Ghostbusters - It Has Women in It!

Marter

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
14,276
15
43
Ghostbusters - It Has Women in It!

The Ghostbusters reboot isn't perfect, but it's not deserving of the hate it's garnered before its release.

Read Full Article
 

InsanityRequiem

New member
Nov 9, 2009
700
0
0
I?d say a lot of the problems and bad reactions it got before release was because of the marketing and the responses the creators did whenever someone brought up an issue. The marketing was rather bad and calling the detractors sexist and misogynistic does not create good reception.
 

Marter

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
14,276
15
43
3/5 is fair. Sounds like a movie that is good enough to please the fans of the original and to provide good entertainment; but not good enough to be a masterpiece because in the end it's only a reboot (no fresh ideas on the table).

It's just what I expected from this movie.
 

Metalix Knightmare

New member
Sep 27, 2007
831
0
0
How much is Sony paying you Marter!?

I am, of course, kidding. This actually seemed to be a fair shake. Still not gonna see it due to the lawsuit threat towards Murray and other such issues though.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
I'd say that's probably the most fair and reasonable review I've seen this movie get. Most of the reviews I've seen either praise it as something absolutely amazing, or shit all over it like it'll give you cancer.
 

Cartographer

New member
Jun 1, 2009
212
0
0
RJ 17 said:
I'd say that's probably the most fair and reasonable review I've seen this movie get. Most of the reviews I've seen either praise it as something absolutely amazing, or shit all over it like it'll give you cancer.
That's odd, virtually every review I've read, seen and heard have said pretty much the same things:
The action's lacking.
The villain (and 3rd act) is weak.
The 3 supports chew the scenery and steal every scene from the leads.
It's funny, way better than the trailers made it out to be, but nowhere near the level of the original.

Are you purposely looking for biased reviews, 'cus I imagine people who made up their minds to love/hate it when it was first announced can find plenty in it to justify their positions. It sounds neither good enough to rave about nor bad enough to lambaste.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,922
883
118
Kate McKinnon seems to be the most divisive aspect of this movie. In every review I've seen people either absolutely love her or fucking hate her.
 

Rastrelly

%PCName
Mar 19, 2011
602
0
0
... original Ghostbusters, as a movie, were basically, 'good, not great'. A fun, snarky, memorable, yet flawed experience. GB2 was an odd attempt to enter the same river twice. It was 'not good, but still watchable'. This one? It's just bad. I didn't like the cast, I didn't like the style, I didn't like ... You know, there is nothing I liked about this thing. And Warp knows I tried.
 

KissingSunlight

Molotov Cocktails, Anyone?
Jul 3, 2013
1,237
0
0
I'll be honest. When I saw the review of the original Ghostbusters, yesterday. I thought Marter was too afraid to post a review of the 2016 Ghostbuster.

Ultimately, I came to judge this movie on how the moviemakers responded to criticism. There are two ways to respond to negative opinions. One is to acknowledge the criticism and promise to do better. The other tack to take is to berate people. Telling them they are just haters, and they don't know what they are talking about. Usually, when the person responds in the second way. What they are doing is not very good.

Even though, I used to root for this movie to be good. How they reacted to the negative criticism made me reluctant to pay full price for this movie. I may go to a second run theater, or catch a discounted matinee showing of the movie. If I feel this movie is, at least, a mediocre entertaining movie.
 

thewatergamer

New member
Aug 4, 2012
647
0
0
I disagree somewhat...I would give it more of a 5/10 just kind of mediocre, (3/10 if you consider the crybaby asshole behavior coming from the studio) and unlike alot of people, I'm one of those HERETICS that actually thought Ghost-busters 2 was really good, not quite as good as the original BUT still a very funny quotable comedy, what I'm trying to say is STOP COMPARING THIS TO GHOSTBUSTERS 2 try rewatching the original and GB2 back to back, Ghostbusters 2 is really not as bad as some people seem to claim, its not as good as the original, but taken on its own, I think its even funnier than the original (of course that did sacrifice some of the horror elements of the original but still)
 

linkblade91

New member
Dec 2, 2009
254
0
0
I really liked it; haven't personally met someone IRL who has had a negative opinion of the movie. I was laughing and/or smiling every-other-minute at least, and the woman nearest to me was giggling her ass off at a near-permanent upkeep lol
 

09philj

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,708
382
88
The offensive thing about the film isn't the film isn't the film itself, which is, of course, determinedly fine. The offensive thing is the kind of thinking which spawned it, the kind of very corporate thinking which actually doesn't care about whether the film itself is good. For the people who brainstormed and greenlit this project, all that mattered was how much money they could make. Taking an 80s film that is generally well liked and then doing what is effectively a straight remake but with gender roles reversed is a very cynical way of film making, and not something that should be celebrated or encouraged, because it's deliberately trading on nostalgia both and controversy. Remakes can and often do produce great work (True Grit, Ocean's Eleven, A Fistful of Dollars), because they endeavour to forge their own identity and improve on weaknesses of the original. This, by design, doesn't, and that's just depressing.
 

weirdee

Swamp Weather Balloon Gas
Apr 11, 2011
2,634
0
0
09philj said:
The offensive thing about the film isn't the film isn't the film itself, which is, of course, determinedly fine. The offensive thing is the kind of thinking which spawned it, the kind of very corporate thinking which actually doesn't care about whether the film itself is good. For the people who brainstormed and greenlit this project, all that mattered was how much money they could make. Taking an 80s film that is generally well liked and then doing what is effectively a straight remake but with gender roles reversed is a very cynical way of film making, and not something that should be celebrated or encouraged, because it's deliberately trading on nostalgia both and controversy. Remakes can and often do produce great work (True Grit, Ocean's Eleven, A Fistful of Dollars), because they endeavour to forge their own identity and improve on weaknesses of the original. This, by design, doesn't, and that's just depressing.
you've seen sony's powerpoint presentations, right
 

09philj

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,708
382
88
weirdee said:
09philj said:
The offensive thing about the film isn't the film isn't the film itself, which is, of course, determinedly fine. The offensive thing is the kind of thinking which spawned it, the kind of very corporate thinking which actually doesn't care about whether the film itself is good. For the people who brainstormed and greenlit this project, all that mattered was how much money they could make. Taking an 80s film that is generally well liked and then doing what is effectively a straight remake but with gender roles reversed is a very cynical way of film making, and not something that should be celebrated or encouraged, because it's deliberately trading on nostalgia both and controversy. Remakes can and often do produce great work (True Grit, Ocean's Eleven, A Fistful of Dollars), because they endeavour to forge their own identity and improve on weaknesses of the original. This, by design, doesn't, and that's just depressing.
you've seen sony's powerpoint presentations, right
Their what now?
 

weirdee

Swamp Weather Balloon Gas
Apr 11, 2011
2,634
0
0
09philj said:
weirdee said:
09philj said:
The offensive thing about the film isn't the film isn't the film itself, which is, of course, determinedly fine. The offensive thing is the kind of thinking which spawned it, the kind of very corporate thinking which actually doesn't care about whether the film itself is good. For the people who brainstormed and greenlit this project, all that mattered was how much money they could make. Taking an 80s film that is generally well liked and then doing what is effectively a straight remake but with gender roles reversed is a very cynical way of film making, and not something that should be celebrated or encouraged, because it's deliberately trading on nostalgia both and controversy. Remakes can and often do produce great work (True Grit, Ocean's Eleven, A Fistful of Dollars), because they endeavour to forge their own identity and improve on weaknesses of the original. This, by design, doesn't, and that's just depressing.
you've seen sony's powerpoint presentations, right
Their what now?
Here's some of it
 

09philj

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,708
382
88
weirdee said:
09philj said:
weirdee said:
09philj said:
The offensive thing about the film isn't the film isn't the film itself, which is, of course, determinedly fine. The offensive thing is the kind of thinking which spawned it, the kind of very corporate thinking which actually doesn't care about whether the film itself is good. For the people who brainstormed and greenlit this project, all that mattered was how much money they could make. Taking an 80s film that is generally well liked and then doing what is effectively a straight remake but with gender roles reversed is a very cynical way of film making, and not something that should be celebrated or encouraged, because it's deliberately trading on nostalgia both and controversy. Remakes can and often do produce great work (True Grit, Ocean's Eleven, A Fistful of Dollars), because they endeavour to forge their own identity and improve on weaknesses of the original. This, by design, doesn't, and that's just depressing.
you've seen sony's powerpoint presentations, right
Their what now?
Here's some of it
I think I'm going to be sick.
 

vallorn

Tunnel Open, Communication Open.
Nov 18, 2009
2,307
0
0
weirdee said:
09philj said:
weirdee said:
09philj said:
The offensive thing about the film isn't the film isn't the film itself, which is, of course, determinedly fine. The offensive thing is the kind of thinking which spawned it, the kind of very corporate thinking which actually doesn't care about whether the film itself is good. For the people who brainstormed and greenlit this project, all that mattered was how much money they could make. Taking an 80s film that is generally well liked and then doing what is effectively a straight remake but with gender roles reversed is a very cynical way of film making, and not something that should be celebrated or encouraged, because it's deliberately trading on nostalgia both and controversy. Remakes can and often do produce great work (True Grit, Ocean's Eleven, A Fistful of Dollars), because they endeavour to forge their own identity and improve on weaknesses of the original. This, by design, doesn't, and that's just depressing.
you've seen sony's powerpoint presentations, right
Their what now?
Here's some of it


That's honestly the kind of thing that induces me to avoid most Sony Pictures products like the plague. Especially this one.

 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
weirdee said:
Here's some of it
Wait, people are actually still surprised that massive billion-dollar corporations do things mostly by way of focus testing, and plan out franchises long in advance of anything actually being proven successful?

Wow.

Kinda thought that was common knowledge for the demographic of this website at this point.

OT: Honestly, I would've been surprised if the film had been as bad as people were predicting, given the fact that apparently "Ghostbusters, but women" was enough for everyone to declare that the universe was ruined forever and their entire lives had retroactively been destroyed.

(And yes, I'm being hyperbolic, so if you're going to tell me how wrong I am, please just don't. Reserve your anger for continuing to believe that this film is the worst thing to ever happen to the Ghostbusters, because it's not like there have been loads of cynical cash-ins on the brand. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters_(franchise)])