New 2016 Ghostbusters trailer is here

[Ichinisan]

Actually, the anti-female sentiment has been there ever since the movie was announced to have an all female cast.

It's bizarre behaviour on their part, and you're giving us males as a larger group too much credit.

Personally, I'm not too optimistic for this movie, but nonetheless I will completely ignore that IMDB score, because it seems very likely many of the votes are just from people with an agenda.

The accusations of that have been there from the start.

You take a special movie and reboot it into a crap movie, fans will be upset. If the movie looked good, I wouldn't care about the genders of the main cast.

 

[Ichinisan]

how do they know it's a poor movie, the movie isn't even out yet?

for all they know it could be a good movie but they have already deemed it 1 star before ever seeing it.

Because everything shown so far has been stupefyingly un-funny and uninteresting.

 

[Eug]

The accusations of that have been there from the start.

You take a special movie and reboot it into a crap movie, fans will be upset.

Except, the movie isn't even out yet, and the critics are giving it favourable to middling reviews. You might have a point if the Metacritic score was 40 and the RT score was 50, but they aren't. They are 60 and 76 respectively.

It sounds very much like this is going to be an OK movie, not great, but not total "crap" either. Yet, somehow the thousands of (mostly male) IMDB user reviewers were giving it 1-3/10 reviews or whatever, a week before it was even released. Only now that previews have been out in North America is the score creeping up from that.

 

[mikeymikec]

Ichinisan, I'm honestly wondering whether you fully read the post of mine that you responded to, because your responses so far have been (at face value) irrelevant to the statistics I posted and my thoughts regarding those statistics.

In case it needs saying, those statistics are not accusing you of being sexist. They're just statistics. Nor am I accusing you of anything like that. And if you think your personal opinion of this film is somehow definitive of most male IMDB voters yet not the female ones, you're going to need to elaborate, at length!

 

[CZroe]

Ichinisan, I'm honestly wondering whether you fully read the post of mine that you responded to, because your responses so far have been (at face value) irrelevant to the statistics I posted and my thoughts regarding those statistics.

In case it needs saying, those statistics are not accusing you of being sexist. They're just statistics. Nor am I accusing you of anything like that.

I don't see where he said anything irrelevant to what you said. He picked out something you said that he disagreed with and explained why he believes you are wrong about it. You took the same statistics and used them to indicate that there may be "guys...out there who voted this film down because of the wimminz in it." He proposed that the statistics from that demographic relative to the rest reflected that the original movies were more popular with that demographic (men). Is he not allowed to disagree with you or propose an alternative explanation while you can "wonder" all you want about the motivation of these males?

 

[Anubis]

They called the original "Dare Die Team"? Ugh. Freakin' Chinese don't deserve them some Ghostbusters. But seriously they need to calm the fuck the down and stop telling their own citizens what they can and can't watch with their own fucking money.

it is silly. Blizzard basically hard to recode huge parts of WoW because of Chinas issues with corpses

 

[purbeast0]

Because everything shown so far has been stupefyingly un-funny and uninteresting.

and that changes the fact that they still haven't seen the movie how?

are you really trying to say that you can give an honest review of a 2 hour movie based on a 90 second trailer for a movie?

 

[Eug]

Because everything shown so far has been stupefyingly un-funny and uninteresting.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're one of those IMDB haters who hasn't seen the movie either, but is giving the movie a 1-star review, since you seem to be going out of your way to defend them, with non-sensical arguments like the one I just quoted.

As purbeast says, you are defending reviews based on trailers, which is completely unjustified.

Perhaps if the poll were "On a scale from 1-10, how likely are you going to see this movie in the theatres?", then the poll might be valid for those users, but that's not what it is.

BTW, for the record, based on the trailers and the less than great reviews, I'm not going to be seeing it in the theatres any time soon either. However, I am not boneheaded enough to give an actual review of it, since I haven't actually seen the movie.

 

[mikeymikec]

I don't see where he said anything irrelevant to what you said. He picked out something you said that he disagreed with and explained why he believes you are wrong about it. You took the same statistics and used them to indicate that there may be "guys...out there who voted this film down because of the wimminz in it." He proposed that the statistics from that demographic relative to the rest reflected that the original movies were more popular with that demographic (men). Is he not allowed to disagree with you or propose an alternative explanation while you can "wonder" all you want about the motivation of these males?

Do you think that his argument was in any way gender-specific (and I'll point out again that Ghostbusters '84 has fairly equal gender representation voting for it in similar ways)? If so, perhaps you would like to elaborate.

 

[Pardus]

Bunch of actual reviews went live today.


Here are some headline from IMDB users:

"A Terrible, Unfunny, Man-Hating Mess"
"Dead on arrival"
"Is all they could do is rip-off the original classic??"
"Worst Franchise Reboot Ever Made *SPOILER ALERT*"
"This movie made me so sad."
"Avoid Like The Plague"
"Worst Movie Ever!!!"
"Doesn't justify its own existence"
"Who you gonna call? Somebody else"

Someone posted the entire script on another forum, perhaps out of spite or hate, but wow, when i read how it ended, what a joke.

 

[dainthomas]

and that changes the fact that they still haven't seen the movie how?

are you really trying to say that you can give an honest review of a 2 hour movie based on a 90 second trailer for a movie?

The chances of a bad movie having a good trailer are far higher than the chances of a good movie having a bad trailer. It's supposed to basically be a highlight reel of the good parts.

 

[Eug]

The chances of a bad movie having a good trailer are far higher than the chances of a good movie having a bad trailer. It's supposed to basically be a highlight reel of the good parts.

That's true, but then again in this case, the original trailer was horrible, and then later on the trailers were better. They failed hard on that first trailer.

That is not to say a mediocre trailer means a mediocre movie. It could still be a bad movie, but it was just strange that the first trailer was so bad, since fan edits of that trailer and then subsequent new studio-released trailers were much better. No, they're still not great, which doesn't bode well for being a great movie, but that original trailer almost makes me wonder if the job of making the trailer was given to some intern. Almost.

BTW, my wife will likely see this movie next week. If she gives it two thumbs up, maybe it really is crap. She loves cheesy comedies that I think are horrible. And she usually dislikes dark humour in movies. So, lately we don't go to comedies together.

 

[Sonikku]

The Goonies is a case study in movie trailers that do a poor job of selling the movie.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Anyone see this in 3D and if so is it good 3D or crap gimmick 3D where you can't focus on anything?

 

[Eug]

The Goonies is a case study in movie trailers that do a poor job of selling the movie.

Yeah, but truthfully, I'm not optimistic with Ghostbusters 2016 either. I'm just taking issue with the fact that internet haters have made this movie their latest target because somehow they're butthurt that Sony dared to remake it, with women no less.

 

[purbeast0]

The chances of a bad movie having a good trailer are far higher than the chances of a good movie having a bad trailer. It's supposed to basically be a highlight reel of the good parts.

not sure why you even quoted me as it's irrelevant to what you quoted.

 

[Ichinisan]

You take a special movie and reboot it into a crap movie, fans will be upset. If the movie looked good, I wouldn't care about the genders of the main cast.

Except, the movie isn't even out yet, and the critics are giving it favourable to middling reviews. You might have a point if the Metacritic score was 40 and the RT score was 50, but they aren't. They are 60 and 76 respectively.

It sounds very much like this is going to be an OK movie, not great, but not total "crap" either. Yet, somehow the thousands of (mostly male) IMDB user reviewers were giving it 1-3/10 reviews or whatever, a week before it was even released. Only now that previews have been out in North America is the score creeping up from that.

Rebooting something special into a movie that gets "middling" reviews would piss off fans - and it should. They soiled the legacy of something special by not caring enough to make something great. A movie with middling reviews is not a good movie.

 

[child of wonder]

My wife wants to see it so I'll probably go along with her, but based on previews I'm not happy the parts of the movie they felt that would garner the highest draw is Ghostbusters + stupid 2016 physical humor and racial stereotyping.

Hopefully I'm pleasantly surprised.

 

[Ichinisan]

I'm beginning to wonder if you're one of those IMDB haters who hasn't seen the movie either, but is giving the movie a 1-star review,

No. I don't think I even have an IMDB account. Closest thing would be giving a thumbs-down to the trailer on YouTube.

since you seem to be going out of your way to defend them, with non-sensical arguments like the one I just quoted.

To be clear: Reviewing a movie you haven't watched is stupid. You can give impressions of what you have seen, but you should not claim to have reviewed a movie you have not seen.

As purbeast says, you are defending reviews based on trailers, which is completely unjustified.

Incorrect. I hypothesized why the displeasure of Ghostbusters fans might have nothing to do with sexism.

Perhaps if the poll were "On a scale from 1-10, how likely are you going to see this movie in the theatres?", then the poll might be valid for those users, but that's not what it is.

Agreed.

BTW, for the record, based on the trailers and the less than great reviews, I'm not going to be seeing it in the theatres any time soon either. However, I am not boneheaded enough to give an actual review of it, since I haven't actually seen the movie.

Ditto.

 

[Ichinisan]

That's true, but then again in this case, the original trailer was horrible, and then later on the trailers were better. They failed hard on that first trailer.

That is not to say a mediocre trailer means a mediocre movie. It could still be a bad movie, but it was just strange that the first trailer was so bad, since fan edits of that trailer and then subsequent new studio-released trailers were much better. No, they're still not great, which doesn't bode well for being a great movie, but that original trailer almost makes me wonder if the job of making the trailer was given to some intern. Almost.

BTW, my wife will likely see this movie next week. If she gives it two thumbs up, maybe it really is crap. She loves cheesy comedies that I think are horrible. And she usually dislikes dark humour in movies. So, lately we don't go to comedies together.

I saw people on this forum and elsewhere saying the re-cut trailers were better, and it blew my mind that people were deluding themselves about it. What I saw was just as bad as the first trailer.

It's probably the same phenomenon as fan-made anime music videos. Random anime clips to a random song. No thoughtful editing whatsoever. Receives nothing but gushing compliments from fans of the song or fans of the show(s) or movie(s) the clips come from.

 

[Ichinisan]

Anyone see this in 3D and if so is it good 3D or crap gimmick 3D where you can't focus on anything?

You have already decided to watch it?

 

[Ichinisan]

Yeah, but truthfully, I'm not optimistic with Ghostbusters 2016 either. I'm just taking issue with the fact that internet haters have made this movie their latest target because somehow they're butthurt that Sony dared to remake it, with women no less.

Repeating the narrative the crappy director wants you to spout. Good job.

 

[Ichinisan]

and that changes the fact that they still haven't seen the movie how?

are you really trying to say that you can give an honest review of a 2 hour movie based on a 90 second trailer for a movie?

The chances of a bad movie having a good trailer are far higher than the chances of a good movie having a bad trailer. It's supposed to basically be a highlight reel of the good parts.

not sure why you even quoted me as it's irrelevant to what you quoted.

Are you serious?

 

[purbeast0]

Are you serious?

yes, u?

 

[CZroe]

Are you serious?

The key word, "review," though I think he meant "rating." These users are rating a movie they haven't seen.

Obviously, they are treating it like a "how much do you want to see this movie" scale instead. This problem exists with pretty much any poll. It's why America Online won every PC Mag poll as "best Internet service provider" year after year after year. Not many respondents would be experienced with more Internet providers than their own and if they knew of a better provider they would be using it, so they just respond to the poll as if it were asking "what Internet service provider do you use?"