GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

God.

That was awful.

Tony EH

Yep.

No surprises there.

ps3lover

maximoose wrote: »

And by almost all accounts, it's absolutely terrible.

To be fair, most video game tie ins for movies are AWFUL!

ps3lover

ps3lover wrote: »

To be fair, most video game tie ins for movies are AWFUL!

I actually quite enjoyed the previous Ghostbusters game. It wasn't anything amazing, but it served as a really good continuation of the series.

constitutionus

all the furor surrounding this film got me to actually go on youtube and watch a walkthrough of the ghostbusters 2009 game..

its great.

and further illustrates what we couldve got in terms of a sequel instead of this bland reboot. the script on it was really good.

i almost jumped for joy when peck turned up again.

i came across the newst one first though, my GOD it was repetitive dayglow awfullness. it made the IRONMAN tie in games look good .

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote: »

all the furor surrounding this film got me to actually go on youtube and watch a walkthrough of the ghostbusters 2009 game..

its great.

and further illustrates what we couldve got in terms of a sequel instead of this bland reboot. the script on it was really good.

i almost jumped for joy when peck turned up again.

i came across the newst one first though, my GOD it was repetitive dayglow awfullness. it made the IRONMAN tie in games look good .

I guess the best thing with the video game from 2009 was that it wasn't exactly a tie-in game, in the same way of others, where they only exist because of that current movie. In this case, there was no movie to advertise, as such, so it was always going to be a video game. Plus the fact that you got the OK and support from (almost) all cast members, with all lending their voice talents willingly (which was evident in the movie, that it was willingly), and was actually seen as being the official Ghostbusters 3. It wasn't the best video game ever, with repetitive gameplay throughout, but you could see it was a labour of love.

Whereas this.. from what I've seen.. the newest game is just about as soulless as the movie it is based on.

Imnotthehulk

Saw the new ghostbusters in cineworld one morning last week, and I found it very enjoyable. I was laughing out loud throughout.

Very happy with the film.

arcticmonkeys

Deleted User wrote: »

God.

That was awful.

Noting against the movie as such bit indifferent towards it, not a patch on the original of course but yea... that end credit scene GOD AWFUL! And most of the You Tube commentators seems to love it :eek:.

orubiru

Links234

Some folks were mentioning the 2009 game, you can get it here for €2.49 on PC for the next 3 days.

Den14

Links234 wrote:

for the next 3 days.

Links234 wrote:

Some folks were mentioning the 2009 game, you can get it

Thank you very much. Was wondering if they would retro release this on the xbox one but I'll go for this instead. Had this on the 360 and enjoyed it immensely. Never got around to completing it so will give it another whirl

I was actually watching the cutscenes from the '09 game and it did a lot of work to make up for Winston's lack of character development in the other movies. It felt like it did more for "progressiveness" than this iteration of the movie, which just giving us a stereotypical black character.

conorhal

Well I finally watched it, for no other reason then to see what all the fuss was about and did so with the lowest expectations possible for the film. Which is why about 20 mins in I was pretty surprised at how much I was warming to the remake and I began to wonder if perhaps the movie would turn out, well, OK or even just mediocre, but entirely unworthy of the hate it inspired. Then the film spent the next 90 minutes in a seemingly deliberate attempt to goad me into hating it and every frame of it's being.
What an absolute dumpster fire.
I would not be the biggest (or any kind of) fan of Melissa McCarthy, generally I find her grating, but here in a slightly more restrained role I thought she did a good job, as did Kristen Wiig. I'm baffled by the praise that was heaped on Kate McKinnon though. Her character is nothing more then a series of stupid tics and very flat one liners. Holtzmann is a nothing character that wears out her welcome almost immediately and serves no purpose other then to gurn in the background in a manner that screams 'look at how whacky I am! Aren't I just so damn whacky?', and pull a series of improbable merchandise inventions out of thin air as as and when required for each action scene.
It's the same story with Kevin, a character that probably belongs in some poorly conceived SNL skit about a 'hot dumb office guy'. In a film that badly needed characters grounded in reality to offset the fantastical, his cartoonish stupidity really hurt the movie and wasn't even remotely funny, I mean he 'hillariously' doesn't know how to answer a phone FFS.
The biggest problem with the film by a long country mile is the villain. There seems to be a real problem in the modern blockbuster with villains these days. Writers simply seem incapable of writing interesting villains with believable plans and motivations. I'm heartily sick of generic villains with stupid plots and imcomprehensible motivations. Pretty much every comic book movie over the past few years has suffered from this problem, which is bizzare given that one of the things comic books tend to do well is great bad guys. Not so long ago it seems like villains were the easy part to get right. From Hans Gruber to Hannibal Lector that bad guy was the best part of the movie and writers struggled to pit a compelling enough good guy against a far more entertaining, scenery chewing baddie, sadly writing these seems to be a feat that escapes Hollywood at the moment.
Ghostbusters has some of the laziest writing I've seen in some time, the plot involves a ghost apocalypse that is initiated by some internet troll parody for pretty thin reasoning by means I'm at a loss to explain and is averted because everybody, even Subway token collectors, knows that spectral portals can always be shut by lobbing a nuke into them. Which leads to possibly one of the worst, most cliched moments in cinema history when one character saves another.
The less said about the cameos the better, Bill Murray's seems like an almost deliberate FU to the original film.

When I said the movie was goading you to hate it I wasn't joking. The villain is a clear dig at internet trolls and there is not one, but two references to not reading youtube comments and their misogyny, which is fine, but if you're going to do that you had better not do it in a movie dripping in misandry dressed up as cheap 'girl power' and so bad it actually makes those internet trolls silly petulence look justified.

Irish_rat

Just watched this earlier today, wished I didn't. Utterly boring throughout, the special effects and story line were horrifically bad. I'd give it a 3/10. It wasn't funny in the slightest.

Rhaegal

How has this thread 122 pages?

nix

Rhaegal wrote: »

How has this thread 122 pages?

It's mostly "FU Hollywood"

Rhaegal

Rhaegal wrote: »

How has this thread 122 pages?

122 pages? Yeesh! Adjust the number of posts per page. It's only 46 for me.

squonk

It's only a film FFS and it was a lot better than I expected it to be from reading preview opinions here. I should thank you all for lowering my expectations! It could have been far, far worse.

ShakerMaker91

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWROBiX1eSc

spot on in breaking down the criticism of the film

razorblunt

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWROBiX1eSc

spot on in breaking down the criticism of the film

My God that was tough enough to watch, talk about labouring the point, it felt like it went on for hours.

That being said they raise good points.

Thargor

'Ghostbusters' Heading for $70M-Plus Loss, Sequel Unlikely

constitutionus

Thargor wrote: »

'Ghostbusters' Heading for $70M-Plus Loss, Sequel Unlikely

kinda ironic that theyre relying on people streaming the first film digitally to offset the losses of the latest.



the fact reitman is back in control tells ya everything. pascal mustve got some bollocking for this trainwreck.

ShakerMaker91

Hopefully Ivan Reitman will be at the helm of all future projects and as for the horrible reboot the only kind of follow up I can see for it now would be an animated film/tv series if any

ps3lover

Thargor wrote: »

'Ghostbusters' Heading for $70M-Plus Loss, Sequel Unlikely

What! You mean implying that anyone who didn't like the look of the trailer was a misogynistic racist, and constantly attacking the fan base DIDN'T work in their favour? I'm shocked! This was one of the nastiest marketing campaigns I've seen. Hope we never get a repeat of it.

conorhal

ShakerMaker91 wrote: »

Hopefully Ivan Reitman will be at the helm of all future projects and as for the horrible reboot the only kind of follow up I can see for it now would be an animated film/tv series if any

I think the blame for all this lies squarely on Feig's doorstep. Although Reitman is listed as a producer, Feig by all accounts demanded that he be excluded from any involvement in the movie. That's no surprise when you see some of the leaked emails of proposed plots that Feig was bouncing around, alien ghosts etc. and all kinds of dumb stuff like that. This was a project he turned down several times until he was given complete creative control and now he's having a bitter hissy fit and blaming everybody but himself for the failure of the film.

ShakerMaker91

conorhal wrote:

I think the blame for all this lies squarely on Feig's doorstep. Although Reitman is listed as a producer, Feig by all accounts demanded that he be excluded from any involvement in the movie. That's no surprise when you see some of the leaked emails of proposed plots that Feig was bouncing around, alien ghosts etc. and all kinds of dumb stuff like that. This was a project he turned down several times until he was given complete creative control and now he's having a bitter hissy fit and blaming everybody but himself for the failure of the film.

Exactly this whole film was 100% Feig. I'd bet Reitman had zero input into any of it he was effectively frozen out and good old Paul Feig was let do as he pleased. He wouldn't have done it without full control. So he has no one to blame for this unfunny mess only himself really.

I really hope in the future he sticks to parody films with his right hand woman Melissa McCarthy

S.M.B.

Animated spinoffs?

That's not what made the original special!!!

Rabble Rabble Rabble

conorhal

S.M.B. wrote: »

Animated spinoffs?

That's not what made the original special!!!

Rabble Rabble Rabble

One, nobody would have objected to a spin off, a reboot that shat all over the original however is something else.

Two, actually there's a lot of fondness for The Real Ghostbusters animated spinoff from the late 80's early 90's. Nobody rabbled about it then, and nobody's likely to now, so as much as you'd like to characterise anybody that hates Ghostbusters 2016 in such a manner, the only people making bitter 'Rabble Rabble Rabble' noises are Paul Feig and the supporters of that dumpster fire of a movie.

constitutionus

well seems like after all the hoo ha about this being feigs/mccarthys biggest opening weekend film ever its gonna end up being his worst preformer next to "unaccompanied minors".

and thats just going by worldwide take.

spy was a better money maker for em.

Carlos Orange

Foreign box office is still coming in so it yet might make more than Ghostbusters 2.