It is going to be really interesting to see what people REALLY think of this film in about two years. When people aren't taking sides due to political beliefs.
Ghostbusters reboot
-
-
Eh, he's a food critic, so I don't think he's a good source to go on. I'd just wait until the embargo properly drops first. Besides, he goes and says the original was great because it was "not in on the joke". Yeah, the movie with the giant Stay Puft Marshmallow man is "not in on the joke". He DOES realise that the original Ghostbusters was a comedy, right?
I see what you're saying…but I disagree with you entirely.
Yes, the original Ghostbusters was a comedy. But it was a quirky, witty comedy; the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man rampaging through NYC is funny because it's a children's mascot summoned in a moment's desperation, it's played straight, thus it's funny. The entirety of the movie everything is played straight.
To have the ghostbusters logo as the "final boss" is like wearing a ten gallon hat with confetti shooters and "META" written on it with big neon letters. It isn't funny, it isn't cute, and it isn't clever it's stupid. A certain level of awareness is ok if you do it the right way, but when you overendulge on it you drag everything else with you.
By all accounts with everything we've seen so far this does not suggest that this is anywhere near the original; in fact, the embargo seems to strength my suspicions. Sony is on maximum damage control.
What we have here is the equilivent to a modem Adam Sandler "comedy" doing a bargain bin level cosplay as a Ghostbusters movie. Every character is a cartoon, there is no thought or creativity to be seen, and what isn't agrivatingly stupid is bland bordering on bitterness. And to top it all off, if the guy is telling the truth. than the movie is also filled with the societal perception of a tumblr tot....while also having a character who's job seems to be "Sassy Black Girl 101".
-
Eh, he's a food critic, so I don't think he's a good source to go on. I'd just wait until the embargo properly drops first. Besides, he goes and says the original was great because it was "not in on the joke". Yeah, the movie with the giant Stay Puft Marshmallow man is "not in on the joke". He DOES realise that the original Ghostbusters was a comedy, right?
He's right though. The original movie played it straight. The leads were all serious in a weird situation. They had jokes and banter, but they weren't bold over the top one liners.
-
Every character is a cartoon
That's an insult to at least half of the cartoons named Ghostbusters.
As is, I'd say this reboot is about the eleventh most faithful thing to come out of the franchise behind the IDW comics, Ghostbusters: The Video Game, The Real Ghostbusters, the Now Comics, the Extreme Ghostbusters, the Ray Parker music video of the theme, the Slimer! cartoon, every other Ghostbusters video game, the Filmation Ghostbusters, and the KXVO Pumpkin Dance.
-
[hide]
They defeat the "final boss" (who just so happens to look like a giant monster version of the ghostbusters logo) by crossing the streams….and shooting it in the "dick".http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/145/497/051.gif
I'm not fucking kidding.
http://media1.giphy.com/media/6OWIl75ibpuFO/giphy.gif[/hide]
After the trailers I didn't expect anythign less. Ugh. Just gross and dumb teenage humor.
-
After the trailers I didn't expect anythign less. Ugh. Just gross and dumb teenage humor.
I'd go even further and say this level of humor is more applicable to children lol
-
Wait….
! Do they specifically say out loud they are intentionally shooting it "In the dick" and it isn't just "They're shooting it in an unspecified spot that just so happens to be that part of its body"?…...
! I'd be way more forgiving if they were just supposed to be shooting it and the special effects folks unfortunately lined the shot up that way than if the characters like, shout out "It's weakspot is its crotch!".... -
Here's a positive review: http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/07/10/review-sorry-haters-but-ghostbusters-is-great/
Though I don't know how the reviewer can call the movie great when she says there's too much slapstick, fight scenes are bad, it's too long and has too much fanservice.
-
Here's another positive review: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/07/10/ghostbusters-review-bad-news-for-the-ghostbros So basically, it's got a great cast (especially Kate McKinnon), a lot of affection for the supernatural, a diverse comedic tone - but it kinda muddles it on the story department.
-
Guess that rumour about the review embargo not being lifted until Friday was a hoax.
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
The consensus I'm seeing from actually reading the reviews, even some of the bad ones is:
"It's a good fun serviceable Ghostbusters movie. Even if it's not the instant classic the original was, it's fun and nowhere near the tirefire the raging fanboys have been saying it's going to be".
Maybe the raging whining fanboys actually helped the movie? Maybe they got so frothing mad and they spread so far and wide how "terrible" the movie was gonna be that when it ended up serviceable, people are liking it more as a result?
-
A lot of those positive reviews aren't exactly glowing. The general consensus seems to be at best "eh it was alright".
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Wait….
! Do they specifically say out loud they are intentionally shooting it "In the dick" and it isn't just "They're shooting it in an unspecified spot that just so happens to be that part of its body"?…... I'd be way more forgiving if they were just supposed to be shooting it and the special effects folks unfortunately lined the shot up that way than if the characters like, shout out "It's weakspot is its crotch!"....
! The special effects guys can't just do whatever they want, if they lined it up at its dick, it'd be a deliberate decision ordered from the director. To say it's a coincidence is silly, the most natural spot to aim it would be its chest or head. Especially if the camera is pointing at its crotch, it makes the heavy handed symbolism even more obvious.
-
I am going to invoke occam's razor and say that this movie is going to get some positive reviews due to it being a female-cast only movie. I expect this to be Adam Sandler-level of bad and cheap comedy with no real thought or creativity going in beyond "female ghostbusters".
-
@TLC:
A lot of those positive reviews aren't exactly glowing. The general consensus seems to be at best "eh it was alright".
The review score at the moment's higher than I expected, but yeah. This is about what I expected consensus-wise.
-
You have to remember RT is pretty inaccurate at gauging nuanced reviews, a C+ review can be counted as positive or negative depending on the whim of the critic. A lot of the positive reviews seem to be 3/5. The average rating under the percentage tends to be a bit more accurate.
-
Why are people so mad the movie the is getting good reviews lol.
-
Why are people so mad the movie the is getting good reviews lol.
Because sexism, not wanting people to see it, it proving something they may have said wrong, etc. Heck, people are still free to hate it if they want. Plenty of people hate Crystal Skull, and that got a 77%.
-
People are free to hate it if they want, and I'm personally not going to see it because I can't stand Paul Feig/Melissa McCarthy movies, but you can already smell the tinfoil hattery "CORRUPT CRITICS BOUGHT BY
SHILLARYSJWs" comments coming in. -
For what it's worth, I can see a number of reviewers wanting to score it higher or not score it lower because they don't want to appease shitty people online. Not in a conspiracy way; just in a, 'My idea of a score is around this area, so I'm going to score it in the higher place in that area' especially in the context of a lot of the reviews talking about the issues online.
-
I am going to invoke occam's razor and say that this movie is going to get some positive reviews due to it being a female-cast only movie. I expect this to be Adam Sandler-level of bad and cheap comedy with no real thought or creativity going in beyond "female ghostbusters".
That won't be the reason. If there are people who review it higher than they actually feel it's worth, it will be because of the vitriol and hatred surrounding it, whether they mean to do so or not. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or bad thing, but I'm sure it will happen, in fact, I'd say it's already affected the review at IGN. Also, it's hard for me to trust anyone who has reacted favorably to Jones' caricature. From the previews I'm still pretty appalled and can't imagine seeing the film outside of redbox.
-
That won't be the reason. If there are people who review it higher than they actually feel it's worth, it will be because of the vitriol and hatred surrounding it, whether they mean to do so or not. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or bad thing, but I'm sure it will happen, in fact, I'd say it's already affected the review at IGN. Also, it's hard for me to trust anyone who has reacted favorably to Jones' caricature. From the previews I'm still pretty appalled and can't imagine seeing the film outside of redbox.
Yeah, it reminds me of when I saw The Force Awakens last year. I really wanted the movie to be good in order to prove all the doubters wrong. While I still like the movie overall, I'm wondering if I would have liked it less if there wasn't as much of a furor over it.
-
I am going to invoke occam's razor and say that this movie is going to get some positive reviews due to it being a female-cast only movie. I expect this to be Adam Sandler-level of bad and cheap comedy with no real thought or creativity going in beyond "female ghostbusters".
Wouldn't occam's razor make it: It is getting positive reviews because it deserves positive reviews?
-
Yeah, it's like the movie was so thoroughly preconceived as a trainwreck that it seems like any positive elements buoy the review more than they should. The consensus I'm seeing is "Great characters, but the story and visuals aren't very good" That seems more like something I'd read in a critically panned film that has one redeeming quality but is complete doodoo otherwise. But for Ghostbusters it seems like people are giving its redeeming qualities a lot of weight because they seemingly prove the movie is better than the trainwreck the internet predicted. Thus we get mostly positive reviews for something whose only generally accepted positive trait is its cast, which not even every critic has liked (such as the first one)
-
Well, with 46 criitics repoting in, 76% are giving it a positive. Maybe the movie is in fact, passable, and the out of context jokes in the trailers just don't work out of context.
No one is saying its as good as the original though. And after a certain point, I think its unfair to just assume the critics went in with "negative expectations cause of the internet and were pleasantly surprised". If that was the case BvS would be around 70% as well.
That said, knowing that it relies on hit in the crotch gags and sassy black woman tropes, I have zero desire to see it.
I still want to see Tarzan though, so its unfortunate that's tracking so badly.
-
It's like the opposite of BvS. The critics like it while the audience reaction isn't very good at all. Of course i have no real desire of seeing this movie considering how Melissa McCarthy's movies are obnoxious as all hell and relies on shitty humor, fat jokes, and dick jokes.
-
We still have to wait for the audience to see it before we can say they don't like it…...
-
It's like the opposite of BvS. The critics like it while the audience reaction isn't very good at all. Of course i have no real desire of seeing this movie considering how Melissa McCarthy's movies are obnoxious as all hell and relies on shitty humor, fat jokes, and dick jokes.
But audiences didn't like BvS either. It made the majority of its money in its first two days and then had an extremely rapid record breaking fall off based on awful word of mouth.
-
I was talking more about the BvS social media positive reaction from "comic" fans before the movie was officially released, the twitter hype and everyting.This movie hasn't been officially released yet so i am pretty interested to see what the audience think after the first week or so.
-
Yeah, we are presently pre-release on this. Most/All of the complainers haven't actually seen the movie yet and are basing their hate on trailers and, yes, some of them are basing it on "It stars women so it sucks. SJWs/Feminists are evil" etc.
In that respect however, HeartOfDarkness is right. It's basically an opposite BvS at this point in the film's life. Whether that holds once it comes out is anyone's guess tho lol.
-
some of them are basing it on "It stars women so it sucks. SJWs/Feminists are evil" etc.
Yeah i see that alot in the recent flux of movies that start female protagonists. From Mad Max somehow being "Feminist propaganda" to The Force Awakens being a "Mary Stu fantasy". Pretty depressing stuff to read.
-
Most/All of the complainers haven't actually seen the movie yet and are basing their hate on trailers and, yes, some of them are basing it on "It stars women so it sucks. SJWs/Feminists are evil" etc.
Attacking people over a movie not out yet would cause opinions to be biased
-
Ok, This is getting stupid annoying.
Now there are conspiracy theories popping up that Sony Paid for good reviews.
I remind you all that this movie is not out yet. Also, nobody is pointing to any smoking gun. There isn't like some leaked Sony email from that hack that happened where the go "BTW: That Ghostbusters movie we're working on. Get the big bags of cash ready to send to reviewers" or anything. This is LITERALLY coming from this:
- People assume the movie is bad without having seen it.
- People are acting like that assumption must be right and there's no way this movie could possibly actually be good to anyone.
- Therefore, a payoff MUST have happened.
I'm headdesking so hard right now.
I mean seriously, if Sony isn't above just paying Publications, and it'd have to be a lot of them at this point to get a 77% (as of this post) on RT then…. why didn't they do that for Amazing Spider-man 2? Why didn't they do that for either Ghost Rider movie? Why didn't they do that for their Annie reboot? Why don't they do that for the Smurfs movies?
Why does Ghostbusters, and ONLY Ghostbusters deserve this paying off of reviewers.... but NONE of the other bad movies they make get the same??!?!?!?!?!?1?!
-
Sony actually does have a track record of not just paying for positive reviews but actually inventing fake critics for the purpose of getting good reviews. So it's not surprising people would say that.
-
When did they do that before? Legitimate question, I'm not aware this happened.
Also tho, where is the story where someone confirmed at least one of the reviews to be a fake/plant?
People aren't reacting rationally here. They have a blind hatred of this movie and WANT it to be bad, so they're railing against any evidence to the contrary.
-
Iy's been a while back. They invented a critic named David Manning to give them glowing reviews and used a real newspaper as his "employer". I think they've been caught since paying for reviews. Can't remember when that was though.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_(fictitious_writer)Didn't know Sony had actually done something like this.
-
Googled it, they got caught. This happened in 2002 and they had to pay fines and damages to people.
According to this tho, they never made whole fake reviews. What they did was put blurbs they claimed were from real reviews from a real newspaper in their TV spots and on their DVD cases, but if you looked in the Conneticut newspaper they claimed it was from, there was no actual review there.
This is different. This would require they have MULTIPLE fake accounts…. like SEVERAL, and/or they'd need to have bribed a LOT of people.....
I don't buy it.
TBH, I never bought into the blind hate this movie was getting.... but the trailers did look alarming. I resolved to actually see the movie and form my own opinion there and I'm still gonna do that, but I think this has gotten ridiculous. Nobody who is claiming the reviews are fake has an actual smoking gun. Nobody's proved a single account is fake or that someone got bribed, they're simply assuming the movie is terrible based on blind hatred for it and are therefore assuming that the only POSSIBLE way someone could say something nice about it is if they're being paid.
-
Obviously Hillary Clinton is using her Wall Street funding to pay off the reviews, to forward the SJW agenda. Its all because of Marcel Bias. Or something.Or its possible the trailers sucked, like for the previous Paul Feig movie which was quite good, and people don't want to reconsider their stance because Internet.
-
Every Ghostbusters review this weekend.
Ghostbusters! Lotta controversy! Backlash sexist? But reboots bad! Here's bad tweets, tho. Look at these angry dudes! Although point they maybe have? Either way, not gonna take a position!
But now, no more controversy. Controversy bye-bye, because Ghostbusters 2016 Movie is out! Now we can judge based on merits alone…time to show how objective I am!! So here is verdict:
Ghostbusters 2016 Movie...is just OK. Ghostbusters 2016 Movie is not as good as one of the greatest comedies of all time. On other hand, if I say it was bad, people lump me in with misogynist haters -- no good for my personal brand!!! No!!!
So I stay safe. Say movie "just OK." Now to compliment cast:
Cast good! Love cast. Let me name other things cast was in to say love cast: Funny Ladies Get Married, or Funny Ladies Become Spies. Especially love actresses new to movies, because you have no other work to judge them against. Want them to act more! But actors I have seen before also good! And the boy actor was OK!
But now to make comparison to original cast? Comparison not good. New cast not work together as good. This a nice, easy criticism I can lob that will not upset people.
Paragraph about scenes I enjoyed! Now people can't say I'm "a hater" because I loved this one funny scene. Other scene also funny. And was third scene improvised in Ghostbusters 2016 Movie?! Fun set I bet!!
OK let's talk director and writer. Here is where I can be really critical. Nobody reading has emotional connection to director and writer. Not see them as people.
Director and writer fail. Director and writer did not do as good as one of the greatest comedies of all time. So you know I objective, here is where I say I like other things from director and writer, like Funny Ladies Get Married, or Funny Ladies Become Spies. Reviewer liked other movies! This movie, tho...they fail.
Gear switch, more talk of scenes I liked! Ghostbusters 2016 Movie has some pretty good scenes. But on the whole? Just OK.
Can see light at end of tunnel! Almost done with review which will not piss off angry guys but not lump me in with them either. Need to end on feelgood moment...
Slimer reference.
Ghostbusters 2016 Movie review over!
-
Every Ghostbusters review this weekend.
Right. It's really weird and probably too much to hope that there are some reviewers who aren't aware of the movie's internet issues.
-
Either way, someone has to be fired. If the movie is bad and dumb like the trailer suggests don't let the makers anywhere near another franchise. If the movie is decent and enjoyable fun, sack the guys who made these awful trailers.
-
Well, with the movie doing well so far with reviews that gets my hopes up and more than likely I was going to see it anyway. Now there's just a better chance of me not being disappointed.
-
Either way, someone has to be fired. If the movie is bad and dumb like the trailer suggests don't let the makers anywhere near another franchise. If the movie is decent and enjoyable fun, sack the guys who made these awful trailers.
We've had far worse movies and far worse trailers for movies get made and the players involved not get fired that just seems like a rather harsh punishment especially in light of most of the unnecessary heat this movie has generated from day one.
-
You're saying there's other ways of dealing with mistakes other than firing people!?
-
I've skimmed a few comments sections about this "Conspiracy" and what have you and I've noticed a very funny trend.
A lot of the people who are making comments to the effect of "I'm sick of being told I'm 'sexist' for thinking this movie doesn't look very good" are ALSO making comments to the effect of "All of the good reviews are because Sony paid them and/or because they're afraid of pissing off the feminists."
Not kidding. Some of these are in the same POST.
-
You're saying there's other ways of dealing with mistakes other than firing people!?
Well I don't remember hearing anyone of note being fired for making The Godfather Part 3 or Rocky 5…...unless that was the point.
-
Well I don't remember hearing anyone of note being fired for making The Godfather Part 3
Sofia Coppola, she was fired from the screens. The acting on that woman was atrocious.