If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm trying to work out if this thread passes the Bechdel test or not...
But I liked the film, I'd have liked it better as a sequel, I don't really get the thinking behind all these remakes of classic films, they're always going to fall down in comparison, make something different that references the original in a clever way, don't just swap the genders, that's lazy. Of course, I love that my daughters see women in major roles who aren't just there to look pretty before being killed, but don't just put them there for the sake of it, that's almost as patronising, 'look, we put some women in, now quit whining..'.
That said, I could see why it may have rubbed some the wrong way. It's very different from the original, and is more a vehicle for the four types of comedy the leads excel at rather than a coherent movie. I find them all funny, so that worked for me. McKinnon is brilliant.
But I liked the film, I'd have liked it better as a sequel, I don't really get the thinking behind all these remakes of classic films, they're always going to fall down in comparison, make something different that references the original in a clever way, don't just swap the genders, that's lazy.
I felt this was exactly what it did. Flipping the genders completely altered the dynamic the leads had between themselves and to the universe. This naturally led to an entirely different movie.
Then, they went on to pretty much change everything. The only thing which more or less remained intact was the visual "style guide" from the originals. The more I think about it, the more I want to say when they aren't killing ghosts or playing with gear, the movie owes more to Sex in the City than to the originals.
I can also understand why they might flub cutting a trailer for it.
I felt this was exactly what it did. Flipping the genders completely altered the dynamic the leads had between themselves and to the universe. This naturally led to an entirely different movie.
Then, they went on to pretty much change everything. The only thing which more or less remained intact was the visual "style guide" from the originals. The more I think about it, the more I want to say when they aren't killing ghosts or playing with gear, the movie owes more to Sex in the City than to the originals.
I can also understand why they might flub cutting a trailer for it.
I think it would have been more interesting to have made it a sequel instead of a remake. I don't know what the obsession is with remakes and prequels. Its the universe the movies create that is often most special, not just the characters.
There was a computer game that accompanied the original movies released for the likes of Commodore 64 and Sinclair Spectrum. It was extraordinarily primitive, but the 'story' included a bit at the start where you basically started your own Ghostbusters franchise.
This would have been far more interesting than a remake. We could have perhaps seen a complete absence of paranormal activity since the events of G2, resulting in the original Ghostbusters all but packing up shop and returning to other jobs. Maybe Venkman decides he can't quite let go of the fame he once knew and as a bit of a natural con-man anyway he keeps the brand going and ekes out a living selling franchises to other con-men and the gullible around the world over the internet.
The girls then make some discovery of a new impending explosion of ghost action and they go visit him to get a franchise of their own.
New team, new location, new dynamics but with a trip to NY and a nice homage to the original. Pack it full of easter eggs like maybe they visit some mansion which has the keymaster/gatekeeper dogs as gateposts or whatever.
I haven't even seen the new one yet but I'm already sure my idea is better. Hollywood really need to just stop churning out shit and give me a call/job.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Note that I haven't seen it, so I don't know if it's good or not, but...
I think it will do just about as well as movies like Bridesmaids, Spy, and The Heat - i.e., other Paul Feig comedies with a talented female cast. They all made around $250 million (and were, IMO, funny). That was a great result for those movies - more than 4 times the production cost in each case, so a tidy profit. The problem here is that Ghostbusters cost around $150 million to make, so it needs at least $300 million to break even, and of course even more to make some real money for the studio. Basically Sony bet that higher production values and a well-known franchise would make that $250 million gross grow to $450 million or so, and it didn't.
My read on this is that the same people who went to see Bridesmaids etc went again this time, but that the franchise and the budget didn't grow the audience. Was that because of the dudebros online? Maybe - but there is also the fact that Sony has had a terrible record with movies lately, that the entire summer movie business had a bad year, that we've had a number of weak eighties remakes in the last few years, and that none of the stars are huge household names. SNL is not the same thing as it was when Bill Murray et al were on.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
I can only guess you're choosing to ignore other recent successful movies with female leads, even from franchises that are normally dominated by male actors (including the film with the highest domestic gross in history).
Obviously Ghostbusters' creators ****ed up when they attacked the fan base for reacting negatively to a pair of awful trailers. But then Paul Feig doubled-down on the stupid, going so far as to say that men aren't funny and can't be good comedians, then said that people who are critical of the movie are just misogynists, effectively trolling everyone online (and setting-up all the film's detractors as scapegoats for its failure, which most could see coming from a mile away). The fact is, comedy remakes are usually losers, people don't want them, and they really don't like being called names by a self-important jackass with daddy issues.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
'Great' isn't pushing it. The audience laughed their ass off.
I even went twice, once more to take my wife, and never once did anyone in the audience "laugh their ass off". Not great.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It's puzzling me how someone could be so amused by this movie.
This reviewer does a great job of elucidating my thoughts on the whole thing:
Originally Posted by mindwaves
People in my theater did laugh many times, as did I. I loved the movie.
I'm not saying it was like a tomb. Although I didn't hear any conspicuous laughter I'm sure there was some chuckling going on.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
They really didn't. "Love" and "laugh their ass off". You're embellishing quite a lot.
Maybe if public had "loved it" and "laughed their asses off" it wouldn't have lost $70M.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I think we should make threads about every movie franchise just for the entertainment of seeing you two go at it.
or to see you cry about it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I find it entertaining. It's sort of like watching fish try to swim upstream. You're a fish.
Umm... okay...
Originally Posted by P
Actually, that doesn't follow. I think that it did more or less as well as I would expect. The problem is that the budget was too large.
That's an excellent point. Given the "Haunted Mansion" quality of the effects, I can't imagine what they spent $150M on.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I have a friend who was an extra. She was one of the pilgrim ghosts. She said there were a ton of extras and scenes that were filmed and just put in the background, barely visible. As a working actress she was glad for the work, but in this case it almost seems like CGI would have been more efficient.
That it was going for a cheesy "Haunted Mansion" type thing I'd say is unequivocal.
I personally think it fit in with the stylized universe.
Not surprised in the least it fell flat for some audiences. It was one of the riskier choices, and probably the biggest deviance from the visual themes set forth by the original.