Ghostbusters - It Has Women in It!
- Thread starter Marter
- Start date
Its notBob_McMillan said:
Its just another robocop reboot, its just another total recall reboot, its just another conan reboot...
Only that it beats you over the head with the narrative that all males are horrible, sexist and incompetetend, while women are the only ones getting shit done in the movie.
It is forgettable, bland and its humor is saturday night live sketch after saturday night live sketch, and not the good kind mind you.
The movie is full of plotholes and violates its own established canon, (the weapons can only be used to hold ghosts, whoops in the last fight we aparantly destroy ghosts with the same weapons!) They go from proton packs that need a generator on a movable table to function to proton knuckledusters in the spawn of a single day it seems, the main villain suddenly achieves godlike powers despite the only thing he did was die and become a ghost... only to not use his incredible powers of mindcontrol on the main protagonists when he can somehow mind controll an entire army of police officers and soldiers with the flip of a finger... etc etc.
All in all a dime a dozen cash grab reboot that plays on peoples nostalgia (even thought they did everything they could to insult and piss these people off) and has no right to exist in the first place, just like all the other reboots of the last couple of years.
The only real offensive part imo is how openly and blatantly sexist it is against men, something the original never was towards females and thus comes off as overly hatefull because paul feig aparantly hates his own balls.
So if you can stomach every male character in the movie being a primitive, incompetend and sexist asshole, while having a love for shitty CGI and lame jokes, while having the ability to keep suspension of disbelief even thought the movie has plotholes the size of jupiter... this reboot is for you!
Otherwise.. wait till its on netflix to watch it... dont reward sony with your money for shitting out this trainwreck.
Interesting to see how a better than average review is so easily skewed to a perspective that suits the reader. I mean, it's almost like the glass half full/empty thing playing out, except it's measured just above halfway (dare i say "60%"?) with quite positive wording, yet it's still skewed below the line for those unwilling to accept. How intriguing this all is.
Seems like a good movie that got hit with bad marketing and awful responses to the legit critique of the first trailer. Calling anyone who's a critic of your product a misogynist didn't work in Gamergate, it didn't work here either.
That title also triggered me. When I see the word "ghost" and "busters" it triggers me. When I see a female lead, it triggers me. When I wake up and see pink, it triggers me. I breathe and it triggers me. You know, the world triggers me and my childhood has also been triggered.Hawki said:
(Joke, kids. That was a joke. Pink is life, pink is bae)
Congratulations! You just discovered that things can be catalogued in something more than just "good" or "bad". My recommendation to dissipate the confusion: ask those who you trust (instead of just Internet strangers).Bob_McMillan said:
...I'm still waiting for it to hit retail.
Am I the only person that actually liked that movie for what it was? It keeps popping up but I would actually say it's nothing alike in the long run other than taking an established franchise name and doing nothing with it but cash in, and even then I'd say the movie does something close to reimagining, just not properly which creates so many logical holes it ruins the experience.Karadalis said:
I started my timeline earlier than the trailer release. I was addressing all the people who were complaining that the movie would "ruin their childhood". Which is a silly hyperbole. Their point was to call out this movie for what it was going to be. Nostalgic cash grab with a pointless gimmick. Then the trailer came along. I agree with you. I wasn't thrilled with the trailer. I didn't think it was that bad. However, a lot of people had a stronger negative reaction to the trailer and voted it down. That still doesn't give the studio any justification to claim that people who are critical of the movie are misogynists.Kibeth41 said:
You may disagree that this movie deserved the angry mob treatment that it had received. I agree that angry mobs should be reserved for serious issues that demand such a reaction. Movies, regardless how bad they are, don't deserve the angry mob treatment. My point is that if so many people had a problem with different aspects of the movie. They should have listened and reacted diplomatically to their complaints. Instead of dismissing these people as being sexist.
This is what I expected. Paul Feig doesn't make great movies, he makes movies run the gamut from ok to pretty good, not great. I'll definitely check it out. Fun fact, when I was a wee lad, my best friend and I spent 5 consecutive Halloweens dressed as Ghostbusters. I think I will ultimately probably enjoy it based on reviews I have read. The worst part of this film looks to be that horrible theme song. I feel like these day, when you see a song by Fallout Boy and Missy Elliot, it's most likely just over produced trash, which is what it sounds like. Song by formula, not by inspiration.
