Ghostbusters (2016) is super awesome! (spoilers)

Cafe Society
181

Wrong, unless you mean this board. Out there, it did happen. And I’m not the type to want to believe it. James Rolfe of AVGN fame put out a video saying he wouldn’t review it or even watch it due to the trailers and what it showed. He was branded a misogynist over it.

I’ve been told about this supposed MRA hate, but all the arguments I’ve seen aren’t misogynist in the slightest. They aren’t necessarily good arguments, but they don’t blame it on women. It was always “this trailer sucks and isn’t funny.”

I’m not saying there wasn’t a misogynist group. But I’ve seen way, way more people claim misogyny than actually argue with misogynist reasons. And, seeing what happened to Rolfe in the mainstream media (hell 538 has an article calling him a misogynist!) I have to think it was overblown. They wouldn’t just cry misogyny on one person.

I’m a feminist. And yet I did see overblown claims of misogyny.

182

I’ll be fair to Rolfe: he might not be a misogynist; he might just be a complete idiot. Because his “reasons” for not reviewing the movie mark him as having the intelligence of a fucking lemur. I’ll keep an eye out and see how many other reboots and sequels he refuses to review, just because they might have ruined the franchise.

As for the rest of your post, i’ll just say that you seem to be looking for people explicitly saying “I hate this film because women are in it and i hate women.” It might surprise you to know this, but misogyny sometimes presents itself in somewhat less obvious ways, as explained in the very 538 article that you point to in your post.

And if you haven’t seen many actual misogynist comments, i invite you to look back through the comments on the movie’s YouTube trailer. They’re not hard to find. I invite you also to go to a variety of gaming and tech-related and movie-related message boards and forums.

As i said, there are decent reasons not to like the movie, but the scale and the nature of the hostility to it, even before the trailer, and then after the trailer but before the movie was available for people to see it, seems to put it in a category by itself. There could be non-gender reasons for that, but it seems to me that gender issues played a pretty substantial role.

183

I didn’t like the movie for many reasons.

I mean… The bad guy turns into a cartoon.

…a cartoon.

I had no problem with the acting. Dare I even say… I was happy they were all women! I saw kids, little girls includeded playing Ghostbusters before the movie started at the drive-in. It warmed my heart. I was really anticipating a good movie, screw the hate it got before it was released. I sat in the car… Just hoping it would get better, but it didn’t, (For me).

The ghost turned into a cartoon people!

And so what if the AVGN didn’t want to go see it? Who are you to tell him what he should like?

Damnit! This pisses me off! He didn’t like the goddamn trailer, and that’s fucking good enough for me. For Christ sake! It’s so fucking immature to label him stupid for not wanting to go see it.

Stop being such bullies! Not everyone has to like what you like. Grow up.

And yes… There are people who were misogynistic. A lot of people. It’s sad! But don’t get f*ing mad at anyone who says they they’re not interested… It’s silly, and people are silly to condemn such people. I would tell the Angry Nerd that he didn’t miss much if I saw him.

Go ahead, call me whatever you want because of what I just wrote. YOU’LL end up looking worse than I will in the end.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

184

I think that the villain was the weakest part of the movie. He wasn’t really explained or developed in any meaningful way, and the movie would have been improved considerably with a clearer backstory and better character development.

Jesus, read my goddamned post.

I never told him what he should like. I’ve said, on multiple occasions, that people are welcome to dislike the movie. I’ve agree with many of the criticisms leveled at the actual movie.

And i also have no problem with a person deciding not to see a movie based on a trailer. I’ve looked at trailers before, decided that the movie is probably not the sort of thing i would be interested in, and skipped the movie. No problem with that at all.

And indeed, if Rolfe had said, “Hey, i don’t think this will be my cup of tea, so i think i’ll skip it,” that would be fine. Especially if he were just a regular shmoe off the street. But this is a guy who actually makes his living, at least in part, reviewing movies. Movie critics, or at least ones with credibility, often review movies that they don’t think they will like, precisely to help their audience make decisions about whether or not to go.

And he didn’t just decide not to see the film. He decided to make an anti-review, a 6-minutes-and-something diatribe of ever-escalating idiocy, based on a two-minute trailer, about why the new Ghostbusters was the worst thing in the history of the world.

If you can’t understand how that is different from someone just deciding not to see the film, or from someone seeing it and then offering an informed critique, then i probably can’t explain it to you.

185

In the GASP 6 (plus) minute video, if I remember correctly, he basically DID say it wasn’t his cup of tea. And the guy isn’t really a professional movie critic at all, from what I know about him. He mostly checks out movies that specifically interest him, if I’m not mistaken. A lot of people know he’s a big fan of the original… so one would expect to hear his opinions about the reboot - and all I think he was doing was telling his audience; “Don’t expect my opinion about this movie, because I’m going to skip it.”

His video was NOT about why the new Ghostbusters was “the worst thing in the history of the world.” That’s just… Not true!

186

I’d just like to remind everyone that we could be talking about Kate McKinnon right now.

Since there are apparently people more interested in discussing a video by someone who hasn’t even seen the new Ghostbusters movie than the movie itself, perhaps that subject merits its own thread.

187

Oh, I’ll happily talk about Kate McKinnon any time. Kate … how YOU doin’? :smiley:

188

I’ll admit it’s been something of a relief to me to find that my reaction to Kate McKinnon as Holtzmann was pretty common. I mean, I’m a grown woman, and I was ready to propose before the end of her first scene!

There was a review of the movie on IIRC Salon where the reviewer (who liked the movie and the character) described Holtzmann as a woman who didn’t realize she might be attractive to others. This struck me as hilariously wrong. Since Holtzmann says almost nothing about herself and indeed seems to speak less than any of the other major characters I suppose there’s a lot of room for interpretation, but IMHO that was not the wink of a woman who has doubts about her own desirability.

189

I’d figure Sudeikis is at least in the McKinnon/Jones/Rudolph range: he was second banana in HALL PASS, which made more than $80m on a budget of less than $40m; and then he was second banana in HORRIBLE BOSSES, which made more than $200m on a budget of less than $40m; and second banana again in WE’RE THE MILLERS, which made more than $260m on a budget of less than $40m; and he’s now top-billed in ANGRY BIRDS – which, sure, is just voice acting, but it’s grossing a lot more than (a) any of those, and a lot more than (b) GHOSTBUSTERS, but with like half the budget; and he’s apparently top-billed in a live-action movie later this year, and I don’t think that I can say anything like that about McKinnon or Jones or Rudolph.

I note in passing that there’s an ensemble-cast heist comedy set to come out next month, with posters that feature Wiig and Sudeikis and McKinnon and Jones – and, at that, Owen Wilson, and Zach Galifinakis – with each of 'em getting the exact same amount of look-at-this-face space. I’m not sure whether he’s billed higher or lower than McKinnon or Jones in that one, but I’m not sure it matters.

190

Hopefully the makers of that movie don’t go out of their way to insult and deride their potential audience, and end up costing their studio tens of millions of dollars as a result. SJWs are complete commercial failures in everything they do, though I don’t see any obvious ones in that cast.

191

I hope their marketing campaign is “fuck you, guys.” I’d see thay in a heartbeat. :slight_smile:

192

…I always laugh when I see someone using “SJW” in a thread completely unironically. The makers of this movie didn’t go out of their way to insult and deride their potential audience. And being an “SJW” doesn’t destine one to be a complete commercial failure.

193

You don’t laugh. :frowning:

They and the studio did, to their financial detriment.

Sure, that’s why Ghostbusters made so much money, and Twitter’s stock price is skyrocketing. When you get back to Earth, let us know.

194

…no they didn’t. The people who allegedly “felt insulted” were never going to support this movie regardless of what the cast and crew did.

You stated “SJWs are complete commercial failures in everything they do.” That statement has nothing to do with just Ghostbusters so your “rebuttal” makes no sense. There are plenty of so-called “SJW’s” out there who are commercial successes.

195

One of whom is named John Scalzi. Just to head off the cite request.

196

Finally saw the movie today. I think some huge points got left out of this thread. They’re all about modern formula moviemaking, though, not about the characters.

The original movie is OK. Nothing special, but enjoyable. Just to get that out of the way. I was past my childhood when I saw it, but watched it again recently because of this version.

It starts in the middle. There is no origin story. Films never used to be origin stories. They started in the middle. James Bond was already a spy. Superman was already a superhero. You don’t need to waste a third or more of precious movie time with the lead character not being the lead character. This movie was already way too long and took forever to get going.

And look at the ending. Everybody remembers the Marshmallow Man. Nobody will remember whatever the heck were all the almost faceless video game infinities that had no personality and only existed to be swatted down by a bunch of gun-toting superheroes. Every action movie and every superhero movies today ends the same way. Zillions of animated cardboard cutouts get offed in endless and boring keep-hitting-the-fire-button shootouts. Mickey Spillane used to say, “the first chapter gets them to buy the book. The last chapter gets them to buy my next book.” Movie makers need to tattoo that on their eyeballs.

Nor did it have a human villain. You’ve got murderous ghosts. Why do you need a villain too? Screen time, precious, don’t waste. (And don’t write four-hour scripts to begin with so that when you have to cut them by two hours you keep numerous fragments of longer bits that don’t make any sense.) If you have to have a villain, make him memorable. Better yet, make him a her. Wouldn’t have it been far funnier to make the villain a woman? You can keep the possessing Kevin scenes because they’d be hilarious.

There were a lot of good lines sprinkled throughout and the foursome were fine in their roles. The movie as a whole didn’t work. The original worked because it felt every moment like the writers were making stuff up as they went along, and you couldn’t predict every scene. This movie was pure formula. Instantly forgettable.

Like the now-banned aliensshow. You’ve already forgotten his formulaic shtick, haven’t you?

197

Even though I quite enjoyed it, I also look at Ghostbusters 2016 in the same way I look at Pokemon Go–as the first of its breed, and hopefully the beginning of a lot of good things to come. Maybe neither of them are fantastic in an objective sense, but both of them do something that’s never been done before. Or, more accurately, something that’s never been done before to such a highly visible degree–sure, there might have been other all-female action movies with no sexual component (have there? I can’t think of one) or other AR games (I’m looking at you, Ingress) but none of them have been as commercially visible or successful as GB2016 and Pokemon Go.

Hey, you gotta start somewhere. And if GB16 primes the pump and gets people starting to think that maybe an action movie with an all-female cast isn’t an abomination to be mocked and ridiculed, then I think it did its job. Maybe next time one comes out, it’ll be better written, and people will be comfortable enough with the idea to maybe check it out.

198

The original didn’t even have a real villain. Gozer was a special effect.

I originally stated I liked the remake. I can’t say I didn’t enjoy it but I just watched the original and boy does it pale in comparison. As I was watching it I put myself back when I first saw it, in the theater on the first run. Watching the Stay Puff scene now after the 100th its difficult to remember the impact. The scene is perfectly timed and acted. From “What did you do Ray” until the line about being a sailor in New York it was one laugh after another. A perfect blend of comedy and action. It’s blunted now by repetition, time and the small screen.

The new one does not compare favorably at all as I look back on it. I can’t remember the characters names. Wiig and McCarthy’s characters were bland, interchangeable and not particularly funny. Kate Mckinnon’s character was strange and wild-eyed for no particular reason. Just some weirdo dropped into the movie with no explanation and an awkwardly out of place queef joke as introduction. As a character Leslie Jones worked the best in her everywoman role. Much better than the trailer led me to believe. And she had some laughs too. Way too much of the movie was taken up with unfunny, forced and meaningless cameos. What was meant to be a treat for the audience really took away time for character development or real humor.

So with time looking back I would say it was an amusing movie that could have been much better if the writers had taken more time to write interesting characters and not try to shoehorn in every actor from the original.
199

Silence of the Lambs won a handful of awards and was watched by a couple of people. But for more direct comparison look at the late nineties/early 2000s. Kick Ass Chick movies, as they were commonly called, were being produced a a furious pace, and lots of them were wildly commercially successful. I can think of Tomb Raider, Charlies Angels, Underworld, Kill Bill, Alien4 and Resident Evil off the top of my head. In more recent times we’ve had The Fifth Wave and The Hunger Games.

Of course you are free to quibble over “no sexual component”. It was certainly there in Charlie’s Angels, but no more so than in generic action movies like James Bond.

Ghostbusters wasn’t in any sense original. Even as combined action-comedy, Charlies Angels had it beat by about 15 years. The difference is that all those previous all-female movies, and many others, were commercial successes that inspired and promoted the production of similar movies. Ghostbusters, OTOH, has flopped rather badly, and will just make studios, actors and crew more cautious about female only movies. IOW, rather than being the first successful, big budget all-female only action movies, it’s really the first all-female action movie for 15 years that has bombed. On its own it won’t kill the concept, but a few more probably will.

People were in no way reluctant to see those movies and they never got anything like the crap that Ghostbusters got. Part of that is that the social media has changed the way people broadcast ideas. But IMO it was mostly the simple fact that they weren’t remakes. If someone had made a movie version of Charlies Angels with all male leads, I suspect it would have bombed just as badly as Ghostbusters. If they had tried to remake a beloved “classic” TV show like “Buffy The Vampire Slayer” with all the sexes reversed, I imagine the reaction would have been exactly the same.

In contrast, recent movies like the latest Star Wars or Mad Max were commercial gold with no hostility despite putting female leads into traditionally male-led movies, while The Fifth Wave was a successful female-led action movie released just six months before Ghostbusters. So it’s not like audiences in 2016 won’t flock to female-led action movies. The only explanation for that seems to be that they weren’t remakes.

IOW people are happy to see all-female action movies, we know that from the list posted above. They are happy to see all-female action-comedies. The Charlies Angels franchise proves that. People are happy to see female leads in action movie franchises that were traditionally male-led. Mad Max and Star Wars proves that. It appears that the public don’t have a problem with any of these things.

So what makes Ghostbusters such a failure? It seems the only difference is that it was a remake that changed the sexes of the cast. That seems to be what people objected to. Which is not really surprising. A remake is trying to ride on the coattails of the earlier success. It’s trying to tap into the ready-made audience. If you change the movie, you risk losing what the audience liked about the original. That appears to be what happened here.

The idea that people didn’t watch it because of a female cast is at odds with all the movies I just listed that had female casts or leads that were huge successes. So what makes Ghostbusters different from all them? I can only see one thing.

200

You mentioned TOMB RAIDER, which did plenty well enough; but its sequel, which both Rotten Tomatoes and Yours Truly found slightly better, did considerably worse. I mean, yeah, as of now it’s still a better return on investment than GHOSTBUSTERS, but I don’t know how much more GHOSTBUSTERS is going to bring in.

(Not that it slowed Jolie down; she was soon back in SALT, with a fistfight here and a car chase there and a healthy dose of improvised-weapon trickery, turning a $110m budget into $293m at the box office; that’s no LUCY, but it’s still pretty good.)