Ghostbusters (2016)

[General Zod]

If this is directed at me I can Google-fu all the Guardian articles that I mentioned in post to dispel the idea 'I'm making up' stuff (if I need to). But more importantly I don't feel I'm being 'shitty' when I clearly state why I won't be giving Sony my money, but then end the post with the unequivocal statement that if others have seen the movie and liked it, then good for them.

It was just a general post but it's funny you felt a need to get defensive. Because there's a lot of people out there being shitty about it in order to come up with elaborate excuses to not go see it.

So the classic trap is for me now to post "I'm not being defensive!" right

This is a discussion board. I'm discussing.

I'd think a thread about a movie would be to discuss the movie, not whine about why you won't see it, but what do I know.

[Crown]

It was just a general post but it's funny you felt a need to get defensive. Because there's a lot of people out there being shitty about it in order to come up with elaborate excuses to not go see it.

So the classic trap is for me now to post "I'm not being defensive!" right

This is a discussion board. I'm discussing.

I'd think a thread about a movie would be to discuss the movie, not whine about why you won't see it, but what do I know.

And I think differently ... OMG A DILEMMA WHAT DO WE DO?

[Elheru Aran]

Crown and Zod aside...

Watched this last night.

It's OK. I wouldn't say it's as good as the original, but it's pretty reasonable on its own merits. I mean, OK, it kind of smells of "let's just do Ghostbusters over, but with CHICKS" but... it sorta works. It's not a reboot, it's a remake, and they're pretty open about it, one of the supporting actors even says something along the lines of "they find out about ghosts, they believe for a while, then they forget about it until the next one comes by". It could be about ghosts, but the meaning I derived from it was that it was a pretty clear reference to the past movies.

Leslie Jones' character was a bit... stereotypical, but then I do know a number of black women who *do* act like that, so *shrugs* I didn't have a huge problem with it. Melissa McCarthy's wasn't nearly as bad as I had been afraid it might be.
Spoiler

One little touch I enjoyed was how they had the cameos from the past Ghostbusters team.
--Harold Ramis (Egon), now unfortunately deceased: bust in Kristen Wiig's Columbia office. His son is apparently one of the musicians in the concert scene as well.
--Bill Murray: Doctor skeptic guy who gets thrown through a window by a ghost.
--Dan Akroyd-- cabbie who refuses to take Kristen Wiig all the way to Chinatown because it's too far by one block.
--Ernie Hudson-- Leslie Jones' funeral-director uncle who lends her their hearse.

Hell they even had spots for Janine, Sigourney Weaver, and an offhand mention (post-credits) of Zuul...

[Grumman]

Bill Murray's cameo bothers me. Remember how Sony was discussing strong-arming him into supporting their movie?

"In order to more fully evaluate our position if Bill Murray again declines to engage on “Ghostbusters”, AG requested that we identify “aggressive” litigation counsel with whom we can consult to evaluate our alternatives and strategize. [Harkening back to his prior employer, of course, raised the name of David Boies.]

Personally, while I’m fine with aggressive, I think we are in much worse shape if this goes public so seems to me we should look for someone who isn’t seeking the spotlight."

And then they hand him a cameo in which Spoiler

the protagonists more or less murder him by unleashing a monster in his face?

That strikes me as a particularly shitty thing to do, but unsurprising given the animosity the creators clearly have for anyone who didn't prostrate themselves before their knock-off.

[Elheru Aran]

Part of the issue there is that Bill Murray is famously reclusive and difficult to talk to. The man very much walks to his own beat, and what I'm seeing is less 'strong-arming' and more 'how do we even talk to the goddamn guy without dealing with his people'. They didn't want to give themselves negative publicity by brow-beating an old, rather popular dude. Even his co-actors-- Dan Akyroyd and Harold Ramis in particular, Ernie Hudson doesn't seem to have much cared-- had a lot of trouble pinning him down [edit2 for clarity: when trying to get him to approve a Ghostbusters 3, I don't know if they were involved in this one at all apart from Akyroyd being an executive producer].

Seriously, the guy is really damn hard to talk to. He's got a cell phone that like only... two or three people, plus his kids, have the number to; about the only other way to reach him is literal snail-mail, half of which he doesn't even bother to read according to his agent. He's friends with a bunch of people in Hollywood, hence how he still gets in movies, but even they have trouble getting him to play nice sometimes. I'm not surprised at all that Sony would get frustrated with that kind of bullshit.

EDIT: I also don't get 'animosity' at all. They gave what I regarded as fairly respectful cameos to the other actors, Murray is the only one who got killed off like that and I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was his own idea. They make some comments that are fairly obviously directed at the Internet backlash to the film, but that's about it.

[TheFeniX]

To add to your post, Bull Murray had a lot to do with Ghostbusters being dead for years. He did not like how Ghostbusters 2 worked out and fought against many attempts to revive the franchise. And since he was essentially brought on to get the original greenlit, it's no surprise he had the pull he did.

I have no idea how Ramis and Akroyd convinced him to do the 2009 video game, but I'm glad they did because it was a good game and Murray was also good in it. Would have gone down as one of my GOAT games if it had actual co-op, but the single-player story and gameplay was solid, merely hamstrung by the allied-AI.

Anyways, combining Murray's.... eccentricities with his distaste for the franchise easily explains all the bullshit.

Murray's comments about the movie cameo were in the vein of him deciding to do it for fear that deciding not to would be him making a statement against the movie. So he ended up doing it because he's not that much of an asshole. But people expecting him to do it are also assholes, same as if they demanded a cameo out of any aging star from a previously popular franchise. It's just a fucking job to some actors. I always had the feeling the Murray liked Ghostbusters because it was a great movie, not because it's Ghostbusters. Fans need to get over their bullshit.

Baseless assumption: since his refusal to get involved in any future Ghostbusters projects likely lead to any studio immediately passing, guilt after Ramis (or maybe just in general) died might have influenced his decision. This also explains him doing the video game to me: making up for all that. He obviously likes Ramis and Akroyd personally and professionally and with no movie studio execs involved to fuck it up, he was probably more than willing to jump on board with Harold and Dan holding writing pens.

EDIT: NOTE, I know Ramis died well after the video game. That's what "in general" covers.

From me, this also dredges up Hudson's mistreatment in the first two movies. I'd be more pissed if I was him, but he's always come off as a pretty laid back guy. Any movie could use more Ernie Hudson.

[Elheru Aran]

Part of the problem with Ghostbusters 2 from what I understand is that it was largely Aykroyd's personal project rather than a collaborative effort between them as the original had been, with a good deal of 'Executive Meddling' as TVTropes would put it. It's no wonder Bill Murray didn't like it, he's never been one for sequels anyway.

You're always going to get complications like this with reboots/relaunches of older franchises. People were similarly skeptical about BSG back when it got rebooted, but when it turned out to be pretty decent, they didn't care. This one has the added complication in that it's a gender-flip movie... well, not a 'real' complication in that it doesn't actually affect the quality of the finished product, but it influences public perception pretty heavily, for better or for worse.

Speaking for myself, while obviously I was strongly remembering the original movies, I liked this one well enough. Compared straight up with the first movies... well it's at least as good as Ghostbusters 2, if not slightly better. The dynamic between the 4 women is perhaps not as well done as between the 4 guys, and some scenes are just straight up silly (Kristen Wiig being overly female-gazey with Kevin, Melissa McCarthy getting thrown about by the ghostbuster-guns, etc) but... it's a different movie. That's okay.

[mr friendly guy]

Ok. so I had free tickets from Hoyts and free coke as well so I saw this.

1. I enjoyed it. Its certainly quite different from the original in terms of humour. From what I recall the 1984 movie had quite subtle humour, like Bill Murray's delivery of "It's true, this man has no dick." However the more obvious humour here didn't bother me.

2. Love the cameos to the old actors

3. It most probably won't break any records since it doesn't have a China release. So much for the hypothesis (snigger) that China is responsible for Hollywood doing remakes because Chinese audiences haven't seen these before, and it worked in the 1980s so.....

4. Its a damn shame it became a victim of the culture wars currently raging between SJWs and anti SJWs. It should be judged on its own merits.

[Q99]

Wow, this was... better than I expected, even from the reviews that gave it some positive points.

I'd put it above GB 2 too. I liked the girls, and I like how they weren't simply updates of the boys. I liked the continual R&D approach where their gear constantly changes as things go on and they *learn* about ghosts- the original Ghostbusters was cool in showing competent scientists doing their thing, this one shows more of the nuts and bolts in that.


As for Murry's character, I'm 80-90% sure that was his idea, it sure *felt* like it. He even had the largest role of all the cameos.

[streetad]

I'll get around to watching this at some point. Really have to pick and choose when you have an 8 month old baby.

My main concern with the concept is the door it will open to endless lazy copy-cat gender swapped remakes, many of which will be of very poor quality...

[Q99]

I'll get around to watching this at some point. Really have to pick and choose when you have an 8 month old baby.

My main concern with the concept is the door it will open to endless lazy copy-cat gender swapped remakes, many of which will be of very poor quality...

Eh, Sturgeon's law. 90% of everything's gonna be bad anyway, and some won't be.

That said, it looks like it's going to land solidly in the "not a bomb, not a hit, just kinda ok," box office range, so I'm not expecting a ton of follow up. Though it wouldn't surprise me if it had good DVD sales, so... maybe?

GB '16 did a good job of not being simply a gender swapped remake. Like, sure, it's a Ghostbusters story without a doubt, but Abby isn't Ray, Holtzman isn't Egon, and the villain isn't Gozer (or Vigo the Carpathian), etc.. So, if other films go the gender-swapping route but cue off Ghostbusters '16 and be as much of their own thing, that wouldn't be a bad thing. If they were lazy about it, yea, that'd be less fun.

[TheFeniX]

This is a bit late, but I've been busy. The movie is getting good reviews, but the video game is what we've come to expect for movie cash-ins:

Any fiber of its spirit still recognizable as a Ghostbusters-licensed property is ground to a fine, flavorless pulp used to fertilize the most gruelingly insipid dual-stick shooter I've ever played. In the first stage of Ghostbusters, you'll sluggishly circle strafe around ghosts with the left stick and shoot them by aiming the right stick and pulling the trigger. If it is a large ghost, you must then switch to your proton beam and weaken it further before hammering a button to capture it. In between busts, you can search for collectibles with your P.K.E. meter. Eventually — and this will seem hard to believe once you've begun playing the game, but have faith — it will end.

I hope you've found this brief strategy guide sufficiently compelling, because you will need to follow it for every single stage that follows. You will never do anything different than that. Ever. Ghostbusters is not dull. Doing your taxes is dull. This is a sadistically perfect prison of monotony from which no fun could ever escape.

No one is pulling any punches for it, calling it out as a cheap cash-in. Local co-op only.... in 2016.

[Grumman]

The company that made it then immediately went bankrupt.

[Terralthra]

Saw the movie last night. Enjoyed it immensely. It's not a cinematic masterpiece, nor probably would it be iconic without the foundations of the original to play upon, but it's not just a lazy gender-swap. Holtzmann is not fEgon, Abbey is not fStanz, Erin is not fVenkman, etc. There's a little bit of stereotypical sassy-black-woman humor, especially toward the beginning, but it's not especially terrible, nor all that much. The plot is good without too many massive holes, and the humor works. Solid B, imo.

Holtzmann is amazing.

[Q99]

Saw the movie last night. Enjoyed it immensely. It's not a cinematic masterpiece, nor probably would it be iconic without the foundations of the original to play upon, but it's not just a lazy gender-swap. Holtzmann is not fEgon, Abbey is not fStanz, Erin is not fVenkman, etc. There's a little bit of stereotypical sassy-black-woman humor, especially toward the beginning, but it's not especially terrible, nor all that much. The plot is good without too many massive holes, and the humor works. Solid B, imo.

From the previews I expected a lot more 'sassy black woman' humor. I ended up liking Patty more than I expected.

I agree, solid B.

Holtzmann is amazing.

Yes

[streetad]

I'll get around to watching this at some point. Really have to pick and choose when you have an 8 month old baby.

My main concern with the concept is the door it will open to endless lazy copy-cat gender swapped remakes, many of which will be of very poor quality...

Eh, Sturgeon's law. 90% of everything's gonna be bad anyway, and some won't be.

That said, it looks like it's going to land solidly in the "not a bomb, not a hit, just kinda ok," box office range, so I'm not expecting a ton of follow up. Though it wouldn't surprise me if it had good DVD sales, so... maybe?

GB '16 did a good job of not being simply a gender swapped remake. Like, sure, it's a Ghostbusters story without a doubt, but Abby isn't Ray, Holtzman isn't Egon, and the villain isn't Gozer (or Vigo the Carpathian), etc.. So, if other films go the gender-swapping route but cue off Ghostbusters '16 and be as much of their own thing, that wouldn't be a bad thing. If they were lazy about it, yea, that'd be less fun.

Unexpectedly, the first one I have noticed getting greenlit s a remake of Darryl Hannah romcom 'Splash' except with Channing Tatum as a merman. Which I suppose could even be a coincidence...

[Q99]

Unexpectedly, the first one I have noticed getting greenlit s a remake of Darryl Hannah romcom 'Splash' except with Channing Tatum as a merman. Which I suppose could even be a coincidence...

Which is an interesting take! Could be good

[Elheru Aran]

Saw the movie last night. Enjoyed it immensely. It's not a cinematic masterpiece, nor probably would it be iconic without the foundations of the original to play upon, but it's not just a lazy gender-swap. Holtzmann is not fEgon, Abbey is not fStanz, Erin is not fVenkman, etc. There's a little bit of stereotypical sassy-black-woman humor, especially toward the beginning, but it's not especially terrible, nor all that much. The plot is good without too many massive holes, and the humor works. Solid B, imo.

From the previews I expected a lot more 'sassy black woman' humor. I ended up liking Patty more than I expected.

I agree, solid B.

Holtzmann is amazing.

Yes

This was largely how I came away from it too.

I think we can start safely discounting trailers for the most part, given how the trailers for this movie, Star Trek Beyond, Independence Day and so many other movies gave a wildly misleading notion of how they would go...

[Gandalf]

I think we can start safely discounting trailers for the most part, given how the trailers for this movie, Star Trek Beyond, Independence Day and so many other movies gave a wildly misleading notion of how they would go...

Film trailers have been unreliable since basically forever, especially for bigger budget films.

Paul Feig films especially tend to have shitty trailers relative to the final product.

[Q99]

Ugh, trailers. Don't even get me started- John Carter would've... ok, not done great, but it deserved better trailers than it got which were just confusing messes, and I underrated Pacific Rim at first from the trailers and I *loved* that one.

I dunno if trailers have gotten worse in the last few years or they're just hitting more movies I like.

[Q99]

Interesting note- if one factors in the budget costs, GB '16 looks like it's doing a bit better than Star Trek: Beyond (though neither is doing great, of course).

[Sea Skimmer]

Ugh, trailers. Don't even get me started- John Carter would've... ok, not done great, but it deserved better trailers than it got which were just confusing messes, and I underrated Pacific Rim at first from the trailers and I *loved* that one.

I dunno if trailers have gotten worse in the last few years or they're just hitting more movies I like.

Certain distribution companies insist on making their own trailers, and do a terrible job of it. This comes and goes in cycles, nothing new. Dreamworks Animation and friends of late was the utter worst at it to the point that it's probably a major factor in why they fiscally imploded and got sold.

John Carter was simply poorly produced at all stages. This is visually obvious, it is not on par with what we had rights to expect. I'm really not sure how they made it so when they had so much money and time, a literal B team effort with a 200 million dollar budget. The horrible trailers were just another angle of this, if they'd been better the bump would have been minimal.

[Guardsman Bass]

I saw it a while back, and the trailers do not do it justice. It was really fun to watch even if I wouldn't put it above 8/10 in terms of quality, and I think I like the overall ensemble humor of the new one more than the old one (although the funniest character dynamic in any Ghostbusters film is still "Ray in a scene with anyone else"). It's especially nice that despite being a reboot, it's really not that similar beyond a few nods to the original and the premise - the character types are different, the dynamics are different, and so forth.

Box office returns for this aren't looking so hot, which is a pity. I'd love to see these characters in a good Ghostbusters sequel (not a high bar to jump, obviously).

John Carter was simply poorly produced at all stages. This is visually obvious, it is not on par with what we had rights to expect. I'm really not sure how they made it so when they had so much money and time, a literal B team effort with a 200 million dollar budget.

It was a combination of being Andrew Stanton's dream project (the guy really, really loves the John Carter books), and his first major live-action film. They gave him way too much free room on it to make the film.

The sad thing about that movie is that despite having major structural issues in plot and pacing, it's still entertaining as hell. I've seen in twice in theaters ,and really enjoyed it both times.

[Q99]

I saw it a while back, and the trailers do not do it justice. It was really fun to watch even if I wouldn't put it above 8/10 in terms of quality, and I think I like the overall ensemble humor of the new one more than the old one (although the funniest character dynamic in any Ghostbusters film is still "Ray in a scene with anyone else"). It's especially nice that despite being a reboot, it's really not that similar beyond a few nods to the original and the premise - the character types are different, the dynamics are different, and so forth.

*Nods* Which is right. There's no way one can just re-make the old dynamic, and the actress's own dynamic is better than simply trying to do so.

Box office returns for this aren't looking so hot, which is a pity. I'd love to see these characters in a good Ghostbusters sequel (not a high bar to jump, obviously).

Though while a sequel seems out out, maybe they'll consider a smaller scale spinoff. Cartoon show?

It was a combination of being Andrew Stanton's dream project (the guy really, really loves the John Carter books), and his first major live-action film. They gave him way too much free room on it to make the film.

The sad thing about that movie is that despite having major structural issues in plot and pacing, it's still entertaining as hell. I've seen in twice in theaters ,and really enjoyed it both times.

Yes, I really enjoyed it. It's one of, what, two planetary romance movies (along with Flash [ah-AH!] Gordon) to boot?

Which is also probably part of the problem- people weren't familiar with the style. Focus more on showing it this other *world*... maybe try and make people link it with Avatar, the last colored-alien-natives movie?... and also the historical origin of it being from the maker of Tarzan and one of the early visits to another world in fiction.