Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by Workshed, Mar 3, 2016.
He's a lowly Hotel Janitor with issues haha
I've said it before but I want this to look good but it looks so awful. I love Feig and the original film is in my top 10 movies.
I've heard from trust worthy sources it's god awful. It seems the only people enjoying it is critics and fanboys who love crack a fat over anything with the name Ghostbusters on it.
The audience score on RT is rotten vs the fresh critic score. I trust the audience more than the critics.
I MIGHT watch it when it hits online.
The good thing about bad reviews is that expectstions get lowered and sometimes you end up pleasantly surprised.
Despite my punk position against this board on this issue, this ^ is exactly where I'm at right now.
I don't get why so many people are defending the backlash. They're allowing this one remake to be chosen to take the brunt of people being pissed off at a ton of other movies / stuff that has nothing to do with it.
Where was this wave of voices of "reason" when Jem and the Holograms came out last year? Or Michael Bay's (company's) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 years ago? Or Man of Shit (I mean: Steel) 3 years ago? Or Oz the Great and Powerful? Or break-dancing Alice in Wonderland? Do people honestly think this franchise is being creatively gutted anywhere near as badly as Garfield? People will never even know what kind of a character he really is / was from the animated specials or the comic strips or Garfield & Friends by these movies.
We have had such a steady stream of new adaptations, new reboots/remakes, new sequels, new TV-series (2D-animated & CG), new spin-offs, new everything from pre-existing franchises from our collective childhoods: Star Wars, Star Trek, Batman, Spiderman, Superman, X-Men, Scooby Doo, Alvin and the Chipmunks, The Smurfs, Yogi Bear, Winnie the Pooh, Maleficent, Cinderella, The Dukes of Hazzard, Starsky & Hutch, Charlie's Angels, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Hobbit, The Pink Panther, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Dudley Do-Right.
I could keep going, as far back as '95: Casper, Mortal Kombat, Jumanji, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, The Brady Bunch Movie, Indian in the Cupboard, A Goofy Movie, Judge Dredd, Pocahontas - all of them based on movies, games, TV, stories, sources with fanbases (yes, I consider history buffs a fanbase- if it relates to Disney). And that's just 1 year.
The modern trends that gave us this one "evil" reboot trace back well far enough to cover: Street Fighter, Double Dragon, The Flintstones, The Beverly Hillbillies Movie, Super Mario Bros., Ri¢hie Ri¢h, The Addams Family, Hook, Dick Tracy, The Guyver, too many to mention. All of those movies pissed off someone.
What about the endless Stephen King adaptations? Or all those Saturday Night Live vehicle movies to give the stars careers? Plenty of people hated those. What about direct to video and the insane glut of endless sequels to Disney animated films (The Brave Little Toaster 2 and 3, A Goofy Movie 2, Fox and the Hound 2, The Jungle Book 2, Bambi 2, Peter Pan 2, Cinderella 2 and 3, Lady and the Tramp 2, 101 Dalmatians 2, Little Mermaid 2 and 3, Beauty and the Beast 2 and 3, Lion King 2 and 3, Aladdin 2 and 3, Hunchback of Notre Dame 2, Mulan 2, Tarzan 2 and 3, The Emperor's New Groove 2, Atlantis 2, Brother Bear 2) (yes: all of these exist!!!)?
After all that shit- nobody can tell me for a second this Ghostbusters-hate business is on the up-and-up. There is nothing special, no special exception that makes Ghostbusters different. Other than the all-female cast and the original property originally featuring an all male cast.
Saw it today and enjoyed it. Despite my initial misgivings I think that it deserves a follow up.
Dude...... reading your posts makes me feel like I'm on mushrooms. You just referenced 67 movies. None of which I can find any relevance....to.....well, anything.
Trippin' at work is new for me though........I appreciate ya.
Did this even do well. I've heard no one talk about seeing it whilst at uni and out and about and I'd started to forget about it's existence myself.
Not at all. Budget was $144 million, so far it's made $162 million worldwide.
I honestly thought it had left cinemas here but to my surprise it's still showing. I haven't seen much promo stuff for it here in Australia.
Other factors are at play with Ghostbusters that virtually guarantee a sequel. Really, in this day and age a studio that is dependent upon box office receipts to make a profit is making a fool's bet.
Read this article. It makes VERY good points:
I just can't see Sony green-lighting this film without the anticipation of a $500 million return at the box office.
Because as the article said, you're only judging success based on very narrow, outdated criteria. Sony is making a ton of money off it elsewhere. Just having a new film in theaters is great publicity for everything else they're selling that is Ghostbuster related. Plus, most people today choose to watch movies at home. That's just a fact. It's the #1 title on Amazon for dvd presales. They would need to make $500 million on a new potential franchise, not one that comes with a premade built in audience.
Extended editon coming to bluray Oct 11th http://whysoblu.com/ghostbusters-extended-edition-with-3-hrs-content-slimes-4kblu-ray-oct-11/
Ghostbusters is one of those movies where one side won't admit how it flopped and the other side won't admit it didn't flop on its ass and implode.
There is no question, the box office isn't going to be the defining line on this film, but if we're gonna give one a movie a pass on what it's gonna make on TV deals, home video and all the other monetization, then we have to do it to them all instead of just blasting out the word "flop" when any movie isn't a huge success. If whoever wrote that article above thinks a Ghostbusters childrens' book and Blu-ray being #1 on Amazon in today's world as making hundreds of millions, that person is out to lunch. People are probably buying the shit out of Ghostbusters merch, but not enough to recoup that much cash. I'm not a fan of either series of films, but to compare Ghostbusters to Star Wars in regards to an entity is ludicrous.
Finally was able to check this out last night and was really surprised how bad it was. I hate this modern comedy thing where it feels like outtakes are just strung together in hopes of being funny. A lot of the film was incredibly unfunny and cringeworthy. McCarthy was probably the only actor I laughed at and most of her stuff still felt out of place here.
The cinematography is underwhelming and often just feels like a sitcom. The way a lot of stuff is shot just feels like a bland modern comedy to me.
Everyone is also a slapstick character that feels like they were written for a Saturday Night Live gag. The villain was weak, boring and cliché and the stakes never felt that high.
I'm just really surprised this was made, especially with Ghostbusters slapped on as the title. It really does feel more like a Scooby Doo sequel with the cheapness and look of the ghosts. By comparison the original looks like high art now and is an actual movie with story and characters, not an outstretched gag that doesn't feel like it has much to say or any reason to exist.
I didn't mind this. We were giggling the whole way through but its definitely no where near on the same level as the original. The original had legitimate creepiness at times wheras this was pretty goofey throughout. I agree its like an snl sketch version of the Ghostbusters but I still had fun watching it.
Everywhere I go this new Ghostbusters merch is on clearance (has been for months). They are just trying to get rid of it. This, plus the lackluster box office. I don't think this new film caught on at all. Which is fine with me because I saw it and it wasn't very good.
I chuckled a few times at Hemsworth. That's it.
So I saw the film this weekend. I was at my relatives house and my younger cousins were going watching it. So fine, I'm there so lets watch it.
Ok this movie was really not good. It actually made me a bit angry but so be it. Breakdown, it "looked" good film wise, special effects, etc... Although many scenes were very Scooby Dooish. Which is NOT a bad thing, just it only works in a ... wait for it ... Scooby Doo movie. The acting for the most part was really "weird". Let me explain, Kristen Wiig was awful and of major annoyance. Have no idea what she was trying to portray in this movie. Melissa was actually ok, which she dropped the tough guy role she always takes, weird huh. Now to these two women. McKinnon was HORRENDOUS. That's right deal with it, she was horrible. Which is weird because I though she would wind up being one of the better ones. The whole character was like a bad SNL skit. Zero range, zero normal, zero acting skills. Which leaves us with Leslie Jones By far the best actor in the movie. That's right, I said it, she was only stand out in the whole film. For the woman that got mistreated the most on the internet about this film was actually the only one that was trying. Sure she had a couple of those moments from the trailers but you know what?, she was working with what they gave her. And she unlike McKinnon was actually saying on screen, hey look the film isn't that great, but I'm new to this scene but I'm trying to act here. She was the only person on screen that delivered any "normal" lines. She was the only person on screen that got any laughs. I will give a shout out to Andy Garcia, who was the only other person to make me laugh with his angry line saying Never compare me to the mayor in the Jaws movie.
All the cameos were good as one would suspect from actually seasoned actors. So no problems there. Tell me how Weaver was on screen for like 30 seconds and was more interesting and out acted McKinnon like a boss? I almost forgot Helmsworth. He was alright at best (doing his own Channing Tatum shtick) But he was like in another movie. Any interaction with him by the other characters was a distraction, until he actually was "involved" in the story. The story, even the story was like a spoof of Ghostbusters 2. The whole film was a mess.
And one more note, nobody can tell me they didn't want to absolutely put a "Michael Jackson" Thriller moment in the film. They must have cut that garbage at the last moment and stuck in the credits. No way no hell that wasn't supposed to be in the actual movie.
So bottom line, Paul Feig is NOT funny. Nor should be allowed to direct any "funny" films. Thanks for ruining everything.
I feel your pain friend. Well said.