Ghostbusters YouTube Opinions

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

[QUOTE="CuccoLady, post: 1599846, member: 30977"]Fair enough, if you hate gender swaps you hate gender swaps. So long as that's the real cause for the point being docked.[/QUOTE]

I don't hate all gender swaps. I just don't think that you can go throughout all of fiction and arbitrarily change the genders around to positive effect.

but ill tell you asecret cl

[spoliorer]my real reason to dock a point is i hate women[/spoilder[

[Apollo the Just]

proud of u for admiting out loud ;) firts step 2 improivin gurself ;) ;)

--

i cant stop listening to that track. each time i listen i like. hope it will make itself better.

it doesnt.

[Random User]

Very Safe, General Hollywood Comedy.

[Calamity Panfan]

i love missy elliott and she definitely has the best part of the song with her weird verse but yeah it does not improve itself

and i can be a fall out boy apologist but i don't like almost any single song they've released in the past few years and this does not change it

[CaptHayfever]

[QUOTE="I REALLY HATE POKEMON!, post: 1599845, member: 18119"]In an alternate universe where the Ghostbusters were originally female (assuming it was still a good movie without the legendary cast it had)[/QUOTE] How about Gilda Radner, Madeline Kahn, Carol Kane, & still Sigourney Weaver (as a Ghostbuster instead of a client)?

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

[QUOTE="CaptHayfever, post: 1599918, member: 25169"]How about Gilda Radner, Madeline Kahn, Carol Kane, & still Sigourney Weaver (as a Ghostbuster instead of a client)?

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"[/QUOTE]

I literally don't know any of them except Sigourney Weaver, and she is better suited to kicking alien ass, IMO.

[CaptHayfever]

^Radner was on original-recipe SNL with Aykroyd & Murray (& did National Lampoon with Murray as well), & she had a legendary one-woman-show on Broadway; almost every female comedian under age 50 cites her as an influence.
Kahn was in Young Frankenstein, Clue, & History of the World, & she had Oscar nominations for Blazing Saddles & Paper Moon, as well as a Tony award & 3 other Tony nominations.
Kane won 2 Emmys on Taxi & is also known for The Princess Bride, Annie Hall, Scrooged, & Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, with an Oscar nom for Hester Street.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Apiary Tazy]

Then imagine a world where Sigourney Weaver would be the one that steals french fries and says "No one will believe you."

[Apollo the Just]

Seeing the new Ghostbusters today with the GF (we are watching the old Ghostbusters immediately before for direct comparison and maximum memes). Will report back. Don't have hopes other than the busting of ghosts, so should not let me down given that I expect nothing

[Apollo the Just]

AYYYY TIME FOR A COMPLETE 180 I WAS SO INTO THIS MOVIE PLEASE FUND IT AND GIVE THESE ACTRESSES AND WRITERS YOUR SUPPORT. I loved the reboot literally so much more than the original. The original was hard to watch. This movie was so much fun. Details below.

[spoiler=vague spoilers nothing specific]First of all, credit where it's due: this movie relied on incredibly iconic symbols (including the JAMMIN' theme) that the original introduced. So even though this movie did it sooo much better, it couldn't have without the original first creating the background.

Okay, but for real. I know it's easy for me to say this as someone who didn't grow up watching it (so there aren't any nostalgia glasses and I don't have fond old memories), but the original Ghostbusters was not very enjoyable IMO. It was very hard for me to get through because of how INCREDIBLY misogynistic it was. A woman is being questioned to make sure she's mentally sound as a witness to a ghost sighting and she's asked "are you menstruating?" by a male doctor. The main female character is constantly harassed by two different male characters and for some reason written to reciprocate with her harasser. He literally does everything that are red flags for disgusting creeps, but it's treated as him being suave. I have had men act like he did toward me and it was gross and terrifying, yet he's the protagonist and she ends up with him. Also she spends half of the movie possessed, which for no reason (oh sorry- the reason is she needs the "key" inside her. completely justified. What the **** is the key ? Hell if I know) makes her a sex craved being wearing a skimpy dress.

Also, the 3 white main characters in the original are hard to tell apart because they're all midsize middle-aged dudes with the same hairstyle. I literally had no visual cues for who was who and didn't care enough find out because their development was practically nonexistent.

Speaking of development being nonexistent, the original movie somehow managed to go its entire length without... explaining......... anything. I can't even give you an example because there is nothing about that movie that I understood. Where were the ghosts coming from? Is there a reason that the events of the movie were happening now? Have ghosts like that always been around? Literally..... anything. Any world building at all would have been cool.

So basically the original is HORRIBLE to women and aged poorly and didn't really have much of a plot but was fun and had iconic and memorable symbols which made it last.

Now, the reboot. I admittedly didn't have any expectations other than a fun time with ladies busting ghosts. But oh boy was that exceeded.

First of all - it actually HAD A PLOT!!!! The ghosts were given more development and history and explanation in the first 10 minutes of the movie than in the first movie's entirety. The reason everything is happening was explained. There was a villain rather than just.... some random naked lady being who showed up now because why not. AND THE CHARACTERS!!!! First of all, they are all visually distinct (style, body type, personality, etc) and easy to tell apart, and each of them was actually *developed*. There's backstory. It feels like a narrative. It ACTUALLY MADE ME CARE. So refreshing.

I was impressed by how it managed to pull off some serious atmospheric creepy moments amidst all of the wackiness? Like, props. I got spooked a couple times.

And of course, having Chris H play the male sexy secretary was so great??? He clearly had so much fun in that role, and the way it satirized the way female characters are SOOOO often treated in cinema was hilarious. It was excellent. It felt like a joke everyone (including the actor!) was in on, rather than a gross stereotype actresses are historically forced into. I so appreciated this.

And despite the fact that the main character is OBVIOUSLY into him, this movie DOES NOT FORCE ANY ROMANCES! It's just chicks kicking ghost ass!!! But tbh you can VERY easily read two of the main characters' relationship as lesbian romance, and I loved it. There was no forced heterosexuality in this movie.

Oh, and I won't spoil anything, but the way they came up with the logo was EXCELLENT. I loved it. Again, something the original skipped over explaining entirely. Along with everything else.

AND YOOOO MISSY ELLIOT'S VERSE AFTER THE FOB CHORUS WAS ONE OF THE BEST DAMN MOMENTS IN THE MOVIE SCREW IT I LOVE THE REVAMPED THEME!!!!! I WAS DANCING IN MY SEAT YO

Criticisms: the first and biggest thing that comes to mind is the way the movie perpetuates "sketchy Chinese food" as a stereotype. The fact that the Ghostbusters' rented space is above a Chinese food restaurant is considered a negative, and the restaurant serves comically bad food. This wouldn't ring quite so sour if it weren't for the fact that, despite the otherwise progressive casting, there are NO Asian PoC in this movie. In fact the casting is largely white (save the blessedly well-written black protagonist, bless her!) Chinese folk exist here only as the butt of a joke. So that's a *really* big negative. The feminism in this movie isn't really racially intersectional, and that's a shame.

Also, I'm sure some people will criticize the fart jokes and otherwise crass humor at parts. But honestly, there weren't even that many. Most of the writing was really good. And men are allowed to make fart jokes, so literally what's the problem here. [/spoiler]

So I'm glad I watched the original because it made me appreciate the reboot so much more (especially all of the cameos!!!), but I won't be watching it again, and I WILL be rewatching the new one.

idk man I can't even really think of anything else. I loved the cast I loved the characters I loved the way old symbols were breathed new life. The ghost hunting scenes were EPIC and there were some genuinely spooky and creepy parts but the rest was just so hype anD I LOVED THIS MOVIE!!!!!!! PLEASE FUND IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

Not sure I can even read your opinion after reading to where you said you like it more than the original. That just hurts my head to imagine. And that it is hard to watch...i dont even

EDIT: It just occurred to me that you're younger than me and didn't drink this as a kid:



That's why you don't like the original. Get a time machine, go drink this, come back.

[Apollo the Just]

It's really hard to get through something that misogynistic. I didn't realize how much a female-cast reboot was needed until I saw the original and how disgustingly sexist it was. It was very hard to watch a woman get harassed in ways I and many others have LITERALLY EXPERIENCED and be written to reciprocate the feelings of her harasser, and her harasser written as suave. It was very hard to watch a woman be asked if she is menstruating before being taken seriously. As someone who lives these frustrating realities, it is painful to watch them be normalized on screen, and misogynistic men be portrayed as heroes.

Watching women bust ghosts was much better. The only misogynistic character in the reboot was a bad guy.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

DRINK IT

[Apollo the Just]

NOW THAT IS A VALID CRITICISM

[Random User]

Glad to hear you enjoyed the film, CL!

I haven't seen it, but I'm definitely gonna wait until it comes out on Red Box so I can rent it for an evening. Reviews are ranging from "Absolutely Amazing" to "Meh" to "Absolutely Terrible."

[Apollo the Just]

It's safe to say that if you love the original and want it to stay exactly as it is, you will hate this movie. But if you found fault in the original, you will love this movie. Or, if you are able to treat the movies in your mind as distinct entities and not in competition, you can probably enjoy both.

I'm not one of that last group of people though and I suspect IRHP isn't either.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

maybe if it gets its own drink

Also, yeah, glad you had a good time.

[CaptHayfever]

Some thoughts on your thoughts on the original (spoilers for original for those who haven't seen it):
[spoiler]

A woman is being questioned to make sure she's mentally sound as a witness to a ghost sighting and she's asked "are you menstruating?" by a male doctor.

Egon & Ray are depicted as having absolutely awful social skills (especially Egon). They've also spent their entire careers being rejected & mocked by their colleagues, so they're anxious about any possible factor said colleagues might use to discredit this new data. No, menstruation would not cause a woman to hallucinate a haunted apartment; the writers of the movie understand that, but the joke is that the characters don't understand that. For all their scientific intelligence, they don't really understand other people at all.

He literally does everything that are red flags for disgusting creeps, but it's treated as him being suave.

But it isn't. Early in the movie, Peter is established as a sleazy jerk, & this is a continuation of that.

yet he's the protagonist and she ends up with him.

But she doesn't. If that was unclear, the beginning of the sequel makes it very clear.

What the **** is the key ? Hell if I know

The key to the big freaking portal to another dimension that opens up in the climax of the film; I genuinely thought that was obvious.

Also, the 3 white main characters in the original are hard to tell apart because they're all midsize middle-aged dudes with the same hairstyle. I literally had no visual cues for who was who and didn't care enough find out because their development was practically nonexistent.

They're pretty static characters (except for Peter going from the team's skeptic to a believer over the course of the film); I'll give you that. But "hard to tell apart" because of "literally no visual cues" & the "same hairstyle"? From the front, I can see how you'd call Egon & Ray's hair the same, but Peter's isn't even close.
Also, Egon wears glasses. And you brought up different body types later on; well, the three white Ghostbusters in the original have very different face types.

(Trivia, not a nitpick: Kate McKinnon's hairstyle in the reboot is based on Egon's hairstyle in the cartoon.)

Speaking of development being nonexistent, the original movie somehow managed to go its entire length without... explaining......... anything.I can't even give you an example because there is nothing about that movie that I understood.

This is why I started writing the post. You & I clearly are looking for different kinds of explanation, then. I'm used to implication & suggestion & context clues for a lot of info in my entertainment, & I sometimes find it insulting to have things spelled out TOO blatantly for me.

I will say this: Studio comedies--especially experimental ones--often get a lot of the exposition chopped out of them to reduce the running time & the distance between gags, because studio executives are douchebags who think audiences are all dumb & will get bored super easily.
Also: There is more world-building in the sequel, including potential answers to some of the questions you did list.

some random naked lady being who showed up now because why not

She wasn't naked.

Oh, and I won't spoil anything, but the way they came up with the logo was EXCELLENT. I loved it. Again, something the original skipped over explaining entirely.

It's the standard prohibition symbol on top of a ghost. Didn't know we needed an explanation for what it means. What I needed explained as a kid was how they paid for the sign, not how they designed it....but then on a second viewing, I noticed the part where Ray sold his house & they got a loan, so that answered my question (that is, they explained something).

I'm glad you enjoyed the new one. Your review of it is promising (especially the part about the character development, 'cause seriously, I would never expect a nuanced character out of Leslie Jones if you hadn't said it here). I might watch it myself sometime, but probably not soon, 'cause I got a ton on my plate right now.
But I felt like you were going into the old one looking for things to hate, & other than the part about Peter being creepy (which he totally was, & I completely understand your discomfort with it), a lot of your criticisms seemed very subjective or tenuous.[/spoiler]

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Apollo the Just]

^ re: your responses --

[spoiler=response]

Some thoughts on your thoughts on the original (spoilers for original for those who haven't seen it):Egon & Ray are depicted as having absolutely awful social skills (especially Egon). They've also spent their entire careers being rejected & mocked by their colleagues, so they're anxious about any possible factor said colleagues might use to discredit this new data. No, menstruation would not cause a woman to hallucinate a haunted apartment; the writers of the movie understand that, but the joke is that the characters don't understand that. For all their scientific intelligence, they don't really understand other people at all.

I'll talk about their social skills in a bit! Re: the joke-- if that was the joke's intent, it should not have been delivered in this way:

Man 1: "Are you menstruating?"
Man 2: "What does that have to do with anything?"
Man 1: "Trust me, I'm a doctor." *smiles at the camera*
-end of conversation-

I'll give you that Man 2 is the voice of reason here, but a) the woman has no response here, and b) ultimately the gross sexist question has the final say in this conversation. I'm sorry, but this joke is dated and misogynistic.

Also, I certainly didn't read the intent you stated - that the joke is meant to portray that the characters don't understand 'other people' - but if that is the purpose it serves, then it doesn't change the fact that the *woman* (one of, like, 3 in the movie's entirety) is an object treated as the butt of a joke meant to show something about the *man's* character. That is a formula I am so tired of. I understand that the movie is old, and old movies got away with more ****, but that doesn't mean I need to be ok with it.

But it isn't. Early in the movie, Peter is established as a sleazy jerk, & this is a continuation of that.

I'll be honest here, I don't watch very many movies from earlier than like 1995, so I'm not familiar with character tropes from older movies or how they are portrayed so I completely misread this.

However, it doesn't change the fact that even though his first interaction with Female Character is him disgustingly harassing her, but for some reason the second time she sees him, she smiles and approaches him - when realistically, any woman seeing her harasser again would have legged it in the opposite direction. It also doesn't change the fact that he kisses her onscreen at the end of the movie, and no amount of 'you see in the sequel that they don't get together!' changes the fact that this is still depicted in a ~hero gets the reward~ light.

But she doesn't. If that was unclear, the beginning of the sequel makes it very clear.

Again, it was unclear, because (in this movie) they kiss onscreen and he never faces consequences for his behavior. If I am meant to feel that his character is sleazy and his advances are unreciprocated, he should face - any consequences for his actions, really. The Female Character is referred to offscreen as "your girlfriend," and although obviously we all understand that she is nothing of the sort, it doesn't change the fact that the entire movie is just men having agency and women serving to give them character development or being there as eye candy or for them to kiss.

The key to the big freaking portal to another dimension that opens up in the climax of the film; I genuinely thought that was obvious.

Yes, I got that much. I mean what is it? Have they always been there? Why are they surfacing now? Has this happened before? Why the gargoyles? Did they really need to have sex to unlock the portal (of course they did)? Any background on the relationship between the other dimension and ours would have been interesting. Or any background on the nature of the world at all. I mean, if I just zoned out during some exposition and they actually *did* address this please let me know, because I will be the first to admit the movie did not have my full and undivided attention throughout, so I genuinely probably missed some stuff.

They're pretty static characters (except for Peter going from the team's skeptic to a believer over the course of the film); I'll give you that. But "hard to tell apart" because of "literally no visual cues" & the "same hairstyle"? From the front, I can see how you'd call Egon & Ray's hair the same, but Peter's isn't even close.
Also, Egon wears glasses. And you brought up different body types later on; well, the three white Ghostbusters in the original have very different face types.

Again, I'm really not used to watching older movies, so this is largely on me. But. It takes me like 5 episodes of a new TV show to tell all the midsize white guys (and skinny white girls) apart, and so they all kind of blended together for me in this movie. I honestly would not have brought this point up if it weren't for the fact that the new movie makes every character so clearly and visibly distinct. So this isn't really a fair criticism of the first movie so much as a +1 for the new one.

(Trivia, not a nitpick: Kate McKinnon's hairstyle in the reboot is based on Egon's hairstyle in the cartoon.)

that is awesome

This is why I started writing the post. You & I clearly are looking for different kinds of explanation, then. I'm used to implication & suggestion & context clues for a lot of info in my entertainment, & I sometimes find it insulting to have things spelled out TOO blatantly for me.

See, I completely understand and get you, here. But I think what I mean by "explanation" is really just worldbuilding. I felt like, watching the first movie, there were some cool ideas but if the writers DID have a full understanding of their world and the history of their world and how their world works, that didn't come through at all. It would have been nice for the story to feel more grounded.

I will say this: Studio comedies--especially experimental ones--often get a lot of the exposition chopped out of them to reduce the running time & the distance between gags, because studio executives are douchebags who think audiences are all dumb & will get bored super easily.

That's fair. Honestly I'm not the hugest fan of studio comedies to begin with, so some of my complaints may have just been genre complaints. This one, where most of the jokes are sexist and dated, ended up just not being an enjoyable experience for me.

Also: There is more world-building in the sequel, including potential answers to some of the questions you did list.

That's neat. I didn't like the original enough to watch the sequel, but it's good to hear. For me though, that doesn't justify the utter lack thereof in the original so much as give credit toward the sequel.

She wasn't naked.

OH SORRY, she was wearing a skintight nude bedazzled bodysuit.

Not that it wasn't an incredible #Look, but after an entire movie of crap treatment of female characters, boy howdy was that a nice icing on the cake.

It's the standard prohibition symbol on top of a ghost. Didn't know we needed an explanation for what it means. What I needed explained as a kid was how they paid for the sign, not how they designed it....but then on a second viewing, I noticed the part where Ray sold his house & they got a loan, so that answered my question (that is, they explained something).

The logo wasn't something that i NEEDED EXPLANATION FOR so much as it was cool that they actually paid respect in the new film to the process of logo creation. I won't say more because it's hilarious and awesome, but "prohibition symbol on top of a ghost" is an idea, but making it into a visually pleasing and well-composed logo is an artistic process. Again, less of a mark against the old one, and more of a +1 to the new one.

And yeah, the original did explain how they paid for stuff. Makes you wonder how much that house and loan were worth, but I'm not going to nitpick because the resulting space and gear was cool and that's what matters - not whatever plot explanation there is for how they paid for it. The fact that there was one was enough.

I'm glad you enjoyed the new one. Your review of it is promising (especially the part about the character development, 'cause seriously, I would never expect a nuanced character out of Leslie Jones if you hadn't said it here). I might watch it myself sometime, but probably not soon, 'cause I got a ton on my plate right now.

I liked Leslie's character a lot. I liked everyone's character. Granted, Leslie fulfilling the not-scienist Sassy Black Woman stereotype is still problematic, but she was a very likeable and smart character.[/spoiler]

But I felt like you were going into the old one looking for things to hate, & other than the part about Peter being creepy (which he totally was, & I completely understand your discomfort with it), a lot of your criticisms seemed very subjective or tenuous.

I don't appreciate the allegation that I went into the original movie looking for things to hate. I wasn't. I was going in expecting a goofy and cheesy movie about busting ghosts, and then I was smacked in the face by so much misogyny at the hands of the main character who is the HERO of the story (but not just by him... there was sexism literally everywhere throughout the film's entirety), that I couldn't enjoy it, and at the end of the movie I realized I had more questions than answers. So I posted the above essay. I didn't go into the movie looking for things to hate; the movie actively pushed me away with its transgressions. I understand that I may have been unfair because I was so actively disgusted by the movie and so hyped by the new one, but everything I wrote above was my sincere reaction to viewing this movie for the first time.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

NEVER

[Apollo the Just]

---- DP---

To be completely honest, I think watching the first Ghostbusters before the new one made me like the new one MORE than I would have if I had gone in blind. If I had gone in blind, it would have been a fun movie about blasting ghosts. Probably a solid like 6.5/10. But because I watched the original first - with the intention of appreciating the background it provided for the new one - and then became so put off by literally everything about it, it was so refreshing to have women as nuanced main characters, and literally everything I hated about the original was fixed, so it shot up to more of an 8/10.