• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New 2016 Ghostbusters trailer is here

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
RT has good ratings for the new Ghostbusters. But that is odd because most reviews think it is meh.

Reviews say it is meh, but RT probably gives those reviews a pass.
 
IHateMyJob2004 said:
RT has good ratings for the new Ghostbusters. But that is odd because most reviews think it is meh.

Reviews say it is meh, but RT probably gives those reviews a pass.
Click to expand...

Rotten Tomatoes really only requires an "okay" or above to count the review as fresh. I believe that some reviewers are able to set what they consider fresh or rotten, but in most cases, Rotten Tomatoes does it at... I think 60%? That's the one problem with Rotten Tomatoes... it's easy to forget that the score is really just a percentage of non-negative reviews. (I used "non-negative" because it encompasses more than just good reviews.)
 
After seeing a good bit of Dumb and Dumber To recently (it was on while I was doing something else), I realized that it wasn't nearly as bad as people made it out to be. It was a lot closer to the original than Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd. Considering that I'm usually much more critical of this kind of movie than other people, I was kind of surprised. I attribute it to bandwagoning. I do wonder how often this happens and Ghostbusters 2016 seems to be a prime candidate.

And, yes, that first trailer was God-awful and unfunny.
 
CZroe said:
After seeing a good bit of Dumb and Dumber To recently (it was on while I was doing something else), I realized that it wasn't nearly as bad as people made it out to be. It was a lot closer to the original than Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd. Considering that I'm usually much more critical of this kind of movie than other people, I was kind of surprised. I attribute it to bandwagoning. I do wonder how often this happens and Ghostbusters 2016 seems to be a prime candidate.

And, yes, that first trailer was God-awful and unfunny.
Click to expand...

Crap, I forgot that this even existed. Now I need to see it.
 
CZroe said:
After seeing a good bit of Dumb and Dumber To recently (it was on while I was doing something else), I realized that it wasn't nearly as bad as people made it out to be. It was a lot closer to the original than Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd. Considering that I'm usually much more critical of this kind of movie than other people, I was kind of surprised. I attribute it to bandwagoning. I do wonder how often this happens and Ghostbusters 2016 seems to be a prime candidate.

And, yes, that first trailer was God-awful and unfunny.
Click to expand...

i'm probably the biggest dumb and dumber fan there is and can basically recite the movie, but dumb and dumber to was just very meh. really ALL it had going for it was nostalgia. it was not that funny though at all to me. it kind of "TOTALLY REDEEMED" itself at the end though, but still overall it doesn't even come remotely close to the first one.

i agree with you though that it's better than the dumb and dumberer crap. that's not saying too much though.
 
purbeast0 said:
i'm probably the biggest dumb and dumber fan there is and can basically recite the movie, but dumb and dumber to was just very meh. really ALL it had going for it was nostalgia. it was not that funny though at all to me. it kind of "TOTALLY REDEEMED" itself at the end though, but still overall it doesn't even come remotely close to the first one.

i agree with you though that it's better than the dumb and dumberer crap. that's not saying too much though.
Click to expand...

Lies! I'm the biggest Dumb and Dumber fan, ever!

and yeah, dumb and dumber to was very meh. The same jokes from the first one, sadly, and nothing much more than that.

It blew its wad with that first trailer.
 
IHateMyJob2004 said:
RT has good ratings for the new Ghostbusters. But that is odd because most reviews think it is meh.

Reviews say it is meh, but RT probably gives those reviews a pass.
Click to expand...
Aikouka said:
Rotten Tomatoes really only requires an "okay" or above to count the review as fresh. I believe that some reviewers are able to set what they consider fresh or rotten, but in most cases, Rotten Tomatoes does it at... I think 60%? That's the one problem with Rotten Tomatoes... it's easy to forget that the score is really just a percentage of non-negative reviews. (I used "non-negative" because it encompasses more than just good reviews.)
Click to expand...
That's why I mentioned earlier that I require a higher score on RT than I do on Metacritic to consider a movie's suitability for watching.

Actually, RT itself has two scores, the percentage of positive reviews vs. actual average rating. The current RT score is 78%, but its average rating is 6.6/10. In contrast, Metacritic currently has average score of 59/100. Out of Metacritic's 28 reviewers, 14 rated it good (>60), 13 had a mediocre rating (40-60), and 1 (Richard Roeper) rated it bad (<40).

BTW, I usually like to have an average of minimum 60 or better for Metacritic, so for me Ghostbusters 2016's 59 is just a tad low. That said, there are some movies that I like that are way worse rated, like Chronicles of Riddick, which gets an average score of 38.
 
Last edited:
Eug said:
Actually, RT itself has two scores, the percentage of positive reviews vs. actual average rating. The current RT score is 78%, but its average rating is 6.6/10. In contrast, Metacritic currently has average score of 59/100. Out of Metacritic's 28 reviewers, 14 rated it good (>60), 13 had a mediocre rating (40-60), and 1 (Richard Roeper) rated it bad (<40).

BTW, I usually like to have an average of minimum 60 or better for Metacritic, so for me Ghostbusters 2016's 59 is just a tad low. That said, there are some movies that I like that are way worse rated, like Chronicles of Riddick, which gets an average score of 38.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a 6.6 is probably too low for me. I would have to be interested enough by the trailer to ignore that sort of a combined score. Although, I'm assuming Chronicles of Riddick caught a lot of flak for being absolutely nothing like Pitch Black?
 
Aikouka said:
Yeah, a 6.6 is probably too low for me. I would have to be interested enough by the trailer to ignore that sort of a combined score. Although, I'm assuming Chronicles of Riddick caught a lot of flak for being absolutely nothing like Pitch Black?
Click to expand...
I thought Pitch Black was great, but it only got 49 on Metacritic. I would have probably given it at an 80 (ie. 4 out of 5).
 
Looking at Rotten Tomatoes, the overall rating is 78% positive (71/91) but it's only 48% from top critics (11/23). That means it's 88% positive (60/68) from the 'other' critics.

My guess is the movie really is bad.

[EDIT] Just read the Roeper review. It hits all the same reasons the WrecklessEating review on YouTube does (this is the only WE review I've read so I have no context for what his reviews are like). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Pvk70Gx6c
 
Last edited:
guachi said:
Looking at Rotten Tomatoes, the overall rating is 78% positive (71/91) but it's only 48% from top critics (11/23). That means it's 88% positive (60/68) from the 'other' critics.

My guess is the movie really is bad.

[EDIT] Just read the Roeper review. It hits all the same reasons the WrecklessEating review on YouTube does (this is the only WE review I've read so I have no context for what his reviews are like). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Pvk70Gx6c
Click to expand...
Not that I think this will be another Fight Club by any means, but it does remind me of Fight Club in terms of the differences in reviews.

Fight Club was very well reviewed by smaller reviewers, esp. ones that fit the young male demographic, but the many of the big newspaper reviewers panned it. Kenneth Turan thought the movie was horrible.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/15/entertainment/ca-22382

"Fight Club," a film about men who like to fight, is an unsettling experience, but not the way anyone intended. What's most troubling about this witless mishmash of whiny, infantile philosophizing and bone-crunching violence is the increasing realization that it actually thinks it's saying something of significance. That is a scary notion indeed.

Roger Ebert trashed it in the review, but then gave it a 2/5.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fight-club-1999

"Fight Club" is the most frankly and cheerfully fascist big-star movie since "Death Wish," a celebration of violence in which the heroes write themselves a license to drink, smoke, screw and beat one another up.

Sometimes, for variety, they beat up themselves. It's macho porn -- the sex movie Hollywood has been moving toward for years, in which eroticism between the sexes is replaced by all-guy locker-room fights. Women, who have had a lifetime of practice at dealing with little-boy posturing, will instinctively see through it; men may get off on the testosterone rush. The fact that it is very well made and has a great first act certainly clouds the issue.

But like I said, I'm not hugely optimistic for Ghostbusters 2016. It seems middling judging by the reviews, although probably better than Ghostbusters II... which I don't even remember anything from. 😛
 
Eug said:
Not that I think this will be another Fight Club by any means, but it does remind me of Fight Club in terms of the differences in reviews.

Fight Club was very well reviewed by smaller reviewers, esp. ones that fit the young male demographic, but the many of the big newspaper reviewers panned it. Kenneth Turan thought the movie was horrible.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/15/entertainment/ca-22382

"Fight Club," a film about men who like to fight, is an unsettling experience, but not the way anyone intended. What's most troubling about this witless mishmash of whiny, infantile philosophizing and bone-crunching violence is the increasing realization that it actually thinks it's saying something of significance. That is a scary notion indeed.

Roger Ebert trashed it in the review, but then gave it a 2/5.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fight-club-1999

"Fight Club" is the most frankly and cheerfully fascist big-star movie since "Death Wish," a celebration of violence in which the heroes write themselves a license to drink, smoke, screw and beat one another up.

Sometimes, for variety, they beat up themselves. It's macho porn -- the sex movie Hollywood has been moving toward for years, in which eroticism between the sexes is replaced by all-guy locker-room fights. Women, who have had a lifetime of practice at dealing with little-boy posturing, will instinctively see through it; men may get off on the testosterone rush. The fact that it is very well made and has a great first act certainly clouds the issue.

But like I said, I'm not hugely optimistic for Ghostbusters 2016. It seems middling judging by the reviews, although probably better than Ghostbusters II... which I don't even remember anything from. 😛
Click to expand...

Stuff like this is always indicative of how out of touch professional film critics are with the general public. I don't know anyone personally who liked the movie Birdman, but the critics and the academy fucking loved it. They loved it because it's a pretentious story about a struggling actor, so a lot of the industry connected to it because they LOVE anything about themselves. The general public doesn't connect with shit like that, which is why there's at times quite a disparity between critic opinions and user opinions. For a movie as highly rated as Birdman, I expected to really like it... but it became clear why the critics and academy loved it so much.
 
Regarding Fight Club, I have to wonder if the reviewers actually watched the whole movie. It has violence in it but it is not about violence.
 
IHateMyJob2004 said:
Regarding Fight Club, I have to wonder if the reviewers actually watched the whole movie. It has violence in it but it is not about violence.
Click to expand...

They aren't really the intended audience. I think in order to understand it and appreciate it, you must be male and probably under 40 years old. And you have to have wondered if life is everything it is made to be, at least once in your life.
 
Ancalagon44 said:
They aren't really the intended audience. I think in order to understand it and appreciate it, you must be male and probably under 40 years old. And you have to have wondered if life is everything it is made to be, at least once in your life.
Click to expand...

Well, Janet Maslin of the New York Times thought Fight Club was great, and gave it a 4/5. She would have been about 50 when she saw it.

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9506E1DE1030F936A25753C1A96F958260

It'll be interesting to see what she thinks of Ghostbusters 2016.
 
dainthomas said:
Depends on whether she can appreciate bad guys getting shot in the junk.
Click to expand...
Is that what represents "female empowerment" these days in the movies? Cuz a bazillion of the reviews talk about this being a movie about female empowerment.

Every time I read that I'm like "WTF?!?". This is a frickin' Ghostbusters movie, not Thelma and Louise (which BTW is a great movie).

But then again maybe the losers at IMDB downvoting the movie having not seen the movie have made this into a female empowerment movie just by being such asses about it.
 
gorcorps said:
Stuff like this is always indicative of how out of touch professional film critics are with the general public. I don't know anyone personally who liked the movie Birdman, but the critics and the academy fucking loved it. They loved it because it's a pretentious story about a struggling actor, so a lot of the industry connected to it because they LOVE anything about themselves. The general public doesn't connect with shit like that, which is why there's at times quite a disparity between critic opinions and user opinions. For a movie as highly rated as Birdman, I expected to really like it... but it became clear why the critics and academy loved it so much.
Click to expand...

I saw Birdman twice in the theatre. Loved it and the different ladies I took to it both loved it as well. Different strokes...

KT
 
Where are these "other" critics coming from on RT that are giving it decent ratings? Metacritic gives it a 60, lol.

So, who is giving their money to Feig/Sony on Friday?
 
It appears to be a polarizing movie. Headlines that I've seen say that if you're male, you'll mostly likely dislike it and vice versa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top