Ghostbusters (2016)

[slf]

Okay, here's the thing. That post of mine was referring to a very specific argument, one that both the person I was responding to and I both talked about. The argument that the movie is just pandering to women and so it's crap and that women will only go see it because it has women in it and so it is crap. I did not mention other arguments or claim that those arguments were invalid.

Edited May 26, 2016 by slf

[GaT]

3 hours ago, millennium said:

 

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

Younger, more attractive women wouldn't be the entire cast of a straight comedy, only older, less attractive women can be funny /s>

[Ubiquitous]

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 6:42 PM, millennium said:

 

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

How about funny women?

[nobodyyoucare]

For the last time a female team isn't the problem. Its the director, the script, the tone of the film, the tone of the special effects, this particular cast chosen by the director, the mere fact its a remake etc are the problems. Saying its a female cast is a way to deflect blame from the studio and feminists are so dire to have a female cast they will champion a bad effort rather then distance themselves from it.

 

[Kromm]

9 minutes ago, nobodyyoucare said:

For the last time a female team isn't the problem. Its the director, the script, the tone of the film, the tone of the special effects, this particular cast chosen by the director, the mere fact its a remake etc are the problems. Saying its a female cast is a way to deflect blame from the studio and feminists are so dire to have a female cast they will champion a bad effort rather then distance themselves from it.

 

 

You had a decent argument going until you pulled the "feminists are" card. In that moment, your credibility shattered into a thousand pieces.

Are there a group of people, many likely feminists, who are kicking back against the criticism of the film in a knee jerk manner?  Sure. But the moment the problem is phrased in terms that make it sound like a conspiracy, then you've lost.  It's political overcorrectness in action, coming from a million different directions and sources at once, not "feminism". It's people, confused as they often are, by a million different real offenses against women, and seeing more in action even in a lot of casual early comments about this film, and generalizing it as if ALL criticism of the film is coming from that place. It's laziness and even a bit of stupidity, but it's not malice or a plot. As if feminists are some solid block of people all with the same opinion?  Be real.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Kromm

[nobodyyoucare]

Certainly seems to be a united Feminist front on the net.

[Kromm]

2 minutes ago, nobodyyoucare said:

Certainly seems to be a united Feminist front on the net.

Even if that were true, that doesn't mean it's the only source of these assumptions and overly PC behavior. People have been trained by our society, unfortunately, to get offended really easily, and to jump to conclusions. As a culture we are lazy, and collectively (if not always individually) stupid. That's why we're becoming a society of extremists. The path of least resistance when people have honestly seen actual real sexist comments about the film is to shut down and stop listening when you hear any further criticism. To retreat into a militant defense of this thing, because your position has hardened. "Feminists" are hardly going to be the only people doing this. Critical but fair thinking is hard enough for most people. I'm not surprised so many assume this film is being dumped on unfairly. It's not, but when the first thing most people saw or heard about it, pre-trailer, was hateful, clearly sexist stuff, it's hard to move beyond that.

Lets use another example. Have you followed the recent Amber Heard/Johnny Depp story, where she's filed for divorce and claimed abuse?  Well we don't really need to dwell on the details other than the one bit that people who have publicly come out in support of Depp saying they believe it's totally against his nature to be a wife beater, have been screamed at and railed at on social media for saying so. I mean celebrities too, like the guy who plays Vision in the Avengers movies. Is that just "the feminists in action"? No. It's kind of a cousin of this same thing. It's not just feminists who want to jump to defense of women in such a pre-emptive way. We're a society of overreactors now. 

[BetterButter]

[VCRTracking]

Quote

For the last time a female team isn't the problem. Its the director, the script, the tone of the film, the tone of the special effects, this particular cast chosen by the director, the mere fact its a remake etc are the problems. Saying its a female cast is a way to deflect blame from the studio and feminists are so dire to have a female cast they will champion a bad effort rather then distance themselves from it.

