Who Ya Gonna Call?

[Mr Mystery]

Sod it. Ghostbusters thread.

A second trailer has been released, and I'm that much more enthused, having found the first one largely no more than 'OK'.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egs6RfGenvg&feature=player_embedded

Think I might just go to the Cinema for this one.

[Kirsten]

made me laugh the other day, several blokes telling Murray that there are only two ghostbusters films. I bet they are the same people who until this was announced, were slating ghostbusters 2 and going on about how there is only one film...

[CoffeeGrunt]

Apparently this is an unpopular opinion, but I actually found both trailers to be pretty funny. Kinda looking forward to this.

[Kirsten]

likewise

[eldargal]

New one is better, both are quite good. I am looking forward to it.

I love the male hysterics its prompted too, delightful.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I'll probably watch it in a few years when the hype is gone and try and enjoy it for what it is. Not terribly impressed by the looks of the story or SFX but I do like the cast.

[Erik Setzer]

My biggest problem isn't even with the movie, it's with the discussion around it.

I'll check this trailer later, but the first one felt like a generic lame "comedy" film that slapped the Ghostbusters aesthetic on itself. I have no interest in that, those movies always feel like they're aimed at the lowest common denominator (while still somehow managing not to actually get as much money as a Michael Bay Transformers movie... weird).

But if you say anything negative, and especially if you're a guy, the narrative is that you just dislike it because of the gender of the cast. You can't have any kind of opinion that the "humor" is lame, or the effects look bad even for effects that should look cheeky (if they're too "realistic," it wouldn't feel right for Ghostbusters), or anything like that. You either praise the movie, or you're a sexist hater. And that's, well... stupid is the most honest word for it. Stupid and dishonest. Yeah, I get that some guys (and women) aren't happy with the casting. But it seems like that line is being used to attack anyone who doesn't like it... which turns off a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have an issue with an all-female cast. It's kind of like being told that the only reason you dislike RombamaCare or a guy claiming he'd get rid of Gitmo and stop endless wars while continuing to keep Gitmo open and bomb multiple countries is because you're racist (since the guy in charge has slightly darker skin, never mind that genetically he's as "white" as he is "black").

Not really surprised that the person who first hit that angle here is a sexist who would, herself, be offended if someone said they were amused at the female hysterics from the casting of male-dominated films.

[Al Shut]

Sure the ghost look a lot niftier than back in the days, but I think I'll sit this one out. Or rather give it a try when it turns up on free TV in a few years. Both trailers didn't do much for me.

[daboarder]

Nah man, its an epic movie, the producer is an absolute genius.

You either love this movie, or if you think its bad you're a racist, sexist pig.

It cant lose, its the ultimate hedged bet.

Ill pass myself, but then I didnt like the original much either.

[daboarder]

My biggest problem isn't even with the movie, it's with the discussion around it.

I'll check this trailer later, but the first one felt like a generic lame "comedy" film that slapped the Ghostbusters aesthetic on itself. I have no interest in that, those movies always feel like they're aimed at the lowest common denominator (while still somehow managing not to actually get as much money as a Michael Bay Transformers movie... weird).

But if you say anything negative, and especially if you're a guy, the narrative is that you just dislike it because of the gender of the cast. You can't have any kind of opinion that the "humor" is lame, or the effects look bad even for effects that should look cheeky (if they're too "realistic," it wouldn't feel right for Ghostbusters), or anything like that. You either praise the movie, or you're a sexist hater. And that's, well... stupid is the most honest word for it. Stupid and dishonest. Yeah, I get that some guys (and women) aren't happy with the casting. But it seems like that line is being used to attack anyone who doesn't like it... which turns off a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have an issue with an all-female cast. It's kind of like being told that the only reason you dislike RombamaCare or a guy claiming he'd get rid of Gitmo and stop endless wars while continuing to keep Gitmo open and bomb multiple countries is because you're racist (since the guy in charge has slightly darker skin, never mind that genetically he's as "white" as he is "black").

Not really surprised that the person who first hit that angle here is a sexist who would, herself, be offended if someone said they were amused at the female hysterics from the casting of male-dominated films.

Have I ever told you I love you man. Much more eloquent than I am. Well done

[Gotthammer]

Maybe you could both try actually just saying something like "I don't think this trailer is good, so I won't be seeing it" or "have to say I didn't find that funny or interesting at all" than reacting to theoretical criticisms?

For instance in the off-topic thread Erik posted a negative view of the trailer and nobody cared.

Unless you're defending people making fun of this sort of thing:

http://static02.mediaite.com/themarysue/uploads/gallery/ghostbuster-reactions/Screenshot-2015-01-28-at-2.19.18-PM.png

http://static02.mediaite.com/themarysue/uploads/gallery/ghostbuster-reactions/Screenshot-2015-01-28-at-2.18.15-PM.png

http://static02.mediaite.com/themarysue/uploads/gallery/ghostbuster-reactions/Screenshot-2015-01-28-at-2.17.25-PM.png

http://static02.mediaite.com/themarysue/uploads/gallery/ghostbuster-reactions/Screenshot-2015-01-28-at-2.17.04-PM.png

http://static02.mediaite.com/themarysue/uploads/gallery/ghostbuster-reactions/Screenshot-2015-01-28-at-2.16.36-PM.png


One of the top “liked” comments, by a user named KS R, reads, “This looks awful. An all female cast was a big mistake.” A person with the handle Ali Ameri55 wrote, “Whose genius idea was it to remake a total guy movie with an all female cast? Good way to lose both audiences.” And a person named Derle Dixon simply stated, “Women ruin everything.”

In addition to those and more negative reactions on YouTube, there were hundreds more on Twitter. A user with the handle ‏@SpacePirate_JFT tweeted, “Every time I watch the actual Ghostbusters movie… the all-female remake makes me angrier and angrier.” About the cast, @LexVegasXray griped, “Fat woman, loud black woman and two other women. How about remaking Rambo with all women?” And a user named @Hamstachick expressed, “Really?! Chicks? Corny jokes?… It’s been ruined. Damn.”


In a recent Variety interview for his new comedy Spy, director Paul Feig was asked how he felt about the tiny man-babies who claim his all-female Ghostbusters reboot will retroactively ruin their childhood:

"The Internet is really funny – I love it, but I hate it at the same time […] The first wave when you make an announcement like that is overwhelmingly positive. Everyone’s so happy and you’re like, This is great. Then comes the second wave and you’re like, Oh my God. Some of the most vile, misogynistic sh** I’ve ever seen in my life."

Feig talked in particular about the “vicious” remarks he saw on Twitter, saying “The biggest thing I’ve heard for the last four months is, ‘Thanks for ruining my childhood.’ It’s going to be on my tombstone when I die. It’s so dramatic. Honestly, the only way I could ruin your childhood is if I got into a time machine and went back and made you an orphan.”

The director says that after receiving a particularly hateful tweet, he often checks out the offender’s profile: “I figure it’s some wacked out teenager. But almost constantly it’s someone whose bio says, ‘Proud father of two!’ And has some high end job. You’re raising children and yet you’re bashing me about putting women in my movie?”

Because if you're defending that sort of thing... yeah...

[Al Shut]

In defence of that sort of thing, I have the nagging suspicion that I might be more interested in this if the cast were all hot and topless.

But calling somebody Michael Bay fans is indeed inexcusable.

[Mr Mystery]

Could be worse. Could be Zak Snyder fans.

http://www.footballbettingodds.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Edward.jpg

This is a Zak Snyder film for Zak Snyder fans. We'll have no coherent plot or pacing here!

[daboarder]

lol, "can I get a "im allowed to hate" copypasta?

[grimmas]

its the first time Micheal Bays been linked to feminists in a way that doesn't have them wanting to kill him

"Don't care, I'll stand & pee on your leg" is top draw trash talk though.

I don't like the look of it but it might not be aimed at 38 yr olds, so I'll be ok with that (which I know a lot of you were concerned about)

[daboarder]

its the first time Micheal Bays been linked to feminists in a way that doesn't have them wanting to kill him

"Don't care, I'll stand & pee on your leg" is top draw trash talk though.

I don't like the look of it but it might not be aimed at 38 yr olds, so I'll be ok with that (which I know a lot of you were concerned about)

Jeeze grimnas, You're such a bigot :p

(this is of course a joke and its a shame it needs the warning)

[eldargal]

Maybe you could both try actually just saying something like "I don't think this trailer is good, so I won't be seeing it" or "have to say I didn't find that funny or interesting at all" than reacting to theoretical criticisms?

For instance in the off-topic thread Erik posted a negative view of the trailer and nobody cared.

Also Al Shut on the previous page.

I don't care if people think the trailers look bad. The first one had some very uncomfortable stereotypical black woman elements which got a lot of criticism from feminists and women of colour, rightly so. What I do care about is people complaining solely because the movie has women instead of guys. We had two all male Ghostbusters already, and they relied on a stereotypical street smart black character too (he was originally supposed to be a scientist, they changed it quite late in the piece, the actor was very upset) too, fun fact. There is nothing wrong with having an all-female Ghostbusters, and let's be honest 90% of the criticism guys are leveling at it can be summed up with one image:
http://40.media.tumblr.com/eeea11373c2f3c5577fc3376a3aab24b/tumblr_nygb6hevjV1s3rc4wo1_1280.jpg

[Kaptain Badrukk]

It has Dan Aykroyd's seal of approval as the 4th film (he considers the game to be the third film).
If Dan likes it, I'll try it.
My wife on the other hand saw the trailer and immediately commented "Great, another re-make of something that was good before. Why not make something NEW?"
Which is a good point.
From my POV as long as the characters are good, and Melissa Macarthy manages to not be a detriment to the film (so far I've only ever enjoyed her in 'The Heat', which her character totally made for me).
I'm aware of Wiig, and she seems solid.
The other two less so, but they're got decent credentials and the trailer makes them look enjoyable.
My main concern is that the original 2 movies thrived on the chemistry between the main cast (and I include Weaver, Moranis and Potts in that number, as their roles were integral to the dynamic), and the trailers don't show me enough of that to sell me yet. And I'm not sure Helmsworth can sit in Annie Potts chair and do it well, she's a BIG ask to replace in terms of comedy timing and screen presence in so integral a supporting role.
Also the legendary Rick Moranis (who didn't even like the SECOND film because he dislikes character re-treads so much he even poo-pooed the idea of a Spaceballs sequel), or a great performance by Peter MacNicol, and who plays a better unlikable git than the redoubtable William Atherton!
I mean think about it, the WHOLE cast have to be too or it all comes crumbling down compared to either.
I don't care what dangly bits are/n't hanging between the legs of the cast, but it's a movie that's actively inviting comparisons to two of the most seminal pieces of mainstream sci-fi comedy ever made!
That said, Aykroyd seal of approval, so looks like my wife will have to overcome her concerns and be dragged along anyhow.

[Al Shut]

It has Dan Aykroyd's seal of approval as the 4th film (he considers the game to be the third film).
If Dan likes it, I'll try it.


Didn't Aykroyd like 'Blues Brothers 2000' too?

[Path Walker]

Most of the jokes in the first and especially in the second Ghostbusters films are pretty lame. There was also a disappointing amount of racism in the way Winston was treated (especially compared to the original idea behind the character as an air force pilot who was a member from the start, rather than just some guy desperate for work http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Ernie-Hudson-Role-Ghostbusters-Was-Supposed-Very-Different-68102.html)

There is a lot of nostalgia involved in peoples treatment of these movies, which is a fine reason to enjoy thing, so I think people could do with some ****ing perspective. No one has a problem with someone saying "I don't like Fiegs movies" or "the trailer didn't look that fun", that's not sexist and no one is ever claiming it is. Pretending that people are calling critics of the movie so far sexist for no reason is willfully ignoring the massive amounts of actual full on misogyny getting thrown around about the actresses (who are all much more accomplished comedy actors than any of the original cast were at that point in their careers).

[Charistoph]

My wife on the other hand saw the trailer and immediately commented "Great, another re-make of something that was good before. Why not make something NEW?"
Which is a good point.

So long as they are actually new characters, I'm mostly fine with it. One thing I hate is seeing actors changed, but it is still the same characters. While I love what they did with some of the characters in the Star Trek movies, I still think it would have been better to have an original crew in that same timeline.

I do think that the possibility of having the main protagonists be all women MIGHT be an in-your-face at misogynists (let's face it, it happens), but I'd have to see how the characters are before I bother making a solid judgement on that being a fact.

[Psychosplodge]

That's certainly an improvement over the last trailer.

[Mr Mystery]

Just thinking....so far, we've not seen the classic Ghost Trap, and certainly the Pistols seem to at least physical disrupt if not disperse Ghosts.

Perhaps we'll see more action in this one, as opposed to the traditional 'form line and fire' required for a Proton Pack?

Though on the ghost trap, we've seen what might be a spectral bear trap type thing....

Still worried Patty is there as Token Black. Much as the crowd surf bit raised a giggle, the reaction was pretty much what we expected to see from dozens of other Token Black's in cinema history (which interestingly doesn't include Ernie Hudson). Though Leslie Jones was a contributor to Def Comedy Jam (a show I know only via Mad Magazine in the late 90's), so perhaps that's just her being her, in the same way Bill Murray has never really acted in his life, as he's always portrayed, well, Bill Murray.

[Denzark]

I've got to admit, I have only seen the first trailer - and I liked it - I thought it had potential.

