“I enjoyed it, man. I know there’s been this big hubbub, but those people are funny, and they made a funny movie.” - Kevin Smith.
What objection do you have to watching this, other than plain misogyny?
>>71969970
I have a penis
I'll pirate it on bluray.
Looks like a shitty movie frankly. No where near as good as the original.
How is it misognistic to say women aren't funny? It's like saying its misognistic to say women don't have good upper body strength, it's factual, not hateful
>>71969970
I saw Kevin Smith a couple weeks ago, did a live podcast here in Indy.
The guy has a decent grip on pop culture, and his taste is reasonably good. I'm inclined to think he's correct here.
That being said, the movie has a LOT of weight on it. Even barring the whole feminism debate, it still has way too much to live up to, which is a huge weight on it's shoulders. It can't just be GOOD, it has to live up to (if not surpass) one of the greatest comedies of the 80's. Pardon me for saying so, but this movie couldn't have done that even with all the damage control they tryied to divert with the feminism meme.
I like the new Proton Pack designs though, they look like something cobbled together and built on a budget of jack and shit. Gonna see it, but only because I can get in for free.
Most people here are interested in seeing it.
Most people here are not interested in paying to see it.
Same as its ever been.
i hate women
>>71970329
Same as it ever was.
I saw it tonight with a full theater. got a ticket for a private screening for some nursing thing. the movie is shit. its basically the first movie again, they name drop REDDIT, and the villain is a fat nerd and they deliberately make dumb and nonsensical jokes about him being a fat virgin nerd who makes ghosts for some reason. the crowd i saw it with fuckin loved it. it's fuckin garbage. i went in with an open mind, and i didnt laugh once. paul feig is a faggot kyke cuccccccckkkkkk
Kevin Smith loves every fucking movie he sees. He loved Civil War, Force Awakens, Revenge of the Sith, etc. The directors must bride him with cheeseburgers.
>>71969970
The fact that I honestly have not liked any of these comedians and they took the direction of an Adam Sandler type film.
>>71970025
I recently rewatched GB 1 and 2, and honestly it's mostly nostalgia, the movies aren't THAT good.
>>71969970
>What objection do you have to watching this, other than plain misogyny?
I'll be too busy playing Pokemon GO, its like GB but REAL
>>71970665
You don't think so?
I haven't seen 2, but the first is a legit perfect storm of great actors, an original premise, and a great script. Not even mentioning the set designs and score.
What don't you like about it?
The new ghostbusters is not even as good as ghostbusters 2. ghostbusters is pretty much a shitty copy of the first ghostbusters. Ghostbusters is probably one of the greatest comedies ever made and most quotable movies ever. ya'll are fcked
>>71970742
Anon at >>71970665 was probably born in 1994 or 95, this audience demo honestly cant handle anything prior to 91.
I have no respect for Kevin Smith and never have.
>>71970833
>1994 or 95
Nah, i'm from 84. I can handle older stuff just fine.
>>71970742
I mean the movies aren't bad ofc, but acting isn't really that good, jokes are a bit forced too. If it was released today it would get ~5.0 score on IMDB.
>>71970833
Buddy I was born in 96. I'm just saying, for it's time the original Ghostbusters was a damn masterpiece, and the chemistry between the actors is what makes it great to this day.
New one, imo, isn't gonna establish the same rapport between them. Already there's gonna be a broken relationship between McCarthy and Wiig's characters (Wiig abandoned Ghost Hunting years ago apparently) so straight off the bat you're not gonna get the initial sense that these characters have been friends for years pursuing this particular line of work.
>>71969970
If the robocop remake from a few years ago had starred a woman, it would get the same attention and backlash this movie did.
I am not watching it for the same reason I didn't watch the Robocop remake. Or the Total Recall Remake.
>>71970915
I dunno, I thought the acting was perfectly believable, it didn't have to be Shakespeare necessarily. It conveyed the character's motivations well enough.
Also, which jokes are you saying were forced?
>>71969970
He's too much of a social media bitch to dare to say anything remotely negative about the movie. Anyone who takes his word seriously would be an ignoramus.
>>71971000
I'm saying, they aren't really that much funny in general.
I think people love Ghostbusters so much mostly cause of nostalgia, just like Home Alone etc.
There weren't many movies like that during 80's, so that's why it was a big thing, not because it's a great movie.
It's an enjoyable popcorn flick, nothing more.
>>71970915
Huh, 84, I'm from 82. Its funny, Ive been noticing how much just even a few years change how people perceive something like pop culture.
>>71970928
ok, youre alrght, youngblood. lol
>>71971237
I guess I can see your reasoning there, that's understandable.
I just don't want to see it. I enjoyed the original Ghostbusters when I was a child and appreciate the humour as an adult now but I honestly couldn't give two shits about the remake just like with Robocop and Total Recall.
