The New Ghostbusters - Part 10

[Kanon]

Ghostbusters by now is like a wounded, half-dead animal and has been for the last 20 years because the only good thing that came out in that time frame for the Franchise was the 2009 video game and the comics/graphic novels.

I think it was more like a endangered mega weird animal, like some kind of polar panda, that for the last 20 years only existed in a very specific environment and couldn't procreate. Now, someone got to it and tried to make money out of it, left it wounded, and we are torn between letting it die, or keep it alive in pain.

 

[regwec]

I don't think the Ghostbusters franchise will ever *quite* die, because the components of which it is (or should be) a compound - friendship, gentle character comedy, and broad, cheerfully-hokey spooks - is likely to remain just as appealing in 2026 as it was in 1984 or, probably, 1884. And if you wish to make a movie that sates potential audiences' hunger for that compound, and you inevitably want the security blanket of an established brand that is now deemed indispensable, who you gonna call?

Clearly though, any future Ghostbusters movie should have nothing to do with this refuse.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

This movie was such an abomination

 

[Victarion]

I'd see a sequel if they fixed their ghosts. I also didn't hate this movie.

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[Lord]

Abomination? I could understand words like "weak" or "disapointing", but abomination sounds like a complete stretch, it wasn't even as bad as Ghostbusters II.

 

[Hordakfan]

I'd see a sequel if they fixed their ghosts. I also didn't hate this movie.

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

NO! let this franchise die and let the original be loved/cherished for years to come and let this wounded half dead animal of a franchise be shot/killed since it bombed in theaters, no sequels please. This franchise died with Harold Ramis and the game.

Sony must go bankrupt as a studio and let some things of the past remain where they are to be cherished/loved by generations and focus on new franchises that are fresh and new.

Sometimes dead is better!

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Abomination? I could understand words like "weak" or "disapointing", but abomination sounds like a complete stretch, it wasn't even as bad as Ghostbusters II.

Ghostbusters II was 100,000 times better and way more quoteable. Ghostbusters II isn't even bad, just lazy. This movie was a total abomination, but not alone in a sea of god awful big budget wasteoids this year. BvS, SS, Ghostbusters: ATC, ID42, X-Men: A, Warcraft....this movie year was hot garbage.

 

[Primal Slayer]

This movie was hilarious and I will continue to hope for some kind of sequel.

 

[Mike_D202]

 

[Urich Leeds]

Abomination? I could understand words like "weak" or "disapointing", but abomination sounds like a complete stretch, it wasn't even as bad as Ghostbusters II.

What's wrong with Ghostbusters 2? It's easily more a Ghostbusters film than GB2016 was.

 

[Hordakfan]

This movie was hilarious and I will continue to hope for some kind of sequel.

NO! let this franchise die and stay where it belongs in it's time

 

[TheDreamMaster]

NO! let this franchise die and stay where it belongs in it's time

Or you could realize people have different tastes and opinions. For example I love GBII but GB:ATC was a fine movie by me

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I understand that we have for many reasons as fans, strong emotional investment with these franchises from our youth. Attachments are strong... But why, oh why must we be so non-self aware and melodramatic all of the time? "Abomination"? "Sometimes dead is better"? "Sony MUST go bankrupt"?

Sorry... Such statement just sound silly to me when speaking of fictional entertainment.

 

[Theweepeople]

Watching the red letter review, looks like the movie is even worst than I imagine, but one bit I just can't believe is correct: They don't catch ONE ghost in the movie? (one catch they release)

Wow. Talk about false advertising. That's about as logical as the okrin exterminaters coming and using nonpoisonous chemicals against pests.

Seriously, the name of the film should have been changed to "Ghost catchers and releasers" if that's what they due. This abomination has officially been added to my list of films I will never watch.

 

[Sithborg]

Wow. Talk about false advertising. That's about as logical as the okrin exterminaters coming and using nonpoisonous chemicals against pests.

Seriously, the name of the film should have been changed to "Ghost catchers and releasers" if that's what they due. This abomination has officially been added to my list of films I will never watch.

That's the thing. They really aren't portrayed as exterminators. They emphasize the scientist portion of their work more than the originals did.

 

[Mike_D202]

They don't catch any ghosts, they beat them up with their proton streams towards the end in times square with somersaults and flips. They use pistols to shoot them and use a "ghost chipper" (like a wood chipper, get it?) to chop one of them up...which makes no sense considering they're ghosts. Ghostbusters was never an action movie, and they remade it into an ad-libbed toy selling fiasco. And saying this film used more science than the original is B.S., just because we see equipment that's ALREADY BUILT before they get the finalized equipment doesn't make it anymore scientific than the original.

 

[regwec]

Egon and Ray's excitable pseudo-science babble was one of the elements that made the original appealing.

 

[MOVIELORD101]

If the male secretary is even smart enough to answer the phone, he's too busy cleaning his glasses with no lenses.

Why the HELL did Chris Hemsworth even sign on for this mess if he knew he was gonna be made a fool of to his fans? As a Marvel Studios fan who enjoys his role as Thor I was insulted. Hell, he was far funnier in Cabin in the Woods, FFS!

 

[A Necessary Evil]

I understand that we have for many reasons as fans, strong emotional investment with these franchises from our youth. Attachments are strong... But why, oh why must we be so non-self aware and melodramatic all of the time? "Abomination"?

Because it was an unfunny trainwreck, the script meanders, the villain was god awful, the cgi was cartoon-y, and it was made only to push Paul Feig's "I hate men" propaganda. So yes, it was an abomination.

 

[MOVIELORD101]

Because it was an unfunny trainwreck, the script meanders, the villain was god awful, the cgi was cartoon-y, and it was made only to push Paul Feig's "I hate men" propaganda. So yes, it was an abomination.

I still don't get this. Why does Paul Feig have an "I hate men" agenda WHEN HE'S A MAN HIMSELF?? Look, if he secretly wants to get a sex change like Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner did, then fine; I have no qualms with THAT! But I DO have qualms with him going around demeaning and gender-shaming everyone with a penis!

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Because he didn't get along with boys his age in his youth, and he was (I quote) overly-sensitive and thus was picked on. His best friends were other women, and his mother."

 

[MOVIELORD101]

Because he didn't get along with boys his age in his youth, and he was (I quote) overly-sensitive and thus was picked on. His best friends were other women, and his mother."

So basically, he's Norman Bates. No joke. Therefore, my retort to Feig is this: here's ten bucks; BUY A SPINE!!!!!!!

 

[regwec]

Eh, hatred of one's own demographic is common enough in various contexts.

 

[The Shape]

Why the HELL did Chris Hemsworth even sign on for this mess if he knew he was gonna be made a fool of to his fans? As a Marvel Studios fan who enjoys his role as Thor I was insulted. Hell, he was far funnier in Cabin in the Woods, FFS!

You were insulted that Chris Hemsworth took a role (likely for millions of dollars) in a comedy film (that he likely had a blast making) because you felt the movie made him look silly and that he was "made a fool of" to his fans?

Somebody call Sony and tell them they owe this Chris Hemsworth fan a truly heartfelt apology!

 

[MOVIELORD101]

You were insulted that Chris Hemsworth took a role (likely for millions of dollars) in a comedy film (that he likely had a blast making) because you felt the movie made him look silly and that he was "made a fool of" to his fans?

Somebody call Sony and tell them they owe this Chris Hemsworth fan a truly heartfelt apology!

Let me be rephrase that, then. I don't mind the idea of Hemsworth doing comedies but his character was nothing more than a vacant piece of meat who got nothing to do except act stupid and get possessed by another character. Hell, most of Hemsworth's acting later on in the movie isn't even for HIS character! He probably only had a ball on set because he somewhat got to play a villain for once. That'd be cool, too, if his character was MEANT to be a villain! And him playing the GB's secretary would've been fine had he not been portrayed as a moron! In short, he got robbed in more ways than one.