Amph Don't Cross The Streams! The Ghostbusters Franchise (Afterlife, Frozen Empire)

That could at least be excused as an avant garde black comedy.

 

This is not that place. (It hasn't even been released yet)

 

Well the embargo is lifted. Now we wait for the critic reviews to roll in the next few days.

I still think it'll be a big pile of crap. Wanna call me a misogynist? Go ahead, I don't care. I DO have issues with it being an all woman cast, but not because women shouldn't have a primary role in such a movie, but it is now evident nobody cares. Much like the rest of the brain dead PC society we live in, people just look out for key words or phrases to get offended by, regardless of context. You wanna be a professional victim or a seeker of fake karma? Go ahead, I don't care. I hope the movie bombs and they blame the women, just to create more chaos and fake outrage.

 

You seem to be the only one outraged here.

 

I am now

 

This is a really bizarre thread. What's with all the pre-emptive disclaimers about sexism? And why are they all so agitated?

 

Let this video (kind of) explain why:

 

What happened is everyone's decided the hate the idea of it before they've even seen it so they don't actually have a reason to hate it yet, but they don't want anyone to think them sexist for disliking it already but there's literally no other reason, so they preface it with that like you would say "I'm not racist but" before expressing a racist view.

 

My only issue with it is it's a reboot where one didn't need to happen.

Granted a sequel wasn't 100% required either but it could easily have been made into a passing of the torch movie using Ackroyd only if required.


All female lead cast - Not fussed
Male secretary - not fussed.

Reboot - bit bothered.



First trailer filled me with limited hope, the second looked a bit better but some of the tv ads have detracted a little from it.

If my kids want to watch it then we'll go and I'll pay my money but I'm in no rush to see it whereas had it been a true sequel then I'd have been there.




I do really hope to be proven wrong and be a late adopter and end up going week 2 or 3 as the reviews from critics and friends is solid. I really do hope that's the case.

 

Why is a sequel more desirable than a remake?

how many times has a sequel been as good or better than the original? Like five times?

how many times has a remake or reboot or reimagining been better or as memorable?

How about The Thing? How about The Magnificent Seven? Ocean's eleven? Dawn of the Dead? Body Snatchers, The Fly, The Producers, The Birdcage, Cape Fear, 12 Monkeys, Scarface, Little Shop of Horrors, The Departed?


I don't want a Ghostbusters Sequel 30 years after the fact. Dan Aykroyd is crazier than a bag of worms, god bless him, and Murray is over it. You're not going to get Ghostbusters again, and Paul Feig is not Harold Ramis.

Let people make their movies. Paul Feig has a different take on it. He's not the right person for Ghostbusters 3. No one is the right person for Ghostbusters 3. Asking for Ghostbusters 3 is asking for failure.

 

I really hope this movie ends up being good. I don't want the actual misogynists who are incensed solely over the idea of women donning the proton packs to win a perceived victory. Not just that, I could do with a good, funny movie right now.

It's such a shame, though, that the only talking point surrounding this movie seems to be misogyny. Whether the film ends up good or bad people are going to be talking more about the backlash towards it than they are going to talk about the merits of the actual film. I don't even think there was this much talk about gender politics surrounding Fury Road last year, a film that was all about feminism overcoming an oppressive patriarchal regime. That movie also had backlash from the MRA nutballs, but the discussion surrounding that film was so much broader.

You could argue that's because MM:FR had Tom Hardy as the titular character, thus it appealed more to misogynists. However I don't think it's that given its strongly feminist story. I think Fury Road actually had a ton of good will backing it up whereas this new Ghostbusters movie never did. I can't speak for anyone else, but I was never on board for a Ghostbusters reboot. When it was rumoured this movie was going to be the original crew training up Jack Black, Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill to replace them my immediate reaction was 'just let it die'. I don't know anyone who thought it was a good idea.

Except somewhere along the line, as The2ndQuest pointed out, the MRAs became the face of all cynicism towards this movie. Its rendered any and all conversation about it rather toxic. Think the trailer looked painfully unfunny? Then you're hating something you haven't seen and are a sexist. Think it looks fantastic or, at the very least, no worse than the original? Then you are a 'feminazi' who just thinks its good because it pushes a feminist agenda.

 

From a sequel perspective I'm not after Murray and Aykroyd being in it throughout. It would be a passing of the torch.

It allows for an already established universe to continue.

I'm happy with who's involved etc... but feel the reboot route wasn't necessary

That being said ghostbusters 2 wasn't necessary either.

 

I agree with you that it wasn't strictly necessary, but I should point out that we haven't seen it yet so we don't know how it is relevant. It might be necessary for Feig's idea here. Perhaps the paranormal needs to have been relatively quiet in the modern age, and having two huge supernatural events in the 80s, it would be impossible to brush this team's concerns about ghosts.

Also I can understand not wanting to have a movie set in a world where the statue of liberty came to life.

 

Ghostbusters: The Video Game is more or less Ghostbusters 3. So if people really need a third movie in their lives then that's the best they'll get.

 

I'm looking forward to it because I love the director, love Wiig, love love love McCarthy, and it has to be better than whatever the hell that was back in '89. The trailers haven't been that great, but comedy trailers usually aren't these days.

 

It's those reasons why I've never voiced my opinions about it online, which is pretty much in the vein of "meh".

 

The original Ghostbusters is one of my favorite films. I love it.

I've expressed the same thing elsewhere about a genuine sequel. I love the idea of a next generation of Ghostbusters. And all of these actresses are great(McKinnon is the best thing in SNL right now).

But why a reboot? It was completely unnecessary.

A better way was to have the same cast and make it a genuine sequel and then have the original Ghostbuster cameos where they actually play their characters.

It becomes a passing of the torch with genuine goodwill and respect for the original fans.

But the cameos by Akroyd and others…they don't even play their characters.

 

name a work of fiction that was "necessary". such a weird complaint imo.

 

Eh, I think the complaint here is more about the reboot -- similar to the complaints about rebooting Spider-Man simply to keep the rights, or the constant reboots of Batman in short periods of time -- and the necessity therein, rather than works of art.

Though I'd advocate that all works of art can be considered "necessary" as original works, in concept.

 

Looking at the early reviews it appears to be the disaster those who were against the film wanted. Nor does it give its most ardent defenders ammo.

 

You, tom, didn't think that was a weird complaint back on April 20th 2015.

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/zomg-discussing-star-wars-in-the-jcc.50004769/page-272

What changed?

 

lol i wish i knew. consistency has never been my strong suit, i do a lot of drugs, and that was more than a year ago man.

but also when someone specifically states why they think something is unnecessary it's still a lot easier to tell what they mean, you know?

what a weird thing to remember.

 

The reviews are coming in, and are totally mixed. The closest thing I can make of it is....."it's just okay".

It's not good. It's not bad. It's just okay. Much like RoboCop 2014, it will most likely be forgotten in a few months and will never attain the cult status of the original.

The chief complaints are that 1. it spends too much time stopping any momentum to make sure you notice all the nods to the original (there's a lot of hate for Dan Aykroyd's hamfisted cameo) and 2. it's a tonal mess. Instead of being the horror movie with comedic elements like the original, it heel-face-turns from slapstick goofiness to outright horror (aka a few minutes of genuine creepiness, followed by Melissa McCarthy falling down and commenting about how she fell down) and 3. the effects.....apparently the "Scooby Doo"/"Disney's Haunted Mansion" aesthetic of the trailers runs throughout the whole movie.

Which is good news and bad news. Good news in that it didn't totally suck and might make back a pretty big chunk of its $140M production budget through its run and DVD sales.


The bad news? Sony's counting on this starting a new Ghostbusters franchise, every bit as much as they were counting on Amazing Spider-Man to launch a franchise.

And we all know how THAT ended.