GHOSTBUSTERS 2016 feedback and possible spoilers

[Derek Metaltron]

I don't have any disagreements with this post. You are entitled to feel like you won't like a movie, and that's valid. We are all allowed our internal bias, and we are allowed to wonder if a movie is going to be what we want it to be.

I don't think I'd like the new Independence Day, and I stand by that, but I don't think I can, in any way shape or form, make any sort of argument about the quality of film it is. Because I haven't seen it. That's the part I'm having trouble with.

Thanks, and equally I think it's fine you enjoyed the film, Movies and media in general would be pretty sucky if everyone liked and hated the same stuff.

And see here's me on the opposite side of the fence because I did see the new Independence Day and liked it, for the most part. The phase I had for people after watching it was 'unneeded but somewhat decent sequel'. I totally understand if someone hates or loves it, because I'm kind of in the middle on that one.

[BeastieRunner]

Again people can judge if a film would suck to them by trailers. A lot of people do this. They see a trailer and go , this is shit. It happens , they just don't care and will tell you what they feel. I will...the trailers made Ghostbusters look terrible.

It's a good movie with bad marketing.

The trailer doesn't convey the tone of the movie AT ALL, and most of what is in the trailers is not in the final movie. And most of what is, is cut so differently. I really think more than anything, the team that cut the trailer should be fired.

They didn't push out any mid-range toys for kids. Some mini figs, 3 mini fig playsets, 8 collectable GBs, 1 car, 1 proton pack and 3 ghosts. Not including all the plushy stuff. Mattel would have been raking in the dough had they decided to do more. RGB toy-line was one of the most successful toy-lines of all time. Even the initial wave of toys for the new stuff was selling well but then they didn't introduce a second wave. Argh ...

They didn't create a cartoon or anything substantial prior to the movie to get kids and new fans excited (TMNT had a new cartoon out with toys before the new movies started).

We'll see how the legs of the movie run. I'm optimistic. We shall see ...

Maybe if we talking about books where you can't advance read any, but when the script has been leaked for months and you have seen how crap it is and how it not only doesn't get why the original Ghostbusters worked but also tries to pull in stuff from those films in terrible ways, I should be allowed to have an opinion. Oh and like I said, if you see this movie according to the studio you MUST like it, because the money is what they care about.

I mean by your logic I shouldn't be allowed to say anything about any Marvel comic book I haven't read yet even though we have dozens of means to see how good or bad they were, but I'm still a Marvel fan.

The leaked scripted wasn't accurate. Parts of it were. FYI.

[simbob4000]

I do't know why you're telling me about a movie that I've seen and you haven't. It's so strange to me. And yes you absolutely did say it wasn't exciting. I'll quote you: "God, how sad is it that the new generations version of Ghostbusters isn't some new exciting thing?"

As far as it's quality, it's about the same as the old ones: A few SNL actors fighting ghosts and being funny. It's essentially the same.

I'm telling you because anyone's that seen one trailer can tell the humor isn't the same. The most broad character in the original movie doesn't go as big as what they've shown off in the advertising. The humor is very clearly very different. There a whole lot humor wise I've actually seen from this movie that would seem very out of place in the original film, unless a lot of the comedy in the promotional stuff is nowhere to be found in the actual movie.

A remake of Ghostbusters isn't a exciting new thing, it's a remake of something that was a exciting new thing. Your focus was on the wrong part.

I'll glady say you're not entitled to an informed opinion, because that would actually require being informed. You don't think it's a little silly for someone to be able to judge a movie's or book's quality without actually knowing? Think about it:

"Harry Potter is so stupid and boring! I've never read it but my opinion is as valid as yours!"

"Shrimp tastes terrible! I've never tried it but my opinion is as valid as yours!"

SHOULD I take that opinion seriously?

You've been saying this movies a good thing because it gives a new generation Ghostbusters. Will, you don't need to have seen the movie to point out that the new generation can just watch the original movie, a movie that based on even the good reviews still sounds vastly better...not based on my opinion during a time I have seen it, but based on the opinion of even those that seemingly liked it. I haven't been talking about anything you really need to have seen the movie for. I've kind of just been talking about how silly this idea is that a new generation needs a new version of Ghostbusters to enjoy Ghostbusters. I also said something about how sad it is that the new generation isn't getting their own new thing like we did, which for whatever reason you're framing as a positive.

[Deadxman]

The leaked scripted wasn't accurate. Parts of it were. FYI.

what was on page isn't always on the screen.

The original movie script had Winston at the hotel.

[BeastieRunner]

what was on page isn't always on the screen.

The original movie script had Winston at the hotel.

And getting slimed, etc. I know all that. Changes happen all the time. In modern times, reshoots are hardly ever covered in a script.

Just stating that basing an opinion on a leaked script isn't always the wisest.

[Shawn Hopkins]

No it isn't. People fall in love will stuff they see on tv all the time...in fact they seem to do it now more than ever. It's also been very easy for a number of years to watch Ghostbusters in HD at home, so you wouldn't have to show it to a kid on your old VHS. The original Ghostbusters is also, like I already said, a pretty easy movie to still see in a theatre; you don't even have to find a repertory theatre for that, I've seen ads for it at places like Cinemark.

True, but that's an individual, personal thing. There's not marketing, no hype, no organization. It's not going to be a cultural moment that sweeps a generation the way it swept mine.

A few theaters that show old movies is not the same as a nationwide release.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Agreed, but the ironic thing about this movie is that teens were one of the groups who didn't really go see it. If you look at the box office numbers, it seems like the younger generation gave a resounding "meh" when it came to the movie. It's the 20, 30, 40-somethings that are seeing it.

Reminds me of the screening of Independence Day: Resurgence I went to. Old people city.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I do love how we live in a society now where apparently we're not allowed to have an opinion about something because we haven't seen/read/heard it. If we went to see Ghostbusters 2016 that would effectively be us saying we liked it, because modern film developers don't honestly give a crap whether we do or not once they have our cash. And I've seen and read enough about the behind the scenes drama and the treatment of fans under one banner and the script leaked which showed a lack of understanding in what makes a Ghostbuster film works to know I don't wanna see or pay for it.

If you saw it and liked it? Fine, but please don't say because a person hasn't seen it for reasons outside pure banal sexism that they're not entitled to some form of opinion.

Uh, we've always lived in that society. You can say you don't want to see it, or that you think it'll probably be bad, or that reviewers say it's bad film, but you can't personally assess it as a bad film until you've seen it yourself. You just don't know. That's like Ebert giving films he hadn't seen thumbs down just because Siskel didn't like it. He'd have no credibility.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Again people can judge if a film would suck to them by trailers. A lot of people do this. They see a trailer and go , this is shit. It happens , they just don't care and will tell you what they feel. I will...the trailers made Ghostbusters look terrible.

They don't represent the film very well, though. A lot of great films get bad trailers. And bad films get good ones. A lot of stuff in the Ghostbusters trailer isn't in the movie at all. And it also heavily features the worst jokes in the movie, not featuring some much funnier ones that are quieter and more character driven.

[simbob4000]

True, but that's an individual, personal thing. There's not marketing, no hype, no organization. It's not going to be a cultural moment that sweeps a generation the way it swept mine.

A few theaters that show old movies is not the same as a nationwide release.

This movie isn't a cultural moment either...other then how stupid people got (going both ways) on what looks like just another bad remake. It's also only a person thing in so far as if the kid doesn't like it and then doesn't show it to all their friends. I mean, I don't know about you, but when I was little, if I saw something I liked (even if I didn't see it upon its original release) I'd show it to all my friend and get them hooked too.

As I've said a few times already, Ghostbusters is such a big movie that it plays in more than just little theatres that play old movies even today. I think Cinemark has been playing it more than once a year for the past few years now, and that's not the only giant nationwide movie theatre chain that has done so.

[Lax]

Well this is certainly interesting.

Looking at IMDB right now, the movie gets an average of 7.7 from female reviewers and a 3.8 from males.

There also seem an absurdly high number of 1/10 ratings. 47%. That's pretty hard to believe.

Looking further, 60% of female reviewers give it a 10 and 53% of male reviewers give it a 1.

This suggests the movie is somewhat polarizing between men and women. Although the flipside of 40% of men giving it a 10 and 47% of women giving it a 1 is also a factor to consider.

All in all it seems if you want ac actual non-biased sampling you just ignore the extremes and give it a mark out of 8

Or one could be curious to know if this level of polarization is typical between the sexes or something specific to this film.

If this polarization is common then such information isn't particularly noteworthy.

If this polarization is uncommon then it suggests there are biased elements within the film itself that entice such a reaction from the audience.

[MCBT]

I simply loved it from start to finish. Some things I wished were developed better and the pacing can be a bit too fast but I prefer it over the original if on the basis of the casting and the four lead characters. They gelled really well, Holtzmann and Patty were scene stealers, loved the new tech, Chris Hemsworth was even funny, I look forward to following this new team.

Plus with Patty, they fixed a problem with the original in which Winston was just there, the fourth dude. They fixed this with giving Patty a bigger role as the other three, being a historian as a valuable asset, did much and most importantly, was actually funny.

[Drz]

How was Winston a problem? He was a blue collar worker that they needed because they we're expanding.

He was always knowledgeable and could explain the Busters gibberish in common sense to characters like the Mayor or Priest.

[MCBT]

How was Winston a problem? He was a blue collar worker that they needed because they we're expanding.

He was always knowledgeable and could explain the Busters gibberish in common sense to characters like the Mayor or Priest.

He didn't exactly have much to do in comparison to the other three. It doesn't help that Ernie Hudson himself wrote this and I suddenly had the horrifying realization.

http://www.ew.com/article/2014/11/05...s-ernie-hudson

[simbob4000]

He didn't exactly have much to do in comparison to the other three. It doesn't help that Ernie Hudson himself wrote this and I suddenly had the horrifying realization.

http://www.ew.com/article/2014/11/05...s-ernie-hudson

What was the realization: That the main three guys you start with were huge comedians?