GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

Tony EH

smash wrote: »

Sadly, I don't think it's just another remake and I do think there was a grand plan behind it. If there wasn't, then why the complete gender reversal? Why not try a mixed gender team to shake it up a bit?

Because it's a gimmick and because Paul Feig's troupe is female.

There's nothing more to it.

Even if it was mixed gender, it would still probably be a forced, box-ticking, soulless, hollywood effort.

Christy42

orubiru wrote: »

I agree with you here. It's ridiculous to suggest that Feminism is taking over Hollywood. People in Hollywood are only interested in making money.

I would say that there is a recent trend of Feminists trying to "claim" movies as their own though.

For example, people will claim that The Force Awakens or Fury Road are "Feminist Movies" and I don't really get it to be honest. You could switch the genders of the Rey and Furiosa characters and nothing about the movies would change at all. Those movies don't really have a strong message about equality and they don't really do much to challenge gender stereotypes beyond "here is a strong woman doing awesome things". How can people claim they are feminist movies?

From personal experience, the audience for both of these movies (and the usual Marvel films) was mostly male and most of the online hype was being created by dudes.

Even if the basic premise of these films is that the bad people are male and the good people are female that wouldn't make the movie seem particularly Feminist to me. More like lazy. More like instead of appealing to the lowest common denominator "I likes guns and 'splosions" type they are just appealing to the lowest common denominator "OMG! Men are the worst" types.

I guess that a 50 Shades sequel would be massively popular with women. Same for a Sex and the City 3 or maybe a reboot of The Notebook or something. Would these be considered Feminist movies?

What is "feminist" about Ghostbusters 2016? It has women in it? That's it? That's all it takes?

I think that is all it takes. I think the point of star wars as opposed to sex and the city isn't the make up of the audience but that there are a few with female leads for the women who do like those movies. I think to claim something like star wars is that it is equal. As in they had a characters whose gender was irrelevant to the story and they make one female as opposed to just guys. I don't think we need a long list of movies and shows shoving feminism down our throats. Just good movies with some prominent roles for both genders.

For those who went to this movie, are the bits from the trailer just the worst bits? Or is it just good in comparison to its trailer? I mean the trailer didn'the even seem to know if it was a sequel or a reboot with maybe a single good joke in it.

orubiru

smash wrote: »

Sadly, I don't think it's just another remake and I do think there was a grand plan behind it. If there wasn't, then why the complete gender reversal? Why not try a mixed gender team to shake it up a bit?

But the counter to that is why not have a complete gender reversal? There's no good reason to not do it.

"Let's make a new Ghostbusters movie!"
"Oh yeah! The old-schools fans of the originals are going to go crazy for that!"
"To hell with the old fans. This is a new movie for a new audience"

At this point it doesn't really matter what they do.

The new Ghostbusters is not a movie aimed at grown up fans of the original movie. So, anything goes. The company producing the movie decides on their target audience and they cater to that audience. I actually don't see a problem with that, in theory.

In practice it seems a bit cynical to make a generic popcorn movie and then slap a recognised brand on to it. I can see why fans of the brand get upset. I totally understand it.

I suspect a gritty remake of ET, where ET is a wife beating, alcoholic, Neo-Nazi who came back to Earth to fight for his right to vote Trump, would not be particularly well received. Brand loyalty is not a new thing and any major shift in a brand is likely to please some people whilst outraging others.

I guess the lesson here is don't get too invested in corporate brands.

smash

orubiru wrote: »

But the counter to that is why not have a complete gender reversal? There's no good reason to not do it.

Because it's an iconic movie with an established team there who just happen to be male. If it was a new movie, then fine. But it's not, so for me this just veered far too far off course to the original. Even to the point of going down the slap stick route which the original didn't really do. It would be like remaking Jaws and swapping the Great White Shark with a temperamental Dolphin.

It feels like it was only done for publicity, and it obviously worked.

orubiru wrote: »

"Let's make a new Ghostbusters movie!"
"Oh yeah! The old-schools fans of the originals are going to go crazy for that!"
"To hell with the old fans. This is a new movie for a new audience"

At this point it doesn't really matter what they do.

The new Ghostbusters is not a movie aimed at grown up fans of the original movie. So, anything goes.

That's not true. A classic will always be a classic and generation after generation will watch it.

FunLover18

py2006 wrote:

Sounds good but thats not 'progessive' enough it would seem. Progression in certain eyes is exclusive of a certain gender.

Progression is getting women to the same level where you can have an all female cast and it's not a big deal and you don't have people screaming feminism and spitting vitriol.

All male casts are the norm and the only reason people get upset about them is because all female casts are not yet afforded the same status.

FunLover18

smash wrote:

Because it's an iconic movie with an established team there who just happen to be male. If it was a new movie, then fine. But it's not, so for me this just veered far too far off course to the original. Even to the point of going down the slap stick route which the original didn't really do. It would be like remaking Jaws and swapping the Great White Shark with a temperamental Dolphin.

No, it would be like remaking Jaws and having women hunt the shark rather than men.

smash

FunLover18 wrote: »

Progression is getting women to the same level where you can have an all female cast and it's not a big deal and you don't have people screaming feminism and spitting vitriol.

All male casts are the norm and the only reason people get upset about them is because all female casts are not yet afforded the same status

Progression would be getting a female led movie to do it on it's own merit. This movie is just riding the waves of the original with a bridesmaids bonus.

py2006

FunLover18 wrote: »

Progression is getting women to the same level where you can have an all female cast and it's not a big deal and you don't have people screaming feminism and spitting vitriol.

All male casts are the norm and the only reason people get upset about them is because all female casts are not yet afforded the same status.

Progression is not gender specific. men are constrained to certain roles too.

pixelburp

py2006 wrote: »

Progression is not gender specific. men are constrained to certain roles too.

Sorry, but I don't think you can seriously draw an equivalence that somehow male representation in fiction is equally belittled by them nearly always being in positions of power, authority, knowledge, sexual dominance etc. etc.

Yes, fiction is beholden to tropes and stereotypes, there wouldn't be much fiction without them, but trying to offset the prevailing cultural trend to make the male characters the ones in control is just adjusting for balance. It's not asking for much.

py2006

pixelburp wrote: »

Sorry, but I don't think you can seriously draw an equivalence that somehow male representation in fiction is equally belittled by them nearly always being in positions of power, authority, knowledge, sexual dominance etc. etc.

Yes, fiction is beholden to tropes and stereotypes, there wouldn't be much fiction without them, but trying to offset the prevailing cultural trend to make the male characters the ones in control is just adjusting for balance. It's not asking for much.

Men are also often portrayed as pathetic, stupid, dimwhitted, unable to control themselves and reduced to morons in the presence of a pretty woman. They often use actors who are unrealisticly good looking, muscle bound, tall and ultra confident in any scenario. Men are also portrayed as violent, abusive thugs, they are the predominant (fictional) victims of violence, they are rapists, abusers and alcoholics.

Look at the likes of soap operas were it is considered humorous to mock a mans genitals and to be violent toward him. In Corrie, if they aren't stupid and the butt of jokes from women they are violent abusers/murderers.

It works both ways.

e_e

smash wrote: »

Progression would be getting a female led movie to do it on it's own merit. This movie is just riding the waves of the original with a bridesmaids bonus.

That's an arbitrary line to draw just because this female-led comedy is set within the Ghostbusters world. It seems weird to me to draw a line in the sand saying "Hey do whatever the hell you want... wait, no, not the poor Ghostbusters no!!!!!".

Also on the Bridesmaids point it's fairly different (out of the 3 Feig movies I've seen he's branched out and even McCarthy's roles are fairly varied) and I don't think you can say that it's riding the waves of the original when you see just how much love and effort was put into this movie. It's pretty wonderful on a design level and is wittier, more colorful, well paced, joyful and comfortable in its own skin than a lot of blockbusters I've seen recently. Looking at you BVS DOJ and X-Men Apocalypse.

o1s1n

orubiru wrote: »

I suspect a gritty remake of ET, where ET is a wife beating, alcoholic, Neo-Nazi who came back to Earth to fight for his right to vote Trump, would not be particularly well received..

I don't know about others, but I'd watch the hell out of that

py2006

I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised by the reasonably/relatively positive reaction to this movie. Expections were so low I guess?

Looking forward to seeing it! :-)

nix

Something tells me this thread is more entertaining than the movie..

I ain't afraid of no post.. :pac:

pixelburp

py2006 wrote: »

Men are also often portrayed as pathetic, stupid, dimwhitted, unable to control themselves and reduced to morons in the presence of a pretty woman. They often use actors who are unrealisticly good looking, muscle bound, tall and ultra confident in any scenario. Men are also portrayed as violent, abusive thugs, they are the predominant (fictional) victims of violence, they are rapists, abusers and alcoholics.

Look at the likes of soap operas were it is considered humorous to mock a mans genitals and to be violent toward him. In Corrie, if they aren't stupid and the butt of jokes from women they are violent abusers/murderers.

It works both ways.

This isn't a question of particulars, it's one of predominance. Nobody's saying there aren't negative male representations or we shouldn't challenge those either - though many of those above character tropes aren't gender-specific - but it's a little dismissively reductionist to try and suggest the occasional sh*tty nerd cliché somehow excuses or stacks up against the literal decades of fiction that says any female character can be a victim or prize in the story, and that's pretty much it. The 'Bechdel Test' may be completely flawed and was only ever a passing joke, but it was never irrelevant or off-base.

Culturally, we're a bit lopsided with our storytelling templates, and all people are asking for is a little parity now and again. That we're all mature enough to handle the radical notion that the other 50% of the population are just as interesting to lead stories and don't have to be resigned to being the goal. It's not even 'Girl Power', just a bit of freshness in fiction (don't get me wrong, the Ghostbusters decision was as much a cynical marketing ploy as anything noble on the part of Paul Feig).