So it's a director who's last three films were hits, a script not many people have read but a writer whose last movie was a hit, the tone of the film which is light(which offends people who think the tone of the original movie was The Exorcist), the tone of the special effects(the first film's big centerpiece was a giant walking marshmallow man), the cast which are filmed with comedians(two of whom are popular with movie audiences and two currently on TV), and is a remake, which in Hollywood history some remakes have bombed but some have been hits.

Edited May 30, 2016 by VCRTracking

[Sweet Tee]

The complaints about the effects are odd to me.  They're bright and cartoonish but it's Ghostbusters.  It's a comedy.  That fits the tone to me.  I don't watch Ghostbusters for realistic or scary looking ghosts.  I'll go to a horror film for that.  This is supposed to be goofy.  Why wouldn't the effects look goofy too?

[Kromm]

Take this with a big grain of salt (because not only is Akroyd's judgment not always good, but he also has a financial interest in this film succeeding):

O.G. Ghostbuster Dan Akroyd Saw New 'Ghostbusters,' Says It's Funnier Than the Originals

[DrSpaceman73]

Based on the previews, I have been left with 3 impressions :

 

1.  It doesn't seem clear if the movie is meant to be primarily a horror movie or primarily a comedy.  I base that not just on the preview but also on where the previews are being shown and other previews shown with it.  I saw the preview both at the Angry Birds movie, obviously meant for younger kids and a comedy, and at the new X Men movie, obviously meant for older kids/adults as well and not a comedy but a sci fi/drama.  The original I know was both, it mixed the scary parts and the comedy, but I think was more clearly previewed as a comedy at the time.  This movie based on the preview seems to emphasize more of the horror aspect than the comedy aspect

 

2.  The movie may be funny, but the preview is short on laughs.  Has nothing to do with male or female, just the fact that doesn't seem that funny in the previews  It may be a hilarious movie though and just one you have to see the whole thing to discover it

3.  I actually find the previews a bit racist.  The impression I get is they have three white women scientists and then one African American woman who seems like the stereotypical sassy sidekick.  Again, maybe the movie is different, but was the impression from the previews alone.  

[VCRTracking]

That's kind of Leslie Jones' persona, which I would describe as more "brash" than "sassy".  I've followed her twitter on Game of Thrones, and believe she's being herself. You could say Retta who played Donna on Parks and Rec is also "sassy" but she's actually more stylish. I also think even though she's not a scientist she's still an equal. 

[Kromm]

This starts off pretty bad, but by the end of it this guy gets on a roll... doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, I think. The over-reactions to Ghostbusters on all sides does lead to it being easy to mock...

[Margherita Erdman]

On May 25, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Kromm said:

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

Yes but the source of the fury (specifically targeted at the female cast in the first and at the Charlize Theron character being the perceived main character/the treatment of the sexual slavery storyline in the second) is the same.

[ribboninthesky1]

3.  I actually find the previews a bit racist.  The impression I get is they have three white women scientists and then one African American woman who seems like the stereotypical sassy sidekick.  Again, maybe the movie is different, but was the impression from the previews alone.  

I do find it interesting that the film is seemingly updated with the white women replacing the white men as scientists, yet decide not only to keep the black character a non-scientist, but to have the now black female character be a walking stereotype. I can appreciate Leslie Jones' having a long, obscure career in comedy before hitting it big with SNL, and I wish her the best. But I have no desire to see her in this film. Guess it's par for the course, though.

Edited May 31, 2016 by ribboninthesky1
Wonky quote attribution

[VCRTracking]

The role was originally written for Melissa McCarthy, in another of her typical brassy roles like BRIDESMAIDS and THE HEAT, but Paul Feig liked Leslie Jones and wanted to put her in the movie.

[Kromm]

It's funny, because I BOTH find what Jones is doing as stupidly stereotypical (and the writing behind it--coming from Feig's pen I guess--kind of racist), but... at the same time it's also the only actual funny stuff IN those trailers. I still think Jones is the MVP of that stuff, albeit because it's over the top broad stereotypical humor. But at least it's got some punch to it. The rest of what we see (admittedly so little of the movie, so who knows?) feels pretty dreary. Not smart enough to be intellectual comedy, but not active enough to be good slapstick.

We can only pray that once again, even with the second slightly better trailer, that it's STILL a bad representation of the whole movie. Which I'd bet any amount of money is STILL getting dubs, and edits, and maybe even a few sneaky reshoots, to try and punch it up.

[ribboninthesky1]

3 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

The role was originally written for Melissa McCarthy, in another of her typical brassy roles like BRIDESMAIDS and THE HEAT, but Paul Feig liked Leslie Jones and wanted to put her in the movie.

I don't believe that the only way to put Leslie in the film was to cast her in the "brassy" role.  That's a choice he made. Maybe the stereotype is (somewhat) subverted by her character also being a scientist, but the trailers so far don't bear that out (and if so, marketing is an issue of its own). I've seen three Feig movies, and what's presented in the trailers is pretty much what's in the film, so I'm not optimistic.     

[Kromm]

49 minutes ago, ribboninthesky1 said:

I don't believe that the only way to put Leslie in the film was to cast her in the "brassy" role.  That's a choice he made. Maybe the stereotype is (somewhat) subverted by her character also being a scientist, but the trailers so far don't bear that out (and if so, marketing is an issue of its own). I've seen three Feig movies, and what's presented in the trailers is pretty much what's in the film, so I'm not optimistic.     

She's not a scientist.  She's a transit worker.

[nobodyyoucare]

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 4:22 PM, VCRTracking said:

So it's a director who's last three films were hits, a script not many people have read but a writer whose last movie was a hit, the tone of the film which is light(which offends people who think the tone of the original movie was The Exorcist), the tone of the special effects(the first film's big centerpiece was a giant walking marshmallow man), the cast which are filmed with comedians(two of whom are popular with movie audiences and two currently on TV), and is a remake, which in Hollywood history some remakes have bombed but some have been hits.

A director who stated no one  their right mind would have him direct a James Bond or other serious franchise since the director makes parodies of things. In other words he admits he should never have been put in director ship. The script from all accounts and from the mere fact it is a remake shows laziness and godawfulness. The original had a scary tone. People did freak out when they saw those segments and people because it is a horror/comedy. Also the origal movie had a serious tone in how the supernatural stuff was discussed because Reitman/Akryod were deeply into paranormal things.

 

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 5:57 PM, Sweet Tee said:

The complaints about the effects are odd to me.  They're bright and cartoonish but it's Ghostbusters.  It's a comedy.  That fits the tone to me.  I don't watch Ghostbusters for realistic or scary looking ghosts.  I'll go to a horror film for that.  This is supposed to be goofy.  Why wouldn't the effects look goofy too?

They look terrible compared to the originals. Ghostbusters was a horror/comedy film. Now they have removed all the horror and made it puke neon.

Edited June 1, 2016 by nobodyyoucare

[Margherita Erdman]

17 minutes ago, nobodyyoucare said:

[snip] The original had a scary tone. People did freak out when they saw those segments and people because it is a horror/comedy. Also the origal movie had a serious tone in how the supernatural stuff was discussed...

Serious as a heart attack, sure. Real wrath of God like stuff even... Human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

Can I ask how old you are and/or if you saw the original when it first came out? Because I was 15, in no way a horror fan, and I laughed my ass off from start to finish (not to mention felt like I was getting away with something by understanding many naughty winking jokes, e.g., Bill Murray to the possessed Sigourney Weaver trying to seduce him: "No, I think you've got someone else inside you already" or something to that effect).

I mean, I was a girl terrified by Gremlins, and I considered Ghostbusters pure comedy.

[Sweet Tee]

3 hours ago, nobodyyoucare said:

A director who stated no one  their right mind would have him direct a James Bond or other serious franchise

This is a serious franchise?  Ghostbusters is nothing like James Bond.  It's pure comedy.  That's what Paul Feig does.  I don't think there's anything scary about the original, nor do I believe it was ever meant to be scary.  I saw it when I was six or seven and it never bothered me. And Slimer is neon too so I'm not sure what your point is there.

[slf]

Yeah, sorry, but the original Ghostbusters was a comedy (and a relatively family-friendly one at that). My grandmother let me watch it at her house when I was maybe six and I wasn't frightened at all. I liked the marshmallow man and the theme song. I just showed this movie to my nephews who are seven and three and they thought it was great (whereas just playing the trailer for Jurassic Park scared the pants off the three year old).

Ghostbusters is not a serious, scary movie franchise.

[VCRTracking]

The first scare in the movie is also a giant laugh. When Ray says "Get her!" and they attempt to charge at the librarian and she becomes a scary monster it cuts immediately to them running screaming outside of the library with the goofiest terrified faces(Aykroyd's is hysterical) and composer Elmer Bernstein has boogie woogie piano music playing on the soundtrack.

[Margherita Erdman]

Cats and dogs living together, people.

Cats. And. Dogs.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Margherita Erdman
Emphasis. Biblical proportions.

[Browncoat]

The trailer turns me off because of the vomit joke.  I'm not a fan of vomit jokes, and  I don't remember any of those in the original -- slime/mucous jokes, yes, but not vomit.

[VCRTracking]

There was a blowjob joke.

[nobodyyoucare]

SLimer is the only ghost they even get the look sort of right. Everything else looks ridonklous.

 

Quote

That's what Paul Feig does

Your not getting it. He admits they wouldn't let him direct Bond or any serious film franchise because he admits he will not respect the source material and instead parody it. In other words he is the wrong guy to do any franchise that is not a spoof of something.

Edited June 2, 2016 by nobodyyoucare

[Margherita Erdman]

13 hours ago, Browncoat said:

The trailer turns me off because of the vomit joke.  I'm not a fan of vomit jokes, and  I don't remember any of those in the original -- slime/mucous jokes, yes, but not vomit.

I don't know exactly how properly one should characterize all the propulsive viscous splattering in the original(s) and in the trailers for the new one — Slimer's mode of, well, sliming does seem to resemble projectile vomiting, and I thought (as noted in an earlier post) that there was a scene in the first trailer for the new movie that made Kristen Wiig look like the unwilling participant in a bukkake setup, so, pick your poison. Sticky phosphorescent green protoplasm being flung around from the various orifices of ghosts — subject to interpretation per one's age, film references, and personal sensibilities, I imagine. 

4 hours ago, nobodyyoucare said:

[snip] [Feig] admits they wouldn't let him direct Bond or any serious film franchise...he is the wrong guy to do any franchise that is not a spoof of something.

Back to the dead (hee!) seriousness of the Ghostbusters oeuvre, I see. It can be argued (easily and well) that the original Ghostbusters movies are brilliant spoofs of a range of genres from occult classics in the Argento vein ("Gatekeeper!" "Keymaster!" OMG Rick Moranis has never been more hilarious — in fact I don't think I ever found Moranis hilarious except here), to scary horror classics like vehicles for Bela Lugosi or Vincent Price, to sci fi complete with complex sounding nonsense (TOTAL PROTONIC REVERSAL! just for instance). Bergman this ain't. Not even Hitchcock, or Wes Craven, or the directors who do the horror porn stuff that you young'uns seem to enjoy nowadays.

However I've already made more of an argument than I even intended just because I've gotten a prickly feeling at the back of my neck that I've unwittingly been feeding a troll, and I'm going to stop.

[Browncoat]

I always considered the slime/mucous in the original to be like a snail's or a fish's slime -- it just sort of oozes out and coats the animal, and also gets transferred to whatever it touches.  Nothing projectile about it.  Unlike vomit.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Browncoat

[Ubiquitous]

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 7:37 PM, Kromm said:

Take this with a big grain of salt (because not only is Akroyd's judgment not always good, but he also has a financial interest in this film succeeding)

That was my initial reaction to Dan Aykroyd pimping the new movie. Wasn't he a former denouncer of it?

23 hours ago, Browncoat said:

The trailer turns me off because of the vomit joke.  I'm not a fan of vomit jokes, and  I don't remember any of those in the original -- slime/mucous jokes, yes, but not vomit.

 

22 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

There was a blowjob joke.

Hopefully, those are not the same joke!

[AstaCharles]

On 6/1/2016 at 2:47 AM, Margherita Erdman said:

 

I mean, I was a girl terrified by Gremlins, and I considered Ghostbusters pure comedy.

I think Ghostbusters  has "fun house scare" moments like the Librarian scene.  I remember as kid being kind of alarmed by the demonic hands bursting through the chair and grabbing Weaver and being on the edge of my seat when the demon dog chases Rick Moranis.  As I got older I love that scene even more because I love all the descriptions.  "A bear in his apartment?" . " Some moron brought a cougar to a party and it went beserk"

Gremlins didn't scare me at all. American Werewolf in London freaked me out big time .  It took me 2 days to get through the family's vhs copy--and that's now one of my favorite movies.  It's very funny too and I hear that is getting rebooted.

[VCRTracking]

Quote

Your not getting it. He admits they wouldn't let him direct Bond or any serious film franchise because he admits he will not respect the source material and instead parody it. In other words he is the wrong guy to do any franchise that is not a spoof of something.

And of course Ghostbusters is a veeeeeery serious franchise.

The scene with Dana as Zuul is a great little parody of The Exorcist.

Edited June 5, 2016 by VCRTracking

[Bruinsfan]

On 6/2/2016 at 0:11 PM, Browncoat said:

I always considered the slime/mucous in the original to be like a snail's or a fish's slime -- it just sort of oozes out and coats the animal, and also gets transferred to whatever it touches.  Nothing projectile about it.  Unlike vomit.

Slimer was shown to leave dripping wet spots on walls as it passed through them. I assumed that was what happened to Venkman, Slimer angrily charged through him and he's suddenly covered in ectoplasm.

[Ubiquitous]

21 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

Slimer was shown to leave dripping wet spots on walls as it passed through them. I assumed that was what happened to Venkman, Slimer angrily charged through him and he's suddenly covered in ectoplasm.

I did not realize there was another interpretation.

[VCRTracking]

Here's the thing I liked from the new Japanese trailer was after the ghost pukes slime on Kristen Wiig is afterward her excitement as she yells into camera "GHOSTS ARE REAL!!" I think that level of enthusiasm for the supernatural being true wasn't in the original. Ray was kind of giddy and excited in a kid like way but Venkman, Egon and Winston were more blase about it.

[MisterGlass]

On 5/30/2016 at 6:57 PM, Sweet Tee said:

The complaints about the effects are odd to me.  They're bright and cartoonish but it's Ghostbusters.  It's a comedy.  That fits the tone to me.  I don't watch Ghostbusters for realistic or scary looking ghosts.  I'll go to a horror film for that.  This is supposed to be goofy.  Why wouldn't the effects look goofy too?

I read recently that the human ghosts are real actors that were recorded and then digitally tweaked.  That makes me a little more open minded about the CG use.

Just for fun, this little scene is one of my favorite bits from the original movie.

[Kromm]

Hee on the end of that Japanese trailer.  

"Ghosta-Bustas!"

[VCRTracking]

A featurette on the new Ecto-1:

I like that while Leslie Jones' character does while the car, a hearse(Her uncle owns a funeral parlor), it looks like Kate McKinnon's character will be the one driving it.

[Shannon L.]

I love Improve Everywhere

[url=http://improveverywhere.com/2010/05/18/who-you-gonna-call/]Who You Gonna Call [/url]

[DrSpaceman73]

I hate the NBA commercials for this movie too.  They are just weak and stupid ways to fit former/current NBA stars into commercials

[VCRTracking]

Here is the cast on BBC's Graham Norton Show gushing about Chris Hemsworth and how annoyingly perfect he is:

[Matt K]

So I watched that episode of Graham Norton Show and those clips looked pretty good.  So now I have no idea what to think of this movie as the commercials have been pretty bad.  I'm really hoping this ends up good (even if it is a retread, but then again Star Wars was and I really enjoyed that).

[BatmanBeatles]

On 6/8/2016 at 11:05 AM, VCRTracking said:

A featurette on the new Ecto-1:

I like that while Leslie Jones' character does while the car, a hearse(Her uncle owns a funeral parlor), it looks like Kate McKinnon's character will be the one driving it.

But does it have the iconic siren?

[DisneyBoy]

On 02/06/2016 at 7:30 PM, AstaCharles said:

I remember as kid being kind of alarmed by the demonic hands bursting through the chair and grabbing Weaver and being on the edge of my seat when the demon dog chases Rick Moranis.

YES.

[Kromm]

The new Ghostbusters theme (yes, reworked from the original). From Fall Out Boy feat. Missy Elliot. 

Surprisingly I don't totally hate it. Not that I'd say I love it, but it could be a LOT worse.

 

[BetterButter]

Japanese Ghostbusters theme

[Kromm]

Hmm. So they found a "fat one" for that, but not a black one, eh?

Yeah, I know how tough that is in Japan. When you find them, they're half at best, and a lot of people there don't like them.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 5/29/2016 at 8:45 PM, Kromm said:

You had a decent argument going until you pulled the "feminists are" card. In that moment, your credibility shattered into a thousand pieces.

Are there a group of people, many likely feminists, who are kicking back against the criticism of the film in a knee jerk manner?  Sure. But the moment the problem is phrased in terms that make it sound like a conspiracy, then you've lost.  It's political overcorrectness in action, coming from a million different directions and sources at once, not "feminism". It's people, confused as they often are, by a million different real offenses against women, and seeing more in action even in a lot of casual early comments about this film, and generalizing it as if ALL criticism of the film is coming from that place. It's laziness and even a bit of stupidity, but it's not malice or a plot. As if feminists are some solid block of people all with the same opinion?  Be real.

If you'll pardon the observation, the people who are kicking back against the criticism in a knee-jerk manner are the ones who started calling the complainers "manbaby fanboys", which implies IMO that only men could possibly not be delighted at the prospect of this movie. If that isn't what they mean, then fine, but where's the blasting of women who have no interest in this? It's a big country. Are there literally no women who don't feel the need to shell out the money to see this?

Also, as has been said, we're to the point now where we can't even discuss the possible merits and flaws of the movie, or whether or not any of the criticism has value, because it's been turned into a hill that both extreme sides are willing to die on. If you don't want to see it, or God forbid don't even think the world needed another reboot/remake/sweater vest/whatever, then you're a misogynistic pig, maybe even if you're a woman. If you're really excited at the prospect of catching it in a theater, you're so thirsty for a female-centric movie that you'll go see it if its any good or not. I've seen the trailers, and personally I think it looks like hot garbage. I love Melissa McCarthy and think she's funny and talented (anyone who can make Sandra Bullock seem appealing gets major props from me), but I cannot abide Kristen Wiig. Regardless, nothing I've seen so far looks promising, and I just wish we could talk about that instead of how awful the other side of the "discussion" is. It's as bad as when American Sniper came out and Bradley Cooper's character said that America was the greatest country in the world. It was one line in the entire damn movie, but you'd have thought he was the one who tried to ruin Natalie Maines' career.