GHOSTBUSTERS 3
Discussion
Mr Snrub said:
The Guardian have named it their cultural film of 2016, manage to link it all with Clinton
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/dec/30/cu...
SJWs still can't get over the fact no one liked this crappy film
When it comes to things like this The Guardian is the king of reductionist SJW'ism. If you think Ghostbusters (2016) is bad - you must be a misogynist or otherwise regressive. You can't dislike it, and it's not merely a movie it's a movement.https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/dec/30/cu...
SJWs still can't get over the fact no one liked this crappy film
It's reductionism like this that contributed to a groundswell of anti-libertarianism sentiment - labelling Brexiteers xenophobes, Trump supporters misogynists and fascists. The perptually triggered authors and supporters of these thinkpieces have no problem offending large swathes of the population. There's no nuance in these editorials, just epithets.
Ghostbusters (2016) is a bad movie. A badly crafted reboot made by a man-hating director. Maybe if they'd actually made a decent film people would've been on board with it, but it's easier to just blame MEN for not liking the film uncritically.
If the film had actually been good, then I have might have forgiven it it for it's most heinous crime...the fact it's a reboot in the first place (gender is not applicable here since I don't care).
But Sony are just so desperate, so desperate. Look at Ghostbusters, look at SPider-Man. They can't help but enviously eye up the hared universes of other companies and utterly miss the point of why they are beloved.
But Sony are just so desperate, so desperate. Look at Ghostbusters, look at SPider-Man. They can't help but enviously eye up the hared universes of other companies and utterly miss the point of why they are beloved.
JagLover said:
If you look at the movies of the last two decades men seem very happy with female action heroes.
Not just movies either.Starbuck and Boomer were very well received in the reimagined BSG despite replacing male characters.
Captain Janeway in ST Voyager always rates pretty highly too. This survey looked at who was most inspiring, intelligent, decisive and courageous - and Janeway rates highly in all categories (well above almost all of the Male captains)
http://www.blastr.com/2012/02/after_50000_votes_yo...
We had Commander Ivanova in Babylon 5, Buffy, Xena etc
Female action heroes have been around on TV for ages. I grew up watching Wonder Woman, Charlie's Angels, Cagney and Lacey, She-Ra and Thundercats (Cheetara) back in the 1970s and 80s - and going back even further we had the various incarnations of the Avengers TV series in the 1960s with Cathy Gale, Emma Peel and Tara King - so it's hardly a new phenomenon that 'sad misogynistic men' need to get used to.
chris watton said:
The Underworld and Resident Evil franchises have strong female leads, too...
Yep. This (by no means exhaustive) list should give an idea as to how resistant we all are to the idea of 'female action heroes'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_actio...
Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 1st January 12:35
What was incomprehensible to me was, what did they think they were going to improve about the original movie?? It is one of the greatest and most successful comedies ever, they were setting themselves up for failure from the start. It would have made more sense to make GB3 some kind of branch sequel to the originals. Really, the best course of action would have been to clean up the print of the original movie and release some kind of Ultimate Edition (can't do a Director's Cut). It would have been far better, and probably made more money.
mko9 said:
What was incomprehensible to me was, what did they think they were going to improve about the original movie?? It is one of the greatest and most successful comedies ever, they were setting themselves up for failure from the start.
It didn't have to improve on the original to be a good movie. Some intelligent and subtle humour coupled with respect for the original would have gone a long way.The problem is - with Feig involved, it was only ever going to be full of shouting, forced awkward moments, stupid physical comedy (usually involving the 'fat one'), man-bashing and toilet humour - because that's what Feig does - he's a one trick pony when it comes to comedy.
Bridesmaids with proton packs is what was predicted for this movie - and that's pretty much what was delivered.
Interestingly - all of Feigs 'female centric' comedies have taken a similar amount at the box office.
Bridesmaids = 288.4
Spy = 235.7
The Heat = 229.9
Ghostbusters (2016) = 229.1
Perhaps his movies are appealing to the same people each time, which appears rather narrow in scope.
It's fine when the movie has a relatively low budget like Bridesmaids, but when you splash out the cash like they did with GB2016, a larger return on investment is needed. You need to appeal to a wider audience and pull in repeat custom/multiple viewings.
That was never going to happen with Feig at the helm. Not only did GB2016 not appeal to fans of the originals, it's completely negative portrayal of men coupled with the 'misogyny' furore probably alienated a large portion of their potential audience. It doesn't even appear to have appealed to all of the fans of Feig's style of comedy given it took less than any of his previous outings.
How anybody at Sony couldn't have seen this train wreck coming a mile off - but then again, the cynic in me thinks that perhaps the publicity and controversy is what they were after all along.
Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 1st January 16:42
TBH I found Bridesmaids to be absolutely hilarious, despite expecting completely the opposite after seeing the trailer...the bathroom scene in the dress shop from the trailer just looked terrible, but in-context within the film and characters it made me laugh uncontrollably, and still does.
I've no desire at all to see Ghostbusters though purely because I am sick to death of "remakes" and "reboots" , which just seem like a complete cop-out compared to actually coming up with an interesting new story , instead riding the coattails of a much loved film with the perfect original cast. Male cast / female cast - who cares, just make something NEW and ORIGINAL ffs.
I've no desire at all to see Ghostbusters though purely because I am sick to death of "remakes" and "reboots" , which just seem like a complete cop-out compared to actually coming up with an interesting new story , instead riding the coattails of a much loved film with the perfect original cast. Male cast / female cast - who cares, just make something NEW and ORIGINAL ffs.
JimSuperSix said:
TBH I found Bridesmaids to be absolutely hilarious, despite expecting completely the opposite after seeing the trailer...the bathroom scene in the dress shop from the trailer just looked terrible, but in-context within the film and characters it made me laugh uncontrollably, and still does.
That's just it though - that type of humour does have it's place in the right context/movie. I have both Heat and Spy on DVD and quite enjoyed both of them. Melissa McCarthy's shouty rants can be funny and thought Kristen Wiig was pretty good in Paul too.I personally don't like bridesmaids - and oddly my wife doesn't really like it either, even though she's usually into these type of 'chick flick' comedies (27 Dresses, Bride Wars, My Big Fat Greek Wedding etc).
Moonhawk said:
JimSuperSix said:
TBH I found Bridesmaids to be absolutely hilarious, despite expecting completely the opposite after seeing the trailer...the bathroom scene in the dress shop from the trailer just looked terrible, but in-context within the film and characters it made me laugh uncontrollably, and still does.
That's just it though - that type of humour does have it's place in the right context/movie. I have both Heat and Spy on DVD and quite enjoyed both of them. Melissa McCarthy's shouty rants can be funny and thought Kristen Wiig was pretty good in Paul too.I personally don't like bridesmaids - and oddly my wife doesn't really like it either, even though she's usually into these type of 'chick flick' comedies (27 Dresses, Bride Wars, My Big Fat Greek Wedding etc).
As for Spy and (to a lesser degree) Heat they were (IMO) way better than B/M and a country mile ahead of GB
tamore said:
blimey, just caught 20 mins of the new ghostbusters film as it's come onto sky movies. the original was a decent comedy, albeit a bit rough around the edges. the new one didn't appear to be a comedy in any way.
It's utter st. It isn't funny. It's racist. It's sexist. However, it's probably branded as being great by some because women are now the lead characters.
Thing is, I wouldn't mind any of the 'ist' content if it didn't take itself seriously and it was clever. It does take itself seriously and it isn't at all clever.
The ghosts in it aren't a patch on the older movies, despite them being decades old.
The cast are appalling. I see they have used some women who seem to play the same annoying character in every other film they have been in. The fawning over Chris Hemsworth by one of them is cringeworthy. How the fk do these annoying fktards get given so much work?
The plot it utter st too. I had hopes that because it carries the Ghostbusters name, at least the story would be fun. It isn't.
Unfortunately, it's as bad as the reviews say, in my opinion. Just a blatant use of a good name in order to try and ram 'equality' down our throats. Nonsense.
Halb said:
Ghostbusters Answer the Call is mostly st, but I do like the lead fawning over over Hemsworth, it is very reminiscent of Venkman (one of my cinematic heroes) fawning over Dana.
Except in the original both characters are strong, intelligent characters and Venkmans attempts to woo her are funny and endearing. In the new one, the big joke is Hemsworth is as thick as a plank, that's it. After the initial shock factor of seeing CH act like a huge dork wears off, the joke very quickly becomes one dimensional and stale.It's also very obvious it was very cynically put in, oh look at the big macho handsome guy whose actually useless, we'll have all the women rolling in the aisles and punching their fists to girl power.
The whole movie misses the subtle and cleverly played tones of the original and instead delivers it's gags like a punch to the face with an added side of modern gender angst to make it seem "edgy" but which just comes of as controversy for the sake of it. It's everything that's bad about modern Hollywood in one film.
techguyone said:
That should be a single line critique of Ghostbusters everywhere, maybe then Hollywood would get the message it ain't wanted.
Ghostbusters: It's everything that's bad about modern Hollywood in one film.
They won't get the message until they acknowledge why the movie failed.Ghostbusters: It's everything that's bad about modern Hollywood in one film.
Whilst they continue to believe "it failed cos misogyny innit" - garbage like this will continue to be made.
Guvernator said:
Except in the original both characters are strong, intelligent characters and Venkmans attempts to woo her are funny and endearing. In the new one, the big joke is Hemsworth is as thick as a plank, that's it. After the initial shock factor of seeing CH act like a huge dork wears off, the joke very quickly becomes one dimensional and stale.
It's also very obvious it was very cynically put in, oh look at the big macho handsome guy whose actually useless, we'll have all the women rolling in the aisles and punching their fists to girl power.
The whole movie misses the subtle and cleverly played tones of the original and instead delivers it's gags like a punch to the face with an added side of modern gender angst to make it seem "edgy" but which just comes of as controversy for the sake of it. It's everything that's bad about modern Hollywood in one film.
Funny and endearing are very subjective, Venkman is a bit slimy, that is part of his character, 'I'll put moves on her/check her out', can be funny, but to say that it's more endearing that the moves made by the female lead (and I can't recall any dialogue but I'd be surprised if it was slimier than Venkman's) is one sided in my opinion.It's also very obvious it was very cynically put in, oh look at the big macho handsome guy whose actually useless, we'll have all the women rolling in the aisles and punching their fists to girl power.
The whole movie misses the subtle and cleverly played tones of the original and instead delivers it's gags like a punch to the face with an added side of modern gender angst to make it seem "edgy" but which just comes of as controversy for the sake of it. It's everything that's bad about modern Hollywood in one film.
Halb said:
Funny and endearing are very subjective, Venkman is a bit slimy, that is part of his character, 'I'll put moves on her/check her out', can be funny, but to say that it's more endearing that the moves made by the female lead (and I can't recall any dialogue but I'd be surprised if it was slimier than Venkman's) is one sided in my opinion.
He was slimy - but Dana was a strong, independent character and saw right through his act.She only warmed to him later after getting to know him better and finally fell for him after he put his life on the line to save her and the city. Her character wasn't played for a fool and she wasn't made out to be an idiot (unlike pretty much all of the men in GB3).
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff