About as fatally flawed as definitive statements about the new movie made by someone who hasn't seen the new movie?

Moving on...

These videos do a better job than I have of explaining why this movie was so bad on so many levels (and how Sony clearly had an agenda left by Pascal that they followed)...




(This one was posted 2 months before the movie came out, and addressed Sony's clear agenda and strategy...)

Yeah, never mind that I have read and seen hundreds of comments about this movie from people who have seen it. As I noted before, you don't have to live through something to know a lot about it. Anyone who is a history buff will tell you that.

I refer you back to Post #1124 for an extensive response.

And the only response that post is worth...

Oh yeah you still haven't seen it. Your opinion on it is about as valid as mine then haha.

I'm not the one with dozens (yes, dozens) of posts spread over multiple threads shitting on a single movie over and over... without even seeing it. And comparing Ghostbusters to WWII history? I love this goddamn place!

You have the right to double down, dawg. I'm just enjoying the ride.

And thank God for that!

I've read and heard enough about this movie from dozens of people who have - people who are reputable - and it is clear that this was a bad movie AND why it was so bad.

Just watch Alachia's videos above...

I agree and disagree ... I agree it would have felt more natural had they acknowledged the original rather than rebooting. I disagree in regard to the daughters/interns part. I don't think it needed any sort of a forced sentimental passing of the torch -- let the film stand on its own legs, but keep it in universe. Since the Mayor's office was trying to cover things up, have them reference the original that way ("coverups were so much easier when this happened thirty years ago").

I've heard a ton of good about it actually, and will watch it when it's out of theaters. I just don't go to movies frequently.

But to that regard, while I like the original Ghostbusters just fine, it isn't a favorite of mine.

Not saying Venkman wasn't harassing Dana (although I would say he was more of a creepy stalker), but there was plenty of sexual harassment in the new movie. Actual sexual harassment by an employer, no less. That said -- Hemsworth's role was hysterical (in a low-brow manner); Wiig's was embarrassing.

I've not completely bought in on the "this movie was made to bash men". There may have been personal agendas, but the perception was exaggerated by the poor marketing more than the actual message in the film. However ... had the roles been reversed in the Hemsworth/Wiig relationship, the outrage would have known no limits. Since it is reversed, "it's OK". You can get away with that if your movie is a successful satire, but this one is not.

There are plenty of movies where a male star makes inappropriate comments towards a female employee or co-worker. There was never any outrage.

And, I mean, what exactly did Wiig's character do that you would consider sexual harassment? As I recall (my memory is fuzzy on the specifics):
- She got sweaty and nervous around him
- She danced with him
- McCarthy's character said something like "whip it out" regarding his logo designs, and Wiig responded with "Oh" in a shocked/sexual sort of way.

What else?
edit: to be clear... I'm not saying you're wrong at all. Just that I don't remember anything beyond those bits that would be considered sexual.

Sure, the new GB team should have a class in healthy corporate work environments, maybe some sensitivity training, but... I'm failing to see "plenty of sexual harassment" on display here...

Jesus. This post is so ugly because of how this site is still too dumb fuck retarded to do their goddamn fucking job in getting to the standards of a regular site. Fuckin' A, man.

There's literally a scene in the movie where McCarthy's character tells Wiigs that she's committing sexual harassment.

That means nothing without context. What was Wiig doing that caused her to say that?

And has been pointed out (thanks for the link Dan!), Venkman actually acted on it (kissing Dana while she's unconscious).

Yet there isn't a peep about that.

I have multiple female friends who cried during the reboot because they were so happy to see women kick ass without being treated as sexual objects at the same time. That is a big deal and shouldn't be dismissed.

Louis literally climbed out on the ledge of his building to break into Dana's apartment to "help" her. The original is one of my favorite movies of all time but that doesn't cloud my judgment on how it presents things. And why did they have to have sex at all when possessed? The answer is "because Dana is a sex object in this movie" . It is very much a product of its time, but if you're going to criticize the new one, you can't give the old one a pass for the same sins.

It was the scene were Kevin is interviewed for the position at the HQ.

As her interview question (after Jillian asks what Kevin has been doing all his life), Erin asks Kevin if he is seeing anyone (if he's single) and Abby interrupts her saying they should pretend that never happened because it would be illegal for Erin to ask that.

Erin also makes comments about his 'soft skin' & muscles through various points in the film.

Thanks! As I said, I forgot about those specifics. I'll agree that those things can be problematic, but I take it as satire of the typical way men ogle women in the same way. Doesn't make it okay, of course. Plus, it led to the "I'm seeing all of you right now" line which was kind of funny.

The two possessed characters have to have sex because it's in keeping with the Rosemary's Baby, cliche devil worship vibe of the whole film. It's a pretty standard trope that the male and female must conjoined to bring about the devil, or the end of the world, or whatever.

Yeah I'm not one to gloss over disturbing elements in classic films -- try watching any John Hughes 80s teen movie without wincing dozens of times -- but horror/supernatural stories and movies have gone to the entire "black magic/sex/power/nudity" well way too many times.

Yes, that's the point. Feig was playing with gender reversals and had the women acting like male lead characters normally do, because by recontextualizing we are able to see the behavior for what it is, unacceptable.

Seriously? Please don't let them see Alien, Aliens, or other films with strong female characters - they might not be able to handle it.

Those strong female characters are great...and are almost always surrounded by strong male characters who often save them. And are almost always young and hot too.

Ghostbusters featured four normal-looking women who succeed without any help from men. That's unusual for a big-budget action flick. And apparently pisses a lot of guys off.

I watched this movie and don't really get the "hate" is getting. I have seen worse remake/reboot than this one. I enjoyed the movie.

Because this movie apparently raped a bunch of people's childhood.

That fact is that this movie did well critically. Most critics gave it a "thumbs up" and most audiences liked it. Some people just can't live with the facts.