movies/tv New Ghostbusters Movie

[Buckbuck 44]

I never really liked Ghostbusters to begin with, except that Sega Mega Drive game!.
I honestly don't mind that much, maybe a shockers for people who were into it to be used for politics (Which is perfect for movie entertainment"Sarcasm") But i can see why the bar has sunken low with this ship. But i don't think being angry will help anything frankly, if the movie sucks then it sucks and move on from there.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Buckbuck

[FlutteringDweamz 2,086]

I saw it.

 

It was fun with all the 3d effects

[Guest]

If this isn't enough, I heard they're in the works for an all women reboot of Ocean's 11.

 

They better get their SJW hands off of that franchise, or I will go ape shit crazy lol.  

Edited July 18, 2016 by Guest

[LHfunk 422]

I didn't believe that most people actually didn't think this would be a good movie until I looked at this thread. I can get behind some of the reasons, but most just seem to be stupid reasons that don't have anything to do with the quality of the film. I personally thought it was a great movie. That may have mostly to do with the fact that I'm easily amused and I laughed at most of the jokes (I'm the type of person who laughs at basically any joke). I actually liked it more than the original Ghostbusters. I feel like people don't want the movie to be good, so they act all negative and make sure to see everything bad. Was it the best movie ever? No. Was it the worst movie ever? no. I give it a rating of 9/10, and the original Ghostbusters and 8/10. When I watch a movie, I'm expecting to be entertained. The Original Ghostbusters did pretty well here, but in the end really only Bill Murray was a character that was exceptionally entertaining. In this movie, all four of them were very entertaining. I felt like the plot was pretty solid, the characters were solid, and the humor was solid. I especially liked the cameos from the original cast. Bill Murray was okay, Dan Aykroyd's little cameo was funny, Ernie Hudson was entertaining, Sigourney Weaver was pretty funny, Annie Potts was entertaining, and what they did for Harold Ramis was actually really cool. Since he is deceased, they had a bust of him in the college that Kristen Wiig's character worked at in the beginning.

 

Overall, I enjoyed this film a lot. While other people are probably going to focus on the faults and probably say the humor was bad, I don't care, it was good.

[Shawn Parks 1,798]

... what they did for Harold Ramis was actually really cool. Since he is deceased, they had a bust of him in the college that Kristen Wiig's character worked at in the beginning.

 

 

Aww man, I totally missed that.

[LHfunk 422]

Aww man, I totally missed that.

So did I until my mom pointed it out. Then I thought back and realized that it was him. I wasn't actually thinking about cameos until Bill Murray showed up.

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

As promised, a full review:

 

 

 

You know what? I think I could write the script for the next Ghostbusters. When I was a kid, it was heresy to say something like that, but in just the past week, the bar has fallen so low that I’m confident I could plop it out overnight.

 

Here, let’s get started. Melissa McCarthy walks in front of an iconic piece of original Ghostbusters memorabilia while eating a bowl of soup. It’s funny because her character loves soup. She and Kate McKinnon exchange technobabble and work in a couple PG-13 quips about female anatomy while they’re at it. Now I just have to dig up a commonly used metaphor that people never think about, and pick it to death for about 45 seconds, and I’ll have the first scene in the bag.

 

Man, writing comedy sure is hard. That’s why these formulas are so helpful. Just make sure you have some quirky characters and a minimal amount of cultural awareness, and you’re sure to get a passing grade from some critics.

 

But even this still requires skill. Characters in comedy are incredibly difficult to write, since you need to not only give them funny personalities, but also make them play off each other and create an ensemble greater than the sum of its parts. That’s what the original Ghostbusters did, and it’s been a staple of comedic writing in everything from Abbott and Costello to extremely recent films like The Nice Guys.

 

But of course, everything has a workaround. You’d be surprised how many comedic actors just bank on one personality for their entire career. Just hire a few of those, hand them a script full of jokes they would have told anyways, and you’re golden.

 

It doesn’t matter if Melissa McCarthy literally has more chemistry with the Chinese delivery boy than she does with any of her co-stars. Just write it off as a “quirky” comedy and take that extra beach day. You deserve it.

 

In case you haven’t guessed by now, I wasn’t exactly impressed by the new Ghostbusters. Bankrolled by infamous studio executive Tom Rothman, who was known for meddling with and sabotaging promising films during his tenure at FOX, Ghostbusters shows all the signs of a lazy, uninspired remake that leeches off the original like a mosquito.

 

While it certainly isn’t going to make my list of the year’s worst movies, Ghostbusters 2016 is about as lazy as comedic writing gets. It felt like they left the script half-finished, with the story and action sequences all written out, but the comedy left pitifully underdeveloped.

 

Sometimes several minutes go by without any jokes to speak of, only to pay off with a single unfunny gag that’s either an age-old cliche, or based on an existing character stereotype. There are jokes with ages of buildup and no climax, jokes that go on for half a minute with no buildup, jokes whose punchline you can see coming from Mars, and even one joke that only actually pays off in the film’s credits. Either way, the film’s comedic timing is botched, and manages to suck the humor out of any moment with potential.

 

Even the callbacks to the 1984 original are weak, since Ghostbusters 2016 either explains and ruins the joke, or fails to see what made the original funny in the first place.  While it isn’t as ceaselessly annoying as Neighbors 2 or The Boss, it’s a strange sort of mediocrity that leads to a whole lot of awkward coughing and mumbling in the theater.

 

The cinematography in Ghostbusters 2016 is just as bland as the writing, but at least it’s functional. There aren’t any “wow” shots or scenes where the camera is used creatively. Admittedly, there are a few cool ghost designs, like the 1920s parade balloons that attack at one point, but the film’s “paranormal” elements quickly lose their luster after the tenth paragraph of technobabble and the third predictable jumpscare.

 

If you want to sum up Ghostbusters 2016 in a nutshell, no need, the movie does it for you after the first scene. You get your first glimpse of a big ‘ol slimy ghost, the classic Ray Parker music starts playing just like you remember it, and then, right when the chorus is about to yell “GHOSTBUSTERS,” it fades out awkwardly and leaves you with silence. Not because it was replaced by anything else, the writers just couldn’t be dragged out of bed long enough to think of anything better.

 

Dan Aykroyd inexplicably liked this movie. I didn’t. You probably have a DVD of the original sitting around your house. Just watch it again.

 

 

 

[Guest]

I am happy to say that the film is on the path to bombing box office wise. At this rate it won't even make back the $144 million budget before the end of its domestic run. This is great news, as you shouldn't be able to sell a film on manufactured gender wars that you created. Insulting your entire potential audience and accusing them of sexism when they don't want your product doesn't work, and I'm glad that this film is proving that.

 

Review that was promised (Spoilers ahead):

 

 

Wow, right out of the gate this film's special effects are cheesy but not in that charming 1980s way, but instead in a "how did you manage to spend $144 million this?" cheesy. The slime effect in the first scene reminds me of the 1980's version of "The Blob" which bombed as well, so a fitting comparison to this failure.

 

Plot wise it does such a weak job at pulling us in. The best part about the opening scenes is when they start playing the original Ghostbusters film, before we're instantly given exposition about Wiig's character being black mailed more or less over a terrible book she wrote on the paranormal which threatens her career. And start rolling in the jokes about all the male characters being morons. The guy who finds her book even feels the need to point out that he knows how to read.

 

Right away Wiig's acting is boring, bland and terrible. It also creates a world where people overtly mock paranormal studies far more than they even do in reality. It has to try really hard to justify its own plot and that's usually a sign of bad things to come... And of course they do.

 

McCarthy within 10 minutes into the film does deliver a good joke or two... But that's about it. I noticed a reoccuring joke with her is playing on the fact that she's a bigger girl by making her always talking about food. Within the first 2 minutes of meeting her she is ordering Chinese food and wanting a mini-fridge. Then bitching about only getting 1 wanton in her soup. They really wanted to go for the whole "fat acceptance" crowd, but it really just comes off as emphasizing that she's a big girl and not in a good way. They actually spend a good 2 minutes on the Wanton joke. Most of the humor feels very random.

 

At the 10 minute mark you also notice that the creators couldn't think of creative ways to introduce the cast, so this movie comes off as very "abrupt" at times. Everything feels like it happens too fast at first, but when it needs to speed up, it just moves at a snail's pace.

 

So much of the jokes are forced, unfunny and the characters don't seem to have any kind of chemistry whatsoever.

 

11 minutes in annnnnd fart joke. We're dealing with quality here.

 

I can't stress this enough, the jokes in this film are so poorly executed and with little thought or spirit put into them that I am amazed this film justified $144 million. It clearly wasn't spent on effects, script writing or acting lessons, so I am at a loss as to where the money went.

 

14 minutes in, poop jokes. Literally poop jokes. Is this 1996 or 2016?

 

And of course take this opportunity to emasculate a male character by making him a sniveling baby (as they joke) who poops himself (literally). Once again: We're dealing with quality.

 

15 minutes in, yo' mama jokes. It's like a bad episode of Family Guy.

 

The first ghost we're introduced to is by far the most ridiculous costume choice, the poorest special effects and moves so unnaturally you'd think it was a bad anamatronic and not an actual actor. It's also just a cheap and fast way to get the main character to believe in ghosts again,  this movie is all about no build up, nothing really has any build up to the payoff point. We're just rushed to the payoff without any reason to care. We're not given time to give a damn.

 

17 minutes in. Gross out barf effect joke. This  is the kind of slap stick I'd expect from a 90s cartoon, not an expensive $144 million box office film intended to reignite the passion for a franchise to justify a new line of products. It may have been endearing if it wasn't so predictable and cliched by 2016, but it just feels childish for a film that is trying to reignite a spark. Oh and Wiig's character makes sure to increase the gross out factor by informing us the goo went into "every crack". 

 

19 minutes in they read a comment on their findings from the internet that reads "ain't no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts". Classy. Make sure to squeeze in something into the film to mock the criticizers some more. The fact that this is here tells me 1 of two things: they changed the film to add this in to "stick it to" the dissenters, or they wrote it like this in the first place, which proves they knew they would receive this kind of commentary and were already ready to attack it. So further proving the possibility that they manufactured the gender war of this film for the sole purpose of marketing. Good to see it failed, and the joke was unfunny.

 

Another thing I noticed is when the men in this film are not being idiots they are making sure to emphasize how the men are always obstacles for the crew. Another subtle (if you put the word subtle across the screen in bold red letters) attempt to try and point out the patriarchy.

 

Man makes a "suck it" joke at the 21 minute mark when the cast even predicts the joke and tells us he's about to make it. The misandry is strong with this one! And at 23 minutes the next male character we're introduced to is a conspiracy theorist moron. Did I mention how most of the men in this movie are idiots? Honestly these actors should feel ashamed to have contributed to this misandry bullshit just as the female cast should be ashamed to have contributed to this crap.

 

Introducing Leslie Jones... Whom is a stereotype in every sense of the word. Not in a parody way either. She's just a stereotype. I feel bad for her. Or at least I would if her acting wasn't also terrible.

 

Random dancing scene at about 27 minutes in more or less enforces my point: the jokes in this movie are completely fucking random.

 

Introducing Chris Hemsworth's character who is... A moron. A total moron. The biggest moron yet. Strangely enough... He's the funniest character in the movie thus far. Annnnd ANOTHER joke taking a stab at the criticize of the film by showing a drawing of the ghostbusters logo with boobs.

 

By the 35 minute mark you really start to realize that the actresses just don't seem to have any kind of chemistry with each other and it's probably not going to change. Spoiler: it doesn't. You also realize the ghost special effects remain crappy throughout the entire film.

 

38 minutes: ANOTHER jab at criticizers of the film. I am convinced at this point this wasn't added after the fact but this was how they originally wrote it.

 

Another boring and recurring joke is just doing lots of random scientific jargon.

 

I'll finish  up the rest of this review by summing up the rest of the film: it continues this way. It's pretty crappy, as expected.

 

[TopQuark 409]

I'm inclined to agree with Doug/Rob Walker and Shoe0nHead/ArmouredSkeptic's belief that your opinion going into the movie will mostly decide how much you'll enjoy it. Personally, I've boycotted it, mostly for "political" reasons. I might see it one day, but I'm not much of a movie watcher, so it'll be on the end of a whole list of other movies that I expect to actually entertain me.

 

 

It's a relationship of rolling the dice over and over and hoping you come out on top. Wish there was a better way, but sadly there isn't.

