Even Wiig's character was annoying though. But Mckinnon and McCarthy's characters were by far the worst.
I also have no idea why the villian turned into a cartoon ghost. Shame this movie wasn't funny and was a poor film.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ghostbusters |OT| Is it the boobs?
- Thread starter brandonh83
- Start date
- Status
Even Wiig's character was annoying though. But Mckinnon and McCarthy's characters were by far the worst.
I also have no idea why the villian turned into a cartoon ghost. Shame this movie wasn't funny and was a poor film.
Out off all the things that matters, racism, inequality, misoginy, bigotrism, police violence against minority. Nope. Corporate shillism is the worst of them all!!
M'lady.
Also HI EXCEL!! I thought you was banned?
sans_pants
avec_pénis
Finally saw it last night
I really tried to let this movie be it's own thing, but it was still just poorly made. Bad writing and amateur direction. No good side characters. Really no good main characters either.
Some decent jokes but mostly they missed bad. And I wish they just left out all the callbacks, it made it impossible not to compare it to the original. And yeah, that is not a good comparison for them to bring up
Also pretty sad that they let the internet trolls get them so riled up that they made the movie mostly about them. The villain was obv a MRA which since they half assed didn't even really connect or anything. I thought him being weird was kind of funny at first but by the end he was just stereotypical nerd guy that cant get laid
Also, the movie really highlighted the chemistry from the original. 3 friends made a movie, and one of them was so bought into the themes that it felt real. The way the new ghostbusters talked about the science was nothing but buzzwords thrown out by disinterested actresses
4/10
I really tried to let this movie be it's own thing, but it was still just poorly made. Bad writing and amateur direction. No good side characters. Really no good main characters either.
Some decent jokes but mostly they missed bad. And I wish they just left out all the callbacks, it made it impossible not to compare it to the original. And yeah, that is not a good comparison for them to bring up
Also pretty sad that they let the internet trolls get them so riled up that they made the movie mostly about them. The villain was obv a MRA which since they half assed didn't even really connect or anything. I thought him being weird was kind of funny at first but by the end he was just stereotypical nerd guy that cant get laid
Also, the movie really highlighted the chemistry from the original. 3 friends made a movie, and one of them was so bought into the themes that it felt real. The way the new ghostbusters talked about the science was nothing but buzzwords thrown out by disinterested actresses
4/10
sans_pants
avec_pénis
oh yeah and they used a censored dmx song. like wtf are you thinking right now?
I'm thinking that wasn't worth a double post.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
sorry listening to dmx right now getting heated
Ragnarok
Member
I hated how the technology looked like it was actually designed by toy companies. And Holtzman could just whip together new ghost weapons with pipes and duct tape (and glow sticks. Lots of glow sticks).
Nothing felt real in the slightest which was the most disappointing thing to me. Every scene was just an excuse for the protagonists to act wacky. Nobody in the entire movie felt like a real person, let alone a scientist. There was no weight to the effects. Characters were all caricatures. And I mean everyone. The callbacks and cameos felt forced and were mostly...just bad.
There were some decent jokes but they didn't all land and it really didn't feel like Feig understood or cared about what made the original so beloved. It was mostly just boring, run of the mill slapstick with some ghost puke thrown in for good measure.
Nothing felt real in the slightest which was the most disappointing thing to me. Every scene was just an excuse for the protagonists to act wacky. Nobody in the entire movie felt like a real person, let alone a scientist. There was no weight to the effects. Characters were all caricatures. And I mean everyone. The callbacks and cameos felt forced and were mostly...just bad.
There were some decent jokes but they didn't all land and it really didn't feel like Feig understood or cared about what made the original so beloved. It was mostly just boring, run of the mill slapstick with some ghost puke thrown in for good measure.
Me and my wife might see it again this weekend. It's such a fun movie. I didn't think it was perfect, but I enjoyed it a lot. I laughed way more than I expected to (I was worried that I'd just kind of sensibly chuckle through the whole movie, as I had never seen a Feig movie before, so I didn't know what to expect), as there are some genuinely, laugh out loud funny moments. Our audience was small, but into the movie as well. This one guy in front of us was busting a gut while watching it.
Humor is subjective, who knew?
I love all types of humor, from dry to slapstick. I can lose it to Red Dwarf or Community, or Spaced or Frasier. If it's funny it's funny. Ultimately, all that matters is what you thought of the movie. If you didn't like it, you didn't like it. It's not a crime. If you liked it, you liked it. Still not a crime. People need to just enjoy what they enjoy, pass on what they don't, and stop trying to tell the person with the different opinion to theirs that they're wrong.
I remember me and my wife were trying to get my mom to watch Hot Fuzz a year or two ago, thinking that she'd enjoy it, because it's awesome, and she hated it. She didn't think it was funny at all. She ended up going to watch Korean dramas in the living room, while me and my wife continued watching Hot Fuzz. I understand that you get fuzzy endorphins released when someone also enjoys something you enjoy, but it's ok if that doesn't happen. Yeah, I was a little disappointed that my mom didn't find Hot Fuzz as hilarious as me and my wife, but I got over it. I personally can't stand The Rocky Horror Picture Show, but I know a lot of people who do. I'm not about to shit in their cereal about it, though.
Ghostbusters 2016 doesn't hold a candle to Ghostbusters 1984, or even Ghostbusters 2, but I still had a great time with the movie. Better than I expected, and I actually want to own it on Blu Ray when it releases.
Humor is subjective, who knew?
I love all types of humor, from dry to slapstick. I can lose it to Red Dwarf or Community, or Spaced or Frasier. If it's funny it's funny. Ultimately, all that matters is what you thought of the movie. If you didn't like it, you didn't like it. It's not a crime. If you liked it, you liked it. Still not a crime. People need to just enjoy what they enjoy, pass on what they don't, and stop trying to tell the person with the different opinion to theirs that they're wrong.
I remember me and my wife were trying to get my mom to watch Hot Fuzz a year or two ago, thinking that she'd enjoy it, because it's awesome, and she hated it. She didn't think it was funny at all. She ended up going to watch Korean dramas in the living room, while me and my wife continued watching Hot Fuzz. I understand that you get fuzzy endorphins released when someone also enjoys something you enjoy, but it's ok if that doesn't happen. Yeah, I was a little disappointed that my mom didn't find Hot Fuzz as hilarious as me and my wife, but I got over it. I personally can't stand The Rocky Horror Picture Show, but I know a lot of people who do. I'm not about to shit in their cereal about it, though.
Ghostbusters 2016 doesn't hold a candle to Ghostbusters 1984, or even Ghostbusters 2, but I still had a great time with the movie. Better than I expected, and I actually want to own it on Blu Ray when it releases.
The more I think about the movie, the more I dislike it. Large pieces Erin's story arc seem to have been left on the cutting room floor leaving this movie without a proper driving narrative. There is no tension in this movie- everything just works out without any obstacles for the characters to overcome.
It was an okay watch. But in it's current form, it not good story telling. It is very much like BvS, Star Trek into Darkeness, or say Phantom Menace. It looks good on the surface. A lot of heart went into making it. But the story structure is just rotten. Instead it comes of as a string of SLN slice of life skits with some CGI fight scenes at the end.
With a proper script, these actresses, and editing, this movie could have been great. All the pieces are there.
I'm willing to give a second movie a chance (or a good directors cut of the first). But as it is, the current GB 2016 is a letdown in my eyes.
It was an okay watch. But in it's current form, it not good story telling. It is very much like BvS, Star Trek into Darkeness, or say Phantom Menace. It looks good on the surface. A lot of heart went into making it. But the story structure is just rotten. Instead it comes of as a string of SLN slice of life skits with some CGI fight scenes at the end.
With a proper script, these actresses, and editing, this movie could have been great. All the pieces are there.
I'm willing to give a second movie a chance (or a good directors cut of the first). But as it is, the current GB 2016 is a letdown in my eyes.
On a 2nd viewing you'll probably find even more issues. I just hope the director's cut makes improvements as well.
Count Dookkake
Member
WTF was up with the cartoon ghost?
How did that make it into the final cut?
How did that make it into the final cut?
Yeah, i thought that seemed off too. it almost seemed like a different character.
Like all of a sudden she's turned into an autist that can barely complete sentences.
I think the skeleton is there to build a good character out of Holtzmann. They just didn't deliver here.
Yeah that part was weird to me.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
it was not a very well thought out movie
minor nitpick that shows how little they cared: the news stuff doesn't even look like real news footage. compare that to the larry king montage and the magazine covers from the original
You can tell she was certainly primed to be this sort of character. There is just no substance inside.
MHWilliams
Member
The public sees it that way. Remember, the mayor's office and upper echelons of law enforcement know ghosts are real. Hence being able to arrest them in this film and simply let them go.
Also, that dude is apparently not dead, but that's not explained in the film itself.
That doesn't make sense, though, MH.
At that point in the movie, the mayors office want them to drop the whole thing and let the government handle it. Accidentally killing someone through incompetence / negligence (because, lets face it, that's what it was) is the perfect opportunity to lock them up.
Additionally, this was one of their biggest detractors whom they just killed.
I've read that they decided to not show the chalk outline of the dead body because they wanted to leave the death ambiguous (or maybe they realized how badly written this was and used editing to make it go away), but that doesn't really help either because you never see him again. That and I'm sure lots of old guys can survive second story falls after being blasted through the window, but hey, we can assume he lived
.That and, even though they tried to use editing and out of movie explanation "Oh, he lived!"
....come on, he was clearly meant to be dead and most viewers assumed he died.
Look! The Pie!
Member
Saw it tonight. Really enjoyed it.
Sure, it wasn't laugh-out-loud hilarious aside from a few moments, but I had a smile on my face throughout. Each of the five mains (sorry, but Hemsworth played as much a part in the film as any of the Ghostbusters) were well-cast and played their parts well.
Not a perfect movie by any means, but I had a good time with it.
Sure, it wasn't laugh-out-loud hilarious aside from a few moments, but I had a smile on my face throughout. Each of the five mains (sorry, but Hemsworth played as much a part in the film as any of the Ghostbusters) were well-cast and played their parts well.
Not a perfect movie by any means, but I had a good time with it.
WordAssassin
Member
It wasn't the 1930s, it was a mashup of several different eras. Pilgrims aren't from the 30s, neither was the movie Taxi Cab (70s) which the ghosts turn one of the billboards to, along with another movie from the 60s.
What was missing, or rather what was left in, was a battle sequence that was supposed to be from the original villain. He was a mass murderer and he brought back killers from all eras of American history, hence the final battle transforming Time Square into all different decades and ghosts from all through time. The villain was also supposed to be played by Peter Dinklage so, imagine that.
The most glaring omission to me, is the white hair thing. Why does it happen? That entire sequence when it happened was a huge special effects thing so they probably couldn't really cut it or refilm it, but there is nothing else in the entire movie to explain it and they're back to colored hair in the very next scene. Someone theorized that it's supposed to be a play on the old wive's tale of seeing a ghost and being scared so bad it turns your hair white but I mean, if that were the case they could have easily ADR'd someone joking "Your hair! Looks like you've seen a ghost!" As it is, it's the single most confusing aspect of the movie to me.
That doesn't make sense, though, MH.
At that point in the movie, the mayors office want them to drop the whole thing and let the government handle it. Accidentally killing someone through incompetence / negligence (because, lets face it, that's what it was) is the perfect opportunity to lock them up.
Additionally, this was one of their biggest detractors whom they just killed.
I've read that they decided to not show the chalk outline of the dead body because they wanted to leave the death ambiguous (or maybe they realized how badly written this was and used editing to make it go away), but that doesn't really help either because you never see him again. That and I'm sure lots of old guys can survive second story falls after being blasted through the window, but hey, we can assume he lived
That and, even though they tried to use editing and out of movie explanation "Oh, he lived!"
....come on, he was clearly meant to be dead and most viewers assumed he died.
The government doesn't want them to stop. They explicitly say that they were allowed to continue being Ghostbusters. The scene following their visit with the mayor is even opened with one of the women (I think Abby) specifically saying they're being allowed to continue hence why they're testing new weapons.
