Ghostbusters - It Has Women in It!

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Ghostbusters - It Has Women in It!

The Ghostbusters reboot isn't perfect, but it's not deserving of the hate it's garnered before its release.

Read Full Article

Sounds good.

Hoping to go see it at some point next week.

I'd say a lot of the problems and bad reactions it got before release was because of the marketing and the responses the creators did whenever someone brought up an issue. The marketing was rather bad and calling the detractors sexist and misogynistic does not create good reception.

3/5 is fair. Sounds like a movie that is good enough to please the fans of the original and to provide good entertainment; but not good enough to be a masterpiece because in the end it's only a reboot (no fresh ideas on the table).

It's just what I expected from this movie.

So, more a "Ghostbusters 2" than a "Ghostbusters"?

I'll probably catch it on Netflix then.

How much is Sony paying you Marter!?

I am, of course, kidding. This actually seemed to be a fair shake. Still not gonna see it due to the lawsuit threat towards Murray and other such issues though.

I'd say that's probably the most fair and reasonable review I've seen this movie get. Most of the reviews I've seen either praise it as something absolutely amazing, or shit all over it like it'll give you cancer.

RJ 17:
I'd say that's probably the most fair and reasonable review I've seen this movie get. Most of the reviews I've seen either praise it as something absolutely amazing, or shit all over it like it'll give you cancer.

That's odd, virtually every review I've read, seen and heard have said pretty much the same things:
The action's lacking.
The villain (and 3rd act) is weak.
The 3 supports chew the scenery and steal every scene from the leads.
It's funny, way better than the trailers made it out to be, but nowhere near the level of the original.

Are you purposely looking for biased reviews, 'cus I imagine people who made up their minds to love/hate it when it was first announced can find plenty in it to justify their positions. It sounds neither good enough to rave about nor bad enough to lambaste.

Kate McKinnon seems to be the most divisive aspect of this movie. In every review I've seen people either absolutely love her or fucking hate her.

... original Ghostbusters, as a movie, were basically, 'good, not great'. A fun, snarky, memorable, yet flawed experience. GB2 was an odd attempt to enter the same river twice. It was 'not good, but still watchable'. This one? It's just bad. I didn't like the cast, I didn't like the style, I didn't like ... You know, there is nothing I liked about this thing. And Warp knows I tried.

I'll be honest. When I saw the review of the original Ghostbusters, yesterday. I thought Marter was too afraid to post a review of the 2016 Ghostbuster.

Ultimately, I came to judge this movie on how the moviemakers responded to criticism. There are two ways to respond to negative opinions. One is to acknowledge the criticism and promise to do better. The other tack to take is to berate people. Telling them they are just haters, and they don't know what they are talking about. Usually, when the person responds in the second way. What they are doing is not very good.

Even though, I used to root for this movie to be good. How they reacted to the negative criticism made me reluctant to pay full price for this movie. I may go to a second run theater, or catch a discounted matinee showing of the movie. If I feel this movie is, at least, a mediocre entertaining movie.

I disagree somewhat...I would give it more of a 5/10 just kind of mediocre, (3/10 if you consider the crybaby asshole behavior coming from the studio) and unlike alot of people, I'm one of those HERETICS that actually thought Ghost-busters 2 was really good, not quite as good as the original BUT still a very funny quotable comedy, what I'm trying to say is STOP COMPARING THIS TO GHOSTBUSTERS 2 try rewatching the original and GB2 back to back, Ghostbusters 2 is really not as bad as some people seem to claim, its not as good as the original, but taken on its own, I think its even funnier than the original (of course that did sacrifice some of the horror elements of the original but still)

I really liked it; haven't personally met someone IRL who has had a negative opinion of the movie. I was laughing and/or smiling every-other-minute at least, and the woman nearest to me was giggling her ass off at a near-permanent upkeep lol

The offensive thing about the film isn't the film isn't the film itself, which is, of course, determinedly fine. The offensive thing is the kind of thinking which spawned it, the kind of very corporate thinking which actually doesn't care about whether the film itself is good. For the people who brainstormed and greenlit this project, all that mattered was how much money they could make. Taking an 80s film that is generally well liked and then doing what is effectively a straight remake but with gender roles reversed is a very cynical way of film making, and not something that should be celebrated or encouraged, because it's deliberately trading on nostalgia both and controversy. Remakes can and often do produce great work (True Grit, Ocean's Eleven, A Fistful of Dollars), because they endeavour to forge their own identity and improve on weaknesses of the original. This, by design, doesn't, and that's just depressing.

09philj:
The offensive thing about the film isn't the film isn't the film itself, which is, of course, determinedly fine. The offensive thing is the kind of thinking which spawned it, the kind of very corporate thinking which actually doesn't care about whether the film itself is good. For the people who brainstormed and greenlit this project, all that mattered was how much money they could make. Taking an 80s film that is generally well liked and then doing what is effectively a straight remake but with gender roles reversed is a very cynical way of film making, and not something that should be celebrated or encouraged, because it's deliberately trading on nostalgia both and controversy. Remakes can and often do produce great work (True Grit, Ocean's Eleven, A Fistful of Dollars), because they endeavour to forge their own identity and improve on weaknesses of the original. This, by design, doesn't, and that's just depressing.

you've seen sony's powerpoint presentations, right

weirdee:

09philj:
The offensive thing about the film isn't the film isn't the film itself, which is, of course, determinedly fine. The offensive thing is the kind of thinking which spawned it, the kind of very corporate thinking which actually doesn't care about whether the film itself is good. For the people who brainstormed and greenlit this project, all that mattered was how much money they could make. Taking an 80s film that is generally well liked and then doing what is effectively a straight remake but with gender roles reversed is a very cynical way of film making, and not something that should be celebrated or encouraged, because it's deliberately trading on nostalgia both and controversy. Remakes can and often do produce great work (True Grit, Ocean's Eleven, A Fistful of Dollars), because they endeavour to forge their own identity and improve on weaknesses of the original. This, by design, doesn't, and that's just depressing.

you've seen sony's powerpoint presentations, right

Their what now?

09philj:

weirdee:

09philj:
The offensive thing about the film isn't the film isn't the film itself, which is, of course, determinedly fine. The offensive thing is the kind of thinking which spawned it, the kind of very corporate thinking which actually doesn't care about whether the film itself is good. For the people who brainstormed and greenlit this project, all that mattered was how much money they could make. Taking an 80s film that is generally well liked and then doing what is effectively a straight remake but with gender roles reversed is a very cynical way of film making, and not something that should be celebrated or encouraged, because it's deliberately trading on nostalgia both and controversy. Remakes can and often do produce great work (True Grit, Ocean's Eleven, A Fistful of Dollars), because they endeavour to forge their own identity and improve on weaknesses of the original. This, by design, doesn't, and that's just depressing.

you've seen sony's powerpoint presentations, right

Their what now?

Here's some of it

weirdee:

09philj:

weirdee:
you've seen sony's powerpoint presentations, right

Their what now?

Here's some of it

I think I'm going to be sick.

weirdee:

09philj:

weirdee:
you've seen sony's powerpoint presentations, right

Their what now?

Here's some of it

image

That's honestly the kind of thing that induces me to avoid most Sony Pictures products like the plague. Especially this one.

weirdee:
Here's some of it

Wait, people are actually still surprised that massive billion-dollar corporations do things mostly by way of focus testing, and plan out franchises long in advance of anything actually being proven successful?

Wow.

Kinda thought that was common knowledge for the demographic of this website at this point.

OT: Honestly, I would've been surprised if the film had been as bad as people were predicting, given the fact that apparently "Ghostbusters, but women" was enough for everyone to declare that the universe was ruined forever and their entire lives had retroactively been destroyed.

(And yes, I'm being hyperbolic, so if you're going to tell me how wrong I am, please just don't. Reserve your anger for continuing to believe that this film is the worst thing to ever happen to the Ghostbusters, because it's not like there have been loads of cynical cash-ins on the brand.)

I haven't and from what my friend who walked out after 45 minutes said I don't think I'm going to, it doesn't look good to me and I don't want to spend money on it, if someone else does let them not my problem.

Casual Shinji:
Kate McKinnon seems to be the most divisive aspect of this movie. In every review I've seen people either absolutely love her or fucking hate her.

I'd say she's underutilized and seems to be trying to overcome that by being excessively present, sometimes to a distracting degree.

To elaborate, Holzman is mainly there as an engineer (read: plot device) to provide all the tech. She is the Egon, if you will, of the reboot. However, in this lineup we have Erin (Wiig) being a credible scientist in her own right. Where the original needed a straight scientist because Ray was the comic relief, and Venkman was a slezeball con artist. She ends up being this extraneous character with very little to do other then being quirky constantly in the background.

Cartographer:

RJ 17:
I'd say that's probably the most fair and reasonable review I've seen this movie get. Most of the reviews I've seen either praise it as something absolutely amazing, or shit all over it like it'll give you cancer.

That's odd, virtually every review I've read, seen and heard have said pretty much the same things:
The action's lacking.
The villain (and 3rd act) is weak.
The 3 supports chew the scenery and steal every scene from the leads.
It's funny, way better than the trailers made it out to be, but nowhere near the level of the original.

Are you purposely looking for biased reviews, 'cus I imagine people who made up their minds to love/hate it when it was first announced can find plenty in it to justify their positions. It sounds neither good enough to rave about nor bad enough to lambaste.

Yep every review I've seen has said it's an average film, which you may enjoy if you like the actors involved. I've saw a single review that was of the "independent women don't need no man" variety, in that it tried to suggest criticism was all driven by sexism, which was a bit tedious, in an American newspaper, but actually even that one gave it three stars.

Cartographer:

RJ 17:
I'd say that's probably the most fair and reasonable review I've seen this movie get. Most of the reviews I've seen either praise it as something absolutely amazing, or shit all over it like it'll give you cancer.

That's odd, virtually every review I've read, seen and heard have said pretty much the same things:
The action's lacking.
The villain (and 3rd act) is weak.
The 3 supports chew the scenery and steal every scene from the leads.
It's funny, way better than the trailers made it out to be, but nowhere near the level of the original.

Are you purposely looking for biased reviews, 'cus I imagine people who made up their minds to love/hate it when it was first announced can find plenty in it to justify their positions. It sounds neither good enough to rave about nor bad enough to lambaste.

Sorry, browser playing up - double post

weirdee:

09philj:

weirdee:
you've seen sony's powerpoint presentations, right

Their what now?

Here's some of it

This doesn't look real. It looks like something Cracked would do for one of their photoshop weeklies.

So this is the worst-marketed movie, ever? Considering its budget and cultural weight and all...

I still dislike it because it's yet another complete reboot.

shrekfan246:

weirdee:
Here's some of it

Wait, people are actually still surprised that massive billion-dollar corporations do things mostly by way of focus testing, and plan out franchises long in advance of anything actually being proven successful?

Wow.

Kinda thought that was common knowledge for the demographic of this website at this point.

OT: Honestly, I would've been surprised if the film had been as bad as people were predicting, given the fact that apparently "Ghostbusters, but women" was enough for everyone to declare that the universe was ruined forever and their entire lives had retroactively been destroyed.

(And yes, I'm being hyperbolic, so if you're going to tell me how wrong I am, please just don't. Reserve your anger for continuing to believe that this film is the worst thing to ever happen to the Ghostbusters, because it's not like there have been loads of cynical cash-ins on the brand.)

Comments like this are not helping your own case either. Just something to keep in mind.

Honestly, I was expecting a lot worse considering what the initial trailers showed, so for me, this sounds like something I might give a shot once it goes up on the big screen around here.

Mangod:

shrekfan246:

weirdee:
Here's some of it

Wait, people are actually still surprised that massive billion-dollar corporations do things mostly by way of focus testing, and plan out franchises long in advance of anything actually being proven successful?

Wow.

Kinda thought that was common knowledge for the demographic of this website at this point.

OT: Honestly, I would've been surprised if the film had been as bad as people were predicting, given the fact that apparently "Ghostbusters, but women" was enough for everyone to declare that the universe was ruined forever and their entire lives had retroactively been destroyed.

(And yes, I'm being hyperbolic, so if you're going to tell me how wrong I am, please just don't. Reserve your anger for continuing to believe that this film is the worst thing to ever happen to the Ghostbusters, because it's not like there have been loads of cynical cash-ins on the brand.)

Comments like this are not helping your own case either. Just something to keep in mind.

My case is, "being snarky at people who overreacted to something before knowing practically anything about it," so I'd say that it does.

I have no vested interest in Ghostbusters, I've never even seen the original and quite frankly upon watching the trailer for the original I didn't find it any better than the trailers for this new one; I'm just so very, very done with how the internet reacts to things it doesn't like.

shrekfan246:

Mangod:

shrekfan246:

Wait, people are actually still surprised that massive billion-dollar corporations do things mostly by way of focus testing, and plan out franchises long in advance of anything actually being proven successful?

Wow.

Kinda thought that was common knowledge for the demographic of this website at this point.

OT: Honestly, I would've been surprised if the film had been as bad as people were predicting, given the fact that apparently "Ghostbusters, but women" was enough for everyone to declare that the universe was ruined forever and their entire lives had retroactively been destroyed.

(And yes, I'm being hyperbolic, so if you're going to tell me how wrong I am, please just don't. Reserve your anger for continuing to believe that this film is the worst thing to ever happen to the Ghostbusters, because it's not like there have been loads of cynical cash-ins on the brand.)

Comments like this are not helping your own case either. Just something to keep in mind.

My case is, "being snarky at people who overreacted to something before knowing practically anything about it," so I'd say that it does.

I have no vested interest in Ghostbusters, I've never even seen the original and quite frankly upon watching the trailer for the original I didn't find it any better than the trailers for this new one; I'm just so very, very done with how the internet reacts to things it doesn't like.

Ah, ok. Sorry; the way I read it, it sounded like you were insulting those who didn't like the movie. My apologies.

KissingSunlight:
I'll be honest. When I saw the review of the original Ghostbusters, yesterday. I thought Marter was too afraid to post a review of the 2016 Ghostbuster.

Ultimately, I came to judge this movie on how the moviemakers responded to criticism. There are two ways to respond to negative opinions. One is to acknowledge the criticism and promise to do better. The other tact to take is to berate people. Telling them they are just haters, and they don't know what they are talking about. Usually, when the person responds in the second way. What they are doing is not very good.

Even though, I used to root for this movie to be good. How they reacted to the negative criticism made me reluctant to pay full price for this movie. I may go to a second run theater, or catch a discounted matinee showing of the movie. If I feel this movie is, at least, a mediocre entertaining movie.

Except, the negative backlash to this movie was bandwagon hate, over petty reasons, by people who had never even seen the film.

Those haters deserved to be berated.

Mangod:

shrekfan246:

Mangod:

Comments like this are not helping your own case either. Just something to keep in mind.

My case is, "being snarky at people who overreacted to something before knowing practically anything about it," so I'd say that it does.

I have no vested interest in Ghostbusters, I've never even seen the original and quite frankly upon watching the trailer for the original I didn't find it any better than the trailers for this new one; I'm just so very, very done with how the internet reacts to things it doesn't like.

Ah, ok. Sorry; the way I read it, it sounded like you were insulting those who didn't like the movie. My apologies.

Yeah, nothing wrong with people disliking the movie, or not finding the trailers good enough to care about watching it for themselves, etc., and I know that discussions around this movie tend to bring out the most polarized in people.

I'm just saying that I find the outrage surrounding it completely pointless for multiple reasons, and that even if it was just a cynical use of the brand it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

"Ghostbusters - It Has Women in It!"

Well, that's all I need to know. This is an outrage, a travesty, a rape of my childhood! I can't go on in the knowledge that a remake bears actors of different gender and zzz...

Honestly, I'm just glad it's not terrible. The various "you're all misogynists" crowds would have made the film immune to criticism if it were.

Kibeth41:

KissingSunlight:
I'll be honest. When I saw the review of the original Ghostbusters, yesterday. I thought Marter was too afraid to post a review of the 2016 Ghostbuster.

Ultimately, I came to judge this movie on how the moviemakers responded to criticism. There are two ways to respond to negative opinions. One is to acknowledge the criticism and promise to do better. The other tact to take is to berate people. Telling them they are just haters, and they don't know what they are talking about. Usually, when the person responds in the second way. What they are doing is not very good.

Even though, I used to root for this movie to be good. How they reacted to the negative criticism made me reluctant to pay full price for this movie. I may go to a second run theater, or catch a discounted matinee showing of the movie. If I feel this movie is, at least, a mediocre entertaining movie.

Except, the negative backlash to this movie was bandwagon hate, over petty reasons, by people who had never even seen the film.

Those haters deserved to be berated.

To be fair, the negative backlash was because this movie was another nostalgic cash grab. This time with a gimmick of having the cast being gender-swapped. A lot of people saw through this and called "Bullshit!" This offended people who thought criticizing a movie with a female cast was misogynist. Thus we had this controversy. If this debate was left to the keyboard warriors online, I wouldn't have held it against the movie. When the movie director, actresses, and the studio executives started to accuse people critical of this movie of being sexist. That was when I lost respect for them. Now, I am torn between my interest of seeing this movie and rewarding them for being cynical jerks hoping to profit from insulting their audience.

Xpwn3ntial:

weirdee:

09philj:

Their what now?

Here's some of it

This doesn't look real. It looks like something Cracked would do for one of their photoshop weeklies.

we could only hope that some dedicated con job actually went through the trouble of making so many slides, but that's not the kind of efficient work ethic that gets you paid at buzzfeed

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here