I was ready to dislike this film, for 2 reasons. Firstly, the concept discussed about remakes. I concur - do something original - or if you absolutely can't, do it bloody well.

The second reason is the selection of an all female cast. If there is a genuine pure plot device that is not a total macguffin and makes sense, I will be happy with that. If it has been done purely in order to advance a feminist agenda, I won't support it with my money.

In terms of true equality, I have no problem with some or all of a group consisting of a certain sex or ethnicity. All sexes are equal, and all ethnicities are equal. But on that basis , where an all female cast is equal to an all male cast - the same is must be true in reverse, with true equality. So I don't have a problem with some, a percentage or all of a group being one thing or another - because they are equal.

I wouldn't expect Aliens to be remade with a male Ripley, I wouldn't expect Thelma and Louise to become Thaddeus and Lou - just to advance a male agenda - likewise Ghostbusters to advance a feminist agenda.

[daboarder]

I've got to admit, I have only seen the first trailer - and I liked it - I thought it had potential.

I was ready to dislike this film, for 2 reasons. Firstly, the concept discussed about remakes. I concur - do something original - or if you absolutely can't, do it bloody well.

The second reason is the selection of an all female cast. If there is a genuine pure plot device that is not a total macguffin and makes sense, I will be happy with that. If it has been done purely in order to advance a feminist agenda, I won't support it with my money.

In terms of true equality, I have no problem with some or all of a group consisting of a certain sex or ethnicity. All sexes are equal, and all ethnicities are equal. But on that basis , where an all female cast is equal to an all male cast - the same is must be true in reverse, with true equality. So I don't have a problem with some, a percentage or all of a group being one thing or another - because they are equal.

I wouldn't expect Aliens to be remade with a male Ripley, I wouldn't expect Thelma and Louise to become Thaddeus and Lou - just to advance a male agenda - likewise Ghostbusters to advance a feminist agenda.

Prepare for a comment that basically ammounts to "its not sexist when I do it" from the expected people :rolleyes:

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I'm not the expected person, BUT....
An all female cast is entirely acceptable in the context where the gender of the character has no context, for example you could re-make Alien with a male Ripley and it could work. However you couldn't re-make Thelma and Louise, because the context of the characters and their place in society as women is too great.
It'd be like re-making Queen of the Desert with female strippers.
So I have no problem with an all female ghostbusters, because the gender of the characters is secondary to their role.
But I'd be annoyed by an all female re-casting of a film where maleness was essential to the key characters.
It's not sexist to cast all male, or all female, casts.
It is sexist to suggest that a role which does not hinge on the gender of the character could not be played by either gender (which no-one is doing here, in case you thought I was implying you were).
It is good to see more women leading in action/action comedy roles which have previously been almost entirely the domain of men, especially where science-fiction is concerned.
It is sexist to imply that this might be a bad thing, but NOT sexist to do so based on the individual merits of the actresses vs the previous incumbents of roles in question, just as it is not prejudiced against men to do so by comparing one actor to another (again not saying anyone is judging them for being women).
So no, doing this is not sexist.
Questioning if the actresses can live up to the performances of the original 4, or if the rest of the cast can to the original cast for that matter, is also not sexist unless the questioner uses their gender as a REASON why they are potentially a poor choice.
edit: ALTHOUGH, now I re-read Denzark's post, that is kind what's going on there.
Denzark;
Ask yourself this "Did there need to be a reason why all 4 Ghostbusters in the originals were men?"
The answer is no.
So, since gender is not in any way key to the characters, "Does there need to be a reason why all 4 Ghoestbusters are women?".

[Denzark]

I will resist the urge to go OT and debate why Ripley must be female or you lose the whole 'the alien inside me is a replacement for the child I lost' and the fact that she is the human counterpart to the Alien Queen...

[Path Walker]

Why is an all female main cast accused of being some sort of "Feminist Agenda" move, but an all male main cast doesn't mean anything? Because of Hollywood and western cultures in-built default sexism?

Alien needs Ripley to be a woman because its more threatening when the character on her own is a women, because, well, see above. Aliens plays with the role of motherhood though.

[eldargal]

It goes back to (straight, white)men being the default and everything else being divergent and not actually improtant enough to include except as tokens who are ultimately there to service the male cast (who are still the important ones, of course) by being love interest or whatever.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean evne just taking the Ghostbusters franchise and ignoring the broader issues in Hollywood, we had two all male Ghostbusters movies already (and cartoons and comics and video games), so why is it a big deal to have an all female cast now? Because ultimately in the eyes of too many men (and sadly some women) women aren't important enough to justify that sort of attention. It is supposed to be about them, because everything is, and that is what they deserve.

[Path Walker]

But of course, that's not a symptom of sexism being actively part of our culture by generally showing women to be less important (ie The Patriarchy). Is it daboarder?

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I had forgotten about the role of motherhood in the alien films, i stand corrected, you could not (given our preconcieved notion of gender roles) have a male Ripley.

[Mr Mystery]

Yet Ripley was originally written as a male character.

[eldargal]

The script went through quite a few revisions from when Ripley was going to be male to when she wasn't though, it wasn't just a case of swapping the gender of the actor and hte pronouns in the script or something.

[grimmas]

I think it's only relevant in the later films. In Alien it's about them being chased around a ship by an Alien and Aliens is about them being chased round a planet by lots of Aliens.

Edit: according to critics the original uses ideas of male rape to build the fear.

[Kirsten]

The script went through quite a few revisions from when Ripley was going to be male to when she wasn't though, it wasn't just a case of swapping the gender of the actor and hte pronouns in the script or something.

if it had been kept as male Ripley that would be some awkward dinner time conversations round the Alien table

[Charistoph]

I mean evne just taking the Ghostbusters franchise and ignoring the broader issues in Hollywood, we had two all male Ghostbusters movies already (and cartoons and comics and video games), so why is it a big deal to have an all female cast now?

If I remember right, the second cartoon series (found it Extreme Ghostbusters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Ghostbusters)) actually had at least one female member. Of course, she was a goth girl to make her "fit in" with the theme of Ghostbusters, but it was also late 90s, too.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I liked Extreme Ghostbusters, and the goth girl was awesome. Not enough alternative characters in media generally either, allthough I've heard that NCIS show also has a goth girl (that even listens to industrial/ebm) but never seen that show. Goth girls should be in everything. Especially ones that like skinny puppy and fla. This is a fact.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I'm not bothered about the gender make-up of the cast, tbh. I can understand demanding a 50/50 mix, but ultimately isn't that exactly the kind of cold, clinical pandering that people are crying out against? A demographically and statistically-oriented focus grouping breaking characters down into perfect distributions.

I mean, we can't have another Ghostbusters movie anyway. Murray and Arkroyd, for whatever reason, apparently decided to recruit new blood for this remake. It has their blessing online, and a lot of places are claiming they had a hand in choosing the cast and helping with writing, though they're unsubstantiated 'til we see the credits or get confirmation from the guys themselves. This may well be their vision of a third movie.

As far as an all-female cast being pandering, we're still 2:1 on male-female representation as Ghostbusters, given two movies of four dudes versus one movie of four ladies. If the characters are well-written and the comedy is good, it shouldn't matter.

But it does matter. The only people I've heard really complain about the gender make-up, are guys. Even on here, many of the ones complaining about that aspect, even citing it as forced or something that will adversely affect the movie through other ways, are guys.

I mean, we didn't really need a remake. But it's Hollywood. They're remaking everything right now while they try and work out how to write the occasional original script. Original IPs don't make as much money, and people don't go to see them in the same numbers, so if anything the remake culture is born of us as consumers preferring to see a safe retread of something we like than trying something new and unknown.

A remake was inevitable, and this one appears to have Murray and Arkroyd behind it. Murray's awesome, Arkroyd is a bit more variable. He's hilarious in some stuff, but then there's stuff like Blues Brothers 2000. It's about the best we can hope for.

My personal decision on this is the same as everything. Wait for it to release, check out reviews, mull it over, then possibly watch it on a stream if I'm on the fence. If it's any good, I'll hit the cinema or buy a Blu-Ray, (or both if it's particularly good.) No financial risk, nothing lost.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I'll probably watch it in a few years time or so when all the hype and hate has died down and I don't have to listen to other peoples opinions about it. I find I'm better able to go in without any expectations and enjoy things that way.

[Psychosplodge]

Isn't the media wonderful?



Holy Hyperbole, Batman! I guess the exaggerated headlines with terms like "RIPS!" & "RAILS!" & "SLAMS!" make for better click-bait than the headline "Smith Defends ‪#‎Ghostbusters‬ Director/Cast" (which was more along the lines of what I actually did on last week's ‪#‎BabbleOn‬). ‪#‎Sigh‬ ‪#‎KevinSmith‬ ‪#‎headlines‬ ‪#‎hyperboleandahalf‬


https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpl1/v/t1.0-9/1488784_10153302383811930_7538563770696715443_n.jp g?oh=aff75f2c71b24b8112bca16a7c9ca7d1&oe=57547A93

[Path Walker]

Kevin Smith needs to be stopped by any means necessary.

[CoffeeGrunt]

He's got a point. First trailer was weak, second one seems to be much better cut. It's like comparing the Batman Vs Superman trailers to Civil War. BvS has had an alright trailer, a woeful one that spoiled the plot, and then an actually pretty cool one. If they'd just released the latest one first, it would have avoided a lot of fan rage.

Civil War, conversely, has only had one or two trailers release, and they're both excellently put-together. They advertise and tease without spoiling, and they use clever editing to imply certain events are happening. They flow well.

It's a pity that journalism has been entirely replaced with sensationalism and bias, not to mention it coinciding with people reading headlines but not the content. Everything is just a swirl of incoherent rage these days.

[Psychosplodge]

:rolleyes:

Not a fan?

- - - Updated - - -



It's a pity that journalism has been entirely replaced with sensationalism and bias, not to mention it coinciding with people reading headlines but not the content. Everything is just a swirl of incoherent rage these days.

I blame the internet. Clickbait wouldn't exist without it.

[Aegwymourn]

:rolleyes:

Not a fan?

- - - updated - - -



i blame stupid people. Clickbait wouldn't exist without it.

ftfy

[Psychosplodge]

But that's not how media outrage works, I was obviously far too subtle :rolleyes:

[Mr Mystery]

Kevin Smith needs to be stopped by any means necessary.

Agreed.

I know it's not a popular or common opinion, but I consider him massively overrated.

Other opinions are of course available and valid etc.

[Psychosplodge]

It's still more or less a free country. You're both entitled to hold your wrong opinion. for now.

[Mr Mystery]

YEs....soon we will have taken over, and you will be burned on a pyre of signed Batfleck promo photos.

[Psychosplodge]

*shudder*

[Mr Mystery]

It's not like they'll have any other use...

[Path Walker]

Agreed.

I know it's not a popular or common opinion, but I consider him massively overrated.

Other opinions are of course available and valid etc.

He made one decent, interesting film 22 years ago, since then its just been awful cinema, masses of shameless self promotion, being too fat to fly on a plane and "that tweet".

[Mr Mystery]

I'm not even sure he managed that much....

[Path Walker]

Clerks was ok, it worked within his limitations, it was the best he could ever manage, just happened to also be his first movie.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Who is Kevin Smith anyway?

[Psychosplodge]

Who is Kevin Smith anyway?

A very underrated director, but some people just don't get it :p

[Kirsten]

the bloke who looks a bit like Silent Bob

[Mr Mystery]

And makes massively overrated films with Silent Bob in them.

And who helped to spawn the career of Batfleck.....

[Al Shut]

And who helped to spawn the career of Batfleck.....

I hope this isn't supposed to be a complaint

Gone Baby Gone is a better movie than anything Smith ever did

[Psychosplodge]

I hope this isn't supposed to be a complaint

Gone Baby Gone is a better movie than anything Smith ever did

Get out. Exits over there :p

[Mr Mystery]

Apparently, Ghostbusters now has the most down-voted trailer on Youtube.

Oh man children. You do make I laff at your silly, spoiled brat antics.

[Psychosplodge]

If you're talking the first one, its unsurprising that trailer was poor. If it's the second one then yes its just pettiness.

[Kirsten]

it is all pettiness whichever one it is.

[Psychosplodge]

Something has to be the worst voted trailer on youtube

[Mr Mystery]

Except this is a concerted effort to denigrate a specific film.

And given the manchild reaction to the original casting decision, I think we can make an educated guess as to why.

The trailer isn't even all that awful - and as already covered, I'm not exactly a Melissa McCarthy fan (Mike and Molly was/is just dire) but even she seems to have toned it down for this one.

[Psychosplodge]

The first one was dire mystery it really was.
The second was a massive improvement.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I sincerely doubt it's the worst trailer ever made, nor is it going to be the worst movie ever made, but it's a popular 'worst movie ever' for a lot of people.

Kinda like rating music by Youtube views and finding Gangnam Style is a thousand times better than Mozart cos Views.

[Psychosplodge]

True cause there's no way Bieber is as good as it is popular.

[Mr Mystery]

First trailer was simply 'OK'. Nothing offputting, but nothing massively compelling.

And Beiber needs to go away, and his entire wing of the music industry.

[Erik Setzer]

Funny you mention Bieber. One of his videos was actually the most down-voted prior to that trailer. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that wasn't based on gender.

While I've got no doubt a lot of the votes are just based on the gender of people involved, it's also very likely that, just as with Bieber, a lot of people don't like what they saw. And there's some people who probably would have been pissed off about a reboot even if it'd had a male cast. Heck, look at all the haters that spring up to tell us how SW:TFA sucked and anyone who likes it is stupid.

The real telling will be how it does in the theater and with critics (who we'd at least like to assume won't be swayed by personal sexism).

[Psychosplodge]

I am bugged by them doing a "reboot" rather than just continuing the story and making this a new GB team. It feels like they tried to even copy the roles of members of the original team. That just seems lazy. Make it a new team, with a new story all their own. Let them be their own people!


That's the only thing that's really bothered me. Why the reboot? Why not a sequel? Hollywood just seems obsessed with reboots.

[40kGamer]

That's the only thing that's really bothered me. Why the reboot? Why not a sequel? Hollywood just seems obsessed with reboots.

Spider Man & FF Mark III here we come!

[Erik Setzer]

Spider Man & FF Mark III here we come!

In the case of the FF, they need to erase the last couple of failure attempts.

And those seem to come from the pre-Disney Marvel mess. Not as much of an excuse as DC redoing Batman's story over and over, even more than Superman by now.

[Psychosplodge]

How many times do you need to see uncle Ben die?

[Al Shut]

That's the only thing that's really bothered me. Why the reboot? Why not a sequel? Hollywood just seems obsessed with reboots.

I think I read somewhere it so the public (in the movie) will go 'OMG, ghosts!' and not 'Oh no, ghosts again.'

[Erik Setzer]

How many times do you need to see uncle Ben die?

Give us one last time, with Sean Bean as Uncle Ben.

[Psychosplodge]

No cause if Sean Bean is uncle Ben, then uncle Ben will survive as he dies as other actors. It'll bend the universe the other way entirely.

Or are you suggesting we could have a Yorkshire Spiderman reboot? :D

[40kGamer]

How many times do you need to see uncle Ben die?

Until they get it right! :p

- - - Updated - - -


In the case of the FF, they need to erase the last couple of failure attempts.

And those seem to come from the pre-Disney Marvel mess. Not as much of an excuse as DC redoing Batman's story over and over, even more than Superman by now.

You can say that again... I love FF but that franchise has turned into a hot mess.

[daboarder]

it is all pettiness whichever one it is.

18383

[Mr Mystery]

18383

https://49.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m05j1sZ6EU1qjj0j1o1_400.gif

[Erik Setzer]

So, people liked to hit on the number of dislikes the Ghostbusters trailer had and claim it was only about sexism, because there's no way people would have any other reason to dislike it, especially that much. (It's not like they took a classic movie people loved, came up with a reboot idea that even confused its own cast on whether it was a reboot or not, and loaded the trailer with low-end attempts at humor. Oh! Oh! Let's not forget one of the higher-ups came out and said "geek culture" is filled with "***holes.")

So, okay, fine, let's assume that all those dislikes are because of guys hating women.

Now, I guess we're going to say that a woman popping up in the Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare trailer is the reason for all of the dislikes there, right?

I've dropped the numbers below. CoD:IW's trailer already has more than twice as many dislikes as Ghostbusters' trailer... while having just over half the views. Not just that, but the percentages are insane. Of GB's views, only 2.46% are dislikes, while 9.90% of IW's views are dislikes. GB has 3.31 dislikes for each like. IW has 5.60 dislikes for every like.

Now, I can agree that some of the dislikes for the GB trailer were from guys just hating women being put in place of male characters (which the people making the film made sure was the one thing anyone knew about it before they even cast anyone or got the movie going). Yeah, there's genuine jerks. But it's just ridiculous that people acted so much like the only reason anything could get this level of anger or dislike was because of misogyny alone, that it couldn't be that a lot of people - still a rather small amount given how many people have seen the video - just disliked that they remade a loved movie in a way that tries to act like the original didn't happen (while the trailer references the original, so everyone's confused) and seems filled with modern terrible humor.

Just like IW isn't getting hate because you see a woman for two seconds. It's getting hate because Activision said it was giving people something they want finally (a remaster of CoD4:MW), but you have to buy a special edition of CoD:IW for $80 or more to get it. Also, probably annoyance at a new CoD every year.

In both cases, it might be a bit of overreaction. GB might just be mediocre and not a hot flaming pile of dog crap that has the unfortunate side effect of making Hollywood think the gender of the leads was the problem rather than the entire premise of the project. It'll still probably make a good bit of money, because somehow Adam Sandler is still making money, and even people who want to hate on it will go see it to confirm their anger. With CoD:IW, the game itself looks like it could be fun, and they'll almost certainly release MW remastered on its own down the line (once sales of IW's special edition start dying down).

But this is the Internet. People overreact. And right now, GB's trailer has been blown away by another trailer - albeit for a game and not a movie - in the number of dislikes, the percentage of views that are dislikes, and the ratio of dislikes:likes.

Ghostbusters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ugHP-yZXw
Views: 31,621,221
Likes: 235,491
Dislikes: 778,836

Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeF3UTkCoxY
Views: 17,450,628
Likes: 308,609
Dislikes: 1,728,907



(Just gonna say to make sure my position's clear on this... If you enjoy that type of humor and though Paul Blart, Pixels, etc. were masterpieces of cinema, fair to ya, entertainment is all about opinion and I can't tell you that you're "wrong." My own personal opinion is that all of those movies are mediocre at best, and it takes some real effort to step above the LCD of "comedy" and actually present something amusing and entertaining.)

[Mr Mystery]

Reviewer refuses to review the new Ghostbusters film (http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/entertainment/twitter-****s-itself-after-whiny-man-baby-refuses-/8204b8b3-fe2c-448b-a16b-61a850982e69.htm)

Bit of saucy language, so potentially NSFW. Worth a read, because it gave me a giggle.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

link doesn't work? Is that James Rolfe?

[CoffeeGrunt]

The original video is actually pretty fair, though. He discusses the possibility of the movie being better than the trailer, and notes that if you don't like the look of it and know you'll hate it, just don't watch it. That's why they won't go watch it, because why give ticket sales to a movie he won't like.

Plus his critique is pretty fair. He dislikes that it's just called "Ghostbusters," and notes that it pushes people to say, "Ghostbusters with chicks," as a differentiator from the original. He then debates the fact that it's a remake, but might be a sequel, and no-one's really sure.

He then uses examples such as Star Trek and Star Wars to show how he'd like reboots to happen. E.g., nodding to the old while bringing in the new. That article just seems to be trying to fuel outrage when the video it sources from doesn't make a single mention of avoiding it because it's an all-female cast. They're avoiding it because it writes over the classic, the original actors make mere cameos out-of-character, and the CGI isn't to their taste.

I don't fully understand why a random-but-fairly-popular YouTuber saying they're not going to review a movie is, "setting Twitter on fire," but then I don't see why Twitter traffic is news these days either...

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

Yeah, I thought his comments were pretty fair and there was no hint of mysogony I could see. I had a feeling it would blow up though. The commentors on his video however...well some of those were very mysognystic and disgusting. I certainly found the CGI in the trailer to be the bigest turnoff for me personally, but ill freely admit I have a bias against CGI and prefer practical FX (you can call me narrow minded for it if you want, you might be right)

[Mr Mystery]

Seems more like a Reviewer narked he doesn't get press tickets to me....

Still think it's a bit rich to rubbish any film without having seen it first, or at least had other reviews to give you a guide (I've avoided BvS, on account a commonality in reviews is that it's not an improvement over MoS, which left me cold)

[CoffeeGrunt]

Have you seen the video, though? I mean, what the article says and what he says are two entirely different things. One could say that if you haven't watched the actual video, then you're kinda committing what you're accusing them of.

Plus reviews can be biased, though aggregating them helps. Phantom Menace got fantastic initial reviews. Unless you find a reviewer you can trust, it's ultimately just an opinion.

In fact, his point was that he wasn't going to see this video because he knew from the tone of the two trailers he wouldn't like it. He wouldn't like the CGI, he wouldn't like that it rewrites a classic film for him and he doesn't like the humour on display in the trailer. It's literally just him explaining why he doesn't like how it looks, and then he moves it towards saying, "why buy tickets for a film I won't enjoy? Why buy tickets for a film you'll hate, just so people can't say to you, 'well you haven't seen it so you can't comment.' You're giving money to a product you don't like, and that'll result in sequels no-one wants."

YourMovieSucks brings up a fair point in the comments that, really, he's just exercising a right we all do every day. "I don't like the look of that, I'll give it a miss." As a Youtuber, he's just explaining why, so fans don't get angry when he doesn't review it for them. It's a complete non-issue and doesn't deserve news time.

I look at trailers for stuff like Neighbours 2: Sorority Rising, and think, "I ain't going to the cinema to see that. I won't even bother spending the time to find a stream." But Neighbours 2 is full of female characters, too! Seth Rogen seems to be the only guy in it!

Yet I wouldn't be called misogynistic for not wanting to see it, nor spend money on it, nor get angry afterwards writing/filming a review on how much I disliked it. I don't find Rogen funny, the trailer didn't make me laugh and I never saw the first one...if that matters.

Likewise, a random dude on Youtube says they don't fancy watching Ghostbusters, so hey guys, there won't be a Ghostbusters movie, and rather than going to see it and then whine about it, why not do something constructive instead? Or just not give the studio money, whatever. Apparently that happening is BLOWING UP TWITTER because Twitter has no sense of scale nor is it possible to really decide what that even means. A million Tweets? Fifty million? Well fifty million is a tenth of its output in a day, and I sincerely doubt a Youtuber with 2M subs got nearly that many.

God am I getting tired of the Internet Outrage Machine jumping on bandwagons and the 'netpress' stoking up the flames to keep it trucking. The guy actually has a very interesting video he links on to afterwards that talks about how the Ghostbusters 3 behind-the-scenes production has been an utter mess, and it's incredibly informative. He's a fan of a great IP who can see a messy production schedule is going to result in a product he won't want.

I did the same for World War Z. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

he hasn't had tickets for any movie he's reviewed so I doubt it's that. I think he probably just wanted to give a reason for the inevitable ton of requests asking him to review it (reviewing bad things is often what he is known for, although thats usually videogames) I dont think he really really rubbished the movie though, just gave reasons as to why he didn't want to see it. I don't really see the big deal. I personally do regret giving some films a chance though such as the 2011 prequel to The Thing, as I figured id probably hate it and I did and regretted giving it a chance (they had the audacity to go OVER the top of the practical fx with sh1tty CGI) - if I could I would erase that experience from my memory and now I find it difficult to watch the carpenter version and its the same for dr who - i cant even watch the classic ones I like anymore because the 2005-current one has totally ruined my interest in it and left a bad taste in my mouth. Personally, the female cast is the ONLY good thing I saw in that ghostbusters movie - the rest of it looked like total crap to me.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, I mean there's a lot that worries me about it, from slightly-off CGI to a complete lack of knowledge whether it's a sequel or a reboot, to Leslie Jones' character being written as, "uhuh sister I'm the streetsmart black girl say whaaaaaa-!" I mean, I really hope she isn't just an 80s throwback Token Black Lady stereotype character, but that's what the trailer shows.

I mean, people out that trailers can be misleading, and they can be. But excellent movies put similar effort into their trailer. If you can't competently put together a good 2 minute trailer, then how are you going to put together a two-hour movie? Force Awakens, Civil War, etc all had great trailers, whereas BvS had lukewarm ones steadily getting better, and as it turned out, FA and CW were excellent and BvS was...well, it had some good moments.

Generally though, the trailer should at least show the tone of the work, and for the most part, the tone doesn't seem great. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt there'll be things to enjoy in it, and I'm staying open-minded. I did that for BvS, though, and I still can't say more than, "it's a well-cast movie with great visuals, let down by awful writing and some bad directing."

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I have to be more picky and choosey because I am poor too. Money is a factor for me and if something doesn't look good then I won't be giving it a chance because I can't afford to waste money that way.

Eh, I havent been to a cinema in a longggg time though. It would have to take something like At The Mountains of Madness or an adaptation of a Stapledon or Robert l forward novel to get me to step foot into one of those places as I can't stand being in crowds of people.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I only go with friends, and it becomes an event thing for movies like Star Wars or Civil War. Or Deadpool. Or Batman vs Superman. It's been a pretty good year lately for nerdy stuff. :P

[Erik Setzer]

The original video is actually pretty fair, though. He discusses the possibility of the movie being better than the trailer, and notes that if you don't like the look of it and know you'll hate it, just don't watch it. That's why they won't go watch it, because why give ticket sales to a movie he won't like.

Plus his critique is pretty fair. He dislikes that it's just called "Ghostbusters," and notes that it pushes people to say, "Ghostbusters with chicks," as a differentiator from the original. He then debates the fact that it's a remake, but might be a sequel, and no-one's really sure.

He then uses examples such as Star Trek and Star Wars to show how he'd like reboots to happen. E.g., nodding to the old while bringing in the new. That article just seems to be trying to fuel outrage when the video it sources from doesn't make a single mention of avoiding it because it's an all-female cast. They're avoiding it because it writes over the classic, the original actors make mere cameos out-of-character, and the CGI isn't to their taste.

I don't fully understand why a random-but-fairly-popular YouTuber saying they're not going to review a movie is, "setting Twitter on fire," but then I don't see why Twitter traffic is news these days either...

Because this movie has become an utter mess on the Internet. The whole premise from the movie studio, and what they originally told people before telling them anything else, is that it's "Ghostbusters with chicks." And because that's what it is, and *some* jerks did get sexist about it, now *any* criticism of it is being fluffed off as if they're just sexist and hate it because it has women.

And you have sites like the above which are fueling that mess. And people did the same with the large number of dislikes, claiming it was only because of gender, not because people might actually have any of a dozen other reasons to not like the trailer. (Meanwhile, CoD:IW, with almost a complete lack of women in its trailer, has almost four times as many dislikes while still having about ten million fewer views.)

It's a disaster for honest discussion, and this is the perfect example. You can't criticize the movie or anything about it without people trying to find some way to call you "sexist." And yeah, there's people who are sexist, but there's so many people out there who aren't liking the way this looks, and it has nothing to do with gender. There are *women* out there who don't like the way this looks, but somehow they're anti-women, because... well, because the Internet is stupid, and the recent attempts to act "enlightened" have led us to this.

[eldargal]

Most of the criticism is sexist though, you can't deny that because most of the critical youtube comments are explicitly sexist. Certainly some people will dislike it for legitimate reasons or as a matter of taste but that doesn't change the fact that misogyny is the driving force behind the negativity about the film.

[Erik Setzer]

I only go with friends, and it becomes an event thing for movies like Star Wars or Civil War. Or Deadpool. Or Batman vs Superman. It's been a pretty good year lately for nerdy stuff. :P

I tend to go with friends when possible, mainly because otherwise I'm in a room filled with strangers, and that can be... uncomfortable (seeing Civil War on opening weekend had me feeling like my heart was going to explode before the movie started and mostly distracted me from the people pressing in around me). But one good thing about when I used to go to the theater more often was that I can go outside the zone of shared interests and take a chance on something. I still don't know what led me to watch something like Up in the Air, or Crazy Heart, but they were pretty good movies I probably wouldn't have seen if I just went with friends.

There's a lot of good nerdy stuff coming out this year, but I'd like to find more interesting movies like that. The Girl on the Train had an interesting trailer, might give that a try. But that shows the power of a good trailer. (And I think it was seeing the trailers online that led me to see those other movies.)

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

havent felt any of the super hero movies were worth watching in cinema - I enjoy them and they are ok, but they are more like fluff for me so I am not as dedicated I suppose. I might make an exception Wonder woman though as it's one I'd like to support. SW never appealed to me either so there aren't really any franchises or big things like that I am really in love with that excite me, wish there was though - I guess it's a curse of having niche taste in stuff I suppose.

[Erik Setzer]

Most of the criticism is sexist though, you can't deny that because most of the critical youtube comments are explicitly sexist. Certainly some people will dislike it for legitimate reasons or as a matter of taste but that doesn't change the fact that misogyny is the driving force behind the negativity about the film.

"Most of the YouTube comments" does not equal "most of the criticism." It just means most of the people who feel like writing something. Even when YouTube comments aren't sexist, they tend to be pretty awful.

I do not think "misogyny" is the "driving force" behind negativity directed at a film that looks like an awful remake with LCD humor, meh CGI, and uninspired cameos of the original cast thrown in to remind us of the movie they're trying to remake.

The big problem here is that you'll be accused of "misogyny" if you just point out that the studio's first thoughts were to remake Ghostbusters with women and gender was their driving point, before they even figured out what kind of story they're wanting to tell. All of the original stories weren't about whether it was a sequal or reboot or remake or anything about the movie except the people working on it telling everyone, "Hey, you guys! We're doing a new Ghostbusters, with all women!" They made gender the lead story. They didn't even seem to think out anything other than casting women to say, "Look, we made a movie with women, aren't we progressive?"

It could have worked, but they didn't even try. They went lazy because they knew they were just going to try to sell it on gender. And how is that a good thing? How is it sexist to point out that's wrong, and it's unfair to the cast, and it's unfair to women that they're doing crappy remakes with gender-swapping rather than coming up with original stories to cast women in?

See, you're the reason that article exists. There's a lot of people who dislike the movie without hating women. It's viable to dislike the studio casting women just as a stunt (and if you're honest, it's easy to spot that it was a stunt, given their initial rush to tell everyone the gender of the cast rather than anything important). People are excited for Rogue One, which has a female lead... but Disney didn't go rushing to tell everyone, "Look, it's a Star Wars movie with a female lead!" or "We're doing a Star Wars movie and we're going to cast a woman as the lead." No, they said, "We're doing this movie, Rogue One, about the team that stole the Death Star plans." THAT is the right way to do it.

But if you point out how they did it so horribly wrong here, you're "sexist." If you don't find the choice of actors to be amusing, you're "sexist." If you think the humor falls flat, you're "sexist." If you choose not to see the movie because it looks like it'll be a trainwreck, you're "sexist."

I'd say you reap what you sow, but nah, that reviewer's reaping what you sowed.

[eldargal]

You'll be accused of misogyny because its not true, Feig wanted to do it. It's revisionist BS to try and blame this on some shallow corporate decision, which wouldn't even justify the hate if it were true because the reasoning doesn't matter of the results are good, and we don't know until the film is released. If this were a one off then you might have an argument, but its part of an undeniable trend of female led films being bashed more than their male led equivelents. Mad Max, Star Wars The Force Awakens, Rogue One, even the new SW Lego tv show, Ghostbusters, Hunger Games, Gravity etc. etc. and many more have all been attacked for having a female lead or a gender equal cast.

It could have worked, but they didn't even try. They went lazy because they knew they were just going to try to sell it on gender. And how is that a good thing? How is it sexist to point out that's wrong, and it's unfair to the cast, and it's unfair to women that they're doing crappy remakes with gender-swapping rather than coming up with original stories to cast women in?

It's sexist because it NEVER happens when its the reverse. Guys don't give a **** when we get another insipid, bland, uninspired action film with an all male cast and some token female love interest thrown in, but make an all female action film and they lose their ****ing minds. Even if they were trying to sell it on gender, that literally doesn't matter because that is how hypermasculine action films have been marketed to guys for decades.

[Mr Mystery]

Third trailer is out (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/ghostbusters/38949/ghostbusters-melissa-mccarthy-on-the-confusing-trailer)

Looking so much better. And remember, the CGI effects are digital over practical, not just digital.

[Erik Setzer]

Just because you don't read the comments doesn't mean they don't happen. If you sought them out with the same magnifying glass you use to seek out any traces of sexism, real or imagined, you'd find them. You find what you seek. That's how it is. People have their bias and confirm it.

My preference is no remakes of any kind. But hey, they SHOULD be equal. So let's remake some female-led movies gender-swapped to have male leads. That'd be amusing to see. I'd bet you they wouldn't get much love, and there'd probably be plenty of women commenting negatively, but even if they just said it's stupid to remake, say, Hocus Pocus with a bunch of guys, or do The Witch of Oz with Dude-ithy leading around three women who are only there to help him get to the Witch of Oz, then I guess it's only because they're sexist and not because those sound like trainwrecks? (Heck, gender-swap the cast of Wizard of Oz, and I'd bet you'd get people lining up to call it "sexist" for having the women there just to serve the male lead.)

But hey, back to this movie... I wish it was male leads just so when I pan it as looking awful, I wouldn't be called "sexist." (Picturing a loud Chris Rock in place of the stereotyped black woman makes it no more appealing... yikes.)

[Mr Mystery]

To tag on to what EG was saying, it's not just female lead films such as those she listed.

The problem is that many films 'made for wimmins' are pretty crap, and depressingly formulaic. Think pretty much everything Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Lopez and Sarah Jessica Parker have made. With exceptions (but not for Jennfier Aniston, who has made a career out playing Rachel From Friends in everything) all 'chick flicks'. All pretty dire.

So because Hollywood are decided Women Only Like Chick Flicks, when a non-chick flick film comes up, it gets battered with the same 'FFS, another insipid chick flick' stick.

Actual decent roles for women are fairly hard to come by. The rest EG covered nicely so no need to reiterate :)

[eldargal]

You mean guys will do their utmost to deny their sexism rather than admit it, because they are in a position to pretend sexism isn't as pervasive as it is because they don't experience it.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I still dunno if I'm going to go see it. I'll give it a chance, but I'm really not too sure about it. I remember BvS having a pretty good trailer following two not-so-good ones. :S

[Erik Setzer]

Third trailer is out (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/ghostbusters/38949/ghostbusters-melissa-mccarthy-on-the-confusing-trailer)

Looking so much better. And remember, the CGI effects are digital over practical, not just digital.

Some of the CGI looks better, some looks... less inspiring than before. Weird.

The "humor" still feels like the same I'd expect from mass-produced movies with no soul. It feels like it's all the "humor" of Paul Blart: Mall Cop thrown into a Ghostbusters wrapped.

Hemsworth looks uneven as heck. Or maybe not. The only bit with him that didn't make me roll my eyes had him saying absolutely nothing and was just a bunch of visual effects spinning around him. The effects looked cool, at least, but since that's what actually looked interesting in that scene, then I suppose he's not that uneven and does just look bland and boring throughout.

So it's either LCD low-brow "humor" or being bland and uninteresting.

Then again, somehow Adam Sandler keeps making money, and I can't stand pretty much anything he does, so maybe the "average" person will actually enjoy that kind of stuff.

[YorkNecromancer]

New trailer looks awesome. Actually properly belly laughed a couple of times which I wasn't expecting. It's basically full-on 'Ghostbusters' (because, being honest here, I didn't want ghostbusters for Bill Murray when I was six. I watched it for the ghosts, and this has them in spades, by the looks of things. truth be told, I didn't even realise the original was meant to be a comedy until I was twenty one and read it advertised as such on the front of a VHS tape. Most (read: all) of the jokes went over my head as a kid, and by the time I grew up, I'd memorised the script, meaning there was no way I was going to find any of them funny. Especially now the humour is thirty years out of date, and mostly consists of a.) Bill Murray not giving a sh*t and b.) Venkman's super-creepy come ons to Dana Barrett that just make me feel awkward these days. Seriously, it wasn't until I rewatched it at Xmas that I realised just how creepy and grubby a kind of character Venkman is. Just unpleasant and unlikable.)

And I've only just realised how close the ghosts are in aesthetics to the official game they released for the last generation of consoles, which was the previous 'official' Ghostbusters story. There's something really very pleasing about this.

As for the negative comments, of course it's misogyny. Anyone who says otherwise is either deluded (if we're feeling generous) or disingenuous (if we're not). Sure, some people are going to hate it, but come on: men are building bots to spam the trailers with hate. No way does it look worse than literally anything Adam Sandler has ever done (with the exception of 'Airheads').

The problem is misogyny. It just is.

[Erik Setzer]

"men are building bots to spam the trailers with hate"

Oh? Please post an article showing evidence of this. I'll give you time to find it again. If you can't, then you're just making up something to back your claim, and you're the one being disingenuous.

And yeah, it's pretty clear you are.

The CoD:IW thing isn't even a bot-fest, and it's over TWO MILLION dislikes. Please tell me what the misogyny there is directed at, since clearly that's the only way a video can get a lot of dislikes.

I don't hate the movie, I hate the discussions about it, because people like you - I'm going to assume you're just dishonest, not stupid - want to claim it's just "men hating women" and not that people can genuinely be pissed off that Hollywood decided to remake a movie in an inferior way that has nothing to do with gender. Even the women who dislike it are somehow misogynist according to dishonest people like you.

The movie looks like **** to a lot of people, and would if you had four guys making the same kind of "jokes." Hemsworth, a male actor, looks like **** in this movie. Gender isn't the issue. They're making a **** movie and you're defending it based on gender.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQIuTGfPHvA

I mean, yeah, that's totally just misogyny. Yep. All the negative comments in this video are just because men hate women, yep. Saying this idea isn't progressive is just misogyny. (Funny thing is, as much as YouTube kept randomly putting this video into my Recommended Videos, I didn't watch it until today, but the person doing it says a lot of the same things I've said.)

Come on, now, tell me again how that video is misogyny and just men hating women. I do want to see the explanation. I also want to see your link to the claim you made that you can't back because you made a statement that was false.

And in case you missed it, Adam Sandler isn't exactly getting much praise these days. This kind of "humor" is starting to fade.

I hate this movie not just because it's so horrible, but because you can't criticize it without people being stupid and/or dishonest - both are being VERY generous to said people - and claiming that it's all just sexism, and the movie is great #becausewomen.

I freaking love Thor (current one, with Jane Foster), A-Force, Captain Marvel, Ms. Marvel, Angela, Rey as the lead in SW:TFA, Jyn Ersa as the lead of Rogue One, Leia getting her own feature novel, I think The Girl on the Train looks interesting... I could go on and on, there are so many stories out there with female leads I like. But this movie looks horrible to me, and just because I don't like this movie, that makes me "misogynist" and "hating women."

Yeah, it's stupid and dishonest, and I'm sick of it, and I'll be sick of hearing claims that misogyny is why the movie bombed for the next few months, until it fades away, and maybe in ten years we can get a decent new Ghostbusters movie that ignores this one and acts as a continuation of the original story with a new cast (mixed gender team, preferably, or have multiple teams, one of which can be all ladies). But for the next few months, we get stupidity and dishonesty.

And a lot of the actual sexist *******s are only coming out of the woodwork to throw their weight in there because of the sexist *******s claiming anyone who dislikes the movie or criticizes it is just "misogynist." You're picking a fight you can't win here, because when the film bombs, they'll look like the ones in the right, rather than the people defending a horrible film because of gender.

I'm going to go find some way to calm down from reading something so mind-meltingly idiotic. "Bots." Ha.



And if you hadn't been a trollish ***, then I probably wouldn't be so pissed off, but ignoring reality, making claims you can't back (because they aren't true), and then trying to call others disingenuous? Just no. No. It's like reading Donald Trump comments. It's doubly offensive because it's being dishonest while trying to call others dishonest. It's not cool, it doesn't lend itself to reasonable conversation, and it's just... pointless.

[YorkNecromancer]

This was the article I read that mentioned bots. (http://jezebel.com/the-ghostbusters-trailer-is-the-most-disliked-movie-tra-1774112142)
This is the article it sourced from (http://www.dailydot.com/geek/ghostbusters-reboot-trailer-most-disliked-youtube-history/?tw=dd)
Here's a more Hollywood look at the downvoting phenomenon. The industry itself feels the numbers are unlikely to be just from people. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/ghostbusters-reboot-youtube-trailer-is-889438)
Mainstream media has noticed this as well. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/03/04/people-are-hating-the-ghostbusters-trailer-guess-why/)

So, while I can't conclusively point to any evidence of bot usage, I feel the numbers themselves are too suspicious, especially when there's enough articles from sources that I deem of relative credibility - coupled with the fact that the hate for this film is utterly disproportionate for such a fundamentally inoffensive looking film - so, yeah.

It's obviously fuelled by misogyny. It just is.

It's a huge number of guys who just refuse to countenance the concept of women as main characters. I mean, yeah, it's not just them. There's the usual nostalgia nerds who always shout 'RUINED FOREVER' like that means anything any more, as well as the Schadenfreuders who've come to watch others fail, plus the 'women are NEVER funny' crowd who lack all imagination, as well as some who are probably just doing it because of the bandwagon, others who've bought into the anti-hype, and probably a few who are downvoting it just to see how far down they can get it.

And after that there's the people who 'just didn't like it'. Who I suspect are a much, much smaller crowd than the numbers suggest.

Because the numbers are just suspiciously low. There's always going to be those who claim it's about ethics in gaming journalism, or whatever the parroted line of disinformation is this time, but the naked misogyny of the comments utterly confirms that no, it's really not.

The numbers are clearly disproportionate.

See that or don't.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I don't think York is saying allof the people critical of the film are mysognystic but it appears a lot of them seemingly are, which does seem to be supported. At least thats how I've read his posts.

[YorkNecromancer]

Basically, yeah.

The people who actually dislike the film for legitimate reasons are being drowned out by the pebbledicks. Who are far, far too many, and who quickly camouflage themselves as legit haters because that's how gaslighting works. (http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/gaslighting-is-an-abuse-tactic/)

Someone who legit hates the film says 'I legit hate this film because it looks bad'.

A misogynist says 'I legit hate this film because it looks bad' and leaves out 'because I hate the idea of women as Ghostbusters'. A lie of omission means they pretend not to be a misogynist, thus gaslighting everyone.

'It's not misogyny. You're just seeing what you want to see. You're the one who's really got the problem.' Making people question themselves is gaslighting 101. (http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/08/things-wish-known-gaslighting/)


Animal predators use protective colouration to stop themselves being seen by the creatures they prey on.
Human predators use lying to stop the humans in charge to stop themselves being seen by the people they prey on.
Both serve the same purpose: to allow predators to dominate and get what they want unhindered and without challenge.



The trailer isn't being hated on the degree it is because it's bad; it's being hated on the degree it is because the misogynists have taken over the narrative. Everyone who denies this is assisting in their gaslighting, whether they mean to or not. We can't fight a problem until we can identify it.

[Mr Mystery]

There's an organised movement to downvote the trailer.

There are many, many sucky films you know are going to suck (see Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider, Jennifer Aniston*, Paul Blart Mall Cop)...and suck more than anything has ever sucked before. But they don't have an organised movement to downvote their trailers.

The same people are now all offended a Sony high-up has responded 'Eff 'em' (fruity language moderated by moi). Which I think is an entirely appropriate response to those who decided at first rumblings of a remake it was somehow going to give their childhood Canceraids. In fact, it kind of reminds me of this classic scene, and Frank'n'Furter's response to Janet's assertion she doesn't like a man with too many muscles.

http://media.tumblr.com/5e839e1345fc90fc3195061659364a04/tumblr_inline_mu9ww2Hn441re8bt4.gif

I do feel for those who have seen the trailers, and had the same 'not for me' reaction I've had to BvS and Suicide Squad, because thanks to a tidal wave of whining man-children, you're all being tarred with the same brush. It's akin to criticism of Obama's presidency being seen as racist - because so much of it is indeed very, very racist indeed.

But that's life, I'm afraid. Remember this film has been hooted, howled and hollered against since an all-female cast was announced. People are now inventing reasons to dislike the trailer to pretend it's not a sexist thing. Take the CGI. Many are whining 'but practical effects are bettererer', whilst neatly refusing to acknowledge that under the CGI are practical effects tarted up in post-production.

Oh, and Leslie Jones? I'm now reliably informed that Pattie is just sort of her comedy style. Think of that what you may, but at least it's her choosing to portray 'Angry Black Woman #356465328' rather than someone being forced outside their style. Leslie Jones playing Leslie Jones, just as Will Smith always plays Will Smith, Dan Aykroyd always plays Dan Aykroyd, and Bill Murray always plays Bill Murray.


*Might just be me, but I can't stand her. Never seen the fuss or why she's held in such high esteem.

[Erik Setzer]

I'm done arguing. I can find Trump supporters, Sanders supporters, or 9/11 Truthers, if I want to deal with this level of intellectual discourse and honest reasoning. But I don't.

[eldargal]

I'm done arguing. I can find Trump supporters, Sanders supporters, or 9/11 Truthers, if I want to deal with this level of intellectual discourse and honest reasoning. But I don't.

Lol, talk about pot calling the kettle black.

[Erik Setzer]

My best friend's nickname for me is Pot and she nicknames herself Kettle. Different reasons, but... I don't really get bothered being called that.

To just pick one example above... There's no evidence of bots, and I asked for that. I got links to two articles where people think it "must" be bots, because clearly 2.5% of a video's views being dislikes - a whopping 97.5%, or OVER THIRTY-ONE MILLIONS VIEWS, not being dislikes - is a sign of "bots." Like the people who claimed it with CoD:IW. Now, it might be that word spread, "Let's dislike-bomb this video." But that's not "bots." That's a community of people choosing to dislike a video to show their displeasure. And while the numbers seem high, that's only because the video has a LOT of views. Again, it still pales in comparison to CoD:IW, which shows that the apparently huge sexism issue which is the "only" reason anyone can dislike something still is nothing next to a pissed off community of gamers (who, let's face it, will still give Activision the $80 for CoD:IW to get MW Remastered)... though clearly they're some kind of misogyny at play toward CoD:IW, which I guess is because they showed one female in the trailer for two seconds, and obviously those dislikes are really just from male gamers pissed off a female was shown.

If I'm going to make a claim, I'll back it. I won't "back" it with someone saying, "Well, we hear this is happening, but no one can prove it." It's like the idiots claiming, "We hear there's men going into the women's restroom taking photos of women in Target now. See how bad their policy is!" It's utter bollocks, there's nothing to prove the claim, but they'll challenge you to disprove it, which of course you can't, just like you can't disprove that HAARP is causing earthquakes.

And given that the discussion had already gotten to an offensive point, where someone refused to accept there could be any other reason to dislike the GB remake and claimed anyone who said they disliked it for any reason other than being sexist was being dishonest, which is funny because there are women out there who dislike it, but obviously those women just hate women and are misogynist. You can say you don't like the uneven effects. "No, you just hate women." Even Hemsworth looks bad. "You hate women." Why are they doing a complete remake rather than a new movie, and rubbing it in by including the surviving original cast in cameos? "You hate women." These jokes feel about as "funny" as Adam Sandler. "You hate women, and if you say you dislike any of those things for any reason other than you hate women, you're lying."

What's the point in continuing that kind of discussion? Even a lot of women out there apparently hate women, and are lying if they say otherwise. There's no reasonable discussion to be had.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

Take the CGI. Many are whining 'but practical effects are bettererer', whilst neatly refusing to acknowledge that under the CGI are practical effects tarted up in post-production.

Well, I acknowledge it, but it still looks dreadful to my eyes. Digital enhancement always looks terrible and makes things look overly slick and perfect. Worst offender for me being the 2011 The Thing movie as previously mentioned. That said, I don't really understand the hate the new GB movie is getting either, but I dont seem to have the attachment to the originals that a lot of the fans have as I never thought the originals were that great tbh.

[Gotthammer]

where someone refused to accept there could be any other reason to dislike the GB remake and claimed anyone who said they disliked it for any reason other than being sexist was being dishonest,

York said that people dislike it for a variety of reasons, but to deny that large amounts of the vitriol is stemming from misogyny is dishonest. Unless you mean someone else ofc.

Also basically everyone here has said some variation of "doesn't look too great, but the original was cheesy as hell so I'll give it a go", so claiming we're all saying you must love it or die is, to use the current buzzword, dishonest.

Also it's worth noting on facebook the trailer has 12 million views and only 22k dislikes. Combine that with the fact that so few other remakes - which is to say none of them (and given the major studios realeased ~90% reboots, remakes or sequels last year is a lot) - have received the same % of downvotes as Ghostbusters has, and that Ghostbusters is the one that has all female leads, it gets kinda suspicious.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

the original really wasnt that great, i watched it a few years ago and some of the jokes made me pretty uncomfortable, like when it's alluded to whatshisname getting a BJ from a ghost....wtf was with that?

I thought the best ghostbusters depiction was actually the Extreme one from the 90's.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-E5pX8K68pzA/VcYyFdynTjI/AAAAAAAADeY/BhnjReTmboQ/s1600/extreme_ghostbusters_idw_02.png

[grimmas]

I rather liked the bit that started off one of the trailers which was just the Ghostbuster's symbol on a subway wall. They should have left it at that less is more with trailers. I still don't think anyone posting here is necessarily the target audience for this film so it's unsurprising some aren't that keen.

[Mr Mystery]

I rather liked the bit that started off one of the trailers which was just the Ghostbuster's symbol on a subway wall. They should have left it at that less is more with trailers. I still don't think anyone posting here is necessarily the target audience for this film so it's unsurprising some aren't that keen.

Who knew a family film might not appeal to sad old single thirty somethings!

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I rather liked the bit that started off one of the trailers which was just the Ghostbuster's symbol on a subway wall. They should have left it at that less is more with trailers. I still don't think anyone posting here is necessarily the target audience for this film so it's unsurprising some aren't that keen.

Indeed, it's probably aimed at primarily trying to gain a new young audience, like most reboots. I'll probably watch it in a few years anyway, when all the internet opinions have died back and I can watch it more for what it is with no expectations or anyone trying to persuade me that it's great or terrible.

[Kirsten]

the original really wasnt that great, i watched it a few years ago and some of the jokes made me pretty uncomfortable, like when it's alluded to whatshisname getting a BJ from a ghost....wtf was with that?

I thought the best ghostbusters depiction was actually the Extreme one from the 90's.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-E5pX8K68pzA/VcYyFdynTjI/AAAAAAAADeY/BhnjReTmboQ/s1600/extreme_ghostbusters_idw_02.png

I saw the person on the left first and for a moment I thought it was KISS does Ghostbusters

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

:P She was meant to be a goth which I really liked because I had someone to actually relate to. Not enough alt people in media, only other one I can think of is Abby from NCIS (who was a total rivethead <3 <3 <3 )

[grimmas]

Who knew a family film might not appeal to sad old single thirty somethings!

I know amazing isn't it.

[Mr Mystery]

I know amazing isn't it.

I literally shat my pants out of sheer surprise that someone would dare make a movie not specifically meant for me personally!

[Erik Setzer]

This is how bad it's gotten:

https://twitter.com/DaneCook/status/733010080476635136
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/291025/ghostbusters-james-rolfe-cinemassacre/
https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/entertainment/twitter-****s-itself-after-whiny-man-baby-refuses-/8204b8b3-fe2c-448b-a16b-61a850982e69.htm
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/18/angry_video_game_nerds_calm_down_about_ghostbuster s_its_still_a_comedy_about_ghosts_and_those_who_bu st_them/
http://www.indiewire.com/article/ghostbusters-reboot-2016-youtube-critic-cinemassacre-dumb-reasons-20160518
http://www.dailydot.com/lol/ghostbusters-reboot-movie-critic-refuses-to-review/

It just goes on and on like that.

HOLY ****.

Guy tells people he won't be seeing the movie to review it because he'd have to pay for a ticket and doesn't want to financially support something he doesn't think he'll like... and suddenly all these people jump to bash him as sexist. Heck, some people even take his lack of mentioning that the cast is gender-swapped is sexist. If you talk about the gender, you're sexist. If you don't talk about the gender, you're sexist. If you have any kind of criticism of the movie and don't think you'll enjoy it based on the trailers, you're sexist, and deserve to be raked over the coals publicly.

And when that kind of crap happens, it's not a surprise when people on the fence decide to fight that nonsense, and end up joining the crowd down-voting the movie and all.

