|
Post by punksnotdead on Jul 13, 2016 18:35:00 GMT -5
Anyone going to take one for the team here and tell us what they think? I saw it was Cert Fresh on RT. However, the review by the guy from the Chicago STs seemed to be the most honest of the bunch and he said it just exists, lacks chemistry and purpose and really just didn't need to happen. Which is kind of what I expected.
|
|
|
Post by ¡Twist Of Cinnamon! on Jul 13, 2016 18:44:24 GMT -5
This just looks like every other American comedy thats come out in the last few years but with CGI ghosts added. Yawn.
|
|
Cameron Stone
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 16, 2013 18:16:15 GMT -5
Posts: 2,014
|
Post by Cameron Stone on Jul 13, 2016 19:32:01 GMT -5
I'll be using a free pass I got to brave it sometime this week. I think it looks awful. I walked out of both Heat and Bridesmaids, just can't stand Feigs style of comedy. But you can't truly bitch about something you haven't seen. So either I'll be pleasantly surprised. Or I'll have full ammunition to take it down
|
|
|
Post by TheLastDude on Jul 13, 2016 21:08:08 GMT -5
Anyone going to take one for the team here and tell us what they think? I saw it was Cert Fresh on RT. However, the review by the guy from the Chicago STs seemed to be the most honest of the bunch and he said it just exists, lacks chemistry and purpose and really just didn't need to happen. Which is kind of what I expected. There is a part of me that honestly wonders if the movie is actually decent (not that 75% is really a ringing endorsement, but it could be worse)...or if people just didn't want to rip it due to the screeches of "YOU'RE A MISOGYNIST IF YOU HATE THIS MOVIE. YOU ONLY HATE THIS MOVIE BECAUSE OF THE WOMEN!" That sounds like I'm being spamnt...but I've seen that crap posted on Facebook.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Jul 13, 2016 21:11:06 GMT -5
The only thing that bothers me is, that this is a complete reboot. And that the original never existed.
I would rather the film had started with an old out of shape Murray, Hudson, and Aykroyd trying to run up a 30 story building using the stairs. They're so exhausted that the ghosts hurt someone. They realize that it's time to find a new younger team to take over. I would have had Hemsworth audition and it looks like he was the clear cut favorite to make the team. But instead of picking a physical specimen, they select the four women because of their intelligence.
That way the original story still takes place, we get closure for the original team, and now we can move on with the new team.
|
|
|
Post by TheLastDude on Jul 13, 2016 21:23:18 GMT -5
The only thing that bothers me is, that this is a complete reboot. And that the original never existed. I would rather the film had started with an old out of shape Murray, Hudson, and Aykroyd trying to run up a 30 story building using the stairs. They're so exhausted that the ghosts hurt someone. They realize that it's time to find a new younger team to take over. I would have had Hemsworth audition and it looks like he was the clear cut favorite to make the team. But instead of picking a physical specimen, they select the four women because of their intelligence. That way the original story still takes place, we get closure for the original team, and now we can move on with the new team. ing brilliant! I'd watch that. Edit: Well, I'd still prefer it if they cast women I actually found funny...but at least your story pleases me.
|
|
Cameron Stone
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jan 16, 2013 18:16:15 GMT -5
Posts: 2,014
|
Post by Cameron Stone on Jul 13, 2016 21:48:41 GMT -5
Oscar shoud have been leading the new team of Ghostbusters
|
|
|
Post by HHH316 on Jul 13, 2016 22:04:12 GMT -5
The girlfriend is excited to see this, but hadn't seen the first 2 films. I refused to see the new one until she watched the originals. To my surprise, she called my bluff & we watched the first 2 last weekend. I can't believe I'm going to have to see this.
|
|
|
Post by Word™ on Jul 13, 2016 22:20:27 GMT -5
I really don't care about this movie. Kinda bummed that it's actually a thing.
|
|
|
Post by YES! YES! YES! on Jul 13, 2016 23:06:42 GMT -5
The girlfriend is excited to see this, but hadn't seen the first 2 films. I refused to see the new one until she watched the originals. To my surprise, she called my bluff & we watched the first 2 last weekend. I can't believe I'm going to have to see this. Bless your soul
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jul 14, 2016 0:02:36 GMT -5
Had this thing been released yet? I feel like I've been hearing about it for Stu last a year.
|
|
Nathan from Aus
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 3, 2010 19:58:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,277
|
Post by Nathan from Aus on Jul 14, 2016 0:23:19 GMT -5
Looks disgusting, how dare Hemsworth be in such a film
|
|
|
Post by Word™ on Jul 14, 2016 0:53:23 GMT -5
The only thing that bothers me is, that this is a complete reboot. And that the original never existed. I would rather the film had started with an old out of shape Murray, Hudson, and Aykroyd trying to run up a 30 story building using the stairs. They're so exhausted that the ghosts hurt someone. They realize that it's time to find a new younger team to take over. I would have had Hemsworth audition and it looks like he was the clear cut favorite to make the team. But instead of picking a physical specimen, they select the four women because of their intelligence. That way the original story still takes place, we get closure for the original team, and now we can move on with the new team. I'm kinda happy this isn't a continuation man.. I can't imagine a world where the original is associated with this new film.. Because I'm pretty sure this film will all but kill off any interest of a future sequel for the originals. Idk what stopped them from doing the proposed sequel from a few years back where the original team was training a new team.. I think Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, and Emma Stone were attached.. But I can't seem to find the article that talked about it.. All I remember is a really exciting idea that came out of the Sony leaks about Ghostbusters 3.. Good story, good cast, and a continuation.. Really wish I could find it.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Jul 14, 2016 8:26:26 GMT -5
Anyone going to take one for the team here and tell us what they think? I saw it was Cert Fresh on RT. However, the review by the guy from the Chicago STs seemed to be the most honest of the bunch and he said it just exists, lacks chemistry and purpose and really just didn't need to happen. Which is kind of what I expected. There is a part of me that honestly wonders if the movie is actually decent (not that 75% is really a ringing endorsement, but it could be worse)...or if people just didn't want to rip it due to the screeches of " YOU'RE A MISOGYNIST IF YOU HATE THIS MOVIE. YOU ONLY HATE THIS MOVIE BECAUSE OF THE WOMEN!"That sounds like I'm being spamnt...but I've seen that crap posted on Facebook. Multiple reviews already feature these screeches, and the bulk of them were by female reviewers. They were scathing. Like they were yelling at imaginary chauvinists. That kind of thing is hilarious to me because if you read through some of those reviews it's from reviewers with no more than sweeping knowledge of Ghostbusters prior to this new film. It's embarrassing to me that this is the society we live in now. Fanboys have been fanboying since geek culture formed. The feminists jumped in and really have no idea what's going on but they sure are eager to voice their opinion. I really do think some of the "positive" reviews were to avoid backlash. It was bound to happen. I'm sure there were some that really liked it, but I do think a review in the public eye for this film accompanied a certain level of fear. Which surely made some play it totally safe. I guess the argument is that when a trailer looks that terrible in terms of comedy, cgi, and overall presentation, there is only a certain level of better the whole film can actually be. So that's where it's curious to me. I did see that the BvS fans were up in arms. RT destroyed that movie and it seems they're soft selling Ghostbusters as a solid film. So I'm curious to see how much better or worse people find Ghostbusters vs BvS. I know they're different films, but from a technical standpoint you can still compare them. This seems like the kind of situation that could really blow back on RT's credibility, assuming you acknowledge said credibility to begin with haha.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Jul 14, 2016 10:48:28 GMT -5
The only thing that bothers me is, that this is a complete reboot. And that the original never existed. I would rather the film had started with an old out of shape Murray, Hudson, and Aykroyd trying to run up a 30 story building using the stairs. They're so exhausted that the ghosts hurt someone. They realize that it's time to find a new younger team to take over. I would have had Hemsworth audition and it looks like he was the clear cut favorite to make the team. But instead of picking a physical specimen, they select the four women because of their intelligence. That way the original story still takes place, we get closure for the original team, and now we can move on with the new team. I'm kinda happy this isn't a continuation man.. I can't imagine a world where the original is associated with this new film.. Because I'm pretty sure this film will all but kill off any interest of a future sequel for the originals. Idk what stopped them from doing the proposed sequel from a few years back where the original team was training a new team.. I think Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, and Emma Stone were attached.. But I can't seem to find the article that talked about it.. All I remember is a really exciting idea that came out of the Sony leaks about Ghostbusters 3.. Good story, good cast, and a continuation.. Really wish I could find it. I believe it never happened because Bill Murray didn't want to do it. And Dan & Harold felt he had to be included. Then once Harold Ramis passed away, they shelved it permanently.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 20, 2024 4:27:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 11:36:27 GMT -5
It looks decent, but not something I necessarily want to see.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Jul 14, 2016 11:58:09 GMT -5
Non spoiler review...
|
|
|
Post by TheLastDude on Jul 14, 2016 21:38:42 GMT -5
There is a part of me that honestly wonders if the movie is actually decent (not that 75% is really a ringing endorsement, but it could be worse)...or if people just didn't want to rip it due to the screeches of " YOU'RE A MISOGYNIST IF YOU HATE THIS MOVIE. YOU ONLY HATE THIS MOVIE BECAUSE OF THE WOMEN!"That sounds like I'm being spamnt...but I've seen that crap posted on Facebook. Multiple reviews already feature these screeches, and the bulk of them were by female reviewers. They were scathing. Like they were yelling at imaginary chauvinists. That kind of thing is hilarious to me because if you read through some of those reviews it's from reviewers with no more than sweeping knowledge of Ghostbusters prior to this new film. It's embarrassing to me that this is the society we live in now. Fanboys have been fanboying since geek culture formed. The feminists jumped in and really have no idea what's going on but they sure are eager to voice their opinion. I really do think some of the "positive" reviews were to avoid backlash. It was bound to happen. I'm sure there were some that really liked it, but I do think a review in the public eye for this film accompanied a certain level of fear. Which surely made some play it totally safe. I guess the argument is that when a trailer looks that terrible in terms of comedy, cgi, and overall presentation, there is only a certain level of better the whole film can actually be. So that's where it's curious to me. I did see that the BvS fans were up in arms. RT destroyed that movie and it seems they're soft selling Ghostbusters as a solid film. So I'm curious to see how much better or worse people find Ghostbusters vs BvS. I know they're different films, but from a technical standpoint you can still compare them. This seems like the kind of situation that could really blow back on RT's credibility, assuming you acknowledge said credibility to begin with haha. A few days ago on Facebook someone posted a picture of a little girl dressed as a Ghostbuster shaking Kristen Wiig's hand at a premiere with the caption of something to the extent of "See? This is who the new movie is for. It's not for all you middle-aged men bitching and moaning about women in a man's movie WARGARRBBBLLLLEEE!!!" (I'm paraphrasing obviously...but that was pretty much it) My response to that was What about the boys who want to become Ghostbusters? I know I wanted to be one after watching the movies and the cartoon. But, whatever. Here are my personal thoughts on what I've seen so far: My indifference to the movie stems from the fact that not only does this one seem like a poor remake of the original, it's also just done in an unfunny way. The only thing Paul Feig has done that I was a fan of was when he played the science teacher on Sabrina the Teenage Witch. And it's not like he brought such gravitas to the role that it couldn't have been done by anyone else...so...he doesn't have a good track record with me. I like Kristen Wiig...a bit...but overall, I don't find any of the four women funny. I have to question why Chris Hemsworth's character seems to be just shy of intellectually- disabled when Annie Potts didn't have to suffer the same indignity. Janine was portrayed as intelligent and level-headed amidst chaos and craziness, but we basically get Thor going "Herp-derp! Boobs! Hahahaha!" The new theme song is crap. Plain and simple. Ray Parker Jr.'s original song is STILL a classic three decades later, while this new crap should earn Fall Out Boy and Missy Elliott a two year ban from making new music. So, no...I'm not excited for this at all. And I'm insulted by the fact that I keep hearing it being said that the reason that I and others like me don't want this movie to succeed is because of the women. That's bullcrap. When I don't like the particular cast chosen, when I don't like the director, when I don't like the theme song, and when I find the trailer just unfunny and painful to watch....that's why I'm down on the movie. Could it be good? Sure. But let's face it, in the grand scheme of things, it's easier to find a bad movie with a good trailer than it is a good movie with a bad one.
|
|
|
Post by Zigzag on Jul 14, 2016 22:27:43 GMT -5
(MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS. You have been warned...)
Thanks to my wife, I was able to see Ghostbusters (2016) one night early. Let me get a few things out of the way first...
1) The 1984 version will forever be my favorite movie. 2) Since the age of seven, I have been a fan of every facet of the Sony/Columbia GB franchise, and will be for the rest of my life. 3) I have been a fan of director Paul Feig's body of entertainment work since the mid-80s. 4) Ghostbusters 2016 did not ruin my childhood - or my enjoyment of the originals - at all.
As I mentioned to a Facebook friend right after it ended, this film had enough nods to the original that have to be seen to be done justice. At first, I was worried it was going to be a paint-by-numbers duplicate, but the lead women make it their own.
Kate McKinnon's Jillian Holtzmann. I knew she'd be my favorite right off the bat. I knew she'd steal the show, but she did it just enough that it made me want a sequel - just so her character could be featured more. Perhaps a backstory? Best way I can explain her: She's the live-action daughter to the blond Egon from 'The Real Ghostbusters' cartoon.
Yes, most of the living original main cast have cameos. It's worth noting that Bill Murray has a short, notable role as a debunker of the paranormal. Ironically, he's pretty much the Walter Peck to, well, the ladies' collective Dr. Venkman. Though you can tell he's having fun with the role. No one would treat him as they did with Peck - or William Atherton for that matter.
Another cameo worth mentioning - Robin Shelby; a dear Facebook friend of mine, who actually donned the Slimer costume for Ghostbusters II, returns as the voice for (the CGI) Mrs. Slimer. You can hear her as she rides in the commandeered Ecto 1 with Mr. Slimer himself.
Most of the laughs in our theater were at Chris Hemsworth, as goofy dim-bulb receptionist, Kevin. He did a great job. However, I'm afraid they overdid his stupidity. I'd normally compare him to a hunky Louis Tully, although Louis was actually competent.
Early on, I decided that the only way I'd be unhappy with this reboot is if they kept the 'Ghostbusters' name, but ditched the 'No Ghost' logo. Well, as you'll see, the logo was cleverly established in this story, due to subway graffiti, but it was never explained how it became the patch on their coveralls. It's just a nit-pick, as the original never had that plot detail either. The Big Bad takes form as an evil version of the logo ghost, which I loved simply because it started from a cute talking 2-D animation (not seen since the RGB cartoon interstitials), to the giant evil CGI counterpart.
I think if I go on much longer, I'll keep everyone from seeing it for themselves. This won't ruin a thing if you love the franchise. Just think of it as a companion piece to a multi-verse. Or like what GB II was to the original. Oh... and if Mr. Feig is reading... More Jillian next time. Please.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Jul 15, 2016 1:09:20 GMT -5
Looks disgusting, how dare Hemsworth be in such a film To be fair, almost everything he's been in has been bad. Besides his five-minute cameo in Star Trek, I'd say the Marvel movies are the only thing he's been in that's been anywhere close to good. And being honest here, I'm not super-psyched to see this because as some others said, I'm not crazy about the cast (Emma Stone, Anna Kendrick, Ellie Kemper and Jenna Fischer? I'm IN.) but I understand the appeal of them being Feig regulars.... but come on now, there is a huge sexist element that is driving the negative reaction to this movie. Yeah, the trailers have sucked, but they haven't been so bad that they should be getting such vehement anger and resentment from Ghostbusters fans. The two Ghostbusters movies hold a special, special place in my heart. As I was born in 1985, they were basically the first superheroes I ever knew, along with Batman and Hulk Hogan. I worship every piece of dialogue, comedic beat, visual gag and set piece from the first movie. But I won't act like it's so utterly golden and precious that a sequel/reboot 30 years later is going to somehow ruin the originals for me. Hell, I'm still a huge supporter of that rumored Chris Pratt/Channing Tatum spinoff that was rumored a few years ago... even if this movie sucks and every member of the original movies' cast and production team denounces the concept of any future Ghostbusters movies, I would support Pratt/Tatum making a Jump Street-type of Ghostbusters movie. FFS, I'm guessing about 95% of those who have preemptively down-voted/one-starred/thumbs-downed this movie before it even came out would be willing to give that movie an honest, open-minded watch (and newsflash: anyone that wouldn't is probably a fart-sniffing, really terrible person who is a chore to spend any time with). And I guess that's part of the reason why I won't root against this movie and will begrudgingly take my five-year-old daughter to it... she now gets to live in a world where there are female Ghostbusters. Even if the movie is terrible, there are still female Ghostbusters. That's pretty freaking cool. And all of that said, I don't expect to enjoy it because I don't particularly care for Feig/McCarthy/Wiig, but I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch because *shock!* a studio cashed in on brand recognition of something I liked when I was a kid.
|
|