GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

silverharp

psinno wrote: »

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

Feig said the film needed to turnover 500m for it to be a success , I'd imagine the breakeven is around $400m, at the moment its around $190m and its out nearly everywhere for at least 2 weeks now. I'd say the $70m loss is reasonable. Sony wont be giving anyone 150$ to make a similar movie :pac:

Carlos Orange

silverharp wrote: »

Sony wont be giving anyone 150$ to make a similar movie :pac:

I imagine Sony expected to take in more money than Ghostbusters 2 since that was like 25 years ago and ticket prices have gone up a fair bit.

Hococop

psinno wrote: »

I imagine Sony expected to take in more money than Ghostbusters 2 since that was like 25 years ago and ticket prices have gone up a fair bit.

Checked the inflation on GB 2, in today's market it made $420 million

D0NNELLY

D0NNELLY wrote: »

Better than 2, not as good as 1.
Slapstick got boring after a while..

Would not recommend.

watched this again last night... much better second time round.
Noticed that McCarthy really toned it down for the most part..

ps3lover

I love how this seasons South Park is tackling the controversy this movie caused. Awesome season so far.

I went to see Bad Moms recently and thoroughly enjoyed it. I bring it up here, because Paul Feig should really take a leaf from their book on how to do an all-female comedic cast, by having a script that is actually incredibly funny, with excellent comedic actresses. Somebody recently told me that it was a chick flick and it didn't even cross my mind, because of how good it was in general.

Hococop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I went to see Bad Moms recently and thoroughly enjoyed it. I bring it up here, because Paul Feig should really take a leaf from their book on how to do an all-female comedic cast, by having a script that is actually incredibly funny, with excellent comedic actresses. Somebody recently told me that it was a chick flick and it didn't even cross my mind, because of how good it was in general.

Heard the same, one of the lads went to see it with his gf and he said it was tge funniest movie he has seen in a long time

TerrorFirmer

I don't think it's fair to label Bad Moms as a 'chick flick'. There are certain genres associated with the term and while I'm not in any way shape or form agreeing with such labels, they do exist but simply having an all-female cast in no way makes the term applicable to Bad Moms.

Anyway, as for Ghostbusters, terrible, terrible film - not because of the female cast or because of any loyalty I have to the franchise (don't think I've even ever seen Ghostbusters 2) - it's just simply not a good film.

I enjoyed the first 30 minutes or so, but then it just descends into a cringe fest with cheesy dialogue, effects, action scenes and characters. Chris Hemsworth's character - what were they thinking? I also very much disliked Kate McKinnon's character, I felt it just didn't work at all and grated on me every time she was on screen.

It's a shame as I love Melissa McCarthy and Kirsten Wiig and the opening 30 minutes were pretty okay but just....no. A total waste of time. I wanted to like it because as well as the above, I generally love Paul Feig's work. They just messed this one up very badly.

I turned it off after 70 minutes (about 20 of those spent just trying to persevere) which is incredibly rare for me.

It also incenses me to see just how heavy handily the 'sexism' card was played, even against genuine, well constructed critique of the movie. Overall, a bad movie and really just not worth your time in my opinion.

constitutionus

Deleted User wrote: »

I went to see Bad Moms recently and thoroughly enjoyed it. I bring it up here, because Paul Feig should really take a leaf from their book on how to do an all-female comedic cast, by having a script that is actually incredibly funny, with excellent comedic actresses. Somebody recently told me that it was a chick flick and it didn't even cross my mind, because of how good it was in general.

the reason i put off seeing it for so long was the "chick flick" rep it got.

which BTW im using not to reference a women lead cast films, but films that attack men.

the flicks are an expensive enough endeavor as it is without being called a bollocks for 2hrs.

BAD MOMS is most definetly NOT in that category. its a class well acted , scripted , and perfectly timed film. well worth a look.

S.M.B.

Continuing the off topic chat but I don't think I've ever heard the term Chick Flick being used to classify a genre of movies that attacks men.

kunst nugget

S.M.B. wrote: »

Continuing the off topic chat but I don't think I've ever heard the term Chick Flick being used to classify a genre of movies that attacks men.

Aye. Found that a tad confusing as well. Usually they hate the one guy then fall in love with hated guy before a misunderstanding makes them hate the guy again before he makes a very public declaration of love at a Tupperware party or some such. It's usually not a sustained 2 hour attack on men in general. Although that probably would be more fun than enduring most chick flicks.

pixelburp

I suspect that in a year's time, if certain folks have enough self-deprecation / awareness, there'll be a lot of embarrassed faces about the kind of fracas this film caused. From both sides of the fence I might add, though I would contend that those who were seething with righteous nerd anger should probably show more contrition.

Honestly, divorced of the baffling controversy Just-Another-Reboot 2016 managed to create, the actual film was a total mess to me: intermittently funny in places for definite, but that was despite some decisions - not because of them. When the cast seemed to be indulging in more off-the-cuff, improvisational moments or passing remarks, Ghostbusters 2016 was genuinely hilarious; but it frequently screwed the pooch, bookending those moments with really stupid humour that didn't even make sense as farce. Basically, anything involving Kevin really. While little remarks about taking the lens from his glasses cos they kept getting dirty were great, the doubling down on his idiocy when he covered his eyes because of a loud noise was just ... well, bizarre more than funny. It had to be one of the weirdest incidents of intentional non-humour I've witnessed in a professionally made production. To paraphrase Tropic Thunder here, you don't go full R*tard.

And then there was Kate McKinnon, who I suspect received a completely different script to everyone else, but nobody had the heart to tell her otherwise. Her performance wasn't anywhere near the orbit of anyone elses, ramping up the eccentric Mad Scientist tropes to 11 and taking the scenery with her. Again, she had the momentary funny line but mostly just ... got in the way really. Attention seeking madness for the sake of it but not even remotely endearing to make me put up with her cartoonish nonsense.

Of course naturally the climax involved a bit glowing shaft of light into the sky; I'm pretty sure that's contractually agreed with the CGI artists Union in Hollywood these days. Is that a spoiler? Honestly I don't care because at this stage anyone who has seen more than 2 blockbusters in the past 5 years should be aware of how films like this will end.

So, yeah, thus ended the great Culture War of 2016: was it the watershed liberation of women in pop culture? Not exactly, though the all-female cast was a genuinely refreshing change from the mail order cast-list you get most of the time in Hollywood. More of that please, if I'm honest. Was Ghostbusters the dreaded emasculation of poor, defenceless men or desecration of a once masculine (fictional) job? Nope.

It was Just Another Reboot in the end; who'd have thought? I bet those behind others such as the Total Recall reboot wished they had half the publicity Ghostbusters got.

py2006

So I finally got around to watching it. I didn't get to see it in cinema (I guess if I wanted to I would have). I was excited about seeing it (when initially announced) as I wanted to bring my dad to see it as she brought me as a child.

The opening couple mins was OK but when the characters met up after about 10 mins in the dialogue was absolutely atrocious. It was like a couple of teens talking nonsense. There is no substance to the characters and the acting is appalling. Aside from may be Wiig who could possibly sit better with a better supporting cast and a FAR FAR FAR better script.

The cameos were embarrassing, especially Murrays. That was just an insult. Whats with the logo being animated like a cartoon?? Slimer and his girlfriend driving ecto 1??

I was initially sort of looking forward to it yesterday as it had a kind of "its not as bad as expected" response from cinema goers. Christ it was awful in every regard. It had NONE of the whit, charm, eeriness of the original. I wasn't expecting much but I was VERY dissapointed.

pinksoir

I watched it recently too and would agree with what's been said in the last few posts. It started off alright and then just turned into a total mess and gave me restless arse syndrome. I couldn't wait for it to be over. I like the actors involved and, contrary to many here, I quite enjoy McCarthy's schtick in general. And while I'm a fan of the original I don't hold it up as some holy grail of blockbuster film making. Given who was involved, this could have been a good, fun film, but at t'end 'a day it was just very badly put together.

I'm genuinely surprised at some of the regulars here who rate it. It really feels like an attempt to counterweight the negative reaction. I would have thought it pretty uncontroversial to say that this film is, at best, a mediocre offering. I think it's rated at about 5.1 on imdb which is a fairly accurate reflection.

Ben Gadot

I only recently watched it myself and the only thing I can say is that I'm not sure I saw point of making the film.

I liked the performances of the actors and I also liked Feig's previous work, but it didn't amount to much in the end because the story was so poor it shocked me. I thought this film was going to surprise people, because flipping the gender made me think they had a quality script and story.

Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. It just seemed pointless to me.

Tony EH

The point was to generate a franchise for money purposes. Sony are desperate to have a franchise of their own. The fucked up 'Spiderman', don't have 'Star Wars', won't get 'Indiana Jones' and are grasping at anything that might turn into a long running blockbuster series.

They chanced their arm on 'Ghostbusters' to see if they could milk that, but spectacularly fucked that up as well, thank god, it has to be said, because it was a wretched attempt, made for the wrong reasons, with a piss poor gimmick and handed to the wrong people.

Have to say that I am absolutely delighted that it bombed. The only issue is that we could have have two or three decent new films with the budget.

ps3lover

I remember when the Sony hacks came out, there was an Email about how they where angry that all their attempts to start a franchise keep bombing, the mentioned After Earth, Robocop and White House Down as examples. Unfortunately they keep making safe, generic reboots that end up annoying the fans. The two they got right, Goosebumps and The Equaliser both have sequels coming.
I don't know if they have learned their lesson about pissing off the fans though, their announcements on the I Know What You Did Last Summer remake has annoyed both fans of the book and movie.

johnny_ultimate

Wait wait wait... There are I Know What You Did Last Summer fans?

Liam McPoyle

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Wait wait wait... There are I Know What You Did Last Summer fans?

Sure that's a remake of Scream anyway.

Tony EH

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Wait wait wait... There are I Know What You Did Last Summer fans?

Well, there's fans of the new 'Ghostbusters', so anything's possible. :pac:

faceman

Finally watched this and a bit late to the party. I turned it off half way as it wasn't doing it for me. It felt like an extended SNL send up. The FX was awful too.

That being said I was pleasantly surprised at the performances. No issues there even with Mccarthy. I disliked Jones character immensely. Nothing to do with Jones, just the character itself, she did her best with the script she was given.

However with what I did endure it was McKinnon who shined. She was a joy.

But not enough to make me watch the rest of it. I just didn't care enough about the story.

maximoose

Mad that McKinnon is so polarizing.

Easily worst part of the movie for me.

Carlos Orange

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, there's fans of the new 'Ghostbusters', so anything's possible. :pac:

Are there? Fans , not people who support it.
I guess we will see when Sony try to reboot Ghostbusters again in 10 years time.

cowboyBuilder

I got round to seeing this pile of dung, pure man hating scutter ..

B.A._Baracus

Just watched it tonight with my friend and honestly.... I enjoyed it.
I do not get the hate for the movie. It's not the best movie you'll ever see but it's not the worst. It's not "1/10" as so many people say online.

Maybe I enjoyed it because time has past since it hit the cinema and all the negative reviews made my expectations really REALLY low. But it's alright. Sure some jokes fell flat but other jokes I laughed at.

I don't get the hate of the CGI and effects either. Thought they were top-notch. They are kept in line with the originals (colour scheme, style etc) Wanna see bad cgi? watch some science fiction straight to dvd b-movie. Now that's bad! :pac:

ps3lover

It's going to look pretty embarrassing for Sony when their most successful movies of the year are an R rated horror movie and an R rated raunchy comedy.

McLoughlin

ps3lover wrote: »

I remember when the Sony hacks came out, there was an Email about how they where angry that all their attempts to start a franchise keep bombing, the mentioned After Earth, Robocop and White House Down as examples. Unfortunately they keep making safe, generic reboots that end up annoying the fans. The two they got right, Goosebumps and The Equaliser both have sequels coming.
I don't know if they have learned their lesson about pissing off the fans though, their announcements on the I Know What You Did Last Summer remake has annoyed both fans of the book and movie.

I think Goosebumps was another one they wanted to turn into a Franchise and that film didn't do that well.

Smurfs is one they have but that isn't going to make Marvel Star War level money

Thelomen Toblackai

Got around to watching this today. Ignoring all else as a comedy it's bad. For the most part because the characters themselves were just bad. Particularly Kate McKinnons character which was just cringe inducingly bad trying to be funny by being wacky. Chris Hemsworth was embarrassing to watch too. The man has some comedic chops in other things he's done but the dumb hot guy was already a pretty lame character but they actually managed to make him so dumb it wasn't even funny, it was just stupid.

Overall I didn't find it funny in the least and given the story itself was also completely stupid I didn't really enjoy it on any level. The only thing that stops it being a complete train wreck is Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy. Not because they are amazing but because unlike the rest of it they were consistent and not complete ****e.

So for a standard comedy it's bad. For a reboot of a hugely popular movie it's shockingly bad.

Bebopclown

The big problem this movie had was studios and directors clearly trying to force an agenda rather than make a good movie. Just my opinion. Unfortunately too many white knights fell for it and joined in.

Carlos Orange

Bebopclown wrote: »

The big problem this movie had was studios and directors clearly trying to force an agenda rather than make a good movie.

It is interesting reading through some of the Sony leak info and wondering what might have been if they had ended up with Seth Rogen , Jay Roach , Aziz Ansari , Will Ferrell or Sacha Baron Cohen involved. Wonder if there is an interesting book out there on it.