GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

johnny_ultimate

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

There's no way Sony hasn't leaned on some reviewers to give this a positive review after all the uproar around the trailers. Case in point Black Nerd on Youtube. After the first trailer came out everyone agreed that it was a pretty bad looking attempt at showing the film with just comprising of bad jokes.

Sony flew him out to a Ghostbusters event and he probably had a really good time at it. He was then praising the film after he got back basically saying it looked really good from the terrible trailers.

So do you, y'know, have any evidence of these alleged bribes?

ShakerMaker91

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

There's no way Sony hasn't leaned on some reviewers to give this a positive review after all the uproar around the trailers. Case in point Black Nerd on Youtube. After the first trailer came out everyone agreed that it was a pretty bad looking attempt at showing the film with just comprising of bad jokes.

Sony flew him out to a Ghostbusters event and he probably had a really good time at it. He was then praising the film after he got back basically saying it looked really good from the terrible trailers.

And what of the dozens and dozens of other good reviews for the film? Did Sony fly all of them out to events or are you just desperately trying to stick to your original opinion of the film, the one you have formed without seeing the film.

pumpkin4life

Deleted User wrote: »

I know four differnt people who reviewed the film and none has been paid by Sony. I bet that if the IGN review was negative then you'd be in here pasting in a link to say "see how right I was about how bad the film is". No one is being paid to like the film and give a positive film, especially not the critics who I would trust.

Here's a link to the review from Little White lies, a publication whose tastes would lean more toward the three hour, silent, black and white epic about the effects of war on an Iranian town in the decades after and they seemed to really enjoy the film.



Yes, the IMDB rating of a film. Truly the most reliable reflection of the actual quality of a film, especially a film that is so beloved by fanboys.

It's 4/10 now :P

Oafley Jones

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

There's no way Sony hasn't leaned on some reviewers to give this a positive review after all the uproar around the trailers. Case in point Black Nerd on Youtube. After the first trailer came out everyone agreed that it was a pretty bad looking attempt at showing the film with just comprising of bad jokes.

Sony flew him out to a Ghostbusters event and he probably had a really good time at it. He was then praising the film after he got back basically saying it looked really good from the terrible trailers.

You know a trailer doesn't always represent the quality of the actual movie.

Calhoun

Will need a few more reliable sources myself before I consider seeing it. Bribery or not this one has been fairly politically charged and even when valid points not to see it have been made the reaction from certain sides of the discussion have been ott.

If anything Id say there is a degree of motivation to give it a positive review.

pixelburp

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

There's no way Sony hasn't leaned on some reviewers to give this a positive review after all the uproar around the trailers. Case in point Black Nerd on Youtube. After the first trailer came out everyone agreed that it was a pretty bad looking attempt at showing the film with just comprising of bad jokes.

Sony flew him out to a Ghostbusters event and he probably had a really good time at it. He was then praising the film after he got back basically saying it looked really good from the terrible trailers.

It's no secret studios try to curry favour with some outlets, usually in the form of press packs or the occasional junket, but said outlets are usually quickly outed on the basis of having no journalistic integrity. Honestly though, to suggest there's outright, mass bribery for the sake of better reviews is a pretty petty & reaching response to reinforce your own cognitive bias against a film.

Of course this film is reviewing well: there's absolutely no way the final product was going to warrant the ludicrous group-hate that has been swilling around the shower drain that is the internet for the last 12 months. Little is ever as bad or good as the hype suggests.

It's getting a bit tedious how frequently threads around here for big-ticket movies descend into debates about critics mind you: whether they're valued, ivory tower snobs, or as is now the latest, a community of shills.

pumpkin4life

It isn't bribery. It looks like bribery (though that keeping the reviewer happy thing does go on) to an audience who see the movie, hate the movie, then they read up on a critic singing its praises wondering wtf did they waste their money on? The critics said it was fantastic!

4/10 on IMDB to 80% on Rotten Tomatoes, a big disparity there. Just had a mate on facebook (normal causal movie watcher) saying it was the worst load of ****e he'd ever seen. You tend not to give a toss about critics after that.

Christy42

Calhoun wrote: »

Will need a few more reliable sources myself before I consider seeing it. Bribery or not this one has been fairly politically charged and even when valid points not to see it have been made the reaction from certain sides of the discussion have been ott.

If anything Id say there is a degree of motivation to give it a positive review.

I imagine there are plenty of reviews on both sides of the fence that were essentially written before laying eyes on the movie. It is a pity it can't be viewed for what it is. Whatever that is.

Granted I won't see it but I don't see a lot of movies in the cinema and so tend to just go to ones I am more confident of enjoying. Going to a movie with a terrible trailer and without much hype saying it is great seems like low odds to me (might still be good but as I said, low odds from my position).

ShakerMaker91

Obviously I'm not saying every reviewer has been paid but I would reckon a certain few have been "encouraged" by Sony to give it a decent score

Grayditch

79% on RT would tempt me.

To rent it or something.

smash

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Just watched it, and guess what? It's plenty of fun!

How was Chris Hemsworth in it? Going by the ads, there's a few funnies but overall his character looks absolutely brutal and cringe worthy.

MilesMorales1

I like the way people say 'reviewers have been bribed' like people claimed disney bribed reviewers to mark batman v superman down and civil war up, yet can never provide a shred of evidence to prove their claims. Funny that.



Anyway, its not the worst thing you could see in the cinema right now. Its not even the worst Melissa McCarthy thing released this year, or even the worst one in the cinemas, considering the boss is still playing!

I must admit, it was quite charming in its way. And I love that cast, and Hemsworth is really funny, he has good range.

py2006

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

I like the way people say 'reviewers have been bribed' like people claimed disney bribed reviewers to mark batman v superman down and civil war up, yet can never provide a shred of evidence to prove their claims. Funny that.

It would be near impossible to prove. Unless somebody stupidly wrote it down in an email. Evidence is next to impossible. However, it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

SharpshooterTom

Is it widely expected that it will surpass the original? Some people who've seen it say it has easily the best of the 3 so much so that the other 2 can be kinda redundant now.

py2006

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Is it widely expected that it will surpass the original? Some people who've seen it say it has easily the best of the 3 so much so that the other 2 can be kinda redundant now.

I highly doubt that. It may come close to the second but you would be hard pushed gain credibility comparing it to the original. Anybody in their late 30's early 40s will murder you at least once for claiming it! :P

Basq

^ I can only ThomasFlynn means box-office takings... in which it's inevitable given they've been released over 30 years apart...

silverharp

Basq wrote: »

^ I can only ThomasFlynn means box-office takings... in which it's inevitable given they've been released over 30 years apart...

not difficult then. No way will they make the same impression, the original theme song alone dominated the airwaves for months, it was just a cool movie. this version whether it makes a profit or loss will be forgotten about rather quickly


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm

ticket prices US

1983 $3.15
2016 $8.58

constitutionus

well im just back from it from vue in liffey vally.

i thought it was good !

not great, its got its flaws. its too long for one. a good 20min to a half hour could be knocked off to tighten it up and its clearly been hacked to peices in the cutting room floor. im not giving any big spoilers away here but theres a scene in which the girls are getting to grips with their equipment in an alley that in hindsight is really one peice thats been cut in two for some reason . i found when ya ended up back in that alley again it made for a really jarring transition.

all the ghosts DO look like they came from scooby doo or haunted mansion and if your inclined to be bothered by such things is misandrist as fuk

seriously , theres not ONE bloke in this film that isnt a complete arse.

if we actually DID get this film with a full male cast and every woman they encountered behaved like the men did in this the una mullay's of the world would explode in impotent rage.

but speaking for myself i could care less about PCness so i didnt bother me and chris helmsworth is clearly having a blast . stick around for the credits to see what i mean.

on the PLUS side mccarthy and wiig tone down being mccarthy and wiig and indeed the screentime is split nicely between all four. its funny too. not hilariously so but theres enough laughs there to keep you entertained. this was the first time in an age i was at a film that was half full or more and the kids were having a great time.

there are some genuinly creepy and scary moments too. not alot, personally i thought there was only ONE really good scare

the manikin scene

. but im in me 40s and a good chunk of the audience i was with were pre teeners and i recknon they wouldnt have as thick a skin as an auld codger like me thats seen em before.

it goes without saying its not aS charming or good TBH as the first but i enjoyed it alot more than i thought i would and by the end i wouldnt mind seeing another film with the same cast. seeing as theyre hoping to set it up as a franchise i suppose thats the point of it.

6.5/10 from me

that said if cameos and self refrencning annoys you beware. theres TONS of it.

ShakerMaker91

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Is it widely expected that it will surpass the original? Some people who've seen it say it has easily the best of the 3 so much so that the other 2 can be kinda redundant now.

Is that a joke or are you actually being serious?

Cantstandsya

Just back from this and thought it was pretty good. I was expecting very bad things following the trailers but, thankfully, the film wasn't half as dumb as those trailers suggested.

The major downside of this film for me was Kate McKinnon. Her character and her acting were terrible and what cringe moments the film contained came from her. I think the film would have been much better without her presence. I can’t say that Leslie Jones added much either, she certainly wasn’t aggressively awful like McKinnon but her presence added nothing.

McCarthy and Wiig carried this. I would have much preferred if this was a double act with just those two as ghost busters. The other two made the movie worse by their presence. Actually, I think it would have been good if they could have teamed McCarthy and Wiig up with Akroyd, Murray and Hudson somehow, have them pass the torch. Include Leslie Jones I guess but write her character better… keep McKinnon well clear though, no redeeming qualities there.

I’ll just add that whoever made the trailers for this film deserves to be fired. Trending suggests that this is going to bomb (although I expect positive word of mouth might yet save it) and those god awful trailers are the reason far more than the alleged misogyny. I’m a big fan of Feige and McCarthy (hadn’t seen much of Wiig before) and even I was put off by the trailers and Feige/Sony’s reaction to the backlash. I think it could have been handled better.

johnny_ultimate

Personally, I think we should just worrying about the trailer at this point. The film is out and therefore supersedes the trailer. Bad trailer, IMO a pretty good film - and the 'pretty good film' (or indeed variety of well articulated opinions out there, with a range of opinions) is something that should have far, far more weight from here on out.

smash wrote: »

How was Chris Hemsworth in it? Going by the ads, there's a few funnies but overall his character looks absolutely brutal and cringe worthy.

He's fine, the most overtly comic character in the film for better and worse. Some of his gags hit the mark, and he's certainly game for it, but he's a broad character to the point of just total silliness at times. The four leads make much more of an impression.

Unearthly

Well that's an interesting twist. I hated the trailer but I'm intrigued to see it now.

I hope it's good, if only just to annoy the weirdos who are spending time to vote down the film on imdb without even seeing it

Basq

Cantstandsya wrote: »

..

The major downside of this film for me was Kate McKinnon. Her character and her acting were terrible and what cringe moments the film contained came from her.

Surprised by this as most reviews seem to suggest she's the star..

e_e

It's a pretty fun movie, I laughed a good deal. All the cast are strong but McKinnon and Hemsworth are especially terrific.

Green Fella

3.6 on IMDB. Seems like total ****e from a neutral viewpoint although it wouldnt be something Id watch anyway. The Liberals will fawn over it, the others will be against it. It's another extreme Feminist hit piece , with all the misandrist and anti men vitriol in the build up and depictions. Glad its such a failure.

The Social Justice Warriors in Hollywood should continue their hatred for White Men in a more subtle film. Maybe buy a few more Oscars for a Black Slavery film. Any criticism of extreme Feminism and Gender quotas means you hate women apparently. While Feminists can't hide their hatred for the male gender, they are praised and encouraged to do so. Good to see normal people backlashing against this sick brainwashing.

Funny how feminists have such hate for men until they have a son, then some soften. The ones that don't just get worse.

Grayditch

That's a mad aul post, innit.

Green Fella

constitutionus wrote: »

seriously , theres not ONE bloke in this film that isnt a complete arse.

if we actually DID get this film with a full male cast and every woman they encountered behaved like the men did in this the una mullay's of the world would explode in impotent rage.

Not really a surprise is it. It's total sexism and hypocrisy of the highest degree.

They brought the criticism on themselves with their "diversity" gender token cast. People are finally seeing through this crap of token women and minorities being shoehorned into films and lead roles. Doubt we will ever see many all white male tv programmes or films again, and that aren't savaged by Extreme Left Wing critics.

Green Fella

Hollywood will be the loser if they keep up trying to send out Liberal political messages through films. It sounds great on twitter though and from their LA mansions.

Slydice

Just back. Really enjoyed it!

Note: There's a post credits scene at the _VERY_ end!

It was grand. It had thrills, scares AND OH WOW DID YOU SEE

HOLZTMANs SLO-MO

Abolsolutey KICK ASS! Scene where

SHE JUST WIPES THE FLOOR with all the Ghosts!!!

and that really cool blend of

The Ghostbusters theme song!

. Now that was cool!

Also couldn't believe it when

Michael K. Williams (Omar from The Wire) turned up!

And the

Dan Aykroyd cameo in the Cab!!!. He ain't fraid of no ghost!

Arne_Saknussem

Anyone else finding it hard to tell if the posts on this thread or genuine or taking the piss?