But, but, but … mustard is a key ingredient of mayonnaise.
(I’m very confused. No idea what that was about.)
I was actually more thinking of Melissa McCarthy on Kimmel, saying that people who didn’t like it were all 45 years old and living in their parent’s basement.
Admittedly, this was pre-release and in response to the hate it was getting, but it creates a tone, no? It also helps paint people who genuinely think the film was poor (which again, due to poor direction, I do) as hating on it because it starred women, which is unfair.
In the hands of a different director and a different writer it could have been excellent, but it wasn’t. Eh. Can’t win them all.
I got no problem with a good fart joke, but you can’t just jam 'em in because farts are funny. Unless you’re Mel Brooks.
To be clear, she was specifically responding to the Reddit crowd who were complaining about the very idea of a Ghostbusters movie with women (as you note, before it even came out) and doing things like driving Leslie Jones off of social media with racist and sexist harassment to voice their hatred.
4 Likes
I saw the reboot. In a theater. On purpose. Because I thought it would be funny. I didn’t think it was funny. I thought it was crummy. I wasn’t some brotester upset about them “ruining my childhood.” I just didn’t like the movie.
The main problem with the sequel (as I see it) was a change in tone that it couldn’t shake. In the original, the Ghostbusters were the Marx Brothers to NYC’s Margaret Dumont - a group of unusual guys that save the day, but the city wasn’t prepared for and didn’t know what to do with. William Peck was a perfect example of this dynamic in action. In the reboot, NYC was the wacky one. The mayor? Wacky. The head of the university? Wacky. Even the bad guy was wacky. The Ghostbusters in that film were the put upon party and that proved to be less fun.
5 Likes
7 Likes
Well, Leslie Jones is making a stink about it along the lines of “it’s like our movie never existed”, which kind of reminds me of what fans of the OG movies were saying about her version.
Hollywood is about making money first, telling stories second. The female Ghostbusters can exist alongside the male Ghostbusters movies, just like the Charlize Theron Mad Max can exist alongside the originals. No movie franchise is “harmed” except in our minds. It’s like when a musician loops part of an old RnB song-- we can still listen to the original, it’s hasn’t ceased to exist, nor has it lost its power as a piece of music.
Along the same lines, I’m pretty much done with Star Wars now. The original three, “episodes 4-6”, were fun, everything that came after is tired and pointless (that’s just my opinion, man), but I don’t begrudge the super fans from having more episodes if that’s what they want. I just wont watch, there are too many other films to see instead.
1 Like
I’m still confused about how they could make a Mad Max movie with Bane instead Max…
1 Like
Without meaning to knock any of the cast involved, I have to say that the new Ghostbusters movie sucked sweaty donkey balls. I tried to watch it, and I really wanted to enjoy it, but the jokes were too lame, the pacing was too slow, an the suckitude simply overwhelmed all the talent involved in making it. I walked out a third of the way through.
Even if you don’t enjoy the new cast of the movies or their stories, I think anybody who enjoyed the original trilogy would dig the heck out of both Rogue One and the Clone Wars show. They are original-trilogy-level enjoyable (in my opinion, man)
2 Likes
Dude, I’m still waiting for Planet of the Hoojibs, and Droid World. (Yes, I’ve heard Rogue One was good, been avoiding it but will probably see it eventually.)
I definitely wasn’t on board for the newer movie, it seemed like a desperate cash grab then. This sequel is more of the same, I won’t bother watching it… If it turns out to be good I can be happy for everyone involved but I won’t pay to see it.
For Star Wars I’ve seen the new movies and they’re… Ok. Honestly that’s more disappointing. They’re not particularly imaginative, I did enjoy them but so far they’re rather forgettable for the most part
1 Like
There’s a Carmen Sandiego reboot on Netflix that’s pretty good.
I’ve never really understood shunning films that are a “cash-grab”; aren’t all films made to be profitable? I doubt Empire Strikes Back was made because George Lucas was feeling generous and charitable and altruistic 
If the new film is fun and enjoyable, like any worthwhile movie, I’ll be happy to either pay to see it or watch it on Netflix (considering the number of fun, worthwhile movies that come out which I simply don’t have time to see, the latter’s more likely!)
I was going to say it’s still on Steam, but I think it got removed a while ago. There’s also a VR game that Ivan Reitman was supposedly involved in, but reviews are not at all favorable.
They did some massive crossovers in the IDW comics – they even brought in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles once – but I never read any of them.
Not sure what you’re trying to link to (it seems to redirect to this thread), but I mentioned Ecto Force in my first post – and there doesn’t seem to have been any news about it at all lately.
I don’t mind people wanting to make money. I want them to make all the money they are deserved and get paid, but making a movie to coast on brand recognition does hamper how good it can be rather than a filmmaker wanting to do a sequel because they have something to say. The new Ghostbusters wasn’t well executed, and considering Sony had like 4 movies planned before the first one came out doesn’t help
Rogue One was definitely my favorite of the Disney Star Wars movies. The characters were great, it brought up the issue of where the fuzzy borderline between rebels and terrorists lies, and filling the backstory of the original film is a lot more interesting than just implausibly bringing the Empire back with a new leader and a new generation of Vader as in the mainstream new trilogy.
1 Like
I think “cash grab” suggests not just a movie intended to be profitable, but a crappy movie that hopes to trick people by exploiting beloved characters, etc. (“Trick,” meaning that people will buy tickets before they know “the facts.”)
Understood. I guess what I’d say is that the new Ghostbusters was likely as divisive as the original was, in a different sort of way; I saw it in a theater on opening night with a theater of mostly women, and I’ve rarely heard people howl with laughter so hard during a movie. So for a lot of fans of the actresses in it, it certainly wasn’t a trick, a crappy movie, or one exploiting anything, but a new take on a thirty-year-old property. A lot of fans get confused about the difference between “objectively bad” and “subjectively bad”, I suppose.
2 Likes
I had to wait till DVD (yay unemployment) and while it one bit I cringed at (I mean the whole black people afraid of ghosts crap needs to die already) I thought it was fun and worth seeing. The women were great in their roles Chris Helmsworth looked like he was having a good time playing the hunky dumb eyecandy and as I stated above I liked it was a new story as well.
Also the ‘that’s Ed Jr’ killed me.
