Ghostbusters 2016

[Ghost]

I assume @Ghost is opposed to this movie on principle. She doesn't seem like the type to enjoy being busted.

This movie is racist! The living-impaired are people, too!

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

GHOSTBUSTERS Inspires Insane Fast-Food Items in Japan | Nerdist

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

Make Your Own GHOSTBUSTERS Slimer Jell-o | Nerdist

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

This movie is racist! The living-impaired are people, too!

Geez, I thought they preferred to be called undead. Why can't you guys make up your minds?

 

[Crabs]

Umm. I explicitly never said those words. I never said the issue with his commentary had to do with mentioning women or not mentioning women.I said the fact that he did not make this kind of response to any other film, in spite of his whole shtick with confronting terrible media, is what raises questions. It comes back to the same nagging question, why this thing and not others? What's different about this one?

I haven't followed his channel nor watched any of his other videos. He did mention that he's particularly passionate about Ghostbusters which is the reason why he refuses to pay SONY money for bastardizing something that he cares about. I can relate. If this were nearly any other fandom, I wouldn't give a shit.

Well, you actually asked what would have been considered misogynistic, not what I thought actually was. Unless there were other contextual suggestions, I'm not sure I would consider it misogynistic myself.

But like I said, the difference also exists in how utterly generic the whole dick joke thing is, too.

This argument of yours that it's not sexist because it's a generic dick joke is a fallacious one. To put it into a context that you would understand, that would be like saying Jacky Gleason in the Honeymooner's wasn't being misogynistic because that sort of thing was common back then.

EDIT: You know, before there's even a response. I'm going to already give you the assignment of telling what the difference is between the video above and the joke you're complaining about in the Ghostbusters movie.

I'm not accepting assignments at this time. If there's a point you would like to make, go ahead and get it off your chest.

It's over.

This story is over.

The movie came out. It had moderately good reviews. History happened. It has come and gone.

I'm sorry (but not sorry) for everyone who wanted this movie to get bad reviews more than they even wanted a good movie.

These reviews that you're referring to were clearly intended to counter the backlash against this movie. If you think it's because GB16 is genuinely a "good movie" then I don't know what to tell you. You're delusional.

No true Ghostbusters fan wanted a bad movie, but that's what we got. I did, however, expect the reviews to reflect how bad this movie truly is. It boggles my mind that the Robocop remake has a 49% on the same site that gave the Ghostbusters reboot a 73% with the general consensus being: "While it's far better than it could have been, José Padilha's RoboCop remake fails to offer a significant improvement over the original." How the fuck is Paul Feig's movie a significant improvement over the original to warrant a nearly 25% difference?

 

[highlander]

I can't to see this movie! I practically grew up with it!

The only thing I worry about is how it could compare to the first one as that was so good. It's like I'd always be comparing.

 

[kyuuei]

First: Why a remake? I dunno. They're all comedic gold cast wise, but.. It's a mixed bag. Trying to re-create Ghostbusters is dumb on principle because it was a timed movie classic. The TIME it was made in and the society as it was constructed at that time and the cast themselves in their prime called for a perfect storm. It fell in at a perfect time in movie space, and any recreation is going to fall somewhat flat because of it. That'll be the first thing I say.

Outside of that, I was definitely NOT excited about this film and all of the ranting and raving about females vs males vs no-im-not-sexist-if-i-hate-the-movie and the whining made me take a deeper look and now? I want to see it. Objectively, this movie probably works just fine, and is falling flat because of the context of Ghostbusters.

I dunno the motivations for the black-female-sassy character. But first off: We're in an age where I feel like if Leslie Jones thought she was degrading black people she'd just fucking say so or say no. Is it a race thing at all? Doubtful. I'd even argue that people are racist for being quick to pounce at the whole stereotype thing. Like a black female actor has to be held to the highest of standards or else she's degrading her own race. Fuck off with that. That's the same complex that female drill sergeants have towards new recruits: Be three times as good in order to be seen as being equal.

Objectively... It echoes the original: three well established scientists, and a normal black person coming in to help out.
The original snubbed the black guy: Ernie Hudson's Role In Ghostbusters Was Supposed To Be Very Different - CINEMABLEND
TLDR: He had a good story and was originally one of them, then just became a dude wanting a paycheck. In this case, the female subway lady has more to offer than Winston did in the original, sassy stereotype and all.
Leslie Jones Defends Her 'Ghostbusters' Character After Racial Controversy Arises Over New Trailer

I mean, seriously, in half the posters winston is not even shown. Leslie gets a front row seat.

AND Leslie Jones defends the character. You know why sassy black lady is a stereotype? Because sassy women are normal folk, and people notice it more from black people because racism. She's playing a normal person, she defends her role, and that's.. Good enough for me. No one should feel the need to prove they're speaking for their whole race in a role. That's sort of the whole fucking point of pointing out white privilege.. Yet, people feel the need to force her to speak for everyone still. Racism with good intentions is still racism people. I'd argue this character had more opportunity and more to offer than the finished product of the OGB, and.. Leslie Jones is a strong sassy woman. Leslie Jones - I Heart White People - YouTube She is. That's what she does.. so.. really, I see HER in her performance. Not a stereotypical sassy black woman ughingly perpetuating racial stereotypes for a quick buck.

It'll never be enough. SJWs would complain if she was the engineer vs the quantum physics teacher if she changed positions with mechanics-mcgee. No one is batting an eye at, yet again, another dorky teacher white lady in dorky apparel. All the focus is on black people because fuck it, no one can just be happy.

She's fine, her role is fine, and if you're going to get mad, get mad at the original that this is trying to echo.

Other things I've noticed:

- The original film got comedians to play the main characters... and yet was shot in a horror film sense. So how does this compare to the new film? While the comedian part is definitely down with these four women...

.. the bright colors make it seem childish, and in no way scary besides maybe an occasional jumpscare and that's just the trailer.. sometimes trailers have better things that dont exist or even the best things from the movie now-a-days. While I wouldn't venture to say ghostbusters was intending to be scary... the elements of horror were there. And not just with a little lens flare or jump scare. The whole style was a horror movie. The cast of the OGB (original ghostbusters) were super into the paranormal, and the scenes in the movie (the infamous red haired lady possessed scene) were actually techniques one would deploy (as written by paranormal experts) in dealing with the possessed. Based on the graphics and ghost looks alone, I highly highly doubt the same attention to detail in the horror genre and paranormal expertise was given. But as I haven't seen the movie yet, maybe I am wrong there.

I just cannot be scared of a floating apparition in bright blue... we have come soooo far in horror genre effects, it seems so lame that CGI rainbow clouds were the ultimate product of this movie. Flashy.. but the original had some pretty scary stuff in it.. demonic dogs with gnashing teeth, and the possession was even creepier by far than what I was seeing in the trailer--some goofy slime cloud filtering into one's face and then smiling the way I did as a kid when I saw a piece of cake unattended.

This was the most immediate turn off to me about the movie.

- Again, the main problem is it scraps the original because it is a reboot. Like, not "Hey, we took over for the original cast, and this is our new age paranormal stuff." They didn't take the torch and run forward. They completely scratched the original movie. This is automatically going to create some hate. It is a reboot--which like I said should not exist really there's no reason to remake a perfect hit--but it COULD have been great as a "hey, this is the future, we're a long way from the 80s. Here's our super cool technology, ghostbusters is x now, and this is what we've done with it." cameos of the original cast would make a lot of sense and it could have been a LOT of fun. These girls could have owned the space without the film snubbing the original at all. But no. Reboot. Because it's easy to make the same story instead of creatively writing one within an already existing universe.

- Where is the main villain? Just a bunch of ghosts? Someone vaguely putting devices in the city? Immediately seems forgettable.

- The comedy does sound pretty good actually. I think there are some people who are so angry at this film that they'll automatically think the jokes will fall flat. I think the trailer saw some pretty good, if but cheesy at times, jokes. These are talented comedians, and I'm sure if the movie turns out good it will be owed to their performances in it.

- I still cannot get over the CGI bloodbath that is the graphics in today's movies.

Anyways, that's my initial impressions. I'll eventually watch it.

 

[Crabs]

Comic Book Girl strikes again! If more feminists were like her, I wouldn't hate feminism.

 

[Beorn]

The guys at Red Letter Media hated it.

 

[Qlip]

I heard it was better than Ghostbusters II.

 

[Totenkindly]

I thought this angle was more interesting:
‘Ghostbusters’ Is A Perfect Example Of How Internet Movie Ratings Are Broken | FiveThirtyEight

(July 14, 2016) .....But this “Ghostbusters” thing? It lays bare so, so much of what we’re investigating when it comes to the provenance and reliability of internet ratings. Namely, they’re inconsistent, easily manipulated and probably not worth half the stock we put in them. Here are a few stats I collected early Thursday for the new “Ghostbusters” movie:
â—¾IMDb average user rating: 4.1 out of 10, of 12,921 reviewers
â—¾IMDb average user rating among men: 3.6 out of 10, of 7,547 reviewers
â—¾IMDb average user rating among women: 7.7 out of 10, of 1,564 reviewers

The movie isn’t even out in theaters as I’m writing this, but over 12,000 people have made their judgment. Male reviewers outnumber female reviewers nearly 5 to 1 and rate “Ghostbusters” 4 points lower, on average.

That's a pretty hefty point difference based on gender there....

I'll probably watch it at some point (but probably not in-theater) just to see what I actually think about it, versus all the ranting and discussing and hyping and unhyping and angst.

 

[Ivy]

I saw it Friday- it was fun. I laughed a lot, and my husband reports that his childhood is intact.

 

[Crabs]

I heard it was better than Ghostbusters II.

That's called bullshit.

 

[Qlip]

That's called bullshit.

It's called a very low bar.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I remember when I was younger, my sister insisted that there was a Ghostbusters III. When asked what it was about, she said, "They eat toast." So apparently, in my sister's mind, there was a movie about (presumably) haunted or monstrous toast.

I think she took one scene in Ghostbusters II featuring a toaster and assumed that there was a whole movie about it.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Why was Target putting the toys on the clearance racks weeks before the debut?

I thought it was just in my region until I saw articles and videos reporting this happening elsewhere.

Regardless of how good or bad it looks, you'd think they'd at least wait until the movie was out to make that assessment.

That said, quality-wise, the toys look rather meh.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Some are complaining that people are comparing it unfairly against the original.

I could see how that might be unfair if we were comparing both versions of The Fly or The Thing (films in which the remakes were so different that they stand alone as separate, distinct beasts and classics in their own rights), but when you have a remake or a reboot following so closely to the formula and story contained in the original, then don't be surprised when people make the inevitable comparisons.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

from a discussion on another forum

A: I don't quite grasp why diversity isn't something that's strived for, for its own sake, instead of being viewed as a mandate or quota. It should be exciting to write for differences. I've been re-reading David Eddings' books the last two summers and he GOT it. I feel like he influenced my feelings on such things without me even remembering that it was happening, when I was a kid. He has females in crucial roles and there's a member in the Party of Light for EVERY Kingdom on the map. It doesn't feel forced; it doesn't feel like his hand was being moved by an agenda. He wanted to weave a richer tapestry. Eventually, his wife started writing them with him.

Trek was doing that, too, even before they were, wasn't it? Uhura, Sulu, etc.

B: Yeah. If it feels overtly political or takes you out of the movie or story, then I think it's diversity for the wrong reasons. It also runs a risk of limiting the story to the context of the historical period in which it was produced. Unless that is a core reason for the work of art in the first place.

A good character regardless of their gender or color...I tend to not notice those things as much. If you have to pander and say "oooh look, this time we're being progressive and doing an all female thing," then you've already fucked it up...you're not adding diversity for the sake of diversity, but to make a point of how progressive you are to your audience. Maybe the new GB will be good, but I have a feeling it will be hard for people to look at it now or 20 years from now without divorcing the story itself from the drama and controversy surrounding it's release and the gender wars currently taking place.

While it's true that many negative reviews have focused on the gender of the cast and the outrage from some over the reboot, there have also been multiple positive reviews that have made that a focal point while treating the story itself as peripheral, at best.

So to use the tired example of Ripley and Alien again, here we had a cast of characters that was written initially male but they could be interchangeably female and it wouldn't have added or subtracted from them. Sigourney Weaver's character is often praised as a groundbreaking move for Hollywood...an empowered, capable female...but the beauty of it is that the writers never seemed to have some agenda, yet her character works great, and it doesn't feel forced or trite, even 30 odd years on...not an ounce of the trite 'girl power' horseshit in those films, yet I'd put her up against any other female lead (or male lead, for that matter) if asked to list the best in action horror genre. Many "misogynist" men in the geek culture have praised her as a favorite. I don't doubt the existence of some straight up bigots among the GB reboot haters, but I think for the rest of them, it doesn't have to do with them being pissed about a cast full of women so much as it has to do with them being pissed about the way it was implemented. And yeah, it's fairly clear from the leaked emails between Feig and Pascal that they had a certain political agenda in mind even from the pre-production stages. So while proponents of the film will allege that these guys hate the movie because their beloved male characters have been replaced by women (and this is probably true for the most bigoted fans in that community), they should at least acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, fans might also be upset that a timeless classic had to be rebooted in a overtly political manner that may date the film to 2016 rather than make it stand alone as a potential classic in its own right. Second, some critics and fans have said the only way to be fair when assessing remakes and reboots is to ignore the originals. I tend to disagree, particularly when a film is made that seems to mirror and reference the original so much. All the moreso when the original is widely appreciated and loved. If you can make it its own animal enough that it stands apart as a separate beast, then you might be able to break free from those comparisons, but given the trend in remakes/reboots, it seems like we're mostly getting polished, copy-and-paste versions of older films...therefore it is only natural audiences are going to be making those comparisons, even if they try to remain unbiased and open.

That said, the whole "they're ruining my childhood" complaint is also silly as fuck. Have they rounded up all copies of the original and moved to erase it from existence? If so, then we can maybe discuss how they're attacking your childhood. I could understand the sentiment if someone were pulling a George Lucas and updating the original's FX with the faux Scooby Doo shit from the remake, but as far as I know, the original is in no danger of being altered, augmented, or destroyed.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

So, is it any good?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

So, is it any good?

You mean you're actually curious about the movie itself, rather than the discussion about how it relates to gender roles? I'm in the same boat. I just wonder if the movie is worth seeing in an apolitical sense. I'm skeptical of the idea of any Ghostbusters reboot or sequel... I want more originality out of Hollywood, but I didn't actually hate the trailer, which means I might go see it if the movie has something worthwhile.