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, 06:15 PM
  #676  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 20,052
Received 168 Likes on 126 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Dan
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.



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?
This is a movie message board for discussion of movies by movie enthusiasts. You're in the wrong place if you want to insult people who are passionate enough about film that it gets their emotions heated. Cinema is important. Not shit like this Ghostbusters, but real cinema is certainly important enough to get one's emotions revved up over.

As someone stated several pages earlier, this may be the most divisive English language movie released since The Last Temptation of Christ. The heat and judgement that this film has received in advance of its release is so great that I honestly can't put any faith in any of the reviews that are coming out. When taking a side pro or con means so much, and caries so much baggage, I have a hard time believing people are being objective.
Mabuse is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 06:16 PM
  #677  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
stvn1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,417
Received 584 Likes on 361 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Bill Murray was never going to do a third one so all of this is his fault. The remakes of Robocop,Total Recall and the Evil Dead didn't make me like the originals any less so I don't understand why this movie got the shit storm over those others which are pretty shitty.
stvn1974 is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 06:18 PM
  #678  
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 stvn1974
Bill Murray was never going to do a third one so all of this is his fault. The remakes of Robocop,Total Recall and the Evil Dead didn't make me like the originals any less so I don't understand why this movie got the shit storm over those others which are pretty shitty.
Did the creators of any of those movies trash their fans in the media? I know they were only responding to the hate, but that defiantly amplified the fans response.
Me007gold is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 06:24 PM
  #679  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Conducting miss-aisle drills and listening to their rock n roll
Posts: 20,052
Received 168 Likes on 126 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by stvn1974
The remakes of Robocop,Total Recall and the Evil Dead didn't make me like the originals any less so I don't understand why this movie got the shit storm over those others which are pretty shitty.
This is a good point, and I'm not sure why things are so different this time. Perhaps people have reached a point where they are fed up with remakes. Maybe this is the new normal and the next remake that comes along will be massively shit on too.

Or maybe it's because they clung slavishly to the original and just twisted the genders changing very little else. That's pretty pathetic film making. I usually feel like if something is worth revisiting it's only worth doing if it's going to be a very different take on the material.
Mabuse is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 06:50 PM
  #680  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Me007gold
Did the creators of any of those movies trash their fans in the media? I know they were only responding to the hate, but that defiantly amplified the fans response.
You just hit the nail on the head without even realizing it. He didn't trash the whole fanbase. He trashed the assholes, and there was a big angry reaction to that. Because a substantial portion of the fanbase is made up of immature assholes.

I've touched on this before a few times but now it's more undeniable than ever. You have people voting 1/10 on IMDB by the thousands. Sites shutting down their user reviews and comment sections because of the insane posts. People being harassed on YouTube. People threatening to rape children on Twitter for being photographed with the LEGO set. People making fun of the death of Patton Oswalt's wife and the mother of his daughter. This is a shitty, ugly fanbase. These "fans" are the ones ruining everything. The media has every right to make the fans the villains of this story.
Guru Askew is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 07:12 PM
  #681  
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 Guru Askew
You just hit the nail on the head without even realizing it. He didn't trash the whole fanbase. He trashed the assholes, and there was a big angry reaction to that. Because a substantial portion of the fanbase is made up of immature assholes.

I've touched on this before a few times but now it's more undeniable than ever. You have people voting 1/10 on IMDB by the thousands. Sites shutting down their user reviews and comment sections because of the insane posts. People being harassed on YouTube. People threatening to rape children on Twitter for being photographed with the LEGO set. People making fun of the death of Patton Oswalt's wife and the mother of his daughter. This is a shitty, ugly fanbase. These "fans" are the ones ruining everything. The media has every right to make the fans the villains of this story.
Except for the fact that they don't. Those are the people the studio should have been bending over backwards to try and please. With out those fans, there is no interest in the franchise.
Me007gold is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 07:15 PM
  #682  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

That's going to soon become a demonstrably-false notion.

Hell, it's stupid as hell now. When in the history of entertainment has a remake, reboot, re-adaption etc. ever been expected to appeal to all the fans of the previous iteration?
Guru Askew is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 07:49 PM
  #683  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,551
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

As someone stated several pages earlier, this may be the most divisive English language movie released since The Last Temptation of Christ. The heat and judgement that this film has received in advance of its release is so great that I honestly can't put any faith in any of the reviews that are coming out. When taking a side pro or con means so much, and caries so much baggage, I have a hard time believing people are being objective.
Same. I find it hard to take most of the reviews seriously that are positive because they seem agenda driven, whereas the negative ones seem more legit. The most interesting part will be the Cinemascore for it as I think it's going to be really divisive.

Or maybe it's because they clung slavishly to the original and just twisted the genders changing very little else. That's pretty pathetic film making. I usually feel like if something is worth revisiting it's only worth doing if it's going to be a very different take on the material.
Here's the thing. I'm willing to make a bet for a lot of people in the 80's their childhood was probably defined by four movies: Raiders, Ghostbusters, E.T and Back to the Future. If any of those were being remade today there would be a huge outcry against them just like their would be if someone remade The Godfather or Jaws.

Hell, it's stupid as hell now. When in the history of entertainment has a remake, reboot, re-adaption etc. ever been expected to appeal to all the fans of the previous iteration?
Uh Jurassic World did. Jurassic World should have honestly been the example that every studio should follow in this situation.
robin2099 is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 07:53 PM
  #684  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

I actually liked JW but man, if that's the best example you can come up with then don't even bother.
Guru Askew is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 07:58 PM
  #685  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,303
Received 373 Likes on 267 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by robin2099
Same. I find it hard to take most of the reviews seriously that are positive because they seem agenda driven, whereas the negative ones seem more legit. The most interesting part will be the Cinemascore for it as I think it's going to be really divisive.
Are you sure that's not because the negative agenda fits your own confirmation bias?

Here's a not too positive review:

"Mr. Hemsworth looks great and shows himself to be a willing comedian, as well as an excellent foil for Mrs. McCarthy. But this is her movie, first and foremost, and it's another of the messy, near-miss films in which she seems to specialize. Put Mrs. McCarthy in any setting where order, tidiness and rationality are taken seriously, and she becomes the consummate anarchic slob; that's enough to keep ''Ghostbusters'' going, like ''Bridesmaids'' and ''The Heat'' before it. But Mrs. McCarthy would be even more welcome if her talents were used in the service of something genuinely witty and coherent, rather than as an end in themselves."

Just kidding, I just remade the 1984 New York Times review of Ghostbusters, but with the genders flipped.
majorjoe23 is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 08:40 PM
  #686  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Dan
I'm trying to remember, was Supermallet angry about Prometheus?
Damn straight I was, but I was angry because of the actual content of the movie, not because of the gender of the main character.

Originally Posted by robin2099
Same. I find it hard to take most of the reviews seriously that are positive because they seem agenda driven, whereas the negative ones seem more legit.
Oh please, do go on. Show us what exactly about the positive reviews makes it clear that there is an agenda, and what exactly about the negative reviews makes them so "legit".
Supermallet is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 09:01 PM
  #687  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 43,649
Received 1,736 Likes on 1,077 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by majorjoe23
Are you sure that's not because the negative agenda fits your own confirmation bias?

Here's a not too positive review:

"Mr. Hemsworth looks great and shows himself to be a willing comedian, as well as an excellent foil for Mrs. McCarthy. But this is her movie, first and foremost, and it's another of the messy, near-miss films in which she seems to specialize. Put Mrs. McCarthy in any setting where order, tidiness and rationality are taken seriously, and she becomes the consummate anarchic slob; that's enough to keep ''Ghostbusters'' going, like ''Bridesmaids'' and ''The Heat'' before it. But Mrs. McCarthy would be even more welcome if her talents were used in the service of something genuinely witty and coherent, rather than as an end in themselves."

Just kidding, I just remade the 1984 New York Times review of Ghostbusters, but with the genders flipped.
Brilliant
Draven is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 09:04 PM
  #688  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Lobstrosities
Posts: 10,300
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Supermallet
Oh please, do go on. Show us what exactly about the positive reviews makes it clear that there is an agenda, and what exactly about the negative reviews makes them so "legit".
Take a look at the top comment in the review thread on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comm...ew_megathread/

The poster took a look at what each author of a positive review had written about the film prior to writing their review. For every one he found examples of the reviewer attacking the movie's detractors as "women hating", "sexist", "mansplaining", "misogynists", "haters", "trolls" and/or "Ghostbros".

EDIT: Just to clarify, the poster looked at every positive review listed in top of the review thread at that time. Obviously not every positive review out there.

Last edited by wmansir; 07-11-16 at 09:14 PM.
wmansir is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 09:51 PM
  #689  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,551
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Take a look at the top comment in the review thread on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comm...ew_megathread/

The poster took a look at what each author of a positive review had written about the film prior to writing their review. For every one he found examples of the reviewer attacking the movie's detractors as "women hating", "sexist", "mansplaining", "misogynists", "haters", "trolls" and/or "Ghostbros".

