Ghostbusters General Thread

[KManX89]

The teaser was not better than the film, if we really want to get analytical. It's a teaser. An announcement teaser at that. It showed literally nothing.I, for one, don't understand the pure hated 2016 gets. Is it great? No. Is it the worst movie I've ever seen? No. Hell, it's not even the worst remake I've ever seen. I think people just like to hate it. Which, cool, good on ya. Continuing to drag that movie down is not going to make me excited for the new one, though. Move on to being excited about this and leave that one behind.

Ghostbusters (2016) is a movie with some pretty serious structure and pacing problems... which I never see anybody bother to discuss. It's like people don't want it to have been a sincere effort to make an entertaining movie by people who were perhaps a little too enamored of - or maybe a little too intimidated by the reputation of - the source material to be entirely objective about their own product.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not waving the 2016 film's flag here. It's definitely a flawed film. But from everything I've ever seen, it's only ever complained about with no valid film criticisms (clarity: not saying there are no valid criticisms, just saying people never bring them up). Just that it's unnecessary, bad, a shitshow, awful, etc. Which, that's all well and good, but if you're not going to take the film on it's own merits then how are you unbiased? It's why I don't have a hardcore hatred for the movie; it's flawed but it's not kicking my children in the teeth, like people act it does.

It is what it is. As I said, I've seen plenty of worse films and worse remakes just as I've seen plenty of better films and better remakes. I honestly think this new one will feel a lot like 2 does for me; meh? It'll be neat if they get the old guys out of the retirement homes but eh.

At the end of the day, I'm happy people are happy. This is definitely something worth being happy about. But I don't get why people just keep going "Good! Now I can wash the taste of that almost three year old movie out of my mouth now!" Just move on.

Let's see, annoying characters (Melissa McCarthy in literally anything she's in, every single male character intentionally made to look stupid, like a jackass or both to push a sexist, man-hating narrative), toilet humor (poop jokes, dick jokes, puke jokes and the movie literally starting off with a queef joke), terrible acting, terrible writing (characters have zero chemistry), painfully unfunny jokes, etc. all seem like valid criticisms to me and they do get brought up, but nope, everyone bashing the film is just bashing the film with "ET SUXORZ!" to sound cool with the cool kids in school, to quote Deadpool.

Oh, and speaking of putting words in detractors' mouths:

[KaijuCanuck]

Ghostbusters (2016) is a movie with some pretty serious structure and pacing problems... which I never see anybody bother to discuss. It's like people don't want it to have been a sincere effort to make an entertaining movie by people who were perhaps a little too enamored of - or maybe a little too intimidated by the reputation of - the source material to be entirely objective about their own product.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not waving the 2016 film's flag here. It's definitely a flawed film. But from everything I've ever seen, it's only ever complained about with no valid film criticisms (clarity: not saying there are no valid criticisms, just saying people never bring them up). Just that it's unnecessary, bad, a shitshow, awful, etc. Which, that's all well and good, but if you're not going to take the film on it's own merits then how are you unbiased? It's why I don't have a hardcore hatred for the movie; it's flawed but it's not kicking my children in the teeth, like people act it does.

It is what it is. As I said, I've seen plenty of worse films and worse remakes just as I've seen plenty of better films and better remakes. I honestly think this new one will feel a lot like 2 does for me; meh? It'll be neat if they get the old guys out of the retirement homes but eh.

At the end of the day, I'm happy people are happy. This is definitely something worth being happy about. But I don't get why people just keep going "Good! Now I can wash the taste of that almost three year old movie out of my mouth now!" Just move on.

Let's see, annoying characters (Melissa McCarthy in literally anything she's in, every single male character intentionally made to look stupid, like a jackass or both to push a sexist, man-hating narrative), toilet humor (poop jokes, dick jokes, puke jokes and the movie literally starting off with a queef joke), terrible acting, terrible writing (characters have zero chemistry), painfully unfunny jokes, etc. all seem like valid criticisms to me and they do get brought up, but nope, everyone bashing the film is just bashing the film with "ET SUXORZ!" to sound cool with the cool kids in school, to quote Deadpool.

Oh, and speaking of putting words in detractors' mouths:

watch?v=UWROBiX1eSc

I love that video.

And since they’re here already anyways, Maritonic, if you want valid criticism of 2016 look at RLM’s Plinkett review of it. Hilarious and intelligent.

[Maritonic]

Christ, forget it. I need to learn to stay in the General Discussion area only.

[SoggyNoodles2016]

I don't think those are the criticisms Maritonic means though. Most of the problems mentioned are personal preferences like the jokes aren't funny or there's too much toilet humor, not a unbiased criticism like the impov type comedy doesn't match the tone set by the orginal films, making it stand out.


At least, that's my $0.02.

[Tyrant_Lizard_King]

Ernie Hudson is totally on board and according to him the rest of the original cast is too.

[KaijuCanuck]

Ernie Hudson is totally on board and according to him the rest of the original cast is too.

I'd love it if Winston got a bigger role this time around.

[Zarm]

The man is due some respect. I couldn't believe that in the second movie, they sidelined him again. Surely he'd proven himself a full member of the team by then...

[UltramanGoji]

I feel kinda grim saying it, but with Harold Ramis gone, I feel like they almost have to give Ernie a bigger role this time around. I really want to see them do more with the "everyman" persona he has.

[KaijuCanuck]

They better do some kind of a tribute to Ramis. He was such an important part of what made the original special.

Speaking of which, gentlemen I give you the formula for a (old school) Ghostbusters movie.

Step 1: First you need three incredible comedians at the height of their powers, who each bring something different to the table.

a) Take an actual literal crazy person, namely Dan Aykroyd, open up his weird head and dump out his insane ideas

b) Filter those ideas through Harold Ramis, who actually understands story structure, character, pacing - essentially, how to write a movie.

c) a and b will give you a script - but then you need to allow Bill Murray to basically ignore that script and just do whatever the hell he wants.

Step 2: Find a director like Ivan Reitman who is crazy enough to wrangle three superstars, and is able to cast a bunch of other great actors.

Step 3: Mix it all together, shake it up, and then basically just chuck it at a wall and see what happens. Results range from mediocre to incredible.

[Tyrant_Lizard_King]

Well Ivan Reitman is a producer and will hopefully give his input. I'd imagine his son would be more than willing to listen. Personally I'd get the guys who did Evolution to write it or at least let Aykroyd help develop the story. It is his brainchild after all.

[LegendZilla]

I would cast Micheal Cera as the grown up Oscar.

[The One and Only]

Twitter is not happy. According to the talking heads, "The mysoginists have won."

[Kaiju-King42]

-long sigh-

Will it ever end?

[KaijuCanuck]

No, the misogynists haven’t won... the executives who don’t want to make sequels to box office bombs have won...

[LegendZilla]

No, the misogynists haven’t won... the executives who don’t want to make sequels to box office bombs have won...

And those who just want to make good movies rather than to make movies as an excuse to push an agenda.

[eabaker]

No, the misogynists haven’t won... the executives who don’t want to make sequels to box office bombs have won...

And those who just want to make good movies rather than to make movies as an excuse to push an agenda.

That isn't what Ghostbusters (2016) was; it was a movie made in the interest of appealing to a specific set of demographics, just like all Hollywood movies.

[Zarm]

Man... is there no thread I can visit on TK this week without you denying that a casting agenda exists? It's like a running theme.

[eabaker]

A casting agenda, singular? Universal?

Every narrative movie's casting is done according an agenda. Every aspect of the production of every narrative movie follows an agenda.

When a studio's money is involved, right at the top of that agenda, for every department, is: Ensure as many people as possible buy tickets to see this movie.

It doesn't always work, but that's always the goal.

[2004Zilla]

Leslie Jones loses common sense and claims the Ghostbusters sequel is something 'Trump would do'.

This was pretty LOL worthy.

[KaijuCanuck]

Leslie Jones loses common sense and claims the Ghostbusters reboot is something 'Trump would do'.

This was pretty LOL worthy.

Ugh, that's a shame. I hate that it's being mischaracterized as a misogynist thing. It's a direct sequel to a beloved film, like what's wrong with that? That's the real problem that sane people had with 2016, nobody reasonable actually gave a crap that it was all going to be women, they just didn't understand why it had to be this total reboot thing. I actually like Leslie Jones too. Actually, I like all of the cast of 2016 - they were just in a terribly directed, terribly scripted, and poorly conceived film.