Discuss all things Ghostbusters here, unless they would be better suited in one of the few forums below.
#4912031
This content received too many dislikes. Click SHOW to view
I haven't been on this forum for a while because the Ghostbusters fandom has become a toxic place. Ever since the release of Ghostbusters (2016) all I've seen are torrents of sexist and racist abuse hurled towards the Ghostbusters (2016) cast and crew - abuse which created a negative word of mouth around Ghostbusters (2016), and ended with Paul Feig's directorial record tarnished before his blockbuster Summer tentpole movie directing career had even begun.

Paul Feig will probably only be able to direct 15/R-rated comedy films now, and we'll likely never see him direct a big Summer blockbuster again.

What made me come back was today's announcement of Ghostbusters 3, a film that's a direct sequel to the original 1984 continuity. Now I'm very excited about this film, and I can't wait to see it, but the behind-the-scenes issue with this film is that it's letting the sexists win.

This is exactly what those disgusting misogynists wanted. In their minds, it validates their 'point' that women fighting ghosts 'doesn't work' (even though it does), and turns what should really be a harmless supernatural comedy movie into a political victory for people who only spread hate and contempt towards others.

I hope Jason Reitman has a plan to address this before the film's release.
#4912034
Completely agree.

I said my thoughts here viewtopic.php?f=37&t=42533&start=240#p4911993

It's heart breaking how a series you grow up with stuff like extreme cartoon and even orginal movies where it feels all inclusive became a breading ground of intolerance and hatred. It made me distance my self from it for while. It's sad how the fans almost killed the fandom and ruined something they claim to love.

The original actors loved new one and were even in it. It's been well documented how hard it is to get bill Murray to do anything Ghostbusters yet that was something he supported and got involved in and the "fans" said "no you don't know Ghostbusters , only we do" to the originals!

This movie I'm excited for but I don't see it as the originals back to fix the mistakes of the last movie. I see it as people passionate about Ghostbusters trying to save what they love from a fandom who held it hostage.

Like Jillian Holtzmann is right there with Peter Venkman as my favourite busters.

Also the haters claim they only hated because reboot yet Spider-Man homing , Batman Begins , Casino Royale and more were all profitable and did t have hate. They also had all male leads.

New Dr who ? Sexist backlash , star wars under disnry? Sexist backlash , wonder woman even had it as did supergirl TV show , horizon zero dawn ,and more it's unacceptable.

I'm hoping though the new film is seen as a beacon of hope. I'm hoping the best if the people in the fandom get brought back now the big sexist backlash has moved on and I'm hoping people can remember all races all sexes all sexualities ect.... Can enjoy the same stuff and we can put the community back into the fandom. Ioved Ghostbusters my wholeife and hate that it got used as a weapon of hate
#4912043
SSJmole wrote: January 16th, 2019, 4:24 pm Completely agree.

I said my thoughts here viewtopic.php?f=37&t=42533&start=240#p4911993

It's heart breaking how a series you grow up with stuff like extreme cartoon and even orginal movies where it feels all inclusive became a breading ground of intolerance and hatred. It made me distance my self from it for while. It's sad how the fans almost killed the fandom and ruined something they claim to love.

The original actors loved new one and were even in it. It's been well documented how hard it is to get bill Murray to do anything Ghostbusters yet that was something he supported and got involved in and the "fans" said "no you don't know Ghostbusters , only we do" to the originals!

This movie I'm excited for but I don't see it as the originals back to fix the mistakes of the last movie. I see it as people passionate about Ghostbusters trying to save what they love from a fandom who held it hostage.

Like Jillian Holtzmann is right there with Peter Venkman as my favourite busters.

Also the haters claim they only hated because reboot yet Spider-Man homing , Batman Begins , Casino Royale and more were all profitable and did t have hate. They also had all male leads.

New Dr who ? Sexist backlash , star wars under disnry? Sexist backlash , wonder woman even had it as did supergirl TV show , horizon zero dawn ,and more it's unacceptable.

I'm hoping though the new film is seen as a beacon of hope. I'm hoping the best if the people in the fandom get brought back now the big sexist backlash has moved on and I'm hoping people can remember all races all sexes all sexualities ect.... Can enjoy the same stuff and we can put the community back into the fandom. Ioved Ghostbusters my wholeife and hate that it got used as a weapon of hate
Agreed. Call me mad but when I watch something I just want to be entertained. I couldn't care less about the genitals.
SSJmole, Kingpin liked this
#4912044
Slimered wrote: January 16th, 2019, 5:38 pmAgreed. Call me mad but when I watch something I just want to be entertained. I couldn't care less about the genitals.
Exactly. And the cast choices made choices as the originals were great in comedy before as were these in successful and praised comedies. The alternative is Adam Sandler and his crew and no thanks , pixels shows us why that would not be fun.
#4912058
A Ghostbusters reboot can not be compared to a Batman or Dpider-man reboot. Those francises haved had tons of incarnations before Begins and Homecoming. Plus they came after what were widely considered bad incarnations. Also, they didnt change the Bruce Wayne to be some other unrelated character.

GB2016 wasnt a reboot, it was an else worlds story. It remade and reimagined the first movie instead of building on it. Thats nit what most fans wanted. We wanted the iriginal characters in some capacity, maybe passing the torch to keep their legacy going. We wanted an expansion of the GB world, not an else worlds.

Regardless of what tyoe of movie GB2016 is, it was terribly made. I actually like the idea of it and the characters. What I hate was the adlibed babbling that was encouraged by a terrible director who couldnt or wouldnt control the cast. The scene that introduced Kevin was reportedly 45 mins of adlib and Mike Hat was what made it into the film? I shutter to think about what was cut. Plud the editing was awful. I saw a fan edit that was far superior, but even then it was only a decent movie.

There were some trolls that just liked getting under people's skin with sexist crap, but the movie failed because it was bad. The same trolls tried it with Wonder Woman, but that was a good movie in a series of bad DC movies and the trolls failed. Truth is sexist internet trolls are a small minority and have no real power. They were magnified by SONY as a means of giving the movie a scapegoat when people said it was bad.

I like the concept of the movie. Patti was the best, most realistic character. She was the only one that actually was scared of the ghosts instead of trying to be an action star. Since when was Ghostbusters about doing flips and crazy action moves? Patti reminded me of the original four: a regular person reacting to a crazy situation and just trying to do the right thing. She mostly deliveded her lines in a dry and serious way. The only parts with her I did not like were when she adlibbed.

GB2020 isnt being made because sexists won. Its being made because GB2016 movie was really bad and had a director that had no control over his project. Stop blaming sexism for its failure. It is a bad movie that ignored what makes this franchise great and actively attacked the fandom. For f*** sake, it ended with them fiting the Ghostbusters logo and shooting it in the crotch! If that isnt a symbol for attacking your own fan base I dont know what is.
savintheday, deadderek liked this
#4912059
In my honest opinion, you say the mysognists win, but I say everyone wins.

A sequel is something almost every GBfan wants to see.

While I'm very onboard with ATC, and I disliked the unfair backlash it got, I can understand why fans are so happy to see this.

ATC did lackluster in BO and was a different movie in comedic tone trying to cater to a younger audience. I still liked it (cept for the third part which felt rushed) and was ok with a new universe. The build up towards this movie was littered with (mysognists) trolls, but in the end, they hardly matter. They might hold a few topics hostage on a site or two, but that's it.

ATC biggest problem was timing. The Sony leaks happened, Ramis passed away, Bill Murray the biggest star of the franchise, vetoed any sequel and Sony decided a reboot was the safest bet to test the waters after so many years. In hindsight, a very ballsy (pardon the pun) move to reboot with 4 female GB ( to differentiate as much from the OGB as people would always compare), but the many leaks fueled by the media ensured it's downfall. It became a political thing when it was never intended to be, on top of not being the sequel people wanted. If this was just a spin-off in a healthy franchise no one would have batted an eye, but during the build-up people thought this was the only new direction GB was going in, without a proper send of to the OGB.

So in short, ATC was badly timed, and dared to be different, perhaps to different, with leaks giving an aura of turmoil.

Reitman and co always rallied for the movie once they were convinced it was the best ( and at the time only) step forward, and accepted it into the canon thx to IDW comics.

I have faith we will see the girls again, probably not in a sequel, but in a spiderverse kind of way, but now is the safest bet is a sequel to the originals, as it's long overdue. Not because a small but vocal part of mysognists wanted this, but because every GBfan would love to see a proper sequel.
*NormalGamer*, Sav C, deadderek and 4 others liked this
#4912061
Slimered wrote: January 16th, 2019, 3:54 pmPaul Feig will probably only be able to direct 15/R-rated comedy films now, and we'll likely never see him direct a big Summer blockbuster again.
Good.

To your point about female GB's, I think most people don't have a problem with that concept, so long as it isn't jammed down our throats with a dose of social politics. Of course women can be Ghostbusters! Just don't be sanctimonious pricks about it!
deadderek, EddieSpenser liked this
#4912069
savintheday wrote: January 17th, 2019, 12:31 am In the 80's we had some badass heroines who didn't have to remind us they were badass. Just sayin'.
The problem in that sentence is 'some'. The ratio of females was an appalling 5:1 ratio, while getting less money for the job to boot, and mainly getting typecast.

Apart from that, if you are thinking of the same small list I'm thinking those still got out of their pants , had good looking bodies, etc.

This should be common knowledge by now!
#4912071
I'm saying we are not judged on individual merits instead of race and genetalia now, and we certainly weren't there in the 80's, while your post about 80's heroines seemed to imply that you think we are, or that we all should just accept that.

If we just accept the general concessus of that awfull thought, blacks would still be sitting in the back of busses, and women weren't allowed to vote.

Now, genders can never be truly equal ofcourse, but equal pay and a better handling of female actors are not that big of a stretch to equalize.
Last edited by Alphagaia on January 17th, 2019, 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
#4912072
Are there many bad ass action stars that arent in good shape?

Also, you are equating equal opportunity with equal outcome. They arent the same. At this moment we have equal opportunity. Women are not being kept out of action movies. But that does not mean we will have an equal number of movies starring men and women.

This same logic applies to regular life. Women dominate certain fields, men dominate others. As a whole (and yes, not ALL, but most) women te d to be better multitaskers and organizers. You will find them in administrative type roles. This includes accounting, office management, social work, legal/financial analyst, etc. Men tend to dominate more physical jobs and comedy. We tend to gravitate towards what we are good at. Personally, I am more administrative minded and process driven, but I was also raised by a single mother whonis the same way so perhaps I picked up on those traits.

We need to stop acting like everything should be split down the middle in order for things to be equal. Thats not how it works. Women tend to not be coal miners and men tend not to be administers. That doesnt mean thoseines of work are sexist.

God, why are we still talking about this. GB2016 was just a bad movie. It had nothing to do with the gender if the actors, they were just not good in the movie and had a terrible director. I honestly think that if he stuck to the dam script and gave some direction the movie would have been far better.
deadderek, savintheday liked this
#4912074
Alphagaia wrote: January 17th, 2019, 1:38 am I'm saying we are not judged on individual merits instead of race and genetalia now, and we certainly weren't there in the 80's, while your post about 80's heroines seemed to imply that you think we are, or that we all should just accept that.

If we just accept the general concessus of that awfull thought, blacks would still be sitting in the back of busses, and women weren't allowed to vote.

Now, genders can never be truly equal ofcourse, but equal pay and a better handling of female actors are not that big of a stretch to equalize.
Sounds like someone needs to hit the damn gym!
#4912075
Alphagaia wrote: January 17th, 2019, 1:38 am If we just accept the general concessus of that awfull thought, blacks would still be sitting in the back of busses, and women weren't allowed to vote.
The difference is there were actual laws that prevented races from integrating and women from voting. There is no law at all that stands in the way of anyone. The movie just stinks, thats it. It has nothing to do with theem being women.

Fun fact, many women were against gaining the vote because they didnt want to be drafted. Women's suffrage gaines popularity among women after that provision was no longer an issue.
deadderek liked this
#4912076
Wiggyof9 wrote: January 17th, 2019, 1:41 am Are there many bad ass action stars that arent in good shape?

Also, you are equating equal opportunity with equal outcome. They arent the same. At this moment we have equal opportunity. Women are not being kept out of action movies. But that does not mean we will have an equal number of movies starring men and women.
We certainly don't have equal opportunity. I see enough prove of this in my own little bubble, but i'll keep it on the Hollywood topic: Women are kept out of (action) movies in a 5:1 ratio and (especially in the 80's) are often the prices the hero gets at the end. Nowadays their portratyal is much better, and Hollywood, while sometimes overreacting, is doing better.

I don't need a perfect split between gender in movies. But a 5:1 ratio is the complete other side of the spectrum.

To clarify, as Wiggyof9 seems to state this a few times: this has nothing to do with how the movie is perceived or what your opinion of the movie is, and mysoginy is not what made the BO lacklustre. I'm responding at Savingtheday for implying the 80's already treated female actors right.

Why is wanting to adress how Hollywood prefers men and certain races different because there were actual laws that kept the female rights down? That only made it worse and solidifies how wrong we were at the time, that there were even laws about it. At least that was easier to solve then the management of powerful corporations.
Last edited by Alphagaia on January 17th, 2019, 2:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
#4912077
Alphagaia wrote: January 17th, 2019, 1:38 am Now, genders can never be truly equal ofcourse, but equal pay and a better handling of female actors are not that big of a stretch to equalize.
One, the wage gap is a proven myth. 72 cents on the dollar took all jobs into consideration in one large group, it did not compare the same jobs to each other. If being a garbage collector pays more and being a crossing guard pays less and there are more female crossing guards than female garbage collectors, that doesnt mean women are paid less on avergae for being women. Yet, the study this stat comes from used a similar method to measure wages.

Truth is both sexes are paid equally for the same level of work. However, women tend to put in less OT, women tend to take time away from work to care for their family, women tend to graviate towards lower paying jobs, etc. As far as actors go, there are tons of roles for women in modern media and have been for some time. However, actors are paid based on what they can negotiate. What they can negotiate is based on their popularity. Iy isnt equal within the same gender let one between the two.
#4912079
Alphagaia wrote: January 17th, 2019, 2:07 am
Wiggyof9 wrote: January 17th, 2019, 1:41 am Are there many bad ass action stars that arent in good shape?

Also, you are equating equal opportunity with equal outcome. They arent the same. At this moment we have equal opportunity. Women are not being kept out of action movies. But that does not mean we will have an equal number of movies starring men and women.
We certainly don't have equal opportunity. I see enough prove of this in my own little bubble, but i'll keep it on the Hollywood topic: Women are kept out of (action) movies in a 5:1 ratio and (especially in the 80's) are often the prices the hero gets at the end. Nowadays their portratyal is much better, and Hollywood, while sometimes overreacting, is doing better.

I don't need a perfect split between gender in movies. But a 5:1 ratio is the complete other side of the spectrum.

To clarify, as Wiggyof9 seems to state this a few times: this has nothing to do with how the movie is perceived or what your opinion of the movie is, and mysoginy is not what made the BO lacklustre. I'm responding at Savingtheday for implying the 80's already treated female actors right.

Why is wanting to adress how Hollywood prefers men and cerain races different there were actual laws that kept the female rights down? That only made it worse and solidifies how wrong we were at the time, that there were even laws about it. At least that was easier to solve then the management of powerful corporations.
The 80s were aong time ago. Obviously the further back you go the less equality you will find.

As far as women being kept out of action movies, keep in mind roles for actors are written. Its not like all roles are genderless unless casting. Characters are written to have genders and physical traits. So its not like women are showing up to casting calls and being told no. The roles need to be written. But movies are art and totally subjective. If men tend to like action movies, and men tend to write action movies, then men will tend to write their own perspective and have a male lead. That doesnt mean its sexist, it means more women should try writing action movies.

Again, not having equal outcome doesnt mean there is not equal opportinity. There is nothing preventing anyone from writing a strong female action star other than public interest. If audiences responded to those movies, we would have more of those movies. However, the fact is The Rock makes for a more convincing action hero than Jennifer Lawrence (unless she has super powers).
#4912080
I don't think we are that much at odds with each other regarding female actors, Wiggy! I was just addressing the wrong perception of Savingtheday, and you seem to acknowledge bthat the 80's weren't the best time for female roles.
#4912081
I have an idea! It's the Powerpuff Girls but instead of girls, it's a bunch of burly men with tats and smoking cigars. And if you don't like it, you're a sexist pig, and not because I'm a creatively bankrupt hack!

Some ideas are bad. Not a crime to point it out.

Actually I'd watch the hell out of this.

My point is, the genders of movie characters isn't as big a deal to most people as the media would like you to believe. If the characters are well written, their gender is irrelevant.

That said, I wouldn't want to live in a world with Crispin Glover cast as Ripley, or Tiny Tim as Sarah Connor.
Last edited by savintheday on January 17th, 2019, 3:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
#4912082
Alphagaia wrote: January 17th, 2019, 2:25 am I don't think we are that much at odds with each other regarding opinion, Wiggy! I was just addressing the wrong perception of Savingtheday, and you seem to acknowledge bthat the 80's weren't the best time for female roles.
No, they were not the "best times", but they laid ground work for what was to come. Without the Ripleys and Sarah Conners we wouldn't have the Sarlet Witches, Black Windows, Wonder Womans (Women?), Captain Marvels, etc of today. They introduced a generation to the idea of a female action star. In many ways those roles were more important than the roles of today.

Saying the 80s were bad for female action roles is like saying the 1920s were bad for women's rights. Yes, technically that is true, but it ignores the ground work that laid during those times.

I dont totally disagree with you, but I also dont think there is a big conspiracy to keep women out of certain jobs. Entertainment is based on audience perception. The only way to change the perception is to create compelling female characters. You dont do that by shooting your franchise's logo in the dick. (Like, they really did that in GB2016!)
savintheday liked this
#4912084
Wiggyof9 wrote: January 16th, 2019, 11:18 pm A Ghostbusters reboot can not be compared to a Batman or Dpider-man reboot. Those francises haved had tons of incarnations before Begins and Homecoming. Plus they came after what were widely considered bad incarnations. Also, they didnt change the Bruce Wayne to be some other unrelated character.

GB2016 wasnt a reboot, it was an else worlds story. It remade and reimagined the first movie instead of building on it. Thats nit what most fans wanted. We wanted the iriginal characters in some capacity, maybe passing the torch to keep their legacy going. We wanted an expansion of the GB world, not an else worlds.

Regardless of what tyoe of movie GB2016 is, it was terribly made. I actually like the idea of it and the characters. What I hate was the adlibed babbling that was encouraged by a terrible director who couldnt or wouldnt control the cast. The scene that introduced Kevin was reportedly 45 mins of adlib and Mike Hat was what made it into the film? I shutter to think about what was cut. Plud the editing was awful. I saw a fan edit that was far superior, but even then it was only a decent movie.

There were some trolls that just liked getting under people's skin with sexist crap, but the movie failed because it was bad. The same trolls tried it with Wonder Woman, but that was a good movie in a series of bad DC movies and the trolls failed. Truth is sexist internet trolls are a small minority and have no real power. They were magnified by SONY as a means of giving the movie a scapegoat when people said it was bad.

I like the concept of the movie. Patti was the best, most realistic character. She was the only one that actually was scared of the ghosts instead of trying to be an action star. Since when was Ghostbusters about doing flips and crazy action moves? Patti reminded me of the original four: a regular person reacting to a crazy situation and just trying to do the right thing. She mostly deliveded her lines in a dry and serious way. The only parts with her I did not like were when she adlibbed.

GB2020 isnt being made because sexists won. Its being made because GB2016 movie was really bad and had a director that had no control over his project. Stop blaming sexism for its failure. It is a bad movie that ignored what makes this franchise great and actively attacked the fandom. For f*** sake, it ended with them fiting the Ghostbusters logo and shooting it in the crotch! If that isnt a symbol for attacking your own fan base I dont know what is.
I disagree with all your points.

There's a clear difference between Batman and Ghostbusters. If you're rebooting Batman, you need to see Bruce Wayne. 'Ghostbusters', however, is just the name of the business - so why can't you have different characters to Peter Venkman, Ray Stantz, Egon Spengler and Winston Zeddemore?

Ghostbusters (2016) was expertly made, with stunning comedy direction from Paul Feig. I loved the improv style, it made the jokes feel natural and from the identity of the actors rather than the screenwriter. It's a sound approach, and one of the reasons why - say - repeats of Whose Line Is It Anyway are so entertaining to watch.

Ghostbusters is an action movie as well as a supernatural comedy. Further emphasising the action is just that: further emphasising the action. You'd be complaining if they weren't trying to do something different, so the fact that they were should be commended.

Also: its failure was absolutely due to the sexists. It was rated 75% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning that most critics agreed it was a great movie. If the vile sexists hadn't influenced public opinion of the film, Ghostbusters (2016) would have been a huge success.
#4912086
@ Wiigly: In agreement again! I'm not saying the 80's were the worst of times, but the names you give were more the exception then the rule. You are right those were the seeds, though. While I still think those portayals were a bit flawed, and to a point the rolls you mention nowadays are still flawed but less so, I do think they were better then most other slock.

Not agreeing on the logo crotch thing though, ghosts getting hurt is something from RGB, they sometimes even grabbed their asses in the comic as well.
Image

Rowan choosing the logo to bully the Buster's is foreshadowed and I don't think that is done to mock fans. That just doesn't make sense.

@Slimered: ATC also had an positive audience score, but I wouldn't go as far as calling the movie great! It was ok, imo. A solid 7. I also wouldn't give the sexists that much credit. It was a movie that took many leaps, and sometimes people just don't like that, ergo it only did ok in the reviews.
#4912087
Slimered wrote: January 16th, 2019, 3:54 pm I haven't been on this forum for a while because the Ghostbusters fandom has become a toxic place. Ever since the release of Ghostbusters (2016) all I've seen are torrents of sexist and racist abuse hurled towards the Ghostbusters (2016) cast and crew - abuse which created a negative word of mouth around Ghostbusters (2016), and ended with Paul Feig's directorial record tarnished before his blockbuster Summer tentpole movie directing career had even begun.

Paul Feig will probably only be able to direct 15/R-rated comedy films now, and we'll likely never see him direct a big Summer blockbuster again.

What made me come back was today's announcement of Ghostbusters 3, a film that's a direct sequel to the original 1984 continuity. Now I'm very excited about this film, and I can't wait to see it, but the behind-the-scenes issue with this film is that it's letting the sexists win.

This is exactly what those disgusting misogynists wanted. In their minds, it validates their 'point' that women fighting ghosts 'doesn't work' (even though it does), and turns what should really be a harmless supernatural comedy movie into a political victory for people who only spread hate and contempt towards others.

I hope Jason Reitman has a plan to address this before the film's release.
Ghostbusters fandom is not toxic. *fandom* in general can be toxic. It's not Ghostbusters. I'm a GB16 hater but it had zero to do with women and I think most people who didn't approve or like the reboot are in the same league as I am. We wanted a GB3 not a terrible reboot that didn't remotely resemble the aesthetic or any other measure of what came before.

Paul Feig is a millionaire and his career will be fine. It's probably best he stay away from PG-13 movies anyways and go back to his roots. Then again, I wonder what happened to the guy that did "freaks and geeks". That was a GREAT show. But that Paul Feig is not the one we got for GB16 unfortunately. If it's as Dan Aykroyd said and Paul didn't listen and spent WAAAY too much money, the failure is on him. He co-wrote and directed a box office failure. He has to own that. It wasn't the sexists that causes that movie to fail. If it were any good then word of mouth would of spread and we wouldn't be having this convo. Nobody wanted GB16. Well hardly anyone, I know it has some fans.

There is nothing to address, addressing means "they" won. Just make it like GB16 never happened. Remember Star Wars, Star Trek and every fandom in between has crazy people. Ugly people. People concerned more with race and sex than having a good time. Screw them. They don't deserve a dignified response from ANYONE.

Getting a GB3 from Jason Reitman means WE WON. The fans, the audience, the world. We get to see this world and universe continue even though all hope seemed lost. And it didn't go to someone foreign to the world. It went to family. That's a beautiful thing. A wondrous thing.

I can't wait. I don't care if he casts 6 women, 6 men, a trans sexual, a frog and alien or a stick figure. It's a 3rd GB film. That's all I care about.

The world won. This is a good thing. It's a reset. A second chance to prove that it wasn't all about the sex of the characters, it was about the middle finger to the fans who waited YEARS for a GB3. Given to a filmmaker who didn't care about GB fans because we were all mostly grouped as sexist if we didn't like the idea. Screw that.
#4912088
Slimered wrote: January 17th, 2019, 2:53 am I disagree with all your points.

There's a clear difference between Batman and Ghostbusters. If you're rebooting Batman, you need to see Bruce Wayne. 'Ghostbusters', however, is just the name of the business - so why can't you have different characters to Peter Venkman, Ray Stantz, Egon Spengler and Winston Zeddemore?

Ghostbusters (2016) was expertly made, with stunning comedy direction from Paul Feig. I loved the improv style, it made the jokes feel natural and from the identity of the actors rather than the screenwriter. It's a sound approach, and one of the reasons why - say - repeats of Whose Line Is It Anyway are so entertaining to watch.

Ghostbusters is an action movie as well as a supernatural comedy. Further emphasising the action is just that: further emphasising the action. You'd be complaining if they weren't trying to do something different, so the fact that they were should be commended.

Also: its failure was absolutely due to the sexists. It was rated 75% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning that most critics agreed it was a great movie. If the vile sexists hadn't influenced public opinion of the film, Ghostbusters (2016) would have been a huge success.
No, a reboot and a re-imagining are two different things. A reboot of a franchise takes the characters you know and does a new story with them that is separate from previous iterations. A soft-reboot takes places in the same universe as previous iterations, but changes things in a similar way as a full reboot. A re-imagining is when you take a concept and re-make it in your own image. Batman and Spider-man are reboots. GB2016 is a re-imagining. Also, by your logic anyone can be Batman or Spider-man. In fact, there are plenty of else worlds stories where that is the case.

If you think GB1984 was just about the action of busting ghosts and not the characters then I don't think we saw the same movie. There is very little busting in it. The movie works because of the interactions between the characters. These relationships carried on into RGB perfectly (for the 1st season anyway). Ghostbusters is about Peter, Ray, Winston, and Egon. You can do a GB movie without those characters, but not by erasing them from history. Also, keep in mind that for 30 plus years GBs WAS only Peter, Ray, Winston, and Egon. In games, comics, cartoons, etc. When EGB came along, they didn't throw out the old canon and replace it, they added to it with new members being taught by Egon (a soft reboot). EGB honored the old while creating new lore. That is how you handle changes in a franchise like EGB that is character driven.

If you think it was expertly made, that's your opinion. Personally, I HATE dumbed down humor and adlibs. Whose Line is an improv show. You know what you are watching and its just people making jokes. A movie requires story, timing, flow, direction. A movie can not consist of random adlibs where literally every character acts like an idiot. Every single one of the characters mugs for the camera, tells dumb jokes, etc. The original Ghostbusters was about dry wit and perfect timing and delivery of well crafts lines. You know, like a movie. The characters took shit seriously and the "jokes" were sarcastic quips based on the situation, not actual jokes and camera mugging.

Ghostbusters is NOT an action movie! What action is there? The first "action" scene is the 3 guys running away, terrified, of the library ghost. The second "action" scene is 3 guys pointing glowing sticks and shooting stuff up for comedic effect. They had no idea what they were doing and that is what made it funny. Then our "action heroes" have to walk up 23 flights of stairs and are exhausted part way through, then they get tossed around a bit, Egon becomes "terrified beyond rational thought", and they point the glowing sticks at each other, risking their lives. Where were they action stars in this? Yes, there was some action, but they didn't do flips and whip ghosts around like they were well trained super heroes. Just because it was different doesn't mean it was good.

Critic scores don't mean a movie is good. In fact, 75% is pretty bad for critic scores considering how much attention this thing had and how much the media was trying to push it along to "combat the evil sexists". I went into this movie WANTING it to be good. I avoided as many spoilers as I could. I NEVER see movies in the theater anymore, but I specifically went to see this movie and was ready to like it. The movie was BAD. It had interesting ideas, and again when a lot of the dumb adlib humor is edited out and some heart edited back in (like the deleted scene where Erin confronts her former boss and Abby and her share a real moment) the movie shows its potential. As it was released in theaters, it was awful. It wasn't the evil sexist trolls that made me not like it.

If you like the style of the movie that's fine. You like it for the same reasons I don't like it. I like Ghostbusters for the dry style of humor that had laser focused comedy. If you don't care about that and think the characters are interchangeable as long as they are busting ghosts then we just disagree on a fundamental level, but don't tell me the movie failed because of sexism. That's an excuse for failure.

BTW, quote any hilarious lines from GB2016. Anything. Personally, I can't think of any.
#4912089
Alphagaia wrote: January 17th, 2019, 3:01 am Not agreeing on the logo crotch thing though, ghosts getting hurt is something from RGB, they sometimes even grabbed their asses in the comic as well.

Rowan choosing the logo to bully the Buster's is foreshadowed and I don't think that is done to mock fans. That just doesn't make sense.
I mentioned that part more for comedic effect. Yes, ghosts getting hurt was a thing in RGB. However, the fact that this movie's villain turns into the logo, the only aesthetic they actually kept from the original movie, is quite the metaphor for how many fans feel about this movie.
#4912091
Room full of nightmares, not going in there.

Uhm, Why am I operating the untested nucluar laser?

Good job, We gave a ghost a nuke.

Back in college they called me ghosttits.

It's 2040, the president is a plant!

You know, an aquarium is a submarine for fish.

Guys, this is dumb. If people like the movie they like the movie. They don't need to have to jump through hoops to proof their love for the movie. Same thing for disliking the movie.
Last edited by Alphagaia on January 17th, 2019, 3:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
*NormalGamer*, Sav C, Slimered and 1 others liked this
#4912092
Alphagaia wrote: January 17th, 2019, 3:42 am Room full of nightmares, not going in there.

Uhm, Why am I operating the untested nucluar laser?

Good job, We gave a ghost a nuke.

Back in college they called me ghosttits.

It's 2040, the president is a plant!


Guys, this is dumb. If people like the movie they like the movie. They don't need to have to jump through hoops to proof their live for the movie. Same thing for disliking the movie.
I guess I just don't find those quotes to be hilariously well crafted jokes. Though I do like Patti's line about "room full of nightmares". It wasn't a joke, it was just a line of dialogue delivered seriously by a character that was actually realistic.

Edit: Also, those lines are lost in a sea of constant adlibs. Very few of the lines are allowed to breath and just sit there like in the original.
#4912094
Wiggyof9 wrote: January 17th, 2019, 3:32 am
Slimered wrote: January 17th, 2019, 2:53 am I disagree with all your points.

There's a clear difference between Batman and Ghostbusters. If you're rebooting Batman, you need to see Bruce Wayne. 'Ghostbusters', however, is just the name of the business - so why can't you have different characters to Peter Venkman, Ray Stantz, Egon Spengler and Winston Zeddemore?

Ghostbusters (2016) was expertly made, with stunning comedy direction from Paul Feig. I loved the improv style, it made the jokes feel natural and from the identity of the actors rather than the screenwriter. It's a sound approach, and one of the reasons why - say - repeats of Whose Line Is It Anyway are so entertaining to watch.

Ghostbusters is an action movie as well as a supernatural comedy. Further emphasising the action is just that: further emphasising the action. You'd be complaining if they weren't trying to do something different, so the fact that they were should be commended.

Also: its failure was absolutely due to the sexists. It was rated 75% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning that most critics agreed it was a great movie. If the vile sexists hadn't influenced public opinion of the film, Ghostbusters (2016) would have been a huge success.
No, a reboot and a re-imagining are two different things. A reboot of a franchise takes the characters you know and does a new story with them that is separate from previous iterations. A soft-reboot takes places in the same universe as previous iterations, but changes things in a similar way as a full reboot. A re-imagining is when you take a concept and re-make it in your own image. Batman and Spider-man are reboots. GB2016 is a re-imagining. Also, by your logic anyone can be Batman or Spider-man. In fact, there are plenty of else worlds stories where that is the case.

If you think GB1984 was just about the action of busting ghosts and not the characters then I don't think we saw the same movie. There is very little busting in it. The movie works because of the interactions between the characters. These relationships carried on into RGB perfectly (for the 1st season anyway). Ghostbusters is about Peter, Ray, Winston, and Egon. You can do a GB movie without those characters, but not by erasing them from history. Also, keep in mind that for 30 plus years GBs WAS only Peter, Ray, Winston, and Egon. In games, comics, cartoons, etc. When EGB came along, they didn't throw out the old canon and replace it, they added to it with new members being taught by Egon (a soft reboot). EGB honored the old while creating new lore. That is how you handle changes in a franchise like EGB that is character driven.

If you think it was expertly made, that's your opinion. Personally, I HATE dumbed down humor and adlibs. Whose Line is an improv show. You know what you are watching and its just people making jokes. A movie requires story, timing, flow, direction. A movie can not consist of random adlibs where literally every character acts like an idiot. Every single one of the characters mugs for the camera, tells dumb jokes, etc. The original Ghostbusters was about dry wit and perfect timing and delivery of well crafts lines. You know, like a movie. The characters took shit seriously and the "jokes" were sarcastic quips based on the situation, not actual jokes and camera mugging.

Ghostbusters is NOT an action movie! What action is there? The first "action" scene is the 3 guys running away, terrified, of the library ghost. The second "action" scene is 3 guys pointing glowing sticks and shooting stuff up for comedic effect. They had no idea what they were doing and that is what made it funny. Then our "action heroes" have to walk up 23 flights of stairs and are exhausted part way through, then they get tossed around a bit, Egon becomes "terrified beyond rational thought", and they point the glowing sticks at each other, risking their lives. Where were they action stars in this? Yes, there was some action, but they didn't do flips and whip ghosts around like they were well trained super heroes. Just because it was different doesn't mean it was good.

Critic scores don't mean a movie is good. In fact, 75% is pretty bad for critic scores considering how much attention this thing had and how much the media was trying to push it along to "combat the evil sexists". I went into this movie WANTING it to be good. I avoided as many spoilers as I could. I NEVER see movies in the theater anymore, but I specifically went to see this movie and was ready to like it. The movie was BAD. It had interesting ideas, and again when a lot of the dumb adlib humor is edited out and some heart edited back in (like the deleted scene where Erin confronts her former boss and Abby and her share a real moment) the movie shows its potential. As it was released in theaters, it was awful. It wasn't the evil sexist trolls that made me not like it.

If you like the style of the movie that's fine. You like it for the same reasons I don't like it. I like Ghostbusters for the dry style of humor that had laser focused comedy. If you don't care about that and think the characters are interchangeable as long as they are busting ghosts then we just disagree on a fundamental level, but don't tell me the movie failed because of sexism. That's an excuse for failure.

BTW, quote any hilarious lines from GB2016. Anything. Personally, I can't think of any.
Have you seen the Red Letter Media Plinkett review for GB16? It's glorious. They actually re edit a scene and make it better by removing all the lame quips and improv and doing so creates tension. If you haven't seen it, oh man, remedy that ASAP. They don't hold back. I've reccomend even the people that enjoyed GB16 give it a watch. It might help in showing some of you how we view this travesty of celluloid.
deadderek, SpaceBallz liked this

Be careful removing the Hasbro weathering using […]

Are these autographs legit?

This is over a month old, but none of the four sig[…]

Charlesworth Dynamics Trap Build

Hi All, The Trap is coming on, I've nearly finish[…]

I found a cool tube at Ollies discount outlet, and[…]