Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[Mudd]

Information that can be considered a little more closely includes the 74% rating on RottenTomatoes for Ghostbusters, which has held relatively steady over the past few days. Also, Fandango.com reports the film is the online ticket retailer's top pre-selling live-action comedy of the year so far.

 

[jaime]

Not sure I'd be a good source on the "kid friendly" stuff. We are pretty open with our kids, believing in letting them watch and discuss rather than hide things from them.

I saw gb when I was 5, and want to know if it's broadly in line with the first one. My little one will be 5 by the time dvd comes out...I just like to dodge words that will be repeated in public and nightmares. Any info on that will be useful

 

[jaime]

Nah, i dont put much stock in that, particularly films that have had the kind of hype or press this one has. I would trust the honest opinion of one guy my views on entertainment seem broadly in line with over a hundred professional reviews, particularly on this one.
Especially as I already know I am going to watch it when it comes out on Dvd anyway, just want to know whether it's worth rushing out day one, and if I can sit my little one on lap when I watch it.

 

[Neroon]

I've had an obsession with Ghostbusters my whole life. The first movie I remember seeing was Ghostbusters 2 which I still adore. I bought he novel sequel that no one has heard of, I got the game and I've even made my own props. So I can't love this franchise more.

That said, I loved the movie. It's not a retread of the original. It's the same basic premise that some scientists figured out how to catch ghosts and go into business together. But the threat is different and it goes in a different direction than the original. I liked that there was a continual evolution of the technology and that it kept the same hand-made aesthetic as the original gear and all seem to be heavily inspired by the Real Ghostbusters and Extreme Ghostbusters. Plus Slimer was back, I can't hate anything with Slimer.

nice! Bear in mind my earlier comment about being resistant to reboots is to them in general, not to Ghostbusters in specific. Reboots are almost an addiction in Hollywood it seems, and more often than not don't work out very well. However, I have to admit that with Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy - two rather successful names in comedy - on the surface it seems to stand a good chance of succeeding. Plus that pic of Wiig with the two young girls in their own Ghostbuster gear at the premiere... that caught my heart just right

 

[John Clark]

We're going to see it (in 3d) tomorrow morning. I will say that some of the trailers didn't do much for me, but I could say that about a few films that I enjoyed. (Some of those, I skipped seeing at the cinema and later wished I had. On the other hand, there have been some good trailers but the film has been absolutely awful)

I'll post in the review thread what I think about it when I've seen it.

 

[BillJ]

I saw gb when I was 5, and want to know if it's broadly in line with the first one. My little one will be 5 by the time dvd comes out...I just like to dodge words that will be repeated in public and nightmares. Any info on that will be useful

I don't remember any bad language, checked with my son and he said the same thing.

As far as the movie goes? Very entertaining.

 

[jaime]

I don't remember any bad language, checked with my son and he said the same thing.

As far as the movie goes? Very entertaining.

Thanks

 

[SiorX]

I went to see it last night and I cannot remember the last time I laughed that hard at a movie, or so seriously considered turning right around and going in to see it again for the late showing.

I was worried because I thought there would be gross-out stuff in it, and I cannot cope with that at all. But it was grand. (It did occur to me that a few bits might be a little too scary for small kids, which is a pity because my niece would go mental for Kate McKinnon's character. Maybe if we get a sequel she'll be old enough.)

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Advance weekend sales are running ahead of Pets, which was not expected.

Thanks for the info, Dennis. That certainly puts a dent in the Ghostbros predicting that the movie would be a flop.


Love this one, too; wish that I'd brought my ticket in advance for Thursday night and Friday night, Oh well, I'll be seeing it eventually, and I'll be seeing the Star Trek Movie Marathon, for which I've got the tickets.

 

[Gaith]

Based on the weekend so far, Box Office Mojo is predicting a total domestic haul of $135-145m. For a $145m-budgeted movie not playing in China, and one which is set to lose its opening-weekend first place slot to a non-franchise animated movie's second weekend, that's not a great result. (For comparison, Spy made a total domestic haul of 75% of that estimate for less than half the budget.) The Hollywood Reporter says it "will need strong legs in the U.S. and overseas to land in the black".

Some interesting analysis from Deadline's Anthony D'Alessandro:

The go-to excuse for the the less-than spectacular opening for Ghostbusters was that Sony was too ambitious in re-starting this franchise with a female cast; that they’ve completely put off guys.

But here’s the root more than anything else as to why Ghostbusters under-delivered: It’s not your typical, bawdy Feig/McCarthy comedy but instead more family-friendly, and that’s what everyone noticed and cried foul over in March after seeing the first trailer (one of the worst-rated in YouTube history): They didn’t think it was funny.

The original Ghostbusters was never intended to be a family brand, it was a special effects tentpole with a sarcastic Saturday Night Live/National Lampoon/Second City sense of humor. Over time, it became kid-ified with its cartoon and video game ancillaries, and that’s the trap that Sony and the flimmakers fell into in reigniting this film. It’s too goody goody, and audiences can smell that. If you’re going to hire Feig and McCarthy, then they should execute what they’re known and loved for: a raunchy Ghostbusters. All the outrageous elements that have made Feig/McCarthy films great — characters getting a bad batch of food poisoning, McCarthy handing out the riot act — have been traded in for here for an origin story about proton packs and a deep dive on phantom science; in sum, this Ghostbusters takes itself more seriously than the 1984 version and plays it too safe.
​

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Based on the weekend so far, Box Office Mojo is predicting a total domestic haul of $135-145m. For a $145m-budgeted movie not playing in China, and one which is set to lose its opening-weekend first place slot to a non-franchise animated movie's second weekend, that's not a great result. (For comparison, Spy made a total domestic haul of 75% of that estimate for less than half the budget.) The Hollywood Reporter says it "will need strong legs in the U.S. and overseas to land in the black".

Not surprising.

Some interesting analysis from Deadline's Anthony D'Alessandro:The original Ghostbusters was never intended to be a family brand, it was a special effects tentpole with a sarcastic Saturday Night Live/National Lampoon/Second City sense of humor.

I mentioned the interest in the SNL cast members before--that they had turned SNL into that show--"must see TV" many Americans had to watch. Add the somewhat above cult fandom for then-former SCTV cast members, and the pre-release interest in the original GB was intense. That was clear as day among audience talk of the period.

Over time, it became kid-ified with its cartoon and video game ancillaries, and that’s the trap that Sony and the flimmakers fell into in reigniting this film. It’s too goody goody, and audiences can smell that.

..and it did not help that the director ran to the media attacking any potential audience members who responded to trailers, casting, etc. That aside, the "kid-ified" factor as a negative happened to TMNT; that started as a darker, yet satirical comic, but with each new adaptation (and toy lines), it turned into sugary slop never coming close to the original idea / intent.

$135 - $145 domestic is just anemic for a 2016 summer fantasy / alleged tentpole film. Further, the original Ghostbusters had more of a North American appeal thanks to its stars an surrounding cultural strengths, which explains why its first release domestic earnings moved toward $230 million on a $30 million dollar budget. That was a major hit.

The takeaway: enough with the reboots--particularly of films generations of audiences were not demanding return in that form.

 

[Mr Light]

I thought it was good but not great. Not a perennial classic like the original but worth seeing. It was funny, but not as funny as The Heat or Spy so in that sense I was disappointed.

My biggest complaint is the lame villain. Just some loser loner nut. I was hoping some evil demon lord would be behind him like Zuul or Vigo but nope it was just him all along.

Kate McKinnon was the standout of the movie. In *every shot* she's doing something interesting, even though she's usually silent and in the background. And what is the nature of her weird loyal sidekick relationship with McCarthy? It was all very interesting and weird.

 

[Captain Craig]

When I see some comments "not as funny as Heat" I'm instantly in a "What?" mindset.
I hated Heat, hated it, didn't find it funny due to the sheer OTT antics of Melissa. Sandra's character redeems it in places but Heat is just horrible and if nuGB is only modestly "not as funny as Heat" to some people then nuGB isn't for me just as I suspected based on the trailers.

 

[Mr Light]

I thought The Heat was hilarious I find Melissa McCarthy as a foul mouthed monster to be endlessly entertaining.

 

[Captain Craig]

I wasn't specifically addressing any one poster, although I see how it could appear that way Mr.Light. I've seen the mention of Heat as funny by a few when discussing nuGB here and other places. I'm not taking a jab at anyone's preference for enjoying Heat. I just didn't, so when I see "nearly as good as Heat", that's just a disconnect to me and confirms what the trailers indicated for my humor tastes. That is I wouldn't find it that funny.

 

[JD]

..and it did not help that the director ran to the media attacking any potential audience members who responded to trailers, casting, etc. That aside, the "kid-ified" factor as a negative happened to TMNT; that started as a darker, yet satirical comic, but with each new adaptation (and toy lines), it turned into sugary slop never coming close to the original idea / intent.

I thought the IDW comics were supposed to be quite a bit darker?

 

[jaime]

Ghostbusters was always kid friendly, most of the more adult stuff was cut, and was definitely cut by the time it hit TV. It also had breakfast cereal tie ins etc.
Ironically, The Real Ghostbusters actually started more adult oriented, then became more...sugary slop?... As time went on, especially with the rise in popularity of Slimer.
Ghostbusters 2 actually had more adult content and a darker storyline than the first film, its only considerations to the cartoon being a slight influence on Janina and the redesigned newly benign Slimer. (the taking of Oscar for instance...I also dislike the modern accusations of Dana having nothing to do except protect her baby...for a start that's all most of the cast are doing by the finale, and she's also shown to have not one, but two professions...cellist and art restorer.)

Anyway, looking forward to new movie now, reviews and second batch of trailers have buoyed my hopes, even though I remain against remakes, and hope my wife's concerns that it isn't like an installment of Loose Women with added SFX and American accents prove to be unfounded. There's a lot riding on Hemsworth not being the butt of sexism beyond banter...not least, as despite some odd reviews of the new film, janine never was, and I don't remember any fat jokes in the first film unless you count Slimer.

 

[Mr Light]

Ghostbusters is kid friendly?! Dan Ackroyd gets a blowjob in the first movie!

 

[Trekkin]

That scene creeped me the fuck out as a kid, and I had no idea why. It was just...weird.

Admittedly, it was nowhere near the pants-wetting terror of the Librarian, Zuul in Dana's kitchen, Louis getting mauled, Dana's Linda Blair impression, and the...'armchair.'

Oh, and I distinctly remember one of the cartoons having the frigging Cenobites in it. You know, Clive Barker's misshapen S&M Angel/Demons?

EDIT: Proof! https://culturaltrash.com/2016/06/0...he-ghostbusters-fought-the-cenobites-sort-of/

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I thought the IDW comics were supposed to be quite a bit darker?

Darker than the original TMNT? That might be a matter of opinion, but the original comic was darker, very violent had more edge to the point where the characters that could not adapted without the colorful, softer changes & kid-friendly catchphrases introduced in the cartoons.