Ghostbusters (2016)

[Metal Snake]

DISCLAIMER: Again, this is referring to no one on SBC.

Both sides of this (really stupid) controversy are in the wrong, basically. I've always hated the "THIS IS BAD BECAUSE IT RUINED MY CHILDHOOD" argument with a fiery passion because it's not even an argument. It doesn't make any sense. I remember I Hate Everything talking about that once or twice, how can a movie ruin your childhood if your childhood is in the past? At least "ruined my life" would make sense, despite being dumb, because you still have a life to live in the present. A movie being made today about something I had a joyful experience with in the past can't magically alter that experience and make it shitty. 

Now on the other side, I also really hate the "IT GOT A GOOD SCORE ON ROTTEN TOMATOES IT'S A GOOD MOVIE HA HA WE WERE RIGHT" argument, which was also coincidentally covered by IHE. Critics are people who make mistakes and write reviews that are just opinions. There are loads of highly rated movies you can argue are actually bad and loads of poorly rated movies you can argue are actually good (hi Elastic XD). If the movie is good, good. But people who made good points on why they were skeptical about it from the trailers have nothing to be embarrassed for.

[Jane]

I also wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the critics were afraid of going after the movie, because unfortunately some people would jump to conclusions and call them sexist. I know this has happened before with Gamergate, where people were afraid to speak out about it.

[Young Nug]

I dunno what the numbers for this one are gonna be Box Office wise, but it has been very slow at the theater I work at, unnaturally so, considering even Independence Day did pretty well here. Whether this is indicative of how the movie is doing everywhere or just an anomaly will be interesting to see. 

[Clappy]

Going to see this with the girlfriend when I get back from vacation.  I'm open to giving this a chance, even though none of the trailers have impressed me at all.

[Old Man Jenkins]

Fittin to see this tomorrow, hopefully. Been honestly looking forward to it as a fan of the first two since I was a kid. The main gripe I've had going into this is that I'm just not a huge Melissa McCarthy fan.

[Cream]

Pretty sure I saw a trailer for this movie at the theater when I went to go watch a movie a while ago. (Forgot which one it was... ?) I must say I'm not interested in seeing it, but even if I was my mom probably wouldn't let me go. She's limiting the amount of movies we go see to save money.

[Jane]

2 hours ago, Sandy said:

Pretty sure I saw a trailer for this movie at the theater when I went to go watch a movie a while ago. (Forgot which one it was... ?) I must say I'm not interested in seeing it, but even if I was my mom probably wouldn't let me go. She's limiting the amount of movies we go see to save money.

I only see around 4 or 5 movies a year.

[Clappy]

Man...all that Internet backlash and controversy over this movie.

I saw this last night and honestly, it's another example of the Internet overreacting to something so harmless.  It wasn't that bad of a movie to be honest...I mean it definitely wasn't good by any means either.  It was as middle of the road as they come.  I liked it more than Ghostbusters 2 at least.  

It was a pretty solid movie until the third act, which was an absolute mess.  The main four had very good chemistry amongst each other, which is saying something because when any of them were by themselves, they were very uninteresting...except for Kate McKinnon.  If this movie is going to have any lasting impact for me, it will be known as Kate McKinnon's breakout role.  She steals every scene she's in, she is always in the clutch with a memorable joke, and her character is easily the best because McKinnon's ability to make her eccentric enough without going overboard.  I wanted to see more of her and less of Wiig and McCarthy toning down their acting a lot.  I was very disappointed by those two since I know they can be a lot funnier than the material they were given.

As for a comment I saw WhoBob make: 

On July 13, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Dr. WhoBob said:

well, critics seem to like it a bit but here's tons of negative stuff I'm hearing from the audience like they think it's portrayal of men is actually sexist (Chris Hemsworth's character being just a dumbass scientist and there's the climax 

  Reveal hidden contents

) sterotypical black woman, bad acting and the jokes mostly being just slapsticks and pop-culture references. It was prob not their intention to make males look like bad but as for the rest, no thanks. I'll still judge it myself but from what I'm hearing, it doesn't look appealing at all.

Sounds like someone has been watching Chris Stuckmann.  Well let me clarify this:

-I never got the intention this movie was sexist towards men.  That is ridiculous nitpicking because that would require the movie to actually have developed characters outside of the main four.  Nobody else was given the proper amount of time to develop their characters male or female except for the villain, who wasn't that bad of a character until the third act where his plot went from making sense to being an over complicated crapshoot.

-Chris Hemsworth was never a scientist.  His character was a receptionist.  His character was intentionally dumb, which Hemsworth actually did very well.  I personally didn't mind seeing a dumb character like his in a movie like this because it was refreshing from the main four being smart characters of some sort whether it be intellectual, witty, street smart, etc.  If McKinnon was the best actor in this movie, Hemsworth was definitely the second best.

-If a ghost getting shot in the balls is "sexist against males", then God forbid every single nutshot joke in every movie ever is too.  I'm sorry but that complaint is stupid (not saying you are WhoBob since I know you haven't seen this movie :P).  If anything, I'm more annoyed with how badly CGI'd a lot of these ghosts are more than being offended by a nutshot joke that got a brief chuckle out of me at first but went on far too long.

If I could add one more comment though...the celebrity cameos disappointed me.  Bill Murray's was by far the best, but they could have done far more with Dan Akroyd, Ernie Hudson, and Sigourney Weaver than they actually did.

So yeah, harmless movie that I wouldn't really recommend, but Paul Feig has made far better movies that I would much rather see what he does with his next project because I know the guy can do far better than what he made here.  If anything, that's the most disappointing part of what I saw.  That Paul Feig, who has made three very good comedies in the past five years, finally made a comedy I wouldn't recommend.

[WhoBibbles]

18 minutes ago, Clappy said:

Man...all that Internet backlash and controversy over this movie.

I saw this last night and honestly, it's another example of the Internet overreacting to something so harmless.  It wasn't that bad of a movie to be honest...I mean it definitely wasn't good by any means either.  It was as middle of the road as they come.  I liked it more than Ghostbusters 2 at least.  

It was a pretty solid movie until the third act, which was an absolute mess.  The main four had very good chemistry amongst each other, which is saying something because when any of them were by themselves, they were very uninteresting...except for Kate McKinnon.  If this movie is going to have any lasting impact for me, it will be known as Kate McKinnon's breakout role.  She steals every scene she's in, she is always in the clutch with a memorable joke, and her character is easily the best because McKinnon's ability to make her eccentric enough without going overboard.  I wanted to see more of her and less of Wiig and McCarthy toning down their acting a lot.  I was very disappointed by those two since I know they can be a lot funnier than the material they were given.

As for a comment I saw WhoBob make: 

Sounds like someone has been watching Chris Stuckmann.  Well let me clarify this:

-I never got the intention this movie was sexist towards men.  That is ridiculous nitpicking because that would require the movie to actually have developed characters outside of the main four.  Nobody else was given the proper amount of time to develop their characters male or female except for the villain, who wasn't that bad of a character until the third act where his plot went from making sense to being an over complicated crapshoot.

-Chris Hemsworth was never a scientist.  His character was a receptionist.  His character was intentionally dumb, which Hemsworth actually did very well.  I personally didn't mind seeing a dumb character like his in a movie like this because it was refreshing from the main four being smart characters of some sort whether it be intellectual, witty, street smart, etc.  If McKinnon was the best actor in this movie, Hemsworth was definitely the second best.

-If a ghost getting shot in the balls is "sexist against males", then God forbid every single nutshot joke in every movie ever is too.  I'm sorry but that complaint is stupid (not saying you are WhoBob since I know you haven't seen this movie :P).  If anything, I'm more annoyed with how badly CGI'd a lot of these ghosts are more than being offended by a nutshot joke that got a brief chuckle out of me at first but went on far too long.

If I could add one more comment though...the celebrity cameos disappointed me.  Bill Murray's was by far the best, but they could have done far more with Dan Akroyd, Ernie Hudson, and Sigourney Weaver than they actually did.

So yeah, harmless movie that I wouldn't really recommend, but Paul Feig has made far better movies that I would much rather see what he does with his next project because I know the guy can do far better than what he made here.  If anything, that's the most disappointing part of what I saw.  That Paul Feig, who has made three very good comedies in the past five years, finally made a comedy I wouldn't recommend.

