GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

Dodge

bilirubin wrote: »

Has entertainment dot ie sold out to Sony to help push this movie?

Wouldn't be unheard off of but usually most viewed/rated etc is time bound so it's likely more people have looked at ghostbuster in the last couple of days than say "secret life of pets" as that's been out a while

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

Are people really that desperate to find something to attack the film that they are going out of their way to find things to add to the conspiracy in their heads? It's obvious that when they mean most viewed they mean over a certain time period, most sites do something similar in which the most viewed article of the day or week is listed and not the most viewed of all time.

entertainment.ie is run by feminists who hope to bring down the social order in Ireland by pushing their misandrycentric agenda through the manipulation of most viewed page tables. Everyone knows this.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

So...

What's the movie like?

My cousins kid and her friends delivered an overwhelming meh. One said "boring" and the best I could get out of another one was "it was alright, I spose." said with a screwed up "alright" face.

I lent them the original.

bilirubin

Deleted User wrote: »

It's obvious that when they mean most viewed they mean over a certain time period, most sites do something similar in which the most viewed article of the day or week is listed and not the most viewed of all time.

It's not obvious. Maybe they should have an asterisk explaining what you just said.

bilirubin

bilirubin wrote: »

It's not obvious. Maybe they should have an asterisk explaining what you just said.

To anyone but you it would appear to be pretty damn obvious, but don't let that get in the way of you trying to find a conspiracy where none exists.

Penn

bilirubin wrote: »

Has entertainment dot ie sold out to Sony to help push this movie?

I'm sure the Sony execs were scratching their heads trying to figure out how to make the movie popular until one of them thought "Let's try asking the people who run entertainment.ie"...

Arne_Saknussem

The levels of bitchyness this thread has descended to is great.

kunst nugget

bilirubin wrote: »

It's not obvious. Maybe they should have an asterisk explaining what you just said.

They can't do that. It would be mansplaining…

bilirubin

Deleted User wrote: »

To anyone but you it would appear to be pretty damn obvious, but don't let that get in the way of you trying to find a conspiracy where none exists.

Are you really that desperate to defend this film that you will go out of your way to find things to defend all comments? :-D

To be honest, entertainment dot ie should remove the view numbers and then it would be less confusing and they could display in the order of what mathematical equation and rules they want to use to determine what is 1st 2nd and 3rd Most Viewed.

I'm sure entertainment dot ie hasn't sold to Sony, but conspiracies are great fun.

bilirubin

bilirubin wrote: »

Are you really that desperate to defend this film that you will go out of your way to find things to defend all comments? :-D

To be honest, entertainment dot ie should remove the view numbers and then it would be less confusing and they could display in the order of what mathematical equation and rules they want to use to determine what is 1st 2nd and 3rd Most Viewed.

I'm sure entertainment dot ie hasn't sold to Sony, but conspiracies are great fun.

If people are going to try and deliberately distort information in order to further their agenda then yes, I will point out the nonsense.

kunst nugget

bilirubin wrote: »

I'm sure entertainment dot ie hasn't sold to Sony, but conspiracies are great fun.

Aye, great fun altogether…

BMMachine

Entertainment.ie rated Zonad 5/5.
Entertainment.ie reviews have no credibility.

constitutionus

Deleted User wrote: »

So...

What's the movie like?

not as entertaining as this !

ps3lover

Any Ghostbusters thread on any forum is comedy gold :-)

bilirubin

Deleted User wrote: »

If people are going to try and deliberately distort information in order to further their agenda then yes, I will point out the nonsense.

Sony are deliberately distorting information that people who don't like this film are Donald Trump supporters, Anti Woman, anti something else etc in order to further their agenda of making money on this badly throughout film, how come you are not pointing out this nonsense?

The charm of the first Ghostbusters film for me was the original storyline, special effects, one guy was the main funny person and the theme music. Ghostbusters 2 was a poor follow up film and so a lot of the fans expected Sony to deliver a good film....instead we got a Bridemaids/SNL style mediocre Ghostbusters film aimed at the wrong audience.

Next Sony will want to remake "Sex and the City" and replace all the female character with 4 "hilarious" male comedians!!!

Sad Professor

Wait, what are we arguing about now?

bilirubin

bilirubin wrote:

Sony are deliberately distorting information that people who don't like this film are Donald Trump supporters, Anti Woman, anti something else etc in order to further their agenda of making money on this badly throughout film, how come you are not pointing out this nonsense?

Are they? I take it that you have proof of this grand conspiracy you speak of? This attack on the film and its cast is ridiculous and really shows up so many of the most vocal attackers as the worst kind of keyboard warrior. Had this been an all make film there would not be a tenth the level of vitriol and anger. Maybe I'm not really a fan but I like that they went with a twist on the formula.

I think that my biggest concern with the film is that the real agenda is being ignored. Ghostbusters is a film about a government sanctioned squad who spend their time removing unwanted tenants from their homes. It's a dangerous message to send and you'd expect Joe Duffyv to be up in arms at this attack on society's weakest.

bilirubin wrote:

The charm of the first Ghostbusters film for me was the original storyline, special effects, one guy was the main funny person and the theme music. Ghostbusters 2 was a poor follow up film and so a lot of the fans expected Sony to deliver a good film....instead we got a Bridemaids/SNL style mediocre Ghostbusters film aimed at the wrong audience.

Why is out that most people who see the film like it? Did most people expect a good film? All I read in the part year was about how childhoods are being ruined.

bilirubin wrote:

Next Sony will want to remake "Sex and the City" and replace all the female character with 4 "hilarious" male comedians!!!

But isn't that pretty much every big comedy of the last decade? The Hangover is pretty much an all male Sex and the City.

johnny_ultimate

Sad Professor wrote: »

Wait, what are we arguing about now?

The BFG review being ranked above The Secret Life Of Pets and Absolutely Fabulous on the entertainment.ie 'most viewed' list when it clearly has fewer views!

bilirubin

Deleted User wrote: »

Are they? I take it that you have proof of this grand conspiracy you speak of? This attack on the film and its cast is ridiculous and really shows up so many of the most vocal attackers as the worst kind of keyboard warrior.

Oh Darko, to anyone but you it would appear to be pretty damn obvious, but don't let that get in the way of you been always right......
If you have any idea of how Corporations work you would know they protect themselves and will hire spin doctors and marketing people to protect their products. At the end of the day they need to make money back to make it all worth while.

Deleted User wrote: »

But isn't that pretty much every big comedy of the last decade? The Hangover is pretty much an all male Sex and the City.

No, no it's not.

bilirubin

bilirubin wrote:

Oh Darko, to anyone but you it would appear to be pretty damn obvious, but don't let that get in the way of you been always right...... If you have any idea of how Corporations work you would know they protect themselves and will hire spin doctors and marketing people to protect their products. At the end of the day they need to make money back to make it all worth while.

So where is your proof? Also there's a difference between marketing a film and what you were implying. Can you please provide proof that Sony are doing as you claim, that they are saying people who dislike the film are Trump supporters and such.

bilirubin wrote:

No, no it's not.

The escapades of four vapid men who have sex, think, etc. It's pretty similar and both are pretty poor

e_e

bilirubin wrote: »

Next Sony will want to remake "Sex and the City" and replace all the female character with 4 "hilarious" male comedians!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfgCZ9lgQ3I

Sad Professor

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The BFG review being ranked above The Secret Life Of Pets and Absolutely Fabulous on the entertainment.ie 'most viewed' list when it clearly has fewer views!

It makes sense, I suppose. The BFG has a female lead character.

Tigger

e_e wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfgCZ9lgQ3I

i think he's a bit worked up over nothing
driving a big car with your best mates while everybody waves would be pretty cool

ps3lover

Wasn't it Judd Apatow Who said something along the line of "I think you'll find that people who aren't excited for the Ghostbusters movie are also voting for Trump"

pixelburp

Having seen some of the output of the Sony hack, I think it's a bit rich to assign any semblance of machiavellian evil to their PR dept. They're a hot mess and their desperation for a blockbuster hit is palpable in their output. Hollywood is dysfunctional behemoth, capable of currying favour from pliable outlets and that's about it. The wholesale steering of public opinion is a bit beyond them

Unless of course you're the type to think the hack itself was an conspiracy, which is the kind of spiral thinking from which there's no escape.

johnny_ultimate

bilirubin wrote: »

Next Sony will want to remake "Sex and the City" and replace all the female character with 4 "hilarious" male comedians!!!

I have to assume you're aware of the point I'm going to make, but it's worth making anyway.

Sex and the City and Entourage are innately gendered pieces of work. They are both films/series that are at their very core explorations of modern womanhood and manhood respectively - true, they've often been fairly decried as simplistic representations and have spawned dozens of analyses as a result, but if you did a simple 'gender swap' you'd also likely be left with a radically, even subversively different end product that communicates a very different message (I'd actually love to see that, I'll be honest :pac:).

You see better examples across cinema, where the gender of the characters is deeply woven into the narrative and themes. I'd point to John Cassavetes as a director who looked at both genders in quite interesting ways - say what you'd like about the end products (misogynist? genius?), but The Killing of a Chinese Booking is as inherently about a man as A Woman Under the Influence is about, well, a woman.

Ghostbusters 2016, if anything, happily proves how non-gendered the central concept is. Both it and the original film feature certainly reflect on the gender of their protagonists - perhaps a little more so in the original, with the distinctly alpha male mid-life crisis of Venkman. But really in both cases any 'gendered' characterisation, humour or themes merely added variance and colour to the central concept of people busting the **** out of some ghosts. The new film shows, through its relative lack of originality, how easily adaptable the Ghostbusters formula is, and how little of a difference the genders of the main characters make. The differences - some good, some bad - in the script, cast and direction are much more significant.

You take the women out of Sex and the City and you're left with something that isn't the Sex and the City everyone knows (and loves / hates - delete as applicable). Remove the men from Ghostbusters and you are sadly down a Bill Murray -

naff cameo aside

- but a whole lot of everything else stays pretty much the same (and, as ever, 'the same' is the major problem with GB2016).

ps3lover

pixelburp wrote: »

Having seen some of the output of the Sony hack, I think it's a bit rich to assign any semblance of machiavellian evil to their PR dept. They're a hot mess and their desperation for a blockbuster hit is palpable in their output. Hollywood is dysfunctional behemoth, capable of currying favour from pliable outlets and that's about it. The wholesale steering of public opinion is a bit beyond them

Unless of course you're the type to think the hack itself was an conspiracy, which is the kind of spiral thinking from which there's no escape.

Werent Sony the same company that got busted for making up a fake critic to give their movies glowing reviews?

SimonTemplar

Aside from the fact that this movie shouldn't really exist and Hollywood's frustrating trend for remakes over originality, I thought Ghostbusters was a perfectly OK albeit unremarkable action comedy. It wasn't the very bad movie that the awful trailer suggested nor is it a very good example of its genre - it is just alright. A solid 3 stars. If it wasn't a remake of a beloved classic 80s movie, it would be instantly forgettable.

The central four are very well cast especially Kate McKinnon who was the definition of a scene-stealer. The problem is not with the cast but rather with the writing. The movie had no real buzz or charm and sometimes felt remarkably low energy despite everything that was happening on screen. I noticed four continuity mistakes in the first 20 minutes, which is usually a sign that the movie is struggling to hold my attention if my mind starts to wander like that. Likewise, for every good joke (and I did laugh at a number of good gags) there were about 3 jokes that landed flat and didn't work. The villain was also fairly lackluster.

Now that this movie exists, I would like to see a sequel (if only for Kate McKinnon) but they really need to improve the writing quality. Someone like Jane Goodman could probably do wonders for this new franchise.

Sad Professor

ps3lover wrote: »

Werent Sony the same company that got busted for making up a fake critic to give their movies glowing reviews?

Yeah but they weren't full reviews. Just quotes for the posters. Pretty low grade stuff.

Those poster quotes are usually misquotes anyway.

KingBrian2

ps3lover wrote: »

Wasn't it Judd Apatow Who said something along the line of "I think you'll find that people who aren't excited for the Ghostbusters movie are also voting for Trump"

Gotta be the silliest post I ever read. The cinema goers are drawn from an international audience and besides it not the casting that is the issue it is everything about the movie which is average.:mad: Who knows maybe Trump has gone and seen the movie himself or some of his followers have.:D