GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

Hrududu

Saw this today in a pretty full screen. After thinking the trailer looked awful I found the film itself pretty enjoyable.

I can understand people liking or disliking the film but I can't see how someone would either love it or hate it. Basing this on the film itself I just don't see how it would inspire strong emotions either way.

It seems pretty crazy how much hatred the film has gotten before anyone even saw it. The likes of Indiana Jones and The Crystal Skull and Jurassic World were (in my mind) a much bigger slap in the face to people that loved earlier entries in those franchises.

Harry Palmr

S.M.B. wrote: »

Yeah, 2 Chinese production companies invested in it, one owned by alibaba.

Ghostbusters hasn't had the greatest of second weekends so things aren't looking great on that front.

$21m is is a drop of about 55%, about what one would expect and not the supposedly strong tail that some were hoping for (the Bridesmaids effect).

It's already been labeled as a "flop" by the media. However, they also said it was a "feminist" movie, which I don't really agree with having seen it. Definitely wasn't Feminist propaganda, or whatever, and my issues lie with the fact that every stage was poorly conceived and implemented worse.

Nerdlingr

Tony EH wrote: »

Ya know, it's funny and this isn't a dig at you Nerdlingr, but I keep seeing people writing reviews which pan the film for the most part and then give a score like 6/10.

Which to my mind, at least, is a good score?

Bizarre.

Didnt pan it. Said it was average. Gave it a score of 6 out of 10. Which is 1 above average. Dont see what the problem is or how that's "bizarre"?

Saw it over the weekend and it's far better than is has any right to be, Ghostbusters is a light and fun big budget blockbuster that is funny, smart and looks great. Yes, some of the dialogue is a little too forced, the run time could do with losing 20 minutes and the character of Kevin is incredibly mishandled and sexual harassment is never funny, but overall there's more to like there than not. Jones and McKinnon are great and own the film, they bring a manic energy that's welcome and the inclusion of the original cast is a nice touch though Murray's cameo is awful and Akyroyd appears to be in a rush somewhere.

The biggest problem with the film is just how indebted to the original it is. With so much of the film spent pay homage to what came before, Ghostbusters never really finds an identity of its own. The films best moments come when it does it's own thing and hopefully the sequel will forget about tipping its hat and just do its own thing.

ShakerMaker91

Watched it over the weekend online out of morbid curiosity. Safe to say it was exactly how i thought it would be. 1 part did made me laugh when they were talking about your man soiling his pants at the start. That was it. Thought the rest of it was dreadful. Kate McKinnons character to me was just another version of brick tamlan from anchorman. Her speech at the end in the bar was very much like a speech brick tamlan would give. Chris Hemswoths character was just too stupid to like. He was too stupid even for a comedy film. The main villain was probably the worst ive seen in a film aswell.

Can we pop a spoilers in the title, so we can discuss this freely?

Wibbs

Hrududu wrote: »

I can understand people liking or disliking the film but I can't see how someone would either love it or hate it. Basing this on the film itself I just don't see how it would inspire strong emotions either way.

This. As I noted elsewhere It's a meh summer blockbuster running off an old franchise hoping to revive it(the cameos were risible*) and squarely aimed as a buddy movie for the female demographic with poo and queef jokes for the more childish. It's aimed squarely and cynically at that audience, just like every soppy rom com where the mousey but quirky lass unlucky in love gets the Earl of Billionaireshire.

It's got the pretty Himbo, it's got the Sassy Black Woman(™) "Ah Hell no!"©, it's got the quirky oddball with freaky hair for the lesbians and college kids who think they might be, it's got the cut price Jenny Aniston type and the Fat Lass who Kicks Aaassss(™)© and of course none of the women break that certain level of beauty where the "that bitch!" sensor is triggered. It's akin to taking a 1950's buddy movie aimed at men and putting it through the Reverso Machine(how many buddy flics feature plain looking men with utter babes? It's a thing. Hell Murray pulled Sigourney Weaver in the originals. Yeah right...). The Ghostbusters bit is merely an overlay for all that.

And that's fine. The original had a little more nuance at a stretch sure but A) it was also a buddy movie and wasn't Othello. It was however original and "purer" and that's why it still garners affection. Ghostbusters 2016 for me is feck all to do with feminism or any of that, but much more down to a complete dearth of originality or risk taking by the studios and a cynical marketing driven exercise. Hollywood was always about the bums on seats, but it was generally far more original. Today? Comics onscreen, remakes, sometimes remakes of comics onscreen, remakes for different audiences and maybe a romcom, if it's cheap. That's the guts of the summer releases.

I think the crazy over reaction to this particular flic was because the cynical marketing exercise was so obvious, even for the mob. Apparently there's an all woman cast of Ocean's 11 being pipelined. I wonder will that go into development hell now?



*and Murray was legally pressured into it so…)

Sad Professor

Spoilers from this post onward.

Honestly, one of my biggest issues with this particular movie was how the main villain was defeated. I mean, shot in the nuts? Really? All of this build-up and the character is defeated in the most clichéd way possible.

ps3lover

Deleted User wrote: »

It's already been labeled as a "flop" by the media. However, they also said it was a "feminist" movie, which I don't really agree with having seen it. Definitely wasn't Feminist propaganda, or whatever, and my issues lie with the fact that every stage was poorly conceived and implemented worse.

Yeah, the second weekend figures where not good at all. Paul Feig said this needs to do at minimum $500 million worldwide. From the looks of it, this will be lucky to hit $400 million.

Someone should make a list of the amount of franchises that Sony tried to start that failed.

Carlos Orange

ps3lover wrote: »

Yeah, the second weekend figures where not good at all. Paul Feig said this needs to do at minimum $500 million worldwide. From the looks of it, this will be lucky to hit $400 million.

This weekend did pretty much what the second weekend of Bridesmaids did i.e. $6m/$8m/$6m. Bridesmaids did $169m US total so I reckon Ghostbusters would be lucky to reach $150m. Foreign looks weak but maybe that is just release dates , maybe another $150m.

ps3lover

psinno wrote: »

This weekend did pretty much what the second weekend of Bridesmaids did i.e. $6m/$8m/$6m. Bridesmaids did $169m US total so I reckon Ghostbusters would be lucky to reach $150m. Foreign looks weak but maybe that is just release dates , maybe another $150m.

Bridesmaids only had a 20% drop from its first weekend. It's continued to have small drops. Ghostbusters dropped 55% from its opening weekend, it's the largest drop Paul Feig has had.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Honestly, one of my biggest issues with this particular movie was how the main villain was defeated. I mean, shot in the nuts? Really? All of this build-up and the character is defeated in the most clichéd way possible.

Me. Earlier wrote: »

squarely aimed as a buddy movie for the female demographic with poo and queef jokes for the more childish.

It opens with that kinda thing and keeps it coming so not really a shock BaB. Never mind the villain was decidedly lacklustre and the build up by the numbers.

Then again consider the competition from Hollywood. Look at the film thread titles and subject matter even in the forum. Hollywood has a very narrow focus of late.

silverharp

psinno wrote: »

This weekend did pretty much what the second weekend of Bridesmaids did i.e. $6m/$8m/$6m. Bridesmaids did $169m US total so I reckon Ghostbusters would be lucky to reach $150m. Foreign looks weak but maybe that is just release dates , maybe another $150m.

Bridesmaids cost less than $35m and probably most comedies cost less than $50m to make. outside of something like Guardians of the Galaxy it seems like very high risk to throw $150m at a comedy

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

It opens with that kinda thing and keeps it coming so not really a shock BaB. Never mind the villain was decidedly lacklustre and the build up by the numbers.

Then again consider the competition from Hollywood. Look at the film thread titles and subject matter even in the forum. Hollywood has a very narrow focus of late.

Maybe it wasn't a shock, but it was still quite disappointing. I mean this was their moment to have something like Stay Puft, which, while killed off easily, had a lot of bang for the buck, with some utterly hilarious moments right after.

With this.. shot in the nuts and falling into a hole.

Harry Palmr

Every film title on the front page of this forum is for a sequel/franchise/"universe" release.

Hollywood is going to hell.

Carlos Orange

silverharp wrote: »

Bridesmaids cost less than $35m and probably most comedies cost less than $50m to make. outside of something like Guardians of the Galaxy it seems like very high risk to throw $150m at a comedy

I was just talking box office but obviously you need to factor in that ghostbusters has a budget about the same as his 3 successful films combined.

constitutionus

ps3lover wrote: »

Bridesmaids only had a 20% drop from its first weekend. It's continued to have small drops. Ghostbusters dropped 55% from its opening weekend, it's the largest drop Paul Feig has had.

yeah IIRC boxofficmojo pointed out the same. sony are now counting on it having the legs of a feig/mcarthy film to makes its money back but i dont see it myself.

losing the second biggest cinema market in the world in china seems to be a crippling blow to any notion of a franchise for this one too.

The boxoffice may not be huge but they are cleaning up with merchandise. With a film like this that is where the real money is and reports are that toys and the like are selling far better than anyone thought. A poor box office return for Ghostbusters does not mean the end of the franchise and I have to say that isn't it wonderful when everyone turns into a market analyst as they regurgitate the information they read on the internet.

I hope we see a sequel and I hope that it doesn't try to pay homage to the original film as that was this films undoing. The Bill Murray cameo was awful and there were so many nods and winks that it was hard to keep track of them, and not a single one was needed.

The cameos actually really worked against it, in my opinion. It just made sure that it wasn't its own thing at all - every short while, when it looks like it might, you had another familiar friend pop up and pretty much say, "hey, remember when we were in that other much better movie?".

I can't imagine their making another movie or moving into a franchise on the back of merchandising. It might open up possibilities for new cartoons, though. I wouldn't mind an animated series based around an all-women Ghostbusters. It might be wonderful!

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

The boxoffice may not be huge but they are cleaning up with merchandise. With a film like this that is where the real money is and reports are that toys and the like are selling far better than anyone thought. A poor box office return for Ghostbusters does not mean the end of the franchise and I have to say that isn't it wonderful when everyone turns into a market analyst as they regurgitate the information they read on the internet.

I hope we see a sequel and I hope that it doesn't try to pay homage to the original film as that was this films undoing. The Bill Murray cameo was awful and there were so many nods and winks that it was hard to keep track of them, and not a single one was needed.

:P

Carlos Orange

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

:P

At least no one is just repeating a press release. :cool:

Grayditch

Saw it yesterday. I qas expecting a 5/10 film. I'd say it was about 6.5. The opening 40 mins are strong. Wiig and McCarthy really know how to spin the awkward one line mutters into decent laughs. They're really good at it.

From what I've been reading about McKinnon I was expecting a much more interesting carachter but she did her best with what was a fairly bog standard "crazy one". Not that crazy. Not that interesting, but I feel like she was doing her best with lazy material.

Leslie Jones was alright. I thought the "Power of Patty compels you" scene might work better in the context of the film, but it was as horribly cringy as the trailer.

The writing lost it's way fairly quick but not to a disastrous degree. I was cringing at the final battle but it sorta worked for me after a few seconds. I didn't expect it to manifest from what it did. S'allright.

Yeah. Meh. Ok.

ShakerMaker91

Grayditch wrote:

From what I've been reading about McKinnon I was expecting a much more interesting carachter but she did her best with what was a fairly bog standard "crazy one". Not that crazy. Not that interesting, but I feel like she was doing her best with lazy material.

Grayditch wrote:

Saw it yesterday. I qas expecting a 5/10 film. I'd say it was about 6.5. The opening 40 mins are strong. Wiig and McCarthy really know how to spin the awkward one line mutters into decent laughs. They're really good at it.

Have to disagree with you on Wiig and McCarthy I found them two both cringy and downright unfunny. An example being McCarthy pushing that unfunny wonton joke about 3 times which was just painful to watch.

Agree with you on McKinnon as I said a few posts back to me she was playing a female Brick Tamlan from Anchorman only more "goofier"

Grayditch

I didn't understand the Wanton thing until it culminated in the funny moment where she panics and can't think of anything else except soup. This just isn't very good material, but I think she did her best with it.

OSI

OSI wrote: »

Now you see this is what I mean by the movie being forgettable, I only saw the movie on Sunday and I already have no idea what moment you're referring to.

The running "gag" with the soup and not having enough something or other in it.

Grayditch

It does what almost all modern comedies do. Start strong and fall on their arse. It's no better or worse than stuff like Daddy's Home or the likes.

It's not like Bridesmaids or 21 Jump Street that keep the laughs going.

Sonics2k

Deleted User wrote: »

The sense of entitlement from fan boys is beyond pathetic. I hope that Sony forges ahead with a sequel to this reboot and tells fanboys where they can stick their opinions. What in the world makes you think that you or other fanboys out there deserve an apology? Were you involved in productions of the original film and refused input to this modern reboot?

This idea that the viewer has a personal stake in the media they consume is beyond ridiculous. It's part of the modern sense of entitlement that has neutered big budget cinema. Constant reshoots and retroactive changes to existing products so as to make "fans" happy results in bland fare such as the Marvel film universe. Get over yourself and stop feeling like cinema owes you something

I know your post is a few days old, but I wanted to address it a bit.

I went to Ghostbusters today at the request of my kids, they'd seen the first and wanted to see the new one too. Now, as for myself, I enjoyed the movie as a kid, but I wasn't a massive massive fan.

My own kids, daughter (9) and son (7) thought it was only okay. They much preferred the Secret Lives of Pets.

As for myself. I thought it was genuine and absolute dribble. It's the kind of drek I'd have expected from Adam Sandler and Paulie Shore.

What I saw was 4 pretty funny actress' be restricted by a silly story that tried but failed to recapture the humour of the first one. My personal feeling is that Sony and Feig played up the whole gender swap angle to try and increase controversy and drive people to seats. The humour for me fell flat, Hemsworth was wasted and the bad guy was daft. Female slimer was just cringey. The special effects were like something out of bad Eddie Murray film.

Now, as for your fanboy comments.
Your damn right fans of media are passionate about what they love. I'm a massive massive Tolkein fan and loved the LOTR movies, but got somewhat miffed by the Hobbit series as it was a let down that spent far too much time on grand panoramic views rather than actual movie. The Dwarves were all over the place and it bugged me.

Fans of Star Wars were rightly pissed at the Phantom Menace and gave (and still do) George Lucas absolute hell for his writing.
Remakes/reboots and crappy sequels inherently cause controversy, just look at Robocop and Total Recall, Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull

Cinema does owe it's consumers something, because we're the ones paying to see it. We are the ones who make it money. They owe the viewers a hell of a lot more than we owe them, and that goes for all entertainment too.

With all that said. The people throwing the disgusting abuse, whether it was sexist or racist or anything else, are genuinely some of the worst people in the world who deserve to be tied up and beaten with rabid badgers.

However, it should also be possible to dislike this movie based on it's merits as entertainment without being accused of sexism, but you should also be able to enjoy this movie without being accused of being a pandering SJW.

squonk

I went to see this last night with my sister. My sister doesn't get to movies too often, adult movies anyway, and for a night getting away from the kids I thought it would be a good choice. We both enjoyed it. Yes, it's better earlier on but it was funny and the cast overall was very good. I thought there were lots of laughs and I liked the effects. They harked back to 80's movies effects with some updates and I thought that was good. It was funnier than I was expecting overall.

It was a good time at the cinema for me and I can't say fairer than that. I see on IMDB that it has a 5.4 rating and I think that's unfair. I like the original movies myself. I'm not beholden to them though. I'm a trekker so I'm very well aware of what it's like to have something you love raped for cash as has happened with Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek: Into Darkness. Beyond is an improvement but I was front and center complaining about these two movies. I may sound like a few friends of mine who watched Star Trek but liked the first two new movies because they weren't that invested and maybe that's why I enjoyed Ghostbusters. It was a good effort. McCarthy toned it down. Wig toned it down and all in all it resulted in an enjoyable comedy. I want to see another one. It was good fun!