Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
LornaHansonForbes

new trailer for new GHOSTBUSTERS film out, hoo-boy, this don't look too good.

Recommended Posts

Lorna HansonForbes--Thanks for the link!

 

Re-read what Sony is doing to racial negative comments about the film, then read Variety's review--Variety says Sony is using old "blackface" vaudeville reactions for some of the films' laughs.  Sonys' strategy of crying racism to explain the bad reviews Ghostbusters 2016 will get could easily blow up in Sonys' face.  Read the last two sentences of Variety's review.  When they talk about expecting Sony to get a "write-down", I think they're predicting Sony has a major financial bomb and will take a Big Loss.

 

There WAS an insider Negative review at redditdotcom, but that account has been pulled, along with the review!

 

OMG, IT'S LIKE WE SHARE A BRAIN!

 

I WAS JUST COMING HERE TO POST A LINK TO THE VARIETY REVIEW, WHICH SO FAR SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY HONEST ONE I'VE READ THUS FAR:

 

http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/ghostbusters-review-melissa-mccarthy-1201810318/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LornaHansonForbes--At the opposite end, read Stephanie Zacharek (sp?)'s review in Time online, where she reviews First people's reasons for not going to see GB 2016 (if I understood correctly, a bad trailer is NOT a valid reason for avoiding a film--or at least waiting for a critical consensus to be reached).

 

IMDB has a list of critical reviews that are out--23 so far, by their count.  GB 2016 rates a 4.0 as of 9:30 a.m., E.S.T.

 

That includes User reviews also.  A copy(ies) have been released ahead of time??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make some good points here, Eric. And btw, welcome to the boards...I've been meaning to tell you that since you've arrived around here and have greatly enjoyed reading your postings.

 

However, the one thing I'd like to take exception to in your previous posting was the comment, "Melissa McCarthy isn't funny".

 

You see, after being hooked on the sitcom Mike and Molly for the last few years, I personally thinks she VERY funny...BUT primarily when she NOT trying to be some kind of a female version of Chris Farley, as it seems so far in her cinematic career, that unfortunately has appeared to be the kind of roles in which she's being presently "typecast".

 

(...yep, when she's a little more "buttoned down", I think Melissa is as funny as any relative "newcomer" I've seen in quite a while and think she's a very talented young lady)

Yeah as a big GILMORE GIRLS fan, I will chime in that McCarthy is a good actress capable of handling some really tricky dialogue and comedic scenarios. I have not seen any of her films with the exceptions of parts of BRIDESMAIDS, which I quit watching after about 15 minutes because I thought it was awful.

 

I HAAAAAAAAAATE KRISTEN WIIG THO.... she is the Vanilla Ice Milk of comedic actresses, somebody who quite frankly doesn't rate any better than mid-level billing in a community theater production. She also strikes me as the sort of person who totally buys her own press, which from being on SNL for so many years was rapturous due to the fact that Lorne has a Cadre of publicists in his pocket. Her impressions were terrible she was not funny and she had quite a few recurring characters one in particular who made fun of handicapped people that just turned me off completely. She is the most dour, joyless comedian I have ever seen.

 

Congratulations on being the least bad performer on SNL for a while, I guess there's something to that though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah as a big GILMORE GIRLS fan, I will chime in that McCarthy is a good actress capable of handling some really tricky dialogue and comedic scenarios. I have not seen any of her films with the exceptions of parts of BRIDESMAIDS, which I quit watching after about 15 minutes because I thought it was awful.

 

I HAAAAAAAAAATE KRISTEN WIIG THO.... she is the Vanilla Ice Milk of comedic actresses, somebody who quite frankly doesn't rate any better than mid-level billing in a community theater production. She also strikes me as the sort of person who totally buys her own press, which from being on SNL for so many years was rapturous due to the fact that Lorne has a Cadre of publicists in his pocket. Her impressions were terrible she was not funny and she had quite a few recurring characters one in particular who made fun of handicapped people that just turned me off completely. She is the most dour, joyless comedian I have ever seen.

 

Congratulations on being the least bad performer on SNL for a while, I guess there's something to that though.

 

Comedy is very subjective. One joke or performer draws guffaws from some people and the sound of crickets from others. I like Kristen Wiig, not rapturously so, but she's made me laugh in the past. Same for McCarthy. I've read some people post about films or TV that they found hilarious and/or witty that I found cheap, obvious and about as funny as cancer. But I wouldn't tell that other person they are wrong for finding that film or TV show funny. If it makes you laugh, it makes you laugh, which is the hoped for result.

 

That being said, I think the new film looks like garbage.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comedy is very subjective. One joke or performer draws guffaws from some people and the sound of crickets from others. I like Kristen Wiig, not rapturously so, but she's made me laugh in the past. Same for McCarthy. I've read some people post about films or TV that they found hilarious and/or witty that I found cheap, obvious and about as funny as cancer. But I wouldn't tell that other person they are wrong for finding that film or TV show funny. If it makes you laugh, it makes you laugh, which is the hoped for result.

 

That being said, I think the new film looks like garbage.

 

Thank you Lawrence, your wise words give me pause in my rampagr.

 

FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm in one of my "spitting cobra" moods today, feeling like lashing out at the world. thanks for calming me down.

 

DOUBLY FULL DISCLOSURE: somewhere below this, I mentioned that I came across a REDDIT thread some time ago that claimed to be by someone who worked for SONY, they gave out the whole plot of the movie in detail- and it's worth noting that EVERYTHING they said (including details that were not public or in any of the trailers, such as the final villain being a giant version of the LOGO, an extended dance sequence by a bunch of possessed cops, the very specific details of the cameos by the original principals, and the fact that- I kid you not- THEY KILL THE FINAL GHOST BY FIRING INTO ITS CROTCH!) have since been completely confirmed in other reviews i've read today.

 

so while i haven't seen the film, i kind of sort of feel like i have, because i read the lengthy treatment before it got pulled and- MAN, IT WAS JUST GARBAGE from start to finish, even with funny jokes, storywise, this thing is just terrible.**

 

**- if indeed, what i read was accurate, and it really seems to be so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Lawrence, your wise words give me pause in my rampagr.

 

FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm in one of my "spitting cobra" moods today, feeling like lashing out at the world. thanks for calming me down.

 

DOUBLY FULL DISCLOSURE: somewhere below this, I mentioned that I came across a REDDIT thread some time ago that claimed to be by someone who worked for SONY, they gave out the whole plot of the movie in detail- and it's worth noting that EVERYTHING they said (including details that were not public or in any of the trailers, such as the final villain being a giant version of the LOGO, an extended dance sequence by a bunch of possessed cops, the very specific details of the cameos by the original principals, and the fact that- I kid you not- THEY KILL THE FINAL GHOST BY FIRING INTO ITS CROTCH!) have since been completely confirmed in other reviews i've read today.

 

so while i haven't seen the film, i kind of sort of feel like i have, because i read the lengthy treatment before it got pulled and- MAN, IT WAS JUST GARBAGE from start to finish, even with funny jokes, storywise, this thing is just terrible.**

 

**- if indeed, what i read was accurate, and it really seems to be so far.

 

Yeah, I read a lot of the stuff on the sites you and others have linked about the film, it sounds really, really dreadful. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I read a lot of the stuff on the sites you and others have linked about the film, it sounds really, really dreadful. 

 

AND yeah, I admit I am IRRATIONALLY ANGRY about it, but it's SO NOT BECAUSE OF THE GENDER THING; it's because HOLLYWOOD has just SO lost its way, becoming such a joyless, cash-grabbing CRAPFACTORY that seems to oppress and stymie real artistic potential because they just have to please the test audiences and make some extra $ via product placement (SONY is especially bad about this) and the actors are all egomaniacs who want everything rewritten just because, and the marketing, and even the reception a film recieves is something to be cynical about (and i'm not saying any critic who gives this a good review is "on the take"- i AM saying that I do know SOME film critics CAN be bought)...

 

it's just become almost downright impossible to make a good movie IN THE PRESENT ENVIRONMENT, and so much of what appeals to me about the 1984 original is that THERE WERE SO MANY REASONS IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A GOOD MOVIE, everything i've read about its making had all the hallmarks of a real turkey, but lo and behold, in that less avarice-plagued, multi-media conglomerate, twittery, fanboy dominated environment: IN SPITE OF ALL THE ODDS, THEY MADE A DAMNED GOOD MOVIE.

 

with ad libbing, UN-PC humor, some cheap special effects and a flying-by-the-seat-of-their-pants spirit to the whole thing....and that's one spirit that, i'm sorry, but i seriously doubt will be rising from the grave any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Lawrence, your wise words give me pause in my rampagr.

 

FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm in one of my "spitting cobra" moods today, feeling like lashing out at the world. thanks for calming me down.

 

DOUBLY FULL DISCLOSURE: somewhere below this, I mentioned that I came across a REDDIT thread some time ago that claimed to be by someone who worked for SONY, they gave out the whole plot of the movie in detail- and it's worth noting that EVERYTHING they said (including details that were not public or in any of the trailers, such as the final villain being a giant version of the LOGO, an extended dance sequence by a bunch of possessed cops, the very specific details of the cameos by the original principals, and the fact that- I kid you not- THEY KILL THE FINAL GHOST BY FIRING INTO ITS CROTCH!) have since been completely confirmed in other reviews i've read today.

 

so while i haven't seen the film, i kind of sort of feel like i have, because i read the lengthy treatment before it got pulled and- MAN, IT WAS JUST GARBAGE from start to finish, even with funny jokes, storywise, this thing is just terrible.**

 

**- if indeed, what i read was accurate, and it really seems to be so far.

 

Yeah, I read a lot of the stuff on the sites you and others have linked about the film, and it sounds really, really dreadful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 and the fact that- I kid you not- THEY KILL THE FINAL GHOST BY FIRING INTO ITS CROTCH!) have since been completely confirmed in other reviews i've read today.

 

**- if indeed, what i read was accurate, and it really seems to be so far.

 

The fact that it's a "female" comedy would lend credence to this theory.   :rolleyes:

 

(Oops, sorry, that's an Evil Sexist Hater comment!)

 

Re-read what Sony is doing to racial negative comments about the film, then read Variety's review--Variety says Sony is using old "blackface" vaudeville reactions for some of the films' laughs.  

 

Think the whole complaints about Leslie Jones being "ethic stereotype" or "blackface vaudeville" is just blowing some hot-button out of proportions just to go with the other complaints about the movie--

They should just keep it to straightforward facts and say it as it is:  "Jones is just as unfunny as she is in the Allstate ads".

That's one thing we can agree on, that won't offend anybody.

 

Certainly, this has to be the most nationally unified-front mutiny against a movie's existence since "The Cat in the Hat".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EricJ--Agreed.  The movies' opening half hour is ok, from the reviews I've read, then there is a Long spell (between 35-45 minutes) without laughs. Bottom line: film doesn't justify the $154 million dollar cost of making it.  Adding the cost of publicity, fixing the trailers for the film (at the start of this thread, there is a link to the original trailer that got this thread started; it was voted the Most Hated trailer in YouTube's history--a fact that's mentioned in the reviews--films final cost will be over $200 million (I'm Guessing).

 

Sony brought some of the bad publicity on themselves by erasing YouTube members unfavorable comments; by doing that, they turned a backlash against the quality of the film into a tidal wave of BAD publicity against Sony itself and anything to do with the remake.

 

Unless Ghostbusters 2016 is a surprise gigantic box-office hit, or Sony pulls GB 2016 for more tinkering, all that's left are the "I told you so"s  and the loss for Sony; the only questions is, how much money will Sony lose?  Will the overseas grosses make GB 2016 profitable? (I've read the reviews of advance screenings on imdb; the favorable reviews are  mostly from Britain, Israel, and 1-2 from Australia)

 

One of the moderate reviews said (I'm paraphrasing) "It's a damn shame--GB 2016 is a lost opportunity to make something funny And new."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This movie is for the nipples on Batman crowd, lol.

 

I REMEMBER THOSE!

 

More specifically, I even remember seeing that in the theater and everyone having a moment where they turned to the person they came with and were like "did you see those too, or am I hallucinating?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It opened at #2, with what has to be a very disappointing $46 million, behind THE SECRET LIFE OF PETS in its second week.

 

Mwahahahahaha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It opened at #2, with what has to be a very disappointing $46 million, behind THE SECRET LIFE OF PETS in its second week.

 

Mwahahahahaha!

 

They're also already discussing the sequel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LawrenceA--I'm tempted to say they're whistling in the graveyard.  The next weekend's box-office numbers will tell more.

 

What's nauseating to me is the way Sony is trying to "stage manage" public Internet reaction.  Go to IMDB;  GB 2016 was rated as low as 3.6 stars a week ago.  It's now up to 5.0 stars.  Click on "User Reviews" over there.  Rank the reviews chronologically.  On the 8, 9, and 10 star reviews, click on the User's name; 9 out of 10 times you'll see "New User.  I don't believe people make an account at a website just to post one ecstatic review and then disappear--I'm cynical.

 

Since Sony started deleting negative posts about the first GB trailer on YouTube (despite their efforts, that trailer still ended up the Most Hated trailer in YT's history) they've been trying to make bad opinions disappear.

 

Last I saw, RottenTomatoes rated GB 2016 75% "Fresh".

 

GB 2016 can go to its' financial fate without any money from me.

 

At a Guess, Sony has by now spent over 200 million dollars on GB 2016; I'm including publicity, distribution, etc.

 

Edit:  RT's "Fresh" rating has sunk to 73%; their spilled popcorn icon, which means that percentage of RT members rated the film 3.5 stars or less on a ten star scale, was 56%.  Something doesn't match.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GB 2016 can go to its' financial fate without any money from me.

 

At a Guess, Sony has by now spent over 200 million dollars on GB 2016; I'm including publicity, distribution, etc.

 

We agree on that first line. I have no intention of seeing the film until it shows up on HBO, if then. And the promotion has been too much, to the point of annoyance. With several brand name tie-ins and then those obnoxiously bad NBC promos where all the d-list celebs from Comcast/Universal's various channels poorly act their way through a GB commercial like a bad Jimmy Fallon skit, this entire endeavor has been a tremendously misguided effort. After international (I haven't heard those numbers yet) and post-release platforms like disc and digital, they'll probably at least break even, though.

 

Warcraft a few weeks back was a huge flop here, but overseas it has made enough to garner sequel talk.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're also already discussing the sequel.

FOR GODSAKE MAN: ALLOW ME TO TAKE WHATEVER HOLLOW, PATHETIC TRIUMPH I CAN FROM THIS!!!!!!

 

MWAHAHA!!!...MWAHAHA!!!!!! MWAHAHAAHAcough....cough...hack....

 

Hooboy...i need to go lie down.....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The movie industry has, IMO, returned to making serials - only now they're feature length and referred to as reboots, remakes, sequels, whatever..

 

You just know 50 years from now all of these incredibly poor productions are going to be "classics" which viewers will beg to be shown right here on TCM.

 

I've said too much.. I take my leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LornaHansonForbes--RottenTomatoes highest "Fresh" numbers for GB 2016 was 80%--it's now down to 73%--the spilled popcorn icon (for RT members who rated it 3.5 stars or less on a ten point scale) is up to 56%.  The pendulum may be swinging back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article (I paraphrased): "Analysts were at a loss to explain the films' negative publicity."  That's a Bad Joke--just go to YouTube, IMDB (they have Pages of threads about GB 2016) or the online news sites.  Just go back to the date of release of the first trailer in March, factor in Sony's panicked reaction, and there's the source of over half the Bad Word.  Talk about disingenuous.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘Ghostbusters’ Sequel? ‘It Will Happen,’ Sony Distribution Chief Says

 

http://www.chron.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Ghostbusters-Sequel-It-Will-Happen-8383169.php

 

Just like Dean Devlin kept saying a Godzilla sequel "will happen", because he'd been staking the trilogy on it.

 

In this case, Sony was determined to make that remake of Jumanji with Jack Black in the Robin Williams role, tie into Goosebumps 2, and then use the Busters sequel to string it all together--

But, if the first movie brings the whole architecture crashing down, if you're a studio in 2016, you do what Warner did with Batman v. Superman:  Close your ears, go la-la, pretend all the bad stuff didn't happen, greenlight all five tie-in/sequels anyway, and just blame the "haters" and "out-of-touch critics" for scaring everyone away from the theaters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...