Ghostbusters (2016)

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Ghostbusters (2016)

Post  The Professor on Sat 13 Aug 2016, 09:11

I actually quite liked it, to be honest. Not perfect, but entertaining enough. 

What about you guys?

_________________

The Professor
User

Posts : 73
Points : 122
Join date : 2013-05-11
Location : London
Job/hobbies : Writer
Fav' Movie Character : ???

Back to top Go down

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post  SJF on Sat 13 Aug 2016, 16:45

Loved it. Holtzmann was the best by miles.
avatar
SJF
User

Posts : 10
Points : 14
Join date : 2016-08-11
Location : England
Fav' Movie Character : Ahsoka Tano

Back to top Go down

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post  Lemonhead on Sun 14 Aug 2016, 00:34

Thought it was a lot of fun. Not as good as the original and nor was it going to be but it stands firm as a film in its own right.

_________________
avatar
Lemonhead
User

Posts : 12
Points : 18
Join date : 2016-08-08
Fav' Movie Character : Batman

http://letterboxd.com/NicholasBrent/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post  Valeyard on Sun 21 Aug 2016, 19:52

I haven't seen it.
I don't want to see it.
I'll likely never see it.

But...

Was women being cast as Ghostbusters really that big of a deal? LOL I knew this would never be as good as the original from the trailers alone. It wasn't too funny, the CGI looked pretty cartoonish whereas the original had a hybrid of realistic and cartoony, which made it feel real, and you gotta keep in mind that the ghosts, monsters and Stay Puft were all practical effects and looked amazing for the time, and still hold up today. Smile My issue with the film is that it's a reboot, which was totally unnecessary. Ghostbusters III was going to be a thing, and Sony completely messed it up, unable to get Bill Murray back and constantly demanding re-writes or changes. Now we're getting a reboot, and Bill Murray's in it, which you could have done about five years ago, and you make him a cameo. All of that time was wasted trying to make a third film, and then they decide to reboot it. I think Ghostbusters should have just died if they couldn't make Ghostbusters III. Heck, a new animated series or movie, like a sequel to Real Ghostbusters would've sufficed. Smile 

~Valeyard
avatar
Valeyard
User

Posts : 187
Points : 262
Join date : 2013-01-01
Location : Stuck In The Sodding Time Vortex Again!
Job/hobbies : Student
Fav' Movie Character : James Bond

Back to top Go down

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post  Lemonhead on Sun 21 Aug 2016, 19:57

It could quite easily have been GB 3 and stayed pretty much the same to be honest. I'd have liked to have seen the new all female crew being trained by the remaining members of the original.

Unfortunately we didn't get that but it worked perfectly well as its own thing.

_________________
avatar
Lemonhead
User

Posts : 12
Points : 18
Join date : 2016-08-08
Fav' Movie Character : Batman

http://letterboxd.com/NicholasBrent/

Back to top Go down

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post  The Professor on Mon 22 Aug 2016, 16:14

I still haven't quite figured out how to quote things properly, so forgive me if this is formatted strangely.

Valeyard wrote:Was women being cast as Ghostbusters really that big of a deal?

Yes, actually. Obviously all the people throwing a strop were idiots - this is a fantastic break down of the furore, what caused it, and why they were wrong - but it is actually a meaningful forward step, I'd say, for a movie like this to be headlined by four women. If you consider other movies of a similar size and in a similar genre, are there any that compare? There were no other female lead movies on that scale of the entire summer, and there aren't any similar ones coming to mind. (It's worth noting that this movie, though also a comedy, was being targeted closer to a superhero style movie than something like How to be Single; it had a big budget, and a sci-fi/fantasy tone to it.)

You can really see the impact of that for young girls, though. Here's an article from the Huffington Post, and a similar one from Buzzfeed. It's a big deal for them - because they're seeing themselves in these movies, they're being represented, and finally the movies are saying "yes, you matter, you're included, you count". Obviously there's lots of different accounts, and it's all anecdotal evidence anyway, but here's one I saw recently that I quite liked. Oh, and another one.
(This is another good post about how the women weren't particularly sexualised, and the manner in which that's significant and different and so on.)

Valeyard wrote:the trailers alone. It wasn't too funny

That one I'll concede - the trailers weren't amazing. Personally I thought they were just a bit average, and didn't really inspire much more from me than "meh", but I can see why you might not have found them of particular interest. Obviously it was undeserving of the hate, but still.

The movie itself, though, is actually quite funny. Obviously there are some jokes that don't quite land properly, and some that just aren't so funny, but they're really the minority; it's a pretty funny movie. There are lots of good jokes in there. 

Valeyard wrote:the CGI looked pretty cartoonish

That's a deliberate aesthetic choice, I believe; it's meant to look that way. Debatable perhaps whether it's a good choice - I thought it was quite effective within the movie, but I can see how it might be a turnoff based on 30 seconds of footage.

Valeyard wrote:Ghostbusters III was going to be a thing, and Sony completely messed it up, unable to get Bill Murray back and constantly demanding re-writes or changes.

Well, that's not strictly true - Bill Murray just didn't want to do it, and put his foot in the ground. Sony were quite willing to just get on with it. But it wasn't just that; Rick Moranis has retired since the death of his wife to raise his children, and Harold Ramis of course passed away. So it was always difficult to get the original cast back together, even though Sony would have done a third movie had it been possible. It's worth noting, of course, that Dan Aykroyd was actually involved in this movie, and thinks it's entirely valid.

(I also just want to point out that a cameo was probably all that Bill Murray was willing to do, or even as much as they were able to get him to do; in context, it was actually a really funny piece of metahumour to have him play the role he did.)

Valeyard wrote:Heck, a new animated series or movie, like a sequel to Real Ghostbusters would've sufficed.

Notably, Melissa McCarthy really enjoyed the Real Ghostbusters cartoon as a child, and intended this movie as something of a spiritual successor to it, if you'll pardon the pun. It was influenced by the cartoon quite heavily, anyway.

Valeyard wrote:My issue with the film is that it's a reboot, which was totally unnecessary.

Realistically, that's a terrible criticism to level at this movie. Yes, it's a reboot, but what isn't these days? We've got a new Batman in cinemas, The Force Awakens was very heavily based on A New Hope, you've got a sequel to a reboot in Star Trek Beyond, and Doctor Who essentially reboots itself every couple of years. 

That's just off the top of my head, mind you; I know that there's plenty more reboots, remakes, and sequels out there. Ghostbusters isn't singular or unique in that sense, and actually demonstrates the best way to do a reboot: bring something new to the table.

Which it did.

_________________

The Professor
User

Posts : 73
Points : 122
Join date : 2013-05-11
Location : London
Job/hobbies : Writer
Fav' Movie Character : ???

Back to top Go down

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum