Spoilers Ghostbusters (2016): Grading and Review

[M'rk son of Mogh]

From reading about this film, I believe this film suffered a similar fate to what happened with Batman vs. Superman. Both films were trimmed down so that they could get the most profit while being in the theaters. There were an additional two hours of additional material for Ghostbusters, of which only a small portion will appear in an extended home release

Stranger still, you'd think a professional film maker creating a movie for a major studio that ISN'T a fantasy epic, would know going into it that basically all movies are around the 2 hour mark. 2 more hours for a comedy, even 1, shouldn't even be a consideration regardless.

Conversely, there isn't a movie in existence that doesn't have hours of extra footage. That's always how these things go, so, again, it's not like this is a surprise to anybody making these movies.

When things feel trimmed out and clunky, it's 100% on the director and his editor and these days there's absolutely no excuse for it.

 

[Timby]

That's Ghostbusters 2 after Slimer was a big part in the cartoon and the movie tilts heavily in that direction, and is one of the problems with the second movie.

That is a ridiculous over-simplification. Outside of Slimer (who appears in all of two scenes for a total of about fifteen seconds), I'd argue that the second movie tilts even further towards the horror aspect -- Vigo attempting to consume a baby, all the skulls in the subway, Dana's bathtub trying to eat her, etc.

The problem with the second movie is that it is a beat-for-beat remake of the original.

 

[Mudd]

Over at Sony, which has invested their heart and soul in dusting off this property for a new generation, they’re giddy about the $45M start, and Ghostbusters could still get to a $50M opening thanks to an A- CinemaScore with the under-25 crowd, and an overall B+. By the way, that’s the same grade thatBridesmaids andSpy received. Consider the fact that when Ghostbusters first hit tracking four weeks ago, it was in the low $30M range, and thanks to great reviews (at 73% fresh) and a blitzkrieg marketing campaign, the studio raised its opening figures (which doesn’t always happen by the way, so it’s a testament to their marketing force).

http://deadline.com/2016/07/ghostbusters-weekend-box-office-1201787149/

 

[Gaith]

From reading about this film, I believe this film suffered a similar fate to what happened with Batman vs. Superman. Both films were trimmed down so that they could get the most profit while being in the theaters. There were an additional two hours of additional material for Ghostbusters, of which only a small portion will appear in an extended home release

Like many comedy directors today, Feig works in large part by encouraging his actors to riff, and leaves the camera running, hence the large amount of additional material, whereas BvS' director-preferred cut ran long because his script was long. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt Feig wrote and/or intended to make a three-hour movie. So in that sense, the situations are nothing alike.

If Ghostbusters '16 has a weak or choppy story, it's more likely that Feig and co. didn't bother to write a particularly snappy or funny story, figuring they'd add the humor during said riffing, and then had to trim some plot stuff for time, because the plot stuff and the riffing didn't fit in the the two hours. From what I've read, I get the impression this movie spends more time and work on the inter-team drama than the original did, and with no Gatekeeper/romantic subplot, there's as not much connective tissue between the team and the villain, making the plot stuff the most expendable element.

 

[Trekker4747]

That is a ridiculous over-simplification. Outside of Slimer (who appears in all of two scenes for a total of about fifteen seconds), I'd argue that the second movie tilts even further towards the horror aspect -- Vigo attempting to consume a baby, all the skulls in the subway, Dana's bathtub trying to eat her, etc.

The problem with the second movie is that it is a beat-for-beat remake of the original.

It is an over simplification and in some respects the movie does have some strong horror aspects in it but the overall look and tone for the movie, for me, feels a bit "cartoonish" at times. There's a good scene in the middle of the film that does both the horror and comedic things to both the extremes it goes for. It's when Ray, Egon and Winston are walking through the "pneumatic transit" line in search for the mood slime tunnel. They hear some rumbles occasionally put assume it's from one of the subway tunnels in an adjacent tunnel since the PT lines haven't been used in decades. While walking through there, there's something of a "jump scare" where they turn around and find themselves in the middle of a bunch of zombified heads of the victims of a crash of an PT transit train in the past.

A solid jump-scare, when I saw the move for the first time as a kid I went with my dad, my brother, and one of my mom's daycare kids who was a 5-6 years younger than me (2-3 than my brother) was terrified in this scene.

But then a minute or so later we get the scene of the ghost-train rocketing down the tunnel and "through" Winston as he lets out a comedic yell. When the train passes Egon rushes out and explains that it was the ghost of a train (and passengers) that had crashed decades earlier. Winston stands there in a "comedic" shock-reaction and I think his hair is even standing on-end and he in a comedic voice says, "No, I missed it."

It's a bit of a broader humor scene and is slight "out of character" compared to the way we seen Winston act and behave in the first movie which very, very much took the world it was in seriously, compare than to the similar scene with Peter getting slimed. It's comedic, and Peter lets out a comedic yell but it also has an air of terror in it and the comedy comes from later as Ray reacts to it. I dunno, the first movie's comedy works better for me. The first movie very much felt like it was taking place in a mundane, real, world that happened to have ghosts in it. Everyone acts and more-or-less behaves in a realistic manner, the biggest outlyer perhaps being Moranis's Louis Tulley but only by a bit since there are people out there like him with such social awkwardness.

The second movie turns down that real-world feel to it because a good deal of the movie doesn't feel like it's in the real world and is a more typical comedic one for Hollywood where virtually everything is a joke and everyone is a character and not a real person.

Again, still some good "horror" elements in it and plenty of times when the movie takes itself seriously but there's a broad difference between, say, a supernatural entity conjuring up a 10-story tall man made of marshmallow that goes around creating havoc and the Ghostbusters dousing the inside of the Statue of Liberty with "positively charged mood slime", playing some Jackie Wilson, and the Statue, made of Copper plates and steel skeleton, gains the ability of motion as if it now has joints and limbs and the Copper is just going to neatly bend and fold properly without buckling or breaking rivets and snapping free of the skeleton to allow it to walk and move its arm to swing the torch. All because of some "mood slime" and an NES Advantage controller.

Even as a 10-year-old kid I looked at this like, "What the fuck?" and was annoyed by it, as well as other aspects of the movie like the look of the Ecto-1 and their logo now showing the "2" fingers; just a little broad in the comedy department for me as opposed to the dry stuff in the original which tried to set itself in the real world as much as possible

Like many comedy directors today, Feig works in large part by encouraging his actors to riff, and leaves the camera running, hence the large amount of additional material, whereas BvS' director-preferred cut ran long because his script was long. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt Feig wrote and/or intended to make a three-hour movie. So in that sense, the situations are nothing alike.

There's certainly some comedy scenes like that feel very adlibbed and like no one knew how or when to end the joke or shit-off the camera.

 

[Gryffindorian]

It wasn't a bad reboot, but it wasn't great either. There was dry humor all around, with few laugh-out-loud moments from Leslie Jones. I liked the cameos by the original cast as well as the nods to the old movies, like Slimer and Staypuft. Chris Hemsworth's ditzy receptionist was over the top, but he was certainly an eye candy for me.

I wasn't entirely clear on Kate McKinnon's character background. Was she a physicist too? She was apparently an expert at building and engineering devices, but how did she or the team come up with the resources to fund their operations?

Overall, I give it a solid B.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I hope it gets a sequel. There is a lot that could be done with the material and mythos.

I think that Sony has mentioned wanted a sequel and a spin-off movie with a male team. Those two movies would deal with the teams confronting Zuul and Vinz Clortho, then the teams would join forces to fight Gozer in an Avengers type film. They also seem to want a Slimer animated film.

 

[Unicron]

I wasn't entirely clear on Kate McKinnon's character background. Was she a physicist too? She was apparently an expert at building and engineering devices, but how did she or the team come up with the resources to fund their operations?

I'd like to see more of her character too, because I think Kate did a good job but she's perhaps the one GB whose character got the least development. I saw it this afternoon and gave it a B as well, as there's some nice homages to the original film and I think Feig succeeded in keeping the original spirit more or less intact. I got the impression, though I may be wrong, that the crowd ghosts who appear in the trailer were the same ones watching the parade of evil balloons.

If I had one nitpick, I wish Kevin was more of a normal character and not a dimwitted one because... reasons. Chris Hemsworth is a good actor for the role but he could have been given more to do (IMO).

 

[Owain Taggart]

Exactly. Their suits are, in fact, mining suits. We use them for both surface and underground mine crews. I laughed when I saw them in the early photos from the movie because I have the same exact outfit hanging in my locker. Now if I only had a proton pack to go with it.. At least I know what I'm wearing for Halloween this year!

They are? I had no idea. I live in a mining town and I haven't seen that particular variety. I thought they looked more like a variation of what street workers wear. Ironically, some local women invented mining gear specifically made to fit women better, and they went into production just shortly before the movie was announced. Here's the website for them.

https://covergallsworkwear.com/

 

[Lakenheath 72]

Hemsworth ad-libbed the joke about his character's pet.

The completed film was over four hours long. Feig and his team of editors trimmed the film down to its final shape.

http://collider.com/ghostbusters-extended-cut-blu-ray-paul-feig/

Feig: You just start weeding and saying, ‘What do people want to delve deeper into and what do we wanna just kind of skirt through and get to the fun parts?’”

For me, after seeing the film a second time, I would have cut down the scene at the institute where the dean tells the women that his institute would not continue funding their work and was kicking them out of the institute and the joke about Swayze's films. They dragged the film down.

I used the analogy of B vs. S, as I feel both films had key character moments removed.

I have seen most of the tentpole summer films. In many ways, they are similar, in that there is a character who is motivated by a need to enact retribution or revenge on the world, and the good guys are there to thwart the villain's agenda. The villain is not defined much beyond their motivation. They are usually the weakest part of the film. Rowan is no different. (The only film that does not have a character with this motivation is Finding Dory.)

I looked up google for suits similar to the ones worn by the Ghostbusters team. The closest parallels I could find were fire-retardant coveralls, which would make sense I suppose.

 

[Trekker4747]

I hope it gets a sequel. There is a lot that could be done with the material and mythos.

I think that Sony has mentioned wanted a sequel and a spin-off movie with a male team. Those two movies would deal with the teams confronting Zuul and Vinz Clortho, then the teams would join forces to fight Gozer in an Avengers type film. They also seem to want a Slimer animated film.

Yeah, this is what Sony wants, hence the "Ghost Corps" production company logo at the beginning, they want an MCU style property which, really, is kind of thinking a bit broad and big for this property. I'd be fine with just a series of films with this crew but I don't really see a need/use for a Slimer-centric kiddie movie or other teams of Ghostbuters leading to a multi-team teamup to defeat some big-bad from... another apocalyptic event?

If I had one nitpick, I wish Kevin was more of a normal character and not a dimwitted one because... reasons. Chris Hemsworth is a good actor for the role but he could have been given more to do (IMO).

I think making him dim is fine, but they could have done it without making him rock stupid, removing the lenses in his glasses because the lenses bothered him... Which... I'd think not being able to see well would bother him more; and then him closing/covering his eyes to stop hearing is just over-the-top. Want to make him dumb and clueless? Fine. But making him this rock-stupid is too much. The stuff with his dog's name was fairly humorous though.

I wasn't entirely clear on Kate McKinnon's character background. Was she a physicist too? She was apparently an expert at building and engineering devices, but how did she or the team come up with the resources to fund their operations?

Kate, for me, was a great part of this movie. Her character's background seems like it'd be more centered in engineering but since she had some knowledge of nuclear technology she's likely a physicist on some level. But I did really like the scene where she had her "stand out" slow-mo battle moment with the proton-pistols with the new instrumental take on the theme. The action scene really worked for me, I also really liked the proton blunderbuss Kristen used during the battle.

The humor for me is a bigger problem and I hope in any sequels/spinoffs they don't got so low, obvious and cliched and the ad-libbing stuff really can be toned down; that led to a lot of scenes with humor in them where they kept hitting the joke over and over. The stuff with the name of Kevin's dog was ad-libbed but it worked because at least the joke was progressing in it's illogic. But then there's the scene with the "cat's out of the bag" in the mayor's office, the Patrick Swayze movie bit, the college dean and giving the finger. Stuff like that went on too long, past the point of the joke being funny anymore.

And going for the obvious:

There's the scene where they're putting together the plot of the "villain" with the metaphysical/spectral lines or whatever. Kristen Wigg draws several "X"s on a map of New York to indicate the various encounters they've had and then connects them with a larger "X" and asks if what they look like to everyone.

Kevin is standing there and studying them and he says "It's an X, crossing several other X's" or something to that effect. Which is.... supposed to be funny? He's DUMB we get it! You know what WOULD have been funny? If he said they looked like the metaphysical lines the villain was accessing. Him having this moment of lucidity and intelligence. something to cause a take and reaction from the crew. I'd think that'd have gotten a bigger laugh. Jokes need a PAY OFF and there's no pay off to the "Kevin is dumb" joke. He just keeps acting dumb and dumber and even dumber.

Something else: In the earliest trailer I criticized the scene where Abby while possessed turns her head almost all the way around, something that'd be devastating and deadly for a human being's body. But, fine, "she's possessed" and over the course of the scene we see Ronin doing things with Abby's body that'd not likely be something a heavier-set middle-aged woman would be capable of. Namely some of the jumps and physical feats like easily lifting up Holtzman to throw her out the window. But, fine, she's possessed and the ghost of Ronin isn't bound by physical laws and can do whatever he wants as a ghost through a human vessel.

But then when he inhabits Kevin he remarks about how much better that body is and marvels at his strength as he goes back to his contraption commenting he should have worked out more while alive. DUDE! You were in the body of a pudgy 40-something woman just 20 minutes ago! You were tossing people around, performing massive jumps, turning your head around almost 180-degrees, floating in the air and kicking the ass of two women in arguably better shape than your vessel. Clearly the strength of the body you're in doesn't matter!

 

[LJones41]

I'm not going to go into detail regarding my feelings about the movie. I'll just say that . . . um, I really enjoyed it. I really, really enjoyed it. The four leads had great screen chemistry. Chris Hemsworth played one of the funniest dumb blondes in film history. And it was a great story. Actually I think it's better than "GHOSTBUSTERS 2".

 

[Trekker4747]

Better than Ghostbusters 2..... Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Maybe, *just.* Like the difference between the Gold Medal winner of a race and the Silver Medal. GB2 as I indicated up-thread has problems in it and I'm not too big on it. I'll rewatch it occasionally but it's not something that I feel like I must revisit once a year or something like I feel with Ghostbusters. Like, when they re-played Ghostbusters in theaters I was there! If they were replaying Ghostbusters 2? Eh, I wouldn't likely bother. So, with that, I might say this one is "better" because it is something I could see myself watching again; well, I did watch it again. Saw it again with a friend this evening. I think parts of it worked better for me. My friend was meh, but said he has no desire to ever see it again he doesn't think it's interesting enough and said he was bored in parts of it and it didn't really make him laugh outside a few moments.

The Collector in me *might* buy it on BD as I think it over more because there is some stuff I like in it. The climatic battle is pretty good, though standard for movies these days, and I did really, really like McKinnon's character.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

@Trekker4747:

Can you fix the poll, so that people can view the results without voting in it?

 

[davejames]

I think I'd give a slight edge to Ghostbusters 2 myself. The remake might have had a lot more laughs in it, but GB2 still felt to me much more like a Ghostbusters movie that at least tried to take itself somewhat seriously and had some actual stakes in it.

And of course just the fun of seeing Bill Murray and the rest play these iconic characters again kinda makes up for everything else in my book.

 

[LJones41]

My family and I had just watched "GHOSTBUSTERS 2" on Friday night. Then I saw "GHOSTBUSTERS '16" this afternoon. So, yes . . . I stand by my words. I think this recent movie is better. And all three seem like Ghostbusters films to me.

 

[Trekker4747]

Is there a reason why results of the poll "are only viewable after voting"? Is this the way polls must be on the new board? Could it be changed, either by a mod or the OP? I'm curious to see the poll results before going to the film (dunno when I'm going to go), and I doubt I'm alone in that. Or is it a secret club in which only people who've seen the film get to know how the poll is turning out?

@Trekker4747:

Can you fix the poll, so that people can view the results without voting in it?

Sorry, didn't see the earlier posting on this topic.

I made the poll, "Vote to View" mostly out of not wanting to "taint the results", to dissuade "troll voting", what's the point of tainting the poll if that tainting cannot be viewed unless one votes? I really wish there was a way to make it so that one has to post in order to vote in the poll.

I see the benefit/need for one to see the results of the poll in order to know the opinions of the movie without having to read the thread and risk being exposed to spoilers. (Though, not sure there's really a way to spoil this movie. It's pretty paint-by-numbers.) I suppose any negative votes can be ignored judging by the trend of the poll or without the vote being given context with a post.

Anyway, I opened the poll up to viewing regardless of one's having voted or not.

@CorporalCaptain

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Thank you, @Trekker4747!

 

[Csalem]

I wasn't entirely clear on Kate McKinnon's character background. Was she a physicist too? She was apparently an expert at building and engineering devices, but how did she or the team come up with the resources to fund their operations?

In the trailer she is just described as a "brilliant engineer". The money thing is never made clear in the movie but they did show them stealing a lot of stuff from the university after being fired.

 

[Trekker4747]

Erin was a college professor on the cusp of getting tenure; it's possible she had a pretty good nest-egg saved-up to put towards the business or at least good enough credit to get them a small-business loan.