Ghostbusters - It Has Women in It!

[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?