Of course there are toxic clichés in male characterisation, and in many respects they reinforce the very things I'm talking about; they still revolve around the male characters being the possessor of the power, control and prowess. Dominance.

Jesus, I sound like a sociology undergrad :rolleyes::D

ShakerMaker91

http://furiousfanboys.com/2016/07/sony-may-produced-positive-ghostbusters-review-youtube/

Apparently Sony's after doing what some people here say they never do: manufacture reviews. If this is true I wouldn't be surprised!

MilesMorales1

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

http://furiousfanboys.com/2016/07/sony-may-produced-positive-ghostbusters-review-youtube/

Apparently Sony's after doing what some people here say they never do: manufacture reviews. If this is true I wouldn't be surprised!

Take a break.

e_e

I love the conspiracy theory about critics being paid to like it as if all these guys on YouTube aren't blatantly just complaining about the movie to get views and adsense/patreon money.

I took a bus and a train (plus a Luas back into the city) to see the movie in Point Village last night, it's obviously just a big ruse by Sony to support public transport. :pac:

py2006

Questionable reviews are nothing new. while it may or may not have occurred with this movie, it most likely has elsewhere. Not just the movie industry.

I think here though, the expectation was so low after the trailers that some are seeing it as 'better than expected'

Basq

Basq wrote: »

So... seems to be generally recieved as 3 / 4 out of 5? To be honest, it's what I expected..

.. outside of the online hate for this, Feig is a solid writer / director.

Will I go see it? Probably not..

OK, I'm now curious....

Hococop

e_e wrote: »

I love the conspiracy theory about critics being paid to like it as if all these guys on YouTube aren't blatantly just complaining about the movie to get views and adsense/patreon money.

I took a bus and a train (plus a Luas back into the city) to see the movie in Point Village last night, it's obviously just a big ruse by Sony to support public transport. :pac:

I'd say its possible to have bribed reviews, I remember someone reviewing a game (Kane and lynch) for GameSpot, gave the game a 5 or 6 out of 10, an average review, he lost his job over the review as the game company paid for big advertisement on the GameSpot site and were pissed over the average review

As far as bribes over this movie,who knows

ShakerMaker91

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Take a break.

The truth hurts doesn't it!

tigger123

Hococop wrote: »

I'd say its possible to have bribed reviews, I remember someone reviewing a game (Kane and lynch) for GameSpot, gave the game a 5 or 6 out of 10, an average review, he lost his job over the review as the game company paid for big advertisement on the GameSpot site and were pissed over the average review

As far as bribes over this movie,who knows

That kind of stuff happens in every industry, and it's been happening forever. Big companies in any sector have massive advertising budgets.

ShakerMaker91

ShakerMaker91 wrote:

Apparently Sony's after doing what some people here say they never do: manufacture reviews. If this is true I wouldn't be surprised!

Utter nonsense, you link to a an article that has the word disastrous before the film so it's clear what their agenda is. Also, you implied that the reviews being posted here and the ones on rottentomatoes and metacritic were being bought but now it's a review from a youTube channel that has so few views and followers that if Sony really paid for it you'd have to wonder why.

MilesMorales1

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

The truth hurts doesn't it!

What truth? A nonsense article from a website entitled furious fanboys I've never heard about? You might as well have The Sun as a source.

MilesMorales1

Tell you what, if Sony wants to pay for my Cineworld unlimited card to let me see more Ghostbusters/Sony movies, I wouldn't complain...hint.

FutureGuy

Jesus fcuking Christ. It's a film about ghostbusters. They bust ghosts.

Either watch it or don't. Either like it or don't like it.

mdwexford

Just back from it, I loved the originals but not too keen on Melissa McCarthy but I went in with an open mind.

Was pleasantly surprised and really enjoyed it. I had never heard of Kate McKinnon until I saw the cast on Graham Norton recently. She annoyed me on that and annoyed me a lot more in the film. Thought McCarthy was great, much prefer her when she's not over the top. Wiig was also very good and I loved all the cameos and nods to the original.

If you are a big ghostbusters fan and aren't too cynical going in I think most will have a good time.

Harry Palmr

The fake review thing is old as the hills - there used to be a reviewer from a non-existent
newspaper in the "American mid-west" who's five star quotes would crop up with regularity.

Basq

Unfortunately, I found it all a bit disappointing!

What really bothered me was that with all the backlash the movie got, they wanted it to be judged on it's own terms and not specifically as a remake.. but f*ck me, the nods to the original just got too much...

Bill, Ernie, Dan, Sigourney etc

.

I didn't think any of the women did a bad job but it just felt all a little empty and felt way more jokes fell flat than hit.

In fact, Chris Hemsworth was the best thing about it... pretty much all his lines slayed me! The scene with

the headshot where in one he’s playing the saxophone, and one where he’s listening to the saxophone

.

Regardless of the backlash, the movie will still make bundles, sell lots of toys and make Sony a helluva lot of money. So they're the real winners!