To be fair, I've heard sexist complaints about Ghostbusters movie before Chris Stuckmann, so jokes on you  

I was just saying that's what I've heard  I'm gonna judge it whenever I see it.

[kylie]

I actually liked this movie a lot, but I agree that both sides of the argument are dumb as hell. The whiny 'my childhooood' BS gave me hives when i read it, but then again, so does Paul Feig saying shit like "I don't think men are funny." The blatant feminist pandering is tragically obvious. 

Edited July 30, 2016 by Homie☆★

[Jane]

 

[Metal Snake]

The movie is underperforming, only making $208 million on its $144 million budget.

Sony even reported a loss of revenue from it (they claim it's $25 million rather than $70 million). Mixed feelings this leaves me with. Part of me is glad that it's looking like some people actually put their money where their mouth was and didn't see it (I know $208 million is still a lot, but this is Sony we're talking), part of me feels sorry for Sony with how much money they poured into this, part of me feels like I should be glad like everyone else that this isn't making the bank, meaning it likely won't get milked, but part of me also feels like I really shouldn't care.

[Jane]

On 8/28/2016 at 4:17 AM, Metal Snake said:

The movie is underperforming, only making $208 million on its $144 million budget.

Sony even reported a loss of revenue from it (they claim it's $25 million rather than $70 million). Mixed feelings this leaves me with. Part of me is glad that it's looking like some people actually put their money where their mouth was and didn't see it (I know $208 million is still a lot, but this is Sony we're talking), part of me feels sorry for Sony with how much money they poured into this, part of me feels like I should be glad like everyone else that this isn't making the bank, meaning it likely won't get milked, but part of me also feels like I really shouldn't care.

No shit it's underperforming. They made a shitty hackneyed reboot of an old movie and then instigated drama and staged things so that if you think the movie is bad, you're automatically a sexist manchild who lives in their parent's basement.

Like, I get that Feig has the right to his vision and all, but PR wise and allegedly in the actual movie, he was crapping all over the fanbase of the original and that's honestly suicidal.

They could've gone after the market that watched the original, but instead they decided to go after the hardcore feminist market, which is much smaller than they thought it was.

Like the entire marketing campaign of the movie was 'We're Ghostbusters, with girl power!!!!!!!," which is honestly weird because that's a silly reason to watch a movie :/

[kev]

19 hours ago, Teamwork said:

No shit it's underperforming. They made a shitty hackneyed reboot of an old movie and then instigated drama and staged things so that if you think the movie is bad, you're automatically a sexist manchild who lives in their parent's basement.

Like, I get that Feig has the right to his vision and all, but PR wise and allegedly in the actual movie, he was crapping all over the fanbase of the original and that's honestly suicidal.

They could've gone after the market that watched the original, but instead they decided to go after the hardcore feminist market, which is much smaller than they thought it was.

Like the entire marketing campaign of the movie was 'We're Ghostbusters, with girl power!!!!!!!," which is honestly weird because that's a silly reason to watch a movie :/

bruh did you even watch the movie

in what ways was this movie an insult to the original and SUICIDAL?

there's so much wrong with this post lol

you said the movie was advertised as a "LOLgIRLPOWER!!&$@=P" movie? Lmao wrong. It's not even a girl-power movie. It's not bad or amazing by any means. At least view it like the original work and what it was actually advertised as: 4 scientists who bust ghosts. Thank you.

[Jane]

On 9/2/2016 at 9:16 PM, kevin_ng2010 said:

bruh did you even watch the movie

in what ways was this movie an insult to the original and SUICIDAL?

there's so much wrong with this post lol

you said the movie was advertised as a "LOLgIRLPOWER!!&$@=P" movie? Lmao wrong. It's not even a girl-power movie. It's not bad or amazing by any means. At least view it like the original work and what it was actually advertised as: 4 scientists who bust ghosts. Thank you.

A lot of the commercials I saw on TV had the black chick screaming to the ghost that attacked her if it was a "lady thing" and they had someone saying they trust you "4 girls to handle this." According to RedLetterMedia's Half in the Bag on the movie, the villain of the movie was a play on the "manchild" stereotype. That's suicidal because they pissed off a lot of the people who would watch the movie. And allegedly too they deleted comments on YouTube trailers to stage things so that haters look sexist.

And not to mention, a few people on Twitter got locked out of their accounts for criticizing the movie.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Teamwork

[Clappy]

8 hours ago, Teamwork said:

A lot of the commercials I saw on TV had the black chick screaming to the ghost that attacked her if it was a "lady thing" and they had someone saying they trust you "4 girls to handle this." According to RedLetterMedia's Half in the Bag on the movie, the villain of the movie was a play on the "manchild" stereotype. That's suicidal because they pissed off a lot of the people who would watch the movie. And allegedly too they deleted comments on YouTube trailers to stage things so that haters look sexist.

And not to mention, a few people on Twitter got locked out of their accounts for criticizing the movie.

You can say allegeds and accordings, but what I recommend is actually sitting down and watching the movie for yourself before judging it in its entirety.  Because what you are doing right now is no better than what others who were trolling on the movie's existence.

Yes they are female Ghostbusters.  So what?  If it has a hidden feminist agenda, I sure as hell didn't notice it because I actually saw it for what it was trying to be.  A comedy.  Also your source about the villain is incorrect.  The villain was a silent creep who was obsessed with a book about the existence of ghosts.  That doesn't make him a man child at all.  Even if he was, you would have to really have low self esteem of yourself if a movie is what would drive you to suicide.  Dude, that's no reason to hate on a movie you haven't even watched.

Also the users who got locked out of their Twitter accounts were trolling Leslie Jones Twitter page which is absolutely not cool.

[Jane]

5 hours ago, Clappy said:

You can say allegeds and accordings, but what I recommend is actually sitting down and watching the movie for yourself before judging it in its entirety.  Because what you are doing right now is no better than what others who were trolling on the movie's existence.

Yes they are female Ghostbusters.  So what?  If it has a hidden feminist agenda, I sure as hell didn't notice it because I actually saw it for what it was trying to be.  A comedy.  Also your source about the villain is incorrect.  The villain was a silent creep who was obsessed with a book about the existence of ghosts.  That doesn't make him a man child at all.  Even if he was, you would have to really have low self esteem of yourself if a movie is what would drive you to suicide.  Dude, that's no reason to hate on a movie you haven't even watched.

Also the users who got locked out of their Twitter accounts were trolling Leslie Jones Twitter page which is absolutely not cool.

-You have a point. Maybe I'll rent it and see it for myself.

-At least the marketing was pushing that. I don't like that you're trying to paint me as sexist in a way. I also never meant suicidal in that way. I meant suicidal as in it was cutting off a large part of their audience by calling all the haters misogynistic degenerates online. And okay, I guess they were exaggerating in the Half in the Bag. They're known for that kinda humor.

-I've seen some people who just said they didn't like the movie getting locked. I never defended the people who were bullying Leslie Jones, so I don't get why you're trying to make it seem like I was.

[Young Nug]

40 minutes ago, Teamwork said:

- I've seen some people who just said they didn't like the movie getting locked. I never defended the people who were bullying Leslie Jones, so I don't get why you're trying to make it seem like I was.

yeah I'm gonna need some sources on that, don't remember anything like that happening that didn't involve Leslie 

also as a side note, nobody's painting you as anything your posts haven't already vaguely implied so if you don't want to be viewed a certain way I'd suggest choosing your words more carefully dog 

[Clappy]

You know I'm glad I clicked that one new post button before posting my reply because Nugs already said the point of what I was going to say.  Nowhere did I say the words "Stancakes is a sexist" or "Stancakes supports people being asses to Leslie Jones on Twitter".  If anything, I was replying to your vaguely established posts where you painted yourself in the light you were being assumed as.  You don't want to be viewed that way?  Then actually think of what you post and how it will be viewed before you hit that "Submit Reply" button.

*clicks the Submit Reply button*

[Jane]

2 hours ago, Clappy said:

You know I'm glad I clicked that one new post button before posting my reply because Nugs already said the point of what I was going to say.  Nowhere did I say the words "Stancakes is a sexist" or "Stancakes supports people being asses to Leslie Jones on Twitter".  If anything, I was replying to your vaguely established posts where you painted yourself in the light you were being assumed as.  You don't want to be viewed that way?  Then actually think of what you post and how it will be viewed before you hit that "Submit Reply" button.

*clicks the Submit Reply button*

I see.