Freehold DM |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Norman Osborne wrote:phantom1592 wrote:Ghostbusters had some adult humor in it, but it was a much subtler humor at the time. Much like a lot of other 'kids' movies today, there were some sly jokes tossed in for the adults that kids didn't understand.I'm sorry, but subtlety went out the door when a ghost gave one of them a blowjob.
To an adult eyes sure... but even that was pretty subtle for a kid to see. The ghost lady was hovering... then completely invisible.
Belt gets undone on it's own... Ray gets a weird look on his face. To the average 8 year old... they wouldn't have a clue what just happened.
There were multiple quotes from Ivan about how a lot of stuff ended up on the cutting room floor because they wanted to keep it as 'family friendly' as possible.
Again... compared to something like Police Academy or the Vacation movies?? this was REALLY tame. Ghostbusters was a solid PG in a time before PG-13, and outside of that one scene (that's part of a 'time passes' montage) I think it would still get the PG rating today.
I didn't know air sex with orgasm was family friendly. Ivan is being more than a bit disingenuous here.
I'll have to let my nephew watch fritz the cat. I'm sure that'll be okay.
Freehold DM |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was pretty young when I recognized what that meant.
Also, are we forgetting the whole "two ghost-possessed people have to literally bang to make the apocalypse thing happen" plot point? :P
I was born in 1978 and saw the film in 1985. It was pretty freaking obvious to me.
Maybe other posters are a bit more innocent.
Kobold Catgirl |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kobold Cleaver wrote:I was pretty young when I recognized what that meant.
Also, are we forgetting the whole "two ghost-possessed people have to literally bang to make the apocalypse thing happen" plot point? :P
Also off screen. If we have to discount every movie where someone has sex off screen... it's going to cut out a LOT of shows.
They kept that sex very ambiguous. The prophecy was that they had to get together... they meet... Moranis has a goofy look on his face, but they are both still completely clothed.
Just them being in the same area could have opened the gate for Gozer. At least as far as the 8 year old mentalities are concerned. This was a great example of how to make a movie for multiple audiences.
First, you seriously underestimate 8-year old mentalities.
Second, if you define "raunchy" as "so adult even dumb kids will understand", this sequel contains nothing of the sort. "Every crack" is a pretty mild gag. I could see it in a Disney or Pixar move and think nothing of it. The more worldly kids will just think, "Haha, it got in her butt!" Implied grossness is about on par with implied copulation.
I don't like sand. It's coarse and it's dry and it gets everywhere.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet |
First, you seriously underestimate 8-year old mentalities.
I agree that people tend to do this - which I find disturbing. It's almost like they've been brainwashed somewhere along the way, and they think that the simple passage of time has made them into literally different people.
Beyond that, however, if you don't know how sex works, you will misinterpret innuendo as something you've been permitted to know - or just take it in stride as another of countless specimens of inexplicable/silly human behavior (and especially if it's a movie like Ghostbusters, why shouldn't you expect moments of total bizarreness?).
Freehold DM |
Kobold Cleaver wrote:I agree that people tend to do this - which I find disturbing. It's almost like they've been brainwashed somewhere along the way, and they think that the simple passage of time has made them into literally different peopleFirst, you seriously underestimate 8-year old mentalities.
Well said.
Alzrius |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So back in late 2013, Sony was apparently looking into meeting with "aggressive" litigation counsel to "evaluate [their] alternatives and strategize" if Bill Murray "again declines to engage on “Ghostbusters”."
Now, I have no idea if they actually went ahead and threatened him with litigation or not, but this certainly puts his cameo in the current film in a whole new light.
MMCJawa |
huh...I would have expected this thread to come to the surface again.
I went and saw Ghostbusters yesterday and rather liked it. With so many recent reboots or attempts to jumpstart massive franchises, it was nice to see a reboot that included plenty of homages without straight up copying the original plot and characters, or felt the need to leave a billion plot threads dangling for future movies. The cast mostly was pretty solid as well.
My only complaints might be: The comedy was a bit more overt than the original, although I feel this might be more just a difference between the 80's and today. And the CGI...was a bit overdone. Quite a bit of it lacked the physical presence to really feel threatening or feel like the characters were not just sitting in front of a blue screen.
Overall worth seeing IMHO.
MMCJawa |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
oh rereading the comments, some general concerns raised based on the trailer:
As far as black characters being cliche/token, Leslie Jones as Patty is actually a huge improvement over Ernie Hudson's character. She joins the team as a self-taught historian of New York City lore, and significantly contributes to the team, versus just holding another proton pack.
As far as Raunch goes, uh...It's a stretch to really identify any. There is certainly far far less than the original, as the movie skews harder towards PG than the originals. The "all the cracks" comment might actually be as explicit as things get.
For people who dislike or have mixed feelings about Melissa McCarthy, her persona is more subdued than some of her other roles. Probably closer to Mike and Molly than her more outright slapstick work. To me none of the 4 ghostbusters came across as super over the top, although they all have their moments here and there (Kate McKinnon is probably the closest, and her characterization is more weirdo way to into her tech than comic relief)
Actually the only really overtly over the top character is Kevin, who is played as being so stupid he edges into "he really shouldn't be living on his own". He's basically the dumb yet hot secretary trope cranked to 11 (and for those who are interested, don't worry...you get a lot of shirtless Hemsworth humor).
Spiral_Ninja |
OK, so we saw it and the three of us enjoyed it. Hubby rated it a solid C+, which I think is accurate.
Some very nice call-backs to the first movie, without being 'Force Awakens' heavy.
The new Ghostbusters were given decent backgrounds - and for those who remember, GB1 also had it's originals fired for their paranormal activities/beliefs. Though, I have to admit (for me, at least) the scene for McCarthy/McKinnon's firing went on WAY to long to stay funny.
The dedication to Howard Ramis at the start of the credits was very nice.
The shot that had at least one internet reviewer raging - actually made sense in the situation. *I* didn't see any of the supposed man-hating stuff and left with a new appreciation for Hemsworth's acting skills.
Once enough folks have seen it, I'll see about a deeper review, but for now, no spoilers.
My opinion: see it.
Benchak the Nightstalker Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8 |
Cole Deschain |
I might catch this on Tuesday. People I trust have been saying it's worth the price of admission, so what the hell, I'll make it a double feature day- watch The Shallows, then detox with what promises to be lighter fare.
Krensky |
Marketing and other costs (like kick backs to theaters) that aren't part of the production costs.
Break even point for most big studio movies is somewhere between two to three times the production cost.
As for discussions of a sequal, that's spin and wishful thinking at this point. If it makes a profit (which Sony says is over 300 million, but third parties are saying is closer to 400) they might be able to get a sequel green lit. If it looses money? Not likely.
Werthead |
$46 million was actually over projection (which was $40 million), so Sony are reasonably happy with it and making pretty strong sequel noises. What needs to be seen is the tail and extent of the drop-off and how that factors into Sony's plans. They may decided to press on anyway and take a moderate success on the first movie as a franchise-building exercise. Hell, they're letting Zack Snyder make more DC movies and people are still arguing over whether BATMAN V SUPERMAN made a profit, or much of one, because its marketing budget was so much bigger than the norm.
STAR TREK BEYOND has had pretty non-existent marketing and its first trailer was a disaster, but it has pulled back some goodwill and the early review buzz is mixed but generally positive-leaning. I'd expect it to do okay but I'm not sure why people are expecting it to go nuclear when neither of the previous two did and this one has far less hype and marketing behind it. In fact, I'd expect BEYOND to be much more at risk from SUICIDE SQUAD launching right behind it than GB.
As for what I thought of the film:
Remakes and reboots are a controversial topic, particularly when it's of a beloved and iconic franchise. Ghostbusters, released in 1984, was groundbreaking in its special effects but what really sold the movie was the improvisational humour of Bill Murray and excellent judgement of tone, in which a generally serious situation (an evil demon prepares to arise in the city, sending two minions to pave the way) was reacted to with what can only be called the sheer apathetic, sarcastic attitude that only New Yorkers can fully employ. Throw in some astonishingly memorable one-liners and a warm-hearted camraderie between its leads (borne from years of working together on sketch shows and other movies) and you have an all-time modern classic.
Then, five years later, the exact same gang got back together and delivered the underwhelming Ghostbusters 2, which, a few solid scenes aside, threw away a lot of the lessons learned from the first film and killed the franchise (which had expanded to an excellent animated series and a pretty solid comic book) stone dead.
Twenty-seven years have passed since then - more time than between the Cuban Missile Crisis and Ghostbusters 2 - so the time is certainly ripe for a remake of the original movie. Normally I'm against remakes if there is a way instead of doing a continuation, even through a soft reboot, but in this case it's justified. If New York had suffered two massive, public invasions of the paranormal, then it'd be harder to sell the tension and scepticism that is a core part of a Ghostbusters movie, not to mention the problematic division of duties between the old castmembers everyone wants to see in action and the new, inevitably younger characters who will have to handle the franchise in the future.
As remakes go, this is a pretty decent one. It learns from the original film that New York is as much of a character as any of the actual Ghostbusters and if it doesn't quite judge the tone as well as the first movie, it makes a pretty decent fist of it. The four actresses deliver solid comic performances, although their dramatic chops are more variable (Melissa McCartney, perhaps unexpectedly, is possibly the best performer in the more serious moments of the film, although Kristen Wiig isn't far off). However, it's Kate McKinnon as eccentric engineer/inventor Jillian Holtzmann who steals every scene she's in and gets the best action moment in the whole movie. More of her in the sequel please.
There's a host of great side-performances from the likes of Andy Garcia, Charles Dance, MK Williams and Matt Walsh (catnip for everyone who's ever written fanfic where Omar from The Wire and Mike from Veep team up against a world-threatening danger...that's just me then?) and, as you'd expect from a film made in 2016, the effects are pretty great, if used to overload in the grand finale. There's also well-judged cameos from the entire primary cast of the original film (the retired Rick Moranis and late Harold Ramis excepted), and I'd like to see more of Sigourney Weaver's new character because 1) she's Sigourney Weaver and 2) she's Holtzmann's mentor. I mean, don't wait for the sequel, just give us a Weaver-and-McKinnon spin-off (kinn-off?). That'd be just fine.
There are negatives: for every two jokes that work there's one that doesn't, the running gag of sexually objectifying Chis Hemsworth to a degree that'd be creepy if it was a female character (and that thus being the point) is amusing for the first half of the film and then runs out of the steam in the second, the villain is pretty much a complete non-entity and there's much less of an attempt to justify how the the hell the Ghostbusters pay for everything (the first film spending so much time on something pedantic resulted in some hilarious gags). There's also that odd thing of establishing that the villain has an amazing power which should win him the movie instantly (he can mind-control an entire crowd of people) but then he forgets to use it on the heroes, allowing them to defeat him. But given how horrendously bad this could have been, it's actually a pretty fun picture.
Ghostbusters (2016) (****) certainly isn't as good a film as the 1984 original, but it's not as far off as you'd expect. There's good chemistry between the leads, most of the jokes work and at under two hours the movie doesn't outstay it's welcome as some recent effects films have. There's also a break-out performance from McKinnon and the establishing of a new paradigm (the Ghostbusters getting secret government backing and funding) that could drive quite a few future installments of the series. The movie is on general release right now worldwide.
Sundakan |
How does your rating system work on these, by the by? It seems as though 4/5 is a bit much for a movie with a weak plot, crappy villain, and a comedy where 2/3 of the jokes don't work. I was expecting a solid 3, 3 and a half until you put an actual score there.
Not that the number particularly matters given there's an actual analysis above it, but is it based on some objective quality or just how much you enjoyed the film?
Tangent: Is the skepticism others (and therefore a reboot) really necessary? We already had that movie. Twice. And now three times.
Seems they had a gold mine to work with, but didn't. Why couldn't the new crew have been part of some actual city funded public service? But to keep the same tone, 30-ish years since the last event means people just don't care any more. Nobody wants to pay taxes to fund an agency that does nothing, so Ghostbusters still runs out of the back of a rundown Chinese restaurant and has to cobble together their own gear.
Hell, the skepticism can still stay, even. "We haven't had a ghost attack in 30 years! You're just trying to stop us from shutting you down!"
Cliche in its own right, of course, but at least different plot beats than the first two.
Nim Folkor |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My concerns on seeing the trailer was that the movie was just going to be a slapstick comedy that didn't at all follow the tone of the first movie. I had to drag one of my friends who didn't want to go see it because we are both huge Ghostbusters fans and he didn't want to see a favorite franchise from our youth get destroyed. Instead, we both thought that the move did an excellent job of capturing the mix of comedy and seriousness that the original had.
I thought that the characters were well done and didn't look at any of them and say that is the Peter, theres Ray, etc... I thought Leslie Jones' character brought her own specialized knowledge to the team. In a ghost investigation business, having someone that can tell you the history of a location off the top of her head would be extremely valuable.
Overall I liked the movie and I honestly think that while some sexism is hurting ticket sales, the trailer is doing far worse. I believe that there is a group of fans of the originals that think that their franchise is getting the same treatment as Will Ferril's Land of the Lost. I am hoping word of mouth will get those people to go see it. I would like to see a sequel.
Werthead |
4/5 is a bit much for a movie with a weak plot, crappy villain, and a comedy where 2/3 of the jokes don't work
The original GHOSTBUSTERS had a weak plot, crappy villain and probably a fifth to a quarter of the jokes didn't work, and I'd be inclined to give that 5 stars ;)
Films can rise up above their weakness, and sometimes can rise up above them massively. This does so pretty well.
Rosgakori Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere |
Seen it yesterday, really liked it. And yes, Kate McKinnon was awesome from start to finish. Hemsworth made me laugh so much, he was a ball of fun. All the actors had chemistry between them. Not all jokes landed but most did. Villain/ending bit weak but at least it looks fun and new ghost designs are impressive.
Probably gonna see this again!
Jaçinto |
Every male character was an idiot or a jerk. The villain gets powers out of nowhere. Stupid fart jokes but wait that wasn't a fart as it was from the front. No repercussions for their actions, like being suspects in a murder. Violating their own rules where they end up flat out killing ghosts rather than trapping them. Only ever trap one ghost and it escapes. They pulled super ghost fighting moves out of nowhere and never missed a single shot. Somehow even had pinpoint accuracy on an arced long range shot. The ghost driving their car to help them for no reason.
This was no where close to the dry subtle humour of the original. Everyone was trying to be over the top. The actors barely played off of each other at all. The ghost designs were pretty bad as it looked like Casper or Eddie Murphy's haunted mansion or the newer scooby doo movie ghosts quality. The original had more practical effects ghosts and they felt real.
This movie was just bad. I was going to say that I don't know how anyone can like it, but then I remember that even things like Honey Boo Boo had fans.
Kobold Catgirl |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I didn't like the original Ghostbusters that much, either.
;P
On an unrelated note: The more outrage I hear about this movie, the more inclined I honestly am to see it. I hope that the fact this movie "flopped" doesn't lead to Hollywood's typical tendency to kill female stars' careers—I know there's a lot more fragility there than with their male counterparts right now. It sucks how the vocal minority that wants to get intensely angry about this decided to bring down the hatemob it did on one of the lead actresses, too (though I guess it's some comfort that it finally got Twitter to ban someone, considering all the BS they usually let their users get away with).
I've heard nothing but praise for the lead actors in it. I'll probably put it where I put movies like Terminator, Sisters, and other "You have to see this movie!" movies: If I get the chance, I'll see it. If I don't, eh, I won't mourn it.
Werthead |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every male character was an idiot or a jerk.
Like in the original movie (okay, maybe that was a little harsh).
The villain gets powers out of nowhere.
Like in the original movie.
Stupid fart jokes
Like the original movie had several stupid dick jokes and jokes about how hilarious it was to stalk a woman.
No repercussions for their actions, like being suspects in a murder.
As the movie explained, rather clearly I thought, they were getting cover from the Mayor's office from the start.
Violating their own rules where they end up flat out killing ghosts rather than trapping them.
I don't think you can kill ghosts (there may be a clue in the description there). Their equipment either traps them, disperses them or sends them to Michigan.
They pulled super ghost fighting moves out of nowhere and never missed a single shot. Somehow even had pinpoint accuracy on an arced long range shot.
This isn't true at all. They constantly miss almost the whole time. They shoot up the subway tunnel before finally trapping the ghost and then he escapes anyway. They blast up the theatre (the manager screaming about the art deco getting shot) before managing to land a hit. They also somehow manage to completely miss the giant creature at the end of the film. Their hit ratio is way below that of the original film.
The ghost driving their car to help them for no reason.
Slimer doesn't help them. He steals the car and at the end of the film they trick him into driving into the portal (rather conveniently).
This was no where close to the dry subtle humour of the original.
Original what? Certainly not the original Ghostbusters. The original GB was certainly more restrained and grounded (to a certain degree), but it wasn't exactly a Noel Coward play.
Belle Sorciere |
Yeah, I didn't like the original Ghostbusters that much, either.
;P
On an unrelated note: The more outrage I hear about this movie, the more inclined I honestly am to see it. I hope that the fact this movie "flopped" doesn't lead to Hollywood's typical tendency to kill female stars' careers—I know there's a lot more fragility there than with their male counterparts right now. It sucks how the vocal minority that wants to get intensely angry about this decided to bring down the hatemob it did on one of the lead actresses, too (though I guess it's some comfort that it finally got Twitter to ban someone, considering all the BS they usually let their users get away with).
I've heard nothing but praise for the lead actors in it. I'll probably put it where I put movies like Terminator, Sisters, and other "You have to see this movie!" movies: If I get the chance, I'll see it. If I don't, eh, I won't mourn it.
To be fair, for a "flop" it had the second-best showing for its opening weekend, after The Secret Life of Pets. Then there's this story that says:
After pulling in nearly $46 million at the box office, making it one of the top-grossing live-action comedies in years, Sony executives are looking to capitalize on the success of Ghostbusters and plans are in the works for a sequel.
Alzrius |
The point being that Ghostbusters isn't being discussed as a flop.
Consider the source. You cited Polygon, the video game news website that once said "all video games are stupid, of course."
ShinHakkaider |
The point being that Ghostbusters isn't being discussed as a flop.
With a listed budget of 144 million in order for it to be successful the gross would have to be at least 288-300 million (roughly a little more than twice the shooting budget).
Right now it's grossed 83million.
WORLDWIDE.
It may be one of the high grossing comedy in years but I'd guess that those other comedies didnt have a 144 milllion dollar budget they needed to recoup and were trying to re-ignite a franchise.
Sony will NEVER declare their movie a flop, Kevin Mack's example of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 is spot on here.
GHOSTBUSTERS came in second on it's opening weekend. STAR TREK BEYOND opened this weekend.
JASON BOURNE opens next weekend.
SUICIDE SQUAD opens the weekend after THAT.
It's highly unlikely that GHOSTBUSTERS is going to recoup it's budget in theatrical release. We'll see in a month or so. But right now? It's a flop.
Pan |
China hates Ghosts (among other things) is the biggest problem GB reboot is facing.
On an unrelated note: The more outrage I hear about this movie, the more inclined I honestly am to see it. I hope that the fact this movie "flopped" doesn't lead to Hollywood's typical tendency to kill female stars' careers.
Doubtful, Mcarthy and Whig are pretty well established already. Maybe their counterparts though.
Belle Sorciere |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Belle Sorciere wrote:The point being that Ghostbusters isn't being discussed as a flop.It's highly unlikely that GHOSTBUSTERS is going to recoup it's budget in theatrical release. We'll see in a month or so. But right now? It's a flop.
Literally the only places I've seen this film discussed as a flop are this forum and MRA sites.
Belle Sorciere |
Belle Sorciere wrote:The point being that Ghostbusters isn't being discussed as a flop.Consider the source. You cited Polygon, the video game news website that once said "all video games are stupid, of course."
That's not the only source of that quote, just the first one I found. Also, I don't see how your quote discredits Polygon for all time. With such standards in place no media would be remotely credible.
Krensky |
Who knew the Hollywood Reporter and Variety were MRA blogs?
Box-Office Analysis: Why the 'Ghostbusters' Reboot May Haunt Sony
Was ‘Ghostbusters’ Too Expensive to Launch a New Franchise?
The film had a 63% drop off Friday, so it's really not looking good.
Sundakan |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ShinHakkaider wrote:Literally the only places I've seen this film discussed as a flop are this forum and MRA sites.Belle Sorciere wrote:The point being that Ghostbusters isn't being discussed as a flop.It's highly unlikely that GHOSTBUSTERS is going to recoup it's budget in theatrical release. We'll see in a month or so. But right now? It's a flop.
You're right, everyone knows numbers are misogynistic.