Ghostbusters YouTube Opinions

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

It seems to me that the new Ghostbusters was made with a completely different audience in mind based on what you're saying. I pretty much expected that but it is unfortunate for fans of the classic.

[Apollo the Just]

In my personal opinion, the new movie is an improvement from a storytelling perspective as well - but I would agree that it's definitely made with a different audience in mind. It largely serves as an apology for the crimes against women committed by the original & makes up for it by the truckload. So much badassery. I would say the reboot's audience is a) kids who would enjoy the original but don't want to watch old movies [THIS WAS SO ME AS A KID], and b) people who want to enjoy the fun aspects of the original, but without the sexism.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

Come on, "crimes against women?" I mean, if you don't like it that's cool but it's all harmless humor, and is actually pretty tame. It may be a bit macho but I think in this day and age masculinity has been neutered enough, let's let the classics carry on the corpse of our collective testicles unimpeded. Even if you think it's a bit sexist, referring to the scenes as "crimes" is just being melodramatic.

[Apollo the Just]

^ I'm not going to engage further than this post regarding the sexism in the original Ghostbusters, because I've made my point about as much as I'm willing to in this thread and I don't want to derail the topic too much. But I won't step down from my words - they are crimes, and it was bad enough that I was literally unable to enjoy a movie that I went in really wanting to like. And although I do think everyone should have the right to participate in discourse, I also encourage you to consider that women understand a little more about the sexism we experience IRL than you do (because we live it), and to recognize that maybe that's why I took these 'harmless' scenes very personally, in a way you probably would not. Because they aren't just scenes, they're real values that are so normalized that we see and feel them every day. Those scenes are things that have happened to me and other women, that we couldn't do anything about, and I really did not want to keep watching a movie where I was supposed to side or empathize with the harasser, and where there were no repercussions for his harassment. It hits too close to home, because in real life, harassers often don't have to face repercussions either.

So I'm very, very, very, very thankful for the new Ghostbusters, because I could actually enjoy the movie without having to face that harassment in what should be a form of entertainment, an escape. For once, the women were allowed to do the busting. It was fun and cathartic. The new ghostbusters was as much fun for me to watch as I'm sure the original is for you.

[spoiler=new ghostbusters, vague spoiler]On a related note, if you do end up seeing the reboot and Chris H's character makes you uncomfortable, I think you'll understand what I'm talking about. He's a sexualized dumb blond who's there as eye candy and is incompetent and has literally no agency and is the butt of every joke. I find his character hilarious because to me it is an exaggerated inversion of a trope that has been around for decades that women have been forced into. But a lot of men have voiced that his role made them uncomfortable. That's the exact kind of uncomfortable that I and many other women feel every single time we watch a movie like original Ghostbusters, along with the thousands of others just like it (in that respect).

One thing I will say - one of the main girls is borderline creepy re: her being into sexy secretary man. At least she doesn't kiss him and they don't have a weird bedroom scene with him partially undressed, but I can definitely see that making male audience members uncomfortable. Being a creepy stalker isn't okay regardless of your gender. So if you do see the new movie, and anything about Chris H's character makes you uncomfortable... then a) that is valid, because he is being reduced to a sex symbol, and b) please understand that is how women feel watching 99% of movies all the time.[/spoiler]

[Booyakasha]

So. Not to derail the discussion, here.

I'm watching the 'Half in the Bag' review of the new flick, and less than two minutes in, It made me laugh so hard I could scarcely breathe (first impressions--------Mike says it's the biggest piece of sh*t he's ever seen; Rich chides Mike, saying it is merely a giant pile of garbage; and Jay says, "I mean, it was better than the first 'PIXELS'!" Comedy gold.)

I trust RLM. If they say new GB is crap, I think I can give them the bennie of the doubt, man.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

I went in really wanting to like. [/i]And although I do think everyone should have the right to participate in discourse, I also encourage you to consider that women understand a little more about the sexism we experience IRL than you do (because we live it), and to recognize that maybe that's why I took these 'harmless' scenes very personally, in a way you probably would not. Because they aren't just scenes, they're real values that are so normalized that we see and feel them every day. Those scenes are things that have happened to me and other women, that we couldn't do anything about, and I really did not want to keep watching a movie where I was supposed to side or empathize with the harasser, and where there were no repercussions for his harassment. It hits too close to home, because in real life, harassers often don't have to face repercussions either.

So I'm very, very, very, very thankful for the new Ghostbusters, because I could actually enjoy the movie without having to face that harassment in what should be a form of entertainment, an escape. For once, the women were allowed to do the busting. It was fun and cathartic. The new ghostbusters was as much fun for me to watch as I'm sure the original is for you.

I wasn't attacking you or your opinion, I just thought "crimes" was a bit much. I'm also not devaluing your feelings or views, simply expressing my own. I'm not asking you to step down on your opinions; we can both have our very valid opinions and nobody needs to step down.

That said, I don't agree with what a lot of people deem sexist. That isn't intended to diminish anything, we just have different values and gauge things differently. It takes more for me to deem something sexist, racist, or any -ist than mild comedy. I think if anything is diminished it is the meaning and power of those words when used willy-nilly. Here's a really good video about that if you're interested:

[MEDIA=youtube]-mAG-0PKpgE[/MEDIA]

Again, I'm glad you enjoyed the movie, and any criticisms I make are directed at the movie and not you.

On a related note, if you do end up seeing the reboot and Chris H's character makes you uncomfortable, I think you'll understand what I'm talking about. He's a sexualized dumb blond who's there as eye candy and is incompetent and has literally no agency and is the butt of every joke. I find his character hilarious because to me it is an exaggerated inversion of a trope that has been around for decades that women have been forced into. But a lot of men have voiced that his role made them uncomfortable. That's the exact kind of uncomfortable that I and many other women feel every single time we watch a movie like original Ghostbusters, along with the thousands of others just like it (in that respect).

One thing I will say - one of the main girls is borderline creepy re: her being into sexy secretary man. At least she doesn't kiss him and they don't have a weird bedroom scene with him partially undressed, but I can definitely see that making male audience members uncomfortable. Being a creepy stalker isn't okay regardless of your gender. So if you do see the new movie, and anything about Chris H's character makes you uncomfortable... then a) that is valid, because he is being reduced to a sex symbol, and b) please understand that is how women feel watching 99% of movies all the time.[/spoiler]

Any men who were made uncomfortable so easily are wimps in my opinion. I'm pretty sure I won't feel uncomfortable, but maybe I'll watch this movie some time just out of curiosity.

[Random User]

Oof, okay, so, as expected, the script was mostly slapstick and sex jokes. Slapstick can be pretty funny at times, but this particular film just didn't hit many notes with me, a few scenes in the middle of the film got a laugh out of me, though. In this sense, I'd prefer the original for its dry humor. Sometimes the callbacks to the original film were a bit distracting. I also felt the characters didn't quite play off of each other as well as the original cast. Film began somewhat slowly. The action sequences were... Not good. Too cartoonish, for me.

On the plus side, I'm glad they didn't just rehash the original film. That would have been incredibly easy for them to do. The protagonists feel distinct from the original four. I would say I like Patty more than Winston, and I think that's a result of Patty being more involved than Winston was.

[spooky scary bearatons]

actually saw this in the end. it was eh. watchable but all very forced, humour was low par and the writing often had me just wondering "why?"

im still utterly apathetic towards the series as a whole. I just dont get the appeal i suppose.

[Deepfake]

I liked the first Ghostbusters, but having watched it as an adult a few times it does have some serious issues with casting of women and scripting for Murray's character. I think Murray is meant to have growth from light-hearted and selfish pursuit to genuine concern and interest, but comes off stalkery and Moranis' character was actually meant to out-stalker him to make him seem more palatable.

I'm not really convinced Ghostbusters the film franchise needed a return, although I've been hearing that it resonated with women I know so I'm happy they have it. I like Murray, Aykroyd, and Moranis as comic actors much more than I prefer a lot of modern characters/comics. The evolution of humor overall has not necessarily been better. That said, I haven't actually seen the film and I will be open-minded about it. I have at least one friend who is a seriously hardcore Ghostbusters fan, and he's been dying for a return-to-form for a while - and was just heart-broken when this turned out to be such a heavy redressing of the franchise. That said, broken hearts are the price paid by studios and franchises which just keep retreading past successes until they can't anymore.

[Sim Kid]

Honestly, this movie was kinda funny.

Sadly I don't think all the parts we laughed at were intended to be funny - or at least, not intended to be funny in the way we found them funny. (It's like the characters are aware they're in something intended to be as zany and over-the-top as possible and know they're supposed to have their priorities skewed.) I really do wonder if they wanted to make the franchise and just kinda put the movie out first as a 'here we go'.

[ScottyMcGee]

I just saw this on Friday. Spoiler-ific nerdy film criticism below:

[SPOILER]
It actually IS a rehash of the original. For the most part, the two movies are the same. Scientists who study ghosts get thrown out of their university, they do things on their own, their first captured ghost happens in a huge dance area (last one was a ballroom of sorts this time it was a concert), then government officials step in (the EPA in the last one, the mayor in this one), then the "big reveal" is that the ghosts are actually being cause by some great paranormal activity and then a big boss battle at a fancy hotel. This isn't a bad thing though. Force Awakens is obviously a rehash of A New Hope but it was done very well. Rehashing shouldn't be a sole indicator of whether a movie is good or not, just like a video game shouldn't be judged solely by if it's linear or not.

There wasn't particularly anything wrong with the plot so much as the direction. I can go on and on about how modern filmmaking pales in comparison to thirty years ago. Filmmaking back then was much more stationary. The actors acted out in the frame together. In modern American filmmaking, thanks to people like Michael Bay, the most common thing is to cut and cut and cut and cut. Paul Feig is a big cutter. Watch any of his movies. Just any of them (Bridemaids, Spy, The Heat). It's all cutting from one person to the next as they talk. It's something really jarring and annoying once you are aware of it. Watch any movie from like thirty years ago and the direction is much different - everyone is the frame and the cuts happen at a rate of minutes rather than seconds (or just longer seconds).

This current fad with cutting is especially bad for comedy.

Let's take this example:

In the original Ghostbusters, the team investigates the library basement. Venkmen is told to get a sample of the slime. Everyone keeps moving but Venkmen gets frustrated trying to get the slime and in the process gets it on himself. This was all done in few takes. It was funny for a couple reasons. You can see that everyone else isn't paying attention to his minor inconvenience. You get to see Bill Murray flick the slime around and get frustrated. You take in the whole scene without anyone cutting every five seconds to focus on something else.

In the new Ghosbutsters, something similar happens. The team goes to investigate the museum. Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) steps on some slime and gets stuck and grossed out, and then you see the basement door behind her open. This wasn't directed in a single take. It was chopped up in different takes. They're walking. Cut to the floor and Gilbert steps on the slime. Cut to Gilbert's face. Cut back to the slime stuck on her shoe. All that cutting ruins the comedy. Things are much different when you just leave the camera in place and let the actors follow through their motions.

The bottom line is: The jokes themselves are funny, but it's not as funny as the original because of how the jokes are executed and directed. Paul Feig is great at one-liners and dialogue, but that doesn't shine if you don't give the actors much to do. All you make then is 2 hours of a camera cutting from one person to another saying funny things. It removes the motion in motion pictures. A movie needs to be much more dynamic. If they had just spiced up the direction more (Edgar Wright perhaps? That would have been FANTASTIC) then we would have a much better critical response. Honestly, when I first heard that Paul Feig was going to direct I thought, "Ugh, really?" I love how his films are more progressive with female leads and their characters (Spy especially) but I have to admit that he's just. . . not that great of a director, visually speaking.

Regardless, I still found it refreshing My favorite by far was Jillian Holtzman, taking Egon's character. Although not really. Instead of a droll, strictly-objective personality, she's quirky and bizarre and lively. She's basically Egon but as the Tenth Doctor. Kate McKinnon shined as her.

Everyone really had distinct personalities much like the original. I actually would argue that the original four are pretty distinct as much as these new four are.

References were great. Zuul reference got me super excited - at the same time though would they really bring back Zuul? Because that storyline is essentially the same as what they just did, especially with the finall battle with a giant whatever. REALLY LOVED how the villain chose to be the Ghostbusters logo to terrorize the city. It's interesting how they wrote the Ghostubsters off as a group of "unsung heroes" at the end. I thought NYC was going to be a mess after the final battle but fun to work with in later sequels, but nope - the writers just pressed the reset button and everything magically went back to the way it was after some pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo.

I enjoyed the action sequences. They went with the over-the-top action sequences, which went well for what the rest of the movie was like.

I think it did its point of evening out the playing field with women and men in roles like these. We got to have our token male hunk used for nothing more than the butt of jokes. Even though the secretary in the original Ghostbusters was competent and fierce, the point they were trying to make here was the apparent uselessness of female characters seen in many fantasy/sci-fi/action movies. We got to see an ALL-FEMALE team of heroes on the big screen. Whether the movie is Acadamy Award-nominated or Razzie Award-nominated, it's still popular enough to break the mold.





[/SPOILER]

[Calamity Panfan]

Not gonna go in depth because I'm on my phone but I liked the movie. I'm not in love with it but it definitely exceeded my expectations.

Kate McKinnon is a treasure.