• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ghostbusters Review Thread [Certified Fresh - 75%]

Status
Not open for further replies.
The role was also originally meant for Eddie Murphy, who did Beverly Hills Cop instead. So they just replaced him with another black guy, who ended up not having anything to do in the movie. I've said it before, but Ghostbusters isn't a movie about 4 guys hunting ghosts - it's a movie about 3 guys hunting ghosts. Hudson's account of that period is very sad, as his role in the script kept diminishing and diminishing until he was hardly there, and he wasn't even on the original poster, and he was often completely ignored in other promotions as well. His role was meant to be much bigger, and the fact that he was the only black guy on the team makes it very uncomfortable.

People who are now claiming that his role was important because he was the straight man/regular joe are missing the point - he was hardly in the movie (and not much of a character because of it) because he wasn't a famous white comedian, and because he wasn't Eddie Murphy either. Both Hudson and Aykroyd have talked about this numerous times and admitted that it was a huge mistake. People shouldn't forget that leading black parts were impossible to get in those days (even moreso than now) unless you were one of the chosen few, like Murphy. Ignoring that is ignoring an important - if uncomfortable - part of hollywood history. In comparison Leslie Jones is way better off in the new movie - she gets to be just as much of an oddball and just as crazy as the other comedians, and is actually just as much a part of the team as the rest. She was my and my girlfriends favorite Ghostbuster in the movie, after McKinnon (who steals the show the entire time).
You have a great point regarding the behind the scenes controversy and drama.

But what actually makes Ghostbusters so charming comes from what we got not what could have been.

I don't care that it doesn't have Belushi, Candy or Murphy because I'm not even sure those factors would make it a better movie. Would it have been marketed the same way? Would I have seen it and crave it as much? I have no idea.

I can say this, though: If Zeddemore was a military expert instead of the everyman, I'm not sure I'm as interested in A) the film, B) his character.

Coming into the job at ground level, getting a lesson on the containment unit (setting it up for the audience), offering a biblical explanation to the madness (for that kind of audience), leveling with the city officials when they find it hard to trust a few loonies with nuclear backpacks and punctuating the finale with an exclamation that could only be impactful coming from an everyman/someone on our level... They were all very important scenes as is if you ask me.
 

Dalek

Member
Entertainment Weekly did an article recently about Ernie Hudson's role in the original movie:

http://www.ew.com/article/2014/11/05/ghostbusters-ernie-hudson

I look back on Ghostbusters in a very fun way, but it’s got so many mixed feelings and emotions attached to it. When I originally got the script, the character of Winston was amazing and I thought it would be career-changing. The character came in right at the very beginning of the movie and had an elaborate background: he was an Air Force major something, a demolitions guy. It was great.

Now I’ve heard, over the years, that the part had been written for Eddie Murphy—all of which Ivan Reitman says is not true. But it was a bigger part, and Winston was there all the way through the movie. After a long audition process, I finally got the part and made the awful mistake of letting it be known that I really, really wanted it. In Hollywood in those days, you set your quote—so if anybody calls about wanting to work with you, they had to meet your quote. I had just worked with Columbia on Spacehunter, and my quote was pretty decent. For Ghostbusters, they came in at only half of my quote, because they said this role was going to make my career. I said to my agent, “I don’t care. Just take it, because I believe that.” So we go to New York and we rehearse for three weeks or whatever and I’m ready to roll.

The night before filming begins, however, I get this new script and it was shocking.

The character was gone. Instead of coming in at the very beginning of the movie, like page 8, the character came in on page 68 after the Ghostbusters were established. His elaborate background was all gone, replaced by me walking in and saying, “If there’s a steady paycheck in it, I’ll believe anything you say.” So that was pretty devastating.

I’m panicked. I don’t sleep that night. It was like my worst nightmare is happening. The next morning, I rush to the set and plead my case. And Ivan basically says, “The studio felt that they had Bill Murray, so they wanted to give him more stuff to do.” I go, “Okay, I understand that, but can I even be there when they’re established?” And of course, he said no, there’s nothing to do about it. It was kind of awkward, and it became sort of the elephant in the room.

I see this differently now—and I don’t mean any kind of animosity or anything towards anyone, certainly not towards Ivan or the guys. I was a single dad, and we were struggling to kind of hold on and pay the rent. I still needed to do this job. 30 years later, I look back at the movie and it works very well the way it is. I think the character works with what he has to work with. But I’ve always felt like, “Man, if I could’ve played that original character…”

Winston wasn’t included in the movie poster or the trailer and all that stuff. I felt, had the original character been in play at the beginning, that would’ve been different because it would’ve clearly been four guys. It would’ve sent a signal to the studios and very likely impacted my career in a different way. I think the fans see the Ghostbusters as four characters. I do some of the conventions, and I’ve met thousands of people, and I deputize kids as Little Ghostbusters. And the question I always used to get was, “Where does Winston go?” That’s the thing with Winston: He will pop up and then disappear.

They used to like to say that Danny’s the heart of the Ghostbusters, Harold was the brain, Bill was the mouth, and Ernie was the soul. When I heard that quote, I was blown away. And then I saw them on the Tonight Show and there was no mention of the Soul. So Winston could always disappear.
 

SeanC

Member
Winston had little to do but that little was really memorable. Hudson really made the most of it. I think about the conversation with Ray in the Ecto-1 right before the 3rd act for example. Kind of a deep moment for an otherwise light film.
 
Reddit is now petitioning Sony to make a Ghostbusters 3 written by Landis and directed by Jason Reitman. Like, they didn't trust Paul Feig at all from the very start, but they want these two people, whose recent output is spotty at best, to make one?
 
Reddit is now petitioning Sony to make a Ghostbusters 3 written by Landis and directed by Jason Reitman. Like, they didn't trust Paul Feig at all from the very start, but they want these two people, whose recent output is spotty at best, to make one?

Why in the fuck would they want Jason Reitman outside of the familial connection? Dude's made some great films, but his work is so far away from what his father was doing... I can't imagine he'd be interested in or particularly good at a Ghostbusters film.

The less said about Max Landis the better.
 

BioHazard

Member
Still laughing at those who all of sudden take the high horse with this film when it comes to dick jokes. GUARANTEE they had no problem with 21 Jump Street despite it ending with one of the characters getting shot in the balls.
 

DeathyBoy

Banned
Winston had little to do but that little was really memorable. Hudson really made the most of it. I think about the conversation with Ray in the Ecto-1 right before the 3rd act for example. Kind of a deep moment for an otherwise light film.

And that's what sucks.

The fact that Hudson sells the little he has to do THAT fucking hard makes the fact he's barely in the films so damn sad. And as someone who never felt Bill Murray was THAT good in the films... by which I mean he is great in it, but he's hardly showing everyone else on screen up.
 

jstripes

Banned
Reddit is now petitioning Sony to make a Ghostbusters 3 written by Landis and directed by Jason Reitman. Like, they didn't trust Paul Feig at all from the very start, but they want these two people, whose recent output is spotty at best, to make one?

It's like microwaving a Pizza Pop because you refuse to eat the dinner your mom made you.
 
I don't know. Is it similar to the new one in the fact that it was felt like a Saturday cartoon live action movie with the humor and all?

I haven't seen the new movie yet but just from the trailers and general impressions I can tell they're very different. Ghostbusters 2016 is apparently based around The Real Ghostbusters cartoon and sounds like it's more slapstick action comedy, while the original movie is very low key, dry, sarcastic, etc.
 

DeathyBoy

Banned
I haven't seen the new movie yet but just from the trailers and general impressions I can tell they're very different. Ghostbusters 2016 is apparently based around The Real Ghostbusters cartoon and sounds like it's more slapstick action comedy, while the original movie is very low key, dry, sarcastic, etc.

Uh...

Kinda...

I mean it feels structurally similar to the original Ghostbusters, but it's firing a LOT more gags. Ghostbusters had a laid back vibe to the jokes and had a better hit rate, whereas the new one throws out a LOT of jokes. They hit enough so it's fun, and the gadgets are some omega level awesome, but it's clearly something aimed at starting a franchise rather than being a personal project of a guy like Ackroyd.

And there's nothing wrong with that - the new one is a really, really good blockbuster in a year of some absolute shit. It just knows what it is and runs with it.
 
Supposedly all the men in the film are idiots, cowards, or assholes. There's also the final villain where he's shot in the balls or something.
So? Isn't that what the majority of female roles are in thousands of movies, seen as quite negative characters? What's wrong with male characters not always being the heroes? Chris Hemsworth is a lot of fun in this, better than Thor or any other characters he's played. The credit sequence with him alone is worth the price of admission.
 
Reddit is now petitioning Sony to make a Ghostbusters 3 written by Landis and directed by Jason Reitman. Like, they didn't trust Paul Feig at all from the very start, but they want these two people, whose recent output is spotty at best, to make one?

God, what a bunch of idiots. The only reason they want Reitman is because of the last name... at least the last name alone signals some genetic predisposition to making a good Ghostbusters film (Ghostbusters II, anyone?)

And Max Landis? The guy who made such hits as the fair-to-middling Mr. Right? The charmless American Ultra? The oh-yeah-that-film-came-out Frankenstein remake? Basically the guy who's only good film so far was the one that lifted much of its story from Akira?

Yeah, good luck with that petition, Reddit.
 

DeathyBoy

Banned
Supposedly all the men in the film are idiots, cowards, or assholes. There's also the final villain where he's shot in the balls or something.

Well speaking as a guy sat in the audience who's watched hundreds of blockbusters where women were portrayed as idiots, cowards and assholes (at best), the fact that we now have ONE fucking blockbuster which paints men as the weaker sex is hardly something to get worked up about.

Jesus Christ...

I mean, seriously, why is this an issue? At all? How could anyone watch this harmless, fun, silly film and think it's some kind of anti-men/feminist power trip? Did they watch the original and think it was anti-women/pro masculinity?
 
I mean, seriously, why is this an issue? At all? How could anyone watch this harmless, fun, silly film and think it's some kind of anti-men/feminist power trip? Did they watch the original and think it was anti-women/pro masculinity?

At first upon hearing about this, I thought I might have a problem with it, but this is correct.

Really my only thing right now is that I would hate for this being a case of Feig and Dippold using a franchise like Ghostbusters to push a feminist agenda. I hope that's not the case. I like that they're female and have no misogynistic feelings toward the movie because of that, but I'm also not sure if Ghostbusters is a property that should be used for these means, and every interview I've read or watched of Feig or Dippold, it's almost exclusively all they talk about.

Again not saying that's the case, but if I'm watching the movie and I feel like it's just there to push a message, it could take me out of the film and that could be a problem. Or, it's nothing.
 
So? Isn't that what the majority of female roles are in thousands of movies, seen as quite negative characters? What's wrong with male characters not always being the heroes? Chris Hemsworth is a lot of fun in this, better than Thor or any other characters he's played. The credit sequence with him alone is worth the price of admission.

I think his slightly more talented brother plays Thor.

I could be wrong.
 
At first upon hearing about this, I thought I might have a problem with it, but this is correct.

Really my only thing right now is that I would hate for this being a case of Feig and Dippold using a franchise like Ghostbusters to push a feminist agenda. I hope that's not the case.
I mean, why not?
Seems like a good thing to push in light of how shitty people are being about this movie.

Edit: Saw your update. I get that.
 
giphy.gif


I've yet to come across a critic on Youtube who can talk about films the way that print critics like A.O. Scott and Michael Philips, online critics like Devin Faraci and Jen Yamato, or even podcast critics like the guys on Filmspotting can.
Mark Kermode :p

Peter Bradshaw and the critics at the Guardian Film Show (Xan, Henry, Catherine) were great, sadly it's finished now.

But that's cheating since they're professional print film critics for many years already transitioning to video while that can't be said for any Youtube critic.

Stuckmann makes good points sometimes. yourmoviesucks is damn good, he covers film festivals too instead of just blockbuster movies.
 
I don't know why we give Stuckman or Jahns the time of day.

They're rather solid movie reviewers that put up clear, concise, enjoyable reviews.

I expected a complete mid-range on their reviews though. Jahns' review is entirely fair. And given Jahns, you can predict Stuckmann, since he's a little more clinical and stringent.
 
At first upon hearing about this, I thought I might have a problem with it, but this is correct.

Really my only thing right now is that I would hate for this being a case of Feig and Dippold using a franchise like Ghostbusters to push a feminist agenda. I hope that's not the case. I like that they're female and have no misogynistic feelings toward the movie because of that, but I'm also not sure if Ghostbusters is a property that should be used for these means, and every interview I've read or watched of Feig or Dippold, it's almost exclusively all they talk about.

Again not saying that's the case, but if I'm watching the movie and I feel like it's just there to push a message, it could take me out of the film and that could be a problem. Or, it's nothing.

God forbid a genre movie has a message that you have to engage with.
 
I mean, why not?
Seems like a good thing to push in light of how shitty people are being about this movie.

Again I don't think Ghostbusters is the place for it. There's a time and a place for everything. People were being like this (to a slightly lesser degree :p) over Daisy Ridley in Star Wars, but the movie didn't come across like there was an agenda of having a female lead. It felt natural. Ghostbusters having female leads is great, but at the same time I don't need for it to call attention to that, or attention to any potential agendas. They should have made Ghostbusters because they wanted to make a Ghostbusters movie-- and I do think that's the case-- but I'm also a bit worried that Feig and Dippold saw it as an opportunity.

I want to reiterate again that I'm not saying this is the case or anything factual, but it's a feeling I've gathered from their various interviews. Again, it could be nothing.

Edit: Saw your update. I get that.

Ah, alright :p

God forbid a genre movie has a message that you have to engage with.

Nah, we should refrain from twisting my quotes completely out of context.
 

DeathyBoy

Banned
At first upon hearing about this, I thought I might have a problem with it, but this is correct.

Really my only thing right now is that I would hate for this being a case of Feig and Dippold using a franchise like Ghostbusters to push a feminist agenda. I hope that's not the case.

I'm not entirely sure what this means.

There's no in your face 'women are better than men' subtext or text, but the film does present four rather sterling female characters that get a lot of awesome moments that would normally go to the guys.
 
Mark Kermode :p

Peter Bradshaw and the critics at the Guardian Film Show (Xan, Henry, Catherine) were great, sadly it's finished now.

But that's cheating since they're professional print film critics for many years already transitioning to video while that can't be said for any Youtube critic.

Stuckmann makes good points sometimes. yourmoviesucks is damn good, he covers film festivals too instead of just blockbuster movies.

I guess when I say "Youtube Film Critics" I'm talking about guys like Jahns who have built their entire career on Youtube and that's their primary platform.

Kermode's videos are just uploads of his radio show, no? I think that doesn't really qualify Kermode as a "Youtuber."
 

NOLA_Gaffer

Banned
I'm a ways into the DP/30 interview with Paul Feig, which has been great so far. For the uninitiated, they do ~30 minute interviews with no cuts, just a long conversation.

Spoiler free, so far it's been about the creative process of approaching the film, given all the potential pitfalls.

The usual GB mob of manchildren are down voting it, of course.

Watched this interview last night and I throughly enjoyed it. I've never seen any of Paul Feig's work so I don't really know much about his other that he's a dapper motherfucker.

It's clear that he had a lot of passion for the project, and while passion doesn't always equal quality, it definitely made me even more interested in the film than I was prior.
 
There's no in your face 'women are better than men' subtext or text, but the film does present four rather sterling female characters that get a lot of awesome moments that would normally go to the guys.

Okay. I haven't seen it. I'm going by interview quotes and people that have seen it claiming that it frowns upon the male sex. Maybe that's an observation I won't have.

I think the point Brandon is trying to make is (and correct me if I am wrong Brandon) there are far better means to fight injustice than a AAA Hollywood movie.

It's partially that; and I don't think Ghostbusters is the place for it. If this movie comes out and all people are talking about is this sort of topic, I think that misses the point but that's just my opinion.

But guys, this is getting dicey. I think people are misreading or misinterpreting how I feel about using Ghostbusters to push a feminist agenda and I don't really want to truck on with it anymore as this could lead to that. If I'm wrong and it doesn't actually do that, great. I was just expressing a feeling I've gathered over the last few days. I hope it doesn't pan out.
 
Okay. I haven't seen it. I'm going by interview quotes and people that have seen it claiming that it frowns upon the male sex. Maybe that's an observation I won't have.



It's partially that; and I don't think Ghostbusters is the place for it. If this movie comes out and all people are talking about is this sort of topic, I think that misses the point but that's just my opinion.

But guys, this is getting dicey. I think people are misreading or misinterpreting how I feel about using Ghostbusters to push a feminist agenda and I don't really want to truck on with it anymore as this could lead to that. If I'm wrong and it doesn't actually do that, great. I was just expressing a feeling I've gathered over the last few days. I hope it doesn't pan out.

I don't think anything is "not the place" for important things like this. Representation is important, it's amazing that little girls will be able to see themselves as Ghostbusters just like little boys were able to. Hell, one of the most politically charged films of the year was an animated Disney movie about talking animals and it was a critical and commercial success. Mad Max: Fury Road is considered one of the best action films of all time, and I think the feminist themes of that film only made it better.
 
Okay. I haven't seen it. I'm going by interview quotes and people that have seen it claiming that it frowns upon the male sex. Maybe that's an observation I won't have.



It's partially that; and I don't think Ghostbusters is the place for it. If this movie comes out and all people are talking about is this sort of topic, I think that misses the point but that's just my opinion.

But guys, this is getting dicey. I think people are misreading or misinterpreting how I feel about using Ghostbusters to push a feminist agenda and I don't really want to truck on with it anymore as this could lead to that. If I'm wrong and it doesn't actually do that, great. I was just expressing a feeling I've gathered over the last few days. I hope it doesn't pan out.

Should I complain that the Tarzan movie made his side kick an African American and pushes an anti-colonialism agenda? I guess I just don't understand why you are worrying or not wanting a "feminist agenda" in Ghostbusters? Is it because you think Ghostbusters should have no agenda of any kind, or just that a "feminist agenda" is a problem?
 
I don't think anything is "not the place" for important things like this. Representation is important, it's amazing that little girls will be able to see themselves as Ghostbusters just like little boys were able to. Hell, one of the most politically charged films of the year was an animated Disney movie about talking animals and it was a critical and commercial success. Mad Max: Fury Road is considered one of the best action films of all time, and I think the feminist themes of that film only made it better.

I agree with this. But Fury Road's story was partially about that. With Ghostbusters, it seems like it could be something in disguise. Or not. I probably shouldn't have said anything until after I've seen it tomorrow.

Should I complain that the Tarzan movie made his side kick an African American and pushes an anti-colonialism agenda?

No, because it wasn't pushing an agenda. Like I said above, people are twisting my words out of context. Tarzan did not draw attention to that specific thing at all. He was simply a black character and the movie's plot/subplots didn't have anything to do with it.
 
I agree with this. But Fury Road's story was partially about that. With Ghostbusters, it seems like it could be something in disguise. Or not. I probably shouldn't have said anything until after I've seen it tomorrow.



No, because it wasn't pushing an agenda. Like I said above, people are twisting my words out of context. Tarzan did not draw attention to that specific thing at all. He was simply a black character and the movie's plot/subplots didn't have anything to do with it.

I don't know if you saw the Tarzan movie, but it is very much a political movie that is pushing an agenda that colonialism is bad and slavery is bad, and it uses the African American sidekick specifically to get the central plot moving and to anchor Tarzan's adventure in colonialism and slavery. The movie's plot and themes explicitly work because of this.

And, I'm not trying to twist your words. I'm just asking if the problem is that Ghostbusters shouldn't have any agenda or just not a feminist agenda, and if it is the latter, why is specially a "feminist agenda" a bad thing for a Ghostbusters film to have?
 
Is it because you think Ghostbusters should have no agenda of any kind, or just that a "feminist agenda" is a problem?

I don't have any particular desire for anyone to use a property like Ghostbusters to push a sexism agenda. It has absolutely nothing to do with my stance on that topic, and it's just something that I don't think anyone has really, until now, associated with Ghostbusters.

You can have a female cast and it be empowering to females without trouncing the other sex. That's where it could draw attention to itself, and I think that misses the point of what Ghostbusters is. But it may not do that. That's why I said above that I probably shouldn't have said anything, because especially in a topic like this, it's easy to misinterpret what someone is actually trying to say, and I could very well admit that I perhaps did not word myself correctly.

That's all I'll say on it for now. I have no problems with films having themes or underlying messages, but I think there could be a female-empowering Ghostbusters flick that doesn't have to rely on that to send its message. Little girls were already showing up at the premiere decked out in uniform and looked completely excited, before they saw the movie and they probably won't even get any of the... if any subtext that's there about the subject.

I don't know if you saw the Tarzan movie, but it is very much a political movie that is pushing an agenda that colonialism is bad and slavery is bad, and it uses the African American sidekick specifically to get the central plot moving and to anchor Tarzan's adventure in colonialism and slavery. The movie's plot and themes explicitly work because of this.

I have seen it, and yes. The movie's story itself isn't really about that (talking about just the core plot here), but it's there, and for me it makes sense in context to Tarzan. It worked organically. It's also a good message. I'm not sure that pro-women and fuck men is a solid or thoughtful message. But like I said a few times, maybe this movie doesn't do that. I'm going by what I've heard.
 

MoeDabs

Member
I think you are assuming being a feminist means shitting on men. It doesn't. So your saying you hope it doesn't have a feminist agenda just comes across as odd considering its about an all female team of ghostbusters.
 

Boem

Member
I don't have any particular desire for anyone to use a property like Ghostbusters to push a sexism agenda. It has absolutely nothing to do with my stance on that topic, and it's just something that I don't think anyone has really, until now, associated with Ghostbusters.

You can have a female cast and it be empowering to females without trouncing the other sex. That's where it could draw attention to itself, and I think that misses the point of what Ghostbusters is. But it may not do that. That's why I said above that I probably shouldn't have said anything, because especially in a topic like this, it's easy to misinterpret what someone is actually trying to say, and I could very well admit that I perhaps did not word myself correctly.

That's all I'll say on it for now. I have no problems with films having themes or underlying messages, but I think there could be a female-empowering Ghostbusters flick that doesn't have to rely on that to send its message. Little girls were already showing up at the premiere decked out in uniform and looked completely excited, before they saw the movie and they probably won't even get any of the... if any subtext that's there about the subject.

Ignoring the question if that sort of commentary should exist in a Ghostbuster movie, I wanted to say (because I've seen the movie) that it really isn't part of the movie at all. The only arguably progressive/feminist thing is the outside context of the movie - the fact that it's remade at all, with four women instead of men in the lead. But within the movie it's not a big deal at all, it's just four funny comedians getting on with the business of telling a fun story and catching ghosts.

There is one joke that references all of it, and it's very small, very quick, and pretty funny. But that's it. It doesn't shit on men (I really can't understand where that commentary comes from), it doesn't push any agenda - it's just a fun, light movie. The media circus that surrounds this movie concerning all the pro/anti-feminist arguments really misrepresents the movie. It's just not what the movie is about. (Just like the trailers actually - the movie is much better than the trailers make it seem).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom