Ghostbusters reviews are...positive!

[EternallyBored]

Movie critics are not an accurate gauge of popular public opinion. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/reviews?ref_=tt_urv]

And if the popularity of Transformers and Call of Duty are anything to go by, neither are user reviews like the ones you posted.

Really, this is the last movie I would ever put any stock into the user reviews for, if its not people who haven't seen it review bombing it, then its defenders who haven't seen it giving it perfect 10's.


As Hawki said, the controversy has made user review aggregates less reliable than they usually are, and their reliability is questionable at the best of times as any sort of controversy tends to draw review bombing, and this movie had stupid amounts of controversy online.

If user reviews were an accurate gauge of public opinion, then Adam Sandler movies wouldn't make money, Call of Duty games wouldn't get made any more, and Michael Bay would be broke.

 

[Kingjackl]

I'm glad to hear that, though the impression I've got is less that it was good and more better than we thought, which isn't hard considering how poorly it was advertised. Might give it a watch, though it's second in line behind Finding Dory for me.

 

[Hawki]

Movie critics are not an accurate gauge of popular public opinion. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/reviews?ref_=tt_urv]

Should they be?

No. I expect them to be accurate. They're [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/titan_ae] not. [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/casper] Or at least, to be fair, not all the time.

Define "accurate." Because those examples show very little critic-audience divide, and if your definition of "accurate" is "critics should give the movie the score I think it should get," then, well, yeah. Have fun with that.

Also, 52% sounds just about right for Titan A.E. I'm very surprised as to how low Casper scored, but hey, that's just me. I've got far better things to do than make up conspiracy theories and rant that critics are out of touch. Not that you've done such a thing necessarily, but let's not pretend that these arguments always come up when people disagree with critics.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Is it really a remake, though? It's labelled as a remake, but at no point does it ever claim that it's attempting to replace the source material in any way. It's quite clearly making its own effort to be an original movie.

The originals aren't going anywhere, the new movie doesn't impact the quality of the old in any way, it isn't mindless pandering to try and score nostalgia points, and shit, they're even making the movie accessible to people who never saw the original Ghostbuster movies.

Frankly, this is just a new installation into the Ghostbusters franchise.

Categorically, this is incorrect. Taking from the trailer, while the film has some original material such as that knuckle duster thing and I'll assume the ghosts since the band one looked fairly interesting, this is very close to a beat for beat remake in a lot of ways.

Two scientists with different but similar values
Third quirky one who helped finalise invention
Messed up first encounter
Joined by average joe (which Paul Feig apparently read as 'Black person joins', not even going to get INTO that)
In a fire-house
Where they buy a Hearse to be their company car
Large scale ghost invasion.

Now, I haven't seen it yet, but so far that is a beat for beat remake, not Ghostbuster III.

This very much IS geared towards pandering, it's Rule 63 Ghostbusters. A quick look at the plot synopsis on Wikipedia mentions a demon called Rowan (who is played by Neil Casey. Which makes me sad because I hoped they'd commit and do a FULL gender swap because then at least it'd have novelty but it seems after the Ghostbusters the rest of the cast is male including any antagonists), but that does imply there'll be some original material in there which might be funny.

But you can't just wash it under the rug with "It's not a remake, it's too original" because I'll bet you $5 the 'EPA' turns up in some capacity. Or some adjusted version.

 

[Something Amyss]

Nah, I don't think you've been paying attention to the news coverage. If you don't like this movie, you're sexist, apparantly.

How strange then, that you can find any number of people who have been critical of the movie without being accused of sexism.

I wonder what sets apart the people being accused of sexism from the ones who aren't....

Movie critics are not an accurate gauge of popular public opinion. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/reviews?ref_=tt_urv]

Why do I care about popular public opinion in the first place? 2014's top grossing movie was Transformers: Age of Extinction. 2015's was The Force Awakens, which I imagine would also be controversial to many. We would also have to give legitimacy to 50 Shades of Grey, Twilight. Taylor Swift is one of the best musicians of all time, and Call of Duty deserves those high marks every year. This is what happens when you democratise criticism.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

Roeper crucified it. That's enough for me. Top Critics on RT is at 50%, which creates a major and not too-typical 25%+ deviation from All Critics. The review average for this movie cannot be trusted, because of the controversy and review averages are already fairly tricky and often unrepresentative to begin with.

Use RT as a means to scout out individual critics, not scores. Read a few, pick the ones that you find are closer to your tastes and go back to read them for every new movie that comes out.

 

[Trunkage]

a) Doesn't change the fact that this is a remake, idea of which I am opposed to.

b) Ratings and scores can be manipulated, so I don't actually think that this indicates something.

So no, I am not going to watch it.

Did someone on here ask you to go?

But on a serious note, I understands. My last straw for remakes was the lacklustre Force Awakens.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...Wait, people were expecting this movie to NOT be a 7/10? What are they, sexists?

Though, on a more serious note: I'm so over internet reaction to movies at this point I'm just going to see the fucking thing myself and be done with it. It looks alright. Like a 7/10. Like I'm going to watch it and not regret the 20 bucks for the ticket, but not come back the next day to watch it again like Pacific Rim.

I mean, shit, I like the new Independence Day and apparently that's Satan's Final Curse upon the world of mortal men. Fuck the haters and ignore the imbalanced user reviews, just watch the fuckin' thing and judge for yourself whether it's warmed the shriveled depths of your cold, dead heart or driven the final nail into the coffin that holds all your hopes and dreams for a better tomorrow. Much easier than getting into a slapfight with someone who hates/loves a movie because 4/5ths of the main cast happen to possess a vagina.

(Though not being keen on it because of the trailers is understandable. Jesus fuckin' christ Hollywood, what is with you and fucking up trailers? They're not that hard, c'mon.)

 

[ErrrorWayz]

It was always going to be needlessly and nastily condemned because of the all female cast.

It was always going to get reasonable reviews because any bad reviews would be pilloried as sexist.

Overall, it's probably an average film that will pass the time if you care to watch it.

 

[Vault101]

Nah, I don't think you've been paying attention to the news coverage. If you don't like this movie, you're sexist, apparantly.

given the quality of discourse I've seen that's not far off the mark

 

[Alleged_Alec]

It was always going to be needlessly and nastily condemned because of the all female cast.

People keep saying this as though it's a common thing, rather than a few outgroups nobody likes.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Movie critics are not an accurate gauge of popular public opinion. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/reviews?ref_=tt_urv]

I said this during the BvS controversy, I said it in the Warcraft controversy, and I'll said it again here (and probably have to repeat it in the future): if I have to choose between a bunch of professional critics who might be slightly out of touch, and might have some nebulous agenda to push, or this ...

http://i.imgur.com/1UqoOHZ.jpg?1

... well, excuse me if I pick the lesser of two biases. After seeing the amount of review bombing recently I'm afraid I'll have to disregard IMDB user reviews whenever a film is even slightly controversial. At least, I'll ignore them until the film is several years old and has had time to converge to a more accurate representation after the nerd-rage has died down.

If anyone wishes to argue that the above image is an accurate representation of this film's quality, rather than axe-grinding incarnate, I'd be more than happy to see that.

 

[ErrrorWayz]

It was always going to be needlessly and nastily condemned because of the all female cast.

People keep saying this as though it's a common thing, rather than a few outgroups nobody likes.

Sure, completely agree, I don't think it was an event of mass sexism from "every day folk" (whatever that means) or anything but the way it was presented was, to my mind, deliberately intended to created controversy or interest, and that was always going to bring out the fringe reactionary morons - the "outgroups" you mention.

I must admit I personally was wearied by the "look an all female cast" approach, it would have been much classier to have just released it without comment.

It's shame because I don't feel the film cannot be judged on its merits now, I just don't believe that critics were ever going to say it was awful, they were always going to challenge that very, very small minority.

 

[The Purple Grape]

If this, Star Wars and Marvel Comics are anything to go by, then all you need to succeed these days is a pair of breasts, that summons the almighty White Knight Defense Force to stop all criticism because that's totally not treating it differently based on the genders of those involved. Just shout sexism against the scary internet Cult of Misogyny an the righteous Knights will triumph.

It could just be shit modern 'comedy' and shit reboot like most. Call it pattern recognition.

 

[EbonBehelit]

KiA is absolute foaming at the mouth over it, and exploring all of the angles from cultural collapse under SJW jackboots, to outright conspiracies. Apparently missing from the discourse is the idea that it's just another 'Okay' comedy, which of course means that KiA is now filled with a comedy all its own.

Oh God. If KiA is rabid about this, just imagine Ghazi. Or don't, if you're like me I prefer to pretend neither of those subreddits exist

Anyhoo, from the look of the trailers this film was going to be a painfully average remake of the original Ghostbusters with an unfunny cast. Looks like the concerns were at least somewhat vindicated - even if the politics surrounding the film make it hard to stay objective.

 

[Pseudonym]

Movie critics are not an accurate gauge of popular public opinion. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/reviews?ref_=tt_urv]

I said this during the BvS controversy, I said it in the Warcraft controversy, and I'll said it again here (and probably have to repeat it in the future): if I have to choose between a bunch of professional critics who might be slightly out of touch, and might have some nebulous agenda to push, or this ...

http://i.imgur.com/1UqoOHZ.jpg?1

... well, excuse me if I pick the lesser of two biases. After seeing the amount of review bombing recently I'm afraid I'll have to disregard IMDB user reviews whenever a film is even slightly controversial. At least, I'll ignore them until the film is several years old and has had time to converge to a more accurate representation after the nerd-rage has died down.

If anyone wishes to argue that the above image is an accurate representation of this film's quality, rather than axe-grinding incarnate, I'd be more than happy to see that.

What is so painful about that picture is that apparently 3/4 people think the new movie is either a 10/10 or a 1/10. I don't even believe that the people handing out those scores believe that. I bet if you asked those people, that most of them do not actually think it is either that good or that bad. A significant part probably gave that score to balance out what they thought needed balancing out or to misguidedly fight their gender wars.

These are the ways of the internet I suppose. There was a time when youtube had a one to five star rating system for video's rather than a thumps up/thumps down system. There was hardly any difference with now because everyone just voted one or five stars anyway. I'd advise IMDM to adopt a similar system for user ratings. Apparently the average internet user isn't interested in anything beyond 'like it/don't like it'. Any nuance beyond that is too complicated.

 

[Angelblaze]

Judging from some of the responses on page 2, It's the Ms. Marvel/Thor reboot issue all over again;
MC lineup is revamped to a non-normalized state.
People ***** about it, claiming that since its a Woman/POC it must be a politicized move.
It actually does good in awards/reviews.
Those previously bitching claim that all the awards are false/paid off people.
A massive wave of fans is screaming its praises, economic success over the original.
Its all apparently still not good enough to please Mr. Grumpy.

The fact of the matter is that the current Ghostbusters will never be considered 'good' even if it wins every accolade and award known to man because those that vocally hate it will, for the most part, decide that the entire rest of the world is sheep (mainly, the "core" Ghostbuster fans). Then they'll never watch it, either out of sheer spite or need to cling to some sort of hill in the argument and then, at long last, they never get to watch or be a part of the growing fandom.

 

[anthony87]

So how come the other thread was locked and this one wasn't?

...or hasn't been yet at least, I suppose.