Makes sense. In the original GB they were forced to do a LOT of one shot takes in order to meet their June 6th deadline.
The main issues I have with the 2016 movie are that the adlib stuff wasn’t nearly as funny as they let it drag on for (and, frankly, I don’t think Wiig is all that funny period), and that they easily could have built the movie where it was actually a continuation. I also liked the way the ghosts looked better in the originals.
I also think that the marketing picked up on the misogynists and then used that to stir up controversy. The creator directly went after James Rolfe and the media ran with the idea that the guy is some sort of misogynist–all because he said he wasn’t interested in watching a reboot and didn’t like the trailers, and so wasn’t going to bother watching it even to review it (despite being a Ghostbusters fan). That shit shows it was more about marketing than actual concerns about sexism.
The trailer for this one makes it look better to me, though I am concerned about how much the original cast is involved. I’m fine with a new generation taking over, but I would want a proper hand-off. I would be let down if they’re just cameos.
That said, I think the girl actor came off as perfect for the role from what I saw, and I’m intrigued by the plot setup. Though I’m not thrilled with the implication they are writing the Real Ghostbusters out of canon completely. I’d prefer them make it unimportant, but leave in enough space that the GBs could have had a career for a few years before things settled down.
Just curious what you last sentence means?
Because he refused to be in another movie at that time?
I too, did not care for the new trailer. In fact, if I think if I thought the old cast wasn’t involved, I would hate it. It had some “jokes”, but the music was just terrible. It just didn’t match what was going on in the scene.
Also, I don’t know how I feel about this being set in Farmville, USA. Hopefully it shifts over to New York at some point but that’s quite a jaunt.
The originals sort of limit their scope to New York. We can assume that any lack of knowledge about ghosts in the rest of the world is due to the well known myopia of the Newyorker.
If we can’t, that just make the originals as bad, but if we can, the fact that this is new movie happens out in the back of beyond turns “no ghost sightings since the 80s” into “no ghosts anywhere”, and that just irks me.
What sunk it IMO, is that it suffered unreasonable comparisons to the original- it’s not in the same universe, the original characters aren’t in it, blah, blah, blah…
It wasn’t as good as the original, but it wasn’t the steaming turd that a lot of people make it out to be either- it was a competent enough remake with a female cast.
If I had to pick somewhere that it really did fall down pretty hard, I’d say that it wasn’t different enough from the original. I mean, a lot of the differences were mostly related to the fact that we had a female cast, or that it was 2016, not 1984. There wasn’t a whole lot of stuff that really implied that it was a reboot, not a remake, and that’s what invited the unfavorable comparisons. I think they should have either set it in the same universe as the originals, or set it far enough apart that there wouldn’t be so many comparisons (a-la Battlestar Galactica). As it stood, they did neither.
It was enjoyable as long as you weren’t sitting there seething that you had Melissa McCarthy playing Dan Ackroyd’s role, or Kate McKinnon playing Harold Ramis’ role, however.
I think you’re overestimating how many of the participants were militant GB followers in the first place.
That would have worked if he hadn’t stopped him.
Not as good as the original, but maybe better than the sequel. Maybe someday Hollywood will produce an original movie again, but until that cold day in hell expect the quality of movies to stay on a downward course.
Hmmm.
Maybe for a large fraction.
I don’t think I would like ‘Ghostbusters’ 2016 if Ghostbusters 1984 didn’t exist before it.
I think your display of a fairly detailed knowledge of a thirty-five year old franchise that you clearly disdain kind of belies your stance that at no point was it ever the thing.
If the 1984 film didn’t exist than the 2016 film wouldn’t have been able to make endless tiresome references to it, and would have had a running time of about 20 minutes.
The 2016 movie just wasn’t very good. Had nothing to do with the cast, which was a murderer’s row of killer comedic talent; it just wasn’t funny, because it was badly written, badly directed, and badly edited. It takes some epic incompetence to make a not-very-funny movie with people like Kate McKinnon, Melissa McCarthy, Leslie Jones and Chris Hemsworth, but they somehow pulled it off.
That said, 90% of the online vitriol had nothing to do with that. It was solely because the Ghostbusters were all women.
If you’re interested, check out Mr. Plinkett’s review of Ghostbusters:
http://redlettermedia.com/mr-plinketts-ghostbusters-2016-review/
I mean;
To me, Ghostbusters 2016 wasn’t THAT bad, but I think the point of this thread is that we shouldn’t make assumptions about people’s biases right away without any other information.
The new trailer caught me off guard. The more I see it the more I wonder if I may actually like it. It’s a great departure from the Ghostbusters originals, but in its own right it could be good. If anything I went in at skeptically because of what happened before with 2016.
Ghostbusters 2016 let me down, however it seems to me that certain people like to automatically label people who didn’t like it as misogynist, and that’s simply not true.
In the thread for the 2016 movie, I was asked to make another thread because I was defending James Rolfe in not seeing the movie when dopers attacked him for being misogynistic, and it was off topic, but I ended up never made the spin-off thread.
I don’t want to hijack the new official thread with too much political discourse, distracting from the flat-out movie talk. I thought this would be a good alternative
I can believe that. There’s just some separation there between people raging about it on Twitter and people who just didn’t care for it or maybe responded to a forum/Facebook thread with “Eh, doesn’t look great”.
I suspect that a majority of people who consciously passed on it did so because it didn’t look good and a minority of people who consciously passed on it did so because of the woman thing, but a majority of the internet noise came from that latter group.
Yeah it wasnt bad, but why not a sequel, why a remake? A sequel, where the new GB picks up from the guys who have retired/gone missing etc would have worked better.
I even own a copy- got it for $3 .
I think it they had done it as a remake with a male cast, it also would have been torn to bits. Look at the rage that came out about Shia LaBeouf being a replacement for Harrison Ford. Look at the anger over a talked about remake of several classics. It wasnt misogyny, or at least not mostly. It was redoing a beloved film with a new cast.
I disagree. I think if they had redone GB with a all new cast of young males- there would have been also screams of outrage.
The 1998 Psycho, the 2012 Total Recall , 2012 Conan the Barbarian, and so forth.
Hey, now, the Ghostbusters cartoon (by which of course I mean the Real one) was great!