Movie Debate #46: Ghostbusters (2016)

[Reed Rothchild | 9,510]

 

[Dr. Morbis | 2,088]

I don't know if I'll take heat for this, but I hate affirmative action in movies.  I'm not against having strong female characters if it makes sense and fits with the theme and whatnot (the Alien movies are a great example), but this movie just does not work for me.  They didn't even make the plot tie into the same universe as first movie, so the cameos of the *real* ghostbusters aren't even the characters they originally played.  The only thing I liked was all jokes with the male receptionist they hired, and he wasn't even a ghostbuster...

Worst part of all, they titled the movie "Ghostbusters" so for the rest of eternity you have to put a qualifier on which movie you're talking about: Ghostbusters 1984 or Ghostbusters 2016.

[Jeevan | 8,909]

[ZeldaFreak | 3,600]

For a brief moment I was excited because I thought this debate was talking about the original.

As it stands though, refer to what Jeevan said up above

[Jeevan | 8,909]

1 minute ago, ZeldaFreak said:

For a brief moment I was excited because I thought this debate was talking about the original.

As it stands though, refer to what Jeevan said up above

It's like Im the alcoholic Dr. and you are the little guy in a onesie

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,104]

The original is awesome. This is just awful.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,510]

3 hours ago, ZeldaFreak said:

For a brief moment I was excited because I thought this debate was talking about the original.

As it stands though, refer to what Jeevan said up above

The one we did 4 weeks ago?

[mbd39 | 2,017]

Never seen it. Probably never will.

Maybe if I'm really bored and it happens to be on TV.

 

[Gloves | 11,761]

I believe the term is "schlock". 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,510]

I went with 6.  The three prior Paul Feig movies were all funnier.  Then again, they were 3 of the funniest movies of the last decade.  Tough competition.

[Quest4Nes | 376]

I didnt laugh once

[JamesRobot | 5,786]

This movie got a lot of flack as a gender swapped reboot and I think a lot of people just can't see past it, unfortunately.  I am typically not one for reboots/remakes or affirmative actionizing existing properties but that wasn't really the intent.  It was an appropriate passing of the torch to some seriously funny ladies. 

Of course it's not as good as the original but I enjoy it more than 2, though I'd probably score them about the same.  This movie got made because the original cast (primarily Murray) couldn't come together and agree on another sequel and then Reitman passed away.  Which reminds me that they're doing an official original universe sequel.  Was supposed to hit this year but got pushed back due to COVID of course.  

 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

Just now, JamesRobot said:

This movie got a lot of flack as a gender swapped reboot and I think a lot of people just can't see past it, unfortunately.  I am typically not one for reboots/remakes or affirmative actionizing existing properties but that wasn't really the intent.  It was an appropriate passing of the torch to some seriously funny ladies. 

Of course it's not as good as the original but I enjoy it more than 2, though I'd probably score them about the same.  

 

You seem to share my opinion of it pretty closely.  If you went into it with an open mind, looking for a known group of funny ladies to be funny/crude, it was fairly enjoyable.

[SuperJimtendo | 1,116]

This movie is watchable, i'll even chuckle at a few parts. This movie however missed the mark entirely is the brand of comedy that Ghostbusters had. It's not smart humor it's toilet humor and thats just not what the franchise is supposed to be. 

[guitarzombie | 924]

Its like someone played telephone with 100 people about what the plot is about and the last person was challenged to write the least funny script they could come up with from what they heard.  All I needed to see was the trailer and it completely lost the plot of what made GB incredible.  The writing and chemistry between the characters.  The definition of cringe.

TBH what I think happened was there was so much hype over GB3 and when Bill Murray drug his feet about it, they decided to put something out and strike while the iron was hot with all the buzz and momentum.  Including all the product placement and merchandising.  

[Brickman | 3,982]

I like a lot of what Paul Feig puts out but this I don't plan to ever watch this.

I'm all for having an all female cast and telling more stories to promote that. But in true Holywood fashion, they don't bother to create a new franchise, they try and re invent something that was already great. No wonder it bombed.

[Sumez | 2,933]

For all the hate this movie gets (from people who've not even watched it), I'm not gonna join in on that.

But everything I've seen from the trailer etc. looks like desperate attempts at being funny that just completely fall flat, so that gives me no interest in watching it.
Genuinely good comedies are rare, and the only compulsion I'd have to watch this in the first place is the Ghostbusters brand. If it didn't have that, would anyone have noticed the movie?

Edited November 30, 2020 by Sumez

[Reed Rothchild | 9,510]

24 minutes ago, Sumez said:

For all the hate this movie gets (from people who've not even watched it), I'm not gonna join in on that.

But everything I've seen from the trailer etc. looks like desperate attempts at being funny that just completely fall flat, so that gives me no interest in watching it.
Genuinely good comedies are rare, and the only compulsion I'd have to watch this in the first place is the Ghostbusters brand. If it didn't have that, would anyone have noticed the movie?

If it didn't have the Ghostbusters name it probably would have been a box office success, like every other Fieg movie.

I, mean, I understand people's feelings.  Remakes of The Goonies and Gremlins would (probably) be pointless.  I never watched the remake of Poltergeist.  But I always reserve judgement, and I always try to go in with an open mind.

The new Ghostbusters is merely okay.  But it's certainly not a travesty.  And most of the cast is better than the always spectacularly unfunny Dan Akroyd.

[Sumez | 2,933]

Dan Aykroyd is pretty bad in everything I've seen him in.... except the Ghostbusters movies. Somehow he just fits that character perfectly 

[Tanooki | 4,930]

It's a somewhat upper middling score movie.  You could do a whole lot better, but a slightly even bit more so worse.  I find it disgusting when you have to have this type of person, this sex of person, this or that throw into a movie just because, or into a known franchise, again just because.  Things don't have to be made PC and all snuggly just so someone isn't triggered or offended, and what's worse, when you do it and then you get disgusting vile push back on the people who call you to the carpet over it.  The run up to this movie was disgusting and because of the setup I didn't see it until it was a streaming choice after it was done in theaters.

That said, it's funny, at points, engaging, at points too.  Is it the actual Ghostbusters?  Hell no.  Is it some weird parallel universe remake, retelling, whatever you want where the story works ok enough and had some decent set pieces and funny moments?  Yes.  Was it dumb having the original cast just thrown in as bit parts or walk ons?  Definitely and jarring.

I can watch it, and I can re-watch it, but it's not as good as the original two, or the technical #3 (The Video Game recently re-released a year back) which was the final full cast acting a script out.  It's just not bad either, and I imagine it won't live up to the actual sequel torch passing to the family moving coming delayed into next year which I will pay to go watch.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,510]

@Tanooki I mean, I'd say it was a creative choice, not some PC-driven reaction to anything.  Especially since Feig clearly sees women as his comic muses.

And the only people who were "triggered" are all the manchildren who went lost their shit during the film's buildup and release and review bombed it or went after the cast and crew.  Just like they do with every fresh nerd-dom outrage that comes along.

And again, where was the outrage at remaking The Thing, Poltergeist, Batman, Robocop, etc? 

[Hammerfestus | 3,821]

It was on Hulu or something and I started watching it before I got distracted and wandered away.  I have a pretty short attention span for movies and the stupid potty humor schtick wasn’t cutting it.  At some point I should go back and try to finish it.  Low priority. 
I do appreciate that I got to drink Ecto Cooler again because of this.

[ZeldaFreak | 3,600]

54 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

And again, where was the outrage at remaking The Thing, Poltergeist, Batman, Robocop, etc? 

In The Thing's defense, they never remade The Thing, the 2011 movie was a prequel.

They made tons of absolutely amazing practical effects and the studio forced them to cover it all up with CGI which really sucked, but still, that wasn't a remake, and it was never intended as one

[Reed Rothchild | 9,510]

Please.  Technically it is a prequel because it takes place at the Norwegian base where events transpired immediately before the opening of the Carpenter film, but it's the exact same formula, in the exact same type of setting, hitting the exact same notes.

A spade's a spade.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,510]

And I'd say the remake of the remake of The Thing is another 6/10 sorta deal.  A fun time.  Nothing essential.