# Ghostbusters (2016)



## The Bluestocking (Mar 4, 2016)

Anyone else excited about this? The trailer made me laugh out loud at various bits 






It's got lots of fanboys of the original films mad as hell - some of them even set up multiple YouTube accounts to downvote it multiple times because of the all-female cast!

To me, however, it looks like summer movie fun and keeps to the spirit of the original. It's something I can take my niece to watch.

Plus: Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, and Sigourney Weaver will be making cameos.

Summer fun here we come!


----------



## Dave (Mar 4, 2016)

A trailer for this was released yesterday. I watched it and didn't think much; thought it was something I might watch on DVD at some time. Apparently, others got much more worked up about it. It has four women characters rather than the original three men. Lots of women thought this was a victory for feminism. Lots of men thought it was a mistake. That was just in the morning. Before lunchtime the film was racist since the only black female is a subway attendant, while the three white women are scientists at the top of their fields. I have to admit, the subway attendant does seem like she was added into the story to make some kind of quota, but didn't the original film have a female secretary who might parallel that role - I forget now - it was 30 years ago and it was never a huge favourite of mine. However, it worked because of the cast, all established comedy actors already. I can't say that I've heard of this new cast and it looks like a reboot/remake and a little too retro, rather than a sequel or anything original. Anyway, if you believe that all publicity, however bad, is good publicity then Ghostbusters has had plenty. Unfortunately, they released it on the same week as Super Tuesday and everyone seems to be talking about the size of Donald Trump's er... hands instead.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Mar 4, 2016)

Dave said:


> It has four women characters rather than the original three men.



The original Ghostbusters was also a team of 4 - 3 white men and 1 black man.

The new team also formed in the same pattern: the 3 white characters came together first, then the black character joined them later to round up the team.


----------



## REBerg (Mar 4, 2016)

Good grief! Fans get in a tizzy about such strange things.

How true to the original could this new offering be, considering that Harold Ramis has died and the remaining stars have aged so much their headquarters would need to be in a retirement community? 

It's a great idea to immediately switch things up by changing the gender of the main characters, regardless of their ethnicity or the order in which they join the squad.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 5, 2016)

I saw the trailer and didn't like it .


----------



## Vladd67 (Mar 5, 2016)

Not impressed by this trailer, but will wait for the film before I make a decision.


----------



## the_evil_ted (Mar 6, 2016)

Yeah, I held off judgement until the trailer came out. It looks like Bridesmaids with Ghosts, it will probably be okay but I'd have been more interested in seeing a third sequel twenty years ago or even the three remaining GBs chasing down a spook in an old peoples home ala Buba Ho Tep, which now I've typed that - I will be slotting that into my player at some point this week. Is anyone else confused whether it's in the same universe as the last two films? The text says 30 years ago... but the characters didn't reference it.

Brave move on Feigs part to cast Leslie Jones as the working class one this time round with all the white gals as scientists. I'm surprised that's not kicked off given the Oscars fiasco (not that I see this getting a nomination).


----------



## Cat's Cradle (Mar 8, 2016)

I'm with you, TBS! I'm really looking forward to this.


----------



## Rodders (Mar 11, 2016)

It doesn't appeal to me at all.

I must confess that i am a little bemused about sexual politics that seems to be following this movie. IE, you don't like the movie because you're sexist.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Mar 12, 2016)

Rodders said:


> It doesn't appeal to me at all.
> 
> I must confess that i am a little bemused about sexual politics that seems to be following this movie. IE, you don't like the movie because you're sexist.



Have you read the comments underneath the trailer on YouTube? Plenty of evidence there of sexism being spewed because the 4 new ghostbusters are women.

If you (not you but the general "you") don't like the look of the movie because you don't find it funny (i.e. the type of slapstick humour doesn't appeal) or you don't like the direction the story looks like it's going in or you don't like that Leslie Jones' character appears to be the stereotype of the street smart Black person, then fair enough. Just don't watch it.

But the majority of the ongoing vitriol are about "feminazis" (and similar comments like "That black actress looks like a freaking gorilla!" and "Feminists say rape is bad. But they raped our souls with this trailer" - yes, these are actual comments that I cut and pasted here from the comments section under the YouTube video), the juvenile jabs about women not being funny, and proud declarations of creating multiple YouTube accounts just to give it multiple thumbs downs by male YouTube users who then declare that anyone calling them out on their sexist behaviour has no sense of humour?

No. Just, no.


----------



## Dan Jones (Mar 12, 2016)

Hmm. I'm torn over this; I think it's odd that they are "rebooting" the franchise in exactly the same way as the original film; ie the original three scientists joined by the fourth, black member; they get hold of a car that looks exactly like the original Ecto-1; the story seems to be very similar; the ghost in the library is the same as the original.

Is it just me or does this just smack of typically lazy Hollywood screenwriting? By simply (and in the case of one scene, literally) regurgitating the tropes and icons from the original film (car, library scene, cast formula, setting, Slimer etc etc) it will draw unfavourable comparisons to the original. My prediction is it'll go down as a missed opportunity to take the series in a thoroughly fresh, different direction.

On the other hand, Melissa McCarthy's always good for a laugh.


----------



## the_evil_ted (Mar 12, 2016)

The Bluestocking said:


> But the majority of the ongoing vitriol are about "feminazis" (and similar comments like "That black actress looks like a freaking gorilla!" and "Feminists say rape is bad. But they raped our souls with this trailer"



Sigh. Raped our souls... Seriously, it's a movie and not even a serious movie. Unless Feig is sewing some secret Zeitgeist into it's celluloid fabric...

No one sets out to make a bad movie, period. These juvenile jabs - which you should coin btw - are exactly that. They aren't comments, there's not enough of the film on show to form a reasonable argument against at the moment so the haters are attacking the only thing they can. The women.

I wouldn't say the screen-writing is lazy, though it's a good point to make. Hollywood does appear lazy, it's definitely stagnating like it did at the end of the sixties and early seventies. The kids of the eighties and nineties are now in the producer seats and looking to make money and wanting to bring back the love for film they had as children (this is my hope anyway), the problem is no one knows what's going to be a success. 

Feig loves working with Melissa McCarthy, I can't believe he set out to ruin Ghostbusters. I can get behind the idea he sees this backlash as free marketing, but he certainly didn't change it for the sake of changing it. I think a lot of the humour will be from the fact they've swapped genders, which has worked for them in the past. 

I also read that McCarthy's original part was that of Leslie Jones character?


----------



## Vladd67 (Mar 12, 2016)

Let's be honest here, the comments section of YouTube is not somewhere to look for reasoned criticism or a sane argument, it is mainly unmoderated and the home of people who find the use of childish insults and ad hominem attacks a first resort.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 19, 2016)

2nd trailer seems much better:


----------



## REBerg (May 19, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> 2nd trailer seems much better:


Looks like this flick may be funnier than the original. (Blasphemy, I know.)


----------



## The Bluestocking (May 19, 2016)

REBerg said:


> Looks like this flick may be funnier than the original. (Blasphemy, I know.)



I burst out laughing at the selfie bit


----------



## REBerg (May 19, 2016)

The Bluestocking said:


> I burst out laughing at the selfie bit


"Don't piss off the ghost."


----------



## The Bluestocking (May 19, 2016)

REBerg said:


> "Don't piss off the ghost."



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 

And I give no effs about those sourpuss "you ruined my childhood" male geeks who are slamming it - this is gonna be fun for me and my little niece! 

#RaisingTinyFeminists


----------



## Dan Jones (May 19, 2016)

The Bluestocking said:


> sourpuss "you ruined my childhood" male geeks who are slamming it



I don't understand the whole "you ruined my childhood" thing. I mean, one can always just go and watch the original, right? Or are all copies of the original going to be disappeared from history from July 15th? The mind boggles.


----------



## ratsy (May 19, 2016)

I'm more offended that Megan Fox plays April O'neil in the Ninja Turtles than a reboot of Ghostbusters with a woman cast. DG said lazy hollywood screenwriting, and I couldn't agree more though. It seems all I see out there are remakes, reboots, and sequels...then the radio just has remakes of old songs...Books seems to be the only thing where I can get something original. Long live books!

But in all seriousness of this movie, I will watch it, and will probably enjoy it. McCarthy is hilarious, and if you haven't seen Spy, watch it...one of the best movies I've seen in a while.


----------



## REBerg (May 20, 2016)

DG Jones said:


> I don't understand the whole "you ruined my childhood" thing. I mean, one can always just go and watch the original, right? Or are all copies of the original going to be disappeared from history from July 15th? The mind boggles.


This writer makes the point that anyone angered over the new movie really needs to take a look inward.
The Soft Sexism Of Hating On The New GHOSTBUSTERS


----------



## The Bluestocking (May 20, 2016)

And here's the international trailer - much better, methinks!






And Chris Hemsworth's gender-flipped Janine character is called Kevin? Oh that priceless!


----------



## REBerg (May 20, 2016)

The Bluestocking said:


> And here's the international trailer - much better, methinks!
> 
> 
> And Chris Hemsworth's gender-flipped Janine character is called Kevin? Oh that priceless!


----------



## WaylanderToo (May 20, 2016)

it made me chuckle a little, which is (obviously) good. The issue for me is not that they've switched from male to female (though why they couldn't have had a mix is beyond me) it's just the apparent laziness of it all. As an aside I do like the African/American woman character


----------



## MemoryTale (May 21, 2016)

REBerg said:


> This writer makes the point that anyone angered over the new movie really needs to take a look inward.
> The Soft Sexism Of Hating On The New GHOSTBUSTERS



This guy makes a lot of good points, but I do want to be able to say I don't want to watch this without people thinking I'm sexist for some reason. I also didn't want to watch the new Turtles films, the only reason I've seen more than one Transformers movie is because Mrs M T likes them, and I have said the new Batman/Superman reboot was way too soon, which is also why I didn't want to see Amazing Spiderman. I don't want to see this film because I don't think it looks good, not because of the gender issues.


----------



## REBerg (Jun 9, 2016)

_Jimmy Kimmel Live_ just had the casts of both the original and the new _Ghostbusters_ on the show. Much to my amazement, not one fistfight! Very cool.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Jun 9, 2016)

REBerg said:


> _Jimmy Kimmel Live_ just had the casts of both the original and the new _Ghostbusters_ on the show. Much to my amazement, not one fistfight! Very cool.



Was Slimer there?


----------



## Nick B (Jun 9, 2016)

I have no interest in reboots, remakes, re-imaginings etc. If anything, I find it just a little insulting to the original movies, as though the writers/directors are saying 'Yeah, good idea, but I can do this better!'.
As with spiderman and so on, it didn't need a reboot, just a follow on. There would have been nothing wrong with this new team taking over from a retiring original team. At least then, an original plotline could have emerged.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 9, 2016)

It just doesn't appeal to me at all.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Jun 9, 2016)

I don't know - my initial reaction was, I have to say, WTF? Why remake it with a female cast? I can understand a not exclusively male cast or even a predominantly female cast but to deliberately go for a female cast for such an 80's 'classic' struck me as 'trying too hard' just to gain column inches. I still stand by that viewpoint. That being said... I do like MM and the 2nd trailer I saw did make me chuckle (and laugh) and I may well take a punt


----------



## REBerg (Jun 9, 2016)

The Bluestocking said:


> Was Slimer there?


 No, but Harold Ramis was well represented by tattoos.


----------



## REBerg (Jun 9, 2016)

Everyone at the show seemed to be having a blast.






‘Ghostbusters’ Old & New Casts Unite On Jimmy Kimmel: Bill Murray Gushes Over Remake


----------



## The Bluestocking (Jul 11, 2016)

The verdicts are coming in. Critic reactions range from positive to mixed:

Review: Sorry, Haters, But 'Ghostbusters' Is Great | Spinoff Online | TV & Film News Daily

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/movies/ghostbusters-review-melissa-mccarthy-kristen-wiig.html?_r=0


----------



## Dave (Jul 11, 2016)

Sorry, this is clearly a very big movie this week, or trying to be one through excessive hype, but I still have no interest in seeing this. I've seen the trailer at the cinema and it looks like a straight-out remake of the original film with better SFX and character's sexes reversed. It doesn't make me sexist to not see any point in that. If you want to see women in strong roles, then write some roles for women in new, fresh films that aren't derivative. I don't hold the original film in any special regard. I can hardly remember it (as was clear from my original post) and I think some people complaining don't remember it either if they are really saying that the "jokey nature disrespects the serious horror aspects of the original." I just see all the possibilities for new material to be made into new films and wonder why they continue to remake and re-imagine things. You alienate the original audience who do actually hold it up in some sacred, high regard and very rarely can you improve on originals.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 11, 2016)

Dave said:


> You alienate the original audience who do actually hold it up in some sacred, high regard and very rarely can you improve on originals.



I don't think the studios are going to alienate many people in this instance - I watched the original _Ghostbusters _with my family not too long ago, and as a special-effect movie from the 1980's it was quite badly dated.


----------



## Dave (Jul 11, 2016)

Fair enough, it hasn't aged very well, but it wasn't a low budget film at the time. It was nominated for Oscars for Best Effects and Visual Effects, nominated for a Hugo award for Best Dramatic Presentation. And the song won a stack of awards. You can always tell a film that has had money spent of it by the peripheral things like music and graphics. The Ghostbusters logo is still prominent in the advertising for this film.


----------



## Toby Frost (Jul 13, 2016)

It doesn't sound like my sort of thing - that kind of intense nostalgia isn't really - but once you get past the buzzwords and name-calling the psychology of this is quite interesting. Why does having a female cast in a remake of a light, silly action/comedy ruin your childhood? Why should it? There are clearly people who genuinely and sincerely believe this to be the case. I would like to know why, because I can’t see how this belief might arise.

The standard responses make no sense: (1) the new film has retrospectively ruined the first film (demonstrable nonsense); and (2) the issue is not that there are women in the film, but that an innocent film has been hijacked by a political agenda (a narrow and suspicious distinction at best).

Anyhow, here’s an article about it all.

Message to the sexist Ghostbusters trolls: you're not the only target market that matters


----------



## Dave (Jul 13, 2016)

> ...the Telegraph was described on the IMDb talk boards as “a well-known leftist UK rag”, which must be a first.


 .The amount of hate can only be explained by sexism, however, I get off the hook because I am on record here as making 





> comparable outcries over Clash of the Titans (2010), Total Recall (2012), Robocop (2014), Jurassic World (2015), and any number of other recent works of Hollywood nostalgia-sploitation.


 He missed Rollerball.


----------



## REBerg (Jul 13, 2016)

Toby Frost said:


> It doesn't sound like my sort of thing - that kind of intense nostalgia isn't really - but once you get past the buzzwords and name-calling the psychology of this is quite interesting. Why does having a female cast in a remake of a light, silly action/comedy ruin your childhood? Why should it? There are clearly people who genuinely and sincerely believe this to be the case. I would like to know why, because I can’t see how this belief might arise.
> 
> The standard responses make no sense: (1) the new film has retrospectively ruined the first film (demonstrable nonsense); and (2) the issue is not that there are women in the film, but that an innocent film has been hijacked by a political agenda (a narrow and suspicious distinction at best).
> 
> ...


Good article. I'll only be disappointed in the new version if it fails have me


----------



## The Bluestocking (Jul 15, 2016)

I have just come out of GHOSTBUSTERS (will take my small niece when I go see it the second time around because I just couldn't wait for her school holidays to begin) and here are my spoiler-free thoughts:

*1. *It is so AWESOMELY COOL AND FUNNY! I didn't know how funny Hemsworth could be - he really does send himself up 

And @REBerg - That "don't p*** it off" selfie scene with the ghost dragon in the trailer is as funny (if not funnier) than the bit in the trailer.

*2. *Its feminism is encoded in its DNA in a very real and comfortable way. However, the jokes and gags are pretty much gender-neutral except for the jabs about butthurt fanboys who have been abusive about the film before it was even released.

*3.* HOLTZMAAAAAAANN! Kate McKinnon is, in the words of an old male friend of mine who was a doubter and is now a fan of the film: "a demented cross between Egon Spengler and Pete Venkman".

The bit in the trailer when Holtzmann licks her gun? The sequence that follows... well, let's just say I'm straight but I'd very *happily* make an exception for her.

*4. *All the original cast who are still living are in it in really organic ways and:

*(a) *You've gotta see Sigourney Weaver's cameo and
*(b)* they dedicated the movie to Harold Ramis (and he would've been SO DAMN PROUD of the film!)

*5.* This is the first film in ages where it surprised me so much at one point that my mouth was open and my popcorn was in my fingers like I was frozen and it took me a moment to realise it.

*6.* Best credits I've seen in a while and the Fall Out Boys version of the theme song totally makes sense now.

*7.* Be sure to stay right til the end. There's a scene you're gonna wanna see!

*8.* Leslie Jones' role is NOT reductionist or token - it's much better handled than Ernie Hudson's character in the original film. Her character is much more fleshed out and is possibly the sharpest one on the team when under pressure.

*9.* Lots of respectful nods to the original but it has its own storyline (i.e. despite what the trailers indicate, it is NOT a blow-by-blow remake or rehash of the original storyline).

@ratsy - You were right: Paul Feig films tend to have crappy trailers but the film itself is golden!


----------



## Cat's Cradle (Jul 15, 2016)

I'm really happy you liked this so much, TBS! My wife and I will go very soon...we're quite excited about seeing it!   CC


----------



## The Bluestocking (Jul 15, 2016)

Cat's Cradle said:


> I'm really happy you liked this so much, TBS! My wife and I will go very soon...we're quite excited about seeing it!   CC



Remember to stay right 'til the end, Marvel movies style. 

Hehehehehe! I'm looking forward to a second viewing, this time with my tween niece in tow! #RaisingTinyFeminists


----------



## Dave (Jul 15, 2016)

It sounds like I might have been wrong about this then, and as far as remakes go, it is actually worth seeing. I will see it eventually anyway, maybe just not at the cinema. Do you think it is good enough to get a sequel?


----------



## The Bluestocking (Jul 15, 2016)

Dave said:


> It sounds like I might have been wrong about this then, and as far as remakes go, it is actually worth seeing. I will see it eventually anyway, maybe just not at the cinema. Do you think it is good enough to get a sequel?



Yes, I think so. I really, REALLY hope so. Only butthurt you-ruined-my-childhood fanboys are still railing against it.

The special effects are very good - much better than the trailers led us to think. And the humour is (mostly) spot-on. Plus, the action sequences have their moments - keep your eye on Holtzmann 

And, um, given the scale and scope of the special effects (especially in the final battle), the film is better served being seen in the cinema.

Like I said - Harold Ramis would be SO DAMN PROUD!


----------



## REBerg (Jul 15, 2016)

The Bluestocking said:


> I have just come out of GHOSTBUSTERS (will take my small niece when I go see it the second time around because I just couldn't wait for her school holidays to begin) and here are my spoiler-free thoughts:
> 
> *1. *It is so AWESOMELY COOL AND FUNNY! I didn't know how funny Hemsworth could be - he really does send himself up
> 
> ...


Way to hold back! 
Looks like I know how I'll be spending a couple of hours this weekend.
I see the film is rated PG-13. Would it be suitable for a 7-year-old?


----------



## The Bluestocking (Jul 15, 2016)

REBerg said:


> Way to hold back!
> Looks like I know how I'll be spending a couple of hours this weekend.
> I see the film is rated PG-13. Would it be suitable for a 7-year-old?



Yes, a 7-year-old who likes his or her movies with a bit of scare factor and lots of laughs would love this 

There isn't any cussing or nudity although there are a couple of scenes where Wiig's character is drooling over Hemsworth's character but that's pretty much played for laughs and would totally whoosh over a 7-year-old's head.

Go ahead and take your grandkids - they'll love the ghosts and gadgets and McKinnon's demented brilliance as female Q.


----------



## REBerg (Jul 15, 2016)

The Bluestocking said:


> Yes, a 7-year-old who likes his or her movies with a bit of scare factor and lots of laughs would love this
> 
> There isn't any cussing or nudity although there are a couple of scenes where Wiig's character is drooling over Hemsworth's character but that's pretty much played for laughs and would totally whoosh over a 7-year-old's head.
> 
> Go ahead and take your grandkids - they'll love the ghosts and gadgets and McKinnon's demented brilliance as female Q.


Good. I'll see if we can clear it with his mom.
I was planning to see it on my own this afternoon, as I have the day off. Then, my wife unexpectedly said that she would would go.
Hmm. Don't know if I can wait that long.
Maybe I'll still secretly go see the 3-D version today. Sounds like I won't mind watching it more than once.


----------



## Dan Jones (Jul 15, 2016)

@The Bluestocking Ohh. I know you're excited but your spoiler free review wasn't that spoiler free and I now know about a certain cameo I didn't know about before! 

But the reviews look good, and the banner at Waterloo station in London looks incredible. I'm really looking forward to it. My daughter is too young to have a clue about it yet, or the original, but I look forward to showing her both in good time


----------



## The Bluestocking (Jul 15, 2016)

DG Jones said:


> @The Bluestocking Ohh. I know you're excited but your spoiler free review wasn't that spoiler free and I now know about a certain cameo I didn't know about before!
> 
> But the reviews look good, and the banner at Waterloo station in London looks incredible. I'm really looking forward to it. My daughter is too young to have a clue about it yet, or the original, but I look forward to showing her both in good time



Sorry. I thought it was spoiler-free because there were reports before the movie came out about how the entire original cast (except Ramis) were getting cameos.


----------



## REBerg (Jul 18, 2016)

Loved the audience reaction whenever an original cast member appeared.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Jul 18, 2016)

REBerg said:


> Loved the audience reaction whenever an original cast member appeared.



What did you think of Holtzmann?


----------



## REBerg (Jul 18, 2016)

The Bluestocking said:


> What did you think of Holtzmann?


She stole the show.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Jul 18, 2016)

REBerg said:


> She stole the show.


 
So @REBerg - Do you like eating "salty parabolas"? LOL!


----------



## REBerg (Jul 18, 2016)

The Bluestocking said:


> So @REBerg - Do you like eating "salty parabolas"? LOL!



I prefer cheesy corn extrusions.


----------



## REBerg (Jul 18, 2016)

Looks like we're not alone in thinking Kate McKinnon is the breakout star here.

Everyone Is Obsessed With Kate McKinnon in Ghostbusters

http://www.bustle.com/articles/1724...ghosbusters-is-the-best-part-of-the-new-movie

Holtzmann reminds me a bit of Dwight Schultz's character, Howling Mad Murdock, on _The A-Team_ television series. Consistently over the top and hilarious.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Jul 19, 2016)

REBerg said:


> I prefer cheesy corn extrusions.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Jul 19, 2016)

REBerg said:


> Looks like we're not alone in thinking Kate McKinnon is the breakout star here.
> 
> Everyone Is Obsessed With Kate McKinnon in Ghostbusters
> 
> ...



I think Holtzmann comes from a similar mould but goes beyond that because she mashes the spirit of Howling Mad Murdock with the whole "Mad Scientist" archetype.

She's currently a one-of-a-kind character who shows girls that it's cool to have brains an that will no doubt spawn a whole generation of similar women characters 

And - dare I say it? - her gadgets are far more inventive than Egon Spengler's


----------



## REBerg (Jul 19, 2016)

The Bluestocking said:


> I think Holtzmann comes from a similar mould but goes beyond that because she mashes the spirit of Howling Mad Murdock with the whole "Mad Scientist" archetype.


Maybe toss in little Doc Brown and a Minion (for the goggles)? 




The Bluestocking said:


> And - dare I say it? - her gadgets are far more inventive than Egon Spengler's


And more abundant! 



Spoiler



I loved the way she used Abby to test her not-quite-ready-for-primetime prototypes.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Jul 19, 2016)

REBerg said:


> Maybe toss in little Doc Brown and a Minion (for the goggles)?



Ooooh! You've nailed it... though I can't imagine Doc Brown dancing around with lighted injector guns 



REBerg said:


> And more abundant!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And it's hilarious how she's always trying to flirt with Erin... and it just flies over Erin's head 

Seriously though - she seems to be filled with unholy glee whenever she's inventing and demonstrating her gadgets LOL!


----------



## REBerg (Jul 19, 2016)




----------



## WaylanderToo (Jul 19, 2016)

TBH I watched this today and was pleasantly surprised that it didn't suck - that being said it could have been funnier and (as in a lot of MM's movies) it does tail off a little towards the end. For me though the best characters were these 2... enjoyed the cameos (didn't see Dan A though) and references


----------



## The Bluestocking (Jul 20, 2016)

WaylanderToo said:


> enjoyed the cameos (didn't see Dan A though) and references



He was the cabbie that Erin Gilbert stopped in the middle of all the chaos.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Jul 20, 2016)




----------



## The Bluestocking (Jul 21, 2016)

On 19th July, Milo Yannopoulis, a notorious internet troll, led a tweeted harassment campaign against_ Ghostbusters _actor Leslie Jones for her role as Patty in the movie. Ms. Jones was pelted with a torrent of disgusting and disgraceful racist and misogynist insults and pictures hurled at her on Twitter to the point where she decided to leave Twitter.

Yannopoulis has now been permanently suspended from Twitter.

In response, the Ghostbusters fan community banded together to send Leslie lots of love and support via this awesome video:


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jul 21, 2016)

the_evil_ted said:


> I also read that McCarthy's original part was that of Leslie Jones character?



I had not heard that; but now, having just seen the movie, I'd have to say that it would have been a really good idea to do it that way! ICaveat: that might have made it difficult for have the fourth ghostbuster obtain their vehicle from her uncle's funeral parlor -- with the uncle being (as I think it was), Ernie Hudson.)


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jul 21, 2016)

REBerg said:


> Looks like this flick may be funnier than the original. (Blasphemy, I know.)



Having now seen it: no.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jul 21, 2016)

WaylanderToo said:


> it made me chuckle a little, which is (obviously) good. The issue for me is not that they've switched from male to female (though why they couldn't have had a mix is beyond me) it's just the apparent laziness of it all. As an aside I do like the African/American woman character



I would suggest that the total gender switch was not laziness, but an attempt to make a political point.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Jul 21, 2016)

Quellist said:


> I have no interest in reboots, remakes, re-imaginings etc. If anything, I find it just a little insulting to the original movies, as though the writers/directors are saying 'Yeah, good idea, but I can do this better!'.
> As with spiderman and so on, it didn't need a reboot, just a follow on. There would have been nothing wrong with this new team taking over from a retiring original team. At least then, an original plotline could have emerged.



While in general I agree with you that remakes are often failures, I have to admit that now and again they will turn out to be a terrific idea -- the first of the new series of "Mummy" movies springs immediately to mind, but there have been others I've enjoyed (much to my amazement, sometimes!)
It's true that there may be a certain "I can do this better than you!" element involved. But I would point out that much of both film and fiction books is about building on earlier works and ideas -- fields of entertainment, to put it simply, evolve, often by building on, or reinterpreting, past work...it's not an insult, it's homage! (At least sometimes...)


----------



## The Bluestocking (Jul 21, 2016)

2DaveWixon said:


> I had not heard that; but now, having just seen the movie, I'd have to say that it would have been a really good idea to do it that way! ICaveat: that might have made it difficult for have the fourth ghostbuster obtain their vehicle from her uncle's funeral parlor -- with the uncle being (as I think it was), Ernie Hudson.)



Not really - they could just have switched Dan Ackroyd and Ernie Hudson's cameo roles.

Also: there are plenty of families that have folks of different races via intermarriage and adoption.


----------



## REBerg (Jul 21, 2016)

2DaveWixon said:


> While in general I agree with you that remakes are often failures, I have to admit that now and again they will turn out to be a terrific idea -- the first of the new series of "Mummy" movies springs immediately to mind, but there have been others I've enjoyed (much to my amazement, sometimes!)
> It's true that there may be a certain "I can do this better than you!" element involved. But I would point out that much of both film and fiction books is about building on earlier works and ideas -- fields of entertainment, to put it simply, evolve, often by building on, or reinterpreting, past work...it's not an insult, it's homage! (At least sometimes...)


True, nothing new under the sun and all that.
But, do we really need a reboot of _MacGyver_? Can anyone but Richard Dean Anderson really be accepted in that role?
We all have our limits.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Jul 21, 2016)

The Bluestocking said:


> On 19th July, Milo Yannopoulis, a notorious internet troll, led a tweeted harassment campaign against_ Ghostbusters _actor Leslie Jones for her role as Patty in the movie. Ms. Jones was pelted with a torrent of disgusting and disgraceful racist and misogynist insults and pictures hurled at her on Twitter to the point where she decided to leave Twitter.
> 
> Yannopoulis has now been permanently suspended from Twitter.
> 
> In response, the Ghostbusters fan community banded together to send Leslie lots of love and support via this awesome video:




I'd have taken issue with calling him an Internet troll - until his tweeting @ LJ. Up until that point his political website was interesting & good (though TBF it had been heading downhill), this behaviour however is beyond the pale (& not even clever/funny, just c/rude) and he deserves all the approbrium heading his way


----------



## Phyrebrat (Dec 3, 2017)

I just saw this film tonight and absolutely loved it. Really made me smile and laugh, and the re-makery was well-considered and novel.

The ensemble cast were brilliant as were all the little nods to the original.

There’s a wonderful homage to Thriller. 

It’s great to see the Patriarchy getting a bit of fun poked at it, too; clearly deliberate. All the men in the movie are inept and ineffectual and it’s done with humour, not spite.

Also, the stupid reliance of CGI in films these days works really well in this instance because it’s so cartoon-y in its soul.

I give it 8/10 and recommend it.

pH


----------



## Caledfwlch (Dec 3, 2017)

I loved it too.
I liked the way it was basically a mix of a Reboot AND a sequel. It's set in the same Universe as the originals - you just know Pete, Egon, Ray and Winston are out their somewhere. 
It had the perfect get out clause to allow it to be something knew, whilst not invalidating what came before.
I can't remember the specific lines, but the Mayor and his Assistant pretty much tell the Girls that "it's happened before, people forget" - clearly a nod suggesting that Egon etc existed in that world and dealt with Ghosts, but presumably it was all covered up "mass hallucination, terrorist nerve gas attack" whatever, the usual stuff.
I thought it was probably accidental/coincidence but it also felt like a nice nod to Doctor Who, which has dealt with that sort of stuff before - from people forgetting an Army of Cybermen storming through the worlds cities whilst Daleks flew through the air exterminating them, to nobody remembering, or being willing to remember the Loch Ness Monster swimming down the Thames through central London (classic Who - I think the story that introduced the Zygons)

And come on! Holtzman! my fave movie geek chick of all time. She felt like a mix of Egon, with Venkman's street smarts/hustling ways and trying to pick up any person of their sexual preference in sight.

I hope there is a sequel.

Oh and of course, Ozzy's wonderful little bit part - forget that whingy, whiny dude who's songs all sound the same, Ed Sheeran being in Game of Thrones - Ghostbusters 2016 showed how to do it! "Sharon, Sharon! I think im having a flashback"


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 17, 2017)

I finally got  to see it. What an awful film. It wasn't even remotely funny.


----------



## Vladd67 (Dec 17, 2017)

WaylanderToo said:


> I'd have taken issue with calling him an Internet troll - until his tweeting @ LJ. Up until that point his political website was interesting & good (though TBF it had been heading downhill), this behaviour however is beyond the pale (& not even clever/funny, just c/rude) and he deserves all the approbrium heading his way


Good job he didn’t do it here in the uk a guy just got an 18 weeks custodial sentence for trolling someone.
I started to watch the film but found it so bad I haven’t finished it, and last night I managed to sit through all of Tom Cruise’s version of the Mummy so you can see how low I set the bar.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Dec 17, 2017)

Vladd67 said:


> Good job he didn’t do it here in the uk a guy just got an 18 weeks custodial sentence for trolling someone.
> I started to watch the film but found it so bad I haven’t finished it, and last night I managed to sit through all of Tom Cruise’s version of the Mummy so you can see how low I set the bar.



Whilst it's right that people are being held to account for crimes committed on the Internet - the Judiciary is being a bit extreme in the sentencing it is making, compared to the "real world" equivalents of the crime.

Most Trolling I would say is akin to harassing and bullying someone in the street, Harassment & Public Order offences I imagine that is, and few would get 18 weeks Custodial for such a thing. There appears to be an attitude that doing things on the Web is somehow worse, and that's an injustice to the victims of the real world versions of the crimes involved.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 17, 2017)

*coughs*

Remember, this discussion thread is about the _Ghostbusters_ (2016) film.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 17, 2017)

Brian G Turner said:


> *coughs*
> 
> Remember, this discussion thread is about the _Ghostbusters_ (2016) film.



A film that will be forgotten.


----------

