By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Ghostbusters review: call off the trolls – Paul Feig's female reboot is a blast 4 / 5 stars

Acevil said:
torok said:
Why people are using Metacritic instead of Rotten Tomatoes? While Meta is fine for games, its scores are usually ridiculously bad for movies. Rotten Tomatoes is way more accurate.

You do know how rotten tomatoes works against metacritic right? Rotten Tomatoes is literally Yes/No Percentage, while Metacritic is Average of Reviews Score. 

If Gaming had rotten tomato version, about all big titles would be 100%. 

Well 99% since there's still Quarter to Three



Around the Network
Barozi said:
So it's not terrible, just completely forgettable.

much better (not really).

Pretty much, sadly the internet has magnified this movie to create a buzz which will work with it, and against it. Otherwise it really is just another Sony Remake, which really should stop happening. 



 

torok said:
Acevil said:

You do know how rotten tomatoes works against metacritic right? Rotten Tomatoes is literally Yes/No Percentage, while Metacritic is Average of Reviews Score. 

If Gaming had rotten tomato version, about all big titles would be 100%. 

If you look at the top films of all time on both sites, the RT list makes way more sense. It wouldn't work for games because gaming critics simply give ridiculous high scores for a lot of games. They just give perfect 10s to games that are good but have sizeable flaws. GTA IV is a 98 on Meta. It's a good game for sure, but it simply isn't even the best GTA game.

If you look at Meta, we will have films that won Academy Awards with scores in the low 80s, which is pretty weird.

Because every Academy Award winning movie should have high 90s ratings? There are 24 categories. Just because a movie won an award for best visuals or best costume design doesn't mean that it's a good movie.

Also there's a difference between movie reviews and game reviews on Metacritic. An 80 movie doesn't have the same value as an 80 game. It's worth quite a bit more.



Barozi said:

Because every Academy Award winning movie should have high 90s ratings? There are 24 categories. Just because a movie won an award for best visuals or best costume design doesn't mean that it's a good movie.

Also there's a difference between movie reviews and game reviews on Metacritic. An 80 movie doesn't have the same value as an 80 game. It's worth quite a bit more.

According to Metacritic, almost all 2016 Best Picture nominations are in the low 80s (http://www.metacritic.com/feature/2016-oscar-nominations-88th-academy-awards), which is pretty odd.

I understand that a 80 for a movie and for a game on Meta are different. However, I don't think they should be. For games, we would say that a low 80s for an Uncharted/Halo/Gears would be disapointing. For a film, a low 80s can even run for best picture. It's quite a gap.



torok said:
Barozi said:

Because every Academy Award winning movie should have high 90s ratings? There are 24 categories. Just because a movie won an award for best visuals or best costume design doesn't mean that it's a good movie.

Also there's a difference between movie reviews and game reviews on Metacritic. An 80 movie doesn't have the same value as an 80 game. It's worth quite a bit more.

According to Metacritic, almost all 2016 Best Picture nominations are in the low 80s (http://www.metacritic.com/feature/2016-oscar-nominations-88th-academy-awards), which is pretty odd.

I understand that a 80 for a movie and for a game on Meta are different. However, I don't think they should be. For games, we would say that a low 80s for an Uncharted/Halo/Gears would be disapointing. For a film, a low 80s can even run for best picture. It's quite a gap.

That is exactly the issue, majority of those games are 80s if we actually were critical, bad games should get below 50, not 60-75. Gaming review system is screwed up. 

Every other medium uses the standard 5 as average (Mixed Reviews), and movies can actually get 0%-20%. Really hard pressed to find games to be even remotely near that. 



 

Around the Network
Barozi said:
So it's not terrible, just completely forgettable.

much better (not really).

Which basically describes Ghostbusters II as well. 



Acevil said:

That is exactly the issue, majority of those games are 80s if we actually were critical, bad games should get below 50, not 60-75. Gaming review system is screwed up. 

Every other medium uses the standard 5 as average (Mixed Reviews), and movies can actually get 0%-20%. Really hard pressed to find games to be even remotely near that. 

Yes, it's ridiculous. "Oh, you saw the new XYZ game? It got a 74, it must suck really bad". And games that are pretty good but have flaws get 96, 98. That score should be reserved to damn good games.



ClassicGamingWizzz said:
Mother of God , so they touched this holy franchise and rebooted it ? What a crime against humanity, they completely ruined the childhood of millions of boys damnit. What a fucking crime ,jail for them and the cast, electric chair for them all...
OH I DONT NEED TO SEE IT? what do you mean i dont need to see it, why should i forget ? NOOOOO let me insult the cast and the director on twitter, that will show them all !!!!

This is so fitting XD

Internet being full of entitled whiners. Nothing new though. After all, this is the age of overreacting (unless the topic at hand is actually something of importance).



Mike_L said:
ClassicGamingWizzz said:
Mother of God , so they touched this holy franchise and rebooted it ? What a crime against humanity, they completely ruined the childhood of millions of boys damnit. What a fucking crime ,jail for them and the cast, electric chair for them all...
OH I DONT NEED TO SEE IT? what do you mean i dont need to see it, why should i forget ? NOOOOO let me insult the cast and the director on twitter, that will show them all !!!!

This is so fitting XD

Internet being full of entitled whiners. Nothing new though. After all, this is the age of overreacting (unless the topic at hand is actually something of importance).

No one is actually saying any of that. That's just the hyperbole the pro-ghostbuster people are saying.

I don't like what they did with the ghostbusters remake, so I won't watch it. That's exactly what the majority of the people who were against the gender swap are saying. 



Aeolus451 said:

No one is actually saying any of that. That's just the hyperbole the pro-ghostbuster people are saying.

I don't like what they did with the ghostbusters remake, so I won't watch it. That's exactly what the majority of the people who were against the gender swap are saying.

 

Huh?

foodfather said:
Ghostbusters.

I'm fine with everything else(playstation, phones, electronics etc), especially Sony Picture Classics.

But what they did to Ghostbusters is unfathomable. Doubt I will ever buy a Sony product ever again.