FInally saw Ghostbusters

[Dilvish]

Russell Crowe as Jekyll? Wouldn't he be more appropriate as Hyde? :P

Not familiar with the actress so I had to look her up.

...
...
...Why did they feel it necessary to go and make the mummy 'sexy'?
Not like as in 'fully restored flawless Egyptian beauty' but pale and dead looking and wrapped in filthy bandages yet still form-fitting and curvaceous with strategically exposed skin.



The idea is to create one big shared movie universe for all of the classic Universal Monsters. It's shamelessly bandwagony but I can't lie that it sounds like it could end up pretty cool.
I'm reconsidering my opinion on that after what I just saw of those Mummy pictures though...

There have been past movies that feature more than one of the classic monsters. Also tv shows, books, short stories, comics, and of course fan fiction. The difference here would be a series of movies featuring all the monsters together. Maybe the difference would be a successful series of movies?

As far as making the mummy sexy, sexy undead and sexy monsters have long been a thing in gaming and nerd culture. Maybe they are simply being open about appealing to that demographic?

[Avilan the Grey]

As someone pointed out upstream: There is a huge difference between Reboot and Remake.

[Kantaki]

The Giant sort of went down that road with Julio Scoundrel. Making the reader cringe, laugh, and feel pity at the same time.

Oh come on, Julio doesn't look that bad.

To be honest I have no idea what you are referring to...

[LokeyITP]

If you thought Snyder at the helm of the DC comics movie-verse was bad, wait til you see who's running the Universal monster movie-verse.

They've been trying to get this off the ground since Avengers came out, and the only reason is Universal doesn't have any other IP and won't come up with one themselves because Hollywood.

It'll be fun to the the rationalizations when this falls apart.

[Avilan the Grey]

I find it funny that people think the "shared monster universe" is a new thing...

[BiblioRook]

I find it funny that people think the "shared monster universe" is a new thing...

Admittedly it probably would be harder to think of times they weren't in a shared universe, but I don't think anyone was really claiming that it was new but just merely that it was being done (er, again).

[Bohandas]

I find it funny that people think the "shared monster universe" is a new thing...

The issue is it being recurring and official/legitimate. Or something along those lines, I can't quite place my finger on it

But it's, I dunno, just different from stuff like Penny Dreadful or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (Edit: or the Abbott and Costello comedies which occasionally mixed and matched monsters)

[-D-]

...Why did they feel it necessary to go and make the mummy 'sexy'?
Not like as in 'fully restored flawless Egyptian beauty' but pale and dead looking and wrapped in filthy bandages yet still form-fitting and curvaceous with strategically exposed skin.

Penny Arcade had a Premonition:

Oh come on, Julio doesn't look that bad.

It's the smell

[Kyberwulf]

I haven't seen the movie yet. For a couple reasons. Mostly because leading up to the movie, Paul Fieg and the cast where making some pretty disparaging comments, that quite frankly (and Ironically) if someone said equal remarks about women or people of color or other protected class. Would come off as pretty (insert protected class)-phobic. So my stance is mostly a political one. And seeing how most of the defenders of this movie are mostly of the political nature rather then the product itself, I do feel I can comment on it.

I am saying it, the problem with this movie is that it was all women. It was trying to push an agenda. I have said it before, I didn't want all men. What they should have done was come up with good character concepts, and tried to find actors that could play those concepts. I agree, having all anything is bad.

If they had good characters, they could push any plot forward. The original Ghostbusters is proof. If it weren't for the characters, the plot of that movie is pretty bland. I mean seriously, looking back at it. When they get to that stairwell scene, and they are looking up and down. I think that is hilarious, because I think that is the general sentiment of the audience. "Man, is this over yet,...nope... just a little more more to go" The only thing that really kept that movie up, is the chemistry of the cast.

This is just basically feminism, culturally appropriating blaxploitation movies.

Or another PC term, Ghostbusters 2016, is just gender washing. They don't do anything new or interesting with Ghostbusters.

That's the funny thing. If this movie came out without all the hubbub about it. It would have been just another crappy remake. Like people say about Robocop or Total Recall. The only reason this movie is being defended at all, is because it has women in it. It's kind of counter intuitive to the agenda it was trying to push. If women could be the same as men, they should be able to take the same kind of criticism.

