GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

py2006

Whens the damn thing out here anyway? I will go watch it

Arne_Saknussem

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

So in short, everyone should be more like you. Cos you're great.

Or maybe people could judge the film after watching it and not simply based on a few trailers and a sense of nostalgia that allows them to over look the many faults to be found in the original.

py2006

Deleted User wrote: »

Or maybe people could judge the film after watching it and not simply based on a few trailers and a sense of nostalgia that allows them to over look the many faults to be found in the original.

how dare you! What faults?

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

Or maybe people could judge the film after watching it and not simply based on a few trailers and a sense of nostalgia that allows them to over look the many faults to be found in the original.

They could yeah, but they're also allowed to form an opinion based on the trailers themselves. Everyone you know has done this before, including you.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Or maybe people could judge the film after watching it and not simply based on a few trailers and a sense of nostalgia that allows them to over look the many faults to be found in the original.

Will you pay for my ticket? If I enjoy it I'll pay you back.

Oh and will you cover the cost of the babysitter, taxi etc too?

I get 1 night every few weeks to go to the cinema what on Earth makes this at all even remotely look like it's worth that one night?

It looks muck so no, I won't risk my hard earned money on potential tripe.

Arne_Saknussem

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

They could yeah, but they're also allowed to form an opinion based on the trailers themselves. Everyone you know has done this before, including you.

By all means form an opinion but don't go and write a film off based on 90 seconds of footage without any context. I think the trailers make the film look poor but I'll still give it a chance and also, you can form an opinion based on a trailer but some of the vitriol directed toward the film is just a little over the top.

Deleted User wrote: »

Will you pay for my ticket? If I enjoy it I'll pay you back.

Oh and will you cover the cost of the babysitter, taxi etc too?

I get 1 night every few weeks to go to the cinema what on Earth makes this at all even remotely look like it's worth that one night?

It looks muck so no, I won't risk my hard earned money on potential tripe.

Then don't go see it but don't write it off based on the trailers. And if curious then you can wait till it's available to stream or rent in 3 months. I'm not saying that the film looks great but it looks no worse than most big budget blockbusters.

Frank O. Pinion

Deleted User wrote: »

I wasn't offended in the least but for people who have suffered so to have it trivialized and used in such a frivolous manner is offensive to them. Maybe, it's not, maybe rape victims have no problem with someone equating what happened to them with the remaking of a film or the changing of a character.

You weren't offended, but it is offensive? Okay, sounds good. If someone has a problem with something (words being said), so what exactly? The people saying those words, forum users, youtube users, comedians like Louis CK, shouldn't say those words? I think you're raping logic, here.

Deleted User wrote:

Also, can I ask where I said I would never watch the new Ghostbusters, if you read back through the thread you'll find a post where I said that I am in fact looking forward to taking my 8 year old brother to see it as he loves the original films and is excited to see the new film. Also, I'm not so much defending the film as merely suggesting the people hold back judging it till they see it or at least even see the critical response. You'd also see from my posting history that I will give almost anything a chance, sure my cinematic tastes generally favor some more esoteric offerings and I'm more excited for Cemetery of Splendor than I am any major Hollywood productiont this year but I'll be first in line to see Independence Day and the Secret Life of Pets this weekend. People have such a narrow view of cinema that most seem to think that Hollywood is the be all and end all, there's so many great looking films being released in the coming months that it's hard to get upset just because some $150+ million film looks mediocre. The outcry over something like the Ghostbusters remake makes me think that some people really need to get their priorities right.

Like another poster said, all this is just you talking about how great you, and your film views are. I will say, can I ask where I said you wouldn't watch the new Ghostbusters? You're not the only poster to mention Cemetery of Splendor. Nobody cares that you watch Hollywood crap, as well as other stuff. I loved both The Lobster and Inside Out, from last year. Nobody cares. Nobody cares that their priorities aren't right, according to you. Maybe you need to get your priorities right. Maybe we don't need priorities? Maybe the new Ghostbusters will be great, or maybe, just maybe, it will rape us all.

