Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
#1201
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Feig isn't denigrating men in the movie. He's gender swapping certain roles in order to highlight the inequities of the different genders in film. If you think that means he's attacking all men, that's on you. If you think that means he's attacking you, that's also on you.
He may be "gender swapping" but he does it with a big middle finger. There are COUNTLESS movies that have women in empowered roles without needing to cram it down your throat. Star Wars Episode VII. The Terminator series. Kill Bill. Alien. Black Widow in all of the Marvel movies. Heck, even all 50 of the Resident Evil movies they've made.
As for the idea that this property shouldn't have had that message, why not? What is it about Ghostbusters that makes it an inherently male property? Nothing. The only reason you think this movie shouldn't have had that message is because you mistakenly think the message is about you. And it's not.
But let's face it, at the end of the day, everything that all us naysayers predicted came true. The movie is a box-office failure, and you can keep "fighting the good fight" all you want by defending this piece of trash movie, but the numbers don't lie.
This is Ghostbusters. A franchise that everyone either loves or enjoys. You don't meet many people who downright dislike the original movie. Sony could of knocked this out of the park reviving such a beloved franchise. Instead they used it as a publicity stunt that backfired in the range of $70 million loss.
#1202
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
- You refused to see it
- You've cherry picked through the reviews and responses, focusing only on the ones that reinforce the conclusions you came to before release and without seeing it
- You have argued against and/or dismissed any review or response that disagreed with your assessment, doubling down and digging the hole deeper and deeper
It doesn't seem that you're willing to listen to anyone who views this movie positively, or anyone who didn't have a knee jerk negative reaction. Again I assert that you are the person with the problem, fixating on a movie you refuse to see.
I'm sorry that Ghostbusters has made you feel so persecuted. Clearly, being a man, you face untold oppression the likes of which the world has never seen.
But even taking the gender issues out of the discussion the movie still uses a style of humor that I just don't like.
Last edited by B5Erik; 08-14-16 at 06:52 PM.
#1204
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
^ This.
If the movie had starred a bunch of men such as Adam Sandler & his crew, or some combo of Apatow people (Seth Rogen, James Franco, etc.), and had the same overall level of humor, it would have been savaged by critics though.
If the movie had starred a bunch of men such as Adam Sandler & his crew, or some combo of Apatow people (Seth Rogen, James Franco, etc.), and had the same overall level of humor, it would have been savaged by critics though.
#1205
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Why does the movie have to have a smart, noble, helpful male character? Because a lot of men in real life are like that, while none in the movie are. That's not saying, "Checklist," that's saying, "Why do you have so many men in the movie, and none are remotely worthy?" They're all bad in one way or another.
#1206
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
My girlfriend and I saw it this weekend, didn't plan on it, just had some free time and it was the next movie playing. Pretty funny, enjoyed the cameos, decent effects and 3D.
#1207
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
The tour guide in the first scene. The owner of the mansion. The entire rock band. The Homeland Security guys. The theatre manager. The Police Officer.
The mayor (maybe a jerk, but hardly 'not smart' and indeed 'helpful' in a "I'm not going to get in your way" way, by the end)
Great. None of those characters are "loaded with negative characteristics." Do they maybe have one negative characteristic each? Sure, maybe. Who fucking cares?!
Nearly every character in every movie ever has at least one negative characteristic.
Even the women in this film. Each of them has their flaws. So what?
And please, don't waste your time nitpicking on each character I named. Your opinion on them is worthless to me because YOU haven't seen it. Period.
You have over five dozen posts in this thread alone... for a movie you haven't seen... trying to convince who? the lurkers? that this movie hates men?
This coming from the guy who spent paragraphs upon paragraphs trying to explain why it's impossible for these women to carry proton packs.If your goal is to spread some sort of perceived truth about Ghostbusters...
you should stick to reddit or 4chan or youtube comments, where you can shape the minds of all those teenage boys at risk of falling into the "Social Justice Warrior" hive mind.
And in case it wasn't clear enough:
Why does the movie have to have a smart, noble, helpful male character? Because a lot of men in real life are like that, while none in the movie are. That's not saying, "Checklist," that's saying, "Why do you have so many men in the movie, and none are remotely worthy?" They're all bad in one way or another.
Holy shit, man. You really need to take a step back from thinking about Ghostbusters so damn much. It's a comedy.
About people busting ghosts.
And you're complaining that the four women are getting all the praise for being noble while the poor men are relegated to minor characters and/or they "just aren't noble enough!"
Anyway, I'm done responding to your shitposting; and that's exactly what you're doing. Over five dozen posts, claiming that this movie outright hates 50% of its audience, even though you haven't seen it. I'm surprised the mods are allowing it, honestly, but whatever. Matto1020 has the same opinion as you, apparently. I think he's wrong too, but at least he's seen the fucking movie.
I don't understand why a grown-ass man is spending so much time and effort shitting on something that has zero effect on his life. You've spent more time reading other peoples' opinions and writing posts about a movie you refuse to see than it would have taken you to see it yourself or to do anything anything remotely productive or fulfilling instead.
It boggles my mind. I did that kind of shit in my teens/20's, when I had too much spare time, and no love for most things in my life. I couldn't even imagine how bored/hateful you must be to be doing that as a full-fledged adult.
#1208
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I'm criticizing a movie. You're attacking someone on a personal level because they have a different opinion than you about a movie. Who's more hateful?
#1209
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I made no personal attacks whatsoever. I assure you, my post comes from a place of love and respect.
#1210
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Anyway, for those who want to read an extensive write-up about the film from a guy who has seen it, Matt Zoller Seitz at rogerebert.com did a good one. Heavy spoilers throughout.
http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/womens...w-ghostbusters
http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/womens...w-ghostbusters
#1211
DVD Talk Legend
#1212
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
You know, Dan, unless you were at least 14 years old when Ghostbusters came out in 1984 you can't understand how a lot of long time fans feel about the franchise.
It would be like remaking Back To The Future with gender reversals. Martina McFly and Dr. Elicia Brown. Remaking it at all would be controversial, but doing the gender change would then be viewed suspiciously by long time fans in terms of motivation for making such a change. And if they dumbed down the type of humor in the movie as well? You'd get a ton of angry fans, just like with Ghostbusters.
It would be like remaking Back To The Future with gender reversals. Martina McFly and Dr. Elicia Brown. Remaking it at all would be controversial, but doing the gender change would then be viewed suspiciously by long time fans in terms of motivation for making such a change. And if they dumbed down the type of humor in the movie as well? You'd get a ton of angry fans, just like with Ghostbusters.
#1213
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I can't be a real fan because I'm not old enough to meet your self-imposed criteria. Got it.
The above post, for those reading, is a perfect example of what is wrong with "geek culture" in a nutshell. If you don't meet some obscurely-defined idea of what a single person thinks qualifies you as a 'real fan' then you just don't understand how upset we are!!
The above post, for those reading, is a perfect example of what is wrong with "geek culture" in a nutshell. If you don't meet some obscurely-defined idea of what a single person thinks qualifies you as a 'real fan' then you just don't understand how upset we are!!
#1214
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
You can't possibly have the same connection to the movie because it was a phenomenon, culturally. It was a specific time when that phenomenon took place. It was finite, and lasted only a couple of years. By the time Ghostbusters II came out the phenomenon had ended and the original was just a beloved movie that meant a hell of a lot to the fans who experienced that phenomenon.
The same would be true of the original Star Wars or Jaws. If you weren't there you just don't get it. You can read about it, but the feeling that was there at the time was lightning in a bottle.
The above post, for those reading, is a perfect example of what is wrong with "geek culture" in a nutshell.
#1215
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Oh, the delicious irony in the context of this thread.
But I guess folks who were 13 years old at the time GB came out are shit out of luck. They just weren't there.
#1216
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Wow. This thread is a whole hell of a lot funnier than that turd of a movie was. One has to love the social justice warriors continue to attempt to defend what is essentially a box office bomb at this point. Certainly the only reason people didnt go to see it is because it stars women. Not that it was a shitty movie. The only thing missing from the thread at this point is that askew troll.
#1217
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)

Fine, maybe someone who was 13 would get it, but that person would have to be old enough and mature enough to really comprehend what was going on was not the norm for a new hit movie. Not every movie has that kind of response, societally, and when you're too young to have that perspective you just can't understand. So the actual age may vary some, but the fact that you have to have experience seeing many hits that didn't become cultural phenomena to appreciate one that did become a cultural phenomenon.
Oh, and I knew you'd bring up the, "Delicious irony," in the context of this thread. You can understand the type of humor used, and the agenda that people like Amy Pascal and Paul Feig clearly had with the making of Ghostbusters 2016 through researching online. That's just fact finding. FEELING a cultural phenomenon requires being there and having the life experience to know how unusual that is.
#1218
DVD Talk Hero
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 34,244
Received 2,045 Likes
on
1,391 Posts
From: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
To sum this up for those who lost interest ...
B5Erik can't understand the new Ghostbusters because he hasn't seen it.
Dan can't understand the POV of fans of the original because he isn't old enough to have experienced it.
In the midst of that smokescreen, Double-Oh-7 and windom swept in for the win.
B5Erik can't understand the new Ghostbusters because he hasn't seen it.
Dan can't understand the POV of fans of the original because he isn't old enough to have experienced it.
In the midst of that smokescreen, Double-Oh-7 and windom swept in for the win.
#1219
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
Wow. This thread is a whole hell of a lot funnier than that turd of a movie was. One has to love the social justice warriors continue to attempt to defend what is essentially a box office bomb at this point. Certainly the only reason people didnt go to see it is because it stars women. Not that it was a shitty movie. The only thing missing from the thread at this point is that askew troll.
#1220
DVD Talk Legend
#1221
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I'm not even defending the movie. I couldn't care less if people who saw it hated it. I'm only pointing out the fact that you claim "anyone under 14 in 1984 couldn't possibly understand!" while also saying you totally understand exactly what the movie is without seeing it.They say the best way to ruin comedy is to explain it. I think we can add "obsessively researching every detail about it to ensure it either does or doesn't match our taste" to the list.
And Abob....

edit: but Gunde deserves a star for recognition.
#1222
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
A cultural phenomenon is a feeling as much as anything else - a feeling that people at the time share. If you're not old enough to truly comprehend what's going on as being different from the norm you aren't going to understand it. And if someone wasn't there at all, there is no way to explain it adequately for that person to really, "Get it." That's not an outrageous statement, just common sense.
And I noted before that the lowbrow humor used in Ghostbusters 2016 is the kind of humor that I hate. I find it stupid, not funny. It would be ruined whether I've read someone's explanation of it or not - it's just not funny to me. And being Ghostbusters it's not just some stupid comedy to me. It's a franchise that means a lot to me and the new version was ruined by hack moviemakers.
Have you really never seen a trailer and thought to yourself that it looked stupid instead of funny? And if you did, did you go to see the movie anyway?
#1223
DVD Talk Hero
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 34,244
Received 2,045 Likes
on
1,391 Posts
From: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
I think they nailed it. 
I've been on record saying it is neither as bad or as good as many claim. I fully agree with them that it made no difference if the characters were men or women -- the script was just lazy and the marketing was simply awful. Add to that the shadow of a classic and you are in a lose-lose situation.
That said, had it starred an Adam Sandler (or actors of that ilk) I would not have seen it because I know that I do not care for them at all (to B5Erik's point). I don't have much experience with the women who are in it, so I gave it a chance based on the (middling) reviews here. The trailers did not excite me terribly and certainly did the actresses no justice.
So what was the result IMO? I laughed. It was on the low range of "OK". It was better than GB2, however it did not inspire me to seek out any other work by the talent involved. It makes me believe the studio heads either wanted a shitstorm or were completely incompetent. It makes me realize modern Hollywood has no respect for the past or understanding of its roots like a modern primadona athlete who comes in and shits on the history that allowed him (or her) to reach that point.

I've been on record saying it is neither as bad or as good as many claim. I fully agree with them that it made no difference if the characters were men or women -- the script was just lazy and the marketing was simply awful. Add to that the shadow of a classic and you are in a lose-lose situation.
That said, had it starred an Adam Sandler (or actors of that ilk) I would not have seen it because I know that I do not care for them at all (to B5Erik's point). I don't have much experience with the women who are in it, so I gave it a chance based on the (middling) reviews here. The trailers did not excite me terribly and certainly did the actresses no justice.
So what was the result IMO? I laughed. It was on the low range of "OK". It was better than GB2, however it did not inspire me to seek out any other work by the talent involved. It makes me believe the studio heads either wanted a shitstorm or were completely incompetent. It makes me realize modern Hollywood has no respect for the past or understanding of its roots like a modern primadona athlete who comes in and shits on the history that allowed him (or her) to reach that point.
#1224
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
And I noted before that the lowbrow humor used in Ghostbusters 2016 is the kind of humor that I hate. I find it stupid, not funny. It would be ruined whether I've read someone's explanation of it or not - it's just not funny to me. And being Ghostbusters it's not just some stupid comedy to me. It's a franchise that means a lot to me and the new version was ruined by hack moviemakers.
Am I allowed to think the new movie was OK? My wife liked it too. Also, to be clear, we saw it. Which is where my opinion on it comes from. I didn't have to read anything or watch a single YouTube video to come to that opinion either.
#1225
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Ghostbusters (2016, D: Feig)
If you're not old enough to truly comprehend what's going on as being different from the norm you aren't going to understand it. And if someone wasn't there at all, there is no way to explain it adequately for that person to really, "Get it." That's not an outrageous statement, just common sense.
Dude was 4 when GB came out.
And I noted before that the lowbrow humor used in Ghostbusters 2016 is the kind of humor that I hate. I find it stupid, not funny. It would be ruined whether I've read someone's explanation of it or not - it's just not funny to me.
And being Ghostbusters it's not just some stupid comedy to me. It's a franchise that means a lot to me
Your experience was different than mine, but that doesn't make it more valid, and neither of us are in a place to claim that this new movie hates ALL men and ALL original GB fans. That's absurd.
and the new version was ruined by hack moviemakers.
Have you really never seen a trailer and thought to yourself that it looked stupid instead of funny? And if you did, did you go to see the movie anyway?
I thought Drop Dead Gorgeous looked like garbage. It's one of my favourite "fake documentary" films ever.
I thought I'd love TED, but it was utter trash (sorry, fans).
It goes both ways. And no one's forcing you to see it. But if you're going to spend months/years agonizing about how much you hate a movie's mere existence because it isn't what you felt you deserved to get? I don't know man. That's just... strange to me.



