GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

johnny_ultimate

I have only one thing to say about this harmless, completely inoffensive, mainstream comedy being labelled as 'extreme liberal':

Hahahahahahahahahhahahhhaaaa

nullzero

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.

To be honest I don't really care about that aspect of it,when I look at this movie if just looks like a cynically calculated marketing ploy to have all female leads, most likely to distract people from the fact that it is in fact just another tired reboot movie that they made just because they could and that knew it would make money. The all female lead cast was just a marketing ploy that most likely came out of an executive brain storming session in Sony that they cranked out before an over priced lunch in a Michelin star restaurant.

Tigger

Chip Whitley wrote: »

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

ghostbusters is 32, how can you have a favorite kids film that is your age ?
when you are a kid at like 6 or whenevr you start thinking about films its this years films

Grayditch

nullzero wrote: »

Not really elaborating there are you?

I don't know what else to tell you.

Arghus

Extreme Liberal films...

Respect Hard?

Non-Leathal Weapon?

nullzero

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I have only one thing to say about this harmless, completely inoffensive, mainstream comedy being labelled as 'extreme liberal':

Hahahahahahahahahhahahhhaaaa

I'd imagine some people in this thread would have a heart attack upon watching a Chantal Akerman film.

I find this interesting.
You are essentially enlisting yourself to fight on behalf of a movie made by a greedy company on the grounds of your social justice inclinations.
Sony have Co opted you and many people like you into helping them make even more money from this movie, using your good intentions to help line their pockets and you're only too happy to do so. This movie will not be judged on its merits as a movie but rather on the merits of its perceived political message, which in reality is just a means of giving this movie more gravitas than it actually has.

Green Fella

nullzero wrote: »

To be honest I don't really care about that aspect of it,when I look at this movie if just looks like a cynically calculated marketing ploy to have all female leads, most likely to distract people from the fact that it is in fact just another tired reboot movie that they made just because they could and that knew it would make money. The all female lead cast was just a marketing ploy that most likely came out of an executive brain storming session in Sony that they cranked out before an over priced lunch in a Michelin star restaurant.

When you look at how many buy into it, its a fantastic marketing ploy. Thats one plus about the film, they really polished a turd and certain people just buy into it.

You see how many on here are trying to big it up and say its so good, when deep down they know its utter garbage. I get they want to support certain causes though.

If theres one thing Hollywood can do its cash in crap to the masses. Look at how they have played out the tired Superhero films genre. They cant and dont even need to make up a decent plot anymore. Look at Batman vs Superman. Throw in 2 Superheroes and people lap it up. What an absolutely terrible terrible film from start to finish.

Arghus

Perceived political messages?

It's Ghostbusters guys.

They ain't afraid of no ghosts is about as ideological as it gets.

nullzero

Grayditch wrote: »

I don't know what else to tell you.

Perhaps what aspect of the discussion for want of a better term entertains you and why.

Cantstandsya

nullzero wrote: »

I find this interesting.
You are essentially enlisting yourself to fight on behalf of a movie made by a greedy company on the grounds of your social justice inclinations.
Sony have Co opted you and many people like you into helping them make even more money from this movie, using your good intentions to help line this pockets and you're only too happy to do so. This movie will not be judged on its merits as a movie but rather on the merits of its perceived political message, which in reality is just a means of giving this movie more gravitas than it actually has.

Judging by the impressions in this thread it seems to be getting judged precisely on its merits as a movie.

And, newsflash, all movies are made by greedy companies... or would a Ghostbusters starring 4 blokes have been an altruistic gift from Sony to their beloved fans?

johnny_ultimate

Green Fella wrote: »

You see how many on here are trying to big it up and say its so good, when deep down they know its utter garbage.

Mod note: Enough is enough. Your ramblings were temporarily amusing, but you just went and insulted a whole load of reasonable posters by implying they're being dishonest. You clearly have no interest in discussing this film properly. We do not tolerate this kind of nonsense here.

Bye now.

Ipso

Wouldn't not making a movie with female leads in case it offends the manly manly men that reside on the internet be a bit peecee?

nullzero

Cantstandsya wrote: »

Judging by the impressions in this thread it seems to be getting judged precisely on its merits as a movie.

And, newsflash, all movies are made by greedy companies... or would a Ghostbusters starring 4 blokes have been an altruistic gift from Sony to their beloved fans?

