Well, there was a small element of that obviously. Some great one liners in it too. Am I just suffering deja vu or did they follow Spaced and seed in lots of quotes from other movies?
Last edited:
Ghostbusters 2016: Talk about the movie(s).
- Thread starter Frontier
- Start date
Well, there was a small element of that obviously. Some great one liners in it too. Am I just suffering deja vu or did they follow Spaced and seed in lots of quotes from other movies?
The comments in that link shows plenty of holes being shot through that posting. No need to repeat it here. Unless *gasp* Dennis was trying to stir up trouble????
I think we can all rest assured no matter what the final box office total or critical reviews or opinions on the use of women that Paul Feig will work with Melissa McCarthy again. 
Real numbers, budgets and earning requirements do not lie.
Back off with those facts, I am a scientist. And since I believe in the scientific method, let me present my absolutely meaningless empirical evidence.
- STB, a day after première, a third of the IMAX theatre was full. Those are approximately Star Wars The Force Awakens' third week's numbers (same cinema, same day of week, same hour).
- STB, six days after the première, 5 people. (VERY dominating)
- Ghostbusters, a day after première... We were 3 guys. Nobody else.
Ergo there were more laughs at Ghostbusters jokes on the STB showing than on the Ghostbusters one. The cinema was probably like “Ugh, that's less people than shrimp Abby got in her soup! If we have kept showing Star Trek, we may have sold two more tickets!”
Over here, with two more women liking it (that's approximately ∞ times increase), Ghostbusters was Holtzmanned by Star Trek. Literally.
I thought it was a really enjoyable movie, a fun summer blockbuster type thing. Great cast, great cameos and great special effects. People make me laugh when they hold up the original Ghostbusters as some sort of high art when it was simply an enjoyable movie, a fun summer blockbuster type thing.
And sometimes they neglect to mention how bloody awful Ghostbusters 2 actually was (IMO).
Edit - I should point out that I was eleven when the original movie was released and some of the scenes were a bit scary but I found no scenes like Louis getting chased and attacked in this movie. However, my eight year old son and his friends were all chattering like monkeys on the way home about scenes that they thought were scary so it's all relative.
And sometimes they neglect to mention how bloody awful Ghostbusters 2 actually was (IMO).
Edit - I should point out that I was eleven when the original movie was released and some of the scenes were a bit scary but I found no scenes like Louis getting chased and attacked in this movie. However, my eight year old son and his friends were all chattering like monkeys on the way home about scenes that they thought were scary so it's all relative.
Pretty much. If the film makes enough to justify a sequel, one will happen regardless of whether women are starring or not.
The rest of society may be motivated by an intense hatred of women (sarcasm implied), but movie studios only seem to care about money.
Yep.
They would have been better off creating some vehicle for Kate McKinnon, as she has numerous sides to her brand of comedy (certainly the most versatile of the GB cast), and could carry a film as the solo lead.
Well the film still needs to gross another 70 or so million to just break even and at this late date it probably wont happen. I think there will be no sequel to this movie. They should have given the fans what they wanted a sequel to the original or at the very least a passing of the baton movie. Basically the originals hiring the girls to continue the ghostbusting. Remakes usually suck and are more often then not inferior to the originals.
Yeah, it's not a bomb but it's also not a success. By straight objectivity, by the standards that movies are judged by these days, it can't be called a success in any sense. The studio is absolutely going to lose money on it.
And neither is Star Trek Beyond a success. 2016 has been poor for movies so far across the board, Disney excepted.
And neither is Star Trek Beyond a success. 2016 has been poor for movies so far across the board, Disney excepted.
There once was a sequel to Fant4stic coming too. Trek will survive an under-earner. Ghostbusters may take a bigger hit. Sony are gagging for a franchise they can milk, and keep trying to make that happen instead of making good decisions for individual films. You can smell their desperation.
Star Trek will have a larger OS take that GB will not be able to achieve. So while ST:B will have a lackluster domestic it'll survive. GB is still showing it's largely a niche franchise, Star Trek long ago proved it's deeper roots into the mainstream pop culture scene.
The new ST show is allegedly already profitable due to the way the show is licensed.
Keeping ST viable and out there is longterm profitable for Paramount in a way GB just isn't likely to be for SONY.
And that's a shame because this latest Trek film was leaps and bounds better than the last one
'Ghostbusters' Heading for Loss, Sequel Unlikely
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ya...kely-120409710.html?client=ms-android-verizon
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ya...kely-120409710.html?client=ms-android-verizon
I totally disagree as this last star trek movie was awlful. It all action scenes/CGI for half of the movie. Was like Michael Bay wrote the movie.
Some really good movies have proven to be box office flops over the years. It's a pity that many were incapable of giving "GHOSTBUSTERS" a chance. I had my doubts when I first heard about it. But in the end, it proved to be one of my favorite movies of the summer. I would not be surprised if the major Hollywood studios will once again, be reluctant to do an action film of any kind with a woman or women in the leads. Unless "WONDER WOMAN" ends up changing their minds.
That was my opinion of the 2009 movie. It had so many plot holes that I found it miraculous that the critics had failed to spot them.
That was my opinion of the 2009 movie. It had so many plot holes that I found it miraculous that the critics had failed to spot them.
It shouldn't be that way. I have yet to see GB, not because it stars women, it just didn't look funny. The same way the upcoming War Dogs with Jonah Hill and Miles Teller doesn't look funny to me. Yet, Hollywood will keep cranking out male buddy/ensemble films faster. At some point Netflix will allow me a chance to see both but for my theater dollar the film has to lure me in with trailers(that's their point) and neither film did this.
That said, Hollywood does have at minimum that I can think of 4 action led female films next year and a drama.
Underworld: Blood Wars (5)
Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (6)
Wonder Woman
Ghost in the Shell(Scarlet Johansson)
Beauty and the Beast(live action w/Emma Watson)
Has Fassbender been made the lead in Alien Covenant? That was female led with Noomi Rapace before.
We are also getting Star Wars Rogue One with a female lead later this year so it's not entirely all bad on the female led action film front.
Similar threads