EDIT: Just to clarify, the poster looked at every positive review listed in top of the review thread at that time. Obviously not every positive review out there.
Thank you. You made this really easy for me. This is what I meant. Most of the early reviews that were positive that I read mentioned all that and seemed more like political statements. The negative reviews don't mention any of that and focus on the movie and what they seemed to not like about it. It also seems weird that the positive reviews all talk about the charisma of the cast and the negative reviews all talk about the lack of charisma between the cast.
robin2099 is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 09:56 PM
  #690  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Yeah that's really fascinating how the positive reviews say things are good that are said to be bad in the negative reviews.
Guru Askew is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 10:17 PM
  #691  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 45,382
Received 1,039 Likes on 823 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Whoa you mean people who liked the movie generally liked the characters and those that didn't did not like the characters?

Mind. Blown.

Many positive reviews also single out McKinnon as the star of the 'busters. Roeper fucking hated her. I smell an opinion conspiracy.
RichC2 is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 10:29 PM
  #692  
DVD Talk Legend
 
B5Erik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 13,611
Received 485 Likes on 355 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

I do find it interesting that the positive reviews generally spend more time on the controversy and the, "Misogynists," attacking it, and the negative reviews spend less time on that topic.

And many of the positive reviews actually insult the detractors while the negative reviews do that much less.

And some of the writers of positive reviews also wrote Pro-G16 columns, defending it from attacks even before they had seen the movie - kind of putting them in a position where if the movie sucked they kind of looked bad, so they really didn't want it to suck.

I'm not saying that they lied in their reviews, propping up things that they didn't really like, but I am saying that they were predisposed to like the movie and found things to like whereas people who didn't have anything invested in the movie were more likely to find fault with it. Nothing sinister, nothing premeditated - just human psychology.
B5Erik is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 10:33 PM
  #693  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 43,649
Received 1,736 Likes on 1,077 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by B5Erik
I'm not saying that they lied in their reviews, propping up things that they didn't really like, but I am saying that they were predisposed to like the movie and found things to like whereas people who didn't have anything invested in the movie were more likely to find fault with it. Nothing sinister, nothing premeditated - just human psychology.
Or the negative reviewers don't like the fact that the movie stars four women but they aren't stupid enough to actually say that in the review. But they could have walked into the door thinking "these bitches better make me laugh or I'm ripping the shit out of this thing."

I'm not saying that is the case. But it certainly could be, and that's why speculating beyond what the reviews actually say is fruitless.

Is it really so hard to believe that it's an okay movie that some people like and some people don't and leave it at that?
Draven is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 10:37 PM
  #694  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 45,382
Received 1,039 Likes on 823 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Could go either way, but people are going to see what they want to in the reviews.

This whole thing is pretty stupid, but eh whatever. People arguing over a movie they haven't seen, and those with no intention of seeing it defending their choice with any possible strand of logic they can find. And vise versa, though things are actively more on their side.

If anything makes me happy is that people are now figuring out rottentomatoes has a meta/average score. It's usually ignored, but now it's important because, you know, it's just barely a 3.3 out of 5.

Last edited by RichC2; 07-11-16 at 10:43 PM.
RichC2 is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 10:38 PM
  #695  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Or it's possible that the positive reviews realize how much negative reaction this film already has gotten and the reviewers feel the need to let people know that most of that negative reaction has nothing to do with the content of the film.

Meanwhile, it wouldn't be in the interest of negative reviewers to mention the misogynistic, women hating, mansplaining fans of the original film, because it makes the reviewer look like one even if they aren't (and for the umpteenth time, I do think it is possible to dislike this film and not be sexist, but clearly a large part of the negative reaction to this film in its pre-release stage has been sexist in nature).

So one could say that there's an agenda on the part of the negative reviewers to downplay the worst aspects of the fandom, while the positive reviewers are being more legit for acknowledging it.

It all depends on your perspective.
Supermallet is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 11:38 PM
  #696  
DVD Talk Legend
 
DaveyJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 19,344
Received 190 Likes on 132 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by majorjoe23
Are you sure that's not because the negative agenda fits your own confirmation bias?

Here's a not too positive review:

"Mr. Hemsworth looks great and shows himself to be a willing comedian, as well as an excellent foil for Mrs. McCarthy. But this is her movie, first and foremost, and it's another of the messy, near-miss films in which she seems to specialize. Put Mrs. McCarthy in any setting where order, tidiness and rationality are taken seriously, and she becomes the consummate anarchic slob; that's enough to keep ''Ghostbusters'' going, like ''Bridesmaids'' and ''The Heat'' before it. But Mrs. McCarthy would be even more welcome if her talents were used in the service of something genuinely witty and coherent, rather than as an end in themselves."

Just kidding, I just remade the 1984 New York Times review of Ghostbusters, but with the genders flipped.
And here's Roger Ebert's 3 1/2 star review:

| Roger Ebert
June 8, 1984 |


"Ghostbusters" is a head-on collision between two comic approaches that have rarely worked together very successfully. This time, they do. It's (1) a special-effects blockbuster, and (2) a sly dialogue movie, in which everybody talks to each other like smart graduate students who are in on the joke. In the movie's climactic scenes, an apocalyptic psychic mindquake is rocking Manhattan, and the experts talk like Bob and Ray.


This movie is an exception to the general rule that big special effects can wreck a comedy. Special effects require painstaking detail work. Comedy requires spontaneity and improvisation; or at least that's what it should feel like, no matter how much work has gone into it. In movies like Steven Spielberg's "1941," the awesome scale of the special effects dominated everything else; we couldn't laugh because we were holding our breath. Not this time.

"Ghostbusters" has a lot of neat effects, some of them mind-boggling, others just quick little throwaways, as when a transparent green-slime monster gobbles up a mouthful of hot dogs. No matter what effects are being used, they're placed at the service of the actors; instead of feeling as if the characters have been carefully posed in front of special effects, we feel they're winging this adventure as they go along.

The movie stars Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis, three graduates of the Second City/National Lampoon/"Saturday Night Live" tradition. They're funny, but they're not afraid to reveal that they're also quick-witted and intelligent; their dialogue puts nice little spins on American clichés, and it uses understatement, irony, in-jokes, vast cynicism, and cheerful goofiness. Rarely has a movie this expensive provided so many quotable lines.

The plot, such as it is, involves an epidemic of psychic nuisance reports in Manhattan. Murray, Ramis, and Aykroyd, defrocked parapsychologists whose university experiments have been exposed as pure boondoggle, create a company named Ghostbusters and offer to speed to the rescue like a supernatural version of the Orkin man. Business is bad until Sigourney Weaver notices that the eggs in her kitchen are frying themselves. Her next-door neighbor, Rick Moranis, notices horrifying monsters in the apartment hallways. They both apparently live in a building that serves as a conduit to the next world. The ghostbusters ride to the rescue, armed with nuclear-powered backpacks. There is a lot of talk about arcane details of psychic lore (most of which the ghostbusters are inventing on the spot), and then an earthshaking showdown between good and evil, during which Manhattan is menaced by a monster that is twenty stories high, and about which I cannot say one more word without spoiling the movie's best visual moment.

"Ghostbusters" is one of those rare movies where the original, fragile comic vision has survived a multimillion-dollar production. It is not a complete vindication for big-budget comedies, since it's still true, as a general rule, that the more you spend, the fewer laughs you get. But it uses its money wisely, and when that, ahem, monster marches down a Manhattan avenue and climbs the side of a skyscraper ... we're glad they spent the money for the special effects because it gets one of the biggest laughs in a long time.
DaveyJoe is offline  
Old 07-11-16, 11:54 PM
  #697  
Dan
DVD Talk Hero
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the straps of boots
Posts: 28,086
Received 1,210 Likes on 857 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by Mabuse
This is a movie message board for discussion of movies by movie enthusiasts. You're in the wrong place if you want to insult people who are passionate enough about film that it gets their emotions heated.
I apologize for being dismissive because although I do think it's good to care about cinema and even be emotional about it, I think in this case, people are angry about things that may not even be true. One person said "the media said we're ALL sexists." But that's factually incorrect. Another said Feig is figuratively slapping fans in the face with the content/casting/etc. yet... they haven't even seen it, and don't plan to, so how do they really know what Feig is and isn't doing? Feig is as much a fan as anyone else, it seems. If someone takes so much offense to shooting a ghost in the crotch, or even jokes about YouTube comments, it's all just so... silly. I mean... these kinds of conspiracy theories about "agenda-driven reviews" (but totally only the positive ones, of course) are right in line with the group of people who expect "100% objective video game reviews."

Cinema is important.
I completely agree.

Not shit like this Ghostbusters,
Bingo! I love the franchise and the films are some of my most-watched in my lifetime. But outright anger that Aykroyd didn't get his way while his career became stagnant? Or trying to find any reason to believe that women CAN'T handle the physical requirements of busting ghosts? Or criticizing Feig for not wanting Reitman on set every day? It's all absurd. Did you see the shit one guy posted about Hana Solo? That's the kind of thing I'm laughing at here.
There are totally legitimate reasons to not like any specific film (after actually seeing it), but those ones above? No. Feig and his crew had nothing to do with Aykroyd's failure to write a film worth financing.

but real cinema is certainly important enough to get one's emotions revved up over.
Agreed. Again, I do apologize for being dismissive to that particular poster, and making a blanket statement that maybe isn't so accurate. Being emotional about film IS good, but being emotional about a comedy franchise about people cracking jokes as they bust ghosts, to the point where people in this very thread call the actresses bitches, or claim that every positive review is suspect because of "PC agenda bias" ? I just don't have the sympathy for such shallow arguments.

When taking a side pro or con means so much, and caries so much baggage, I have a hard time believing people are being objective.
As a film enthusiast, you should know that there's really no such thing as an objective film review worth reading. Bias is necessary and unavoidable and entirely the point of criticism, and reviewers shouldn't be forced to lay out their entire set of biases for every review just to appease the angry mob of nerds on the internet.

Originally Posted by majorjoe23
Here's a not too positive review:

"Mr. Hemsworth looks great and shows himself to be a willing comedian, as well as an excellent foil for Mrs. McCarthy. But this is her movie, first and foremost, and it's another of the messy, near-miss films in which she seems to specialize. Put Mrs. McCarthy in any setting where order, tidiness and rationality are taken seriously, and she becomes the consummate anarchic slob; that's enough to keep ''Ghostbusters'' going, like ''Bridesmaids'' and ''The Heat'' before it. But Mrs. McCarthy would be even more welcome if her talents were used in the service of something genuinely witty and coherent, rather than as an end in themselves."

Just kidding, I just remade the 1984 New York Times review of Ghostbusters, but with the genders flipped.
Fucking perfect. I'm stealing this and you can't stop me.

Originally Posted by Supermallet
Damn straight I was, but I was angry because of the actual content of the movie, not because of the gender of the main character.
Yeah, I only brought that one up because it was one of the more prominently emotional responses I had seen on this forum. Even though I liked that film (kind of a lot), I get it and appreciate what you hate about it. Plus, you've actually seen that film.


As for that reddit post about the reviewers...
That basically amounts to "These people wrote non-negative things about a thing and are now writing somewhat positive things about that thing! Conspiracy!!"

Last edited by Dan; 07-12-16 at 12:16 AM.
Dan is offline  
Old 07-12-16, 01:54 AM
  #698  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Very far away..
Posts: 5,008
Likes: 0
Received 89 Likes on 68 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Culling and analyzing reviews, in order to try to convince yourself that a movie you haven't seen is of course the worst thing ever and literally destroying your life, is in itself pretty g'damn sad.

I hope this new movie does great and 100 sequels also with women only follows. Such cry babies. These are the same people as those from GamerGate, right?
Gunde is offline  
Old 07-12-16, 06:35 AM
  #699  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Shannon Nutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 18,390
Received 332 Likes on 248 Posts
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Originally Posted by stvn1974
Bill Murray was never going to do a third one so all of this is his fault. The remakes of Robocop,Total Recall and the Evil Dead didn't make me like the originals any less so I don't understand why this movie got the shit storm over those others which are pretty shitty.
Anyone else find it slightly (or even really) annoying that the main reason we didn't get Ghostbusters III all these years was because Murray refused to do it...yet he had no problem doing an extended cameo in this reboot? I guess you could say, well this is a different character so that was the appeal - but still, it seems like a slap in the face to those who really wanted to see that third movie.
Shannon Nutt is offline  
Old 07-12-16, 06:51 AM
  #700  
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 Shannon Nutt
Anyone else find it slightly (or even really) annoying that the main reason we didn't get Ghostbusters III all these years was because Murray refused to do it...yet he had no problem doing an extended cameo in this reboot? I guess you could say, well this is a different character so that was the appeal - but still, it seems like a slap in the face to those who really wanted to see that third movie.
There are rumors/leaked emails the Sony may have threatened legal action against him, if he did not participate in the movie

Last edited by Me007gold; 07-12-16 at 07:29 AM.
Me007gold 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.