Growing up, I might have been in love with Ghostbusters as much as I was Star Wars. The 1984 film is a perfect piece of filmmaking in almost every way. Ghostbusters II not so much, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying it for what it is: a paint-by-numbers Ghostbusters film with some nice scary beats, legitimately funny moments and interesting ghost design. I also loved the music at the time. In many ways, Ghostbusters tickles my nostalgia bone more than anything else I can think of. I owned countless toys and dressed up for every Halloween in my proton pack believing that I was actually out on the town to bust real ghosts. I'm a grown man yet still pissed off that my parents gave all of my Ghostbusters stuff to the Hospital for Sick Children some 25 years ago.

This brings us to Ghostbusters 2016: the female-led reboot co-written and directed by Paul Feig. After decades of "will we or won't we get a Ghostbusters 3," I was pretty disappointed when it was originally confirmed that no, we wouldn't be and that Sony was going with Feig's option to start over with a team of female Ghostbusters. No, I'm not a misogynist troll that was out to hate this movie because I hate women and no, I'm not against women being the focal point in franchise movies. I didn't want a reboot of Ghostbusters because I was certain it was going to be impossible to recapture the spirit, tone and impact of the original movie. It was more likely to be a "Total Recall" style reboot that devolves into the same blockbuster action tripe with cliche'd beats that we see every summer.

Then the trailers came. Whether you're a supporter of Feig and this vision of Ghostbusters or not, most will admit that those trailers were awful. Maybe not "worst trailer in YouTube history" awful, but uninspired nonetheless. The message was confused (was this a sequel or a reboot?), the jokes were lame and the tone was way off what we'd expect from a Ghostbusters movie. Essentially it felt like a low brow Feig comedy with fancy effects.

Then came the response to the trailer backlash where Feig branded the "haters" as sexist and racist neanderthals. As a fan of the franchise I felt insulted that I was being fed shit and told to love it. There couldn't have been more of a negative buzz surrounding this film and I'd argue that Feig helped stir the pot. Although I enjoyed both Spy and Bridesmaids, and have great respect for the talents of (some of) the female cast, I found myself actively rooting against this movie because of Feig's behaviour. How can you claim to be a champion of diversity and inclusion if you're going to resort to labels and name-calling yourself? Feig came off like the PC Principal from South Park: a douchey asshole.

In the last week or so Feig has backed off his earlier stance of labelling all concerned fans as misogynists, and even agreed that the trailers were poorly constructed. He begged the movie-going public to give the film a chance and let it stand on its own merits.

When the reviews poured in and said the film wasn't half bad (it's posting a respectable 75% on RT), I decided to give it a shot. Maybe Feig was right about the trailers not selling the movie properly after all...

He was wrong. The movie was terrible. Don't see it.

Is it terrible, because of the story, characters, or actors? Is Feig the big problem?

All of the above. Where do I start:

Paul Feig's vision for what this movie should be is all over the place. The library scene in Ghostbusters sets the tone: ghosts should be spooky and creepy and we are going to play this thing straight up. The rest of the movie takes ghosts seriously; they're scary and a real threat that needs to be dealt with by our heroes who get to be funny, and make fun of situations they find themselves in, but they exist in a believable reality. In Ghostbusters 2016, the opening scene is played like an SNL sketch or something from Scary Movie: it feels like it's setting up jokes (especially because the tour guide is a comedian). When it attempts to take a spooky turn, it doesn't work because the right stakes haven't been established and then it's further undermined when the scene ends with a "wink at the audience" joke. That's basically how the rest of the movie plays.

I don't know what Kristen Wiig or Melissa McCarthy are doing in this movie, aside from having a history with Feig. In Wiig's case she doesn't get to be silly, clever or funny in any way. She's just the nerd. McCarthy is essentially the straight person of the bunch and that means she doesn't get to use her physical or self-deprecating comedy at all. You've cast two of the more popular (if not THE most popular) female comedians and waste them both.

Kate McKinnon is kind-of sort-of "crazy" but it's a caricature. Not funny or endearing just totally forced. She's getting the most love from critics, but that's probably because she's gay (both in real life and in the movie) and there are lots of assholes who like to heap unnecessary praise on people simply because they're a member of a minority group. Here's a good example of that: http://www.wired.com/2016/07/kate-mckin ... reciation/

Speaking of caricatures, Leslie Jones might be THE most token black character I've seen in a comedy in ten years. It's as if Paul Feig directed her to be more over-the-top with every take.

"Awwww, Hell Naw!"
"Sheeeeeet,"
"It's Patty's World, baby!"

I felt I was watching a female Terry Tate. It was ridiculous.

Chris Hemsworth didn't "steal" the movie as some reviews claim: he was part of one pretty funny joke, and completely one-note otherwise. A male "dumb blonde" caricature, but it's funny cause it's Chris Hemsworth, right?!

This is one of the worst scripts I've seen made into a franchise movie. The characters have uninteresting motivations; the villain is shallow, boring and his plan makes no sense; the secondary characters are all useless; actions people take defy logic; and the last act is total schlock.

The dialogue is sloppy. There are exchanges between characters where the lines they say to one another have completely different subjects. I mean something like this:

Character A: We need to find out the source of these ghost portals.
Character B: The mayor is totally making us look bad.
Character A: I know, this was the best chinese food!

This isn't played for comedy and is not a function of poor editing, it's part of the same take. The editing is terrible too by the way. There are moments that are played to be spooky, like the opening scene, but they never hit their mark because the film is all over the place.

The cameos? Distracting and stupid, especially Murray's. They're all winky and jokey aside from one near the end, which I didn't mind. The music? If you haven't heard the song here's your warning and the underlying score is forgettable. There's a few references to the original theme but that only reminded me of a movie I would rather be watching. The FX and ghost design? Outdated and boring.

Does the film do anything right? Yes: the 3D. It pops out of the letterbox frame and while it's a gimmick it was the only part of the movie that entertained me. I never, ever fall asleep in movies but this was so boring that I had to stop myself from passing out.

There's really nothing material that Ghostbusters 2016 nails. It's a disaster. Feig's worst film by far. I just hope it bombs, which is possible since there were only 20 people in my theatre, so any sequels can be prevented.

2/10

Thanks for taking time to post, CoGro. Your take is always a must read. (I miss my Ghostbusters toys too, btw.)

Metracritic has the movie rated as a much lower 60. I'm not sure if their system of compiling a consensus rating is better than Rotten Tomatoes'.

I'm also curious about the the box office results. If the movie is financial failure, maybe Sony's turnaround time for another reboot will be Spiderman-fast?

Reviews seem to be either "it's not great but not so bad, Kate McKinnon steals the show" or "it's complete trash, Kate is kooky and Leslie Jones is horribly offensive."

I know how I would feel from the trailers and I will not be giving my money to see this. And with a $45 million gross I hope the underperformance of a franchise tentpole will send the fucking message to Sony.

You are wiser than I am.

I'm convinced that Sony bought a bunch of the reviews. They knew they had a stinker.



I'm just happy to have a forum to vent my movie-related excitement and frustrations. Cool to know people actually give a shit what I have to say.

The user scores have been far worse than the critical response, which is rare for tentpole movies. I don't know what success looks like for Sony on this movie but a $45M opening, which is what analysts are expecting, doesn't seem terrible. We'll have to see what the second week looks like. If there's a massive drop then I think things are more likely to change. Sort of like what happened with BvS.

According to one Sony executive a $46 million; 2nd place opening in the U.S. is a good thing:

---

"We're ecstatic with this opening. We have successfully restarted an important brand," said Sony's worldwide marketing and distribution president Josh Greenstein, adding that it's especially a win considering the controversy surrounding the film. "We have lots of room to run in the coming weeks as the big comedy in the marketplace."

---

Is he just spinning?

We'll know by the 2nd weekend. I predict the people who wanted to give it a chance have done so and the dropoff will be steep.

On the other hand it's grossed as much as Spielberg's BFG, which is on week 3.

I actually agree and think it's a win considering the controversy. If week 2 sees a massive drop, which is very possible considering Star Trek Beyond comes out, then Sony might be singing a different tune.

Ghostbusters needs to gross 100M+ to be considered a "success" from a numbers standpoint. To fight on behalf of a sequel the studio will point to positive reviews from critics and argue that audiences will respond more positively the further we get from release since people will be removed from their initial bias. I actually think the further out we get the more optimistic folks, who gave the film a positive or mixed-positive review, will change their tune.

54% drop, which isn't light but isn't catastrophic either. The film has grossed 86M domestic and 120Mish worldwide. I estimate it'll close at around 115M domestic and roughly 160M WW. I'd call this is "success" for Sony. It will justify a sequel.

I agree; there will be a sequel. But, I'll be surprised if Sony gives Fieg the same level of creative control.

Watch this Video And you Know what went wrong with that Movie. Sony plays the major role in making it Bad, Amy Pascale in the lead:

https://youtu.be/L-6VLuz75yw

Thanks for posting a link to the video. I wonder if the Aykroyd / Reitman sequel will see the light of day in some fashion?

Thanks for the video. What you hear from the set reports, and the description of the plot in the video, are basically bang on from what you see in the final product. They mostly scrapped the dance thing. Nothing works, and if I were McCarthy or Wiig, I'd have been freaking out too.

While I may often disagree with peoples' opinions on certain movies, I legitimately try and understand their perspective. For instance, I am not a fan of Jurassic World but I can kind of, sort of, understand why some people accepted it as an entertaining, even if mindless, summer blockbuster.

That said, I think it's flat out dishonest for people to be giving Ghostbusters any kind of praise. The fact that it has a "fresh" rating on RT is proof that peoples' opinions can be bought by movie studios. Sony was clearly panicked about this movie and did whatever they could to salvage this mess. They played the PC card and it worked.

From what I understand the true GB3 is the Video Game from 2009

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/g ... uel-918515

Turns out I was wrong.

Me too. This might be is positive:

---

(Sony) is pursuing an animated Ghostbusters feature that could hit theaters in 2019 and an animated TV series, Ghostbusters: Ecto Force, which is eyeing an early 2018 bow. Both are being guided by Reitman, who firmly is back in charge of the Ghostbusters empire via Ghost Corps., a subsidiary with a mandate to expand the brand across platforms. (It was former Sony film chief Amy Pascal who first embraced Feig's vision for the live-action reboot, not Reitman or Rothman.)

---

Maybe these projects will take place the original film's timeline?

Midnights Edge took great length to explain how Amy Pascal ruined that movie with rooting out Reitman and getting Feig in. So getting Reitman back can only mean she is out. yay

Amy Pascal is out at Sony, period.

Is that a prediction or did it already happen? I know that she produced GB2016 after she was axed off beeing an executive.

Yeah, Ghostbusters: The Videogame is basically Ghostbusters 3. It was written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and has the original cast (including Bill Murray fully reprising his role and talking all the time, not just a cameo) except for Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis, but Dana and Louis are just left out rather than recast. It's set 2 years after Ghostbusters 2 and you play a new Ghostbuster on his first day on the job rather than one of the 4 original Ghostbusters, who are training you. There's an edited walkthrough you can watch:




Considering all the last-gen remakes this generation I think they should remake this with even better graphics so that the gameplay & in-engine cutscene graphics more closely match the pre-rendered cutscene graphics. The game's graphics are still good, just noticeably worse than the pre-rendered CGI.