Support NeoGAF

[obijkenobi]

I finally got a chance to watch Ghostbusters 2016 (the extended cut) and I was horribly disappointed. Ghostbusters is my favorite film of all time and it felt like I was watching a bad parody of Ghostbusters.

The biggest disappointment was the change of style of humor. Ghostbusters has a lot of subtle, smart humor while 2016 completely changes the style, going for more in your face and dumb humor. 1984 felt like something that could of happened in the real world if ghosts existed and the tech to trap them did, but 2016 didn't.

So many things made it feel like a parody. From the very beginning one of the Ghostbusters wanted the pants of someone who soiled himself when he saw a ghost, but why would anyone want that? It felt like an obvious parody or tribute to the 1884 Ghostbusters collecting slime, but slime would of been useful to them since it would of helped them with their ghost research.

So many of the characters were extremely stupid or acted extremely stupid. I'm not sure how Kevin was supposed to function as an adult. He's an obvious parody of the dumb blond secretary trope but Janine wasn't a dumb blond secretary. Erin wants to prove to Bill Murry's character that ghosts are real so badly that she lets the one ghost they catch in the entire movie free, only to have it kill him and then have the police that question them make jokes about ghosts in movies. So many things like that just don't feel like something that would happen in real life.

The equipment and how they react to it is also very inconsistent, which is really annoying and again something you would see in a parody. The proton packs seem to do a lot of damage, but they don't have any problem firing them at a ghost when other Ghostbusters are running down the same hallway, or standing around testing them in an alley and just barely moving out of the way of the proton streams. They also need to catch the ghost at the concert but at the end they're just whipping them around and making them disappear.

There were some good things. I liked the focus on building the tech which was something a little bit different from the original, even though most of the plot points are very similar to the first. I also liked how the villain wasn't just Gozar, but he felt really under developed. I have no idea why he was able to build a ghost amplifying machine or why he because such a powerful ghost (maybe the machine did it?) I also though the cast had good chemistry together and probably could of made a good movie if they weren't given such a bad parody script.

I redboxed the movie today for my girlfriend and I and this was our reaction for the most part. I was surprised she disliked it more than I did because she loves McCarthy. I think part of her disappointment is that she really wanted it to be better than what it was.

It wasnt "ruin my childhood" but its not a movie I would watch again if I saw it on TV while flipping channels.

 

[shawnbuddy]

Perhaps because they mayor is watching them and he knows they're not frauds and can help him, he makes it go away. But unless that's in the extended cut (which I'm yet to watch) it's unresolved.

Biggest laughs for me were probably the crude stuff like queef joke, water chestnut, "...my pants are toast" shooting the bad guy in the balls and Erin drinking the coffee Kevin spat in. That was a big LOL!

It's because he doesn't die, canonically. Murray's character writes a review blurb for the real world edition of the book from the movie talking about he was convinced ghosts are real. But they could have made that clear in the film.

“Spectral entries are real—and dangerous. If only I’d taken Drs. Gilbert and Yates’s research seriously, I could have saved myself thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses.”
—Martin Heiss, former chairman of the Council for Logic and Data

 

[Jazzem]

Finally watched this...

Basically everything I feared from the trailers; a lowest common denominator comedy with not an ounce of wit to it, coupled with that gaudy plasticky look all Sony high budget productions have these days.

Probably didn't help that I had original Ghostbusters in the background the other day, but I kept turning my head to it because the laughs were so frequent; not once did GB 2016 make me chuckle. Not once! Even crappy comedies have gotten one or two out of me before!

If I were to praise anything, I guess the score was decent? And there were a few visually creative shots, quite liked the parade floats. Otherwise though...yeah I thought this was awful, sad to say :/

 

[Menome]

I picked up the Blu-Ray cheap over the weekend, having been too ill to see it at the cinema last year when it first came out. It's got an Extended Edition on there, is it worth watching this version or stick with the Theatrical cut?

 

[brandonh83]

I picked up the Blu-Ray cheap over the weekend, having been too ill to see it at the cinema last year when it first came out. It's got an Extended Edition on there, is it worth watching this version or stick with the Theatrical cut?

Definitely watch the extended. It has scenes that make scenes in the theatrical flow and make more sense. It also has a few really solid character building scenes not in theatrical.

 

[Menome]

Definitely watch the extended. It has scenes that make scenes in the theatrical flow and make more sense. It also has a few really solid character building scenes not in theatrical.

Cheers for the info, I'll stick it on soon and see what I think of it.

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

GB2016 is up there with Tron Legacy and Pacific Rim for films that I won't ever enjoy as much as I did in the cinema due to a lack of 3D at home.

 

[Superflat]

I was at least hoping that it would work okay as a comedy because I liked Spy, but the comedy here was a lot more lackluster with a lot of them feeling like unfunny mad tv bits.

In the end it was basically disposable blockbuster entertainment that I saw once and won't think about again. The only thing that riles me up a little is that they made Ghostbusters a totally forgettable blockbuster, but disappointing remakes are the norm these days.

 

[5taquitos]

I was at least hoping that it would work okay as a comedy because I liked Spy, but the comedy here was a lot more lackluster with a lot of them feeling like unfunny mad tv bits.

In the end it was basically disposable blockbuster entertainment that I saw once and won't think about again. The only thing that riles me up a little is that they made Ghostbusters a totally forgettable blockbuster, but disappointing remakes are the norm these days.

When they came up with all of their new "weapons" (toys), I checked out.

 

[WordAssassin]

When they came up with all of their new "weapons" (toys), I checked out.

Why? Did you check out of GB2 when they made the Slime Throwers, or from Ghostbusters: The Video Game when they began adding on to/changing the Proton Packs?

 

[5taquitos]

Why? Did you check out of GB2 when they made the Slime Throwers, or from Ghostbusters: The Video Game when they began adding on to/changing the Proton Packs?

1) Yes, the end of GB2 is objectively terrible.

2) Never played it.

 

[Menome]

Having now watched it, I'd give the film a 7/10. Thought all the lead actresses were great, so no complaints there. The plot did seem a little plodding though and disappointingly, the 1984 original had a more believable-looking ghost invasion of New York than this did. Not every joke hit either, and it didn't have that same balance of genuine horror mixed in with the comedy the original managed to get spot-on.

That above paragraph sounds a bit harsh, so I'll definitively state that I Did Enjoy It™.

Great to see the cameos from the remaining originals too and that Bill Murray got his wish

Spoiler

by only appearing in a new Ghostbusters film if his character died.

Just a shame that Harold Ramis didn't live long enough to see it all come to fruition.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

I watched this last night, and didn't really have strong feelings on it one way or the other - probably a straight-down-the-line 5/10 for me.

The good:
- The cast was pretty good. I liked McCarthy, McKinnon and Wiig, but I wish Mann hadn't been typecast as the working-class loud black lady. It felt so dated and cringeworthy to have the three white women as the scientists and the black lady as the sassy street-wise one. That might have flown in the 1984 original, but Jesus holy fuck, sort that shit out in 2016!
- The sets were great, the special effects were good and you can see the money up on screen. It's a very lavish film, although having first seen Ghostbusters as a kid I've always found something creepy about that film, whereas this could have gone creepy in places but instead went for dumb gags.
- I liked that they showed a bit of the building and testing equipment, although I'd have gladly had this last much longer.

The bad:
- Most of the jokes completely missed for me. I think McCarthy and McKinnon are pretty funny, but the material here was mostly weak. Wiig spends most of the film acting irrational to drive the plot forward and I don't think any of Mann's gags landed for me. "The power of Patty compels you" and the demon-ghost landing on her shoulders stood out for me as particularly poor.
- I kind of hated the bit when they're in Times Square, and they're doing the centrepiece fight scene, where McKinnon gets out her dual pistol proton whip things and so on. It wasn't a very good action sequence and felt so forced. Also seems inconsistent in how they dispatch the ghosts - in some scenes they use a weapon to 'obliterate' the ghosts, and in other places they have to trap them, like at the concert. I also didn't like the idea that the ghosts could just possess anyone. It worked in Ghostbusters 2 with Vigo the Carpathian because the film built him up to be a very powerful and ancient entity, but here it's just whatevs - this doomsday scientist guy dies and can now control anyone and get super-strength because why not.
- It was a bit too colourful and wacky for me. I noticed that there were an awful lot of bright colours, from the ghosts themselves, proton packs, McCarthy's PKE Meter, and so on. Obviously that was the style Feig was going for, but I would have preferred all that be toned down a little and the scares played up a bit more. Like at the very beginning, when it has the guy showing people around the house and then when he's alone the locked door opens by itself - I would have preferred the scare be a little more subtle and frightening, but instead the stairs fall away, the floor lights up and a bright blue ghost ascends from the floor. It just seemed a bit bright and flashy, when I was hoping for something a bit more low-key. It was close to being a good scare before it went schlocky.

Anyway, all in all it wasn't bad, but I can see why it failed. Sony should have really set a budget of about $80 million and dialled back on the wacky special effects, but here we are. I don't normally mind Paul Feig's style of comedy (Bridesmaids was excellent), but it was just a swing and a miss this time around.

 

[MarkMclovin]

Man, those steel books look great.