up by completely missing the target.

Geek culture should very much turn their back on this movie, it's cast, and it's arrogant director.

Yeup. Saw the new ghostbusters toys in Target yesterday, with the red clearance stickers on them.

I laughed a little.

The good news is that the new Independence Day movie might have saved this movie from "worst movie of the Summer" fate.

Truthfully the new Independence Day movie actually made me not want to see this one. After having the nostalgia burned off, I guess, and rewatching these trailers with fresh eyes, this looks pretty terrible I have to admit.

I am no longer cautiously optimistic.

 Genoside07 wrote:
punish bad behavior (green lantern);

I was so disappointed in that movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The good news is that the new Independence Day movie might have saved this movie from "worst movie of the Summer" fate.

I reject your opinion and substitute my own: "It still looks really bad."

There's a promotion right now for buying a box of diabetes, yogurt +M&Ms cant recall the exact brand, for free fandango tickets. The boxes feature Ghostbusters art heavily hintng on what movie to see with the free ticket.

I suggested getting a few boxes, cause I like to flirt with losing my foot, and giving my friends the free tickets for Ghostbusters.

I was then told they would pay to see the movie to balance out donkey-caves like me who won't see it.

Honestly I think its this attitude that has hurt the movie the most. The nasty condescenion and attacks on people for simply saying "No thanks, his looks like hot garbage." Is worse than the movie just being hot garbage.

lonestarr777 wrote:

I was then told they would pay to see the movie to balance out donkey-caves like me who won't see it.

Every bad movie has people that go and watch them.... I think they are called "victims"...

They turned down free movie tickets? And not only for a reason other than "it looks terrible", but in a misguided attempt to support the film?
'Course, if it's anything like the "free ticket" I got from the theater some months ago, you'll still have to pay a surcharge anyways, given how it's next to impossible to find a showing without 3D or RPX or some kind of premium...

lonestarr777 wrote:

I suggested getting a few boxes, cause I like to flirt with losing my foot, and giving my friends the free tickets for Ghostbusters.

I was then told they would pay to see the movie to balance out donkey-caves like me who won't see it.

Is that some epic level SJW reasoning?

"We are going to pay money instead of using free tickets in order to support this movie against all of the women's power hate being leveled at it!"

<--- I don't care if it's 4 women, or 2 chicks and 2 dudes, or 4 transvestite little people. It doesn't look funny. I'll wait for my friends' reviews or just not bother.

"You hate women!"

<---- Have we even met?

 cincydooley wrote:
Yeup. Saw the new ghostbusters toys in Target yesterday, with the red clearance stickers on them.

I laughed a little.

Just went to Target's site to check out the pricing. Yikes, $19.99 (before clearance) for an action figure seems spendy, especially since the characters all seem to have the same proton weapons. Why didn't they at least give the Jillian character the dual proton pistols? If those are "Movie Elite" figures they should be more accurate, right?

But, I did see this beauty. Oh my god I haven't wanted a Lego set so badly since I was a kid. The price tag hurts, though. $349.99.

Your target had that? Man, I wish!

I will not see this movie. The only way I ever intend to see this movie is if someone gives me lots of money to do so. Like say $500,000 tax free. Scratch that, make it $20,000,000 to cover the emotional and mental trauma I would suffer from watching it.

First off it all feels like a mocking parody of the original.

Second, none of the actors appear to be any good in these roles, pay zero homage to the originals; and are nothing but a bunch of horrible stereotypes.

Thirdly, the jokes fall flat. They aren't funny. They feel forced and lack any of the wit of the original.

Fourth, the cgi and graphics somehow ended up being worse than the effects of the original. They look and feel fake by comparison.

Fifth, The new uniforms are horrible, and the ghostbusting equipment looks silly. Scratch that on the uniform it reminds me of old prison uniforms, which is where all of these "actors" belong with how horrible they are in this movie.

Sixth, the response to the community dislike of this movie by Sony, Fieg, and the actors. Their insinuation that if you don't like or want to see this movie you are a sexist, maybe a racist, and definitely a Nazi really ticks me off. Makes we want to not see it out of spite alone.

 cincydooley wrote:
Your target had that? Man, I wish!

No, just their web store. I was actually doing the household shopping last night at Target and cruised by the Lego aisle and didn't see anything Ghostbusters related. Due to the price and (assuming) size of the Firehouse, it may be web only for Target.

So Slimer in drag is apparently a thing in this movie.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
But, I did see this beauty. Oh my god I haven't wanted a Lego set so badly since I was a kid. The price tag hurts, though. $349.99.

**snip**

That's an AMAZING set. But that price...

 NorseSig wrote:
I will not see this movie. The only way I ever intend to see this movie is if someone gives me lots of money to do so. Like say $500,000 tax free. Scratch that, make it $20,000,000 to cover the emotional and mental trauma I would suffer from watching it.

First off it all feels like a mocking parody of the original.

Second, none of the actors appear to be any good in these roles, pay zero homage to the originals; and are nothing but a bunch of horrible stereotypes.

Thirdly, the jokes fall flat. They aren't funny. They feel forced and lack any of the wit of the original.

Fourth, the cgi and graphics somehow ended up being worse than the effects of the original. They look and feel fake by comparison.

Fifth, The new uniforms are horrible, and the ghostbusting equipment looks silly. Scratch that on the uniform it reminds me of old prison uniforms, which is where all of these "actors" belong with how horrible they are in this movie.

Sixth, the response to the community dislike of this movie by Sony, Fieg, and the actors. Their insinuation that if you don't like or want to see this movie you are a sexist, maybe a racist, and definitely a Nazi really ticks me off. Makes we want to not see it out of spite alone.

I agree with all you said, especially the last part, that is just pathetic and sadly Hollywood is resorting to that. who cares if it was a crappy movie?if you say it was then you are a sexist and such, welcome to the Politically Correct.

My biggest problem with this movie? I like all the actresses. I just think this is overall a bad move, career wise, comedy wise, etc.

That is a nice lego set.

 jreilly89 wrote:
I just think this is overall a bad move, career wise, comedy wise, etc.

SHHHHHH! Saying that makes you both sexist AND racist. Just ask Sony!

 kronk wrote:
Is that some epic level SJW reasoning?

I've seen a bit of that nonsense. I even tried nudging them to go buy Mad Max: Fury Road instead, but they were having none of it.

lonestarr777 wrote:
So, I'm ready for this gak show to come and go because I'm really tired of being just dismissed by my circle of friends for "Oh, you just don't like it because of girls."

I don't like it because it looks like a tired and unfunny by the numbers garbage, And because Paul Fiege is an donkey-cave but yeah no, clearly mysoginist.

Fingers crossed this film goes nuclear. I hate it now not because its (probably) a bad film but because of the jackassery its inspired in people I know.

Anyone else getting this high and mighty attitude over this film?

The Wife really wants to see it. She's taking her coven of wimminz to it. I'd rather see Mad Moms myself, and of course Secret Life of Pets.
I can't stand at least one of these players.

Its amazing how we have fallen. I watched Lord Olivier's film version of Hamlet the other night (with a baby Jean Simmons) that won big awards when it came out. Yes. Hamlet.

I was interested in seeing it until the trailers came out. I forget who said it looked like a Scary Movie film, but he or she was dead-on. The only ghosts that need busting in this film are from long-dead jokes.

My wife wants to see it even less than I do.

So there was a review embargo placed on Ghostbusters by Sony until tonight....not a great sign for a film really. You'd usually want to be shouting it from the roof tops that people think your comedy film is hilarious. The cats out of the bag now though. The Ghostbusters remake has been panned.

Here is what the Hollywood Reporter say

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/ghostbusters-film-review-909313

It's pretty damning, and confirms my very worst fears about the film, especially Hemsworths role in the film.

Plenty of other gakky reviews online too.

There are also a couple of good ones too, but it's easy to see that they are pretty agenda driven. The guardian for example gives it four stars, but leads with a diatribe about the trolls and misogynists rather than the film itself. Den of Geeks similiarily talks more about the films critics than the film itself, almost as if there's a mechanism at play to prove people wrong rather than actually review the film at hand.

The Nerdist's revieew was basically, "it's fine."

They go on to say, (and I'm paraphrasing cause I misplaced the link) "they wish it was an amazing comedic masterpiece to shut up all the complaints about the casting, but the truth is, the films fine, not outstanding, not terrible, fine."

They also say that if you like Paul Feige films, you'll really enjoy it, if you dislike Paul Feige films, you'll still dislike it.

Of course, I'm sitting there going, "Who's Paul Feige?"

Rotton Tomatoes has critic ratings at 74%. I guess we'll see on the 15th which of those critics were right and which need to consider a career change.

 Breotan wrote:
Rotton Tomatoes has critic ratings at 74%. I guess we'll see on the 15th which of those critics were right and which need to consider a career change.

I expect that to be considerably lower by the end of the week lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
https://youtu.be/vBVmb5Nmg28

This one sums it up pretty well....ugh.

When he compared it to Pixels I gotta admit... I smiled... like Mr. Burns.

 Compel wrote:
The Nerdist's revieew was basically, "it's fine."

They go on to say, (and I'm paraphrasing cause I misplaced the link) "they wish it was an amazing comedic masterpiece to shut up all the complaints about the casting, but the truth is, the films fine, not outstanding, not terrible, fine."

They also say that if you like Paul Feige films, you'll really enjoy it, if you dislike Paul Feige films, you'll still dislike it.

Of course, I'm sitting there going, "Who's Paul Feige?"

Same here. I have nothing against the director, the actresses, whatever. I have no personal bias against the movie going in. All I care about is if the movie is good. Unfortunately, it sounds more and more that it's neither good nor bad, just "fine". Which is a pity, really. Mediocrity is not something that should be aspired to when rebooting a beloved franchise. At least if the movie was a horrible flop, that would still be something, at least.

All the reviews I've read that have been "positive" seem to be more, "eh, it's okay, but we won't say anything negative because of the backlash."

 cincydooley wrote:
All the reviews I've read that have been "positive" seem to be more, "eh, it's okay, but we won't say anything negative because of the backlash."

Sony will sue you for affecting their profitability of the movie due to your negative review.. In other words.. don't say anything.. just to be safe..

 Genoside07 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
All the reviews I've read that have been "positive" seem to be more, "eh, it's okay, but we won't say anything negative because of the backlash."

Sony will sue you for affecting their profitability of the movie due to your negative review.. In other words.. don't say anything.. just to be safe..

That sounds about right. I admit while I am curious to see how bad it is (whole train wreck thing), I REFUSE to give my money to someone who said if I don't like the trailers I am a sexist, racist, troll. That kind of BS just does not fly with me.

apparently they're saying the new ghostbusters will be a "limitless series" etc it's like the possiability the movie won't do well is something that never entered their thoughts

lonestarr777 wrote:
When he compared it to Pixels I gotta admit... I smiled... like Mr. Burns.

Lol this cheered me up no end. Thank you.

But he's SO right.

Apparently Devan Faraci loved it. Shocking.

So yeah, I'll preface this by saying, "I'm still not going to see it" and not particularly inclined to watch it when it comes on TV either. However, at least they're right in something good come out of the film.



That is something that's good to see more of. Although, I'm thinking maybe they should have made a better film for it, you know, one that wasn't a 12A either...

 General Kroll wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Rotton Tomatoes has critic ratings at 74%. I guess we'll see on the 15th which of those critics were right and which need to consider a career change.

I expect that to be considerably lower by the end of the week lol.

You may be right, but it's actually gone up 2 more points since then.

Perhaps I again can be cautiously optimistic.

 Compel wrote:
So yeah, I'll preface this by saying, "I'm still not going to see it" and not particularly inclined to watch it when it comes on TV either. However, at least they're right in something good come out of the film.



That is something that's good to see more of. Although, I'm thinking maybe they should have made a better film for it, you know, one that wasn't a 12A either...

Yup, but those girls could have still had strong female heroes to look up to without this film, and the promotion and talk surrounding it being a massive slap in the face to fans of the original and geek culture as a whole. Those girls could still have had strong female heroes the way I had strong male heroes of the original ghostbusters back in the late 80s when Ghostbusters 2 came out, had this been a sequel and not a remake. They could have still had a positive strong female role model had this movie been a passing of the torch movie instead of a bland Hollywood retread.

In short, Paul Feig could have made everyone happy, instead, he's made a garbage movie that in ten years time very few people will look back on fondly, that will be in the same bargain bin as the Karate Kid remake, the Robocop remake and the Willy Wonka remake.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Apparently Devan Faraci loved it. Shocking.

Well, then I know I won't.

If you go with professional critics instead of anyone that decided to write a review on RT it is 50% instead of 78%.

Alot of summer blockbusters are blockbusters cause china. However in this case, china has a strict no ghost policy.

Honestly I expect after the opening weekend and the 'basement dwelking misogynists' dragging their feet go see it, itll get the lambasting its earned.

Thats important to remember btw, love a movie or want it to do well? See it opening weekend when the bean counters are paying attention. Iffy on it or just seeing it for how bad it is, give it a week.

 Compel wrote:
So yeah, I'll preface this by saying, "I'm still not going to see it" and not particularly inclined to watch it when it comes on TV either. However, at least they're right in something good come out of the film.

Spoiler:

That is something that's good to see more of. Although, I'm thinking maybe they should have made a better film for it, you know, one that wasn't a 12A either...

Cynical about this stuff as I am, that photo looks staged to me. It's the kind of thing I'd probably do if I was in PR and handling publicity for this film. *shrug*

Honestly, this movie may be (probably is a little?) better than we're giving it credit for. I just think the original is perfection for what it is, and never needed a sequel, let alone a reboot.

 Ahtman wrote:
If you go with professional critics instead of anyone that decided to write a review on RT it is 50% instead of 78%.

Do you mean the "Top Critics" option? That went down for a short while and returned with less rotten reviews apparently, so it's currently almost on par as the All Critics.

Never mind.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
so it's currently almost on par as the All Critics.

I just checked again and Top Critics is 53%, which I don't believe is on par with 79%.

Just a general shorthand but this is how the jargon seemingly translates:

Top Critics = aggregate of professional film critics
All Critics = aggregate of professional film critics + people with an internet connection and keyboard

I don't really get the argument about women (or girls) dressing up as Ghostbusters meaning that it has an impact because I have seen female Ghostbuters cosplay for some time.

Personnaly I am going to have to wait to hear from some people I trust the opinions of to decide whether to see it or not.

 gorgon wrote:

 Compel wrote:
So yeah, I'll preface this by saying, "I'm still not going to see it" and not particularly inclined to watch it when it comes on TV either. However, at least they're right in something good come out of the film.

Spoiler:

That is something that's good to see more of. Although, I'm thinking maybe they should have made a better film for it, you know, one that wasn't a 12A either...

Cynical about this stuff as I am, that photo looks staged to me. It's the kind of thing I'd probably do if I was in PR and handling publicity for this film. *shrug*

Honestly, this movie may be (probably is a little?) better than we're giving it credit for. I just think the original is perfection for what it is, and never needed a sequel, let alone a reboot.

To be fair, you're right. This film isn't going to be the death of cinema or the end of the world. But I loathe it for all the garbage it's added to the internet and the tactics they have used and the general vitriol that's been spewed over this film.

Like say how Jame's Rolfe, the AVGN was pretty much crucified when he made a video stating he would neither see, nor review the new ghostbusters. People from Patton Oswalt, which is sad because I love him, and Dane Cook, because he's desperate to be relevant again, jumped on twitter and blasted him as the internet tore into him and painted the man as the picture perfect woman hating man baby. Rolfe however refused to acknowledge this gak storm and has come out the better man for it, along with a large number of his friends on youtube jumping to his defense.

Meanwhile, Comic Book Girl 19 has not only trashed the film repeatedly but also done it in a more crude manner than Rolfe did in his one video. And yet, she wasn't drug through the muck for it and insulted publicly by celebrities.

And then there is my own personal circle of friends. I admit, when I heard this movie was getting made I had just been suckered into the new TMNT, so I was fresh from having all my nostalgia burnt off. I stuck my nose in the air and said I wasn't interested and wished that hollywood would stop cannibalizing the graveyard. Fast-forward and now that's being thrown in my face ON-TOP of the fact apparently I'm just an donkey-cave who thinks girls have cooties. Mostly the cootie thing though. Every point I make, trailer looks terrible, leaked script sounds dumb as balls, McCarthy and Fiege are jack wagons. Nope, just a donkey-cave who hates girls!

But you know it's cool... because,

So yeah, I guess I'm a bit bitter over all this.

 Ahtman wrote:
I just checked again and Top Critics is 53%, which I don't believe is on par with 79%.

Just a general shorthand but this is how the jargon seemingly translates:

Top Critics = aggregate of professional film critics
All Critics = aggregate of professional film critics + people with an internet connection and keyboard

That's not true at all - you're stating that it's an average of critics + the general public, but in fact if you look down all 4 pages of reviews currently for "all critics", everyone listed has a byline. Here are the requirements to be a critic on Rotten Tomatoes:

SOURCE APPROVAL

Print publications must achieve and maintain status as one of the following:

- A top 100 daily US newspaper
- A top 100 weekly US newspaper
- A top 100 magazine
- A top 10 entertainment-based publication

Sources used to determine national publication ranks include the Audit Bureau of Circulations, The Magazine Publishers of America, and the Association of Alternative Weeklies. Applications for international publications will be made on a case-by-case basis, with input from local Rotten Tomatoes editors when applicable.

Whereas:

TOP CRITICS

Top Critic is a title awarded to the most significant contributors of cinematic and critical discourse. To be considered for Top Critics designation, a critic must be published at a print publication in the top 10% of circulation, employed as a film critic at a national broadcast outlet for no less than five years, or employed as a film critic for an editorial-based website with over 1.5 million monthly unique visitors for a minimum of three years. A Top Critic may also be recognized as such based on their influence, reach, reputation, and/or quality of writing, as determined by Rotten Tomatoes staff.

So, not everyone with a keyboard + mouse, at all.

You left out the broadcast and online requirements. There are a lot of bloggers who count.

I have to admit I'm shocked that some of those bloggers are doing half a million unique monthly visitors.

 Ahtman wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
so it's currently almost on par as the All Critics.

I just checked again and Top Critics is 53%, which I don't believe is on par with 79%.

Just a general shorthand but this is how the jargon seemingly translates:

Top Critics = aggregate of professional film critics
All Critics = aggregate of professional film critics + people with an internet connection and keyboard

I don't really get the argument about women (or girls) dressing up as Ghostbusters meaning that it has an impact because I have seen female Ghostbuters cosplay for some time.

Personnaly I am going to have to wait to hear from some people I trust the opinions of to decide whether to see it or not.

I'm getting this:



With 76% on all critics. When I go and actually count the Top Critics... there are 10 rotten. What is going on?

It's also saying in top critics there are 18 reviews when there are 20 total. I've tried deleting cache and using other browsers (even IE) and it's the same for me.

I've asked a few people to check with me and they're getting 50%. I'm just gonna assume it's on my end.

 Ouze wrote:
you're stating that it's an average of critics + the general public

Actually that isn't what I stated at all. What I said was "how the jargon seemingly translates". "Seemingly" is a fairly distinct word with a different meaning than "actually". If you are going to be churlish at least be more accurate.

 Ouze wrote:
So, not everyone with a keyboard + mouse, at all.

It is nice that they have presented standards for All Critics but All Critics still comes across as fairly useless unless there is a specific blogger et al you are looking for. Me? I only trust Youtube critics.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

I'm getting this:

Just went to it again and it is saying that All Critics have it at 78% and Top Critics is at 50%.

Either way it is still a "wait and see" kind of movie. Until hear from people I know, or some Dakkites, I'm not going. My "hope it is good" slot is already taken up by Star Trek Beyond and Suicide Squad at the moment. It sort of sucks though as I like the people in it but man so far nothing makes me think it is worth seeing in the theater yet.

I wasn't trying to be churlish at all, simply correcting what appeared to be an inaccuracy.

And yeah, I'm definitely waiting until it's been out for at least a week to even think about seeing it, perhaps the early reviews are an outlier.

 Compel wrote:
The Nerdist's revieew was basically, "it's fine."

They go on to say, (and I'm paraphrasing cause I misplaced the link) "they wish it was an amazing comedic masterpiece to shut up all the complaints about the casting, but the truth is, the films fine, not outstanding, not terrible, fine."

They also say that if you like Paul Feige films, you'll really enjoy it, if you dislike Paul Feige films, you'll still dislike it.

Of course, I'm sitting there going, "Who's Paul Feige?"

Here is his IMDB Director list: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0082450/#director

1 episode each of Parks and Recreation, 30 Rock. 7 episodes of Arrested development. Movies include Spy and Heat (I've never seen either).

Honest question here, for either those who were really fighting for it or really fighting against it.

Do the reviews even matter? Or would it be a case of 'this review disagrees, bad/amateur/inconsequential reviewer'?

 curran12 wrote:
Honest question here, for either those who were really fighting for it or really fighting against it.

Do the reviews even matter? Or would it be a case of 'this review disagrees, bad/amateur/inconsequential reviewer'?

I was never fighting for or against it. I'm a fan of the original and of the cartoon show. I was not impressed by the trailers and since my wife and I both work and have kids our ability to go see movies is limited so we have an admittedly high bar for going out to see stuff in the theater. Reviews can influence our decision if we're on the fence about making time to go see a movie but not if we both are turned off by the trailer.

 curran12 wrote:
Honest question here, for either those who were really fighting for it or really fighting against it.

Do the reviews even matter? Or would it be a case of 'this review disagrees, bad/amateur/inconsequential reviewer'?

Reviews from any reviewer who tries to make it about "misogynists" can be safely dismissed, but it's worth listening to anyone who hated the trailers but was forced to admit the movie was actually really good, or who had realised the folly of parroting the director's bigoted propaganda to defend a movie that doesn't deserve it.

 curran12 wrote:
Honest question here, for either those who were really fighting for it or really fighting against it.

Do the reviews even matter? Or would it be a case of 'this review disagrees, bad/amateur/inconsequential reviewer'?

Aggregate reviews don't matter. They're just about the most worthless thing there is for anything that isn't universally acclaimed or scorned. Look at the individual reviews for BvS. Just about everyone thinks it was a flawed movie, and yet there are critics who thought it was horrendous and those who were overall positive about it. They can't both be "right."

The thing to do with movie reviewers has always been -- and this is easier than ever now -- to find reviewers that tend to line up with your tastes and then pay attention to their reviews. It might not even be one reviewer -- you might have a go-to reviewer for serious stuff, and another for brain candy films.

 gorgon wrote:
The thing to do with movie reviewers has always been -- and this is easier than ever now -- to find reviewers that tend to line up with your tastes and then pay attention to their reviews.

I think Roger Ebert said it well. I don't have the exact quote handy, but he said that when a review is well written, you'll know if you'd like a movie even if he didn't, which is something I've often found true for his reviews. I've read a lot of his books and I've liked them all.

 Ouze wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
The thing to do with movie reviewers has always been -- and this is easier than ever now -- to find reviewers that tend to line up with your tastes and then pay attention to their reviews.

I think Roger Ebert said it well. I don't have the exact quote handy, but he said that when a review is well written, you'll know if you'd like a movie even if he didn't, which is something I've often found true for his reviews. I've read a lot of his books and I've liked them all.

Yeah, that quote pretty much hits the nail on the head. You can never go on a "star rating", or a simple "I thought it was rubbish" as it tells you nothing about the film. A description about a performance, or the story telling however can tell you all you need to know.

From the descriptions I've read about this new ghostbusters film, it sounds utterly woeful, and every bit as bad as the trailers made it look.

 Ouze wrote:
I wasn't trying to be churlish

Disrespectful and mean-spirited. Just full of hate to others thoughts and ideas.

I've seen/heard/read several review now, including a few from people I trust and the overall opinion seems to be it's not terrible, but it's not great. It's got some flaw and it's got some good parts but it's largely forgettable.

What it apparently is not though is as good as the original, which is unsurprising. I'm sure Feig disagrees, but then he seems to have an open bias in favour of women. If his intention was, as that article says 'make the case for female superiority' he has failed dismally.

 kronk wrote:

Compel wrote:
Of course, I'm sitting there going, "Who's Paul Feige?"

Here is his IMDB Director list: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0082450/#director

1 episode each of Parks and Recreation, 30 Rock. 7 episodes of Arrested development. Movies include Spy and Heat (I've never seen either).

Thanks Kronk but I was bring rhetorical. :-P

It's more along the lines of "this person has had no impact our influence on my life so meh."

To be honest, I accept that Spy is generally seen as a good film, is available on demand for me to watch right now for free. Still can't be bothered watching it. Or 90% of the other films I'm vaguely interested in seeing but can't be bothered going to the effort to watch them. And that doesn't involve me getting off my couch, nevermind going to the cinema.

Spy was actually pretty good. I really, really, really didn't want to see it, but my fiancee dragged me. I enjoyed it a lot. Statham has surprisingly good comedic timing.

Agree both with Spy being hilarious, and it largely being because of Statham. Spy I thought looked like garbage until it was scoring some monster numbers on RT - like 90+ % at the time if I recall. I was very surprised by how funny it was, at it's almost wholly responsible for why I felt initially cautiously optimistic about Ghostbusters.

 Compel wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Compel wrote:
Of course, I'm sitting there going, "Who's Paul Feige?"

Here is his IMDB Director list: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0082450/#director

1 episode each of Parks and Recreation, 30 Rock. 7 episodes of Arrested development. Movies include Spy and Heat (I've never seen either).

Thanks Kronk but I was bring rhetorical. :-P

It's more along the lines of "this person has had no impact our influence on my life so meh."

I'd never heard of the guy, either and agree that "If you like X's work, you'll like this movie" isn't helpful if you don't know who X is.

Watched it last night, awful awful film, had its funny moments, but on the whole garbage, so many scenes that sucked, we're totally pointless and just made me cringe with how bad it was, male or female I couldn't give a gak, they have put another nail into my murdered childhood....

 Formosa wrote:
Watched it last night, awful awful film, had its funny moments, but on the whole garbage, so many scenes that sucked, we're totally pointless and just made me cringe with how bad it was, male or female I couldn't give a gak, they have put another nail into my murdered childhood....

Out of morbid curiosity, what made the bad parts so bad?

 General Kroll wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Watched it last night, awful awful film, had its funny moments, but on the whole garbage, so many scenes that sucked, we're totally pointless and just made me cringe with how bad it was, male or female I couldn't give a gak, they have put another nail into my murdered childhood....

Out of morbid curiosity, what made the bad parts so bad?

I am also interested!

I encouraged one of my friends to see it first and report back. With the current price of tickets it's rare I see anything in the theater but this is Ghostbusters, so I have to at least consider it.

Buddy of mine and his wife went to see it for her birthday. She loved it, he (die hard GB fan) hated it. Also, from the sounds of it, it's pretty much women empowerment = putting men down/misandry jokes/jokes about the "haters and trolls on the internet". So, everything the trailer made it out to be.

I'll let my wife and her sister and mom watch it, this gets a strict "Pass" from me.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Buddy of mine and his wife went to see it for her birthday. She loved it, he (die hard GB fan) hated it. Also, from the sounds of it, it's pretty much women empowerment = putting men down/misandry jokes/jokes about the "haters and trolls on the internet". So, everything the trailer made it out to be.

I'll let my wife and her sister and mom watch it, this gets a strict "Pass" from me.

This was exactly my strategy.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Also, from the sounds of it, it's pretty much women empowerment = putting men down/misandry jokes/jokes about the "haters and trolls on the internet".

While I've heard there's not too much of that, I've also heard from several sources:



The most tragic thing is that if it bombs and makes 1/3rd of what it cost to make (which I believe is the approximate prediction) back, that's a 100 million dollar lesson for Hollywood execs. Say what you will about them but if there's one thing they do respect it's the almighty dollar. And the next time someone comes along with an idea for a film with an all female cast, this lesson will be in their minds.

I was initially excited to see this, because I like Kate McKinnon and to a lesser extent Kristen Wiig, and even despite the fact that I really love Ghostbusters. I didn't expect it to be great and even stuck up for the first trailer when friends compared the CGI to last-gen console gaming. I stayed away from the back and forth over the second trailer. But even at a distance from the fray, I now have no interest whatsoever is seeing this, either in the cinema or (in two months) on a TV or tablet screen.

 Kojiro wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Also, from the sounds of it, it's pretty much women empowerment = putting men down/misandry jokes/jokes about the "haters and trolls on the internet".

While I've heard there's not too much of that, I've also heard from several sources:

Spoiler:

That the big bad is a male, and the coup de grace is to shoot him in the junk.

The most tragic thing is that if it bombs and makes 1/3rd of what it cost to make (which I believe is the approximate prediction) back, that's a 100 million dollar lesson for Hollywood execs. Say what you will about them but if there's one thing they do respect it's the almighty dollar. And the next time someone comes along with an idea for a film with an all female cast, this lesson will be in their minds.

Yeah, not the first I've heard about the ending. Second, the fact that Chris Hemsworth is a dumb hunky eye candy. Real progressive casting, right? Considering Annie Potts (attractive as she is) was hired to be their personal secretary and financial advisor, and never cast as dumb eye candy.

Second, I can't type fething Ghostbusters without getting the new crap why couldn't it have just been called Ghostbusters 3 or some subtitle??

I don't see how having something as eye candy automatically makes it unprogressive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
Watched it last night, awful awful film, had its funny moments, but on the whole garbage, so many scenes that sucked, we're totally pointless and just made me cringe with how bad it was, male or female I couldn't give a gak, they have put another nail into my murdered childhood....

I never got this "ruined my childhood" thing, I mean the older content that you still love exists why not just keep enjoying that?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Watched it last night, awful awful film, had its funny moments, but on the whole garbage, so many scenes that sucked, we're totally pointless and just made me cringe with how bad it was, male or female I couldn't give a gak, they have put another nail into my murdered childhood....

I never got this "ruined my childhood" thing, I mean the older content that you still love exists why not just keep enjoying that?

Or why we're pretending Ghostbusters 2 didn't thoroughly poop all over the franchise when Kate McKinnon was still in diapers.


Anyway, Ghostbusters is now certified fresh with a 75% on Rotten Tomatoes.

 Ouze wrote:


Anyway, Ghostbusters is now certified fresh with a 75% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Which is such a specious thing. Read some of the fresh reviews. This is how the "fresh" review from the WSJ ends:

"Silly is endangered these days, and normal has come under withering fire from stupendous, yet tedious, visual effects. Busting ghosts used to be a lot more fun"

That's fresh?

Richard Roeper hated it. I hope it does very, very poorly so they don't do another.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't see how having something as eye candy automatically makes it unprogressive.

I think it's more that eye candy is objectification and progressives have spent some energy in recent years telling us that objectification is bad. At least it's bad when done to women.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I never got this "ruined my childhood" thing, I mean the older content that you still love exists why not just keep enjoying that?

Ruining childhoods is hyperbolic. It's more like saying 'I am a fan of X, and this director/writer/producer etc has failed to treat X with the respect I believe it deserves.'

I keep imagining a 40k movie by Michael Bay, where they Blood Angels and the Space Wolves are merged into the Blood Wolves and the marines behave exactly like US military soldiers, where they wear 'power armour' which is little more than a exo-skeleton and the whole movie is about how they must fight some metallic, multi part, bass dropping semi anthropomorphic machines called 'Necrons'. There's a subplot about how being a marine conflicts with the marine sergeants super hot wife's desire to start a family and it turns out a staggering number of 21st century companies are still selling stuff in the 41s millennium. Space Marines drink Bud Lite FOR THE EMPEROR!

Could make a ton at the box office and have great (hypothetically speaking) movie reviews and even be a good watch. But even with 40Ks vastly changing history and narrative, there's no way anyone could claim that's a good 40k movie. I'm not saying that's what happened with GB here, but I can completely understand why people want stories and lore they love to be treated with respect.

seems the movie is having trouble hitting China, which is going to be a big ding to the bottom line

Personally, i've yet to hear anything about this movie to change my decision to maybe watch it if its on tv late one night and i can't sleep

 Kojiro wrote:
And the next time someone comes along with an idea for a film with an all female cast, this lesson will be in their minds.

The all gender of the cast doesn't matter, although it certainly looks tokenistic, its the execution that does.

My son is obsessed with Ghostbusters but as this film is a 12 he can't go and see it, luckily for me.

Hey, remember that time no one ever speculated that a movie failed because of an all-male cast? I mean, can you find a single review for 13 hours that trots that out?

I think unlike other major films, weren't banking on China. If they were, sometime really fethed up their market research and that person really should leave the industry.

By all accounts I've ready, you do *not* make a film about ghosts and expect it to sell in China.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
And the next time someone comes along with an idea for a film with an all female cast, this lesson will be in their minds.

The all gender of the cast doesn't matter, although it certainly looks tokenistic, its the execution that does.

Make an all female cast, I don't care, but don't run your marketing campaign with the all female cast being your main selling point and if you don't like it that Clearly means you're a woman hating misogynist.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't see how having something as eye candy automatically makes it unprogressive.

I think it's more that eye candy is objectification and progressives have spent some energy in recent years telling us that objectification is bad. At least it's bad when [b]only[b] done to women.

There's your mistake. Objectification is fine. The problem is when objectification happens disproportionately to one group.

 Goliath wrote:
There's your mistake. Objectification is fine. The problem is when objectification happens disproportionately to one group.

Is that to imply that if men were as objectified as women- removing the disproportionate element- there would be no problem? The 'inequality' is that women just aren't sexually objectifying men enough?

If they were objectified equally then it would be fine, imo. That isn't to say that more objectifying of males is the answer, as I still think that there is a bit too much.

The inequality is that it is overwhelmingly men objectifying women, and occasionally men objectifying men. There is such a disproportionate split at the higher levels of the film industry that it is never women objectifying men or women objectifying women. Yes, the objectification may be done *for* men or women, but that's not quite the same thing.

 Ouze wrote:
Hey, remember that time no one ever speculated that a movie failed because of an all-male cast? I mean, can you find a single review for 13 hours that trots that out?

I've said before that it might have been to The Hobbit films' benefit if they replaced a few of Thorin's Company with female dwarves just to make their jobs easier. Since the original was a children's book where half of them were just rhyming names but they wanted them to be more distinct in the films, including both male and female dwarves would give them a broader range of visual distinctiveness to work with.

 Goliath wrote:
IThere is such a disproportionate split ...

So you're ok with them being equally objectified, but you don't want to increase the amount of male objectification?Ergo you want women less objectified, since that's the only way to negate that disproportionate split. Am I reading that right? It seems at odds with your comment that 'objectification is fine' as it is, overall, an argument to significantly lessen objectification by bringing female objectification down to the level of males.

Is that a fair interpretation of your points?

 Kojiro wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
IThere is such a disproportionate split ...

So you're ok with them being equally objectified, but you don't want to increase the amount of male objectification?Ergo you want women less objectified, since that's the only way to negate that disproportionate split. Am I reading that right? It seems at odds with your comment that 'objectification is fine' as it is, overall, an argument to significantly lessen objectification by bringing female objectification down to the level of males.

Is that a fair interpretation of your points?

Disproportionate objectification based on who is doing the objectifying.
If a male director wants to use a female character as eye candy, go ahead.
If a female director wants to use a female character as eye candy, go ahead.
If a female director wants to use a male character as eye candy, go ahead.
If a male director wants to use a male character as eye candy, go ahead.

The problem is when the movie industry contains an overwhelming majority of that first line.

 General Kroll wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Watched it last night, awful awful film, had its funny moments, but on the whole garbage, so many scenes that sucked, we're totally pointless and just made me cringe with how bad it was, male or female I couldn't give a gak, they have put another nail into my murdered childhood....

Out of morbid curiosity, what made the bad parts so bad?

it was its utter predictability, the new gadgets for the sake of "new" slow motion combat scene that was laughable in the extreme and downright terrible in almost every way, the proton guns kill the ghosts, the special effects just looked stupid and cheap, the Feminazism, that if it was rolls reversed, people would be calling for a ban on the film, I mean, they shot the bad guy in the Dick! wtf is that all about, the main female character came across as rapey, that's right, she drooled over Hemsworth the entire film, again, rolls reversed, that's sexual harassment, it just goes on and on, people, avoid this garbage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kojiro wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't see how having something as eye candy automatically makes it unprogressive.

I think it's more that eye candy is objectification and progressives have spent some energy in recent years telling us that objectification is bad. At least it's bad when done to women.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I never got this "ruined my childhood" thing, I mean the older content that you still love exists why not just keep enjoying that?

Ruining childhoods is hyperbolic. It's more like saying 'I am a fan of X, and this director/writer/producer etc has failed to treat X with the respect I believe it deserves.'

I keep imagining a 40k movie by Michael Bay, where they Blood Angels and the Space Wolves are merged into the Blood Wolves and the marines behave exactly like US military soldiers, where they wear 'power armour' which is little more than a exo-skeleton and the whole movie is about how they must fight some metallic, multi part, bass dropping semi anthropomorphic machines called 'Necrons'. There's a subplot about how being a marine conflicts with the marine sergeants super hot wife's desire to start a family and it turns out a staggering number of 21st century companies are still selling stuff in the 41s millennium. Space Marines drink Bud Lite FOR THE EMPEROR!

Could make a ton at the box office and have great (hypothetically speaking) movie reviews and even be a good watch. But even with 40Ks vastly changing history and narrative, there's no way anyone could claim that's a good 40k movie. I'm not saying that's what happened with GB here, but I can completely understand why people want stories and lore they love to be treated with respect.

Its not hyperbole mate, Hollywood keeps taking stories I loved as a child and growing up, sapping any kind of heart that film had, ignoring the established theme of the films (which is why so many loved them) and basically turning them into a joke, now when I mention ghostbusters to people, they will probably go "what that terrible film with the chicks fighting ghosts" the reputation of the movie has been ruined.

Saw it last night, good but not great just like the original. Nice to see more women watching a big hype action sci-fi comedy then men for once. The cast worked out well with each being different and played against each other well. Chris Helmsworth looked like he had a ton of fun. All of the pokes at the internet rage fest were some of the best parts. The cameos were all good and was nice that they showed their support and don't need original fans being faux outraged on their behalf.

All and all I think its worth spending the few dollars to see it. If you have a woman or girl in your life, wife/girlfriend/daughter, I would definitely say take them to see it. They deserve seeing movies that speak to them, especially a big budget flashy popcorn action-comedies..

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Saw it last night, good but not great just like the original. Nice to see more women watching a big hype action sci-fi comedy then men for once. The cast worked out well with each being different and played against each other well. Chris Helmsworth looked like he had a ton of fun. All of the pokes at the internet rage fest were some of the best parts. The cameos were all good and was nice that they showed their support and don't need original fans being faux outraged on their behalf.

All and all I think its worth spending the few dollars to see it. If you have a woman or girl in your life, wife/girlfriend/daughter, I would definitely say take them to see it. They deserve seeing movies that speak to them, especially a big budget flashy popcorn action-comedies..

Im sorry. But the original is one of, if not the greatest action comedy films of the 1980s if not all time. To say it's not great is ludicrous. If it wasn't considered one of the greatest films of all time, they wouldn't have made this new garbage remake in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Watched it last night, awful awful film, had its funny moments, but on the whole garbage, so many scenes that sucked, we're totally pointless and just made me cringe with how bad it was, male or female I couldn't give a gak, they have put another nail into my murdered childhood....

Out of morbid curiosity, what made the bad parts so bad?

it was its utter predictability, the new gadgets for the sake of "new" slow motion combat scene that was laughable in the extreme and downright terrible in almost every way, the proton guns kill the ghosts, the special effects just looked stupid and cheap, the Feminazism, that if it was rolls reversed, people would be calling for a ban on the film, I mean, they shot the bad guy in the Dick! wtf is that all about, the main female character came across as rapey, that's right, she drooled over Hemsworth the entire film, again, rolls reversed, that's sexual harassment, it just goes on and on, people, avoid this garbage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kojiro wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I don't see how having something as eye candy automatically makes it unprogressive.

I think it's more that eye candy is objectification and progressives have spent some energy in recent years telling us that objectification is bad. At least it's bad when done to women.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I never got this "ruined my childhood" thing, I mean the older content that you still love exists why not just keep enjoying that?

Ruining childhoods is hyperbolic. It's more like saying 'I am a fan of X, and this director/writer/producer etc has failed to treat X with the respect I believe it deserves.'

I keep imagining a 40k movie by Michael Bay, where they Blood Angels and the Space Wolves are merged into the Blood Wolves and the marines behave exactly like US military soldiers, where they wear 'power armour' which is little more than a exo-skeleton and the whole movie is about how they must fight some metallic, multi part, bass dropping semi anthropomorphic machines called 'Necrons'. There's a subplot about how being a marine conflicts with the marine sergeants super hot wife's desire to start a family and it turns out a staggering number of 21st century companies are still selling stuff in the 41s millennium. Space Marines drink Bud Lite FOR THE EMPEROR!

Could make a ton at the box office and have great (hypothetically speaking) movie reviews and even be a good watch. But even with 40Ks vastly changing history and narrative, there's no way anyone could claim that's a good 40k movie. I'm not saying that's what happened with GB here, but I can completely understand why people want stories and lore they love to be treated with respect.

Its not hyperbole mate, Hollywood keeps taking stories I loved as a child and growing up, sapping any kind of heart that film had, ignoring the established theme of the films (which is why so many loved them) and basically turning them into a joke, now when I mention ghostbusters to people, they will probably go "what that terrible film with the chicks fighting ghosts" the reputation of the movie has been ruined.

Thanks for the concise reply, that seems to be lining up with a lot of the other reviews I'm hearing about it being very very misanthropic. It sounds like the exact opposite of what I'd want to be showing my niece in a few years time to empower and entertain her and show her good female role models. Sounds like a film written by two bitter people who hate men to me. From the sounds of it, every man in the film is portrayed in the worst possible way imaginable. Hemsworths part seems like the least offensive of the lot being simply a jokey eye candy role, which I still find reprehensible, where if the genders were switched most of the people supporting this movie would be having a bloody meltdown.

It's such a shame that Feig has chosen to take a beloved comedy film and make it into a vehicle for his political point scoring. Don't get me wrong, if he'd wanted to make some kind of allegorical messag film, I'm all for that kind of thing, but make an original property and do it with that. Don't mess around with ghostbusters. This really just needed to be a fun romp that made everyone happy. It didn't need to be this.

I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

Its part that for sure. Original GB isn't not a perfect movie nor has it obviously made a mark as a cinematic master piece.

Also the new one is not misanthropic....that is just soooooo dumb.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

not even close mate, I like the star wars films, loved them growing up, but still admit they are bad films in terms of story etc. the original ghostbusters is certainly not a masterpiece by any standard, but its a very good film (to me) that I have enjoyed again and again, this new one represents (again, to me) the laziness of Hollywood these days, rehashing of an old idea, some slight nod to the originals for nostalgia purposes and every other effort is made to rake in the cash.

The thing it boils down to is this, the script is gak, had they done it properly, slightly darker, even with the 12A rating, it could have been good, or even great, but they chose the wrong person at the head of this movie, and all blame lies with him.... and the script writers

Two movies: one is about women trying to escape a cult of tumour-encrusted, machismo-obsessed white male sex slavers, and the other is Ghostbusters 2016. The creator of which one do you think has healthier views about men?

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

"Ruining my childhood" is code for "The mold has been broken. Hollywood has squandered this chance to get more of the thing we like, and will inevitably blame anything except their lack of respect for the tried and tested strengths of the original if it fails."

 AlexHolker wrote:
Two movies: one is about women trying to escape a cult of tumour-encrusted, machismo-obsessed white male sex slavers, and the other is Ghostbusters 2016. The creator of which one do you think has healthier views about men?

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

"Ruining my childhood" is code for "The mold has been broken. Hollywood has squandered this chance to get more of the thing we like, and will inevitably blame anything except their lack of respect for the tried and tested strengths of the original if it fails."

I think the "ruined childhood" thing is part of the inherent conservatism in geek culture regarding franchises. Geeks tend to want "more" and "better" and "new" so long as it doesn't dare be "different". This explains why geeks may seem perpetually dissatisfied with their favorite franchises.


I haven't seen this Ghostbusters, and so can't actually compare it to MM:FR. However, I'd say that MM:FR was a deft handling of gender issues, simply because it wasn't simplistic and dumb. As I saw it, the message wasn't that "men are to blame" so much as "certain men are to blame." Max is a confirmation that there are good, noble men in the world...who are also still strong, tough and masculine. It's not an indictment of masculinity, but a condemnation of the distortion of masculine ideals.

Furiosa is a great character because she's a woman and an action hero but not a "woman action hero," if that makes sense. She's not objectified like Lara Croft, etc., and although she's a woman with a woman's POV, she's still strong, tough and capable on an action hero level in a non-gender-specific way.

I think I feel/understand this in my brain better than I can explain it, or have time to explain it. *shrug*

It's possible that Ghostbusters may also handle gender issues well, but what we've heard of Helmsworth's character and the bad guy getting blasted in the ding-dong doesn't inspire confidence.

BrotherGecko wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

Its part that for sure. Original GB isn't not a perfect movie nor has it obviously made a mark as a cinematic master piece.

Also the new one is not misanthropic....that is just soooooo dumb.

You know what, how about addressing the points your disagreeing with rather than just calling them dumb? What a facile and childish manner of debate...

How is portraying almost every male character in the movie as either Evil, Stupid, or simply eye candy, with finale where the villain is defeated by being shot in the dick NOT misanthropic? Had the genders been reversed, every feminist on the planet would be readying their placards and picketing Sony and every cinema showing this garbage.

AlexHolker wrote:Two movies: one is about women trying to escape a cult of tumour-encrusted, machismo-obsessed white male sex slavers, and the other is Ghostbusters 2016. The creator of which one do you think has healthier views about men?

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

"Ruining my childhood" is code for "The mold has been broken. Hollywood has squandered this chance to get more of the thing we like, and will inevitably blame anything except their lack of respect for the tried and tested strengths of the original if it fails."

Sorry Alex, but Mad Max and Ghostbusters simply don't match up, you're companion oranges and apples. MM is set in a dystopian future where the world has gone to hell, people are going to be doing horrible things to each other and values are going to be screwed up. It's fantasy. The views on men aren't meant to represent what modern 2016 is actually like. The Ghostbusters remake, while a comedy, is still set in the real world, for the comedy to work it still needs to be grounded and represent a realistic view of the world.

And let's get this straight once and for all. No one is "Ruining my childhood" my DVDs of Ghosbusters, and Ghosbusters 2 are still on my shelf. I can still download them in HD off sky movies. They still exist. It's fine. I'm just pissed off we didn't get a proper third sequel. We could have got a continuation of the story that made everyone happy, it could have been glorious, it could have been fun, and it could have made everyone happy.

There was no need to reboot the franchise. It would have been very easy to pass the torch, there likely would have been none or at least much less of this fuss, and the fans would have on the whole been happy. Instead, most of us feel like we've been slapped in the face. To make things worse, the arrogant director of the movie has made some horrendous comments about ghostbusters fans and geeks in general, as has Melissa McArthy.

It's all left a very sour taste in the mouth.

 General Kroll wrote:

BrotherGecko wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

Its part that for sure. Original GB isn't not a perfect movie nor has it obviously made a mark as a cinematic master piece.

Also the new one is not misanthropic....that is just soooooo dumb.

You know what, how about addressing the points your disagreeing with rather than just calling them dumb? What a facile and childish manner of debate...

How is portraying almost every male character in the movie as either Evil, Stupid, or simply eye candy, with finale where the villain is defeated by being shot in the dick NOT misanthropic? Had the genders been reversed, every feminist on the planet would be readying their placards and picketing Sony and every cinema showing this garbage.

One: Nobody called nut shots misanthropic until this movie. In fact its generally consider an acceptable place to target on a man if you want to take them down. Its a crude joke not a misanthropic one, it doesn't establish hate. You could agrue it establishes contempt for the villain but not for men in general.

Two: Helmsworth's character is a deliberate subversion of the dumb blonde eye candy that is typically reserved for women in all men movies. If it bothers you so much that it exists then good because that is how a lot of women feel about all your favorite stuff. Helmsworth very clearly enjoyed playing his role for the exact reasons for its existence, unless of course you believe he was unable to understand what he was doing on account of his general movie persona, which would be closer to misanthropic than his role.

Three: the dumb guy is a guy and the bad guy is a guy but the good guys are gals is not and I feel the need to repeat this, is not misanthropic or more specifically not misandrist.

Four: your final point is at best a really bad strawman. At worse it is a complete an utter missing of the point on why feminism has issues with token roles that women get forced into with "good ole boys" movies.

I didn't initially address your points directly because they were easily summed up. The added fact that nothing will change your victim complex because your bias has throughly and comfortably been confirmed.

And now I fell into the sealion's trap again.

It was a fun movie: B-

Sometimes, people are so anti-Tumblr, that they end up going full-Tumblr in response.

 General Kroll wrote:

AlexHolker wrote:Two movies: one is about women trying to escape a cult of tumour-encrusted, machismo-obsessed white male sex slavers, and the other is Ghostbusters 2016. The creator of which one do you think has healthier views about men?

Sorry Alex, but Mad Max and Ghostbusters simply don't match up, you're companion oranges and apples. MM is set in a dystopian future where the world has gone to hell, people are going to be doing horrible things to each other and values are going to be screwed up. It's fantasy. The views on men aren't meant to represent what modern 2016 is actually like. The Ghostbusters remake, while a comedy, is still set in the real world, for the comedy to work it still needs to be grounded and represent a realistic view of the world.

That was what I was going for. George Miller made a movie about horrible men, but not because he believes that all men are horrible men. Paul Feig, if he is not a bigot himself, is at least willing to stir up bigotry to try to profit off of it.

BrotherGecko wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

BrotherGecko wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

Its part that for sure. Original GB isn't not a perfect movie nor has it obviously made a mark as a cinematic master piece.

Also the new one is not misanthropic....that is just soooooo dumb.

You know what, how about addressing the points your disagreeing with rather than just calling them dumb? What a facile and childish manner of debate...

How is portraying almost every male character in the movie as either Evil, Stupid, or simply eye candy, with finale where the villain is defeated by being shot in the dick NOT misanthropic? Had the genders been reversed, every feminist on the planet would be readying their placards and picketing Sony and every cinema showing this garbage.

One: Nobody called nut shots misanthropic until this movie. In fact its generally consider an acceptable place to target on a man if you want to take them down. Its a crude joke not a misanthropic one, it doesn't establish hate. You could agrue it establishes contempt for the villain but not for men in general.

Two: Helmsworth's character is a deliberate subversion of the dumb blonde eye candy that is typically reserved for women in all men movies. If it bothers you so much that it exists then good because that is how a lot of women feel about all your favorite stuff. Helmsworth very clearly enjoyed playing his role for the exact reasons for its existence, unless of course you believe he was unable to understand what he was doing on account of his general movie persona, which would be closer to misanthropic than his role.

Three: the dumb guy is a guy and the bad guy is a guy but the good guys are gals is not and I feel the need to repeat this, is not misanthropic or more specifically not misandrist.

Four: your final point is at best a really bad strawman. At worse it is a complete an utter missing of the point on why feminism has issues with token roles that women get forced into with "good ole boys" movies.

I didn't initially address your points directly because they were easily summed up. The added fact that nothing will change your victim complex because your bias has throughly and comfortably been confirmed.

And now I fell into the sealion's trap again.

It was a fun movie: B-

You are willfully ignoring the compound context of the whole thing. When that "nutshot" as you so eloquently put it, is the maguffin that solves the damn movie, which is full of negative male characters, while at the same time being promoted as a "girl power" movie then damn right it's being misanthropic.

"Where do all males get their power from? Oh yeah their dick!"

That particular scene is the culmination of months of controversy, and a couple of hours of men being portrayed as either stupid, creepy, weird, evil, or no used other than eye candy. And then they can be taken down by their one weakness...their genitals. What an empowering message to be sending to those young smiling children dressed as ghostbusters that someone posted pictures of earlier in this thread. I'm so pleased and glad that they will grow up thinking that's how men should be considered.

d-usa wrote:Sometimes, people are so anti-Tumblr, that they end up going full-Tumblr in response.

I'm not "anti tumblr or anti feminist, of any of those bs labels that people like to attribute to others when having discussions, I'm calling what I see here. I think this film was clearly made with a political agenda in mind. It didn't need to be made like that, it was a pointless layer that just added controversy and barriers that did not need to be there.

AlexHolker wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

AlexHolker wrote:Two movies: one is about women trying to escape a cult of tumour-encrusted, machismo-obsessed white male sex slavers, and the other is Ghostbusters 2016. The creator of which one do you think has healthier views about men?

Sorry Alex, but Mad Max and Ghostbusters simply don't match up, you're companion oranges and apples. MM is set in a dystopian future where the world has gone to hell, people are going to be doing horrible things to each other and values are going to be screwed up. It's fantasy. The views on men aren't meant to represent what modern 2016 is actually like. The Ghostbusters remake, while a comedy, is still set in the real world, for the comedy to work it still needs to be grounded and represent a realistic view of the world.

That was what I was going for. George Miller made a movie about horrible men, but not because he believes that all men are horrible men. Paul Feig, if he is not a bigot himself, is at least willing to stir up bigotry to try to profit off of it.

Quite frankly, from his comments, and the way he makes his movies, I think Feig is a bigot, his disgusting comments about geeks show that quite clearly.

 d-usa wrote:
Sometimes, people are so anti-Tumblr, that they end up going full-Tumblr in response.

He who fights tumblr should look to it that they them self do not become tumblr . . . when you gaze long into the internets the internets also gazes into you

- Freddy Nietzsche, Beyond Imgur and 4chan

 General Kroll wrote:
Im sorry. But the original is one of, if not the greatest action comedy films of the 1980s if not all time.

Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, 48 Hours, Big Trouble in Little China, The Blues Brothers, and Midnight Run would like to have a word with you.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Im sorry. But the original is one of, if not the greatest action comedy films of the 1980s if not all time.

Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, 48 Hours, Big Trouble in Little China, The Blues Brothers, and Midnight Run would like to have a word with you.

And Die Hard would like to have a word with you.

That's not saying the original Ghostbusters wasnt fantastic. It sits in the upper echelons of 80's films.

 -Loki- wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Im sorry. But the original is one of, if not the greatest action comedy films of the 1980s if not all time.

Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, 48 Hours, Big Trouble in Little China, The Blues Brothers, and Midnight Run would like to have a word with you.

And Die Hard would like to have a word with you.

Who are you responding to, because you don't make any sense.

For starters, Die Hard is just a straight up action movie, not an action comedy or any other action film sub-genre so it doesn't make sense to be in a list of action comedies like the one I made. Also, Die Hard is one of my favorite movies of all time, soooo... good try, I guess?

That's not saying the original Ghostbusters wasnt fantastic. It sits in the upper echelons of 80's films.

Yeah, Ghostbusters is a great movie and I'd put it on a list of "Great Comedies of the 80s." But Kroll said it's one of the best movies of all time, which is so laughably ridiculous it shouldn't even be responded to.

The original Ghostbusters would probably make my top 10 comedies, but one of the greatest movies of all time? That's a real stretch.

Good piece on how internet movie reviewing is broken, according to 538.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Im sorry. But the original is one of, if not the greatest action comedy films of the 1980s if not all time.

Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, 48 Hours, Big Trouble in Little China, The Blues Brothers, and Midnight Run would like to have a word with you.

And Die Hard would like to have a word with you.

Who are you responding to, because you don't make any sense.

For starters, Die Hard is just a straight up action movie, not an action comedy or any other action film sub-genre so it doesn't make sense to be in a list of action comedies like the one I made. Also, Die Hard is one of my favorite movies of all time, soooo... good try, I guess?

That's not saying the original Ghostbusters wasnt fantastic. It sits in the upper echelons of 80's films.

Yeah, Ghostbusters is a great movie and I'd put it on a list of "Great Comedies of the 80s." But Kroll said it's one of the best movies of all time, which is so laughably ridiculous it shouldn't even be responded to.

Yet here you are trolling away....even though that clearly wasn't the thrust of my argument. But don't let that get in the way of a good personal attack will you

The posts I was responding to were acting like it was a bad 80s comedy film, akin to an Adam Sandler Netflix exclusive. It clearly isn't. Ghostbusters is unarguably an all time classic. Sure you can list a bunch of other 80s classics that are comprable to it and also elicit fond memories, I'm not going to decry those films or say those are any better or worse. The 80s was a golden age frankly. We probably won't see it's like again. Especially when Hollywood seems set on dredging up its ideas and repackaging them for a modern audience over and over again. You can bet that if this movie does well enough that Back to the Future, or Beverly Hills Cop will be next. Maybe Beiber will play Mcfly, or they will have Will Smiths son as Axle Foley...won't that be ripper! Who knows maybe Justin could do a dub step cover of the power of love.

None of this crap takes away from the wonderful classics we were given in the 80s, it's just disappointing and annoying that a) we don't get cool and original movies anymore. When was the last time we got a blockbuster that wasn't based on a comic reboot or a sequel? b) the reboots we are getting seem to be deliberately excluding parts of the audience, this Ghostbusters film, seems to have gone out of its way to stick it's middle finger up to the old fan base. That seems like a shame to me. Things could have been so much different. Without all this controversy they probably would have made a lot more money this weekend. I know it's free publicity and all that, but sometimes bad news isn't always good publicity.

The older fan base already got a Ghostbusters movie, why make a movie for a smaller and aging fan base when you can make a movie for a younger and larger audience?

Watching it, it just seemed like a waste of the talents of the people involved.

 d-usa wrote:
The older fan base already got a Ghostbusters movie, why make a movie for a smaller and aging fan base when you can make a movie for a younger and larger audience?

Younger me got over kids finding a new way to enjoy Transformers, old Ghostbuster fans will survive this attack on their childhood too.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Watching it, it just seemed like a waste of the talents of the people involved.

Exactly

 Ouze wrote:
The original Ghostbusters would probably make my top 10 comedies, but one of the greatest movies of all time? That's a real stretch.

Good piece on how internet movie reviewing is broken, according to 538.

I think that's where I sit.

That being said, Ghostbusters, for me, is incredibly rewatch able and somehow doesn't feel very dated.

I think for me, Ghostbusters is one of those movies where there is a direct distinction between it being "good" and it being "enjoyable". I think there are a ton of movies that aren't good, but I still enjoy them.

 General Kroll wrote:
Yet here you are trolling away....even though that clearly wasn't the thrust of my argument. But don't let that get in the way of a good personal attack will you

I'm not trolling you nor am I "attacking" you so get over yourself, pal. You made a couple of hyperbolic statements and I pointed out that they were pretty ridiculous because they are.

The 80s was a golden age frankly.

Yeah, except it wasn't. The 80s are considered one of the worst decades of cinema, especially since it followed what is probably the greatest decade of cinema.

Well, I have the soundtrack in hand.

A lot of bad remixes of the original theme here.

Pentatonix remix of the original theme was probably the best track on it bar Ray Parker's Original, and..... that's not saying much. Some of them are flat out painful. Even Missy Elliot could not save Fallout Boy's remix of the original theme.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Yet here you are trolling away....even though that clearly wasn't the thrust of my argument. But don't let that get in the way of a good personal attack will you

I'm not trolling you nor am I "attacking" you so get over yourself, pal. You made a couple of hyperbolic statements and I pointed out that they were pretty ridiculous because they are.

The 80s was a golden age frankly.

Yeah, except it wasn't. The 80s are considered one of the worst decades of cinema, especially since it followed what is probably the greatest decade of cinema.

Opinions are going to differ...but I'm not the one who reeled off a list of great 80s movies a couple of pages back...

Personally, I'd say it was a golden age, especially for sc-fi, action and adventure. The fact that Hollywood is desperately trying to mine it for IP is quite telling.

Robocop 80s (remade) Ghostbusters 80s (remade) Indiana Jones 80s (recent sequel, due to be rebooted) Total Recall 80s (remade) Terminator franchise 80s (rebooted) Labrynth 80s (due to be remade) you even had a National Lampoon Vacation reboot past year.

Still like I said opinions will vary and we could argue about what decade is a great decade until we are blue in the face, but if the 80s were so goddam awful? Why are Hollywood dredging up so many of its franchises?

But seriously when was the last blockbuster that was based on an original idea? So not a comic book or a sequel, or a remake/reboot?

 General Kroll wrote:
Opinions are going to differ...but I'm not the one who reeled off a list of great 80s movies a couple of pages back...

What does that have to do with anything? Despite the 80s being a low watermark in the history of cinema, good movies were still made in that decade some of which I previously listed.

Personally, I'd say it was a golden age, especially for sc-fi, action and adventure. The fact that Hollywood is desperately trying to mine it for IP is quite telling.

That's fine if you think the 80s were a "Golden Age" for cinema. Plenty of people who know way more about movies than either of us do respectfully disagree with you about that.

Robocop 80s (remade) Ghostbusters 80s (remade) Indiana Jones 80s (recent sequel, due to be rebooted) Total Recall 80s (remade) Terminator franchise 80s (rebooted) Labrynth 80s (due to be remade) you even had a National Lampoon Vacation reboot past year.

Yeah, your point is what exactly? RoboCop, Ghostbusters, Terminator, and Indiana Jones are all popular multimedia franchises, which is why they are continuing to make movies about them. Total Recall isn't an original work to begin with and there are unconfirmed rumors that Labyrinth is being remade but chances are it isn't happening.

Still like I said opinions will vary and we could argue about what decade is a great decade until we are blue in the face, but if the 80s were so goddam awful? Why are Hollywood dredging up so many of its franchises?

Like I've already said, good movies came from the 80s despite the decade being not great as a whole. Surely you understand how something like that can be, right?

But seriously when was the last blockbuster that was based on an original idea? So not a comic book or a sequel, or a remake/reboot?

Blockbusters aren't the only kind of movie out there and there have been "original" blockbusters in recent years: Inception, Interstellar, Avatar (even though it is Last of the Mohicans in SPAAAAAACE!), Gravity, Frozen (loosely based on The Snow Queen), Pacific Rim. Besides, Hollywood has been derivative for its entire existence; this isn't some hip, new phase.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm starting to think that "ruining my childhood" is code for "forcing me to admit that the movie I thought was a cinematic masterpiece as a child really isn't all that good".

Sometimes that's the case but a lot of these remade properties do actually come from genuine classics like Ghostbusters, Robocop, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The older fan base already got a Ghostbusters movie, why make a movie for a smaller and aging fan base when you can make a movie for a younger and larger audience?

Honestly both concepts work for me, the idea of doing a remake that still appeals to the original fans is just as valid as modernizing it for newer audiences.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Opinions are going to differ...but I'm not the one who reeled off a list of great 80s movies a couple of pages back...

What does that have to do with anything? Despite the 80s being a low watermark in the history of cinema, good movies were still made in that decade some of which I previously listed.

Personally, I'd say it was a golden age, especially for sc-fi, action and adventure. The fact that Hollywood is desperately trying to mine it for IP is quite telling.

That's fine if you think the 80s were a "Golden Age" for cinema. Plenty of people who know way more about movies than either of us do respectfully disagree with you about that.

Robocop 80s (remade) Ghostbusters 80s (remade) Indiana Jones 80s (recent sequel, due to be rebooted) Total Recall 80s (remade) Terminator franchise 80s (rebooted) Labrynth 80s (due to be remade) you even had a National Lampoon Vacation reboot past year.

Yeah, your point is what exactly? RoboCop, Ghostbusters, Terminator, and Indiana Jones are all popular multimedia franchises, which is why they are continuing to make movies about them. Total Recall isn't an original work to begin with and there are unconfirmed rumors that Labyrinth is being remade but chances are it isn't happening.

Still like I said opinions will vary and we could argue about what decade is a great decade until we are blue in the face, but if the 80s were so goddam awful? Why are Hollywood dredging up so many of its franchises?

Like I've already said, good movies came from the 80s despite the decade being not great as a whole. Surely you understand how something like that can be, right?

But seriously when was the last blockbuster that was based on an original idea? So not a comic book or a sequel, or a remake/reboot?

Blockbusters aren't the only kind of movie out there and there have been "original" blockbusters in recent years: Inception, Interstellar, Avatar (even though it is Last of the Mohicans in SPAAAAAACE!), Gravity, Frozen (loosely based on The Snow Queen), Pacific Rim. Besides, Hollywood has been derivative for its entire existence; this isn't some hip, new phase.

Lol you're really scraping the barrel now aren't you...pacific rim? Really... Pull the other one. I'd hardly call any of the others smash hits, with the exception of Frozen and Avatar, popular movies sure. But not stand out Summer blockbusters that have spawned their own franchises. Their are by in large serious films that were Oscar fodder, that for some reason your trying to compare to Hollywood popcorn fodder. I find that odd in its own right. As you say, Frozen itself like most Disney princess films isn't based on an original concept, but jumps off from a traditional story.

How about you try comparing the argument at hand instead though? Summer popcorn films? It's pretty much all comic book movies, remakes, prequels, or sequels.

The last few summers have been dominated by the Marvel cinematic universe, the Star Trek reboots, the Terminator reboots, the Mad Max remake. Etc etc.

What do we have this summer? Ghostbusters, Turtles, Star Trek, Independence Day, and Suicide Squad.

Now don't get me wrong...I'm damn excited for the suicide squad. But I'd love to see this generations "ghostbusters, Star Trek and Independence Day" as in, original cool funny movies, that excite entertain and inspire me.

Back on the subject of Ghostbusters 2016, I just wish they'd made something that was a continuation of the old story line, and that was more respectful. I think they probably could have got away with a few more things had they done that. I've a feeling, this film will be swept under the rug come the end of the summer and Sony and Paul Feig will be hoping we all forget about it very soon.

So, I'm about 2/3rds of the way through watching Spy. Gotta say, there is some funny stuff in there (Alison Janney is great, but then, that's a tautology) and a couple of visual jokes I liked. - Overall, "Get Smart" is more appealing to me, which was a variant on the same sort of plotline.

However, there are a bunch of gags in there that do seem very, very similar to those in the Ghostbusters trailer - eg the vomit gags.

So yeah, I'll give Ghostbusters a pass, maybe see it when it comes on tv and if it isn't too long a film. But to pay about £25 for a day at the cinema, nah, definitely not, I'll pass.

 General Kroll wrote:
Lol you're really scraping the barrel now aren't you...pacific rim? Really... Pull the other one. I'd hardly call any of the others smash hits, with the exception of Frozen and Avatar, popular movies sure. But not stand out Summer blockbusters that have spawned their own franchises.

Your demands are contradictory. You can't reject the most recent Pacific Rim film because it's not part of a franchise (yet) when you were specifically complaining about there being too many films that are parts of franchises.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Lol you're really scraping the barrel now aren't you...pacific rim? Really... Pull the other one. I'd hardly call any of the others smash hits, with the exception of Frozen and Avatar, popular movies sure. But not stand out Summer blockbusters that have spawned their own franchises.

Your demands are contradictory. You can't reject the most recent Pacific Rim film because it's not part of a franchise (yet) when you were specifically complaining about there being too many films that are parts of franchises.

Wasn't Pacific Rim considered by many to be a flop? Sure it was an original film, great. But again, it's the exception rather than the rule, and it's hardly what could be considered a big hit and a household name. It's hardly this generations Indiana Jones, or Star Wars. Scoff all you like, but compare the biggest films of the year when the original Ghostbusters was released, and the biggest films of the year when the remake was released. And without looking them up is guess the top 10 in 1984 were dominated by original properties, while the top 10 this year will be dominated by comic book movies, reboots, or sequels.

I went and looked them up...only one or two of this years top grossing movies are original properties. http://www.imdb.com/list/ls031261985/
The rest are remakes, sequels, or based on comic books or novels.

1984 is a completely different story however... http://www.imdb.com/search/title?sort=boxoffice_gross_us&title_type=feature&year=1984,1984

Lots of original movies, still lots of movies based on books, and a couple of comic movies, but only four or five sequels out of the top fifty.

 General Kroll wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Lol you're really scraping the barrel now aren't you...pacific rim? Really... Pull the other one. I'd hardly call any of the others smash hits, with the exception of Frozen and Avatar, popular movies sure. But not stand out Summer blockbusters that have spawned their own franchises.

Your demands are contradictory. You can't reject the most recent Pacific Rim film because it's not part of a franchise (yet) when you were specifically complaining about there being too many films that are parts of franchises.

Wasn't Pacific Rim considered by many to be a flop? Sure it was an original film, great.

No. In the US it did not do so well, but internationally it did pretty good. They are making a second movie just because of its international success.

 General Kroll wrote:
Lol you're really scraping the barrel now aren't you...pacific rim? Really... Pull the other one. I'd hardly call any of the others smash hits, with the exception of Frozen and Avatar, popular movies sure. But not stand out Summer blockbusters that have spawned their own franchises. Their are by in large serious films that were Oscar fodder, that for some reason your trying to compare to Hollywood popcorn fodder. I find that odd in its own right. As you say, Frozen itself like most Disney princess films isn't based on an original concept, but jumps off from a traditional story.

You asked a question, I gave you an answer. It's not my fault you didn't like the answer. Also, "not smash hits?" Seriously? Let's look at some numbers, shall we?

Interstellar $675.1 million box office on a $165 million budget

Gravity: $723.2 million box office a $100 million budget

Inception: $825.5 million box office on a $160 million budget

I'd like to know in what world those wouldn't be considered successful films.

How about you try comparing the argument at hand instead though? Summer popcorn films? It's pretty much all comic book movies, remakes, prequels, or sequels.

See, now you're moving the goalposts. You asked for "blockbusters" and I gave you some. Since it proved you wrong, now you're asking for "summer popcorn films."

The last few summers have been dominated by the Marvel cinematic universe, the Star Trek reboots, the Terminator reboots, the Mad Max remake. Etc etc.

Terminator: Genisys and Mad Max: Fury Road weren't reboots.

What do we have this summer? Ghostbusters, Turtles, Star Trek, Independence Day, and Suicide Squad.

Now don't get me wrong...I'm damn excited for the suicide squad. But I'd love to see this generations "ghostbusters, Star Trek and Independence Day" as in, original cool funny movies, that excite entertain and inspire me.

Well I guess it's a good thing that Hollywood doesn't bow to the desires of one guy in the UK.

Back on the subject of Ghostbusters 2016, I just wish they'd made something that was a continuation of the old story line, and that was more respectful. I think they probably could have got away with a few more things had they done that. I've a feeling, this film will be swept under the rug come the end of the summer and Sony and Paul Feig will be hoping we all forget about it very soon.

I don't see how a soft reboot is disrespectful when Ghostbusters 2 already gak all over the franchise years ago.

 General Kroll wrote:
1984 is a completely different story however... http://www.imdb.com/search/title?sort=boxoffice_gross_us&title_type=feature&year=1984,1984

Lots of original movies, still lots of movies based on books, and a couple of comic movies, but only four or five sequels out of the top fifty.

You cherry picked one year out of a decade to try to prove your point. You could easily do the same with movies from, say... 2015. A handful of sequels, a bunch of book adaptions (Hollywood's favorite!), and lots of original films.

Today I learned today's movies are garbage because they are all bad movies with thin premises and sequels, and not at all like the decade that gave us 8 Friday the 13th films.

But at least we got 6 Police Academies out of it!

 d-usa wrote:
But at least we got 6 Police Academies out of it!

I liked that guy who could make the funny noises. He was so good, he got a lucrative Space Balls cameo.

So back on top, out of the two critics I follow online, MundaneMatt and Nostalgia Critic, both of them found the movie to be watchable but not great.

The common thread in their reviews was that the film has alot of dry spots where jokes just flat out fail. Some parts earned a chuckle or laugh only to be followed by stretches of silence.

Apperently it starts out strong even, and then promptly derails. Both these critics views I find to be in line with my tastes usually so I can trust officially this a pass for me.

I also found it humorous that both these men had women in thier lives have a negative reaction to the film. Mundane Matts girlfriend asked "Why does this movie hate men?" And "Can we get our money back?" While the Nostalgia Critic's mother stood up at the end and flat out declared "This sucks!"

The wife and daughter are going along with with several moms. The wife has made up a ghostbusters uniform to wear, but she did that when we went to the Sean of the Dead quote along too (where she won the chug a beer contest...)

I think Da Wimminz seem much more jazzed about seeing this.
Me I'm looking forward to quality parenting by taking the daughter to see Suicide Squad.

Someone brought up Mad Max: Fury Road and I think that's actually a great comparison for this film. MM:FR has a female lead, it's a reboot of a franchise where Mad Max is not the lead, and yet it's all around a better film. Why? It was well written, well directed, and done without the need to say "Hey, we have a female lead, look at this female cast". Sure, Max was in the film, but 90% of the time he was silent, assisting Charlize Theron, or just being a jerk.

Hell, even in the climax/pivotal scene, Max rides over to Charlize to deliver the epiphany, but she makes the choice. She also kills the big bad guy.

People don't have a problem with female leads, people have a problem with bad movies and cheap shots at nostalgia for profit's sake.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Lol you're really scraping the barrel now aren't you...pacific rim? Really... Pull the other one. I'd hardly call any of the others smash hits, with the exception of Frozen and Avatar, popular movies sure. But not stand out Summer blockbusters that have spawned their own franchises. Their are by in large serious films that were Oscar fodder, that for some reason your trying to compare to Hollywood popcorn fodder. I find that odd in its own right. As you say, Frozen itself like most Disney princess films isn't based on an original concept, but jumps off from a traditional story.

You asked a question, I gave you an answer. It's not my fault you didn't like the answer. Also, "not smash hits?" Seriously? Let's look at some numbers, shall we?

Interstellar $675.1 million box office on a $165 million budget

Gravity: $723.2 million box office a $100 million budget

Inception: $825.5 million box office on a $160 million budget

I'd like to know in what world those wouldn't be considered successful films.

How about you try comparing the argument at hand instead though? Summer popcorn films? It's pretty much all comic book movies, remakes, prequels, or sequels.

See, now you're moving the goalposts. You asked for "blockbusters" and I gave you some. Since it proved you wrong, now you're asking for "summer popcorn films."

The last few summers have been dominated by the Marvel cinematic universe, the Star Trek reboots, the Terminator reboots, the Mad Max remake. Etc etc.

Terminator: Genisys and Mad Max: Fury Road weren't reboots.

What do we have this summer? Ghostbusters, Turtles, Star Trek, Independence Day, and Suicide Squad.

Now don't get me wrong...I'm damn excited for the suicide squad. But I'd love to see this generations "ghostbusters, Star Trek and Independence Day" as in, original cool funny movies, that excite entertain and inspire me.

Well I guess it's a good thing that Hollywood doesn't bow to the desires of one guy in the UK.

Back on the subject of Ghostbusters 2016, I just wish they'd made something that was a continuation of the old story line, and that was more respectful. I think they probably could have got away with a few more things had they done that. I've a feeling, this film will be swept under the rug come the end of the summer and Sony and Paul Feig will be hoping we all forget about it very soon.

I don't see how a soft reboot is disrespectful when Ghostbusters 2 already gak all over the franchise years ago.

 General Kroll wrote:
1984 is a completely different story however... http://www.imdb.com/search/title?sort=boxoffice_gross_us&title_type=feature&year=1984,1984

Lots of original movies, still lots of movies based on books, and a couple of comic movies, but only four or five sequels out of the top fifty.

You cherry picked one year out of a decade to try to prove your point. You could easily do the same with movies from, say... 2015. A handful of sequels, a bunch of book adaptions (Hollywood's favorite!), and lots of original films.

You're comparing oranges and apples with the likes of Interstellar and gravity though.. That's my point. It's hardly a straigh up comparison with the likes of the avengers, ghostbusters and Indiana Jones.

It's more akin to the likes of 2001, Blade Runner, or 1984. I'm talking about Hollywood fluff, not serious cinema. It's you that are moving the goal posts to fit the argument you want to present, if you want to get nitpicky...

As for Terminator Genysis and Fury Road not being reboots. Pull the other one. Several main characters recast, hopers of restarting both franchises etc. They aren't new material in their own right, nor do they continue the story with the same actors and characters in the same roles.

Ergo. Reboots. Either way, it's by the by. Hollywood is bereft of ideas when it comes to the major summer tentpeg movies. They are too scared to take risks, they'd far rather put all their money on the comic book action heroes or a trusted franchise. If they can reboot a well known name that is likely to be a big draw then they will. They aren't interested in telling new stories or taking the audience on new adventures with new characters anymore.

You know what else I'm sick and tired of, this fallacy that Ghostbusters 2 was somehow so terrible that it destroyed the franchise. It wasn't as good as the original, that was pretty much it's only crime. It was still a fun comedy movie. It still had all the awesome character interaction between the original team that made the first movie so great, it was just let down by the fact that it was basically a carbon copy story line. It's far from awful. You say it's disrespectful to the original because you think it's bad. Could you outline how please. I've already outlined how and why I think this remake, and it's director have been disrespectful to the fans of the original.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:Today I learned today's movies are garbage because they are all bad movies with thin premises and sequels, and not at all like the decade that gave us 8 Friday the 13th films.

Yes because that's exactly what I'm saying isn't it....

lonestarr777 wrote:So back on top, out of the two critics I follow online, MundaneMatt and Nostalgia Critic, both of them found the movie to be watchable but not great.

The common thread in their reviews was that the film has alot of dry spots where jokes just flat out fail. Some parts earned a chuckle or laugh only to be followed by stretches of silence.

Apperently it starts out strong even, and then promptly derails. Both these critics views I find to be in line with my tastes usually so I can trust officially this a pass for me.

I also found it humorous that both these men had women in thier lives have a negative reaction to the film. Mundane Matts girlfriend asked "Why does this movie hate men?" And "Can we get our money back?" While the Nostalgia Critic's mother stood up at the end and flat out declared "This sucks!"

Mundane Matts coverage has been pretty good throughout the whole thing. Comic book girl 19 did a good video about the whole issues surrounding the movie and why she won't be reviewing it today as well.

Angry Joes review is hilariously angry as you might imagine.

I enjoyed the new Ghostbusters. I felt the story worked pretty well and the chemistry of the cast was good. I did feel the final fight was a bit too superheroy, but overall I liked the movie and the lady i saw it with loved it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Lol you're really scraping the barrel now aren't you...pacific rim? Really... Pull the other one. I'd hardly call any of the others smash hits, with the exception of Frozen and Avatar, popular movies sure. But not stand out Summer blockbusters that have spawned their own franchises.

Your demands are contradictory. You can't reject the most recent Pacific Rim film because it's not part of a franchise (yet) when you were specifically complaining about there being too many films that are parts of franchises.

Wasn't Pacific Rim considered by many to be a flop? Sure it was an original film, great.

No. In the US it did not do so well, but internationally it did pretty good. They are making a second movie just because of its international success.

I thought that got cancelled. Don't tease me. Please don't be teasing me. I love me some giant robots.

Pacific Rim 2 is most definitely not cancelled. It has a release date slotted, and is set to start filming in November.

It did OK domestically and well enough internationally to warrant it.

 Ouze wrote:
Pacific Rim 2 is most definitely not cancelled. It has a release date slotted, and is set to start filming in November.

It did OK domestically and well enough internationally to warrant it.

Just saw some articles confirming this. Thank sweet white baby Jesus. Now by all means continue hating/not hating on Ghostbusters.

 General Kroll wrote:
You're comparing oranges and apples with the likes of Interstellar and gravity though..

How so? You asked for blockbuster movies and they're blockbuster movies.

That's my point.

You don't really have a point, which is part of the problem here.

It's hardly a straigh up comparison with the likes of the avengers, ghostbusters and Indiana Jones.

It's more akin to the likes of 2001, Blade Runner, or 1984. I'm talking about Hollywood fluff, not serious cinema. It's you that are moving the goal posts to fit the argument you want to present, if you want to get nitpicky...

Not quite, mate. You're the one that keeps changing what a "blockbuster" film every time a new piece of information makes your already terrible argument look even worse. This was your original question:

 General Kroll wrote:
But seriously when was the last blockbuster that was based on an original idea? So not a comic book or a sequel, or a remake/reboot?

I gave you a bunch of them and then you immediately changed your argument, which is the very definition of "goalpost moving."

As for Terminator Genysis and Fury Road not being reboots. Pull the other one. Several main characters recast, hopers of restarting both franchises etc. They aren't new material in their own right, nor do they continue the story with the same actors and characters in the same roles.

They still aren't reboots; they're sequels. Though I'm not surprised that you're trying to change the definition of "reboot" like you have with "blockbuster."

Ergo. Reboots. Either way, it's by the by. Hollywood is bereft of ideas when it comes to the major summer tentpeg movies. They are too scared to take risks, they'd far rather put all their money on the comic book action heroes or a trusted franchise. If they can reboot a well known name that is likely to be a big draw then they will. They aren't interested in telling new stories or taking the audience on new adventures with new characters anymore.

You clearly haven't been paying attention to movies.

You know what else I'm sick and tired of, this fallacy that Ghostbusters 2 was somehow so terrible that it destroyed the franchise. It wasn't as good as the original, that was pretty much it's only crime. It was still a fun comedy movie. It still had all the awesome character interaction between the original team that made the first movie so great, it was just let down by the fact that it was basically a carbon copy story line. It's far from awful. You say it's disrespectful to the original because you think it's bad. Could you outline how please. I've already outlined how and why I think this remake, and it's director have been disrespectful to the fans of the original.

Ghostbusters II sucking isn't a fallacy. It was given mixed reviews upon its release and opinions haven't changed since. Interestingly enough, do you know what one of the biggest complaints about the movie was? It didn't try anything new.

Here's the question though... have you actually seen the new Ghostbusters movie to say that it's bad or are you just relying on the opinions of a bunch a internet clowns? As a fan of the original and the sequel who had a childhood filled with Ghostbusters toys, there is nothing about this movie that "disrespects" me or my enjoyment of the previous movies. That is the most idiotic thing I've heard.

Yes because that's exactly what I'm saying isn't it....

That's pretty much what you're saying.

Well, I just saw it.

It was neither great, nor bad. A very middle of the road movie. It did lose a little steam in the second half, Leslie Jones was pretty reliably not funny, Kate McKinnon pretty reliably was, I thought the CGI ghosts looked fine, the Slimer scenes were not as bad as the trailer made them look like they might be, the big bad was a little underwhelming, and Chris Hemsworth was OK - I read some reviews saying he was terrific, but no, he was just OK.

From the weekends box office, I think it's going to probably fall into that spot where it makes back it's budget, but not quite enough to justify a sequel. However, that's less about the quality of the movie or (lack thereof), and more that there won't be a Chinese release.

All in all, the controversy over this seems a little off, it was to me an fairly fun, enjoyable but ultimately forgettable movie.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, I just saw it.

It was neither great, nor bad. A very middle of the road movie. It did lose a little steam in the second half, Leslie Jones was pretty reliably not funny, Kate McKinnon pretty reliably was, I thought the CGI ghosts looked fine, the Slimer scenes were not as bad as the trailer made them look like they might be, the big bad was a little underwhelming, and Chris Hemsworth was OK - I read some reviews saying he was terrific, but no, he was just OK.

From the weekends box office, I think it's going to probably fall into that spot where it makes back it's budget, but not quite enough to justify a sequel. However, that's less about the quality of the movie or (lack thereof), and more that there won't be a Chinese release.

All in all, the controversy over this seems a little off, it was to me an fairly fun, enjoyable but ultimately forgettable movie.

I'm glad that the movie didn't disrespect you.

The wife and I might go see it this week if we can find some time and babysitter.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, I just saw it.

It was neither great, nor bad. A very middle of the road movie. It did lose a little steam in the second half, Leslie Jones was pretty reliably not funny, Kate McKinnon pretty reliably was, I thought the CGI ghosts looked fine, the Slimer scenes were not as bad as the trailer made them look like they might be, the big bad was a little underwhelming, and Chris Hemsworth was OK - I read some reviews saying he was terrific, but no, he was just OK.

From the weekends box office, I think it's going to probably fall into that spot where it makes back it's budget, but not quite enough to justify a sequel. However, that's less about the quality of the movie or (lack thereof), and more that there won't be a Chinese release.

All in all, the controversy over this seems a little off, it was to me an fairly fun, enjoyable but ultimately forgettable movie.

Saw the film on Friday and largely agree with Ouze's take.

I had issues with some logic gaps in the world building (Swiss army knife > proton pack) and the almost cartoon-like ability for Kate McKinnon's character to whip up new gadgets. The final battle scene was also pretty anticlimactic and felt hollow and unsatisfying.

In a lot of ways it felt like a live-action cartoon, much like the Ted movies remind me of live-action episodes of Family Guy. I didn't necessarily want to watch a live-action Ghostbusters cartoon but I also didn't hate the experience either.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
You're comparing oranges and apples with the likes of Interstellar and gravity though..

How so? You asked for blockbuster movies and they're blockbuster movies.

That's my point.

You don't really have a point, which is part of the problem here.

It's hardly a straigh up comparison with the likes of the avengers, ghostbusters and Indiana Jones.

It's more akin to the likes of 2001, Blade Runner, or 1984. I'm talking about Hollywood fluff, not serious cinema. It's you that are moving the goal posts to fit the argument you want to present, if you want to get nitpicky...

Not quite, mate. You're the one that keeps changing what a "blockbuster" film every time a new piece of information makes your already terrible argument look even worse. This was your original question:

 General Kroll wrote:
But seriously when was the last blockbuster that was based on an original idea? So not a comic book or a sequel, or a remake/reboot?

I gave you a bunch of them and then you immediately changed your argument, which is the very definition of "goalpost moving."

As for Terminator Genysis and Fury Road not being reboots. Pull the other one. Several main characters recast, hopers of restarting both franchises etc. They aren't new material in their own right, nor do they continue the story with the same actors and characters in the same roles.

They still aren't reboots; they're sequels. Though I'm not surprised that you're trying to change the definition of "reboot" like you have with "blockbuster."

Ergo. Reboots. Either way, it's by the by. Hollywood is bereft of ideas when it comes to the major summer tentpeg movies. They are too scared to take risks, they'd far rather put all their money on the comic book action heroes or a trusted franchise. If they can reboot a well known name that is likely to be a big draw then they will. They aren't interested in telling new stories or taking the audience on new adventures with new characters anymore.

You clearly haven't been paying attention to movies.

You know what else I'm sick and tired of, this fallacy that Ghostbusters 2 was somehow so terrible that it destroyed the franchise. It wasn't as good as the original, that was pretty much it's only crime. It was still a fun comedy movie. It still had all the awesome character interaction between the original team that made the first movie so great, it was just let down by the fact that it was basically a carbon copy story line. It's far from awful. You say it's disrespectful to the original because you think it's bad. Could you outline how please. I've already outlined how and why I think this remake, and it's director have been disrespectful to the fans of the original.

Ghostbusters II sucking isn't a fallacy. It was given mixed reviews upon its release and opinions haven't changed since. Interestingly enough, do you know what one of the biggest complaints about the movie was? It didn't try anything new.

Here's the question though... have you actually seen the new Ghostbusters movie to say that it's bad or are you just relying on the opinions of a bunch a internet clowns? As a fan of the original and the sequel who had a childhood filled with Ghostbusters toys, there is nothing about this movie that "disrespects" me or my enjoyment of the previous movies. That is the most idiotic thing I've heard.

Yes because that's exactly what I'm saying isn't it....

That's pretty much what you're saying.

I've nowhere said this movie stops my enjoyment of the original. However I have said that the director and the actresses have said several disrespectful things about the fans, and geek culture. If you want to argue the case for "All geeks are donkey-caves" and "people who don't like his movie are just geeks living in their moms basement" then go ahead be my guest.

So nowhere have I said that this movie is ruining my childhood, as you seem to keep implying, or that it's spoiling my enjoyment of the original as you quite clearly state above. If you want to keep putting words in my mouth, and building strawmen for me to argue against then I'm more than done discussing this with you. You've flung numerous personal insults, and dragged this debate down to the gutter. You should be really proud.

Have I gone to the cinema and paid to see the new Ghostbusters Movie? No, I'm not going to pay precious currency to watch a film I know I won't enjoy, nor am I going to support a director or actress that openly insult a community that I'm part of simply to smoke screen the fact they made a gakky movie.

So for all the people defending the movie saying "oh yeah, it's not as bad as everyone's making out, sure it's not a good movie, it's probably mediocre"

Is mediocre really something good enough? When they announced this movie, did you say to yourself..."gee I hope that's mediocre, the only way they can do justice to that well loved 1984 classic, is for this to be mediocre"

Of course you didn't. We all sucked the wind through our teeth and said "oooh they are remaking ghostbusters, they better do a good job, or there's going to be a shitstorm on the Internet."

Well they're reaping what they have sown.

 General Kroll wrote:
Have I gone to the cinema and paid to see the new Ghostbusters Movie? No, I'm not going to pay precious currency to watch a film I know I won't enjoy

For a movie you're not going to see, you're spending a lot of time talking about it. I mean, it's a discussion forum so enjoy yourself and all, but personally when I see a movie I decide I don't think I'll like, I don't generate 30 posts explaining why.

 General Kroll wrote:
However I have said that the director and the actresses have said several disrespectful things about the fans, and geek culture.

That's because there are some really terrible elements in fandom and geek culture that deserved to be pointed out.

If you want to argue the case for "All geeks are donkey-caves" and "people who don't like his movie are just geeks living in their moms basement" then go ahead be my guest.

That isn't what I'm arguing. In fact, you are building a strawman here.

So nowhere have I said that this movie is ruining my childhood, as you seem to keep implying, or that it's spoiling my enjoyment of the original as you quite clearly state above. If you want to keep putting words in my mouth, and building strawmen for me to argue against then I'm more than done discussing this with you.

Again, you're just making stuff up because made a ridiculous claim and followed it with a terrible argument and dug yourself into a hole that you can't climb out of.

You've flung numerous personal insults, and dragged this debate down to the gutter. You should be really proud.

Show me where I've "flung numerous personal insults" at you. Telling you that your argument is bad and you don't really have a point aren't insults, mate.

Have I gone to the cinema and paid to see the new Ghostbusters Movie? No, I'm not going to pay precious currency to watch a film I know I won't enjoy, nor am I going to support a director or actress that openly insult a community that I'm part of simply to smoke screen the fact they made a gakky movie.

But you don't know it's a gakky movie because you haven't seen it. As far as the "insults" go, I'm a grown ass man and proud member of numerous fandoms (I have the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings tattoos to prove it!) and geek culture in general but I don't whine and complain when someone points out that there are some negative aspects with some of the people that enjoy the same stuff as me.

So for all the people defending the movie saying "oh yeah, it's not as bad as everyone's making out, sure it's not a good movie, it's probably mediocre"

Is mediocre really something good enough? When they announced this movie, did you say to yourself..."gee I hope that's mediocre, the only way they can do justice to that well loved 1984 classic, is for this to be mediocre"

You've gone on a couple of rants defending Ghostbusters II and that movie was mediocre at best. So yeah, it would seem mediocre is good enough to some people, including yourself.

Of course you didn't. We all sucked the wind through our teeth and said "oooh they are remaking ghostbusters, they better do a good job, or there's going to be a shitstorm on the Internet."

Speak for yourself there, mate. Here's what I thought when I found out they were making a Ghostbusters remake: "Oh, that's cool. Kristen Wiig, huh? I loved her in MacGrubber. I'm sure that would make a good movie for the wife and I to go see on a date night." Notice how none of that involved worrying about what people on the internet had to say about it.

Well they're reaping what they have sown.

lolwut?

I haven't seen the new movie and it looks bad. I have seen something that might make some people mad and others laugh though. Apparently after doing 'research' some time ago there's going to be a porn spoof of the new 'ghostbusters' movie. Feminists will probably rage but i'll just laugh. To be fair there's a rule that porn's been made on everything including 'Family Guy' and other cartoons and stuff like 'Star Wars'.

Wife and I went to see it the other day. It wasn't a bad movie, but it was obvious I wasn't the target audience. I still laughed a bit, and overall I'd say I had a good time. I don't think it deserves all the negative attention it gets.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Wife and I went to see it the other day. It wasn't a bad movie, but it was obvious I wasn't the target audience. I still laughed a bit, and overall I'd say I had a good time. I don't think it deserves all the negative attention it gets.

I think there's a couple reasons for it. Mostly people that saw the originals were unhappy with all the changes and some say it didn't display men in a good light.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Wife and I went to see it the other day. It wasn't a bad movie, but it was obvious I wasn't the target audience. I still laughed a bit, and overall I'd say I had a good time. I don't think it deserves all the negative attention it gets.

Wife and daughter loved it, as did the movie moms they went with. This movie seems to distinctly break along gender lines.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Wife and I went to see it the other day. It wasn't a bad movie, but it was obvious I wasn't the target audience. I still laughed a bit, and overall I'd say I had a good time. I don't think it deserves all the negative attention it gets.

I think there's a couple reasons for it. Mostly people that saw the originals were unhappy with all the changes and some say it didn't display men in a good light.

You should give it a watch. It's obviously a girl power movie, but I don't think it negatively impacts men. The finale that defeats the bad guy wasn't anything like I was expecting.
Big Spoiler Ahead-


There were a few slow spots, but it's a good popcorn movie. As long as you go in realizing that the target demographic is female(girl power in a ghostbusters reskin) you should enjoy yourself.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Wife and I went to see it the other day. It wasn't a bad movie, but it was obvious I wasn't the target audience. I still laughed a bit, and overall I'd say I had a good time. I don't think it deserves all the negative attention it gets.

I think there's a couple reasons for it. Mostly people that saw the originals were unhappy with all the changes and some say it didn't display men in a good light.

You should give it a watch. It's obviously a girl power movie, but I don't think it negatively impacts men. The finale that defeats the bad guy wasn't anything like I was expecting.
Big Spoiler Ahead-

Spoiler:

The "nut shot" that supposedly defeats him was more incidental than what was actually the killing blow. He was already being pulled into a vortex, but grabbed hold of two buildings. The girls were below him(he's big, they're small), and when they fire upwards it hits him between the legs. They even make a joke about inadvertently hitting him there. He loses his grip and is dragged in. That's really it. They didn't aim for his "weakness"; or anything like it was described to me.

There were a few slow spots, but it's a good popcorn movie. As long as you go in realizing that the target demographic is female(girl power in a ghostbusters reskin) you should enjoy yourself.

See, that just feels like the final nail in the coffin in a long list of bad jokes and insults. Heck, they even have a joke about all the internet haters as a stab to all the "misogynists" that opposed this movie.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
some say it didn't display men in a good light.

That is 100% true. There was not a single male character I can recollect that wasn't depicted as a simpleton, a buffoon, corrupt, or a jerk.

 Ouze wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
some say it didn't display men in a good light.

That is 100% true. There was not a single male character I can recollect that wasn't depicted as a simpleton, a buffoon, corrupt, or a jerk.

Couldn't you say the same about the male characters other than the Ghostbusters in the original movie?

I liked the (original) mayor!

I just flipped through the original though and you have a point, it's much the same there.

 Ouze wrote:
I liked the (original) mayor!

I just flipped through the original though and you have a point, it's much the same there.

I love the line from GB2. "Almost 50% of us voted for you in the last election!" (there's 4 of them)

Worth seeing in the cinema peeps? Or a dvd at home job?

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
some say it didn't display men in a good light.

That is 100% true. There was not a single male character I can recollect that wasn't depicted as a simpleton, a buffoon, corrupt, or a jerk.

Couldn't you say the same about the male characters other than the Ghostbusters in the original movie?

I wouldn't call Egon and Winston simpletons, buffoons, corrupt or jerks.

I think you might need to re-read what was quoted.

 Ouze wrote:
I think you might need to re-read what was quoted.

Oh, wow definitely misread and made a mistake.

My biggest problem with the new ghostbuster movie (other than fieg's comments), based on every review I have read or seen by anyone not a sjw, is it seems to be all around a children's movie with profanity. Which leads me to believe the target audience is people who have a simple, childish mentality. I don't mind dirty jokes and what not, but that is not what ghostbusters is supposed to be. It is supposed to be witty, not poorly done slapstick comedy. It sounds like the new ghostbusters is trying to be the mentally disabled inbred second cousin of Ted and Ted 2 (which were actually good).

 Ouze wrote:
Well, I just saw it.

It was neither great, nor bad. A very middle of the road movie. It did lose a little steam in the second half, Leslie Jones was pretty reliably not funny, Kate McKinnon pretty reliably was, I thought the CGI ghosts looked fine, the Slimer scenes were not as bad as the trailer made them look like they might be, the big bad was a little underwhelming, and Chris Hemsworth was OK - I read some reviews saying he was terrific, but no, he was just OK.

From the weekends box office, I think it's going to probably fall into that spot where it makes back it's budget, but not quite enough to justify a sequel. However, that's less about the quality of the movie or (lack thereof), and more that there won't be a Chinese release.

All in all, the controversy over this seems a little off, it was to me an fairly fun, enjoyable but ultimately forgettable movie.

APPARENTLY the script for Ghostbusters 3 was complete in 2009, written by the same guys that did 'Bad Teacher'

I don't know if you've seen that movie, but it's hilarious, with Cameron Diaz as a complete sociopath whose life is basically a dumpster fire but nevertheless, is a natural leader. This is the EXACT archetype of Peter Venkman in the first and second film and I think that if they had gone with the original script and spun off a new female 'venkman' character who was just as much of a sleezy conman / hero as he was, the movie would have been epic. Bad Teacher was great, really funny, and I think that approach would have been a thousand times better than the rehash Frieg pulled out with this attempt.

The original film was almost much better-- Ernie Hudson was only hired at the last moment and his lines were hardly filled in at all because the role was written for Eddie Murphy. I love the first movie but it would have been that much better to have a 'Beverly Hills Cop' era Eddie Murphy on screen with Bill Murray. Ernie Hudson is terrific and I don't think I've ever not liked a movie he's been in, but it's hard not to wonder what might have been. If there is a problem with the first film it's that Murray just flattens the other guys with his performance. Eddie Murphy would have blown that open.

I don't think Murphy would have been good in that role, particularly since his role is the "everyman" character.

 NorseSig wrote:
My biggest problem with the new ghostbuster movie (other than fieg's comments), based on every review I have read or seen by anyone not a sjw, is it seems to be all around a children's movie with profanity. Which leads me to believe the target audience is people who have a simple, childish mentality. I don't mind dirty jokes and what not, but that is not what ghostbusters is supposed to be. It is supposed to be witty, not poorly done slapstick comedy. It sounds like the new ghostbusters is trying to be the mentally disabled inbred second cousin of Ted and Ted 2 (which were actually good).

It is not that at all. It seems you where predisposed to hate it and sought out reviews that reinforced that opinion. It is not the greatest movie ever made or the vile tripe you believe it to be. It is a fairly good movie with less penis in it than you find comfortable. That is all.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
My biggest problem with the new ghostbuster movie (other than fieg's comments), based on every review I have read or seen by anyone not a sjw, is it seems to be all around a children's movie with profanity. Which leads me to believe the target audience is people who have a simple, childish mentality. I don't mind dirty jokes and what not, but that is not what ghostbusters is supposed to be. It is supposed to be witty, not poorly done slapstick comedy. It sounds like the new ghostbusters is trying to be the mentally disabled inbred second cousin of Ted and Ted 2 (which were actually good).

It is not that at all. It seems you where predisposed to hate it and sought out reviews that reinforced that opinion. It is not the greatest movie ever made or the vile tripe you believe it to be. It is a fairly good movie with less penis in it than you find comfortable. That is all.

Wait, someone on Dakka Dakka actually pulled this out? The classic "If you hate this movie, you're misogynistic" line? Awesome.

I know right? Its almost he didnt read NorseSigs post and jumped to that conclusion. Crazy how thats like the biggest reason I find this film to be horse gak.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
My biggest problem with the new ghostbuster movie (other than fieg's comments), based on every review I have read or seen by anyone not a sjw, is it seems to be all around a children's movie with profanity. Which leads me to believe the target audience is people who have a simple, childish mentality. I don't mind dirty jokes and what not, but that is not what ghostbusters is supposed to be. It is supposed to be witty, not poorly done slapstick comedy. It sounds like the new ghostbusters is trying to be the mentally disabled inbred second cousin of Ted and Ted 2 (which were actually good).

It is not that at all. It seems you where predisposed to hate it and sought out reviews that reinforced that opinion. It is not the greatest movie ever made or the vile tripe you believe it to be. It is a fairly good movie with less penis in it than you find comfortable. That is all.

Wait, someone on Dakka Dakka actually pulled this out? The classic "If you hate this movie, you're misogynistic" line? Awesome.

I did not call him a misogynist. I simply stated he was uncomfortable with the new cast and looked for reviews that matched his desired negative opinion. Few people fit easily into a category. Being an donkey-cave on the internet doesn't change that.

His implication that the people who like the movie only because they are pushing an agenda is simply wrong. You can like or dislike the movie on it's merits.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
My biggest problem with the new ghostbuster movie (other than fieg's comments), based on every review I have read or seen by anyone not a sjw, is it seems to be all around a children's movie with profanity. Which leads me to believe the target audience is people who have a simple, childish mentality. I don't mind dirty jokes and what not, but that is not what ghostbusters is supposed to be. It is supposed to be witty, not poorly done slapstick comedy. It sounds like the new ghostbusters is trying to be the mentally disabled inbred second cousin of Ted and Ted 2 (which were actually good).

It is not that at all. It seems you where predisposed to hate it and sought out reviews that reinforced that opinion. It is not the greatest movie ever made or the vile tripe you believe it to be. It is a fairly good movie with less penis in it than you find comfortable. That is all.

Wait, someone on Dakka Dakka actually pulled this out? The classic "If you hate this movie, you're misogynistic" line? Awesome.

I did not call him a misogynist. I simply stated he was uncomfortable with the new cast and looked for reviews that matched his desired negative opinion. Few people fit easily into a category. Being an donkey-cave on the internet doesn't change that.

His implication that the people who like the movie only because they are pushing an agenda is simply wrong. You can like or dislike the movie on it's merits.

WRONG not once did he mention the fact that the cast was all women, while you chose to say he didn't like it because it had "less penis in it than you find comfortable". Predisposed to like it or not, YOU pulled the gender card. Nice try.

Actually its was the Social Justice Warrior bit that caused me to be snarky. He didn't have to mention their gender.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Actually its was the Social Justice Warrior bit that caused me to be snarky. He didn't have to mention their gender.

So you made assumptions about him and attacked him? Gawrsh, doesn't that sound familiar.

The contents of his post requires no assumptions. His opinion about the movie is based on negative reviews he sought out to validate his opinion. Which is framed in the context of people who liked it were mentally defective or social justice warriors.

You're defending a bad post because you agree with it. Not because you have the moral high ground.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The contents of his post requires no assumptions. His opinion about the movie is based on negative reviews he sought out to validate his opinion. Which is framed in the context of people who liked it were mentally defective or social justice warriors.

You're defending a bad post because you agree with it. Not because you have the moral high ground.

Again, more assumptions on your part. As I see we've moved past the point of actual discussion, I'm gonna bow out now. Thanks for playing.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Again, more assumptions on your part. As I see we've moved past the point of actual discussion, I'm gonna bow out now. Thanks for playing.

You were OK when the other guy assumed that the target audience for the movie were childlike simpletons, though. It seems like you're OK with some unfounded assumptions.

Anyway, The worst part of this movie wasn't the indifferent acting or the waste of perfectly good cameos, but the constant reminders from the internet at large about the sick streak that runs through geek culture in the US.

I can't wait until we can move on to some other topic that will remind me that a great many loathsome people happen to enjoy a lot of the same stuff that I do.

 Ouze wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Again, more assumptions on your part. As I see we've moved past the point of actual discussion, I'm gonna bow out now. Thanks for playing.

You were OK when the other guy assumed that the target audience for the movie were childlike simpletons, though. It seems like you're OK with some unfounded assumptions.

Anyway, The worst part of this movie wasn't the indifferent acting or the waste of perfectly good cameos, but the constant reminders from the internet at large about the sick streak that runs through geek culture in the US.

I can't wait until we can move on to some other topic that will remind me that a great many loathsome people happen to enjoy a lot of the same stuff that I do.

I am not the first person to say that the target audience was childlike simpletons. The WOMEN reviewing the movie whom I based most of my opinions on my ultimate decision on weather to watch the movie or not were. And I somehow doubt you were the intended audience. Based upon Feig's own statements (who more or less said SJWs WERE his target audience).

While I've mentioned my thoughts on the film a few times in this thread (in short, 'not my bag'), I am very much reminded of a certain quote whenever I read most discussions on 'SJWs.'

I'm not entirely sure if this is the right one I was thinking of but it had the same sentiment.

Joseph Scrimshaw wrote:Trying to insult someone by calling them a Social Justice Warrior is like getting in their face and yelling, "You're a decent human being!"

If something was aimed at a different audience, and someone is not part of that audience, then why would they complain about not liking that thing to begin with?

That's like me complaining about the programming on MTV.

 d-usa wrote:
If something was aimed at a different audience, and someone is not part of that audience, then why would they complain about not liking that thing to begin with?

This.

I saw it, wasn't made for me and it was very *meh*.... but, I can see the appeal to target audiences.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't get the SJW-y feel to it...

That's like me complaining about the programming on MTV.

Don't get me started on this... when they went "Real World", it went downhill.


I missed the music days, headbanger's ball and smattering of shows (bevis and butthead).

 whembly wrote:
[I missed the music days, headbanger's ball and smattering of shows (bevis and butthead).

Well, I have some good news for you....

The wife and I saw the movie today. We both enjoyed it, we both laughed, and all told it was a fun, forgettable summer movie.

Happily my childhood is still intact despite the existence of this movie.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Yet here you are trolling away....even though that clearly wasn't the thrust of my argument. But don't let that get in the way of a good personal attack will you

I'm not trolling you nor am I "attacking" you so get over yourself, pal. You made a couple of hyperbolic statements and I pointed out that they were pretty ridiculous because they are.

The 80s was a golden age frankly.

Yeah, except it wasn't. The 80s are considered one of the worst decades of cinema, especially since it followed what is probably the greatest decade of cinema.

the 80's was the greatest decade ever for movies. Oddly enough, ghostbusters made the top of this list, which probably led to this new reboot. I'm not sure why you're hating on the 80's but almost all the top 50 in that list are still watchable and enjoyable and consider some of the greatest movies ever made. I have no idea how footlose made the top of the list, but other than that it's a solid list.

Most Popular Feature Films Released 1980-01-01 to 1989-12-31
http://www.imdb.com/search/title/?release_date=1980,1989&title_type=feature

I wasn't going to post here, just wanted to see what people thought of the new film, but I couldn't let you dis the 80.

There is no greatest decade ever for movies, feth the clock and nostalgia in general. Every generation has great stuff (and mostly mediocre stuff as well as some genuinely awful thrown into the mix).

“I believe that we, that this planet, hasn't seen its Golden Age. Everybody says its finished ... art's finished, rock and roll is dead, God is dead. feth that! This is my chance in the world. I didn't live back there in Mesopotamia, I wasn't there in the Garden of Eden, I wasn't there with Emperor
Han, I'm right here right now and I want now to be the Golden Age ...if only each generation would realise that the time for greatness is right now when they're alive ... the time to flower is now.”

- Patti Smith

sirlynchmob wrote:
the 80's was the greatest decade ever for movies.

No, it really wasn't.

Oddly enough, ghostbusters made the top of this list, which probably led to this new reboot. I'm not sure why you're hating on the 80's but almost all the top 50 in that list are still watchable and enjoyable and consider some of the greatest movies ever made. I have no idea how footlose made the top of the list, but other than that it's a solid list.

Most Popular Feature Films Released 1980-01-01 to 1989-12-31
http://www.imdb.com/search/title/?release_date=1980,1989&title_type=feature

It's a list of popular movies from the 80s, not a list of popular movies of all time (besides, popular =\= good). If you had bothered to follow anything else I wrote you would know that I said there are plenty of good movies from the 1980s, including my favorite movie of all time, The Empire Strikes Back. The point is that on a whole, the 1980s was a very weak decade of movies made more apparent by the fact that it followed pretty much the greatest decade of movies.

I wasn't going to post here, just wanted to see what people thought of the new film, but I couldn't let you dis the 80.

I'm "dissing" the 80s, merely point out that it wasn't that great. Also, the new Ghostbusters was a fun, albeit forgettable action comedy.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the 80's was the greatest decade ever for movies.

No, it really wasn't.

Oddly enough, ghostbusters made the top of this list, which probably led to this new reboot. I'm not sure why you're hating on the 80's but almost all the top 50 in that list are still watchable and enjoyable and consider some of the greatest movies ever made. I have no idea how footlose made the top of the list, but other than that it's a solid list.

Most Popular Feature Films Released 1980-01-01 to 1989-12-31
http://www.imdb.com/search/title/?release_date=1980,1989&title_type=feature

It's a list of popular movies from the 80s, not a list of popular movies of all time (besides, popular =\= good). If you had bothered to follow anything else I wrote you would know that I said there are plenty of good movies from the 1980s, including my favorite movie of all time, The Empire Strikes Back. The point is that on a whole, the 1980s was a very weak decade of movies made more apparent by the fact that it followed pretty much the greatest decade of movies.

I wasn't going to post here, just wanted to see what people thought of the new film, but I couldn't let you dis the 80.

I'm "dissing" the 80s, merely point out that it wasn't that great. Also, the new Ghostbusters was a fun, albeit forgettable action comedy.

First off, the 80's was great. Sure, you can argue it was different or not to your tastes, but a lot of great things came out of it. Second, can we stop this decade vs. decade argument? It's irrelevant to comparing these movies.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the 80's was the greatest decade ever for movies.

No, it really wasn't.

Oddly enough, ghostbusters made the top of this list, which probably led to this new reboot. I'm not sure why you're hating on the 80's but almost all the top 50 in that list are still watchable and enjoyable and consider some of the greatest movies ever made. I have no idea how footlose made the top of the list, but other than that it's a solid list.

Most Popular Feature Films Released 1980-01-01 to 1989-12-31
http://www.imdb.com/search/title/?release_date=1980,1989&title_type=feature

It's a list of popular movies from the 80s, not a list of popular movies of all time (besides, popular =\= good). If you had bothered to follow anything else I wrote you would know that I said there are plenty of good movies from the 1980s, including my favorite movie of all time, The Empire Strikes Back. The point is that on a whole, the 1980s was a very weak decade of movies made more apparent by the fact that it followed pretty much the greatest decade of movies.

I wasn't going to post here, just wanted to see what people thought of the new film, but I couldn't let you dis the 80.

I'm "dissing" the 80s, merely point out that it wasn't that great. Also, the new Ghostbusters was a fun, albeit forgettable action comedy.

the 70's were as forgettable as this move.
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top
out of this top 250 movies of all times, the 70's came in with 20. Like you said, the 70's had few good movies but it was a horrible decade for movies.

http://www.imdb.com/search/title/?release_date=1970,1979&title_type=feature
here's the greatest movies of the 70's from the same source as I used for the 80s. #1, the godfather, a clearly deserved win, #2 Pete's dragon. Yep, I think that sums it up nicely

the 80's have 29 in the top 250, and 20 in the top 200.

to bring it back on topic, speaking of feminist movies, the 80's gave us aliens, and terminator, clearly proving that women can be great action hero's and still make an historic movie loved by neckbeards to this very day. where as ghostbusters made for femisinists gets called "forgettable" and "meh" from people on this site who've seen it. If you set out to make a great movie, you can make a great movie no matter who the lead is. If you spend more time trying to cater to a very small demographic at the expense of the movie, it comes out as forgettable.

I was debating seeing it, but after reading what you've guys have said about it, I'll pass.

Staying off topic, to me (using the IMDB search thingy) it looks like the best decade for movies was from 1975 - 1985. The best movies from the 70's generally seem to be in the last half of the decade, best of the 80's from the first half.

http://www.imdb.com/search/title/?release_date=1975,1985&title_type=feature

Interesting.

Let's not continue off topic here - please?

Feel free to continue the FILMS BY DECADE conversation in a separate thread.

Thanks!

A gentle bump with some new information on the DVD/Blu Ray release of Ghostbusters (2016).

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ghostbusters-being-released-dvd-under-141100457.html

The most talked-about movie of the summer, Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters, made $217.7 million worldwide on a $144 million budget. But it’s still on track to lose over $70 million, mostly in marketing (those Key Lime Slime Twinkies ain’t cheap). An expansion of the Ghostbusters universe (Ghostbusters fight ghosts… in space?!), including an animated movie and TV show, is still in the works, but plans for a sequel have been scrapped. There’s hope for more Kate McKinnon, though, if Ghostbusters is a huge home video success. Except, it’s not actually called Ghostbusters anymore. The film will be released on DVD and Blu-Ray as Ghostbusters: Answer the Call. That’s not quite going from Edge of Tomorrow to Live. Die. Repeat., but it’s still an unusual move.

Here are the details:

–Ghostbusters: Answer the Call Extended Edition & Theatrical Version
-4 Unearthed deleted scenes -11 Totally Possessed Alternate Scenes and more than 60 minutes of additional extended and alternate scenes with Ultraviolet download -6 Jokes-A-Plenty alternate take reels -5 Supernatural Featurettes -2 Hysterically Haunting Gag Reels
And a Slimer in a hot dog tree.

Ghostbusters: Answer the Call — which is probably what it should have been called along; it’s easier than saying, “I’m not talking about the 1984 Ghostbusters, I mean the 2016 Ghostbusters” — will be released on Digital HD on September 27, and Blu-Ray and DVD on October 11.

So, the movie is getting re-titled and a sequel has been cancelled. Thoughts on the re-naming? Renaming the movie when a franchise of theatrical sequels aren't in the works seems odd to me. Re-naming the movie would actually make more sense to me if sequels were coming since the re-branding could take the franchise in a new direction and distance itself from the original movies. But that ain't happening so why change the title now?

*shrug*

A lot of what has been involved with this movie has been one head scratcher after another so I guess what is one more odd decision?

Honestly I prefer the new title as it helps distinguish it from the original.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Honestly I prefer the new title as it helps distinguish it from the original.

This is probably the main reason, so people don't have to search "Ghostbusters 2016" on Amazon

 Compel wrote:
While I've mentioned my thoughts on the film a few times in this thread (in short, 'not my bag'), I am very much reminded of a certain quote whenever I read most discussions on 'SJWs.'

I'm not entirely sure if this is the right one I was thinking of but it had the same sentiment.

Joseph Scrimshaw wrote:Trying to insult someone by calling them a Social Justice Warrior is like getting in their face and yelling, "You're a decent human being!"

It's more a rib on them of what they're trying to do. It's not really bad that women are in movies or things so much that forcing them in there en masse for an agenda is kinda crappy and let's be honest that's exactly what news, companies and hollywood has done. Probably much so more than the people themselves.

Also Compel if what you say is true why does the supposed PC crowd or SJWs take such offense to the term? You'd think if they get insulted by a term to say they're nice then that's a real description for how offended they can truly be.

I will say i didn't mind the Star Trek movie. I think that was done right. They didn't really force Sulu being gay down our throats though i do think they made Sulu shine a little too much during the movie. It seems less Sulu is gay to 'Was sulu really that important in the original Star Trek?' Honestly i don't know but i heard he wasn't.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Honestly I prefer the new title as it helps distinguish it from the original.

This is probably the main reason, so people don't have to search "Ghostbusters 2016" on Amazon

I can see that being one of the advantages of the name change, but I can't imagine early on in the film's development people didn't voice concern over confusion between the 1984 Ghostbusters and what would become the 2016 Ghostbusters, and yet The Powers That Be still went with just "Ghostbusters" for the 2016 title. Based off that development, sparing audiences confusion doesn't seem like the whole reason, or even a primary reason, for the name change. Or maybe I just want to read more into this than is actually there.

Just spit balling, but I think Ghostbusters will go the way of Spider Man and get frequent reboots until one sticks and this renaming of the 2016 film is a way to keep the Ghostbusters name "pure" in the meanwhile.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


Just spit balling, but I think Ghostbusters will go the way of Spider Man and get frequent reboots until one sticks and this renaming of the 2016 film is a way to keep the Ghostbusters name "pure" in the meanwhile.

Yup. It draws a line under it, in a "this was an abject and humiliating failure, so let's move on" kind of way. The whole debacle looks like it's quietly being swept under the rug, and in a few years people will look back and cringe.