Support NeoGAF

[brandonh83]

I think you are assuming being a feminist means shitting on men. It doesn't.

I know. This is why, if this movie goes out of its way to shit on men, I may have a problem with that. And it's not even really because of any personal stance, it's because I feel like it could be forced and take me out of the film. I've been largely optimistic about the movie and I love the cast. I'm not really the person that any of us like-minded folk should be concerned with. I was simply saying that I hope I don't feel that way as I'm watching it.

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 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.

Copy that. Good to hear. I'm not trying to make a big thing of it and I haven't seen it. I was just mentioning it as a concern after things I've heard. But yeah, that's awesome.

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.

This is why sometimes, feelings are best left unspoken until something more concrete. Didn't mean to ruffle feathers. I was just hearing this stuff and thinking ehhh I really hope it doesn't do that.

 

[Dalek]

Someone should add "certified fresh" to the thread title!

 

[brandonh83]

Someone should add "certified fresh" to the thread title!

But it's just barely certified fresh. I think this is something we should take to the microscope.

 

[WordAssassin]

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.

I don't see how what we're saying is different? The person asked if the original was cartoony goofy like the new one and it really really isn't. I don't need to have seen the new one to know Ghostbusters 1984 is not cartoony. And I'm not using that as a negative toward the new one (or the old one) BTW I'm extremely excited to see it and GB84 is my #1 favorite movie of all time.

 

[Extra Sauce]

Isn't there a distinction between a fresh rating and "certified fresh"?

edit: Nevermind, 60% is fresh and 75% is certified fresh. Misunderstood the conversation and incorrectly assumed Ghostbusters was at 60 when it is at 75.

 

[brandonh83]

Isn't there a distinction between a fresh rating and "certified fresh"?

Fresh means the haters were right.

Certified fresh means the haters were wrong.

 

[DeathyBoy]

I do t see how what we're saying is different? The person asked if the original was cartoony goofy like the new one and it really really isn't. I don't need to have seen the new one to know Ghostbusters 1984 is not cartoony. And I'm not using that as a negative toward the new one (or the old one) BTW I'm extremely excited to see it and GB84 is my #1 favorite movie of all time.

I was positing that it is, and it isn't, different. And I don't think 'cartoony' is the right word to use. It might get broad, but the original had a ghost blowjob and Venkman telling the guys to make their sticks hard.

 

[brandonh83]

I was positing that it is, and it isn't, different. And I don't think 'cartoony' is the right word to use. It might get broad, but the original had a ghost blowjob and Venkman telling the guys to make their sticks hard.

This is an easy one.

It did have jokes like that, but the general tone and execution is what made it feel the way it did. This movie looks like it has similar sorts of humor, but the style is different and more extravagant which makes things more obvious-- whereas the tone of the original was more laid back as someone mentioned above, and didn't draw much attention to its jokes. That's what makes all the difference. The original has more than a few instances of that style of humor, like when Egon appears from under Janine's desk as if he were eating her out, but was actually doing something "scientific"

The new movie probably has stuff like that in it, but with its more immediate, in your face kind of style, it's more blatant.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

I know. This is why, if this movie goes out of its way to shit on men, I may have a problem with that. And it's not even really because of any personal stance, it's because I feel like it could be forced and take me out of the film. I've been largely optimistic about the movie and I love the cast. I'm not really the person that any of us like-minded folk should be concerned with. I was simply saying that I hope I don't feel that way as I'm watching it.



Copy that. Good to hear. I'm not trying to make a big thing of it and I haven't seen it. I was just mentioning it as a concern after things I've heard. But yeah, that's awesome.



This is why sometimes, feelings are best left unspoken until something more concrete. Didn't mean to ruffle feathers. I was just hearing this stuff and thinking ehhh I really hope it doesn't do that.

Stop...stop... it's already dead.

 

[brandonh83]

I do have a very sincere question though, why do most of these reviews both positive and negative even mention "manbabies" or anything in regards to that? Should the focus not be solely on the quality of the movie? I mean don't get me wrong, highlight the fact that people have been sexist but don't make it the focal point of your entire review.

I really fucking hate this and it did not need to come down to it at all. I'm pleased to see positive reviews, but the ones that go into this, I lump them in with the crazies; door swings both ways regardless of your stance. Critics should not be doing this whatsoever.

Stop...stop... it's already dead.

Then why grab the shovel again?

 

[KingV]

All I know is this movie has been a roller coaster for me. I went from excited for a new ghostbusters, to disappointed it wasn't a sequel, to cautiously optimistic that it wouldn't suck, to pessimistic after the trailers, and now I'm back to excited as hell!

 

[DeathyBoy]

This is an easy one.

It did have jokes like that, but the general tone and execution is what made it feel the way it did. This movie looks like it has similar sorts of humor, but the style is different and more extravagant which makes things more obvious-- whereas the tone of the original was more laid back as someone mentioned above, and didn't draw much attention to its jokes. That's what makes all the difference. The original has more than a few instances of that style of humor, like when Egon appears from under Janine's desk as if he were eating her out, but was actually doing something "scientific"

The new movie probably has stuff like that in it, but with its more immediate, in your face kind of style, it's more blatant.

Have you actually seen the film?

Because I'm finding it increasingly weird debating Ghostbusters 2016's 'feminist agenda' and 'tone' with people who haven't seen the film and are reacting to trailers which don't put across what the film is like at all.

I have seen the film. It feels like a Ghostbusters film structurally and tonally. It has a lot more gags, and slapstick, but it's still clearly a Ghostbusters film.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

I did read a couple of reviews where 75% of it was talking about the sexist backlash and the rest summed up the actual movie with "It's good. It's funny. Go see it".

Most of those reviews are super short though and the lengthy ones that dedicated half of the review to talking about the controversy talk more in depth about the movie in the other half.

 

[uncelestial]

I do have a very sincere question though, why do most of these reviews both positive and negative even mention "manbabies" or anything in regards to that? Should the focus not be solely on the quality of the movie? I mean don't get me wrong, highlight the fact that people have been sexist but don't make it the focal point of your entire review.

I mean the quote on RT for the MTV interview is literally...

"A middle finger to the screaming brobabiez. If girls can't be Ghostbusters, then here, guys can't do anything."

I don't see how that has any relevance to the quality of the movie?

I mean just read the review yourself http://www.mtv.com/news/2904048/ghostbusters-review/ whilst I certainly agree with what she is saying in some respects I also don't see much about the quality of the movie, most of it is literally just about sexists with a tiny chapter on the movie.

It's fine that people want to celebrate the movie's victory (and womens' victory) over the ridiculous, sexist crusade that some bad actors did on the internet, and it's also fine to have a review take stock of the cultural reaction and context surrounding a movie.

In a lot of ways that's the more interesting story than the movie itself, which from most accounts is simply a pleasant, enjoyable action-comedy flying a famous banner.

 

[GhaleonEB]

You reminded me of one of my favorite scenes. Hudson did make the most of it.

That scene in the cab is so good. I don't know what it is, but it sets a wonderful, ominous tone for the lead into the last act. There are several of those little character moments that really elevate the first film.

Bummer reading about how Ernie's character was cut back. I agree with everyone who said he was great. It's a small role but he just owns the hell out of it.

 

[brandonh83]

Have you actually seen the film?

Because I'm finding it increasingly weird debating Ghostbusters 2016's 'feminist agenda' and 'tone' with people who haven't seen the film and are reacting to trailers which don't put across what the film is like at all.

I have seen the film. It feels like a Ghostbusters film structurally and tonally. It has a lot more gags, and slapstick, but it's still clearly a Ghostbusters film.

Right... I wasn't criticizing the new movie for its style. I was explaining why people think the original feels more subtle despite it having some humor like that here and there. Nothing I said in my post was critical of the new movie.

 

[besada]

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.

That's a false dichotomy, though. You don't have to do either/or. And it's hardly the first action movie/comedy with a viewpoint.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

Some movies warrant contextualization to current or historical politics. I very rarely read reviews prior to seeing a film, so I won't be able to comment on specific ones for this movie as of now, but in general I see no harm in surrounding a review of a piece of art within a social context.

For example, I saw Fruitvale Station on its opening the weekend that George Zimmerman was acquitted of killing Travon Martin, and while Fruitvale Station had nothing to do with that trial, if writing a review, I would be remised to mention the connection to the sorrow of the moment.

 

[QuantumZebra]

 

[DeathyBoy]

Right... I wasn't criticizing the new movie for its style. I was explaining why people think the original feels more subtle despite it having some humor like that here and there. Nothing I said in my post was critical of the new movie.

I'm not saying you're criticising the film, but I'm asking whether you've actually seen it. Because the actual film is different to how the trailers make it out, and more like Ghostbusters than you'd expect.

No, it's not the exact same film. But again, it feels like a Ghostbusters film.

 

[brandonh83]

That's a false dichotomy, though. You don't have to do either/or. And it's hardly the first action movie/comedy with a viewpoint.

You don't. I just don't personally think that it should be Ghostbusters to do that. But apparently it doesn't. I was sharing a concern based on things I've heard from others that did see the movie. My thought was basically "I hope it doesn't do that" but people are acting like I've seen the movie and are criticizing it. I wasn't doing that whatsoever. I've been mostly defending this movie for the past 2 years. Look at my tag

I'm not saying you're criticising the film, but I'm asking whether you've actually seen it. Because the actual film is different to how the trailers make it out, and more like Ghostbusters than you'd expect.

I haven't. I also share this belief. That's why I'm reserving judgment until tomorrow, and not the trailers.

 

[jstripes]

I find the ridiculously over the top, pathetic reactions to the film quite fascinating. How could you not? It's free entertainment.

Yup. After two years of histrionics from manchildren, it's nice to see the certification saying "you were wrong."

 

[brandonh83]

You can celebrate the victory without using choice wording absolutely chosen to invite heat. That's what some critics have did, such as the MTV lady. Hell, I'm on her side and I find it obnoxious. We can celebrate and be happy that it didn't turn out to be a giant pile of shit that a lot of people thought it would be without further attack.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

I see your point and I do agree, I do believe though that there should be at least a balance in a critical review and the focus should be split if you are going to include social context.

When I read reviews first and foremost I want to know of the quality of the movie, in some movies and movies with a serious tone especially, the social context is massively important part of that, however with a comedy movie that isn't based on factual events or serious subject matters I believe it would be probably better to lead with the quality of the film itself.

I do understand what you are saying though

I don't think only some movies should get a more serious treatment in their critique. It's fair to discuss social and political context in all movies, such as Snyder's 9/11 fetishism in the Superman movies or the Occupy protests in The Dark Knight Rises or the gross sexism of something like Tomcats or whatever. All movies are political or influenced by social context to varying degrees, so all should be valid for discussion. Not just dramas or biographies.

 

[brandonh83]

I think Chris Stuckmann mentioned in his review that they only fight ghosts one time in the movie, at the end? Are there not ghosts throughout it?

 

[DeathyBoy]

I think Chris Stuckmann mentioned in his review that they only fight ghosts one time in the movie, at the end? Are there not ghosts throughout it?

I have no idea what Chris Stuckmann is talking about. They fight ghosts a fair few times.

 

[Tagyhag]

I'm happy with how the reviews turned out.

Sure it's not going to compare to the original, but I was expecting a trainwreck and we instead get an enjoyable movie.

It's no Spy or Bridesmaids but that's a high bar.

 

[brandonh83]

I have no idea what Chris Stuckmann is talking about. They fight ghosts a fair few times.

Here's the review that mostly spawned my posts over the last few pages (which I totally do not want to get back into) as well as the mention that they only really fight ghosts at the end. At least I think it was this one. May have been Jahn's.

It's also one of his more haphazard reviews, seems like it's all over the place. He goes from saying that they're funny to saying that the movie isn't funny. I think I know what he's trying to say, I just don't think his thoughts are very compressed here.

 

[QuantumZebra]

I do have a very sincere question though, why do most of these reviews both positive and negative even mention "manbabies" or anything in regards to that? Should the focus not be solely on the quality of the movie? I mean don't get me wrong, highlight the fact that people have been sexist but don't make it the focal point of your entire review.

I mean the quote on RT for the MTV interview is literally...

"A middle finger to the screaming brobabiez. If girls can't be Ghostbusters, then here, guys can't do anything."

I don't see how that has any relevance to the quality of the movie?

I mean just read the review yourself http://www.mtv.com/news/2904048/ghostbusters-review/ whilst I certainly agree with what she is saying in some respects I also don't see much about the quality of the movie, most of it is literally just about sexists with a tiny chapter on the movie.

The level of salt and hate this movie has received before anyone even knew if it was good or not is something the world has never seen before.

It's impossible to not address it, and I totally understand how a lot of reviews could accidentally focus on it - it's absolutely insane how much hate was thrown at it.

 

[Elandyll]

I have no idea what Chris Stuckmann is talking about. They fight ghosts a fair few times.

I think he says that they only capture -1 Ghost in an extended scene (which is I think what happens in the original as well), but he was basically lamenting the lack of the montage which shows the team at work all over the city, giving you a sense of how busy they got. (Might be in Jahn's review though).

 

[Dai101]

Yup. After two years of histrionics from manchildren, it's nice to see the certification saying "you were wrong."

 

[uncelestial]

Yup. After two years of histrionics from manchildren, it's nice to see the certification saying "you were wrong."

Wow, the original of this is one of my literal least favorite images ever and yet this is so awesome.

 

[brandonh83]

I think he says that they only capture -1 Ghost in an extended scene (which is I think what happens in the original as well), but he was basically lamenting the lack of the montage which shows the team at work all over the city, giving you a sense of how busy they got. (Might be in Jahn's review though).

Ah okay. I think the comment was that they don't really do much ghost busting and that the movie mostly rides along on their chemistry and humor and stuff without a lot of catching/busting/shooting ghosts or whatever.

It was in Jahn's review. I usually watch him and Stuckmann like back to back.

 

[MartyStu]

That's a false dichotomy, though. You don't have to do either/or. And it's hardly the first action movie/comedy with a viewpoint.

The original sort of had an anti-bureaucratic/EPA viewpoint , so having thoughts on topical matters is not exactly new for the franchise.

 

[jstripes]

The likelihood is however that the actual real manbabies were never planning on seeing it anyway so a fresh rating in RT will mean literally nothing to them, they will still hate the movie for whatever reasons sexist or otherwise and the arguments will continue on and on in circles.

Oh, I know they won't see it. Backing down from such a fortified position is extremely rare. The certification just weakens their argument, and makes their outrage look even more foolish.

 

[excelsiorlef]

You don't. I just don't personally think that it should be Ghostbusters to do that. But apparently it doesn't. I was sharing a concern based on things I've heard from others that did see the movie. My thought was basically "I hope it doesn't do that" but people are acting like I've seen the movie and are criticizing it. I wasn't doing that whatsoever. I've been mostly defending this movie for the past 2 years. Look at my tag



I haven't. I also share this belief. That's why I'm reserving judgment until tomorrow, and not the trailers.

Was the original Ghostbusters the wrong place to fight against government over regulation?

Because that was absolutely a major political theme of that movie.

 

[brandonh83]

Was the original Ghostbusters the wrong place to fight against government over regulation?

Because that was absolutely a major political theme of that movie.

This was also a direct subplot that worked within the framework of the film's story and structure.

Can we let it go? I made a comment that I was concerned that the movie may try push feminism in ways that I don't feel are necessary; I then elaborated that I heard this from people who saw the film, such as Chris Stuckmann, which led to said comments. I haven't seen the movie and I'm not criticizing it for it. I made a simple mention that I hope that something like this doesn't take me out of the movie.

The political themes of the original worked. It felt right for that movie. It directly tied into what would happen if a team were doing stuff like this and how the government would react. That feels like a sensible theme and subplot for it. Again, let's let it go. I'm being misinterpreted. Which is fine, it may be my fault, it was just a concern based on things I've heard. People are saying this is NOT the case. Fantastic. It's a closed deal.

 

[User1608]

Best scene in the whole movie and one of the greatest scenes I have ever seen in any movie period.

That scene in the cab is so good. I don't know what it is, but it sets a wonderful, ominous tone for the lead into the last act. There are several of those little character moments that really elevate the first film.

Bummer reading about how Ernie's character was cut back. I agree with everyone who said he was great. It's a small role but he just owns the hell out of it.

;-; this Ray and Ernie Hudson love is great, I actually liked him even more in 2. And yeah, the little convo was very nice and a bit philosophical even.

Yup. After two years of histrionics from manchildren, it's nice to see the certification saying "you were wrong."

Daaaamn. The overreactions, especially misogynistic ones always infuriated me.

I did think the initial trailer made the movie look like a miss, glad I didn't let me first impression last snd instead it seems like we got a perfectly fun, enjoyable and funny movie this summer. It's nice to see GB again even if it's not set in the original universe.

 

[MattKeil]

You don't. I just don't personally think that it should be Ghostbusters to do that.

The original had a very strong anti-bureaucracy theme in it that absolutely tied in with events of the time. The new one doesn't do what you inexplicably went on and on and on about being worried it was going to do (why not just see it before posting what amounts to concern trolling?), but even if it had, it would not be the first Ghostbusters film to have a socially relevant point of view.

 

[brandonh83]

The original had a very strong anti-bureaucracy theme in it that absolutely tied in with events of the time. The new one doesn't do what you inexplicably went on and on and on about being worried it was going to do (why not just see it before posting what amounts to concern trolling?), but even if it had, it would not be the first Ghostbusters film to have a socially relevant point of view.

I'm not concern trolling. I didn't intend for it to spiral out of control. People kept quoting me and making bad comparisons. Ghostbusters being about that theme in particular makes sense. I also didn't accuse the new movie of doing what I said I was concerned about because I haven't seen it. I've been largely defensive of the movie for the longest time. I heard some people mentioning the things I was concerned about, and made a post saying I hope that I don't agree with that.

Then a few people right here who have seen it said that it doesn't do that. Excellent. I'm like, way past it.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

Was the original Ghostbusters the wrong place to fight against government over regulation?

Because that was absolutely a major political theme of that movie.

Even Disney cartoons have political messages these days dealing with feminism, racial issues and social responsibility. I don't get why a Ghostbusters movie can't suddenly discuss a topic that, from my point of view, is even more mild than that.

But then, I've always been baffled by people who call feminism a threat.

 

[GravityInsanity]

Yup. After two years of histrionics from manchildren, it's nice to see the certification saying "you were wrong."

LMAO

 

[Toa TAK]

Yup. After two years of histrionics from manchildren, it's nice to see the certification saying "you were wrong."

Oh man

 

[brandonh83]

Yup. After two years of histrionics from manchildren, it's nice to see the certification saying "you were wrong."

That's amazing.

I don't get why a Ghostbusters movie can't suddenly discuss a topic that, from my point of view, is even more mild than that.

It doesn't discuss it. I liked the political themes in the original because they found a way to directly tie it into a subplot. The new Ghostbusters does not apparently seem to have any actual subplots or story threads about feminism. My concern was that it would try to do this topic, subliminally, but without a solid anchor. I heard from reviews that the movie feels anti-men, despite not having anything intelligent to say about it, that directly contributes to the story of the film-- like how the political themes were actually attached to the narrative in a sensible way.

Some however are saying this is not the case, and that they're wrong, that the movie does not push an anti-men agenda. This is what I was concerned about, but apparently my concerns were unfounded despite gathering them from folks who have seen the film. I hope that's clear and makes sense.

 

[Anth0ny]

ahahahah it's actually certified fresh

holy shit this is poetry

 

[GabeTheGrouch76]

I can't wait for the reaction to the certified stamp.

Yup. After two years of histrionics from manchildren, it's nice to see the certification saying "you were wrong."

Not interested in seeing the film, but these two pics got me good lol.

jstripes on fire today

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

So very bitter.

 

[Messofanego]

I think Chris Stuckmann mentioned in his review that they only fight ghosts one time in the movie, at the end? Are there not ghosts throughout it?

Wut. That is completely wrong.

Are you sure you're not misquoting him?

 

[brandonh83]

So very bitter.

Typically at this point in the game the step would be "acceptance."

However, they're not going down without a fight, it would seem.

Are you sure you're not misquoting him?

It was from Jahn's review, he said they don't really fight ghosts or something until the end. More specifically I think it was that they only do it once, and then near the end. Whereas in the original you have the montage of them capturing a bunch of them.

 

[radios shipping overview]

ahahahah it's actually certified fresh

holy shit this is poetry

Review average is now 6.5/10

Seems like a resounding "hey, it's pretty okay, I guess"