After a few years have passed what does everyone think of Ghostbusters 2016? Watch more FanScription here - bit.ly/FanScription Download the episode here - channelawesome.libsyn.com/ Follow us on Twitch - www.twitch.tv/channelawesome
I’ve seen the extended edition of Ghostbusters answer the call. But I didn’t enjoy it as much, the characters are just bland, the comedy is not well defined, and the story is not impressive to me.
Rob does touch on it, but the fundamental problem that dooms the movie from the get-go is that ALL of them are the slapstick comic relief. Look at the scene where McKinnon and McCarthy--I don't even know the characters' names--arrive at the firehouse for the first time. In the original, it's character-building: Venkman's haggling with the realtor by downplaying their interest in the place and is interrupted by Stanz: "Does this pole still work? (Slides down.) This place is great! When can we move in?!" It's just a little scene to establish how they end up in the firehouse, but it's still utilized to flesh out the characters and their relationships. In the 2016 movie they go to the firehouse and it's already a done deal. McKinnon is basically the Egon, yet she just dances around, making stupid motions showing she's stoked about it. No writing; just "look, we're in the firehouse; we're all so funny in the firehouse."
That was my thoughts towards watching it, it felt like everyone was trying to be the "Venkman" of the group whereas in the original each one had there own unique personality, Egon was the odd straight man, Ray was childlike believer, Venkman was the sarcastic funny one and Winston was the skeptical outsider and yet In the this version i couldn't even tell you the characters names cause there weren't that memorable they where all trying to be the funniest in the room and it just didn't work out well.
Hellsing Ultimate Abridged has one of the best lines addressing these types of characters: Rip Van Winkle: "I am Rip Van Winkle and I Demand you're respect" Alucard: "No, you demand my attention." These characters do whatever they can to be random and shocking in the hopes to get your attention as if they are a child needing mommy and daddy's affection. They are simply Eyesores to me and just turn me off of their character immediately, and then I am there counting down my timer till I can abandon them. So when you're movie is nothing but three of these arch-types, it is bound to fail. Also if you want to see my reference using Hellsing Ultimate Abridged, just search her name and watch her cut-scenes if you don't plan to watch the anime. But I am not posting it because that anime is definitely for a mature audience.
...which is because they are not hired to fill meaningful roles, they are just ALL hired for being women. The marketing tried to bury this point as angry trolls and Rob keeps burying it further, and then says the same things that were the problem. All the same shit was said about Pixels, but the media didn't hype up the criticism as video game fans victimizing adam sandler. These are shitty paycheck movies and in a lot of ways to ask money for them is much worse than just making a movie that happens to be bad.
It's not just dull, it's completely forgettable. No joke, I saw this movie twice and I can't remember anything that happened in it. All I remember is that I left the theater (critic preview screening) calling it a "big sack of nothing."
I actually do remember something cuz it was the main reason I really hate this movie besides the fact I was kind of forced to watch it by my 'friend' there's a scene where Melissa McCarthy is shooting the proton gun and the stream is supposed to be pointing at you the audience Because the movie was made for 3D obviously And they made the entire seen have really small black bars to where the only thing you could really see was Melissa McCarthy and the Stream And I really hated how stupid it looked and how incredibly pandering it was that it was just a movie made for 3D
Honestly the fact that the female Ghostbusters kept ogling him and still paying him money despite the fact he wasn't doing anything for them(even his job)says alot about how ass backwards writing was lol
The problem isn't that it's all female main cast. It's that they used it as a sledge hammer. "it's all female, so because of that it's automatically great and if you don't like it you're a basement dwelling misogynic. So why bother with a script, editing or any of that crap"
Thank you. I've been saying this since I first saw it. Had no issues with the casting, or even the concept. The execution, well, it wasn't as bad as I worried it would be, but it wasn't really great either. Yes, I own a copy, and have rewatched it. Frankly, the writing sucked. But, look at what it was up against. The OG film. It's like every Terminator sequel after T2. Hood on their own, mostly, but compared to T2, they never measure up.
They tried to remake the original and totally missed the nuance of the original. They just tried to make jokes. The original had Venkman making jokes and Egon being his weird self and Dan Aykroyd being serious. In the women’s movie they all got to take turns. I thought having Kate McKinnon as the Egon could be great but she had to be weird but super cool, it just didn’t work. And I was in the theater on the first weekend so I do get to have an opinion.
@@KairuHakubi That's the weird thing though, Ghostbusters is not an action-hero job (most of them are out of shape even) but they kept having that guy flip his wheelchair over things instead of just giving him something else to do, like helping Egon more. Peter didn't know how to fix the equipment but he still helped out a lot, and Batman helps out the Justice League a lot even though he can't fly, this shouldn't be a problem.
@@KairuHakubi Not even Oracle necessarily, but if I was writing a Ghostbusters script where one of them was in a wheelchair and I reached a point in the story where they had to enter a building with no ramp, then that one just wouldn't go in and the story would continue, like how Peter split off from the group in the second movie. If it was a Ninja Turtle in a wheelchair though, then I really would be stuck and probably be forced to give that one the Oracle role.
The biggest problem with the all-women team is that _they tried to replace the originals._ They were literally trying to supplant the very existence of the original team. The easiest way to repair this: sack the asshat that thought that was a good idea. Make them a franchise of the original group. Venkman would definitely have been about creating Ghostbusters franchises across America. Also, the screwed up the proton pack noise. One of the most iconic sound effects in the _history_ of film, and they _screwed it up._ *Yes* I’m still sore about this!
All that it needed was to be a sequel. Had it been about Egon's daughter leading a new team, it would've made money. Making it a sequel would've allowed a smooth transition from one generation of Ghostbusters to the next. As a remake, they isolated returning fans in the hopes of attracting an entirely new fanbase. And we saw the results of that one.
As my old man says, "If it's not broke, DON'T FIX IT" and "never mess with a good thing" and yet I chose to watch the mulan reboot on Disney+ hated it and yes I'm a semi hypocrite
No one had a problem with the ghostbusters being women. They had a problem with why the ghostbusters were women. Paul Fieg just wanted a women movie, instead of just trying to make a good or coherent movie.
"It was the only original thing in this whole mess" That is... simultaneously giving it too much credit and an extremely harsh condemnation of the movie, as the "Make an all female cast" twist had been done multiple times before that point, thus making even that part end up not being original. Even at the time, it was a played out cliche and most people recognized it as such. The "oh you can't have a woman ghost buster" thing was entirely fabricated by the studio to shoot down the people savvy to how obviously lazy and cynical the studio was being with the remake.
To be fair, he did say "Vaguely" original. It was at least somewhat new ground by the standards of the Ghostbuster franchise. Even considering stuff like Extreme already featuring female ghostbusters.
Yeah, remember the cartoon? That had an awesome female ghost buster. This had nothing to do with them being female, it was just a token thing and everyone knew it. Heck its more insulting they had a blond bimbo as a guy this time.
" __ but with girls" is exactly why I didn't give this movie the time of day, it's pandering masquerading as empowerment. McCarthy didn't help its case, since I flat out find her annoying rather than funny, but I was rolling my eyes from the concept, so her not being in it wouldn't have saved it. Someone telling me wholeheartedly that the movie was great might have though, it's yet to happen with movies of this kind, so we'll likely never know.
That was painfully obvious when people noticed that legit criticisms for that awful first trailer started getting deleted but the mods left the sexist and misogynistic comments up unfiltered. A lot of people all the way back then were predicting that Sony was setting up the "victim of misogyny" narrative. Sony, Fieg and the cast proved them 100% correct by riding that narrative all the way to the scene of the crash.
All they had to do was to have it be a SEQUEL with a new all female cast that paid homage to the original ghostbusters that went before them. But NO! That wouldn't have been good enough for the Misandrists in charge of making this film! Instead they had to make it a REBOOT that outright denigrated EVERY Male Character {other than Winston and whoever Dan Aykroyd was playing in that cameo}! They couldn't have these women be following in the footsteps of those 4 men - NO! They had to be the originators of the Ghostbusters concept in this movie!
Someone gets it! It’s pretty contradictory to say a group of women following in the footsteps of a group of men and copying what they did (but worse) is “independence”.
1. Pissing off fans of the original series and saying they're sexist for not liking the new cast/film 2. Relying on fart and vagina jokes as the pillar of it's comedy 3. Having effects that somehow look more dated than the original 1984 film
4) empowering the women by dumbing down the men (seriously, not a single male in this movie wasn't either an asshole, an idiot or a combination of both).
Not to mention Original cast wasted in lame cameos The editing of the film was a mess And Villain was completely forgettable can't remember his motivation or whats his name
I think the biggest issue with this movie is that the director was directing the wrong reboot. Paul Feig should have directed a reboot of "Weird Science" with a gender swap. Could you imagine a teenage version of Holtzmann and Yates using an action figure to create Chris Hemsworth? I can so imagine him coming down the stairs in blue mist (it was pink in the original) and saying " *So, what do you little maniacs want to do first?* "
But Paul Feig wouldn't do that, he would have Chris Hemsworth tumble into the room, showing off his utter stupidity and clumsiness, and then have the girls teach Chris Hemsworth everything about dating, and the reason they created him, wasn't because they couldn't get a man, but because they hate all men, and wanted to create the perfect man, that is a good obedient puppy dog, that would have no spine of his own, or an original thought, and the whole movie will be them and magic Chris teach all men their place: on their knees begging for forgiveness for being born with a penis.
My summery of the movie was "Have you ever seen a comedy that tried so hard to be funny that the quick flood of failed jokes just depressed the sh!t out of you?"
honestly to me the trailer is where i thought it wouldn't be great. They said 30 years ago four scientists.... it wasn't four scientists it was three and a normal guy. I'm not the biggest fan but even I knew that and if they got that wrong when I would have gotten it right they were already on the thinnest ice. Add in the fact that the cast and stars insulted the fanbase and deleted their comments, mine including pointing out the first part, on their youtube trailer. Rather than trying to assure people they insulted people. I'm no genius, but mocking people isn't a way to get them to indulge in your product. I haven't and dont plan to watch this and honestly I figured it would be very meh. 4 out of 10. Not good enough to like, but not bad enough to become like fun to mock and tease. as for how i would fix/do this lets see. Start at a funeral for the ghost buster who can't be in the film for obvious reasons and mix in flash backs of them doing their job and him dying as a result. They realize they are to old and the three who are left, plus the secretary because hey she is going to be smart enough and such to know what works, all start to hunt down people to recruit world wide and they each pick one. You can do all girls or mix and match whatever. Part of me wants someone from china who could have gotten into it because of how its all banned there or something, but that's debatable. They do some training and talking and education semi montage and the old ones do things like watch them through cameras as they start doing their first real job and boom they catch their first ghost and put it in containment. Then they start to get a bit cocky and catch one without their teachers overseeing because "hey we know enough I bet we can do it" and they do, but they make a mistake and put it in the wrong containment thing not knowing thats one just for one ghost who gets stronger from feeding on ghosts and eating the ghost they put in there is enough for him to start. there could be talk of the older ghost busters how the containment thing is going wrong and the new ones debate on if they should tell or try to fix it themselves to not lose respect/trust from their teachers. Before they can do either it breaks open and the big bad comes out and shatters the other containment fields freeing hundreds or thousands of ghosts that it will chase down. they finally admit what they did and the old and new work together in teams. some work on improving tech from two different generations of ideas and the others hunt down as much cannon fodder as they can to try to prevent the big bad from eating them. Eventually new tech is made and they do it and take out the big bad, maybe one of the new ones die as well and then it ends with the new ghost busters at the funeral for the one who died because of their mistakes driving home this is real life not just some fun game or silly youtube video. But that's just my idea.
@@winnietheboogaloo4584 Well not surprised i'm not 100 percent accurate. I was born basically when the movie came out so not my childhood, but i was closer than the people who did it. That said what did you think of my "sales pitch" idea. I am a writer so I'm curious about things like that.
To sum up, the fans were really hoping for a passing the torch sort of movie, not what we got for this 2016 film, a terrible remake just to insult the already established fans because they think they're better than the source material.
Sorry to do the "Umm... Actually..." But Winston was a scientist. He was actually smarter than the rest of the group and I think even ended up with two doctorates. This was pointed out in the third "movie" (the videogame). Whether you want to call it retconning or not is up to you, but he was originally written to be in the team from the beginning and be a military guy, but when they didn't get the actor they wanted, they changed his character to fit the actor. I saw it that because of his race and the economy, he couldn't get a job (or perhaps was still finishing is doctoral thesis), and the guys ultimately put an ad out to hire someone at their education level by nature.
They did the same thing with this that they did with Captain Marvel and Rey. They wrote a bland uninteresting female character and said "If you don't like this, you're sexist!" Oh, no, I just like female characters I can relate to.
That's it! The problem isn't that it's a woman, it's that *other* characters are more interesting. There is a seed there, an idea of what could be...and they didn't take it. That is my problem with both of them. Good potential, but little is done with it.
There are lots of female characters that I love, and they all are far from being perfect. This gives them the edge, the realism, you can associate with them more easily. You don't like them because they are girls, but because they are good characters.
You can tell the difference by their attitude. Rob can often come off as...condescending moreso than his brother. (Honestly, this was kinda hard to watch as he slowly got through SOME of the reasons why this was a bad movie. Which, he's right about like all the things he says, but goodness, the way he goes about saying them. He clearly didn't see the arguments made about it as he states "People just didnt want women in this movie." Sure, there were some but GOODNESS are we gonna PRETEND that was the reason!? Like there was ENOUGH of those guys!?)
Uh... must just be you. This was *clearly* Rob to me. Rob has a baritone, whereas Doug has more of a nasally tenor. This voice, sounds nothing like the voice in, say, the Dark Toons series. Out of curiousity, who do you think is doing the Twili-tober Zone series?
I imagine that without all the internet drama, this would’ve been seen as just another pointless remake/reboot to disappear down the memory hole like most others.
The fact that youtube edgelords react so strongly about it is intetesting I think. This movie is memorable no doubt, if it was pure shit like they claim they would just forget about it and not keep bringing it up.
....the ironic thing is Leslie Jones herself became a keyboard warrior attacking the fans left and right in 2016....and got worse when a sequel to the original continuity was announced...... Sooooo
I agree it's the closest we're going to get to a real Ghostbusters 3. Even the movie being worked on (at least has of before covid) has no way of being a sequel. We have to accept that all the opportunities to make a 3rd movie came & went (thanks Bill Murry) Besides the one thing this movie did with those cameo's is show us we DON'T want to see the OG cast reprise their roles. Too much time has past the only thing that can be done is a proper reboot. Ghostbusters 2016? This ain't it chief.
My idea for a modern ghostbusters: Modern Creepypastas Forget the glowing ghosts, make them go after today's idea of ghosts - Momo, Slenderman, Possessed videogame cartridges, haunted school bathrooms and their bloody marys, Anabelle and company. And making it a comedy would've made so much fun to watch.
@phiferbb I really liked that idea, except I would try to combine modern "creepypastas" horror with Lovecraftian aesthetics of the 1984 original. I would love to see a Ghostbusters film that has comedy at the center while still taking the horror elements seriously. It could even be darker, scarier, and creepier than both 1984 original and 2016 reboot.
What made the original ghostbusters work is that it was fresh and different, not following trends, it made its own. The characters were so original, they became their own stereo types. As a new viewer, you were immersed because you had no idea where the story was taking you, so you follow and each step, everything became weirder and maybe scarier. You became invested because you were finding out just how high the stakes were. You cared about the people because they all gave you something different, there were disagreements but you liked them well enough to keep rooting for them and the pay out was the final boss battle, it was so grand.
it might've succeeded money wise if they hadn't attacked the fans that might've gone to see it otherwise. Sure we wouldve still hated it but we would've at least seen it.
Long story short, they didn’t care. They thought they could rush a film out the door, slap the Ghostbusters logo on it, and it would sell. And it didn’t. It’s a perfect storm of crap.
@@brewmaster2912 I liked it too, I might even pick it over the original Ghostbusters which is a bit overrated. It's certainly much better than Ghostbusters 2
Fieg made this to piss off the fans of the original, it’s been said in several interviews, he pushed for that musical number at the end, but the producers didn’t want it.
Funny you mentioned the fact that the protagonists in this movie were basically written as perfect characters. Nostalgia Critic mentioned the exact same issue in his review of Disney's Mulan remake: the main protagonist is just flawless from the start. It seems that Hollywood's vision of "girl power" is just to write flawless female protagonists, which actually sends a really screwed up message to women and girls, in my view.
Look, plain & simple, this film tried to "Girl Power" up what essentially a male buddy comedy. This was *not* the actresses' fault. But it did *not* help this film.
@Allan Tidgwell Hey dude. Bro, you get two or more people involved in an adventure, and yes, it is a Buddy comedy. At the very least, it has Buddy Comedy _elements._ It was even alluded to in the video, with the "Head, Heart and Mouth" dynamic and them doing something together; the friendly banter, odd ball antics and _interaction_ is what generates a lot of the laughs. What's worse is that, again....not the actresses fault..... they just *do not* present the same chemistry as Murray, Ackroyd, Ramis and to a lesser extent, Hudson. A lot of this comes down to unconscious differences in gendered group dynamics; guys simply bust each others chops, react to situations, generate internal chemistry, and present humorous elements in ways far more different than girls do. Don't think so? Okay, take the gag of a woman clobbering her husband with a rolling pin... Slight chuckle, right? Now flip the dynamic of a man going upside a woman's head with a pot....seeing the different feel? Popeye knocking Bluto through a knothole in a fence; hilarious. Olive Oyl taking a baseball bat to Betty Boop; .....what do you get from it? Slapstick especially is simply absorbed differently between the sexes, as is oddball comedy, and _Ghostbusters_ as a franchise is built largely on those two comedic elements. So it doesn't hit as well being shown happening to females as it does to males, not unless done with a given absurdist flare.
@Sheruss I do agree that the film tried too hard to make them quasi-superhero role models, especially during the third act. But the Ghostbusters were more like working class anti-heroes. I'm not saying that female cast had to be clones to the original male team. However, if the female leads were a bit more flawed, a bit more morally ambiguous it would have made them feel more like real people.
@Allan Tidgwell Well, Venkman was a kinda of a sleezy con artist, so his kind an anti-hero in a way. But Winston felt more like a everyman character as well as surrogate for the audience.
@@moonlitebrite9317 Mmmm.... while I definitely am on the same _page_ with you, I don't fully agree. The OG GBs _were_ working class, but not "Anti-heroes", ore so than "Good natured goofs whom everybody could relate to". That "unextraordinary hero" vibe is _precisely_ what made them such good Saturday Morning Kids fare. We do agree that the female cast didn't need to be clones, but I was speaking more about the perspective of the comedy; because guy friendships and sensibilities simply play off each other differently, it lends itself more seamlessly to slapstick and absurdist comedy than those around female protagonists, which tends to be more dialogue or situation driven. We also agree that each character needed more fleshing out in the new version, seeming more like tropes than real people. Honestly, did you _buy_ the friendship between the two main scientists? Lesley Jones could be engaging enough on screen, but the antics of her and McKinney , tough interesting, came off as "hitting points" in a script more than "natural quirks of a real person." Concurrently, the original trio _Seemed_ like genuine college buddies whom had known each other for years; it just felt more organic and easily authentic by comparison. But, again, you do see that more natural ease of interaction in all guys dynamic than you do with all girls. Also, if you look at it, low-key.... every male (the agents, the Mayor, of course Chris Hemsworth and the villain) save the Uncle character was either oblivious, an idiot or evil. Concurrently, Janine, Dana, the experiment girl, even the hot blond at Lewis' party all seemed like real enough people in the first film, even if they fell into a damsel in distress or support role. We don't get that here.
@Allan Tidgwell Well, to me Venkman becomes less sleazy as the film progresses. Someone once compared Venkman with Han Solo in ANH, in which you have a character who's disinterested in the fantastical mumbo jumbo, but then have a change of heart when they realize there are genuine stakes involved. And I wholeheartedly agree with this comparison as Venkman is the only character who has anything resembling an arc. Furthermore, I never say everyman as a contrast to the paragon, I thought the anti-hero was more of contrast to the "boyscout" archetype.
"Maybe he's, like, the inverse of the Ghostbusters, a male tech wiz who runs a giant telecommunications conglomerate. Only, you know, he's evil. Like every one of those a-holes" So true. Also I saw that sneaky swing at Zuckerburg, lmao.
What has zuckerberg done thets evil? Does anyone have an actual answer or are people just going to continue incorrectly assuming that hes evil for absolutely no reason
@@coletrainhetrick ._. Look at what you are debating about right now. Dude, it is a goddamn joke in a video that is primarily opinion-based. Who cares?
Oh no, Rob. You're missing the point here. The characterization in this here movie is simply perfect. It's spotless, top-notch, numero uno. For you see, in Hollywoodland, "female" is a personality.
If it was made like 20 years ago with a better script and with a better cast like Sigourney Weaver, Susan Sarandon, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Geena Davis, then it probably would've been decent enough.
You missed out on the fact that almost EVERY other male cast member were roles that made the men stupid. It gave the impression that the film also had misandrist leanings. They also turned the film into a "political feminist movement" that backfired, badly. They should have adapted Extreme Ghostbusters into a live action film. Every single diversity checklist was ticked off perfectly in Extreme Ghostbusters. It even had a DISABLED Ghostbuster member and he still kicked more ass than Ghosbusters 2016 ever could! Face it, Ghostbusters 2016 was a failed cash-grab marketing ploy.
I just want to point out; yes, the OG film was edgier, but what really stands out after all these years is that it had very sophisticated, subtle writing & acting. As a film analyst, you can appreciate the chemistry between the characters, and the subtlety of the (improved!) dialogue. It was like the Marx Bros meets 'The Haunting'. (the original)
It was a soulless cash grab attempt, aiming more on agenda than good writing. So much so that no ammount of talent could fix it. There, saved you 15 minutes
One of the big problems with this movie was that it was too focused on driving the "Men are scum" bandwagon rather than focus on giving a good story with good fleshed out characters as every male character in this movie was written as either an idiot or a scumbag just to make the female characters look good. It's crazy how they said that people are sexist towards women for not liking GB2016 when it was this movie that was sexist towards men.
Honestly for what it is supposed to be Master of Disguise is a really fun movie! I might he bias tho as it's both one of my wife's guilty pleasures and was one of the last movies my sister recommended to me before she passed. Both of them admit(ted) it's stupid fun, but it does stupid funny very well!
They forever screwed up Ghostbusters 2016 by putting the worst trailer ever. That fueled the imagination fire even bigger. The film wasnt as nearly as bad as the trailer.
The movie was dead on arrival, you can’t capture the magic that the 1984 Ghostbusters movie did. James Rolfe the AVGN said it was a lightning in the bottle.
Pretty much, @@otbaht. I really hated how men were treated like sex objects, used, abused, and otherwise uninteresting characters. I also absolutely detested how the original Ghostbusters made mere cameos as not their characters, but some sort of bizarre failed fourth wall breaking nonsense. The final boss fight of the movie was building up to be something fricken awesome! Whoo! At least until the Ghostbusters's emblem went from a literal cartoon in their version of real life to that CGI ghost monster that got crotch shot multiple times. Ugh... That and all of the Ghostbuster (2016) teammates were a bunch of horny idiots who had virtually no good lines nor jokes at any given time as well.
@Allan Tidgwell it will be okay, but it’s not going to be a masterpiece like the 1984 Ghostbusters, especially with comedies now can’t even make certain jokes anymore without some people getting outraged.
The problem wasn't that they were women, the problem is that they remade Ghostbusters in the first place. Am I the only one in the universe that gets this?
have them be the Ghostbusters of Chicago No New York iconography And have it be canonical to the original , they could have said something along the lines of yeah they merchandise the shit out of these guys So now they're all around the world. Where the Freaks and Geeks go to And here we are ghostbusters Chicago division
I remember in the early days of this remake craze (mid 2000s) that some people said there would eventually be a remake of Ghostbusters, and that it was going to suck. Although they said the same about Back To The Future and we're still waiting for that one, maybe Ghostbusters was enough of a fiasco to warn them off. They were right about Robocop though.
I'm honestly not sure if this counts as a remake or not. It's no sequel, but it's also a very different movie. It's barely even the same premise. Reboot counts, it's just that it throws out too much stuff to call a remake.
@@AusSP It's a remake. If feige was honest about it might have actually got less hate. It's practically beat for beat the same movie as the original with almost the same plot. The only difference is the ghost conjurer is alive NOW and not the 20s.
I'm all for gender equality, but gender swapping is not the best way to do it, in my opinion. If women really want to show empowerment, there should be brand new movies and franchises created for them the way older franchises with male leads were made like Ghostbusters and Indiana Jones. It worked for Jennifer Lawrence and the Hunger Game series, I'm sure it can work for other women too
Basically. My problem with all this gender swapping stuff ain't that it's bad, but it's not needed. Many that have done it do it just to get onto the trend. But they're not actually doing anything new with it. Aside from the character of Holtzmann who I thought was awesome and a few scenes (Melissa Mccarthy being possessed and the concert) I remember very little
Resident Evil was way ahead of it's time for women empowerment and most people don't even mention it in conversation about feminism, shows their agenda
@@TonyHavenMusic RE did it so good no one questions it. Think thats why many media like it work while those trying to shove it down your throat dont regarding this topic, it tries to make it natural
If there's one thing Fate/Stay Night and its many spin-offs have taught me, it's that gender-swapping can actually work really well, in the right context. Saber is one of the most prominent characters in all of fiction despite the fact that she's supposed to be King Arthur, a character previously established as a male in literally *EVERY* story that has ever been made about the character, but rather than make her just King Arthur but a girl, they made her an actual character with fantastic motivations and a great personality.
I'm going to be the master of disguise? I'm going to be the master of disguise! I'm going to be the master of disguise! I'm going to be the master o...
The point about the whole movie being cartoonish is actually make sense. I was rewatching The real Ghostbusters 80s cartoon some time ago and noticed that it represented some realistic life references in earlier seasons and I found it interesting. And now I think it's really a bit weird that there's actually a Ghostbusters movie more cartoonish and less serious than the actual oldschool cartoon lmao
The main problem this movie has is that they ONLY foccued on the "female-power", nostalgia factor and they want "every scene to be a meme"......so they completely forgot to make a movie
"Few people seem to have a problem with the fact that [Leslie Jones'] role was a giant stereotype". Well, I have always had that problem with her. Has she EVER played a different character, other than "loud black woman" in a comedy role? I have never found her style of humor to be entertaining at all, its just her being loud and obnoxious all the time. She just yells everything, and gets mad about everything, its dumb. She always plays the same stereotype, and her skits on SNL actually move back race relations every time they are on.
Yes! The character of Winston in the original was just THAT... a character who happened to be black... nothing more, nothing less... Leslie Jones was 'I'm a black woman therefore I must act like this'
True. Some of the leading ladies have actually been in good movies, and they have proven themselves to be really talented actresses. When you don’t give your actors and actresses any direction or a well written script, however, it doesn’t matter how good they are. The movie will still suck. It’s just a waste of their talents.
Film in a collaborative project. It's hard to blame ONE group when we have no idea. Maybe half of the tone was influenced by studio notes, maybe the writers were fine but the way the director and actors interpreted the writing made it all look really lame. I've read some amazing scenes in books, only to see those scenes look terribly dumb on screen. In writing, you can absorb yourself in an introspection while in film you can absorb yourself in visuals, but neither are totally dominated by the one sense. Look at Stephen King novels vs their film adaptations... And I mean actually read a Stephen King book. Not trying to say he's an amazing writer, I'm just saying the effect his writing has on you can be so incredibly different than the films inspired by his work. It's honestly really interesting to me! I love how creativity and art can change and manifest itself into something completely unrecognizable, despite being about the same stuff.
The writers can only do so much. The studio executives lay out a few points they want covered. The writers provide a script according to it. Then the director and the casterpick the actors based on how they want the characters in the script portrayed. Depending on the director they maybe want some scenes rewritten, reordered etc. My point is: If the villain was a bad archetype, it is probably because the studio thought it would resonate with the intended audience. If the secretary was an actual meathead instead of what Rob suggested, the studio envisioned the role as just for eye candy. If the roles don't fit the actors, but the roles are technically well written, it is the casting director's fault. You are right with your statement, that when writers craft bad dialogue the actors can only do so much. But the job of the writers is to weave what is basically just a plot into an engaging story.
@@HeresorLegacy I certainly wouldn’t put all the blame on the writers, but they certainly deserve some of the blame. Frankly, in the case of this movie, I think there is plenty of blame to go around. The writers, the director, the studio, all had a hand in making this a bad movie.
"Ok that existed" is my exact thoughts on the movie. Because everyone absolutely despised the movie I decided it was the movie I wanted to watch when a friend let me pick a movie to watch. I wanted to see if it was as bad as everyone said it was. When I watched it I didn't think it was a terrible movie but I didn't think it was a good movie either. It just made me emotionless because it was so meh.
In nutshell, they made the same mistake the Stars Wars sequels did. Not thinking outside of the box enough and relying too hard on nostalgia callbacks.
Also; I KNOW I'm not the only one who still likes the 2nd movie! At least the chemistry between actors/characters is still there, and so is the dialogue! And in my opinion, at least, the changes that were made weren't that obvious, and still gelled with the rest of the film. And besides, even if they WERE trying to turn it into the cartoon... well, WHAT A CARTOON! (The reboot on the other hand... I can't defend that.)
I will definitely take Cat in the Hat over this, but I will also definitely take this over Son of the Mask. From what I've heard about the new He Man cartoon, Kevin Smith did not learn from the mistakes of this film, Nor have Marvel & DC.
I still havent got around to seeing the movie lol. I just wasnt interested so I didn't watch. My girlfriend went to see it before me, asked her if it was any good, and her words to me "Don;t bother" :P
honestly a majority of the hate for this movie i personally think is all of the drama and bullshit that surrounded this movie, from people being called sexist and what not if they didnt go see it, people being called misogynist if they said the movie looked bad, AVGN being attacked simply because he said he didnt want to see the movie and so on, thats what i think alot of the hate comes from and rightfully so
Because they pushed a political agenda using something very, very near and dear to many people's hearts. It's not about it being a bad movie, it's about the Ghostbusters name merely being used as a podium. Also a couple cringy jokes and effects.
@@ShadowSonic2 because it's not the best way to get viewers. Blaming all men for its failure and it hurt more in its franchise and the blueray and DVD sells after
The original was very economically conservative, pro-Reaganomics and anti-regulation. To say that Ghostbusters has never been political is just factually wrong.
@@bboysoulzero Considering the truly toxic and disgusting things men were saying about the movie and the cast before it came out, I don't blame Feig for protecting his actors.
@@ShadowSonic2 actually no it is in context,you Jabroni The original is when they're first using the proton packs The one from 2016 is when they're trying to also use the proton packs
Some people say it was because they were all women, but that is silly. The reason it failed is because everyone tried to be the murray. There was nothing subtle, no proper build up to the punch lines. Nothing dramatic. It was just badly written and acted. Which is odd considering the actors in it were good in their own rights, just not here.
You could change only the genders of the main four and adjust the pronouns in the script and still end up with a bland, forgettable popcorn muncher of a movie. The writing is the biggest problem.
Trailers are bullshit one way or the other and don't do the actual movie justice. All the reason in the world to ignore trailers and teasers. See NC's coverage of Treasure Planet to see what I mean.
Kate McKinnon was the only memorable person in the movie, including that badass scene with her and the ecto guns. Plus Extreme Ghostbusters was a lot better than Ghostbusters 2016.
How can I say that I agree with everything that you laid on the table? If I'm gonna be honest, a big challenge was pretty much rewriting Ghostbusters 2, so for this one, it doesn't surprise me. When I saw the video about Ghostbusters 2 I was screaming "YES, YES, YES!!!!" at every new and returning element you added to the story. Making it a furthering piece and not a reimagining piece. There's a lot to tackle in this movie, and there's so much that just went wrong. After looking deeper into the situation it seemed like GB 3 was going to be made but Sony's chairman at the time hijacked the project and gave the movie to Paul Fieg instead. I can go on record as saying I'm probably one of the biggest 16-year-old fans of Ghostbusters out there. Master of trivia, I know the scripts line for line, and I know so much about the history of these movies. I was very disappointed that I didn't get to see Ghostbusters: Afterlife this summer as it piqued my interest greatly. Anyway, going back to this video, I agree with every character change, mostly Leslie Jones's character playing the Ray Stantz "heart" of the team. She has that essence to her. This movie really made me wonder why. The entire time my head was just thinking why. Why reboot it? Why not have everyone reprise their roles? Why hijack it? I'm a girl myself, and to me, it was never about the women. I have no trouble admitting women are funny. I just think that this movie was walking on the "we're women and if you say anything to critique us you're a misogynist" crutch, and that's how it stayed. Long story short, as I tend to ramble about subjects I am passionate about, thank you. Thank you for giving insight on what went wrong and reflecting on how we could have made it work.
It looks like a bad crossover between stranger things and power rangers. Oh and they replace the cast with kids, oh yeah replacing the jerkworks con artists we love in the original with a bunch of boring role models is bad, but replacing them with a bunch of "KIDZ RULEZ" brats Is good? Yeah next time tell me if putting a kid in blues brothers 2000 was a good idea....
Yes it's true, the original Ghostbusters is not a kids movie, nevertheless it didn't stop us from watching it as kids. Though I have to admit some jokes like the ghost BJ and "We get this guy laid we won't have any trouble" went right over my head until I was a teen. And Stay Puft was a Hundred Feet Tall, not Sixty.
The keyboard warrior thing was manufactured. You DO get that right? It was aaaaaaaall fake. They would put shit out there that was purposefully stupid under bot accounts arguing for and against, then let us feed off it. The main villain is a basement dwelling troll. Gee, I wonder why they started a massive flame war to get you worked up over trolls. Also, the script didn’t do anything to these actresses. There was no script. For real. 80%+ improv means there’s no dialog written, just a frame of what needs to happen. The one magic fix to this movie is: write a fucking script.
You know what’s really sad about this movie is that the characters can be written so well. In the comics when the crossover with the original movie ghostbusters they are actually funny and have character. The movie was honestly just happy with checking a few boxes than actually giving us character
Top three ways to fix this movie 1.Don’t make it 2. Get rid of Melissa McCarthy 3. Stop reminding me about the original that I’d rather be watching by rehashing the same crap with the OG cameos
"If I was handed a blank check..." I hope the next episode starts with "I would cash out as much as possible, run away and not bother the franchise anymore."
Hating this film makes you a basement dweller? Dumb take. The women won't sleep with you for attacking the critics. Vocal minority didn't want a female led Ghostbusters? That's a blatant lie. Most people wanted the original cast. Did Paul pay you off? Criticise the movie and this keyboard warrior will call you a keyboard warrior 🤡🤡🤡 pure projection.
The original had a great balance of comedy and horror. The 2016 movie gave me one or two scenes that made me chuckle and zero scares. And yeah, I saw the original as a kid. Raise your hand if you didn't.
I showed this version to my 5 year old daughter and she really liked it asked to watch it again and again. Then I showed her the original and she thought that it was better than new one. Now she only asks to watch the original. She is going to have her mind blown when she sees the cartoon. Lol
It failed because they made it a woke joke by SNL skit writers. The film was AND still is trash. Really looking forward to Ghostbusters Afterlife!! NOW THATS A GHOSTBUSTER FILM SHOULD BE!
This is the one that they said they didn't make for men.. and then were mad that men didn't go to see it. This is modern day feminist logic. Tell men it's not for them, then blame them for it failing when they don't go to see it. Why not blame the feminists that you made the movie for, who didn't come out massively to support the movie? Oh right, because that would make sense! Any movie with an Agenda, usually is poorly done and fails. Make a movie because you truly love making good movies and are good at your job... and usually it does well. How about that? Make a good movie, and it does well... make a terrible movie that tries to push an agenda... trying to force it on people.. and somehow people don't go to see it. How shocking!!!!?!? Who could have foreseen this? Oh wait, everyone.
"This movie has a weird obsession with Chris Hemsworth and I just don't get it." Look at Paul Feig. Take one good look at the guy. Then say that again.
5:05-5:08 I think what you're trying to say is that I don't think it's the fact that they needed a Winston character, it's the fact that they needed a black person. Because "apparently" you can't have a ghostbusters team without a black person because Winston was the only member who was black and Winston was the only character who was black. So apparently this movie didn't see Winston as a character, they only saw him as "the black guy". So maybe they just hired Leslie Jones because they needed a Winston. Not a character Winston, but as Winston the black guy. And because she's black, she could only be Winston because Winston was black. That's like making a Spider-Verse movie and hiring Trevor Noah or Kevin Hart to play Miles Morales. Because Miles is black and their black. You can't just put them in a Spider-Man suit and then BOOM, you got yourself Miles Morales.
![เปิดบ้าน นาราเครปกระเทย 1 ไร่ ขายขาดทุนหลัก10ล้าน เอามาใช้หนี้!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jz84VFWVP4/mqdefault.jpg)
After a few years have passed what does everyone think of Ghostbusters 2016?
Watch more FanScription here - bit.ly/FanScription
Download the episode here - channelawesome.libsyn.com/
Follow us on Twitch - www.twitch.tv/channelawesome
Ay yo pipipupu check
2nd Place 🥈
E
It's not good but who cares anymore?
I’ve seen the extended edition of Ghostbusters answer the call. But I didn’t enjoy it as much, the characters are just bland, the comedy is not well defined, and the story is not impressive to me.
Every character wanted to be the joker. Like honest trailers said, someone needs to be the egon
And Egon had his funny moments.
@@Eth3realwarrior Right, but they were different funny moments. He was the straight man, and some jokes only work if it's the straight man.
@@AusSP 100%
@@AusSP Winston was the straight man. Egon the brain. Ray the heart. Peter the mouth.
I kinda thought Jillian was the Egon. Wasn't she the one who built the equipment and stuff?
Rob does touch on it, but the fundamental problem that dooms the movie from the get-go is that ALL of them are the slapstick comic relief. Look at the scene where McKinnon and McCarthy--I don't even know the characters' names--arrive at the firehouse for the first time. In the original, it's character-building: Venkman's haggling with the realtor by downplaying their interest in the place and is interrupted by Stanz: "Does this pole still work? (Slides down.) This place is great! When can we move in?!" It's just a little scene to establish how they end up in the firehouse, but it's still utilized to flesh out the characters and their relationships. In the 2016 movie they go to the firehouse and it's already a done deal. McKinnon is basically the Egon, yet she just dances around, making stupid motions showing she's stoked about it. No writing; just "look, we're in the firehouse; we're all so funny in the firehouse."
It's essentially a very long, big budget SNL skit.
That was my thoughts towards watching it, it felt like everyone was trying to be the "Venkman" of the group whereas in the original each one had there own unique personality, Egon was the odd straight man, Ray was childlike believer, Venkman was the sarcastic funny one and Winston was the skeptical outsider and yet In the this version i couldn't even tell you the characters names cause there weren't that memorable they where all trying to be the funniest in the room and it just didn't work out well.
@@leegaul2161 with the quantity of celebrities sprinkled all over, you commentary falls int the "facts" section, between cannon and intended
Hellsing Ultimate Abridged has one of the best lines addressing these types of characters:
Rip Van Winkle: "I am Rip Van Winkle and I Demand you're respect"
Alucard: "No, you demand my attention."
These characters do whatever they can to be random and shocking in the hopes to get your attention as if they are a child needing mommy and daddy's affection.
They are simply Eyesores to me and just turn me off of their character immediately, and then I am there counting down my timer till I can abandon them. So when you're movie is nothing but three of these arch-types, it is bound to fail.
Also if you want to see my reference using Hellsing Ultimate Abridged, just search her name and watch her cut-scenes if you don't plan to watch the anime. But I am not posting it because that anime is definitely for a mature audience.
...which is because they are not hired to fill meaningful roles, they are just ALL hired for being women. The marketing tried to bury this point as angry trolls and Rob keeps burying it further, and then says the same things that were the problem.
All the same shit was said about Pixels, but the media didn't hype up the criticism as video game fans victimizing adam sandler. These are shitty paycheck movies and in a lot of ways to ask money for them is much worse than just making a movie that happens to be bad.
It's not just dull, it's completely forgettable. No joke, I saw this movie twice and I can't remember anything that happened in it. All I remember is that I left the theater (critic preview screening) calling it a "big sack of nothing."
Aren't Forgettable and dull basically synonymous with each other?
I actually do remember something cuz it was the main reason I really hate this movie besides the fact I was kind of forced to watch it by my 'friend'
there's a scene where Melissa McCarthy is shooting the proton gun and the stream is supposed to be pointing at you the audience
Because the movie was made for 3D obviously
And they made the entire seen have really small black bars to where the only thing you could really see was Melissa McCarthy and the Stream
And I really hated how stupid it looked and how incredibly pandering it was that it was just a movie made for 3D
The only GOOD thing about this movie (that I can recall) is that it brought back Ecto Cooler...
So... a big sack.
All I remember was she said slime "got in every crack."
Haha geddit cause WHAMENS AND VAGINA. Laugh now, sexist. If you don't, you hate women.
Original Ghostbusters had a strong female character as the secretary.
-So lets make our secretary a hunky dumb guy. That'll show em.
Louis was kind of a gender flipped Janine.
@@pentelegomenon1175 except Janine actually did her job and Louis was completely incompetent and stupid
Honestly the fact that the female Ghostbusters kept ogling him and still paying him money despite the fact he wasn't doing anything for them(even his job)says alot about how ass backwards writing was lol
@@carybeweary7209 He was a pretty good accountant, which is what his job was.
@@pentelegomenon1175 I think Janine wasn't depicted as stupid.
The problem isn't that it's all female main cast. It's that they used it as a sledge hammer.
"it's all female, so because of that it's automatically great and if you don't like it you're a basement dwelling misogynic. So why bother with a script, editing or any of that crap"
Thank you. I've been saying this since I first saw it.
Had no issues with the casting, or even the concept. The execution, well, it wasn't as bad as I worried it would be, but it wasn't really great either.
Yes, I own a copy, and have rewatched it. Frankly, the writing sucked. But, look at what it was up against. The OG film.
It's like every Terminator sequel after T2. Hood on their own, mostly, but compared to T2, they never measure up.
They tried to remake the original and totally missed the nuance of the original.
They just tried to make jokes. The original had Venkman making jokes and Egon being his weird self and Dan Aykroyd being serious.
In the women’s movie they all got to take turns. I thought having Kate McKinnon as the Egon could be great but she had to be weird but super cool, it just didn’t work.
And I was in the theater on the first weekend so I do get to have an opinion.
If diversity is in question. The Extreme Ghostbusters did it the best imo.
That was a pretty decent series, all things considered.
@@sleepykitty8918 agreed.
@@winnietheboogaloo4584 I did not know of this.
@@KairuHakubi That's the weird thing though, Ghostbusters is not an action-hero job (most of them are out of shape even) but they kept having that guy flip his wheelchair over things instead of just giving him something else to do, like helping Egon more. Peter didn't know how to fix the equipment but he still helped out a lot, and Batman helps out the Justice League a lot even though he can't fly, this shouldn't be a problem.
@@KairuHakubi Not even Oracle necessarily, but if I was writing a Ghostbusters script where one of them was in a wheelchair and I reached a point in the story where they had to enter a building with no ramp, then that one just wouldn't go in and the story would continue, like how Peter split off from the group in the second movie. If it was a Ninja Turtle in a wheelchair though, then I really would be stuck and probably be forced to give that one the Oracle role.
Poor AVGN didn't deserve the hate he got for his opinions.
he had sense because he knew it was going to be bad. Had a bet with my eldest daughter about this film and compared to the original
James either flat out didn't care or he never knew it was happening. I say kudos to him for not worrying about such trivial stuff.
@@Sharkie626 he knew it was coming out and even said ie was not covering it because he didn’t want to sully the original with this one
@@southernfriedmedia3968 Patton Oswalt has never been shit anyway so like...
Rofl, he didn't even WATCH IT !!! SO HE HAD NO OPINION!!!!
The biggest problem with the all-women team is that _they tried to replace the originals._ They were literally trying to supplant the very existence of the original team. The easiest way to repair this: sack the asshat that thought that was a good idea. Make them a franchise of the original group. Venkman would definitely have been about creating Ghostbusters franchises across America.
Also, the screwed up the proton pack noise. One of the most iconic sound effects in the _history_ of film, and they _screwed it up._ *Yes* I’m still sore about this!
Short Answer: we didn’t want a remake we wanted a sequel 🤷♂️
@Connor Reynolds Damn straight
Harold Remis is dead it wont happen.
@@nifralo2752 Where the hell have you been for past 3 years? We're getting a direct sequel to GB2 in November of this year!!!
@@nifralo2752 think you might wanna do some research there dude.
I did and its meant to star to kids. So it will be Jake Lloyd busters
All that it needed was to be a sequel. Had it been about Egon's daughter leading a new team, it would've made money. Making it a sequel would've allowed a smooth transition from one generation of Ghostbusters to the next. As a remake, they isolated returning fans in the hopes of attracting an entirely new fanbase. And we saw the results of that one.
@ValorJ Omega Considering it was supposed to have already come out...
So basically what's happening now... only with Egon's granddaughter
@@sarmeister1699 I gotta give them credit for correcting their mistakes.
Yeah, I love when old generation works together with the new generation. And that's not a sarcasm.
That's what the new film is going to be about.
As my old man says, "If it's not broke, DON'T FIX IT" and "never mess with a good thing" and yet I chose to watch the mulan reboot on Disney+ hated it and yes I'm a semi hypocrite
Fun fact: Chris Hemsworth actually wanted to quit the movie because he taught the script was shitty.
Thank heavens Extraction. That movie was friggin badass.
Well he wasn't wrong.
He taught THIS script was shitty? He's used to Marvel for Gods sake, which have the shittiest scripts I've ever seen
@@winnietheboogaloo4584 This movie got some chuckles out of me. I for one enjoyed it. Marvel movies have the shittiest "humor" I have witnessed sadly
@@leob4403 well, that's your opinion
The reason I didn't care for this movie was simply this:
Ghostbusters wasn't a story that needed to be retold.
I’d call it an attempt at trying to ‘send a message’ while utterly forgetting that you have to tell a story when you make a film
No one had a problem with the ghostbusters being women. They had a problem with why the ghostbusters were women. Paul Fieg just wanted a women movie, instead of just trying to make a good or coherent movie.
He won’t be allowed bac on the Sony lot anytime soon. -Dan Akroyd
Which is exactly why Bridesmaids was so good. The humor was the star of the movie, not whether it was female driven.
"It was the only original thing in this whole mess"
That is... simultaneously giving it too much credit and an extremely harsh condemnation of the movie, as the "Make an all female cast" twist had been done multiple times before that point, thus making even that part end up not being original. Even at the time, it was a played out cliche and most people recognized it as such. The "oh you can't have a woman ghost buster" thing was entirely fabricated by the studio to shoot down the people savvy to how obviously lazy and cynical the studio was being with the remake.
To be fair, he did say "Vaguely" original. It was at least somewhat new ground by the standards of the Ghostbuster franchise. Even considering stuff like Extreme already featuring female ghostbusters.
Yeah, remember the cartoon? That had an awesome female ghost buster. This had nothing to do with them being female, it was just a token thing and everyone knew it. Heck its more insulting they had a blond bimbo as a guy this time.
" __ but with girls" is exactly why I didn't give this movie the time of day, it's pandering masquerading as empowerment. McCarthy didn't help its case, since I flat out find her annoying rather than funny, but I was rolling my eyes from the concept, so her not being in it wouldn't have saved it. Someone telling me wholeheartedly that the movie was great might have though, it's yet to happen with movies of this kind, so we'll likely never know.
That was painfully obvious when people noticed that legit criticisms for that awful first trailer started getting deleted but the mods left the sexist and misogynistic comments up unfiltered. A lot of people all the way back then were predicting that Sony was setting up the "victim of misogyny" narrative. Sony, Fieg and the cast proved them 100% correct by riding that narrative all the way to the scene of the crash.
All they had to do was to have it be a SEQUEL with a new all female cast that paid homage to the original ghostbusters that went before them.
But NO! That wouldn't have been good enough for the Misandrists in charge of making this film!
Instead they had to make it a REBOOT that outright denigrated EVERY Male Character {other than Winston and whoever Dan Aykroyd was playing in that cameo}!
They couldn't have these women be following in the footsteps of those 4 men - NO! They had to be the originators of the Ghostbusters concept in this movie!
Women deserve their own stories; not reboots.
Alien 😍
🙌🏽
Someone gets it! It’s pretty contradictory to say a group of women following in the footsteps of a group of men and copying what they did (but worse) is “independence”.
Straight Facts
@ no ❤
1. Pissing off fans of the original series and saying they're sexist for not liking the new cast/film
2. Relying on fart and vagina jokes as the pillar of it's comedy
3. Having effects that somehow look more dated than the original 1984 film
4) empowering the women by dumbing down the men (seriously, not a single male in this movie wasn't either an asshole, an idiot or a combination of both).
Not to mention
Original cast wasted in lame cameos
The editing of the film was a mess
And
Villain was completely forgettable can't remember his motivation or whats his name
Plus Reboots/remakes in general typically suck.
Also, there wasn't much of a script written, so there is a ton of cringey improv.
I think the biggest issue with this movie is that the director was directing the wrong reboot. Paul Feig should have directed a reboot of "Weird Science" with a gender swap. Could you imagine a teenage version of Holtzmann and Yates using an action figure to create Chris Hemsworth? I can so imagine him coming down the stairs in blue mist (it was pink in the original) and saying " *So, what do you little maniacs want to do first?* "
But Paul Feig wouldn't do that, he would have Chris Hemsworth tumble into the room, showing off his utter stupidity and clumsiness, and then have the girls teach Chris Hemsworth everything about dating, and the reason they created him, wasn't because they couldn't get a man, but because they hate all men, and wanted to create the perfect man, that is a good obedient puppy dog, that would have no spine of his own, or an original thought, and the whole movie will be them and magic Chris teach all men their place: on their knees begging for forgiveness for being born with a penis.
@rum runner - I would have LOVED to see that!
who is paul feig? lol
My summery of the movie was "Have you ever seen a comedy that tried so hard to be funny that the quick flood of failed jokes just depressed the sh!t out of you?"
honestly to me the trailer is where i thought it wouldn't be great. They said 30 years ago four scientists.... it wasn't four scientists it was three and a normal guy. I'm not the biggest fan but even I knew that and if they got that wrong when I would have gotten it right they were already on the thinnest ice.
Add in the fact that the cast and stars insulted the fanbase and deleted their comments, mine including pointing out the first part, on their youtube trailer. Rather than trying to assure people they insulted people.
I'm no genius, but mocking people isn't a way to get them to indulge in your product.
I haven't and dont plan to watch this and honestly I figured it would be very meh. 4 out of 10. Not good enough to like, but not bad enough to become like fun to mock and tease.
as for how i would fix/do this lets see.
Start at a funeral for the ghost buster who can't be in the film for obvious reasons and mix in flash backs of them doing their job and him dying as a result.
They realize they are to old and the three who are left, plus the secretary because hey she is going to be smart enough and such to know what works, all start to hunt down people to recruit world wide and they each pick one. You can do all girls or mix and match whatever. Part of me wants someone from china who could have gotten into it because of how its all banned there or something, but that's debatable.
They do some training and talking and education semi montage and the old ones do things like watch them through cameras as they start doing their first real job and boom they catch their first ghost and put it in containment. Then they start to get a bit cocky and catch one without their teachers overseeing because "hey we know enough I bet we can do it" and they do, but they make a mistake and put it in the wrong containment thing not knowing thats one just for one ghost who gets stronger from feeding on ghosts and eating the ghost they put in there is enough for him to start.
there could be talk of the older ghost busters how the containment thing is going wrong and the new ones debate on if they should tell or try to fix it themselves to not lose respect/trust from their teachers.
Before they can do either it breaks open and the big bad comes out and shatters the other containment fields freeing hundreds or thousands of ghosts that it will chase down.
they finally admit what they did and the old and new work together in teams. some work on improving tech from two different generations of ideas and the others hunt down as much cannon fodder as they can to try to prevent the big bad from eating them.
Eventually new tech is made and they do it and take out the big bad, maybe one of the new ones die as well and then it ends with the new ghost busters at the funeral for the one who died because of their mistakes driving home this is real life not just some fun game or silly youtube video.
But that's just my idea.
@@winnietheboogaloo4584 Well not surprised i'm not 100 percent accurate. I was born basically when the movie came out so not my childhood, but i was closer than the people who did it.
That said what did you think of my "sales pitch" idea. I am a writer so I'm curious about things like that.
To sum up, the fans were really hoping for a passing the torch sort of movie, not what we got for this 2016 film, a terrible remake just to insult the already established fans because they think they're better than the source material.
My problem is that it wants to be a sequel and a reboot at the same time
hell I'd say only two of them were really scientists, Venkman was a conman who was using science for money and to flirt with women
Sorry to do the "Umm... Actually..." But Winston was a scientist. He was actually smarter than the rest of the group and I think even ended up with two doctorates. This was pointed out in the third "movie" (the videogame). Whether you want to call it retconning or not is up to you, but he was originally written to be in the team from the beginning and be a military guy, but when they didn't get the actor they wanted, they changed his character to fit the actor. I saw it that because of his race and the economy, he couldn't get a job (or perhaps was still finishing is doctoral thesis), and the guys ultimately put an ad out to hire someone at their education level by nature.
They did the same thing with this that they did with Captain Marvel and Rey. They wrote a bland uninteresting female character and said "If you don't like this, you're sexist!" Oh, no, I just like female characters I can relate to.
Yup
That's it! The problem isn't that it's a woman, it's that *other* characters are more interesting. There is a seed there, an idea of what could be...and they didn't take it. That is my problem with both of them. Good potential, but little is done with it.
I always find it funny when people claim that if you don’t like Rey you are sexist because all of those people most likely love Ashoka
There are lots of female characters that I love, and they all are far from being perfect. This gives them the edge, the realism, you can associate with them more easily. You don't like them because they are girls, but because they are good characters.
@@thebaconator1883 They like Ahsoka because she's just a sidekick who needed years to become tolerable, not a proper leading lady.
0:35 Robb missed the perfect opportunity for a Count Dooku quote "brave but foolish"
And not one use of "ZUUL, MOTHAHFUCKAH, ZUUUUUULLLLLLL!!!"
I thought this was Doug narrating the whole time. Geezus I never realized how his and Rob’s voice are nearly identical.
i had to look in the description to clarify cause i was watching it thinking "wow Dougs voice sounds off in this"
You can tell the difference by their attitude. Rob can often come off as...condescending moreso than his brother. (Honestly, this was kinda hard to watch as he slowly got through SOME of the reasons why this was a bad movie. Which, he's right about like all the things he says, but goodness, the way he goes about saying them. He clearly didn't see the arguments made about it as he states "People just didnt want women in this movie." Sure, there were some but GOODNESS are we gonna PRETEND that was the reason!? Like there was ENOUGH of those guys!?)
Uh... must just be you. This was *clearly* Rob to me. Rob has a baritone, whereas Doug has more of a nasally tenor. This voice, sounds nothing like the voice in, say, the Dark Toons series. Out of curiousity, who do you think is doing the Twili-tober Zone series?
@@querydelacroix2919 clearly not just them, bc several people agreed before you commented.
@@KenikoB And this changes the overall point of my comment... how? Oh, it doesn't? K.
I imagine that without all the internet drama, this would’ve been seen as just another pointless remake/reboot to disappear down the memory hole like most others.
The fact that youtube edgelords react so strongly about it is intetesting I think. This movie is memorable no doubt, if it was pure shit like they claim they would just forget about it and not keep bringing it up.
exactly. but the studio kept playing up the non-troversy of "angry man childs" that ended up just being people that thought the movie was bland
@@leob4403 the movie is not memorable on its own. its primary reason for being remembered was the "controversy" that surrounded it.
@@MrChickennugget360 I think it has a lot of memorable scenes actually
@@leob4403 well i think you are in the minority on that one.
Ghostbusters 2 > Ghostbusters 2016
Ha!
I love Ghostbusters 2 and literally just watched it yesterday again!
The 1986 Ghostbusters cartoon that wasn't based on the actual Ghostbusters movie was better than this.
Objectively.
Hell even The Room was a better movie because it at least was funny in how bad it was.
@@mattjones5531 I found that cartoon actually alright.
....the ironic thing is Leslie Jones herself became a keyboard warrior attacking the fans left and right in 2016....and got worse when a sequel to the original continuity was announced...... Sooooo
I didn't like Ghostbusters Afterlife. It should have been a coming of age story. Let's hope reitman does it for ghostbusters 4.
Ghostbusters The Video Game from 2009 is really Ghostbusters 3.
And the IDW Ghostbusters comics are Ghostbusters 4. I'm good, man. I *got* three movies worth of content.
I agree it's the closest we're going to get to a real Ghostbusters 3. Even the movie being worked on (at least has of before covid) has no way of being a sequel. We have to accept that all the opportunities to make a 3rd movie came & went (thanks Bill Murry) Besides the one thing this movie did with those cameo's is show us we DON'T want to see the OG cast reprise their roles. Too much time has past the only thing that can be done is a proper reboot. Ghostbusters 2016? This ain't it chief.
@@winnietheboogaloo4584 All the original Ghostbusters actors voiced their characters in the game.
@@ZoanBlade90 Up until they started doing crossovers. Those things were weird.
My idea for a modern ghostbusters: Modern Creepypastas
Forget the glowing ghosts, make them go after today's idea of ghosts - Momo, Slenderman, Possessed videogame cartridges, haunted school bathrooms and their bloody marys, Anabelle and company. And making it a comedy would've made so much fun to watch.
Hell ya
Just keep any of the killers out of it.
They’ll make the project a complete cringy shitshow
@phiferbb I really liked that idea, except I would try to combine modern "creepypastas" horror with Lovecraftian aesthetics of the 1984 original.
I would love to see a Ghostbusters film that has comedy at the center while still taking the horror elements seriously. It could even be darker, scarier, and creepier than both 1984 original and 2016 reboot.
@@tokuwriter2872 Yeah, you're right on that one.
@@moonlitebrite9317 Yes, keep the lovecraftian aspect. That would be for the better.
Horror comedy would be the best route for this ideia
What made the original ghostbusters work is that it was fresh and different, not following trends, it made its own. The characters were so original, they became their own stereo types. As a new viewer, you were immersed because you had no idea where the story was taking you, so you follow and each step, everything became weirder and maybe scarier. You became invested because you were finding out just how high the stakes were. You cared about the people because they all gave you something different, there were disagreements but you liked them well enough to keep rooting for them and the pay out was the final boss battle, it was so grand.
The reason it didn’t work: it attacked its audience
Or it was too wrapped in nostalgia.
it might've succeeded money wise if they hadn't attacked the fans that might've gone to see it otherwise. Sure we wouldve still hated it but we would've at least seen it.
the marketing strategy was mostly attack the fans.
@@chasehedges6775 nostalgia always wins and always works becuase that's how it sells but then them genderbending this shows the hypocrisy lol
It set a trend
At least it's not The Interview
You're just mad because you died in that one,bro!
@@carybeweary7209 Thank you that was the joke. I'm glad you got it.
You know the movies is really bad when kim jon un himself talks about it
Long story short, they didn’t care.
They thought they could rush a film out the door, slap the Ghostbusters logo on it, and it would sell.
And it didn’t.
It’s a perfect storm of crap.
Don't forget slapping the "woke wahmen power" agenda on top of slapping the ghostbusters logo on top of this dumpster
I honestly liked it probably because it’s the only Ghostbusters movie I have ever seen
@@brewmaster2912 Glad you got something out of it, no sarcasm.
@@brewmaster2912 I liked it too, I might even pick it over the original Ghostbusters which is a bit overrated. It's certainly much better than Ghostbusters 2
@@adriannaranjo4397 and calling you racist and sexist if you showed anything less than enthusiasm for the movie and its casting choices.
Fieg made this to piss off the fans of the original, it’s been said in several interviews, he pushed for that musical number at the end, but the producers didn’t want it.
Funny you mentioned the fact that the protagonists in this movie were basically written as perfect characters. Nostalgia Critic mentioned the exact same issue in his review of Disney's Mulan remake: the main protagonist is just flawless from the start. It seems that Hollywood's vision of "girl power" is just to write flawless female protagonists, which actually sends a really screwed up message to women and girls, in my view.
Look, plain & simple, this film tried to "Girl Power" up what essentially a male buddy comedy. This was *not* the actresses' fault. But it did *not* help this film.
@Allan Tidgwell Hey dude. Bro, you get two or more people involved in an adventure, and yes, it is a Buddy comedy. At the very least, it has Buddy Comedy _elements._ It was even alluded to in the video, with the "Head, Heart and Mouth" dynamic and them doing something together; the friendly banter, odd ball antics and _interaction_ is what generates a lot of the laughs.
What's worse is that, again....not the actresses fault..... they just *do not* present the same chemistry as Murray, Ackroyd, Ramis and to a lesser extent, Hudson. A lot of this comes down to unconscious differences in gendered group dynamics; guys simply bust each others chops, react to situations, generate internal chemistry, and present humorous elements in ways far more different than girls do.
Don't think so? Okay, take the gag of a woman clobbering her husband with a rolling pin...
Slight chuckle, right?
Now flip the dynamic of a man going upside a woman's head with a pot....seeing the different feel?
Popeye knocking Bluto through a knothole in a fence; hilarious.
Olive Oyl taking a baseball bat to Betty Boop; .....what do you get from it?
Slapstick especially is simply absorbed differently between the sexes, as is oddball comedy, and _Ghostbusters_ as a franchise is built largely on those two comedic elements. So it doesn't hit as well being shown happening to females as it does to males, not unless done with a given absurdist flare.
@Sheruss I do agree that the film tried too hard to make them quasi-superhero role models, especially during the third act. But the Ghostbusters were more like working class anti-heroes. I'm not saying that female cast had to be clones to the original male team. However, if the female leads were a bit more flawed, a bit more morally ambiguous it would have made them feel more like real people.
@Allan Tidgwell Well, Venkman was a kinda of a sleezy con artist, so his kind an anti-hero in a way. But Winston felt more like a everyman character as well as surrogate for the audience.
@@moonlitebrite9317 Mmmm.... while I definitely am on the same _page_ with you, I don't fully agree. The OG GBs _were_ working class, but not "Anti-heroes", ore so than "Good natured goofs whom everybody could relate to". That "unextraordinary hero" vibe is _precisely_ what made them such good Saturday Morning Kids fare. We do agree that the female cast didn't need to be clones, but I was speaking more about the perspective of the comedy; because guy friendships and sensibilities simply play off each other differently, it lends itself more seamlessly to slapstick and absurdist comedy than those around female protagonists, which tends to be more dialogue or situation driven. We also agree that each character needed more fleshing out in the new version, seeming more like tropes than real people.
Honestly, did you _buy_ the friendship between the two main scientists? Lesley Jones could be engaging enough on screen, but the antics of her and McKinney , tough interesting, came off as "hitting points" in a script more than "natural quirks of a real person." Concurrently, the original trio _Seemed_ like genuine college buddies whom had known each other for years; it just felt more organic and easily authentic by comparison. But, again, you do see that more natural ease of interaction in all guys dynamic than you do with all girls. Also, if you look at it, low-key.... every male (the agents, the Mayor, of course Chris Hemsworth and the villain) save the Uncle character was either oblivious, an idiot or evil. Concurrently, Janine, Dana, the experiment girl, even the hot blond at Lewis' party all seemed like real enough people in the first film, even if they fell into a damsel in distress or support role. We don't get that here.
@Allan Tidgwell Well, to me Venkman becomes less sleazy as the film progresses. Someone once compared Venkman with Han Solo in ANH, in which you have a character who's disinterested in the fantastical mumbo jumbo, but then have a change of heart when they realize there are genuine stakes involved. And I wholeheartedly agree with this comparison as Venkman is the only character who has anything resembling an arc.
Furthermore, I never say everyman as a contrast to the paragon, I thought the anti-hero was more of contrast to the "boyscout" archetype.
"Maybe he's, like, the inverse of the Ghostbusters, a male tech wiz who runs a giant telecommunications conglomerate. Only, you know, he's evil. Like every one of those a-holes"
So true. Also I saw that sneaky swing at Zuckerburg, lmao.
i wouldve put the tool that runs Twitter, but thats me
What has zuckerberg done thets evil? Does anyone have an actual answer or are people just going to continue incorrectly assuming that hes evil for absolutely no reason
@@CharaDreemurr15243 genuinely not evil, people are just whining over something so petty at that point
@@coletrainhetrick ._. Look at what you are debating about right now. Dude, it is a goddamn joke in a video that is primarily opinion-based. Who cares?
@@CharaDreemurr15243 except I am perfectly fine with what he did, I'm not okay with YOU who turned it from a joke to something you actually agree with
Oh no, Rob. You're missing the point here. The characterization in this here movie is simply perfect. It's spotless, top-notch, numero uno.
For you see, in Hollywoodland, "female" is a personality.
If it was made like 20 years ago with a better script and with a better cast like Sigourney Weaver, Susan Sarandon, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Geena Davis, then it probably would've been decent enough.
You missed out on the fact that almost EVERY other male cast member were roles that made the men stupid. It gave the impression that the film also had misandrist leanings. They also turned the film into a "political feminist movement" that backfired, badly. They should have adapted Extreme Ghostbusters into a live action film. Every single diversity checklist was ticked off perfectly in Extreme Ghostbusters. It even had a DISABLED Ghostbuster member and he still kicked more ass than Ghosbusters 2016 ever could! Face it, Ghostbusters 2016 was a failed cash-grab marketing ploy.
I just want to point out; yes, the OG film was edgier, but what really stands out after all these years is that it had very sophisticated, subtle writing & acting. As a film analyst, you can appreciate the chemistry between the characters, and the subtlety of the (improved!) dialogue. It was like the Marx Bros meets 'The Haunting'. (the original)
The original Ghostbusters film came out when I was 3. My grandparents took me and my 5 year old brother to see it in the theatre.
It was a soulless cash grab attempt, aiming more on agenda than good writing. So much so that no ammount of talent could fix it. There, saved you 15 minutes
What is it about pushing an agenda that makes the work suffer in quality?
Well said.
One of the big problems with this movie was that it was too focused on driving the "Men are scum" bandwagon rather than focus on giving a good story with good fleshed out characters as every male character in this movie was written as either an idiot or a scumbag just to make the female characters look good.
It's crazy how they said that people are sexist towards women for not liking GB2016 when it was this movie that was sexist towards men.
i think that putting only women was not a scenaristic move but a feminist move
Wait, how can you have an issue with the Master of Disguise? That movie showed us Black Market EBAY
I guess he just wasn't turtley enough for the turtle club.
Honestly for what it is supposed to be Master of Disguise is a really fun movie! I might he bias tho as it's both one of my wife's guilty pleasures and was one of the last movies my sister recommended to me before she passed. Both of them admit(ted) it's stupid fun, but it does stupid funny very well!
I consider it blasphemy that he thinks Master of Disguise is a worse movie than this dumpster fire.
They forever screwed up Ghostbusters 2016 by putting the worst trailer ever. That fueled the imagination fire even bigger. The film wasnt as nearly as bad as the trailer.
Correct, the film was actually alot worse.
The movie was dead on arrival, you can’t capture the magic that the 1984 Ghostbusters movie did. James Rolfe the AVGN said it was a lightning in the bottle.
especially when you tell the fans of the original IP to "f^$@ off" and the like.
Pretty much, @@otbaht. I really hated how men were treated like sex objects, used, abused, and otherwise uninteresting characters. I also absolutely detested how the original Ghostbusters made mere cameos as not their characters, but some sort of bizarre failed fourth wall breaking nonsense. The final boss fight of the movie was building up to be something fricken awesome! Whoo! At least until the Ghostbusters's emblem went from a literal cartoon in their version of real life to that CGI ghost monster that got crotch shot multiple times. Ugh... That and all of the Ghostbuster (2016) teammates were a bunch of horny idiots who had virtually no good lines nor jokes at any given time as well.
@@otbaht anytime a movie attacks it’s own moviegoers, that always backfires!
@Allan Tidgwell it will be okay, but it’s not going to be a masterpiece like the 1984 Ghostbusters, especially with comedies now can’t even make certain jokes anymore without some people getting outraged.
@Allan Tidgwell I just want a good sequel at least on the same level as Ghostbusters II which I don’t think was bad.
The problem wasn't that they were women, the problem is that they remade Ghostbusters in the first place. Am I the only one in the universe that gets this?
have them be the Ghostbusters of Chicago
No New York iconography
And have it be canonical to the original
, they could have said something along the lines of yeah they merchandise the shit out of these guys
So now they're all around the world.
Where the Freaks and Geeks go to
And here we are ghostbusters Chicago division
No you’re not.
I remember in the early days of this remake craze (mid 2000s) that some people said there would eventually be a remake of Ghostbusters, and that it was going to suck. Although they said the same about Back To The Future and we're still waiting for that one, maybe Ghostbusters was enough of a fiasco to warn them off. They were right about Robocop though.
I'm honestly not sure if this counts as a remake or not. It's no sequel, but it's also a very different movie. It's barely even the same premise. Reboot counts, it's just that it throws out too much stuff to call a remake.
@@AusSP It's a remake. If feige was honest about it might have actually got less hate. It's practically beat for beat the same movie as the original with almost the same plot. The only difference is the ghost conjurer is alive NOW and not the 20s.
Opening “don’t hate me for my opinion, but if you have this opinion you’re stupid”
I'm all for gender equality, but gender swapping is not the best way to do it, in my opinion. If women really want to show empowerment, there should be brand new movies and franchises created for them the way older franchises with male leads were made like Ghostbusters and Indiana Jones. It worked for Jennifer Lawrence and the Hunger Game series, I'm sure it can work for other women too
Basically. My problem with all this gender swapping stuff ain't that it's bad, but it's not needed. Many that have done it do it just to get onto the trend. But they're not actually doing anything new with it. Aside from the character of Holtzmann who I thought was awesome and a few scenes (Melissa Mccarthy being possessed and the concert) I remember very little
Resident Evil was way ahead of it's time for women empowerment and most people don't even mention it in conversation about feminism, shows their agenda
@@TonyHavenMusic RE did it so good no one questions it. Think thats why many media like it work while those trying to shove it down your throat dont regarding this topic, it tries to make it natural
If there's one thing Fate/Stay Night and its many spin-offs have taught me, it's that gender-swapping can actually work really well, in the right context. Saber is one of the most prominent characters in all of fiction despite the fact that she's supposed to be King Arthur, a character previously established as a male in literally *EVERY* story that has ever been made about the character, but rather than make her just King Arthur but a girl, they made her an actual character with fantastic motivations and a great personality.
That would require actual work and talent though
I'm going to be the master of disguise?
I'm going to be the master of disguise!
I'm going to be the master of disguise!
I'm going to be the master o...
*Smacks Ninjor* "Enough!"
Turtle
Turtle
Turtle
🐢🐢🐢🐢
Am I not turtlely enough for the turtle club?🐢🐢🐢
The point about the whole movie being cartoonish is actually make sense. I was rewatching The real Ghostbusters 80s cartoon some time ago and noticed that it represented some realistic life references in earlier seasons and I found it interesting.
And now I think it's really a bit weird that there's actually a Ghostbusters movie more cartoonish and less serious than the actual oldschool cartoon lmao
The main problem this movie has is that they ONLY foccued on the "female-power", nostalgia factor and they want "every scene to be a meme"......so they completely forgot to make a movie
"Few people seem to have a problem with the fact that [Leslie Jones'] role was a giant stereotype". Well, I have always had that problem with her. Has she EVER played a different character, other than "loud black woman" in a comedy role? I have never found her style of humor to be entertaining at all, its just her being loud and obnoxious all the time. She just yells everything, and gets mad about everything, its dumb. She always plays the same stereotype, and her skits on SNL actually move back race relations every time they are on.
Yes! The character of Winston in the original was just THAT... a character who happened to be black... nothing more, nothing less... Leslie Jones was 'I'm a black woman therefore I must act like this'
THE WRITERS!!!!!!!!
I always blame behind the scenes. Actors are just given a script and they do what they can with schlock.
True. Some of the leading ladies have actually been in good movies, and they have proven themselves to be really talented actresses. When you don’t give your actors and actresses any direction or a well written script, however, it doesn’t matter how good they are. The movie will still suck. It’s just a waste of their talents.
Film in a collaborative project. It's hard to blame ONE group when we have no idea. Maybe half of the tone was influenced by studio notes, maybe the writers were fine but the way the director and actors interpreted the writing made it all look really lame. I've read some amazing scenes in books, only to see those scenes look terribly dumb on screen.
In writing, you can absorb yourself in an introspection while in film you can absorb yourself in visuals, but neither are totally dominated by the one sense. Look at Stephen King novels vs their film adaptations... And I mean actually read a Stephen King book. Not trying to say he's an amazing writer, I'm just saying the effect his writing has on you can be so incredibly different than the films inspired by his work.
It's honestly really interesting to me! I love how creativity and art can change and manifest itself into something completely unrecognizable, despite being about the same stuff.
The writers can only do so much. The studio executives lay out a few points they want covered. The writers provide a script according to it. Then the director and the casterpick the actors based on how they want the characters in the script portrayed. Depending on the director they maybe want some scenes rewritten, reordered etc.
My point is: If the villain was a bad archetype, it is probably because the studio thought it would resonate with the intended audience.
If the secretary was an actual meathead instead of what Rob suggested, the studio envisioned the role as just for eye candy.
If the roles don't fit the actors, but the roles are technically well written, it is the casting director's fault.
You are right with your statement, that when writers craft bad dialogue the actors can only do so much. But the job of the writers is to weave what is basically just a plot into an engaging story.
@@HeresorLegacy I certainly wouldn’t put all the blame on the writers, but they certainly deserve some of the blame. Frankly, in the case of this movie, I think there is plenty of blame to go around. The writers, the director, the studio, all had a hand in making this a bad movie.
The worst thing for a movie is to be meh. Really bad movies can make you laugh at their incompetence. This was just kinda “ok that existed”.
I don't think it made me laugh once, or even smile. Or care.
What a waste.
"Ok that existed" is my exact thoughts on the movie.
Because everyone absolutely despised the movie I decided it was the movie I wanted to watch when a friend let me pick a movie to watch.
I wanted to see if it was as bad as everyone said it was.
When I watched it I didn't think it was a terrible movie but I didn't think it was a good movie either. It just made me emotionless because it was so meh.
Stop downplaying a shitty movie in a beloved franchise.
In nutshell, they made the same mistake the Stars Wars sequels did. Not thinking outside of the box enough and relying too hard on nostalgia callbacks.
The star wars prequels were so bad that they were good. Ghostbusters (reboot) was just bad.
Stop trying to defend this movie in any way.
Also; I KNOW I'm not the only one who still likes the 2nd movie! At least the chemistry between actors/characters is still there, and so is the dialogue! And in my opinion, at least, the changes that were made weren't that obvious, and still gelled with the rest of the film. And besides, even if they WERE trying to turn it into the cartoon... well, WHAT A CARTOON! (The reboot on the other hand... I can't defend that.)
I will definitely take Cat in the Hat over this, but I will also definitely take this over Son of the Mask.
From what I've heard about the new He Man cartoon, Kevin Smith did not learn from the mistakes of this film, Nor have Marvel & DC.
I still havent got around to seeing the movie lol. I just wasnt interested so I didn't watch. My girlfriend went to see it before me, asked her if it was any good, and her words to me "Don;t bother" :P
Smart girlfriend. She’s right. Don’t bother with it.
@@megalodon7916 I would say bother with it, it's one of the better comedies from the last few years
@@leob4403 Compared to what?
The movie is incredibly meh. I don't hate it or like it. It's just a thing that happened.
@@leob4403 Yeah compared to what? The whole queef joke sums up how funny it was. That summary is eh that's not funny.
honestly a majority of the hate for this movie i personally think is all of the drama and bullshit that surrounded this movie, from people being called sexist and what not if they didnt go see it, people being called misogynist if they said the movie looked bad, AVGN being attacked simply because he said he didnt want to see the movie and so on, thats what i think alot of the hate comes from and rightfully so
These 4 women have zero chemistry let’s be honest. They never felt like a team and that’s what made this movie a chore to sit through
Because they pushed a political agenda using something very, very near and dear to many people's hearts. It's not about it being a bad movie, it's about the Ghostbusters name merely being used as a podium.
Also a couple cringy jokes and effects.
Every story has an agenda, social or political. The ORIGINAL Ghostbusters had a social agenda!
Why such a wet blanket over this?
@@ShadowSonic2 because it's not the best way to get viewers. Blaming all men for its failure and it hurt more in its franchise and the blueray and DVD sells after
The original was very economically conservative, pro-Reaganomics and anti-regulation. To say that Ghostbusters has never been political is just factually wrong.
@@ShadowSonic2 the only agenda that a film should have is simply being good, but nowadays if you don't like a movie you're called ists and isms
@@bboysoulzero Considering the truly toxic and disgusting things men were saying about the movie and the cast before it came out, I don't blame Feig for protecting his actors.
red letter did a great version on why it failed
RLM are Hacks.
The Critical Drinker did too with just one scene from the original and the 2016 one
@@carybeweary7209 Out of context scene compares. Brilliant...
@@ShadowSonic2 actually no it is in context,you Jabroni
The original is when they're first using the proton packs
The one from 2016 is when they're trying to also use the proton packs
I love this. Someone giving a balanced opinion, even if it is mostly negative.
It isn't the worst film, it's not good, but I've seen far worse.
Some people say it was because they were all women, but that is silly. The reason it failed is because everyone tried to be the murray. There was nothing subtle, no proper build up to the punch lines. Nothing dramatic. It was just badly written and acted. Which is odd considering the actors in it were good in their own rights, just not here.
You could change only the genders of the main four and adjust the pronouns in the script and still end up with a bland, forgettable popcorn muncher of a movie. The writing is the biggest problem.
This channel is one of the few things that is good about 2020
Im not all that interested in ghostbusters if im honest.
But i can tell that a movie is boring just by seeing the trailer
Trailers are bullshit one way or the other and don't do the actual movie justice. All the reason in the world to ignore trailers and teasers. See NC's coverage of Treasure Planet to see what I mean.
3 word summation: It wasn't funny.
8 word summation: I didn't care what happened to these people.
Yup
True
To quote Yahtzee from his review of a Wolfenstein game (I forget which one): "All these NPCs fill me with apathy, am I supposed to care if they die?"
Kate McKinnon was the only memorable person in the movie, including that badass scene with her and the ecto guns. Plus Extreme Ghostbusters was a lot better than Ghostbusters 2016.
How can I say that I agree with everything that you laid on the table? If I'm gonna be honest, a big challenge was pretty much rewriting Ghostbusters 2, so for this one, it doesn't surprise me. When I saw the video about Ghostbusters 2 I was screaming "YES, YES, YES!!!!" at every new and returning element you added to the story. Making it a furthering piece and not a reimagining piece. There's a lot to tackle in this movie, and there's so much that just went wrong. After looking deeper into the situation it seemed like GB 3 was going to be made but Sony's chairman at the time hijacked the project and gave the movie to Paul Fieg instead. I can go on record as saying I'm probably one of the biggest 16-year-old fans of Ghostbusters out there. Master of trivia, I know the scripts line for line, and I know so much about the history of these movies. I was very disappointed that I didn't get to see Ghostbusters: Afterlife this summer as it piqued my interest greatly. Anyway, going back to this video, I agree with every character change, mostly Leslie Jones's character playing the Ray Stantz "heart" of the team. She has that essence to her. This movie really made me wonder why. The entire time my head was just thinking why. Why reboot it? Why not have everyone reprise their roles? Why hijack it? I'm a girl myself, and to me, it was never about the women. I have no trouble admitting women are funny. I just think that this movie was walking on the "we're women and if you say anything to critique us you're a misogynist" crutch, and that's how it stayed. Long story short, as I tend to ramble about subjects I am passionate about, thank you. Thank you for giving insight on what went wrong and reflecting on how we could have made it work.
Why Do we keep getting reboots no one is asking for! No More reboots!
The new ghostbusters 2021 looks good though. I’m more interested in seeing that one then I was for this one.
Is it still coming out this year or did it get bumped to 2021?
@@Mrtfarrugia My bad it was moved to May 5th, 2021
It looks like a bad crossover between stranger things and power rangers. Oh and they replace the cast with kids, oh yeah replacing the jerkworks con artists we love in the original with a bunch of boring role models is bad, but replacing them with a bunch of "KIDZ RULEZ" brats Is good? Yeah next time tell me if putting a kid in blues brothers 2000 was a good idea....
They deliberately said in the Ghostbusters: After Math trailer "there hasn't been a ghost sighting in 30 years"... oooof!
Yes it's true, the original Ghostbusters is not a kids movie, nevertheless it didn't stop us from watching it as kids. Though I have to admit some jokes like the ghost BJ and "We get this guy laid we won't have any trouble" went right over my head until I was a teen.
And Stay Puft was a Hundred Feet Tall, not Sixty.
The keyboard warrior thing was manufactured. You DO get that right? It was aaaaaaaall fake. They would put shit out there that was purposefully stupid under bot accounts arguing for and against, then let us feed off it. The main villain is a basement dwelling troll. Gee, I wonder why they started a massive flame war to get you worked up over trolls.
Also, the script didn’t do anything to these actresses. There was no script. For real. 80%+ improv means there’s no dialog written, just a frame of what needs to happen.
The one magic fix to this movie is: write a fucking script.
You know what’s really sad about this movie is that the characters can be written so well. In the comics when the crossover with the original movie ghostbusters they are actually funny and have character. The movie was honestly just happy with checking a few boxes than actually giving us character
Top three ways to fix this movie
1.Don’t make it
2. Get rid of Melissa McCarthy
3. Stop reminding me about the original that I’d rather be watching by rehashing the same crap with the OG cameos
"If I was handed a blank check..." I hope the next episode starts with "I would cash out as much as possible, run away and not bother the franchise anymore."
Hating this film makes you a basement dweller? Dumb take. The women won't sleep with you for attacking the critics.
Vocal minority didn't want a female led Ghostbusters? That's a blatant lie. Most people wanted the original cast. Did Paul pay you off?
Criticise the movie and this keyboard warrior will call you a keyboard warrior 🤡🤡🤡 pure projection.
If they made a live action Extreme Ghostbusters movie, my money would be gone.
It didn't work because they tried to make a fake version of a really real fun movie
The original had a great balance of comedy and horror. The 2016 movie gave me one or two scenes that made me chuckle and zero scares. And yeah, I saw the original as a kid. Raise your hand if you didn't.
Is this a discussion that still needs to be had?
I showed this version to my 5 year old daughter and she really liked it asked to watch it again and again. Then I showed her the original and she thought that it was better than new one. Now she only asks to watch the original. She is going to have her mind blown when she sees the cartoon. Lol
Remember those awful advertisements, by calling everyone sexist who isn't watching that movie
They never said that.
It’s the politics surrounding the movie that angered people.
Replace the villain with a government project trying to weaponize ghosts and it goes wrong. Classic doesn't always overused.
It failed because they made it a woke joke by SNL skit writers. The film was AND still is trash. Really looking forward to Ghostbusters Afterlife!! NOW THATS A GHOSTBUSTER FILM SHOULD BE!
Ghostbusters 2016: A Cure for Insomnia
It was assembled out of spite to its own audience.
First episode of Fanscription I've seen, and honestly I'm excited for the conclusion of this episode. I hope they don't leave us hanging.
This is the one that they said they didn't make for men.. and then were mad that men didn't go to see it. This is modern day feminist logic. Tell men it's not for them, then blame them for it failing when they don't go to see it. Why not blame the feminists that you made the movie for, who didn't come out massively to support the movie? Oh right, because that would make sense!
Any movie with an Agenda, usually is poorly done and fails. Make a movie because you truly love making good movies and are good at your job... and usually it does well. How about that? Make a good movie, and it does well... make a terrible movie that tries to push an agenda... trying to force it on people.. and somehow people don't go to see it. How shocking!!!!?!? Who could have foreseen this? Oh wait, everyone.
"This movie has a weird obsession with Chris Hemsworth and I just don't get it."
Look at Paul Feig. Take one good look at the guy. Then say that again.
Does Paul make your gaydar go off or something? If so, mine might be malfunctioning.
There's no problem with the Ghostbusters being women, the problem is all the feminist propaganda
i would say yes Ghotbusters 2016 was way worse than master of disguise, just saying.
5:05-5:08 I think what you're trying to say is that I don't think it's the fact that they needed a Winston character, it's the fact that they needed a black person. Because "apparently" you can't have a ghostbusters team without a black person because Winston was the only member who was black and Winston was the only character who was black. So apparently this movie didn't see Winston as a character, they only saw him as "the black guy". So maybe they just hired Leslie Jones because they needed a Winston. Not a character Winston, but as Winston the black guy. And because she's black, she could only be Winston because Winston was black. That's like making a Spider-Verse movie and hiring Trevor Noah or Kevin Hart to play Miles Morales. Because Miles is black and their black. You can't just put them in a Spider-Man suit and then BOOM, you got yourself Miles Morales.