Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.