Your thoughts about the Ghostbusters 2016 film?

Ghostbusters Discussion Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (2016)
1

What do you think about the film? I am just wondering out loud whatever it should have been Ghostbusters 3 rather than a reboot. It has been 27 years since the events of Ghostbusters 2. And like the first film. the 2nd film took off from where the first left off. Like Ecto-1 was about to break down at the start of the 2nd film. and the guys were out doing seperate jobs until they had a huge hit under first street. They sent Ray down there to see whats going on. I had wondered where was Wiston the whole time? He wasnt arrested after the guys cut the power off when getting Ray out of the hole.

Honestly. I think when we had all female ghostbusters. it looked as if the guys, Peter, Ray and Wiston as well as Janine had either retired or had other jobs. Egon had died. On one of the scrips that I read somewhere like Wikipedia. Dan said that his character, Ray is blind on one eye and cannot drive the caddy. He also had a bad knee so he couldnt carry the packs. Egon would be too large to fit in a pack. As for Peter. he either left the team for Dana.

I had assume that The new Ecto-1 could have been Ecto-1C or something. the Ecto-1A wither was sold to a private owner. as well as the ghost catching gear may have been autioned off or distorried. Or maybe Ecto-1A went to the crushers? The New York Fire dept had bought the old Ghostbuster’s firehouse and converted it to the Hook and Ladder.

As for the ghosts that the new team is battling again. Pernaps, it excaped from the contanment unit, either if it was tampered with or it was moved.

And the new team’s headquarters was on the Chinese restaurant.

No I havent seen the movie yet but I will wait for the DVD. I was just basiclly staying with the storyline what it would have been 27 years ago.

Paul could have put it together as the 3rd film. the reboot almost didnt make sense. Of course they had the guys from the first 2 films show up as comeo apperances.

Imange if guys would keep their roles. You could see Ray come to the new team’s headquarters to drip off some data or other stuff for the new team. I know Egon had made alot of investments. (according to The Real Ghostbusters and Extreme Ghostbusters) so pernaps Egon has made notes and wrote books. Ray could have bought it all up to the team. or it would have been distoried and the new team get their own ideas. either way.

I did write Paul an email. but of course, he didnt respond. I will have to post it on here another time.

Even though I havent seen the movie. I did see it on youtube reviews. or a teaser thriller, read on Wikipedia. and so forth. I just want to know what you all think?

The new team’s flight suits are different. I hope these are reflector strips sewn on so they could be seen at night?

I am happy the women have the starring roles. Nowdays women can do just about anything and it is no longer men that can do everything.

Ok let me see what ya all have to say.

2

The more I think about it, the more I hate it.

The plot-holes killed the pace and it’s way too long. The “big battle” was ridiculous. Some of the dialogues were super cringy (Abby’s dean, god damn). And Melissa McCarthy can’t stop over-acting.

The misandry was the cherry on the cake and don’t say there’s none, every male characters are depicted as morons or ■■■■■■■■ aside from Ernie Hudson.

It’s a bad carbon copy of GB1, a bad movie that as tarnished the licence and I’m glad the audience reacted the way it did.

2 Likes
3

Judged as a standalone movie, as if GB never existed and it was just a random summer comedy - it was OK. It wasnt great, the jokes fell flat way more often than they landed, but the characters were likeable enough and it had enough entertainment value that I didnt feel ripped off in time and money by having seen it.

BUT as a Ghostbusters movie, it was terrible. I think the very last thing on earth the franchise needed with only two existing movies was a remake of the first film and throwing away the original characters and continuity when there was so much more that could have been done with the original GB universe was just a waste. Who needs a remake of such a popular and well known movie anyway? Its like remaking Back to the Future - why? The movie hasnt been forgotten, its more popular than ever and everyone still loves it, so what is the purpose of a remake?

The tone and style was way off. GB was never a silly comedy. It was a comedy because it happened to feature characters who were funny people and because of the absurdity of some of the things that happen, but it was very much set in the real world, and the horror was real, the end-of-the-world stakes were real. In GB’16 its a cartoon comedy universe where every character is tongue-in-cheek and doing a bit and it never feels like theres really anything at stake when the villain is dancing around playing it for laughs. The stakes feel about as real as in something like Pixels. It feels more like a GB parody than a proper new GB film. Its like what Seth Rogan’s Green Hornet was to The Green Hornet.

So while I didnt hate it, I am glad its lack of box office success has pretty much ensured that this will not be the future of the GB franchise.

2 Likes
4

Hiya guys, does this thread serve any different purpose when compared to the review thread? Because I see the same people just kinda repeating their statements from that one?

2 Likes
5

Do we need Alphagaia doing the moderators job?

3 Likes
6

And if the reviews on this thread were mostly positive, you’d probably be asking the point of this thread too.

4 Likes
7

Nope.

8

Thanks for your options guys. I didnt think there was one topic made here so I made one of my own.

