Ghostbusters (2016)

[VCRTracking]

Quote

That being said I can't be the only one who finds the original movies mediocre either am I?

You lost me on that one. The sequel isn't great but I love the first movie.

Edited May 20, 2016 by VCRTracking

[Shannon L.]

Quote

That being said I can't be the only one who finds the original movies mediocre either am I?

I thought they were good for a few laughs, but I've been mystified at how loved the first one was.  My first thought was "really?".

[ihavenoidea]

Quote

I thought they were good for a few laughs, but I've been mystified at how loved the first one was.  My first thought was "really?".

I know!  It's not horrible, but I don't get the love.  It's not funny enough to be a good comedy and the story itself I just thought could have been better.  

This new one looks the same only with reversed sexes, the trailer is not as funny as you think it would be with the actresses that are in it.

[VCRTracking]

There is a difference. I think you shouldn't go into this movie thinking about the previous ones. That's a mistake. The previous ones at their best were Marx Brothers, Three Stooges, Looney Tunes, and Abbot and Costello rolled up into one for the modern era. It was something that was serendipitous  first time and they didn't succeed the second time.

You should go in this movie more thinking of it as a continuation of Paul Feig's previous movies with Melissa McCarthy: Bridesmaids, The Heat, and Spy. Those movies amidst all the insane and R rated humor were about female friendship(Bridesmaids), women conflicting with each other in the workplace(The Heat), and women proving they can succeed at a man's job(Spy). At the core of it all is the fear women have of being confrontational or aggressive because they want to be liked. From the trailers it seems this movie is about ALL of those things.

Edited May 20, 2016 by VCRTracking

[nobodyyoucare]

The feminist internet hated him for doing this and called him sexist for explaining his reasons why he doesn't want to see Female Ghostbusters.

[Morrigan2575]

6 hours ago, nobodyyoucare said:

The feminist internet hated him for doing this and called him sexist for explaining his reasons why he doesn't want to see Female Ghostbusters.

 I watched that whole video and he never mentioned not wanting to see "female Ghostbusters". In fact the only time he mentions female Ghostbusters is when he's talking about how people have taken to differentiating between the 2 movies by referring to the new on as "the female Ghostbusters".

His entire argument for why he's not going to see it is based on how the remake/reboot was done and how it (in his opinion) shits on the Original's legacy.  I actually agree with a lot of what he said and the comparisons he made to other reboots and what they did right (original cast, passing the torch, etc)

I also agree with his comments about the special effects, his comparisons to Scooby Doo and Haunted Mansion were quite apt 

All in all, I really liked this non review and agreed with several of his points.   Thanks for the link

Edited May 21, 2016 by Morrigan2575

[nobodyyoucare]

54 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

 I watched that whole video and he never mentioned not wanting to see "female Ghostbusters". In fact the only time he mentions female Ghostbusters is when he's talking about how people have taken to differentiating between the 2 movies by referring to the new on as "the female Ghostbusters".

His entire argument for why he's not going to see it is based on how the remake/reboot was done and how it (in his opinion) shits on the Original's legacy.  I actually agree with a lot of what he said and the comparisons he made to other reboots and what they did right (original cast, passing the torch, etc)

I also agree with his comments about the special effects, his comparisons to Scooby Doo and Haunted Mansion were quite apt 

All in all, I really liked this non review and agreed with several of his points.   Thanks for the link

Well the first sign for a lot of the people that think this reboot/remake was going to be shit was the all female cast and who was picked to be that cast. That threw up a lot of red flags which feminists who were supporting this movie said was misogny. Of course these feminists don't want to admit that the only reason they are supporting the movie is because that has a female cast and that male nerds were raising objections to how the movie seems to be not respecting the source material.

[Kromm]

4 hours ago, nobodyyoucare said:

Well the first sign for a lot of the people that think this reboot/remake was going to be shit was the all female cast and who was picked to be that cast. That threw up a lot of red flags which feminists who were supporting this movie said was misogny. Of course these feminists don't want to admit that the only reason they are supporting the movie is because that has a female cast and that male nerds were raising objections to how the movie seems to be not respecting the source material.

I don't think it was just feminists who were upset by the net reactions or who smelled a lot of misogyny on the wind.

The problem this has all created is that it's become a war, where I think people's backs are against the wall potentially defending to the hilt something that's likely to put them in a real bad position when it comes out. Do we know this for sure? Of course not. But it's kind of like how a lot of people pre-hated Batman v. Superman based on stuff they'd heard, the filmmakers' previous record with one of those characters, and a sense of the trailers that something smelled. And there was a kickback by another group of people who defended it. Then BvS came out and many of the most ardent defenders still insisted it was a good film (or hedging that it's "not so bad"), because they didn't dare reverse themselves totally. In this case, while Paul Feig's got more good than bad in his record, there were already people saying the script for this sucked, and neither trailer has really given any indication of any real reason to see this vs. just going back and rewatching the original. And if in the end, that's how the actual film is, the fact that so many trolls were genuinely misogynistic in HOW they expressed their displeasure is just going to harden people's positions. 

Feig himself has come out saying that he thinks for some reason his movies just wind up looking bad in trailers. Seriously, that's what he recently said. He alluded to the movie Spy, which he himself seems to believe had a misleading trailer than made it seem to suck more than the movie itself. 

Edited May 21, 2016 by Kromm

[Sweet Tee]

I can agree with him, actually.  I thought the trailer for Spy sucked. But I ended up really enjoying the movie.  I'm not saying that means this will be a good movie.  But I'm not writing it off until I see it.

[DrSpaceman73]

I honestly don't remember much about the original movie.  It's been 30+ years since I saw it.  

 

However the trailer for the new movie did not impress me much that I feel I have to see it.  If it was not a remake and nothing was known about the movie other than what I saw in the trailer, I'd be skipping it at the theater.  

[Kromm]

30 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

I honestly don't remember much about the original movie.  It's been 30+ years since I saw it.  

Its a good movie, and worth a rewatch.

[Zuleikha]

Well the first sign for a lot of the people that think this reboot/remake was going to be shit was the all female cast and who was picked to be that cast.

Why? The cast consists of contemporary comedians with successful, respected careers.

[Kromm]

On 5/21/2016 at 11:40 AM, nobodyyoucare said:

Well the first sign for a lot of the people that think this reboot/remake was going to be shit was the all female cast and who was picked to be that cast.

 

33 minutes ago, Zuleikha said:

Why? The cast consists of contemporary comedians with successful, respected careers.

I think it's tough to typify the reactions as any one thing, because so many different ones were going on at the same time.

First, there was a genuinely misogynistic group of geekholes, who whined away their manpain at one of their toys being messed at with girlies with cooties. They were annoying, but the primary problem is that their position was so transparently sexist/misogynistic that it got picked up on, with tweets and youtube videos and blogs repeated and cited ad infinitum, making it seem like there were 100 times the number of them than there really was.

Secondly, there was a second group, hopefully a larger one, who also didn't like their toys being messed with, but who I genuinely think didn't think it was girls ruining it as much as they'd whine about ANY remake without the original continuity. And they may even be correct, albeit still annoying. I mean I hate reboots for the most part too. For me though the shit in this seems to be that they mostly seem to be telling the same story, but as a reboot, with swapped in elements. For me, if you reboot, then you totally reboot. Use a few key elements as tributes, but don't just update the same story. Heck, here's controversy--I wouldn't have set it in New York at all. Frankly ideally I would have kept the old continuity, but insisted the old guys were all gone and someone else had to take over. Or just use the unlikeliest one, say,.. Ernie Hudson... as a bridge. But whether they did that continuation approach, or did an actual reboot, either way I'd have taken it out of New York. Know where I'd go?  New Orleans. Perfect city for a Ghostbusters.  

But getting back to the people who just didn't like their toys messed with in a more generic less female hating way. I sympathize, even if I'm not 100% there with them.

The third group/reaction was people who genuinely saw the cheesy shit in that trailer--the cartoony effects, the rancid jokes, etc. and perhaps with some sense of being tired of reboots (but less actual protectiveness of the original) genuinely thought it looked like shit.  That's mostly me, albeit perhaps with a tiny bit of protectiveness of the original, just because I think the WAY they extended it was lame.

As for the cast? Even if they've been in some successful movies, perhaps it was a mistake to think of Melissa McCarthy as some magic movie opener. I'm sorry to her fans, but I don't think she's quite got that position based on her newly canceled sitcom, "Spy" and being part of the ensemble of people who pop up in Feig and Apatow films. And maybe that another problem--just acting like you could cast and shoot a comedy action movie with the people who brought you "Bridesmaids". Yes, I know "Spy" already covered that change somewhat, since it was also a comedy action movie, but Spy wasn't really THAT successful commercially. 

I can't say that any specific other current film comediennes would have been a sure thing with this particular premise/approach, but I can think of a few I might have at least tried. Rebel Wilson, maybe (okay, again that's going back to Bridesmaids, nevertheless I would have liked her in this). Maybe Anna Faris. And instead of directly aping the original and having the ONLY person of color be the non-scientist they bring in, maybe Mindy Kaling. Sure, two of those women have TV shows to work around... but so did Melissa McCarthy when they filmed this movie. 

Argh. I admit I can't build too strong a case for other actresses, mainly because I think until you open up the premise a bit more by not aping the original so much, you're restricted in making a good case on anyone. I mean even though they're naming them differently, you can see that we're supposed to be correlating the current cast with the old one.

[Princess Sparkle]

12 hours ago, Kromm said:

 

As for the cast? Even if they've been in some successful movies, perhaps it was a mistake to think of Melissa McCarthy as some magic movie opener. I'm sorry to her fans, but I don't think she's quite got that position based on her newly canceled sitcom, "Spy" and being part of the ensemble of people who pop up in Feig and Apatow films. And maybe that another problem--just acting like you could cast and shoot a comedy action movie with the people who brought you "Bridesmaids". Yes, I know "Spy" already covered that change somewhat, since it was also a comedy action movie, but Spy wasn't really THAT successful commercially. 

I can't say that any specific other current film comediennes would have been a sure thing with this particular premise/approach, but I can think of a few I might have at least tried. Rebel Wilson, maybe (okay, again that's going back to Bridesmaids, nevertheless I would have liked her in this). Maybe Anna Faris. And instead of directly aping the original and having the ONLY person of color be the non-scientist they bring in, maybe Mindy Kaling. Sure, two of those women have TV shows to work around... but so did Melissa McCarthy when they filmed this movie. 

Argh. I admit I can't build too strong a case for other actresses, mainly because I think until you open up the premise a bit more by not aping the original so much, you're restricted in making a good case on anyone. I mean even though they're naming them differently, you can see that we're supposed to be correlating the current cast with the old one.

I've got to say, I disagree with this premise - Melissa McCarthy is actually one of the most bankable and profitable recent comedy stars in the business, and more so than Rebel Wilson or Anna Farris.  Her movies have grossed over a billion dollars, and all of her starring vehicles have been profitable.  Hell, even "The Boss" which had shaky reviews opened at #1, and dethroned Batman vs Superman.  There aren't that many people in Hollywood right now that can guarantee a good opening based on name alone, but right now Melissa McCarthy is one of them.  

Edited May 23, 2016 by Princess Sparkle

[Zuleikha]

Yeah, what Princess Sparkle said. Melissa McCarthy actually has been a magic movie opener, and that's with movies that critics generally don't like. 

Kristin Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones all also have great reputations. People seem to have no problems with them as comedians when talking about their work on Saturday Night Live (and Leslie Jones had to overcome an initial disastrous debut). That's why I question the premise that the casting could reasonably have been taking as the first sign that the reboot/remake would be bad. Melissa McCarthy, Kristin Wiig, KateMcKinnon, Leslie Jones, and Chris Hemsworth is not a cast that should make people feel a pit of dread in their stomachs. 

[Bruinsfan]

5 hours ago, Princess Sparkle said:

Hell, even "The Boss" which had shaky reviews opened at #1, and dethroned Batman vs Superman.

To be fair, with the drop-off B v. S experienced once word of mouth started spreading, a Pauly Shore comedy could have dethroned it. I do think McCarthy is basically as close to a box office sure thing as you can get these days if you can't afford Jennifer Lawrence or Samuel L. Jackson, though.

2 hours ago, Zuleikha said:

Kristin Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones all also have great reputations. People seem to have no problems with them as comedians when talking about their work on Saturday Night Live (and Leslie Jones had to overcome an initial disastrous debut). That's why I question the premise that the casting could reasonably have been taking as the first sign that the reboot/remake would be bad. Melissa McCarthy, Kristin Wiig, KateMcKinnon, Leslie Jones, and Chris Hemsworth is not a cast that should make people feel a pit of dread in their stomachs. 

I have plenty of problems with Wiig as a comedian, and based on reactions I've seen among other SNL watchers I'm far from alone. However, she can work in the right project, and her costars in this are extremely unlikely to be pushed aside so she can hog the limelight—if anything her character appears to be the least attention-seeking, most normal one from the trailers.

[nobodyyoucare]

The issue with this cast from their name being announced you could stereotype their role in the movie and upon seeing the trailer be 100% correct.

 

Basically they just had a crappy Kevin Fiege script with Melissa McCarthy in it and rather then do something original decided to put the Ghostbusters license on it.

Also for those not understanding the appeal of the two Ghostbusters movies a lot of the humour was adult. Not slapstick for kids so a lot of the people that didn't find ghostbusters funny didn't get all the adult jokes. Here is one of them.

Peter Venkman: Hi, Egon. How's school? I bet those science chicks really dig that large cranium of yours, huh?
Egon: I think they're more interested in my epididymis.

[Kromm]

38 minutes ago, nobodyyoucare said:

The issue with this cast from their name being announced you could stereotype their role in the movie and upon seeing the trailer be 100% correct.

 

Basically they just had a crappy Kevin Fiege script with Melissa McCarthy in it and rather then do something original decided to put the Ghostbusters license on it.

Also for those not understanding the appeal of the two Ghostbusters movies a lot of the humour was adult. Not slapstick for kids so a lot of the people that didn't find ghostbusters funny didn't get all the adult jokes. Here is one of them.

Peter Venkman: Hi, Egon. How's school? I bet those science chicks really dig that large cranium of yours, huh?
Egon: I think they're more interested in my epididymis.

Well, that's definitely a Harold Ramis written joke (vs. a Dan Ackyroyd written one). When your record is Animal House, Meatballs, Caddyshack, Stripes, Ghostbusters, Back to School, Groundhog Day, Analyze This, and maybe 4 or 5 lesser films (mostly sequels)... well, that's a heck of a turnout.

Ramis understood the trick of hiding clever jokes inside very broad comedy.  All of those movies had clever little bits squirreled away in what on the surface just seemed to be crowdpleasers. It would be wrong of course to act like there wasn't a lot of lowbrow humor in them too, but there's a good reason that's just a list of legendary movies... Ramis knew there had to be a thread of substance behind the slapstick.

Oddly enough, Ramis indirectly connects to Paul Feig via Judd Apatow. Apparently Ramis wrote and directed (and did an acting cameo in) some Apatow produced film a few years before he died called Year One, and I have to admit I've never seen it (Jack Black and Michael Cera are cavemen). The little I recall of it (commercials and reviews) made it seem awful. Apatow, of course, became Feig's partner in crime shortly after this. 

Edited May 23, 2016 by Kromm

[Princess Sparkle]

Quote

Oddly enough, Ramis indirectly connects to Paul Feig via Judd Apatow. Apparently Ramis wrote and directed (and did an acting cameo in) some Apatow produced film a few years before he died called Year One, and I have to admit I've never seen it (Jack Black and Michael Cera are cavemen). The little I recall of it (commercials and reviews) made it seem awful. Apatow, of course, became Feig's partner in crime shortly after this. 

Harold Ramis actually had quite a few cameos in Judd Apatow films; he was in Knocked Up and Walk Hard as well.  However, Apatow and Feig were partners on Freaks and Geeks long before they were making movies together.

Quote

 

Also for those not understanding the appeal of the two Ghostbusters movies a lot of the humour was adult. Not slapstick for kids so a lot of the people that didn't find ghostbusters funny didn't get all the adult jokes. Here is one of them.

Peter Venkman: Hi, Egon. How's school? I bet those science chicks really dig that large cranium of yours, huh?
Egon: I think they're more interested in my epididymis.

 

I find the insinuation that if you don't like Ghostbusters, it's because you weren't smart enough to get the humor, mildly insulting.  I like Ghostbusters, but it's not even in my top 5 Harold Ramis movies, and it's definitely not something that I find so sacred that a reboot of it is sacrilegious.  

[millennium]

On 5/22/2016 at 11:03 PM, Kromm said:

Its a good movie, and worth a rewatch.

I saw it when it came out -- several times.   I proudly wore a Ghostbusters t-shirt that summer.   We all laughed at the stupid Ray Parker Jr. video for the "Who You Gonna Call?" song (where else you gonna find a video featuring a cameo by Melissa Gilbert?).   It was a funny movie, but it was also perfect for the times.   You had to be there to get the full effect.

I mean, never before in a live action movie had America seen something so outrageously ridiculous as the giant Sta-Puft Marshmallow man lumbering down the streets of a major city causing mayhem and destruction.   For me, that put Ghostbusters over the top and cinched its place in the history of comedy films.

But another important element you'd be missing if you watched for the first time today is that in the 1980s America was still in love with the original Saturday Night Live cast, especially Bill Murray.  

On top of that, the movie was written by Harold Ramis, the genius (and I say this with deep respect) who wrote Animal House, National Lampoon Vacation, Stripes, Groundhog Day, etc.   He knew comedy like few others of  our generation.

GHOSTBUSTERS was a confluence of serious comic talent and a wonderful time in America when the economy was growing, jobs were plentiful, and war and terrorism weren't on anybody's mind.    For one fleeting instant, everything was looking up,  which meant you could take a breather and just have fun.   ( Oh, and movies didn't cost almost $20 for a ticket.) 

I would never waste my time on the new Ghostbusters.   I see the reboot as yet another confirmation that originality, innovation and talent no longer have a place in American culture.

Another reason is that I despise Kristen Wiig.   Can't look at her without thinking of that asshole Gilly sketch she did on SNL for years on end.   To me, she's one of these actresses that corporate Hollywood keeps thrusting in our faces until we finally drink the Kool Aid and start laughing at her lame shit in spite of ourselves (Jack Black would be a male equivalent).   Ditto for Melissa McCarthy.   Maybe some of the hate this movie gets has nothing to do with women in general, but instead the particular women starring in the film.

Edited May 23, 2016 by millennium

[Zuleikha]

Ditto for Melissa McCarthy.   Maybe some of the hate this movie gets has nothing to do with women in general, but instead the particular women starring in the film.

Melissa McCarthy gets thrust in your face because her movies make bank, so clearly many people find her funny. I mean, I despised  Adam Sandler's comedies even when he was actually a respected comedian, but I got that he was able to keep making them because a lot of other people thought they were funny.

Also, there is ample evidence in the comments on the YouTube trailer or many articles about the movie that demonstrate that yes, for many people, the hate is about women in general and not the particular women. Of course this does not extend to literally every single person. But I think it extends to a lot more people than are willing to admit it.

The issue with this cast from their name being announced you could stereotype their role in the movie and upon seeing the trailer be 100% correct.

So what? I don't think of the original Ghostbusters comedians as exactly playing against their standard type either. Most comedians don't. 

[millennium]

14 minutes ago, Zuleikha said:

Also, there is ample evidence in the comments on the YouTube trailer or many articles about the movie that demonstrate that yes, for many people, the hate is about women in general and not the particular women.

Can you please direct me to some of these articles stating that the movie sucks because women suck?

Edited May 23, 2016 by millennium

[Kromm]

12 minutes ago, millennium said:

Can you please direct me to some of these articles stating that the movie sucks because women suck?

I think the claim being made here isn't that the poster, or even the article writers, think women suck, but that parts of the general public think so and the articles are reporting on that. It was confusing, and badly stated, because the poster talked about that in the same sentence as YouTube video comments, where clearly that's the actual public showing their ugly side in person. 

[Shannon L.]

Quote

I mean, never before in a live action movie had America seen something so outrageously ridiculous as the giant Sta-Puft Marshmallow man lumbering down the streets of a major city causing mayhem and destruction.   For me, that put Ghostbusters over the top and cinched its place in the history of comedy films.

For me it was the Sta-Puff Marshmallow man that made me throw my hands up and say "Ok, it was funny, but now it's become downright stupid".  I haven't decided if I want to see this movie yet.  I like Melissa McCarthy in some movies, but not in others, and I don't know anything about the other comediennes except for the occasional clip that pops up on FB, so the only thing that will make me decide is the reviews (including word of mouth).

[Kromm]

52 minutes ago, millennium said:

Maybe some of the hate this movie gets has nothing to do with women in general, but instead the particular women starring in the film.

The key word is "some".  

I hate this whole situation, because it's another of these idiotic modern debates where people act like total assholes because they feel they have to take extreme positions. So apparently nobody can hate what they've seen or learned of the movie outside of misogyny on one hand, but on the other side, the awful petty nerdpain, sometimes (but not always) of the most sexist/misogynistic variety has to be denied to counter that.

To me the misogyny wasn't the bad reactions to the trailer, it was the overreactions. And apparently people have lost the ability (or maybe just the will) to tell the difference between the two. The overreactions were the ridiculous "ruin my childhood" rants. The reactions were the more reasonable "why do a reboot unless you really need to, and by the way, what I just saw really seems rancid" reactions. Although even the "ruin my childhood" reactions had divisions between the people who clearly fingered the "why use a bunch of chicks" as a reason, a second group who you could kind of tell meant that but didn't have the guts to say it, and a third group who probably didn't care about who redid it... just that they have no perspective over how little control we have over the movie studios endlessly recycling stuff.

To me, there's no chance, absolutely zero, this is going to be even a patch on the ass of Harold Ramis' version. And I'll whine about reboot-itus too, and hating it. But no, it's not going to ruin my childhood. Someone could make unnecessary remakes of E.T., The Goonies, and Ferris Bueller's Day Off and it wouldn't ruin my childhood. It might take Raiders of the Lost Ark maybe... (even then I'm mostly kidding). 

[millennium]

6 minutes ago, Kromm said:

I think the claim being made here isn't that the poster, or even the article writers, think women suck, but that parts of the general public think so and the articles are reporting on that. It was confusing, and badly stated, because the poster talked about that in the same sentence as YouTube video comments, where clearly that's the actual public showing their ugly side in person. 

Hmm.   Personally, I don't think misogyny is so rampant that it accounts for even a portion of the disdain and apprehension accompanying this film.   To me, it seems more likely it's on account of yet another reboot of a cherished film for reasons that have nothing to do with art or creativity.   The perception of stunt casting.   Dislike of some of the actresses associated with it.   And backlash to the advance hype -- including two painfully unfunny trailers. 

[nobodyyoucare]

Quote

I mean, I despised  Adam Sandler's comedies even when he was actually a respected comedian, but I got that he was able to keep making them because a lot of other people thought they were funny.

Many of those got tired of Sandler and his friends making movies because Sandler became unfunny because he saw no reason to actually work. Now its backfiring on him. Also a good amount is just trainwreck watching that should have been done when the film went to dvd or cable. His last series of movies wer

flops. Only reason they got made was he was a very rich producer and employed his friends.

 

Adam Carolla explains this as  Adam Sandler making horrible "Mexican food" movies.

 

Edited May 24, 2016 by nobodyyoucare

[Sweet Tee]

I like Ghostbusters.  But, I agree with those here who don't think it is THE masterpiece comedy of the all time.  It's fine.  The characters are by and large entertaining.  The story is cute.  But, there really aren't that many laugh out loud moments.  Most of the laughs are chuckles, not big belly laughs.  I have nothing but respect for Harold Ramis.  And I love Dan Aykroyd.  They made a great movie.  But, yeah, I'll go ahead and say that it's just a tad overrated.  It wouldn't rank in my top 20 comedies.  I'd rather watch Stripes.

[Kromm]

An interesting reaction (to the original trailer--she also did one for the second trailer I haven't watched yet):

 

She is saying a lot of what I said myself--that the biggest problem is how repetitive/recyclish it all seems of the original. Rather than taking ANY actual chances.

[Kromm]

Okay, this is funny...

 

[Bruinsfan]

Ghostbusters is probably the movie I've rewatched most in my life, and one of my favorite comedies. But I don't hold it up as a sacred cow that can brook no imitation. I'm fine with the studio doing a remake, with gender-swapping the roles, and in fact with 3/4 of the lead casting on this particular production. I've been lukewarm about a lot of the comedy I've seen in the trailers though, and really put off by the lousy Mr. Boogedy-esque ghost effects. I hope it's good, I'm just getting less and less of a sense that it will be as the release date nears.

[Kromm]

2 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

Ghostbusters is probably the movie I've rewatched most in my life, and one of my favorite comedies. But I don't hold it up as a sacred cow that can brook no imitation. I'm fine with the studio doing a remake, with gender-swapping the roles, and in fact with 3/4 of the lead casting on this particular production. I've been lukewarm about a lot of the comedy I've seen in the trailers though, and really put off by the lousy Mr. Boogedy-esque ghost effects. I hope it's good, I'm just getting less and less of a sense that it will be as the release date nears.

Lets remove what you might tolerate and just talk about what might have made the most sense. Was the idea of a continuation, a reboot of the premise legitimately in the same continuity but 30 years later really so bad an idea vs. a remake?  It bugs me that they don't seem to have seriously considered doing that. It could have been written with anywhere from zero of the original stars up to all of them (sans Ramis), in anything from cameos to co-starring roles. 

Think of it. Lets say... 30 years have passed. The supernatural crises passed long ago, the Ghostbusters eventually packed up shop and nobody's heard from them in decades. But supernatural incidents have restarted and a new scientist, who's been fascinated with their work, decides to buy the old firehouse and start her own version of the team to attend to the new incidents. Then you could play a lot of possible angles, including perhaps the old team (or a remnant) having been captured by some alternate supernatural dimension years ago, and it was up to Annie Potts' character to close down the practice (she returns mid-movie telling this story to the new Ghostbusters, who decide they have to launch a rescue mission). Bingo. A continuation. 

Or something like that. I mean rather than simply doing what seems like it's going to be a lame reenactment of the original concept, but with a lot less wit.

Or if they did remake it from scratch, again, I'd have started from a totally different position and moved it out of New York. Had a completely different genesis for the team and some wildly different design elements and had just one or two nods to the original (I suppose you can't get around the logo, to go with the name, and maybe some kind of hearse is inevitable). Eschew the "three white scientists, one sassy black non-scientist and an assistant" formula. Don't have a key scene, seen right in the trailer, in a library. Make a different ghost than Slimer to intro your viewers to ghosts. You know.... stuff like that. Take a damn chance on doing it differently if you really insist on redoing it from scratch in the first place. 

Really the female cast is the least part of the problem with this.

Heh. "Mr. Boogedy-esque ghost effects". I like that phrase.  The effects?  Not so much. With practical effects back then they seemingly did this ten times better than what I think I saw in that damn pair of trailers. 

[Zuleikha]

 It was confusing, and badly stated, because the poster talked about that in the same sentence as YouTube video comments, where clearly that's the actual public showing their ugly side in person.

I'm not sure what was so confusing about the phrase "in the comments on the YouTube trailer or many articles about the movie" but since it was apparently unclear, yes, I meant the "or" to link the noun phrases "YouTube trailer" and "many articles about the movie" and for both to be the prepositional object of the phrase "in the comments on." People comment on both YouTube trailers and articles. In both forms of comments, people made many statements about how they hated the movie because it has an all-female cast. And yet, for some reason, we're all apparently supposed to pretend that the negativity about the movie would be exactly the same if the four Ghostbusters were contemporary male comedians of equivalent stature to the female comedians. 

Personally, I'm going to wait until the actual movie comes out to decide whether it was poorly done or not. Feige has a good track record. The stars have a good track record. I don't think the initial trailer looked amazing, but I don't think it looked horrible either. I think the international trailer looked a lot better and more original. 

[slf]

On 5/23/2016 at 6:49 PM, millennium said:

Can you please direct me to some of these articles stating that the movie sucks because women suck?

I haven't read any articles on this movie so far but go read the comments section for the trailer on YouTube. Currently this is the most downvoted movie trailer on YT. The most downvoted. More downvoted than any Adam Sandler movie, more downvoted than that one human centipede movie, or that godawful Haneke film. And the comments are pretty messed up.

Frankly, given all the male hysteria surrounding Mad Max: Fury Road, which played out almost exactly the same way, I'm inclined to believe that misogyny is playing a huge role. Crap movies get made all the time; crap adaptations, crap reboots, crap sequels- it's entirely possible to badmouth them without gendered insults, etc., which is what I'm seeing on YT and Twitter and hearing in person. Adam Sandler movies are the bottom of the barrel and he doesn't see this kind of trash talking. The SW prequels looked like crap from the jump but fanboys pretty much refused to admit that until the movies came out. (And there are many who still refuse to admit it, though thankfully they're a minority.)

@Morrigan2575 Didn't many of the original cast sign up for cameos, though?

This doesn't look great to me. I don't care for Feig and while I've liked the cast in other roles, they're hit or miss for me. I'll probably see it though just because if this movie does badly it'll be used as an excuse not to greenlight other comedies starring women.

Edited May 25, 2016 by slf

[millennium]

14 minutes ago, slf said:

I haven't read any articles on this movie so far but go read the comments section for the trailer on YouTube. Currently this is the most downvoted movie trailer on YT. The most downvoted. More downvoted than any Adam Sandler movie, more downvoted than that one human centipede movie, or that godawful Haneke film. And the comments are pretty messed up.

Frankly, given all the male hysteria surrounding Mad Max: Fury Road, which played out almost exactly the same way, I'm inclined to believe that misogyny is playing a huge role. Crap movies get made all the time; crap adaptations, crap reboots, crap sequels- it's entirely possible to badmouth them without gendered insults, etc., which is what I'm seeing on YT and Twitter and hearing in person. Adam Sandler movies are the bottom of the barrel and he doesn't see this kind of trash talking. The SW prequels looked like crap from the jump but fanboys pretty much refused to admit that until the movies came out. (And there are many who still refuse to admit it, though thankfully they're a minority.)

This doesn't look great to me. I don't care for Feig and while I've liked the cast in other roles, they're hit or miss for me. I'll probably see it though just because if this movie does badly it'll be used as an excuse not to greenlight other comedies starring women.

 

Do you think the reaction would be less hostile if the cast consisted of younger, more attractive women?   

Edited May 25, 2016 by millennium

[slf]

Just now, millennium said:

 

Do you think the reaction would be less hostile if the cast consisted of younger, more attractive women?   

Um, no. I think if they'd cast younger, more attractive women it'd be even worse.

[millennium]

Really?   I don't know.   I read comments about Suicide Squad, for example, and all anyone seems to care about is how hot Harley Quinn is, and how she's the reason they want to see the movie, etc.   Whether it's a good story or not seems of secondary concern. 

Lookism is a huge problem in our culture.    I'm still thinking maybe it's not the fact that it's women, but it's these particular women.

Edited May 25, 2016 by millennium

[slf]

I've seen just as many instances of people complaining that a young and inexperienced actress was only cast in a prestige project because she's hot. Ghostbusters is seen by guys as a 'guy movie'. Casting young, bouncy, pretty 20somethings would not have helped.

I just checked the movie's IMDB page and it says that Emma Stone turned down a role in the movie despite liking the script. That's too bad; I liked her and enjoyed her impression of Pott's character in Zombieland.

[millennium]

On 5/24/2016 at 2:52 AM, Kromm said:

Or if they did remake it from scratch, again, I'd have started from a totally different position and moved it out of New York. Had a completely different genesis for the team and some wildly different design elements and had just one or two nods to the original (I suppose you can't get around the logo, to go with the name, and maybe some kind of hearse is inevitable). Eschew the "three white scientists, one sassy black non-scientist and an assistant" formula. Don't have a key scene, seen right in the trailer, in a library. Make a different ghost than Slimer to intro your viewers to ghosts. You know.... stuff like that. Take a damn chance on doing it differently if you really insist on redoing it from scratch in the first place. 

Really the female cast is the least part of the problem with this.

 

When Ghostbusters first came out, there were no "paranormal investigation" shows on TV.   It was still a quirky, closeted pseudo-science that only poked its head out in movies like Poltergeist.

Today, you can't run the spectrum of channels on your cable box without finding at least one "ghost hunting" show playing.   The king of them all is that damned SyFy show "Ghost Hunters."

Supernatural did a nice job of spoofing the phenomenon with a couple episodes they did featuring "the Ghost-Facers."   Why didn't the new Ghostbusters try something like that?

The field is so rife with cliches and cliched personality types that I would think making a fresh, funny movie about ghost-busting would be a piece of cake. 

[Kromm]

34 minutes ago, slf said:

@KROMM Didn't many of the original cast sign up for cameos, though?

They ALL did, other than the one who isn't alive anymore.

It's a waste of them, because they're going to be tucked away in dumb cameos, a whole string of them, that make part of the audience pandering/appeal of this movie akin to playing "Where's Waldo" looking for them. 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Kromm

[slf]

Yeah, actually, I meant to direct that response to another poster, sorry. I only caught that a few minutes ago and updated my post. I had just read one of your posts right after and got you confused with someone else.

And yeah, maybe it'll be a waste. Don't know yet. I'd like to think the original cast has enough fondness for the franchise that they wouldn't sign up if it wasn't worthwhile. 

Edited May 25, 2016 by slf

[Kromm]

2 minutes ago, slf said:

Yeah, actually, I meant to direct that response to another poster, sorry. I only caught that a few minutes ago and updated my post. I had just read one of your posts right after and got you confused with someone else.

And yeah, maybe it'll be a waste. Don't know yet. I'd like to think the original cast has enough fondness for the franchise that they wouldn't sign up if it wasn't worthwhile. 

I think they're doing it based on optimism/confidence in Feig's reputation rather than specific knowledge of this script. I'm guessing we're going to get more than our share of idiotic winks at the camera/4th wall breaking with the setup for their characters too.

And if we're being honest, it's not like Dan Ackyroyd, for one example, is that much of stalwart. He's done lots of dumb shit in his career. But he also likely has part of the back-end on the whole franchise and is probably making money off this new movie.

[millennium]

If there's something weird, and it don't look good ...

[slf]

2 minutes ago, Kromm said:

I think they're doing it based on optimism/confidence in Feig's reputation rather than specific knowledge of this script. I'm guessing we're going to get more than our share of idiotic winks at the camera/4th wall breaking with the setup for their characters too.

And if we're being honest, it's not like Dan Ackyroyd, for one example, is that much of stalwart. He's done lots of dumb shit in his career. But he also likely has part of the back-end on the whole franchise and is probably making money off this new movie.

I doubt it's the first suggestion, since Moranis refused to do a cameo because he didn't like what the role was, which is described in the few articles about his refusal that I read. But the second suggestion, sure. They could just want the paycheck and don't care about quality.

[nobodyyoucare]

Quote

Frankly, given all the male hysteria surrounding Mad Max: Fury Road

The pretty much nonexistent hysteria made up by the mass media.  It was a damn blog post on one website that the media blew out of proportion. http://www.cracked.com/article_21722_5-kinds-pop-culture-news-stories-that-are-always-bs_p2.html

Cameos of the original characters or just the actors/actresses? It has not been specified but likely just the actors/actresses.

Dan Akroyd was so optimistic about a Ghostbusters 3 he would star in a shitty remake rather then let the dream die.

He will probably drink a lot of vodka from crystal skulls after this movie premiers to drown out the screams of rage people will hurl at him for appearing in it.

Edited May 25, 2016 by nobodyyoucare
clarification

[slf]

Just now, nobodyyoucare said:

The pretty much nonexistent hysteria made up by the mass media.  It was a damn blog post on one website that the media blew out of proportion. http://www.cracked.com/article_21722_5-kinds-pop-culture-news-stories-that-are-always-bs_p2.html

Well, no it wasn't. It was a lot of posts on Tumblr, Reddit, 4Chan, and Facebook (which is why I had to block one douchebag cousin). It was pissbaby tweeting and comments on YouTube. 

[Kromm]

Are we seriously comparing the negative reactions to Ghostbusters 2016 to Mad Max: Fury Road?  The scale of any upset seems totally different. 

[nobodyyoucare]

Bill Murray hates the idea of working on ghostbusters so for him to appear means he is taking a big dump on the franchise.

Rick Moranis turned it down because he said the script made no sense to him.

All I Know is the porn parody looks it honors the franchise more then this reboot does. Better looking special effects in the porn parody too.

[slf]

Okay.

On 3/26/2016 at 6:23 AM, Serena said:

Yet people don't act half as infuriated when movies add unnecessary shots of actresses in their underwear to "pander" to male viewers. And when 99% of the movies Hollywood produces are all-male casts with token sexy chick, that's never pandering to men, it's just the way things are.

Doing movies where women can see themselves in the heroes is the only form of "pandering" that elicits outrage.

And "otherwise women wouldn't go" (yes they would, women always go see male-centric blockbuster, aka all blockbusters) is a reason NOT to make a movie? Even if it were true, "Hey, women like seeing women in films, and they're half the world population. Think there's a possibility making a movie they would like could be a good idea?!" Is really a cause for outrage? Like, that tells me so many things.

Thank you, @Serena, because this post pretty much nails it. "But but! They just made this movie for women! And women are only going to see it because it has women in it!" First, if they made this for women then it's about damn time. And secondly, yes, many women are going to go see this because it is Ghostbusters with women. Representation matters, which many men (specifically white men) can't relate to because they are the majority of roles (speaking or non, major or minor). (Which, of course, isn't an accident.) And none of this invalidates the movie.

Edited May 26, 2016 by slf

[Kromm]

5 minutes ago, slf said:

Okay.

Thank you, @Serena, because this post pretty much nails it. "But but! They just made this movie for women! And women are only going to see it because it has women in it!" First, if they made this for women then it's about damn time. And secondly, yes, many women are going to go see this because it is Ghostbusters with women. Representation matters, which many men (specifically white men) can't relate to because they are the majority of roles (speaking or non, major or minor). (Which, of course, isn't an accident.) And none of this invalidates the movie.

And none of it invalidates all of the criticism either.

Is it really so bad to suggest, for example, that a Ghostbusters film with a female cast could be a much better film if it was a semi-original premise rather than what appears to literally be a recreation of the original? That's at least some of the spitballing here--that it's no honor or celebration of women to make their role in the Ghostbusters legacy literally a remake of how the guys version did it.

Again, it's mostly spitballing based on what we've seen, but as long as people address it in those terms--that we're upset IF that's true--it doesn't seem to be the same as the horrible ick, women! reactions we've also seen from some of the bigger net trolls/idiots out there. 

Either a true continuation of the original, with a handoff to a female team, OR a new version built from the ground up with a female cast, but a new setting/premise/comedy beats could have worked. The perceived mess, the fear, is that this rehash that's seemingly so like the original, but NOT it, is the worst of all possible alternatives.