Ghostbusters - It Has Women in It!

[Leg End]

Yes, I copied and pasted the term from Wikipedia. Because I didn't feel the need to spend more time than that on a pointless question.

The point comes next.

Yes, because others don't have an interest that is particularly invested enough to rage at the existence of a movie.

You clearly don't know people. Ghostbusters fans in general are attacking the movie and a fan is not ipso facto a nerd, unless you're just calling everyone who is attacking it a nerd, in which case you're just namecalling which says all it needs to on its own. Or, you're calling anyone that cares about something a nerd, in which case please see the previous sentence again.

I can say now that this movie has given me a headache and I haven't even seen it yet.

 

[Jonando Rose]

recommends people go see ghostbusters movie,didn't like the wow movie. Is it just one person rating movies,or a team if not can we get multiple people.

 

[ultrabiome]

Jesus, so many conflicting opinions. Just someone tell me if it's good or not!

I mean, I would watch it myself, but I don't want to.

Its not

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.

Wow. I'm glad I read this even though it's full of spoilers, because breaking established logic is one of my biggest pet peeves in movies.

I was worried about the CGI when I saw the first trailer. The ghost vomits (another problem) on Wiig and the vomit looks real and the ghost completely CGI. I hoped that this was just an early trailer problem, but seeing the release trailer made me sigh in disappointment as there was clearly no effort to make the ghosts look as real as they did in the originals - although clearly better than the release trailer. Why not invest in making CGI that actually mimics the ghosts from the first movie? Stupid cash grab .

Do the ghosts look as fake to everyone else as I think they do?

PS: I also hate the equipment redesign

PSS: I thought the Total Recall remake sucked, but the Robocop remake was decent - at least Robocop still looked cool and asked interesting questions (without the R-rating it could never surpass the original though), while Total Recall removed everything cool about the original - going to Mars, trading a colorful colony with just being on a grey Earth, etc.

 

[Areloch]

So we went from the trailers making it look atrocious, to it merely being aggressively 'Eh'.

Well, I guess that's technically a step up.

Still don't think I'll see it though, that doesn't exactly sound like the best of sales pitches, and I'm disinclined to reward cynical cashgrabs.

 

[Redvenge]

Jesus, so many conflicting opinions. Just someone tell me if it's good or not!

I mean, I would watch it myself, but I don't want to.

If you've seen Pixels, you know what to expect from Ghostbusters 2016.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

You know, I've teetered back and forth during this whole controversy trying to figure out which "side" I hate the most, but the film's obsessive haters have been putting in a pretty strong candidacy for the worst group in this whole mess. If there's one piece of bullshit that just needs to die it's this idea that giving the film a positive review is the safe option as far as backlash is concerned. Despite all this talk about the big bad feminist monster that supposedly commands so much fear over the critics, these people don't seem to realize that they are the power here.
I've been playing a fun little game, it's called "spot the positive review." How it works is, you search for Ghostbusters reviews on Youtube, and by looking at the like:dislike ratio alone, making a guess as to how positive the review will be.
It's pretty telling of just which opinion is the safe one.

A score of around ~95% likes indicates that they despised the movie.
A score of around ~85% - 95% indicates that they thought it was pretty bad, but still had a few positives.
A score of around ~75% - 85% indicates that they thought it was mediocre to alright.
And a score of less than that indicates that they actually quite liked it.

The people calling anyone who liked the film paid shills, cowards who are to afraid to give their True Opiniontm, cucks, or all of the above, far out weighs the number of feminists calling people misogynists. It's absolutely cringe-worthy watching all these people try so hard to pretend they're the put upon rebels, rather than the orthodoxy.

 

[KaraFang]

(takes head out of hands)

Okay, now that the furor has calmed a little, can I have my say?

I am in my mid 30's, I saw Ghostbusters at about five/six years of age and it was a total game changer for me and many of my friends at school. We had never seen anything like it before. In the 1980's, we had some of the lamest movies around - especially for kids - like "American Rabbit" (sighs). Then, Ghostbusters came along. A movie designed for adults and kids (it was PG in the UK) and it worked on so many levels.

At that age, I was terrified of ghosts and the paranormal, again like many kids. And then GB came along with the message "Science? Oh, yeah... Science can kick the paranormals butt." So, for me - and this will be from my angle - it was such a shockingly deep and resonant message. Hell, I fell in love with science that day and I will be frank that GB may have led me to become interested in real and science fiction. Hell, it may have been one of the reasons I got a science degree.

The movie itself, as I grew up, took on new angles of comedy. I went from 5 years of age loving the slime, the effects and how cool Egon and Ray were, to my current age where I can now appreciate the witty word play, dark and adult humour (that went over my head back then LOL) and comedic lines that the film has. So, yes, I think I can say I am a GB geek and it was part of my childhood. I refuse to apologise for that.

So, you will understand if I feel a little bruised and battered with what has been going on. I have watched the feminists saying if you dislike the reboot you're sexist and a manchild and to "grow up" if you feel it's stolen your childhood. I have watched the official media backing them up and saying any hatred is all about the girls from insecure males and childish geeks. I have watched forum comments of various men and women commenters telling each other to grow up with bile and hatred.

So, what I will say is this:

"I have no interest in seeing this film and it has nothing, NOTHING to do with the girls. It has a little to do with the nostalgia of my childhood and how good the 1st one is. It has EVERYTHING to do with the comedic style of this film, the comments from Sony and the crew around it and the director!"

I have watched the trailers, seen the little documentary films for it, the magazine comments and articles. I gave it every chance the first time it was announced. When it was revealed we had a female crew for this one, I was kinda excited. I was thinking "Tina Fey could be a great Venkman version... Melissa McCarthy could be a great Ray version! Zoe Saldana as Winston. Julia Louise Davis as Egon!" and "We can have the old crew hand off to the new crew! New tech!"

Then it started to fall apart in front of my eyes. Paul Feig (and I liked Bridemaids) was announced as director. This guy, while talented, was SO not the right guy for the job. His humour, even in bridemaids, is primarily physical and slapstick - not GB's humour of primarily witty word play and character dynamics.

Then Chris Helmsworth was introduced as a... humm... well, a moron. My heart sank. I was hoping he was going to be the villain, as Chris can do "chilling" very well and it would have been excellent to see the female crew going up against an - for want of a better word - alpha male/god type and kicking his ass.

Then, upon finding the GB teaser site, I got to see the technology. How crude the stuff looked, how fisherprice it looked compared to the 1980's packs, traps and tech. Nothing looked like it would actually work... it looked like bad cosplay, OKAY? Now this may not seem important, but it was for me. How do you belive in the universe, in the tech, if the stuff they use look like it's made of plywood and ductape rather than metal, electronics, and a shit tonne of improvisation.

Then the script was partially leaked, the Sony hack happened and a LOT of info got released into the public eye that revealed that the Villain is the GB logo (turned out to be true), that there was a dance scene (turned out to be true) and that the entire movie was slapstick and physical humour at the base level - Queefs, slime, farts etc. (turned out to be true). Like they were trying to "out cartoon" the cartoon version and succeeded!!

(Man, the cartoon. Even that was dark in places for a kids show... remember the sandman episode. When he turned dreams into nightmares to go after Winston. Creepy.)

Despite all of this, ALL OF IT, I said to my wife: "If the reviews are good. We'll go see it."

Well, they haven't been, they aren't good at all. Empire, Angry Joe (a fellow balanced fan), and... and.... (sigh). I have now heard and seen enough clips to see where this has headed. And it's bad guys. Bad.

So, no. I cannot bring myself to see it. The fact it exists makes my heart sink as it HAS tarnished memories of the original for me a little. The fact I will have to say "I loved GB, the original!!" to people rather than "I love the GB world!"

More importantly, it has made me sad that our biggest and most positive chance to rebirth GB for both the new and current generation of fans has been squandered and turned into something that is so mediocre, so bog standard in it's humour it's going to be forgotten faster than we can imagine.

We have lost the chance for a witty, smart, comedy movie (a rarity now). We have lost a chance for a TV show (it could have worked so well... franchise, new ghost threats, interplay... man.), we have lost the chance for a decent 2nd GB game like the 2007 one with the new crew (not the game they HAVE released. The reviews... the reviews...)

It makes me sad, it depresses me. It's not the end of the world, no. But it hurts, hurts my heart and my hope for GB's revivial as it should be.

Because if it does get revived due to this movie, it's going to be in this format... and that is even more depressing and love hurting to the point I don't want it to happen.

(sighs) Made myself sad. Going to play the game and maybe watch the original to cheer myself up.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Just came back from watching it and I found it ok. It goes to shows you shouldn't judge a film from it trailer. Obviously the original is superior. The cameos were great except for Bill Murray.

Granted the only bits I hate is Mark character Kevin especially the "interview" scene.

Spoiler

They literally had to do rule 63 to the point on making him the "handsome/ sexy but dumb" character archtype. The original secretary character was not dumb!

 

[irish286]

Let me solve the little mystery of why this movie had so much hate associated with it. They took something most would consider A-political that a lot of people liked and used it to make a political statement.

 

[Hawki]

So, came back from seeing it today. And...honestly, it's pretty good.

Not as good as the original mind you, and if I was to sum up the difference, it would be that the original is a comedy movie with some action, while the remake is an action movie with some comedy. Everything is louder, bigger, brighter. On the flipside, there's nothing that's going to be quoted along the lines of cats & dogs for instance. But I enjoyed it. And to add a few more tidbits:

-I loved the cameos of the original cast. Won't spoil anything as to who shows up and when, but I thought they were well done. They're long enough to be memorable, but short enough so that they don't drag down the movie.

-For an all-female cast, there isn't really anything along the lines of "girl power." There's 2-3 moments where their gender is called out, but it's hardly obtrusive. Likewise, it's been stated that every male in the film is a dick, and that the film is anti-men. To which I say...what? Kevin is likable enough, the old guy that comes to Erin at the start is sincere in his intentions (not the Charles Dance professor, the guy with the glasses), and the mayor's assistant is an absolute SOB. Yes, the bad guy is male, but seriously guys, stop it. There's no conspiracy here.

-The villain himself is no Gozer the Gozarian, and his motives basically boil down to "I hate the world," but he does represent a subtle theme in the film that's also mirrored in the characters of Erin and Abbey. Not everyone is 'normal', not everyone is going to believe solely in the rational, and the world is a vicious place that can indeed get you down. The trick is to not let it get you down, and even if soup is the only good thing in the world, things can turn out alright in the end. It's not exactly a deep theme, but still a noticable one.

-Product placement. Dear god the product placement. I know this is New York, but seriously?

-I'll give it credit that unlike ID: Resurgence, there's no sequel bait. It certainly leaves it open for sequels, as the Ghostbusters basically get all the funds they need to continue to operate, but there's no dangling plot threads.

-I have a feeling that a lot of the movie was left on the cutting room floor. Scenes in trailers don't appear in the movie, and I feel some Abby-Erin scenes are missing, as are some Kevin ones. These are the three characters that have pseudo-character arcs, but certain steps of the journey are missing, so to speak.

So, yeah. Quite enjoyable. Probably the #13 film I've seen this year. Might not seem that high, but, well, still good.

 

[Jake Martinez]

This review failed to mention a few things that I think are important.

1) The story structure is cribbed from the original Ghostbusters almost beat for beat. It almost certainly does not "do it's own thing" and it will be more apparent if you are very familiar with the original movie and you will not be able to help but compare them and it's not a favorable comparison.

2) Kristen Wiig went to the Michael Cera school of acting. She is Kristen Wiig playing Kristen Wiig's character.

3) Mellisa McCarthy is also playing Mellisa McCarthy. Expect: Unfunny improvisation about her wonton soup.

4) Plot holes you can drive a truck through. It's hard to describe this without giving spoilers, but let's just say there are several set-ups in the beginning of the movie that do not pay off and the primary theme, or plot between Wiig and McCarthy is entirely ignored until the final act, which is then sent to a rushed conclusion almost as if, "Oh yeah, that's supposed to be the character development - QUICK DO SOMETHING!"

5) Extremely distracting product placement. This seriously needs to be mentioned in every review. I felt like I was watching a feature length commercial at some point.

In my opinion this movie is Pixels with worse CGI and if it had starred Adam Sandler probably would have gotten universally negative reviews instead of the mostly "mediocre" reviews it got. What does that mean? Simple: I think people grade Sandler's movies harsher than they should and I think they graded this movie gentler than they should. I'll leave reasons for that up to other people to ponder - I've got no interest in it other than observing it.

The only final thing I would have to say is that if you are sensitive about the entire marketing campaign around this movie, then you will probably notice that there is a cringeworthy theme of both a) insulting stereotypical "nerds" and b) insulting men in general. Quite clearly in several places Rowan is used as a stand in for what Paul Feig considers his internet detractors and on the later topic you can do a quick audit yourself and come up with the calculus that every man in the movie is either stupid, a jerk, or evil (an outright villain). I wouldn't take my daughter to see this movie because of this stereotyping any more than I would encourage my son to see all women as over emotional, dependent bimbos.

I can't help but think this is part Paul Feig's natural pathos (he seems to be acting out) and one part response to the internet detractors of the movie, but in the end all I can say is "Good job Paul Feig, you turned the one thing that I thought might be a positive about your movie and turned it toxic."

 

[Mangod]

Slightly off-topic, but Ghostbusters is now sitting at 73% Certified Fresh, while the BFG is just Fresh at 73%, yet BFG has a higher score when you limit it to Top Critics, and a higher Average Rating (6.7 to Ghostbusters 6.4).

How does that work? What is it that's skewing Ghostbusters' score?