Want to help support this channel? Check out my books on Amazon: www.amazon.com/Will-Jordan/e/B00BCO7SA8/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_ebooks_1 Subscribe on Patreon: www.patreon.com/TheCriticalDrinker Subscribe on Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/the-critical-drinker
16 ... seems as though everyone wanted to be Venkman, with it's nonchalant and glib repartee. Kate McKinnon's character's name is even similar. Not for one second believe, that her name, Holtzmann, isn't drawing the comparison between the 2. She's also got a bit of Egon in her. I heard it when I typed it. Not what I meant. The whole were not phased by any of this dialogue and reactions, is nothing but woke signaling. You can't show a female even being slightly concerned about the "power of a particle accelerator" Because someone would bitch n moan, that's it's furthering the patriarchal, and misogynistic view men have, thats women are scared by anything technical, and sciencey.
Honestly. Not to mention the scene(when testing the packs), imo, was clunky. Every action seemed in a way accented. Like it was trying to show us an emotion/atmosphere was trying to be conveyed, but was so amateurish. An example when the two ladies backed away when the machine was turned on. They did it to show that they were worried for their safety and took a precautionary step back. It felt so forced and looked, like an excessively dramatized movement. In the original it was suttle and seamless. The guy casually moved over as close to the elvator wall as possible. He didn't need to use an entire scene change to convey it, or a zoom in on his face, just a simple move over. Simplicity.
@@Rob.N. Or, in other words, if you tell me how I'm supposed to feel about a scene, instead of the scene actually making me feel that way, you're doing it wrong.
@@0x777 @Robert Neal : Yes as I remember the definition of cheesy on Urban Dictionary some years back. _Celine Dion is cheesy because her lyrics, timbre, key changes, and swelling orchestral accompaniment telegraph 'i want you to be moved' instead of moving you._ I think it kind of applies here
Not surprising though since the director, who also co-wrote the script, didn't even want to do it. He had turned it down several times. So it wasn't exactly a passion project.
I just rewatched the original with my daughter. One thing that stuck out to me is the power of certain scenes like you said. One of the other really moving scenes is when the Ghostbusters get let out of jail by the mayor and they have to regroup for the final battle at Dana’s apartment. The music, “Saving the Day”, Ecto 1 being escorted by the cops down 5th avenue, the whole city rallying behind them is just so emotionally powerful without throwing a ton of CGI and corny jokes at you. Movies today don’t know how to take their time with things like this to build a scene and draw emotion, rather they fire off a million things at once for the short attention span person and hope you’ll just be in awe of the pretty lights.
That's the difference: writers used to ask themselves if they'd "earned" the emotional payoff of a scene. Now that they're pushing certain social narratives they feel entitled it.
@@michaelsolis4801 i only saw a couple scenes from Ghostbusters 2016 and i could feel myself getting dumber just from the 10 minutes of footage i saw on TV when scrolling through channels.
1:08 I like that Ray and Egon respect the power of the proton packs enough to be visibly uncomfortable around them. These things are DANGEROUS. In "Ghostbusters 2016" one team member is flying around, clearly not in control of an "unlicensed nuclear accelerator" while everyone else is standing around, making jokey-jokes when they could be incinerated at any moment. You should not be acting this way if you know what your equipment can do!
That's the point. Bad writing. In the original, comedy is consistent with the purpose of the scene... let's tell the audience why they have that weird high-tech backpack. Which is a dangerous nuclear device. Comedy comes from them being uneasy with it. Which is a totally normal reaction. In the remake, the characters w/o any explation are totally chill about it. I mean in the original it's dangerous just turning the accelerator on. In the sequel two character at first look concerned (it's the writers' nod to the original scene, but w/o understanding it) then are cool when it goes totally out of control. The whole scene makes no sense. Is it dangerous or is it not? Are the characters worried or are they not? 2 minutes + of screentime spent to establish nothing. Or worse, to establish confusion.
@@TheMule71 Yup. This. Egon explains what these things are and even mentions why it's so dangerous to cross the streams. ("try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light"). The remake focuses on the awful physical comedy and any questions about the proton packs themselves remain unanswered. So are these things dangerous or not? Well, we don't know, so we don't care because we don't know what the stakes are.
Also she would have fried herself and her friends flailing around. Plus it was corny slapstick for cheap laughs. Imagine if the original ghostbusters had a scene like that? It would have been terrible.
That's basically every movie today which is why everything is 2:45 instead of 90-1:50. That and action scenes go on and on and on because CGI jacking off.
@@chcarroll5164what the fuck? Yes obviously a person in the movie who's clearly a main character has fucking lines and a name? Are you just 12 or are you retarded? Just Google it 😂
@@starlet12321 Funny that you mentioned that. I had completely forgotten that that thing existed. If it wasn't for your reply I hadn't even noticed that it has already been released...
Original was pretty shit, but this one was definitely funnier and i dont know why old movies are not that rewatchable, the newer movies, you can put them on rewind and keep watching without getting sick of the same movie but thats just me toh.
"I blame myself" "so do I" - it seems like an important part of the characters is to have distinctive enough personalities that even though they're saying the same thing it has very different connotations
Exactly. Out of context, one would probably assume the character is saying “So do I (I also blame myself)”, but the way Murray plays Venkman, we know he’s actually saying “So do I (I also blame you)”
I didn't go see it because the director was interviewed on national TV the day before release and said " If you don't go to see it, your a misogynist." That ended any desire to see it for me.
Can you link it? I looked everywhere and couldn't find anything where he said this, not in video clips or articles. Either you misheard something he said or your memory retroactively inserted his response (to the backlash after the release) as if it was something he said before the premiere. Here's a pre-movie release article that comes the closest to him saying something about the gender wars, but the context reveals his sentiments are excitement for little girls to see the movie: “I wanted for little girls to be able to see themselves up on the screen,” Feig says. “The original one exists, so you can see boys doing it, but how fun for girls to have this experience!” That’s why he pushed so hard for new Ghostbusters action figures. “There was some resistance,” he says, “because there’s a fear that boys wouldn’t buy toys from a movie starring girls. But guys have such great feelings of nostalgia because the original had a lot of gear. I’d like girls to be able to put on a proton pack and run around.” www.vulture.com/2016/07/paul-feig-ghostbusters-reboot-c-v-r.html
@@YourMajesty143 That's one of the issues. You build up an audience, then years later, some moron copies you, and remakes your thing just because yours is no longer "modern", without any genuine idea of how it should be executed. But there's your good old audience, and they at first think there's gonna be more to what you've created. Only to realise it's not even been actually made for them, it's only a trap with the same title luring them in. The only idea here was to modernize it as well, and incorporate the modern norm. Apart from that, little to no original ideas added. Just modern CGI (modern CGI is still sh*t though...) and women instead of men, just because fEmInIsM. Meanwhile they say how feminism is not about raising women's rights ABOVE men's, but to equalize rights for a good reason; so that no one has to suffer their loss of "autonomy", which sounds fine, but then... kid me not, if that's really true, the very advertisers misunderstand what they advertise.
@@formulasg6828 exactly. Wtf was Elizabeth Banks on? There are plenty of female led movies that men love lol. Wonder Woman, Aliens, Terminator, Terminator 2. She was clearly just reaching. Just because men don’t like her movie doesn’t make them misogynistic
Better explanation would have been Kate: "so I condensed what we used in the subway to this portable version you can wear on your back" Melissa: "so you put a nuclear bomb in a backpack" Kate: "yeah, that sounds way cooler when you say it like that"
@@Hirnlego999what does that have to do with this comment? Theres going to be crazy people who attack any new thing lol. Countless fans boycotted the star trek remake but it still did phenomonally. Hell butthurt fans boycotted star wars episode 1, 2 and 3. What does that have to do with gender?
@@yderga8707 Some of the hatred is gender based, that's the point. Go woke, go broke, it means essentially that do not pander to other audiences...just pander to me. Even suggestions that say James Bond turns into Jane Bond makes a lot of people really nervous which can be seen in the number of comments, videos and likes. I'm not saying that all of it is like this, nor do I think companies do it because they care about diversity (it's all about money).. Context is often also lost, lots of manbabies cried about women ruling in later GoT seasons and they don't seem to even understand that two of the women Cersei and Dany are all bad guys.
@@Hirnlego999 I agree that it's stupid to hate something simply because of a gender or race change without giving it a sporting chance. And I'm sure there was a great number of people who didnt go see this film simply because it was a mostly female cast. To me that wasnt the issue, it was partly the issues stated in the video, and some others including the off putting messages from the director. The reason I mentioned that this list didnt include gender was because of the producers that make bad female centric movies and blame it on men, some preemptively make assumptions their movie will do badly because men are sexist, meanwhile we have a plethora of films containing female leading roles that have male support like kill bill, wonder woman, alien. Personally speaking I get more excited to see a GOOD female lead than a good male lead at this point. But when I start hearing the directors talk about how thr movie isnt for men, and how itll probably fail because it's a female cast, it genuinely makes me not want to see the film, like birds of prey, which actually ended up being a decent film. At the end of the day, producers need to stop this moronic way of pandering and simply focus on good storytelling and good writing, regardless of gender, color or race.
@@yderga8707 "we have a plethora of films containing female leading roles that have male support like kill bill, wonder woman, alien. " There are examples of course, but they are all quite few in numbers in comparison. At least the 80s muscle macho man died out and a lot of the newer heroes are more brainiac. Birds of prey I didn't like but it was not a serious movie at all, she starts up early by blowing up a major factory and likely getting a huge number of people killed just there, so she isn't exactly a role model or anything. Then the movie made the mistake of bringing in too much her gang, and many of them don't seem to be remarkable at all in many ways. I mean the girl just accidentally pick pocketed the wrong person. And one can sort of fight, and scream? Meh. Here I'd rather see her in a role like Joker, or have him meet her in Joker 2 at the asylum, and perhaps dr Strange. Keep things slow and perhaps only in the third movie make him escape, perhaps he has learned a lot from other criminals and this could be used further as a societal error shone light upon, the system makes them worse. I don't think the pandering will end generally, this is just companies trying to reach out to larger markets, obviously Disney has wanted to make SW into something big in China but so far they have failed. There's of course this thing about trying too hard, people can call out the bluff so speak. But also in general, I don't mind if things are shook up a bit, they already for instance got rid of some of Bond's bad habits and what he does in one movie is basically a rape by today's definition, that shit needs to change. Otherwise it seems everyone wants to be pandered to which to me is odd as i was told in various ways as a kid that one should try to live in other people's shoes. I had a toy Yoda, it wasn't because he was like me, I didn't speak like he did and certainly didn't look like him, I liked him because he had some form of heart and was...different.
Funny thing is, I didn't even remember the 2016 scene until watching this. The 2016 scene actually achieves the opposite of what it sets out to do: three characters stood nearby with bemused expressions as proton streams go flying wildly around that alleyway. Not concerned at all about what will happen if they get hit by a proton beam... hardly convinces me the proton packs are dangerous.
Right! And not caring at all that their 'friend' is flying around bouncing off stuff with her legs dangerously close to the beam. If I had friends like that, I'd definitely not be friends anymore afterwards.
The movie's today keep going with this inconsequential gag where they should have broken bones or died but they just get up like a drunk girl at a party.
The 2016 scene looks like a parody of the old scene, in the same way there are movies mocking twilight, LOTR or 300... Like -being a low-budget, low-quality movie on purpose to make people laugh... Embarassing xD
And, although I’m no expert, I coulda swore that one chick said you press the trigger button to shoot the target? Don’t buttons have springs, where they come back when you let go, as opposed to a switch, where it stays on? My Nikon F’s have buttons. It’s not like I go to take a picture & it burns up the whole roll whether I like it or not. And even if it did, it wouldn’t also slice my feet off & vaporize bystanders. But then, I’m also not using it to make a movie where that’s all I’ve got cos it’s weapons-grade shit.
Original Explanation: "We are basically walking nuclear bombs." 2016 Explanation: "We know what we are talking about, and the Viewers don't need to." Like wtf.
I like Star Trek. I'm used to listen to a lot of technobabble. The way they use this kind of dialogue here makes them sound like stupid frauds, not intelligent scientists.
I listened to a lot of his older videos and the shift from analytical intellectual to full blown drunken critic seems to have happened around the Captain Marvel video. Can't imagine why.
Classic elevator scene. Let's not also forget the "successful test" on the housekeeping lady's cart..."What the hell are you guys doin'?!" "Sorry." "Sorry, that was my fault". "We thought you were someone else". CLASSIC!"I think we should split up.""Yeah, we can do more damage that way". I flippin' cry when I watch this scene--clear down into the ballroom..."Whoa, oh, whoa, oh, oh--nice shootin', Tex!"'84 GB is such a perfect movie.
The Proton Pack managed to destroy the paper ghost but was harmless against everthing else it hit and no one was running for cover. Strange. This was a movie I passed on.
Never forget what the actor Anthony Mackie said when he talked about how the studios are only really making films for '16 year olds and China'. That is the target audience. It is not us.
@@i_am_well nah mate, i reckon i nailed "describing the star wars SW better on 'thor skywalkers' video about how "jj abrams thinks he can finish the story he started despite the last jedi"............... where i wrote: i STILL don't know the story, aside from: Rebels: "look-out! bad guys!" fans: "who are they?" story: "don't know." rey: "who am i?" story: "don't know." fans: "who's snoke?" ryan: "your theory sucks." fans: "MY theory..?? Aren't YOU the guy who is supposed to......." story: "hey- luke left us a map in case we need him." Luke: "leave me alone, i came here to die." fans: "..........................." everyone who is not ryan johnson: "w........... wait.... what??" ryan: "exactly!!... how subverted do you feel? Clever, right?" fans who care if the story makes sense: "... uh .................. not...... really.......... kinda POINTLESS actually, both figuratively and literally..." disney: "you are sexist." soon to be ex-fans: "...... uh................... WHAT??!?......" what. a. cliffhanger!! :P
A lot of the jokes in this film goes for this rule: "If it's not funny, say it louder until it's funny". Does it work? No, but it's significantly more irritating.
Lol saying it louder is one of the core tenets taught at the Amy Schumer / Melissa McCarthy school of not funny acting. Also taught in the curriculum is shit timing, joke theft / cryptomnesia, and repeating an already unfunny joke until the audience pity laughs to silence.
@@rawx485 I tried to watch 10 minutes of Amy Schumer to see if there was a reason she keeps getting specials on Netflix. I sat through the entire thing without even o ce smiling. Nothing she said was funny, fart jokes, looking at the audience with a "you're supposed to laugh now face" and weird tonality that goes through the paces but the punchlines were just so weak and average it just sounded like speaking. She's probably a lovely person but dang she's not funny at all.
@@JDTonkleton nah Rock had social commentary that surpassed the level of L Black, J Seinfeld and J Carland with better packaging ans deliver Dane Cook is a better example of repeat it until it’s funny while getting louder and making noises and faces
1984: "We're each wearing an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on our back." The audience knows what nuclear power is, coupled with the fact it's unlicensed, it definitely sounds dangerous. 2016: *techno-babble and made up words* The audience has no frame of reference for what any of this means so it doesn't sound dangerous, just technically complicated. The explanation doesn't land anywhere near as effectively.
I wonder if part of that might have to do with more discomfort around nuclear power in the culture in general. There have been a number of high-profile incidents around nuclear power in the years since the original Ghostbusters (Chernobyl comes to mind, in 1986) that may have made it harder to stomach the casual use of it in films. Note that Spiderman in all the live action films no longer gets his powers from a radioactive spider, but a genetically-modified one, and how the Indiana Jones 4 fridge scene was so poorly received. So they substitute a techno-babble explanation. Let's see how Afterlife explains the proton packs, because somehow I doubt they're going to let kids use them onscreen if they are associated with nuclear energy.
@@kateorgera5907 how do you get all that from a movie where a group of people fight 'ghosts', it's fictional, the fact that they mentioned nuclear power at all is just a way of try to let the audience know its dangerous to the 'characters'
@Jurassic Hero probably because people incorrectly categorize the original ghostbusters movie. they have silly jokes and pratfalls due to people thinking of ghostbusters as a comedy. its not a comedy with some scary bits, its scary movie with some moments of comedic levity. GB 1984 is played straight for most of its run time with the occassional one liner or quip from Peter. while as GB 2016 is just a string of unfunny comedy sketches loosely tied together. this is why the depiction of the proton stream is so widely different.
Notice how the old movie felt more “possible and realistic” because of the way dialogue was especially how they acted like how anyone would act in certain situations
When Egon switches on Ray’s pack, his timing for backing away from it is perfect. He gives it a beat before slowly backing into Venkman and the wall. By contrast, Wiig and the other gal back away immediately and less slyly. It makes all the difference.
Just to pile on here: the original movie wasn't about a group of literal, actual comedians hunting ghosts. The humor came naturally from a combination of good actors with good script. Like most of these timeless movies, they found a middle ground where they took themselves seriously enough for the plot to matter. But not seriously enough where it lost the humor. The new movie does none of those things. It doesn't care about the plot or the characters. It's just a group of comedians falling on their asses, as they try to save the world from a threat that isn't serious, because the characters don't take anything seriously.
I also loved how in the original scene there's a dainty "No Smoking" sign, while they talk about how dangerous their weapons are. These small details make such a big difference.
@Ryandal Gilmore I don't understand what that Smoking sign has to do to with the scene It's there but I don't understand how that sign makes a difference
Absolutely! If it was redone today, we would have a major close up of the no smoking sign and then pan across to the guys. But this scene was such a subtle and overlooked moment especially with the sign. I love how others notice these small details too.
Gene Wilder said it best: “If the physical thing you're doing is funny, you don't have to act funny while doing it...Just be real and it will be funnier”
@@VarenvelDarakus Leslie Nielsen was pick for his first comedic role in Airplane! because they wanted a serious actor to do the role completely dead pan.
"some people loved it" yeah people on twitter that never seen it and walked into a cinema,.. "girlpower" "so diverse" "oh a black woman too" - these people dont care if its a bad movie
The "No smoking" sign in the elevator adds also geniusly to the scene. It contrasts the concern about the little health risk of a single cigarette with the possible explosion of a nuclear power back in their equipment.
100% this - almost the main "gag" of the scene...Compare this with the vast amounts of signage and graffiti and visual chaff in the alleyway in the remake - which serves no real purpose at all.
Yeah the original bit had me laugh/chuckle about four times in that many seconds, that's a bit of a laugh every few seconds. The remake scenes have me cringe at about the same ratio. It's just a lot of needless talking, bright colors, making faces, and some slapstick. Was it meant for toddlers?
As a screenwriter and friend of one of the original Ghostbusters characters this review is brilliant. A movie scene dialogue must be allowed to "...breathe..."
What upset me about this movie was the fact that actress Leslie Jones blamed its box office failure on the audience being sexist and according to Melissa McCarthy the audience being mysoginistic. I wanted to enjoy this movie hoping it would recapture some nostalgia, but just didn't.
I haven't seen the movie, but just by looking at the scenes showed in this video, I don't like the faces and movements Kate McKinnon is doing, like it feels she is trying too hard...
Eh, maybe we are sexist. Maybe I don’t need Hollywood to reframe everything from a woman’s point of view and call me a caveman when I don’t like it. Either way, I’m not paying anyone to try and make me conform with their ideals (Which by the way always seem to benefit them). Make a good original female lead movie and I love it. Try and reframe based on a gender novelty act and I won’t. It’s simple.
I've just realised what a genius idea it is to shoot a conversation in an elevator because it's the only place I can think of where people would talk while all facing the same direction.
In a car, riding a bus, waiting at a bus stop. Waiting in line, fishing, watching TV, being at a sporting event, sitting at a bar, sitting on a park bench, watching a performance, looking at an art exhibit. All just off the top of my head lol
Ummm really?? People walking, people looking at something at the same time (like a concert, movie etc etc etc etc etc etc.), people waiting for something etc
@@Rodgerwilco91 no, in a car you see only 2 people as the others are hidden, the same in line.. also they are going to catch ghosts so nonsense art watching, sporting events, watching tv, riding a bus ridiculous, as well as sitting on a bench or watching a performance.. Logic.
you think at one point he was just "the critical healthy Joe" and slowly as the movie industry crippled itself and began plummeting into a downwards spiral of death he became the drinker
It's clear that they thought by having them yap constantly it would be funny in and of itself, and hide the flaws in the scene. Perhaps they didn't trust the actresses to carry the scenes on their own merit, which is, ironically, quite sexist.
@@Argumemnon to be honest none of those actresses can carry much of anything, which was why I didn't want to watch it in the first place, boy was i right!
Most movies that released in last 7-10 years have this issue. Characters keep explaining what's going every 5 minutes. It's unrealistic and almost feels like they take us as morons who can't understand the movie ourselves. There are a lot of exceptions, but this is the case about new movies these days.
I think part of it is to do with shortened attention spans, which is becoming a very real issue. I would assume that writers thing that if there isn't constantly something happening and a constant stream of jokes, then people will just not watch their movie. I assume this will only get worse now that some movies are being released in theaters along with streaming services because people are less likely to walk out of a theater after paying for a ticket, but are very likely to turn off a movie on their TV.
@@enlighteneddoggo5803 there was bad movies during all the times. I totally agree. But these days it has become a trend. Still there are a lots of nice movies, but worst ones are horrible. I always dodge them tho.
You can't fake good. Ghostbusters came from Dan Aykroyd's heart and soul, he grew up in a very spiritual family, and it was a passion project for him. That mixed with Ramis and his subtle comedy skills and the realism, scariness, and charisma and bond of the characters plus an awesome soundtrack made it a timeless classic.
@@YourePrettyGood yes! Don't forget all the smoking and junk food, that was critical. Ray with the cigarette stuck to his lip, anyone will know that scene/ picture.
Another thing, too. Dan Akroyd is most likely autistic, as he considers himself to be autistic. I've been diagnosed with high-functioning ASD, and a lot of us have special creative talents that many non-autistics don't have. This is why a lot of aspies overwhelming favor careers steeped in the visual or auditory (musical) arts, science or technology, or some combination thereof. While it's best we aspires work in a team and get exposure to others' ideas as well, we have an unmistakable unique vantage of the world that most non-autistics often fail to realize or imagine :)
Let’s be honest here, nobody wanted or needed an all female reboot of a classic. I don’t understand why women aren’t written their own stand alone franchises. I’d much rather see a unique and individual movie than another half arsed reboot.
Totally agree, prime example is Indiana Jones. If they'd rewritten it with a female Indiana it wouldve killed it, so instead we have tombraider, which is equally as great 👍
I've always asked this statement that makes people go into a craze: If you believe in strong characters that differ from straight white men being good, why not use your creativity to make a unique and likeable character instead of simply taking those straight white men and changing them? Isn't that suggesting that the only interesting characters in your eyes ARE straight white men because you're resorting to copycatting them, therefore saying that you cannot think up an original character to fit your mold? I love seeing them go insane because they can't seem to answer it truthfully.
“Tries and fails to improve on the original without understanding what made it so effective in the first place” is the perfect phrase. And I can tell you exactly why: this movie is not about Ghostbusters. This movie is about taking a ready made fandom, and turning it into a “female” version. They expected the fact that it was an all female cast of an already iconic movie to be enough to carry it through.
I'm with you on that and I know you're trying to save the face of women but the thing is don't nobody want to see women fight ghosts. Just like nobody wants to see women play Basketball, Football in bikini tights, Box, or MMA fight. James Evans told y'all what it was everybody want to just keep playing games.
@@gb469x 😂😂😂😂 Dear... now don't you let this go over your head like you did my last comment, or don't take offense of what I'm going to say. I don't give a damn what Rhonda Rousey disagree with. The fact is, nobody truly wants to watch women do what men do (and have been doing) good, naturally. This is why the women in the WNBA have to beg and complain about how people are not watching them, women sports had to be grouped with mens sports in the Olympics, the media have to manipulate the public to watch women's sports, women's boxing always has a half-empty house... A... I could go on and on...
I wouldn't say this is cutting edge CGI tbf. Cutting edge CGI I'd think of some of the marvel films. They always look bloody great and I'll always watch them because of that, but because a lot of them aren't written that well, they aren't standout. I still will watch purely because of how cool they look.
What always got me was that when they switched on Ray's proton pack, the theater really rumbled! The humor we had been experiencing all of a sudden had some really good effects starting to creep into the story.
“Less is more” Yep, I hate when there’s too much dialogue and the script talks the movie out to the audience. Yep, complete disrespect of the audience intelligence. The subtlety is the key of the humour and story.
I watched the first one several times, the second one dozens of times (as a kid it's the one I had on VHS), and I've seen the 2016 one once... I will say from a straight up Ghost Busting point of view, it DOES have some pretty good scenes of actual ghost busting, especially the climax. That said, the comedy is almost always a complete dud. Chris Hemsworth is the only funny thing about the movie. So I'd say to those who are proud to have not seen the film, give it a go. But only expect actual comedy from Thor, and enjoy the lightshow at the end. It's not great, but it's better than the trailer had shown
It takes a good director and writers to be confident in the pure imagery to convey certain aspects of the story. Its the whole point of cinema instead of reading a book. Striking/beautiful images tell a 1000 words and the image of iconic scenes stay in your mind even if it is just the blocking or framing of a certain scene. The best writers describe scenes in painfull detail to implant the imagery into your imagination. Body language makes up most of how people communicate not words. People just dont think about it because its comes natural as apposed to thinking out structured sentences. People are visual creatures thats why we can see so many colors and puck up subtle cues in nature. A good team could make a silent film better than ghost buster remake. But it is a remake so odds are its going to be lazy and terrible. Its just a shamless cash in off of the nostalgia of actual good movies from the past.
Which means even without discussing that, just on the merits of it being a film, that it lacks the same level of charm, quality, and acting by comparison to the original.
He doesn't need to because A - It's so obvious thats what's going on nobody even needs to say it, and B - There are so many other failings to pick at you can fill your boots elsewhere.
Everyone notices that it’s women rather than men running the business this time. But there’s also gender role reversal within the movie: 4 women are infatuated with their male secretary, he’s not that bright, but they keep him on because they’re so attracted to him.
Keytron Onit Sexism didn’t happen Sony over exaggerated it and Ghostbusters 2 wasn’t that bad it was okay, but people at the time were expecting the Mona Lisa it would be like if they made E.T. 2 and it was just okay.
this could be such a good jumping off point for a parody: a crime series, comentated like a sports event, with a commenting duo consisting of a serial killer able to make experienced remarks on break ins, weapons choice, stabbing technique, escape routes,..... and a radio personality bridging the gap to the regular audience
Well, I've like Melissa Mccarthy's as a comedian and movies such as The Heat and Tammy which I thought were funny. But yeah her yelling almost every sentence in almost every role gets annoying
It's what people do when they don't have anything to say. They start making comedy via strange noises and making stupid faces. It shows you if someone is actually a comedian or would like to be one but isn't.
So what youre saying is that women take 5 times as long to describe whats happening in a situation....i dig youre videos, But we coulda filed this in the "O" file for Obvious
I like that you mention how the movie doesn’t take a single moment to take a breath, which I feel like is a recurring problem with most recent movies. Back then, it was pretty common to have scenes during which the characters would stay silent, during which there would be brief moments of contemplation.
I think a good example of this kinda pause that we miss is one of my favorite deadpan jokes from an old TV show called 'Police Squad' Specifically the one about the locksmith.
Nowadays we get two extremes.. Either the actors won't shutup for the entire film and make you feel like you're watching a Disney film full of propaganda *OR* You get a weird Netflix-like film where they have a small cast consisting of a malnutritioned looking main character that maybe has like less than 10 lines the entire film. With those movies you have the volume to the highest decibel because it feels like everything is on MUTE.
An excellent example of impactful silence is in the first Star Wars (A New Hope since the whole numbering thing is jank). Luke stares out at the twin suns setting and you see this range of emotions cross his face while the Jedi theme plays behind him for the first time. He's yearning to go, to explore the wider world and galaxy, but he's trapped in a nowhere farm. Ultimately, you see his face drop in resignation as he heads back in. The score is also incredible, especially as the same theme is played in the final act as Vader kills the emperor to save Luke. It's this circle through the films that just ties it all together. Anyways, most modern movies don't or can't do that. They need constant action and in your face impact, like the viewer will lose interest if you let the things slow down for a few moments.
Another issue with the movie is despite each character essentially being a replacement for an original ghostbuster, they all try to emulate Venkman. Essentially a movie filled with comedians and no straight man to bounce jokes off of.
Re: everyone wants to be Venkman That kinda reminds me of that scene from "Stranger Things", where the four boys (Mike, Lucas, Will and Dustin) dress up as the Ghostbusters for Halloween. Mike and Lucas (the only kid in the group who happens to be black) both show up in costumes with Venkman's name tag on it. Mike is upset and says that Lucas was supposed to be Winston Zeddemore, but Lucas replies that he specifically said that he did not want to come as Winston, and Will & Dustin back him up on that. Lucas then gives a list of reasons why he doesn't want to be Winston and tells Mike that he can have that role. Mike then claims that he cannot play Winston's part, but doesn't say why, becoming visibly uncomfortable. So Lucas finally has enough of this and says that it's because he's black.
One other point about this scene: all she had to do was stop pushing the button. She obviously did for a moment after the initial blast, but then... what? She decides to push it again and not let go as it throws her violently around the alley? Meanwhile the other woman says all she can do is wait for it to run out of juice??! Nothing about letting up on the button?? So stupid.
And it would have been so easy to fix; have her friends shout for her to let go of the trigger, have her replied that she _did_ - and _then_ have that pithy comment about "let it run out of juice - I'll fix it later." Preferably with the others turning towards her in disbelief. Boom. Done.
Yeah but if she didn't push the button, we wouldn't have seen that absolutely hilarious bit where she flies about that you're clearly supposed to laugh at
Christian Fascist Nice to see there are voices of reason mixed in with the plain old racist Nazi sympathizer in this comment section, maybe our combined efforts is enough to make you realize how idiotic your antics are
Phoebe test firing the pack was more entertaining than anything the 2016 movie could ever offer. The redhead and the blonde could have been in a complete scissor and still wouldn't have any interest.
There's been a similar video on this topic which shows why Edgar Wright makes such amazing movies. (Called "Edgar Wright - How to Do Visual Comedy") Basically, [American] comedies tend to no longer make usage of the opportunities that a moving picture offers. Best comparison is the "moving to another city" trope you see a lot. Always includes panning overhead as a car drives across a bridge, panning across a screen to show the name of the city, perhaps accompanied by a monologue to explain this "big change" in someone's life. Instead, you could use visual queues to show that they're moving town. Have the character sit in a train. Switch backgrounds, but have character in the same position, just now sitting in a bus. They twist their head to relax the shoulders, suddenly in a taxi. If you're good at screenwriting, you won't even need to explicitly show that they're moving to another town by having all those town signs and overhead shots. Imply that they're doing so, it's easy to get this information even from subtle context. Give your audience some credit.
"Tell, don't show" can be an effective technique in screenwriting as well (in very specific cases, like cosmic horror). Unfortunately, this is clearly not one of those cases.
What I find even funnier in the original movie's scene is how if you notice there is a sign in the elevator that says "no smoking". And these guys just turned an "unlicensed nuclear accelerator" on. Brilliant!
ah yes, the days when scenography was as important as the acting. nowadays they just slap on some quick cgi and expect shiny lights to attract the flies... I mean eyes.
@@willisverynice I agree, but shit movies back in the day weren't paraded as the next coming of christ, before and after the showing. kind of the reason we don't remember them. everyone's going to remember this shit, if at least by notoriety.
It proved that 80s had better movies and that the 2010s did cringe humor that makes me sick. I could watch old 80s movies all day they are so clean and simle.
I actually liked this movie (I thought it was fun) BUT I've got enough sulfur in my brain to know the 80s one is millons of times better, and that you're not guilty of misoginistic voodoo if you hate it.
It suffers from the same thing so many modern movies suffer from... it's a total fear of silence and pause. They're so afraid to lose the attention of viewers that they keep the action continuous, only hesitantly including rare 'token' dramatic pauses for effect. That's something I love in many older films, they took their time. You could peruse the visuals, take in the music, ponder the character's motivations, spend some time mulling over what has happened and what might happen.
You might really like a movie called The New World, they really let you relax and breath in that movie, all while it being a really good story. That Colin guy is in it. Colin Farrel?
Very well said, I agree as well. New movies are just too talkative and feel more like useless senseless TV you watch when you're bored, nothing to actually keep you intrigued.
It's a vicious spin cycle given the self inflicted and diagnosed ADHD of the last 20 years. We as a society have a constant information stream penetrating our brains from literally the minute we wake up til the minute we fall asleep. Older generations, 30+ will have the natural ability to centralize focus for an extended period of time on a movie or lecture or even a book whereas younger generations have never existed without something constantly stimulating them. From TV, to smart phones, to games, there is never a moment when they are disconnected from an information stream. And as a result they make shitty movies in accordance to lack of attention span.
I was honestly offended that this movie was ever made in the first place, and it had zero to do with changing the gender of the leads. Ghostbusters (the original) was a cinematic triumph. Great story and great cast told a fun and original tale. Why, under any circumstance, would we ever want to see it remade with a new cast? It's frankly embarrassing that this is the best a major Hollywood studio could come up with. Are we, as a species, really out of original ideas? I am forever proud that I have not seen this movie, will never see it and will never spend one penny to support it in any manner.
What, do you mean you don't want to see a remake of Roots: the movie, starring Kristen Stewart as -Cunt- -Kunte- Cunt Kinte!? or should it be Kocke Kinte, you know, since they're swapping all the genders; I mean you could have a Kocke and still identify as a Kunte!
@@TheEyez187 You see, it's not the change in gender that makes it a complete waste of time for me. It's the fact that it's attempting to do nothing original. Why in the world the studio thought "It's Ghostbuster. Except this time they are WOMEN!!!" would make up for a complete lack of originality and wit, I'll never know. Now, if this was, instead, their daughters continuing the family business, then that's potentially a direction that I could get into. It's at least an attempt at bringing something new to the story. Not a rehash.
@@bradcsuka5054 Yes. That simple concept could have worked; it's actually a really interesting idea. But as you said, that would have required talent and originality. They've killed (many things) James Bond and now Thor; a female Thor. All other points aside. Now they're changing Norse beliefs. Make Passion of The Christ(ina) with a female lead... and watch the outrage! It's just one ridiculousness after another; it almost saps the will to live!
@@bradcsuka5054 I would disagree with you entirely that the film didn’t do anything original. I think it did a lot that was original. The updated designs on the classic devices, all of the new weapons, the personal connection of the main character to ghost, there is a lot of new ideas. But maybe you didn’t actually see it?
Why did they need to have so many different recoil effects of the alleyway test firing? The first shot with the massive kick back was all that was required - as in the opening scene of Back To The Future when Marty plugs in to the new amplifier at Doc Brown's house.
Was that the whole sentence? I think what was meant is that if someone passes a bad judgement of the movie without even watching it, then yeah, that someone is very probably misogynistic.
@@RicardoPetinga That's still nonsense. I chose not to see the movie because it didn't look funny. I'm not obligated to watch something to prove I'm not sexist, although some media woketards tried to argue that with the LITTLE WOMEN remake. "If men are truly pro-feminist then they should prove it by seeing this movie!" 😂
“The movie doesn’t trust the viewer enough to let them draw their own conclusions” that’s the problem with movies now a days, the movie tells the viewer what they’re are seeing
The original scene is clever and funny. I also loved the dialogue; “What are you supposed to be, some kind of exterminator?” “Yeah, somebody saw a cockroach on 12.” “Must be some cockroach.” “It’ll bite your head off.”
Considering the nature and use of the proton pack, I always thought the "no smoking" in the elevator of the original scene was another example of great subtle humor".
Am I the only person who understood the elevator scene to finish with Dan Ackroyd trying to sneak a fart under the sound of the proton pack powering up? I always thought that was ultimately the joke...
I didn't think the 2016 reboot was terrible but it wasn't nearly as good as the original and I was surprised at how little I remembered about the movie beyond the cast. It definitely tried too hard to surpass the original and missed abysmally. Loved your analysis, it hit the nail on the head.
Us: is it a good movie Them: it’s diverse, all females Us: but is it good Them: with a black female too Us: is it g- Them: diverse Us: ok if it’s diverse why is it only females Them: you can’t say that that’s sexist
Don't forget the fat lady. She isn't plus size or healthy. She's fat. No hate or denigration, but the director chose a fat lady so fat people could be "represented"
This movie was fucking awful. I saw it because my mom rented it while we were over... It's complete trash. I'm a woman and I support women making moves in Hollywood. However this movie makes us look bad. What the fuck were they thinking🤦♀️
I was actually shocked to see both Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd lend cameos for the sake of the film's relevancy. They should have let it stand on its own. (or rather crash)
Bill Murray can fuck off. If he wasn't such an obstructionist asshole we would have had a Ghostbusters 3 years ago, if not more recently pre Harold Ramis' death. Everybody talks about how cool he is in his advanced, lonely years crashing parties and hoping to get in a photo. But he's just a jerk. Ghostbusters 2016 is much more Bill Murray's fault than Sony, hack Paul Fieg, and the 50% of comedic talent in this movie.
The Corner gas station had a bin giving the movie away for free. Problem was the bin started filling up because people were dumping their own copies in it.
What bugged me for real in this scene as well is that the recoil is strong enough to lift her up in the air, so it's just simple physics to understand that none of them will ever be able to use that weapon effectively, if the recoil is powerful enough to lift you right up, no amount of counter force apply will ever counter that, not without a fix tripod at the very least
Aside from not being frightened for their friend, no-one in the alleyway seems worried for their *own* safety. If it was a flamethrower you'd be running away and out of it's range, if it was aimed just a bit to the side, three of the cast would die. Instead "huh, look at that."
It's the same feeling as when Bill Murray's character dies falling out the window and they don't care, it's like it started off as a bad parody but by trying to make us take it seriously they made all the characters psychopaths lol
That was my though also, she;s flaining around wildly and no one seems to care about her safety "Just wait until she runs out of juice" or their own, standing five feet away like lemmings.
@@MrWolf-xk8sl medicine? The only reason women are not higher up in most companys is because of tradition, and because women tend to be less aggressive.
and it's out of control, shooting wildly, and they just stand there looking not very concerned about their friend or the fact they could get hit by the beam at any time.
The original universe, the true, real Ghostbusters proton packs had that long of a half-life. Lets not assume the Wokebusters version was anywhere near that.
@@zacksinelcuda well, it is shooting something with a velocity out of a tube. There is conversion of energy, so there would be kickback. So little that you'd never notice it, but there would be some. But we already put more effort into writing these two posts than Feig put into the entire script, wo we should take our victory where we can get them.
Good, I actually saw that shit in theaters thinking it would either be a good Ghostbusters movie and reminiscent of the original or just a good movie on it’s own but not necessarily a good Ghostbusters movie. Yeah, it was neither of those 🙃
Eh don't listen to these people. It's no where near as bad a movie as they make it out to be. Besides, the original isn't a cinematic and story masterpiece, it's just a really fun movie. Like the nerd and the lady trying to get together to have sex because they both get possessed. They make it funny due to good acting, but if you want, you could make it sound creepy, sexist, and whatever else you want. As part of the movie, you barely notice this stuff. Pointing out every way it can possibly be weird and bad, of course it looks weird and bad. That being said, I do prefer the originals, but this one was a cute movie. And I really don't like the "it's an old movie....but with GIRLS!" thing. I find most of them really annoying. But I liked this one.
1. There's not a moment when the characters are not talking - contemporary cinema does not believe in silence. It's a constant barrage of endless noise with no content. 2. Camera jumps between characters: any director who uses so many cuts to film a scene has failed as a director. Meaning, no really good directors nowadays. 3. Viewers are not allowed to draw their own conclusions: movies these days think audiences are retards and are sure they need to be led by the hand and spoonfed content all the time. 4. Directors and writers these days don't know how comedy works and what is actually funny (or scary, moving, or anything that includes human feelings).
Viewers are not supposed to draw their own conclusions because the material is distractive propaganda. They are purposefully trying to social engineer you.
Predator being a perfect example, not of a comedy, but for the lack of exposition, but the pact of it at the same time, and the fact that there's very little speech throughout the entire movie
Exactly man. People often forget. The original was a serious movie sprinkled w comedy. The humor is purposefully dry, as to avoid slapstick bullshit that would undercut the tone of the film, ultimately confusing the audience. The humor also fits the characters. In the new one, which I didn't see, the audience seems like they are supposed to buy that the women are geniuses and idiots at the same time. And Kate McKinnon or whatever is constantly trying to upstage everyone no matter the scene. Even if she isn't speaking, she's trying to draw your attention w movement or facial expressions. She is awful. Seems very insecure.
Poppy Kav you couldn't make "the exact same movie but with men" because if it was a male cast it wouldn't have had the 3rd wave feminist agenda in it. A Male cast might have made the same bad jokes and the same stupid cinematography but it could never have had the Anti male bias in it that was evidenced from almost the opening shot. Also, if you thought the movie was "pretty good" your bar for entertainment must be pretty low. Not trying to criticize you but it's kind of understandable. Compared to the utter crap that we've been fed for comedy movies in the last couple of decades it was pretty good. But mediocrity when compared to utter dross doesn't excuse the makers of this pile of burning dog shit!
@@kavanaghfamily105 Actually it would have received harsh criticism. This Hollywood trend of "rebooting" movies does not sit well with a lot of people. A cheap remake of a classic like Ghostbusters would be sure to bomb.
Want to help support this channel?
Check out my books on Amazon: www.amazon.com/Will-Jordan/e/B00BCO7SA8/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_ebooks_1
Subscribe on Patreon: www.patreon.com/TheCriticalDrinker
Subscribe on Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/the-critical-drinker
What do you think of the new one? I’d give it a solid 7
You sound so young and innocent. Almost a schoolboy. Is this one of the films that drove you to drink?
16 ... seems as though everyone wanted to be Venkman, with it's nonchalant and glib repartee.
Kate McKinnon's character's name is even similar. Not for one second believe, that her name, Holtzmann, isn't drawing the comparison between the 2. She's also got a bit of Egon in her. I heard it when I typed it. Not what I meant.
The whole were not phased by any of this dialogue and reactions, is nothing but woke signaling. You can't show a female even being slightly concerned about the "power of a particle accelerator"
Because someone would bitch n moan, that's it's furthering the patriarchal, and misogynistic view men have, thats women are scared by anything technical, and sciencey.
It's so cute that you think someone will learn anything about this movie's failure :) .
th-cam.com/video/DFHe0-EVGac/w-d-xo.html
"The movie doesn’t trust the viewers to come to their own conclusions" sadly that's the problem for 90% of the movies today.
And women
@@ryanjones7681 the problem is lazy execution, not having a penis or not. focus on the real problems
This is so true..... It's sad. How and why???? Is it a trend?
@@lalaland2107 because it's a mass market product, therefore it needs to be easy to understand by a vast majority of people.
@@MatteoBandera you didn't get it. I think he was talking abt the feminist agenda pushed in the movie.
Original: gave the impression that the characters were smart.
Reboot: gave the impression that the characters were desperate to be viewed as smart.
Honestly. Not to mention the scene(when testing the packs), imo, was clunky. Every action seemed in a way accented. Like it was trying to show us an emotion/atmosphere was trying to be conveyed, but was so amateurish. An example when the two ladies backed away when the machine was turned on. They did it to show that they were worried for their safety and took a precautionary step back. It felt so forced and looked, like an excessively dramatized movement. In the original it was suttle and seamless. The guy casually moved over as close to the elvator wall as possible. He didn't need to use an entire scene change to convey it, or a zoom in on his face, just a simple move over. Simplicity.
@@Rob.N. Or, in other words, if you tell me how I'm supposed to feel about a scene, instead of the scene actually making me feel that way, you're doing it wrong.
@@0x777 Bingo
@@0x777 @Robert Neal : Yes as I remember the definition of cheesy on Urban Dictionary some years back.
_Celine Dion is cheesy because her lyrics, timbre, key changes, and swelling orchestral accompaniment telegraph 'i want you to be moved' instead of moving you._
I think it kind of applies here
respect wahmen!!
For a movie dealing with spirits,this one had no soul.
Not surprising though since the director, who also co-wrote the script, didn't even want to do it. He had turned it down several times. So it wasn't exactly a passion project.
Well said. :-)
Bill Murray zombie
Good one lol 😂💀💀😭
Nice
I just rewatched the original with my daughter. One thing that stuck out to me is the power of certain scenes like you said. One of the other really moving scenes is when the Ghostbusters get let out of jail by the mayor and they have to regroup for the final battle at Dana’s apartment. The music, “Saving the Day”, Ecto 1 being escorted by the cops down 5th avenue, the whole city rallying behind them is just so emotionally powerful without throwing a ton of CGI and corny jokes at you. Movies today don’t know how to take their time with things like this to build a scene and draw emotion, rather they fire off a million things at once for the short attention span person and hope you’ll just be in awe of the pretty lights.
That's the difference: writers used to ask themselves if they'd "earned" the emotional payoff of a scene. Now that they're pushing certain social narratives they feel entitled it.
Kind of the way I felt with Hancock as well.
yeah because it's make sense a city in a apocalypses just getting together to cheer the ghostbusters instead of just run
The late John Huston said it best: "You don't re-make a good movie, you re-make a bad one and try to make it better."
They’ve only really made it because they want pussies instead of dicks
Let's remake all of Adam Sandler's Happy Madison-era films
@Cuthbert Bracegirdle But the original wasn't bad... Just mostly campy by today's standards. The ending is still horrifying and holds up today imo.
Blade Runner 2049...
Well Said John huston 😎
this movie was so bad I saw it on a flight and people still walked out.
bloodsling gotta day that got me
bloodsling this is genius
Im gonna have to use this one day
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Now that's funny, you should have been writing the script for this woke nonsense.
Now that was a real rodney dangerfield joke 🤣🤣🤣
2016 Ghostbusters was so bad The Pirate Bay actually issued refunds.
Who would even want to watch that infected vaginal excretion for free?
I saw it 4 free and I still want a refund.
Hehehe, that sounds like a good episode of South Park.
@@michaelsolis4801 i only saw a couple scenes from Ghostbusters 2016 and i could feel myself getting dumber just from the 10 minutes of footage i saw on TV when scrolling through channels.
dang... 😂
1:08 I like that Ray and Egon respect the power of the proton packs enough to be visibly uncomfortable around them. These things are DANGEROUS. In "Ghostbusters 2016" one team member is flying around, clearly not in control of an "unlicensed nuclear accelerator" while everyone else is standing around, making jokey-jokes when they could be incinerated at any moment. You should not be acting this way if you know what your equipment can do!
It's blown out a parody
That's the point. Bad writing.
In the original, comedy is consistent with the purpose of the scene... let's tell the audience why they have that weird high-tech backpack. Which is a dangerous nuclear device. Comedy comes from them being uneasy with it. Which is a totally normal reaction.
In the remake, the characters w/o any explation are totally chill about it. I mean in the original it's dangerous just turning the accelerator on. In the sequel two character at first look concerned (it's the writers' nod to the original scene, but w/o understanding it) then are cool when it goes totally out of control. The whole scene makes no sense. Is it dangerous or is it not? Are the characters worried or are they not? 2 minutes + of screentime spent to establish nothing. Or worse, to establish confusion.
@@TheMule71 Yup. This. Egon explains what these things are and even mentions why it's so dangerous to cross the streams. ("try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light").
The remake focuses on the awful physical comedy and any questions about the proton packs themselves remain unanswered. So are these things dangerous or not? Well, we don't know, so we don't care because we don't know what the stakes are.
Also she would have fried herself and her friends flailing around. Plus it was corny slapstick for cheap laughs. Imagine if the original ghostbusters had a scene like that? It would have been terrible.
@@DanyalElia it's worse than a parody, it's literally a cartoon at that point.
2016: A long explanation on how the weapon works
1984: If you use it wrong we all die
That's basically every movie today which is why everything is 2:45 instead of 90-1:50. That and action scenes go on and on and on because CGI jacking off.
Pretty much sums up how women tell stories lol
Look I’ll simplify it when you try and make women sound smart and funny it fails because women are not smart and funny.
It's been along time since i saw the movie. Who's the Black guy? Does he have a name? Or any lines? Asking for a friend.
@@chcarroll5164what the fuck? Yes obviously a person in the movie who's clearly a main character has fucking lines and a name? Are you just 12 or are you retarded? Just Google it 😂
It's been 4 years already? Really shows how forgettable this movie was.
I wonder how long it'll take people to forget Cats.
@@starlet12321 Funny that you mentioned that. I had completely forgotten that that thing existed. If it wasn't for your reply I hadn't even noticed that it has already been released...
Like most of hyped mainstream films
starlet12321 There's a Cats movie?
Lol I don’t watch ghostbusters but I just thought they canceled the movie 🤣🤦♂️
Original Ghostbusters was a comedy/horror/drama that balanced well bridging the different movies genres. 2016 Ghostbusters was a 2 hour tik tok video.
It reminded me of one long snl skit, and snl is pure garbage.
Original was pretty shit, but this one was definitely funnier and i dont know why old movies are not that rewatchable, the newer movies, you can put them on rewind and keep watching without getting sick of the same movie but thats just me toh.
@@demonwizard2162 I feel like that is literally just you dude.
@@speedycheese790 i feel like hes trolling
@@lapeez2277 I hope dude
I know this is 4 years old but this video made me love this channel.
*5
Same.
"I blame myself" "so do I" - it seems like an important part of the characters is to have distinctive enough personalities that even though they're saying the same thing it has very different connotations
Yeah whatever some of those words were you said yeah
@ParallelLogic exactly. Three words each, and you get an instant insight into the dynamic of their relationship.
Exactly. Out of context, one would probably assume the character is saying “So do I (I also blame myself)”, but the way Murray plays Venkman, we know he’s actually saying “So do I (I also blame you)”
YES
@@Dominic-Decoco Exactly. I can relate with Egon because of moments like that.
I didn't go see it because the director was interviewed on national TV the day before release and said " If you don't go to see it, your a misogynist."
That ended any desire to see it for me.
reminds me of the charlies angels remake
No way realy
Can you link it? I looked everywhere and couldn't find anything where he said this, not in video clips or articles. Either you misheard something he said or your memory retroactively inserted his response (to the backlash after the release) as if it was something he said before the premiere. Here's a pre-movie release article that comes the closest to him saying something about the gender wars, but the context reveals his sentiments are excitement for little girls to see the movie:
“I wanted for little girls to be able to see themselves up on the screen,” Feig says. “The original one exists, so you can see boys doing it, but how fun for girls to have this experience!” That’s why he pushed so hard for new Ghostbusters action figures. “There was some resistance,” he says, “because there’s a fear that boys wouldn’t buy toys from a movie starring girls. But guys have such great feelings of nostalgia because the original had a lot of gear. I’d like girls to be able to put on a proton pack and run around.”
www.vulture.com/2016/07/paul-feig-ghostbusters-reboot-c-v-r.html
@@YourMajesty143 That's one of the issues. You build up an audience, then years later, some moron copies you, and remakes your thing just because yours is no longer "modern", without any genuine idea of how it should be executed. But there's your good old audience, and they at first think there's gonna be more to what you've created. Only to realise it's not even been actually made for them, it's only a trap with the same title luring them in.
The only idea here was to modernize it as well, and incorporate the modern norm. Apart from that, little to no original ideas added. Just modern CGI (modern CGI is still sh*t though...) and women instead of men, just because fEmInIsM. Meanwhile they say how feminism is not about raising women's rights ABOVE men's, but to equalize rights for a good reason; so that no one has to suffer their loss of "autonomy", which sounds fine, but then... kid me not, if that's really true, the very advertisers misunderstand what they advertise.
@@formulasg6828 exactly. Wtf was Elizabeth Banks on? There are plenty of female led movies that men love lol. Wonder Woman, Aliens, Terminator, Terminator 2. She was clearly just reaching. Just because men don’t like her movie doesn’t make them misogynistic
Better explanation would have been
Kate: "so I condensed what we used in the subway to this portable version you can wear on your back"
Melissa: "so you put a nuclear bomb in a backpack"
Kate: "yeah, that sounds way cooler when you say it like that"
You know what I love the most about this comparison?
*none of these examples have anything to do with gender*
Except...there were people saying they will boycott it even before the first trailer was shown.
@@Hirnlego999what does that have to do with this comment? Theres going to be crazy people who attack any new thing lol. Countless fans boycotted the star trek remake but it still did phenomonally. Hell butthurt fans boycotted star wars episode 1, 2 and 3. What does that have to do with gender?
@@yderga8707 Some of the hatred is gender based, that's the point. Go woke, go broke, it means essentially that do not pander to other audiences...just pander to me.
Even suggestions that say James Bond turns into Jane Bond makes a lot of people really nervous which can be seen in the number of comments, videos and likes. I'm not saying that all of it is like this, nor do I think companies do it because they care about diversity (it's all about money)..
Context is often also lost, lots of manbabies cried about women ruling in later GoT seasons and they don't seem to even understand that two of the women Cersei and Dany are all bad guys.
@@Hirnlego999 I agree that it's stupid to hate something simply because of a gender or race change without giving it a sporting chance.
And I'm sure there was a great number of people who didnt go see this film simply because it was a mostly female cast. To me that wasnt the issue, it was partly the issues stated in the video, and some others including the off putting messages from the director.
The reason I mentioned that this list didnt include gender was because of the producers that make bad female centric movies and blame it on men, some preemptively make assumptions their movie will do badly because men are sexist, meanwhile we have a plethora of films containing female leading roles that have male support like kill bill, wonder woman, alien.
Personally speaking I get more excited to see a GOOD female lead than a good male lead at this point. But when I start hearing the directors talk about how thr movie isnt for men, and how itll probably fail because it's a female cast, it genuinely makes me not want to see the film, like birds of prey, which actually ended up being a decent film.
At the end of the day, producers need to stop this moronic way of pandering and simply focus on good storytelling and good writing, regardless of gender, color or race.
@@yderga8707 "we have a plethora of films containing female leading roles that have male support like kill bill, wonder woman, alien. "
There are examples of course, but they are all quite few in numbers in comparison.
At least the 80s muscle macho man died out and a lot of the newer heroes are more brainiac.
Birds of prey I didn't like but it was not a serious movie at all, she starts up early by blowing up a major factory and likely getting a huge number of people killed just there, so she isn't exactly a role model or anything. Then the movie made the mistake of bringing in too much her gang, and many of them don't seem to be remarkable at all in many ways. I mean the girl just accidentally pick pocketed the wrong person. And one can sort of fight, and scream? Meh.
Here I'd rather see her in a role like Joker, or have him meet her in Joker 2 at the asylum, and perhaps dr Strange. Keep things slow and perhaps only in the third movie make him escape, perhaps he has learned a lot from other criminals and this could be used further as a societal error shone light upon, the system makes them worse.
I don't think the pandering will end generally, this is just companies trying to reach out to larger markets, obviously Disney has wanted to make SW into something big in China but so far they have failed. There's of course this thing about trying too hard, people can call out the bluff so speak.
But also in general, I don't mind if things are shook up a bit, they already for instance got rid of some of Bond's bad habits and what he does in one movie is basically a rape by today's definition, that shit needs to change.
Otherwise it seems everyone wants to be pandered to which to me is odd as i was told in various ways as a kid that one should try to live in other people's shoes.
I had a toy Yoda, it wasn't because he was like me, I didn't speak like he did and certainly didn't look like him, I liked him because he had some form of heart and was...different.
Funny thing is, I didn't even remember the 2016 scene until watching this. The 2016 scene actually achieves the opposite of what it sets out to do: three characters stood nearby with bemused expressions as proton streams go flying wildly around that alleyway. Not concerned at all about what will happen if they get hit by a proton beam... hardly convinces me the proton packs are dangerous.
Right! And not caring at all that their 'friend' is flying around bouncing off stuff with her legs dangerously close to the beam. If I had friends like that, I'd definitely not be friends anymore afterwards.
The movie's today keep going with this inconsequential gag where they should have broken bones or died but they just get up like a drunk girl at a party.
The 2016 scene looks like a parody of the old scene, in the same way there are movies mocking twilight, LOTR or 300... Like -being a low-budget, low-quality movie on purpose to make people laugh... Embarassing xD
And, although I’m no expert, I coulda swore that one chick said you press the trigger button to shoot the target? Don’t buttons have springs, where they come back when you let go, as opposed to a switch, where it stays on? My Nikon F’s have buttons. It’s not like I go to take a picture & it burns up the whole roll whether I like it or not. And even if it did, it wouldn’t also slice my feet off & vaporize bystanders. But then, I’m also not using it to make a movie where that’s all I’ve got cos it’s weapons-grade shit.
@@emilyadams3228 excellent point
Original Explanation:
"We are basically walking nuclear bombs."
2016 Explanation:
"We know what we are talking about, and the Viewers don't need to."
Like wtf.
They mainly focused on the fact that the main cast was all female instead of actually showing us a team of ghost hunters catching ghosts
@@YourAverageKriegsman
Yeah, I know.
I just wanted to highlight a key thing that's just wrong about this scene in the 2016 Remake.
Evangelion neon genesis:
I like Star Trek. I'm used to listen to a lot of technobabble. The way they use this kind of dialogue here makes them sound like stupid frauds, not intelligent scientists.
@@Straylight4299
To be fair, in Star Trek, when they talk that way, you can at least understand something.
I love the "No Smoking" sign juxtaposed to the very dangerous topic the characters are actually discussing in the scene.
You know it’s old when he sounds calm and doesn’t end with “go away now.”
Yeah, old mic too, lol.
And with no cuts to "I definitely smell shite" or "hA-hA-Haa-HA-hAA"
I listened to a lot of his older videos and the shift from analytical intellectual to full blown drunken critic seems to have happened around the Captain Marvel video. Can't imagine why.
@@GearShotgun Yeah, one can only wonder.
...and sober
"there is literaly never a moment when someone isn't talking" ... best line to describe this horrific movie
"If no one's talking, then no one's laughing." - Paul Feig, probably
Well, it's a cast of all women, so.......
@@kevincollins6897 Came here to say that, lol.
@@HankBaxter I also came here to say that
Beat me to it lol :D
30 years removed, and that scene of Ray, Egon, and Peter in the elevator still makes me chuckle.
The scene in the 2016 remake version makes me want to turn off the movie.
On my top 10 list of all-time favorite comedy scenes.
Classic elevator scene. Let's not also forget the "successful test" on the housekeeping lady's cart..."What the hell are you guys doin'?!" "Sorry." "Sorry, that was my fault". "We thought you were someone else". CLASSIC!"I think we should split up.""Yeah, we can do more damage that way". I flippin' cry when I watch this scene--clear down into the ballroom..."Whoa, oh, whoa, oh, oh--nice shootin', Tex!"'84 GB is such a perfect movie.
Don't forget the H&S 'No Smoking'above then.... Whole scene is perfect 😂
I've recently seen the original Ghostbusters about 30 years after I've seen it for the first time, and it's still a great movie to me.
The Proton Pack managed to destroy the paper ghost but was harmless against everthing else it hit and no one was running for cover. Strange. This was a movie I passed on.
Never forget what the actor Anthony Mackie said when he talked about how the studios are only really making films for '16 year olds and China'. That is the target audience. It is not us.
Well this is depressing for the mental level of 16 years old then ^^
As a 16 year old this is brain numbing. Perhaps 16 year old girls?
@@No-uc1xs well, you're def a 16 year old.
Nah comedy are targeted towards us
Not even 16. I watched this at age 12 and thought it was good. Definitely changed my mind.
“Yeah make sure one of those girls is wearing a MIT sweater to really emphasize how smart she is” UGHHHHHHH
In the immortal words of John Mulaney; "Ah, you should be a good alumnus and donate, and they all have shirts that say 'school'!"
It's feminism , that's why it failed. It sucked . Women are not funny or entertaining.
original: subtle, quiet, and CLEVER.
reboot: loud, obnoxious, and DUMB.
It's like one of those loud teenager shows
Except this one is also feminist
UltimateSteevil damn straight have a like
You just described the new SW trilogy
@@i_am_well nah mate, i reckon i nailed "describing the star wars SW better on 'thor skywalkers' video about how "jj abrams thinks he can finish the story he started despite the last jedi"............... where i wrote:
i STILL don't know the story, aside from:
Rebels: "look-out! bad guys!"
fans: "who are they?"
story: "don't know."
rey: "who am i?"
story: "don't know."
fans: "who's snoke?"
ryan: "your theory sucks."
fans: "MY theory..?? Aren't YOU the guy who is supposed to......."
story: "hey- luke left us a map in case we need him."
Luke: "leave me alone, i came here to die."
fans: "..........................."
everyone who is not ryan johnson: "w........... wait.... what??"
ryan: "exactly!!... how subverted do you feel? Clever, right?"
fans who care if the story makes sense: "... uh .................. not...... really.......... kinda POINTLESS actually, both figuratively and literally..."
disney: "you are sexist."
soon to be ex-fans: "...... uh................... WHAT??!?......"
what. a. cliffhanger!! :P
@@firstLast-jw7bm best comment
Watching that scene in 2016, I kept thinking "Won't that proton beam split a person in half? Why is nobody running for their freaking lives?"
A lot of the jokes in this film goes for this rule: "If it's not funny, say it louder until it's funny".
Does it work? No, but it's significantly more irritating.
Lol saying it louder is one of the core tenets taught at the Amy Schumer / Melissa McCarthy school of not funny acting. Also taught in the curriculum is shit timing, joke theft / cryptomnesia, and repeating an already unfunny joke until the audience pity laughs to silence.
@@DaveKatague That is one of the most complete summaries of typical female comedians I have ever read.
@@rawx485 I tried to watch 10 minutes of Amy Schumer to see if there was a reason she keeps getting specials on Netflix. I sat through the entire thing without even o ce smiling. Nothing she said was funny, fart jokes, looking at the audience with a "you're supposed to laugh now face" and weird tonality that goes through the paces but the punchlines were just so weak and average it just sounded like speaking. She's probably a lovely person but dang she's not funny at all.
Which is a page taken from the Chris Rock book of comedy.
@@JDTonkleton nah
Rock had social commentary that surpassed the level of L Black, J Seinfeld and J Carland with better packaging ans deliver
Dane Cook is a better example of repeat it until it’s funny while getting louder and making noises and faces
1984: "We're each wearing an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on our back." The audience knows what nuclear power is, coupled with the fact it's unlicensed, it definitely sounds dangerous.
2016: *techno-babble and made up words*
The audience has no frame of reference for what any of this means so it doesn't sound dangerous, just technically complicated. The explanation doesn't land anywhere near as effectively.
1983: 'our audience is clever, they'll understand'
2016: 'our audience is stupid so let's give it to em all at once'
I wonder if part of that might have to do with more discomfort around nuclear power in the culture in general. There have been a number of high-profile incidents around nuclear power in the years since the original Ghostbusters (Chernobyl comes to mind, in 1986) that may have made it harder to stomach the casual use of it in films. Note that Spiderman in all the live action films no longer gets his powers from a radioactive spider, but a genetically-modified one, and how the Indiana Jones 4 fridge scene was so poorly received. So they substitute a techno-babble explanation. Let's see how Afterlife explains the proton packs, because somehow I doubt they're going to let kids use them onscreen if they are associated with nuclear energy.
@@kateorgera5907 there’s been 3 nuclear meltdowns in history, Chernobyl, 3 mile Island, and Fukushima.
@@kateorgera5907 how do you get all that from a movie where a group of people fight 'ghosts', it's fictional, the fact that they mentioned nuclear power at all is just a way of try to let the audience know its dangerous to the 'characters'
@Jurassic Hero probably because people incorrectly categorize the original ghostbusters movie. they have silly jokes and pratfalls due to people thinking of ghostbusters as a comedy. its not a comedy with some scary bits, its scary movie with some moments of comedic levity. GB 1984 is played straight for most of its run time with the occassional one liner or quip from Peter. while as GB 2016 is just a string of unfunny comedy sketches loosely tied together. this is why the depiction of the proton stream is so widely different.
Notice how the old movie felt more “possible and realistic” because of the way dialogue was especially how they acted like how anyone would act in certain situations
Right but times were different jokes were allowed to be bad and funny lol
@@Sirmattnapier yeah now everyone is a bunch of snowflakes sadly
In other words, the old movie having a more plausible plot and didn't give a dang about political correctness.
I call it "Marvel acting." I think it's the defining characteristic of films of this time period. I can't stand it.
@@chaddodson1481 Thats a good way to put it. The jokes never arise from interaction. They just have a character say a goofy phrase.
When Egon switches on Ray’s pack, his timing for backing away from it is perfect. He gives it a beat before slowly backing into Venkman and the wall. By contrast, Wiig and the other gal back away immediately and less slyly. It makes all the difference.
Just to pile on here: the original movie wasn't about a group of literal, actual comedians hunting ghosts. The humor came naturally from a combination of good actors with good script. Like most of these timeless movies, they found a middle ground where they took themselves seriously enough for the plot to matter. But not seriously enough where it lost the humor. The new movie does none of those things. It doesn't care about the plot or the characters. It's just a group of comedians falling on their asses, as they try to save the world from a threat that isn't serious, because the characters don't take anything seriously.
DEAN
And this is why I liked this movie. It’s like a crack version of Ghostbusters.
Seriously
They were playing real people, not just caricatures, essentially.
The original also played the humor straight: Ray's eager, Egon's serious, and Venkman's sarcastic. The remake has them all as wacky bumblers.
I also loved how in the original scene there's a dainty "No Smoking" sign, while they talk about how dangerous their weapons are. These small details make such a big difference.
Yes I noticed that.. subtle and classy 👌
I ehh..
don't really understand how that connects
@Ryandal Gilmore I don't understand what that Smoking sign has to do to with the scene
It's there but I don't understand how that sign makes a difference
@@fabi3790 Smoking kills, the thing on their back is more dangerous than smoking. Something like this maybe..
Absolutely! If it was redone today, we would have a major close up of the no smoking sign and then pan across to the guys. But this scene was such a subtle and overlooked moment especially with the sign. I love how others notice these small details too.
Let me quote Bart Simpson: “I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.”
you aint seen mega maid, she goes from suck to blow
@@tenryuta But it was a toggle switch, not both at the same time :P
@@Cairannx trust me, it's better that way
I still use that line to this day. Along with "What you don't know can fill a warehouse."
Hit and run?
The subtlety of the “no smoking” sign in the elevator was funnier than the whole 2016 flop!!
Gene Wilder said it best: “If the physical thing you're doing is funny, you don't have to act funny while doing it...Just be real and it will be funnier”
this also reminds me why Leslie Nilsen comedy movies were so great.
Perfect example is when he stabs himself in the leg in Young Frankenstein.
@@Nozoki Yep. Didn't realize anyone else remembered that, it was a great movie
@@VarenvelDarakus Leslie Nielsen was pick for his first comedic role in Airplane! because they wanted a serious actor to do the role completely dead pan.
@@dedokta i know , he is my fav actor of all time
"some people loved it" yeah people on twitter that never seen it and walked into a cinema,.. "girlpower" "so diverse" "oh a black woman too" - these people dont care if its a bad movie
Tintifax ikr their cringe
Aka Radical ultra left marxist feminazis
professor mcgorgeous
stop using long complicated words i cant understand. You know what never mind ill just ask my special ed teacher tomorrow
@@jacobsaccount9353 wow dont bring special ed into this. Dont compare them to the twitter snowflakes
Sanchria my apologies
The "No smoking" sign in the elevator adds also geniusly to the scene. It contrasts the concern about the little health risk of a single cigarette with the possible explosion of a nuclear power back in their equipment.
100% this - almost the main "gag" of the scene...Compare this with the vast amounts of signage and graffiti and visual chaff in the alleyway in the remake - which serves no real purpose at all.
And the mundaneness of regular life and the city meanwhile there Is a demon on the roof
@@rmc3728
So what does God think of the movie?
He speaks to you, yes?
Yeah the original bit had me laugh/chuckle about four times in that many seconds, that's a bit of a laugh every few seconds. The remake scenes have me cringe at about the same ratio. It's just a lot of needless talking, bright colors, making faces, and some slapstick. Was it meant for toddlers?
Visuals. That's what films are about, not "telling."
As a screenwriter and friend of one of the original Ghostbusters characters this review is brilliant. A movie scene dialogue must be allowed to "...breathe..."
What upset me about this movie was the fact that actress Leslie Jones blamed its box office failure on the audience being sexist and according to Melissa McCarthy the audience being mysoginistic. I wanted to enjoy this movie hoping it would recapture some nostalgia, but just didn't.
I haven't seen the movie, but just by looking at the scenes showed in this video, I don't like the faces and movements Kate McKinnon is doing, like it feels she is trying too hard...
Leslie Jones is the most unfunny person to ever appear on SNL. I’m so glad they got rid of her.
Eh, maybe we are sexist. Maybe I don’t need Hollywood to reframe everything from a woman’s point of view and call me a caveman when I don’t like it.
Either way, I’m not paying anyone to try and make me conform with their ideals (Which by the way always seem to benefit them).
Make a good original female lead movie and I love it. Try and reframe based on a gender novelty act and I won’t. It’s simple.
People like McCarthy have to blame everyone for her own failures. Because she is infact a sexist cow her target is always men.
@@CK61380 I would like to introduce you to Jim Breuer
I've just realised what a genius idea it is to shoot a conversation in an elevator because it's the only place I can think of where people would talk while all facing the same direction.
In a car, riding a bus, waiting at a bus stop. Waiting in line, fishing, watching TV, being at a sporting event, sitting at a bar, sitting on a park bench, watching a performance, looking at an art exhibit.
All just off the top of my head lol
Greys anatomy does this all the time... wonder if that's why
@@Rodgerwilco91 but those wouldn't make sense in the context of the movid
Ummm really?? People walking, people looking at something at the same time (like a concert, movie etc etc etc etc etc etc.), people waiting for something etc
@@Rodgerwilco91 no, in a car you see only 2 people as the others are hidden, the same in line.. also they are going to catch ghosts so nonsense art watching, sporting events, watching tv, riding a bus ridiculous, as well as sitting on a bench or watching a performance.. Logic.
This is the calmest Critical Drinker video I've ever watched
He ran out of booze
I was about to say the same
@vxo It's the depths of depression this movie sent him into.
you think at one point he was just "the critical healthy Joe" and slowly as the movie industry crippled itself and began plummeting into a downwards spiral of death he became the drinker
He wasn't a drunkard yet
Even Ghostbusters Afterlife dismissed the 2016 fiasco; "there hasn't been a ghost sighting for 30 years!"
I laughed at the original elevator scene.
I cringed throughout both scenes of the remake. Yea, the remake sucks.
It's clear that they thought by having them yap constantly it would be funny in and of itself, and hide the flaws in the scene. Perhaps they didn't trust the actresses to carry the scenes on their own merit, which is, ironically, quite sexist.
@@Argumemnon to be honest none of those actresses can carry much of anything, which was why I didn't want to watch it in the first place, boy was i right!
i cringe at 2016 movie ... yes in its integrity !!!!
@@cl759 they could've worked (maybe) but they were given literally nothing to work with.
In my opinion it was really good
No matter how evolved is the CGI, it cant save a bad script.
This sums up perfectly why modern cinema is so bad.
You said it sister
True
@@LaggerYT1337 “modern cinema is so bad”? okay boomer
@@naveenkrishna407 right actin like a lot of the old movies ESPECIALLY weren't absolute ass, tryin to hard to be different
The 1984 original was a horror comedy movie while the 2016 version was a twitter adaptation of the original
Lol true
Watching the 2016 version made me want to eat the end of a shotgun
every movie after social media has invented is about adaptation.
@@SawyerClegg It made me want to be the end of a shotgun
This seems more like an SNL skit than a movie
Don't forget the sign that says "No smoking" which is the icing on the cake!
Most movies that released in last 7-10 years have this issue. Characters keep explaining what's going every 5 minutes. It's unrealistic and almost feels like they take us as morons who can't understand the movie ourselves. There are a lot of exceptions, but this is the case about new movies these days.
It was awful and poorly acted.
I think part of it is to do with shortened attention spans, which is becoming a very real issue. I would assume that writers thing that if there isn't constantly something happening and a constant stream of jokes, then people will just not watch their movie.
I assume this will only get worse now that some movies are being released in theaters along with streaming services because people are less likely to walk out of a theater after paying for a ticket, but are very likely to turn off a movie on their TV.
Most TV and movies have always been terrible. That's why you pick and choose instead of taking everything you're served.
@@enlighteneddoggo5803 there was bad movies during all the times. I totally agree. But these days it has become a trend. Still there are a lots of nice movies, but worst ones are horrible. I always dodge them tho.
yes and it's boring.
You can't fake good. Ghostbusters came from Dan Aykroyd's heart and soul, he grew up in a very spiritual family, and it was a passion project for him. That mixed with Ramis and his subtle comedy skills and the realism, scariness, and charisma and bond of the characters plus an awesome soundtrack made it a timeless classic.
Plus Murray's overall lack of care. Makes for great deadpan comedy.
@@YourePrettyGood yes! Don't forget all the smoking and junk food, that was critical. Ray with the cigarette stuck to his lip, anyone will know that scene/ picture.
Dan Aykroyd is off his rocker.
th-cam.com/video/n-a8KTB5rK4/w-d-xo.html
CRYSTAL SKULL VODKA NO GLYCOL
Another thing, too. Dan Akroyd is most likely autistic, as he considers himself to be autistic. I've been diagnosed with high-functioning ASD, and a lot of us have special creative talents that many non-autistics don't have. This is why a lot of aspies overwhelming favor careers steeped in the visual or auditory (musical) arts, science or technology, or some combination thereof. While it's best we aspires work in a team and get exposure to others' ideas as well, we have an unmistakable unique vantage of the world that most non-autistics often fail to realize or imagine :)
Let’s be honest here, nobody wanted or needed an all female reboot of a classic. I don’t understand why women aren’t written their own stand alone franchises. I’d much rather see a unique and individual movie than another half arsed reboot.
raimesey Thank you!!!!
Pretty much
Totally agree, prime example is Indiana Jones. If they'd rewritten it with a female Indiana it wouldve killed it, so instead we have tombraider, which is equally as great 👍
I've always asked this statement that makes people go into a craze:
If you believe in strong characters that differ from straight white men being good, why not use your creativity to make a unique and likeable character instead of simply taking those straight white men and changing them? Isn't that suggesting that the only interesting characters in your eyes ARE straight white men because you're resorting to copycatting them, therefore saying that you cannot think up an original character to fit your mold?
I love seeing them go insane because they can't seem to answer it truthfully.
Because theyre not creative or talented enough.
In the elevator Egon says 'I blame myself'. Wenkman replies 'so do I'.
Beautifully ambiguous
“Tries and fails to improve on the original without understanding what made it so effective in the first place” is the perfect phrase. And I can tell you exactly why: this movie is not about Ghostbusters. This movie is about taking a ready made fandom, and turning it into a “female” version. They expected the fact that it was an all female cast of an already iconic movie to be enough to carry it through.
Spot on
I'm with you on that and I know you're trying to save the face of women but the thing is don't nobody want to see women fight ghosts. Just like nobody wants to see women play Basketball, Football in bikini tights, Box, or MMA fight. James Evans told y'all what it was everybody want to just keep playing games.
@@jonathanray3564 eh… Rhonda Rousey disagrees with that MMA part.
@@gb469x 😂😂😂😂 Dear... now don't you let this go over your head like you did my last comment, or don't take offense of what I'm going to say.
I don't give a damn what Rhonda Rousey disagree with. The fact is, nobody truly wants to watch women do what men do (and have been doing) good, naturally. This is why the women in the WNBA have to beg and complain about how people are not watching them, women sports had to be grouped with mens sports in the Olympics, the media have to manipulate the public to watch women's sports, women's boxing always has a half-empty house... A... I could go on and on...
@@gb469x 🤔 But do you want to know the reason why that is???
It's baffling to me that people STILL think, in 2022, that "cutting edge CGI" will make a movie even a little bit interesting.
It does, but it needs to be complemented by good writing and cinematography as well
I wouldn't say this is cutting edge CGI tbf. Cutting edge CGI I'd think of some of the marvel films. They always look bloody great and I'll always watch them because of that, but because a lot of them aren't written that well, they aren't standout. I still will watch purely because of how cool they look.
Have you seen Dune?
One of the only times CGI is a good selling point is if it's being used to bring a spectacle to life, like Avatar or Jurassic Park.
@@0llieftw Yea you're a loser
I like having shit reboots thrown at my face because it makes my appreciation for the original much much more.
@Denise Miller it's sequel sucks
@Denise Miller I like its prequel
That’s a highly optimistic take that I wish I could share
Dont encourage them.
Ah yes all reboots of old movies are pretty bad
Scratch that
Really bad
What always got me was that when they switched on Ray's proton pack, the theater really rumbled! The humor we had been experiencing all of a sudden had some really good effects starting to creep into the story.
“Less is more”
Yep, I hate when there’s too much dialogue and the script talks the movie out to the audience. Yep, complete disrespect of the audience intelligence.
The subtlety is the key of the humour and story.
Lies again? Failed exams
See, this is comical because he's actually doing the exact opposite of the quote and being completely not subtle
It's made for feminists - Everything HAS TO BE spelled out
"Brevity is the soul of wit." - Shakespeare
When can we accept that Melissa McCarthy is overrated?
I am so proud to say that I've seen the original hundreds of times and the remake precisely zero times.
Amen brother. But I do plan to see the next one with Paul Rudd
@@flabio7074 Definitely - here's hoping that it lives up to the trailers.
This is the most of it I've ever seen... and I'm glad!
Fingers crossed for Afterlife!
Watched the 1984 GhostBusters last week, the remake, zero times and never will...
I watched the first one several times, the second one dozens of times (as a kid it's the one I had on VHS), and I've seen the 2016 one once... I will say from a straight up Ghost Busting point of view, it DOES have some pretty good scenes of actual ghost busting, especially the climax. That said, the comedy is almost always a complete dud. Chris Hemsworth is the only funny thing about the movie. So I'd say to those who are proud to have not seen the film, give it a go. But only expect actual comedy from Thor, and enjoy the lightshow at the end. It's not great, but it's better than the trailer had shown
Ghostbusters Afterlife: _"It's been 30 years since ghosts were seen"._
This mean everything.
Yes... Happy they're making it like the 2016 Ghostbusters never even happened!
@8bit NES Cutscene wrong video bud.
8bit NES Cutscene bruh stfu
8bit NES Cutscene you need help
@@niko-800 Don't bother lol.
Having only discovered this channel this year, this is a stark contrast to how you review films these days 😂😂 this is so polite
Yeah people change and adapt
I feel like it’s a running theme of newer movies where they have to tel you everything that’s going on instead of using visual cues
Gotta spell it out and explain rather than just show and trust the audience figures it for them self lol.
I think the people who make movies think that one of the rules of programming applies to movie directing as well "Assume the users are stupid"
The whole idea of show don't tell seems to be thrown out the window lately
It takes a good director and writers to be confident in the pure imagery to convey certain aspects of the story. Its the whole point of cinema instead of reading a book. Striking/beautiful images tell a 1000 words and the image of iconic scenes stay in your mind even if it is just the blocking or framing of a certain scene. The best writers describe scenes in painfull detail to implant the imagery into your imagination. Body language makes up most of how people communicate not words. People just dont think about it because its comes natural as apposed to thinking out structured sentences. People are visual creatures thats why we can see so many colors and puck up subtle cues in nature. A good team could make a silent film better than ghost buster remake. But it is a remake so odds are its going to be lazy and terrible. Its just a shamless cash in off of the nostalgia of actual good movies from the past.
Got some dead space explanation, "cut off the limbs, don't shoot the body the limbs cut them IT DOES DAMAGE CUT THEM"
The best part of this video is how the reviewer never once mentions feminism, gender, diversity, or anything related.
Which means even without discussing that, just on the merits of it being a film, that it lacks the same level of charm, quality, and acting by comparison to the original.
Well, he DID say that there is literally never a moment where someone isn't talking. I think we all know the reason for that...
🤣🤣
He doesn't need to because A - It's so obvious thats what's going on nobody even needs to say it, and B - There are so many other failings to pick at you can fill your boots elsewhere.
it'd be completely different (and probably funnier) had it be done today
Even though that was most of the problem 😆
People have to keep in mind the saying, If it ain't broke don't fix it, when making re-makes. Blaming sexism for it's failure was really weak.
Don't act like sexism didnt happen and the second ghost buster was terrible
Everyone notices that it’s women rather than men running the business this time. But there’s also gender role reversal within the movie: 4 women are infatuated with their male secretary, he’s not that bright, but they keep him on because they’re so attracted to him.
Don C I’m not blaming the fact that they’re women but I am blaming the fact that nearly all of them are honestly incompetent. They are just not funny
Keytron Onit second ghostbusters was better than 2016
Keytron Onit Sexism didn’t happen Sony over exaggerated it and Ghostbusters 2 wasn’t that bad it was okay, but people at the time were expecting the Mona Lisa it would be like if they made E.T. 2 and it was just okay.
Man thats a brilliant breakdown. Whats the first episode where he started doing the Drinker persona?
It's a common feature of today's movies: assuming the audience is stupid and spelling out everything to them.
Nope. That would be happening with male leads. With female ones they can actually expect SOME people of mediocre intellect in the audience.
this could be such a good jumping off point for a parody:
a crime series, comentated like a sports event, with a commenting duo consisting of a serial killer able to make experienced remarks on break ins, weapons choice, stabbing technique, escape routes,..... and a radio personality bridging the gap to the regular audience
@@Mirage63 What exactly are you trying to say?
@@Mirage63 Are you ok?
I think it's a bit hasty to make that generalisation from one film. Bad writing never changes.
This movie has two "comedians" who think that loud equals funny.
Well, I've like Melissa Mccarthy's as a comedian and movies such as The Heat and Tammy which I thought were funny. But yeah her yelling almost every sentence in almost every role gets annoying
Well put
It's what people do when they don't have anything to say.
They start making comedy via strange noises and making stupid faces.
It shows you if someone is actually a comedian or would like to be one but isn't.
Like most youtubers who aim their material at 8 year olds
This is why i hate Will Ferrell nearly all his roles has him shouting his lines
I love how Bill Murray isn’t a good looking guy, but is the confident ladies man in most of his movies.
He's ass ugly honestly
Women are into physical looks as much as men are What terms women on is confidence and Bill Murray is a very confident man
Don't you dare insult Bill Murray! :)
So what youre saying is that women take 5 times as long to describe whats happening in a situation....i dig youre videos,
But we coulda filed this in the "O" file for Obvious
Heath VanderWall I feel like Hollywood producers self insert their ugly asses into movies
"Never a moment where someone isn't talking." Sounds about right 😂
Or yelling.
I like that you mention how the movie doesn’t take a single moment to take a breath, which I feel like is a recurring problem with most recent movies.
Back then, it was pretty common to have scenes during which the characters would stay silent, during which there would be brief moments of contemplation.
I think a good example of this kinda pause that we miss is one of my favorite deadpan jokes from an old TV show called 'Police Squad'
Specifically the one about the locksmith.
That can actually work, if done properly: _The Fugitive_ with Harrison Ford, and _Run, Lola, Run_ with Franka Potente never slowed down.
Nowadays we get two extremes.. Either the actors won't shutup for the entire film and make you feel like you're watching a Disney film full of propaganda
*OR*
You get a weird Netflix-like film where they have a small cast consisting of a malnutritioned looking main character that maybe has like less than 10 lines the entire film. With those movies you have the volume to the highest decibel because it feels like everything is on MUTE.
@@UncleKennysPlace Mad Max Fury Road might be the best movie I've seen that never slows down or breathes.
An excellent example of impactful silence is in the first Star Wars (A New Hope since the whole numbering thing is jank). Luke stares out at the twin suns setting and you see this range of emotions cross his face while the Jedi theme plays behind him for the first time. He's yearning to go, to explore the wider world and galaxy, but he's trapped in a nowhere farm. Ultimately, you see his face drop in resignation as he heads back in.
The score is also incredible, especially as the same theme is played in the final act as Vader kills the emperor to save Luke. It's this circle through the films that just ties it all together.
Anyways, most modern movies don't or can't do that. They need constant action and in your face impact, like the viewer will lose interest if you let the things slow down for a few moments.
Another issue with the movie is despite each character essentially being a replacement for an original ghostbuster, they all try to emulate Venkman. Essentially a movie filled with comedians and no straight man to bounce jokes off of.
Re: everyone wants to be Venkman
That kinda reminds me of that scene from "Stranger Things", where the four boys (Mike, Lucas, Will and Dustin) dress up as the Ghostbusters for Halloween.
Mike and Lucas (the only kid in the group who happens to be black) both show up in costumes with Venkman's name tag on it. Mike is upset and says that Lucas was supposed to be Winston Zeddemore, but Lucas replies that he specifically said that he did not want to come as Winston, and Will & Dustin back him up on that.
Lucas then gives a list of reasons why he doesn't want to be Winston and tells Mike that he can have that role. Mike then claims that he cannot play Winston's part, but doesn't say why, becoming visibly uncomfortable. So Lucas finally has enough of this and says that it's because he's black.
@@BrokenCurtain that entire schpeil you just said had literally NOTHING to do with what he said bar "they dressed up as ghostbusters for halloween"
The characters lack tension also. Venkman and Egon didn't like each other...
The movie would have been way better if each character was new and bad rehashes of the original ghost busters
They're all clowning the whole time. They never seem like real people.
One other point about this scene: all she had to do was stop pushing the button. She obviously did for a moment after the initial blast, but then... what? She decides to push it again and not let go as it throws her violently around the alley? Meanwhile the other woman says all she can do is wait for it to run out of juice??! Nothing about letting up on the button?? So stupid.
The first obvious lesson from water skiing is, "if you fall, let go of the rope."
In the scene where we're supposed to admire these "FEMALE GENIUSES" who made this weapon, we find out these idiots didn't have a fail-safe
And it would have been so easy to fix; have her friends shout for her to let go of the trigger, have her replied that she _did_ - and _then_ have that pithy comment about "let it run out of juice - I'll fix it later." Preferably with the others turning towards her in disbelief.
Boom. Done.
@@Siathuan
Wow.
You should be a screenwriter. Hollywood NEEDS common sense.
Yeah but if she didn't push the button, we wouldn't have seen that absolutely hilarious bit where she flies about that you're clearly supposed to laugh at
I don’t care if the characters are black, white, man, woman, just write them well with the narrative they ride along
"There is no racial bigotry here. Here you are all equally worthless."
Alright Christian Fascist
@@joebenzz Love that. Sauce?
@@bloodcottoncandy Full Metal Jacket 👍
Christian Fascist Nice to see there are voices of reason mixed in with the plain old racist Nazi sympathizer in this comment section, maybe our combined efforts is enough to make you realize how idiotic your antics are
“I blame myself”….. “So do I” 😂😂😂😂😂
The reboot still makes me cringe so much, I'm so glad Afterlife happened
Afterlife is so Sexy
Afterlife is the best movie ive seen on 2021 so far
@@brunocarlos4446 for real
@rrar rarr how
Phoebe test firing the pack was more entertaining than anything the 2016 movie could ever offer. The redhead and the blonde could have been in a complete scissor and still wouldn't have any interest.
"Show, don't tell."
That's what separates good screenwriting from bad.
And it is high-school grade literature as well
Bevis and Butthead has more moments of quiet thought than Ghost Busters 2016. And the writing is at least a dozen times more clever..
There's been a similar video on this topic which shows why Edgar Wright makes such amazing movies. (Called "Edgar Wright - How to Do Visual Comedy")
Basically, [American] comedies tend to no longer make usage of the opportunities that a moving picture offers. Best comparison is the "moving to another city" trope you see a lot. Always includes panning overhead as a car drives across a bridge, panning across a screen to show the name of the city, perhaps accompanied by a monologue to explain this "big change" in someone's life.
Instead, you could use visual queues to show that they're moving town. Have the character sit in a train. Switch backgrounds, but have character in the same position, just now sitting in a bus. They twist their head to relax the shoulders, suddenly in a taxi.
If you're good at screenwriting, you won't even need to explicitly show that they're moving to another town by having all those town signs and overhead shots. Imply that they're doing so, it's easy to get this information even from subtle context. Give your audience some credit.
"Tell, don't show" can be an effective technique in screenwriting as well (in very specific cases, like cosmic horror). Unfortunately, this is clearly not one of those cases.
but the lift scene they were telling .. ?
What I find even funnier in the original movie's scene is how if you notice there is a sign in the elevator that says "no smoking". And these guys just turned an "unlicensed nuclear accelerator" on. Brilliant!
ah yes, the days when scenography was as important as the acting. nowadays they just slap on some quick cgi and expect shiny lights to attract the flies... I mean eyes.
And nobody needed to actually say it. It's something there, you can SEE and understand. Not having them explain it for 25 seconds and ruin the pun.
@@ivoivic2448 1y
@@ivoivic2448 to be fair, there were shit movies back in the day too, you just don’t remember them.
@@willisverynice I agree, but shit movies back in the day weren't paraded as the next coming of christ, before and after the showing. kind of the reason we don't remember them. everyone's going to remember this shit, if at least by notoriety.
Welcome to 2024. Not only Ghostbusters 3 came out, but now we are getting a Ghostbusters 4 and for the world, the reboot never happened
They didn’t make the movie about the ghostbusters they made it about having a all female cast
They proved that women cant do like men :))
It proved that 80s had better movies and that the 2010s did cringe humor that makes me sick. I could watch old 80s movies all day they are so clean and simle.
I actually liked this movie (I thought it was fun) BUT I've got enough sulfur in my brain to know the 80s one is millons of times better, and that you're not guilty of misoginistic voodoo if you hate it.
@Paul Martin Yeah that's what I said. You're point?
@@kovacthesaggy4014 He was trying to build on the point you are making, agreeing with you
It suffers from the same thing so many modern movies suffer from... it's a total fear of silence and pause. They're so afraid to lose the attention of viewers that they keep the action continuous, only hesitantly including rare 'token' dramatic pauses for effect.
That's something I love in many older films, they took their time. You could peruse the visuals, take in the music, ponder the character's motivations, spend some time mulling over what has happened and what might happen.
You might really like a movie called The New World, they really let you relax and breath in that movie, all while it being a really good story. That Colin guy is in it. Colin Farrel?
Very well said, I agree as well. New movies are just too talkative and feel more like useless senseless TV you watch when you're bored, nothing to actually keep you intrigued.
It's a vicious spin cycle given the self inflicted and diagnosed ADHD of the last 20 years. We as a society have a constant information stream penetrating our brains from literally the minute we wake up til the minute we fall asleep. Older generations, 30+ will have the natural ability to centralize focus for an extended period of time on a movie or lecture or even a book whereas younger generations have never existed without something constantly stimulating them. From TV, to smart phones, to games, there is never a moment when they are disconnected from an information stream. And as a result they make shitty movies in accordance to lack of attention span.
I always enjoyed figuring out what was going on from the actions of characters. Samurai Jack did a good job of it for a "kids" show.
Yet here we are watching a 9m04s TH-cam video of a guy who speaks lliterally nonstop.
I was honestly offended that this movie was ever made in the first place, and it had zero to do with changing the gender of the leads. Ghostbusters (the original) was a cinematic triumph. Great story and great cast told a fun and original tale. Why, under any circumstance, would we ever want to see it remade with a new cast? It's frankly embarrassing that this is the best a major Hollywood studio could come up with. Are we, as a species, really out of original ideas? I am forever proud that I have not seen this movie, will never see it and will never spend one penny to support it in any manner.
What, do you mean you don't want to see a remake of Roots: the movie, starring Kristen Stewart as -Cunt- -Kunte- Cunt Kinte!?
or should it be Kocke Kinte, you know, since they're swapping all the genders; I mean you could have a Kocke and still identify as a Kunte!
@@TheEyez187 You see, it's not the change in gender that makes it a complete waste of time for me. It's the fact that it's attempting to do nothing original. Why in the world the studio thought "It's Ghostbuster. Except this time they are WOMEN!!!" would make up for a complete lack of originality and wit, I'll never know. Now, if this was, instead, their daughters continuing the family business, then that's potentially a direction that I could get into. It's at least an attempt at bringing something new to the story. Not a rehash.
@@bradcsuka5054 Yes. That simple concept could have worked; it's actually a really interesting idea. But as you said, that would have required talent and originality. They've killed (many things) James Bond and now Thor; a female Thor. All other points aside. Now they're changing Norse beliefs. Make Passion of The Christ(ina) with a female lead... and watch the outrage!
It's just one ridiculousness after another; it almost saps the will to live!
@@bradcsuka5054 I would disagree with you entirely that the film didn’t do anything original. I think it did a lot that was original. The updated designs on the classic devices, all of the new weapons, the personal connection of the main character to ghost, there is a lot of new ideas. But maybe you didn’t actually see it?
@@Daedalus_Dragon You are completely welcome to your opinion. I don't agree, but that is only my opinion. Cheers.
Why did they need to have so many different recoil effects of the alleyway test firing? The first shot with the massive kick back was all that was required - as in the opening scene of Back To The Future when Marty plugs in to the new amplifier at Doc Brown's house.
I am glad that you centered this upon the writing, something that has all but disappeared from contemporary blockbusters.
The funny thing is how director said: "if you don't see the movie you're misogynist"
Way to go, partner. How to attract the audience? Insult them.
Was that the whole sentence? I think what was meant is that if someone passes a bad judgement of the movie without even watching it, then yeah, that someone is very probably misogynistic.
What nonsense
Explain Don Rickles then IK lol
Honestly, it goes with any kind of persuading. "Vote yes or you're [insert insult/slur here]" is just going to erode your attempts and credibility.
@@RicardoPetinga That's still nonsense. I chose not to see the movie because it didn't look funny. I'm not obligated to watch something to prove I'm not sexist, although some media woketards tried to argue that with the LITTLE WOMEN remake. "If men are truly pro-feminist then they should prove it by seeing this movie!" 😂
One word that I would use to describe this movie: soulless.
I prefer "shite"
worthless trash
ironic, given the nature of the film
Ghostless
Ironic, isn't it?
5:24 "There is literally never a moment when somebody isn't talking." Well, it IS a movie about 4 women...
“The movie doesn’t trust the viewer enough to let them draw their own conclusions” that’s the problem with movies now a days, the movie tells the viewer what they’re are seeing
Not just movies, I feel like society in general is like that these days.
And what they should think about what they are seeing.
Show Don't Tell.
The original scene is clever and funny. I also loved the dialogue;
“What are you supposed to be, some kind of exterminator?”
“Yeah, somebody saw a cockroach on 12.”
“Must be some cockroach.”
“It’ll bite your head off.”
Misquoted. It’s “Bite your head off, man.”
Also, "What are you supposed to be, some kind of cosmonaut?"
"Exterminators. Somebody saw a cockroach on 12."
@@PBK1977 yes, you’re right. I flubbed the dialogue a little. Been a few years
@@rickpontificates3406 no forgiveness!!
@@rickpontificates3406 The concept of google is your friend.
Note how I didn't say google was your friend, but the concept of it...
Considering the nature and use of the proton pack, I always thought the "no smoking" in the elevator of the original scene was another example of great subtle humor".
Good catch
Agreed. I was hoping that might be mentioned.
Am I the only person who understood the elevator scene to finish with Dan Ackroyd trying to sneak a fart under the sound of the proton pack powering up? I always thought that was ultimately the joke...
I didn't think the 2016 reboot was terrible but it wasn't nearly as good as the original and I was surprised at how little I remembered about the movie beyond the cast. It definitely tried too hard to surpass the original and missed abysmally. Loved your analysis, it hit the nail on the head.
Us: is it a good movie
Them: it’s diverse, all females
Us: but is it good
Them: with a black female too
Us: is it g-
Them: diverse
Us: ok if it’s diverse why is it only females
Them: you can’t say that that’s sexist
Don't forget the fat lady. She isn't plus size or healthy. She's fat. No hate or denigration, but the director chose a fat lady so fat people could be "represented"
Fuck hollywood
@@TheAilmam who is Hollywood. Do you mean a specific studio?
@@flytrapYTP no, it's hollywood. All the movies that are produced in Hollywood LA
This movie was fucking awful. I saw it because my mom rented it while we were over... It's complete trash. I'm a woman and I support women making moves in Hollywood. However this movie makes us look bad. What the fuck were they thinking🤦♀️
Plus, you can't replace Bill Murray.
Its true, he'll volunteer himself to be killed first.
I was actually shocked to see both Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd lend cameos for the sake of the film's relevancy. They should have let it stand on its own. (or rather crash)
Bill Murray can fuck off. If he wasn't such an obstructionist asshole we would have had a Ghostbusters 3 years ago, if not more recently pre Harold Ramis' death. Everybody talks about how cool he is in his advanced, lonely years crashing parties and hoping to get in a photo. But he's just a jerk. Ghostbusters 2016 is much more Bill Murray's fault than Sony, hack Paul Fieg, and the 50% of comedic talent in this movie.
@@simondaniel4028 ...but did we really need Ghostbusters 3?
@@mrknarf4438 no, I agree with that. But its Hollywood, so, inevitable.
The Corner gas station had a bin giving the movie away for free. Problem was the bin started filling up because people were dumping their own copies in it.
LOL
😆😆😆😆
They probably assumed it was a trash bin since it already had trash in it.
I would have thought that Bargain Bin would get mistaken for a rubbish bin.
@Cat Lover so sorry for you.
What bugged me for real in this scene as well is that the recoil is strong enough to lift her up in the air, so it's just simple physics to understand that none of them will ever be able to use that weapon effectively, if the recoil is powerful enough to lift you right up, no amount of counter force apply will ever counter that, not without a fix tripod at the very least
Aside from not being frightened for their friend, no-one in the alleyway seems worried for their *own* safety. If it was a flamethrower you'd be running away and out of it's range, if it was aimed just a bit to the side, three of the cast would die. Instead "huh, look at that."
It's the same feeling as when Bill Murray's character dies falling out the window and they don't care, it's like it started off as a bad parody but by trying to make us take it seriously they made all the characters psychopaths lol
Boromir (calmly): they have a cave troll.
That was my though also, she;s flaining around wildly and no one seems to care about her safety "Just wait until she runs out of juice" or their own, standing five feet away like lemmings.
Because women don't die in movies so they know this and aren't afraid lol
It's the lack of this type of scene that made the original 'believable' even though it wasn't possible.
"Everything men can do, women can do better" And they chose one of the worst tropes: Technobabble.
"micro fabricated radio frequency quadric poles to speed up the particals" How does radio waves speed up oarticals?
Definitely not driving
People need to stop men do stuff better than women and vice-versa.Your gender doesn't mean anything about your skills or traits.
@@animarthur5297 we can see the difference in genders in medicine and sports, but other than that you're right
@@MrWolf-xk8sl medicine? The only reason women are not higher up in most companys is because of tradition, and because women tend to be less aggressive.
"Let her ride it out until it's out of juice" Proton packs have a half-life of 5000 years, how long were they watching her fly around?
and it's out of control, shooting wildly, and they just stand there looking not very concerned about their friend or the fact they could get hit by the beam at any time.
in the cartoon they had to be charged, this film took a most of it's inspiration from the cartoon series
The original universe, the true, real Ghostbusters proton packs had that long of a half-life. Lets not assume the Wokebusters version was anywhere near that.
Zack Sinel lol getting knocked back by a laser
@@zacksinelcuda well, it is shooting something with a velocity out of a tube. There is conversion of energy, so there would be kickback. So little that you'd never notice it, but there would be some. But we already put more effort into writing these two posts than Feig put into the entire script, wo we should take our victory where we can get them.
Ghostbusters 1984 is a perfect movie, whatever remake they would do doesn't stand a chance
No matter how bored I was during quarantine last year I never watched the reboot thank goodness 😅
Smart move
Good, I actually saw that shit in theaters thinking it would either be a good Ghostbusters movie and reminiscent of the original or just a good movie on it’s own but not necessarily a good Ghostbusters movie. Yeah, it was neither of those 🙃
Eh don't listen to these people. It's no where near as bad a movie as they make it out to be. Besides, the original isn't a cinematic and story masterpiece, it's just a really fun movie. Like the nerd and the lady trying to get together to have sex because they both get possessed. They make it funny due to good acting, but if you want, you could make it sound creepy, sexist, and whatever else you want. As part of the movie, you barely notice this stuff. Pointing out every way it can possibly be weird and bad, of course it looks weird and bad.
That being said, I do prefer the originals, but this one was a cute movie. And I really don't like the "it's an old movie....but with GIRLS!" thing. I find most of them really annoying. But I liked this one.
Never will
@@3DTZ Yeah good, but if you want a movie that talks about ghost slime getting in “every crack” of Kristen Wiig and queef jokes then watch it
1. There's not a moment when the characters are not talking - contemporary cinema does not believe in silence. It's a constant barrage of endless noise with no content.
2. Camera jumps between characters: any director who uses so many cuts to film a scene has failed as a director. Meaning, no really good directors nowadays.
3. Viewers are not allowed to draw their own conclusions: movies these days think audiences are retards and are sure they need to be led by the hand and spoonfed content all the time.
4. Directors and writers these days don't know how comedy works and what is actually funny (or scary, moving, or anything that includes human feelings).
Then again, you get the other extreme where there's just one long, meaningful silence after another, eg. GoT S8
The comedy in the original ghostbusters was subtle and that worked.
Viewers are not supposed to draw their own conclusions because the material is distractive propaganda. They are purposefully trying to social engineer you.
👏👏👏👏👏👏
Predator being a perfect example, not of a comedy, but for the lack of exposition, but the pact of it at the same time, and the fact that there's very little speech throughout the entire movie
Ghostbusters was a Horror movie with comedy in it. Fembusters was a SNL skit gone 90 minutes too long!
Exactly man. People often forget. The original was a serious movie sprinkled w comedy. The humor is purposefully dry, as to avoid slapstick bullshit that would undercut the tone of the film, ultimately confusing the audience. The humor also fits the characters. In the new one, which I didn't see, the audience seems like they are supposed to buy that the women are geniuses and idiots at the same time. And Kate McKinnon or whatever is constantly trying to upstage everyone no matter the scene. Even if she isn't speaking, she's trying to draw your attention w movement or facial expressions. She is awful. Seems very insecure.
This is an excellent assessment.
So damn true. Ghosts made me feel like I was in a Lady Gaga concert. They where not scary. Now a scene that scared me for life is Zuul on the fridge.
Poppy Kav you couldn't make "the exact same movie but with men" because if it was a male cast it wouldn't have had the 3rd wave feminist agenda in it. A Male cast might have made the same bad jokes and the same stupid cinematography but it could never have had the Anti male bias in it that was evidenced from almost the opening shot.
Also, if you thought the movie was "pretty good" your bar for entertainment must be pretty low. Not trying to criticize you but it's kind of understandable. Compared to the utter crap that we've been fed for comedy movies in the last couple of decades it was pretty good. But mediocrity when compared to utter dross doesn't excuse the makers of this pile of burning dog shit!
@@kavanaghfamily105 Actually it would have received harsh criticism. This Hollywood trend of "rebooting" movies does not sit well with a lot of people. A cheap remake of a classic like Ghostbusters would be sure to bomb.