Ghostbusters (2016)

[Lord Insanity]

I am surprised no one commented on this yet. I think Sony Pictures hired the old Dreamworks Animation guy to make their trailer for Ghostbusters. Seriously just like several Dreamworks animated movies, Ghostbusters was way better than the trailer would have suggested.

Normally I hate reboots because they are usually crappy money grabs. For every Battlestar Galactica there are a dozen Robocops. Ghostbusters falls much closer to the former rather than the later.

My mother and I are both big fans of the original. (My wife had no interest so she and the kids saw Finding Dory.) My mother and I both enjoyed the movie. Some of the best jokes were not in the trailer (at least not the ones I saw.) The movie had several nods to the original while also doing its own thing. It almost seemed just as inspired by The Real Ghostbusters cartoon as the original movie. As a fan of the cartoon too, I consider that a good thing. That really could just be modern special effects have caught up to the concept of Ghostbusters. The cartoon never had that limitation due to the medium of animation.

One of my favorite gags in the movie... Spoiler

When they are first looking for a place they stop at the original firehouse. They immediately leave upon finding out rent is $21,000 a month. At the end of the movie the mayor's office decides to officially fund them and offers anything they need. They then move into the original firehouse setting up a sequel.

While it is certainly no Captain America: Civil War, it was better than The Force Awakens. A solid B-list summer popcorn flick.

[LadyTevar]

They were discussing it in the Venting Thread. That's why there's no thread so far.

[Joun_Lord]

I avoided the movie mostly just from all the bullshit on both sides. There were fanboys who automatically hated it because it "raped their childhood" or because it had girls and there were defenders of the movie who acted like any criticism was misogyny and to even show just disinterested meant they hated women. To say nothing of the cast and crew acting like tools, shenanigans about Bill Murray being threatened with being sued if he didn't cameo, and the trailer looking like utter shit.

Also not a fan of the director and the main star. The director Paul Feig I don't think is very good and I find Melissa MacCarthy's humor very unappealing, very gross out stuff usually. Nothing against either one, beyond me think Feig is a douchebag for insulting people leery towards GB16, just not my style of humor.

Now thats its released I defintely have no want to see it considering reviewers I trust tend to say its between terrible to meh but okay along with allegations of sexism towards men. Sexism is stupid no matter the gender involved and I don't want to watch a movie about it.

I might eventually watch it once its on DVD but thats about it. Does kinda suck too, I was pretty leery towards the project but didn't dislike it even when the cast and crew become pretty fucking insulting towards people with concerns. I hoped it would be good, a continuation of a movie series I love and enjoy. Yes even Ghostbusters 2, I honestly wasn't even aware of the hate towards that movie until relatively recently.

And from what people are saying it could have been good, it had a good cast and some of the ideas and scenes did work. But they got too caught up with gross out humor, Micheal Bay-ish EXPLOSIONS that nobody seemed to give a shit about, insulting men, and both trying to reference and ignore the original.

Give it to a director other then Feig and get some competent writers a sequel could probably be good but depending on how well it does (so far, not that great) the franchise might go the way of the Sinister Six Spidermang movie.

[bilateralrope]

shenanigans about Bill Murray being threatened with being sued if he didn't cameo, .

On what grounds were they threatening to sue him ?

[Gandalf]

We saw it a few days ago. We thought it fantastic fun, and the cast had great chemistry.

The trailer really didn't do it justice.

[Joun_Lord]

On what grounds were they threatening to sue him ?

Something to do with him passing on it where he still has rights. I dunno. I'm unsure if it was on the cameo or him signing off on the film or both. Either way is kinda shitty.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Sony-Mig ... 68651.html

You can also find it on the Wikileaks Sony stuff on it on their website (or just google it) but I don't know if linking to wikileaks is kosher or not.

[Terralthra]

That says that one Sony employee emailed another to say that if Bill Murray didn't approve of the project, it is possible that he abrogated his right to approve by saying "I don't want to be involved" years ago, and that they'd need to get counsel involved if that were the case. It really seems like you're looking for reasons to not see it by stretching that email to "they threatened to sue him if he didn't cameo". If you don't want to see it, don't see it; you don't have to make up excuses.

[bilateralrope]

Joun_Lord, all I'm seeing is Sony talking about getting their lawyers involved to figure out what their options are. No mention of them even threatening legal action. It also mentions that he might have had rights to the franchise, meaning his permission might have been required for the film to go ahead at all. That's the kind of question where getting lawyers involved is perfectly reasonable.

If you have any proof that they were even considering suing him over not doing a cameo, I'd like to see it. So post the links to it. if you are worried about linking to Wikilinks here, ask the mods to decide.

[Joun_Lord]

That says that one Sony employee emailed another to say that if Bill Murray didn't approve of the project, it is possible that he abrogated his right to approve by saying "I don't want to be involved" years ago, and that they'd need to get counsel involved if that were the case. It really seems like you're looking for reasons to not see it by stretching that email to "they threatened to sue him if he didn't cameo". If you don't want to see it, don't see it; you don't have to make up excuses.

Them just covering all their bases to see if Murray still had legal rights is not how I'm reading it. Here's the relevant bit....

In order to more fully evaluate our position if Bill Murray again declines to engage on “Ghostbusters”, AG requested that we identify “aggressive” litigation counsel with whom we can consult to evaluate our alternatives and strategize. [Harkening back to his prior employer, of course, raised the name of David Boies.]

Personally, while I’m fine with aggressive, I think we are in much worse shape if this goes public so seems to me we should look for someone who isn’t seeking the spotlight.

"Aggressive" litigation and worrying about PR problems doesn't sound like something people would be saying when they are just talking about exploring if Murray owns rights, no that sounds like they were going after him legally hard. And thats not an excuse to not to see it, thats just one of the things that made me leery of the project. I don't want to see it right now because reviews by people who usually are fairly unbiased say the movie is only worth a rental if even that. So I'll probably rent it later on.

Joun_Lord, all I'm seeing is Sony talking about getting their lawyers involved to figure out what their options are. No mention of them even threatening legal action. It also mentions that he might have had rights to the franchise, meaning his permission might have been required for the film to go ahead at all. That's the kind of question where getting lawyers involved is perfectly reasonable.

If you have any proof that they were even considering suing him over not doing a cameo, I'd like to see it. So post the links to it. if you are worried about linking to Wikilinks here, ask the mods to decide.

See above. But I'll go ahead and post the wikileak wikilink wikihere and if the mods disapprove they can kill it dead with like a rock or something, like a stone.

https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/104704

[mr friendly guy]

What I want to know is.... is this just the first Ghostbusters film with changing gender roles but the same basic plot but modern special effects, or do they actually change the plotline somewhat.

Just for the record I am still undecided whether to see this. Grace Randolph reviewed it and said it wasn't as good as the original, but nowhere near as bad as the trailer made it out to be.

[bilateralrope]

"Aggressive" litigation and worrying about PR problems doesn't sound like something people would be saying when they are just talking about exploring if Murray owns rights, no that sounds like they were going after him legally hard. And thats not an excuse to not to see it, thats just one of the things that made me leery of the project. I don't want to see it right now because reviews by people who usually are fairly unbiased say the movie is only worth a rental if even that. So I'll probably rent it later on.

It does if they were thinking of suing to force him to allow the movie to go ahead.

Big corporation going after well known public figure is something PR is always going to worry about.

[PREDATOR490]

What I want to know is.... is this just the first Ghostbusters film with changing gender roles but the same basic plot but modern special effects, or do they actually change the plotline somewhat.

Just for the record I am still undecided whether to see this. Grace Randolph reviewed it and said it wasn't as good as the original, but nowhere near as bad as the trailer made it out to be.

This is essentially a remake of the first Ghostbusters film - Clue: It being called Ghostbusters rather than Ghostbusters 3. The effects and settings have been modernised and the addition of women. Other than that, it is effectively the same movie with a bunch of cameos and nods to the old films.

Is it good - Better than expected and I actually enjoyed it despite going in expecting a disappointment
Is it equal to the original - Not a chance in hell

[Grumman]

What I want to know is.... is this just the first Ghostbusters film with changing gender roles but the same basic plot but modern special effects, or do they actually change the plotline somewhat.

Nope, it's a knock-off. They even rip off the "Choose the form of the Destructor" bit (that's not a spoiler, by the way - it's in the trailer), even though they're just facing some dead guy and not a god.

[Adam Reynolds]

Nope, it's a knock-off. They even rip off the "Choose the form of the Destructor" bit (that's not a spoiler, by the way - it's in the trailer), even though they're just facing some dead guy and not a god.

This is something that bothers me. The original Ghostbusters had a very atheistic message, about using science to understand and thus defeat the supernatural. Having a human antagonist undercuts this.

[Crown]

There's no fucking chance that this movie is getting my money ... because I'm a misogynist.

Seriously though, I saw the first trailer and thought it was horrid and then went on with my life. But somehow, suddenly I started to become aware *cough because of The Guardian cough* that this trailer was the most disliked trailer in the history of YouTube and it was all due to misogyny. So of course this annoyed me but then while I was seeing BvS in the cinema for the fifth time (awesome movie, Ultimate Cut is amaze balls) I saw the second Ghostbusters trailer and it made me laugh out loud and I thought that the movie would actually be worth checking out.

And then Melissa McCartney came out in the press saying she wasn't surprised that people didn't like the first trailer because it was just really confusing; was the movie a remake/reboot or a continuation? And I thought that was nice of her and that maybe I'd go to see the movie if anyone suggested it.

But then the Sony PR department kidnapped Melissa and replaced her with a clone put the screws on their cast and all of a sudden the cast embarked on their 'anyone that hates this movie hates women' publicity tour on talk shows. The director came out with more if you don't like this movie you hate women, and supposed that anyone that hated this movie would probably vote Trump and then the Guardian started up their "its all misogyny all the time" rhetoric.

And now I'm luck fuck you guys. Fuck Sony, fuck Paul Feig and fuck this movie. This could be the best movie ever made but I refuse to give my money to a bunch of people who either so cynically cry wolf over the slightest bad press in order to protect their return on investment or legitimately believe if you don't like a piece of art it must be because of misogyny. I hope they lose all their god damned money the greedy fucks.

Having said that, if you enjoyed the movie; cool beans.

[Lord Insanity]

What I want to know is.... is this just the first Ghostbusters film with changing gender roles but the same basic plot but modern special effects, or do they actually change the plotline somewhat.

The movie certainly references and has specific homages to the original. The main protagonist and plot are mostly new. (As far as you can be and still be Ghostbusters. If you include Extreme Ghostbusters there have been over 200 episodes of the cartoon.)

It would have only taken a few minutes of minor script changes to make this a "pass the torch" squeal instead of a reboot. I'm not sure why they didn't do that because they easily could have. It probably would have eliminated the faux controversy around the movie too.

No the movie wasn't as good as the original. (The original is one of the few movies I double dipped and bought the Blu-ray despite already owning the DVD. It is one of my all time favorite movies.) The new movie is entertaining though. I would rank it above Ghostbusters 2. I don't regret seeing it even though I fully expected to. I plan to pick up the Blu-ray when comes out. In a few more years my daughter will no doubt love it. She a little too young now but she does like The Real Ghostbusters cartoon.

[General Zod]

For once I actually agree with Terralthra on something. It's a fun movie, but if you don't want to see it you don't have to be shitty by making up lame excuses to not do so.

[Gandalf]

It would have only taken a few minutes of minor script changes to make this a "pass the torch" squeal instead of a reboot. I'm not sure why they didn't do that because they easily could have. It probably would have eliminated the faux controversy around the movie too.

But then you'd have to deal with the fact that ghosts have been known to exist for a few decades, and potentially lose the "wacky fringe scientists" angle to the storytelling.

[Gandalf]

Nope, it's a knock-off. They even rip off the "Choose the form of the Destructor" bit (that's not a spoiler, by the way - it's in the trailer), even though they're just facing some dead guy and not a god.

This is something that bothers me. The original Ghostbusters had a very atheistic message, about using science to understand and thus defeat the supernatural. Having a human antagonist undercuts this.

How so? Doesn't showing that the supernatural is understandable and manipulable carry the same weight as the "it can be defeated" message?

[General Zod]

Nope, it's a knock-off. They even rip off the "Choose the form of the Destructor" bit (that's not a spoiler, by the way - it's in the trailer), even though they're just facing some dead guy and not a god.

This is something that bothers me. The original Ghostbusters had a very atheistic message, about using science to understand and thus defeat the supernatural. Having a human antagonist undercuts this.

How so? Doesn't showing that the supernatural is understandable and manipulable carry the same weight as the "it can be defeated" message?

Especially when the human antagonist used science to call up the supernatural.

[Lord Insanity]

It would have only taken a few minutes of minor script changes to make this a "pass the torch" squeal instead of a reboot. I'm not sure why they didn't do that because they easily could have. It probably would have eliminated the faux controversy around the movie too.

But then you'd have to deal with the fact that ghosts have been known to exist for a few decades, and potentially lose the "wacky fringe scientists" angle to the storytelling.

Ghostbusters 2 handled that fairly well. Five years later they were reduced to birthday party clowns. One kid even said: "My dad says you guys are full of crap." Twenty plus years later I would have no trouble believing the average person thinks it was all nonsense. (I have no problem treating the movies and cartoons as separate continuities.)

[Lord Insanity]

New post currently required for spoilers regarding the ending of the new movie... Spoiler

At the end of the new movie the mayor's office tried to officially deny anything supernatural had occurred. This was despite downtown having been teeming with ghosts and causing a mass panic.

[Crown]

For once I actually agree with Terralthra on something. It's a fun movie, but if you don't want to see it you don't have to be shitty by making up lame excuses to not do so.

If this is directed at me I can Google-fu all the Guardian articles that I mentioned in post to dispel the idea 'I'm making up' stuff (if I need to). But more importantly I don't feel I'm being 'shitty' when I clearly state why I won't be giving Sony my money, but then end the post with the unequivocal statement that if others have seen the movie and liked it, then good for them.

[General Zod]

For once I actually agree with Terralthra on something. It's a fun movie, but if you don't want to see it you don't have to be shitty by making up lame excuses to not do so.

If this is directed at me I can Google-fu all the Guardian articles that I mentioned in post to dispel the idea 'I'm making up' stuff (if I need to). But more importantly I don't feel I'm being 'shitty' when I clearly state why I won't be giving Sony my money, but then end the post with the unequivocal statement that if others have seen the movie and liked it, then good for them.

It was just a general post but it's funny you felt a need to get defensive. Because there's a lot of people out there being shitty about it in order to come up with elaborate excuses to not go see it.

[Crown]

For once I actually agree with Terralthra on something. It's a fun movie, but if you don't want to see it you don't have to be shitty by making up lame excuses to not do so.

If this is directed at me I can Google-fu all the Guardian articles that I mentioned in post to dispel the idea 'I'm making up' stuff (if I need to). But more importantly I don't feel I'm being 'shitty' when I clearly state why I won't be giving Sony my money, but then end the post with the unequivocal statement that if others have seen the movie and liked it, then good for them.

It was just a general post but it's funny you felt a need to get defensive. Because there's a lot of people out there being shitty about it in order to come up with elaborate excuses to not go see it.

So the classic trap is for me now to post "I'm not being defensive!" right

This is a discussion board. I'm discussing.