Ghostbusters reboot (film) - Female cast

[MinionZombie]

Interesting to also note how much merchandise related to the 1984 original is being pushed now, too - I imagine that'll sell quite well. Really, there's just some movies that shouldn't be remade - Back to the Future, for example (and hopefully it never will be) - and Ghostbusters is very much a movie that should never be remade in my opinion. As I've said before, Ghostbusters 1984 is my Star Wars. I'd wager that Feig's film, ultimately, will be met with a shrug of shoulders. What do you folks think? How do you think it'll be received by the general audience?

[bassman]

Really, there's just some movies that shouldn't be remade - Back to the Future, for example I have heard Zemeckis say that he, Bob Gale, and Spielberg own the rights to any and all installments to the franchise and that it'd be remade "over his dead body". I believe he also mentioned that the rights will go to his children when he dies and he's urged them to not let it happen. What do you folks think? How do you think it'll be received by the general audience? I think it'll do well financially, mainly just because of the name and it's place in the public's consciousness, but will get bad to mediocre critical reviews. General audience reviews will likely be high. Personally, I hope it does well financially so that the franchise/brand can continue and branch off into other films.

[shootemindehead]

I think shit like this needs to be burned frankly. I'm always against the idea of "name rape" films. They poison the well of great originals and they destroy franchises. Yes, I know I haven't seen it yet, but they've had four trailers out and they are all appalling, so I won't be seeing it (until I perhaps download it for mere curiosities sake), because if there isn't enough good material in a 90 min film to make at least one good trailer after four attempts, then that probably means the film is rubbish. I'm all for remakes that are done well, with good intentions, like 1979's 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' or the 1950's 'Ben-Hur' (which is being remade) . Or even rejigged foreign films like 'Seven Samurai' -> 'The Magnificent Seven' (which is also being remade) . But I absolutely hate cash in's, which is what this is. pure and simple. I hope it bombs spectacularly, but it'll probably do ok, because most people going will be curious. It would be nice though if people didn't go to see crap simply out of curiosity, because that only sends a wrong message to Hollywood that their crap product does well, because bums are still on seats. Nothing surprises me though. I live in a world where 'The Fast and the Furious' or 'Transformers' are multi-million dollar franchises and 'Dredd' bombs at the BO. SMH.

[bassman]

I've just seen on deadline that they're predicting a weekend opening of 35-41 million and "The Secret Life of Pets" is expected to do similar numbers. With a budget around 150 million and Star Trek Beyond opening the following week....those numbers aren't in Feig and company's favor....

[MinionZombie]

IGN Review - 6.9/10 "Okay" - which in IGN-speak, is more like a 5/10. IGN aren't known for movie reviews, it has to be said, particularly as they're a gaming site, but the essentials of their review is this: 1) It has a lot of baggage following it (e.g. the negative public reaction) 2) An overlong-feeling 116 minutes (interesting when compared to the solid pacing of GB1 = 105mins, and GB2 = 108mins). Not surprised though, with Feig being part of the Apatow era, which seems to think that comedies need to be two hours long (or more, if you're Apatow). 3) Good chemistry between McCarthy and Wiig. 4) Leslie Jones shouts all her jokes, apparently. I could see this getting quite tiring. 5) Serviceable plot, but can't really decide on a tone. 6) Feig's style doesn't seem to fit very well ... ... I was wondering about this myself, the "square peg, round hole" thing. 7) Big sections without any real gags in them. 8) They seem to like Hemsworth's idiot secretary.

[bassman]

The review embargo was lifted today. Of all the reviews out thus far, I keep seeing that apparently Feig and Sony didn't even know if this was supposed to be a remake or continuation. The finished film feels confusing and never makes it clear. I've also read that the references to the original film actually take the viewer out of the new film's plot. Every time the viewer starts to get the slightest bit invested into the plot and flow of the new film, it all comes to a screeching halt so that they can force in a "hey, remember the original classic film?!?" moment. Based on the reviews we've seen so far, this film will only be "okay" and forgotten about within six months time....

[Trancelikestate]

Out today in the UK. Anyone happen to get to a free showing? Cause if you paid to see this we'll crucify you. J/k. Chicago Sun Times calls it a "Horrifying Mess". Top Critic's score on RT is 50%. 3.7 on IMDB. I'm really loving watching this train wreck in slow motion. Still, there's people out there who are all about it. WTF happened to them in their lives? A lot of speculation about corrupt reviews and reviewers too scared to tell the truth for fear of being labeled a misogynist. I watched a short clip of the climax scene on youtube and I gotta say I don't know if I'd make it all the way through. Also sounds like they did scrap Weavers' scene after all.

[Neil]

Also sounds like they did scrap Weavers' scene after all. Maybe it showed the rest of them up too much

[Trancelikestate]

A fan are you?

[Neil]

A fan are you? Sigourney Weaver's done some good stuff over the years - From Aliens to Working Girl

[MinionZombie]

A Monday release? For a 'big' movie such as this? Hmmm... Regarding that IMDb rating ... well, it's open to fiddling of course, much like the infamous trailer that received so much scorn - but I do wonder if this movie is to some degree being made an example of; a cry from an audience fatigued with sub-par remakes and cash-ins and Hollywood doing their damnedest to suck the life out of known titles in general. That Chicago Sun Times review was pretty damning ... ouch! Although, I objected to that review slagging off the 1984 film's special effects. While some of them look a bit rough today, they were cutting edge at the time, and many of the effects still work well. At the time, too, Ghostbusters was an unusual film - a comedy that was filled with major special effects and action scenes. Par for the course now, but then? Not so much. Thinking of the style of comedy too - the square peg/round hole thing ... I think of the elevator scene ("untested nuclear accelerators") in the original, versus that stage dive moment in the trailer for this remake. I know that's only two small pieces of each respective film ... but the difference is stark. As for 'ruining your childhood' ... well, to be honest, when there's a duff remake made of an excellent film, the stink of the new (duff) movie clings on to the original (good) one. "The Fog", for instance - superb original, horrible remake. Fortunately, in that case, the remake is almost entirely forgotten about - but it's still there - it's a derogatory footnote. But then also look at "The Thing" - John Carpenter's superb re-telling of the original source text, versus that dunderheaded smash-em-up 'pre-boot' flick from 2011 (so lazy it has the exact same title!!!) - JC's will continue to be a milestone in horror cinema, but it will now always have that unfortunate 2011 footnote attached to it like an infected skintag.

[shootemindehead]

Sigourney Weaver's done some good stuff over the years - From Aliens to Working Girl I think her best role was in 'Annie Hall' though.

[Trancelikestate]

Yeah, I heard her scene was cut while (get this Bassman) Bob from Bob's prop shop has a brief cameo. Talk about a big F U to the fans in every. single. way. Edit: Apparently she is in it.

[bassman]

Just a movie, man. Just a movie.

[MinionZombie]

Feig on the post-credits sting scene (spoilers, of course): Again, kinda sounds like they don't really know what they want.