GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

smash

Slydice wrote: »

MovieBob's Review (3 out of 4):

That was an odd review. He spent a lot of time slating it and then gives it a 3/4?

e_e

Anyone still cynical and bitter at the film's very concept of women busting ghosts should go to 1:22:55 of the most recent Kermode & Mayo podcast. Really beautiful e-mail about a father taking his two daughters to see it.

MilesMorales1

e_e wrote: »

Anyone still cynical and bitter at the film's very concept of women busting ghosts should go to 1:22:55 of the most recent Kermode & Mayo podcast. Really beautiful e-mail about a father taking his two daughters to see it.

Kermode could make any movie sound good

FunLover18

e_e wrote: »

Anyone still cynical and bitter at the film's very concept of women busting ghosts should go to 1:22:55 of the most recent Kermode & Mayo podcast. Really beautiful e-mail about a father taking his two daughters to see it.

I came on here to post the same thing. I'm going to ask them to post a copy online or do an isolated clip of it because with all the fanboys going on about this remake ruining their childhoods, those two girls have now had the same experience and have females heroes they can look up to. That email alone has justified the movie's existence as far as I'm concerned.

ShakerMaker91

FunLover18 wrote: »

I came on here to post the same thing. I'm going to ask them to post a copy online or do an isolated clip of it because with all the fanboys going on about this remake ruining their childhoods, those two girls have now had the same experience and have females heroes they can look up to. That email alone has justified the movie's existence as far as I'm concerned.

Its great to see young girls take an interest in Ghostbusters but I'm also a bit sad that young boys probably wont have the same love for Ghostbusters like I had when I was young. I had the originals and the extreme Ghostbusters cartoon young boys probably wont have the same love for the new film as girls would.

FunLover18

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

Its great to see young girls take an interest in Ghostbusters but I'm also a bit sad that young boys probably wont have the same love for Ghostbusters like I had when I was young. I had the originals and the extreme Ghostbusters cartoon young boys probably wont have the same love for the new film as girls

I don't think it should be an issue, apparently this guy's daughters were into Ghostbusters before this new film was announced and they were told at school by a boy that they couldn't be Ghostbusters. I remember a poster in here ages ago claiming they weren't going to take their son to this because it's clearly a chick flick which is just blatantly wrong. I think it's great for young girls to have females roles models but at the same time I don't think they can only be role models for girls.

WoolyJumper

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

Its great to see young girls take an interest in Ghostbusters but I'm also a bit sad that young boys probably wont have the same love for Ghostbusters like I had when I was young. I had the originals and the extreme Ghostbusters cartoon young boys probably wont have the same love for the new film as girls would.

There were more young lads than girls at the cinema when I went to see it. They all seemed to enjoy it. What is interesting though was all the toys for Ghostbusters were in the "boys" section in Smyths.

The Black Oil

e_e wrote: »

Anyone still cynical and bitter at the film's very concept of women busting ghosts should go to 1:22:55 of the most recent Kermode & Mayo podcast. Really beautiful e-mail about a father taking his two daughters to see it.

Cheers for that, will listen to it on the way to work. The dislike rating on the video of his review is about what you'd expect.

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

Its great to see young girls take an interest in Ghostbusters but I'm also a bit sad that young boys probably wont have the same love for Ghostbusters like I had when I was young. I had the originals and the extreme Ghostbusters cartoon young boys probably wont have the same love for the new film as girls would.

Young boys are well-catered for in mainstream cinema. It was mostly Dads and sons at my screening. A mother and two sons, three slightly older girls together. Don't usually see those last two groups at blockbusters, ime.

doney84

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

Its great to see young girls take an interest in Ghostbusters but I'm also a bit sad that young boys probably wont have the same love for Ghostbusters like I had when I was young. I had the originals and the extreme Ghostbusters cartoon young boys probably wont have the same love for the new film as girls would.

Took my 8 year old nephew to see it and he loved it.

As a massive fan of all things Ghostbusters myself, I was worried this was gonna be a train wreck. Turns out it's a decent film. Not a masterpiece but enjoyable. Different type of humor than GB1 & GB2 but on the whole I thought the cast made it work well. Some nice nods to the original films although I thought

female slimer was just cringey

Interesting to see where the franchise goes from here

WoolyJumper

doney84 wrote: »

Took my 8 year old nephew to see it and he loved it.

As a massive fan of all things Ghostbusters myself, I was worried this was gonna be a train wreck. Turns out it's a decent film. Not a masterpiece but enjoyable. Different type of humor than GB1 & GB2 but on the whole I thought the cast made it work well. Some nice nods to the original films although I thought

female slimer was just cringey

Interesting to see where the franchise goes from here

I have to agree with you on your spoiler, that was the one moment I cringed. I just thought it looked really silly.

MilesMorales1

There's a million movie role models for guys. Look at superhero movies and how unevenly the male/female ratio is those movies. The girls can have ghostbusters, I hope they enjoy it.

ps3lover

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

There's a million movie role models for guys. Look at superhero movies and how unevenly the male/female ratio is those movies. The girls can have ghostbusters, I hope they enjoy it.

What about Catwoman?

CaptainInsano

Pretty disappointed. Had looked forward to it since the first trailer but found a lot of the humour to be quite cringey.

Fysh

I saw it last night with a group and thought it was pretty good fun - good production values visuals, a couple of great ghost moments and pretty consistently funny. The plot has holes in it, but the film was fun enough and had enough momentum that it didn't bother me.

One thing that may not have been mentioned already - Sight & Sound's July issue had a very interesting bit in the Industry section by Charles Gant describing the development hell the film went through, and what I found most interesting from it is that the obstacle that prevented a "legacy sequel/reboot" approach was actually the objections of the original cast (primarily Bill Murray) - as part of the deal to make Ghostbusters 2 they, along with the director, got a veto on production of any new sequels. So if you really hate the new film for not being a sequel to the originals, take it up with Bill Murray.

Necronomicon

e_e wrote: »

Anyone still cynical and bitter at the film's very concept of women busting ghosts should go to 1:22:55 of the most recent Kermode & Mayo podcast. Really beautiful e-mail about a father taking his two daughters to see it.

That was a great bit of correspondence, but I was actually a bit disappointed with their segment on Ghostbusters on the whole. They made it seem as though misogyny was the only possible reason for scepticism in the build up to its release.

It's probably going to spend a few weeks in the top 10, so I just hope they can talk about it in the coming weeks without bringing the sexism narrative into it at every turn.

MilesMorales1

ps3lover wrote: »

What about Catwoman?

Cat woman that came in 2004?

Harry Palmr

It's not a hit, or at least not enough of one. Roughly same opening Friday numbers as Tarzan, ID4 2 and the Purge - Election Year

Frank O. Pinion

doney84 wrote: »

Interesting to see where the franchise goes from here

Unless it makes double its production budget of $144 million, I don't see it going anywhere.

Outlaw Pete

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

There's a million movie role models for guys. Look at superhero movies and how unevenly the male/female ratio is those movies. The girls can have ghostbusters, I hope they enjoy it.

I don't have an issue with the new Ghostbusters being women but I do with this nonsense that girls didn't have strong rolemodels back then. It's baloney. Was Sigourney Weaver's character not a woman? Fair enough, she wasn't one of the 'heroes' but still a decent strong character in that film. Alien's Ripley was certainly a good 'heroine' (is it sexist to use that word yet?). Princess Leia, Sarah Connor, Laura Holt, Thelma and L-fcuking-ouise. Go back to the 70's and there was strong female characters with Wonder Woman, Charlie's Angels and Purdey in The New Avengers. Girls weren't forgotten in animation either. Loved watching Penelope Pitstop myself and She-Ra. Daphne was the bright one in Scooby Doo. Same with The Flintstones as Betty Rubble ran rings around the two dopes at the helm of it.

I grew up in the 80's and as a teenager I seen women as being strong. That they could pretty much do anything they wanted to. I didn't see them as weak, if anything I feared the power the had and was in awe of them. The posters on my wall back then included Joan Jett, Pat Benatar, Lita Ford, Doro Pesch etc. I don't recognize the world we are told today existed back then. I am not saying it was easy for women but I never heard all this bs back then. It's become fashionable today to say 'give the girls a go' but the girls I grew up with didn't want to be given a shot for the sake of it. They wanted to earn it and earn it they did.

Remake and reverse the genders of every film with iconic male characters until the cows come home for all I care but lets not pretend it's being done because girls didn't get a shot before, as that would just be a trailer load of horse shit.

Hococop

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Unless it makes double its production budget of $144 million, I don't see it going anywhere.

It would need to pass $200 million just to make a profit I'd say, should do that

MilesMorales1

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I don't have an issue with the new Ghostbusters being women but I do with this nonsense that girls didn't have strong rolemodels back then. It's baloney. Was Sigourney Weaver's character not a woman? Fair enough, she wasn't one of the 'heroes' but still a decent strong character in that film. Alien's Ripley was certainly a good 'heroine' (is it sexist to use that word yet?). Princess Leia, Sarah Connor, Laura Holt, Thelma and L-fcuking-ouise. Go back to the 70's and there was strong female characters with Wonder Woman, Charlie's Angels and Purdey in The New Avengers. Girls weren't forgotten in animation either. Loved watching Penelope Pitstop myself and She-Ra. Daphne was the bright one in Scooby Doo. Same with The Flintstones as Betty Rubble ran rings around the two dopes at the helm of it.

I grew up in the 80's and as a teenager I seen women as being strong. That they could pretty much do anything they wanted to. I didn't see them as weak, if anything I feared the power the had and was in awe of them. The posters on my wall back then included Joan Jett, Pat Benatar, Lita Ford, Doro Pesch etc. I don't recognize the world we are told today existed back then. I am not saying it was easy for women but I never heard all this bs back then. It's become fashionable today to say 'give the girls a go' but the girls I grew up with didn't want to be given a shot for the sake of it. They wanted to earn it and earn it they did.

Remake and reverse the genders of every film with iconic male characters until the cows come home for all I care but lets not pretend it's being done because girls didn't get a shot before, as that would just be a trailer load of horse shit.

I never said back then, even once. I meant now, as in for example superhero movies that are currently popular.

Arghus

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

Its great to see young girls take an interest in Ghostbusters but I'm also a bit sad that young boys probably wont have the same love for Ghostbusters like I had when I was young. I had the originals and the extreme Ghostbusters cartoon young boys probably wont have the same love for the new film as girls would.

I dunno, they could always watch the original movies?

They still exist, despite the new movie.

constitutionus

box office mojo putting its estimate for 46 million.

which is crap.

theres alot of stuff been touted as it being what sony expected and many media types are hyping it as a good result but the fact is it got its arse kicked by an animate film about pets in its second week of showing. the number one slot for the weekend shouldve been its no problem. this result is up there with green lantern , independence day resurgence et al.

with 144 mill being its budget and an estimated 100 mill going on marketing that means it needs 244 mill just to break even.

i reckon it couldve done that. but with china now closed off to it thats a hell of an ask. an ask TBH i dont think it can do.

theyll hide it well but there'll be alot of gutted studio types that'll be considering if the franchise stuff'll go ahead now. after seeing a no one like deadpool get near a billion you can bet they hoped something as recognizable as "ghostbusters" would do alot better than this.

still they got the streaming and DVD/Blueray stuff to come so that may put em back on track. next weeks drop off figs will give more of a clue to how big a hill it has to climb.

Harry Palmr

Hococop wrote: »

It would need to pass $200 million just to make a profit I'd say, should do that

What? It'll need to do x2.5 its production costs of $144m, as Paul Feig said himself it'll need to do north of 500m to see black ink.

As it stands it'll plateau in the $300-350m range globally. So another release to be forgotten quickly - indeed without the animated hits the box office in the States would be a disaster this summer.

Arghus

Harry Palmr wrote: »

What? It'll need to do x2.5 its production costs of $144m, as Paul Feig said himself it'll need to do north of 500m to see black ink.

As it stands it'll plateau in the $300-350m range globally. So another release to be forgotten quickly - indeed without the animated hits the box office in the States would be a disaster this summer.

Reading up on box office figures and predictions etc...

While it doesn't look too good off the opening weekend I wouldn't be pronouncing a flatliner straight away. Comedies tend to have long legs box office wise and Paul Feig/Melissa McCarthy comedies have a track record especially in this regard.

Interesting to see how it's been condemned as a box office failure, considering it's budget and takings are nearly identical to Mad Max at the same stage last year. Didn't hear to much negativity about that films financial "failure" at the time.

ps3lover

It has the kind of opening where we'll need to see how it holds over the next few weeks. Not great but not bad either.

ShakerMaker91

I really hope this film bombs, Sony apologies to the fans for this complete mess of a film and the next Ghostbusters film will be called Ghostbusters 3

Hococop

Arghus wrote: »

Reading up on box office figures and predictions etc...

While it doesn't look too good off the opening weekend I wouldn't be pronouncing a flatliner straight away. Comedies tend to have long legs box office wise and Paul Feig/Melissa McCarthy comedies have a track record especially in this regard.

Interesting to see how it's been condemned as a box office failure, considering it's budget and takings are nearly identical to Mad Max at the same stage last year. Didn't hear to much negativity about that films financial "failure" at the time.

Difference here is most have said this is an ok/good movie whereas anyone that saw mad max said it was amazing and was a must see movie, my film of the year last year personally.

The average view of this movie is good/ mediocre so I wonder will people be interested in watching it, didn't think it would need to make near 500 million to make profit, that's crazy

e_e

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

I really hope this film bombs, Sony apologies to the fans for this complete mess of a film and the next Ghostbusters film will be called Ghostbusters 3

oh ffs...

Harry Palmr

Arghus wrote: »

Reading up on box office figures and predictions etc...

While it doesn't look too good off the opening weekend I wouldn't be pronouncing a flatliner straight away. Comedies tend to have long legs box office wise and Paul Feig/Melissa McCarthy comedies have a track record especially in this regard.

Interesting to see how it's been condemned as a box office failure, considering it's budget and takings are nearly identical to Mad Max at the same stage last year. Didn't hear to much negativity about that films financial "failure" at the time.

Mad Max:Fury Road was an intense revival of a cult level success and was R rated in the States and 16 to 18s in most territories, Ghostbusters is a 12A broad comedy reboot of a famous film