GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

py2006

Somebody needs to chill

Neamhshuntasach

I thought it was terrible. And i say that as someone that has only seen each of the originals twice at most. I'm by no means a fan boy or even someone that holds them up as great films. I didn't even see one trailer for this film either or know anything about negative feedback until i read about it now.

Didn't think it was one bit funny and it looks like they filmed a million scenes and were told they had to pick 50. Looks like so much left on the cutting room floor and the editing is really bad. Wasn't expecting any stellar acting from it but thought the main characters were very poor. And don't get me started on the CGI.

The opening 10 minutes or so kinda peaked my interest and i thought it may actually be a decent film. But unfortunately it was just all downhill from there.

johnny_ultimate

This thread is expending my annual capacity of 'oh dear ' posts at an alarming rate.

e_e

https://twitter.com/xmasape/status/752194353381072896

ScouseMouse

Just been to see it in Tallaght. Thought it was pretty poor to be honest. Jokes not funny but the special effects were good.

Few cameos from the original actors but really, you cannot beat the original Ghostbusters. Was a classic you could watch over and over again.

As for the poster saying the original was awful - I don't know what to say......

FunLover18

pumpkin4life wrote: »

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.

Critics being bribed or petty "fanboys" creating multiple accounts to down vote the film on imdb like they did the trailer, I know which one I think is more likely.

This was much better than I expected, and I was not overly impressed by the trailer. A lot of the gags work a lot better in context (surprise surprise) and the leads are far from female copies of the original four. I agree with what was said earlier about the winking to the original being too much at times and it is too long but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Kate McKinnon is obviously a sticking point, you're either going to love her or hate her is the impression I'm getting and I loved her, but I get how people would find annoying. Chris Hemsworth as well is walking a thin line, guy I went to see it with enjoyed the film but thought they went too far with his character's stupidity.

The humour is a lot broader (and not just lowest common denominator) and there's more action than the original too and I would welcome a sequel where they have more freedom to do their own thing.

Arghus

Green Fella wrote: »

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...

.

Congratulations on such a supremely crackers post.

That line about the neutral point of view was a classic.

FunLover18

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

I thought it was terrible. And i say that as someone that has only seen each of the originals twice at most. I'm by no means a fan boy or even someone that holds them up as great films. I didn't even see one trailer for this film either or know anything about negative feedback until i read about it now.

Didn't think it was one bit funny and it looks like they filmed a million scenes and were told they had to pick 50. Looks like so much left on the cutting room floor and the editing is really bad. Wasn't expecting any stellar acting from it but thought the main characters were very poor. And don't get me started on the CGI.

The opening 10 minutes or so kinda peaked my interest and i thought it may actually be a decent film. But unfortunately it was just all downhill from there.

How much is ShakerMaker91 paying you?

Slydice

Right, today was opening day and MilesMorales1 got the first review in.

After that, here's how the posts roughly stacked up (how I categorised posts in attached txt file):

Actual Reviews:
Positive
MilesMorales1 - review - fine
johnny_ultimate - review - fun
constitutionus - review - good
Cantstandsya - review - good
e_e - review - fine
Slydice - review - fun
FunLover18 - review - good

Negative
Neamhshuntasach - review - terrible
ScouseMouse - review - poor

Other Posts:
Positive
2 x johnny_ultimate - not conspiracy
Darko - not conspiracy
Oafley Jones - not conspiracy
pixelburp - not conspiracy
Christy42 - not conspiracy
MilesMorales1 - not conspiracy
Unearthly - not conspiracy
Grayditch - not conspiracy
e_e - not conspiracy
Arghus - not conspiracy
FunLover18 - not conspiracy

Negative
5 x py2006 - conspiracy
3 x ShakerMaker91 - conspiracy
2 x pumpkin4life - highlight negative score
3 x Green Fella - conspiracy
Arne_Saknussem - conspiracy

Neutral
smash - question about film
ThomasFlynn - question about film
2 x Basq - answer about film
johnny_ultimate - answer about film

Arghus

I'm glad that Euros are over so I can concentrate on the real sporting battle of the summer.

e_e

Arghus wrote: »

I'm glad that Euros are over so I can concentrate on the real sporting battle of the summer.

I'm putting bets on whether these guys dust the Dorito crumbs off their keyboards and actually go ahead with this laughable proposition:

https://twitter.com/curiousiguana/status/752421396945506304

I'm gonna guess no, though.

Grayditch

This film is a win for me, in a lot of regards. I don't even care if it's crap now as a film, to be honest.

Arghus

Why did my brain initially read that the author of that cringetastic post was called Ghost of Penis Waste?

Arne_Saknussem

Slydice wrote: »

Right, today was opening day and MilesMorales1 got the first review in.

After that, here's how the posts roughly stacked up (how I categorised posts in attached txt file):

Actual Reviews:
Positive
MilesMorales1 - review - fine
johnny_ultimate - review - fun
constitutionus - review - good
Cantstandsya - review - good
e_e - review - fine
Slydice - review - fun
FunLover18 - review - good

Negative
Neamhshuntasach - review - terrible
ScouseMouse - review - poor

Other Posts:
Positive
2 x johnny_ultimate - not conspiracy
Darko - not conspiracy
Oafley Jones - not conspiracy
pixelburp - not conspiracy
Christy42 - not conspiracy
MilesMorales1 - not conspiracy
Unearthly - not conspiracy
Grayditch - not conspiracy
e_e - not conspiracy
Arghus - not conspiracy
FunLover18 - not conspiracy

Negative
5 x py2006 - conspiracy
3 x ShakerMaker91 - conspiracy
2 x pumpkin4life - highlight negative score
3 x Green Fella - conspiracy
Arne_Saknussem - conspiracy

Neutral
smash - question about film
ThomasFlynn - question about film
2 x Basq - answer about film
johnny_ultimate - answer about film

??

Chip Whitley

I've just been to see it, and I really enjoyed it. 32yo male here btw, not that it SHOULD make a difference. I never actually looked at the casting of the women as a gimmick. I loved the two originals, they were my favourite films growing up and I was prepared to give this a chance.

A few mental notes I made:
- The start is great, it sags in the middle and picks up for the finale.

- The finale had some good sequences (Holtzmanns in particular) but nothing original.

- While I was most looking forward to seeing Kate McKinnon I thought the character didn't come off well enough. She was obviously the 'Egon' and had most of the nonsense scientific dialogue but it never really had the charm that Harold Ramis brought to it. She played it a bit unhinged which she was great at but I could see why people wouldn't like her.

- Chris Hemsworth was something similar, hilarious at times, cringeworthy at others. He was so dumb, like Derek Zoolander dumb and like those films, he was a bit hit and miss for me.

- Wiig, McCarthy and to a lesser extent Leslie Jones all played their parts brilliantly.

- The action sequences were really well done, the upgrades to the old equipment were cool. I also liked how the ghosts were realised.

- I'm a sucker for a cameo and the nods to the original were great.

All in all I really enjoyed it, most of the jokes made it worth it and like said previously, stay right to the end for a post credits sequence that's worth it. 3.5/5

nullzero

Credit to Sony for seeing the big picture with this movie. Reboot with male actors and you would have a movie that is hated for not being the original, reboot with a female cast and you have a movie that is hated for not being the original but the initial backlash against the movie can be appropriated as being a backlash motivated by misogyny which in turn leads to a backlash against those who do not want the rebooted movie to succeed leading to the eventual success of the movie from anyone who doesn't want to be seen as misogynistic.

I personally won't go to see this movie, but then I never have time to go to the cinema for any movies anymore.
I personally don't enjoy rebooted franchises, if a franchise was good leave it alone, if it was bad, perhaps there's little to salvage.
This movie just seems to have been incredibly expertly marketed. It will make money, it may not be terrible but it is likely not a completely worthwhile exercise either in an artistic sense.
Is this the beginning of major corporations using social justice warriors to market their uninspired reboot movies? Eventually every movement can be co-opted, SJW's may have just been hoodwinked by Sony in spectacular fashion.
I'll give it a watch when it's available to view at home, but as with any other reboot I'll be extremely cautious of it, but not because it stars a team of women.

nullzero

Grayditch wrote: »

This film is a win for me, in a lot of regards. I don't even care if it's crap now as a film, to be honest.

Care to elaborate on that?

Corholio

I think they missed a trick with McKinnon, I'm genuinely surprised that some see her as the standout of the film, I felt she was the most misplaced. It's a mixture of the editing of her characters scenes and her a bit forced take on the scientific character. She just doesn't meld with the other 3 as foursome really and she just seems out of place at times. A lot of her jokes don't land either which can be saved if the character already fits within the movie but for me she doesn't. It's interesting to see people's different takes on the performances though.

Grayditch

nullzero wrote: »

Care to elaborate on that?

The insanity that this film (and it is just a film) is drawing out on this thread is pleasing for me to read.

Green Fella

nullzero wrote: »

Is this the beginning of major corporations using social justice warriors to market their uninspired reboot movies? Eventually every movement can be co-opted, SJW's may have just been hoodwinked by Sony in spectacular fashion.

Yes probably a mix of subtle political messaging the Hollywood Liberals love and cashing in crap films on special snowflake and feminist types.

Arghus

Green Fella wrote: »

Yes probably a mix of subtle political messaging the Hollywood Liberals love and cashing in crap films on special snowflake and feminist types.

Is it true that if I watch it more than once my two hard and gigantic balls will be turned into soft and delicate ovaries?

johnny_ultimate

Can't wait for the social justice warrior victory party tomorrow night, I hear there's going to be free Playstations and MiniDiscs!

Green Fella

Arghus wrote: »

Is it true that if I watch it more than once my two hard and gigantic balls will be turned into soft and delicate ovaries?

No they are removed upon paying for your ticket in

Cantstandsya

Arghus wrote: »

Is it true that if I watch it more than once my two hard and gigantic balls will be turned into soft and delicate ovaries?

Not if you wear a tin foil hat (and ball guard) during the screening... you know, in order to avoid those subtle messages that "Hollywood Liberals" want to beam into your brain.

nullzero

Grayditch wrote: »

The insanity that this film (and it is just a film) is drawing out on this thread is pleasing for me to read.

Not really elaborating there are you?

Tony EH

Hmmmm...

http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/

Dickie hated it.

BMMachine

The reviews seem good.
still not going to see it as I know I'll hate it and I like what I like

I saw one person say it was like Jurassic World to Jurassic Park and if thats the case I'll loathe it

Arghus

nullzero wrote: »

Not really elaborating there are you?

Stick around. Wait until you see tomorrow's spreadsheet.

Green Fella

Cantstandsya wrote: »

Not if you wear a tin foil hat (and ball guard) during the screening... you know, in order to avoid those subtle messages that "Hollywood Liberals" want to beam into your brain.

Actual Im mistaken it couldnt be less subtle.

And if you believe Hollywood arent totally Liberal and pushing more extreme Liberal films, Im not sure what to say. I guess I must be a tin foil hat wearing right winger. The reviews (3.6 on IMDB), hate and failings/ poor returns on this film dont lie.

Why are all the men in the film depicted as idiots? Would that wash the other way around? If they want to play PC and cry sexism all the time, they cant have it both ways

Tony EH

Green Fella wrote: »

Yes probably a mix of subtle political messaging the Hollywood Liberals love and cashing in crap films on special snowflake and feminist types.

Who are these people?