Outlaw Pete

Deleted User wrote: »

I wasn't offended in the least but for people who have suffered so to have it trivialized and used in such a frivolous manner is offensive to them. Maybe, it's not, maybe rape victims have no problem with someone equating what happened to them with the remaking of a film or the changing of a character.

Nobody equated what you suggest to the rape of men or women.

The word 'rape' also means the wanton destruction, spoiling and/or destroying of something.

I do agree though that people should wait to see it before passing too much judgement on it.

Frank O. Pinion

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

You weren't offended, but it is offensive? Okay, sounds good. If someone has a problem with something (words being said), so what exactly? The people saying those words, forum users, youtube users, comedians like Louis CK, shouldn't say those words? I think you're raping logic, here.

Say what you want, I have no problem with it and anyone who has seen my comedy will testify to that. Saying that this film or another will rape your childhood is just hyperbole of the worst kind. It's like when someone uses the rape of children by members of the catholic church here to make a point about how bad a film is, it's not necessary.

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Like another poster said, all this is just you talking about how great you, and your film views are. I will say, can I ask where I said you wouldn't watch the new Ghostbusters? You're not the only poster to mention Cemetery of Splendor. Nobody cares that you watch Hollywood crap, as well as other stuff. I loved both The Lobster and Inside Out, from last year. Nobody cares. Nobody cares that their priorities aren't right, according to you. Maybe you need to get your priorities right. Maybe we don't need priorities? Maybe the new Ghostbusters will be great, or maybe, just maybe, it will rape us all.

No it wasn't, it was merely pointing out that if you are so offended by the trailer for the Ghostbusters you are hardly wanting for great cinema. If you are too lazy to bother to look then that's your problem. Maybe this was directed at other people, "I would never watch such a terrible looking comedy, like the new Ghostbusters, I watch stuff like Cemetery of Splendour..." but to me it was you imply that I had no intention of watching the film.

Not directed at anyone in particular but if the Ghsotbusters remake makes you look back and change how you view your childhood, well it wasn't all that great to begin with. Likewise, if you are so angry about the film that you have to take to the internet to cry about it then you really don't have a whole lot going on. Hell, it's not like the original Ghostbusters is a great film, it's a film beloved to many simply because they saw it at just the right age. There's not a lot of 50 year old men having a problem with it, it's more early to mid 30 year olds who saw the original when they were 8 or 9 who love it so much, it's nostalgia. Hell, I think that critical response at the time was decidedly mixed with it getting some rather middling review.

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

Not directed at anyone in particular but if the Ghsotbusters remake makes you look back and change how you view your childhood, well it wasn't all that great to begin with. Likewise, if you are so angry about the film that you have to take to the internet to cry about it then you really don't have a whole lot going on. Hell, it's not like the original Ghostbusters is a great film, it's a film beloved to many simply because they saw it at just the right age. There's not a lot of 50 year old men having a problem with it, it's more early to mid 30 year olds who saw the original when they were 8 or 9 who love it so much, it's nostalgia. Hell, I think that critical response at the time was decidedly mixed with it getting some rather middling review.

I'd imagine most of the "they stole my childhood" is just trolling . if there is genuine ire at this stage its the arrogance of Sony and the fact that they have doubled down against the fans instead of trying to win them over. its just a bit of drama at this stage

Bebopclown

Deleted User wrote: »

Mine was great and unlike so many others I didn't turn into a 30 year old child who thinks that the entertainment industry owes me something. This isn't aimed at you, but the amount of posts across social media in relation to how such and such reboot or slight change to beloved character "raped my childhood" is just pathetic. It's offensive that people can compare remaking a film to such a vile act.

You do realise that the word rape has other meaning than just "forced sexual intercourse" on someone. One of those meanings is destroying something so the word is apt.
I find your comment highly offensive, you decided to try win an arguement by saying how offended you are by the phrase used because it can also mean something else. It's like when men pretend to be feminists in order to get laid and it honestly makes me sick to my stomach. It's like you are using the crime of rape to make yourself look so high and mighty. Disgusting!

As for this reboot, it looks ok I guess. I love the original and its sequel but this just looks pretty dull. I'll wait and catch it on Netflix unless it gets good reviews.

Bebopclown

Bebopclown wrote: »

You do realise that the word rape has other meaning than just "forced sexual intercourse" on someone. One of those meanings is destroying something so the word is apt.
I find your comment highly offensive, you decided to try win an arguement by saying how offended you are by the phrase used because it can also mean something else. It's like when men pretend to be feminists in order to get laid and it honestly makes me sick to my stomach. It's like you are using the crime of rape to make yourself look so high and mighty. Disgusting!

As for this reboot, it looks ok I guess. I love the original and its sequel but this just looks pretty dull. I'll wait and catch it on Netflix unless it gets good reviews.

Well aware of the various uses of the word but most using it in this context are using it in the manner it is most commonly used. Not trying to be high or mighty or anything and not offended myself by the word or it's use, but that many will be. And sure if they are offended then that's their problem but the point is that it's unnecessary and vile terminology that does nothing really but stifle any debate or discussion. It's impossible to discuss something with someone who at the very thought of a remake starts saying things like "they're raping my childhood".

This South Park video offers the context in which fanboys are using the work rape in regards the Ghostbusters remake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pZekhEWCHg

Anyone claiming that that this film is "raping" or "ruining" their childhood really didn't have an all that great one to begin with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7eO-HO7GLI

It would be nice if people could discuss something like this film without having to resort to the worst kind of hyperbole or you know, actually watch the film in question before talking about how bad it is.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

I wasn't offended in the least but for people who have suffered so to have it trivialized and used in such a frivolous manner is offensive to them. Maybe, it's not, maybe rape victims have no problem with someone equating what happened to them with the remaking of a film or the changing of a character.

First of all, you cannot actually rape sombody's childhood. It's an impossible act. Nobody is really "trivialising", or being "frivolous" about anything.

Second, it's just a hard hitting term some people use to express their anger at seeing things that they once held dear exploited as a sub par hollywood product and poisoning the well of an established and well loved franchise, or series, merely because they lack any real creative ideas and it isn't just nu-Ghostbusters that people are pissed off about.

As I said earlier, this is old lady handbags, compared to the level of outrage the Star Wars prequels got. Mostly deservedly so, IMHO.

Should people get over it? Yes. Should you get offended at a silly term? No.

Grayditch

The Ghostbuster movie will be better than this thread has become.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

By all means form an opinion but don't go and write a film off based on 90 seconds of footage without any context.

They had four goes at a trailer. There's a new one floating around TV at the moment and that's terrible as well. If you cannot cobble together a decent trailer after FOUR attempts, then logic suggests that there isn't enough good footage to do so.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the trailers make the film look poor but I'll still give it a chance and also, you can form an opinion based on a trailer but some of the vitriol directed toward the film is just a little over the top.

Why? Why would you do that? That simply makes no sense.

Why are some people so determinded to defend this film and go see it, while agreeing that it looks poor?

There are so many better things to spend your time and money on.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

First of all, you cannot actually rape sombody's childhood. It's an impossible act. Nobody is really "trivialising", or being "frivolous" about anything.

Second, it's just a hard hitting term some people use to express their anger at seeing things that they once held dear exploited as a sub par hollywood product and poisoning the well of an established and well loved franchise, or series, merely because they lack any real creative ideas and it isn't just nu-Ghostbusters that people are pissed off about.

As I said earlier, this is old lady handbags, compared to the level of outrage the Star Wars prequels got. Mostly deservedly so, IMHO.

Should people get over it? Yes. Should you get offended at a silly term? No.

Was Ghostbusters not "exploited as a sub par hollywood product and poisoning the well of an established and well loved franchise, or series," with the release of Ghostbusters 2? Look, I love the film and the 80s carton and me and my little brother re-watch it all the time but I can still see the films faults. I also realise that no matter how bad the remake is, I can always go home and watch the original.

Tony EH wrote: »

They had four goes at a trailer. There's a new one floating around TV at the moment and that's terrible as well. If you cannot cobble together a decent trailer after FOUR attempts, then logic suggests that there isn't enough good footage to do so.



Why? Why would you do that? That simply makes no sense.

Why are some people so determinded to defend this film and go see it, while agreeing that it looks poor?

There are so many better things to spend your time and money on.

As I said, I'll be seeing it with my little brother who loves the original and who is looking forward to seeing this. He liked the trailers for the new film and is excited to see the film which makes me think that perhaps the trailers are doing exactly what they should do, appeal to kids who enjoy things like watching people get hit, large ladies falling down and loads of CGI

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Was Ghostbusters not "exploited as a sub par hollywood product and poisoning the well of an established and well loved franchise, or series," with the release of Ghostbusters 2?

Probably. But it's what the fans were asking for. What the got was...well...make your own mind up. I never thought it was that bad. But, that said, I'm not a super fan of the original. It was lightening in a bottle. They'll never capture that again, as far as I'm concerned.

Fans were also asking for 'Ghostbusters 3', for years. Instead they got this. No wonder they're not happy. I find that wholly understandable.

Deleted User wrote: »

Look, I love the film and the 80s carton and me and my little brother re-watch it all the time but I can still see the films faults. I also realise that no matter how bad the remake is, I can always go home and watch the original.

True. Problem is, bad remakes and sequels sully the water for a lot of people and they can destroy the chances of a series reclaiming its former glory.

I find " watch the original" to be a flippant remark and neglects the problems that bad entries have on a film series. Often, it'll bring it to a halt. Although, with 'Ghostbusters', the ship sailed in 1984 as far as I'm concerned.

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said, I'll be seeing it with my little brother who loves the original and who is looking forward to seeing this. He liked the trailers for the new film and is excited to see the film which makes me think that perhaps the trailers are doing exactly what they should do, appeal to kids who enjoy things like watching people get hit, large ladies falling down and loads of CGI

Well, that's fair enough.

But people are correct to judge whether they'll spend the money or time on a film from the trailer(s). After all, that's what they're for.

stiffler123

Deleted User wrote: »

Then don't go see it but don't write it off based on the trailers. And if curious then you can wait till it's available to stream or rent in 3 months. I'm not saying that the film looks great but it looks no worse than most big budget blockbusters.

Why not? In most comedy movies they put the funniest jokes in the trailer. There was zero funny jokes in the trailer, the movie looks like absolute garbage. People make decisions to watch/not watch movies based on trailers all the time. I don't think you would have such a problem with it if the movie had four male leads. You are taking exception to people disliking the trailer because the leads are women.

ps3lover

stiffler123 wrote: »

I don't think you would have such a problem with it if the movie had four male leads. You are taking exception to people disliking the trailer because the leads are women.

This, exactly this!

Also trailers are part of Marketing, the marketing is supposed to get you excited. The fact that the marketing is so awful means that the marketing department have failed.
Some people cant afford to see every movie in the cinema so they need something to give them an idea of what's worth seeing or not.
Also this is a discussion forum for discussing movies. We can only talk about what we've seen so far and from the looks of it, the movie looks like a stinker, it's like this years Fant4stic.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

Probably. But it's what the fans were asking for. What the got was...well...make your own mind up. I never thought it was that bad. But, that said, I'm not a super fan of the original. It was lightening in a bottle. They'll never capture that again, as far as I'm concerned.

Fans were also asking for 'Ghostbusters 3', for years. Instead they got this. No wonder they're not happy. I find that wholly understandable.

Fans got a Ghostbusters 3, granted it was a game and not a film but none the less it exists and isn't bad at all.

Tony EH wrote: »

True. Problem is, bad remakes and sequels sully the water for a lot of people and they can destroy the chances of a series reclaiming its former glory.

Ghostbusters was never going to come back and be what it once was, just look at the subsequent careers of all involved. It would have been great had they got the old team back together but look at something like Year One and wonder just how bad they could have made it.

Tony EH wrote: »

I find " watch the original" to be a flippant remark and neglects the problems that bad entries have on a film series. Often, it'll bring it to a halt. Although, with 'Ghostbusters', the ship sailed in 1984 as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe it's just me but I always find it easy to look at an original and the remake as two different entities, one of my all time favorite film is Seven Samurai and I enjoyed the Hollywood remake, same goes with the remake of Yojimbo. Now there's a remake of the remake of Seven Samurai and while the trailer looks a little rote, I'm still interested in seeing it and no matter how bad it may be it won't affect just how much I love Kurosawa's original.

Tony EH wrote: »

But people are correct to judge whether they'll spend the money or time on a film from the trailer(s). After all, that's what they're for.

stiffler123 wrote: »

Why not? In most comedy movies they put the funniest jokes in the trailer. There was zero funny jokes in the trailer, the movie looks like absolute garbage. People make decisions to watch/not watch movies based on trailers all the time. I don't think you would have such a problem with it if the movie had four male leads. You are taking exception to people disliking the trailer because the leads are women.

I'd have the exact same response no matter the cast, I get that the trailers look a little bland but at the same time I'll give the film a watch before I write it off. Though, it is fair to say that had the trailer featured a male cast the vitriol directed toward it would be a lot less.

ps3lover

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd have the exact same response no matter the cast, I get that the trailers look a little bland but at the same time I'll give the film a watch before I write it off.

Lucky you have the money to see everything that comes out, some people don't.

ps3lover

ps3lover wrote: »

Lucky you have the money to see everything that comes out, some people don't.

I don't and nor do I have the time but I don't go dismissing a film without watching it first or at least waiting to see the critical response. Will I see the film in the cinema, yeah I'll be taking my younger brother but were it not for him I'd be waiting to watch it on Netflix or the like.

ps3lover

I can understand where fans are coming from. When you're a fan of something you want to see more of it.
It's like I love the Friday The 13th series. I'd love to see more of them, as a fan there are certain things I'd like to see but I understand that change is inevitable and they need to try gain a new auidence. But a **** film could kill that dead. They need to keep the spirit of the original which is what I feel the more successful reboots / remakes do. If you start ****ing up ( like making Friday The 13th PG13 or something stupid like that) you make no one happy and you kill the franchise dead.
Look at Terminator, 2 attempts to start up a new trilogy, both failed. Robocop attempted to start a new series and failed.
They keep making business decisions and end up pissing off the fan base that don't turn up.

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

Though, it is fair to say that had the trailer featured a male cast the vitriol directed toward it would be a lot less.

If it starred say Adam Sandler & Tyler Perry it would get crucified, it just wouldn't have you on here & Jezebel crying misogyny.

The reason people are pissed off is because there were talks for years about the 3 film happening with the original cast/animated film etc etc.

They then get this with the obvious gimmick of the all female cast, the terrible trailers with the unfunny recycled/Bridesmaids 'crack' jokes.

The film looks ****ing terrible. But yeah, misogyny...

Arne_Saknussem

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

If it starred say Adam Sandler & Tyler Perry it would get crucified, it just wouldn't have you on here & Jezebel crying misogyny.

The reason people are pissed off is because there were talks for years about the 3 film happening with the original cast/animated film etc etc.

They then get this with the obvious gimmick of the all female cast, the terrible trailers with the unfunny recycled/Bridesmaids 'crack' jokes.

The film looks ****ing terrible. But yeah, misogyny...

Again, it all depends on how good the film was. Tyler Perry, when not playing a large black lady is a damn fine actor, his performance in Gone Girl is great and Sandler is the same. Sandler has some wonderful performances in him, Punch Drunk Love, Reign Over me and so on. Look at the careers of the original Ghostbusters and they're hardly littered with cinematic gold, sure there's a few decent ones here and there but there's far more misses than hits to be found.

I have no problem with a female cast, though it is a sore point for many. And while I found Bridesmaids to be woeful and unfunny, I though that last years Spy was one of the better comedies in awhile, but that was largely down to Statham. Sure the trailer makes the film look juvenile and puerile but it's a film for 10 year old boys and that's what they like. They like people falling down and fart jokes, it's why something like the Three Stooges is timeless in the eyes of 10 year old boys and if Ghostbusters manages to entertain 10 year old boys and make them love it half as much as so many 30 year old men love the original then job done. Do people really think that were they to watch the original for the first time as a 30 year old man that they would love it as much as they did when they were 10 or so?

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, it all depends on how good the film was. Tyler Perry, when not playing a large black lady is a damn fine actor, his performance in Gone Girl is great and Sandler is the same. Sandler has some wonderful performances in him, Punch Drunk Love, Reign Over me and so on. Look at the careers of the original Ghostbusters and they're hardly littered with cinematic gold, sure there's a few decent ones here and there but there's far more hits than misses to be found.

I have no problem with a female cast, though it is a sore point for many. And while I found Bridesmaids to be woeful and unfunny, I though that last years Spy was one of the better comedies in awhile, but that was largely down to Statham. Sure the trailer makes the film look juvenile and puerile but it's a film for 10 year old boys and that's what they like. They like people falling down and fart jokes, it's why something like the Three Stooges is timeless in the eyes of 10 year old boys and if Ghostbusters manages to entertain 10 year old boys and make them love it half as much as so many 30 year old men love the original then job done. Do people really think that were they to watch the original for the first time as a 30 year old man that they would love it as much as they did when they were 10 or so?

Whether you think it's good or not the original film has a big fanbase, can be compared to Star Wars or Superhero fans freaking out when new films don't adhere to the 'source material'.

Add a gimmick and respond to any/all criticism as sexist and you create your own little ****storm. Enlist the support of the Gender Studies graduates to promote the film as part of the cause and you have all this nonsense.

e_e

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

it just wouldn't have you on here & Jezebel crying misogyny.

Ah I see, laughing at and pointing out an obviously irrational and reactionary response to the movie is "crying" but the "they raped my childhood! [insert reactionary buzzword of the month]" isn't. Also add to that all this persecution complex stuff of "I w...w...would criticize the movie but I might be called a misogynist by a straw-man" is very telling.

Y'all are making me want to like the movie more tbh.

e_e

Also the Adam Sandler point is a funny one because I was literally thinking "not even Adam Sandler and his crew starring would have garnered the same ridiculous negative response!". Even though that's more deserving of your contempt (see the beyond awful Pixels) :P

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Fans got a Ghostbusters 3, granted it was a game and not a film but none the less it exists and isn't bad at all.

A computer game doesn't cut it.

There's millions of film fans that aren't gamers.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ghostbusters was never going to come back and be what it once was, just look at the subsequent careers of all involved. It would have been great had they got the old team back together but look at something like Year One and wonder just how bad they could have made it.

I agree. That's why I said it was dead in 1984. It was a once off. They're never going to get that again, despite all the attempts by suits in Hollywood.

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe it's just me but I always find it easy to look at an original and the remake as two different entities, one of my all time favorite film is Seven Samurai and I enjoyed the Hollywood remake, same goes with the remake of Yojimbo. Now there's a remake of the remake of Seven Samurai and while the trailer looks a little rote, I'm still interested in seeing it and no matter how bad it may be it won't affect just how much I love Kurosawa's original.

Those remakes are soooo different to the originals that they effectively become different films. The majority of people who look at 'A Fistful of Dollars' are unaware of 'Yojimbo', never mind that it's a remake for a US audience.

Nu-Ghostbusters, however, looks to be the direct riff with a gender change. It's a reboot, that's simply using a popular name.

A remake of 'The Seven Samurai' you say?

Oh dear...

Arne_Saknussem

e_e wrote: »

Ah I see, laughing at and pointing out an obviously irrational and reactionary response to the movie is "crying" but the "they raped my childhood! [insert reactionary buzzword of the month]" isn't.

cry
verb (used without object), cried, crying.
1.
to utter inarticulate sounds, especially of lamentation, grief, or suffering, usually with tears.
2.
to weep; shed tears, with or without sound.
3.
to call loudly; shout; yell (sometimes followed by out).


I think the irrational and reactionary responses to any film, Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Batman or whatever is a bit silly but to label it as sexist is equally stupid. The new MacGyver trailer has 2-1 downvotes, what's the issue there? Ageism?

And if you get more upset by some saying "They raped my childhood" than you do by someone saying "I'd murder a sandwich" you really are only looking for something to be aggrieved by.