>>71969970
>but those people are funny, and they made a funny movie
Wow, Kev. You sure do sound enthusiastic.
Please go on.
>>71970616
Yea, it could star Adam Sandler and his gang, or Seth Rogens guys or whoever, the trailer wasn't funny, didn't interest me. Ghosbusters is getting so-so mixed reviews, nothing is making me say yes, so why go?
>>71971237
GB is honestly one of my Comfy films, watch it alot actually, not even trying to lie. Hell, I even am into Ghosthunting and bullshit like that, cus I want that proof.
>>71971436
I can see why Sony wants to make it a bigger brand and I could get behind different iterations, But,with this new cast and director, I just didnt like them for their comedic style or aesthetic. I was hoping for something that would respect the source material and not turn it into an Adam Sandler or Seth Rogen flick.
>>71969970
Melissa McCarthy.
Its like watching Adam Sandler. Or Rob Schneider
>>71969970
I think it could have been serviceable (as serviceable as remakes/reboots can generally be) if there wasn't so much hype and controversy around it, now the narrative is forced into BEST FEMINIST FILM EVER MADE HATERS FALL BACK or FUCKING CUNT SJWS STOP RUINING MY CHILDHOOD WOMEN AREN'T FUNNY. It skews expectations and interpretation in a very real way.
>>71969970
fat bitch cant even jump off the ground.
>>71969970
I think it'll at least be better than Ghostbusters II. I'm mostly just grateful they made it before Michael Bay got his hands on it.
I still wonder if Seth Rogan would have been better or worse. I actually kinda liked Green Hornet.
>>71969970
I'm never liked Kate McKinnon or Leslie Jones, and Melissa McCarthy is very hit or miss in everything Kristen Wiig is the only one I know who will be decent, but everything else about the cast seems pretty crappy to me.
>>71969970
>Kevin Smith
>giving any movie a bad review
Low hanging fruit OP
>>71969970
I don't know. I just saw it and it's not awful, but it's not good either. It's just a mediocre over-produced and studio-intervened movie like Amazing Spider-Man.
The individual cast members are good, and occasionally produce a chuckle with a quip or a good line reading. But the moment they have to have chemistry and start improvising, they just babble with no verve or humour. It's like watching a shit version of the tangers the actors in Mystery Men would go on.
There's odd product placements - the worst one is Pringles. When they meet their first ghost in the manor, Kate McKinnon starts eating Pringles. They tell her to stop and she says something to the effect of, "You try to stop eating these delicious parabolas". It's literally a commercial.
The effects are well done I guess but the aesthetic is all wrong. At no point is it scary, it just looks overly digital and fake.
There's an Avengers-wannabe scene where they go to the Mayor's office to meet some MIB agents, who allude to several other supernatural occurances that will no doubt be in other films (the film starts with a 'Ghost Corps' logo which is weird too, setting up a cinematic universe).
In the end though, it's just forgettable trash. If they'd played two hours of static it would have left the same impression.
Sony's meddling is the only real noticeable impact it left on me. It's just weird seeing all the Sony products throughout, the obviously cut disco dancing climax scene. The title at the start says Ghostbusters, but at the end says Ghostbusters: Answer the Call, as if they're afraid that if the movie flops they'll just say it was always called Answer the Call and market it that way.
It's just too mediocre and bland to get upset over either way.
>>71971683
more like
1%
>it was p-pretty good I guess, don't let those fucking nerd mysognists tell you otherwise
2%
>trailer was garbage, don't want to see it, and now a legion of smug douches are defending it I actively want it to fail
>0.01%
women aren't funny why le gorilla in movie :DDD
and the rest are the normie masses who don't give a shit, dooming the movie to failure.
>>71969970
I probably would've seen it if they didn't end up using this fake, engineered, man made controversy as a marketing tactic.
It cheapened something that was already incredibly cheap.
>What objection do you have to watching this, other than plain misogyny?
To spite people like you, OP
>>71970351
Same as it ever was
>>71970525
>he loved fun movies
what's wrong with you? you okay?
>>71971932
The issue with that is when those two groups are the most vocal, they become the sides that anyone in the general public has to pick from. The narrative created by the extremes ruins any chance for relatively neutral and uninvolved critics to be taken seriously.
>>71971969
SAME AS IT
EVER
WAS
Wiig and McCarthy are trying so hard to be a female Farley and Spade duo and they really should just stop.
>>71971954
>man made controversy
>man made
REEEEEEE SHITLORD CURRENT YEAR FEMALES CAN MAKE CONTROVERSY TOO
Didn't they have to wait until a certain someone died before being given the rights?
>>71971899
Sounds like it could have been a legit good movie if it was lower budget and the actual talent had more of a hand in the production.
>>71970481
>name drop Reddit
Please tell. What's the Reddit joke?
>>71969970
>Kevin Smith
Why all neckbeards in the media and in real life are liberals and left wing leaning?
>>71970665
At least GB1 and 2 were original ideas. Most would appreciate if they made GB3 even if it failed.
Heaven forbid they make movie not trying to cash in nostalgia.
I refuse to encourage remakes and reboots by giving money to them. I'm not opposed to watching it but I'm not adding to their box office.
>>71972070
Pretty much. I don't know who's at fault, if it's the studio or Feig, but the actors are surprisingly all fine. McKinnon mugs a lot but can be funny, she just needed to reigned in. McCarthy is fine, Wiig is fine, Leslie Jones is surprisingly fine aside from the obviously shoe-horned in 'I'm educated about New York history' references that add nothing. Hemsworth is fine when his idiocy isn't being hammered in - just small things like his fake glasses or relaying there's a 'goat on the loose' are funny enough. When they spend five minutes deconstructing something dumb he's doing, it gets boring.
There's several scenes where the actors have to just talk among themselves for 2-3 minutes with no script, and they usually can't carry it. There's a whole bit about 'letting the cat out of the bag' which goes nowhere, has no punchline and isn't funny. Same goes for a bit about Patrick Swayze movies, or the interview scene where they introduce Chris Hemsworth. They just drag on and on with no life.
>>71972089
Charles Dance finds a video of Kirstin Wiig saying ghosts are real posted to YouTube that was then reposted on Reddit. It's not a joke, just a namedrop. He uses the video as grounds to fire Wiig from her position at the university.
>>71972025
LETTING THE DAYS GO BY, LET THE WATER HOLD ME DOWN
>>71970978
Robocop reboot wasn't actually bad. I don't think it stacked up to the original but I still liked it enough and hope they make a sequel for it.
Total recall reboot a piece a shit. Cool effects but a shit.
>>71972127
Because regressive leftism doesn't hold anyone to expectations. There are only rewards for being part of the "victim" class and punishments for being part of the "oppressor" class. If an insecure white guy wants to be One of the Good Ones™, all he has to do is admit he's an oppressor and praise the victims for just existing. That's way easier than having to actively be a good person, because it involves bending over more so than standing up.
>>71972275
I agree. It's awful compared to the original Robocop. But compared to how bad it could have been, and how bad something like Total Recall is, it's fine.
The stuff about Murphy just being a head and lungs is pretty terrifying body horror. They play around with ideas like he's not in control of his actions, drone warfare and stuff, but never go anywhere with them - which is the real downfall. That's what they should have been focusing on, rather than him solving his own murder, which was irrelevant and done better in the original anyway.
>>71972275
Everyone gets studio gets effects happy when they reboot something and think " Oh man, I bet they wish they could've done this" and totally forget story.
>>71971899
>the film starts with a 'Ghost Corps' logo which is weird too, setting up a cinematic universe
what? how would that even work? they seriously counted on this being so successful, holy shit what delusion
>At no point is it scary
interesting point, I don't think effects in old GB are scary but they are charming, they stayed with me since I first saw it. cgi ghosts will never achieve it imo
>>71972275
Total Recall Reboot had an Elder God-tier aesthetic style, exactly the Blade Runner-meets-Minority Report style I'd want to see in something like a Neuromancer adaptation.
Too bad, then, that this wasn't Neuromancer.
>>71972454
I guess scary might be the wrong word. Eerie? There's a quality to the librarian ghost that fits like old ghost stories, with the theremin in the background and everything. Slimer is more comical, but Gozer's fridge stuff is pretty spooky too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG83qBuQ_A8
whats the bullshit im reading that the movie read youtube comments in the movie.
what did they say and how did it fit into the movie?
>>71971237
I love ghostbusters the same reason I love ninja turtles, that said I hated the new ninja turtles movies.
>>71972598
Twice they read comments from YouTube about their endeavours as they become more famous. I think the first time is when Kate McKinnon posts a video of Wiig screaming that ghosts are real after they meet the Mansion ghost. The comment is something like "These bitches ain't catchin no ghosts"
Then it happens again when they read a few more.
>>71972511
yeah it's trying to scare you but in an entertaining way. like in a horror house in some amusement parks, when the dolls pop out. it's not trying to traumatize you but give you goosebumps and a laugh
Smith is a betamax, of course he liked the movie.
>>71972619
>WE PUT A GHOST IN A BOX!
and whats up with the subtitled trailers now? do they want people to read these terrible jokes too?
>>71969970
It's an abomination made between the unholy union of Amy Pascal and Paul Fag that's an insult to the original director and cast. It's a soulless, creatively bankrupt cash-grab that uses an all-female gimmick to shield it from criticism by whipping feminists and nu-males into a frenzy and insist that it's some sort of spark for a cultural revolution rather than just another shitty, unnecessary remake.
I'm not even going to pirate this fucking filth.
Kevin Smith's daughter is a deluded SJW shitheel. He's influenced, obviously.
>>71971402
I saw the headline for that article the other day. I searched it up because I saw a commercial for it and wanted to know if it was out/what people were saying about it. I thought it was amusing to see the very conflicting headlines.
Based China banned this shit
>>71970025
I just saw Ghodtbusters 2016
It's bad but not that bad. It did had a few so-silly-it's-funny jokes (mainly Chris Hemsworth) but most of it is lame, cringy, too low brow or falls flat on its face (every instant the blonde chick tries to be quirky). It completely falls to pieces at the end as well.
The biggest problem is it's completely different in tone from the originals, which were quintessential dry and sarcastic humour, where as this is slapstick, low brow and the few times it works, absurd. So I can imagine original fans hating it's simply because it really doesn't feel like Ghodtbusters at all to begin with.
It's just bland.
Its like generic cereal, it couldn't have less of an impact on me if it tried.
>What objection do you have to watching this
That I don't want to waste money on a film that I probably won't like based on it's trailer? Tickets are like $25 or some stupid bullshit here and I didn't laugh once at the trailer, why in the fuck would I see it?
>>71971800
Wiig is the only decent one of the four until it becomes apparent that she's retardedly infatuated with Hemsworth like a bad hentai and that she has a running gag which is basically slipping on bananas, just replacing bananas with goo.
>>71969970
McKinnon looks like the only redeeming part of this. I can't stand the other 3
>>71970153
When i started reading your post i thought it was going to be how you met Kevin in a grocery store.
>>71972957
She's actually the worst thing in it. She's painfully cringeworthy.
>>71972714
>Get over it.
Is that headline supposed to make me want to see the movie? Was it a choice between that and "watch it or else?"
>>71972963
Lel, I can see why.
>>71972984
The more I see of her the more I cringe. I originally thought she'd play the staightlady, but no...she turned it into a fucking spasm. Dancing with blowtorches, slamming the guitar and the 1,2, 1 1/2 broken EPA laws joke....blech.
>>71969970
Because the marketing of this movie was "See this movie or you're a misogynist". I don't respond well to threats
>>71973489
My breaking point was when the media tried to crucify James Rolfe for daring to say he wasn't going to watch it. At that point it went from being another shitty remake to "alright then, fuck you too."
>>71970329
What did you expect on an anonym board?
There isnt one "the user of 4chan".
>>71970711
Can you imagine if nintendo want to crush his competitor sony they only need to say would say "if the gb2016 bomb in the theater, we will give everyone o free pokeomen in pokemon go" to encourage people to not go inte theaters.
>>71973601
Pretty much this.
So fuck this movie. I do not even care if it is all-female
>>71969970
No cute anime girls.
Way to drop the fucking ball Sony. Christ.
>>71972136
>At least GB1 and 2 were original ideas.
Why are they so angry?
>>71969970
Women are horrible.
>>71975161
He literally has probably a 100 of the same jersey.
>>71970978
what about the Dredd reboot?
>>71969970
If I just say misogynist, am I let off?
Nah my reason is actually plain misogyny women shouldn't vote, make movies or have rights.
Gas the broads, sex war now!
>>71975140
>Amy Nicholson
I remember watching a video from screenjunkies ages ago where she was with them.
I don't know about which sequel/reboot they were talking about but she argued that the director of the next movie should be a women so that the next movie could have a women's touch or whatever. Like a vagina gives you incredible emotional skills or whatever.
It is always the same with these fucking people, instead of saying that person X is qualified, they use broad stuff like 'the next director should have a vagina'.
Can the mods just delete ghostbusters threads?
We all know /tv/ is incapable of reasonable discussion and the inevitable result will be b8 threads like this one.
>>71970978
I would've loved a kickass she-robo-she-cop, would have been different and interesting enough to even justify the remakes existence. What we got was just really, really unremarkable. Not really bad, just barely even good. Just beyond okay.
Not even going to pirate this shit. I havent seen the Total Recall and Robocop remakes and Im sure as hell not watching this.
>>71975140
HOW THE FUCK IS THIS A REVIEW?
>>71971899
>the film starts with a 'Ghost Corps' logo which is weird too, setting up a cinematic universe
You now realize you are living in...
>>71975505
The cinematic universe shit is so weird, too, because if anything the universe they establish in this is less interesting than the one that already existed from the original movies/cartoon.
All we know about the new Ghostbusters/Ghost Corps/Ghostbusters: Answer the Call/Sony's Ghostbusters: The Amazing Wo-Men is that there's ghosts. There's no Sumerian gods or demons or any of the shit really from the first movie. The bad guy is a nerd who had maybe ten lines, most of them just saying he's going to get back at people who bullied him. He dies, turns into a ghost, and then becomes a big bad boss ghost at the end.
Speaking of that by the way, the bad guy literally turns into a cartoon of the Ghostbusters logo. As in, he asks what form he should take. Donkey Kong says "Oh, something cute and harmless would be nice." So he turns into a 2D animated Ghostbusters logo, and there's a little cartoon that plays as he steps out of the red circle and puts on a bow tie. It's some Roger Rabbit shit.
MANBABIES BTFO
APOLOGIZE
>>71975690
>Speaking of that by the way, the bad guy literally turns into a cartoon of the Ghostbusters logo. As in, he asks what form he should take. Donkey Kong says "Oh, something cute and harmless would be nice." So he turns into a 2D animated Ghostbusters logo, and there's a little cartoon that plays as he steps out of the red circle and puts on a bow tie. It's some Roger Rabbit shit.
Best thing I've heard about the movie so far.
>>71969970
>What objection do you have to watching this, other than plain misogyny?
Why do people go see a movie? Because it looks good or is a subject they enjoy I guess?
This has neither. I refuse to spend money on unnecessary remakes in addition I have seen nothing about this movie that makes me think it would be any good.
Movies are supposed to give me a reason to watch them, not the other way around.
>>71969970
When was the last time Kevin Smith was relevant to any discussion?
>>71969970
>and they made a funny movie
thats not what the originals were about
>>71975890
It's not a remake.
>>71975690
I don't know if you read the emails but after ASM bombed and they had no cinematic universe this was their next choice.
They want a Cinematic universe so fucking bad because they think just by having it you make shit loads of money.
>There's no Sumerian gods or demons or any of the shit really from the first movie.
Me and a friend were talking about that a few months ago how in Ghostbusters 1 and 2 Ghosts exists but the Ghost activity is the symptom of a bigger problem. The coming of Gozer causing increased ghost activity and Vigo and the River of Slime cause more activity again.
This movie its literally just a guy with a ghost machine. Not to say that a guy with a ghost machine couldn't be a cool plot device used in a movie set after the original 2 some guy works out how to recreate the frequencies or whatever that is necessary to cause ghosts to manifest thats actually pretty cool. Hell if they went with a sequel to the original 2 and used the Ghostbusters Franchise idea you could have a group of evil Ghosbusters who set up in a city turn on the Ghost machine and just roll in all the money and unkowingly end up causing some kind of new disaster.
I don't really care about ghostbusters in the first place.
>>71975933
There's a theme of geniuses being shit on in this movie though, just some guy with a machine works as an "anti-buster"
>>71975965
This desu. Or Robocop or Indiana Jones or John Hugher or any of the overrated 80s trash that's only regarded as good because of nostalgia.
>>71975965
>>71976007
How old are you guys?
Ghostbusters (and Indiana Jones) were pretty huge movies, Robocop was that plus genuinely good with it's commentary. For people over a certain age I think they were very important and influential.
>>71975690
>Speaking of that by the way, the bad guy literally turns into a cartoon of the Ghostbusters logo. As in, he asks what form he should take. Donkey Kong says "Oh, something cute and harmless would be nice." So he turns into a 2D animated Ghostbusters logo, and there's a little cartoon that plays as he steps out of the red circle and puts on a bow tie. It's some Roger Rabbit shit
So they copy the 'choose the form' again?
Also please tell me you are making up the rest of that. What made the original Stay-Puft such a hit was not JUST the fact that it was a giant silly rodiculous marshmellow man, but the fact that it was also portrayed as a threat, and even a little disturbing. Like when hes grimacing once lit on fire, its a kind of disturbing image.
>>71976097
Transformers was a pretty huge movie and it's still shit.
You're literally just doing what I said, they're only regarded as good because of nostalgia.
I'm 25.
>>71975933
The crazy shit in the old movies is due to Dan Akroyd being insane. As in, actually insane and believing in all those dimensions and elder gods and aliens and stuff. BUT it made for good lore and a more epic feeling movie.
The plot device of a human villain purposefully bringing out ghosts isn't a bad idea, since we've only ever had two incorporeal villains before (Gozer and Vigo). But they fucked the villain. He has one scene that's reasonably funny where he speaks sincerely to MIghty Joe Young about the end of the world. Then another scene where talks to a mirror explaining his motivation as flatly as possible. We see him briefly before the rock concert. And then that's it, he kills himself and he's replaced by an effect.
>>71976097
Like they said.
Nostalgia.
>>71970153
>That being said, the movie has a LOT of weight on it.
Most of that is Melissa McCarthy though
>>71969970
Hol' up, so you be saying dis a good movie and shit?
>>71976112
I promise you, I'm not. The bad guy, Rowan, is a human most of the movie using ghost devices to amplify paranormal activity along ley lines. He then builds a device at the cross of two ley lines, then kills himself there when the Ghostbusters find him. He comes back as a ghost we never see clearly for some reason (I guess the effect was never done?), possesses Chris Hemsworth, then creates the big dumb CGI climax.
Eventually the Ghostbusters reach him, and he goofs around with Chris Hemsworth's body for a bit before leaving it for no real reason. He asks the Ghostbusters what form they'd prefer he take and Congo says something cute and helpless. And then the Ghostbusters logo happens. It starts off 2D animated and cute, but eventually he starts growing and becoming malevolent. He ends up looking like a 30 story tall Oogie Boogie from Nightmare Before Christmas. They beat him by frying his dick with proton streams.
>>71973603
>>71975431
Like, just a head and lungs and titties
>>71969970
i actively partake in mahogany
>I enjoyed it
Translation: I wouldn't see it again, probably below flick-tier
>>71969970
Everything he's made in the last 10 years has been absolute shit. Why should anyone care about his opinion?
>>71972334
This
The original was VERY subtle. Murphy was programmed to solve crime. He recognized one of the suspects that shot him and his subconscious (his memory is wiped) tells him that there is a lead on the suspect and he remembers he was part of Red Forman's crew. But all he knows is there was a crime against a cop named Murphy (him)
>>71972668
it's because most people don't have their sound on while scrolling past it on facebook. if there's something to catch their attention they're more likely to stop and get the content of the trailer without needing to hear it.
Is anyone left that respects Kevin Smith and his opinions?
It would make more sense for Sony to hide at all costs that Smith liked their movie.
>>71976202
>Possessing hemsworth
Wasnt it in the trailer?
>>71976617
Yeah, they spoil that part in the trailer. He possesses McCarthy and tries to destroy the Ghostbusters equipment. He gets slapped out then possesses Hemsworth and makes about a dozen jokes about how he should have worked out when he was alive. Then he ditches that body because the Ghostbusters ask him to, basically. We never see his ghost form aside from the huge white shit.
>>71976526
I do.
And to be honest i think his opinion is rather honest.
I only know this Headline from him. But he never says its a good movie. It also sounds very underwhelming.
>>71976657
So they cut some scenes short to show more action scenes i guess
>this movie would have /tv/ praising it if Seth Rogan and company were the leads even if everything else was the same
>>71976904
That's the opposite. We would hate it MORE.
We hate it in a funny way now, but if it was Rogain, we would actually be truly angry.
>>71969970
The fact that Kevin Smith liked it.
>>71976977
He didn't. "I enjoyed it" is Kevin-speak for "I don't want to say anything bad about it because these people worked hard on their shit."
I listen to his podcast regularly, so I know these things.
>>71976904
>/tv/
>not hating seth rogens guts
does not compute
>>71970742
>I haven't seen 2
You haven't missed a thing. The only REMOTELY funny scene in that movie consists of Bill Murray hurling insults at a jar of pink goo.
>>71977070
Oh come on, there's plenty of good lines.
"Do!"
"Ray!"
"Egon!"
"But I don't blame them! Because one time I turned into a dog and they helped me. Thank you, Your Honour."
"Thanks Tully. Short... but pointless."
Plus anything Peter MacNicol said.
>>71977070
Oh and it's not an "exciting" movie either, in case you don't give a shit about the movies' comedic aspects. Literally everything about that movie is lazy and boring. It really feels like nobody involved cared about the movie.
>>71969970
It looks like lowbrow humor that lacks any of the subtly, nuance, or originality that original film had, the kind of shit that a burnout weedman like Kevin Smith would find funny. Seriously, it looks like an over the top cartoon parody to Ghostbusters as opposed to a loving homage or spiritual successor. Something like Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson's version of Starsky and Hutch. Everyone and everything, from the stupid jokes to the characters to the ghosts to the ghostbusting tech, turned up to 11 so as not to lose the low attention span masses.
If you can't see the difference between the remake and the original's sensibilities when it comes to humor, you might want to go and see a doctor because you're probably blind.
>>71977138
>"Do!"
"Ray!"
"Egon!"
Oh, that was from 2? Okay, I misremembered that one as being from the the finale of 1.
But thinking a bit harder, if I remember that scene correctly, it's followed by an unnecessary double take on the side of Murray, isn't it?
Scenes that start out funny but are ruined by "that was the joke" aren't exactly great either.
>>71977328
Well, the gag is that Venkman kind of looks at Egon weird because saying 'Egon' doesn't make any sense. Ray says 'Ray' because it's his name and it sounds like 'Re'. Egon just stares right back at Venkman and smiles like he's a fucking badass, which is what kills it.
Also lines like
Ray: "You never had a slinky?!"
Egon: "We had part of a slinky. But I straightened it."
Janosz: "Everything you're doing is bad, I want you to know this."
Janosz: "I AWAIT THE WORD OF VIGO!" *checks watch*
Vigo: "I VIGO THE SCOURGE OF CARPATHIA"
Janosz: Yes, I've heard all this.
Vigo: 'THE SORROW OF MODALVIA"
Janosz: Yes I know.
>>71976904
Hah! Are you fucking kidding me? I can see it now
>dude ghost dicks lmao
>class 420 full floating vapor am I right UHUHUHUHUHUHUH
>lets bake this ghost!
>I mean like I ain't afraid of no ghost, but that shit really made me shit my pants UHUHUHUHUHUHUHUH
>ghost balls!
>I just ectoplasm'd my pants UHUHUHUHUH
Have you not fucking seen the Sausage Party (or whatever it is) threads?
>>71977138
>My clients are under a judicial mustrangement order, that thing I got from her! They would be exposing themselves!
Really, I dont get all the hate for Ghostbusters 2. I mean it isn't as great as the first one, but it has a lot of great lines, funny moments, some genuinely eerie or scary moments (the severed heads, the tub slime. That shit made me afraid of the tub for like months when I was a kid) and the characters are still great. Plus, more Ernie Hudson this time.
>>71977435
>Egon just stares right back at Venkman and smiles like he's a fucking badass, which is what kills it.
I disagree, I thought that is what made the moment. It isnt so much of a stare as it was a 'gotcha, fucker' look, and its one of the few times (shit, maybe the only) Egon is intentionally being humerous.
>>71969970
I love Kevin Smith but he's high all the time now and I don't take anything he says seriously
>>71977644
Kills it as in - he kills it. Like, thats what makes the joke. It's the best part. I agree, Ramis has the best stuff in Ghostbusters II.
"Let's see what happens when we take away the puppy"
>>71970153
Sup, fellow Indy faggot. When was Kev Smith here?
Also, I'm going to see the movie tomorrow afternoon. The movie looks average, so it's worth a $7 ticket to me. I guess I'm an SJW now.
>>71977658
I used to like the guy, and I still try too, but I think becoming so popular and becoming a pop culture 'icon' or celebrity or whatever has really gotten to him. I feel like he just lives up his own ass now.
This being said, I'd still watch and support a continuation of the Clerks cartoon.
>>71977681
Oh, my bad. I thought it was weird that anybody would think the crowning moment was what ruined it haha.
>>71977730
I don't even follow the guy but I know he's up his own ass because he's become a figure in 'nerd' culture. He probably takes his own word as testament.
Am I the only one surprised they didn't bring Harold Ramis back as a terrible CGI ghost? They managed it with the rest of the original cast.
>>71977826
Like a nerd Tarantino.
>>71969970
Kevin Smith has never made a funny movie.
>>71977920
If you don't think Clerks 2 is funny, then you must be a miserable person
>>71970742
>i havent seen 2
dont
>>71977942
Or a person above the age of 17.
>>71973032
do you have the picture without the stickers
i love the contrast between how ugly the females are and how attractive the male is
>>71977942
I dont find it funny BECAUSE I'm a miserable person
>>71976132
I'm 34 here, and never wanted all this reboot/remake shit.
The nostalgia angle that all these studios are trying to hit just sucks because its also our own generation doing it to ourselves. Like look at how many cartoons or shows are making '80s references or set in 80's as "cool" (even the films like IT(reboot), Super 8,Gaurdians of the Galaxy, etc just to connect with us). They're aimed at our generation because we have the money now. Its like a weird betrayal of some sort, because we have the power to change what we liked growing up, but are we dont care to respect it.
>>71975933
>Hell if they went with a sequel to the original 2 and used the Ghostbusters Franchise idea you could have a group of evil Ghosbusters who set up in a city turn on the Ghost machine and just roll in all the money and unkowingly end up causing some kind of new disaster.
That's a little similar to the plot of the Frighteners. Michael J Fox can see ghosts, so he makes a deal with some ghosts to haunt people and then they call him up to exorcise them
Take it from me, the director of yoga hosers
>>71972249
>Pixels namedrops 4chan
>Ghostbusters namedrops Reddit
What did Sony mean by this
>>71976955
We are truly angry at this film. There wouldn't have been nearly the thread count if it were a Rogan film.
>>71977868
I was really hoping they wouldn't...
>>71969970
Don't listen to this misogynists, OP. I'll watch it.
As soon as there is a decent rip.
The bust one ghost in the entire movie up until the climax.
>>71978061
Well, that's just what the initial statement meant...
>>71969970
I think the main objection is this whole "let's take that thing everyone loved, only let's add agenda xyz to it"
If they just made a new ghostbusters movie no one would care, but the fact that they're just remaking a classic but with muh strong independent womenz is rather dumb. If this is a large success expect to see it happen to more movies, maybe some batgirl or supergirl capeshit with the exact same storyline just said by a woman with vagina jokes.
Again if they just made a new ghostbuster movie, no one would give a shit.
>>71977435
Okay. I guess I'll just need to rewatch it. Maybe I just remember it as bad because it really couldn't hold a candle to the first one.
It probably DID have its moments but for some reason my brain deemed them easily forgettable.
>>71980391
(or maybe it's because I'm German and I have no sense of humour to speak of)
>>71970153
Kevin Smith cries regularly to CW capeshit adaptations. Good taste is the furthest thing from what he has.
>>71979914
because if it were a Rogan film you wouldn't be considered a misoginist racist piece of shit for not liking it
>>71971899
I was wondering how much product placement would be featured. I knew from Sony's track record it would be at the very least a distracting amount.
Your review is exactly what I expected all around though.
>>71970351
THIS IS NOT MY BEAUTIFUL HOUSE! THESE ARE NOT WHO YA GONNA CALL!
>>71970481
>>the movie is shit.
>>its basically the first movie again
YES, LET THE ANGER FLOW THROUGH YOU
>going to the cinema in July
>>71970525
>>BRIDE HIM WITH CHEESBURGERS
>>BRIDE HIM
>>71978985
now we know how people coming of age in the late fifties and early sixties felt when seventies and eighties tv and movies pooped out happy, days, grease, and the rest
>>71980244
just like the original film.
>>71975140
>MTV
What did you expect?
>>71977699
He was up at PopCon downtown, showed off Yoga Hosers (which was alright for what it was.
>>71980857
I bet that generation was all like, I never fuckin hand jived
>>71980857
Its really funny how the nostalgia of the 50's was so powerful, it lingered up to the 90's. And the 50's were still a horrible time in some respects on the domestic level.
Now we look back on the 80's as a magical time because it was the start of all our current tech
>>71981103
that sounds like a joke kevin smith would make--are you lurking kevin smith?
>>71980244
And don't they let it go almost immediatelyto push Bill Murray out a window?
>>71981388
i think it's a generation of screenwriters who come of age and take inspiration from their childhoods-- most of your up and coming screen writers now were children of the eighties-- as they would have been children of the 50s in the eighties--
>>71980439
Yeah, CW is a big pile of shit.
>>71981518
Totally, GL and JJ are examples of this, GL did it with American Graffiti and JJ Super8. I think studios are just taking it too far now, milking memories/nostalgia
>>71981477
Shouldnt they be accountable for his death then? That is a conversation not being had about the plot, OGGB never had a death on their hands
>>71980910
Not true, they caught more in the montage.
>>71981691
yeah, as soon as something is shown to be an audience pleaser-- and profitable-- studios greenlight all sorts of "similar" crap--but it's usually just superficially "similar"-- ninja turtles had street sharks, biker mice from mars, battle toads-- because the suits thinking was- mutant animal teenagers are profitable right now-- pokemon had digimon and yu-gi-oh-- in short executives are lazy money hunters and any time something hits it big-- they do exactly what asylum studios does but with a bigger budget.
>>71982145
yeah but we don't see the actuall ghosts-- i heard there was a similar montage in the all ladies one
>>71982218
I'm guessing that's when they play that god-awful Fallout Boy Ghostbusters theme
>>71970113
relative upper body strength and relative comedy or humor ability are subjective concepts. And it isn't factual to say "women aren't funny." Women are very funny. Wiig and McKinnon are 2 of the best SNL castmembers in recent memory.
It's clearly misogynistic to say that shit. You're clearly just trying to find reasons to talk shit about women. Try fucking them sometime. They're great!
I don't watch remakes. I have no reason to when I can watch the original.
>>71982477
But haven't you heard? It's a "reboot", not a "remake". Yeah, they're following the same beats as the original and using the same gear and have a team made up of the same number of people and the same races and have to deal with an annoying government and ghosts erupting out of a hotel... yeah, it's a remake.
>>71969970
"I want to make movies again. So i have to like everything everyone does" - Kevin Smith.
>>71975115
Only shared a name, sophist.
>>71982450
sure there may be some bull dikes out there who can lift but the majority of women I wanna say 90%-95 are not physically strong nor ever change held be because of their biology
and no it's not subjective women are funny because a few celebrities read scripts. again big picture stuff here, I know that confuses you, but overall women are not funny because they don't have to prove themselves to men that way. we already like women based on how they look. being funny is a male feature and has been for centuries. time has proven women aren't funny. not that they CANT be funny they ARENT funny overall
YIFY torrents are not out yet.
>>71982754
No one even cares to record it, it seems. Sony's greatest success here will be that they finally made a film that no one wants to pirate.
>No sexy incubus
>No nighttime visitation
>No ghost cunnilingus
>More interested in shooting ghost in the dick
Why fucking bother
