Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (2016)

[klauswhereareyou]

Feig should be more concerned that in a few months people refer to this one as the bad Ghostbusters and not the good one.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

That wasn't my question, actually, nor did the first part of your reply address what I said either.

We both agree there are a large (indeterminate quantity) of people who think the movie looks bad.

We both seem to agree that there is some sexism out there as well.

However, when I account for the sexists the same way as the haters (an indeterminate quantity), you reject it.

It stands to reason that the large number of haters (something those other reboots I cited had) have been joined by sexists en masse, explaining why the dislikes are so significantly higher for this than other projects. Yet, for some reason, you guys insist that the sexism isn't contributing in any meaningful way. That's weird. Why does it matter if I believe sexism is ALSO affecting pubic perception of the movie IN ADDITION to people who just don't like it?

Many of us reject this on the basis that Ghostbusters is simply a generally more beloved movie franchise.

I'm not saying that Robocop doesn't have it's fans... it most certainly does. But compare the box office results for the original Ghostbusters and the original Robocop, and you'll see a big difference:

Ghostbusters (1984): $295.2 million

Robocop (1987): $53.4 million

That is unadjusted for inflation. The average movie ticket price in 1984 was $3.36. And the average ticket price in 1987 was $3.91. Compare that to the 2015 average of $8.43.

Obviously Robocop's box office was partly effected by it being an R rated film. But none the less, the point remains the same.

For many people who grew up with Ghostbusters and/or saw it when it originally came out, it's a CLASSIC. As has been stated by others in this thread, it was like catching lightening in a bottle.

Robocop is a movie from the 80s that many consider to be good. But I don't think on average it considered anywhere near as much of an "untouchable classic" as the original Ghostbusters.

So it makes sense that while there were complaints about the Robocop reboot, it wasn't nearly as "loud" or prominent.


And as for Fantastic Four, it's not exactly like the two films from roughly a decade ago were "beloved classics." And I say that not because of their comparatively younger age to Ghostbusters and Robocop, but from the general reaction to them. Critics didn't care for them. Audiences were maybe luke warm, at best, on them on average.

The first film made $330.6 million world wide, slightly above the original Ghostbusters' box office total (unadjusted for inflation), but at a time when the average ticket price was $6.41, almost double the price of a ticket in 1984. The second film made slightly less, $289 million two years later, at a time when ticket prices were slightly higher on average, $6.88.


I think last year people saw a half-hearted (at best) reboot of Fantastic 4 and just decided not to go see it. But it didn't have the reputation of "trampling" on a beloved classic. Plus since we've had a few comic book films reboots, recastings, etc. in comic book films over the years, in some franchises that are more well known and have had at least some better entries than either of the F4 films (Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men having a younger recasting in First Class of many characters, etc.), it's not like Fantastic Four was going to be the one that would cause people to lose their collective s**t.


I think we are starting to get to a point where a lot of people are getting tired of the same old retreads (whether they be reboot, sequels, sequels to reboots, etc.), especially ones that range somewhere in the neighborhood of half-assed to bad. A number of films this summer have had box office returns that range from lower-than-expected to flat out flops.

But most of the things that have been "messed with" in recent years have often been properties that have been rebooted in the past, have already had many incarnations, and/or aren't quite as beloved as some others.

Ghostbusters was the one that struck a nerve. By and large, in major forms of media (i.e. movies, TV, video games, and to a far lesser extent, comic books), most every "version" of Ghostbusters has been squarely rooted to that original film. Not just in "spirit" or some nonsense like that.... rooted in that it is presumed that those events happened within those respective sequels, spin off, etc.

And considering that the most high profile forms of media were the original two films and original cartoon series, which closely followed the canon of the films, Ghostbusters really isn't a property that has been rebooted and reimagined many, many times over like Batman or even TMNT.

Messing with Ghostbusters has really struck a nerve with A LOT of people on a level that other reboots of franchises that started out as movies in the 80s (i.e. Robocop or the Karate Kid) have not.

There is a difference, whether you choose to see it or not.

[doctor_who]

Originally Posted by Impossible

Funny Americans are always banging on about free speech, or is it only when you're saying what they want to hear

Everyone does have free speech. Including the free speech to criticize others' free speech.

"Free speech" is free in relation to prosecution/persecution by the government, not in relation to whether others agree with what you say.

[Darth Marcus]

Originally Posted by chip75

If you've seen Spy and The Heat, that suit actually contains some of his best lines ...

[whiteberry]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Many of us reject this on the basis that Ghostbusters is simply a generally more beloved movie franchise.

I'd agree and I'd say a reboot of Back To The Future, Goonies or Breakfast Club would get the same response that Ghostbusters reboot has gotten.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by doctor_who

Everyone does have free speech. Including the free speech to criticize others' free speech.

"Free speech" is free in relation to prosecution/persecution by the government, not in relation to whether others agree with what you say.

Yes but people are saying he SHOULDN'T be saying certain things. He can say whatever the hell he likes

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Many of us reject this on the basis that Ghostbusters is simply a generally more beloved movie franchise.

This explains a measure of additional haters, and a reason to weigh the haters more heavily than the sexists. But it does nothing to suggest the sexists, again, are not a significant ADDITIONAL component. The repeated refrain is "a minority." Almost no sexists. It's the denial of sexism as significant. As I said in a previous post, if there are 500,000 dedicated, awful sexists out of 50 million who are aware of the movie, that's a very small amount of the total, but not dismissable as irrelevant.

(I also wouldn't say the relevant audience with F4 was the movie fans, but comic fans.)

[AGH]

Putting politics and sexism aside, I just think this movie looks awful.

[Dalekbuster523Bluray]

Originally Posted by C. Anton

All conservatives by proxy in the US. He's saying anyone who writes something stupid about the film must belong to the Right. Clearly they're not just trolls, they're evil, sexist, bigoted Right-wingers. My point, is that's an ignorant thing to say and could cost the studio money in the long run. Feig should be smarter than this, whether he actually believes it. He should apologize for those statements and explain that idiots online were getting the best of him, and of course there are legitimate complaints from both the Left and Right. But that won't happen because people like him aren't held to the same JSW standards, as the rest of us.

edit: youtube/RuHKOVUWuL4 Interesting video OP;ED - Marketing Misogyny: The Sale of Virtue Signalling

How about the people who have been venomously tweeting abuse apologise to HIM first?

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by AGH

Putting politics and sexism aside, I just think this movie looks awful.

I vaguely remember hearing the phrase, "Looks like a direct-to-dvd film" although I can't recall where. Sadly, going by the trailers it does appear to be that way, just on the basis of its visuals, of course. Looks rather immediate and small-scale, which is something the original can't be accused of. But I'm always rooting for the underdog (yes, I appreciate that a multi-million dollar film studio is hardly the plucky upstart), so I hope it surprises a few people who are willing to give it a fair go.

[Dalekbuster523Bluray]

Originally Posted by dgoswald

I vaguely remember hearing the phrase, "Looks like a direct-to-dvd film" although I can't recall where. Sadly, going by the trailers it does appear to be that way, just on the basis of its visuals, of course. Looks rather immediate and small-scale, which is something the original can't be accused of. But I'm always rooting for the underdog (yes, I appreciate that a multi-million dollar film studio is hardly the plucky upstart), so I hope it surprises a few people who are willing to give it a fair go.

You wouldn't get those kind of special effects with a direct-to-DVD film. Also: special effects aren't everything. Sometimes a strong narrative is enough.

[jess1581]

Originally Posted by AGH

Putting politics and sexism aside, I just think this movie looks awful.

And despite what many butthurt PC stroking idiots would try to convince you otherwise, that is a FAIR assessment and you are not in any way sexist for thinking that.

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523Bluray

You wouldn't get those kind of special effects with a direct-to-DVD film. Also: special effects aren't everything. Sometimes a strong narrative is enough.

Yeah, I mean it's tough to judge after having only seen snippets on mobile devices, but I wasn't really referring to the special effects per se, more the general clean look of the film. But that's something I have an issue with regarding a few recent films, and not limited to GB.

[jess1581]

Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523Bluray

You wouldn't get those kind of special effects with a direct-to-DVD film. Also: special effects aren't everything. Sometimes a strong narrative is enough.

Uh huh, except that strong narrative already happened back in 1984. Creativity is also essential, and the big baddie in this remake is the ghost logo.... Yep. That's like the Avengers facing an enemy that resembles a giant friggin "A". Attack of the registered trademark oh noes!!

[octagon]

Originally Posted by dgoswald

Yeah, I mean it's tough to judge after having only seen snippets on mobile devices, but I wasn't really referring to the special effects per se, more the general clean look of the film. But that's something I have an issue with regarding a few recent films, and not limited to GB.

When I watched the most recent trailer on my desktop I didn't really think much of the visuals one way or the other. I thought they looked cooler but wasn't really wowed either. A few nights later though I caught a commercial while watching an NHL playoff game on my main TV and was actually pretty enthused after.

And it didn't hit me at the time but it wasn't just the effects. Everything looked more...well, more. That didn't really click for me until somebody posted here talking about the film hasn't (at least in the trailers, anyway) gone for a colder, more desaturated color palate.

[C. Anton]

Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523Bluray

How about the people who have been venomously tweeting abuse apologise to HIM first?

Said everything I can about this movie and those involved behind the scenes. Got it out of my system.

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by octagon

When I watched the most recent trailer on my desktop I didn't really think much of the visuals one way or the other. I thought they looked cooler but wasn't really wowed either. A few nights later though I caught a commercial while watching an NHL playoff game on my main TV and was actually pretty enthused after.

And it didn't hit me at the time but it wasn't just the effects. Everything looked more...well, more. That didn't really click for me until somebody posted here talking about they haven't (at least in the trailers, anyway) gone for a colder, more desaturated color palate.

Exactly. There's films I've seen trailers of on my tablet, and I've thought, "Hmm... looks a bit iffy" but the same film on Blu-ray on my TV a few months later, and it's a huge improvement. I think the almost day-glo sheen to what I've seen of the GB creatures / ghosts has perhaps prejudiced my opinion.

[Dalekbuster523Bluray]

Originally Posted by jess1581

Uh huh, except that strong narrative already happened back in 1984. Creativity is also essential, and the big baddie in this remake is the ghost logo.... Yep. That's like the Avengers facing an enemy that resembles a giant friggin "A". Attack of the registered trademark oh noes!!

Maybe that's the point? It could be a joke, like one of the Ghostbusters says 'Seriously? You could have picked anything and you went fot the subway graffiti? Now I know why we didn't get you to design the logo'

[Hellraiserfan]

Well, that lame bit of humor would fit in with the rest so I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[aiman04]

Oh my. Any reviews yet?