Yeah, there's some sexist *******s... but there's sexist ******* men, and sexist ******* women, and people pushing the angle just to stir up more drama for their own benefit.

Seeing a guy just getting viciously mauled like that and labeled a sexist and told, "Sure, you didn't say anything about gender, but we really know you're just anti-women!"... It's sad. The discourse around this movie has hit serious lows.

[Mr Mystery]

Already covered.

I still reckon he's butt hurt he doesn't get invited to press screenings.

Even I can get into those. For free.

Well. I say 'those' suggesting plural.

I really mean I blagged tickets off a website to go see Guardians of the Galaxy.

[grimmas]

I suspect who ever is producing this Film is laughing their reproductive organs off, any publicity is good publicity and all the haters are doing a good job of keeping the film being talked about. It almost as if people carefully upset the right groups in connection to the release of their film, product or whatever as they'll do the job of advertising it for them.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Eh. It's just a Youtuber, and having watched their other videos they were actually very fair to this compared to their usual style, (a ruthless teardown of a movies' flaws.) I dislike that a well-reasoned video on why they personally aren't going to watch it is apparently so horrific to people. There was no call to boycott, they were just saying it'd be better if everyone who is unbelievably angry about this movie just stopped talking about it, and didn't go to see it. Then the numbers will reflect how much people like it, and whether it deserves a sequel. Flocking to see it just to get angry and spew hate online still means you're buying tickets and supporting it, so in their view it was idiotic.

[Mr Mystery]

Simply?

I don't fancy seeing 99% of the films released in a given year. This year? I've been to see Deadpool and Cap. I'll also be going to see Dr Strange, Ghostbusters and Rogue One. Semi-tempted by Apocalypse, but not 100% (maybe a Meerkat Movies job and take a mate).

I don't feel the need to justify why I don't want to see the others. I just don't go, and that's it.

This guy has set himself up as a reviewer. Fair enough. But then has a big song and dance about why he won't go see a particular film....why? Why this one in particular? And all based off the trailers which aren't as bad as many claim?

Definitely some ulterior motive going on there - either attention seeking to cash in on the bizarre notoriety of this remake, or a little too desperate to say it's not because it's got a female cast. I suspect the former, but can't rule out the latter.

[Psychosplodge]

If a reviewer isn't going to cover a popular franchise people are going to ask them why. Is it anymore than that?

[Mr Mystery]

If your answer is 'didn't like the trailer', and you leave it at that? I guess.

But a wee tug-job video? Why?


The movie's existence means we now "have to" refer to the original as "the 1984 Ghostbusters." Because of the movie title police.
•"If you already know you're going to hate it, why give them your money?" Ah yes, the foundation of all engaged critical thought.
•Harold Ramis is dead.
•"Calling it Ghostbusters without having any connection to the original story or characters... " Rolfe knows this without seeing the movie. That's just the kind of sage he is. This film about busting ghosts bears no relationship to the other movies about ghostbusting.
•"...is a shameless attempt to bank on the name." Right on, brother! You just destroyed Hollywood's entire franchise formula in one fell swoop! Give James Cameron hell! Down with Back to the Future!
•It's not a reboot, or a remake, but a "name-make." Which is bad.
•Han Solo and Chewbacca aren't in it.


That's not sound logic. At all. None of it. Hence 'cashing in on notoriety in a self-flagellating click bait, or I'm not a sexist, but'. Suspect the former.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Again, this is what bugs me. You say there shouldn't be a song and dance about him not seeing the movie, but you're engaging and increasing said song-and-dance.

It's expected for a Youtube reviewer to review all the major films of the year. If someone was skipping out on Star Wars, they'd make a video, even if just to say, "I'm really not a Star Wars fan at all, just not my bag guys, sorry. However, I've got some other stuff lined up that might please my more regular viewers!"

We get videos from TotalBiscuit and AngryJoe on why they won't review certain games. Yahtzee does the some in his editorial column on Zero Punctuation. It's just how they roll but this time people are leaping on it like this guy is trying to be the vanguard of the anti-Ghostbusters brigade. He really isn't.

Again, Mystery, have you actually watched the video in question?

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

And he just waffled to my ears.

Don't wanna see it? That's cool. Trailers put you off? That's cool.

But the points above? The reviewer doth protest too much.

Did he say the same things about other recent remakes which didn't feature the original cast? Did he have a pop at Dredd? Or did he just review it? I mean, surely that film must have been flawed because Karl Urban was Dredd and Sly Stallone wasn't (not that Sly Stallone was ever Dredd. Dunno who he was portraying, but it wasn't Dredd).

So a film about paranormal investigator. In New York. Who use Proton Packs. To Bust Ghosts. In New York. Who drive a refitted ambulance type vehicle. To Bust Ghosts. In New York. With their Proton Packs......isn't at all like that other film set in New York about paranormal investigators who drove an ambulance whilst busting ghosts with their Proton Packs.

Just....just....stahp.

As I said, I'm giving the overall benefit of the doubt and not saying he's doing it for nefarious reasons, just attention seeking ones.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Of course they're attention seeking. When your income depends on Views, attention seeking is how you make rent. Just like every other website including BoLS.

[grimmas]

Don't you be having a pop at Dredd it was great and actually filled the criteria for having a remake (ie the original was bobbins).

Actually my objection with some of the negativity of this, like with other things coughAoscough, is not that people don't like it. They are perfectly entitled not to like it for any reason including not liking all the Ghostbuster's being female (just as it would have been acceptable to dislike the original for it being all male). It the faux "it's ruined my childhood" crap for crying out loud if you don't like it fine but to make out its some life shattering issue is bollocks.

It's like the most middle class first world problem ever "I don't like a film and it's ruined my life" I'm not referencing the YouTube review here just the general moaning (about this and others on a similar vein)

[Mr Mystery]

Not having a pop at Dredd, just pointing out a logical inconsistency :p

And another one springs to mind - they didn't copy it - good thing on one hand. But also very bad on the other.

Spot on with the 'ouch, right in the childhood' thing. I seriously don't mean to be flippant, but I consider childhood ruiners to be vile stuff coming out about the like of Jimmy Saville - a man who I'd previously only had good things to say about for his charity work and of course Jim'll Fix it. But making a Turtles/Transformers/He-Man/Thundercats/GI Joe/Ghostbusters/Labyrinth type remake? Nah mate.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

For modern movies I did actually like Dredd surprisingly, which might shock people :P I didn't think I would either. I really liked the villain in it especially. I hope it gets a netflix/amazon show.

I find if I watch a movie during when it is being hyped I tend to have more unrealistic expectations due to all the hype, so ill probably give ghostbusters 2016 a chance in a few years. while I dislike the cgi stuff, if the story and comedy is good theres still a chance ill enjoy it.

[YorkNecromancer]

A much better elucidation of my thoughts on the sexism of the anti-'Ghostbusters' campaign than I would ever write. (https://medium.com/@ashleylynch/bustin-makes-boys-feel-sad-why-ghostbusters-is-so-hated-49e3c78cebb0#.skc6r6b8y)


Where was this level of vitriolic campaigning against the reboots of Robocop, Predator and Total Recall? There simply weren’t any. How come this one singular mediocre trailer received an unprecedented level of anger directed towards it while the thousands of bad trailers that have been released over the years have been largely ignored? Why is it that female led films like Hunger Games, Salt and Spy can get released to the world without having a full on culture war launched upon them?

And what about those other films I mentioned? Why is it that the three most protested films of the last year happen to be Mad Max: Fury Road, Star Wars: The Force Awakens and Ghostbusters?

The picture starts to become clear, because they are all franchise films where a woman is taking the lead in a role that used to be reserved for a man. It’s literally a fear that white men are having what is rightfully theirs taken from them.

In fact we see this level of hatred directed at films in other forms too. Remember how I said Star Wars was also targeted for casting a black man as one of the leads? Similarly Josh Trank’s Fantastic 4 came under attack by people upset that Johnny Storm was now a black man. None of this is really surprising when you see there is a large overlap between The Men Who Hate Women and white supremacists groups. In fact, Breitbart blogger and Junior Trump impersonator Milo Yiannapolous recently tried to appeal to members of the Daily Stormer and recruit them as part of his alt-right army.

And as you start to pick away all the little complaints, there’s nothing still that can explain why this film of all films has sparked such vocal outrage when so many other “geek culture affronts” have passed without conflict beyond the fact that it’s a movie with women instead of men. And while they’ll jump up and down to proclaim that it’s not because they’re sexist, it’s explained with all the subtlety of someone who’s clearly hiding something while screaming, “there’s nothing in the closet!!”

[Darren Richardson]

well, regardless of all the bad blood going on regarding casting decisions, I Will see it.

Not because of the cast, to be honest I've only seen a couple of films with kirsten Wigg attached to them, and in this case it was her voice (How To Train Your Dragon 1 & 2).

Not because it's a rehash of an old classic.

Not because of all this media frenzy.

But because I found the trailers to acutally be interesting and are making the film look good.

I'm really wondering how the main plot-line of someone, or something has made something which is pulling all these departed souls back as ghosts..... Hell of a premise for a Dungeon & Dragons Campaign,,....

Oh, and Dredd was great, I still regret acutally going to the cinema to see that steaming pile that was Sly's Judge Dredd back in the day urgh......

[Kirsten]

yeah I am looking forward to seeing Ghostbusters, trailers look great to me

[grimmas]

There should have been hate campaigns started over the remakes of Total Recall and Robocop burn them burn them with fire (actually the Total Recall one wasn't that bad in itself it was just always going to come off inferior compared to the Original). I'm going to stir up sh*t about the Predator sequel as I've read they're making the same mistake they did in all the other sequels, no Arnie at the helm. School boy stuff.

Kirsten Wiig and Melissa McCarthy did work well together in bridesmaids. They're full capable of getting the chemistry right.

[Darren Richardson]

See, since I haven't seen any live action film any of the 4 actresses have been in (or TV for that matter) I can go and watch the film with no pre-concived notions of how good or bad they are.

The main reason I don't really know about any films or TV they've been in, is because I often find most American humour falls flat for me, so I often don't bother watching american made comedies.

As a result, I can go watch it solely based on how I enjoyed the trailers (even though they fluffed up some details in the first trailer, 4 scientists? really?) :p

[Charistoph]

The main reason I don't really know about any films or TV they've been in, is because I often find most American humour falls flat for me, so I often don't bother watching american made comedies.

To be fair, American movie humor has fallen more and more flat, crass, and disgusting for the last few decades, so it isn't just you. It is almost so bad that my wife and I treat any new comedy with trepidation. One of the worst lately was Daddy's Home. It was really, really bad, and we were expecting it to be bad.

This movie may actually be a couple steps above the current fare if it keeps its comedy to what is in the trailer and the level of the original movies. However, I think it will still fall flat enough that only the names will allow it to be considered for a sequel. I've loved Melissa McCarthy since I married my Gilmore Girls-binge-watching wife, but I don't think she will be enough for me to enjoy it. I honestly think we'll see the same humor and concepts that have been running in every Adam Sandler and Will Ferrel movie for the last twenty years.

But hey, I don't love Ghostbusters because of the actors (though some are fun, just not Murray, he's rarely been funny to me), I liked the story concept and the fun premise they had with it. Of course, I watched more Real Ghostbusters before I actually saw the movie, and I enjoyed Extreme Ghostbusters as well, so that could be why the original movies were not as great to me as it is for some people.

[eldargal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpgBkpb7xlU

- - - Updated - - -

Bustin’ Makes Boys Feel Sad — Why Ghostbusters is So Hated (https://medium.com/@ashleylynch/bustin-makes-boys-feel-sad-why-ghostbusters-is-so-hated-49e3c78cebb0#.3xdyqa647)

Well, we all knew it was coming, but the escalating hate for the new Ghostbusters movie is reaching comic level proportions. But where is this rage stemming from? Is it just a small group of extremely vocal misogynists or is there something else going on. Let’s dig a little bit deeper on this one, because I actually think this one is actually a little important.


Even Rolfe completely contradicts his false outrage as in an earlier video he did with YouTube personality Nostalgia Critic, they come to the conclusion that the Michael Bay produced Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is okay because “it’s not the final word in the franchise” and “one more variation” is a good thing.
Lols. Yep, its reboots the problem, not sexism, except when the reboot only includes a token wimmins in which case its fine.

[Erik Setzer]

*Sigh.* Yeah, we've hit top levels of dishonesty in this discussion. Pointless now. If you're male and don't like anything about the movie, it's just because you're sexist. If you're female and don't like anything about the movie, you don't exist, because that would harm the narrative.

[Mr Mystery]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpgBkpb7xlU

- - - Updated - - -

Bustin’ Makes Boys Feel Sad — Why Ghostbusters is So Hated (https://medium.com/@ashleylynch/bustin-makes-boys-feel-sad-why-ghostbusters-is-so-hated-49e3c78cebb0#.3xdyqa647)



Lols. Yep, its reboots the problem, not sexism, except when the reboot only includes a token wimmins in which case its fine.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/48218225.jpg

People really, really need to get out more.

[Kirsten]

I don't know, if they got out more, we might have to deal with them more...

[Mr Mystery]

But then they'd realise the world for the most part either doesn't give a fig, or will laugh at them.

As I said before, and without flippancy - Operation Yewtree. That destroys your childhood. Not a potentially wasteful remake of a favourite movie.

[Mr Mystery]

18657

Yup.
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=18657&d=1464091716

Edit to embiggen the image.

[Kirsten]

I like that

[Psychosplodge]

She's probably too young to see it.

[Caedes]

I probably wouldn't have gone to see this if it wasn't for all the controversy, now I'm going to see it just so I can annoy all the guys whining about it.

[Mr Mystery]

10 points to Gryffindor!

I'm tempted to do the same. Last trailer was much, much better, but still a wee bit wavering given my local cinema is well expensive. But hey, flinging mud in the eye of bigots is always worth the price of entry.

[Kirsten]

yeah I don't go to the cinema that much, but I will go see this in part to annoy those people

[Psychosplodge]

tbh most of my films come out the supermarket bargain bin these days. The only recent exception has been TFA. but yeah I can see me spending £3-£5 to get it from Tesco/Asda/Sainsbury's

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I generally prefer a series to a film. Live action netflix female GB series would be perfect.

[Mr Mystery]

Have you tried CEX?

Many Blockbusters, Much Bargains.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah but they don't tend to reach that price till the supermarkets do anyway so might as well have new, they drop their prices amazingly quick sometimes if they overstock.

[Mr Mystery]

And for all those who don't want wimmins anywhere near their childhood....

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=18658&d=1464120989


18658

[Mr Mystery]

And there's now the international trailer, with some new footage (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/ghostbusters/38949/ghostbusters-melissa-mccarthy-on-the-confusing-trailer)

Again, looking so much better.

Ghosts do still resemble the ones from Scooby Doo, but seeing as I enjoyed both of those, no big shakes for me, and still plenty of time to shade them down a bit for the release if it is that much of an issue.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Would you believe it's getting hated on Youtube? Cos people are hating on Youtube.

That said, still on the fence personally.

[Mr Mystery]

Surely not!!!

[Mr Mystery]

Well, in a complete surprise to absolutely no-one even dimly aware of them, Fallout Boy's song for the new movie sucks massive hairy balls.

But this one doesn't at all. It's ace!


http://youtu.be/52-0plebbPk

Added bonus of what appears to be a curious Rick Moranis/Austin Powers hybrid dude.

[eldargal]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmG6-xiWQAAixmM.jpg:large

[Gotthammer]

Well, in a complete surprise to absolutely no-one even dimly aware of them, Fallout Boy's song for the new movie sucks massive hairy balls.

But this one doesn't at all. It's ace!


http://youtu.be/52-0plebbPk

Added bonus of what appears to be a curious Rick Moranis/Austin Powers hybrid dude.

That was amazing I love it! <3

And I listened to the official one and um yeah it certainly exists. Don't think it sucks, but it's just so incredibly generic sounding to be boring which is much worse than sucking - like sucking can at least be so bad it's good (hur).

[Mr Mystery]

I listened to it with an open mind, as anything GB2016 related is of course tainted by goons.

But man. It was just......adjectives and verbs and that fail me.

[Mr Mystery]

Confirmed as a 12a in the UK, which is nice.

[Erik Setzer]

My friend loves Fall Out Boy so much he constantly wears a FOB wristband. And yet he only sat through that song because I told him I'd done it so it's only fair he does as well. Even a FOB fan hates that song.

But there is that weird issue where people will still say folks only dislike the song because they're sexist, so...

[Mr Mystery]

Reviews are up (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/)

Broadly positive, few truly negative. 74% on Rotten Tomatoes' aggregator.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Many of the positive reviews seem to come with notable drawbacks, but ultimately it seems to be good, just not great.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup. Which pretty much fits the first two - once you take your rose tinted glasses off :)

Defo gonna go see it now.

[Mr Mystery]

Top review for me?


It does its job, you can watch it, laugh, and move on to hating something else before you've seen it.

Boodiful, really boodiful.

[Erik Setzer]

Reviews are up (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/)

Broadly positive, few truly negative. 74% on Rotten Tomatoes' aggregator.

Average rating is a shade above average, but not really "good." Basically, the whole remake thing was pointless, the critic consensus says it pales next to the original (again, meaning the idea of a remake was pointless), and the best they can is it won't give you cancer. Well, let me just clap to that. But even the people badly needing to defend a movie they spent way too long claiming would be amazing and any criticism was just sexism can't come out and say it's anything memorable or good. In two years, the only thing people will remember about this movie is the whole stupid argument about gender. (And it's sad that this film is likely going to kill for good the idea of a set of GB "franchises," one of which would have been a group of ladies carrying on the legacy of the 1980s team possibly in a fresh new location.)

[Mr Mystery]

Up to 78% aggregate score now.

That's not exactly indicative of 'slightly above average'. Main consensus seems to be 'a decent summer blockbuster and worth seeing'. Not sure they were aiming for anything more?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Up to 78% aggregate score now.

That's not exactly indicative of 'slightly above average'. Main consensus seems to be 'a decent summer blockbuster and worth seeing'. Not sure they were aiming for anything more?

Rotten Tomatoes judges whether a review is positive or negative, and then aggregates the numbers into a percentage. It doesn't indiciate quality, just how many people gave it an average or above review with a fairly positive outlook.

So while the RT score would appear to give it a solid 78%, reading many of the reviews rated as positive rate it as slightly above mediocre with a lot of problems.

Doesn't mean you won't find enjoyment in it, but it's not necessarily a good movie.

[energongoodie]

My buddies photos from Waterloo this morning.
1891818919189201892118922

[Psychosplodge]

lols.

[Mr Mystery]

Ouch! My penis!

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/050E/production/_90349210_ghostbustersreddit.gif

[Kirsten]

that is awful, and incredibly sad

[Mr Mystery]

I think it's more pathetic than sad.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

Usually if I really dislike something I just ignore it and move on and get on with my life....Don't really understand why you'd want to go to all that effort, it's just a movie afterall.

[Mr Mystery]

Speaking of genuinely disliking stuff..

DVD is to have an additional 15 minutes of story (http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/ghostbusters/38949/ghostbusters-dvd-extended-cut-will-have-extra-15-minutes).

Awwwww.....come on, Hollywood. Enough of that. Seriously. I get some stuff needs to be cut to get a target rating (family film and that), but don't be taking the piss, yeah? Director's Cuts in the mid-90's worked, because they typically changed the film quite a bit (Alien 3 and Bladerunner). But this is just seeming a touch greedy.

Still gonna go see it though!

[eldargal]

I find that overall Rotten Tomatoes aggregate is more accurate than Metacritics, which mashes various 3,5,6 and 10 star reviews or non scored reviews together in a way that I often find skews the results towards the negative.

I am excite for this one, I'm not going in expecting anything but a simple, fun Ghostbusters film and by the sound of it that is what I will get. Also apparently Kate McKinnon steals the film and I approve of lesbian sneak-thiefs.

[Erik Setzer]

Ouch! My penis!

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/050E/production/_90349210_ghostbustersreddit.gif

The great thing about the Internet is that these folks might not believe in what they're doing, or might not even have a penis, but we can throw all men under the bus and point to this kind of stuff as "proof" that anyone who doesn't say GB cures cancer is incredibly sexist and anti-women, even if the people criticizing it are women or the people criticizing GB have stated their interest in other movies with female casts.

THAT is why this movie sucks. Not even because of the movie itself, where the critics are saying, "Eh, it didn't give us cancer, so... okay." It's because of the stupid narrative around it, which Feig wanted to push as hard as he could to get more publicity for his movie. It's created a whirlpool of stupid on the Internet, from all sides. Can't have an honest discussion of the movie because the narrative's set that either you love it unquestioningly, or you're some kind of anti-women sexist pig.

And this kind of stuff, shown above? Considering that I've seen people do this stunt to help "their side" before (and it's happened on the Internet with this kind of stuff, too), I don't believe it. Anyone with any intelligence knows not to point to that stuff like it's evidence of anything, but sadly the Internet is full of people lacking intelligence, which is why that kind of nonsense continues to happen. Why not put on a fake name and claim a different gender even online? If you can fake people into supporting your side, go for it!

I'd say politics made me cynical, but this is a lesson I learned on the Internet 20 years ago, before I dealt with politics. (The political stuff, though, did teach me a lot.) Two decades ago, people were posting as fake people to stir up trouble. So I don't believe this kind of stuff for a minute, especially if it fits the movie's narrative.

Speaking of which... negative points to the movie for actually including references to that stuff in the movie. WTF? They actually rewrote parts of the script to take shots. That's just stupid, for any movie.

[Erik Setzer]

Hey, what do you know, my cynicism was right... It was a trolling post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/moviescirclejerk/comments/4sdx9y/tfw_youre_the_posterchild_for_reddits_misogynist/

Media latched onto it quickly, and everyone spread it as "proof" of the haters and what they'll do, and it was just a troll all along who may or may not have a penis (seems to be they don't, but hey, it's hard to know for certain on the Internet, but it's hardly relevant). Point is, people fell for a troll, and passed off something fake as if it's real, and spread rumors of some kind of conspiracy that wasn't happening. Of course, now the defense will be, "Yeah, but it *could* be happening, and uh... yeah." Or some other lame excuse.

And that's just how stupid that whole argument has gotten. People so eager to defend their side they'll jump on anything.



On a more positive topic, someone asked on the GB Reddit, "How would you have done this movie with the same (2016) cast?" Here's my response:


1. Set it in a different town, establishing that they're a franchise of the original Ghostbusters (dropping a hint of other teams, to allow for more movies, TV shows, comics, whatever, giving more space for more stories and, from a business perspective, more money to be made).
2. Create a different threat. Could approach it as something major in a world that's gotten used to minor ghosts. Or even maybe suggest that the ghosts have "gone quiet," which leads people to think there weren't any, which invites skeptics to question the GBs, but also sets up the back story for the main threat (like maybe a major spirit is "sucking in" all the lesser spirits to power itself).
3. Avoid any kind of social or political commentary. Just don't bother.
4. Pace the humor and serious bits. Overall semi-serious tone with jokes dropped in where appropriate.
5. Let Kate McKinnon's character be a lesbian and roll with it. No big deal made of it. If she has fun being herself on screen, write it in, don't mention it unless asked, and when asked, don't run from the question. It could add some more humor (while being careful not to be insensitive, but you'd trust she would say something if it was), and would be just an extra layer to the story that's just kind of "there," without being a "big deal."
6. If any of the original cast were interested in cameos, let them provide a mentor role or moral support, or maybe have a scene where they're talking about their team's history on TV, or being interviewed about the lack of ghosts and "Are GBs really necessary?"
7. Don't give in to the temptation to make jokes based on McCarthy's body or Jones' skin color. Too easy, and also insensitive (if not to them personally, then to other people who might be bothered by it).
8. Let the supporting cast be multidimensional.

Thinking about it, it could work so well, and could have been something at least pretty decent, and not had to worry about being compared to the original too much, because it wouldn't be an attempt to replace, but rather carrying on the legacy into the future.

I'm not exactly a McCarthy fan, or Jones fan (just because she feels like a terrible stereotype, even if she chooses to be that stereotype), but I don't think their presence would ruin a movie if it had a good script and utilized them well. Granted, that *might* take them a little out of their comfort zone, but heck, actors do that all the time and use it as a chance to grow.

The creative type in me kind of wants to slap together a rough outline of what I'd have done with the story, using the main cast in the movie. Could be a fun exercise.

[CoffeeGrunt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfwwKk7sUgM

Pretty fair review of the movie IMO. Might look into seeing it some time.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I think I'm more curious about them doing a more original storyline and sequel with the same cast, I think ill find the movie "alright" personally.

[Rissan4ever]

I saw it this evening, and I LOVED IT! I laughed so hard, my friend had to cover his eyes.*





*You'll get this after you see the movie.

[eldargal]

Everyone I know, including die hard fans of the originals, who has seen it has loved it, with some saying it is better than the originals. Hopefully taking my little cousins to see it tomorrow. Or possibly tonight.

[Gotthammer]

http://67.media.tumblr.com/c2b559be8bbb5a8622ddf9750efb20f8/tumblr_oaaazmkaZJ1r0m1hjo1_540.png


When ur gay and someone asks u about Chris Hemsworth for the 80th time

[eldargal]

Lol.:p

[Erik Setzer]

So many sexists out there, like these guys.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9_lhRqhkBw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCP937VRfI4

I mean, never mind that in both cases they said they liked previous Feig movies (the one guy even has one or two showing in his movie collection) and all. Nope. They're critical, so they're sexist.

Like this horrible sexist here, who clearly hates women:
(Mild spoiler warning on this one, in case you plan on seeing the movie and haven't.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ0_Ke1-mYA

Even she pointed out the issue with the way the movie treats men... which is something that would be (rightfully) bashed if the genders were reversed, but here people seem to think it's okay?!?

[eldargal]

Oh give it up. Only a moron can try and deny the majority of criticism BEFORE the film was even out was misogynist, no one is saying everyone who genuinely dislikes it ONCE THEY HAVE SEEN IT is sexist. A huge percentage of IMDB reviews from US IPs before the film was released were giving it 1 star, there is a clear, measurable gender divide in the reviews, it is simply insupportable to argue there is not a strong misogynist element to the treatment of this film.


Even she pointed out the issue with the way the movie treats men... which is something that would be (rightfully) bashed if the genders were reversed,
Gosh, it's almost like by reversing the misogynist status quo they are highlighting how ridiculous it is! If only there was some kind of word to describe that kind of humour... Love the implication this doesn't happen to women, like yep when was the last time you saw a dumb blonde stereotype in a film? It must be at least the 1970s.:rolleyes:

[eldargal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv9oeHd6oPM

[Mr Mystery]

Looks like we're getting a sequel.

Shall go see this one on Friday, methinks.

[Psychosplodge]

See a remake meant they missed out on this scene

https://67.media.tumblr.com/3c63dd1ea1139ae029193834b29983d7/tumblr_oagyvrk06g1qmgvtjo1_540.jpg

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think it'd be kinda tough to get Harold Ramis to do that, though.

[Psychosplodge]

Minor details...

[Mr Mystery]

I think it'd be kinda tough to get Harold Ramis to do that, though.

If only there was a supernatural element to the films, so a sadly deceased character could turn up in spirit :p

[Psychosplodge]

As I said, minor details.

[CoffeeGrunt]

If only there was a supernatural element to the films, so a sadly deceased character could turn up in spirit :p

I meant the logistics of actually filming it. ;)

[eldargal]

Saw it last night. Those people saying it was anti-men are either ****ing morons or haven't seen it, I'm leaning to the latter. Kevin is treated with far more respect and affection than Janine was in the original, and yes the villain is a creepy arse nerd but that's not sexism its just realistic lol. It was hilarious, it was clever, and the cameos were excellent, Dan Akroyd and Sigourney Weavers' in particular. Also? Two larger ladies in the main cast, not a single fat joke, and women shown eating and messing up their hair like normal people and not being immaculate all the time and it was just excellent.

[Rissan4ever]

Couldn't agree more with Eldargal. I went in expecting a good movie, and what I got was a great movie. It gave many nods to the original while still being its own film, and it was funny as heck!

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Solid 6-7 out of 10 I'd say. It was in no way anti-men. At all. It's better than Ghostbusters 2.

[eldargal]

I think it's better than Ghostbusters to be honest. Smarter, better acted, no mean humour in it, and the main character isn't a smarmy creep (Venkman). I'd give it an 8 to the originals 7.5. I actually like Ghostbusters 2, it's fun, give it a 7.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Remember when Summer Blockbusters didn't foment a political furore in order to boost their publicity? I miss that...

[Psychosplodge]

Clickbait sells stuff though.

[eldargal]

Remember when Summer Blockbusters didn't foment a political furore in order to boost their publicity? I miss that...

It's sickening having an all women cast is considered controversial yes.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I'm speaking more about the handling, and the fact that my Youtube is crammed with Ghostbusters reviews now. So much publicity for pretty much free, just gotta get everyone nice and angry.

Anger some tw*ts, who then anger feminists, who then anger everyone else. Whole thing turns into a puddle of vitriol that muddies the issue of whether the movie is actually good by hiding it in an Us vs Them narrative. Those who hate it go to see it so they can rant about it online. Those who love it go to see it to show people support it!

That said, it's had a weak Box Office opening weekend. Not sure if I'll go to see it either way.

[eldargal]

But all they did was cast women in it. I mean people are trying to argue Sony were fanning the flames but literally all they were doing was standing by their decision and supporting the director and cast.

It didn't have a weak box office opening. They were aiming for 38-40m, projections off pre-sales had them reaching 45m, they hit 46m, and its Feig's best opening for a film. Sony greenlit a sequel off the strength of the opening weekend.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Fair enough, I'm honestly just tired of hearing about the movie atm. I wanted to like it, but there's no chance of wading through the vitriol to find an honest consensus of opinion on it. I'm not sure if the humour will hit the mark for me, and the trailers didn't really impress.

[Gotthammer]

It didn't have a weak box office opening. They were aiming for 38-40m, projections off pre-sales had them reaching 45m, they hit 46m, and its Feig's best opening for a film. Sony greenlit a sequel off the strength of the opening weekend.

Related:


it’s the BIGGEST live-action comedy debut since Pitch Perfect 2 (2015)

it’s the THIRD-BIGGEST live-action opening of the summer (behind only X-Men: Apocalypse and Captain America: Civil War, both HUGE *** releases)

it’s the SECOND-BIGGEST live-action/non-superhero opening of 2016 (behind Walt Disney’s The Jungle Book)
it’s the biggest opening weekend ever for Paul Feig (director), Katie Dippold (writer), Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones, Kate McKinnon, Cecily Strong, and even Andy Garcia (ANDY ****ING GARCIA)

it’s Kristen Wiig’s second biggest live-action opening weekend (behind The Martian)

it’s pretty damn big for even Chris Hemsworth (below only the MCU films and Snow White and the Huntsman)

Paul Feig has a track record of consistently solid box office sales rather than big opening weekends

the audience was 57% female, which is an UNUSUALLY high proportion for a blockbuster

a large proportion of people who refused to see it ~on principle~ clearly don’t give a rat’s *** about cinematic quality because most of the initial reviews prior to release were at least favourable if not straight-out raves


I wanted to like it, but there's no chance of wading through the vitriol to find an honest consensus of opinion on it.

Form your own opinion? ;)

[CoffeeGrunt]

Costs money to do that, I tend to only see movies I know I will enjoy. I feel that most peoples' motivation for seeing this is so they can see if they're right or not.

[eldargal]

If you like Ghostbusters, and you aren't threatened by women, you should enjoy this film. It is Ghostbusters, it feels like Ghostbusters, its not a soulless remake or reboot, its genuine, new, ghostbusters. It's funny, its clever, its well acted and it's fun. It's not a cinematic masterpiece, but neither were the originals.

[Mr Mystery]

Costs money to do that, I tend to only see movies I know I will enjoy. I feel that most peoples' motivation for seeing this is so they can see if they're right or not.

To be fair, the reviews are matching what EG is saying.

It's a well made film. Good script, good acting - it's just not about to revolutionise cinema in the way that say, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings did.

I'll be going to see it Friday night, I reckon.

[YorkNecromancer]

Remember when Summer Blockbusters didn't foment a political furore in order to boost their publicity? I miss that...

I think you've misunderstood the nature of art: it's all inherently political. It's just that the only time we notice is when it presents an idea or concept that we (as individuals or society) don't hold to be true. Excluding women with an all-male line-up of Ghostbusters is exactly as political as the current film's all female position.

We're only noticing that the Ghostbusters remake as a political work because society as a whole holds that women aren't real people entitled to stories of their own. In the majority of Western culture, they're allowed to exist, but only inasmuch as they facilitate a man's story, either by dying and providing him with an excuse to do violence, or by serving as a romantic and sexual reward for a heroic victory, etc...

Hollywood is simply mercenary. Films cost a fortune, so producers go where the money is. That means new Ghostbusters is actually looking in to cash in on some market the f*ckboys of the internet aren't aware of - women in general, girls, fans of the comedians involved. That they chose the Ghostbusters IP is honestly neither here nor there. This film was going to come along eventually, either as a remake of Ghostbusters, or of Fast and Furious, or of Indiana Jones, or a remake of some other supposedly sacred cow that the f*ckboys would have inevitably lost their minds over.

Meanwhile, while they rage, the film will make money based on whether its good or not, because the f*ckboys aren't nearly as powerful or numerous or important as they think they are.

So this furore was the inevitable result of Hollywood's desire for money running into white f*ckboy entitlement. And it'll likely get worse before it gets better. The backlashes are always at their most vicious about two years after the initial change. It's usually a 'two steps forwards, one step back' kind of thing.

[CoffeeGrunt]

To be fair, the reviews are matching what EG is saying.

It's a well made film. Good script, good acting - it's just not about to revolutionise cinema in the way that say, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings did..

For the most part. Seems that the leading ladies themselves are likable, the humour seems to be a dividing thing, though that's always a matter of taste. Ghost CGI seems to be a sticking point, but yeah, that's unsurprising.

Overall it seems like it's alright.

[Psychosplodge]

Bargain supermarket DVD CG like I've always said. TBH I consume even most massive films like that these days, but its especially true for something thats generally reviewed as it's alright. Good, not great. etc etc now cinema tickets are silly prices

[Mr Mystery]

For the most part. Seems that the leading ladies themselves are likable, the humour seems to be a dividing thing, though that's always a matter of taste. Ghost CGI seems to be a sticking point, but yeah, that's unsurprising.

Overall it seems like it's alright.

Gonna try a different angle.

Do you have any suspicion that you won't enjoy it?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Most of the reviewers I use as a litmus test didn't, though I don't consider them to be cast-iron, obviously.

That, and the only way to see a movie for me is to take the train up to the nearby city, go see it at the cinema, then head back. While I'm in the city I normally end up getting something to eat, so we're talking a pricey night if it turns out I don't like it. :P

[Mr Mystery]

Which is entirely fair :)

[Mr Mystery]

http://newsthump.com/2016/07/20/man-furious-as-ghosbusters-remake-gets-good-reviews-and-makes-money/

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I think it's better than Ghostbusters to be honest. Smarter, better acted, no mean humour in it, and the main character isn't a smarmy creep (Venkman). I'd give it an 8 to the originals 7.5. I actually like Ghostbusters 2, it's fun, give it a 7.

On the contrary, she was also super-creepy. The standing difference was she got called on it by the others.

[eldargal]

Not really. She had a crush on Kevin, and was a bit silly, but nothing predatory or creepy like Venkman who was just full on sleaze.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I finally saw it. I didn't think it was too bad at all. The cast were the best thing about it I thought and I especially liked Kristen Wiig. The FX and story were a bit iffy but it was alright overall. I found the humour a little hit and miss at times, but I think thats more down to my personal sense of humour than the movie itself (my taste in comedy is pretty picky I must admit) I'm looking more forward to a sequel I think as itll prolly have a more interesting story. I didn't find it sexist to men either and don't really understand those comments. Overall I'd give it a 7/10.

[eldargal]

And now for today’s lesson in institutionalised misogyny.

Today’s news: Ghostbusters ‘tanks’, ‘stumbles’ with 53% drop in its second week.

Presumably that’s a bad performance compared to other action movies in their second week then?

Let’s check…

Captain America: Civil War: -59.5%
Dark Knight: -52%
Amazing Spider Man: -61%
Oh, and for an example of an actual ‘tanking’:

Batman vs Superman: -69%
Now, let’s examine all the reporting last week that Ghostbusters was going to struggle because of its first week multiplier against its budget…

Ghostbusters first weekend US figures: $46m
It had a $144m budget, so in its first week it made 32% of that.
Descriptions: ‘Lacklustre’, ‘problematic’, ‘will haunt Sony’

Star Trek Beyond first weekend US figures: $59.6m
It had a $189m budget, so in its first week it made 30% of its budget.
Reporting: ‘Dominates’, ‘wins big’

To be clear: there are articles describing both movies’ openings as ‘solid’. But there’s basically no one calling Beyond worrying or Ghostbusters a big win.

So. ‘Nuff said?
Internalised misogyny is a hell of a drug.

[Mr Mystery]

Off to see it in but one and a half hours :)

- - - Updated - - -


Internalised misogyny is a hell of a drug.

It's akin to those still claiming AoS was a flop, when GW have published its selling far better than Warhammer did in the past few years.

Dem axes must be well blunt, innit.

[Al Shut]

I would have thought the dominates and wins big stuff is referring to the weekend performance compared to the other movies out at that time. Where Star Trek has twice the gross than that of second place and Ghostbusters only came in second after a movie that had been released the previous week.

And the movies listed with a comparable drop all had way better opening weekends than Ghostbusters.

[eldargal]

Ghostbusters made more of its budget back in its first weekend than Star Trek did, the point isn't how well each film did, but how the media are reporting they did. Ghostbusters had a better second week than the films listed, but is reported as stumbling or tanking, those films were not.

[Al Shut]

I'm not saying putting the emphasis in judging a movies success where it currently is makes much sense (gross in relation to budget seems indeed more reasonable) but it's not something that is brought up just now because an all female Ghostbusters is around. Although I don't follow that kind of reporting on a weekly basis I seem to remeber more than one instance where a firts place in the charts was considered a hit and a second was not.

Of course the final word on comparing the reporting has to wait till Star Trek hits it's second week.

The movies listed all made decisively more money than Ghostbusters both in their first and second week and both absolute and compared to budget. (don't know the budget of Spiderman though)

[Mr Mystery]

Just back from seeing it - was a bloody good laugh!

Holtzman stole the show for me - reminds me a lot of the sort of Roleplay characters I tend to favour. Cameos all worked, especially the first one, even if it is a teeny bit 'blink and you'll miss it'.

Plot was decently original. End third was a bit Deus Ex perhaps, but then the original was much the same.

After credits teaser was superb!

[CoffeeGrunt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORS3CqPTgDg

Quite middle of the road opinion on the movie, mostly reviewing the hysteria around said movie and that it's all gotten a bit silly on each side. I think this review more than any is the one that'll get me to actually watch it.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Okay, so I finally got around to watching it, and...

...It's alright. I found the humour to be more hit than miss, though there were a few that really missed for me. The climax of the movie was pretty exciting and the main cast were all likable. I was glad that Patty was more than just Dat Black Gurl and her knowing all about New York was less street-smarts and more being a massive history buff. Kevin was a bit tough to handle as a character due to how monumentally, unbelievably stupid he was, but it was a fairly fun role and there were some moments with him that got a genuine laugh out of me.

Overall, a good blockbuster flick. I think I'll be grabbing the disc when it releases.