Jump to content

Ghostbusters (2016)

CactuarBill

By CactuarBill,
in Film, TV & Radio

 Share

Recommended Posts

Treble

Treble

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, DukeOfEarlsfield said:

And there’s nothing as subjective as comedy.

 

True, but there is a generally a consensus.

 

I'm a little leary of consensus around this one, as most critics are still white men, so if you can find me evidence of strong public support and affection for this film now it's a little more out of the clutches of the MRA lot, I'd be genuinely happy to accept it. 

 

For the record, I was making a general point about why films of this ilk get such extreme reactions. But the fact that this film didn't get a significant female audience despite massive volumes of advertising, or a positive critical reappraisal down the line, seems to point to the fact its just not very good. Even when you strip away the disgusting layer of misogyny that's accrued around it. 

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Smitty

Smitty

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
On 29/06/2018 at 09:00, schmojo said:

 

There's a huge swathe of the male 35+ audience that feels like they own a franchise just because it was part of their childhood. As a result, they get absurdly riled when something is done with a property that doesn't pander aggressively to them.

 

OR a lot of people found the movie to be bad and they commented that they found it to be bad.

 

This is yet another entry in the new type of meta-criticism where people attack other people for liking/disliking something by attempting to invalidate their opinion through some notional prior disqualifying characterisation - some highly negative character/political trait - which they never ever ever feel the need to provide even the tiniest smidgen of evidence for.

 

Turning around and trying to dismiss everyone who disliked the movie as one type of person you choose to characterise as bad for the purposes of rhethorically invalidating their opinion is stupid.

 

When you find yourself arguing that everyone who liked some movie is bad, and everyone who liked it is good, and you just so happen to find yourself on the good side then you really really need to stop and think about what you're doing.

 

You just can't fucking do this shit. It's so transparent psychologically that it's laughable. What on earth gives you the right to (in a third hand way) slag off JPL for instance?

 

Beyond that, its just overcomplicating the matter: a lot of people just found the movie to be very bad and unfunny. That's it.

18
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Treble

Treble

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, DukeOfEarlsfield said:

Should I have checked the consensus before I enjoyed this film then?

 

Nice selective quoting. I was talking about the general reaction to the film, as well you know! 

 

5 hours ago, Smitty said:

 

OR a lot of people found the movie to be bad and they commented that they found it to be bad.

 

This is yet another entry in the new type of meta-criticism where people attack other people for liking/disliking something by attempting to invalidate their opinion through some prior disqualifying characterisation - some highly negative character/political trait - which they never ever ever feel the need to provide even the tiniest smidgen of evidence for.

 

Turning around and trying to dismiss everyone who disliked the movie as one type of person you choose to characterise as bad for the purposes of rhethorically invalidating their opinion is stupid.

 

When you find yourself arguing that everyone who liked some movie is bad, and everyone who liked it is good, and you just so happen to find yourself on the good side then you really really need to stop and think about what you're doing.

 

You just can't fucking do this shit. It's so transparent psychologically that it's laughable. What on earth gives you the right to (in a third hand way) slag off JPL for instance?

 

Beyond that, its just overcomplicating the matter: a lot of people just found the movie to be very bad and unfunny. That's it.

 

Smitty put the rest far better than I did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
schmojo

schmojo

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Smitty said:

 

OR a lot of people found the movie to be bad and they commented that they found it to be bad.

 

This is yet another entry in the new type of meta-criticism where people attack other people for liking/disliking something by attempting to invalidate their opinion through some prior disqualifying characterisation - some highly negative character/political trait - which they never ever ever feel the need to provide even the tiniest smidgen of evidence for.

 

Turning around and trying to dismiss everyone who disliked the movie as one type of person you choose to characterise as bad for the purposes of rhethorically invalidating their opinion is stupid.

 

When you find yourself arguing that everyone who liked some movie is bad, and everyone who liked it is good, and you just so happen to find yourself on the good side then you really really need to stop and think about what you're doing.

 

You just can't fucking do this shit. It's so transparent psychologically that it's laughable. What on earth gives you the right to (in a third hand way) slag off JPL for instance?

 

Beyond that, its just overcomplicating the matter: a lot of people just found the movie to be very bad and unfunny. That's it.

 

You didn't. You're not qualified.

 

You just like a fight sometimes.

 

Also:  breathe.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stig

Stig

Posted
Posted

It was shit though. I never cared about it being an all female cast (seriously, why does that even matter?) as I actually like some of them (although McCarthy, very hit and miss for me). You can't stick those people who disliked the films for legitimate reasons in with the misogynist, thats not fair at all.

 

I didn't think Black Panther was all it was made up to be either, does that make me racist?

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smitty

Smitty

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Fierce Poodle said:

 

Or, y’know, they’d already made up their minds about the film before seeing it, but watched a couple of YouTube clips just to make sure.

 

I hadn't made my mind up about the film at all, except a general strong wearied scepticism towards *any* Ghostbusters 3 project. I thought the whole idea was tired bollocks, and that was back when it was various ideas revolving around the old crew coming back or some cool young kids bullshit.

 

My reaction to the trailer was what it was: a reaction to a trailer. You do realise that a films trailer is itself a product designed to make you want to go and see a film, right?

 

I really don't understand why you're attacking me for holding an opinion on the contents clips and trailers from a film, based on their isolated merit. Literally everyone who said something about the trailer was doing the same thing - expressing an opinion about something specifically designed to grab their attention and motivate their interest.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smitty

Smitty

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, schmojo said:

 

You didn't. You're not qualified.

 

You just like a fight sometimes.

 

Also:  breathe.

 

I'm not qualified to hold an opinion on a movie? Are you kidding?

 

Accusing someone of liking a fight when you're casting broad aspersions and insults against the character of countless people because they didn't like a movie is a bit much, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fierce Poodle

Fierce Poodle

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Smitty said:

 

I hadn't made my mind up about the film at all, except a general strong scepticism towards *any* Ghostbusters 3 project. I thought the whole idea was tired bollocks, and that was back when it was various ideas revolving around the old crew coming back or some cool young kids bullshit.

 

My reaction to the trailer was what it was: a reaction to a trailer. You do realise that a films trailer is itslf a product designed to make you want to go and see a film, right?

 

I really don't understand why you're attacking me for holding an opinion clips and trailers from a film, based on their isolated merit. Literally everyone who said something about the trailer was doing the same thing - expressing an opinion about something specifically designed to grab their attention and motivate their interest.

 

I’m not attacking you for holding an opinion based on clips and trailers for the film, of course not, but if you go back a few pages in this thread you seem to give the impression that you have seen the film, and give some pretty strong opinions based on this. Which is why I was surprised when you said you’d only recently watched it on Netflix. Apologies if I’ve misinterpreted your earlier posts.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this film, personally I watched it with my daughter and we both enjoyed it. I know this isn’t the point you’re making, but there is no way this film would have received the vilification it has if it had an all-male cast, which leads me to suspect that there is an element of misogyny to some of the complaints about it, and why we get people saying “it’s shit” or whatever without even trying to add some justification or nuance to their comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smitty

Smitty

Posted
Posted

 

 

16 minutes ago, Fierce Poodle said:

 

I’m not attacking you for holding an opinion based on clips and trailers for the film, of course not, but if you go back a few pages in this thread you seem to give the impression that you have seen the film, and give some pretty strong opinions based on this. Which is why I was surprised when you said you’d only recently watched it on Netflix. Apologies if I’ve misinterpreted your earlier posts.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this film, personally I watched it with my daughter and we both enjoyed it. I know this isn’t the point you’re making, but there is no way this film would have received the vilification it has if it had an all-male cast, which leads me to suspect that there is an element of misogyny to some of the complaints about it, and why we get people saying “it’s shit” or whatever without even trying to add some justification or nuance to their comments.

 

Except you have, repeatedly.

 

Of course the film has received some sexist criticism but it is unquantifiable. Repeatedly, constantly, bringing up this angle is offensive when it is trotted out again and again in response to criticism that isn't at all sexist. The implication is obvious.

 

I honestly don't know why you're writing a sentence like 'leads me to suspect there is an element of misogony to some of the complaints about it'. It's like, no shit! You don't say! When did you conclude your investigation, Columbo? That isn't news to anyone, that's been apparent since news of the final Feige version became apparent.

 

People like you and Schomojo and numerous others throughout this thread (seriously, it comes up every other page) keep saying that people are entitled to their opinion, but immiedetly follow it up with 'but lots of people who have your opinion are sexist hmmm HMMMM'.

 

IT'S REALLY FUCKING TIRING. WE FUCKING GET IT. IF YOU THINK PEOPLE CAN DISLIKE THE MOVIE WITHOUT BEING SEXIST STOP FOLLOWING UP EVERY BIT OF CRITICISM WITH 'IT'S A SHAME THE CRITICS OF THIS MOVIE ARE SO SEXIST'.

 

THANKS NOW PLEASE FUCKING STOP.

 

The movie sucks. If you took it and made the cast all-male (with only the tiniest changes to the script) whilst keeping it otherwise identical it would still fucking suck. The only difference is that people wouldn't be unfairly painted as sexist when slagging off yet another horribly unfunny expensive Hollywood turd.

 

On 24/06/2018 at 17:23, Fierce Poodle said:

Based on the posters for this film I saw on the side of a bus, I thought it was shit.

On 23/06/2018 at 23:35, Fierce Poodle said:

 

You had some quite strong opinions on the film last year then, without actually watching it?

3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fierce Poodle

Fierce Poodle

Posted
Posted

Right, so it’s okay for people like yourself to repeatedly bang on about how shit this film is for 70 odd pages, but anyone who dares to question this has to pipe down because, y’know, Smitty is finding it all a bit tiresome. I don’t claim to be saying anything new, in the same way that your line that the film “sucks” has also been done to death over the last two years. But at least I wasn’t dishonest enough to try to pass off an opinion on the full film after watching a trailer.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smitty

Smitty

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Fierce Poodle said:

Right, so it’s okay for people like yourself to repeatedly bang on about how shit this film is for 70 odd pages, but anyone who dares to question this has to pipe down because, y’know, Smitty is finding it all a bit tiresome. I don’t claim to be saying anything new, in the same way that your line that the film “sucks” has also been done to death over the last two years. But at least I wasn’t dishonest enough to try to pass off an opinion on the full film after watching a trailer.

 

Where to start with this?

 

Firstly the thread is not 70 odd pages of people calling this film shit. The first trailer was posted on page 30. The film comes out about page 50. The discussion in between is about the trailers and related talk.

 

So in terms of people calling the actual film shit (or good) its 20 odd pages. But those 20 pages include a an 8 month gap with no posts at all until the film appears on Netflix and people who have just seen it because of this chime in with their opinions.

 

Secondly, it's not about you daring to question something. It's about....fuck me do I really need to repeat what I just posted? It's about people like you repeatedly insinuating that critics of the film are sexist etc (fill in various negative descriptors here) whilst trying to dodge the implications of what you're saying by breezily declaring that people do have the right to hold an opinion on a movie. Something which we're all very gracious for you deigning to allow.

 

Thirdly, I have at no point tried to pass off my opinions on what i'd seen from or read about from the movie as me having seen the movie and actually giving a final opinion on it.

 

Oh, and to go back to your previous post:

 

Quote

which leads me to suspect that there is an element of misogyny to some of the complaints about it, and why we get people saying “it’s shit” or whatever without even trying to add some justification or nuance to their comments. 

 

See this is a perfect example. In the first bit you  just straight-up state that that people saying the movie is shit are saying this because they are misogynistic. In the second bit you are laboring under the delusion that anyone is obligated to 'justify' their subjective opinion to some rando on the internet.

 

Saying the movie, or any movie, is 'shit' (or whatever) and leaving it at that is a perfectly valid expression of opinion. Saying more and going into detail is too. But you're here complaining about people going beyond 'its shit' to discuss precisely why and how they disliked the film.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Gerbik

Mr. Gerbik

Posted
Posted

If we're not allowed to discuss that a film is shit for 70 pages, then it stands to follow that we also can't discuss that it's good for 70 pages. But that leaves the question: what is this forum for?

 

Fwiw; this was a terrible movie. Bad dialogue, bad acting, shit story, boring set-pieces, and just not funny at all. Even if it wasn't a Ghostbusters movie it would still be shit. Nothing wrong with enjoying a shit movie btw, I do that sometimes too, but this one was just too shit for me.

4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dumpster

dumpster

Posted
Posted

I reckon that Ghostbusters 2 is the first sequel that I saw that repeats all the beats of the first movie. Force Awakens, Jurrasic World etc all get a lot of criticism for basically being remakes of the original movies masquerading as sequels, but GB2 did it 20 years ago.

 

Ghostbusters: A bunch of failing scientists form the Ghostbusters just before weird stuff starts happening. End scene is a big marshmallow man stomping through the city streets.

 

Ghostbusters 2: a bunch of failing Ghostbusters reform as weird stuff starts happening again. End scene is a big statue of liberty  stomping through the city streets.

 

Meanwhile every event from the first film is mirrored in the second. Watch them side by side, and you can see its basically exactly the same film. Ghostbusters 2 just lacks the heart of the original and appears to be a sequel that was demanded by the studio , rather than being a film the writers and cast chose to make.  But the two films are basically identical in structure and themes of each event.

3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hanzo the Razor

Hanzo the Razor

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, dumpster said:

I reckon that Ghostbusters 2 is the first sequel that I saw that repeats all the beats of the first movie. Force Awakens, Jurrasic World etc all get a lot of criticism for basically being remakes of the original movies masquerading as sequels, but GB2 did it 20 years ago.

 

Scarily it's nearly 30 years ago. I still remember my excitement on seeing the trailer on Cinemattractions or one of those shows. I was 12 and didn't even know it had been made.

 

Yes I'm very old :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chadruharazzeb

Chadruharazzeb

Posted
Posted
On 30/06/2018 at 23:32, dumpster said:

I reckon that Ghostbusters 2 is the first sequel that I saw that repeats all the beats of the first movie. Force Awakens, Jurrasic World etc all get a lot of criticism for basically being remakes of the original movies masquerading as sequels, but GB2 did it 20 years ago.

 

Ghostbusters: A bunch of failing scientists form the Ghostbusters just before weird stuff starts happening. End scene is a big marshmallow man stomping through the city streets.

 

Ghostbusters 2: a bunch of failing Ghostbusters reform as weird stuff starts happening again. End scene is a big statue of liberty  stomping through the city streets.

 

Meanwhile every event from the first film is mirrored in the second. Watch them side by side, and you can see its basically exactly the same film. Ghostbusters 2 just lacks the heart of the original and appears to be a sequel that was demanded by the studio , rather than being a film the writers and cast chose to make.  But the two films are basically identical in structure and themes of each event.

 

Honest Trailers covered it pretty well 

 

 

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unofficial Who

Unofficial Who

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Mr Cochese said:

At least the internet doesn't seem to have noticed that there's a female version of Ocean's 11 now.

 

Oh I'm sure it will be a decade before anyone makes an all female cast heist movie again.

 

It's like what's been pointed out on one of Dan Harmon's podcasts recently, dozens of sitcoms made by white men starring white men fail every season. That's the nature of entertainment.

 

But you have one minority failure (the example they most often go to is Margaret Cho's All American girl) and the money men go "nope, no-ones interested in comedies with casts that aren't white guys...try again in twenty years."

 

Some people liked Answer the Call. The majority didn't. Which pretty much means that the idea of an all female Ghostbusters won't be tried again for 20 years (if ever).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept