Ghostbusters 30th Anniversary

[Nightbat]

danth, on 13 Aug 2016 - 02:06, said:

Wow. For someone who's not a misogynist, you use a lot of of terms that misogynists like to throw around, and you link to their websites.

Disagreeing with feminism does not equal being against women's rights or being a misogynist

"Misogynist" is the feminist go-to buzzword to shut down conversation and to elevate themselves above criticism

You used it long before I reacted in kind

You are the one who immediately started throwing the accusation of misogyny around, and now using lewis' law to bolster your position

(for those who do not know Lewis' Law: "Comments on any article about feminism justify feminism."

-It becomes an hilariously flawed statement once you start replacing "Feminism" with things like, Nazism, the KKK, ISIS, etc. )

Negotiator, on 13 Aug 2016 - 02:15, said:

...i had a really long response, but this isn't the place, i'm not your teacher...you can read about the history of women yourself.

I've read up on the history of the oppression of women, have you read up on the history of disposability of men?

Just because all Kings were men (which history shows was not the case) doesn't mean all men are kings

I'm not gonna make this an essay either, but I have to elaborate

Here's something to put in perspective:

When in 1918 it came to female suffrage in Britain, the 100% male lawmakers voted 7-1 in favour, ...where were all those 'misogynists' like feminists would make you believe?

Of course, what is not said is that only 60% of the British male population had the right to vote before the end of WW1

Over five million, among which 2.7 million conscripted men were fighting and dying in the trenches of france ...Many of whom did not have the right to vote

..just like the suffragettes of the White feather campaign, who shamed men into joining the army and advocated conscription of men (even those below the voting age of 21)

No suffragette died fighting for her rights, unlike the male strikers of the old days that merely demanded better working conditions

Even today, we do not take things like male rape or (domestic) violence against men seriously, because we are more concerned for the wellbeing of women

which is why female genital mutilation is banned, yet male circumcision goes on, you'll find much more support and safety nets for women, which is why 80% of homeless are men

and there are only a few domestic violence shelters that accept men

and feminism has painted a one sided picture for decades, that men are the sole perpetrators and women the sole victims, and this made it's way into society and law

check out things like gender profiling, dominant aggressor and duluth model doctrines, That the "Glass ceiling" apparently should be broken without effort and that female gender,

Not Merit, is the condition for earning a high position

go check out the deconstruction of the "wage gap" and find the real reasons behind the result

Learn that "rape culture" is something happening to men in prison, where we ignore it happening and even make fun of it, while out here in the 'free' society,

you (and me) consider is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable

You try and put into light men's suffering and you'll see people like Danth making it a mockery with 'funny' gifs

While he's just another boy feminist crying "Wolf!" "Rape!" that thinks "Equality" is something only women are entitled to because all men are kings

[Kanedas Bike]

Seriously, all of this over Ghostbusters?

Maybe if we, as a community, stopped making comments about a character's gender, ethnicity, orientation, religious or political affiliations we wouldn't have to suffer through pages of "you're a this" or "no, you're a that". Even if that character was at one time someone or something else.

This crap is infecting multiple threads and apparently is the "go-to" argument these days.

And on topic, only the original was good, Ghostbusters 2 sucked and I have to imagine based on the trailer alone (because I haven't seen the remake, reboot, sequel - whatever) this new one does too.

-b.

[Nightbat]

Seriously, all of this over Ghostbusters?

Yeah, kinda happens when something becomes an ideological vehicle to promote an agenda

On the bright side: thanks to GB2016, Battlefield Earth was just proven to be merely a bad Sci Fi movie, rather than the 'Subliminal Scientology propaganda movie" it was claimed to be by its detractors

Maybe if we, as a community, stopped making comments about a character's gender, ethnicity, orientation, religious or political affiliations we wouldn't have to suffer through pages of "you're a this" or "no, you're a that". Even if that character was at one time someone or something else.

Nobody argued about the gender of the characters, Leslie Jones' ethnicity or Kate McKinnon's sexual orientation, any actual arguing was about Feig's handling of the project and its criticism, if that means we discussed his ideological affiliation, perhaps he should have been a professional and left it out of his work

GB2016 should have been a comedy, not a statement about female empowerment, the original GB didn't hire an airhead sexy receptionist, and they didn't toast Gozer's tits

(It was actually even more groundbreaking than GB2016 by making the primary bad guy female, and Winston's character not a stereotype)

Now, if we want to have a discussion forum, we're gonna have to accept discourse, even if that discourse ventures into things not normally addressed with the subject matter

Since it got laid on pretty thick on the matter of GB2016, it got discussed, no use in ignoring the elephant in the room

Edited August 13, 2016 by Nightbat

[Kanedas Bike]

Ok Nightbat. There are literally 8 pages worth of people arguing about the choice of casting and how the characters were written and everything that went along with that.

Just think that it's really funny that Ghostbusters has turned into this lighting rod.

Even funnier when you consider from most accounts this wasn't even a good movie. Be it reviews of the average movie goer or critics and the terrible box office numbers.

But hey, carry on mate.

-b.

[technoblue]

I still think people shouldn't write this one off based on what the "crowd" dictates. Or based on a knee-jerk reaction to a bad trailer or another person's ideals. I went to see it again today. The theater was half full, so I guess interest is fading but it is still reaching an audience. And people of all ages were there to enjoy it: older couples were there, young adults, families with pre-teens, teens. The parts that I found laugh-out-loud funny the first time still got me to laugh this second time.

Anyway, it still feels like a Ghostbusters film to me.

The surviving members of the original Ghostbusters team each had a cameo. Even Sigourney Weaver and Annie Potts had cameos, which added to the fun throughout. There were a couple scenes that were nice and spooky, even startling like the 1984 film. But beyond those comparisons and callback cameos, I think the new movie did do enough differently to give the property a new lease. I only wish more people would give the movie a chance.

Oh well...

The only downside that I forgot from my first viewing was Slimer. In this movie, Slimer is more like he is in Ghostbusters 2. But aside from that, I don't have any real criticism against the film.

[Kanedas Bike]

^Very cool, glad that you and others have enjoyed it.

I've liked a LOT of films that were generally disliked so I've no issues going against the grain. For me a trailer, or what I know of the movie will generate interest for me, and in this case the trailer did a lot to turn me off of the movie.

I'm guessing at some point I'll see it on cable or some streaming service, but even then I think it'll be something I watch on a lazy day with nothing else to do. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised, who knows.

-b.

[Negotiator]

I want to watch it but affraid I'm going to miss the theater run due to scheduling. Will rent it most likely but before it goes to Netflix.

[areaseven]

[Nightbat]

Ok Nightbat. There are literally 8 pages worth of people arguing about the choice of casting and how the characters were written and everything that went along with that.

I just reread 8 pages, if you had claimed most replies were about the trailer, reviews of youtubers, or discussion about the agenda behind GB2016, you would have been correct

Most, if any discussion about casting and the characters took place on page 2

[sketchley]

Ok Nightbat. There are literally 8 pages worth of people arguing about the choice of casting and how the characters were written and everything that went along with that.

Just think that it's really funny that Ghostbusters has turned into this lighting rod.

Even funnier when you consider from most accounts this wasn't even a good movie. Be it reviews of the average movie goer or critics and the terrible box office numbers.

But hey, carry on mate.

-b.

Not the first time that a movie has become a lightning rod about something - and not the last time, either.

Remember "The Interview" just last year, and the Sony hacking controversies, and theatre bomb threats, and... :roll:

And the real kicker: it apparently also wasn't a good movie, either!

[Lorindor]

I don't get the hate for this movie. rewatched the first two movies prior to see the remake, and I must say that the new one is better. The old ones just has not aged well and wasn't funny to me anymore. The new one gave me a few good laughs at least.

Seeing everyday women being allowed to be heroes without wearing skimpy outfits WAS a very welcome change from most Hollywood movies. And I liked that they stuck to the concept of ghosts and the paranormal meets technology. I never liked how the GHOSTbusters ended up fighting an ancient god or a magician and not ghosts. The Anti-Ghostbuster was a very fitting concept for a villain.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Lorindor

[renegadeleader1]

Why did I hate the film?

BECAUSE I COULDN'T GIVE A RATS ASS IF THEY WERE MALE OR FEMALE, THE HUMOR WAS COMPLETELY UNFUNNY DOG CRAP!

Every character was crass, obnoxious, grating or stupid to level they insult people with real mental retardations!

The plot was paper thin and incoherent with enough plot holes to drive multiple Ecto-1's through!

There is no internal logic!

Every bit of nostalgia piece that paid tribute to the original films was forced, out of place and felt like blatant pandering!

The effects looked stupid!

Hemsworth's character is an insult not only to Annie Pott's Janine character from the origina, but a major insult to anyone who has ever held a personal assistant/secretarial/receptionist job in their lives male or female!

THE.

MOVIE.

WAS.

CRAP.

[Negotiator]

all tastes are subjective. *shrug*

[technoblue]

Nope. That's not how I see it. The movie is an action/comedy and isn't attacking anyone. Saying this movie attacks secretaries would be like saying the original attacks government regulators (Peck) or successful bussiness women (Barrett), or lonely single men (Tully). At best it's being ironic. I'm sorry you can't see the humor in it, renegadeleader1 but that is your choice. At least you did one better than most and gave it a chance. I do respect that. Not everyone's likes are the same.

Edited August 14, 2016 by technoblue

[sketchley]

Saw the movie today. My 2 cents:

The good: I found the continually improving and evolving 'arsenal' interesting. I also like that it wasn't a straight remake, but more like a re-imaging using the concepts of the original (ie: the human instigator of the spiritual action: in the original, he's long-since deceased, whereas he's alive and/or kicking ( ) in this one).

Because it wasn't a straight redo, I was being pleasantly surprised whenever the movie did not turn out how I anticipated the scenes would, based on the original.

The bad: the movie seemed to have odd pacing. What was lacking from the original is the slowly building foreboding and impending sense of doom. I also didn't like how they rendered the ghosts - maybe I'm old school and prefer practical effects rotoscoped onto live action plates and the ensuing visual degradation from that? The neon-blue haloed ghosts are just too clearly rendered for my taste. Maybe its something that's needed for the 3D version of the movie, and the CG has to be crystal clear to get the 3D effect or something.

It's reminded me of something vital about movie making that the team behind this one appears to have forgotten: nothing is as powerful as the viewer's imagination. Give me semi-obscured ghosts cloaked in the shadows that we never get a clear view of. Now that's scary!

In conclusion: Ｉ laughed. It was good escapist fun. Do we need much more than that in a comedy?

I wouldn't mind seeing more of these characters in a sequel, but at the time of writing, I don't think its worthy of adding to the DVD collection.

EDIT: if you see it in the theatre, make sure to stay until the very end of the credits. This is one of those movies that lives up to the adage: it ain't over until it's over.

Edited August 14, 2016 by sketchley

[technoblue]

Good points, sketchley. I was also impressed by how the new film used concepts from the original and then made those concepts its own in interesting ways. I felt that the movie wasn't just a straight reboot, but also an origin story and for me that helped with the pacing. The nice after-credit tease had me thinking even more about the whole origin story idea. Seeing the evolution of the equipment was also a very fun part of the new film. It was there in the 1984 film, but it was subtle and a lot of that evolution happened off screen or in a montage (and it might have been due to how movies were made then, or special effects limitations, or budget restrictions, but that's all speculation on my part).

The criticism of the visual effects is a fair one, although I was only really bothered with how the CGI was done for Slimer's scenes and a couple of the battle scenes near the end. I also think the movie could have benefited from a couple extra spooky/scary ghost scenes to produce more tension, to balance the comedy with a little more action. The scenes it did have (the ones that weren't silly on purpose) were good, but I think it would have been nice to have more.

[Mazinger]

One critique I'll make as someone who likes it, was the inverted-venkman like sub-plot of Kristin Wiigs character lusting after Thor. They could have lost 90% of those gags and it would have been better for it. Strange how her character felt the weekest in the end while Leslie Jones, at least for me, was the most upgraded.

Oh and to those that are skipping this iteration, that are fans and want more of the original, go get the OG cast centric video game that came out last year. I'd say that experience is more diserving of a Part 2 label than the actual 2nd movie.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Mazinger

[sketchley]

One critique I'll make as someone who likes it, was the inverted-venkman like sub-plot of Kristin Wiigs character lusting after Thor. They could have lost 90% of those gags and it would have been better for it. Strange how her character felt the weekest in the end while Leslie Jones, at least for me, was the most upgraded.

I agree. Of the three, Kristin Wiig's character grows the least through the story. Though, I think her role in the film was supposed to be the comedy 'straight-man', or the 'every-man' that the audience identifies with, which limited what the character could do or become.

Edited August 15, 2016 by sketchley

[Knight26]

My thoughts on this movie.

http://noblestorm.blogspot.com/2016/08/ghostbusters-2016-review.html

[areaseven]

[Hikuro]

honestly? I think Jon was a little to soft on this movie lol.

[areaseven]

I tried to watch the 2016 reboot a few days ago. The main problem is not the female cast or whatever storyline they tried to come up with, but the fact that it's just boring. The moment Kristen Wiig let out the first queef in the film (around the first 5 or so minutes after the intro), I started to doze off. By the time I woke up, the video player had already stopped.

I don't think I'll attempt to watch it again.

[spanner]

this one is another movie which should be filed under "most shameful remake cash grabs" of recent times.. it was absolutely appalling and in insult to the originals.

[sh9000]

This movie wasn't even worth watching free online.

[spanner]

This movie wasn't even worth watching free online.

for years I waited for a 3rd movie with the original cast to come but that never happened only for them to release this steaming pile of crap.. it was just so bad it was laughable!

my son having already watched in the cinema refused to re-watch it with me so I ended up watching it alone. At times it almost felt embarrassing to watch I just wanted to switch it off but thought I should just grit my teeth and finish but that sure was a tough thing to do..

[Ghadrack]

I watched it a few days ago, I had a few laughs, but as a "re-boot" in my book it was a total failure, it didn't do anything to improve upon the original, it wasn't as funny as the original, and the attempts to jazz it up with the eccentric "Q" type ghostbuster was just not worth the effort they expended IMO.

I think this is another great example of why the re-boot phenomenon needs to die, if you cant' take the original idea and add something new and clever, and/or if the original or previous incarnation of the story wasn't a turd, just stop.

They should have made this as a late / modern day sequel, payed homage to the original and written this one around their new ghostbusters with an original storyline, the team that made The Heat, Bridesmaids, Spy, those are some of the funniest movies I've seen in years, NuGhostbusters wasn't. I can't imagine how anyone who loved, or even liked the original movie, would watch this as think, "Wow, this was way better than that old version of this story."

Let's all look forward to the Back to the Future re-boot starring "insert slightly different main character" and a time travelling "insert different unique car type here", to go back to the year ( Insert random 1980's year) with slightly different soundtrack. Yay, money!

[areaseven]

ECTO-1 comes home.

[spanner]

My son and I went and saw Underworld Blood Wars which I thought was reasonably decent! And Kate Beckinsale never disappoints! Though I did go in without expecting anything too significant, but it was good. I did the same for Ghost Busters and that totally sucked balls.

What I find strange is Blood Wars only got a 7% rating on Rotten Tomatoes which gave Ghost Busters 73%!?!?

[spanner]

oh.. makes sense. though I don't ever pay much attention to what those review sites say anyways.

[sh9000]

[Dynaman]

Shouldn't this go in that other Ghostbusters discussion?  Those toys have nothing to do with this movie.

[sh9000]

14 minutes ago, Dynaman said:

Shouldn't this go in that other Ghostbusters discussion?  Those toys have nothing to do with this movie.

If there’s an original Ghostbusters movie thread then I can’t find it on the search but these are figures for the original Ghostbusters movie.  The first post in this thread was about the original Ghostbusters movie.

Edited February 22, 2020 by sh9000

[tekering]

What the hell...?  Ghostbusters has changed licensees AGAIN?  

[sh9000]

[sh9000]