Ghostbusters reviews are...positive!

[Baresark]

I'm not surprised it's getting a fresh rating of 75% (52% from top critics, whatever the hell that actually means). I figured it would be least a decent movie. Paul Feig stuff is hit or miss for me. Hated Bridesmaids, love Spy, for example. I personally can't stand how some reviewers clearly gave it a good review as some sort of payback for the perceived slight against women (that for the most part did not exist in the minds of pre-release critics).

 

[lacktheknack]

Normally, I'm not an especially spiteful person.

But now that this movie is "Certified Fresh", I have melted into a giddy pile of spite for the dedicated hatefans.

Take THAT. And THAT. And THAT.

Yeah, time to un-melt. The reviews for this thing are entirely unreliable, simply because there are people who really want you to get spiteful. Top Critics is at 52%, average rating is a little over 6/10 and even in the top critics, there are at least three reviews referencing "brobabiez" (very professional), GamerGate and "angry nerds". That's not even accounting for past articles on the same outlets that may or may not have run with "not liking the trailers makes you a misogynist" (such as the Salon, which does belong to "Top Critics").

This isn't the mark of a good movie, it's the battlefield for shit bloggers to peddle their narrative. Which, in turn, HURTS the movie, because it makes the reviews unreliable. Which in turn hurts movie criticism as both a business and an art, which is bad through and through.

There is not a single reason to find pleasure in this mess. It's bad for everyone involved.

Not even addressing your horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE understanding and mangling of statistics:

Over half the Top Critics thought it was good? I thought it was going to be a Hindenburg with no redeeming qualities. Sorry, still brimming with spite.

Also, 75% positive (60%+ rating) reviews averaging in the 60% range shows a general appreciation, with very few glorifying it but also very few truly panning it. That's not what the angry nerds (because they ARE out there, whether they want to be called that or otherwise) said was going to happen. >

EDIT: Put simply, here are your scenarios.

1. Everyone kind of disliked it:
RT: ~40%. Average: ~40%

2. Narratives are getting pushed (this requires abnormally high and abnormally low scores from the relevant critics) but the film is generally poor:
RT: ~40%, Average: ~50%

3. Narratives are getting pushed, but the film is pretty good:
RT: 70%, Average: ~50%

4. Film is all right, but a bunch of bloggers HAAAAAAAAATE it:
RT: ~80%, Average: ~40%

5. Film is poor, but a bunch of bloggers LOOOOOOOOVE it:
RT: ~40%, Average: ~70%

6. Everyone kind of liked it:
RT: ~70%, Average: 70%

Allowing outliers, which one best reflects reality? Apply Ockham's razor and drop your conspiracy theories.

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

This is a very important issue.

 

[Buffoon1980]

I have no particular interest in seeing the film, and the trailers were objectively terrible. But it has been interesting to see the lengths that some people will go to in order to maintain the charade that their hatred of the film had nothing to do with misogyny. For many, many people, it did. Not everyone, sure, probably not even for the majority. But there was undeniably a significant number of people whose thought process went something like this: 'An all female reboot? Therefore I hate it. It looks like it's going to be a disaster of a film? Therefore my hatred can be justified by socially acceptable standards. It's not a disaster? I must rapidly find a new socially acceptable reason to hate it.'

 

[Casual Shinji]

Jurassic Park tries to have the theme of 'the illusion of control', but it really doesn't succeed at it. In the first movie everything also works fine (apart from certain bugs that the movie explains every major theme park and zoo has) until Nedry screws up the system.

It doesn't actually back that theme up with any sort of proof of a flawed system.

Don't forget that Grant and co. discover eggs in the wild, proving that the dinosaurs are breeding despite the scientists' efforts to keep them mono-gendered. Also, they can't make the diloposaurs turn up when they want, nor make the T-Rex show up for the goat at the right time, or even keep a triceratops healthy. I'd say the theme rings true because while Nedry does sabotage the park, a lot of it is based on Hammond's hubris, the idea of them knowing how these creatures will act and what that means in the wider scientific and ethical context. The film pretty much nails this over and over again (Malcolm's "life finds a way," Grant's "you can't suppress 65 million years of gut instinct," etc.

Yeah, but how's that not applicable to any other regular zoo that runs relatively fine? Animals don't show themselves, animal get sick; seems pretty normal to me.

Grant finds the eggs, but it's almost shoved in at the last minute and it's never mentioned after the fact. And Grant's line of 'The T-Rex doesn't want to be fed he wants to hunt... You can't just suppress 65 million years of gut instinct.' is probably one of the dumbest lines in the film, because animals don't care about hunting they care about eating. And later on we see the T-Rex just eat the goat with no qualms whatsoever.

It tells you that control in the park is an illusion, but it never actually shows you why or how. Unlike the book, where the park is already pretty fucked by the time Grant and his crew show up, and Nedry is simply the straw that breaks the camel's back. Or maybe not even, since after the initial outbreak most of the dinosaurs get rounded up in the pen quickly enough.

 

[Hawki]

Jurassic Park tries to have the theme of 'the illusion of control', but it really doesn't succeed at it. In the first movie everything also works fine (apart from certain bugs that the movie explains every major theme park and zoo has) until Nedry screws up the system.

It doesn't actually back that theme up with any sort of proof of a flawed system.

Don't forget that Grant and co. discover eggs in the wild, proving that the dinosaurs are breeding despite the scientists' efforts to keep them mono-gendered. Also, they can't make the diloposaurs turn up when they want, nor make the T-Rex show up for the goat at the right time, or even keep a triceratops healthy. I'd say the theme rings true because while Nedry does sabotage the park, a lot of it is based on Hammond's hubris, the idea of them knowing how these creatures will act and what that means in the wider scientific and ethical context. The film pretty much nails this over and over again (Malcolm's "life finds a way," Grant's "you can't suppress 65 million years of gut instinct," etc.

Yeah, but how's that not applicable to any other regular zoo that runs relatively fine? Animals don't show themselves, animal get sick; seems pretty normal to me.

Grant finds the eggs, but it's almost shoved in at the last minute and it's never mentioned after the fact. And Grant's line of 'The T-Rex doesn't want to be fed he wants to hunt... You can't just suppress 65 million years of gut instinct.' is probably one of the dumbest lines in the film, because animals don't care about hunting they care about eating. And later on we see the T-Rex just eat the goat with no qualms whatsoever.

It tells you that control in the park is an illusion, but it never actually shows you why or how. Unlike the book, where the park is already pretty fucked by the time Grant and his crew show up, and Nedry is simply the straw that breaks the camel's back. Or maybe not even, since after the initial outbreak most of the dinosaurs get rounded up in the pen quickly enough.

Animals get sick, true, but IIRC, Ellie and the vetinarian are in the dark as to what's actually causing it, along with questions of what the creature's been eating. And for a species that's long been extinct, it's presumptuous to assume that you can treat it in the same confidence as an extant creature.

The eggs aren't mentioned again, but they don't have to be, because there's been buildup to them - Wu's assertions of the dinosaurs all being female, Malcolm's "life will find a way," etc. As you said, animals will breed and get sick, but this is Hammond trying to control an entire ecosystem on an island, and with animals that are clones of extinct fauna, and aren't even exact replicas of that fauna either. It's even pointed out by Ludlow in JP2 how Hammond's goal was impossible. And while you could say the same for any island ecosystem, insert the hubris of control, and the lack of consideration for the wider ethics of cloning and bringing back extinct species (e.g. Malcolm's "they were so preoccupied as to whether they could, they didn't ask whether they should,"), and the theme rings tue.

As for Rexy, yes, she eats the goat. It isn't so much eating the goat in of itself, it's more the idea that they can get the T-Rex to show up when they want to.

I can't comment on the book, but I feel the film does show that while Nedry is the one that ultimately shuts down the power, how quickly things fall apart is testament to, again to quote Ludlow, Hammond's reach exceeding his grasp.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

I have no particular interest in seeing the film, and the trailers were objectively terrible. But it has been interesting to see the lengths that some people will go to in order to maintain the charade that their hatred of the film had nothing to do with misogyny. For many, many people, it did. Not everyone, sure, probably not even for the majority. But there was undeniably a significant number of people whose thought process went something like this: 'An all female reboot? Therefore I hate it. It looks like it's going to be a disaster of a film? Therefore my hatred can be justified by socially acceptable standards. It's not a disaster? I must rapidly find a new socially acceptable reason to hate it.'

Citation needed. If you're going to use a broad brush to paint an undetermined amount of people as misogynists, back it up.

And stop erasing women from the discussion. What are you, some kind of misogynist?

 

[Dizchu]

The film is probably okay, above-average at best (Paul Feig's not exactly a slouch) but I doubt it's a smash hit or a complete disaster.

People should just give the whole controversy a rest. Clickbait sites need to realise that it's an okay film and reactionary anti-SJWs need to realise that a) the film is probably not a complete atrocity and b) even if there's some feminist bias in reviews it's not exactly the end of the world and sites like Rotten Tomatoes aren't supposed to be taken as gospel. You don't trust the reviewers? Then don't read their reviews. You're always gonna have the miserable sods that hate everything and the mindless enthusiasts that'll praise everything flashy and exciting.

Honestly though, what's upset me most about the whole thing is how both sides have tried to politicise the movie far beyond what the film actually intends. You want films with good female comedians? Ghostbusters isn't a breakthrough when it comes to that, just watch Paul Feig's previous films.

 

[sXeth]

Honestly though, what's upset me most about the whole thing is how both sides have tried to politicise the movie far beyond what the film actually intends. You want films with good female comedians? Ghostbusters isn't a breakthrough when it comes to that, just watch Paul Feig's previous films.

Prettymuch my takeaway is that Sony tried to cover up a relatively weak cash-in sequel from the usual flare of dislike towards the many many many reboots by creating a politicized debate. Announcing the all-female squad and literally nothing else. Having the director and cast members label detractors as misogynists (some were, the majority probably aren't). The proven filtering they were doing with youtube comment deletion.

The irony being that while it is a weak cash-in sequel, it's nowhere near on par with disasters like Robocop or Total Recall, so their whole pre-emptive defense has mostly just drawn sour taste from people sick of the political debate.

 

[sky14kemea]

You ruined it, guys. I gave you a chance to have a nice ghostbusters thread, and you ruined it with statistical bollocks and petty filth.

Now I gotta start hunting ghostbusters.