Ghostbusters 2016

[Crabs]

It's called a very low bar.

Maybe if the bar was set by dubious Rotten Tomatoes reviews. GBII wasn't politically motivated like Fieg's movie. The sequel had the same type of humor and spirit as the first one along with the same actors in their original roles. It was a respectable follow-up. This feminist bastardization is a slapstick parody, like Scary Movie is to Scream.

 

[Totenkindly]

To be honest, I rewatched Ghostbusters original the other night, and I think most of the joy was in the time period and nostalgic influences because I think Animal House or Caddyshack are both funnier / better movies. Some of the lines and line deliveries are just crap.

Still, I just happen to be into fantasy crap and so it's fun to watch a building act as a supernatural conduit to summon lost gods and turn your buds into slobbering dogs. Plus... Staypuff Marshmallow Man. But it's hard to say a movie is great just because they nailed a particular joke during a 90 minute run. The popularity is just more of a zeitgeist thing. Right place, right time, appealed across various demographics, great marketing campaign (audio and visual), and it was a unique approach to the concept. But the movie itself? Kind of cheesy / flat, although maybe in comparison to all the dreck the 80's produced in comedy/horror, maybe it seemed more appealing at the time.

So I'm having trouble grasping all the vehement resistance to the female remake. It's not like, even if it's not the greatest, that it tarnished the pinnacle of cinematic comedy. It seems like a pointless pissing match. Unless someone's sacred cow is what got pissed on.

 

[Qlip]

Maybe if the bar was set by dubious Rotten Tomatoes reviews. GBII wasn't politically motivated like Fieg's movie. The sequel had the same type of humor and spirit as the first one along with the same actors in their original roles. It was a respectable follow-up. This feminist bastardization is a slapstick parody, like Scary Movie is to Scream.

You know, none of anything you wrote here has anything to do with what makes one movie more entertaining than another. And I think it's particularly naive to think that any (attempted) Hollywood blockbuster has an agenda any higher than $$$$$$$$.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

[MENTION=7]Totenkindly[/MENTION]

It's not as high in my 80s favorites as Back to the Future or The Naked Gun. I probably would be more meh if not for Venkman.

That said, there's some great writing in the original. Great comedic writing that ensured plenty of sharp, witty lines and retorts for multiple characters and not just the leads; most of the jokes aren't contextual or dated to that time period. It looks like the new one is more or less just riffing on jokes from the original, and/or delivering jokes that are dependent on some understanding of 2010s culture, fashion, politics, etc--I think it's a sign of poor writing if you have to rely too much on current trends and tropes to carry your movie--that's why Epic Movie and Scary Movie haven't aged well...you have to have some memory or knowledge of early and mid 2000s popular culture to understand half of the jokes and references, although to be fair, those movies were already pretty sucky when they were released.

Time period wise, aside from the obvious details like the clothing, music, and vehicles, it is a fairly timeless film (the humor and story seem to hold up well after 32 years, enough that my son who tends to avoid "old" movies found it thoroughly entertaining) and I would say less dated to the era than Animal House or Caddyshack. Those films are also a bit more niche and rely on more "mature" humor (unless you count the Ghost BJ Ackroyd gets, but I imagine that went over most younger kids' heads at the time) , so comparing them is odd. A more fair comparison would be to similar family-oriented comedy adventures from the mid eighties. So, compare it to Back to the Future and the Goonies (both more entertaining, IMO) before you compare it to adolescent shock comedy from the late 70s and early 80s. I think they're of completely different sub-genres so it's like comparing Argento's slasher films to his supernatural films--yeah, it can be done, but they're so different that ultimately it's coming down to personal opinion rather than any comparison on the technical or narrative merits of the work.

 

[Crabs]

You know, none of anything you wrote here has anything to do with what makes one movie more entertaining than another. And I think it's particularly naive to think that any (attempted) Hollywood blockbuster has an agenda any higher than $$$$$$$$.

It has to do with maintaining the integrity of the property. Ghostbusters 2 was a Ghostbusters movie. This farce is a Paul Fieg movie with the Ghostbusters name on it. As far as the studio is concerned, you're right. All they care about is making money; and they gave the director full reign to do whatever he wanted. Paul Feig made his political motivations clear early on.

Space Balls was a fairly entertaining movie. A lot of Star Wars fans appreciate that for what it is. But if they released it under the name of Star Wars, you would have seen a much different reaction from the fanbase.

[MENTION=7]Totenkindly[/MENTION]

It's not as high in my 80s favorites as Back to the Future or The Naked Gun. I probably would be more meh if not for Venkman.

That said, there's some great writing in the original. Great comedic writing that ensured plenty of sharp, witty lines and retorts for multiple characters and not just the leads; most of the jokes aren't contextual or dated to that time period. It looks like the new one is more or less just riffing on jokes from the original, and/or delivering jokes that are dependent on some understanding of 2010s culture, fashion, politics, etc--I think it's a sign of poor writing if you have to rely too much on current trends and tropes to carry your movie--that's why Epic Movie and Scary Movie haven't aged well...you have to have some memory or knowledge of early and mid 2000s popular culture to understand half of the jokes and references, although to be fair, those movies were already pretty sucky when they were released.

And how many pointless references to other movies did Feig and Dippold make? Off the top of my head, I can think of The Exorcist, Jaws and Scarface. Oh, and a stupid reference to Oprah Winfrey's talk show, "You get a car, you get a car...and you get a car..."

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It has to do with maintaining the integrity of the property. Ghostbusters 2 was a Ghostbusters movie. This farce is a Paul Fieg movie with the Ghostbusters name on it. As far as the studio is concerned, you're right. All they care about is making money; and they gave the director full reign to do whatever he wanted. Paul Feig made his political motivations clear early on.

Space Balls was a fairly entertaining movie. A lot of Star Wars fans appreciate that for what it is. But if they released it under the name of Star Wars, you would have seen a much different reaction from the fanbase.



And how many pointless references to other movies did Feig and Dippold make? Off the top of my head, I can think of The Exorcist, Jaws and Scarface. Oh, and he included a stupid reference to Oprah Winfrey's talk show, "You get a car, you get a car...and you get a car..."

In fairness, the original somewhat riffed on classic horror conventions and pop culture of the day (cameos by Larry King and Casey Kasem), but I get what you're saying...it was done more as an homage and the jokes weren't directly from other sources, also, as I already said the original doesn't require a deep understanding of 1984 cultural tropes.

 

[Qlip]

I heard Ghostbusters 2016 is better than Star Trek Insurrection and Star Wars: Episode I spliced together.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I heard Ghostbusters 2016 is better than Star Trek Insurrection and Star Wars: Episode I spliced together.

Replace Insurrection with Nemesis and you're probably right.

Insurrection is underrated.. second best TNG cast film, I think.

 

[Crabs]

In fairness, the original somewhat riffed on classic horror conventions and pop culture of the day (cameos by Larry King and Casey Kasem), but I get what you're saying...it was done more as an homage and the jokes weren't directly from other sources, also, as I already said the original doesn't require a deep understanding of 1984 cultural tropes.

The cameos by Larry King and Casey Kasem were a part of the plot. They could've used fictional personalities to report on the paranormal activity in NYC, but using real people isn't a pointless cultural reference imo. Lots of movies do that when it comes to news reports.

On the other hand, repeatedly quoting lines from other movies is lazy and reeks of parody.

 

[Qlip]

Replace Insurrection with Nemesis and you're probably right.

Insurrection is underrated.. second best TNG cast film, I think.

Hah, I may have to re-watch it. It's been a long time...

You know, I was thinking about this GB 2016 thing. It has a kind of 80's vibe to gender switch the cast; for Conan there was a Red Sonja, for Simon & Simon there was Cagney & Lacey. It's kind the kind of cheeseball boy vs girl thing to expect from the times.

 

[Qlip]

Replace Insurrection with Nemesis and you're probably right.

Insurrection is underrated.. second best TNG cast film, I think.

Hah, I may have to re-watch it. It's been a long time...

You know, I was thinking about this GB 2016 thing. It has a kind of 80's vibe to gender switch the cast; for Conan there was a Red Sonja, for Simon & Simon there was Cagney & Lacey. It's kind the kind of cheeseball boy vs girl thing to expect from the times. The 80's certainly wasn't known for its "integrity". Though I imagine an 8 year old boy would lose his shit if his sister made him watch She-Ra.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

It's a remake. Hollywood does it all the time. From the trailers, it looks like any other remake. Watered down or grasping at a new generation with the probability that the older gen, who grew up with a classic, will have a frame of reference introducing their kids to a updated version.

This is a kids/family movie so the whole men vs women thing is pretty pointless as that shouldn't affect the general storylines at all. Just another way to tell the same story.

It's either good or bad but I haven't heard any criticism of the film without it being related to gender. Which is perplexing.

Criticize it for anything else, really. If it's that bad there will be plenty of material for that to occur. Overall, I'm in the 'who cares' boat.

 

[Crabs]

It's either good or bad but I haven't heard any criticism of the film without it being related to gender. Which is perplexing.

That's bizarre. I've been following the development of this movie for nearly two years and the vast majority of the criticism before and after its release, that I've heard, has not been related to gender. That's not to say that people haven't noted the fact that it's an obvious gimmick, but it's mostly the pro-reboot side using gender as a focal point, both as a reason why women/feminists/progressives have an "obligation" to see this movie, and using it to blame the backlash on.

A great example, as has already been mentioned, is James Rolfe. He didn't criticize the female cast at all and was still branded a misogynist all over the internet.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

That's bizarre. I've been following the development of this movie for nearly two years and the vast majority of the criticism before and after its release, that I've heard, has not been related to gender. That's not to say that people haven't noted the fact that it's an obvious gimmick, but it's mostly the pro-reboot side using gender as a focal point, both as a reason why women/feminists/progressives have an "obligation" to see this movie, and using it to blame the backlash on.

A great example, as has already been mentioned, is James Rolfe. He didn't criticize the female cast at all and was still branded a misogynist all over the internet.

So your proof of this movies criticisms not involving gender....involves gender. It's just the fault of a specific gender and political motivation? You're not feeding into that nonsense in any way?

Wtf lol. Dude. It's a movie. Cry me a river about something important.

Have you seen it? If so, did you like it? No? Why not?

 

[Eluded_One]

I would have watched this movie had their uniform been better designed

 

[Crabs]

So your proof of this movies criticisms not involving gender....involves gender. It's just the fault of a specific gender and political motivation? You're not feeding into that nonsense in any way?

Wtf lol. Dude. It's a movie. Cry me a river about something important.

Now you're just being pedantic. Of course reviews are going to mention the fact that Paul Feig swapped the gender of the main cast; it's the giant elephant in the room. You initially said you haven't heard any criticisms that weren't related to gender. I've provided a number of examples in this thread which don't blame the outcome of this terrible reboot on gender. But you, like all of the other feminists ranting on the internet, interpret any criticism through a prism of misogyny. Welcome to the club.

Have you seen it? If so, did you like it? No? Why not?

FUCK NO!!! I'm not paying SONY for fucking up my favorite fandom.

I have principles.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Now you're just being pedantic. Of course reviews are going to mention the fact that Paul Feig swapped the gender of the main cast; it's the giant elephant in the room. You initially said you haven't heard any criticisms that weren't related to gender. I've provided a number of examples in this thread which don't blame this terrible movie on gender. But you, like all of the feminists ranting on the internet, interpret any and all criticism through a prism of misogyny. Welcome to the club.

It's just funny that people like you, those who get so bent out of shape about this stuff, exist.

FUCK NO!!! I'm not paying SONY for fucking up my favorite fandom. I have principles.

Okay. So you're talking about something you have no first hand knowledge of? Got it.

You're basing your views on the regurgitated pile of bickering, simmering nonsense that is YouTube and Twitter comments.

Have fun with that.

 

[Crabs]

It's just funny that people like you, those who get so bent out of shape about this stuff, exist.

Purists exist in every fandom. It's not that hard to believe.

What are you passionate about? Imagine if someone took your motorcycle, put a basket on the front, streamers on the handlebars and TRUMP campaign stickers all over it. Would that piss you off?

Okay. So you're talking about something you have no first hand knowledge of? Got it.

You're basing your views on the regurgitated pile of bickering, simmering nonsense that is YouTube and Twitter comments.

Have fun with that.

Actually, no. Like I said, I've been following the development of this movie for a long time. An insider leaked the plot and details months before the first trailer was released. All of the reboot's supporters in the fan community were in denial, arguing there was no way the leak was legitimate because everything it outlined was fucking terrible. After the movie premiered, they were eating their words. Every detail in the leak was accurate, including the musical/dance sequence. The trailers incited a visceral disgust in my soul. Why would I want to sit in a theater for two hours vomiting into my popcorn?

I suppose you'll have to vote for Trump to decide whether or not he'll be a good president. Don't criticize him until he's actually performed some role as POTUS.

 

[Crabs]

 

[magpie]

What's weird about all this is that people are saying their issue with it isn't one of gender, it's the fact that it's a remake. But I've never seen any other remake get this much vitriol. The current Star Trek movies are remakes. There wasn't a huge protest to stop those from coming out. I remember seeing Fright Night a few years ago, also a remake. The remake was a horrible movie but it didn't get this kind of vitriol. I think there was a remake of Let The Right One In a few years ago. I love the original, it's a masterpiece, but no one seemed to give a shit it was being remade.

So what makes Ghostbusters different? If it's not about gender, what's causing this amount of hateful criticism? I don't believe the "it's a remake" excuse. Let's be real about this.