What they were asked by the government, was to keep it on the DL. That's why there was that long cat-out-of-the-bag sequence. Maybe you checked out and missed it because apparently that's a scene that ruffles a lot of people who don't like the improv verbal diarrhea Feig movies are filled with. But the entire point of the mayor scene and the scene directly following it is to explain that the government knows about ghosts and they want the Ghostbusters to keep doing what they're doing but to stay out of the public eye.
Also, like it or not, there is now a Ghostbusters Cinematic Universe [how far they go with it remains to be seen though, it sounds like at the very least we'll get a sequel and the TV cartoon] and that book is part of that universe, so the character isn't dead. The scene of him being loaded into an ambulance was very likely cut for time, not some ridiculous conspiracy theory, since Feig HAD to get the movie under 2 hours and showing that he was alive served no relevance to the plot after that scene. IMO they should have made it explicit he's dead because fuck Bill Murray. I love the guy but fuck him. The reason we're even having this conversation right now is because of him.
I assume that they'll either stick that scene back into the Extended Cut, or somehow retcon it in the sequel, but as it stands that book is canon and he's alive.
brandonh83
Banned
FlammableD
Banned
and now i make another post then run away and watch the storm
There are several problems with this.
First, they were depending that it would not drop like an action movie but more like a comedy with a big multiplier, which seems more and more out of question, especially when a movie like bad Moms hits this week.
The new Ghostbusters is closer to an Adam Sandler movie than to the old Ghostbusters and how this will work out in the European market is not known. Usually they don't work that well, but if the brand still is strong enough it may make some money there.
Star Trek has Europe and China to count on, Ghostbusters only maybe Europe if the humor works. So people know Star Trek will make a profit.
The marketing budget for Ghostbusters was huge, so they have to make 300 millions to not lose money. Feig said 500 million to be seen as a success and at the moment it takes Sony a LOT of luck already to not lose money. They still may lose 100 million on this movie.
First, they were depending that it would not drop like an action movie but more like a comedy with a big multiplier, which seems more and more out of question, especially when a movie like bad Moms hits this week.
The new Ghostbusters is closer to an Adam Sandler movie than to the old Ghostbusters and how this will work out in the European market is not known. Usually they don't work that well, but if the brand still is strong enough it may make some money there.
Star Trek has Europe and China to count on, Ghostbusters only maybe Europe if the humor works. So people know Star Trek will make a profit.
The marketing budget for Ghostbusters was huge, so they have to make 300 millions to not lose money. Feig said 500 million to be seen as a success and at the moment it takes Sony a LOT of luck already to not lose money. They still may lose 100 million on this movie.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
I can't trust anyone who spells "wacky" with an h tbph
That's how wacky her performance was.
Yeah Star Trek will almost certainly do better worldwide then Ghostbusters, especially since it's actually going to open in China, but I wouldn't say Star Trek is exactly doing great either.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
SillyEskimo
Member
Whacky and wacky are the same word spelled in two different ways, just like color or colour.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Not in my America.
Not in the UK either.
spookyfish
Member
I finally got a chance to see this.
I am one of those who really is over the whole reboot culture in Hollywood, as I think too many unnecessary movies have been made. I'm also not sure of any reboot that has really done that well, financially. (Maybe Star Trek? I don't know.)
I found the movie to be inoffensive, and actually chuckled a bit. I like Wiig and McCarthy together, so I enjoyed them. Honestly, McKinnon and Jones surprised me. They both were legitimately funny.
But, in the end, I thought the movie was just that: unnecessary. The villain was garbage-tier, and the finale paled in comparison to the original movie's (which I find really odd).
Someone on here said "there was no tension" and I think he/she is right. The movie just moves along, from one scene/set piece to another. There's really no development.
I'll be interested to see it in 3D, though, since people have said it actually kind of pushes 3D.
I am one of those who really is over the whole reboot culture in Hollywood, as I think too many unnecessary movies have been made. I'm also not sure of any reboot that has really done that well, financially. (Maybe Star Trek? I don't know.)
I found the movie to be inoffensive, and actually chuckled a bit. I like Wiig and McCarthy together, so I enjoyed them. Honestly, McKinnon and Jones surprised me. They both were legitimately funny.
But, in the end, I thought the movie was just that: unnecessary. The villain was garbage-tier, and the finale paled in comparison to the original movie's (which I find really odd).
Someone on here said "there was no tension" and I think he/she is right. The movie just moves along, from one scene/set piece to another. There's really no development.
I'll be interested to see it in 3D, though, since people have said it actually kind of pushes 3D.
Mega Man's Electric Sheep
Member
The white hair thing is so incredibly obviously a "see a ghost and your hair turns white" thing that they didn't need the characters to spell it out by saying it, and their hair was back to color because they dyed it, hence the Garfield/Andrew Garfield joke.
"So a man you've publicly feuded with visited your establishment and after heated words he was thrown out a window? And you claim a ghost did it?"
old manatee
Banned
McKinnon's Holtzman reminded me of a 90's Pauly Shore performance, when he was doing the Weasel in films like Encino Man and Son in Law.
Rhomega Beta
Member
I'm surprised how much I liked the movie. It's not perfect or better than the 1984 original, but I still liked it and would watch again.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
yeaaaah.....
so I watched this, thinking it couldn't be 'that bad', and it turned out to be absolutely dreadful. Nothing works, the setup for
. Just when you thought it couldn't be more disappointing, it finds a way.
I also cringed at them trying to ape the structure of the original
without understanding anything about why it worked. Best part was Dan Akroyd's almost-in-character cameo. Those few lines were better than anything in the movie, save Patty being an actual person and not 'wacky stand-in without background' like the others. Chris Hemsworth (
) was a funnier character than any of the main cast, and one thing they set up during the movie they only 'paid off' during the *beep*ing credits. Like, fuck you, viewer!
I fully agree with RLM on this one. I hated it. There was no writing on the script here and the whole thing is a waste of time. Hell, I would preferred to see the Max Landis pitch over this crap, even if that pitch was a different kind of crap. But at least he cared about it, goddammit.
Well, thankfully it's bombing so hard we know it won't get a sequel of the same kind. Rebooting the reboot by skipping right into 'global franchise' with a different crew is really all they can do now for a sequel.
so I watched this, thinking it couldn't be 'that bad', and it turned out to be absolutely dreadful. Nothing works, the setup for
ghosts to be there and be back at some point is a video game concept, and it resolves in that way too
I also cringed at them trying to ape the structure of the original
(restaurant, building lighting up, the Real Ghostbusters animated ghost, like wtf)
particularly when possessed
I fully agree with RLM on this one. I hated it. There was no writing on the script here and the whole thing is a waste of time. Hell, I would preferred to see the Max Landis pitch over this crap, even if that pitch was a different kind of crap. But at least he cared about it, goddammit.
Well, thankfully it's bombing so hard we know it won't get a sequel of the same kind. Rebooting the reboot by skipping right into 'global franchise' with a different crew is really all they can do now for a sequel.
Revolutionary
Member
Saw this yesterday afternoon during a matinee. Gave myself a day to cool down before posting what I thought.
If there's one word to describe this movie: overproduced.
Pros: Wiig, McCarthy, their on-screen chemistry, and some of the cameos (Murray & Weaver are the exceptions*)
Cons: Quite literally everything else. McKinnon (overacting), Hemsworth (I found Wiig/McCarthy's reactions to his stupidity more funny than his actions/lines), the new soundtrack (that Fallout Boy song is atrocious), the comedic tone in general (way too much slapstick over dry humor), the villain, the Snyder-esque direction of the action sequences... it's just an uninspired mess of a movie.
I really wanted to like this movie because I think Wiig is hysterical and I love Ghostbusters, but it's clear to me that the producers didn't know what the hell they were doing with this.
If they get a chance to do a sequel, I hope they take a long hard look at what's wrong in this movie.
* -
If there's one word to describe this movie: overproduced.
Pros: Wiig, McCarthy, their on-screen chemistry, and some of the cameos (Murray & Weaver are the exceptions*)
Cons: Quite literally everything else. McKinnon (overacting), Hemsworth (I found Wiig/McCarthy's reactions to his stupidity more funny than his actions/lines), the new soundtrack (that Fallout Boy song is atrocious), the comedic tone in general (way too much slapstick over dry humor), the villain, the Snyder-esque direction of the action sequences... it's just an uninspired mess of a movie.
I really wanted to like this movie because I think Wiig is hysterical and I love Ghostbusters, but it's clear to me that the producers didn't know what the hell they were doing with this.
If they get a chance to do a sequel, I hope they take a long hard look at what's wrong in this movie.
* -
Weaver's cameo was a waste & Murray was phoning it in.. in the flesh.. which is kinda impressive, now that I think about it
excelsiorlef
Member
And plenty of adults and reviwers.
I did too, but it did feel a bit one-dimensional.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
WordAssassin
Member
Is this just some kind of stupid dig people keep making or did a sequel to Pixels actually happen?
excelsiorlef
Member
It's just a dig.
Basically lol it's just Pixels all over again... which yeah is pretty lazy analysis.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
It's a joke from the RLM review on it. And also what the movie feels like.
I don't know why people are defensive about this one. It's not funny (or a proper action movie, since the original was both). It feels cobbled together. There is barely a threat worth mentioning. The only actual scene is when they discover what the guy has been doing, and then that immediate cuts to goofing off in the car to another driving shot. It's all over the place.
I would not even bother ranking this above or below ID4-2. They both don't feel like movies, and for some reason we're defending non-movies now? That thread about Batman v Superman where Nerdwriter actually makes a good argument for why the Snyder movies don't work (which isn't: "he see only costumes", see Marc Kermode) and people immediately defending it is really pissing me off. That movie is fucking garbage. This movie is fucking garbage. Stop defending garbage.
I don't know why people are defensive about this one. It's not funny (or a proper action movie, since the original was both). It feels cobbled together. There is barely a threat worth mentioning. The only actual scene is when they discover what the guy has been doing, and then that immediate cuts to goofing off in the car to another driving shot. It's all over the place.
I would not even bother ranking this above or below ID4-2. They both don't feel like movies, and for some reason we're defending non-movies now? That thread about Batman v Superman where Nerdwriter actually makes a good argument for why the Snyder movies don't work (which isn't: "he see only costumes", see Marc Kermode) and people immediately defending it is really pissing me off. That movie is fucking garbage. This movie is fucking garbage. Stop defending garbage.
excelsiorlef
Member
I'm literally laughing here. Other people like this movie bro. It's got decent reviews and is certainly much more appreciated than Pixels
FlammableD
Banned
or you know, people like the film *shrug*
WordAssassin
Member
I have watched Pixels, I even mostly enjoyed Pixels, and Answer the Call does not feel like Pixels. If "vibrant glowing CGI" is all it takes then I guess they should have just named it Pixels 2 instead of Ghostbusters though.
Also the movie isn't fucking garbage, get over yourself. Your tongue must be hung in the middle if you can earnestly say "I don't know why people are so defensive" and then end your post with "the movie is fucking garbage stop defending it". Plenty of people legitimately enjoyed it. It is, if anything, a perfect example of a "okay" movie. Some people think it's great, some people think it's awful, the majority think it's neither. Garbage shit-teir movies don't get average-to-good scores on review sites, they get bad scores. Answer the Call doesn't have a bad score. It's actually ranked ~20% higher than Ghostbusters II, a "real" actual Ghostbusters sequel made by and starring everyone involved in the first movie AKA what people have been absolutely shitting themselves asking for for the past 25 years now.
I'm passionate about the movie because I love the Ghostbusters franchise, but I also enjoy debating stuff online because it's fun and often times I learn new things. Some of the reactions to this movie, though, are absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical and deserve to be commented on.
For what it's worth, I also think Pixels gets a lot of really unjust hate simply because of the cast. If it was any other group of actors besides Adam Sandler and Kevin James, people wouldn't have shit to say about it, it would just be an average movie about games with vibrant special effects.
Except for the girl as a trophy, that shit is terrible and never should have made it into the final movie, good lord. Did nobody protest to that or did they simply not even think of why that was an awful idea?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked