Why Is Ghostbusters: Afterlife Immune to Criticisms of the 2016 Reboot?

I can't decide what the root of this problem is. Some options:
A. Something about modern society is producing fewer good writers
B. Studio interference is destroying good scripts.
C. We've forgotten all the crappy writing from the last 100 years of movie making
D. Writers are not doing rewrites/later drafts, because they think they shit gold.

 

Can't say with any certainty that none of the others are happening to some extent, but from where I'm sitting C is clearly true for a massive number of people. Just because you (general) grew up with it, doesn't actually mean it was a masterpiece of incredible writing, and that's without even getting into all the ones that have literally just been forgotten entirely because they really were that bad even way back when.

 

I think it's mainly a case of people only remembering the good. There are dozens of movies coming out every year, but people only really remember a few hundred, if that, over the last several decades.

 

2016's Ghostbusters: The Vagina Monologues was an all time bad movie, which is a shame and puzzling because the cast is an all time great cast

 

Yeah, it's C without a doubt. People are too easily blinded by nostalgia.

 

I normally don't post in this forum, but now I'm more interested in seeing Ghostbusters (2016). It sounds like all the right people hate it.

I saw the first two movies, and I liked them well enough, but I don't have any real attachment to them. Though I do love the soundtrack for Ghostbusters 2.

 

Honestly, I think it's a bit of all of those, with C definitely more than the others. But It definitely feels like there have been more vocal producers who have lashed out as of late, but maybe that's just the effect of social media giving everyone near instant access to people who the regular public normally wouldn't have had access to decades ago. Same with hearing about studio interference. You tend to hear a lot more about it now, but that may just be a factor of information being more easily available.

 

I think's a mix of studio being risk averse and one thing they always constantly turn to is big names they can plaster over ads and put front centre in the trailers hoping the star power covers the fact that the movie itself is rather weak - sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. The other thing is creativy via commitee, i.e. studio interference as you mentioned. Focus groups and marketing departments create checklists what certain movies need - needs more funny? Includde a wisecracking sidekick? Needs more action? Put in some huge CGI action etc. Often enough it torpedoes the intent of the writer and the director and ruins an otherwise good movie that wouldn't follow the standard Hollywood template.

 

I remember hearing that the script of "The Passenger" wit Pratt and Lawrence floated around the studios for years, and was considered a very strong story. I also remember hearing that the studio changed the ending of the movie to be more conventional. I also haven't actually seen the movie, so I can't comment personally.

 

It's a really bad movie. I suggest you don't see it.

Unrelated, I haven't seen it either.

 

The original ending was darker.

I think it's a bit of C and a bit of D, and a tiny bit of B with some movies because maybe the studio is being cautious or is trying to get more revenue.

 

I read about the original ending....I thought it stunk because it bent over backwards to make Pratt's character less of a douche and ultimately vindicated in what he did.

 

Either ending he's a douche. I don't think I could have been as forgiving as she was at the end of the movie the way they did that filmed ending.

 

Really, the best way to do that story would have just have him go insane from loneliness and tell her it was an error at first that she was released and he didn't do it.

She discovers the truth and it becomes a cat and mouse thing between them.

The ending would either be him killing her, learning nothing and then choosing another woman to awaken and say "I'll do better this time."

Or she kills him and then slowly goes mad from the same isolation as him. The last scene would be her wondering if she'll end up awakening someone else.

 

Or both of them going insane and the ship never making it to its destination via some other fault. They all die.

 

It's an interesting story and premise with a typical Hollywood happy ending despite an initial unforgivable act by the character Chris Pratt plays ( though i love the explanation by another character " But the drowning man will always try and drag somebody down with him. It ain't right, but the man's drowning.") I can totally see the studio meddling in the end and pushing for a rewrite because the change of heart and forgiveness comes way too fast and out of left field.

It could have been a really good movie if the end was something more realistic, which certainly wouldn't necessarily mean a happy end but you can't have a controversial movie ending with a supposedly summer blockbuster movie featuring 2 hot and young A Listers. Studios are not that brave usually when there's 100+ million on the line.

 

It's pretty typical of Hollywood to take a decently scripted novel idea, rave about how "high concept" it is, then immediately proceed to round off all it's edges, and substitute anything remotely unconventional or original with whatever some focus group says every demographic responds to. Then act shocked when the movie turns out shite, the audience rejects it, and they come to the conclusion along the lines of "well I guess people don't like movies with female leads..." as that allows them to avoid admitting that they fucked up the movie from the jump.

Full disclosure: I've neither seen "The Passenger" nor read the script, or really know anything about it beyond the vague premise and that it bombed. That said, the above narrative is one I've read in more behind the scenes interviews than I can count, and it seems to fit with what happened with this movie too.
One semi famous example of this almost happening is when Hollywood approached Sir Terry Pratchett to make a movie adaptation of 'Mort' (for those not familiar, it's a fantasy book set in his 'Discworld' in which the personification of Death takes on a human apprentice). Showing it with praise and adulation...then mid-way through the meeting saying something to the effect of "but let's loose the whole 'death' angle. It's a bit of a bummer.." Cut to Terry nopeing the fuck out of that room.

No idea if this also happened to GB16. Maybe to some extent, but I get less of a "ruined gem" vibe from that script and more of a "willed into being by committee, focus testing data and merchandise sales projections."

 

I don't normally do this because of my opinions about critics, but I'm confused as to how a positive critical consensus (73% on Rotten Tomatoes) equals "a really bad movie".

 

Aren't you a fan of Batman vs Superman, which currently holds a 28% rating on Rotten Tomatoes? And thus isn't your position more than a little hypocritical? One can consider a movie bad that others may not.