 

*ahem*

 

Edited July 28, 2016 by TopQuark

[Guest]

I'm inclined to agree with Doug/Rob Walker and Shoe0nHead/ArmouredSkeptic's belief that your opinion going into the movie will mostly decide how much you'll enjoy it. Personally, I've boycotted it, mostly for "political" reasons. I might see it one day, but I'm not much of a movie watcher, so it'll be on the end of a whole list of other movies that I expect to actually entertain me.

 

 

 

*ahem*

 

 

I still can't advocate piracy as a whole, but I will say if you MUST see this terrible film to see how bad it is... I certainly won't stand in your way if you choose to do it in a way that doesn't compensate them. I shall cover my eyes and pretend I see nothing.

 

Also I think the most insulting thing is they dedicated this pile to Harold Ramis.

[Ankha 35]

This movie is fine... There's no reason to dislike it other than that they're female and people are too attached to "muh childhood." There are plenty of other reboots that were bad and didn't get near as much hate.

[Wingnut 6,726]

I saw the movie and I enjoyed it.  It had plenty of shout outs to the original but not to the point of excessive fan service.  Most of the misgivings centered around a long hoped for sequel with the surviving original cast as the main characters and when Bill Murry said it wasn't meant to be, they went to plan B.  Would I have liked a Ghostbusters 3?  Yes, but it wasn't going to happen.  That's life.  Get over it and move on.  Now there have been plenty of classic franchise reboots in recent years.  But this is the first time I know where a Rule 63 (genderswap) reboot was done.  All in all I thought it was an entertaining movie in it's own right. 

 

And without a doubt, Chris "Kevin" Hemsworth is going to win Dumb Blonde of the Year award.   

[Monsoon 1,648]

I didn't like the movie to be honest I personally thought that the humour was very forced and just didn't make me laugh at all and the plot wasn't good in my opinion overall I thought the movie was mediocre but I definitely felt like I wasted my money I'll personally prefer the original ghostbusters the original will always be my favourite movie out of the entire series however some people will enjoy the movie and that's fine but the director did some rather questionable things as well.

[Guest]

This movie is fine... There's no reason to dislike it other than that they're female and people are too attached to "muh childhood." There are plenty of other reboots that were bad and didn't get near as much hate.

Except all the criticisms that have nothing to do with that.

 

To dismiss all criticisms as false and say anyone who didn't like it is just wrong is kind of silly.

[Ankha 35]

Except all the criticisms that have nothing to do with that.

 

To dismiss all criticisms as false and say anyone who didn't like it is just wrong is kind of silly.

That's all the criticisms were though... Prior to the movie release (i.e. before the whole thing was even shown to an audience).

Edited July 31, 2016 by Ankha

[idunnomaybe 344]

That's all the criticisms were though... Prior to the movie release (i.e. before the whole thing was even shown to an audience).

No, they really weren't... Most of the criticisms, had to do with how the people in charge handled the controversy. Fans were trying to tell them "look you're disrespecting the franchise and its fans by not listening to us, don't make it a reboot make it a hand over that way-"

 

"BLA BLA BLA I CANT HEAR YOU BLA BLA BLA GIRL POWER! BLA BLA BLA!!!!!"

 

The thing is the Women involved are talented actresses but the whole thing is just not funny nor does it feel like a GB movie it comes off as an SNL skit. Plus the women were over powered and perfect as fuck... and all the Men were idiotic. 

 

Mad max did a similar thing but it was not as blatant and it made sense in context with the film (most of the Women in the movie were taken from the many mothers a group who's leaders were alive before WW3 since it makes sense that they are educated where as the raiders and bandits who had only known the wasteland were not)  

 

 

Edited July 31, 2016 by idunnomaybe

[Ankha 35]

No, they really weren't... Most of the criticisms, had to do with how the people in charge handled the controversy. Fans were trying to tell them "look you're disrespecting the franchise and its fans by not listening to us, don't make it a reboot make it a hand over that way-"

 

"BLA BLA BLA I CANT HEAR YOU BLA BLA BLA GIRL POWER! BLA BLA BLA!!!!!"

 

The thing is the Women involved are talented actresses but the whole thing is just not funny nor does it feel like a GB movie it comes off as an SNL skit. Plus the women were over powered and perfect as fuck... and all the Men were idiotic. 

 

Mad max did a similar thing but it was not was blatant and it made sense in context with the film (most of the Women in the movie were taken from the many mothers a group who's leaders were alive before WW3 since it makes sense that they are educated where as the raiders and bandits who had only known the wasteland were not)  

 

 

The reaction to Ghostbusters was unfair though considering how many other beloved franchises have had apparently terrible reboots (e.g. Michael Bay's Transformers, Scooby-Doo, RoboCop etc.), but didn't receive the same massive level of hate, especially even before the movie was actually released.

 

Also, the resemblance to a SNL script might be because all the actresses that star in the movie used to be on SNL.

[idunnomaybe 344]

The reaction to Ghostbusters was unfair though 

Nope. no one wanted it and every one found it disrespectful to do it once Ramis died and could no longer for lack of a better phrase "get in the way"

 

 

 

Also, the resemblance to a SNL script might be because all the actresses that star in the movie used to be on SNL.

So? basically every US comedian starts of in SNL. SNL is how you get your foot through to the transition of stand up to TV.

[Ankha 35]

 

 

Nope. no one wanted it and every one found it disrespectful to do it once Ramis died and could no longer for lack of a better phrase "get in the way"

 

Plenty of franchises have been rebooted with the creator being dead. Speaking of which, the newer Dr. Seuss movies are pretty shit and disrespectful towards the original books, yet no one flooded those movies with hate or called for "boycotts."

 

 

 

So? basically every US comedian starts of in SNL. SNL is how you get your foot through to the transition of stand up to TV.

If it doesn't matter to you, then don't use it as a point in your argument.

[BlinkZ 1,151]

Let see
- they bashed the fans by having youtube moments twice
- the villain is a internet troll on top of a terrible plot
- mascot shot in the balls
- femists calling people out for disliking the film thinking it ALL about the women cast (it not it the terrible comedy and bad plot)
- The convercy before it even got released tainted it even worse

-5/10

[Ankha 35]

they bashed the fans by having youtube moments twice

 

 

Well, the "fans" bashed them way more than twice.

 

 

 

the villain is a internet troll on top of a terrible plot

 

He doesn't go on the internet once during the entire film.

 

 

 

mascot shot in the balls

 

Boo hoo.

 

 

 

femists calling people out for disliking the film thinking it ALL about the women cast (it not it the terrible comedy and bad plot)

 

Those damn "femists" at it again...

Edited July 31, 2016 by Ankha

[GreyScholar 1,584]

That's all the criticisms were though... Prior to the movie release (i.e. before the whole thing was even shown to an audience).

Oh no, no, no, no. Hell no.

 

I would suggest watching this video and others that came out before the movie ever released to theaters which very well explains why there was problems and why fans were upset. All the complaints and those involved that had nothing to do with the female cast.

 

No misogyny and no sexism to be seen.

Edited July 31, 2016 by EquestrianScholar

[Guest]

 

That's all the criticisms were though... Prior to the movie release (i.e. before the whole thing was even shown to an audience).[/quote

 

Okay but the movie is out now and there are different criticisms, so that is all irrelevant now. As someone who has seen the movie there is far more to dislike than just "women" and "mah childhood".

 

Bad acting, terrible special effects, god awful script.

[BrawnyCharger 511]

You know. Unlike a number of people who have rejected it immediately, I decided to give the new Ghostbusters movie a chance.

 

And to be honest: I had a LOT of fun watching it. I enjoyed the cameos by the original Ghostbusters actors and the jokes as well. 

 

Granted. The 1984 original and maybe to a lesser extent the sequal has reached an iconic status and have HUGE shoes to fill. I even think the Ghostbusters Video Game from 2009 (both the Wii and the PS3 versions which I have) was pretty awesome in it's own right. But I'm willing to say I had fun and enjoyed the new Ghostbusters movie.

[Solid 1,326]

Watched the 1984 original, liked it.

Watched the 2016 version last night, it wasn't bad either.

 

Honestly I feel the trailer doesn't serve the movie justice (and hence my comment back then on how the female characters seem "forced")

 

Maybe it's because I'm from another country that is not the United States of America, but from my perspective I cannot seem to understand why people are going all out nuclear on this movie.