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

Soundwave said:
Chris Hu said:

Nope the movie just isn't that good but there are very few people that are completly honest about it in their reviews.  I'm guessing most people have to watch it numerous times before they realize how bad it really is. 

Have you even seen it once?

Nope, but its pretty easy to tell if someone is completly honest in their review of a movie and Angry Joe was completly honest in his and it wasn't a short one either since its almost 30 minutes long.  He is not hating on it just to be hating on it he gave solid reasons why the movie sucked.  Anyway the movies problem started long before the two terrible trailers for it where released.  It almost had as many production problems as last years Fantastic Four movie.  But at least 20th Century Fox didn't release fake reviews for that movie to boost its box office performance. 



Around the Network
Chris Hu said:
Soundwave said:

The cast was fine I wouldn't have minded seeing them continue but with a better script. But Ghostbusters as a reboot was always an iffy proposition since it's such an old property, it'll likely be moth balled forever now. 

Kinda funny that $46 million as an opening isn't good enough anymore either, but you can't expect a 30+ year old franchise to come back, you need to be able to build an audience first. 

$46 million is actually a pretty good opening but not for a movie that had a $142 million dollar production budget.  I'm thinking that Sony will sell off Sony Pictures/Columbia eventually since the only successful franchise they have right now is Bond and they don't completely own that.  The most likely buyer is Fox since they recently tried but failed to buy Warner Brothers.

They also own the film rights to Spider-Man, one of the largest Marvel properties.  Now that they are allowing Marvel some control over the films, they may become huge hits, again.  Though, even the worst performing Spider-Man movie still pulled in over $700M WW. 

And true, this year has been a quiet one for them and last year was the first one in awhile where they hadn't crossed $1B in gross (still made over $950M), but they are not in any rush to sell their studios.  They make too much money off of them.  The past couple of years really can be blamed on Amy Pascal's poor decisions, which is mostly the reason they got rid of her.  Hopefully, now they have someone at the helm who will get them back on the right track.  The track they were on WAY back in 2014.



If Fox would offer something even remotely close to what they where offering to aquire Warner Brothers then Sony would sell Sony Pictures/Columbia Studios in a heartbeat.  And like I said before Fox already owns part of Sony's most profitable movie franchise since they own they home video rights to the Bond films.  If Comcast/Universal didn't buy Dreamworks Animation recently they probably would have been in the running to aquire Sony Pictures/Columbia Studios also.



Chris Hu said:

If Fox would offer something even remotely close to what they where offering to aquire Warner Brothers then Sony would sell Sony Pictures/Columbia Studios in a heartbeat.  And like I said before Fox already owns part of Sony's most profitable movie franchise since they own they home video rights to the Bond films.  If Comcast/Universal didn't buy Dreamworks Animation recently they probably would have been in the running to aquire Sony Pictures/Columbia Studios also.

Fox would be stupid to offer that much though, Sony/Columbia is worth nowhere near Warner Bros. IMO. 



Soundwave said:
Chris Hu said:

If Fox would offer something even remotely close to what they where offering to aquire Warner Brothers then Sony would sell Sony Pictures/Columbia Studios in a heartbeat.  And like I said before Fox already owns part of Sony's most profitable movie franchise since they own they home video rights to the Bond films.  If Comcast/Universal didn't buy Dreamworks Animation recently they probably would have been in the running to aquire Sony Pictures/Columbia Studios also.

Fox would be stupid to offer that much though, Sony/Columbia is worth nowhere near Warner Bros. IMO. 

True but if they really are desperate to expand their media empire and since they lost out on Warner Brother I'm sure they are willing to overspend on Sony/Columbia.  Also they would buy it mostly for the TV division not the movie side. 



Around the Network
Chris Hu said:
Soundwave said:

Have you even seen it once?

Nope, but its pretty easy to tell if someone is completly honest in their review of a movie and Angry Joe was completly honest in his and it wasn't a short one either since its almost 30 minutes long.  He is not hating on it just to be hating on it he gave solid reasons why the movie sucked.  Anyway the movies problem started long before the two terrible trailers for it where released.  It almost had as many production problems as last years Fantastic Four movie.  But at least 20th Century Fox didn't release fake reviews for that movie to boost its box office performance. 

I can tell you this, I am a big fan of the original Ghostbusters movies and games.  I had to see this movie just because of that.  The preview ads were terrible and almost scared me off entirely.

 

So, I went on opening night.  I was mildly entertained and would give it a 6 or 7 out of 10.  The movie really did have a lot of man hate, but it wasn't to the point of distraction.  It was i bit better than my expectations based on the overall hating on the movie.  But, I was still dissapointed tht they had to make the movie more about them being women than them being ghostbusters....

Anybody calling this a 2 out of 10 is just being overly sensitive or trying too hard to hate the movie.



It is near the end of the end....

Psychotic said:
DonFerrari said:

From what I understood you are aknowledging him for beating you at your own game? Very humble of you.

Thank you. My humility is only one of my many amazing talents

you are wellcome talented man



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

I didn't go through all the posts so sorry if this has been posted before:

http://imgur.com/gallery/uhKcnEK

People are posting about empty theaters...



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Peh said:

I didn't go through all the posts so sorry if this has been posted before:

http://imgur.com/gallery/uhKcnEK

People are posting about empty theaters...

But people seem to really believe supporting SWJs requests is a good idea.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Peh said:

I didn't go through all the posts so sorry if this has been posted before:

http://imgur.com/gallery/uhKcnEK

People are posting about empty theaters...

Kind of stupid since we have actual box office numbers. $46 million may not be world beating, but it isn't flop territory either (not even close). If anything that just further illustrates the stupid bias against this film, that doesn't happen for any other movie that opened to $40+ million.