But wait, the response will be. Men don't get that kind of criticism at all when they make movies. Almost ALL the movies that come out are lambasted by Feminists, or equal rights people, for not having the main cast be what they want. Most of those comments are treated how they should be, as just opinions. The movie then, is usually judged on it's merits.

This movie however. It stopped the presses and focused ENTIRELY on those comments.

As to the movie itself. There seems to be two camps on it.
1st Being the defenders of the ideology. Both sides, of the coin. either you can tell people love it because they have to... cause females. Or they hate it because.. females. You can tell either side overlook either glaring holes, or hyper analyze it for any cracks.

2nd camp seem to actually want to critique the movie on it's own merit. For the most part, these guys all seem to come to the same consensus. Was it good? .... The answer a big resounding... meh. It wasn't as bad as they thought it was going to be. And on the subject of the actors and characters? I find that most people say the same thing. They don't want to jump into that sinkhole.

However, the tragedy seems to be there was a ghost of a good movie, in this movie. Except that it comes off as a Paul Fieg movie. Now, I heard that a couple times. I don't know what that means. I assume it means it comes off as a satire of Ghostbusters rather then a ... parody. Which people didn't want either. They wanted The Real Ghostbusters.

Personally, despite my political views on the inception of this movie, I think I am going to fall into the meh group. That's just a prediction. I tend to find things in most movies, that make me go meh. Even to the worst, or best movies. If threads or this movie are still going when I actually see this movie, I will most likely say something about wither I like the movie or not.

[Ramza00]

Wow I love all the mind reading that some people in this thread saying this is why you like a movie, this is why you defend it, no the director meant x, etc.

Can this mind reading ability also be used to buy lotto tickets, or for poker?

[Ruslan]

Wow I love all the mind reading that some people in this thread saying this is why you like a movie, this is why you defend it, no the director meant x, etc.

Can this mind reading ability also be used to buy lotto tickets, or for poker?

Nope. Because it's only their own mind they are reading, not anyone else's

[Avilan the Grey]

I love how the world is full of "agendas". Remember how Fury Road was a feminist agenda-driven movie too?

[dropbear8mybaby]

I love how the world is full of "agendas". Remember how Fury Road was a feminist agenda-driven movie too?

And yet, one of the greatest movies ever made in the history of the human race.

[Avilan the Grey]

I was sarcastic but yes I agree.

[Cikomyr]

Agenda is political.

Id suggest we drop any mention of agenda, because it becomes automatically political.

[Kyberwulf]

Fury Road did have an agenda. I don't like that it was pushed on the medium. However, I agree that Fury Road was a good movie. Because it had such a great plot.

[Ruslan]

...push an agenda...

... agenda it was trying to push ...

...did have an agenda. I don't like that it was pushed...

I sense the kernel of a really good drinking game in the making here.

[tiornys]

I sense the kernel of a really good drinking game in the making here.

Let's see.
Whenever someone pushes an agenda, take a sip.
Whenever someone mentions pushing agendas, take a drink.
Whenever someone pushes your buttons, take a shot.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Because it had such a great plot.

There was very little plot in it at all, actually.

[Ruslan]

There was very little plot in it at all, actually.

It was a no-plot 90-minute-long action scene. A really really good one though.

[Olinser]

There was very little plot in it at all, actually.

Yes, but the movie knew its target audience and went after them. The plot that was there worked without any big plot holes that weren't already present in the Mad Max universe.

The director wasn't trying to win an Oscar for Shakespearean dialogue and drama. He was trying to make a Mad Max movie by blowing a whole **** ton of cars up in the most spectacular ways possible in a prolonged chase in a desert. And it worked pretty well. Thanks to good overseas returns it raked in just short of $380 million, and thanks to its comparatively small advertising budget made a respectable amount of money.

[Darth Ultron]

I am saying it, the problem with this movie is that it was all women. It was trying to push an agenda.

But it is not doing that. The movie is not a ''look how great women are and they can make a movie with no men and be even greater!'' or something like that.

It's just a movie about four women, who discover ghosts are real, and become Ghostbusters to fight them. Really...it's the plot of Ghostbusters in a nut shell. The only thing Ghostbusters 2016 is missing is no romantic sub plot, as Dr. Venkman spent like a third of the movie obsessed with Dana....

You would never say you had a ''problem'' with a movie that was all male, right? And you would not have a ''problem'' with an all woman movie if it was a ''female type'' movie. And you'd have no ''problem'' if it was a movie that was all men except for one woman.

But, because it's an action movie, or a sci fi movie or what? It is a ''problem''.

And if Ghostbuster 2016 had an agenda, what was it?

*Women can be heroes and save the day? Well..ok, but it has been done before and I think everyone knows and accepts this one, right?

*Women don't ''need'' men to..um...bust ghosts? Well, again..ok....you don't really ''need'' a melting pot of people to ''do'' anything.

*When all the main characters of a movie are women the movie is.....well...just like every other movie ever made?

*That ''geek'' women can..um..bust ghosts and save the day? Well, the movie sure was not ''supermodels vs the ghosts'' or anything like that. And it sure was not ''Jessica Alba, Jennifer Lawrence, Zoe Saldana, and Brooklyn Decker'' are the new Ghostbusters.

[Slayer Lord]

EDIT:
Speaking of which, can any of you explain to me why Frankenstein is classed as horror? I mean the book I get it, but The monster in the movie seems pretty harmless; the only innocent person he harms he harms by accident and in a moment that almost comes off more like dark comedy

The kid getting thrown in the pond and drowning may come off as dark humor to us nowadays, but back in the 30s child death in the movies was a really shocking thing, even if it happened off screen. They had a narrator at the start of movie with a "viewer beware," speech because by the standards of the time it really was quite frightening. We see it as less frightening now because we've been desensitized as a society, partly due to the standards of horror getting ramped up with each generation as filmmakers try to outdo each other, and partly because we've been exposed to far greater real life horror in the last 80-90. Think about it. Since Boris Karloff's portrayal as Frankenstein, we've had WW2, the threat of nuclear annihilation throughout the Cold War, the Vietnam War and all it's accompanying combat footage, 9/11, etc... By comparison, a sad and lonely monster who accidentally kills people doesn't seem quite so scary.

As for what actually makes it a horror movie, I'd say it's for a lot of the same reasons that the book is, most of it psychological. Man meddling in God's domain, the threat of our own scientific advances turning on us-- an especially poignant theme for the film's original viewers, many of whom would have experienced the horrors of World War I, or had loved ones who had. Then there's monster condemned to his lonely existence being hated by everyone; we are social animals, and the fear of being outcast by society is what drives a lot of social mores. And the poor monster is hated by nearly everyone for things he can't help and barely even understands, even by his "father." How horrible a life would THAT be?

As for harmless, well... Okay, two of them more or less deserved it in the first movie, but he does still kill three people (I think). If you watch any of the sequels, his body count skyrockets. It's been a while since I've watched them, but I remember the monster ends up killing quite a few innocent people in Bride of Frankenstein. Plus the sequels (for all they can be counted on for continuity) seemed to establish that in addition to his monstrous strength, Frank is also immortal, indestructible, and in some movies he's weak to mind control. The original Igor was even using the monster in Son of Frankenstein to murder the people who had tried to hang him. I guess what I'm getting at is that in the original Boris Karloff Frankenstein, the horror elements are more implied (the premise of a reanimated corpse(s) not withstanding), while the sequels were more overtly horror.

[Rodin]

I got really confused about the kid dying being dark comedy, but that's because I've never seen the Boris Karloff original and have only read the book. In the book, the child's death is quite deliberate, thank you very much, and is part of the larger scheme of punishing Dr. Frankenstein for his actions.

[-D-]

Watched the movie. "It's better Adam Sandler's Jack & Jill". It's also better than attempting to neuter myself, with a brick.

@Darth Ultron: The agenda was - Movie is great. People that hate it are pricks, because they hate women.

[Olinser]

But it is not doing that. The movie is not a ''look how great women are and they can make a movie with no men and be even greater!'' or something like that.

It's just a movie about four women, who discover ghosts are real, and become Ghostbusters to fight them. Really...it's the plot of Ghostbusters in a nut shell. The only thing Ghostbusters 2016 is missing is no romantic sub plot, as Dr. Venkman spent like a third of the movie obsessed with Dana....

You would never say you had a ''problem'' with a movie that was all male, right? And you would not have a ''problem'' with an all woman movie if it was a ''female type'' movie. And you'd have no ''problem'' if it was a movie that was all men except for one woman.

But, because it's an action movie, or a sci fi movie or what? It is a ''problem''.

And if Ghostbuster 2016 had an agenda, what was it?

*Women can be heroes and save the day? Well..ok, but it has been done before and I think everyone knows and accepts this one, right?

*Women don't ''need'' men to..um...bust ghosts? Well, again..ok....you don't really ''need'' a melting pot of people to ''do'' anything.

*When all the main characters of a movie are women the movie is.....well...just like every other movie ever made?

*That ''geek'' women can..um..bust ghosts and save the day? Well, the movie sure was not ''supermodels vs the ghosts'' or anything like that. And it sure was not ''Jessica Alba, Jennifer Lawrence, Zoe Saldana, and Brooklyn Decker'' are the new Ghostbusters.

Yes, it was. Because the director and studio MADE it about ''look how great women are and they can make a movie with no men and be even greater!'' If they'd just shut their mouths, announced the movie and cast without trying to make a big deal about OMG FEMALEZ, and talked about how their characters were going to live up to the spirit of the original Ghostbusters, there would have been no controversy.

And if the director and studio had made every announcement prominently feature the fact that it was all male, yeah, I would have a problem with that. Because that's not a factor relevant in any way to whether a movie is worth watching. That equally applies to any race drama. It's perfectly fine to have your lead characters be whatever gender and race you want (with the exception of adapting another work in which they are explicitly a different race/gender - you're adapting their work, you're locked into their vision and their characters). It's NOT fine to make a big deal about how awesome you are for having your main characters be X race or gender. Because that means that you're more concerned with BS outside the movie than in making a good movie people want to watch.

And THAT is why people were pissed about Ghostbusters. Not that it was all female. But that the studio and director made the fact that it was all female a Big Deal from day 1. Before we had any concrete information about plot, whether the original Ghostbusters were appearing at all, the role of the original Ghostbusters, whether it was actually going to be a reboot or a straight remake, whether it was going to be in the same universe, they made a Big Deal about Female Ghostbusters. And then tried to double down on it by whining about evil sexist people that thought they were more concerned with cramming 4 women in as Ghostbusters than in making a good Ghostbusters movie (which was proven true).

4 females could absolutely have worked (although I personally think McCarthy should never have even been considered. She's not a good actress and is the same character every movie - the schtick has gotten old.). But making a movie needs to be first and foremost about making a good movie. And when you spend months talking about what reproductive parts your cast has and NOT talking about your movie, you are not concentrating on making a good movie.

To make a good Ghostbusters - first get rid of Feig. Then get rid of anybody that had any role in that script. DEFINITELY fire whoever made and approved that first trailer. Probably replace the guys in charge of special effect, although that is debatable. Cast wise replace McCarthy and probably Wiig, keep Jones and McKinnon. Finally, remember that your first mission is to appeal to your potential moviegoers, not insult them.

[Ruslan]

The agenda was - Movie is great. People that hate it are pricks, because they hate women.

Which part of the movie was that? Approximately how many minutes in?

[BiblioRook]

4 females could absolutely have worked (although I personally think McCarthy should never have even been considered. She's not a good actress and is the same character every movie - the schtick has gotten old.).

The fact that Feig was doing it meant McCarthy would have been inevitable. In fact, it's probably likely that he started with her and then just picked up whoever was available from SNL to fill out the rest. Like someone suggest already it really was less of a 'Hey look how funny our movie is' and more 'Hey look how funny these actresses are, and that makes our movie funny by default right?'

[Slayer Lord]

I got really confused about the kid dying being dark comedy, but that's because I've never seen the Boris Karloff original and have only read the book. In the book, the child's death is quite deliberate, thank you very much, and is part of the larger scheme of punishing Dr. Frankenstein for his actions.

I know, but the Boris Karloff movie tries to humanize the monster more and downplays the darker aspects of his character. So in the movie version, he throws her in because he thinks he's playing with her, and doesn't understand what he's doing. The dark comedy comes into play because it can come off as a little narmy to modern audiences, especially with the monster's "Oh s***!" face at the end when he runs away.

Check it out here.

[NecroDancer]

I also think if the movie was called "Ghostbusters 3" it would have been accepted better