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

Forums - Movies & TV - Ghostbusters Meta critic user score 2.3

IkePoR on 16 July 2016
Azuren said:
Oh, wow, there seems to be a lot of people confused about, despite being a reboot of a franchise based on fictional events, a gender swap of the whole cast should be "explained".

Regardless of what progressive-minded people would like to think, we automatically [subconsciously] relate to the characters of movies. More often than not, white males will identify with white males, Black females with black females, etc.

So when you take a franchise that was about three white guys and a black guy getting into ghostly shenanigans and gender swap them, you inherently change who the movie is targeted at. If the original movies had some female leads, it wouldn't have been an issue because they would be swapped to male leads. But there wasn't. 

You can't just decide "Hey, lets gender swap a 1980's movie into a reboot", because you can easily end up with alienate many of the people who are original fans by no longer giving them a character to relate to. All the boys who grew up living GB1&2 now have to decide if they're willing to invest themselves in a movie that they will likely be unable to find a relatable character in. Yes, it's great that girls can find one now, but simply diversifying the cast would have allowed everyone an identifiable character. Instead, they gender swapped an all male cast into "Ghostbusters: Bridesmaids".

I'd like to add that every male in the film is either an idiot, comicly evil or cowardly.  It would be fine if the movie just had a girl as the main character and didn't make it a thing - like The Force Awakens for example.  Instead this movie seems like it's directors were on a mission to trivialize males to further emphasize "the strong female lead".



"You should be banned. Youre clearly flaming the president and even his brother who you know nothing about. Dont be such a partisan hack"

Around the Network
Nymeria on 16 July 2016
MikeRox said:
Nymeria said:
I love the original, the trailer for this looked terrible, I'm not seeing it.

Not getting worked up about it, wasn't made for me like many other movies and recent reboots (ex: Robocop)

I'm pretty much this. Trailer didn't jump out to me. I'll probably watch it as a rental as the missus really wants to see it. Not expecting much but don't get pure hate.

 

I feel the same over alot of the current remakes. Robocop is my favourite movie of all time so the remake is an abomination, but that said, I made myself pretend it wasn't Robocop, and actually found the remake alright as long as I distanced it from the original.

 

Maybe people just need to do the same with Ghostbusters.

I get it when you care about something you feel protective, but after it has happened over and over it just seems numb to it.  Big Trouble in Little China is apparently being rebooted and while I roll my eyes, just way Hollywood is now.



Azuren on 16 July 2016
Psychotic said:
Azuren said:

1. It's a bad thing. 

 

2. That's regressive. Congratulations. 

 

3. Aside from being a gimmick, which I've already pointed out, no.

 

4. You're splitting hairs in a bait-y way. 

 

5. Nnnnnnnnope. Try harder.

 

Yes, you do need to try again. The fact that you don't even see how means you need to either stop and think of just stop. 

Yeeah, you beat me with your powers to inflict boredom on your victims. Some people who are wrong are either funny or offering an interesting perspective that is worth exploring... you're wrong in the most boring way possible. Not understanding key differences between important concepts, just going "nu-uh" without explanation, smug condescending behavior that rivals my own... I'll just go. You're going to get along with people well in your life



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Soundwave on 16 July 2016
IkePoR said:
Azuren said:
Oh, wow, there seems to be a lot of people confused about, despite being a reboot of a franchise based on fictional events, a gender swap of the whole cast should be "explained".

Regardless of what progressive-minded people would like to think, we automatically [subconsciously] relate to the characters of movies. More often than not, white males will identify with white males, Black females with black females, etc.

So when you take a franchise that was about three white guys and a black guy getting into ghostly shenanigans and gender swap them, you inherently change who the movie is targeted at. If the original movies had some female leads, it wouldn't have been an issue because they would be swapped to male leads. But there wasn't. 

You can't just decide "Hey, lets gender swap a 1980's movie into a reboot", because you can easily end up with alienate many of the people who are original fans by no longer giving them a character to relate to. All the boys who grew up living GB1&2 now have to decide if they're willing to invest themselves in a movie that they will likely be unable to find a relatable character in. Yes, it's great that girls can find one now, but simply diversifying the cast would have allowed everyone an identifiable character. Instead, they gender swapped an all male cast into "Ghostbusters: Bridesmaids".

I'd like to add that every male in the film is either an idiot, comicly evil or cowardly.  It would be fine if the movie just had a girl as the main character and didn't make it a thing - like The Force Awakens for example.  Instead this movie seems like it's directors were on a mission to trivialize males to further emphasize "the strong female lead".

They didn't really make it a "thing". 

In the Ghostbusters movies generally every other non-Ghostbuster character is an idiot, because the theme of the movies (all of them) in one way or another is that the Ghostbusters are the only ones that know what they're talking about. It's the "us against the world" theme. 

Look at the '84 Ghostbusters, Walter Peck (the EPA guy) is an idiot, the mayor is an idiot, the guy in charge of the fancy hotel they catch Slimer at is an idiot, Louis is a (lovable) idiot, etc. etc. 

There's one specific gag that makes note of the girls being well ... girls and it's a one off line that's pretty funny actually and that's it. 

Otherwise the movie is just about a group of ... Ghostbusters. 



think-man on 16 July 2016

You need to look a little harder, I've seen far worse.



 

How to Make friends In Dark Souls 3

Around the Network
NightDragon83 on 17 July 2016
naruball said:
NightDragon83 said:

Actually there were some major mainstream reviewers that hated it, one of them being Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times...

http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/

Reviews in Entertainment Weekly, LA Times and The Hollywood Reporter also panned the film.  It's just not that good.  Not awful, but pretty mediocre.  But it's hilarious watching people trying to defend it just because it features an all female (and Chris Hemsworth) lead cast.

You know what's even more hilarious? People assuming that that's the only reason any reviewer would praise it or give it a decent score. God forbid they have a different sense of hunour than the people who haven't watched it.

That's not the only reason some reviewers have praised the movie... a nice fat check from Sony can go a long way in affecting one's praise and enjoyment of the film.  Especially when said reviewers' praise ends up in commercials for the movie...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgERJOHh4-Y



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

bigtakilla on 17 July 2016
Soundwave said:
IkePoR said:

I'd like to add that every male in the film is either an idiot, comicly evil or cowardly.  It would be fine if the movie just had a girl as the main character and didn't make it a thing - like The Force Awakens for example.  Instead this movie seems like it's directors were on a mission to trivialize males to further emphasize "the strong female lead".

They didn't really make it a "thing". 

In the Ghostbusters movies generally every other non-Ghostbuster character is an idiot, because the theme of the movies (all of them) in one way or another is that the Ghostbusters are the only ones that know what they're talking about. It's the "us against the world" theme. 

Look at the '84 Ghostbusters, Walter Peck (the EPA guy) is an idiot, the mayor is an idiot, the guy in charge of the fancy hotel they catch Slimer at is an idiot, Louis is a (lovable) idiot, etc. etc. 

There's one specific gag that makes note of the girls being well ... girls and it's a one off line that's pretty funny actually and that's it. 

Otherwise the movie is just about a group of ... Ghostbusters. 

Their more skeptics of the supernatural than idiots. When Walter Peck tells the electrician to "shut it down", the electrician was able to do it. When the city was in danger by the ghosts, the major says "get me the ghostbusters!" They are not idiots in the film.



Soundwave on 17 July 2016
bigtakilla said:
Soundwave said:

They didn't really make it a "thing". 

In the Ghostbusters movies generally every other non-Ghostbuster character is an idiot, because the theme of the movies (all of them) in one way or another is that the Ghostbusters are the only ones that know what they're talking about. It's the "us against the world" theme. 

Look at the '84 Ghostbusters, Walter Peck (the EPA guy) is an idiot, the mayor is an idiot, the guy in charge of the fancy hotel they catch Slimer at is an idiot, Louis is a (lovable) idiot, etc. etc. 

There's one specific gag that makes note of the girls being well ... girls and it's a one off line that's pretty funny actually and that's it. 

Otherwise the movie is just about a group of ... Ghostbusters. 

Their more skeptics of the supernatural than idiots. When Walter Peck tells the electrician to "shut it down", the electrician was able to do it. When the city was in danger by the ghosts, the major says "get me the ghostbusters!" They are not idiots in the film.

They are "blow hard" idiots. Ghostbusters is a weird movie really, lol, it's basically a frathouse movie (as Reitman's previous big hit was Animal House) mixed with a horror movie, and characters like Peck are basically the uptight college dean. 

It's also a comedy so most of the characters are stupid/silly because that's funny. This is Ghostbusters, not a drama or social commentary. 



naruball on 17 July 2016
NightDragon83 said:
naruball said:

You know what's even more hilarious? People assuming that that's the only reason any reviewer would praise it or give it a decent score. God forbid they have a different sense of hunour than the people who haven't watched it.

That's not the only reason some reviewers have praised the movie... a nice fat check from Sony can go a long way in affecting one's praise and enjoyment of the film.  Especially when said reviewers' praise ends up in commercials for the movie...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgERJOHh4-Y

Yup. Another extremely likely scenario. The movie being fun for the reviewer, not so much.



LurkerJ on 17 July 2016

You are right guys, this is one of the shitties trailers I've ever seen in my life. It definitely put me off watching the movie too.


View on YouTube