Discuss the Ghostbusters movie that was released in 2016.
#4878388
Sharky58 wrote: From Sharky:
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 12:43:42 PM
To: paul@feigcoent.com
Subject: Ghostbusters 2016 movie.

Hi Paul.

First I wanted to let you know what I am a huge Ghostbusters fan. I loved the movies so much. reguardless if the cast is different from the Ghostbusters 1984 and Ghostbusters 1989 films I havent seen the latest one. as I am waiting for it to go on DVD so I can watch it with closed captioning.

While I have read about the movie online and seen some youtube videos. I ignore the negative reviews. Because I would love this movie like I did with the first 2. I cant wait to get my copy of the DVD or Blu-Ray copies so I can enjoy.

In my option. the movie doesnt have to be a remake. It could still fit for a Ghostbusters 3. I mean. It has been 27 years since the events of Ghostbusters 2 took place. Ghostbusters 2 was set 5 years after Ghostbusters.

It would make perfect sense if all female scientists came up on their own. got into their own business and went on catching ghosts on their own. Without Ray Stantz, Peter Venkman, Winston Zeddemore, and Egon Spengler.

I used to follow up with the Ghostbusters 3. reading it all in Wikipedia. Dan and Harold were working on that for a long time. Bill wasn't interested in the 3rd movie. But has been flirting with the fact he should do it. Dan even said that they would go without Bill. When Harold passed away, I thought it was all gone. until you came along.

Dan used to say that his character Ray is blind in one eye and had a bad knee, Harold's character was too large to fit in the harness of the pack. Bill's character would have been writen off to say, well he went with Dana. maybe they married and moved out of New York?

Rick Moranis who played Louis Tully has stated he retired long ago so maybe he moved out of NY in his returement home somewhere.

Ecto-1A which was actually a upgrade verison of Ecto-1 may have been sold off when the Ghostbusters went out of business sometime after Ghostbusters 2. just like the fire station which is in active use for the New York Hook & Ladder #8. The Ghostbusting gadgets must have been sold at an aution or distoried.

The new Ghostbusters vehicle which was like a different car I could have called it Ecto-1C. while the Ecto-1B was in the 2009 video game. And if the headquarters was on a Chinese Restaurant. that could be why they couldnt use the firehouse because New York bought it and used it for their Fire Department.

As for the Containment Unit which was in the basment of the old Ghostbusters Headquarters, it could have been tampered with if the new headquarters has their own containment unit. Maybe it was moved? and some of the old ghost escaped which could explain why the new team has to deal with them. I think I see you made new ghosts. which would have been awesome to see.

So maybe when you could get some of the people that used to be in the first 2 movies to show up on this movie or the next you could have them hold their roles. Say like Ray would have retired and was a taxi driver or something. Janine Melnitz could be a secretary in a law firm or something like that, Winston could be either retired or doing something else in New York, Peter and Dana, got married. We should see what Oscar would have been now. I think, according to Ghostbusters 2 Louis Tully and Janine had a love interest. Maybe it was just a lust for each other? Don't think they got married so maybe they were just on their seperate ways.

This idea may not be possible to have these other guys show up on the movie again. Not that they should play in it. but more like they retired from the Ghostbusters and let the new team do the work as they seem to do just fine on this one already made.

But you and other people can call it a remake. I thought it would be in between a remake and a 3rd film. The way I came up with this idea may have been because I loved the movies and cartoons so much.

I really can't wait to see the movie. I also have been looking at buying the 1:64 diecast of Ecto 1, Ecto 1A. the newer Ecto 1 and the motorcycle Ecto 2. This will be fun.

I would love the movie no matter the people that act in it. There are new ghosts. I don't think the guys came accross the ghost in the library again. on the reviews it looks as if the ghostbusters got slimmed by that ghost. Very interesting.

I hope this email goes though and that I let you know you did a good job with what you did. Hopefully I will hear from you sometime.

Take care.

Sharky
Now This. THIS is cringe.
#4878389
Webster wrote:
RichardLess wrote:Part of the problem with the reboots failure is that Sony might think Ghostbusters isn't a viable franchise, when in reality they just made the wrong choices for that particular film.
I've been worried about this too. I guess I'd rather support a bad movie that allows for future growth of the franchise than watch it get kicked to the curb :( I guess it's all about finding the right level of balance right? Show enough support to show there is still a market for more GB stuff, but also convey that there needs to be some changes to get it right.

The only issue with that is that Sony doesn't get the right context. They think if everyone rushes out to by the bluray in hopes of supporting the franchise that ATC was better than it was, that you're supporting it and continue down the same path. Because to them it shows that the GB fandom will buy anything with a No Ghost or the word Ghostbusters on it. Those of you worried of the franchise disappearing, no offense, haven't been around long enough to realize that while it may not be mainstream the fandom lives on sure there may not be a wealth of media and new products but the classics still have resonance. that's why about 90% of the new merchandise coming out is based on the originals. I started in this fandom nearly 12 years ago when there wasn't anything mainstream. We had builds and costumed appearances and an occasional new piece of merchandise. But we kept it going.

As for my thoughts on the new film. I was against it whole heartedly from the onset. Decided to suck it up and saw it twice. Still hate most of it. I enjoyed the new tech, the soundtrack is pretty good and McKinnon was fun in small doses when she wasn't Doc Brown impersonating Ace Ventura. I truly believe that this was a misfire created from desperation on Sony's part and it's kinda blew up in their faces. They're aware of the fan presence now. Reitman and Ghost Corps are too. I'm not 100% sure the extended cut will right any wrongs especially if things like the dance sequence is reinserted. But I digress. If any one needs me, I'll be building equipment like I've been doing for 11 years.
#4878392
Raystantz Italy wrote:Project announced: wait until some details are made public before judging.

Cast and reboot angle confirmed: wait until we see some pics before judging!

Pics made public: wait until we see a trailer before judging!

Trailer released: wait until you see the whole movie before judging!

Movie is out by two months: you judge it and it's out only by two mere months!!!


