Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).

[LJones41]

Why was it so important that "GHOSTBUSTERS" fail? Were a certain part of fandom really that upset over the idea of women leads in this type of movie? If Paul Feig does blame the misogynists for the movie's failure, then he would be right, as far as I'm concerned. Most of the complaints I have heard about this movie were the leads being women.

It shouldn't be that way. I have yet to see GB, not because it stars women, it just didn't look funny.

So, you don't really know whether it's funny or not. Right?

 

[Trekker4747]

Why was it so important that "GHOSTBUSTERS" fail? Were a certain part of fandom really that upset over the idea of women leads in this type of movie? If Paul Feig does blame the misogynists for the movie's failure, then he would be right, as far as I'm concerned. Most of the complaints I have heard about this movie were the leads being women.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Plenty of the complaints on the movie have been that it simply looked bad and that it wasn't funny. It's "important" that the movie fails to maybe teach Hollywood to come up with some friggin' original ideas instead of reboots and remakes.

 

[dahj]

It's "important" that the movie fails to maybe teach Hollywood to come up with some friggin' original ideas instead of reboots and remakes.

Yeah, that's never gonna happen.

 

[Venardhi]

Why was it so important that "GHOSTBUSTERS" fail? Were a certain part of fandom really that upset over the idea of women leads in this type of movie? If Paul Feig does blame the misogynists for the movie's failure, then he would be right, as far as I'm concerned. Most of the complaints I have heard about this movie were the leads being women.

Broad and mostly unfunny comedy, inconsistent characters, threadbare plot, over-reliance on effects and inconsequential action scenes. The cast doesn't even break my top 5 complaints, and their gender doesn't even register.

 

[Tosk]

If Paul Feig does blame the misogynists for the movie's failure, then he would be right, as far as I'm concerned.

Did the misogynists trick people into not seeing the movie, or is it just the misogynists who didn't go see it? If it's the latter, considering the poor turn-out for the film, that must be a lot of misogynists.

 

[ichab]

Can't help but notice that the only people bringing up gender in this entire thread are the one's who liked the movie. Those that didn't like it have stated very reasonable reasons for feeling that way. The box office and audience score pretty much paints the picture of a failed movie. Hopefully the rumoured animated series is better.

 

[JD]

But.. but... Sony assured and set in stone the notion that they were making a sequel. I don't understand.

The studio spent $140m on a summer comedy which is obscene. If they had spent a more reasonable amount for a comedy movie, even an action comedy, they'd be sitting pretty good. But they made a movie they needed to make nearly $400m on to break even, for a comedy that's a tall, tall order.

The movie was decent. I got some chuckles but, in the end, decent. It was saddled with too much baggage, too much referencing of the older movies, and too much dumb humor pushed beyond the point of funny. The movie is a flop, I'm glad Sony finally owned up to that. They're desperate for a franchise, yes, but they don't seem to understand how to make one.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

A pretty good break-down of the movie and the fandom/"controversy" around it.

When the company can't even make a franchise out of fucking Spider-Man, one of the most popular character around, then you know they have to be pretty damn clueless.

Sony might own up to the film being a flop, but I'm betting Feig will blame phantom misogynists until the end of time (as if such a group controls the minds of all potential moviegoers). It was misguided from the start, like so many reboots.

I think this is the biggest problem with the whole situation, all they are going to talk is how people didn't like it because they're sexist, and going to completely ignore the legitimate complaints people have.

Why was it so important that "GHOSTBUSTERS" fail? Were a certain part of fandom really that upset over the idea of women leads in this type of movie? If Paul Feig does blame the misogynists for the movie's failure, then he would be right, as far as I'm concerned. Most of the complaints I have heard about this movie were the leads being women.

There was a lot of the from the fandom before the movie came out, but once it did and people actually saw it, then most of the complaints seemed to switch over to the actual quality of the movie. I don't really follow this stuff a lot, but at least when it comes to reviews and comments on other sites, and posts on here, I have not seen a single person who saw the movie complain about the main cast being women.

 

[Ethros]

Indeed, just as a 2 cents of my experience, all the male friends I have of similar age (late 20s to late 30s) like me haven't bothered seeing it just because it looks lame and nothing else. And all agreed that even if the cast had been modern Hollywood "funny men" like Seth Rogen, Will Ferrell or whoever else, it would still look equally as uninteresting.

And again, haven't seen it, so totally admit it could be good, I don't know. But just saying certainly none of us felt like rushing to go see it.

 

[Timby]

It's "important" that the movie fails to maybe teach Hollywood to come up with some friggin' original ideas instead of reboots and remakes.

You act as though Hollywood doing remakes is a new thing. You know Ben-Hur? The one with Charlton Heston that everyone loves? That was the third time a film adaptation had been made from the book. The version of The Maltese Falcon that everyone knows and loves? A remake shot less than ten years after the original release.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

You act as though Hollywood doing remakes is a new thing. You know Ben-Hur? The one with Charlton Heston that everyone loves? That was the third time a film adaptation had been made from the book. The version of The Maltese Falcon that everyone knows and loves? A remake shot less than ten years after the original release.

Again, the focus is on a lack of original ideas in modern times, where remakes or digging up old productions are overflowing. Aside from the films I mentioned earlier, there's:

• the failed Lone Ranger
• the underwhelming remakes of Halloween, The Omen, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th, Carrie
• the disastrous Avengers (the Steed & Peel Avengers)
• The Dukes of Hazzard
• The Green Hornet
• Get Smart
• Underdog
• Speed Racer
• Dudley Do-Right
• George of the Jungle

...and it goes on and on and on of old films and TV series adapted, and barely any of them hold the imagination of the general moviegoer, or were blockbusters the studios wanted, considering their investment in what they believed to be pop cultural icons.

 

[Trekker4747]

You act as though Hollywood doing remakes is a new thing. You know Ben-Hur? The one with Charlton Heston that everyone loves? That was the third time a film adaptation had been made from the book. The version of The Maltese Falcon that everyone knows and loves? A remake shot less than ten years after the original release.

Are you really comparing old, classic stories and works with a pop-culture summer movie from 30 years ago?

I think there's quite a bit of difference between remaking Ghostbusters, and making new versions of older works like Ben-Hur and The Maltese Falcon. We're not talking about them making a new movie version of Romeo and Juliet or something we're talking about a Ghostbusters. We're not talking about some masterpiece of fiction written by some highly respected author a century ago, it's a revised version of an insane script written by Dan Aykroyd presumably while drunk and/or high and possible off his meds. We're not talking about characters, settings and themes that have been reinterpreted and seen in different lights over and over again under different visionary directors, we're talking about present-day New York City.

I think you're being a bit dishonest, willfully, by suggesting there's any similarities between Hollywood remaking Ghostbusters, The Karate Kid, Robocop, Total Recall, Point Break, Splash, Jumanji, Ocean's 11, Dirty Dancing, and Hollywood making another adaptation of a novel written 136 years ago.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Re: Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ra

Just who would they be passing the torch to? Ryan Reynolds? Jack Black? Adam Sandler? Jason Segel? Jonah Hill? Seth Rogen? Thanks, but no thanks.

(Late response, but here goes)

Okay, who in your mind would have been the best comedic actors to had the torch over to?

You act as though Hollywood doing remakes is a new thing. You know Ben-Hur? The one with Charlton Heston that everyone loves? That was the third time a film adaptation had been made from the book. The version of The Maltese Falcon that everyone knows and loves? A remake shot less than ten years after the original release.

He also acts as if Broadway doesn't do the same thing all the time, and with NOBODY in the theater world going apeshit about the revival of most plays and musicals (mostly musicals) or acting as if cherished memories of said plays/musicals are spoiled. Why are works from Hollywood more sacred than works from Broadway?

And on the subject of Ben-Hur, apparently he forgot about the first adaptation (Ben-Hur is a novel) from 1925.

 

[ichab]

Broadway audiences have different expectations than a movie audience. Box office from Ghostbusters and now Ben-Hur prove that movie audiences for the most part aren't interested in seeing the remake of a flick they've already seen and most likely own on home media.

 

[LJones41]

Speaking of "The Maltese Falcon", the first two versions from 1931 and 1936 were not that highly regarded. In fact, the 1936 film is literally considered a joke.

A remake or a reboot is just that - regardless if the material is based on an "old classic tale" or some pop culture tale from 30 years ago.

The only expectation I had from this new "Ghostbusters" is that I would enjoy it. I did.

 

[intrinsical]

I liked the first half of the movie. It had a few humorous moments. The moment they killed off Bill Murray's character, the movie lost all sense of rational logic. A character who was running around without her gear just suddenly pops up fully geared. I don't know how the bad guy suddenly became this god-like being who can control both ghosts and living people, except for the ghostbusters team.

 

[rRico]

He also acts as if Broadway doesn't do the same thing all the time, and with NOBODY in the theater world going apeshit about the revival of most plays and musicals (mostly musicals) or acting as if cherished memories of said plays/musicals are spoiled.

These audiences and critics will let you know what they think about your interpretation of an existing work though.
Movies reach a much wider audience. They are readily available to be viewed over and over again. A successful and popular movie like the color and sound remake of "Ben Hur" with Charlton Heston gets to be seen as the work by which all others are measured. The same with "Ghostbusters".
A play, a musical, an opera, a classical concert, a ballet or any work that is performed on a stage is always an interpretation of the original written word or note when it is performed by a different company or orchestra or just on another day. Change is expected here.

 

[HarryCanyon1982]

I've been a fan of the franchise for 31 years since i saw the 85 re-issue at age 3 and good that this unnecessary and unwanted remake flopped.

It was Paul's worst film as he did a few good comedies like The Heat or Bridesmaids but he was outside his comfort zone on this movie as he needs to stick to his own original material and R-rated comedies than PG-13 event blockbuster films.

The film was just a disappointing, juvenile, poorly paced, soulless, tasteless, sexist (extreme man hating), poorly paced, unfunny and poorly written piece of crap cashgrab remake with no chemistry for the characters as they are all stereotypical with no life in them, lifeless direction, cheesy CGI (i've seen better CGI), weak acting, making men look like idiots and buffons like Chris's character, the female characters are poor as Janine is a good example in the original of a lady who is attractive and smart as she has brains as beauty in the movies/animated shows as she is a good example of a female character who isn't just beautiful but had brains who does help sometimes unlike the lady GBs here as even Kyle on Extreme Ghostbusters is a good female GB who acts like a ghostbuster unlike the lady GBs here, terrible villain compared to Gozar or Viggo, pop culture references that are explained to you in your face, Chris is a handsome guy to the ladies but portrayed as a male dumbass for the lady GBs to like with extreme man-hating ladies, reverse sexism and braindead lowest common denominator humor with none of the intelligence of the original plus it missed the point of what Ghostbusters really is, it means busting ghosts like cops would bust criminals then catch them here they just destroy them. Not to mention the lifeless poorly written crappy banal script this movie has and an insult to the franchise even with the Ghostbusters logo as the monster but getting it's balls blasted, more like ballbusters is more like it. The original was about passion and love in good filmmaking as it had a brilliant smart witty script that has charm plus practical effects/good acting/good storytelling, this one is a corporate lowest common denominator piece of cash-grab filmmaking for money nothing more.

My pick for worst film of the year as me and Ocpcommunications (my fave youtube reviewer) agree with and the original will be remembered as a classic, the new one will be forgotten in a year and some things should be left alone and be cherished forever as some things need to stay in the past. Hollywood already has new franchises like Jason Bourne, Marvel Studios films, Equalizer, John Wick and more that are fresh and today.

To quote that Grossman guy from The Critic (remember that great adult animated show from the 90s?) from the LA Jay episode on what i think of the script to Ghostbusters 2016 on that episode when Jay Sherman wrote the script to Ghostchasers 3 as he wanted an answer from Grossman about what he thinks of the script and here is me with Paul.


Paul: All right, it's just you and me. Now what did you think of my script?
Me: It was excrement.
Paul: Did you say it was excellent?
Me: It was crummy.
Paul: Did you say "it was yummy?
Me: It was an awful piece of junk that made me want to puke all night.
Paul: Did you say it was an awesome piece of spunk that you want to shoot tonight?
Me: It was a bilious piece of dirt that made me cry out in pain.
Paul: Did you say it was a brilliant piece of work, and you'll fly me to Spain? Where we'll meet King Juan Carlos and drink sangria all night?
Me: You piece of blech.

And here's a great speech about if a movie stinks don't go from Jay Sherman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YigM-F4oSIE

 

[Showdown]

Ghostbusters is one the funniest movies I have every seen. The jokes are hilarious. The cast has great chemistry. This film is considered a classic by many fans. As a huge fan of the cartoon, I initially thought the movie was a live action adaptation of the series, before quickly learning otherwise. Even as a kid, I really enjoyed the original Ghostbusters movie.

This Ghostbusters reboot has a lot to live up to. I hated the trailer but still have hope the movie will be okay. My brother and I finally saw it over the weekend. This is only my opinion, and I do not mind if anyone disagree with me. If you enjoyed this movie, that's great. But I hate this reboot, and I think it is a bad movie and a huge disappointment.

First off, what I like in the reboot...

- I like the main characters. The four female ghostbusters and Kevin are likable and well acted, when they are not doing stupid jokes. Kristen Wiig's Erin Gilbert brought a lot of heart. Kate is wacky, and Leslie Jone's Patty is grounded. She is not the stereotype she appeared in the trailer. Chris was initially very funny. My only complaint is they lacked chemistry of the original cast.

- The beginning of the movie, inside the mansion.

- The jump cut between Erin exclaiming she truly believes in ghosts and the awkward meeting with the dean where she regrets saying it.

- I like the ghostbusters testing their equipment. This is something we didn't see in the original movie, and it's something new this movie displayed.

- The villain tries to destroy the ghostbusters equipment and murder the ghostbusters immediately after possessing Abby. When overpowered, he quickly try to execute his plan. No wasting time.

- Before releasing the dragon ghost from the trap, a couple of the ladies grab their proton packs. It's a realistic reaction. This added tension, and makes them look serious about the dangers of ghosts.

And now for what I hate...

- A terrible villain. He is just boring. He mostly just recite his plan. The only time he is not entirely horrible is when he possessed Abby.

- The way the ghosts look. While the effects are good, they glow too much for me.

- The PKE meter looks like a toy children play with.

- Little inconsistancies. We know people can see ghosts, yet Leslie didn't see Rowan's spirit exit Melissa. How was Rowan able to control the military and police, but not the ghostbusters?

- Why did they upload their ghost videos on youtube? There are lots of hoax videos on youtube and around the net. Even though there are many who don't believe in ghosts, but the ladies are still surprised people think they are frauds? They seem unprofessional. They should get other scientists to review their evidence first, so those scientists can defend them.

- The female ghostbusters don't treat busting seriously, and acted like they know they are in a movie. Holtz take the time to put on a wig and hat and scare someone with a loaded weapon. They jump into a audience to get crowd surfed while carrying dangerous equipment, instead of just climbing down off the stage.

You know what, that doesn't matter. These are just tiny nitpicks. The real problem I have are...

- Unfunny jokes. This is my biggest complaint of this movie. There are too few laughs in this movie. For my brother and I, there are too many jokes that don't work. The movie feels like overstretched, unfunny SNL skits strung together. I don't blame the actors involve. I blame the script and the director. The female leads are given too little to work with. Jokes that work, like Kevin being stupid, were driven to the ground, and instead of staying funny, get tiresome. Stupid jokes (like the Dean repeatedly giving the finger to the women) are far too common. McCarthy's proton pack test tossing her around like a deflating balloon is too cartoonish. Queefing or talking about whether or not someone soiled their pants is plain immature. Always ordering from the same restaurant that screws up every delivery is completely stupid and unrealistic, and only exists as an unfunny running gag. And why do you need delivery when the restaurant is right below your lab. Just walk down there and order. The scene where Kate put on a hat and wig to freak out Kristen doesn't work. The fact they are in a stressful situation, armed with dangerous equipment, and Kate could easily be killed by Kristen is plain dumb and breaks immersion. A few misfired jokes is okay, but it seems endless here. I laugh more watching the original ghostbusters and the Marvel movies. I think I laughed more during the Dark Knight, or any of the DCEU films. At times, it seems more like a juvenile parody of Ghostbusters than a reboot. Might as well call it "Scary Movie 12: Ghostbusting" or "Not Another Reboot Movie"

I also want to point out it was clear, from watching the film, that McCarthy is a fan of the Ghostbusters franchise. Also true, from watching the original, Dan Akroyd's fascination with the supernatural shines through. That added realism to the original. His excitement about the firehouse feels genuine. They try to replicate this with the ladies dancing around inside it. They overdid it, as they seem they were trying too hard to act excited. It comes off as a bit too childish.

Another difference between the two films, in the original, the team started a business. They need money and clients to stay in business, and even made a cheesy commercial to advertise. In the reboot, they didn't start a business. They were just trying to prove their legitimacy. They didn't charge any fees for catching ghosts. At the end, they receive a grant to continue their research. They are doing basically the same thing, but in a different environment, instead of going into completely new territory like the guys. It loses some of the charm and the fish out of water feel of the original.

This is not a complaint. They made a big deal about Kate's Hotlzman making their equipment, or at least bigger than Egon making stuff in the original. I would have liked to see a few seconds of Holtzman actually making them during the movie, instead of just announcing what she did, holding a screwdriver, or showing off the final product. In Iron Man, Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark does some designing, building, and testing the suit on screen, which made the movie better.

I don't think I am in the target audience the creators are aiming for. I felt Bridesmaid and Spy are boring with only Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaid and Jason Statham in Spy the only funny parts. With an all female leads, an eye candy Hensworth, and the girl power tweet, it feels like this film is made more for women than for everyone.

Looking back, with hindsight being 20/20, Sony's marketing made serious mistakes. They should have ignored the trolls. Whether they wanted the trolls to shut up or using them to get more discussions about their movie, what they did only seem to intensify negativity towards the movie. They could have said "We want to make Ghostbusters 3, but with Ramis' passing, things changed. We did not want to make it without him. There is no way we can outdo the original, and no can do Bill Murray like Bill Murray. So we went with a completely different route, so there's no denying this is NOT the same Ghostbusters. It will have a different cast, different characters, different type of humor, but still will be funny in its own right and honor the original. We know you love the original and don't want a reboot, but just give it a chance and you might find it a worthy companion, alternate history, to the orginal Ghostbusters."

Overall grade is D.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

This is my review that I posted elsewhere, and it's not proving too popular, lol....

"First, I think everyone needs to ignore the online reviews that give this movie one star or nine or ten stars. The majority are from those determined to hate it and their counterparts. In reality this is neither the worst or the best movie ever.

This is not as good as the original. Those who say it is do not appreciate what was special about the original. The humour was more dry and the film wasn't an out and out comedy, instead mixing in elements of drama, sci-fi, horror and fantasy. It was unique and couldn't be pigeon-holed, which is the secret of it's success and enduring fandom. I'd say this picture probably lies alongside 1989's Ghostbusters II in terms of quality.

What of the main drama? Femmebusters? Well, I have to say that I never had an issue with female Ghostbusters. I do however have an issue with how this played out. For one I don't care for the two main casting choices. Wiig, and especially McCarthy, are Feig's go to choices. I'm sorry but I just don't think they are that talented, especially the latter. When McCarthy is on screen she is just the same as in all her other movies and the site of her in the Ghostbusters costume felt like I was watching a middle aged housewife playing "let's pretend". I know the SNL link, but I would've preferred more skilled actresses in the two main roles rather than Feig's usual go to people. Jones and McKinnon are okay, albeit I found McKinnon as time ticked on.

The biggest problem IMO is the overt laziness in the construction of the film. Feig admits that the movie did not grow organically. Rather he wanted the gimmick of four women and the rest would then be built around it. It shows. The plot is a lazy rehash of the first movie. The team, three white scientists and a black blue collar worker - check. Library ghost that establishes ghosts are real - check. Secretary with glasses - check. First major bust a green ghost in a public venue - check. A big white ghost walking through Manhattan - check. Crossing the streams - check. Ectomobile - check. Slimer - check. Proton packs, etc - check. Similar uniforms - check. Imagine for a second this wasn't an all female cast and that aspect wasn't dominating the headlines. What are you left with? One of the laziest remakes in recent history. Hell, Feig even said he rebooted it because he was too lazy to address the notion of a world already familiar with ghosts.

Then there's the misandry. Paul Feig said in an interview a while back that the reason he makes female centric films is because he likes women more than men. This, he says, stems from being bullied by boys when at school. Feig claims his movies are nonetheless about female equality. Well I call bull. The man clearly hasn't got over his childhood and this is his way of sticking it to those he hated as a boy. Every male character in this picture is an idiot. The script is littered with sly digs at men (the angry ghosts being "mostly dudes", to give one example). Then there's the deliberate poking at the fans of the franchise by stereotyping "fanboys" as virginity harbouring, basement dwelling losers. Hell even the main villain is depicted as an angry nerd. I had a real problem with this as in real life I know three such people, ranging from 30s to 60s and in all three cases they suffer from deep lying mental health issues, be it anxiety, depression or deep insecurity. People are like that for a reason and it is often not something to be mocked and ridiculed because it can be due to their upbringing, bullying, health or whatever else. That Feig trivialises such things while playing out his own childhood grudges is particularly offensive and laced with irony. I was unaware that promoting women involved degrading men, as Feig seems to think."

So, is there anything good about the movie? I didn't find the humour my kind of humour, but overall I'm sure some would laugh. It wasn't "groan out loud" terrible. Plus, while still present, Feig managed to tone down the crass humour from his previous efforts. Also, with the exception of the end movie villain, I found the ghost effects well done. I think many of the ghost effects afforded the film a credibility that was otherwise lacking. Finally, if you can overlook at lot of the complaints I have highlighted above then the movie is reasonably well paced and does have enough entertaining moments that it's passable as Sunday afternoon entertainment.

However, this movie had two objectives. One was to restart the franchise, the other to make a statement about strong women. It fails on both counts. It has upset long term fans, while undermining it's female leads with a lazy remake and unnecessary misandry. I can't help feel a sense of irony that the movie has a cameo from one of the earliest modern era tough girls in Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver). There's an example of a strong female role model done right. Plus, even in the modern era, franchises like Star Wars and Star Trek show us that you can have strong female leads without massive controversy. Quite simply, the whole sexism row has become an excuse not to have to examine why this project ultimately comes up short. The irony is that because of that row, the only way to truly have a view of this project is to watch it yourself and form your own opinion.