Ghostbusters trailer *Brand New* (2016)

[The Laughing Fish]

We need to be much more tolerant of a variety of opinions, including those we don't agree with, and stop arrogantly assuming we all think alike, or that such a thing is even desirable.

The problem, johhnny, is you're not exactly innocent either. You insulted several other people recently over a political topic. And it's not like they were hostile towards you, they simply gave their own opinion about the subject.

Personally, I haven't been terribly impressed by the omens for this film or any of the footage I have seen, but I've always asked the reserve judgement until it is actually on release.

Too bad you wouldn't give Batman v Superman a chance and outright dismissed it instead.

[Travesty]

It's currently sitting at 74% 'Fresh' at Rotten Tomatoes at the moment...

...cue the conspiracy theories/outrage at 'liberal'/'feminist' critics being forced to give this film good reviews...

It's not really "conspiracy", when you have top reviewers actually admitting to having a bias.

-"I'll confess that I'm pulling for Ghostbusters to work both creatively and financially, because I fear that its relative success or failure will be taken as evidence about the viability of female-led movies. It's unfortunate, because it's clear that I, as a result of this "controversy," now have a bias in favor of this film. I'd rather just go in objectively, but I can't honestly say that it's possible any longer."


Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/the-dartboard/ghostbusters-has-become-fun-summer-movie-the-battleground-for-internet-politics#6dHdRhqUa5hcoHVw.99

[johnnygobbs]

It's currently sitting at 74% 'Fresh' at Rotten Tomatoes at the moment...

...cue the conspiracy theories/outrage at 'liberal'/'feminist' critics being forced to give this film good reviews...

It's not really "conspiracy", when you have top reviewers actually admitting to having a bias.

-"I'll confess that I'm pulling for Ghostbusters to work both creatively and financially, because I fear that its relative success or failure will be taken as evidence about the viability of female-led movies. It's unfortunate, because it's clear that I, as a result of this "controversy," now have a bias in favor of this film. I'd rather just go in objectively, but I can't honestly say that it's possible any longer."

Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/the-dartboard/ghostbusters-has-become-fun-summer-movie-the-battleground-for-internet-politics#6dHdRhqUa5hcoHVw.99

That's a single example.  But in this instance the critic is clearly an idiot.  If they really give a damn about sexism they should either be honest and say that the film doesn't work, irrespective of the gender dynamics, or they should have lied (and yes I realise that the latter option is wrong, but it's certainly not as idiotic and self-defeating as admitting to providing a biased review).

But you can't use one critic as an example of the general consensus.

[johnnygobbs]

We need to be much more tolerant of a variety of opinions, including those we don't agree with, and stop arrogantly assuming we all think alike, or that such a thing is even desirable.

The problem, johhnny, is you're not exactly innocent either. You insulted several other people recently over a political topic. And it's not like they were hostile towards you, they simply gave their own opinion about the subject.

Personally, I haven't been terribly impressed by the omens for this film or any of the footage I have seen, but I've always asked the reserve judgement until it is actually on release.

Too bad you wouldn't give Batman v Superman a chance and outright dismissed it instead.

I 'insulted' the poster, The Joker.  I have since apologised.  However, I never called him any names.  I simply asked what his motives were for supporting Brexit, even though it didn't personally affect him as an American.  I also reminded everyone to avoid discussing politics since I had believed we had agreed to avoid the subject on this forum, but since the subject had already been raised and since I felt so passionately about how disastrous Brexit would be in economic and political terms and in terms of social cohesion, I felt compelled to respond to the pro-Brexit rhetoric.  And needless to say, I have so far been proven right in terms of my fears regarding a post-Brexit UK/world.  In fact, even I hadn't foreseen the significant rise in racist/xenophobic attacks that followed the decision to leave the EU.

As for my comments on Batman v Superman, I as hoping, contrary to the bad word-of-mouth and my significant doubts over the casting of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex, that the film would be good.  As soon as the unanimously negative reviews and underwhelming, even borderline disastrous, public reception and box-office emerged (and I have seen various comedy shows and articles take it for granted that the film is now a popular joke), it was clear that my fears were realised.  Something which seems to be an all-too-common occurrence.

And just to be clear, once again, I am not a defender of Ghostbusters 2016.  I still suspect that it is a pointless exercise that will eventually end up as a footnote with respect to the Ghostbusters franchise.  However, I will reserve judgement on whether the film is a complete failure or disaster until it is finally on general release.

[riddler]

I guess compared to others here I'm more receptive to the film. I can't imagine a scenario where many people claim this is the third entry everyone has been waiting for but I've read a few reviews indicating despite it's horrendous marketing, the film itself was good. I think like BvS it may be the type of film in which a viewer must see for themselves to decide whether it's good or bad.

Predictably now that voting is open on the IMDB, there's floods of votes of 1 from people with no intention of seeing it so that wont be a good indicator. Despite critics having their own conspiracies and agendas, I do find RT to be more accurate than the IMDB: rotten tomatoes critics can't create multiple accounts and their professional names are attached to their reviews so they are at least held accountable. An example of IMDB flaws; it's well known Nolanites would vote 1 on other superhero films but the other thing they're notorious for doing is voting 1 on films just ahead of Nolan's films. As an example the film directly above the dark knight rises is a Japanese film called 'Grave of the Fireflies' and no surprise has an influx of votes of 1 from voters who gave the dark knight rises a 10.

Whether or not I see it in theatres is up in the air. I have stated previously in this thread that the visuals do seem impressive especially in 3d. For me it might be a 'beggars cant be choosers' scenario. 25 years I've been praying for another ghostbusters film, it would feel almost ungreatful to decide that I would dismiss this one simply because I didn't get the gift I asked for the way I wanted it.

[johnnygobbs]

Wise words riddler, although I'd hesitate calling the people who post over at IMDb 'critics'.

[Silver Nemesis]

That's a single example.  But in this instance the critic is clearly an idiot.  If they really give a damn about sexism they should either be honest and say that the film doesn't work, irrespective of the gender dynamics, or they should have lied (and yes I realise that the latter option is wrong, but it's certainly not as idiotic and self-defeating as admitting to providing a biased review).

But you can't use one critic as an example of the general consensus.

Except it's not just one critic. I believe this was originally posted by a user on reddit when the first batch of reviews came in, but it's since been reposted on several other sites. The author highlights some interesting points.

I find it hard to believe that the reviews from people who had turned the movie into some bizarre political litmus test or used it as an opportunity to soapbox about "misogynist haters" are primarily based on the quality of the movie itself. It seems pretty predictable that someone who blames negativity towards the movie on misogynistic "ghostbros" or who already wrote articles supporting the movie months ago is unlikely to be negative.

For example, quickly looking at positive reviews and the other activity from the authors:

Stephanie Zacharek (TIME)
The same author wrote this a month ago:
"Why Ghostbusters Is the Must-See Movie of the Summer Season
The misogynist outrage over the Ghostbusters remake has made it essential viewing"
How likely was someone who wrote that to give the movie a negative review?

Barry Hertz (Globe and Mail)
"This reboot is a revelation – and it ain't afraid of no misogynists
Well, maybe not so much a mystery as just a dispiriting reminder that misogyny is alive and well on the Internet, where it can metastasize to gross extremes with zero justification. And for anyone eager to stand atop a pedestal to righteously proclaim that objections to a new Ghostbusters simply stem from a frustration with Hollywood exploiting adolescent nostalgia, well, where are all the virulent Internet campaigns against, say, the new Ninja Turtles series?
No, it is easy to see what the Ghostbusters furor is really about: angry, bored, women-hating men expending otherwise untapped energy mining their own feelings of social inadequacy in a toxic bid for attention."

Nigel M. Smith (Guardian)
"Ghostbusters review: call off the trolls – Paul Feig's female reboot is a blast
Shockingly the guy that's been complaining about "haters" for months before seeing the movie thinks the haters were wrong."

https://twitter.com/nigelmfs/status/707580882022830080
Can't wait - and screw the haters: New Ghostbusters trailer nods to controversy over race and gender
https://twitter.com/nigelmfs/status/732925646230282242
*beep* the haters - this new #Ghostbusters trailer has me psyched:
https://twitter.com/nigelmfs/status/738816760489476096
It doesn't need to - women & gays will make it a hit: #Ghostbusters targets male viewers w/ new NBA ads

Manohla Dargis (New York Times)
"Girls rule, women are funny, get over it."

Joshua Rothkopf (Time Out)
https://twitter.com/joshrothkopf/status/752197739052724225
I actually think the #Ghostbusters concept works better as "nerd girls vs mansplainers" instead of "blue-collar schlubs vs the EPA."

Alison Willmore (Buzzfeed News)
Remaking this beloved film with women as leads is an act revolutionary enough to attract the ire of legions of Ghostbros insisting that the very concept will warp time and space to retroactively ruin their childhoods.

Robbie Collin (Daily Telegraph)
Previous article:
Forget the sexist naysayers, says Robbie Collin - if the first trailer is anything to go by, this all-female reboot will be every bit as fun as the 1984 original
https://twitter.com/robbiereviews/status/520216415832666113
Yes yes but when is it MALE Ghostbusters Day?

Devin Faraci (Birth.Movies.Death)
One of his previous articles on it:
The Soft Sexism Of Hating On The New GHOSTBUSTERS
On twitter:
http://archive.is/Yzykr
@devincf If it's good, that's awesome. But this opinion that if anyone says the movie looks bad they are automatically sexist is crazy
@BoustanuA it's not crazy. It's true.
@devincf why?
@BoustanuA I don't know why you're sexist. Probably because girls don't like you.

For the record, I don't buy into conspiracy theories about paid critics or whatnot. But when you've got a bunch of journalists who've openly politicised a particular film and telegraphed their ideological stance months in advance of its release, it's painfully obvious where their agendas lie. These are the same journalists who've spent the past few months calling the film's sceptics "trolls" and "misogynists"; the same people who launched nasty personal attacks on James Rolfe and his family for not wanting to see the film, and who've waxed lyrical about seeing the haters put in their place. Did anyone seriously think these people would turn around and give it a bad review after all their campaigning?

Most of the positive reviews I've seen have focused more on the controversy than the film itself. Some of them even flaunt the words "troll" and "misogynist" in their headlines. And we're supposed to think there's no agenda at play? We're supposed to take a review titled "I ain't afraid of no misogynists" as completely unbiased and without prejudice? I think not. These critics are about as objective as I am. And I'm a petulant butthurt fan boy.

Even with that agenda in place, most of them are only giving the film a marginal thumbs up. The most common scores seem to be C-grades or ratings of 3/5 and 6/10. Hardly critical acclaim. At present its Rotten Tomatoes average critic rating is only 1.6 higher than that of Batman v Superman's average rating. And yet Batman v Superman is being portrayed as a disastrous cinematic misfire, while Ghostbusters – at least according to some of the more zealous defenders – is the best film of the summer. If it's as good as all that, why is its 'top critic' score sitting at 50% 'rotten'? That's the same 'top critic' score as Ghostbusters II. Are we to believe the lame slapstick, fart gag, crotch-blasting humour of the trailers is isolated to those particular clips, and that the rest of the film is sophisticated comedy gold? If so, why hasn't Sony released any of this hilarious footage to the public?

Sorry, but I think the 78% RT score is presently about as reliable as the IMDb user rating of 3.5/10. Most people are not evaluating this film on artistic merit, but rather are championing/attacking it according to political and ideological prejudices.

Regardless, a high RT score won't mean squat if it's final box office gross is smaller than Bob Cratchit's Christmas bonus. If anything, the smug 'suck it haters' tone of the positive reviews is only further exacerbating many people's antipathy towards the film. The outcome of the true battle won't be determined by RT scores or IMDb user ratings – it'll be determined by the box office results. And on that score, I stand by my earlier prediction.

This movie will flop.

[johnnygobbs]

The problem is, as I stated in a previous post, that the opposing sides in the so-called cultural war are becoming even more resolute and unreasonable in their positioning.  Both sides, haters and defenders alike, have allowed this trifling film to become politicised, and for what it's worth, I think they're both wrong.  Films, like any art-form, should be judged on quality and merit, and not attacked or championed for the gender, ethnic and social composition of their characters.

That said, there are some liberals/feminists who have been refreshingly sincere in their assessment of the movie: https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2016/jul/10/i-love-ghostbusters-and-i-love-paul-feig-so-why-do-i-only-like-his-female-remake

Here is a segment:

McCarthy has said that she doesn't want the movie to be compared with the original, and that is understandable. But it is also unavoidable, not least because there are so many nodding references. Even aside from the obvious continuations – Ecto-1 the car, Slimer, the cameos from the original's stars – the former film's structure is all but cut and pasted into the new version, but with a flimsier plot.

Where the original was sweetly shonky, the modern version is, inevitably, far slicker. Too much so at times, to the point where it's hard to see what, exactly, is happening in the special effects. While the original was at heart a celebration of the friendship between the characters, there is little sense of connection between the women here, which is surprising given the film was co-written by Katie Dippold, who worked on the brilliant female-friendship based sitcom Parks and Recreation.

More puzzling is why they've retained the original's one mistake, which was relegating the one African-American ghostbuster to a lesser role. Leslie Jones gets more screen time than poor Ernie Hudson did, but her character – the sassy black woman trying to keep up with the more educated white women – certainly feels like something from the 80s, but not in a good way.

Nonetheless, there are some extremely funny lines, such as the mayor's office dismissing the ghostbusters as "those sad and lonely women – it's like they read Eat, Pray Love and ran with it." It is genuinely thrilling to see four women in ghostbusters uniforms, and they have fun mocking their online critics, sneering at comments such as: "Ain't no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts." It is definitely better than most film remakes, and McCarthy proves again she really can carry a blockbuster. But she and Feig set the bar high with their other excellent collaborations, especially Bridesmaids and The Heat, and this is nowhere near as satisfying. Sometimes fine isn't quite enough.

I just wish the other, more favourable reviews, hadn't made any reference to fanboy rage.  If the film is as good as they're saying, why invite scepticism and attacks by holding a red rag to the haters?

It seems to me that some people, on both the liberal left and reactionary right, thrive on hating the other side.  In fact they seem to define themselves by this hatred.

Me, I'm a liberal, but hopefully an honest one who listens to and respects what the 'other side' says, even if I don't agree.

[thecolorsblend]

Both sides, haters and defenders alike, have allowed this trifling film to become politicised, and for what it's worth, I think they're both wrong.

Um, no. "Both sides" didn't do jackanything. Sony's marketing department has framed opposition to this movie as inherently sexist as part of their marketing push. Apart from being offensive (What, I'm not allowed to not want to see a movie because it looks like dog crap?), it's unprecedented for marketing to go on the literal offensive like this and set out to smear opponents. This isn't electoral politics. Demonizing the opposition won't win friends or influence people.

I enjoy the original Ghostbusters but it's hardly a crucial staple of my childhood nostalgia. I grew up watching it, I enjoy it but I don't CARE about it. I'm theoretically the perfect mark for this movie... and I'm uninterested in it (A) because it looks idiotic and (B) I'm kind of sick of this "Let's find anything but a white man to play a role that was made famous by a white man!"

If these characters are so amazing and original, why not create a completely original film as a vehicle for them? Isn't that a better showcase for, say, a comedic talent of Melissa McCarthy's pedigree?

I probably should watch myself. Some Sony marketing wonk is probably preparing a press release to demonize me right now.

Me, I'm a liberal, but hopefully an honest one who listens to and respects what the 'other side' says, even if I don't agree.

That would make you unique among liberals.

[johnnygobbs]

I'm not going to argue with you but I do think comments like 'I'm kind of sick of this "Let's find anything but a white man to play a role that was made famous by a white man!"' don't help your case and are exactly what this film's more zealous, perhaps even mendacious, defenders will seize upon.  It also illustrates why I said that both sides of the cultural divide need to start understanding and tolerating the other a bit more.

Sony were asses to frame the entire opposition to this film as one that came down to misogyny, but it is also very true that some of the people complaining about Ghostbusters 2016 are if not outright misogynists then at least expressing less-than-enlightened views. 

But I am genuinely grateful that you didn't argue with me or take umbrage when I made the following statement: "Me, I'm a liberal, but hopefully an honest one who listens to and respects what the 'other side' says, even if I don't agree."   And I do concede that many liberals, much like many conservatives, do have problems with respecting others with different views to themselves.