james2025a

Really? I have only seen 3 reviews so far and they all trash the movie. I am waiting for Friday when the floodgates are released and all the truly negative reviews roll in.

This movie was expected to be shit and it seems to have lived up to expectations.

fumanstan

It's at 79% right now with 41 fresh, 11 rotten. There's a good chance it will drop a bit when more reviews come in, but my guess it stays right in the 70 level which is pretty good for a movie.

The movie still may not be for you, but it clearly isn't shit.

Coral

As already mentioned, RottenTomatoes tells a totally different story. But I guess when you ignore facts, you can pretty much create your own conclusion.

Me007gold

Even at 79% the average rating is in the high 6.x. Reading the content of the actual reviews tells a different story then the freshness rating. A lot of the reviews, basically say "It's just okay"

Top critics only have it at 50%

This is considered a positive(fresh) review

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/fi...nced-1.2717910

Dan

I don't know what's funnier; the fact that you have such a ridiculous theory, or that you insist on defending it in detail over and over. Sure, I mentioned it (because it's funny), but your reasoning is still silly.

Did I call you that? Did I even mention it in my response to you? You seem to bring it up a lot more than anyone else when you're faced with the absurdity of your complaints. I'd love to see exactly which "well rounded" criticisms from people who have actually seen the film are explicitly being called misogynistic. Maybe I missed it. This thread moves fast. But it can't be "well rounded" when the person hasn't seen it or proclaims that they're not going to bother seeing it. That's like saying Hamilton is a terrible musical because I don't like rap.*

I also don't understand - like, at all - why whether or not this is a "Girl Power" movie bugs you so much, but I'm tired of that whole conversation anyway. Maybe a GB movie in 2016 doesn't need to cater to the grumpy GenX, or older, male "fans."

Maybe Ramis and Aykroyd got the shaft, sure. Sucks to be them. Maybe it's because their script was terrible and Murray wanted nothing to do with it and nobody at Sony at the time wanted to touch a GB script without Murray. Maybe it's because Reitman was the only director who would do it, and his box office success was... less that successful... in the last 20 years.I'm a long-time fan, too, thanks. I also know how to spell the surnames of both of the writers of the original movie. I guess I'm 50% more of a fan than you are, and I don't feel "screwed" by the folks at Sony. But keep acting like "the fans" got screwed. That makes you sound like a mature adult with complex opinions.

Not when the only truly bankable star - Bill Murray - says he wants nothing to do with it. A sequel was never going to work and was never going to happen. An all-male or mixed-gender reboot could have worked and could have happened... if any comedy directors wanted to touch it... but they didn't. None of them. Nobody wanted anything to do with it except Ivan Reitman who hasn't had a hit film since... ? Lots of people said, "Get Jason Reitman to do it!" and if he wanted to, sure. But it's not like he said yes either. Feig even said no the first two times he was asked. It wasn't until he suggested four women and doing it his own way that Sony agreed. Why? Because Feig makes money for them, and was the only reasonably talented director willing to do it.

Does that mean GB2016 is the best it could have been? Doubt it. But Sony knew the popularity of the franchise in comparison to their other dwindling franchises. They knew they had to make something out of it (for the money). They asked comedy directors who have had major hits in the last 10 years, and they all said no, including Feig, until he had his own idea for it.

Do you really expect, in that situation, for Sony to get all their corporate decision-makers together and say, "Look, this guy whose last three comedy films were box office hits (and made a lot of money for Universal and Fox, in addition to creating Freaks & Geeks and Undeclared, and directing episodes of The Office and Arrested Development) wants to do this, but y'know... we might hurt the feelings of Dan Aykroyd, because he's been pushing for his own sequel for 20 years instead of making successful films in the meantime. He deserves it more than the new guy, right? Let's say no to Paul. Surely Aykroyd will pull off a miracle."
No, they threw money at Paul Feig because it was the only choice they really had, as a business.


You can hate Sony all you want for dragging their feet for decades and daring to allow Feig to do it his own way instead of making him work with Aykroyd and Reitman in some capacity, for the fans. I get it. But the target audience (meaning: people who don't spend all their time on message boards, reddit, or 4chan) doesn't care about any of that stuff. Hell, the target audience may just ignore the movie entirely. We'll see what happens. While some people treat RT scores as gospel (when it helps prove their point one way or the other), most moviegoers don't care. Look at the Transformers franchise for proof of that.

By the way, it's showing at 80% now (at least for me after a quick check.) EDIT: Back to 79 again. And average folks don't care about "top critics" or "average score" or any of that stuff. I once had someone say, about a totally different movie, "Rotten Tomatoes rated it xx%" Yeah. People only care about the percentage. Hell, they probably don't even read the blurbs further down the page.


*note: The Hamilton cast recording is brilliant and I love it even though I'm not a rap fan in general. I'll reserve judgement about the musical until I see it myself in September.

Dan

Yes. Because it's 3/5 stars. This isn't the gaming world where "anything below a 7 is complete utter trash."

Me007gold

You can't say its getting good reviews, when the actual content of the review speaks a different story then the number given.

Dan

Dude. It's a 3-star review. Like, a 3-star hotel is decent enough, doesn't have bed bugs (usually). That's on the "fresh" spectrum. I agree that the content of the review is more negative than a typical 3/5, but they still gave it 3/5, and that's what RT is using to aggregate the score. If they wanted their review to be considered "rotten" they'd have made it lower.

And for fuck's sake, the title is: Ghostbusters review: the haters are silenced
with the subtitle: With nods to the original (and fanboy outrage) this fun-filled reboot wastes none of the actors’ gifts

If they didn't want that to be taken as positive, they should be fired. Or you're just looking for every word you can that proves you right.

"Oh, the new film will do well enough. I wouldn’t watch it again. Mind you, I wouldn’t watch the original Ghostbusters again."
That's a good line, if any.

RichC2

The reviews make it sound like it's fun and entertaining but not a classic. The negative reviews mostly aren't bashing the movie, the positive reviews mostly aren't glowing.

So basically slightly better than average summer fare. Better than Ghostbusters II, and not a mark on Ghostbuster's legacy.

I wasn't planning to see it in theaters, but I'm glad to hear it's a watchable flick.

Dan

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/...?ref_=tt_ov_rt

1300 nerds: "I'm going to give it 1 out of 10 to show the world how bad it is even though I haven't seen it yet!"

edit: Richard Roeper hated it. A lot.

RichC2

Was wondering if it would fare better or worse than the D- Central Intelligence got.

Dan

RichC2

Hokeyboy

The reaction from the He-Man Woman-Haters Club across the Internet is both laughable and unfortunate. I have zero interest in seeing this movie but I just might go see it a few times to spite the "Girls Are Icky" crowd.

But then, if the movie's a hit I'm sure it'll be because "The SJWs are propping this thing up!"

See this is why we can't have nice things...

Lord Zarak

Why does Chris Hemsworth get top billing?

RichC2

First name alphabetical is SEXIST and RACIST!!

Draven

It might be alphabetized by their first names. Which is bananas.

Lord Zarak

Or it's because of his banana.

Dan

Did a quick check. That's how Metacritic rolls. First name alphabetical.

Sorry, I mean:
"It's those damn SJW beta cucks laughing at us by saying there's a man in the lead role so we all go see it, but it's really just a dumb nu-male that makes us REAL fans look like bumbling fools!"

edit: forgot to add shill.

TheMovieman

Playing a secretary must pay well.

mcnabb

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/07/11...busters-haters

Do people out there really think that nobody is going to see this movie cause there are female ghostbusters? I'm sure there are a few old school sexists out there, but the general public will see this movie if its good.

It sounds like its getting so-so ratings, so that will be the reason this movie tanks. The Original Ghostbusters is in my top 5 comedies of all-time, but honestly I thought the Ghostbusters 2 sucked. Even if they had Bill Murry and Dan Akroyd come back, I probably wouldn't go see Ghostbusters 3 either.

B5Erik

Wow. He sure did.

So was he being disingenuous or did he have an agenda? Is the SJW crowd going to say he's a He-Man Woman-Hater?

Sounds like he had specific issues with the movie that I'd probably share...

Ouch.

I think this really is a movie where you will either like it or hate it (I don't think many people will love it, as even it's proponents are only saying it's OK or it's not bad, or, at best, it's pretty good), and whether or not you like it depends in large part on your taste in comedy.

As I can't stand McCarthy or Jones I'm sure I'm in the, "You'll hate it," crowd. And I find Feig's personality to be really pompous and obnoxious, so I don't think his style of comedy would work for me, either.

If you like it, good for you. I'm sure some of you will genuinely enjoy it.

As for me, I'll just have to live with the two 1980's Ghostbusters movie and leave it at that. There won't be another Ghostbusters movie that directly appeals to fans of the original. No sequels, no respectful Next Generation passing of the torch. Nothing new to look forward to, just cinema history to look back on.

Matto1020

What's really sad is that everyone who is looking forward to this movie is labeling those who are not looking forward to it as "sexist men."

You want to know why I have no interest in seeing this movie? It because from the very get go, this movie was made to alienate anyone who was a fan of the original. First and foremost, the idea of casting four women as Ghostbusters was done before ANY script was ever written. They had to shoehorn a story around "Woman Power" message. Fine... I'll get past that.

Secondly, they decided to completely ignore and fuck with the original story/universe that the classic movie set up. Imagine if you will, JJ Abrams making Star Wars Episode VII, but instead of bring back Han Solo, we get Hana Solo who is essentially the exact same character who drives the exact same ship. But to make matters worse, we still put Harrison Ford in the movie as a DIFFERENT side character/cameo. The internet would be up in arms over something like that. That's exactly what this movie did.

Lastly, Sony has been the most manipulative studio ever when it comes to marketing. Originally releasing a trailer that mentions the original Ghostbusters, then pulls it and changes it, and the deletes any negative comments that are smarter than "WOMEN SUCK!" to make it seem like anyone who doesn't want to see this movie is Anti-Women. Their official FB post today literally says, "Girls Rule! Woman are funny! Get over it."

Fuck Sony Pictures and fuck this agenda driven movie.

robin2099

I'm curious what the CinemaScore for this is going to be.

Dan

Literally nobody is saying "if you are not looking forward to this, you are a sexist man." Literally. Nobody.

I'm a fan of the original. I never felt alienated. Don't like it? Don't see it.

What the fuck? That's not at all what they did. This tops the heavy backpack arguments.

I checked. I don't see that on there at all. Literally, there's no official post from that page today or yesterday that says that.
edit: as pointed out below, it was in a picture, not text. My bad.