Just got back from a screening of the original Ghostbusters, and I'd like to take a second to analyze what it did so right that the new one seems to be doing so wrong. Now,this is just from a comedic/technical perspective, I don't want to bring all the gender politics into it.
I think the primary issue here is that this is a product of the reboot craze, and as such is banking so incredibly hard on nostalgia that it forgets to create anything original. That's probably not the most original complaint, so let's go to the leaked plot. More specifically, the final act. I'm just gonna go over one specific gripe, but feel free to add on more.
According to the leak, they try to make a reference to the whole "cross the streams" thing by doing that and having it fail. Now, this could be a funny joke, but the problem is it ignores one of the crucial parts of why that worked in the original: it provided stakes.
When Egon explains exactly how catastrophic the stream-crossing would be, it provides a hard-set rule. This makes it all the more massive when they finally do decide to do it, and the audience as a result is actually nervous as to what'll happen.
In the new one, having them cross the streams and fail makes it seem as though they just tossed that rule and the subsequent consequences out the fucking window for a cheap gag. It's nearly insulting to the original.
Anyway, that's just my observations on a small part of this. What are your gripes on it?
When they talk about how crossing the streams could theoretically cause a full protonic reversal and "all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light." Do they mean it would destroy the universe in some sort of chain reaction or just them personally?
I am reminded of Star Trek Into Darkness. It was pretty much a shitty remake of Wrath Of Kahn without the context as well as years of set up of the characters that the original film had. It is a soulless remake just tossing in popular superificial catchphrases and bits of the original with nothing that made the original tick.
>>70625138
I didn't read anything you wrote but I want to say that during the nba finals they have been showing commercials for the new ghostbusters but instead of the actors as the ghostbusters they are using nba players and other celebrities.
They know that nobody wants to watch a movie with the actual people they cast
>What are your gripes on it?
That it exists.
>>70625504
They weren't sure quite what would happen. Maybe they would have blown up if not for blasting it into Gozer's other dimension. I was never sure growing up if it was gonna wipe out life on Earth either or just all life in them. Or maybe Egon was exaggeraring to scare Peter.
Any which way, it was bad.
>>70625508
Also,Kirkwas dead for only five minutes. I mean, come the fuck on.
>>70625567
I'm especially disappointed in Spike Lee participating in it because Leslie Jones portrayal in the reboot is exactly the kind of thing he was critiquing in his movie Bamboozled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMZ6zp-3oGY
>>70625958
I'm guessing spike lee knows absolutely nothing about the remake and just wanted money
Saw the original tonight too.
It is still as good as it was in 84.
I appreciate how they didn't clean it up or replace effects with modern cgi. Seeing classic practical effects, camera tricks, matte work, and early computer was beautiful on the huge screen.
The rule 63 remake sneak peak at the end, reeked of desperation.
In the original, the three doctors were at a well respected university and themselves seen as frauds and quacks. Which wasn't helped by Venkman constantly flirting with the students, and general odd behavior.
In the 63, they are "the most brilliant" scientists in their field. That someh9w work at a horrible college.
![sigourney-weaver-sigourney-weaver-945793[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/MUJAHYM.jpg "sigourney-weaver-sigourney-weaver-945793[1].png")
>>70626151
oh and that PRIME Sigourney Weaver.
>>70626151
Same basic opinion amongst me and my friends.
Whatever misogynist no need to mansplain
>>70626902
You know that came in a lot later than expected
>>70626869
Precious' crowd surfing fail joke is awful.
Anyone can plainly see that they didn't catch her because she is huge. Yet they insert this awful forced joke about it being either racism or sexism.
>>70627050
yes especially considering that she should be more concerned that the particle accelerator strapped to her back doesn't explode and kill them all because it was dropped.
Also notice the toy has a boy on the package, notice how the proton pack toy doesn't have girly hearts on the radiation symbols etc like the ones in the movies.
this movie is going to be a success and there's nothing you misogynists can do about it :)
>>70627241
But there IS something that savvy consumers can do about it. Recognize that it's a poor product and opt not to financially support it in any form.
someone put the baby man back in his crib
>>70627362
>Recognize that it's a poor product
just because there are women in it doesn't mean it's a "poor product" you sexist piece of shit. Besides, everyone in reality doesn't give a shit about your stupid whining. People in reality are looking forward to this movie. Only on the internet are people complaining, and that's because the internet is polluted by sexist shitlords like yourself.
>>70627401
>>70627483
>>70627484
I agree that it's not a poor product just because there are women in it. It is a poor product because it is badly written, cartoonishly acted, and poorly directed. Many people in reality as you put it recognizes this as well so will choose to spend their money on paddle boat rides, food for the bbq or any other number of fun summertime activities they deem more worthwhile this July 15th.
>>70627050
I dunno, they caught Melissa Mcdonald's just fine.
>>70628179
yeah but she isn't also 7ft tall
>>70626151
Why would you just copy the original tit for tat?
>>70628546
>>70628704
Not expecting a blatant copy, just something that respects the original without just blatant pandering.
Or better yet, for Hollywood to get THEIR OWN FUCKING IDEAS WHAT THE FUCK
>>70627814
>I agree that it's not a poor product just because there are women in it. It is a poor product because it is badly written, cartoonishly acted, and poorly directed.
Funny you can judge all that when it isn't even out yet. People saying this shit are just using it as a camouflage. You're not watching it because Women are involved, whether you realize it or not.
>>70627178
That is pretty sexist as fuck on Mattel's part. They should have had a boy and a girl on the box. There is no need to not have female Ghostbusters. Hell, I wish I was buying figures where one of my fav Ghostbusters who was female had a figure.
>>70628956
Though I did get multiple Janine figs when I was a kid.
>>70628924
I can judge a a film before it is out via its trailer just as I can judge any product by its commercial. However, I've been following it very closely from the beginning so already know a great deal about what this movie will be like based on leaks that were later confirmed by the aforementioned trailer as well as write-ups on the toys and other tie in material. So I am confident in my assertion that this is not only a movie which isn't for me it is an overall bad movie. I took the time to research this because I am a savvy consumer instead of a corporate shill who blindly follows a brand.
>>70628849
That's fuckin' amazing
I actually saw it a couple years ago a couple time in theaters. Actually, one was at Fenway Park in Boston.
I had only seen the sequel in theaters originally.
>>70629169
thanks, have another.
>>70629270
A group had come dressed up and had a replica of the Ecto-1 there too.
>>70625504
Egon has a very specific way of speaking, in it is just that, very specific. "Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light." I think he is saying those attempting it would die. As a kid I always thought it meant everything, and the second part of the line as redundant.
>>70625138
Not to sound like a faggot, but the new Ghostbusters doesn't look NEARLY as bad as people are making it out to be. Don't get me wrong, it looks shitty, but it doesn't look any better or worse than most family oriented comedy films.
>>70626106
They wanted Spike to play Venkman in this one.
>>70627483
heh the only people saying anything about it in real life are other people's highschool aged kids.
So is the new Ghostbusters out yet?
>>70626845
I had some of my firstand bestfaps to this
>>70625138
dae just want to argue gender politics?
>>70629899
Same here. This was prime masturbating material as a kid up until my parents left me at home and I discovered True Lies
>>70629540
You're right, you do sound like a faggot.
>>70629540
>it doesn't look any better or worse than most family oriented comedy films
and that's the problem, most family oriented comedy films are garbage and so shall will this. Ghostbusters is one of the greatest genre comedies ever and to reduce it to the same level as Pixels is why we don't wish to support the reboot. It deserves way waay better than what it's getting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDLOO2SZdvY
>>70630084
Not really, that's for /lgbt/.
The reboot is completely unnecessary and is objectively in every way to the original.
I think the backlash from this film has more to do with people being fed up with years of shameless reboot cash grabs and Hollywood shenanigans.
>>70630084
>>70630742
I don't think women have any business busting ghosts. That's a man's job, like police and fireman. There can be one or two girl ghostbusters but all girl ghostbusters shatters my suspension of disbelief. You'd never see an all girl police department, that'd just be silly. Ghostbusters are like ghost cops. The whole concept of this movie is retarded.
>>70630974
double agent detected
>>70630974
Like I said in the OP, I don't wanna bring the whole "girls can't bust ghosts/girls can bust ghosts" debate into this. People are already writing up articles about how IF YA DON'T LIKE IT YOU'RE A SEXIST BABY-MAN, and I think that there's plenty of other reasons to hate this film that have nothing to do with the characters genders. I think that hiding behind feminism is a remarkably effective shield, but it has weak spots.
>>70631178
they were just trying to be facetious
