[movie] Ghostbusters - female edition

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Jul 12, 2016 10:21 pm

Find a cheap weekday to go. I have a local theater that does cheap Tuesday's that I may start taking advantage of.

morlac · Post by **morlac** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:06 am

YellowKing wrote:I've decided I'm going to go see it. As much as I don't want to hand over money for this, I don't want to trash it without seeing it. At least if I pay my $8, I will have the right to bitch.

I don't mind spending money if my Daughter likes it. When she is entertained than I am entertained or at least can take delight in her entertainment. I mean that is what we came for...

EvilHomer3k · Post by **EvilHomer3k** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 11:09 am

ImLawBoy wrote:Although I've (jokingly) in the past said the line about something ruining my childhood, I likely will go to my grave never truly understanding it (and the original Ghostbusters was a huge part of my youth and helped to set the tone for my comedic tastes going forward). Regardless of whether this movie is good or bad, it will have zero impact on my memories of the original. Maybe new generations will have different views of things. Maybe the franchise will go in a different direction going forward (although let's face it - any third official sequel with the original cast (or what's left of it) likely would have been pretty lame anyway). Doesn't matter - the original movies are still out there and are still as good, and I can still watch them when I want.

Frankly, there's a lot of ridiculous melodrama surrounding this remake all the way around. While there's legit criticism to be had regarding the value of rebooting a franchise in this manner, much of it was way over the top. There was also legit criticism of that over the top reaction, but much of it was way overblown, too.

It's another movie. It will be good or it won't be. It will make money or it won't.

On the other hand, this is the internet. People will argue about things that are important to them. People will say they don't understand that argument.

Hush, you and your logic. It has no place here.

YK, I'm disappointed that you are seeing it in the theatre. At least wait until it comes out on Netflix. You are part of the problem. Whether you like the movie or not you are giving them money to make a sequel. If you don't want another made stop complaining about the movie and don't see it (or borrow the DVD when it comes out from someone). By going to the movie you are supporting it. If all the people who said this movie sucks didn't see it there wouldn't be another and they'd be proven right that it was the wrong way to go about the reboot. But, like you, a lot of them will. For the greater good, you need to stay home and re-watch the original (or go to a good, original movie instead).

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 11:11 am

Honest Trailers - Ghostbusters 2

The best part is the side by side of the two movies showing an identical plot.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 11:14 am

Word, EvilHomer3k.

Buatha · Post by **Buatha** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 11:18 am

Well, my daughter would like to see it (12), and it IS a movie with all females in the lead roles. So, for sitting through every one of mostly men sci-fi movies with me, I'm willing to take her to see a female-based paranormal comedy.

Hey, the Internet bashed Pixels, but my kids LOVED it. I actually got a kick out it even though the reviews were screaming "Turd Ferguson".

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 11:23 am

EvilHomer3k wrote:
ImLawBoy wrote:Although I've (jokingly) in the past said the line about something ruining my childhood, I likely will go to my grave never truly understanding it (and the original Ghostbusters was a huge part of my youth and helped to set the tone for my comedic tastes going forward). Regardless of whether this movie is good or bad, it will have zero impact on my memories of the original. Maybe new generations will have different views of things. Maybe the franchise will go in a different direction going forward (although let's face it - any third official sequel with the original cast (or what's left of it) likely would have been pretty lame anyway). Doesn't matter - the original movies are still out there and are still as good, and I can still watch them when I want.

Frankly, there's a lot of ridiculous melodrama surrounding this remake all the way around. While there's legit criticism to be had regarding the value of rebooting a franchise in this manner, much of it was way over the top. There was also legit criticism of that over the top reaction, but much of it was way overblown, too.

It's another movie. It will be good or it won't be. It will make money or it won't.

On the other hand, this is the internet. People will argue about things that are important to them. People will say they don't understand that argument.
Hush, you and your logic. It has no place here.

YK, I'm disappointed that you are seeing it in the theatre. At least wait until it comes out on Netflix. You are part of the problem. Whether you like the movie or not you are giving them money to make a sequel. If you don't want another made stop complaining about the movie and don't see it (or borrow the DVD when it comes out from someone). By going to the movie you are supporting it. If all the people who said this movie sucks didn't see it there wouldn't be another and they'd be proven right that it was the wrong way to go about the reboot. But, like you, a lot of them will. For the greater good, you need to stay home and re-watch the original (or go to a good, original movie instead).

Part of "the problem"? I do enjoy the drama here. But the problem of tired reboots and bad follow-ups springs eternal, regardless of what YK does with his $9.50 (or whatever).

As for myself, it doesn't seem worth checking out at this point, unless my daughter starts to take an interest in it.

EvilHomer3k · Post by **EvilHomer3k** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 11:43 am

As an individual, no. But it's no different than a single vote. He is giving the movie a thumbs up by going. YK has been pretty vocal in his dislike for the movie but is still going. If he truly doesn't want it to succeed going is the opposite of what he (and everyone else complaining) should do.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 12:01 pm

EvilHomer3k wrote:As an individual, no. But it's no different than a single vote. He is giving the movie a thumbs up by going. YK has been pretty vocal in his dislike for the movie but is still going. If he truly doesn't want it to succeed going is the opposite of what he (and everyone else complaining) should do.

It's just funny to make this like a cause or something. It's another reboot in a long line of reboots.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:12 pm

I get EvilHomer3k's point, but at the same time I don't like being the person judging something without having seen it first. Even though I've been vocal about my dislike, it's been based on speculation. And ultimately I'm being a hypocrite if I trash the movie without seeing it first.

If I could shut my yap and not talk about it, I'd probably be content to wait for it to come out on Netflix. But my need to dissect the thing is overriding my distaste in giving them money.

Of course, me going to see ANY movie depends on babysitting, so there's a better than even chance I'll never be able to get out to it anyway making the whole point moot.

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:44 pm

Wanting a movie to fail because of internet dog piling negative hype, before anyone has even seen the movie, is kind of silly. I will wait until its out and true word of mouth opinions are out there. It may be a bad movie it may not but a lot of the more vocal hate seems to be misogynistic in nature and I refuse to judge a movie based on that.

EvilHomer3k · Post by **EvilHomer3k** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:57 pm

I don't hate the movie and want it to fail but my dislike for it is based on the trailers and Paul Feig. I disliked Bridesmaids and his other movies (though some of the TV episodes he did was funny) and the trailers simply were not funny. I'm with ILB on the whole childhood thing. This version of GB changes nothing about the originals. If my kids ask to see the movie I'll take them but otherwise I won't be seeing it in the theatre.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:02 pm

Oh, but Bridesmaids was awesome as hell.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:14 pm

In a way I do want it to fail and it has nothing to do with my childhood memories of Ghostbusters. I don't consider that movie sacred in any way. I want it to fail because I enjoy original movies and I'm tired of them getting pushed out of the theaters to make room for Crap 2. When I have a choice between an obvious money grab or something like The Nice Guys, I'm opting for the latter every time. By giving money to Ghostbusters I'm saying that I'm okay with tired remakes. I'm not going to bash people who do go see it, but when someone is so vocally opposed to this movie's existence and then decides to pay to see it at the theater anyway, I will think, "dude, WTF?"

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:18 pm

I think someone mentioned Tim Burton? I'd take a Tim Burton take anyday over what Paul Feig gave us. Paul Feig just really feels like the wrong directorial choice.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:24 pm

McNutt wrote:In a way I do want it to fail and it has nothing to do with my childhood memories of Ghostbusters. I don't consider that movie sacred in any way. I want it to fail because I enjoy original movies and I'm tired of them getting pushed out of the theaters to make room for Crap 2. When I have a choice between an obvious money grab or something like The Nice Guys, I'm opting for the latter every time. By giving money to Ghostbusters I'm saying that I'm okay with tired remakes. I'm not going to bash people who do go see it, but when someone is so vocally opposed to this movie's existence and then decides to pay to see it at the theater anyway, I will think, "dude, WTF?"

At the same time, I don't think it's a trade-off where we either get this or something like Inception. 90% of movies are going to be vanilla crap - it's just a matter of which type of crap is getting cranked out at any given moment. When and if reboots run out of steam, the studios will start running a different type of shlock into the ground.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:25 pm

Rumpy wrote:I think someone mentioned Tim Burton? I'd take a Tim Burton take anyday over what Paul Feig gave us. Paul Feig just really feels like the wrong directorial choice.

Not a fan of Tim Burton and specifically I tend to have a strong dislike of his work on other's source material (whereas I have enough good memories of his original work that I'm more openminded about it) but I'd hear others out to see if it was worth watching.

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:56 pm

LordMortis wrote:
Rumpy wrote:I think someone mentioned Tim Burton? I'd take a Tim Burton take anyday over what Paul Feig gave us. Paul Feig just really feels like the wrong directorial choice.
Not a fan of Tim Burton and specifically I tend to have a strong dislike of his work on other's source material (whereas I have enough good memories of his original work that I'm more openminded about it) but I'd hear others out to see if it was worth watching.

I say it more out of his early material, like Edward Scissorhands and Pre-Planet of the Apes rather than his latter output which tend towards dreck. His earlier movies were whimzy and fun, something I could easily have seen applied to GB without it being too dissimilar as a whole. Well, as long as we wouldn't get Johnny Depp as a GB.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:07 pm

2005 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory <<<Sucked
2003 Big Fish <<< Acceptable
2001 Planet of the Apes <<< Sucked
2000 The World of Stainboy (Short) <<< Never saw
1999 Sleepy Hollow <<< Bad
1996 Mars Attacks! <<< Had some really good moments.
1994 A Visit with Vincent (Video documentary) <<< Never saw
1994 Ed Wood <<< Never paid attention to
1992 Batman Returns <<< Horrible
1990 Edward Scissorhands <<< Great
1989 Batman <<< Horrible
1988 Beetlejuice <<< Great
1985 Pee-wee's Big Adventure <<< Great

That's the pattern for me. I don't think I've seen a thing since. I thought he did Nightmare Before Christmas but I didn't see it under his direction. I honestly was bored by it and would rather watch rewatch Mr HeatMiser and Mr Freeze.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:16 pm

Tim Burton did the Planet of the Apes remake? God that movie sucked.

McNutt · Post by **McNutt** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:25 pm

Was I the only one that liked Batman?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:25 pm

McNutt wrote:Was I the only one that liked Batman?

No. A lot of you did. It was a huge hit. You're all wrong.

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 pm

The most recent one of his I've seen is Big Eyes. That one was really good.

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:31 pm

Rumpy wrote:I think someone mentioned Tim Burton? I'd take a Tim Burton take anyday over what Paul Feig gave us.

That's a horrible thought.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:47 pm

Tim Burton produced and created The Nightmare Before Christmas - all the story and character designs are his so it's definitely a Tim Burton movie even if he didn't direct it.

I generally agree with LordMortis' review of his films. Still, he's one of those figures who has such a signature style that I have to love the guy even if he misses the mark at times. He practically created an entire look and feel - how many times have you seen something described as "Tim Burton-esque?" That's pretty awesome.

Rumpy · Post by **Rumpy** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:05 pm

msteelers wrote:
Rumpy wrote:I think someone mentioned Tim Burton? I'd take a Tim Burton take anyday over what Paul Feig gave us.
That's a horrible thought.

And that's just it. I don't like him all that much, but at least he has an undeniable style, and if I'd be forced to choose between the two in who to direct it, I'd go with Tim Burton.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:43 pm

I've had this in my head now for like a month. Figured it was time to unleash it so the rest of you bastards can suffer too.

sgoldj · Post by **sgoldj** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 9:32 pm

LordMortis wrote:
McNutt wrote:Was I the only one that liked Batman?
No. A lot of you did. It was a huge hit. You're all wrong.

This thread needs an enema.

EvilHomer3k · Post by **EvilHomer3k** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 11:49 am

Smoove_B wrote:I've had this in my head now for like a month. Figured it was time to unleash it so the rest of you bastards can suffer too.

I actually liked it but it went on for about 2 minutes too long.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 12:56 pm

McNutt wrote:Word, EvilHomer3k.

Word, Lawnboy!

LordMortis wrote: 1994 Ed Wood <<< Never paid attention to

Go for the Depp, but stay for the Landau. The movie's a damn classic, that is all.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 12:59 pm

hepcat wrote:
McNutt wrote:Word, EvilHomer3k.
Word, Lawnboy!

Word, Hepcat!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:01 pm

Yeah, I should've included the bit from Lawnboy I was referencing there, shouldn't I?

But in all seriousness, I have to agree with his opinion that this doesn't detract from the original's greatness. If you don't like it, don't see it.*

*This does not apply to the I Am Legend travesty from a few years ago. Richard Matheson is sacred.

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:08 pm

hepcat wrote:*This does not apply to the I Am Legend travesty from a few years ago. Richard Matheson is sacred.

Yes, but the movie wasn't all bad. I enjoyed the film when it came out, and then went to read the original story. Granted, I could never watch the movie again, but if the movie had never come out I never would have read the story.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:19 pm

hepcat wrote:Yeah, I should've included the bit from Lawnboy I was referencing there, shouldn't I?

But in all seriousness, I have to agree with his opinion that this doesn't detract from the original's greatness. If you don't like it, don't see it.*

*This does not apply to the I Am Legend travesty from a few years ago. Richard Matheson is sacred.

Actually, hipcat, I Am Legend just further proves the point. Even a movie version like that couldn't detract from the original's greatness. If anything, it further reinforced its greatness.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:27 pm

Word Lawnboy!

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:32 pm

For me it's less about ruining the original, and more about ruining the chance of ever having a worthy follow-up.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:37 pm

msteelers wrote:
hepcat wrote:*This does not apply to the I Am Legend travesty from a few years ago. Richard Matheson is sacred.
Yes, but the movie wasn't all bad. I enjoyed the film when it came out

Blink once if you're being held hostage right now by someone with the last name Smith. Blink twice if you're having a stroke and don't know what you're writing.

El Guapo wrote:Word Lawnboy!

Lawnboy is an old joke that I continue to torment him with years and years after any normal human being would've stopped and realized it just wasn't funny anymore.

YellowKing wrote:For me it's less about ruining the original, and more about ruining the chance of ever having a worthy follow-up.

That is a valid point. But if the Spiderman franchise has taught us anything, it's that Hollywood will keep trying until the sun fades from the sky, or Mark Wahlberg takes an acting class.*

*My money is on the death of the sun.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:51 pm

YellowKing wrote:For me it's less about ruining the original, and more about ruining the chance of ever having a worthy follow-up.

I don't see the impact. There wasn't going to be anything with the original cast that was worth a damn. If the new movie is good, there might be more interest in more reboots down the line. If the new movie is bad, there is a chance someone will want to salvage the original's legacy. Regardless, why do we need a follow up? This isn't like the Star Wars or Game of Thrones/ASoIaF universes where there is a whole world with lots going on. It's about three goofy scientists and a token minority who occasionally team up to save New York City from some goofy supernatural threat. I think Ghostbusters 2 (which I still enjoyed) showed that they pretty much shot their wad on the first movie.

hipcat wrote:
Le Guapo wrote:Word Lawnboy!
Lawnboy is an old joke that I continue to torment him with years and years after any normal human being would've stopped and realized it just wasn't funny anymore.

I like to think he knows that.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:52 pm

YellowKing wrote:For me it's less about ruining the original, and more about ruining the chance of ever having a worthy follow-up.

Word YellowKing!

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 6:00 pm

hepcat wrote:But if the Spiderman franchise has taught us anything, it's that Hollywood will keep trying until the sun fades from the sky, or Mark Wahlberg takes an acting class.*

*My money is on the death of the sun.

Blame broke-Marvel for signing a crappy contract that lets a company keep the rights as long as they keep cranking out films.