I wonder what the next step will be. Wait until a blue ray is released before judging?
This thread was worth it for this post alone!
#4878393
DarkSpectre wrote:The only issue with that is that Sony doesn't get the right context. They think if everyone rushes out to by the bluray in hopes of supporting the franchise that ATC was better than it was, that you're supporting it and continue down the same path.
I used to worry about this too, but have come to realize that studio execs may be greedy, but they're not stupid. They can and do look at audience reception with a degree of nuance. Using that Star Trek example again, they knew The Motion Picture made money, but they also knew audiences generally found it unbearably dull. They also knew they'd spent far too much money on FX. So yeah, they made a sequel, but they kicked out the team behind TMP, and made sure Wrath of Khan bore no resemblance to it whatsoever. In fact, they went out of their way to find a producer and director who understood where TMP went wrong and how to fix it. And they found ways to cut corners and still deliver a captivating story. The point is, studios do listen. And for the millionth time, not just to wallets.
Last edited by JurorNo.2 on August 24th, 2016, 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sav C liked this
#4878395
RichardLess wrote:I've said this on other threads but what really bothered me about the movie was the lack of top tier talent involved behind the scenes. Both previous GB movies had some of the best people available working behind the scene. Everything about GB 2016 was generic. The cinematography, set design, CGI and music were all bland and forgetable. Where were the today's equivalent of Elmer Bernstein, Michael Chapman, Bo Welch, John De Cuir, Dennis Murren, Lazlo Kovac? Those guys are the best of the best! Academy Award winners, all them. Imagine a Michael Giachinno score or Howard Shore? Some Rick Carter or Richard Heinrich production design? Some Roger Deakins, Robert Richardson or Dariuz Wolski cinematography? Any of those names behind the scenes and we'd be looking at one beautiful Ghostbusters film. The first two DO look beautiful. Especially when you consider the schedule they were made on. It's insane. I don't think Paul Feig is a very competent director. He's very basic and has framing/shot composition problems. Now he hasn't worked on this type of film before but I would have LOVED someone like Gore Verbinksi(who Seth Rogen recommended to Amy Pascal in the Sony email leaks as a possible GB director candidate. Good call Seth!) or even Edgar Wright.
.
THIS!

This was my problem with the 'remake' from the getgo. Everything just felt way too synthetic and processed. The film's upbringing and production didn't have an organic feel. Where was the silver lining the best of the best? the originals had Richard Edlund, Steve Johnson (rookie at the time, but still) , ILM, Bo Weclh, etc.

Different strokes to move the world i geuss. Different times different measures, i suppose.

The movie was flat out terrible. I can't really understand why some people are reaching to defend it. When i think back to it all i see is that floating cartoon-RGB logo in a live action film, and that sums it up for me. It's Kazaam and Inspector Gadget bad for my taste.

The tone was weird and unfocused while leaning on juvenile over-the-topness. The 'joke' of Ghostbusters is that all the weirdness/camp is played straight and its the characters reactions to those situations that makes it funny. The remake is just a pun and bit fueled oddity.

As far as plot…I think too much time is spent ‘developing the equipment’, while it’s a neat idea that the original never really covered, it doesn’t lead up to anything other than ‘look at this cool toy!’ instead of focusing on the progression of the story and themes. Maybe if it was a Wile E Coyote short, this attempt would’ve worked.

Also in terms of story, too much time is also spent trying to play hooky and fan service the original’s fans. Every other beat, was a reference to the original(s). If you want to remake/reboot a film, why do you have to keep reminding us the original(s) existed?

The cameos are very cringeworthy, and poorly written. Bill Murray pretty much sat in a chair and ran through his lines as if they were waiving the paycheck from off screen, only to have him jump up from the chair and snatch it on his way out once cameras stopped rolling. Now…being a Ghostbusters fan, im automatically a Murray fanboy, and pretty much love everything he’s done (other than maybe Garfield and Larger than Life), but how exactly, do you take one of the funniest people in the world and make them not funny? Was it his choise to give a bland performance because he didn’t care? Or was the material really that stale? It is a sad day indeed, when Bill Murray isn’t funny (especially in a comedy ).

The characters…don’t even work well with one another. All the actresses are trying too hard to one up each other, rather than work together, ( the ‘hearse’ scene comes to mind, where they just ramble on for 2 minutes about bodies in the trunk) . None of them seem to be ‘believable’ in their scientific roles, the techno-paranormal jargon is the for the most part, very awkwardly muttered as if it were cue-carded or forgotten. They all speak in puns, quips, and movie references (was the Patrick Swayze bit really worth another 2 minutes of dialog? ) none of the dialogue feels organic or natural. They’re so constantly chatty so much so that it ruins any tension that the film wants to build for itself, there’s barely any quiet character moments.

The supernatural elements and special effects don’t even play as a balance to the…erm..””humor”””. Rather than being used for spectacle or suspense, those elements just simply exist on the screen acting as objects for more forced puns and quips. Yes, the original’s use for special effects and supernatural elements did lead to a lot of the funny moments, but the ghosts and monsters in the original still maintained a balance of being equally frightening and having a sense of danger (even if they were the in the form of a giant demonic marshmallow, but its that sense of camp and style that made it work.) This point is further put into the ground by the movie’s main villain, who maybe has 2-3 scenes of character development before the climax takes place, a very underwritten ‘vengeful nerd’ stereotype, while the original’s villians weren’t ‘complex’ to say the least, they were at least interesting and were derived from actual paranormal mythology and folklore, which opened up possibilities for them to be mysterious and scary. Rowan is a bland character, who in the film’s climax, casually speaks to the girls while in spirit form, and turns into an 2D animated ghost logo, no set up, no sense of suspense or build up, it just kind of happens rather quickly.. because its in the script.

There's a certain amount of inconsistency when during the final battle, all the Ghostbusters suddenly have martial artist skills and are able to do cartwheels and matrix dives, i thought these people were bookworms and scientists?

Overall, this film is a big dud. It covers so much common ground, one wonders why you would not just watch the original two films instead. It’s the first two remixed together and given a modern look with a toothpick and glue job. It essentially takes every beat from the first two and spins them in a more “hip” and modern unfunny way.

Am I biased? Maybe. But, if I take away the “Ghostbusters-lore” comparisons, it is still a bad movie even by general stanards. It just wasn’t funny or interesting…or even well put together for that matter.

But other that...it was good!
RichardLess liked this
#4878398
BatDan wrote: It's Kazaam and Inspector Gadget bad for my taste.
Ugh, I have a medical condition, I can't watch Inspector Gadget without losing my sanity for at least three months. If GB16 were anything like that, I'd be the first to admit it.
The 'joke' of Ghostbusters is that all the weirdness/camp is played straight and its the characters reactions to those situations that makes it funny. The remake is just a pun and bit fueled oddity.
It's a different type of humor. Doesn't mean it's bad. I wouldn't want them to try and fail to copy something that already exists.
Also in terms of story, too much time is also spent trying to play hooky and fan service the original’s fans. Every other beat, was a reference to the original(s). If you want to remake/reboot a film, why do you have to keep reminding us the original(s) existed?
Because if they don't, the fans would whine that the originals were being "erased."
The cameos are very cringeworthy, and poorly written.
Murray's was clunky, but the rest of the cameos were great, IMO. Hudson's especially, he fit naturally into the scene without announcing "Look, here I am!"
but how exactly, do you take one of the funniest people in the world and make them not funny?
First off, the lines didn't feel like Murray lines. Second, it didn't feel like he made them his own. I'm not going to make assumptions about motivations because I wasn't there.
All the actresses are trying too hard to one up each other, rather than work together, ( the ‘hearse’ scene comes to mind, where they just ramble on for 2 minutes about bodies in the trunk) .
See I thought that was a good example of them differentiating the characters.
None of them seem to be ‘believable’ in their scientific roles, the techno-paranormal jargon is the for the most part, very awkwardly muttered as if it were cue-carded or forgotten.
I didn't hear any awkward muttering. As for being believable, well, there's only one Dan Aykroyd. ;)
They’re so constantly chatty so much so that it ruins any tension that the film wants to build for itself, there’s barely any quiet character moments.
There we will agree, but I won't pick on this movie in particular for that. Hollywood hasn't done quiet moments well since the early 80s, IMO. And while that's annoying, I won't say it ruined anything for me.

Just to let you know, I'm not picking on your post or anything, just contributing to the debate. :)
#4878412
I don't think I've ever gathered my thoughts for a full review so here I go:

Is Ghostbusters (2016) an adequate substitute for a sequel, passing the torch or spiritual successor?

Nope. As a fan I am disappointed they didn't go for a sequel rather than a reboot. Tonally, the humour in 2016 is very different. I think the best course of action for Sony to please fans would've been a soft reboot, TFA and JW style, with a mixed team. Bring in Kylie from the cartoon series, have her working in Ray's shop. Borrow from the IDW universe, have some RGB ghost cameos. Second thing, is I would pick actors closer in tone to the original, but I could've seen the following working: Adam Devine, Aubrey Plaza, Aziz Ansari, Bill Hader, Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Garfunkel and Oates, Anthony Jeselnik. And try to keep the humour grounded. Crucially, forget Bill Murray. He's not necessary. Ray is the heart and soul of Ghostbusters.

Anyway, we got Ghostbusters 2016. So how should we react to that? Not like a bunch of abusive assholes for a start. What is my assessment?

I'm glad it exists. It's fun. It brought a smile to my face comedically and nostalgically. But first let me list all the shit that doesn't work.

- There's no chemistry between the team. None.
- Melissa McCarthy tones her schtick down to the point where she may as well have cast someone else. And she didn't bring in her usual audience. So she was a mistake.
- Lots of people loved Kate McKinnon. I found her performance cringeworthy. Hated how hammy she was.
- Tonally, it was more like an extended cartoon episode intercut with a Feig comedy. Now I like both of those things separately, so there's absolutely no reason to hate the film, but it isn't quite what I wanted.
- Not scary. GB had some menace but Rowan was paperthin and campy.
- Chris Hemsworth's character is trash-tier. A reversal of a supposed gender stereotype cranked up to 11. Didn't work at all for me.
- Bill Murray's cameo. Just stop.

However, there was still plenty to love.

- The new car and outfits are awesome. Really pleased with the update they received. Just as good as the original designs.
- Rowan's ghost form was pretty cool.
- The 3D ghost effects were incredible in IMAX. Film looked high quality.
- It was funny enough. I had a few laugh out loud moments. It could have been a lot funnier however.
- In principle, the female team was a cool, progressive idea. It was just executed by the wrong creative team.
- Dan Aykroyd's cameo. Superb.

Overall - GB2016 was alright. It didn't continue the legacy of old Ghostbusters, but it sits alongside the many spin-offs as a worthy addition to the franchise, based on the visual design aspects if nothing else. It also exposed some really unpleasant corners of the fanbase, internet and manhood in general - and disappointed at the box office partly due to this backlash, but also because Sony misjudged the audience and strength of cast.

GB2016 will always be more interesting for the political controversy surrounding it than for the quality of the film. But it deserved to do much better than Suicide Squad, and given time maybe those bitter fans will come round to realise the film did a lot of cool stuff.

As for the future, I'd love to see an Aykroyd script as an animated movie and I still have hopes for the series. But I'd be mostly interested in them doing another soft reboot, keep McKinnon perhaps, but draft in some better comedians, a mixed gender team, and a slightly scarier tone, less expensive effects. Sadly, I fear the live action universe is beyond salvage - the perception of GB in the mainstream has been damaged, not by the quality of the film, but by the backlash to it. The GB fanbase is seen from the outside as a group of emotionally-stunted, adolescent thirty-something men who hate women and black people. GB is seen as a property which doesn't have legs as a franchise. These are people who will watch every Marvel flick or Transformers, and they're denying GB the chance to be a franchise, and members of the GB community, GB Reddit, have supported this notion that GB is done.

Whatever happens to Ghost Corps, GB2016 isn't quite over. We still have the extended cut to come...
JurorNo.2, Tony Bondioli, Webster and 3 others liked this
#4878423
My wife and I both watched Ghostbusters 2016 the other week and we both enjoyed it. I heard some negative reviews from the critics and that made me want to see the movie. I'm glad I read the reviews here AFTER I saw the movie or I would have had a critical eye when I watched the movie.

I knew there would be a bust of Harold Ramis and I was looking for it. I thought it was a nice touch. Bill Murray's performance was very dry and not humorous at all. Dan Aykroyd’s appearance was funny and we thought he did a fine job. Ernie did a good job too. I LIKED the Ozzy Osbourne cameo and thought it was funny. It fit for that heavy metal concert scene. Annie Potts who played the secretary in the original Ghostbusters movie also was in there and she was a desk clerk.

But no one mentioned the cameo with Sigourney Weaver. I thought she was the best of all the cameo appearances! She was the safety inspector examining Jillian Holtzmann’s containment, commenting how the entire apparatus could blow up at any time…

What, you MISSED Sigourney Weaver? Well, SHAME ON YOU! Because she only appeared AFTER the credits started rolling across the screen! :-P Serves you right for missing it!

Oh, and after the last screen showing the copyright information and the screen goes black, THEN another scene with ALL FOUR GHOSTBUSTERS in their Chinese office with Patty Tolan listening to the tape recorder with headphones on. Then she says Whoa! And they all ask “What did you hear?” and she asks “Who is Zuul”? So they’ve already set it up for a sequel so you fanboys can complain some more! :wink::lol:

Anyway, we walked into the movie with no expectations and we walked out entertained and amused. Yes, there are better movies but it's hard to do a remake on a classic anyway.

Oh, I DID like the new proton packs and some of the other toys! They seemed like they were cobbled together using what was on hand and more realistic in terms of what some amateurs turned Ghostbusters could do in a lab...

My two cents...

May the FORCE be with you and have a magical day!

MagicBill
MonaLS liked this
#4878456
Chicken, He Clucked wrote:I don't think I've ever gathered my thoughts for a full review so here I go:

Is Ghostbusters (2016) an adequate substitute for a sequel, passing the torch or spiritual successor?

Nope. As a fan I am disappointed they didn't go for a sequel rather than a reboot. Tonally, the humour in 2016 is very different. I think the best course of action for Sony to please fans would've been a soft reboot, TFA and JW style, with a mixed team. Bring in Kylie from the cartoon series, have her working in Ray's shop. Borrow from the IDW universe, have some RGB ghost cameos. Second thing, is I would pick actors closer in tone to the original, but I could've seen the following working: Adam Devine, Aubrey Plaza, Aziz Ansari, Bill Hader, Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Garfunkel and Oates, Anthony Jeselnik. And try to keep the humour grounded. Crucially, forget Bill Murray. He's not necessary. Ray is the heart and soul of Ghostbusters.

Anyway, we got Ghostbusters 2016. So how should we react to that? Not like a bunch of abusive assholes for a start. What is my assessment?

I'm glad it exists. It's fun. It brought a smile to my face comedically and nostalgically. But first let me list all the shit that doesn't work.

- There's no chemistry between the team. None.
- Melissa McCarthy tones her schtick down to the point where she may as well have cast someone else. And she didn't bring in her usual audience. So she was a mistake.
- Lots of people loved Kate McKinnon. I found her performance cringeworthy. Hated how hammy she was.
- Tonally, it was more like an extended cartoon episode intercut with a Feig comedy. Now I like both of those things separately, so there's absolutely no reason to hate the film, but it isn't quite what I wanted.
- Not scary. GB had some menace but Rowan was paperthin and campy.
- Chris Hemsworth's character is trash-tier. A reversal of a supposed gender stereotype cranked up to 11. Didn't work at all for me.
- Bill Murray's cameo. Just stop.

However, there was still plenty to love.

- The new car and outfits are awesome. Really pleased with the update they received. Just as good as the original designs.
- Rowan's ghost form was pretty cool.
- The 3D ghost effects were incredible in IMAX. Film looked high quality.
- It was funny enough. I had a few laugh out loud moments. It could have been a lot funnier however.
- In principle, the female team was a cool, progressive idea. It was just executed by the wrong creative team.
- Dan Aykroyd's cameo. Superb.

Overall - GB2016 was alright. It didn't continue the legacy of old Ghostbusters, but it sits alongside the many spin-offs as a worthy addition to the franchise, based on the visual design aspects if nothing else. It also exposed some really unpleasant corners of the fanbase, internet and manhood in general - and disappointed at the box office partly due to this backlash, but also because Sony misjudged the audience and strength of cast.

GB2016 will always be more interesting for the political controversy surrounding it than for the quality of the film. But it deserved to do much better than Suicide Squad, and given time maybe those bitter fans will come round to realise the film did a lot of cool stuff.

As for the future, I'd love to see an Aykroyd script as an animated movie and I still have hopes for the series. But I'd be mostly interested in them doing another soft reboot, keep McKinnon perhaps, but draft in some better comedians, a mixed gender team, and a slightly scarier tone, less expensive effects. Sadly, I fear the live action universe is beyond salvage - the perception of GB in the mainstream has been damaged, not by the quality of the film, but by the backlash to it. The GB fanbase is seen from the outside as a group of emotionally-stunted, adolescent thirty-something men who hate women and black people. GB is seen as a property which doesn't have legs as a franchise. These are people who will watch every Marvel flick or Transformers, and they're denying GB the chance to be a franchise, and members of the GB community, GB Reddit, have supported this notion that GB is done.

Whatever happens to Ghost Corps, GB2016 isn't quite over. We still have the extended cut to come...
Firstly, I greatly enjoyed your review (eventhough I had a different opinion of some of your points :P) and I agree that a possible change of cast (Although as a Holtzy fan I hope McKinnon is kept) along with a slightly different tone may be the saving grace for a sequal. I mean, even if the same cast was kept, I think a more concise script and different direction (Director direction that is) may be enough to pull it back.

Inccidently, I wasn't a massive fan of the Kevin character either and whilst I respect Hemsworth for improvising his way through the character, it did reach the point for me of 'hot guy trying desperatly to be funny because he wants to show he has range'. Personally I think less would have been more with Kevin as he had some genuinely funny moments but there were too many 'jokes' in too quick succession. My husband however, thought that Hemsworth was the funniest thing in the movie and very much enjoyed Kevin - so it just goes to show how subjective humor is :P
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4878514
My daughter and wife loved the new movie. Especially my daughter.

When I saw GB2 I was five and I left the theater an absolute mess of emotions. Some of the parts were so funny, but some of the parts creeped me out. I bounced around the lobby and in the backseat on the way home, recounting all the jokes I could remember and asking what my parents thought of each specific scene. But overall, I was just super excited to see another GB movie and I've loved them ever since.

I took my daughter (8) to see the new one on opening night. We dressed up and she was excited to see it. She screamed in the first scene and laughed all over the place. Walking out, she was bouncing all over the lobby and on the way home she was recounting all the jokes and scenes, scared but only slightly, and just excited about seeing another GB movie.

She loves the GB community and the charity and good nature among its members, but she was super stoked to see girl ghostbusters and now wants pictures of Holtz on her wall.

It's really nice to see people (even if it is just my kid) excited like this about something that means so much to me as well.

I like the movie for all sorts of reasons, but I love it for letting my daughter experience the same feelings I did so long ago.
#4878515
Webster wrote:
Alphagaia wrote:
I have the exact opposite experience when I talk to people who have seen it, but that's normal as our social bubbles attract likeminded people. Though I have seen plenty of people on other sites giving the movie a positive review, and I heard proton charging is very positive about it as well? I have not visited that site yet.
At least we can both say a bunch of people went to check it out, or are you just getting opinions from people who watched the trailer and such?
I've had the same experience as Alphagaia tbh. Everyone I've been to see it with or know personally who have seen it has really enjoyed it - yeah not the greatest film but a lot of fun. The 3 times I watched it at the cinema the audience seemed to really enjoy it as well, with a lot of laughs and good comments from people as they left (Yeah I like to listen to what others say at the end of movies :P).

There was a lot about the movie I didn't like, ranging from an eyeroll and a groan to full on wish it hadn't been there. Personally whilst it was my kind of humour, a good deal of the jokes were either dragged out or overplayed which was a shame but not a movie breaker for me. The extended Murray cameo felt a bit pointless and overly reckless and bore no relevance to the story, so I get the impression it was stitched in later for Bill to have more screen time. The Ozzy cameo should never have been included and I have no idea what the point of it was at all (I'm actually kind of getting sick of the same Ozzy 'flashback' joke being played out in general).

Overall I really liked the film, even with its flaws. I've seen much MUCH worse movies than this so I don't think it's earnt the repuration it seems to have gotten, but then everyone will have different preferences. I've been a female nerd my whole life and had to accept very very early on that very few people are going to like what I like so being in the minority for me is nothing new. The film helped me learn new things about the fanbase and discover a whole new community I had no idea existed. It has given me the oppurtunity to cosplay as a character I acutally like, rather than having to chose someone I'm not really keen on simply because of their gender. It's also meant that my friends an I can all cosplay together as actual characters :love:

I respect that this is not the film most people wanted, and it's a genuine shame that the controvosy that has surrounded it has meant that fans have been lumped into set groups based soley on if they liked or disliked it regardless of their reasons why.
I went to see the movie twice with 2 different sets of friends (different social groups) and both enjoyed it. The audience also seemed to enjoy it as there was quite a bit of laughing through the theater.

Yes there are a few jokes in the movie that I thought were not necessary but overall I enjoyed it.

Another good thing about the movie for me is that it brought me back into the fandom. My friends and I started packs years ago but they stalled. The announcement of the movie was welcome news. The early photos were meh. The early trailers are not impressive.

After seeing the movie I got back onto the forums. Thank goodness I missed all the "debates" leading up to the movie opening.
JurorNo.2, Webster, MonaLS liked this
#4878755
Can I bring up something about Bill Murray's cameo? If you look at his recent talk show appearances, he's often wearing hats like the one in the movie. I get the impression that part of the cameo was most likely his own choice. ;)
Sav C liked this
#4879207
Raystantz Italy wrote:Do we need Alphagaia doing the moderators job?
The guy wants me banned. Now I live in fear and paranoia. :mrgreen:
JA Slow wrote:Did this movie do anything? Did it prove women can be Ghostbusters? Did it empower women to go out and take jobs only men do i.e. garbage collectors, coal miners, cab drivers, etc? Did it bring anything revolutionary to the GB formula? Did it make an insane amount of money?

I think all it has done is give us at lease one female GB with a following smaller than Kylie's. It brought back Hi-C Ecto Cooler... briefly. It gave all the remaining GB actors a chance to wink at their fans, making most cringe. The false-feminists introduced the annoying word "GhostBros" for man haters to use against Ghost Heads. It generated the usual round of net fueled hate hype to get people interested in it like a political campaign. Now what?

It didn't reinvent the GB wheel. It was just another unnecessary remake of a celebrated iconic movie that had it's fifteen minutes of shame and now it's dust in the wind.
I agree. Everything about the movie was misplaced and unnecessary. It was Feig's own love letter to the original film but a misguided one. The movie was a waste of money as well.
Raystantz Italy wrote:Project announced: wait until some details are made public before judging.

Cast and reboot angle confirmed: wait until we see some pics before judging!

Pics made public: wait until we see a trailer before judging!

Trailer released: wait until you see the whole movie before judging!

Movie is out by two months: you judge it and it's out only by two mere months!!!
:lol:
Alphagaia wrote:
Yeah, the problem here is not people are not allowed to dislike the movie. Now that's it's out you can form the best opinion of it and it still has a positive reviews dispite of a lot of people giving it a 0,5 on principle before it even was out.
Exactly and try to get people banned while on holiday because they didn't see it in the cinema like you did. Feel sorry for Raystantz Italy. He had to see it dubbed which makes the whole film even worse :wink:
Ivo Shandor wrote:The Ozzy Osbourne cameo was indeed cringe-worthy and has the smell of studio execs all over it.
It was amusing in a desperate kind of way.
#4879714
You know, the movie is kind of fascinating in it's levels of failure. I've been thinking about it a lot, and I have a pretty good breakdown on what happened between multiple sources of news and my own analysis. I've become somewhat of an expert on the subject. My breakdown contains spoilers, so be warned.

So here's what happened: With GB3 in production hell, and Sony desperate for a bankable franchise, then executive Amy Pascal wanted a different director than Ivan Reitman, because Reitman was never happy with the scripts, casting, or studio meddling for GB3. When Harold Ramis passed away (wipe away tear) Reitman gave in and let the studio go ahead with a different director. This made Amy Pascal happy, since she didn't like Reitman, and wanted a female-centric GB. In itself, this concept is fine, and a passing of the torch movie to four female ghostbusters would have been met with far more open arms from the mostly egalitarian fan base.

Mistake #1: The trouble came with her choice of director. Paul Feig not only was tapped to direct, but was given the worst thing you can give a director at Feig's level "TOTAL CREATIVE CONTROL". From the Sony email hack, we saw that the entire plot was roughly intact from pitch to shooting, though thankfully he left out the "Ghost-Aliens."
Now had any studio exec with an ounce of sense read that email (i.e., not Pascal) they would have sent a reply roughly to the tune of "Are you freaking high?!" Paul Feig's "vision" clashed with the attitudes of his own actresses, who wanted to make a good movie on par with the original in quality, or at least with the Real Ghostbusters cartoon, which McCarthy was supposedly a fan of. On-set arguments were frequent, with Paul Feig pulling his "TOTAL CREATIVE CONTROL" card early and often.

Mistake #2 To start with, rebooting the franchise was a terrible idea. Rebooting most franchises often results in an under-performing movie that utterly fails to energize the one market counted on to bring in money: The fans. Reboots usually have much better special effects, but since they often simply copy the story of the original, rarely adding anything new or engaging to expand on the source material, they're almost always doomed from the get-go. There have been rare exceptions, but Rebooting has very rarely been proven to be a financially rewarding strategy.

Mistake #3 When a handful of sexist and racist comments appeared on the comments section of the Youtube release of the movie trailer, the marketing execs at Sony had a field day. It's obvious now that they had always intended to make this movie appear to be a strong feminist icon movie, and were ready to fire with both barrels before the trailer even dropped. Rumor has it many critical comments were deleted while the blatantly misogynistic and racist ones were left intact to foster the illusion that any criticism was from "man-boys" and "misogynists." This backfired wildly when life-long ghostbusters fans, eager for a worthy continuation, were slapped with these labels for having legitimate concerns about the movie's quality. The marketing movement, however, didn't slow down, and actually increased the pace and frequency of the "pro-feminist" angle, going so far as having the main cast insult critical fans on live television. This alienation of the fan base proved to be the single biggest death knell to the opening Box Office weekend, as a significant number of fans stayed home, or waited to watch pirated copies, rather than supporting a franchise that they love. Since franchise movies are dead in the water without the pre-existing fan base, the entire marketing of the film shot itself in the foot, thinking it would help them run faster.

Mistake #4 Re-shooting on the movie began almost immediately after the wrap party. Most of the main cast refused to come back for it. This is why some scenes appear horribly disjointed, and characters seem to be speaking to each other from totally different rooms, with no visible interactions. The cameos of the original cast were handled in a very similar way. It's obvious that for half the scenes with Bill Murray, he's sitting in a chair, alone, reciting his lines without passion. Among the film's many disjointed scenes, this one is particularly jarring as it features the first of two deaths in the movie, before a final battle with a giant cartoon ghost. The move has no consistent tone. This rushed attempt to make Paul Feig's "vision" an even remotely watchable movie may have done at least as much damage to it as giving Paul Feig TOTAL CREATIVE CONTROL in the first place. In the rush to meet the summer blockbuster season, much of the movie was cut to ribbons, and with limited actress availability for re-shoots, the end result is a complete and utter mess desperate for cohesion.

Mistake #5 Paul Feig obviously hates Ghostbusters. I don't have any hard evidence on this, but from his attitude, reactions, and the little details I noticed in his movie, it seemed like Paul Feig never wanted to make an actual Ghostbusters movie, and from day one, he had a real resentment of the Ghostbusters fan base. While publicly he's very nice, it's obvious from his movie that he abhors the fans, as the movie is almost a perfect mathematical formula for fan alienation: Making it a reboot instead of a sequel, or a 'passing-of-the-torch' movie, despite the surviving original cast being on board for cameos, making the villain a bullied nerd with a knack for technology and a fascination with ghosts (basically an evil Egon Spengler, right after Harold Ramis died,) killing Bill Murray's character after shoehorning in a completely pointless cameo, creating a female Slimer for absolutely no visible story purpose except as a commentary on what a cheap gimmick it is, copying every story beat from the first movie without reverence to source material, and making the end-form of the villain a giant cartoon version of the Ghostbusters trademark symbol, that the ladies then shoot in the crotch. These are just the highlights of a movie that almost brings the plot to a screeching halt at times in order to insult it's own fan base.

Mistake #6 The movie is not pro-feminist. While the ladies do have about 3-4 minutes of good action scenes and creative ghost-busting, the rest of the movie portrays them as clumsy, egotistical, incompetent, and far less intelligent than they should be. More than that, the male mayor played by Andy Garcia, tells the women that he wants them to continue what they are doing, and he loves it, but that he must badmouth them in the press and brand them as frauds and even potential terrorists. A male authority figure tells the female protagonists that he has total control over their fate, and the women don't even break free from it in the end. Instead, they receive a reward from the mayor's office for their cooperation. The female ghostbusters are subjugated to a male authority and it is NEVER shown that they even try to resist this. In general, they just sort of seem to accept most of what happens, rarely trying to intervene in the events of their own lives. When kicked out of the "college," the women just leave. When Bill Murray demands evidence of the paranormal, they give it to him (fatally,) when the Mayor tells them to take their lumps but keep on working, they don't even object.
Of course, considering the movie also contains stereotypes that demean men, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Ghostusters fans, etc... it's hardly surprising that it's also ironically misogynist in and of itself.

Ultimately, this movie is nothing but a hard lesson for Sony, but it's questionable as to whether or not they will learn the right lessons. Since Tom Rothman, the famous monster behind the cancellation of Firefly, the main obstacle to a Deadpool movie, the man who had security throw Brian Singer off the lot during discussion of X-Men3, and who personally greenlit the disastrous Fant4stic movie, is now the exec in charge of most of Sony's future movies, he probably assumes the failure of the movie is more related to "weak" female-centric stories, lack of popularity of the Ghostbusters brand, or that people don't like science fiction movies. Sony has a history of being blind to everything but box office numbers, so I wouldn't expect a Tom Rothman-headed Sony studios to turn out anything decent in the future at all, much less try once again to make Ghostbusters float with a good sequel.

So there's the breakdown. As a life-long Ghostbusters fan, I did my best to put aside my irritation at this film and try to dive in logically and with a dispassionate eye. While the movie, in my opinion, isn't as bad as it could have been, it's still not very good and nowhere near a worthy sequel, much less a startoff movie for a cinematic universe, which was the original intention. The greatest pity is that most of us would absolutely LOVE a Ghostbusters cinematic universe, as there are already fan films and Ghostbusters fan chapters all over the country with the idea that Ghostbusters is ALREADY a franchise. The concept writes itself, and fans would have wholeheartedly embrace this, as every single city and town in America has it's own unique lore and brand of folk tales to draw on.

If done right, a cinematic universe could even have brought in chapters of Ghostbusters (the fan made ones) to do quick cameos on the big screen, not just delighting fans, but reaching out and showing that he movie was more than a cheap cash grab.

Paul Feig's Ghostbusters is nothing more than the low-hanging fruit of comedy and film making. Believing that doesn't make us misogynists or man-baby's. It makes us fans with a passion.
Sony doesn't care, never did, and it's cost them millions upon millions of dollars.
#4879828
ZedRage wrote:it's obvious from his movie that he abhors the fans
More like he abhors trolls. But for some reason, a lot of fans decided to feel insulted on behalf of said trolls. And he abhors fans who think they're doing "God's work" (an actual quote) by trolling people on Twitter.
When kicked out of the "college," the women just leave.
As they do in GB84. What else can you do when you're fired?
Kingpin, Alphagaia liked this
#4880205
ZedRage wrote: Ultimately, this movie is nothing but a hard lesson for Sony, but it's questionable as to whether or not they will learn the right lessons.
In my opinion the first mistake was Amy Pascal deciding she needed female Ghostbusters just because she wanted to see an increase of pay for female actresses. Nothing wrong with that at all and should be encouraged however, taking an existing franchise and then shoehorning that in to suit your personal needs is selfish. The reason she went with Paul Feig is because he was an obvious choice as he only really directs women. The creation of the movie was the first mistake.
#4880222
ZedRage wrote:Paul Feig's Ghostbusters is nothing more than the low-hanging fruit of comedy and film making. Believing that doesn't make us misogynists or man-baby's. It makes us fans with a passion.
Sony doesn't care, never did, and it's cost them millions upon millions of dollars.
Bingo.

A movie flop and a misandrist marketing campaign for it. We deserved better in both ways, as fans.

Here's hoping Sony lets someone else reboot GB, like they appear to be letting Marvel reboot Spiderman. 8)
#4880232
JurorNo.2 wrote:I'm far too polite to say what this fanbase deserves, lol.
]It's not the fault of the fanbase that Paul Feig, Amy Pascal, and their friends made a crappy reboot.

Kinda disappointing to hear you say such a thing, that's in line with Paul Feig's "Geek culture is home to some of the biggest a——s I’ve ever met in my life".

When people don't like something, petulantly insulting them didn't do GB16 or the people behind it any good. As it shouldn't. And isn't a good reflection on you. Again, there's no need to hate on this fanbase over a crappy reboot.
Robzy liked this
#4880244
HunterCC wrote:Kinda disappointing to hear you say such a thing, that's in line with Paul Feig's "Geek culture is home to some of the biggest a——s I’ve ever met in my life".
It's yet to be proven wrong though, for all the righteous indignation.
JurorNo.2 wrote:I'm far too polite to say what this fanbase deserves, lol.
Ghostbusters: Answer the Call wasn't the film we wanted, but the film we deserved. :P
Alphagaia, JurorNo.2 liked this
#4880246
Kingpin wrote:
HunterCC wrote:Kinda disappointing to hear you say such a thing, that's in line with Paul Feig's "Geek culture is home to some of the biggest a——s I’ve ever met in my life".
It's yet to be proven wrong though, for all the righteous indignation.
I know I'm new here, but wow. Isn't this website, that we still like a franchise this long, and all the posts about the clubs and gear and nostalgia, prove the "asshole" Feig comment wrong?

In fact, I never heard this fanbase EVER talked about in a disparaging way. Until this movie came out, and people defended it by attacking said fanbase. On this board of all places, and the director and cast, and the media going full tilt with the "man baby" and similar slurs. I'm not surprised that some regular posters here would trash the fanbase for not liking this movie. Then you, a mod, comes along and make similar statements?

Kingpin, if you really think ghostbusters fans deserve a crappy reboot, why are you here?
Kingpin wrote:
JurorNo.2 wrote:I'm far too polite to say what this fanbase deserves, lol.
Ghostbusters: Answer the Call wasn't the film we wanted, but the film we deserved. :P
GB fans didn't deserve this movie any more than Batman fans deserved "Batman and Robin", or Star Trek fans "Nemesis", or Spiderman fans... hope you get the idea.
Robzy liked this
#4880247
I know what it's like to be attacked, only I was attacked for not jumping on the hate bandwagon over a movie trailer (not by anyone here). And now whenever I want to discuss a movie I enjoyed, I have to deal with various versions of "Thank God it bombed! You lose!" That's not a community. You want me to side with the fanbase? Feel sympathy for them? Well they have made that incredibly difficult.

The fanbase was never spoken up disparagingly before because it never lost its freakin mind over a movie before.

Meanwhile, actual crappy movies continue to make millions, thanks to the same fanboys who claim to want quality and originality.
#4880251
HunterCC wrote:I know I'm new here, but wow. Isn't this website, that we still like a franchise this long, and all the posts about the clubs and gear and nostalgia, prove the "asshole" Feig comment wrong?
Not really.

I want to preface anything I say beyond this point that there are some truly incredible people in this community, those who are charitable, generous beyond measure with their time and knowledge, real shining examples which we (myself included) try to aspire to.

But it would be dishonest to say we don't have some pretty big jerks, if not full-on assholes in this community, folks who spoil (intentionally, or by the simple fact of their lack of consideration for others) things for the rest of the community:

A recaster who makes a huge name for themselves as the go-to guy for Proton Pack replicas, which were made from recasting the work of more reputable and reliable sellers, and are terribly quality knock-offs.

A guy with some inside knowledge on some of the screen-used props, who pitched a fit when the community wouldn't adopt the particular name he had for one of the props, and who sat on rare video of one of the screen-used PKE Meter props.

A further guy who took a lot of orders for a set of electronics for a PKE Meter, and then went on to take orders for an all-in-one Proton Pack electronics kit, before he'd completed all of PKE orders...

And then there are the various personalities and individuals who over the years have refused to play nice, or lashed out when they didn't get to have carte blanche on the forum. We try to keep them in check where we can, and if not, take steps where appropriate to reduce their negative impact on the rest of the community here.

Every community has them (geeky or not).
HunterCC wrote:Kingpin, if you really think ghostbusters fans deserve a crappy reboot, why are you here?
I didn't think it was a "crappy reboot", but I know we'll disagree on that.

I'm here because I'm a fan of Ghostbusters, and the wider franchise, which includes the reboot. Contrary to a lot of the talk we've heard from of late, it doesn't have to be a case of only being able to be a fan of one film, but not the other; Ghostbusters fans can be fans of both if they want to.
zeta otaku liked this
#4880252
JurorNo.2 wrote:I know what it's like to be attacked, only I was attacked for not jumping on the hate bandwagon over a movie trailer (not by anyone here). And now whenever I want to discuss a movie I enjoyed, I have to deal with various versions of "Thank God it bombed! You lose!" That's not a community. You want me to side with the fanbase? Feel sympathy for them? Well they have made that incredibly difficult.

The fanbase was never spoken up disparagingly before because it never lost its freakin mind over a movie before.

Meanwhile, actual crappy movies continue to make millions, thanks to the same fanboys who claim to want quality and originality.
Hey, we can disagree with the movie and how it was marketed. I've actually come to like debating with you, even though we have "denominational differences". (LOL, who likes Santa, and who likes the Great Pumpkin?) But again, isn't stuff like this website proof the fanbase is pretty cool overall?

Please don't fall for Sony's and others propaganda (paraphrasing): "Don't like this movie? Troll! Hater! Misogynist! A--hole!"
JurorNo.2 liked this
#4880256
By the same token, please don't tell me it was propaganda when I was attacked by said a**holes for the crime of thinking for myself about a movie, over and over again. I don't need Sony to tell me they exist. I know it first hand, lol.

But understand, I'm not trying to throw the baby out with the bath water here. Of course there's still plenty to admire about the fanbase.

Oh, can I be Charlie Brown?! :D
#4880260
JurorNo.2 wrote:By the same token, please don't tell me it was propaganda when I was attacked by said a**holes for the crime of thinking for myself about a movie, over and over again. I don't need Sony to tell me they exist. I know it first hand, lol.

But understand, I'm not trying to throw the baby out with the bath water here. Of course there's still plenty to admire about the fanbase.

Oh, can I be Charlie Brown?! :D
LOL, OK and I'm Linus. "Fall for" might be poorly worded on my part. It's just, if I understand you right, you agree with Feig and Sony's position that the fanbase doesn't like the movie because of all the insults above. I strongly disagree with you on that.

Agreed plenty to admire about GB fans, just being one for example is a plus in my book, everyone here included.
#4880261
Kingpin wrote:Not really.

I want to preface anything I say beyond this point that there are some truly incredible people in this community, those who are charitable, generous beyond measure with their time and knowledge, real shining examples which we (myself included) try to aspire to.

But it would be dishonest to say we don't have some pretty big jerks, if not full-on assholes in this community, folks who spoil (intentionally, or by the simple fact of their lack of consideration for others) things for the rest of the community:

A recaster who makes a huge name for themselves as the go-to guy for Proton Pack replicas, which were made from recasting the work of more reputable and reliable sellers, and are terribly quality knock-offs.

A guy with some inside knowledge on some of the screen-used props, who pitched a fit when the community wouldn't adopt the particular name he had for one of the props, and who sat on rare video of one of the screen-used PKE Meter props.

A further guy who took a lot of orders for a set of electronics for a PKE Meter, and then went on to take orders for an all-in-one Proton Pack electronics kit, before he'd completed all of PKE orders...

And then there are the various personalities and individuals who over the years have refused to play nice, or lashed out when they didn't get to have carte blanche on the forum. We try to keep them in check where we can, and if not, take steps where appropriate to reduce their negative impact on the rest of the community here.

Every community has them (geeky or not).
I and others that like the Ghostbusters franchise, well we don't hear stuff like this, it would be sad if the stuff you mentioned really represents the fanbase. It doesn't represent ppl I have met, even though we're not saints either lol.
Kingpin wrote:I didn't think it was a "crappy reboot", but I know we'll disagree on that.

I'm here because I'm a fan of Ghostbusters, and the wider franchise, which includes the reboot. Contrary to a lot of the talk we've heard from of late, it doesn't have to be a case of only being able to be a fan of one film, but not the other; Ghostbusters fans can be fans of both if they want to.
Agree to disagree on movie. I agree ppl can like both. I say people can also like one moive and dislike another. I really doubt if somebody disliked GB89, it meant they were no longer a true GB fan. Why shouldn't that apply to almost any movie or cartoon in the franchise? (except the original of course, lol)

https://i.imgur.com/cMwtW9y.jpg Where do th[…]

Ecto Containment Unit

Hey sorry I never saw this…it’s just […]

Greetings from Montana

Hey and welcome

The amount of people participating in the milest[…]