GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

Sad Professor

Deleted User wrote: »

It might be just because I find toilet humour very.. hard to stomach, as it were, and many parts of Bridesmaids just felt like, "hey women can do it too!"

Yeah, I like Bridesmaids but it was basically the female version of men-behaving-badly films. The interesting thing about that sub-genre is that it is often interpreted as being part of a male backlash to new forms of feminism in the '90s. (Dudes feeling threatened by women at work etc took refuge in films about dudes acting like dicks, blah blah blah.) The fact that Hollywood responded with female "me too"-type movies is kinda interesting, though perhaps not surprising. They did the same thing with "strong female characters" in action movies — masculinising them, often very unconvincingly. I think it took until Rey in TFA for them to do a strong female character right.

And now we have a female Ghostbusters "because women can bust ghosts too". It just goes to show how men are still running Hollywood. Obviously there's an audience for this type of thing, but I think what female audiences really need now is a female Fight Club made by a female director. I don't mean a film where women beat each other up, but a smart film that feeds into and comments on the the popularity of vulgar films like Bridesmaids, much as Fight Club did with men-behaving-badly films. Gone Girl was a valiant attempt at it but it was too tied up in the erotic thriller genre.

BMMachine

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah, I like Bridesmaids but it was basically the female version of men-behaving-badly films. The interesting thing about that sub-genre is that it is often interpreted as being part of a male backlash to new forms of feminism in the '90s. (Dudes feeling threatened by women at work etc took refuge in films about dudes acting like dicks, blah blah blah.) The fact that Hollywood responded with female "me too"-type movies is kinda interesting, though perhaps not surprising. They did the same thing with "strong female characters" in action movies — masculinising them, often very unconvincingly. I think it took until Rey in TFA for them to do a strong female character right.

And now we have a female Ghostbusters "because women can bust ghosts too". It just goes to show how men are still running Hollywood. Obviously there's an audience for this type of thing, but I think what female audiences really need now is a female Fight Club made by a female director. I don't mean a film where women beat each other up, but a smart film that feeds into and comments on the the popularity of vulgar films like Bridesmaids, much as Fight Club did with men-behaving-badly films. Gone Girl was a valiant attempt at it but it was too tied up in the erotic thriller genre.

just on that note - Furiosa

Sad Professor

BMMachine wrote: »

just on that note - Furiosa

Terrific character but she's very masculinised, no? I mean, what differentiates Furiosa from Ripley, who was male in the Alien script? That's not a criticism of either character, both of whom inhabit hyper-masculine worlds and it makes sense for them adopt masculine characteristics in order to survive in it. Ripley was a groundbreaking female character for her time. But Rey was refreshing from a feminist perspective because she was a "strong female character" who kicked ass while still retaining her (non-sexualised) feminine qualities. My point being that Hollywood's traditional response to feminism has been to give boobs and female gender pronouns to otherwise male characters.

To bring this back to Ghostbusters, there's no reason why women can't bust ghosts too. But viewed in the context of the women-behaving-badly genre, for which Feig is best known and which this film will probably most closely resemble, it is probably just a cheap and lazy cash-in that failed to anticipate the hornet's nest of (entirely male) nerd rage that it has inspired. I hope I'm wrong, though, because if the script is self-aware enough to realise the upset the film was going to cause then it might be better than the trailers suggest.

Even if the script is strong, they're still going to have the fact that they don't have a pretty strong cast. Bill Murray was obviously a tour-de-force in the last movie, but partnered with him you have other heavy hitters in Akroyd and Reimis, with Ernie Hudson bringing up the rear (unfortunately so, of course). Not to mention Moranis in the background. It is pretty much going to be Kirsten Wiig leading me movie.

What I personally find odd is the fact that they've cast Hemsworth as, essentially, the new Janine. I hope they move past the fact he's an extremely attractive well-built guy, but I foresee many comments and leering glances at him throughout the movie.

Grayditch

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What I personally find odd is the fact that they've cast Hemsworth as, essentially, the new Janine. I hope they move past the fact he's an extremely attractive well-built guy, but I foresee many comments and leering glances at him throughout the movie.

Restrain yourself man, there's no talking in the cinema.

Grayditch

Grayditch wrote: »

Restrain yourself man, there's no talking in the cinema.

Ha. I meant by the camera and/or characters.

WoolyJumper

Deleted User wrote: »

Even if the script is strong, they're still going to have the fact that they don't have a pretty strong cast. Bill Murray was obviously a tour-de-force in the last movie, but partnered with him you have other heavy hitters in Akroyd and Reimis, with Ernie Hudson bringing up the rear (unfortunately so, of course). Not to mention Moranis in the background. It is pretty much going to be Kirsten Wiig leading me movie.

What I personally find odd is the fact that they've cast Hemsworth as, essentially, the new Janine. I hope they move past the fact he's an extremely attractive well-built guy, but I foresee many comments and leering glances at him throughout the movie.

I have to disagree, Kate McKinnon and Melissa McCarthy are ready great comedy actresses. I know Melissa has had a couple of bombs but she was hilarious in spy bridesmaids and the heat. McKinnon I have only seen from some SNL clips on youtube and some of them of been the funniest things to come out of that show in years. Even though Tina Fey and Poehler are very funny most of their SNL stuff wasn't actually great when you watch it back.

WoolyJumper

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I have to disagree, Kate McKinnon and Melissa McCarthy are ready great comedy actresses. I know Melissa has had a couple of bombs but she was hilarious in spy bridesmaids and the heat. McKinnon I have only seen from some SNL clips on youtube and some of them of been the funniest things to come out of that show in years. Even though Tina Fey and Poehler are very funny most of their SNL stuff wasn't actually great when you watch it back.

Poehler and Fey are fantastic in their movie outings, especially if they are together on screen. Look at Sisters. That's a fantastic movie. I don't know anything about McKinnon, but I've just never been blown away by McCarthy in any of her outings. Not yet anyway. Maybe she'll be excellent and I'll be mindblown!

py2006

I have to say most of that SNL stuff is very cringy. Admittedly I haven't seen a huge amount.

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

I have to say most of that SNL stuff is very cringy. Admittedly I haven't seen a huge amount.

Honestly I really think it's down to personal opinion with that stuff. 95% of the stuff in recent years is cringy, but if you go back to with the likes of Eddie Murphy, Mike Meyers, Dan Akroyd, and all the heyday comedians, then there's some absolutely excellent content.

On a similar note - and dragging it further off course - the TV show Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, actually has a great insight into this kind of stuff.

WoolyJumper

py2006 wrote: »

I have to say most of that SNL stuff is very cringy. Admittedly I haven't seen a huge amount.

I agree, but more recently there has been an improvement. Especially the women actually. There is stilly plenty of cringe but some of the stuff has actually been very funny, especially they get a little more political or topical. The Scientology skit they did was very good.

tigger123

SNL material can also be quite topical, so viewed a number of years later out of context it can lose it's impact. It's written for a weekly show only a few days before hand.

Slydice

e_e

Amusing 5 star joke review on Letterboxd for this: "Best scene had to be where the team threw every existing copy of the original Ghostbusters film into a volcano and celebrated the newly formed matriarchy."

BMMachine

cant wait for a similar Spinal Tap kind of review
"sh*tbusters"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec4jGEgzkJs

My aunt lives in the building that was used as the main focal point for everything in the first movie.

So that's kind of cool.

Also -- I visited the actual firestation that was used for all the outdoor shots of their HQ.

py2006

Deleted User wrote: »

My aunt lives in the building that was used as the main focal point for everything in the first movie.

So that's kind of cool.

Also -- I visited the actual firestation that was used for all the outdoor shots of their HQ.

You mean the apartment block were Dana (Sigourney Weaver) was?

Have to doublecheck that now. The apartment building from Ghostbusters appears to be in NY, but she's in San Francisco. Ahhh I figured it out. They refer to it as the Ghostbuster building, because it's incredibly similar to the one in NY. Think that's where my aunt got confused. Anyway, I definitely did visit the Firehouse, though.

Also saw the floor piano from Big, but that's completely unrelated. That was a good day.

I've seen people refer to this as a "reboot". But that isn't the case, is it? A reboot, to me, is starting from fresh. This is essentially a sequel, as far as I can tell, and that all the events in the previous two movies happened.

Unless I'm completely mistaken.

Christy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've seen people refer to this as a "reboot". But that isn't the case, is it? A reboot, to me, is starting from fresh. This is essentially a sequel, as far as I can tell, and that all the events in the previous two movies happened.

Unless I'm completely mistaken.

The trailer is confusing but it does seem to be a reboot. Why it has the reference to the previous ghostbusters movies at the start of the trailer is beyond me but the scenes in the trailer seem to suggest this is all new to the characters.

Dodge

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I agree, but more recently there has been an improvement. Especially the women actually. There is stilly plenty of cringe but some of the stuff has actually been very funny, especially they get a little more political or topical. The Scientology skit they did was very good.

That's the nature of sketch comedy, and particularly topical sketch comedy. Some will work, some won't. There's a great book about the history of SNL (can't think of it off hand!) but it explores how even at its' peak only 30% of the jokes landed. They just happened to land in a big way. We, in Ireland, only ever got to see the highlights and even then years after the originals. No we can see the whole show warts and all.

Agree that the women performers are the most reliable these days too.

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

I've seen people refer to this as a "reboot". But that isn't the case, is it? A reboot, to me, is starting from fresh. This is essentially a sequel, as far as I can tell, and that all the events in the previous two movies happened.

Unless I'm completely mistaken.

that was part of the initial annoyance , the intro makes it sound like a sequel when it isn't , Feig's comment below

I love origin stories. That’s my favorite thing. I love the first one so much I don’t want to do anything to ruin the memory of that. So it just felt like, let’s just restart it because then we can have new dynamics. I want the technology to be even cooler. I want it to be really scary, and I want it to happen in our world today that hasn’t gone through it so it’s like, oh my God what’s going on?

It makes it even more confusing, given that there are cameos from all the living Ghostbusters. So essentially they're not passing on the reigns, which would have been a lovely touch (and what was done in both Extreme Ghostbusters and the video game), but.. they're just going to be random passersby?

How odd.

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

It makes it even more confusing, given that there are cameos from all the living Ghostbusters. So essentially they're not passing on the reigns, which would have been a lovely touch (and what was done in both Extreme Ghostbusters and the video game), but.. they're just going to be random passersby?

How odd.

Not sure about the appearance of existing Ghostbusters: a TV spot came out a while back, (spoiler texting for the anxious)

showing Dan Aykroyd's cameo to be as a random cab-driver. So unless he's pulling a Strangelove, it seems unlikely we'll see the old crew.

IMDB has all of them appearing in it. Akroyd, Murray, Weaver, and Hudson. Heck, even Potts is in it. No Moranis.

Complete assumption, so not spoilering it as I don't know at all, but given in the original movie it was Janine, the secretary, that gets possessed by Gozer and given that this is a reboot, does that mean that Hemsworth, who is playing the new secretary, will get possessed? It'll account for the appearance of the Stay Puft man.

silverharp

I can just picture it a bunch of deja vu jokes with knowing looks to the camera.

py2006

Deleted User wrote: »

but given in the original movie it was Janine, the secretary, that gets possessed by Gozer

Wait, what????

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

Wait, what????

Was that not the case? ****. That was Weaver. I need to rewatch the movie. Does Janine turn into the dog?

Mickeroo

Deleted User wrote: »

Was that not the case? ****. That was Weaver. I need to rewatch the movie. Does Janine turn into the dog?

Nobody turns into a dog do they? Those are gargoyles that come alive.

py2006

Deleted User wrote: »

Was that not the case? ****. That was Weaver. I need to rewatch the movie. Does Janine turn into the dog?

hah, are you high?

Dana Barett (weaver) gets possessed and turns into a demon dog thingy! Nothing happens to Janine.