Q99 wrote:I mean, by action, the original ones were action too, just not like martial arts actions or such. This one was a bit more cinematic action and I can get not liking that, though I think it's fairly inevitable with the change in the times that things would step up to a degree.
The weapons played up the development-as-inventors angle too, which I liked. The first GB, they just had all the gear ready from the getgo, Egon and Ray did it all offscreen. This one, they didn't even have the capacity to capture ghosts at first, which is great when they can't yet *prove* ghosts, it was just theories they'd written down but not put into practice. Then they learn to trap, clumsily at first, then they get new stuff... even if one trimmed out the more advanced weaponry, that's a good concept.
I don't mind the action being a bit more cinematic because yeah, the original was just 4 dudes standing around. That could be boring, not really sell well with the times. Though one can argue 4 dudes (or 4 chicks) standing around is part of the point of Ghostbusters. They aren't superheroes or gymnasts or anything that should lead them to jumping around like Yoda in the Prequels, they are 3 out of shape scientists and their black friend (poor Winston and Patty, though I'll admit they were probably my favorite parts of the movies because of how they were more normal then the brainy scientists and actually reacted like you'd expect people to do).
I also didn't mind them showing their work but my main problem was them creating weapon in the first place. I'm not anti-gun, don't get me wrong on that, but the Ghostbusters should no more be using guns then a dog catcher. I did like them showing them learning how to use the equipment even if I kinda also hated how slapsticky it got. Did it a little overboard as they did with some of the comedy, too often everyone was trying to be the Venkman and some of the jokes were just terrible like the wonton "jokes". I think the movie worked best when each character was trying to act more unique and actually had some decent material to work with.
The concert scene with the bat demon ghost thing, that was excellent. Great comedy, great acting, every character acted how you'd expect I think. If the rest of the movie was like that I think people would be debating Ghostbusters old vs new and how each team would do in the others respective scenario rather then doing a post-mortem autopsy.
Q99 wrote:Blacklash almost feels like the wrong word because it was all happening before the movie came out! Pre-backlash? Forelash? The sexist brigade came out guns blazing from the first trailer, got the defenders on edge, and that dominated the narrative to the release and then some. Even the reviews trying to address the merits normally spent a paragraph or two talking about that!
To be fair to the reboot, there was sexist backlash even before the first trailer. There was some people who were bitching about how it was not going to be funny because women aren't funny and other bullshit crap that is crap. Now I think most of the complaints weren't sexist, I think alot was it smacked of a lazy move with the gender swapping just being a lazy gimmick but there was still sexism. When the trailer itself came out I am positive most of the complaints were just how shit the trailer was, how confusing it was on whether it was a reboot or sequel, and how the Fallout Boy song kinda sucked badly. There was sexism still but alot of the sexism complaints was overblown, even inaccurate. Like James Rofle's kinda odd "No review, I Refuse" being called sexist when it was anything but. Fanboyish as all hell and probably a bit odd to non-nerds but not sexist.
It certainly dominated the narrative to the release and to infinity and beyond, not question of that. Though I think Sony and Feig helped fan the flames and some people with agendas (on both sides) have a vested interest in the narrative continuing.
Q99 wrote:In the case of Star Trek, I think it's big enough that we don't have to worry about those aspects drowning out the narrative- I mean, Trek's got the history of it, and literally is a show about diversity.
Oh yea, and being active, Trek doesn't have quite the same level of expectations. Like, there's a fair amount riding on it that people want better Trek, but this isn't a thirty-years-later revival, this is a one-year-after-the-last-movie thing. It doesn't have to restart trek or live up to the best of Trek off the bat to succeed.
Heck, let's face it, we kinda expect weak first seasons from Trek, don't we? Last good first season was maybe the Animated series.... so if the characters are good and we get some good episodes in the mix I expect people will expect it to pick up.
I hope we don't have to worry about racist bastard or bastards willing to use racist bastards as an excuse to not fall on their sword and admit they made a mistake. I'm not ashamed to admit I'm more then enough of a Star Trek fanboy to want Discovery to succeed and restart tv Trek.
And thats kinda the problem with Discovery, while the movies have been moderately successful and still pretty current with Beyond coming out only a short time ago the "Kelvin" universe was only created because the last tv series's and movies based on them killed Trek harder then watching a naked Donald Trump twerking would kill arousal. The movies beyond confusing some casual viewers have nothing to do with the Discovery, the series will have to stand on its own right now and do so while still carrying around the baggage of Voyager, Enterprise, and the movies. It will have to win back viewers burned by those things while still appealing to casual viewers so it can remain financially successful.
And with its distribution platform it already has an uphill battle. I don't know if Discovery will be given the opportunity to have a weak first and second season like alot of Trek should it require it.
Q99 wrote:Eh, opening weekends are more about the marketing than the quality, quality is more a 'how well it holds' thing (See: Batman vs Superman, or Jurassic Park Lost World which dropped like a rock after a record opening, or Prometheus). So they do have a point that the attacks probably did hurt it a fair amount. Not that it was ever going to get super hype, but exaggerated toxicity does drag anything down.
Boot that crapstorm away, and it'd probably be a, "Some people liked it, some didn't, middling performance, makes it's money back but doesn't get a sequel," thing.
Ghostbusters 2016 actually had a strong opening even if it was second to Secret Life of Pets but petered out quickly. The controversy didn't actually seem to effect it, what seemed to was some of the more negative and meh reviews after the opening. The movie just didn't have alot of steam, it wasn't good or bad enough to justify the controversy and to put asses in seats.
Yeah, take away the controversy it'd probably just be described as a forgettable movie that didn't do so hot at the box office, didn't even break even and lost millions but probably eventually made its money back in DVD sales.
Q99 wrote:Both did pretty well in ratings really, especially at first, and they did well enough that Enterprise got made, so... the answer should be no, because that wouldn't make sense, but the answer is yes, because they had a black man and a woman.
I could be wrong but I think both had somewhat lower ratings then TNG and didn't get quite the well received critical praise. They weren't failures but certainly weren't huge hits, did poorly enough that we are unlikely to see HD releases of the two series because the cost was deemed not worth it to convert them. Hence why I wondered if back in the day, or even now, people tried to blame the less then ideal performance on having a minority and female lead.
Of course I'd think any attempts to link racism or sexism to those two series ratings and reception would fall flat considering the white male led (and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying having a white male lead helped or hurt Ent anymore then not having one hurt or helped DS9 or Voy, can't really blame the cast considering pretty much everyone is other things performed well, Scott Bakula in particular is a excellent actor and actually has me watching a NCIS series right now) Enterprise did even worse but I would exactly expect a rational argument from racists and sexists and agenda driven people.