GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

e_e

Deleted User wrote: »

More like
Viewer: "I like the IP, I hope that they make more in the same tone/strucutre so that I may continue to enjoy new stories in the universe"

Studio Exec: We're rebooting; scrapping the characters, tone, horror, wit, and look while ramping up the slapstick

Viewer: FFS (angry face)

This is more of a misguided response to the appalling marketing than the movie itself though.

If I was to judge solely based on a trailer I would have actively skipped Everybody Wants Some!!, Eye in the Sky and Deadpool, all films I enjoyed in the past few months.

e_e

e_e wrote: »

This is more of a misguided response to the appalling marketing than the movie itself though.

If I was to judge solely based on a trailer I would have actively skipped Everybody Wants Some!!, Eye in the Sky and Deadpool, all films I enjoyed in the past few months.

Trailers are there to entice, they are failing.

The Sony leaks have not helped the cause either in fairness

Grayditch

I think Kingsman had the most underselling trailer in years.

Ghostbusters still might be good, but a bad trailer will influence whether I go see it in the cinema or not.

Tony EH

Grayditch wrote: »

It is a bit harsh the way upon it's release, all original copies of Ghostbusters will be wiped from their formats and all memories of the original will fade from memory almost instantly. That's what people are probably angry about. The way that always happens.

While this obviously won't happen, bad/failed remakes and reboots poison the well of the original as were, for a lot of people.

Granted, when something is rebooted well, like the Apes series, most people are fine.

But, when it's an obvious name rape of a beloved item, people are going to get pissed off.

This effort looks like it's falling into the latter category, from what we've seen so far.

Osmosis Jones

e_e wrote: »

This is more of a misguided response to the appalling marketing than the movie itself though.

If I was to judge solely based on a trailer I would have actively skipped Everybody Wants Some!!, Eye in the Sky and Deadpool, all films I enjoyed in the past few months.

As viewers we are totally entitled to judge the movie off the promotional material we're given, shouldn't have to pay to watch a movie just to form an opinion, at that stage it's too late and the studio have my money anyway.

johnny_ultimate

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

shouldn't have to pay to watch a movie just to form an opinion

Have highlighted the pertinent bits there.

You really should watch a film before forming an opinion on whether it's any good or not. I'm surprised I'm even typing that sentence.

You can say a trailer is a bad trailer, and that it doesn't make the film look particularly good. But it is impossible and slightly mad to form a definitive opinion on the film itself based on a trailer.

FunLover18

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

As viewers we are totally entitled.

There are of course people with legitimate concerns but this sums up the arguments of the people against this movie perfectly imo.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Have highlighted the pertinent bits there.

You really should watch a film before forming an opinion on whether it's any good or not. I'm surprised I'm even typing that sentence.

You can say a trailer is a bad trailer, and that it doesn't make the film look particularly good. But it is impossible and slightly mad to form a definitive opinion on the film itself based on a trailer.

I can form a definitive opinion on PAYING (that's the really important word that you left out) in a cinema or waiting for Rental/Netflix based on marketing /reviews.
With kids I can not afford to waste my very limited entertainment time on something which everything points to being crap

OttoPilot

Does anyone else find the Leslie Jones character stereotypical and slightly racist?

FunLover18

FunLover18 wrote: »

There are of course people with legitimate concerns but this sums up the arguments of the people against this movie perfectly imo.

It's not a free service. If you have to pay then you are entitled to something

BMMachine

its easy to form an opinion of something so easy to predict as this film. Its cheap and lowbrow, not exactly hard to guess how it will play out and what it will be like.

BMMachine

OttoPilot wrote: »

Does anyone else find the Leslie Jones character stereotypical and slightly racist?

In a Paul Feig film? Yeah right! hes so progressive and brilliant

Sudden Valley

I feel the studio will be most pleased at all discussions. Similar to what happened to the quite average movie The Interview they may get a lot of punters to go see the movie even if the critics give this movie low scores. I would like to know if the critics liked the original ghostbusters?

Osmosis Jones

I'm not sure if it was this thread or somewhere else that I saw it, but the movie just looks like Bridesmaids meets Haunted Mansion. A typical dull, modern comedy. I don't speak for anyone but myself but my problems with this movie have nothing to do with the casting of women, borrowing the Ghostbusters name to make this movie just feels like a cynical money-grab move. Before it gets said again, I know this doesn't affect the original movie, but I think it's fair that fans of the franchise are upset at the direction this seems to be going. It seems a lot of the complaints are being swept under the rug and people who complain are being told they just don't like it because it's got a female cast and they're being sexist. I like the idea of an all-female Ghostbusters, it was never a gender specific role in the first place, although I'm not the biggest fan of Melissa McCarthy. If anything Paul Feig seems to be casting women as a gimmick or selling point, it was the same with Bridesmaids being marketed as "The Hangover for women." He's hardly progressive what with Leslie Jones looking like she's been cast fairly stereo-typically, having women in leading roles is not a new thing. Had a similar trailer come out only with their male counterparts I don't think there'd be a huge difference in the reaction.

Sudden Valley wrote: »

I feel the studio will be most pleased at all discussions. Similar to what happened to the quite average movie The Interview they may get a lot of punters to go see the movie even if the critics give this movie low scores. I would like to know if the critics liked the original ghostbusters?

Just from a quick look on Wikipedia it seems The Interview lost a lot of money actually.

Sad Professor

OttoPilot wrote: »

Does anyone else find the Leslie Jones character stereotypical and slightly racist?

Stereotypical perhaps but not racist. Though the trailer may be misrepresentative of her character. Leslie Jones is a lot like that in real life. The sassy black woman is not in itself a negative stereotype. It has to be seen in context with the rest of the film.

Grayditch

I think Melissa McCarthy is grand, but either herself or her agent is to blame for constantly putting her in rolls in bad films where she's clumsy and falls over. She has become the new Kevin James in some real lowest-common-denominator comedies of late.

johnny_ultimate

Sad Professor wrote: »

Stereotypical perhaps but not racist. Though the trailer may be misrepresentative of her character. Leslie Jones is a lot like that in real life. The sassy black woman is not in itself a negative stereotype. It has to be seen in context with the rest of the film.

You of all people should know the rest of the film has no place in this discussion!

orubiru

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah it's a bit of a mystery why this film in particular has provoked so much outrage. Hollywood has been doing bad remakes and reboots for years. Devin Faraci wrote an article suggesting it's soft sexism. It's part of it, but I think it goes deeper than that. There's a crisis in movie nerdom brought on by the realisation that nerds no longer have cultural ownership of traditional geek franchises. Ghostbusters doesn't belong to them and whether they go see it or not makes no difference because it's not aimed at them. Hollywood is just exploiting the brand name to make a female-centric comedy for fans of Bridesmaids. This is infuriating for movie nerds, not necessarily because they are sexist, but because they feel powerless to do anything about it.

I think you are definitely onto something there.

Since Star Wars Episode One there has been an increasing feeling of entitlement surrounding modern blockbuster sequels and remakes of older movies or adaptations of popular comics, books, etc into movies.

It's like if you are going to remake something then it had better be true to the original and it had better be good, godsdammit! Otherwise there is outrage.

One of the ways I had been looking at it would be to imagine the reaction of the fans if Ireland decided to switch from a green jersey to a rainbow coloured jersey for the Euros "to represent inclusiveness and cooperation between all nations" and then announce that they will commit to playing for a draw in every match "because nobody should ever feel like a loser". People would lose their damn minds!

Should they feel entitled to lose their minds though?

This Ghostbusters 2016 argument is basically the fans demanding that the movie be true to the originals and also be good and the studio creating the movie is just flat out saying "nope".

I can't really decide if people are entitled to be angry about that or not? Maybe yes but some just take it too far?

Let's say the teaser trailer for Star Wars 8 comes out next year and we see Rey wearing the old slave Leia bikini and doing a sexy dance for Son-of-Jabba the Hutt. It turns out Rey has just been turned into eye candy and is part of a troupe of sexy alien babes roaming the galaxy trying to make a buck while the real story focusses on Luke and Han (who isn't dead, fooled ya!) trying to save Damsel in Distress Leia who has been kidnapped by Snoke and Kylo Ren. Conflicts are resolved by the ancient patriarchal tradition of Manly Fisticuffs.

That would be horrifying, right? Would we feel entitled to be outraged over that? Should we be entitled to our outraged?

You know that certain groups would be going absolutely crazy over a betrayal of both Rey and Leias characters but would they be right to do so?

I'd say yes but that means I struggle to disagree with people who are going mad because they think Ghostbusters has been turned into an abomination.

Should Ghostbusters actually try to be true to the originals or should it just be an bunch of arbitrary stuff with a "Ghostbusters" label slapped on it?

I think it's better to ask the more interesting question of what movie audiences should actually feel entitled to.

Where do we draw the line between things fans are allowed to demand and things fans are not allowed to demand?

Do people think that the response to Female Ghostbusters would have been better if the marketing had been handled differently? I always got the sense that the message was "The Ghostbusters are women now because F you, you sexist, misogynist, man-child". They were, and still are, basically begging to be trolled.

Maybe that's all just a ploy to make money though?

orubiru

Sudden Valley wrote: »

I feel the studio will be most pleased at all discussions. Similar to what happened to the quite average movie The Interview they may get a lot of punters to go see the movie even if the critics give this movie low scores. I would like to know if the critics liked the original ghostbusters?

I'm sure that it's deliberate. It will definitely be interesting to see what kind of reviews this will get.

Certain people are going to absolutely slam the movie and so it will be interesting to see if regular reviewers will go easy on it to distance themselves from those types.

One of the obstacles movies like Total Recall 2012, Robocop 2014, Terminator Genisys, Fantastic 4 2015 and the like would have faced would be very low review scores (43, 52, 38 and 27 on Metacritic) translating into lost revenue.

With Ghostbusters 2016 I reckon they have tried to get around that by creating an environment where reviewers are reluctant to really trash the movie because they will be accused.

Just like Pixels or Batman vs Superman or London Has Fallen or The Huntsman : Winters War, you can tell from the trailers that this movie will be absolute garbage and, under normal circumstances, will be absolutely slaughtered by critics.

The difference here is that people are prepared to step and defend the film because they've convinced themselves that it's only a certain type of toxic individual who would hate this movie.

johnny_ultimate

orubiru wrote: »

Do people think that the response to Female Ghostbusters would have been better if the marketing had been handled differently? I always got the sense that the message was "The Ghostbusters are women now because F you, you sexist, misogynist, man-child". They were, and still are, basically begging to be trolled.

Damn, I missed the "The Ghostbusters are women now because F you, you sexist, misogynist, man-child" intertitle in the trailers. Was it in one of TV spots?

orubiru

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Damn, I missed the "The Ghostbusters are women now because F you, you sexist, misogynist, man-child" intertitle in the trailers. Was it in one of TV spots?

Haha.

You know I was exaggerating!

I shouldn't have said marketing. I meant that the attitude from bloggers and a lot of the regular movie and nerdy websites has been more than a little bit confrontational.

You don't think so?

WoolyJumper

orubiru wrote: »

Haha.

You know I was exaggerating!

I shouldn't have said marketing. I meant that the attitude from bloggers and a lot of the regular movie and nerdy websites has been more than a little bit confrontational.

You don't think so?

Perhaps you are right, I haven't read too many blogs etc about it. The only thing I've seen are the ridiculous reaction videos to the trailer and the number of thumbs down in the trailer videos themselves. Perhaps the attitude from bloggers and nerdy websites are just a response to the over the top hate for a movie that hasn't been released yet. I can't understand the extreme reaction to this movie so I can see why people would speculate. Like i've said before, I've seen worse remakes of better movies. What sets this apart is the main characters have been replaced by women, I can see why some would come to the conclusion that there is an element of sexism in this (whether it is true or not i don't know but judging by some of the things I've read i gather it is true for some people)

Wedwood

Bill Murray and Dan Ackroyd' sarcastic comedy carried the original movies, if they give Melissa McCarthy some decent one-liners it could work, no sign of it in the trailers though, just generic special effects.

BMMachine

I think this has been coming for a long time - complete apathy to the how moviegoers are being treated. This is the latest lazy 'reimagining' coming out of Hollywood and I think due to the nature of the reactions of the all female cast the whole thing is being put under a microscope.
Everyone who doesn't like this and knows it will be a piece of crap (and thats easy to know in this predictable world of blockbuster film making) is trying to distance themselves from the misogynists who not only hate the film, but hate the idea behind it. Its divisive in quite an interesting way in this regard as its making people take note about how these kinds of films are made and what goes into them. Hopefully it leads to the movie industry changing a bit where these lazy films with lazy ideas suddenly stop making so much money and forces studios to approach the craft differently and the massive distortion between quality and popularity is addressed but ultimately thats very unlikely. All the comedian friends and actors will come out defending the film because its so 'progressive' but quality actors like Julia Louis-Dreyfus are kept at home because they are too old and parts for black comedians are reduced to talking about being black because Hollywood and the whole industry actually do not give 1 **** about making a difference, they just like money

ShakerMaker91

I see all the do-gooders on here defending the film are playing the "nerds hate women" card even though I would reckon a good 90% of the genuine criticism this film is getting is about it just looking sh*t and about as funny as going to the dentist.

People are rightly upset about a beloved film like Ghostbusters being butchered and made into a slapstick, lowest common denominator, Adam Sandler-esq comedy with that mong Melissa McCarthy front and centre accompanied by a stereotypical loud black woman.

If you like that kind of thing you probably have no brain and I'd say that's the target audience they're going for with this monstrosity of a film.

S.M.B.

*sigh*

ShakerMaker91

ShakerMaker91 wrote:

I see all the do-gooders on here defending the film are playing the "nerds hate women" card even though I would reckon a good 90% of the genuine criticism this film is getting is about it just looking sh*t and about as funny as going to the dentist.
People are rightly upset about a beloved film like Ghostbusters being butchered and made into a slapstick, lowest common denominator, Adam Sandler-esq comedy with that mong Melissa McCarthy front and centre accompanied by a stereotypical loud black woman.


If you like that kind of thing you probably have no brain and I'd say that's the target audience they're going for with this monstrosity of a film.

No, most defending the film are merely suggesting that you watch the film before making up your mind. But hey, when you have people acting as if this film is a personal insult to them or passing comment on an cast member by calling them a "mong" then you really have to wonder if it wouldn't be just easier to let the nerd rage overflow. The original Ghostbusters is surely beloved but it has it's flaws and at the end of the day it's a film for 12 year old boys and as such it appears that this version is following the original and appealing to 12 year old boys.

The trailers thus far haven't been great but I'm going to form my opinion after watching the film, I don't feel so self entitled that I can write something off based on a few seconds of footage from various scenes missing all context.

Xennon

it's a film for 12 year old boys

Dont think so, its a film for all ages which is why it was popular, it was an enjoyable movie on many levels.

This..however....no.......just ..... no......

ShakerMaker91

Deleted User wrote: »

The original Ghostbusters is surely beloved but it has it's flaws and at the end of the day it's a film for 12 year old boys and as such it appears that this version is following the original and appealing to 12 year old boys.

You have obviously never watched the original if you think it was for 12 year old boys.

peteeeed

my main problem with the trailers so far is the special effects don't look that great