Ghostbusters (2016)

Why bother with any other forum?
Forum rules
We once roamed the vast forums of Corona Coming Attractions. Some of us had been around from The Before Times, in the Days of Excelsior, while others of us had only recently begun our trek. When our home became filled with much evil, including the villainous Cannot-Post-in-This-Browser and the dreaded Cannot-Log-In, we flounced away most huffily to this new home away from home. We follow the flag of Jubboiter and talk about movies, life, the universe, and everything, often in a most vulgar fashion. All are welcome here, so long as they do not take offense to our particular idiom.
Post Reply
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

I figured I'd go ahead and create a thread, since it will soon be here.
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Dalty »

You have watched / will watch it?
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

I want to watch it. I've always liked Ghostbusters as an IP.

I saw that Drew McWeeny liked it. So far, critical response has been more or less positive. It currently has an average rating of 6.6/10 and a Tomatometer sitting at 78%. General consensus seems to be that it's a fun and funny ride and that, despite this, it's not going to dethrone the original as the best Ghostbusters movie ever made. Granted, critics and the public often disagree. We'll just have to wait and see if they're on the same page with this one.

I've been chatting with Ulic about the ongoing negative knee-jerk reaction on-line. What follows is a modified and expanded version of that:

I feel like the trailer response is clear evidence of the misogyny that still exists in the US, and watching people try to justify it by pointing at how terrible they believe the trailers are feels similar, to me, to some strains of Catholic apologism.

The trailers aren't necessarily great, but they're not a travesty. The humor, for me at least, is at least a step above the humor to be found in Adam Sandler trailers. Some claim it is at exactly the same level. I don't buy it. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and say it may genuinely be on that level to them. I watch the 2016 Ghostbusters trailer and I follow it up with generic Happy Madison trailers, and the Happy Madison trailers still stand out as being far worse to me.

I will say that I felt the first trailer was the worst of the bunch. I didn't find it Happy Madison bad, but it didn't really make me want to jump out of my seat, run to the theater, and camp out for tickets. Subsequent trailers have been more appealing.

Taste is something difficult to account for, of course, so I maybe I should concede that a person could find the humor in the 2016 Ghostbusters trailers to be Happy Madison-level bad. I see more common comedic threads with some combo of Will Ferrell and Paul Feig productions--with maybe a touch of Rogen and Apatow, both of whom have Ferrell and Feig connections--than I do with Happy Madison productions, to be honest. Does it come off like the best of Ferrell or Feig? Yes and no. Some of the jokes I've seen work for me, and some don't.

I know there are people out there who find Happy Madison movies funnier than any combo of Ferrell, Feig, Rogen, and Apatow. I don't see many of these people who clearly find Happy Madison movies funny getting behind the 2016 Ghostbusters. Should they? I can't say. Many claim to have problems with what they claim is Happy Madison-level humor. I'll get into some of the problems they claim to have below. Whatever the case, it's rare you see the kind of violent and hateful reaction to Adam Sandler trailers that were there to be seen in the YouTube comments for the 2016 Ghostbusters trailer.

When it comes to Adam Sandler/Happy Madison trailers, you mostly see people whining about how the trailers are shitty and how they can't believe people are still giving Adam Sandler money. They say, essentially, that Sandler's trailers are lowest common denominator trailers and that it's a shame. You see a lot less venom, and you see a lot fewer dislikes. It should also be noted that, in the case of the Happy Madison movies, people have a back catalog of Happy Madison features to inform their assumptions about any new Happy Madison production. You don't see frothing at the mouth and people trying to organize boycotts. They don't band together to give the trailer the most thumbs down of any trailer in YouTube's history.

I'm sure efforts to boycott Happy Madison movies still goes on, but these efforts don't become major news stories. Here, I suppose the conspiracy theorist and/or right wing extremist might say that the liberal-controlled media and war on culture are the reason that anti-2016 Ghostbusters stories became stories in the first place. Are they right about this? I can't say, really. I can say that I don't believe the media is controlled by liberals. If it is, then it's not as powerful a tool as people have claimed it to be, since there seems to be about a 50/50 split among people in the US on the majority of major political issues. Also, Fox News and other strongly conservative outlets have way too strong a presence for the claim that the media is controlled by liberals to be feasible. Is a big chunk of the media controlled by liberals? Sure. Maybe. Major media is corporate, so I'm not sure how liberal the liberal media actually is. Maybe it's more accurate to say that a big chunk of the media is controlled by a corporate segment that identifies with the political (US version of the) left. Is that chunk bigger than the big chunk of media controlled by a corporate segment that identifies with the political (US version of the) right? That's a pretty tough call. I wouldn't be surprised if it were pretty close to 50/50, itself.

Some say that the supposed lower-common-denominator comedy isn't the issue. They say that it has more to do with devaluing the Ghostbusters IP with inferior product. I don't buy that either. I've seen Ghostbusters II. It's not great. It's also not terrible. What it is, though, is a big step down from Ghostbusters. So the IP has already been devalued, and by the original creative team, at that. It also has a mediocre cartoon under its belt.

People also say it has to do with laziness and the conscious shit-stirring of the gender swap. To that I say, "Let's actually wait, see the movie, and see just how lazy and shit-stirring it is." We saw that same sort of reasoning both before and after the release of The Force Awakens. I, personally, didn't think there was any laziness involved, conceptually, with The Force Awakens. I think they put a shit-ton of work in it. Did it crib elements from the OT? Absolutely, but it's clear to me that a lot of thought went into it. If anything, a little too much thought went into it. They worked so hard to strike a balance between old and new that the meticulousness of their approach made things a little too crafted-feeling on occasion. This doesn't mean that I didn't still enjoy it. I did. I enjoyed the hell out of it. I feel the intention with their approach was to show they understood both what made Star Wars worked and what people wanted to see from a Star Wars picture, and I felt there was an unspoken promise with the hiring of Rian Johnson to take the narrative in fresh and unexpected directions beyond The Force Awakens.

If the 2016 Ghostbusters engages in a bunch of smug, empty-headed, in-your-face, ra-ra-girl-power, Anything-boys-can-do-girls-can-do-better! posturing, and if the focus ends up being primarily on subverting the original, that's one thing. I highly doubt it will be that with the talent involved, but I haven't seen the movie. It could end up being plain sucky. I'll have to wait as long as most of the rest of us to find out. If it ends up being what I hope it is and is just a Ghostbusters movie with Ghostbusters who happen to be women, it has the potential to be pretty great.

It's weird to me how Ghostbusters has come to be celebrated as a man's movie for manly men. Did these people even watch the original movie? Isn't a big part of the point that these are schlubby everymen who just happen to be ahead of the curve thanks to a mix of scientific know-how and an against-the-science-grain belief in the supernatural? It came out in the era of muscly, Slynold Stallonegger action domination, but it certainly wasn't of-a-piece with these things. (Neither was Die Hard, really. I'm still a little taken aback by the slow superheroing of John McClane. If Shyamalan's Unbreakable is an examination of that, well, damn. He's a cleverer guy than I give him credit for being.) It came closer to being an antidote to them, even though it wasn't exactly that, either.

Is there anything about the job description that requires the Ghostbusters to be men? I mean, if this new movie's proxy Gozer rips the Ghostbusters' clothes off, sees vaginas, and says something like, "I'm not prepared for this! I don't know how to fight this!" and then diminishes and goes into the west, I'd be understanding of some of the outcry. I'd also be understanding of some of the outcry if the trailers had presented the women as perfect/unflawed, but it's already clear from the trailers this is not the case. (I think I've already talked about Max Landis and his notion that Rey is perfect/a Mary Sue. I think he's off. If I didn't say any of that here, I can always go figure out where I said it and bring it here. If anybody wants to read it. I'm sure it's a TL;DR affair. You know. For a change.)

Some people focus on how, if they'd wanted to make some kind of point about this being an all-female genre team, they should created something entirely original and left the Ghostbusters IP alone. I guess they could have done this, but I reject this as a specific reason for any kind of outrage. People expand on IPs all the time, and this kind of outrage tends not to result from it. And you can't really bring the "authenticity" angle of it into the argument, since much of the original creative team is in some way involved.

The new Evil Dead has some creative involvement from the original team. It could even be said to have something of a gender swap. Same goes with Miller's Fury Road. Some minor outcry, but not much. The new Tron had almost no creative input from the original team (though it did have some of the original stars involved), and there was very little outcry. The majority of moviegoers just sort of shrugged their shoulders at it.

It almost seems like some feel it's only OK to revisit an IP as long as you keep the gender roles place/as is. Keep it the same, or, by gum, do something entirely original. That's an either/or way of thinking that I just don't find healthy. I also don't find the Angry Video Game Nerd's/James Rolfe's I'm-just-going-to-throw-up-my-blinders approach to be healthy. If he genuinely had no interest in it, it would be one thing. We outgrow stuff. Clearly, though, the Ghostbusters IP still means a ton to him, and his response to it seems--despite his efforts at equanimity--to be pouty. He's proceeding from the assumption that it will be terrible and refusing to give it a shot. I like Rolfe, but he comes off a bit like a toddler refusing even to try his beets--especially since he's promoted himself for so long as a genre fan and critic.

Some say the outcry has to do with just how big Ghostbusters was as a cultural phenomenon and just how dear so many men hold it to their hearts. Now we're getting somewhere.

The closest thing resembling the Ghostbusters outcry has been the TFA and Rogue One response. Star Wars is about as big as you can get with a cultural phenomenon. It's bigger by far than Ghostbusters. Even here, though, the outcry was nowhere near as violent or widespread--probably because Rey was a single female co-lead among men. (Does it say something about the US's predominantly patriarchal society that we're more willing to accept a black guy as a co-lead in an ensemble pic than it is to accept four female co-leads? Maybe. It may be something worth exploring, and it may even be something worth exploring within the context of the US presidency--though I don't think the situations are entirely analogous. I think there are problems with Clinton's candidacy beyond her gender, even if I also believe it's true that she's endured tons of blatant and flagrant sexism. I also believe she's done some shady shit within the realms of both business and politics. [I say this at the risk of seeming to contradict a lot of what I've said {or implied, if I haven't said it directly} about people trying to take other tacks to justify an opinion potentially steeped in sexism.])

I feel that some of the people involved in the outcry want to describe this as some sort of straw that broke the camel's back. This strikes me as a They-took-our-jobs!/Give-'em-an-inch-and-they'll-take-a-mile! argument. They seem to see the existence of this as an indication that every Man's Man property around is about to be sullied by a gender swap. That's dumb and a little sick--especially since a lot of people seem way more preoccupied and angry with gender swaps and race swaps than they have been with other things. Most people only seem passively annoyed when they see a reboot or something else they feel to be derivative or creatively bankrupt. Gender swaps and race swaps (I guess it's a good thing that this movie didn't try to go with three black female Ghostbusters and one white female Ghostbuster) appear to make people way, way more prickly than other things do. This holds true even when it looks like creators have just done it for the sake of doing it.

I can understand some of the outcry if there's a political and/or cultural agenda behind a gender or race swap, even if I don't agree with it. I know how some middle class white guys get when they have empowered minorities and empowered women rubbed in their faces. It feels unnatural to these people because it has been made to feel unnatural. They'd rather just keep things as is, because having things as is has worked out all right for them. I can also guess at how some minorities and women might feel when it empowerment feels like it has been "granted" to them. I imagine it can feel pretty patronizing. Has this happened with the 2016 Ghostbusters? Again, I can't say. Maybe I'll be in a place to say in a few days.

I really just don't see the Ghostbusters IP as sacrosanct. I love the original Ghostbusters, but it's still just a movie to me. It's weathered a mediocre sequel and a mediocre cartoon already. I don't think one must absolutely make a modern masterpiece to justify making a new Ghostbusters movie. The first one, it should be mentioned, also came out in a different cinematic climate. The market is damned near choked with adventure comedy genre tentpoles these days. Any new Ghostbusters movie is going to have to work a lot harder to distinguish itself from the pack than the original did. This would have been true even with an all-male cast.

"Why make a new one at all, then?" someone might ask. I don't know. Why revisit any IP at all? Why make any new movies? How fucking original does every new movie have to be for us to condescend to give it a shot?

I think the Ghostbusters IP, on the whole, is a strong enough concept to make an all-female team work just as well for it as an all-male team. I think the people involved with the 2016 Ghostbusters have made some pretty decent stuff. I look forward to seeing what they've come up with.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

In short, a lot of people got really, really, bizarrely upset that this movie was even made, and they tried to assure those who thought they were going overboard that they were getting really, really bizarrely upset not because they were sexists, but because the property was important to them, they thought the trailers looked awful, they've had it up to here with remakes, and/or they were insulted by what they saw as the pushing of a political agenda. Was it just the unique combination of these things? I'm not sure. Maybe, though one might say this unique combination was already evident with The Force Awakens. The big difference, as far as I can tell, is that the 2016 Ghostbusters puts four women at the fore instead of one. This may not be everybody's problem with the movie, but it's sure as hell a problem for some people, and a lot of them have been pretty vocal about it.

Some might say that the big difference is the difference in the level of quality between the two products. It's hard to get behind this argument, since they were saying this months before anyone had seen the 2016 Ghostbusters.

Some of the ones who insist that it's not about sexism get pretty defensive about it. I don't want to take the extra step and say that their defensiveness betrays an underlying sexism. They may genuinely feel that the problems they have with it have nothing to do with the gender swap, and it may go beyond feeling and genuinely be the case that they have no problem with the gender swap. I can't read their minds and say I know how they feel. I can only take their words for it or try to look beyond their words. Both approaches can be problematic.

Whatever the case, a lot of people got really, really bizarrely upset about the existence of this movie. Something had to set them off, right? And it had to be something big for the reaction to be that violent.

Is what set them off the idea that this movie had a political agenda driving it? I'm sure that fed into it. It did seem to me that the majority of the negativity I saw was coming from people who identify with the US idea of the right and the majority of the support for it I saw was coming from people who identify with the US idea of the left. Despite this, I did see a bit of negativity coming from a number of men who identify with the US idea of the left. I saw one or two negative comments coming from women who identify with the US idea of the left, but I really didn't see that much. Then again, I didn't scour the web for specific takes from males and females who subscribe to specific political ideologies. When it comes down to any specific group's majority take on it, all I can provide anyone with is anecdotal evidence. Still, considering the sharp left/right split in the US, I can see how some basic idea that this movie leans one way might cause some to lockstep their way to the anti-2016 Ghostbusters side and some to lockstep their way to the pro-2016 Ghostbusters side.

Kudos to all the people out there who were just passively interested or disinterested. Kudos, also, to those who decided to take the let's-wait-and-see approach.
User avatar
Space Tycoon
ü83r l33t - 1338 Posts
ü83r l33t - 1338 Posts
Posts: 2429
Joined: January 13th, 2014, 12:16 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Space Tycoon »

Blonde one seems cute.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

The Swollen Goiter of God wrote:It's weird to me how Ghostbusters has come to be celebrated as a man's movie for manly men. Did these people even watch the original movie? Isn't a big part of the point that these are schlubby everymen who just happen to be ahead of the curve thanks to a mix of scientific know-how and an against-the-science-grain belief in the supernatural? It came out in the era of muscly, Slynold Stallonegger action domination, but it certainly wasn't of-a-piece with these things. (Neither was Die Hard, really. I'm still a little taken aback by the slow superheroing of John McClane. If Shyamalan's Unbreakable is an examination of that, well, damn. He's a cleverer guy than I give him credit for being.) It came closer to being an antidote to them, even though it wasn't exactly that, either.
Seriously, though. Ghostbusters seemed to me as a kid to be something with fairly universal appeal. Like Star Wars. This idea of it as a bro movie embraced by bro culture-embracing bros is weird to me.

I just keep coming back to Star Wars, for some reason.
User avatar
Mango
Washer of the Tights - 250 Posts
Washer of the Tights - 250 Posts
Posts: 302
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:05 pm

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Mango »

I agree that the blonde one looks cute. She seemed to have the best moments in the initial trailers.

Personally I'm kind of excited to see this movie. I've always been behind the idea of the Ghostbusters as a franchise. I think this may be where some of the disconnect comes into play, at least among the people who are vehemently against the movie for 'quality' reasons instead of bigotry. To some people the original film is defined as a comedy in which there are ghosts (akin to Abbott and Costello movies, they are comedies, but one is about ghosts, one is about the army, etc.) but I have viewed it more as a horrific ghost story (the actual plot is that an ancient demon is rising, to use a creature from our darkest imagination to devour us all, and while this is happening a ton of horrible spooks are roaming the city) in which four schlubs inject comedy. Dramatic situation, comedic foils.
In short, it is a comedy, but I find the actual concept of the ghosts and the busting to be of equal merit.

Initially my sole problem with the movie was its status as a reboot. I much prefer the idea of "30 years later a new team...needs to pay the rent".
As trailers have released it seems like the film is being done as a flat comedy: funny situation, funny people. I don't think that really works as well, comedy needs to bounce off something, either a funny setting or funny heroes. I could be wrong in thinking this, I have not yet seen the film.
Also, I do not like the abrasive 'sassy black lady' vibe given off. Perhaps it is balanced in the film by the others, but on trailers alone it feels like too much. But hey, at least she seems to be prominent and equal, unlike poor Winstone Zedimore.

Also, the ghosts look awesome. I watched a thing where they talked about using practical effects and then going over them in CGI to make them grounded and ethereal at the same time. Cool with me.

But yeah, more Ghostbusters is good. I love the idea of franchises. I'm excited to see an exploration of the world. Hell, that's the route the RPG took back in the day. Unfortunately, it still has that reboot tag draped around its neck.
User avatar
Jubbers
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 777
Joined: November 19th, 2012, 5:54 pm

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Jubbers »

When I initially showed Ghostbusters (original) to my youngest brother, he was terrified. I thought he would find it funny, but he was genuinely scared.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

I saw it for the first time when I was five and was hooked for life. I wasn't scared by it, but part of that may have been that I was given a Ghostbusters-specific "making of" book for my birthday before I ever saw the movie.

Ghostbusters came out roughly half a year later in Germany than it did in the US. Friends and family living in the US would send us stuff they assumed was already part of our cultural dialog. Sometimes we were behind the curve. The "making of" book was a good example of this. I already knew the story and how the effects were done before I ever saw the movie.
User avatar
Mango
Washer of the Tights - 250 Posts
Washer of the Tights - 250 Posts
Posts: 302
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:05 pm

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Mango »

The novelization really brings the horror to the forefront. Not so much by trying, but by lacking the comedic timing of the crew. You get emphasis on how hard the team is working and just how to the limit they are pushed. They are the only group in their field, and it's a field that is growing by leaps and bounds.
It was a good read.

I really wish I had my proton pack finished in time for the movie, but it's really hot in my garage and I'm very lazy.
User avatar
Mango
Washer of the Tights - 250 Posts
Washer of the Tights - 250 Posts
Posts: 302
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:05 pm

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Mango »

And a review!

The Good
[*]An original plot! I was fairly certain, given the previews, that this was going to be a retread of the first movie, but there is a unique plot here. Some of the broad strokes are very similar, but no Gozer. I'm very happy with this.
[*]The acting was a lot of fun. The four ladies worked well as a team, and Thor turned in a really funny performance. A bit too stupid or my tastes, but I laughed. Also very happy that Leslie Jones' character was integrated pretty early and proactively.
[*]Everything looked good. Personally I like the ghosts in this, so I count them as a plus. Also...
[*]Kate McKinnon. Just, so good. Like a little mad scientist who inhabits her own little world.
[*]I also loved the evolution of the tech, how they mess with the equipment to use proton energy in other ways.

The Bad
[*]The primary antagonist is kind of lame, but not in a fun way. He eventually gets a few good bits, but it doesn't work for reasons that would be spoilers.
[*]The humor/dialogue is pretty subpar. People make references, humorous references. If me and my friends got together, became ghostbusters, and made Oprah quotes it would be amusing, to us. But in a reboot of Ghostbusters (AKA the quote maker) it's almost sacrilegious to have no quotable lines. And much of the humor is based more in idiocy and crassness. Perhaps this is more a thing of personal taste, but I'm calling it bad.

The Fiddly
[*]The cameos. They really took me out of the film. Now I liked a couple, honestly mostly the two for the characters that don't require actors. Aykroyd's is funny, but feels more like "Coming to America"s bit with Randolph and Mortimer.
[*]Bill Murray did display more life and energy here than in most of his recent projects however.
[*]This one is the big one, I would have included it in the 'Bad' but I'm not sure if others will care. While I enjoyed how most of the equipment looked, I disliked the ghost trap. This is only important to say because it features in two scenes only. The actual capturing of a ghost is talked about, but by the end of the film they seem to just use brute force, enhanced by proton effects, to beat up ghosts. It's a fun sequence, but for me it really grates against the core concept of busting ghosts. Now there is mention of catching ghosts as a mission statement, so I imagine this may be resolved but here and now it just really broke the rules for the established world.
[*]And just to beat a dead thing, having seen what they have done...it would have worked better as a continuation. While I really liked seeing the added concepts of ghost equipment it did seem a bit forced to just keep tossing in new equipment. If they had already had the old stuff and done upgrades and improvements I think it would have paced better.

Overall
This was a fun movie. Though the bad may not look like it, I do have a lot of personal problems with the movie. And honestly as a comedy it didn't work as well for me. But it had fun characters and it was enjoyable to watch. I'll buy it when it comes out.
3/5
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Dalty »

Only 3 out of 5? THREE???

You woman hating mysoginist! Paul Fiege has been informed and he is en route to your house to punch you right in your man-parts!
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Dalty »

;)
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

You make light, but some of the attacks on the women have been pretty fucking vile. Some of the stuff tweeted at Leslie Jones, in particular, has been awful:

http://fusion.net/story/327103/leslie-j ... er-racism/
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Dalty »

Yup, unforgivable stuff on every level. It's just a damn movie!! However mocking is called for in many and all directions.
User avatar
Mango
Washer of the Tights - 250 Posts
Washer of the Tights - 250 Posts
Posts: 302
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:05 pm

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Mango »

Dalty wrote:Only 3 out of 5? THREE???

You woman hating mysoginist! Paul Fiege has been informed and he is en route to your house to punch you right in your man-parts!
The joke will be on him; I am not at home, but my grandmother is and she is dressed in my cloths.
Now who is the woman hater Paul last-name-I-can't-pronounce!
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Dalty »

He will know the shame of punching your cross-dressing grandmother!
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

Your post assumes that Mango's wardrobe isn't made up of the sorts of clothes grandmothers wear.
User avatar
Mango
Washer of the Tights - 250 Posts
Washer of the Tights - 250 Posts
Posts: 302
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 10:05 pm

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Mango »

I like sun hats.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

And he cannot lie!
User avatar
Dalty
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Vegeta-ble Slicer - 9001 Posts
Posts: 9564
Joined: January 11th, 2014, 5:28 am

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Dalty »

Fiege next, a remake/reverse of "White Chicks", could be controversial.
User avatar
Mal Shot First
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Wall of Text Climber - 2500 Posts
Posts: 2731
Joined: January 10th, 2014, 5:05 pm

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Mal Shot First »

Dalty wrote:
Dalty wrote:New Ghostbusters. Let's see what all the fuss was about.
That was weak, overlong, slightly incoherent and nowhere near funny enough.
Just saw this on Saturday, and I kind of agree with Dalty, actually. Instead of incoherent, I'd probably call it disjointed. There was a plot, and it was understandable and not difficult to follow, but the whole thing felt like a bunch of separate set pieces pasted together to form a loosely connected whole.

My main criticism of the movie is that the plot just seemed secondary to the comedy. It was there because they couldn't have a movie without it, so they put some rudimentary premise together about some dude trying to bring about the apocalypse (the explanation of his motivation for doing this is sort of half-assed, too - basic emo misunderstood guy trying to show the world that he matters). So we're grinding from scene to scene, and with each one it seems like the point is to make some jokes rather than to tell a story. And if the comedy were actually funny, this approach might work, but it's all pretty lame, to be honest, with the exception of a few decent bits here and there. It's sad that Melissa McCarthy and that character she always plays is getting overused now, the same way that Will Ferrell and the character he always plays has become overused.

A lot of the exposition could have been cut waaay down to make for a 90- or 100-minute movie. Do we need an explanation for every single element of Ghostbusters lore? (Oh, that's where the logo came from! Ah, that's why they needed to come up with a way to trap ghosts!) The cameos of the original cast were cute, but they also felt tacked on and didn't contribute much to the movie. The Bill Murray character was sort of a dead end, given that he could have played a similar role to that of Walter Peck from the original. A bit of a wasted opportunity there.

I don't know. I don't hate the movie, but I also don't think it's any good.
User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

Whatever the case, I'm glad this exists:

User avatar
The Swollen Goiter of God
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Postapocalypse Survivor - 7510 Posts
Posts: 8905
Joined: January 9th, 2014, 8:46 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by The Swollen Goiter of God »

Post Reply