The New Ghostbusters - Part 9

[GuestStar2004]

But the constants attacks against the cast and crew, and the endless fights over this movie all over the web...

The whole internet is full of trolls i know that, not to say everyone who had an issue with this new movie was a troll because there are many reasons why you could easily be turned off by this movie but sony, cast and director didn't help matters by attempting damage control by using sexist controversy to try and save this movie since even if you look at the fairly positive reviews the damage for the most part as been done, the sour taste of the build up to this movie will stick for alot of people.

 

[Rocketman]

I'm of the mind that I want this movie to succeed and be a hit critically and financially, simply because I'd like the Ghostbusters brand to continue. Even if this movie isn't good, I want good animated shows, comics, merchandise, etc. I want it to always be around.

It's kind of like Batman for me. Schumacher went off the rails and it got course corrected a few years later, now it's hit a rut again for some people and it'll be corrected again. The bottom line is that it'll always be around. It can afford to be a roller coaster in quality... Not sure if Ghostbusters has that opportunity.

 

[-JKR-]

Arguably the best film ever made was a remake. The Wizard of Oz.

That's what I always tell someone who whines about remakes.

John Carpenter's The Thing and David Cronenberg's The Fly are other two remakes which rank amongst my favorites.

The whole internet is full of trolls i know that, not to say everyone who had an issue with this new movie was a troll because there are many reasons why you could easily be turned off by this movie but sony, cast and director didn't help matters by attempting damage control by using sexist controversy to try and save this movie since even if you look at the fairly positive reviews the damage for the most part as been done, the sour taste of the build up to this movie will stick for alot of people.

Yeah, but being turned off is one thing. Constantly spewing hate at the filmmakers and people who are actually interested in the movie is another.

Sour taste? If you don't spend money to watch a movie you don't wanna watch in theaters, what sour taste can there be?

Personally, I find myself much more upset when something which deserves success, such as Shane Black's The Nice Guys or Edge of Tomorrow, gets overlooked.

 

[Rocketman]

John Carpenter's The Thing and David Cronenberg's The Fly are other two remakes which rank amongst my favorites.

Those two and DePalma's Scarface top the list for me.

Technically, The Departed too.

 

[GuestStar2004]

John Carpenter's The Thing and David Cronenberg's The Fly are other two remakes which rank amongst my favorites.

I'd argue those mentioned remakes had something to offer in a modern take of the concept while the new ghostbusters doesn't

 

[-JKR-]

Those two and DePalma's Scarface top the list for me.

Technically, The Departed too.

Or Cape Fear. There are probably many others, which I'm failing to remember at the moment.

 

[Dr.]

Arguably the best film ever made was a remake. The Wizard of Oz.

Indeed. Arguable as to “best film ever” and arguable as to its status as a “remake” (since the ultimate source material is a series of novels).

 

[GuestStar2004]

I'm of the mind that I want this movie to succeed and be a hit critically and financially, simply because I'd like the Ghostbusters brand to continue. Even if this movie isn't good, I want good animated shows, comics, merchandise, etc. I want it to always be around.

While its kind of nice to see the logo on billboards, old school merchandise and stuff i wouldn't wanna encourage sony to milk this franchise into the ground, especially with the way they are doing this new movie which while i liked the idea of nostalgia i think with what i seen of this movie it just annoys me to see slimer and his gf and staypuft balloon or even using the logo to create the final big bad.

I mean ghostbusters is what 2 decades old now? sony did not touch this franchise for so long and then they suddenly decided to milk this machine and now they are gonna do a dozen new versions of it with the idea they are gonna make a cinematic universe and while such a thing could do well... it could also end up a mess and so far i ain't impressed with some of the concepts like the cartoon set in the future... i mean why is that a thing?

 

[C. Lee]

it could also end up a mess and so far i ain't impressed with some of the concepts like the cartoon set in the future... i mean why is that a thing?

That's been a thing to do for years....there was THE PHANTOM 2040 and SHERLOCK HOLMES IN THE 24th CENTURY that I can think of real quick.....it's not a new idea....every now and then someone thinks of taking an existing concept or character, and then putting them in the future.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

There's a very specific reason, the studio hasn't touched this franchise for so long. It's because they haven't been legally allowed to do so. Reitman, Aykroyd, Ramis and Murray (along with Sony) all equally owned a percentage of the IP.

They couldn't do anything without all parties signing off. Reitman, Aykroyd and Ramis, have always been supportive of Ghostbusters continuing but Murray was the holdout. Whether he appeared in an actual film or not was irrelevant, he held ownership and had to sign off on future films being produced.

That's also another misconception, I constantly see referenced. That's what was detailed in the leaked Sony e-mails. It was about the rights and Murray's elusiveness, not actually appearing in the film. You can't sue someone (who isn't contractually obligated) to participate in any film. That notion alone is beyond laughable.

Either way, Ivan Reitman himself wants the franchise back in the public eye and to flourish, which is why he started Ghost Corp. A new production company on the Sony lot, who's sole purpose is to nurture the brand.

 

[Matt]

I think it goes both directions, some reviewers praise the film because they're afraid of misogyny accusations, some pan the film because they've been against it from day 1.

Perhaps, but I think you are far more likely to see reviewers feign positivity to avoid being labeled as sexist than you are to see people feign negativity due to sexism. Now there may be people who are overly critical due to comparisons to the first movie, but despite what some have argued, that is perfectly fair. If Feig and Co. did not want to be compared to Ghostbusters, they should not have made a Ghostbusters movie. Comparing a remake to an original is not inherently unfair.

Beyond that, I think former is actually happening where as the latter is hypothetical. If you read these reviews, they almost all read the same. The "fresh" reviews point out every bad thing that the "rotten" reviews point out. They are equally critical in nature. The positive reviews, however, seem to rely on abstract concepts to feign positivity (some, not all). I've never seen a movie, other than this one, get a "fresh" review, after pointing out so many flaws, simply because "the cast seems to be having so much fun." Yet here we are.

Remember, when a critic submits to RT, they pick between rotten and fresh. I think many critics are hesitating to click that rotten button out of fear of being labeled a misogynist, and I think if people actually read the reviews rather than looking at the jpeg next to it, they will get a much better feel for what this movie is; average.

Again, the backlash goes both directions, "supporters" call haters misogynistic, haters accuse critics of being paid by Sony, being SJWs, giving fake positive reviews , etc.

Eh. I disagree. I mean, yeah, it'll happen in the corners of the Twitterverse, but that has about as much credibility (or as large of a stage) as people who claim Disney bought bad reviews of BvS. No one takes that seriously.

Here, on the other hand, you have the movie's director, with a fairly large stage, already having suggested (more than once) that if you don't like this movie, you're sexist. The Tomatometer has just handed Feig a loaded gun. He can now say "SEE!?! MY MOVIE IS GREAT! IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU MUST BE A MISOGYNIST!"

 

[Scarlet Spider]

It's at 80% on RT.

 

[Sithborg]

Last I saw, that wasn't Feig's opinion.

 

[Kanon]

Here, on the other hand, you have the movie's director, with a fairly large stage, already having suggested (more than once) that if you don't like this movie, you're sexist. The Tomatometer has just handed Feig a loaded gun. He can now say "SEE!?! MY MOVIE IS GREAT! IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU MUST BE A MISOGYNIST!"

I think the supporters are more dangerous in that aspect. But yeah, the cast, director and producers will play that card if the movie flops (and I think it will)

 

[bluejake01]

Feig never...NEVER said that if someone doesn't like the finished product they are sexist.

Could it actually be, that the reviews are accurate? They pretty closely align with what AllEights and I have said about the movie based on the test screening we both saw. While he didn't enjoy it overall, and I did enjoy it overall, we have consistently agreed on the movie's strengths and weaknesses. I'm not sure why people are so attached to their personal narratives that they cannot accept that it is not a disaster of a movie...not is it a masterpiece. It will never come close to the original, but it's better than Ghostbusters 2 and some of the other films that have come out this summer.

My opinion...it's not amazing, but it has moments of brilliance and was ultimately enjoyable. Oh and the marketing is the worst...the worst.

 

[Lord]

How does it compare with the Robocop remake? That film wasn't bad and had a decent script, but ultimately was pointless. Does Paul Feig's remake have a point to exist and does it bring something fresh to the franchise with it's cast?

 

[Leenie]

Nobody will be seeing this movie with an objective opinion at this point, because of how the movie's been sold to people.

"If you like this movie, then you're a social justice warrior!"

"If you don't like this movie, then you're a misogynist!"

There are people who will like this movie no matter what, as well as people who will dislike this movie no matter what. The Tomatometer doesn't really play a factor for me at this point.

 

[bluejake01]

How does it compare with the Robocop remake? That film wasn't bad and had a decent script, but ultimately was pointless. Does Paul Feig's remake have a point to exist and does it bring something fresh to the franchise with it's cast?

I don't understand people that say a film is pointless. The point is to entertain someone for two hours. This is a very different take on the concept of Ghostbusters, and it entertained me.

 

[BoredGuy]

So basically, it's as I feared

mediocre movie that comes nowhere near the original
but still ok enough to make a bunch of money off nostalgia, resulting in sequels and a never ending stream of bulls*** having to do with this unwanted remake

I don't understand people that say a film is pointless.

if a film doesn't offer anything new or improved over the original, I'd say it's pretty pointless
some people could be entertained watching paint dry, doesn't mean that would be a worthwhile film

 

[Erzengel]

My opinion...it's not amazing, but it has moments of brilliance and was ultimately enjoyable. Oh and the marketing is the worst...the worst.

I think if you strip away the reviews that are standing up against the patriarchy it's an average comedy.

I think a lot of people were just hoping for more of a good Ghostbusters movie.

 

[bluejake01]

I think if you strip away the reviews that are standing up against the patriarchy it's an average comedy.

I think a lot of people were just hoping for more of a good Ghostbusters movie.

There NEVER will be a movie as good as the original Ghostbusters for me. I'm glad this is different, and I thought it was a decent Ghostbusters movie. Like I said, I liked it better than Ghostbusters 2.

 

[Kanon]

So basically, it's as I feared

mediocre movie that comes nowhere near the original
but still ok enough to make a bunch of money off nostalgia, resulting in sequels and a never ending stream of bulls*** having to do with this unwanted remake

It's tracking pretty low for opening weekend, around U$S 40M, so it would fall very short of financial expectations

 

[BoredGuy]

yeah but now its got decent word of mouth which could make those who were apprehensive to see it go check it out
it could easily open higher than tracking suggests

 

[Sithborg]

And I am willing to believe that social media tracking may be off for this one.

 

[JtheDreamer]

It's tracking pretty low for opening weekend, around U$S 40M, so it would fall very short of financial expectations

Good.

Albeit, I believe there will some sympathy votes/reviews out there by major critics. There's a lot on the line for female-led Hollywood blockbusters being produced. If this one fails, t'would be bad down the road for those opportunities.