Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

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.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Ghostbusters (2016)

Ghostbusters (2016) (Page 3)
Thread Tools
mindwaves
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2016, 08:17 PM
 
I might be seeing it tonight. To me, the trailer looks great.
     
mindwaves
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2016, 10:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by mindwaves View Post
I might be seeing it tonight. To me, the trailer looks great.
Saw it and was not disappointed. Highly recommended. Only weird part was when that lady went into the portal to save the other lady.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2016, 11:36 PM
 
"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
     
MacGirl80
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2016, 08:38 AM
 
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..'.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2016, 09:04 PM
 
Was quite surprised by how much I enjoyed it.

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.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 03:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacGirl80 View Post
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.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 03:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
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....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 03:46 PM
 
This sounds like trying to fill the shoes of the original, which may be a touch more difficult than implied.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 08:35 PM
 
How is a sequel trying to fill the originals shoes more than a remake?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2016, 08:47 PM
 
By going off in a different direction entirely, this movie isn't trying to fill the shoes of the original.

I get the impression most remakes don't do this. They stick closer to the original.
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2016, 03:36 AM
 
The only reason why the movie failed is because sexist dudebros damaged the perception of it. The movie was actually quite funny.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2016, 06:46 AM
 
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.
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2016, 01:05 AM
 
No, this movie was hated the second people saw a female cast. And the haternet spread it.

I thought the movie was great, but rushed at the end.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2016, 06:58 AM
 
"Great"?

"Hated the second people saw a female cast"?

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
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2016, 10:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
No, this movie was hated the second people saw a female cast. And the haternet spread it.

I thought the movie was great, but rushed at the end.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2016, 10:59 AM
 
It was good. Great is pushing it a bit.

Those trolls by Feig were pretty weak. Since he proposed the game...

CK
Odenkirk
Proops
Brady or Buress
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2016, 12:14 PM
 
'Great' isn't pushing it. The audience laughed their ass off.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2016, 01:11 PM
 
I'm giving my opinion, not the opinion of the audience in your theatre.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2016, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
'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
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2016, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I even went twice, once more to take my wife, and never once did anyone in the audience "laugh their ass off". Not great.
Maybe you need a better theater, or a better area.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
mindwaves
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2016, 08:34 PM
 
People in my theater did laugh many times, as did I. I loved the movie.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2016, 10:44 PM
 
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 View Post
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
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2016, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It's puzzling me how someone could be so amused by this movie.
Reviewers loved it. Don't know what to tell you.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2016, 08:52 PM
 
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
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2016, 11:03 PM
 
I think we should make threads about every movie franchise just for the entertainment of seeing you two go at it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2016, 07:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
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
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2016, 07:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Maybe if public had "loved it" and "laughed their asses off" it wouldn't have lost $70M.
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.
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.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2016, 09:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
or to see you cry about it.
I find it entertaining. It's sort of like watching fish try to swim upstream. You're a fish.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2016, 10:25 AM
 
The Sci-Fi communities thought it kinda sucked.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2016, 10:38 AM
 
Perhaps "polarizing" would be an apt descriptor.
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2016, 11:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
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.
Maybe if dudebros didn't shit on it, it would have made more than it did. Ever think of that?

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2016, 11:49 AM
 
If the movie was that brilliant, then the "dudebro" commentary would carry less weight.

I mean, I liked it, but there were some serious flaws one had to be willing to overlook.

The villain was about as uninspired as you can get, and the concert scene, which was the bulk of the second act, craters pretty hard.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2016, 06:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
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 View Post
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
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2016, 08:37 PM
 
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.
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2016, 12:42 PM
 
"Haunted Mansion" quality of the effects
Now I know you're trolling.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2016, 01:41 PM
 
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.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:19 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,