I already stated that an all male lead cast reboot of ghostbusters would have been panned as well.
Thanks for the newsflash btw, here's me assuming all movies are made by well meaning philanthropic organizations. Seriously if you're trying to take me down a peg or two try harder. I have no problem with the fact that this movie is lead by an all female cast, what bugs me is that Sony have used that fact as a smoke and mirrors act to distract from the fact that this is yet another tired franchise reboot movie, because we certainly don't have enough of those these days do we?

Arghus

Tigger wrote: »

ghostbusters is 32, how can you have a favorite kids film that is your age ?
when you are a kid at like 6 or whenevr you start thinking about films its this years films

What?

It existed when he was a child.

I see no paradox here.

Grayditch

nullzero wrote: »

Perhaps what aspect of the discussion for want of a better term entertains you and why.

The vein-bulging outrage of the "feminist agenda taking over" criers and I'm sure there's been a few false white knights who care about how they sound more than feminism annoyed too somewhere in there, but I'll have to just hope for that one. Mainly the former, they're playing a blinder.

Cantstandsya

nullzero wrote: »

I already stated that an all male lead cast reboot of ghostbusters would have been panned as well.
Thanks for the newsflash btw, here's me assuming all movies are made by well meaning philanthropic organizations. Seriously if you're trying to take me down a peg or two try harder. I have no problem with the fact that this movie is lead by an all female cast, what bugs me is that Sony have used that fact as a smoke and mirrors act to distract from the fact that this is yet another tired franchise reboot movie, because we certainly don't have enough of those these days do we?

But the movie hasn't been panned has it? It's mostly been well received by the people here who've actually gone and watched it, not to mention the critics (unless you think they've all been bribed or have a political axe to grind on this).

If you are aware that all movies are made by corporations trying to make money then why so appalled by your perceived cynicism on the part of Sony? If idiots want to drum up interest and give them free advertising then they'd be insane not to cash in on it.

johnny_ultimate

nullzero wrote: »

I find this interesting.
You are essentially enlisting yourself to fight on behalf of a movie made by a greedy company on the grounds of your social justice inclinations.

Frankly, given my final view on the film was that it was 'pretty fun' I don't feel too inclined to passionately defend it as a piece of filmmaking - it's far from a masterpiece, and has plenty of flaws I quite clearly pointed out in my post about it (based on having actually seen it, unlike so many posts here ). I do feel, weirdly, it's my business to defend it against the sort of irrational, toxic viewpoints that has seen it attract so much hyperbolic ire - and that that overwrites my often vocal crusade against the blandness and cynicism of Hollywood filmmaking says a whole lot. And trust me, I have spent and will continue to spend far more effort decrying blockbusters and celebrating non-mainstream film than anyone choosing Ghostbusters as their grand ideological line-in-the-sand. I'm unapologetically liberal, true, but more than that I'm an unapologetic in my enthusiasm for cinema and criticism - and the response to this film pushes those buttons more than it pushes my feminist ones.

It's a silly, disposable studio comedy franchise (with some less than subtle product placement, I forgot to mention). I am fully aware of that fact. It's a decent time, nothing more, nothing less. But that this slight, harmless comedy is being seen as the Great Pop Culture War of our time, then frankly maybe there is something well worth standing up for. If the mere existence of a film with four female Ghostbusters sends huge swathes of people into furious hissy fits - and trust me, Mad Max: Fury Road is far more explicitly feminist than this is - well then mainstream culture and film discourse is in a more dire place than I'd have feared. I love cinema, I love talking about: but man, the discussion around Ghostbusters has been an absolute pain to endure. Particularly painful to see so many thoughtful, passionate reviewers and even just casual viewers scandalously dismissed as paid shills or delusional corporate slaves by people who made up their minds about this film before the damn thing even had a trailer.

How are we meant to have decent, reasonable conversations about the genuinely provocative masterworks of political cinema when we can't even have one about ****ing Ghostbusters?

And yes, bearing all that in mind: I genuinely, honestly had a good time watching the film. *shrugs*

Grayditch

Just took a hard dive on Metacritic from 80-62 since this morning.

EDIT: I think I'm mixing RT and MC, there, still 76 on RT.

nullzero

Cantstandsya wrote: »

But the movie hasn't been panned has it? It's mostly been well received by the people here who've actually gone and watched it, not to mention the critics (unless you think they've all been bribed or have a political axe to grind on this).

If you are aware that all movies are made by corporations trying to make money then why so appalled by your perceived cynicism on the part of Sony? If idiots want to drum up interest and give them free advertising then they'd be insane not to cash in on it.

Without the perceived misogyny of the reaction to the trailer iI doubt the movie judged purely on its merit as a movie would have reviewed as well across the board.
I haven't seen it but I've read a watched reviews, that state that the lead characters gel reasonably well but the pacing of the movie doesn't feel right and that it struggles to establish an identity of its own(typical of reboot movies) and that ultimately stops it from flourishing.

As for my opinion on how Sony cynically marketed this reboot, I feel that although idiots may be willing to drum up interest and give you free advertising for a movie, ideally that shouldn't be a motivating factor when you could be making something of actual merit, as opposed to taking the easy option as Sony have done in this instance, naive as that may make me look.

enfant terrible

nullzero wrote: »

Without the perceived misogyny of the reaction to the trailer iI doubt the movie judged purely on its merit as a movie would have reviewed as well across the board.

You may be onto something

"It also sticks a cheerful two fingers up at the haters, and then kicks them in the b****cks for good measure."

Read more: http://www.wow247.co.uk/2016/07/11/ghostbusters-film-review/#ixzz4E9UbZ68w

Girls Rule. Women Are Funny. Get Over It

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/movies/ghostbusters-review-melissa-mccarthy-kristen-wiig.html?_r=0

nullzero

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Frankly, given my final view on the film was that it was 'pretty fun' I don't feel too inclined to passionately defend it as a piece of filmmaking - it's far from a masterpiece, and has plenty of flaws I quite clearly pointed out in my post about it (based on having actually seen it, unlike so many posts here ). I do feel, weirdly, it's my business to defend it against the sort of irrational, toxic viewpoints that has seen it attract so much hyperbolic ire - and that that overwrites my often vocal crusade against the blandness and cynicism of Hollywood filmmaking says a whole lot. And trust me, I have spent and will continue to spend far more effort decrying blockbusters and celebrating non-mainstream film than anyone choosing Ghostbusters as their grand ideological line-in-the-sand. I'm unapologetically liberal, true, but more than that I'm an unapologetic in my enthusiasm for cinema and criticism - and the response to this film pushes those buttons more than it pushes my feminist ones.

It's a silly, disposable studio comedy franchise (with some less than subtle product placement, I forgot to mention). I am fully aware of that fact. It's a decent time, nothing more, nothing less. But that this slight, harmless comedy is being seen as the Great Pop Culture War of our time, then frankly maybe there is something well worth standing up for. If the mere existence of a film with four female Ghostbusters sends huge swathes of people into furious hissy fits, well then mainstream culture and film discourse is in a more dire place than I'd have feared. I love cinema, I love talking about: but man, the discussion around Ghostbusters has been an absolute pain to endure. Particularly painful to see so many thoughtful, passionate reviewers and even just casual viewers scandalously dismissed as paid shills or delusional corporate slaves by people who made up their minds about this film years ago.

How are we meant to have decent, reasonable conversations about the genuinely provocative masterworks of political cinema when we can't even have one about ****ing Ghostbusters?

Frankly, to position yourself against morons whose only real motivation for dismissing this movie is the fact that it features women prominently is a waste of your own time.
As a liberal person myself I find the cynicism shown by Sony in this instance to be breathtaking. They calculatedly created this storm of idiocy for their own ends. Whilst nobody should be surprised that a corporate entity should behave that way, before this whole debacle I might have thought(perhaps naively) it may have remained a depth unplumbed.
There has been so much energy directed at this movie that it doesn't deserve, immense amounts of content created with little to no sense of context. This Ghostbusters situation is indicative of human stupidity on what has been a regrettably grand scale.

nullzero

Grayditch wrote: »

The vein-bulging outrage of the "feminist agenda taking over" criers and I'm sure there's been a few false white knights who care about how they sound more than feminism annoyed too somewhere in there, but I'll have to just hope for that one. Mainly the former, they're playing a blinder.

Feminism isn't talking over but misandry masquerading as feminism is increasingly prevalent these days, sadly the silly men you describe fail to understand the difference nor possess the ability to identify the latter.

Cantstandsya

nullzero wrote: »

Without the perceived misogyny of the reaction to the trailer iI doubt the movie judged purely on its merit as a movie would have reviewed as well across the board.
I haven't seen it but I've read a watched reviews, that state that the lead characters gel reasonably well but the pacing of the movie doesn't feel right and that it struggles to establish an identity of its own(typical of reboot movies) and that ultimately stops it from flourishing.

As for my opinion on how Sony cynically marketed this reboot, I feel that although idiots may be willing to drum up interest and give you free advertising for a movie, ideally that shouldn't be a motivating factor when you could be making something of actual merit, as opposed to taking the easy option as Sony have done in this instance, naive as that may make me look.

I realise that you yourself are not panning this because it has a female cast but you surely see the irony in claiming that it's getting good reviews as a result of critics' distaste for perceived misogyny while an army of angry internet warriors are busy running down its score on IMDB etc. for precisely the opposite reason?

Personally, I expected to hate it. Like a lot of people I thought the trailers were bloody awful. But the film is okay, it's a 6 or 7 out of ten and that's where metacritic is heading with it. I think it's dubious to suggest a bunch of politically motivated critics have managed to inflate the average score to a whopping 62.

And, as for the supposed cynical genius of Sony's marketing, this film is expected to bomb in spite of its half-decent reviews.

AllGunsBlazing

These types of reboots are nothing but cash grabs, although this one seems to have backfired quite spectacularly. At this rate Hollywood will soon run out of classic films to cannibalise.

nullzero

Cantstandsya wrote: »

I realise that you yourself are not panning this because it has a female cast but you surely see the irony in claiming that it's getting good reviews as a result of critics' distaste for perceived misogyny while an army of angry internet warriors are busy running down its score on IMDB etc. for precisely the opposite reason?

Personally, I expected to hate it. Like a lot of people I thought the trailers were bloody awful. But the film is okay, it's a 6 or 7 out of ten and that's where metacritic is heading with it. I think it's a dubious assumption to suggest a bunch of politically motivated critics have managed to inflate the average score to a whopping 62.

And, as for the supposed cynical genius of Sony's marketing, this film is expected to bomb in spite of its half-decent reviews.

Cynical, undoubtedly, Cynical genius maybe not. They have maximized their profitability in this instance although I worud gladly see this movie flop and perhaps begin to encourage a move away from such reboots in future, unlikely as that may be.

Grayditch

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

These types of reboots are nothing but cash grabs, although this one seems to have backfired quite spectacularly. At this rate Hollywood will soon run out of classic films to cannibalise.

But it could easily make a lot of money, making it a successful cash grab.

AllGunsBlazing

Grayditch wrote: »

But it could easily make a lot of money, making it a successful cash grab.

True dat.

I'd usually give any reboot a wide swerve after being consistently burned over the last few years. But I'm gonna watch this (on home release) out of morbid curiosity.

Grayditch

It as €144m to beat, I think. Although, I dunno how much it needs to make for Sony to deem it worth it.

Calhoun

nullzero wrote: »

I find this interesting.
You are essentially enlisting yourself to fight on behalf of a movie made by a greedy company on the grounds of your social justice inclinations.
Sony have Co opted you and many people like you into helping them make even more money from this movie, using your good intentions to help line their pockets and you're only too happy to do so. This movie will not be judged on its merits as a movie but rather on the merits of its perceived political message, which in reality is just a means of giving this movie more gravitas than it actually has.

I dont think much co-opting would have had to been done, let us not forget the gamegate implicaitons in the gaming forum. Its happening everywhere though and is a natural reaction in balance to overzealous people hating just because it was women in the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz8X2A7wHyQ

Probably one of my favorite non-reviews and explains my feelings on it fully. its a shame that such a reasonable and well thought out commentary has had allot of negative backlash from the other sides with accusations of misogny been thrown around.

Chip Whitley

Tigger wrote: »

ghostbusters is 32, how can you have a favorite kids film that is your age ?
when you are a kid at like 6 or whenevr you start thinking about films its this years films

Easy, because when I was 7 in 1991 I would watch the 2 movies on repeat (along with Home Alone it has to be said) on VHS, I watched 'The Real Ghostbusters' cartoon and had all the toys and action figures. Even in college I had a Ghostbusters 6 Sheet on my wall.

That's like saying my 2 kids can't like the Toy Story trilogy because they were released in 95, 99 and 2010 and my kids weren't born until 2011 and 2013. They LOVE Toy Story.

Anyway, my own view on Ghostbusters is that Sony couldn't wait to start making money off the franchise again, Paul Feig was attached to the film and went with what he knows best: women. Simple as that to me. And like all modern comedies by the likes of Feig, Apatow, Rogen & Goldberg, Will Ferrell etc., it's got some hits and misses but has done enough to make me want to see these 4 girls again.

My own gripe with the whole concept was that they kept so much of the original films but didn't keep the original cast as themselves in any way. Personally I would have loved to have seen a passing of the torch storyline.