Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Old 07-11-16, 01:44 PM
  #651  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,295
Received 372 Likes on 266 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by 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.
I just went and checked and the last thing is on there, though it's attributed as a quote from the New York Times,
majorjoe23 is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 01:45 PM
  #652  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,002
Received 1,182 Likes on 835 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

OH! Shit, I see it. I just did a text search, and didn't even look at the images at all. The rest of my post is accurate, though. I swear!
Dan is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 02:05 PM
  #653  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
james2025a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,352
Likes: 0
Received 59 Likes on 48 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by 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.
I will wait to see how it fares come Friday when all reviews and the general public get a say.

I think expecting this to stay in the 70's range is hoping. Scanning the positive reviews does not indicate anything new or original or even justified in this reboot and the chemistry between the leads sounds non existent to horrible.
james2025a is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 02:06 PM
  #654  
Member
 
TheHive08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

I'm glad to see that it's better than the trailers made it look. I'm curious to see if the humor in the movie is the same that's in the trailers, or if they saved all of the best bits for the movie. In any case, they should fire whoever put together those trailers because they were not good at all and apparently didn't do any justice to the actual movie.
TheHive08 is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 02:47 PM
  #655  
DVD Talk Legend
 
DaveyJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 19,336
Received 186 Likes on 129 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Lord Zarak
Why does Chris Hemsworth get top billing?
edit: Who is the star of the movie McCarthy's name comes first on the official poster, but none of stars' names are highlighted, just shoved down at the bottom.
DaveyJoe is online now  
Old 07-11-16, 03:03 PM
  #656  
DVD Talk Legend
 
B5Erik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 13,597
Received 480 Likes on 352 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

David Rooney from The Hollywood Reporter hated it almost as much as Richard Roeper did...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/rev...-review-909313

Originally Posted by David Rooney/Hollywood Reporter
The Bottom line - A bust.

The unfunny mess that hits theaters Friday, like a big goopy splat of ectoplasm, will no doubt make those naysayers feel vindicated. But the fact is that an estrogen-infused makeover, particularly one with such a comedically gifted cast, was a promising idea. Sadly, that's where the inventiveness ended.

The trajectory from the character-driven laughs and raucous physicality of Bridesmaids through the odd-couple antics of The Heat to the well-oiled action-comedy heroics of Spy in theory makes director Feig an ideal fit — particularly since all three of those films were elevated by their warmly knotty depiction of female friendship.

However, although the new Ghostbusters follows the template of the original by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, the witless script by Feig and his co-writer on The Heat, Katie Dippold, has no juice. Short on both humor and tension, the spook encounters are rote collisions with vaporous CG specters that escalate into an uninvolving supernatural cataclysm unleashed upon New York's Times Square. It's all busy-ness, noise and chaos, with zero thrills and very little sustainable comic buoyancy.

What's most surprising is the curious shortage of chemistry among the four leads, who never quite appear comfortable as a unit despite their overlapping screen histories. Kate McKinnon fares best of them, injecting consistent freshness into her off-kilter line readings and screwy reactions as eccentric engineer Jillian Holtzmann, who builds the team's anti-ghost gadgets — from familiar proton blasters to new improved gizmos. And Leslie Jones, despite being stuck playing a streetwise stereotype, has choice moments as Patty Tolan, a transit worker who brings her vast knowledge of New York and her funeral-director uncle's hearse to the job. (Yes, it gets ECTO-1 license plates.)

But there's a hole in the movie where its anchoring central friendship should be — between Melissa McCarthy's Abby Yates and Kristen Wiig's Erin Gilbert, a bond that dates back to high school and is gradually rekindled after an extended chill. While the actors worked together effectively in Bridesmaids, there's minimal evidence of a connection in their scenes here, which are often flat and sagging under the weight of dead air. Concept suffocates comedy at almost every step.

The failure to reinvent the leads to any satisfying degree is arguably preferable, however, to the overhaul of the supporting players. While the original movies had Annie Potts' deliciously unflappable Janine Melnitz, this time around, the ghostbusters hire a hunky dolt named Kevin as their assistant, played by Chris Hemsworth in an ingratiating but wooden performance that sucks the comic energy out of his every scene. (It further undermines Erin's credibility that she gets all goo-goo-eyed and silly around him.)

Moranis is the sole surviving principal from the original Ghostbusters who doesn't turn up in a cameo, the best of them saved for the credits. Also reappearing is the blobby, hot dog-gorging Slimer, who gets a lady friend in the Mrs. Potato Head vein; and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, who appears incongruously alongside some kind of steampunk ghoul version of the Thanksgiving Day Parade. Those and other nostalgic nods to the progenitor only serve as a reminder of the charm that's lacking here, sacrificed to bland, effects-laden bloat and uninspired writing, making this a missed opportunity.

Not quite as scathing as...

Originally Posted by Richard Roeper
‘Ghostbusters’ reboot a horrifying mess

So bad.

“Ghostbusters” is a horror from start to finish, and that’s not me saying it’s legitimately scary.

More like I was horrified by what was transpiring onscreen.

How could so many talented, well-meaning artists, who clearly loved and respected the original, produce such a raggedy-looking, thuddingly unfunny, utterly unnecessary reboot?

“Ghostbusters” is one of the worst movies of the year for multiple other reasons, including:

Bad acting.

Uninspired directing, editing, cinematography and music.

Cheesy special effects.

A forgettable villain.

A terrible script.

The 2016 edition of “Ghostbusters” is not a sequel or a remake per se. While there are multiple visual and musical nods to the 1984 classic (to the point of distraction), this is a stand-alone disaster.

In present day New York City, Kristen Wiig’s Erin is an uptight academic trying to distance herself from her college days when she and her best friend Abby (Melissa McCarthy) published a book claiming ghosts were real. Erin and Abby are estranged — but they’re reunited via plot device when honest-to-ghostness apparitions surface in New York, creating all sorts of evil mischief.

Wiig and McCarthy co-starred in “Bridesmaids” (directed by the usually terrific Paul Feig, who is at the helm here) and they’re enormously charismatic and versatile screen actors — which makes it all the more disappointing to see them flounder separately and together here. They’re both surprisingly muted and flat.

Then again, better understated than insanely over-the-top, which is what we get from Kate McKinnon as Holtzmann, the “wacky” scientist of the bunch. McKinnon is so good on “Saturday Night Live,” but she absolutely butchers her performance in this film — mugging for the camera, bouncing around in an exaggerated manner as if she’s in a “Three Stooges” short, and drawing attention to herself even when a scene calls for her to react and not engage in wholesale attention-getting thievery.

Jones is loud and unsubtle as an MTA worker named Patty who becomes the fourth Ghostbuster, but I’m not sure there’s a way to deliver lines such as, “Aw, hell naw!” without going big.

There’s very little chemistry between any combination of the four Ghostbusters, who spend a lot of time strategizing about their next move and then saying “Woohoo!” when they hit the streets.

Chris Hemsworth further drags down the proceedings as their receptionist, Kevin, who’s monumentally stupid — but also narcissistic and annoying. Hemsworth tries too hard to be funny, instead of creating a legitimately funny character. (It doesn’t help matters that Wiig’s Erin is so smitten with this dope she can barely think straight around him.)

The special effects in “Ghostbusters” are so mediocre I’m wondering if it was a nod to the relatively crude effects of 1984. (Or maybe they’re just not very good.) The ghosts aren’t frightening and they’re not funny and they have almost no backstory; they’re just hissing, hateful, murderous creatures storming through the city.

Neil Casey plays the movie’s main villain, a creepy hotel janitor named Rowan. He’s one of the most forgettable villains of any movie I’ve ever seen. I’m already forgetting his name as I finish this paragraph.

Andy Garcia does what he can with this role as the mayor of New York, who is in deep denial about the whole ghost thing. (It’s a pale imitation of William Atherton’s fantastic work as Walter Peck, the EPA official who tried to shut down the Ghostbusters in the 1984 film.)

So, for some people this is clearly not an enjoyable movie at all.

And I have found a post that shows how some of the positive reviews came from people who wrote columns defending the movie just a couple months ago. Kind of hard to say that they're all that objective when they put their reputations on the line defending the movie like they did. Maybe they genuinely thought that the movie was fairly good, maybe they were just trying to save face - who knows?

But maybe it's a bit premature to say that the movie isn't that bad. Let's get some more respected critics chiming in, and let's get the cinemascore from the people who actually pay to see it. (And compare that score to Fant4stic and BVS...)
B5Erik is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 03:03 PM
  #657  
DVD Talk Hero
 
TomOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 40,141
Received 1,300 Likes on 944 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by B5Erik
And I don't find them any funnier on the big screen than I do in real life. Why would anyone want to watch a movie about the type of people they can't stand?
I'm not talking about seeing the movie. There's lots of movies I don't plan on seeing but I don't keep posting over and over and over about it. It's like you're obsessed with posting about NOT seeing the movie.
TomOpus is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 03:03 PM
  #658  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 2,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

CinemaBlend has given the 3D conversion work on Ghostbusters a perfect score!

http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1533...s-movie-ticket
Lara Means is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 03:05 PM
  #659  
DVD Talk Hero
 
TomOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 40,141
Received 1,300 Likes on 944 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

For those interested, Kevin Smith went to see it last night. He basically said it was a fun movie but if you have negative feelings toward the movie now, it won't change your mind.
TomOpus is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 03:06 PM
  #660  
DVD Talk Legend
 
B5Erik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 13,597
Received 480 Likes on 352 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by TomOpus
I'm not talking about seeing the movie. There's lots of movies I don't plan on seeing but I don't keep posting over and over and over about it. It's like you're obsessed with NOT seeing the movie.
You don't get it - I wanted to be excited about a new Ghostbusters movie. By hiring the people they did (Feig, McCarthy, Jones) they killed any and all excitement and/or enthusiasm I may have had for the movie. When you hope for and expect one thing, and get something completely different (in a bad way) you do tend to become disappointed and, sometimes, a little angry.
B5Erik is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 03:11 PM
  #661  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,002
Received 1,182 Likes on 835 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Lara Means
CinemaBlend has given the 3D conversion work on Ghostbusters a perfect score!

http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1533...s-movie-ticket
Damn. I had ZERO interest in seeing it in 3D (even so much so that I forgot it was even coming out in 3D at all...)
Now, I'm not so sure.

Originally Posted by B5Erik
You don't get it - I wanted to be excited about a new Ghostbusters movie. By hiring the people they did (Feig, McCarthy, Jones) they killed any and all excitement and/or enthusiasm I may have had for the movie. When you hope for and expect one thing, and get something completely different (in a bad way) you do tend to become disappointed and, sometimes, a little angry.
Wow, dude. You realize we're just talking about movies, right? How sheltered does someone have to be that not getting the movie they wanted is enough to make them angry, even a little bit? I mean, my daughter get's angry and cries all the time when I don't give her cookies and ice cream and stuff like that. But she's 3.

I'm trying to remember, was Supermallet angry about Prometheus?
Dan is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 03:18 PM
  #662  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Me007gold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,246
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by TomOpus
For those interested, Kevin Smith went to see it last night. He basically said it was a fun movie but if you have negative feelings toward the movie now, it won't change your mind.
Was he high when he saw it?
Me007gold is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 03:21 PM
  #663  
DVD Talk Legend
 
B5Erik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 13,597
Received 480 Likes on 352 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Dan
Wow, dude. You realize we're just talking about movies, right? How sheltered does someone have to be that not getting the movie they wanted is enough to make them angry, even a little bit? I mean, my daughter get's angry and cries all the time when I don't give her cookies and ice cream and stuff like that. But she's 3.
Don't be so insulting. There's no need for that. Besides, that's not the kind of angry I'm talking about.

But if you're not enough of a fan of any movie franchise to get irritated or frustrated (or maybe a little angry) when a studio screws you over as a fan then you'll never get it.

I'm not going to be around forever. There are some things I'd like to see before I die. The Chargers winning a Super Bowl being a good example. To a lesser degree I hoped to see a new Ghostbusters movie - but not like this! So now that ship has sailed. I'll get over it. But that doesn't mean I have to be happy about what Amy Pascal did to a franchise that I really enjoyed and was hoping to get one last sequel to (or at least a respectful passing of the torch to the next generation).
B5Erik is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 03:26 PM
  #664  
DVD Talk Legend & 2021 TOTY Winner
 
Obi-Wanma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Detroit
Posts: 12,524
Received 738 Likes on 365 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Me007gold
Was he high when he saw it?
Was he awake? Then yes.
Obi-Wanma is online now  
Old 07-11-16, 03:27 PM
  #665  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,002
Received 1,182 Likes on 835 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by B5Erik
Don't be an a-hole. That's not the kind of angry I'm talking about.
Sorry, but that's how it comes off. My apologies if that offends you.

But if you're not enough of a fan of any movie franchise to get irritated or frustrated (or maybe a little angry) when a studio screws you over as a fan then you'll never get it.
Again: I've been a fan of this franchise for as long as I can remember. I was too young to see GB theatrically, but saw GB2 in the theatre. I have a bunch of random GB shit in my house. I've watched both movies dozens of times, even if I now respect that GB2 is kind of terrible.

I do not feel like the studio screwed ME over at all. Not one bit.

Maybe they screwed over Dan Aykroyd. But he seems happy enough; maybe they let him throw in a Crystal Skull Vodka plug into the movie.

I'm not "enough of a fan?" Please. You can't even spell Aykroyd. I can, but I guess that's because I'm Canadian.


edit:

Last edited by Dan; 07-11-16 at 03:36 PM.
Dan is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 03:38 PM
  #666  
Senior Member
 
Matto1020's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 940
Received 51 Likes on 17 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by 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.
Congratulations, you are in the minority of people who were big fans of the original who has no problem with the way they dished out this flick.

But in general, yes, that is what the media has basically labeled us "naysayers" as. Watch any Late Night show that the cast is guest stars on and you get the question, "So there's a lot of negativity around the movie with people saying women can't be Ghostbusters. What do you say to that?" Then you get that bitch McCarthy giving the response, "It's a bunch of losers living in their parents basement looking for ways to complain." It's the easy argument to make. But it's not an accurate representation of why people hate this movie before even seeing it.

And no, I'm not planning on watching it.


Originally Posted by Dan
What the fuck? That's not at all what they did. This tops the heavy backpack arguments.
This is EXACTLY what they did. They are taking the equity in the property and essentially ignoring anything that came before it. Again, that's perfectly fine for new fans... but to people who grew up and made the original as popular as it is, it's a slap in the face. And yes, the Star Wars analogy works perfectly. They are basically copycatting the original movie (read the reviews, they all say it), they tried to bring back every original cast member possible but gave them completely different roles. Han Solo analogy is spot on here. A Star Wars movie that has the Millennium Falcon (albeit a different design), Chewie can still be co-pilot, but Hana Solo is our "new pilot." But don't worry, Harrison Ford is also in the movie, he just plays a bartender at the Cantina named Joe.

Again, a slap in the face to the fans of the original film.


Originally Posted by Dan
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.
This just goes back to my first point... even a review from the New York Times goes for the easy attack on the film's naysayers. And what's worse, the official Facbook page is promoting that post (putting money behind it).

Last edited by Matto1020; 07-11-16 at 03:44 PM.
Matto1020 is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 04:07 PM
  #667  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Hokeyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 20,406
Received 696 Likes on 430 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

This fucking movie is bringing out the worst in everybody.
Hokeyboy is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 04:12 PM
  #668  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 43,366
Received 1,643 Likes on 1,028 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Matto1020
But in general, yes, that is what the media has basically labeled us "naysayers" as. Watch any Late Night show that the cast is guest stars on and you get the question, "So there's a lot of negativity around the movie with people saying women can't be Ghostbusters. What do you say to that?" Then you get that bitch McCarthy giving the response, "It's a bunch of losers living in their parents basement looking for ways to complain." It's the easy argument to make. But it's not an accurate representation of why people hate this movie before even seeing it.
And you wonder why they keep getting the questions?
Draven is online now  
Old 07-11-16, 04:12 PM
  #669  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,002
Received 1,182 Likes on 835 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Matto1020
Congratulations, you are in the minority of people who were big fans of the original who has no problem with the way they dished out this flick.
I didn't say I have no problem with it. I said I never felt alienated when they said this new version would be female-led.
I don't have any problems with the IDEA of this version of this movie; Feig, females, reboot. No issues there.
Sure, I could say that Aykroyd and Ramis got shafted by Sony because Murray wanted nothing to do with THEIR film (think about that. Hard.), but that's not a reason for anyone but Aykroyd to be bent out of shape.
Sure, if the options were NO MOVIE or REBOOT, I'd have chose NO MOVIE. But the reboot exists, and it doesn't look as bad as GB2, and I like most of the people involved, so I'll see it. All I've got to lose is $8. It's just a movie, broh.

But in general, yes, that is what the media has basically labeled us "naysayers" as.
Nope, they haven't. Point me to any specific media entity, crew, or cast member that specifically said ALL naysayers are woman-haters. You can't, because they didn't. They said SOME. Some might have even said MOST. But not ALL. You've interpreted it that way, and you're angry about it, but that's on you, not them. I'm guessing you and I are in the same target demographic. You have the right to be offended by what you think they said, but I just don't see the connection you're making here. They're not wrong when they say a lot of backlash has been from sexist assholes. That doesn't mean they're saying that YOU are a sexist asshole. Or me. Or anyone other than the specific people that specifically said sexist things. Not a sexist asshole? Great! They're not talking about you. See how simple that is?

And no, I'm not planning on watching it.
I will write to Feig to let him know that he will not get Matto1020's $8. I expect him to be devastated.

I'm not going to respond to your Star Wars stuff. I'm laughing too hard to deal with that right now. That is some beautiful poetry, though.
Dan is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 04:21 PM
  #670  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
fumanstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 55,349
Received 26 Likes on 14 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by james2025a
I will wait to see how it fares come Friday when all reviews and the general public get a say.

I think expecting this to stay in the 70's range is hoping. Scanning the positive reviews does not indicate anything new or original or even justified in this reboot and the chemistry between the leads sounds non existent to horrible.
There's already 60 some odd reviews in already, about half of the total number of reviews that usually make up the rating - and I think usually we'd see the steep drop by now if it were truly bad.

That said, I've said a few times that even the positive reviews have a lot of issues. It certainly doesn't look like a great or memorable movie, i'm just saying it isn't shit based on the reactions.
fumanstan is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 04:24 PM
  #671  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,002
Received 1,182 Likes on 835 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

This is a really good write-up, worth sharing.
https://filmschoolrejects.com/open-l...84f#.lak4895q4

And this leads me to my last and most important point. Even if Ghostbusters puts the franchise through the Hollywood wringer, that does not mean there aren’t kids — boys and girls — who won’t fall in love with the movie for everything it gets right. As we spend time arguing over the value of our respective childhoods, there are people out there who get the chance to see themselves onscreen fighting ghosts and saving New York City instead of just playing the damsel in ghost distress. Some of them may even seek out the original Ghostbusters as a result of their newfound interest, and then there is one more person out there to appreciate the comedic genius of Bill Murray, Sigourney Weaver, and all the rest of the original Ghostbusters cast.

Look, I’ll be completely honest here. I’m not particularly enthused about the new Ghostbusters movie, nor am I a big fan of the original Ghostbusters films. And I’m certainly not asking you to muster up artificial enthusiasm or to pay to see a movie you have no interest in supporting. All I’m asking is that we hit the reset button on the entire Ghostbusters line of thinking. Something that you love — that exists frozen in time for generations to come — has also given female audiences a chance to be represented on the screen in the same way that you once connected to a hilarious group of ragtag outsiders. It comes down to a choice. You can either choose to view this new Ghostbusters as an affront the memory of the original, or take pride in the fact that a movie you love has the power to help usher in a new era of comedies. I hope you’re at least willing to entertain the idea of the latter.
Dan is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 04:44 PM
  #672  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 43,366
Received 1,643 Likes on 1,028 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Dan
This is a really good write-up, worth sharing.
https://filmschoolrejects.com/open-l...84f#.lak4895q4



iTunes has a deal right now on the two original Ghostbusters movies and I noticed the other day that it's toward the top of the overall sales chart. I certainly hope this causes more people to watch the originals too
Draven is online now  
Old 07-11-16, 05:14 PM
  #673  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Shannon Nutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 18,362
Received 324 Likes on 242 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by TomOpus
For those interested, Kevin Smith went to see it last night. He basically said it was a fun movie but if you have negative feelings toward the movie now, it won't change your mind.
Yep, Kevin loves everything and he was pretty lukewarm on his podcast...saying "I liked it" but then backtracking by saying it might not be for everyone.
Shannon Nutt is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 05:57 PM
  #674  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Josh-da-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Bible Belt
Posts: 43,927
Received 2,725 Likes on 1,881 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Hokeyboy
This fucking movie is bringing out the worst in everybody.
Yeah, and as someone who is only mild fan of Ghostbusters it's fascinating to watch as an outside observer.

I liked (not loved) the original Ghostbusters movie, but I feel absolutely no affection for the franchise like I do Wars, Trek, and Who, so I am able to observe this kerfluffle from the outside as a detached observer.

Last edited by Josh-da-man; 07-12-16 at 01:01 AM.
Josh-da-man is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 06:06 PM
  #675  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Hokeyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 20,406
Received 696 Likes on 430 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

I loved the original Ghostbusters -- saw it a bunch of times in the summer of 1984 as a 13 year old fan -- but it's not like the movie was so sacrosanct to the point of this measure of impassioned response and outcry. IMO of course
Hokeyboy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.