Saw Ghostbusters (2016)

"Reboot culture is bad. I'll skip this reboot and go see this other reboot."

Had a great time watching the new Ghostbusters movie!

That is hilarious!

One thing that annoys me about the new Trek one is the movie poster. It's Star Wars as fuck. Damn you, Abrams!

As a weakling male with some deep Freudian complex, I must state that the movie sucked. Big time.

chemistry: A-. directing: B-. script: C-. effects: A+ Kevin: A++

I'd like to see a sequel with a better script and making more sense. It was weird how they want from wranglers to gun(wo)men with no explanation, seemed like a lame excuse to stuff 3D effects into an otherwise pretty simple and character-driven movie that didn't dive deep enough into those characters to make that element work either. The action was fine but it didn't make sense in the context of the earlier bits of the film (not to mention Ghostbusters in general). Not enough jokes landed but I enjoyed watching these women work enough that it worked as a light action movie with some comedic elements.

With more focus and better jokes, I'd love to see these five do it all over again. Hemsworth stole every scene he was in and these women are super funny. Give them more opportunities to be funny and reign in the gunplay in favor of clever traps and lures and I'd be so down for a sequel. This Ghostbusters was to my imagined Ghostbusters 2 (2) what Ghostbusters 2 was to Ghostbusters. Totally enjoyable but a let down compared to what I can see is possible from this franchise.

Believe it or not...shes the best part of the movie, the only character that seems human, don't get me wrong the parts in the trailer with her are still God Awful in the film but she somehow ... is the best part...

In the early parts of the movie, is there really a lot of material centered around vaginal flatulence and other toilet humor, or are people exaggerating how much of that is in there? I only ask, because I hate that sort of humor.

I'm hearing this from a lot of places, and her performance is one of the main reasons I'm interested in seeing the movie now. I love how in the half in the bag review, they consider the possibility that the person who cut the trailer together may have had a grudge against Sony or the people involved in the movie. It makes me wonder if that was also the case with Mighty No. 9.

Not that I think either of those are true, but it's funny to imagine happening. It would also explain some things that by any reasonable account should never have happened.

Never said I hated reboots. There are good ones and bad ones. Trek '09 is a great reboot. There are upsides to the reboot/reimagining/retelling craze.

But when a reboot is treated like a free pass with poor casting choices, questionable direction, and bad writing? According to a lot of credible people, you get Ghostbusters 2016.

Seems like it could learn a whole lot from Trek '09. Instead what we got was more like Into Darkness, only - bafflingly - more people are willing to defend this film

There is one joke about a queef and you'd have to know what a queef is to catch it. I can think of few ways to make that sort of joke subtle but they got as close to dropping that joke into a black hole as they could. It's over as soon as it starts.

Seeing Leslie Jones referred to as "giant black chick" considering the current racial shitstorm surrounding her on Twitter thanks to her role in this movie is a real shame.

I don't think the trailer makers had any grudges against Sony or the film itself. This movie worked best as a vehicle for four enjoyable women and one hunk of a man to be enjoyable on screen together. The script mostly stank, and so removing most context from these people's performances did none of them any favors, least of all the woman given the least to do and shoehorned into the most stereotypical role.

SNL has the same problem with her and it's a bummer because I can admit she's usually my least favorite part of any SNL skit but this movie proved she not only has some legit talent but she can provide range to characters that aren't asking for any. This movie made me see her in a different light as a performer and I hope she can recover personally from the shit that's been hurled at her over the past week since this film should give her an avenue into more roles going forward.

Cecily Strong had the only truly bad showing of all the SNL women, she was given nothing to work with but she let every line fall flat anyway. I got the feeling McKinnon was pushed to where she was more than it was a personal choice, though I'm sure she was more than game to be the cartoon of the bunch.

I stay away from Twitter drama for the most part. What shitstorm is she involved in, and how--if at all--has she responded to it? Also, I think "giant black chick" was only used because someone didn't know her name, the same way earlier in the thread Melissa McCarthy was also referred to by only a description.

And thanks for the explanation of the bathroom humor. The way some were going on about "poop jokes" at the beginning of the movie, I'm surprised that's all there is.

Saw it. It was really just an average comedy. Some bits were funny while some bits were really really rough. I gotta give it up to the CGI department though. It looked incredible. Wasn't to big into the huge fighting scene. Made it seem like a throwaway Avengers scene or something. It wasn't completely awful, but it wasn't amazing either. It was just really forgettable, which is such a shame, because I really enjoy all those actors (except melissa mccarthy. just isnt the same since gilmore girls).

@spaceinsomniac: She's been getting the whole misogynist abuse thing with some bonus racist crap on social media. Most of which I don't want to repeat here, but it's the usual chan style troll playbook that seems to be deployed against any woman who runs afoul of a "nerd" fandom for some reason. Whether that's comics, games, movies etc. I'll pm you a couple things to you if you want to look more into it.

I saw it on sunday with a family member and we both enjoyed. I also thought the 3D was well implemented and I usually don't bother with it.

No, that's okay. I've seen plenty of horrible behavior over twitter. I have a pretty good idea of what that looks like. I was mainly just wondering about the race thing. Are people upset with the new Ghostbusters and just attacking her and using race because they think it makes her an easy target? Are people upset because she plays what they see as a stereotype? I'll admit the trailer looked kind of bad in that respect, but I've read quite a bit saying that it's misleading.

Still, even if I was bothered by any of this, I wouldn't try to contact anyone involved with any of it. Some people really have a high opinion of their opinion.

oh shoot, I already sent it to you. Well just ignore it then.

The motivating factor I feel is tribalism.

It's the same reason we have a 3 page thread on a movie and not one for the independence day sequel/reboot thing (whatever it is) or really anything else that came out this year in theatres. The reactionary element of fandom decided at some point that Ghostbusters reboot was going to be awful (whether it is actually awful or good is beside the point), some thought there was a social agenda they don't agree with behind it, and thus they jump on every tiny imperfection they see about it to validate their feelings. Which caused a counter reaction from people on the left to champion the movie. So now Ghostbusters of all things has turned into a political flashpoint.

The reason she is a target is because of her gender, her race and she also understandably reacted to the hate coming her way. Given that these are trolls/bullies that only encouraged them more, the kinds of people who do this seem to act with a junior high school bully level of maturity. But perhaps most importantly Breitbart.com's Milo has singled her out to his ~300K followers as he typically does when he hates someone and opened the floodgates to hordes more abuse. As result he is now supposedly finally perma-banned from twitter.

I have no idea if her castmates are seeing similar things, wouldn't surprise me if they were. I know the director has publicly sparred with that element in the last several months so I'm he's gotten grief. I feel like every discussion around a movie that seems to be a pretty inoffensive but maybe bland comedy has been incredibly contentious for a year.

The comparison is valid because of the big ol' "GHOSTBUSTERS" slapped on the film. It would be fine if it wasn't trying to reboot a series that so many people love. And it would be fine if it was actually a /quality reboot/ as opposed to something completely antithetical to the original film.

When I first read about the article about Milo that you linked to, I was actually VERY happy that Twitter finally suspended someone for telling their followers to attack someone over twitter. Ricky Gervais has done that very thing in the past, and hearing about it significantly lowered my opinion of him. I went to the link expecting to see an appalling call to arms over social politics, and a tweet from Milo telling his followers "tell this woman how stupid she is!" Instead, I saw a typical "she's playing the victim card, everyone gets hate mail" post. A shitty and unsympathetic post to make, but not instructions for a legion of twitter followers.

That's not directing anyone to do anything, and it certainly hasn't ever caused anyone to be banned from twitter. Patton Oswalt's tweet brought attention to The Angry Video Game Nerd's video on the 2016 Ghostbusters, and that caused AVGN to get a ton of hateful tweets launched in his direction, mostly from people who mistakenly thought he was a movie critic.

Here's a selection of some people who then latched onto the story, and bought the AVGN even more hateful attention.

I'm pretty sure that the AVGN also got death threats as a result. Do I think Patton Oswalt should be banned from twitter? Not even slightly. His latest Netflix special is great, btw.

Tons of twitter and blogger conversation brought attention to Penny Arcade's Dickwolves controversy, which definitely lead to death threats. Should the people who said "look at what Penny Arcade did, fuck these guys" be banned from from twitter?

It's clear that if Milo or Patton tweet out the equivalent of "I don't like this person" some of their followers are going to flood the subject of their attack with hate, but should that really be reason to ban someone from your platform? Should people really be alright with this just because they hate Milo and his politics? For the record, I think he's a belligerent ass, but treating people equally despite their politics is something that everyone should get behind.

"Twitter is holding me responsible for the actions of fans and trolls using the special pretzel logic of the left.

...

Like all acts of the totalitarian regressive left, this will blow up in their faces, netting me more adoring fans. We’re winning the culture war, and Twitter just shot themselves in the foot.

This is the end for Twitter. Anyone who cares about free speech has been sent a clear message: you’re not welcome on Twitter.”

I'm not at ALL a fan of Milo, but I have to agree here. Am I missing something? Was there an actual tweet from Milo asking his followers to harass someone for having a different opinion, or is this really as hypocritical as it sounds?

A ban for this kind of behavior would not have happened to liberals like Ricky Gervais or John Oliver though. Twitter is showing their bias here.

They weren't in the new Ghostbusters were they? This is about Ghostbusters right? Twitter banning doesn't play a part in the movie unless it was some deep ass subtext I missed? Was Rowan's middle name Milo?

Maybe we should shut this thread now. It was just a goddamn silly reboot to an 80's movie. WHO GIVES A SHIT!!!

I like that we live in a world where Adam Sandler comedies, like Pixels, are stupid and awful...until that same formula and type of humor is put in a Ghostbusters reboot/remake and then it is hilarious. I just think that Paul Feig and everyone involved fundamentally didn't understand what made Ghostbusters what it was and it had nothing to do with being a summer blockbuster, an action movie, or an Adam Sandler comedy that resulted in "fart" jokes or crotch shot humor.

I think we can completely avoid any comments about the Twitter stuff but largely I'm disappointed in Feig and the Sony marketing department for helping create the controversy about this film as it went from (as it always is) a small minority of people complaining about the gender of the main cast to that being the crux on both sides of the debate. Then they add scenes into the movie to goad those people even more and make marketing around it, the main villain is literally a Ghostbusters fanboy (and is terribly written), and they beat the main ghost by shooting him in the crotch. That's the thing about this film; its metaphors are deep and they make you really think. :|

Fact is this: Sony is really hurting financially. Their only profitable division is their gaming division and people like Amy Pascal put Sony Pictures into the toilet thanks to franchise failures and the bungling of the Spider-Man franchise. The email leak solidified her being fired and now Sony is having to find a way to make gold from what she tried really hard to push. Even though the film looks to make nowhere near its budget back they are doubling down on the cast and the universe, so whatever. Hopefully they learn their lesson, they try to make a decent film first (which they didn't) that's more than a 1.5 hour dropped SNL skit, and they stop trying to make money on pitting people against each other.

Then again, Fox claims they are still going to make a sequel to F4ntastic Four, so what do I know?

Just so we're clear, my intention wasn't to start a debate over whether someone I've never heard of because I also mostly stay out of Twitter politics should've been banned from Twitter in a thread about the damn Ghostbusters. I simply found someone in this thread's description of an actress disappointing in light of the barrage of racist, ape-angled hate mail she's been receiving for committing the crime of acting in a movie with her friends.

People should start another thread if they want to talk about whether those things are OK, or whether Twitter as a platform should not take a stance on hate speech, or whether a social platform whose primary demographic is who some like to call 'urban minorities' should be doing more to protect those people purely from a business perspective...great conversations, all, but nothing to do with bustin' ectoplasm, y'all!

All I wanted to point to was that Leslie was a lot more than the "big black one", and frankly while she was clearly a stereotypical black character little about the character had to do with her size or appearance, and that was super refreshing compared to how she's often cast on Saturday Night Live. All that other garbage outside of her specific performance in this movie belongs elsewhere, again I only mentioned it because of a dismissive description of her earlier in this thread but I don't think this is the appropriate forum to draw all the old familiar battle lines.

Personally, I don't see how anyone could draw battle lines on this particular subject anyway but, hey, Great Job, Internet!

@dudeglove: Every Sony division apart from gaming is massively hemorrhaging money, they are not in a good spot but luckily Japan is weird so they will never allow such a big company to get bought out by Western investors no matter how poorly they're doing.

This is the part that's confusing me. Every review makes this comparison, whereas the folks who say the movie is good seem to be the sort of folks who fucking despised Pixels.

That being said - the few reviewers I do follow say that this movie is utter trash, so I'm probably never going to watch it.

@nodima: twitter can go real crazy if certain groups catch wind of something and start throwing themselves at it. Seen it a lot recently. Just have to keep it in perspective where these kind responses actually come from most times.

I agree with you though.

@sravankb: I think that for many people, they are deluding themselves about what they saw. Not that they didn't like what they saw (while I do think some reviews wording show there is a minority of "reviewer" who simply are excited about the message this movie spreads more than the film itself) but that they normally wouldn't allow themselves to like garbage Adam Sandler films. This film doesn't have him attached so they allow themselves to like it while beforehand they have pre-existing prejudices that kept them from potentially even seeing a Sandler film, let alone enjoying.

and don't get me wrong...Ghostbusters (2016) humor and writing is no better than any Adam Sandler comedy...except I can't remember an Adam Sandler comedy that went out of its way to portray an entire gender as idiotic.

@dudeglove While all the divisions are under Sony they largely operate independently of each other and it gets even weirder in Japanese companies that have tons of branches like this where the left hand never even knows what the right hand is doing. At one point there was talk that Sony would sell off the American branch of Sony Pictures, but that's obviously never happened. Film wise they are struggling, which is one of the factors behind their deal with Disney/Marvel w/Spider-man: Sony currently has no profitable franchise under their belt and every attempt at creating one has failed...and Ghostbusters doesn't look to have helped anything (though they are inexplicably doubling down on their failure). Sony's gaming division is helping them with increased profits but even then we are seeing a slight decline in sales which analysts are saying the Neo will help with once its released.

I think the original movie wasn't that amazing to begin with. I mean it is an Ok flick but it realy isn't an important movie in the big scheme of things. One thing it had plenty though was charm. The new one seems to lack that.

The last 30 years of nerd culture would like to shoot that argument down

@dancinginfernal: I prefer to see remakes as 'alternate universe' versions of a movie. Comparing two pieces of media made in different contexts with clearly different objectives just seems like setting one of those pieces up for failure.

Dude...you did it again. You want to criticize a behavior while simultaneously participating in that same behavior, just towards a different end. If it is baffling people want to defend Ghostbusters, it is equally baffling that people like you, who haven't seen the movie, want to insist it will be terrible before it even comes out. Then when it came out, they (you) didn't go see it and continued to insist it's terrible. What would they know? They haven't seen the movie. You haven't seen the movie. One group is saying "this movie is awful on merits I cannot validate having never seen it," and the other is saying "see the movie in order to determine whether or not it sucks". That's the point of this ENTIRE 'conflict'.

Saw it at its second showing. Boy howdy this movie is a burning garbage fire. My opinion: avoid it.

I was very excited about Kate McKinnon getting a shot at a major role, and was super disappointed that she was a cartoon character bouncing off of the walls throughout the movie and didn't even try to be a real person.

I'm pretty interested to see it myself. I also have no reverence for the original. I was probably too busy watching anime back then.

Man, why did they stop making anime? er I mean why did they stop making good anime?

Just saw it about 20 minutes ago and it was alright. Got a laugh or two out of it but it wasn't exactly the uproarious comedy it was painted out to be by many of the critics. The current IMDB score (5.3?) Is pretty accurate for once.

Didn't realise Leslie quit Twitter after the abuse. Some people people need to grow up.

This thread was seemingly intended for giving impressions about the movie, but a lot of the posts at this point have gotten pretty far away from that. As a result, we're just going to go ahead and lock this thread down.