Discussion in 'Media Central' started by Diacanu, Jan 27, 2015.
Yeah, one more to go.
Now that I have finally seen this it is clear that some people are sexist Assholes. Ok, the movie is pretty much your standard pg13 movie for the kids. It is cartoony and safe language wise. There is a lot of flash and physical humor. It is not bad, but I can see where it is just not going to grab people. It's comedy is simplistic and juvenile, but I think it hits there as a movie you can put on for your preteen without a problem. There were a few funny moments I laughed at an I could watch it with my nephew and not feel like my brain is being assaulted like when he watches Stephen universe.
I like the cameos from the old cast. It was not a rip off of the original. The plot is different, and the cast are not trying to fit into the old ghostbuster roles. The new cat is quirky in their own way. They did do a bit of homage to the original, but they did not make the movie all about that. I cannot say the majority of the criticisms of this movie were valid and not inspired by a hate of the fact this movie did a gender reversal. I actually enjoyed how they played with the receptionist role.
The original Ghostbusters was a classic and a pinnacle of the comedic talents that were in it. You cannot compete with that combination at that time. This movie did not try to be a recreation of the old Ghostbusters. It was a new film with a new cast. The main cast is not the comedy gods Bill Murray and Dan akroyd were in the original. They brought new things to the franchise and paid homage to the old movie. I won't rematch this movie over and over again like the original, but it is just not on that level. Otherwise it was a fun movie if you put aside your own issues. I would not say it is for everyone, but it certainly was not the suckfest people made it out to be because icky girls.
How many times are you going to try to end thread and fail? It will end soon so go away and find something better to do.
Though the screen junkies are funny, I think a lot of people forget the original Ghostbusters was really only adult in it's language and a bit of sexual innuendo. Slimer is a youthful humor character that makes icky funny noises and coats people in goo. The main cast are quirky cartoonish characters. It was humor kids get. It was just made more adult by making the language more adult. The new movie does not make itself more adult like the old one did. I think it is because I maintain a connection with cartoons that I don't find the more kid focussed humor to be a turn off.
The extended cut and deleted scenes get a bit more risque.
It sounds like it was toned down to market to the younger crowd. The new additions to the Ghostbusters arsenal seem pretty good for selling to kids. The new pk meter seems to be perfect for kids. It was like a glow festival. I am cool with all of that. Ghostbusters always seemed fit to go cartoony and be marketed for the younger crowd. I will have to check out the extended cut. I guess I already have cooties so there is no worry.
Well, I saw it - the "extended" version.
I'd say I agree that everyone needs to ignore the online reviews that give this movie either a scathing review or uber praise. The majority are from those determined to hate it and their counterparts, like a certain person in this thread. In reality this is neither the worst or the best movie ever.
This is no way in hell as good as the original. Those who say it comes anywhere close 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, albeit I prefer the former for nostalgia reasons.
What of the main drama? Femmebusters? Well, I have to say that I never had an issue with female Ghostbusters as I said in this thread throughout. I do however have an issue with how this played out. Like I said before 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 comedies 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 more and more annoying 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. As mentioned up thread, 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. Ectomobnile - 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 - and it is really rather disgraceful. 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) or overt stuff like shooting ghosts in the dick. 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 @Diacanu gives that a pass is something I find astonishing, for reasons I am sure he knows. That Feig trivialises such things while playing out his own childhood grudges is particularly offensive and laced with irony. Then there's Hemsworth as the dumb sexy blonde, but in place for the main characters to treat as a sex object and little more. I was unaware that promoting women involved degrading men or those with social or mental health problems, as Feig seems to think. A film that tries to promote equality ends up being sexist and nasty.
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 as indeed others have said they have.The humour wasn't "groan out loud" terrible. Plus, while still present, Feig managed to tone down the crass humour from his previous efforts which was very welcome. 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. So far that reason alone it's not a "bad" movie in terms of construction. Rather it is "adequate".
However, this movie had two objectives. One was to restart the franchise, the other to make a statement about strong women. It failed 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...but make no mistake, the way the equality issue was approached is poor and totally undermines the entire project. Too many people are patting themselves on their backs thinking they support this because they support female equality, when in actual fact they are championing inequality and ridicule, simply with penises swapped for vaginas.
You seem to have given the movie ten times more deep thought than the writers and producers did.
I had a similar thought after watching the director's commentary on one of the Star Wars prequels, where Lucas and his "creative" team said "We put this in [some wild violation of canon that looked like someone vomited special effects all over the screen] because we thought it would be cool!"
Even though I don't agree with a lot of it, you gave it a more even handed shot than I thought you would.
I can't believe the shemake of "Ghostbusters" is ALREADY out on disc!
Seems like it JUST came out.
It's on the same time table as Civil War and X-Men: Apocalypse.
Movies have a fairly quickly turnaround from theater release to home video these days.
As a kid, it could be up to a year before the flick made it to VHS.
They probably wanted it out before Halloween even if it had been a hit.
That was because pay per view was given a chance to hit the impatient people before the vhs release. We could get vhs copies through distributors often while the film was still in theaters. They had screen text through the movie saying it was not a retail or rental copy, but they put them out pretty quick. The time delay was always set by the ppv people.
I just watched the film, and I loved it. The four (technically five) main characters were fun, the special effects were solid, and the story worked for me. I loved all of the little nods to the original movies, and the cameos were terrific. My favorite from the bunch has to be Holtzmann. Kate McKinnon just plays her flawlessly. If I had to pick a weak main character, I would have to give it to Melissa McCarthy, and I say that as someone who loves her movies. While she did fine overall, when she was next to the more bombastic characters like Holtzmann and Patty, she couldn't quite command the same presence. It's nothing major, just something I noticed while watching the film.
I do have to say I loved all of the ghost busting technology. Kate McKinnon's Holtzmann reminds me of Professor Farnsworth and his love of experimental, dangerous technology, and I couldn't wait to see what she came up with each time the challenges grew greater.
If I had to rate it, I'd give it an 8/10. That's higher than GB 2, but not as good as GB 1. It's a solid remake, a terrific homage, and a good vehicle for the main cast to come back and do another one, though I'm not sure if they'll get the chance.
All in all, I enjoyed it!
Really the biggest problem with the remake is that it will always be compared to the original which is one of the best comedies ever made. It's a perfect movie and still holds up well today. Before the remake was released, some theaters showed the original and I went to see it. It's actually worth seeing on the big screen because you notice a lot more, especially a lot of foreshadowing of the Stay Puft Marshmellowman.
The remake has a great cast and a lot of great jokes. Any scene with Kevin is hilarious and Chris Hemsworth needs to get more work in comedies. Kate McKinnon is going to hit it big soon and Ghostbusters 2016 is going to be remembered as that movie she did right before she did it. My only complaint is the overuse of improv humor. Some movies can pull that off, but most just go on for too long.
I think Kate pulled off the improv humor, but that's what she excels at anyway. Otherwise, I wasn't really sure where improv humor was used aside from her.
The "suck it" scene at the college sticks out as a particularly painful scene. It's the line-o-rama stuff where they just keep riffing and riffing.
Ah, yeah, while it didn't seem improvised to me, it did go on longer than I liked.
Holtzman did have an inventive street that egon never had. He was more of a scientist straight man and she was more the wacky scientist. I found egon more humorous as the straight man to Murray and akroid's humor. Her humor was more random fitting a more modern kids style. That modern kid style is not liked by everyone. It turns a lot of people off. I think the McCarthy character was made to be more of the fat physical humor character rather than her better bull in a China shop type character. That turned me off to her because having a lot of friends who have struggled with weight that character type was done as a joke here. I preferred her more when she was pushing to do the busting thing rather than when they were tossing her around because fat people are supposed to be funny when they flop around.
You have to let some things go to enjoy this movie. It is not meat to be Shakespeare, and it wasn't even meant to be the comic masterpiece of the original. It had some cool special effects, and I laughed in a number of places. I might have had a Mich worse reaction had I spent 12 dollars on a ticket at a theater for it, but I didn't so it was fine.
That's fair. I don't think Melissa was so much doing the fat thing (I could be wrong, but I didn't see anything to that effect), but I adored Kate's interpretation of the mad/wacky scientist. In fact, for me it made the movie. When she said "I could think of seven uses for a cadaver today," I laughed so hard I cried. It's just the way she said it with this zeal, like this (hypothetical) corpse was gift wrapped just for her.
Well, now that most of this is in the rear view mirror (still gotta see what final sales figures of home video and merch are like) I can look at it all, and say...
Is the franchise over?
The aforementioned merch, the re-release of all the old cartons and the original two movies, the VR and theme park attractions, the "on", switch is back on on the Ghostbusters machine.
The animated movie co-directed by Ivan Reitman is still moving ahead, as is the animated series.
Have we seen the last of the reboot cast?
Even if there's never a proper sequel, the film has its fans, there were gaggles of Holtzmanns at the conventions this year, its penetrated pop culture.
They'll be back.
Whether it's a crossover episode of the cartoon, or something in the comic books, we'll be getting more of them.
If none of that happened (and it will) when they re-reboot the series in another 20 years, the girls will be passing the torch.
I'm looking at a longer game than the knee-jerk haters.
I'm smarter than you, get over it.
Grow up and admit you were wrong. Sheesh.
Yeah, yeah, go to sleep.
You're hopeless, my friend.
Meanwhile, this happened!
I wouldn't go as far as to say the reboot universe is dead, but if Dicky thinks a cartoon is a major achievement then he's deluding himself.
They created a production unit at Sony called "Ghost Corps". It was meant to oversee the start of a cinematic franchise. Well, that's now all in question given the response to GB 16. In my opinion the box office was nowhere near enough to justify a franchise, and it's the box office that is the bottom line. This movie hasn't even broken even yet by Hollywood standards, given the huge marketing costs, the production office cost and the film's actual budget. If Dicky thinks he is going to see this cast back in a live action movies I think he's going to have to rely on Sony taking another huge gamble, which I think is very unlikley.
Ah, you ARE back forever.
All righty then.
It was on on the plane the other day. I mean, I didn't hear it, because I didn't have any headphones. I didn't realize they still had any planes where they showed a movie on communal screens, so I hadn't brought any and wasn't going to pay $5 for some.
But I digress. I've gotta say, from the glimpses I caught of it, looking up from my naps and magazine articles, if they could have produced it for around a $3 million budget, the first 3/4 would have made a fairly successful Lifetime TV movie. And they could have run the last 1/4 on SyFy in a sort of cross-promotion. It would have been reasonably profitable. Especially if they made some kind of video game of it too. And then they could stave off the complaints of fat shrill women about misogynist video games.
Separate names with a comma.