Ghostbusters (2016)

[MsNewsradio]

I enjoyed the movie and thought it started off very strong but faltered as it went on. The villain was also very muddled in terms of motivation. I tend to keep reboots separate in my memory bank from originals, and while I don't think that this held a candle to the original Ghostbusters, I thought it was a decent movie in its own right that was a very enjoyable summer flick despite its many flaws.

What I LOVED about the movie was that you could clearly see that the four leads enjoyed each other on screen - there was an ease and a camaraderie that was easily apparent, and even when jokes didn't land I tended not to mind it because of getting to spend time with the characters. I think there is a lot of potential there and don't think the faults of the film lie with the acting at all, but rather just a need to tighten up the story in the future. I look forward to what they could do with a sequel, now that all the table setting for the reboot has been dealt with. 

[Racj82]

1 hour ago, Pixel said:

I can see your point. I enjoyed it quite a lot, but it wasn't the deepest of stories.  I also think that there was no way that this had a chance to live up to the nostalgia, because people remember the original with the haze of the past. When you rewatch the original, it similarly had plenty of misses among it's jokes, and wasn't necessarily the laugh riot I like to remember it being.  

I would still recommend it to anyone who just wants to spend a couple of hours having some light fun.

That's true but I personally didn't have the baggage. I never held anything about Ghostbusters in high regard. This movie just didn't do much for me. 

Putting aside the people who only didn't like this because women are starring it, I think there is more and more push back from movie goers on these nostalgia trips studios keep trying to make happen. For every Jurassic World, we are getting tons of rejected follow ups. They need to start trying harder with these movies. Just good enough for many isn't going to cut it most of the time now. 

[Jazzy24]

I loved it. 

The four leads were great especially Leslie. My best friend who I went to see it with absolutely LOVED her she said she made the movie and I agree. 

Chris H was love. He defiantly should do more comedies. I love him. 

I liked the GGI for the ghost. It was visually gorgeous. 

I'm excited for the sequel. 

[magicdog]

After having seen the film last night, I must admit I liked the film better than I thought.  I went with my 20 year old niece (who'd seen the original years ago but it was a rather muddled memory).  She didn't get the nods to the original movie which were sprinkled throughout - including the appearance of the original cast.

I agree with earlier posts that the villian's motivation made no sense.  I would have preferred he either got in too deep with his scientific  pursuits or had good intentions (to communicate with or raise the dead) and realize the consequences.  Besides, why would he think the other ghosts would listen to him or let him lead them into an apocalypse?

The white hair on the girls after the portal rescue?  Dumb and unnecessary.  I did appreciate the rescue itself since it fit into the characters' relationship.

The receptionist played by Chris Hemsworth annoyed me - since getting a person that can actually answer phones isn't all that difficult.  It was also embarrassing watching Kristin Wig's character lust after him.  Is it supposed to be some gender flipped version of seeing guys lust after a co-worker with whom they have no shot at?  If yes, mondo fail !! 

Overall, I take it as an "alt universe" Ghostbusters, in which another group of scientists did the same thing the original group did - just 30 years later.  I still prefer the original film however.

[PatternRec]

Mark Ellis was on Doug Loves Movies podcast and had a good point about the reboot. I clipped the audio here: https://clyp.it/iaxahr5a

[reggiejax]

I liked it. All 4 leads were great, with Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon sharing the MVP honors. At least I think so.

But something was really puzzling. Maybe I missed something, but what was with the 1970's motif during the scene where Times Square is taken over? I know New York in the 70's is shorthand for urban cesspool, but what was the connection here? I saw a lot of marquees advertising 70's movies (Hollywood and otherwise) and at one point Chris Hemsworth freezes everyone in the Travolta disco pose. But then nothing really came of it. I have learned since that there was a big dance number that was cut out, portions of which we see in the credits. But that still doesn't explain much.  

[lampshades]

I could be remembering this wrong but I thought there were some even older marquees during that scene. I assumed they were the actual ghosts of NY's past.

[Browncoat]

I saw it this afternoon, and I thought it was fine.  As I stated in an earlier post, I'm not a fan of vomit jokes, and I also think that there are ways to be funny without resorting to vomit, fart, "bird" and genital-related (do ghosts even have genitals? will firing your proton pack at said genitals cause pain? do ghosts feel pain?) humor.  I don't think I'm a prude (the blow job bit in the first one is unexpected and funny).  IMHO, there was not enough clever humour and dialogue.  I'm not mad that I saw it, but I probably won't bother to watch it again.  FWIW, I'm a girl, and I was of the "why do a remake at all?" camp -- I'd have the same opinion regardless of the cast -- and did have before I heard about this cast.

I did enjoy all the shout-outs to the original, and the cameos were fab.

I agree that Kate McKinnon and Chris Hemsworth were the standouts.  Amazing how natural Chris can be when Liam is so wooden.  Also glad I stayed til the very very end of the credits.

Incidentally, the theater was about half-full at a Saturday matinee on a very hot day.

[PatternRec]

Haha Paul Feig's reply in this segment of @midnight lolol http://on.cc.com/2aiOb5e

[BabyVegas]

I finally got to see this last night and I really enjoyed it. Quite frankly, in many ways I enjoyed it more than the original. The original wasn't a part of my childhood or young adulthood, so I don't have a nostalgic attachment to it, although I understand people that do. I don't think either one is the be-all end-all, but I really think the new one is getting a lot of undeserved flack because it's a) a reboot and b) stars women. Personally, I felt that the cast of the new one was more charming than the cast of the original and this one was just more fun for me to watch. Kate McKinnon was probably my absolute favorite, but I want her and Leslie Jones in basically everything now. 

Overall I'm glad I saw it. I'll probably buy it when it comes out on DVD and goes on sale.

Quote

Amazing how natural Chris can be when Liam is so wooden. 

Probably because Chris seems to be having fun while Liam looks like he'd rather be basically anywhere else. Which, in all fairness, might be because Chris is starring in more comedies and action movies.

Edited July 24, 2016 by BabyVegas

[galax-arena]

Finally saw this tonight and liked it well enough. Not sure I'd say I loved it the way I've loved other cheesy dumb blockbusters - ahem, the National Treasure & F&F franchises - but I never expected to anyway. Really enjoyed Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon, could either take or leave Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig on their own, although they worked well as part of the ensemble. 

The audience at the showing I went to seemed to really enjoy the movie and clapped at the end. They also cheered when McKinnon's name came up on the credits. 

[cincivic]

Hubby and I saw this tonight and really enjoyed it. There were parts that dragged but it wasn't really a big deal.  I guess I am in the minority about Kate McKinnon. She was my least favorite. I like her so much on SNL but just didn't get her character. Leslie Jones was great. I wish Chris Hemsworth was given more to do.  It was very touching to see the bust of Harold Ramis. 

[magicdog]

On 7/23/2016 at 1:35 PM, Browncoat said:

Also glad I stayed til the very very end of the credits.

I didn't stay to the very end - what happened?

 

On 7/23/2016 at 1:35 PM, Browncoat said:

Incidentally, the theater was about half-full at a Saturday matinee on a very hot day.

My neice and I were almost alone in the auditorium.  About 6 others were there - but it was a Saturday matinee.

[frenchtoast]

7 hours ago, magicdog said:

I didn't stay to the very end - what happened?

 

My neice and I were almost alone in the auditorium.  About 6 others were there - but it was a Saturday matinee.

I'm not spoiler tagging this because the movie has been out for 2 weeks. They're all in the lab working--Patty is listening to a tape recording. She calls them over and asks, "Who is Zuul?" (And that's it.)

The show I saw on Saturday was at 10:15 AM and was half full. Maybe, I didn't do a head count. There were some problems with pacing, but overall I enjoyed it. The crowd I was with was didn't laugh as much as I was willing to laugh. Even so, I found it enjoyable and am looking forward to seeing it again when it's released digitally. The two 13 year old boys we brought with us were laughing a lot and loved it. One of them, my son, is very familiar with the original because we've watched it often. 

I also don't have any problem with remakes or reboots. I'm grateful I can see Ken Branagh and Tom Hiddleston play Henry V. I like that creative people can take that and put their mark on stories that they love. I'm looking forward to the next Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes and I was thrilled when I saw the other two. In fact, Jared Harris's Moriarty is my second favorite Moriarty. It was so good. (My favorite Moriarty is from Elementary and I won't say anything else about that) And if Ritchie hadn't remade it, I wouldn't have been able to enjoy that terrific performance. So being a remake or a reboot doesn't automatically earn a strike against it for me. 

[BabyVegas]

Huh, maybe it was just that weather-wise it was a so-so day in my area, or that I saw it on a Friday night, but nearly every showing was sold out, both 2D and 3D. My friend and I had the choice of not sitting together or sitting in the very front row. And this is a big theater that had both versions on 2-3 screens apiece. 

[Rick Kitchen]

15 hours ago, magicdog said:

I didn't stay to the very end - what happened?

 

They've been hired by the city to keep out ghosts and have new equipment.  They're all doing research, and Patty is listening to audio recordings of something they had recorded and she looks up and says, "Does anybody know what Zuul is?"

[Browncoat]

And everyone else just shrugs or shakes their heads no.

[Dancingjaneway]

I'm going to see it again tomorrow with a friend! I can't wait!!! I'm super glad to see that the action figures are selling well and that we are pretty much on our way to getting a sequel. As long as it's the same cast and the same writers/director I will be there with bells on!!

[phalange]

Saw this a few hours ago, loved it, and will be seeing it again! (Also, we saw it in 3D, which IMO, was completely worth it.) Everyone was funny, and the cast had great chemistry. To me, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones were the stand-outs. I was cracking up at Holtzman crunching on Pringles and referring to them as "salty parabolas," which is what I'll be calling them from now on. I lost it at her deadpan delivery of, "It's 2040. The President is a plant." Probably my favorite line was from Patty in reference to the subway ghost: "He's on his way to Queens. He's only the third scariest thing on that train."

[shantown]

Saw the movie for the second time last night, and this time my theater was full of kids (apparently Tuesday's have a deal for kids at my theater). At first I was going to be really annoyed having a bunch of kids talking and walking around during the show, but they actually made it way more fun. They were cheering whenever the Ghostbusters trapped a ghost and it was nice to see (and hear) how enthused they were.  They don't know or don't care that there was another Ghostbusters movie 30 years ago. They don't care that it's women in the main roles because that's not a rare thing to them. They just cared that it was an exciting movie that had them a little scared but that the heroes saved the day. 

[Dancingjaneway]

I was supposed to go see it with a friend but he couldn't make it so I went and saw it by myself. The theater wasn't full but there were a few rows of people. It was awesome because this woman a few seats down from me was totally geeking out over all the references and cameos. She at the end was explaining to her kids who zuul was and was so thrilled their would be a sequel. It really warmed my heart to see a fan of the originals enjoy the new one. The audience all left super happy and super excited to see the sequel. It's definitely worth a second view because there are a lot of great little lines that are missed during the first viewing. 

 

ETA: I have to admit I teared up again at the part where the buildings were all lit up with different "I love the Ghostbusters" messages. 

Edited July 28, 2016 by Dancingjaneway

[emma675]

I saw it yesterday--I played hooky from work and went to a 1:30pm showing, which was about half full.

I thought it was adorable and I laughed out loud quite a few times. There was a mix of adults like me who had seen the originals and teens who probably hadn't and both groups were laughing. I loved the camaraderie between the women and Chris Hemsworth seemingly having a great time. I would definitely see a sequel.

[SimoneS]

I just got back. I loved it. It was hilarious. The women were great together. I liked them all. I always enjoy Melissa McCarthy. I can take or leave Kristen Wigg, but I thought she was entertaining in this. I had never see Leslie Jones or Kate McKinnon in anything before. I thought they were great as well. Chris Hemsworth was surprisingly funny. I wish they had included the dancing scene in the movie.

The theatre was half to two thirds full which surprised me given the negativity around the movie. People were laughing throughout the movie like I was.

[Lantern7]

Saw the movie. Nowhere near as scary for me as the originals, though I was a kid back in '84 and '89 and a bit of a wuss, to be honest. The theater was packed, mostly with girls. I'm hoping their ilk fuels a sequel, because I reckon they -- and we -- need everywoman heroines like those four. Also, to stick it to the belligerent fanboys.  Oh, and I hope Leslie moves to the main cast on SNL. And that Kristen stops popping by.

I'm okay with this movie not being in the same universe as the originals. They got most of the original cast in other roles, and I think that was a bust of Harold Rambis they got in. The new foursome worked well together, and Leslie didn't come out as an add-on the way Ernie Hudson did. Nice to have somebody else spouting exposition besides Melissa.

ETA: You cannot pay me to disrespect Leslie Jones. I'm guessing that she probably isn't as crazy as she appears on SNL, and she probably doesn't want to break Colin Jost in two and make love to both halves, but she's the last person in that quartet I'd want to mess with.

[stealinghome]

What a delightful movie! I just got back from seeing it (finally) and really, really enjoyed it. It was just so much fun. The movie was fun, you could tell the cast was having a ton of fun (and had great chemistry), the cameos from the original cast were awesome, really it was just a little bundle of joy. This is what I want from my summer movies!

I agree that Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon were the standouts, but I was also quietly impressed with Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig. McCarthy was really the glue that held the movie together, and she was strong but not showy in that regard. And I generally don't think Wiig is funny, but I liked her more in this movie than in anything else I've seen her in (maybe she's better in parts where she plays more the straight man?). Chris Hemsworth was also utterly hilarious. When he didn't have glasses in his glasses, and then kept covering his eyes at big sounds? HA. I also got a kick out of Cecily Strong as the mayor's right-hand woman. But Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon definitely stole the show at times. I just loved Patty, and Holtzman was so random but so fun! I also agree that McKinnon in particular did a lot with a character that was pretty thin on paper.

I think my favorite line was "he's the third scariest thing on that train," but there were a ton of really great one-liners throughout. "We thank you for your discretion. It's totally failing, but we thank you." "Oh, that's his son, blah blah name Junior." "Soup and...and...all I can think of is soup. Patty? / Salad!" And a ton more that I know I laughed at but can't bring to mind right now.

I hope they go forward with a sequel, because this movie was so, so charming. I would definitely go see a second!

Edited July 31, 2016 by stealinghome

[starri]

2 minutes ago, stealinghome said:

"Oh, that's his son, blah blah name Junior."

Made even funnier by the fact that Ed Jr was played by Ed Begley Jr.

[SimoneS]

The movie did have so many funny moments. I cannot reference them all, but I loved how Patty yelled that she was out of there and ran away from the ghost in the subway and her denial when the ghost was riding on her shoulders. The whole theatre was laughing hysterically. I loved when she got back at the ghost by blowing it up. Also, when Kevin was dancing and kind of twerking on Patty who got the hell away from him and when Erin started to dance close to him and then he got the hell away from her. 

Chris Hemsworth should do more comedies. He has great comedic timing and was clearly having a blast. He looked like he enjoyed this role more than any of his Thor movies. 

[snickers]

I enjoyed this, but I still favor the original.  I really liked Leslie Jones. She made the movie for me.  I thought Kate McKinnon and Chris Hemsworth were too over the top.  Speaking of Hemsworth, I read an article some gossip columnist said concerning him and that he should make his mark on comedies once Thor is done....not in agreement with that...I was NOT impressed with his comedy haha. Oh and I loved seeing Slimer and Stay Puff again!

Edited August 2, 2016 by snickers

[PatternRec]

Just saw it. It was fun.

[Sandman]

I was charmed by it. I think there were places where the script could have been tightened up (I'm just the type of nerd who is always going to care when the script calls someone "Sir [Lastname]" and I thought there were some other clunky, wrong-sounding locutions given to the Rowan character. I know: I'm a real catch.).

I always enjoy Melissa McCarthy, and though I don't know Leslie Jones, I thought she was really great in this. I'm thinking Kristen Wiig maybe doesn't have the greatest range ever, but I thought she was used well here, and the centrality of the friendship between Erin and Abby was believable and rewarding. Kate McKinnon is also mostly unknown to me, but she was the standout -- Holtzmann is both completely hilarious and kind of terrifying. McKinnon has a genius for deadpan delivery. Loved Hemsworth as the empty-headed receptionist. I think he has crackerjack comic timing. (Though even in the Marvel movies, it's evident his timing is wonderful.)

Loved the cameos, too: somehow I didn't expect to see Ernie Hudson and Sigourney Weaver -- great use of Weaver! -- and it was awfully nice to see Annie Potts again. Murray and Aykroyd looked to be enjoying themselves enormously.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Sandman

[Ms Blue Jay]

I really liked it.  It's very cute.

So, so, so, so many reviews focused on Kate McKinnon so I feel like this kind of bias and hyperbole hurt my enjoyment of her.  I adore Melissa McCarthy.  I'm realizing I adore her in every role she's in.  She just makes me happy.  So I just want to say, yes, I really liked her in this.  Kristen was funny too but I'm a fan of hers.  It's interesting how they gave her the more 'muted' role.  I also realized it's 2 of the cast from Bridesmaids, and 2 current SNLers who were not in movies prior to this.  (I understand that Kristen is also from SNL.)

Chris Hemsworth was very funny.  I haaaaaaaaaated Thor and fell asleep watching it but Chris is very funny here.  It was surprising. 

I think they could have given Leslie more to do.

Was the last 3rd of it basically a shot for shot remake of the first?

[Traveller519]

I was enjoying the Zach Woods led opening scene. After that, I found it had its moments, but the whole thing felt tense, like they weren't trying to set off a landmine, which given the decision to shake things up in the way they did to begin with felt odd. The moments when the cast could cut loose a bit were when it was at it's peak, like the possessed Abby scene.

Kristin was probably most guilty of that, which I thinks make sense as she's building her movie career and probably has the most to lose. She's getting away from the "quirked" characters she's played in the past, and seemed to straddle the fence here. Kate and Leslie have the least to lose, and that showed. They played their parts the most free.

I'm glad I went to go see it. It won't be a long standing classic for me, but if it provides young women with the kind of fun sci-fi that I enjoyed with Back to the Future as a child, I'm all for it!

[Shriekingeel]

Reality: probable $70M loss, sequel unlikely per THR. 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-heading-70m-loss-sequel-918515?utm_source=twitter

[Spartan Girl]

So basically the whiny, hateful fanboy menninsts got their way? Screw them.

[Ubiquitous]

Or the movie wasn't very good.

[Lantern7]

It was decent, and there were no incidents of a ghost performing oral sex. Not saying that the movie deserved to be a cultural touchstone, but it shouldn't be shat upon that hard.

[NumberCruncher]

Or people are just generally tired of sequels/reboots.  If you're a sequel not associated with Disney/Marvel, you've had a hard go of it this summer.  TMNT 2, Jason Bourne, Star Trek Beyond, Independence Day: Resurgence have all struggled versus their predecessors.  There's no doubt more than a little misogyny was involved in Ghostbuster's box office numbers, but I suspect an even greater amount of indifference can be attributed to people being burned out by the 900th version of the same stories.

[darkestboy]

I think its becoming a little too easy to play the 'dudebros ruined this movie's success' narrative when truth of the matter, it's more likely that the movie failed due to people (that's both men and women) being bored of remakes/reboots, the trailers not selling the movie well and Feig/Sony alienating both men and women with "if you don't like this movie, you're a misogynist" card. Any of those are the more likely factors into the movie not doing so well if we're being honest here.

[methodwriter85]

Honestly, this movie screwed itself by spending so much on the budget. If they had kept the budget reasonable, it would have worked. The CGI effects were fun, but the real selling point of the movie was the chemistry of the team, and that's something they should have tried to rely on more.

Bummed though. I really think this deserves a sequel.

Edited August 12, 2016 by methodwriter85

[starri]

10 hours ago, darkestboy said:

it's more likely that the movie failed due to people (that's both men and women) being bored of remakes/reboots

The fact that one of the top movies of the year is The Jungle Book kind of goes against that, no?

[BatmanBeatles]

I do think it's the bad trailers. Unfortunately, good word of mouth couldn't convince people otherwise.

[darkestboy]

Some reboots/remakes seem to do well like The Jungle Book but maybe this was one too many.

[Fukui San]

It's hard to convince people otherwise when there's a full-fledged ongoing campaign to discredit the movie. 

In all honesty, it's a B- or so movie that made what a B- movie usually makes. As it stands, it's well within the range of Melissa McCarthy's other starring vehicles. The difference between Ghostbusters and her highest grossing movie Bridesmaids is just over $50 million. If they were expecting this to make a billion dollars they were foolish.

It's the fact that this is the movie that fanboys decided was the final straw angers me. Hollywood is made out of bad sounding ideas, a small percentage of which turn out to be good (Creed, Jungle Book, Mad Max Fury Road) and/or profitable (Jurassic World, Star Wars Force Awakens, Finding Dory).  And those are just remakes and reboots of long dormant franchises. I haven't even mentioned weird tie-ins like The Lego Movie and Warcraft that managed to be good and profitable, respectively, and other weird inspirations. Subjecting this movie to this campaign of negative publicity is ugly and sets a terrible precedent. Hollywood will take all the wrong lessons out of this. Already I hear the same awful sneering jokes about the upcoming Ocean's Eight movie, but not much about the male gender switched Splash movie. Wonder why? 

[Zuleikha]

Yeah, Ghostbusters did well if you compare it against other comedies that are considered successful. IMHO, that's what it should be compared against since the original is classified as a comedy and this was marketed as a comedy. Its problem is that it was given too high of a budget to easily turn a profit.

(After its opening weekend, Forbes boiled it down to "Ghostbusters basically needs to be the biggest-grossing movie ever for nearly all of its participants.... creating a situation where she [McCarthy] (and her fellow filmmakers) must clobber their “personal best” records just to break even, is a shining example of the inherent danger of trying to maintain movie stardom in this tentpole era.")

I'm going to give Sony the benefit of the doubt on competency and assume that they knew it was risky for Ghostbusters to have such a large budget and had a reason for doing so. Ghost Corps and the Ghostbusters cartoon were both announced prior to the movie release, so the Hollywood Reporter framing is fairly deceptive. I read somewhere (The Mary Sue maybe?) that Sony didn't expect to turn a profit on Ghostbusters, but wanted it to be successful enough to support the related properties. It's hard for me to tell whether or not it's done this. It got good critical reviews. It's sold a lot of tickets for a comedy. But there's been a lot of gender-based negativity about this movie* that male-led movies don't have to deal with. Sony may want to wash their hands of that. 

 

* Can people please stop pretending that any of the negativity was about it being a remake? There are tons of remakes/reboots out and none of them have gotten the kind of whining/tantrum throwing that this one got; the whining started when the cast was announced, not after the trailer so no, it wasn't because the trailer was mediocre; and many of the people complaining are explicitly and openly tied it to the lack of male Ghostbusters, so it's not really like people even disguised that they're just pissed about a moving having a female ensemble but not being clearly marketed as a chick flick.

[Ravenya003]

From the looks of it the fanboys have already moved on to the Star Wars: Rogue One trailer and the news of Bryan Fuller's upcoming Star Trek series as the latest affronts to their masculinity. Personally I don't believe we've seen the last of these women as Ghostbusters, though I suppose only time will tell. 

Edit: Also, this Ghostbusters cartoon - will it have female protagonists or will it go back to the original male line-up?

Edited August 14, 2016 by Ravenya003

[Bruinsfan]

Good luck to them trying to convince people that a female-led Star Wars movie is going to be a failure after The Force Awakens. If that's the hill they want to die on, I'm all for it.

[starri]

I bought two tickets to Ghostbusters, remind me to buy four for Rogue One.

[kili]

Quote

* Can people please stop pretending that any of the negativity was about it being a remake? There are tons of remakes/reboots out and none of them have gotten the kind of whining/tantrum throwing that this one got

"The Psycho" remake made people flip their lids as soon as it was announced. People raged about it on the imdb and whatever movie chat sites there were.  That was before social media though so it never became the festering mess this one did. And that was a shot-for-shot remake made as an homage to the original director (not a re-imagining). Every hint of re-making "Casablanca" causes instant rage.

The problem with using absolutes like "any" is that people can easily disprove them with one example. There will be people who will be honestly upset that a remake was being made. The misogynists can then hide behind them if we deny they (the remake haters) exist. 

Let's acknowledge that some of the negativity was about it being a remake. Lots of people just don't want to see their favourites remade. Let's also acknowledge that the trailer was abysmal. It's job was to sell the movie and it actually made the movie look worse than it was. That's a fail on their marketing department and viewers shouldn't be blamed for taking one look at it and fearing for the worse. Let's also acknowledge that some people just don't care for all or some of the actors involved (I don't like Brad Pitt in movies - doesn't mean I hate all men. I just think he always looks like he is acting).

Let's also acknowledge that there are lots of misogynists who reacted to the all-female cast idea. They firmly stuck up their "No Girls" sign and threw a fit. They can say they like Ripley and Leia and Sarah all they like, but fundamentally, those women lived in a two woman world (them and some inconsequential second female that got a few minute of air time). These types of misogynists get antsy when there are more than a couple of females in a movie with actual parts because that means it is a "chick-flick" in their minds and not meant for them. "Why are they making a movie aimed at me that is a chick-flick?" and they get mad. This movie could have had perfect marketing and been a masterpiece and those guys still would have exploded in rage.

But it wasn't a masterpiece and it had terrible marketing, so it deserves some of the blame for all the negativity. And the cast/director refusing to admit that there were any issues and calling all the critics names probably did not help. They should have ignored the misogynists (they were never going to win there) and focused on wooing those who just didn't like the remake or hated the trailer. Ben Affleck cast as Batman enraged a lot of people, but he let his work speak for himself and now a lot of people are saying he was one of the better things in that movie and anticipating his next outing. So, it is possible to change the negativity narrative.

[Morrigan2575]

@kili@KILI - Fantastic post! ??

[Zuleikha]

Quote

The problem with using absolutes like "any" is that people can easily disprove them with one example. There will be people who will be honestly upset that a remake was being made. The misogynists can then hide behind them if we deny they (the remake haters) exist.

Nope. I'm done with caring about whether I am word for word perfect in how I express a sentiment in informal writing.  If I published an article, I'd be more precise. But that's not a reasonable standard to hold for a forum, and if someone wants to use my "any" to try and ignore everything else I wrote, that's on them. I don't believe these theoretical people are actually incapable of understanding that people use "any" to mean "the most significant part" or "the overwhelming majority" in informal speech/writing.

Examples prior to contemporary social media aren't useful. I have no idea what type of negativity there was/wasn't about "Psycho" because I don't hang out on movie forums. Whatever negativity there was didn't spread and wasn't comparable to what happened with "Ghostbusters." There have been plenty of remakes in the time of social media, and I've never seen anything like what happened with Ghostbusters. 

Quote

And the cast/director refusing to admit that there were any issues and calling all the critics names probably did not help. They should have ignored the misogynists (they were never going to win there) and focused on wooing those who just didn't like the remake or hated the trailer.

I think that's what they did. There was the occasional acknowledgement of the sexism--which was a major media story and again, very obvious to see--but Feig did acknowledge the trailer's mediocrity and talk about how all of his movies have suffered from poor trailers. Beyond the trailer, nothing seemed unusual about the marketing campaign, either for good or bad. Feig and the cast are also not responsible for the trailer's quality or the marketing quality.

Also, again, Ghostbuster's ticket sales and box office are good-to-great for a comedy, which is what it is. The ONLY reason there's any question about whether it should be considered successful or not is because it had a ginormous budget for a comedy. None of us our privy to what Sony's long-term plan was or wasn't, so at this point, none of us know whether Sony was okay taking a loss on the movie if it let them sell toys/support related properties.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Zuleikha