Hey whoa! Next you'll be saying this isn't an 'All female cast' 'cause there are dudes in it!RedRockRun said:
Wait so am I interpreting things wrong, or was After Earth intended to be a movie to launch a multi-media IP reaching movies, gaming, novels, graphic novels, figures, toys, clothing and beyond?vallorn said:That's honestly the kind of thing that induces me to avoid most Sony Pictures products like the plague. Especially this one.
How. How? HOW! How
Whoa, whoa, whoa... You're telling me the new film has men in it?Silentpony said:
Bullshit. I don't buy it, dude. Why else would the movie be marketed as the 'all female Ghostbusters'?
Well, I'm glad if nothing else that Patty Jones' character isn't as one-note as she appears in the previews.
(I know that preview editors often have a rough job, working with limited and sometimes unfinished footage that they have to piece into an attractive pitch for their product- but boy, does it seem like we've seen some absolute horrorshow trailers in the past few years.)
(I know that preview editors often have a rough job, working with limited and sometimes unfinished footage that they have to piece into an attractive pitch for their product- but boy, does it seem like we've seen some absolute horrorshow trailers in the past few years.)
Look, if you strip back the frankly appalling behaviour of both the dark corners of the internet who took umbrage and the people at Sony who don't know what public relations are, the movie is largely a run of the mill comedy. Also, who did Andy Garcia owe money to that he had to accept a role in this lukewarm effort?
Some of it works, I liked McKinnon's character and Wiig has her moments and Chris Hemsworth, bless his soul, is game for playing the walking non-sequitur. That said, I have some thoughts on how they can improve the sequel if they're going forward with one:
1. Have the principal cast (McKinnon, Wiig, McCarthy, and Jenkins) hang out more as people: this will help build chemistry.
2. Give Hemsworth and Jenkins better roles. Movie scientists are notorious for being shitty at handling bureaucracy and money so there's no reason that Hemsworth couldn't be their guy who manages the cash and legalese. Also, I think Jenkins should be (either through retcon or new plot development) an actual city historian for New York. They don't need to be scientists to be valuable to the team.
3. Stop killing your tension and dial down on physical comedy: I suspect this is an issue of translation more than anything else since broad physical comedy is easier to translate than wordplay but yeah, cut that shit out.
Also, they missed a golden opportunity to have the soldiers and cops be directed to recreate parts of the Thriller music video.
Some of it works, I liked McKinnon's character and Wiig has her moments and Chris Hemsworth, bless his soul, is game for playing the walking non-sequitur. That said, I have some thoughts on how they can improve the sequel if they're going forward with one:
1. Have the principal cast (McKinnon, Wiig, McCarthy, and Jenkins) hang out more as people: this will help build chemistry.
2. Give Hemsworth and Jenkins better roles. Movie scientists are notorious for being shitty at handling bureaucracy and money so there's no reason that Hemsworth couldn't be their guy who manages the cash and legalese. Also, I think Jenkins should be (either through retcon or new plot development) an actual city historian for New York. They don't need to be scientists to be valuable to the team.
3. Stop killing your tension and dial down on physical comedy: I suspect this is an issue of translation more than anything else since broad physical comedy is easier to translate than wordplay but yeah, cut that shit out.
Also, they missed a golden opportunity to have the soldiers and cops be directed to recreate parts of the Thriller music video.
I could've done without Hemsworth dancing in the credits, but I heard there was an after-credit scene (yes it's exactly what you think it is). Other than that, it was an enjoyable popcorn flick, a solid C+. The various cameos were a little out there, but it was nice seeing the old crew. And btw, after seeing
in this movie and their age now, how's this gonna figure into
Sigourney Weaver
Blomkamp's Alien 5?
Bullshit. The Robocop reboot got slammed, the Turtles movies got eviscerated (a HELL of a lot more so than the GB remake), Transformers, GI-Joe, the new Superman films. All of them received easily as much if not more so negativity than the GB reboot and I could go on. But because the garbage that calls itself "journalists" couldn't make a "haters are sexist" story out of the negativity (because those films didn't base their ENTIRE marketing campaign as "if you don't praise this you're scum") the negativity never got the attention.Kibeth41 said: