Ghostbusters (2016)

Books, movies, television...
Post Reply
User avatar
RussellManiac12
Broken Tamborine
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri January 11, 2013 8:58 pm
Location: Vancouver, WA

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by RussellManiac12 »

Mecca wrote:It looks bad. I'm surprised to see people react positively to it on social media.
It's probably just because they're all females. If it was all guys people would probably say "just another shitty remake."
User avatar
Mecca
slower than 82% of US
Posts: 8516
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 7:17 pm

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Mecca »

RussellManiac12 wrote:
Mecca wrote:It looks bad. I'm surprised to see people react positively to it on social media.
It's probably just because they're all females. If it was all guys people would probably say "just another shitty remake."
There's definitely some tinge of that, but coupled with "you don't like this because it's all women." Is it really so hard for people to look at that trailer and not realize it looks just like a trailer for Pixels?

At least Kate McKinnon is getting a chance to feature besides just SNL?
User avatar
dimejinky99
what on earth am I talking about
Posts: 39789
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by dimejinky99 »

There is a huge amount of overbearing meninism for this, both on RM and elsewhere online..


Star Wars went through the same trauma when the trailers dropped and the lead was a girl and shock horror a black guy..if it was the original team standing there you guys would be all over this.

you'll get over it. I hope so anyways.
Calibrate your enthusiasm
User avatar
Rangi Guy
Mind Your Tanners
Posts: 9429
Joined: Fri March 22, 2013 7:20 pm
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MistorKitty
Location: 41.1716° S, 174.8248° E

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Rangi Guy »

dimejinky99 wrote:There is a huge amount of overbearing meninism for this, both on RM and elsewhere online..


Star Wars went through the same trauma when the trailers dropped and the lead was a girl and shock horror a black guy..if it was the original team standing there you guys would be all over this.

you'll get over it. I hope so anyways.
It's got nothing to do with the cast - it just to do with the forced humour and how much this could be one of Adam Sandler's latest films
"I really enjoy sandwiches but the other guys are so good at making sandwiches that I don't make them. Now I make sandwiches."
User avatar
BurtReynolds
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Posts: 45826
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by BurtReynolds »

dimejinky99 wrote:There is a huge amount of overbearing meninism for this, both on RM and elsewhere online..


Star Wars went through the same trauma when the trailers dropped and the lead was a girl and shock horror a black guy..if it was the original team standing there you guys would be all over this.

you'll get over it. I hope so anyways.
Is it your dashing good looks that caused you to slack off on the books and make yourself retarded?
RM's resident disinformation expert.
User avatar
BurtReynolds
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Posts: 45826
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by BurtReynolds »

E.H. Ruddock wrote:
lennytheweedwhacker wrote:
E.H. Ruddock wrote:
lennytheweedwhacker wrote:
Mecca wrote:It looks bad. I'm surprised to see people react positively to it on social media.
i'm not even watching the trailer...i like mckinnon, hate jones, and think mccarthy and wiig are vastly overrated
do you think verb likes mccarthy?
i think verb would literally spit on her

i thought she was really good in st. vincent...i'd like to see her go beyond the loud, fat shtick more
I liked that movie "Spy" with her in it but that was more because Jason Statham was hilarious.
I like McCarthy a lot. She brings a lot of humanity to her roles, even the silly ones. Can't stand Wiig though. She's just corny. I dunno about the other two.
RM's resident disinformation expert.
User avatar
Mecca
slower than 82% of US
Posts: 8516
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 7:17 pm

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Mecca »

dimejinky99 wrote:There is a huge amount of overbearing meninism for this, both on RM and elsewhere online..


Star Wars went through the same trauma when the trailers dropped and the lead was a girl and shock horror a black guy..if it was the original team standing there you guys would be all over this.

you'll get over it. I hope so anyways.
I'd say it's been pretty tame here on RM. the movie looks bad, dime.
User avatar
tragabigzanda
Production Police
Posts: 51634
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by tragabigzanda »

Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Last edited by tragabigzanda on Sun January 11, 2026 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
epilogue
We All We Got, We All We Need
Posts: 84848
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:33 pm
Location: Ghorman
Contact:

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by epilogue »

I'll definitely give it a fair shot. The trailer was weird but not because of the cast. These ladies look like they can definitely handle themselves.

Still optimistic. And will still see this in theaters.
User avatar
dimejinky99
what on earth am I talking about
Posts: 39789
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by dimejinky99 »

Ok..look at it this way..imagine the possibility that the got the surviving members of the original crew back, and for whatever reasons, and probably given theyre all near to being ghosts themselves, it didnt work..

then compare that to what they chose to do, which is give it new life and fuck yeah it's about time we see a film in this genre lead by females instead of males,(and that's probably why it won't set the box-office on fire)

which would you choose?
Calibrate your enthusiasm
User avatar
tragabigzanda
Production Police
Posts: 51634
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by tragabigzanda »

Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Last edited by tragabigzanda on Sun January 11, 2026 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jorge
NYUCK NYUCK NYUCK
Posts: 36490
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Jorge »

Yeah, I don't think anyone is saying "women shouldn't front blockbusters!". Well some people probably are, but that's irrelevant.

I'm not even against the idea of an all-women Ghostbusters reboot.

This one just... seems kinda... not great?! Based on this one trailer and the creative pedigree.
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
User avatar
epilogue
We All We Got, We All We Need
Posts: 84848
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:33 pm
Location: Ghorman
Contact:

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by epilogue »

theplatypus wrote:Yeah, I don't think anyone is saying "women shouldn't front blockbusters!". Well some people probably are, but that's irrelevant.
I don't think anyone around here is saying that. You're right. But the internet... ? Oh my how the internet is saying exactly that!
User avatar
BurtReynolds
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Posts: 45826
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by BurtReynolds »

dimejinky99 wrote:Ok..look at it this way..imagine the possibility that the got the surviving members of the original crew back, and for whatever reasons, and probably given theyre all near to being ghosts themselves, it didnt work..

then compare that to what they chose to do, which is give it new life and fuck yeah it's about time we see a film in this genre lead by females instead of males,(and that's probably why it won't set the box-office on fire)

which would you choose?
So my choice is between a hypothetically bad movie starring the old cast or a safe and needless remake with the old cast replaced with women (because fuck yeah?)? Why are these my only choices? Why would I pick one? How about a good movie with the old cast? What about a movie with female characters who aren't forced into pale imitations of male ones? They are just being set up to fail. How are women benefited by this? How is a lockstep remake "giving it new life" and not soulless pandering?
RM's resident disinformation expert.
User avatar
BurtReynolds
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Posts: 45826
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by BurtReynolds »

durdencommatyler wrote:
theplatypus wrote:Yeah, I don't think anyone is saying "women shouldn't front blockbusters!". Well some people probably are, but that's irrelevant.
I don't think anyone around here is saying that. You're right. But the internet... ? Oh my how the internet is saying exactly that!
What percentage of the internet would you put it at?
RM's resident disinformation expert.
User avatar
Strat
Waiting for HVAC Repairman
Posts: 35407
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:48 pm
Location: Twin City Kisses

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Strat »

star wars
User avatar
tragabigzanda
Production Police
Posts: 51634
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by tragabigzanda »

Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
Last edited by tragabigzanda on Sun January 11, 2026 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
spike
The Master
Posts: 35446
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 4:18 am

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by spike »

BurtReynolds wrote:
dimejinky99 wrote:Ok..look at it this way..imagine the possibility that the got the surviving members of the original crew back, and for whatever reasons, and probably given theyre all near to being ghosts themselves, it didnt work..

then compare that to what they chose to do, which is give it new life and fuck yeah it's about time we see a film in this genre lead by females instead of males,(and that's probably why it won't set the box-office on fire)

which would you choose?
So my choice is between a hypothetically bad movie starring the old cast or a safe and needless remake with the old cast replaced with women (because fuck yeah?)? Why are these my only choices? Why would I pick one? How about a good movie with the old cast? What about a movie with female characters who aren't forced into pale imitations of male ones? They are just being set up to fail. How are women benefited by this? How is a lockstep remake "giving it new life" and not soulless pandering?
You've sure gleaned an amazing amount from a two minute trailer. Do you even bother seeing movies, having this amazing ability at your disposal?
User avatar
Mecca
slower than 82% of US
Posts: 8516
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 7:17 pm

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by Mecca »

durdencommatyler wrote:
theplatypus wrote:Yeah, I don't think anyone is saying "women shouldn't front blockbusters!". Well some people probably are, but that's irrelevant.
I don't think anyone around here is saying that. You're right. But the internet... ? Oh my how the internet is saying exactly that!
I think the only sentiment even close to it is "do we have to prop up something that looks like it will be bad just because of the cast?"
User avatar
BurtReynolds
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Posts: 45826
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.

Re: Ghostbusters (2016)

Post by BurtReynolds »

spike wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
dimejinky99 wrote:Ok..look at it this way..imagine the possibility that the got the surviving members of the original crew back, and for whatever reasons, and probably given theyre all near to being ghosts themselves, it didnt work..

then compare that to what they chose to do, which is give it new life and fuck yeah it's about time we see a film in this genre lead by females instead of males,(and that's probably why it won't set the box-office on fire)

which would you choose?
So my choice is between a hypothetically bad movie starring the old cast or a safe and needless remake with the old cast replaced with women (because fuck yeah?)? Why are these my only choices? Why would I pick one? How about a good movie with the old cast? What about a movie with female characters who aren't forced into pale imitations of male ones? They are just being set up to fail. How are women benefited by this? How is a lockstep remake "giving it new life" and not soulless pandering?
You've sure gleaned an amazing amount from a two minute trailer. Do you even bother seeing movies, having this amazing ability at your disposal?
That's probably the worst post you've ever made. Frankly, I'm ashamed of you.
RM's resident disinformation expert.
Post Reply