There will be no remake of Back to the Future movies. or if it was ever going to be a BTTF4. Because the rights are owned by the people who made that movie. so until they die the reboot could be on the stages? But I have seen way too many remakes. some are not even worth it. But why do they have to come up and screw up the first movie to begin with on their stupid reboots? Batman may be having more of a reboots than any other. the story changes.

Bill Murray was one of the funny guys. and in the first GB movie most of the stuff was made up by the characters. I read that the scene where the book case fell near the gang on the start. was an accident but they decide to leave it. in GB2 the scene where Dana takes off her shirt and wearing a white bra wasnt scripted.

I loved the GB and GB 2. Dan was working really hard to get GB3 to come on. but it wasnt green lit. He and Harold worked together. then Bill was flirting with the idea that he shoild or shouldnt want to take part. At the End Dan stated that they would do the third movie without Bill. He would have to get permission from Bill to recast him or have him as a ghost. but Dan doubts he would get an approval.

Then Harold died in 2014. Pretty sure they thought the 3rd movie was never going to be made and all the hard work thrown out the window.

Then they sat down and did a reboot which was a ridiculous way.

I would have want to see that movie reguardless how bad it was. Paul could have done a better job. As a matter of fact. I would perfer he stay with the engire GB storyline. If Bill Murray wasnt in it. they could write him off, If Harold died they would have mention that on the film that Egon had passed away.

One guy who played Luis Tully said that he has been retired from acting. so they could have writen him off as well. We did however wanted to see an adult Oscar and he would have joined the team after GB2

GB 2 as I stated had followed closely with the first GB movie.

Having a bust of Harold in an office. Annie Potts, Ernie Hudson, Dan and Bill all show up on GB 2016 playing a different role rather than their famous roles from the first 2 GB movies was pretty sad thing to know a bout. they even had something writen on the Contatment Unit of a gake keeper and key master. which was from Louis and Dana. I do think Paul could have done a much better job.

If he act like GB 1984 didnt exist in the first place and he decide to make his own remake of that movie. he did a nice job screwing it all up but I didnt have the heart to tell him that.

Its crazy. a perfect movie made. then they screw it all up. I wonder how disapointed I will be when I get my hands on the DVD copy. Wouldnt they have their own no ghost logo too?

9

Did this movie do anything? Did it prove women can be Ghostbusters? Did it empower women to go out and take jobs only men do i.e. garbage collectors, coal miners, cab drivers, etc? Did it bring anything revolutionary to the GB formula? Did it make an insane amount of money?

I think all it has done is give us at lease one female GB with a following smaller than Kylie’s. It brought back Hi-C Ecto Cooler… briefly. It gave all the remaining GB actors a chance to wink at their fans, making most cringe. The false-feminists introduced the annoying word “GhostBros” for man haters to use against Ghost Heads. It generated the usual round of net fueled hate hype to get people interested in it like a political campaign. Now what?

It didn’t reinvent the GB wheel. It was just another unnecessary remake of a celebrated iconic movie that had it’s fifteen minutes of shame and now it’s dust in the wind.

1 Like
10

I’m sure we’ll know in a few years when some college professor does a TED talk. No way to know now. But it’s certainly not impossible. We don’t know yet how today’s kids will remember it. Like I said earlier, you guys want to write this movie’s legacy in stone after being out a mere two months.

And btw, look up female sanitation workers. They do exist. :wink:

Oh? Says who?

11

Making ‘some’ cringe, for sure. Bill Murray’s cameo made me physically uncomfortable.

12

The first part, on the TV, my audiences enjoyed. The second scene wasn’t as clever, I agree. Uncomfortable? Like you said, it’s a subjective thing. :wink: And the rest of the cameos were great. Cringe seems to be the latest Internet buzz word for anything that isn’t hip or whatever.

13

That would make me cringe-worthy :wink:

14

Nah, cringe is that feeling you get in your brow and jaw when you’re embarrassed for someone. When you can feel yourself clinch up a bit, shift in your seat, and the side of your lip gives a little curl to it.

Pretty much my entire experience with watching the movie was jumping from an eyeroll, to a cringe and back again.

15

The cameo didn’t play to his strengths. He was ten times more endearing at the Kimmel appearance, loved that (even though that too was labeled cringey on YouTube. Again, buzzword. ;)).

16

Project announced: wait until some details are made public before judging.

Cast and reboot angle confirmed: wait until we see some pics before judging!

Pics made public: wait until we see a trailer before judging!

Trailer released: wait until you see the whole movie before judging!

Movie is out by two months: you judge it and it’s out only by two mere months!!!

I wonder what the next step will be. Wait until a blue ray is released before judging?

17

What’s going on here isn’t merely judging. It’s knee jerk condemnation and a demand that that point of view be the final word on the movie.

1 Like
18

At this rate odds are the Bluray will be out by the time my theater gets it, so yeah, for me that’s when I’ll most likely judge it.

19

You are present at an unexplained mass goalpost migration.

20

It’s a reoccurring phenomenon, the first documented case took place in the NFL end zones (although somehow the CFL was exempt) :smiley: