GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

orubiru

WoolyJumper wrote: »

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 What sets this apart is the main characters have been replaced by women, I can see why some would come to the conclusion that there is an element of sexism in this (whether it is true or not i don't know but judging by some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)

There is definitely an element of sexism in this. You'd have to say that there is a massive "anti-feminist" backlash against the film, I think we can all agree on that. However, a ton of that is just people trolling and laughing at feminist leaning sites and their idiotic articles.

I think it's basically a vicious cycle kind of thing though. Certain parties jump on a handful of idiotic tweets or posts and try to make some larger point and it backfires.

If anyone here ever goes to IMDB or Reddit then it should be pretty obvious that about 10% of discussion on movie boards has some value while and the other 90% is people talking absolute juvenile nonsense and/or trolling. (johnny_ultimate, don't worry, I am not putting these forth as accurate scientific findings it's just my perception).

So a new IMDB board gets created for the new Ghostbusters and they announce that it's an all female team and a handful of the usual chancers and wind-up merchants show up. "Women shouldn't be bustin ghosts they should be makin me a gorram sammich".

I would argue that the correct reaction here is to roll your eyes and ignore them.

Look, anyone who brings up that people hated Star Wars because a main character was black and another main character was a woman is basically giving too much weight to the opinions of a very, very, small minority of movie goers. As a result when a handful of imbeciles posted some idiotic stuff online and a larger mob thinks it would be hilarious to parrot those views "for the lulz". People need to get grip, really.

We should ignore it. We can't do that anymore though because it's the internet. So people start writing articles about the handful of tweets they saw that, while awful on a surface level, really shouldn't be taken seriously.

When this is picked up by the usual special snowflake websites (guys, I am just having a laugh here) who like to whine about everything then it's like a massive lightning rod for trolls. People start to jump on the bandwagon because, for the kids these days, it's kind of hilarious to trash Ghostbusters and then sit back and laugh at the gnashing and wailing from the usual "holier than thou" commentators.

So then it escalates again. Now you've got a much larger mob of trolls and "anti SJWs" who are laughing their asses off because all they have to do is go to the Ghostbusters trailer and kick dislike and watch the tears of the righteous flow. (again folks, I am exaggerating a bit because how can you really take this stuff 100% seriously?)

Eventually some of the more prominent websites start running articles that basically say if you hate this movie then you must hate women... or something. Whatever. Sexism. Sexism everywhere.

Then you get folks who obviously take offence to that because actually this movie looks terrible for so many reasons. For them it really feels like there is another internet mob out there getting reading to come after you if you express a dislike for this film.

So a totally innocuous and well reasoned video like this :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz8X2A7wHyQ

Gets some over the top responses like these :
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/19/donald-trump-s-sexist-anti-ghostbusters-crusade-goes-mainstream.html
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/05/18/the-soft-sexism-of-hating-on-the-new-ghostbusters

Let's be honest here. Just like X-Men: Apocalypse or Angry Birds or Mothers Day or My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 this movie looks like absolute garbage and you only need to watch the trailer to see that. It's awful.

It's not because of women, it's not because of misogyny. It's because Hollywood produces a never ending stream of bowl splattering crap and it the odds were that Ghostbusters was always going to be one of those turds.

Why is this particular movie getting so much "hatred"? Probably because people get their panties in a bunch over stupid jokes online and it's funny to watch them react like morons. Probably because of the giant "we feed trolls" banner flying over most discussions about this movie. (again johnny_ultimate, I am not referring to an actual banner, thanks)

Of course, people have wanted a Ghostbusters 3 for a long, long, time and it was FOR SURE going to get a lot of hatred if they didn't get it just right. They managed to get it spectacularly wrong.

py2006

My initial disappointment with the cast was not that they were women, it was because it wasn't the original cast.

Once I was over that (actually I never will be), I was dissapointed with the cast apart from maybe Kristen Wiig. Melissa could be ok but I think its a bit of a gamble. As for the others.....meh.

There are other actresses that would have been great in the role. I am thinking Sarah Silverman (not an actress per say but can be funny)

• Amy Poehler
• Emma Stone
• Anna Kendrick
• Julia Louis-Drefus

Xennon

Xennon wrote:

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

ShakerMaker91 wrote:

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

If it's a film for all ages then why is it that the only people bothered by the casting are men who first saw the film when it came out and they were 12 years old. Notice that we don't have many 50+ year olds crying about the injustice of it all. Yes the original film has some adult moments and a lot that go over kids heads but then so did a lot of kids films from the era. Look at Raiders of the Lost Ark, Return to Oz, the Transformers film, The Monster Squad and so on. 80s kids cinema wasn't afraid to be dark and it's something that so few films do now. When Pixar tried it last year there was backlash with people calling The Good Dinosaur mean spirited and not for for kids.

Grayditch

I'd have liked to see Maria Bamford or Amy Schumer in it but it I'm not familiar with some of the cast so maybe they're grand choices for the written roles. It doesn't really matter unless the writing and jokes are good which they obviously haven't been on the trailer. But the trailer is a trailer.

I'm on the fence about going to see it now.
I guess it depends on what else is on when it's released. I'm not an avid cinema goer since the experience has deteriorated so much these days.

py2006

I think most of us will see it out of curiosity.





and bitch about it here after.

Tony EH

Grayditch wrote: »

But the trailer is a trailer.

A trailer is supposed to offer up some good parts of the finished film to entice people to go to the cinema in the hopes of seeing more good parts.

But there's absolutely nothing in any of the trailers so far (and they've had three shots) to suggest that there are any good parts to this film.

The "characters" range from merely meh to absolutely appalling. The "jokes" are completely absent. The special effects aren't so special. The film is a reboot and not the sequel that most fans were hoping for, the story is another "possession" retread and over all, what we've seen leaves a lot to be desired...and that's being very polite about it.

Grayditch

Some good movies have bad trailers and vice versa. It does make it look like the movie will be bad though and has probably put me off going to the cinema for it, but not stop holding out hope for it being ok. Maybe a rental job.

Grayditch

Grayditch wrote: »

Some good movies have bad trailers and vice versa. It does make it look like the movie will be bad though and has probably put me off going to the cinema for it, but not stop holding out hope for it being ok. Maybe a rental job.

And that is exactly why I don't get the "don't make your mind up until you see it" condescending attitude.
The trailers are warning me to not waste time and money (both limited) going to the cinema. Await rental or stream.
Couple that with full reviews (assuming that they're negative) and why would I risk it?

Right now, based on the ONLY information available (which the studio expects to entice), it's looking like a turkey.

Tony EH

Grayditch wrote: »

Some good movies have bad trailers and vice versa. It does make it look like the movie will be bad though and has probably put me off going to the cinema for it, but not stop holding out hope for it being ok. Maybe a rental job.

Aye, but this film has had three duff trailers in a row and ample opportunity to react to the feedback on each.

That's what they would call a "pattern".

py2006

It will do well. At least in the opening weekend. People will be curious about it.

S.M.B.

I really look forward to the day that Holywood can release a reboot of a cherished movie, change the protagonist(s) to further target the movie at a different audience and release a few average trailers in the lead up to its release and a large proportion of the Internet somehow manages to not have a melt down.

Sadly I think we are still a long way from reaching that point.

BMMachine

S.M.B. wrote: »

I really look forward to the day that Holywood can release a reboot of a cherished movie, change the protagonist(s) to further target the movie at a different audience and release a few average trailers in the lead up to its release and a large proportion of the Internet somehow manages to not have a melt down.

Sadly I think we are still a long way from reaching that point.

thats because people are sick of being spoon fed chicken sh*t and being told its chicken salad

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

My initial disappointment with the cast was not that they were women, it was because it wasn't the original cast.

Once I was over that (actually I never will be), I was dissapointed with the cast apart from maybe Kristen Wiig. Melissa could be ok but I think its a bit of a gamble. As for the others.....meh.

There are other actresses that would have been great in the role. I am thinking Sarah Silverman (not an actress per say but can be funny)

• Amy Poehler
• Emma Stone
• Anna Kendrick
• Julia Louis-Drefus

I would absolutely pay to see a Ghostbusters movie with all of those people as cast members.

As it stands, I'll likely torrent it ..

Tony EH

S.M.B. wrote: »

I really look forward to the day that Holywood can release a reboot of a cherished movie, change the protagonist(s) to further target the movie at a different audience and release a few average trailers in the lead up to its release and a large proportion of the Internet somehow manages to not have a melt down.

Sadly I think we are still a long way from reaching that point.

The recent Apes series is a good example of how to reboot a much loved and iconic film series.

It's possible, if the filmmakers hearts are in the right place and their heads are filled more with the idea of making a good film(s) and not just raping the name of an already established franchise.

It's been done.

This "Ghostbusters", though, thoroughly deserves all the negative responses that's thrown at it, based on the exposure available.

S.M.B.

BMMachine wrote: »

thats because people are sick of being spoon fed chicken sh*t and being told its chicken salad

Ones man's chicken **** is another man's chicken salad.

And while what you say may be the case I still don't buy it 100%. It feels like this brand of chicken **** is assumed to be a whole lot worse than all the chicken **** everyone's been eating for the past 30 years.

Tony EH

Perhaps people have just reached their limit.

S.M.B.

S.M.B. wrote: »

Ones man's chicken **** is another man's chicken salad.

And while what you say may be the case I still don't buy it 100%. It feels like this brand of chicken **** is assumed to be a whole lot worse than all the chicken **** everyone's been eating for the past 30 years.

Except that Star Trek experienced its own version, they only changed the timeline!

S.M.B.

Tony EH wrote: »

Perhaps people have just reached their limit.

A limit to the amount of times this can happen? I doubt it.

A limit to how big a change to an IP they are willing to accept? Agreed.

BMMachine

S.M.B. wrote: »

Ones man's chicken **** is another man's chicken salad.

And while what you say may be the case I still don't buy it 100%. It feels like this brand of chicken **** is assumed to be a whole lot worse than all the chicken **** everyone's been eating for the past 30 years.

some people have decent standards, some people have sh*t standards. The popularity of absolute garbage culture is testament to this (do you really want a list of stuff like Geordie Shore and Adam Sandler films to prove this?).

This film is just the latest in that sh*t culture. The two reasons everyone is talking about it are:
*women
*its Ghostbusters

If it was just one and not the other, no one would care. It is of no shock that its a piece of crap though

Tony EH

S.M.B. wrote: »

A limit to the amount of times this can happen? I doubt it.

A limit to how big a change to an IP they are willing to accept? Agreed.

A limit to the amount of shit they're willing to put up with.

Tony EH

BMMachine wrote: »

The two reasons everyone is talking about it are:
*women
*its Ghostbusters

That's nonsense.

There are many other reasons why people aren't happy with this. Much of which has been discussed on the thread already.

BMMachine

Tony EH wrote: »

That's nonsense.

There are many other reasons why people aren't happy with this. Much of which has been discussed on the thread already.

nope. If this was just a run of the mill sh*t film no one would care

Tony EH

Of course people would care. You see it all the time across the net, when a beloved film is remade.

If you want to place a limit on the expanse of the discussion, go ahead. But you're wrong, as is amply demonstrated even on this thread.

orubiru

S.M.B. wrote: »

I really look forward to the day that Holywood can release a reboot of a cherished movie, change the protagonist(s) to further target the movie at a different audience and release a few average trailers in the lead up to its release and a large proportion of the Internet somehow manages to not have a melt down.

Sadly I think we are still a long way from reaching that point.

It'll never happen.

In any industry where there are fans or supporters or a particular brand or product there is always going to be uproar when something is changed.

If it's changed for the better then maybe those fans will get on board. If the changes make things worse? People will go nuts.

You can see this in other places. Wrestling. Video Games. Football. When Manchester United dropped from being one of the dominant teams and started signing lower quality players the fans were never going to say "I do miss the days of being the best but now I feel totally satisfied with these new, just above average, performances". They demand more.

Or if Radiohead decided to stop making "guitar music"... people would go out of their minds. Remember that?

I dunno, I bet if Ferrari decided to stop making red cars tomorrow and switch to only painting their vehicles brown then people on the internet would go mental.

Are movie fans entitled to demand more, or better? I honestly don't know.

This really isn't any different. The coverage is different simply because this particular outrage can be packaged as "sexism" or "misogyny" despite the fact that the movie looks mediocre and will be a massive disappointment for fans.

If Star Wars did a U-turn and turned Rey into a helpless damsel in distress then I reckon there would be outrage. If people think that outrage would be justified then they have no place criticising folks acting outraged over Ghostbusters.

BMMachine

Tony EH wrote: »

Of course people would care. You see it all the time across the net, when a beloved film is remade.

If you want to place a limit on the expanse of the discussion, go ahead. But you're wrong, as is amply demonstrated even on this thread.

ok Ghostbusters maybe more than others thats true, but I don't remember much talk about Total Recall, Robocop, Rambo etc. If this wasn't Feigbusters no one would care half as much, it would actually be looked at a lot better with a bit more excitement about it. It would probably still be sh*t mind because trying to recapture the magic of those films of that era is impossible. Thats actually an interesting point, a massive clash of eras. Those films of the 80s just don't fit anymore

Tony EH

There was quite a bit about 'Total recall', if I ...er...recall. It depended where you went. There was much hullabaloo about the 'Robocop' remake too. 'Rambo' was a continuation of the series (which frankly should have been put to bed after 'First Blood'), so it was the sequel the fans of that series wanted, by and large.

The 'Star Wars' reboot has come in for significant crticism too and an awful lot of the criticism was very much warranted, even though that got stuff mostly correct.

The thing about Nu-Ghostbusters, is that it has, so far got everything monsterously wrong and the criticism it's on the end of is a demonstration of that.

It's in the hands of the wrong people. It's that simple and that's been borne out across three pretty awful trailers.

Frankly, it'll be a minor miracle if this turns out to be any good.

orubiru

BMMachine wrote: »

ok Ghostbusters maybe more than others thats true, but I don't remember much talk about Total Recall, Robocop, Rambo etc.

I don't really understand why people are trying to quantify the backlash.

So if the outrage over New Ghostbusters is greater than the outrage over New Robocop then that proves what?

The backlash over Jared Leto as the Joker was much worse than the backlash over Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor but that didn't prove anything objective right?

By the way, I don't buy the "there wasn't much talk about Robocop" line of argument. Here is a thread titled "Robocop remake???? FFS!!" http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=56217766
2nd Post: "I would hate to see this remade."

wally79

Tony EH wrote: »

'Rambo' was a continuation of the series (which frankly should have been put to bed after 'First Blood')

I accept the rest of your points but imagine the world we'd be in if John Rambo didn't drive the commies out of Afghanistan. It was the killer blow to communism after Rocky had softened them up in their own back yard.

Tony EH

wally79 wrote: »

I accept the rest of your points but imagine the world we'd be in if John Rambo didn't drive the commies out of Afghanistan. It was the killer blow to communism after Rocky had softened them up in their own back yard.

Shit Wally. I forgot all about that!

:eek:

The_Valeyard

wally79 wrote: »

I accept the rest of your points but imagine the world we'd be in if John Rambo didn't drive the commies out of Afghanistan. It was the killer blow to communism after Rocky had softened them up in their own back yard.

dedicated to the "brave Mujahideen fighters of Afghanistan"