GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

Mickeroo

The_Valeyard wrote: »

dedicated to the "brave Mujahideen fighters of Afghanistan"

Living Daylights is another one that has the noble taliban helping out the good guys against those rotten commies :pac:

Wedwood

Mickeroo wrote: »

Living Daylights is another one that has the noble taliban helping out the good guys against those rotten commies :pac:

Not only that, but the Taliban and the Russians also had a drink at the end listening to yer wan with the cello. Plus, the Taliban were late for the cello concert because they got delayed at the airport because of the weaponry they were carrying !!!

Zubeneschamali

silverharp wrote: »

it just looks like a bad movie compared to the original. Star Wars is female led and no backlash

Actually, lots of internet hate focused on how the new SW was all Social Justice, with a girl and a black guy as the heroes. It didn't hurt the movie, because these angry white nerds are a tiny minority. They probably couldn't hurt Ghostbusters either - but being a bad movie will.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Actually, lots of internet hate focused on how the new SW was all Social Justice, with a girl and a black guy as the heroes. It didn't hurt the movie, because these angry white nerds are a tiny minority. They probably couldn't hurt Ghostbusters either - but being a bad movie will.

So no real backlash

pumpkin4life

why its ****e:

1: it looks ****e

2: it deviates from what the first movie is about and what people loved about the original ghostbusters. an all women cast in ghostbusters is like a remake of my dinner with andre but with rocketships.

johnny_ultimate

Entrance exam for ghost busting school

Question 1: Are you male or female?

This is the only question

Answer sheet

If you answered male: Welcome aboard, collect your proton pack on the way out!

If you answered female: You have failed the entrance exam. Women are biologically, physically, emotionally and psychologically incapable of busting ghosts. Please consider alternate careers more appropriate to your prescribed gender e.g secretarial work

If you answered 'none of the above': Em... Here, have this lollipop.

py2006

wtf

pumpkin4life

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Entrance exam for ghost busting school

Question 1: Are you male or female?

This is the only question

Answer sheet

If you answered male: Welcome aboard, collect your proton pack on the way out!

If you answered female: You have failed the entrance exam. Women are biologically, physically, emotionally and psychologically incapable of busting ghosts. Please consider alternate careers more appropriate to your prescribed gender e.g secretarial work

If you answered 'none of the above': Em... Here, have this lollipop.

dunno man, those proton packs look pretty heavy

Billy86

pumpkin4life wrote: »

why its ****e:

1: it looks ****e

2: it deviates from what the first movie is about and what people loved about the original ghostbusters. an all women cast in ghostbusters is like a remake of my dinner with andre but with rocketships.

Yes, because women are not human.

At least you got the first point right, though. Still looks pretty bloody awful and the whole franchise is a dated concept that belongs in it's era and not much of anywhere else.

Basq

Oh Dan!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GThURqbSmWs

Simon2015

Basq wrote: »

Oh Dan!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GThURqbSmWs

Dan isnt even a Ghostbuster in GB3 ?

Probably the minimum he could do to get Sony off his back

Penn

pumpkin4life wrote: »

2: it deviates from what the first movie is about and what people loved about the original ghostbusters.

Yeah. The first movie was all about busting ghosts, whereas this version is about... No, wait. This version is the one that's about busting ghosts, but what people loved about the original was that it was all about busting gh... No, sorry I have it this time. Both versions are about busting ghosts, but this new version has bad trailers even though none of us probably ever saw the trailers for the original one, which makes the new one the bad one without having seen it.

Billy86

Actually apart from the dated effects (and doing a lot to dispelling the idea that trailers giving too much away is an exclusively modern thing), the original Ghostbusters trailer was pretty class...

Interesting given the conversations going on here though, to see the one ghost buster they left off the 'starring...' bit at the end (though to be fair -as best I know- this role made Ernie Hudson, so he wouldn't have been a draw before it premiered).

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Yeah. The first movie was all about busting ghosts, whereas this version is about... No, wait. This version is the one that's about busting ghosts, but what people loved about the original was that it was all about busting gh... No, sorry I have it this time. Both versions are about busting ghosts, but this new version has bad trailers even though none of us probably ever saw the trailers for the original one, which makes the new one the bad one without having seen it.

You know what I'm sick of this crap. The trailers make it look highly damn likely to be crap.

Do you go to see EVERY film that comes into the theatre? If not, why not? How do you make your selection without seeing them all??
Because unless you have never seen a trailer and thought "nope that's not for me" and make it your mission to see every release; I call balls on your assertion

Mickeroo

Deleted User wrote: »

You know what I'm sick of this crap. The trailers make it look highly damn likely to be crap.

Do you go to see EVERY film that comes into the theatre? If not, why not? How do you make your selection without seeing them all??
Because unless you have never seen a trailer and thought "nope that's not for me" and make it your mission to see every release; I call balls on your assertion

If it's something I'm interested in I'll go see it regardless (like Batman v Superman for example), but a lot of the time I'll gauge whether I want to see it in the cinema or not from the reviews. Trailers are just an ad so they'll never affect my decision to see a film.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

If it's something I'm interested in I'll go see it regardless (like Batman v Superman for example), but a lot of the time I'll gauge whether I want to see it in the cinema or not from the reviews. Trailers are just an ad so they'll never affect my decision to see a film.

So you make a decision without seeing it? Posters here have, in the past, castigated others for having the gall to for opinions based on reviews too.

The only available material to view are the trailers, which are meant to give a tonal feel of the film and get people interested in seeing. They are failing hard, every time.

I'll wait to hear reviews too, as I tend to like Wiig, but I can easily say that it looks crap at present

Mickeroo

Deleted User wrote: »

So you make a decision without seeing it? Posters here have, in the past, castigated others for having the gall to for opinions based on reviews too.

The only available material to view are the trailers, which are meant to give a tonal feel of the film and get people interested in seeing. They are failing hard, every time.

I'll wait to hear reviews too, as I tend to like Wiig, but I can easily say that it looks crap at present

I don't think it's possible to make a decision about watching a film after seeing it so yes I suppose I do make a decision about whether to watch a film or not without seeing it I wouldn't with any certainty be able to say if I think a film is good or bad though, just whether I think I might like it or not.

As I said it also depends on the film, Batman vs Superman was a guaranteed cinema ticket purchase before it had even been filmed even though it ended up rubbish. Ghostbusters I'm not so sure, unless it gets absolutely panned by critics I'll probably give it a look at some stage otherwise I'll just wait for DVD.There's plenty of great trailers for bad films and vise vesa so I don't really put much stock in them personally.

Penn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You know what I'm sick of this crap. The trailers make it look highly damn likely to be crap.

Do you go to see EVERY film that comes into the theatre? If not, why not? How do you make your selection without seeing them all??
Because unless you have never seen a trailer and thought "nope that's not for me" and make it your mission to see every release; I call balls on your assertion

Then you misunderstand my assertion. My assertion is that people are trying to find reasons to call it crap regardless of whether the trailers were to be good or bad. The post I quoted said that the new film didn't have what people loved about the original, but that absolutely cannot be judged on trailers.

Trailers are supposed to entice you to see the film. Whether or not these trailers have done that, there are people who have already made that decision before any trailer came out and are looking for any justification for that.

e_e

I've already made the decision to pay to see this regardless of the trailers or critical response. I figure that any movie that managed such a perfect storm of inciting fan entitlement and pissing off all the right people should have at least something interesting to it. Plus I find that it's weirdly valuable already as an industrial point, can't help but think that more blockbusters should inspire this level of controversy and seething hatred.

FunLover18

Billy86 wrote: »

Actually apart from the dated effects (and doing a lot to dispelling the idea that trailers giving too much away is an exclusively modern thing), the original Ghostbusters trailer was pretty class...

Is it though? I mean we've all seen the original and know the context of all those clips and we know the characters. If you watched that trailer not knowing anything about the film I wonder would it look any better than the trailers we've seen for the new one. I'm not saying it would or wouldn't, just that it's very hard to judge a trailer when you've seen the full film and even harder if you have a strong bias towards the film (which I'm not accusing you of Billy, just a general observation).

Billy86

FunLover18 wrote: »

Is it though? I mean we've all seen the original and know the context of all those clips and we know the characters. If you watched that trailer not knowing anything about the film I wonder would it look any better than the trailers we've seen for the new one. I'm not saying it would or wouldn't, just that it's very hard to judge a trailer when you've seen the full film and even harder if you have a strong bias towards the film (which I'm not accusing you of Billy, just a general observation).

To be honest I like Ghostbusters but I'm not a huge fan, don't think it has aged that well, and think it would be nit-picked to bits if it came out today. Personally I reckon I would, but that's probably got to do with the fact I like off-beat comedies and movies that you go into not too sure where it's going or where it'll take you (feckin' reboot trends :mad: ).

BMMachine

e_e wrote: »

I've already made the decision to pay to see this regardless of the trailers or critical response. I figure that any movie that managed such a perfect storm of inciting fan entitlement and pissing off all the right people should have at least something interesting to it. Plus I find that it's weirdly valuable already as an industrial point, can't help but think that more blockbusters should inspire this level of controversy and seething hatred.

hahaha. I must admit I am curious because of all this but I know my taste and I know I just won't enjoy it. Its gonna be very interesting when it actually is released

Tony EH

Mickeroo wrote: »

If it's something I'm interested in I'll go see it regardless (like Batman v Superman for example), but a lot of the time I'll gauge whether I want to see it in the cinema or not from the reviews. Trailers are just an ad so they'll never affect my decision to see a film.

They do for most people.

If a trailer(s) is soooo bad, it WILL put people off of going to the cinema to see a film.

If they're good, it entices people to go and check the film out. I made the decision to go to see '10 Cloverfield Lane' based purely on the great trailer I saw on YouTube.

Going to the pictures is a relatively expensive luxury these days and forking out €15+ for shite is not on a lot of people's To Do list.

No doubt, this rubbish will do well enough, because it's nicked the name off of a well loved film. But based on what I've actually seen so far in the trailers, I certainly won't be wasting any money (or time) going to the cinema to see it.

Tony EH

Penn wrote: »

Then you misunderstand my assertion. My assertion is that people are trying to find reasons to call it crap regardless of whether the trailers were to be good or bad. The post I quoted said that the new film didn't have what people loved about the original, but that absolutely cannot be judged on trailers.

I think people are trying MUCH, MUCH harder to try and justify going to this thing to be honest.

The trailers are terrible. But it's not just one trailer. They've had three goes, so far and they're all bloody awful.

orubiru

e_e wrote: »

I've already made the decision to pay to see this regardless of the trailers or critical response. I figure that any movie that managed such a perfect storm of inciting fan entitlement and pissing off all the right people should have at least something interesting to it. Plus I find that it's weirdly valuable already as an industrial point, can't help but think that more blockbusters should inspire this level of controversy and seething hatred.

I am sure a lot of people will go and see the film to see what all the fuss is about.

I'm sure some folks are getting ready to watch it 3 times on release day and then 5 more times in the 2 weeks after release.

Most people will watch it once, then move on. Same as they do for the vast majority of these blockbuster movies.

Would we be giving the marketing people too much credit by suggesting that it was always the intention to stoke up controversy and then try to sell the movie on the back of that?

It will be interesting to see how much this movie actually makes on release. Sure, the trailer has a zillion dislikes on YouTube but everyone constantly derides the Transformers movies and they still have big box office figures.

The fact is that if this movie makes a lot of money then it's because many of these "sexists" or whatever are actually paying up to watch the film.

For me, I won't see it for the same reasons I won't see Warcraft or Independence Day 2 or Star Trek Beyond. For the same reasons I didn't see Jurassic World or Terminator Genysis or Batman v Superman. I don't like the idea that I will have wasted my time and my money to go and sit through these terrible movies.

I loved Ghostbusters. I really, really, did. I was also very young though. Sitting through those movies now, especially Ghostbusters 2, is just a boring slog. They are kind of fun movies but that's it. Not life changing or even really insightful.

It seems weird doesn't it that grown adults are sincerely arguing over a movie that most people will watch once and then never think about again?

I can understand why fans of a thing get angry when that thing is changed in a way they don't like but you seriously only have around 90 minutes of movie and then that's it. Ghostbusters 2 was just OK at best. There's almost nothing there to actually be obsessed about.

Should anyone really be THAT big of a fan of something like Ghostbusters?

Maybe then it is just a bunch of sexist pigs online who don't want to see women in movies. I can't really buy into that either.

The idea that Ghostbusters is "pissing off all the right people" really misses the mark for me.

I mean, I wouldn't feel particularly righteous or good about myself just because I watched a movie that bad people don't like. In reality I've forked out between 10 and 20 Euro (and lining the pockets of millionaires) to sit through a garbage movie for around 2 hours. It doesn't feel like it would be satisfying. It's just kind of sad actually.

I can't really understand folks who would be actively against diversity in movies. It seems idiotic at best and downright hateful at worst. However, would people not prefer it if new franchises were created with the fundamental principle that the characters will be diverse from the very start?

Surely, that is preferable to doing things like Back to the Future remake but with black lesbians Martina McFly and Doctor Emelia Brown? We could maybe applaud the attempt at diversification while acknowledging that it's a pretty stupid and flat-out awful idea, right?

Why not remake Stand By Me with an all female cast and have it set in a more modern environment and introduce a lot of fast paced action, CGI, and stunts? I can't see any good reason for NOT doing that, based on the same logic used to support this new Ghostbusters idea.

Honestly, I think there is a much better argument for Hollywood just leaving things alone. Drastic changes to established IPs will always be met with backlash and, I don't think it's unfair to say this, it is an extremely lazy way to generate interest and make a quick buck.

Wouldn't people rather see the cast of this new Ghostbusters in an original concept with paranormal, supernatural, sci fi elements directed by someone like Edgar Wright?

It seems like the main objection here is that they have slapped a "Ghostbusters" label on something that kind of obviously isn't Ghostbusters?

pumpkin4life

Tony EH wrote: »

They do for most people.

If a trailer(s) is soooo bad, it WILL put people off of going to the cinema to see a film.

If they're good, it entices people to go and check the film out. I made the decision to go to see '10 Cloverfield Lane' based purely on the great trailer I saw on YouTube.

Going to the pictures is a relatively expensive luxury these days and forking out €15+ for shite is not on a lot of people's To Do list.

No doubt, this rubbish will do well enough, because it's nicked the name off of a well loved film. But based on what I've actually seen so far in the trailers, I certainly won't be wasting any money (or time) going to the cinema to see it.

Exactly. The only way I'll ever end up seeing this is if a bunch of [strike]crash dummies[/strike] friends end up seeing it and start raving about it. Why would you waste money if you think the movie looks ****?

orubiru

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Exactly. The only way I'll ever end up seeing this is if a bunch of [strike]crash dummies[/strike] friends end up seeing it and start raving about it. Why would you waste money if you think the movie looks ****?

Because it will annoy MRA, misogynist, sweaty, manchild, gamergate, angry nerds of course!!

At least that's what I've heard.

Hey, wouldn't you GLADLY fork out 20 euros to sit in front of a rubbish movie for 2 hours if it meant that known Twitter abuser NoFatChicks65646969 will cry himself to sleep at night? Come on! :pac:

Saipanne

Not a Ghost busters fan by any means, but this film looks terrible. I won't be a fan any time soon, by the looks of things.,

Penn

Tony EH wrote: »

I think people are trying MUCH, MUCH harder to try and justify going to this thing to be honest.

The trailers are terrible. But it's not just one trailer. They've had three goes, so far and they're all bloody awful.

I disagree about people trying to justify going to it. I doubt I'll see it in the cinema (unless the reviews are really good). All I'm saying is that people are judging the film based on things that cannot be judged from the trailers alone, again, based on the post I originally quoted and similar comments from elsewhere

pumpkin4life wrote: »

it deviates from what the first movie is about and what people loved about the original ghostbusters. an all women cast in ghostbusters is like a remake of my dinner with andre but with rocketships.