It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Music, books, movies, TV, games, hobbies, food, and potent potables. And forum games! Pour a drink, put on your smoking jacket, light a pipe (of whatever), and settle in.
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25935
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by thoreau » 17 Jul 2016, 03:20

I saw it. I give it a B+.

In the first half, when the characters are just meeting and getting into the ghostbusting thing, the actors clearly have a great rapport and are having a blast on screen. Even Chris Hemsworth does pretty well as a comedic actor. Imagine those SNL skits that never quite work except this time they work.

But at some point they need to save the city so then they go do a bunch of scenes blasting various CGI monsters. There are actually some decently funny moments in there, but nothing as good as "Ray, when someone asks if you're a god, SAY YES!!!" It is like they made the sort of climactic sequence that studios assume you have to make in a summer movie with special effects.

So, to the extent that it was a movie with a bunch of comedians having fun quipping at each other it actually worked. To the extent it was a movie where a villain will have to be defeated, eh.

Also, the cameos were all well done. Bill Murray really got into his character, in a part that was a bit more than a cameo. Dan Akroyd had fun and Kristin Wiig seemed to like that scene too. Ernie Hudson had a nice scene, as did Sigourney Weaver and the woman who played the receptionist in the original. There were a lot of shout-outs to the original.

And the post credits scene makes it pretty clear that they want to do a sequel. I just hope that the ghost and villain plot of the sequel is more like the original movie (or even the second one) than a hurried transition to a bog-standard CGI sequence.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 11128
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Ellie » 18 Jul 2016, 00:06

Haven't seen it yet, so didn't read the post, but had to come into the thread to applaud the title. :)
I should have listened to Warren. He was right again as usual.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25935
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by thoreau » 18 Jul 2016, 00:34

Ellie wrote:Haven't seen it yet, so didn't read the post, but had to come into the thread to applaud the title. :)
Glad you liked it!

And, FWIW, the post has nothing that could be considered a spoiler to anyone who knows the basic premise of the movie.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 11128
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Ellie » 01 Aug 2016, 13:44

Maybe mild spoilers.

I saw the movie over the weekend with two of my sisters (and only found out afterward that neither one of them had seen the original. WHAT?) I liked it well enough. I don't know that I'd go out of my way to see it again, but it definitely wasn't the shitshow the trailer suggested. It really needed a much tighter edit (too many scenes of them testing weapons in the alley, for example, or getting dissed/mocked, and the fight scene went on way too long at the end). And it felt a bit schizophrenic, like several people had done different versions and then they'd tried to stitch them all together. So there were a lot of scenes that seemed to be setting something up that never went anywhere, or establishing something that had already been established by a previous unrelated scene. And why was the bad guy making the cops and soldiers dance? That was so out of character for him.

And, okay, I enjoyed the cameos (although the actual writing of a lot of them was weak and the entire joke seemed to be "look who it is!") but what the hell was up with the scene when Bill Murray comes to visit them? We already know he thinks they're frauds -- we just saw him saying it on the news -- and we know they are still struggling to be taken seriously -- the very next scene is them visiting the mayor and being told they're going to have to stay on the down-low. He's filming the ghost container, so that's going to pay off? No, we never see his video again. Then, does he die when he's thrown out the window? Because that would be extremely tragic, if Kristin Wiig not being able to keep her cool and freeing the ghost leads to someone's death. But it's never mentioned again, so presumably he's fine? I don't know, that bugged me all out of proportion to its role in the movie.

Final thought: holy shit, was Kate McKinnon ever doing it for me in this movie. Yes, pleeeeeeease.
I should have listened to Warren. He was right again as usual.

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12356
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by the innominate one » 01 Aug 2016, 19:02

I haven't seen the movie, but I wonder if there'd have been such an objection to an all-female team if they had been the daughters of the original characters. The story would have to be different, but it wouldn't be any more farfetched or contrived than the story filmed, or the original.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25935
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by thoreau » 01 Aug 2016, 19:07

I really don't get the hate. It had its problems but it was still quite entertaining.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3599
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Painboy » 02 Aug 2016, 00:47

thoreau wrote:I really don't get the hate. It had its problems but it was still quite entertaining.
I think the hate is obvious. People wanted something else other than what they were given. Also the whole idea also comes off like a gimmick, a pandering one at that. I've seen people in this flipping out in this forum over a movie just as badly. The Ghostbusters is also high profile so any hate is going to get amplified a bit outside the norm.

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Sandy » 02 Aug 2016, 04:39

the innominate one wrote:I haven't seen the movie, but I wonder if there'd have been such an objection to an all-female team if they had been the daughters of the original characters. The story would have to be different, but it wouldn't be any more farfetched or contrived than the story filmed, or the original.
Yeah, that's what's annoying about it to me. They could have done a really good all-female take on it, complete with interesting issues but delivered with humor. But instead they gave it to Paul Feig who believes men only tell fart jokes, mainly because he only knows how to tell fart jokes and thinks he's broken through his privilege when he makes queef jokes.

It's also annoying because the Sony leak made it clear he did it as a gimmick, rather than as a "here's a neat take." The gender politics came first, the art came after. I don't think anybody had a problem with an all-female Ghostbusters. They had a problem with the obviously MESSAGE COMING IN presentation of it. The fact that after the awful trailer the progrescinati's reaction was to simply say that anybody who couldn't see the emperor's clothes was a misogynist sealed it into KulturKampf. Again, had they just said "OK, yeah, that trailer isn't great, here's another," then yes, it sill probably would have gotten a lot of butthurt dissing because of the well-poisoning they did at the beginning, but it would have been much more muted.

I still haven't seen it because all reasonable reviews have said that it's a mediocre film and movies cost way too much for me to pay for mediocre crap unless it's the kind of mediocre crap that panders to me. I've also made that decision about X-Men Apocalypse, because the reviews were so universally meh about it, too.

But yeah, daughters of the characters who stand to inherit the family business after a big drought in ghosts, putting up with revisionist history combined with "girls can't bust ghosts" attitudes, and then enter the ghostocalypse. That's a solid premise with interesting stuff to explore in many different ways, pays homage to the original, and updates it for {CURRENT YEAR}.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15745
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by lunchstealer » 02 Aug 2016, 06:25

mrs lunch likes the Feig thing, so we saw it. It was fun. Zach Woods plays a Jared-alike in the teaser act, and nails it. It's about the funniest thing in the film. The rest, well, Leslie Jones worked best, and the rest was kind of unfocused, but if you're going to see it with someone who's a fan of the genre, you can sit back and laugh at some genuinely funny bits, even if the story is imperfect.

YMWV
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25935
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by thoreau » 02 Aug 2016, 10:38

Sandy wrote:
the innominate one wrote:I haven't seen the movie, but I wonder if there'd have been such an objection to an all-female team if they had been the daughters of the original characters. The story would have to be different, but it wouldn't be any more farfetched or contrived than the story filmed, or the original.
Yeah, that's what's annoying about it to me. They could have done a really good all-female take on it, complete with interesting issues but delivered with humor. But instead they gave it to Paul Feig who believes men only tell fart jokes, mainly because he only knows how to tell fart jokes and thinks he's broken through his privilege when he makes queef jokes.

It's also annoying because the Sony leak made it clear he did it as a gimmick, rather than as a "here's a neat take." The gender politics came first, the art came after. I don't think anybody had a problem with an all-female Ghostbusters. They had a problem with the obviously MESSAGE COMING IN presentation of it. The fact that after the awful trailer the progrescinati's reaction was to simply say that anybody who couldn't see the emperor's clothes was a misogynist sealed it into KulturKampf. Again, had they just said "OK, yeah, that trailer isn't great, here's another," then yes, it sill probably would have gotten a lot of butthurt dissing because of the well-poisoning they did at the beginning, but it would have been much more muted.

I still haven't seen it because all reasonable reviews have said that it's a mediocre film and movies cost way too much for me to pay for mediocre crap unless it's the kind of mediocre crap that panders to me. I've also made that decision about X-Men Apocalypse, because the reviews were so universally meh about it, too.

But yeah, daughters of the characters who stand to inherit the family business after a big drought in ghosts, putting up with revisionist history combined with "girls can't bust ghosts" attitudes, and then enter the ghostocalypse. That's a solid premise with interesting stuff to explore in many different ways, pays homage to the original, and updates it for {CURRENT YEAR}.
Watch it when it's our on streaming. It's much less about gender politics and much more about the rapport of the comedians.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22268
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Jennifer » 02 Aug 2016, 11:15

the innominate one wrote:I haven't seen the movie, but I wonder if there'd have been such an objection to an all-female team if they had been the daughters of the original characters.
A lot of the anger came out before the movie was even released, or before anyone knew anything about it other than "They're remaking the movie -- but with women!" Had the movie gone with your suggestion, it might've gotten better reviews from those who waited to form their opinion until they actually saw the movie, but wouldn't likely have made any difference to those who responded with knee-jerk fury the second they heard the new Ghostbusters would have no dicks.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12356
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by the innominate one » 02 Aug 2016, 12:14

Maybe or maybe not. The new Ghostbusters are all women because they are the daughters of the originals is more justifiable than the new Ghostbusters are all women because girl power or whatever.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25935
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by thoreau » 02 Aug 2016, 12:19

So, if you actually watch the fucking movie, the new Ghostbusters are all women because three of them already knew each other and all had interests in ghosts, and the fourth one joined the team because she happened to see a ghost and showed up to their office and said "Hey, I should join you! We'll be a good team!"

That and the four comedians have good rapport on screen.

Look, I am pretty allergic to rah-rah gender politics, but this film really didn't have that.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12356
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by the innominate one » 02 Aug 2016, 12:26

I'm not talking about the plot, obviously. I'm talking about the real world motivation for an all-female remake. I don't care, personally. I never saw the sequel. I might watch this one eventually, or not. My decision to watch won't be based on gender politics.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22268
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Jennifer » 02 Aug 2016, 12:33

the innominate one wrote:Maybe or maybe not. The new Ghostbusters are all women because they are the daughters of the originals is more justifiable than the new Ghostbusters are all women because girl power or whatever.
Were the original Ghostbusters all men because boy power or whatever?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25935
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by thoreau » 02 Aug 2016, 12:36

So, yeah, when somebody makes a movie with a bunch of female leads there's probably a gender politics motivation. If they bring together a bunch of mediocre women to make a mediocre movie, and pat themselves on the back in the process, yeah, I'll roll my eyes.

If they bring together a bunch of actresses with real on-screen rapport and it comes through in a good movie, I'm not going to gripe.

Honestly, while there were problems with this movie, none of them were related to the casting. They got four actresses who worked really well together. They were funny together. It worked. What didn't work was that in the last third of it the writers said "OK, it's a summer movie, it involves the supernatural, and they're saving the city. So it's time to stop the wise-cracking and do a CGI extravaganza." In the original Ghostbusters the writers said "OK, our heroes are facing the villain...time for some more sarcasm from Bill Murray."
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25935
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by thoreau » 02 Aug 2016, 12:37

Guys, remember, when it comes to rah-rah gender politics, I can freak out with the best of them. Check out some of the hidden threads. Check out my posts in those threads ON THIS VERY DAY.

I hates me some SJWs and critical theorists, but Ghostbusters was about actresses with actual comedic rapport wise-cracking on-screen.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 11128
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Ellie » 02 Aug 2016, 12:42

I do think it would have reduced some of the fan/critic distaste if the women were all the daughters of the originals, but there's also something a little gross about that fact. Like those "she's someone's daughter/sister/wife" memes or pushy guys hitting on a woman who ignore "no, I'm not interested" but back off at "I have a boyfriend"* -- that somehow women are granted their acceptability by their proximity to a man instead of being accepted on their own terms.

Sorry, this comment is 8000 times more feminist than the movie.

Having an all-female Ghostbusters remake is gimmicky, but it's a gimmick I have zero problem with (and also the fact that an all-female movie is a gimmick doesn't say anything good about the current state of Hollywood.)


* I recently read a really great essay about that but can't find it, boooooo
I should have listened to Warren. He was right again as usual.

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Sandy » 02 Aug 2016, 12:45

Jennifer wrote:
the innominate one wrote:I haven't seen the movie, but I wonder if there'd have been such an objection to an all-female team if they had been the daughters of the original characters.
A lot of the anger came out before the movie was even released, or before anyone knew anything about it other than "They're remaking the movie -- but with women!" Had the movie gone with your suggestion, it might've gotten better reviews from those who waited to form their opinion until they actually saw the movie, but wouldn't likely have made any difference to those who responded with knee-jerk fury the second they heard the new Ghostbusters would have no dicks.
That was fueled in large part because of the Sony leaks, where it was clear it was a gimmick/ideological decision.

Were I a feminist, it sounds like I'd be disappointed in the actual product, lacking suitable misandry or other ideological purity.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Sandy » 02 Aug 2016, 12:46

thoreau wrote: Watch it when it's our on streaming. It's much less about gender politics and much more about the rapport of the comedians.
That's the plan for it as well as Apocalypse. Or maybe HBO/Starz/Showtime if I still have those when it comes out.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22268
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Jennifer » 02 Aug 2016, 12:49

Sandy wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
the innominate one wrote:I haven't seen the movie, but I wonder if there'd have been such an objection to an all-female team if they had been the daughters of the original characters.
A lot of the anger came out before the movie was even released, or before anyone knew anything about it other than "They're remaking the movie -- but with women!" Had the movie gone with your suggestion, it might've gotten better reviews from those who waited to form their opinion until they actually saw the movie, but wouldn't likely have made any difference to those who responded with knee-jerk fury the second they heard the new Ghostbusters would have no dicks.
That was fueled in large part because of the Sony leaks, where it was clear it was a gimmick/ideological decision.

Were I a feminist, it sounds like I'd be disappointed in the actual product, lacking suitable misandry or other ideological purity.
If you think "feminist" is defined as "hating men" rather than "wanting equality between the sexes" then yes, I'm sure you would.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22268
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Jennifer » 02 Aug 2016, 12:51

This kind of reminds me of the fury that erupted over the fact that the latest Star Wars movie featured some black main characters; J.J. Abrams did indeed admit that he did this on purpose, because he'd thought it was weird how the original trilogy showed only, like, one non-white person in the entire galaxy.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12356
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by the innominate one » 02 Aug 2016, 13:06

Jennifer wrote:
the innominate one wrote:Maybe or maybe not. The new Ghostbusters are all women because they are the daughters of the originals is more justifiable than the new Ghostbusters are all women because girl power or whatever.
Were the original Ghostbusters all men because boy power or whatever?
In partial response, see Sandy's comment that, as a matter of fact, the reason this movie was made with all female Ghostbusters for marketing and ideological reasons. The original Ghostbusters were all male because: two of the actors wrote the movie, John Belushi died, John Candy wouldn't commit to the movie, Bill Murray had a lot of star power, and Ernie Hudson got screwed. Plus lack of thought about whether any of the ghostbusters should be female.
Jennifer wrote:This kind of reminds me of the fury that erupted over the fact that the latest Star Wars movie featured some black main characters; J.J. Abrams did indeed admit that he did this on purpose, because he'd thought it was weird how the original trilogy showed only, like, one non-white person in the entire galaxy.
If there had been a remake with an all-black cast, the complaints would have some validity. The complaints that Star Wars has no black or other minority actors are valid complaints, and the remedy is what Abrams did, not to take the other extreme. People still complained, it's true, but those complaints were less defensible.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22268
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Jennifer » 02 Aug 2016, 13:21

the innominate one wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
the innominate one wrote:Maybe or maybe not. The new Ghostbusters are all women because they are the daughters of the originals is more justifiable than the new Ghostbusters are all women because girl power or whatever.
Were the original Ghostbusters all men because boy power or whatever?
In partial response, see Sandy's comment that, as a matter of fact, the reason this movie was made with all female Ghostbusters for marketing and ideological reasons. The original Ghostbusters were all male because: two of the actors wrote the movie, John Belushi died, John Candy wouldn't commit to the movie, Bill Murray had a lot of star power, and Ernie Hudson got screwed. Plus lack of thought about whether any of the ghostbusters should be female.
So ... this means it's reasonable for people to actually take offense when a remake of the movie 30 years later should feature Ghostbusters who have no dicks?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: It's true, Your Honor; these Ghostbusters have no dicks.

Post by Sandy » 02 Aug 2016, 13:28

Jennifer wrote:So ... this means it's reasonable for people to actually take offense when a remake of the movie 30 years later should feature Ghostbusters who have no dicks?
Sure, if you ignore all the context and caveats, that's exactly what we're getting at.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests