Ghostbusters 2016

Drop by and talk about anything you want. This is where all cheese-related discussions should go

Are you going to see it?

Yes
7
19%
No
17
46%
Not sure
4
11%
Yes, but not in the cinema
9
24%
 
Total votes: 37
User avatar
Genghis Ares
Posts: 3630
Joined: 28 Feb 2009, 22:09
First Video: ArmEGAddon
Location: Texas

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby Genghis Ares » 19 Jul 2016, 01:48

Yeah, I saw some of the same things. Some people hated it, but a bunch of people tended to end up saying it was average. Most people did tend to think it was just a cash-grab like most remake/reboots.
Image
User avatar
Robo4900
Posts: 1180
Joined: 28 Jun 2013, 22:30
First Video: Installation Anxiety
Location: Another time and place

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby Robo4900 » 19 Jul 2016, 02:38

From the reviews I've heard, it seems it's just average. The thing is, most people don't like seeing average films, you don't want to pay £11 go to the cinema just to see a kind of mediocre film. So, unless you've got some kind of free movies deal(My brother pays a monthly fee and gets to see as many films as he likes at his local cinema), it's probably best not to see.
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate."
User avatar
Elomin Sha
Posts: 15773
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 05:14
First Video: Max Effect
Location: Woodford Green, England
Contact:

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby Elomin Sha » 19 Jul 2016, 04:46

That's a problem, it is a cash grab (as with most things). There was passion put into this film but not really directed. The original just happened to spawn a juggernaut franchise.
The most unique, nicest, and confusing individual you will get to know. Don't be stupid around me, that's my job.
https://displate.com/elominsha/galleries
If you need art, I take commissions, PM me.
User avatar
Amake
Posts: 664
Joined: 01 Apr 2013, 00:06
First Video: Le Cafe
Location: North Sweden
Contact:

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby Amake » 19 Jul 2016, 05:11

Maybe if we put this in the form of pictures with text on, for clarity:
Image

Yes, you may not want to watch it because you're not a little girl. We get that. What more do you need to say? I have mentioned before that this discussion about why you don't want to watch this movie and hope it fails or at least disappoints someone is at best missing the point. After six pages of it, not to mention yesterday's shitstorm of racist and sexist abuse punishing Leslie Jones for doing the movie, it may be time to reflect on what it looks like at worst.
"I know I tend to sound like I think what I say is written in stone, but please ignore that. I assure you I'm well aware that I have no idea what I'm talking about." -Amake, 2015
User avatar
Elomin Sha
Posts: 15773
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 05:14
First Video: Max Effect
Location: Woodford Green, England
Contact:

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby Elomin Sha » 19 Jul 2016, 05:32

Uhhhhhhhhhhh, I don't think at any point any of us have said that we won't watch it becasue we're not a little girl or to disappoint normal people (just Hollywood), so the picture is part redundant. Anyone could go back watch the old films and cartoons. It's not excluding anyone from now with a big sign say "STOP! You don't deserve to watch my childhood". As I always said, why not create new heroes and not hand me-downs?

Didn't know of the renewed issue with Leslie Jones, this time from the other side.
The most unique, nicest, and confusing individual you will get to know. Don't be stupid around me, that's my job.
https://displate.com/elominsha/galleries
If you need art, I take commissions, PM me.
User avatar
Master Gunner
Defending us from The Dutch!
Posts: 19383
Joined: 29 Oct 2006, 12:19
First Video: How To Talk Like A Pirate
Location: In Limbo.
Contact:

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby Master Gunner » 19 Jul 2016, 05:55

Elomin Sha wrote:As I always said, why not create new heroes and not hand me-downs?


Because it's almost impossible to tell what will become a cultural phenomenon and what will garner a lot of praise then putter out after a few months. Latching on to an existing franchise majorly boosts the profile of new heroes.

Rey and Finn are big heroes for children now - but if The Force Awakens was a standalone film rather than having the Star Wars name on it, would they be anywhere near as big?
TheRocket wrote:Apparently the crotch area could not contain the badonkadonk area.
Twitter | Click here to join the Desert Bus Community Chat.
User avatar
Elomin Sha
Posts: 15773
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 05:14
First Video: Max Effect
Location: Woodford Green, England
Contact:

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby Elomin Sha » 19 Jul 2016, 06:06

Probably not. But because JJ Abrahms and Disney knew what they were doing and treated the source material with respect and treated fans respectively it rejuvinated the franchise. When you consider it, Star Wars is really 50-50 on having good films. I was hesitant on going to see VII, like Ghostbusters 2016, but I was still going to go see it. But what the showed in the production videos swayed me that Abrams knows how to deal with properties.
The most unique, nicest, and confusing individual you will get to know. Don't be stupid around me, that's my job.
https://displate.com/elominsha/galleries
If you need art, I take commissions, PM me.
Darkflame
Posts: 402
Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 05:06
First Video: Quantum Documentary

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby Darkflame » 19 Jul 2016, 09:26

Remove star wars from TFA and nothing would be left :P

Anyway, I would point out that even with a existing IP things reboots can have nearly no impact. (Robocop,Total Recall).
You get free advertising with a existing IP, but I dont think it even makes success more likely.

We need more balanced casting in all films,regardless, then there would be more heroes for children (and adults ;) ) to look too.
http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
--
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+. Give us a like if you can, it all helps.
User avatar
Genghis Ares
Posts: 3630
Joined: 28 Feb 2009, 22:09
First Video: ArmEGAddon
Location: Texas

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby Genghis Ares » 19 Jul 2016, 13:27

I find it somewhat hypocritical in a way to put forward the notion that the movie is made for little girls to have heroes to look up to. We always tell people that true beauty and character is on the inside and that is what's important. So why do we make these female ghostbusters so 1-dimensional(haven't seen the movie, but I have seen plenty of reviews stating so). At that point we're just setting up an image, a costume for little girls to look up to instead of good characters. Why should we be okay with such a superficial version? Now I know you have to start somewhere, but why not try to make well-developed characters in an interesting story. Something worthwhile to look up to, not a bunch of comedians trying to one-up each others improvised jokes with a coat of Ghostbusters paint splattered over it.

Probably because Sony didn't really set out to make a good Ghostbusters movie, they just wanted to make a new franchise in any way they could and they had the rights to GB. Evidenced by their pseudo-announcement of a sequel three days after it released despite an average opening, they just wanted a franchise to jam product placement into. A new remake with a new male cast would have been just as mindless a remake. The All-Female cast was the only novel idea they had, but to just cram that into a forgettable movie experience is a huge wasted potential. And it's impossible to separate this movie from the original when they jam so many references into it along with a bunch of cameos from the original cast that just take you out of a movie that is supposedly for a new audience. They clearly didn't have faith in making it a good movie, so they made it an average one to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

I wanted to see this movie when it was an all-female spin-off, instead it's just an SNL version of something that could have been good for everyone.
Image
User avatar
korvys
Posts: 2112
Joined: 29 Apr 2013, 14:48
First Video: Zero Punctuation: X-Blades/Halo Wars
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby korvys » 19 Jul 2016, 14:45

Interesting. The reviews I've read/seen (having also not seen it) have said almost the exact opposite - that most of the jokes are actually pretty good, that the characters are not just 1-dimensional and are actually pretty well constructed, and that most of the faults come down to editing and a 3rd act that doesn't really pay off with a kinda flat villain.

In either case, representation matters. We, as a society, tell kids that it's what's inside that matters, but if kids never get to see anyone that looks like them on screen, they're going to understand that it's very much a matter of "do as I say, not as I do", and the adults in the world, in Hollywood, don't think it's what's inside that matters.

As you say, we need to start somewhere. If it were a matter of a great female-lead blockbuster action movie based on a new property, and an average one based on a remake, the choice is easy. But that's not the choice. The choice is an average female-lead blockbuster action movie remake, or not. There isn't some fantastic, amazing movie script sitting on a shelf because they wanted to make this instead (at least no more than any other movie). They didn't choose to make an average movie over a good one. They made a movie, and it maybe wasn't as good as it could have been. Like hundreds of movies every year that don't have people getting their knickers in a twist.
"Why does Sonic chill like dawgs?" - Graham
"Causation. Still a leading cause of correlation"" - Oglaf

Google+ / Twitter / Mastodon
keybase.io
User avatar
korvys
Posts: 2112
Joined: 29 Apr 2013, 14:48
First Video: Zero Punctuation: X-Blades/Halo Wars
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby korvys » 19 Jul 2016, 16:05

As an aside, it's kinda interesting how focused some people get on trying to boil things down to a simple objective measurement. And more specifically, things that really defy that sort of simplification, like art.

We've seen it a lot in the gaming world, where people have become obsessed with scores. Outlets having come under fire for giving a game a score that doesn't align with the Metacritic score, as though there is some true, objective, score for a game, and the job of the reviewer is to try to divine that from the media, rather than give a subjective opinion.

And there's us here, trying to decide if the movie is 'good' or 'bad' or 'average', when it's really rather irrelevant.

Firstly, a movie can be good in some ways, and bad in others. There are movies you might put forward as a master-class in acting, but with terrible writing. Or amazing editing with a terrible plot. Trying to simplify can lose this nuance.

Secondly, 'good' and 'bad' are relative. Hollywood only really cares if the movie makes money. The movie goers only really care if they're entertained. The people who made the film might care about the quality, so they can improve, but that's only their areas. These things are all linked together, of course. A movie with better acting probably entertains people more, and gets more money, but then you get stuff like Transformers, which people liked and made a ton of money, and was terrible. Or Warcraft, which I enjoyed immensely, but was also really rather awful.

Thirdly, what any given reviewer values will differ. That one person likes a thing and another doesn't doesn't mean that either is 'wrong'. And the average of the two isn't any better a measure of the value of the movie, either. Better to find a reviewer who's tastes match your own, and that you trust. I wouldn't trust MundaneMatt as far as I could throw him. On the other hand, if MovieBob says he likes something, history has shown I usually will as well. Other people feel the opposite, and if that works for them to more accurately identify movies they want to see, great.

Finally, I don't think it's possible, or even desirable to separate media from the context in which it's created and published. That Ghostbusters can serve as something for young girls to look up to, that it tweaks the noses of sexist man-babies, that it is a comedy movie without a single fat joke, are all things that are outside of the quality of the movie itself, but contribute to it's value as a piece of media. And yes, it's being a remake, and possibly then contributing to further remakes, probably bad ones, being made, is also a valid thing to consider. Other movies might be for or against a war. They might be racist, or made by a racist person you don't want to support. They might be trying to raise awareness of social issues. These are all valid things to judge a film on, as far as I'm concerned. Quality isn't the only thing.


So, relating back to Ghostbuster:
Does it look like it will be entertaining to me? The reviewers I trust and the people I know on twitter all seem to say yes.
Do I think it's contributing to the world being a better place? Yes I do.
Does anything else really matter? Not to me. Good, bad, high scores, low scores. I couldn't care less.
"Why does Sonic chill like dawgs?" - Graham
"Causation. Still a leading cause of correlation"" - Oglaf

Google+ / Twitter / Mastodon
keybase.io
Darkflame
Posts: 402
Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 05:06
First Video: Quantum Documentary

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby Darkflame » 20 Jul 2016, 01:16

Better to find a reviewer who's tastes match your own, and that you trust.


I made website based on exactly that idea once;
www.rateoholic.com

Didn't get anywhere unfortunately. (never got more then a dozen users, and now the OpenId logins have broke due to API changes)
http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
--
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+. Give us a like if you can, it all helps.
User avatar
korvys
Posts: 2112
Joined: 29 Apr 2013, 14:48
First Video: Zero Punctuation: X-Blades/Halo Wars
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby korvys » 21 Jul 2016, 02:46

Went and saw Ghostbusters. Enjoyed it a lot. A few of the jokes missed, and there was a couple of spots where I could tell there had been a scene cut near the end, but definitely worth my time. Certainly worthy of the Ghostbusters title.
"Why does Sonic chill like dawgs?" - Graham
"Causation. Still a leading cause of correlation"" - Oglaf

Google+ / Twitter / Mastodon
keybase.io
User avatar
JayBlanc
Posts: 806
Joined: 18 Dec 2011, 13:54
First Video: That thing with the thing and that stuff

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby JayBlanc » 21 Jul 2016, 09:11

Image
User avatar
Elomin Sha
Posts: 15773
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 05:14
First Video: Max Effect
Location: Woodford Green, England
Contact:

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby Elomin Sha » 21 Jul 2016, 09:24

Three silly bits with that picture.

Fans had been insulted by the director and some of the cast.
Technobabble is par for the course in Ghostbusters.
Scene for scene remakes in general are a bad idea.
The most unique, nicest, and confusing individual you will get to know. Don't be stupid around me, that's my job.
https://displate.com/elominsha/galleries
If you need art, I take commissions, PM me.
Darkflame
Posts: 402
Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 05:06
First Video: Quantum Documentary

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby Darkflame » 21 Jul 2016, 11:04

I think the only time a scene for scene remake is ever acceptable is if your making a Swede. :p

On a slightly more serious thought though, not sure I ever find "openings to develop a sequal" defacto a good thing. Some of the best film series have been completely standalone films (all the Toy Storys, for example). You dont need to put stuff deliberately left open in order to do a sequal. You simply need a movie universe rich enough for more stories to be told in.
Meanwhile, in some cases, putting in "things left open" can subtract from the current movie.
http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
--
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+. Give us a like if you can, it all helps.
User avatar
JayBlanc
Posts: 806
Joined: 18 Dec 2011, 13:54
First Video: That thing with the thing and that stuff

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby JayBlanc » 23 Jul 2016, 01:51

Elomin Sha wrote:Three silly bits with that picture.

Fans had been insulted by the director and some of the cast.


A) When someone derides you and declares they are refusing to see the work, they stop being your fan.
B) I haven't seen anyone "insulted" by the cast and crew of Ghostbusters, who wasn't being an asshole on twitter.
C) What does that have to do with the merits of the movie?

Technobabble is par for the course in Ghostbusters.


You would think, and yet...

Scene for scene remakes in general are a bad idea.


And yet I have seen a review that criticised it for not being so. And then later, for being so, in the same review.
User avatar
TheGreyRabbit
Posts: 5
Joined: 17 Jun 2016, 12:49
First Video: Desert Bus 5?

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby TheGreyRabbit » 23 Jul 2016, 13:58

Given the vitriol around this movie, I decided to take in the matinee yesterday. I was never a huge Ghostbusters fan, so keeping an open mind about it was pretty easy for me. It was utterly average. I got a few laughs, and a few cringey moments. And I already forget most of it. Which is par for the course with me and Paul Feig movies.
Don't Picnic
User avatar
JayBlanc
Posts: 806
Joined: 18 Dec 2011, 13:54
First Video: That thing with the thing and that stuff

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby JayBlanc » 24 Jul 2016, 03:14

Oh look, all those "experts" in marketing toys who declared that female action heroes couldn't sell action figures... Were completely and absolutely wrong.
User avatar
Elomin Sha
Posts: 15773
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 05:14
First Video: Max Effect
Location: Woodford Green, England
Contact:

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby Elomin Sha » 24 Jul 2016, 05:58

In the past no when certain hobbies were seen as male orientated. Now, not anymore.
The most unique, nicest, and confusing individual you will get to know. Don't be stupid around me, that's my job.
https://displate.com/elominsha/galleries
If you need art, I take commissions, PM me.
User avatar
JayBlanc
Posts: 806
Joined: 18 Dec 2011, 13:54
First Video: That thing with the thing and that stuff

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby JayBlanc » 24 Jul 2016, 08:47

"In the past" being Last Year and Star Wars toys you mean?
J_S_Bach
Posts: 120
Joined: 08 Jul 2014, 00:37
First Video: I honestly can't remember.
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Contact:

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby J_S_Bach » 24 Jul 2016, 09:44

I didn't realize children had such disposable income to throw around like that.
User avatar
Elomin Sha
Posts: 15773
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 05:14
First Video: Max Effect
Location: Woodford Green, England
Contact:

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby Elomin Sha » 24 Jul 2016, 09:56

Superhero figures.
The most unique, nicest, and confusing individual you will get to know. Don't be stupid around me, that's my job.
https://displate.com/elominsha/galleries
If you need art, I take commissions, PM me.
Darkflame
Posts: 402
Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 05:06
First Video: Quantum Documentary

Re: Ghostbusters 2016

Postby Darkflame » 24 Jul 2016, 09:56

Well, its the kids-begging-parents factor, which unfortunately is pretty much what keeps various animated shows on the air.
Toy sales count for a lot.
http://www.fanficmaker.com <-- Tells some truly terrible tales.
--
Last update; Mice,Plumbers,Animatronics and Airbenders. We also have the socials; Facebook & G+. Give us a like if you can, it all helps.

Return to “General Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests