GhostBusters 2016 **SPOILERS FROM POST 1751 ONWARD**

Bellbottoms

Conall Cernach wrote: »

I was a bit surprised that a film released in 2016 would portray Leslie Jone's character as a walking stereotype.

I'm guessing no haven't seen much of Jones other work. That is pretty much all she does. Or at least did. I haven't seen any of her work in a few years.

Reg'stoy

Conall Cernach wrote: »

I watched it for the first time last night. It started out ok for the first 10 minutes or so but went downhill very quickly. It ended up being as bad as most reviews have said. I was a bit surprised that a film released in 2016 would portray Leslie Jone's character as a walking stereotype.

Have watched it a couple of times and always really enjoy it. Had the quirkiness of the original and I have always felt that a lot of the bad 'reviews' were as a consequence of the whole females playing what fanboys considered to be male characters.

Reg'stoy

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Have watched it a couple of times and always really enjoy it. Had the quirkiness of the original and I have always felt that a lot of the bad 'reviews' were as a consequence of the whole females playing what fanboys considered to be male characters.

The bad reviews have absolutely nothing to do with females playing male characters. The bad reviews are because its a bad movie. It's really really bad.

Tony EH

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Have watched it a couple of times and always really enjoy it. Had the quirkiness of the original and I have always felt that a lot of the bad 'reviews' were as a consequence of the whole females playing what fanboys considered to be male characters.

It wouldn't have made any difference what sex the characters were. In fact, they could have had the original cast back in the lead roles and the film still would have been shit.

Bellbottoms

Tony EH wrote: »

It wouldn't have made any difference what sex the characters were. In fact, they could have had the original cast back in the lead roles and the film still would have been shit.

That's was Ghostbusters 2. Remember seeing it in the cinema. It was awful.

Tony EH

Bellbottoms wrote: »

That's was Ghostbusters 2. Remember seeing it in the cinema. It was awful.

It wasn't great alright. But I'd still take it over GB 2016, that's for sure.

Bellbottoms

Tony EH wrote: »

It wasn't great alright. But I'd still take it over GB 2016, that's for sure.

Neither are great films. But both have a lot to live up to.

Ghostbusters 2016 is not a good film. But it's not an awful one either. It's gets some flack for using the Ghostbusters name and that is fair. It was really just a cash grab for Sony.
It's a serviceable film. Like most of Paul Feigs movies. Nothing to be excited about. A lot of stuff that was shot and then scrapped (like the full Broadway number in Times Square, ghost aliens such awful ideads. ) helped that.

I am amazed at how much the film cost. Especially when you consider it wasn't filmed on location in New York.
When Sony where hacked a lot of Amy Pascal's during production where leaked. And they make a facinating read. As do her emails regarding Spectre.

pixelburp

The film never stood a chance cos it felt like there was no actual script when it came to dialogue. Like a lot of modern, SNL powered Hollywood comedies there was a sense of improvisation that rarely worked. Paul Feig presumably thought if he pointed the cameras and let the cast riff, it'd all be solid gold.

And you know, some of that technique got laughs out of me, I have no problem admitting; but the comedic tone of the overall movie was all over the place; it ping-ponged from simple "office" observational stuff, to farce and every other genre of comedy. Plus the borderline surrealist nonsense of Chris Hemsworth's character.

Maybe a "makings of" can confirm or deny, but I'd bet my lunch money the actors were given free license to improvise and it's quite clear few actually could. Especially Leslie Jones: it's very telling she hasn't appeared in any Hollywood vehicle since then. They were all on different wavelengths to each other - especially Kate McKinnon; if this were an 80s movie I'd have just assumed she snorted cocaine throughout the shoot. Maybe she did, would explain a lot.

jface187

I agree that 2016 is just fine. But it made me laugh all the late 30/40 male's going it's not as good as the one I saw as a kid. Yeah of course not, you were a kid and watched it 1,000 times, grew up with it, how in the hell was this supposed to compete with that?

Hollywood tried a few times to redo Ghostbusters with-out remaking it. Ben Stillers The Watch, Sandler's Pixels, evolution with David Duchovny etc

I don't know if just let the four of them do some sort of supernatural comedy without the legacy of the Ghostbusters' name, maybe it would have come out better?

Of course, the stranger things version of Ghostbusters is coming out next year, see how that goes.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

The film never stood a chance cos it felt like there was no actual script when it came to dialogue. Like a lot of modern, SNL powered Hollywood comedies there was a sense of improvisation that rarely worked. Paul Feig presumably thought if he pointed the cameras and let the cast riff, it'd all be solid gold.

And you know, some of that technique got laughs out of me, I have no problem admitting; but the comedic tone of the overall movie was all over the place; it ping-ponged from simple "office" observational stuff, to farce and every other genre of comedy. Plus the borderline surrealist nonsense of Chris Hemsworth's character.

Maybe a "makings of" can confirm or deny, but I'd bet my lunch money the actors were given free license to improvise and it's quite clear few actually could. Especially Leslie Jones: it's very telling she hasn't appeared in any Hollywood vehicle since then. They were all on different wavelengths to each other - especially Kate McKinnon; if this were an 80s movie I'd have just assumed she snorted cocaine throughout the shoot. Maybe she did, would explain a lot.

Exactly.

The script of the original was a long time in the making. It was written, rewritten, edited and finely tuned before the first camera rolled. What we ended up with was lightening in a bottle that studios have been banging their heads trying to recreate and failing miserably since the 80's.

'Ghostbusters' is ONE good movie...and that's it. It should have been put out of its misery decades ago, because they will never capture that moment again. There was something about 1984 and it being the right place and right time for something like 'Ghostbusters', and 'Gremlins' too. That year, those films struck a chord...and it will never be struck again.

And the only thing that will be achieved by constantly trying to hit that chord is a worse and worse song.

As for the improv approach, there's a problem inherent in such a thing in that you have a lot of people in front of and behind the camera all patting each other on the back telling themselves how great everything is, and when it gets out to an audience, they think it's rubbish...because they weren't there and none of the improv works for them.

In addition, a huge percentage of improv SNL is just awful, with a small proportion working out. It just doesn't translate to a movie screen.

MisterAnarchy

I watched the last half an hour of the film last night ,I've not seen it before .
It was pretty woeful stuff.

It was forced comedy and the tone was way off .
It was juvenile and low brow.

I often wonder how films like this get made ,did any producer actually read the script ,was there even a script ,or was it just a loose outline.
On a positive note the special effects looked good .

pixelburp

jface187 wrote: »

[...]
Of course, the stranger things version of Ghostbusters is coming out next year, see how that goes.

I have a funny feeling we're looking at another Transformers/Bumblebee scenario; previous overblown film(s) that the fans hate, pivoting to a "small town adventure" story, made for much less money, that gets the fans back on side by dint of this reboot being perfectly entertaining. Obviously can't pass too much comment as it hasn't come out yet, but everything I've seen of this new Ghostbusters looks ... as you say, like Stranger Things and every other "Kids investigate a mystery in a small town" picture we've seen since childhood. Very hard to screw that genre up and it's a solid vehicle for any piece of entertainment.

Tony EH wrote: »

As for the improv approach, there's a problem inherent in such a thing in that you have a lot of people in front of and behind the camera all patting each other on the back telling themselves how great everything is, and when it gets out to an audience, they think it's rubbish...because they weren't there and none of the improv works for them.

In addition, a huge percentage of improv SNL is just awful, with a small proportion working out. It just doesn't translate to a movie screen.

That was Feig's key flaw: improv works fine if you have a director that still directs, and tries to at least channel or steer the madness towards something structurally funny. It probably helps if the comedian also pushes back 'cos then like Blake Edwards vs. Petter Sellers, you get a funny result from two opposing talents butting heads - but ultimately getting the best out of each other. Paul Feig just seemed to treat the shoot like a jolly good time for everyone to píss about in - and as you say what was funny to them didn't translate to funny for the audience.

johnny_ultimate

While I don’t think this film is the affront to mankind (emphasis on the ‘man’ ) some make it out to be, there does need to be more acceptance that ‘high concept’ hits like Ghostbusters are sometimes simply one hit wonders. A cool idea, delivered well is often enough - the problems arise when there are endless spin-offs, sequels etc...

The original Ghostbusters is perfectly fine as a one and done comedy. There was never any need (other than - *shudder* - commercial need) to make a franchise out of it - even a straight sequel with the same creative team was a bust. But hell it’s not even the worst offender: I’d point to Jurassic Park as the ultimate example of an incredible idea perfectly realised first time around, followed by nearly a half dozen sequels now that have tried to remix an idea that had *every single bit* of potential comprehensively extracted first time around.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

That was Feig's key flaw: improv works fine if you have a director that still directs, and tries to at least channel or steer the madness towards something structurally funny. It probably helps if the comedian also pushes back 'cos then like Blake Edwards vs. Petter Sellers, you get a funny result from two opposing talents butting heads - but ultimately getting the best out of each other. Paul Feig just seemed to treat the shoot like a jolly good time for everyone to píss about in - and as you say what was funny to them didn't translate to funny for the audience.

Improv can sometimes work out, but it's flimsy by nature and more often than not, extremely rough. There has to be some sort of framework involved though. A base from which the actors can elaborate upon.

Just having a jamming session isn't going to yield good results.

I think also, that there was just a fake "everything's great" atmosphere going on too. That kind of came across in the interview rounds the cast and Feig did. It sounded like they were all trying to convince themselves and each other that what they were doing was good, but they just couldn't admit that it wasn't working. And I'm sure that any descent was firmly squashed if someone raised their hand.

It's that kind of thing that is wrecking a lot of productions these days and it's been a problem for years. You have to "get on board" or get lost. It happens throughout the entertainment industry.

I cannot believe that there was nobody at all on set that thought it was a train wreck. There must have been people looking at what was happening and seeing the disaster that was unfolding.

Bellbottoms

Tony EH wrote: »

Improv can sometimes work out, but it's flimsy by nature and more often than not, extremely rough. There has to be some sort of framework involved though. A base from which the actors can elaborate upon.

Just having a jamming session isn't going to yield good results.

I think also, that there was just a fake "everything's great" atmosphere going on too. That kind of came across in the interview rounds the cast and Feig did. It sounded like they were all trying to convince themselves and each other that what they were doing was good, but they just couldn't admit that it wasn't working. And I'm sure that any descent was firmly squashed if someone raised their hand.

It's that kind of thing that is wrecking a lot of productions these days and it's been a problem for years. You have to "get on board" or get lost. It happens throughout the entertainment industry.

I cannot believe that there was nobody at all on set that thought it was a train wreck. There must have been people looking at what was happening and seeing the disaster that was unfolding.

There where. Read Amy Pascal's emails. Or any articles about the leak at the time.

Supposedly Feige had a melt down after they cut his big Broadway dance number. And was convinced the film would flop after seeing the rough cut and that it would be the end of his career.

MisterAnarchy

Thargor wrote: »

Thats a very good review, hits the nail on the head.

Sad Professor

A big issue with the remake is that everyone is trying to be Murray/Venkman. Everyone is trying to chew the scenery with the result that they end up cancelling each other out. The only person not doing this is McKinnon but she had the least to work with in the script.

silverharp

I liked this review, basically a scene comparison (proton pack) between both movies, essentially the 2016 was bloated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsxa2tOWs6w

mikhail

silverharp wrote: »

I liked this review, basically a scene comparison (proton pack) between both movies, essentially the 2016 was bloated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsxa2tOWs6w

I enjoyed the bit where he claimed that 1 minute 24 second is five times as long as 24 seconds. Clearly, he's moved so far ahead of us that he's using decimal minutes.

But yeah, it's a pretty telling comparison: all that brash, empty noise of the 2016 film isn't good storytelling or comedy.

johnny_ultimate

mikhail wrote: »

I enjoyed the bit where he claimed that 1 minute 24 second is five times as long as 24 seconds. Clearly, he's moved so far ahead of us that he's using decimal minutes.

Be very wary of that Critical Drinker chap creeping into your algorithm, he’s one of those ‘MRA adjacent’ characters who have a somewhat creepy interest in repeatedly dunking on any piece of ‘nerd friendly’ media that centres a female character / actor they don’t like (you’ll always see their accounts featuring a bizarre amount of Captain Marvel / Brie Larson videos - the telltale sign).

I do think you can trace a lot of the ‘angry, ranting, anti-SJW’ YouTube types back to this and Force Awakens - one of the grimmer legacies of an otherwise forgettable film in this case. It really was weaponised by people with a more insidious agenda than simply criticising some weak reboot.

mikhail

Cheers for the heads up. I don't lean much on the youtube recommendations anyway, but no harm knowing these things.

silverharp

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Be very wary of that Critical Drinker chap creeping into your algorithm, he’s one of those ‘MRA adjacent’ characters who have a somewhat creepy interest in repeatedly dunking on any piece of ‘nerd friendly’ media that centres a female character / actor they don’t like (you’ll always see their accounts featuring a bizarre amount of Captain Marvel / Brie Larson videos - the telltale sign).

I do think you can trace a lot of the ‘angry, ranting, anti-SJW’ YouTube types back to this and Force Awakens - one of the grimmer legacies of an otherwise forgettable film in this case. It really was weaponised by people with a more insidious agenda than simply criticising some weak reboot.

that review did not mention sjw's or focus on the cast being female, it was a good review because he articulated very well a problem that ran through the movie