It’s true. This cast has no dicks.
And here I thought that never went out of style.
<golf clap>
The fact that the Ghostbusters are women doesn’t bother me at all.
The fact that it’s directed by the director of “Bridesmaids”, and features two of the main actresses from that movie, strongly suggests to me that I won’t enjoy it. I hate to say “I’m old”, but the style of comedy in “Bridesmaids” is one that I simply didn’t enjoy at all.
I saw that the OP has a join date of July 2016, and so I clicked to see if he has any other posts, and the only ones are in a current Skald hypothetical situation thread, and reviving a thread on whether its sexist to think that Gillian Andersen doesn’t look like Scully anymore. I’ll let everyone guess on what side of the debate he came down on.
It’s totally fine to not be interested in the new Ghostbusters, to not like remakes and be irked that Hollywood keeps making them, or to not like the actresses or the director. But if you’re just that bothered by it being a mainly female cast, there’s definitely something going on.
Hilariously the rating on IMDB for the movie is 3.9. I wonder if the male IMDB users think that will make any difference and stop people from seeing the movie.
To be serious about it, you have kind of a “perfect storm” scenario here on dislikes. Add up all the people who complain about re-boots, the cast, the overall dumbing down of film (especially comedies) and you’ve got a lot of people. Add the misogyny factor on top of that and watch out.
This is my real problem with the movie idea. I would much prefer the idea that a bunch of young girls watched the Ghostbusters save the world, get old, and then retire. They all bump into each other as adults, realize that they all want to revive the Ghostbusters - now you have your movie.
Strikes two and three: I really am not a fan of Melissa McCarthy in general, and was not a fan of Bridesmaids either. The idea that you make one joke and then repeat it for five minutes with every possible variation of profanity does not constitute humor to me. Half of today’s comedies appear to be aimed at people who giggle every time they hear the word vagina.
Hee hee hee! 
Doesn’t that raise questions? Like, if you start with “the Ghostbusters save the world” in the '80s, and then build to “get old, and then retire”, then don’t you kinda sorta need to dwell on what they did in the '90s?
Shouldn’t they, while thinking of how they’ll get old and retire, already be lining up handpicked successors to keep NYC safe? Shouldn’t they, while still stationed in NYC, spend the '90s franchising the world-saving operation so trained folks with specialized equipment are standing by if the world suddenly needs to be saved somewhere else?
Do you spend time on that, or with this all-new all-different cast of characters who are now doing their thing from scratch instead of getting a ton of exposition about how the originals – screwed up somehow, and failed to get the next generation ready? Or told these women what to do, and now they’re just following orders?
Can’t say I’m loving it.
Maybe, but it wouldn’t be hard to say that ghost activity operates in cycles. That’s essentially established by the first two movies as well. The business suffered in the gap between the first two movies, and they speak of an increase in paranormal activity that alerts them to the big bad.
One of our female characters could be the one to predict the next cycle of increased activity. She rounds up her friends to save the world again. You could have a cameo in which an older member of the original team gives them some advice, equipment, permission to the use the logo, whatever, but there’s no reason that person has to have any kind of authority. (Maybe, after meeting their childhood hero, they realize he’s a dork and they’re better off doing their own thing.)
Just spitballing, but part of “the joke” in the original was that the Ghostbusters were essentially just schlubby exterminators, they came to your place to get rid of ghosts just like someone might come to get rid of rats or cockroaches. So in the meantime the company expanded and Ghostbusting just became an average profession.
The four young ladies are just boring old ghostbusters (uncapitalized since it’s just a profession) in a now boring, mundane job, who have to rise to face against a world ending threat (the first since Ghostbusters). This kind of preserves the comedy of the original where the world and threats are mostly boring and serious, while our cast are the beacons of insanity.
You don’t have to get too bogged down in continuity or spend too much time to establish all this, and while it would raise questions like “so none of these hundreds of idiots have ever crossed the streams and ended the world?”, Ghostbusters isn’t exactly a franchise where tight worldbuilding matters a great deal.
She’s hilarious, but I’ll leave it up to you to decide.
The idea that people are having a hard time reconciling the continuity between the two films is mind-boggling. Seriously?
I don’t think anyone is having a hard time so reconciling; I don’t think there’s anything to reconcile; as I understand it, this is a clean-slate reboot. (I don’t think anyone tries to reconcile Michael Keaton’s tenure as Batman with Christian Bale’s, y’know?)
Originally Posted by dracoi: “Half of today’s comedies appear to be aimed at people who giggle every time they hear the word vagina.”
The very word makes some people uncomfortable.
My discussion of continuity is that I wish there was continuity. I don’t mind the occasional reboot, especially if the whole world is changed by the events of a movie. You can’t just have a second zombie apocalypse; you might need a reboot for that.
This isn’t one of those cases. Ghostbusters never changed more than New York and never made a change that couldn’t be forgotten or written off as a conspiracy theory after thirty years have passed. Give us five lines of dialogue to establish continuity and go tell a funny story.
Sure, like 17-year locusts or something; I’d buy it. I’m looking forward to the new movie, but I would have enjoyed a tie-in with the original as well.
I watched the second trailer for the new one this morning. Then immediately found the original trailer from 1984 for Ghostbusters.
That film looked AWFUL based on that trailer. Comedy rarely cuts well in trailers.
I’m gonna …answer the call !!
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
I haven’t seen it but I’m willing to bet anyone Leslie Jones’ character is “Angry Black Woman”.
Leslie Jones plays two characters: Angry Black Woman, and Horny Black Woman.
To be fair, though, both are hilarious.
I actually expect the movie to be funny, but I’m only actually considering making a rare trip to the theater for it because so many people are being such piping dickholes about it. Jesus.
On the other hand, the tie-in video game is looking like it’s going to suck hard. Near as I can tell, it’s a rehash of the crappy Ghostbusters: Sanctum of Slime game, which was a tedious top-down arcade-style shooter. Only this time it looks like they’ve got a budget for voice acting and animated cut scenes. I’d love to play another version of the 2009 Ghostbusters game where you had a plot, a story written by Akroyd and Ramis, full voice acting by the original actors, and action based on learning techniques of the trade and upgrading equipment.