The New Ghostbusters - Part 10

[GuestStar2004]

no one could ever know what it's like to have their gender poorly represented in film, right? No one could possibly understand how that makes men feel.

The whole gender thing is odd because there seems to be stuff that is acceptable for women to get away with in tv and film that men can't because the obvious differences when it comes to the needs or desires between men and women, its like having the hot blonde dumb guy be the receptionist while the women look at him as the really dumb guy but he is still abit of eye candy worth having around am i right?!... now i am almost certain 95% of guys wouldn't blink an eye lid at that if it wasn't for all the sexist talk going on since if the original ghostbusters did that and hired of hot blonde women to play the dumb receptionist... it would in this modern age be seen as a outdated poor mans view on women as dumb sex objects while making the men pervy but strong.

 

[Serpico Jones]

They are reporting a 140M budget and 100M in marketing, so double of that is close to 500M, but yeah, the sequel depends more of the reception and acceptance, to see if the market wants more GB or all female teams even if it fails to reach that goal.

I don't see a sequel getting made with the weekend numbers being as low as they are. They'll need to re-group and re-think their plans. They'll probably hire a big name male actor and a geek friendly director for the next one. Think Chris Pratt and Justin Lin.

 

[terry78]

Hemsworth was basically the male version of every fanservice chick in film. Mike Hat for life.

 

[Jason Kane]

I think I need a hiatus from this subforum for a while.....

 

[Sithborg]

I don't see a sequel getting made with the weekend numbers being as low as they are. They'll need to re-group and re-think their plans. They'll probably hire a big name male actor and a geek friendly director for the next one. Think Chris Pratt and Justin Lin.

You understand that while the opening weekend is important, it isn't the whole story. Tarzan went from "okay, we won't loose boatloads of money" to "hey, this is actually doing pretty well" with its second weekend, and looks to be a great third weekend. BvS isn't considered a disappointment due to it's OW, but due to how it dropped like a rock.

Anyway, still excited to see this tomorrow.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I dont give a damn about the original film, so I went in with no baggage.

Film is meh.

Another bad remake. Dont waste your money and wait for it on cable/netflix.

 

[MadVillainy]

I don't see a sequel getting made with the weekend numbers being as low as they are. They'll need to re-group and re-think their plans. They'll probably hire a big name male actor and a geek friendly director for the next one. Think Chris Pratt and Justin Lin.

Yeah if this really pulls under 50 mill like is reporting then I really dont see a sequel getting made either. Unless overseas numbers are phenomenal which I doubt they will be either

I dont think they'll try again either even with Pratt or anybody. At least not anytime soon unless this thing has really good legs. Why would they? Low box office returns shows the audience isn't really interested in the concept.

We'll see for sure on Sunday though. I really thought this would make over 50 mill, but it doesnt seem like it will as of this moment.
Unfortunately this just comes off as another disappointing, in terms of box office, summer 2016 movie.

You understand that while the opening weekend is important, it isn't the whole story. Tarzan went from "okay, we won't loose boatloads of money" to "hey, this is actually doing pretty well" with its second weekend, and looks to be a great third weekend. BvS isn't considered a disappointment due to it's OW, but due to how it dropped like a rock.

Anyway, still excited to see this tomorrow.

Tarzan is "doing well" because it didn't bomb like many people thought it would. It's still isn't making much of an impact nor will it be a franchise starter like they thought it'd be.

Tarzan's version of "doing well" still isn't really a success. WB still is going to lose money on it

 

[MadVillainy]

Edit

 

[Black Narcissus]

I didn't say I've never heard applause....said I never saw a standing ovation by the theater audience.

It happend on my showing of Return of The king.

Lame stuff.

 

[Serpico Jones]

You understand that while the opening weekend is important, it isn't the whole story. Tarzan went from "okay, we won't loose boatloads of money" to "hey, this is actually doing pretty well" with its second weekend, and looks to be a great third weekend. BvS isn't considered a disappointment due to it's OW, but due to how it dropped like a rock.

Anyway, still excited to see this tomorrow.

I don't think this movie will have any legs. Maybe I'm wrong but I only see this sinking further.

 

[Matt]

I hear the manhate is strong with this one. Not just taking jabs at men, that can be funny, actually, it can be really really funny but its so overdone that it reaches the point of hating in favour of rubbin girlpower in your face.

And the review is by a woman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ0_Ke1-mYA

"My cat whose a dog named Mike Hat/MyKat for short." Really? That is the "humor"?

 

[Samurai_Adam]

I know I'm in the minority, but I loved it! The originals will always be the best, but this film stands firm on its own. The only thing I didn't like was the animated Ghostbusters logo in the final act. That was a little cheesy, but other than that I dug it. Would love to see a sequel in the future.

Also, I don't get the hate for Holtzman. Definitely my favorite of the new crew.

 

[terry78]

"My cat whose a dog named Mike Hat/MyKat for short." Really? That is the "humor"?

It's funnier in context. It's a constant stream of malapropisms during his interview.

 

[NotNickFury]

Haven't seen it, but for those who have and are familiar with these actresses, tell me this: one constant I've heard is that the main leads, particularly McCarthy and Wiig, are fine in the movie, but not as funny as we've seen them in other films. Is that accurate?

 

[Matt]

It's funnier in context. It's a constant stream of malapropisms during his interview.

It may very well work, but it seems inappropriate for this movie. I'm not one of the people who says ghostbusters can never be remade. But if you are going to remake a movie, you should at least stick to the general foundation of the movie. For example, Ghostbusters ought not be remade as a vampire movie. Similarly, the tone should at least be somewhat in sync. The original is more dry and observational humor than slapstick and puns. It just feels like an inappropriate tone for this type movie. If Feig wanted to make that, perhaps an original property would have been more fitting.

 

[bluejake01]

Haven't seen it, but for those who have and are familiar with these actresses, tell me this: one constant I've heard is that the main leads, particularly McCarthy and Wiig, are fine in the movie, but not as funny as we've seen them in other films. Is that accurate?

In my opinion that is accurate.

 

[bluejake01]

It may very well work, but it seems inappropriate for this movie. I'm not one of the people who says ghostbusters can never be remade. But if you are going to remake a movie, you should at least stick to the general foundation of the movie. For example, Ghostbusters ought not be remade as a vampire movie. Similarly, the tone should at least be somewhat in sync. The original is more dry and observational humor than slapstick and puns. It just feels like an inappropriate tone for this type movie. If Feig wanted to make that, perhaps an original property would have been more fitting.

With all due respect, see it for yourself and form your own opinion after seeing it in context before saying what something should or shouldn't be. It's pointless to critique that which you don't fully understand. Any point you may be trying to make, even if you have a valid point, cannot be argued from ignorance.

 

[terry78]

The humor is about as fast paced as the original, they're not like saying set ups to punch lines or anything. It's rapid fire.

 

[danoyse]

It may very well work, but it seems inappropriate for this movie. I'm not one of the people who says ghostbusters can never be remade. But if you are going to remake a movie, you should at least stick to the general foundation of the movie. For example, Ghostbusters ought not be remade as a vampire movie. Similarly, the tone should at least be somewhat in sync. The original is more dry and observational humor than slapstick and puns. It just feels like an inappropriate tone for this type movie. If Feig wanted to make that, perhaps an original property would have been more fitting.

That scene got some of the biggest laughs of the night from the crowd I saw it with, which was pretty much sold out....

 

[MadVillainy]

Still havent been able to find Ecto Cooler...

 

[TheComicbookKid]

It may very well work, but it seems inappropriate for this movie. I'm not one of the people who says ghostbusters can never be remade. But if you are going to remake a movie, you should at least stick to the general foundation of the movie. For example, Ghostbusters ought not be remade as a vampire movie. Similarly, the tone should at least be somewhat in sync. The original is more dry and observational humor than slapstick and puns. It just feels like an inappropriate tone for this type movie. If Feig wanted to make that, perhaps an original property would have been more fitting.

The original BattleStar was a low-rent Star Wars pulp sci-fi.

The remake was as much a 180 as you can get with the terrorism allegory and debate on what makes a society and humanity.

Sometimes, a good idea is just a good idea.

 

[TheCommissioner]

I loved that Holtzmann was constantly tweaking and upgrading their equipment, nice nod to Egon from the GB cartoon

"safety lights are for dudes"

 

[Blade X]

How this managed to get "Certified Fresh" at 75% on Rotten Tomatoes is something I'm very interested to know. It's like they're giving this movie a handicap or something.

Because some (NOT ALL) critics don't want to be labeled "sexist" if they give this movie a bad review. Then there are those critics who MIGHT give the movie a good review SOLELY because they feel that this movie is a good and positive thing for young girls.

 

[Xrated48]

Because some (NOT ALL) critics don't want to be labeled "sexist" if they give this movie a bad review. Then there are those critics who MIGHT give the movie a good review SOLELY because they feel that this movie is a good and positive thing for young girls.

Exactly right on point.

 

[Sithborg]

Because some (NOT ALL) critics don't want to be labeled "sexist" if they give this movie a bad review. Then there are those critics who MIGHT give the movie a good review SOLELY because they feel that this movie is a good and positive thing for young girls.

Let's put this theory in the same category as critics being biased against WB or being paid off by Disney, ok?